Comprehensively Incomprehensible

The controversy over sex education is not going to diminish anytime soon. One reason is that the promoters of a “sex positive” culture—that is, a culture that embraces Aleister Crowley’s mantra to “Do What Thou Wilt”—continues to completely misrepresent what is fact in the debate over what content should be included in sex education programs. The article below claims that there is “compelling proof that comprehensive sex education has a hugely positive health impact.”

On its face, this is a ludicrous assertion. Tell me, what does the term “comprehensive” mean? The dictionary defines the term as “complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.” What research “proves” that teaching everything that there is to know about sex to children is good for their health? The truth is that there is no such proof. It doesn’t exist.

There is no consensus on what content at what ages should be taught to children. Both content and age appropriateness remain hotly debated.

At the core of the sex positive movement are the following: 1) children are sexual from birth, 2) that children have a right to engage in sexual activities whenever and with whomever they want, as long as there is mutual consent, and 3) that children should be encouraged to explore their sexuality as a means of determining their sexual orientation and identity.

We traditionalists assert that 1) children are born male and female, not sexual, 2) children have no legal or mental capability to make sound and reasoned judgments and, thus, have no capacity to grant consent, and 3) children should be encouraged to exercise self-control and self-discipline, delaying sexual activity until marriage.

Given these positions that are at opposite ends of the spectrum, debates over “comprehensive” or “abstinence only” are meaningless and simply avoid the issues. Disagreements over the content of sex education programs cannot be resolved until the purpose of sex education can be defined. The question is: should we focus on raising “sex positive” or self-controlled children?

I vote for self-controlled.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/sex_ed_in_the_age_of_fifty_shades_author_of_controversial_book_about_sex_speaks_out/

 

One thought on “Comprehensively Incomprehensible

  1. Years ago parents were told they could “opt out” and or “review the contents” of what was being taught .Both were lies of initiation and omission , intended to make parents more comfortable with the idea that the government was in charge and knows best.

    Every parent who has known their child from birth has the instinct and ability to gauge their individual child’s emotional and comprehensive development.
    Because a few parents have given up that responsibility , all must turn it over to the government to raise and educate their children ?
    My own Grandparents escaped from the former communist atheist soviet union for similar reasons.
    Sorry to say this, but communism did not die, it went global and was embraced by the same so called religious right politicians that continue the mantra that it is a dead form of governance. Many Democratic politicians openly embrace it’s ideology.
    So we decided differently and home schooled.

    During that time we were privileged to meet dozens of certified teachers, a Child Psychologist, Physicians and College Professors who also chose to home school.
    The teacher’s told us what they had been “work shopped ” to really teach and that the most vile content of sex education was in the referenced materials they were told to use and “NOT show to the parents as part of the curriculum.”

    At one seminar for parents we listened to women who worked for the lady linked below who was investigating the spread and content of sex ed in the schools. .
    Her “investigators ” enrolled in classes at a popular Catholic College in PA.
    These classes were for Graduate Degreed teachers who taught in Parochial High Schools.A series of five classes were given to instruct them on how to teach sex ed. During one of the sessions a Parochial HS teaching Nun stood up delighted to relay that she had already taught her students how to
    ,”… manually find their G spot and Bartholin glands using a mirror.”

    The investigating lady also said the first class was a series of practicing screaming out loud every street common foul slang that was related to genitalia and intercourse.
    After the third session , she said that she herself,”…. was so disgusted she could not in good conscience attend the last sessions.” and that ,”MOST of those enrolled were nuns but a few were lay teachers.” I believe the instructor for these classes was said to be a Sr Sheila from the LA Diocese.

    Another tireless lady whom I have long admired, is Charlotte Iserbyte.
    http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Thomson_Iserbyt

    We have come a very long way from the days when sex education was first offered as an opt out optional course! That quickly changed to mandatory.

    The more recent News in Fergusen seems to be providing the perfect excuse for government run , rather than local or state run, policing of the populace.
    But then,.my grandparents came here to escape from communism, right?

    Does sex ed work? Well yes just look at all the new STD’s that are rampant in our society.If Facebook is any indication ,long gone are the days when the teachers needed to “get comfortable” using profanities aloud because vile low class speech as become part of the common core in our society. Federal State Reps can even tweet “F U ” to the governors!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s