SEX EDUCATION FOR FIVE YEAR OLDS -- PUSHED BY PEDOPHILES

Sex Education for Five-year-olds — Pushed by Pedophiles

Published on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 22:21

Written by Selwyn Duke

The proposed curriculum, taken from the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, published by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), would also teach 12-year-olds “about the very details of anal and oral sex,” as one parent put it, and that abortion is “safe.”

And how graphic is this material? Clark County School District high-school student Chloe Davis added perspective, saying "I think I went through about 20 pages, and I couldn't continue with it because some of the stuff was just too disturbing to me at the age that I am — and I'm 17-years-old.”

Unfortunately, while these proposals are bizarre, they’re not at all unusual. In 2003, then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama voted for a bill that provided for sex education for five-year-olds, and SIECUS — which has received funding from entities such as AT&T, The Buffett Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, The Ford Foundation, and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation — peddles its agenda nationwide. And don’t be surprised that kids still playing in sandboxes are considered fair game, as modern sex education embraces the tenet that children are sexual from birth. And where does this idea come from?

As the intrepid Dr. Judith Reisman has documented extensively, all sex education began with the work of bug researcher turned self-proclaimed sex expert Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey was the one who insisted that children are sexual from birth. And how did he draw this conclusion?

He compiled “data” on the sexual responses of young children and infants.

Yes, “responses” means exactly what you think it does. And none of this is conjecture: Kinsey and his “research” team provided a chart (infamous “Table 34”) on which all this data was listed; it included “observations” such as that of 26 climaxes in a 24-hour period — in a four-year-old boy.

How was this data obtained? Kinsey relied heavily on information from active pedophiles, people he or his associates often trained in “data collection” methods. One of them, says Paul Gebhard, second director of the Kinsey Institute and co-author of Kinsey’s second research volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), was a U.S. government land examiner named Rex King. King was interested in “having sex with men and women and children and animals,” as Gebhard put it, and during his years molested approximately 800 children. Gebhard, who has lamented our society’s “insistence that children are non-sexual,” also said that Kinsey’s team worked with “a pedophile organization in this country” (presumably NAMbLA, the North American Man-boy Love Association) and admitted on video that the data on children’s sexual responses were obtained via “manual and oral techniques.”

Of course, this just reflected Kinsey’s own twisted inclinations. As I wrote in “According to Kinsey, Deviancy is the New Normal,” Kinsey was a pedophile with an “attraction to young boys, a perversion that manifested itself at a tender age. In a letter written as a YMCA counselor, he boasted of a ‘nature library’ he possessed, comprising pictures and drawings of nude men and boys that he would show to young male charges while camping — in his tent — late at night.”

The point is that Kinsey and his team were nothing but perverts using “science” as a pretext for indulging their pedophilic desires — and as a vehicle through which to justify pedophilia.

Nothing has changed today, either. Don’t get me wrong, among those supporting the sex-education movement are the naïve and those who are just generally corrupt, but there’s also a large core of activists and acolytes of Kinsey’s stripe. And let’s be blunt:

People’s interest in sexualizing children usually isn’t passionate unless they’re motivated by dark passion, unless they’re pedophiles in practice or mind (i.e., the idea of childhood sexual activity titillates them).

And some of these people are overt in their aims. For example, in “The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia” I reported on

a 2011 symposium in Baltimore, Maryland — an event whose focus was the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. WND.com reported at the time that it was “held by the ‘minor-attracted people’ advocacy group B4U-ACT to disseminate ‘accurate information’ on the position that pedophilia is just one more alternative sexual orientation.” As such, the conference speakers contended, the American Psychiatric Association should no longer list pedophilia as a psychological condition in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).... Reporting further on the positions taken at the conference, WND wrote:

... Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins ... argued in favor of “acceptance of and compassion for people who are attracted to minors....”

... Richard Kramer, who represented B4U-ACT at the event, contended listing pedophilia as a disorder stigmatizes the “victims” of the lifestyle choice.

... Conference speakers said the Diagnostic Manual should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile and should have “a minimal focus on social control” rather than a focus on the “need to protect children.”

... Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said it is proper for children to be “the object of our attraction.” Breslow said pedophiles shouldn’t need to get consent from a child to have sex any more than they would get consent from a shoe to wear it.

... Liberty Counsel Action vice president J. Matt Barber, who also attended the conference, summed up its themes thus (quotations are Barber’s, as reported by WND): Adult lust for children is “normative,” people indulging it are unfairly “demonized,” children are capable of consenting to sex, “wrong” as a concept isn’t applicable to “minor-attracted people,” and the DSM “ignores that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ the same way adult heterosexuals have for each other.”

Boiling this down to just old-fashioned common sense, if you learned that some adult had discussed intimate details of sexuality with your young child, wouldn’t you suspect that the person was driven by prurient interest? Well, why would you assume differently just because the adult happens to work for the government-school system? Note here how studies have shown that pedophiles are, in fact, rampant in government schools — and they often go unpunished.

We also may wonder, is there not a disturbing congruence between the claim that “five isn’t too young for sex education” and NAMbLA’s erstwhile motto “Sex before eight — or it’s too late”?