"The plain folk of the land" are getting the shaft too. It's so sad really when disenfranchised people support people in office who really just look down on them and abuse them.

I know a lot of people on the left like to kick them around, and I'm not saying anyone in this thread has done that, but they need to come to our side. It's no better than conservatives slandering inner-city black people.

I also think it's very dangerous to think of Bush and his cohorts as a bunch of dumb psychotics. They are a cabal, they are intelligent, and they know what they are doing.

This war in Iraq HAS NOT been a failure. They never intended to exact justice or liberate or protect anyone. They've made a financial killing and have thusly won.

I know it's somewhat off-topic, but I think it needed to be said. The people currently running the country are evil, and many of those that voted them victims whether they know it or not.

That being said, the Republicans KNOW that teaching only abstinence doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's. That's why they want it taught. They mask it in religious and moral dogma, but that's all it is, a mask.

They want to see all these young people getting pregnant w/o access to abortions and getting STD's. It's population control. They want 'em young barefoot and pregnant (the easier to prevent upward mobility) or just dead.

Personally, I am on the fence regarding teens having sex. I was a teenage boy once, and I know I had my urges and still do. You're always being reminded of it. You wake up in the morning...and there it is. :)

Yes, our culture is partly to blame. We all need a cold shower. But on the other hand, isn't it natural to...well, get horny?

People on the right and left sometimes seem to like to stifle sexuality. And while it may not be responsible for kids to be screwing around, we shouldn't discourage young people from being and feeling sexual.

This is what I think...

...demystify sex for young people.

Let young people look at porn. Good porn. Not stuff where women are being degraded and everything else. Porn may get bashed by conservatives and liberals alike, and not without good reason, but it doesn't have to be all bad. It doesn't have to be about women getting ganged up on by ten guys and being smacked around. That stuff SHOULD be banned.

Instead, let them watch loving committed, beautiful couples engaging in intercourse. And then give them the warts and all education. Let them know that it's ok to pleasure themselves, and encourage sex as more than anything, an act of love.

Boys and men also need to be taught that women aren't conquests and that "banging and bagging" them doesn't make them men.

Girls and women need to be taught that their sexuality shouldn't be used as a tool to get what they want from life.

Both young men and women need to be taught that their sexuality is theirs. Losing one's virginity isn't and shouldn't be a rite of passage nor should it be a game. But at the same time, they should be taught that their sexual urges are perfectly natural and while it isn't right to use someone else to gratify it and that it's perfectly alright to gratify oneself.

One on hand we tell our youth that sex is dirty and bad. But then we judge adults on how often they're "getting some". Look at how many sitcoms out there in which the male protagonist is in bed with a different woman in every episode. Teens watch these shows. It's aspirative viewing.

And then we have this movement where the dog-like behavior of some men is being encouraged in women, as if they can beat men at their own game.

That's just my view on it. You guys can pick it apart if ya wanna. I don't claim to know anything. :) Especially about sex. lol. I'm ranting again anyhow.

iwarrior sayeth...

"And then we have this movement where the dog-like behavior of some men is being encouraged in women, as if they can beat men at their own game."

Much to the delight of those very same men. I'm reminded of a bit of advice from a gambling book (of all things). If you want a fair game, find a fair game. Don't try to outcheat the cheater as a means of balancing the scales. When women try to match the behaviors of predatory, "dog-like" men, there's really no positive outcome. If they go up against the sharks, they won't win; if they consume some minnows, they won't be satisfied. Hoisting the narcissistic lothario on his own petard may sound like a great idea on paper-or celluloid-but it almost certainly won't bring any healthy, long-term satisfaction or mental well being. Romanticized, cinematic outcomes promising this type of "winning" are best left to romance novels and the cinema.

Er, actually, condoms (the ones purchased in a box at least) do come with instructions, in English and Spanish, accompanied by illustrations for the illiterate.

Not that this in any way diminishes the need for accurate sex education in our schools!

Kivals, your story about China in the '90s was intriguing, particularly that "Teens were never exposed to sexual messages and as a result few teens dated ..." When I was a teen (back in the Stone Age) there was heavy censorship of everything sexual -- to the point where married couples in movies or on TV always slept in twin beds. And we had no sex ed either. But we dated like crazy! Perhaps something older in Chinese culture accounted for no dating (arranged marriages? the very low status of women?)

To the point of this article, though -- it seems to me that the far right's abstinence-only agenda is terribly harmful in an age where, sadly, even the youngest children are prematurely sexualized by images on TV and the internet, and middle schools report that oral sex is becoming common (along with STDs of the mouth). Ignorance is NOT bliss in 2007.

On the other hand, I wish I knew what the Healthy Teens Act curriculum includes. In the '80s I worked for a lawyer whose wife was active in Planned Parenthood, and one day she came in with press proofs of their new sex education book (I think it was for 7th grade), which I got a chance to read. There were depictions of homosexual sex, as well as the downplaying of the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases (granted, AIDS hadn't emerged in the press yet, but syphilis and gonorrhea have been around for thousands of years). In their eagerness to present sex as a positive experience -- and I'm all for that, once you're mature enough to combine it with love -- they produced a curriculum in which there were virtually no downsides for pubescent kids. Frankly, I don't think that's honest either.

Maybe we need a middle ground here. For one thing, it's hard to argue this point made by the abstinence crowd: One of the best ways to avoid AIDS is to "avoid homosexual behavior" ... particularly since the revelations about black men and the "down low" phenomenon, which makes them a potential vector for AIDS among their girlfriends or wives. Of course, avoiding gay sex is not an option for gays, but it might be for bisexuals.

It's also honest to admit that even if you use a condom correctly, 4% of them fail. (Pretty good odds, but not if you're one of the 4%.)

I'm bracing myself for a lot of verbal bashing about this post -- so bash away, and maybe I'll learn something.

Either way, an all or nothing approach is not going to work.

US sex education is tragicomic, but it gets worse. At least some US foreign aid programs are tied to abstinence only education in the Third World*. These morons are helping the spread of HIV/AIDS - a very serious problem in Africa - and other diseases, with their endless moralising about other peoples' private lives. What's Christian about forcing misery and death onto the poor?

* for example: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/30/uganda10380.htm

AdeletheCzech,

My wife is a Chinese immigrant and she had told me of the situation in China and I saw it first-hand. The absence of dating was in a culture where women were treated as equals and where people picked their own mates (past the age of pre-arranged marriages). However, the Communist Party controlled all aspects of life and the Party did not approve of teen sex and teen dating and so it was treated as totally inappropriate behavior. The Party-controlled media and educational materials never presented teen dating as something normal or healthy.

Sometimes we fail to realize how much sexual mores are dependent on the culture. Throughout history there have been many cultures where bestiality, as practiced by boys or young men, was considered nothing more than mischievous. Today in the USA it is considered bizarre and is punishable by criminal penalties. And there are native cultures in South America, and certainly there were such societies throughout human history, where 11 and 12 year olds have free sex with adults, but in the modern USA that is considered extreme child abuse. And of course we all know that in many cultures children married at 12 or 13 (or sometimes younger) whereas in others they waited until their 20s.

Today in the USA our sexual practices are probably mostly determined by what behaviors corporate America can make the most money out of.

I knew I'd learn something! Thanks, Kivals -- your examples from other cultures were really startling.

And your last sentence was priceless. In America, it's always "follow the money!"

I talked a few recent years ago, less than 5, to a 25 year old college student, whe asked me, when I mentioned that I have HIV, "You can get rid of that, right?"

Here was someone who had lived with HIV well known in our society for his entire life, his only "sex ed" was whatever "private Christian schools" gave him, which apparently was nothing. (He said, when I questioned on this matter, "They [the private Christian schools] eren't big on sex ed.")

But still, to fathom that a 25 year old adult who, the entire time he's been around, HIV has been around, and he thought it was curable?

This is a sample of what kind of ignorance "B" wants to maintain.

In the past, there's beren talk about underhanded goals to depopulate the world. Perhaps the plan for "abstinence only" that "B" pushes is really part of that concept: keep them ignorant, let them get terminal STDs.

One of the things that I find most amusing about the abstinence-only approach is that it's proponents assume that the teens and young adults whom they don't trust to take fairly simple precautions in sexual relationships will somehow have the discipline and willpower to forgo sexual opportunities altogether until some time in the distant future (well, distant by young folks' standards, at least). It's like expecting a pitcher who can't handle single A hitters to start mowing 'em down in the major leagues.

Regarding the "follow the money" angle, one can not underestimate the enormity of the effects corporations and big business have had in saturating our culture with blatant, crass versions of sexuality (and violence) through commercials, movies, books and music. Yet many of the same reactionary individuals who worship at the altar of the dollar and who have done much to provide intellectual defenses for this kind of sociopathic, consequence-ignoring profit-seeking nevertheless have the brass gonads to try and pin the results on "the left". What cynical, gutless hypocrisy.

iwarrior .... yeah, you have it right about midwesterners getting kicked around, by virtually everyone.

I grew up in the rural midwest and never received any positive messages about sexuality from adults. It's been detrimental to my relationships and also severely sets back my self-esteem where sexuality is concerned. I'm still working on reversing those messages at 25, with the help of a therapist. I am so lucky to be able to afford one.

After having lived it, absorbed it, and tried to reverse it, I can say from experience that unrealistic, abstinence-only education and "wait until marriage" sexual messages can only hurt people and stifle one's love and knowledge of self.

Our young people grow up and must still learn about birth control and protection from diseases. Many young women have found out the hard way that having sex only with a significant other doesn't help them prevent unwanted pregnancies nor protect them from STDs or HIV/AIDS if their true love has been sleeping around or sharing dirty needles. With the high school drop out rate, it would seem wise indeed to consider this as part of basic education like reading and math.

To iwarrior;
A few days ago I encouraged you to continue contributing to this site.But jeez!-ramblig on and on. Joking y'all.
You made a number of excellent points.
About 30 years ago the right put much of their effort into gaining control of school boards.Many were slow to react-after all these were "just" school boards.This strategy was very effective and the damage done continues today. Demonizing choices in sexuality fits very well in the overall repressive politics of the right. Toture in many forms o.k.-healthy sexual discussions taboo!
In a similar vein-the Vatican has the largest collection of pornography in the world.Why wasn't this material destroyed? Oh right-it was kept for research.

Wolfowitz:our poster boy for:
sSexual activity outside of marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." (Sex among singles causes insanity and sickness?)

sA monogamous relationship in the context of marriage "is the expected standard of sexual activity." (It's the government's job to define our values?)

Peace,
st john

Bush's idea is half-baked, like most of his ideas. I spent a little time in China in the mid 90s and was shocked to see that abstinence did work there, contrary to all my preconceived notions. But it worked because the government totally controlled the media, the schools, and the culture in general. Teens were never exposed to sexual messages and as a result few teens dated and even fewer became pregnant. So it can work with total commitment, but of course that is not what Mr. Bush has in mind at all.

Was Dumbya still a virgin when he married Laura?

fligloot,

Didn't the woman claiming to be Bush's favorite prostitute in Midland commit "suicide" a couple of years ago, like Hatfield, the guy who had written the unauthorized biography of Bush claiming he had been arrested for cocaine?

I think it is awfully dangerous for those with personal knowledge to report on Mr. Bush's past indiscretions. For that reason, and many others, we probably should never forget that Bush's pronouncements regarding preferable or healthy behavior patterns have nothing to do with his past behavior.

In the last 6 years, we've gotten exactly what middle America wanted.

http://www.spectacle.org/1005/stasi.html

Bring back arranged marriages.

What bothers me is this policy costs billions of dollars to implement.
"Just say no." "abstinence" should be free to implement. I do not think any kind of special training is required. With all of the money kids will still tend to ignore because they are more impressed with the media and movie stars lifestyles.
The wepucks policies of background, credit checks, drug checks are dumb too. They should be encouraging people to work and not discouraging them.

iwarrior,

I hate to be the one who is politically incorrect (for a progressive), but I do take issue with your stand.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I have learned of primitive societies where everyone gets in a sexual free-for-all starting at the age of 11 or 12. Note that these are generally small societies with fewer than a hundred or two hundred members. And we all know that such behaviors have generally been discouraged in large societies.

That led me to the conclusion that what may be the cause of so much stress and difficulty regarding sexual issues in modern society is that evolution designed us to live in small societies and our sexual desires and inclinations find their healthiest and most satisfying expression in small societies. However, we learned long ago there are advantages to living in large societies and we merged small groups to form larger groups. But one cost of this is that following our natural sexual inclinations in large societies leads to negative consequences -- too many potential partners so choices have to be made, leading to force by those not chosen and fights between different suitors, pregnancies with no indication of who the father is, disease, abuse, etc...

So ancient societies must have discovered these negative consequences and designed rules (regarding marriage, sexual self-control, modest behavior in public, etc...) to avoid them. The rules are not without their costs, but they are attempts to minimize harm. And to downplay the importance of such rules with regard to teens, whose sex drives (particularly the males) are in hyperdrive, seems irresponsible.

Don't forget that Christianity rendered sex "a sin," and that Catholic priests are still expected to live the celibate life. This poses a dichotomy between sex and spirituality (in the form of living life as dedication to God). Sex, second only to survival (i.e. sating hunger, safe shelter & protection from the elements) is a PRIMAL force; and religious leaders, ever interested in the maintenance of their power/authority through the control of citizens have used sex (as sin) as a means of repression to disempower individuals for centuries. Pro life, but pro torture; anti-sex, but pro war? I mean these ridiculous polarities are so stark in their insanity that they should wake people from the grip of subservience to "the old gods" once and for all. Faith based abstinence policy, about as believable as WMD in Iraq....

Most of what I read in the article sounds like the typical ramblings of religious zealots! Where they try their best to terroize children with thoughts of burning in hell for eternity for having emotions and being human! I was raised in that kind of enviornment! It had a negative effect on me for years! I have grown over the years to despise everything religion stands for. I see they haven't changed a bit from 46 years ago! They are still the same purveyor's of ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, greed, hate, lies and out and out corruption! If George Bush is the best they came come up to speak about the Christian experience! Then Christianity is doomed!

My Wife and I actually have been completely monogamous. She was scared and totally repressed by guilt. I was totally inept in seduction and not good looking. We did have premarital sex cleverly planned by her and poorly executed by us when her roommate went home for the weekend. It would have been funny if it was in a movie and not real. I actually thought, (to my self) sex must be better than this or there would be no people!!!!!!!!!!
It took a lot of effort and years but WOW we got it down now.

At one point, she got a urine infection that required both of us to take antibiotics that cured her and made me sick as a dog. We had three kids and a miscarriage. My wife also suffered from some crazy hormone thing that caused periodic depression, ADHD, migraines, and nausea EXCEPT when she was pregnant. When she was pregnant she was so absurdly delightful and seductive that I still smile when I see a pregnant woman. She had to have surgery to repair damage caused by child bearing.

If we had understood the real pain, worry and danger involved with a sex life we might have been deterred even a little longer and had more realistic expectations and a lot less guilt.

As it was the scary, guilt trip form of sex education we experienced was no deterrent for me at all and pushed her into action that caused unnecessary emotional baggage that plagued our relationship for years. We still have to be extra quiet at her parents' house, but after 24 years we can at least rip off a mutually rousing piece when visiting.

sex is itself a religious experience - but therein is the "rub". how many of us are thoroughly prepared for a religious experience? the focus of abstinence education is one of postponement and guilt and marriages which follow do not necessarily have greater happiness or longevity. the conscious decision to withhold vital information from our children regarding sexuality is nothing less than criminal neglect.

Siouxrose,

Some of the Christian rules regarding self-control in sexual behavior mirror those of the early Jews, Moslems, Confucians, and many others. However, over time, the Christian rules became corrupted as they were made to serve the purposes of the Church, which itself had become corrupted by power. I was fascinated to learn that for the first several centuries of the Church the priests could marry. The rules were changed (the Church claims it was for theological reasons but that is transparent nonsense) so that priests could not marry so that the priests would not have heirs and so they would not have reason to accumulate and pass on their own property to heirs (instead it would all go to the Church, of course). Over time a whole new story was developed that the priests, who basically became useful idiots, needed to sacrifice to show their devotion to "God," when really the sacrifice was for the gluttonous leaders of the Church.

The pragmatism of the non-religious Dutch model for sex education means that they have the lowest teen pregnancy rate in Europe, and these educated Dutch students don't start having sex at a younger age than other countries. What a model for healthy behavior.

The US, with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western world, where sex is constantly snickered about, demonized, and obsessed over, is the dysfunctional country. The religious right will never allow sex to be divorced from consequences because of their dysfunctional relationship to it. Every act must be open to pregnancy, AIDS, STDs, so that they can keep the "threat" behind sex foremost in everyone's minds, when it's their own sexual demons in their own minds that they are really fighting. It's unfortunate that these demons of theirs are used to decide government policy.

Since sperm can be lethal to young fertile girls, sperm should be a legally controlled substance - any male who fails to control this dangerous goo should be locked up for his own good. But most of all, for the good of the Nation.

What I love about our society is that we want to tell kids "just say no" but we advertise, in prime time, excessive numbers of commercials about erectile dysfunction with attractive older adults constantly learing at eachother. We want to prevent women from having abortions, yet we don't help them (with childcare or finances) if they want to have these hundreds of thousands of supposed babies that we're killing every year that we couldn't possibly incorporate into our society. Obviously the way to prevent abortion is to prevent it, and the only way to prevent it is to educate and provide contraceptives. Abstinence education should be only a small part of the whole education process. My mother educated me early, and as a result, I felt totally responsible for my actions and was properly protected when I finally commenced my sex life. Ignorance allows people to get "carried away" and oops, its happened again.

Kivals: I am open to the historical aspect and appreciate your sharing it, but I still think the Bible's use of "the fall of Adam and Eve" over the "apple" is about sex = sin, and MANY people have been damaged by this absurd notion. Either they hate their own bodies, see sex as wrong, or invert the guilt and do all kinds of self-destructive things. I, too, believe sex can be a GATEWAY to a spiritual high... the tough part is maintaining a LOVING bond in a world that does all it can to attack love, peace, beauty and sacred things... we are facing a market-based vampirism that sucks the life out of everything so as to place a false for-sale designation upon it. Everywhere I see nature being stolen, packaged and put up for sale like human beings in 3rd world nations. It's a HUGE travesty and as I've stated in other comments on this site, part and parcel to the CHURCH distancing people from nature and their inherent natures, throwing them "out" of the garden. Imagine if we were LOVERS of Eden instead? I just drove from Big Sur to Ojai and the land here is some of Creator's best work, it absolutely inspires. Some of these California coastal communities know the sacredness of the land and have imposed strict building codes to maintain it as is. It is so different in Florida where I live, where wildlife is being pushed to the edges, the water drying up, the springs being contaminated with animal dung and chemical run off... a tale of 2 coastlines!

iwarrior: You said teens should watch porn -- not the degrading kind (amen to that!), but the other kind -- "...let them watch loving committed, beautiful couples engaging in intercourse. And then give them the warts and all education. Let them know that it's ok to pleasure themselves, and encourage sex as more than anything, an act of love."

But what you described isn't porn, it's EROTICA, which I've always thought of as healthy. In this culture, ironically, the only time kids see THAT is in Cialis commercials, which have a lovely vibe going between the two people shown. (Sorry, Jane M, but I can't figure out where you see "leering" in those ads.)

Ignorance is lowering the bar farther for each generation.

There is no harm in waiting until you are married. And there certainly is much harm, both physically and emotionally, in having sex with multiple partners. I can't stand the statement "Well they're gonna do it anyway...". They're going to do it because no one is telling them it's okay not to. All they hear and see is the absolute garbage 'we' (as a society) feed them through music, tv, movies, etc.

Virgins (especially males) are often portrayed as weak and inferior. Instead of being congratulated for being smart and free of std's they are ridiculed. Seems a bit backwards. A post from a blogger I read recently said if a whole generation could keep it in their pants we could virtually eliminate all sexually transmitted diseases.

Kids should always be taught to strive to achieve their best, deal with failures when they occur and move on. Conversely, we anticipate what their failures might be and teach then to be content with those shortcomings before they ever occur.

"But what you described isn't porn, it's EROTICA, which I've always thought of as healthy. In this culture, ironically, the only time kids see THAT is in Cialis commercials, which have a lovely vibe going between the two people shown. (Sorry, Jane M, but I can't figure out where you see "leering" in those ads)"

Ok, if you want to call it erotica, I'm cool with that. :) Of course, they can read erotica too. What a way to get kids to read! :)

It was be vigorous, sweaty, and full of naked soft and hard bodies and genitalia. As long as it isn't sleazy, and it doesn't have to be.

"I hate to be the one who is politically incorrect (for a progressive), but I do take issue with your stand.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I have learned of primitive societies where everyone gets in a sexual free-for-all starting at the age of 11 or 12. Note that these are generally small societies with fewer than a hundred or two hundred members. And we all know that such behaviors have generally been discouraged in large societies.

That led me to the conclusion that what may be the cause of so much stress and difficulty regarding sexual issues in modern society is that evolution designed us to live in small societies and our sexual desires and inclinations find their healthiest and most satisfying expression in small societies. However, we learned long ago there are advantages to living in large societies and we merged small groups to form larger groups. But one cost of this is that following our natural sexual inclinations in large societies leads to negative consequences — too many potential partners so choices have to be made, leading to force by those not chosen and fights between different suitors, pregnancies with no indication of who the father is, disease, abuse, etc…

So ancient societies must have discovered these negative consequences and designed rules (regarding marriage, sexual self-control, modest behavior in public, etc…) to avoid them. The rules are not without their costs, but they are attempts to minimize harm. And to downplay the importance of such rules with regard to teens, whose sex drives (particularly the males) are in hyperdrive, seems irresponsible."

Kivals, I have no problem with what you are saying. Honestly, and I have gotten flak for saying this from many people, I really don't think that anyone regardless of their age, should be having sex outside of a loving, committed relationship. It doesn't have to be marriage necessarily. I also don't really think that kids should be having sex. I also don't think teenage boys should be getting into fistfights with each other, but sometimes that happens. You have to prepare kids. Teaching kids about safe sex to me is like teaching a boy how to box and defend himself or a girl how to eyegouge and groin strike or little kids about strangers.

I apologize if it seemed as if was advocating a "sexual free-for-all". If you knew my past, you'd think it was funny that someone would think of me wanting to see a total breakdown in sexual morality. I've been called prudish by so many people criticizing people's sexual attitudes.

The last thing I want is young America to engage in one big perpetual orgy. All I'm saying is that we should just encourage young people to be sexual within boundaries. I'm not saying that boys should masturbate in public or that it's ok for young girls to walk around practicially nude.

I just think that we should encourage youth to relieve their sexual tensions in a harmless way and let them know that their feelings while perfectly natural can be something they can deal with on their own w/o using someone else.

I totally agree with faithhopelove in fact. It would be nice if they all waited until marriage. Virginity is absolutely treated with derision in youth, especially males. Young people should be encouraged to wait. I don't think preaching it helps, especially w/o giving them the entire picture.

Basically, this is what I believe. Kids should not be screwing around. I don't think that promiscuity is something to be encouraged. However, kids should be encouraged to well, to be frank, masturbate. :) Let them watch/read healthy porn/erotica. We don't chastise teen girls for having shirtless hunks on their walls. Let teen boys look at natural (no silicone or anorexic, unrealistic women), naked female bodies in consensual, egalitarian, pleasureful situations. But at the same time, teach them that women are not mere sex objects either and anti-sexism and all that. Let them explore their sexual fantasies in their own minds.

Here, let me be perfectly candid for a moment.

When I was in 8th grade, I had this one female teacher. She was a good teacher. I respected her. I didn't resent her or see her as less than me.

But well, I had sexual fantasies about her also. I liked her body. Now I didn't leer at her or want to attack her or anything. And I knew it would have been inappropriate for sure to even have consensual sex with her. But nonetheless I had dreams about her.

And I felt guilty as hell about it. I actually had a nightmare once that I misinterpreted a sexual advance and got slapped and embarassed and thrown out of school.

Now I also had those same thoughts and ambivalent feelings about half the girls in school also.

I'm not saying that it should be okay to tell these people how you feel. That would be sexual harassment for sure.

I don't know what I'm trying to say exactly. I just think that we need to lift the veil off of sex for young people and neutralize the shame and the "forbidden fruit" aspect of it, which like drugs, only makes kids want to try it all the more. And while our society uses sex to sell, it really just teases. We see women in skimpy clothes dancing provocatively on prime-time tv. There's innuendo bandied about on sitcoms, couples kissing with sheets covering them.

But kids don't see how sex really happens, what it really looks like. Let them see the insertion and intercourse. And while we're on the subject, let's talk about penis size. Men with ten-inch sex organs aren't realistic either. Just like the women with melon breasts aren't. People have no idea how many men live in private shame because they don't have a 7-inch long penis.

In a nutshell, and I know I'm rambling again, let young people see real sex. Loving sex. Educate them about sex. Tell them the risks and precautions. Teach them to respect each other. And let them know that it's ok to have the feelings and urges they have and that it's ok to explore and relieve them privately and safely.

The replies to this article have been as interesting as the original article.

Like so many of you, I am ambivalent about just what is the tone that teen sex ed should take. Though we can all agree that teens who are _immersed_ in sexual messages and images at the movie theatre, on TV and in advertising are ill-served by abstinence only education.

When you look at all cultures, you will see that many of them try to confine sexual activity to some sort of marital structure and I believe that is primarily in the interest of any children that are the product of sexual activity. You don't have to read sociological journals to know that children have better odds if they are raised in the more stable structure of a family--both nuclear and extended. I'm not "against" single parents; I'm stating a simple fact. When you're raising a toddler (or two) or a teenager (or two) it's nice to have the tag team structure of a partner that is equivalently vested in the interests and good of the off-spring. So the _best_ reason to delay sexual involvement is for the protection of would-be off-spring. And when teen parenting happens it simply has an adverse impact on the education and income potential of the involved teens.

But the sexual revolution, the development of reliable birth control, and a marketing industry that recognizes a winning strategy when it sees one (sex sells) means that teens who are at the peaks of their hormonal impact (translated: horny) that get exposed to sexual images and even those that don't are going to think about and be curious about sex. So I think that good sex ed, factual sex ed, reasonably calibrated to the child's age and maturity is essential.

I'm a school nurse in an elementary school and I get to do the puberty ed for my 4th and 5th graders. My kids run the gamut from children raised in relatively protected and stable homes to those who probably know more about sex than a kid should know at that age. But parents of my kids are adamant that kids this young shouldn't be talked to about--fill in the blank--often masturbation or homosexuality for sure. But to me if kids ask about it, it is my job to appear askable and I answer. Now I may not go in to great detail, but I answer.

The idea that I treat all questions as askable and worthy of answer to me lays the groundwork for the kid knowing that it's okay to ask and to talk about this topic.

Finally, if you want to get a window in to this topic, go to amazon.com or whatever your favorite equivalent is and search for sex ed books aimed at kids and then read the reviews. (search for Lynda Madras, Karen Gravelle, Robie H. Harris, my favorites) One person will wax enthusiastically about the book; another indignant parent calls it porn. There's not a ton of consensus on what parents want for their kids and many parents tend to underestimate their kid's exposure to the topic at school and their real desire for calm factual information--preferably from a trusted adult. (BTW, sources such as the above often do have not highly eroticized but effective drawings of the mechanics of sex...)

Still, the rate of STD's among teens, the risk of HIV, the heartache of pregnancy still mean that there is plenty of rationale to encourage teens to delay the onset of sexual activity. 16 is better than 14; 19 is better than 16; after twenty is more than fine. I've listened to too many men and women curse their exes and bemoan their impact on their child but the fact is _you_ are the one that brought that person into your child's life.

Those "hard edges" to sexual activity argue for helping teens to delay activity as long as possible but be equipped and knowledgeable when they decide to do so.

This discussion is incredible. I read so many reasonable people who want to educate young people about all that is involved with sexual activity. I agree with many of the suggestions and I hope we can persuade reasonable parents, teachers, administrators, and school boards to implement a non-religious, respectful treatment of sexuality for our students. Unfortunately, students are learning how to pass tests, not always how to think--and that needs to be addressed as well.

I was in China with a cultural exchange group in the late 1980s. When the Reagan administration cut off funding for international groups which included those informing and performing abortions, the chinese had 1 million more "mouths to feed" that next year according to our Chinese tour guide on the trip.

The one child per couple policy was very strictly enforced from what I understand more so in the east than out west. The local party officials had much power to intrude in people's lives, total control, and that included putting people out of work or keeping them from getting work if they did something to displease the state as percieved by the local official. I have heard of forced abortions as we all have heard. I'd believe it. I think the chinese zodiac year influences how many people concieve in a particular year with respect to it being good or bad luck by legend. Losing face is also very powerful as a motivator in that culture.No one was fat. Many looked protein deficient. Pollution was huge even back then. Male children are preferred traditionally. Cutting off funding for birth control increases abortion rates. Abstinence may be a factor but I doubt real statistics would ever be available or reliable from
China as I saw it at least.