Grooming our children, Part 4: Early sexualization

The Conservative Woman concludes Belinda Brown’s series on the grooming scandal in the UK.  The principles are the same on our side of the pond.

MY LAST article focused on efforts to break down in children the idea of normality within sexual behaviour. Key to this is a three pronged ‘educational’ attack – distracting attention from the procreative potential of heterosexual activity, treating abortion as healthcare and pregnancy as the equivalent of a sexually transmitted disease.

At the same time, sex educators such as Ester McGeeney put sexual pleasure front and centre. Her Brook and Open University funded PhD thesis ‘What is good sex? Young People, Sexual Pleasure and Sexual Health Services’ explores how sexual pleasure can be embedded into classroom teaching.   Putting her ideas into practice, McGeeney set up the Good Sex Project to produce written guides and films of teenagers talking about their sexual experiences. These films arguably normalise underage sex. Recognising that ‘conservative’ parents might need some convincing of the benefits of teaching sexual pleasure to their children, she promised to produce ‘a review of the evidence on why it is important to embed sexual pleasure and sex positive approaches in youth sexual health service delivery’.  We are still waiting for that.

McGeeney is also the co-author with Alice Hoyle of Great Relationships and Sex Education, mentioned in previous blogs and touted as ‘destined to become a book on every PSHE teacher’s shelf’.

In this guide, pupils aged 13 and upwards are to be taught ‘to start thinking about the whole body as a potential site of pleasure’. The activity, the authors say, ‘helps to provoke discussions about consent and communication, bodily anatomy and good touch’. A cynic might observe this gets children used to having their personal space invaded and compelled to accept another’s touch, a definite form of grooming. The children to whom the exercise is directed are well below the age of consent. Their embarrassment or reluctance is not even considered.

One activity encourages 13-year-olds to work in small groups to explore how it feels in mind, body, and heart when you are ready to have sex and consider various scenarios where the characters are just about to have sex. In another they are taught how to give and seek consent for sex. I emphasise, this is for 13-year-olds.

An activity for 14-year-olds asks them to write a list of the different ways they can think of being intimate or sexual with another person.

A game for 15-year-olds introduces them to sex toys, bondage, discipline and sadomasochism, underage sex and more.

Once they hit 16, they are encouraged to engage in much more detailed research. For example, they are asked to sculpt a part of the body involved in sexual activity out of playdough. They are in effect encouraged to masturbate.

Hoyle and McGeeney are not mavericks or outliers. Rather they are leaders, and what they are teaching is widespread. For example, Professor Ringrose from UCL encouraged children from the ages of twelve to sixteen to draw sexually explicit images including hands masturbating erections. All this is reported in MP Miriam Cates’s report calling for a government review into these matters to be found here (pp20-21).

Some of the organisations she mentions, such as ‘Split Banana’, have direct links on their websites to sites that promote ‘ethical’ porn (p61). Another provider, ‘Cliterally the Best’,  has links to sex toy and fetish wear vendors. Evie Plumb, the creator of this website, provides information in her blog on ‘wax play’ and ‘How to choke someone in bed safely’ (p63). There are many more examples in the report.

When I first became aware of this material, I assumed only a minority of our children were victims of this kind of teaching, and while that is completely unacceptable, the majority of our children were fairly safe in our schools. But is the case? Miriam Cates’s report suggests such teaching may be widespread. In evidence she reports that:

·         The DfE-approved ratifying body for RSE, the PSHE Association, which promotes Gender Theory as fact, has a membership of more than 50,000 PSHE professionals.

·         Just Like Us is used by more than 5,000 schools across the UK.

·         Olly Pike has sold over 25,000 books and has 20,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel.

·         Jigsaw, which has international reach, has over three million children using their resources.

·         The Proud Trust is actively working with 500 schools. 

It is difficult to know what proportion of children have been exposed to all these materials, but we do know that there has been a significant increase in the practice of anal sex amongst the youngest age group. Research from National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL), the largest survey on the sexual behaviours of 16-24-year-olds with a sample size of 45,000, reports an increasing range of sexual practices engaged in by the age group. Of course correlation does not equal causation, but RSE normalising anal sex, for example, is likely to be significant.

My exploration of the sex education resources plied by these providers suggests a fully developed curriculum complete with topics, a justifying ideology and a wide range of methods for imparting the ideology and for putting it into practice. While the Government’s RSE Guidance is broadly acceptable, without its own curriculum it has been hijacked and schools are left to ‘outsource’ to these eager sex education providers.

Other than preparing and endless stream of young sex partners for themselves and their like minded friends, what is the point of all this sex in schools?

The first effect is that human relationships are reduced to reciprocating genitals.  Actual human relationships are no longer about anything other than transactions based on physical pleasure.  I have become a body seeking pleasure with another body seeking pleasure.  In normal human relationships people bond by sharing many aspects of their lives at the intellectual, emotional, economic, current events, shared activities etc.  Because sex is so powerful it tends to override other kinds of bonding.

At the same time this will have the effect of discouraging stable pair bonding and family formation.  We have seen in our own country that stable family formation, not to say marriage, is by far the exception among young people.  Among the lower classes up to 78% of children are born into families with no father in the home.  We have known for decades that single parent homes are devastating to children raised in them with devastating consequences to society – academic failure, delinquency, mental illness, drug addiction, incarceration, violence, suicide, etc.

All of this has two important effects for those who have been orchestrating this galloping disaster.  First, it subverts the existing order and drives it to collapse.  This creates a lot of real unhappy people who can then be manipulated into demanding change for the better.  It is designed to produce activists who will further disrupt things and demand more change, which (unexpectedly) turns out to be Socialism.  The second effect is the destruction of the family.  Families tend to have a lot of loyalty to their members.  These monsters don’t want people to have any loyalty higher than the State.

Because the schools increasingly focus on non academic achievement the children they teach are desperately deficient in useful knowledge of serious academic subjects.  There are in this country entire schools in which not a single child can read, write or do math at grade level or understands his history and his place in the body politic.  Bereft of marketable skills and believing themselves to be victims of the boogeyman du jour  they become dependents of the State, perfect Socialist slaves.

Leave a Reply

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