In the NY Post, columnist Andrea Peyser writes,
"Clearly, I was born too soon.
The city’s public schools are transitioning into a gross and kinky pleasure palace, with sixth-graders — kids as young as 10 — being drilled on such activities as sexual intercourse and oral sex. Plus, a cornucopia of deviant acts you wouldn’t perform without a defibrillator handy.
And all Mom and Dad can do is sit back and watch the perversion unfold.
In its infinite wisdom, the city’s Department of Education next year is mandating that kids starting in middle school sit through lessons that might be of special interest to pedophiles and other pervs.
Recommended texts for Sex Education 101 include “risk cards” that kids are handed so they can rate the relative safety of acts such as mutual masturbation. Also, condom usage (with an “oil-based lubricant”).
It gets worse.
What sixth-grader’s day would be complete without discussing the relative risks of oral sex? Anal sex, too?
And for youngsters seeking extra credit (or hot thrills), the Ed. Department’s textbooks suggest they go to a Web site run by Columbia University (, listed on Page 181 of the text “Health Facts”), that answers such burning questions as: “Foot fetish –normal?”
How about “sex with animals and STDs”?
The Web site discusses scatological material most freely found in Zuccotti Park — “is it safe to eat” and “drink?”
I need to lie down.
Yesiree, these burning subjects and more — high-school kids visit STD clinics and condom stores, noting lubricant content — are recommended by the Department of Ed. as part of the new, city-mandated studies in sex education. But, my quivering heart be still, this isn’t remedial reading for depraved, neglected or abandoned mutants. The curriculum has the seal of approval from educrats who see nothing wrong with indoctrinating innocents in sexual practices so perverse that adults would be hard-pressed to score 100 percent if quizzed on some positions.
“What kind of perverts do they have working at the Department of Education in New York?” asked my friend, Patricia, whose two kids — thank God — were removed from public school.
“If an adult were to show a young child sexually explicit photos or movies of people engaging in sodomy, etc., isn’t it considered a criminal act?” asked mom Pamela Shapiro, whose kids are too small for the perverted lessons.
Is it true? Are schools sanctioning what Shapiro terms “institutionally approved child abuse?”
Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott told The Post, “Abstinence is a very important part of the curriculum, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that teenagers who are choosing to have sex understand the potential consequences of their actions and know how to keep themselves safe.
“A significant percentage of our teenagers have had multiple sexual partners, so we can’t stick our heads in the sand about this.”
But psychiatrist Miriam Grossman, who has reviewed the materials, says kids aren’t safe. Not when the Ed. Department “relies on latex” — which ignores the high failure rate of rubbers.
Here’s yet a bigger rub: Parents can choose to opt out their kids only from contraception and birth-control classes. They’ll be stuck with lessons on “fantasizing,” “masturbation” (solo and mutual) and “oral, vaginal and anal sex.”
A real jaw-dropper comes from The New York Times, which usually approves of government-sponsored social engineering. It ran an Op-Ed piece by Robert P. George and Melissa Moschella of Princeton University that questions whether parents should fight against their kids being “graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts.”
“Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?’’ they wrote.
“Liberals and conservatives alike should say no.”
Lose the curriculum before someone gets hurt. — ANDREA PEYSER
Michael Benjamin