The View From 1776
§ American Traditions
§ People and Ideas
§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot
§ Books to Read
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Education for Sexual Promiscuity
Liberal-progressive educators want your children to become sexually active as early as possible.
Socialists historically have advocated what used to be called free love, today’s sexual promiscuity. See Hurrah for Sexual Promiscuity!
The reasons are obvious. Traditional families and individual morality stand in the way of the collectivized political state, whose leaders and bureaucrats must be the sole source of rules for personal conduct (with, of course, the counsel of the New York Times editorial board).
Families over the eons have taught sexual abstinence to their children, understanding that sexual promiscuity is the antithesis of family solidarity and survival. Individuals were taught, especially in Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian ethic, to heed their individual consciences.
But such standards are anathema to the liberal-progressive-socialist state. Good liberal-progressives must give their allegiance to the group, as in mass demonstrations, classroom sit-ins, and other emotional actions that stifle individual thought.
For that reason, John Dewey’s progressive-education methodologies, propagated by Columbia University Teachers’ College and adopted by the socialistic teachers’ unions, have enthusiastically promoted classroom sex education.
Needless to say, liberal-progressive-socialists vigorously oppose teaching sexual abstinence. Recent news articles tell us that Federal statistical analysis proves the preferability of explicit sex education that teaches young children how to use condoms and encourages them to experiment with “safe sex.”
The Wall Street Journal edition of December 6, 2007 reports:
U.S. Teen Birth Rate Rises
ATLANTA—In a reversal, the nation’s teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years, surprising government health officials who had no immediate explanation…
Several experts said they have been expecting a jump. They blame the shift on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health-education programs that don’t teach how to use contraception.
Apparently, however, the results depend upon what sort of sex education young students get. The Washington Times edition of December 20, 2007, tells us:
Sex-ed found to prolong teen virginity
A new study shows that sex education of any kind appears to be good for teens — as long as they get it while they’re young…
The researchers found that girls who were virgins when they received sex education were more likely to stay virgins than peers who didn’t have sex education. The virgins with sex education also were more likely to stay virgins past age 15, or 10th grade. The same effects were seen among boys.
Ashley Herzog explains what’s going on:
The sex-positive crowd is at it again. Energized by the news that the teen pregnancy rate went up three percent in 2005, they’ve gone to work blaming abstinence-only programs in schools. Abstinence programs are ineffective, they say—and they must be de-funded and replaced with contraception-based education.
They might be jumping the gun, since 18- and 19-year-olds accounted for most of the increase. The pregnancy rate among girls age 10 to 17 continued to decline, as it has every year since 1991. Still, there is no doubt that abstinence opponents will use the increase to push its version of sex education in schools.
Parents and educators should think carefully before taking their advice. As a researcher for Dr. Miriam Grossman, who is currently writing her second book about sexual health education, I’ve become familiar with the demands of the abstinence opponents. When it comes to sex ed, they have a very specific agenda in mind—and you can bet it won’t simply inform students about contraception. Instead, they’re itching to implement programs that actively encourage kids to have sex.
Consider the CDC-funded “Programs that Work,” which were introduced to schools a few years ago. Rather than simply teaching students about condoms, these sex ed programs actually required ninth- and tenth-graders to go out and buy them. The curricula included school-sponsored field trips to family planning clinics and drugstores to compare condom brands—preferably with a partner. As the program advised, “Go to the store together. Buy lots of different brands and colors. Plan a special day when you can experiment.” I wonder if they got extra credit for actually using the condoms on school grounds.
Abstinence opponents like to say that they’re not encouraging teens to have sex, they simply want them to be fully informed. Last year, a school-sponsored speaker at Boulder High School in Colorado promptly put an end to that myth. During a panel discussion on teen sexuality, the speaker explained to the students—some as young as 14—that he was “different” from their other teachers because “I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately.”
What gets lost in the shuffle is an incontrovertible historical fact. Before the 1960s and 70s, when such sex education became the norm, out-of-wedlock pregnancies were so uncommon that such an occurrence stigmatized the unfortunate girl. Since then, sexual promiscuity and out-of-wedlock pregnancies have risen to levels never experienced before in history.
Back to summary...Tradition & Morality • (12) Comments • (0) Trackbacks
Print this Article • Email A Friend • Permalink
