Ever heard of sexual rights? Very possibly not. But don’t be embarrassed by your apparent ignorance. They don’t actually exist!
“Sexual rights” get bandied about, repeated ad infinitum, and are constantly implied by the WHO, the UN and countless campaigning groups, including Amnesty International, who have a special webpage on them—but they don’t define what they are. At the Government’s behest, Scottish schoolchildren are taught about their “sexual rights”, and the message is basically that you have the right to have illegal underage sex!
So how have these ethereal sexual rights become embodied in international debate on issues of sexuality? It’s partly that radical sexuality and gender activists have projected their own values and priorities onto the rights that do actually exist (in theory), such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Of course, the UN is hardly kicking up a fuss at this misappropriation of its Rights, because the UN is more or less in tune with the radical activists.
IPPF: the self-appointed definer
Time and again, sexual rights are referred to as though they are founded in genuine international convention; but what exactly are they? Well, no-one quite knew, until the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) stepped in and decided to make up a set of so-called sexual rights for themselves.
Before we look at what they concocted, let’s just be clear what IPPF is. As an international abortion business, the London-based IPPF has been embroiled in allegations of fraud and providing prostitutes for staff and donors. In addition to its core business, it campaigns forcefully for an extremely permissive ideology of sexual relationships, targeting its message at young people in particular.
Before we even get to the Rights themselves, alarm bells start ringing when we read in the introduction:
It is important for all young people around the world to be able to explore, experience and express their sexualities in healthy, positive, pleasurable and safe ways. This can only happen when young people’s sexual rights are guaranteed.
“All” young people? Of any age? All people, regardless of age, are entitled to explore, experience and express their sexualities in pleasurable ways? This seems like a repudiation of the concept of age-of-consent laws, but let’s not jump to conclusions.
Reading on, we find:
Young people’s sexual rights are different and more complex than adults’ sexual rights. One reason for this is the widespread denial of young people’s sexuality. There is a common misconception that young people are not, or should not be sexual beings with the exception of certain groups, such as married young people or young people above a certain age. Sexuality is a central aspect of being human during all phases of each person’s life.
That really is a smoking gun. IPPF objects to the idea that there should be any age limit on sexual activity involving children.
Since each young person develops at their own pace, there is no universal age at which certain sexual rights and protections gain or lose importance. Therefore, striking the balance between protection and autonomy should be based on the evolving capacities of each individual young person.
Thus, while IPPF does acknowledge that some children are too young to consent to sex, it holds that this should be determined on a case-by-case basis through assessment of the individual child’s capability. Therefore, instead of, say, sex with a six-year-old being automatically wrong and statutory rape, it would depend on the maturity of that particular six-year-old.
We might respond that six-year-olds are at a pre-sexual stage and so cannot understand or experience sexuality in any meaningful sense.
Sexuality is a central part of being human for young people of all ages across the world.
So, babies, toddlers, children—sexuality is supposedly central to each of them.
All young people are entitled to sexual well-being and pleasure.
Sum and substance
Getting into the so-called “Rights” themselves, we read:
All young people have the right to privacy and to make autonomous decisions about their sexuality privately.
This is the doctrine that children who decide to have sex—with whomever—have the right to keep that secret. So, any adult having sex with a child can remind the child of their “right” to keep it secret from everyone else. Any other adult reporting an adult-child sexual relationship could be accused of infringing this right.
Any limitation on sexual rights must be non-discriminatory, including on the grounds of age.
Just to hammer it home, children have a “right” to be free from age-of-consent laws, because the rights grant:
Empowerment to decide freely when, with whom and how to have sex.
Every young person has the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and wellbeing.
Once IPPF has told children that they can have sex with whomever they wish to, at whatever age they think they are ready, it’s no use telling them that they have a right to good mental health! It’s like giving children cigarettes and telling them they’ve got the right to healthy lungs.
Needless to say, IPPF believes that children have a right to Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). This embodies exactly the values we have already encountered.
To come full circle, you can now see how it has come to pass that Scottish schoolchildren are taught about their “right” to have illegal underage sex.
Let’s end by calling a spade a spade. According to these “sexual rights”, a paedophile, having groomed a child, can say to them, “You’ve got the right to have sex with me if you’d like to and you think you’re ready. You’ve also got the right to keep it as a secret just between the two of us.”
Whenever you hear about “sexual rights”, immediately translate it in your mind to “the right of children to be sexually abused”. That is what it amounts to. While those seeking to engage in sexual acts with children will welcome these co-called sexual rights, every decent person with an interest in protecting children should be horrified.