Johanson's Sunday sex show cancelled (http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2005/07/11/1126643-cp.html)

TORONTO (CP) - Sex counsellor Sue Johanson's Sunday Night Sex Show is ceasing production, a spokesperson for the W network confirmed Monday. However the popular therapist, grandmother and former nurse will continue to tape the U.S. equivalent of her long-running show - which began airing on the Oxygen network in 2002.

Johanson's sex counselling show started on Toronto radio in 1984, then moved to WTN in February of 1996. With WTN re-branded as W, the live show continued on Sundays with classic episodes running during the week.

Johanson has been a popular guest on such U.S. talk shows as The View, David Letterman and Conan O'Brien. Her show also airs, with Portugese subtitles, in Brazil.

Her quarter century of experience includes establishing the Don Mills Birth Control Clinic in 1970, where she remained as a clinic co-ordinator until '86. She began teaching sex and sexuality in schools in 1974 and still makes presentations to thousands of university and college students each year. And she's written three books on sexuality, not including one on her show, Nocturnal Emissions: Behind the Scenes of the Sunday Night Sex Show.

There was no immediate word on why the show was cancelled or when the last episode will air.

I liked Sue, and really appreciated the "down to earth" informative-frankness she showed in dealing with the subject matters she presented on her 'Sunday Night Sex Show'.

Sometimes I wanted to call Sue and ask her how should I stick it to the CRTC. :)

Does the W network show anything other than sex related stuff? Everytime I am going through the program guide I see some sex related show on the W network. LAME.

It is insane someone can make a career by giving sex advice but hey, that's our human race for you....obsessed with something every creature does naturally.

I know this may sound unpopular or overly conservative, but her "no nonsense, anything goes" approach came across as borderline "vulgar" and often "lacking morals" in my opinion.

It's one thing to "call it as you see it", but there are limits whic we seem to have forgotten about as a society.

As r2917 put it, the W network program lineup as a whole illustrates my point quite well. Nowadays, it seems you can take just about anything - and I mean anything - and put it on the air for the sake of getting viewership.

Overspecialization of TV channels and media in general (magazines, etc.) inevitably lead down this slippery slope - you know you're gonna get sex stuff thrown in the mix since sex is such a big deal in people's lives in general. And somehow we wonder why kids have been robbed of their childhood when young teenagers are exposed to sex advice in magazines for which they are the target audience.

her "no nonsense, anything goes" approach came across as borderline "vulgar" and often "lacking morals" in my opinion.

You must be kidding. You think censorship is the answer to proper sex education? What century do you live in?

Basically what you are saying is you would prefer people get their sex education on the street from others that don't have a clue about it.

You must be kidding. You think censorship is the answer to proper sex education? What century do you live in?

Basically what you are saying is you would prefer people get their sex education on the street from others that don't have a clue about it.

I completely agree -- I think Sue's role was to educate, not titillate.

Absolutely agree with TheTinRam and leafsfan. Her role was to educate. And her approach (too frank for some) was one that worked, and allowed her to connect with people needing the education she could provide.

In 1988, when I lived in Toronto, Sue had a local cable access program.
My buddy was a volunteer cameraman for her so I got to meet her once
before her show. She was really cool.

You must be kidding. You think censorship is the answer to proper sex education? What century do you live in?

Basically what you are saying is you would prefer people get their sex education on the street from others that don't have a clue about it.

Here we go... Don't put words in my mouth please.

I never talked about censorship. You're the one who's bringing it up. And I never said people should get their education on the street. You are saying I said it.

I've watched and listened to her show many times and while some interventions were very appropriate, giving instructions to a 16 year-old girl on how to perform anal sex with toys on her sick 24 year-old boyfriend is not my idea of education.

Don't accuse me of living in another century. I honestly believe, using my example, that the girl need to be told that she should not be with a 24 year-old guy asking to have things inserted... That's the education she needs.

This is not the same thing as the same girl phoning about whether she should let her 18 year-old boyfriend get to second base.

There's a nuance there. And I feel a lot of people -including Sue and yourself- fail to recognize it.

I can already hear those who will say : she's going to do it anyway, might as well be safe, blah blah blah... I disagree. Youngsters receive more sex education than any previous generation ever did. It does not need to go that far. The message is simple: contraception and condoms. Any thing else is at your own risk. If something happens, I call it natural selection.

Not to go off topic, but the same thing goes for those "safe injection" sites in Vancouver. Something happens when you're shooting up heroine, too bad. There's a lot of education about drugs, too. People make the wrong choices, it's THEIR choice. That's what free society is all about.

People make the wrong choices, it's THEIR choice. That's what free society is all about.

It's also your choice to watch or not the show.

The problem these days is the Internet. Kids have easy access to realy hardcore stuff out there and in their mind stuff they see on the Internet is real.

Those poor young teens have to do blow job and DP to be popular and part of the gang…
They do Blow Job before they even kiss.

I think it's parents job to educate children and not a TV show.

I'm expecting my first kid in 6 month and I'm already scared what I'm I going to do!

I remember back in 85 listening to her on q107 at 10pm Sunday nights....it was cutting edge back than.

It's also your choice to watch or not the show.

Frankbla88, I agree with you on the Internet point, but I don't know why you feel the need to tell me about my choice to watch the show.

I know I have a choice to watch the show. It's not whether the stuff happens as I'm watching or not that bothers me. It's the fact that it's happening. Period.

This is like telling someone: You don't like how this kid is vandalizing someone's car? Then don't watch.

It's not like I'm stuck up and my precious ears can't tolerate what's being said. I don't like what the message promotes.

It's not like I'm stuck up and my precious ears can't tolerate what's being said. I don't like what the message promotes.

My bad I see what your saying now.

But still we have to stop blaming network for what the children are watching.
If parents would spend more time with their children to educate and give them the proper tools to make their own choice then we wouldn't be in this mess.

DAMN I MISS THIS SHOW! Why doesn't Sue fight for a Canadian distributor of her American show??