Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Sex Ed Becomes Porn 101
Heritage Foundation ^ | 8/27/03 | Robert E. Rector

Posted on 09/01/2003 9:31:21 AM PDT by Jean S

It’s “Back To School” time again, and here’s the first pop quiz. No, it’s not for the kids. It’s for parents, and they have to answer only one question: Do you know what your children are learning in sex-education classes? If you’re like most parents, the answer is no. But if the program is billed as “abstinence-based,” you probably don’t feel particularly concerned. The important thing, as far as you’re concerned, is that your kids are being taught to say “no” to sex.

But are they? The fact is, nearly all of the government-funded abstinence-based or “abstinence-plus” programs delivered in schools nationwide contain little, if any, reference to abstinence. They may mention it briefly, but it’s often presented as something that (wink, wink) kids in the “real world” will ignore.

Far worse, though, is what abstinence-plus programs do contain: explicit demonstrations of contraceptive use -- especially condoms -- and direct encouragement to experiment sexually.

This despite the fact that parents consistently say they don’t want their children to be exposed to such messages. A recent Zogby poll found that three out of every four parents disapproved or strongly disapproved of abstinence-plus curricula. About the same number say they want their children to receive an authentic abstinence education.

More likely, though, their children are being exposed to programs such as “Focus on Kids” (which, like other abstinence-plus programs, is heavily promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Kids are told, among other things, to go on a “condom hunt” to local stores to survey the various types of family planning methods and ask: “What’s the cheapest price for three condoms?”

Focus on Kids also has teachers stage “condom races” between teams of students. (Warning: Explicit language ahead.) “Each person on the team must put the condom on the dildo or cucumber and take it off,” the program says. “The team that finishes first wins.” But intercourse isn’t the only topic on the agenda. Teachers are told to have the kids “brainstorm ways to be close. The list may include … body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines …”

Unfortunately, Focus on Kids isn’t the only program that takes such an approach. In “Becoming a Responsible Teen,” or B.A.R.T., kids get an education not only in condoms but in lubricants: “If you were trying to find something around the house, or at a convenience store, to use as a [lubricant] substitute, what would be safe? Why? … Some ‘grocery store’ lubricants are safe to use if they do not contain oil: grape jelly, maple syrup and honey.”

Then there’s the ironically named “Be Proud! Be Responsible!” program, which lists several ways teachers can show kids as young as 13 “how to make condoms fun and pleasurable.” For example, “once you and a partner agree to use condoms … go to the store together. Buy lots of different brands and colors. Plan a special day when you can experiment. Just talking about how you’ll use all of those condoms can be a turn-on.”

And who knows where you’ll be when the mood strikes? Perhaps that’s why the CDC-approved “Reducing the Risk” program advises teachers to tell kids, while they’re shopping for condoms, to “put down the store’s hours, too, because it may be important to know where to get protection at some odd hours.” There are also family-planning clinics, of course: Students who might worry about what Mom and Dad think are told, “you do not need a parent’s permission … no one needs to know that you are going to a clinic.”

It helps to engage in some “role playing,” too, according to the “Be Proud! Be Responsible!” program. Two females, “Tyceia” and “Felicia,” are told to “begin negotiating safer sex” together. They’ve been “sexually active with males in the past,” but now they can “accept” their bisexuality. Male students aren’t excluded: “Gerald” is told that “Allen has never used condoms. You want to have sex with him, but not without using condoms.”

It’s bad enough that these sex-ed programs hide under an abstinence-plus label while completely undermining what most parents want for their children. But when they encourage indiscriminate condom use and sexual experimentation, they’re sending kids a troubling message -- that we expect them to be sexually active and approve of it, provided it’s “safe.” And it’s all billed to you, the taxpayer. Is that what we want?



Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.

Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: abstinence; catholiclist; cdc; homosexualagenda; polls; porn; prisoners; recruiting; sexeducation; teens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last
To: pram
You really have to be very careful when you consider on-line charter schools offered by the state. Parents who use them are no longer homeschoolers and their children are public school students subjected to the same garbage as a child who attends a brick and mortar school.

I hope your friend passed the word along to her fellow homeschoolers (the real ones).

My brother in CA pulled his daughter out of a supposedly good public school and put her into a Christian school. He didn't like what was going on.
61 posted on 09/02/2003 9:03:11 AM PDT by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: pram
Yes, my post was about Florida.....11 years ago....

I stayed in touch with this curriculum at some level until he graduated from highschool.

The poster who made the statement that no one he/she knows has been subjected to this 'porno ed'.....and implied, therefore that it doesn't exist.

It exists where there is a void of involved parents watchdogging their children's schools.....!

And yes, it is Planned Parenthood trying to control the curriculum....

...Planned Parenthood.../ Sex Ed.....Follow the dots!!

62 posted on 09/02/2003 9:43:31 AM PDT by Guenevere (..., ..Press on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
It seems that the "gay lobby" (read: almost every person in show business...at least it seems) has made it chic to be gay. What I find weird and (of course) 100% hypocritical is that gay people talk about being born this way or it being a "lifestyle" choice. Ok, so why is it somehow "wrong", "uncool", or whatever to be a heterosexual?

The first law of homosexuality:

'Homosexuals' don't reproduce, they recruit

Also, no mention of the growing number of ex-'homosexuals' is ever tolerated. Funny how you can be recruited 'into' homosexuality but never, ever, ever cured out of it.

63 posted on 09/02/2003 11:22:16 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Should this kind of information only be provided to kids in private schools?

NO. It should not be provided to kids at all. They'll have plenty of time to learn about condoms after they are married.

All of institutional (as opposed to familial) sex ed can be summed up in a few short sentences:

Don't have sex before you're married. If you do you will screw up your life. Leave adult problems to the adults.

64 posted on 09/02/2003 11:31:39 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
big bump - NEA wants your children
65 posted on 09/02/2003 11:36:46 AM PDT by sasafras (sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
All I hope is that I don't get teachers with an "agenda". So far it's been ok. I don't think the professor realized how offensive his guest speaker was, until we all spoke up.

Having to watch that must have been very uncomfortable for you. It would be like walking in on your folks :-/
66 posted on 09/02/2003 1:52:07 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (This cow is independently owned and operated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I really don't know why condom demonstrations are required in any schools at all, so I shan't lose a wink of sleep worrying that some elite private school kids get to watch this nonsense while some public school children are deprived of the spectacle, no matter how "matter of factly" it is done.

Actually, the major reason for my post was to dispel the notion that sex-ed was the peculiar creature of public schools. ;-)

67 posted on 09/02/2003 6:40:37 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I graduated in 1991. The most in depth thing that happened in school was in my Human Relations class, rather than sex-ed. Even that was very mild compared to now. The biggest thing that happened was (1) a couple from the crisis pregnancy center gave a talk (2) the class president -- who wound up pregnant -- gave a talk (both were talks about it can happen the first time) and (3) the health dept. showed gross slides of what stds look like.
As far as sex-ed class... I remember some silly film (c. early 1980s) in seventh grade about some girl getting pregnant and having to forget about her track career. When interviewed and ask how long she thought she would have to care for her child, her answer was 4 or 5 years. I was only 12 and thought she was a bonehead.
68 posted on 09/02/2003 6:46:12 PM PDT by HungarianGypsy (Are we really arrogant? Or are they just jealous of us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
All of institutional (as opposed to familial) sex ed can be summed up in a few short sentences:

Don't have sex before you're married. If you do you will screw up your life. Leave adult problems to the adults.

It seems to me that you have to teach students something about sex. You can't just tell them that the stork brings babies. Or can you? ;-)

69 posted on 09/02/2003 6:50:04 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Ping
70 posted on 09/03/2003 2:46:06 PM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: upright_citizen
Thanks for setting me straight.

(rolling my eyes)
73 posted on 09/03/2003 4:35:00 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
It seems to me that you have to teach students something about sex.

Exactly right. that's why we have parents. It's not the gov's job to teach our kids about sex. No metter what the gov teaches they will be wrong. Each parent must educate their own children

(Yes I mean abolish the gov schools entirely)

74 posted on 09/04/2003 5:40:12 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: John O
(Yes I mean abolish the gov schools entirely)

Didn't Mexico used to have that system? ;-)

75 posted on 09/04/2003 9:09:53 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds ("Don't mind people grinnin' in your face." - Son House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson