This has to be one of the more extreme instances I've observed of redefining reality to fit your own ideological purposes. Presumably the sex ed teacher is following the ideal of liberal autonomy in which we are supposed to be self-determined in all things which matter. If our sexuality is fixed it can't be self-determined, so it helps the theory if our sexuality can be made fluid.
This is the basic idea behind queer theory, which has been promoted widely in schools in the US:
For the queer theorist, all unambiguous and permanent notions of a natural sexual or gender identity are coercive impositions on our individual autonomy - our freedom to reinvent our sexual selves whenever we like. Sexuality is androgynous, fluid, polymorphous ...
So we shouldn't be surprised if activists aim to overturn heterosexual norms. I hadn't, though, expected the bold move of relegating heterosexuals to minority status.
When I was attending high school in the nineteen eighties in Queensland during the Glorious Joh Years we didn't have any sex education classes that I can remember.
ReplyDeleteThe closest we had was a one-off voluntary AIDs awareness class run by the school nurse. During this class we were told the usual things - then she told us that anal sex increased the chances of transmitting AIDs, that anal sex was unnatural and "that the anus is an exit not an entrance".
I couldn't imagine her getting away with such politically incorrect statements today - now physical reality is hostage to whatever our Homosexualist Propagandists say it is.
What? Who? When? Names, dates, places, Mark.
ReplyDeleteWe got one hour in year 10 science; standard reproduction stuff most of us already knew - from science class!
Only memorable for one particular gaffe which left the (female, forty-ish?) teacher radiating red for the remainder of the hour and us in stitches. Explaining a woman's anatomy while pointing to an anatomical drawing (in colour!) of a woman's pelvic area, she innocently remarked: "most people don't realize we have three holes instead of two".
saint
D@B
Well I'm of the generation that learned about sex in primary school. That is in Year 6. Year 6 can you believe it? Here I was a little boy thinking about how to beat that boss on level 24 and this get's lopped on to my lap...
ReplyDelete...now physical reality is hostage to whatever our Homosexualist Propagandists say it is.
ReplyDeleteActually it's more than that MCB. Queer Theory and its antecedents and clones, advocates for the disintegration of what it means to be human both as an individual, and humanity as whole. Ironically it does this by trying to advocate that there is no relationship between biology, gender, identity, reproduction, family and social relations etc etc but just one amorphous blob that is a function of what. Sheer autonomous will?
saint
D@B
Saint,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the lack of details. I can't divulge too much about my own workplace. I'll just add that it was Year 7 at a Melbourne government school.
The idea that really nobody is intrinsically heterosexual has been around for a while among liberals; I had a liberal friend, who taught at college level, tell me that about 25 years ago; she said 'nobody is really straight or gay; sexuality is a continuum, and most people are somewhere in the middle. Those who think they are straight are just brainwashed into denying their bi- or homosexual feelings.'
ReplyDeleteAt the time I was taken aback but I've heard similar ideas many times since then.
What's so outrageous about this is that if liberal theory on this has any substance to it at all--if sexuality really is a continuum and that almost every heterosexual is in denial about it all--then how in God's name could statistics on it ever really be established? How would you determine what percentage of people were in denial, if you can't believe anything anybody says about his own sexuality? If nearly everyone is either lying, in denial, or just literally unsconscious of his own sexuality, how in the world could it ever be established what percentage of people belong in what place on the "spectrum"?
ReplyDeleteThis is like positing an invisible unicorn in the corner of the room that can't be detected in any way except by yourself. We're supposed to simply take it on their authority in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, that is, we're supposed to believe that the totality of human experience down through the millennia is less reliable than the flimsy ideological assertions of contemporary radical academics.
It’s not demonstrably false that 80% of people have “fluid” or bisexual potential. On the other hand, there’s essentially no evidence for it either, as our knowledge of other cultures’ private practices is limited (e.g., maybe most ancient Greek men had sexual relations with teenage boys, but we really don’t know), and we cannot engage in experiments such as randomly assigning adolescents to same-sex boarding schools, encouraging them to be gay, and seeing who engages in such activity, and how they feel about it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a more effective way of convincing a social-leftist that the notion we are mostly bisexual is either false or dangerous is to point out some logical consequences of this “fact.” It would mean that “conversion therapy” is likely to work, and that one result of today’s tolerance of homosexuality (such as high school GLBTQ groups) is likely to be much higher rates of expressed homosexuality than resulted from the bad old days of intolerance.
I suspect that if most parents and voters believed that tolerance meant that children were far more likely to end up gay as adults, then most parents and voters would strongly disfavor such tolerance. Knowing this, the social leftist would keep the “truth” a secret from the rest of us.
Personally I do not believe that all that many of us could happily swing either way, butA I wouldn’t presume to start teaching such a “fact” — let alone putting a number to it.
Since we're a minority, can we have some special right now please?
ReplyDeleteNow this is how the "nasty business" should be discussed.
ReplyDeleteNo sweat Mark. Knowing it was Year 7 at a Melbourne government school is bad enough.
ReplyDeletesaint
D@B