Perversity of the Euro-Left:
‘Sexual Liberation’ for Children

Posted on | July 5, 2010 | 27 Comments

It has since faded into obscurity, but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were caught up in a strange obsession about childhood sexuality. It is a chapter of the movement’s history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era. On this issue, the veterans of the late ’60s student movement seem to have succumbed to acute amnesia; an analysis of this aspect of the student revolution would certainly be worthwhile. . . .

Read the whole thing, but be warned it’s some sick stuff. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that, because of feminism, German left-wing journals dropped their advocacy of “progressive sexuality” with little girls in the early ’70s, whereas the Marxist boy-buggerers kept publishing until 1994.

Someone linked this article in a comment thread yesterday. I suppose they found it at Pat Dollard’s site.

Category: Sex

Comments

27 Responses to “Perversity of the Euro-Left:
‘Sexual Liberation’ for Children”

Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

It’s just not the sixties and seventies that had such evil. Check out this recent article from 2007.

“Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government’s Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung – BZgA) are aimed at parents – the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

According to the Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the BZgA booklet is an obligatory read in nine German regions. It is used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Ironically it is recommended by many organizations officially fighting pedophilia, such as the German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA sends out millions of copies of the booklet every year.”

It is thoroughly disgusting and just plain evil. I like what Michael O’Brien, a Canadian author and speaker said:

“It is merely obeying its strictly materialist philosophy of man. If man is no more than a creature created for pleasure or power. If he is no more than a cell in the social organism, then no moral standards, no psychological truths, no spiritual truths can refute the ‘will to power’ and the ‘will to pleasure’.”

This is objectification at its most evil. Because the radical left has rejected God, where can their value be found? In order to be valued, we must have Someone who perceives that value — and for us who believe in God, it is Him, our creator.

I am appalled by the feminists lack of concern, but then again, it isn’t surprising. Since they’ve held motherhood (and the consequential protective instinct) in contempt for so long, they’ve severed any link to compassion or true justice.

God help the adult that crosses my path who is abusing a child. I can make a lion look like an abandoned kitty.
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 9:13 am

It’s just not the sixties and seventies that had such evil. Check out this recent article from 2007.

“Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government’s Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung – BZgA) are aimed at parents – the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

According to the Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the BZgA booklet is an obligatory read in nine German regions. It is used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Ironically it is recommended by many organizations officially fighting pedophilia, such as the German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA sends out millions of copies of the booklet every year.”

It is thoroughly disgusting and just plain evil. I like what Michael O’Brien, a Canadian author and speaker said:

“It is merely obeying its strictly materialist philosophy of man. If man is no more than a creature created for pleasure or power. If he is no more than a cell in the social organism, then no moral standards, no psychological truths, no spiritual truths can refute the ‘will to power’ and the ‘will to pleasure’.”

This is objectification at its most evil. Because the radical left has rejected God, where can their value be found? In order to be valued, we must have Someone who perceives that value — and for us who believe in God, it is Him, our creator.

I am appalled by the feminists lack of concern, but then again, it isn’t surprising. Since they’ve held motherhood (and the consequential protective instinct) in contempt for so long, they’ve severed any link to compassion or true justice.

God help the adult that crosses my path who is abusing a child. I can make a lion look like an abandoned kitty.
Virginia Right! News Hound for 7/5/2010 | Virginia Right!
July 5th, 2010 @ 10:46 am

[…] Perversity of the Euro-Left: ‘Sexual Liberation’ for Children […]
CGHill
July 5th, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

Why would it have to be “recalled” if it hadn’t been approved in the first place?
CGHill
July 5th, 2010 @ 11:32 am

Why would it have to be “recalled” if it hadn’t been approved in the first place?
Richard McEnroe
July 5th, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

This is another fine lefty tradition Obie was raised in, thanks to his ‘upbringing’ by his spiritual father Franklin Davis.
Richard McEnroe
July 5th, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

This is another fine lefty tradition Obie was raised in, thanks to his ‘upbringing’ by his spiritual father Franklin Davis.
Ran / Si Vis Pacem
July 5th, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

Heh. I know a CT “conservative Republican” who “goes for coffee with his friends” who just happen to be gay supporters of legal recognition for [barf] “intergenerational wuv.” Such tolerance. Such… compassion. [/barf]
Ran / Si Vis Pacem
July 5th, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

Heh. I know a CT “conservative Republican” who “goes for coffee with his friends” who just happen to be gay supporters of legal recognition for [barf] “intergenerational wuv.” Such tolerance. Such… compassion. [/barf]
Estragon
July 5th, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

Our domestic Libertarians are far more subtle. They just profess to oppose “age discrimination” in the legal age to make contracts and give sexual consent, and they vehemently oppose any federal regulation of the internet, including child pornography.

Amounts to the same thing by the time all is said and done.
Estragon
July 5th, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

Our domestic Libertarians are far more subtle. They just profess to oppose “age discrimination” in the legal age to make contracts and give sexual consent, and they vehemently oppose any federal regulation of the internet, including child pornography.

Amounts to the same thing by the time all is said and done.
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

Here is another link. Only AFTER the story about the sex-ed booklets that promoted parent-child sexual massage was exposed – were the booklets pulled from circulation. At that time (2007), the song that encouraged masturbation for children as young as four-years of age, was not removed.

A few words for you “GG”: First, if you want to bring it – bring it by owning your own weak opinions with your real name. I know. It’s hard to be honest for people like you but I don’t take anyone seriously who do not have the spine to either link to a blog they have or provide a real identity. It marks you as an intellectual lightweight at best, troll at worst.

Secondly – and perhaps I should have led with this one: How chilling is it that instead of responding to the OP by agreeing how horrible the sexual exploitation of children is — you come out of the gate challenging my source and that the booklet was “recalled.” (And CGHill rightly challenged you with his comment.)

I’ll take this opportunity to identify myself as a “reclaimer” of the Catholic faith, who is shocked and sickened by the sexual abuse committed by the priests. I think they should all be removed from their assignments and given a very menial job within the hierarchy that will keep them far, far away from children. An isolated monastery on some remote mountainside, comes to mind.

The bottom line is not whether the German booklet was recalled or not. It’s that it was written in the first place. How can that be justified? It can’t.

Same with the progressive sexual radicals of the 60’s and 70’s. The evil is that adults arrived at a place where they thought nothing was wrong with engaging children in sexual activity.

GG, I would say “put that in your pipe and smoke it” but I believe you’ve been doing that for years, anyway. There is absolute no argument — NONE, for ever promoting or trying to defend anything that would harm children. Your lack of concern is more troubling than any lack of “proof” on the Internet.
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

Here is another link. Only AFTER the story about the sex-ed booklets that promoted parent-child sexual massage was exposed – were the booklets pulled from circulation. At that time (2007), the song that encouraged masturbation for children as young as four-years of age, was not removed.

A few words for you “GG”: First, if you want to bring it – bring it by owning your own weak opinions with your real name. I know. It’s hard to be honest for people like you but I don’t take anyone seriously who do not have the spine to either link to a blog they have or provide a real identity. It marks you as an intellectual lightweight at best, troll at worst.

Secondly – and perhaps I should have led with this one: How chilling is it that instead of responding to the OP by agreeing how horrible the sexual exploitation of children is — you come out of the gate challenging my source and that the booklet was “recalled.” (And CGHill rightly challenged you with his comment.)

I’ll take this opportunity to identify myself as a “reclaimer” of the Catholic faith, who is shocked and sickened by the sexual abuse committed by the priests. I think they should all be removed from their assignments and given a very menial job within the hierarchy that will keep them far, far away from children. An isolated monastery on some remote mountainside, comes to mind.

The bottom line is not whether the German booklet was recalled or not. It’s that it was written in the first place. How can that be justified? It can’t.

Same with the progressive sexual radicals of the 60’s and 70’s. The evil is that adults arrived at a place where they thought nothing was wrong with engaging children in sexual activity.

GG, I would say “put that in your pipe and smoke it” but I believe you’ve been doing that for years, anyway. There is absolute no argument — NONE, for ever promoting or trying to defend anything that would harm children. Your lack of concern is more troubling than any lack of “proof” on the Internet.
Bob Belvedere
July 5th, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

Mary Rose: gg is just a boring troll [if you’re going to be a troll, at least be interesting]. He/she/it lives in the desiccated swamp of he/she/it’s mind surrounded by the miasma that emanates from the swill produced when he/she/it attempts [and fails] to think coherently.
Bob Belvedere
July 5th, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

Mary Rose: gg is just a boring troll [if you’re going to be a troll, at least be interesting]. He/she/it lives in the desiccated swamp of he/she/it’s mind surrounded by the miasma that emanates from the swill produced when he/she/it attempts [and fails] to think coherently.
ak4mc
July 5th, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

Apparently GG doesn’t realize that pederast priests are among those from whom Mary Rose hopes to reclaim her faith.

Dimwit.
ak4mc
July 5th, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

Apparently GG doesn’t realize that pederast priests are among those from whom Mary Rose hopes to reclaim her faith.

Dimwit.
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

My goodness. I suppose I should not have been surprised that mentioning the Catholic church to someone of GG’s questionable character would elicit the same response as a half-starved, diseased bear going after a piece of meat.

@ GG

“You see this? This is a shroud, Mr. Hart, a shroud. A burial garment. A winding sheet. For the dead. This is for you, Mr. Hart. The late Mr. Hart. And now, Mr. Pruridge…”

Professor Kingsfield

And that, is that.
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

My goodness. I suppose I should not have been surprised that mentioning the Catholic church to someone of GG’s questionable character would elicit the same response as a half-starved, diseased bear going after a piece of meat.

@ GG

“You see this? This is a shroud, Mr. Hart, a shroud. A burial garment. A winding sheet. For the dead. This is for you, Mr. Hart. The late Mr. Hart. And now, Mr. Pruridge…”

Professor Kingsfield

And that, is that.
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 10:24 pm

@ Bob Belvedere, thank you for your advice. I always enjoy your comments. 🙂
Mary Rose
July 5th, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

@ Bob Belvedere, thank you for your advice. I always enjoy your comments. 🙂
Roxeanne de Luca
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:59 am

On the subject of ignoring gg, who lacks the intelligence of my right breast:

To them, it seemed obvious that liberation should begin at an early age. Once sexual inhibitions had taken root, they reasoned, everything that followed was merely the treatment of symptoms. They were convinced that it was much better to prevent those inhibitions from developing in the first place.

Did it not occur to these geniuses that introducing sexuality to those who have yet to hit puberty (i.e. who don’t care and aren’t biologically wired to give a damn) will cause far more problems than it will solve?

Did it also not occur to these people that sometimes, people like being chaste?!

As I look back on my teens and twenties, I’m happy that I had the upbringing that I did, happy that I was wired (even back then) to look out for my long-term interests, and happy that I’m not saddled with regrets (or diseases, or out-of-wedlock children). Chastity is liberating.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 6th, 2010 @ 12:59 am

On the subject of ignoring gg, who lacks the intelligence of my right breast:

To them, it seemed obvious that liberation should begin at an early age. Once sexual inhibitions had taken root, they reasoned, everything that followed was merely the treatment of symptoms. They were convinced that it was much better to prevent those inhibitions from developing in the first place.

Did it not occur to these geniuses that introducing sexuality to those who have yet to hit puberty (i.e. who don’t care and aren’t biologically wired to give a damn) will cause far more problems than it will solve?

Did it also not occur to these people that sometimes, people like being chaste?!

As I look back on my teens and twenties, I’m happy that I had the upbringing that I did, happy that I was wired (even back then) to look out for my long-term interests, and happy that I’m not saddled with regrets (or diseases, or out-of-wedlock children). Chastity is liberating.
Mary Rose
July 6th, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

“As I look back on my teens and twenties, I’m happy that I had the upbringing that I did, happy that I was wired (even back then) to look out for my long-term interests, and happy that I’m not saddled with regrets (or diseases, or out-of-wedlock children). Chastity is liberating”

Right on, Roxeanne! I could not agree with you more. Thank God I had parents who taught me to respect myself. Acknowledging one’s sexuality can be done without exploration of it — especially when referring to very young children. Although I was slightly pressured by friends to live an unchaste life, I refused, believing that someday I’d meet a man who would appreciate my choice. I finally did and yes, he’s happy. 🙂

If you’ve not read anything by Leon R. Kass, I highly recommend him. He and his wife, Amy, wrote a fairly exhaustive tome called Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying.

Chastity is indeed liberating because it accomplishes a few things: 1) it severs the tie of acting upon sexual impulse, freeing the individual from defining oneself by sexual activity and 2) it retains the sense of the sacred, the special, the extraordinary, protecting intimacy when it finally does have the opportunity to be expressed.

You can see this one is sort of a soapbox for me. It just made me feel good to see another woman express positive thoughts toward chastity. 🙂
Mary Rose
July 6th, 2010 @ 11:20 am

“As I look back on my teens and twenties, I’m happy that I had the upbringing that I did, happy that I was wired (even back then) to look out for my long-term interests, and happy that I’m not saddled with regrets (or diseases, or out-of-wedlock children). Chastity is liberating”

Right on, Roxeanne! I could not agree with you more. Thank God I had parents who taught me to respect myself. Acknowledging one’s sexuality can be done without exploration of it — especially when referring to very young children. Although I was slightly pressured by friends to live an unchaste life, I refused, believing that someday I’d meet a man who would appreciate my choice. I finally did and yes, he’s happy. 🙂

If you’ve not read anything by Leon R. Kass, I highly recommend him. He and his wife, Amy, wrote a fairly exhaustive tome called Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying.

Chastity is indeed liberating because it accomplishes a few things: 1) it severs the tie of acting upon sexual impulse, freeing the individual from defining oneself by sexual activity and 2) it retains the sense of the sacred, the special, the extraordinary, protecting intimacy when it finally does have the opportunity to be expressed.

You can see this one is sort of a soapbox for me. It just made me feel good to see another woman express positive thoughts toward chastity. 🙂
GrannyRant
July 7th, 2010 @ 6:51 am

TAKE BACK THE CLASSROOMS!…

I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
Tel-Chai Nation
July 8th, 2010 @ 12:51 am

Yes, that was Germany in the late-60s-early-70s…

Spiegel published a chilling article about how in 1968, child-rape was promoted in Germany, long before the horrors of NAMBLA turned up in the USA…