I had just stepped down from the podium after my lecture at an education conference in 1991 when an anxious youngster, about 14, approached me. "Dr. Reisman," she whispered, "could I speak to you for a moment?"
"Of course, dear," I replied, wondering how I would handle what might be her delicate question. The girl, "Sandy," moved us aside so no one could hear our conversation.
"Dr. Reisman, I have a question about what you were discussing." (I quickly thought back to my presentation and was sure I hadn't said anything too advanced or graphic. What could it be?) Sandy took a deep breath. "Our teacher told us that we can use Saran Wrap in case we don't have a condom," she said.
"But sweetie, I didn't say anything in my lecture about condoms," I responded, somewhat confused. "However, I certainly do not want you or any other unmarried youngster having sex. No sex, no worry about condoms," I said, as gently as I could.
"Well, yes, I know," nodded Sandy. "But I'm not asking for myself," she added quickly, "I'm asking for my friend."
"Honey," I murmured, "I think you misunderstood your teacher. She couldn't have said to use Saran Wrap if you don't have a condom. That is insane; you must have misunderstood."
"No, I didn't," Sandy insisted. "That is what my teacher said. But that isn't the question," she added quickly. "I mean, the question my friend asked is, if you don't have Saran Wrap, can you use tin foil instead?"
I cannot recall the heart-to-heart I gave young Sandy, one of millions of young victims of sex-ed. Flying back home, I saw the "tin foil" query as evidence confirming neuroscience data that show that children's brains are not mature enough to handle such provocative "sex education."
I was convinced Sandy had misunderstood her teacher. Considering the Planned Parenthood propaganda about using condoms properly for "protection," who could possibly recommend Saran Wrap?
Government-funded sex educators, that's who. Sitting on my desk at home was a 1991 New York Centers for Disease Control brochure, "The Teenager's Bill of Rights," which, as Sandy had claimed, told children they had "the right to decide whether to have sex and who to have it with." It was graced with graphic pictorial directions for the children.
That 1991 brochure was for teenagers; today, middle-schoolers and even kindergarteners are exposed to such things. It told youngsters: "Use a latex condom for . . . oral sex (. . . into the mouth) and anal sex (. . . into the butt)." Both of these acts of sodomy were, of course, illegal, and still are - at least for children.
The brochure pictorially demonstrated the acts. It advised, "Use a dental dam . . . an unrolled condom cut down one side or plastic wrap for oral sex . . . in your mouth." Sandy had been right after all, except there was no product name, just "plastic wrap."
The pamphlet was produced and distributed by the Division of AIDS Services, under the auspices of the New York City Department of Health. But they're not alone.
In the years before most Salvo readers were born, much of today's "sex education" would have been considered criminal. It would instantly have been called "depraved" and counted as seducing or grooming children into sex, or "contributing to the delinquency of a minor."
Encouraging children to engage in any kind of sexual activity (alone or with others) was immoral, shameful, and criminal. Even talking about sex in front of underage children or showing them sexually charged or graphic images - who but a sex deviant would do that? Today, it is likely that a sex-ed or "health" teacher in grade school would.
My colleague, Liberty University attorney Matt Barber, wrote in an October 30, 2012 article for CNS online: "Graphic sexual images and explicit 'values neutral' talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators."1
Michael Heimbach of the Criminal Investigative Division, Crimes Against Children Unit, FBI, testified before a U.S. Senate committee on May 1, 2002, that child molesters:
In other words, he said, molesters "groom them into a sexual relationship." Yet much of the above also describes what takes place in government-mandated sex-ed. Moreover, depictions of sex acts in cartoon form that imply the participants are or could be minors are arguably child pornography.
Given Heimbach's description of grooming, that 1991 "health" brochure groomed children for sodomy. Fully twelve years before the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawrence v. Texas) legalized sodomy for adults, plastic-wrap-prophylactics were recommended to children in New York, to commit oral sodomy.
A few years after the Lawrence ruling, schoolhouse sodomy hit the news. In 2007 the headmistress of an exclusive Manhattan private school was convicted of sodomizing a 13-year-old boy student.3 Illinois Maine Township High School District 207 was the scene of the 2008 sodomy of a 14-yearold boy by his baseball teammates, watched by their coach.4 In 2012, the same coach oversaw varsity soccer players sodomizing younger boys - dubbed "hazing."5 Families filing lawsuits claimed that "sexual abuse has been occurring as part of rituals at the school for as long as six years."6 In December 2011, a Salt Lake City Utah principal was arrested for the forcible sodomy of a young male student.7
Where did these high-school lads and their adult coaches learn that sodomy was just acceptable macho behavior? Thanks to widespread graphic sex-ed and pornography, even the youngest children now know about such acts before they reach high school. In June 2012, the Onalaska (Washington State) Elementary School principal delivered graphic oral and anal sodomy descriptions. The "11-yearold students were being given a lesson on HIV-AIDS," part of the "state-adopted curriculum."8 This is nothing less than state-mandated grooming of minors for sodomy. Isn't it also child abuse?