jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (21 posts)

Chicago to introduce sex ed for kindergarteners

  1. Stacie L profile image90
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    Chicago to introduce sex ed for kindergarteners

    The Chicago Board of Education is set to provide sex-education classes to all public school children, including kindergarteners.

    The Chicago Board of Education voted Thursday to expand sex education in public schools to meet state and national guidelines and curb skyrocketing rates of sexually transmitted disease.
    http://news.msn.com/us/chicago-to-intro … rgarteners
    This is really an early start ..I think it's too early. What'll ya think?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well, it may not be too early,  if the article is correct.   It says kindergarteners will be taught about inappropriate touching, etc.    So, if they're taught correctly, and they leave it at that, that might not do any harm. 

      However, the article makes clear WHY this curriculum is going through.   It says that kids around fifth grade or up (it isn't clear exactly what grade) will be taught "gender identity and sexual orientation" crap.   So, this is all simply an insertion of liberal policies into our schools under the guise of educating children about basic facts of life.    It is, in effect, harmful overall and an invasion of children's psyche. 

      There's nothing wrong with teaching kids basic facts of life at almost any age!   Even a kindergartner can learn that males and females are meant to fall in love and get married and make babies if they want babies.    But to teach children of any age that homosexuality is correct is a total brainwashing technique.   What?   Did anyone expect any different when Obama's appointee Arne Duncan is in charge?   The man who advocates for homosexuality.  The man who needs relieved of his duties immediately.

      But yet there he is, still, after all these years.   Liberal minions do their dirty work, force liberal policies upon parents, indoctrinate the kids,  and then move on.   Kevin Jennings who was under Duncan did that,  did the dirty work and then moved on to be head of some political activism group called Be The Change.   I guess Duncan thinks his mission isn't quite accomplished yet---not every child is prepared to mimic gay rights activists.

      It does say parents can "opt out" of the programs.
      Yeah sure.  Wanna bet how well that works and how long that'll last?

      1. scottcgruber profile image92
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I see nothing wrong with it. If children learn at an early age the truth - that homosexuality is natural, normal, and not wrong - in a generation or two, hateful anti-gay bigots will be a thing of the past.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    "Sex education" before six is beyond common sense. This is beyond what early childhood educators should/would allow. It is not conducive to the healthy psychological health of the child. He is not to be concerned with such things from birth to six because he is not by nature, at that age, involved with them.  Furthermore, the child should not be exposed to them! I can't imagine what good they think sex education will do! But then, we are not told much in the article about how much information the kindergarten students will be given or what topics will be covered.
        It would be more reasonable to give the parents child psychology education. Children should not be exposed to sexual images in any type of media. These days, children of all ages are exposed to way too much.
         (I was alarmed by what I observed in the Toddlers and Tiara You Tube episodes.)  Mothers and fathers need to be conscious of the fact that the inner life of the child is operating according to the dictates of nature. Adults need to respect the activity of the child's inner life, by allowing the child to form as it did in the womb. For example, we do not open up a pregnant woman to make sure the physical body of the developing fetus is forming appropriately.
          For the first six years, the psyche is forming. Nature is at work laying the foundations of the psyche and the mind. We can facilitate nature by giving the child helps to life, but actual early sex-ed bombards the process of building the psyche and the awareness of the child.  From birth to six, this natural process is considered the second embryonic stage. This stage is crucial to the psychological development of the child.
         They just better be careful in how much they present to the child. I hope the parents, caregivers and teachers in the Chicago school district have the common sense, training in psychology and wisdom to protect the little ones from too much info.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You're right Kathryn.
      Kids should be allowed to be kids.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, Brenda:
               It was common sense in the past, but now all adults in charge of children must become conscious of the natural process of the second embryonic stage of development. In the womb, the body is forming for nine months. After birth, the body is completely formed and continues growing. It takes six years for the full development of the psyche.
             After that, the human body/mind/brain continues to develop. During childhood, pathways within the mind (for the will to follow) are being established. (Children don't even have their own complete wills until age 15.
               After age 15, the refinement of physical and mental abilities continues through the child's own intrinsic motivations and conscious choices.) So, for a long time, it is nature at work.
             Also during childhood, we need to follow the child in order to discover where his natural (mostly unconscious) tendencies lie. We need to facilitate them and encourage new interests. Discovering what is motivating to a child, requires close and continual observation. By supplying him with interesting things to do, goals to achieve and skills to attain, we can prevent what causes promiscuous sex: inner boredom and lack of self esteem or the opposite, etc.           
              There is so much we can do to help our children.
        We can set good examples.
        We can teach them about our creator and how much He loves every one of us.
        We can provide ways for them to develop their abilities to survive in the world.
        We can allow and protect the joy of life which is percolating within them.
        We can set boundaries so that they will not go astray.
        Childhood is a happy time. It should also be a peaceful time. Nature is at work and we need to respect it.
              To further address the real problem, which is the increase in STD's:
        I really think we have to stop promoting sex all over the place.
        It gets down to the boundary of no sex before marriage. (Or at least until  engagement where potential marriage partners are friends first.)
        This quote seems to apply: "If we don't listen to Mother Nature, she'll box our ears."

  3. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Teaching a kid what to do if someone tries to touch them inappropriately is all about letting them remain kids.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Also, parents need to know where their children are and who they are with at all times.
      It is not easy in this day and age to be a parent.
      We had so much more freedom in the past!   Even in the 80's children could stay out until dark playing on the street or at the neighbors...
      I guess not any more.

  4. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I wonder about that.  I mean there must always have been some sickos. I wonder if it was hushed up more than it is now?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think it was less prevalent. Just like cancer.
      That is my observation.
      Many do not agree.
      I really think there are more (and increasing) causes of both phenomenons in modern times.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree. I think it has always been there but it was never talked about in the open as much. Of course, the population is also much greater so there would logically be more incidences.

        Remember, girls used to be married off at 11 and 12... even in the US and Britain.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Wait, what? Wait, WHAT?! WHAT?!

  6. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    Unfortunately, this is one of the very reasons inappropriate touching should be touched on in Kindergarten because too many young ones are inappropriately touched, often by family members.  Sexual abuse shows up early in a victim's life, often starting in preschool.

    Perhaps this will help those who feel that something is wrong with them or others because of the way they think or act.  It's at this age that kids start to feel different and are often made fun of.  If this can help educate them about the differences, then it's helpful.  It has nothing to do with liberal policies, and yes, these are the basic facts of life.

  7. LauraD093 profile image85
    LauraD093posted 3 years ago

    I was going to post a forum myself asking about this. I don't have children and was wondering how educators and parents were feeling about this. I don't believe educating children regarding Good touch-Bad touch is wrong.Parents are also being given the option to opt out if this isn't something they want their children exposed to within this age-bracket. Statistically speaking it is an appropriate age group due to the fact that abuse often happens prior to adolescence. A child knows when a touch "feels" wrong this is just another avenue for them to learn to tell...tell...tell.

  8. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago


    The program seems sensible to me. They aren't teaching anything to kindergarteners other than to recognize, at the level they can understand, the signs of abuse and "bad touching".

    And Brenda...why am I not surprised this is you...here's some facts of life for you:

    Constitutional homosexuality is biological and hormonal. Have any of you people who think it's a choice ever wondered WHY anyone would choose to be gay?

    Gender is cultural. Sex is biological.

    Some transsexuals are aware they are the "wrong" sex as early as three-four years old. Again, it's biological. It's likely that many transsexuals are actually chimeras who have the genetic material of both sexes expressed in different parts of their body - in this case, one cell line is giving rise to the sexual characteristics and the other to the brain, causing the mechanism for male/female awareness at the ego level not to match the physical sex.

    It's all biological, and hence natural. Not normal, no - a species in which homosexuality was normal might have some problems reproducing - but natural for that individual.

    Teenagers and children who are gay, bisexual, transgendered or genderqueer often end up living in hell in this country. Anything that reduces that is a good thing.

    1. LauraD093 profile image85
      LauraD093posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I was going to go into this but thought it might be too far off topic. I agree with you and even in infancy children are aware of certain "pleasure points" which I believe are biological responses in order to self-comfort or self-stimulate.(I do not think they are sexual but experimental)  I appreciated your comment here.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What do you think about the Toddlers and Tiara episodes available on You Tube? What are the mothers/fathers doing to these children? I mean what are the effects of these experiences on the children? I can understand once in awhile for fun... but to the point of competing? Shirley Temple was somehow protected from it harming her. What is the difference in treatment, I wonder?

        1. LauraD093 profile image85
          LauraD093posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There is a great deal of difference. What the Chicago School district is doing is broadening a curriculum to include all types of issues children will be addressing as a natural course of their development.The motive seems to be educational not exploitative. All the the child pageant shows are about the parents and not the children-the pageants themselves are lurking grounds for pedophiles and it must be great for them to watch from the privacy of their own homes. No show illustrates this as well as *cringe* Baby Boo Boo-(which I am told is a spin-off of her appearing on one of the pageant shows.) Dear God she even made CNN today because of the "Big Girl Scout Scandal."

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, I was not talking about the school district. Sorry. I just meant how was Shirley Temple's treatment different from the toddlers treatment in the pageants?
            She became a fine individual. But I am afraid the toddlers today will not end up the same.

            1. LauraD093 profile image85
              LauraD093posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry I misunderstood lol I agree Shirley Temple was one of the lucky ones so was Mickey Rooney but look what happened to Judy Garland and many other child stars back in that era. I truly believe it up to the parents to protect the interest of the child-be it Sex Ed or stardom.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I do not disagree.