Grooming our children, Part 3: ‘No such thing as normal’


So far in her series on the grooming scandal unleashed by the government’s introduction of relationships and sex education in schools from 4 years up, Belinda Brown has focused on the tactics of a new army of sex educators. Getting parents out of the picture comes first. Next they ‘re-educate’ children into denying male and female differences and preferences. Today’s focus in on a further facet of this grooming exercise: the insistence that there is no such thing as normal.

ONCE male and female differences and preferences have been thoroughly buried, the next step for the sex educators is to ‘queer’ what is normal. They do this by convincing pupils there is no such thing as normal, heterosexual sex.

For example, one activity recommended in the Hoyle and McGeeney teacher training manual (p199) requires 14-year-olds to brainstorm all the different ways in which people can have sex. Teachers are told that if the activity becomes derailed into listing more extreme practices they can encourage children to focus on the kinds of sexual activity that are more common for people to experience but without using loaded words like ‘normal’. Is this to encourage children to think that extreme practices constitute normal sex? Rather than letting pupils to see things as wrong or even disgusting they are told to teach them to be ‘non-judgemental’ and understand there are many ways of doing sex.

Switching off children’s antennae for normality dangerously suppresses the very feelings that alert them to confusion, fear or disgust.

The Hoyle and McGeeney manual also advises teachers to leave ‘feelings’ until last. Here teachers can emphasise that love and affection are often important parts of good sex, but not always. ‘For others good sex is quick, rough and anonymous. You can also explore the fact that some people enjoy feeling pain during sex, which is often referred to as kink or BDSM. As with all sexual practices what matters is that sex is consensual and that partners are able to listen and respect each other’s wishes and desires.’

That is all that matters? Clearly not all RSE teachers are following such amoral and irresponsible advice but this is the authoritative advice many are getting.

Destroying the idea of normal sex is a key part of their game plan. Tolerating the LGBT rainbow isn’t enough. Their alternative sexual practices are to be made morally equivalentor even superior. That the act of anal sex can never be equivalent is denied. Yet not only is it far more hazardous in health terms, it quite obviously is not procreative, the fundamental purpose of sex.

But getting this across is quite a challenge for the sex ‘educators’ and it requires some ingenuity. However, with significant financial help from our government, they have worked out how this can be done.

One popular sex-ed provider, BISH UK, has an article and a video explaining why ‘penis-in-vagina’ sex can be ‘meh’. It appears designed to disabuse pupils of the desirability of normal heterosexual sex, calling it ‘penis-in-vagina sex’ reducing it to a mechanistic action between body parts. The term penetrative sex, used only for anal sex, seems further designed to obscure the differences.

Brook, the provider of sexual health clinics for which it received nearly £7million from government contracts last year, also provides teaching resources. Its ‘Module on Pleasure’, produced by the University of Sussex for RSE, encourages children to see the anus in a whole new light. [TCW is not quoting the section as readers may find it disgusting – we did – but you can view a limited sample of what they advise should be told children, that’s hard not to interpret as pornography, here.]

Both the Hoyle and McGeeney manual and Brook tell teachers thatit doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘gay sex’ or ‘straight sex’ as there are many different ways that two bodies can come together to have sex.

Schools Out, another LGBT advocacy organisation, similarly pushes for uncoupling ‘sexual practice from sexual orientation (e.g. the association of vibrators with lesbians or anal sex with gay men), as such assumptions are ignorant and may encourage stereotyping and prejudice’ (p11).

No, it is not enough to be gay. The new sex educators want to mainstream their way of practising sex through a school re-education programme.

This is no less than teaching teachers to groom children not just to have sex, but to be open to dangerous and abusive sex. These materials urgently need be banned from schools, as Miriam Cates and the New Social Covenant are pressing for. 

Finally, downplaying what makes heterosexual sex such a special and sacred activity is an essential part of their programme.

In this RSE teacher training manual, Great Relationships and Sex Education, the intricacies, subtleties, and amazing potential of our fertility is almost completely ignored.

Pregnancy is written about as if it were equivalent to a sexually transmitted disease: ‘where there is a risk of infection or pregnancy’ or ‘consider the risk of pregnancy and STIs’ or ‘How can someone reduce the risks of STI/pregnancy’. Much attention is given to abortion. Pupils are to be taught that it is very common and very safe – safer than continuing a pregnancy or giving birth (p305-306). It is normalised – they are told one third of women have had an abortion. Teachers are told to avoid debates which could lead to polarising the discussion into pro-life v pro-choice. This, teachers are told, leads to ‘unhelpfully blunt terms’.

The horrifying number of abortions over the last years is to be ignored as is the increase in risk of a mental health problem for girls and women who have had them.

Morality is not something which our teachers are supposed to ‘do’. Instead they are told to engage in a programme of desensitisation. This is all part and parcel of what constitutes ‘grooming’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *