Art dangerous to Fifth Graders?

[pirana 0]

Oh yeah, the OP.

Kids should not be exposed to art. They might get . . .

IDEAS!!!!!

Same for adults.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

IDEAS!!!!!

I wonder if people's dismay at their children seeing nudity in a museum is about some kind of fear that their children will get ideas....and ideas lead to *inappropriate* actions....or what. Is it because they believe that nakedness is immoral in its own right? And viewing it even worse????? I'm really, really baffled.

Are these the same people who won't touch titties? Or do they only not touch titties when people are looking....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Are these the same people who won't touch titties? Or do they only not touch titties when people are looking....

I like boobies a lot. I mean A LOT! I like to touch them whenever I can. Since I have to spend 3 months away from my sweety sometimes I have to play with my moobies. It's just not the same.

Quote

Art dangerous to Fifth Graders?

Damn it can be. There's always the kid that eats the glue.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

WTF?

It's Texas. What do you expect?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Well, here is Adam and Eve, before they ate that apple and realized that they were buck naked. And some nekkid heathen. Both are on exhibit at the Dallas Museum of Art.

NSFW !!!

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

I dunno. Glad I'm not a parent and have to actually figure it out. Still do have to deal with people that were "scarred for life" as a result though.

Why should anyone be scarred by simply seeing a depiction of nakedness? Going off on another slight tangent, nakedness in and of itself does not carry any explicit connotation of sexual activity. At the end of the day it's just a body - it's always there, we were born with it on display and we can look at one whenever we want.

By lessening taboos about nakedness wouldn't we be less likely to have kids associating sex with everything than with the more puritanical approach of keeping everything totally covered to avoid sinful thoughts of lust?

I know which one sounds more psychologically damaging to me, thoughts anyone?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

So we're on the road yesterday afternoon. Just as we drive by a herd of cattle, a bull jumps up and mounts a cow. My 6 year old says "Did you see those cows wrestling?" I dryly reply that it looked like they were having fun.

Two miles later we drive by a pack of llamas. A neighbor had told them (the kids) that they keep the males and females in different pastures. The 9 year old asks how they can tell the difference and the younger one shouts out "The boy llamas have a penis!"

What a hoot.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Some of you may find it interesting that I side pretty firmly with the fact that nude art likely wouldn't be dangerous to 5th graders and that that partent(s) raising hell at this need to chill and decide to BE PARENTS and use this experience/exposure to the human body as a TEACHABLE experience and an opportunity to instill whatever values they wish into their offspring.

However, this raises an important issue, one that several posters here miss by their off-the-cuff dismissal of these parents as "repressed" and "from Texas" etc. etc. I'm not at all surprised that there has been overtones of the parents being uptight religious folk who have a problem w/ the pleasures of the body as stated in a post or two. A little prejudicial posting, for sure. We don't know why the parents were so upset, do we. No we don't, but as usual, some people jump to conculusions about repression and uptight-ness, and the sex is bad mentality, etc.

The important issue this raises is this: Parents have the right and responsibility to raise their kids how they want and to introduce the topic of sexuality to them how they think it best appropriate. If the parents thought it inappropriate for their child to be exposed to a nude piece of art, that is their RIGHT and shame on all of you for deriding them for voicing that right.

Other questions that come of this that we just don't know from the article are, did the parents know about the contents of the art museum? If they did would they have consented their child's participation? If they withdrew their child's participation, would the kid suffer from the school (i.e. some schools make such trips mandatory, I know, my wife used to be a teacher)?

This is yet another reason why we homeschool our kids. No one knows what is best for our children but us as parents. That is our responsibility to raise them according to our values and morals and philosophies. The decisions that the govt., school boards, and teachers make are not always what is in the best interest of our children. My wife and I are quite well qualified to teach our kids, she being a veteran teacher and me being a psychologist.

And I'm fully aware of the predjudices that some in modern society have against homeschooling, no doubt some of you may have them as well. "What about socialization" and all of that... well just ask Muenkel or Michele how well our kids are socialized.

Back on target, our kids have seen quite a bit of nude art. We have numerous art books around the house, our kids have been to the Vatican museum w/ us in 2003, and in fact, my wallpaper is Bourgereau's "Admiration" which has nudity in it. As I said above, such art can and should IMO be used to teach children about the beauty and wonder of the human body. It's also a great opportunity to impart whatever values you wish to instill in your children.

(the caveat of course is that we're talking about art and not something else trying to pass as art)

As to the fate of the teacher, I think it is ludicrous that she is being treated this way, and it smells more like a witch hunt than anything else. As other posters have said, the school boards seems to have been looking for something to "get" her on...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

The important issue this raises is this: Parents have the right and responsibility to raise their kids how they want and to introduce the topic of sexuality to them how they think it best appropriate. If the parents thought it inappropriate for their child to be exposed to a nude piece of art, that is their RIGHT and shame on all of you for deriding them for voicing that right.

Yes, they do. Parents can do like you're doing and home school their children. Sexuality is central to biology. I think it's imperitive for children to learn biology in school. BUT, the human body is more than a sexual object. Children seeing a depiction of an unclad body in an art museum doesn't translate into being taught about sexuality in any way. Also, it'd be pretty naive of a parent to think that the Dallas Museum of Art displays no nude art. Maybe they should be more thoughtful before giving their consent for field trips.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The important issue this raises is this: Parents have the right and responsibility to raise their kids how they want and to introduce the topic of sexuality to them how they think it best appropriate. If the parents thought it inappropriate for their child to be exposed to a nude piece of art, that is their RIGHT and shame on all of you for deriding them for voicing that right.

To me the diference lies exactly in what you just wrote. Many other western cultures see a distinct difference between classic art, which may contain nudity, and sexuality. They see a difference between nudity and sexuality. North America in general and the US a bit more specifically seems to have crossed that line.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Also, it'd be pretty naive of a parent to think that the Dallas Museum of Art displays no nude art. Maybe they should be more thoughtful before giving their consent for field trips.

That's a very good point. Goes back to personal responsibility. I am assuming they signed a consent form and as such the parents carry a huge responsibility for their children's exposure to nude art.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

The important issue this raises is this: Parents have the right and responsibility to raise their kids how they want and to introduce the topic of sexuality to them how they think it best appropriate. If the parents thought it inappropriate for their child to be exposed to a nude piece of art, that is their RIGHT and shame on all of you for deriding them for voicing that right.

Yes, they do. Parents can do like you're doing and home school their children. Sexuality is central to biology. I think it's imperitive for children to learn biology in school. BUT, the human body is more than a sexual object. Children seeing a depiction of an unclad body in an art museum doesn't translate into being taught about sexuality in any way. Also, it'd be pretty naive of a parent to think that the Dallas Museum of Art displays no nude art. Maybe they should be more thoughtful before giving their consent for field trips.

To an extent I agree with you, but where I disagree is w/ this statement...

Quote

Children seeing a depiction of an unclad body in an art museum doesn't translate into being taught about sexuality in any way.

Sure it does! Or at least it CAN. Who knows what the other kids in the class already know about sexuality. By the 5th grade, I already knew tons, much more than I should based on unfortunate life experiences that I won't get into here. The point I'm trying to make is that there might NOT have been any instruction or guidance or oversight about what the kids were seeing or about where the kids were at developmentally. Those are important issues.

Also, again your MO is to place blame on the parents. THEY were naive. THEY should have been more thoughtful, etc. I've been to at least one art museum in a metropolitan area that did not have nudity in it. I think you have a valid point, to an extent, but we just don't KNOW what the parents were or were not doing as far as oversight or vis. their beliefs. All it is is conjecture by you.

And sure, biology is important, the human body being part of it. But I doubt that biology was being taught here, except maybe by some more "experienced" youth who did a lot of snickering.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

The important issue this raises is this: Parents have the right and responsibility to raise their kids how they want and to introduce the topic of sexuality to them how they think it best appropriate. If the parents thought it inappropriate for their child to be exposed to a nude piece of art, that is their RIGHT and shame on all of you for deriding them for voicing that right.

To me the diference lies exactly in what you just wrote. Many other western cultures see a distinct difference between classic art, which may contain nudity, and sexuality. They see a difference between nudity and sexuality. North America in general and the US a bit more specifically seems to have crossed that line.

I couldn't agree with you more. Well said. THAT would have been a great teachable moment for the parents of this kid, but alas, it was probably lost.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Also, again your MO is to place blame on the parents. THEY were naive. THEY should have been more thoughtful, etc. I've been to at least one art museum in a metropolitan area that did not have nudity in it. I think you have a valid point, to an extent, but we just don't KNOW what the parents were or were not doing as far as oversight or vis. their beliefs.

true, though I would think that the far majority of large metropolitan art museums have some form of nudity somewhere. If the parents are too naieve to realize that, why should the teacher be punished for that?

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, it'd be pretty naive of a parent to think that the Dallas Museum of Art displays no nude art. Maybe they should be more thoughtful before giving their consent for field trips.

That's a very good point. Goes back to personal responsibility. I am assuming they signed a consent form and as such the parents carry a huge responsibility for their children's exposure to nude art.

Most things do go back to Persona Responsibility. Which is why, again, we home school.

A couple more points are raised from your and lindsey's post...

-did the consent SAY there would be works of nude art in the museum? if it's really a consent, it should CONSENT and not leave things to be assumed.

-if it didn't say that, the parents would have to have the foresight to think "oh, my kid might be exposed to nudity. we better look to see if there is any nude work of art there before we sign this consent." for some parents lacking resources, this isn't very practical.

-unfortunately, even for parents who don't want their kids exposed to nudity, I'm afraid most (IMO!!) don't possess that kind of foresight to think about WHAT they might be seeing there. They probably just thought, hey an art museum, cool my kid will get some culture besides his x-box.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, again your MO is to place blame on the parents. THEY were naive. THEY should have been more thoughtful, etc. I've been to at least one art museum in a metropolitan area that did not have nudity in it. I think you have a valid point, to an extent, but we just don't KNOW what the parents were or were not doing as far as oversight or vis. their beliefs.

true, though I would think that the far majority of large metropolitan art museums have some form of nudity somewhere. If the teachers are too naieve to realize that some parents won't want their kids exposed to it, why should the parents who complain be derided and ridiculed for that?

Let's look at the other side of the coin.

ETA: yes I know, see your previous post about parents responsibility... i acknowledge that... i just think there's enough "blame" here to go around to everyone.

Although it shouldn't be an issue at all, IMO, as I've previously stated.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Most things do go back to Persona Responsibility. Which is why, again, we home school.

IF.. all the parents who homeschool were as you and your wife then it works out well for you.

On the other hand my cousin Neal and his wife homeschooled their children.... but strictly for religious reasons.. so they would not be subjected to secular society.
Those kids are about as out of place in this society as would any other human b eing transported out of the 18th century into modern America.
BUT they do fit in well at church there in the stix of South Carolina

I seriously doubt they will ever be able to hold anything other than a menial job in their lives.. but they do know how to read.. they do know how to write.. and they do know arithmetic.... but beyond that...they like their parents wallow in their dumb as dirt and proud of it lifestyle.

[NCclimber 0]

This situation is a classic mountain out of a molehill, both at that school and across the internet. I think most people agree that the school over-reacted. Unfortunately, its a sign of a big problem effecting our schools. I'm talking about the hyper-sensitivity of school administrators. A few years back I heard a story about a first grader being disciplined for sexual harassment for kissing a classmate!

It's absurd. Our administrators have gotten so hyper-sensitive to whatever "pet peeve" is stroking people's hot buttons that they've forgotten how to use common sense and give an appropriate response to whatever drama comes their way.

It's on both sides ideological spectrum. For every puritan over-reaction I can list five over-reactions from the liberal camp.

Another result of this growing hyper-sensitivity is the reluctance of administrators to properly discipline students. As a result, many classrooms have one (or a few) bad apples who create a lousy learning environment for the rest of the students.

[micro 0]

great post!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,602]

If the parents choose to let their children go to public school, then they will be exposed to what the public school deems reasonable. They can choose not to let the kids go to activities that might go outside of what they (the parents) deem appropriate, taking the responsibility for their own decisions.

But to expect the school to limit itself to the most limited world view of any of it's students' parents is not really reasonable.

Should the schools send home a questionnaire at the start of each school year for the parents to fill out
(check here if Johnny can listen to 13-year-old boys
check here if Susie can attend mixed-gender gym
check here is Sammy can go on field trips to restaurants that serve foreign food
check here if Sally can go by the courthouse with the statue of the nekkid javelin thrower)

For one thing, you can't identify every situation. And a lot of parents wouldn't bother, anyway. They wait until something pisses them off, and then they react. And if they're noisy enough, a new policy is implemented, and their school district looks like a bunch of morons.

On the other hand, if the teacher really did have issues with lesson preparation and the like, it's chickenshit of the school district to cop out and say that the trip is why they're canning her.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,132]

>>Children seeing a depiction of an unclad body in an art museum
>>doesn't translate into being taught about sexuality in any way.

>Sure it does! Or at least it CAN.

I agree - it might, depending on the circumstances. Problem is that so do a great many other things that are not "permission slipped." For example, just the trip to the museum (or science center, or farm, or historical site, whatever) may expose them to:

-billboards depicting a man getting attention from many women due to his choice in cologne

-women wearing shirts that say "boy toy"

-a couple walking along, kissing

-a TV in a store window showing an episode of Sex in the City

-a movie ad showing a latex-clad woman killing evil men

Heck, just sitting in school may expose them to low-cut clothing, suggestive messages on T-shirts and other kids talking about how to "do it."

All those things can lead to better (or worse!) understanding of sexuality. The question is - is seeing a topless bust of a woman significantly worse than any of that? I don't think so. I agree that parents should carefully evaluate any permission slip and only agree that their child can go if they are OK with what they're seeing - but what they see in the museum is probably the least of their exposure.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Most things do go back to Persona Responsibility. Which is why, again, we home school.

IF.. all the parents who homeschool were as you and your wife then it works out well for you.

On the other hand my cousin Neal and his wife homeschooled their children.... but strictly for religious reasons.. so they would not be subjected to secular society.
Those kids are about as out of place in this society as would any other human b eing transported out of the 18th century into modern America.
BUT they do fit in well at church there in the stix of South Carolina

I seriously doubt they will ever be able to hold anything other than a menial job in their lives.. but they do know how to read.. they do know how to write.. and they do know arithmetic.... but beyond that...they like their parents wallow in their dumb as dirt and proud of it lifestyle.

If Jesus where here today, He just might smack those parents. You can't escape secular society. Now, when kids are young and impressionable, sure you can and should limit it's influence, since so much of it is harmful to kids, but I whould hope these parents are doing more to PREPARE their kids to go out one day and MEET secular society w/ strong morals and the ability to reason and not succumb to pere pressure and the like. Doesn't sound like it though.

We have some friends here doing the same thing and it just pisses me off. They want their kids to go to college FROM HOME OVER THE INTERNET so they don't have to be "exposed" to the licentiousness of college life!!! I just don't get it.

Part of our reason for homeschooling is certainly religiously motivated, but sheesh, we're not called to live in a f*cking cave! I want my kids to be able to stand on their own feet and live IN THE WORLD, not in MY house all their lives. Go out, travel, meet new people, new cultures. Don't be afraid of "secular society," be prepared to deal with it when the time comes.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>>Children seeing a depiction of an unclad body in an art museum
>>doesn't translate into being taught about sexuality in any way.

>Sure it does! Or at least it CAN.

I agree - it might, depending on the circumstances. Problem is that so do a great many other things that are not "permission slipped." For example, just the trip to the museum (or science center, or farm, or historical site, whatever) may expose them to:

-billboards depicting a man getting attention from many women due to his choice in cologne

-women wearing shirts that say "boy toy"

-a couple walking along, kissing

-a TV in a store window showing an episode of Sex in the City

-a movie ad showing a latex-clad woman killing evil men

Heck, just sitting in school may expose them to low-cut clothing, suggestive messages on T-shirts and other kids talking about how to "do it."

All those things can lead to better (or worse!) understanding of sexuality. The question is - is seeing a topless bust of a woman significantly worse than any of that? I don't think so. I agree that parents should carefully evaluate any permission slip and only agree that their child can go if they are OK with what they're seeing - but what they see in the museum is probably the least of their exposure.

Post of the Thread right there folks.

I wonder what the parents let their kids watch on TV for that matter.

Do the parents sue the billboard companies for selling products w/ sex? Doubtful. Maybe b/c they don't feel they can actually control that. I don't know.

But your right Bill... as I said before, it's too bad that this incredible teachable moment -for the kids AND the parents- might have been lost.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[pirana 0]

Quote

If the parents choose to let their children go to public school, then they will be exposed to what the public school deems reasonable. They can choose not to let the kids go to activities that might go outside of what they (the parents) deem appropriate, taking the responsibility for their own decisions.

But to expect the school to limit itself to the most limited world view of any of it's students' parents is not really reasonable.

Should the schools send home a questionnaire at the start of each school year for the parents to fill out
(check here if Johnny can listen to 13-year-old boys
check here if Susie can attend mixed-gender gym
check here is Sammy can go on field trips to restaurants that serve foreign food
check here if Sally can go by the courthouse with the statue of the nekkid javelin thrower)

For one thing, you can't identify every situation. And a lot of parents wouldn't bother, anyway. They wait until something pisses them off, and then they react. And if they're noisy enough, a new policy is implemented, and their school district looks like a bunch of morons.

On the other hand, if the teacher really did have issues with lesson preparation and the like, it's chickenshit of the school district to cop out and say that the trip is why they're canning her.

Wendy W.

Yep, some public schools are slowly but surely migrating to the lowest common denominator. Their curiculum will eventually include nothing controversial, nothing that could in any way be considered offensive, nothing that anybody will fail (for those that even allow the word fail anymore), and so on and and so forth.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,610]

Granted ou've just given Billvon post of the thread (and he deserved it) but I'm just going to pick up on what you've said right here...

Quote

unfortunately, even for parents who don't want their kids exposed to nudity, I'm afraid most (IMO!!) don't possess that kind of foresight to think about WHAT they might be seeing there. They probably just thought, hey an art museum, cool my kid will get some culture besides his x-box.

The X-Box.

What kind of game is their kid going to be playing? Most likely the one where he/she blows other people into tiny pieces with a huge variety of different weapons!

How could any nude sculpture be 'more damaging' than that, no matter what your thoughts on sexuality?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?