Quoting Quiverfull: Put Sex Ed Back In The Home, Not The School

Quoting Quiverfull: Put Sex Ed Back In The Home, Not The School March 17, 2014

by an unidentified someone at Ladies Against Feminism as “Putting Sex Back in  Sex Education, Home Education” after author read a Camille Paglia article about fixing sex ed in the public schools originally published in Time Magazine. The great comedy of this all is that the LAF gals have agreed with the ideas of a *gasp!* lesbian! Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t LAF rant against homosexuality in all its forms usually? Most confused here.

What Camille actually said:

The refusal by public schools’ sex-education programs to acknowledge gender differences is betraying both boys and girls. The genders should be separated for sex counseling. It is absurd to avoid the harsh reality that boys have less to lose from casual serial sex than do girls, who risk pregnancy and whose future fertility can be compromised by disease. Boys need lessons in basic ethics and moral reasoning about sex (for example, not taking advantage of intoxicated dates), while girls must learn to distinguish sexual compliance from popularity.

Above all, girls need life-planning advice. Too often, sex education defines pregnancy as a pathology, for which the cure is abortion. Adolescent girls must think deeply about their ultimate aims and desires. If they want both children and a career, they should decide whether to have children early or late. There are pros, cons and trade-offs for each choice.

Unfortunately, sex education in the U.S. is a crazy quilt of haphazard programs. A national conversation is urgently needed for curricular standardization and public transparency. The present system is too vulnerable to political pressures from both the left and the right–and students are trapped in the middle.

What Ladies Against Feminism are taking away from her article:

For those who are utilizing government schooling, well, here’s the reality of what you’re allowing your children to be taught; the very convoluted worldview of the delegated authority.She’s right. Girls  and Boys aren’t equal sexually. It’s surprising the contrary presupposition, an obvious lie, can even be foisted upon us.

She’s right. Girls  and Boys aren’t equal sexually. It’s surprising the contrary presupposition, an obvious lie, can even be foisted upon us.

A universal sex-ed program isn’t the solution. Common Core proves that. Government schooling is a major part of the problem as is Hollywood. Realizing that taking back the role of teacher from the Government will decrease everyone’s taxes is a great reason not to discuss reforming sex-ed. Agreeing that a universal solution is needed, that the nation across the board needs a sound message that includes biblical purity, pro-life, sound teaching on God’s creation of man and woman according to His design is a great place to start.

Moral law ought to be observed everywhere. She’s right on that point. Feminism corrupted our understanding of sexuality. She’s right on that point too. Lets pray she applies it. If you didn’t know already the author is a homosexual. Freedom to create homosexual support groups is obviously a failed conclusion as is reformed government education of sex-ed.

Comments open below

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Levedi

    I wish the LAF had better basic reading skills. In the same paragraph they assert that a universal curriculum won’t do and then assert that the key is a “universal” curriculum based on a single moral standard (theirs.)

    And in the next paragraph, they say “Moral law ought to be observed everywhere. She’s right on that point.” That’s the exact opposite of Paglia’s point which she made quite clearly. She wants morality taken out of the discussion entirely and for the school to take no stance on moral questions, thus neither supporting nor denigrating homosexual pairings. Paglia is being intellectually consistent in not wanting schools to take on the moral authority to defend or denigrate even if that means not defending her own particular special interest group. She doesn’t want schools to be anti-gay either, but neutral.

    So F for reading comprehension LAF. Also a D- for failure to distinguish between a set of skill and knowledge standards, which Common Core is, and a curriculum, which Common Core is not. But since I’m a bleeding heart liberal who emphasizes process writing and revision (you know, all that stuff they reject) I will let LAF revise their essay for 90% credit provided they go to the campus Writing Center and have at least one tutorial with me. Try again, Ladies.

  • SAO

    Obviously, she’s never read the first amendment, which makes a firm separation between church and state.

    Nor has she considered facts:

    1) States with the highest rates of teen pregnancy have the highest concentrations of abstinence-only sex ed, and

    2) 95% of Americans have had pre-marital sex, making preaching purity to teens highly hypocritical — and those teens will know it.

  • Nea

    In the same paragraph they assert that a universal curriculum won’t do and then assert that the key is a “universal” curriculum based on a single moral standard (theirs.)

    That’s a common failing of fundamentalist arguments; we saw it in the one about “you don’t need a career, you need the career we tell you to have” we saw yesterday. And this illogic is supposedly the result of “better” schooling at home? So. Not. Convincing.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    That’s why I posted both LAF and Paglia’s bits because LAF was busy indulging in scary reading comprehension fail.

    I have to agree with Paglia about the need to reform sex ed in public schools. What they are doing now doesn’t work, teens need the facts without judgement or shaming. Too bad they don’t end the sex ed classes with making every student tote around a Baby Think It Over. One week of that doll and my daughter was determined she was so not ready for a baby, leading to the birth control discussion.

  • Kindofa tangent, but “better” schooling also seems to result in finding monsters where none exist, like the recent kerfluffle over Frozen.

  • I do think it matters how they teach “purity.” I have yet to see something pro-“purity” aimed at teens that was fact-based and not chock-full of lies. Teens, sensibly, see these lies for what they are and pay them the attention they deserve (i.e. NONE).

  • Carry

    I don’t think fundies like LAF give two shits about separation o church and state, they just want everyone to have the same beliefs as they do. And they’re not alone, unfortunately. The Duggars recently said in an interview that they don’t even believe such a separation and use their organization Life United to inspire people with simular beliefs to get into office in order to “take America back for Jesus”.

    Christian Dominionists are a special kind of scary. They harken back to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.

  • “A universal sex-ed program isn’t the solution. Common Core proves that.”

    Ooo, look! the “Common Core” boogeyman. Common Core proves NOTHING. Kindofa tangent, but I get so sick of those pictures floating around the internet of math homework that makes no sense if all you were taught was memorization. *sputter, sputter* “Common Core BAD!”

    Here’s a thought – how about you ask some of the parents if they like the way their kids are being taught math? Parents whose kids are ACTUALLY in school systems with Common Core? Like, say, I dunno, ME. I LOVE that my kids are learning math conceptually and practicing reading comprehension. But what do I know? I’m just a pagan Catholic who doesn’t REALLY love my children.

    “Agreeing that a universal solution is needed …”

    Wait, what? Here’s a clue: you don’t get to say that universal standards are bad but universal solutions are needed. It doesn’t work that way.

    “… a sound message that includes biblical purity …”

    Whose definition of “biblical”? Can we just throw the kids a copy of Song of Solomon and tell them to go at it?

    “Feminism corrupted our understanding of sexuality.”

    How so? With the idea that women deserve orgasms too?

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    I’m not at all surprised, really. They obviously attributed a bunch of ideas to her that she does not actually hold but anti-feminists LOVE Camille Paglia and she pretty much returns the sentiment. A plague on both their houses…

  • tulips

    It has to be full of lies though because it’s entirely conceptualized and defined by a set of specific religious beliefs and parameters (a no no for public education) then designed backwards until they aren’t actually ~saying~ that (generic) you are ritually impure…merely implying you are defiled, diseased, corrupted, and of lesser quality/value/status.

  • I think you’re right about that as soon as the word “purity” is introduced. Because “purity” doesn’t mean anything and the world doesn’t work that way.

    What I was trying to convey with the quote marks is that I think there’s sensible reasons for deciding not to have sex until, say, at least until after high school. And I think we can successfully communicate that by being open, honest, and fact-based.

    So the net effect would be closer to what the “purity” people are trying to accomplish but using basically the opposite approach.

  • QF SexEd.
    For girls:
    Before marriage, sex is evil, wrong, shameful, and will leave you unclean for the rest of your life! Dressing immodestly will cause boys to want to have sex with you. Isn’t it amazing that you can help save the purity of your brothers in Christ simply by covering up?
    After marriage, starting from your wedding night, sex is amazing, beautiful, natural, and wonderful. You should never deny your husband the gift of your body. Be grateful that he is always in the mood for you!

    For boys:
    We know you’re visual creatures, and it is hard for you to stay pure in a world that is full of temptation. Try to only associate with girls who care enough about your spirit to dress and act modestly. Masturbation is from the devil, so when you get the urge-pray!
    Look forward to marriage when you can finally get to enjoy the body of another-as often as you want! Make sure to pick out a worthy, chaste girl (preferably younger than you). One that is mild and obedient and will never deny you her body or try to stop children from joining the family.

  • Nightshade

    Except the purity crowd won’t stand for young women even thinking they have a decision to make or options to choose from.

  • tulips

    I agree there are some very good reasons to consider delaying sex but I think the entire concept and not just the terminology involved in purity culture involve the belief that something is “lost” and “permanent value change” has occurred that transfers people from one category to another. No matter what they call it, this is the driving force behind the rhetoric. All of the real issues of intimacy, safety, respect, maturity…those are side issues that muddy the water or distract away from their real message.

  • SAO

    It has to be full of lies because correctly stated it would be, if you fail to qualify as “pure” then people who care about “purity” as so defined will not respect you or want to marry you, but you won’t have the least problem with people who think that “purity” has little to do with a person’s character, value or potential as a good life partner.

  • SAO

    My kids get facts without judgement or shaming in health class. What Paglia is talking about is that this type of sex ed is often focused on clinical facts and divorced from the issues kids face.

    Given that only 3% of married people waited until marriage, in a high school class, it’s a good bet that every kid will have sex before marriage. Will they make good choices about when and with whom?

    Being able to correctly identify and label the fallopian tubes on a diagram of organs and knowing the failure rate of diaphragms isn’t going to help them make good choices.

  • Sara Lin Wilde

    I don’t really agree with Camille either, tbh. There are reasons to gender-segregate sex-ed, perhaps, but “boys and girls need different info” ain’t one of them. If girls hear the boys get told, “It’s wrong to pressure a girl to sleep with you”, they gain confidence in resisting somebody who puts pressure on them. If the boys hear girls get told about all the sexual risks girls face, maybe they become empathetic and understand what they’re actually asking of women who they proposition. Everyone benefits from getting more than one tailor-made perspective.

    Not sure I like the whole “girls need to make decisions about fertility at 16!!” thing either. Really? I’m freaking out enough about having passed 30 still childless (due to circumstances not fully in my control, like a bad economy and no worthy candidates for the role of Baby Daddy) without having to deal with the fact Teenage!Me wrote “motherhood by twenty-five” into her long-term plan and now I’m failing at life.

    As for the Ladies Against Feminism, I can’t even make enough sense of their argument to talk about why they’re wrong. Blah blah blah moral law blah blah we hate gays.

  • tulips

    I’m conflicted re things like Baby Think it Over because…really…a few months of high need 2 am feedings infant are the least of your problems if your are a pregnant teenager and because it doesn’t really address any of the issues that teenagers actually are facing pre-emptively. Seems like boogeyman 2.0? If it starts conversations about birth control and boundaries…awesome. I just wonder whether that’s the norm or if kids more often manage the slightly inconvenient and completely inanimate doll and think the boogeyman has no teeth?

  • Joy

    “Can we just throw the kids a copy of Song of Solomon and tell them to go at it?”

    LOL. I used to read that during church when I was a bored teenager…

  • SAO

    Exactly. Kids need to know how to deal with pressure and how to avoid doing doing stupid things (like unprotected sex). The baby doll doesn’t do this.

    If fact-based scares worked, no teen would smoke. Everyone knows it’s bad for your health, that many people don’t like the smell, or to kiss a smoker but kids think they won’t get addicted,

  • Edie Moore McGee

    Leave it to LAF to bring in Common Core. I am not saying that Common Core is perfect — it is not! — but it’s becoming the go-to target for certain groups in the same way that the ACA is the bogeyman for all problems in health care, even the ones that were there for decades before the ACA passed.
    Camille Paglia makes a lot of sense. She often does.

  • Edie Moore McGee

    I am so with you on those homework pictures. I am thinking some of them are the creative efforts of anti-CC folks because I’ve seen the same worksheets with the same annotations circulated by a dozen different parents, all claiming it happened to someone they know. I sit there thinking, “I cannot believe any teacher would be stupid enough to do this.” You can’t get people on a mission to be reasonable, though. When I went through orientation at law school (George Mason), I remember one professor saying that the most important thing in life we could do was … think. Too little of that evident in the Common Core debate.
    And I’m incredibly sick of the HSLDA feeding these anti-CC groups like they’ve been doing. Parents are always talking about what a wonderful resource the HSLDA is for their cause.

  • $190147

    Above all, girls need life-planning advice. Too often, sex education defines pregnancy as a pathology, for which the cure is abortion. Adolescent girls must think deeply about their ultimate aims and desires. If they want both children and a career, they should decide whether to have children early or late. There are pros, cons and trade-offs for each choice.

    Camille Pagila is right. That is exactly what’s needed, and the fact that it’s what’s needed is the precise reason why girls growing up in this society won’t ever get it, least of all from La Paglia herself. People of Paglia’s philosophical bent (Kristine Kruszelnicki is another one such) often have a keen and piercing insight into what would make like better for girls and young women, along with a firm and unwavering determination that girls and young women must be taught to go without (whatever it is, fill in the blank) for the good of their souls or spirits or society or of generations to come. Again, fill in the blank. The reasons adduced for this course of behavior are many but the behavior itself doesn’t vary.

    Besides, imagine what the hullabaloo and the outcry would be, imagine how loudly Ms. Paglia (among others) would keen, were it to come about that girls in a public school system ended up getting something boys weren’t offered. Imagine the general reaction were a situation like that one to come to light. We’d be treated to long speeches about segregation and moral indefensibility and about what hypocrites secularists are. Blog posts galore would be devoted to the proposition public-school education coddles girls and is unfair to boys and that something ought to be done to stop it. Reformers would howl. Guys like William Saletan would write thoughtful pieces intimating that perhaps the believers in gender-apartheid are right after all, and other guys like Douthat and David Brooks would dredge up their usual blaa. And neither Camille Paglia (secular) nor the LAF women (churchly) would be discomfited in the least.

  • Trollface McGee

    I agree with Paglia that we need a comprehensive and better sex-ed that focuses on things other than just the mechanics (and don’t even get me started on the abstinence programs). I don’t know if it needs to be gender-segregated – I think sex-ed that teaches consent and respect for one’s body doesn’t have to be and I would prefer not to have segregation just because so many things can go wrong – especially with something this politically charged.
    As for LAF – I don’t understand their argument. Sex ed should be taught at home and their version of it should be forced on all students in school? It isn’t logically consistent. And the rest of it is just right-wing buzzword word salad. Common Core – check, feminism, lesbians, abortions – check and check.

  • tulips

    Yeeeeeah. Yeah. I’m leery about addressing the part of the equation that’s on the back end rather than front end issues such as not only dealing with pressure to have sex, but pressure to have sex without any limits or personal boundaries. Where is the instruction for scenarios such as ~wanting~ to have sex with someone but simultaneously needing to enforce a condom boundary in the face of pernicious whining and guilt tripping?

  • Isn’t that book funny? “My love, your breasts are like two gazelles ..”

    How? Are they going to suddenly jump up and bound away?

  • Nea

    I’m not entirely sure if that’s the fault of the schooling or the natural response to the scaremongering of everyone who wants to get money and obedience out of the scared.

  • Nea

    If it makes you feel any better, the people the Duggars shill for are doing terribly in elections.

  • Nea

    *laughing so hard*

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    If you ask me, comprehensive sex education will never really progress if it never gets past presenting sex as a “boogeyman” anyway. Obviously, we need to educate kids about the risks of sex but what about talking about pleasure, communication, sexual ethics etc.? I’ll give Paglia credit for one thing, she is at least advocating for a place for a discussion of sexual ethics in sex education and recognizing that that place is left out too often. Of course then she ruins it all by acting as she is the absolute first person to make this observation, when what she’s talking about is something that progressive sex educators are already very much in favor of (which is something she’d know if she actually researched the subject), insisting that implementing such an approach would require sex-segregation (um, why?), and bizarrely insisting that current sex education insists that boys and girls face equivalent risk. Um, no. I know of know sex education program that doesn’t at the very least teach that pregnancy is a thing that happens to girls and women and most sex education programs that give information about STIs will also point out that, generally speaking, girls having heterosexual intercourse are more vulnerable to them because that is, quite simply, medically and statistically accurate information. Nobody is arguing with that but Camille Paglia loves to argue with strawmen (well, most especially straw-women), the better to position herself as the brave purveyor of Real Talk who will Say The Truth That People Don’t Want To Hear. That’s basically been her whole career.

    I had baby-think-it-over in school. I hated it and I still think it’s pretty useless. It doesn’t address any of the underlying issues that cause girls to get pregnant as teens or even cause them to want babies as teens, which is A Thing. Many girls from low-income, high-risk backgrounds where teen pregnancy and single motherhood are common already live in homes with sisters or other young female relatives with babies, or with mothers who have children of a wide range of ages. They already know what babies are like. But they’re still having them so, clearly, having them embark on a project with the sole purpose of sharing with them that guess what, babies cry a lot like it’s some kind of revelation, is not cutting it. Which is no surprise to me, or anyone else who works with high-risk adolescent girls.

  • tulips

    This, you’ve articulated so well what I was getting at. The sex ed isn’t comprehensive ~enough~ and we still live in a cultural norm where girls are gatekeepers rather than partners in the sex equation + insert relevant variables here by the 1000 gallon vat. There’s a lot going on there, it’s complex socially, relationally, and individually. Handing a girl a fake baby that periodically fake cries isn’t even kind of addressing what’s actually involved in them getting pregnant.

  • tulips

    If I were a modern QF kid I’d walk away from Song of Solomon with some distinctly uncomfortable questions re infatuation…poly marriage/concubines/sex slavery… and the occasional gazelle boobed Shulamite in which this also seems to be accepted as a deity/human love story. Very uncomfortable questions indeed.

  • Hannah

    I’m not actually sure what the LAF argument even is in this case. But I have to disagree; kids need sex ed, and too many parents just won’t give it to them. Either at all, or until too late. Case in point: my MIL was raised conservative Catholic, Maltese family. She was traumatized when she got her period at 14, because she had never been told about it. Nurse wasn’t allowed to tell her without permission, so sent her home to her mother. Mother’s entire response was “best go get yourself some pads then”. So no surprise that MIL then got pregnant at 16 because she didn’t know that’s what could happen, married off at 17 to first guy who would take her because she was “damaged goods” and just couldn’t be a single mom, had two more, divorced early 20’s cause the guy was basically an a-hole. Younger bro in law wouldn’t even see his dad until the third time he had cancer, he despised him so much. She finally married FIL in her late 20’s. She wouldn’t give up her kids for anything, but even she admits that she would have made MUCH different choices if she had simply known the facts of life. And made sure to educate her kids, to make sure that that what happened to her never happened to them. So no, I don’t and can’t necessarily agree that sex ed should be left only to the homes.

    Current system does need some changes, but not in the way the LAF ladies are arguing for. Kids need to know about hormones, desire, birth control, menstruation, ejaculation (yes I think both sexes need to know about both those things. Not knowing made sex a bit weird at first when I got married). And how to treat each other above all.