Thus I believe abstinence-only programs only set kids up for failure.

And I believe that this proposition is so thoroughly and emphatically supported by all available evidence that the only intellectually honest conclusions are either A) that the advocates of abstinence-only are so mentally incompetent as to require institutionalization, or B) "that's the point."

That expansion's going to be a while, but I intend to write a full-scale blog post on it. I'll link when I'm done.

My junior year of high school (I went to public school, just to be clear), there were four girls at the church school that were pregnant. This is from a student body of 40, and only grades 1-10. I only knew about it because one of the girls was a friend-of-a-friend and I talked to her once at a social event. She had been staying with friends because her parents had kicked her out of the house. While discussing some of her hardships with a small group of us, she professed "I don't even know how this could happen, its not like I married!" A little further prodding and we found out her parents had implied [aka: taught] that she 'could not' get not get pregnant until she was married. She didn't even know that sex would get her pregnant.

Now this is an extreme example, that is really a result of a very sheltered upbringing, and a pseudo-abstinence-only (that's really closer to 'no-sex-ed'). But I think it illustrates some of the pitfalls of abstinence-only programs. Kids that are taught abstinence-only, abstinence-only, abstinence-only, don't know about or understand all the risks, side effects, and result. Thus I believe abstinence-only programs only set kids up for failure.

Plenty I could say, but gotta respect the man.

I close down threads when they meet at least one of three conditions......./snip

And don't think for a minute that those of us who have been hanging around here for a while haven't noticed that closing threads had been a pretty rare occurrence until recently!

Alex:

I'll expand on this tomorrow.

Looking forward to it. I think I know what you're getting at, but I'll wait.

Did you forget that the religious people that push abstainance only sex ed don't believe that humans were GENETICALLY PROGRAMMED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. They think that we've been here 5000yrs, and that god put us here. If you can deny the reality of evolution, thinking teens wont have sex if you dont tell them about is only a small leap.

Back on topic.

Think about it: if the anti-sex education forces get their way, we will have a society where girls of any age will be kept in the dark when the subject is sex. When they do try to be responsible, there won't be any protection available (can't have pharmacists dispensing birth control if they think it's icky, you know), and when the inevitable happens (pregnancy or disease), the poor girl will be told she is being 'punished' by god for being a 'slut' either with the disease or by having to keep and raise the baby.

And the boys? They're just being boys, you know.

I don't seem to be having much luck clapping a coherent expression together, but I think viewing sex as something that's fundamentally exploitive is a major underlying motivation for this kind of attitude. I notice this in the contrast between (me being alienated by) other fathers joking about wanting to put their (prospectively teenaged) daughters under armed guard, and my actual feelings about my own daughter's prospective future sex life - I want her to be responsible and intelligent about it, but A) I want her to have the happiness of a mature, pleasurable, intimate relationship or relationships and B) with her condition (mild autism) it'll be a relief, if not a surprise, if she's able to actually have a relationship like that.

I'll expand on this tomorrow.

I close down threads when they meet at least one of three conditions:

1. The discussion has become repetitive, with the same points being raised repeatedly and no new ground being covered; or
2. The discussion is breaking down into personal attacks; or
3. The discussion has wandered far afield from the original post topic.

All the threads I closed the other day were at this point or, in some cases, well beyond it; and I think I can safely say that no one participating in any of them was denied the opportunity to express their point of view.

One further note, and without naming any names: I greatly dislike people whining about administrative decisions in other, unrelated threads. The point of closing threads is so that unfruitful discussions can die peacefully, and I take a jaundiced view of people trying to restart those debates in other threads. If you take issue with a moderation decision, contact me by e-mail.