I'm curious as to what sex education program teaches that sex is all glamour and no consequences? Unfortunately this is the rhetoric that people who are opposed to sex education use in trying to keep programs out of schools.
Information is knowledge and I truly believe most young adults will, with the right information, make the choice that is right for them.

This post makes no sense! I don't think that withholding education is really empowering other youth. I actually think that is called lying (by omission) to get people to buy your point. Education is not about influencing a person. It is about *educating* them on the facts so they can make informed decisions.

Also, I'm not really sure how this post is responding to the original article. It seems someone Googled "sex ed" and thought, "How many articles can I respond to with the same copy and paste argument?"

Well, you know I go to cigarette. Everyone whose smoked says they wish they had never started, but it doesn't stop millions of young people form starting. (And the reason they don't listen to those vary.)

I think both abstinence and safe sex practices should be taught thoroughly. If the are educated in both they're more lucky to make a more informed decision. Abstinence is beautiful thing, but also, we've all heard the older women talking about they're wedding nights. Men all knew what sex was, but women were supposed to be innocent as the day they were born? Don't you think that they should know for then? Or should that still not know how to protect themselves durring sex? And where did these men learn all these things about sex? I doubt they just guessed, really. There are many loose women out there, and then you have men who marry, and have a male partner on the side that the wife doesn't even know about (that's a very common way for hetoerosexual women to contract HIV). And you tell someone to wait 'til they're married. In this day in age that doesn't really make much sense at all. Chances are that they marry someone they think they love more than anything and then start having sex with them, and what happens if the marriage doesn't work out? Are you expecting them to go out into the world and then end up having sex with someone they also have feelings for, or are they to stay away from men for the rest of their lifes, while the men happily marries someone new. And why is it that no one thinks about the man? A man is just as much at risk. And I think that we should educate on what people should do if they are in a non-traditional relationship. That will help limit spread in a life style that is followed by many, many people.

It is not the responsibility of schools to educate teenagers, but is the responsibility of us all as fellow human beings to educate our society as a whole no matter how old they are. This goes far beyond just the state. Also a side note:
Everyone talks of the state as if it's a seperate unit of the American people (and I'll agree that at this point in time it is) but we have the power to change all that, if we were ready to take the costs of doing it. If you don't like what's going on in the government, then make your voice heard.

I agree with Carol. I think Lauren is spreading a very important message to young people.

You raise an interesting point. I come from that same line of thought: The State never knows best. However, since sex ed is taught anyways, why would you not have it actually cover necessary information and real world situations?

It is the parents' responsibility. But many of these parents are products of the same type of education. Sure they may have some helfpful experience, but would they really have the same type of information on every type of birth control that a properly trained health teacher would? Also, what if the parents believe that teaching their child about sex is wrong? There is nothing wrong with abstinence, but it is wrong to withhold information from your child about his or her health. I would say that's tantamount to child abuse.

I find a few things troublesome with your argument. You say that it is not the responsibility of the school to teach ALL things to kids. However, I believe it is the role of our schools to properly educate our students with enough information that they can go on to lead responsible lives and contribute as citizens to our society. We teach them math, science, reading, etc. so they are prepared and able to work in our world today. With the number of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, why would we not prepare them for this? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to send our students out with none of the right information to protect themselves from these things?

Also, you seem to believe this is solely the parents' role. Do you honestly believe that every parent is going to take on this role and give the most accurate and thorough education to their children? Of course we all would love for parents to do that and hope that they do. The reality is that not every child is born into a family that does this. Are we just supposed to forget about those children? Because they were not lucky enough to have parents who taught sex ed to them, we just leave them behind? Where does that leave us now? Even more youth will be at risk for pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted infections. Is that fair? No, not at all.

While I understand your point of wanting to ensure parents are actively involved in their children's education, the reality is STI's are a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE, and this is why the need exists to have these health issues taught in schools. It is nice to think that parents will be able to talk to their children about sexual health matters, but that may not always be the case. In order for our society to thrive and grow, we must do everything we can to ensure that the people who make up this society are healthy (this includes every aspect of our health, including sexual and reproductive health). When this doesn't happen, our society at large is faced with people uneducated about how to prevent spreading diseases (or protect themselves from acquiring diseases). Think about it: schools require proof of immunization shots before a child can become a student because we know that's the funnel through which children enter society.

You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the concept of public schooling. Not all parents (in fact, practically none) have the time, resources, or broad educational knowledge needed to adequately teach a child. Since an educated child is a more successful, informed adult, the state has an interest in having an educated populace. It makes for a healthier nation.

By your logic, we should just do away with school altogether. If kids don't learn math, science, reading comprehension, it's the parent's fault! Quit coddling parents by educating their children!

You say: You want to educate someone, educate the parents then tell THEM to educate their children.

So you think it's wrong to trust schools to educate children, but you think they should be educating the parents? I guess they could save time by just educating the parents once, and then trusting that all the information will be passed down without error through succeeding generations. Thankfully, medicine will never learn anything new about sexual health, so you won't have to worry about that either.

I found your argue a little uninformed.

The government can't tell parents that they have to teach there children about sex, and just to say them to do it isn't exactly promising. (If that aproache wanted people wouldn't being doing pot.)

By taking away things that school you take away the available for children whose parents will not take responsibility for their own children.

I also have a feeling you've never closely known someone who you know of as being abused, or just neglected.

Seraph-

Your argument is weak: First, tobacco is natural, and so are many types of drugs...as is alcohol. Aside from most illegal drugs (and some would argue this for marijuana as well), alcohol and tobacco, used in moderation, will not cause disease or produce significant health defects.

The reason why there is a legal drinking age is because kids don't have the good judgement to drink before they reach a certain maturity level...so our laws say you can't do it until 21. Hey, most of our state laws also say you can't legally have sex until 18! What a concept! So if we're teaching kids to have sex before they are older, we're actually encouraging them to break the law...as well as put themselves at risk for mental, physical, and financial problems in the future.

Antra:

So are we to assume you also agree schools should NOT be teaching abstinence-only-until-marriage?

The debate really is not about whether schools will or won't teach kids about their nature, its called biology, and the public health aspect of it can either teach kids how to be responsible by encouraging them to understand nature, or can pretend that just say no approaches work. Progressives argue informing and educating teens to be responsible from a place of knowledge is best, and studies overwhelmingly support that approach.

My disdain is not for social conservative sites, or even for social conservative people, my disdain is for misinformation and lies that get promoted as truth and endanger children, adults, and our democracy.

There are facts in this world and we can work with those facts to make a better world, or we can bury our heads in the sand.

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Don’t feed the kid, fine, the State will feed them through school breakfast and lunch programs.....Nor is it their [the school's] business to "save" every child from themselves.

Yes, it's the children's fault that their parent's aren't feeding them. Let's let them starve! That'll teach 'em not to be poor or neglected! Why do I get the feeling that you would probably describe yourself as a libertarian or a fan of Ayn Rand?

Do you really need someone to explain the "social contract" to you?

Dear, Let's Try Again

Wow.
I'm a 19 year old. Yes I'm fresh out of high school, and studying web design at a Tech school.

I'm very lucky that the state has people steping in to a put. What I think should happen is parents should have to follow guide lines.

My mother is a drug addict, and alcoholic. My father and her divorced when I was only 4 years old. I had a older brother, who was three year older than I. He used to tell me all kinds of improper things about sex. And I had no idea what it was growing up. I thought it was like playing tennis really. That's the way people talk about it these days. So basically I had no parental guidance, and when I was a teenager and really wanted to talk to my mother about sex, she was too embrassed, so she'd just laugh at me, and say "You're not old enough for this conversation. Heck, I'm not even mature enough for this conversation." Everyone would laugh at this and that's all. But the truth was a was far over due to learn the realities of sex. ('Cause it's not just something you do with someone you're in love with like the movies make it seem.) I was already 13 going on 14. And there's plenty of guys out there that are on the prowl for girls just like that. And if a parent doesn't talk about it we tend to go by what others do. (And there's not really all that many good role models these days. And if you're hoping they're going to copy what you do, think again. Why can't copy what we don't know.)

I had thought of 'playing tennis' with many boys whom I had liked, or thought of us cute when I was young. (Thank goodness it never came to that!) If it wasn't for sex education in my high school years and a lot of luck, I'd probably have some many STDs, and a few kids, whom I'd pass on all of my own illnesses.

It's not fair for the country to be forged around the idea that everyone has responsible parents that will raise them, and take care of them. And school lunch...That's a very helpful thing. If it wasn't for school food I don't know how I would have been feed at times.

And I hate it say it but it's because of people like you that I ended up having such a hard time growing up. If someone had steped in and really figured out what my mother was doing to me, I'd have had a comforting home to live in, or at least a decent one. (I live with another family that took me in out of the kindness of their heart, bless there souls.)

What I'm saying is to get this ideal you like so much, You would have to hurt maybe even kill children whose parents are not cappable of being parents to themselves let alone anyone else.

Do you understand now?