Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Victoria Woodhull, Conservatives, and Sex
The Daily Shot here on Ricochet informed anyone who didn’t already know that Hillary Clinton isn’t making history. Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to be nominated for the presidency, albeit not by a major party. What caught my attention was the reminder of her platform back in 1872, which included the radical suggestion that women should have freedom from governmental interference in their choices on marriage, divorce, and bearing children. It is more than a little depressing to think that these matters are not necessarily settled to this day, given the partisan fascination with forcing governmental involvement in at least two out of three of those matters.
In my generally non-partisan neck of the woods, my general goal is to extricate the personal lives of individuals from the mire of governmental regulation. In other words, I am generally opposed to any laws which happen to invade anyone’s bedroom, and in that sense, Woodhull and I probably would have quite a bit in common. She is remembered today in the form of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, which is dedicated to promoting sexual freedom. That organization may or may not be appreciated by many readers here, since its work includes encouraging comprehensive sex education in public schools, promoting rights of LGBT persons, and protecting the rights of sex workers. It also makes me odd person out around here, since I support the Woodhull Foundation’s work, and have been known to speak out in support of legalizing prostitution as well as radically increasing sex education in public schools.
That latter issue is one that has been bothering me more than a little lately, particularly in context with conservatives. Currently, I am working on a couple larger projects that involve sex education, and have been running a survey on the topic of what should be included in curricula for children from K-12. I’ve had no major problems getting people from the left side of the aisle to take a few moments to answer my handful of multiple answer checkbox questions. The right side of the aisle has been less than willing.
This is not surprising, and I’d been warned about it by many people who have been involved in research on sexual behavior. I was also warned about the apparently inevitable backlash I should get when I actually start compiling data, and writing on it. Yes, I should be prepared for complaints about the bias of my results, that will undoubtedly reflect only the thoughts and feelings of individuals from the left side of the aisle. Apparently it won’t matter if I humbly point out that I can’t include results from people who refuse to take the survey in the first place.
I know that the immediate response for many conservatives when they are asked to take a survey on what should be included in sex education in public schools is that schools should not be providing this education. Thanks to the ongoing research that I’ve been doing, I also know that as a general rule, people who did not have meaningful sex education in school (or anywhere) seem to be for children today getting what they didn’t. The handful of people so far who reported that they received no sex education at all make it difficult for me to maintain a purely unemotional distance from what I am trying to do. They make me sad, because even though I do not know who they are, I know that they undoubtedly feel that they have missed some important things in their personal lives simply from lack of education.
As for how I know which side of the aisle these people may be from, that is simply a matter of keeping track of where the survey has recently been shared. Most of the people who follow me on social media are generally conservative, so the initial results I received were from them. Then the survey was shared by some friends with more left-leaning followers. The latter group was much larger, of course. Researchers who warned me about the troubles they’ve had with getting data from the right side of the aisle predicted that, saying that even though I interact with many conservatives, it’s not likely that will help in balancing results. They further predicted that I would likely lose followers over the survey and my current work in general. Of course, that has proven to be true as well.
However, I am not willing to give up entirely, so I will request it here. My current sex education survey is here, and I would appreciate it if at least some of you would consider balancing the data at least a little bit. I can’t promise that the questions would not shock you, but I will say it is important to remember one thing. This is about education for K-12, which means that age appropriate content is what is being suggested. The vast majority of content that has anything to do with various sex acts would not be taught to elementary school children. It would be reserved for when students approach and reach the age of consent for sex in their given states.
I can empathize with Woodhull, and her fight for freedom for women. Obviously, she was opposed by most men, but also by women who were content with the status quo. Right now, I end up in the middle between conservatives who are opposed to various issues I believe in, and leftists who want far too radical changes. In any given day, I may be called perverse, a harlot, and a prude, depending on the source. But, what I do is still worth it, since it is working toward a point where we will hopefully see radical reductions in the number of rapes, less child sexual abuse, less domestic violence, and fewer people victimized by sex trafficking. I can take a little name-calling for that.
Published in General
See, here’s the problem. It isn’t the parents who take the time to explain things to their kids and teach them values. It’s the parents who don’t teach their kids or who themselves don’t have the information or knowledge to teach them.
Especially in the area of human sexuality, which for social and historical reasons wasn’t discuss openly until the last few decades, there are a lot of people who are in the dark. Sex is one of those taboo things that only gets whispered about. As a result, there is widespread ignorance, especially among kids, who are likely to learn things via whispers from other kids. (And to clarify: No, I’m not calling people who don’t believe in sex ed “ignorant.” That is not what I’m saying.)
I wish to hell Doc Jay would show up and tell the vines story, because that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about.
Funny how “Everyone leaves everyone else alone” seems to disappear when it comes to issues like this.
Excuse me, but it actually is sex ed, appropriate to that grade level.
I see your point, but for me, the way it was asked felt insulting. And, like Mate De said, it’s Ricochet.
Also since public schools can barely teach kids to read these days, let’s hold off on the sex Ed until they can prove they can do the essentials.
Yeah, that’s always the reason given for seizing control from the parents: “But, not all parents are teaching them the facts so somebody has to.”
But do a quick Google search including terms like “sex ed”, “abstinence” and “shame” and see just how many sex educators out there believe it’s also their business to teach kids how they should feel about sex or how to get out there and get the most out of it. See just how many of them assume that the teaching of abstinence naturally includes inculcating a sense of “shame” and “dirtiness” about sex. Note the questions on the survey linked in this very post that broach the idea of including subjects like “how to achieve orgasm”, which all seem to me to be geared more toward shaping young people’s minds and ideas of morality (or the jettisoning of any connection thereto) when it comes to sex, rather than simply giving them a solid education on the ins and outs . . . so to speak, of biology. How is that possibly any of their business? They’re not stepping in to fill a gap left by parents in that case: they’re purposefully trying to subvert what they in their infinite wisdom have assumed is “wrongly” being taught to children by their parents.
And for the record, I’m beyond sick and tired of hearing ignorant “educators” make these sweeping generalizations that any sex ed that includes discussions of abstinence or morality always means children are taught that sex is something “dirty” or “wrong.” My parents and Catholic educators never described sex as “dirty.” On the contrary, they all said it was something that could be incredibly beautiful and downright sacred, when shared with the right person. They warned me of the hurt, heartache and sad situations that could follow when it’s reduced to nothing but sport.
So I have to wonder what in the world “educators” find so reprehensible and wrong about a simple lesson like that? Or do some of them just have their own axes to grind and their own choices and opinions that they’re desperate to justify?
Look, I get that “social engineer” is a slur that gets deployed regularly against government bureaucrats who illegitimately engage in it. But isn’t it a legitimate function of civil society? It’s it what churches and non-profits engage in regularly? Do we not, individually on a regular basis? Don’t we all engage in it here on Ricochet when we try to influence eachother’s opinions?
And you’re welcome to selectively quote me, of course. But did you miss the part where I said I am against government schools?
But since we have public schools, and I’m forced to pay for them, am I not allowed an opinion on what they should be teaching? Does merely expressing that we should teach children instead of leaving them ignorant make me a some kind of statist social engineer?
I hasten to add that my comments were intended to apply to either public schools or private schools. And that the divisiveness that comes with issues like this is just one more reason not to have government schools, because it means we all have to fight about what they teach. All the more reason to do away with public schools entirely. (And if I may go hardcore libertarian for a moment, you can extrapolate that principle and apply it to everything else too, from legal systems to roads.)
>>students who got/made someone pregnant and a bunch of others who were “fooling around”, which included, in extremis, getting date-raped. There was nothing in the curriculum that would have addressed any of this.
That’s fine. It’s just that I read lots of people on Ricochet who complain about the left’s domination of everything, and here is a chance for conservatives to have some influence to counterbalance that, and all the OP gets is complaints.
Where is the evidence that parents don’t teach their children about sex? My wife and I did. We did not merely teach biology, but the moral framework within which we are to conduct all aspects of our lives. We did this by direct teaching and by living as faithful Catholics. Just about every parent I know who has remained married has done the same, although for some from a Protestant point of view. There is an utterly unsupported assumption that the vast majority of parents shirk this responsibility. This is nonsense. What the sexual libertarians want is the power to indoctrinate children into a disordered and ultimately self-destructive philosophy of sexual nihilism. The idea that all forms of sexual behavior (much of which isn’t sex at all but a hop, skip, and jump through La La Land even to the degree of chains and whips) are equal is so ludicrous that only those with zero actual knowledge could promote the tripe Ms Harrison proposes.
Agreed. We should crowd-source a Ricochet Guide to Sex for Young Persons. Because what counts as “the basics” should be spelled out explicitly. I am one of several childless people here who could use the knowledge of the experienced parents here. TBH, I don’t spend enough time around you gsters to know that eight year olds already know this and twelve year olds already know this much more.
So: if you stripped the indoctrination out of it, what would you teach?
I think the best way to get rid of the lefts domination of the culture is to get rid of government schooling. Not to allow them to teach kids about sex, so I don’t agree that getting conservatives involved in trying to teach sex Ed in schools because they will be kicked out as the abstinence only curriculum was.
And talking about “chastity” is just unthinkable to these “educators.” It’s like it’s a dirty word or something.
The impulse to use government to fix all too human deficiencies is social engineering, yes.
No one said you’re not allowed to express your opinion. That’s the great thing about the 1st Amendment and Ricochet. You have the right to be wrong.
Heh.
I would not say any of those things. Only that you’re wrong. Not that your motives are wrong, but that your understanding of how the world works is wrong. I’m not saying that simply on principle… I have certainly had plenty of exposure to sex crime.
Agreed!
Let me tell you about an incident that supposedly happened during the 1950’s in Northern Ireland. Possibly an urban legend, but it says something about that society at that time.
The police picked up a kid walking along the road. Maybe they thought he should have been in school. But he wouldn’t tell them his name. So they took him to several schools and other places that might be able to tell them his identity. After hours of fruitless searching they finally figured out who he was, and brought him home. Upon reviewing the incident later they realized they had visited several places that must have known who the kid was. The Ulster Constabulary had run into a code of silence that was especially strong in that rural district. Never tell the authorities anything –because you don’t know how they’re going to use it.
I took the survey, partly because of Fred’s comment, and I respect Fred. Nevertheless, as long as Progressives use the Supreme Court to rule us, they should expect suspicion and hostility and general lack of cooperation from the people they have turned into second class citizens. I don’t need any pat on the head.
So, we can have influence if we give up and endorse their ideas?
Forget about photos of diseased genitalia. The simplest, most effective way to prevent teens from having sex would be to make The World According to Garp mandatory reading. I’ve never read a book that made sex look less appealing. To top it off, we’ll force them to watch Crash, which will simultaneously turn them off from sex and driving (people who claim the film promotes sexual deviance should be locked up for criminal stupidity).
Speaking from experience, I can attest that the youth of today are too busy watching porn to bother having sex.
Also, this.
First, I think many of us would prefer shorter OPs.
Second, she stated that she supports the Woodhull Foundation, so I find it impossible to believe she considers “sex ed too dominated by leftist thinking.” The Woodhull Foundation epitomizes leftist thinking on sex and everything else. A few excerpts from around the site:
and:
*Emphasis mine.
What you were saying is clear. When people don’t do what you believe they should do, in the way you believe they should do it, then the government should step in and do it for them. It’s a bit like the libertarian position on baking cakes for gay weddings. If people are unwilling to do it on their own, then the government should make them do it.
Ah, the usual vicious nastiness that we have come to expect from “tolerant” people. Did you ever notice by the way that it is always the “tolerant” people who get to decide who is being “intolerant”? Always the “kind and loving” people who get to define their opponents as “haters”? Well, they are “The Man” are they not? The Supreme Court says so. I will pass on future surveys of this sort.
Wow. After reading through that entire screed that you linked, I have to say I agree with at least one statement in it, especially where the author is concerned: “I support the calls for taking mental health seriously”
Anyone who is “fighting for sexual freedom for women” needs to stay the hell away from children. Thanks to feminism, all too many gullible women who tried to conduct their sex lives the way a man would found out the hard way that the men aren’t reading from the same playbook. Be careful, fatuous little feminists who bought into it. You’re going to wake up one day 45 years old sitting on a bar stool wondering what hit ya.
Agreed, it sounded a bit like “Conservatives should be more vocal on abortion – that’s why I give thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood every year!”
… which some might understandably interpret as “conservatives should adopt leftist positions.”
I’m not sure if you saw the same illustrations I saw haha. I have to admit I wish I’d had a little more info than I got (I actually wasn’t sure if you could get pregnant from oral sex haha! How did I ever make it out the front door in the morning), but on the other hand, in my day teen pregnancy was extremely rare. I believe it was a combination of not knowing enough to take a chance and the fact that abortion was illegal (yep I’m old). But also, the mindset was to shun girls who “went all the way” and to guard your “reputation” at all costs. It’s the other way around now. When I was in high school, the spectre of an unwanted pregnancy loomed very large, and few girls were willing to chance it. I recall there was an unwed mother “home” in Arizona where girls would go to wait out their pregnancies. They would then return saying they’d been traveling abroad or something. Nowadays, the mindset seems to be “oh well, I’ll just have an abortion.” Not good.
There’s this little joint in Utah, where all the waitresses always look very young and pregnant. I think it might be the same thing – a working “vacation” while they wait out the pregnancy. @jasonrudert says this sort of thing can get abusive, but it sounds to me like a good option to make available to girls who aren’t ready to marry the fathers of their children, for whatever reason, and so might find moral support and a change of scenery helpful in committing to put their kid up for adoption.