an information resource
for orthodox Anglicans

The Effects of ‘Sexual Health’ and ‘Equalities’ Agendas on Children and Teenagers in Britain in 2012 II

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It's that they can't see the problem. G.K. Chesterton

I.             Adolescents, schools and sex ideology

As children grow into adolescents, it is appropriate to educate them about issues of human sexuality, but again, the standard fare offered by the authoritative Sex Education Forum (SEF) and related bodies has aspects which are hugely problematic. 

Given the attention to LGBT issues under the guise of tackling homophobia in  secondary schools, other than what has already been said (in relation to children), three additional points need to be made.

Tackling homophobia

We must speak up and stand against all forms of bullying which can makes youngsters’ lives an utter misery. However, this does not mean we embed the LGBT rights agenda into schools. One can and must tackle homophobia by clamping down on the perpetrator, but not by means of promoting LGBT identities and rights.  (And in fact, in many urban schools now, it is trendy to be gay, or, even better, bi.) 

According to Australian psychologist Evelyn Field (http://www.bullying.com.au/) the way to deal with any kind of bullying is to ‘block’ the bully, not engage in the reasons and rationales which s/he gives as a pretext for the bullying. Obese kids are subject to horrific bullying, but schools do not sponsor a ‘Fat is Cool’ Week to counter it; kids with personal hygiene issues also are the butts of bullying but here too, schools do not promote poor personal hygiene. Kids are also bullied for their race and their religion. The way forward is to block the bully, even as the victims are given support. In fact, that schools do not do more for these other targets is a huge cause for worry; from all the media attention, one would think that gay kids were the only (or primary) victims of bullying.  This is completely false and unfair.[i]

Secondly, questioning the biological determinism of a gay ‘orientation’ should not be considered homophobic in our schools. It is true that the legitimacy of the LGBT ‘cause’ has been largely underpinned by the notion of biological determinism which makes the claim of ‘born this way’. Indeed, it is on the basis that it is innate that being gay is seen as an essential part of personal identity. This view continues to dominate the institutions of the public square and permeates the cultural air we breathe. However, it is a myth. No one is born ‘gay’ (though individuals are unlikely to have consciously chosen these attractions); no ‘gay gene’ has been found, and indeed, recent research (such as the massive Danish marriage study[ii]) indicates a complex set of factors, including a strong environmental/social component to homosexuality.[iii] Though individuals may not have ‘chosen’ certain feelings and attractions, they do possess moral agency which can determine how to handle them; moreover, many kids will experience their sexuality as fluid and being ‘gay’ will have proved to be a ‘phase’.[iv] Even Peter Tatchell has admitted this in a recent Huffington Post article, where he owns that the biological basis for homosexuality is weak—and in fact had done so years back (in 2008). Now he advocates a new universal sexual paradigm—we are all ‘queer’, or potentially so, and ought to explore queer sexuality.[v] 

Thirdly, aspects of LGBT attitudes to those with other unacceptable sexual orientations must place in question the ‘identity’ approach to reducing homophobia in our schools. What of still-closeted kids with politically-incorrect, stigmatized sexual ‘orientations’, such as those who own to being MAPs (minor-attracted persons)? What of them and their grim experiences?  In fact, their advocates claim their young experience profound rejection and become suicidal—see for instance their concerns here: ‘Advocates of Stigma Contribute to Suicide’: http://b4uact.org/news/20110909.htm[vi]  Powerful organizations like Stonewall’s ‘Education for All’ and the Sunderland University’s ‘No Outsiders’ Project (now finished)—‘Everyone is an insider, there are no outsiders – whatever their beliefs, whatever their colour, gender or sexuality’, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 2004—have rather a lot of explaining to do.[vii]  

In fact, official LGBT organizations discriminate, they fail to embrace and affirm the sexualities—indeed, the sexual identities!—of all while claiming the moral high ground for doing so. They will not advocate an ‘identity’ approach to the reduction of bullying for these minorities. In fact, what needs to happen is that this notion that one’s sexual attractions and behaviours belong to the core of one’s personal identity needs to be dropped. There is simply no scientific basis for it. For all sorts of purposes we all constantly (and rightly) differentiate between ‘identity’ and sexual attractions. An artificial claim to a biologically- fixed gay identity is not the way to reduce homophobia.  

For the most helpful materials on handling issues of adolescents, the LGBT and the school environment, see the premier website http://factsaboutyouth.com/:

Facts About Youth (Facts) is a resource created by health professionals to provide policymakers, parents and youth with the most current medical and psychological facts [sic] about sexual development.  Amid debate in the medical and mental health fields concerning the causes and proper approaches to youth with non-heterosexual attractions, Facts is intended to be a resource to promote the factual and respectful discussion of these potentially divisive issues. This is a web site for and about youth and their needs.

Sexualizing adolescents via sexual ‘health’

In Part I we noted that various PCTs and school-based sexual ‘health’ projects now essentially endorse under-age sex (girls 13 years of age and younger are being given contraception by the state); perhaps they felt the horse had already bolted. This tacit sexualisation of pre-AOC teens occurs elsewhere. I am thinking of ‘The Sexy Stuff:  Guide for Guys who like Guys’ for gay lads 13 and up, by ‘Young Rainbows’, a Dorset-based peer-led sexual ‘health’ group endorsed by the NHS, Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) and sponsored by the National Lottery.[viii] 

In the name of sexual ‘health’ education young people are having a whole world of fringe, high-risk, historically-taboo sexual practices opened up to them.  They are then implicitly encouraged to try them out if they feel drawn to them. For example, Brook readers (for 16s and up) are informed that

 

Anal stimulation can be any kind of stimulation of the anus, including penetration of the anus with a penis, finger or sex toy, rimming (stimulating the anus with the tongue) and fisting (putting a hand into the rectum).  Some men and women get really turned on by the thoughts or sensations of anal stimulation but a lot of people just don't like the idea…  Remember, as with any sexual activity, it's important not to feel pressurised into doing anything that you're not comfortable with.[ix]

Kids in Sheffield have also now been encouraged to focus on ‘the pleasure principle’ of sex. The NHS leaflet, ‘Pleasure’, with the catchy strapline, ‘An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away’, was distributed to parents, schools and youth workers, encouraging kids to be sex-positive.[x]  In its May 2009 document, ‘Young People’ [and the definition of a young person here is aged 16 and older], the influential Family Planning Association (core member of the Sex Education Forum) argues for a definition of ‘sexual health’ which is

the capacity to enjoy and express sexuality without exploitation, oppression, physical or emotional harm… [SRE] should help equip young people to enjoy sex and relationships that are based on qualities such as mutual respect, trust, negotiation and enjoyment…  Young people’s sexual experimentation should be seen as one step in the process of the development of an adult identity, but it is relatively unusual for it to be viewed in such terms. Puberty and adolescent sexuality are too often viewed in a negative light, and young people’s behaviour is pathologised as a result.[xi]

When asked whether love needed to be part of a sexual relationship,  Marie Stopes’ (also a core member of SEF) ‘likeitis’ gave an unequivocally relativistic response —you who are teens must do ‘what was right for you’.[xii]          

I find these views and values deeply alarming. As a society we have reached a place where we cannot even insist that kids—gay, straight or bi—wait until they are 16 until they have socially and legally ‘sanctioned’—but ‘safe’ or, more accurately, ‘safer’—sex. Even when they manage to hold the line on AOC issues, official sexual ’health’ organizations divorce sex from love and loyalty, to say nothing of marriage, family commitments and babies. Moreover, under the guise of ‘education’, they have effectively opened up for consideration and tacitly promoted a wide range of exotic sexual practices. Finally, though they claim to be concerned for the  ‘physical and emotional harm’ which can result from various sex practices, in fact they and organizations which make the same claims whitewash, censor and misrepresent the many and serious negative physical and psychological consequences (more later).   

But it gets worse.

Terrence Higgins Trust

Many teens are being sexualised in schools  and community groups (now, even the Scouts, more in a moment) through various and insidious means. Sexual ‘health’ charities embedded institutionally in the UK are leaders in the field. THT is a prime instance of such a sexual ’health’ charity. By no means is all that THT (or other such groups) say baleful or wrong; there is some helpful advice, but also much which is deeply disturbing and which I believe damages kids. 

On its site THT claims to be the ‘leading and largest HIV and sexual health charity in the UK’. Nationally, the NHS links readers directly to the THT site on its youth health pages. The message clearly communicated is that THT gives sound, medically-accurate advice and can be trusted. 

Last spring THT received over £200,000 from the DofE to go into schools in Bristol, Leeds, London, Colchester and Birmingham to work with youngsters 14 and up to create ’sexual health champions’.  In Bristol, for example, the youth arm of the NHS (4YP Bristol) partnered with THT to run a large secondary school ‘Interactive Sex Education’ day 4 July 2011.[xiii]

Once on its site, however, one experiences profound cognitive dissonance.  How is it that the NHS directs youngsters to what amounts to a site which gives ‘health’ tips on performing high-risk and perverse kinds of sex and promotes anonymous promiscuity? I point you to two free sexual ‘health’ booklets which can be downloaded. They are called ‘Below the Belt’ and ‘The Bottom Line’.[xiv]  They breezily discuss all sorts of ‘kink’, hitherto taboo, disease-and trauma-inducing sexual practices and illegal drug use (anally) for maximal sexual pleasure. There is no age-requirement or health warning in terms of accessing this material. While we are getting detailed advice on these behaviours and how to engage in them, there is little recognition that some people become seriously ill or die from doing so; this despite the fact that elsewhere on the site, according to THT, 680 people died from AIDS in 2010, and three-quarters of new sexually-acquired HIV diagnoses were among gay and bisexual men in the same year, ‘their highest ever’.[xv]   

Though issues of age of consent, illegal drug use and even health risks are technically acknowledged (and then parked) by THT, the subtext is an encouragement to become sexually active when you feel ‘ready’ and in the ways you feel ‘ready’ for, because that is where the action is. Indeed, as we saw with ‘The Sexy Stuff’ (also sponsored by THT), it was written for gay lads 13 and up, and is a ‘how-to-have-gay-sex’ guide. Using condoms, lots of lube and getting frequent check-ups are the primary guidelines for safe/safer sex (both terms are used by THT).   

THT goes further, though, in its sponsorship and promotion of designated ‘Playzone’ clubs in London, Brighton, Leicester and Sheffield. Playzones are where gay guys, wearing nothing but a towel, can go for a good night ‘out’ and  anonymous, semi-public sex in saunas, spa pools, etc.[xvi] On another and related THT page, we read: ‘Saunas – where better to relax, get clean and be surrounded by hot men?! Whether you’re new to saunas or know them well, these tips could stop you getting into “hot water”’ (and then follows the normal precautions about making sure one has access to fully-functional condoms, because what happens in the sauna context is sex)[xvii]; tips on the use and impact of alcohol and drugs—illegal and legal—while having sex are also given.[xviii] Playzone club partners are instructed on how to mop up the blood which sex in Playzones apparently draws, as well as other sexual secretions.[xix]

Playzones are supported by the NHS, the Health Protection Agency and even the Metropolitan Police. In fact, on the ‘Are you ready for sex?’ NHS youth page, there is a link to the THT which advertises these Playzones.[xx]   

Brook seems to have embraced much of THT’s content on its own site.[xxi] We now even have the Scouts (for 6-25 yr olds) officially endorsing Brook: ‘Helping Scouts make well informed, responsible choices’.[xxii] TheSite.Org, another popular youth sexual ‘health’ charity endorsed by the NHS, covers much of this kind of content as well.[xxiii]

How have we reached this nadir?

Various contributing factors are involved, some of which have already been mentioned. There is the deployment of a ‘reduced-risk’ pragmatism—youngsters will have sex anyway so we need to help them be as ‘safe’ as possible. The influence of Kinsey—that we are all actively sexual beings and that the more sex the better—also likely plays its role. That all this sexual activity generates huge profits made by the specialized industries established to meet these created ‘needs’ is also important: I think of abortion and contraception providers, including pharmaceuticals producing The Pill and increasing numbers of drugs to treat increasing numbers of STIs/STDs, state grants for SRE, and so forth. In terms of the recent flurry over contraceptive implants in under-age school girls, many do not realise how lucrative this industry is, nor how the taxpayer is footing a significant bill (£80 or so per implant, excluding insertion costs).[xxiv] That most ‘decent’ people are ignorant of these appalling developments, nor do many wish to find out, is another factor. The sexual ‘health’ industry has convinced those who have the temerity to question their premises that they are the ‘professionals’, the ‘progressives’, and those who do not agree are flat-earth, anti-science and anti-sex Neanderthals. The painful legacy of an ugly homophobia and discrimination continues to leave many loathe to say anything which could be interpreted as ‘anti-gay’. Finally, ubiquitous pornography operates as the perfect fifth column in desensitizing adults and teens to ’blue-sky’ sex. Pornography blurs moral boundaries, downgrades the seriousness of sex, and serves to ‘hook’ its viewers as it re-moulds their brains. Though labelled and sold as ‘a bit of naughty fun’, it is insidious, addicting and lucrative. Thankfully, the realities and consequences of pornography are beginning to emerge.[xxv] 

 

In short, the popular US book title says it all: Sharon Hersh’s  Mom, Sex Is No Big Deal! (2010). 

The elephant in the room

However, there is yet another and arguably more ominous dimension here. We used to encourage children and teens to enjoy being young, to work on developing their potential before going into ‘adult’ realms. Don’t be in a rush, we would tell them, there is plenty of time for that later! This bought them critically important time to mature physically, intellectually, psychologically. When the time was right, they could engage with the whole love, marriage and sex ‘project’—which meant that their sexual development (i.e. having sex) was placed in the larger and more stable adult framework of marriage, family commitment and possibly babies. Sexual organs were called ‘reproductive’ organs because we understood there was a fundamental connection between their use and reproduction. The future existence of our society was actually tied up in reproducing ourselves, creating new families and the next generation. Of course some never married (for various reasons) which meant they could enjoy the benefits of being single, but the above was the dominant paradigm.  

Now, however, we struggle to maintain this position. Why?  As has already been mentioned, certain autonomous sexual identities and behaviours have become intertwined in post-modern culture, institutions and now law; the person is their sexuality, a sexuality which is now legally protected and promoted as a rightful and legitimate ‘minority’. Indeed, the LGBT agenda of free-standing sexual development and expression quite removed from constraints (other than consent) demands and receives centre stage, and capitulation by other competing interests.  This card trumps all; it’s the only show in town.

Thus, LGBT identity inevitably leads to advocacy of LGBT sex and sexuality in the classroom. Even children can be said to be ‘gay’, so one must start this process of promoting a positive sexual identity for them in primary school. Not to be left out, heterosexual kids are also being encouraged to ‘explore’ and ‘experiment’ with their sexuality—they too are sexual beings. A prominent US sex educator could even claim, ’You are not just being sexual by having intercourse. You are being sexual when you throw your arms around your grandpa and give him a hug’.[xxvi]  

I am sure many socially-conservative gay people would be appalled at what official gay organizations like THT are doing, but because of the fear of being seen as closet homophobes (or whatever) keep silent. Heterosexuals of course realise that to be tarred with the anti-gay brush is nigh to social and professional suicide, so they too say nothing.    

The refusal to challenge the LGBT agenda and its underlying assumptions on sexual identity is the primary reason we as a society are powerless to stop this madness. Our children and teens are being damaged by powerful special interest groups which claim to care and help—and yet in terms of these matters, are contributing to the problem. In fact, they are promoting sex when they should be doing the very opposite. They are pouring kerosene on the fire when what youngsters need from us is encouragement to dampen down the flames until they are mature enough to place their sexuality into the context of responsible adult behaviour.

As Miriam Grossman, MD, notes, ‘When it comes to sexual health, we are failing our young people. They are being taught that they can safely play with fire while the waiting rooms of doctors and therapists are filled with young people who have been burned, inside and out’.[xxvii]    

Politically-incorrect truths about the risks and consequences of sex which teens have the right to know

I have been deeply critical of aspects of the prominent sexual ‘health’ charities which claim to help teens by providing them with medically-accurate, comprehensive information and advice so they can ‘make well informed, responsible choices’ (Brook). They fail to deliver, however, as below demonstrates. Teens should know: 

 

1.) In terms of their welfare, the framing of this issue, and in particular, the treatment of the issues of risk, is deeply problematic. On NHS sites, teens are strongly encouraged to stop smoking,[xxviii] given serious warnings about sunbathing,[xxix] avoiding saturated fats and eating ‘five a day’.[xxx] These sites shout loud about risks in other areas and encourage the avoidance of risky behaviour, but in the sexual area there is only muted recognition of risks and negative consequences of sex. 

For instance, the NHS-endorsed Brook site reassures its readers that ‘safer sex is when you protect yourself against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Anyone having unprotected sex is at risk of catching an STI. By using protection, like condoms, you can stop an infected person's blood, semen, pre-cum and vaginal fluids getting inside another person’s body’; and claims that ‘most STIs/STDs can be treated quite easily’.[xxxi] The impression is thus created that this risk can all but be eliminated by ‘safer’ sex, with no suggestion that avoiding risky behaviour is what eliminates the risk. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that by waiting until one is older and commits to someone who too has waited, one can have a rich sexual life together free of all STI/STD fears and worries.

The real potential for permanent and life-altering disaster from one single sexual encounter is thus downplayed, whitewashed or ignored entirely.[xxxii] And the most tragic element is that it is completely avoidable.  In Miriam Grossman’s You’re Teaching My Child What? (2009), she quotes patients whose lives have been shattered by the consequences of their sexual behaviour. They tell her, ‘If only I’d known… if only someone had told me’.[xxxiii] For them safe sex was not ‘safe’, or even ‘safer’, and they now must live with the results of heeding professional (and poor) advice (see below). 

 

2) Teen sex is high-risk behaviour, especially for girls with their thin, immature cervixes which are unable to offer much protection against the penetration of viral or bacterial bodies and their weak Langerhans cell ‘defense’ force (whose function it is to destroy malignant foreign bodies). Healthy adult cervixes are far better equipped to protect against STIs/STDs. Moreover, when girls are sexually intimate their bodies produce the female hormone, oxytocin, which subconsciously attaches them to their partners. Girls are also psychosexually vulnerable to such males through the operation of pheromones which subconsciously influence their ovulation cycle and mood.[xxxiv]   

 

3) As mentioned above, sex (any kind of intimate contact between people which involves sexual contact, arousal, stimulation and/or a response by at least one of them) causes the release of brain chemicals which physiologically and psychologically attach (‘glue’) partners to each others.  ‘No-strings-attached’ sex is a myth! Moreover, according to the medical authors of Hooked (2008), ‘The individual who goes from sex partner to sex partner is causing his or her brain to mold [sic] and gel so that it eventually begins accepting that sexual pattern as normal… Their inability to bond after multiple liaisons is almost like tape that loses its stickiness after being applied and removed multiple times’.[xxxv]

 

4) Actions (such as handing out contraception to teens) and policies which concede or promote sexual ‘experimentation’ in effect endorse sexual promiscuity. As kids are not mature enough to commit themselves in marriage, there is essentially no likelihood that sexually active ones will marry their first partner; it is a given that they will part and move on. In general, the earlier the sexual debut, the greater number of lifetime sexual partners.[xxxvi] So, as a society we have said that in effect sex is divorced from commitment. And with each new partner comes increased risk of acquiring an STI/STD, made worse because many are outwardly symptom-free.[xxxvii]  

 

5) Because of its ‘unfinished wiring’, the prefrontal cortex of the teen brain, where executive functioning—with its reasoning, judgement, impulse-control, etc.—occurs, is not mature until the 20s. This means that the adolescent brain is poorly placed to make judgements in its own best interest.

 

6) Also, because of the flooding of the teen brain with sex hormones which appears to alter the levels of dopamine and thus create what is termed a ‘reward deficiency‘, ‘it is as if they [teens] need to drive 70 miles an hour to achieve the same degree of excitement that driving 50 miles per hour had provided previously’. [xxxviii] This leads to an increased (and potentially dangerous) push for intense experiences, novelty and risk-taking which they will outgrow. But it means that they are vulnerable, especially when tacitly encouraged to engage in high-risk activity by ‘health’ authorities such as THT. 

 

7) Early unconsidered sexual expression is akin to early addiction to tobacco, alcohol or drugs—the earlier the addictive behaviour the greater the hold it has on the person.[xxxix] 

 

8) In Kinsey’s time there were two main STIs/STDs. Now (depending on how you count them) there are around two dozen, viral, bacterial, fungal, protozoal and parasitical, some of which are incurable, others of which can cause tubal pregnancy, infertility and debilitation or lead to life-threatening diseases like cancer and death. Moreover, though girls are reassured about the efficacy of HPV prevention and chlamydia 'cure'—the subtext is that these STIs are minor affairs!—there is much that is still unknown about long-term consequences. Also, some of what we do know is worrying! You're Teaching My Child What? (112-22) explores these issues further. In the US, a 2009 study estimated that one in four teenage girls between the ages of 14-19 had at least one STI/STD.[xl]    

 

9) Condoms can provide some protection against some of these STIs/STDs but condoms by no means provide ‘safe’ sex, or even necessarily ‘safer’ sex.  Actually, condoms are effective at encouraging risky sex (‘risk displacement’) and have a 2-15% failure rate in preventing contraception in experienced couples.[xli] Following the ‘just-use-a-condom’ mantra gives a false sense of security. 

 

10) Sexually active teens are at higher risk than sexually chaste ones in terms of depression, catching STIs and STDs, becoming pregnant (even with a condom) and being the victim of sexual violence.[xlii] Also, as mentioned above, there are increased risks of becoming sexually addicted.

11) Anal sex (as noted above, very popular now in youth culture for both sexes and all ‘orientations’) is far riskier than vaginal sex. Indeed, ‘the estimated HIV risk with a single sexual exposure through receptive anal intercourse (2%) is 20 times greater than for receptive vaginal intercourse (0.1%)’.[xliii]

According to former US Surgeon General C Everett Koop, ‘Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice’.[xliv]  One reason is that the physiology and anatomy of the anus is vastly different from the vagina.  Another is that because of the pathogens found in faeces, oral-anal contact is high risk and can lead to serious diseases like salmonella, shigella, giardia, and hepatitis A, B, and C.[xlv] Fisting (which merits pages of breezy, ’how-to-do-it’ tips in THT’s ‘The Bottom Line’) carries serious medical risks while oral sex with multiple partners is associated with throat cancer.[xlvi]

12) If teens grow up to embrace a gay lifestyle, they at least deserve to know what they are facing in terms of various kinds of health risk.[xlvii] Given what gay organizations like THT promote—and their kinds of advice are replicated around the Western world by other groups—there is little wonder the outlook is bleak.   Of course not all gays engage in ‘blue sky’ types of gay sex; however, gay health and advocacy groups which claim to represent them offer detailed advice on high-risk sex acts, and do so apparently because a significant portion of their community engage in them. Moreover, the impact of ‘blue sky’ gay sex can be noted at the other end, i.e. its public health consequences.  As a community, they face huge medical challenges. Young people have a right to know what they are letting themselves in for.   

Though the situation in the UK will be different, there are many similarities to the US and a great deal to learn from the prestigious and well-funded US Center for Diseases Control (CDC), with its excellent research and monitoring facilities and commitment to gay men’s health. In fact, sometimes direct comparisons can be made—see below.   

According to results from recent CDC research, MSM (males 13 years of age and older who have sex with men) were at far higher risk of getting HIV/AIDs.  According to the CDC, MSM comprise 4% of the population while making up almost 50% of the present and over 50% of new HIV cases; indeed, one in five have HIV, and almost half of those were unaware of their status.[xlviii] 

According to Pink News (November 2011), over 3,000 gay men in the UK received a positive HIV diagnosis (out of the 6,660 new diagnoses in 2010); one in 11 gay men are estimated to have HIV in London.[xlix] 

According to the CDC, MSM are at far higher risk for other STDs like syphilis, anal cancer, gonorrhea, and hepatitis A and B[l]; risks appear increased in relation to hepatitis C as well, where ‘common practices associated with these clusters of [hepatitis C] infection include serosorting (i.e., HIV-infected men having sex with one another), group sex, and the use of cocaine and other nonintravenous drugs during sex’.[li] 

According to Pink News (October 2006), in relation to hepatitis B, ‘gay men are said to be particularly at risk being approximately 10 times more likely to carry the diseases [sic]’ while according to its edition of January 2012, ‘7% of HIV positive gay men are co-infected with hepatitis C’; the cause of this is ‘largely due to sexual risk factors, thought to include unprotected anal sex, fisting, use of sex toys, group sex and [that]… drug use may also have a role’.[lii]

Though not known to have reached the UK yet, a new super bug, MRSA USA300, has appeared in San Francisco and other large east and west coast US cities. The research on it,  Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community-Associated, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in Men Who Have Sex with Men’, has recently been published in Annals of Internal Medicine (January 2012). Reading it brought Miriam Grossman’s prophetic comment to mind.  She was discussing the challenges posed by the present array of STIs/STDs and went on to note:  ‘And this question is never, ever raised:  what new bug is out there, spreading undetected, an epidemic in the making?’[liii] Well, now we know. For many this will be a déjà vu moment, hearkening back to the 80s and AIDS.  According to its authors,

Spread of the USA300 clone among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the Internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections… The same patterns of increased sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men—which have resulted from changes in beliefs regarding HIV disease severity with the availability of potent antiretroviral therapy—have been driving resurgent epidemics of early syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere.[liv]

One of the horrific consequences of the USA300 clone is that it can cause necrosis via the toxins it produces, leading to tissue ‘death’ (or ‘flesh-eating’, though that is not technically correct). At this point this disease is very difficult to treat (and likely to get harder).[lv]   

Thus, gay sex a là THT carries serious physical risks! Teens also need to know what is at stake in terms of their psychological well-being. And though homophobia is viewed as the cause for all things gay-negative, even in socially liberal countries like Denmark the outlook is no better. Dr Stanton Jones writes: 

 

One of the most exhaustive studies ever conducted, published in 2001 in the American Journal of Public Health and directed by researchers from Harvard Medical School, concludes that ‘homosexual orientation … is associated with a general elevation of risk for anxiety, mood, and substance-use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and plans.’ Other and more recent studies have found similar correlations, including studies from the Netherlands, one of the most gay-affirming social contexts in the world. Depression and substance abuse are found to be on average 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexual persons. Teens manifesting same-sex attraction report suicidal thoughts and attempts at double to triple the rate of other teens. Similar indicators of diminished physical health emerge in this literature.[lvi]

 

Corroboration for the above comes from ‘the [US] Leader in LGBT Health’, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, in its ‘Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Heathcare Provider’.[lvii]   

 

Conclusion

 

I have argued that our young people are being targeted and damaged through various means of sexualisation.  Some of these are known and socially frowned- upon, like pornography, while others have actually been advanced as necessary responses to this sexualisation, such as sexual ‘health’ education, which, as we have seen, gives kids tips for doing all sorts of hitherto-unknown sex practice ‘safely’. I have also argued that the role of affirming PC ‘sexual identities’ as a core part of the person has functioned as a Trojan Horse for the sexualisation of the young across the board through NHS-sponsorship of gay sexual ‘health’ groups like THT, among others. I finished by presenting politically incorrect facts about this sexualisation and its deleterious impact, facts which I believe young people have a right to know, in order to make wise and responsible decisions.  

Most kids now at least realise that if they choose to smoke today they may suffer for it in the future. But here, it is as if the tobacco companies are sending school nurses in to show kids how they can smoke ‘safely’, and the state is subsidizing it, the taxpayer is paying for it. As a society, we have been complicit.  It is time to blow the whistle.  

Please contact me for more. [email protected]


[ii] M Frisch and A Hviid, ‘Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes’, Archives of Sexual Behavior 35 (2006), 533-47

[iii] For a critical analysis of the important path study by Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981) arguing for a biological basis of SSA, see Dr Neil Whitehead, ‘Sociological Studies Show Social Factors Produce Adult Same Sex Attraction’, Journal of Human Sexuality 3 (2011).  See also Stanton Jones, PhD,  Same-Sex Science’, First Things, January 2012: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science

[iv] E.O. Laumann et al, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (2000), 292-6.  According to Jones, ‘Same-sex science’, ‘A recent research synthesis by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law School dedicated to sexual-orientation law and public policy, suggests that among adults in the United States, Canada, and Europe, 1.8 percent are bisexual men and women, 1.1 percent are gay men, and 0.6 percent are lesbians’: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science.  See also http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/what-you-should-know-about-sexual-orientation-of-youth-as-a-school-official/

[vi] B4U-ACT is the premier MAP advocacy, therapy and research organization based in the US, more powerful for being mainstream and academically ‘respectable’. Its summer 2011 ‘Scientific Symposium on Pedophilia and the DSM‘ in Baltimore, MD, featured  presentations from Harvard Medical School, London School of Economics, and Johns Hopkins University academics with the view to revise the DSM: http://b4uact.org/news/20110817.htm.  Such an approach finds support in the academic journals; a recent example is David Riegel, ‘The role of Androphilia in the Psychosexual Development of Boys’, International Journal of Sexual Health 23 (2011), 2-13, which argues that intergenerational relationships can be beneficial to the psychosexual development of later pre-pubertal and early adolescent boys. The WHO (World Health Organization) is also softening its line on paedophilia:    http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/bluebook.pdf, F66.

‘Zoos’ are another sexual minority who claim to be hugely discriminated against. For Cody Beck’s story, see http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/; for a sympathetic historical, psychological, sociological and sexual study of zoophilia, see the work of global expert, Hani Miletski, PhD, Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia (2002): http://www.drmiletski.com/bestiality.html

 

[viii] Email me for a PDF copy. 

 

[ix] http://brook.org.uk/a-z-of-sex, under A, ‘Anal sex’

 

[xxi] http://www.brook.org.uk/ Its entry under A, ‘Anal sex’ has already been noted.

[xxiv] Private communication from Dr Trevor Stammers

 

[xxv] For those who do not realise what is now involved in pornography, please email me for an A4 of what is actually out there now. It makes Page 3 look positively wholesome by comparison. The Social Costs of Pornography is the best analysis and response I know: http://www.socialcostsofpornography.org/  See Judith Reisman, PhD, Sexual Sabotage (2010), 137-69 for a full discussion of pornography. Finally, see also ‘Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunction Is a Growing Problem: Internet porn appears to be "sex-negative" for many users’, Marnia Robinson, Psychology Today, 11 July 2011:

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/10/porn-induced_se.html

 

[xxvi] Quote from Miriam Grossman, MD, You’re Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child (2009), 29

 

[xxvii] Private communication from Miriam Grossman

 

[xxxiii] Grossman, You’re Teaching, Introduction

 

[xxxiv] Grossman, You’re Teaching, 41-53

 

[xxxv] JS McIlhaney Jr, MD and FM Bush, MD, Hooked:  New science on how casual sex is affecting our children (2008),  43

 

[xxxvi]  McIlhaney Jr and Bush, Hooked, 76

[xxxviii]  Grossman, You’re Teaching, 75

 

[xxxix]  Judith Reisman et al., ‘Playboy’s Global Marketing of Tweens to Supply the Global Sex Industry’, 3-5, unpublished MSS which accompanied presentation (below), Institute of Education, University of London, 1-2 December 2011: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2012/01/playboys_global.html  

[xlii] Michelle Cretella, MD, FCP, FAAP, ‘Sexuality Education in Public Schools Today: Placing Adolescents at Risk’ (2010), 1-2, unpublished MSS; Dr Trevor Stammers, ‘Modern Medical Myths about Sex Education’, unpublished presentation

[xliii] Pinkerton, Martin, Roland, Katz, Coates, & Kahn (2004) as quoted by Michelle Cretella MD et al, ‘Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices’ (2010):  http://narth.com/2010/11/health-risks-fisting-and-other-homosexual-practices-2/

 

[xliv] Quote from Grossman, You’re Teaching,  91

 

[xlv] Grossman, You’re Teaching, 89.  For wider discussion see J Anderson, MD, A Golden, MD, M Cretella, MD, T Benton, MD, ‘Health Consequences of Same-Sex Health Education Curricula’ (2010), 13-16 :  

http://www.law2.byu.edu/page/categories/marriage_family/past_conferences/oct2010/drafts/health%20consequences%20of%20same%20sex%20curr%20to%20L.%20Wardle%2011.1.10.pdf/

 

[xlvi] ‘The Bottom Line’, 17-21 (cited above); Cretella et al, ‘Health’ Risks’ (cited above);  Grossman, You’re Teaching, 115-6

 

[xlvii] John Diggs Jr MD, ’The Health Risks of Gay Sex’ (2002):  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

 

[liii] Grossman, You’re Teaching, 10

 


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments are closed.