//Hazmats_with Judith Reisman/
What’s Taught to YoungStudents Today Used to BeIllegal
had just stepped down
rom the podium atermy lecture at an education conerence in 1991when an anxious youngster, about 14, approachedme. “Dr. Reisman,” she whispered, “could I speakto you or a moment?”
Government-unded sex edu-cators, that’s who. Sitting on mydesk at home was a 1991 New York Centers or Disease Controlbrochure, “The Teenager’s Billo Rights,” which, as Sandy hadclaimed, told children they had“the right to decide whether tohave sex and who to have it with.”It was graced with graphic pictorialdirections or the children.That 1991 brochure was orteenagers; today, middle-schoolersand even kindergarteners areexposed to such things. It toldyoungsters: “Use a latex con-dom or . . . oral sex (. . . into themouth) and anal sex (. . . into thebutt).” Both o these acts o sod-omy were, o course, illegal, andstill are—at least or children.The brochure pictorially dem-onstrated the acts. It advised,“Use a dental dam . . . an unrolledcondom cut down one side orplastic wrap or oral sex . . . in yourmouth.” Sandy had been rightater all, except there was no prod-uct name, just “plastic wrap.”The pamphlet was producedand distributed by the Division o AIDS Services, under the auspiceso the New York City Departmento Health. But they’re not alone.
In the years beore most
readers were born, much o to-day’s “sex education” would havebeen considered criminal. It wouldinstantly have been called “de-praved” and counted as seducingor grooming children into sex, or“contributing to the delinquencyo a minor.”Encouraging children to en-gage in any kind o sexual activ-ity (alone or with others) wasimmoral, shameul, and criminal.Even
talking about sex in ronto underage children or showingthem sexually charged or graphicimages—who but a sex deviantwould do that? Today, it is likelythat a sex-ed or “health” teacherin grade school would.“O course, dear,” I replied,wondering how I would handlewhat might be her delicate ques-tion. The girl, “Sandy,” moved usaside so no one could hear ourconversation.“Dr. Reisman, I have a questionabout what you were discussing.”(I quickly thought back to my pre-sentation and was sure I hadn’tsaid anything too advanced orgraphic. What could it be?) Sandytook a deep breath. “Our teachertold us that we can use Saran Wrapin case we don’t have a condom,”she said.“But sweetie, I didn’t sayanything in my lecture about con-doms,” I responded, somewhatconused. “However, I certainly donot want you or any other unmar-ried youngster having sex. No sex,no worry about condoms,” I said,as gently as I could.“Well, yes, I know,” noddedSandy. “But I’m not asking or my-sel,” she added quickly, “I’m ask-ing or my riend.”“Honey,” I murmured, “I thinkyou misunderstood your teacher.She couldn’t have said to use SaranWrap i you don’t have a condom. That is insane; you must have mis-understood.”“No, I didn’t,” Sandy insisted.“That is what my teacher said. Butthat isn’t the question,” she addedquickly. “I mean, the question myriend asked is, i you don’t haveSaran Wrap, can you use tin oilinstead?”
I cannot recall the heart-to-heart I gave young Sandy, one o millions o young victims o sex-ed.Flying back home, I saw the “tinoil” query as evidence confrmingneuroscience data that show thatchildren’s brains are not matureenough to handle such provocative“sex education.”
I was convinced Sandy had misun-derstood her teacher. Consideringthe Planned Parenthood propagan-da about using condoms properlyor “protection,” who could pos-sibly recommend Saran Wrap?