Why Child Sex Abuse Prevention Is An Abusive IdeaOn Mar 11, 2014 Comments Off on Why Child Sex Abuse Prevention Is An Abusive Idea
Tuesday March 11, 2014
Utah Senators: Please vote NO HB 286 Child Sexual Abuse Prevention
I funded the legal research and drafting of Utah’s FERPA law of 1994 (UFERPA) and successfully lobbied for it. It was a concept that I brought forward based on my prior experience in Texas where we fought the disgusting idea of teaching teenagers in a co-ed classroom the “14 steps of condom use,” using cucumbers. It was time to put the parents back in the driver’s seat and to protect their rights and their children’s and family’s privacy.
UFERPA was the first of its kind on the state level.
The out-of-control sexual, psychological and emotional abuse of children that has become the standard of public education has been promoted since the sexual revolution launched in the mid-1960s. The sex research was largely funded by Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family. It was founded on the beyond-bizarre and utterly atrocious abuse of little children, as young as two months old, who were repeatedly raped by adults in the now infamous Alfred Kinsey research. This barbarian mad “scientist” tracked how long it took these sweet little children to reach an orgasm with an adult.
The perverted Kinsey also used pedophiles, prostitutes and rapist prison inmates as the research subjects to determine what was “normal” sexual behavior. The rest of the country was indoctrinated through Mary Calderone, SIECUS, and NOAAP with their sex education programs – each sharing the common goal of normalizing human sexuality in all its forms, even slave trafficking of women in prostitution rings and consensual pedophilia/incest. Its terms and activity were to become common household words.
How would any parent accept such evil? Those of us who have worked with Judith Reisman and who have known her research have watched in horror through the years as “prevention” programs have marched through the school systems and have slowly but surely accomplished nearly all of these goals. Today prostitution is legalized in Nevada.
The formality of the student – teacher relationship has broken down. When I attended Marlborough School for Girls in Los Angeles, we stood every time the teacher entered the classroom. Nearly 40 years after this revolution and three generations into sex ed and “sex prevention,” it’s no wonder that teachers are increasingly molesting their students. It’s also no surprise that the RIGHT to do so (consensually) is being discussed. “Why not?” some say.
This ought to be appalling. To me it is simply the fulfillment of those earlier goals – accepted through the enormous deception put upon parents who truly believe they are enrolling their student in a program that will “help” them.
It is still illegal (and may I suggest immoral) to have sex – even consensual – with a minor.
It is also a huge conflict of interest to put a student (the vulnerable party) in an intimate relationship with a teacher (the authoritative party) that has control over the student’s grade. In a professional setting, which a school ought to be, a wise business owner would avoid an intimate relationship with an employee. Lawsuits have certainly followed many spurned employees. Doctors have ethical codes that would prohibit such relationships with their patients. These are professional client relationships.
My motivation for protecting parents and children from a school system that continues to invade privacy and that insists on going into territory that is not its constitutional jurisdiction was both personal and research-based. On a personal level, a family member was sexually abused as a young boy. He had been raised in a home that took responsibility for appropriate discussions of human intimacy. That discussion did not prevent the abuse.
But the parents were wise and instead encouraged the child to move forward, to forget and not to ruminate over the past. To place such a child in a program to be reminded over and over of such a wrenching experience is abuse in itself.
In another instance, an education counselor was brought in to “test” this child because he was performing poorly at school. To the parents’ astonishment, the counselor was not allowed to discuss anything the child and the counselor had shared, but the school was allowed to know. The parents wisely stopped not only that “counseling” – they also withdrew the child from the school altogether and put him in a safer environment.
Around the country, including Utah, schools are now collaborating with DCFS and CPS to share information. Then they often use it against parents aggressively removing children from homes, and putting those children in a greater state of emotional abuse by tearing them away from their homes and families.
In my mediation training, I learned that if I even had a remote suspicion of child abuse, I was required to report it to authorities. I objected and, in a roomful of Utah judges, attorneys and mediators, I declared that this was a violation of privacy. Since when did our justice system begin requiring no evidence for such heinous charges?
On the break I talked to the director of DCFS, who had been involved in the Parker Jensen case in 2003 – the case of a boy whose parents refused to allow the cancer treatment Primary Childrens’ Hospital insisted he needed. They all escaped Utah and the Attorney General cited the parents on kidnapping charges! Today Parker Jensen is alive and well, having served a Mormon mission and last year was married.
Protecting the School from the Family and the Family from the School
Utah’s FERPA was intended to be a protection from a school system that tends to alienate the student from the parent and which also removes the responsibility from the parents for teaching these sensitive and personal matters.
However, most parents will not opt-out of these programs because they are not aware of the dangers found in the research. Typically they assume that because the school is offering it, then it must be good. On one occasion a couple fiercely defended the school’s sex ed programs saying they wanted the school to teach it and then if their children had any questions they could ask them. But after I showed them the research and showed them what was actually being taught and what even LDS church leaders had said (they were Mormon), they changed their views.
While I was living in Dallas, Texas, I collaborated with two BYU professors, Stan Weed and Terrence Olson, to promote their research nationally showing that increased exposure to sexual content also increased the sexual behavior. It just makes sense.
Their research shows that the abuse is actually found in the exposing of children to sexual content and that the way human intimacy is discussed is best done in a loving, home environment with their parents.
This is not the way the public school has been presenting this sensitive material. In fact, it parallels goals that I’ve witnessed in negotiating rooms at the United Nations. If you have never been there, it is a MUST for every legislator. We are on a dangerous and slippery slope toward what now exists in many nations of the world.
What the UK Shows Us About Sex ed and So-called “Prevention”
In the UK, comprehensive sex ed includes “sexual abuse prevention.” Pre-schoolers and kindergartners are taught the pleasures of self-stimulation in these comprehensive programs. The school’s attitude is to normalize sexuality. In London elementary schools now have unisex bathrooms, with urinals on one side and toilets (without stalls) on the other, where boys and girls are together. It’s the same with locker rooms.
Parents who object to this outrageous abuse against little children and who want to teach their children modesty and a different set of values about sex are told THEY are the “inappropriate” ones – not the sex ed “prevention” program itself.
Utah’s Proposed Sex Abuse Prevention Bill and Utah’s FERPA
Fundamentally, this proposed bill in the 2014 session violates Utah’s FERPA law, and I do know and understand the intent of that bill. I lived its development daily before and during that legislative session.
If HB 286 is inevitably going to pass the Utah Senate, it must be amended and tied to Utah’s FERPA so that parents can stay in the drivers’ seat and so that their children will be protected from these damaging programs.
It’s time to stop sexualizing children in the same of sex ed and sex abuse protection.
Here’s the list of those in the Senate that voted YES on this horrible bill. Please contact them asap.
Adams, J. S.Bramble, C.Dabakis, J.Davis, G.Hillyard, L.Hinkins, D.Jones, P.Knudson, P.Mayne, K.Niederhauser, W.Okerlund, R.Osmond, A.Reid, S.Robles, L.Shiozawa, B.Stevenson, J.Thatcher, D.Urquhart, S.Vickers, E.Weiler, T.
And ask them to please vote No HB 286. You can contact them here.