And I thought raising children in Canada was hard!

Posted by: Walrus at October 1, 2006 08:48 AM

---

OMG THE HOMOSEXUAL FAGGOT AGENDA!! WE MUSN'T LET THE CHILDREN KNOW THAT PENISES AND VAGINAS EXIST OR THE FAGGOTS WILL MOLEST THEM!

You're a pig, Janke.

Posted by: thickslab at October 1, 2006 09:13 AM

---

And thickslab proves the exact point Steve was trying to make. Bravo, idiot. Once again, speaking out against a homosexual group makes you a pig and a homophobe.

Perhaps in your world it's okay for children to watch pornography, discover orgasms, and play with erogenous zones.

In my world, I'll call you a pedophile.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at October 1, 2006 09:35 AM

---

Fuck off, Yukon Gold. I'm not a pedophile, you dickwad. You, however, are a redneck idiot. You're almost as fucking stupid as Steve Wanke.

Posted by: thickslab at October 1, 2006 09:54 AM

---

Once the perversion of taking taxpayer money to fund culture has become government policy, pretty much every other perversion will follow.

If a homosexual group wanted to influence children in a free country, they would be unable to do so because they would have no children themselves and would be unable to influence the private schools and private cultural institutions patronized by the people with children.

But the existence of a public school system and a public cultural system - funded by the forceful removal of tax dollars from citizens - is a big, fat Commons Tragedy just sitting there waiting to be exploited for political (or sexual) purposes by whoever can organize themselves to game the system (and by "game" I mean "bully").

Another thing: normal people, who wish to live normal, decent lives minding their own business and taking care of their families are at a complete disadvantage in a socialist country. They are far too busy just trying to survive and do their moral duty to themselves and their family with their after-tax dollars, and have no extra time and energy to fight political battles over the disposition of the 1/2 of their income that was ripped out of their hands. But all of the various losers, flakes, perverts and criminals who have no such responsibilities, or who refuse to take these responsibilities, have all the time in the world to fight for tax funding and to fight for legislation which will enable their own particular loser/flake/pervert/criminal agenda.

That is why conservatives should be fighting against taxes and government spending of all kinds, first and foremost. You will very seldom win any particular ideological battle about the particular way in which public dollars are spent. But every dollar which you can keep in your own hands, represents a battle over its expenditure by politicians, bureaucrats and their loser/flake/pervert/criminal supporters which you will never have to fight.

Posted by: at October 1, 2006 10:03 AM

---

Have you ever heard of childlike innocence thickslab, you know something that was cherished at one time, because its a beautiful natural thing? Something not to be screwed screw with, but noticed and thankfull for, in a child.
Yet you utter the word "pig" while at the same time being a champion of bastardizing something so soulfull and timeless like a childs innocence.
I guess one shouldn't be surprised by a "progressives" lack of understanding when it comes to the similarities of natural order and common sence.

Posted by: Mugs at October 1, 2006 10:03 AM

---

You mean the childlike innocence broken by rightwing idiots like you who beat, molest, rape, starve, abuse, and kill your children all the while pointing the blame at homosexuals. That childlike innocence?

Posted by: thickslab at October 1, 2006 10:06 AM

---

Just ban thickslab already. Let him back if he apologizes, but he's gone a bit too far beyond the "personal attacks" limit.

Or let him stay. Either way, he's pretty much perfectly displayed the average intelligence level of the left.

Posted by: Dante at October 1, 2006 10:43 AM

---

When a person is posed an indirect question such as:

Perhaps in your world it's okay for children to watch pornography, discover orgasms, and play with erogenous zones.

and ignores it, I can't help but wonder at the reasons for it. For all thickslab seems to be raving about the evils of "rightwing idiots" who "beat, molest, rape..." etc., I can't help but wonder at his motives for not answering a simple question save to deny that he is a pedophile himself.

Okay, so he's not a pedophile. Does he want a cookie for his accomplishment?

The point is not whether he is a pedophile or not -- the purpose, it seems, of such a question as was posed was to prompt thickslab to identify his stance on the issues at hand, namely: is it okay, is it right, to show porn to children, to given them interactive, "hands on" demonstrations of sexual organs, to give them the opportunity to explore orgasms, etc.

One need not be a pedophile by way of personal actions in order to support such things, of course...but in supporting such things, one sets oneself on the side of pedophiles, and counts oneself amongst their supporters.

The fact that thickslab has seen fit only to denounce those on the opposite end of the political spectrum, instead of demonstrating tolerance of another's political views in the interest of being "ecumenical" and raising his voice against disgusting and age-inappropriate sex-centred displays (because any sane person can recognize that 6 year olds don't need to know this stuff) that are being targeted -- yes, targeted -- at children.

thickslab, you may now curse me out instead of focusing on my points. It's okay. I give you permission. ;)

Posted by: ken at October 1, 2006 10:58 AM

---

One need not be a pedophile by way of personal actions in order to support such things, of course...but in supporting such things, one sets oneself on the side of pedophiles, and counts oneself amongst their supporters.

By supporting the Catholic church, you put yourself on the side of pedophiles and count yourself among their supporters. Tell me, ken, is it OK to allow priests to molest children then cover it up? Because I don't think so. But if you support the catholic church you must, because that's what they did for decades. Instead of worrying about sex education (which is NOT pornography) maybe you should worry about your church, which has abused children for ages. I don't support showing children porn, but apparently you support a church that rapes them.

Posted by: thickslab at October 1, 2006 11:42 AM

---

***Troll Alert*** ***Troll Alert***

Don't feed the troll folks.

Posted by: tomax7 at October 1, 2006 12:27 PM

---

Speaking of babies, did ya know baby formula is the funding choice for Islamic terrorists...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p01s01-usju.html

Posted by: tomax7 at October 1, 2006 12:30 PM

---

What any of this has to do with AIDS, and how scenes like this...would result in a reduction in infection rates is beyond me. Unless AIDS transmission is a big problem among 6-year-olds in Belgium.

One goal of positive sexual education--which is what this particular exhibit is, and what is generally taught in Belgium and elsewhere--is to normalize sex. The idea is, if people, including children, are exposed to all aspect of "socially acceptable" human sexual activity, they'll develop a health attitude towards it, free of embarassment and guilt. This will ultimately help to prevent AIDS because as they grow up, they--and the society they grow up--will feel comfortable talking about sex (straight and queer), contraceptive use and safer sexual practises, sexual health (e.g., getting routine STD checks, etc.), and so forth. Of course, to spread this message across the whole of society, sex ed groups like SENSOA need to acknowledge, accept, and work with, among others, queer communities, instead of ignoring and avoiding them, and hoping they'll just go away. Perhaps that's where you confused "sexual health promotion" with "gay agenda" (which consists of what, by the way)?

Oh, and the idea of early sexual education isn't unique to Belgians. Here's an example from the US. Note especially the list from the American Academy for Pediatrics about what kids should understand about sex before puberty. Does the Belgium museum exhibit promote familiarity with sex organs? Check! What sexual intercourse is and how females become pregnant? Check! How to prevent pregnancy? Check! Same-sex relationships? Check! Activities that spread sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), in particular AIDS? Check! Parental expectations and values? Check!

Posted by: A at October 1, 2006 12:48 PM

---

A you forgot to mention the last bit from the link you posted.

"The best place for your child to learn about relationships, love, commitment and respect is from you."

Check?

Posted by: Mugs at October 1, 2006 01:59 PM

---

Although I may not share thickslab's more, uh, direct approach, s/he raises several important points that I wholeheartedly agree with, and that others on this blog would do well to consider. To wit:
- Positive sexual education should not be confused with encouraging pedophilia. Yukon Gold, Ken: to make even the most tenuous of insinuations between thickslab and pedophilia (even the support of it) is a cheap and shameless tactic. To be fair, the same applies for confusing someone's Catholic faith with supporting pedophilia.
- Positive sexual education should not be confused with promoting a "gay agenda", whatever that might entail. In Canada over the past decade, the incidence of HIV/AIDS has increased most rapidly among heterosexuals, and especially heterosexual women, and even more especially heterosexual women between 15 and 29. Dismissing sexual education as a special interest issue of a "gay lobby" is not only misinformed, it's also irresponsible from a public health perspective.
- Teaching kids about the diversity of human sexuality is not the same as teaching them "to be gay." A large and growing body of literature suggests the latter simply isn't possible. A related body of literature also suggests that teaching kids about early sexual education & contraceptive use does not encourage early experimentation, but rather may result in safer sex practises when the moment finally arrives. Links available for anyone interested. The point is, teach abstinence to your kids as you wish, but don't neglect the benefits of condom use--it may very well save their lives.
- Showing kids images of nude (cartoon) figures and sexual intercourse is not the same as showing them porn. The distinction may be subtle, and is based on utility--what's the function of the display?--and shared societal values--is this function something we accept? For example, is this art or porn? In the 1930s, the US government believe it to be porn; today, most everyone considers it art. In a similar way, the Belgians appear to consider the exhibit a form of sexual education (which they condone) and not porn.
- Neither SENSOA nor the Wereld van Kina are "homosexual groups." To suggest so is pure ignorance.
- Protecting "childhood innocence" (another subjective term) is not the exclusive domain of "conservatives", not is violating that innocence limited to those who support "progressive" ideas. Staking claim on moral superiority in the name of one's political affiliation is a fool's errand, accomplishing nothing.
- At some point, the Roman Catholic Church needs to properly address the issue of sexual abuse by members of its own clergy. To make moral pronouncements about "proper" sexual conduct in society while also failing to confront its own skeletons not only strains credibility, it's also hugely hypocritical.

Posted by: A at October 1, 2006 02:25 PM

---

Mugs: A you forgot to mention the last bit from the link you posted.

I read it, but as it's not part of the AAP's list, I didn't cite it specifically. I agree with that line--it's ultimately the parents' responsibility to teach their kids about relationships, love, commitment, and respect. At the same time, for a variety of reasons, society as a whole--and in its representative form, the elected government--has a responsibility to promote public health, including healthy sexual practises, as distinct from (though obviously related to) relationships, love, etc. etc.

Positive sexual education appears to be the norm in Belgian society--the exhibit isn't isolated, but rather a part of a broader educational program. Of course, it's up to the Belgians to determine Belgian social values. Presumably, if the parents there disapprove of this approach to sexual education, they would (1) not allow their kids to go on the school trip to the museum; and (2) vote to get the Christian Democrats back in power. But the exhibit appears to be popular with both the media and Belgians in general, so I suspect it's a bigger controversy over here at AGWN than in Belgium itself. Which itself is telling.

Posted by: A at October 1, 2006 02:53 PM

---

Disgusting.

Posted by: Shawn at October 1, 2006 04:20 PM

---

There is a scientific question to be answered...where do babies come from, which is really a, where did I come from, question.

How you answer that, ranging from lies like storks and cabbage patches, to likely too much infomation, i.e. Johnny let me demonstrate with your mother right now, and watch the video...., is really the challenge.

Kids need to be told the facts...which also has a range to it.

But the discussion here about stating that children need to be raised in an open environment where it gets discussed.....under a certain age it is totaly irrelevant. As children approach puberty they need to be told the facts of what will happen to them.

And cartoon pictures of naked individuals are pretty harmless....I have to say that showing anything about "relationships" isnt relevant.

The facts are that a sperm gets to an egg....whether that sperm got delivered from a penis or a turkey baster isnt really important, it comes from a male, neither is whether it met the egg in a petrie dish or a womb, just the fact that the egg comes from a female. Whether the baby will then emerge to two mommies, two daddies or some other form of human relationship just isnt relevant to an 8 year old.

Those are the facts....accounting for the myriad of relationships and things that ADULTS engage in is a seperate conversation.

This stuff goes over lines whe the safest place to keep it is with the facts. Any other agenda really doesnt belong at that young an age.

Try teaching math to a 2 year old....generally they dont get it, not because they never will just their brains arent wired for it yet.

Posted by: Stephen at October 1, 2006 04:35 PM

---

Whether the baby will then emerge to two mommies, two daddies or some other form of human relationship just isnt relevant to an 8 year old. Those are the facts....accounting for the myriad of relationships and things that ADULTS engage in is a seperate conversation.

Since Belgium has legalized same-sex marriage, IVF, and legal adoption by same-sex couples, it's entirely relevant for Belgian society to deal with the question of "Where did I come from" and the myriad forms of family relationships/parental arrangements in the same conversation. I'd argue that teaching an 8 year old that it's perfectly OK for him/her (or his/her classmate) to have, say, two mommies is just as important at that age as teaching that a baby = egg + sperm.

Posted by: at October 1, 2006 05:03 PM

---

They are different questions. I wont argue whether its ok for the Belgians to teach 8 year olds about the different relationships.....it is Belgium so my opinion doesnt count....I would agree that you dont say something is wrong to the 8 year old either, whether that is explcit or implicit.

But I would say the two questions are not the same. One is a scientific fact, baby is a result of the process of the union of sperm and egg. The other is a really a cultural thing. And to be clear the two mommies, two daddies thing is a brand new concept and experiment in Human Development...that isnt a value jusdgement just a fact. We will see how it all works out wont we.

Posted by: Stephen at October 1, 2006 05:20 PM

---

The other is a really a cultural thing. And to be clear the two mommies, two daddies thing is a brand new concept and experiment in Human Development...that isnt a value jusdgement just a fact. We will see how it all works out wont we.

That's something of a pitiable attitude to take, because it is a dangerous and even foolish attitude. I will agree with and grant your point that this is indeed a grand social experiment we are witnessing, but the question we must ask is not whether it will succeed or not, and how it might be that it will succeed.

Not while there is the more important question to be asked of whether or not we have the right to conduct an experiment such as this -- with potentially very broad and highly damaging social implications -- on the general populace, and on the next generations of the human species.

It's bad enough when celebrities name their children all sorts of absurd things and cart them around, as though these babies were fashion accessories. But as terrible as that level of objectification might be, far more terrible still is the level of objectification of children...indeed, of all people in general...that is embedded beneath the sentiment that we should simply wait for this grand experiment to reach its conclusion.

Well and good if it ultimately, in some manner, benefits society.

But the stakes in it are far too high, and if it should bring harm instead of benefit then there will, for lack of a better term, be hell to pay.

An example was made of Catholicism, and I think it's worthwhile taking that for a bit of a run. Yes, I am Catholic, and so my objection to this grand experiment is in a large part founded in that school of moral philosophy, which is sound and reasoned.

But I think it's interesting to observe that the Church has recently drawn quite a few lines in the sand regarding the ways in which this grand experiment has impacted on it: it's no secret that the majority of priestly abuse has been male-on-male in nature, and the Vatican has taken steps both in terms of meting out discipline at the diocesan level and in screening canditates at the seminary level. The Church has recognized its error, and is making steps to correct it and repent.

They are right to do so. Molestation is never okay, and this is a weight of judgement that falls doubly harsh on those who have vowed celibacy. But the sins of the members do not necessarily invalidate the institution as a whole, if the institution as a whole is founded on principles that are in opposition to the acts of the errant members.

As is the case in the Church.

But it is as Mark Shea says..."the time will come with the Church is condemned not for covering up pedophilia, but for opposing it". And unfortunately, the line is slowly being crossed into the classroom. There's such a fine line already between sex-ed and porn; I remember being shown a video in Grade Four in which the narrator, describing the sexual act between...some manner of animals, dogs I think...stated rather bluntly: "The penis must be inserted into the vagina...".

It's a truthful statement, and certainly at some point in my life it may well be good knowledge to have. ;) But at the same time, I remember being a bit shocked at the frankness of it all, especially since I was all of 8 years old. Did I really need to see a description of canine coitus?

Seems unlikely...and certainly this display in Belgium is leagues worse than that. It crosses the line in blatant ways, and I for one oppose it as heartily as I oppose the sexual abuse that a small minority of priests have inflicted on children as well. The difference between this Belgian nonsense and the effect of Catholic priests giving in to sin is that the effect will be much broader as this sort of programme spreads to other nations, and far more children will be impacted by the "hands on" demonstrations of advocacy groups than even an army of the most Devil-corrupted priests could ever hope to achieve.

Posted by: ken at October 1, 2006 07:00 PM

---

I agree with the person, nameless, who posted at 10:03 a.m.

Children only need to know so much about sex, and that's when they're asking questions, themselves. And, it's primarily the parents' responsibility to share with their children what their values are, hopefully, also sharing the facts about where babies come from, etc. But only at the level of the child's understanding.

For anyone else to usurp this parental responsibility, because they think that they know better than the child's parents--which is increasingly happening in our society as the State, in the guise of sex ed in the schools and public health departments, insinuates its values on our children--is sheer audacity on their part, often in aid of and promotion of one side of "the debate," whatever the debate happens to be at the moment.

If anyone can show me that before the State began pushing its sexual agenda on our children, at earlier and earlier ages, things were worse for our young people--you know, that abortions were rampant, that STDS were everywhere, that reproductive dysfunction was epidemic, all situations that exist today in our youth population--I'd say that they have a good reason to be "educating" them.

But as the present situation for our young people is, rather, the opposite--that since the State began indoctrinating our children in unnecessary sexual facts and politics, their emotional and physical health is more at risk by increasing rates of abortions, STDS, and reproductive malfunctions--my conclusion is that the State should butt out.

Let kids be kids and let parents be parents. By letting the State be the State, let them fix highways, build bridges and schools, figure out what to do with medicare, but PLEASE, leave our children alone. Stay out of the bedrooms of the nations--especially kids' bedrooms. I'm sure they'd rather play with their dolls and trucks, not their willies.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 1, 2006 09:11 PM

---

Ken:There's such a fine line already between sex-ed and porn. I remember being shown a video in Grade Four in which the narrator, describing the sexual act between...some manner of animals, dogs I think...

It may have been a bit shocking, but unless one has a bestiality kink, I doubt anyone would mistake the video for porn.

The difference between this Belgian nonsense and the effect of Catholic priests giving in to sin is that the effect will be much broader as this sort of programme spreads to other nations, and far more children will be impacted by the "hands on" demonstrations of advocacy groups than even an army of the most Devil-corrupted priests could ever hope to achieve.

What "sort of programme" do you think the Belgian exhibit is? What "effect" do you think it might have on their society, or ours? As pointed out previously, it's not a stand-alone anomaly, but rather part of a positive sexual education policy within their school curriculum. It has the broad support of parents, teachers, government, and the community. Somehow I doubt that'd be the case if there were any indication that their children were being negatively "impacted." Unless, of course, you believe that Belgians are somehow worse parents than Canadians.

In fact, it appears to be living up to its promise. Belgium has a teen pregnancy rate consistently three times lower than that of somewhat less progressive Canada, and about five times lower than the far less progressive US. In fact, countries with such progressive, practical-minded (as opposed to morality-based) sex ed philosophies tend to rank lower not only in teen pregnancies, but also abortion rates and STD prevalence. These studies may not prove causality, but they certainly offer interesting implications.

Posted by: A at October 1, 2006 09:39 PM

---

There's no way that this "exhibition"--that's for sure--is either healthy or positive for pre-school and primary school children. It's a very bold move on the part of the State to tell parents what their children need to know. I'd love to know where the money trail leads. Who's making money out of this exhibit? That'll tell you everything, and I'm sure it's not the Ministry of Children's Needs nor the Ministry of the Family, either.

This aggressive and sexually explicit agenda sounds like a pile of hooey to me, and as a parent I would not give permission for my children to participate in it. In fact, I wonder if the children who are taken to it have their parents' permission to go?

This, increasingly, is what the intrusive State is doing: launching exhibits like this, or re-writing sex ed curricula for lower and lower ages, with explicit illustrations, putting a "healthy" and "positive" label on it--if you object, you're obviously some kind of repressed, anal retentive moron--and ushering our kids through, all under the guise of "we're doing this for their good."

Crap is crap is crap. I don't care how "healthy" and "positive" some idiot tells me it is. I beg to differ, and they're not changing my mind.

Please give our kids a break.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 1, 2006 10:16 PM

---

been around the block: If anyone can show me that before the State began pushing its sexual agenda on our children, at earlier and earlier ages, things were worse for our young people--you know, that abortions were rampant, that STDS were everywhere, that reproductive dysfunction was epidemic, all situations that exist today in our youth population--I'd say that they have a good reason to be "educating" them.

Hey, BATB, it's been a while. How are you? You ask for evidence? OK. Let's first assume that school-based sexual education really took off somewhere in the 70's and 80's, after the sexual revolution of the late 1960s. It was also around this time that contraceptives became widely available and accepted. This enables us to compare data before and after the sex ed curriculum became the norm. Agreed? Also, I rely on US data, as it's more readily available. I assume that if things have improved in the US, then even more so in Canada. Also agreed? Onwards, then...

Teen pregnancy: I think I mentioned Stephanie Coontz's work to you before. In "The Way We Never Were," she shows that teen pregnancy rates were higher 50 years ago. I recommend her book highly (available at Indigo/Chapters and amazon.ca). More supporting data available here.

Teen abortions: According to this, teen abortions have been dropping since the mid-80s.

Sexual activity: Down since the 90s (no data before that). May be partially explained by the abstinence message. However, teen religiosity increased only slightly from the 70s, suggesting that improvements in safer sex practises (condom use, lower pregnancy rates, etc.) are primarily explained by something other than strengthened faith.

STDs: No long-term trends available, as the data simply weren't recorded prior to the 90s. Some studies have found, however, that abstinence doesn't offer much protection from STDs. According to this one, abstainers delayed first sex, had fewer partners, and married younger, they were statistically as likely to contract an STD as nonabstainers. The researchers speculate it's because they're less likely to use contraceptives.

Teen drug use: Among grade twelvers, hard drug use is down from the 70s, though higher than in the early 90s. Same for marijuana and alcohol.

Teen dropout rates: Also down from the 70s.

Posted by: A at October 1, 2006 10:40 PM

---

'been around the block: Also, how would you explain the fact that Belgium's teen pregnancy rate is consistently one-third to one-half, and their abortion rate about one-fourth, those of Canada's? Both are also lower in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, all of whom promote what I call "progressive positive sexual health education" and what you call "state intrusion into children's bedrooms." Alternatively, how do you explain the situation in the US, where abstinence-based sexual education finds the most support, yet where the teen pregnancy rate is also the highest in the developed world?

Posted by: A at October 1, 2006 11:04 PM

---

Ah yes, my day is complete. I've been called a redneck idiot for not supporting the sexualization of small children.

Of course, from thickslab's blog, he likes the option of having sex with 14 year-old boys, and hates the fact that the NDP doesn't find it defensible.

Hey, if someone like that calls me an idiot, I'll gladly accept.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at October 1, 2006 11:08 PM

---

A, I guess it's clear that telling six-year-olds how to give and receive orgasms is really helping the teen pregnancy and AIDS infection rates.

You throw some nice statistics, but certainly those stats have NOTHING to do with the crap from Belgium.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at October 1, 2006 11:11 PM

---

Okay, so the evidence points to reductions in other things that I, for one would consider positive. I love to see a drop in the abortion rate, and it is good that teen pregnancies are down as well.

All that granted, though, we still have not addressed the issue of why children who are barely old enough to be in school need to be shown this manner of presentation, need to be given the opportnity to explore the concept of orgasm, and need "hands on" experience with penises of all shapes and sizes.

The evidence you present, A, suggests that a well-implemented sex-ed program at an appropriate age level would be beneficial, and I don't think anyone here is going to deny that. What would be more beneficial still is a program that has both a strong moral and practical basis.

But I emphasize the notion of age-appropriateness. And I'm sorry...any way you cut it, there is no justification (practical and especially moral) for exposing six-year-old children to this display.

Also, one thing that needs pointing out:

Sexual activity: Down since the 90s (no data before that). May be partially explained by the abstinence message. However, teen religiosity increased only slightly from the 70s, suggesting that improvements in safer sex practises (condom use, lower pregnancy rates, etc.) are primarily explained by something other than strengthened faith.

Conclusion does not follow from facts -- how do increased condom use and lower pregnancy rates in any way contribute to a reduction in the overall sexual activity rate among teens? The "abstinence message" and "religiosity" of teens certainly are things that would have that effect. But increased use and availability of condoms?

What...kids like sex, but hate having sex while wearing a condom? And this stops them from having sex altogether?

Posted by: ken at October 1, 2006 11:12 PM

---

Statistics always require some additional clarification:

The lower pregnancy rates in Europe are explained by the higher percentage of muslims (10% in France) in the population. Pregnancy for the unwed muslim is a death sentence for both partners. Nobody else is going to play house with the muslim girls, either.

The high rates of youth pregnancy in the USA occur amongst the least religious "communities". I don't want to be fingered as a redneck by the blog police, so I'll just point out where the error is - you figure out the rest of it!

My favourite stat is that the average Zambian male sires 33 children from 8 different women before he reaches the age of 30. Much more productive than the USA!

But, for most people concerned about these issues, by far the most important issue is that of education. All teachers know that breeding youths stop learning. Parents know that if you can keep your kids out of each other's private parts, they are more likely to continue learning, and less likley to be educational wipe-outs. Less likely to become infected with HIV. Less likely to become a welfare burden. Less likely to require financial support from parents.

Don't argue with me - my mind is made up! Kids don't need to know this gay homo crap until they're adults.

Posted by: José Joseph at October 2, 2006 03:31 AM

---

Hmmmm, I must admit that I am not sure. I am of very mixed mind on this ...

Look, we know that sexual activity inside & outside of marriage was HIGHER throughout the 1500 - 1750 period than it is today and remained higher among the lower & upper classes well into the 1800's: Middle class morality eventually triumphed and that is what we look back on as "the past."

Does knowing EVERYTHING hurt a child? No one has ever shown that. Does knowing nothing hurt a child? Yes. So, we need sex education of some form.

The only thing is how much and of what type?

We need to argue this one out and I am not at all sure which side I am on.

Posted by: jw at October 2, 2006 04:17 AM

---

As Monty Python would say:

"Miserable fat Belgium bastards"

http://montypython.joolsc.net/downloads/sounds/BELGIAN.WAV

Posted by: tomax7 at October 2, 2006 07:20 AM

---

Ken: Conclusion does not follow from facts...

Sorry if that paragraph wasn't clear, but I think my (tentative) conclusions were sound. There are 4 parts to it: (1) Sexual activity is down since the 90s; (2) Some of that decrease may/is likely explained by delayed first sex (aka abstinence); (3) However, teen religiosity--presumably associated with abstinence--is only up slightly since the 70s; (4) Religiosity therefore may explain the sexual activity decrease, but something else explains the major decreases in other areas (e.g., pregnancy rates, abortions, etc.). I never drew a conclusion stating that contraceptive use, etc. reduces sexual activity per se, only that it likely played a large role in reducing some of the negative fallout associated with unsafe sex.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 07:37 AM

---

Yukon gold writes:
Of course, from thickslab's blog, he likes the option of having sex with 14 year-old boys, and hates the fact that the NDP doesn't find it defnsible.

Yes. Because I think teen sexuality should not be a matter for teenagers and their families and *not* the Criminal Code, it's clear that I want to have sex with 14 year olds.

Thanks, Yukon Gold. You've managed to explain that the fact that I've only ever dated men my age or older is nothing more than a clever ruse. Clearly I'm with my big, fat, hairy, bearded 52 year old partner because he reminds me of the 14 year old I truly wish I could be with.

NOT.

Posted by: thickslab at October 2, 2006 08:50 AM

---

It seems to me, from Psychological literature, that a six year old may not possess the cognitive skills to correctly interpret the sexual positions of bears. Nor would they have any need to know the varieties of shapes of penises (or varieties of breasts, for that matter). I would argue that it is simply not age appropriate for these young children to be learning about sexuality in such detail. Apart from not being age-appropriate, equating sexuality with rock formations, etc., seems to presuppose that sexuality is simply biological, and has no moral element to it. This flies in the face of appreciating diversity in beliefs, not to mention freedom of religious thought and conscience.

Posted by: E.J. at October 2, 2006 09:26 AM

---

However, teen religiosity--presumably associated with abstinence--is only up slightly since the 70s

Actually, I should point out that the relationship between religiousity and abstinence is less solid than one might expect, and abstinence has many secular proponents as well (one girl I never wound up dating was not a member of any religion, and yet on her own had chosen to commit herself to pre-marital abstinence. Additionally, one of my co-workers is a "Straight Edge", just to toss out a couple of examples).

I guess I should re-word: religiousity and abstinence are indeed related concepts, as most religions tend to stress (correctly, IMO) the importance of pre-marital abstinence, and also (generally) the importance of sexual fidelity. But the religious in society are not the only proponents of abstinence and/or sexual restraint, and it seems that more and more secular groups are emerging that are upholding the ideal as well.

I would think that the majority of the decrease in sexual activity since the 90s would find its reasons in things such as abstinence-focused programs, religious and secular in nature.

But thank you for your clarification!

Posted by: ken at October 2, 2006 09:40 AM

---

Thickslab and his ilk react with such vitriol when questioned shows just how tolerant THEY are.
There is much sense in trying to retain childhood innocence. Innocence does not mean ignorance though. To teach how it works does not mean showing ebvery last gory detail.
It always strikes me as ludicrous how involved Gay groups wish to be in childrearing when overwhelmingly they do not wish to have children or raise children. Yes, some very few do, much like the huge amounts that have been married in Canada.
All of this is just more of the social engineering that we have become accustomed to. Remaking the world in their self perceived image. A revealing question to pose to acquaintances that are gay is what percentage they think the population is gay. The wildy high numbers clash with legitimate surveys such as the census. This distorted perception clouds and even drives the gay agenda.
enough

Posted by: enough at October 2, 2006 09:59 AM

---

enough: This distorted perception clouds and even drives the gay agenda.

Can you please define for me what you consider the "gay agenda" to entail? It seems to me that what queer communities are now fighting for (adoption rights, marriage rights, non-discrimination, etc.) are of the same tenor that visible minorities fought for (citizenship rights, voting rights, non-discrimination, etc.) a century ago, and that women fought for (voting rights, non-discrimination, etc.) a half-century ago. That is, they appear to seek recognition and equality before the law and within our social institutions (work, school, government, etc.). As a straight male, I've never felt threatened by these causes, because the granting of civil rights and access to institutional mechanisms are not a zero-sum game--the social and political gains of others do not necessarily come at a loss to mine.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 10:44 AM

---

Respondents like thickslab (who we knew was a homo from the moment he launched his screaming UPPER CASE diatribe) have only one agenda: to pave the way for shagging little boys. Since they can't put up a reasonable argument, they resort to screaming insults. Which proves the point. Hence the expression "screaming homo".

The biggest beef (hehe) that the civilized world has with homos (even old hags like thickslab) is that they relentlessly push their agenda toward children - with the associated result that (hetero or homo) sexualized children are poor learners. It's way more fun to fantasize about foreskins and shit-stuffing all day long instead of thinking about homework. Any teacher who works inner city schools will tell you that (but that's another topic since pre-teen sexualization includes both hetero and homo activities). Both are a teacher's worst nightmare. Once kids are sexualized early, they're lost as students forever. The ancient Jews (and their Christian variants) knew that, which is why they worked so hard to keep their children focused on learning - and OFF SEX. We're free to ignore their pioneering research, but we already know what the result will be: a world filled with demanding, prancing, ignorant, diseased, screaming homos.

Posted by: José Joseph at October 2, 2006 10:57 AM

---

ken: Actually, I should point out that the relationship between religiousity and abstinence is less solid than one might expect, and abstinence has many secular proponents as well

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to imply a clear one-to-one relationship. However, it was getting late, and I was working with whatever was available publicly on the internet. As for secular proponents of abstinence, I agree as well. I am not against abstinence in its own right; what I oppose is a morality-based public health approach that prioritizes abstinence to the detriment of contraceptives and other proven safer sex options, particularly when delivered in populations where it's known that an abstinence message is unlikely, for social, cultural, and economic reasons, to be adhered to.

Also, as a point of clarification, it should be noted that most Straight Edgers do not necessarily advocate abstinence (some do; I cannot speak for your colleague). They reject promiscuity, but support sex within a loving, monogamous relationship, in or out of marriage, in keeping with the sXe core messages of self-control and responsible choice.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 11:08 AM

---

"The Agenda" is to change societal views on homosexuality from being an abnormal practice to something that is normalized and even glorified. To make it something that must be accepted by everyone and give no one a choice in this acceptance.
Gay behavior and choices such as excessive promiscuity, dangerous lifestyle choices such as very frequent unprotected sex is to approved and not subject to any condemnation.
"The Agenda" wants homosexuality to be of genetic cause (as in no choice) rather than being caused by tragic events such as child abuse. That would make it a preventable lifestyle rather than something like race or sex.
How many gay people were abused as children? Hard to find that out as "The Agenda" actively fights against studies that ask that question.
Not to be hated, rather I feel sorry for these people whose lives were so ruined by pedophiles, abusive parents and those that were abused themselves and carry on the abuse.
enough

Posted by: enough at October 2, 2006 12:29 PM

---

because the granting of civil rights and access to institutional mechanisms are not a zero-sum game--the social and political gains of others do not necessarily come at a loss to mine.

It is becoming a zero sum game. How can you reconcile sharia law, muslims censoring cartoons, with feminism, free speech and religious rights?
The NDP support its historical causes such as feminism and gay rights and anti religion then support muslims that stand directly against that. Zero sum.
enough

Posted by: enough at October 2, 2006 12:36 PM

---

J.W., E.J., ken: It seems our debate is evolving from a question of whether or not school-based sexual education has any benefit in terms of reducing unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and reducing STD risk, to a question of appropriate content and delivery.

First, let's note that the exhibit is not open only to six year olds, but to a broad range of children and young people. So, while rhetoric like "Six year olds are learning to give orgasms!" might work for shock value, it's neither a precise nor neutral summary of what the full exhibit is really about.

So what is it really about? I contend that the central goal is to normalize sex, to enable its exploration and discussion in an open, nonjudgmental environment. The importance of accomplishing this at a young age cannot be overstated, as early attitudes towards one's body and sexuality carry over into adolescence and adulthood, and affect, among other things, the willingness to get information, seek out contraceptives, discuss sexual matters with one's partner(s), etc. Fear and embarassment are hindrances; hence the comment, "We have no taboos here." The logic is the same as when experts advise parents not to freak out if their infant is found playing with his/her genitals (BTW: infant masturbation is common, well-documented, and normal, entirely about exploration of one's body & immediate gratification than about eroticism or sexual fantasy), percisely because reacting negatively will send their kids the message that masturbation is wrong and something to be ashamed of.

So, letting children handle dolls with breasts and penises isn't as obscene as it may appear. Children strip the clothes off their Barbie and Ken dolls all the time, only to find a complete absence of genitalia. However, as noted above, even young infants are well-aware of their own bodily parts (yes, all bodily parts). Rather than "kids playing with dildos!," this display could simply be teaching kids that dolls (and people) come in all shapes and sizes. Here, it's about anatomy, and not sex per se.

As for the Ken and Barbie orgasmic erogenous zone corner, well, that's clearly about bodily pleasure. Again, however, kids are "masturbating" as early as infancy, so really, is it so completely removed from their own experiences? What "innocence" is being protected by opposing this display? What's the shocking aspect here? That kids know about "sexual"/bodily pleasure (they already do), or that it's discussed out in public?

How early is too early? Well, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children be made aware of concepts like sex organs, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, same-sex relationships, STDs, social/family values about sex, etc., prior to puberty. In N. America, puberty can begin as early as 6 years of age (the average is more like 10-11), solidly within the Wereld van Kina's core demographic.

Saving the best for last, I must admit that even I was a bit shocked by the orgasmic sound chamber. Would I let my own (hypothetical) child inside? Maybe. Maybe I'd go in with him/her and explain what's going on. I think the environmental context/setting is important here. Are there Hooter girls manning the ticket booth, or are responsible museum staff engaging the visitors, explaining (normalizing) the displays in a frank, open manner?

Ultimately, the Wereld van Kina example teaches us a lesson in the negotiating what's socially acceptable. Clearly, N. America is not ready for this level of frankness. That's okay. They're not pressing to make it a travelling exhibit. But neither is it wrong for the museum to approve the display, as it's clearly in keeping with their system of values. Calling it "disgusting" or whatnot simply projects our own (irrelevant) values onto their society, and is a meaningless moral judgment that doesn't advance the debate here or abroad.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 12:41 PM

---

enough: "The Agenda" is to change societal views on homosexuality from being an abnormal practice to something that is normalized and even glorified

If you refuse to see queer communities as anything other than "abnormal," then there's no hope of advancing the dialogue. Let it be said that these communities themselves do not consider themselves abnormal, and as this is a self-identity issue, it's ultimately their self-definition that matters, not yours.

Gay behavior and choices such as excessive promiscuity, dangerous lifestyle choices such as very frequent unprotected sex is to approved and not subject to any condemnation.

That's incorrect. Even safer sex groups within the queer community urge condom use and responsible practises.

"The Agenda" wants homosexuality to be of genetic cause (as in no choice) rather than being caused by tragic events such as child abuse.

There's no evidence that homosexuality is caused by abuse or other tragedies. Even a simply study interviewing LGBT community members would prove this. As another point of refutation, the majority of abused children grow up to be heterosexual (if only because the majority of people are heterosexual, and abuse can target both heterosexual and homosexual kids & teens).

It is becoming a zero sum game. How can you reconcile sharia law, muslims censoring cartoons, with feminism, free speech and religious rights?

Not sure how we got onto the topic of religion, by anyway, to answer your question, we can't reconcile them, at least not in Canada. That's why in Ontario and elsewhere, sharia law is banned. That's also why we oppose censoring freedom of speech (in principle). However, something like adoption or marriage rights is not zero sum-based. The right of a gay couple to adopt does not restrict my (or your) right to adopt, and the right of a lesbian couple to marry does not restrict my (or your) right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 01:00 PM

---

Pedophiles see themselves as normal, skinheads see themselves as normal. Moral relativism at its finest. Self-definition is not the final arbiter.

AIDS in North America is a gay disease. Over 90% of all cases can be traced back to gay sex.
In Africa, the safe sex theme has not slowed down the spread of AIDS. Only in countries where abstinence has been the priority has AIDS rate dropped.
The AIDS rate among hetero normal people (non-IV drug users)is extremely low.

It is not a one to one ratio. The vast majority of people that are abused do not become gay. The trauma of being abused and not dealing with it causes many problems. Some grow up and become activists to prevent this. Others become drug abusers, sex abusers, alcohol abusers etc. Homosexuality may be just one way that people deal with this. Ever hear that many wife abusers grew up with an physically abusive father? Not all such children become wife abusers.

The right of a gay couple to marry does not neccesarily infringe on me. Already a Justice of the Peace cannot refuse to marry a gay couple for personal reasons (ie. religious beliefs). In BC a catholic hall was fined for preventing a lesbian couple from renting the hall. Then comes the inevitable challenge for the right to marry in a church despite it being in contravention of their beliefs.
It does affect me when tax dollars etc will pay benefits to theses couples.
Gay couples adopting affects us all because these children are taught this is normal behavior. There is a gay lifestyle and this is not a lifestyle that is conducive to upbringing children.

Inch by inch we are told we must accept all this gay lifestyle. From the gay pride parades with naked fetish people in public to the gay friendly curriculum that insists it is normal. AIDS acceptable without being responsible for dangerous lifestyle choices. I saw an article on the weekend about some gay people actively seeking the AIDS virus! There is even a name for these people and the ones who give it to them. Insane, yet this is acceptable behavior.
enough

Posted by: enough at October 2, 2006 01:57 PM

---

enough: Well, I can see that no amount of reason will change your personal stance against LGBTQ groups. However, I will make one last attempt to disabuse you of some incorrect factual presumptions. You claim that

AIDS in North America is a gay disease...The AIDS rate among hetero normal people (non-IV drug users)is extremely low.

Not so. Here is the latest HIV/AIDS surveillance data from the Public Health Agency of Canada. Note especially figure 4, depicting the distribution of AIDS diagnoses by exposure category and year of test. As of the past three years, "normal" heterosexual exposure specifically (not men who have sex with men (MSM), not IDUs) is tied with MSM as the leading mode of transmission.

In Africa, the safe sex theme has not slowed down the spread of AIDS. Only in countries where abstinence has been the priority has AIDS rate dropped.

Wrong again. Here is the latest report from UNAIDS. Note especially Annex 2, showing that modest gains have been achieved in many African countries. Chapter 6 describes in further detail the process whereby these gains were achieved. It concludes that combined programs--focusing on both prevention (equal priority to abstinence, being faithful, and using condoms) and treatment (e.g., ARV drugs)--have had a far larger impact on reducing HIV/AIDS incidence than has a single-pronged approach (e.g., abstinence alone, or condom use alone).

Already a Justice of the Peace cannot refuse to marry a gay couple for personal reasons (ie. religious beliefs). In BC a catholic hall was fined for preventing a lesbian couple from renting the hall. Then comes the inevitable challenge for the right to marry in a church despite it being in contravention of their beliefs.

As per the requirements of the position, a sitting JP is obligated to uphold statutory laws, including those that enable same-sex marriage. Personal religious beliefs cannot play a role in judicial choice, in the same way that a judge in Canada who personally views pedophiles as the manifestation of Satan himself nevertheless cannot sentence the guilty party to death by hanging.

In BC, the matter between Smith/Chymyshyn and Knights of Columbus was ruled a case of discrimination in violation of B.C.'s Human Rights Code. The Knights themselves freely admitted that they had violated s.8 of the Code, pertaining to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The tribunal ruled that the fine (which Knights conceded was "nominal") was meant to compensate the complaintants for expenses and hardship, but that Knights are nevertheless "entitled to hold and act on their core religious beliefs" by not renting out their hall for same-sex celebrants in the future.

Based on the current wording of marriage legislation, it's my opinion that a legal challenge seeking to compel a church to perform a same-sex marriage in violation of their religious beliefs will not hold up in court.

I already addressed the abuse-leads-to-homosexuality issue earlier. If you wish to cling to that extreme and empirically untenable belief, so be it. If you choose to expend so much energy cultivating your hatred against a group that is increasingly and irreversibly accepted in our tolerant Canadian society, so be it as well.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 03:39 PM

---

The biggest beef (hehe) that the civilized world has with homos (even old hags like thickslab) is that they relentlessly push their agenda toward children - with the associated result that (hetero or homo) sexualized children are poor learners. It's way more fun to fantasize about foreskins and shit-stuffing all day long instead of thinking about homework. Any teacher who works inner city schools will tell you that (but that's another topic since pre-teen sexualization includes both hetero and homo activities). Both are a teacher's worst nightmare. Once kids are sexualized early, they're lost as students forever. The ancient Jews (and their Christian variants) knew that, which is why they worked so hard to keep their children focused on learning - and OFF SEX. We're free to ignore their pioneering research, but we already know what the result will be: a world filled with demanding, prancing, ignorant, diseased, screaming homos.

Posted by: José Joseph at October 2, 2006

A classic homophobic diatribe. Is there someway this piece of rhubbish can be archived?

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 2, 2006 04:27 PM

---

I've never been here before. I've read the post and most of the comment thread.

What this world is coming to because of liberal idiots truly disgusts me. I do believe that if my church here in Texas were to be forced to marry a homosexual couple, most of the congregation would leave the church. All the conservatives would, for sure!

I'm really afraid for the children because what Belgium is currently doing is being done in schools all over America too. Parents would be better off homeschooling their children or sending them to private schools, but not everyone can afford to do that. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when children are no longer allowed to have an innocent childhood.

I myself was born to a pedophile... my father. For all of my childhood years I went through hell, and it was in an age where I couldn't tell anyone because no one would believe me. I'm 65 years old, doing fine, and escaped when I was 17. I absolutely despise pedophiles and people who take up for pedophiles, like your insane troll on this thread. To lose your childhood to someone else's perverted sexual selfishness is something that should never happen to anyone. Thickslab is disgusting, and so are all of his ilk. I detest all of them.

Those poor children in Belgium. Jesus weeps with me!

Posted by: Gayle at October 2, 2006 04:32 PM

---

"If you choose to expend so much energy cultivating your hatred..."

I'm not expending a lot of energy, nor am I cultivating hatred. I don't mind refuting homo technical rubbish whenever I see it, and it gives me pleasure to do so. If you try to convince me that the homo lifestyle is a genetic quirk, I'll lovingly tell you that your arguments are nonsense. You can drag up all the fallen Catholic priests, and all the African AIDS stats, and all the gay adoption nonsense, and all the queer curriculum arguments, and tell us that even dogs do it gay style, but you're still in denial. The rest of us don't give a shit. You can talk 'til you're blue in the face. We don't, and never will, accept that the homo lifestyle is normal nor acceptable.

The fact that the homo lifestyle is "tolerated" in Canada doesn't mean that it's widely accepted. The law requires us to be "tolerant", but it certainly doesn't mean that the rest of us have to shut up about it. If we have to tolerate your lifestyle or your bogus statistics, you have to tolerate us when we speak up about it. That's about as much as you can ever hope for in a tolerant society.

Posted by: José Joseph at October 2, 2006 04:35 PM

---

Bravo, Jose Joseph (4:35 p.m.) . Bienhablado, amigo!

I have no idea how to explain it. Statistics can be slippery things. It could, as one reader posits, be the influx of Muslims who do not allow their teenagers to even THINK about having sex. Who knows? Perhaps the European "progressive and positive sexual health education," as you choose to call it, does improve these statistics, but the deeper question is: Does having sex at earlier and earlier ages make them any happier or their lives more fulfilling? I don't know about you, A, but I remember as a sexually active university student worrying every month about more than what papers were due and making sure I got to all of my lectures--and I was in my late teens, early twenties, not a 13-year-old.

It is interesting to note that in many of these countries, especially the Scandinavian ones, the suicide rate among the populations is very high, so it doesn't seem that more diverse and earlier sexual activity has contributed to a sunnier disposition in the cold, dark North.

Jose Joseph also makes the very salient point that young people who refrain from sexual activity are far more likely to go onto higher education. Having to worry about contraception, the possibility of pregnancy, the "solution" to a pregnancy should one occur, how to deal with a sexually transmitted disease, which sex with multiple partners will surely bestow upon the participant in such extracurricular activities, not to mention the emotional obligations of a sexual relationship, takes a lot of energy, much better put into one’s studies and athletic pursuits, wouldn't you think?

This glorifying sexual activity and justifying kinky sex exhibits as "healthy and positive" is really a crock: ‘nothing positive or healthy about them; ‘nothing positive and healthy in any way about encouraging our young people to become sexually active until they are much older and are more able to handle all of the physical, psychological, and emotional ramifications of such a relationship.

I also tend to agree with Steve that what these kinds of exhibits encourage, aside from early experimentation in sex, is an "anything goes" attitude towards sex. This is an indoctrination tool to make sure that children accept any kind of coupling, male-female, male-male, female-female, then transgendered and bisexual sex, a real sexual pot pourri.

Not for my kids, thanks very much. When I become a grandparent--who knows when?--I will be very vigilant about "field trips" my grandkids are taking. I can see it now. A trip to the ROM to see "Sex for Kids: a positive, healthy, and interactive expose of sexual practices and acrobatics through the ages: Lots of hands-on fun for the whole family!"

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 2, 2006 04:51 PM

---

'been around the block: I remember as a sexually active university student...Having to worry about contraception, the possibility of pregnancy, [etc.]...takes a lot of energy, much better put into one’s studies and athletic pursuits, wouldn't you think?

And yet, even as more and more teenagers are becoming sexually active in high school, university enrolments have never been higher, nor the quality of applicants ever stronger. Indeed, you yourself were a sexually active teenager, and you turned out just fine, no? Oh, and it's not true that "young people who refrain from sexual activity are far more likely to go onto higher education." Actually, it's young people who refrain from getting pregnant (either through abstinence or contraceptives) who are far more likely to attend college or uni.

It is interesting to note that in many of these countries, especially the Scandinavian ones, the suicide rate among the populations is very high, so it doesn't seem that more diverse and earlier sexual activity has contributed to a sunnier disposition in the cold, dark North.

Here's the latest stats from the World Health Organization. Lo and behold, Sweden's, Iceland's, and Denmark's suicide rates aren't appreciably different from those of Canada's. Granted, Belgium's and Finland's are far higher, but then the Netherlands are also lower. For that matter, Iran's suicide rate is virtually non-existent. The point is, suicidology is complex stuff, and the legitimacy of a country's social policies can hardly be refuted (or justified) by simply quoting suicide trends, as though the logic were that straightforward. Otherwise, we'd all be copying Iran.

Not for my kids, thanks very much.

And once again, we come back to the notion of choice. You don't want your grandkids to go to the ROM for a Sensoa-style sex ed exhibition? No problem--don't take them! Ah, freedom of choice! Isn't it great when other people don't try to tell you how to live your own life, or as a parent, how to raise your own kids? But surely then, you'd have to agree that if other parents are willing to let their kids go, it's entirely their choice as well, right?

Oh, and I wouldn't put much stock in J.J.'s "Muslim" thesis, either. So many holes, but if nothing else, the subpopulation sizes alone couldn't possibly account for the 2- to 3-fold difference between Belgium's teen pregnancy rate and Canada's. We're talking fundamental laws of statistics here, not my own liberal/socialist biases.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 05:55 PM

---

"Ah, freedom of choice! Isn't it great when other people don't try to tell you how to live your own life, or as a parent, how to raise your own kids?"

You've gotta be kidding me, A. The point is, it won't be the parents taking the six-year-olds to the Cirque de Soleil Sex Extravaganza at the ROM, it'll be the school--and the school will be telling parents, believe me, because they already are, "how to raise [their] kids." The teacher will be taking the kids on the educational outing," (sic) and from past experience, it'll probably be without parental consent.

At my kids' school, a public health nurse came into the grade 6/7 class with grab bags of contraceptives for the students to "play with," without parental consent. She had the kids playing with coloured and flavoured condoms, the pill, IUDs, diaphragms, and tubes of spermicidal foam. And I'm not making this up.

As for me being "a sexually active teenager, and you turned out just fine, no?" Not so fast.

I was in my late teens, early 20s in the late '60s, at the beginning of the so-called 'sexual revolution' and 'sexual liberation.' Revolution it was, but liberation? No way.

I regret having been sucked into the sexual morasse of the '60s and '70s, because sex became too easy a "commodity," with young people being encouraged by our music, the movies, the drugs, not to mention the drug companies selling the pill like there was no tomorrow, to have something called "free" sex--which meant, I guess, free from commitment and marriage, free from responsibility and self-respect.

There are a lot of walking wounded from those times, A, lots of people who who are deeply sexually dysfunctional and who can't commit to a relationship, an epidemic in our demographic of divorce, largely because sex was divorced from the emotions it engenders--and it needs to be meaningful and not just animal rutting .

Many sexually active young people from the sexual revolution ended up having abortions (lots of my friends did), which has not made their lives happier--more convenient, perhaps, but not happier--our generation has been experiencing an epidemic of breast cancer, reproductive malfunctions, and other side-effects from years of using contraceptives--and guess who's laughing all the way to the bank? The pharmaceutical companies: They get us to pay for the contraceptives and then they get us to pay again when we get sick from sexual activity (STDS) or when contraceptive use causes medical problems.

What you refuse to accept, A, is that the motivation behind this sex exhibit has nothing to do with children's education and everything to do with indoctrinating them into, and making them comfortable with, diverse sexualities.

Whereas when I was six, I had a vague notion of a mother's egg joining with a father's sperm--how, I didn't know, and I didn't care, at that point and never asked--six-year-olds at this exhibit are looking at copulating bears in different positions, variants on penis size and shape, etc., all totally age-inappropriate. They're not at an age where they can process this information.

So, I'm not convinced by your arguments, A. I don't think it's appropriate or healthy for any child to be taken to an exhibit like this, especially because it's clear to me that sexualists have a subversive agenda here, to make children at younger and younger ages "comfortable" with more and more explicit and public sex.

And just forget the idividualistic nonsense, well you don't have to take your child but you shouldn't be telling other parents how to raise their kids. Either we have societal norms or we don't. Right now we seem to have fewer and fewer--and please show me that our children are happier and healthier, that they have lots of self-respect and that they're not annihilating themselves with drugs, suicide, and sexually transmitted diseases in epidemic numbers.

Smooth talk, A, wrapped in Internet statistics, but the stats aren't real life, they don't mirror the heartbreak and complications of sex gone wrong, which happens with rather more frequency than you want to admit.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 2, 2006 06:52 PM

---

please show me that our children are happier and healthier, that they have lots of self-respect and that they're not annihilating themselves with drugs, suicide, and sexually transmitted diseases in epidemic numbers.

I thought I did, earlier. All those trends about decreasing drug use, alcohol use, and marijuana use? Decreasing dropout rates? Do you really need more? OK, how about declining smoking rates? Higher percentages of substance-free teens? Teens today are also less likely to get into fights, carry a weapon, be out of school and unemployed, or seriously contemplate suicide, and more likely to volunteer and finish school.

Maybe, just maybe, despite all the so-called "state intervention" and "teachers telling parents how to raise their children," the kids are actually doing all right. They're smarter, more accomplished, more worldly, more ambitious, and more confident than many previous generations. But all this information won't convince you of anything, will it now? Just more "smooth talk, wrapped up in Internet statistics", right? Who needs the facts when you've got your personal opinion.

Posted by: A at October 2, 2006 07:48 PM

---

I challenge your conclusion that "the kids are actually doing OK." Sure, there are a lot of very accomplished, smart, and ambitious kids, as you say, but children of divorce are hurting, there are epidemic levels of STDS, next to accidents and cancer, AIDS is the third killer of young people between the ages of 20 and 30, too many are being devastated by drugs, too many are neglected by their parents, and the list goes on and on. .

I see the fallout every day: discouraged young people, underachievers, difficulties focusing on given tasks, neglected by their parents, unsure of themselves, not ambitious, afraid to be leaders--maybe they don't know how. I'm not sure where the populations you're talking about dwell.

Just walk down a big-city street, or travel on public transit, and watch the kids. Moving in packs, plugged into their i-Pods, not aware of or particularly interested in anyone but themselves, no longer showing either respect for others or themselves in raucous behaviour and no longer showing deference and courtesy to the elderly or mothers with children, etc, etc.

My generation has badly let children down. We have expected them to bring themselves up, while we have fulfilled our career and lifestyle ambitions, often leaving them in substitute care, leading to anger on their part, and acting out in the taking of drugs, having sex at earlier ages, and being influenced by peer pressure.

You might read, A, if you're working in public health, Gordon Neufeld and Gabor Mate's book "Hold Onto Your Kids: Why Parents Matter," published in 2004 by Knopf Canada. Here's the dust cover blurb:

"A psychologist with a reputation for penetrating to the heart of complex parenting issues joins forces with a physician and bestselling author to tackle on of the most disturbing and misunderstood trends of our time--peers replacing parents in the lives of our children.

"Dr. Gordon Neufeld has dubbed this phenomenon peer orientation, which refers to the tendency of children and youth to look to their peers for direction: for a sense of right and wrong, for values, identity and codes of behaviour. Peer orientation undermines family cohesion, sabotages healthy development and fosters aggressive and prematurely sexualized youth culture.

"It provides a powerful explanation for schoolyard bullying and youth violence; its effects are painfully evident in rampant drug use, teenage gangs and, at its most extreme, in tragedies such as occurred in Littleton, Colorado; Tabor, Alberta; and Victoria, B.C. [and, we could add, Dawson College in Montreal, the principal in the U.S. murdered by a 15-year-old student who had been recently expelled and the horrendous shootings at an Amish school in Pennsylvania today]. It is an escalating trend that has never been adequately described or challenged...

"'Hold Onto Your Kids' will restore parenting to its natural intuitive basis and the parent-child relationship to its rightful preeminence. The concepts, principles and practicial advice contained [in this book] will help parents keep or regain their natural authority and will protect children from becoming lost in the emotionally barren and culturally sterile world of peer orientation. This book will empower parents to be for their children what nature intended: the true source of contact, security and warmth."

What kids are "doing alright," A? My observations have been that there is a critical mass of kids who are NOT doing alright. Nearly every indicator for the health of our youth, physical and emotional, indicates that many of our young people are in crisis. My facts are garnered from real life, A. I'm a mother, I'm a teacher, I'm a community volunteer and I see with my "bare eyes" what's happening to our youth.

What's your vantage point? Tell me in your own words--don't give me a barrage of statistics-- which kids are doing well and what you make of more bullying today, more violence, and more STDS, all of which are having negative effects on our youth.

I'd like "different" facts from you, A. Your observations of everyday life.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 2, 2006 10:29 PM

---

"And yet, even as more and more teenagers are becoming sexually active in high school, university enrolments have never been higher, nor the quality of applicants ever stronger."

Could this have anything to do with the observation that our local universities are now overwhelmingly stuffed, way beyond capacity, with Asian students. They are really serious and competitive students. The professional faculties are almost entirely Chinese. My son was the only European face in his class of 300.

Our local youth are seen sitting on the sidewalk panhandling for spare change. They are also active in the windshield washing trade. They do have nice tattoos and piercings, though. And they are very knowledgable about various youthful sexual past-times.

The results of our misguided adventures in sexology and lifestyle choices indicate that we have made some seriously bad choices in family development principles. It's clear to me that one really major mistake is listening to confused homosexual lifestyle advocates. It's now time for the rest of us to push back. I, for one, have stopped accepting anything from Europe (Belgian peep-shows for children in particular) as having any credibility.

It's my little contribution.

Posted by: José Joseph at October 3, 2006 02:02 AM

---

A: Well said, I have no problem with teaching children the parts and how they go together, as long as it is age appropriate.

One area in which I have a BIG problem has to do with the definition of male sexuality as dirty/disgusting and dangerous. This is an important area wherein our severe gynocentricity and gynosupremecy are distorting children in unpredicatable and dangerous ways.

Also, the age appropriate concern has not as of yet been properly addressed. For instance, it is not at all uncommon for males to undergo the mental change part of puberty as late as age 19, (try asking a large group of men when they first noticed sexuality ... you'll find more than a few males first noticed girls (boys) as interesting well after physical puberty: They first noticed an erection as pleasurable well into their late teens. Frankly, the spectrum of when a child notices sexuality is well over 13 years wide. The whole 'What is appropriate?" has not been answered, not even by a little bit.

On another note:

We must be careful with homosexuality. There is zero doubt that male abuse CAN lead women to choose lesbianism. The same thing applies to males with female abuse, to a lesser extent as it appears that it requires more "force" to get a male to choose to be gay. These ARE NOT the norm, but they clearly do exist as one part of the spectrum of homosexuality.

Posted by: jw at October 3, 2006 05:00 AM

---

I concur with José Joseph's comments about a vast number of smart, ambitious students at university being Asian. In a photo of my daughter and I, in front of a university building on the day of her graduation in June, you can see eight people in various stages of gowning for the ceremony. Of the eight, my daughter and I are the only Caucasians. The other six students are Asian.

A snapshot of reality in our universities today.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 3, 2006 06:26 AM

---

Correction: Math was never my strong point. In the photo I mention above, aside from my daughter, there were six students gowning for the grad. ceremonies.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 3, 2006 06:27 AM

---

You see, A, this is why I skip straight to the flaming: the flaming is fun and it is less futile than what you are doing.

You can quote as many statistics as you want and you can explain the scientific and sociological data until you're blue in the face, but these people will never be persuaded. You can show these people information until you're blue in the face, but anything that disagrees with their preceonceptions will simply be dismissed. They want to be afraid and angry, and no facts you can show them will persuade them that they shouldn't be.

So no matter how well our kids are doing, no matter how much crime is down and disease is down and teen pregnancy is down and abortion is down and violence is down and suicide is down, these people will never believe it as long as there's one anecdote out there they can cling onto.

No matter how well our children do, these people *just know* that they always be in danger because of the gays who want to molest them, the women who want to twist their sexuality, or the Chinese who want to crowd them out.

Posted by: thickslab at October 3, 2006 09:11 AM

---

jw: Frankly, the spectrum of when a child notices sexuality is well over 13 years wide. The whole 'What is appropriate?" has not been answered, not even by a little bit.

Yes, you're absolutely correct that "what is appropriate" needs to be continually debated. I'd even go further and say that it can only ever be tentatively answered, and that the question needs to be continually revisited and updated as social values and norms and demographics change. Every society must renew itself in this and other ways in order to avoid rigidity, atrophy, and eventual internal collapse.

Two thinks irk me about this thread. The first is the refusal of some to at least revisit their belief systems in the face of contradictory information (not opinion, not anecdote -- information).

The second is the sense of moral superiority at work here. It's never enough to simply consider the merits and drawbacks, and make a calm decision about whether to support or reject something. No, it's always a moral judgment, always framed in histrionics--Save the children! Fight the "gay agenda"! It's all "disgusting" "crap", and you'd be a pedophile for supporting it!

Disagree with the approach of the SENSOA exhibit if you like, but what's the point of referring to it as a "red-light district for children"? Or asking, even rhetorically, if whether "there are any parents in Belgium at all"? Is there prostitution going on in the back rooms? Is this about sexually titillating the kids? Does anyone actually believe that adults in that country have voluntarily abrogated their duty as parents?

This sort of hysterical condemnation completely ignores the rationale--presumably, Belgians are as capable of reason and judgment as anyone else--behind the program, which is based on their negotiation of their social values. We may disagree with the exhibit, we may say that our particular value system does not support it, we may (and likely would) decide in the end that it's simply not for us--but to presume that we somehow know better requires a spectacular level of arrogance that only makes us look bad.

Posted by: A at October 3, 2006 12:48 PM

---

thickslab: You see, A, this is why I skip straight to the flaming: the flaming is fun and it is less futile than what you are doing.

Yes, I'm starting to realize this :-) Still, "these people" is one of those blanket phrases that I prefer to avoid (though I think we both know who you're referring to). To be fair, there are some here who've been willing to engage is a fair and open dialogue. Which is important, as maintaining this dialogue--rare though it may be--is the only way the so-called "political discourse" in this country will ever rise up from the gutter and reach a stage where the "left" and "right" aren't simply shouting past one another.

I say we team up. I'll focus on the reasonable members, and leave it to you to toy with the emotions of the hysterical and crotchety. Flame on!

Posted by: A at October 3, 2006 01:31 PM

---

"What this world is coming to because of liberal idiots truly disgusts me. I do believe that if my church here in Texas were to be forced to marry a homosexual couple, most of the congregation would leave the church. All the conservatives would, for sure!"

Gayle, as you well know, in Canada churches are not required to marry same sex couples.

As for a church in Texas being "forced" to do so, when there is no same sex marriage anywhere in the US outside Massachussets, what are you suggesting? Do you think that in five or ten year's time the current conservative climate in America may diminish to the point where the Texas State Legislature might provide for gay marriage or gay civil unions?

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 3, 2006 01:37 PM

---

What you refuse to accept, A, is that the motivation behind this sex exhibit has nothing to do with children's education and everything to do with indoctrinating them into, and making them comfortable with, diverse sexualities.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 2, 2006 06:52 PM

Obviously, 'been around', the real reason why you object to this exhibit is because it may make people fell comfortable with diverse sexualities.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 3, 2006 01:44 PM

---

Thanks, Budd, for saving me the trouble of having to point this out to BATB. Not only is her statement revealing of her true motivations, but it also has the additional distinction of being wrong. In fact, I did accept that the exhibit was designed to help people feel comfortable with diverse sexualities, way back in my first post (October 1, 2006 12:48 PM).

Posted by: A at October 3, 2006 02:00 PM

---

"Two thinks irk me about this thread. The first is the refusal of some to at least revisit their belief systems in the face of contradictory information (not opinion, not anecdote -- information)."

A, what makes you so sure that people who refuse to agree with you are refusing to at least revisit their belief systems ? If that were the case, don't you think that BATB and the rest of us "homophobes" would confine ourselves to conservative sites that don't allow dissenting opinion (there are plenty of them out there).

"The second is the sense of moral superiority at work here. It's never enough to simply consider the merits and drawbacks, and make a calm decision about whether to support or reject something. No, it's always a moral judgment, always framed in histrionics-..."

Thats's a two-way street. Anyone who doesn't wildly applaud every liberal idea that comes down the pike is automatically branded a homophobe, a religious zealot, judgemental or accused of trying to be morally superior.

You make excellent arguments A, though I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics. Some right-winger more internet savvy than I, could come up with as many links to back up our morally superior judgemental arguments.

I'd have to say that I am one of "these people" because I am in 100% agreement with what BATB writes. Sure I'll listen to arguments, read data and statistics, but at the end of the day I'll rely on what I see with my own eyes and what I know from my own -sometimes disastrous- experiences.
I tend to look with a very gimlet eye at ANYONE who wants to make 6 year olds comfortable with any kind of sexuality. We're talking about 6 year olds here. They're still babies for Chrissakes ! What is so evil about wanting to let kids be kids ?
Personally I think we in North America are way too sexualized. I work with guys in their 30's and 40's who can't find Cuba on a map (literally -one guy recently asked me "Isn't that near Iraq ?"), but can tell you every detail of who's screwing who in Hollywood. Look at the defense of Bill Clinton for committing adultery - "every does it."
Bullshit.
And if every does do it -maybe we shouldn't be doing it. That hurts people. Look at what a complete unmitigated disaster the institution of marriage has become. You can't tell me all those broken homes don't affect kids -and in a negative way. And all because we insist on living between our legs.
I can't formulate arguments as well as others here can, but I have to tell you -stats or no- I think you're wrong. I think we -as a society- need to get our own shit together before we start stuffing our kids' heads full of our wonderful new progressive ideas. If that makes me judgemental -fine.
But isn't it judgemental of you to call me that ?

Posted by: up north at October 3, 2006 07:30 PM

---

Re: Clinton defense: should read "EveryBODY does it. Ditto for the sentence immediately after it.
...sigh

Posted by: up north at October 3, 2006 08:15 PM

---

up north: A, what makes you so sure that people who refuse to agree with you are refusing to at least revisit their belief systems?

Perhaps I came across a little strong. For that, I apologize. However, though I'm obviously trying to convince others of my viewpoints (the whole point of debate), I don't expect everyone (or anyone, for that matter) to actually agree with me. All I expect is an exchange of reasoned, articulate argument. 'BATB, however, continues to claim things like, "Nearly every indicator for the health of our youth, physical and emotional, indicates that many of our young people are in crisis...my facts are garnered from real life," despite direct evidence of those very indicators showing otherwise. You can obviously hold whatever personal, anecdotal, and/or common sense opinions you'd like, but anecdotal evidence is useless for making generalized conclusions--that's practically the definition of anecdotal evidence. So, if you're going to wade into a debate about the state of children in N. America, you're going to need data reflecting all children in N. America, not your own personal experiences. Show me those refuting links you mentioned, and I'll give due respect. But to resort to close-minded, debate-ending arguments like, I don't need stats because I see with my "bare eyes"? That's a stance that I simply can't acknowledge.

Anyone who doesn't wildly applaud every liberal idea that comes down the pike is automatically branded a homophobe, a religious zealot, judgemental or accused of trying to be morally superior.

Not always. Re: the moral superiority claim, again, I don't necessarily expect agreement with "liberal ideas." It's the tone with which the disagreement is voiced that bothers me. It's not a sexual health exhibition; it's a "publicly funded red-light district for children." The content isn't merely age-inappropriate; it's "crap is crap is crap." One can't simply support the exhibition; one is a "supporter of pedophiles." Belgian social values and norms aren't simply different from ours; they're "disgusting." One can't merely take issue with SENSOA's sexual health experts; they're "idiots." Their advice isn't merely misguided; it's "gay homo crap." Shall I go on?

It isn't that people disagree, it's that they disagree by stating, simply and unequivocally, without any impartial evidence, that "there's no way that this exhibition is either healthy or positive for pre-school and primary school children." Basically, what you're saying is, "I'm right and you're wrong, not because I have proof, but because I just know better than you." That's moral superiority to me.

Posted by: A at October 3, 2006 09:04 PM

---

I'm still waiting for A to tell me from where he's coming. I've given my credentials for my observations: I'm a mother, an educator, and a community volunteer. I see what I see.

I used to believe what you believe, when I was much younger, before I became a parent, and before I kept running into kids whose family situations put them completely at risk--and I'm talking about a lot of kids, most of my children's friends, actually, many of whom I took care of when their parents couldn't.

What are your credentials, A?

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 3, 2006 09:22 PM

---

A, I will admit, you are arguing circles around me. I will also admit that I remain unconvinced.
I am unused to liberals that can present a rational argument. Be careful: if we (the vast right wing conspiracy) find you, we will have you bronzed and put you on display :-).
The best I can do is to ask you three questions -and I am genuinely curious as to what you have to say.
1)We are talking about SIX year old children here. In your liberal heart of hearts, do you honestly see nothing wrong with stuffing their heads full of sex-ed ?
2)Do you disagree with my statement that we are far too sexualized in North America and that the vast majority tend to live between their legs ?
3) To repeat BATB's earlier question, what do you see with your own eyes ? Never mind the stats, what's your personal take on things ?

Posted by: up north at October 3, 2006 09:35 PM

---

A: your credentials please. Why would I trust the statistics you post? There are literally thousands of places you can get stats to back up your viewpoint that life is improving for our kids.

Who are you? Are you a parent? Do you work with children? I’d like to know. Why should I believe your statistics?

The “facts” you insist are facts, because you’ve been able to produce a Web site with the statistics to back up your assertions, are not self-evident.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 3, 2006 09:46 PM

---

up north: The best I can do is to ask you three questions - and I am genuinely curious as to what you have to say.

Fair dinkum, though I should warn you that you may not be fully satisfied with what I have to say. Also, apologies for length.

1) We are talking about SIX year old children here. In your liberal heart of hearts, do you honestly see nothing wrong with stuffing their heads full of sex-ed?

Short answer: I don't have a problem with age-appropriate sex-ed, even for 6 year olds. So, there's probably no need to have a specific lesson at that age on the proper technique for putting on a condom, but I don't see the harm in having, say, the "boys have penises, girls have vaginas" conversation, or the "some people have a mommy and a daddy, some people have two daddies..." conversation (obviously I'm accepting of sexual diversity, and think my future kids should be too). If done responsibly, I can even see a use for cartoon diagrams or dolls. As mentioned earlier, I'm not so sure about taking my (hypothetical) 6 year old into the 'orgasmic audio chamber' (even I have limits!), though I might be OK with it when s/he gets a bit older. Note the emphasis on "my" kid. If other parents (Canadian, Belgian, whatever) are OK with their 6 year olds going in, who am I to judge? I'll take care of mine, they'll take care of theirs. Just because I'm uncomfortable with something, doesn't necessarily make it 'wrong.'

It's important to remember that sex-ed, at its core, is not about titillation; it's about discussing human sexuality in a frank and honest manner. Also, it's not about protecting innoence; it's about respecting your kids enough to treat their curiosity as a legitimate desire for knowledge. If a 9 year old asks a parent what sex is, the answer isn't to whip out a copy of Debbie Does Dallas, but nor is the answer to blush and awkwardly change the subject. Don't lie, don't make stuff up. Respond honestly, using what you think is appropriate language and detail. I trust that parents know what their kids can handle (who'd know better than they?). If we treat the topic of sexuality responsibly and with respect, and don't shy away from answering any questions that kids might have, then hopefully that attitude of responsibility and respect will carry through to when they become sexually active themselves. That, I think we can all agree, is a worthy goal. It also bears mentioning that the notion that sex-ed leads to kids having sex earlier is a myth, disproved by actual research (please don't make me have to dig up yet another link).

2) Do you disagree with my statement that we are far too sexualized in North America and that the vast majority tend to live between their legs?

I'd agree that N. American pop culture is generally over-sexualized, though that's not the same as saying that N. Americans themselves are over-sexualized. More specifically, I find N. Americans (culture and society) to be highly ambivalent about sex--on the one hand, raunchy innuendo in advertising, the massive porn industry, etc., but on the other, continued opposition to addressing the reality of sex among teens, criminalization of adult sex work, discrimination against queer groups, etc. In other words, the (highly profitable) fantasy side of sex is OK, but the realities of sex between actual consenting people are less acceptable for open discussion.

Relatedly, I support sex-positive attitudes and practises, which for me means accepting (a) that sex can be a source of pleasure as well as a means of procreation; and (b) that there's a vast diversity of sexual preferences out there (straight, queer, multiple partners, role playing, etc.), and far be it from me to judge which are OK and which aren't (a provision being that all parties involved do so consensually, i.e., no rape, child abuse, or bestiality (donkeys can't give verbal consent)). Personally, there are many fetishes and kinks out there that aren't my cup of tea, but if you want to engage in something, then as long as you're practising safe sex and not hurting anyone else, more power to you.

As for living between one's legs, I'd disagree with the characterizations "vast majority" and "tend to." However, I'd concede that everyone (including myself, you, and Steve) is potentially susceptible to making poor judgments from time to time due to sexual impulses, because, well, we're all human, aren't we? Whether condemnation is in order for these slip-ups depends on the harm that results. A pedophile abuses a child? Prison, no doubt. My teenage daughter loses her virginity at 17? I wouldn't celebrate with champagne or anything, but hopefully, her partner is a decent person and I'll have taught her to insist on practising safer sex.

3) To repeat BATB's earlier question, what do you see with your own eyes ? Never mind the stats, what's your personal take on things?

Honestly, I really believe that teenagers these days are, on the whole, doing fine. Personally, I have friends who became sexually active at 15, and are now completing their PhDs. I have friends who were raised in single-parent homes, and are now professionals with their own intact families. I have both gay and lesbian friends, who as teenagers endured lots of bullying and discrimination, but made it through and are now in stable, monogamous relationships. Two are raising a beautiful daughter together. Life's far from perfect, and there are difficult times, but nobody I know is a criminal, nobody's addicted to drugs, nobody's attempted suicide.

Of course, at a societal level, there are many problems that need to addressed, and we shouldn't minimize their seriousness. Sure, I can look around and find plenty of examples of troubled kids. I live in downtown Toronto, and encounter homeless teens all the time. Even a single unwanted teen pregnancy can be deemed a tragedy. Depression and suicide among adolescents needs closer attention. Kids raised in single-parent homes can be problematic, not because they only have one parent around per se, but because single-parent households are at higher risk of poverty.

All these and other issues need addressing. But at the same time, the sky isn't falling. There are many many signs that the vast majority of kids are doing well, so let's keep the emotionalism and judgment to a minimum and focus on practical solutions. Let's use the much-maligned statistics to figure out where the problem areas are and aren't, and focus resources more efficiently. Let go of moral pronouncements, and focus on the immediate welfare of your fellow human beings. It's easy to sit back and say, look how troubled the kids are these days, but it's far harder to make commitments to improving that reality. E.g., instead of condemning single mothers for their "promiscuity," let's rebuild the social welfare network to pull them and their kids out of poverty and into, say, decent housing. Yes, this will require your tax dollars going to "them", but if you're serious about having kids' best interests at heart, then that's some tax revenues well spent, no? As for the kids wearing iPods, not giving up their bus seats to the elderly? I'm not so worried about them. Bad manners, sure, but they'll mature and come around. Certainly, they don't justified any hysterical overreactions about the state of our children.

Posted by: A at October 4, 2006 01:07 AM

---

A: your credentials please. Why would I trust the statistics you post? There are literally thousands of places you can get stats to back up your viewpoint that life is improving for our kids. Who are you? Are you a parent? Do you work with children? I’d like to know. Why should I believe your statistics?

Credentials? What would be the point? Would it matter at all if I said I was a father, or a school principal, or an academic with a PhD in adolescent social work, or the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services (lest I be sued by Ms. Chambers, let me state that I'm not)? Nothing about me personally affects the statistics I cited, which themselves are independent and sound. Either you approach them with an open mind, or you don't. thickslab is right: there's nothing I could possibly say now that would shake your dogmatic adherence to your own beliefs, so why bother.

Oh, and by the way, they're not "my statistics." If you take a closer look at the linked charts, you'll find their data sources, which, depending on the topic, include the US Census Bureau, the US Centers for Disease Control, the US Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, and a host of academic research studies. Have fun coming up with ways to undermine their validity.

Posted by: A at October 4, 2006 01:26 AM

---

Well, A, you seem to have it altogether; 'funny how you don't see your own pompous moralizing when you tell some of us to "Let go of moral pronouncements, and focus on the immediate welfare of your fellow human beings."

That's exactly what my life is about, A: focusing on the welfare of my fellow human beings, in the persons of my children and in the support and nurture of some of their friends and others in my community who've been neglected and are on their own, in a number of different contexts.

As to your assertion that "Nothing about me personally affects the statistics I cited, which themselves are independent and sound." No statistics are "independent," every company or individual who compiles them has an angle, and I'm just asking what angle yours are coming from. Seeing as you won't say anything about yourself, except that you live in Toronto and have lots of friends, thankfully, who have weathered various domestic storms and have turned out OK, I am still unable to ascertain why I should trust your judgment in the stats that you are supplying, especially as a number of your judgments I find naïve and Utopian: the only answer to single-parent homes is to ratchet-up financial support and housing for them? What about encouraging and supporting marriage, so children can experience the advantages of a two-parent household—an arrangement that is far easier on the mom. I know: I was brought up in a single-mom home.

One other small thing: What makes you think that ill-mannered teenagers are all of a sudden going to mature and turn around? That doesn't usually happen. Ill-mannered, boorish teenagers quite often become ill-mannered, boorish adults. I have seen lots of evidence of this in my day to day perambulations through life. I guess experience doesn't count in your books, though, does it? Only statistics, heaped one upon the other...

I'm trying to see in my past posts where I have been either "emotional" or "judgmental," certainly no more judgmental than you. Yes, we disagree rather vehemently on a number of issues here, but I think you stoop too low, A, when you charge me with "emotionalism". I'm have not been emotional. I have merely stated my case as forcefully as I can, and you happen to disagree.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 4, 2006 07:01 AM

---

A,
Thank you for taking the time to answer those questions.

Posted by: up north at October 4, 2006 08:17 AM

---

Because it's not about AIDS. It's about using government funds to impose a secularist-humanist culture on society in which children are taught to be gay (or at least, not to question policies promoted by the gay lobby, even if they have nothing whatsoever to do with public health)

Umm... that's about as neat a description of the gay agenda as it gets, I'd say. And SENSOA's angling to have Article 50 removed from the Eurabian Constitution more or less reinforces that, doesn't it? Not to mention the ramming (no pun intended) of their ideals to children as young as preschoolers. Nice touch, that.

Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Maybe it's a Good Thing for your preschool child to understand that penises and vaginas come in all sorts of sizes, and to appreciate the profile of a nice circumcision. and to let the young'uns experience the sounds of orgasm. Or to appreciate the Wonder of Transgenderism (as the tot seems to be doing in the picture above). Or for all young children to understand the benefit - perhaps the necessity - of same-sex parenting. Not that it benefits society as a whole, mind you, but it doubtless benefits some small segment of it. And all of this will help reduce the spread of AIDS.

Who knew?

Eight years ago, I had a great chuckle at this article in the Onion:

3w[d0t]theonion.com/content/node/28970

After reading info like this, it's not nearly as funny today.

Perhaps not quite so far-fetched, either.

mhb23re
(email is above username at google webmail service)

Posted by: mhb at October 4, 2006 09:13 PM

---

I've given my credentials for my observations: I'm a mother, an educator, and a community volunteer. I see what I see.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 3, 2006 09:22 PM

Since when is being a mother, or a father, a credential?

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 5, 2006 02:13 PM

---

Umm... that's about as neat a description of the gay agenda as it gets, I'd say.

What is the "gay agenda"? Is that where gays and lesbians lobby governments for equal right, equal benefits, an end to discrimination and effective prosecution of hate crimes? Is that what people here are so opposed to?

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 5, 2006 02:20 PM

---

No, Budd, your definition of "gay agenda" isn't what "the gay agenda" is.

It's about ramming down the throat of every Canadian--starting with vulnerable kindergarten kids, when "Heather Has Two Mommies" is read to them, or "Daddy Has a Roommate"--the idea that gay sex is normal and natural, and that anyone who questions this is homophobic, bigoted, retrograde, red neck, conserva