Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Mary Mascher’s motto: If it doesn’t work, don’t fix it.

Apparently, Iowa City Democrat Mary Mascher, thinks that the race to Gomorrah in which America is engaged can somehow be slowed if educators, state controlled of course, ratify the virtues of junior high sexualism.

Iowa Independent has an
excellent article on the upcoming sex rally. Tomorrow, Ms. Mascher, and another of the liberal childrens’ sex rights advocacy groups, FutureNet, will hold a public policy briefing in which they will demand the state withdraw from federal funding for abstinence only sex education. Mascher articulates the primary objection as:

“"There's been discussion on whether or not we should be accepting these federal monies at all because the criteria for abstinence-only programs at the federal level is not medically accurate..." How can abstinence advocates be wrong? If teenagers don’t have sex they cannot: (1) get pregnant (and every one of us who raised daughters know that is the big scare); and (2) contract virtually any form of SDT. Mascher’s objection is, of course, gibberish and every single adult knows that to be true.

Much like the liberal position on global warming, highly questionable scientific claims obscure the moral and ideological bankruptcy of the real liberal agenda or, at least the historically demonstrated consequences of the liberal policy line.

Why in the hell are schools teaching anything beyond biology about the science of sex? Isn’t everything else about one’s sexual behavior both intensely private and, quite frankly, morally subjective? No legitimate governmental purpose is served by sex education beyond basic scientific principles. Since most high schoolers aren’t likely to be artificially inseminated, even less likely to be cloned and most unlikely to produce a divine offspring, abstinence will prevent most adverse by-products of premature sexuality.

Think of the educational time and effort (which means the consumption of your tax dollars) that is spent discussing sex? Homosexual and bisexual groups are now commonly allowed in high school extracurricular curriculum. Sexual behavior is widely discussed in most schools in a variety of settings, from health and science classes to government and political classes.

Perhaps the bureaucrats that we call educators should simply refer students to those students’ parents for discussions of sex? The government has no role in discussions of sexual morality, yet the liberal bureaucrats that we all call educators have systematically sought to imbue youth with moral ambivalence in all personal matters, especially those involving sex.

So, apparently Ms. Mascher either thinks that soaring rates of teen pregnancy, sexual assault, venereal disease and the debasement of women are the virtuous objectives of educational policy or she is utterly blinded to the consequences of the moral degeneration of our culture that the Baby Boom educational model has produced.

So why don’t we have teachers shut up about sex and start teaching some American history and literature during the time they want to teach junior high students about condom use and the benefits of second and third base.

14 comments:

RF said...

What's up with the obsession not to talk about sex? This would not be an issue if parents actually talked about sex with their kids. But they obviously don't. And I suspect it's even more so with the folks who scream about abstinence only. Sex education is obviously in the society's best interest. And I definitely want that education to be realistic, not the conservative la-la land approach. We all know what pervs you find behind the pious bs anyways.

RF said...

How about some shameless self-promotion? Read an interview with this liberal blog pest at Grant Young's blog at http://questionscommentsinsults.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Not everyone in Iowa learns about sex from watching farm animals (but apparently that's how most Republicans would prefer it). Why the hell shouldn't schools be teaching about sex in health class - it's the most popular courses offered at the state schools.
And either you are a liar or just ignorant when you claim there are soaring rates of teen pregnancy and VD: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-06-27-kids-pregnancy-dropout_x.htm)
So which one is it Ted?

The Real Sporer said...

sex ed is a popular class with adolescents? wow, now that's a surprise.

long term trends over the last 40 years was the point anon-you fucking imbecile. of course those social pathogens have diminished since the conservative takeover in 94 began to pay dividends during the bush years. the pathogens were created in the 30-40 years previously when conservatives had no voice in educational policy and the libs' desire to use schools as the petri dish of social failure was entirely unrestrained.

but, being a liberal (other than rf who actually can argue kind of like a conservative, you know, fact and logic) and utterly divorced from reality and context i'm guessing you missed that none too subtle reference

so, are you a liar or merely a simpleton?

The Real Sporer said...

scratch "reference" and insert "difference" late night typing and still chuckling at rfs post on the G man's blog.

Essential Estrogen said...

I don't think the problem stems from teaching young people to abstain from sexual activity. The problem, at least the way I see it, stems from using scare tactics and misinformation as a way of manipulating young people to abstain from sexual activity. Researcher after researcher has looked at the various abstinence-only curricula and found it lacking in "truthiness."

One curriculum states that half of the gay male teenagers in the country have tested positive for HIV/AIDS. Another stated that simply touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy. Still another claims that HIV/AIDS can be spread by sweat and tears.

My favorite ab-only tidbit, however, comes from the Choosing Best series. The story is told of a knight who married a village maiden instead of a princess because the princess offered too many tips on slaying the local dragon. At the end it reads: "Moral of the story: Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

Oh, and this statement from a program called Sex Respect: "A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?"

What's worse is that such information is not isolated. A 2004 Congressional Report found that over 80 percent of the federally funded programs contain false or misleading information.

Over the past five years, our nation has spent $900 million solely on abstinence-only sex ed programs. You'd think with that taxpayer price tag the information would at least be accurate.

Anonymous said...

Learn about sex from watching farm animals? What the hell is anon up there on about. Aside from being similarly endowed as a donkey that a friend of mine has, damned if there's anything I've seen in the barn yard that I'd want to try at home. What the hell is the matter with you people? No matter what they teach in school it'll be generations before the blacks quit breeding like rats.

KenRichards said...

Ms. Mascher has always been the prototype of what a Feminazi is supposed be, do and look like. She was the mortal enemy of fathers during her years in the legislature. She views men as the root of all evil as we're all serial rapists in her eyes (even the married ones).

Anything she's involved with can be expected to support her radical feminist agenda.

The Real Sporer said...

E2-you get added to the list of reasonable libs based on the reasoned response, free of ad homs, that you made.

However, upon closer reflection you actually are proving my larger point.

For example, you cite:
"One curriculum states that half of the gay male teenagers in the country have tested positive for HIV/AIDS. Another stated that simply touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy. Still another claims that HIV/AIDS can be spread by sweat and tears."

We know that it is virtually impossible to contract AIDS if you don't have sex, especially if you're a homosexual and involved in activities that involve, well, significant tissue damage and bleeding.

Would not our youth, and culture, be served by teaching children that the one sure way to avoid AIDS is to refrain from sexual activity.

Finally, if the children are so young that they require prince/princess and dragon parables then they are most certainly too young to be publiclly discussing sex, particularly when the moral parameters are taught by an agent of the government.

The Real Sporer said...

rf, you are also proving my larger point.

my baby boomers have talked about sex a lot more with our kids a lot more than did our parents.

the problem, we used passed our own hedonism and moral ambivalence to our kids, directly and indirectly through this cultural swill that we see on MTV, the movies etc... Hell, even the sitcoms aimed at 30ish and up audiences largely focus on sex, and the audience is surely capable of understanding humor with some other premise. (Well, they would be if the schools didn't suck).

The Real Sporer said...

E2

You also said "Oh, and this statement from a program called Sex Respect: "A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?"

I know you are around the same age as me so maybe you don't remember much about young men. The above quote is probably the most accurate words that have ever appeared in a government publication.

Art A Layman said...

sporie:

An interesting and frustrating subject. Likely you are howling at the moon though.

Premarital sex, especially among teens, has been around throughout the ages. It is not a new phenomenon. Certainly our culture has exacerbated the exposure of our young people to sexual innuendo, up to and sometimes including pornography. To a great extent this results from your vaunted "free market". It is empirical fact that sex sells. Without this exposure the problem would not go away; it might be muted but would not be mooted.

Much like the overall problems in education it is the failing of parents that has created many of the problems (kudos to rf). No doubt, having raised daughters, you were more involved in teaching your children about sex and the benefits of abstinence - if like most of us this was done by imploring our wives to take charge of the teaching. Those of us who have daughters usually take the issue more seriously. Often that mindset, coming from fathers, is based on the knowledge of our own youth and the memories of our less than stellar goals in our interactions with girls.

Even in my youth, running from the time of Methuselah up to around the time of Lincoln, we knew that practicing abstinence would avoid pregancies. We also knew that condoms could at least mitigate the possibility. STD's were a much lesser concern in those days, unless you were playing with girls of ill-repute.

This knowledge, from the male's perspective, seemed to fall on deaf ears when the hormones raged. The girls were more concerned, understandably, about pregnancy but given that we boys have the perserverance of Job but little of his fear, we continue to try and try and try again. In fact once we commence any foreplay and realize that lightening doesn't strike us, we feel emboldened.

Teens seek many things. Among those is a desire to feel like practicing adults. They are given to testing the teachings of their parents and clergy; they are not inclined to accept conventional wisdom. We teach them to drive safely, but many don't. We teach them not to drink alcohol, but many do. Everpresent is the immortality aura.

I have no problem with teaching abstinence but limiting sex ed to abstinence only is folly; if we truly want our kids to be informed. We teach our kids to be careful with knives, avoid them if possible, but we also teach them what to do if they get a cut. The analogy is not far off point.

Due to the huge variances in how many parents approach informing their kids about sex it would seem reasonable that a more complete education take place in the halls of learning. For those parents who are more diligent I can understand the frustration. Leveling the playing field would still seem a good idea.

How many parents you know, teach their boys to consider the emotional feelings of girls? How many emphasize that should a relationship culminating in intercourse eventually be ended, the girls will suffer great damage to their self worth; that they will have given up something that they can never gain back and that often this loss will haunt them; some for a lifetime. To me this emotional damage is far more heinous than an unwanted pregnancy or even many STDs.

No doubt a conundrum but to me less is not more.

Anonymous said...

I pulled up the article in the Iowa Independent. It included a little background on Rep Mascher and a photo. I don't know, Ted. She advises in the article that she's taught sex-ed for over a decade. One gander at her photo and one might make the case that Mary Mascher teaching sex-ed is, in fact, a form of abstinence education...

el toro said...

"No matter what they teach in school it'll be generations before the blacks quit breeding like rats."

Change "blacks" to "sub-intelligent" and you'd be describing yourself anon

Labels

Amazon Bookstore