Abstention versus early sex education

[CSSMariner]

I listened to a report on NPR this morning about the sexual activities of today's youth. It seems that one in five, 20%, of today's kids from age 12 to age 15 are engaging in sexual activities. In that age group, there are 20,000 pregnancies resulting in 8,000 births last year.

Still the "Christian Right," (as with the "Moral Majority," they are neither) want to teach abstention and keep sex education in the same place I learned it from 1950 to 1962; in the restrooms of schools and now of course malls. We had the former, but not the latter back then. But we also had drive-in movie "Passion Pits," and the balconies of theaters for, shall we say more, "in depth" research into the arts and mysteries of sex.

One must wonder if either the Dems or Repubs in the halls of government will ever get the hint that it is not working.

[LCBOY]

I believe this whole issue of sex eduacation comes down to one question.

Does a child have a fundamental right to engage in sex?

There are many activites that a child is not allowed to do before a certian age. Children cannot drive, buy and drink alcohol, buy a gun, cigarettes, perform hazardous jobs or work too many hours. These restrictions are placed on a child to protect the child. The question is does sex belong is the same group? I believe it does because too often teens do not think of the conseqences of sex. The just think about how fun it is. Debating whether abstinence or condom training is better is meaningless until the first question is answered.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I believe this whole issue of sex eduacation comes down to one question.

Does a child have a fundamental right to engage in sex?

There are many activites that a child is not allowed to do before a certian age. Children cannot drive, buy and drink alcohol, buy a gun, cigarettes, perform hazardous jobs or work too many hours. These restrictions are placed on a child to protect the child. The question is does sex belong is the same group? I believe it does because too often teens do not think of the conseqences of sex. The just think about how fun it is. Debating whether abstinence or condom training is better is meaningless until the first question is answered.

The more important question is "How do you propose to stop them?"

You can prevent children from drinking, driving, smoking etc.. but some STILL do participate. How would preaching abstinence (Which, by the way WOULD be done even with sex education) stop or even discourage kids from having sex?

You're talking about an activity that you cannot reasonably prevent them from performing, so what's wrong with educating them?

[CSSMariner]

The problem was discussed at length on Talk Of The nation, and is in progress at the moment.

There are laws on the books, and I speak primarily of the Statutory Rape law, that put the onus on the male primarily, although I am certain that it applies equally to any "adult" engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor.

The entire issue comes back to the family, and the direction given to the children by interested and involved parents. Even if a child is going to engage in sexual activity, and especially in the case of a girl, a trip to the OBGYN guy is in order so some birth control measures can be taken. Of course that does not absolve the boy from taking some precautions. With that said, I remember how in the "heat" pf the moment how inconvenient it was to stop the proceedings and "prepare."

I was lucky and never fathered a child until Diane and I were married, still are some 37+ years down the trail. Our son and daughter are both happily married with children of their own, and both are in long term stable relationships. Now there is my 11 year-old granddaughter by our son, and we are moving to Texas to be near them and provide some continuity.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Valmorian


The more important question is "How do you propose to stop them?"

You can prevent children from drinking, driving, smoking etc.. but some STILL do participate. How would preaching abstinence (Which, by the way WOULD be done even with sex education) stop or even discourage kids from having sex?

You're talking about an activity that you cannot reasonably prevent them from performing, so what's wrong with educating them?

I don't quite follow your logic. We don't take the position that kids take drugs anyway so we should "educate" them to use clean needles and only take high quality drugs. This is where the parents come in. The parents are the FIRST teachers of the child, not the school. I have no problem with educating children about sex but I believe a heavy preference on abstinence is better. It's too easy to look at this issue in the abstract. I know if I were a parent and my 14 year old child was having sex all over the place I would be extemely concerned, worried, confused, and angry. Most people would, too.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I don't quite follow your logic. We don't take the position that kids take drugs anyway so we should "educate" them to use clean needles and only take high quality drugs.



Drugs require a source. Sex only requires two participants and nothing else. Efforts are made to prevent the access of drugs to children, but how do you propose to keep them from having sex? It's not possible to monitor them every time they are out with someone of the opposite sex.



This is where the parents come in. The parents are the FIRST teachers of the child, not the school. I have no problem with educating children about sex but I believe a heavy preference on abstinence is better. It's too easy to look at this issue in the abstract. I know if I were a parent and my 14 year old child was having sex all over the place I would be extemely concerned, worried, confused, and angry. Most people would, too.

Certainly, and I didn't say you shouldn't encourage abstinence. I am, however, pointing out that encouraging abstinence isn't going to stop teenage sex. Better to educate about safe sex AND encourage abstinence, but being realistic means you should realize that many teens are going to participate in sexual activity regardless of what their parents say.

My point is that you CANNOT prevent teens from having sex without drastic measures that infringe upon their rights.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I believe this whole issue of sex eduacation comes down to one question.

Does a child have a fundamental right to engage in sex?

There are many activites that a child is not allowed to do before a certian age. Children cannot drive, buy and drink alcohol, buy a gun, cigarettes, perform hazardous jobs or work too many hours. These restrictions are placed on a child to protect the child. The question is does sex belong is the same group? I believe it does because too often teens do not think of the conseqences of sex. The just think about how fun it is. Debating whether abstinence or condom training is better is meaningless until the first question is answered.

...and we all know what happens when you tell kids what NOT to do. They'll do it tenfold. That wouldn't work. Instead, we need to teach the children about sexuality at a later age, and all of those free porn websites should be put offline or need a credit card to enter. We need to teach the kids that sex if fun but that there are other, more important things in life, such as building your life, establishing strong friendships, spend your money wisely, complete your education, etc.

[Whoracle]

Abstinence doesn't stop you from being horny. It's not a fail safe. Even if we have abstinence education, it's not going to stop every, or probably even most kids from having sex. I think it's worth it to teach it to stop a few, but it won't stop the majority and I rather that majority know how to get birth control and condoms.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Instead, we need to teach the children about sexuality at a later age, and all of those free porn websites should be put offline or need a credit card to enter.

Amusing. I suggest you look at how Dutch society treats sexual issues and their statistics on teen sex.

[renata]

I remember reading about a Chicago study on this about 6 years ago- I will look for a link. As I recall, two schools were involved- one had free condoms and taught sex ed and one did not provide them. At the end of the study, which I think lasted 4 years, it turned out percentage of students having sex in btoh school was the same, but in the condom distributing school, incidences of pregnancy and STDs were remarkably lower.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Amusing. I suggest you look at how Dutch society treats sexual issues and their statistics on teen sex.

That's irrelevant with this thread. Removing some free porn from the internet is just a small step towards what the original poster wants: lowering young teens' sexual activity.

[CSSMariner]

Diane and I taught our son and daughter, the son was the oldest by 4 years, the facts about their bodies and sex and stressed abstention at the same time. We told them about the potential problems, as well as the rewards that awaited them if they did not make a mess of it all by rushing into it just for the pleasures and adventure. Furthermore, we taught them at an age appropriate level and did not hide facts from them when questions were asked. We didn't head for the stratosphere when questions that were generated by comments at school were asked.

Of course Diane and I were amateurs the first time when dealing with the facts of life with Kevin, and were therefore better schooled ourselves when it came to explain it all to Kristy. I took the lead with Kevin, and Diane with Kristy, and it seemed to be effective.

On the other hand, I remember when I discovered exactly how I came to be, I was actually shocked that my wonderful parents had engaged in such behavior. Diane said her mom talked about flowers and all sorts of nonsense, and she did not have a clue what she was talking about. We both pretty much much learned through "On the job training" I suppose.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Frostbite


...and we all know what happens when you tell kids what NOT to do. They'll do it tenfold. That wouldn't work. Instead, we need to teach the children about sexuality at a later age, and all of those free porn websites should be put offline or need a credit card to enter. We need to teach the kids that sex if fun but that there are other, more important things in life, such as building your life, establishing strong friendships, spend your money wisely, complete your education, etc.

That's not what their hormones are telling them. Anyway, just imagine if we decided to not start teaching reading till kids were old enough to use it responsibly, say, 18.

[peptoabysmal]

Photos of Janet Reno have been known to have a dramatic and lasting negative effect on libido. I say we plaster them all over the hallways of schools.

[BillyTK]

IMO teaching abstenance is a good idea but it depends on how and why it's taught; teaching abstention by stigmatising sex (that it's evil or wrong or punishable by god or just something you shouldn't do is bound to fail, 'cos kids just don't respond to that kind of thing and if anything it makes it more attractive; teaching abstenance as part of social skills (you don't have to be pressured, you don't have to say yes) is going to be far more effective (albeit relative to the effectiveness of sex ed anyway and especially in combination with free contraception).

This of course means certain groups--particularly influential christian groups--having to accept that children have sex regardless of whether they should or not. Which is an odd thing to ignore, considering the evidence of the rate of teenage pregnancies...

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Amusing. I suggest you look at how Dutch society treats sexual issues and their statistics on teen sex.

I HEAVILY concur!
Also, especially concerning LCBOY's posts it is so funny to see how different these issues are treated in American and European societies in General.

I'm born German, lived in the US, am getting married to my American girlfriend and we're getting ready to have kids. The one thing we heavily disagree on is how to educate our kids on sex - and if we should stop them from having it (with people THEIR age, of course).

Americans regard sex to be an unhealthy "risky behavior". Why? Don't you enjoy sex yourself? Why shouldn't your teenager do the same? as long as it's practiced safely I see no reason to stop my kids from having sex. My own mother never infringed on MY sex life from when I was 13 years old... she even put the porn stashes she found in my room orderly in a corner when she cleaned after I had forgotten it ;).

In short: I see NO reason to teach abstinence. Just educate your teens, give them access to condoms and the Ab-Pill and let them explore at their own pace.

[renata]

Saw this, it was relevant to the topic

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=3&u=/nm/20030527/hl_nm/condoms_students_dc

Making condoms available to high school students does not make them more likely to have sex, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Contrary to some arguments, students at schools where condoms were available were less likely to have sex, said the researchers, who studied students in Massachusetts.

"Condom availability was not associated with greater sexual activity among adolescents but was associated with greater condom use among those who were already sexually active, a highly positive result," Susan Blake, of the Department of Prevention and Community Health at George Washington University said in a statement.

"When condoms are available in schools and are successfully used by sexually active adolescents, they may be an effective means of preventing potentially harmful outcomes such as HIV (news - web sites), STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) and pregnancy," Blake added.



And that, just all like other studies will whizz right by the people who are ideologically driven on this issue.

[Malachi151]

This topic is just like so many others, its impossible to deal with until we deal ohter issues first.

American society is built heavily on lies, deception, misunderstanding, and lack of self reflection. Its a superficial society built on stupidity, so what can we expect here?

Of course abstinance is stupid to teach, the reasons behind even wanting to teach it are lack of understanding of the human condition. The US suffers from blunt head trauma from generations of propiganda and religion.

The average person in America does not know what it means to be human, how can they know how to educate on issues fo sex and drugs?

Sex is a natural biological function and and sex dirves are biologically driven. People are mature and ready for sex at to 9 to 14 years of age. Why should this be deemed "wrong" in some way? I know that anwser and its a long drawn out one about the changeing complexity of society and the longer social maturation period of modern society, but the fact is that sex is a biological function and people mature biologically at the same age they always did.

A fact I like to point out to Chrisitans is that according to the story of Jesus, Mary would have had Jesus when she was 12 years old.

Its also interesting to note that the age of consent in America was 10 years old until the 1890s when it was raised because they illigalized prostitution. When they illigalized prostitution was during the American Industrial revolution and low wages and child labor were high. When prostitution was legal, and also the age of consent was low, while wages were also low and living conditions were bad in the cities, etc, there were many child prostitutes. Thats where all these laws came from. There were many girls 10 and 11 and 12 years old, and on up, being prostitutes during the early industrial Revoltuion because they had to support the family.

And so, these laws were made, in the same effort that they passed other child labor laws.

[Lemastre]

The idea that our schools should be forced to deny children adequate knowledge about an area as admittedly risky as sex is so illogical as to almost defy rational discussion. And for parents to demand and collude in this ignorance is even more irrational. Of course, abstention from a possibly risky behavior is a way to avoid the risks. That doesn't prevent us from disseminating information about such behaviors in order to prepare kids for doing them or not, as they choose. When the behavior involves basic urges, such as sex, abstention is unlikely to prevail. So kids really need to know how to manage it.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by LCBOY
There are many activites that a child is not allowed to do before a certian age. Children cannot drive, buy and drink alcohol, buy a gun, cigarettes, perform hazardous jobs or work too many hours. These restrictions are placed on a child to protect the child. The question is does sex belong is the same group? I believe it does because too often teens do not think of the conseqences of sex. The just think about how fun it is. Debating whether abstinence or condom training is better is meaningless until the first question is answered.

If teenage sex is dangerous, there are two options: prevent it or make it less dangerous.

We know the former doesn't work.

[ZeeGerman]

There was a discussion about this in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14526&goto=nextnewest) thread a couple of weeks ago.
Has some interesting points on the topic.

Zee

[Checkmite]

When we decide on a course of action, we must start with a basic premise of some sort. This premise should be based on observation, and should dictate the course of action. I think BillyTK put it best:

Originally posted by BillyTK
This of course means certain groups--particularly influential christian groups--having to accept that children have sex regardless of whether they should or not.

Here is the premise, based on observation - children have sex regardless of whether they should or not. There's no getting around it, there's no denying it, and (short of raising kids in hermetically sealed bubbles) there's no preventing it. If we are to agree on a course of action, we must first accept what we directly observe.

Given this premise, it becomes obvious that abstinence-only education, or out-of-sight, out-of-mind lack of sex education in schools is based completely on wishful thinking, and deprives children of vital information that is, (sadly) more often than not, not taught at home. I know, because I actually did a survey as part of a psychology class project in high school.

You can preach abstinence all you want - some will follow it, many won't. Take the analagous situation of fireworks. They're fun, and dangerous. A great deal of the people who use them concentrate on the "fun" and ignore the "dangerous" part. Most people are strongly encouraged not to use them. Some states have banned their sale completely - my state has. It doesn't matter - after dark on July 4th, the sky is ablaze with them. Since people can't buy fireworks here, they simply go next door to Indiana or some other neighboring state. There's no preventing it. So, federal law mandates that warnings and instructions for safe use are printed conspicuously on such materials, and local television stations and some schools offer the same information - to help protect people.

If we were to use the mindset of pro-abstinence or anti-sex-education people, and apply that mindset to fireworks - there would be no warning labels on products, or safety information distributed via the media and schools. But that wouldn't stop people from using fireworks, and the reader can judge for himself what the result of such lack of information would bring.

[Michael Redman]

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that we don't want kids having sex. If we don't educate kids, how will they understand why they should refrain? You can just say "no", or you can explain the consequences, and let them make informed decisions. The Christian Right wants "because we say so" abstinence, which is idiotic, rather than "because this can happen" abstinence. Sex education doe not give kids permission to have sex, any more than food content labels give us permission to eat whatever we want. No one is going to refrain from eating a cookie because you refuse to tell them what's in it. You're better off telling the truth, and hoping they'll make the right decisions.



Edited to add: I see Joshua was reading my mind as I composed, ;)

[Malachi151]

Here is the premise, based on observation - children have sex regardless of whether they should or not.

This is part of the issue as well because it leads to misinterpretations that are common in society.

A child IS defined as a prepubescent human.

So no, children to NOT normally have sex.

A pedophile is someone who engages in sex with, or is turned on by the thought of sex with, children. That means prepubescents. That does not mean 13 years olds, etc.

Its an important distinction though in getting a healthy understanding on human sexuality.

Teenagers having sex is NOT children having sex.

Children having sex IS a problem, and should not be tolerated, because it would invariable be against the will of the child as prepubescent people have no sex drive. People who have reached puberty are not children, and there should be no problem with allowing those people to engage in health conscious sexual activity.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Malachi151

This is part of the issue as well because it leads to misinterpretations that are common in society.

A child IS defined as a prepubescent human.

So no, children to NOT normally have sex.


All right, you have a point - albiet a purely semantic one. I confess, I was using the political definition of child, which is synonymous with "minor" (in the legal sense) - that is, anyone younger than 18.

From now on, I'll say "minor".

Do you actually have anything to say about my argument?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


All right, you have a point - albiet a purely semantic one. I confess, I was using the political definition of child, which is synonymous with "minor" (in the legal sense) - that is, anyone younger than 18.

From now on, I'll say "minor".

Do you actually have anything to say about my argument?

No, I agree with what you said, its just that if the messenger reinforces misconceptions it makes the issue even worse :p

I just brought it up being there ws a thread a while back I was in where someone was saying that an adult being attracted to 15/16 year olds (as in just observing that they are sexually attractive, not acting on it or anything) was a sick pedophile, and then it got into that whole discussion, and I think its just something good to keep straight so that there is not that type of confusion involved.

When you say "children" having sex, or "kids" having sex, as people say that crete a different mental idea then teenagers. I know we often call teenagers children, but they are not children, and there in lies part fo the issue. The fact that teenagers are not children and should not be thought of them as such, despite the fact that our society has reinforced a view of teenagers as children, which they are not.

So, what I am saying is that part of the problem is our concept of what a child is and who exactly is having the sex. Its NOT children, and not kids, its teens.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I confess, I was using the political definition of child, which is synonymous with "minor" (in the legal sense) - that is, anyone younger than 18.

From now on, I'll say "minor".I prefer to call them infants. Infants having sex.

infant n.
. . .
2. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infant

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I prefer to call them infants. Infants having sex.

infant n.
. . .
2. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infant

Please don't do that. My mind is firmly stuck with definition 1 (a child in the first period of life) while it is perfectly comfortable with child meaning 'not adult'.

[LW]

Originally posted by bjornart


My mind is firmly stuck with definition 1 (a child in the first period of life)

I think we should reserve "infant" for the OED Definition 3:


3. A youth of noble or gentle birth.


This way reading El Cid would be much more intuitive.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by bjornart


Please don't do that. My mind is firmly stuck with definition 1 (a child in the first period of life) while it is perfectly comfortable with child meaning 'not adult'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child

child

A person between birth and puberty.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

:)

Child does not mean "not adult", it means prepubescent.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The bigger question is why stop them? The distinction between "child" and "adult" here is not absolute and certainly not absolutely recognized by nature.

Sure we stop younger people from doing certain things, because they are reckless and are likely to get hurt. We likewise stop some adults for the same reason.

However there is no evidence that allowing a thirteen or fourteen year old to play the mating game hurts them. Especially with birth control around.

Japan's age of consent is thirteen. However I am yet to hear of any widespread mental disorders destroying Japanese teenagers.

In the end you merely wish to prevent them from practicing one of the most pleasurable and satisfying activities, for no good extrinsic reason.

According to the "maturity" argument(which ultimately can only result in question begging, because biologically they are mature enough) the mentally handicapped shouldn't be having sex. Nor any adult that acts imature. The only reason I can think of why this would follow is if the act itself bothers you, and well is that really reason enough to restrict such a fundamental human need?

Also if conservatives and other members of the teenagers anti-sex league were really serious about preventing "emotional harm"(like such a thing would be like loss of limb, IF it did occur) and STDs they'd advocate synthetic alternatives to pure abstenence. To say otherwise is like fasting when all one need do is try an alternative food product. To suggest cold turkey instead of a product just as effective but not harmful even potentially.

I think its ridiculous to compare sex to drinking, smoking or carrying a gun. The only real concern is over STDs. And that can be prevented. You cannot drive drunk with sex, get cancer from it or shoot someone with it. There are extrinsic reasons for those three things, not really for sex.

Sorry but I value freedom and biological precedence over Victorian cultural norms.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Malachi151


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child

child

A person between birth and puberty.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

:)

Child does not mean "not adult", it means prepubescent.

Merriam-Webster:

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age


Get yourself a real dictionary. ;) (Or use M-W Online (http://www.m-w.com). I did.)

[bjornart]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Japan's age of consent is thirteen. However I am yet to hear of any widespread mental disorders destroying Japanese teenagers.

In the end you merely wish to prevent them from practicing one of the most pleasurable and satisfying activities, for no good extrinsic reason.


In support of this: The age of consent in Norway is 16, and we get real sex-ed. None of my close friends engaged in rampant, unresponsible teen-sex. In fact, the areas with the most teen pregnancies are the bible-thumping ones.

If you educate kids about sex they are going to be curious, but not desperately so. And they'll know the risks and the facts, and will know that "you can't get pregnant the first time" and "rincing the sperm out with coke works" is bull. Yes, you may have more minors having sex, but the consequences won't be as bad. (Unless of course you think minors having sex is a bad consequence all on its own.)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151

American society is built heavily on lies, deception, misunderstanding, and lack of self reflection. Its a superficial society built on stupidity, so what can we expect here?

Of course abstinance is stupid to teach, the reasons behind even wanting to teach it are lack of understanding of the human condition. The US suffers from blunt head trauma from generations of propiganda and religion.

The average person in America does not know what it means to be human, how can they know how to educate on issues fo sex and drugs?


Remember it is only "arrogant" Americans that sterotype people in other countries...;)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by bjornart


Merriam-Webster:

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age

Get yourself a real dictionary. ;) (Or use M-W Online (http://www.m-w.com). I did.)

And why woudl you say that? How is "not yet of age" defined?

Oh wait, "not yet of age" means prepuescent. :p lol

A child is a person BETWEEN infancy and youth. Go look up youth ;)

[Malachi151]

Remember it is only "arrogant" Americans that sterotype people in other countries...

I'm an American living in America, so I reserve the right to stereotype Americans :D

In all fairness though, you're right, not "all" Americans think that way, I think everyone in the would should know by now that when people generalize it is just that, a generalization. Precluding every statment with "a sigificant portion of" or "many", etc, gets tedious.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Malachi151


And why woudl you say that? How is "not yet of age" defined?

Oh wait, "not yet of age" means prepuescent. :p lol

A child is a person BETWEEN infancy and youth. Go look up youth ;)

Between infancy and youth is one definition. Not yet of age is a different definition. 'Of age' has different interpretations in different contexts, but a very common one is 'no longer a legal minor'.

One example is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which "outlines in 41 articles the human rights to be respected and protected for every child under the age of 18 years".

[reprise]

At the other end of the spectrum, the institute says the number of teenagers having babies is at an all-time low.

from this report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-30may2003-32.htm)

The age of consent throughout Australia is 16, although in the event of two fifteen year olds having consensual sex it is highly unlikely that you'd be able to convince the police to press charges.

Child protective behaviours are taught in primary school here, and sex education is part of the compulsory Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education course in NSW.

The PDHPE course does far more than simply address the physical aspects of sex education. In Year 8 (roughly age 12-13) one of the major assessment tasks my children had was on contraception. One aspect of this assessment task was that they had to produce a poster, pamphlet, or other article which not only explained how a particular method of contraception worked but which was specifically designed to encourage its use by their own demographic.

Also included in the PDHPE course are comprehensive units dealing with how to negotiate safe sex, sexually transmissible diseases, the interrelationship between raging hormones and emotions, sexual assault, and many other units I have now forgotten (although I'll be reminded of them in 2 years when my youngest enters year 8).

By the time any student reaches Year 10, they have a fairly extensive basis knowledge of the issues involved in sexual relationships which deals with far more than just the risks of pregnancy and contracting sexually transmissible diseases.

And, yes, drug education is also part of the PDHPE course here and it is not a "just say no" type of course.

I don't fully understand the attitude of many US posters towards sex education, and I wonder to what extent it reflects the USA being a more theist nation than Australia. But if that is the case, then I wonder why sex is such a major feature of US television and film. What children learn about sex from TV and film is - by default - sex education if it is not given a context relative to the real world in which they will mature into adults.

But then again, we're strange folk over here; we don't get all excited when out Prime Ministers and other politicians have affairs.

[CSSMariner]

The problem in America is its preoccupation with its religion and its God, which is of course the one at the head of the "One true religion," Xtian. I don't even like saying or typing the entire word. That is the main problem with America's attitude toward sex and sex education for our youth who need to be protected from the influence of those "working for the Devil."

We suffer under the tyranny of the self righteous bigots and the minister, almost as much as Ireland suffers under the tyranny of the priesthood, those other "Boys in the 'hood." Americans laugh at the utterances of Imams and Mullahs, and then turn right around and listen to much the same message from preachers and ministers.

I have heard the old saw, and agree with it, that England sent its Puritans to America, and its prisoners to Australia. I too am fully convinced that Australia got the far better end of the deal.

Until Americans realize that it has been over two thousand years since "He," or she, or it for that matter, promised to return, and decide that it is highly unlikely that it is going to happen, I am afraid we are doomed to continue to suffer.