Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Instead Of Sex Ed, Kids Are Getting Something Quite Different

Illustration for article titled Instead Of Sex Ed, Kids Are Getting Something Quite Different

Seems to me that simple, clear communication works best, even with young kids. But judging from the turbulence caused by a sex ed curriculum under consideration by the School Board in Helena, MT, there are people who disagree.


According to Fox News, some local parents are in a tizzy about their kindergartners learning the actual words for their body parts, including those covered by their bathing suits.

When we as parents want to, and need to, communicate important information to our kids (or hear important information from them), why wouldn't we use the right words?


Their objections to the curriculum go on from there, but it seems grounded in the same basic fear of information.

The data, as usual, supports a reasonable approach.

Teens who have accurate information, resources and support around their bodies and sexuality are better armed to make the daily decisions that affect their well-being both now and into the future. According to recent research, the average age for first-time sex for white Evangelical Protestants is 16, among the earliest average age for any group. They are also the least likely of any group of teens to use contraception, and the most likely to have been given abstinence-only sex ed, which I guess avoids using actual names for body parts until pretty late in the game.In "Just Say Don't Know: Sexuality Education in Texas Public Schools," researchers David Wiley and Kelly Wilson of Texas State University took a comprehensive look at how sexuality is taught in Texas public schools. The short answer: It isn't really. Kids are, however, being taught: A) sex will KILL YOU DEAD RIGHT NOW; B) only depressive, suicidal, loser slut bunnies ever have sex outside of marriage; and C) condoms kill more people than handguns.

Despite the fact that Texas ranks third in the rate of teen pregnancies and that its students are more sexually active and that they have more sex partners than the average U.S. student, sex ed here is nearly exclusively devoted to abstinence education, often with a religious bent. Information about contraception, disease prevention and STD testing is most often scarce or, worse, wildly inaccurate.

Like Texas, many of the same states that resist comprehensive sex ed are the same places that pride themselves on loose laws for gun ownership. Gun-rights advocates maintain that straight-forward education, not regulation and licensing, is the best way to keep kids safe.The National Rifle Association leads the way: they have a cool program called Eddie Eagle, aimed at exactly the same age group those parents are up in arms about learning about their own bodies. According to the site, the curriculum is designed to be used in schools. Anyone can use it—you don't need to be an NRA member or certified to teach anything at all. The curriculum is even available in Spanish.


According to the NRA, it doesn't aim to teach kids that guns are either "good or bad", but rather how to stay safe when you see one. "Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense."

I don't have a gun in the house, but I can agree with that line of thinking. Like it or not, guns are around, so kids at an early age should learn how to be safe around them.


Now, genitals, at my last count, are in 100% of households. Why not use the same common sense approach that knowledge is power, and give our kids straight forward, age appropriate information? That is exactly why a new toolkit launched by EMERJ called The New Sex Ed is so important. The New Sex Ed is full of useful community-created and tested strategies to help parents and educators implement useful and effective sex ed programs that are based in real people's experiences. Given the fight the Right has picked against teaching science, health, and touchy subjects like evolution and global warming, advocates for the truth need great resources like these to support parents, communities and school boards in making informed choices about educating their kids.

I also want to give parents in Texas and Montana credit. The Dallas Observer article also says that polls show that the overwhelming majority of Texans want teens to get accurate, useful information about sexual health, but until this report, "legislators and other policymakers had no idea what sexuality education looked like in the state and neither did parents."


I have a feeling that most parents in Montana want the same thing. Fox News's distortions notwithstanding, parenting young kids is good at teaching us all one thing: Facts Please.

This post originally appeared on the Asian Communities For Reproductive Justice Blog. Republished with permission.


Want to see your work here? Email us!

Share This Story

Get our newsletter



I have very little logic to back this up, but I kind of feel like teaching kids about their reproductive organs using proper names as early as kindergarten is kind of... icky? And yet I think it's totally cool when parents teach their kids to use the proper names of their body parts. Something about it being part of a school lesson seems too weird.

Though it did just occur to me that if this is covered in terms of proper hygiene then it would still be age appropriate. Previously I was wondering and psuedo-handwringing about how after these lessons kids might be comparing their vaginas and penises during play time and how that would be... icky. But proper hygiene is totally cool to teach to young kids. I never heard a word (that I can specifically recall) about how important it is for girls to wipe front to back until the "you're gonna get a period soon" special lecture in 4th grade.

I have many conflicting feelings on this, as you can see.