Jump to content

Slipping Further Down The Slope


wenglund

Recommended Posts

Concerns have long been voiced, and oft dismissed, that the slippery slope of the gay movement towards normalizing homosexuality, would eventually lead to normalization of pedophilia.

Regardless whether you agree with this concern or not, it is clear that pop culture has been attempting to, and somewhat successful in, sexualizing children, and at increasingly younger ages.

The latest news on this front is the Chicago Public School administration has proposed to teach sex education to kindergärtners. (See the article HERE)

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

From what I have heard about various public school officials across the US, they all seem to have lost all common sense. Zero tolerance,paper guns, Jesus T shirts,etc. point to the fact that they all need to take courses in anatomy and geology,so that they can distinguish between their butts and a hole in the ground.

How many school officials does it take to screw in a light bulb? 10001. 1 to hold the lightbulb and 10000 to turn the house.

( this coming from a former educator , can you tell I had no use for those paper pushers?)

Link to comment

Concerns have long been voiced, and oft dismissed, that the slippery slope of the gay movement towards normalizing homosexuality, would eventually lead to normalization of pedophilia.

Regardless whether you agree with this concern or not, it is clear that pop culture has been attempting to, and somewhat successful in, sexualizing children, and at increasingly younger ages.

The latest news on this front is the Chicago Public School administration has proposed to teach sex education to kindergärtners. (See the article HERE)

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One very vivid General Conference memory I have is that of Neal A. Maxwell's Apirl 1987 address. In it he said the following:

Ours will be a time of great inversion as well as perversion, as some will call good evil and evil good. Others, in their ignorance of spiritual truths, will speak evil of those things which they know not.

I remember being profoundly disturbed by the idea that our day would not only be a time of perversions (abnormality and corruption), but would also be a day of inversion (good becoming evil and evil becoming good). Elder Maxwell's address was given 26 years ago, and it is with great sorrow that I have lived to see the day when his solemn prophetic word of warning has been fulfilled.

Where will it end? Not long ago, when I was serving in the Primary, I asked my class of 11 year old boys what it means when a society ripens in iniquity. One extraordinarily brilliant boy answerd the question without a moment's hesitation. He said " it's when evil becomes normal." His wisdom took me aback .

As far as the sexualization of children is concerned, all bets are off when it comes to the devil. He is the diameteric opposition to God, and for him and his hosts nothing is off limits; he neither blushes nor demurs. And remember, though there are still some alive today who remember the Great Depression, World War II, when abortion was illegal, when TV programing and movies were mostly wholesome and good, and when out of wedlock births were few and far between -- yet it won't be too long before the generations that remember and are morally informed by those more innocent days of yesteryear will be gone. Then what?

Once in a while, when flipping through TV stations, I'll stop for a moment or two to see what's up with the adolesent programing on Nickleodeon, and what I see is very disturbing to behold. It's plain to see we're heading for a time when virtually nothing will be held sacred. And in that day the Latter-day Saints will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Link to comment

How many times do you have to be told that there is no slippery slope. I am sure that some of our more progressive posters will be glad to enlighten you. Of course it is pretty hard to hear and understand with the wind rushing by your ears.

Glenn

Link to comment

After reading the OP, it made me want to scream, no not innocent kindergartners, that's just too young. Richard & Linda Eyre, who speak, write and produce material about raising families, suggest teaching sex ed when the child is 8. But that was in the home and I thought that was young. But children are so smart now and live in a whole different world. They'll pick up some bad info if the parents don't reach them first. But 5 yrs. seems terrible young!

Link to comment

I just read the article. It said K thru 3rd grade will learn anatomy and appropriate and inappropriate touching. So they aren't going to learn about the birds & the bees. Maturation clinics in 5th & 6th grades will go over that. I'll agree with Glenn here Wade, this has nothing to do with Gays.

Link to comment

Wade, this is a pretty poor opening post. Linking appropriate education about children's bodies to homosexuality and pedophilia is surely intentionally inflammatory?

Education about appropriate use of bodies is, if anything a great defense for children AGAINST pedophilia as it teaches them what their bodies are for and what they are not for.

When people scream about sex-ed for elementary age kids, do they actually read what will be taught:

"For example, kindergartners through third graders will learn about their anatomy, all living things that reproduce, and appropriate and inappropriate touching. While fourth graders will focus on puberty and HIV/AIDs. It's not until after fifth grade that teachers will lead discussions about human reproduction, contraception and abstinence."

Link to comment

I tutored a girl in fifth grade, asked about her the following year from some friend...turned out she had gotten pregnant over the summer. She would have been 13 or 14 at the time. However, she had also been taught about condoms in sex ed class (teacher went ahead and did it even though she was instructed not to, no censure was given that I heard) so that knowledge did her no good. At that age, if they are already having sex, I don't think they have the judgment to have safe sex....

This was back in 89 in Kansas.

Link to comment

This is ridiculous....and by this, I don't mean kindergartners learning about their anatomy and what is considered inappropriate touch. That's honestly not a bad idea IMO. I learned when I was in 5th grade I think and it wouldn't have hurt to have learned more by 3rd or 4th and I was by far not the only one. It is not so innocent a world these days. This sounds more like giving children a vocabulary when someone touches them inappropriately rather than sex ed.

This is one big leap from homosexuality and doesn't connect in the least.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

This is ridiculous....and by this, I don't mean kindergartners learning about their anatomy and what is considered inappropriate touch. That's honestly not a bad idea IMO. I learned when I was in 5th grade I think and it wouldn't have hurt to have learned more by 3rd or 4th and I was by far not the only one. It is not so innocent a world these days. This sounds more like giving children a vocabulary when someone touches them inappropriately rather than sex ed.

This is one big leap from homosexuality and doesn't connect in the least.

With luv,

BD

Agreed.

Link to comment

Wenglund, you cannot be serious in your linking of this story with some hidden pedophilia agenda by the homosexual community, can you?

These kindergarteners are being taught how to avoid being victims of pedophilia and innapropriate sexual contact, as the curriculum for K-3rd contains material "about their anatomy, all living things that reproduce, and appropriate and inappropriate touching."

It amazes me how people can twist the simplest things into some perverse, conspiracy-tinged agenda in order to reinforce their own prejudices.

Link to comment

I agree with other posters. I would not want my kindergartener learning about sex at that age, but i think that lessons on anatomy, basic reproduction, and inappropriate touching is a good idea.

Hopefully the curriculum will be thoroughly discussed with the parents before anything is taught, but i don't think it's a slippery slope leading to anything evil, and i really don't see it being a part of some evil homosexual agenda.

Link to comment

This op so completely distorts what the article is reporting that it becomes an outright lie. Kids are not being taught about sex in kindergarden as you suggest, they are being taught what is appropriate and sacred about their bodies. From what the article actually says, it is designed to prevent pedophile..

That said, what I find the most disgusting about your post is your assertion that this has anything to do with the

gay movement towards normalizing homosexuality, would eventually lead to normalization of pedophilia.

Why do you feel the need to continue to make up things about gay people and constantly try to tie being gay to pedophilia. There is not one shred of evidence this is about anything gay or the gay movement. Yet you make this the subject of a thread? Honestly, I ignore a lot of what you say, and the insults directed to gays, but to start threads that are outright lies against gays is quite frankly disgusting. For someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, you are certainly seem to be following the father of all lies.. You owe everyone an apology for your statements. I only wish you had the integrity to admit your deceptions.

Link to comment

This is ridiculous....and by this, I don't mean kindergartners learning about their anatomy and what is considered inappropriate touch. That's honestly not a bad idea IMO. I learned when I was in 5th grade I think and it wouldn't have hurt to have learned more by 3rd or 4th and I was by far not the only one. It is not so innocent a world these days. This sounds more like giving children a vocabulary when someone touches them inappropriately rather than sex ed.

This is one big leap from homosexuality and doesn't connect in the least.

With luv,

BD

Hi BD,

Perhaps you're already aware of what I'm about to say, but a careful reading of Wade's original post indicates he leaves any suggested connection of normalization of homosexuality to normalization of pedophilia as an open proposition, subject to dialogue and discussion on this thread. In the op he did not clearly indicate where in the debate his sympathies lie.

Wade did make make an affirmative statement of fact in the op, though, and this is it:

"... it is clear that pop culture has been attempting to, and somewhat successful in, sexualizing children, and at increasingly younger ages."

Remember, in his opening paragraph Wade did not say that some fear normalization of homosexuality might lead to homosexual pedophilia exclusively. Rather, for some the fear is that said normalization could lead to a propagation of pedophilia in general. Pedophilia in general would include heterosexual adult/child relationships, homosexual adult/child relationships, and the definition might even be extended to include child/child sexual relationships.

When Wade opines that there has been some recent success in sexualizing younger and younger children, it would seem one would have to be unobservant and disconnected, or in denial when it comes to the verity of the this point -- the evidence is all around us that it is so.

Finally, it would seem to me that any blurring and obscuring in the minds of the children of men of the primary purpose of the powers of procreation -- wherein God makes his earthly sons and daughters co-creators with him by the bestowal of earthly tabernacles upon his own beloved spirit children -- will invariably lead to a wide range of misuses of those sacred powers. After all, once sexuality is first and foremost viewed as a means of receiving and giving physical pleasure (while putting aside its essential and most holy procreative aspect) people are then free to provide rationalizations for most any form of sexual misuse and abuse. For those so inclined, if pleasure is the name of the game, why should anyone be deprived of the pleasure?

And let's not forget that atheism provides another powerful incentive to normalize sexual misuse in all its forms, for if there is no perception of a God who rules by eternal laws that supercede man's own laws, man is then set free, liberated to make up the rules for himself.

Link to comment
I just read the article. It said K thru 3rd grade will learn anatomy and appropriate and inappropriate touching. So they aren't going to learn about the birds & the bees. Maturation clinics in 5th & 6th grades will go over that. I'll agree with Glenn here Wade, this has nothing to do with Gays.

I believe Glenn was being facetious. Sorry you didn't catch it.

And whether you agree or not with it having directly to do with gays (I have previously informed you about how leaders of the pedophilia movement came from the leadership in the gay movement), I am not sure that you can reasonably argue against the gay movement having had an indirect affect. Not only was the gay movement a main stay in the so-called sexual revolution (which was unaguably a major assault on sexual morays), but the decline in sexual morality in one respect tends to affect a decline in other respects, as witnessed by what we see happening around us with our own eyes--assuming they are open.

Be that as it may, I don't want the main thrust of this thread to be about the alleged relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, but rather the alarming and harmful sexualization of our children--a kind of morality-creep towards institutionalized sexual abuse of children (particular those of grade-school age, and the most innocent and defenseless among us).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Wade, this is a pretty poor opening post. Linking appropriate education about children's bodies to homosexuality and pedophilia is surely intentionally inflammatory?

Education about appropriate use of bodies is, if anything a great defense for children AGAINST pedophilia as it teaches them what their bodies are for and what they are not for.

When people scream about sex-ed for elementary age kids, do they actually read what will be taught:

"For example, kindergartners through third graders will learn about their anatomy, all living things that reproduce, and appropriate and inappropriate touching. While fourth graders will focus on puberty and HIV/AIDs. It's not until after fifth grade that teachers will lead discussions about human reproduction, contraception and abstinence."

It doesn't surprise me that those who support the gay movement wouldn't find sex-ed instruction of 5-year-olds objectionable, while yet ironically lecturing on about it being inflammatory to suggest a possible link between the gay movement and pedophilia. Too funny.

Anyway, while you may wish to follow the pop cultural pack with your expressed concerns about possibly offending the delicate sensibilities of adult posters, some of us prefer to protect the innocence of children and not let the increasingly dulled moral senses of society inadvertently rob our children of their childhood....that, and to focus our energies on educating or children in matters that they really need to thrive in society. Billions of children have grown up just fine without Leftest educators indoctrinating and delving into private parts with near toddlers, ironically in the process of talking about inappropriate touching.

To a very young child, who lacks the cognitive infrastructure to grasp nuances, there is little difference between an adult publicly talking about their private parts, and their publicly showing or touching their private part, particularly if the adult is not a family member. In other words, the very thing the Left pretends is to help protect the children AGAINST pedophilia, is, itself, in a way an act of pedophilia. Why some people don't get this, is a mystery to me--except to chalk the disconnect up to blindness from whooshing down the slippery slope, as Glenn astutely quipped.

Whatever the case, this is the increasingly upside-down world we now live in. God help us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
This op so completely distorts what the article is reporting that it becomes an outright lie. Kids are not being taught about sex in kindergarden as you suggest, they are being taught what is appropriate and sacred about their bodies. From what the article actually says, it is designed to prevent pedophile..

Since the OP doesn't claim that kindergärtners are being taught about sex, but says instead that they are being taught sex education (this is the term used by the Chicago Public Schools), you are here distorting what I said, ironically to the point of proving yourself a liar by your own criteria, not mine.

That said, what I find the most disgusting about your post is your assertion that this has anything to do with the

Why do you feel the need to continue to make up things about gay people and constantly try to tie being gay to pedophilia. There is not one shred of evidence this is about anything gay or the gay movement. Yet you make this the subject of a thread? Honestly, I ignore a lot of what you say, and the insults directed to gays, but to start threads that are outright lies against gays is quite frankly disgusting. For someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, you are certainly seem to be following the father of all lies.. You owe everyone an apology for your statements. I only wish you had the integrity to admit your deceptions.

Please see my response to Tacenda in pst #17 above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Hi BD,

Perhaps you're already aware of what I'm about to say, but a careful reading of Wade's original post indicates he leaves any suggested connection of normalization of homosexuality to normalization of pedophilia as an open proposition, subject to dialogue and discussion on this thread. In the op he did not clearly indicate where in the debate his sympathies lie.

Wade did make make an affirmative statement of fact in the op, though, and this is it:

"... it is clear that pop culture has been attempting to, and somewhat successful in, sexualizing children, and at increasingly younger ages."

Remember, in his opening paragraph Wade did not say that some fear normalization of homosexuality might lead to homosexual pedophilia exclusively. Rather, for some the fear is that said normalization could lead to a propagation of pedophilia in general. Pedophilia in general would include heterosexual adult/child relationships, homosexual adult/child relationships, and the definition might even be extended to include child/child sexual relationships.

When Wade opines that there has been some recent success in sexualizing younger and younger children, it would seem one would have to be unobservant and disconnected, or in denial when it comes to the verity of the this point -- the evidence is all around us that it is so.

Finally, it would seem to me that any blurring and obscuring in the minds of the children of men of the primary purpose of the powers of procreation -- wherein God makes his earthly sons and daughters co-creators with him by the bestowal of earthly tabernacles upon his own beloved spirit children -- will invariably lead to a wide range of misuses of those sacred powers. After all, once sexuality is first and foremost viewed as a means of receiving and giving physical pleasure (while putting aside its essential and most holy procreative aspect) people are then free to provide rationalizations for most any form of sexual misuse and abuse. For those so inclined, if pleasure is the name of the game, why should anyone be deprived of the pleasure?

And let's not forget that atheism provides another powerful incentive to normalize sexual misuse in all its forms, for if there is no perception of a God who rules by eternal laws that supercede man's own laws, man is then set free, liberated to make up the rules for himself.

I take a bit of comfort in learning that at least some people get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

According to the American Psychiatric

Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM-IV, TR), a pedophile is “an individual who is attracted to a prepubescent

child under the age of 13” (APA, 1994, p. 528). These individuals tend to

choose males, females, or both males and females. There are two types, the

exclusive or the non-exclusive. The latter, the non-exclusive type, represent

almost 90% of this group and seems to be the dominant form of the disorder

in the general population of males. This clear majority of pedophiles are

heterosexual, white, married, and middle class males.

Link to comment

Since the OP doesn't claim that kindergärtners are being taught about sex, but says instead that they are being taught sex education (this is the term used by the Chicago Public Schools), you are here distorting what I said, ironically to the point of proving yourself a liar by your own criteria, not mine.

Please see my response to Tacenda in pst #17 above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The one thing we know you are good at is spin. Just tell me one place in the article that you are using to support this opening remark

Concerns have long been voiced, and oft dismissed, that the slippery slope of the gay movement towards normalizing homosexuality, would eventually lead to normalization of pedophilia.

Honestly, you would use anything to justify your agenda against gays. It is so unChrist like.

Link to comment

According to the American Psychiatric

Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM-IV, TR), a pedophile is “an individual who is attracted to a prepubescent

child under the age of 13” (APA, 1994, p. 528). These individuals tend to

choose males, females, or both males and females. There are two types, the

exclusive or the non-exclusive. The latter, the non-exclusive type, represent

almost 90% of this group and seems to be the dominant form of the disorder

in the general population of males. This clear majority of pedophiles are

heterosexual, white, married, and middle class males.

Without getting into the APA's gay bias, and without getting into the studies that show otherwise, let's assume that the manual is correct, and ask what bearing this has on the topic of this thread.

Does it somehow disprove the secondary premise of the thread (that there may be a relationship between the gay movement and pedaphilia and the increased sexualization of young children)?

No, of course it doesn't. It simply suggests another area of concern.

Does it address the primary premise of the thread (that children are increasingly being sexualized at younger ages)?

I don't see that it does.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
The one thing we know you are good at is spin. Just tell me one place in the article that you are using to support this opening remark

Please read more carefully. The introductory portion of the opening post that you quoted, NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE ARTICLE SUPPORTED IT (capped for your benefit). Rather, it was the primary thesis stated in a subsequent paragraph that supported it. Do you now get it?

Honestly, you would use anything to justify your agenda against gays. It is so unChrist like.

It s funny that in your own opening post you falsely accused me of lying, and in so doing, you proved yourself a liar by your own criteria, and instead of this giving you even the least pause, you are now spewing yet another misunderstanding on your part (without carefully reading through and giving appropriate contemplation to the OP and the tempering post I suggested you read), and yet you have the gall to claim I am the one who would do anything to justify my alleged agenda, and that I am unChristlike. Trully amazing!

But, then, it isn't so amazing when I again realize just how upside-down a world I now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Concerns have long been voiced, and oft dismissed, that the slippery slope of the gay movement towards normalizing homosexuality, would eventually lead to normalization of pedophilia.

Regardless whether you agree with this concern or not, it is clear that pop culture has been attempting to, and somewhat successful in, sexualizing children, and at increasingly younger ages.

The latest news on this front is the Chicago Public School administration has proposed to teach sex education to kindergärtners. (See the article HERE)

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thoughts on the connection between normalizing homosexual behavior and normalizing pedophilic behavior: The primary thing that makes homosexual sex worse than heterosexual sex is its departure from the institution of marriage. The primary things that make pedophilic sex worse than homosexual sex are the developmental and power differentials in the relationship, and the departure from marriage. The connection I see between the two is an increase in tolerance for increasingly more offensive abuses of adults, children and marriage.

Thoughts on pop culture sexualizing children: This too has been getting steadily more flagrant, because sin, whether for one’s own pleasure or against others’ well-being, has always been popular and people and audiences with power and resources often exercise their option to push the envelope.

Thoughts on the article: public school sex education should be designed to offset the deleterious effects of pop culture on imposed and otherwise dysfunctional child sexualization and prevent the sexual abuse of children.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...