Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by Article:
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

"Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."




Wow.
Perhaps we should also stop educating women, and just keep them in their rightful place, the home

I'm trying to support Bush, although I didn't vote for him, but to me, this "abstinence only" education (and an INCREDIBLY pricey one at that) is just absurd. Kids aren't going to not have sex based on facts and fear. If Bush wants kids to follow his morals, he better start teaching them morals, judgement skills, and to think for themselves. They are going about this in an entirely wrong direction, IMHO, of course.



Not sure what this has to do with Bush, but OK.

I think the problem, well, the problem I have with sex ed is that most curriculums take it as a given that children are having sex. The program attempts to be noncommittal, but the end result is that if you go through the program and aren't having sex, well, what the hell is wrong with you?

So, then we have this "abstinence only" crap, which now is seen to be resorting to lies and half-truths to make its case. Well, that's pretty lame, too. Kids are smart. They need the truth. All of it.

So, yes, the parents are responsible. A kid with (what I consider) the right values will go through any sex ed program without being swayed one way or the other. Kids are assaulted today (younger and younger) with sexual imagery and expectations, and parents' jobs are getting harder, in my estimation. But it's still, ultimately, the parents' responsibility.

Oh, and abstinence remains 100% effective against pregnancy and STDs.

Function before fashion. '96 Contour SE "Toss the Contour into a corner, and it's as easy to catch as a softball thrown by a preschooler." -Edmunds, 1998