Wynne's sex Ed

[JBen]

lol, yep. It started because my youngest (10-11) at the time intercepted a rather graphic text message (sexting) I received (Like I have any control over that)...when she picked up my cell phone one night. I was not made aware, though she my daughter told my Ex about it.

Then some snooping and finding things as kids do.....couple with me being comfortable with the topic and open to talking to my girls (then 14 and 11ish).Then a call to come in and talk with my ex, my daughters counselor about things we might do to help her with the divorce...Only to be ambushed with "She should live with your ex full time. We can do this nicely, or we can go legal".

It was three years before I found out about the text message and snooping and discovering what adults do behind closed doors...Apparently my Ex, the female counselor her lawyer thought I was some kind of freak and that my girls were too young and that it should be swept under the rug, rather than dealt with.

Wonders what Ms Wynne would say about that and the various issues fathers have....

[Fox]

No worries. I do it myself at times unwittingly.

I am very much "in favor". Do think a couple topics could maybe should be pushed back a couple years.

My biggest issue though is the way it's been brought in, rammed down parents throats. At the end of the day whether I agree with those opposed or not, parents should have a hell of a lot more say, it's their children. Not Ms Wynnes nor educators.

I have a few friends in the school board in Ontario, the issue they see is that change has been suggested for years and shot down, it seems as though the only way to implement it was to change it and say tough bananas.

It is what it is I guess, people will pull their kids if they wish but most could not be bothered and will deal with it.

I just hope that these talks with younger kids will reduce the abuse on kids.

[JBen]

At some point, the decision needed to be made.
1) It should have been part of her platform going into the election. With resistance being as stiff as it is....
2) There should have been far more "discussion".

I think it depends on regions. Some area's are (or have) reported a drop in attendance by as much as 50%. Educators had best start realizing they aren't in fact "co-parents", don't get to call the shots ( though I guess after so many years of doing just that, and with Ms Wynne at the wheel now)......and at the end of the day, they answer to us.

Public servants, not public dictators, bosses, co-parents or other.
Public service.

[MarkB]

The government does take care of the "messes" now. STD's and all the other associated issues.

I would suggest that if there is such a lack of respect in society that it might be more of a break-down at home then at the government level. Changes in the sex ed curriculum has nothing to do with societal unravelling.

I think a lot of us forget how uncomfortable it was to talk openly and honestly about sex to with our parents (Hey mom, I'm 12 and have hair growing down there). For what's it's worth my parents were great but their ability to answer questions about sex would have been based on the health classes they took in the 60's. Wonder how well that would have gone?

The world my kids are growing up in is very different from the one I did, there is a good chance that someone else might have some insight that I lack.

So, maybe the parents need a sex ed class, and they can determine when it is best, and what is best to educate their own children about.

I agree with a breakdown in the household being the key reason for a disintegration of good principles in the younger generation. However, I think government is facilitating this poor parenting, by treating them like dummies. The government should be more interested in fixing the household than by-passing the parents. Without the house-hold, and relying purely on government, I can almost gaurantee you we will not be able to afford taking care of all the dilinquents we will produce.

[kickingfrog]

I agree with a breakdown in the household being the key reason for a disintegration of good principles in the younger generation. However, I think government is facilitating this poor parenting, by treating them like dummies. The government should be more interested in fixing the household than by-passing the parents. Without the house-hold, and relying purely on government, I can almost gaurantee you we will not be able to afford taking care of all the dilinquents we will produce.

The government has facilitated poor parenting and should fix it rather than by-passing parents?

I'm not sure that makes sense (might not be what you meant either).

Many of us might expect too much from our schools but I'm not expecting them to fix what ails society just explain some of the icky parts.

[terrym]

Yeah. I really don't think this Liberal government with it's multiple police investigations over electoral fraud, coverups, lies and by election tampering are the ones to point fingers and take on the role model function. Throw in the convicted pedophile who wrote the sex ed curriculum and you know what, warts and all I'm gonna let the parents decide how they want their own children introduced to sex ed. This government has no credibility and has proven to be about as bad a government as this country has ever seen.

[JBen]

However, I think government is facilitating this poor parenting, by treating them like dummies. The government should be more interested in fixing the household than by-passing the parents. Without the house-hold, and relying purely on government

yep, one of the arguments I presented back when it hit the press and there was the thread here.

I believe educators label it "enabling" and often use it snidely with respect to some parents today. Yet oddly the social engineers of the world don't see that by making society more and more reliant on the nanny state to take care of everything.

Be it this
Be it retirement planning and pensions
Be it…

[MarkB]

The government has facilitated poor parenting and should fix it rather than by-passing parents?

I'm not sure that makes sense (might not be what you meant either).

Many of us might expect too much from our schools but I'm not expecting them to fix what ails society just explain some of the icky parts.

That is not what I said! You combined two sentences I wrote, took out a few words and now it reads totally different. Are you working on any of the Federal Party Campaigns?? LOL, just kidding.

By saying we are going to introduce SEXEd topics whether parents like it or not, is by-passing the parents. Is there any argument here? It is disregarding the wishes of the parent. This is treating parents like they are dummies and they don't know how to deal appropriately with these issues in their own household. By treating people like dummies, guess what you're going to get ... dummies. That was my first point ... the government is facilitating the breakdown of household management by treating parents like dummies.

My second point is, if the government thinks that parents aren't doing their jobs, and feel that they need to teach our children directly, then maybe they should address the problem at the parent level (like give the parents courses on these sensitive topics, or material in the least, so they can introduce it the way they want to their children). If governments try and act like the parent, things will only get worse quickly. I dare to say, we will have kids educated in only those things the government wants us to hear (brain washing), lack of respect (because it's not taught at home, the government is expected to do this, as parents become dummies), lack of common sense, no backbone (some school yards have banned tag at recess as it brings on emotional and physical trauma, give me a break).

Be careful what you (we) wish for, it may not turn out as rosey as we dream up in our heads. It rarely does.