Posted on 12/07/2019 12:00:33 AM PST by Morgana
A new mandatory sex education curriculum being rolled out in the United Kingdom teaches children as young as 6 about “stimulating” their genitals.
The All About Me program already is drawing outrage from parents across the UK, the Daily Mail reports. More than 240 schools are slated to begin teaching it next September, and parents are not allowed to opt their children out of the program, according to the report.
The lessons for 6- and 7-year-old students include the topic “Touching Myself.” According to the report, the program teaches children that “lots of people like to tickle or stroke themselves as it might feel nice.” Young children also will be taught that touching their “private parts” is “very normal,” though some people may call it “dirty” behavior.
“In the same lesson, children are given scenarios which they must judge to be ‘OK’ or ‘not OK,’” according to the report. “In one, pupils are told that when a girl called Autumn ‘has a bath and is alone she likes to touch herself between her legs. It feels nice.’”
Later, the program teaches 8- to 10-year-old students about wet dreams, erections and self-stimulation in lessons about anatomy and physical development.
“My wife cried the first time she read what was going to be in the lessons,” said Matthew Seymour, whose sons attend Coten End schools. “This sexualisation of our children is just totally inappropriate. They are calling it self-touching and they won’t use the term masturbation, but when you read it that’s exactly what they’re talking about.”
The Seymours said some of the lessons include highly sexual issues that their young sons are “not ready to hear.”
Even Tory MP David Davies, who voted in favor of mandatory sex education instruction in UK schools, is having second thoughts after seeing the curriculum, the report states.
“I and many other parents would be furious at completely inappropriate sexual matters being taught to children as young as 6,” Davies said. “These classes go way beyond the guidance the Government is producing and are effectively sexualising very young children.”
Jonny Hunt, the sex education consultant who helped develop the program, also has some aberrant views about marriage. According to the Mail, he recently slammed the “continued emphasis on marriage,” writing, “There still seems to be the belief that a marriage provides a safer environment for children or for sex. This is not the case.”
A wealth of evidence shows otherwise.
The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh described Hunt’s program as “one of the most blatant examples of institutionalized child sex abuse that we’ve seen in the West.”
Walsh continued:
As far as schools are concerned, sex should be a purely scientific subject. Teach the kids about anatomy. Teach them where babies come from. Teach them the facts of human reproduction. That’s it. … Schools don’t automatically inherit the right to teach whatever a parent doesn’t teach.
Besides, parents might “refuse” to teach their children how to masturbate because they, as parents, feel (rightly) that such a lesson would be extremely bizarre and inappropriate, and probably warranting a visit from CPS. It might be a teacher’s opinion that parents should teach those things, but her opinion is irrelevant. It’s also, in this case, insane. That’s why schools should stick to the academic basics.
Planned Parenthood’s sex education programs in America also encourage children to engage in risky sexual behavior.
On its website, Planned Parenthood brags about being the leading provider of sex education in the U.S. Among its worst teaching points, Planned Parenthood tells children that promiscuity is ok. “There’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners,” it tells students on its Tumbler page. Planned Parenthood’s booklet for HIV-positive youth, “Healthy, Happy and Hot,” also tells young people that it is their “human right” to not tell their partner that they have HIV.
In one recent case, parents at a Pennsylvania school said a Planned Parenthood partner group taught seventh-grade students graphic details about oral sex during a science class.
Former staff and associates of the abortion group also say Planned Parenthood uses its sex ed programs to groom children for abortions.
Fortunately, for now at least, most schools in America still allow parents to opt out of these indoctrination programs. Concerned parents in Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, Washington state, New York, North Carolina, Florida and many other parts of the country have protested Planned Parenthood’s involvement in their students’ education in the past several years.
Planned Parenthood is decidedly anti-abstinence. It isn’t because “it doesn’t work”, it is because it is counter to their worldview.
They consider it an unhealthy suppression of sexual desires if you don’t act on impulses to screw your sibling, neighbor’s spouse, etc.
Yet every election cycle we hear from Leftist sluts saying “just say no if someone won’t support Hillary”.
“Planned Parenthood is decidedly anti-abstinence”
It’s more than that. This is their way of “Selling abortions” or “creating a market” . They start young, very young. Separate the kids from their parents, break down their modesty get them thinking about sex and their bodies, make them think that PP is the sex experts not their parents.
Then later when they do become sexual active their goal is 3 to five abortions for every girl age 13 to 18.
PP has encouraged minors to engage in BDSM when they get “bored” by regular sex. Choking and explaining the concept of “Safe words” because they are saying that “no doesn’t always mean NO!”.
Yes I saw that on Live Action. PP is evil.
Huxley’s “Brave New World” is becoming more prediction than fiction. It’s all about control.
The Left was here in the 1960s and 1970s. Look at Germany:
The Sexual Revolution and Children
How the Left Took Things Too Far
Germany’s left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive.
By Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersen
July 02, 2010 03:22 PM
In the spring of 1970, Ursula Besser found an unfamiliar briefcase in front of her apartment door. It wasn’t that unusual, in those days, for people to leave things at her door or drop smaller items into her letter slot. She was, after all, a member of the Berlin state parliament for the conservative Christian Democrats. Sometimes Besser called the police to examine a suspicious package; she was careful to always apologize to the neighbors for the commotion.
The students had proclaimed a revolution, and Besser, the widow of an officer, belonged to those forces in the city that were sharply opposed to the radical changes of the day. Three years earlier, when she was a newly elected member of the Berlin state parliament, the CDU had appointed Besser, a Ph.D. in philology, to the education committee. She quickly acquired a reputation for being both direct and combative.
The briefcase contained a stack of paper — the typewritten daily reports on educational work at an after-school center in Berlin’s Kreuzberg neighborhood, where up to 15 children aged 8 to 14 were taken care of during the afternoon. The first report was dated Aug. 13, 1969, and the last one was written on Jan. 14, 1970.
Even a cursory review of the material revealed that the educational work at the Rote Freiheit (”Red Freedom”) after-school center was unorthodox. The goal of the center was to shape the students into “socialist personalities,” and its educational mission went well beyond supervised play. The center’s agenda included “agitprop” on the situation in Vietnam and “street fighting,” in which the children were divided into “students” and “cops.”
Pantomiming Intercourse
The educators’ notes indicate that they placed a very strong emphasis on sex education. Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse.
According to the records, a “sex exercise” was conducted on Dec. 11 and a “f-—ing hour” on Jan. 14. An entry made on Nov. 26 reads: “In general, by lying there we repeatedly provoked, openly or in a hidden way, sexual innuendoes, which were then expressed in pantomimes, which Kurt and Rita performed together on the low table (as a stage) in front of us.”
The material introduced the broader public to a byproduct of the student movement for the first time: the sexual liberation of children. Besser passed on the reports to an editor at the West Berlin newspaper Der Abend, who published excerpts of the material. On April 7, 1970, the Berlin state parliament discussed the Rote Freiheit after-school center. As it turned out, the Psychology Institute at the Free University of Berlin was behind the center. In fact, the institute had established the facility and provided the educators who worked there. Besser now believes that it was a concerned employee who dropped off the reports at her door.
A few days later, Besser paid a visit to the Psychology Institute in Berlin’s Dahlem neighborhood, “to take a look at the place,” as she says. In the basement, Besser found two rooms that were separated by a large, one-way mirror. There was a mattress in one of the rooms, as well as a sink on the wall and a row of colorful washcloths hanging next to it. When asked, an institute employee told Besser that the basement was used as an “observation station” to study sexual behavior in children.
It has since faded into obscurity, but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were caught up in a strange obsession about childhood sexuality. It is a chapter of the movement’s history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era. On this issue, the veterans of the late ‘60s student movement seem to have succumbed to acute amnesia; an analysis of this aspect of the student revolution would certainly be worthwhile.
The Possibility of Sex with Children
In the debate on sexual abuse, one of the elements is confusion as to where the line should be drawn in interactions with children. It is a confusion not limited to the Catholic Church. Indeed, it was precisely in so-called progressive circles that an eroticization of childhood and a gradual lowering of taboos began. It was a shift that even allowed for the possibility of sex with children.
The incidents at the Odenwald School in the western state of Hesse — a boarding school with no religious affiliation — showed that there was a connection between calls for reform and the removal of inhibition. The case of Klaus Rainer Röhl, the former publisher of the leftist magazine Konkret, also makes little sense without its historical context. The articles in Konkret that openly advocated sex with minors are at least as disturbing as the accusations of Röhl’s daughters Anja and Bettina that he molested them, which Röhl denies.
The left has its own history of abuse, and it is more complicated than it would seem at first glance. When leaders of the student movement of the late 1960s are asked about it, they offer hesitant or evasive answers. “At the core of the movement of 1968, there was in fact a lack of respect for the necessary boundaries between children and adults. The extent to which this endangerment led to abuse cases is unclear,” Wolfgang Kraushaar, a political scientist and chronicler of the movement, writes in retrospect.
A lack of respect for boundaries is putting it mildly. One could also say that the boundaries were violently torn open.
Sexual liberation was at the top of the agenda of the young revolutionaries who, in 1967, began turning society upside down. The control of sexual desire was seen as an instrument of domination, which bourgeois society used to uphold its power. Everything that the innovators perceived as wrong and harmful has its origins in this concept: man’s aggression, greed and desire to own things, as well as his willingness to submit to authority. The student radicals believed that only those who liberated themselves from sexual repression could be truly free...
full article at link
When I was six just wanted to play with Barbies and watch Saturday morning cartoons.
All secondary sources here, unfortunately. I can’t draw a conclusion on this until I see the offensive course material.
I will say this reads exactly like the sort of thing Leftist sex perverts would advocate — but I still need to get to the primary sources.
Let me say that I personally would kick the ass of anyone who approached my child this way and I would hang anyone that wanted to do someting about that ass kicking.
Me, too. It just sounds impossible that normal, loving parents would sit by and allow sex acts to be taught to their little children who are yet too young to comprehend. Yet the very thought of this image would be very titillating to the world of the pedophile. However, in this age of the Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful friends, who knows how widespread pedophilia is throughout all of our institutions. I think humanity is racing back to the jungle as fast as it can after surviving wars, famine and disease for 1000’s of years. The true exterminator could well be the decadence of mankind's own soul. No other enemy could be as cruel or deadly.
Grooming. Once they are sexualized it won’t be hard to convince confused children it’s alright for an adult to help them “feel good”, by allowing their hands between the child’s legs.
Coming to an elementary school near you. I wonder if the white, college educated mothers of suburbia will be alright with this too. I haven’t found the bridge to far for them yet.
I’m ready to just tag critters.
Pedos running the schools as usual.
Soon the sex Ed for 6 year olds will be: If you like you touching yourself, try it with Mr. Smith from down the street who was until we changed the law a sexual offender. He will teach you about sex and love.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.