09.08.2015 03:01 PM

Ontario: Keep It Smutty

You want your kids learning about sex from ThePornDude.com or HardSexTube.com or SpankWire.com? Me neither. And there’s a good reason for that.

30 Comments

  1. yoyo says:

    I’d rather teach my kids about how and what sex is as they get progressively older. Why shouldn’t a public school be able to accommodate that?

    • Ian Howard says:

      It’s been proven time and time again that parents fully understand the need to educate their children about the ins and outs of sex. Of course kids without said guidance will always rely on abstinence until they fully understand their bodies need to procreate.

    • Kevin T. says:

      So you have no internet, tv or print media in your home? Do your kids talk to other kids? Times have changed, this wouldn’t be necessary if people weren’t stuck in the past in this digital age.

  2. davie says:

    There you go again…liberals attacking the free enterprise system, attacking the job creators who employ thousands of men and women who have families to house and feed, and who provide entertainment services to millions. The government with its tax payer backing should not be in competition with free enterprise. The adult entertainment industry is a legal entity, and having schools inculcating our students with anti adult entertainment industry propaganda is a dream that you socialists and liberals have long pursued, and are now forcing our students, our children, to suffer through.
    Stop your Marxist and liberal politicizing our education system.

    Leave sex to the church.

  3. UFP Ambassador says:

    I think you need to re-check the official Social Justice Pecking Order Cheat Sheet – Islam always trumps feminism and LGBQT issues.

  4. Matt from Ottawa says:

    To be honest, I think the sex ed curriculum needs to be updated. I think alot has changed since I went through sex ed in the mid 90s. For people protesting about same sex aspect, I frankly say get over yourself. Its nothing but pure ignorance. Especially considering many people who are against it are new Canadian’s (not all, but ThorncliffE is a good example) , part of the Canadian experience is to show respect for everyone.

    My only concern with the new sex ed program is how much of it still has the Ben Levin factor in it. Its something still hasnt fully addressed, which is understandably a cause of concern for parents.

    That being said, I agree with you Warren. However, Ive only heard of 2 of those websites, I will have to check out the third for umm “research” purposes.

  5. Don Wilson says:

    Why can’t families who don’t want this sex ed program simply be accommodated by allowing their kids to participate in alternative activities whenever sex ed is on the timetable? Why not have an opt-out clause? Why must the Min of Ed hold all the power cards? I want my kids to take this program, but if another family doesn’t want the program, an opt-out clause would be a satisfactory compromise, no?

  6. DougM says:

    I don’t live in Ontario but I have followed this new sex-ed curriculum and the criticisms of it. It seems to me that most parents who are upset are so because of the age at which certain topics are introduced, not that those topics shouldn’t be taught. As for those who say what about the Internet, TV etc. well we tightly control that in our house as that is our job as parents. We also meet the parents of the kids we let our son go play with to get an idea of what their values and morals are. It isn’t easy, but it is our job. My son is 9. When he’s in middle school and high school things will be different, I understand that. Which leads me back to what I perceive as the number one complaint of Ontario parents, age-appropriateness of the curriculum.

    • Bluegreenblogger says:

      wow, that sounds pretty tightly scripted.

    • JH says:

      Excellent! You and your wife are to be commended. I too was raised with that attitude and tried to do the same with my kids. Something must have worked, because they are raising their children according to the same model. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Responsible parenting is never out of style.

    • yoyo says:

      I agree completely.

      People like to pretend that all kids will do certain things no matter what, but even now more than half of all kids going to university haven’t had sex before. And those that come from higher socio-economic classes also tend to be less sexually active, as do those that eat meals as a family (which might be correlated with the higher socio-economic class, but whatever), as do high achievers in school (again, probably correlated!).

      The point is that it’s not entirely a crapshoot and that parents can influence these things — so I’m not sure why people want condom use (for example) categorically normalized for pre-pubescent Grade 5 students. At that point, the dogma and blind ideology irrespective of facts is coming from the child sex-ed advocates, not those who oppose it.

  7. zing says:

    Conservative parent on the sex-ed curriculum: “I don’t want teachers dealing with this stuff! This should be up to parents! I want to deal with these things, with my kids at home!”

    Same parent calling in to right-wing talk radio show: “I don’t want to have to explain to my kids why two men are kissing! Why do they have to flaunt it!”

    • UFP Ambassador says:

      It’s not two men “kissing” they have a problem with. It’s that they are teaching CONSENT in Gr 1. They aren’t teaching kids to say NO to intimate touching in Gr 1, they are teaching them that they can say YES or NO. Do you see any problem with that? Or are you OK with a Gr 1 learning about consent so they can tell an adult “yes, go for it…”? Sounds like you’re OK with it.

  8. Bluegreenblogger says:

    You can question the wisdom of a mandatory expanded sex ed program if you want ( I don’t, but hey, that’s my opinion), but if the logic is accepted, then these are the specific kids, those who receive little or none at home, for whom the program will have the most value. On my part, I recall the sex ed controversies of my youth, and I am happy to report that those lessons on how to properly put on a condom came in handy.

  9. Andrew says:

    As a parent, you should be controlling what your kid as access to on TV, print or web. Doesn’t take much effort to put limits on these things.

    There are parental controls available for all media content now.

    • doconnor says:

      If you believe parental controls are effective you don’t know enough to prevent you kids from accessing what you don’t want them to.

    • Nicole says:

      All it takes is one kid whose parents do not monitor their kids and they bring the cell phone without parental controls to school so they can use it over recess. Or they are smart enough to override the parental passwords. Kids are on tablets by 4 or 5 and can figure out things quite quickly. Outside of attending school with your child, there is no way for you to control for this.
      The curriculum is available online… there is nothing radical about it and it has been used in other provinces for years.

  10. Steve T says:

    As others have said, the concern that I share with (some of) these protesters is that Ontario has gone beyond simply sex education, and into belief-system-indoctrination. The new curriculum also has a bit of what has permeated other parts of the school system, which is a desperate fear by administrators to not be “with the times”.

    What we get, in the new sex ed curriculum, is the teaching of topics FAR too early for a given age (does a Grade 5 student really need to learn about proper condom usage??), and the teaching of “technique” topics that have nothing to do with biology or even psychological well-being (graphic descriptions of sexual acts – what’s the purpose??).

    Both of these things will have the effect of normalizing behaviour that otherwise kids might (properly) question at a young age. Kids will have plenty of sex, at a plenty-young age, without encouragement and provocation from the schools. Teach the biological basics; teach tolerance for all lifestyles; and teach prevention and safe-sex once kids have hit puberty. Anything more, and anything younger, is just to make the adults feel “cool”.

  11. Derek Pearce says:

    If anything these parents have guaranteed that their kids will now be seeking out this info from friends or online sources, wondering what could be so scandalous that their parents are pulling them from school about it.

  12. e.a.f. says:

    By October those parents will be really, really tired of having those kids at home and/or paying all those baby sitting fees. The government simply has to hold firm. In 2 years no one will know what all the protests were about.

    This is Canada. We can’t go back to the dark ages because some parents’ religions don’t like the idea of their kids knowing about sex. In this day and age its important children know about sex and how to keep themselves safe. If parents’ don’t get it, that is too bad, but their children ought not to have to suffer the consequences of ignorant parents.

    Children need to know about sexual practices. Then they can make choices without feeling they are doing something “wrong” regardless of what the parental units say. Giving children information about sex, safe sex, sexual practises is just part of any one’s education. It would have been nice if they had it 40/50 yrs ago.

  13. Patrick says:

    The question I have is how many of these protesters have actually taken the time to read the curriculum for themselves instead of believing everything they are being told by church leaders and talk radio. My guess is not very many.

  14. Jon Powers says:

    Do you recommend those sites mentioned? Are they free? Asking for a friend.

  15. L. Salimago says:

    Sex Education

    “If it’s wrong for Catholic kids, then it’s wrong for all kids.” Toronto Catholic school trustees to a coalition of fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus who have rallied around the organizers.

    Amidst the moral panic gripping Ontario schools, it should be noted this is not a new phenomenon. December 3, 1968, Long Beach Independent: “Sen. John G. Schmitz said Monday he will sponsor legislation to prohibit public schools from requiring students to attend sex education classes. The Tustin Republican said many sex education course are ‘frank to the point of outright pornography’ and can encourage immorality…Schmitz, a member of the John Birch Society, said recently proposed sex courses ‘are much worse than anything we have seen in the past. Without moral instruction, sex education — especially the kind now promoted — is much more likely to encourage and increase violations of moral law.'”

    Schmitz was against any sex education which he viewed a part of a broader Communist conspiracy which included “feminism” and “liberalism.” Schmitz’s rhetoric became more inflammatory; one communiqué described how the “Committee Survive Attack of the Bulldykes” and described the hearing room as filled with “hard, Jewish and (arguably) female faces.” His views became so extreme he was fired by the John Birch Society and stripped of his membership for “extremism.”

    Schmitz announced plans to run for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States. It was here his moral crusade went off the rails. One John George Stuckle, an infant, was treated at an Orange County hospital for an injured penis. A piece of hair was wrapped so tightly around the organ – “in a square knot” according to one doctor – that it was almost severed. The procedure went well and the baby suffered no permanent injury.

    However, the baby’s mother, Carla Stuckle, a 43-year-old Swedish-born immigrant and longtime Republican volunteer, was not allowed to take John George home since some of the attending doctors were convinced the hair had been deliberately tied around his penis. Detectives threatened to arrest Carla and take John George away permanently unless she identified the father. Carla then identified Schmitz as John George’s father. Schmitz admitted that he had engaged in an extra-marital affair and fathered two children with his former college student. Schmitz’s career as a politician effectively ended, as did his wife Mary’s as a conservative political commentator.

    Nor did scandal from the sexually uncorrupted and pure Schmitzs end there. Schmitz’s daughter, Mary Kay Schmitz-Letourneau-Fualaau, reveled in her “strict Catholic household.” She became the infamous primary schoolteacher who pleaded guilty to two counts of felony second degree rape of a child with her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. Her plea agreement called for six months in jail, with three months suspended, and no contact with Fualaau for life.

    One month after her release from jail, she was caught by police with Fualaau. Judge Linda Lau found that she was in violation of the conditions of the plea agreement, vacated it and re-sentenced her to seven years in prison. She was incarcerated from 1998 to 2004. Before her first arrest, she was impregnated by Fualaau and gave birth to their daughter Audrey while out on bail. She was impregnated by Fualaau a second time shortly after being released from jail in 1998 and gave birth to daughter Georgia while in prison. Psychologists noted that the Letourneaus’ marriage was punctuated by extramarital affairs by both husband and wife. Schmitz also confessed to having sexual relations with her brother.

    This is how “father knows best” tends to end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*