For one, it's too comprehensive. Once upon a time, it was more
strictly biological. Now it's used a tool to complete the sexual
revolution. The Public Discourse
has a good take-down of modern sex-education,
and how it traces its roots to a bunch of frauds and quacks (Kinsey,
Calderone, and Money) whose research was dubious at best. Kinsey's
explicit goal was not to educate society, but rather to propagandize it
and change it (at the time, his research was rejected by most reputable
scientists but widely disseminated by the publishers of "popular"
opinion). A few fisked excerpts, then my comments:
Once
upon a time, sex education was a simple biology lesson. Students
learned the facts of life, and, with those facts, that sex is part of
something bigger, called marriage. Teachers explained that this was the
moral and healthy way to live.
In
those days, people understood that men and women are different, and
that their union is unique, unlike any other relationship. It went
without saying that boys grew up to become men, and girls, women.
There
were only two sexually transmitted diseases, and having one was a
serious matter. Certain behaviors were not normal; individuals who
practiced them needed help, and a child’s innocence was precious.
Things have changed.
There
used to be only two STD's. Now there are myriad uncounted STIs. How's
that sexual revolution working out for ya? And remember, we can't turn
back the clock.
Now we have comprehensive sexuality education. It includes
discussion of identity, gender, reproductive rights, and discrimination.
Children learn that they’re sexual from birth, and that the proper time
for sexual activity is when they feel ready. They’re taught that they
have rights to pleasure, birth control, and abortion.
The terms husband and wife aren’t used, the union of man and woman is
one of several options, and morality? Well, that’s judging, and judging
is not allowed.
You won’t find much biology in sexuality education, but there’s
voluminous information on the varieties of sexual expression, the pros
and cons of different contraceptives and abortions, and the harms of
gender stereotypes.
Gender itself is a complicated matter. A boy might turn into a man, a
woman, or something else. A girl might feel she was born in the wrong
body, and want her breasts removed. This is all normal, children learn....And childhood innocence? Forget it! Material created for children makes most adults uncomfortable.
On websites recommended to students, nothing is taboo—sadomasochism,
polyamory, and what were once called “deviant” behaviors . . . they’re
all good.
Here is why conservatives are suspicious of "comprehensive" sex-education, in a nutshell.
This is (literally) Brave New World material, and it represents so many
lies, so much propaganda being forced down our children's throats. Oh,
but remember, it's conservatives forcing our morality down other
people's throats. When they do it, it's called "broadening their
horizons" or "opening their minds" or some other euthemistic nonsense.
Modern sex ed began in the sixties. It was based on Alfred Kinsey’s
model of human sexuality. Thanks to the brilliant and courageous work of
Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Kinsey was both a fraud and a
deeply disturbed individual.
For Kinsey, it was anything goes when it came to sexuality, and I mean anything.
He believed, for example, that pedophiles were misunderstood, and their
punishments unjust. “Sexuality is not an appetite to be curbed,” Kinsey
insisted. He taught that, and he lived it....
Kinsey was afflicted at his core. He was a depraved human being, and
his emotional illness expressed itself through his sexuality. He was
consumed by a grotesque, debilitating obsession with a wide range of
abnormal behaviors—I’ll spare you the details, but I doubt very much
that in all the 62 years of Kinsey’s miserable life he knew even one day of what we would consider healthy sexuality.
Alfred Kinsey had a dream. He would prove to the world—and himself—that his lifestyle was normal. Average. Typical.
It was society that was at fault, with its religions, moral
codes, and restrictions. Society made people feel guilty for following
their natural urges, and that was unhealthy. Kinsey’s dream was to free
people from those destructive institutions—to free the “human animal.”
He did thousands of interviews, crunched the numbers, and concluded that
most people practiced forbidden sexual behaviors. The average mom and
dad were living a double life, just like he was.
His conclusions were widely questioned by leading scientists, but the
criticism didn’t seem to matter. The popular press accepted Kinsey’s
reports, and his books were best-sellers. A revolution was spawned and
western culture transformed.
But his research was fundamentally flawed. His samples were too small
and the demography was badly skewed. He excluded some populations and
focused on others—most notably, imprisoned felons. His subjects were
preselected, since he relied on volunteers for his data.
Enter
our first villain. Others followed. Today, they are myriad, often
well-heeled and well-respected. But in the end, nothing has changed.
What’s so astonishing is that these men, these very disturbed men,
using fraudulent data and theories that have been discredited, succeeded
in transforming much of society. Today’s sexuality education is based
on their teachings.
Once I understood who the founders were—Kinsey, Calderone, Pomeroy,
Money, and others—I understood how we got to today’s “comprehensive
sexuality education.” I knew how we had reached today’s madness.
It came from disturbed individuals with dangerous ideas—radical
activists who wanted to create a society that would not only accept
their pathology, but celebrate it!
These men were pedophiles. It was in their interest to see children
as miniature adults who enjoyed sexual contact, and had the right to
consent to it, without other adults, or the law, interfering.
Again, this is why conservatives are so suspicious of comprehensive sex education. We've already seen some of this
come to head, for example the Catholic Church's widely publicized
sex-abuse scandal, and (for those paying attention) in the various wider
but less-publicized sex abuse crises facing virtually every other
institution which works with minors (from other religious organizations
to the thoroughly secular public schools system).
I'm
not going to use this post to advocate for abstinence-only sex
education, or abstinence-based sex education: these two systems are also
flawed in their own way, the latter more than the former, and neither
nearly so much so as comprehensive sex education. All three are
ultimately forms of indoctrination rather than education, though
abstinence-only can at least claim to be indoctrinating for the good of
the children.
What I would advocate is some return to
focus a bit more on the (hard) science of sex--biology, some discussion
of the diseases involved and how they are transmitted--and if it can be
done in an honest manner, how these various diseases arose. (Hint: it's
not for lack of contraception in general nor condoms in particular,
which was neither so widely available nor so efficacious in 1950 when
there were two STDs as today when there are two dozen common STIs). The
straightforward biological (and historical) facts of the matter are
things which might plausibly be taught with impugning the moral
authority of the parents. It goes far enough that it could credibly
convince a teenager that maybe sex should wait, or that maybe he should
use a condom, without necessarily biasing him to either of these two
moral options
That biasing should come primarily from
parents with secondary support from religious leaders. It will
unfortunately also come in part form peers, which with the schools
become the de facto primary sources of "moral biasing" when parents and
preachers abdicate on this point. In any case, it should be obvious that
"comprehensive sex education" is meant to be "thorough sex
indoctrination," with an emphasis on getting the poor kids to give up
their innocence before their time is come.
