To Mr. Sorin Cîmpeanu, Romania’s Minister of Education and Research
To Mr. Nicolae Bănicioiu, Romania’s Minister of Health
October 14, 2015
“We Want Education for Family and Society, NotFormation of Sexual Pioneers under the Flag ofGender Ideology”
You have recently received an Appeal from 67 de ONGs requiring the introduction of sexual education classes in Romanian public schools. Their reasons seem most natural. Basically, they claim that lack of quality information needs be addressed, while public space is practically inundated with distorted information on sexuality, information which „lacks aspects regarding responsibility, understanding how one’s own body functions and the notion of respect in intimate relations”.
While the need for information on human sexuality is universal, there is though a wide array of approaches, differing from one person to the other, from one family to the other, from one state to another, from one historic period to another. Therefore, an essential question is: “What type of education on sexuality do they require through their appeal?” Identifying some real problems does not necessarily lead to immediately identifying adequate and efficient solutions for them.
The type of sexual education insistently required and promoted for years by the authors of the above-mentioned Appeal, who suggested introducing it as part of a common-core subject matter called Health Education, undermines the concept of natural family (with two heterosexual parents), presenting it just as one possibility out of a wide array of “mutually-consented” sexual behaviors. It also promotes contraception and abortion as thorough and ideal solutions to the issue of unwanted pregnancy.
This type of sexual education is the result of a hedonist world view, focused on getting physically safe individual pleasure. This world view has always promoted mutual consent as a way to eliminate abuse from sexual relations, a goal it has never been able to reach. What it has been able to do, though, is aggravate issues like family dissolution or personal unhappiness and increase the number of children born and raised by one parent. For the state, the wide adoption of the hedonist system of values has resulted into a historically new range of problems: financially supporting more and more single mothers, while the birth rate has dropped under the population replacement rate.
Looking back in time, we can see this type of sexual education was promoted long before the 1950s and thus preceded what was called “the sexual revolution of the 1960s”. Although it is being presented as a universal cure to sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancy, this educational approach has not been able to curb the explosive incidence of these very same problems, an unfortunate boom produced by none other than the sexual revolution itself. Moreover, this boom has been correlated with a general hypersexualization of mass-media and other public messages. The anti-family sexual education has contributed to this by promoting in the public space the topic of sexuality, which is actually private by its own nature.
The answer to the hypersexualization issue is more sexualization only in the logic of those who believed the solution to the problems of Communism is even more Communism. This logic is inherent to this type of sexual education. According to it, the proposal made by a Danish sexology professor to use pornographic videos during the sexual education classes seems only natural . Furthermore, it would be no wonder if they required sexual practice classes, just like for other subject matters. When a 13-year old British student has raped one of his colleagues  after classes, it was difficult not to make a correlation between his deed and the last lesson of that day, which was, alas, Sexual Education.
Even if its goal has never been to undermine family, this world view has had major anti-family consequences and therefore sexual education based on it can be duly qualified as an anti-family one.
We are aware of the importance of sexuality in every person’s life and in society – education included. But sexuality cannot be reduced to its biological aspects, to avoiding sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies and to mutual respect as a way to avoid violence. A human being is more than “a sexual animal”, which is how one of the promoters of this anti-family sexual education saw him (Wilhelm Reich).
The big difference between human sexuality and animal sexuality is love, which allows us to create long-term family relationships in which children are born, children who thus will benefit from the whole life experience of their parents. This is exactly what lacks from the ideology of anti-family education. The hedonist conception of sexuality determines the marginalization of the heterosexual family made of one father and one mother. Homosexual and polyamorous “marriage” and the dissolution of marriage itself are only natural consequences of this conception. Practically and historically, this sexual education model was first proposed by the Communist movements, which saw family as a bourgeois element associated to exploitation, and by the movements aiming to normalize sexual behaviors considered as deviant.
It wasn’t by chance that György Lukács, Minister of Culture during the short-lived 1919 Hungarian Soviet Republic led by Communist Bela Kun, was the first to have introduced a nation-wide state program of anti-family sexual education in public schools, teaching children to reject moral principles and despise any form of parental authority. And it is not by chance that at present Mariela Castro, daughter of Raúl Castro, Communist Cuba’s leader, is also the Chairwoman of the National Center for Sexual Education. We shall not insist here on the widely-documented fact that key promoters of this sexuality model such as Alfred Kinsey and Wilhelm Reich based their “research” on real cases of sexual abuse.
That explains why the main Romanian organizations which recurrently propose introducing in the curriculum main core this type of sexual education are those who promote gender ideology, a system of ideas which aims to eliminate the distinction between man and woman and de-normalize marriage as a heterosexual union between one man and one woman.
Ask those who propose anti-family sexual education what they think of polyamory and polyamorous “marriage”. You will see that, if they entirely assume their proposed model, they are bound to claim that these relationships deserve to be recognized and normalized. Officially recognizing a “marriage” between any number of men and any number of women is just the logical consequence of accepting this type of education, which identifies unwanted pregnancy and violence as the only dangers to be avoided and in which mutual consent is the golden rule validating any type of sexual behavior, no matter how deviant.
A century and a half before, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in their “Preface” to theCommunist Manifesto that “a ghost is haunting Europe: Communism”. After 1918, Communism, supported by those who did not sense what it would actually mean for society, has managed to impose itself in Russia and other countries. Today there are only a few self-declared Communist states in the world, but some of the founding principles of Communism are still promoted as progress-instilling, just like the utopian belief was before the appearance of Communist regimes.
It is not difficult to identify in the proposed approach for the Sexual Education subject matter an essentially Communist principle: children do not belong to parents, they belong to the state. The above-mentioned Appeal fully depicts the ideological principle of achieving children’s welfare by separating them from their parents – and even against their parents. That is why the notion of “parents” is nowhere to be found in the text of the Appeal and the only reference to “family” is in the context suggesting the possibility of the children’s being sexual abused by their family.
A vital characteristic of any human society is continuity, which is practiced firstly through the parents’ responsibility and their assuming their children’s education. The first socio-political system that managed to significantly separate children from their parents through and education opposed to the latter’s thinking was Communism. This is how, in the 1930s, Ukrainean pioneers were educated to sing odes to Stalin, the man who had just killed their parents by Holodomor – the great famine instituted by Soviet authorities who confiscated all food in Ukraine, starving to death millions of Ukraineans.
Education encodes the essence of a state’s culture and civilization through validated elements which are considered worthy to be transmitted to the next generations. Since in Romania same-sex “marriage” is not legal and at global level only a small number of states have legalized it, why try and teach it to the children, while it has not even been validated by adults? Let’s speak plainly, the target of these organizations is crystal clear and goes way beyond fighting discrimination against persons with homosexual behavior: the target is homosexual “marriage”.
Of course, people are free to believe what they want. But it does not mean that those who believe differently don’t have the same right. A right simply denied by imposing anti-family sexual education. In Germany, some parents have recently been arrested for wanting to withdraw their children from the sexual education classes because they did not agree with some aspects presented in those lessons. We must be aware that totalitarian tendencies can appear everywhere, no matter the historical context. In Romania especially, we bear fresh memories of Communist totalitarianism and of the experience of banning free thought.
A ghost is haunting the European civilization at the beginning of the 21st century. It’s the genderideology, just as egalitarian as Communism. Aldous Huxley, in his Brave New World, saw the link between the totalitarian regimes at the beginning of the 20th century and their future evolution, also by manipulating human sexuality: the name of the little girl who gives away the boy who would not participate in erotic games at school is Polly Trotsky.
Repeated ideologically and visually aggressive attempts to forcefully impose opinions of major social impact “for the greater good” by eluding the natural process of research and debate remind Romanians more vividly than ever of the forceful enforcement of Communism.
At present, the World Health Organization (WHO) promotes anti-family sexual education starting from birth. The WHO standards, elaborated in the spirit of gender ideology, require educators to teach children under 4 years of age about masturbation, positively valuing this practice, while children between 4 and 6 should be taught about relations between persons of the same sex (the respective Appeal quotes the WHO official document in a footnote).
Unfortunately, historical experience has shown that the United Nations, one of the organizations in which people had invested most of their hopes, was not able to achieve its main goal, which was preventing a new world war from happening. The lesson we should learn from it is that no institution can be fully trusted to protect us without evaluating its actions.
Your oath is to Romania and the Romanian people. Nobody can force You, as high officials – at least nobody should – to choose something that harms the Romanian people. Being situated between the gender ideology, which seeks to become the only norm, and the mentality of the powerful civilizations bordering Europe, which don’t even perceive women’s discrimination as such, we believe that Romania has the unique chance to identify an education model avoiding these extremes: both egalitarianism and abuse. Between the exhibitionism of anti-family education, fully and accurately expressed by the display of underwear at the flash-mob on September 28th, 2015, and “honor killings”, Romania can propose an efficient family-focused educational paradigm.
It is legal that the Ministries of Education and Health propose to Romanians an educational model based on a hedonistic world view on sexuality and anti-family sexual education. But they are first bound to inform and reuquest for consent.
The view on sexuality is part of a person’s view on life and cannot be forcefully imposed. The wish of the Appeal’s authors is hardly understandable since the Constitutional Court of Law has recently required that, in order to study religion in school, the parents/guardian/student aged over 14 must file a special request, as this subject matter relates to freedom of conscience and therefore cannot be forcefully imposed on the student! Given the special character of such a subject matter as sexual education and given the existence of alternative textbooks, we consider that studying such a subject matter in school must happen only with the accept of the parents. Making it compulsory, as the Appeal’s authors have requested, will only violate the students and parents’ freedom of conscience, which vividly reminds us of Communist times.
We are aware that lack of information from parents has sometimes led to fully avoidable traumas in children. But ignoring the absolutely special role sexuality plays in human life and trivializing the difficulty of its approach according the child’s psychological profile and age can lead to even greater traumas.
The parent-children relationship is the natural environment of these discussions and parents must be encouraged to talk to their children about these intimate issues. The state only needs to contribute to continuous education and state-financed parenting classes accessible to parents could be very useful on this purpose.
At the same time, we renew the request made by some of our organizations on other occasions as well: introducing an optional subject-matter entitled “Education for Family and Society”, which will integrate teaching about the person’s sexuality into a general presentation of family and social relationships.
The curriculum for this subject matter can be made after a period of thorough research made by specialized persons, not by giving in to pressure by organizations promoting gender ideology. School subject matters such as Personal, Social and Health education in the United Kingdom or Preparing for Family Life in Poland can be a source of inspiration and comparison on European level.
As for the sexualization of the public space, we have two questions for Your Excellencies: Have You ever seen any flash-mobs by these organizations in which they protested against the invasion of pornography in the public space through advertising? And is there another European Capital city except for Bucharest where sports betting advertising has reached a similar level of eroticism?
Citeşte apelul public în limba română pe Stiripentruviata.ro
Acting under flash-mob pressure is not an option. Flash-mobs are sometimes just more refined Communist raids aiming to impose collectivization of conscience. Flash-mobs and aggressive indecency cannot replace consistent research just as ideological promises can never replace their practical results. Communism proposed social Paradise on Earth and tried to achieve property egalitarianism; gender ideology, of Communist origins, also promises social Paradise on Earth, which it believes it can be achieved through a sexual egalitarianism where everything is legitimate as long as it is mutually-consented.
Faced with the imperative request by the Appeal authors to introduce “now” and in an obligatory way sexual education on the model proposed by them, we kindly ask You to treat with due discernment the very delicate issue of educating children on sexuality. Should You be accused that You don’t act on the Appeal “now”, or should You be labeled as “fundamentalist”, “anti-modern”, “obsolete” etc, we wish to remind You that Communism also pretended to bring democracy to Romania – even during its darkest totalitarian period from the 1950s.
In the end, we wish to remind You of a remark by Aldous Huxley noted in his “Foreword” to his book Brave New World: “As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase”.
Excerpt from Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932)
In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.
From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. An anxious-looking little girl trotted at her heels.
“What’s the matter?” asked the Director.
The nurse shrugged her shoulders. “Nothing much,” she answered. “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I’d noticed it once or twice before. And now again today. He started yelling just now.”
“Honestly,” put in the anxious-looking little girl, “I didn’t mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly.”
“Of course you didn’t, dear,” said the nurse reassuringly. “And so,” she went on, turning back to the Director, “I’m taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything’s at all abnormal.”
“Quite right,” said the Director. “Take him in. You stay here, little girl,” he added, as the nurse moved away with her still howling charge. “What’s your name?”
“And a very good name too,” said the Director. “Run away now and see if you can find some other little boy to play with.”
The child scampered off into the bushes and was lost to sight.
“Exquisite little creature!” said the Director, looking after her. Then, turning to his students, “What I’m going to tell you now,” he said, “may sound incredible. But then, when you’re not accustomed to history, most facts about the past do sound incredible.”
He let out the amazing truth. For a very long period before the time of Our Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.