Posted on 03/09/2006 10:08:23 AM PST by SweetCaroline
TUG-OF-WAR OVER A SEXUAL DIVIDE
What is "age appropriate" sex education for 5-yr-old children?
In our Brittney Spears world, where innocence wrapped in seduction is sold as "sexy" and where sexuality lines have been all but erased, we shouldn't be shocked to hear high school students were used by educators and Planned Parenthood to lobby for "sexuality" education.
If they really wanted to give their legislators a clear picture of just what they were lobbying for, the teens should have brought along their little brothers and sisters. After all, the "comprehensive, sexuality education" the teens were begging legislators for begins in kindergarten; at age 5.
What is "age appropriate" at age 5, you ask? Well, that depends entirely on who you ask.
There is a cultural and ideological tug-of-war being waged within our schools over a deep moral line; the winner will drag Illinois' youngest schoolchildren across that line.
Most parents understand that 5-year-olds are not sexual. Innocent curiosity in bodily functions--yes; but true sexual behavior in very young children is either a reaction to something they have seen inappropriately, or are signs of sexual abuse.
Children of this age should be taught to guard their privacy; their shyness is a natural God given protection and should not be violated. It should be nurtured and protected by the adults in their lives.
Important age-appropriate information is cleanliness, the washing of hands after using the bathroom, understanding that washing with soap will keep it from itching, and never drinking your bath water--all issues facing the average 5-year-old.
If you ask those pushing SB 2267 in Springfield, they will tell you quite a different story. They come from a fundamental belief that children are sexual from birth. Seeing children as no different from adults, this point of view believes children should have access to unlimited information and values concerning sex and more recently, sexuality.
Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten-12th Grade has been published by SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), for over a decade, and is used extensively by educators and curriculum developers to implement sexuality education.
The guidelines divide into four age/grade levels. Level one is for ages 5 to 8. According to the guidelines, this age group should be taught that "both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched... touching and rubbing one's own genitals to feel good is called..."
Caution is given though, explaining while some boys and girls engage in this activity and some do not, the children are told this should all be done in private.
The guidelines include a complete anatomy lesson on "vaginal intercourse." The term vaginal intercourse is used, as it is lumped in with several accepted forms of intercourse.
Did you notice that the old sex-ed is now "sexuality" education? The concepts of sex, sexuality, and sexual identity are treated separately with the introduction of homosexuality and bi-sexuality. Introduction at such a tender age is nothing less than induction.
There is no doubt that the world we live in today is overtly sexual, and children are seeing far too much, and should be educated.
But stripping children of their innocence, raping their childhood imagination, and breaking down all natural defenses is not education it is an assault.
"Comprehensive, age appropriate sexuality education" is so focused on telling children it is ok to touch themselves and each other, and describing all sorts of sexual acts as right and good, they break down all barriers and defenses against sexual abuse.
A child being sexually abused will come to school and be told about how all the touching and intercourse is good and natural--and should be done in private. Underscoring the lies her abuser is telling her.
For now, we will set aside the endorsement of pornography, abortion, services offered without parental consent to adolescents and high schoolers, by comprehensive sexuality induction. And whether or not teens should have access to birth control in a school setting is a subject we will save for another day.
This topic hardly seems fit for public discussion; most of us were taught it is improper to speak publicly about private sexual matters; there is a natural aversion and respect to privacy we adults understand.
Parents can no longer afford polite silence while laws are being pushed that will enable teachers to have far more graphic and disturbing discussions with 5, 6 and 7- year-olds, behind closed doors--as a captive audience within the confines of a classroom.
Visit Rhonda's BLOG on IFI's website to read more of her disarming humor and thoughtful insight.
You can contact Rhonda via email: mothering_9@msn.com
We must continue, now more than ever, to champion immutable moral principals and take a strong stand for traditional values. IFI will continue to expose the lies of the left, and speak out in favor of timeless values and dependable conservative ideals.
Bible believing Christians and true Reagan conservatives cannot afford to run the risk of complacency while anti-God, anti-American, and anti-freedom forces work overtime toward the radical socialist agenda.
Ping!
"Sexuality education" in Illinois for children beginning at age 5...
Answer: "Boys/girls have cooties."
....I think you may be right. Even some on FR also.
There have been almost 500 hits on this thread and only 21 Freepers posted their thoughts.
It's going to be a very confusing world the youngest generation will have to face.
Sounds like it ought to be the subtitle of the "Girls Gone Wild Games" video I keep seeing advertised on late-night TV (EVERY FREAKING SIX MINUTES...)
Excellent point. It's that brain smoking liberal *logic* again. Telling the kids this is good and bad at the same time. Why tell them it's OK and the expel and brand as a child abuser a 6 year old boy who kisses a little girl? After all, he was just told it's OK. And putting the guilt of abuse on a little girl should be a crime. Sheesh.
....further proof these liberals are idiots!
Just as I was about to post there's no way SB 2267 will pass, I read your comment. I'm still reeling & sick at my stomach.
.....I belive many are as unaware as you were.
Some don't take the time to know what's going on and while I hate to believe others don't care, I fear it's true.
Don't let my post worry you too much. Every state is different, and the state I was talking about is New Jersey. And, for all I know, the sex-ed program here may not go as far as the one proposed in IL, which might explain why the parents here shrug it off. I don't know what the teachers actually say to the kids in the classroom because I'm not there, and neither are my kids! No way am I putting them in there!
The people in IL might not shrug off this bill.
I don't yet have grandchildren, but one thing is certain. They'll never attend public school.
I'm sure the IL leg is majority democrat, right? I'll be interested to know how the vote goes on this bill.
Age appropriate sex education for a five year old?
(as appropriate)
1a) "That's a girl. Don't hit her".
1b) "That's a boy. Don't torment him".
2) "If anybody touches you, I'll kill him".
Here's a cookie, now get outside and play.
Shyness and modesty are learned behaviors for adaptation to a cultural norm.
You make no argument in support or in opposition to God's "gift" in this regard. You simply argue that children in such cultures are conditioned to accept full or partial nudity as the norm.
If you suggest that children running around our society nude is okay then you are incorrect...
"If you suggest that children running around our society nude is okay then you are incorrect..."
In fact he said the opposite. The point was that we are conditioned by society to either be clothed or be nude, and that shyness is not "natural," so as to say, innate or immutable.
Not sure whether I agree, but it seems possible.
No one is ever, ever allowed to touch you in anyway that makes you uncomfortable.
No more, no less.
"You simply argue that children in such cultures are conditioned to accept full or partial nudity as the norm."
Actually, you have it backwards. What I asserted is that children are conditioned to be modest. One might infer that I would also assert that in other cultures children are conditioned not to be modest. And that inference would be correct.
In case you disagree with my main point - that modesty and clothing customs are learned behaviors that vary by culture - and instead believe that the need to be covered is a universal human trait and mandated by God, review my original post and answer the question.
I really don't think God cares if we run around nekkid. We care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.