Oh, and my dad set up a tab account at a neighbourhood pharmacy near his workplace (was halfway between my mom's and dad's homes) so my step sister and I could get what we needed without asking for money for it, to relieve us of embarrassment). He just said "if you girls need anything you can put it on my tab." and that was it, but it was understood.
Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum
- Thread starter Jobam
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Just realized "family life" is this forum category, and is what we used to call our sex ed classes.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Thanks Pr.Jae ... excellent link!
Last edited:
At our school Cousin, girls and boys were taught health matters separately. Coed health classes were not the rule of the day. It's possible that girls were taught about menstruation at an earlier grade than 8.
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
She isnt provincial health minister
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Grade 8 would be too late for perhaps 25% of the class (maybe more). Grade six would probably be more appropriate.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Yeah, I know and got it right in another post. In my defense, she was at one point and got more publicity for it (not all of it good) than as Deputy Premier.
Which could have been the grade in which the girls received such teachings.
As for us guys, we were taught about nocturnal emissions. We were taught what masturbation is - but we were not encouraged to participate in it. We were taught what homosexuality is - but we were not taught that we might just so happen to lean that way. I can't recall anything being taught about transgenderism, twospiritism, etc.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]You seem to be implying that the new sex-ed materials encourages participation. Could you please quote the section where you found this?
[/FONT]
Seeler, I know
of nothing that overtly encourages participation. I was speaking about my own time in school.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
I find this thread so disheartening. Let me speak here not as a minister but as a parent of a 10 year old girl.
I have actually READ the curriculum, beginning to end, which many of its opponents don't seem to have done. Most of the opposition is based on newspaper reports or on deliberately deceitful representation of the curriculum by groups such as the Campaign Life Coalition, who, in my opinion, would oppose virtually any sex ed curriculum which went beyond saying "don't do it." A local ministry colleague of mine from another denomination for example is frothing at the mouth on Facebook, repeatedly trying to organize local protests outside our schools to oppose this "depraved" curriculum, but the only evidence he cites of its depravity is the deceitful CLC propaganda. He shows no evidence of actually having read the curriculum.
Ben Levin has not tainted the curriculum. CLC and others (even on this thread sadly) have used Ben Levin to taint the curriculum. And taint is a good word. They haven't demonstrated any real problem with the curriculum, which is endorsed by those whose views I actually respect. They have latched on to Ben Levin and used him to dishonestly smear the curriculum and everyone involved with writing it and endorsing it, all of whom were apparently too stupid to realize the dangers of the curriculum. And, frankly, the suggestion that the government start over again because the Deputy Minister of Education at the time it was being developed was guilty of child pornography is nonsense. Every government proposal is written and developed by huge numbers of people. Start over, make a new one without Levin, and it will look basically the same because the experts - remember them? - virtually unanimously endorse this curriculum! But then you'll get groups like CLC trying to find someone else with something - anything - in their past and using it to once again taint the curriculum. It will be a never-ending circle, because some groups will simply oppose sex education, and they'll argue that the home is where it should be taught - notwithstanding the number of homes in which parents are scared to death of the subject. Others (even on this thread sadly) are using "Ontario's lesbian premier" in the hopes of instilling fear and suspicion about the curriculum. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying that's not what's being done. Frankly I find those two tactics - "Ben Levin was involved with this" and "Ontario's lesbian premier" - to be disgusting. Since there are those on this thread who have done both, I will refrain from stating my opinion of people who use those disgusting arguments to sow fear and suspicion.
I see no problem with teaching young children the proper names of body parts. Good grief, we were teaching our daughter those words before the curriculum would have mandated it. At age 10 I haven't noticed that she's developed any unusual fixation with sex because of it.Teaching about consent (not to give consent, but to understand the concept of consent and that no one can touch you without your consent) is fine with me. Masturbation in Grade 6? Don't have statistics I admit, but I'm willing to bet that most boys at least have figured it out by that age, although they probably don't call it that. But since they've figured it out (or at least are on the verge of figuring it out) I'd be fine with that subject being moved to Grade 5. Oral/anal intercourse in Grade 8? The next year these kids will be in high school, in a community with other kids who are much older than they are and will possibly be talking about such things. I'd prefer that my daughter get accurate information - especially about the dangers of sti's involved with any sexual activity and the fact that the only way to be guaranteed to avoid such diseases is abstinence from sexual activity - which the curriculum notes!
I accept that there are parents who don't like this curriculum. They have the right to express their opinions. I have the right to disagree and to dismiss their opinions as uninformed - which I do - and to recommend that they actually read the curriculum as opposed to the propaganda being spread about the curriculum.
I have actually READ the curriculum, beginning to end, which many of its opponents don't seem to have done. Most of the opposition is based on newspaper reports or on deliberately deceitful representation of the curriculum by groups such as the Campaign Life Coalition, who, in my opinion, would oppose virtually any sex ed curriculum which went beyond saying "don't do it." A local ministry colleague of mine from another denomination for example is frothing at the mouth on Facebook, repeatedly trying to organize local protests outside our schools to oppose this "depraved" curriculum, but the only evidence he cites of its depravity is the deceitful CLC propaganda. He shows no evidence of actually having read the curriculum.
Ben Levin has not tainted the curriculum. CLC and others (even on this thread sadly) have used Ben Levin to taint the curriculum. And taint is a good word. They haven't demonstrated any real problem with the curriculum, which is endorsed by those whose views I actually respect. They have latched on to Ben Levin and used him to dishonestly smear the curriculum and everyone involved with writing it and endorsing it, all of whom were apparently too stupid to realize the dangers of the curriculum. And, frankly, the suggestion that the government start over again because the Deputy Minister of Education at the time it was being developed was guilty of child pornography is nonsense. Every government proposal is written and developed by huge numbers of people. Start over, make a new one without Levin, and it will look basically the same because the experts - remember them? - virtually unanimously endorse this curriculum! But then you'll get groups like CLC trying to find someone else with something - anything - in their past and using it to once again taint the curriculum. It will be a never-ending circle, because some groups will simply oppose sex education, and they'll argue that the home is where it should be taught - notwithstanding the number of homes in which parents are scared to death of the subject. Others (even on this thread sadly) are using "Ontario's lesbian premier" in the hopes of instilling fear and suspicion about the curriculum. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying that's not what's being done. Frankly I find those two tactics - "Ben Levin was involved with this" and "Ontario's lesbian premier" - to be disgusting. Since there are those on this thread who have done both, I will refrain from stating my opinion of people who use those disgusting arguments to sow fear and suspicion.
I see no problem with teaching young children the proper names of body parts. Good grief, we were teaching our daughter those words before the curriculum would have mandated it. At age 10 I haven't noticed that she's developed any unusual fixation with sex because of it.Teaching about consent (not to give consent, but to understand the concept of consent and that no one can touch you without your consent) is fine with me. Masturbation in Grade 6? Don't have statistics I admit, but I'm willing to bet that most boys at least have figured it out by that age, although they probably don't call it that. But since they've figured it out (or at least are on the verge of figuring it out) I'd be fine with that subject being moved to Grade 5. Oral/anal intercourse in Grade 8? The next year these kids will be in high school, in a community with other kids who are much older than they are and will possibly be talking about such things. I'd prefer that my daughter get accurate information - especially about the dangers of sti's involved with any sexual activity and the fact that the only way to be guaranteed to avoid such diseases is abstinence from sexual activity - which the curriculum notes!
I accept that there are parents who don't like this curriculum. They have the right to express their opinions. I have the right to disagree and to dismiss their opinions as uninformed - which I do - and to recommend that they actually read the curriculum as opposed to the propaganda being spread about the curriculum.
Grade 8 (age 13 here) would've been too late for most of us. 12-15 is when my friends and I were getting first periods. I think Grade 5 - when we had our education about menstration (age 10) was appropriate - some girls do get it that early.
This article says average age of first menstruation for girls is now anywhere between 10-16. But the process of puberty starts younger than that (it was the last thing to happen if I recall). Is it hormones in the food causing this?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/122207-early-onset-menstrual-cycle/#page=1
http://www.livestrong.com/article/122207-early-onset-menstrual-cycle/#page=1
Revsdd, if you prefer to hide your head in the sand by saying that no one is concerned about Ben Levins participation in this issue, then go for it. To me there most certainly are parents out there who have these fears. It has tainted and polarized many, and from what I can see, it will take more than just saying he didn't have any part in writing it. This statement should be backed up with facts. So if people are getting "their shirt in a knot" over this particular issue then I would think the Ontario government should be more "open" with the constituents and put the names of those who did contribute to putting the new curriculum together on the document. Of course this will make them more accountable also which should be a good thing.They should also reference the studies that led them to the conclusion of the age appropriate justifications as to why certain subjects are being introduced at any particular age. Quite frankly, as an example, I find the justification for starting menstruation earlier in life as a reason to have more advanced discussions about things such as anal sex disturbing if they are only considering chronological age while ignoring the developmental /mental age of the child. And love, ethics,....off the table?
And for the record, I will repeat, the premiers sexual orientation is not even a consideration in how I see any of this. I am looking for open dialogue from the government and when I hear concerns being brought up all over the province about Ben Levin, it should be addressed in an honest and forthright manner. And that would include transparency as to who the team was that actually wrote it and their sources. What is so hard about that?
And for the record, I will repeat, the premiers sexual orientation is not even a consideration in how I see any of this. I am looking for open dialogue from the government and when I hear concerns being brought up all over the province about Ben Levin, it should be addressed in an honest and forthright manner. And that would include transparency as to who the team was that actually wrote it and their sources. What is so hard about that?
A teacher who is a regular poster here at Wondercafe2 reported that she has already informed her students who expressed thoughts along the same lines as what the new curriculum will teach that they were correct in their thinking. Thus, it seems logical to prognosticate that at least some teachers will be willing to dole out government-sanctioned morality when the new curriculum rolls in.
My understanding is it will be up to each board as to how they implement these changes. Those boards with more money could possibly hire someone who specializes in this area for proper instruction. Others with a lower budget will require those who are already teaching in their schools to do it. Whether they're trained in this area or not....the curriculum will provide sample questions to approach the topic being discussed. So it really bears paying attention as to what your child will be taught and by whom. It could be a 22 year old teacher just out of school herself (which isn't always a bad thing, but could be) or it could be someone with more training and expertise on the subject who is very comfortable in this area. There seems to be a lot of room for innovation, which also could be good or bad IMHO.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Waterfall said:
In conversation with my wife this morning about this issue she tells me that it is practice to list the contributors to the curriculum at the front end of the document. Typically it is page two or so. I don't have a copy handy does anyone?
Waterfall said:
Which should be included.
That's part of the reason I tried to access the Government site. I will try again. Thanks!