Obama, sex education, and the inevitable smears
What a doozy of a headline:
Sex Ed for Kindergarteners ‘Right Thing to Do,’ Says Obama
As it turns out — and of course this never, ever happens in the MSM — the headline is a gross misrepresentation both of the article below it and of Obama’s views. Well done, ABC.
Right-wing nutjob Alan Keyes smeared Obama over this issue during their Senate race in Illinois in ’04. At least in its headline, ABC has resurrected that smear. The impression one gets is that Obama wants innocent, wide-eyed kindergartners to be taught the finer points of anal sex technique.
But — no. What Obama actually supports is “age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” which is a great idea, one very much at odds with the anti-sex, anti-science bias of the right. Given that our children are being inundated with sexual images, that they are learning about sex, and not always good things about sex, at ever younger ages, that they are having sex at ever younger ages, or at least having irresponsible sex at disturbingly young ages, that HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy remain serious problems, that, in generally, our children are being sexualized at early ages, there very much needs to be such sex education in the schools — and this goes for Canada as well as for the U.S., I might add (Europe tends to be more progressive, in a good way).
Does this mean starting early — like, in kindergarten? Yes, absolutely. Should children not be told the truth about where babies come from? Some details could be avoided, of course, but what is the point of lying to them or otherwise denying their budding sexuality and interest in sexuality?
Now, we get this in the ABC piece, but well below the headline:
“Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity,” Obama continued. “I’ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That’s something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death.”
When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘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,’ that 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.’”
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite Obama’s support, the legislation was not enacted.
So: Obama does not support teaching “sex ed.,” broadly understood as what might be taught to teenagers, to kindergartners. Rather, he supports sexual responsibility, including birth control, and respects abstinence. In other words, he takes sex and sexuality seriously. Rather than seeking to suppress it, or to encourage young people to repress it, which is how many on the right treat it, he wishes to empower young people to make responsible decisions. And this starts with ensuring that they know the truth — for what is a responsible decision if not an informed decision? So he supports the teaching of “‘medically accurate’ information” — again, in an “age-appropriate” way. What should be taught to a 16-year old is obviously different than what should be taught to a 5-year old. In addition, he wishes to empower parents to make decisions regarding their children’s sex education, too. And is it not a good idea, too, to teach children — and this is where getting to them at a young age is crucial — about “inappropriate touching,” that is, about sexual abuse? Why pretend it doesn’t exist? It does, and it happens a lot, more often than parents know, or want to know. Shouldn’t our children know what it is and what to do about it?
Kudos to Obama for taking this stand on sex education. Given how both his opponents on the right and the media that cover him misrepresent his views, making him out to be some sort of pervert, it is truly a courageous stand.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
26 Responses to “Obama, sex education, and the inevitable smears”
You need to stop being a nut job on here, Mike. That’s not too cruel a statement to make when you constantly shriek far-left statements that are ungrounded, to keep it very kind.
Obscession with sex by the Left (as you demonstrate here and as I’ve seen elsewhere on this site) is worse than what’s done by the Right, particularly by the Religious Right. Some of what is done is attacking the Religious Right, and the rest is pathological defense of a nihilistic attack on societal and personal norms, a diseased defense of the demand people be able to do whatever they want regarding personal behavior.
As far as Obama, he was a typical idiot-speaker parroting idiot lines to idiots about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade earlier, but this statement by him is not that out of the ordinary and I still view him as fluff, but remarkable given his success so far.
We know who his main fans are — the nutroots, dippy kids on computers who think they’re Special. awwwwwwwwwwwww The money Obama has raised to date, however, is amazing. Everyone savvy expects him eventually to be shoved into the VP slot (his bashing of Hillary may simply be for show; underneath the fuzz, he is a typical Dem big city Cyanide Nation politician, just younger than most we’ve encountered typically).
I visited the Obama campaign office yesterday here in the Midwest (my latest “stationment” is my second outside major metro areas). Yes, the kids who work there are just that, starry-eyed kids, nutroots — a younger portion of the “great unwashed” with brighter eyes than typical, a desire for (lefty) activism, and the ability to use a computer — these are college kids on their summer break, it appears — and other younger loser-looking types (shirts not tucked in), including, yes, a kid with a red Che Guevara T-shirt. However, there seems to be interest in this guy among more than just these stereotypical
Side note: I got some Obama campaign material from the office and some additional material, to send to my radical friend in DC — and they either would not or could not accept a cash donation in exchange! I’m not sure if it really is a concern about donations and limits or other legal fears they have, or if they are so removed from reality they really do only accept donations on-line.
The misuse by the Left of “science” (which the Left has corrupted and distorted and worse with its politics, and which is a sound-bite word used to engage in religious bigotry) is just pandering to idiots by Obama, and “age-appropriate” is fine, but real sex education begins at or approaching puberty and real sex education is a parental, not a “social” or societal, or public school, responsibility. Sex education as part of human physiology and health education, I have no problem with. Schools improperly replacing, and if politicized, subverting parents, I and other decent, normal people have a big problem with.
I am as liberal on sex and sex education as can be, but really, State-sponsored sex education for kindergarteners?
There are a lot of psychologists and children’s mental health specialists that question teaching sexual concepts to such small children, but mainly there are still some things that should be the rights of parents to determine.
And I do not come from this discussion on the side of keeping them in the dark, but from the aspect of parental rights.
I did start presenting (and it is more realistic to say didn’t hide) such concepts from my children at that age,and actually even younger. The ironic thing is, doing so led my daughter’s pre-school to report her (and us) to the State for ‘age-inappropriate sexual knowledge’.
Luckily we had a case worker with common sense, but we could have lost custody of our child for what Obama now ants to have mandated. And that was not an idle threat, as it happened to someont who worked for a friend of mine on another island, who had a case worker that believed any awareness of sex prior to middle school equated to child abuse. It took them 6 years to get the son and daughter back.
But, and back to my main point, I respect the right of those who wish to raise their children differently, even if a lot of them don’t respect my right to have been sexually open wit my children.
In fact, here in Texas, I chose to live in Austin because of it’s liberal and tolerant attitude towards sexuality, among other things
I just have real problems with the trend to have the State be the arbitrator of parenting, except when there are questions of real, systemic abuse.
I’m with Obama 100 %
It would be laughable. if it weren’t tragic, to still hear the old moaning about the Left bias in MM.
It’s all about profits now, and reason doesn’t sell as well as hate and hysteria.
AR -
You raise important poins about parental rights.
I think even Obama’s proposal includes a parent opt-out, though, and.it would probably end up being a state, county and school board fight.
I see from your persoanal experiences how regional this can be, and how scary. Deciding to move to a certain area is so much more than just finding living accomodations. One has to check out the locals and their laws.
Obscession with sex by the Left (as you demonstrate here and as I’ve seen elsewhere on this site) is worse than what’s done by the Right, particularly by the Religious Right
DLS-
- and when’s the last time we saw a Dem in the spotlight for sexual misconduct?
:cough::VitterFoleyHaggardThatguyWhoRanAroundYellingSuckItWithHisManhoodExposed::cough
The RR are obsessed with keeping minds closed and dogmatically enslaved. Because ya know, condoms in schools would promote sexuality, and that is eeeevil- but a kid getting a disease is God’s will.
feh.
and yes, Keyes is a RW wingnut. Ad Hominem, ad infinitum.
AR LOL-You live in Austin, yet play devils advocate here at TMV. Your views tend to center-right, how can you stand all those smelly hippies in Austin. Those green Liberal Austinites enjoy golden showers from bats…
how can you stand all those smelly hippies in Austin.
Austin is a blue oasis in Texas, so liberals would like to go there;
Austin is home of the state government, so there is constant economic activity (Texans’ tax dollars at work);
Austin is the one place for miles around with trees;
Austin is home to some high-tech industry (a mere fingernail or toenail compared to Silicon Valley, but a high-industry nevertheless) and accompanying economic activity;
Austin is nice enough to attract liberals (and liberals will say that it’s the reverse, that liberals make places nice, and attractive to others, including non-liberals). It’s not due just to being a government seat nor to being the only place around with trees; it’s similar to Boulder or maybe to Raleigh-Durham or other blue liberal oases in parched Red-Land.
Rudi,
Trust me, the dirty hippies are a slim minority in Austin these days. And all the “Keep Austin Weird” t-shirts and bumper stickers on the planet will probably never change that. Much to the dismay of Red Wassenich.
I still love the town, in many ways more than when I lived there around 20 years ago. But it’s definately a different city now.
AustinRoth,
Admit it, even conservatives and moderates enjoy the Continental Club right?
;0)
DLS,
Well, there is the minor issue of Austin having the largest college student population in the country.
People don’t do this, least of all the media, who are liberal, who love Obama and give his minority status a halo and PC “off-limits to criticism” special treatment. (We’ll see how they remain that way if he endangers Hillary’s prospects later and the media are still hoping for Hillary as the Dems’ best chance.)
People would feel weird toward anybody who would promote sex education down to age five, or at anyone who suggested government behave in school or elsewhere as a substitute for parents in any other way.
Obama is simply a fresh new face (with some “realistic” stances a la Hillary so as not to repel as many people) on typical lefty gummint and activist nonsense.
Do the teachers’ unions expect more money if the activists seeking ridiculous sex education down to age five were successful?
The problem — and it is expressed here by my critics (and, obviously, Obama’s) — is that many would rather sex remain a taboo subject. But why should it not be taught in the schools alongside other aspects of biology? Children are interested in, for example, where babies come from. Should they be lied to? Obama is actually presented an extremely nuanced argument here — obviously too nuanced for some of you. First, parents can opt out if they so choose. Second, there is the matter of recognizing what is age-appropriate. Clearly what one says to a 5-year old about sex isn’t what one would (or should) tell a teenager wrestling with puberty. Third, responsibility, or the inculcation thereof, is a key component of this. It is important to teach children about sexual abuse and about being sexually responsible.
Denying that won’t make it go away.
There is nothing extreme here, though of course I appreciate being called a “nut job” for suggesting that sex and sexuality not be suppressed, that our young people grow up to be sexually healthy and responsible adults.
Far less in scope as well as in viciousness toward “heretics” compared to the pee-cee crowd.
[dusting hands]
I look more at government and natural amenities when it comes to older people who would move there, or what would lead students not to leave.
You are, of course, correct insofar as a large student population also makes things liberal (same goes for Boulder and for that matter, Raleigh-Durham, two places I mentioned earlier — and of course the Five Colleges area in western Massachusetts makes life there sometimes liberal by liberal Massachusetts standards). Schools bring to down lots of naive, liberal kids. (They normally outgrow their more silly activist liberalism once they become real adults. An interesting minority will continue to be liberal, and another interesting minority will become more liberal with age.)
It’s a badly written headline, but still better than the NYT headline “Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography”.
Hey guys, I have told you a number of times that I am way more liberal than I come off on this board, or that you believe.
I post here right-of-center, and overall I am, but my views on drugs, religion, abortion, sex, personal freedom, and others make Conservatives uncomfortable around me.
But I can argue just as strongly against their myopic views on those subjects as I can against the anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war sentiments that dominate this board.
I live in Austin because of all the reasons listed above. Has it changed? Of course it has; if it doesn’t grow, it would die. Is it still quirky and liberal? You bet.
Maybe it isn’t the 60′s or 70′s here anymore, but I can still smoke a joint in the open at ACL, or at Stubb’s, and not worry about getting busted. It is one of the best places left in the US for just walking around and hearing all kinds of live music, the over-the-top ‘Live Music Capitol’ moniker not withstanding.
One other nice thing about Austin is that not too many people like DLS live here.
Michael – people, such as myself, can object without raising the ‘taboo’ argument.
Beyond my earlier parental rights discussion, you actually undermined your own case in you last post. But why should it not be taught in the schools alongside other aspects of biology? Last I checked, biology is not part of the normal Kindergarten curriculum anywhere. That subject is taught later.
I think, if it fits within the overall life structure of a child, that exposing them to the concepts of love, where babies come from, and what those parts of their body and the opposite sex are (especially if they have siblings of the opposite sex near in age).
But, I can appreciate not everyone shares those views. And if a child is being raised within a different structure, I don’t believe exposing them to concepts against their parents will and rights is healthy.
Just because I raised my children the way I did, and they turned out to be fine, healthy young adults with good, positive attitudes towards sex (at least in my opinion), doesn’t make my way the only right way, or the right way for others.
I still say sex education for prior to the middle school age should remain a parent’s prerogative, not the state’s.
So many on this board, and especially you Michael (and rightly so, in many of the instances) have complained vehemently about government intrusion into our private lives and space in the name of anti-terrorism.
But this is OK with you?
Agreed, that one was so missleading as to be utterly laughable (or disgusting).
As to the subject of the post, I think I agree with Obama. His view is divided in two parts. On the one hand he supports age appropriate sex-education at all levels. The OTHER point he makes, one more associated with a conservative viewpoint, is that though he supports it, sex education must something that local school boards decide on themselves. I don’t think it’s good or even just practical that there be a federal program for this. At the most there could be recommendations on the subject, but the actual decision must be left up to the local communities.
Also “opt-out” or “opt-in” is a constant battlefield. Either way of doing it is bound to cause divisions and controversy, so I think this ALSO needs to be decided at the local level.
Austin nailed this one. The response by Mr. Stickings makes it appear that he didn’t bother to read the response. He has a view of those who oppose sex education in public schools and imposes it regardless of what is actually said.
My wife and I are very open about these issues with our kids and are way ahead on the learning curve in these matters. But the important thing is that we are the ones relaying the information. This is yet another reason why my kids will never see the inside of a public school.
Stickings said :
Given that our children are being inundated with sexual images, that they are learning about sex, and not always good things about sex, at ever younger ages, that they are having sex at ever younger ages, or at least having irresponsible sex at disturbingly young ages, that HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy remain serious problems, that, in generally, our children are being sexualized at early ages,
Notice the talk of “OUR” children? I don’t need nor will I allow other adults to present these issues to my children. It doesn’t take a village as Hillary and her ilk would say We are having no problem handling the subject matter. I prefer my kids to use the time in school to concentrate on other things. Now if some parents feel that they are incapable of talking to their kids about sex and would like some sort of workshop offered to relieve them on this difficulty I would have no problem with that.
SO sex education will not be taught to my kids outside of my home. Yet they will learn far more than most kids at a much earlier age.
Austin – So you spoof to pull the debate to the center, but for the most part the debate is moderate. There is more Bush haters at BallonJuice or CunningRealist and other moderate sites. This site is far from Kos or DU. Play nice with DLS, he is on the right side. Austin is only “liberal” compared to the rural area of Texas. I don’t see it as “moonbat” as Ann Arbor Michigan or some of the really liberal towns out east or on the Left Coast. I was there in the late 80′s, Sixth Street was great but only a couple blocks of clubs. It wasn’t Beale Street or NO.
It seems to me there is way too much being read into Obama’s proposal than it actually proposes.
“Age-appropriate’ doesn’t mean that kindergardeners will learn about birth control. Anyway, local governemtns and school boards will be chiming in, as well as parents.
Ii’m wondering though, if the school is not allowed to deal with the subject, and a 5 year old asks if the stork brings babies, what should the teacher’s answer be? Should she lie and agree? Should she call the parents to ask what they want her to say?
doma,
Theoretically your question could be applied to all sorts of topics. What should a teacher’s response be, for example, if asked by a young child whether or not there is a God?
I also want to point out that when people oppose public school sex education that goes too far, generally the opposition has nothing to do with teaching the actual biology of sexual reproduction. The points of contention have to do with the separation of sexuality from sexual reproduction; for example, teaching kids that sexual expression is always healthy, that they should always feel free to explore sexual feelings, etc. These are the areas that cross lines from presenting scientific facts into the realm of moralizing in a way that often contradicts parental values. Rarely do parents object to teaching kids that females have ovaries which produce eggs, and males have testes which produce spermatazoa, and that the two unite to form a new human being. In fact it’s the liberal faction that would prefer that we not stress the concepts of procreation being connected to sexuality, except in that they wish to teach kids that the two can be completely separated with birth control even though that isn’t true since all methods of birth control can fail and only abstention is foolproof.
How many 13 year olds don’t know that sex makes babies?
Zero, zilch, none, nada. The idea could prove to be the end of Obama’s campaign – how can I vote for someone who would come out in favor of something so ridiculous?
How many 13 year old’s are in Kindergarten?
CS-
As to: “….if asked by a young child whether or not there is a God?”
You are seconding my point. All these hot reactions
ignore the fact that teachers need guidelines Those are usually thrashed out by local schoolboards. Parents weigh in.
Obama’s suggestion did not include lesson plans or specific guidelines for each grade level, yet everyone is already up in arms.
While many parents are part of the solution for schools, they are also part of the problem. Each parent wants the school to be a carbon copy of themselves as guides to children. What the children lose in the process is exposure to diversity.
Going through the public school system, my peers and I had absolutely no trouble dealing with the differences between school and home and among ourselves. We were enriched by differences Jusst like city kids being more street wise, we were diversity wise. Those of us who had most trouble dealing with exposure to divergent life sytyles later, beginning with teen years, by and large came from the most restrictive homes, where children were kept in their parents’ bubble. Children can understand very early that although a lot of people believe X, my parents believe Y. They are more likely to be thrown by an introduction to X (either to be seduced or feel threatened by it), if it comes later, without the immunity of familiarity. .
Exposure to diversity also teaches children about
how society functions. about majorities and minorities and the need to co-operate.
—-
As to: “The points of contention have to do with the separation of sexuality from sexual reproduction; ”
===
That’s a religious view held by some. Those who can’t tolerate any other understanding of sexuality, would do better to keep their children in the bubble of a religious school.