Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Jobam

Jobam

Well-Known Member
Back in the news......this is from Campaign Life Coalition - local MPP meetings are happening in our area....

Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum

Now that the Ontario Liberal Party has a majority in government and no election is in sight, Premier Kathleen Wynne has "coincidentally" announced that in the fall of 2015, she will reintroduce the graphic Sex Ed Curriculum that had outraged parents in 2010.
Back then, parents and religious leaders came out angrily against Liberal plans to teach early grades about age-inappropriate topics like masturbation, anal sex, vaginal lubrication, and the idea that being male or female is merely a “social construct”.
So strong was the backlash that McGuinty “shelved” the curriculum after only 3 days of public outcry.
At the time, CLC warned that the curriculum was only “temporarily” shelved and would return. Kathleen Wynne proved us right by putting this at the top of her agenda at a time when this won't hurt her at the voting booth.
Below are some shocking excerpts from the 2010 curriculum that the Education Ministry had posted online, before the onslaught by parents and religious leaders forced Premier McGuinty to retract it. It is widely believed that the new curriculum will be very similar to the original version. In fact, Liz Sandals, the current Education Minister has stated several times the original "expert consultations" conducted for the 2010 version will still form a basis for what Liberals are planning to impose on classrooms in 2015.
Grade 1 (age 6)
- Graphic lesson on sexual body parts including "penis", "testicles", "vagina", "vulva" and more
Grade 3 (age 8): Homosexuality
-Will normalize homosexual family structures and homosexual "marriage" in the minds of 8-year-olds, without regard for the religious/moral beliefs of families
upload_2015-2-10_16-17-14.png
Grade 3: Gender as a changeable social construct
-Will teach the disputed theory of "gender identity" as if it were fact. This is the notion that whether you're a boy or a girl does not necessarily relate to your physical anatomy. It is merely a "social construct". Gender is "fluid" according to this theory, and any little boy can decide that he is actually a girl, if that's the way he feels in his mind, or vice-versa. Note: The potential for causing serious sexual confusion in the minds of children is very real with this teaching
-This is not science-based teaching, but rather a dangerous socio-political ideology that seeks to normalize a mental disorder recognized by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic & Statistics Manual. This ideology being foisted on school children by the Wynne government aims to intdoctrinate the next generation into believing that transgenderism/transsexualism is an innate, genetic characteristic just like skin colour or race.
upload_2015-2-10_16-17-14.png
Grade 4: Romantic dating
-Will introduce children to the idea of being “more than just friends” and “going out” with classmates whom they may “like”. See excerpt below from the actual 2010 curriculum.
-Many parents would find that introducing this idea of dating at age 9 is not age-appropriate. On its own this content might not seem too serious, but in the context of the other controversial lessons, plus the curriculum’s connections to an alleged child pornographer (jump to link) and to unsavoury groups who promote anal play, group sex, S&M, and bondage (jump to link), parents are prudent to see a red flag here.
Grade 6 (age 12): Masturbation
-Encourages masturbation as a "pleasurable" way for children to learn about their bodies, that is "not harmful" upload_2015-2-10_16-17-14.png
-In addition to promoting the practice of masturbation, the curriculum will teach about "vaginal lubrication".
Grade 7 (age 13): Anal & Oral Sex
Under the pretext of encouraging abstinence from behaviours associated with high risk for STDs, the curriculum uses a sleight of hand to sneakily introduce to children the concepts of "anal intercourse" and "oral-genital contact". Those are ideas that many of these 12-13 year old kids might not be aware of, or at least, have never seriously considered as an act they could be taking part in now. In another sleight of hand, "anal intercourse" is lumped in as a sexual act of the same kind as vaginal intercourse, with no differentiation between the two types of sexual acts, either morally or with respect to risk for sexually transmitted disease, for which the former carries dramatically higher risk.
Was the goal in this sneaky introduction of graphic sex acts to avoid the accusation that the Minister was promoting a gay agenda, seeking to normalize gay sex in the minds of kids? By claiming that this curriculum is about encouraging kids to "delay" these high risk sexual activities, many casual readers won't notice that what has actually occurred is that the teacher has planted ideas in the minds of children that might not otherwise be present, regarding "anal intercourse", "oral-genital contact", etc.
 
I'm really sad to see that consent is not mentioned. Not sure if it's just not something they see as radical.
 
Given that the above is from a religious group, I don't expect them to list the things everyone would agree with.

Some of these gender identity things have already been discussed between our daughter and ourselves. Her reaction to flexible gender identities "Oh. Okay."

She seems fine.
 
I think CLC makes a practice of being outraged & vocal, and not necessarily very accurate.

We have a lot of thoughtful educators ... who know kids well. Many kids are a lot more informed than parents often imagine their "sweet little innocent child" is.

Do these folks thing kids in Grade 4 (see Romantic Dating) don't know anything about "dating." That they don't watch TV or have older sibs? Or have parents who are dating? :confused: Boggles the mind.
 
chansen said:
Given that the above is from a religious group, I don't expect them to list the things everyone would agree with.
Click to expand...
It would seem radical compared to some of the education I had, particularly in the younger grades. It would also be admitting that people do it for enjoyment and not just procreation :)
 
I agree chansen ... kids just often hear stuff, ask a few questions, then get back to playing or doing whatever captures their attention - it's WAY less interesting than we parents sometimes may agonize over.
 
But accurate information, especially if it's delivered calmly, in a timely fashion, in a generally open atmosphere, to the interest level of the child asking the question, 'sticks' really well in the long term. Makes your kids a good source of reliable info for other kids as well.
 
Absolutely Bette. As a parent, I was always amazed at what stuff stuck in their little brains that I thought may have passed through or passed by.
 
It is interesting to note that in their objection to the grade 3 curriculum's inclusion of "Gender as a changeable social construct" the CLC claims

Campaign Life Coalition said:
-This is not science-based teaching, but rather a dangerous socio-political ideology that seeks to normalize a mental disorder recognized by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic & Statistics Manual.
Click to expand...

The claim is true of DSM-IV. It is not true of DSM-V which is the 2013 update to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. That the Campaign Life Coalition does not note this in their literature suggests that they are A) unaware of the recent changes to the DSM or B) are aware and are being dishonest.

Gender Identity Disorder has been removed as a valid diagnosis (in much the same way the APA removed homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder in 1973).

Of course the CLC is a big supporter of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi who's major claim to fame is ignoring the 1973 update to the DSM declassifying homosexuality as a disorder and pioneering work in reparative and/or conversion therapy
 
My children still remember that I used to draw pictures. And I am not much of an artist, lol...
 
Thankfully we don't have any kids in Ontario's public school system. Two of our sons have graduated - and third goes to a private academy. If we did have kids in the public schools and this curriculum as described was introduced - I would swiftly find other academic arrangements for them - possibly even opting for homeschooling them.
 
In all honestly, i am not sure i would be confident that my childs teacher could handle this sensitive and awkward subjet

When my children were in private elementary school the school hired special sex education teachers who taught all the lcasses for a term. And there were alot of parent sessions, both so we knew what was covered and understood the teacher.

Some sessions were single sex, some mixed sex and we knew that too
 
WHile I do believe there is a valid discussion about how much/what information at what age should be presented, I suspect the CLC would think ANY discussion of some of these topics at ANY age was a gross moral failure---whereas I suggest to not discuss them, probably at an earlier age than we have done before is a gross moral failure.

I have really no objection to the items they list or the ages at which they are listed....I do agree with lastpointe that you probably need the right people to provide this instruction.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Thankfully we don't have any kids in Ontario's public school system. Two of our sons have graduated - and third goes to a private academy. If we did have kids in the public schools and this curriculum as described was introduced - I would swiftly find other academic arrangements for them - possibly even opting for homeschooling them.
Click to expand...

If we are defending the rights of individuals here, I have more faith that @chansen will better be able to determine when the information is appropriate for his daughter than any group of experts. Why do people feel that this needs to be a curriculum? Perhaps it is to stand away from parenting. So, be involved. Perhaps it is so your government can appear to asuage the feelings of what they view as special interest groups. There are elections, no? S-E-X is not like mathematics, this is a different subject for everyone and will likely have more than one correct answer. Who should decide what is "Age Appropriate"? Do you approve of a society that determines exactly when it is time for its children to abandon their innocence? Too many freedoms are lost in that one sentence. Older and wiser people than I still long for that state of wonder and discovery. Many of them feel that childhood is something important that we lose.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. - Pierre E. Trudeau

I seem to recall this man was a Canadian of some note. What ever happened to this idea? Is there more to this somewhat famous quote that I don't recall? Perhaps it was not broadcast to Europe? Is it the part that says "sauf nos enfants" (Except our children)? Oh well, I guess the state knows best... after all, they're elected. That must absolve them of all blame. Perhaps there is no history of governments doing wrong things in the name of right reasons. Aluminum, is also extruded. Teach your children well.

In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards. - Mark Twain
 
Layton November said:
If we are defending the rights of individuals here, I have more faith that @chansen will better be able to determine when the information is appropriate for his daughter than any group of experts. Why do people feel that this needs to be a curriculum?
Click to expand...
Because parents are embarrassed, or are idiots who think the way to prevent their precious snowflake from having sex with the dirty kid down the street is to keep them ignorant. The term for these kids is "teenaged parent".
 
The CLC response to the curriculum appeared on my FB feed this morning. I had to laugh. The enraged poster on FB, who was now convinced that she ought to homeschool her children, became pregnant at 16 and a mother by early 17. Her opinion. Introducing sexual material before grade nine was inappropriate. Really. And you were pregnant in, what, grade 10. AAARGH.

I have no problem with the curriculum. In fact, I think it is good. My kids attend a private, faith-based school (gr. 7-12) and I have been impressed with how they have handled sexual education to date. This year they brought in a private consultant to offer school-wide assemblies and smaller group seminars within the school. The emphasis of the program was on establishing healthy boundaries, consent, and deconstructing gender roles (boys are cool if they have sex, girls are sluts if they have sex, boys should initiate, and so on).
 
My daughter is in public school in Ontario in Grade 5. I have no objection to the curriculum. Many of the things it mentions in fact are things she's already aware of, having been taught them at home - mostly, I confess, by her mother with the aid of books. That's not because I'm especially uncomfortable with the subject, but because we've always felt it would be more comfortable for her to talk to mom rather than dad about certain topics. In my daughter's school, the classroom teacher doesn't teach the "health" or "sex ed" courses. Someone else does it. I actually think her classroom teacher is very competent and would do a good job with it.

The truth is that kids get intrigued about things that are forbidden or taboo. Tell them they can't do something or they can't know about something and that's often a challenge to do them or learn about them. So teach them responsibly.
 
Sounds awesome. That's vastly superior to what we have in Tennessee which is basically nothing or worse. There was a fight a few years ago over a bill that would have forbidden teachers from even mentioning the existence of gay people. The same legislator later proposed a bill that would require all teachers, school admin. etc. to out every child to their parents if they discovered a student was gay. Thankfully neither passed but it's still disturbing the level of support they had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top