In defence of sex ed

All kinds of people are freaking out about the proposed changes to sex education in Ontario.

While I don't yet have the kind of detail on the curriculum that I'd like, I do want to point out where I think some individuals and organization are making inflammatory and incorrect assumptions about the spirit, tone and intention of this sort of education.

We've learned that kids will be discussing homosexuality in Grade 3.

It's 2010. Don't a lot of our kids already have someone in their class who has two moms or two dads? That certainly applies for my son, Cameron. He's in Grade 1. He's known a lovely two-mom family since he was in daycare, and happily accepted an explanation that some people pick as their special person a member of the opposite sex and some people pick someone of their own gender.

For the sake not just of combating homophobia but of normalizing the experiences of school children who have same-sex parents, it's very worthwhile to discuss sexual orientation at an early age. Equally important: Getting the message to kids who may already be sensing some sort of "difference" in themselves compared to others, that they are OK no matter who they have a crush on.

What troubles me is the assumption that talking about sexual orientation is tantamount to recruitment to the gay cause. That's just backward.

Certainly one's religious and cultural values give shape to views on this and other aspects of sexual education. Critics say it is up to families to address sexuality with their children in a way that's in line with the their values.

But here's the thing. They don't.

Or if they do, they're not terribly successful at arming kids with the information they need to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Or to delay sexual activities for which that they don't yet have the maturity to cope.

And that brings me to one of the other contentious points in Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty's proposed new sex ed program: discussion of oral sex as early as Grade 7.

There's a reason why oral sex is being called "the new goodnight kiss." Star reporter Trish Crawford explained how normalized it's become in a story called "Oral sex no longer a big deal, teen girls say."

By Grade 9 one third of Canadian teenagers are having oral sex. That's a fact and remains so whether or not we're too squeamish or scandalized to discuss it. If we want kids to delay this activity instead of engage in it, um, willy nilly, maybe we'd be better off explaining that you can get yucky sores in your mouth - and much worse - if you're not taking proper precautions. Or if you're trading sexual favours with schoolmates like they were Pizza Pockets.

It's important to look at the context in which kids will be hearing about oral sex. According to a story we had last night, Grade 7 kids will be learning about "delaying sexual activity, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy and STI prevention."

Did you see the first thing? "Delaying sexual activity." The intent here is not to provide some sort of instructional how-to for kids who would otherwise know nothing about sex. It's about getting kids who are already engaged in risky behaviour - or will be soon enough - to be smarter about it.

This subject has prompted some discussion around the office. One colleague mentioned that when she was going to school in Nova Scotia, sex ed didn't start until junior high. "Two of my classmates had babies that year."

A little late, maybe?

More on this subject:

Changes to sex-ed curriculum raise ire of family groups

McGuinty wants sex ed to start in Grade 3

Oral sex no longer a big deal

Comments

[Selina Volpatti]

I absolutely agree with the article. Times they are a'changin - and our children deserve accurate and dependable information. We teach them the values - let the schoos teach them the facts.

[Rob]

I don't agree with the article and I'm so tired of hearing it's 2010, or haven't we moved passed the "dark ages". It suggests arrogantly, that we are so much more enlightened than past generations. Considering so many young kids are engaged in sexual activity we might want to rethink that.

As a parent, I'm quite sure young children do not need to be concerned about sex, sexual orientation, genetalia, etc. Interesting that today as pointed out in the article, sexual activity starts at a much younger age than it did say 20 years ago. It's no coincidence that sexual education in schools starts much earlier than it did then. Make one curious and some will be more likely to experiment. Some will blame TV, the internet, other kids, bad parenting. I blame this unfounded belief that we need to be progressive, deliver the message early, it's all about the education. When it comes to sex ed, it is the responsibility of the parents. It's not up to the Board of Education to push their agenda on impressionable minds. Introduce the sex ed topic in the first year of high school and prior to that, let kids be kids. Yes times are changing, but when it comes to sex ed and kids, get a grip. Are we helping or making things worse? Boy I miss those "dark ages".

[Ron]

For all the parents who believe sex education should be at home, please provide your list of qualifications on sex education, sexually transmitted diseases, gender identification, and any other qualifications you might have which make you as qualified as the professionals who designed this curriculum. Please tell us about how you learned your sex education so we may duplicate your experiences in the classroom.

The fact is, most of learned on the street, from parents who did not have depth of knowledge, or from bad personal experiences. We did not have all the knowledge we could have acquired when we were growing up, and do not have the knowledge required to pass onto our children.

This is not about changing our children, encouraging them to perform sex acts at an early age. This is about providing them with tools, knowledge, so that when they are ready to to be intimate with someone, they know the risks involved and how to protect themselves. Anyone who thinks children going through puberty are not curious and will not try new things, is only kidding themselves.

Educating someone about pregnancy, or STI / STD at a health clinic AFTER the fact is TOO LATE. I agree some are too young, but better to prevent a problem early than to react later.

We are a progressive province, in a progressive country, and are trying to give our children more knowledge and a better opportunity than we had. I want my children to have all the knowledge available before there is a pregnancy or STI meeting required between a doctor, me and my children. The school is the best place available for this to happen. Not necessarily the best for everyone, nor the best ever, and it may not be the best time for everyone. BUT our schools are the best available. Therefore, I support this initiative.

I am not a Liberal, but this time, I think McGuinty has it right, I am disappointed he reversed his position because of some public outcry by a loud, but uneducated, minority.

[Mather Z]

The REALLY crazy thing is that there has ALWAYS been an opt-out for sex ed. If you don't want your kids learning about it (presumably because you would rather they learn about their sexuality from other kids, Sharon Stone movies, and monkeys at the zoo than from a trained adult with an approved curriculum), there has always, always been an option for you to get your kids excused from class for those lessons.

Which means that the parents who put up such a fight over the current new curriculum have ALWAYS had the option to opt out if they didn't like it. But that's not enough, clearly. They want to prohibit everyone ELSE's kids from learning about human sexuality (and oh no, the message that it's OK to be gay). So that's what I find super-disappointing, in that they've won. They didn't have to have their kids learn about it, but they somehow managed to make sure that everybody else's kids can't, even if they wanted it taught in school.

[Murray H]

I appreciate your perspective, Brandie. I was getting quite frustrated reading articles opposing the new curriculum, which were citing reasons that reeked of homophobia, or some unfounded fear that it would be a "how to" for children.

I did find one thing amusing: I've heard people on both sides of the issue claim that the new curriculum might "make children think that homosexuality is normal." One side considers this a positive argument, the other a negative one.

The other argument I've heard often is that 8 year old kids are not thinking about sexual matters, so we should not teach it at that age. Well, I don't think that 8 year old kids are thinking about math either, yet we see no harm in teaching it early.

I am shocked that McGuinty allowed himself to be pushed into backpedaling on this issue. I guess shrill screaming, bible thumping and gay bashing still works in politics. Very sad.

[Andrey]

Dear Kristine,

I understand your concerns and many educators would agree with you. In fact the new curriculum agrees with you! The kinds of things you aren't ready to talk to your grade five kids about don't come into the curriculum until grade 7 and 8. Unfortunately the liberal government did a poor job of educating parents about this curriculum and fringe right wing groups made it there business to scare and misinform parents.

Please see Ann Douglas' excellent summary of the curriculum:

http://thestar.blogs.com/files/the-ontario-curriculum-2010-chart.pdf

For the full curriculum join "I Support Sexual Health Education in Ontario" on facebook.

Cheers,
Andrey Caric

[radmama]

This is about information, which children have a right to. It is also about health- physical and emotional-, self-esteem and protection from abuse.
There is such a thing as too late. By the time my parents got around to "the talk" everyone was far too embarrassed for it to be useful, and some of my classmates were already having sex. By the time most children in Nova Scotia get puberty and sex information in school, they are already in puberty and may be sexually active.
I prefer the Meg Hickling approach: talking about they body science from toddlerhood.
And why should anyone else care about what your children know about sex? Public health.

[susy]

Years ago I taught grade 2. On a typical morning, after several minutes of various administrative activities during which the students proceeded to chat quietly at the carpet, I started the day with a picture book. One day a student asked if she could read a story she had brought from home. I was reluctant, not wanting to allow something I hadn't screened first, but she was excited, and I didn't want to squelch her enthusiasm. I quickly flipped through the picture book, seeing cute cartoon pictures, and gave her a thumbs up. I looked up from my paper work a couple of times to see the kids giggling as Betty read. Finally, I made my way to the carpet.

The book she was sharing was Babette Cole's 'Mommy Laid An Egg'. In this entertaining yet informative book, parents respond to the perennial question by telling their children a series of silly stork stories. The children then correct the parents with whimsical, hilarious stories of men with tubes putting their seeds into mommies. The illustrations - the only one I remember now is one of naked cartoon parents sandwiched together on a scooter, happily scurrying across a room together - are silly, hence the giggles, yet the students also get the basic answer to their question.

I didn't know what to do. I moved onto other activities rather quickly, terrified for days that a parent would call the school and complain. As far as I know, there were no complaints. My guess is that a few students chatted with their parents about the story over smiles at dinner. Others, for whom this information was a bit mature, probably forgot the whole thing. Still others probably knew enough not to say anything to their parents until the right time presented itself. Kids can be good at filing information until they and/or their parents are ready for it.

[northTOmom]

I'm disappointed that McGuinty has flip-flopped on this important issue. From what I've read here and on Ann Douglas's blog, the changes were entirely appropriate and reasonable.

With respect to introducing issues of sexual orientation in grade 3, I wrote an article for the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/living/article/350685--twin-sisters-question-the-meaning-of-gay) two years ago about my own children's emerging understanding of the word "gay" that suggests it's not too early, but perhaps too late.