|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"IPPF Wants Fifth Graders Taught "The Pleasures of Sex""
On 2/10/2010 at 4:22:47 PM, Trainwreck started the thread:
Maybe they're just trying to get Rez laid:
File this under: Unintended irony.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) today released a report entitled “Stand and Deliver: Sex, health and young people in the 21st Century.”
I’m guessing the title alludes to the critically acclaimed film “Stand and Deliver” starring Edward James Olmos in which he played a dedicated math teacher who challenges his erstwhile high school dropouts to learn calculus. In the movie, these misunderstood yet courageous young people come of age, metaphorically, as they realize their true potential.
As it happens, according to the Web site phrases.org, the phrase “stand and deliver… was used by 17th century highwaymen (robbers) in the UK, when holding up stagecoaches.” It literally means, “Stop and give me your valuables.”
Come to think of it, given the contents of this ghastly report, the title may be apropos after all because what the IPPF wants to do is hold our children up and steal their innocence, their childhoods and worst of all, their sexual morality.
First, some context: IPPF is the international umbrella for 180 Planned Parenthood organizations worldwide. Its political agenda includes population control through contraception and abortion, as well as the broad promotion of “sexual rights.”
IPPF works closely the United Nations and other international groups to promote social and political change in support of their views on sexuality.
Those view include seven principles of “sexual rights” including that “Sexuality is an integral part of the personhood of every human being, for this reason a favourable (sic) environment in which everyone may enjoy all sexual rights as part of the process of development must be created” and “Sexuality, and pleasure deriving from it, is a central aspect of being human...”
The IPPF’s new report on sexuality in young people – loosely defined but including anyone over the age of 10 – expands on these rights to include children.
That’s right. Children.
The report says, “The evolving capacities of the child include his or her physiological ability to reproduce, his or her psychological ability to make informed decisions about counselling (sic) and health care, and his or her emotional and social ability to engage in sexual behaviours (sic) in accordance with the responsibilities and roles that this entails.”
Among the recommendations the IPPF makes to governments across the globe is mandatory sexual education for children age 10 and older to include “the pleasures of sex.”
Worse, the report specifically calls out organized religions, including the Catholic Church and the Muslim religion, for promoting sexual repression.
The report puts it this way:
Young people’s sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions… Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex and limited guidelines for sexual education often focus on abstinence before marriage …
IPPF, clearly believing sexual freedom for young people outweighs any concerns about silly things such as…oh, say… thousands of years of religious doctrine, offers up this nugget of advice:
Each religion or faith must find a way of explaining and providing guidance on issues of sex and sexual relationships among young people, which supports rather than denies their experiences and needs. By highlighting strong values in faiths and religions, and overcoming stigma and stereotypes that religious conventions perpetuate, communities and leaders can help improve young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health information and services, and so improve their health and well-being.
Huh? If you can get through the jargon, you understand that IPPF advocates government leaders usurp the rights of parents to instill their religious beliefs and values about sexual morality in their children in favor of improving “access to sexual and reproductive health information and services” for all young people.
Let’s not forget those services are largely provided by Planned Parenthood. What a coincidence.
To be clear, this report is secular-progressive free-sex propaganda and anti-religious bigotry disguised as public health whitepaper, and most of us will read about this report and simply think, “This is nuts.”
But it’s not nearly as crazy as the stuff these folks want taught in your child’s fifth grade classroom, and right now, they have the ear of the US Department of Education.
Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Msg #1: On 2/10/2010 at 10:56:25 PM, Majestic-1 replied, saying:
Hey, if 12 legally becomes the new 18, I can't complain too much.
Msg #2: On 2/11/2010 at 1:38:38 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
I love Stand and Deliver!
Msg #3: On 2/11/2010 at 2:40:52 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Yeah Grade 5 is ridiculous.. should be grade 6, maybe 7 if you ask me.
Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 3/5/2010 at 9:37:34 AM, MartinRandle replied to Msg #3, saying:
This is Rez's doing! :-)
Msg #5: On 4/22/2010 at 5:58:40 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying:
I had a Human Growth & Development class in the 5th grade. My innocence was hardly shattered. >.>
Msg #6: On 6/13/2010 at 7:56:06 AM, Maester replied, saying:
There are a good many kids, even at this age, well aware of the sexual activities so easily grasped online and in their own pants. I, personally, would prefer it taught around Freshman year.
Msg #7: On 6/13/2010 at 10:00:47 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
Schools shouldn't be teaching it... period
Leave it up to the parents. It's their children. Plus, kids find out sexual pleasure on their own. To teach it would be an open call for them to get down and dirty any time they wanted to.
Replies: 8
Msg #8: On 6/13/2010 at 12:20:18 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #7, saying:
Yes schools should teach it. In biology class.
Msg #9: On 6/16/2010 at 11:44:37 PM, Dark Element replied, saying:
LoL.
Schools shouldn't teach one of the most essential parts of the human race.
LoL.
Msg #10: On 6/19/2010 at 10:01:03 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
I was talking specifically about "Sexual Pleasure". You know... everything that is defined by "Sexual Pleasure".
Why should a school give out sex tips? "Hey Kids! I'm Burt the Stegosaur! BJs don't get you pregnant!"
Msg #11: On 6/19/2010 at 11:28:10 AM, Dark Element replied, saying:
How's that straw man workin for ya?
Telling children that sex is pleasurable isn't teaching them sex tips.
Sex IS pleasurable. There is no reason to lie to children. It's the parents job to enforce rules and guide children. Period. No kids will be having sex when they shouldn't be if parents are doing their jobs. If you're a responsible adult, you know when the school will start teaching your children, and before that happens, if you truly feel the need to explain it to your child first, you explain it to them in your own way before the school does.
It's the schools job to teach the basics of...just about everything. Including how human beings reproduce. Letting them know that sex is pleasurable doesnt mean we're teaching them the best positions, it means we aren't lying to them because most adults feel awkward explaining it to children, giving them mis-construed ideas about sex in the first place.
It's about time our school system start teaching things more balanced and rational. Show kids both sides to each topic of discussion. Yes, sex is pleasurable, however, here are the dangers to sex:
Do 5th graders need to be taught this?...questionable. I'd leave that up to the psychologists of America to decide whether or not that is passable. But, IMO, a year or two after, as Vinny said, is certainly reasonable.
And, while we're on the topic about sex: It's interesting, in studying literature...from Greek, Roman, British, Asian cultures...all throughout history, there has been a taboo on sex (Except, really, with the greeks...who really liked it, but didnt like to talk about it openly), but not TRULY for men. The argument of religion is always in play, however, the only people that ever seem to be ostracized for pre-marital sex is females (I believe in the Bible as well). Why? Well, it's my opinion that in male dominated societies, men didn't want women sleeping around. It was an ownership thing. They wanted to be the only ones that fucked a certain female. Did men cheat in history? Most certainly. Did they ever face the same consequences as women? FUCK NO. Look at Lancelot and Guinevere. Every piece of literature written on that subject, BLASTS Guinevere for being a treacherous whore. Lancelot? Oh, yeah sure, douche (cheating on his best friend...AND FUCKING HIS KING'S WIFE and all), but he was just tryin to get his dick wet. He just needs to leave Camelot. MURDER GUINEVERE! And that is over, and over, and over again throughout different takes on the same legend. The entire idea of abstinence, is rooted in the idea of property. Man want virgin. Man kill woman who not virgin...type of thing.
Discuss?
Replies: 12
Msg #12: On 6/19/2010 at 12:17:15 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #11, saying:
It was worse for Guinevere because she was the one doing the cheating, not Lancelot.
And sex has much more serious consequences for women (they get pregnant, we don't), so it's only natural that there's more of a taboo for them when it comes to sex.
And when it relates to the issue, why shouldn't there be an ownership element to sex when you're in a relationship? If you don't desire to dominate the sexual aspect of your partner's life, there is something seriously wrong with the relationship.
Replies: 13
Msg #13: On 6/19/2010 at 12:22:58 PM, Dark Element replied to Msg #12, saying:
"It was worse for Guinevere because she was the one doing the cheating, not Lancelot."
While true, that is just the first example that popped into my head. There are dozens of others. However, looking at the literature, why is there NO consequence, really, for Lancelot? Sure Guine is married, but sex is an act with two people. She was seduced by another man who knew better. Why is it, really, any worse? Lancelot understood the consequences just as much as she did. His betrayal is just as terrible.
"And sex has much more serious consequences for women (they get pregnant, we don't), so it's only natural that there's more of a taboo for them when it comes to sex."
How long have we had condoms? Also, there is a difference between a sexual past and having a child. Women, in history, are looked down upon without children if they have had a sexual past.
"And when it relates to the issue, why shouldn't there be an ownership element to sex when you're in a relationship? If you don't desire to dominate the sexual aspect of your partner's life, there is something seriously wrong with the relationship."
I 100% agree. If you dont have that in your relationship, you might as well gtfo. However, I am speaking about the past. Man, in history, does not want another woman that has been touched. Yet, it is (usually) passable for a man. Child or not.
Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 6/19/2010 at 3:20:30 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #13, saying:
How long have we had condoms?
Women still get pregnant.
Women, in history, are looked down upon without children if they have had a sexual past.
That's because promiscuity leads to children out of wedlock and disease. It has always been this way and it still is.
Yet, it is (usually) passable for a man.
So?
Msg #15: On 6/19/2010 at 8:09:53 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
"No kids will be having sex when they shouldn't be if parents are doing their jobs."
Allowing sex ed (the way these PARENTAL GROUPS want it) is giving parents permission to NOT do their jobs. And they AREN'T doing their jobs. Parents in this generation suck.
"Telling children that sex is pleasurable isn't teaching them sex tips."
Do they even need a class when all they have to do is say that?
I didn't have sex ed. I pretty much got the gist of it on my own from very little information (penis penetrates vagina).
Then again... I am now a porno-aholic. So don't listen to me.
Msg #16: On 6/19/2010 at 10:31:55 PM, Dark Element replied, saying:
"So?"
"Then again... I am now a porno-aholic."
Check and mate.
Msg #17: On 6/20/2010 at 12:43:50 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Msg #18: On 8/10/2010 at 5:25:11 PM, dieterstark replied, saying:
Thats disgusting- the people at IPPF are sick bastards; you cannot make a mature, adult decision about something important like sex in the fifth grade.
|
