"Age-appropriate, science-based sex education"

A U.S. PRESIDENTIAL candidate stated, at a Planned Parenthood forum, that sex education is appropriate even in kindergarten:

"But it's the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools," Obama said at last week's forum.

A rival candidate is attempting to appeal to conservative voters by stating his opposition to this. However:

Romney's assertions got enough traction that Obama was asked about it in the Democratic debate Monday night. Obama responded by saying Romney himself had held the same position on sex education in 2002. As a candidate for governor that year, Romney had checked a box on a Planned Parenthood questionnaire saying he supported age-appropriate sex education about both abstinence and contraception in public schools.

(Considering all of the front-runner presidential candidates, I would say that no matter who wins, we lose.)

What is "age-appropriate" sex education, and who decides? Clearly, the term is used in a context of educational theory, and not in our commonsensical notions of what is good for little kids. Age-appropriateness for kindergarteners merely means that the educational goals — whatever they are — are pursued in a manner that is most effective with children of that age. So what are the educational goals?

Most philosophies state that happiness is the Greatest Good of Man, and modern philosophy states that pleasure and contentment best define happiness. Sex is pleasurable, therefore, we teach sex-ed to make children happy, while drugs and popular entertainment will make children contented. This is opposed by the traditional definition of happiness as blessedness. Remember what Christ tells us about blessedness.

Also, what does "science-based" mean? The Catholic view of science is that it is "the virtue of the conformance of the intellect to reality", but that is not the modern view of science, which rather claims that knowledge can only be gained through observation and experimentation. And so, what exactly will our kindergarteners observe, and what kind of experiments will they perform? This fits in well with our current philosophy of Educational Progressivism, which emphasizes "learning by doing". According to Wikipedia, "a progressivist teacher desires to provide not just reading and drill, but also real-world experiences and activities that center on the real life of the students." Uh oh. Imagine the possibilities. Especially when children are prohibited from telling their parents about what is taught.

Contemporary sex-ed teaches "safe touch". What is taught is basically this:

If someone touches you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable,
then that person's act is inappropriate.

This seems good, right? Why should anyone object to this?

But if that is true, then this logical conditional is also true:

If someone touches you in a way that does not make you feel uncomfortable,
then that person's act is not inappropriate.

Bingo. Couple this popular teaching with the current push to reduce or eliminate the age of consent, then we end up with a pædophile's paradise. Traditional moral teaching does not put the judgment of goodness solely on the shoulders of potential child victims, nor does it base morality on feelings.

It should be noted that much of so-called Children's Rights legislation is written in a way that seems good on the surface, but is noxious when taken to its logical conclusion, as we see above.