|
Links to Pages in this Website Essays. Speeches, and Other Compositions Links to Other Websites Opposing Opposing the Pro- Parents for-hnd margin of this Sex Education-- |
"Life
Views" Issues in Sexual Education Table of Contents for This Web-Page: Young Children Removed from UK Schools for "Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour" National Post editorial board: Explicit sex education program planned for Ontario
German Government Publication Promotes Incestuous Pedophilia as Healthy Sex Ed An Interview with Mirriam Grossman, author of You're teaching my child what? Sex Ed Gone Wild: Canadian Mag Covers Trend toward "Pleasure-Based" Sex Ed in Schools Young
Children Removed from UK Schools for "Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour"
By Hilary White LONDON, June 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A U.K. government report has described as "worrying" the discovery that children in the youngest grades of primary school are being removed from class for "inappropriate sexual behaviour." According to the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted), 14 out of the 69 schools surveyed had related problems with children as young as four acting out. The report mentioned children touching other children "inappropriately" and using "sexually graphic language." Other offenses included swearing, attacking staff and throwing furniture. In some of the schools in the investigation, the same children had been suspended ten times in one year. The report says that teachers who contacted social services over worries about the children's sexualized behavior were often turned away, with one being told that the child would "grow out of it." Miriam Rosen, director of education at Ofsted, said, "Sexualised behaviour can indicate a child protection issue, so the important thing is that they refer to the social services so they can deal with the problem." In the report's conclusion, Ofsted is "urgently" asking the government for guidelines to help teachers "identify" appropriate sexual behavior and when to refer a child to social services in case that child is at risk of abuse. The revelation comes at the same time as government plans to introduce explicit "sex education" to children as young as five are moving forward. [boldfacing here by editor of this BCPTL website] In April this year, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses. Norman Wells, head of the Family Education Trust (FET), told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), that the problem is more systemic than isolated cases of child abuse. "Inappropriate sexual behavior among young children in primary schools is all part of the price we are paying for our highly sexualized culture," he said. The FET is a research and lobby group that investigates the
causes of family breakdown in the UK. Wells accused the government of
"caving in to the demands of the sex education lobby" in its plans to
expand sex education in the national curriculum.
UK Sex-Ed Backfire: Survey Reveals Increased Pregnancy
Rates in Teens Subjected to Program UK Contraception and Abortion Promoters calling for Sex Ed
for Four Year-Olds Looney England - Boys As Young As 12 To Be Given
"Credit Cards" For Obtaining Condoms UK Schools Handing Out Morning-After Pill to Students of
All Ages
Ontario is poised to inaugurate a new and explicit sex education curriculum in September. According to a detailed outline posted on the Ministry of Education’s website in January, children in Grade 3 will for the first time learn about “invisible differences” between people, including those of gender identity and sexual orientation, while Grade 6 and 7 students will receive information about “vaginal lubrication” and “anal intercourse.” Reaction to the initiative from a “family-focused” coalition upholding traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality was predictably, and fiercely, combative. “[Y]ou’re talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe that it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices,” said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values. Unpacked, Reverend Malcolm’s allusions to “thought processes” and “ability to make correct choices” reflect social conservatives’ fears that a too-early introduction to sexuality of all kinds, particularly to the phenomenon of homosexuality, may negatively impact a child’s normal sexual development. That the most active resistance to the program comes from the Christian right should not distract thoughtful secularists from the fact that the program is objectionable on purely rational grounds that have nothing to do with homophobia. You don’t have to be religious to recognize the incompatibility of early instruction around sexuality with, dare we say it, the “settled” science around the “latency period” of childhood. In this schema, the second sexual phase in children following infancy and early childhood, from the age of six to twelve, is a period in which direct sexual energies fall dormant. During this phase, the child gathers his inner resources and develops mental and physical strength for entry to young adulthood. Only at adolescence do hormonal changes create the appropriate psychological context for absorbing ideas about “gender identity” and sexual ethics in a meaningful light. Until that time schools should butt out of sex education. . . . . If there were longitudinal, peer-reviewed studies attesting to the benefits of exposing children in the latency period to sexuality-charged curricula, we might be open to more experimentation along the lines proposed by Ontario’s Ministry of Education. There being none, we see the program as a political vehicle for special interest groups obsessed with “social justice,” who perceive entrenchment of their libertine agenda in public school curricula as the quickest and most efficient route to detaching children from morality-based sexual values. In the end, we are on the side of the children, and feel that prudence and parental privilege should be the watchword. Today’s world is so highly sexualized and the gateways to inappropriate images and message so ubiquitous, parents have their work cut out for them keeping their children in a state of innocence (a word one can scarcely say anymore without ironic airquotes). To everything there is a season. Ontario should back away from this ideologically-driven program, acknowledging the right of children to be children as nature made them. National Post [Read the whole article on the National Post website.]
From TheSpec.com
April 20, 2010
[See the whole article on TheSpec.com ]
German Government Publication Promotes Incestuous Pedophilia as Healthy Sex EdMicheal O'Brien, author on crisis of culture in West, says this "German state intervention in family life is a new level of auto-destruction"By John-Henry Westen Canadian author and public speaker Michael O'Brien who has written and spoken
extensively about the crisis of culture in the West spoke to LifeSiteNews.com
about the shocking and extremely disturbing phenomenon. It is, he said,
"State-encouraged incest, which in most civilized societies is a
crime." The development is, he suggests, a natural outcome of the rejection
of the Judeo-Christian moral order. To express concerns to German authorities:
We have not read the book which this interview deals with, but present this interview as dealing with a topic of compelling interest to many of our readers: "eReview" No. 7, September 9, 2009 The eReview provides analysis on public policy relating to Canadian families and marriage. An interview with Miriam Grossman, MD, author of the recently-released You’re teaching my child what? A physician exposes the lies of sex education and how they harm your child. By Peter Jon Mitchell, Research Analyst, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada IMFC: What was your motivation for this new book? Miriam Grossman, MD: Frankly, I wrote it because I was fed up. As you know, I worked for twelve years as a psychiatrist for students at the UCLA campus here in California. During that time, thousands of kids came through my office. I was alarmed at how many of them had sexually transmitted infections and concerned about students, mostly young women, whose sexual lifestyle placed them at risk for disease, emotional distress and even infertility later in life. I was frustrated to see patient after patient in similar situations, yet my hands were tied. There wasn’t much I could do for them. These were young people who were otherwise wellinformed and proactive about their health. They were careful about what they ate, they exercised, avoided tobacco, and so on. But in this one area, in their sexual behaviour, they took alarming risks, and that was perplexing. I began to question these students carefully, and I examined how campus health and counselling centers approach sexual health issues. Those findings were discussed in my book Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Harms Every Student. This new project was an extension of that. I went deeper into the field of sex education, looking at exactly what kids are taught, and at the history of sex education in the United States. I went online and explored the websites, books, pamphlets and videos created for kids and young adults. What I discovered was deeply disturbing, and that’s what this book is about. IMFC: In the book you argue that sex educators and activists dismiss the fundamentals of child development, and omit critical findings of neurobiology, gynaecology and infectious disease. You suggest this has profound consequences, particularly for girls. How so? MG: Absolutely. We have a wealth of new science that’s omitted from sex ed. For example, in the past decade our understanding of the teen brain, and how it reasons and makes decisions during moments of high stimulation has grown tremendously. We didn’t know until recently that the brain area that is responsible for making rational, thought-out decisions, the area that considers the pros and cons and consequences of decisions, is immature in teens. The circuits aren’t complete; the wiring is unfinished. Sex educators insist that, like adults, teens are capable of making responsible decisions, they just lack information about sexuality and access to contraceptives. So the way to fight sexually transmitted infections and teen pregnancies, these authorities argue, is to provide teens with information and contraceptives, and teach them skills like how to say “no” and how to put on a condom. But current neuropsychological research does not support this stance. We know now that teens’ poor decisions are likely due not to lack of information, but to lack of judgement. And there is only one thing that will bring that: time. Another example of critical information omitted from sex ed: a girl’s biological vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections. The cervix of teen girls is covered by a layer that is only one cell thick. That area is easily penetrated by the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. (The human papillomavirus is the STI we now have a vaccination against, and that’s another controversial issue.) With time, the surface is covered by cells that are 30 to 40 layers thick, and is therefore much more difficult to infect. Girls need to understand this from an early age. We have dramatic images [of the immature cervix] that we must show girls so they can grasp the importance of delaying sexual behaviour. These kids must be informed that putting all questions of morality aside, if they are sexually active at a young age, they are at risk for infections that could impact their physical and emotional well-being over the course of their lives. A third point is kids aren’t told that oral sex is associated with cancers of the throat. Needless to say this is important, and indeed life-saving, information yet it is withheld from kids, and that is the height of irresponsibility. One of the points I make in the book is organizations such as Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US) claim to be providing up-to-date, medically-accurate information. But they do nothing of the sort. Instead, these organizations teach kids that they are “sexual” from cradle to grave, that adolescence is the natural time to explore sexuality and that kids have the right to express their sexuality in whatever manner they choose. This message promotes sexual freedom, not sexual health. This is ideology, not science. When sexual freedom is the priority, sexual health suffers. And indeed, the statistics in the US on sexually transmitted infections, HIV, teen pregnancy, and abortion are mind numbing. IMFC: Where do these organizations place the role of parents in their ideology? What are they saying to kids about parents? MG: This is another disturbing feature of the sex ed fiasco. I discovered a duplicity exists. When speaking to the media, and in their material for parents, sex educators state that sex education should start at home and that parents should be the primary sex educators of children. But in material directed at kids the message is altogether different. Here’s what SIECUS says in an online booklet for kids called All About Sex. It opens with eight pages on sexual rights: “Every human being has basic rights. Still, adults may say and do things that make young people feel like they don’t have rights. It’s important for you to know your rights so you can stand up for yourself when necessary.” Then a bit later: “You have the right to decide how to express your sexuality at every point in your life. You can choose if and how to express your sexuality.” Ninety per cent of parents want their kids to delay sexual behaviour, and they expect sex educators to enforce that message. Organizations like SIECUS promise to do so, but they don’t. All About Sex is a good example of what really goes on. The goal is for the young person to realize that, sure, adults may have their opinions, but kids of all ages have the right to their own ideas about sexuality, as well as the right to behave in any way they like. Nowhere in this pamphlet are kids told: we urge you to delay sexual behaviour because that’s the healthiest choice. IMFC: The book will be an eye opener for parents. What can concerned parents do? MG: The situation is sobering but my overall message is positive. The good news is that all these sexual health problems are 100 per cent avoidable. And there is so much parents can do to protect their kids. We know that young people are profoundly influenced by their parents, the messages they get from their parents, their perceptions of what their parents believe in, their parents’ values, and what their parents’ expectations are. There are many studies that I go through in the book that demonstrate that a parenting style of being warm and supportive and yet having high expectations and firm rules has profound influence on children and teens and the decisions they make. Obviously parents need to be informed. They need the information in this book; they are not going to find it anywhere else. I’m a medical doctor and I scoured the literature for the latest on sexually transmitted infections, how girls are more vulnerable emotionally and physically than boys, what kids are told about same-sex attraction, gender identity, and many other topics. My book is not politically correct, but it is medically accurate. I explain biological truths that are not discussed elsewhere. For example, kids are being told that they can be male, female or something else; that there are more than two genders and that it is natural to question who you are at any time in your life. This is madness. It’s not only medically inaccurate, it confuses our kids and it leads them into a minefield of emotional and physical hazards. IMFC: What would you say to government policy makers? MG: They must find the courage to challenge the status quo. People need to stand up, be politically incorrect, and acknowledge the truth of biology. Certain groups will object, because what is seen under the microscope and on brain scans contradicts their vision. It’s going to take that courage to change policy, to have an extreme makeover of our approach to sex education. You see, sex educators have institutionalized 20th century theories and social agendas, but hard science from this century completely discredits those theories and agendas. Sex education needs to come into the 21st century and leave behind ideas that are remnants of the sexual revolution and feminism. . . . . Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
Sex
Ed Gone Wild: Canadian Mag Covers Trend toward "Pleasure-Based" Sex Ed
in Schools By Patrick B. Craine Warning: The nature of this article required the inclusion of sexually explicit language that some may find offensive. TORONTO, Ontario, September 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lianne George of Maclean's magazine has penned a piece published this week on a new trend in schools' sexual education offerings to focus on the pleasure of sex. Her article highlights the work of Toronto's Carlyle Jansen, the owner of a 'sex shop' for women, Good For Her, who has launched a new not-for-profit organization devoted to offering free, "pleasure-based" sex workshops to schools and other groups in the area. Jansen has long offered pleasure-based workshops through her store, but, according to George, a year and a half ago Jansen started getting calls from local high school teachers who wanted her to come and offer sex-ed to their classes. Since then, Jansen guesses that she has spoken to about 12 or 15 classes. "Kids are taught to death about all the bad things that can happen to them if they have sex," Jansen told George. "They've said, 'We've heard about sexually transmitted infections, we know you can get pregnant, but we want to know about pleasure and we want to know about healthy relationships.'" In the classes, she talks to teens about whatever they would like to know, from masturbation to oral sex to sex toys (examples of which she brings to the classroom in case teens ask). She also teaches the kids about the sexual 'pleasure centres' using items depicting sexual organs. Now, Jansen has helped launch the Sexual Health Education Pleasure Project (SHEPP) in the Greater Toronto Area, whose mission is "to provide free, pleasure-based sexual health education focused mainly on marginalized communities including youth, people of colour, women, queer and trans communities." Course topic titles include "Negotiating what you want - in and out of the bedroom," and "Cool, safe, and hot sex." A topic entitled "Re-visioning 'pro-choice'" is also on the list, with the description: "Not just about abortion any more. Know your rights!" The group explains their vision of 'pro-choice' further on a page entitled 'What We Believe In'. While the phrase is certainly used to designate openness to abortion, the groups sees it as including a broader range of sexual choices, including the freedom to exercise sexual license and the freedom to marry whomever one chooses. Gwen Landolt of REAL Women Canada criticized Jansen's narrow focus on pleasure in teaching about sexuality. "Obviously this woman is promoting her own business," she told LifeSiteNews.com, "but also it absolutely misconstrues the whole objective of sexuality. "Obviously pleasure is a component," she said, "but not the component that matters. It's a part of a loving, truly bonding relationship, and they're missing the whole point in letting children think that sex is just an extracurricular activity, with anyone at anytime as long as it's pleasurable." Landolt pointed to the moral dimension and to the purpose of sexuality, "which as we know is to bring forward children in a marital relationship," she said. "That's why we've been given this wonderful gift of sexuality," she explained. "It's missed the whole object of it. It's zeroed in on one component, but not the whole picture, and children should not be exposed to such a narrow perspective.". . . .
|
Useful Links to Other Websites We are, of course, not responsible for the content of external sites. Listing of a site does not imply anything about our agreement or disagreement with particular statements that may be made on such external sites.
Are you pregnant and need help? Canadian
Listing of Pregnancy Care Centres Abortion procedures and
risks Asociarion for Reformed PoliticalAction--Education Canada Family Action Coalition Canadian Constitution Foundation CASJAFVA (Canadian & Family Values Association) Evangelical Fellowship of Canada--Home Page Focus on the Family: family.org NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homo sexuality) Parents for Democracy in Education REAL
Women of BC Silent
No More Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (UK-based) Vivre
dans la Dignité
. |