THE GOVT IS ABUSING OUR CHILDREN
Thursday 11 June, 2009
UK
Health
Family
…And encouraging them to break the law!
By Dee Pfeiffer
Just when we might have thought things couldn’t get any worse, and that those in government might have cleaned up their act a little, it seems they’re intent on pushing through yet another scheme aimed at sexualising our young.
You’d think they might have better things to do, like sorting out the expenses scandal and working on doing something…anything…that the majority of the public might support, but no. Instead, the UK Department for Children, Schools and (ahem) Families has announced a new programme that will give boys as young as twelve a condom ‘credit card’ or ‘C-card’, allowing them to receive free condoms at sports fields, clubs and barber shops.
Condoms will be distributed at places where boys congregate – to ‘spare them the embarrassment’ of visiting sexual health clinics or GPs’ surgeries or facing a shop assistant at a chemist’s counter. Nobody seems to have questioned why they might feel embarrassed to visit the aforementioned bodies in the first place.
Could it be that we all have a sense of modesty and that children in particular see sex as something that’s supposed to be out of bounds until they are older? If so, then this latest policy is once again breaking down the natural and God-given boundaries of our young. Certainly, if someone is embarrassed to collect condoms from the outlets mentioned, then they are surely far too young to be considering sex?
Children will be able to collect the condoms by showing a plastic card issued to them after they have attended a safe-sex lesson, according to new government guidance. Presumably, the government see sports fields, barbers and clubs less intimidating than a more natural setting for such distribution. It makes no sense, unless of course, the government want condoms to be distributed as widely as possible, which is far more likely than their insinuation that children would be embarrassed at certain outlets, but not at others.
The fact that boys who take advantage of the scheme will not have to give their names or answer questions about their sex lives is shocking. All that’s necessary is a ‘safe sex’ lesson and they have the all-access card to sex, no questions asked. The fact that those giving these so-called ‘safe sex’ lessons are state-employed, taxpayer-funded promiscuity and abortion advocates just makes the whole thing even more sordid.
The government say the scheme is intended to cut teenage pregnancies and persuade boys to take greater responsibility for contraception, yet there is no evidence to suggest that this will work. In fact, it is destined to fail because, like all other government policies of late, it is once again ignoring the real problem, which is the absolute refusal to acknowledge and support initiatives which seek to give children their innocence back and take measures to stop, not increase, the dreadful sexualisation that is going on in this country.
Just who thinks up these ideas? It’s certainly not decent parents or those who have children’s interests at heart. In fact, not surprisingly perhaps, this latest farce was thought up by the Brook Advisory Service. Brook specialises in providing contraceptives to children under the legal age of consent, without informing their parents: doctors are only informed if the child gives consent. Their 1978 manifesto Safe Sex for Teenagers made it very clear that the underlying philosophy is that the customer is always right. It said: “We must be prepared to challenge our established attitudes that sexual activity in young people is dangerous…There are still too many workers in birth control clinics who believe, consciously or subconsciously, that sex before sixteen is sinful.”
It’s an organisation which has spent years promoting contraception to teenagers who sadly reap the consequences, yet its philosophy hasn’t changed. When Brook say that providing condoms in this way will hopefully help cut teenage pregnancies, the government listen, because the present government operates from the same secular agenda.
Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and the government has failed in its pledge to halve rates of pregnancy in girls under 18. It is also failing miserably in slowing down the rapid increase in sexually transmitted infections and, with programmes like this which only serve to further sexualise our young, it is no surprise.
In the C-card programme, which has already been in operation in some areas of the UK since March, boys who attend additional talks about sexually transmitted diseases get a stamp on their card which those running the scheme hope will become a status symbol.
Brook chief executive Simon Blake told The Times that the C-card would make condom use “an everyday reality”. This might be good news for Brook and the multi-million pound condom industry, but what about the public? Do we honestly want a country in which mere children are encouraged to make condoms their ‘everyday reality’?
Moreover, ‘safe sex’ education suggests that condoms are safe when in reality there are many situations in which they aren’t adequate. Some of the most common sexually transmitted infections, such as HPV, can be contracted even if a condom is used, through skin to skin contact outside of the area covered by the condom. Mention ‘user failure’ to a child and they won’t really understand, especially not if their friends all have a C-card.
Peer pressure is often the deciding factor on whether or not a young person has sex before they’re truly ready, and you can guarantee that if these cards are promoted as a cool item to have and to flash around, then kids will agree to a course for all the wrong reasons.
But the biggest question of all has to be why the government once again want to sexualise our young even further. If their compulsory sex education classes are working, why would this scheme be necessary? The answer might be more sinister than we think. For while some might be able to resist pressure from short sex education classes, creating the concept of a ‘condom club’ massively ups the pressure. It takes sex education away from the classroom and into the playground, and it creates that feeling of belonging that, combined with raging hormones, will be hard to resist for some.
Our government have made it difficult, if not impossible, for children to escape the sexual onslaught, from advertisements for condoms on television to sex education classes; from a sexualised media with little redress, to the kudos obtained through having a club card. We are living in dangerous times when a government abuses our young in this way, and we will surely reap the consequences in later generations.
Over the past few decades, we have seen an unprecedented attempt to sexualise young people with little, if any, mention of marriage, commitment, stability or chastity. Most youngsters now know exactly what a condom is, but mention chastity and many will look confused. More importantly, how many parents are fully aware of exactly what their children are being taught in the required classes? It is surely every parent’s job to find out, but the government thrive on the fact that many parents are either too busy or ignorant of what is truly happening.
Of course these cards will promote promiscuity. Studies have repeatedly shown that ‘safe sex’ education and easy access to condoms does not reduce teenage pregnancy rates or the incidence of sexually transmitted disease. So why is the government intent on promoting condoms at the expense of our children’s welfare?
Perhaps the most serious question regarding this scheme centres on the age group targeted. The age of consent in this country, for both girls and boys, is 16. Yet the very people entrusted with law-making are condoning, encouraging and promoting schemes which not only break the law, but put our children’s futures in jeopardy.
The more one uses a credit card without thinking of the consequences, the more debt spirals out of control and lives are potentially ruined. This C-card has the same potential to ruin lives. The debt, both to youngsters indoctrinated into such schemes and to society as a whole, just doesn’t bear thinking about.
Photo: stock.xchng
Kevin Yates wrote:
Great article, and one which tells the truth where the Government and media fail.
Keep writing articles like this as it is necessary to resist the incessant and growing forces of liberal extremism within our society that want to set the clock to Year Zero. We must continue speaking the truth and fighting to preserve morality and common sense.
The title of the article is rather poor and shallow and could have been more powerful, but I particularly liked the final sentence that compared the C-card to a credit card and how overuse of the credit card can lead to irresponsibility and causalness.
Cathy Gillis wrote:
Thank you for the aforementioned information. I certainly agree with your comments and will forward this onto my friends and the prayer line I’m involved in.
God bless you all,
Cathy
Bernadette Pickering wrote:
I have enclosed a report I sent to the head master of the school I work at as a T.A as I am extremely upset about the present state of our sex education. It not only mentions content but also the inadequate manner in which the lesson was given. Education should be presented by professionals, alas not so in this case nor the lesson I attended this week, again taken by a cover supervisor who did not know what an intrauterine device was OR what it did. Training given in this area of education ? What a joke! I apologise if it appears to be graphic for some but this is the reality of the content of videos that out children are watching.
My concerns for our students in regard to the sex education films I saw last week, year 9. The films were produced by the Brook Advisory Service.
Parental consent:
Are parents informed of the content of the sex ed films and also the practicals?
If a parent has not given consent, how would the teacher know whether that child has the right to be in there or not?
If the student is in there without their parents consent, what is done about that?
If the student knows that they do not have their parents consent and wants to remove themselves, where do they go and with whom?
What if a child has been abused and they find the content distressing what can they do? They may see and hear things that would trigger unhelpful memories. We may not always be aware of individuals’ circumstances, so what protection is in place for them? There should be a ‘get out’ clause for the students for whatever reason without any disclosure to others as to why and with no rebuke from their peers.
If a student has been brought up in a moral home and is then exposed to these films and practicals what can be done to compensate them for any distress caused by exposing them to images and ideas that are totally unfamiliar to them? (If the parent trusts the school then they may not be aware of the content).
Arrival at the lesson
I believe that the cover supervisor is in training for this subject so where was her trainer?
The students seemed completely unaware that they were having sex ed, so that anyone who could choose to remove themselves did not get an opportunity.
I did not hear from the cover supervisor any introduction or explanation as to the content of the videos, so again there was no chance to remove themselves if they felt it might be any way unsuitable.
There were no comments from the cover supervisor and no opportunity to discuss, ask questions or raise concerns or worries during any of the lesson. The films were literally run back to back without stopping. There was no conclusion to the lesson.
Content of films
There was a lot of information to take in from the films so why did the students not have a break after the first one to chat through what they had seen and voice there opinions.
Cartoons of a girl masturbating, a couple masturbating each other, a fully explicit drawing of an open legged girl with her genitals exposed with particular emphasis on her clitoris and then an explanation from some real life boys explaining what it was and what it was for.
A very short reference to getting pregnant was; if you do find yourself pregnant you can do one of three things, 1. keep the baby. 2.Have the baby adopted, which the woman said was very rare. 3. Have an abortion. There was no further comment made at all.
There were two scenarios created under the title of ‘bad sex’ and ‘good sex’.
In the ‘bad sex’ scenario, the real life couple were in bed together trying to get on with it, obviously at a party as they were interrupted a couple of times by four people. Could not get on with the condom only to find that hers had been taken by a visitor mistakenly with her jacket as well. The ‘good sex’ scenario was most disturbing as it was in the home of the girl who has a sister who is maybe 9 - 10 years old. The girl walks in laden with coke and other goodies and turns out a large bag of crisps that her sister doesn’t like and she says for £5 you will. Takes boyfriend upstairs, parents obviously out and begins the process of going through a time slotted evening as we get to see the clock, doing various positions all under cover but with all the sounds. What I found most disturbing apart from watching the content going on in the bedroom, was that this was all based on deception and bribery and that it was ALL ok.
What I am concerned about is that this was portrayed by, I presume 16 year olds. But this was being shown to 13 year olds.
Now if the legal age for sex is 16 why are 13 year olds being shown such films with far more than basic information in? These films contained scenes that promoted how sex should be done, the fun you can have and without any consequences spoken of apart from that I mentioned before about getting pregnant and also the use of condoms in order to protect yourself from S.T.D’s.
Images for this age group and boys in particular according to research, have a very powerful impact and without proper explanation and discussion could prove to be detrimental.
So why are we willing to allow our children to be exposed to the type of sex education that will ‘groom’ them into a life style that will have long term consequences? Will this not just increase their curiosity for the more?
We cannot avoid what a student accesses at home but where is our responsibility towards our students.
How can we possibly call this ‘education’ ?
If the cartoons were real life, we would have been watching pornography,
so WHAT IS the difference?
About 2% of one of the films gave a small group of young people the space to say that they were prepared to wait for marriage or they were remaining celibate, otherwise there was no mention of any moral boundaries. There was no mention of the often destructive and long term emotional effects of getting into sex at this age. They may well get this at a later date or it may have been covered already, but these images can remain and override the spoken word .
Going back to my concerns, they are that parents at present seem to have no awareness of the specific nature of the content of their child’s sex education and that they in turn need to have some opportunity to view everything that their child will be taught under the banner of sex education. So that they can make a decision based on facts whether to allow their child to take part or not. Not based just on the faith they may have in the school, where they entrust their children into the hands of the school system. But from an informed view.
Recently I was having a conversation with a year 10 girl and she said that she had had a sex education lesson. She said it was ‘dirty miss’. We were going to further discuss the topic at Immerse when the same girl and a boy came in for the first time and we were just about to discuss sex from a biblical view (although on this occasion we did not mention this viewpoint). Our visitor Jane, who is a schools worker and trained in sex education, began by asking all the students different questions, not about their sex ed lessons, but their views and opinions on the subject which they did but during the conversation they mentioned that their sex ed lesson was taken by 6th formers. I asked was there an adult present and they said no. They said how they had messed about with the condoms, but it seemed that the most relevant question was ‘shaved or unshaved, which is best?’ which actually refers to how women are presenting themselves in porn films. It was at the end of this session of Immerse that I invited Jane to come and visit us again and would she continue with the discussion. This was then held last Thursday, and she is happy to continue in a fortnight.
She uses the ‘agree, disagree’ method which is really helpful to open up really good conversations on the subject, without bombarding them with information they may not be ready for, but finds out what they know without presuming they know everything. Which I believe is how it could be presented to particularly the younger aged students and be able to avoid the unnecessarily provocative visual format.
In speaking to a professional person recently in whom I hold high regard she shared with me the disturbing story of a young girl who had made the decision that she would not have sex. However after the sex education lesson where the teachers approach was assuming that everyone in the class was already having sex, the girl and her friends decided at the end of the lesson that they might as well go ahead and do it.
If this is how we lead even one of our children, then I suggest that we are failing in regard to their sex education.
Sue Relf wrote:
Brilliant. Denise, please keep telling the truth in such a no nonsense way.
Tushar Mody wrote:
Well done, Dee, spot on.
Since sex before age 16 is illegal, I wonder if the project workers involved in this new scheme can be sued for “aiding and abetting”? Why not give out free knives in the process? It may give government policy advisers an opportunity to rethink their approach to this whole problem. It is the government’s responsibility to create righteous laws AND to enforce them....
Pippa Smith wrote:
This is a very well written and well researched piece which needs to be read by everyone. Denise highlights the most shocking wholesale corruption of an entire generation. We know this government is morally bankrupt and cares little for the people or children of this Nation. Parents, Christians and everyone everywhere must wake up and speak out.
david skinner wrote:
The Government is run by homosexuals, from top to bottom. They are also Marxist and the Frankfurt School said that the way to undermine the west was through sex.
“Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.”
http://www.restoringamerica.org/cultural_marxism.htm
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/hate_crime_legislation_back_do.html
Francisca Martinez wrote:
Parents need to be aware of what schools are doing and put pressure on the governors if it’s found the school are collaborating in ‘projects’ such as this. In addition we could write to our MP and ask for this to be put as a question in Parliament. Denise is spot-on - this activity is part of a wider agenda to sexualise our children and normalise what was, fifty or sixty years ago, taboo (for good reason) behaviour. No wonder our society is a broken one, when 12-year-old boys are taught that the healthy option is not NOT having sex before marriage, but making sure when you have it the object of your lust (the girl) isn’t going to do anything (like have a baby) that would spoil your fun time out (and put you off sex-outside-marriage in the future).
Alex Woods. wrote:
How come when present schemes are not working that more of the same to ever younger children are being paid for by the taxpayer? When will it be seen that Biblical morality does work, makes for safer families and drastically reduces the transmission of disease? Uganda had such problems with AIDS that the nation would have been wiped out in 10 years. Application of Bible principles has saved it and made Uganda the least infected of African nations. The results of NO sex before marriage and NO multiple partners does work.
Ian Walsh wrote:
How sick can it get? It seems like the nation’s leaders have gone mad. How gross this government had become. Any descent citizen should be calling for their heads.
I’d like to know if the younger politicians with daughters are asking, “who do 12 year boys have sex with if it isn’t with 12 year old girls?”
Parents don’t your sons and daughters mean more than that to you.
This is political irresponsibility at it worst.
paul m wrote:
It’s a fallen world and you can’t get much more fallen than this. Unbelievable!
Comment on this article
Please Note: All comments will be subject to moderation before showing up on the page, subject to approval.If you would prefer to discuss the issue in more depth and interaction, try the new forum here.