Survey also seeks data on religion, family makeup

By Matthew Pearson, The Ottawa Citizen, November 4, 2010

The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board will ask students and their parents probing questions about home life, religious affiliation and sexual orientation as part of a census to be conducted this month.

The board will survey the parents of students from junior kindergarten to Grade 6, while students in Grades 7 to 12 will be asked to complete the survey on their own.

The board says it's an effort to better serve its diverse student population, but some fear the questions go too far, especially for students in Grade 7.

Barrie Hammond, the board's director of education, said the results will help the board make better decisions about programs, services and resource allocation.

The survey comes after extensive consultation with board committees, the parent council association and aboriginal, immigrant and faith communities, he added.

But at least one Barrhaven woman said she was taken aback by some of the questions in the survey.

"This is adult stuff," said Lori Pothier, a mother of two students at Longfields-Davidson Heights Secondary School.

"I'm very shocked that they want to know if I'm employed, unemployed and what my educational degrees are," Lori Pothier said.

Pothier also called the survey "negative-option marketing" because parents with children in Grades 7 to 12 need to notify the school in writing if they don't want their children to participate.

"Why do I have to contact the school and say, 'No, my child won't participate,' when everything else (the school does), they send home permission slips," she said.

Both surveys touch on a wide range of issues, including academic abilities, bullying, extracurricular activities, cultural backgrounds and language, and religious affiliation.

They ask respondents to identify the adult caregivers students live with most of the time, and provide a number of possible responses, including two fathers, two mothers and half the time each with mother and father.

Not surprisingly, the survey for older students includes questions about plans after high school.

But it also asks about gender -- and includes "transgender" as one possible response -- and sexual orientation.

Students are asked to identify their sexual orientation from a range of possible options, one of which is "prefer not to disclose."

Hammond agreed some of the questions are deeply personal, but noted participation is voluntary.

"If (students) come to a question they feel is too personal or they don't feel ready to answer or they don't know what it means, they can go on to the next question," he said.

Individual survey responses will not include a student's name or student number. Instead, each survey will have a unique number. Students' names and their corresponding student identity numbers will be stored in separate locations to protect confidentiality. Individual student responses will not be available to school or district staff, the board says.

No one from the board could say how much administering the survey will cost, but one trustee said it will be money well spent.

"The value to the whole system to have this kind of data and make key policy and program decisions, which will help students, is far more valuable than the costs associated with the survey," said Riley Brockington, trustee for River ward.

"If we know our students well, we'll better meet their needs in all kinds of ways," Hammond said.

For example, if the results suggest a correlation between a set of students and their sense of belonging in the school system, Hammond said the board could develop a targeted approach to address the situation.

The Toronto District School Board conducted a similar survey of students and parents several years ago. . . . .

Who are the adult caregivers your child lives with most of the time? (Please check one only)

UN Agency Promotes Sex Ed From Birth

NEW YORK, November 4 (C-FAM) Promoting sex education to the youngest of the young has drawn harsh criticism to a UN agency and its interpretation of age-appropriate education.

“It is never too early to start talking to children about sexual matters,” according to guidelines issued by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Once highly respected for its independence and integrity, UNESCO now works in partnership with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS), an educational arm of the controversial Kinsey Institute.

Last September, a torrent of criticism greeted new UNESCO guidelines on sexuality education for promoting legal abortion and masturbation for children as young as five. The intensity of the objections forced the agency to pull the guidelines, only to quietly reissue new ones in December.

UNESCO acknowledges a former director of SIECUS is one of the principle authors of its sexuality guidelines. The guidelines are cited authoritatively as a model of age-appropriate sex education in a new UN report on education rights that was roundly denounced by UN members last week.

UNESCO removed some of the most explicit language in the revised guidelines, but retained an appendix with “guiding principles” that includes a Kinsey-inspired sex education curriculum for children from birth to age five. . . . .

Countries Slam Attempts to Create New “Right” to Sexual Education at UN

[Note: Canada is cited as being among the supporters of the document advocating the "right."]

New York, October 28 (C-FAM) - Angry delegates took to the UN floor this week to denounce a report that promotes a new human right to explicit sexual education for young children.

The African and Caribbean blocs led the widespread hostility toward the report by registering their “strong rejection” and “strong disapproval.”

The report claims a new human right to sexual education citing non-binding recommendations and other UN reports including the controversial UNESCO guidelines on sexual education and the Yogyakarta Principles. The report's author, Victor Muñoz, argues that States have an obligation to ensure this new right “from the early stages of life.”

Bucking established procedure, Muñoz submitted his report to the UN without being present to defend his recommendations and analysis.

Muñoz pays lip service to the right of parents to choose their children’s education, which is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but adds “this authority may never run counter to the rights of children and adolescents.” According to Muñoz, comprehensive sexual education goes beyond simple biological or reproductive information.

Ignoring the ongoing heated debate at the UN over terms dealing with “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” Muñoz insists that sexual education include information on “sexual diversity.” Muñoz blasts abstinence programs, which he argues normalizes stereotypes and promotes discriminatory images because they are based on “heteronormativity.”

Muñoz added that denying the existence of lesbian, gay, transsexual, transgender and bisexual population exposes these groups to discrimination.

Though unable to address Muñoz directly, frustrated delegates representing Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Organization of Islamic Countries lined up to denounce the report. They criticized Muñoz’s single-handed attempt to redefine the human rights system and introduce controversial topics such as sexual orientation, sexuality education and gender identity as universally accepted concepts.

Malawi, on behalf of the African bloc, said there was “no universal agreement on the notions of sexual education.” Munoz's attempt to create a new right and reinterpret the existing understanding of human rights “flouted” the code of conduct, Malawi said. The African group expressed alarm at what it called Muñoz’s selective use of quotes from other UN documents, which do not constitute a “truthful reflection of objective facts.”

The Caribbean bloc also registered its “strong disapproval of this attempt by Muñoz to create a new right within the universally established right to education, far exceeding his mandate.” The Caribbean countries charged Muñoz with “indulging his personal interests at the expense” of delegations and demanded a re-written report that followed the guidelines set by the UN.

While many others -- including Russia, South Africa, Morocco, the Arab Group, the Holy See and the United States -- also denounced the assertion of a new right to comprehensive sexual education, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and Argentina were supportive. The European Union “fully and wholeheartedly” expressed its support for Muñoz and his report.

The General Assembly took no action on the report this week, but it is expected to consider it again in December.

Sex Education Subject of Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Open Letter
to Ontario Minister of Education

OTTAWA – The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has sent an open letter to Ontario’s Minister of Education, the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky.

The controversial sexual education component of the Health and Physical Education curriculum was both introduced and withdrawn this past spring. It was withdrawn in large part because of many parents’ negative reaction to its content.

“The letter was sent for two reasons,” explains EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson. “First, parents felt they had been blind-sided. The way curriculum development currently works in Ontario requires parents to be reactive rather than engaged in the process. Public feedback is only being welcomed after the curriculum has been developed.”

“This lack of parental involvement runs contrary to Ontario’s Reach Every Student, Energizing Ontario Education plan which states that parental involvement is ‘integral.’ Further, it doesn’t recognize the role that parents have in determining their children’s education, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Province of Ontario has acceded,” states Hutchinson.

Second, the letter addresses the Ministry of Education’s proposed solution to controversial elements of the curriculum, that children can be withdrawn from “any course in conflict with the personal beliefs of the parents.”

“While we’re thankful that the Minister of Education recognizes the legal requirement to accommodate Ontarians’ religious beliefs, this type of accommodation runs contrary to the Human Rights Code, its very own Equity and Inclusive Strategy,” explains Hutchinson.

“While this may appear to be a non-discriminatory solution, it actually discriminates by removing a certain group of students and perspectives from the classroom – those that are either social conservative or Christian – contrary to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in the Zylberberg case. It’s exclusionary rather than being inclusive.”

“If a child has to leave the classroom because the curriculum doesn’t permit the inclusion or respect for their beliefs, then the entire Strategy has failed. Those students certainly won’t feel included or accepted in the Ontario school system,” states Hutchinson.

The Open Letter to the Minister of Education can be read at theefc.ca/education.

For more information or an interview contact:
Gail Reid
Director, Communications
905-479-5885 ext. 227
Cell: 647-227-3464
reidg@efc-canada.com

CitizenLink, August 24, 2010:

[U.S.] HHS Yields to Public Pressure, Releases Abstinence Study

Posted by Catherine Snow

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reluctantly bowed to public pressure on Monday and released a pivotal abstinence study with results that fly in the face of the Obama administration’s policy of “zeroing out” all abstinence-education funding.

CitizenLink and pro-family organizations alerted people Wednesday that the administration had refused to release the study. The HHS website was shut down on Friday, due to the overwhelming response. On Monday, the study was posted online.

The taxpayer-funded research, “The National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents,” comes as critical funding for abstinence programs is set to end Sept. 30.

The U.S. Congress and the administration canceled all abstinence-centered program grants for the FY2010 budget, putting at risk more than 2 million students who are expected to attend 176 abstinence programs this fall.

Up until now, cash-strapped states reportedly have been “on the fence” about applying for federal abstinence-only sex education program funds. States have until Aug. 30 to apply. . . . .

The abstinence study’s executive summary indicated that:

70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: “It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.
70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: “Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do.”
Adolescents had similar responses for the two questions.

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, was elated by the release of the study, but said, “We are greatly concerned that the sex education policy being implemented by this administration does not reflect the values of what most parents and teens clearly want.”

Young Children Removed from UK Schools for "Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour"

LONDON, June 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A U.K. government report has described as "worrying" the discovery that children in the youngest grades of primary school are being removed from class for "inappropriate sexual behaviour." According to the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted), 14 out of the 69 schools surveyed had related problems with children as young as four acting out.

The report mentioned children touching other children "inappropriately" and using "sexually graphic language." Other offenses included swearing, attacking staff and throwing furniture. In some of the schools in the investigation, the same children had been suspended ten times in one year.

The report says that teachers who contacted social services over worries about the children's sexualized behavior were often turned away, with one being told that the child would "grow out of it."

Miriam Rosen, director of education at Ofsted, said, "Sexualised behaviour can indicate a child protection issue, so the important thing is that they refer to the social services so they can deal with the problem."

In the report's conclusion, Ofsted is "urgently" asking the government for guidelines to help teachers "identify" appropriate sexual behavior and when to refer a child to social services in case that child is at risk of abuse.

The revelation comes at the same time as government plans to introduce explicit "sex education" to children as young as five are moving forward. [boldfacing here by editor of this BCPTL website]

In April this year, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.

Norman Wells, head of the Family Education Trust (FET), told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), that the problem is more systemic than isolated cases of child abuse. "Inappropriate sexual behavior among young children in primary schools is all part of the price we are paying for our highly sexualized culture," he said.

The FET is a research and lobby group that investigates the causes of family breakdown in the UK. Wells accused the government of "caving in to the demands of the sex education lobby" in its plans to expand sex education in the national curriculum.

"We are failing to learn the lesson that introducing children to sexual language and imagery, whether on television, videos, DVDs, the internet, or in formal school lessons will inevitably break down children's natural sense of reserve."

Ontario is poised to inaugurate a new and explicit sex education curriculum in September. According to a detailed outline posted on the Ministry of Education’s website in January, children in Grade 3 will for the first time learn about “invisible differences” between people, including those of gender identity and sexual orientation, while Grade 6 and 7 students will receive information about “vaginal lubrication” and “anal intercourse.”

Reaction to the initiative from a “family-focused” coalition upholding traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality was predictably, and fiercely, combative. “[Y]ou’re talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe that it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices,” said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values.

Unpacked, Reverend Malcolm’s allusions to “thought processes” and “ability to make correct choices” reflect social conservatives’ fears that a too-early introduction to sexuality of all kinds, particularly to the phenomenon of homosexuality, may negatively impact a child’s normal sexual development.

That the most active resistance to the program comes from the Christian right should not distract thoughtful secularists from the fact that the program is objectionable on purely rational grounds that have nothing to do with homophobia.

You don’t have to be religious to recognize the incompatibility of early instruction around sexuality with, dare we say it, the “settled” science around the “latency period” of childhood. In this schema, the second sexual phase in children following infancy and early childhood, from the age of six to twelve, is a period in which direct sexual energies fall dormant. During this phase, the child gathers his inner resources and develops mental and physical strength for entry to young adulthood. Only at adolescence do hormonal changes create the appropriate psychological context for absorbing ideas about “gender identity” and sexual ethics in a meaningful light. Until that time schools should butt out of sex education. . . . .

If there were longitudinal, peer-reviewed studies attesting to the benefits of exposing children in the latency period to sexuality-charged curricula, we might be open to more experimentation along the lines proposed by Ontario’s Ministry of Education.

There being none, we see the program as a political vehicle for special interest groups obsessed with “social justice,” who perceive entrenchment of their libertine agenda in public school curricula as the quickest and most efficient route to detaching children from morality-based sexual values.

In the end, we are on the side of the children, and feel that prudence and parental privilege should be the watchword. Today’s world is so highly sexualized and the gateways to inappropriate images and message so ubiquitous, parents have their work cut out for them keeping their children in a state of innocence (a word one can scarcely say anymore without ironic airquotes). To everything there is a season. Ontario should back away from this ideologically-driven program, acknowledging the right of children to be children as nature made them.

German Government Publication Promotes Incestuous Pedophilia as Healthy Sex Ed

Micheal O'Brien, author on crisis of culture in West, says this "German state intervention in family life is a new level of auto-destruction"

By John-Henry Westen

BERLIN, July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age. . . .

Canadian author and public speaker Michael O'Brien who has written and spoken extensively about the crisis of culture in the West spoke to LifeSiteNews.com about the shocking and extremely disturbing phenomenon. It is, he said, "State-encouraged incest, which in most civilized societies is a crime." The development is, he suggests, a natural outcome of the rejection of the Judeo-Christian moral order.

"The imposed social revolution that has swept the western world is moving to a new stage as it works out the logical consequences of its view of man's value," said O'Brien. "It is merely obeying its strictly materialist philosophy of man. If man is no more than a creature created for pleasure or power. If he is no more than a cell in the social organism, then no moral standards, no psychological truths, no spiritual truths can refute the 'will to power' and the 'will to pleasure'."
. . . .

To express concerns to German authorities:

In Canada:

German Embassy
1 Waverley Street
Ottawa, ON, K2P 0T8
Tel.: 613-232-1101 Fax: 613-594-9330
Email: germanembassyottawa@on.aibn.com

In the US:

German Embassy
4645 Reservoir Road NW
Washington, DC, 20007-1998
(202) 298-4000
The embassy can be e-mailed from its website: http://www.globescope.biz/germany/reg/index.cfm

To express concerns to German authorities:

President of the Federal Republic of Germany
11010 Berlin
Germany
Telefon: +49 30 20 00-0
Fax: +49 030 20 00-19 99
E-Mail: Bundespraesident.Horst.Koehler@bpra.bund.de

Chancellor
Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Straße 1
10557 Berlin
Germany
Telefon: +49 180 272-0000
Fax: +49 1888 272-2555
E-Mail: InternetPost@bundesregierung.de

To read Michael O'Brien's essay on the Family and the New Totalitarianism see:
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10...

[For the full LifeSiteNews article, click here. Warning: Further details may be even more disturbing to you. They are not suitable for young children to read.]

We have not read the book which this interview deals with, but present this interview as dealing with a topic of compelling interest to many of our readers:

IMFC: What was your motivation for this new book?
Miriam Grossman, MD: Frankly, I wrote it because I was fed up. As you know, I
worked for twelve years as a psychiatrist for students at the UCLA campus here in
California. During that time, thousands of kids came through my office. I was
alarmed at how many of them had sexually transmitted infections and concerned
about students, mostly young women, whose sexual lifestyle placed them at risk for
disease, emotional distress and even infertility later in life. I was frustrated to see
patient after patient in similar situations, yet my hands were tied. There wasn’t
much I could do for them. These were young people who were otherwise wellinformed
and proactive about their health. They were careful about what they ate,
they exercised, avoided tobacco, and so on. But in this one area, in their sexual
behaviour, they took alarming risks, and that was perplexing. I began to question
these students carefully, and I examined how campus health and counselling
centers approach sexual health issues. Those findings were discussed in my book
Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her
Profession Harms Every Student.
This new project was an extension of that. I went deeper into the field of sex
education, looking at exactly what kids are taught, and at the history of sex
education in the United States. I went online and explored the websites, books,
pamphlets and videos created for kids and young adults. What I discovered was
deeply disturbing, and that’s what this book is about.
IMFC: In the book you argue that sex educators and activists dismiss the
fundamentals of child development, and omit critical findings of neurobiology,
gynaecology and infectious disease. You suggest this has profound consequences,
particularly for girls. How so?
MG: Absolutely. We have a wealth of new science that’s omitted from sex ed. For
example, in the past decade our understanding of the teen brain, and how it
reasons and makes decisions during moments of high stimulation has grown
tremendously. We didn’t know until recently that the brain area that is responsible
for making rational, thought-out decisions, the area that considers the pros and
cons and consequences of decisions, is immature in teens. The circuits aren’t
complete; the wiring is unfinished. Sex educators insist that, like adults, teens are
capable of making responsible decisions, they just lack information about sexuality
and access to contraceptives. So the way to fight sexually transmitted infections
and teen pregnancies, these authorities argue, is to provide teens with information
and contraceptives, and teach them skills like how to say “no” and how to put on a
condom. But current neuropsychological research does not support this stance. We
know now that teens’ poor decisions are likely due not to lack of information, but to
lack of judgement. And there is only one thing that will bring that: time.
Another example of critical information omitted from sex ed: a girl’s biological
vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections. The cervix of teen girls is covered
by a layer that is only one cell thick. That area is easily penetrated by the human
papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. (The human papillomavirus
is the STI we now have a vaccination against, and that’s another controversial
issue.) With time, the surface is covered by cells that are 30 to 40 layers thick, and
is therefore much more difficult to infect. Girls need to understand this from an
early age. We have dramatic images [of the immature cervix] that we must show
girls so they can grasp the importance of delaying sexual behaviour. These kids
must be informed that putting all questions of morality aside, if they are sexually
active at a young age, they are at risk for infections that could impact their physical
and emotional well-being over the course of their lives.
A third point is kids aren’t told that oral sex is associated with cancers of the throat.
Needless to say this is important, and indeed life-saving, information yet it is
withheld from kids, and that is the height of irresponsibility.
One of the points I make in the book is organizations such as Planned Parenthood
and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US) claim to be
providing up-to-date, medically-accurate information. But they do nothing of the
sort.
Instead, these organizations teach kids that they are “sexual” from cradle to grave,
that adolescence is the natural time to explore sexuality and that kids have the
right to express their sexuality in whatever manner they choose. This message
promotes sexual freedom, not sexual health. This is ideology, not science. When
sexual freedom is the priority, sexual health suffers. And indeed, the statistics in
the US on sexually transmitted infections, HIV, teen pregnancy, and abortion are
mind numbing.
IMFC: Where do these organizations place the role of parents in their ideology?
What are they saying to kids about parents?
MG: This is another disturbing feature of the sex ed fiasco. I discovered a duplicity
exists. When speaking to the media, and in their material for parents, sex
educators state that sex education should start at home and that parents should be
the primary sex educators of children. But in material directed at kids the message
is altogether different. Here’s what SIECUS says in an online booklet for kids called
All About Sex. It opens with eight pages on sexual rights: “Every human being has
basic rights. Still, adults may say and do things that make young people feel like
they don’t have rights. It’s important for you to know your rights so you can stand
up for yourself when necessary.” Then a bit later: “You have the right to decide how
to express your sexuality at every point in your life. You can choose if and how to
express your sexuality.”
Ninety per cent of parents want their kids to delay sexual behaviour, and they
expect sex educators to enforce that message. Organizations like SIECUS promise
to do so, but they don’t. All About Sex is a good example of what really goes on.
The goal is for the young person to realize that, sure, adults may have their
opinions, but kids of all ages have the right to their own ideas about sexuality, as
well as the right to behave in any way they like. Nowhere in this pamphlet are kids
told: we urge you to delay sexual behaviour because that’s the healthiest choice.
IMFC: The book will be an eye opener for parents. What can concerned parents do?
MG: The situation is sobering but my overall message is positive. The good news is
that all these sexual health problems are 100 per cent avoidable. And there is so
much parents can do to protect their kids. We know that young people are
profoundly influenced by their parents, the messages they get from their parents,
their perceptions of what their parents believe in, their parents’ values, and what
their parents’ expectations are. There are many studies that I go through in the
book that demonstrate that a parenting style of being warm and supportive and yet
having high expectations and firm rules has profound influence on children and
teens and the decisions they make.
Obviously parents need to be informed. They need the information in this book;
they are not going to find it anywhere else. I’m a medical doctor and I scoured the
literature for the latest on sexually transmitted infections, how girls are more
vulnerable emotionally and physically than boys, what kids are told about same-sex
attraction, gender identity, and many other topics.
My book is not politically correct, but it is medically accurate. I explain biological
truths that are not discussed elsewhere. For example, kids are being told that they
can be male, female or something else; that there are more than two genders and
that it is natural to question who you are at any time in your life. This is madness.
It’s not only medically inaccurate, it confuses our kids and it leads them into a
minefield of emotional and physical hazards.
IMFC: What would you say to government policy makers?
MG: They must find the courage to challenge the status quo. People need to stand
up, be politically incorrect, and acknowledge the truth of biology. Certain groups
will object, because what is seen under the microscope and on brain scans
contradicts their vision. It’s going to take that courage to change policy, to have an
extreme makeover of our approach to sex education. You see, sex educators have
institutionalized 20th century theories and social agendas, but hard science from
this century completely discredits those theories and agendas. Sex education needs
to come into the 21st century and leave behind ideas that are remnants of the
sexual revolution and feminism.
. . . .
Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

Sex Ed Gone Wild: Canadian Mag Covers Trend toward "Pleasure-Based" Sex Ed in Schools
Countered with physician's warning that "There are life and death infections involved here"

Warning: The nature of this article required the inclusion of sexually explicit language that some may find offensive.

TORONTO, Ontario, September 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lianne George of Maclean's magazine has penned a piece published this week on a new trend in schools' sexual education offerings to focus on the pleasure of sex. Her article highlights the work of Toronto's Carlyle Jansen, the owner of a 'sex shop' for women, Good For Her, who has launched a new not-for-profit organization devoted to offering free, "pleasure-based" sex workshops to schools and other groups in the area.

Jansen has long offered pleasure-based workshops through her store, but, according to George, a year and a half ago Jansen started getting calls from local high school teachers who wanted her to come and offer sex-ed to their classes. Since then, Jansen guesses that she has spoken to about 12 or 15 classes.

"Kids are taught to death about all the bad things that can happen to them if they have sex," Jansen told George. "They've said, 'We've heard about sexually transmitted infections, we know you can get pregnant, but we want to know about pleasure and we want to know about healthy relationships.'"

In the classes, she talks to teens about whatever they would like to know, from masturbation to oral sex to sex toys (examples of which she brings to the classroom in case teens ask). She also teaches the kids about the sexual 'pleasure centres' using items depicting sexual organs.

Now, Jansen has helped launch the Sexual Health Education Pleasure Project (SHEPP) in the Greater Toronto Area, whose mission is "to provide free, pleasure-based sexual health education focused mainly on marginalized communities including youth, people of colour, women, queer and trans communities." Course topic titles include "Negotiating what you want - in and out of the bedroom," and "Cool, safe, and hot sex."

A topic entitled "Re-visioning 'pro-choice'" is also on the list, with the description: "Not just about abortion any more. Know your rights!" The group explains their vision of 'pro-choice' further on a page entitled 'What We Believe In'. While the phrase is certainly used to designate openness to abortion, the groups sees it as including a broader range of sexual choices, including the freedom to exercise sexual license and the freedom to marry whomever one chooses.

Gwen Landolt of REAL Women Canada criticized Jansen's narrow focus on pleasure in teaching about sexuality. "Obviously this woman is promoting her own business," she told LifeSiteNews.com, "but also it absolutely misconstrues the whole objective of sexuality.

"Obviously pleasure is a component," she said, "but not the component that matters. It's a part of a loving, truly bonding relationship, and they're missing the whole point in letting children think that sex is just an extracurricular activity, with anyone at anytime as long as it's pleasurable."

Landolt pointed to the moral dimension and to the purpose of sexuality, "which as we know is to bring forward children in a marital relationship," she said. "That's why we've been given this wonderful gift of sexuality," she explained. "It's missed the whole object of it. It's zeroed in on one component, but not the whole picture, and children should not be exposed to such a narrow perspective.". . . .

Board to ask students if they are gay [in Ontario]