The National Sexuality Resource Center, a far-left, radical, sex-peddling project of San Francisco State University, recently launched a web site called coolaunt.org.
This site’s purpose is to encourage adults to be the “cool aunt” in a child’s life. The “cool aunt,” it says, is “someone who isn’t afraid to answer the hard, funny and perplexing questions about sex.”
To some, this may sound harmless or even helpful. But beware. If you dig deeper, you’ll find that this “cool aunt” is really someone who would undermine a child’s parents by teaching intimate sexual details and answering questions about sexual morality “when parents, teachers, ministers and other mentors couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver answers.”
Still, maybe you’re thinking this “cool aunt” figure could be a good supplementary guide for a child with questions about sex. Think again. The words and phrases used to describe people who teach their children traditional moral values and chastity reveal coolaunt.org’s true intent: to counter the “fear-mongering forces that stigmatize sex.”
Fearmongering? Really? According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, a fearmonger (also known as “scaremonger”) is “one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly.” I’d say that when one in four people have a sexually transmitted disease, one-third of women get pregnant before age 20 and over 3,000 children are slaughtered daily (all of which is the result of unbridled sex), the alarm needs to be sounded. Children should have a healthy fear of premarital sex. To assuage these godly fears is irresponsible, unrealistic and just plain evil.
The web site continues its attack on righteousness by claiming that a “cool aunt” is needed to “confront abstinence-only education myths at a time when years of shaming young people about sex have led to a dramatic rise in the rates of STIs [sexually transmitted infections] and teen pregnancies.”
Confront abstinence-only “myths”? What myths? That abstinence is the only 100-percent effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? That’s an undeniable fact, not a myth. Come on!
And shaming has led to an increase in disease and pregnancy? What shame? Have these people watched TV lately? Sit through five minutes of a teen drama series and it’s obvious we have no shame! “You’re cute. I like you.” Cut to next scene: Teenager 1 and teenager 2 are rolling on a bed, removing clothing; it is implied that they have intercourse. And that’s a tame example.
Plus, there should be shame attached to sin. If the NSRC spent more time teaching sexual purity and less time fighting for a made-up right of “every person” to “healthy and pleasurable sexuality,” maybe then we’d see fewer disease-ridden, depressed and lonely kids.
Speaking of what the NSRC’s priorities are, one of the themes it emphasizes is teaching young people “sexual literacy.”
Sexual literacy? America’s public schools can’t even teach basic literacy, but the NSRC thinks sexual literacy should be a priority? Give me a break! Picture this: A teacher says to a classroom of children, “Since we couldn’t get you to master the traditional subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, this year we are switching to sexual literacy, abortion rights and gender issues.”
Think this is far-fetched? Think the NSRC is a fringe group that has no impact on society as a whole? Wrong. Just read the United Nations’ recently released International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, which advocate teaching masturbation to five-year-olds.
As for being the “cool aunt,” you may not be viewed as “cool” any longer when the young person—whom you assured that sex is fun and no big deal—comes to you with herpes and a broken heart.
Telling a young person in this day and age to be chaste may result in rolling eyes and mockery, earning you labels such as “prude” or “goody-goody.” But is it such a bad thing? When I looked up the definition of “prude,” I found a description that I would wear proudly: “a person who is greatly concerned with seemly behavior and morality, especially regarding sexual matters.”
But Kortney, thinking kids aren’t going to have sex is unrealistic. Noooooo, thinking that giving kids so-called “comprehensive sex education” will protect them from the consequences of premarital sex is unrealistic. How many years of unaffected (or increasing) statistics will it take before we wake up? Teaching sexual purity and the life-altering consequences of the alternative is the only thing that works.
Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street teams coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project, which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. This commentary originally appeared in the September 3, 2009 issue of the RFL Report.
