Does CSE feel good?

geezerEd Stevens is a contributing writer to Leavenworth St. He is a self-described, “Retired geezer; paleo-retro-apocalypto-reactio-liberty freak; No interest in and no time for facile “compromise” or “coming together” – the only thing singing “Kumbaya” accomplishes is it allows time for the campfire to go out. The difference between right and wrong is pretty clear.”

By Ed Stevens

I have followed with interest the recent hoo-ha concerning efforts by some of our more liberal Unicameralites (Sullivan, Morfeld and others) to introduce, by statute, something called “comprehensive sex education” (CSE) into the curricula of Nebraska public schools.

So, my interest piqued, I began to research the whole subject of CSE and have found surprisingly little objective research on the subject. There are scores of “scientific” articles available, both pro and con, but very few of them come from truly objective, non-biased sources. Those articles extolling CSE tend to be from authors directly associated with left-leaning groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Advocate for Youth, etc., while those which favor abstinence only programs tend to emanate from organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Focus On The Family, and others with a known conservative bent.

What is clear is that CSE is a program of stunningly explicit and provocative materials and information introduced as early as kindergarten and lacking even a hint of moral distinction between sexual behaviors, from the traditional biblically-based to the wildly aberrant. Their motto seems to be “If it feels good, it’s OK to do it.”

Proponents of CSE claim that their paradigm will dramatically reduce teen pregnancy, abortion rates and sexually transmitted disease, and, for all I know, promote world peace, and halt global warming. On the other side are those who assert that “abstinence only” sex education (based largely in the home) is the best way. So CSE, it seems, promises that you can have all the sex you want and avoid all those inconveniences like pregnancies and Chlamydia, while the abstinence folks say “Don’t Do The Deed should be your creed.” Guess which one is more appealing to the average teener just chock full of raging hormones?

So who is right? Well … neither … and both. Please note that I take no position regarding the relative efficacy of either methodology, and for a very good reason – there is precious little verifiably objective information available – for either case. In an ideal world, both, if practiced to perfection, would likely have somewhat positive outcomes, but to focus only on the relative merits of these different approaches is to miss what is really going on here. The CSE initiative is ostensibly about the health and well-being of our youth, but it is no more about reducing teen pregnancies and preventing STD’s than it is about jiggeries and pokeries. It is about establishing yet another beach head for the inexorable progressive agenda. Make no mistake – liberals seek hegemony – political, cultural and intellectual hegemony, and no aspect of human society is too insignificant to escape their “helpful” ministrations. And they are good at it. To grasp the significance of this mindset, consider the words of William F. Buckley, who understood liberals better than they understand themselves; years ago, in his rightly famous “Up From Liberalism”, he noted:

(Liberals) “… are men and women who tend to believe that the human being is perfectible and social progress predictable, and that the instrument for effecting the two is reason; that truths are transitory and empirically determined; that equality is desirable and attainable through the action of state power; that social and individual differences, if they are not rational, are objectionable and should be scientifically eliminated; that all peoples and societies should strive to organize themselves upon a rationalist and scientific paradigm.”

No more coherent or pertinent description of liberalism has ever been penned – simply stated, it tells us these folks believe that with enough interference from the state, everyone can be herded into their corral. We are all fodder for their ever-grinding mill. In the words of educational psychologist and child psychiatrist Miriam Grossman,

groups promoting CSE “… are not about preventing disease. Sex ed is a social movement. Its goal is to change society. The primary goal of groups like SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth is to promote sexual freedom and to rid society of its Judeo–Christian taboos and restrictions.”

As just one of many instances of the hidden agenda of these groups, consider the following statement from Dr. Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood and first president of SIECUS:

“A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality – for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance.”

Judeo-Christian based ethics and behaviors are directly and direly inimical to the entire liberal agenda; liberals seek secularism, moral relativism and a pseudo-rationalistic world-view, for only in such an environment can their arid philosophy find root. So the next time you hear Senators Sullivan and Morfeld and their posturing cohorts crowing about “comprehensive sex education”, remember that what they are really doing is digging under the moral back fence of most Nebraskans.

18 comments

  1. Mark Andrews says:

    My ideal reform to the high school curriculum is for every high school graduate to earn the equivalent of an EMT certification. If you know the actual facts about the human body and how it actually works, you can make informed decisions, and not just about sex, but about all kinds of things – diet, exercise, nutrition, participation in sport, drinking, drugs, stupid dares, the list is endless.

    Stevens appeal to Buckley is interesting, as there is nothing in Buckley’s list that a Conservative wouldn’t like to be true of a conservative position, starting with a congruence between traditional, theological ethics and science. A quick look at the Douglas County Health Departmentweb site shows clearly, even to a layman like me with no expertise in public health, that the #1 public health problem in Douglas County is STDs. Euphemisms be damned, if you’re between the ages of 15 and 25 your chances of getting chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes are non-zero. Gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes rates have slowly dropped from 1997 to 2013, the last year for which published results are available.

    The chlamydia rate for the same period is horrid. It was 299.1 cases per 100,000 in 1997 to 596.5 case per 100,000 in 2013. In 2012 the rates for Douglas County were 617.6/100K, 366.2/100K in Nebraska and 456.7/100K in the U.S. I don’t know how you drive the effects of chlamydia into hormone-addled, adolescent brains, but if PID, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, premature birth, increased risk to newborns for eye infection (or blindness, or pneumonia), urethritis, epididymitis, or proctitis don’t scare good sense into you, fear of God almighty isn’t going to add much to the effort.

    Make kids learn facts. Burden them with same knowledge and clear thinking we expect of health professionals – EMTs, nurses & doctors. Don’t settle for a know-nothing abstinence or a salacious, sex ed curriculum narrowly focused on fun sans responsibility. Teach youth how the human body ACTUALLY works and about the real consequences of human stupidity. We’ll solve many problems, and not just the rising chlamydia rate.

  2. Freedom free from dumb says:

    This isn’t about sex ed. This is about tyranny-via-coopting, a form of fascism.

    Whether you are an average heterosexual parent, or a gay who adopts, or you and your sibling and have a baby with three arms, do you really want to pay an elementary teacher — which by definition is someone so stupid they need a union to keep them employed at filling half size brains — to teach your little junior where the pee pee goes, based on a federal one-size-fits-all edict on something as ill-defined as sexuality?

    SCOTUS’ wording says whatever pleases you is your right. Incest is legal in OH, RI and NJ. And sexual pleasure can be had with children, relatives, and animals (consult Dr. Doolittle). Some of these things are allowed in some religions and states. We can argue what is normal and what isn’t natural, but law and government do not care. They exist to control you on your dime, even in this most personal matter of sex

    Government rips dollars out of your pocket and uses them to coopt teachers to force one-size-fits-all sexuality teaching onto kids, thus making your babies know how to have sex so they won’t have babies and the result is that when your child gets AIDS, pregnant or saddled with child support, you pay, your child pays. And for that blessing you pay the teachers, the IRS, your lawmakers.

    Government is a hammer that thinks it’s a scalpel. Having it teach your kids is incredibly stupid.

  3. Anonymous says:

    A Mexican child was thrown over the fence to run up to the Pope with a message that, having been thrown over the border into the USA, she wants her illegal parents to stay in the USA. That’s pitiful yet it translates into our borders being porous to drugs, nukes, anthrax, etc.

    Using a child to commit crimes is the ultimate child abuse. Endangering a child’s life to make a political point is horrendous. But Mexicans who use kids as anchors, are pretty damn horrible anyway.

    Children strapped with bombs have killed Americans around the world. Had our Secret Service shot the Mexican girl dead to protect the Pope, or had she been strapped with a bomb that killed Pope Francis, we’d be having a different discussion.

    A child being shot to death is risk that adult Mexican intruder advocates are willing to take. It is a risk Obama gladly takes too. And some running for President. God damn them for that.

  4. The Grundle King says:

    I just have to say…Mark Andrews, awesome post.

    I harkon back to high school biology, and while the things we learned were fun and interesting, I don’t know that they had much practical application beyond someday becoming a biologist (which I thought I wanted to do, but I took another path). Sure, dissecting worms and frogs and fetal pigs was neat and all, and it did help me gain an understanding of how different organs work…but I can’t say that I left that class with a great understanding of the human body. Indeed, I too feel that our youth would be better served by learning more about the human body…and maybe a little less about the finer points of biological chemistry…that’s what college is for.

    I’d love to see a requisite class that focuses on the ill effects of some of the more common vices…show kids what a set of lungs with cancer looks like, and what a liver with cirrhosis looks like, what happens to the heart of an obese individual, and most importantly, teach them what such diseases will do to their quality of life. Heck, considering the number of accidents that teens get involved in due to distracted driving (texting, etc.), maybe throw in a few graphic crash pics for good measure.

    I’m sure a lot of liberals would say that we shouldn’t be scaring our children in such a way…to which is say, “Bullshit.” Fear is a great motivator, and an even better teacher.

  5. Ed Stevens says:

    Mark Andrews – thoughtful and well-written response … but I worry that you missed the point, i.e., that the “program” being foisted on the state by Morfeld et al has little to nothing to do with sex education, and everything to do with acquiring dominion.

    One other thing – if you really believe that real conservatives have a fulsome regard for such concepts as truth is transitory, or people are perfectible through the action of the state, then you and I have wildly differing views of Conservatism.

    Thanks for reading and commenting.

  6. Well, Lincoln Public Schools has ‘whole language’, which didn’t worry about all the fuss and muss of grammar and spelling, and let kids discover language on their own. It produced a generation of illiterates. And then we had ‘whole math’, which dispensed with those icky multiplication tables, in favor of ‘discovery’, and so the graduates can’t do simple arithmetic.

    So i propose we continue the trend with ‘whole sex’. Put them all in a room, and let them work it out for themselves. I’m sure it will cut down on the birthrate, since experience tells us most will figure it out wrong.

  7. Sparkles says:

    Exceptionally well stated, Mark Andrews.

    And in accordance with William F. Buckley’s own definition of a ‘liberal’, your’s is a position that would be eagerly embraced by liberals.

    Mr. Stevens repudiation of “science”, followed by the inclusion of Buckley introduces to his treatise a truly odd dissonance.

    How fabulous it would be for our nation if the right would once again embrace the celebrated intellectualism of William F. Buckley.
    Instead, the right has subjected our nation to the likes of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, 9-9-9, Donald Trump and ‘evolution and the Big Bang are the spawn of Satan’, Dr. Ben Carson.

    Buckley would, with great vengeance and furious anger, rail against our modern day Birthers just as he railed against the Birchers.

    • “Sparkles”,
      To be clear, Scalia said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the Surpreme Court did that — seeing as they are out of bounds on many other areas of the Constitution — but by no means would HE be in favor of that.
      -Ed.

  8. repentinglawyer says:

    Since the heroes of the Old Testament heroes practiced polygamy and kept concubines, adultery was limited to having sex with a married woman, there is no condemnation of fornication in either Testament. the OT is obscure on homosexuality and at best denounces one form of male and male intercourse, classic sodomy, and then only for the passive man, and since the NT texts on the subject are probably aimed only at sex with temple prostitutes, a group of males not easily available in NE, I wonder what Biblical morality Mr Stevens supports. With regard to divorce there is no JudeoChristian rule, and the NT either bars divorce or except for adultery with the Pauline privilege added.

  9. Love it says:

    Liberals most days: Get your religion out of the bed room. Religion has no place in politics. Take down the ten commandments in public. Abortion on demand for any reason at any time.

    Liberals today: LOOK! LISTEN! THE POPE DOESN’T LIKE THE DEATH PENALTY AND HIS JUDGEMENT IS ABOVE REPROACH! THE DEATH PENALTY IS BAD AND SUCH! Gosh I hope nobody heard that part about protecting life at all stages.

    Personally, I don’t care much what His Holiness says. I’m not a catholic and I don’t derive many of political stances from religion. The death penalty is just, and those 57+ million people murdered since 1973 never did anything to anyone. Some were sentenced to death by a court of 1 because they were inconvenient. Others were killed because their father was a rapist. The rapist father wasn’t sentenced to death but it was fair to sentence the child to death. Shame on those gametes for doing what gametes do!

  10. repentinglawyer says:

    I really do not see the actual text of the Bible interfering very much with a good time, perhaps Gary and Ace could provide some references, though we might remember that texts most of us use are translations filtered through tradition. My Hebrew andAramaic are non existent and my Greek is rusty and Homeric.

  11. Oracle says:

    LOOK! LISTEN! THE POPE DOESN’T LIKE THE DEATH PENALTY AND HIS JUDGEMENT IS ABOVE REPROACH!…

    It’s funny and a bit sad that many of you posters KNOW what liberals believe and think. Here’s why a liberal (and other thinking people) would rant about the pope’s message concerning the death penalty: hypocrisy. Conservatives (in this case mostly Catholic conservatives) point to the pope’s positions they love (anti-abortion; anti-gay marriage) but suddenly have a problem when the pontiff speaks about the death penalty, climate change or wealth inequality. Sorry, you can’t pick and choose. Hypocrisy is the operative word. (And you could use the same argument against Catholic liberals, which is why I’m no longer Catholic.)

  12. Key 'n Trumpets says:

    I don’t care if we make dog food out of killers or give them life in the electric chair. They aren’t as much a danger to us as are our own politicians in Washington. With that in mind…

    Does a fight between Fox and Trump hurt Trump among GOP Primary voters? Oh hell no.

    Half of GOP voters are backing one of three non-GOP candidates (Trump, Fiorina, Carson) so the message from GOP voters is, screw the GOP for being philosophically correct but too stupid to beat Democrats.

    I am a conservative Republican and I think McCain and Romney were horrible candidates and McConnell and Boehner are stupid. I want smaller government. What I get is GOP leaders with smaller brains; people who cannot negotiate successful outcomes in government even when they are put in charge of it. More than half of all GOP voters currently agree that the GOP is being lead by idiots. So they eschew GOP senators and governors backed by the idiots, and instead go for the outsiders. It appears Fox Network is in cahoots with the idiots.

    Fox liked Trump when he upped its ratings. But once Trump became a real candidate, Fox was suddenly for anyone but Trump; a GOP governor, like Perry or Walker; and now Fox is for CEO Fiorina. Except that her one big CEO gig fired her as CEO for incompetence. Unless voters all suddenly have brain clots, there’s only so far Fiorina can go. Carson has more viability.

    Fox’s working theory is that GOP voters will in the end throw up their hands and say “Lordy, we see the light. We don’t want no Trump or Fiorina or Carson… Give us another Senator like McCain or another Governor like Romney.” Maybe that will happen. Another McCain or Romney. Lordy.

    But in the short run, I predict Fox battling with Trump will probably give Trump a bump and probably kill off two more GOP regulars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.