Sex Education In Ontario

[cybercoma]

Let kids be kids. This is nothing but the government saying the parents can not raise their kids without government help.And it is perverted IMO.

Some parents can't.

[Mighty AC]

Teachers don't need to be teaching 9 year olds about oral and anal sex, it's far too young. We don't need the same sex agenda pushed onto our children at such a young age.

Nine year olds? You claimed to have read the curriculum document yet you repeatedly make false statements about it. Why resort to lying to make your case?

Oral and anal sex are mentioned in the grade 7 health curriculum for the first time, in the context of discussing delaying sexual activity with a partner until they are older, reasons for the delay, the importance of consent and how consent is communicated. Whoa SCANDALOUS! Though you may not like to hear this, many tweens in grade 7 have already experimented with several of the sexual acts listed below. Here is the text from page 195, the grade 7 section, of the curriculum document:

C1.3 Explain the importance of having a shared understanding with a partner about the following: delaying sexual activity until they are older (e.g., choosing to abstain from any genital contact; choosing to abstain from having vaginal or anal intercourse; choosing to abstain from having oral-genital contact); the reasons for not engaging in sexual activity; the concept of consent and how consent is communicated; and, in general, the need to communicate clearly with each other when making decisions about sexual activity in the relationship

Teacher prompt: “The term abstinence can mean different things to different people. People can also have different understandings of what is meant by having or not having sex. Be clear in your own mind about what you are comfortable or uncomfortable with. Being able to talk about this with a partner is an important part of sexual health. Having sex can be an enjoyable experience and can be an important part of a close relationship when you are older. But having sex has risks too, including physical risks like sexually transmitted infections – which are common and which can hurt you – and getting pregnant when you don’t want to. What are some of the emotional considerations to think about?”

Student: “It’s best to wait until you are older to have sex because you need to be emotionally ready, which includes being able to talk with your partner about how you feel, being prepared to talk about and use protection against STIs or pregnancy, and being prepared to handle the emotional ups and downs of a relationship, including the ending of a relationship, which can hurt a lot. Personal values, family values, and religious beliefs can influence how you think about sexuality and sexual activity. A person should not have sex if their partner is not ready or has not given consent, if they are feeling pressured, if they are unsure, or if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

Edit: Added the curriculum link.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Mighty AC

[guyser]

None so blind as those who wont see.

[Keepitsimple]

Somewhat funny but sad commentary of the program by Marny Soupcoff:

.......skip.......

It was a bit of surprise, then, when I waded into the new curriculum ready to pounce on the ways in which it interferes with parents’ autonomy in conveying values around sex and found instead that the inanity of the document’s guidance on simple and innocent stuff such as riding a bike was even more upsetting. Yes, the primary “Health and Physical Education” curriculum eventually gets to “genital contact” and “anal intercourse.” But not before spouting such absolute nonsense as the following:

Teacher prompt “Being safe helps you enjoy your time outdoors. When cycling on a forest trail, what do you need to be mindful of?”

Student “I need to make sure to wear a helmet, follow trail etiquette and stay in control, so that if there is a fallen tree or another unexpected object on the trail I can avoid it and not be hurt. By following trail etiquette, I am less likely to get into situations where I can hurt myself or somebody else, or damage the environment.”

***

Teacher prompt “What can you do to protect yourself from the sun’s UV radiation outdoors?”

Student “I need to be aware of the UV index for the day and limit my time in the sun during peak periods. I can protect myself by wearing sunglasses and a hat and applying sunscreen.”

***

Teacher prompt “What should you do if you find a pothole on the playing field?”

Student “I should do something to warn everyone of the danger — for example, I could put a pylon on the pothole.”

How one can believe 12-year-olds (this curriculum is designed for Grade 7 students) to be such utterly useless blockheads that they need instruction on navigating a flaw in the turf during a soccer game, and then expect them to be ready to make their own decisions about anything of consequence, including sex, is a great mystery to me.

Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/23/marni-soupcoff-the-worst-part-about-ontarios-new-sex-ed-program-has-nothing-to-do-with-sex/

[Mighty AC]

Somewhat funny but sad commentary of the program by Marny Soupcoff:

Sad commentary indeed. Those that believe grade 7 students aren't already engaging in various forms of sexual activity are delusional. Faith is a horribly flawed idea. People may really, really want to believe in a homophobic creator or that 12 year olds don't think/talk about sex and relationships, but it doesn't make it true.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Black Dog]

Somewhat funny but sad commentary of the program by Marny Soupcoff:

Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/23/marni-soupcoff-the-worst-part-about-ontarios-new-sex-ed-program-has-nothing-to-do-with-sex/

Bits that stood out for me:

The new curriculum is emblematic of the increasing role government is playing in all our lives, and the increasing expectation that it can and should protect us from all things.

The first bit requires some sort of proof. The last bit is pretty funny coming as it does in the age of conservative-led terroranoia.

Forget sexualizing our children. At this rate, the government is just as likely to render them incapable of making any sorts of calculations of risk on their own, or engaging in independent thought.

Seems to me it's less about government's dim view of children as recognition that we live in a world of litigious helicopter parents. Also, the reference to "engaging in independent thought" is quite funny in light of the nature of the opposition to this initiative.

Parents may want to stop worrying about whether their kids are ready for sex ed, and start worrying about if they’re ready for life.

Again, i wonder how much of this is driven by government or simply government responding to modern parenting mores.

Anyway, back to the topic...

[cybercoma]

It's pretty strange that the staunchest defender of teachers' rights and proponent of this legislation, socialist, has nothing to say to this threads harshest critic of the legislation, LemonPureLeaf. I'm sure their similar rhetorical styles are just a coincidence too.

[Michael Hardner]

Let them learn in the school yard like we did,

There you go... this is the view of the 5%....

[poochy]

The ranting must not distract educators from this very necessary curriculum update.

The 'mom and dad know best what's right for their kids' notion is nonsense. We wouldn't expect them to be experts in math, science, reading or any of the other school subjects, but somehow every RIGHT WING parent believes it's his God-given duty to mess up his child's development with his amateur pedagogy. Might as well ask the average parent to perform brain surgery on his children, because he knows what is best for them.

The Idea that someone as ridiculous as you beleives that they should control every detail of what any child is taught is enough to make me doubt that anyone but a parent should be teaching children about sexuality, but of course I don't actually beleive your persona exists in the real world, so thank goodness for that. In any case I don't have a problem with sex ed in schools, though i spoke to my children very frankly about the subject and taught them what any child reasonably needs to know, they were 10 at the time. Of course long before then they knew the basics. Anyway, i read that quote again and again i am so thankfull that you aren't really a teacher.

[LemonPureLeaf]

So this Liberal government is under 3 OPP investigations, 1 Elections Canada investigation. Screwed up gas plants, Ornge ambulance and more Im sure is going to teach our children about morals and ethics, hilarious.

Public schools arent to teach our children moral lessons. Very simple. Math, history, science are one thing but sex ed is largely a question of morals and ethics. Family values.

[socialist]

It's pretty strange that the staunchest defender of teachers' rights and proponent of this legislation, socialist, has nothing to say to this threads harshest critic of the legislation, LemonPureLeaf. I'm sure their similar rhetorical styles are just a coincidence too.

Did you even bother to read this thread from the beginning? I challenged LemonPureLeaf last night and put him in his place. Some people are so simple that all they can do is try to stir an imaginary pot. What a pathetic attempt.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Did you even bother to read this thread from the beginning? I challenged LemonPureLeaf last night and put him in his place. Some people are so simple that all they can do is try to stir an imaginary pot. What a pathetic attempt.

No, I dont think you did. We had an exchange that's all.

[socialist]

Probably because the child of nine is aware they exist, is curious as to the whys and wherefors and they want to know. And as such , the parent for the most part sucks at teaching this, the schools will do so.

Win Win !

They sure do !

Hurray for uneducated mental midgets ! Oh sorry.....awkward young men and women .

Do you think rectal prolapse should be discussed?

Do you think the fact that Syphilis cases in gay men is climbing? I don't think these need to be discussed, do they? They aren't in the curriculum. But what exactly can a teacher add if they think they are staying on the overall topic. I'm in favor of this awesome curriculum, but the more I think, the more I can see right wing teachers possibly inserting their own bias into the course.

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphilis-cases-climbing-among-gay-men-cdc

[Ash74]

Do you think rectal prolapse should be discussed?

Do you think the fact that Syphilis cases in gay men is climbing? I don't think these need to be discussed, do they? They aren't in the curriculum. But what exactly can a teacher add if they think they are staying on the overall topic. I'm in favor of this awesome curriculum, but the more I think, the more I can see right wing teachers possibly inserting their own bias into the course.

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20140509/syphilis-cases-climbing-among-gay-men-cdc

A point I made with the higher risk of HIV with anal sex that is also not in the curriculum.

As far as teachers adding their bias well that is just the world we live in. Like when they use their position for screaming about the latest labor dispute.

Door goes both ways

[Ash74]

What issues do you see arising? Nothing like throwing a little chicken little style fear in to the debate.

You also said this: I do worry what the whole curriculum is because what I have read seems to be missing some important facts..

What you've said, which I've highlighted in blue, makes absolutely NO sense. None. It's hard to have a debate with someone who doesn't know the facts. What important fact are missing?

Your right I did screw up that sentence but I didn't cut and paste like SOME do.

[socialist]

A point I made with the higher risk of HIV with anal sex that is also not in the curriculum.

As far as teachers adding their bias well that is just the world we live in. Like when they use their position for screaming about the latest labor dispute.

Door goes both ways.

Kids will be taught how to do things safely, in which there is o higher risk.

[socialist]

We have to remember that kids have rights. We also have to remember that parents DO NOT own kids. The state understands that kids need to be fully functional human beings in a diverse society. Public education is the only way to teach ALL kids proper morals, along with diversity and inclusiveness. Public schools and curricula are free from bigotry.

[LemonPureLeaf]

We have to remember that kids have rights. We also have to remember that parents DO NOT own kids. The state understands that kids need to be fully functional human beings in a diverse society. Public education is the only way to teach ALL kids proper morals, along with diversity and inclusiveness. Public schools and curricula are free from bigotry.

Kids have the rights parents allow them to have.

Yes, parents sure do own thier kids. We brought them into the world. We pay for what they have.

Parents decide moral lessons not the public school. A teacher in Oakville got into trouble last year because she tried to teach a moral lesson. Publuc schools arent to teach morals and ethics. That's the the parents job.

[socialist]

Sad commentary indeed. Those that believe grade 7 students aren't already engaging in various forms of sexual activity are delusional. Faith is a horribly flawed idea. People may really, really want to believe in a homophobic creator or that 12 year olds don't think/talk about sex and relationships, but it doesn't make it true.

What percentage of grade 7 students do you feel are engaging various forms of sexual activity?

[socialist]

Kids have the rights parents allow them to have.

Yes, parents sure do own thier kids. We brought them into the world. We pay for what they have.

Parents decide moral lessons not the public school. A teacher in Oakville got into trouble last year because she tried to teach a moral lesson. Publuc schools arent to teach morals and ethics. That's the the parents job.

Well, it's the 20th century now, buddy.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Well, it's the 20th century now, buddy.

what do you mean?

[socialist]

The thing about public education is that everybody gets input. However, when your post is made up out of thin air, you show everybody that you have nothing real to add.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/18/levin-not-involved-in-new-sex-ed-curriculum-sandals

The Sun reports that Levin was not involved in the new curriculum.

Michael, in the link you provided, why do you think Sandals mentioned that Levin was not DIRECTLY involved in the curriculum? I asked you this question this morning and usually you are very quick to reply. Directly is an interesting word in this situation, is it not?

[LemonPureLeaf]

She said that because this new sex ed is based on his that he drafted in 2010.

[socialist]

It wasn't pulled due to a backlash from parents.....it was Charles McVety and his merry church of the homophobic. Premier Dad turned tail and ran......as we see not Sodom and Gomorrah, but logical curriculum.

I dislike comments like this. I don't agree with calling anyone you disagree with names. It goes both ways. We are promoting inclusiveness and diversity and you make an ignorant comment about someone you disagree with. It's stuff like this we need to protect children from. Hate is not a partisan issue, bob.

[LemonPureLeaf]

I dislike comments like this. I don't agree with calling anyone you disagree with names. It goes both ways. We are promoting inclusiveness and diversity and you make an ignorant comment about someone you disagree with. It's stuff like this we need to protect children from. Hate is not a partisan issue, bob.

I totally agree with you. We need to report this behaviour to help clean up this forum.