Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Janet M. Smith

Opinion

Wynne’s sex-ed isn’t about sex

Janet M. Smith
Image
Image
Image

March 10, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- When it comes to an analysis of the new Liberal Government’s Sex Education Curriculum, others have done a more thorough job than I ever could. But it bears repeating that this program, which is slated to be implemented this September, is:

  • Completely age-inappropriate
  • Erroneous and unscientific
  • Contains more psychological manipulation than education
  • Fails to address the negative consequences of the acts described in the curriculum
  • Takes a position on the nature of the family that is at odds with many parents’ beliefs and faith traditions

And, equally importantly, this curriculum obliterates the parents’ right to be the first educators of their children.

The problems begin with the curriculum’s Grade 1 proposition of teaching the correct names for human genitalia.

As a parent of 3 children and a grandparent of 5, I can tell you that most children master the toddler pounding bench by the age of 3. Round pegs go in round holes.

Couple this with Wynne’s Grade 1 description and naming of human genitals and – voila – your child implicitly knows how to have sex – all by the age of 6! The rest of it – the “consent”, the masturbation, the oral and anal sex, the gender identity, and so on – is just the icing on the cake. This so-called “sex ed” curriculum begins by making your child aware of the act of sexual intercourse.

And this is the problem with Wynne’s sex ed; while it may discuss sexual intercourse and other sexual activities, it really isn’t about sex.

To understand this, please note the item to the right. We all can identify it as a pen. But if I were to ask you to define “pen”, you’d probably hesitate.

Definitions have two parts; one: identify the structure; and two: identify the function.

A pen, in its most simplistic form is therefore: one: a thin, hollow cylinder filled with ink; and two: that is used for writing.

But if I were to take this pen and drive it into the neck of a person standing near me, the pen would cease to exist; it would now become a weapon.

The point being that once you fail to honour the definition of something or use it for some other purpose, it ceases to be what it was meant to be and it becomes something else.

So let’s go back to Wynne’s so-called “sex ed” curriculum. If its purpose is sex education, then, obviously, it needs to be about sex. So what is the definition of sex?

Sex is a life-giving force that unites the man and woman through total mutual self-giving.

Don’t like my definition? Truth is it’s not mine. Neither is it the definition of the Christian faith (though that faith does honour the definition), nor that of any other faith for that matter. Nor is it a construct of any society or culture that either exists now or has existed in the past. No. This is nature’s definition: is, was and always will be.

The very anatomical, physiological, and biochemical nature of the human male and female gives testimony to this truth. Sex is the attraction that draws male and female together, and it is meant to generate new life through the couple’s physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual union. Moreover, it is that union which will allow the couple to remain bonded when raising the children of their union, things get tough. Sex is so much more than just sexual intercourse or other sexual activities; it’s about responsibility, self-sacrifice, becoming one, and ultimately, about children.

So what about pleasure? you might ask. It’s part of sex, but it’s not in the definition.

You are correct. Pleasure is a by-product of sex, in the same way that creating wood chips and saw dust is a by-product of using a chainsaw. The purpose of a chainsaw is to cut wood not to produce wood chips and saw dust; nevertheless, with every use, the chain saw not only cuts the wood, but also produces wood chips and saw dust as well. So it is with sex and pleasure.  

But pleasure is the foundation of Wynne’s “sex ed” curriculum, and therefore, where it goes wrong. This new curriculum ignores the life-giving facet of sex, other than to suggest that the creation of children is something to be avoided. It denies that sex is meant only for a man and a woman, and it ignores the union that sex creates. In short, Wynne's “sex ed” curriculum totally distorts the true definition of sex, and attempts to replace it instead with one that emphasizes pleasure and autonomy.

So what happens when the definition of something is ignored? It becomes something else.

So if Wynne’s new curriculum isn’t about sex, what is it about? In truth, it’s about Predatory Pleasure-Seeking –obtaining sexual gratification however, whenever, with whomever, or with no one other than yourself. Don’t believe me? Read the curriculum for yourself and see if what is being offered to your children meets with the true definition of sex, or is a grotesque distortion of it. And please be aware of just who is responsible for the framing of this new curriculum, Dr. Benjamin Levin, now convicted of 3 counts of child pornography.

So if Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government really want to create a new sex education curriculum, the first place they need to get back to is the true definition of sex.

Janet Smith is Director of Education for Alliance for Life Ontario.

You can make a difference!

Can you donate today?



Share this article

Advertisement