Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) comes in many forms and can be disguised under the banners of: (this is not an exhaustive list)
- “comprehensive sex education”
- “sexual education”
- “sexuality education”
- “education, information or counseling on human sexuality”
- “comprehensive sexual health education, information or services”
- “ sexual and reproductive health training, education or information”
- “sexual health education or services”
- “HIV/AIDS prevention education”
- “life skills programs”
- “comprehensive education on human sexuality”
- “health and human rights education”
- “rights-based sexuality education”
Great efforts are made to conceal the term “comprehensive sexuality education” and what it entails by using various formulations or changing it up a bit such as “comprehensive education on human sexuality.” However, all the formulations point back to the same thing—rights-based sexuality education for children for the purpose of indoctrinating them with regard to their alleged human right to sexual pleasure, pushing forward promiscuity, the LGBT agenda, and promoting abortion rights.
When laws are proposed calling for mandatory “evidence-based” or “medically accurate” sexuality programs, chances are that proponents of CSE are behind these laws as they usually claim that their programs are the only ones that are evidenced based or medically accurate.
CSE programs often incorporate many positive, noncontroversial elements like decision-making skills, life skills training, anti-bullying, HIV/AIDS prevention, gender equality between men and women, etc. This makes it more likely that schools will adopt such programs since they take care of a number of needs in addition to sexuality education; thus, programs are adopted in many cases without parents or even school administrators carefully examining the whole curriculum.
Finally, many CSE programs contain a passing mention of abstinence even though many advocates of CSE believe youth are incapable of practicing abstinence, but by mentioning abstinence, they can appease parents and administrators and give the impression that their program is an “abstinence-plus” program. However, the reality is that it is more about the “plus” with the primary focus on how to obtain sexual pleasure.
The danger of any law or policy calling for any kind of sexuality education lies in the fact that this term is so broad that it could include almost anything, which is exactly what CSE activists intend. The best approach when creating sex education policies is to insist on reviewing the actual CSE or sex-education program to be used and to refuse to blindly adopt references calling for any kind of education without knowing exactly what it entails. There is too much at stake for the health and innocence of our children to do anything less.
Adopting a definition for CSE is not wise as CSE activists are quite adept at including whatever elements are required for their CSE program to qualify. Also, the term “sex education” rather than “sexual” or “sexuality education” (the term “sexuality” opens the Pandora’s box of sexual possibilities) should be used.
The addition of the word “comprehensive” can mean anything and everything could be included no matter how graphic; thus, the term “comprehensive” in relation to sex education should also be avoided when making policies.
Finally, to protect children it is important to make sure that all sex education programs are opt-in programs rather than opt-out programs and that the rights of parents to guide the education of their children are always included when the any kind of sex education policy is established.