A HUGE Problem with Public School

The purpose of public education has changed over the last 200 years in this country, but, fundamentally, the public school system was meant to come alongside parents and teach young citizens to think critically, solve problems, communicate effectively, express creativity, and pursue truth—all with the ultimate purpose of helping to create well-rounded citizens who could participate in civic life.

This is not what’s happening today. Instead, many public schools have settled for teaching your students what to think, not how to think. In the process, the pursuit of truth is abandoned for an ideology, and any speech against that ideology is stifled.

It is not the public school’s responsibility to teach our children about sex and sexuality. That’s the parents’ responsibility. However, as we’ve handed the education of our kids over to the state, we’re seeing the results. Indoctrination is the right word here. Our public school system has become a way for the government to indoctrinate your children according to a highly divisive view of sex and sexuality. And it is not right.

Jonathan Noyes, Do You Know What Your Child Is Being Taught about Sex?

A Problem With Sex Education

And common sense observation tells us that the introduction of widespread public sex education has done nothing to check the increase of unwanted pregnancies, promiscuity, and venereal disease. There is evidence, rather, that such programs encourage premature sexuality with its attendant problems.

William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, pg.33

Marxist Sex Indoctrination

The origins of radical sex education date back nearly a century to a program implemented in Hungarian public schools by Marxists in their quest to destroy Christianity in Western Europe.  The curriculum included sex lectures and graphic instructional materials about free love and sexual intercourse.  Students were encouraged to ridicule and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.  Hate was turned toward parents, clergy, and all dissenters.

The program was a huge success.  Continued exposure to atheism, radical sex education, and rebellion against authority turned Hungarian students into bullies, thieves, murderers, sex predators, and sociopaths who disrespected authority. 

The implementation of a radical sex curriculum and Marxist indoctrination in American public education has created a mental crisis among students.  American youths are exhibiting the same characteristics found in Hungarian youths after implementation of a radical sex curriculum: violent, thieves, murderers, sociopaths, sex predators, and God-haters. 

Carole Hornsby Haynes, Who Gave the Government the Right to Push LGBT Propaganda into Schools?

Sex Education Failure

Modern sex education keeps failing to deliver on its promises—indeed, it keeps plunging society into deeper and deeper problems—and it keeps proposing as the solution more and more of the same. Sexual assault is heinous, and even the clients of prostitutes want something more significant than an anonymous encounter. The notion that sex can be pursued as recreation, isolated from a larger relational and moral context, is an obvious scam. But we keep getting mugged by reality.

Carl R. Trueman, Scam Artists and Sex Education

Perversion Taught in School is Dung in Your Water

Now the question for us is not whether perversion ought to be taught in school.  Nor is it even whether teachers should instruct small children in how to behave like a member of the opposite sex.  Let us change the terms of the situation so that we can see what the problem really is.  Suppose it is not sex we are talking about, but violence.  Imagine a world in which teachers  introduce children to the thrill-seeking of stabbing and slashing—with precautions, of course, so that the person who is stabbed will probably not bleed to death.  Suppose the teachers bring to the school speakers who delight in cruelty, whose eyes shine when they recount the first time they gouged out the eye of an enemy.  Imagine that parents are not even informed when a machete-wielding gang man demonstrates on stage the proper angle at which to slice off someone’s arms in mid-fight.  Imagine safe switchblades.

The problem is that you would be dealing with people whose imaginations and moral sensibilities are so diseased as to make such things even conceivable.  It will not do merely to restrain them in this or that regard.  They are not fit to teach your children the multiplication table.  They are not fit to be near them at all.  Every moment that your children are in their presence, they will be breathing the putrescent air from the diseased heart and spirit of the instructors, in an institution whose walls stink of it, it has lingered there so long.  We are not talking about sinners here, since everyone is one of those. We are talking about people whom C.S. Lewis called the “bent,” those whose souls are warped, so that the more “honest” and consistent and idealistic they are, the worse they will be. . . .

But the problem is even worse than that.  No such person could ever be hired in the first place unless the entire school system were not slavering for him—or, more frequently these days, her.  From top to bottom the system is laced with people whose imaginations have been corrupted.  If that were not bad enough already, the publishers of textbooks and exams know it and provide them with their materials accordingly.  The evil is not just here or there, in this teacher or that, on this day or that, when this subject or that comes up, in this school or that school.  It is everywhere, a pervasive pollution, like fecal bacteria in your water supply.

Anthony Esolen, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture, pg.52-53

Modern Sex “Education” is Demonic Slime

Try to imagine explaining to the old farmers of Prince Edward Island the need to teach small children how to insert, safely of course, antiseptically of course, their fingers or tongues or other protuberances into the orifice of another kid of ambiguous sex, including the anus.  It is not that they would disagree with you.  It is not that they would have an alternative opinion about behavior that makes old-fashioned sodomy look like a peck on the cheek. It is that they would think that you had lost your mind.  They would believe that you were suffering a terrifying moral and psychological illness, nigh unto demonic possession, or perhaps well past it.  Would they let you speak to their children?  They would not want you to speak to their parents or friends or anybody, not because they would be afraid that you might persuade or entice one of them, but merely to spare their loved ones the experience of something so gross, so wicked, so repulsive, so sad.  They themselves, in future years, would let the memory of it drop into the darkness and the silence.  You do not make scrapbooks of slime.

Anthony Esolen, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture, pg.51-52

Sex-Morality Teaching and Public School

I never believe in giving sex-morality teaching to children in schools.  You are introducing them to sin.  You are telling them about things they never knew before, and they are not “pure.”  Therefore you cannot act on the assumption that such teaching will lead to good.  That is the whole tragedy of modern education; it is based entirely on a psychological theory that does not recognize sin, instead of on New Testament teaching.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount,” volume 1, p.240

Government Sexuality Ideology

SIECUS [Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States] argues that hurt feelings provide a further reason not to teach about sex within marriage as the preferred social standard.  It claims that the idea that sex is only appropriate in marriage "may prove particularly harmful to young people who are or have been sexually abused," because "it requires telling these students that the behaviors in which they have involuntarily participated go against society's 'expected standard.'  Such statements are likely to produce additional feelings of guilt and shame."  That's right: according to SIECUS, schools should not teach about reserving sex for marriage because it might make the victims of incest and molestation think that the sexual acts they were coerced into were somehow illegitimate.  What does SIECUS believe schools should do instead?  Assure victims of sexual abuse that they shouldn't feel bad because the acts perpetrated against them were simply the expression of a different set of values?  SIECUS's complaint is eerily reminiscent of claims by an earlier generation of SIECUS officials that the most traumatic part of molestation was that society disapproved of it.

John G. West, "Darwin Day in America: How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," p.320

Sex Education Illusion

The truth is, Planned Parenthood's sex education programs have backfired, actually increasing teen pregnancies.  According to its own survey, conducted by the Louis Harris pollsters, teens who have taken "comprehensive" sex education courses have a fifty percent higher rate of sexual activity than their "unenlightened" peers.  And yet the courses had no significant effect on their contraceptive usage.  The conclusion, one that even Planned Parenthood researchers have been unable to escape, is that sex education courses only exacerbate the teen pregnancy problem. . . . 

In 1970 fewer that half of the nation's school districts offered sex education curricula and none had school-based birth control clinics.  Today more than seventy-five percent of the districts teach sex education and there are more than one hundred clinics in operation.  Yet the percentage of illegitimate births has only increased during that time, from a mere fifteen percent to an astonishing fifty-one percent.

In California, the public schools have required sex education for more than thirty years, and yet the state has maintained one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation.

According to the Harris poll, the only things that effectively impact the teen pregnancy problem are frequent church attendance and parental oversight, the very things that Planned Parenthood has been railing against for three-quarters of a century -- the very things that sex education courses are designed to circumvent.


George Grant, "Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood," p.32-33


This citation is dated from 1992; imagine how much worse it has gotten.

Eroticized Children

Eroticized media in our homes, in schools and on the Internet produce eroticized children in our homes and our schools.  Eroticized children are, by definition, damaged children.   They are vulnerable prey for any and all predators.  They are also often tomorrow's predatory adults.

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D, "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences," p.175

Sex Indoctrination

Sex Education does not seem to be helping.  In the journal Pediatrics, Dr. James Stout and Dr. Frederick Rivera of the University of Washington and Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, Seattle, reviewed studies of the effects of sex education on teenage sexual behavior. . ..   They concluded that “sex education programs in junior and senior high schools have little or no effect either positively or negatively on altering the age of onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, on increasing contraceptive use, or on preventing unplanned teenage pregnancy.”  They noted that “a classroom course alone cannot be expected to change sexual behavior in a direction that is in opposition to the adolescent’s sexual world as molded by the television, motion picture, music and advertising industries, as well as peer group and adult role models.”  Besides…some classroom courses seem designed to increase teenage sexual activity.

Dr. Judith A. Reisman & Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, p.89

Teach A True View of Human Sexuality

Is it possible to teach an acceptable view of human sexuality in a value-free, nonjudgmental context?  A true view of human sexuality, unlike a true view of mathematics, physics, or English grammar, cannot be achieved apart from a biblical view of human sexuality.  Sex without love, without permanent commitment in a monogamous marriage, is not the same as sex without these crucial elements.  In fact, to teach sex without the elements of the primary purpose of oneness is not merely an inadequate treatment of the whole subject, it is inherently subversive of the real thing.

Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, p.227

Sex Education Agenda

In the words of an article in the Journal of School Health, sex education presents "an exciting opportunity to develop new norms."  Only in light of this agenda does it make sense that so-called "sex education" should be advocated to take place throughout the school years -- from kindergarten to college -- when it could not possibly take that much time to teach basic biological or medical information about sex.  What takes that long is a constant indoctrination in new attitudes.

Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Anointed," p.20

Sex "Education"?

[W]hen the long downward trend in teenage pregnancy and venereal disease suddenly reversed after the attitude-changing exercises known as “sex education” were introduced into American schools in the 1960s, it was the parents who were left to pick up the pieces when a teenage daughter became pregnant or an adolescent son caught some venereal disease.  No teacher had to pay anything toward the financial costs or to lose a moment’s sleep over what had happened in these young people’s personal lives, and verbal virtuosity enabled the changed values which “sex education” promoted to not only escape censure but even to continue to foster the impression that what was called “sex education” was the solution, even when it turned out empirically  to be an aggravation of the problem.

Like so much else, “sex education” fit the vision, which exempted it from the requirement of fitting the facts.  Moreover, because these indoctrination exercises in promoting different values were called “education,” their legitimacy in the schools escaped serious scrutiny, as did their role in the results that followed.


Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.516

Sex Indoctrination In Public Schools

Sex education in the schools  appears to operate more as an incitement to sexual activity than as a heeded caution.  Chelmsford (Massachusetts) High School employed Suzanne Lanndolphi of Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions to give two performances for students in the ninth through twelfth grades in which she gave sexually explicit monologues and discussed penis and breast size and advocated oral sex, masturbation, and homosexual activity among minors.  Parents were not told in advance and students were not permitted to opt out.   Some parents and students sued, so far without success.  Stories like this abound, but even when the advocacy is less open, the message that the students are expected to engage in sex is always there.  Opportunities for teenagers to engage in sex are also more frequent than previously: much of it takes place in homes that are now empty because the mothers are working.  The modern liberal devotion to sex education is an ideological commitment rather than a policy of prudence.

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p.159

Whose Children Are They?

If someone came into your yard and ripped up your geraniums, replacing them with daffodils, you wouldn’t debate the relative merits of geraniums and daffodils.  You would tell them to get out of your yard.  Once you start debating the relative merits of geraniums and daffodils, you have already given up the central issue: Whose yard is this?  Similarly, the issue is not whether schools should teach sexual abstinence or hand out condoms.  The issue is: Whose children are these?

Thomas Sowell, cited by Dana Mack in, The Assault on Parenthood: How Our Culture Undermines the Family, p.306

Sex "Education" Increases Sexual Immorality

For over a decade before the introduction of comprehensive sexuality education in the early 1970s . . .  teen pregnancy rates had been falling.  But with the infusion of federal funds into comprehensive sex education, pregnancy rates rose rapidly.  In the late 1970s alone, the teen pregnancy rate rose from 88 to 111 per 1,000 women, and the percentage of girls between fifteen and nineteen years of age who had engaged in intercourse skyrocketed from 27.6 to 42.2.

What happened next makes it difficult to attribute those increases to other factors, such as the general loosening of sexual mores in the culture at large.  In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration blocked federal funding for comprehensive sexuality education and passed federal regulations requiring parental notification when contraceptive services were rendered to teenagers.  Teenage sexual activity and pregnancy rates dropped radically.  Among young black women, the group most vulnerable to early, out-of-wedlock childbearing, sexual activity rates fell by mid-decade to below pre-1971 levels.  As funding for comprehensive sex education resumed in the mid-1980s, pregnancy and teen sexual activity rates shot up once again. . . .

The crux of the problem with comprehensive sex education . . . was freewheeling classroom sex talk that broke down all barriers of social and sexual inhibition.  Inhibition . . . is the safety valve that keeps teenagers from the obvious risks of casual sexual involvement.

Dana Mack, The Assault on Parenthood: How Our Culture Undermines the Family, p.157-159