Like Button

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Sexual Propaganda

Andrée Seu Anderson (that's how she spells her name) opened her May 3, 2014 article in World Magazine with
"It is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret" (Ephesians 5:12). But what if they do them in the open? What if they do them in Room 206 of the campus Physical Education Center and are graded on them? And what if you’re footing the bill, Mom and Dad?
She goes on to tell what was in her 20-year-old daughter's textbook and syllabus for the required Human Sexuality class she was taking in college. The textbook by Crooks and Baur, Our Sexuality (12th edition), (you can get it for $175 at Amazon) pretends to expound on human sexuality from an enlightened position ... and to teach your kids the "scientific truth".
This is the most respected and authoritative college textbook available on human sexuality. Written in a direct, non-judgmental manner, this edition of OUR SEXUALITY has been thoroughly and carefully updated to reflect the most current research findings. It is the first college text to bring cutting-edge and in-depth emphasis on the impact of politics on sexuality. Crooks and Baur keep you interested with the most exciting, emerging research and coverage, and focus on strengthening healthy communication among partners. The authors also have revised their overall coverage on maintaining a responsible and healthy sexual relationship, with greater attention to diversity and inclusiveness -- Book Description
So what kind of "authoritative" information does it offer? They tell us cool things like how physical attractiveness plays a role in sexual attraction and how jealousy harms relationships ... because they're scientists and we wouldn't have known these things. I particularly liked the keen insight, "Facial expressions of emotion are often a powerful component of nonverbal communication" because, after all, the definition of "nonverbal communication" is "communication not involving words: communication by other means than by using words, e.g. through facial expressions, hand gestures, and tone of voice." Whew! Good authoritative information! At one point they use the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill trial from 1991 as an example of workplace sexual harassment -- you know, the trial where Thomas was found not guilty. Thus, "respected and authoritative" must mean "not well researched, honest, or reliable."

How is it "non-judgmental"? Good stuff like "The religious right in America has long labored to reinforce traditional gender roles through its efforts to shape American politics." Yeah, that's non-judgmental. "The teachings of Jesus emphasized love, compassion, and forgiveness", while "Homophobia can be best thought of as a prejudice similar to racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism." Indeed, as far as "non-judgmental" goes, as long as you aren't a Christian or a Jew or some such, you'll be okay, because they assured their readers, "Beginning in the 7th century BCE, ... Jewish religious leaders wanted to develop a distinct closed community. Homosexual activities were a part of the religious practices of many peoples in that era, and rejecting practices was one way of keeping the Jewish religion unique." Really? The 7th century BCE? That would require that the texts written by Moses (according to Jesus (e.g. Matt 8:4; 19:8)) were not. (If Jesus was wrong, then why bother talking about what He said?) It would also indicate that only this elite minority actually believed such practices were sin. Certainly the Jews were wrong, and certainly the New Testament was equally wrong. This is "non-judgmental".

How is it "strengthening healthy communication among partners"? (Note: "Among" means a group, while "between" means a couple. There is bias in that phrase alone.) The book includes information on how to "come out", gives photos of sexual positions, and educates readers on things like fetishism, transsexual fetishism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, klismaphilia, coprophilia, urophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia. If you need to look them up, good for you. There are some really sick things in there. Oh, wait, we're talking about healthy communication, aren't we? So explanations without any moral component of sexual delight in enemas, feces, urine, sex with animals, or sex with dead people should be considered "healthy communication"? I don't think they're using the word "healthy" in the same sense that I would.

All of this is highly disturbing, but it is most disturbing because it is highly respected. It is most disturbing because it is considered good scholarship, good information, and good teaching. Anderson closes her piece with a quote from Cal Thomas. "The question must be asked: why do so many parents who hold traditional views that worked for them and the country willingly and enthusiastically send their children to academic institutions that frequently undermine everything they believe? And pay for it, too? Is it because of the 'prestige' of these historic schools?" I agree with the question. I also need to point out that, given what is being taught in schools (whether elementary, secondary, or "higher learning") that is fundamentally contrary and hostile to Christianity, what do you think we can expect as this next generation of propagandized children without proper parenting or education come to the fore? I don't think it will be a warm embrace of Christian values or those who hold them.


Naum said...

Are you aware that a pair of Wall Street Journal reporters wrote a book shortly after that "trial" (which really not a trial, but a spectacle) confirmed indeed that Clarence Thomas was indeed guilty of sexual harassment, witnesses suppressed, etc.

Not only other witness corroboration, but Clarence Thomas ex-girlfriend came out a few years ago and confirmed that these charges were consistent with what she knew.

Stan said...

Isn't that interesting?

1) The thing about which you take issue is whether or not Clarence Thomas was guilty of sexual harassment, not any of the really weighty stuff.

2) When the O.J. Simpson trial is discussed, the standard response is, "He was found not guilty, so we shouldn't be arguing it", but when Clarence Thomas is discussed, we're pretty sure the justice system failed. I wonder why.

Naum said...

1) Not familiar with this textbook and the article you reference is nothing but a sensationalization of the matter (not asserting that the author is incorrect in her assertion, just that not enough evidence has been provided).

2) I don't possess enough information to take issue with the assertions made, but the bit about Clarence Thomas struck funny, given all that has been revealed since 1991.

3) In regard to OJ Simpson, not sure what you're driving at -- why is that case relevant? Though many can argue (and I'm not telling them they are wrong) about the guilt of Simpson, he did have a trial -- what Clarence Thomas was put through was a show, that on the surface, seemed to denigrate him, but in reality, denigrated women and was a travesty (as attested by those WSJ reporters and just as well, by the apologetics of David Brock who later repented, and admitted was a sham, and he was just a loyal propagandist in service of his sugar daddy conservative plutocrats).

David said...

I think his point of bringing up the Simpson trial was that when it comes to murder, we should just let it go, but when it comes to sexual harassment, it is still being fought in the public domain. The case wasn't important in the reference, the public response after the case was.

Stan said...

It would be nice if the example one chooses to "prove a point" would actually prove the point. There are far better examples of workplace sexual harassment than the Thomas allegations. More importantly, if a scholarly book intends to teach scholarly information, it should at least do so with honesty. "A good example of sexual harassment in the workplace would be Clarence Thomas, at least according to Anita Hill." You know, something like that. Rather than making a case that was never confirmed or proven. You know, like the Navy Tailhook scandal. Or the Clinton/Lewinski affair. Or the Clinton/Paula Jones thing. Or the case from First Mutual of Louis Oblea Jr. (a man in his 20's) who was sexually harassed by a woman twice his age and fired for it. I'm just saying that a scholarly approach would be to use undisputed examples rather than disputed ones.

Danny Wright said...

So much evil here. Where does one begin? It does remind of of a C.S. Lewis quote:

The very power of [the writers of the text book] depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is 'doing' his 'English prep' and
has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory
they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin
forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a
controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.

Stan said...

Very appropriate quote from Lewis.