Feminists push liberal sexual agenda at United Nations

Story from the Heritage Foundation.


The theme of CSW this year was “access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology.” However, rather than reading, math, computer skills, and vocational training, a number of panels and events focused instead on “comprehensive” sex education. For example, the Population Council hosted a side event during CSW with International Planned Parenthood Federation and the International Women’s Health Council to introduce advocates from other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and delegates from around the world to their new It’s All One Curriculum: Guidelines and Activities for a Unified Approach to Sexuality, Gender, HIV, and Human Rights Education. The curriculum’s ultimate goal: “to enable young people to enjoy—and advocate for their rights to—dignity, equality, and healthy, responsible, and satisfying sexual lives.”

The creators of this curriculum claim that its perspective is appropriate for all young people globally, irrespective of their culture. Parents and policymakers alike might be surprised, if not horrified, upon examining some of its content. For example, the first unit is entitled “Sexual Rights are Human Rights,” which ignores anything controversial about that assertion and enumerates a variety of so-called sexual rights alongside the more generally accepted political and social rights. The section on relationships discusses “long-term domestic relationships or partnerships,” listing marriage as one such type of relationship often entered into out of social, religious, or economic pressures. It calls for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Not only does the curriculum advocate for same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality, it also calls for the acceptance and legalization of prostitution (euphemistically referred to as “sex work”) and unencumbered access to legal abortion, which it asserts as a human right. It asserts that parenthood and marriage need not be related and that gender is a social construct that varies across time and culture. It encourages students to explore their sexual desires and says “sexuality may be expressed by oneself or with others.” Absent in the several hundred pages of curriculum and activities is any positive mention of abstinence, other than including it as a possible means of contraception or an effective way to avoid contracting a sexually transmitted infection.

Ever wonder where this stuff comes from? It comes from the political left. And it’s paid for by U.S. taxpayer dollars.


18 thoughts on “Feminists push liberal sexual agenda at United Nations”

  1. This is why any sensible woman will not touch modern feminism with a bargepole. These policies don’t help women, they harm them. All because third-wave feminism demands sexual license at any cost.


    1. This is the part of feminism that I never understand. Men are already inclined to be barbarians – they don’t need to be encouraged by giving them rewards without them having to DO anything!


  2. It’s kinda funny, in a sad, pathetic, twisted and corrupt way, that when I comment on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, or the irresponsible sexual practices that have led to 50 million abortions, high divorce rates, a plethora of STDs, many of which impact even middle school kids, suicides, etc etc etc, I’m considered to be obsessed with sex. (No more or less than any other healthy male, actually.)

    But as this post demonstrates, it is the obsession the left has that provokes my position and comments upon it. “Sexual rights”? Really? Are they serious? Unfortunately they are, because it means everything to them. I’m told sex is a wonderful gift from God, by the progressive Christians with whom I engage on the web. No Biblical support for this belief has been forthcoming, but I’m the twisted guy for seeing sex for what it is: an act designed for procreation, made pleasurable in order to guarantee it gets done for the survival of the species, and is co-opted as a form of personal entertainment, under the guise of an act of love. We are encouraged by God to go forth and multiply, not get our freak on. There’s a difference, as there is between tolerating sex for pleasure within the God-ordained standard of marriage and sex as a “wonderful gift from God”.

    The example provided by this post is only one of the many in our culture wherein sex and its many and varied manifestations is raised to a level to which it has no right to ascend.

    I’m obsessed with sex? Not by comparison to the average leftist.


    1. Marshall, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with seeing sex as a wonderful gift from God – provided it’s in marriage, as God has defined marriage. After all, God created sex as a positive thing. That makes it a wonderful gift from Him. If leftists take that as a license to get sex at any cost, then they are perverting God’s gift. As C.S.Lewis says, Satan has nothing novel with which to tempt us. Instead, he perverts the good things which God has created to tempt us to sin.

      So, I’m not sure I agree with your notion of “tolerating sex for pleasure” in marriage. I have no first-hand experience of sex, but I am given to understand that the giving and receiving of pleasure between husband and wife is a good thing which strengthens marriages, allows husband and wife one more way to serve each other, and brings them closer together.

      Also, we must be careful of falling into language which sounds ascetic, although I doubt that you meant it in that sense. Would we merely “tolerate” enjoyment of food? I happen to think that food is also a wonderful gift from God. That doesn’t give me license to engage in gluttony or worse things like cannibalism. All of God’s gifts, whether they be food or sex or any other thing, are to be enjoyed as He has designed.

      I do, however, agree with you in that the *primary* function of sex is procreation. And I also agree that the importance of sex has been elevated far beyond what it should be. Moreover, I agree that it is the left, not Christians, who are obsessed with sex. They are the ones who are always trying to push the envelope of what is acceptable so that we are forced to respond to each onslaught.


  3. Are you sure this curriculum doesn’t have something to do with addressing the manner in which so many women in third-world countries experience marriage and procreation: at very young ages, without the benefit of education, often without proper health or prenatal care, with no contraception, without the right to choose their own husbands or to have any rights outside of marriage or within it equal to their husbands?


        1. Well, they could *not* encourage premarital sex, encourage premarital chastity, *not* encourage abortion. See, I live in a country with a lot of women in the situation that you’ve mentioned and I’ve seen the effect that liberal, leftist propaganda has had in this area. It has made things a LOT worse. We have an organization, funded by Planned Parenthood (surprise!), that goes around “educating” the youth in this manner. Surveys indicate that the main message the youth get out of their propaganda is “have lots of sex”. This has not helped women in such communities to achieve respect in the eyes of men. It has encouraged men in such communities to use women for their own ends.


          1. Men tend to separate women into 2 groups. Ones who are good for marriage and ones who are not. Basically, if a woman will have sex with a man before marriage, she is not marriage material. The longer she waits, the more he is likely to regard her as faithful.

            I actually apply that same rule to myself, which is why I am chaste. I think it’s a good rule, and it’s one of the things I offer marriage candidates.


    1. Response from an Orthodox Rabbi’s wife:
      The author of the book is Maurice Lamm (not Camm). He does represent the traditional approach that Judaism has to love and marriage.
      Pretty much everything kbonikowsky wrote was accurate. One correction however: since the marriage is the husband’s contractual obligation to the wife- he is the one who has to provide the divorce.
      She was correct in stating that a woman can request a divorce on those grounds, but the divorce has to be submitted by the man.


        1. Well, Wintery, perhaps you should look at it as a serious consideration for building up marriage instead of a threat.

          Sex is not a right or a privilege.
          Men and women (esp single men and women) looking at it that way lose sight of what it is for.

          At least this Jewish way of looking at it curtails this to some degree.

          Sex is a gift from God, not to be taken lightly or debased as our porn culture has done.

          It is interesting that the Orthodox Jewish view makes it a right for married women and and obligation for married men.

          Perhaps giving women a bit of an advantage in this way, the woman will make it worth it for a man when he fulfills his obligation.

          You have to remember, where sex is concerned, it is the woman who is receiving something within herself. She really ought to have some say in it beyond men always telling her about her ‘obligation’. Otherwise she may feel trambled and cheapened. This is where a woman should have a right to choose, NOT AFTER a child is conceived.

          Just say’n…


      1. Fixed the spelling in my post Tirtsa…or I will as soon as WordPress gets back up! Thanks for catching it. The “L” looks so much like a “C” in the font they used on the cover. Shoulda done my homework better! :)
        Its an interesting book!

        Wintery, you’ve got an interesting blog. I’ll be looking around.


  4. Planned Parenthood
    With apologies to Joyce Kilmer, author of Trees

    I thought that I would never see
    A program sacred as P.P.

    A program that Barack will back
    Against the GOP attack.

    A program Biden will defend
    Against the budget cutting trend.

    A program for which Nancy fights
    Beneath the flag of women’s rights.

    A program for which Harry Reid
    Would shutter government indeed.

    When deficits begin to squeeze
    We see their true priorities.

    While other programs come and go
    This sacred cow must stay just so.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s