Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, pulls the lid of respectability off they myth of modern sex education.
The social engineers thought they could do better than the parents, so in the 1950s we allowed them to begin experimenting with our children.
Did it work?
But, what are the post-1960s sex education results? Sex ed's success or failure is measured based on what professionals claimed they would do better than mom and dad.
Sex educators claimed their programs, begun in the '60s would lower already low STDs, "illegitimacy," thus illegal abortions, sex crime rates, divorces and general sexual disaffection.
The hard data are statistically clear.
We have epidemic teen STDs, unplanned pregnancies, abortions, sex crimes (teen and child victims and teen perpetrators), pandemic divorces as well as sexually related throat, cervical and other cancers, teen pornography use, sale and production, teen suicide, sexual and nonsexual homicides, myriad new forms of sexual disaffection and sexual abuse, including teen prostitution, addiction, obesity, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and general despair. Sexual positivity has not reduced trauma.
Miriam Grossman, a veteran campus physician, says Bristol Palin's motherhood certainly got her safely out of the college "hook up culture." Our girls are paying "a hefty price: genital warts and blisters, pre-cancerous conditions … HIV" while on birth control pills and condoms, she says.
Teaching children to have "safe sex" is like teaching them to do "safe drugs." Buy from a reputable dealer. Use clean needles. Sure.
We tell our children to say no to drugs. We tell our children to say no to drinking. We tell our children to say no to driving in a reckless manner. We tell our children to say no to crime. But when it comes to sex, we tell them don't do it...but if you do, do it "safely."
What message is that really sending?
I think we know, because Reisman listed the results above.
The net result:
Remember, the '50s were not paradise; life never is. Yet sexual health was measurably better then than now – even though birth control was not easily available to single people and even though abortion was illegal.
Corrie ten Boom tells an illustrative story about the wisdom parents used to have in her autobiography, The Hiding Place.
When she was a young girl and came across the words "sex sin" in a poem, she asked her father about it:
And so, seated next to Father in the train compartment, I suddenly asked, "Father, what is sex sin?"
He turned to look at me, as he always did when answering a question, but, to my surprise, he said nothing. At last he stood up, lifted his traveling case from the rack over our heads, and set it on the floor.
"Will you carry it off the train, Corrie?" he asked.
I stood up and tugged at it. It was crammed with watches and spare parts he had purchased that morning.
"It's too heavy," I said.
"Yes," he said. "And it would be a pretty poor father who would ask his little girl to carry such a load. It's the same way, Corrie, with knowledge. Some knowledge is too heavy for children. When you are older and stronger, you can bear it. For now you must trust me to carry it for you."
Yes, it is too great a burden for the ones being taught about this (or rather, mistaught), and too great a burden even for the older ones when you tell them everything will be fine even if they take it on outside the proper setting.
We have perpetrated--and continue to perpetrate--a grave harm on the children of America.
13 comments:
We tell our kids not to do drugs, but they do them anyway. We tell our kids not to drink alcohol, but they do it anyway. But when it comes to sex, why do we honestly expect kids not to do it when we tell them not to? When will we finally understand that if you tell a teenager not to do something, we're actually giving him MORE incentive to do it, and that the less informed teenagers are about sex, the more likely they are to end up sick or pregnant?
Teens are going to have sex, regardless of what we tell them. Once you get that through your head, the next logical step is to give them the education and contraception necessary to protect themselves from becoming the next Bristol Palin, America's new poster child for how "successful" abstinence-only education really is.
Alex, might I inquire as to how many children you have? And tell me... do you feel that I have a right to tell you how you will raise your children and what decisions you will make in their behalf? After all, don't I know better than YOU how to raise YOUR children?
Carrie,
I have no children. Does that invalidate my opinion? Is parenthood a prerequisite for having a say in what children should be taught? Keep in mind, you said yourself in another thread that being a parent does not necessarily mean you know what's best for children.
To answer your second question, yes, you have the right to tell me how I will raise my children and what decisions I should make for them. However, I have the right to ignore you.
As for your third question, if I did have children, of course you would think you could raise a gay man's children better than he could - if you would allow me to have any in the first place! ;-)
I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you what specific things you think children/teenagers should and should not be taught about sexuality, STDs, and contraception. If you had your way, what would they be allowed to know?
Apparenlty by your logic, Alex (7:45 comment), we shouldn't bother telling our kids not to do drugs, drink, drive fast, touch hot stoves, play with snakes or anything else, because "they're just going to do it anyway." Nice parenting strategy.
The reality is that good moral and practical instruction won't prevent every transgression, but it will prevent many.
And if the rest of society (music, movies, TV, books, magazines, schools, government programs, etc.) would work with parents in instilling moral values instead of against them, the message would be far more consistent and far more likely to be heeded.
Bob,
Yeah, I guess my first comment was kind of stupid.
Anywho, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Carrie: what do you think teenagers should and shouldn't learn about sex, STDs, and contraception? If you had your way, what would they be allowed to know?
On my way out the door, but real quick: anything age-appropriate. I.e. if they were around puberty, how reproduction occurs, along with the hazards of having sex outside marriage (pregnancy, STDs, etc).
They don't need to know all the ins and outs of contraception at that age, though as they progress through their teen years and get closer to marrying age, more contraceptive knowledge may be in order--along with repeated admonitions and warnings of the consequences of premarital sex.
In short, clinical information, and solid moral guidance.
"To answer your second question, yes, you have the right to tell me how I will raise my children and what decisions I should make for them. However, I have the right to ignore you."
Alex, you don't seem to understand that it isn't as simple as you keep saying. You ignore what DFS says and they can come in and take your children. You ignore what the school says and they can report you to DFS because they don't like you not abiding by their ideology.
Don't try throwing the gay issue into the conversation. That had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make and you know it.
My way is to let the parents decide when their children are ready for what information, rather than the school making the decision with a one size fits all mentality.
Children mature at different rates just because they do. There is no reason to encourage them to grow up any faster than necessary or force sex-related information on them if they are not ready to learn of it or not yet in need of knowing.
But again... parents should have the right to make decisions with regard to their children, rather than outsiders making decisions on matters that actually should be none of their business.
It's one thing to get involved when a child is being abused and quite another for government agencies (including schools) to force their child-rearing opinions on others.
Carrie,
Maybe we're both oversimplifying the issue...
What if an ignorant, uneducated parent teaches her child wildly inaccurate information about sex, even if she has good intentions? Let's say she homeschools her child and gets all of her sex education material from an unregulated and untrustworthy website. Are you suggesting that we should stand by and allow it to happen? According to you, this is the parent's legal right and we have to respect it, which means it's not our place to impose our opinions onto her - even if ours happen to be correct and fact-based.
Or worse yet, what if a parent simply chooses not to teach her child about sex AT ALL?
At what point should someone take up the responsibility? Who should do it? Who should pay for it?
Should we just *trust* that parents will teach their kids about sex? As a former police officer, surely you have come across some parents who were clearly not able or even willing to do so. Will you let those children continue growing up without the necessary information to make responsible and safe sexual decisions?
Alex, I thought about responding with a smart-alex remark after reading your comments, but shall strive not to be as rude as you have been on many occasions.
The hypothetical you presented is liken a worse case scenario, though not the worse I could think of. It is not the norm and therefore there is no reason for over-reaction and outsiders taking control as though it is.
I suppose there are areas in this country where "home schooling" means (and involves) a standard not acceptable by either the editor of this publication or the readers that do support home schooling rights. I would be naive to suggest anything different. However, I also have no doubt that DFS workers (by whatever titles) might be a bit hesitant to tread within those territories in their attempt to force their way upon all.
With that said...
In the world-space that represents the norm -- home schooling is a very serious endeavor. What makes you think they don't excel in both academics and personal growth teachings? There are guidelines and standards that must be met. Your hypothetical is an insult to all the parents that respect and live up to the high standards required.
Alex, you are so worried about the children growing up without necessary information...
Do you have any concern about children growing up with too much unnecessary information, especially too much too fast?
Do you think "Girls Gone Wild" should be a required course for graduation?
Carrie,
I can't help it if you think it's insulting to call out certain parents on their incompetence or negligence of providing accurate sex ed. information to their kids.
You seem to have trouble giving a straight answer to any question I ask you. Either you respond with another question or make silly remarks about "Girls Gone Wild." My situation is hypothetical, yes, but the questions are not.
If a parent fails in his or her ability to provide sex education, at what point does it become someone else's business to step in and make sure that it happens? I don't care what the DFS would do; I want to know what YOU think.
The question doesn't even have to revolve around homeschooling. If you think that's too insulting, then simply consider what you want: you want parents to be the sole decision makers when it comes to sex ed. Ok, so what if a parent decides not to do anything at all?
I'll make it even easier for you, Carrie.
The situation I gave may be just a worst-case scenario, but describing it is not the same thing as proposing a solution. So, what is your solution?
Alex,
Being a parent brings with it enough obligations, stress and worries just because one is so responsible for a new life being brought into this world -- they really don't need all the extras thrown into the pot from the far-wingers from either side. Family should be able to get back to being family and parents back to being parents, without government interference that was never necessary in the first place.
To one of your questions...
I have no objection to sex education being provided in schools, or churches or even community centers as long as the parents have given their consent, have right to halt what they might feel is objectionable due to content and/or age concerns and things such as that.
My objection is schools and other government agencies over-riding the parents, for no other reason than they can.
I also feel that if any agency, or person, feels it has right to make decisions in spite of the parent objection -- that agency or person should be held accountable and obligated to make the person and family whole should said forced decision in fact a wrongful one. It should never be an "Oops!"
Have I missed anything in the concept of it all?
Post a Comment