We can understand the sex industry and porn lobby attempting to target our kids and push their sleazy agenda on them. But when the government gets into this business, using our tax dollars to do so, then we must be especially concerned.
Primary school kids are being targeted by a website developed by La Trobe University. The site, thehormonefactory.com, uses cartoons to tell 10 to 12-year-olds about how they can get “interested in sex”. It also informs them what a relief it can be if a woman has an abortion.
Indeed, this is part of the advice given to our children about “not making babies”: abortion “can also be a relief. If a woman has a termination she can still have a baby at another time.” How about some truth telling here guys? Why not inform these kids that abortion increases the risk of sterility? Chances are good there will not be a next time. But why let facts stand in the way of propaganda?
The site itself is filled with plenty of other helpful information. Indeed, it is filled with plenty of misinformation. Consider what it has to say about HIV/AIDS: “HIV is the name of the germ or virus that can give a person AIDS. HIV is mostly passed from one person to another by having sexual intercourse. Safer sex can help stop it passing from one person to another.”
This is one of the most disgraceful and misleading remarks on the whole site. This site is an Australian site, devoted to educating Australian children. Therefore it should tell the truth about the Australian situation. If these folk were interested in really helping kids, instead of pushing politically correct ideology, the site should have said this: “HIV is mostly passed from one male to another male by having sexual intercourse.”
HIV/AIDS in Australia is overwhelmingly transmitted by male homosexual activity, along with intravenous drug use. Heterosexuals have a very low chance indeed of contracting the disease. And since this site is quite happy to talk about homosexuality, it is disingenuous at best, and downright mischievous at worst, for these sexperts to deliberately mislead impressionable and vulnerable young people about this important information.
And speaking of health issues, it is interesting that the site speaks of “safer sex”. Indeed, the myth of safe-sex has long ago been discarded. But the safer sex message is not much better. Just talking a lot about condoms is no real help at all.
Indeed, I am reminded of a meeting of sexologists that took place some years ago. At a World Congress of Sexology, a speaker asked the 800 sexologists present this question: “If you had available the partner of your dreams and knew the person carried HIV, how many of you would have sex depending on a condom for protection?” Not one person raised their hand. After a long delay, one hand was timidly raised in the back of the room. The speaker was irate. She told them, “it was irresponsible to give advice to others that they would not follow themselves.”
But this site is not just selling our kids short with false and misleading information, it is involved in pushing agendas. In this case it is the usual sexual liberationist agenda, complete with pro-homosexual indoctrination. Check out this agenda-laden bit of bias and indoctrination:
“Many people do not easily fit one label or another. It is normal and human for feelings to change in a lifetime. Sometimes it is hard for a person who is gay, lesbian or bisexual, because some people think they should not be gay, lesbian or bisexual, and that heterosexual is the only right way to be. It is normal to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or heterosexual.”
Telling young and naive children that the high-risk and dangerous homosexual lifestyle is “normal” and therefore OK is the height of irresponsibility. How many children will receive a premature death sentence because they experimented with homosexuality after being told by this site and others like it that such alternative lifestyles are quite alright?
And the website, complete with cute cuddly cartoon figures, assures our young children that masturbation is just fine, and exploring one’s sexuality is just peachy. Indeed, our young children are being told how neat sex is, with the whole thrust of the message being, ‘Go ahead, try it. You’ll like it. There is nothing wrong with any of it whatsoever.’
That advice may make a tad more sense for adults, but not for primary school children. Indeed, the way the message is presented, one would expect to see even more child sexual activities taking place. After all, consider how cool sex is according to the site: “People do this because it feels nice. The feelings are warm and tingly and exciting. Sometimes they get so excited that a lovely shiver called an orgasm comes over them.” Gee, let’s do it!
Parents of course should be the first port of call when introducing children to sexuality. Their values are an important part of this. But our government sexperts think that if we just cram all the information we can into little Johnny’s and Suzy’s minds, without any moral framework, they will all go out and do the right thing.
Somehow I don’t think so. This value-free approach to sex ed is a recipe for disaster. It basically assumes our young people are on a level with animals, lacking in the ability to say no, to achieve self-discipline. It is the white-flag approach.
As Christina Hoff Summers once put it, “To my mind, leaving children alone to discover their own values is a little like putting them in a chemistry lab and saying, ‘Discover your own compound kids.’ If they blow themselves up, at least they have engaged in an authentic search for the self’.”
This defeatist approach is like saying we have lost the war against tobacco, so let’s teach our young children all about “safer smoking”. Let’s teach them about nicotine, filters, etc. Let’s tell them that smoking can give you feelings that are warm and tingly, and may even produce a lovely shiver.
If our sexperts want to target adults, and do it with their own funding, that is one thing. But we certainly do not need these guys insisting that our children be the subject of their questionable agenda, and that we be forced to subsidise this with our tax dollars.