A notable feature of the so-called Sexual Revolution of the ’60s, which really was just a continuing sexual devolution, is that what had theretofore been in the closet began emerging from it. This was marketed as liberation from “Puritanism,” and those opposing it were demeaned as “repressed.”
This movement continued metastasizing to the point where, now, many sexual devolutionaries consider even the common-sense request to keep carnal matters out of the classroom not just repression, but oppression. A case in point is a recent Kamala Harris statement about how kindergarten to third grade educators should “be able to love openly and teach what they believe is important for people to understand.”
Harris made her comments in a wide-ranging Sunday interview with a podcaster named Brian Tyler Cohen. After disgorging the usual left-wing talking points on various issues, the politician was asked about how the Biden administration could recapture the young-voter demographic, which it’s now polling with poorly. Harris then, among other things, repeated the common lie that the Florida parental rights law “says ‘don’t say gay.’” Even more significant was that she quite instinctively, without thought, stated that teachers should be able to “love openly” (tweet below).
Responding to this, commentator Andrea Widburg writes:
No. Teachers do not need to “love openly.” They need to teach. However, that’s not the LGBTQ+++ standard. Nothing more perfectly exemplifies the way today’s LGBTQ+++ weirdos think their public school classroom is the stage for the drama of their life to play out in front of children than a video [below] from Libs of TikTok. In it, a high school teacher/drag queen proudly shows how he has tricked out his classroom to be a drag nightclub.
Of course, this is just one of multitudinous videos in which teachers — many of whom work in grade schools — unabashedly boast about indoctrinating their child charges with sexual devolutionary propaganda.
It should also be pointed out that while Harris characterizes the behaviors in question as reflecting “love,” which has a positive connotation, the correct term is “lust,” which is defined as “disordered sexual desire.”
But what it should also be called is out of bounds for teachers. Commenting on this recently, Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson asked a question: If he started talking to someone’s five-year-old about sex, he’d be regarded as a sexual predator and could be arrested. So why do we tolerate other non-family members — teachers — talking to tiny children about sex in school?
Why these “educators” do it is no mystery, either. Widburg touched on this, writing that “the best rule of thumb is that people for whom sex is the central aspect of their life are (a) not living a mentally or physically healthy lifestyle and (b) shouldn’t be around children.”
Another way of saying this is that people obsessed, regardless of the obsession, will not be able to keep it in the closet. That’s the nature of obsession. “The eye altering, alters all,” wrote poet William Blake; having a warped moral compass will inevitably color everything a person does. Or to use a twist on a President George H.W. Bush campaign line, you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of teacher.
And because this was long ago understood and molding young minds is such a sacred task, teachers were once held to the highest moral standards. Just consider this 1905 Iowa teacher’s contract. While it includes restrictions that even under the light of virtue are clearly too stringent, note that aside from forbidding card playing and other activities that lead to gambling, it states:
“It is understood that teachers will attend church each Sunday and take an active part, particularly in choir and Sunday School work.”
This is now passé, of course, which brings us to something else Widburg wrote. “One of the main reasons leftists hate the Bible is because it did away with public, religious sexuality and placed it in the privacy of the home and the safety of a committed relationship,” she stated. “Kamala’s belief that teachers should be parading their love and sex lives in the classroom is everything that’s wrong with modern leftism.”
This point warrants elaboration. There’s a reason our sexual devolutionaries often hold “pagan” sexuality in high esteem: It’s relatively loose and animalistic — and decidedly un-Christian. Ancient Greece and Rome were known for their libertinism, to put it mildly, and there are/have been “religions” that essentially worship(ed) the phallus.
Christianity put an end to this, where it could, a fact bringing the “repression” charge and the claim that this alleged burying of desire causes sexual dysfunction, ironic since our libertinism has led to such being continually displayed all around us. Thus did philosopher C.S. Lewis note, “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.”
The truth, though, is that the wider issue of the closet’s demons’ release isn’t just a problem of modern leftism (though it started that way), but of moderns. Even “conservatives” today will imbibe our salacious entertainment and may, when editorializing against the latest sexual devolutionary innovation, issue the disclaimer “Look, I’m not a prude.”
If and when the day ever comes that we instead hear people on the “other side” say, “Look, I’m not a pervert,” we’ll know we’ve turned the corner.
Addendum: For those interested, Kamala Harris’s entire Sunday podcast appearance is below.
