Friday, January 04, 2008

Comprehensive Sex Education comes too late for Majority of U.S. Children

Bigots are made. The suspension of children in ignorance and "depatterning" their minds away from normal childhood development is a long-standing method used by cults to indoctrinate children into authoritarian power systems. These children then become sexually repressed, sadistic conformers. These children are then easily manipulated by sexual innuendo, sexual hysteria or sexual bigotry which allows for the creation of "the enemy" and other devices of mind control. These power systems "shape" an understanding of right and wrong based upon attitudes that support an elitist, non-democratic value system. These attitudes also favor imposed or learned ignorance over tolerance and intelligence. Because these attitudes are not based on science or fact, but rather an authoritarian tradition, our Founding Fathers proposed that our nation take an enlightened and rational course, giving parents and citizens civil rights. This Age of Reason would not stand.

Today, most advanced countries of the world recommend informal sex education of children in the home at the earliest and most natural times. This education is now critical to counter the sexual hysteria and sexual bigotry found in much of the U.S.. It is also critical education that prepares children for wrongful political manipulation. There is ample evidence to suggest that imposed sexual ignorance creates irrational and anti-social bigotries and ignorance in children, even the acceptance of ignorance as a necessary part of life. This acceptance of ignorance limits a child's intellectual and emotional development. Congress is even studying the relationship between sexual ignorance and hate. Effective "informal sex education" should occur through naturalistic parenting, usually between the ages of 5 to 7, as children commonly initiate sexual questions. We find this education in most of the world and throughout our own history, but much of the U.S. is now unaware of the benefits of timely parental sex education. Almost all U.S. students receive some form of formal sex education at least once between grades 7 and 12; many schools begin addressing some topics as early as grades 5 or 6. But studies strongly suggest that basic sex education should occur much earlier. What students learn in formal schools varies widely, because curriculum decisions are so decentralized. Many states have laws governing what is taught in sex education classes or allowing parents to opt out. Some state laws leave curriculum decisions to individual school districts.

For smug political reasons, sex education in the U.S. is less advanced and sophisticated than in many aboriginal tribal groups. Anthropology studies prove that such tribal traditions are extremely sophisticated and serve the immediate needs of children in specific environments. This wisdom has been lost to politics in many "advanced" nations.

American children are among the poorest educated in the world in sexual matters. Much of this failure comes from a tradition of religious sexual repression. This blog, exposes the dark side of sexual repression in America. The political realities of sex education in America is now shown to lead to Child Trafficking and widespread abuse of children. There is a toxic environment of bigotry, sexual repression and illegal child trafficking in much of rural America today which can lead to the abuses depicted in the film "Rock a Bye Baby." See our Sex Cult Investigation, Bedford, Pennsylvania.

View the YouTube video on How Cults actually use Mind Control

Naturalistic parenting is critical for early childhood development. It is also critical for the prevention of institutional abuse. We now know that naturalistic parenting applies to fathers as well as mothers and that fathers play a critical role in physical bonding where "love hunger is stronger than food hunger" in small children. This "hunger" is not some lust energy, as is now routinely depicted by idiot political agents, this hunger is for critical and necessary knowledge found in all healthy parents and children. This need for sexual knowledge is innate in all human beings throughout the world. This very fact allows wrongful political agents and police the nefarious justification to upcode this normal human sexuality to "crimes" against any targeted minority. View the famous Time/Life Documentary by Dr. James Prescott: Rock a Bye Baby

View some of the many naturalistic parenting methods advocated by Dr. James Prescott.

For example, a 1999 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that most U.S. sex education courses in grades 7 through 12 cover puberty, HIV, STIs, abstinence, implications of teenage pregnancy, and how to resist peer pressure. But many parents are not encouraged to educate children in the home and are often conditioned to fear such education. Other studied topics, such as methods of birth control and infection prevention, sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and factual and ethical information about abortion, varied more widely. Children are easily confused by such issues when they have not been educated in a timely manner in the home. This confusion can then be manipulated by virtually any nefarious person with an agenda. This is fundamentally how politics works and why politicians actively enforce ignorance in children.

Two main forms of sex education are taught in American schools: comprehensive and abstinence-only. Comprehensive sex education covers abstinence as a positive choice, but also teaches about contraception and avoidance of STIs when sexually active. A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive.

Abstinence-only sex education tells teenagers that they should be sexually abstinent until marriage and does not provide information about contraception. In the Kaiser study, 34% of high-school principals said their school's main message was abstinence-only. Abstinece-only methods are usually only applied to teenagers and suggest that younger children should be held in ignorance of sexual matters. Nothing is further from the truth.

The difference between these two approaches, and their impact on teen behavior, remains a controversial subject in the U.S. Teenage birth rates had been dropping in the U.S. since 1991, but a 2007 report showed 3% increase from 2005 to 2006. From 1991 to 2005, the percentage of teens reporting that they had ever had sex or were currently sexual active showed small declines. However, the U.S. still has the highest teen birth rate and one of the highest rates of STIs among teens in the industrialized world. Public opinion polls conducted over the years have found that the vast majority of Americans favor broader and earlier sex education programs over those that teach only abstinence, although abstinence educators recently published poll data with the totally opposite conclusion.

Proponents of comprehensive sex education, which include the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association, argue that sexual behavior in children is common and sex after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized; they also claim that denying children such factual information leads to vulnerabilities, misconceptions, unwanted pregnancies, STIs and even emotional problems. Abstinence-only approaches often promote dangerous sexual ignorance in younger children.

On the other hand, proponents of abstinence-only sex education object to curricula that fail to teach moral behavior; they maintain that a morality based on sex only within the bounds of marriage is "healthy and constructive" and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to immoral, unhealthy, and harmful practices. Within the last decade, the federal government has encouraged abstinence-only education by steering over a billion dollars to such programs. But are these programs actually doing the opposite? Are they keeping children ignorant, instilling misconceptions and placing children in danger throughout critical developmental years? Some states, such as California, decline the funding so that they can continue to teach comprehensive sex education; several other states have recently joined California. Funding for one of the federal government's two main abstinence-only funding programs, Title V, was extended only until December 31, 2007; Congress is debating whether to continue it past that date.

We now have strong evidence that keeping children sexually ignorant serves a political indoctrination function and this must be placed into the debate. When a parent teaches sexuality to his child, he is politically vulnerable for "investigations." When a parent doesn't teach sexuality to his child, he is politically vulnerable for "negligence." This is absurd.

The impact of the rise in abstinence-only education remains a question. To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse. In 2007, a study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex (and use contraception) in their teenage years as those who did not. Abstinence-only advocates claimed that the study was flawed because it was too narrow and began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and that other studies have demonstrated positive effects. What is not in dispute is that American children are much more "at risk" than much of the industrialized world. They are at high risk by political agents on a crusade for "child safety."


In England and Wales, sex education is not compulsory in schools as parents can refuse to let their children take part in the lessons. The curriculum focuses on the reproductive system, fetal development, and the physical and emotional changes of adolescence, while information about contraception and safe sex is discretionary. Britain has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and sex education is a heated issue in government and media reports. In a 2000 study by the University of Brighton, many 14 to 15 year olds reported disappointment with the content of sex education lessons and felt that lack of confidentiality prevents teenagers from asking teachers about contraception.

In Scotland, the main sex education program is Healthy Respect, which focuses not only on the biological aspects of reproduction but also on relationships and emotions. Education about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases are included in the program as a way of encouraging good sexual health. In response to a refusal by Catholic schools to commit to the program, however, a separate sex education program has been developed for use in those schools. Funded by the Scottish Executive, the program Call to Love focuses on encouraging children to delay sex until marriage, and does not cover contraception, and as such is a form of abstinence-only sex education.

In France, sex education has been part of school curricula since 1973. Schools are expected to provide 30 to 40 hours of sex education, and pass out condoms, to students in grades eight and nine. In January 2000, the French government launched an information campaign on contraception with TV and radio spots and the distribution of five million leaflets on contraception to high school students.

In Germany, sex education has been part of school curricula since 1970. It normally covers all subjects concerning the growing-up process, the changing of the body, emotions, the biological process of reproduction, sexual activity, partnership, homosexuality, unwanted pregnancies and the complications of abortion, the dangers of sexual violence, child abuse, and sex-transmitted diseases, but sometimes also things like sex positions. Most schools offer courses on the correct usage of contraception. There are also other media of sex education, in first place the youth magazine "Bravo", which always contains a topic where teenagers pose questions about partnership and sexuality.

Subsidized by the Dutch government, the “Lang leve de liefde” (“Long Live Love”) package, developed in the late 1980s, aims to give teenagers the skills to take their own decisions regarding health and sexuality. Nearly all secondary schools provide sex education as part of biology classes and over half of primary schools discuss sexuality and contraception. The curriculum focuses on biological aspects of reproduction as well as on values, attitudes, communication and negotiation skills. The media has encouraged open dialogue and the health-care system guarantees confidentiality and a non-judgmental approach. The Netherlands has one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, and the Dutch approach is often seen as a model for other countries.

In Sweden, sex education has been a mandatory part of school education since 1956. The subject is usually started at grades 4–6, and continues up through the grades, incorporated into different subjects such as biology and history. In Finland, the Population and Family Welfare Federation provides to all 15-year-olds an introductory sexual package that includes an information brochure, a condom and a cartoon love story.

In Switzerland, the content and amount of sex education is decided at the cantonal level. In Geneva, courses have been given at the secondary level since the 1950s. Interventions in primary schools were started more recently, with the objective of making children conscious of what is and isn't allowed, and able to say "No". In secondary schools (age 13-14), condoms are shown to all pupils, and are demonstrated by unfolding over the teacher's fingers. For this, classes are usually separated into girl-only and boy-only subgroups. Condoms are not distributed, however, except among older adolescents engaged in state-run non-compulsory education (age 16-17).


The state of sex education programs in Asia is at various stages of development. Indonesia, Mongolia, South Korea and Sri Lanka have a systematic policy framework for teaching about sex within schools. Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand have assessed adolescent reproductive health needs with a view to developing adolescent-specific training, messages and materials. India has programs that specifically aims at school children at the age group of nine to sixteen years. These are included as subjects in the curriculum and generally involves open and frank interaction with the teachers. In India, there is a huge debate on the curriculum of sex education and when should it be increased. Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan have no coordinated sex education programs. These countries experience the highest levels of teenaged pregnancy, HIV/AIDS infection rates and the highest mortality rates among teenagers in the world.

In Japan, sex education is mandatory from age 10 or 11, mainly covering biological topics such as menstruation and ejaculation. Japan has a long history of naturalistic parental education and very low STD rates.

In China, sex education traditionally consists in reading the reproduction section of biology textbooks. However, in 2000 a new five-year project was introduced by the China Family Planning Association to "promote reproductive health education among Chinese teenagers and unmarried youth" in twelve urban districts and three counties. This includes discussion about sex within human relationships as well as pregnancy and HIV prevention.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation and the BBC World Service ran a 12-part series known as Sexwise, which discussed sex education, family life education, contraception and parenting. It was first launched in South Asia and then extended worldwide.


AIDS posters in Côte d'IvoireSex education in Africa has focused on stemming the growing AIDS epidemic. Most governments in the region have established AIDS education programs in partnership with the World Health Organization and international NGOs. These programs commonly teach the 'ABC' of HIV prevention, which has been frequently backed by the Bush Administration: a combination of abstinence (A), fidelity to your partner (Be faithful) and condom use (C). (See Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom.) The efforts of these educational campaigns appear now to be bearing fruit. In Uganda, condom use has increased, youths are delaying the age at which sexual intercourse first occurs, and overall rates of HIV infection have been going down.

Egypt teaches knowledge about male and female reproductive systems, sexual organs, contraception and STDs in public schools at the second and third years of the middle-preparatory phase (when students are aged 12–14). There is currently a coordinated program between UNDP, UNICEF, and the ministries of health and education to promote sexual education at a larger scale in rural areas and spread awareness of dangers of female circumcision.

Morality of sex education

One approach to sex education is to view it as necessary to reduce risk behaviours such as unprotected sex, and equip individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexual activity. Additionally, some proponents of comprehensive sex education and early parental education contend that education about homosexuality encourages tolerance and understanding that homosexuality isn't something that is wrong.

Another viewpoint on sex education, historically inspired by sexologists like Wilhelm Reich and psychologists like Sigmund Freud and James W. Prescott, holds that what is at stake in sex education is control over the body and liberation from social control. Sexual ignorance has been proven to support ignorance in many other social aspects of life, including tolerance for others. Proponents of this view tend to see the political question as whether society or the individual should teach sexual mores. The Founding Fathers and First Libertarians were also against government or church control of sex education. Sexual education may thus be seen as providing individuals with the knowledge necessary to liberate themselves from socially organized sexual oppression and to make up their own minds. In addition, sexual oppression may be viewed as socially harmful. The most sexually oppressive cultures tend to have the highest levels of family dysfunction, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease and social strife. There is an undeniable link between these social ills and authoritarian governments that enforce learned ignorance about sex.

To another group in the sex education debate, the question is whether the state or the family should teach sexual mores. They believe that sexual mores should be left to the family, and sex-education represents state interference. They claim that some sex education curricula break down pre-existing notions of modesty and encourage acceptance of practices that those advocating this viewpoint deem immoral, such as homosexuality and premarital sex. They cite web sites such as that of the Coalition for Positive Sexuality as examples. Naturally, those that believe that homosexuality and premarital sex are a normal part of the range of human sexuality disagree with them.

Many religions teach that sexual behavior outside of marriage is immoral, so their adherents feel that this morality should be taught as part of sex education. Other religious conservatives believe that sexual knowledge is unavoidable, hence their preference for a curricula based on abstinence. Even as sex education is viewed as bitter medicine to some, it is a welcome innoculation for others. It is broadly accepted as necessary in a modern world.

No comments:

Post a Comment