It’s not Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s not even Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler. No, according to Keith Olbermann — that blinkered liberal extremist who plays a newsman on TV — Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), is “the worst person in the world.”
While discussing abstinence education during a recent interview on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report, Wright accurately pointed out that the most strident devotees of that abysmal failure tagged “comprehensive sex education” are most likely to benefit financially when children and teens become pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases.
During the interview, Wright hit the nail squarely on the head, saying, “In fact, they want to encourage [kids to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions. So, you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.”
And the financial motives are staggering. According to its own annual report, Planned Parenthood — which receives its lion’s share of profit from abortion — performed 264,943 abortions in the 2006 fiscal year, raking in an astronomical $55.8 million in profit … free and clear.
It doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure out that Planned Parenthood — one of the foremost cheerleaders of “comprehensive sex ed” — has a vested interest in seeing that young girls become pregnant and have abortions. It’s a classic case of “the fox watching the hen house.” “Comprehensive sex ed” spells money in the bank because it actually encourages kids to have sex. It doesn’t work, and they know it.
Well, Wright’s comments didn’t sit well with the left. Liberal bloggers went nuts, and in a recent episode of MSNBC’s poorly rated “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” the painfully “progressive” talking-head took issue with Wendy for pointing out this clear conflict of interest, crowning her “the worst person in the world.”
Toward the end of his decidedly obtuse monologue, Olbermann — whose joke writer is also apparently on strike — smugly quipped, “And the condoms the sex educators keep trying to make available to the kids, those are for what … water balloons?”
Well, Poindexter, yes, in fact. That’s precisely what kids are using them for. Take the African AIDS epidemic. As CWA reported a few years back, Dr. Margaret Ogola of Kenya testified at two United Nations conferences that, “‘family planners’ have put so many condoms into Kenya that the children use them as balloons and play with them in the streets.”
Tragically, we all know how “comprehensive sex education” has worked-out in Africa.
Unfortunately, it’s no better right here at home. Despite a culture that relentlessly extols the phantom virtues of so-called “safe sex” and practically throws condoms at children by the handful, STD and teen pregnancy rates remain high.
Like a broken record, liberal educators and cultural elites incessantly regurgitate, “always have safe sex,” while the only thing impressionable, hormone charged kids hear is, “have sex!” Continue >>
RSS
I firmly believe in sex education. I believe age appropriate sex education should start very young. By this I mean good touch/bad touch should be taught to 3 or 4 year olds, because this is sex education (and all the sex education they should know about at their age). And the child should know they can tell adults when someone does bad touch. Teaching adolescents what changes they can expect in their bodies as they reach puberty is sex education. Abstinence is a good practice to teach, but if the students are already sexually active then you're not going to reach them. If the class is segregated by gender and each class is shown pictures of some of the hundreds of diseases and their symptoms, I believe you could scare many of them to death. I'm not exaggerating, I took a course in college (required for my degree), and was blown away by the sheer numbers of diseases. And many of these diseases are becoming drug-resistant or are untreatable or often difficult to detect. I believe that many children merely give into peer pressure and the continuous bombardment of the American media. But by providing factual information in addition to Christian morality, I beleive that you may sway many children into chastity and bring those who have experimented back into the flock.
"I see no reason why good friends can't have sex, without any implication that they will only have sex with each other, so long as both are ok with it."
I do not know how many people I have known who's relationships have been ruined by using this principle, some of them even violently. This just isn't the way reality is, rather than trying to force everyone to accept free sex with anyone as ok, we ought to be thinking about how people really are, and adjusting ourselves to what makes rational sense. Also, taking this stance increases the chances of unwanted pregnancies and STDs highly, it promotes the view that people (specifically women) are primarily objects for sex. As a feminist you should know that this stance is going to hurt women far more than men. Women are much more likely to get STDs, they are much more likely to be abandoned by a guy who didn't want to have the responsibility of raising a child, and they are far more likely to get deep emotional scars. I am not anti-feminist, I am a realist. Your answer is going to have to be either to get more abortions or to promote more homosexual sex, neither of which deal with the issue, and both of which only raise more problems.
Citizen,
I think we need some clearing up here. Pleasure itself is not base, but putting pleasure into the wrong situation is base and in many cases even evil. For instance, we can say that eating is a good thing. We derive pleasure and life from it, but overeating is wrong. It is both unheatlhy, and it shows a disregard for the many people out there that are starving. Sex is no exception to this. Sexual pleasure within marriage is a good thing, the likelihood of the participants becoming physically or emotionaly scarred from sex within a real marriage is slim to none. I cannot even begin to tell you how many people have been hurt deeply, both physically and emotionaly, by practicing "safe sex" all for the sake of pleasure. Sex' primary function is not for pleasure, but for having a deep intimate relationship with another person. It is also a specific kind of relationship, we don't have to have sex with everyone we want to have a deep relationship with. You wouldn't have to have sex with your son or daughter for instance.
You seem to think that young marriage is necessarily bad or that teenagers cannot control themselves so they should just indulge in whatever makes them feel good. First of all if it is shown that teenagers are more prone to vandalism and theft or drugs, we do not promote those things, rather we expect them to control themselves, why do you make an exception for sex? Secondly, I would like to tell you that young marriage is not so impossible as you seem to believe. You are right that legality has little to nothing to do with marriage. Even if you took marriage to mean simply, "A relationship involving two people committed for life" (This is an extremely deficient definition and not the one I use, but for simplicity's sake I use it) then we can say, if sex is only practiced with one partner that you are committed to for life, then the benefits would far outweigh the negatives. Finally, by making sex into an activity that is primarily for pleasure you are turning it into something that is base. Anyway, statistics show that couples who have sex within marriage are happier with their sex lives and lives in general than those who have sex with multiple partners.
goldberry,
Your argument is slightly flawed their friend. First of all if a doctor said something like, smoking is bad, but if you are going to smoke then you should use the filtered cigarrettes because they arent as bad as smoking cigars, then it would be comparable to this article. A doctor knows that the best way to avoid getting sick is to take care of your body and do what is healthy. Pro-abstinence side says the best way to avoid getting STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and the multitiude of emotional and physical problems that can arise from having free sex is to practice abstinence. The other side says, well maybe sex outside of marriage is wrong (we will never ever say that though), but if you are going to have sex with many partners, then have safe sex! This is not comparable to your examples, try again.
"You seem to be saying that sex' primary function is pleasure. That is making it into something base, that is also going to cause the participants to become hurt, both physically and emotionally. I am advocating teaching children that the proper place for sex is within a marriage, with only one sexual partner."
I still don't understand why you keep calling pleasure "base." But you are right, there is the possibility that people might get hurt. But you have to balance that against the problems that come with encouraging teens to marry too early, since the hormones that come with puberty guarantee that they will want to have sex. Futhermore, the proper place for sex is when both partners feel respected, and it is a positive experience. That in no way requires marriage, and teaching children to think "marriage" instead of "respect and positive experience" creates the problems I mentioned above of too early marriage. For example, suppose two people do wait to have sex until they marry, then find out they are sexually incompatible. Isn't that something they should have found out before they take a big step like marriage?
"However, if you want to uphold the dignity of women, then you have to teach them that their bodies are not just to be used for pleasure (their own or others) they have a right and good purpose. I am not trying to "reduce stress" about sex either, I am trying to reduce problems, both physical and emotional."
You say "not just about pleasure" but above you were calling pleasure "base." I'm all for teaching both genders to care for and respect their bodies, but I suspect your negative views about pleasure would get in the way of that. The fact is, sex is fun, and it should be fun, or you are doing it wrong.
"I am married, and I can tell you that people who have sex outside of marriage experience a great deal more stress and problems than I do. In marriage you don't have to worry about the partner not being there the next day, or cheating on you, also you have safety."
Safety is very important, and that's why protection and birth control should be used. As for the others, why would you rely on the legal status of being married to keep your partner from cheating or leaving. Married or not, your partner isn't likely to cheat or leave if you treat them right. Or perhaps exclusivity isn't a problem. I see no reason why good friends can't have sex, without any implication that they will only have sex with each other, so long as both are ok with it.
"I am not worried about having an unwanted child tomorrow, or about contracting an STD. I have never known someone to follow your advice and feel free and happy."
Well, now you do, because I followed my advice, and I am perfectly satisfied with it the outcome. The results are: I'm in a committed relationship and we are going to get married some day.
How silly. Planned Parenthood wants people to have unprotected sex because they can make $$$ off of treating STDs and abortions?
According to that logic:
Doctors WANT people to get sick.
School counselors WANT students to be troubled.
Cops WANT people to commit crimes.
People who work in foster care WANT families to break up and abuse their children.
Drug counselors WANT people to do drugs.
Psychiatrists WANT people to be mentally ill.
Providing services for the aftermath of something does NOT mean that they encourage the activity.
Citizen, we are in agreement on some points, but definitely not all. You seem to be saying that sex' primary function is pleasure. That is making it into something base, that is also going to cause the participants to become hurt, both physically and emotionally. I am advocating teaching children that the proper place for sex is within a marriage, with only one sexual partner. You have said you are a feminist, depending on the type of feminist I may or may not agree with your idealogical presumptions, however I think we can both agree that the integrity of men and women both need to be upheld, and that they both need to be treated as equal in respect to their dignity (I am strongly against radical feminism that says that there are not real biological differences between men and women, or that women must be treated 'equaly' in every situation, this is blatantly wrong, and I hope we can both agree on this, for instance, women cannot compete in mens sports) However, if you want to uphold the dignity of women, then you have to teach them that their bodies are not just to be used for pleasure (their own or others) they have a right and good purpose. I am not trying to "reduce stress" about sex either, I am trying to reduce problems, both physical and emotional. I do not sacrifice the truth at the expense of giving people more liberties. I am married, and I can tell you that people who have sex outside of marriage experience a great deal more stress and problems than I do. In marriage you don't have to worry about the partner not being there the next day, or cheating on you, also you have safety. I am not worried about having an unwanted child tomorrow, or about contracting an STD. I have never known someone to follow your advice and feel free and happy. I do not agree with many things that many feminists say, but if we are discussing the inherent value of women and their equality with men, then I am in full agreement. Please understand, I have seen so many women and girls lives ruined by trying to follow your plan, I have never met a woman who follows my idea that had her life ruined. God values every person and in His eyes there is no difference between men and women.
I remember sitting through Marvelously Stupid Sex Education. That's 20 hours of my life I'll never get back. Urghk.
" Right, I have no problem teaching kids about alternative ways of trying to prevent pregnancies and STDs."
Great, then we are in agreement. And we disagree with the article which is advocating that sex ed programs hide those alternative ways. I think we can also agree that programs should be honest and give accurate information about the abilities of condoms and birth control to prevent STDs and pregnancy, as well as how to use them properly, and the consequences of failing to use them properly or not using them. No ideological agendas shaping the message about abstinence or condoms or scare tactics, just objective information.
"But here is the real problem, you are making sex into some base activity for the pleasure of anyone who wants to engage in it, you are threatening the welfare of our children, and you and people who support your view are causing more social ills."
I don't think we are actually in disagreement. Sex should be a positive, pleasurable experience, and that can't happen if people are getting disrespected. There is nothing base about it. As a feminist, I don't want women feeling like they have to have sex if they don't want to, or that they can't have as much sex as they want for fear of being labeled by their peers. Nor do I want men to feel the need to measure themselves by the number of sexual conquests. Wearing a condom and using birth control, and doing both properly, are ways to reduce stress about sex, and therefore increase the enjoyment.
Right, I have no problem teaching kids about alternative ways of trying to prevent pregnancies and STDs, but the fact remains that if kids practice abstinence, then there will be no unwanted pregnancies or STDs. I don't know what we are debating about here. Sure I will pay for every kid who has an unwanted child or gets an STD by practicing abstinence. And you can pay for all the kids you motivate into having "safe sex" who get unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Are you going to say kids can't control themselves? It is not my place to interfere with individual's sex lives, however I am going to advocate a pro abstinence stance, and I would advocate that if you tell kids about "other methods" that you give a fair warning and show them just how ruined their lives can become if they mess around with it, and show them the manifold benefits of abstinence.
But here is the real problem, you are making sex into some base activity for the pleasure of anyone who wants to engage in it, you are threatening the welfare of our children, and you and people who support your view are causing more social ills. Sex is not just something you do because you feel like it. It must be respected and the value of the other person and yourself has to be upheld as well. Your position not only destroys the integrity of the individuals, it also makes sex into what it is not. If kids are debating having sex or not, and they think "Oh everything will be ok if I just wear a condom" they are decieved. I am not causing pain, I am not destroying lives, you and the people who push your stance in young peoples minds are the ones destroying so many people. It is a good time to start thinking about what you are saying.
Chris333: Are you willing to pay for all the unplanned, unwanted children or the abortions performed because teens were ignorant of ways to have sex without getting pregnant? How about the STDs contracted because you couldn't handle the thought of guilt free sex for pleasure? Because you will have a share of the blame for that suffering and pain. Are your anxieties about sex worth it?
Chris333: Comprehensive sexual education includes teaching about abstinence, so that information is getting out there. I just don't understand why you want to hide information about other ways to avoid pregnancy for kids who don't want to wait. It's not like teens don't find out about sex if you don't tell them about birth control and condoms. What happens is that they end up having sex anyway without those useful devices, then they get pregnant and either have a kid way too early, or have an abortion. Or they end up getting married, again way too early, perhaps to a person who is wrong for them, just so they can have sex guilt-free. I don't think you appreciate the personal and social costs of the position you are advocating, especially when they are so unnecessary. It's not your place to interfere with other people's sex lives by withholding vital information just so they can be "punished" by pregnancy for having sex you don't approve of.
Well Citizen,
Abstinence only always works, in 100% of cases. It is impossible to get a sexually transmitted disease through practicing abstinence, it is impossible to have an unwanted pregnancy through abstinence. The problem is that teenagers do not practice abstinence only, they are sometimes taught that it is the best way, but then society, media and schools tell them that it is ok to have safe sex, or that it is natural or desirable. Your studies do not show that 100% of people who practice abstinence do not have unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. What is your point? If everyone practiced abstinence only then in a few generations there would be no sexually transmitted diseases, and many other family problems would be solved. It is good to think sometimes.
The author leaves us with nothing but the bald assertion that abstinence-only programs enjoy "impressive success" because he has nothing to back it up. In fact, contrary to his claims, abstinence-only doesn't work:
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html)
Abstinence-Only Sex Education Programs Have Little Effect on Texas Teenagers' Behavior, Study Says (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19531.php)
Abstinence-only approach less effective among teens, study finds (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1194514890196500.xml&coll=2)
There are the studies which demonstrate that abstinence-only doesn't work. The author refuses to provide any examples of studies which he says the "biased media" don't report. The clear conclusion is that the explanation for the lack of reporting of such studies is not bias, but simply that there are no credible studies demonstrating abstinence-only success.
Great article,
I don't know if I would have labeled Wright as the worst person in the world, but she and her organization are pretty bad.