The New Dare to Discipline

by James Dobson

  A few parents who have their children in Christian schools are able to get the help they need with sex education. Even there, however, the subject is often ignored or handled inadequately. What has developed, quite obviously, is an informational vacuum that sets the stage for far-reaching programs in the public schools, beginning in some cases with kindergarten children.

  One of the problems with sex education as it is currently taught in public schools is that it breaks down the natural barriers between the sexes and makes familiarity and casual sexual experimentation much more likely to occur. It also strips kids—especially girls—of their modesty to have every detail of anatomy, physiology and condom usage made explicit in co-ed situations. Then, the following Friday night when the kids are on a date and attend a sexually explicit movie or watch a hot TV program showing teenagers in bed with one another, it is just a tiny step to intercourse—whereas a hundred years ago it was an enormous decision to give up one’s virginity. This familiarity also contributes to the terrible incidence of “date rape” in North America. In short, the way sex education is handled today is worse than no program at all. Look at what has happened to the incidence of teen pregnancy and abortion since it was instituted!

  For those moms and dads whose kids are in public schools today, it is imperative that they investigate what is being taught in the name of sex education. You have a right to examine curricular materials and textbooks. You can and must talk to the teachers and principal about what they hope to communicate. Look carefully for the hidden agenda listed earlier in the SIECUS guidelines, such as pro-homosexual and lesbian behavior, the safe-sex distortion, the belief that premarital intercourse is a “right,” and any suggestion that pits teenagers against their parents. Find out if a pro-abortion stance is taken, and if Planned Parenthood or similar organizations are invited into the classroom.

  If these elements are there, I strongly suggest that you keep your kids out of the program. What better way is there to undermine the value system we have taught than to invest authority and leadership in a teacher who ridicules and undermines it. Not only would I not allow my youngster to participate in such a program, but I would help organize parent groups to institute an abstinence-based curriculum in the school. And if that didn’t work, I’d begin campaigning for new school board members. I might even campaign for that office, myself.

  WHY IS THERE SO MUCH

  RESISTANCE TO

  ABSTINENCE-BASED PROGRAMS?

  Well, some educators honestly believe that “kids will be kids,” so we should show them how to play the game right. I don’t agree with them, but I can respect their honest difference of opinion. There are others, however, particularly those Planned Parenthood and SIECUS types who are in the business of promoting promiscuity and abortion, whom I believe have other motives. For them, something else is going on. The subject is not merely an intellectual debate about children and what is their best interest. No, the topic is highly inflammatory. They become incensed when the word abstinence is even mentioned. Have you ever wondered why?

  I served on Secretary Otis Bowen’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Panel during the Reagan era. I accepted that responsibility because I thought our purpose was to prevent teen pregnancies. During our first meeting in Washington, D.C., however, I learned that fifteen of the eighteen panel members had other ideas. They were all “safe-sex” gurus, who wanted to spend millions of federal dollars distributing condoms and immoral advice to the nation’s teens. I can’t describe how emotional they were about this objective. In time, I began to understand a little more of the motivation propelling the community that makes a living from teen sexual irresponsibility.

  I described them this way in the book I co-authored with Gary Bauer, entitled Children at Risk:

  Let’s deal with the obvious question head on: Why do bureaucrats and researchers and Planned Parenthood types fight so hard to preserve adolescent promiscuity? Why do they balk at the thought of intercourse occurring only in the context of marriage? Why have they completely removed the door marked “Premarital Sex” for a generation of vulnerable teenagers?

  Their motivation is not difficult to understand. Multiplied millions of dollars are generated each year in direct response to teenage sexual irresponsibility. Kids jumping into bed with each other is supporting entire industries of grateful adults. The abortion business alone brings in an estimated $600 million annually. Do you really believe the physicians, nurses, medical suppliers and bureaucrats who owe their livelihood to the killing of unborn babies would prefer that adolescents abstain until marriage?!

  How about condom manufacturers or the producers of spermicide, “the pill,” IUD’s, or diaphragms? Would they want their business decimated by a sweeping wave of morality among the young? I doubt it. Then there are the producers of antibiotics and other drugs for use in treating sexually transmitted diseases. They have a financial stake in continued promiscuity, as well.

  At the top of the list of those who profit from adolescent irresponsibility, however, are those who are purportedly working to fight it! Planned Parenthood and similar organizations would simply fade away if they were ever fully successful in eliminating teen pregnancies. They currently receive an estimated $106 million in federal subsidies to carry out their mission, plus approximately $200 million in contributions from private sources. Do you really believe they want to kill the goose that lays those golden eggs?

  Imagine how many jobs would be lost if kids quit playing musical beds with one another! This is why professionals who advise young people about sex are so emotional about the word abstinence. If that idea ever caught on, who would need the services of Planned Parenthood and their ilk? It’s a matter of self-preservation.

  To fully comprehend the danger posed by Planned Parenthood and related organizations, it is important to examine their philosophy and intent. What is their program? What do their leaders want? What would they do if given free rein? As I understand their agenda, it can be summarized in the following four-point plan:

  1. Provide “value free” guidance on sexuality to teenagers. Heaven forbid any preference for morality or sexual responsibility being expressed.

  2. Provide unlimited quantities of contraceptives to adolescents, dispensed aggressively from clinics located on junior and senior high campuses. In so doing, a powerful statement is made to teenagers about adult approval of premarital sexual activity.

  3. Keep parents out of the picture by every means possible. Staff members for Planned Parenthood can then assume the parental role and communicate libertarian philosophy to teens.

  4. Provide unlimited access to free abortions for young women who become pregnant; again, without parental involvement or permission.

  Incredibly, the American and Canadian public seems to “buy” this outrageous plan, which would have brought a storm of protest from yesterday’s parents. Imagine how your father or grandfather would have reacted if a school official had secretly given contraceptives to you or arranged a quiet abortion when you were a teenager. The entire community would have been incensed. Someone may well have been shot! Yet today’s parents have tolerated this intrusion without so much as a peep of protest. Why? What has happened to that spirit of protection for our families—that fierce independence that bonded us together against the outside world? I wish I knew.40

  WHEN TO SAY WHAT

  Let me offer some counsel now, to mothers and fathers who want to handle the instruction of their own children and are looking for a few helpful “how-tos.” My hat is tipped to them. Even in this enlightened day, the subject of sex is charged with emotion. There are few thoughts which disturb Mom and Dad’s tranquility more than the vision of answering all of their children’s probing questions—particularly the ones which become uncomfortably personal.

  This tension was apparent in the mother of nine-year-old Davie, after his family had recently moved into a new school district. Davie came home from school on the first afternoon and asked his mother point-blank:
“Mom, what’s sex?”

  The question smacked her hard. She thought she had two or three years before dealing with that issue and was totally unprepared to field it now. Her racing mind concluded that Davie’s new school must be engaged in a liberal sex education program, and she had no choice but to fill in the details. So, she sat down with her wide-eyed son, and for forty-five minutes gave him a tension-filled harangue about the birds and the bees and the coconut trees.

  When she finished, Davie held up his enrollment card and said, “Gee, Mom, how am I going to get all that in this little bitty square?”

  As Davie’s mother discovered, there is a delicate art in knowing when to provide the younger generation with additional information about sex.

  One of the most common mistakes committed by some parents and many overzealous educators is the trend toward teaching too much too soon. One parent wrote to me, for example, and said the kindergarten children in her local district were shown films of animals in the act of copulation. That is unwise and dangerous! Available evidence indicates that there are numerous hazards involved in moving too rapidly. Children can sustain a severe emotional jolt by being exposed to realities for which they are not prepared.

  Furthermore, it is unwise to place the youngster on an informational timetable that will result in full sophistication too early in life. If eight-year-old children are given an advanced understanding of mature sexual behavior, it is less likely that they will wait ten or twelve years to apply this knowledge within the confines of marriage.

  Another danger resulting from premature instruction involves the threat of overstimulation. Young people can be tantalized by what is taught about the exciting world of grown-up sexual experience. Childhood education should be focused on childish interests, not adult pleasures and desires. I am not implying that sex education should be delayed until childhood has passed. Rather, it seems appropriate that the amount of information youngsters are given should coincide with their social and physical requirement for that awareness.

  The child’s requests for information provide the best guide to readiness for sex education. Their comments reveal what the youngster thinks about and wants to know. Such questions also offer a natural vehicle for instruction. It is far better for parents to answer these questions at the moment of curiosity than to ignore or evade them, hoping to explain later. Premeditated training sessions often become lengthy, one-way conversations which make both participants uncomfortable.

  Although the question-answering approach to sex education is usually superior, the technique is obviously inadequate with children who never ask for information. Some boys and girls are fascinated by sexual reproduction while others never give it a second thought. If a child is uninterested in or doesn’t ask about sex, the parent is not relieved of responsibility.

  Our two children were opposites at this point. Danae asked all the right (or wrong?) questions one night when she was seven years old. Her shocked mother hadn’t expected to have to deal with that subject for a few more years. Shirley stalled for time and came to share the situation with me as I sat at my desk. We promptly invited Danae to sit down for a conversation. Shirley made some hot chocolate and we talked for an hour or so. It all went very smoothly.

  Ryan, on the other hand, never asked questions about sex at all. We volunteered bits and pieces of the story as it seemed appropriate and comfortable, but the specific facts were more difficult to convey. Finally, I took my son on a fishing trip . . . just the two of us. Then as we sat there on the bank waiting for the trout to bite, I said, “It occurs to me, Ryan, that we have never talked much about sex . . . you know, how babies are made and all that. Maybe this would be a good time to discuss it.”

  Ryan sat thoughtfully for several minutes without saying anything. I wondered what he was thinking. Then he said, “What if I don’t wanna know?”

  I dragged my kid into the world of reproduction and sexuality, kicking and screaming, but I got him there nonetheless. That is a parental responsibility. Even when it is not easy, the job must be done. If you won’t accept the assignment, someone else will . . . someone who may not share your values.

  One final comment is important regarding the timing of sex education in the home. Parents should plan to end their formal instructional program about the time their child enters puberty (the time of rapid sexual development in early adolescence). Puberty usually begins between ten and thirteen for girls and between eleven and fourteen for boys. Once they enter this developmental period, they are typically embarrassed by discussions of sex with their parents. Adolescents usually resent adult intrusion during this time . . . unless they raise the topic themselves. In other words, this is an area where teens should invite parents into their lives.

  I feel that we should respect their wish. We are given ten or twelve years to provide the proper understanding of human sexuality. After that foundation has been constructed, we largely serve as resources to whom our children can turn when the need exists.

  That is not to say parents should abdicate their responsibility to provide guidance about issues related to sexuality, dating, marriage, etc., as opportunities present themselves. Again, sensitivity to the feelings of the teen is paramount. If he or she wishes to talk, by all means, welcome the conversation. In other cases, parental guidance may be most effective if offered indirectly. Trusted youth workers at church or in a club program such as Campus Life or Young Life can often break the ice when parents can’t.

  I’d also suggest that you arrange a subscription for your kids to magazines that provide solid Christian advice—from the perspective of a friend, rather than an authority figure. Examples include Brio (for girls ages twelve and up), and Breakaway (for boys ages twelve and up), both of which are available through Focus on the Family. For older teens in high school, I’d suggest Ignite Your Faith magazine.

  ASSISTANCE FROM

  MOTHER NATURE?

  One of the areas where I have changed my perspective radically since 1970 is in recommending the use of animals, especially dogs and cats, to help explain the reproductive process to children. I still think a demonstration of birth is enlightening and helpful, but I am now more familiar with and concerned about the overpopulation of pets and what happens to these poor creatures when they don’t have homes. In Los Angeles County alone, more than 100,000 dogs are killed every year in pounds and humane societies. Other homeless animals go hungry or are crushed on our streets and highways. Their suffering is our responsibility!

  Our family has adopted our last two dogs from this population of strays, and they have made wonderful pets. Little Mitzi, our present dog, was just hours away from death when we selected her at the pound. But as a life-long dog lover, I have to tell you the selection process was a difficult experience for us. There in the plastic cages were hundreds of pitiful dogs and cats in need of adoption. Most were traumatized by their circumstances, having been lost or dumped by their owners.

  As we strolled down the walkway, dogs barked and thrust their paws through the wire to get our attention. Danae put her hand in one cage to pet a lonely pup, who immediately pressed his head into her palm and closed his eyes. I’m sure he did not survive the week. I’ll never forget a big brown dog with a hoarse voice who was staring at the doorway when we arrived. He was looking intently at us and yet did not seem to see. Even when we stood in front of his cage, he never took his eyes off the door. Every now and then he would emit a throaty bark that seemed to end in a question mark. Danae then read the identifying card above the cage indicating how he came to be picked up. This dog had also been brought in by his owners, and he was intently watching for their return. Obviously, we were not the folks he had in mind.

  Perhaps you can understand why Danae and I were looking for the most needy animal we could find. The cute, healthy puppies and kittens had a chance of being adopted, at least. We wanted to give a home to a dog that was certain to be put down. Danae finally called me on a Saturday afternoon to tell me that she had f
ound a good candidate.

  I drove to the shelter and quickly agreed with her selection. There, huddled at the back of a cage was a twelve-week-old pup in terrible condition. She was in a state of semi-starvation, having been picked up on the street a few days earlier. Her jaw had been broken, perhaps by a fierce kick, and someone had put three stitches in her lip. We learned later she had pneumonia, round worms, tape worms, and who knows what other problems. She trembled as we approached her cage, but did not rise.

  I asked the attendant to let the dog out, and he handed her to me. It was an instant friendship. She nuzzled my hand and looked up as if to say, “I’m really in a mess, aren’t I?” We were hooked.

  We left to talk over the matter, but couldn’t forget that gentle nuzzle from so helpless a creature. Danae went back and got the dog.

  I wish you could see Mitzi today. She is fat, healthy and deliriously happy. When I get home at night, she romps to the front door like a buffalo in stampede. It is as though she knows we rescued her from a living death. And surprisingly, except for a crooked mouth, she looks very much like our previous dog. So Shirley and I no longer have an empty nest at home.

  Forgive this diversion from our theme, but it does relate to my earlier recommendation that animals be used to teach the miracle of reproduction and birth. Now I advise parents to have their pets spayed and neutered to prevent the continued problem with overpopulation. If puppies or kittens are desired, be sure you have good homes for them before bringing them into the world.

  And if you want to befriend a lonely animal who sits today in a cage just hoping you’ll give him a home, head on down to the animal shelter in your area. Neither you nor your kids will ever forget it.

  (To all the animal lovers out there who’ve been mad at me for more than two decades for what I wrote about pet reproduction in Dare to Discipline, is all forgiven?)