As has been discussed in this column before, sex education in our schools is a minefield of opposing ideologies with conservative parents on one side getting apoplexy over the possibility Justin or Jessica will be exposed to information they don’t agree with.  Meanwhile school boards, health boards, and supporters on the other side are trying desperately to educate upcoming generations about not just the mechanics of sex but also the ethics of sex, without treading into the dangerous waters of "morality" where one person’s morals are another person’s idea of degeneracy.

Now there is a new area that cries out to be addressed; sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or what used to be called sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and, before that, venereal disease (VD).

In Alberta, we are experiencing what under any other circumstances would be called an epidemic of syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and, still, HIV.  And nobody is talking to the kids about it.  It’s one thing to sit your son or daughter down and have "the talk", as nerve-wracking, embarrassing, and uncomfortable as that it (as a teen I acutely remember having my parents talk to me about it...and I still squirm thinking about it!).  But it’s quite another thing to talk to them about STIs, about the various ways these infections are transmitted, what they do to your body and brain, and how to protect oneself if one decides to be sexually active.  Little wonder few parents even go there.  It will mean having to talk about oral and anal sex, not just vaginal sex, which is where most sex ed talks start and end when mom and dad give "the talk".  Schools, I would suggest, are better equipped to open the conversation to various expressions of sex and sexuality and I think it is important they be able to do so, regardless of what mom and dad might believe or feel about it.  As so many sex-ed advocates point out, just because one discusses the risks and benefits of a particular sex act doesn’t mean the kids are going to rush out and try it...but if they do, or ever do down the line, at least they will be equipped with the knowledge of how to protect themselves, both physically and health-wise.

The Alberta government has plans to spend over $14 million over the next five years (that works out to $2.8 million a year) to battle the rise in STIs.  We are seeing some controversial television and print ads already as part of the campaign, ads that play off the whole adult chat line phenomenon.  However, there is nothing in place regarding a more comprehensive and mandatory sex education curriculum in our schools, although part of the five-year strategy is apparently to "promote, maintain, and reinforce the provision of quality sexual health information in the school system."  One can only hope this means mandatory and compulsory sex education in the schools but, the evidence doesn’t seem to support this.

With the introduction of Bill 44 in 2009, parental rights were formally enshrined allowing parents to pull their kids from class if the curriculum deals with sex, sexual orientation (meaning, of course, lesbigay issues and possibly trans issues as well), or religion.  Bad move, in my opinion, but that’s been covered in another column some time ago.

According to Kris Wells and Mary-Anne Doherty of the University of Alberta’s Institute for Sexual Minority Studies, ninety per cent of students turn to their schools to provide sex education, not to their family, and if there is insufficient information available in school, they will turn to the Internet.  Wells asks the important question "are they finding reliable information?"  We know the answer to that.

Wells has been quoted as saying sex-ed in schools "...isn’t an issue about religion or morality...[it’s] about the health and safety of our young people and providing them age-appropriate, non-judgmental information so that they can make informed decisions."

Exactly.  And the key words here are "age-appropriate" and "non-judgmental".  The information given to Grade 6-ers is going to be markedly different than the discussions held in Grades 10 and 11 or 12.  What gets many anti-sex-ed parents groups in a tizzy, however, is the "non-judgmental" aspect.  They claim some nefarious ‘gay agenda’ will be at work, undermining their children’s morals, encouraging them to at least experiment, if not actually become, gay, lesbian or bisexual.  Total poppycock, of course.  The fact is, kids will experiment sexually and for some it’s part of their coming out process, absolutely, but for most it’s just not a fit, just not something they liked, and they move on from it.  I see nothing wrong in that, but then I come from a different generation and a liberal upbringing and believe if boys or girls experiment with amongst each other, so what?  Where I have an issue with that experimentation is if it places them at some sort of health or physical risk, which is why it comes down, in my opinion, to arming youth with the appropriate understanding and means to take care of not only themselves but the person or persons they choose to be sexual with.  To me, it seems a no-brainer.

While having contracted an STI is hardly anything to celebrate, neither should it continue to have such a strongly morally negative connotation.  The perspective that to have syphilis, or any number of other infections, is a moral failing is simply not helpful.  Generally speaking, having HIV/AIDS is no longer seen as a reflection on the individual’s morality; although it is in some quarters, even still.  Over the last 30 years we have, thankfully, moved from shunning those who are HIV-positive and viewing them as some sort of sexual leper, to an understanding that HIV, and AIDS, is "just" a disease albeit a dreadful one to have.  But at least there isn’t the moral, one could even say moralistic, overtones we saw in the 80s.

In some ways, we still view syphilis much as it was viewed centuries ago.  If you’ve ever seen the Johnny Depp movie The Libertine, the story of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a 17th Century poet and nobleman at the court of Charles II who was an infamous "syphilitic", you saw not only how syphilis ravaged him, leaving him disfigured, crippled, and insane and eventually killed him.  You also saw how he was shunned and condemned by his uninfected peers, many of whom were as "debauched" as he, just not as public about it.  Clearly, untreated syphilis is a horrible, disgusting, nasty disease to have and any effort to eradicate it should be undertaken.  Syphilis is treatable, even curable, but it can also go undetected until the full fury of the advanced disease is unleashed and by then, it is too late to treat.  This is why it is crucial to protect ourselves and to seek out treatment if we even suspect we may have contracted it, but that isn’t going to happen if you are a teenager who has internalized the profoundly negative messages our culture has around sex and STIs.

Taking responsibility for one’s personal health should be a matter of course.  At its most basic, why should popping down to the Provincial Clinic for a test and, if need be, treatment be any more a "moral issue" than going to a walk-in clinic or your own doctor - should you be lucky enough to have one - to get, say, a respiratory infection checked out?  It shouldn’t.

When I was first coming out and taking full advantage of sexual opportunities, and this was pre-AIDS by the way, toddling off to the STD Clinic was just something any responsible, self-affirming, active gay man did.  There was no shame attached.  In fact, the waiting room was often quite social with several comfortably gay men, and occasionally one’s past (or current!) sexual partners, coming in for their monthly tests.  In the post-AIDS era, and with all the negativity and shame attached to it and the attacks launched against the gay men’s community because of HIV/AIDS, the zeitgeist changed.  Men stopped going for regular check-ups.  Part of this was fear of finding out one was HIV-positive, certainly, and at that time being HIV-positive was tantamount to receiving a death sentence.  But it was more than just that; it was internalizing the huge amount of sex-negative, particularly gay sex-negative, messages with which we were starting to be bombarded.

Mindelle Jacobs, a conservative columnist for the Calgary Sun, wrote in a column a while back about her support for mandatory sex education classes and of her hope that comprehensive sex-ed, meaning detailed and specific sex-ed, would become compulsory in Alberta schools.  She ended the column with these words:

"But if mom and dad are pulling Jack and Jill out of sex-ed class, our safe-sex message is like a leaky condom."  I agree 100 per cent with her on that.

Moral arguments against such education ring of prudishness, not any high moral stance.  As Jacobs further suggests, if Mexico, one of the most actively Catholic and socially-conservative countries in the world, can bring in mandatory sex education because of alarmingly high HIV/AIDS infection rates among young Mexicans, then our reluctance to confront the issue head-on is revealed for what it is; not a response, but a reaction to the spectre of SEX being taught, and a baseless fear on the part of parents’ groups of "indoctrination".