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

To: ermmt

I urge everyone to consider the midset behind the statements on the Girls, Inc website at (http://www.girlsinc.org/ic/page.php?id=4.3.4)

What necessitates that an organization that claims it is dedicated to the development of youth to make "advocacy statements" that it would like youth to "develop positive sexual identities" and to "function comfortably as responsible sexual beings".

Since when are young girls "sexual beings", except that some busybodies want to sexualize them? And to what end, especially when only a few years ago this topic was a private matter of parents?

Indeed, the age of the young girls on the homepage is far too young for them to be making "responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood", as their advocacy statement goes on to state.

On their topic of HIV/AIDS, where they say "We also recognize that girls and young women who are sexually active are at high risk for HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases." Since when are **girls** to be sexually active and a "high risk"? And since when are the male age peers of these girls going to have the full blown HIV/AIDs and other STDs to give to these girls? Not many 12 year old boys are HIV positive. But some 30 year old men are.

I would suggest that parents need to keep their children as far away from Girls, Inc. as possible.


12 posted on 10/15/2005 5:15:41 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: theBuckwheat

I sure hope someone saved that page because it no longer exists. Which means that more than one bigshot at AG and girlsinc is sweatin' bulletc. heh


17 posted on 10/15/2005 5:18:39 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie (Democrats: soulless minions of orthodoxy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

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