Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Report on the U.N.’s Shocking Sexuality Guidelines
Townhall.com ^ | August 31, 2009 | Janice Shaw Crouse

Posted on 08/31/2009 3:51:05 AM PDT by Kaslin

During the summer slump, two United Nations agencies — United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — issued highly controversial new guidelines for sexuality education of children around the world. These groups have a long history of pushing “reproductive health care,” and the new report, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, builds on an earlier report released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote the “need and entitlement” for sexuality education for children beginning at age five.

Not surprisingly, both documents argue for “guaranteeing” the sexual rights of children and for integrating sexuality education as an essential aspect of human rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights is cited as the source for the assertion of the absolute human “right” of young people to have sexuality education, access to condoms, and abortion-on-demand.

Additionally, in the view of the United Nations, sexuality education is the responsibility of “education and health authorities” not parents. Teachers and doctors, so the liberal line goes, understand the big picture and have the conceptual understanding necessary — the “rights based approach” that excludes parents and incorporates appropriate “practitioner experience and expert opinion.” Excluding parents from the process keeps them from being aware of how frequently “sexuality education” indoctrinates against traditional values, especially “discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

At the outset, the report makes it clear that “good” sexuality education should “take priority over personal opinion” — which, being translated, means trample all over traditional morality. One whole section of the report counters the “common concerns” of those who “resist” sexuality education. The implication is that the report’s “evidence-based” approach is “non-judgmental” and should prevail over those “custodians of culture” who dare to put values ahead of the “needs of young people.” The report states as fact that “teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support for most children and young people.” Yet, parents remain their children’s most trusted advisors.

The report paints a very dire picture of young people’s supposed “inadequate preparation for their sexual lives” — especially the “conflicting and confusing messages about sexuality and gender.” Naturally, the report identifies both “gender” and “diversity” as “fundamental characteristics of sexuality.” The term “gender” is used nearly 200 times in the 54-page report. The “inadequacy” of current sexuality education, the report contends, leaves young people “vulnerable to coercion, abuse and exploitation, unintended pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV.”

In other words, we learn later on in the report, if kids would just learn how to masturbate at around five years of age they could avoid abuse and exploitation and the other problems mentioned above. “Masturbation” the report emphasizes, “is a safe and valid expression of sexuality.” All this information must be conveyed, of course, in the “school setting” as part of a “formal curriculum” for maximum impact and effectiveness. After all (get ready for high-powered scare tactics!) ignorance and misinformation can be life threatening.

The report recommends “age-specific standard learning objectives for sexuality education.” The authors stress the importance of addressing “beliefs, values and skills that are amendable to change.” Thus, they let us know at the outset that authoritative — timeless — beliefs and values are unacceptable.

The authors stress that their report is not a curriculum. Instead, it is a strategic plan — “a global template,” if you will — “to introduce and strengthen sexuality education.” Ah! The purpose is clear: this is a “how to” manual for getting around those pesky parents and their “misplaced” concerns. It is, after all, (as is mentioned repeatedly) “rights based” and “respectful of sexual and gender diversity.” There are sections that tell readers how to develop a case for sexuality education in the face of opposition. Another section describes how to plan for implementation. So, let’s get this right: schools now must teach reading, writing, math and sexuality.

UNESCO and UNFPA repeatedly refer to their recommendations as “scientifically accurate, age appropriate and evidenced based.” Yet, they spend an inordinate amount of space describing the limits and inadequacies of their studies and evaluation designs. Even so, we are told that the recommendations “provide a platform for those involved in policy, advocacy and the development of new programmes.” The bottom line is that the research is primarily from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). The report admits that SIECUS guidelines “provide the overall organizing framework for the topics and learning objectives.” In addition, UNESCO conducted interviews and held a consultation with experts from 13 countries. No conservatives were included, of course.

Once again, the worst of U.S. radical ideology is being exported around the world through these guidelines based on SIECUS recommendations. All the children are taught that family structure doesn’t matter and that any group of people can be a family. They are all warned against “rigid” gender roles and responsibilities that reflect “gender inequality.” All children are taught that “people do not choose their sexual orientation or gender identity” and that expressing your sexuality “can enhance well-being.” And they repeat the mantra that all “children should be wanted, cared for, and loved.”

• Five- to eight-year-olds are told that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals ... ‘can feel pleasurable.’” They learn about “gender stereotypes” and that anybody (regardless of sexual status) can “raise a child and give it the love it deserves.”

• Nine- to twelve-year-olds learn how to get and use condoms, emergency contraception, the “signs and symptoms” of pregnancy, and all about sexual pleasure and orgasm. They learn that abortion is safe and discuss “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” They learn about their rights — to decide for themselves about whether to become a parent and to have access to anti-retroviral therapy (ART).

• Twelve- to fifteen-year-olds are told about their right to safe abortions and post abortion care, how to use emergency contraception, and that the size and shape of the penis or breasts does not affect sexual pleasure.

The very first paragraph in the section, “Young people’s sexual and reproductive health,” complains that the “burden of disease” among young people stems from “sexual and reproductive ill health.” In other words, they admit that early sexual activity is not healthy, but they nevertheless advocate “being sexual” as an important part of young people’s lives and contend that “abstinence is only one of a range of choices available to young people.”

Amazingly, the official press release declares that the guidelines are “to help young people learn how to protect themselves against HIV and against abuse and exploitation.” You’ve got to love the way the left spins their craziness — just cloak all the controversial stuff in lofty goals and protective rhetoric. Over half of the new STDs every year occur among young people, so don’t promote abstinence. Instead lament that more than half have never been taught how to use a condom or where the local sexual health office is located, and rejoice that there is greater access to anti-retroviral therapy (ART). More than four million girls will seek abortions every year, so don’t promote abstinence. Instead, “introduce and strengthen sexuality education.” Remove the stigma against sexual activity, and then introduce worldwide programs to remove the stigma against STDs, and establish a bureaucracy to teach masturbation and contraception.

Unbelievable.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 08/31/2009 3:51:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
if kids would just learn how to masturbate at around five years of age they could avoid abuse and exploitation and the other problems mentioned above

What kind of moron actually gets taken in by this crap...?

2 posted on 08/31/2009 3:53:26 AM PDT by freebilly ( No wonder all the left has a boner for Obama.... There's "Cialis" in "SoCIALISt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

Someone is playing an elaborate joke on the whole world? It is to roll the eyes. That will not stop funny uncles and their ilk, if anything it might interest them more.


3 posted on 08/31/2009 3:57:59 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Every time you think you've seen the worst of Barack Obama, he amazes you again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

This is another reason for the US to get out of the UN or the UN get out of the USA


4 posted on 08/31/2009 4:03:50 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for 0bama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote the “need and entitlement” for sexuality education for children beginning at age five.

The children are nothing but dollar signs for these horrible people - Sell them condoms or slaughter their offspring.
$$$$ Ching ching. There's big money in those kindergartners!

5 posted on 08/31/2009 4:05:54 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A thought from another thread. If Texas does secede, we are NOT joining the United Nations.


6 posted on 08/31/2009 4:06:01 AM PDT by BigCinBigD ('Evil white devil since 1960')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigCinBigD

Is the UN charter like the Constitution? That is to say, does the charter delineate what the UN can legally do, and everything else left to the nations... and the leftists job is to find all the other facets of their agenda beyond the charter to enable and act upon?


7 posted on 08/31/2009 4:19:15 AM PDT by C210N (A patriot for a Conservative Renaissance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
excludes parents

"Give me the minds of your children and I'll have them for life" - Rumkowski: Dictatorship is not a dirty word.

Rumkowski set up a near-dictatorship within a "ghetto kingdom" - which became a starving slave colony. His ghetto became a grotesque model of society, complete with socio-economic classes of the "haves and have-nots" - where being "connected" could keep one from being deported or could allow one to obtain extra food or secure an administrative job - not unlike the "organizing" that is going on in America now and in the world today.

8 posted on 08/31/2009 4:21:17 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Does it matter? The Left only follows the rules they themselves make.
9 posted on 08/31/2009 4:30:23 AM PDT by BigCinBigD ('Evil white devil since 1960')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

“What kind of moron actually gets taken in by this crap...?”

Liberals are taken in by this crap - and the very young


10 posted on 08/31/2009 4:35:47 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (The only time I want a Republican reaching across the aisle is to smack a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BigCinBigD
Does it matter? The Left only follows the rules they themselves make.

Actually, no. They make up those rules to control other people. They, personally, have no rules.

When was the last time you saw a multimillionaire democrat share his or her own millions with the poor? Give up their privatized Social Security? Give up their private health care? Or even put their own Kids in a government school?

11 posted on 08/31/2009 5:03:26 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

wanna bet this does nothing to support the human rights of women and girls suffering under sharia enslavement? The UN is very cautious about that sort of thing but homophobia MUST BE STOPPED!

HYP-O-CRITTERS!


12 posted on 08/31/2009 5:16:28 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Excluding parents from the process keeps them from being aware of how frequently “sexuality education” indoctrinates against traditional values, especially “discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

U.N. grants status to homosexual-rights groups - Opponents fear loss of sovereignty, ties to pedophilia advocates

13 posted on 08/31/2009 5:19:22 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why do we even stay in that fly-infested ,liberal swamp?


14 posted on 08/31/2009 6:57:03 AM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson