Politically Incorrect Sex Ed

 

The cover image of Dr. Miriam Grossman’s new book Youâ��re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child.

Last Thursday, The Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy institute in Washington, D.C., introduced a new book entitled You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child. That physician is Dr. Miriam Grossman, a “board certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist.” In addition to her latest book, Grossman is the author of Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student and a former psychiatrist at UCLA. Grossman is here to rescue children and teens everywhere from the dangers of sex education.

According to her website, Grossman is “one hundred percent MD, zero percent PC [politically correct].” Unfortunately, her fancy med school degree appears to have left her empty on practical thought. At the Heritage event, Grossman warned that political correctness and liberal propaganda in sex education were putting teenagers in danger. She said “the principles of sex education are not based on the hard sciences. They don’t rest on what is seen under the microscope. Sex education is animated by a dream—a specific vision of how society must change.” But Grossman didn’t seem to realize that being politically correct is about more than not offending people. Such a perspective doesn’t come from blind liberal ideology—it comes from the belief that everyone deserves to be respected.

To be fair, Grossman didn’t just harp on abstinence-only programming. Grossman said she was in favor of teaching teens real, mostly practical lessons about the dangers of sex. However, she was critical of Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth, groups that already work to include scientific-based education. “[Their teachings are] about individual freedom … not about working with parents to safeguard their child’s health and well-being,” she warned, as if individual freedom had suddenly become a bad thing.

Grossman called for more emphasis on “disease prevention,” citing a list of key health topics missing from many curriculums. She spoke about how anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal sex because the rectum is a friendlier environment for HIV. She also noted that a girl’s cervix is more vulnerable to STDs and STIs than a woman’s is. She also explained that oral sex is associated with tonsil and throat cancer, and that men can be unknown carriers of the human papillomavirus (HPV) that can lead to genital warts and cervical cancer.

But in extolling the virtues of vaginal intercourse, she missed the boat by neglecting the LGBT community. When Grossman briefly mentioned that in terms of HIV transmission, vaginal sex is safer than anal sex, she failed to realize that vaginal intercourse isn’t for everyone. Her definition of what sex is “safe” leaves out an entire community. In her speech at Heritage, Grossman didn’t offer examples on how the gay community should practice safer sex. Perhaps Grossman just expects all gay people to climb back in the closet to decrease their chances of transmitting HIV. It might be soul-crushing, but it’ll be healthy.

Grossman also suggested teaching students the difference between adult and adolescent, and male and female brains. Having sex is a serious choice, but teenage decision-making skills are not always as developed as their hormones. Estrogen, according to Grossman, stimulates oxytocin (the “love” hormone released during intimacy) in the brain, and testosterone decreases it, causing men and women to feel differently about each other after having sex. She explained that if students can understand these brain functions, they may use theirs to think longer and harder about having sex. But encouraging teens to “think harder” about having sex and perpetuating gender stereotypes won’t necessarily delay first sexual encounter for teenagers or make them safer when they decide to become sexually active.

Grossman is right about one thing—students need as much scientific information as is possible to fit in a 45-minute health class. “Awareness of these [biological] truths can save lives,” Grossman said, but the biological facts she promotes they mean nothing if students don’t know how to practically apply them in their own lives. Grossman seemed to think of responsible sex as a one-size-fits-all scenario, in which all teenage sex would be prevented and all “risky” behavior avoided. She failed to realize that disease prevention does not need to come at the expense of sexual freedom. Teens should be given the facts about sexual health. But they deserve to do with that information what they wish.

Young people might (and often do) have sex before Grossman, in her all-mighty wisdom, might deem them ready. For teens to stay safe and true to themselves when it comes to sex, they need the tools to make decisions with which they can be comfortable.

And that is what the groups Grossman demonized are trying to do. Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth are all trying to help adults and young people make informed, independent choices about sex. It’s strange that Grossman, if she is honest about her quest to make sure teenagers are educated on the dangers of sex, would attack these groups. Discouraging sexual freedom in teenagers might also discourage responsible decision-making when it comes to becoming sexually active; that’s too politically incorrect, even for Heritage.

Aisha Turner is an online communications intern at the Center for American Progress and graduated from Duke University this spring.

Related Stories

• There’s a Growing Consensus in Support of Community College and Industry Partnerships
• White House, Campus Progress to Host Twitter Q&A on Youth Issues
• Duke Drops the Ball on Racially Charged Study
• Forced to Apply to College? Some Students Could Be
• Obama To Congress: Make College Affordable, Invest in Worker Training