Sex Education

[Cookie]

Here in Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty was pushing for a new province-wide Sex Education curriculum change that has since been shelved. Regardless of whether it happens in the future or not, it's still a really interesting topic of discussion.

ETA: The article does present a biased point of view in favour of one side of the argument, I'm just presenting it here because it was one of the clearest in explaining things. So keep that in mind when reading.

Ontario is poised to inaugurate a new and explicit sex education curriculum in September. According to a detailed outline posted on the Ministry of Education's website in January, children in Grade 3 will for the first time learn about "invisible differences" between people, including those of gender identity and sexual orientation, while Grade 6 and 7 students will receive information about "vaginal lubrication" and "anal intercourse."

Reaction to the initiative from a "family-focused" coalition upholding traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality was predictably, and fiercely, combative. "[Y]ou're talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe that it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices," said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values.

Unpacked, Reverend Malcolm's allusions to "thought processes" and "ability to make correct choices" reflect social conservatives' fears that a too-early introduction to sexuality of all kinds, particularly to the phenomenon of homosexuality, may negatively impact a child's normal sexual development.

That the most active resistance to the program comes from the Christian right should not distract thoughtful secularists from the fact that the program is objectionable on purely rational grounds that have nothing to do with homophobia.

You don't have to be religious to recognize the incompatibility of early instruction around sexuality with, dare we say it, the "settled" science around the "latency period" of childhood. In this schema, the second sexual phase in children following infancy and early childhood, from the age of six to 12, is a period in which direct sexual energies fall dormant. During this phase, the child gathers his inner resources and develops mental and physical strength for entry to young adulthood. Only at adolescence do hormonal changes create the appropriate psychological context for absorbing ideas about "gender identity" and sexual ethics in a meaningful light. Until that time schools should butt out of sex education.

Latency-period researchers explain that it is precisely because children are not dominated by sexualized thinking between early childhood and adolescence that they are optimally attuned to, and most highly educable in, the areas crucial to cultural self-realization: reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic.

Bending children's imagination in a sexualized direction they would not naturally take distracts them from the work they should be devoting themselves to, and raises fears in social conservatives, possibly well-founded--for these are very uncharted waters, whatever liberal theorists may say -- that the curricula will promote early, indiscriminate and amoral sexual experimentation.

Proponents of the program reject such concerns. Alex Mc-Kay of the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada claims that "young people who are very well educated about sexuality and sexual health tend to delay having sex, because they fully understand everything that's involved ...."

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2936443

---

Which brings me to ask some questions that I'm interested in hearing your answers to:

1. Do you think a program that talks about the subject matter mentioned above so early on in (age is helping kids out or encouraging early sex? When/what age is too early to start talking about sex?

2. Do you think comprehensive sex education and discussion of sexual preference are topics that should be explored in schools, or do you think it's a matter that should be left to parents and their children?

I'll edit this with my opinion as soon as I'm done writing it out.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Great find and excellent post, I am even happier because it pertains to Canada instead of the USA, so it actually effects me.

Overall I am in support of this new curriculum, granted I only have just read this news. I am for a more complex education for younger ages, I think in grade school and high school there is a lack of critical thinking in general. I know I personally didn't begin to develop more complex critical thinking skills until my first year of University, something I was definitely able to grasp at much younger years.

Overall I felt the article was bias however, presenting two points of view against this new curriculum, but no arguments for. Also, they presented some arguments as well known facts, even though I am skeptical about what I read. I have studied developmental Psychology and developmental brain and behaviour, and although there are indeed ages at which specific concepts cannot be grasped, I think there are two flaws in the logic presented here:

• We didn't see an outline of what would be taught and at what age. This article was very vague with the details of what exactly would be taught, giving only titles of broad concepts, which I doubt would be taught in their entirety, especially to third graders.
• In seventh grade you definitely would have entered puberty and begun to have sexual thoughts and arousal, if not that would be unusual. Sex education is taught right now in grade nine, so to suggest moving forward said education one year wouldn't compute with students doesn't compute with me.

Furthermore, this doesn't seem to even suggest teaching children about broad sexual topics at significantly early ages, the focus seems to be on what is taught. I don't know the exact age that I really learned about gender differences and societal expectations of boys and girls, but I don't recall there being any such education overall, it was something you just picked up and combined with sex education.

I think it's a schools duty to teach children, and if there is research to suggest that children are perfectly capable of grasping the concepts they want to teach than there should be no problem. I think there was a bias in this article and that the writer has an agenda overall, because I did not finish reading that article with a neutral point of view, it was skewed negatively. The reason I point that out is because I don't want others to get the same opinion as the author just because of the way it was written.

 

[Cookie]

I think there was a bias in this article and that the writer has an agenda overall, because I did not finish reading that article with a neutral point of view, it was skewed negatively. The reason I point that out is because I don't want others to get the same opinion as the author just because of the way it was written.

Yeah there most definitely is a bias, that's my bad. I've clarified it a bit in the original post. It was one of the easier ones to locate that kinda went over the basics of the argument, which is why I posted it. I'll search for some other ones with a more neutral perspective when I've got time tomorrow!

Agreed on the idea that seventh grade makes sense. It's not a huge jump backward. If anything, it would be even more effective coinciding with an age where a kid would definitely be beginning to go through puberty if they haven't already, and would immediately recognize the changes that are being talked about in their sex ed class.

 

[SalvIsWin]

No problem about the bias, I didn't mean to sound that it was your fault, just the bias was particularly obvious. I am curious if there are any articles that explain further what exactly would be taught. I doubt highly the teacher walks in one morning and writes, 'Vaginal Lubrication' or 'Anal Intercourse' on the board and begins to lecture, off course it's purposely written to sound ridiculous so that you feel that way about the proposal overall.

Once there are some other opinions or some elaboration on the article, I will personally do some research via my University's research network to find some developmental article. I am quite sure that the entire paragraph about incompatibility and latency period is flawed, untrue, and misleading.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

1. Do you think a program that talks about the subject matter mentioned above so early on in (age is helping kids out or encouraging early sex? When/what age is too early to start talking about sex?

2. Do you think comprehensive sex education and discussion of sexual preference are topics that should be explored in schools, or do you think it's a matter that should be left to parents and their children?

1. 6-7th Grade isn't bad. Like what was mentioned before this is around the time kids hit puberty or so. Hell down where I am from they started talking about Sex Ed. in Middle School. I absolutely see no problem with that.

As for a Beginner's Course in Elementary, however, I have some issue with. I do feel like that is a rather premature time to discuss the subject. Kids should be learning their ABCs not bodily differences and such. Believe me, they know they are little boys and little girls. They shouldn't have to be reminded on their natural instincts as human beings at such an early age.

13+ I think is ok to learn about. 13- I do not.

2. I am one for the betterment of education. Why not have Sex Ed. in schools? We had P.E. and anyone who actually participated in this knew it was a breeze to pass. Some would say there isn't a need for it, because it is like a second recess. Sex Ed. is much more educational. It is kind of like a second Science class, so curriculum-wise it fits.

As for at home, well in the end it should be left up to the parent. I am all for a Sex Ed. at school, but home is home and there's no place like that. Maybe the parent would personally want to cover such things as sex with their children instead of letting them attend a class.

Of course, there are parents out there believe it or not that don't necessarily know how to talk to their kids about intercourse. To them Sex Ed. is a godsend. They won't have to feel so embaressed if they let other adults discuss "the birds and the bees" with their kids.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I didn't start learning about Sex Education until the age of 13, so i'd say that that's about early enough. However they really didn't tell us shit about it at my school, it was more or less just your typical 'here's how you put on a condom' routine and that's it.

I feel it's important to make kids aware of the intricate details involved in sex as well as the health and safety issues for both genders. Can't honestly say i believe in teaching about each and every type of sexual intercourse. I don't think children should be made aware of homosexuality or other issues like that, unless they actively seek out that information.

Those who've read my views on homosexuals know i'm not a homophobe, but i simply think that sex is confusing enough at that age without subjecting children to all the wierd and taboo aspects of sexuality in the modern day world. If we're going to talk about homosexuality, why not bondage or auto-erotic asphixiation while we're at it?
Well, because we don't want our sexually active children choking themselves to death in an attempt to get off, but there's nothing overtly dangerous about homosexuality, unless you talk to certain individuals of course.

Kids are going to feel the need to experiment at that age. Give them guidelines on how to stay clean and healthy, and what actions are potentially dangerous to yourself or your partner, and leave it at that. This is for that, that goes there, don't do this or you'll tear her a new that, etc. etc. and that's about all they need. Let them choose themselves who they want to experiment with, and then if they want to learn about the really nasty shit......... they'll find a way. Stealing porn magazines or lying about age on the internet or rifling through dad's 'special DVDs' is all they'll need to do to find out more on the truly abnormal stuff.

 

[Ferbian]

1. Do you think a program that talks about the subject matter mentioned above so early on in (age is helping kids out or encouraging early sex? When/what age is too early to start talking about sex?

I think too early would absolutely be pre-teens (12 and earlier).
And sure, I had one sexual education class at age 11-12 (5th grade Denmark) and while I didn't really care about it then, basically cause it was just a voice with bunnies explaining shit and suddenly the room was filled with rabbits and a bed-sheet was covering the actual action (not I'm not perverted, but it's just showing that "for the love of god, you taught me shit!")

2. Do you think comprehensive sex education and discussion of sexual preference are topics that should be explored in schools, or do you think it's a matter that should be left to parents and their children?

Sexual education as a whole I welcome to be educated in school, I'm not gonna deny the fact that it might actually prove to be better than your parents trying to hold back and be all "you know, when a man loves a woman" which in the end, as I stated earlier, won't really educate the kids to any point where you're smarter as opposed to the fact that you're most likely left confused, leaving the parents 5 minutes to catch their breath and get ready for the wave of questions that the kid most likely will be throwing at them in large amounts.

Sexual preferences although, parents definitely, if I have to choose any, because I would consider it to be absolutely destructive if the kid is revealing the fact that he or she thinks they have homosexual preferences rather than heterosexual preferences.
Knowing that kids can be some mean bastards (to write it without being directly offensive) revealing your "different" sexual preferences (because, speaking with slight lack of knowledge, I would think that the homosexual community is outweighed by the heterosexual life preferences that is presented in every thinkable way on television etc.) will ultimately leave the "different" kid exposed to a heavy dose of bullying.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I have no problem with boys and girls being taught the differences in their bodies at an early age. Grade 3 is around 8? I think any type of discussion which explains sex is too much at that age, but biological differences shouldn't be an issue. Homosexuality should also be taught from a non-sexual point of view. What I mean by that is, it should be spoken about that, while most of the children there come from a family with a mother and a father, many people decide to live with people of the same sex, and even find a way to have a child - and that is also acceptable.

Regarding intercourse and contraception, the age of 11 is fine with me. Children are being bombarded with sexual imagery from such a young age that they are bound to be more curious than most of you, and even I, were at that age. Teenage pregnancy is also becoming more and more common, and we're hearing stories of people as young as 12 being parents. It's not ideal for your child to learn about intercourse at such a young age, but what you're thinking of as an 11 year old in your generation is not the same as an 11 year old in this generation. While it could be argued that we should be focusing on changing the 11 year old mind back, it'd be virtually impossible.

Also, sex education should NOT only be a physical discussion. Promiscuity and, as a result, sexual infections are on the rise. I think it should be discussed that sex isn't just something to 'do'. It's a big thing which should be kept for loving relationships, where condoms should always be used.

Finally, regarding parents, while in an ideal world, they should teach sex education. However it should NEVER be relied upon for that to be the case. This is an embarrassing subject for most parents and children, which could lead to children not being sure on the facts, or feeling they are able to ask questions. Plus, times change. It isn't so long ago that pregnancy was the main issue when thinking about sex and 'protection' was based around making sure you didn't have a baby - now there are diseases that can kill you if you don't take the right precautions.

 

[Ferbian]

where condoms should always be used.

I completely agreed with you Becca until that very point.

If the kids are taught of sexual intercourse at a very young age (8 which you found acceptable) which would most likely leave them, naive as the majority of them probably are, that a condom should be involved, even when they're trying to make children.

And of course I know that they'll become less naive with age and eventually realize that it's absolutely not the way to go if you actually plan on becoming parents, but think about it, in the end "Always" is a big word to throw onto these kids, because if "Always" is used, it'll eliminate the whole purpose of explaining reproduction, and for that young age, god knows if they'll end up as I mentioned, bothering the parents asking whether they used a condom when producing the living being that is the kid himself / herself.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I completely agreed with you Becca until that very point.

If the kids are taught of sexual intercourse at a very young age (8 which you found acceptable) which would most likely leave them, naive as the majority of them probably are, that a condom should be involved, even when they're trying to make children.

And of course I know that they'll become less naive with age and eventually realize that it's absolutely not the way to go if you actually plan on becoming parents, but think about it, in the end "Always" is a big word to throw onto these kids, because if "Always" is used, it'll eliminate the whole purpose of explaining reproduction, and for that young age, god knows if they'll end up as I mentioned, bothering the parents asking whether they used a condom when producing the living being that is the kid himself / herself.

No, I think 8 is too young to be taught about sex, but I think 8 is fine to be taught about the biological differences in their bodies.

What I meant by 'always' is 'always' in their teenage years/years they don't want to be parents. Condoms should be explained as a means of contraception which stops infections as well as pregnancy. If this is correctly explained, it'll leave children with no doubt that, when they're looking to start a family, condom use should stop. The reason I mentioned 'always' is that it seems many people still think having a one night stand or short term relationship and only being on the pill is enough. That's not protected sex and it needs to be made CLEAR that, if you're going to have sex, the pill is simply not enough. Girls in their teens are naive enough to think their relationship will last forever. That's not a criticism or me getting at teenage girls - I've had the thought myself with guys I've been with. But when that first relationship ends, and they didn't protect themselves from diseases, they're likely to catch something and pass it on to the next guy they'll 'be with forever'. Stressing condom use is essential, in my opinion.

 

[Ferbian]

No, I think 8 is too young to be taught about sex, but I think 8 is fine to be taught about the biological differences in their bodies.

I completely agree with that, I probably misunderstood you, my apologies.

What I meant by 'always' is 'always' in their teenage years/years they don't want to be parents. Condoms should be explained as a means of contraception which stops infections as well as pregnancy. If this is correctly explained, it'll leave children with no doubt that, when they're looking to start a family, condom use should stop. The reason I mentioned 'always' is that it seems many people still think having a one night stand or short term relationship and only being on the pill is enough. That's not protected sex and it needs to be made CLEAR that, if you're going to have sex, the pill is simply not enough.

That's very true, they should be informed with the fact that if they're not ready to start a family, protection is very essential, and will continue to be like that, even surpassing their teens, cause being 36 years old, at the point where you're ready to start a family, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're financially covered for it, or that the partner is, just because you are.

Girls in their teens are naive enough to think their relationship will last forever. That's not a criticism or me getting at teenage girls - I've had the thought myself with guys I've been with. But when that first relationship ends, and they didn't protect themselves from diseases, they're likely to catch something and pass it on to the next guy they'll 'be with forever'.

HAHA I completely agree Becca, I have to admit it sounds so much more awesome coming from a girl with the whole "dissing" of the constant beliefs that "oh he loves me, he could never leave me".. reality check, trust me, unless you'll get into arguments that will eventually piss you off enough to cause a break up, it's almost inevitable, although there's certainly a rare case of it here and there, but as far as I know I've normally only seen it around the elder people that are already sharing their 30 or 40th anniversary.

Stressing condom use is essential, in my opinion.

It definitely is, and I've personally always believed that, yes sure you can argue that it kills the maximum potential of enjoyment, but it's also the better choice of protection (unless you discount the fact that they're like, what 98-99% safe, not 100%) and children should be firmly informed around this subject.

And even with the usage of condoms, you cannot stress the fact that they still need to be careful enough, seeing as direct connections with genitalia to genitalia isn't the only way to get infected with a horrific STD, that one of the children could very well be born with.

And if they eventually reach the point of starting to have sexual intercourse without a condom, I highly believe that some kind of examination should have taken place before the actual intercourse, just to verify that both partners are completely clean.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Since we are all seemingly agreeing about the content and age that is appropriate, allow me to direct the discussion towards something where there might be some differing opinions:

children in Grade 3 will for the first time learn about "invisible differences" between people, including those of gender identity

With these being:

• Societal expectations according to gender
• Learning the difference between gender and sex
• Learning terms such as masculine and feminine

I am not against teaching these concepts to children, I think it's vital knowledge and the earlier the better... as long as they can actually grasp the concepts. At what age is a child going to be able to learn these concepts? That was what half of the article is about, whether the children would be able to understand these concepts, hence the paragraph on the latency period of 6-12.

 

[Ferbian]

I am not against teaching these concepts to children, I think it's vital knowledge and the earlier the better... as long as they can actually grasp the concepts. At what age is a child going to be able to learn these concepts? That was what half of the article is about, whether the children would be able to understand these concepts, hence the paragraph on the latency period of 6-12.

That's exactly the thing I've been saying, that I doubt the age of 8, or whichever you find considerably acceptable without being in the teens already (where they most definitely will be able to grasp the concept, because they're starting to seeing the reactions on their own bodies already) is the age where I'm seriously doubting the ability for a child at age 8, 9, 10 to be able to properly grasp the concept that their bodies have different reactions in later years, and exactly why that is happening.

I think it will ultimately leave the kids with a lot of questions if introduced to it too early, and it will only leave them confused, but only about the bodies influence and development during the teen years, rather than early introduction to sexual protection in some kind of form.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Since we are all seemingly agreeing about the content and age that is appropriate, allow me to direct the discussion towards something where there might be some differing opinions:



With these being:

• Societal expectations according to gender
• Learning the difference between gender and sex
• Learning terms such as masculine and feminine

I am not against teaching these concepts to children, I think it's vital knowledge and the earlier the better... as long as they can actually grasp the concepts. At what age is a child going to be able to learn these concepts? That was what half of the article is about, whether the children would be able to understand these concepts, hence the paragraph on the latency period of 6-12.

It completely depends on how these concepts are taught. What ARE the societal expectations according to gender in a society where these things have changed quite dramatically in the last 20 years alone? Should we have expectations from genders? Should that be taught, or felt naturally? Masculinity and femininity are actually quite sensitive subjects - what you see as masculine, I may not. The lines are blurring - slowly, but it's happening. There was a time not too long ago where women simply didn't wear trousers. I'm not sure ANYONE understands these concepts, so how they will be taught is off great importance.

 

[SalvIsWin]

It completely depends on how these concepts are taught. What ARE the societal expectations according to gender in a society where these things have changed quite dramatically in the last 20 years alone? Should we have expectations from genders? Should that be taught, or felt naturally? Masculinity and femininity are actually quite sensitive subjects - what you see as masculine, I may not. The lines are blurring - slowly, but it's happening. There was a time not too long ago where women simply didn't wear trousers. I'm not sure ANYONE understands these concepts, so how they will be taught is off great importance.

Yes I agree, and to add to that point, western society in general is warming up to the idea of a more feminine male, or a more masculine female. I don't think any curriculum like this could ever be passed, there would be far too many dissenting opinions on the matter. I am absolutely positive that some parents would have a fit if they learned that their boy or girl was taught that femininity and masculinity are both acceptable.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't know what is gained by teaching kids about anal sex. Is that really necessary?

Personally, I am of the mind that parents should take a more proactive role in educating their children about sex. I don't see what role school should take in educating kids beyond the biological processes.

That being said, parents today are completely fucking worthless. Kids are disrespectful, whiny, punk asses. I am stuck in a dilemma. I don't want the ever increasingly liberal schools teaching my kids that it's OK for them to have sex at 14, but I can't rely on anyone else's parents to impose any discipline.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Here's what they need to teach kids in sex education:

1) Everyone wants some, and you'll more than likely get a piece, but only 5% of you will ever get to fully dictate the terms of your sex life (e.g., how many people you sleep with, how often you get it, and whether or not sex comes with no strings attached or a person so smitten with you that you can milk them for years to come).

2) It's not uncommon for someone to get tons of sex while at the same time having what you'd consider a perfect life. Yes, you may have sacrificed chasing tail for professional fulfillment and to purchase that Beemer and the house in the nice gated community, but there's someone out there that gets 10x the amount of pussy/dick that you do and that has a list of achievements that is, if not longer, just as long as yours.

3) Condoms suck, but momentary ecstasy is just ever so slightly outweighed by the potentially dire consequences of unprotected sex.

4) If you get an STI or AIDS, haven't been raped, don't use intravenous drugs, and haven't had a blood transplant, then there's a 99.999999999999999999% chance that you're a fucking idiot.

I'm taking this plan to my county's school board.

 

[I Suck Ass]

Great idea for a post.

I am 14, but I got the "talk" when I was 11. I think that kids should know that people make babies, not the stork or some other made up thing, but when the kid finds that out should be up to the parents.

As for the kids learning about

Grade 6 and 7 students will receive information about "vaginal lubrication" and "anal intercourse."

. NO WAY! I didn't know about anal until I was in 8th grade, and that was from adult things. A 6th grader should learn about the parts or the basics of sex, but not anal. A 7th grader should learn about oral and more about sex, but still not anal. That should be saved until high school.

Hope you like my insight as a person who would be affected by this.

 

[Cookie]

Those who've read my views on homosexuals know i'm not a homophobe, but i simply think that sex is confusing enough at that age without subjecting children to all the wierd and taboo aspects of sexuality in the modern day world.

Maybe it's because I live where I do, but I really don't think homosexuality is taboo at all anymore. I see no problem in touching on the fact that people will choose to be with who they choose to be, be it with a man or woman or both or whoever. Now, going into the specific details of intercourse among those individuals... I don't see the necessity in that.

If we're going to talk about homosexuality, why not bondage or auto-erotic asphixiation while we're at it? Well, because we don't want our sexually active children choking themselves to death in an attempt to get off, but there's nothing overtly dangerous about homosexuality, unless you talk to certain individuals of course

Exactly. So what is so destructive about talking about it? I'm always back and forth with it, because I think opening a door for kids who will want LGBT support is important but then opening that can of worms in general raises a lot of other issues.

Knowing that kids can be some mean bastards (to write it without being directly offensive) revealing your "different" sexual preferences (because, speaking with slight lack of knowledge, I would think that the homosexual community is outweighed by the heterosexual life preferences that is presented in every thinkable way on television etc.) will ultimately leave the "different" kid exposed to a heavy dose of bullying.

But not addressing it at all could almost be worse than bullying. If everybody still knows (and they do still know) the "different" kid is gay and bully them, how is it helping the situation to just sweep the issue under the rug and not talk about it at all? I see some benefits to simply bringing up the notion that people will choose their partners as they see fit and bringing up homosexuality in general: a) there's so much stereotyping about the gay community to begin with, so bringing up some different perspectives could be useful and b) if a gay child is having difficulty understanding what they feel or doesn't have someone to bring it up with (friends, family, etc.) then it would probably be a good thing for them, too.

I completely see the other perspective of this and I understand why people disagree, I just wonder if keeping things the way they are is more progressive or destructive in the long run.