Build self-esteem—masturbate, fornicate, sodomize and condomize! This was the theme for 800 school teachers and public health nurses attending the eleventh Annual Guelph Conference on Human Sexuality, June 19—21 1989.
Before relating some of the outright obscenities of the conference, a little background information on those responsible and those financing the destruction of our present and future generations.
The conference was financed by the Canadian taxpayer. The funding agents were the Federal Centre for AIDS, Health and Welfare Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Health. Sol Gordon’s presence was a courtesy of Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada).
Five persons on the conference Planning Committee are actively involved at the executive or advisory level of SIECCAN (Sex information and Education Council of Canada), the Canadian counterpart of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of United States).
Those five SIECUS persons were: Edward Herold PhD., Michael Barrett, PhD., Bonnie Bean, M.A., B.ED., Claude Guldner. ThD., and John Lamont, M.D., F.R.C.S. (C). SIECUS is a vast network of interlocking organizations which exerts pressure on local schools and an unsuspecting public to adopt its subversive sex ed. Programs. Founded in 1964, it has throughout the years been staffed and promoted by numerous humanists furthering the anti-religious secular philosophy of Planned Parenthood.
Sol Gordon, super guru of the sexologists, kicked the three days off in grand style with enraged and frenzied prancing, mocking, mimicking and shrieking. He was angry! A few isolated but quotable quotes from this self-professed “polymorphous perverse” should give you an idea: “All we need is a few extremists (veiled reference to ‘religious zealots’ and the program [sex ed.] is finished,” he raged. “It’s not O.K. to be anti-gay. It’s not!” he fumed. “We pay attention to the dummies (religious zealots again) in the field who say we can’t talk condoms because they’re not 100 per cent safe,” shouted the champion of condom manufacturers Orth Pharmaceuticals. “The sex ed. Curriculum is the agenda of the women’s movement. If we don’t legitimize masturbation we’re in trouble…no molester…has a history of comfortable masturbation in childhood… proper masturbation diminishes sexual tensions.” We are the pro-family, pro-democracy people… And they’ve taken us and put us on the other side.”
Gordon’s tirade continued the next day. Plans to subvert yet another vulnerable group of humanity were disclosed, “Get involved with substance abuse people” (i.e. AA and related agencies); “Network with other agencies…we want to promote self-esteem,” he implored. “Legitimize controversy. Don’t wait for unanimity—there’s always one or two extremists who hold things down,” he said. “Don’t try to match your rationality with their irrationality—you’ll never win,” he admonished. “Sex ed in Canada and the U.S. … is politics. You must be willing to play politics,” he exhorted. “We believe in highly moral sex ed.”
In an unguarded moment Gordon conceded the absolute failure of sex ed programs to diminish teen pregnancies. He elaborated that even with “good” sex ed programs implemented in all schools, maybe there would be a 13 per cent reduction in teen pregnancies. He even went a step further by pointing out that any real decline in teen pregnancy cannot be attributed to the presence of a sex ed program because there is no proven correlation!
Sex ed, it seems, was never intended to reduce the rate of teen pregnancies. It was and is a political tool to access the vulnerable minds of our youth. Sex ed is not “value free.” Concerned Christians parents have known and fought that myth all along.
Now the experts have adopted a new tactic. The new lie is self-esteem. According to Gordon, sex educators must now talk in terms of increasing self-esteem rather than of decreasing teen pregnancies.
What exactly is meant by promoting self esteem in the mind of a “sexologist?” It is feeling comfortable with fantasies, masturbation, sodomy, fornication, homosexuality and lesbianism. Watch for the word “self-esteem.” It is the latest euphemism for promoting perversion and immorality.
The homosexual agenda and presence at the conference were mind-boggling. Every workshop attended entailed overt and covert references to the plight of sodomizing/sodomized homosexuals. Lesbians fought for inclusion in the homosexual sex ed. Agenda. Homosexuals danced together at the evening social. Plays targeted for junior and high school audiences depicted homosexuality as a norm.
Workshops given by Sue Johanson detailed the subtle tactics of exposing students to a real live macho-looking homosexual who can “come out” at an appropriate moment during the class.
Numerous desensitizing techniques were outlined whereby a child’s natural aversion to homosexuality is methodically dismantled. One such method popularly espoused advises that teachers introduce children to lesbianism first since young boys don’t express the same aversion to lesbianism as to homosexuality. The film Natalie promoted lesbian perversion as norm. Natalie candidly explains that from her 12 year lesbian “affair” she learned “…how to love a woman sexually…then how to love a man sexually…now I’m a total human being.”
At the Safer Sex workshop Linda Smith of Calgary Health Services admitted that condoms have to been seen as acceptable and fun. “If you’re going to argue the efficacy of condom use then you shouldn’t be in this educational field.” “Empower kids to have healthy fun and safer sexual activity rather than zero in on decreasing teen pregnancies,” said Smith. “Practice with condoms. Go home and practice in the bathroom with an erect penis,” she tells her classes. “It’s wonderful if they take them (condoms) out (of the classroom) and play with them (around the school)” she assures concerned teachers. By the end of the workshop, this group of thoroughly desensitized teachers and nurses were happily playing with condoms. Some commented that they’re now going to try using them because they (condoms) sound like fun! If the desensitizing process is so successful with “mature” adults, just think what it does to your children!
Helpful hints were provided to circumvent adverse authority, both parental and school. It was generally agreed that abstinence is included in the curriculum only to keep some parents (no doubt religious zealots) happy. When the issue of abstinence was addressed at the conference, it was scoffed at or degraded. Moreover, it was clearly understood that teachers must convey abstinence instruction in context with “viable alternatives” such as mutual or self-masturbation.
Educators were informed that difficulties with a conservative curriculum can be readily overcome by promoting the use of a question box and ensuring anonymity of the questioner. The resultant question and answer sessions allow teachers to say that the agenda is set by the children, not the teacher.
One teacher from a Roman Catholic school in Hamilton related how groups of teachers in this school are planning to circumvent curriculum guidelines prohibiting display of condoms class. An arrangement is being established with Planned Parenthood (PP) whereby these school children can be told to go to the PP office, help themselves to condoms from a container—and no questions asked!