Sex Ed Lies, Indeed!

So Marcia Segelstein calls herself "The Reluctant Rebel." Um, sure. Usually someone who takes action "reluctantly" needs to be spurred on by some fact that's so overwhelming, so powerful, and so repugnant that it can't be ignored and MUST be combated. Why, then, a "Reluctant Rebel" would need to resort to lies to push her agenda is beyond me. And it's even more beyond me why she seems to take such vile glee in writing her polemics if she's "reluctant" about it.

Anyway, Marcia's latest diatribe is called "More sex ed, lies, and modern culture" and can be found at OneNewsNow. Lies, huh? Oh, Marcia, you have no idea.

Listen up, parents. The goal of sex education is not to prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases. The goal is to promote sexual freedom.

Yes, I'm sure the "goal" of sex ed is to produce a country full of teenage hippies who jump in the sack and hump like rabbits. That makes perfect sense.

That may sound outrageous, but it's the premise of Dr. Miriam Grossman's new book, You're Teaching My Child What?, and it's backed up by plenty of cold, hard facts.  Here's what she writes in the introduction: "From a review of many of today's sex ed curricula and websites, it would appear that a 'sexually healthy' individual is one who has been 'desensitized,' who is without any sense of embarrassment or shame (what some might consider 'modesty'), whose sexuality is always 'positive' and 'open,' who respects and accepts 'diverse' lifestyles, and who practices 'safer sex' with every 'partner.'  This is not about health, folks.  This is about indoctrination."

Those aren't "cold, hard facts," those are just a bunch of accusations.

While modern sex educators are busy introducing "diverse" sexual lifestyles to their students, what they are not doing is looking out for their health.

What does that mean, not "looking out for their health?" Does Segelstein really expect us to believe that comprehensive sex ed doesn't teach kids about sexual health?

Dr. Grossman asks the logical question:  "Why don't sex educators emphasize that casual sex and multiple partners is a health hazard?"  Why don't they make it clear that engaging in sexual behavior with someone means risking exposure to the bacteria, viruses, and full-blown sexually transmitted diseases of each and every one of his or her previous partners.

 Oh noes!!!11 Sex ed doesn't teach our children about STDs! That's terrible!

It's also a complete lie. Look, it's right there in the chart from Advocates for Youth. Seriously, Marcia, if you're going to peddle this "abstinence-only" crap, at least try to get some of your facts straight.

Condoms are like a magic wand in the world of sex education.  Students hear endlessly about practicing "safer sex" by using condoms.  But Grossman points out what many aren't told: that most teenagers don't use condoms correctly and, she writes, "Even with proper use, both pregnancy and infection can occur."

Which is why, according to Advocates for Youth, comprehensive sex ed "[t]eaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV."

So students are, in effect, encouraged to take a calculated risk, a risk with enormous ramifications.

"Encouraged?" Really? Cite me please, a comprehensive sex ed program that encourages kids to have sex.

In my last column, I wrote about SIECUS, the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S., and the provider of sex ed curricula to schools from coast to coast.  Without any basis in scientific fact, sex ed materials produced by SIECUS promote the idea that it is "healthy" for kids to explore their sexuality. "That," writes Grossman, "was never true, and it's surely not true now, with genital bacteria and viruses infecting another young person every 3.5 seconds."  Sexually transmitted diseases are epidemic: one in four teenage girls has one.

 Well, that sort of depends on what you mean by "explore their sexuality," doesn't it? How can you say it is or isn't "healthy" to do something if you talk in vague terms about what it is? I tried to do a search to find out what Marcia was talking about (because God knows, fundies never cite anything), but couldn't find anything. Probably because I don't know what I'm looking for.

SIECUS does state, that it's healthy for there to be an open, educational dialogue between kids, educators, and parents about sex, tailored to the kids' age and background. That, by the way, comes from a scientifically-conducted study. Sorry, Marcia, you fail again.

And don't expect school sex ed programs to back up parents when it comes to moral and religious teachings.  Grossman writes that many sex ed instructors encourage students "to question what they've been taught at home and at church," and to develop their own views on the subject of sex.  It not only undermines parental authority, it has the potential to promote dangerous behavior in an age group already eager and willing to break rules.

I'd like to see a cite for which program teaches kids to question their parents and churches. Then I'd like to see an explanation of how, exactly, you get a curriculum to agree with the church considering that it would be 1) not scientifically accurate and 2) unconstitutional. Of course, the degrees of constitutionality and scientific accuracy would vary from one church to another, so I'd like to know just what church Marcia and Grossman are referring to. They see no reason to enlighten us.

Organizations such as SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth provide information and links with sexual information specifically for teenagers.  Almost without exception, the links meant to help teens decide whether to have sex say it's a question only they can answer.  If the decision involved which foods to eat, make no mistake that there would be no government-funded websites, or parent-tolerated websites, which recommended that teens decide for themselves whether to eat healthy or unhealthy foods.

The US Department of Agriculture maintains a page on the Food Guide Pyramid. On the homepage, in bold letters, on the center, are the words One size doesn't fit all. The site then includes comprehensive information about choosing the foods that are right for you. Kind of blows that theory out of the water, huh Marcia?

Not to mention, food and sex aren't even close to analogous.

SIECUS provides a link, under the heading "Adolescent Sexuality," to a website run by Columbia University called Go Ask Alice!  Most parents would be appalled by the information the website provides, and the encouragement it gives students to explore their sexuality.

Cite, please, for what "most parents" would feel about something. Here's a helpful hint to get started: if you're writing for a reactionary fundie website, you probably aren't qualified to unilaterally state what "most parents" want.

Each week, Go Ask Alice has a special theme.  The week I checked the website for this column, the theme was "Porn."  When "asked" where to find erotic videos that appeal to women, "Alice" suggests names of directors, producers and actresses to look for, and goes on to say that the process of finding porn and erotica you like "can be enjoyable and can help you explore and understand your likes and dislikes."

Well, since Go Ask Alice is affiliated with Columbia University, it's more geared toward college students than teens. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with sex ed programs, anyway. Are you trying to demonize SIECUS with this somehow? Apparently, Marcia believes that since kids may be taking a sex ed class run by SIECUS, they may also feel some need to look up SIECUS on the web. And if they do that, they might click "Adolescent Sexuality," and then they might see a link to Go Ask Alice, which they may then click, and by chance see the section on porn! And if they do that, they may learn that there's porn on the Internet! NO!!!

Except, Go Ask Alice isn't linked under Adolescent Sexuality.

Nowhere does it say that viewing pornography can become addictive and detrimental to one's future sexual health.

No, it doesn't say that because it's not true. There's no scientific consensus at all as to whether "pornography addiction" even exists, let alone how it works, what its nature is, and how it affects one person versus another.

Perusing the Q&A section for teens on the Planned Parenthood website, I found this point of view posing as an answer:  "It's perfectly normal for a girl to find other girls attractive or be turned on by them."

 And we know that's not true because it doesn't agree with the Bible!

In almost every other aspect of school life, children are encouraged to use self-discipline.  It's expected of them in all kinds of areas, from academics to athletics.  But self-restraint isn't a valued commodity in most sex ed curricula.  Nor are parents.

Since when?

When it comes to their children's health, parents are expected to be authority figures.  Most parents teach their children that smoking cigarettes, for instance, is unhealthy and tell them in no uncertain terms that they are not to do it.  If a health teacher at school taught children that wanting to smoke is normal, and that kids should explore their desire to do it, parents would probably storm the school. But when it comes to sexual health, it's quite the opposite.  Children are taught that their sexual urges are "natural."  They're taught that what's important about exploring those desires is to be as safe as possible.

Once again, false analogies. Smoking is not sex. Sex is a natural biological process that is, in fact, healthy when done carefully. Smoking is inhaling tobacco fumes into your lungs, and will give you cancer and emphysema while not doing much at all to make you healthier.

Besides, Marcia's twisting the words of the sex ed programs here. They don't say "Sex is natural and normal! Go do it!" They teach that it's natural and normal, so don't feel ashamed about it, but be informed and be careful. Anti-smoking classes do pretty much the same thing when they teach about peer pressure.

Parents' views, based on religion, morality, or science, have no role.  Children aren't advised to turn to their parents for advice.

Really? I guess that's why Advocates For Youth has a page called Parents' Sex Ed Center. Because they don't want parents involved.

I don't know why Marcia keeps coming back to "religion," though. It's no more legal to preach the Bible in school now than it was five paragraphs ago. And "science" has no role either? Marcia, I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer. Just shut up.

The piece ends with some exhortations to parents that I don't really need to get into. But Marcia, next time you feel the need to call someone out on their "lies," do us all a favor, will you? Start with your own.