The Truth about Sex Education

Peter Hitchens is a well-known journalist, author, and cultural commentator from Great Britain. The following comments come from an interview with LifeSiteNews:

• "We find that despite the greater and greater extent of sex education in our society...the number of people becoming pregnant when they didn't want to continues to rise and the number of people contracting sexually transmitted diseases continues to rise." 

Why has this happened? Had the experts just been so wrong?

• “The problem with sex education,” he told me by phone, “is that the ostensible purpose for which it is advocated turns out not to be true. I did a sort of study a few years ago of the development of sex education in my own country, and what I found is that it's been justified really since the middle part of the Second World War, when of course there were a lot of venereal diseases, on the basis that if people were better educated about it, then it would reduce the amount of sexually transmitted disease and the amount of unwanted pregnancy. And yet if you watch the figures for both sexually transmitted disease and for unwanted pregnancy, and increasingly now for abortion, we find that despite the greater and greater extent of sex education in our society, more and more frankness about sex, and more and more pornography (which is also supposed to end repression), the number of people becoming pregnant when they didn't want to continues to rise and the number of people contracting sexually transmitted diseases continues to rise.” 

Not all Leftists are transparent about their intentions. However, some are:

• “It's said,” Hitchens noted, “that Gyorgy Lukas, who was commissar for education in the short-lived Bela Kun Soviet Government in Hungary in 1918, openly said that the purpose of sex education when he introduced it then - I think he was probably the first person to do so - was to debauch the minds and morals of religiously-brought up young women particularly. It seems to me to make a certain amount of sense…because the kinds of things that people are taught in sex education are disinhibiting things.”

Dis-inhibition seems to have been a powerful tool:

• “When I was in school no one ever mentioned masturbation. It would have been extremely bad manners to mention it anywhere, let alone for an adult teacher to talk to quite young children about it and about other sexual practices in class. The moment these things start being discussed, it disinhibits people, it takes restraints off them that previously were there. Now you may believe, and a lot of people do believe and have believed for many years, that these inhibitions are bad for us. That's a point of view, I don't happen to share it, and if you follow that belief as a parent, I suppose you're entitled to introduce your child to this sort of thing as early an age as you wish in a free country, but what bothers us in many cases [is that] parents don't realize what is being done in classrooms until after it's happened.”

According to Hitchens, Leftist politics intends to undermine parental influence:

  

• “There is politics in sex,” says Peter Hitchens. “Much of those politics are about…the family and the State. The state is increasingly hostile to the strong family, and the strong family is sustained by lifelong marriage and by a pretty stern and puritan attitude towards sexual relations—whereas the strong state benefits in many ways, as does modern commerce and the modern employer, from weak marriages and relaxed sexual relations. There's also the point that Aldous Huxley makes, which is that we are increasingly going to embrace our own enslavement in the pursuit of pleasure, which I believe actually the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm made...that there is absolutely no congruence in human history between sexual freedom and political freedom. Slaves have always been allowed to copulate, what they haven't been allowed to do is marry.”

How is unrestricted sex promoted? It promises freedom, both socially and psychologically. However, according to Hitchens, there is more evidence that it enslaves:

• “And this,” Hitchens continued, “is an extremely important point. There is no necessary connection between a society which is sexually free and sexually uninhibited, and a society that is politically free and has free speech and freedom of assembly, it doesn't necessarily follow at all. So we're all doing it with a very, very profound philosophical battle about the nature of society, and it needs to be conducted in a very serious fashion. The difficulty is in finding anyone to give you a hearing.” 

The Leftist agenda is still in favor of world revolution. However, it is now conducted in a slow, stealthful, and “peaceful” manner:

•  “The fundamental engine of left-wing activity, really since the 1960s, has not been to seize the post office and the barracks and the railway station, it's been to seize the television station and the newspaper and the university, and to obtain victory through capturing the minds of people, and also to alter society not through the nationalizing of railways, but through the nationalizing of childhood.”

The State has a poor record for overseeing the interests of children. For the State, they are merely pawns in a political game to be used to accomplish the dreams of ideologues. Understandably, it is the parents who love their children and want the best for them.

What evidence do the Leftists provide that they can create a better world? If they have it, they are keeping it a secret, as the world descends into chaos.

The Progressive Sexual Agenda

According to the Progressive agenda, any form of sex should be taken as casually as eating a Big Mac. Consistent with this vision:

• A new sex education program says that consensual sex between 13-year-olds should be seen as normal, and describes masturbation and attempting to touch other children's genitals is "a safe and healthy sexual development" for children as young as five.

• For 13 to 17-year-olds, green behaviors include "obscenities and jokes within the current cultural norm," "having sexual or non-sexual relationships," "sexual activity including hugging, kissing, holding hands," and "consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability."

• The final safe option listed for this age group is "choosing not to be sexually active."

• In the newborn-to five-year-old age group the "traffic light tool" gives a green light to "playing with own genitals," "attempting to touch…other children's genitals," and "attempting to touch…breasts, bottoms or genitals of adults."

The welfare of children must have been the prime concern of these educators, yes? Surely, much research must have paved the way to such radical and progressive programs. Certainly, the experts would never subject children to influences that could possibly destabilize, confuse, and even destroy the children along with their familial relationships. It is totally unthinkable that they would have embarked on such a radical course without the support of years of testing the effects of such programs on children!

Sadly, the unthinkable has become highly thinkable in Western society. It is not that there aren’t voices of sanity:

• Dr. David Paton, a professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University and a leading expert in teenage pregnancy rates, has consistently warned that explicit sex education and easy availability of contraceptives, including the morning-after pill, has not led to a decrease in teen pregnancies or abortions, but has led to a staggering increase in STD's because of an increase in sexual activity in children.

• Paton told the education select committee that he has a "big issue" with the guidelines in the "tool" suggesting that sexual relations among 13-to-17-year-olds are a "safe and healthy development."

• "The advice is both misleading and potentially dangerous,” Paton said. "There’s an awful [lot] of evidence that early sexual activity is associated with all sorts of adverse outcomes – including early pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, but also mental health issues and adverse academic outcomes.”

What then drives this radical agenda to normalize all forms of sexuality, even among the youngest and most vulnerable? I think that the answer can be summed up in one word – projection.

We are morally wired to know right from wrong. This includes sexual behavior. Therefore, we feel guilty when we act wrongly sexually. However, it is easier to blame society for our guilt and shame than to blame ourselves. Therefore:

•  “It is society that is wrong. It is our puritanical beliefs that are the source of my inhibitions, sexual dysfunction, and porn-addiction shame and guilt. Society must therefore be changed!”

There is little consideration of the fact that, perhaps, we are constituted in such a way that we need to listen to our conscience for guidance. However, we reject this guidance in favor of an unfounded hope.

Will the Real Homophobe Please Stand Up

Those of us who oppose Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) are routinely demeaned as “homophobes” – those who hate gays. And if you are a hater, then you shouldn’t have a voice. Therefore, any who disagree with SSM shouldn’t have a voice.

But do we really hate gays? One way to decide this question is to determine who actually causes harm to gays? Is it those who oppose SSM or those who promote it?

• According to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control that analyzed data from 2011, approximately 62 percent of gay men who know they have HIV/AIDS do not use condoms when engaging in sexual relations. (LifeSiteNews)

If anyone hates gays, it is these 62%. However, it is not just these, but it’s also those who encourage homosexuality, claiming that the many costs that gays incur are just the result of social intolerance. Certainly, it is not intolerance that causes gays to lie about their health status. Nor is it intolerance that has caused the STD epidemic and attenuated lifespans among gays. Intolerance cannot explain the plethora of problems plaguing the gay lifestyle – mental health, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence issues.

We can also ask, “Who is it who really cares about gays – those who indulge them or those who warn them?” Of course, we Christians are accused of condemning gays to hell and of  treating them with contempt.

Against these charges, I try to explain that, however haltingly we might walk in the love that we profess, it is our duty to love the gays as Christ has loved us. Since we have learned that we are nothing without our Savior, we are in no position to look down on anyone else. (Although my assertion has never been met with applause, I want to set the record straight anyway.)

What then is love? Love is a commitment to the ultimate welfare of others. It speaks truth. Sometimes, it warns. However, it should never acquiesce to the establishment of an institution – SSM – that will further normalize a behavior that has already been so self-destructive.

Let the World Go to the Dogs as Long as I am Right

The historian Arnold Toynbee declared that great civilizations are destroyed from within. No surprise! We see indications of this all around us. Here is one small indication from the Center for Disease Control:

• There are currently about 110 million people in the U.S. living with a sexually-transmitted disease (STD)… According to the CDC, up to 20 million new STD infections occur every year — these include hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, HPV, and chlamydia. Half of these new infections are among young people between the ages of 15 and 24. So the prevalence among young people is quite high.  

Some of these diseases will result in irreversible damage and infertility. Clearly, STDs have become epidemic, but where is the outcry? Why isn’t the Western media raising the alarm against these exploding dangers, especially in light of the very evident failures of “safe-sex education” interventions?

We are so concerned about providing our youth with ample food, education and healthcare but remain silent as they destroy themselves sexually. Why? It seems that we are stubbornly committed to sexual freedom, but does sexual freedom equate with sexual satisfaction? Not at all: 

• In the mid 1970’s Redbook Magazine published a ‘Sexual Pleasure Survey’, showing the preferences of 100,000 women. This survey concluded that "sexual satisfaction is related significantly to religious belief." If the media have successfully ‘brain-washed’ you your immediate thought following on from this statement is that religious people must, of course, enjoy sex less than irreligious people; right? Wrong: "With notable consistency, the greater the intensity of a woman’s religious convictions, the likelier she is to be highly satisfied with the sexual pleasure of the marriage. . . Strongly religious women seem to be more responsive [and] more likely than the nonreligious to be orgasmic every time she engages in sex." (Tim & Beverly La Haye - The Act of Marriage, p9.) 

• American Christian Councillors Tim and Beverly La Haye undertook a survey of mainly Christian couples (3,377 people - 1,705 women and 1,672 men), which indicated, in line with the Redbook Survey, that "Christians maintain a higher enjoyment level in the intimacy of their love life than the population in general." (P210). The La Hay’s Survey showed that, generally speaking, Christian couples enjoyed sex more than couples with any other religious beliefs: "The women in our survey reported a 10 percent higher degree of sexual enjoyment, greater frequency of lovemaking experiences per month, and a more active part in [sex] than their "strongly religious" counterparts [in the REDBOOK Survey], likewise scoring much higher in these same areas than the average "non-religious" woman in the REDBOOK Survey." (P211). 

Former atheist, Patrick Glynn, adds:

• A 1978 study found that church attendance predicted marital satisfaction better than any other single variable. Couples in long-lasting marriages who were surveyed in another study listed religion as one of the most important “prescriptions” of a happy marriage. (God: The Evidence, 64)

However, it is so hard to admit that we have been wrong and that those we have disdained – our “mortal enemies” - have been right. It is a loss-of-face that few can sustain. Let our families, our children and our civilization rot as long as we are right!

Abstinence Ed vs. Sexual-Expression Ed

We are entrenched in a vicious culture war, and the question of sexually seems to be at the front lines. While one side wants to retain traditional Judeo-Christian values, the other seems to want to sexualize the children. Therefore, everyone is training their cannons on sex-education. Should abstinence programs be promoted to reduce STDs and teen pregnancies or their opposite? However, a recent study has just added its voice to many others in favor of abstinence ed:

• Researchers observed more than 1,100 ninth graders in Georgia who used the Choosing the Best (CTB) curriculum in 2009-10. The abstinence-based curriculum delayed the onset of sexual activity.

According to the study’s authors:

• “Data demonstrated significant impact of CTB at the end of 9th grade on commitment to abstinence, pro-abstinence beliefs and attitudes, intentions to maintain abstinence, and lower onset of sexual intercourse, and at the beginning of 10th grade on pro-abstinence attitudes…abstinence from sexual activity until marriage is the best way to avoid teen pregnancy, disease, and possible negative emotional consequences, and is the best way to help students focus on academic and other future-oriented goals.”

• The study’s success reassured Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA). “This new study adds to 22 other peer reviewed studies showing SRA [Sexual Risk Avoidance] education has a positive impact on student sexual behavior,” she said. “This rigorous research design adds an important exclamation point to the efficacy of abstinence-centered education.”

The stakes are high for both sides of the conflict, and so politics often trumps truth and the welfare of the children:

 

• Meanwhile, researchers say the Obama administration stonewalled releasing another report that showed abstinence attitudes positively impact teens…“Their anti-abstinence position is just as political, if not more so, than the pro-abstinence position of conservatives,” [Peter] Sprigg [FRC] told LifeSiteNews. “The liberals often claim it is conservatives who are anti-science, but when the research and the science goes against their ideological position, they are very eager to suppress the findings.”

The power to suppress findings means that science and scholarship have become tools to be manipulated by the powerful. However, the findings in favor of abstinence education seem to have escaped the censor’s scissor:

• “Anyone who opposes SRA abstinence-centered education must be honest in their antagonism,” Huber stated. “They can no longer say that the approach ‘doesn’t work,’ but must admit that their opposition is simply an ideological distaste for programs that encourage teens to wait for sex.” 

However, will the elite now listen or will their “ideological distaste” lead them to “normalize” any form of child sexual expression, to their very obvious detriment?