Advocates for Ontario's new sex ed curriculum say it's just catching up with the rest of Canada. Critics say it doesn't respect parental boundaries, that same-sex relationships aren't a topic for eight-year-olds. Readers, print and digital, join the debate
..............................................................................................................................................................
I am a teacher and I see what kids look up on their phones, laptops, school computers. The fact is, they have been learning about this for years: from YouTube, peers, movies and social media because they are too embarrassed to ask, too ashamed or, heaven forbid, they feel like there is something wrong with them.
Isn't it better they are taught it in school, so that it isn't something taboo but something academic? But if a kid comes home and says they learned about body parts, or boys who like boys, or what an orgasm is and they are met with horror – now what have you taught them?
Why not take advantage of the classroom lesson to have your own conversation (and assist with, likely, some of your own embarrassment)?
If part of that conversation is you sharing your own beliefs, concerns and values, then fine.
This curriculum is going to fundamentally change the way the next generation thinks about sex, sexuality and intimacy. And those who think that elementary school is too young need to look up rates of sexually transmitted infections (from oral sex because they think it isn't "real sex"), and sexting in Grades 6, 7 and 8.
If we wait until high school to teach them, it is too late.
Jennifer Marie, Toronto
.........
Father to 10-year-old son: "It's time to talk about sex."
Son to father: "Okay, dad. What do you want to know?"
Each unit of time devoted to the trendy subject of sex ed takes from the teaching day an equal unit of time that could have been spent on other areas of study. The teaching and study of art, music and history (to name only a few subjects) may not be as "sexy," but they are far more important to the education of a civilized person. O tempora, o mores!
Steven Diener, Toronto
.........
While I applaud the government's commitment to bringing the sex ed curriculum up to date, a key message is being overlooked. People have varying levels of interest in sex, from one person to another, and in one person over the course of a lifetime. Just as some people are extremely interested in, say, sports, and follow and participate in sports all the time, others, not so much. Both are fine.
In our hypersexualized Western culture, it is important for kids to know that it's perfectly normal not to think about sex all the time (although during puberty that may seem hard to believe).
Maureen Hulbert, Toronto
.........
I don't want my eight-year-old – eight, for heaven's sake! – sitting in a classroom discussing same-sex relationships. It should be my right as a parent to decide when he's ready for this conversation. I'm furious at being bullied about this, with the implicit suggestion that to oppose this timeline is to be homophobic. I have no problem with older kids, but Grade 3?
Emily Simpson, Sarnia, Ont.
.........
Over the past few days, some of the louder voices against Ontario's new sex education program have been criticizing the decision to teach sexual orientation. The decision to start teaching kids about this around Grades 7 and 8 (ages 12-13) makes sense. [Same-sex relationships are discussed in Grade 3; gender identity and orientation in Grades 7 and 8].
They are entering puberty and have started the often difficult process of learning who they are and how to navigate the world around them. They need accurate information to understand themselves as they mature, and to ensure they have an awareness of what others may be going through. Kids who are not born heterosexual will be less likely to see themselves as abnormal or feel marginalized. Heterosexual individuals will have a greater understanding and acceptance of those who are not like them, and this will lead to more inclusion and less bullying.
I suspect that the reluctance to teach kids about orientation issues arises from the antiquated and thoroughly discredited notion that one chooses their orientation. People are born as they are, and they choose their sexual orientation no more than they do their eye colour. Kids need to know this and what differences exist. There is too much misinformation, ignorance and intolerance around to put the responsibility for teaching this material solely in parents' hands.
The fact we are still dealing with intolerance about sexual orientation shows that too many parents still aren't doing a proper job and that government and educators need to step up to fill the void.
Mike Ford, Whitby, Ont.
.........
As an active, faith-based parent, volunteer and voter, I constantly question why Ontario's liberal urban elites are willing to tolerate every perspective and philosophical orientation except the Judeo-Christian values the Ontario public education system was built on.
Michael Zwiep, Ridgville, Ont.
.........
I am amused and dismayed by the false outrage of those opposing the much needed update to Ontario's sexual and health education curriculum. All that is happening now is that the classroom is once again catching up with the schoolyard.
Jeff Feiner, Toronto
.........
Very early on, children access the Internet, which is awash in porn, much of it degrading to women and children. To counterbalance this, it is critical to give children the information they should have about their bodies and sexual feelings. I really applaud the Wynne government for bringing the curriculum up to date.
Vivienne Utriainen, Toronto
...............................................................................................................................................................
ON REFLECTION Letters to the editor
Jihadis' real danger
Re Spotlight Falls On Teacher After Six People Leave Quebec To Join IS (Feb. 27): Why all the concern about "Canadians" leaving to join Islamic State or other terrorist groups?
Let them go. Cancel their passports; do not let them return. Their real danger to Canada is providing the government with an excuse to bring in increasingly draconian legislation to curtail our democratic freedoms (Tories Agree To Increase Public Scrutiny Of Bill C-51 After NDP Force Their Hand – Feb. 27).
Joe O'Brien, Halifax
.........
Bring in a lifetime cap
Re How TFSAs Fit Harper's Vision: TFSAs aren't free. If we didn't have them, our government could offer more progressive benefits – increasing the GST tax credit or basic personal income tax credit.
There is no lifetime cap for a TFSA. If there were a total cap of, say, $50,000 in contributions, this would allow middle- and lower-income people to benefit, while limiting the ability of the wealthiest (who could easily contribute the proposed $11,000 maximum every year) to receive a disproportionate benefit over the long term.
Brian Graff, Toronto
.........
Another kind of gas
Your editorial Gassed Up (Feb. 26) says "it's good to encourage" B.C.'s nascent liquefied natural gas industry; you only quibble with the means chosen by the federal government to do it. In 2013, The Globe revealed that a document prepared for B.C.'s Environment Minister warned that pursuing an LNG industry could double B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions.
Before going overboard in promoting liquefied natural gas, we should consider its effect as another kind of gas, namely the one that causes climate change.
John Dillon, KAIROS, Toronto
.........
Warmth … and immortality
Re Hit The Saunas, Guys. You Just Might Live Longer (Life & Arts, Feb. 25): "Men who spent time in a sauna seven times a week were less likely to die of heart problems or to die at all …"
Not just live longer, live forever! Who knew?
Nancy Henderson, Ancaster, Ont.
.........
How delightful to know,
With all of this snow,
To prolong the life (indefinitely!) of male fauna,
Just put them all in the sauna.
K.M. Peckan, MD, Waterloo, Ont.