A new idea does not succeed by convincing the world of its brilliance. A new idea succeeds by having those who do not believe it dying off and being replaced by a new group who take it for granted.

–Linus Pauling



The current state of sex education in America might be likened to a house drenched in gasoline with the residents being told to cup their lit matches to avoid a house fire. Sex education has become an ideological tool of those with social and psychological agendas not rooted in even a marginal understanding of traditional morality. Reading the works of many modern sex educators would lead a normal person to conclude that their privates are really only advanced toilet fixtures designed to sustain a flush of orgasmic activity. Pregnancy, giving birth and raising decent families are only accidental to toilet sexuality. The main rule of toilet sex seems to be to get off, and the more often, the better. Drain the lizard!

      Beyond a brief description of sexual mechanics, a listing of various birth control methods and basic hygiene, what more does the active dick require? Certainly not dry-humping (having sex with your clothes on) or “outercourse” such as screwing armpits which has been suggested by various sagacious elements of the sex-education community.

      “Only you can decide,” has become the banner of the “ejaculate first, think later” crowd. Yes, only you can decide, but what do you decide with? Surely you do not allow your genitals to make the decision–do they ever say anything but yes? What moral tools are sex educators giving their charges? “Choice” seems to be their primary moral tool, which suggests that by making a choice regarding sexual activity, the death penalty, or abortion, that choice becomes automatically moral simply because a choice was made. This kind of sloganeering does a disservice to honest people on all sides of these issues. Choices are never good simply by being chosen. Having the option to choose wrongdoing may be important but it is not the same thing as a morally good choice.

      Ayn Rand used to speak about anti-concepts which obfuscate all discussion by simply being brought up. Racism, for example, can be used as anti-concept. If you are charged with racism, this charge alone may be sufficient to convict you in the forum of public opinion–never mind that you may in fact not be a racist. J. Edgar Hoover and other conservatives used to do the same thing by simply branding liberals “communists,” and liberal politicians later played the same game against conservatives, by accusing them of “McCarthyism.” These slogans are all examples of anti-concepts employed with a wide brush.

      Sex education itself has become somewhat of an anti-concept. If you are for it, you are progressive, but if you are against it, you are regressive, a conservative Neanderthal, someone possibly unconcerned about the well being and future of your children. If you are for sex education, conservatives may accuse you of not having family values (another anti-concept). Anti-concepts are simply no substitute for thinking. Often it is easier to think in terms of slogans, but morality and consciousness do not respond to sloganeering. Slogans are generally a sign of intellectual laziness and moral decline. Choosing between feelings is generally selecting a preference for one or the other. Real choice involves a dialogue of principle which presupposes some kind of moral and intellectual standards.

      Feeling is not a standard; it is a condition of energy reception. Feeling or emotion is not differentiated by more emotion. A set of standards, not rooted in emotion, is required to rise above feelings. People constantly argue whether or not how you “feel” about something is more important than how you “think” about it. The confusion arises because one can hardly exist without the other. From an experiential perspective, almost everything we do is first encountered at the level of feeling; however, to remain at the level of feeling is to remain at the level of undifferentiated reception only. There is little interpretation that can be done without mind or intellect. What you feel is much more touched by non-locality than your most abstract thoughts. Your thoughts and beliefs are already concretized in three and four dimensions and represent a distillation of much larger realities. You may or may not believe in God in the abstract but your experience of God at the level of feeling will be much greater than whatever thoughts you may or may not entertain about your experience.

The dance between mind and feeling reflects the dynamic that exists between the potency of non-locality and the actuality of locality. This is the most fundamental of ecologies and the failure to recognize that the energy of your feelings is directly connected to moral sensibilities is at the root of the modern denial of common sense.


Abstinence Programs

It is the parents’ privilege and responsibility to teach their children about sexuality, but unfortunately, many adults feel uncomfortable discussing the “birds and the bees.” Some parents are happier to have this uncomfortable situation taken care of by professional educators, but at some point in the well-intentioned process of providing information about sexuality to youngsters, an evil thing happened. Educators decided that how to instruction was required–without a corresponding moral blueprint. Now please, please, who is not going to do homework when those in positions of authority provide detailed instructions?

            One of the more influential players in the sex education game, for example, is the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States or SIECUS. The SIECUS position statements on sexuality are extraordinary (in my opinion) in both what they claim, and in what they do not say. Nowhere in the position statements is the word “moral” linked to the notion of self-restraint. We are, however, primly informed that it is “important” for religious institutions to promote the activities of those who might be deemed to possess alternative modes of sexuality. We are also informed that no one should feel guilty for choosing to masturbate or choosing not to masturbate! Apparently there is no moral difference between choosing to whack off or not whacking off! We are told however, that it is appropriate that adults should make it clear that masturbation should be done in private and not in public. Why only in private? If masturbation is a morally neutral act, why shouldn’t you jerk off in public? Unlike feces which cannot safely be deposited in a garbage can, quick drying semen can be safely deposited in any public receptacle! Discussing masturbation as a right without a corresponding teaching of self-restraint to go with it is a form of social suicide. One might as well say that no one should be disturbed at either drinking or smoking, or not drinking and not smoking. To say that there is no moral difference between doing something and how much you might do of something is an extraordinary verbal sleight of hand. The issue here is not guilt but rather the implicit denial of the bad consequences that a reasonable person might attribute to excess of any kind. The moral schema in “politically correct” social engineering tends to make sexuality a morally neutral toilet activity with zero energy consequences for the human psyche.

      My favorite piece of nonsense along politically correct lines is spouted by various sexual education groups that warn the public about “fear-based” courses of abstinence. What is amazing about these admonitions is the complete inability of the issuers of these warnings to make a connection between the increasing incidence of violence and misbehavior in public high schools, and the appetitive and sexual indulgence that their own programs may promote. You may walk the hallways of your local high school in terror of FIKI-driven adolescents but DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ALLOW YOUR CHILD TO BECOME CONTAMINATED BY FEAR-BASED ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS. It is interesting to note, however, that according to statistics[i] compiled by the National Institute of Justice, adolescent offenders are “prevalent” in reported incidents of indecent exposure. This Institute’s research also indicates that most sexual assaults are “a sexual expression of aggression.” Do you think that any of the young men in this report were attempting to cultivate sexual self-restraint? Does masturbation increase or decrease the incidence of FIKI among young men? Anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that the learning of sexual self-discipline is a tightrope walk that cannot proceed without a moral teaching to counteract the negative and violence-tending aspects of the sexual impulse in men.

      Without a specific moral code or a theory of Dick Management, organizations that provide sexual information may be providing a serious disservice to the moral health of the country. Modern day sex educators who are ethically and morally deformed simply cannot be allowed to run programs that have an enormous impact on the moral future of children. Indeed the argument should be made that sex education should be part of a larger course of moral instruction that focuses on the soul rather than genitals. Given many parents’ reluctance to discuss sexuality with their children, some form of instruction at an appropriate age may be necessary–but only if administered in a moral context.

      FIKI is a fundamental human problem that is not at all helped by educators cooing over sex fundamentals. It is time that FIKI came out of the intellectual closet and that responsible evolutionary scientists stand up and fight the reptilian holdover from the Jurassic age that is being resurrected by the dick-drained brains of the sex education crowd. We are like a society that uses reconstituted reptilian DNA to bring back Tyrannosaurus Rex. Is anybody in any doubt as to what the big reptile might do? The same may be said for the ASS and FIKI. These evolutionary holdovers are being fattened and grown by unethical sex education programs and value deficient education as a whole into a monster, which will consume us all, if we let the morally confused pedants in charge of social progress continue to have their way. Without Dick Management or at the least, a discussion of moral virtue, sex education can end up becoming a form of pandering. A panderer, such as a pimp, is of course one who caters to the vices of others. An educator who is really a panderer in disguise is doing both himself or herself, and the community, a disservice.



Losing the way of life, men rely first on their fitness;

Losing fitness, they turn to kindness;

Losing kindness, they turn to justice;

Losing justice, they turn to convention.

Conventions are fealty and honesty gone to waste,

They are the entrance of disorder.

False teachers of life use flowery words

And start nonsense.

The man of stamina stays with the root

Below the tapering,

Stays with the fruit beyond the flowering:

He has his no and he has his yes.

      –Lao Tzu, The Way of Life




·        How much self-control does a bully have?

·        How many car thieves do you think believe that casual sex should be curbed?

·        How many muggers do you think would agree that “spanking the monkey” should be a matter of concern?

·        How many impenitent murderers do you think there are that are concerned about whacking off?

·        How many rapists do not masturbate with great regularity? Do you think there are any?


[i] National Institute of Justice, ACCN: 105053




Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Chapter 16 Chapter 24 Chapter 29 Chapter 35