Printer friendly version

February 8, 2005

The Evolution of a Masturbatory Society

Lane Core's first anniversary Blogworthies highlights several interesting posts, among them this bit of perspective from Craig Henry:

Look at it this way: When a school board anywhere promotes Intelligent Design or Creationism, the education establishment, the MSM, and most of the blogosphere react with a combination of indignation and mockery. Fair enough. Bad science is in no one's interest.

But that same education establishment has erected a vast sex-ed structure whose foundations are based on bad science and reckless propaganda. (Not just Kinsey, but also works like Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa.) This, apparently, is OK.

Apart from the sex-ed industry, apart from the active interest (in large part toward developing a customer base) of such groups as Planned Parenthood, the necessity for teachers to instruct children about sex has become an article of faith among educators. Although my memories are vague, I recall at least two movies that I saw in my youth dealing with small towns accepting the modern awareness that children shouldn't learn about sex in traditional ways — the mild mannered teacher as the guide to a more sexually enlightened future.

As the National Education Association Health Information Network (NEA HIN) puts it on its 2004 Sexual Health Fact Sheet (PDF):

The Association recognizes that sensitive sex education can be a positive force in promoting physical, mental, emotional, and social health and that the public school must assume an increasingly important role in providing the instruction. ... Students want more information about sexuality than their parents typically provide, including how to handle pressure to have sex and how to know when they are ready.

The fact sheet also advises school systems to follow the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (PDF). Among "the specific information young people need to learn" between the ages of five and eight is that "Masturbation should be done in a private place." This brings to mind a great point from Craig Henry's post:

Very few high school students will ever "use" Darwinian theory in the real world. But teen-age hormones ensure that the "lessons" kids learn (or don't learn or aren't taught) about sex, marriage, and promiscuity matter a great deal.

Perhaps it wouldn't be irrational to wonder why the sex ed. establishment is so keen to give its "useful" information to children for whom teen-age hormones seem as far away as a diploma.

Posted by Justin Katz at February 8, 2005 12:35 AM

"Perhaps it wouldn't be irrational to wonder why the sex ed. establishment is so keen to give its 'useful' information to children for whom teen-age hormones seem as far away as a diploma." Recruitment?

Posted by: ELC at February 8, 2005 7:41 AM

There are two convergent threads here: 1) the libertine view that everyone must indulge their sexual impulses as early as possible (and whenever possible), and 2) the liberal view that the state must provide, and that parents are incompetent. Anybody else see the conflict here?

Posted by: Mike S. at February 8, 2005 3:35 PM

I don't understand what you are upset about here. Would you rather that kids not understand sex, and arrive at puberty and have to figure things out for themselves?

I see nothing in what you have referenced that in any way proposes a "view that everyone must indulge in their sexual impulses as early as possible." The advice "Masturbation should be done in a private place" seems like it is more aimed at stopping what is a relatively common thing: young kids who discover that touching themselves feels good, but don't realize that its innappropriate, and thus do it in school or other public places.

As far as the liberal view that "parents are incompetent," the truth of the matter is, for many children, parents do not teach them about sex, or simply aren't around at all. I don't think that Sex Ed is intended to replace children talking to their parents, but for those kids who would otherwise not receive that benefit, it works to educate, so that kids don't grow up and learn by doing, and have unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease in the process.

For some reason, most Catholics seem think that ignorance will lead to abstinance. This is a foolish belief, and anyone who looks at the real world will see that the evidence is there.

Posted by: Ooya at February 8, 2005 4:08 PM


You don't need a formal school-based sex ed. curriculum for 5–8 year-olds in order to teach them that they shouldn't touch themselves in public. There's a difference between "don't do that here" and "do that in private." There's a difference between dealing with children who've discovered that touching parts of their bodies feels good and making sure that all students are aware of the fact (as the SIECUS guidelines instruct).

I don't believe that children should hit puberty ignorant. What I believe is that it's a dangerous bit of usurpation for government schools to decide that it is their purview to give it to them — for a teacher to explain "how to know when they are ready" for sex when a parent might have offered an answer that the teen found too restrictive: e.g., "not yet under any circumstances."

It's a nifty trick that's been pulled off. Under the excuse that some children receive inadequate guidance, the education establishment has pulled sex ed. under its umbrella. Unfortunately, the space under that umbrella is taken to be impenetrable for anything that could be remotely taken as a religious tenet, so what kids get is sex ed. built on the assumption of a God-free society with relative morals. ("Some people do X, although other people think X is wrong. As the authority figure charged with teaching you about this topic, I can only tell you that there's nothing unnacceptable about doing X, and that even if your parents teach you that it is wrong, you should be sure to behave as if it is not. Furthermore, if you do do X, then you should take the following steps.")

Note the one-way limitation of this supposed separation of church and state even in your comment. You declare as "foolish" (what you think is) the Catholic thinking, and therefore it is not admissible to public education. Implicitly, anybody whose worldview raises doubts about the "foolishness" must accept that the government believes they are wrong, and that by default the government will teach that lesson to any children whose parents choose not to single them out through exemption.

Surely there are ways to ensure that kids who face adverse circumstances receive information that they lack without commandeering such a personal, culturally crucial, and ultimately faith-based area as sex ed. into the realm of government. Otherwise, and liberals don't seem to believe this is possible, a relatively minor shift in the public mood will result in strict moralism's being taught to all students, unless their liberal parents wish to single their children out.

Posted by: Justin Katz at February 8, 2005 4:51 PM

If I may enter the fray,

It is not about educating our kids about 'sex ed' to teenagers that educators really care about. It is first and foremost about indoctrination to the liberal ideology with the goal of normalizing homosexual lifestyles as early as possible. And to do it they hide behing nice words like 'multiculturalism' or 'diversity'.

I have posted at length how they hide behind these nice words to blind unsuspecting parents to their true intentions. Please check out my very own personal story where my almost 5 year old came very close to having this 'normalization' introduced to him via educators paid with federal/state tax money. As you read my post, remember that the word "Christmas" has been pretty much outlawed in public schools, but yet these ideas are encouraged against the wishes of parents.

Link to the post:

Posted by: KelliPundit at February 8, 2005 11:23 PM

Sorry, My post above somehow made it on the wrong thread. I will repost.

Posted by: KelliPundit at February 9, 2005 12:01 AM

"It is first and foremost about indoctrination to the liberal ideology with the goal of normalizing homosexual lifestyles as early as possible. And to do it they hide behing nice words like 'multiculturalism' or 'diversity." Isn't that what I said? :-)

Posted by: ELC at February 9, 2005 1:49 PM

my related comments here: Liberals have won the cultural wars.

Posted by: Alessandra at February 14, 2005 2:36 PM