She's taking issue with making the sexual abuse of children promoted in SIECUS relevant to her vocational devotion as the President of SIECUS.
The principles of the Many-Boy Love Association are what they are and nobody would become President of the initiative while claiming you were against child abuse. Life just doesn't work that way.
The principles of SEICUS include enticing parents to masturbate their children. SIECUS also promotes pedophilia.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/1980:+the+SIECUS%2FUppsala+principles+basic+to+education+for...-a0118957421
**UPDATE
Thought I'd post quote from this page - just for the record.
A passage from Debra Haffner’s article “Safe Sex and Teens” in the September-October 1989 SIECUS Report is quite open about what it wants for our children. “Colleagues and I have fantasized about a national ‘petting project’ for teenagers….A partial list of safe sex practices for teens could include: Talking, Flirting, Dancing, Hugging, Kissing, Necking, Massaging, Caressing, Undressing each other, Masturbation alone, Masturbation in front of a partner, Mutual masturbation. Teens could surely come up with their own list of activities.”
Based on magazine ads, movies and television…yes…teens “could surely come up with” quite a list of sexual activities. But is that what we want our children to do? Indulge in sexual promiscuity?
Even more amazing than the list of extracurricular sex suggestions from Haffner’s article is the general premise of SIECUS that these activities are a form of abstinence from sex. In fact, some creative educators actually coined a special word for this brand of abstinence…outercourse…as opposed to intercourse.
In the old days, before enlightenment by the likes of SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, these “outercourse” activities were just the types of activities that led many a teen into intercourse. If avoiding intercourse is their true goal, one has to wonder why Haffner and her colleagues felt that empowering teens to explore highly charged eroticism is preferable to abstinence.
The history of SIECUS provides endless examples of this type of sexual conundrum…having more sex to avoid having sex. In 1977, Time began its article, “Cradle-to-Grave Intimacy,” quoting Mary Calderone saying that a child has a fundamental right “to know about sexuality and to be sexual”.
“Cultivating” the sexuality of children was of prime importance to Calderone and others. Adopting a Kinseyan philosophy that children are sexual from birth, few in this circle of “sexperts” saw any need to restrict the sexual behaviors of people…and children. Their concerns actually focused on repelling any attempts to limit or restrain sex, seeing these as repressive and counter to human design.
In 1981, Calderone co-authored The Family Book about Sexuality that asserted, “The major effects of such incidents [molestation] are caused not by the event itself but by the outraged, angry fearful, and shocked reactions of the adults who learn of it….It is these immoderate reactions which may cause whatever psychological damage occurs.”
Today, SIECUS guidelines for sex education are 112 pages long. Read carefully. You will find Calderone’s and Haffner’s same philosophy on sex underlying the core ideas of SIECUS and the activities they recommend for children.
and here
My mother did not raise a fool.
2 comments:
Ms. McKinley, first of all, I was President of SIECUS from 1988 to 2000, and if you do your research, you will find I and the organization was unequivocal in our opposition to adult/child sexualized contact of any kind. But, second, I just read the link provided, and you are completely distorting what it says. Surely you remember that Scripture calls us to truth telling. I am sure that you could find things that I DO stand for to be opposed to rather than making things up. Start with the web site of my faith based organization, www.religiousinstitute.org But, please be sure to quote us exactly.
Blessings in the name of truth,
The Reverend Debra W. Haffner
That you were on board this nightmare of a mission for twelve years claiming to oppose it's tenets speaks for itself.
If you opposed what they were doing to the Jews at Auschwitz, you wouldn't be a zealous volunteer for the Third Reich.
Sorry - but there is no distortion of the pedophilia and sexualization of infants and children of SIECUS. You call yourself a "sexologist", you driving some kind of whacky machine to sexualize children from the moment they come out of the womb and before and then claim this is how you are carrying out parental discretion about sexual matters for their own children. You are brainwashing people with trash. Let's keep Jesus and Scripture out of it, for the sake of all that is pure and holy and sanctified.
I have been through the filth and plenty of it.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Blessings,
Carol McKinley
Post a Comment