The question was asked, “What is the difference between ‘modern sex education’ and ‘comprehensive sex education?'” The answer: Both are education in sex. Education in sex is quite different from God’s Word to instruct in purity and guard modesty. So, perhaps, when we know a particular class is called “sex education” or “sexuality for boys and girls,” or a set of books is labeled “a sex education series,” or even “Christian Sex Education,” we ought to ask: What are the desired outcomes?
One of the desired outcomes of modern sex education is to help boys and girls become more comfortable with their bodies. With their “sexuality.” A well-known Christian author/teacher in the field of sex education once confronted me. He said: I understand that you’re displeased with our church’s sex education. In that particular time and place, I could only respond quickly with my concern about modesty. “Yes, I am concerned. Couldn’t we, at the very least, teach boys and girls separately so as not to break down their natural inhibitions and destroy protective boundaries? Doesn’t God desire that we protect the innocence of children?” His response? He said he was pleased that his son, at age ten, knew more about sex than he did at that age. I wondered aloud: “Is that a good thing?”
Modern sex education has, indeed, achieved a desired outcome. Everywhere I look, I see young women who are comfortable with their bodies. Their “sexuality.” They are comfortably exposed at the Lord’s Table much to the discomfort of pastors offering the sacrament. They are comfortably exposed at the mall, on the beach or at the pool, on dates, playing sports, at church youth events, or in Bible study.
Girls are, indeed, comfortable with their “sexuality.” Christian girls shop at Victoria’s Secret or Abercrombie & Fitch just like non-Christian girls. They purchase sensual dresses for prom or other social events, often to the delight of moms who gush pride in their “sexy” daughters. Girls are not embarrassed by sexually-suggestive remarks. They speak, text, and post sensual messages. They are so “comfortable” with their bodies — their “sexuality” — that very little is left to the male imagination.
It’s difficult to mentor, guard, or practice modesty when sex education’s goal is to make classrooms of boys and girls together more comfortable with themselves. When God speaks of modesty, isn’t He calling us to be “holy” as opposed to “sexy”? Isn’t He calling us to dress and act in ways that call attention not to our glory, but His? And, as with all things godly, isn’t there a reason for this?
Those who promote Christianized-sex education insist that their emphasis is on chastity. They claim this is a far cry from secular instruction on how to use a condom or where to go for an abortion. But, the innocence of children is stolen away by even the most passionate Christian who wants to come out of the Victorian closet of prudish inhibition. There are many well-meaning Christians who, with the sincere hope of preventing sexually-transmitted diseases and unwed pregnancy, support some form of sex education. But, Douglas Gresham, the step-son of C.S. Lewis explained to me that he views “modern sex education as child abuse because it is ill-planned and poorly thought out, thus adding to the very problem it is trying to address and eroding the structure of a healthy family.”
What does he mean? Perhaps this. So-called “sex education” before Alfred Kinsey was generally a discussion of human biology and procreation, hygiene, and marriage. It was a discussion to be had in the home with the parent in the role of teacher. Who would better guard the virtue of children? Who would better explain “sex” (defined by a pre-sexual revolution dictionary as ones “maleness” or “femaleness”)? Who would better assist a son or daughter in being patient until marriage and, thus, help build a structure for a healthy family? But, after Alfred Kinsey, this life-shaping responsibility was transferred to school teachers and so-called “experts.” Prior to the release of Kinsey’s research, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, no child development experts suggested that children were sexual from birth or that they benefited from childhood sexual activity (or, I’d like to add, from childhood sexual discussions between boys and girls in classrooms). (Note: For documentation on this and more, I recommend you read Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, 2000)
In 1986 Planned Parenthood (PP) commissioned a poll to determine how “comprehensive” sex education affected behavior. “Comprehensive” means placing emphasis on the practice of “safe sex.” Much to the PP’s dismay, the study showed that children exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all. (Planned Parenthood Poll, “American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and Birth Control.” Lou Harris and Associates, December 1986, p. 59, table 6-1.)
So, I wonder:
- Do Christian children exposed to modern sex education (post-1960, teacher/expert, boy/girl classroom-style) have a higher rate of sexual awareness, sensual dress, and sexual inhibition than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
- Has sexual activity increased more among Christian young people who’ve been sexually-educated in the last three decades than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
- Do Christian young people who’ve been made more comfortable with their “sexuality” suffer from more sexually-transmitted diseases, depression following multiple bonding, unwed pregnancy, and post-abortion grief than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
I’m thinking that it just might not be a good thing — no, not a good thing at all — if my nine-year-old grandson knows more about sex than I did at his age.
Ezerwoman's Blog 