Montana sex education proposal draws outrage

"...Under the proposal for the Helena school district, kindergartners would be taught proper anatomical terms, first-graders would learn sexual relations could happen between two men or two women, and fifth-graders would learn the various ways people can have intercourse..."

Now we used to teach kids about their body parts - now we have to teach them to fuck?   Left to their own devices, kids aren't interested in sex at these ages - not until their hormones kick in!

What could be the possible agenda here? 

I think the proposal is actually a good thing. I started puberty in 3rd grade, so my hormones were going pretty early, and kids in general are starting puberty earlier and earlier. I'm assuming these various ways people can have intercourse will be accompanied by teaching the kids about responsibility and safe sex, and the importance of not having sex willy nilly. There ARE 13-year-olds having sex, unfortunately enough, and probably kids even younger than that, so why not start teaching the kids early? And if you think about it, if you're gonna be teaching the kids about responsibility and safe sex, it's kind of weird to do it without explaining to them exactly what sex is and what it entails. And sex in general (between any combination of sexes) is just a fact of life. It happens. And the taboo attitude surrounding it really doesn't help anyone, honestly.

What agenda could there possibly be?

I prefer the idea a child comes into their sexuality, naturally, without the interference of adults.

I don't think the schools should be doing a parent's job like that.

I donno..I think maybe 'enlightening' them in 2nd grade would be okay...but not KG & 1st..

Looking at the rate of teenage pregnancies, and alot more happening, I think its okay for such classes to be provided. Things are not how they used to be before. There are alot more negative elements in today's societies and I guess this is one of the main ways to educate children about such issues. As for me, if I recall correctly, our school arranged such 'education' during our 9th grade :P  

I'm with Jilly on this one.  And kids are plenty curious enough - can't we let them get there at their own pace?  I thought this might be the one thing the schools couldn't standardize .... sigh.

Oh and it goes without saying.. The terminology used should be extremely subtle during such classes.

Yeah, I say teach the kids to add and subtract, and read and write, to learn from history, etc. and let them learn to fuck on their own.  

5th grade: Here is how you fuck, class. ::shakes head:: 

Should we put a blow job technique test in there while we're at it?

I'm not sure why the kids need to know "the various ways people can have intercourse" unless it were a precaution against sexual abuse ...

I'm very pro-sex ed, meaning I think children should be taught about contraception, STDs, and responsibility (probably around age 11), but I don't understand why you would need to teach the "ways" people have sex (certainly not during 1st grade).

from the article: "Supporters say the proposed health education curriculum contains honest, science-based information on wellness and allows students to make decisions that are better for themselves and the community. "

And that's the problem. I have no issue with sex education. I think _parents_ should give their kids the necessary information for them to make informed choices as their reach the age where they are asking questions. You don't have to schedule this. Children get curious on their own, at different points in their development.

But I find the idea that schools can help children make decisions "better for themselves and the community" disturbing. You can't divorce sexuality from values. I taught my children what MY values are and why, and coached them on developing their own values. I have no interest whatsoever in finding out what the school's values are.

I see this as part of a larger trend of "saving them from themselves" where public organizations see individuals and not up to the task of making their own, responsible  decisions and are attempting to step in. it offensive and overstepping.

I agree that this is the sort of education that ideally should take place in the home.

Maybe schools could offer classes to parents instead, enabling them with the latest information and techniques for such an important, yet sometimes difficult subject to speak to your kids about.  Not all parents have difficulties with this, but some might, and this way families can choose what and when they educate their own children.

Elsa- and then what? Educating them never hurts. I just don't really see perfect logic in waiting for them to "come into their sexuality", because by the time that happens and the parent picks up on it and decides it's time for the talk, so much could have already happened. When you leave them to their own devices, you're letting them find things out on their own, and who knows what they'll find or what they'll do, and at what age? Like i said before, how can you teach kids about safe sex (or lack of sex in general) without telling them what sex is? I just don't see a kid taking too well to being told "you can't do xyz", but then not being told what xyz is. All that does is make them curious, i think, because they're gonna wanna know what's so bad about it that someone is telling them it's a huge no-no that's so bad the kid can't even know what it is. It's not like the school wants to tell the kids to go out and have sex, and learning about sex probably isn't gonna jump start their sex drives, somehow. And i honestly don't think the classes will be as crass as you think they will be- they certainly will not be using the word "fuck".

Piya - They wouldn't learn the various ways people can have intercourse in first grade, it'd be in fifth. =P

Carrie - I think this a good idea, parents should be equipped with the information to handle it themselves. The only thing is that some parents probably won't take the opportunity, even with the material. They don't deem it important, they don't think the time is right, or they just don't care, among other things. It sucks, but i would never go so far as to say that there aren't parents like that anywhere.

We disagree, Alyson. It's no problem! :)

Of course not, it was just a discussion. =P

Um, no.  It's not up to the school to teach my kids these things.  They get enough misinformation from their friends.

I learned all I needed to know by 8th grade.  Kids in K and 1st grade don't need to know that stuff.  Let them learn it when they're old enough to process it properly.

This is just another example of the government thinking we're all clueless fuckwits who need hand-holding.  Barf!

"They get enough misinformation from their friends." Snort!

In terms of logistics alone, teachers just don't have the time to devote to this subject. I agree with Carrie, "Maybe schools could offer classes to parents instead, enabling them with the latest information and techniques for such an important, yet sometimes difficult subject to speak to your kids about". I think they should also avail themselves of the school's psychology/health/nursing staff for this instruction. Help parents parent...edit: if they want help.

Understand, Alyson. I just feel that I should respond when someone addresses me directly. My take on this has been stated and so I'm backing out now to let others have a chance to weigh in while I work on something else. :)

Ah, I misread it. I thought it said "First graders would learn how sexual relations could happen between two men and two women."

This being said: assuming that "traditional" sex was taught to kindergartners, wouldn't it follow that "gay" sex would be taught to first graders? (What are the parameters of teaching children that gay sex exists? Wouldn't you first need to explain what straight sex is, in order to make the distinction?)

What is the proper age for this? If we are to assume that gay and lesbian relationships are equal to heterosexual ones, then logically, what is the reason for the year's delay? (Leaving aside the young age)

I simply don't think this kind of thing needs to be addressed until the children are older.

Where I live teaching about sexual abuse is part of the curriculum. It takes place in either grade 5/ 6, up to the parents if they don't want their kids to go/hear. Parents can't be forced against their will to have their kids be a part of it.

It is not explained graphically or technically. The intent as I understand it (knowing someone who is required to teach it) is akin to a net. Some kids aren't being taught at home and are being sexually abused at home. I see this as one of directions society has taken (sex ed for kids in schools) some decades ago and has evolved over time. 

I think it's a nice idea that all parents are healthy and teaching their kids about sex. That is not the case.  

I'm responding as a non-parent to the question re: possible agenda. 

Non-parent here

I support sex education having participated in my first sex ed class in 4th grade--Catholic School no less.  Parents could opt in or opt out.  It's strange but I recall the one woman who's family didn't allow her to attend eventually became an unwed mother.  Can't say there is a cause and effect at work but just an observation. 

I see aspects of Montana's proposed offering that don't make sense especially the let's teach the first graders about sex.  That said, I know kids are having sex before the age of 13 and I don't want to see anymore STDs, unwed mothers, unwanted babies etc.  Thus, if sex ed helps reduce the number of unwed mothers, Stds I support it.  I wish you could count on all parents to provide the relevant info but it isn't happening and not because the parents are "bad" some just aren't comfortable having the talk.

As for an agenda, maybe Montana is finding that the state costs associated with unwed parents is too high.  A quick web search and I found a few articles that seem to point to rising rate of unwed mothers and problems it is causing for many states and their respective budgets.   In short, more babies not enough dollars/resources to support them so best way to tackle increase is to reduce unwanted pregnancy. 

There's a lot of merit in the ideas and positions being brought forward here.  Honestly I just don't have enough faith in the system not to make a total bizarro fiasco. Sad but true...

I'd rather see this time and money go to working with teachers on how to consistently, calmly manage a classroom/students/themselves when a sexual dynamic comes up.  It should be more about setting and respecting boundaries and learning appropriate public behavior than about specific sex topics, imo.

If a kid exposes his baby johnson, calmly tell him that we keep our penis in our pants at school and in public...If it was odd or recurrent--document and let the parents know. If kids are making out behind the bleachers, break it up and calmly tell them its inappropriate at school...if it was odd or recurrent--document and let the parents know.

If said parents are flustered, frustrated or alarmed--by all means point them to some resources and assist as warranted.

anywho...complicated topic and I'm time crunched...but that's the gist of what I wanted to add to the mix.

"public organizations see individuals and not up to the task of making their own, responsible decisions"

well...are they capable?  

for the pro side I hear the issue: because the parents aren't/might not be doing a good enough job. and to protect the public interest/interest of the children. 

VERY slippery slope there.  

parents: innocent till proven guilty.  there will always be a percentage of individuals who slip through the cracks no matter what action is taken.  sad but true.

educators are no more infallible than parents.

I second all that Chrispito said, I couldn't have expressed it better.

Whoa, disturbing pic!  

Non-parent too, but it seems more than a little odd to teach 5th graders different sexual positions.  What could be the reasoning there?   

I dont think they're talking about teaching them kama sutra.  I think "teaching different ways" means they're going to tell them that oral sex is still sex, something that the kids don't seem to know these days. stuff like that.

I'm for it, I think it is a public health issue.  Kids are having sex earlier and earlier. Some of them aren't learning anything at home.  They need to be forewarned. 

Agreed with nota-- teen pregnancy, stds, etc, etc, etc are very much a public health issue and therefore I feel, domain-wise, education with public tax dollars is appropriate.  

To jana's good point, public school students aren't spending enough school hours learning the core subjects they need to know-- it's a shame to think more school hours need to be diverted from that in order to teach this.

As to the 5th grade curriculum, I think nota's right.  I believe I have read that anal sex is even on the rise between minors because it's believed to be "not sex", in addition to oral sex.

In googling something that in a less free society would probably have me questioned by authorities: "child anal sex rate", I found this article which comes right to the point:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece

Very interesting!!! 

Er... I wonder how people managed for thousands of years without this terrific service.

The sky didn't fall or nuthin'. Matter of fact great cities were created, great art, wonderful inventions... and yes, people fucked.

I am not sure there is anything broken here and have quite a bit of history to back that up.

I think when teenage girls are taking it up the ass because they don't want to loose their virginity, something is broken. 

I think the difference of opinion here is mostly a generational thing.  

If something is broken, I doubt the gov't is the one that should solve it.

Is this belief generational? 

just a note that non-vaginal sex acts to preserve virginity/hymens go waaay back.

I'm still thinking through the discussions and my thoughts on the rest of it...

I agree with Nota on this one. Open honesty is the best policy to forewarn kids as to not only what to expect, but to know what their boundaries are, how to respect themselves and their body and know how to say NO if something makes them uncomfortable. 

I seriously am saddened by all the teenage pregnancy and how common mistakes and accidents are in the 2000's. And as Nota says, a lot of kids these days think oral sex is not sex. 

My parents were open and honest with sex (but that includes making sure your kids know it's for people that love and respect each other and how important that connection is and how it's to be shared). I was a virgin until I was 19 because I WAITED until I found someone worth sharing it with. 

I'm glad I didn't' rush into it because no one talked to me about it and I was impatient to find out. Or peer-pressure. Or whatever.

Education promotes making informed decisions. Even at an early age, when it may not mean much, it can be accessed again from memory when it does mean something.

I think it is surprising that so many people are threatened with children being taught this information. I would think it would just compliment the parents that are actively teaching their own children. It gives them that much more to discuss and get the child's thoughts on the different aspects. 

While they are at it, I think it would be appropriate to start very young with teaching children the nuts and bolts of finances, and how planning for adulthood economic soundness really pays off. Most kids don't understand how long a parent has to work for that fancy pair of shoes, jeans or video games takes, let alone the idea that someday they will have to work to maintain a roof over their own heads and all that entails. When they hear it from the parent, it doesn't register except as them bitching about the cost. 

I think some of the sex talks with parents can register as uncomfortable and laying down some antiquated rules of conduct * to the kid*, instead of active dialog that I think the education in the classroom would help to facilitate.

For the many children that aren't taught diddley squat within the home, they do have some real education on the subject that they wouldn't have had at all.

I'm not sure why specifics are necessary.  it's already widely taught, the whole good touch/bad touch thing:  "these are your private areas," and telling them they have the right and are encouraged to tell another grownup if they don't like or are confused by others' actions.

with children more specificity does not necessarily result in clarity.

I think the good touch/bad touch does more to protect children than anything else could.  I'm less concerned about WHY a teen is taking it in the ass than whether or not it is their choice to do so.

the only way to take away the moral yardstick of virginity, for example deciding to do anal rather than vaginal, is either to take away the stigma of losing one's virginity, or extend virginal morality to include the anus/mouth etc.  these are MORAL judgement calls.  so are we prepared to make the educational system moral guardians? 

I want to be clear:  I'm not threatened by any of this.  I don't see it as efficacious.

Elsa, I agree with your statement that humankind has made it thousands of years without sex education, but that was when kids learned about sex as a natural part of life.  Except for the last hundred years or so, most kids had access to livestock, and I've heard from others who have grown up on a farm that you learn a lot just from watching the animals.  On the human side, was no mystery where siblings came from.  But in our "modern" age, where we have more control over sex, it has been taken out of the realm of day-to-day life, for kids anyway, and they're protected from it.  So we have ongoing generations that have no idea how to integrate sex back into its place with other natural human functions, such as eating, sleeping, eliminating, etc.

The same has happened with death.  Death has been sanitized, and almost stigmatized.  Once upon time almost everyone knew what death looked like, smelled like, sounded like.  Now, it seems that only people who encounter death on a professional basis knows what it really is.  Everyone else just sees embalmed bodies when a loved one dies, or the ashes in the urn.  I'm not saying that everyone needs to be trotted by corpses to get a sense of death, but I think the culture has a tendency towards unnatural reactions to death.

Anyway, I'll just add my voice to the chorus that says children should learn about sex from the parents.  Hell, kids should learn everything about *living* from the family.  School is for skills.

"extend virginal morality to include the anus/mouth etc.  these are MORAL judgement calls.  so are we prepared to make the educational system moral guardians?"

Very rational point, but isn't religion (and religion-based cultural morés) ALREADY the guardian of children this age?  And I'm not attacking you, satori, because I think you're going down a really smart path here.  We seem to be speaking as if children of 1st and 5th grade are still innocent blank slates when they have actually already formed opinions and been educated or exposed on many topics.  And we don't restrict religious education until children are 18 or 21, do we?  So instead of effecting change in the public school system, shall we lobby church groups to extend virginal morality to the anus and mouth?  Shall we expect parents to map this out?  I'm not sure the course is clear.