Dear Colleague:

Montgomery Co., Md.'s sex-ed curriculum provides good examples of the
omissions and distortions rampant in sex-ed programs globally.

Steven W. Mosher
President

PRI Weekly Briefing
13 May 2005
Vol. 7 / No. 18


The Systemic Lies of Sex Indoctrination Programs

By Joseph A. D'Agostino

It's odd but refreshing that Montgomery Co., Md.'s sex-ed curriculum has
produced such a controversy and a restraining order against it from a
judge.  The curriculum contains the usual systemic lies from America's
"health" and "education" establishments (in reality, they care nothing for
either health or education), lies that not only permeate the sex
indoctrination curricula of most public schools in this country but also
many of the Third World programs funded by First World nations.  The
curriculum does go one step beyond the usual in trying to imply that one
can be a good Christian while engaging in promiscuity and even sodomy,
which apparently is what got the program into real hot water.  Usually,
such curricula officially ignore students' and parents' religious beliefs
while indoctrinating children into their own implicitly pagan religious
dogmas involving mystical sexuality.  The curriculum promotes homosexual
activity as normal and healthy while neglecting to mention its deadly
nature, encapsulated in this astonishing fact: Up to 65% of sexually
active homosexual men are dead or HIV-positive by the time they are 30.

On May 12, the Montgomery County Board of Education agreed to an extension
of a temporary restraining order that will prevent the curriculum from
being used in the schools at least until December 31.  Parents and Friends
of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum sued
the board over its new curriculum.  Said Judge Alexander Williams in his
original restraining order, "The Court is extremely troubled by the
willingness of Defendants to venture-or perhaps more correctly bound-into
the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality
converge. . . . In this case, Defendants open up the classroom to the
subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness of the
homosexual lifestyle.  However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one
view on the subject-that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct
lifestyle-to the exclusion of other perspectives."

Yet the science behind the new curriculum is severely flawed as well, and
the practice of selective omission leads young people down the path of
self-destruction.  Three scientists reviewed the curriculum and produced a
report called "Health Education as Social Advocacy."  The authors of the
report are Warren Throckmorton, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology and
Director of Counseling Services at Grove City College, Pa.; David
Blakeslee, PsyD, of Lake Oswego, Ore.; and Ruth M. Jacobs, MD, an
infectious disease specialist in Rockville, Md.

"In reviewing the Montgomery County, Md., condom demonstration video, I
was surprised to find factual errors," said Dr. Throckmorton.  "The film
tells 10th graders that condoms are 98% effective but does not tell them
that this figure does not apply to sexually transmitted infections.
Further, the video does not tell students that this figure only applies to
perfect use.  In fact, typical use failure rates of condoms for pregnancy
are around 15% for the average user.  Condoms provide poor protection for
many STIs, such as herpes and the human papilloma virus (HPV)."

The most obvious lie of the decades-old gigantic, global "safe sex"
(recently revised to "safer sex") juggernaut: Condoms provide effective
protection against pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs).
"[T]he Vatican's ban on condoms has cost many hundreds of thousands of
lives from AIDS," wrote Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times on May 8.
Kristof, who is apparently a moral theologian, informed the new Pope that
he should endorse condom use to prevent disease, writing that "let's all
pray he'll make the courageous choice."  It's interesting to note that
courageous choices in modern times always involve doing what today's
culturally, politically, and financially elite interests want you to do.

Of course, the opposite is true: The promotion of condoms has cost
hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives worldwide.  They
engender a false sense of security and encourage people, particularly
young people, to engage in promiscuity and unnatural sexual activity while
relying on condoms for protection.  But for anyone who engages in regular
sexual activity, condoms offers poor protection against pregnancy, HIV
infection, and some other STDs.  A 15% failure rate, repeated over time,
quickly adds up to a trip to a maternity ward, or to an AIDS hospice.

The Maryland curriculum tries to claim a 98% effectiveness rate.  Says the
critique from Throckmorton & co., "The video says the condoms are 98%
effective and gives the impression that this is for both pregnancy and STI
[sexually transmitted infection] reduction.  The video confuses the issue
by not saying for what outcome condoms are 98% effective.  Condoms are
nowhere near 98% effective for STIs, especially herpes and HPV and in fact
are much lower.  It is true that condom failure rates approaching 2% have
been reported with perfect use for pregnancies in groups of women that
include older, mature females.  However, typical condom use failure rates
for pregnancy are estimated to be 15%.  Typical use is defined as
inconsistent and imperfect use which is more like how adolescents use
condoms even with instructions.  Withholding this information is
irresponsible."

Yes, studies have shown that typical use of condoms produces a 15% failure
rate.  Perfect use among older, well-trained and -disciplined couples
participating in a carefully controlled medical study may produce a 2%
failure rate, but so what?  That's not very relevant for a curriculum
aimed at 8th and 10th graders.  How many kids are going to use condoms
correctly with consistency-especially after they've had a few drinks or
done some drugs, as so often happens before they engage in sexual
activity?  And that 15% failure rate applies to one year, i.e. after one
year of typical condom use by adult couples, 15% of the women are
pregnant.  Extend that failure rate over a few years and pregnancy becomes
a probability-and so does STD transmission for many diseases.  Whether it
does for HIV depends on the nature of the sexual activities being
performed and the health of the skin of the performers.  For example, it's
much easier to transmit HIV through anal intercourse than through normal
intercourse.

That distinction is not made in the Maryland curriculum, though it could
save the lives of many young people.  "The video mentions oral and anal
sex without providing risk disclosure of such activities," says the
report.  "The video states, 'Remember to use a condom for oral, anal and
vaginal sex.'  This advice is stunning in itself in that oral, anal and
vaginal sexual relations are lumped together as if the risks in these
practices were equivalent.  The increased risk of STIs with anal sex is
ignored by the video."

The religious fervor for promoting homosexuality is, of course, behind the
omission of information about what kinds of sexual activity are safer than
others.  "We do wonder why the risk factors attendant to a gay identity
were not more obvious in the health education curriculum.  This omission
seems particularly troubling since the curriculum is supposed to be
designed to help protect children during a vulnerable time," the report
says.  "For example, recent research suggests that those at highest risk
for HIV infection, young men with many sex partners, appear to be the
least likely to have changed their sexual behaviors since the onset of the
AIDS epidemic.  Despite being just 2-3% of the population, gay and
bisexual men accounted for 44% of new HIV cases reported between
2000-2003."

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.S., M.D., of Princeton has said, "Any program,
club, or curriculum that signals to students that homosexual behavior is
'just another lifestyle' places children at tremendous risk.  Data from
the Centers for Disease Control indicate that for boys and young men in
North America who identify themselves as homosexual even if the
identification is only temporary, which as has been documented in numerous
large-scale sociological studies in America, France, Britain, Australia
and New Zealand, as is the case with the majority of such self-identified
homosexuals-the risk of being either HIV-positive or dead by age 30 may
now be as high as 65%."

Disputes over the content of sex indoctrination curricula are moot.  The
only way to prevent illegitimate pregnancy and STDs is through chastity
and monogamy.  That's why we have had an enormous explosion of
illegitimate pregnancies and STDs since the 1960s.  Only virtuous
behavior, not modern technology, can prevent these ills (see Dr. Meg
Meeker's book Epidemic for more on the exponentially growing spread of
STDs).  Sex indoctrination programs only encourage the unhealthy behavior.
 "People in the United States report their first sexual experience as
occurring at age 16.9 years on average," says Throckmorton and his
associates.  "By contrast, Taiwan, reports their average age for similar
behavior as 18.3 years.  It is important to note that the United States
begins sex education 1.3 years earlier than children in Taiwan.  In fact,
there is a world-wide linear relationship between age sex education begins
and sexual debut.  In other words, the earlier a country initiates sexual
education, the earlier adolescents begin to have sex" (emphasis in
original).

The Maryland curriculum omits all the data on sexually active adolescents
being far more likely to be depressed than abstinent ones, on the 72% of
girls who regret losing their virginity as early as they did, and similar
statistics.  When the restraining order is lifted, don't be surprised if
they are still missing.

Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at PRI.
_________
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, VA 22630
USA

Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
_________
(c) 2005 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
https://pop.org/donate.cfm. All donations (of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated.
_________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, send an email to:
JOIN-PRI@Pluto.Sparklist.com or email pri@pop.org and say "Add me to your
Weekly Briefing."
__________
The Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights
abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."