Education

Minnesota Parents Incensed Over Aggressively Sexualized Planned-Parenthood-Influenced Curriculum (Video)

Letting Planned Parenthood teach your kids about sex is right up there with accepting a dinner invite from Jeffrey Dahmer.

Their agenda and the public’s best interests are light years apart.

Parents in Minnesota are finding this out the hard way. They are pushing harder and harder to sexualize the content of learning at a younger and younger age, long before they have the emotional bandwidth to understand what they are being taught.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Conservative Firing Line updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This is being taught as ‘sex ed’. Not so long ago, it would have been known by other names. ‘Grooming’ was one. ‘Corruption of a minor’ might be another.

These ghouls want to make sure their own worldview is firmly ensconced between the ears of little Jr. long before he or she has any context or faculties to judge them as true and false.

They are using language as a vehicle for the introduction and indoctrination to their worldview. And they are using children’s play and imagination as a delivery system.

Why is this tactic so insidious? Because play is how little people learn to be like big people. And if the little ones begin with mimicking a corrupted model, society watches them grow into a twisted result.

Some people may not see any connection between the two. For such people, we present Exhibit A:

In one school, several parents have come together and rose up against a proselytizing secular and sexualized curriculum being taught in public school. They brought forward their complaint about how such teachings are directly undermining the board’s own stated objective of respecting culture and value.

The first parent explained the general objection, and those that followed brought forward specific examples.

One parent, who had reviewed the supposedly ‘age appropriate’ curriculum asked when is it ‘age appropriate’ to describe the clitoris to a kindergartener… or to coach 6th graders about how to ask for sexual consent and to tell them that ‘they know best’ when to engage in sex.

When, she asks, is it ok for 9th graders to ‘role-play a queer couple discussing sex’?

After affirming that everyone needs to be treated with kindness respect no matter who they are or what background they come from, she tells the board that this curriculum goes far beyond that, to the point of ‘intentionally confusing children about their gender and sexual orientation’.

She cited a statement made by the American College of Pediatricians on the topic in 2016 when she said, ‘conditioning children to believe the absurdity that they or anyone could be born into the wrong body and that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse’.

Religious websites are also explicitly discredited as an ‘unreliable source’ when it comes to sexual health.

Another speaker from a nonprofit that defends children against exploitation summarized the curriculum.

‘It sexualizes children, and normalizes sexual behavior at a young age, teaching sexual pleasure, masturbation, anal and oral sex, and that consent is all that is needed.’ She summarized the disproportionately negative psyiological effects on young girls who participate in early sexual activity.

The curriculum dedicates three hours to praising porn as a normal teenage activity, with no reference to the consequences of porn addiction, or the effects on brain, body, relationships, and (often) even impaired sexual performance that can result from such an addiction.

The curriculum being pushed? It’s being offered by people connected to the one organization who literally stands to profit most from rampant promiscuity… Planned Parenthood. Where are all those ‘follow the money’ types when they can actually do some good?

The specific program in question is called “3Rs,” which stands for “rights, respect, responsibility.” This curriculum was developed by Advocates for Youth, an organization partnered with Planned Parenthood, and was authored in large part by former Planned Parenthood employees.

…3Rs is a type of “comprehensive sexual education” (CSE), a term used to describe progressive sex-ed programs that include information about the mechanics of homosexual intercourse, transgenderism, abortion and more. 3Rs uses lectures, classroom activities, slideshows and role-playing games to educate students. — AlphaNews

Here are a couple of situations children might experience in that program.

In one, the students are to ‘role play’ being LGBT…

One activity in the curriculum directs a male student to pretend his name is “Morgan,” a boy who is “very active” in his school’s LGBTQ club, while another student pretends to be “Terence,” a closet homosexual who wants to have sex with Morgan. In this scenario, Morgan plans a secret rendezvous and the two role-playing students are asked to “make a decision about whether to have sex.”

And then there’s this one.

This lesson plan includes a note for teachers that explains how straight boys might “have a homophobic response” to being asked to engage in gay role playing.

“Should this happen in your class, it’s important to stop what you are doing, notice the interaction, and ask for the class members to reflect on what’s happening and why. Direct the students back to your class ground rules — and reinforce the agreement to be respectful — and that making homophobic comments is not respectful,” the curriculum reads.

3Rs also begins to teach students about anal sex during the programing designed for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. For this age group, anal sex is discussed in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention, but by the time students are in the upper grade levels, anal sex is routinely listed alongside vaginal and oral sex as one of the normal options for intimacy. — AlphaNews

There is only one acceptable response.

The teachers are told to refer to women not as a woman but as ‘a person with a vulva’. The unintended consequence of the teacher’s insistence on addressing people by their physical plumbing means women, for instance, are literally being reduced to little more than sexual objects.

In today’s hyper-sexualized world, one can scarcely hazard a guess as to what the long-term social impacts of that precedent might be.

Cross-posted with Clash Daily

Related:

Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW!  Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, Social Cross and Gab.  You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the new social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views:Trending Views

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×