Podcast: Play in new window | Download ()
Subscribe: Android | RSS | More
Education’s three r’s long ago became racism, relativism, and revisionism, but more obviously shocking is its one s: sex. The latest distressing example is a primary school program in Britain that will teach young children about auto-eroticism.
As the Mirror reports, “Parents have slammed lessons on ‘self-stimulation’ which encourages [sic] children aged between six and ten to touch their ‘private parts’ in bed and the shower.”
“More than 240 primary schools in the UK have introduced [the] lessons as part of the All About Me sex education programme.”
“A teaching manual issued as part of the programme instructs children aged six to ten about ‘the rules of self-stimulation,’” the site continues.
“Shocked parents have hit out at the program, saying that children of such young ages should not be exposed to mature topics like masturbation, and some took their kids off school when the lessons were taught,” the Mirror also relates.
The Daily Mail adds that “teachers are advised to tell children that … while some people may say this behaviour is ‘dirty’, it is in fact ‘very normal.’”
Nonetheless, kids are warned that it’s “not polite” to touch yourself in public and “are given scenarios which they must judge to be ‘OK’ or ‘not OK,’” the Mail further relates.
“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,’” the paper continues.
Since the sexual devolutionaries call prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors “social constructs” reflective of hang-ups, we should ask: What about what’s considered “polite”?
Under the relativistic world view, is that not also a “social construct” that can reflect “hang-ups”? It’s interesting that these activists want the children to “keep it in the closet,” but scoff at the assertion that their sex education violates this admonition.
Speaking volumes about the program is an example of its instructional materials (below), provided courtesy of the Mail.
The above is notable not just for its content, but for how poorly written it is. The last paragraph contains two comma splices, and, no, this isn’t some petty, “punctuation Nazi” concern. How are children supposed to learn proper English composition if they see bad examples of it from their “educators”?
Unfortunately, whether it’s teaching young children about gratuitous sexuality, homosexuality, or that you can choose your “gender” — all with the implicit message “If it feels good, do it” — bad examples and perverse sex education are today’s modern (mis)education norm. We should ask, however, how did we get here?
Few people know that the whole idea of school sex education in the United States (and probably elsewhere) can be traced back to entomologist-turned self-proclaimed sex expert Alfred Kinsey. Some know of his Kinsey Institute and that he authored two tradition-shattering books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), which helped jump-start the Sexual Devolution. What few also know, however, is that his “research” was wholly fraudulent.
Even more to the point here, though, is something else largely unknown, something obscured by flattering Hollywood portrayals of the researcher:
Kinsey was a pervert obsessed with children and had a working relationship with pedophiles.
In fact, his institute was essentially an organized pedophile organization that used science as a cover for its dark passions. This is not opinion, mind you. Kinsey actually recorded “data” on the “sexual responses” of children — including infants. And how were they induced?
Kinsey right-hand man Paul Gebhard once explained, actually admitting that it was accomplished by way of “oral and manual techniques.” You can learn this whole dark history in my 2009 essay, “According to Kinsey, Deviancy Is the New Normal.”
The point is that parents fight the most egregious sex-education outrages, trying to prune the rotten tree. But consider: Since the British program tells children that self-stimulation is “a bit like picking your nose,” one should ask: Do they also teach kids about picking your nose?
In other words, why is sex education in schools in the first place?
Note that while the out-of-wedlock birthrate was only four percent in the pre-sex-education 1940s, it’s a whopping 40 percent today. Now maybe we know why C.S. Lewis observed (I’m paraphrasing), “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.”
Schools long ago opened up the closet to your kids, and what they’re being exposed to is scarier than any boogeyman.
Image: Wavebreakmedia via iStock / Getty Images Plus
