Is 'abstinence only' the only s*x education that doesn't educate about s*x?

Question

I'm not for sexualizing children. But lets say at the right age.

Lets say some teenages in this country in the future decide to have s*x even if we don't want them to! Maybe they should learn what will make them pregnant and how to protect themselves against that or STD's

Answer 1

poor poor little virgins!

Answer 2

WITH ABSTINENCE YOU DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE, YOU JUST HAVE TO PRACTICE IT!

Answer 3

Abstinence-only education is short-sighted.  It obviously just doesn't work.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend teenagers from all walks of life aren't having s*x, but frankly, they are.

I'm not talking about introducing condoms to kindergarten kids.  But when they get to be in their middle teens and the hormones have taken over... it's time to treat it seriously.

I'm all for teaching that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of avoiding pregnancy and disease, because that is true.  But to think that that's the only thing which needs to be said is just not realistic.

Answer 4

Yes.  Cons just want to pretend that no one has s*x.

Answer 5

There's also Cinamax and HBO,

I know I don't want any first graders putting condoms on bananas.

I think sexualizing children is abusive and disgusting.

Answer 6

whatever happened to keeping sexual education amongst pubescent teens and the like?

its one thing to teach about the body's reproductive system, its quite another to teach 12-14 yr olds how these appendages work in an effort of pro-creation (whether thats the intent or not).

we absolutely have an over-sexed media mixing with an under-sexed society...  Neither is right here, but one is erring on the side of caution.

Obama in 2008