The ‘Rest of the Story’ on Comprehensive Sex Education

The comprehensive sex education (CSE) program that has been taught in a number of Davidson County high schools clearly encourages sexual activity by breaking down natural inhibitions. Not surprisingly, CSE advocates say that the high incident of teen STD’s indicates a need for the CSE program. Actually, it’s time to stop doing more of the same and expecting different results.

NOTE: The following article contains descriptions of actions performed in Nashville public school classrooms and materials taught. The material may not be suitable for all audiences.

The Tennessean reported this week on the Center for Disease Control’s most recent report on sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases among teens. According to the paper “about a third of Davidson County’s chlamydia and syphilis infections and a quarter of gonorrhea cases occurred in teens in 2008,” which would certainly seem to be disproportionate to the percentage that teens make up of total population in Davidson County. Something it would seem is not working when it comes to what is being taught to kids in Davidson County about sex behavior. So what is the solution?

Well, it would appear that the answer is more of the same: More of the kind of sex education that has been taught in several Nashville schools the last several years by Nashville Cares.

What is the same thing? Well, the newspaper would have you believe it is a benign program that helps students know how to teach other students about sex education and answer the questions of their fellow colleagues. It is a class that the Tennessean described as simply “includ[ing] the use of anatomically correct models, an explanation of male and female sexual arousal and how it can contribute to the exchange of bodily fluids, pregnancy and disease.”

But, alas, the newspaper seems to lament, the “class where [students] got the training to answer students’ questions was temporarily halted earlier this year after one parent complained about its content.” But if you knew what actually was being taught, without the permission or informed consent of this one parent, the class should have been stopped.

What’s Really Being Taught in Nashville’s Sex Ed Class

Let’s be honest about what all really went on in this class. If the “news” about this class is going to be reported, let’s put out the rest of the story for others to judge.

First, the “anatomically correct models” were “used” alright, used to visually demonstrate how to put on a condom during the performance of oral sex. Not hard for me to believe a parent would object to someone visually demonstrating to his or her child how to put on a condom while performing oral sex on an anatomically correct model.

Second, they didn’t just explain male and female sexual arousal. They had the female students come touch the male genitalia on those anatomically correct models. They also had the boys come touch the female genitalia on those models. I can imagine a number of parents who would be upset at this blatant attempt to break down sexual mores and inhibitions in their children and arouse even more interest and curiosity in sexual activity.

But, let’s be clear about what else the kids were being taught. Here’s one of the PowerPoint slides:

Gay PRIDE Fact: Gay pride (PRIDE) has three main premises:

People should be proud of their sexual orientation and gender identity

Sexual diversity is a gift

Sexual orientation and gender identity are inherent and cannot be intentionally altered.

Here is bit more of what was taught, taken straight from the PowerPoint slides:

Heterosexism: A belief in superiority of, privileges accorded to, heterosexual orientation and relationships.

A sexually healthy person can be either gay, straight, or bisexual.

And lastly, students in this class were given material encouraging them to:

  • “wear a button such as ‘I support gay rights,’ “
  • “attend a rally or march supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people,”
  • “sign a  petition supporting gay rights,”
  • “campaign to pass gay rights bill,”

And, finally, students were encouraged to draft a letter that an older person might send to a parent revealing their homosexual lifestyle, called a “Letter to Mama,” and here is part of what the letter said:

Your child is a homosexual, and I never needed saving from anything except the cruel and ignorant piety of people like Anita Bryant.

More Than Just ‘One Parent’ Who Is Upset

Was all the material covered in the class bad? No. Could parts of the class be helpful? Sure. But let’s not gloss over things either. Let’s not make it look like there was one prudish parent who has come between children and healthy sexual practices. I can imagine there would be more than “one parent” in Davidson County who would be upset with graphic demonstrations of sexual acts, labeling all variations of sexual expression as equally healthy, and denigrating the Christian convictions of a person’s parents.

I’ve always found it interesting that we teach our children in the D.A.R.E. program to “just say no to drugs” as if they are volitional creatures who can be educated to refrain from harmful conduct, but when it comes to sex education, they are no more than mere animals with urges they cannot control.

How long are we going to believe that if we just do more of the same—and do it more often—we’re going to get a different result? At what point do we stop the insanity of doing the same thing and hoping for different results?