 All right, this is a story that's kind of breaking. I don't like this kind of story because it really hasn't had that much time to percolate and to try to see if what is being said is accurate or not. I encountered these stories periodically, where it's really outrageous, but then it turns out that maybe what is being said is not actually accurate. But in this case, it looks like the story is true. The story is accurate. So this is a story coming out of Project Veritas that has taped, that has video of a dean in a Chicago Illinois school. The school is Francis W. Parker in Chicago, which is a private school. And this is a dean, I think a student's dean, at the school who was shown by video talking about the fact that in, I guess, sex education class, students were there was a discussion of, I guess, a educational program around queer sex, queer sex as part of sexual education. And as part of that, dildos were handed out, butt plugs were handed out, lube. You know, I don't want to get all the details partially because it's hard to tell how much of this is real, although this is him and his own words, talking about this kind of proudly, that this was a, you know, he also brought this teacher, this dean also said he brought in a drag queen to perform to students. I don't really care that he brought in a drag queen to perform to students. I don't see that as a big issue. But the idea that students as young as 14, 14 to 18 would be exposed to dildos and butt plugs and discuss the virtues of lube versus the virtues of spit on using them is pretty bad. And this is from somebody who is probably the least prudish person you know when it comes to sex. I don't believe, and this is the issue that once you start sexual education where the limits? Once you give to school educators the responsibility of teaching our kids about sex, where is the limit? What sex is out of bounds? What sex is okay? What constitutes normal? What constitutes abnormal? What constitutes stuff that a 14-year-old needs to be exposed to versus stuff that an 18-year-old needs to be exposed to? And to what extent should the schools be involved in something like this? And my view is that the schools should not be exposed to any of this. Indeed, that schools should not be teaching sex education. Sex education should be something parents teach their kids, parents are responsible for in terms of their kids. Indeed, I think that the only reason schools have been taken over the whole field of sex education is because parents are embarrassed to talk about it, don't want to deal with it, and have basically outsourced the whole topic of sex and I think as a consequence, the whole topic of value is more broadly. Two third parties, and this is given schools way more influence and way more power over our kids' education, particularly in these teen years than they should have. I don't think this is part of a school education. I don't think schools need to be talking about sex other than the biology of it, and the biology of it, in biology class, but I'm not convinced there is any reason to have a sex education class. I don't think schools about, this is a class in a school curriculum. Schools should be primarily about teaching content, teaching the methodology of reason, of rationality, teaching knowledge, teaching content, knowledge, and then teaching method, how to use that knowledge to achieve one's goals and one's values, but it shouldn't be about how to perform gay sex. I mean, that to me is just not what a school is there for. But I think that parents want this. So I think the outrage of the parents, there's a lot of outrage in this supposedly in Chicago, parents didn't know, the board of trustees didn't know indeed when he was asked about whether the board of trustees knew about what he was doing. He said, I wouldn't even run it by them. Like why would I run it by them? He thought this was completely normal and completely acceptable. Parents didn't know about it, the trustees didn't know about it, and I think there's a big, the school, as Basie said, this is all the right wing conspiracy, but it hasn't denied any of it. And that's why I don't like these kind of issues that much because until the hot news right now, but what's gonna turn out to be the truth about this, we will see as it pans out. But I think to the extent this is true, and again, the school doesn't seem to be denying it, I think parents were gonna be outraged, but I blame the parents at the end of the day because parents are disengaged with their kids' education. Parents have granted the school's permission and to teach sex education when I don't think they should, as a way to avoid it themselves because the parents don't wanna deal with it. And this is the consequence, you hand people this and what you're gonna get is the teacher's values being projected into the sex education rather than the parent's values being projected into the sex education. And that I think is horrific and bad. So pretty disgusting, pretty awful. And again, not because I have anything about any of those practices, but because I don't think it is part of what a school should be doing. And I don't think 14-year-olds should be exposed to it any more than I think 14-year-olds should be exposed to porn. So 14 to 18-year-olds should not be exposed to this kind of sex. I'll say one other thing, and there's a lot more to say about this topic because it deals with sex. Part of the issue is that we live in a society that has two views of sex, both wrong. We have a view of sex primarily dominated on the secular left, which is that sex is, well, it's just about pleasure and it's just a material thing. And it doesn't mean that much and what the hell, have it with whoever and it's lost any spiritual, any bonding, any emotional meaning. It is just a physical activity. And then people are surprised by two facts, I think. One, that people sleep around a lot and B, that people are having less sex. I think both are consequence of this view that sex doesn't really matter. It isn't that important. It's just a physical drive. It's just material, it's just animalistic. And then of course the flip side of that is the religious conservative view of sex. Oh God, sex is this super kind of, well, it's the same thing, right? Sex is animalistic, is barbaric at the end, but it's tinged with this religious and morality, morality indeed deals to a large extent in religion with sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is a big part of what morality is about. And God forbid you shouldn't have sex. It's because it's this both connection to God and this animalistic thing. It has to be preserved from marriage. It has to be bound by this real boundaries and it's this kind of almost scary thing oh gay sex, oh that is really horrific and anti the Bible and we can't even talk about it and we can't discuss it and we can't even. And so you've got two attitudes, both wrong about sex, and both agree in a sense that it's kind of animalistic and primarily about pleasure and yet one tries to push people to have it only when they're married, which I think causes a lot of infidelity because people have it when they're married and it's not satisfying because they don't know anything about sex before then and then they land up sleeping around. Or it's nothing, it's no big deal, who cares, have it with whoever and that also deals with a lot of just meaningless sex happening in our world. And what both parties really reject is the idea that sex is this amazing reward for self-esteem. Sex is this amazing spiritual, emotional, physical, pleasurable reward for succeeding in life. Sex is super pleasurable emotionally and physically because of how important sex is in life, because it is an affirmation, affirmation of you, affirmation of life, affirmation of your own worth and your own value and the beauty and the greatness of human life. And that makes sex something super special and something that shouldn't be avoided, shouldn't be denied, but shouldn't just be frivolously given away, done as if it's meaningless. So both sides have a distorted, perverted view of sex and the consequence is meaningless sex and less sex. Generally, most surveys show that young Americans, around the world, young people having less sex today than they were having 30, 40 years ago, which is weird. But understandable completely. As you diminish the importance and value of sex, as you make it more material, more meaningless, more fervorless, the less people are gonna have it. And when they have it, the less meaning it's gonna have for them, because it's not that intense, super amazing experience that that unity of emotion, of spirit and physicality of that celebration and reward that a pop of you of sex would have it. So it's not surprising that people are having less sex. Not surprising. I mean, sex should be a mutual expression of valuing, but it should be a mutual celebration of life. And therefore you have to have something to celebrate. You have to have earned the celebration. And therefore you have to have self-esteem. And that's what's missing from the whole sex debate. Without self-esteem, sex becomes meaningless. Without knowing what you're celebrating, sex becomes meaningless. All right, that deserves a whole show. We'll have to do that one of these days in a longer format. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support, by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. Those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.