web analytics

Why 5th Graders Should Have Anal Sex and Other Arguments for Abstinence

Presently making its rounds on social media is an article describing the shock parents had in Chicago to discover instructions on how to have safe anal sex and other sexual activities… designed for fifth graders. According to the article, “CPS says the material was mistakenly put in the presentation and is not intended to be part of the curriculum.”

Since the material is hosted on one of their elementary school websites and plainly described as being for fifth graders, this seems to me to be unlikely.  However, that is an issue for the good citizens of Chicago to explore.  I wish to make some other points.  However, for reference, you may wish to look at the presentation material that was on that website.  In case they remove it (likely) the link was here:  http://www.waterselementary.org/uploads/2/2/0/1/22017434/5_lesson5_abstinence_contraceptives.pdf and I have uploaded it to my site where you can download it here:


As a quick aside, Bill Clinton famously said that he did not “have sex with THAT woman” but according to this material, sex is defined as “Sexual intercourse – Activity where the penis or another sex object is inserted into the vagina (vaginal
intercourse), anus (anal sex), or oral cavity (oral sex).”  Much turns on the definitions of things, as we will discuss more, shortly.  (Does ‘is’ mean ‘is’?)

Let me bottom line this.

If anyone takes the time to understand the progressive liberal mindset, there is not one thing surprising about this.  If you fall into the camp described in the article as, “Many parents said that although they support sex education, the material went too far for elementary school students” you need a reality check, to put it mildly.  The same spirit that drives ‘sex education’ at all embraces teaching kids about all kinds of sexual activity–from birth.  If you want the government to provide sex education at all, you will inevitably find “material” that is “too far” sprinkled throughout society.  The goal is simple:  for one day, society to agree with them that no discussion about sex of any kind be “age inappropriate.”  If you happen to be one of these progressive liberals yourself, and find yourself similarly disgusted at the idea of teaching fifth graders (in this instance) to use condoms, in graphic, explicit detail, then you have REALLY got to get your head on straight.  It’s ‘your team’ that is behind this in the first place!

It is imperative that we realize that much of this push to sexualize our children and, indeed, all of society, is part of an overarching philosophy that goes well beyond the considerations made by local school boards.

Supposedly, ‘everyone’ agrees that this material is not ‘age appropriate.’   Someone involved clearly does, since the lesson plainly describes this as being for Grade 5.  My first impression when looking at this document is that whoever these people are, they figure that since it is generally accepted that fifth graders shouldn’t be having sex (yet…), teaching ‘abstinence’ should be a no-brainer, and certainly well within societal norms. Here are the Lesson Objectives:

  • Students will define abstinence in relation to human reproduction.
  • Students will identify abstinence as developmentally appropriate sexual behavior for 5th graders.
  • Students will identify people who can support their decision to practice abstinence.
  • Students will compare and contrast contraceptive methods, including: abstinence, withdrawal,barrier methods, and hormonal methods.
  • Students will identify places to access reproductive health care.
condoms for both boys and girls

the pink condom is for the transgenders? What is the meaning of this bigotry!

From this, one might expect the presentation to be significantly weighted towards abstinence (that’s great, right!).  However, of the 61 slides, 54 of them are devoted to ‘safe sex.’   There are, literally, only three slides dedicated to abstinence.  Oh.  And a worksheet called “My Goals” with cutesy, age appropriate smiling stars.  Why they didn’t go with erect penises is beyond me.  After all, they already have smiling condoms on the slide on page 25.  I would have gone with that.  — >

Now, I ask you:  in a presentation geared towards ‘abstinence’ with 88% of it devoted explicitly to actually having sex, or what can happen if someone has sex, what is the actual message these fifth graders can be expected to take away?   I mean, seriously.

Before I take some time to corroborate my claim that this is part and parcel of the liberal worldview, I would like to first call attention to some of the elements of blatant deception built into this transparent propaganda piece.

First of all, note the slide on page 35 which covers “Emergency Contraception.”  The Morning After Pill is categorically described as “Not [an] abortion pill.”  Well, yes, if you define pregnancy as only beginning after implantation, then it is not.  But why define it that way?  Be honest, you know exactly why.   Here already in the fifth grade, ten year olds are being given the idea that pregnancy does not begin at conception, so whatever you do before implantation is “no big deal.”

You might say that this kind of nuance is not appropriate for fifth graders.  Right!  Let’s instead go over some female anatomy!  Actual slide below:

vagina-slideMoving on.

We have one deception where an ‘abstinence’ presentation seems actually designed to promote promiscuous behavior.  We have another that plainly plays into laying the groundwork for a treating unborn children as throw away fodder, which is itself a linchpin that holds the entire pro-choice position together.  There is an additional deception (albeit, it may be self-deception on the part of the presentation designers) that you can avoid pregnancy and STDs, even apart from abstinence, by using certain forms of contraception.

Now, the presentation quite correctly states that abstinence is 100% ‘protective’ of both pregnancy and STDs (in the latter case, “however some STIs can spread by genital contact alone.”) but states that condoms “protect[] against STIs and pregnancy, and oh, by the way, are available and “Free at most school based health center or community centers.”  I know if I was a fifth grader striving to be abstinent, I’d be happy to discover that I could still have as much sex as I want without consequence, for free, without my parents even knowing (see slide on page 37), if I use a condom.

This point is made in various ways throughout the presentation.  For example, on the slide on page 40, we learn:  “Just like male condoms, [Female Condoms] help reduce the risk of HIV, STIs, and unintended pregnancy.”


Sorry, I have to digress for a moment.

Some of the other benefits of using the Female Condom, which every 11 year old should know, is that you can insert them “hours before vaginal sex, so you don’t have to interrupt foreplay to be safe.”  Best of all, perhaps, you can use them not just vaginally, but also anally!  AND… wait for it… wait for it… the Female Condom is for “EVERYBODY!”  Women, men, transgender folks, gay, straight and, here’s a great feature, in “Any position.”   They don’t even need an “erect penis.”  And, every fifth grader will be pleased to know, they “adjust to body temperature, so both you and your partner can feel the heat.”  Oh, baby.  Feel the heat.

Now, the average fifth grader might be a little intimidated by the mechanics of using a Female Condom.  Great news:  they offer step by step instruction on how to use it vaginally, and, as an added benefit, anally, too.  Note the male genitalia:

female condom in the anuses of men

Of course, if you use it anally, every pre-teen should remember to use lots of lube, a point cleverly emphasized through age appropriate kid friendly innuendo:

lube up, youngster

Does anyone else think that it is not the sexual behavior of young people that is the public health menace, but rather the…

Alright, digression over.


In a comparison chart at the end of the PDF we get a good look at all of the birth control outcomes.  Abstinence gets the big green check… hurray for logic!   So also the male and female condom.  Everything else gets the big red X… for some reason the STIs get graphics, but the ‘effectiveness at preventing pregnancy’ gives us a percentage.

Now enter the deception.

The slideshow and the comparison chart (which is for the adults?) state, correctly, that condom use is not 100% protective.  The male condom is said to be 84% effective against pregnancy and the female condom is said to be 79% effective.  Both have the green check mark (which relates only to the STIs, not the pregnancies), but the fine print says that condoms only ‘help prevent STIs’ or “Offers protection against STIs.”

What are we to make of this?  It seems to me that both child and adult will come away thinking that there are two good options for them, abstinence and condoms, even though there is still a 16-21% chance of pregnancy and still a possibility of getting STDs.

What shall we call a child–nay, anyone–who has sex a hundred times?  A parent, if these rates are accurate (I’ve actually heard liberal sites promote a much narrower percentage).  This is great news for organizations like Planned Parenthood, that really need the business.

Anyway, I can’t see how kids, and perhaps even adults, won’t come away from this presentation thinking that so long as they properly wear condoms (and instructions ARE given, see page 16) they can have as much sex as they want, anally, orally, whatever, and all will be well.

Now, personally, I have trouble believing that this kind of thing is ignorance or ideological blindness.  It seems to me that the ‘experts’ have got to be aware of this, and not only don’t give a damn, but are actually trying to generate unintended pregnancies and STDs.

I felt I needed to give at least some measure of a critique before talking about the sources.

This is interesting, I think.  The presentation is backed up by links from reputable (in our present society, anyway) sources and sites.  There is of course that bastion of women’s reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood.  If anyone has incentive to reduce the number of pregnancies, its them!   We have a link to Bedsider.org, which is a project of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and has a number of competent people who can be expected to be totally unbiased.  They have another project, where they offer ‘fun and games‘ trying to persuade people to wait, but of course pretty much assume nobody will.  The CDC is linked… who can argue with the CDC.  Those people are brilliant.  And let’s not forget the National Institute for Health.

Indeed, the first line in the document indicates that the goal is to “comply with CPS policy requirements for comprehensive sexual education at the 5th grade level’ as reflected in National Sexuality Education Standards.   These standards, which appear to be part of the Common Core package (I need to verify this) can be found here.   It certainly seems that that this presentation is consistent with those standards.

I go into this because I think that any of us who get bent out of shape about this and direct our ire exclusively towards our local school boards are totally missing the point.  These are not locally driven initiatives.  They are backed by national organizations that are deemed credible and reputable such as the NIH and CDC and Planned Parenthood.   The NIH and CDC, of course, are government organizations.  Take some time to check out the members of the various sources. ‘Experts’ and PhDs, every one of them!   What we have here is a liberal progressive outlook on human sexuality enshrined at the very top levels of policy making.

This is not an aberration.  This is reality.  If you don’t like what is coming down the pike, and you are a liberal, then you need to rethink governmental involvement in these affairs AT ALL and, more than that, you need to rethink your entire ideology.  If you are a conservative and sympathetic to this post, you need to delve deep into the agendas that are driving these things and fight them at their source, and not get distracted by sideshows.

a guy who really likes female condoms

everyone should want to protect their anus. do NOT judge.

Now, what I had not noticed on other blogs about this was the fact that despite the presentation being backed by innumerable reputable sources, it was created by the Chicago Female Condom Campaign and adapted from The Fenway Guide to LGBT Health.  (panel page 60)  It also draws from an organization called The Pleasure Project where we learn that they intentionally use ‘guerrilla tactics’ trying to use pleasure to prevent… badness, I guess.  (I’m afraid to know what I’m looking at in the background image on that page.)

You’ve just got to understand that the liberal ideology is advanced deliberately through lies and deception, and whenever possible, at taxpayer expense and through public institutions.  If you don’t understand this, we’ll never see the end of such things.


If you are a liberal, and this troubles you, its time to do a re-think.   These are your peeps, working within avenues that you helped establish and advocate for and wish to fund (using other people’s money, typically).  But if you are a conservative, it means that we must be vigilant and active at every level, all the time, and in every way, state, local, and Federal.

Gird up your loins.

The folks at the Chicago Female Condom Campaign probably have a slide to show you how to do it, but its probably in their submitted curriculum for third graders.



Skip to comment form

    • Anthony on November 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    I’m a little surprised that Tim and DBH haven’t wanted to weigh in on this one. I wonder why.

    • End Bringer on November 29, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Seeing how this issue relates to the liberal mindset that sex has no boundaries (or at least none universally agreed on by liberals) that helps justify gay marriage, promiscuity, abortion-on-demand, etc. I’m a bit surprised they haven’t contributed the standard “it doesn’t affect anyone else at all” line myself.

    • Timaahy on November 29, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    I can’t speak for Devious Bodily Harm, but, personally, I saw the heading and it was enough to put me off.

    I don’t think many people think 5th graders should be having anal sex.

    • Anthony on November 29, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    That’s the right reaction. Now it just needs a firmer foundation.

    • Anthony on November 29, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    In the same spirit of this article and my last comment, I don’t know if you saw this on my FB:


    I don’t know how it works in the UK or in Australia, but in the US, age 13 is right around 7th grade. This curriculum was geared towards 5th graders. Think about that when consider this quote from the article:

    “The fact it happened after a sex education class I am sure gives concern about the teaching of sex education in school,” Russell told the South Wales Evening Post, adding that in her opinion the solution to this type of misbehavior is more sex education, “and much earlier than 13, I would say.”

    Not just earlier, but much earlier. In response I wrote:

    Reminds me of the C.S. Lewis quote, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful.”

    The idea here is that you shouldn’t be surprised if you sexualize children (or anyone, for that matter), whilst obliterating any reason why they should pay heed to their conscience, and then act out on that sexualization.

    Teaching 5th graders about how to have safe anal sex does not flow from my worldview.

    • Timaahy on December 4, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    Teaching 5th graders about how to have safe anal sex does not flow from my worldview.

    What about teaching married heterosexual couples how to have safe anal sex? Does that flow from your worldview? Or at least, does your world view condemn it?

    • Anthony on December 4, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    I believe that is called a ‘red herring.’

    • Timaahy on December 4, 2014 at 11:07 pm

    No, no, not at all.

    I’m trying to ascertain whether you’re against all anal sex, or just anal sex between young people and grown men.

    • Timaahy on December 4, 2014 at 11:07 pm

    As in, between two young people, and two young men. Not between a single young person and a single grown man.

    Although I guess you’ll try and say that my world view should be in favour of that, too. 🙂

    • Anthony on December 5, 2014 at 7:10 am

    So your question was genuine. I thought you were being snarky and trying to make a point. 🙂

    The overall morality of anal sex was not on my mind at all in this post. I think that most people will allow at the minimum that it is distinctively more mature fare than typical sexual intercourse. I say ‘most’ because of course there are people who see no distinction between the two, as evidenced by this curriculum and some other material I’ve encountered over the years.

    If I were going to speak on the overall morality issue, I would make it a separate post.

    “Although I guess you’ll try and say that my world view should be in favour of that, too”

    Well, there is NAMBLA, right?

    Anyway, maybe not in ‘favor’ but hard-pressed to find a non-arbitrary, objective objection.

    I reckon DH should be along any time now to give us incidents from the animal kingdom where the older critter and younger critter went at it; in the old days he liked to produce such anecdotes as proof that Darwinism was compatible with human homosexuality. Always good fun.

    • Timaahy on December 7, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    I would actually very much like to see a post about that. For purely academic reasons, obviously. 🙂 (but seriously)

    The point is actually relevant for this post, however.

    If you’re against all anal sex, in any and all circumstances, it renders your opinion on sex education a little less credible. Kind of like Cliven Bundy’s opinion on the Trayvon Martin case.

    • Anthony on December 7, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    The only way I would conceivably allow that it is relevant is if the person I was talking to thought that teaching 5th graders how to have safe anal sex was a good thing. Since you also seem to find this objectionable, it hardly matters what I think. If anything, the ball is in your court–presumably, from your comments here and your other comments elsewhere in support of homosexual ‘marriage’, you do not have any objections, in principle, to anal sex. That being the case, why should you object to teaching 5th graders the ‘ins and outs’ of it?

    • Timaahy on December 7, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    Because I recognise that there is nothing wrong with anal sex between consenting adults, and lots of things wrong with anal sex between 5 year old children even if they are consenting, but there is a point between 5 and 25 where the consequences of engaging in it without proper education are greater than the consequences of the act itself.

    • Anthony on December 7, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    Ok, first of all, its 5th grade, not 5 year olds. 5th grade in the US education system is 10-11 years old. Just to be clear.

    I’m confused by your reasoning. Isn’t the whole purpose of this curriculum to provide ‘proper education’? After these lessons, I’d say these kiddos are well-equipped for some of the best anal sex ever!

    We’ve been talking about the anal sex, which I maintain nearly all parties will agree is a different level of things. Your comments seem to imply agreement on that. Do you think that explicit instruction even on typical intercourse (explicit like this curriculum is) is also very inappropriate? I do.

    • Timaahy on December 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    Yes I know that. The 5th graders are part of the “point in between”.

    Yes, I agree that anal sex is a different level of things. In some respects.

    Re: your question… Very inappropriate for 5th graders, you mean?

    • Anthony on December 7, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    Yes, that is the context in which I was speaking.

    • Timaahy on December 8, 2014 at 12:38 am

    Well then yes, I think that teaching 5th graders about anal sex is very likely inappropriate.

    Children develop at different rates, and there will always be some children who are ill-equipped to deal with such information, no matter what age you teach them about it. Without being an expert in such matters, I would hazard a guess that nearly all 5th graders fall into that category. As I alluded to above, however, there is an age at which the greater risk is not teaching them.

    Also… Anal sex would tend to prevent a lot of abortions, eh?

    • Anthony on December 8, 2014 at 1:46 am

    Why sure, you’re right. Anal sex would prevent abortions. Not great on the STD front, but there is THAT. In the spirit of that, I’ve heard that eating ice cream will also prevent abortions. Also, my typing this comment will also not lead to pregnancy–and thus, prevent abortions. We could also cut off all penises everywhere, and thus prevent abortions. While we are at it, not only would that prevent abortions, but it would also end rape.

    You’re not for rape, are you, Tim? Then you should happily agree to be first in line to be emasculated. To end rape. Also, for the children. Always for the children.

    By the by, exterminating the whole human race would also end abortions, eh?

    So you can see what I think of that argument.

    Your comment “there is an age at which the greater risk” is precisely the kind of liberal ideology that leads to teaching 5th graders the finer details about all kinds of sexual activities. The problem is twofold.

    1., as I have often mentioned to DH, it is really irrelevant that this or that liberal thinks such curriculum is too extreme. Or that we should be busting up 5th grader’s lemonade stands. Or legislating dust. Or whatever other ridiculously stupid ACTUAL event transpires. Because somewhere there is a liberal who thinks these (and more) are mighty fine ideas. It is just your opinion that 5th grade is not appropriate–from this perspective. Because your ideology is a nightmare that is unbounded by facts and reality (I’m trying to be nice) it is inevitable that somewhere, one of your fellow travelers is going to propose and actually implement NONSENSE. The fact that YOU happen to be a decent chap with some common sense is an insufficient barrier to the conduct of your fellow travelers.

    Certainly, you probably have views that some of those same fellow travelers likewise thinks is ridiculous. Remember, you yourself admitted that you were speaking “without being an expert in such matters.” Surely you should defer to those who are?

    2. the situation is compounded by the fact that people with your ideology tend to see utilizing the government to get what you want a VERY GOOD idea. As a consequence, they gravitate to the government, and tend naturally to be represented in greater numbers in the government than people who wish the government to have a more limited roles. Thus, it is not only inevitable that somewhere out there is one of your fellow travelers with bizarre notions that even you would reject, it is inevitable that they will be in a position of power and authority and able to act on their nutjob notion. Eg, only 10 public health directors out of 100 think they need to chase enterprising 10 year olds out of their lemonade stands, but that’s still 10 that are going to do it. Well, you can’t very well simultaneously be the public health director for 100 communities, can you?

    So, your idea about a ‘greater risk’, even if valid, is an entirely subjective matter that can only lead to abuse. It can NEVER end well, because none of your fellow travelers will ever agree on what is reasonable and what is extreme, and they tend to gravitate to positions of power.

    As a third note, I personally find your comment to be bigoted in the same way that DH’s comment was bigoted. Soft bigotry, to be sure. The assumption behind such a comment can only be that people are idiots who will not be able to manage the world without ‘experts’ looking over their shoulders every step of the way.

    I almost wonder sometimes if liberals think that people should perform their first sex acts in front of a panel of experts, just to make sure that everything goes alright.

    In that same spirit, a fourth and final note: have you ever considered the possibility that the reason why it might be a “greater risk” is specifically because our certain factions in our society (*ahem* liberals *cough*liberals*cough*) insist on portraying risky behaviors as perfectly fine and acceptable? You’ve got to tell the fifth grader to lube up for his (or her) first anal session because in seventh grade the health teacher, following the state curriculum, is going to say, “Abstinence is maybe a good idea, but honestly, we expect you to have sex, and that’s ok. It’s good and healthy. Oral, vaginal, anal, whatever, just use protection. Have at it, lads and ladies. But at least make sure the person is ‘special’!”

    That is a typical liberal outlook and everything in reality tells us that the kids who receive such messages are going to engage in sexual activity.

    I doubt very much that there would be a “greater risk” at all, even on your view, if our secular society didn’t treat sex and abortion as the only 2 divine sacraments, not to be withheld or delayed, under any circumstances.

  1. While purchasing, ensure the cut suits the perimeters of the glass properly and is near to
    the lens, without touching it. Many people surprise how an optometrist
    differs from an ophthalmologist from time to time.

    • Barry Obama on January 6, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    What is the fascination people have with picturing children having sex, of any type? The people that come out with sex topics, show what is going through their minds. I wonder if it is caused by personal experiences at those ages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

eighteen − 2 =