You’re teaching our kids WHAT?

The latest buzzword in high school sex ed class is ‘pleasure’—not everyone is pleased

by Lianne George on Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:00pm - 82 Comments

You’re teaching our kids WHAT?Good For Her, a woman-focused sex shop in downtown Toronto, is not your average erotic emporium, if only because it serves tea. Tucked away in a cozy converted Victorian, the store features all of the usual adult fare—vibrators, lubricants, flavoured condoms, X-rated books and DVDs—but what’s notably different is the tone of the place, inspired, it would seem, by someone’s zany, free-spirited aunt. Guided by a philosophy of inclusive, non-threatening, pleasure-focused sex education, Good For Her has become well-known for its great-sex workshops, which it offers in-store, on university campuses, and at bridal showers and private parties. The message is always the same: your body is a gift, people. Explore it. Take care of it. Enjoy it.

About a year and a half ago, Good For Her’s founder, Carlyle Jansen, started getting phone calls from an unlikely market niche: local high school teachers, asking if she would come by their classes and talk to the kids about sex. The fact is, the majority of public school teachers are never explicitly trained to teach sexual education. In many cases, it’s the rookies—perhaps trained in math or gym—who get stuck with it. “Sometimes they’d call because they don’t know enough about it themselves,” Jansen says. “Or they’re uncomfortable.” Teachers can find it unpleasant to make the leap from geometry to sexting. “They feel like they have to then talk to the kids the next day and have an ongoing relationship,” she says, “so it’s easier to bring someone in from outside.”

And so, happy to oblige, Jansen and some of her colleagues visited the Toronto classrooms and tried to get a feel for what students knew, what they didn’t know, and moreover, what they wanted to know. The more workshops they conducted—she guesses they’ve done 12 to 15 so far—the more convinced they became that high school students are navigating a huge information gap, and that in many schools, the current sex ed curriculum is woefully inadequate. “Kids are taught to death about all the bad things that can happen to them if they have sex,” she says. “They’ve said, ‘We’ve heard about sexually transmitted infections, we know you can get pregnant, but we want to know about pleasure and we want to know about healthy relationships.’ ”

In her workshops, Jansen urges teens to ask about anything and everything, from masturbation, gender identity and same-sex feelings to sex toys (which they keep on hand in case the subject comes up), why people like oral sex, and why that particular act should go both ways. She encourages them to role play in order to learn how to broach difficult conversations. For instance, how do you raise the subject of condoms in the heat of the moment? And what do you do if a boy says he won’t wear one? To help illustrate the “pleasure centres” portion of the lesson, Jansen and her colleagues bring in visual aids from the store, including a plush pink vulva puppet. “People laugh. They can’t believe it,” she says. “But they don’t know what a vulva looks like. Adult women don’t know what a vulva looks like.” To describe the male anatomy, they bring a dildo. “We usually bring one that is silver-coloured and we say, ‘This is the head of the penis. This is the shaft. These are the sensitive parts.’ ”

Soon, even more teens will be able to take part in the Good for Her version of sex ed. Jansen has helped launch the Sexual Health Education Pleasure Project (SHEPP)—a non-profit organization devoted to providing free, pleasure-based sex ed workshops for youth in schools and community groups in Toronto. Visitors to SHEPP’s newly minted website, Shepptoronto.com, will note that parts of the lesson plan sound more like the table of contents of Cosmopolitan than anything a high-schooler might traditionally learn in class: “The art of dating—in person, online and texting”; “Negotiating what you want—in and out of the bedroom”; “Pleasure centres and anatomy basics (what feels good, what doesn’t, and where to find it)”; and “Cool, safe, and hot sex.” The goal, Jansen assures, is not to urge kids to get out there and do it, but to present them with facts and choices so they can make informed personal decisions.

Now say you’re the parent of a 14-year-old, and your kid comes home one day and tells you that the owner of a sex shop came into her classroom, dildo in hand, and talked to the kids about ways to make their love lives “hot and sexy.” Are you going to breathe a sigh of relief that someone else is telling your kid this stuff, or is your inner Bill O’Reilly going to surface? Maybe you’ll want to know what, pray tell, was wrong with the old euphemistic puberty puns and plastic pelvises?

Like it or not, Jansen isn’t the only person pushing for more “pleasure” in sex ed. The fact is, while parents were looking the other way, and many do prefer to look the other way, a substantial shift has been unfolding in the world of sexual education. The old model of simply mapping out basic anatomy and issuing warnings about diseases is giving way—not only in pockets of Canada, but also in the U.S. and abroad—to a pleasure-focused brand of sex education, which emphasizes the healthy and fun sides of sex. Its growing network of proponents sees pleasure-focused sex ed as an urgent necessity in an age of sexting, Internet porn, and Disney heroines-gone-wild. It’s not about advocating sex, they say. Rather, it’s the belief that radical openness will demystify sex and help give teens the confidence to make smarter choices. “What we have found is, if you talk about how to prevent STIs, youth tune you out,” says Jansen. “If you talk about how things work and what are the different options, they pay attention. There are safer-sex messages implicit in what we say, but it’s within a package that’s more interesting to them.”

Recently, Oprah Winfrey drew attention to the subject when her show’s resident sexpert, Dr. Laura Berman—a staunch pleasure proponent—introduced her audience to the idea of “cradle to grave” sex education. By Grade 2, she said, kids should know the truth about where babies come from. By Grade 5, masturbation, orgasm and the mechanics of sex should be covered, and by Grade 6, kids should know about “safer-sex” options. Perhaps most controversially, Berman told the audience of aghast moms that when their daughters hit 15 or 16, they might want to consider buying them a clitoral vibrator to teach them the joys of exploring their own bodies. The rationale, she says, is that it’s an opportunity to boost self-esteem: “You’re teaching them about pleasuring themselves and taking the reins of their own sexuality so that they don’t ever have to depend on any teenage boy to do it for them.” (As outrageous a birthday gift as it may seem, some parents are listening. In recent years, Jensen has started to notice more mothers coming into Good For Her with their daughters, ages 13 to 16, for precisely this purpose.)

In the U.S., a Washington-based non-profit called the Coalition for Positive Sexuality provides information, resources and an online forum to teens, advising them that access to candid sex information is their right. Its “Just Say Yes” campaign says, “we’re tired of people telling us what we can and can’t do. There’s no preaching. No moralizing. Just the facts.” In addition to all the standard safer-sex information, CPS’s website offers suggestions for safe and fun ways teens can “get off.” The idea being that if you want to steer kids away from the riskiest types of behaviours, you have to provide them with fun, creative alternatives. (Among its suggestions: “suck, kiss, touch, bite, fondle, nibble, squeeze, and lick” and “look at sexy pictures and videos.” The list gets more explicit from there.) One of CPS’s promotional posters features three teenage girls whispering to each other, one of whom is holding an open binder filled with little plastic bottles. “The secret to great sex . . .” the tag line reads: “water-based lube!”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Parents are pissed because somebody brings up "pleasure" when discussing (and teaching about) sex? Did I read that right? What the bloody H are these parents teaching their kids?

    OK, maybe it does take a village after all.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Everyone is in agreement that young adults should be taught about healthy, happy sex.

    The disagreement concerns what comprises healthy, happy sex. For example, is pleasure the same as happiness? Aristotle debunked that canard rigorously 2300 years ago. Most adults have debunked it by personal experience (and error) by the time they reach 40. Therefore is pleasurable sex the same as happy sex? Or healthy sex?

    Someone has to figure these things out. I'd wager that Ms. Jansen has never even thought about them. Young adults need to figure them out too, but they can avoid a lot of misery later in life if someone gives them a little guidance. Someone with their best interest in mind and a wealth of life experience. That someone is their parent, not (in general) the local sex-shop owner.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Everyone is in agreement that young adults should be taught about healthy, happy sex.

    The disagreement concerns what comprises healthy, happy sex. For example, is pleasure the same as happiness? Aristotle debunked that canard rigorously 2300 years ago. Most adults have debunked it by personal experience (and error) by the time they reach 40. Therefore is pleasurable sex the same as happy sex? Or healthy sex?

    Someone has to figure these things out. I'd wager that Ms. Jansen has never even thought about them. Young adults need to figure them out too, but they can avoid a lot of misery later in life if someone gives them a little guidance – someone with their best interest in mind and a wealth of life experience. That someone is their parent, not (in general) the local sex-shop owner.

  • Mike T.

    This article ain't gonna help Macleans spread to the under 30 demographic anytime soon.

  • Karen

    In fact, misinformation may be one reason that, although teen pregnancy rates are down nationwide, STI rates among teenagers in Canada are surging"

    Teen pregancy rates are not down. High rates of teen abortion mask high teen pregnancy rates.

    I think the lesson of this post is "teach it at home". That way, your child has a base of knowledge when confronted with these school activities.

    • statreader

      Karen, pregnancy rates already include abortion, miscarriage and live birth rates. If you think teen pregnancy rates in Canada are on the rise, I suggest you re-check your sources. Teen pregnancy rates have

  • CLM

    From the article….
    "Whether they’re advocating pleasure or military action, most sex educators have the same goal in mind—to get teens to have less sex.".
    Talk about a mixed message!! How in heaven's name do they think they are going to be discouraging teen sex when they are concurrently giving teens the "how to" lesson on how to make it really, reeeeally fun!!!!?? Why do you think STI's are on the increase? Because kids haven't been encouraged to NOT have sex. They've been given the green light.

    • Mike T.

      Yeah, that's been working for 1000s of years.

      Seriously, does everyone who has a child immediately forget what it was to be a teenager?

    • Darden Cavalcade

      The green light is in our DNA. The only effective means of encouraging abstenance beyond a certain age is the threat of unpleasant consequence…disease, pregnancy, or wrath of God.

      If SHEPP, CPS, and like programs can help produce self-confident, informed people who are comfortable with their sexuality, have all the information they need to protect themselves, and have high expectations of their relationships. Isn't that desireable?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        I regret that I can give but one thumbs-up to Darden's comment. Intense Debate will not let me click more than once. Shame, that. If only more parents shared this common-sense wisdom…

  • Ralph

    Here's a letter I wrote to the Canadian Press about misleading reporting of Teen abortion statistics. I would urge Maclean's to uphold standards of journalistic integrity when reporting healthcare statistics to Canadians.
    http://groups.google.com/group/abortion-in-canada…

  • Karen

    This is a test.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Everyone agrees that young adults should be taught about healthy, happy sex.

    The disagreement concerns what exactly comprises healthy, happy sex. For example, is pleasure the same as happiness? Aristotle debunked that canard rigorously 2300 years ago. Most adults have debunked it by personal experience (and error) by the time they reach 40. Therefore is pleasurable sex the same as happy sex? Or healthy sex?

    I'd wager that Ms. Jansen has never even thought about these considerations rather than taking pleasure and physical health as the ultimate goals. Young adults need to figure these questions out too, but they can avoid a lot of misery later in life if someone gives them a little guidance – someone with their best interest in mind and a wealth of life experience. That someone is their parent, not (in general) the local sex-shop owner.

    • Jim

      I don't think Ms Jansen ever says that pleasure and physical health are the ultimate goals. Saying so is constructing a straw man. She talks about healthy relationships and subjects like same-sex feelings and gender identity too, and she never says which topic is most important.

  • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

    Sex education is definitely in need of reform. Having someone to actually talk about sex and relationships would have been amazingly helpful. Teens should not learn about sex from porn and Cosmo or from their terribly awkward gym teacher.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Thinking back to grade six, I would not have objected at all to sex ed from my gym teacher. Why, I would have been quite cool with some practical sessions to complement the theor– *slaps self* — …

      • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

        since I don't know what your gym teacher was like, I can only envision mine. Gross.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D James Loewen

    Teacher Kim Mitchell is to be applauded for her frank and honest approach to teaching sexuality in her classroom. Her statement about students from other cultures though, "They may come from a place where genital mutilation is still occurring…" suggests that our culture is one of genital integrity, and that is false.

    Indeed we live in a culture that still routinely cuts off the most sexually sensate part of many infant boys penises. Denial has many gasping, "How can you call male circumcision mutilation?" If we wish to raise sexually healthy young adults and claim to offer frank discussion of sex and their bodies then male circumcision forced upon infants and children must also be understood for what it is.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      I don't feel mutilated, violated, victimized or in any way deprived by the loss of my foreskin. While I am unable to say what it is I may be missing, given I have never had any other reality than the one in which I find myself now, I'm right as rain, so don't go making any claims on my behalf, pal.

      As for "the most sexually sensate part of many infant boys penises", I'm no doctor, but I think the glans might be just a little more important, don't you?

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D James Loewen

        Of course you don't feel mutilated, victimized or in any way deprived by the loss of your foreskin. Societies that cut children reinforce the dogma needed to convince those who are cut that they are better off without the part that was remove. Are you willing to give up any more of your penis skin?

        As for sensation it should come as no surprise that the distal end of a body part contains the most sensation. The fingertips lips and foreskin are all unique, they contain Meissner's corpuscles, a type of nerve endings in the skin that are responsible for sensitivity to light touch. They are distributed throughout the skin, but concentrated in areas especially sensitive to light touch, such as the fingertips, palms, soles, lips, tongue, face and the male and female prepuce.

        Actually doctors Morris J. Sorrells, James Snyder and Mark D. Reiss did an extensive penile sensitivity test, Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis, published in British Journal of Urology, Oct 2006 they concluded: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

          Arguments in favour of circumcision include the reduction in urinary tract infections and, therefore, lower infant mortality rates, especially in developing countries; chances of cancer; assorted inflammations due to different causes; and is far safer for the owner of the penis and his partners with respect to STDs.

          This decision, made by parents on a regular basis, balancing your arguments and those of protagonists of circumcision, including some of the considerations I just cited, are not made invariably because social, religious or other sources pressure them into doing so. In North America, I feel relatively safe in asserting that our "society" does not expect this of us as parents, since we come from a disparate range of racial, religious and cultural backgrounds, covering the full gamut. Our doctor did not advocate one decision over another. We made our decision, for good or for bad, on our best understanding of what we were doing.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D James Loewen

            Anyone who cuts off part of a child's healthy genitals needs to look a bit more deeply at the "best understanding" that led to that choice, and also to understand how society can coerce us to the most inhumane and barbaric actions. Circumcision is going the way of the lobotomy, though a few opportunistic "doctors" fight to preserve an easy source of revenue, despite the fact that circumcision of children breaks the Hippocratic Oath.

      • Zeph

        But by using the same logic; if it would be normal to remove the toes of babies, not having experienced anything different, it's unlikely you would consider this a big deal either… but it's still a form of mutilation.

        There is two important points on this:
        1- Circumcision is made (mostly) on babies and not at an age when the person concerned could clearly tell the "before/after" difference, making the procedure not only completely unnecessary but also unethical as well (ie, the baby's life and health is not threatened in any way, in fact while very low, the procedure, like any procedure, has risk).
        2- Lacking the foreskin means that the skin of the glans get thicker from rubbing directly against the pant/underwear (in the same way that someone who always walk around barefoot has a much thicker foot skin than someone always walk in comfortable shoes). As a consequence of this the sensibility is reduced.

        So basically, I don't see why people should be forced in that situation.

      • Cae

        Actually, there are more nerves per square inch in the foreskin.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      Funny, I'm having difficulty finding the replies I have made to you, or yours to mine. This post shows 4 total replies before I add this one, but only shows my initial reply to your post. I wonder why that is?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      Zeph,

      I'm sorry, but using exaggerated comparisons is ridiculous. Every time I fell on my face, I would be reminded of the loss of my toes. Using the risk bugaboo in point #1 is also nonsense. You simply tote the complications reports from the procedure against all of the known health risks of maintaining the foreskin and make your decision. I am happy enough with the decison my parents made that, after considering the evidence, I made the same decision.

      On point #2, you are using armchair logic, not empirical evidence. Again, I would weigh the health risks against the fact that I experience tremendous pleasure form my sex life and come to the same conclusion as above.

      If you make a decision I don't agree with, I feel that's your call. I don't villify you or imply barbarity, even though I feel you are exposing your son to unnecessary risk. Please respect my right to make the same call counter to your opinion.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      Zeph,

      I'm sorry, but using exaggerated comparisons is ridiculous. Every time I fell on my face, I would be reminded of the loss of my toes. Using the risk bugaboo in point #1 is also nonsense. You simply tote the complications reports from the procedure against all of the known health risks of maintaining the foreskin and make your decision. I am happy enough with the decison my parents made that, after considering the evidence, I made the same decision.

      On point #2, you are using armchair logic, not empirical evidence. Again, I would weigh the health risks against the fact that I experience tremendous pleasure from my sex life and come to the same conclusion as above.

      If you make a decision I don't agree with, I feel that's your call. I don't villify you or imply barbarity, even though I feel you are exposing your son to unnecessary risk. Please respect my right to make the same call counter to your opinion.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      "Anyone who cuts off part of a child's healthy genitals needs to look a bit more deeply at the "best understanding" that led to that choice, and also to understand how society can coerce us to the most inhumane and barbaric actions. Circumcision is going the way of the lobotomy, though a few opportunistic "doctors" fight to preserve an easy source of revenue, despite the fact that circumcision of children breaks the Hippocratic Oath."

      Clearly I am corresponding with an evangelical zealot. Once the initial onslought of their strong assertions is rebuffed, air quotes and ad hominems break out.

  • Larry

    Reasons same sex-sex or homosexuality is wrong are: Their are two human genders not just one thus males and females are naturally intended for each other. It's because of heterosexuality not homosexuality the human race has become. All kids whenever possible deserve both a dad and a mom not two or three moms.

    • Anony Moose!

      Larry not 2 people give a care about what you are saying here. This article isn't saying its right or wrong. Please read the damn thing before posting something as controvercial as thing.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Go back under your bridge.

    • John D

      You are a genius. Why has no one thought of this before?

  • TrebleClef

    Silly me, I thought pleasure happened when you met the right person and fell in love and grew together in closeness and understanding. If I were in school or had children still in school, I would be resentful of having porn and gadgets and the word "fun" foisted upon me. How cheap.

    • Kim Morton

      It is because of people like you that teens and indeed many adults have such a poor understanding of sexual issues. Same as the homophobe Larry does not help teens come to terms with what is happening to their bodies or their minds.
      There is no difference between teaching about sex than there is about drugs. Teens are smart and if you lie to them about a little thing they will not believe you when it comes to something really important. Having someone who will encourage teens to ask questions and answer them honestly is an invaluable asset.

      • TrebleClef

        You have read things into my two and a half lines that weren't there, perhaps reflecting your own prejudice against people who look for more depth and meaning and quality than one finds in plastic toys and sexual acts depicted on film. Of course I am favour of high-quality sex education. When it comes to the values of sex shop vendors and the film industry, I would want the choice to listen to them or ignore them. Don't worry, any annoyance at having words put in my mouth is more than allayed by the hilarity of being lumped in with the homophobe Larry, whoever that is. I think anyone who knows me and my passionate views on equality for all people would find that quite amazing! I'm out of here. Go and rail against someone else for things they didn't say.

    • Mind Your Matter

      for YOU, that's what pleasure is. And sure, lots of people find sex with someone they're in love the way THEY want to experience sex.

      But not everyone thinks there is a "right" person, and plenty of people are totally comfortable and enjoy — and feel that it is RIGHT for them for whatever reason — with having fun sex. With WHOEVER they want, be it with someone they're in love with or not. The problem with what you, and many other people against this type of sex ed, are saying, is that you assume everyone feels the same way you do. Sorry, but that's just not the reality.

      Instead of quashing everyone else's feelings and opinions, embrace it; let this kind of sex ed happen. Because kids aren't going to go "oh this sounds amazing!" and run out there and have sex. Because some teens also feel like they only want to have sex with someone they love (even if that someone they love is in their life at that moment, that doesn't make it any less legitimate than you having sex with someone you're in love with right now, at your age).

      And those who DO feel comfortable with more casual sex, will then be able to do it SAFELY, for heart, mind, and body, knowing what they want, knowing how to learn what the other person (or people) wants, how their body works, and how the OTHER person's (or people's) body works.

      NOT telling teens this stuff about pleasure won't stop them from being curious, it won't stop them from going out and experiencing it. But telling them can make them either less curious (because some of that curiosity might come from it being so taboo), and/or a whole lot more safe physically and emotionally when they DO start with sexual activity.

      • TrebleClef

        I didn't say anything about "quashing everyone else's feelings and opinions." I expressed my feelings and opinions and you don't have to agree. I would choose not to take part in a presentation by a sex shop owner and would be upset if if were compulsory because my own personal values don't condone the crime-ridden porn business, for one thing. I didn't say that people shouldn't learn about sexual health. I would be the last to say that because I was young during the decade and a half when there was great pressure to have casual sex, using the Pill or an IUD and not condoms. I even remember reading the article in Cosmopolitan magazine that women are unlikely to contract the HIV virus from a man. I wonder how many tragedies resulted from that stupid and shallow treatment of the subject.

        Also, this is probably answering someone else's comment, but I am not a homophobe and I don't know who "Larry the homophobe" is. I have always believed that people should be true to themselves and was in favour of equal rights for gays and lesbians, including same-sex marriage, long before any laws were enacted.

  • Fred the Question

    Personally I think promoting safe sex is important to young adults, however I also believe promoting pleasurable sex is important. Being a 20 year old Male from Wasaga Beach Ontario I can tell you the sex education in my area of Ontario is severly lacking. From videos from 20-30 years ago to hilariously poor lesson plans the education on sex needs to be brought to attention in High Schools and stat.

    When I was in high school the amount I knew about the dangers of sex was immense, but did it sto pme from having sex? Simple answer, no. Young adults (esp. males) in high school are not scared of STIs in general because they are usually in the mind set of "that won't happen to me." or "I'm young I can't get a disease", foolish as it might be it's true. I believe teaching kids the how, why and when to have sex the most pleasurable why isn't a bad thing! If I had of known these things I might not have been nearly as promiscuous in high school. Many times I would be with a girl and think to myself, "Yeah she's decent in bed but I think I can find a girl who is better." I wasn't always looking for better either.

  • Fred the Question

    -Continued-

    If I had been taught more of the things suggested in this article (i.e. fetishes) I wouldn't have been so nervous about them that I started to second guess myself on them.

    For those of you who just want to quell the thoughts of opening up sex to young people, you are too late. Kids will learn about sex and young adults will be having it. I suggest we try and get the message of safe sex out with the message of pleasurable sex. Personally I would have paid much more attention if half the class was based on pleasure and half on safety.

  • caitlin

    I’m 19, just finished high school, and I think this stuff is inappropriate. Sex is promoted enough! Everyone knows it can be great! And Cosmopolitan, etc finish off everyone’s questions about that. it downplays the gravity of the scary stuff. I’m so grateful that I learned about condoms and STIs in health class.
    I do think the stuff about self-esteem and relationships is a good idea. I’ve had to tell a guy not to continue without a condom and I still don’t know how! That was after years of experience – I can’t imagine how scary (and unsuccessful) it might be for a kid.

    Abstinence should not be the only option.
    But mind-blowing orgasms shouldn’t be the only way to be happy either.
    What about mature, loving and safe sex in a mature, loving and safe relationship?

    I think the most important thing is for teens to do what is right for them, not their peers or parents, and so to achieve this, different options should be available, but no particular philosophy (be created by God for sex vs. sex only to create for God) should be crammed down their throats.

    Wow, essay.

    • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

      Sadly, Cosmo isn't a very good resource. And guys don't read it. Most guys get their sex ed from porn which is absolutely terrible, especially from the point of view of a woman.

  • janwebb

    Whatever happened to teaching responsibility and character regarding sexual behaviour? More than toys and anatomy lessons, this should be the focus of sex education

    • Vera

      I agree! There are no morals being taught anymore by parents. Most parents are just handing over their parenting responsibilities over to the teachers. And this is what happens. It all comes down to proper parenting and teaching values in the family. But we are becoming so lazy. Our values in America are plummeting downhill. Everyone makes fun of the older generation, but I tell you, I really wish I lived back then when family values meant everything and children were taught proper manners, respect, politeness. Those days are gone now. I totally disagree that kids should be taught the pleasures of sex. They should be taught by their parents and have the "birds and the bees" talk. 10 yr. olds don't need to know about pleasuring themselves & others. That's way too young! We would have less abortions, sex diseases, promiscuity, etc if the PARENTS would take on the responsibility of teaching THEIR OWN KIDS and establishing guidelines, values and rules.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    Dear children:

    Here are the basics of sex. Here are a number of useful answers about emotions, relationships and the kinds of trouble this can get you into.

    Just remember: Sex isn't fun. Ever.

    Yours Truly,
    Macleans.ca

  • Felix

    Does this just seem like more marketing to teenagers? A sex shop owner goes around high schools talking about how pleasurable sex is, and before you know it mothers and daughter are going out to buy vibrators.

  • Cash

    Teens already know sex is pleasurable. They need to understand the consequences, especially life wrecking consequences. When I was in high school I knew two girls that got pregnant and it ruined their lives. The message to teens has to be, no matter what, don't do it and the primary mission for parents has to be to make sure it does not happen. Parents absolutely have to protect their teen kids from themselves.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

      Sealing children in plastic might be your best bet. Likely more effective than repeating "No" over and over.

      • Cash

        Sealing them in plastic? Really funny ha, ha. AIDS, syphilis and gonorrhea are no joke. Neither is pregnancy or life as a single teen mom. What I'm saying is that parents have to know where their kids are and what they are doing and they can't be afraid to use words like "no". We've forgotten the meaning of the word. I know the word "no" sounds terribly unhip and retrograde but I think we all need to re-discovery our inner scold. There's hardly a worse mess than a pregnant kid or a kid that's sick or dying from an entirely preventable disease.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

          You can say "no" until you lose your voice. It doesn't mean it works. You can scold the kids all day, but it doesn't stop them from having sex.

          So, if, despite all your attempts to prevent it, they do have sex, would you pfrefer they use a condom or take a chance? Like you said, AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea and pregnancy are no joke.

          Believing your kids won't have sex because you said "no", is.

          • Cash

            But if you don't say "no" the implication is a green light to go ahead and do it. The societal message is "it's ok, everybody's doing it". But parents have a responsibility to protect their kid. You know in your gut it's not ok. You can't always control everything a kid does but you can control what you do. One of those things has to be to use the word that sounds absolutely alien in our culture. "NO". There also has to be limits on what a teen kid is allowed to do and where they are allowed to go with consequences for transgression. "Scold" was the wrong term. We have to re-discover our inner disciplinarian. Kids cannot be allowed to bloody do whatever they feel like. Plus condoms are one really leaky boat to risk your life on. They are better than nothing but I would not bet a kid's life on them. If your kid is having sex with another kid that has Hepatitis C would it make you feel secure if they use condoms? You'd have to be severely deluded.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

            Balance. Cash is right that parents in general are too permissive overall in their responsible duties with their kids. Yes to more candy, games, toys, etc.. leads to difficulty saying no later on to going to an unsuupervised party, "staying over" at a "friends'" house. Governing your children in the 12-17 yrs old stage is the toughest thing you will do as a parent and the most importnat.

            But M_A_N is right that all the 'messaging' in the world is not going to overcome hormones if the circumstances are right. Just ask Gramma Palin. Finding an effective communications strategy that leaves our children with a healthy self-regard, healthy sexual life and healthy life period is the most importnat combination. It isn't one thing, it's all things.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

            Balance. Cash is right that parents in general are too permissive overall in their responsible duties with their kids. Yes to more candy, games, toys, etc.. leads to difficulty saying no later on to going to an unsuupervised party, "staying over" at a "friends'" house, and so on. Governing your children in the 12-17 yrs old stage is the toughest thing you will do as a parent and the most important.

            But M_A_N is right that all the 'messaging' in the world is not going to overcome hormones if the circumstances are right. Just ask Gramma Palin. Finding an effective communications strategy that leaves our children with a healthy self-regard, healthy sexual life and healthy life period is the most important combination. It isn't one thing, it's all things.

          • Mind Your Matter

            condoms, when used correctly (and fancy that, it takes education to learn how to use them correctly) are 98% effective. And kids will have sex one way or another, no matter how intimidating your "no" sounds, or how much you ground them. So 0% safe versus 98% safe? Hell yes I would feel secure with my teenager (if I had one) using a condom.

            Because I know they'd have sex anyway; or at least I know, from experience and the results of many, many studies, that they're a hell of a lot more likely to have sex than to listen to a "no". So weighing giving them safe sex education against hoping they'll listen to "no, don't do it ever", I would go for safe sex education 100% of the time. And 98% effective is a HELL of a lot better than 0%, as everybody knows. So no, you wouldn't have to be deluded to trust a condom.

            And by the by, it's not exactly risking the kid's LIFE. They're not going to drop down dead, are they? Yes, some STDs can be deadly, but definitely not all of them are. Not even the majority of them. Yes, they can make lives a lot more complicated and horrible (especially in our society where people with STDs are so stigmatized), and may cause permanent damage or put them through some not-fun medical treatments, but their LIFE is not necessarily at risk. Their health, for sure, is. Just mentioning, because I don't like that "if you get an STD you will DIE/your life will be OVER" attitude; yes it's a big deal, but no, your life is not necessarily over. I find that unfair to the people who DO have STDs and are still living happy, fulfilled lives.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      So if you deny the "pleasure" truth about sex, guess how much credibility you have with your audience. Better yet, guess how much credibility you have earned…

    • Mind Your Matter

      That's funny, I could have sworn that's been the practice for ages now. And how effective is it? We all KNOW the consequences. You've bashed that into our heads enough already. Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, HPV, Chlamydia, we KNOW. And the "don't do it, no matter what" has been repeated again and again. Why do you think the girls still did it? Because teenagers will have sex NO MATTER WHAT. Even if you tell them not to, no matter what. It is what happens.

      Instead of plugging your ears and going "lalala, no, don't, you'll get sick and die", accept that teenage sexuality exists, and tell them everything they could possibly want to know about sex, sexuality, etc… and at the very least, they'll go about it more safely; and you might just find that they're not as interested in doing it right away. If you KNOW about it, and on top of that know how to get those feelings for yourself (masturbation ftw), you're less likely to want to try it just to see what it feels like. Because you KNOW what it feels like!

      • Isaac

        Thou shalt not commit adultery. All those Christians that teach there kids the ten commandments, God's Law, have their kids going off to school and then the teachers teaching that adultery is okay. These teachings are deliberately against God. Satan does this work. Fornication is a sin against God. Adultery is a form of fornication. Thou shalt not commit adultery is one of God's laws. Breaking God's Law's may land you in an eternal life way worse than herpes, syphilis, AIDS, or any other disease. Diseases don't even come close to even be mentioned as a comparison to what happens as a real consequence of breaking God's Law's. Those teachings go against biblical teaching and should be banned from the American classrooms because we have a freedom of religion and if we can't teach the ten commandments in schools then we shouldn't be able to teach the kids to break those commandments. The people teaching this crap in schools are the ones that are really going to pay for all those sins that they taught the kids is okay and everyone does it and they believed it and went out and sinned, right along with their own sins. It's a double whammy for them. I pray for those who believe it's good to teach our youth to betray God. It's a sad story.

  • http://www.sexloveintelligence.com Julia Saunders

    As a sexual health educator, curriculum specialist and trainer (http://www.sexloveintelligence.com) I can tell you for sure that this article is a exaggeration of what is currently being taught in schools across Canada. I am also concerned about Dr. Miriam Grossman's new book as it is full of misinformation and is off-base on several points. She, unfortunately, has a M.D. (and so has clout) and may be effective in swinging parents and school decision makers over to a more abstinence-and-fear-based Sex Ed – which doesn't work and actually makes matters worse.

    This article also makes no mention of what is happening in BC, Alberta and the Yukon. If you do just a little research in these provinces you will quickly see the effective, comprehensive and well balanced Sex Ed that is available and happening in many schools, as well as the training available for educators who are slotted to cover Sex Ed in their classrooms.

    Be in touch if you want to know more.

    • Mind Your Matter

      I think I love you :'D

  • John D

    Finally someone is helping to dispel the teenage myth that sex is no fun

  • Julia Andrews

    Wow this is really different. And of course I would freak out if my kids came home from school telling me there was a women from the sex shop teaching them about sex and pleasure and stuff. But when you start thinking about it, kids do grow up being told by adults that sex is bad and they can get STD's and get pregnant and stuff. Thats all they hear so when they get in their teenage years where they just almost do everything they can't or whatever adults told them was wrong, they'l try sex! And then they realize it's not what we told them…AT ALL. Because they expect something so bad. Whats so bad about sex. Its bad when you have it with different people every weekend or whatever but we do put it up as if it's the worst thing in the world. Maybe if we teach them the other side they wont be so hurried to try it cause it wont be such a mystery…. Maybe its just another way to put it… But it is kind of disturbing though….

  • Zeph

    As for point 2, armchair logic? Seriously? It's not logic it's a fact. Skin that gets thicker also become less sensible (it's really biologie 101 here). I wouldn't walk around all day with my foreskin retracted, yet you do. So at some point you will have to realize that you feeling less at that level than I do.

    Quote:"2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."

    Also, the fact that you "experience tremendous pleasure from my sex life" is irrelevant, in the same way that an old person can really enjoy music even if his hearing is no longer as good as when he was 10. In your case, you simply can't tell the difference.
    1- You are like my friend who play guitars and has a missing finger, you have adapted to your situation but that doesn't make your situation "desirable". 2- Not being able to tell the difference is perhaps the most important point of my post (which you conveniently ignored). The fact that you can't tell how much pleasure you could get in your sex life if you had an intact foreskin is the sole reason that circumcision is done (mostly) on babies and not later on at the age of 10 (for example).

    BTW: Cut the crap about "you are exposing your son to unnecessary risk". If you have no logical argument to support your point, just say it, but don't resort to emotional BS about my non-existent son (emphasis added on the non existent). Beside, there is no risk with a intact foreskin if you use your head because if you seriously think that a slight reduction in some STD transmission is equivalent to a condom, then you are perhaps pushing an agenda so hard that you are willing to disregard reason.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      First, I'd like to know how an unregistered poster gets acres of reply space while I find 3 short paragraphs usually put me over. But that's a beef with Intensedebate, not you.

      I did not ignore your point in /1, I addressed it head on – no pun intended. You and I simply disagree on fundamental interpretation of the medical factors and you throw in a few aesthetic subjective assertions to boot.

      On point # 2, I will simply repeat: fabulous sex life, no hangups, love the look of my penis, works great, no smegma.

      On my crap, sorry you don't have a son to make decisions about: I have no doubt you would do your best to make an informed decision as I did. No doubt you would resent evangelical enthusiasts implying you took an uninformed, barbaric decision, as your response to my opinion would suggest. I granted you your right to make that decision – apparently sometime in the future?- and was not the first to come on the post casting stones about those decsisions – that belongs to JL and, to a degree, you.

  • gnat_colt

    Parents should teach their children about respecting themselves, their hearts, their minds and their bodies as well as respecting others. Schools should teach their students the facts about STDs, fetal development and the pros & cons of "birth control"… or they should teach the parents how to talk to their children about these issues. School is a place to learn material that will help you become successful in life and earn a living. It disturbs me to think that a sex shop owner (who is profiting financially from this) is teaching children about things that are beyond their level of understanding, their brains aren't developed enough to fully understand the consequences of sex. Adults with her mindset are going to create a sex obssessed society.

From Macleans