Classified ads | Bids | Our Weeklies | Long distance call
Transcontinental
The Chronicle
Home
Send this text to a friend Print this article Comment on this article

Quebec wrong to cut sex ed in high schools

Toula Foscolos by Toula Foscolos
View all articles from Toula Foscolos
Article online since March 11st 2008, 16:16
Comment on this article
Quebec wrong to cut sex ed in high schools
While most countries are increasing sex education in the classrooms (with the exception of some states in the U.S., still involved in archaic debates of whether or not sex education will break down morality and encourage sexually promiscuous behaviour), Quebec has decided to do away with the measly five hours of sex ed it provided in high schools.
Instead, it's promoting a more laissez-faire attitude and asking teachers to talk about birth control, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse and STDs whenever the moment strikes. Of course this approach is bound to succeed because we all know how much teenagers love to talk about sex with the grown-ups in their lives!

Most teenagers are mortified to open up and speak about such private issues with adults, so leaving it up to the personal whims of individual teachers, who may be just as reluctant to bring sex up, leaves too much to chance.

Proponents of these new reforms claim that existing sex ed classes were far from adequate and barely provided teens with the info that they needed. So eliminating classes altogether solves this problem how?

While we all know that the definition of sex ed can range from the mechanical and dry dissemination of information, the "relentless search for fallopian tubes", as sex therapist Sue Johansen said tongue-in-cheek in a recent TV interview, to "the school's football coach sticking 'The Miracle of Life' video in the VCR and retreating to the corner" as stated in an online article www.education.com), the fact remains that, for that period of time, the opportunity arose for kids to ask questions, to gauge other people's attitudes and to broach embarrassing subjects. Whether squirming in their seat, giggling, or pretending to be blasé about it all, make no mistake about it: when it comes to sex, kids pay attention.

At a time when more teenagers than ever are having sex, rates of STIs are on the rise in the age group between 15 and 24, AIDS continues to claim lives at alarming rates and teenage pregnancy is a real problem, how does eliminating a vital source of important information for them constitute a step forward?

Sure, some people claim that it's the parents' ultimate responsibility to teach responsible sexual behaviour to their children, but we all know that, in most cases, that's wishful thinking. "Shoulda, woulda, coulda" doesn't amount to much when the end result of failing to educate teens is uninformed –and possibly life-threatening-- decision making.

Of course, with the amount of information teenagers get bombarded with today, we sometimes have no way of knowing if any of it sinks in, but even if only an infinitesimal amount of it does, why miss out on the opportunity?

Your comments

Education.com writer weighs in

Rose Garrett
Article online since March 12th 2008
As the author of the Education.com article, mentioned, I want to wholehearted agree that sex education is not only necessary, it is essential. When kids don't learn about sex in school, they are prey to dangerous misinformation. Not only that, but they learn that sex is "taboo," and not something that can be openly discussed with adults. So then what happens when a teenager contracts an STD or gets pregnant? A crippling sense of shame and self-loathing on top of everything else. For our children's mental, and physical health, sex ed should be mandatory. And adults should set a good example by not acting like children when the "s word" gets mentioned.

Columnist

Related Newspapers