Warning; We are not a politically correct site. Don't like us? Don't read.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Proof of what we have been saying all along, sex ed in schools is driven by an ideology.

April 25, 2014 at 12:17pm
NEW YORK, April 24, 2014 (C-FAM.org) - Reporters called one program “x-rated.” Another was dubbed “kindergarten sex ed.” A World Health Organization version led to a spectacular defeat in the European Parliament. UN delegates reject it as an assault on their culture.
Comprehensive sexuality education often goes unchallenged – until people discover what it teaches. Now a new paper explains the politics behind the curricula and why so many people are upset.
A team of experts led by Professor Jokin de Irala found the self-described “evidence-based” comprehensive sexuality education to be riddled with ideology and opinions masquerading as facts. And outright disrespect for parents, with one program declaring sexual autonomy an “entitlement” that “strengthens the individual against intrusions by the family or society.”
"The Politics of ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education'" looks at the tactics of what the authors call the Sex Education Establishment, a collection of powerful organizations such as the UN Population Fund, the World Health Organization, USAID and Planned Parenthood.
The Sex Education Establishment creates policy guidelines and funds efforts to carry them out, presenting their product as neutral “best practices.” But the Establishment's recommendations fail to distinguish facts from opinion, and its track record is questionable. Terms that appear innocuous, like “gender” and “evolving capacity,” disguise dubious teachings and practices.

In 2004, the journal Lancet published a joint statement by experts describing the ABC strategy – Abstinence, Be Faithful, and use a Condom – as the best ways for avoiding risk.

Yet the Sex Education Establishment does not “take seriously that the implementation of A or B is possible,” and seldom acknowledges that sexual activity is a risk for adolescents, note the authors.

“The Sex Education Establishment tends to assume that most minors are sexually active, and their programs do very little to protect the majority of non-sexually-initiated youth,” they write.

Recently, a UN Population Fund official exhibited this flawed thinking. When speaking to cadres of activists at a UN conference, Feminist Kate Gilmore was overheard more than once ridiculing the idea of abstinence.
Yet the vast majority of youth under 18 are not sexually active, report the authors. Promoting condoms as safe sex may “actually foster a false sense of security in youth and lead, paradoxically, to increased risk-taking behavior,” a behavioral phenomenon known as “risk compensation.”
Professor de Irala’s team found abstinence-centered programs are effective, presenting facts and presuming adolescents’ ability to make ideal decisions, not patronizing youth by presuming they will engage in risky sexual activity.
Sexuality education cannot be entirely evidence-based because many important concepts and terms are debatable, and get their meaning from the context they are used – such as the word “love.”

The authors argue that sex education programs, especially when publicly funded, should empower parents to be the educators, and in any case should not advance an agenda that is incompatible with the values of the communities in which they are implemented.

The authors advise sex experts to seek input from – and reflect the values of – the people who know and love their children the most: parents. They are most responsible for their children’s education and well-being, are sensitive to their child’s evolving maturity, and should have the legal right to protect their youngsters from harmful messages.
Other studies back up the paper's conclusions, reporting that adolescent girls whose parents provide limits and supervision wait longer before having sex, regardless of socioeconomic factors like their neighborhood.
"The Politics of ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education'" is published by the International Organizations Research Group, a division of C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax.
-----------------------------------
 
The feminist controlled sex ed in Ontario, especially here in lanark county has produced a bad side effect, their sex ed programs by-passes parents and promotes it as a pass time like an xbox game, hence the increase in single parenthood, welfare and an uneducated youth...one only has to look in the spring, how many children are pushing strollers...
The women's shelter in carleton place Ontario, open doors in smiths falls, YAK, and other so called youth organisations,  and schools, are all inter-twined with each other and claim to speak for the teens, which they do not, on the contrary, they are responsible for the degradation of parental rights and the fall of the traditional family in lanark county.
 
Their inexperience in dealing with teens causes major damages, which they care nothing about, it is the funding and the power they are after, they will by-pass parents even lure teens away from the family home to impose their twisted ideas and agendas...
 
Sex ed cannot be educational and beneficial to kids in kindergarten that`s for sure they are to young, and as for teens, without the involvements of parents in such programs, the only thing they do is promote an agenda, twisted as it may be....
And as for staff at some shelter claiming to know what teen girls want, that is laughable because most of those staff member always claim to be victims of men, hence shoving their dislike for males into their words and action....
So how can the message they spit out be educational...educational means not to have a bias, and as we know, shelter staff may be a lot of things but they certainly not unbiased...
 
All these "feminists" have free access to schools, bringing their idealism to a youth that is susceptible to messages of a bias nature....usually, ├Čt`s always boys and men's fault...
Case in point...
Will we ever see a director of a woman`s shelter ever talk about "some" women abusing kids and their husband???  well don't hold your breath on that one....

How can we trust them to teach "our kids" about sex ed in a natural, traditional and respectful way...
Reasonable thinking left them when they decided to forget the value of mom and dad.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

More like grooming children for use in their own perversion's...sick pig's.

Wasn't the previous leader of this stuff charged with possession and distribution of child porn?


outdoors

The Native Canadian said...

A lot of those who promote sex ed get caught in child porn rings...