Compulsory sex-ed

I was on the typically crowded lunchtime train today and two young lads were standing next to where I was sitting (I was letting them be chivalrous ). They couldn't have been more than ten or eleven. For the whole journey they were talking about sex and boasting about dirty pictures they'd seen, but it was clear that they didn't really understand what they were talking about and were too young for it to have any relevance to them at all. It was so heartbreaking, they were completely corrupted by this filthy culture we live in.

What I found particularly sad was when they discussed sneaking out of their houses in the evening to go drinking (before they're even teenagers!) one of the lads asked "So are your parents speaking then?" and the other said "No, they split up a while back. It's not very nice. I was really upset at first, when neither of them wanted me to live with them, but you get over it after a bit. Just every so often its a bit sad when you look at other families who have a mum and dad."

This post has been edited by Adesto on Oct 24 2008, 07:33 PM

Hell-bent is the term, I believe.



UK Announces Mandatory Sex Education for Kindergarteners

By Kathleen Gilbert

LONDON, UK, October 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - UK government officials announced yesterday that by the year 2010, 5-year-old children will enter the first stages of a comprehensive, explicit sex education program, mandatory for schools nationwide, including faith schools.

The compulsory Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) program will begin in kindergarten where Schools Minister Jim Knight says children will learn about "their differences, their friendships, and how to manage their feelings." Knight insisted that the earliest curriculum will not be "sexually explicit," saying "we are not talking about five-year olds having sex."

The earliest stage of the program, for ages five through seven, will focus on relationships but also include lessons on body part names and animal reproduction. In the 8 to 11 age bracket, more biological aspects of sex are to be introduced, and after age 12, children will learn about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases.

The program was designed to combat the teen pregnancy rate in the UK, currently the highest in Europe. A 2005 survey estimated that one in five British girls have sex by the age of 14. Sex education lobbyists, like the Sex Education Forum, blamed the problem on inadequate sex education, and have called upon the government to institute mandatory "sex and relationships education" for years.

Knight assured that teachers would be properly trained and that schools would “ensure there is flexibility for schools to tailor lessons to reflect the values and beliefs of the parents and communities they serve,” according to the AP report.

Only the British mainland is subject to the mandate, set to be implemented by 2010, as Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales all have separate education departments. Of these, Scotland is the only country that offers voluntary sex education.

Parents and education leaders had mixed reactions to the legislation. Supporters expressed relief that the government was stepping in to help parents unwilling to broach the topic of sex with their children, a hang up frequently portrayed as common among British parents in the nation's media.

“When parents fail to educate their kids properly, the government has every right to step in,” said Gayla Coil, a Londoner and mother to two kids ages 13 and 10. “Me, I welcome the help.”

But Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, insisted that undermining the authority and primary teaching role of parents can only exacerbate the problem.

"You're removing discretion from schools. You're undermining parents," he said, according to ABC Australia.

"And effectively what you're doing is taking parents out of the driving seat and putting the state in their place."

Proponents of the new program argue that teaching the biology of sex at a young age will prevent children from falling victim to the “playground rumor or the mixed messages from the media about sex," in the words of Jim Knight.

"Talking about body parts is often easier for children when they are younger as they are less self-conscious and less sensitive about their bodies," said Julie Bentley, chief executive of the FPA, formerly the Family Planning Association, in a BBC article.

Wells answers that such efforts to tear aside the veil are "all part of an exercise to break down children's inhibitions and natural sense of modesty.

"Most parents would be very concerned if they knew that their children were being given literature at school produced by an organisation that doesn't put sexual intimacy in a clear moral context and that fails to respect the role of parents."

See related LifeSiteNews.com articles:

UK Contraception and Abortion Promoters calling for Sex Ed for Four Year-Olds
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070408.html

Britain's "Culture of Promiscuity" sees nearly 400,000 new STD Cases
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071608.html

UK Catholic Bishop to Schools: Lessons on Sex, Contraception Etc May Not be Presented as "Neutral Info"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121202.html

That's just heartbreaking! For all the bravado kids show nowadays and how irrepressible they can seem, underneath they are still children and looking for that supportive role of a parent.

I have a friend who works for Connexions (it's probably called something else now as the Government keep re-organising them every few years) who said to me that the young girls who came in were completely open that they got pregnant just so they could get a house and benefits. They are working the system to benefit themselves so that they don't have to work.

Of course I'm sure not all young girls are so deliberate in their actions, but there are some who get pregant in spite of all the education on offer. The benefits are too good and there is nothing to deter them.

It's still called Connexions.

John Smeaton of SPUC is very critical of it.

Our Catholic schools are Catholic in name only. They weren't great "in my day" (twenty odd years ago), but they're far worse now.

St Michael's may well be the only Catholic school in the country.

It's still called Connexions.

John Smeaton of SPUC is very critical of it.

Our Catholic schools are Catholic in name only. They weren't great "in my day" (twenty odd years ago), but they're far worse now.

St Michael's may well be the only Catholic school in the country.

They are Catholic in name only. People have to come to terms with that. That is why parents must support schools like St Michael's. Parents have to ask should they give a financial contribution to a Catholic School that is Catholic in name only.If the liturgy is not in order the Catholic education cannot be in order.

I was on the bus a few weeks on my way to Mass. Two girls who were about 16 were chatting to eachother and both 'dying' of a hangover. Two lads about the same age whom they seemed to know were a couple of seats away but moved nearer. He began to talk openly on how he had sex in a toilet the night before and was on his way to meet his girlfriend. Then they asked the girls openly would they have sex with them. The girls didn't seem so shocked at the proposal. They did tell them to get lost. I got the impression they were more afraid of them than anything else.

A highlight of the filthy corrupted society.

Young girls are doing the same thing in Ireland.

U.K. Catholic Education Service Cooperating with Sex-Ed for Young Children

By Hilary White

LONDON, October 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com ) – Following an announcement that the Labour government will be installing mandatory “sex and relationship” education for children as young as four and five in schools, the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CES) has said it will not only cooperate, but is encouraging parents not to take their children out of the classes.

Called “personal, social and health education” (PSHE), the government program is predicated on the idea that more and earlier “sex-education” in schools is the answer to Britain’s record-breaking rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion. This despite the statistics that show the rates have increased over the years in tandem with the push for sex-ed in schools.

CES said, “The statutory rights of parents to withdraw their children from sex education remain but it is our hope that parents will not find the need to exercise this right as children are likely to benefit from experiencing SRE amongst their friends and peers.”

CES, whose stated purpose is to “promote” and “safeguard” Catholic interests in education and contribute to “Christian perspectives” in the national debate on education issues, said that parents need not worry because “reassurance has been given” by the government that the curriculum “will not be so prescriptive in character as to involve conflict with Catholic teaching.”

John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, called the statement “painfully disingenuous” given “what is known to be going on in Catholic schools.”

Parents have not seen the information to be given to their children, but it has been revealed that the abortion organisation, the Family Planning Association (FPA), one of the groups involved in the government’s new plans, recently launched a sex-education booklet which asked children aged six and seven to identify correctly the vagina and testicles on a picture of a naked girl and boy. Another sex education resource produced by Channel 4 Learning asked five-year-olds to point out the clitoris.

“The first task of everyone entrusted with the Gospel of life” Smeaton said, “is, surely, to oppose government plans to promote and to entrench the abortion culture amongst young people of all faiths and none?”

Mike Judge, Head of Communications at the Christian Institute, called the government’s plans a threat to the rights of the family. “It will undermine parents as they face the difficult job of bringing up their children. The best people to teach children about sex and relationships are their parents.”

At the same time, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) stands accused of deception for the manner in which they reported the results of a survey the government agency released that claimed that pupils themselves are asking for more sex-education in schools. The Christian Institute, a non-denominational Christian lobby organisation said Ofsted failed to report that 55 per cent of those asked said they didn’t need more information.

Ofsted claimed that a third of 150,000 pupils aged ten to fifteen responded no to the question on whether the “advice they receive on matters like sex and relationships is sufficient.” Ofsted claimed, “Better information and advice about sex and relationships was wanted by more than a third of children and young people.”

The Christian Institute said that the agency failed to mention in its media release that more than half did not ask for expansion of sex-education. Mike Judge said, “Ofsted’s own figures say that a majority of children don’t want more sex education. It looks as though the schools inspectorate is trying to spin these figures in order to back up the Government’s misguided plans for sex education.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

UK Contraception and Abortion Promoters calling for Sex Ed for Four Year-Olds
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070408.html

UK Announces Mandatory Sex Education for Kindergarteners
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102406.html

Let's hope there'll be a lot of empty classrooms all over the country for that subject.

I doubt it though.

Thinking about this "withdrawing children from the classes" idea:

That won't stop the children who haven't been withdrawn from telling them about it, and perhaps picking on them.

Gerald Warner

The Hermeneutic of Continuity

The Times reports on the sex-ed proposals in its article: Pupils to be forced to have sex education under age of consent). Here is an extract:

There does seem to be some confusion here; are Catholic schools going to be forced to give information about contraception or not? (It is interesting, by the way, that Ed Balls speaks of contraception outside of marriage. This shows how far we have come since Humanae Vitae and the debates of the sixties which were all about contraception for married couples.)

Jackie Parkes has comments from Eric Hester in her post: CESEW responds to proposals relating to Sex and Relationships Education and parental rights (5 November 2009). There we have another Government quote:

and you can bet that part of the National Curriculum PSHE "core entitlement" will be to learn how to put a condom on a banana.

See also:
John Smeaton: Compulsory sex ed is government exploitation of schools

Gerald Warner: The most widespread child abuse in Britain is perpetrated by the Government

David Vance at the Tangled Blog: Sex Education for all!
"But our wise rulers, who know so much more than any parent, will now ensure that sex education is FORCED upon our kids. Totalitarian swine."

John Smeaton's blog