The great sage and wordsmith David Cameron may be “really worried” by a 13-year-old father in East Sussex, or at least by the pictures of him. But Cameron has not questioned those who have today used this case as yet another excuse to call for yet more “sex education”. In fact, this boy and his girlfriend have been brought to this situation precisely by that publicly funded grooming.
No one in this country over the age of seven or eight can now be in the slightest doubt as to where babies come from. Yet things like this go on happening, underage abortions are routinely recorded as other things in order to disguise the real rate of them, venereal disease (especially chlamydia) is at epidemic levels among the very young, and so on, and on, and on.
The real reason for public grooming is exactly the same as that for private grooming: to encourage children into sex with each other and with adults. And it is succeeding only too horrifically well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The real reason for public grooming is exactly the same as that for private grooming: to encourage children into sex with each other and with adults."
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit silly, David.
No, it is only too visible fact.
ReplyDeleteThe sex education industry, an invention of a sexual psycopath (Alfred C Kinsey), couldn't care less about rates of pregnancy or infection. If it did, then it would ahve disbanded itself years ago.
But that is simply not what it is about. It is about sexualising children. It is grooming. Just at public expense and of legally captive victims, that's all.
Children were always taught in schools where babies came from. Whereas sex education is something else entirely.
Have you ever seen Skins? It is the most irreponsible programme, broadcast by a publicly owned company.
ReplyDeleteOnly a few times.
ReplyDeleteI recently saw it and they were not only smoking cannabis in the street, but doing so while sitting outside somewhere or other that had served them beer at eight in the morning. Now, I know that Bristol is a long way south. But it is not actually in France.
How come no one in it has a West Country accent apart from gangsters and prostitutes?
Yes, it is utter rubbish. It is all about the Sixth Formers that the people behind it wish that they had been, even though they obviously weren't. Anyone that age or slightly younger watching it could be done enormous harm. Grooming, again.
And yes, Channel Four should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. Publicly funded grooming, again.
At last something on Skins. I had assumed you'd never seen it and was going to comment on your next thread like this that you should watch it for research purposes. Looks like you already have.
ReplyDeleteTeenagers watching itt will assume God knows what to be normal behaviour for their age and either go in search of it or develop hang ups about these things are not happening to them.
From what I have seen of it, not only is it downright criminal in its incitement of illegal drug use, but it is also a sort of child porn.
ReplyDeleteFor that is what you would be done for if you watched a recording of any sex act in which either partner was 16 or 17, even though the act itself would have been perfectly legal.
And that is what is depicted, very graphically indeed, on Skins.
So why did you feel the need to watch it "a few times"? Surely a few minutes of a single episode would have been enough?
ReplyDeleteWhat these people object to is not underage sexual activity per se. They just want children to have "safe sex". That's the real purpose of "sex education".
ReplyDeleteIn practice, unfortunately, what happens is that modern attitudes to sexuality give rise to a sense that it's not really about having children. And so people (including children) are now fornicating with each other and are quite taken aback when they then end up having children. It would actually be minor step in the right direction is teachers were to stop teaching recreational sexuality (i.e. "safe sex") and start teaching reproductive sexuality. (It wouldn't make much of a difference, but it would be start.)
The best way to improve sex education of course would be to have it outside of school, preferably done by the children's parents, preferably at home. But for that to happen you'd need a rightwing Government that would stand up to the teachers' unions and an authoritarian one willing to boss people around as to the ways they live their lives.
What these people really hate, of course, is human reproduction, because they don't see human beings as economically productive members of a human society. They just see them as consumers, there to suck on the Government's money-teat.
Once the money-tap is turned off, of course, things may start to change.
To blog about it in due season, Evadne.
ReplyDeleteAh, what a picturesque Eighties world you inhabit, Ælfhere. Now, can you name the decade of massively increased welfare dependency, general moral chaos, and the rise of Political Correctness?
Who said anything about the Eighties? Or do you mean the 1880s? The decade when Britain was managed by a leftwing socialist bimbo who yanked up taxes and sprayed money at the disgusting National Health Service is certainly not a decade I want to go back to.
ReplyDelete