Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

The Political Agenda in Our Midst

Recommended Posts

This thread was inspired by a post from Moonlight Graham, which was posted in the topic, Transformed.


Moonlight Graham, on 08 Jul 2016 - 6:48 PM, said:snapback.png

You're a complete hypocrite: That's why it's dangerous that our school system religious people interfere to what kids normally go through, by injecting these ideas about different rigid binary sexual preferences.


Unless things had already changed, as far as I know, parents have the right to raise their children to their values.....and that includes their religious belief.

The school system have no such rights to teach its own values to their students, and no right to usurp parental rights!
That kind of institutional indoctrination (brainwashing) happens only in communist regimes......and as far as I know, we're not a Communist nation...... yet.


There is a big sexual revolution, a political agenda that's happening in our midst.....but no one is paying any attention.
Thanks to the liberal minds that now pervades our society. The school system is a big part of it, and the children are the target.



Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum

How does the 2015 curriculum compare to the original 2010 version?
CLC has studied the 2015 proposed curriculum and we have found that the controversial elements of the program that angered parents in 2010 have remained unchanged, word for word, at the same age-inappropriate grade levels as before, when it was written under the direction of confessed child pornographer Benjamin Levin, then Deputy Education Minister. The only difference now is that Kathleen Wynne has made the curriculum even more explicit and more age-inappropriate than before, dramatically increasing the mentions of "Gender Identity" theory, sexual "identities" and "orientations".

Anal intercourse is still being presented in a way that students will interpret as carrying no higher risk for STIs than vaginal intercourse, an irresponsible and misleading presentation of the former which carries a 3000% higher risk for contracting HIV. The curriculum also downplays the seriousness of contracting HIV, potentially leaving the impression with students that it's not really that big a deal.

A section on HIV and AIDS seems to have an undertone of making it acceptable and normal for individuals who are HIV positive to continue having sex with others. Of course this is not science-based teaching. It's political and social engineering. It is irresponsible and may also put lives at risk.

The 2015 version has added a new, controversial and very flawed theory that will be taught to elementary school children, called "gender expression". The new curriculum document also has a much stronger undertone of sex as a purely recreational activity whose purpose is pleasure, apart from love or marriage. In fact, the words "love" and "marriage" never appear once in the sex-education strand of the curriculum. Not a single mention. Does that reveal the mindset of its writers, if not the philosophical underpinnings of the curriculum itself?

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Sex_Ed_Curriculum


What kind of a sex education is that which downplays the seriousness of contracting HIV/AIDS?

And whether we want to accept it or not, HIV and AIDS are more prevalent in gay lifestyle! If not, why was there a ban imposed on gays from donating blood? They've lifted the ban, but there is still a caveat attached to donating blood from gays.


The Food and Drug Administration lifted its lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood Monday, but many gay men will still be barred.

The new policy says that any man who wants to give blood can only do so if he hasnt had sex with another man in the past year. In other words, sexually active gay men who are married or in a monogamous relationship will still be prohibited from donating.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fda-gay-blood-ban_us_567832cde4b014efe0d61e96


TORONTO -- Canada is lifting a nearly 30-year-old ban on gay men giving blood, though for the time being only those who are abstinent will be allowed to donate.

The new policy, which Canadian Blood Services hopes to have in place by mid-summer, will allow men to donate blood if they haven't had sex with another man for five years before the donation.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/canada-lifts-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-must-be-abstinent-for-5-years-1.1291754


Now back to the curriculum:


Kathleen Wynne and Minister Liz Sandals have also promised that teaching of "enthusiastic sexual consent" will be weaved throughout the sex-ed curriculum, beginning in grade 1. It appears that it will become progressively more explicit in each grade so that children can "see what consent looks like", although the government has not provided details on how this will be presented to 6 year olds.



Enthusiastic Sexual Consent? From 6 year olds?


Doesn't that ring a bell? Raise dozens of red flags? Doesn't that call for an enthusiastic protests???

Btw, who was the guy that wrote this? A confessed CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!



The Double Life of Ben Levin: His depraved online world, and the sting that brought him down
Most people knew Ben Levin as a distinguished U of T professor and former deputy education minister, but behind closed doors he was indulging in twisted fantasies of child abuse and incest

http://torontolife.com/city/ben-levin-child-pornography-sting/



Benjamin Levin, ex deputy education minister, sentenced to 3 years in prison for child porn-related offences

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/benjamin-levin-ex-deputy-education-minister-sentenced-to-3-years-in-prison-for-child-porn-related-offences-1.3092393


Can I safely say that the ENTHUSIASTIC SEXUAL CONSENT from a 6 Year old, was wriiten by a pedophile?
Would that be politically correct?




The question now, what the heck is the Premier doing going along with a pedophile?


Years ago - I don't know if any of the old-timers here remember.....I told you about the connection between the
Gay Movement and NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).


Reading the new curicullum - I couldn't help but be reminded of the NAMBLA and its connection with the Gay Rights Movement in the 70's.



The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet

Lets start with our childrens schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like North American History Game Cards, where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children dont learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . Im a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too everybody does, who has a little humanity.

From 2001-2006, Yale Universitys LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a sweet young boy who didnt know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this?

And what are we to make of these statements by Kramer, proudly quoted by NAMBLA? In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders . . . I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity . . . or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it. He even claimed that, And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones.

http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2011/11/15/the-pedophile-elephant-in-the-gay-activist-closet/




History
NAMBLA emerged from the tumultuous political atmosphere of the 1970s, particularly from the leftist wing of the Gay Liberation movement which followed the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City. Although discussion of gay adult-minor sex did take place, gay rights groups immediately following the Stonewall Riot were more concerned with issues of police harassment, nondiscrimination in employment, health care and other areas.

Ostracism
Some gay rights groups immediately following "Stonewall Inn", perceived age-of-consent laws as governmental tools to suppress homosexual behavior rather than as the safeguards against the sexual abuse of small children that they claimed to be.
In many states that didn't explicitly criminalize homosexual behavior (the sodomy laws), age-of-consent laws were significantly lower for heterosexual couples than for homosexual couples. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, "Lawrence v. Texas", the age of consent for heterosexual couples was as low as 13 (with parental approval) but was 18 for homosexual men.

Consequently, a number of gay rights groups opposed age-of-consent laws at the time of NAMBLA's founding.
A "Gay Rights Platform" http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm formed and adopted by about 200 gay activists at a convention in Chicago held by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations (NCGO), called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent" at the state level. (The NCGO, which was formed at the Chicago convention, primarily consisted of New York's Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), which was composed of many small gay activist groups organized mostly on college campuses throughout the U.S.). The GAA opposed age of consent laws and had hosted a forum on the topic in 1976.

The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition also supported eliminating the existing age-of-consent laws.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1794584/posts



So, I'm asking again.....why should a 6 year old be taught about "enthusiastic sexual consent?"

How, and why is that relevant to a 6 year old?

What 6 year old should be indulging in any sexual activity - without, or without his/her consent?


It does seems more like GROOMING! We're all being groomed to accept this!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lSUHx0F54



Statutory Rape? The curricullum doesn't have that in their vocabulary! Perhaps the age of consent will soon drop to 13!


The curricullum is unscientific! It endangers students since it gives them flawed, and incomplete information.



School is almost a month away, and when it begins, the new Ontario sex-ed curriculum will be rolled out to students as early as Grade One.
Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media talks to Dr. Nadine Nyhus, a medical doctor and psychiatrist. She has many grave concerns about the curriculum.
She says much of the program's "facts" are false and unscientific, while important issues about sexuality are left out.
For instance, the curriculum makes it sound like having HIV/AIDS still allows you to lead a normal life, but Dr. Nyhus says this isn't true. The program is less about science and more about pushing a political agenda.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4vcAC3pVR0

Edited by betsy
posts merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love your first source - a religious website opposed to birth control, and wanting to defund abortion. So obviously biased, it made me wonder what this new curriculum really said, because no doubt this site has cherry picked stuff to make it look a bad as possible. I didn't bother to look at the rest of your sources.

Yes, enthusiastic consent to make it clear for both boys and girls that consent must be obtained for sexual activity. What a radical way to teach people not to rape other people. I completely agree that sex education should start when kids are very young, so when that when the Scout leader, "uncle Bob" Dad's best friend Tony, or even Dad himself, touches them they understand that it's wrong and they should tell someone. I started teaching my daughter when she was four years old what unwanted touching was, and what she should do if it happened to her. And it did when she was about seven; she told me and I was able to help her. Unlike so many kids who are molested but who have been raised to believe "sex is wrong until you are married" and nothing more, and who are able to be scared into silence by their attackers.

According to your source, the curriculum teaches the kids how to avoid pregnancy and STDs - but that's a no-go because the health and welfare of kids is trumped by an archaic system that relies on ignorance and fear. Lack of sex education and "just say no" campaigns result in more unwanted pregnancy and more STDs than does comprehensive sex education. The Catholic schools will need to just focus on the fear aspect of their religion to keep their students chaste, since this legislation removes from them the right to support sexual ignorance in their students.

The Ontario government has kids' welfare at heart. You and your ilk does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love your first source - a religious website opposed to birth control, and wanting to defund abortion. So obviously biased, it made me wonder what this new curriculum really said, because no doubt this site has cherry picked stuff to make it look a bad as possible.

Never mind the source. Deal with the message!

I didn't bother to look at the rest of your sources.

Obviously. That's why the rest of your opinion doesn't jive with the complaint shown through my sources.

So, what the heck do you want to talk about? Your ignorant opinion? Gimme a break.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love your first source - a religious website opposed to birth control, and wanting to defund abortion. So obviously biased, it made me wonder what this new curriculum really said, because no doubt this site has cherry picked stuff to make it look a bad as possible. I didn't bother to look at the rest of your sources.

Yes, enthusiastic consent to make it clear for both boys and girls that consent must be obtained for sexual activity. What a radical way to teach people not to rape other people. I completely agree that sex education should start when kids are very young, so when that when the Scout leader, "uncle Bob" Dad's best friend Tony, or even Dad himself, touches them they understand that it's wrong and they should tell someone. I started teaching my daughter when she was four years old what unwanted touching was, and what she should do if it happened to her. And it did when she was about seven; she told me and I was able to help her. Unlike so many kids who are molested but who have been raised to believe "sex is wrong until you are married" and nothing more, and who are able to be scared into silence by their attackers.

According to your source, the curriculum teaches the kids how to avoid pregnancy and STDs - but that's a no-go because the health and welfare of kids is trumped by an archaic system that relies on ignorance and fear. Lack of sex education and "just say no" campaigns result in more unwanted pregnancy and more STDs than does comprehensive sex education. The Catholic schools will need to just focus on the fear aspect of their religion to keep their students chaste, since this legislation removes from them the right to support sexual ignorance in their students.

The Ontario government has kids' welfare at heart. You and your ilk does not.

You're lazy to read. Fast forward >

So, I'm asking again.....why should a 6 year old be taught about "enthusiastic sexual consent?"

How, and why is that relevant to a 6 year old?

What 6 year old should be indulging in any sexual activity - with, or without his/her consent?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about sources, I have had this argument many times over in the past. I have yet to find one of the 'faithful' actually read the Ontario Health and Physical Education curriculum. The first clue is they call it things like

Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum

Perhaps we need to be on the same, real, page to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with getting your information from such slanted, biased, one-sided sources is that they'll misrepresent the facts to lead you to the conclusion they want you to draw.

Myth #1

Explicit sexual content, including oral and anal sex, consent, and rape will be taught to children as young as six.

(...)

Truth:

In grade one, children will be taught to identify body parts, including genitalia, using their correct terms (penis, testicles, vagina, vulva) and to recognize exploitative behaviours such as inappropriate touching. In grade two, the concept of "consent" will be introduced very broadly as the right to say "no" in threatening situations. This has been misrepresented by many critics as "teaching children the concept of consent," which is then in turn further misrepresented as "teaching children to consent to sex."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karyn-pickles/ontario-sex-education-curriculum-update_b_6746012.html

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with getting your information from such slanted, biased, one-sided sources is that they'll misrepresent the facts to lead you to the conclusion they want you to draw.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karyn-pickles/ontario-sex-education-curriculum-update_b_6746012.html

-k

Your source is definitely biased! It's giving disinformation!

Let's take Benjamin Levine as an example.

Myth #3

This curriculum was designed by a pedophile.

Truth:

It is very unfortunate that a man charged with multiple counts relating to child pornography had a hand in developing the failed 2010 curriculum. This does not change the fact that the current curriculum is outdated by almost two decades and in dire need of updating.

It's not the need for an updating that's being complained about.

TORONTO - Despite efforts by the Liberal government to distance itself from suggestions that disgraced bureaucrat Benjamin Levin had a hand in crafting the sex-ed curriculum, there’s ample evidence he put his fingerprint on what Ontario children learn in the classroom.

In a 2009 newsletter, the then-deputy minister said he was “responsible for ... everything that they do” and to “implement” the “new” approach.

This was the beginning of the 63-year-old’s involvement in the controversial curriculum change.

On March 6, 2009, Levin wrote and signed a memo that put himself in charge of Ontario’s school curriculum.

“Dear colleagues, I am writing to provide an update on our sector’s agenda ... I will be filling the ADM (assistant deputy minster) position previously held by George Zegarac ... The division formerly headed by George Zegarac will be renamed as ‘Learning and Curriculum.’ It will have responsibilty for curriculum and for Special Education including Provincial Schools.”

Then on April 6, 2009, Levin penned a memo saying, “Today, the ministry released its new equity and inclusive education strategy paper ... This provincewide strategy has been a priority for our Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne and me.”

On June 24, 2009, Levin wrote that the “Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy” sets out a “vision for an equitable and inclusive education system.” He wrote “the principles of equity and inclusive education should be embedded into all aspects of board and high school operations including program, employment, research, curriculum, resources, instructional and assessment practices.”

These memos end the confusion as to just what was his involvement was in the curriculum that expands the traditional two genders understanding to a more “equitable” and “inclusive” six.

The controversial parts has students as young as six learning about “consent” who by 12 are given an introduction to same-sex relations.

No involvement?

It’s all there in black and white.

The strategy offered in the first new curriculum in 2010 was on pages 56 and 57 and was called Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy but it was scrapped by then-premier Dalton McGuinty who promised more public consultation. After what she calls extensive public input, Wynne reintroduced it last month to be taught in schools in September.

The 2015 version — called Equity and Inclusive Education in Health and Physical Education — is on pages 66 and 67 but is essentially the same.

The Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy was the introduction document that covered “gender-based violence, homophobia, sexual harassment, and inappropriate sexual behaviour” to be “discussed and addressed in the classroom.” The strategy is “embedded” into both the 2010 and 2015 versions.

That strategy was introduced in 2009 by Levin. There should be no more denying it.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/02/liberals-cant-deny-levins-role-with-sex-ed-curriculum

So, Kimmy.....can you please explain:

Why should a 6 year old be taught about "enthusiastic sexual consent?"

How, and why is that relevant to a 6 year old?

What 6 year old should be indulging in any sexual activity - with, or without his/her consent?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, Kimmy.....can you please explain:

Why should a 6 year old be taught about "enthusiastic sexual consent?"

How, and why is that relevant to a 6 year old?

What 6 year old should be indulging in any sexual activity - with, or without his/her consent?

6 year olds are not being taught about sexual consent or sexual activity at all. They're being taught to recognize inappropriate touching and to say no in threatening situations.

Myth #1

Explicit sexual content, including oral and anal sex, consent, and rape will be taught to children as young as six.

(...)

Truth:

In grade one, children will be taught to identify body parts, including genitalia, using their correct terms (penis, testicles, vagina, vulva) and to recognize exploitative behaviours such as inappropriate touching. In grade two, the concept of "consent" will be introduced very broadly as the right to say "no" in threatening situations. This has been misrepresented by many critics as "teaching children the concept of consent," which is then in turn further misrepresented as "teaching children to consent to sex."

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're lazy to read. Fast forward >

So, I'm asking again.....why should a 6 year old be taught about "enthusiastic sexual consent?"

How, and why is that relevant to a 6 year old?

What 6 year old should be indulging in any sexual activity - with, or without his/her consent?

Six year-olds, 7-year-olds, 8-year-olds and beyond should know that when Uncle Bob says "It's ok if I touch you there", they can say NO, I don't want you to. Without that explicit knowledge, kids are more easily manipulated by predators - whether that predator is a stranger or, more likely a family member/family friend, or the local priest. Kids who are abused tend to blame themselves, not their attacker. Being told that they must consent and what exactly that means also teaches them that they are not the guilty party. This helps protect kids. Its the kids who are told over and over that sex is wrong outside of marriage and that God/parents will hate them for it who are more easily persuaded not to tell.

You/your sources insistence that somehow this is designed to prime kids for sexual activity is ridiculous, no matter how much you use red to misstate the issue. Although, I can certainly see how the Catholic Church would like ignorance such as yours to continue, given how many of their priests have been proven to be pedophiles. If it gets known that even a six-year-old has the right to say NO, it's going to make it a little harder for these guys to continue to operate under the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of trading barbs from the Huffington Post, Toronto Sun, CTV, and campaign for crackpots, lets get back to the one and only source that counts, the Ontario Health and Physical education curriculum for Elementary and Secondary schools. Debating what the idiots in the press and nutcases have for an agenda is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 year olds are not being taught about sexual consent or sexual activity at all. They're being taught to recognize inappropriate touching and to say no in threatening situations.

-k

Your source is not reliable! Why do you keep using it?

When it comes to Wynne’s hope to start teaching children in Grade 1 about sexual consent, an appalled Dr. Charles McVety — president of Canada Christian College — let it be known it won’t be done without a fight.

And Progressive Conservative leadership hopeful Monte McNaughton called on Wynne to make her planned legislative changes public immediately.

Meanwhile, it’s just not every day you see any political leader being lobbied by 13-year-olds, let alone on the subject of sex.

Eighth graders Tessa Hill and Lia Valente — thanks to a petition they started as a class project — ended up at the podium with Wynne pushing for the end of “rape culture” by bringing in a “consent culture.” It was bizarre.

A lecture about sex ed from 13-year-olds in a country where legal consent is 16? What did the adult at the podium say?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/27/wynnes-sex-ed-photo-op-raises-eyebrows

Kimmy,

The same with a 6 year old.......how is consensual sex relevant to a 13 year old???

Does that mean, if a 13 year old gives an "enthusiastic consent" to sex.......it's okay to have sex with her????

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six year-olds, 7-year-olds, 8-year-olds and beyond should know that when Uncle Bob says "It's ok if I touch you there", they can say NO, I don't want you to. Without that explicit knowledge, kids are more easily manipulated by predators - whether that predator is a stranger or, more likely a family member/family friend, or the local priest.

They're talking about ENTHUSIASTIC SEXUAL CONSENT!

Why give a confusing title to the subject if they're teaching children how to say no?

Instead, why not say, "EMPHATIC NO!"

How is consent relevant to any minors?

It makes it seem like there's an option to have sex if you're a 13 year old - by giving your consent!

What part of that is hard to understand?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your source is not reliable! Why do you keep using it?

I'd point out that first off your text regarding Ben Levin doesn't actually contradict the article I posted.

Second, and more importantly, ?Impact just posted the actual curriculum. Like, the actual document, not what your sources or the HuffPo says is in it.

After reading the actual curriculum, I can confirm that 6 year olds are not being taught about sexual activity or sexual consent.

In other words, *your* source has it wrong. Will you stop using your unreliable source now?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/27/wynnes-sex-ed-photo-op-raises-eyebrows

Kimmy,

The same with a 6 year old.......how is consensual sex relevant to a 13 year old???

Does that mean, if a 13 year old gives an "enthusiastic consent" to sex.......it's okay to have sex with her????

The more important thing about informing young people about "enthusiastic consent" is to teach them that if somebody DOESN'T give you enthusiastic consent, it's NOT okay to have sex with them.

Perhaps you grew up in some ideal world where nobody needed to know anything about sex until they turned 18. However, in the real world, teenagers as young as 13 are experimenting with sexual touching, and giving them the information they need, including that both parties need to consent, is important.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people behind this curriculum so incompetent that they can't even come up with a very clear heading for what they hope to accomplish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your complaint has changed from "they're teaching 6 year olds to consent to sex" to "they should make this easier to read so that religious fanatics can understand it"?

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give the official sources, and get back Dr. Charles Dingbat McVety — president of Canada Christian College of Nut cases and Crackpots

The curriculum, if you care to actually read it, addresses consent in Grades 6 & 8 (ie. not 6,7 & 8 year olds but 11-13 year olds). The main point they are trying to get across is the consent has to be actively given - only yes means yes and only for defined activities, no means no and a non-answer or anything other than an explicit yes means no.

Stop listening to nut cases like McVety.

Edited by ?Impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your complaint has changed from "they're teaching 6 year olds to consent to sex" to "they should make this easier to read so that religious fanatics can understand it"?

-k

This was what was stated from the initial source in the OP:

Kathleen Wynne and Minister Liz Sandals have also promised that teaching of "enthusiastic sexual consent" will be weaved throughout the sex-ed curriculum, beginning in grade 1. It appears that it will become progressively more explicit in each grade so that children can "see what consent looks like", although the government has not provided details on how this will be presented to 6 year olds.

But, the same as with a 6 year old - how is sexual consent relevant to a 6 Grader? I've just read the curriculum, and it does teaches consent to an 11-12 year old.

A clear “yes” is a signal of consent. A response of ”no”, an uncertain response, or silence needs to be understood as no consent.”

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health1to8.pdf

Why is there an implication that the 12 year old has a choice to engage in sex?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give the official sources, and get back Dr. Charles Dingbat McVety — president of Canada Christian College of Nut cases and Crackpots

The curriculum, if you care to actually read it, addresses consent in Grades 6 & 8 (ie. not 6,7 & 8 year olds but

11-13 year olds). The main point they are trying to get across is the consent has to be actively given - only yes means yes and only for defined activities, no means no and a non-answer or anything other than an explicit yes means no.

Stop listening to nut cases like McVety.

Well, you better take a deep breath and analyze what you've just given. 11 -13 year old! Hah!

6 year old - 13 year old.....what's the difference? The point remains the same!

Aren't people who molest 13 year olds called pedophiles?

Are you allowed to have sex with a 13 year old if she gives her consent? Is a 13 year old allowed to have sex at all?

What are these....little Lolitas?

What happened to statutory rape? Corruption of minors? Are they gone now?

Why add confusion and mixed messages to these youngsters? It's bad enough that they'd have to deal with puberty.....

The message in the curriculum should be unambiguous.

UNLESS....UNLESS you want to lower the age of consent to 11!

My, aren't the ages dropping down fast, huh?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd point out that first off your text regarding Ben Levin doesn't actually contradict the article I posted.

Second, and more importantly, ?Impact just posted the actual curriculum. Like, the actual document, not what your sources or the HuffPo says is in it.

After reading the actual curriculum, I can confirm that 6 year olds are not being taught about sexual activity or sexual consent.

In other words, *your* source has it wrong. Will you stop using your unreliable source now?

The more important thing about informing young people about "enthusiastic consent" is to teach them that if somebody DOESN'T give you enthusiastic consent, it's NOT okay to have sex with them.

Perhaps you grew up in some ideal world where nobody needed to know anything about sex until they turned 18. However, in the real world, teenagers as young as 13 are experimenting with sexual touching, and giving them the information they need, including that both parties need to consent, is important.

-k

When I was 10, 48 years ago, kids of my own age were experimenting with sexual touching; girls from 10 to 13 pretended to have sex to 'practice' for when they were dating/married. One girl about my age was very knowledgeable - these days I wonder if she was being abused within her family. One 12-year-old boy, from a different family, told me, quite matter-of-factly, that he and his father regularly had sex with his younger sister; he told me this as a way to persuade me, at 10, to have sex with him. Perhaps some early classroom instruction on consent, saying no, appropriate touching etc., would have made a difference to the one girl who was being abused and the other who I suspect was being abused. Perhaps I would have found a better way to deal with the situations I found myself in, if I'd had some factual and non-judgemental knowledge imparted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote earlier:

The more important thing about informing young people about "enthusiastic consent" is to teach them that if somebody DOESN'T give you enthusiastic consent, it's NOT okay to have sex with them.

Perhaps you grew up in some ideal world where nobody needed to know anything about sex until they turned 18. However, in the real world, teenagers as young as 13 are experimenting with sexual touching, and giving them the information they need, including that both parties need to consent, is important.

Teaching young people that they can say no is part of it, but teaching young people that they aren't allowed to continue if the other person says no is equally important.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there an implication that the 12 year old has a choice to engage in sex?

The implication is that the 12 year old has a choice to say no. This is the real world, not some make believe world where kids are 'pure' until they are old and married. It is your made up world that caused the many childhood pregnancies we used to see. There are still over 7 million young teen births in developing countries a year because of people like you who will not allow our kids to learn about sex and empower them to say no.

Edited by ?Impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't people who molest 13 year olds called pedophiles?

Even if the "molester" is also 13 years old?

Are you allowed to have sex with a 13 year old if she gives her consent? Is a 13 year old allowed to have sex at all?

What happened to statutory rape? Corruption of minors? Are they gone now?

Fairly sure that "statutory rape" only applies when one party is legally an adult.

You seem to be under the assumption that these 13 year olds will be having sex with grown men. The vastly more likely situation is that they'll be interacting with other teenagers.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind the source. Deal with the message!

is there a summary version of that OP? Talk about disjointed verbosity! Carry on.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps some early classroom instruction on consent, saying no,

I very much agree with you!

There shouldn't be any option of an "enthusiastic yes!" at that age.

Children shouldn't be led to entertain the idea that they can give their consent to sex at that age!

A lot of abused children suffered guilt as an adult....thinking for some reasons that they were somehow to be blamed for getting abused. That they initiated or invited the sex. That's what perverts do - they shift the blame to their victims!

The message in the curriculum should be clear and unambiguous to the children. NO, means, NO!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...