Reaping the whirlwind

Ohio is now considering a parental rights bill similar to Florida's. One of the best reasons for schools NOT to indoctrinate small children about sex--how, why, when, and who--is what the schools have done with ordinary, tried and true, historical meaning and traditional instruction on biology, i.e. how babies are made. It's called grooming. If you look at the statistics, when serious sex instruction took hold (with parental objection) in the 1960s and 70s, the teen pregnancy rate and subsequently the abortion rate, really took off. It did the opposite of what was intended. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. teen pregnancy rates rose. They remained steady through the 1980s, even as sexual activity among teens increased, due to improved contraceptive use among those teenagers who are sexually active. (Guttmacher, arm of Planned Parenthood statistics). When overall birthrates declined, unmarried teen pregnancies soared. The conservative and religious push to link marriage and sex was just too old fashioned for the age of easy contraception. Just wasn't "progressive," but Uncle Sam made a very bad step father for generations of Americans.

People have such faith in "education." Why, I don't know. All the bad political and financial policy ideas are sowed in academe and fertilized in Washington DC. We the people reap the whirlwind. Prove me wrong.

"They have planted the wind and will harvest the whirlwind. The stalks of grain wither and produce nothing to eat. And even if there is any grain, foreigners will eat it." Hosea 8:7

Germany's school system gives parents no out

 “What is happening in Germany [in sexualization programs in state schools], and in many other EU countries, goes way beyond what we have witnessed so far in our own country. It’s a particular problem in Germany where parents have no escape, other than leaving the country. Germany has a highly restrictive, mandatory education law, which effectively forces parents to send their children to schools run mainly by the state. Moreover, the law absolutely forbids homeschooling. Parents are trapped into exposing their children to the most degrading sexual education imaginable.”

According to this author, the German Catholic Church has been no help in stopping this usurpation of parental rights. I would assume the same is true for Lutherans and evangelicals in Germany.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/11/15/destroying-freedom-in-the-name-of-freedom/

50 shades of grey--if you’re naked it’s sadomasochism, if you’re not naked, it’s just violence

Judith Reisman has written a number of studies and books on the damage that Alfred Kinsey’s sex research did to society. The  wide acceptance of Kinsey’s claims, she contends, has contributed to a degradation in morality, teaching sex in schools and the expansion of pornography. She traces the mommy porn of 50 shades back to him.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/kinsey-blamed-for-50-shades-mommy-porn/

She accuses Kinsey of child sexual assaults in his “research.”

“One of the main things would be for us have a congressional investigation of Kinsey, to see where people were so completely lied to, how this began,” she said.

There have been previous, unsuccessful attempts at such investigations, she said.

The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University is getting millions of tax dollars, she said, at minimum $21 million in recent years.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/30/entertainment/la-et-kinsey-films-20101230

Gershon Legman, the original compiler for Kinsey's pornography collection, revealed that

Kinsey's not-very-secret intention was to "respectabilize" homosexuality and certain sexual perversions ... He did not hesitate to extrapolate his utterly inadequate and inconclusive samplings to the whole population of the United States, not to say the world ... This is pure propaganda, and is ridiculously far from the mathematical or statistical science pretended.[5]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC116.HTM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/776356/posts

http://www.whale.to/b/reisman3.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/

Safer sex?

I volunteer at a free clinic, and when my tasks are finished, I read the literature. Here's a brochure on STIs and condoms that I thought was interesting. Condoms don't reduce STIs at all for oral sex, and increase the risk for HIV; condoms during anal sex may decrease your risk for rectal chlamydia and cut your chance of getting HIV by up to half; condoms used every time can cut your chance of HPV by up to 70% (HPV causes cervical cancer and causes about the same number of deaths as HIV/AIDS every year); use of condoms every time can cut your chance of genital herpes by about 30%, but once you're infected you have it for life; using condoms every time can cut your chance of getting chlamydia or gonorrhea by about half; using condoms every time can cut your chance of getting HIV by about 85%--it kills about half a million a year. Only about 2/3 of sexually active teens use condoms, and as males age, they use them even less. All these odds assume correct usage and no breakage.

Now my question is, how many people would fly or drive with these odds of arriving safely?

And I have the references to the research if you need it.

The Medical Institute

Helping churches and parents to help their children

La Verne Tolbert, Ph.D., is author of Keeping You & Your Kids Sexually Pure. She details her five-year tenure on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood, NYC when death certificates were required for all abortions.  Her research on school-based clinics—abortion mills in public schools—explains why condom availability encourages kids to become sexually active.  Written in everyday language, she urges pastors, parents, and teachers to teach teens why and how to save sex for marriage.

4150 OSU students

That doesn't seem like a very high number--on a campus of 50,000+. The weasel word is "chose." I'm guessing several thousand were either busy working, studying or didn't have the opportunity.

OSU now has a fund to provide $500 for a student who has experienced sexual assault or "intimate partner violence." This is to cover things like broken stuff, cell phone with prepaid minutes, emergency housing, help in breaking a lease, court costs, etc. This supplements other funds and insurance for students in distress. "Any OSU student who has alleged to a university official that they have experienced sexual violence can apply for assistance. A police report is not necessary in order to access the funds." Hmmm. There is a list of people--university staff and officials--who are consulted. If the student didn't report anything to the police, does the official have to? Wonder if the parents get to know too? And if he/she returns to the abusive one, do they get a second request for funds?

The Sexual Wellness Program at the Ohio State Student Wellness Center is devoted to promoting safer sex and healthy relationships. This program is home to The Condom Club, which offers condoms to OSU students at an extremely low cost--50 condoms for $5.00 and also access to free oral dams, latex gloves, finger cots and lubricant. Must be going after the GLBT group. And because 44% of the couples who use condoms do so incorrectly, The Center has volunteers called "sexperts" to help with this problem.

I worked with hundreds of student employees over my career at OSU (and U of I)--it was the small town and rural stock that worked the hardest and had the best values. Asian and Indian students were also outstanding, if you could keep them before a higher tech unit snatched them up. 99% were serious about their education and didn't party on week-ends or sleep around. When they graduated, many started at more than I made, but librarianship has always been at the bottom.

Do you suppose there was this much assault, violence, STDs, and abortions for college men and women back in the bad old days of the 40s and 50s when women had hours, didn't share dorms or apartments with men and the doors were locked at an appointed hour? Sometimes fences are more useful than ambulances.

Abstinence never fails; condoms do

If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny. President Bush is being blamed for a rise in teen-age pregnancy and STDs. He was roundly criticised on the basis of NO evidence, even back when he was governor of Texas. In his first administration he was ridiculed for his plan. Now that couldn't possibly bias the research, could it? Would you ever hear a pro-chastity program on NPR, or see a report in JAMA advocating it as a way to protect young girls? I think not. I know this for certain; Bush wouldn't be getting the credit in the media if the research had gone the other way. His holding the line on stem cell research saved us from countless years of ethical wrangling, and indirectly led the way for a cheaper, easier, safer method. But he's still being criticized and Obama, the most anti-life, anti-child president ever, given credit.

I don't know how many schools implemented "chastity" as a policy (to receive federal tax money), but since that's hard to do, I'm guessing darn few did it with much enthusiasm. It would be like me instructing children in tennis. Every organization, union and association even remotely connected with education were lambasting him on this one (or anything), from the beginning of his career in politics. Perhaps he should have gone the route of another President (OSU). Gee's daughter got a lot of publicity for forcing Wal-Mart to carry Plan B--her fame got her an appointment to the Obama medical team. Although she didn't rise as high as the Alabama MD (Regina Benjamin) running the free clinic. Accessibility to birth control and quicky abortions only increases risk taking among teens, that's been shown countless times, it doesn't decrease it; and none of that removes the risk of an STD. Or emotional trauma or abuse.

Whatever was spent on chastity programs (which I'm guessing looked like the anti-alcohol programs we got in the 50s), it couldn't come close to the trillions in the entertainment field pointing the other direction. Glamorizing trashy, female-demeaning sex in entertainment, gaming and crotch grabbing videos and music is all the rage. However, can blame that on the President? Every method to clean up movies and TV has failed (remember when Tipper Gore led a crusade?) since Frank Sinatra crooned and Elvis thrust his pelvis on the Ed Sullivan Show. Teenagers and old ladies fainted, but for different reasons. In fact, those entreprenuers making the big bucks trafficking in women, teen girls and young boys may be libertarians when it comes to personal values, and Democrats in the voting booth where they can fight regulation. In 2006 the Democrats even pledged a "family values" direction, because they thought it was working for the Republicans.

The current generation of parents of teens has done a reversal of the parenting styles of previous groups--from the 50s-80s. Now, the style is "be best friends," and welcome them home instead of tough love when there's misbehavior. We've got the helicopter parents. Do they say NO to anything? Are they remembering their own youth of the 70s and 80s? What have they communicated? Probably much more than the President or the schools or the churches.

No way to know, of course. Terrorism, the threat of STDs that kill, a long war, a consumer culture out of control just may create an "oh, well" mentality in kids. And let's not discount meaningless technology fads that include e-mailing sexy photos, parents who disrupt children's lives with divorce, recouple, and live together to save on rent. But in the heat of the moment with the hormones raging, I truly doubt that any teen thought to ask, "I wonder if President Bush will be disappointed?."

"Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for American Values, which describes itself as a supporter of traditional marriage and "against liberal education and cultural forces", said the abstinence message is overwhelmed by a culture obsessed with sex.

"It is ridiculous to say that a programme we nominally invest in has failed when it fails to overcome the most sexualised culture in world history. Education that emphasises abstinence as the best option for teens makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education in the United States," she said.

"In every other area of public policy - food, drugs, alcohol - we tell children what is the best choice. It seems very bizarre that the sex education establishment rejects the idea that we should talk to kids about what is best for them. We don't take vodka to drivers education because children will drink and drive."

4118

What happened to drowning worms?

Health and sex education for young people in the 1950s ended with high school--and about all I can remember is a matronly woman dropping a worm in a bottle of Coca Cola so we could see that it would die. Or did she force it to smoke a cigarette? We certainly didn't have any required sex or health courses in college.

In today's WSJ Christian C. Sahner, who must have had the dream job of the summer as an intern of sorts at the paper before he is launched as a Rhodes Scholar, writes about sex ed at Princeton:

"At Princeton, the freshman class must attend "Sex on a Saturday Night" (SoSN) during its first week. It's a university-organized, student-performed play designed to warn about sexual assault and alcohol abuse. Many schools have similar programs. Its noble intentions are overshadowed, however, by a deleterious message: College is time to get busy (and not just in the library)!"

The play includes 10 characters, telling raunchy, crude jokes with one hokey abstainer who uses a copy of Playboy. The message isn't neutral at all, Sahner reports. It presents "consent" as the only moral principle in "hooking up," whether gay or straight, male or female. All other considerations like pregnancy, STDs, or depression stemming from treating sexual relationships like a college sport, are all irrelevant.

It would be nice, given the statistics on moral students from in tact families that he suggests, if the students just laughed this off the way we did the worms in the bottle. But why is Princeton force feeding such a degrading view of sex with this compulsory, repulsive requirement?

Parents: you're paying the bills. Is this what you want for an education?