Comprehensive Sexuality Education Quotes

If the goal of conservatives is to discourage young people from having sex, they should change their strategy and push to make comprehensive sexual education compulsory. Our educational system has proved that if a subject is taught in a boring enough manner, Americans will make every effort to avoid it for the rest of their lives. If homosexuality was taught in the same manner as trigonometry, even most gay people would have no use for it after graduation.

Unfortunately, the majority of young people in the United States don't receive comprehensive sexuality education that includes information on pleasurable and fulfilling sexual relationships. We also live in a sex negative culture that includes a lot of oversexualization, sex stigma, and body shaming so there are few positive and pleasurable representations of sexuality for young people. Many young people are curious about sex and how it works. As a result many young people turn to the internet and end up looking at porn to figure it out. That's like watching the Fast and the Furious to learn how to drive. Porn is not a realistic representation of healthy, pleasurable, communicative, and responsible sex.

In the name of liberty, organizations like Moms For Liberty claim to stand for the rights of parents and the welfare of children. But it's essential to examine the nature of this claimed 'liberty' and ask: Whose liberty are we really talking about? Is it the liberty to deny scientific consensus, to suppress inclusive education, or to stifle the growth of a comprehensive understanding of the world in which we live? Does this 'liberty' mean the freedom to rewrite history, to shield young minds from the realities of systemic racism, climate change, and sexual orientation? If that's the case, then this 'liberty' sounds suspiciously like censorship, a betrayal of the principles of educational integrity, and an obstacle to fostering rational, empathetic citizens who can confront the complexities of our world. Education should not be a battleground for political ideologies. It should be a platform that equips our children with the critical thinking skills they need to discern fact from fiction, to challenge prejudices, and to contribute meaningfully to the society they'll inherit. The 'liberty' that Moms For Liberty advocates seems to be less about empowering parents and more about enforcing a narrow worldview that risks leaving our children ill-prepared for the diverse, interconnected world they will encounter. Let's not cloak censorship and intolerance in the guise of 'liberty.' True liberty lies in the freedom to learn, to question, and to grow. Let's ensure that our education systems stand as beacons of enlightenment, not bastions of indoctrination.

Many girls still learn the bare biological facts from friends, movies and the Internet. Parents, schools and legislators fear that once children know about sex they will become sexually active. Yet  several  studies  from the USA show that making ‘virginity pledges’, for example, makes no difference to the extent of sexual activity among young people and that, contrary to fears, comprehensive education about sexuality leads to delay and less engagement in sex, with fewer partners, as well as greater use of contraceptives.

These four changes—in the nature of work, education, social values, and communication technology—make it harder for dictators to dominate citizens in the old way. Harsh laws and bureaucratic regulations provoke furious responses from previously docile groups. These groups have new skills and networks that help them resist. At the same time, violent repression and comprehensive censorship destroy the innovation now central to progress. Eventually, the expansion of the highly educated, creative class, with its demands for self-expression and participation, makes it difficult to resist a move to some form of democracy. But so long as this class is not too large and the leader has the resources to co-opt or censor its members, an alternative is spin dictatorship. At least for a while, the ruler can buy off the informed with government contracts and privileges. So long as they stay loyal, he can tolerate their niche magazines, websites, and international networking events. He can even hire the creative types to design an alternative reality for the masses. This strategy will not work against a Sakharov. But Sakharovs are rare. With a modern, centrally controlled mass media, they pose little threat. Co-opting the informed takes resources. When these run low, spin dictators turn to censorship, which is often cheaper. They need not censor everything. All that really matters is to stop opposition media reaching a mass audience. And here the uneven dynamics of cultural change help. Early in the postindustrial era, most people still have industrial-era values. They are conformist and risk averse. The less educated are alienated from the creative types by resentment, economic anxiety, and attachment to tradition. Spin dictators can exploit these sentiments, rallying the remaining workers against the “counterculture” while branding the intellectuals as disloyal, sacrilegious, or sexually deviant. Such smears inoculate the leader’s base against opposition revelations. As long as the informed are not too strong, manipulation works well. Dictators can resist political demands without destroying the creative economy or revealing their own brutality to the public.

These four changes—in the nature of work, education, social values, and communication technology—make it harder for dictators to dominate citizens in the old way. Harsh laws and bureaucratic regulations provoke furious responses from previously docile groups. These groups have new skills and networks that help them resist. At the same time, violent repression and comprehensive censorship destroy the innovation now central to progress. Eventually, the expansion of the highly educated, creative class, with its demands for self-expression and participation, makes it difficult to resist a move to some form of democracy. But so long as this class is not too large and the leader has the resources to co-opt or censor its members, an alternative is spin dictatorship. At least for a while, the ruler can buy off the informed with government contracts and privileges. So long as they stay loyal, he can tolerate their niche magazines, websites, and international networking events. He can even hire the creative types to design an alternative reality for the masses. This strategy will not work against a Sakharov. But Sakharovs are rare. With a modern, centrally controlled mass media, they pose little threat. Co-opting the informed takes resources. When these run low, spin dictators turn to censorship, which is often cheaper. They need not censor everything. All that really matters is to stop opposition media reaching a mass audience. And here the uneven dynamics of cultural change help. Early in the postindustrial era, most people still have industrial-era values. They are conformist and risk averse. The less educated are alienated from the creative types by resentment, economic anxiety, and attachment to tradition. Spin dictators can exploit these sentiments, rallying the remaining workers against the “counterculture” while branding the intellectuals as disloyal, sacrilegious, or sexually deviant. Such smears inoculate the leader’s base against opposition revelations. As long as the informed are not too strong, manipulation works well. Dictators can resist political demands without destroying the creative economy or revealing their own brutality to the public.