RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Required sex ed
In my home state of Connecticut, the legislature is currently considering a bill that would require students to complete a course of sex education in order to graduate from high school. The nation’s largest provider of abortion, Planned Parenthood, is supporting the bill.
According to the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes the bill and is providing testimony against it, “Planned Parenthood should have nothing to do with the sexual education of our youth. PP’s real goal is to convince teens, their future clients, that when birth control fails surgical abortion would also be ‘responsible parenting.’”
The state of sex education across the country is appalling, and should be a source of outrage to Christians from sea to shining sea. An article I wrote for the current issue of Salvo magazine lays out the real agenda of the sex education industry, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Individual horror stories abound. In Middletown, Conn., the local newspaper reports that last December a group of college students were brought in to a ninth grade classroom to teach 14-year-olds about sex:
Two parents, who asked that their names not be used, said slang terms of sexual acts were used as part of a PowerPoint presentation to mixed groups of male and female students and that students were asked to write the slang terms down on a sheet of paper in one of two columns to show their preferences: “Oh yeah, baby” and “Nah, not for me.”
Students were then asked to role play what they would say before, during and after sex with each other, the parents said.
“She’s only 14,” one parent said about his daughter. “They basically took her innocence away.”
Up until this incident, the school district did not inform parents when the sex-ed portion of health class started, although they insist that students have the choice to opt out. I can’t imagine too many ninth graders who would choose to do that on their own. That’s what parents are for, isn’t it? And if the proposed legislation passes, presumably opting out won’t be an option.
back to top35 Comments to “Required sex ed”
Who cares if they cannot read. Get them sexualized so that they will view life only in terms of pursuing pleasure for themselves. Isn’t that what we are here for?
One more thing, forget the three “R”s but we must still be sure to tell them that they are just animals and that their existence is an accident of nature and nothing really matters except satisfying themselves.
Report comment to moderator
My children all chose to opt out in three different states. I had to sign the papers, but they let me know.
I also signed papers that said they had sufficient knowledge on the topic, they didn’t need to take the class and that enabled them to graduate from high school here in California.
Of course in the case of my final child, I had to sign the papers every year of high school–somehow the forms kept disappearing from her file. I finally wrote on this last form: Call me if you have any questions.
They’re going to let her graduate from high school.
I sat on a school board committee in Kitsap County, WA twenty years ago that had to clear all the “controversial” material that would presented in the public schools. It was a honor to serve and an affirming three years. What of the most difficult times, however, was when we had to okay a very clever play called “Three Wishes.”
The plan concerned a high school couple who got pregnant. They were given three wishes. The boy immediately wished it was five years later, “when we were more ready.”
In the manner of fractured fairy tales, it was five years later–and they were just as immature and underemployed, but now had two children . . .
I can’t remember, now, what her wish was, but the final wish was “it never had happened.”
I liked the play very much and thought it had a great message. But it was full of foul language and nasty slang. The author recognized the rawness of his material, and volunteered in a postscript for changes in the “rough” dialogue.
As one of the few people, as usual, who had actually read the entire manuscript, I voiced my approval but only with the language changes suggested by the playwright.
I was denounced in loud terms by a fulsome board member as a censor.
“The play should be performed as written,” he screamed at me.
“Changing the language was the playwright’s idea,” I politely replied. “Do you really think junior high boys need the tacit approval from a play to use graphic and demeaning language to describe girls?”
“Censor!”
I changed my vote to no. It was me against everyone else. I don’t know if the play was ever performed, we moved. But it’s always bothered me an ignorant windbag thought I was a censor for agreeing with the author of the work.
I suppose this underscores Marcia’s point–it’s not really about core knowledge as much as about breaking down cultural and moral norms for I don’t know what purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Have your ever noticed how dirt collects under your fingernails? So sexualization collects in Public Education.
Report comment to moderator
I still don’t understand how liberals expect kids to “just say no” to illegal drugs and legal-drug abuse, underage drinking, driving while drunk, stealing, driving recklessly, etc. etc., but they encourage them to say “yes” to sex at a young age. It’s a mixed message. “Have some self-discipline! No, you don’t have to have self-discipline!” No wonder many kids these days have appalling behaviors. There’s no consistency.
Report comment to moderator
#1: I’m not down with most sex ed, but what you wrote is rank hyperbole:
Who cares if they cannot read.
Answer: everybody. Including the folks pushing this sex ed program.
Get them sexualized so that they will view life only in terms of pursuing pleasure for themselves.
First, I’d respond that kids are already “sexualized”, depending on how you define that term. Certainly 14 year olds are. Second, I highly doubt this sex ed curriculum advocates viewing life solely in terms of pursuing pleasure for one’s self.
One more thing, forget the three “R”s
Again, this bill’s backers aren’t pushing it at the expense of basic skills.
but we must still be sure to tell them that they are just animals
Back this up. I’ve read some sex ed curricula, and I’ve never seen one that advances this idea.
and that their existence is an accident of nature and nothing really matters except satisfying themselves.
Same as above. Sex ed classes usually don’t delve into cosmological issues of creation, or advocate an extreme form of hedonism.
Report comment to moderator
A little clarity and honesty is needed here. The proposed bill stipulates a mandatory health class and allows for exemption if the student received health education in middle school. Sex ed is only one part of health education – it also includes nutrition, relationships, drugs and alcohol.
Segelstein’s own article only discusses the intentions of one group who as she notes is not connected to any gov’t agency. She includes a 20 year old quote of a former president of this organization (with no context) which seems to serve only one purpose – to shock the reader. The guidelines recommended by this group are a bit much especially for the younger grades – there is nothing to suggest that these recommendations have anything to do with Conn’s proposed health ed curriculum other than an aura of guilt by association Segelstien’s is attempting to create.
Finally, as the college presentation occurred now and was a one-off presentation it has nothing to do with the upcoming curriculum change so again mentioning it here only serves to taint the proposed health curriculum.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an idea!
Let’s exempt schools from teaching sex ed until they get a better handle on the 3 Rs and all the basic stuff measured by ACT/SAT ea year. Its akin to not letting the govt take over health care until they can operate the post office or Amtrak at at least break even tempo.
Report comment to moderator
I’d love to see sex ed curriculum taught in churches, synagogues mosques etc.
It certainly would do better THERE than any gummint skool house
Report comment to moderator
It is taught at our church, which is one of the reasons I wasn’t worried about my kids not sitting through sex ed every year of junior and senior high.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass wrote; “…kids are already “sexualized”, depending on how you define that term.”
Kids are vulnerable and innocent with regard to sex (until they are overly sexualized by adults and others). This should be protected and the partent should be the gatekeeper for what gets through that gate and when and how.
But you are WRONG if you think that all kids are already sexualized. Some are actually still under an umbrella of legitimate and healthy protection. But, sadly, TV and other resources are violating their innocence left and right. But mostly left (smile).
Barack Obama actually advocates sex-ed for kindergarten kids and has said so in no uncertain terms (while mocking Alan Keyes for having a different view).
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass,
Keep in mind that my earlier comments were of a big picture and cultural nature. I think there is a worldview that is behind the pre-mature public agenda of sexualizing children. It’s a mind-set that presumes that there is no intelligent design or purpose to our existence and that life began as a chemical accident and we are just animals a bit higher on the food chain than other animals (Darwinism).
And if we are just animals, then live to satisfy yourself… until you die. This is why some are so intolerable toward those who speak of self-discipline, morality and fidelity. This is why those who believe that sex is sacred get so much ridicule from some on the left.
Report comment to moderator
I think the word “sexualize” deserves definition.
Pre-pubescent boys can have erections. At some point, even when outside influences are absent, children of both sexes (though usually boys) discover self-stimulation.
We are sexual beings from birth. There’s no getting around that. Clearly there are God-ordained boundaries on the ways in which we may express ourselves sexually; I’m not debating that.
What I’m rejecting is the idea that 14 year olds, in the absence of outside influences, are basically asexual, and that a class with appropriate material would “sexualize” them in a way they weren’t already.
I’ll agree with you that inappropriate content in a sex ed class would expose some 14 year olds to stuff they probably haven’t considered and don’t really need to know about at that age. Which is basically the reason I’m against most sex ed; the content almost always strays outside the bounds of what I’d consider necessary and appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
As the author of the commentary, I’d like to correct some misinformation in comment #6, by HRW. The proposed legislation does not offer any exemptions. Some students may, under certain circumstances, be allowed to complete the requirement in middle school. However, they would still have to take “comprehensive health education,” which includes sex education.
The second paragraph of the comment refers to my article in Salvo magazine. The organization in question is SIECUS, the Sexuality Information Education Council of the U.S. SIECUS is the primary provider of sex ed materials to schools in the U.S. The quote is from a former president of SIECUS, Wardell Pomeroy. In 1981 he told a magazine, and I quote: “In father-daughter incest, the daughter’s age makes all the difference. The older she is, the likelier it is that the experience will be a positive one. The best sort of incest of all, surprisingly enough, is that between a son and a mother who is really educating him sexually, and who then encourages him to go out with girls.”
I will leave it to readers to decide whether any context is needed.
Report comment to moderator
I had a tough time picking the dumbest post and the dumbest thread, though of course, I can come up with the dumbest comment with one of my heads tied behind my back.
Humans are oversexed. This makes sense in evolutionary terms. When we were few and primitive (as opposed to many and primitive and well-armed), it made sense that we fornicated like crazed weasels from an early age. Perhaps it all makes sense to God, too, though comprehending God’s thinking on this beats me, though I am sure it is perfectly clear to all of you.
Perhaps modern genetic science and pharmacological science will come up with a way to turn our sex drive off until we are 25 or so. Think of the ceremony we could have when a child gets their sex drive activated. Beats a bar mitzvah by a long way!
Report comment to moderator
Wherever Hollywood goes, so goes the Education system.
Report comment to moderator
Marcia,
Thank you for participating. Your clarity and honesty are to be commended.
Report comment to moderator
Wardell Pomeroy, American sexologist and a co-author of the Kinsey reports–which was exposed as having paid criminals to have sex with their children and then report to the Kinsey team for data collection (which they then reported as normal sexual activity).
Yeah I remember that whole thing. It still makes me sick.
I’m glad he is deceased.
Report comment to moderator
HRW is CANADIAN
Please tell us about your experiences with American sex ed classes?
And if you have children?
Report comment to moderator
““Oh yeah, baby” and “Nah, not for me.””
Yes, let’s defend this! By all means!
Report comment to moderator
#18
What does my nationality and my parental status have to do with my ability to comment on Segelstein’s journalistic ability?
As I suggested and she confirmed, students are exempt from the high school requirement if they took it already in middle school. Secondly, its not sex ed but health education. Finally the quote which she still seems to think is relevant is twenty years old — what purpose does it serve in this article? Is the author of the quote, an ex-president of an organization that provides sex ed material, in any way involved in the current state of sex ed. Since News2me states that he is dead, I hardly understand the relevance.
For the record I do have an 12 year old daughter. I have taught health according to the Ontario curriculum for over 10 years and in reading the suggested SEICUS outline as given by Segelstien in her linked article, I felt qualified to compare. As I stated their recommendations for younger grades are a bit much but most of their suggestions for the 12- 15 year olds line up with what I’ve taught. For the last 5 years I’ve taught this material to a diverse classroom including conservative Muslim girls. With a little tact and openness, I’ve encountered very few objections and no complaints after the fact.
As for the college students — somebody had a really bad idea — health classes should be taught by those who are qualified.
Report comment to moderator
When the school,s cannot teach the three R’s properly they are not to be trusted teaching anything else. Period.
Buddy Glass, your post shows a high degree of wearing blinders.
Report comment to moderator
When the schools cannot teach the three R’s properly they are not to be trusted teaching anything else. Period.
Buddy Glass, your post shows a high degree of wearing blinders.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, what you said was; “The proposed bill stipulates a mandatory health class and allows for exemption if the student received health education in middle school.”
What Marcia said in response was, “The proposed legislation does not offer any exemptions.”
She was correcting what she considered to be misinformation from you about the proposed bill itself.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “its not sex ed but health education.”
I consider this a dishonest dichotomy. The content proves this wrong.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, one purpose of the article was to convey the ongoing unhealthy influence of Kinsey, and he goes back MORe than 20 years. If the author considers his ongoing influence to be a factor, she would certainly consider a mere 20 year old legacy to also be relevant to point out. The origins of the sex-ed movement in America are dispicably fraudulent and corrosive. And that goes back much more than just 20 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
#21: Alright. So no history. No science. No foreign language. No music. No government. No computer science. Gotcha.
What is your metric for judging whether a given school is “teaching the three Rs properly”?
Report comment to moderator
Joel — the bill does allow a person to be exempt from high school health if they took a similar course in middle school. That’s not misinformation, that’s the language of the bill. And since the content of middle school health is different than secondary school health, in essence this is an exemption.
The bill states “health education” it does not state “sex education”. Now you or Segelstein can make assumptions on what this implies, but until the curriculum is handed out, that’s all you are doing making assumptions. Given that health education traditionally includes nutrition and drug education, I made a safe assumption by correcting her terminology.
I checked
http://www.madison.k12.ct.us/publications/healthcurr.pdf
Turn to page 12-13 for the goals — it includes nutrition, drug education and first aid as well as sex ed.
To include that particular quote served no other purpose than fear mongering.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “A little clarity and honesty is needed here.”
You were implying that Marcia Segelstein was lacking in “clarity and honesty.” I have not read the bill itself and I prefer to let Marcia speak for herself (which she did well at #13) but it sounds like a technical quibble between you and her and the wording of the bill, a quibble that did not call for you to draw the inference you seemed to draw about her honesty. She made the comment about your “misinformation” AFTER you called her honesty into question.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “The bill states “health education” it does not state ’sex education’.”
So what? Whoever wrote the bill WANTS it to pass and knows that an fully honest wording would mitigate against that. The bill’s “choice” of words is just politics as usual. It is in fact sex education in profoundly all too explicit ways. We know that from a 50 year record and from the extremist aims and nature of the institutions behind it. Saying otherwise does not change that. A rose by any other name wll smell as sweet, or stink as bad in this case.
Report comment to moderator
Omit the “n” in “a fully honest wording…”
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t teaching the children all about sex a major theme in Huxley’s “Brave New World?”
Report comment to moderator
That a former president of the primary provider of sex ed materials to schools in the U.S. thought incest was a positive part of sex education is what I would call very relevant. It speaks to the philosophy of the group. Perhaps the group’s philosophy has changed dramatically – in that case, I say, redo the entire organization, or at least rename the danged thing, so as to distance it from this sordid past. From what I read occasionally about the Ku Klux Klan, they tell us outsiders that they’re not racist – they’re for nation and morality. But I would vote “no” on their being given a fiat to teach black history in elementary school.
Report comment to moderator
Marcia: I will leave it to readers to decide whether any context is needed.
Well yeah, it is. I looked up the quote, as I always do when such claims are made, to see if there were words before or after the comment that might change the implication. In this case, there were not. The speaker, Wardell Pomeroy, was clearly a perv defending incest.
BUT:
As you yourself belatedly admit, the quote was from 1981, nearly 30 years ago. Pomeroy died in 2001, so he obviously has nothing to do with the curriculum here.
So does the sex ed being contemplated here teach incest as a sometimes normal and healthy thing? If it does, then attack it for that on its own terms. If it doesn’t, then dragging Pomeroy’s sentiments into the debate is blatant guilt-by-association that is unjust and dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
Where’s the time in the school week (month, semester) to include sex education in the curriculum?
After all, the school days from August to June are only so many.
Even if it somehow had its merits (it does NOT have its merits), sex education, is not a foundational subject.
Folks, we’re losing. We’ve so crowded-out tough mathematics, tough science, hard-hitting computer science, writing skills, communication skills, meaningful English, Literature, and other humanities that we now have to hire students from abroad for engineering, manufacturing, IT, medical, and construction jobs.
Great job, America!
Intimate human behavior is a topic SOLELY for the parents. Just like most aspects of an upbringing.
Intimate and private have lost their value and meaning if discussed as casually in a classroom as tectonic plates, the solar system, the Pythagorean Theorem, and a Shakespeare play.
And, frankly, I care not if the parents (or guardians) fail to discuss this at home.
Perhaps this is too bad for the kid. We should not care. That is a matter for the home.
If the schoolgirl gets pregnant, automatic disenrollment WITH the boy who did it.
Just like drug use or possession.
Just like an act of violence (criminal).
[America is indeed the Land of Second Chances; if the kid wises up and gets his or her life together, there can always be the chance to work toward the GED.]
A school is for learning. And a curriculum must have no soft spots. Classes are not rectifying every potential social issue that comes along.
Or depriving a parent of what MUST ONLY be a parent-child discussion.
A child coming to school with all kinds of impediments (STDs, addictions, pregnancy etc.) to learning is a bit like showing up to a soccer game with no shoes, shin guards, or socks. The child’s condition disqualifies from participation.
We accept this sporting situation as the rules of the game. Why the inconsistencies when it comes to the academic program?
Take the harder line, AND teen pregnancies WILL drop.
The same for drugs.
Otherwise I am for much higher pay for junior high and high school teachers. My goodness! We expect these teachers to have every conceivable roadblock thrown their way, yet somehow achieve discipline in the classroom & 80% of material in the course syllabus?
That’s called: Mission Impossible
(But certainly NO higher pay for the liberal, sex-championing, anything-goes, delusional teachers.)
Education fundamentals must be the focus in an already handicapped school calendar year. Always. Every day. With tough testing. Big homework assignments. Tough academic standards. And teachers who consistently challenge the kids academically.
But if a sex education course is “fair game” for curriculum inclusion, how about a course on the lies, deceit, narcissism, debauchery, and hedonism as portrayed by TV programs, movies, and MTV with inclusion of a “Where Are they Now?” focus on how all these now 50-something rockers (the featured “artists” on MTV or in movies of the 1980 & 90’s) and actors are now in drug, alcohol, depression, and substance rehab or how they have either already expired through premature death or committed suicide? Divorces? Single parents? Abandoned kids? Criminal records? Penniless and vagabonds? Dead from a shootout? (all those cool rappers)
A ‘Fair & Balanced’ curriculum for all?
(Thank goodness for loving home schoolers.)
Report comment to moderator
Interesting post Carl ………..
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!