Not having children myself, this was my train of thought. I don't trust the government to do much, particularly when it comes to important, sensitive, and debated topics such as gender fluidity and sex education. At this point, there is no way for it not to become partisan, and there's no place for it in public education until everybody reaches a consensus about what that should include, which likely won't happen for quite some time. So I voted no.

You can teach your kids that stuff in your own home if you so choose, but I'd rather it stay out of the institutions.

Did the lefts ambassador have an outburst of honesty?

I was 90 percent sure I would vote NO on this, but you win, you got me to 100 percent NO, NFW.

I mean first off we're talking about a state or big government that is too stupid to realize the importance of teaching children the most basic gun education of DO NOT TOUCH, RUN AND TELL MOMMY AND DADDY.

If the state is too stupid to teach kids "don't touch guns" and the state rejects NRA basic education such as that, then they're too stupid to teach kids about ANY kind of sex and especially at age seven. Hear that Derrickito?

I remember age seven, none of this would have made sense to me, gimme crayons, lemme draw airplanes, where are my Hotwheels toy cars... and yeah, I remember my parents teaching me not to play with matches.

NO NO NO on 90 for me!!

The state of Washington can't even run a state, can't even run a city, the riots in Seattle being out of control were proof positive of this, the CHAZ/CHOP zone was proof positive of this, alienating their own police force was proof positive of this, jillions of tent cities are proof positive of this, millions of used heroin and crack needles in all our parks, streets, bushes, school grounds, and sidewalks is proof positive of this...

Stealing millions of dollars from us to "study gun violence" is proof positive of this, I mean hey, liberal dumbfuck morons, HMMMMNNNN, LEMME GUESS WHAT CAUSES GUN CRIME???? DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....... could it be POVERTY? ILLEGAL DRUGS? GANGS???


NO WAY!!! WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT..............

And now the liberal brain dead jackasses want to teach your BABIES about sex at seven years old, these are more or less BABIES, and "the state" who needs a team of scientists and jillions of dollars to, uhhhh, DUHHHHHH, figure out what causes gun violence want to teach babies about SEX? IN ANY FORM?

GTFO you jackwad asswipe liberal dingbats.

My apologies for cussin' on your thread jakebalam, I held back mightily, I'm from New York City, an ex trucker, and was in the army, heck, the doctor slapped me when I was born not for medical procedure but because I cussed him out the second I popped outta the womb. I never cried as a baby, I just uttered endless torrents of F bombs.

I'm no on this as well. I think some of the topics proposed are important, but I still feel that this should be left up to the parents. Even with best intentions and a solid curriculum it just takes one jackass teacher to fumble it and turn it into a steaming mess.

At least if it passes, you can simply opt out.

I think a better way to handle this is for the school to distribute the teaching materials to the parents and they can use if they choose to educate their children on the topics they feel are relevant or important for their child. Some of my kids teachers have been stellar, but some, not so much. I rather read through the material and go through it with my kid on our own time if I find anything in there useful.

I a lot of the times come across as supporting things when in reality, Im just correcting misinformation.

This subject was one of them with my family, I would correct misconceptions and false information, and they were sure I was in support of our state meddling with our kids sex education. We're already considering a co-op homeschool once we move and settle.

Regardless, this was a bad bill, not because of the content so much as the execution that will be if it passes.

Thank you!!!

Voted no. I already have to struggle trying to explain away what my ten year old hears on the playground from her peers. I'll be damned if I need to correct an adult teachers attempt to make sense of the detritus that is spewing forth from our liberal overlords.

It's been a while since I researched this, but the curriculum is NOT age appropriate at all. It's actually sickening and grotesque what they are trying to introduce to young children. I will see if I can dig up some direct links to curriculum examples, but I implore people to do some research on this before voting! I know that the Family Policy Institute has done a lot of work on this, and there's a Facebook group called informed parents of Washington that has posted curriculum excerpts. And the opt-out part is a joke. They have stated that they plan to weave this into the fabric of other subjects so that it can't truly be avoided.

The ones voting yes are probably pedophiles. That is some sick shit. What happened to letting children be children?

This site has good info on R90, including examples of curriculum material.
https://www.checkrejectr90.com

Well, to make it easier, here' a copy of some of the examples:

Unless we REJECT R-90, OSPI will now be the final say in what sex-ed curricula are age-appropriate. Not physical or mental health experts.
And OSPI is wrong.

Here are a few examples of what OSPI’s is deeming age-appropriate for our children:


Students are being taught it is their fault if their boundaries are violated when their “no” isn’t firm enough. A CSE lesson that asks 12-year olds to practice eliciting sex from each other. A student is told to say “no”. Their peers then fill out a worksheet analyzing if the “no” was good enough. Was it too “passive” or “aggressive”? In the same lesson they teach, “compromise is a part of every relationship.” This does not teach safe boundaries. No child should worry about given a ‘good enough’ “no” to sex. (3Rs, Grade 7, Lesson 9), (3Rs, Grade 6 lesson 4).

A 7th-grade lesson teaches it’s “important” for 12-year-olds to bathe together and mutually masturbate. “These behaviors [including co-bathing and mutual masturbation] are important because they can help people learn about their bodies and build connection between people without any risk of STDs (or pregnancy)”. (3R, 7th Grade, Lesson 5).

Students are assigned to visit sexually explicit websites in class. One lesson encourages students to break off and familiarize themselves with a website called Scarleteen.com. It has articles titled, “Well, F*ck Me“ with “A guide to getting it on with: “Your name here.” and articles like “I want more Kink, but I don’t know how to ask a partner for it.“ There are articles talking about the choking method, what to do if your parents are too religious, and so on. The curriculum states that this site is “accurate and reliable”, despite it having been written by teens. (3Rs, Grade 10, Lesson 7).

14-year old students are told a step-by-step description of an orgasm in a co-ed classroom. Why is this considered necessary information? Is this supposed to help child abuse, as OSPI claims? (Flash, Lesson 2, pg. 9).

In the curriculum, students are shown Playboy magazine covers and asked to analyze them (3Rs, Lesson 5 pg. 681).

Kindergarteners are given a lesson on how their parents have sex. It says, “a simple explanation is the father’s penis fits into the mother’s vagina. This can happen when the mother and father lay very close together during special times when they are alone…” (FLASH Grades K-4 p.138).

Under the 3Rs curriculum, there are notes to the teacher saying they can teach the kindergarteners that the “the vagina has great elasticity, and can adjust to the size of a penis” (3Rs, Kindergarten, Lesson 2, pg.8).

Another lesson encourages 10-year-olds to use the internet to find answers to a list of questions such as “What if the penis or vagina is ‘too big’ or ‘too small’?” Telling children to research these questions, opens them up to finding inappropriate and harmful material (FLASH Grades 4-6, p. 12-4).

15-year old students are shown a video about sexting. The video explains that sexting can “increase intimacy”, that it is “another aspect of normal human development”, and creates “higher levels of sexual satisfaction”. The video then promotes the idea that although sexting is illegal under child pornography laws, that it will soon be changed. (3Rs Grade 10, Lesson 5).

Students are exposed to explicit pictures and instructions of sex acts. A book used throughout CSE curriculums (including 3Rs and FLASH) is called “It’s Perfectly Normal.” This is one of the most explicit sex education books for young children. It describes in full detail maturation, masturbation, erections, and sexual intercourse. The book contains realistic illustrations of nude people of all ages and shows illustrations of children masturbating, having erections, and nude people having sex. Not just expressing facts but emphasizing these as pleasurable things to experience (3R’s, 4th Grade, Lesson 1).

In addition to voting no on R90, be sure to vote for Maia Espinoza for Superintendent of Public Instruction. She is running because R90 is even on the ballot and the incumbent (Reykdal) supports sex ed for small kids.

https://ballotpedia.org/Maia_Espinoza


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk