Move Aside, Parents, We’re Talking Sex to the Kids

Printed from:

I’m starting to understand the arguments against school choice.

Why give parents a say in their children’s education when, obviously, there are experts who know better?

Thank heavens (and I mean that rhetorically; please, take no offense) that we have the Massachusetts State Senate and Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts watching out for our children’s welfare.

If you’ve been reading New Boston Post, you know of the Massachusetts sex education bill that has been introduced and now passed by the Senate. NBP has already editorialized about it.

If you are not up to speed, the bill – titled “An Act Relative To Healthy Youth” (who could be against that, right?) – supposedly offers comprehensive sex education. Among the curriculum is a program called “Get Real,” aimed at middle school students. It is published by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (such a pro-child group).

According to Andrew Beckwith, who first wrote about this for NBP, the Get Real workbook for seventh graders gives instructions on how to perform oral and anal sex. As Andrew writes, “let that sink in.”

There are other programs, including role-playing between children who want to have sex.

The state Senate passed the bill. Hey, they’re the ones who know what’s best. And no problem using tax dollars for such programs, because we know schools have so much money.

Of course, citizens cannot spend tax dollars in religious-themed schools. Instead of “Get Real,” our impressionable children might learn the Ten Commandments, or the Beatitudes, or even the definition of the word chastity.

The title “Get Real” has just the right message. Who would ever think of being chaste? Hedonism is where it’s at. Get real.

It appears the only controversy about the Senate’s vote was a proposed amendment requiring parental permission to take part in the program.

“That “would require school districts to chase down the parents of every single student,” complained Senator John Kennan of Quincy.

Why would a school district want to communicate with parents?

What the senators and the educators won’t say is that some parents could care less. And, bottom line, isn’t that a key to our public school woes? The continued collapse of family structure means children come to school less prepared and less disciplined. They are not being taught values at home, nor are they read to; let alone hearing about the birds and the bees.

Enter the lower-the-bar mentality. Our society is several generations into the sexual revolution. Instead of combatting that with messages of chastity, dignity, and true respect, there is resignation. The children supposedly can’t control themselves when it comes to sex, so we might as well show them how to do it, safely.

The sex-ed bill is now headed to the state House of Representatives.

There is a better way, but I know it is not trendy, nor considered realistic. In the sexual ethics section of the morality class I taught high school students, we did not discuss sex as an inevitable event in their young lives. We did speak of the inherited beauty of sex, with its role in life and true love. (Yes, I can picture the eye-rolls from the “enlightened” crowd.)

For an introduction, we talk a lot about the value of friendship, which is not a collection of Facebook followers, but people who care about you. You care about your friends, you don’t use them. (This is where I mention the courtship of the woman I married.)

Next comes the sex talk. (Not that sex talk – I defer to the biology class.) Natural reasoning tells us that there are three factors in sex.

One, openness to life. (It happens, see your biology notes.)

Two, a lifelong commitment between the man and woman. (To take care of the life that may come along.)

Three, pleasure.

I-know, I-know, I-know that our advanced society wants to bypass one and two, and go straight to three. (See Hedonism). I opted for truth.

Before we were so advanced, there were mothers and fathers committed for a lifetime, to themselves and their children. These groups were called families and they took responsibility for their children, teaching them morals, while also making sure they were ready for school.

Now, schools and politicians assume too much of a role. Maybe they think they must. But institutions cannot replace family. There must be boundaries. Programs like “An Act Relative To Healthy Youth” step over the line, especially when they want to keep parents out.

My cynical side thinks this is about control. Although I pay taxes, I cannot use that money for the school I want my children to attend. The government decides. That same government creates school programs that I consider immoral and not “healthy” at all.

Is it any wonder why homeschooling becomes more popular every year?


Kevin Thomas is a writer and former teacher, living with his wife and children in Standish, Maine.