Thursday, 23 October 2008

Compulsory Sex Lessons

"The government is expected to announce later that sex and relationship lessons will be made compulsory in primary and secondary schools in England. "

Woke up this morning to find that as well as every primary school being issued with a political officer to spot non labour voters playing with the crayons or in the sandpit, each primary school is now to instruct children in the fine art of “relationships”

This has me totally amazed. Not by the arrogance, I’m used to that from this bunch of cuntwafts who feel they need to invade every single space of our lives but by the bloody stupidity of it all.

Of course, it is blindingly obvious that children these days grow up quicker. They NEED to have babies at 15 or they won’t get a chance on the housing ladder courtesy of the tax payer and the promise of a one bed flat, surrounded by your dope smoking , Stella belching mates rubbing a scratchcard is so much more attractive (and immediately gratifying) than working hard, saving hard, living with your Mum until mid twenties and leading a “normal” life. And with a welfare hammock funded by us mugs, what have they got to lose?

Therein lies the nub. I know what a normal life is, you do as well. But the Righteous (copyright LegIron) are there to decide for us what their version of a normal life is and inflict it upon the innocents.

We can’t have billions spent on gay equality only for the innocent little bastards to reject it when they reach puberty, can we? Where would that leave the Righteous?

Instead, Janet and John MUST learn that man on man bum action or anal dildo fisting between two shaven headed, nipple pierced dykes is “the way of the world”.

At present, sex education is learned either from parents, their mates or Eastenders (in the case of the filthy underclasses, hence a cast of benders, psychopaths, sorry, mentally challenged, ethnically diverse cuntbubbles).

Result? Those who learn from their parents end up married with jobs. Those who learn from their mates end up living together with jobs and those who learn from Eastenders are busy pushing little Tyson around (father unknown) in a Social Security buggy, smoking Lambert and Butler and residing in the battered women’s refuge.

And the Righteous couldn’t possibly criticise the legions of agenda driven minorities and say “hang on a minute, does John really need to know how to rim and felch a grown man? He’s only 7 years old”. No, because that would “criticise” the armies of Righteous who’s votes have been bought with Gay Pride parades, civil partnerships and free condoms.

So instead of common sense prevailing, we will now have a situation where anything goes. Really. Anything. I can say no and home school my children, but do I really have to? Just so that they won’t be told by a hairy lipped sandalista that a turkey baster or a pot of vaseline is the way to a full and rewarding life?

As I’ve stated many times, I’m a Libertarian which means as long as what you do doesn’t affect me, do what you like. But the do what you like bit doesn’t include teaching my kids that what is not normal is normal.

So fuck off. When the first of my children comes home and tells me that they have been hearing about the joys of homosexual sex from a teacher at school is the day I burn down the house of the teacher concerned.

Leave me alone and for the sake of your health, leave my children alone. When will you stop telling us what to do?

(I have a sneaking suspicion that Schools in Bradford or Northern Ireland will have this little matter cleared up long before I need to get involved.)



Houdini said...

The sex isn't the issue they want to promote, it is the RELATIONSHIP issue they need to get onto the agenda and push down kids throats. They tagged it onto sex as people think this will be progressive etc. but it is a smokescreen.

Homosexuality will feature strongly here, but of course they won't tell kids about the many ways the benders engage in sex.

geewiz said...

Yup, It's just the next step in turning this rice paddy into a den of iniquity. Scenes of Mad Max spring to mind.

Gordon said...

If you have children demand to see the curriculum - I agree Houdini, teaching relationships involves pc education. Will they be teaching the benefits of marriage etc? I doubt it. What's the betting that they will then bring in a "relationships" gcse? Why don't they actually teach the kids how to spell and count. Which sensible employer is going to say "wow, you're an illiterate numpty but you know about pc relationship stuff, of course I'll employ you" - twats, all of them.

Anonymous said...

It's been tried in Holland and the Dutch have a far more open minded attitude towards sexual matters and a have less problems as a result. Of course us Brits still attach guilt and sordidness to shagging don't we.

electro-kevin said...

The clincher is when the kids are told that they'll get their own flat and Government support - it kinda undoes all the good work, really.

Shirking From Home said...

They just can't resist poking their appendenges everywhere.

Why can't they just fuck the hell out of peoples lives FFS.

ranter said...

"...Of course us Brits still attach guilt and sordidness to shagging don't we..."

Isn't that half the fun?

ranter said...

It's the hamsters and gerbils in the classroom I'll worry about!

What a country!

too stupid to be anonymous said...

Bravo. A good idea.

My Father took me on one side and told me about the birds and bees. Luckily my mates later told me what was actually what, where it goes and armed with a couple of killer chat up lines managed at the age of 55 years to lose my virginity.

Without my mates I would to this day still be shagging the hens and getting painfully stung.

Maybe it is in my case an age thingy, but when She asked would I like to be given head - I thought she was offering to nut me.

OH you will not notice me on your walk, cause I will be in Belfast, having misread the map cause I am a idiot looking for a village to adopt me.

woman on a raft said...

There are two reasons this has been spun now:-

a) It's a hot-button issue which will reliably draw attention away from the smoking crater which used to be the UK economy

b) Sex education, along with religious education, are the two areas where there is some parental control of the curriculum, at least to the extent of withdrawing if they don't trust the school. Teachers and Labour politicians have resented this for years, certainly since 1983 and the Gillick case. The class of teachers and social workers thinks it knows better how to bring up your children than you do. Just for good measure, the church agrees with them and the CofE in particular is so dim that it thinks that it can transfer parental authority to it self. Dream on suckers. Every time the church failed to uphold legitimate parental authority it pulled away one if its own foundation stones.

In matters of religion and sex the Thatcher government was off-balance. Against the greater need to make sure that parents had a right to control the sexual behaviour of those under the age of consent (control in the sense of 'prohibit') it had terrible visions of pregnant teenagers being chopped up or denied effective treatment. Guess which ones that applied to. There were, indeed, a few instances of that.

Thus it was held that the duty of medical confidentiality in any one case outweighted the wider need of parents to be able to offer effective care and control. The doctor took on the role of protector for the minor, but in no sense were they held liable if it all went horribly wrong. The parents were left to pick up the mess.

Those who criticize parents, especially the chavvy ones, for their failure to control their offspring should at least recognize that the rights of parenthood have been gradually erroded over 25 years whilst power has been transferred to the local authorities. The parental duties remain, but not the authority which underpinned them. The chavs don't exactly know why they have to act to appease their own children, but they instinctively know that if they do not, it means more interferrence from the social and more finger wagging from the school. They dare not control the children - they'll get in trouble if they do.

The latest wheeze is just more of the same, with the government complaining ever louder that it needs more control as, for some strange reason it can't understand, everything is becoming more out of hand.

woman on a raft said...

Dear Stupid - have you tried Scotton Pinkney? They accept work-experience village idiots with a view to adoption if it works out.

woman on a raft said...

ZNL says that half of all parents are incompetent and/or abusive. Assuming that this applies in two-parent families, but only one of them is suspect, this means that about 75% of all families, however defined, are regarded as requiring the supervision of the state. Which 25% do you think will be not of concern?

"For ContactPoint to be successful it must be a national and universal online directory. In their lifetimes, up to 50 per cent of children will require additional service support, but there is no accounting for who, when and where this requirement will materialise. By including every child on the directory, by its definition early intervention is possible for every child's requirement.

Source: the Register

At the expense of Godwinning, this definition of the family as merely a state-approved hatchery, was put forward by you-know-who. They argued, exactly as now, that the state was the best arbiter of what was in a child's best interests. Sometimes it might be - but that is not the default setting, which is what Ed Balls thinks. Any parents who have been begging for intervention for their special needs child might be wondering why we have to have a squillion-pound database to annoy people who don't want help, but have expensive arguments with people who know what support they need for their child but are told it is too expensive.

The creation of the Contact Point database also creates the largest de facto ID set. One child identifies several other adults; not only its parents but often the extended family, including anyone who has been named as an emergency contact. By cross-referencing these with health records total control can be achieved within a decade.

OH, you will send your children to the state indoctrination centres or they will be reallocated, in their own best interests.

Anonymous said...

Are you an ex public school boy,
Brasso and all that?

ranter said...

Are you an ex public school boy,
Brasso and all that?

24 October 2008 00:25

Would you like me to be? I know I've been bad Fwashman! Don't woast me, pwease..........

Rick said...

Here's an original idea! Why don't they teach the kids to read, write and do sums? The bunch of toolsooks.

Henry Crun said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry Crun said...

I tried the "early years" approach with my son. When he was ten, Minnie Bannister and I went to the library and took out a book on sex education for youngsters and took turns reading it with our gosling. At the end of the book, I asked him if he wanted to ask me anything.


"Did you understand what we have been reading about?"

"Yes, but I don't believe it"

He's now 13 and somewhat wiser. Probably due to what gets taught behind the bike sheds. One female in particular has been bombarding him with text messages. He sent he a text requesting that she desist.

I asked: " Did it say, stop texting me you psycho bitch?"

"No Dad, that's just the sort of thing you would do"

Good to know I have such polite children.

Dave said...

They have to have something to fill the curriculum now that they've given up teaching adding up, reading, writing and spelling

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails