Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Sex Ed for Kindergarteners??

Jul 18, 2007 6:14PM PDT
Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama
July 18, 2007 1:13 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama?s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn?t know what to tell him (laughter)."

"But it?s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."

Watch the video:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

Speaking to a young woman who asked a question about sex education, Obama said, "You, as a peer, can have enormous power over your age cohort but you?ve got to have some support from the schools. You certainly should not have to be fighting each and every instance by providing accurate information outside of the classroom because inside the classroom the only thing that can be talked about is abstinence."

"Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity," Obama continued. "I?ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That's something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death."

When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"

In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted.



Disclaimer: While the site certainly has content regarding politics, my intent is only to strike-up dialogue regarding when our children should receive "the talk." And who should talk "the talk?"

Should strangers be teaching 5 year olds about sex? How young do you want your children learning just enough to make them curious, and even dangerous? Shouldn't YOU be the one to decide what is age-appropriate for your child, and when it is appropriate when it comes to "the talk."

Personally, I have always believed it is the duty and responsibility of the parents to decide what is
age-appropriate for their children, and when it is appropriate. Young children are irrisponsibly curious. And cannot wait to learn more, and learn fast. And they accomplish this by experimenting, more than any other means.


What is your take on the matter?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
(NT) Bad idea and wrong idea
Jul 18, 2007 9:14PM PDT
- Collapse -
The ideal, IMO...
Jul 19, 2007 1:30AM PDT

..... places the responsibility on the parents.

But a long time ago educators might have thought that should be supplemented when sex education became part of the curriculum. My guess is that they thought signals like the increase in teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. indicated that more was indicated.

Young children are curious, and engage in self exploration and "playing doctor". They also see or hear what is beyond their comprehension and sometimes young ones "report" to others what they have seen or heard. IMO, parents should react in a positive way and be ready to talk to them on their level. (Remember the old joke about a kid asking where he came from, the parent going into a complete explanation, and the kid responding with, "Well, I just wondered because a boy in my class said he is from New Jersey."Happy

Personally, I think that parents should be careful not to wait too long as kids don't always bring up the subject. IMO, by the 3rd grade a child has heard so much bad information they imagine scary things and get worried. Some even worry why they are made "differently" from their brother or sister. There used to be a wonderful book. "The Wonders of Life", written on an early grade school level, that apparently and sadly is out of print. Each parent was to read the book, then give it to each child to read, followed by a chance to ask and answer questions.

I frankly have no opinion on teaching sex education in kindergarten. I'm not convinced it can be done on every child's level of comprehension. On the other hand, they have a good chance of hearing from other children what they have seen or heard, and may or may not bring those bits of "information" to their parents.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
'Came from New Jersey.' LOL!
Jul 19, 2007 4:29PM PDT

Good illustration. 'From Mommy's tummy' usually ends it at that level, but each child is different. Proactive is hard on the parents due to our inherited embarrassment, so some kind of aid is appropriate.
As far as 'in the schools', we JWs usually opt out unless we've seen the material, and usually even then because bible standards weren't used. We're constantly reminded of biblical commands to be in charge of our children's upbringing. I believe most pols subscribe to that, too.
Anyway, I believe the opt-out of sex ed is open to all, for any reason.

School district S of here, near McMullen, recently had two pregnancies in its elementary school! That is, in fact, physically dangerous for mother and child. (Or "both children". Sad ) As was the sex act that led to it.

- Collapse -
I don' t believe that at age 5,
Jul 19, 2007 7:37PM PDT

sexuality itself is understood. So, there is nothing to teach until that begins to develop in the child. One doesn't introduce even the concept of calculus before a student can add, subtract, and even much more. I would think that tossing out higher levels of knowledge before they can be absorbs might cause confusion that could impede the understanding of the basics.

So, the notion of age appropriateness is correct and that there's nothing to be offered at this age on the topic except silence.

- Collapse -
Except:
Jul 20, 2007 2:19AM PDT

Just recently talking with a friend who had a Bad Experience with an uncle at that very age. For a while he tried to follow her to the toilet, bedroom, everywhere. When he died (she was a teenager) she told her mother she was glad, and then the whole story came out for the first time.
So ... These days IMO they do need education about "no-touch" parts etc. 'Don't go with strangers' not enough. Sad

- Collapse -
I agree
Jul 20, 2007 2:42AM PDT

Teaching what is acceptable and not acceptable social and physical boundaries is a critical part of a child's education. Those things can be taught at the kindergarten age. When you think about it, those boundaries can then be integrated into sex education at a later time.

I think it critical to teach sex ed in several stages. Each stage building on the next as the maturity level of a child increases, grade by grade. Do I think it necessary for the school to do it? Yes, considering the actual ignorance displayed by many adults when it comes to sex and human reproduction. How can a parent be relied upon to tell their kids "the facts of life" when often times they are confused about it them selves.

Watch Jay-Walking with Jay Leno to really get an understanding on just how many people can get simple information sooo wrong. If a young adult can't tell you what language is spoken in England then how do you think they do when it comes to how a person gets pregnant... or worse, how does one get AIDS?

- Collapse -
Jay-Walking.
Jul 20, 2007 5:50AM PDT

Too painful to watch. Happy

- Collapse -
A couple thoughts...
Jul 20, 2007 7:20AM PDT

I agree that many adults are pretty ignorant regarding sexual reproduction. But I don't think the ignorance is so much in regard to the mechanics of the act, nor so much what a woman's body goes through from the act and throughout pregnancy. But rather reckless disregard for the upbringing of their children, as well as sluffing their parental and social responsibilities off on others including government.

And even if we don't have children of our own, I figure we all have some responsibility for the safety and proper upbringing of children in society. While I don't particularly care for the Author who termed the phrase, it really does "take a village to raise a child."

Charlie

- Collapse -
Agree, but...
Jul 20, 2007 7:41AM PDT

I'm not sure that comes under the heading of "sex education".

When I was 5 I knew some (but not all) of the basics, but that might be because I was the oldest of a bunch of kids. My mom was pregnant a lot when I was young, thus questions arose.

I remember my sister asking once, "When we get a new baby will we have to throw away the old one?"

- Collapse -
Oh, if only ... :-)
Jul 20, 2007 10:37AM PDT

But seriously: Later on, when hormones kick in, it will be appropriate to explain why some people are dangerous (misdirected desires), and how there are other misdirections that are harmful, like premarital sex.
Of course, there are those who teach that premarital sex is not "harmful", which is why we (and others) opt out.

- Collapse -
Very reasonable
Jul 20, 2007 7:49AM PDT

Too bad it's such a necessary thing. I would think it would need to be handled separately from trying to explain human sexuality. I'm thinking that being too graphic would, for most younger kids, rate high on the "icky" scale if too much detail was given. But, teaching modesty and privacy have always been important. I would think a child could understand the concept of affection....how to show it and how to receive and react to it. What a youngster would need to know, I would think, is that it's important to report any unwanted or inappropriate touching as well as requests to show (or be shown) the areas considered personal and private. There can be no secrets when this happens. Too bad it must be this way as it also can cause a lot of anxiety for the very innocent desires to show love. You don't want to mess that up early either.

- Collapse -
I agree with your thinking.
Jul 20, 2007 11:01AM PDT

As with other groups, our material for youth has been updated to deal with molestation. I'm guessing that a 7-year-old could benefit from all of it. However, the 5-year-olds we've been hypothesizing are also in danger, so they need some of the information. Infants are not off-limits either, I'm told. Sad