Poll: Chicago schools will start to teach sex ed. in Kindergarten

[Bara_no_Hime]

Full support!

This isn't the 18th century. Or the 19th century for that matter.

It is long past time for America to get over its prudishness and get with the times. **sips coffee**

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't see a problem with this. Speaking from experience (my mom never hid this sort of information from young me) kids that age probably won't understand a thing about what is being taught anyway.

I'm kinda with you there. I was never told about menstruation, or even where girls peed from. I had to deduce all that stuff myself when I was around 12.

I remember I was watching an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, and the joke was Malcolm's mom saying "Do you know what a period is?" Malcolm making a shocked face, and cutting to a commercial. I was like "NO! I DON'T! FUCKING TELL ME, TV SHOW! PLEASE! I WANT TO KNOW! ALL THE OTHER KIDS ARE LAUGHING AT ME AND WON'T TELL ME!"

At 12 that's the kind of question that would have me quizzically mention Hockey while knowing I'm wrong but not knowing why.

---

I didn't know shit about that when I was 5 but like others have said, they don't need the STD slideshow; just the simple stuff. Storks don't deliver babies, you can get sick through casual contact, you have to be clean, etc etc. Just keep it simple and small and don't make a big deal about it. It's only sex ed...also they're kindergartners so you just know there will be a lot of coloring to be done!

 

[Abomination]

Seems a bit too young in my opinion. Then again I was a bit of a naughty kid in my single digit years, girls did spend a lot of time hanging out with me compared to the others... if I had more knowledge on how humans reproduce and have fun it could have been very creepy.

I would suggest learning about adult things when they're closer to adulthood than childbirth, rather than the other way around.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

It just seems weird to me teaching kids that young about sex. I mean what is the point they won't understand any of it, I just see this as a waste of time unless they are teaching them of good touch bad touch like Reynold said.

 

[Aslyn]

I don't have a problem with the concept in general, but the thought of someone else being the first one to have that talk with my children makes me unhappy. However, I fully intend on being honest from the start about the "where do babies come from?" question, and what good and bad touches are. About gender identity and orientation....that makes me really uncomfortable, due to it being so controversial. You don't know if your kids teacher is all like "The State says that some men like men and that's ok with some people" in a deadpan/angry voice, or if they're "Everyone is a little bisexual."

Fortunately, right now with my kid it's all about eating raisins with abandon while yelling "Moooooooon!" and pointing at the sky.

 

[thejackyl]

That sounds about like how sex ed was at my school.

Kindergarten: We didn't learn anatomy apart from things we should know by now already. Though it was mostly for basic spelling.

Third Grade: Nothing here

Fourth Grade: Learned about puberty for our own gender (Boys learned about boys, Girls learned about girls), also learned about inappropriate touching. This is also when I came to a realization that I had been raped in back when I was in Kindergarten.

Fifth Grade: Learned about puberty for the opposite gender.

We didn't learn about actual sex until 7th or 8th grade. And we had to take "Health" in our sophomore year which went over sex ed again for about a week or two.

I never saw the controversy about sex ed.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I wonder if kindergarteners would even understand it. I though kindergarten was for basic math like addition and learning colors (more pre-school I know but they cover it for the kids who haven't been in school yet) and really foundational stuff. Sex is inevitably intertwined with complex social interactions and norms which seems way beyond their level. Different levels of teaching might make sense though. (The magic School bus had an episode on reproduction after-all so kids can get the basics).

 

[Darken12]

I agree so much with this sentiment. Being asexual, just simply knowing that my orientation was even an option would have made a world of a difference. (I spent most of my life calling myself "straight by default" as a result of only knowing of hetero, homo, and bisexuality.) Sexuality and gender are two incredibly complex topics, and when people focus on making such identities binary, people end up forced into little boxes they don't really fit comfortably in at all. I could see discussion of the LGBTQ opening people up to understand lesser known identities (even if they do not focus on the other letters of the alphabet soup.)

I couldn't agree more. It's also a great opportunity for late-bloomers or people who just plain don't want to have sex (including everyone under the Gray-A umbrella) to be allowed to identify as asexual in order to avoid being pressured into sex. If I thought saying "I'm asexual" would get people off my back when it comes to sex (instead of just heaping on more trouble), I'd identify as one in a heartbeat.

And, of course, the acceptance of trans*, intersexed and genderqueer people would be a great step towards breaking down gender constructs over the generations.

 

[soren7550]

Why does this need to be taught in kindergarten again? Kids are still well entrenched in the "cootie" phase at that point and will remain there until the fifth grade or so (most of them, anyway).

I can see sex ed starting to be taught in fourth or even third grade as a primer, but why go all the way back to kindergarten? Let the kids just have fun being kids without unduly worrying them about sex. Why stretch what is a relatively straightforward subject over such a long span of time?

Captcha: "baked in a pie"

...

I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

Said pretty well there fine sir/ma'am.

Why not just give them a health class at that age if you're so concerned? Someone that age doesn't really need to know about sex/puberty in my opinion, and a lot of parents probably aren't going to be happy about their kids learning about such things at that age (I know my mother wasn't happy when I learned the word 'sex', and I didn't even fully understand what it meant).

 

[Grottnikk]

They already know all this stuff

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'd say too young, but not because of any sill hang-ups, just because I don't it'll really accomplish much at that age. Don't waste the time until they're at least close to puberty.

Read the article. All they're teaching is anatomy at that age and the very basics of "where do babies come from." It's stuff that any five year old asks about and it's stuff that they should know. All they've done is shifted the responsibility of teaching this from the parents to the teachers. It's to provide a better foundation of understanding so that STI awareness can be taught earlier, before kids are thinking about being sexually active. This way, safe sex will already be ingrained in the kids' minds before they start experimenting.

Edit: Kind of amazing how few people read the relatively short article. So many people are responding as if they're going to be teaching about how to put condoms on. Also, why is "Depends on what they teach" even an option in the poll? The article already outlines what they are going to be teaching from K-12.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Why on earth would you even think of such a thing?

Once you learn something you're stuck in the mindset of the age when you learned it? I don't know

 

[norashepard]

I think in Kindergarten they should teach the less physical aspects of sex ed, and save the penis/vagina information for when the kids actually realize they have them. Less physical being like, healthy relationship stuff, gay/transgender people are people too, that kind of thing.

 

[dagens24]

I had a vague idea of what sex was in kindergarten; was having full on sexual fantasies by 2nd grade. Sex is a natural and beautiful part of human existence, there should be no shame in talking about it.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Kids learn about sex from porn these day anyway. Better teachers to teach them then porn sites.

 

[ace_of_something]

Well currently in my state 3rd graders (that's ages 8-9 for you non americans) get 'health class' which can be mislabeled as 'sex ed' since it's the same department. It's basically talking about stuff more like hygiene than anything else. (if you sweat take a shower). People do get freaked out when they have to sign a 'sex ed' paper for their 3rd grader and this comes up on the local news every few years. Then they realize they aren't actually learning about sex.

That being said schools are pushing these things to be earlier because later they have to squeeze every waking moment (like 3rd-7th grade) to making sure their students can pass the federal no child left behind bullshit later on. And since std's aren't part of said test... it's not effective time.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Well if it's taught to Cybertronians, I don't see why Kindergartners should be left out!