Look what the liberal, progressive Obama administration wants your kids to learn about sex

No, not fisting, though at least that practice doesn’t lead to teen pregnancy the Worst Scourge Ever In The History Of Mankind (and without which we wouldn’t have our president, oh wait)… no, they’ve decided to go the other route this time: they’re going to teach kids about abstinence! That’s right, they’re going to throw another zillion dollars that I keep hearing the country doesn’t have into a high school program that I could clear up in a single sentence: “Don’t have sex and you won’t get pregnant.” Then I’d take the rest of the money minus the $1.97 that sentence cost to say and skip town to go to Rio. Gosh, I wonder why I haven’t been given a government grant lately…

Anyway, let’s examine this new program, by some organization called “Heritage Keepers.” Hmm. It looks like a doozy. First we have this:

“Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy. Males are more sight orientated whereas females are more touch orientated.”

Guys like to look and use their eyes and brains while girls just want to get pawed. That’s why it’s completely okay to touch a female person whenever you want, guys! Go ahead. Put your hands all over her. I’m sure she’ll be unable to resist begging you to marry her on the spot.

“This is why girls need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason, girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts.”

Male humans are raging beasts of violent lust who can somehow be controlled by a couple of extra inches of material in the hem of a skirt. “Modest” female clothing is like a superpower!

“When couples live together outside of marriage, the relationships are weaker, more violent, less [equal], and more likely to lead to divorce”

Um, “divorce” can only happen if a couple is “married.” If a couple who is not married decided to break up, the term for that is “breaking up.” I’m here to help.

Sexual activity outside of marriage can lead to:“Sexually Transmitted Viruses, Sexually Transmitted Bacteria, Cervical Cancer, AIDS, Legal and financial responsibility for a child until he or she is at least 18, Raising a child alone, Emotional hurt and regret, Increased chance of abuse from a partner.”

Marriage, however, is like a magical superpower from God that will make sure none of that happens. Married people don’t get cancer, AIDs, or emotional hurt and regret. They just don’t! Shut up!

Apparently this Heritage Keeper program has a segment on planning marriage. Funny, none of the sex education classes I recall actually went into that. Possibly it was because back in the 1970s it was assumed that people preferred to plan their marriages on their own time with their families when they decided to get married, not in a high school class under the supervision of an unrelated government employee. Also, I am totally sure that talking about marriage plans in a classroom full of teenage girls who have grown up watching Disney princess movies won’t result in a bunch of pregnant teenagers because SHUT UP, OUR SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLAN IS FOOLPROOF.

Anyway, some samples of this segment:

Young men are asked to envision their wedding day: “The doors swing open and there stands your bride in her white dress…This is the woman you have waited for (remained abstinent for) who has waited for you…This woman loves you and trusts you with all that she is and all that she has. You want to be strong, respectful and courageous for her. With all your heart, you want to protect her, and by waiting (sexually) you have.”

You know what I envision? A lot of teenage guys making puking noises and going “No way!” while the teacher bangs on the desk and yells for order. Who wrote this shit, Martians for Christ?

Oh god, it goes on:

Young women are asked to envision their wedding day: “Everything is just as you have seen it in a million daydreams…” When the bride takes her father’s arm: “Your true love stands at the front. This is the man who you have waited for (remained abstinent for) and who has waited for you…This man wants to be strong and courageous for you, to cherish and protect you… You are ready to trust him with all that you have and all that you are, because you have waited (sexually) you have it all to give.”

Okay, those puking noises you might be hearing all the way on the other side of the internet are coming from me. I have the urge to write an addendum called “Four Years Later”: “You wait by the door of the trailer home. Your true love is late, because he’s probably still at the bar. He goes there every night now after being turned away from the day labor place again because they’d rather hire hard-working Mexican immigrants than drunken American citizens. Behind you, the new baby yells in its crib, needing its smelly diapers changed again. The twins, both deep in the midst of their terrible twos, are also screaming. You’ve never lost the weight you gained having three kids in four years, and you know you look terrible but you don’t care. Next door, the neighbor’s five pit bulls have been barking for nearly two solid hours. You look at the oven and curse the fact that it’s an electric one. You think about that woman your mother told you about who drowned her five kids in the bathtub. You try to push away the thought, but it keeps coming back.”

Seriously, they’re putting this in high school classrooms? No wonder this country’s culture is going down faster than the World Trade Center. I’m so glad we elected an intelligent, progressive, Diverse™ president. He’s so different from all the other ones. Especially the part where he’s exactly the same.

13 thoughts on “Look what the liberal, progressive Obama administration wants your kids to learn about sex

  1. Once again, they have succumbed to the political pressure of social conservatives and allowed the ideology of the right to prevail over the health and well-being of the nation’s youth.”

    Because, apparently, encouraging young teenagers to abstain from sex and all the potential consequences thereof is abandoning concern for the health and well-being of our nation’s youth. Because teen pregnancy and STD’s are just so…so…empowering!

    The President has talked about his administration’s commitment to LGBT health and rights by recording his own “It Gets Better Video”

    Led, of course, by that Gentle Soul, Dan Savage. Huzzah!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/dan-savage-savages-the-bible-on-homosexuality_b_1470791.html

    Today roughly 40 percent of high school students have had sex and young people under age 29 continue to account for approximately 30 percent of all new cases of HIV infection.

    But again, talking about abstaining from those potential risks behaviors is dangerously negligent towards the “sexual health” our our youth? The fu…?

    Yet, Heritage Keepers Abstinence Education does not include information about the health benefits of contraception or condoms.

    Who knew condoms were so nutritious!? Maybe they have anti-oxidants.

    Not only does the Heritage Keepers program ostracize LGBT youth, withhold life-saving information from sexually active and HIV-positive youth…

    Because, you know, they won’t have any access to the other 27 sex education programs already on the list. Or, you know, the fucking Internet.

    Jeez, talk about puking noises. What a hysterical bit of hyperbole.

    • “Because, apparently, encouraging young teenagers to abstain from sex and all the potential consequences thereof”

      Won’t work. At least, not with ridiculous programs like this. Really, they receive messages 24/7 that finding your true-love-soulmate is humanity’s highest goal, and that part of what makes someone your true-love-soulmate is being sexually compatible, and I can’t really blame still-forming teenage brains from interpreting that as “shag early and often.” In any case, you don’t need a fancy program to say “don’t have sex.” Teenagers may be balls of peer-pressure and hormones but they aren’t that stupid. (By the way, isn’t “young teenagers” redundant now that Dave Clark is dead and there aren’t any “old teenagers” any more?)

      Re condoms: don’t be obtuse, the purpose of condoms is to prevent pregnancy and contact with another person’s bodily fluids, which is how STDs are passed on. No they aren’t perfect, but neither is washing your hands to help lessen the spread of colds and the flu. I don’t see anyone objecting to hand-washing.

      Re LGBT kids being ignored by school programs. Yes, the internet is a wonderful resource for people who have formerly been ignored and tossed aside by the majority. That doesn’t mean it is good to ignore and toss aside people. And in any case, this program doesn’t just ignore gays and so on — it ignores blind people. All that stuff about males being all visual and shit doesn’t hold for someone who can’t see. What are blind guys supposed to do, not get married? “But you can’t see her. How can you form the necessary lustful thoughts that need to be controlled by modest clothing and marriage?”

      • I guess the ultimate point of my snarkiness is that LBGT aren’t being “ignored” by the Obama administration by allowing this program on the books…along with 27 other already existing programs. And that the desperate, chest clutching “OMG LGBT kids are gonna DIE cuz of this” tone I read in the article isn’t really indicative of a calm, reasoned approach to the topic.

        And it’s okay to talk about the ‘health benefits’ of condoms, but not of abstinence? I would think there would be room for both in the “marketplace of ideas.”

        I guess if you’re not sold on marriage as any kind of a desireable condition, then I guess the whole concept would seem a bit smarmy and over-the-top.

        Maybe there’s still some of us out there that hold on to that silly notion that maybe the person you finally marry doesn’t want to be #6 or 8 or 15 on the list of people you’ve slept with.

    • I’m not seeing any chest-clutching, only the usual irritation that, as usual, everyone is obsessed with hetero kids and their possibly baby-making futures.

      Re the health benefits of abstinence: I’ve already explained that “abstinence” (a fancy, religious-toned word for “not doing it”) can be dispensed with in once sentence. Though actually, it’s arguably damaging to a person’s mental health to not have sex for stupid reasons like not wanting to piss off people in authority. (And mental health affects physical health, etc.)

      As for future hypothetical husbands and wives and their hypothetical jealousy, I’m not sure we should encourage that sort of thing. That would also condemn divorced and widowed people to having to expect their next partner to have problems with the fact that they’re not virginal. That’s stupid. In any case, sex is just a thing people do that has become complicated by all sorts of notions and ideas all stemming from the need of our ancestors to control the line of inheritance. This isn’t the past, our society is no longer rigidly dependent upon who gets the estate when the patriarch dies. If that’s the custom in your own family, fine, but I don’t see why strangers who have nothing to do with you have to be bound by your inheritance customs.

  2. “Male humans are raging beasts of violent lust who can somehow be controlled by a couple of extra inches of material in the hem of a skirt.”

    I’ve been reading some blogs of people who fled from “Christian Patriarchy” movements (like Quiverfull) and they remember growing up being told essentially that. Young men will have “lustful thoughts” – and those thoughts can make them go wild – so it’s entirely the woman’s responsibility to make sure the men control themselves because the men are incapable of self-control and whenever they have sexual thoughts they must act on it somehow (funnily enough these patriarchy movements expect infants and toddlers to keep their hands to themselves and show great restraint and discipline in their behavior – often getting smacked for it when they don’t – but when it comes to sex the attitude towards grown men is that they’re worse than toddlers). A similar attitude is seen in greater extremes in the Middle East and other places (e.g. “her hair isn’t 100% covered? she’s an immoral slut who’s asking for it!”) That way when women and girls get attacked or harassed the blame can be placed entirely on them instead of on the attacker, who is just another animal acting on animal impulse and somehow not a human being living in civilization, even though in every other way he’s regarded as human with its attendant expectations and responsibilities. Plus attacks and harassment are a great way to keep women in line so that they don’t feel safe venturing outside the home (or in the saddest cases don’t even feel safe in the home).

    Also when modesty becomes measured obsessively in length of skirts and percentage of skin exposed (as opposed to viewing it as a general attitude that both men and women can adopt), then it turns into this obsessiveness about women’s bodies and clothes that ironically gets people to think a lot more about sex. An ex-Quiverfull man for instance described being conditioned to scrutinize women intensely to see how much below or above the knee that skirt was, or how much below the collarbone her shirt dipped, and whether this showed that she was a slut and an evil temptress, and then he’d wonder what was under the covered up parts as well and obsess about that. His male friends had the same thoughts. And again, this isn’t limited to Christian fundamentalism but to any fundamentalist religious strain of thought where women and their bodies are seen as a threat, except for when they’re tucked into certain roles and certain garments. Then they become a managed threat.

    I’m also tired of hearing that men are “visual creatures.” Of course they are (at least, the ones who can see), but let’s not discount the role of visuals in female sexuality as well. Visuals are a great turn on for women, along with other things like scent. Touch is important to the vast majority of men and women. I’m tired of people who oversimplify sexuality and human nature so they can better fit people into their Model Cookie Cutter Male and Cookie Cutter Female molds.

    • “Young men will have ‘lustful thoughts’ – and those thoughts can make them go wild – so it’s entirely the woman’s responsibility to make sure the men control themselves because the men are incapable of self-control and whenever they have sexual thoughts they must act on it somehow ….”

      My imam keeps saying that.

      • Yes, yes, it’s a problem that is not just confined to Western, Judeo-Christian culture. Let us yawn.

        Cultural comparisons isn’t the point of my post and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t drag this conversation over that way.

  3. Mark Steyn said (I paraphrase) schools used to teach math and left the kids to pick up the sex stuff on their own, where now they teach sex and leave the kids to pick up the math on their own.

    I think that pretty much sums up the through-the-looking-glass views of those in charge of ‘education’.

  4. Pingback: Sex Education Obama-Style « Clarissa's Blog

    • Well, I believe that’s a British term, so there’s nothing wrong with it, unless you’re one of those Americans who uses British-style words in the mistaken idea that it makes them look more sophisticated.

      • On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine a UK-based push for abstinence. (These days, it’s hard to imagine a UK-based push for much of anything; if the sun hasn’t set on the British Empire, it’s certainly hanging low in the sky.) And I have never worried much about looking sophisticated, mostly because I figured I would not succeed.

      • I don’t think the British have shown much interest in that sort of thing, as their religious evangelists are kept on a shorter leash over there. I’m actually not sure why this particular group used “orientated” since I thought they were American. Maybe whoever wrote it up was Canadian?

Comments are closed.