About Me

Name: Snake
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

THE ‘ILLOGIC MODEL’ OF CSE – Part 2 of 5

In the second part of our series we examine the CSE assumptions that pre-teens and teens don’t have “self-control” and how that would affect their own programs if it were true and what their real agenda may be. We also take a look at whether or not their claim that CSE education does not increase sexual activity holds any water. 

So for all you logically minded folks, read on…

Assumption # 3 – Pre-teens and teens don’t have “self-control” (extension of Assumption # 2 from Part 1) so we have to “protect” them!?!

Reality # 3 – There are a couple of issues here where the Truth and reality cause the CSE Assumption to fall apart and either 'turn the light on' for those who have fallen for their faulty programs or tick them off because they know they don’t make sense and they walk away mad! First of all, if youth don’t have self-control how can we teach them anything as it is required at almost every turn – school, sports, music, general maturity, etc.? Second, and directly related to our discussion here, if youth don’t have self-control then why promote condoms and contraception anyway? What they are really trying to say is that “if” youth don’t have self-control then abstinence will not work (obviously already disproven in Assumption # 2 in Part 1 of this series). 

You see if CSE advocates really believe that pre-teens and teens don’t have self-control, then why do their programs talk about various ways for them to express their “sexuality” - all related to sexual acts from holding hands to mutual masturbation to showering together (all found in various CSE programs) and then expect these young people ‘with no self-control’ to be able to stop (an act of self-discipline or self-control) in the 'heat of the moment ' and apply their 11, 15 or 17 steps needed to apply a condom (depending on whether you’re looking at the FDA, CDC or other condom experts)! If they don’t have self-control while they’re fully clothed and just making “goo-goo” eyes at each other, they certainly aren’t going to exercise it at the point where CSE experts and programs have led them – naked and dripping wet and then telling them “in case you decide it’s time to engage in sexual intercourse please remember to ‘be safe’” (and we all now know what ‘safe’ means to CSE educators – Assumption 1 in Part 1 of series)!?! 

Either CSE experts truly don’t know this and therefore shouldn’t be in the arena of educating young people or they know it and have another agenda (HMMM… you think it’s the millions/billions of dollars they make off of teen sexual activity). Either way their assumption of pre-teens/teens having no self-control doesn’t hold up under their own programs, so what is their agenda? If they really believe this how much do they really believe in our youth and what kind of hope can they instill as success in any realm requires self-control! Do we really want these programs being used to “empower” our young people? 

Assumption # 4 – Teaching CSE doesn’t promote increased sexual activity?!?

Reality # 4 – This one is so easy to point out the illogic of the assumption that I almost didn’t include it but if you’ve ever been in a conversation with the CSE camp you’ll know they are adamant about this one so I had to include it. It is this simple – why do you need condoms/contraceptives if there is not an implication and actual teaching about various sexual activities and positions (you will find out if you research my claims in Reality #3 above)? 

When you hand a condom to a youth what else could you be saying or implying? If you’re not promoting sex (even without saying anything) why the need for the condom? If you’re going to be “safe” according to CSE advocates you need to use a condom which means that every time you hand them out or encourage their use you are encouraging, at least by implication if not more, sexual activity. Simply put, by encouraging condom use you are necessarily ‘encouraging sex” as the only time you need to use a condom is when you engage in sex! CDC and other statistics also show that sexual activity continued to rise throughout the entire ‘reign’ of the CSE education monopoly until AE/HR education began receiving some funding when the teen sexual activity rate began to drop for the first time in decades and has pretty much continued in line with AE/HR funding over the last decade! See Assumption and Reality # 2 from Part 1 of series and more on this in Part 5, Assumption and Reality # 10.  

As we wrap up these 2 illogical assumptions, and in case you're wondering if CSE doesn't promote sexual activity, take it from their own ads and promos. Here's an excerpt from an article that simply exposes the truth of the contraceptive agenda and the hidden 'sexual activity' agenda as CSE proponents continue to claim that they don't promote sexual activity...

<div style="text-align: center">'New York City Uses Valentine's Day to Launch Condom Campaign'</div>

In its efforts to make New York City an "even safer place to have sex," the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene unveiled its 2008 "safer-sex" campaign today. Free condoms with the slogan "Get Some" were distributed around the city.

Hmmm.... wonder what they might be implying with the double entendre slogan "Get Some"? I'll let you and your logical mind figure that one out as well as whether this may or may not be promoting sexual activity?!? 

Please stay tuned for Part 3 of this series (Illogical Assumptions # 5 and 6) next week and thanks for your help in this effort! Contact me at gwilliams@heritageofky.org.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE ‘ILLOGIC MODEL’ OF CSE – Part 1 of 5

 On this Valentine's Day 2008, if you want to know why True Love has taken a huge hit, read on and then help us restore it the right way! 

With all the ‘hubbub’ surrounding President Bush’s last year, the dismal efforts, results and approval ratings of this Congress, the Presidential campaigns and election, the War on Terror and on and on, there is something that underlies much of this and the MSM (mainstream media), as is their custom, is totally subjective and biased in their reporting of this underlying issue. It is responsible for a great majority of the social ills that we face, which depending on how you look at it is either a sad commentary on our society and public health/education systems or a great opportunity to continue to create a socialist state (again as most of these problems stem directly from the programs that our government, government-run education system and liberal media have bought into, supported and even promoted and glorified)!

Read on for more on the first in a series on this issue and find out what CSE stands for and why it is truly “illogic” (with outcomes to match)…

Let’s get right to it - CSE stands for “contraceptive-based sex education” and if you look at the issues that plague our nation and society, most of them are intrinsically linked to the horrific foundations and outcomes of this flawed and “junk-science”- based ideology! From divorce and the broken marriage/home/family/children cycles to unwed/teen pregnancy to cohabitation and its devastating results to sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STIs/STDs) and all the related personal, relational and social ills, we find a foundational connection to the behavior endorsed in these programs. On top of that our government, media and public education/health systems continue to “attack” the problems with the same flawed programs. Now if that isn’t the definition of “insanity” – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results – I don’t know what is? Is it no wonder that we have created a state that makes the socialist agenda look “promising”?Who else is going to “save us” from ourselves but ‘Big Brother’, except that ‘Big Brother’ is responsible for much of the problems! Read on… 

Let me propose that outside of a religious experience to save us, when it comes to these issues, if we would just use some common sense in both looking at what is being taught (the models) and the results on both sides, you will clearly see which programs are not only logical and therefore work, you will also see how illogical the models of CSE really are and why their results are and have always been horrible! You will hopefully also begin asking the questions and getting involved in trying to turn around the tremendous problem that most of the powers that be continue to support and fund through government, media and education.

In order to expose them here is a straightforward approach so you can clearly see the illogic model they used to form their programs and continue to use to perpetuate them in spite of dismal and deadly results. The format will be to simply use their own assumptions and results and show you how flawed and destructive they are and then trust that you will want to continue or join us in this fight to rid our system and our youth of these deceptive and devastating programs!

In this first part of this blog series I will introduce you to two of ten assumptions and address the remaining eight assumptions on a weekly basis over the next four weeks in order to help you get a clearer picture of true logic and illogic and help in the stand against this blight on our youth and society!

ASSUMPTIONS OF CSE

Assumption # 1 – Condoms/contraceptives of CSE are “safe” so we must promote them to “protect” our children!?!

Reality # 1 – “Safe” according to Merriam-Webster is free from harm or risk. By their own definitions, CSE programs call themselves “risk reduction” programs as they know several things about their “safe” programs that literally contradict their own calling of their methods “safe”! First of all, they know that at best condoms and contraception, even used together, are not “free from harm or risk” of pregnancy. They also know with regard to STIs/STDs that contraception offers no protection or ‘safety’ and that no condoms were ever made specifically to protect against these devastating and sometimes deadly diseases. While, based on their medical research model, they can show that there is some reduction of risk (again, not ‘safe’ - free from danger or risk) against some STDs, when translated to real-life situations and outcomes, said protection is greatly reduced and they never report this as it blows their “safe sex” assumptions out of the water. How sad that our youth have to deal with their definition of “safe”!

Assumption # 2 – Abstinence is the only 100% effective choice to avoid pregnancy and/or STDs/STIs, however, kids are having sex anyway so we must ‘protect’ them?!?

Reality # 2 – Very simply, teen sexual activity reached its high point unfortunately in the mid-90s, right before the public funding of Abstinence until Marriage Education and Healthy Relationship (AE/HR) programs, at slightly above 55% (which is by my math certainly not all kids having sex). Since that time this rate has dropped by nearly 9% to about 46% (a huge cultural shift) that has given millions of young people more hope and less destruction in their lives and futures. Finally, these positive changes are becoming the norm (only one slight uptick in this rate in 2005), but only after public funding became available and even then AE/HR programs receive only $1 for every $12 for CSE (which never worked)! Imagine if we promoted programs that believe in youth and really help them with real funding rather than a pittance?!?

Please stay tuned for Part 2 of this series next week and thanks for your help in this effort!

Contact me at gdubya31@yahoo.com.
Tags:  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »