Huh?

[Squeeky]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/03....ap/index.html

[Yuyi]

[mr_luc]

Seems weird to me that this is news.

It's like: yes, a human sexuality class at the university level will be explicit, and yes, old ladies will complain.

[Hamma]

[mistled]

"Dailey displayed pictures of the genitalia of girls at ages 5 and 10"

Is that legal??

[mr_luc]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
"Dailey displayed pictures of the genitalia of girls at ages 5 and 10"

Is that legal??

No, illegal. And if a girl cuts her vagina the paramedics have to wait until she's 18 to bandage it. Otherwise it's sexual assault.

[�io]

If it's pictures and not drawings. (ie. child porn and not educational imagery) then it's a bad thing.

Other than that i don't get what's wrong with a university sex class showing sex stuff.

If no one from the class complained i think the senate should stfu and let the teach and the uni do what they think is best.

[Matuse]

Legality of such things is entirely based on context. Seeing a 5 or 10 year old having sex or being um...felt up, would be quite bad. However, you can't throw a blanket of illegality over the whole thing, otherwise you'd have to lock up everyone who taught (or attended) an anatomy class for prospective pediatricians.

It is a knee-jerk reaction from Yet Another Imbecilic Public Servant. How the bible thumpers expect things to improve while steeping people in ignorance is beyond me.

[xuur]

because if they manage to keep everyone blind and wrapped in utter ignorance, they dont feel so alone.