Comprehensive "Age-Appropriate" Sex Education

The Province on Ontario, Canada has unveiled a new sex education curriculum that is unbelievably and grossly shocking—students in Grade 3 will be taught about gender identity and sexual orientation, in Grade 6 they will learn about masturbation, vaginal lubrication, and wet dreams, and those in Grade 7 will learn about oral and anal sex.

Such an abomination of a curriculum is in dire need of being repealed before it ever goes into effect.

35 Responses to Comprehensive "Age-Appropriate" Sex Education

  • How is this LEGAL??? How is this *not* sex abuse of minors????? All this carry on about “Catholic sex abuse scandals” of the past and how they were covered up and this and that and oh my god it’s allll about the children and meanwhile THIS CRAP, this absolute sexual violation of children’s minds, is going on right under everyone’s noses – and not one peep!

  • M.Z. says:

    Grade 6 they will learn about masturbation, vaginal lubrication, and wet dreams

    We learned about the above except vaginal lubrication in 6th grade. We may have even learned about that.

    As for oral sex, the number of students that have performed or received it before the end of seventh grade is nontrivial. The interest in teaching students is from a public health perspective, not providing a condensed version of the Kama Sutra. While I have my own issues on the extent it should be a part of public health awareness, I think we should honestly debate the actual reasons for the actions and not attribute them to other motives.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    “I think we should honestly debate the actual reasons for the actions and not attribute them to other motives”

    I don’t care what the motives are. They don’t need to be debated. It is the actions that must be stopped.

  • M.Z. says:

    Well, there are people that do care about public health and your not caring why they think it is important isn’t likely to persuade them that they should reverse their views.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I don’t want to persuade them – it would be a waste of time to try. I want to stop them. I want them overruled and tossed out.

    I believe there are still parents councils and other means by which concern citizens can banish filth and perversion from their schools.

  • j. christian says:

    Pray tell, what is the great *public* health concern that requires teaching about masturbation? “Oh, if we teach them that, they’ll be less likely to do other risky stuff.”

    Yeah, riiiight….

  • Art Deco says:

    Well, there are people that do care about public health

    Public health is not going to be advanced by discussing ‘gender identity’, ‘Sexual orientation’, masturbation, vaginal lubrication, or wet dreams. The people promoting this tripe are well aware of that.

    We learned about the above except vaginal lubrication in 6th grade. We may have even learned about that.

    You mean elementary school curricula in San Diego, Milwaukee, or wherever it was you were living ca. 1990 were designed by creeps ergo the rest of North America should double down and keep at it.

    As for oral sex, the number of students that have performed or received it before the end of seventh grade is nontrivial.

    The number who are juvenile delinquents is non-trivial as well. Let’s show them how to use burglar’s tools in shop class.

  • One of the problems with the claim that children will know about/be doing something anyway, and thus we should teach them how to do it properly, is that it becomes a feedback cycle.

    And given that there’s no real evidence that the attempts at “comprehensive” sex education cause children and teens to act any more “responsibly”, it seems to me there’s plenty of weight to be given to the sensible policy of simply not having the schools teach about sexual practice at all. (Covering biology in high school science class is fine, these sorts of “your body and how to use it” things are just social engineering masquerading as education.)

  • Phillip says:

    Eric,

    Learning about masterbation etc. in the sixth grade will lead to vice, not virtue. This in turn will lead one not to see that there are problems with teaching such things to children who are not developmentally ready for such things.

    They also lead some to make crude comments about politicians. M.Z. understands.

  • Art Deco says:

    it seems to me there’s plenty of weight to be given to the sensible policy of simply not having the schools teach about sexual practice at all.

    Bingo. Only so many hours in a day. Why not devote them to academic and vocational subjects?

  • [feel free to moderate this if we just don't want this terminology on the blog]

    My own experience of “sex-ed” in 5th grade of parochial school (the program covered body parts, things you should tell a parent if someone did to you, why you would wait till you were older because “emotional health” issues, etc.) was that the only real result was that kids ran around the playground trying to trip each other up with pop quizes like, “Hey, Scott! Do you have a cli-TOR-ussss?” or the boys sing-songed offensive things at the girls along the lines of, “You’ve got a va-gi-naaa, you’ve got a va-gi-naaa.”

    It did absolutely nothing to make people healthier, and much to debase things — which if you take the average 11-year-old into account is a pretty impressive accomplishment right there.

    Also, frankly, it’s this kind of extreme disconnect between the mainstream culture and what Catholics want (or should want) for their children that underlines the importance of homeschooling and Catholic schools with a truly Catholic identity in trying to preserve something like a moral culture.

  • Eric Brown says:

    Phillip,

    I don’t disagree (obviously being the author of this post). I was referencing to your comment to M.Z., stating that he learned some of these things in school and your response “that explain a lot” didn’t seem appropriate nor did it have anything specifically to do with discussing this critical matter constructively. So I kindly asked for charity.

    I could not agree more, however, about the evil of this so-called curriculum.

  • j. christian says:

    Yes, Darwin, that’s about right. I have vague memories of listening to a PE teacher in summer school saying “vas deferens” over and over until it became a sort of joke-sounding thing, like a city from Star Wars (Mos Eisley?).

  • Phillip says:

    Eric,

    My last comment. Learning such things leads one to objectify women. M.Z. has made such very explicit comments in the past. (I will defer posting them out of charity.) His education does explain his past comments.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    As detestable as I often find both the style and the content of M.Z.’s arguments, Phillip, you are engaging here in a genetic fallacy at best. You don’t know enough about this man to make this claim (or I suppose you could, but I doubt it).

  • Phillip says:

    You may delete this when you please:

    M.Z. Forrest Says:
    September 23, 2008 at 12:05 pm
    But phosphorious, she has a vagina. She used it 5 times to give birth. One time she did so for a child with Down Syndrome. Her daughter is even going to use her vagina to give birth, and brought her and the sperm donor to receive a round of applause at the Republican convention. How much more pro-life can one be?

  • Blackadder says:

    Though I may be misremembering, it’s seems like the Grade 6 and 7 stuff would have been in line with what I was taught at school (although to be clear, while I believe things like oral/anal sex would have been mentioned, there definitely was not any attempt to teach us how to it properly).

    I’m skeptical that there is much of a public health rationale for most of this stuff (teaching third graders about the existence of gay people, for example, would seem to have more to do with cultural norming than with public health). I tend to think that a lot of sex education is pretty useless and best left to parents. On the other hand, I suspect that most kids already know about things like masturbation etc. by Grade 6, so I don’t see things like this as doing a lot of harm (Since I don’t (yet) have kids, I may not be able to fully appreciate the desire to shield one’s children from knowledge about such subjects for as long as possible.)

  • On the other hand, I suspect that most kids already know about things like masturbation etc. by Grade 6, so I don’t see things like this as doing a lot of harm (Since I don’t (yet) have kids, I may not be able to fully appreciate the desire to shield one’s children from knowledge about such subjects for as long as possible.)

    I don’t think it’s necessarily so much that parents want to shield their children from knowledge of these topics as along as possible (though I do think there’s value in picking your child’s school and social set to try to keep things from being pushed back waaaay to early, as in the case in some region’s public schools these days) but more of not wanting conflicting messages from authority figures.

    It’s one thing to have sixth graders talking to each other about wanking off — rather another to have school authority figures assuring everyone that this is an important and normal means of relieving sexual tension and emotional anxiety. I think a lot of parents figure they have enough to combat in the form of their children’s peers, and don’t want rival authority figures presenting conflicting messages.

  • Blackadder says:

    It’s one thing to have sixth graders talking to each other about wanking off — rather another to have school authority figures assuring everyone that this is an important and normal means of relieving sexual tension and emotional anxiety.

    I can see that. I suppose a lot would depend on the specifics of what is being taught (i.e. the problem is not teaching about masturbation per se, but if it is taught as something that is normal and healthy). Likewise, the problem I would have with teaching about sexual orientation to third graders is not that they would learn about the existence of gay people, but that they would be taught it was just another lifestyle choice (except that you don’t choose it), and that moral disapproval of homosexual activity is bigoted. Since this is Canada we’re talking about, I wouldn’t be surprised if the specific content of the program was objectionable, but the article itself doesn’t provide many details.

    Actually, I think that controversies like this provide a very strong argument for school choice or at least strong local control of schools. My guess is that parents differ wildly as to what they think is appropriate to teach their kids about sex (and when it should be taught). If they could go to different schools calibrated to their desires and values, the conflict wouldn’t be so heated (it’s probably much easier to keep track of what’s going on with your local school board than with what’s going on at the statehouse.

  • M.Z. says:

    I tend to oppose sex education for the reason Darwin gave, the programs are generally ineffective. As was quite predictable, others are making these programs into something they are not, namely instruction something that might be find in Cosmo. To be more blunt, misrepresenting what people are advocating is a poor way to persuade them that what they are advocating is wrong.

    Since explicitness seems to be desired, teaching kids such things as not to lick genital warts does clearly have a public health goal in mind. When our military openly considers ceasing the testing of women for a certain prevalent STD because over 1/3 have it, there is a public health issue.

  • I tend to oppose sex education for the reason Darwin gave, the programs are generally ineffective. As was quite predictable, others are making these programs into something they are not, namely instruction something that might be find in Cosmo.

    Are you saying that you have specific knowledge that Canadian program in question is entirely about health risk avoidance and includes no “how to do this safely” kind of instruction, or are you making a more general statement?

    Even back when I was in junior high (admittedly, in Los Angeles, which is not exactly a culturally conservative region) there were local junior highs which were attempting programs which provided fairly explicit instruction in topics like “how to have oral sex safely”. Somehow I can’t imagine this has cleaned up a great deal in the meantime given the overall cultural trajectory.

  • Mike Petrik says:

    MZ,
    I agree that these progams are generally not intended to encourage sexual experimentation and behavior. The more interesting question is whether they have that effect. I’m honestly not sure, but worry that they do simply by making sex amoung youths even less socially taboo than it already is. The principle motivation may well be disease prevention, but as mentioned earlier that is an awkward explanation when it comes to learning about masturbation — something that strikes me is not in need of an assist from formal education. The bottom line is that the folks who promote these programs seem to not care very much that they are ineffective and to care even less that they violate principles of modesty and quite possibly discourage chastity. As Joe mentioned above, these people are not going to be persuaded because (i) they view all social problems as being curable by more education and (ii) they simply don’t value sexual morality. The mission cannot be to persuade them but to beat them.

  • wonderful says:

    Dear Friends!I am writing from Ontario. Our premier is a Catholic or at least he says so. He is very peculiar in his social view of the world and I think Catholicism is a great burden for him. Among many of his accomplishments are the following:1.he participated with great euphoria in gay parades,2.he was going to remove the Lord’s prayer from the opening sessions of the provincial legislature(you know to keep up with the spirit of times!)3, he endorsed same sex marriage,4 under his leadership the minister of health gave out 1 billion of dollars to many friendly organizations in a scandal known as electronic health fiasco and he put our province in a 20 billion dollar debt. One does not need enemies if one can have friends like that.Our kids will not know how to do math or write properly but will know a great deal about such noble activities as masturbation(gr6),abnormal sex behaviour sold as normal etc.

  • Todd says:

    Agreed these programs tend to be ineffective, as does the approach of total ignorance. The most effective approach is honesty and information from a trusted source: parents. But many parents are spectacularly unprepared for questions.

    I tend to doubt the program as envisioned is a problem for the ages listed. Cosmo and Maxim will likely not be the print curriculum. When I was in Catholic school, we “learned” about drugs in grade 7 and “sex” in grade 9. It was fairly explicit, but I don’t think people became druggies or sluts or studs because of it.

    The behavior toward MZ is instructive: toe the line on peripherals or suffer the consequences no matter how much you agree with us. Nice.

  • I think the problem driving all of this is that parents have abdicated their role to the schools. If parents addressed these issues with the child instead of skirting the responsibility (due either to indifference or embarrassment).

    I think the teaching of sex techniques is always absurd.

    That said, if a parent were teaching I don’t think 6th is necessarily too early to discuss masturbation & wet dreams depending on the maturity of the child-namely if the child was beginning to experience puberty, just so the child could understand what’s happening with the body as well as how to deal with the temptations. If they’re a late bloomer, I would wait.

    I don’t think lubrication is something to be discussed until about the age of marriage (since they don’t need it till then).

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    We have far too much instruction on the mechanics of sex and almost no instruction as to the love that makes sex more than merely a physical appetite. Sex education is a desperate measure of a society that has truly lost its way morally.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    How do you know your kids won’t be getting something like this?

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html

    I don’t care whether this obscenity “works” or not. This is about whose right it is to instruct children about sex – the parents, or the governments.

    I don’t want to hear about “public health.” To promote or endorse or wink at promiscuity is to endanger public health, even if you pass out condoms and show junior high students how to put them on a rubber phallus. And it is to poison the spiritual health of the community.

    Parents should have the right to reject a school’s attempt to indoctrinate their children with ideology. At the very least there ought to be an opt out for individuals who live in school districts so overrun with immoral filth that a majority of sane parents can’t overrule the educational bureaucrats.

  • Mike Petrik says:

    Todd,
    Your comparison to drug education might be relevant if the purpose of those programs was to teach young people how to use recreational drugs safely.

  • Donna V. says:

    In the early 70′s, my parochial school had a series of voluntary sex education talks held in the evenings and conducted by an obstetrician who was a member of the parish. One or both parents had to be in attendance with the child; my mother, undoubtably hoping that the good doctor would spare her the necessity of a “birds and bees” talk, came with me. I recall still being pretty confused after the first talk though. Dr. F had explained all about semen and eggs and pregnancy and had drawn some pretty detailed pictures on the blackboard, but I still couldn’t figure how, exactly, Mr. Sperm made the acquaintance of Mrs. Egg. He had been vague about that. So I fell back on a time-honored tradition – I asked my big sister when we got home. She told me. I was pretty grossed out, I recall. :-) Hard to imagine an 11 year old being so innocent today.

    Despite Dr. F’s occupation and hands-on experience, so to speak (he had 8 kids of his own:-) he wasn’t the ideal man for the job. But if you are going to have sex ed in the schools, it seems to me that’s the way to do it – after hours, so as not to take up time that should be devoted to academics, and with parents in attendance to monitor what their kids are being told.

    We are producing kids who can’t add, subtract or read, but they sure have loads of self-esteem. They might get Washington and Lincoln and FDR all mixed up, but they graduate knowing all about condoms and STDs and why it’s important to recycle trash.

    A few months back, another (secular) blog featured the results of some study showing that Indians and Chinese lose their virginity at a somewhat later age than Americans and Europeans, with Indians waiting the longest. There was a lot of juvenile smirking in the comments section: “Who knew the Indians were such prudes?” I said something to the effect that when your jobs are outsourced to India and China and you find yourselves making mocha lattes at Starbucks, I’m sure it will be a great consolation to think of all the great “hook-ups” you’ve had as compared to those poor deprived Indians.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .