I don't think so.
It's just not appropriate.
"But it’s the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools." -Barack Obama
When Obama was put on the spot as to what exactly the sex education to 4 to 6 year olds would consist of, he really couldn't answer except to say this...
He "moved to clarify" that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . '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,' then 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.'"
I honestly believe that children that young should be taught that boys and girls have different "parts" and that's it. There's really no reason to burden them with more information than that.
Let them play with their dolls, play Indians and Chiefs or whatever else kids play these days. If they ask questions, answer them openly and honestly. Don't hide anything or make sexual things sound dirty.
But for God's sake, don't sit them down in a classroom and teach them more than they need to know about sex a good 6-9 years before puberty even hits.
Look at the kids to the right. Can you honestly tell me that these children need to know the intricacies of sex? Let them learn the ABCs and ask questions like "Why is the grass green", "Why is the sky blue", before we start in with sex. They'll have the rest of their lives to worry about sex.
Let them be innocent...even if it's just for a little while.
Friday, July 20, 2007
I don't think so.