Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Kindergarten Sexual Education

Is A-OK according to Barrack Obama. First, a clarification.

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.
"is probably not an unhealthy thing." Hmm, he seems so, um, certain. Is that a way to cushion a statement, or what?

This is the really worrisome part:

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.

Nothing will strike fear into the hearts of parents faster than not knowing what their children are going to be taught when it comes to sex education. If it is going to be scientifically based, then there should be a bare minimum that would be expected and if it's going to be age appropriate, an absolute cap. Nope--left up to local school boards with all their elected members. A discussion of "inappropriate touching" gone wrong could lead to some very dire results.

This is actually an interesting topic. I have what is popularly known as a 'blended family.' I married a man who already had a daughter. I'm her step-mother and my children are her half-sisters. My eight year old described her father as the step-father to our girls--because he married me, their mother (like how I married my step-daughter's father). I said "Honey, you're daddy's children just like your older sister. He's your father, not your step-father. He was part of making you." Her reply was that she didn't see any part of him in her. That was pretty easy to rebut, "You have your daddy's great eyes." "But Mom, I came out of your body. I was only in you. Daddy didn't have anything to do with that." I flailed around trying to explain eggs and sperm, and that they meet and make a baby that had both parts of the mommy and daddy. I was stymied by the question "How could part of Daddy get in you?" This was a lot harder than I anticipated and I punted!

I have a very detailed book, How Babies Are Made, which starts with flowers and pollen, moves right to chickens and dogs mounting their mates, complete with vagina and sperm paper illustrations and moves to dad on top of mom (under the covers). Not ready for my daughter to see such a visual representation.

No comments: