See previous post
I've always found the argument against sex ed to be a bit unsettling. Call it my left-wing tendencies, but more information is always better, not worse. I understand that there is a line between teaching teenagers how to protect themselves and promoting sexual activity. However, we need to talk about where that line is, not about abolishing one side altogether. Should we not teach our kids how to avoid sexual predators, or to confide in us if someone abuses them in a sexual way? We find a way of balancing it, by not keeping our children indoors all the time and yet making them aware of the dangers they face. Sexuality is a difficult subject to talk about, especially with teenagers where Mother Nature is often making our task so much harder. But this study provides solid evidence for the argument that simply assuming that kids won't do it because you don't want them to doesn't work. We aren't perfect. I will warn my children of the moral and physical dangers of multiple partner sex. I will share with them my experience, that sex is best abstained from until you have found someone you want to spend the rest of your life with. If you believe in marriage being that commitment, then this translates into abstinence from pre-marital sex. And I will not give my son or daughter a condom to carry around in his or her purse, because they may be unduly influenced by my role in their life and construe this as a license, not as a precaution. That's the kind of life I'd draw. But sex ed is definitely in. If my child is going to make what I believe may be a mistake, I don't want it to alter their lives irrevocably. STDs, esp. AIDS, or pregnancies, even those aborted early, will do that to a child, you know.

These guys, on the other hand, are probably better off in Saudi Arabia: Powell's condoms comments draw ire. Kudos, Powell, but what happened to you, my man?