For years and years, amounting to decades, social conservatives have been saying that sex education a) should be taught by parents and b) as taught in public schools is not neutral but in fact encourages sexual activity by unmarried kids.
The latter point has been pressed again and again in the following terms: When you present sexual activity to teens as just another option which they should know how to engage in "safely" if they should so choose, that very faux neutrality is not neutral, because it communicates that unmarried sexual activity is normal and expected. Making premarital sex just another part of life throws any stigma surrounding it out the window and even gives the impression that those who are remaining chaste are somehow different or odd. The very premise on which the programs are based--"Kids are going to have sex anyway"--will influence the way the programs are taught. Then, too, the explicitness of many programs, by teaching kids about all manner of sex acts which they do not need to know about, destroys any innocence which parents might have managed to keep for their children up to that point. (And please understand that comments on this post will be closely monitored and that graphic comments will be edited or deleted.)
All in all, the continued liberal pretense that sex education in K-12 schools has not increased sexual activity among minors is in conflict not only with empirical evidence (Thomas Sowell has written well on this topic) but also with common sense psychology.
Social conservatives have been saying all of that since the 70's, at least. And it's all true. But I think at this point we should face up to the fact that sex education in the schools has gone well beyond any mere implication that premarital sex is normal and expected.
In token of which I present the following e-mail sent to blogger and radio host Matt Walsh (emphasis added).
You write a lot about relationships and everything so I’m wondering if you think abstinence should be encouraged in school?
Reason I’m asking is because we are doing our sex ed lessons in health class now and the topic has come up. Yesterday my health teacher was talking about safe sex and someone mentioned abstinence and she said it wasn’t realistic. She said it was an out dated way of thinking and the people who push for it are out of touch because they were probably kids a long time ago. She said sometimes sex can be more casual and isn’t always a part of something serious. Then she asked how many people in the class are sexually active because she said it was important for people not to be ashamed. Almost all the guys in class raised their hands but I didn’t. They were all talking about how sex doesn’t have to be something for marriage or long term relationships. I always wanted to wait for marriage and I hope it’s not weird for me to say that. They said in class that we should be more accepting of sexual expression that doesn’t conform to older ideas. But I still always wanted to wait for marriage. But at this point I feel like an outcast or something.
I read something you wrote about dating once and it seemed like you were saying that people should wait for marriage [to have sex]. What do you thinkabout what my teacher said? Am I weird for not really wanting to go out and hook up with girls and stuff and instead wait for marriage?”
I trust that is clear enough. This teacher expressly derided chastity or even the extremely meager standard of making sex "part of something serious." She expressly encouraged not merely premarital sex but casual sex. She expressly encouraged brazen admission (aka bragging) about premarital sex and, in the process, tacitly encouraged a stigma for chaste students who didn't raise their hands. And she created confusion and uncertainty in at least one student's mind as to whether he should feel pressured to have sex because it is "weird" and "outdated" to wait for marriage.
That is disgusting. That is irresponsible. That is the kind of behavior that should get any teacher fired in any school in the country. That is the behavior of a spiritual wolf dragging souls down to the hell she probably doesn't believe in.
That is, of course, yet another reason for Christians to home school.
It is also, in my opinion, inevitable in our current society. Moreover, I believe that something like this was socially inevitable from the beginning of the sex education movement. We are lying to ourselves if we imagine that the people pushing for sex education in the schools were ever neutral on the matter. At the very best, some of them may have believed in the hazy, flower child seventies that sex should be reserved for Luv (tm), but they certainly never believed that it should be reserved for marriage. They said ad nauseam that they were pressing for teaching kids "safe sex" only because "the kids are going to do it anyway," but in actuality, they themselves believed quite definitely that there was nothing really wrong with the kids' doing it, that sexual activity by (at least) teens, if not younger kids, among themselves is a perfectly normal and natural part of life. Those attitudes were absolutely bound to come out in the teaching itself, because the whole point of the teaching was to enable the behavior by making it "safer." And now that the culture has fallen still farther, to the point that sex is considered completely clinical and not even connected to "something serious," that attitude, too, will come across from sex ed teachers to students. There is no getting around it.
This example sent to Walsh is just one of the clearest of a teacher's expressly indoctrinating students in the gospel of promiscuity.
So please, let's not fool ourselves anymore. If some liberal comes to you, or comes to this thread, for that matter, selling the old snake oil that says, "Sex education is just the neutral provision of necessary information," that proposition should be treated with the contempt it deserves. The person himself? Well, I'll pray for him. But the proposition is unworthy of honest men. We social conservatives were right all along. Sex education is not morally neutral.