WHO advice on sexuality for infants

[ChristinaXYZ]

ARticle in the Telegrpah covering the WHO guidance that has become a legal requirement in Welsh schools:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/13/outrage-over-who-advice-on-sexuality-for-infants/

"The advice proposes that four-to-six year olds should be taught to “talk about sexual matters” and “consolidate their gender identity”....

It recommends that children under the age of four should be told they have “the right to ask questions about sexuality” and “the right to explore gender identities”.

The WHO guidance also says that children aged four and under should be taught about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation”...

These topics are described as the “minimal standards that need to be covered by sexuality education”.

A government spokesperson said: “The UK Government does not recognise this WHO guidance and we don’t agree with its recommendations. We have not distributed or promoted it to schools.

“We offer our own guidance to help schools to teach children and young people about relationships and health.”

However, the WHO guidance, first published in 2010, was cited in a 2017 report commissioned by Welsh ministers entitled “Informing the Future of the Sex and Relationships Curriculum in Wales”.

The report was commissioned to “inform the development of the future Sex and Relationships (SRE) curriculum”, which became legally enforceable in Welsh schools last year, although it did not adopt all of the recommendations in the report conducted by Cardiff University.

Laura Anne Jones MS, shadow minister for education in Wales, said the WHO “needs to rescind the advice immediately”.

Ms Jones also called for the Welsh government to “distance themselves” from the “frankly disturbing” WHO guidance."

Lot more detail in the article.

More paving the way for the paedophiles sorry I mean Minor Attracted People. Absolutely sickening.

Children haven't been protected for most of history. It's fairly recent history that children are granted a childhood. Some people are trying to undo all of that.

Let children be children for fucks sake.

Dirty effin' perverts!

Apropos Mrs Whitehouse, I'll likely go back and read the posts about her later but seeing her pic as i scrolled down the page, reminded me of a conversation i had, when i was very young, with an older friend. I was complaining about something Mrs Whitehouse had said, or was trying to interfere with and my friend replied that one day, i'd see things from a different angle and realise that what she was saying was right.
Oh i did LOL but here we are and i do look at it from a different angle and yep, she was right, without a shadow of a doubt!
Come back Mrs W. All is forgiven!

I wonder if the document was written in another language making some distinctions set out in the longer text ( not the table) rather blurred?

The long introduction part says for example that a baby’s pleasure in being fed, securely held, loved, and touched is a precursor to later sexuality. That would be true in the sense that arguably all early experiences are.

But it feels a bit disturbing to interpret that physical (innocent) bonding with a child as anything even potentially sexual rather than simply sensual and emotional. Then by bringing masturbation into the discussion it comes across that they do see very young children as sexual.

So that although they do go on to say it is very important not to interpret a child’s behaviour through the experience of an adult, they seem to be doing just that in some ways.

I agree that the whole document is all more balanced and thought out than first appeared to from the headlines, but I do find lots of worrying aspects to it. It has a whole ‘Sex Positive’ aura too; and I also think their teaching of gender ideology very problematic.

The balanced tone is on purpose.

It helps hide the the problematic stuff where they open up all children to sexual abuse.

Offer up that should say

The long introduction part says for example that a baby’s pleasure in being fed, securely held, loved, and touched is a precursor to later sexuality. That would be true in the sense that arguably all early experiences are.

Seriously?

You buy into the idea that the pleasure a baby experiences in eating and hugging are precursors to sexuality?

That has (most likely) male perversion and obsession with sex written all over it.

I eat food and hug my adult children all the time and it’s not remotely sexual.

Physical intimacy isn’t always sexual and certainly interaction between parent and child should never be sexual or looked at through that abnormal lens.

This is where we have a problem because this stuff has become so normalised that the fact that it is a huge red flag is readily pushed aside. I haven’t read the full thread (not sure if it’s the same one that was in AIBU) but has Kinsey been mentioned yet? His perverted studies are often at the heart of this normalization process. I’m starting to think that all safeguarding and all educational materials for children should be written by middle aged women.

Apologies, ScrollingLeaves, I realise the rest of your post questioned the paragraph I commented on, but I think it needs to be unequivocal that such a suggestion is never normal.

Nobody should look at a baby and see a sexual being, or look at its activities and experiences and think of them in terms of sexuality, ever.

I am aware that children do sometimes derive pleasurable feelings from parts of their body that eventually be primarily sexual, but even with that, until they have gone through puberty and can procreate sexually, then that pleasure is not sexual. It’s a pleasant experience with no sexual connotations.

But cuddling and eating are not primarily sexual.

PriOn1

Lots of Kinsey stuff on the existing/earlier thread on the same subject here - the Telegraph article is based on the report by Safe Schools Alliance UK: 👇

Where did PIE go? WHO and UNESCO new guidance has routes in Queer Theory, Sex Positivity and believes children are "sexual from birth"

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4796258-where-did-pie-go-who-and-unesco-new-guidance-has-routes-in-queer-theory-sex-positivity-and-believes-children-are-sexual-from-birth

Even if this information is based in evidence, why should we to do anything with it?

I mean the question gets to, why should we have any taboos?

Social taboos are actually hugely important. Once they get eroded, we get to a place where male rapists are housed in women's prisons.

Break social taboos about what is appropriate for very young children and... I think we know where that is going to go, fast.

Excellent post. Especially your second paragraph, which of course should go without saying, and the vast majority of people would agree with you entirely. It’s actually quite terrifying though that this needs to be said.

And that is Queer Theory

Endgame of Gender Ideology in black and white

Re: Thatcher

I don't know. This is one of those cases where I used to think the worries conservatives had were silly/mean, and now I think that a lot of what they predicted has come to pass, and I was being naive.

The idea of "promoting" homosexuality seemed bizarre, but when I look at the kinds of things the school lgbtq+ clubs are doing, and groups that come into the schools to deliver material that seems to make a lot of the kids think that being straight is boring and discriminatory,, and pushing the idea that pre-pubescent kids should be defining their sexuality, it does seem like the school is pushing an agenda, rather than just passing on information in a normal way.

The way schools now set themselves above parents in terms of teaching about values around sex, and even see themselves as having a mandate to deliberately undermine the parents if they don't teach the approved, secular, sex positive position, is completely inappropriate.

I no longer trust schools or the people in them to tell my kids anything about sex or sexuality, beyond bare biological essentials, and I honestly wish they were prevented from doing so. None of them have the expertise, or the right.

I think there is a distinct difference between 'homosexuality' and 'queerness' - many gay, lesbian and bisexual people explicitly reject the label of 'queerness' precisely because Queer Theory is a socio-political ideology far beyond merely being attracted to the same or both sexes. So I think Thatcher took suppression of homosexuality way too far and did a lot of damage to the needs of LGB people to be seen as - well, people whereas the current promotion of QT to children is much more dangerous, insidious and contrary to effective safeguarding and boundaries.

A pretty disturbing video from WHO is doing the rounds on twitter:

https://twitter.com/markmaycot/status/1657555408355991555?t=UUt-ZHrXP0nQGSlD4G8x4w&s=19

Bill Gates practically owns the WHO.

He met with Epstein 39 times.

How does interrogating children about their possible sexual responses on film, while they squirm, sit with 'your private parts are private'??

I'm so gobsmacked by that clip. Does anyone know the provenance of it. Is it real?

Normalising children being filmed talking to adults about touching themselves sexually?

Barry Wall, a gay man who lived through Section 28, has talked a few times about how the motivation for Section 28 was not to do with homosexuality per se but rather the infiltration of the Gay Rights movement by PIE and other paedophiles with ulterior motives.

Barry's recent response to Kate Osborne MP:

Kate Osborne MP - Withdraw and Apologies. Homophobic Safeguarding Fail
11 May 2023

PIE started in 1974 and officially closed in 1984 but I think it would be supremely naive to think that all the paedophiles went home and thought,
"Actually, I don't think I want to rape toddlers any more so I'll stop campaigning to normalise it and make it legal".

Section 28 Timeline

Clause 28, which bans the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools as a "normal family relationship", has caused controversy ever since its introduction in 1987. Although no one has ever been prosecuted under the legislation, it has continually been targeted by anti-discrimination campaigners and still divides traditionalists and liberals within the Conservative party. James Merino charts its history.

December 1987
Clause 28 is introduced into the local government bill by Dame Jill Knight, Conservative MP for Birmingham Edgbaston. It provokes immediate outrage among gay rights campaigners and many teachers.

May 1988
The legislation becomes Section 28 when the bill passes into law, but the notoriety of the measure means that it remains known by the name "Clause 28".

See more:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/homeaffairs/page/0,11026,875944,00.html

Section 28 had been defunct, obsolete, a dead parrot in terms of schools for some before it was repealed in 2003 as part of Repeal of Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986.

It had been overtaken by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which moved responsibility for sex education from Local Authorities to individual schools. So from 2000 - 2003 Section 28 still applied to Local Authorities but not to schools.

By the time repeal was debated in Parliament in 2003, there was minimal frothing of the mouth that this would permit "promotion of homosexuality" in schools (a red herring anyway since 2000).

However, there was serious concern that schools were, since 2000, promoting "transvestism", kink, porn, and what might now be called "queer lifestyles", etc. with lessons and materials that were not age appropriate and put children at risk.

This was despite guidance issued by the Sec of State for Education to schools.

The Learning and Skills Act 2000 is important to sex education in schools, too, because it modifies section 403 of the Education Act 1996 by inserting new subsection (1A), which states:

“The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools— ”
* (a) they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children, and
* (b) they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned."

New subsection (1B) provides that “In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance.”

Mr Clifton Brown, House of Commons Debate, 10 March 2003
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2003/mar/10/repeal-of-section-2a-of-local-government#2003-03-10T17:15:00Z

I can't recall if I have got a copy of that guidance but whatever it was it clearly did not have the desired effect.

@EDIJester anything to help fill in the gaps about the real motivation behind Section 28?

This says a great deal. When are the contents of Epstein’s infamous black book going to be made public?

I think most people underestimate how much some people REALLY want to have sex with children

The document asserts that children embark on sexual education from birth.

It reads: “From birth, babies learn the value and pleasure of bodily contact, warmth and intimacy. Soon after that, they learn what is ‘clean’ and what is ‘dirty’.”

wtf? As a former child and mother of children I don’t recognise that at all

It then goes on to conclude: “In other words, they are engaging in sexuality education.”

not everything is about sex for heaven’s sake

Just to clarify, the document that is from because several have been mentioned:

WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA
Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe
A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists
2010

"In this document, it was deliberately decided to call for an approach in which sexuality education starts from birth. From birth, babies learn the value and pleasure of bodily contact, warmth and intimacy. Soon after that, they learn what is “clean” and what is “dirty”. Later, they learn the difference between male and female, and between intimates and strangers. The point is that, from birth, parents in particular send messages to their children that relate to the human body and intimacy. In other words, they are engaging in sexuality education."

page 13

Standards for Sexuality Education
https://www.bzga-whocc.de/en/publications/standards-for-sexuality-education/

Those children absolutely cannot have consented to being filmed as they are interrogated.
Those smug women make me feel physically ill.

DerekFaker · Today 12:44

A pretty disturbing video from WHO is doing the rounds on twitter:

https://twitter.com/markmaycot/status/1657555408355991555?t=UUt-ZHrXP0nQGSlD4G8x4w&s=19

I am so grateful that my childish physiology was never interfered with in that way: mentally nudged and prodded by an adult into masturbating and looking for orgasms when I was a young child.

That poor little boy looking so embarrassed. From what I have seen if little boys, yes they sometimes touch their penis, they sometimes hold themselves a bit for comfort but it is in passing, or because they need a wee. It is not masturbation for an orgasm. Maybe that is true for some but not for many, many others. Leave them alone.

I am not saying there is a correlation, but the Netherlands seems to have an exceptionally high rate of child sex-abuse pornography.www.statista.com/statistics/1246244/countries-hosting-child-pornography-content-worldwide