Sunday, August 28, 2011

An Appalling Case of Progressivism

This is precisely the reason I am a proponent of socially conservative values (h/t GayPatriot):
Officials in Basel [Switzerland] have agreed to rename the “sex box” after receiving some 3,000 letters of protest from parents angered by the controversial trove ofwooden penises and fabric vaginas set to be used in a new sex education programme for playschool and primary school kids. 
Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick. 
It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said. 
Many parents say they do not understand why sex education needs to be taught to children as young as four.
I can see the point of educating teens about sex, but four year olds?
Eymann said he understood that one line in the programme, “touching can be enjoyed heartily”, could be misconstrued, but insisted: “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me’. We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ’no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age." 
Eymann said he would prefer if sex education was taught to children at home but argued that education officials needed to respond to the realities of today. 
We currently live in an oversexualised society. There is uncontrolled distribution of pornographic material that can reach young children. Some primary school children know the TV schedule until 2am. We would like to offer these children firm support, which is often not available in the family. The box is only an aid. I trust the teachers to approach the material with care.”
Yes, we do live in an oversexualized society.  However, making it further oversexualized is not the solution.  And, this is perhaps the worst part:
Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends: 
“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend“, he said.
This is one of those things that would make me check the date if it weren't August (in case it were April 1st).  Still, I have a difficult time thinking any sane person would actually think this is the solution to anything.  While I am opposed to government intervention into the actions of people in private (as long as they are not causing harm to anyone), it is clear to me that children, especially children this young, are not rational, and cannot understand sex and what its significance is.  Sex is a natural thing, but, it has the capability of causing problems when it is not understood rationally.  I would prefer to live in a society where sex is not out in the open, where it is private.

In addition, it is totally unacceptable for parents not to be able to pull their children out of this program.

NOTE: I almost titled this post "Mental Porn for Pedophiles" but I decided not to.

6 comments:

  1. I see two big issues. Why are they “educating” young students – and is this propaganda?

    You’re right. One doesn’t fight sexualisation with sexualisation.

    It’s also true that students will encounter conservative opinions in the real world, but they don’t teach conservative opinions, for some reason. Why is that? I don’t buy their spin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why are they “educating” young students?" That is a good question. I see no reason for this.

    "is this propaganda?"
    For what?

    Perhaps this comes from guilt over my own sins, but I value the innocence of children. This is yet another example of corrupting that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Right – innocence should be valued. That’s enough of a reason for sensible people at least to oppose these weird sex boxes. And if your own “sins” make you more aware of this, I’d say that’s good, lol.

    The government propaganda element concerns me the most, however. Because little ones don’t have the critical-thinking skills to differentiate between science and advocacy…they’re extremely vulnerable.

    From my readings, the trigger terms “Officials in Basel” and the “Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP)” were the most alarming. It looks like antifamily party preaching.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Children are not the property of the government to do with as the latest fad dictates. That one small group of elites have the power to override the decisions of parents is appalling, but is becoming more prevalent in parts of the world - just look at China. Young children are human and crave human interaction and touch, but it's nonsense to teach them this in a school setting with sex toys. That's the role of parents. Totalitarian rule and misguided, arrogant adult expectations of children have long ago been proven to be detrimental to a society. A generation from now or even sooner, mark my words, these children will have serious problems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ben, that "little ones don’t have the critical-thinking skills to differentiate between science and advocacy…they’re extremely vulnerable," is a good point. That is sort of what I was (trying to) getting at (?), but you said it better. Maybe I'm being "irrational" and "narrow minded" or something, but it seems pretty obvious to me that children should not be exposed to sex. I still fail to see how this can possibly solve anything.

    Apparently, the LDP is a party exclusive to Basel. And, apparently it is a libertarian (or "classical liberal") party. While I generally agree with the libertarian principle of limited government (especially in the economy), libertarianism's lack of regard for the importance of the family unit puts me off. Are you suggesting this is ideological? That would make sense, because I certainly don't see any practical use for this program. In addition, it isn't very libertarian of them to deny parents the ability to protect their children from this program.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Young children are human and crave human interaction and touch, but it's nonsense to teach them this in a school setting with sex toys."
    If this trend continues, I would not surprised, if, ten years from now, they are showing pornography to kindergarteners. And, maybe just for good measure, they show gay porn and really kinky stuff to first graders to prevent ostracizing "gay children" and to show them how "natural" it is to have perverted sexual fantasies (that might be a bit unrealistic, but I'm sure this would have seemed unrealistic ten years ago).

    "That's the role of parents."
    Hopefully not at such a young age.

    "Totalitarian rule and misguided, arrogant adult expectations of children have long ago been proven to be detrimental to a society."
    As has a disrespect for the structure the traditional family provides, not only to children involved, but also to society in general (look at poor inner city areas).

    "A generation from now or even sooner, mark my words, these children will have serious problems."
    That they most assuredly will.

    ReplyDelete

I will not tolerate irrelevant or inappropriate comments. Any such comments will be deleted. Please do not use sexually explicit language.