Has anyone observed the reactions of the kids to this woman's, uh, methods? Do they seem disturbed, distressed, squirming, uncomfortable? Or do they seem relieved that someone is speaking to them in a manner they can relate to, and do they feel less inhibited or self-conscious about asking questions or needing explanations?

Sometimes we forget that 13-year-olds are not as fragile and naive as we like to think they are. But if this particular group is especially sheltered, she might have to take it down a notch. Either way, start with the kids... watch their reactions to her methods. If the kids are indeed uncomfortable, you can approach it that way as opposed to "we think you're a sleazy harlot, Ms. Letourneau." However, you might still also want to keep an eye out for any inappropriate personal interactions--being frank is one thing; crossing certain boundaries is quite another.

I teach this curriculum at my church, too. Anyone who teaches it is supposed to have gone through a training session that is a minimum of a day and a half long - usually the trainings are two days (Friday night thru Sunday at noon.) The training is VERY clear, and repeats several times, that it is inappropriate to ever discuss details of your own experiences with the kids. _If_ they ask, and only if they ask, it's okay to very generally speak to your own experience. It's never okay to go into details, or to bring it up if they don't ask.

Thankfully, I have had really great co-teachers when I've taught this curriculum, and we haven't had any real problems with over-sharing. One of my co-teachers tended to recount her experiences being bullied in junior high a little more than I thought was necessary, but our kids are really great, and they expressed sympathy and were able to talk about their own experiences with bullying. (The curriculum is not just about sexuality education, it also focuses on developing communication and relationship skills for all kinds of relationships - at school, with family and friends, etc.)

Cary is absolutely right in suggesting this problem should be addressed by the co-teachers for the class. I don't think it's likely that the committee related to the curriculum might stop the classes - most of the churches that offer this class have a really strong commitment to it. But bringing it to the committee might mean bringing it up with the whole congregation, which is probably further than it needs to go as a first step. If their congregation has a Director of Religious Education, I'd suggest taking it up with her - she might be helpful as a mediator if the co-teaching group has different feelings on the subject, and she would definitely have the professional experience and skills to deal with this situation politically.

A lot of you "MY RELIGION IS THE ONLY RELIGION" people are no better than the Too Much Information lady who needs to tell private sexual thoughts to teenagers.

What you share is a misinformed belief that your thoughts are more important than anyone else's and that we should all have to sacrafice fairness, politeness and rationality so you can force your personal views on everyone else.

Guess what, you're all wrong.

What if she just turned on her favorite episode of Springer and left the room? What that be abusive, too?

No. But Montel Williams? I'd be calling CPS in a heartbeat.

If this poor, troubled woman is reported to the authorities, then they may as well shut down the program. After that, any adult who was still willing to participate would have to be crazy to begin with.

Before we bash the Unitarians, remember that the oldest, most conservative Christian church of them all was caught moving around priests who molested children. Now THAT is freaky.

I am going to swim against the tide and defend this woman just a little tiny bit. Yes, she is a little nuts and should not be the sex ed teacher. But "abuse"? Any of you watched daytime talk shows lately? We live in a confessional, too-much-information culture. The idea of reporting this to the authorities is ridiculous. What if she just turned on her favorite episode of Springer and left the room? What that be abusive, too?

How shocking that there are so many UU's in the readership of Salon!

I was a UU high school group advisor for several years. I have found that most people who worked on a serious level with teenagers were extremely thoughtful and pro-boundary. The UUA in general has taken many steps in developing curriculums and guidelines for working with children of all ages. In fact, OWL was preceded by a much looser and more I'm-Okay-You're-Okay, let-it-all-hang-out curriculum called AYS and was developed as a more conservative approach.

In any church, or other institution, some of the people who are attracted to working with teens have major boundary issues, or are even pedophiles. There were teachers in my high school who slept with students, and it was often swept under the rug. And consider how the Catholic Church dealt with this very issue.

How lucky for LW that she is part of a church where there are already procedures and guidelines in place to deal with this issues in an above-board way.

Some people have good experiences with a religion. They like it and will defend it when they hear it insulted.

Some people have bad experiences with a religion, they will insult it because it hurt them.

People come to churches with different needs. (Some churches do tons of charity work, some don't. Some people WANT a church that does tons of charity work. Some don't. Some people want a minister who really challenges them, some want to be comforted...)

UU churches are especially varied. If you like one church, you won't like all of them. If you dislike one church, you probably won't dislike all of them.

Religions are like diets. You want to talk about the one that worked for you. At the same time, you have to keep in mind that it doesn't work for everybody.

At the same time, insulting someone because something worked for them that doesn't work for you doesn't make any sense at all to me.

CC