December 22, 2004
SONGS OF INNOCENCE
N.B. premier gets earful over sex ed (Chris Morris, Canadian Press, December 22nd, 2004)
Hundreds of parents from across New Brunswick have sent Christmas cards to Premier Bernard Lord with an unusual yuletide message: scrap a controversial sex-ed program for young teens.A group of mothers from the Fredericton area delivered four gaily wrapped gift boxes to the premier's office on Tuesday, filled with roughly 700 cards from parents and individuals who are concerned about the province's new sex education curriculum for grades 6, 7 and 8.
Elizabeth Wilson and Carrie Greene said that in addition to the cards the group collected during a 10-day campaign, more were sent directly to the premier's office and the provincial Education Department.
"We are hoping that he (Lord) will do what's best to protect the innocence of children in New Brunswick," Wilson said. [...]
The sex-ed curriculum, aimed at children between 11 and 13 years of age, deals frankly with such topics as masturbation, oral sex and sexual pleasure.
Many of the parents who are unhappy about the program say it does not sufficiently stress abstinence.
"It relies heavily on condom usage," said Wilson.
"Abstinence should be a stated goal in this curriculum."
New Brunswick isn't the only province where the explicit nature of modern sex education programs has stirred controversy.
Concerns were raised about the adequacy of sex-ed programs in Prince Edward Island schools following the trial of a male high school athlete who was given oral sex by 12-and 13-year-old girls.
The trial revealed the girls were part of a group of middle school students who routinely performed oral sex on high school boys, most of them elite athletes.
Sandra Byers, chair of the psychology department at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton and a sex therapist, said incidents like the child oral-sex ring on the Island should set off alarms in schools and homes.
She said kids in grades 6, 7 and 8 are not only talking about sex, they're starting to experiment."We do not have a choice between kids having no information and correct information," she said in an interview.
"The choice is between them having incorrect information and correct information."
One has to be a warped and amoral fanatic to believe formal lessons to 11-13 year olds in masturbation, oral sex and sexual pleasure will somehow keep them from indulging in masturbation, oral sex and sexual pleasure. No doubt we will soon hear calls from the professionals that such matters must be taught to kindergarten pupils on the grounds that some of them have been caught playing doctor.
Posted by Peter Burnet at December 22, 2004 6:15 PM"The trial revealed the girls were part of a group of middle school students who routinely performed oral sex on high school boys, most of them elite athletes"
They apparently already had the essential information to get the job done, we are now just making sure they negotiate the best price.
One has to be a warped and amoral fanatic to believe formal lessons to 11-13 year olds in masturbation, oral sex and sexual pleasure will somehow keep them from indulging in masturbation, oral sex and sexual pleasure.
If you take them at their word when they say they want to actually stop such things. That is a mistake.
Remember the intro to Rick Perlstein's book, when he asked his readers to imagine a super-leftist presidential candidate -- a mirror image of Goldwater? In addition to cutting military spending and firing Alan Greenspan, Perlstein imagined a candidate who spoke warmly about adolescent sexual experimentation.
Most leftists want these things.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 23, 2004 12:44 AMWhen sex education was introduced into the curriculum, it was advocated on the grounds that it would reduce teenage pregnancy and STDs among youth. I think it is safe to say that this has not occured. So, wouldn't we be better off without it entirely?
My sense is that if the schools teach sex with the effectiveness that they teach English, math or history, then the species is surely doomed. Or we'll be like that Australian aborigine tribe that believes children come when women walk past a particular type of tree, not from engaging in sex.
The money that could be saved by eliminating sex ed would be enormous.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 6:27 AMWhen sex education was introduced into the curriculum, it was advocated on the grounds that it would reduce teenage pregnancy and STDs among youth. I think it is safe to say that this has not occured. So, wouldn't we be better off without it entirely?
My sense is that if the schools teach sex with the effectiveness that they teach English, math or history, then the species is surely doomed. Or we'll be like that Australian aborigine tribe that believes children come when women walk past a particular type of tree, not from engaging in sex.
The money that could be saved by eliminating sex ed would be enormous.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 6:27 AM"Effectiveness" has nothing to do with it. It would be just as offensive and damaging if everything they taught was 100% accurate.
Posted by: Peter B at December 23, 2004 6:57 AMTeaching error with respect to sexual matters is far worse than not teaching it at all. When children are taught about sex without being taught about contraception, that is merely an open door to teenage pregnancy and STDs. And when sex ed is required among very young children, as was the case when my mother retired from teaching 2d grade in NYC, it is either blithely careless of the harm and disruption it could cause or perhaps actually evil. There is no force on heaven or earth that could have made my mother put a condom on a cucumber in front of a group of 7 year olds, as the bureaucrats from the NYC BOE ordered her and other 2d grade teachers to do.
I don't know if I would call the concept of sex education offensive or damaging, merely unnecessary, and artificially divisive. The species was doing OK for the 250 thousand or so years we've been around before it became a topic of elementary education, so there was never a really good reason to start.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 9:35 AMBart:
You've bought into the myth. Teaching kids what sex is and how to prevent it takes about thirty minutes. The rest is dogma.
Posted by: Peter B at December 23, 2004 7:58 PMFair enough, Peter. Which is why I oppose its introduction into the public school curriculum in the first place.
Posted by: Bart at December 25, 2004 3:05 PM