NYC suggests a "variety of solitary and mutual sex acts" to kids in sex ed classes

Is sex ed out of control?

New York City will be requiring sex education for children as young as sixth grade. As part of this curriculum, students will be given ” “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts.” In another lesson, a student will be “encouraged to disregard what [parents have] told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members[.]”

Disturbing.

Don’t mistake my position: I recognize that there are demographics of our population where parents have abrogated their responsibility to teach human sexuality to their children. A certain percentage of the population is going to engage in sex, no matter how much abstinence you teach, so you might as well make sure everyone understands enough about the birds and the bees to know to use a condom or some other type of birth control. It prevents abortions and sexually transmitted disease, which means fewer burdens on our health care system.

But that doesn’t mean it should start at age ten, include instruction in how to engage in sex (solo or otherwise), or explicit directions to ignore parental advice.

If schools said the same thing about religion, the ACLU would send in lawyers faster than you could recite the Lord’s Prayer.

But it’s not religion; it’s sex, and ten is too young and too impressionable. And why are students able to opt out of only parts of the class? If parents are willing to go the distance to educate their own child about sex, why should the state have the power to overrule them?

From Robert P. George and Melissa Moschella in a New York Times Op-ed:

Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is “neutral” between competing views of morality; the idea of “value free” sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.

But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?

Liberals and conservatives alike should say no. Such policies violate parents’ rights, whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or of no religion at all. To see why, we need to think carefully about the parent-child relationship that gives rise to the duties that parental rights serve and protect.

Our culture hypersexualizes children at an early age already. Do we need the state to encourage it?