Begin Sex Ed in Kindergarten, Says New ‘National Standards’ Report

Originally posted by xuenchen
and guess what ... I have every right to judge ..... it's called the 1st Amendment.

Judging someone solely based on the fact that they made a decision to further their education by getting a degree in something they chose as a career path only shows how pathetic of a person you truly are.

And with that statement, I'm done with you and your childish attitude.

reply to post by xuenchen


Lol. Just bravo.

You truely are this pathetic...

Also, i had to look up ciba-34, aka ritalin. No they dont look familiar. I am not, and have never been on any type of psychotropic pharmaceutical.

Also, i love how you call us pseudo-intellectuals because we have college degrees. So umm, what does that make you exactly? Just remember, the world around you was built mainly by the so called "pseudointellectual" class. Including the computer you type on. I would love to see you attempt one of my programming or digital forensics classes, then we' ll find out who the pseudo-intellect is

Also xuenchen, i would highly recommend you become familiar with this-v
www.abovetopsecret.com...

please, use it often.

reply to post by Believer101


reply to post by VonDoomen


good link ... funny.



Again,

I see both of you are negative on kids and education in general.

Normal people see it too !

Keep up the good work..

Many people with educations are afraid of competition from the next generation.
Afraid for themselves and for their own kids.
It's a psychological dilemma.
That's one reason for the "keep 'em down" agendas.


BTW, what do you think about the UNESCO plans linked from nineix ?

Some wisdom might pull some weight.

We need some intelligent analysis.

Can any of that be applied to a parental plan in general ?

When we try to teach a young child "sex-ed" ... other than boys have a penis and girls have a vagina and babies do not come from the Stork or grow under a cabbage leaf --- they come from the mommy's tummy and when they are big enough to come out, the doctor takes the baby out for mommy. Period.

Anything beyond this (or very similar) age-appropriate explanation is upsetting to the child, even if they do not start crying or have a puzzled or scared look on their face.

The few parents who have said if they tried to explain more, the child became uneasy, tuned out and shifted the topic to something they were interested in ... unless, of course, this happened in a classroom where they felt forced to sit and listen. But, given the choice of tuning out and walking away, well, that's what they seem to do ... avoid a topic they aren't interested in or ready to learn.

This "does not need to know yet" information takes away from their innocence. That's because, on some level, the child knows it's wrong ... which equates to child abuse.

Those who do not oppose "Sex-ed to a 5 year-old" (who really isn't interested or ready) either: don't have children, don't understand/like children, are emotionally devoid sociopaths, are a pedophile, and/or are trying to line their pockets furthering some self-serving agenda.

One thing is for sure ... this is NOT in "the best interest of the child"

reply to post by Jana12


I take it you didn't read the actual source from which OP took his information, so I'll make it easy for you:

Standards to be introduced in kindergarten and be met by the second grade include: “Identify different kinds of family structures” and “Demonstrate ways to show respect for different types of families.”

Recommendations for students by the time they reach age seven include that they "Use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy” and “[p]rovide examples of how friends, family, media, society and culture influence ways in which boys and girls think they should act.”

Starting in the third grade, and upon completion of the fifth – when most children are 10 years old – students should be able to “[d]efine sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender” and “Identify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation.”

By completion of the eighth grade, the report says, students should be able to “[d]ifferentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation,” “[e]xplain the range of gender roles,” and “[d]efine emergency contraception and its use.”

Upon completion of middle school, students should be able to “[a]nalyze external influences that have an impact on one’s attitudes about gender, sexual orientation and gender identity”; “[a]ccess accurate information about gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation”; “[c]ommunicate respectfully with and about people of all gender identities, gender expressions and sexual orientations”; “[e]xplain the health benefits, risks and effectiveness rates of various methods of contraception, including abstinence and condoms”; and “[d]escribe the steps to using a condom correctly.”

And by the time they graduate from high school students should be expected to “[d]efine emergency contraception and describe its mechanism of action” and “[a]ssess the skills and resources needed to become a parent.”

That is why I'm for it. NO WHERE in any of that does it state they will be teaching ANYTHING about sex to children younger than 8th graders (13-14).

And yes, I AM a parent, and I'm also a former day-care facilitator.

reply to post by Jana12


I would certainly agree to you with a limit on what to teach children at a certain age. For example, I believe when we first start talking about sex, it should purely be in relation to creating another person, not as a form of entertainment.
And as always, there's no perfect age to start talking about this stuff. Everyone develops at their own pace.
However, from my own personal experience, I havent seen any negative effects of informing children at a young age about sex. I saw it with myself and brothers. I saw it with my cousins. And with a few close friends whom have discussed this topic with me. It was done in a professional and educated manner. And all of the people involved have turned out to be perfectly fine individuals.

Im always one the side that informing people and improving their understanding of the world is not negative.

Well, with the endocrine disruptors, people are going to start going through puberty in kindergarten, so they might as well get ready for it, lol.

Seriously though, sex-education is insane, i guess, but in order to function in modern society, people need to be promiscuous. And it works better to start as early as possible. Not really a thing you can complain about, without looking at the larger context in which it exists.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


The purpose of sex education isnt to turn our children into little sex bots.

It is to inform then, to protect them, so we can curb this "16 and pregnant" bull#e. Single teenage moms put a huge strain on our safety nets/social programs. And then not to mention we are having an influx of these people who, no offense, will be just about as dumb as their parents. Its rather scary. The town I grew up in is having a huge problem with highschool aged moms. out of a class of say 100-130 people, I counted 8 pregnant girls walking the graduation stage with my little brother, but that was just the currently pregnant ones.I could probly almost double the number if I counted girls who had already given chilbirth. and the really sad part is, I see these people quite often, and they do almost nothing to educate their children. The television is the babysitter and educator. We're raising a generation of mindless ritalin bots! Which is why i firmly believe in birth control and sex education.