Education

I sympathize somewhat, and am certainly no supporter of not counseling abstinence, but historically our young wait decades more than in pre-modern times to get married - so we're demanding they say "no" much longer. I'm not sure it's a realistic expectation.

Anyway, "keep your pants on, but if you take them off, know at least how not to get a disease or a pregnancy" seems reasonable, yes?

Some say making a big deal out of virginity and pre-marital sex can lead to unhealthily negative feelings about sex and self - especially for girls - though I can't speak to that first-hand, obviously.

I would like to add to this post and other similar "blame it on the parents" comments in the blogosphere. While I am a firm believer in parents teaching their kids about these issues, the reality is simply that many do not. And while we can go on railing against those parents (some who ignore this by choice, others who may be single parents working 2 jobs), we cannot simply leave the problem at that. As a society, and through our elected representatives in government, the issue of teen pregnancy has to be addressed, and so the question becomes how best to address it. Historically, abstinence programs do not work and have resulted in higher teen pregnancies and STDs, so I support a more comprehensive approach to sex education. I do believe abstinence should be discussed, and I will definitely share my values with my own daughter and try to guide her through this crazy world as best I can, but I cannot say the same for other parents.

In response to Ashleigh, not all young ummarried people having sex are doing so with random people just for the weekend. Many are monogamous, and have high hopes for staying that way. Like Clay said, today more than ever the new generation is being forced to delay marriage longer and longer. People cannot afford to get married shortly after highschool like they used to, now it must be postponed until after education. Then a stellar job must be landed. THEN people start to think they can afford marriage and are doing things "in the right order". And those who wish to go on to graduate studies or become physicians? They must wait even longer before contemplating marriage in many cases.

I support comprehensive sex education because abstinence-only education just doesn't work as demonstrated by the 21% teen pregnancy rate in the US, with more pregnancies concentrated in the areas with abstinence-only sex education programs. I also believe that schools should be sources of impartial, unbiased information; they should not try to influence students with controversial values, be they conservative (abstinence only, school prayer) or liberal (acceptance of same-sex marriage). 

That said, I oppose pre-marital sex and support monogamous marriage. I agree with Ashleigh that our society has degenerated into a mass of hedonism so intent on fulfilling sexual desires that romance and love are forgotten. Random hook-ups are meaningless; doing it with only that special someone in your life, with mutual love, commitment, and respect, is what makes a relationship special. In response to Tracy's argument that young people shouldn't have to wait until they're married because marriage takes place at a later age nowadays, I would like to point out that a)The decision to delay marriage is a personal decision, not some inevitable imposition by a higher power with the sole purpose of delaying sexual activity and b) There are worse things than waiting until after graduate school to have sex for the first time. Really, it's not such a terrible thing. 

Some of my friends think I'm a weird feminist for opposing premarital sex. But the way I see it the original message of the feminist movement "Women who engage in premarital sex should not face any more stigma than their male counterparts" has been transmogrified into "Women should have premarital sex and there's something wrong with them if they don't". Girls and women who refuse to have premarital sex are often labeled prudes or lesbians. That's not what I think of as sexual freedom or empowerment for women. 

Sorry I went a bit off topic. Just some things to think about. 

You are correct that it is sad that our culture is so awash with sexual images that we need to teach about safety, control and choices.  And parents are the first line of defense.  I am a sexuality educator and do wish that all parents were as sensitive to the issues as you.  Children need to be taught how to manage responsibilities that come with their actions,  how to discern wise choices and how to make effective decisions in our world.  A big part of the sex ed that I do helps kids understand how to weigh choices, clarify emotions and avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies. 

I agree that forbidding something just makes it more appealing but you shouldn't stop trying to teach your kids responsible behavior just because it's an uphill battle. By that logic, parents shouldn't forbid their children to sniff glue despite its health risks. Explaining WHY having sex at 13 is a bad idea is a key step to making the forbidden fruit less tempting. 

Your last sentence saddens me because it shows how women's sexual freedom has regressed, not progressed, over time. Sexual freedom includes the liberty to not have sex as well as the liberty to have sex. Pressuring girls into sex and mocking women who choose to remain virgins does not empower women; it DEMEANS women. 

What a lovely, snide comment. Substance aside, the tone is a real winner.

Don't diss the public schools. I graduated from a public high school and got into every single UC I applied to. I currently attend UC San Diego, where I have a 3.93 GPA.

The real question is why do the public schools in affluent areas consistently outperform public schools in poorer areas and how do we ensure that working class children obtain a decent (and affordable education)?

You say you enrolled your children in a private school. That's great for you and your family but what about children in the inner city whose parents can't afford to send them to a private school and don't have the time to home school them? Are you saying that education should only be available to those that can afford it? 

Regarding public schools, I say mend them, don't end them. 

Isn't it interesting that the same elitist people who send their own children to private schools so they can get quality education are some of the fiercest opponents of vouchers that would allow inner city children and other economically disadvantaged families to get the same quality education? This is a reality I discovered when I favored vouchers. With vouchers, there is no need to rebuild a failed system. Once public schools compete on a level playing field with private schools, chasing the same students and dollars, they will shape up on themselves, or fail.

"...home schooling doesn't help - the parents lack that skill too!"

Yesterday's C students are today's parents, right?