The 11th Commandment

“Thou shalt not corrupt the innocence of children!”

Sex Education

Approx 4200 words = Approx 16 minutes reading time

Written by Diarmaid Ó Conaráin

It would seem unlikely at this point that anyone on social media has not heard of our establishments plans to aggressively expand the Sex-Ed curriculum currently being taught in schools. Many like myself are somewhat confused as to where exactly the perceived need for this has come from. I do not recall any groups marching in the streets demanding their parenting duties become state issues. I have never heard a single person I know state that what they thought schools really needed was aggressive expansion in the Sex-Ed curriculum. In truth I have no idea where this has come from whatsoever, aside from our would-be rulers asserting that it’s our next glorious step into progressiveness.

It may be one thing for the establishment to decide upon curriculum with regards to subjects that are too extensive to cover entirely. For example the whole of History, Geography, or Mathematics simply cannot be taught within the time-frame allotted, therefore some information is included, and some excluded. It is entirely another thing for the establishment to deem itself the sexual educator of entire generations, by virtue of seeking to supersede a parents decision of what information is appropriate, and when it is appropriate. This is a grave injustice that we cannot afford to overlook. Not only does the state seek to decide when your children will learn about sex, but how, with regards to ideology concerning gender and sexual orientation. The audacity of our representatives to state this will be mandatory, is likely indicative of their overall ignorance throughout this entire policy. Furthermore, I find it worrying, that when our establishment looked at the education system and wondered how it might be improved; their answer was not a module in transition year based around managing finances, it was not the introduction of a philosophy module to foster critical thinking in students, it was not a class dedicated to mental health, or healthy psychological habits as a life skill. No. Our establishment looked at our education system and thought, if we could just make young children more aware of sex, pronouns, and sexual orientation, then all would be well in the world.

As with the Hate Speech legislation being drafted, the new RSE curriculum has not been released as policy yet, hence we can only be as specific as the text will allow for. The NCCA text concerning this proposition is deliberately long, and drones on attempting to justify its necessity, rather than specifying its intentions. Like many political documents, it is also impossible to digest the issue fully as a standalone document, as it references falling in line with the World Health Organizations Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe (2010) and the International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (2018) by UNESCO. The report has been worded carefully, so as to avoid the negative attention of openly stating they will teach young children about masturbation, followed by anal sex in a matter of time. For those doubting that anal sex will be a feature of conversation, how else did you believe they could educate children on male homosexual couples?

On page 58 of the NCCA review you will find the vaguely worded intentions of this new curriculum. Though its intentionally vague and broad descriptions will not confirm our worst fears, but merely try to evade confirmation of them. For example, at a later point the report references “developments in contraception”, rather than telling us outright they intend to teach children that abortion is fine. Another example is “healthy positive sexual expression”. This no doubt refers to masturbation, and is likely to be taught earlier and earlier as this policy moves forward. To any who disagree I would ask that you contemplate what exactly a “healthy positive sexual expression” might be, if not masturbation? With regards to the masturbation issue I will provide links at the end of the text. These links are regarding 6 year olds being taught masturbation in the Sex-Ed curriculum of other countries. If after reading this blog you conclude that Ireland will remain excused from this development, then I would argue you have missed the obvious pattern of developments that begin in the U.S or UK coming to Ireland.

Worryingly, the review has taken a massive amount of input from various sources. The review claims to have gathered input from 63 organizations and individuals at Bilateral and roundtable meetings. A symposium on RSE was held in Dublin with 51 stakeholders present. While 65 written submissions were received via the NCCA website.

The “Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland”, stated in a written submission that “the ethos of the school, religious or otherwise, should not determine the manner in which the RSE programme is provided to students. Students have a right to objective and factual relationships and sexuality education regardless of the type of school they attend”. Apparently identifying as anything you like is now objective and factual, as opposed to subjective and unscientific. It also seems clear that religious freedom will be trampled on by this policy, and devout Christians, Muslims, or Jews will not be afforded the right to transfer their religious beliefs to their children. At least not without the state insisting regularly in classrooms that their religious beliefs are hateful.

On page 24 of the NCCA report it details what students have allegedly stated as their desire. It reads like a manifesto from Greta Thunberg, and not like any teenager any of us have ever met. Or if we are told these concerns come from children younger than teenagers, then I believe it only makes it more unbelievable. I do not say this to mock Greta, I say it to make the point that perhaps innocent and naive children are once again being marched out with the establishments narrative. “They also called for more time for RSE, with dedicated timetabled space on the curriculum. In terms of curriculum they advocated for a comprehensive, inclusive, incremental, relevant and positive approach to RSE that is available to all students. Furthermore, they spoke about the need to prioritise RSE and give it the status it deserves in the school curriculum”. Alleged quotes from minors in an online survey also read like word for word establishment narratives. One such quote reads as follows, “Start it at a young age and introduce all the key concepts and language at an early age and then add incrementally. (Post-primary student, online survey)”.

Ensuring that the policy has no intention of stopping here, in the section titled “Advice on Future Directions” it goes on to state that “The provision of a specialist post-graduate qualification in SPHE/RSE would represent a major step forward in providing for effective SPHE/RSE in schools in the long-term.”. Highlighting that the advocates and “stakeholders” of this policy advocate for a university course regarding educating children on sex. In truth there is enough content to write 10-15k words on the Sophistry and intent behind this policy, but that will not be digestible in the slightest. I could go on all day quoting sections and critiquing or interpreting them. But this will only make this text too long, while still failing to achieve any more specificity than we currently have.

The introduction of masturbation into the curriculum as “healthy positive sexual expression” to children is an utterly vulgar proposition. Many will have heard that recently Labour Councillor Pamela Kearns made an appalling statement, the kind of statement that should immediately end any career in public representation. Her assertion is that “babies masturbate”, or as she would later revise, that they “explore their bodies”. Considering that crawling or lifting their own head can prove difficult for a baby, it would seem quite impossible they exercise so much knowledge over their bodily functions that they masturbate for pleasure. The very fact Pamela Kearns was unwilling to back down from her statement and apologize for any misunderstanding, should highlight that by “explore their bodies” she most certainly still meant masturbation for pleasure. It also should read loud and clear to all, that the “healthy positive sexual expression” being taught will certainly creep into the classrooms of increasingly younger children. The new policy will seek to override parental autonomy on intimate and personal issues, and introduce masturbation as part of school curriculum. Although it is not directly stated in the NCCA review, I will provide links at the end of this text which should show us exactly where this policy will lead.

Leaving aside the surreal fact that this is actually being discussed for children, I would like to make a point regarding over-sexualization of individuals, regardless of their age. I regret that I am unable to recall who this finding should be attributed to, as much of my self education has been online, and not directly from books that make it easier to credit a finding to it’s author. The knowledge I am referring relates to the state of being of those who are hyper-sexualized. It was found long ago that the more sexualized an individual is the more they revert to their base instincts. Many of us will know that it becomes harder to think straight if we’re hungry, the same is true if we become turned on. Being sexually aroused is one of the more primal and instinctual states of consciousness, as opposed to higher thinking, or states of contemplation or reflection. This directly translates to the more regularly an individual is thinking about sex, the more regularly they will find themselves simply unable to engage their critical thinking, or assert any level of reason or wisdom.

This became accepted knowledge in western civilization over time, and we once knew that control over our impulses and base desires was key to remaining in our state of higher intellect and awareness. Yet as with much of genuine knowledge lately, this finding has been twisted and weaponized, in an attempt to control the population through encouraging them to increasingly enter a state of low intellect but high impulse and desire. After all, if we’re thinking about sex it’s unlikely we’re also contemplating our national debt, or keeping a close eye on politicians and legislation. And if the media can persuade us to become addicted to our desire, then even when that sexual desire is temporarily fulfilled it may be only a period of hours before those stuck in a loop become fixated on sexual pleasure yet again.

The over-sexualization of the population is happening through hyper-sexual music videos, the increasing availability of pornography, and the constant bombardment of advertising campaigns seeking to use sexual suggestion to encourage consumerism. Nowadays everywhere we look we are surrounded by provocative advertising, and none of this is innocent or merely in pursuit of the motto that “sex sells”. But more a highly considered societal weapon of control, through slowly and habitually removing the populations concern for any issues aside from pursuing their desires. If this is something we as adults can struggle to control, then surely it is rhetorical that we protect children from an issue they are both unprepared for and ill-equipped to handle. None of us would imagine a child could deal with a drug addiction. So I wonder why it is we believe it appropriate to immerse them prematurely in an environment that could almost be considered hormonally addictive.

I do not intend to debate the issue of abortion, but merely its introduction to the RSE curriculum. To add abortion to the list of forms of contraception is the final step in destroying all sense of responsibility society and individuals have for their actions regarding pregnancy. To normalize abortion to the extent of it being considered a contraceptive is literal lunacy. A contraceptive that performs it’s duty after impregnation has occurred and when a child is beginning to form, is no contraceptive at all. Given that the stated definition of a contraceptive is to be a preventative measure, to label abortion as a contraceptive is not only deliberately wrong, but the kind of insidious, wilfully ignorant description that should see individuals using it deemed unfit to be involved in the issue. This may seem extreme, but are we to allow our standards of politics and policy fall so low that we label a thing what it literally cannot be, by definition of the label we seek to give it? This is utterly incoherent. Abortion cannot by any individual with a sense of logic be considered a method of contraceptive. It is a retro action taken specifically because a woman is already pregnant, and never, ever, under any other circumstance. Highlighting again that it is a termination of pregnancy, not a prevention.

The proposition to abolish gender norms in the Sex-Ed curriculum should be seen for exactly what it is, an ideology being enforced on children. To those who may say it is merely aimed at acceptance, I would argue they have overlooked the underlying assertions of such a policy. To abolish gender norms is to contradict science, and all common sense or reasoning ability. To assert that sex and gender are somehow separable is equally evasive of reality. It is to promote the idea that individuals can choose what they wish to identify as. Which is fine if we’re talking about politics, but not when it comes to biology. Unfortunately for the advocates of these policies, the reality of male and female genitalia will be a constant wind to their would-be house of cards. They may twist and shape their narrative however they wish, it is simply too detached from reality for anyone but the absolute minority of lost individuals to embrace.

Even the majority of those unhappy with their gender wish to transition to the other gender. These individuals simply feel like they were born into the wrong sex. They do indeed believe in gender, as displayed by their desire to transition, a recognition in essence that gender is not simply a mental state of how you choose to identify yourself. This highlights that the abolition of gender norms can only been seen to facilitate individuals who are unfortunately lost, or suffering from an identity crisis, with no benefit beyond a minuscule minority of individuals. Especially with regard to children, individuals are not always right, and sometimes guidance is necessary, not a facilitation to become more lost and unhappy. The belief that gender is a personal decision, or fluid in any sense, is certainly a polar opposite to both biological reality and what society currently understands. It is an entirely incoherent ideology, that seeks to enforce and normalize the declarations of pronouns, while at the same time the acceptance of invented pronouns. This proposition can do nothing but prove to be an ideological imposition on children. It’s perceived benefits will ultimately prove to have an enabling effect of those who embrace it, all the while creating chaotic confusion in innocent children who would have otherwise been perfectly fine.

Masturbation and early sexualization will defile the innocence of children, and I can’t help but wonder, what exactly is the rush? We have our whole lives to “explore our bodies”, and pursue sexual experiences as adults. I am deeply unconvinced of the need to accelerate this process, moreover, I am deeply suspicious of its motives. Childhood is an almost sacred carefree period of life, and should be protected at all costs. Life is hard enough, for long enough, every child deserves the opportunity to be carefree and enjoy a childhood free from the issues this policy will create.

I firmly believe we cannot underestimate the overwhelmingly negative impact this curriculum will have on a child’s life, both psychologically and socially. It’s advocates clearly have not considered the ripple effects of these ideas on a child’s wider day to day life. Consider for a moment that topics such as masturbation, sexual orientation, and pornography are subjects that will heighten a child’s awareness to the concept of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is a concept children are innocent towards until at least puberty. Sexual attraction forces an individual to become conscious of their own appearance in return, due to the desire to impress those who they may be sexually attracted to. Most individuals are self-conscious to a degree, and often only the narcissists among us are entirely happy with their appearance. This can become a great source of anxiety or discomfort for some individuals. Feeling unattractive can create problems with social interaction, but more importantly can begin to erode self-confidence, which can ripple into everything else. Is this an environment we wish to rush children into as early as possible?

Children currently have no concern for any of the issues mentioned here, and by extension, they are in no danger from the psychological or societal pressures associated with sexual attraction or orientation. Reasonable adults agree that it is inappropriate for young teenage girls to emulate women, by using make up or dressing provocatively. If children become aware of sexual attraction before it naturally occurs then how can we imagine make-up and inappropriate dress sense will not follow? This may occur not only as a consequence of wanting to be considered more attractive sexually, but also sadly as a consequence of wanting to appear less unattractive, for those suffering from anxiety or self-consciousness with regards to their appearance. From this perspective we find that in a sense we may be forcing young girls into competition with the grown women they see around them, as they seek to achieve a perceived standard of beauty in society, long before this should be a concern of theirs. I do not believe the importance of this point can be overstated. To over-sexualize children will not only introduce them to sexual activity prematurely, but open the gates to a multitude of social and psychological issues that no child should ever feel burdened by, nor are they equipped for these issues. Children should not be concerned with Sexual Activity, Sexual Orientation, Pronouns, Pornography, Abortion, or any insecurity regarding their physical appearance or level of attractiveness.

These impositions of thought and awareness will wreak havoc on any generations of children that are subjected to them. I believe It would be fair to say this policy will increase the likelihood of depression in children, and by extension potentially even higher suicide rates. This may seem extreme, but if we are to acknowledge that these issues can lead to suicide in adults, it would be naive to imagine they will not also affect children. It is our job as the responsible adults of society to ensure the natural path for children is maintained, at all costs. We will be adults for the majority of our lives, there is no justifiable reason to propel minors into aspects of adulthood long before they occur organically.

I would not be alone to say this appears to be moving toward the facilitation and normalization of paedophilia on a huge scale. Why else would we educate children prematurely about sex, if not to encourage them to take part? I ask that the reader truly consider the motive for such a program to be introduced nationwide in schools. Its advocates may create whatever false narrative they’re capable of, but the truth is this move can be seen as nothing but the over sexualization of children long before nature have would naturally deemed so.

The claim that this is a move toward facilitating paedophilia could seem somewhat outrageous, if we had nothing else to go on, but we do. Academia has made its position quite clear unfortunately. Along with aggressive expansion of the Sex-Ed curriculum for primary and secondary schools, the academic industry is openly discussing paedophilia as a “diverse sexual orientation” in third level circles. This has been proven by San Diego State University, which held seminars asking the students to consider paedophilia as a diverse, but acceptable, sexual orientation. For any who may doubt the claims of a subversive agenda regarding underage sex, this is an undeniable statement from the academic world. I will provide a link to the event at San Diego University at the bottom of this text. Though I implore all reasonable adults to accept the reality of where this is all heading, despite covert would-be child molesters attempting to ease our concern regarding their motives. The entire proposition of this further Sex-Ed is extremely suspicious, and I believe San Diego University have shown their cards too early, and provided us all with the proof we need of the true motives behind such a move.

Educating young children on sex is demonic behaviour, aimed directly at the defilement of our youth through the destruction of age appropriate innocence regarding these matters. In truth we should move towards banning pornography altogether, given it is virtually impossible to prevent children from coming in contact with it in these days of technology. Few of us could argue that pornography exclusively produces animalistic and primal sexual content, and almost never displays the other side, of intimate loving sexual encounters. That is not to say consenting adults do not enjoy rougher sex on occasion, but it is hardly a one-sided representation we should present to children. This one-sided representation will undoubtedly skew every child’s perception of sex, and as mentioned increase the likelihood of a lack of control over ones impulses. The advocates for this Sex-Ed may say that is precisely one of the issues they seek to address, this is either an outright lie, or a naive ignorance to what will actually occur. In truth the only thing this policy is certain to achieve is the exposure of children to pornography, who may not have been exposed to it for years to come. Propositions regarding the inclusion of things like anal sex can bear no fruit whatsoever, and can be seen as nothing but encouragement toward further sexual promiscuity and depravity. Not all children develop at the same pace, or in the same direction initially, and many issues remain the parents sovereign territory, and the state has no right to supersede the parent.

With regards to the concept of paedophilia as a “diverse sexual orientation” I would like to make a brief point. A child can never give consent on an issue they cannot fully understand. Any attempt at justification due to puberty is merely a sexual predators Sophistry. A child does not comprehend sexual activity, no matter how well we believe we may have explained it. Even if they did, as may be the case with older teenagers, there still exists a major disparity in experience levels which cannot be denied. Arguably to actively seek out this experience gap is indicative of something quite uncomfortable. That those pursuing such a disparity do so because they desire a kind of defilement of innocence, to satisfy their unnatural impulses. Imagine a teenager having their first drinking session with seasoned alcohol consumers, and expecting them to keep pace, and we will have some insight into the contrasting experience levels between generations with regards to adult activities. I believe any attempt at consent by minors towards adults should be considered by adults as naive, and dismissed. This is an adults moral obligation. Just as a child deserves to remain naturally unconcerned with sexual matters, young adults should be afforded the opportunity to gradually learn and grow in experience levels with each other, without that process being accelerated by a much older individual who seemingly pursues a lack of experience as some kind of depraved preference. Yet early sexualization of children will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the acceptability of wider age gaps, as society increasingly begins to see children as sexually autonomous, which they most certainly are not.

And what will follow? Sex Education, then Anti-Racism programs in primary schools? Or classes on why Capitalism is an evil construct of a racist patriarchy? If the state wishes to impose it’s will on sex education, is it really unreasonable to presume more will follow? In Sweden, capital which was left behind by deceased Swedes who have no family to inherit the money will go towards funding drag shows for children. I will provide a link for this at the end of the text. Is this a likely progression of our Sex-Ed curriculum? Most likely yes, as eventually the argument will be that these concepts being discussed with the children, such as orientation or transgender issues, need to be visually represented so that the children may “better understand”. With everything discussed I believe it is clear that this move by our establishment must be resisted at all costs, until they understand that it will never be acceptable. Its minority of potential benefits simply cannot outweigh its glaringly obvious cost. And even if they did, it would remain too morally wrong to ever implement while still being able to look ourselves in the mirror.