Spewing Misinformation and Ideology, A New York Times Op-Ed Spreads Unfounded Fears About Sex Ed

See our other reports on New York City’s sex ed program here.

An op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?” by Robert George and Melissa Moschella, is not as much about sexuality education as it is an overt example of how deeply the socially-conservative agenda is pervading all aspects of our culture.

This is no accident; it is an intentional, widespread campaign against not only sexual and reproductive health, sexuality education, women’s rights, and the inclusion of LGBTQ youth in anti-bullying measures, but also against the rights of young people to dare to want to access information that will make them educated consumers of the world in which they live.

This campaign started gaining momentum with the Tea Party (you know, the folks who applauded “Let’s hear it for letting someone who doesn’t have health insurance die!”), formerly considered to be more on the fringe, but who are now, inexplicably and horrifyingly, gaining legitimacy.

I’d like to highlight several core elements of social conservative propaganda—some of which appear throughout the piece—that continue to be used to manipulate people into thinking there is a concerted effort being made by educators to contribute, as the authors claim, to “the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages:”

1. Lie blatantly. If history has taught us anything, it’s that social conservatives believe that the end justifies the means. In their view, it is completely appropriate to lie to young people. This is what ignited the years-long battle sexuality education experts have fought to ensure that abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula be, at the very least, medically accurate.  These curricula lie to young people in order to scare and shame them out of having sex (even though research has shown that doing so is woefully ineffective). If in the end, a young person doesn’t have sex, social conservatives claim victory despite the fact that these young people may not have any self-esteem to speak of or know how to practice safer sex in the future.

2.  Use fear.  Sex ed wasn’t always such a controversial topic to teach, but social conservatives have turned the provision of school-based sexuality education into an adversarial “us against them” debate. They work to terrify parents out of trusting trained educators to provide children with the information they need to make healthy decisions, now and in the future.

In the Times Op-Ed, George and Moschella ask readers to imagine how they would feel if their child had just entered middle school and were provided with sex ed in which he [sic] was “…encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?”

Here they are trying to scare parents into believing that these terrible, awful, amoral educators are trying to undermine your parental authority. The lie inherent in this (see point #1) is that educators are telling young people to ignore what their parents have to say about sexuality. 

In fact, the cardinal rule for anyone teaching sex ed to young people is to always encourage them to talk with their parents, caregivers, or other trusted adults in their lives, and to press those adults to do the same, within the context of their own family’s values.

3.    Treat young people as idiots.  If we do that, then we will be guaranteed to have the “sovereignty” over them that George and Moschella espouse.  For those of us who work with and on behalf of young people, the disenfranchisement of youth that is embraced by social conservatives is particularly infuriating.  The thought is that if young people are ignorant, they will remain dependent upon their parents—and this is as counterproductive for the young person as it is for the parent.

If we do not see young people as inherently smart and strong with great capacity for learning and doing things independently of us, we are not infusing the positive self-esteem and strength they need to be independent beings in the world. Social conservatives think of young people as incapable and needing constant adult supervision and support, and then expect them to be able to navigate the world effectively as adults. This is as ridiculous as teaching abstinence-only-until-marriage and assuming that as soon as people are in a heterosexual marriage that they will miraculously be infused with the full range of knowledge and skills they need to have happy, healthy relationships.  All of this sets young people up for failure from the earliest ages. 

As a former college professor, I saw this firsthand when parents would call me to try to get  their child into an already-full class or discuss their child’s grades. I wondered whether these same parents would accompany their adult children to job interviews, help them ask someone out on a date, or be there to negotiate safer sex with a future partner.

Parents have to teach their children how to think for themselves. We are not our children’s friends, we are their parents.  And from the moment we become parents, our job is to help our children eventually become independent from us.

When it comes to sexuality, an oft-quoted phrase that comes from SIECUS is that parents are the primary and most important sexuality educators of their children. But the reality is that far too many parents are simply not equipped to teach their children age- and developmentally-appropriate information about sexuality – any more than they are equipped to teach trigonometry even if they were math whizzes in high school. Giving birth or adopting a child does not automatically make us experts in all of the topics and skills young people need to know to be prepared to navigate the world as adults.  This is why we need to rely on educational, medical, and other professional experts—and, if we are a member of a faith community, our faith leaders—to help us.

Educating young people about sexuality should be seen as a partnership between entities that share the common goal of having them grow into sexually healthy adults, not as a faux struggle between parents and schools.  Yet because of (and only because of) the hyperbolic rhetoric spewed by those like George and Moschella, sex ed continues to be seen as a battle. 

This is as counterproductive as it is unhelpful. Young people deserve better, educational professionals deserve better, and parents deserve better.  I call upon us all to reject the rhetoric and focus on helping young people learn the content and skills they need in order to have happy, productive, rich lives.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • robin-stein

    Thank you for so brilliantly discussing the very real need for comprehensive sex education and its intersection with our obligation as parents.  As an adolescent therapist who’s been around for a while who also had the pleasure of raising a teenage son, I can tell you first hand that despite all of my knowledge and capacity to discuss anything openly, my son wasn’t necessarily ready to talk with me about sex at any stage in his development.  I’m glad that at the time, I was associated with an organization that did an amazing job delivering comprehensive sex education to an adolescent population and that if I was not an appropriate resource, he could certainly access that information elsewhere without the stigma or discomfort that might come from talking to his mom.  


    Thanks again for shining a light on this complicated issue!  



  • george1mccasland

    Sex Ed programs still withhold information from teen boys, like condoms are 100% INEFFECTIVE when the girl wants to get pregnant.

    What Boys Do Not Learn In Sex Ed

  • goatini

    Another misogyist nitwit spreading lying garbage about “women as sperm theft felons”.


    Get a Fleshlight.

  • ginny-in-co

    23 years ago NBC was running an ad for the upcoming weekend movies during the week, all hours of the day. By Thursday as I recall, my then 4 year old daughter asked “Mom, what is a two stud weekend?”

    Sex and sexuality are oppressive in our free market advertising and entertainment. Sex ed can hardly compete with all the messages these kids have gotten for years before they receive formal education.

    My daughter and her older brother both got age appropriate information from me as early as anything came into their lives that needed to be explained or exposed. I am an RN and had good success finding books to read to them with age appropriate content. I was increasingly happy with the fact that as they got older, there was no indication they were very hesitant to ask questions. (A little embarrassed sometimes, which I tried to dispel with love in addition to the information they were looking for.)

    Ultimately I was backed up by a terrific program you are likely familiar with. At that time the Unitarian Universalist Religious Education sex ed program was “About Your Sexuality.” AYS has since been updated to OWS, “Our Whole Lives” which integrates the program from K on. The reality for both my children was that in listening to their peers at school; the ignorance and misinformation prevalent was so accepted amongst the other adolescents, they generally didn’t even try to verbalize how wrong it was. 

    Both have been very responsible about sex, delaying first experiences until they were 20+. Oddly though, my daughter was the only one in that 8th grade AYS class who hadn’t had sex. Her first intimate relationship was doubly successful. An older male cousin had managed to ‘take advantage’ of her at age 7 (during a family holiday gathering @*!$^&!%). After a lot of counseling in her 20s, she was able to talk to the first guy she had been attracted to about what she needed – and he stepped up to the opportunity.




  • crowepps

    Sex and sexuality are oppressive in our free market advertising and entertainment. Sex ed can hardly compete with all the messages these kids have gotten for years before they receive formal education.

    Sex ed that doesn’t provide full information out of a concern about ‘exposing innocent children to perversion’ and therefore doesn’t address the kinds of things that they have already seen and read and heard isn’t going to be particularly helpful.

    The things I had the most trouble navigating with my kids were the ‘cutting edge’ print ads that hinted at edgey stuff and the nudge-nudge-wink-wink stuff like you referenced.  My daughter was about four when I discovered she and the plump, grandmotherly sitter were skipping Sesame Street to watch daytime soaps with plots requiring men to be shirtless while rolling around in the sheets talking about how they and their female companions were cheating on their spouses.

  • ahunt

    Yeah…as everyone here knows, we failed miserably in the abstinence arena, and not for lack of trying. Far more successful in the responsibility/commitment messages.


    Be that as it may…


    All of ours are readers…science fiction being the preferred genre early on. Heinlein, LeGuin, Bujold etc. It wasn’t the visual external messages…it was “literature,” Crowepps…


    Sigh…no winning…