The most comprehensive survey of sex education in the United States was made by Mathtech, Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland, under a large federally-funded contract from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare’s Center for Disease Control, headquartered in Atlanta, Ga. This survey describes in five volumes of detail what are the real goals of sex education — and those goals are quite shocking.
Called “An Analysis of U.S. Sex Education Programs and Evaluation Methods,” the Mathtech report was written by Douglas Kirby, Judith Alter and Peter Scales. It is identified by Contract No. 200-78-0804, published in July 1979.
“Sex education is very different from many other classes,” the Mathtech report explains. “The purpose of sex education is not simply to fill the gaps in the knowledge of adolescents. … The goals of sex education are much more ambitious; they involve … the changing of attitudes and behaviors.”
The Mathtech report describes with unconcealed enthusiasm how current sex education courses are “changing” students’ attitudes. The goals of these changes are identified by Mathtech as “broadly humanistic.”
Whether the courses are at the junior or senior high school or at the college level, the students who take sex education courses become more “liberal or tolerant of the sexual behavior” of others. They develop “a greater acceptance of homosexuality and masturbation.”
They become “more comfortable” with the idea of their future marriage partners having had sexual relations with someone else. It is no accident that this is the effect on students because, as Mathtech reports, “with near unanimity, the experts believed that the discouragement of all nonmarital activity was unimportant,” and some experts think it is “counterproductive.”
This antagonism to premarital chastity is echoed again and again throughout the Mathtech report. The Mathtech authors warn bluntly that the goals of sex education professionals “will, of course, conflict with the belief held by some people that sex should be enjoyed only within the context of marriage. … Thus, policymakers and sex educators should realize that some values conveyed in sex education classes are not supported by all members of society.”
That’s right, they are not. But the question is, do the “members of society” whose children are being subjected to this “changing” of their values know what are the real goals of the sex professionals? Do they know that the “experts” are teach- ing tolerance for homosexuality but antagonism to premarital chastity?
The more controversial and private the topic, the more the “experts” believe that it should be covered in depth and “not superficially.” For example, when contraception is discussed, it is suggested that the lecture should include the advantages and disadvantages of each method, the fears and fallacies of each method, and the addresses of the places where contraceptives can be obtained.
Outside of the self-serving use of the words “experts” and “professionals” to describe those involved in teaching or promoting the Mathtech brand of sex education, the second most used word is “values clarification.” That’s the jargon which identifies the use of educational facilities to change the students’ values and attitudes rather than for the traditional purpose to impart knowledge.
Another favorite word in the Mathtech report is “nonjudgmental.” That means that sex education courses should promote “a reduction of sexual guilt” (for committing immoral sex acts) and “an acceptance of alternative lifestyles” (such as homosexuality).
It is clear from the Mathtech report that sex education, as conceived by the experts, extends from kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12), and that it is integrated throughout many different courses so that parents will find it more difficult to identify. Obviously, it is easier to bring about “attitudinal change” in youngsters if the professionals can start at the earliest age and prevent the parents from knowing the goals.
One of the quickest ways to see how values and attitudes are changed is to read the questionnaires given to the pupils. The multiple-choice questions about what is assumed to be their “sexually active” lifestyle are pornographic in their explicitness. They could not help but encourage a chaste youngster to get busy and find out what he or she has been missing.
