FIND PAST HOMEPAGE TOPICS UNDER "CURRENT HEADLINES" IN THE LEFT MENU...

www.LoveFacts.org -- What You DON'T Know CAN Hurt You...

Avoid the PAIN... Abstain!

Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9--12 --- Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States, 2001--2009

Pornography Awareness Campaign Exposes Devastating Effects on Children

UN Agency's Youth Program Calls for Access to Abortion & Prostitution

Planned Parenthood Undermines Parents, Promotes Sex to Kids

Abstinence Education Advocates Press for Federal Funding

At What Age do Adolescents Become Sexually Active?
(Hint: It's later than you think)

UN’s Kinsey Report -- More Insight

Sexual Anarchy -- The Kinsey Legacy

‘Wallpaper’ of Sexual Imagery Surrounds Children: UK Gov’t-Commissioned Report

CDC Report: Most Teens Not Having Sex, Abstinence Ed Works / Young Adult Sex on the Decrease: Study Notes

More Young People Choosing Abstinence

Good News in Africa

Pornography: Stop the Addiction

Oral Sex Causing Oral Cancer Rates to Rise: Studies [see March 2011: STDs on this homepage]

Obama Budget Funds Sex Ed Over Abstinence on 16-1 Margin

Day of Purity -- 14 February 2011 --  www.dayofpurity.org

Research: Women Would be Better Off Holding Out

Planned Parenthood Launches So-Called 'Social Change Initiative'

Supporters Say Truly Comprehensive Sex-Ed Gets Results

Commentary: How Does a VIRGIN Get a STD?

Abstinence Until Marriage Gets Boost from New Study: Naysayers May Have to Give Credence to Supporting Evidence

Why the Ring Matters: Cohabitation A Bad Idea For Remarriages

CDC: Adolescent Pregnancy & Childbirth

Saving Sex for Marriage Leads to Greater Stability & Communication

D.C. Health: FREE Condoms for Everyone

Promoting AIDS Just For Profit

Study: Prime Time Television Sexualizing Younger Girls

Teens Want Family Values

Advice for Singles

Porn: The Ugly Truth

Sex Researcher Kinsey's Abuses Told

Sexual Sabotage

Victim of Notorious Sex Experiments Speaks Out

Interview With Leslee Unruh 

70% of High School Students are Virgins, Survey Reports

Rampant Inaccuracy / RE-RUN This is Not the First Time / Teen Pregnancy Not Dropping Due to Safe Sex/Condom Education as PP States; On the Contrary: Permissive Sex Ed Linked to Higher Teen-Pregnancy, Abortion Rates

New CDC Report Shows Teen Pregnancy Rates have Dropped

United Nations Agency Promotes Sex Ed: "Never Too Early to Start" / Countries Slam Attempts to Create New “Right” to Sexual Education at UN

Sex Trafficking Ages 11 & 12 /  Pornography and Sex Trafficking

Younger and Younger Sexualization

QuickStats: Percentage of Persons Aged 15--19 Years Who Received Formal Sex Education* Before Age 18 Years, by Selected Topics --- National Survey of Family Growth, United States, 2006--2008

Defining Modesty

PARENT'S CORNER

A Voice that Stands Out

Protecting Your Children On-Line...

www.LoveFacts.org -- What You DON'T Know CAN Hurt You...

Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9--12 --- Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States, 2001--2009
Information also is available at http://www.cdc.gov/yrbs
Sexual minority students, particularly gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and students who had sexual contact with both sexes, are more likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than other students.

Sexual minority youths are youths who identify themselves as gay or lesbian, bisexual, or unsure of their sexual identity or youths who have only had sexual contact with persons of the same sex or with both sexes.

The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) monitors priority health-risk behaviors and the prevalence of obesity and asthma among youths and young adults.

YRBSS results from surveys conducted during 2001-2009 in seven states and six large urban school districts indicate that sexual minority students, particularly gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and students who had sexual contact with both sexes, are more likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than other students.

Results

Across the nine sites that assessed sexual identity, the percentage of students who identified themselves as heterosexual ranged from 90.3% to 93.6% (median: 93.0%), as gay or lesbian ranged from 1.0% to 2.6% (median: 1.3%), and as bisexual ranged from 2.9% to 5.2% (median: 3.7%) (Table 3). The percentage of students who were unsure of their sexual identity ranged from 1.3% to 4.7% (median 2.5%). Across the 12 sites that assessed sex of sexual contacts, the percentage of students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex ranged from 37.2% to 60.9% (median: 53.5%), only had sexual contact with the same sex ranged from 0.7% to 3.9% (median: 2.5%), and had sexual contact with both sexes ranged from 1.9% to 4.9% (median: 3.3%). The percentage of students who had no sexual contact ranged from 30.4% to 59.3% (median: 40.5%).

Across the eight sites that assessed both sex of sexual contacts and sexual identity, the percentage of students who identified themselves as heterosexual ranged from 94.9% to 97.7% (median: 96.3%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 17.0% to 77.8% (median: 61.7%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 17.3% to 63.4% (median: 29.8%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes. The percentage of students who identified themselves as gay or lesbian ranged from 0.0% to 0.8% (median: 0.4%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 10.8% to 60.0% (median: 21.7%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 2.3% to 14.7% (median: 9.1%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes. The percentage of students who identified themselves as bisexual ranged from 1.2% to 3.3% (median: 2.0%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 6.6% to 22.3% (median: 11.3%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 24.9% to 61.9% (median: 50.9%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes. The percentage of students who were unsure of their sexual identity ranged from 0.6% to 2.1% (median: 1.4%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 0.7% to 6.6% (median: 4.4%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 6.1% to 15.9% (median: 10.1%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes (Table 4).

Ever Had Sexual Intercourse
Across the eight sites (Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco) that assessed having ever had sexual intercourse and sexual identity, the prevalence of having ever had sexual intercourse ranged from 28.4% to 56.2% (median: 44.1%) among heterosexual students, from 36.6% to 80.6% (median: 67.1%) among gay or lesbian students, from 58.7% to 82.7% (median: 69.0%) among bisexual students, and from 20.5% to 48.9% (median: 43.0%) among unsure students (Table 54).

Had First Sexual Intercourse Before Age 13 Years
Across the 12 sites (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Diego) that assessed having had sexual intercourse for the first time before age 13 years and sex of sexual contacts, the prevalence of having had sexual intercourse before age 13 years ranged from 5.3% to 17.8% (median: 12.4%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 10.1% to 33.5% (median: 15.8%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 13.5% to 42.6% (median: 22.9%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes.

Seriously Considered Attempting Suicide
Across the 11 sites (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Diego) that assessed having seriously considered attempting suicide and sex of sexual contacts, the prevalence of having seriously considered attempting suicide ranged from 11.7% to 23.6% (median: 14.3%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 17.3% to 45.5% (median: 25.3%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 36.0% to 56.4% (median: 44.3%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes.

Ever Used Heroin
Across the 11 sites (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Diego) that assessed having ever used heroin and sex of sexual contacts, the prevalence of having ever used heroin ranged from 1.3% to 5.3% (median: 2.9%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 7.5% to 18.8% (median: 11.2%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 9.9% to 35.8% (median: 17.7%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes.

Ever Used Methamphetamines
Across the 11 sites (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Diego) that assessed having ever used methamphetamines and sex of sexual contacts, the prevalence of having ever used methamphetamines ranged from 2.2% to 14.1% (median: 4.3%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 9.6% to 22.0% (median: 15.7%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 12.3% to 44.2% (median: 21.6%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes.

Ever Injected Any Illegal Drug
Across the nine sites (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and San Diego) that assessed having ever injected any illegal drug and sex of sexual contacts, the prevalence of having ever injected any illegal drug ranged from 1.1% to 3.9% (median: 2.6%) among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 3.7% to 16.5% (median: 8.9%) among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 5.9% to 30.6% (median: 14.1%) among students who had sexual contact with both sexes.

Description of the System:
The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) monitors priority health-risk behaviors (behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries, behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, dietary behaviors, physical activity and sedentary behaviors, and weight management) and the prevalence of obesity and asthma among youths and young adults. YRBSS includes state and local school-based Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBSs) conducted by state and local education and health agencies. This report summarizes results from YRBSs conducted during 2001--2009 in seven states and six large urban school districts that included questions on sexual identity (i.e., heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, or unsure), sex of sexual contacts (i.e., same sex only, opposite sex only, or both sexes), or both of these variables. The surveys were conducted among large population-based samples of public school students in grades 9--12.

Results: Across the nine sites that assessed sexual identity, the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.

In addition, the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was more likely to be higher than (rather than equal to or lower than) the prevalence among heterosexual students for behaviors in seven of the 10 risk behavior categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).

Similarly, the prevalence among bisexual students was more likely to be higher than (rather than equal to or lower than) the prevalence among heterosexual students for behaviors in eight of the 10 risk behavior categories (behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries, behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).

[10 June 2011, CDC MMWR Surveillance Summaries/ 60(SS07); 1-133, June 09, 2011, MMWR Vol. 60 / No. SS-7, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6007a1.htm?s_cid=ss6007a1_e&source=govdelivery ]
[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6007a1.htm?s_cid=ss6007a1_e&source=govdelivery , Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Pornography Awareness Campaign Exposes Devastating Effects on Children

America’s top pornography opponent is sponsoring a series of webcast events focusing on how pornography harms one of its most forgotten victims: children.

Morality in Media’s (MIM) four-week “Be Aware: Porn Harms” National Awareness Campaign enters its second week on July 18th.

Dawn Hawkins, MIM’s Executive Director and director of the campaign, said pornography’s consequences for children and their abusers rank among “the most disturbing aspects” of material that is usually deemed harmless.

“Many child pornographers start with an interest in soft-core adult pornography, but over time turn to harder, more deviant porn and this leads the way to child pornography and molestation,” said Hawkins.

The campaign also highlights the modern parent’s struggle against a more imminent threat, as children today stumble upon obscene material on the Internet at an alarming rate.

“Many children are getting addicted to pornography because U.S. pornographers are providing free, obscene, illegal porn to kids online,” said President of Morality in Media Patrick Trueman.

Trueman noted that 11 years old is the average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography, “and for many it is earlier.” “Sadly, U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to enforce federal obscenity laws which would protect children,” he said.

Each week of the campaign emphasizes a specific way pornography proves itself to be detrimental: pornography addiction, harms to children, links to sex trafficking and violence against women, respectively (http://www.pornharms.com/beaware/)...

Activities for this week include:

    * Monday, July 18th at 4 p.m. EDT: Live Facebook/Online Event: “Adult Porn Makes Victims Of Our Children: Creates predators, leads to demand for child porn, stunts social development “
    * Tuesday, July 19th at 4 p.m. EDT: Webinar: “5 Hidden Dangers Facing You And Your Family Right Now”
    * Tuesday, July 19th at 4 p.m. EDT: Conference Call: “Our children in a sexualized society: how to understand their experience and how to help”
    * Tuesday, July 19th at 8 p.m. EDT: Webinar: “Simple Tools to Protect Your Family”
    * Wednesday, July 20th at 3:30 p.m. EDT: Live Facebook/Online Event: “Protecting Children Online: Know the pornographers’ tricks!”
    * Wednesday, July 20th at 9 p.m. EDT: Live Facebook/Online Event: “How to educate young people on the harmful effects of pornography”
    * Thursday, July 21 and Sunday, July 24th All Day: Facebook: 500 FREE subscriptions to Net Nanny Filtering Software will be given away on www.facebook.com/pornharms.
    * Sunday, July 24th at 9 p.m. EDT: Live Facebook/Online Event: “Porn and Sex Abuse In Our Public Libraries”

Over 70 national and state groups are organizing more than 30 events for the campaign that organizers hope will reach hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Additionally, Morality in Media will direct addicts and their families to free counseling and subscriptions to Web protection services.

Click here to learn more about these activities and to access free posters for print or website use -- http://www.pornharms.com/beaware/
[Jul 18, 2011, Kathleen Gilbert, WASHINGTON, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pornography-awareness-campaign-reveals-devastating-effects-on-children?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=aec091e62e-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines07_15_2011&utm_medium=email ]

UN Agency's Youth Program Calls for Access to Abortion & Prostitution
A major UN agency youth program envisions abortion and decriminalized "sex work" for young people ahead of the UN Youth Conference. In preparation for the UN Youth Conference set to take place in New York in late July, Y-PEER - the youth program of the UN Population Fund - released a statement calling for the realization of young people's sexual and reproductive health and "rights."
[http://www.c-fam.org/ ]



Planned Parenthood Undermines Parents, Promotes Sex to Kids
In anticipation of the UN Conference on Children later this month, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has released a new document, Exclaim!

In this document, Planned Parenthood leads an all-out assault against parental rights over their children by calling for laws to empower children and leave parents out in the cold.

[http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/13/planned-parenthood-undermines-parents-promotes-sex-to-kids/ LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report 7/13/11 #5182]

Abstinence Education Advocates Press for Federal Funding

Abstinence education advocates are again pressing for federal funding for abstinence education in the federal budget after President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats slashed such funding in prior years.

Valerie Huber, the director of the National Abstinence Education Association is encouraging members of her group to lobby members of Congress, especially now that the July 18th House recess has been canceled. She said her group is its local partners are renewing their emphasis on abstinence education in federal policy, especially since the Appropriations Committee will be considering this portion of the federal budget in less than three weeks.

“Citizens who live in congressional districts of Appropriations Committee members should tell their representatives immediately that they want half of all sex education money in the 2012 budget to go toward abstinence education,” she said.

Recently, a bipartisan letter signed by 40 congressional House members, was delivered to Appropriations Committee Chair, Harold Rogers (R-KY) and ranking member Norm Dicks (D-WA) asking that at least one half of all funds for sex education be used to create a separate funding stream dedicated to the risk avoidance approach taught in abstinence education.

“I am pleased that Members of Congress are motivated to change current federal sex education policy,” Huber said at the time. “This bipartisan support puts politics aside and acknowledges the need to reestablish a priority on the evidence-based abstinence education approach.”

The letter details that all funding for abstinence education was eliminated by the Obama Administration and current funding for sex education gives no priority to the important risk avoidance message inherent in abstinence education.

“In the history of federal sex education funding, there has never been such a disparity in funding for abstinence education. Despite the fact that adolescents are contracting sexually transmitted diseases at an epidemic rate, there is no CDC or HHS community-based direct funding program that empowers teens to choose the sexual risk avoidance option found in abstinence education,” adds Huber.

The letter states that the requested emphasis on abstinence will not require any new funding but will simply provide for a more equitable distribution of existing funds for sex education.

Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), cosponsor of the letter, noted “Abstinence education has been an important issue for me during my service in Congress. The risk-avoidance approach of abstinence education appropriately prepares youth to make informed decisions. For these reasons, I was pleased to join with Congressman Bill Flores and 38 other members of Congress in sending this bipartisan letter to the House Appropriations Committee. As the Committee prepares legislation for fiscal year 2012, I hope it will carefully take our views into consideration when appropriating funding for sex education programs.”

The letter came at the same time that Huber’s group noted a shocking new federal policy in one area of funding that precluded abstinence education.

One of the eight “specified Healthy Marriage Promotion activities” authorized for a new grant is “education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting” but shockingly, one of the “unallowable activities” is teaching abstinence. Applicants are required to include a written statement that demonstrates their “commitment” to not teach an Abstinence Education program as a part of this grant.

“Preventing youth from receiving sexual abstinence skills is very troubling and completely ignores the body of research that now links teen sex to future divorce in marriage,” Huber stated.

She cited a new study finding that females who had sex in their teens had nearly double the risk of divorce later in life compared to their peers who waited for sex. (Anthony Paik, “Adolescent Sexuality and Risk of Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family  73 (2011): 472-485, p. 483, 484.)

“The unexplained hostility to risk avoidance abstinence programs defies the evidence-based framework that the Obama Administration purports to support,” Huber added.  “With the numerous sex scandals continually played out in the media, it is disturbing that programs encouraging self-restraint and self-respect are viewed as the enemy of the ‘healthy marriages’ these programs are designed to achieve.”

New funding to promote Healthy Marriages and Relationships was recently announced by the Department of Health and Human Services. In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 resulting in $75 million dollars being directed toward a competitive grant opportunity with the purpose of promoting the components of a healthy relationship and the benefits of marriage.
[Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/13/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/13/abstinence-education-advocates-press-for-federal-funding/]
 

At What Age do Adolescents Become Sexually Active?
(Hint: It's later than you think)
Comment: The age at which adolescents become sexually active is a matter of debate. Those who would expose our children to pornographic sex education claim that by the mid-teens most teens are sexually active.
But they are wrong. ~Steven W. Mosher

The age at which teenagers begin to engage in sexual activity is a critical variable for those who would make public policy in the health field. Early onset of sexual activity is associated with higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), teen pregnancy, depression, suicide, and other adverse consequences.

However, just how to determine this age can be difficult to determine, and some commonly used calculations can lead to grossly erroneous results, as a groundbreaking study by Dr. Jokin de Irala has now demonstrated.

Dr. Irala carried out a multi-national survey of 7,011 adolescents of both genders from private and public schools in Peru, El Salvador and Spain to gather data on the age of first sexual intercourse. In his study, which used a significantly larger sampling of adolescents than similar surveys, De Irala calculated the age at first sexual intercourse using both of the methods commonly relied upon: “the mean age at first sexual intercourse” and “proportions having already had sex at given ages.”

It turns out that the second formula—the proportions having already had sex at given ages—shows that most adolescents are chaste for far longer than the sex educators, and the media, would have us believe.

“Average age at first intercourse, obtained from published epidemiological studies about sexuality, are often presented by the media in such a way that ignores the real meaning of the data. Those who rely upon the media for information, such as the general population and the young people themselves, can be misled,” De Irala states.

What Dr. Irala is referring to is the claim, frequently repeated by the mass media, that “the mean age at first sexual intercourse is 15 years old.” This claim frequently surfaces in the debates on how to prevent AIDS, when it is invariably asserted that the majority of adolescents at 15 years old have engaged in sexual activity. But this is simply not true. The majority are, the data show, still chaste at that age.

Of course, if public health officials believe that middle school-aged children are having sex, they will begin to push all kinds of programs in the schools that will have the perverse effect of encouraging children who are not sexually active to become so. This will have an adverse effect on the health of adolescents. In the case of AIDS, it could even be fatal.

Why is “mean age at first sexual intercourse” misleading?
It is misleading because it collapses the data into a single number. When someone reads that “the mean age at first sexual intercourse is 15 years old,” they assume that the great majority of adolescents have had sexual intercourse at 15 years old. But this is simply not true. When you look at the complete data, as Dr. Irala has done, you realize that proportion of adolescents 15 years of age who have already had sex is only 20 percent!

The most common mistake made in the other studies that Dr. Irala examined is using only the individuals who have already had sexual intercourse at a given age to determine the mean age at first sexual intercourse. This approach results in a number that only describes the sexually active part of the population of adolescents. But if you consider the entire universe of adolescents—both those sexually active and those who are not—the results are very, very different.

De Irala's study demonstrates this very clearly. In the three countries he examined, “the mean age at first sexual intercourse” is about 15 years old. But now look at Table 1 below, the calculation of the “proportions having already had sex at given ages.” Sexually active adolescents under the age of 18 are actually in the minority!

 Age Percentage sexually active at this age El Salvador  Peru  Spain

13                                                          6.7          4.4     -

14                                                        13.8           9.6     -

15                                                        20.9           17.0    -

16                                                        26.6           21.4  21.7

17                                                        32.0           29.4  34.8

18                                                        38.0           40.0  62.9

19                                                        45.5           -       78.0

20                                                          -             -        79.5

In a personal interview, Jokin de Irala explained to PRI how even an expert can fail to appreciate how “median age of first sexual intercourse” greatly exaggerates the percentage who are sexually active at given ages. “Even most social scientists fail to appreciate this problem,” he told us. “This slanting of the data should now be recognized for what it is, and this approach abandoned, by any researcher who wants to carry out a reliable investigation into adolescent sexual behavior,” he added.

Public health organizations like HHS, USAID, UNAIDS, HRRS, etc., need to rethink their assumptions about the proportion of adolescents who are sexually active. Believing—wrongly—that the majority of adolescents are sexually active at 15 years old, they impose condom distribution schemes and sex education courses on kids at ever younger ages.

At the same time they refuse to consider abstinence as a viable sexual behavior because they are already convinced that “the majority does it.” If these public health organizations recognized that in reality only 20% of 15-year-olds are sexually active, perhaps their priority would shift to strengthening the decision of the other 80% of adolescents to not have sex. (Or perhaps they wouldn't, since the goal of at least some of those who work in these organizations is to convince innocent children to have sex as early and as often as possible.)

Responsible public policy makers need to know that only a fraction of 15-year-olds are sexually active. They need to know that it is counterproductive, even dangerous, to distribute condoms and contraceptives to all adolescents. They need to know that such programs only produce more adolescents having sex in circumstances that put them at emotional, physical, and moral risk.

Spread the word.

Source: De Irala J, Osorio A, Carlos S, Ruiz-Canela M, López-del Burgo C. “Mean age of first sex: Do they know what we mean?” Arch Sex Behav 2011. DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9779-4

Available at http://www.unav.es/centro/afectividad-sexualidad/files/file/mean_age_archives.pdf (PDF)


More articles by Dr. Jokin de Irala at: http://www.unav.es/centro/afectividad-sexualidad/publicaciones1

[PRI Weekly Briefing, 11 July 2011, by Carlos Polo, pri.org; Carlos Polo is the Director of the Latin American office of Population Research Institute]

UN’s Kinsey Report -- More Insight

Parents who wonder how much more aggressive sex education can get should be concerned about guidelines which the United Nations is concocting, inspired by Alfred Kinsey. “Promoting sex education to the youngest of the young has drawn harsh criticism to a UN agency and its interpretation of age-appropriate education,” Terrence McKeegan, J. D. reported in an update for the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute on November 4, 2010.

“It is never too early to start talking to children about sexual matters,” the guidelines issued by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization proclaim.

Please bear in mind, the notion of a UN-inspired U. S. public school curriculum is not such a far fetched one. The International Baccalaureate program is one such widely accepted course of study in American schools.

Although sex-ed is hardly as rarefied a course of study as the IB, taxpayers who crowd school board meetings to complain about their local school’s often expansive guidelines might be startled to see how the UN ups the ante. “Once highly respected for its independence and integrity, UNESCO now works in partnership with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS), an educational arm of the controversial Kinsey Institute,” McKeegan writes. “Last September, a torrent of criticism greeted new UNESCO guidelines on sexuality education for promoting legal abortion and masturbation for children as young as five.”

Yet and still, the revisions themselves are hardly family-friendly, at least in the traditional sense of the phrase. “UNESCO removed some of the most explicit language in the revised guidelines, but retained an appendix with ‘guiding principles’ that includes a Kinsey-inspired sex education curriculum for children from birth to age five,” McKeegan notes.  “This curriculum instructs parents to provide anatomically correct dolls for young children to play with, inform them of diverse sexual relationships, and to be supportive of masturbation.”

The UN’s connection to the work of controversial sex researcher Kinsey is fairly explicit. “UNESCO acknowledges a former director of SIECUS is one of the principle authors of its sexuality guidelines,” McKeegan observes. “ The guidelines are cited authoritatively as a model of age-appropriate sex education in a new UN report on education rights that was roundly denounced by UN members last week.”

The sage of Bloomington would probably feel vindicated. “Infamous sexologist Alfred Kinsey founded his institute at Indiana University,” McKeegan recounts. “Kinsey reached prominence in the 1940s and 1950s for his work in documenting human sexual behaviors.”

“Critics accused Kinsey of promoting pedophilia, pointing to his research that documented adults bringing children and infants to orgasm. The Kinsey Institute created SIECUS in 1964 as its educational arm. Its first director was Dr. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood. A recent government report revealed that SIECUS received $1.6 million dollars in federal funding between 2002 and 2009.” That would make them a beneficiary of government largesse during the Bush years.

“Table 34 in Kinsey’s book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, published in 1948, lists the number of orgasms of children, some as young as two, performed within a 24-hour period,” the Liberty Counsel notes. The Liberty Counsel is providing legal advice to a woman, using a pseudonym—Esther—who alleges she was one of those children.

“Kinsey had befriended Esther’s grandfather in college, who encouraged his son to join in on the experiment,” the Liberty Counsel alleges. “Esther says she witnessed both her father and grandfather personally receiving checks from Kinsey for their sexual acts.”

“She also found a checklist of her father’s that listed what he was doing to her, which would be given to Kinsey for research.”

[Malcolm A. Kline, November 5, 2010, www.academia.org/un’s-kinsey-report/, Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.]

Sexual Anarchy: The Kinsey Legacy

Alfred Kinsey, the head engineer of the sexual anarchy movement.

Our children are under attack by an insidious and virulent enemy.

On August 17, 2011, more than 50 activists attended a conference for “minor-attracted adults,” i.e., pedophiles, which sought to eliminate the “stigma” attached to pedophilia and to redefine pedophilia as a normal “sexual orientation.”

The United States Department of Justice has determined that 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under the age of 12 and that 58,200 children were kidnapped by non-family members in 1999.

So-called “experts” in the field of human sexuality claim that children are sexual not only from birth, but even in the womb and are willing participants in sexual acts with adults.

Children are encouraged to experiment with sex early and often and to engage in sex with members of the same-sex as well as the opposite sex. Sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers are at epidemic proportions, and new and sometimes fatal strains of diseases are being reported. More than 50,000 teens have contracted HIV which has advanced to full blown AIDS and by 1992 more than 7,000 boys and 1,500 girls had died from HIV/AIDS.

How did we get here? How do we stop the madness before we lose an entire generation?

The question of how we got here can be answered by two words: Alfred Kinsey.

Even 55 years after his death, Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey continues to profoundly affect American culture. Two of his most ardent supporters, Dr. Carol Vance, Columbia University anthropologist and lesbian activist, and Dr. John Money, an “out” pedophile advocate and pioneer of transgender surgery at Johns Hopkins, have cogently summed up Dr. Kinsey’s legacy – a legacy they consider sexual “progress” but is in reality sexual anarchy.

Speaking at a 1998 Kinsey symposium of fellow sexologists at San Francisco State University, Dr. Vance said, “Biography is the battleground.”[1] Should Kinsey be discredited, she warned, “200 years of sexual progress can be undone.”

Dr. Vance’s statements echo comments made in 1981 by Dr. Money at the 5th World Congress of Sexology in Israel. They also agreed that the information contained in Table 34, below, and the other data chronicling Kinsey’s and his team’s widespread child abuse, described in detail in Kinsey’s 1948 study on male sexuality, would be the undoing of the “Pre and Post Kinsey eras” globally and in the USA.

In fact, Dr. John Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute said at the 1998 conference, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of Kinsey’s studies, that he “prayed” that a British television program, “Secret History: Kinsey Paedophiles,” would never be shown in the United States because the public would not understand the “science” involved in Kinsey’s publication of tables 30-34. He understood that should those tables be widely publicized in the United States, then the whole field of human sexuality and human sex education would be destroyed.

This field of human sexuality and human sex education and 200 years of “sexual progress” that these elite “scientists” were so worried would be destroyed is better described as sexual anarchy. This sexual anarchy that has given these scientists and their followers prestige, money, credibility and control over the deconstruction of the Judeo-Christian civil society was crafted by Dr. Kinsey.

A gall-wasp zoologist at Indiana University from 1920 to his death in 1956, Dr. Kinsey is most famous for his earth-shaking books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)[2] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953),[3] funded by Indiana University and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Dr. Kinsey said that his mission was to eliminate the sexually “repressive” legal and behavioral legacy of Judeo Christianity. He claimed that this “repressive” sexual legacy was responsible for socio-sexual ills like divorce, rape, illegitimacy, venereal disease, juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and child sexual abuse.

Furthermore, he argued that if we Americans would admit that we really were engaged in widespread licentious conduct, instead of hypocritically denying it, then these socio-sexual ills would be dramatically reduced.

In large measure, Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been accomplished, mostly posthumously, by his legion of true believers–elitists who have systematically brainwashed their fellow intellectual elites to adopt Kinsey’s pan-sexual secular worldview and jettison the Judeo Christian worldview upon which this country was founded and flourished.

The result of Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been totally antithetical to the utopia he predicted.

Instead of reducing the socio-sexual ills that he claimed were rampant in pre-Kinsey America, the implementation of the Kinsey worldview has increased extant global sexual trauma while ushering in a host of new ills that are objectively defined as sexual anarchy. Like a cancer spreading throughout the body, sexual anarchy has spread throughout the fabric of society, affecting every aspect of American life and every man, woman and child.

According to the Rockefeller-funded Kinsey “study,” his “science” proved that humans had all along been copulating like insects or monkeys but systematically and hypocritically lying about their conduct. Adults claimed they were virgins, or maritally faithful, but, according to Kinsey, the truth was that most people were promiscuous and the widespread promiscuity had done no harm to the civil society.

Therefore, Kinsey said, all of the laws restraining sexual behavior–the laws that had favored and protected women, children and the family for generations –were simply old-fashioned leftovers from an uninformed and hypocritical era. Such sex laws were no longer valid in a “sexually enlightened and honest era.”

Enter “Kinsey’s pamphleteer,” Hugh Hefner and his Playboy magazine. At Kinsey’s urging, the country’s laws were gutted to resemble the free love, free life style Kinsey alleged Americans were living all along, and could finally live out with a free and open spirit–no more lies or pretense.

Thus the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code jettisoned the “common law” sexual standards that were based upon Biblical authority/precedent for “scientific law” based on Kinsey’s allegedly “objective data.”

The ALI recommended laws trivializing rape and allowing fornication, cohabitation, sodomy and adultery. Shortly thereafter, fornication, cohabitation and adultery were decriminalized so that they would become common, normal, and harmless, as Kinsey said they had been all along. In 1957, the United States Department of Defense used Kinsey and his team to conclude that homosexuals do not pose a security risk.

The ALI also recommended changing the definition of obscenity, which the Supreme Court did in 1960. That same year Kinsey’s claim that 10% to 37% of the male population is at least sometimes homosexual was used to promote “gay rights” in elite professions, e.g., medicine, psychiatry, social work, education, etc.

In 1961, Illinois became the first state to legalize heterosexual sodomy. In 1962 Ralph Slovenko wrote in the Vanderbilt Law Review that four or five year olds are provocateurs: “Even at the age of four or five, this seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense.”

That same year, the United States Supreme Court declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional[4] and the following year declared that Bible reading in public schools was unconstitutional.[5] The Judeo-Christian worldview was expunged from the classroom. Schools could no longer teach that fornication, adultery or cohabitation were illegal, nor could the health teachers imply that sex should be confined to marriage because that would reflect a “religious,” thus allegedly a non-scientific, worldview.

The only avenue remaining for the teaching of human reproduction was the “scientific,” i.e., Kinseyan, secular worldview.

By 1968 over 51,000 sex professionals had been trained by the unaccredited IASHS (Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality) to teach Kinseyan sexuality in schools and medical schools and to design school sex education curricula. In 1975, the IASHS began to accredit sex educators in “safe sex” through the Ph.D. level.

Contraception became a necessity in the face of the radical changes in the sexual landscape, and so it was legalized in 1965.[6]
TABLE 34, one of five tables documenting the Kinsey team’s child sexual abuse protocol in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).

As evidence of lack of “consent” became the only criteria for sex crimes, alleged rape victims were commonly challenged as “liking” the rough sex and as consenting to the sexual activity. Prostitution and rape were increasingly referred to as “victimless crimes” in the courts and in the media.

Thus, the right to have sex for ‘fun’ and profit became the justification for a sex industry, inaugurated by Kinsey’s publicist, Hugh Hefner, that includes child and adult pornography, exhibitionism, prostitution and strip clubs, to name a few. That industry has grown to a multi-billion dollar market, giving its purveyors the resources and clout to negotiate grants to sexology research groups and organizations that create the sex education curricula for the nation’s schools, as well as access to lobbyists and, arguably, to state and federal legislators to continue to change the law to favor the sex industry’s interests.

Playboy, et al, also have funded Planned Parenthood, Sex Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), the Kinsey Institute, and other “sexology” institutions.

In 1967, Playboy provided the first of many grants to the ACLU to support drug use, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, school sex [mis]education and the elimination or reduction of sex offender penalties. Beginning in 1970, Playboy officially granted funds to NORML, the National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws.

The year 1969 brought about significant events related to the systematic effort to normalize homosexuality as championed by Kinsey 21 years earlier. The Gay Liberation Front was formed at the New York Alternative University. The American Sociological Association officially stated that homosexuality is normal, citing Kinsey’s “research.” The National Institutes of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality recommended legalizing private consensual homosexual acts (sodomy) citing to Kinsey’s “data.”[7] In 1972, the NIMH Task Force, led by Kinseyan disciples, urged that homosexuality be taught as a normal sexual variation in the nation’s schools.

“No fault” divorce was ushered in by California in 1970.

By 1985, no fault divorce was the law in 49 states. This triggered a massive increase in the divorce rate and the impovertization of women and children, increasing the need for welfare and abortion, with the latter legalized in 1973.[8]

The absence of fathers in the home decreased the economic, social, emotional and spiritual home life, which triggered epidemic child sexual abuse, increased promiscuity, increased criminality–including rape and prostitution–increased venereal diseases and sterility in young women. With no father in the home, children were significantly more vulnerable to molestation by older children, which was redefined as “harmless” peer sex play by Kinsey. This “harmless” sex play led to increased rates of venereal disease, promiscuity, homosexual acting out and suicide.

These disorders then opened the door to additional, more virulent forms of mandated sex [mis]education couched as “pride” in one’s sexual “orientation,” anti-bullying, AIDS prevention and more instruction in “safe sex,” including mutual masturbation, oral and anal sodomy and viewing pornography.

By 1981 Dr. Mary Calderone, SIECUS president and past medical director of Planned Parenthood, took Kinsey one step further, asserting that children are sexual in the womb (Kinsey said children were sexual from birth).

Calderone announced that awareness of childhood sexuality was a primary goal of her organization. This set the “scientific” standard for distributing condoms to children nationwide. Therapeutic interventions were instituted to aid the now increasingly traumatized youth. Pharmocological intervention also increased, including mandated Hepatitis B vaccines for infants and HPV vaccines for elementary age children as STD “protections,” both of which were advocated in a 1977 “Child Rights” pedophile manifesto.

Hundreds of pages could be written on these issues and the additional fallout from Kinsey’s successful promiscuity propaganda that plummeted Reagan’s shining City on a Hill into a state of sexual anarchy.

We must focus now on how we stop the madness – not by ignoring the problem or by giving up in despair. God is on our side, just as He was on the side of those who founded this country. God used 56 God-fearing men to stand up to the largest imperial force in the free world and birth this great nation. He can use us to stand up against the current state of sexual anarchy, return this nation to our Judeo-Christian roots and rescue our children from the enemy who seeks to steal, kill and dstroy. As beneficiaries of God’s miraculous creation of these United States we cannot do anything less.

Kinsey and his disciples at the Kinsey Institute have had more than 60 years to re-shape American culture. With Dr. Reisman’s decades of research we have the weapons to gain the upper hand, and we must band together to create the Judeo-Christian answer to the Kinsey Institute... We can and must win this battle.

Notes:

1 “Biography has become a battleground as moral conservatives like Dr. Judith Reisman strive to discredit Alfred Kinsey in order to revisit another America era” warned Professor Carole Vance. Another infamous sexologist stated, “I have some problems, and I’m sure several of us do, with the use of the word “normal.” If you look at sexual abuse in children, the problem with defining it is, to what extent are we talking about aspects of behavior that we would call wrong….we don’t know really how harmful those experiences are….” (November 6, 1998, San Francisco State University seminar, “Kinsey At 50: Reflections On Changes In American Attitudes About Sexuality Half A Century After The Alfred Kinsey Studies,” lionizing Kinsey and addressing anarchist strategies for a new global sexual future).

2 In the same year, Carnegie Foundation funds the ABA/ALI Legal Education Committee. Other pro-Kinsey books are published calling for sex law reforms and leniency for perpetrators.

3 In that year, the Reece congressional committee was prohibited from investigating Kinsey’s data. Also, Planned Parenthood is founded in Washington, D.C.

4 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

5 Abington School District v. Schempp, 372 U.S. 203 (1963).

6 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (married couples), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (unmarried couples).

7 The Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), but then overturned Bowers and found that homosexual sodomy could no longer be criminalized in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

Lawrence was based largely on the 1955 ALI Model Penal Code, which has been widely referred to as a Kinsey document.

8 Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973). As Justice Kennedy noted in the Lawrence opinion, Griswold and Eisenstadt were part of the background for the opinion in Roe. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 565.

This illustrates how Kinsey’s legacy has permeated every aspect of society.

[ Aug 24, 2011,  Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. and Mary E. McAlister, Esq., http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-anarchy-the-kinsey-legacy?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a72527a8d9-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines08_24_2011&utm_medium=email

‘Wallpaper’ of Sexual Imagery Surrounds Children: UK Gov’t-Commissioned Report

“Society has become increasingly full of sexualised imagery. This has created a wallpaper to children’s lives,” says Reg Bailey, the chief executive of The Mother’s Union, a Church of England charity that supports marriage and the family.

Bailey was recently asked by Prime Minister David Cameron to conduct a review to examine ways to protect children from sexual exploitation. He found that modern society presents a “wallpaper of sexual images that surround children” and that “parents feel there is no escape and no clear space where children can be children.”

The Mothers’ Union is expected to issue a set of recommendations this week that would give parents the means to keep children away from sexually explicit materials in school, in the media and in retail shops.

“I want to put the power back in parents’ hands so they can better manage the pressures on their children and make it easier for them to bring up their children the way they want,” says Bailey.

Bailey’s report is expected to call for a voluntary retailers’ code that would restrict the sale of “sexy” clothes for children, and an age-appropriate rating system for explicit music videos and a ban on showing them on television before 9 pm. It will also recommend that outdoor advertising with sexually explicit material be kept away from schools and that semi-pornographic “lad mags” be kept out of sight of children in shops.

Paul Tully of the campaign group Safe At School has responded to the Baily Review, saying that the proposals to curb the sexualisation of children should also be extended to ban explicit sex education materials in schools.

Tully said that parents are “deeply worried” by the “pornographic and value-lite” sex education materials being used in many schools. He singled out the government-approved “sex-ed” curriculum program, “Living and Growing,” a DVD series used in many primary schools which gives children explicit instructions about sexual intercourse and promotes masturbation.

“Any parent concerned by the raunchy dance routines on TV before the watershed would be appalled if they knew what children seeing ‘Living and Growing’ get in the school classroom,” he said.

Tully addressed a rally for parents and families at Trafalgar Square today, saying, “If the government is serious about protecting children from sexualisation and bad sexual health outcomes, it must address both the widespread sexualisation of culture, and the official sanctioning of illegal under-age sex.”

The Bailey Review also says that parents need more help with blocking their children’s access to internet pornography. “Whilst most parents regularly check what their children are viewing online, and set up parental controls and filtering software, they remain concerned because they are not as internet savvy as their children,” said Bailey.

“That’s why I am calling for a new approach where all customers have to make an active choice over whether they allow adult content or not. This is something internet service providers have told me is workable.”

The report also says that the retail, advertising and video industries should be given 18 months to “clean up their acts voluntarily” or face tougher regulation. To marketing executives, Bailey said, “Photography should feature children in natural poses in a childlike environment, appropriate to the age range concerned. When make-up is used, it should be as natural as possible.”

High Street retailers have come under fire in recent years for carrying padded bras and high heels for little girls as young as three. A number of major British retailers have already signed on to the voluntary agreement, including Marks & Spencer, Next and Tesco, against marketing such products.

The report indicates that parents feel overwhelmed by the bombardment of sexually charged media, but have nowhere to turn to complain.

A survey conducted by the reviewers found that nine out of ten parents feared their children were under pressure to grow up too quickly, and four in ten had seen inappropriate material in places where children could see it, but only eight percent had complained.

Responding to the report, Prime Minister Cameron called for the immediate creation of a government website where parents could voice their concerns.

Cameron said the Bailey Review represents “a giant step forward for protecting childhood and making Britain more family-friendly.”
[6 June 2011, Hilary White, Rome Correspondent, London, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wallpaper-of-sexual-imagery-surrounds-children-uk-govt-commissioned-report?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3a49b844b2-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines06_06_2011&utm_medium=email

CDC Report: Most Teens Not Having Sex, Abstinence Ed Works

New data released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) this week confirms the majority of teens are not having sex — and making it appear the abstinence education message is working.

According to 2006-2008 survey results released Thursday by the National Center for Health Statistics, 68% of boys and 67% of girls between the ages of 15 and 17 have never had sexual intercourse.

The new data also shows overall sexual contact trends are also moving in the right direction with 53% of boys and 58% of girls 15-17 reporting that they have never had any kind of sexual relations with any partner. The findings come from the  2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth and examine response from 13,495 teens and adults ages 15-44, including 5,082 ages 15-24.

“The perception is all kids are engaging in oral sex. Obviously, that’s not the case,” Jennifer Manlove, a senior research scientist told USA Today. “They may be more in control of their behaviors than we think.”

Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association that these numbers are a positive change from 2002 when only 46% of boys and 49% of girls reported no sexual contact and she says the report challenges the wisdom of the recent federal funding cuts to abstinence education.

“One hundred sixty-nine abstinence education programs lost funding and over 1 million students lost access to the very programs that can support and encourage the positive trends represented by this data,” she told LifeNews.com. “If we are serious about decreasing teen sexual activity, we need to use the data to instruct public policy.”

She continued, “Funding priority should be given  to programs that support this healthy trend rather than capitulating to those who want to normalize sex among teens and simply offer contraception as a solution. The data renders ‘null and void’ the ‘abstinence is unrealistic’ claims made by anti-abstinence advocacy groups.“

“Our national sex education priorities should seek to further improve these numbers by providing teens with programs that help them to successfully wait for sex . We must insure programs that support sexual risk avoidance are available to as many youth as possible,” Huber said.

The new report comes on the heels of another recently-released report by HHS that showed the majority of teens support premarital abstinence in general and for themselves.

Huber said her group calls on Congress to reinstate abstinence education as a community-based approach in the FY 2012 budget.

“The data is clearly siding in favor of a renewed priority on the risk avoidance abstinence education approach… and it just happens also to be the healthiest option for teens,” she concluded.

See the report at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

[4 Mar 2011, Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/04/cdc-report-most-teens-not-having-sex-abstinence-ed-works/

Young Adult Sex on the Decrease: Study Notes
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) released a study this week showing that more teens and young adults are choosing not to have sex and that numbers choosing abstinence have increased since 2002.

Studies reporting sexual behaviors in young people gauge levels of sexual activity, but most often they do not differentiate between types of sex, resulting in mixed data.  However, the CDC’s assessment specifically tested for different types of sexual activity.

The CDC release, recognized by experts as the largest and most reliable on sexual behavior, indicates that more teens and young adults are refraining from all types of sex, including oral and anal.

The report was based on interviews with 13,500 men and women ages 15 to 44, conducted between 2006 and 2008.  According to data, almost one-third of all 15- to 24- year olds reported never having any kind of sexual contact with another person.

In females, 29 percent had no sexual contact, up from 22 percent reported in 2002.  In males it was 27 percent, also up from 22 percent.

“I think a lot of people misconstrue this as meaning they’ve never had vaginal sex. But this is no sexual contact of any kind. They didn’t have oral sex or anal sex. They didn’t have anything,” said Anjani Chandra, a health scientist at the NCHS and lead author of the study.

It proves, she told MSNBC, that youth are not simply abstaining from intercourse while still engaging in other sexual activity.

The study also stated that in teens age 15 to 19, 7 percent of females and 9 percent of males reported having oral sex, but no intercourse.

Experts have argued over why sexual activity in young people is decreasing.  Among experts, opinions center around either increased abstinence education and emphasis or more awareness of sexually transmitted diseases.  Some also maintain that the age group simply appears less likely to be involved with drugs and sex than previous generations.

A recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine on the effectiveness of abstinence education, however, indicates that students who are taught abstinence-only education are in fact less likely to engage in sexual activity.  The study is one of the first to admit abstinence-only education really works.

The study looked at Grade 6 and 7 students in inner-city Philadelphia over a two year period.  It found that students who took part in the abstinence-only course were less likely to have engaged in sex during the succeeding two years than students who were taught a safe-sex program or combined program.

Geoffrey Fong, a health psychology professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, who co-authored the study, said that their aim was to take religious aspects out of the study.  “We took the religion out of it. [The program] wasn’t saying ‘you should do this.’ It was saying, ‘if you don’t want to, here’s how to avoid it.’ ”

Students participating in the program were taught how to deal with pressures from peers to have sex.

“Young people want to be empowered to make decisions in the context of their lives,” said Dr. Fong. “If they don’t want to have sex, they should have the kinds of social skills to talk their partner about not having sex.”  [March 4, 2011, Rebecca Millette, LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-adult-sex-on-the-decrease-study-says?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cad200347eLifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines03_04_2011&utm_medium=email]

National Survey of Family Growth shows that more people age 15-24 are choosing abstinence. The report shows 29 % of females and 27 % of males surveyed reported no sexual contact at all. This is great news. However, an in-depth look at the study shows a very sexually explicit list of questions asked to children as young as 15 years old that do more damage than good by putting concepts and images in the minds of young people. Yes, more people are waiting to have sex, however, when you have to interrupt the latency period and actually teach sex ed through the graphic survey, there are those researchers who say the end does not justify the means.
Read -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302877.html?sid=ST2011030302897

Both Heritage Foundation and National Review Online take a look at a particular part of the survey regarding the high rates of unwed childbearing.

Specifically, they show how culturally acceptable and even encouraged single motherhood is in our society. These articles serve as a reminder of how important marriage is and how it should be valued more.
Read Heritage Foundation -- http://blog.heritage.org/?p=53851 [New Survey on Abstinence and Sexual Activity: The Good News and the Bad News]
Read National Review Online -- http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261447/good-news-about-teen-abstinence-christine-kim [Good News About Teen Abstinence]

GOOD NEWS IN AFRICA

New study gives credit for drop in AIDS in Africa to teaching marital fidelity and sexual responsibility as opposed to handing out condoms. Raising the bar and holding values high have proven, positive outcomes!
Despite the proliferation of massive condom campaigns in the fight against HIV/AIDS, another study has shown that the most effective strategy is to promote marital fidelity and sexual responsibility.

The new study from Zimbabwe, where HIV prevalence has dropped 50 per cent since peaking in the late-1990s, found that the success was driven primarily by changes in sexual behaviour, particularly a drop in casual, commercial and extramarital sex...
Read article -- http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2352&Itemid=28 ['Huge' drop in AIDS fueled by abstinence, 25 February 2011, HARARE, Zimbabwe, LifeSiteNews.com ; www.abstinence.net, 9 March 2011]




PORNOGRAPHY : STOP THE ADDICTION

Comment: Tony Nassif of the Cedars Cultural and Educational Foundation is a nationally-recognized expert on the problem of pornography and all the evils it can lead to. He recommends Preventing Abuse Conferences to educate, train and equip people to stop the cycle of addiction and violence. Pornography is an addiction, and there is help.

The Incredible Problem. For many years we have produced the Preventing Abuse Conferences addressing human trafficking, child abduction and Internet Safety.

One of the elements fueling the demand [for human trafficking] is pornography.  

Last week I spoke to nearly 1000 at a church about human trafficking and last Saturday I spoke to a large group of men at a church breakfast meeting.  During my presentation I dealt with the reality of the involvement in pornography and how it is addictive and much more.

At the end of my presentation an invitation was given for any men to receive prayer who were struggling with pornography.
I was stunned to see that ONE THIRD of the entire group came forward.  My second thought was “how many more were struggling with this addiction who did not come forward?”

Pornography is not just a perverted desire.  It is an actual addiction with relative chemical releases in the brain.  Yet there is a spiritual dynamic.  While we have always addressed pornography at our Preventing Abuse Conferences, we are now going to address the problems of the users of pornography and their addiction (to whatever degree).

In conclusion, I am even more appreciative of those who are on the front lines fighting pornography. We must stop this.  Join groups like PornHarms led by Pat Trueman, Shelley Lubben (PinkCross), Donna Rice Hughes (Enough is Enough), Dr. Judith Reisman, Gail Dines, Dr. Donna M. Hughes, Tiffany Helfrich (GirlsAgainstPorn), Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America and many, many more.
[Read article -- http://cedarsfoundation.com/?p=237#more-237 ; 1 March 2011; 9 Mar 2011, www.abstinence.net]

Obama Budget Funds Sex Ed Over Abstinence on 16-1 Margin
The new $3.73 trillion FY 2012 budget President Barack Obama proposed may ratchet up the deficit, but it continues to drive down the amount of spending on abstinence education compared to spending on comprehensive sex education promoting condoms and birth control.

As the National Abstinence Education Association tells LifeNews.com today, the ratio of sex ed spending compared to spending on encouraging teenage boys and girls to make healthy choices by deciding to remain sexually abstinent remains over 16-1. [15 Feb 2011, LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report, # 5080]

Day of Purity -- 14 February 2011 --  www.dayofpurity.org

http://www.lc.org/dayofpurity/index.cfm

Resources -- http://www.lc.org/dayofpurity/resources/
Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=261260839595
Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Day-of-Purity/474837830435

"With Valentine's Day just around the corner, distractions and temptations are always at hand. Let's take this chance to prepare for a successful 2011. I also encourage you to Stand Strong in Purity and to Wait for that Special Person and for your Wedding Day. Both are certainly Worth the Wait! But just because it's worthwhile doesn't make it easy. In fact, anything worthwhile usually takes effort and commitment. We are here because we want to help you toward this goal. If we walk together, the journey can be fun and refreshing."  ~Amber Haskew, Day of Purity Coordinator

Research: Women Would be Better Off Holding Out

For many reasons, sex before marriage is not a good idea. Recently published research confirms the traditional advice that when women give in too early without commitment, they lose the “bargaining chip” that was present in previous generations.

Women are also put at a disadvantage when they compete with each other for men by making themselves sexually available.

Two sociologists have found that in the relational marketplace, the low value placed on sex favors the buyer—in this case, men.  Women have never had greater bargaining power in education, finances and opportunity than they have today, but have lost sexual capital by giving themselves away without requiring marriage in return.

The book Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate and Think About Marrying, is authored by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and Jeremy Uecker, a fellow with the Carolina Population Centre.

From the University of Texas at Austin website:

    Regnerus and Uecker describe the “price of sex” as the (combination of ) … of romance, status, stability and commitment that men exchange for access to sex in a relationship. They argue that despite women’s successes, contemporary relationships are becoming more male-centered than ever, with men gaining access to sex earlier and more often, yet providing fewer and later commitments than a generation ago.

Their findings were described this way on a CNN blog:

    since women in the 18- to 23-year-old group feel they don’t need men for financial dependence, many of them feel they can play around with multiple partners without consequence, and that the early 20s isn’t the time to have a serious relationship. But eventually, they do come to want a real, lasting relationship. The problem is that there will still be women who will have sex readily without commitment, and since men know this, fewer of them are willing to go steady.

It’s not just financial independence influencing young women.  This generation of women is reaping the effects of lowered sexual standards that took root in the ‘60′s.  Extreme feminists, eager to deny differences between male and female, have pushed younger generations of women to “do it” like men.  And this is the result: Young women have lost the bargaining chip where they most desire it—in relationships with the opposite sex.

A female writer from the UK adds:

    But wasn’t feminism supposed to be about choices? And giving women control over their lives?

    Ironically, contemporary women – with our expensive degrees and good jobs – are more valuable, in a literal sense, than we ever have been before; yet, we’ve lowered our value in the sexual marketplace. Regnerus points out that young women are competing with each other for men’s attention and, in doing so, have lowered the metaphorical “cost” men have to pay to be with them. “When that happens, what men (even substandard men) want – access to sex with few strings – will win out,” says Regnerus.

Perhaps this is best exemplified on reality TV shows like “The Bachelor,” where young women compete for one man’s attention and affection.  Many of the women make themselves available sexually in the hope of “winning” the bachelor for life.

Hopefully, the next generation of women can take back their most powerful asset: their purity.
[January 20, 2011, Posted by Jenny Tyree, http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/01/new-research-women-would-be-better-off-holding-out/ ; WWW.ABSTINENCE.NET, 25 Jan 2011]

Planned Parenthood Launches So-Called 'Social Change Initiative'
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America--the country's largest abortion chain-- is signaling its intention to dominate the national sex education agenda.

Specifically, Planned Parenthood's web site announced the group is preparing to launch a nationwide "social change initiative" to end the "stigma and shame about sex" in American culture. The project aims to teach parents and caregivers how to educate children about sex -- from birth. And it recommends telling teenagers about masturbation, oral sex and "where to go for help to prepare to be sexually active."

The “Real Life. Real Talk” initiative began as a pilot program in communities in Maine, New York, Connecticut, and Arizona between 2004 and 2008, according to a report about the initiative that is for sale on the project’s Web site.

Now Planned Parenthood is preparing to launch the program nationwide, with funding from donors and private groups, including The Ford Foundation.

"Nothing like drumming up for more killing business."  [Ed. Just follow the money...They know that the more young people they can get to be sexually active, the more the abortion industry will benefit... it's always and all about money...]
[29 Dec 2010, CNS News, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthood-launches-social-chang; PharmFacts E-News Update -- 4 Jan 2011]

Supporters Say Truly Comprehensive Sex-Ed Gets Results

Nothing gets the debate burning hotter at the UN than one over sex education for children.

Last fall conservative UN delegations angrily protested a report claiming for children a new right to "comprehensive sexuality education."

At another meeting last year, when [some groups] promoted abstinence-based programs, liberal delegations met the proposal with sneers and laughter.

While some at the UN sneer, an innovative abstinence-based education program is seeing results. Dr. Hanna Klaus, a medical missionary nun and veteran OB/GYN, developed the Teen STAR program that educates adolescents about their fertility with natural family planning techniques.
 [1 Jan 2011, Life Site News, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supporters-say-truly-comprehensive-sex-ed-gets-results; PharmFacts E-News Update -- 4 Jan 2011]
Tags: abstinence, sex-ed, teen star program




COMMENTARY : HOW DOES A VIRGIN GET A STD

The Abstinence Clearinghouse recently issued a press release regarding the study published in Pediatrics that found young adults who reported being abstinent but tested positive for STDs. With the confusing message of “comprehensive sex education” that teens are receiving, we are here to give hope to our young people. We advocate for teaching young people the difference between lust and true love – especially as we approach this Valentine’s Day season.

Read press release below [http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=4963]

The Heritage Foundation also takes a close look at the study and responds by saying that youth don’t need more STD testing, instead they need strong support from their parents and the abstinence message.

Read Heritage Foundation article here -- http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/07/study-on-youth-abstinence-and-stds-the-bigger-picture/  [see below the Press Release]


PRESS RELEASE

Sioux Falls, SD, January 6, 2011 - According to a recent study of 1400 young adults by the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics more than 10% who claimed to never have had sexual intercourse tested positive for one of three common STDs (Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Trichomoniasis).

Truth 4 Youth abstinence speaker, Afton Johnson, states, “When young minds hear the term ‘sexually active,’ they think sexual intercourse. These young adults, if they are truthful, have not been taught the definition of sexual activity and all that it implies.

“Because STDs have been known to transfer through sexual skin on skin contact, it is our job to make sure young people fully understand the importance of setting boundaries and making a commitment to true abstinence, which is abstaining from all sexual activity until marriage.”

As the National Abstinence Clearinghouse prepares for Valentine’s Day, let’s celebrate true intimacy by teaching young adults the difference between lust and true love.

Give a young person in your life the gift of purity by teaching them the value of self-worth and waiting for that one true love.

To view study, click here http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-0892v1
[posted JAN 11, 2011, National Abstinence Clearinghouse, http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/notes/national-abstinence-clearinghouse/how-does-a-virgin-get-a-std/171587852883254

Heritage Foundation article:
Study on Youth Abstinence and STDs: The Bigger Picture

A recent study hit the news waves earlier this week proclaiming that a statistically significant portion of young adults who say they are sexually abstinent are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease (STD). According to the study, conducted at Emory University, 10 percent of youth that reported no sexual intercourse in the last 12 months tested positive for an STD, with 60 percent of that 10 percent saying they had never had sex in their lives.

The proposed solution: require that all youth—even those who report being abstinent—be tested for STDs. However, this “band-aid” type—not to mention controversial—recommendation is not a real answer to the problem of sexual activity taking place among the nation’s youth today.

The authors of the current study suggest that the discrepancy in answers is likely due to a variety of factors: youth contracting an STD prior to the 12 months the study measured, simple testing error, youth contracting an STD from other types of sexual behavior, or participants simply not telling the truth about being abstinent.

Regardless, what we know for certain—from this research and other studies—is that sexual activity increases the risk of STDs significantly.

We also know that young people have much higher rates of STDs compared to the rest of the population.

Beyond STDs, research tells us that youth who have sex are more likely to be depressed and do poorly in school, not to mention more likely to get pregnant and become a single parent. (In the U.S., 80 percent of all long-term poverty occurs in single-mother homes.)

Additionally, a study released just a few weeks ago shows that couples who initiate sexual activity early on in their relationships report lower satisfaction and stability in their marriages.

Fortunately, we know that the best way for youth to remain free from these problems is abstinence as a preparation for future healthy marriage.

Also fortunate is the powerful influence parents can have on helping youth avoid sexual activity. Researchers report a variety of factors that help teens remain abstinent, including an intact family, parents’ disapproval of sexual activity, parental monitoring, and communication about sex and its consequences. However, research also shows that parents are often not as aware of their children’s sexual behavior as they should be.

Far too many young people are putting themselves at risk by being sexually active. Not only are they putting themselves in danger of STDs, but they risk becoming single parents and ending up in poverty and dependent on welfare. A doctor’s checkup isn’t the answer to avoiding these problems. What youth need is a clear message on the importance of abstinence and strong support from parents.
[http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/07/study-on-youth-abstinence-and-stds-the-bigger-picture/
Posted January 7th, 2011]







Abstinence Until Marriage Gets Boost from New Study: Naysayers May Have to Give Credence to Supporting Evidence

Few people want to admit it. Others make fun of it. The current U.S. administration has cut funding for education about it.

But once again, it's reared its head as being a viable possibility: Abstinence. And especially abstinence until
 marriage.

A study in the December 2010 Journal of Family Psychology [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/24/6/766/] has just been released, revealing information about sexual practices that lead to stable and happy marriages.

Abstinence until marriage came out the winner after an online survey with 2,035 married couples in the United States.

While the study is being given plenty of credence by conservative press venues, many other blogsites and websites are blasting the fact that the main survey came out of Brigham Young University, which holds to the Latter Day Saints' tenet of abstinence until marriage.

But apparently the American Psychological Association found the outcome credible enough to put in their magazine.

A brief intro to the article states that sexual restraint resulted in better relationship results, even over the presence of other controlling factors like education, religion, and the length of time a couple had been together.

Among other facts, the online survey indicated the following results from couples who waited until marriage:

-22 percent had more stable relationships.

-20 percent were more satisfied with their overall relationship.

-15 percent more couples indicated being sexually satisfied within their marriage than those with previous sexual experience.

-12 percent indicated better communication with their spouse.

Tampa Bay's Creative Loafing Magazine, an objective outlet, published an article supporting the study. Writer Shawn Alff shared his findings from a number of other studies with similar results (paraphrased): People who have early sex often confuse lust with real emotions that only come through a relationship, and that once the physical aspect loses its luster, the connection falls apart.

My previous research for an Associated Content article indicates that a wide range of publications have quoted psychologists and experts agreeing on the topic:

-Early casual sex, and "hooking up" to "friends with benefits" leads to an inability to form healthy long-lasting intimate marriages and other relationships.

-It can lead to broken hearts, confusion, depression and loss of self-worth.

-Every time a person has sex, their body releases a powerful hormone, oxytocin, capable of emotionally binding him/her to each partner in a similar way as to a mother breast-feeding a baby.

Premarital sex is over-romanticized on TV, in movies, magazines and music videos. With the American divorce rate standing at 40-60 percent in various surveys, even among religious couples, we may want to finally re-think how much money we spend on items that fuel this industry. At least for the sake of our young people.

Sources:

"Compatibility or restraint? The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships," Dean M.Busby; Jason S. Carroll; Brian J. Willoughby, American Psychological Association, Journal of Family Psychology, Dec., 2010, Volume 24, p. 766-774.

"Why studies keep finding that abstinence before marriage benefits your relationship," Shawn Alff, Creative Loafing Magazine, Tampa, FL., 1/3/11.

"Teens, Pre-Teens and the Hooking Up Culture," Sheryl Young, Associated Content (now Yahoo Contributor Network), 7/21/08.

[http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/24/6/766/, Compatibility or Restraint? The Effects of Sexual Timing on Marriage Relationships, Busby, Dean M.; Carroll, Jason S.; Willoughby, Brian J., Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 24(6), Dec 2010, 766-774. doi: 10.1037/a0021690 ; Jan 5, 2011, Sheryl Young, Yahoo! Contributor Network, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6185450/abstinence_until_marriage_gets_boost.html?cat=5]

Abstract
Very little is known about the influence of sexual timing on relationship outcomes. Is it better to test sexual compatibility as early as possible or show sexual restraint so that other areas of the relationship can develop?

In this study, we explore this question with a sample of 2035 married individuals by examining how soon they became sexually involved as a couple and how this timing is related to their current sexual quality, relationship communication, and relationship satisfaction and perceived stability. Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length. (PsycINFO Database Record, Compatibility or Restraint? The Effects of Sexual Timing on Marriage Relationships, Busby, Dean M.; Carroll, Jason S.; Willoughby, Brian J., Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 24 (6), Dec 2010, 766-774. doi: 10.1037/a0021690, APA PsycNET, http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/24/6/766/)

Why the Ring Matters: Cohabitation A Bad Idea For Remarriages

Comment: Purity and marriage are still important for those who have been divorced or have lost a spouse. Cohabitation has consequences for both those who have never been married and also for those who have. Studies show that children in cohabiting stepfamilies are 130 times more likely to be sexually abused than children in married stepfamilies. Lack of stability is a major factor affecting children in cohabiting stepfamilies.

Whether once married or not, cohabitation is not a good option. See more in our brochure “Do You Really Need A Test Drive?” [http://www.abstinence.net/store/00542.html]

Why the Ring Matters

W. Bradford Wilcox is the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and author of "When Marriage Disappears: The Retreat From Marriage in Middle America."

Cohabitation is now an increasingly attractive option to many Americans — including middle-aged and older adults who have recently lost a spouse to divorce or death. We can debate about whether cohabitation is good for the adults involved, especially given the financial penalties often associated with marriage for low-income and older couples.

But a growing body of social scientific evidence strongly suggests that cohabitation and children don’t mix, even though more than 40 percent of American children will spend some time in a cohabiting household.

Compared with children in married step-families, children in cohabiting homes are more likely to fail in school, run afoul of the law, do drugs and be abused.

Compared with children in married step families, children in cohabiting homes are more likely to fail in school, run afoul of the law, suffer from depression, do drugs, and — most disturbingly — be abused. (Note that children in in-tact, married homes do best on all these outcomes.) In the words of a recent Urban Institute study, “cohabiting families are not simply an extension of traditional married biological or blended families.”

Indeed, a recent federal report on child abuse found that children in cohabiting stepfamilies were 98 percent more likely to be physically abused, 130 percent more likely to be sexually abused, and 64 percent more likely to be emotionally abused, compared with children in married step-families.

There are at least three reasons why cohabitation is so risky for children:

1. Unrelated males. Cohabitation often puts children in contact with unrelated males, who are significantly less likely to invest in these children, and to control their tempers and rein in any sexual attraction they may have, compared with men who have made a public commitment to them and their mother through marriage.

2. Instability. While it is true that remarriage is less stable than marriage, cohabitation is still less stable than a remarriage. This is bad for children, who thrive on stable routines and relationships with caretakers.

3. No norms. Cohabitation doesn’t enjoy the host of social and legal norms that lend marriage direction, stability and status. Consequently, children, grandparents and friends find cohabiting relationships more difficult to negotiate than remarriages.

So, if you are a parent and have lost a spouse to divorce or death, don’t shack up. For the sake of your children, put a ring on it.
[Updated December 20, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/12/19/why-remarry/why-the-ring-matters ; posted JAN 11, 2011, abstinence.net]




Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbirth --- United States, 1991--2008
Giving birth to a child during the adolescent years frequently is associated with long-term adverse consequences for the mother and her child (1--3) that often are attributable in part to fragile family structure and limited social support and financial resources. Compared with infants born to adult women, infants born to adolescent females are at elevated risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, or death during infancy (4--6). An estimated 82% of pregnancies in 2001 among adolescents were unintended (7,8).

To analyze trends and variations in adolescent pregnancy and birth rates, CDC analyzed birth data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) for 1991--2008...

Abortion estimates are from abortion surveillance information collected from the majority of states by CDC; these estimates are adjusted to national totals by the Guttmacher Institute (9). Information on fetal losses is derived from the pregnancy history data collected from multiple cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (9). The most recent pregnancy estimates that include data on live births, induced abortions, and fetal losses are for 2005 (9).

In 2005, on the basis of available data, approximately 57% of the estimated 740,000 adolescent pregnancies ended in a live birth, 27% ended in an induced abortion, and 16% ended in a fetal loss.

Substantial differences exist by race/ethnicity in how adolescent pregnancies are resolved. Pregnancies among non-Hispanic white and Hispanic adolescents are more likely to end in live births and less likely to end in induced abortions than are pregnancies among non-Hispanic black adolescents.

In 2008, the U.S. birth rate for adolescents was 41.5 births per 1,000 females aged 15--19 years (6). Rates vary considerably by race and Hispanic origin.

The rate for Hispanic adolescents (77.4 per 1,000 females aged 15--19 years) was approximately five times the rate for Asian/Pacific Islander (A/PI) adolescents (16.2), approximately three times the rate for non-Hispanic white adolescents (26.7) and somewhat higher than the rates for non-Hispanic black adolescents (62.9) and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adolescents (58.4) (Table).

During 1991--2005, the birth rate for U.S. adolescents declined one third, from 61.8 per 1,000 females aged 15--19 years in 1991 to 40.5 in 2005. However, the long-term decline was interrupted in 2005--2007, when the adolescent birth rate increased 5%. Preliminary 2008 data indicate that the adolescent birth rate declined 2% during 2007-- 2008...

Recently released NSFG data for 2006--2008 indicate limited change from the 2002 NSFG in sexual activity and contraceptive use among adolescents or in attitudes toward sexual activity and childbearing among adolescents (16).

Biennial data from CDC's 1991--2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS) for school-age youth also indicated limited or no change in the majority of these behaviors during recent years (17,18).

These NSFG and YRBS findings indicate limited or no recent changes in sexual risk behaviors, compared with previously reported long-term trends of reductions in risky behaviors among adolescents from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s and might provide context for slowing declines in adolescent birth rates during recent years... [CDC, MMWR Supplements, January 14, 2011 / 60(01);105-108, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a23.htm?s_cid=su6001a23_e&source=govdelivery

Saving Sex for Marriage Leads to Greater Stability & Communication

Couples who reserve sex for marriage enjoy greater stability and communication in their relationships, say researchers at Brigham Young University.

A new study from the Mormon college found that those couples who waited until marriage rated their relationship stability 22 percent higher than those who started having sex in the early part of their relationship.

The relationship satisfaction was 20 percent higher for those who waited, the sexual quality of the relationship was 5 percent better, and communication was 12 percent better.

The study, published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Family Psychology, involved 2,035 married individuals who participated in a popular online marital assessment called “RELATE.” From the assessment’s database, researchers selected a sample designed to match the demographics of the married American population.

The extensive questionnaire included the question “When did you become sexual in this relationship?”

Couples that became sexually involved later in their relationship – but prior to marriage – reported benefits that were about half as strong as those who waited for marriage.

“Most research on the topic is focused on individuals’ experiences and not the timing within a relationship,” said lead study author Dean Busby, a professor at Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life.

The study was co-authored by BYU professors Jason Carroll and Brian Willoughby.

“There’s more to a relationship than sex, but we did find that those who waited longer were happier with the sexual aspect of their relationship,” Busby added. “I think it’s because they’ve learned to talk and have the skills to work with issues that come up.”

Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved in the study, responded to its findings, saying that “couples who hit the honeymoon too early – that is, prioritize sex promptly at the outset of a relationship – often find their relationships underdeveloped when it comes to the qualities that make relationships stable and spouses reliable and trustworthy.”

Regnerus is the author of Premarital Sex in America, a book forthcoming from Oxford University Press.

Because religious belief often plays a role for couples who choose to wait, Busby and his co-authors controlled for the influence of religious involvement in their analysis.

“Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction,” Busby said.
[23 Dec 2010, Patrick B. Craine, PROVO, Utah, LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/saving-sex-for-marriage-leads-to-greater-stability-communication?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2f43b27235-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_23_2010&utm_medium=email

D.C. Health: FREE Condoms for Everyone
Warning: Explicit content – not for children.

They call it the “Rubber Revolution,” and you can get FREE condoms in D.C. four different ways! You can also be the star in your own condoms-are-good video and win an I-Pod. Wait, that’s not all. You can join the Rubber Revolution on Facebook, and you can also join D.C. Hip-Hop/R&B radio personality, Big Tigger, and become a fellow Condom Ambassador.

The whole wild campaign only cost taxpayers $200,000 – what a deal.

Because condoms are so expensive (already free at health departments, school nurses, doctors) and because they are so hard to find (sold at most gas stations, convenience stores, grocery stores, public bathrooms and most everywhere besides maybe hardware stores), the Washington D.C. Health Department wants to be sure everyone has a handful of FREE condoms so sex can be “safe” and the spread of HIV/AIDS can be confronted.

The problem is that D.C. Health’s new Rubber Revolution Web-site really has no warnings that condoms are not 100-percent “safe.” At best they can reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but only by 50 percent for anal sex and by about 85 percent for vaginal sex. Does that sound “safe” to you?

I was just thinking … If we had a toy for children on the shelf that hurt 15 percent of the kids that played with that toy, it would be pulled immediately. And if kids played with the toy a certain way that was maybe less conventional – and it harmed half of the kids – we would certainly not consider it “safe.” Not so with condoms and the “safe-sex” campaign.   Not so with D.C. Health’s Rubber Revolution, either.

Oh, I almost forgot. You can take a quiz on the Rubber Revolution site to see what kind of condom you are (not something most of us have ever thought about – or ever want to think about). It’s all fun and games – sex and HIV, that is. Everybody’s doin’ it! At least that’s the message D.C. Health is giving with their new Web-site and millions of FREE condoms.

Here’s my angle on this campaign: Why is the D.C. Health Department promoting the continuation of irresponsible, high-risk behavior with a wink, a smile and $200,000 to promote and give out free condoms that cannot keep kids or adults completely safe from HIV infection? How much more money will they waste treating the negative symptoms of high-risk behaviors without addressing the root of the problem which is broken families and teen behavior?

I’ve always believed the truth speaks louder than propaganda, so here’s a quiz that might provide a bit more truth regarding the risks involved with condoms, casual sex and HIV-infected partners.

“How informed are you?” will take you a little further in life than “What kind of condom are you?”

So, how informed are you about HIV/AIDS and the “safety” of condoms? Find out, because sex and HIV/AIDS is not all fun and games. It’s very serious, and condoms should not be thrown at sex and HIV/AIDS like toys. Be informed and make smart choices. 
Take the HIV-AIDS Quiz --  http://fota.cdnetworks.net/pdfs/2010-11-19-hiv-aids-quiz.pdf
[November 19, 2010, Posted by Chad Hills, http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/11/d-c-health-free-condoms-for-everyone/

Promoting AIDS Just For Profit

Derrick Burts, 24, started working as a porn-film actor in June. By October, he'd contracted the HIV virus.

The AP story on Burts contained this jaw-dropping sentence: "He said he began to have doubts about the business after contracting chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes in his first month of work, but was convinced to keep working."

Burts claimed, "I wasn't stupid or oblivious, I knew what was out there. But it's not something you think about when they fill your head" with lucrative offers and promises that the work is safe.

Michael Weinstein, head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, took up the Burts case. While insisting his group isn't anti-porn, he said, "We are astounded that the multibillion-dollar film industry and its fig leaf of a clinic could not even get it together six weeks after his first HIV-positive test to link [Burts] to appropriate follow-up medical care."

Burts: Got HIV while working in porn.
Lawyers for the porn industry's clinic, the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation, which performed the HIV test on Burts, insisted any claim he was not properly treated is "not truthful and . . . self-serving."

But the California Department of Public Health just denied its application to operate.

Burts says the clinic told him he contracted the HIV virus at a gay porn shoot in Florida, but the clinic told the press that he must have become infected in his personal life.

Porn moguls obviously want the "talent" to feel safe, but they don't want to film scenes with condoms -- for monetary reasons. said When Vivid Entertainment became a mandatory-condom company for nearly seven years, it claimed its sales dropped nearly 20 percent.

It's ironic that our news media are such evangelists for "safe sex" with condoms, and very critical of anyone who's anti-condom as a menace to society, but they haven't forced that latex gospel on the porn industry, despite the obvious threat of fatal sexually transmitted diseases between strangers on the set.

Then there's the gay-porn industry -- which as a rule requires condoms in films, but doesn't even HIV-test its stars. Treasure Island Media recently took the shocking step of promoting a gay couple with one HIV-negative and one HIV-positive partner having "unprotected" sex as "role models."

Paul Morris, the company's owner, spoke of demolishing "the HIV-positive closet" and pledged, "We will not allow reactionary individuals and organizations to dictate our behavior." HIV and AIDS are "more or less manageable," he said. "The real battle is against prejudice, ignorance and unfounded and useless fear."

Barmann, no anti-porn "prude," was shocked for the public health and for the rights of actors. "Say what he will about battling prejudice and fear, Morris stands to benefit financially from the unprotected sex his performers agree to have, and he is nonetheless an employer who knowingly puts his workers in harm's way."

The old AIDS slogan was "Silence equals death."
Who will speak out before the next greedy Derrick Burts gets infected?

[Posted: December 10, 2010, Last Updated: December 11, 2010, Brent Bozell, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/promoting_aids_just_for_profit_imcsNqpGpkVuDEC4SDrB7J#ixzz17r0LPNEF ]

Study: Prime Time Television Sexualizing Younger Girls

Television’s portrayal of teen girls is becoming increasingly sexualized, and places underage girls in physically sexual situations far more than adult women, according to a new study by the Parents Television Council (PTC).

The study measured the amount of implied nudity and/or sexual gestures such as sexual dancing, erotic kissing or touching, or implied sex that involved young girls onscreen in the top 25 prime-time shows for teen viewers in the 2009-2010 season.

“Not only are we observing women becoming more frequently sexualized, the data show a troubling trend in which teen girls are becoming the prime target of the sexualized content,” states the PTC report’s authors.

The report found that, while older women were “more likely to have sexual dialogue,” a younger girl was “more likely portrayed in sexual behaviors onscreen.” Underage female characters are shown in sexual situations 47 percent of the time, while adult women were in a similar situation 29 percent of the time, the study found.

In addition, three out of four shows that included the sexualization of female characters were found not have an “S” descriptor to warn viewers about sexual content. This, the group pointed out, calls into question the use of parental devices such as the V-Chip, which are designed to protect younger viewers against shows that are marked for sexual content.

“Ultimately, the risks for these girls lie in the tendency for mass media messages to miscommunicate the true definition of what it means to be female. However, the greater risk is in sending the message to today’s young girls that their sexuality is their primary identity and most valued commodity,” wrote the authors.

Only 5 percent of underage female characters communicated dislike of the sexualizing, and 98 percent of sexual incidents were outside the bounds of any form of committed relationship, the group reported.

“Past and present research continues to demonstrate the power of media as a highly persuasive device for delivering images and messages into our homes. Unfortunately, television often
presents teens with new models of bad behavior, frequently within a framework that is void of consequences,” stated the study’s authors. “The result is that today’s youth are growing up with a media-market version of sexuality.”

Click here to view the full PTC study -- http://www.parentstv.org/FemaleSexualization/Study/Sexualized_Teen_Girls.pdf
[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-prime-time-television-fetishizes-teen-girls?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c279a9338d-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_17_2010&utm_medium=email ]
[Dec 17, 2010, Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com, see article link above]

Teens Want Family Values
A study in the United Kingdom shows that teens want to know more about “being a parent” rather than being taught graphic sex education. Even better news is that they want to learn about parenting and family values from their parents. The condom education message has done a great disservice to our teens.

We hear this more and more in our abstinence until marriage programs. When the bar is set low, that is the behavior one can expect. When the bar is raised to a standard and expectation of purity, then teens will keep that standard high.
A university survey has found that teenagers want to be taught about family values and parental responsibilities rather than the mechanics of sexual intercourse and contraception.

The survey, conducted by Hull University experts on health and social care, investigated the sexual health knowledge, behaviour and attitudes of young people aged from 13 to 16.

The survey found that teenagers see the responsibilities of being a parent as the number one “fact of life”. They take it as a priority ahead of sexual intercourse, contraception and sexually-transmitted infections.

“These findings are reflected further in the topics students want to know more about. Irrespective of gender or school year the consistent and primary topic young people want to know more about is ‘being a parent’,” the survey says.

“It is important to note that uniform by both gender and school year was the desire for more information about becoming a parent. An increased focus on the role of being a parent might impact on safe sexual practices.”

The findings suggest the current emphasis in schools on the mechanics of sexual intercourse including how to use a condom does not match the priorities of youngsters.

Half of girls say they want sex education to focus on the consequences of pregnancy, not the mechanics and biology of sex. The survey also found that majority of 13 to 16-year-old boys want to know what “being a parent” is all about and that this is the most important issue for them.

Three quarters of boys and girls agreed “you don’t have to have sex to keep a partner” and a relationship doesn’t have to include sex. More than two-thirds of boys and girls said “first sex should be both special and planned”. Three out of five girls and almost half of boys said they would only have sex in a long term serious relationship.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: “Young people are clearly tiring of the negative messages they are receiving about pregnancy and parenthood from sex educators obsessed with contraception.”

“For too long, government policy has all too often been encouraging and facilitating casual sex.”

The survey was commissioned by East Riding of Yorkshire Council and NHS East Riding of Yorkshire, and carried out by Dr Julie Jomeen and Dr Clare Whitfield.  Dr Jomeen said the findings were important because a national strategy to cut teenage pregnancy had failed, while sexually-transmitted infections among young people are rising.

In March 2009, a £280 million Labour Government plan to slash the number of teenage pregnancies was heavily criticised by politicians, academics and family groups who called the plan “absolutely disastrous”. The plan, called Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, came under harsh criticism when official figures revealed that 41.9 girls per 1,000 aged 15 to 17 became pregnant in 2007, compared with 40.9 in 2006.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said: “The former government’s sex education program, which targeted children and young people, has failed drastically. Sex education that seems to expect young people to have sex has made the situation worse rather than better, and led to an increase in teenage pregnancies and STD’s. We need sex education based on the Christian faith, emphasising marriage and the family and empowering young people to say no to sex outside of marriage.”
[8Dec2010, University of Hull survey, Daily Mail; http://christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/teenagers-want-family-values; DEC 15, 2010, www.abstinence.net ]

ADVICE FOR SINGLES
Dr. Cloud offers advice on dating relationships.

If we go around looking for another half, thinking that we are lacking something, then we end up unfulfilled.

Marriage (coupling) is not addition, it is multiplication.

We are whole people. 1 x 1 = 1 where as ½ x ½ = ¼. When we recognize this, we will have happier and more fulfilling relationships.

For info on purchasing the book Boundaries in Dating, contact This is a great resource that offers insights and helps examine motives, habits, loneliness and limits. [9 Nov 2010, www.abstinence.net, http://www.cloudtownsend.com/channels/dating.php ]


PORNOGRAPHY : THE UGLY TRUTH

Enough is Enough reports on the devastating effect pornography has on society.

In the following article a woman formerly involved in pornographic films shares her story with shocking details; she gives statistics and reveals the ugly truth behind this pollution of our society. We hope that you will stand with us to fight against this danger that threatens the hearts and minds of all who view it.

Warning: Graphic Content. Read article here -- http://internetsafety101.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/porn-is-not-glamorous/
[9 Nov 2010, www.abstinence.net


Porn is NOT Glamorous
http://internetsafety101.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/porn-is-not-glamorous/

SEX-RESEARCHER’S ABUSES TOLD
Leslee Unruh, President and Founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, received a phone call on Friday from a reporter at World Net Daily. He told her of the story he was working on about sex-researcher Alfred Kinsey and one of his victims who has come forward to report on the abuse she experienced.

If you decide to click on the link and read the series of articles, you will find a truly horrible story of the abuses that went on during the 1940’s. This woman tells of how her father was paid by the Kinsey Institute to report on the abuse he inflicted on her. This crime is unthinkable!

Judith Reisman, good friend of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, reports on the way Alfred Kinsey has corrupted America. According to her, his way of thinking has led to our present moral crisis – teaching sex education to children, handing out of condoms to first graders, making pornography acceptable and readily accessible, and unleashing “a plague of corruption and contagion on America.”

“Judith Reisman nails it in her new book, Sexual Sabotage, exposing Kinsey as a mad scientist,” states Leslee Unruh. “The abstinence community needs to read Dr. Riesman’s book.”

Our country may be heading down the wrong path, but we are here to help parents, educators and teenagers discover that there is another way. We don’t need to buy the lie that sex outside of marriage is unavoidable or necessary. We are more than animals. We can make our own decisions – even in the face of a culture that says anything goes.

The Abstinence Clearinghouse has a great list of recommended resources to help - if you are a teen, a parent or an educator.


WND Exclusive: SEXUAL SABOTAGE
Stunner! Kinsey Paid My Father to Rape Me
Subject of 1940s 'Research' Goes Public with Horrific Details of Abuse By Dad

Editor's note: The following report is part of WND's ongoing, multipart investigation into alleged crimes committed by sex-research pioneer Alfred Kinsey and his Kinsey Institute.

A victim of sexologist Alfred Kinsey's "research" during the 1940s is coming forward with the stunning claim that her father was paid by Kinsey, universally regarded as the "father of the sexual revolution," to rape her and then report to him on the attacks.

Nearly 70 years after being molested repeatedly by her own father, "Esther White" (a pseudonym) is speaking out in hope of prompting Congress to investigate the controversial research. White said she would be willing to testify in person on Capitol Hill if an investigation results in opening the Kinsey Institute files to public scrutiny.

"He was giving me orgasms and timing it with a stopwatch," White told WND. "I didn't like it, I went into convulsions, but he didn't care. He said all little girls do this with their daddies, they just don't talk about it."

White was 7 when her father began abusing her.

"There's no question that Kinsey broke a number of laws and conspired to break a number of laws to conduct his faux research," said Matt Barber, a law professor and associate dean at the Liberty University School of Law.

Kinsey's 1948 and 1953 books on human sexual behavior contain tables of information about sexual responses in children as young as 2 months old. Several tables record how long the children needed to be stimulated to achieve "orgasm," and others record how many orgasms the children achieved in given periods of time.

Esther White's data would have been used for this table in Kinsey's first book, though the book focused on male sexual behavior

"Kinsey was not a legitimate scholar. He was not objective," said Janice Crouse, Ph.D., the head of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank at Concerned Women for America. "Instead, he found people who could produce the results he wanted. ... He was very interested in changing the sexual mores. ... He believed any sex act between consenting adults and even children was acceptable, even healthy."  Kinsey and his researchers are widely credited with having redefined sexual morality in America.

"Esther White"

White said Kinsey "enticed" her grandfather, who became a personal friend of Kinsey while studying at Indiana University, to participate in the research, and that her grandfather in turn recruited  two of his sons to molest their own daughters for Kinsey. She described Kinsey as "insane," "evil" and "Satan incarnate."

White says her father and grandfather were paid by Kinsey and that Kinsey was aware of what her father was doing to her. She recalls that her father filmed some of those sessions and sent the home movies to Kinsey. She also witnessed Kinsey handing her grandfather a check.

"In 1943, when I was nine," White told WND, "I found a sheet of paper that had boxes on it and my father was checking off things he was doing to me. He grabbed it away from me and put it in a brown envelope.

"It was a form with little boxes down the left side of the page, and a list of statements describing sexual acts. He was supposed to check things off, whether he did that or not.

"One of the statements included the words 'timed orgasm.' I didn't know what 'orgasm' meant, so I asked him and he told me. That's why he was using a stopwatch.

Esther White's data would also have appeared in this table from Kinsey's 1953 book on female sexual behavior

"My dad took movies of what he did to me. They were home movies, the camera was one of those wind-up types. ... I think he sent them to Kinsey.

"Kinsey did interview me, he asked me some questions, things like whether I loved my family. My father had told me what I needed to say to him, we wanted to make a good impression. I found out later we had to make a good impression because we were getting paid for this.

"Esther White" at age 9

"When Kinsey was about to leave, my grandfather said, 'What about the check?' Kinsey said, 'I almost forgot,' and I saw him give my grandfather a check. Kinsey said 'I made it out to both of you because I didn't know which one was going to get the money.' That was in the winter of 1943."

Researcher Judith Reisman, Ph.D., began raising questions about how Kinsey collected the data in 1981. Since then, the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction has continually denied that Kinsey recruited child molesters to conduct ongoing research.
1952: American biologist, Alfred Charles Kinsey (1894-1956), whose pioneering investigation of human sexual behaviour resulted in two controversial studies that had far-reaching influence. (Photo by Bert Garai/Keystone Features/Getty Images)

"Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children," according to an early 1990s document currently cited on the Kinsey website in a section titled, "Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.'"

"Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him," wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, "Alfred Kinsey's work 50 years on," currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.

At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey's successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.

"Kinsey's colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research," Barber told WND. "He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey's research.

"There's pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey," Barber continued. "Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it ... the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey's research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts." Kinsey's research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.

Crouse told WND people today "think he's the research guru who knew everything about sex.

"Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was," she said.

"He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.     

"People don't realize the people in Kinsey's studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history."

White compared Kinsey's research to the U.S. government's 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.

"I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue," White told WND. "That's what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn't care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were."

Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, "but that was all over long ago."

"This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality," she said. "He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor 'Esther' just stands there and says 'What about me, what about all the people this was done to?'"

Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, "The Children of Table 34," which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther's testimony "scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century's greatest and most enduring scandals."

"Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates," Knight said. "If Esther's story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children's innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar."

Reisman noted that the lead expert witness in the lawsuit challenging California's pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 initiative cited Kinsey.

"It's like quoting Mengele for medical expertise, and everybody just accepts it," Reisman said. "The Kinsey Institute just published a new study about children's orgasms, and everybody just accepts it. I feel like I'm in 'Alice in Wonderland.'"

Knight said the Kinsey researchers "were aiding and abetting child molestation."

"Their hands are dirty and they need to be exposed," said Knight, currently a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries. "It's so bad, they can't admit to it. It's crushing. So the charade goes on."

Reisman told WND the Kinsey Institute is so afraid of being sued by the victims of the Kinsey research, it has repeatedly threatened to destroy its files if brought to court.  [17 October 2010, Brian Fitzpatrick, Washington, World Net Daily, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213213] 
See actual article for charts, photos, and imbedded links -- http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213213



Victim of Notorious Sex Experiments Speaks Out
'Esther White' Interview Exposes 'Evil' Scientific Research: Part 1

Victim of Notorious Sex Experiments Speaks Out
1952: American biologist, Alfred Charles Kinsey (1894-1956), whose pioneering investigation of human sexual behaviour resulted in two controversial studies that had far-reaching influence. (Photo by Bert Garai/Keystone Features/Getty Images)

Editor's note: The following report is part of WND's ongoing, multipart investigation into alleged crimes committed by sex-research pioneer Alfred Kinsey and his Kinsey Institute.

WASHINGTON – On Oct. 1, the federal government made a high-profile apology for experiments conducted in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. Without their knowledge or permission, nearly 700 people were inoculated with syphilis and gonorrhea for the purpose of scientific research. Eventually the subjects were treated with penicillin.

During the same time period, however, far more horrendous experiments were being carried out – including the sexual molestation of hundreds of infants and children down to 2 months of age – not in a far-off Central American country, but at the state and federally funded Indiana University. The researchers never treated the victims of this research, and nobody has issued an apology.

Biologist Alfred Kinsey's research on human sexual behavior is now celebrated as pioneering science, and Kinsey has become known as the father of the sexual revolution. He and the institute named for him are widely acclaimed by news media and in the academic community. Kinsey's work continues to have a profound impact on American law and culture to this day.

Kinsey's research is highly controversial for being based disproportionately on hundreds of interviews with prisoners, sex offenders and prostitutes. Kinsey and his colleagues falsely classified these people as normal World War II-era citizens, leaving the validity of his findings open to question.  But the most infamous – indeed, criminal – aspect of Kinsey's research involved what is first revealed in black and white in Tables 30 to 34 of his landmark 1948 book, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male."

These tables record how long it took for children to achieve "orgasm" and how many "orgasms" they were able to achieve over a period of minutes or hours.  Hundreds of innocent boys suffered at the hands of pedophiles to compile this data.

Kinsey produced a second book in 1953, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female." To gather data for the book, Kinsey and his researchers allowed innocent girls to be abused by pedophiles. Now one of these victims, "Esther White" (a pseudonym), is telling her story.

Over the years, the Kinsey Institute has consistently denied that Kinsey recruited pedophiles to conduct his research or knew about any ongoing abuse of children. Esther White has stepped forward to tell us that's not the way it was.

"Esther White" as adult

WND: How did you come to be a subject in the Kinsey experiments?

Esther White: My grandfather set this whole thing up. He was the connection. He went to Indiana University, he was getting his teacher's certificate there. Kinsey was a pretty young professor and my grandfather was a pretty old student, he had already had three sons before he went to IU.

He was buddy-buddy with Kinsey. He used to have a picture of himself with Kinsey, on the bottom he had written "Me and Alphe." That's how Kinsey spelled it, A-l-p-h-e.

My uncle moved to Bloomington about 1948. Many years later he told me his wife was socially involved with Mrs. Kinsey. He seemed quite proud of that fact, because Mrs. Kinsey was socially prominent. He also told me he thought Kinsey was a "queer duck."

My uncle and grandfather and dad went to meet Kinsey at the university on Thanksgiving Day in 1950. Our whole family was having Thanksgiving dinner there. Another uncle seemed upset about it and refused to go. He said he'd rather stay home with the nieces and nephews. I didn't go, they didn't invite me.

I think that's when they made the deal to use the information they got before for Kinsey's second book, the one about women. In the first book there were some statistics on little girls, too, they just weren't the prominent charts. I think he knew he was going to write the one on girls while he was doing the one on males.

WND: How old were you when the abuse started?

EW: My grandfather abused me just one time, when I was 4. He didn't do it again because I don't think he ever had the opportunity.

My father started when I was 7. I was born in 1934, and I was 7 when it began, so it was 1941. My dad played sick sometimes so he could stay home alone with me. I just did what he told me to do.

WND: Would your father have abused you if he hadn't been involved with Kinsey?

EW: I don't know. My grandfather got him into it. I think the Kinsey people at IU talked my grandfather into getting involved. They brainwashed all the students about how important the research was, that knowledge was God.

My uncle was involved in this, too. He molested his stepdaughter, and of course the split in the family was horrible, and his wife divorced him. It was all kept very quiet, I didn't find out about it until maybe five years ago when his second wife told me. But this man became a devout Christian man and repented profusely. He realized he had been duped by Kinsey, I think.

I think my father repented too. I couldn't tell exactly the words because he had a massive stroke. I moved into his house to take care of him and my mother. He broke down crying one time. I think he was trying to say he was sorry. He was a Christian man when he died.

This is like peeling an onion, there's just so many layers of it.

WND: Did your father ever molest any other children?

EW: I don't think he ever molested other children. I don't think my mother gave him a chance.

WND: Can you tell me what your father did to you?

EW: Everything. It makes me blush just to think about it. He was giving me orgasms and timing it with a stopwatch. I didn't like it, I went into convulsions, but he didn't care. He said all little girls do this with their daddies, they just don't talk about it.

One time a little girl came over and knocked on the door right in the middle of a session. She wanted me to come play, and I ran out the door. It was my opportunity to escape, and I took it, even though he was yelling at me to come back. That was the only time I ever got away.

"Esther White" at age 9

WND: Did he ever force you to have sex with him?

EW: He wouldn't physically force me to do it. He was not violent, he always did it in the name of love. He had the sick idea that I wanted sex with him. That's the way these people thought. They were arrogant males.

I resisted probably the whole time, but I wasn't permitted to resist. I would tell him no, but he wouldn't listen. I would have convulsions, but he wouldn't pay any attention. I was sworn to silence. I was not to tell my mother because I would cause a divorce, and that was my greatest fear. That was awful in those days, nobody had divorces.

I humiliated my father every chance I got. He was angry at me all the time. When he would try to get me to submit to him I would humiliate him by saying no.

WND: Was Kinsey aware of what was happening to you?

EW: Kinsey or his partners knew. In 1943, when I was 9, I found a sheet of paper that had boxes on it and my father was checking off things he was doing to me. He grabbed it away from me and put it in a brown envelope.

WND: Can you describe the sheet of paper?

EW: It was a form with little boxes down the left side of the page and a list of statements describing sexual acts. The form was instructions on what to do. It was for training. He was supposed to check things off when he'd done them.

One of the statements included the words "timed orgasm." I didn't know what "orgasm" meant, so I asked him. Then he explained to me exactly what he was doing, and what an orgasm was. I knew he was holding a stopwatch in his hand when he did it, but I didn't know what he was doing. I was very young, I just didn’t understand any of this stuff, I was just doing what my daddy told me to do. He claimed to be doing it in love.

WND: And this was done to you in the name of science? By people who were conducting research?

EW: I don't know for sure if my dad was involved with the Kinsey thing in the beginning.

In 1947 my father gave me a prepublication copy of Kinsey's book on the human male. I was supposed to read it and give my evaluation of it. I was 13. By then the abuse had stopped, because my mother found out.

My dad told me he helped Kinsey write the book and that it was going to change the way the world looked at sexuality. He wanted me to do a two-paragraph review of the book. I wouldn't do it. When I read the book it made me sick. I realized then what they were doing. The charts were in there, they were timing orgasms, and I didn't want anything to do with any of it.

I wasn't really fully aware of Alfred Kinsey, it was just the book. I didn't want any part of it, and I gave it back to him. It stayed in his library until he died, and then I threw it out. He was a great fan of Freud; he had three of Freud's books, and I threw them out, too.

WND: Did you ever meet Kinsey?

EW: I was interviewed by him. He and Pomeroy came to my grandfather's home in Columbus, Ohio, sometime in the early '40s. My great-grandmother was there, I think she must have known there was something wrong, because she treated me terribly.

Kinsey was supposed to come for luncheon, but there was a big snowstorm and they were late. My great-grandmother had prepared a great big luncheon. I think she was upset because they were late, and they didn't have time to eat the luncheon. Kinsey had to leave because he was delivering a lecture at Ohio State.

Kinsey did interview me, he asked me some questions, things like whether I loved my family. My father had told me what I needed to say to him; we wanted to make a good impression. I found out later we had to make a good impression because we were getting paid for this.

When Kinsey was about to leave, my grandfather said, "What about the check?" Kinsey said, "I almost forgot," and I saw him give my grandfather a check. Kinsey said "I made it out to both of you because I didn't know which one was going to get the money." That was in the winter of 1943.

They had to do the charting first, then they got paid for it. The check was probably $6,000. It was a 6 with a bunch of zeroes after it. Shortly after that my family bought a brand new house. The check was enough to put a down payment on the house.

WND: Did the Kinsey Institute ever follow up with you?

EW: Not at all. They didn't care about me. Actually neither did my dad; he didn't care what this was doing to me. He thought everything was supposed to be better because of this, that I would be a better person, much more broadminded.

Tomorrow WND will present the second half of the interview with Esther White. It will explore how Mrs. White was affected throughout her life by the molestation, her father's continued attempts to molest her, the stunning story of her spiritual conversion and the role faith has played in helping her on her journey through life. [17 October 2010, Brian Fitzpatrick, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=214105]
See actual article for charts, photos, and imbedded links -- http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=214105




 

Interview With Leslee Unruh 

As reported last week, sex-researcher Alfred Kinsey's abuses were unveiled as one of his victims spoke out.  We highly recommended those in the abstinence community read Dr. Judith Reisman's new book Sexual Sabotage for more information on the Kinsey philosophy that is permeating the nation's policies.

Leslee Unruh, Founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, was interviewed about this breaking news by World Net Daily, and she points out in the interview that the nation's battle is in the classrooms.

"Kinsey said he felt the only abnormal sex is no sex," Unruh told WND. "The worldviews of Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and the Obama administration are all rooted in the Kinseyan world view."

"They're teaching kids in schools the Kinseyan philosophy that children are sexual from birth. It's all rooted in Kinsey," said Unruh. "They believe kids should be allowed to have sex, the earlier the better."

"Many kids have picked up the message that not having sex is not cool," Unruh told WND. "We are creating a counter-culture, we are standing up and fighting back. We have to return to the pre-50s sexual morality."
[October 26, 2010 www.abstinence.net]
 




GREAT NEWS IN NATIONWIDE SURVEY: 70% of High School Students are Virgins, Survey Reports

A new study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reports that 70% of high school students are virgins. They find what we have known for years: abstinence messages work. The article goes on to point out that whether these teens remain abstinent until marriage depends greatly on the influences around them. This is a perfect opportunity to talk to your teen about why he or she should wait.
[OCT 19, 2010, www.abstinence.net]

70% of High School Students are Virgins, Study Reports
They may live in a sexually charged culture that essentially encourages them to have sex, but nearly 70 percent of high school-age teens are virgins, according to a new study of the nation's sexual habits.

Published in the October issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, the study surveyed 820 adolescents nationwide via the Internet, a confidential method the researchers say is more likely to produce honest answers compared to a face-to-face or phone interview. Parents had to give consent.

The study found that 69.7 percent of boys and 68.4 percent of girls ages 16-17 have never had intercourse. Among 14-15-year-olds, the percentage is even higher -- 90.1 percent for boys and 87.6 percent for girls.

Richard Ross, cofounder of the True Love Waits abstinence movement, told Baptist Press the study proves that abstinence messages can and do work.

"Less than a third of high schoolers have ever had sex. And that includes large numbers who only have had sex once," said Ross, assistant professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. "Also, consider that more than 60 percent of sexually experienced teenagers regret what they have done . Combining those figures reveals that only a small segment of American teenagers are committed to a sexual lifestyle.

"The vast majority are entirely open to waiting on sex," Ross said. "Whether they do or not depends on which voices and influences around them are the strongest."

Among 16-17-year-olds, 16.1 percent of boys and 20.8 percent of girls had had intercourse in the previous month.

The study also asked teens about oral sex. Depending on the question asked, between 66 and 71 percent of 16-17-year-old boys and girls had never participated. For 14-15-year-olds, it was around 87 percent for both sexes who had never participated.

Jimmy Hester, co-founder of the True Love Waits movement and the coordinator of True Love Waits for LifeWay Church Resources, said the study confirms what he has seen.

"Our experiences with True Love Waits over the past 17 years have shown a willingness on the part of students to consider and adopt God's plan for sexual behavior outside the marriage relationship," Hester told BP. "Once they understand the reasons behind sexual abstinence until marriage, and recognize the severe consequences when not practiced, most are willing to commit to it. The results of these types of reliable studies indicate trends toward better sexual behavior among students."

Ross said the data should impact what programs the federal government promotes. It should also encourage churches, he said.

"Congress and the administration cut all abstinence-centered program grants from the 2010 budget," Ross said. "As a citizen, that deeply concerns me and I will support candidates this fall that will take us in another direction.

"But as a youth leader, I see this as an opportunity for parents and churches to step into the gap. It is time for every pastor and every parent to ask, 'How long has it been since we saw precious teenagers standing in the altar of our church, making promises of purity to Almighty God, surrounded by the community of faith?"'

Ross added, "I am more concerned about churches that have moved away from a clear True Love Waits challenge every year than I am about funding shifts in Washington. For the children of believers, the clear voices of parents, youth leaders and the congregation carry far more weight than secular programs."

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net
The Journal of Sexual Medicine Special Issue: Findings from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB), Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University, Volume 7, pages 243–245, October 2010
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02038.x/full

Commentary on the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) (pages 253–254)
Lynn B. Barclay
Article first published online: 4 OCT 2010 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02056.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02056.x/abstract
Baptist Press, NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)

RAMPANT INACCURACY

Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield of the Heritage Foundation shed light on the misrepresentation and biases of Planned Parenthood’s press release about the new CDC report that found southern states have higher teen birth rates.

Planned Parenthood concluded that the reason northern states have fewer teen birthrates is because of condom education.

However, as the Heritage Foundation reports, over a dozen scientific evaluations show that abstinence programs do reduce teen sexual activity.

There are other factors to consider that seem to have been overlooked by Planned Parenthood. Lower teen birth rates unfortunately do not always equal low teen pregnancy rates. The Heritage Foundation researchers point out that liberal sex-ed policies in the northern states are supported by the Planned Parenthood agenda for sex, condoms and taxpayer-funded abortion.

We come back to the point of abstinence-until-marriage education.

We want the very best for our children.
How can we help them protect their hearts, minds and bodies?
How can we teach them to be people of integrity? To know their value and worth?
By giving them the truth and helping them develop their character.

We are here at the Abstinence Clearinghouse to help you, the parents and educators, to do just that!

To see the article, the CDC report and evidence of effective abstinence education -- {see below} -- http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251283/permissive-sex-ed-linked-higher-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-robert-rector

To learn about the benefits of becoming an affiliate of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, click here -- http://www.abstinence.net/affiliates/
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net, 2 Nov 2010]

NOTE: This is NOT THE FIRST TIME that Planned Parenthood has skewed and spun the CDC reports; this just happened in June of this year as well...

CDC Finds Most Teens are Virgins, Contrary to Planned Parenthood: ALL
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention released a new study last month showing that most teens are virgins – which American Life League (ALL) has said contradicts propaganda disseminated by sex-education giant Planned Parenthood.

"This study has huge significance for our nation's public and even private schools - many of whom have been regurgitating Planned Parenthood's dangerously inaccurate sex-education curriculum," said Judie Brown, president of ALL.

In the 2006-2008 period, 58% of never-married teen girls and 57% of never-married teen boys between the ages of 15 and 19 reported that they had never had sexual intercourse.

The numbers did not substantially change since a similar report was released in 2002. The reason most often cited for abstaining was that pre-marital sex is "against religion or morals."

ALL says that the CDC report, entitled “Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Child Bearing, National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG),” [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024.pdf] debunks Planned Parenthood's constant mantra that most teens will not abstain. In particular the pro-life organization points to the words of Planned Parenthood Federation of America vice president of medical affairs, Vanessa Cullins, from a YouTube video directed toward teens: "Admit that you are a sexually active individual like most of us, and that you are going to have sex and that you need to take precautions in order to stay healthy."

ALL says that the report builds a solid case against Planned Parenthood's promotion of sex education devoid of morality or religious influence – except for the “secular humanism” espoused by Planned Parenthood.

The report also revealed that "the vast majority of never married teenagers had not had intercourse in the month before the survey (76% of females and 79% of males, unchanged from 2002.)"

The number of "sexually experienced" teens peaked in 1988 at 51%.  The steady decline in sexually active teens coincides with the popularity and availability of abstinence education in the 1990s and into the 2000s.
Entire 87 page report: Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Child Bearing, National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) -- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024.pdf
[14 July 2010, Washington, D.C., http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024.pdf ; http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071404.html ]


CONDOM FACTS -- http://www.hli.org/condom_facts.html
 www.AfterAbortion.org
www.TheUnChoice.com

Permissive Sex Ed Linked to Higher Teen-Pregnancy, Abortion Rates
By Robert Rector & Rachel Sheffield

Planned Parenthood pounced quickly after the Centers for Disease Control released a report last week on state variations in teen births. In a press release, Planned Parenthood asserted that the CDC report “makes it crystal clear that the teen birthrate is lower in states” where permissive sex education focuses on increasing condom use.

The mainstream media immediately seized the opportunity to publicize the view that abstinence education promotes teen pregnancy. This slant is peculiar since, historically, promotion of abstinence education has coincided with a sharp and unprecedented drop in teen birthrates.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, during the two decades prior to creation of federal abstinence-education funding, the birthrate of girls under age 18 did not decline.

Indeed, during the safe-sex, condom mania of the 1980s, teen birthrates increased. However, after the advent of federal abstinence programs in the mid-1990s, the birthrate of girls under 18 began an unprecedented, long-term decline.

The birthrate of girls ages 15 to 17 dropped by a third: from 3.5 births per 100 girls to 2.1.

Although it would be inaccurate to attribute all of this decline to abstinence education, it’s quite odd to suggest that the push to teach abstinence somehow increased teen births. (Incidentally, over a dozen scientific evaluations show that abstinence programs reduce teen sexual activity.)

True, CDC data show that socially conservative Southern states (which tend to favor teaching abstinence) have higher teen birthrates than liberal Northeastern states. This is so even when white, black, and Hispanic girls are considered separately.

But an almost identical state-by-state variation existed in 1990, before abstinence programs were a factor. As the CDC report indicates, state variation in teen births is heavily affected by long-term socioeconomic and cultural differences.

What’s more, a state’s teen birthrate can be strongly influenced by the teen abortion rate. States with permissive sex-ed policies tend to have substantially higher rates of teen abortion.

For example, the CDC report lauds California, New York, and New Jersey for relatively low teen birthrates. But it isn’t because those states have low pregnancy rates, it’s because they lead the nation in promoting abortion among teenage girls.

Contrary to the breathless claims of Planned Parenthood, there is no evidence that states with liberal sex-ed policies have lower teen-pregnancy rates. In fact, the evidence suggests that, after adjusting for important racial differences among states, those with liberal sex-ed policies actually have higher rates of pregnancy for girls under 18.

Sex-ed programs promoted by Planned Parenthood and its allies in the Obama administration teach that it is okay for teens to have sex as long as they use a condom. Virtually no parents support this idea. Even teens tend to disagree with it. But Planned Parenthood’s message to teens is brutally simple: Hook up, have sex, but use that condom; if it doesn’t work out, we’ll fix things with a taxpayer-funded abortion.

Teens, and society as a whole, deserve a better, more humanizing, message.
[October 27, 2010, Robert Rector is senior research fellow in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, where Rachel Sheffield is a research assistant. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251283/permissive-sex-ed-linked-higher-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-robert-rector]



New CDC Report Shows Teen Pregnancy Rates have Dropped
As Usual, Planned Parenthood Misrepresents This CDC Report on Teen Pregnancy
While a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report provides more evidence that abstinence messages decrease teen sexual activity and pregnancy, Planned Parenthood has put its own spin on the numbers to promote its childhood sex education programs.

The recently released CDC report entitled "State Disparities in Teenage Birth Rates in the United States" acknowledges that teenage birth rates have continued to decline since their peak in 1991. It then examines the ethnicity of teen mothers in 2007, and finds they are predominantly Hispanic and black in almost every state.

In response, Planned Parenthood issued what the pro-life group American Life League labeled a "misleading" press release that stated, "This new CDC report makes it crystal clear that the teen birthrate is lower in states that provide students with comprehensive, evidence-based sex education."

The CDC report makes no mention of what type of sex education (or abstinence message) are being used in any state or area. Planned Parenthood, pointed out ALL, does not mention the fact that the decrease in teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy coincide with the availability and popularity of giving abstinence messages to kids across the U.S. in the 1990s and into the 2000s.

The report affirms that "[t]here has been a broad consensus on the goal of preventing teenage pregnancy, and a wide variety of public and private programs have been developed to meet this challenge."

The report attributes the variations in teenage birth rates states and ethnicities to "many factors, including differences in socioeconomic factors, such as education and income, risk behaviors such as sexual activity and contraceptive use, and attitudes among teenagers toward pregnancy and childbearing."

Rita Diller, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP), an American Life League project, criticized Planned Parenthood for misrepresenting the findings of the report.

"This is another illustration of how Planned Parenthood uses deception at every level to promote its deadly agenda," said Diller in a press release Wednesday.

Planned Parenthood's release reveals its intent to "bombard minority teens with its salacious, perverted, immoral sex education by means of a huge amount of taxpayer funding from the Obama administration," according to Diller.

The abortion giant recently claimed that "[s]ex educators like Planned Parenthood are poised to make tremendous progress in reducing teen pregnancy, because for the first time in American history the federal government has ensured that federal funds will be used primarily by states and community organizations that provide evidence-based sex education to reduce teen pregnancy. … The Obama administration's allocation of $155 million for evidence-based sex education represents a true turning point in the history of sex education in the United States."

"Planned Parenthood was behind the wheel of sex education in the United States during the years when teen sexual activity was increasing dramatically," Diller pointed out.

"However, teen pregnancy and sexual activity rates began an almost two-decade decline with the availability and popularity of abstinence messages, bolstered by a small amount of public funding. So, it is truly terrifying to think that the new turning point of sex education is a 180-degree wrong turn - back into the clutches of Planned Parenthood."
[October 28, 2010, WASHINGTON, D.C., http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102807.html]

United Nations Agency Promotes Sex Ed: "Never Too Early to Start"
Promoting sex education to the youngest of the young has drawn harsh criticism to a UN agency and its interpretation of age-appropriate education.

“It is never too early to start talking to children about sexual matters,” according to guidelines issued by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Once highly respected for its independence and integrity, UNESCO now works in partnership with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS), an educational arm of the controversial Kinsey Institute.  

Last September, a torrent of criticism greeted new UNESCO guidelines on sexuality education for promoting legal abortion and masturbation for children as young as five.  The intensity of the objections forced the agency to pull the guidelines, only to quietly reissue new ones in December.

UNESCO acknowledges a former director of SIECUS is one of the principle authors of its sexuality guidelines.  The guidelines are cited authoritatively as a model of age-appropriate sex education in a new UN report on education rights that was roundly denounced by UN members last week.

UNESCO removed some of the most explicit language in the revised guidelines, but retained an appendix with “guiding principles” that includes a Kinsey-inspired sex education curriculum for children from birth to age five.  This curriculum instructs parents to provide anatomically correct dolls for young children to play with, inform them of diverse sexual relationships, and to be supportive of masturbation.

“If a child is touching his or her genitals in private, ignore the behavior,” suggests the curriculum.  Regarding gender identity and sexual orientation, the curriculum warns that parents who insist on reinforcing traditional gender identities will hinder their children’s growth.  “Confusion about these issues and fear of homosexuality (homophobia) has caused many parents and other adults to limit how girls and boys express themselves.”

One model curriculum included in the UNESCO guidelines tells instructors they should avoid moralization, as there are no rights or wrongs when discussing values.  In another curriculum, the authors note a contradiction when looking at “religious approaches and rights based approach.”  Yet another curriculum examines early sexual development, noting from birth to age two that children may “experience genital pleasure”, and by age three may engage in “sex play”.

Infamous sexologist Alfred Kinsey founded his institute at Indiana University.  Kinsey reached prominence in the 1940s and 1950s for his work in documenting human sexual behaviors.   Critics accused Kinsey of promoting pedophilia, pointing to his research that documented adults bringing children and infants to orgasm. The Kinsey Institute created SIECUS in 1964 as its educational arm. Its first director was Dr. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood.

A recent government report revealed that SIECUS received $1.6 million dollars in federal funding between 2002 and 2009.

Last month, a UNESCO working group released a new report calling for a new look at the UN moratorium on human cloning. The group proposed that only therapeutic cloning should be banned, which would allow support for research involving other types of cloning.

LifeNews.com Note: Terrence McKeegan writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group’s Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
[4 November 2010, Terrence McKeegan | New York, NY, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/04/int-1676/]

Countries Slam Attempts to Create New “Right” to Sexual Education at UN

Angry delegates took to the UN floor this week to denounce a report that promotes a new human right to explicit sexual education for young children.

The African and Caribbean blocs led the widespread hostility toward the report by registering their “strong rejection” and “strong disapproval.”

The report claims a new human right to sexual education citing non-binding recommendations and other UN reports including the controversial UNESCO guidelines on sexual education and the Yogyakarta Principles. The report's author, Victor Muñoz, argues that States have an obligation to ensure this new right “from the early stages of life.”

Bucking established procedure, Muñoz submitted his report to the UN without being present to defend his recommendations and analysis.

Muñoz pays lip service to the right of parents to choose their children’s education, which is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but adds “this authority may never run counter to the rights of children and adolescents.” According to Muñoz, comprehensive sexual education goes beyond simple biological or reproductive information.

Ignoring the ongoing heated debate at the UN over terms dealing with “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” Muñoz insists that sexual education include information on “sexual diversity.” Muñoz blasts abstinence programs, which he argues normalizes stereotypes and promotes discriminatory images because they are based on “heteronormativity.”

Muñoz added that denying the existence of lesbian, gay, transsexual, transgender and bisexual population exposes these groups to discrimination.

Though unable to address Muñoz directly, frustrated delegates representing Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Organization of Islamic Conference lined up to denounce the report. They criticized Muñoz’s single-handed attempt to redefine the human rights system and introduce controversial topics such as sexual orientation, sexuality education and gender identity as universally accepted concepts.

Malawi, on behalf of the African bloc, said there was “no universal agreement on the notions of sexual education.” Munoz's attempt to create a new right and reinterpret the existing understanding of human rights “flouted” the code of conduct, Malawi said.  The African group expressed alarm at what it called Muñoz’s selective use of quotes from other UN documents, which do not constitute a “truthful reflection of objective facts.”

The Caribbean bloc also registered its “strong disapproval of this attempt by Muñoz to create a new right within the universally established right to education, far exceeding his mandate.”  The Caribbean countries charged Muñoz with “indulging his personal interests at the expense” of delegations and demanded a re-written report that followed the guidelines set by the UN.

While many others -- including Russia, South Africa, Morocco, the Arab Group, the Holy See and the United States -- also denounced the assertion of a new right to comprehensive sexual education, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and Argentina were supportive. The European Union “fully and wholeheartedly” expressed its support for Muñoz and his report.

The General Assembly took no action on the report this week, but it is expected to consider it again in December. [28 October, 2010, Friday Fax, Volume 13, Number 46, Samantha Singson, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1726/pub_detail.asp]

SEX TRAFFICKING AGES 11-12

In the last few years we’ve all become very aware of the horrific crime of sex trafficking taking place all across the world – even in our own communities. From news stories to movies and from celebrities to escaped former forced prostitutes, we hear people speaking out and we see the reality of this form of slavery. We ask ourselves, how can we stop this? Why does this happen? How can we protect our own children?

In researching this topic, we came across a terrific archived article by Janice Shaw Crouse about the link between pornography and sex trafficking. She offers her thoughts on our desensitized culture (like putting a frog in water and turning up the heat until he eventually dies). She talks about the addiction of pornography: there is a great demand so people make money supplying girls and boys who are younger and younger; “customers” will pay more for girls and boys who are 11 or 12 years old. Ms. Crouse suggests we demand that laws against obscenity be enforced. We agree!

The first step in protecting your children is to be informed. We have learned: don’t let them go to the mall alone, know their friends, educate them, know who you let into your home, limit them from online social networking sites and chat rooms, etc. Be an involved parent.
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net, 2 Nov 2010]

Pornography and Sex Trafficking

California Assemblyman Charles Calderon estimates that people spend over $3,000 every second on adult entertainment and that there is a new adult video produced every 39 minutes.  California lobbyists for the adult entertainment industry estimate that they employ 50,000 people and generate $4 billion a year.  That multiple billion dollar figure reveals a pivotal fact about obscenity and pornography. They’re big bucks and big business.

Of course, we have laws on the books about obscenity and pornography, but, amazingly, obscenity is not taken seriously even by those legally charged with prosecuting offenders.  So, while the Department of Justice is not looking, our homes are being invaded by offensive language, suggestive advertisements, blatantly obscene so-called “entertainment” and movie scenes that make “dirty dancing” seem tame.

Many people defend anyone’s right to produce, distribute and consume obscene materials. They call us prudes when we object to the pornification of our culture. Evidently, they think it’s cute when little children are sexualized. They are blasé at obscenity on television and in movies. They shrug their shoulders at people who have a foul mouth or tell offensive jokes and use crude, vulgar language.

They just don’t understand the ramifications of cultural disintegration. Yet, those who know the facts understand that small seedlings of the obscene can grow into giant sequoias of criminal sex networks.

Once the predator sees someone as a mere object –– instead of a person worthy of respect and dignity –– that person can be used, and abused, for the personal satisfaction of the predator; then, it is a very easy step to becoming a pimp and using that person as a commercial sexual commodity.

Some people begin their downward spiral into pornography addiction by perusing Playboy or Hustler or some free online adult porn sites. Having entered this gateway, some consumers crave the titillation of more graphic, perverted images to satisfy their desire for stimulation. Some of them need more violent, more sadistic images and, ultimately, they seek them out.

A research study of convicted sex offenders by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons became available last year; it will certainly disabuse those remaining people who think that obscenity and pornography are harmless indulgences.  The study found that more than 85 percent of prisoners convicted of possessing child pornography admitted to abusing at least one child.

Obscenity is also used to ensnare women and girls into prostitution and sex trafficking.  So-called “modeling agencies” or “modeling agents” take nude photos of girls and women and then threaten them with the exposure of these photos if they are unwilling to prostitute themselves.

Ultimately, it is a matter of supply and demand. When there is demand, somebody will see this as a profitable opportunity and supply the goods. When there is demand for children to be used sexually, that demand will be met by ruthless traffickers.

Many pimps and traffickers use pornography to initiate their innocent victims into their new life of sexual slavery.  The victims are shown pornographic films, over and over again for days at a time, so that they get hardened to accept the inevitable and learn what is expected of them.

The pattern of behavior is familiar; it follows the teaching technique of “translating image to action.” Teachers and coaches instruct the student to intensely visualize a desired outcome, act it out in the mind, and then it will become permanently imprinted on the psyche. With that technique, the teachers say, visualization leads to realization.

So it is with obscene materials and pornography. The johns watch porn, seeing violent and aberrant behaviors on film, then they crave the realization of what they have seen. Those obsessions drive them to the prostituted women and girls to get what they have seen depicted so graphically.

Cultural acceptance of pornography, stripping and prostitution is growing by the day.  There are shows like “Pimp My Ride” and Academy-award winning songs like “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” and they are not considered offensive, they are considered hip. In cities like Chicago and Miami, the “Pimp’s Ball” is a huge event where the pimps arrive in their outrageous limos, decked out in their “bling” and showing off their tattooed girls.

Such events make the point: if we do not enforce obscenity laws stringently, the ripple effect on the rest of the culture will lead to a tidal wave of degradation and destruction.

Stripper poles are now part of some people’s bedroom décor.  Pimp ‘n Ho parties are where the “in” crowd goes to have fun.  Pop Star, Beyonce, has just come out with the line of children’s clothing that looks like “pedophilia chic.” Dressing like a streetwalker is now considered an acceptable Halloween costume for young girls or a prom dress for a teenager.  There is even a line of clothing for infants called “Pimpfants.”  A culture where people have those attitudes and values makes it so much easier for traffickers to set up their business exploiting children, women and men. 

All of this should offend our sensibilities, but in today’s culture, it is no big deal.

Those films that are made in the San Fernando Valley in California?  They are very likely among the training tools used by sex traffickers from Malaysia to Mexico to Madagascar.  There is no escaping the fact that obscenity and pornography produced in the United States damages, demeans and degrades people –– including innocent children –– around the world. 

The question is: what are we going to do about it and do we care enough to insist that the laws against obscenity be enforced?

[Janice Shaw Crouse, http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2008/05/19/pornography_and_sex_trafficking/page/full/]



YOUNGER AND YOUNGER SEXUALIZATION
POSTED: NOV 02, 2010

How disappointing and sad to see women degrade themselves in the name of fashion. The popular Glee stars are the latest to objectify themselves by posing suggestively while dressed in young school girl clothes. This article states that this type of photo sends the message that if a woman wants to be considered appealing; she needs to appear young and sexual.

This is wrong and not the standard we want to set for our children. The sexualization of children at a younger and younger age is a growing trend.

True beauty, true worth and true love will not be found when one objectifies oneself or another. The truth is what we need to tell our girls: Knowing who you are and having confidence in that is what true beauty is all about – no matter your size, shape, hair color, eye color, etc. Stop beating yourself up for not looking like someone else. Modesty and purity are qualities that are appealing to a man who is worthy of your time.
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net, 2 Nov 2010]
[25 Oct 2010, Hollie McKay, Sexualization of School-Aged Girls Harms Women of All Ages, Expert Says, http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/10/25/glee-diana-agron-school-girl-sexualization-britney/#content]

QuickStats: Percentage of Persons Aged 15--19 Years Who Received Formal Sex Education* Before Age 18 Years, by Selected Topics --- National Survey of Family Growth, United States, 2006--2008
Based on responses to the question "Now I'm interested in knowing about formal sex education you may have had. Before you were 18, did you ever have/have you ever had any formal instruction at school, church, a community center, or some other place about: how to say no to sex, methods of birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent HIV/AIDS?"

During 2006--2008, 97% of persons aged 15--19 years received formal sex education on one or more of four topics before they were age 18 years. The percentage who reported receiving formal sex education on methods of birth control (66%) was less than the percentage who received education on how to say no to sex (84%), STDs (89%), or how to prevent HIV/AIDS (93%).

Alternate Text: The figure above shows receipt of formal sex education before age 18 years, among persons aged 15-19 years, by selected topics in the United States, from 2006-2008. During 2006-2008, 97% of persons aged 15-19 years received formal sex education on one or more of four topics before they were age 18 years. The percentage who reported receiving formal sex education on methods of birth control (66%) was less than the percentage who received education on how to say no to sex (84%), STDs (89%), or how to prevent HIV/AIDS (93%).
[November 5, 2010 / 59(43);1415, CDC, MMWR Weekly: CDC. National Survey of Family Growth, 2006--2008, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5943a8.htm?s_cid=mm5943a8_e ; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2006_2008_puf.htm ;
CDC. Educating teenagers about sex in the United States: NCHS data brief, no 44. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db44.htm]





Defining Modesty

From the book A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit, modesty "is a reflex, arising naturally to help a woman protect her hopes and guide their fulfillment-specifically this hope for one man. It isn't about snubbing men, but about postponing sexual pleasure until the time is right."

In dress, modesty "allows me to be taken seriously as a woman, without having to be desperate or on the other hand, having to pretend to be a man."
A Return to Modesty, Wendy Shalit, 1999
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net, 2 Nov 2010]

PARENT'S CORNER : A VOICE THAT STANDS OUT
POSTED: NOV 02, 2010

In a culture that seeks to destroy, we need to be the voice that stands out!

Will it be easy fighting the war on our overly sexualized culture?

No.

We have allowed our school systems to be polluted with the Kinseyan philosophy that children are sexualized from birth and therefore anything sexual is okay and encouraged. We’ve allowed schools to hand out condoms in 1st grade, to teach children how to put on condoms, to administer graphic sex surveys to children, to teach graphic terms and concepts before children are emotionally ready to handle them. This has got to stop!

Do not be disheartened in this fight. We know that a key to change is raising the next generation with good moral character. Teach purity, honesty, selflessness, commitment, integrity. Model for them the way you want them to be. Insist that your school not allow the pollution of your children’s minds.

Read more at about building good moral character at -- http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/spiritual_growth_for_kids/character_crew.aspx
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net, 2 Nov 2010]


PROTECTING YOUR KIDS ONLINE
POSTED: NOV 02, 2010
Social networking sites like Facebook are a common place that predators go to find their victims because the internet offers anonymity and easy access to children. FOX News recently reported an “underworld” on Facebook, which violates Facebook’s policies, but still exists using abbreviations and code words to get past the filtering system. Surprisingly though as uncovered by FOX News, some of these pages even used common terms and have gotten past the filters.

Enough is Enough offers some new safety tips to help you protect your children online. The bottom line is parents need to be involved in what their kids are doing by monitoring, educating and restricting use

To read article -- http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/21/exclusive-facebook-filters-fall-short-in-blocking-pedophiles/

For safety tips -- Enough is Enough -- http://www.internetsafety101.org/InternetSafetyrules.htm
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net, 2 Nov 2010]