Friday, August 31, 2007

 

Sex education in America

There are libruls who claim that we do not offer enough sex education in America. That's just plain silly. It's not that we don't educate our children about sex. It's just that we don't allow it in our schools, as many countries do, where they could get hurt.

It's a matter of safety. There are live genitals in our schools, and they can be hazardous if not properly handled. America's children have some of the finest minds in the world. If we were to allow sex education in the schools, many of our brighter students would take the theory straight from the classroom and attempt to apply it in the lab. This could be dangerous. Currently none of our schools are equipped with the proper safety hoods required for safe sex experiments.

Instead the position of sex educator is assumed by our politicians and news media, who know more about sex than 95% of our classroom teachers anyway. They're good at it. And when they take on the role, it can scarcely be argued that there's a child left in America who's uninformed.

Take Bill Clinton, for instance—a role model if there ever was one. Through his endeavors (and through the kind and devoted work of his assistant Monica Lewinsky), America's children learned all they needed to know about semen, a word unfamiliar even to many adults. They learned about hygiene—about how you should try to avoid getting semen on your clothes where it can stain. They learned about alternative and safer sex practices such as oral sex; the appropriate setting for it—at the office; and the proper position of the assistant—on his or her knees, which is practical whether you're seated or standing. And surely no child in those days could have misspelled "f-e-l-l-a-t-i-o" in a spelling bee.

All this education for free at the click of the remote! And safe too!

Clinton has retired from his role as public sex educator. (Many say it's a subject so dear to him that he still gives private lessons.) But we can be thankful that many other public-spirited leaders have stepped in to assume the position.

Only recently we've seen Congressman Mark Foley who brought sex education into the 21st century by demonstrating the proper practice of chatroom sex, which is rapidly replacing the old-fashioned phone sex of the previous century. There is nothing more hygienic, and the nation's youth seem to love it.

Then came Senator Vitter of Louisiana, who taught us that sex is not always just for fun—sometime it's for money. He sought out some of the most talented ladies in his parish and handsomely rewarded them for a job well done.

For those young people still considering what they should do with their lives and unsure of where to turn, Senator Vitter pointed the way to a lucrative alternative to acts of self-destruction such as joining the military out of desperation—a pitfall into which many of our impoverished youth have fallen. And for those few who have money and a wife yet still feel lonely, he showed that a helping hand can be surprisingly affordable.

Now Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has stepped in. He is teaching that sex should not be taken lightly—or in the light, for that matter. And that you should always be sensitive to your partner.

Don't take the sexual preferences of that "significant other" for granted. If in public, eye them furtively. Ask discretely. If in a public restroom, tap your foot if you must, but do not reach into places you haven't previously explored without your partner's permission. This can lead to serious misunderstandings and an ugly disruption of the relationship may follow. This is not safe sex.

Of course our public sex educators could not do their job properly without the assistance of the media. Thanks to Fox and CNN, children are given the images, graphics and background they need to really understand just what is going on. There are video sweeps of toilet stalls, "backgrounders" on the meaning of foot-tapping and on-the-spot reporting by some of the nation's top journalists standing in front of the entrance to the men's room.

Now do you understand why we don't need sex education in our schools? In America we do things the American Way.

But is it really the "American" way? Some say it is the Republican way. There are partisans who claim that, aside from Bill Clinton, the burden of sex education has fallen almost exclusively on the private parts of the Republicans. And while the Republicans have been graceful in accepting the responsibility, you can see that it is taking its toll. It really isn't fair.

It's a shame that our country has become so divided. This year and next I'm going to vote Democratic and demand that these slacker Democrats drop their drawers and prove they care as much about education as the Republicans do. When the Republicans said "No child left behind," they meant it. It's high time the Democrats took on some of the responsibility for educating our nation's youth.

Related posts
Fox network gets spanked over pixelated breasts (10/13/04)
While we weren't paying attention - 1 (11/18/04)
The educational value of the Guckert/Gannon affair (2/16/05)
The Christian Right, STDs, monogamy and other wonders (5/30/05)
Prudery gone amuck (5/31/06)
Condoms 1 Right-Wing 0 (6/22/06)
Ooh-la-la! Cheap condoms for school kids (12/16/06)

Tags:

<< Simply Appalling Home

Atom feed

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com
Blogarama - The Blog Directory

Blog Search Engine

Politics
Blog Top Sites

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?