sex with boys was not on my radar screen at ten years old. After all, they had
cooties. Jumping rope and watching cartoons
was where it was at for fourth graders during my childhood.
for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University, that sort of blissful ignorance is bad for kids. Their research “Investing in
Very Young Adolescents’ Sexual and Reproductive Health” was published in the Global
Public Health journal last month. They claim their findings show that children
should start receiving formal sexual education as early as age 10 to decrease
unintended pregnancies, “unsafe” abortions (all are unsafe for the baby)
maternal deaths, and sexually transmitted infections.
usually emerges during very young adolescence—between ages 10-14. One of their issues is that safe sex (you
know, the kind where we pretend condoms are iron shield against STD’s, pregnancies, and the aftermath of teenage sex) needs to be taught early. Really early. Right after third grade.
based on the healthy adolescent framework, rooted in human rights and gender
equity, are implemented at a time when adolescents are still malleable and
relatively free of [sexual and reproductive health] problems and gender role
bias, [very young adolescents] can be guided safely through this life stage,
supported by their parents, families and communities.
in emerging [sexual and reproductive health] and gender role formation among
[very young adolescents] –working at root level – will yield important
dividends, and consequently, fewer investments will be needed later in
adolescence and adulthood.
adolescent framework” looks like? We
should agree on this because parents have the God-given responsibility to be
the primary teachers of our children.
The study mentions that this framework, in order to be healthy, will be
rooted in human rights and gender equity.
Define “gender equity” please. That a same-sex marriage is no different from one between a man and a woman? That
women should become priests?” I have a
hunch our frameworks do not look alike.
“investments” we are supposed to make in emerging sex health and gender role
formation? How does one invest in this “at the root” level in order
to get those “important dividends” so fewer investments will be needed later
on. What the hell is that supposed to
mean anyways?
teaching our “malleable” children and building their frameworks? Will it be a teacher married to someone of
the same sex? Will teachers showing kids
how a condom is properly worn be interfering with time better spent on jump
rope techniques? Oh, I suppose kids
rarely do that any more. Instead, sex is
on their brains. Or if it’s not, the
Georgetown researchers want to put it there.
And why aren’t fourth graders jumping
rope anymore?