CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Governments Sexualising Our Children

Apr 7, 2009

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.

www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25300274-3102,00.html

[1067 words]

18 Responses to Governments Sexualising Our Children

  • I notice that Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said it would be “up to each individual teacher whether the website was recommended as a resource within the classroom. An Education Queensland spokeswoman said it was important that teachers checked content to ensure it was suitable for their class. ‘Individual schools consult with their communities, including parents and carers, to determine the specific content of programs and appropriate teaching resources to assist with program delivery,’ the spokeswoman said.”

    From my experience in the UK the lies proffered here in abundance are insulting to the intelligence. There is no consultation with “communities, including parents and carers,” and in my experience the teachers responsible for distributing this deadly material have not even read it for themselves. They are so rushed off their feet that they are only too happy to have some glossy freebies to hand out to the kids and thus save themselves the job of having to think up something for sex education.

    For you in Australia, as is already happening in little ol’ UK, it is going to be compulsory sex education for children as soon as they hang their coats on the hooks in reception class, with parents being threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

    David Skinner, UK

  • “It is normal to be interested in this stuff at this age…pornograghy at 11 years of age”. I can’t believe what I have just read. This website is nothing more than evil!
    Jane Byrne

  • “If these folk were interested in really helping kids, instead of pushing politically correct ideology” “But this site is not just selling our kids short with false and misleading information, it is involved in pushing agendas” – indeed, care for the young people is the very last consideration. They, the future victims, are just the expendable cannon-fodder in the culture war against traditional/Judeo-Christian values and world-view. Never be fooled into supposing the promoters of the culture of death care about those that get hurt.
    John Thomas, UK

  • UK Pupils can even get a School Certificate in pornography

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090407/teens-to-analyse-lads-mags-as-part-of-gcse/

    David Skinner, UK

  • We already have compulsory sex education in NZ imposed by parliament’s well-described “bovver Boy” Trevor Mallard, ex-PM Helen Clark’s former rottweiler. Why parents put up with these outrageous, utterly inappropriate government diktats is unfathomable – especially given the now decades-long parallel explosion in teenage and child sexual activity – and its very sad consequences. These are a direct result of the irresponsible, intrusive, and premature thrusting of this liberal indoctrination at them.

    Amy Brooke, NZ

  • Thanks Bill,

    I magine the outcry if teachers taught other equally incorrect details such as “2+2=7”!

    Schools have no business teaching this stuff in any case and it should be a wake up call to Christian parents as to their parental responsibilities.

    Jeremy Peet

  • After looking at http://www.thehormonefactory.com, I am extremely unimpressed.

    Quality is very poor.

    Have noted a lot is on-line survey with questions like …
    “Is 13 old enough to have sex?”
    and “helpfully” tells me that 21731 agree with statement, 13354 disagree, and 3246 not sure.
    Do the authors really claim this is a useful piece of information to provide to 10-12 year olds?
    Do 10-12 year olds understand the statistical limitations of on-line surveys?
    Do the site’s authors understand those statistical limitations? Do they care? I expect the answer to both questions is “NO!”.

    Other questions include …
    “What age do people have sex?” again with the possible answers of “agree”, “disagree” and “don’t know”.
    To such a question, what can be the possible meanings of the answers “agree” “disagree” be?
    The only meaning I can think of is that the authors have total contempt for the intelligence of their intended audience, including parents and the authorities responsible for approving finance of the site.

    It’s concept of humans as “hormone factories” is degrading, and emphasis on pheromones is scientifically dubious at best.

    To me, the site looks more and more like an April Fool’s Day joke.

    Regards,

    David Cohan

  • I went to the site.
    Found a question, “Is 13 old enough to have sex?”
    Thought I would answer ‘agree’ and surprise surprise, look what comes up:

    “You said you agree and 21789 other people agree with you.
    Opinion Meter:
    Agree – 21790
    Disagree – 13420
    Not Sure – 3264
    It is a very important decision to have sex. It is the law in most places that a person must be at least 16 years old before they have sex. Having sex can feel great and loving, or boring, or uncomfortable. When a person feels ready, safe, happy, and old enough, it is more likely to feel great. The reason for this is to try and protect kids from getting pregnant, or catching a sex infection, and to stop children being forced to have sex. Having sex should be a good, happy and sexy feeling. It should not be scary, or a person should not have sex because they think they should do it. It is important both people want to have sex.”

    I would say the folks who designed this website have no sense of moral responsibility and were all drunk and having sex at the same age!!! C’mon shy babes, reveal yourselves. Do you want people to follow your own bad choices!!!

    Teresa Binder

  • David Cohan, Francis Schaeffer said somewhere that eventually we will all have to be wired up to a central computer recording our opinions on a host of issues. The consensus will rule, OK. Of course this consensus will be continually fluctuating so that what might be criminal one minute could change the next. In that case I would imagine we would have to be administered litte electric shocks whenever we were not conforming to the consensus of opinion.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Sorry David, hadn’t read your post and realized we are on the same point!
    Teresa Binder

  • Here’s another one:

    “How does the sperm get to the egg?
    Could a 12 year old girl make babies?
    One drop of semen can make a baby?

    Choice of responses
    Agree, Disagree, Don’t know
    So how does the sperm get to the egg? Answer: Agree”

    The creator of this website does not even have a sound grasp of English. How old, or more to the point, how young and stupid are you who created this website???

    Teresa Binder

  • David Skinner writes:
    “They (teachers) are so rushed off their feet that they are only too happy to have some glossy freebies to hand out to the kids and thus save themselves the job of having to think up something for sex education.”

    Does anyone have any glossy bound copies of God’s sex education manuals: say, the books of Leviticus and Song of Songs? Perhaps it’s time to drop them off at your local school :-).

    Mansel Rogerson

  • I wonder if we should be doing more than we are about this sort of thing? Are we keeping the creeping rot in our society regularly in front of those responsible for our laws and regulations. I speak with teachers who say they are powerless to do anything. But who is spawning this abuse and putting it on our children. Those who prepare teaching material must have departmental heads. Are we holding these bureaucrats to account? Is it a kind of game where the other side always wins and all we can do is utter words?
    Peter Rice

  • “HIV/AIDS in Australia is overwhelmingly transmitted by male homosexual activity, along with intravenous drug use. Heterosexuals have a very low chance indeed of contacting 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.”

    Where exactly does this information come from? I’m fairly certain you’re not going to publish this comment anyway so I just thought I’d question you on the information you use. Most people tend to be more academic when making damning arguments about our society. If you want to be productive, use statistics and verified sources rather than (for all you could know is nothing more than) propaganda.

    Furthermore opening up information about sex doesn’t neccesarily encourage children to have sex or make them perverse even. Compare it to information on alcohol. Telling children that it’s wrong without explaining what is so bad about it and then seeing a society that embraces, accepts and ignores alcohol abuse only leads to our children eventually going out and getting drunk. If we change our society to be more relaxed about consentual sex and accept it as a natural part of life, then our children are more likely to wait until they feel ready. Did you go out and have sex the second someone told you what you had to do?

    Before you dismiss this as “left wing conspiracy,” what exactly are you fighting against? Out society breeds concepts of immorality and damnation as soon as people who aren’t comfortable with themselves incubate it. Just relax for christ’s sake

    Alec Sparks

  • For HIV transmission to occur you need the virus to enter the bloodsteam in a high enough concentration to cause seroconversion. The risk for transmission is approximately the same for vaginal sex as it is for anal sex.

    The reason you observe a disproportionate representation of gay men with HIV in some countries is a direct result of them living for generations in a society which marginalised their feelings, emotions and sexual behaviour instead of being inclusive and encouraging them to form stable partnerships.

    In Africa HIV is predominantly a straight virus where it affects one in four people. Most have acquired it through vaginal sex.

    Condoms with water based lubricant are still the most affective way to prevent the spread of HIV. Condoms are effective no matter how many sexual partners you have.

    The church had a good run on bossing every one around. Now it’s time to let science takeover.

    I used to love church as a child until I grew up and witnessed the power games and ridiculous pettiness of these people with so called “high morals” for myself.

    John Detan

  • Thanks Alec

    I am quite relaxed actually. But perhaps it is you who is agitated, especially if you need to throw profanities around, given that your arguments are clearly not up to scratch.

    Figures on homosexuality and HIV are of course readily available. For all your bluster, it is odd that you appear to be so ignorant of them. Why don’t you try the National Centre in HIV Social Research, the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, and the AIDS Council of New South Wales for starters? They will tell you the very same thing that I have just said in terms of percentages, prevalence rates, high-risk groups, and so on.

    As but one (of many) stats, according to a recent Australian HIV Surveillance Report, 80.5 per cent of HIV cases in Australia were due to male homosexual/bisexual contact; 4.9 per cent were due to male homosexual/bisexual contact and drug use; and 3.4 per cent were due to injecting drug use. You obviously need to start becoming familiar with such research, in order to avoid future embarrassment when people call your bluff.

    And it is the big daddy of sex ed promoters, Planned Parenthood itself, which tells us that more sex ed courses simply compound the problems. They revealed in their own survey that teens who have taken “comprehensive” sex education courses have a fifty per cent higher rate of sexual activity than their “unenlightened” peers.

    It is hard to argue against such facts. Or do you want these various groups to just relax as well?

    And given that two attack comments have arrived within an hour on an old post which has not been commented on in over six months, then yes, I certainly do suspect a conspiracy, if not of left wingers, then of pro-homosexual activists.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks John

    But all you provide is yet more bluff and bluster – even more bizarre and off-target than your buddy Alec. You certainly won’t win very many arguments that way. Indeed, your claims are as laughable as they are dishonest.

    We know for a fact that anal intercourse will much more efficiently spread HIV. Any medical doctor can explain to you the basics here, such as the differences between the female vagina and the male urethra and rectum, and how they impact on the transmission of HIV. While HIV is in fact relatively difficult to transmit, the overwhelming risk factor for its spread is of course receptive anal intercourse. As one major study concluded, “the number of episodes of anal intercourse was the only significant independent predictor of HIV seropositivity”.

    Claiming that high HIV rates among homosexuals are solely due to social disapproval had me ROFL. So that explains why HIV rates are so high among homosexuals in places where they have overwhelming social approval, such as San Francisco and Sydney?

    And of course the high HIV rates in Africa are mainly due to two things: anal intercourse (in order to avoid pregnancy) and poor medical conditions.

    Moreover, we know that the only African nation to actually see a reduction in HIV rates is Uganda, which has put condom use on the bottom of its priority list, and emphasised instead abstinence and faithfulness in marriage.

    So yes you are right, we need to listen to what science is telling us. And that certainly is not what you are saying.

    When faced with outright baloney and falsehoods such as you have tried to palm off on us here, one can see why the pro-homosexual cause does not have a leg to stand on. Sorry, but telling lies often enough and loud enough will never establish the truth. But I realise of course that your side is far happier to put ideology ahead of facts, evidence and science.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi John Detan,

    I note your closing comments in relation to rotten religion and hypocrites who practice it.

    You are in good company.

    Jesus had the same trouble.

    Nevertheless we fall into a grave error if we allow our anger or personals feelings to become an excuse for unbridled self-indulgence. Every culture which allows itself to be engulfed by this fails, usually quite rapidly. This is a classic study in sociological history. The fall of Rome, and the fate of Lesbos are only two examples.

    For example many Australians feel that football is a great game, in spite of the behavior of some of its leading exponents, not because of it.

    Life is about ultimate reality, not the things you can touch and taste and fell and see and have sex with. That is why so many addicts – sex addicts included – are so unfulfilled. It is because men (and women) are not machines, and therefore fulfillment of our pleasurable desires systems is guaranteed to leave our spirits dry as dust.

    Which of course is why homosexual rights can never succeed at a fundamental human level, although they may for a time “gain the numbers” at the political and media level.

    God showed us that man was made in the image of God. When we attempt to re-make ourselves in either our own image, or after the image of anything which we might choose – usually sex drugs and rock and roll – then unfulfilment, and the awful fruits of a barren soul is a sure fire guaranteed harvest.

    If you study the great saints, most of them cultivated a strong faith in the face of opposition, not of approbation.

    Jesus said “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” Only Christ offers true purity of spirit. Everything else is a pig sty.

    This might sound strange, but to many people the most attractive part of God is not his “togetherness” – power, strength, wisdom, beauty, glory, majesty – but his brokenness, especially seen in the dying tortured form of self-sacrifice of taking our sins in His body on the cross to hell.

    One missionary I knew who became very great and strong, was a pastor’s son. He said just what you said: “I do not know anybody who lives life the way you said it should be lived.” He felt God say to him “Nor do I. I want you to be that man.” He has now done many mighty miracles and lives in the Mexican jungles just like Jesus did.

    Why not?

    What does unbridled self indulgence have to compare with “seeing the face of God” ???

    Best regards,

    Stuart Reece.

Leave a Reply