Do you need further proof that The New York Times has become a steaming-hot pile of trash?
Seriously, what the actual bull crud is this tweet and its corresponding article?
If you aren't familiar with this story, read our coverage of how this teacher was caught using creepy-as-heck videos about masturbation to show to 1st graders at a $55k-per-year elite NYC school.
Back to the tweet, I want to draw your attention first to the photo the Times uses of this "sex-positive educator," Justine Ang Fonte.
Notice how heroic she looks, gazing into the distance as the model of heroism. If you disagree with her, you must be "sex-negative."
This picture was chosen on purpose. What does that say about the bias of the "journalist" writing this dung heap?
Second, let's look at the term "pornography literacy." The assumption with such a term is that its good, right, just, and wholesome for children to watch up-close videos of men and women in the throes of sexual intercourse, so they can "critically assess" how such voyeurism excites them sexually.
For all intents and purposes, the once-leading newspaper of the world is now defending this.
"Some parents were outraged."
This is a slight twist on the "Republicans pounced" angle. Here's a righteous "sex-positive educator" doing the saintly work of showing kids porn, and she's being harassed by those curmudgeonly and ignorant parents with their pitchforks.
This is all a clown show, and we haven't even gotten to the article yet.
We pick up with the "evil parents" angle. The Times literally uses the word "pilloried" to describe why these HORRIBLE parents would kick a woman like this out of their children's school.
The Times defends Fonte's 1st-grade lesson on masturbation, saying she never actually used the term "masturbate" and that this is all approved by the WHO and current sex-ed standards set by the far-left.
Then they link to the video. If you haven't watched it, please tell me if this would be acceptable for your young child:
If you aren't brand conscious, you might not be aware that this video is by "Amaze, Jr.," Planned Parenthood's sex-ed program for kids. Several of their videos where they show up-close cartoon kindergartners displaying and touching their genitals.
Of course, the NYT sees nothing wrong with this. In their lefty worldview, you must allow every sexual flavor and preference under the sun and push it at an early age in order to be "sex-positive."
I'd let them mire in their delusions if it wasn't the rights and wellbeing of an entire generation of children at stake.
The vast majority of people agree that kids should learn about their bodies and what is and isn't appropriate, especially since abuse all too real and prevalent.
The Times wants you to believe that this case is totally the same, and that it's good to have creepy animated videos made by the nation's largest abortion provider to push the secular religion of the state on the topic of human sexuality.
I'm sure this is going to help children instead of hurt them and it definitely won't undermine the jurisdiction of parents in teaching these essential lessons on sex as they relate to human nature, relationships, behavior, and spirituality.
But it gets WORSE.
The Times doesn't just defend basic lessons on sex and masturbation for young kids. No, they had to defend teenagers being shown explicit porn videos that are meant to tantalize to better teach them about realistic expectations for sex.
After all, they say, the experts say this is good and your teens are probably watching porn already, so lighten up, man!!
It's also JUST like math or English. You know, except that human sexuality has deep and profound implications when it comes to the wellbeing of our very souls. There's also the vast majority of the human race that believes that mankind has a Creator, and that this Creator has given sexuality to humanity as a gift meant to be enjoyed within a certain design.
What the Times is attempting to do is to normalize what is actually the perspective of a tiny, tiny fraction of humanity. Though they may not realize it, their push to sexualize children is actually more in line with your garden-variety pedophile and advocates of child marriage in places like Afghanistan and Somalia.
C.S. Lewis would call what they are calling an aberration in the moral law. As he says in Mere Christianity,
Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
And the overwhelming [read: over-freaking-whelming] majority of humanity would not agree with Fonte or the Times, the recommendations of the WHO, Planned Parenthood, and the National Sex Education Standards be damned.
It's probably because most people have a much older and higher Authority they appeal to, and because they have a conscience that pricks their very hearts when they see depravity like this.
Still, that won't stop the Times from invoking the new gods of Transgenderism, Inclusivity, Social Justice, and Equity (just in case you're still uncertain what this is all about).
The Times then takes aim at the New York Post for publishing the story, saying it hurt and endangered this poor educator.
It then offers a glimmer of "hope" by saying Fonte's audience is going to be EVEN BIGGER now, teaching children everywhere to worship the new gods of sex and equity while superseding Christ's command to "do unto others" with the new-and-improved "PLATINUM RULE":
Yeah, this isn't a religion or a sex cult at all, just like the Times is completely and totally still a newspaper.
