LOPEZ: Sex-ed that works

After 36 years with the one woman I have loved, I can attest to the fact that deciding to abstain before marriage and remain true to this one woman has resulted in contentment and ample gratification. Planned Parenthood is in it for the money - IMHO.

Sex ed is a matter about which parents must be involved and in control of what their children are being told by the government. I think that, for those local cultures that want to hand out dozens of condoms and send in sex therapists to tell the kids how to get it on, parents must be allowed to opt out if that runs counter to their religious beliefs. Moreover, until the government does better at teaching our children reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, and athletics, it has no credibility to handle a sensitive, deeply personal, and potentially explosive topic like sex indoctrination. For Al-NYNY: Yes, when it comes to my children --- guilty as charged--- I am a zealot on their behalf for them becoming good, virtuous, patriotic Americans. And, if forced to choose between them becoming like priests or missionaries, or them becoming sl-ts, bums, sluggards, or welfare cases, then I'll take the former over the latter any day.

To your first question, yes, I do think that if kids get the wrong message from the government on sex and condoms, many of them will tend to follow thru on indulging in pre-marital sex than otherwise. Regarding abstinence pledges, it is nothing more than a symbol of intent. Simply saluting the flag doesn't make a patriot, and donning a wedding ring alone won't make someone faithful in marriage. No government program alone can change the intents of the heart --- parents that outsource such a thing totally to the government are likely to find their children regarding neither an abstinence program nor one of the more graphic sex ed programs pushed in some states in deciding on pre-marital sex. I agree with you that choices must be available. I think allowing parents' choices and giving them freedom to raise their families as they see fit is certainly "patriotic". As a parent, you should have the choice on whether or not to issue your children condoms, and how and when to discuss sex with them. As a parent, I should also have the choice on how to raise my own children as I see fit without the government actively undermining my efforts. The problem is not so much that the government initially starts advocating pre-marital sex, but that the government is a clumsy, bureaucratic beast. Unless it is watched carefully, it has in the past and still does botch sex ed as badly as it performs other parts of education. Where you and I disagree, I think, is how badly government will flounder at it. In its worst form, I have lived in some locales where the School Board has allowed its Sex Ed programs to 1) be either managed or taught by unqualified amateurs, 2) expose children to sex ed at too young an age or maturity level to handle such a topic (ages in the 6-10 year old range) 3) or, in my opinion, outsource their sex ed curriculum to radical advocacy groups pushing an agenda that very much makes the government a de facto proponent of youth sexual activity. Perhaps, you have no problem with these things in NY. At my present location, the School Board is not adversarial against families about sex ed, but, if they did allow these problems to show up here, but, if they did, I would object to them.

to Al-NYNY: Ok, so there's more common ground than at first look. My concern is that the government takes dysfunctional families and their failures and uses that as the camel getting its nose in the tent to push some agenda under the guise of "sex ed". The government then botches it up, but doesn't have to pay the consequences for it. Even, in the circumstance of broken families, the government is trying, usually unsuccessfully, to play the role of an institutional parent. Many of us object to the government, using that situation as an excuse, trying to play "institutional parent" for everyone else's children as well. Those of us doing our best to raise our children, and having already had the "TALK" with them, have, on occasion, found that the government is telling children that their parents are full of antiquated bunk. We, parents, ---not the government nor an incompetent or secularistic school teacher --- are the ones who bear the consequences morally, financially, and legally if we have children whose sexual experimentation goes awry. Therefore, we who do care about our children have a much more vested, deeply personal interest in the government not abusing its powers in this area. In regard to your comments on my point #3, I agree that it does work both ways. I have no problem with the government going into the biological facts of sex in the classroom. Sex need not be portrayed as "evil." However, when they start portraying it to the kids as an inevitable rite of passage, as chastity as being antiquated, or as not engaging in pre-marital sex as being a prude --- then the government has crossed from being an honest broker of education into taking a moral stand, one that's contrary to many religious and moral traditions in America. I don't agree that government should be in the condom business and short circuit the parents out of such matters. I would not approve of the government meddling in my family's raising of my children that way without my specific consent. However, if the school system would rather spend its limited funds on such and you, as the parent, so consent to that for your children, then that's your own business.

I agree that there is more common ground than most people realize. While I am generally opposed to abstinence-only sex education programs, because studies show they don’t generally work, I believe that encouraging teens to abstain from sex should be part of any sex education curriculum. There is no question that postponing the age of initial sexual experiences is a good thing for many reasons, as the author and many of the earlier comments have stated (the 40 year old virgin notwithstanding). At the same time, if teens are having sex, I would prefer that they use condoms and other birth control methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. The challenge for any sex education program is how to balance encouraging abstaining from sex as long as possible, while still providing information that encourages safe sex when teens stop abstaining. It is a balance that parents struggle with in their own conversations with their children. One point I must make is that responsible parenting is not a matter of having a single “TALK” as some people implied; it is having multiple conversations that reinforce both encouraging abstinence as long as possible while encouraging the practice of safe sex when teens choose to no longer abstain. The “Best Friends” program sounds like it has many good aspects. I don’t know if it is an abstinence-only program or encourages abstinence in the context of an overall sex education program. I suspect it will have better results if it is part of an overall program.

Yes, I can't wait to see the conservatives teach respect for marriage. I'll volunteer to write the chapter called "Reagan, Giuliani, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Gramm and McCain: Why divorce is OK as long as you hypocritically promote 'family values' after the fact (or, at least, vote Republican)." Of course, having Lopez write an op-ed about abstinence is, well, sort of cheating. After all, some choose abstinence, but some have abstinence forced upon them...

So the abject failure of a program, and the putting of teenagers at risk of STDs & pregnancy, is not a failure because you invented a new unrelated dependent variable? Slick, but you would fail my methods class.

Why do some people hate teenage sex so much? What is so wrong with it? My guess is that people that are so against it never had any themselves. My memories of it are great, it was so much fun and I learned a lot. Once they've been told about VDs and pregnancy I say let them go at it!

I don't think the Washington Times meant to be scrooges, but they are acknowledging that abstinence and virginity pledges are options that are not effective at preventing sexual behaviors. They are refusing to elevate abstinence as the only solution because everyone has different value systems and we can't expect every teenager to make the same choice. With that said, I think abstinence is a great decision, but that's what it is. A choice. We have to educate teenagers while keeping that in mind. More and more research shows that more education does not always equal more sexual behavior. It is not bad for teenagers to know about sexuality, since that is a part of life. Fully armed with knowledge, they'll be able to make decisions as students and then again, as adults.