You're Teaching My Child What?

by Miriam Grossman

  2. The more information the better, and the earlier your small children get it, the better.

  SIECUS tells parents: “Do not wait until your children ask questions . . . be sure your young children know about HIV/AIDS infection and prevention.”47 Even “young children” need to know, they tell parents in their Newsletter “Families Are Talking”; “the only way to help prevent HIV/AIDS among young people is to share accurate, age-appropriate information so that they can protect themselves.”48

  Planned Parenthood claims there is no such thing as too much information49 and that talking about sex and sexuality is best started from the time the child is born.50 By age five, they believe children need to know “how a baby ‘gets in’ and ‘gets out’ of a woman’s body,” as well as the basic facts about HIV/AIDS.51

  Advocates for Youth advises parents: “To help six- to eight-year-old children develop a healthy sexuality, families should: continue to provide information ... even if a child does not ask for it.”52

  They instruct parents to tell five-year-olds about intercourse, though explaining orgasm can wait until he’s finished kindergarten.53 Your six- to eight-year-olds must have “basic information” about abortion, HIV/AIDS, wet dreams, and periods.54 And of course, there’s this universal mandate: adults must use correct anatomical terms, “vulva,” “penis,” etc.—otherwise kids may get the idea something is “wrong” with these parts of the body.55 They say failing to discuss your daughter’s vulva with her in a calm and comfortable way will not only lead her to seek answers elsewhere, it will lead her into years of therapy.

  But this is a bad idea.

  A young child’s ability to think logically is limited. His understanding of the world is magical and egocentric. Why did his uncle leave? Because little Johnny wished he would. Why is it raining? So Johnny can wear his new boots. He devises his own theories to explain reality, based on his experiences. Providing facts that are beyond his experience—his uncle had a heart attack and went to the hospital; it’s raining because ocean water evaporates ... will likely be ineffective. They will sound bizarre, even impossible, to him. The result: confusion.56

  The sex ed oligarchy must realize that a young child has his own theories about where babies come from, and he will cling to them regardless of how carefully and deliberately parents follow their instructions. Large amounts of unexpected information that cannot be easily assimilated into previously held beliefs can be distressing to children. Rather than having “the talk”—a frank, detailed monologue about penetration, sperm, egg, and invisible, deathly viruses—parents should take a child’s own theories into account, then slowly introduce him to new facts.57

  “Sometimes people will have intercourse on their first date. Other couples wait until they have dated for months. Some wait until they are married. Some never have intercourse. Although monogamous relationships are most common, some couples will agree to switch partners. Such an arrangement is called mate-swapping. Some people engage in group sex, either with other couples or other single people or with both. Even people who are legally married sometimes have open relationships.”

  —A Family Resource on Sex and Sexuality, recommended by sex educators at Rutgers.

  Key word: slowly. It’s a process, to be driven by his curiosity, not by what experts say he should know by a certain age. Provide one new item at a time, and make it a dialogue, not a lecture. Limit your response to the question you are asked. “Where do babies come from?”

  “Well, what do you think?”

  Then,

  “I could see why you’d think they come from a store (hospital, the internet), but a baby grows inside his Mommy.”

  Let the child sit with that, unless he asks for more.

  “Where does it grow? In a place mothers have called a uterus/womb.”

  Resist the temptation to elaborate. That’s enough for now. Allow him to absorb it; it will take time. Expect him, every so often, to revert back to believing babies come from a store. Just say calmly, “No, a baby grows inside his mommy.”

  Later, once he has assimilated that fact, he’ll want to know more.

  “How does the baby get in/out?”

  Again, you ask, “How do you think?”

  He’ll rely on his experience: by eating/elimination. For him, this is logical. Any other answer will be met with skepticism; it doesn’t fit in to anything he already knows. Proceed slowly.

  Explain intercourse and HIV to a five-year-old? And expect him to get it? No matter how carefully it’s done, he’s just not equipped to hear so much, so soon. A penis enters a vagina? Sperm joins egg? “Body fluids” are shared, and maybe a virus that makes you sick? He’s never heard anything like it, so the ideas cannot be absorbed. He’ll misunderstand, and that’s likely to cause worry and distress.

  Be prepared, parents, for some surprises if you follow the experts’ advice. One writer described a boy who concluded, “If I grew from an egg, I must be a chicken,” and a refused to eat his breakfast.58 “Egg” meant just one thing to him. What if, instead of being born, he’d been made into an omelette?59

  3. Anything goes.

  No judgments are allowed, even of established high risk behavior.

  Planned Parenthood tells parents that “the most important lesson we can share with our kids is, ‘Being different is normal,’ ”60and their book, A Family Resource on Sex and Sexuality,61 recommended by sex educators at Rutgers, identifies a variety of relationships—monogamous, open, or group sex; long-lasting (months to years) or brief (hours to days).

  Go Ask Alice tells teens that “S/M pushes the boundaries between pleasure and pain” and assures them it’s “absolutely” normal. She also teaches them about drinking urine, cleaning their whips, and inserting objects into their penises.

  Mind you, Planned Parenthood claims to promote “a common sense approach to women’s health and well-being” and “Alice” is produced by the Health Services at Columbia University. Wouldn’t common sense dictate that kids must understand that some ways of being different are not normal? Wouldn’t it emphasize the indisputable fact that casual sex and multiple partners is a health hazard, especially for women? And regarding Alice’s celebration of fringe behaviors: shouldn’t we expect more from one of the most esteemed medical institutions in the country?

  Our kids expect to be bugged by parents and medical providers about eating right, seatbelts, and sunscreen. They worry about secondhand smoke, saturated fats, and genetically engineered vegetables. But thanks to sex educators’ belief that “anything goes,” the most bizarre, depraved behaviors have become just another thing for them to try.

  4. Children have the “right” question their parents’ ideas about sex, to explore their sexuality, and to develop their own values. And parents have the duty to support them in their quest.

  Again, when it comes to most health issues, it’s considered responsible parenting to lay down the law. But with sexuality, parents are told not to lecture or judge. Do not impose your values, they’re instructed. Don’t interfere with your teen’s decisions, unless, of course, you’re reminding her about “protection.”

  Adults who insist their teen lives up to a particular standard or moral framework need a style and attitude adjustment. This is your child’s own journey, the experts say; step back while she discovers what works for her. Listen calmly, and respect her decision.

  This isn’t education, folks, this is an ideology. You don’t need a Ph.D. to understand its hazards; all you need is common sense. In the chapters ahead, I debunk these sacred beliefs, and indict the sex ed industry of misleading us—promising one thing, and doing another.

  Chapter Two

  Girls and Boys Are Different

  A STUDENT ONCE CAME to the counseling center where I worked because she had been unable to get to class for two weeks. Kayla,1 18 years old, drank tequila and smoked pot until the morning hours, and then slept the rest of the day. She was vague, at first, about how she’d fallen into this pattern.
But our discussion soon turned to David, a guy who lived down the hall. They were friends, and they hung out with the same group. One night they started kissing, and, well, they hooked up—had sex. It was the first of a few casual encounters with him. But after a while, Kayla faced an unwelcome development.

  Kayla discovered that the more time she spent with David, the more she needed to be with him. In spite of herself, she had feelings for him, and couldn’t help wondering if he cared for her, too. But she didn’t ask him—Kayla knew guys don’t like high maintenance girls. So she’d hook up with him and act like it didn’t matter. That’s what everyone else is able to do, she thought, why can’t I?

  But in fact Kayla was always hoping to hear from David: constantly waiting for a text message and compulsively checking her email—longing for some sign of connection, some indication she meant something to him. And it didn’t help that he was always around: she’d see him doing laundry or in the cafeteria. Thoughts of David preoccupied Kayla; she couldn’t concentrate or sleep well, and so she turned to alcohol and pot to relax. It became increasingly difficult to make it to class, and when she was high, she’d hook up with other guys. But her thoughts always returned to him. “I just can’t take it,” she told me, holding her head in her hands. “What’s wrong with me?”

  We formulated a plan. Kayla would contact her professors and also get help for her alcohol and drug abuse. She’d follow my instructions and gradually adjust her sleep schedule back to normal. So far, so good. Then I advised her to refrain from hooking up: no kissing, no sex, no anything in between. Her emotional state was too fragile.

  “Kissing?” She asked, in disbelief. “I can’t kiss anyone?”

  “Kissing is an intimate behavior,” I told her. “It has an effect on you. How about trying it for one week—can you agree to that?”

  “Wow,” she said, considering my suggestion. “OK, but this is going to mean a big change of lifestyle. I’ll need something to remind me.”

  Something to remind her... there was a wide rubber band on my desk; “Take this, and write NO HOOKING UP on it. Put it around your wrist and don’t take it off. It will remind you of our conversation. And if anyone gives you a hard time about it,” I said with mock authority, “tell them to come and speak to me about it!”

  For the first time, she laughed. “Thank you, Dr. Grossman.”

  Telling a patient to wear a rubber band with advice on it is not a therapeutic intervention I learned in my residency. Nor was my abstinence suggestion any more than a stop-gap solution to Kayla’s crisis. But her high-risk behavior was an emergency: she could show up at her next appointment pregnant, or infected with herpes. Stopping these chaotic, meaningless encounters would help stabilize her and perhaps pave the way for some meaningful self-reflection.

  Parents might think, what was wrong with this girl? It’s tempting to conclude that she must have been immature or unstable, or perhaps not so bright to begin with. That would be a convenient explanation for how she got into this mess.

  Not so. Kayla was a smart young woman without a history of emotional problems, and she was no less mature than the average freshman. Furthermore, she always practiced responsible sexual behavior with David. The most popular resource for comprehensive sex education, SIECUS, recommends that sex be consensual, non-exploitative, honest, pleasurable, and protected.2 Check, check, check, check, and check. Kayla had been careful, she had played it safe. What went wrong?3

  The problem wasn’t with Kayla; it was with those guidelines for “responsible sexual behavior” They omit the fact that sex, with or without latex, is a serious matter. They fail to mention that even one encounter can have profound, lifelong consequences, and that girls are different from boys—that they are, in fact, monumentally and deeply different. Kayla’s female brain, for example, predisposed her to yearn for connection, communication, and approval. Her chemistry promoted attachment and trust of David. Her wiring caused her to minimize his shortcomings, and to take risks. In short, Kayla was ignorant about a girl’s unique physiological vulnerability to intimate behavior, because that’s a “gender stereotype.”

  Kayla had asked me, referring to how she’d bonded with David, what was wrong with her. There was nothing wrong with her. But there is something wrong when sexuality educators promise comprehensive, accurate, up-to-date medical facts to girls like Kayla, and then fail to deliver the goods.

  “Comprehensive” Sex ed—Hardly Comprehensive

  I checked Webster’s dictionary and “comprehensive” means “covering much; broad; all-inclusive.” SIECUS’s Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education4 appears to be exactly that. Along with contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted infections, and HIV/AIDS, topics include sexual fantasy, masturbation, sexuality and the media, and gender role stereotypes. Downloaded a thousand times a month, in addition to the 100,000 copies that have been distributed, it would seem that if Kayla’s schools had followed SIECUS’s Guidelines , she’d have learned all the up-to-date medical facts she needed to know.

  But medically accurate facts are scarce in this publication. In fact, SIECUS’s Guidelines consist mostly of questionable, agenda-driven material. This curriculum is designed to inculcate students with a specific worldview:We are all sexual from cradle to grave.

  We must celebrate the diversity of sexual expression.

  We must speak openly of these issues in the first years of life . . .

  The only information that makes it into these pages are what supports SIECUS’s values and goals. One value, for example, is that “sexuality is a central part of being human.”5 SIECUS expects Kayla and David to “explore their sexuality as a natural process in achieving sexual maturity.”6 Presumably, by doing so, they will learn to “enjoy and express their sexuality throughout life.”

  Just one minute. A central part of being human? What does that mean, precisely? Something that they should explore as a part of achieving sexual maturity? Where is the scientific research demonstrating that? With the SIECUS curriculum animated by this ideology, is it any wonder so much emphasis is placed on teen sexual activity, in all its diversity?

  The Bikini Approach

  SIECUS follows what I term the “bikini approach” in its understanding of male/female differences: men and women are the same, except for some minor physical features that could be covered by a bikini. More influential than biology, SIECUS implies, are “messages” kids get from family, culture, media and society: “Cultures teach what it means to be a man or a woman.”7

  Cultures? What about anatomy, histology, neurology, endocrinology, and physiology? Sure, kids get messages from their environment, but the foundations of maleness and femaleness are rooted in biology, far beyond the reach of Hollywood, Seventeen Magazine, or Aunt Sally.

  But not according to SIECUS. From the Guidelines:• At age five: “Girls and boys have many similarities and a few differences.”

  • At age nine, in fourth grade: “The belief that all people of the same gender should behave the same way is called a stereotype”8 and “[s]ometimes people receive unequal or negative treatment because of their gender.”

  • In middle school: “Some families and cultures have different expectations and rules about sexual practices for females and males,” and “accepting gender role stereotypes can limit a person’s life.”

  • In high school: “Gender role stereotypes can lead to problems for both men and women such as poor body image, low aspirations, low paying jobs, relationship conflict, stress-related illness, anxiety about sexual performance, sexual harassment, and date rape.”

  From Kindergarten through 12th grade, our kids learn that maleness and femaleness are culturally imposed concepts, and that endorsing them can destroy lives.

  This is comprehensive sex ed, for sure—comprehensive indoctrination.

  Now consider basic biology. You know—cells, organs, hormones, viruses? In spite of the overarching goal of sexual health, and SIECUS’s refrain that it provides medically
accurate and up-to-date information, the Guidelines are noteworthy for their lack of technical and cutting edge information. In the entire 112-page document, only a single page, “Reproductive and sexual anatomy and physiology” might be described as biology, and it’s anything but comprehensive. Instead, it’s heavy on the sexual (“Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched”) and light on anatomy and physiology.

  In fact, what’s missing from the Guidelines is more important than what’s included: research that highlights the differences between male and female brains. Medically accurate? Up to date? It doesn’t get any better than this. This science is cutting edge, and comes from the best medical centers in the country. It demonstrates that Kayla’s wiring is exquisitely reactive, and distinctly female. A unique female cocktail of estrogen, progesterone, and oxytocin9 bathe her brain, influencing her perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and dreams. Silently, beneath the radar, her system reacts in a variety of ways to David; it registers and reacts to his scent and touch. Bottom line: that second X chromosome in all10 her cells creates a distinctly feminine reality.11 It’s a reality of elevated sensitivity and, along with that, increased vulnerability.

  SIECUS, there is more to Kayla and David’s emotional and sexual functioning than is met with in your philosophy. Your work is animated by dusty themes of social justice, but the idealism is misplaced, the science is outdated, and young people pay dearly. Unlike programs devised in the 1960s and 1970s, sex education in the twenty-first century can and should be based on processes occurring at a cellular and molecular level. Research conducted over the past two decades provides us with a wealth of insight. Those are objective truths, those are the facts kids have a right to know, and we have an obligation to provide them.