''We don't turn around and say, 'If you are going to do these things, this is how to do it.'�

Of course we don’t. Because drugs and alcohol are pretty much bad for you no matter what—there ain’t no coke condom. It just kills me when people liken teen drug or alcohol use to sexual activity''

Actually, this is exactly what is done in most of western Europe- telling young people how to responsible use alcohol. There is also much information on how to use recreational drugs like MDMA without killing yourself in the process.

As someone who is a teetoler, I am sure that there will be many who disagree with me, but you can screw someone 10 times a day for 10 years (with a limited number of people and using safe sex practices)and your health will not be poorly affected, whereas if you do the same thing with drugs or alcohol, your pretty much an addict. Also, very few people venture into hard drugs, while the vast majority of the population will engage in sex, and the first time, for most people, will be in high school or college, so I think there is a need to recognize that sex is a inevitable part of life and prepare kids for it.

Although the rates for drug use aren't as high as for sexual activity, 46% of the population will use an illegal drug in their lifetime. The DARE program has come under fire for being ineffectual and relying on a lot of scare tactics. They certainly aren't going to tell kids the truth, that overdosing on marijuana is impossible. Even though the gateway theory has been soundly debunked it is still taught to kids as though it were fact. Teaching kids that completely abstaining from drugs is the only safe option is just as stupid as saying that all sexual activity is dangerous. The real danger of drug use is the potential for getting a criminal record and spending time in jail. Lots of drugs can be used safely. Even heroin could be made a lot safer if the dosage was carefully monitored. Overdoses happen because the strength and purity of the drug aren't known.

My biggest complaint with anti-drug propoganda is that they treat all drugs the same and act as if they are equally dangerous. This is clearly not the case. Meth is far more dangerous than pot but you would never hear that in any public school. Reefer madness is the reality.

I think ten times a day sex, everyday, would eventually lead to some sort of dependency.

But I think that parents really should teach their children to enjoy alcohol, drugs, sex, and anything else responsibly. It's just ostrich-style burying your head in the sand if you don't realize that these things are out there in the world, and that it will be pretty necessary to teach your children how to deal with them once they are exposed to them. "Just say no" doesn't sound convincing at all when they see their friends having no adverse effects, at least at first.

However, if they are presented with unbiased, honest information, that isn't trying to get them do do anything but be safe, then they will have the tools to evaluate the situation, and, god forbid, think for themselves.

I betchya that abstinence (from all three) would actually increase if we had this approach--half of the attraction is the 'rebellion' effect, anyway.

I don't see what's wrong with talking to kids about drinking responsibly. There's nothing at all wrong with enjoying a few drinks now and then, though obviously excessive drinking is bad for you.

There isn't a direct analogy with sex, but still it's another pleasurable recreational activity that is fun and safe if you're responsible about it, but can have risks to your health if you're not.

As for 'trusting your life' to a condom - no I wouldn't have sex with someone I knew or suspected to have HIV, condom or not. And of course anyone involved in 'high'risk' behaviour should be tested regularly. But given the effectiveness of condoms plus the very small chance that the partner you choose will have an HIV infection that he/she is unaware of or not telling you about - sex with condoms is really a very safe activity. Compared, for example, to most everyday activities.

I guess my hyperbole didn't work, but my point is that using drugs and alcohol means putting a foreign substance in your body. I know that marijuana isn't physically addicting, and using it once in a while isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the act of smoking it does damage your lungs. Other drugs, even when done only on occasion, do negatively affect your body in some way, whereas sex, when engaged in responsibly, is actually a good thing for your body.

There are not really many things you can't overdose on. It's hard to overdose on sex but one can overdose on TV, cookies and sports. So enjoying life in a responsible way is generally a good thing to learn.

The analogy seems totally bunk to me... from what I can tell the recent trend is, in fact, to teach kids to drink responsibly (though I think there's still pretty much a total taboo on illegal drugs, but I suspect this has much more to do with their outright illegality than with parents' worries about the ill effects of, say, pot -- which are pretty negligible if it's used responsibly). My parents and my friends' parents had rules growing up that it was okay to drink with them, but don't go out and drink and drive. My parents always stressed that if I was out with friends and if I drank, I should call them to come get me, rather than try to drive home myself, and I wouldn't get in trouble. And guess what? I never drank and drove. Gee, what an idea -- creating an incentive for your kids to be honest and responsible, rather than hide the behavior that 85% of them will engage in anyway.

I see a LOT of commercials nowadays emphasizing responsible drinking. So I think their analogy is completely screwed up -- we in fact DON'T completely discourage alcohol consumption. We encourage responsible alcohol consumption. Just like we ought to encourage responsible sex.

And, as far as the alcohol-being-worse-than-sex thing, in fairness, recent studies show that drinking red wine in moderation is good for your heart. So I wouldn't even call drinking alcohol "bad" for you. Getting drunk is bad for you, but no one (in authority) encourages kids to go out and get drunk, so that's really not the point.

Man NC is a backwards state. I cannot wait to get out of it. I remember the sex ed teacher talking about condoms, and then telling us that she was not allowed to approve of premarital sex. We should all be abstinent till marriage. Sex is too enjoyable to wait to experience.
I always avoided the drugs. And I don't like the taste of most alcohol, so I never really drank, unless someone put an apple martini in front of me. So it wouldn't be fair for me to say my opinions on those. Because some people really enjoy alcohol and drugs. I'm so against cigarette smoking that it made me decide not do anything else. I just find it disgusting. And beer is icky.
But it's all about responsibility. And we really need to teach our children that it's all about responsibility.

It's so frustrating that these abstinence-only folks claim that a more comprehensive sex education is sending kids "mixed messages." A far more damaging mixed message is to tell children that sex is simultaneously wonderful, pleasureable, and marketable and yet scary, bad, guilt-inducing, and inevitably tragic and destructive. How the hell are kids raised and educated on THOSE mixed messages supposed to become adults with physically and psychologically satisfying sex lives, whether they wait 'til marriage or not?

It is actually frustrating to hear all the time that teenagers are too stupid to form their own opinions.

Of course they receive "mixed messages". Everyone does. And that's why we have to form decisions.

I shudder when I imagine what a world without "mixed messages" looks like. It's too late for 1984 to happen, but that's pretty close.

i bet they don't have citations for their claim that women are culturally conditioned to think about sex. i think we're just emerging from a long, long phase where we were "culturally conditioned" (beaten and stoned to death) not to. but i know of no study one way or the other. neither do these folks, i bet.

With drugs and alcohol we encourage them to make wise and healthy choices. We don't turn around and say, 'If you are going to do these things, this is how to do it.'�

you know why? because drugs and alcohol, for people under 21, are ILLEGAL.

I had never realized the mixed messages when they were being drilled into me, but sometime recently I read a comment that made it crystal clear: "Sex is dirty, wrong, and sinful, and you should save it for the one person you love most in the world."

Carlie,

I got that "sex is dirty, save it for someone you love" speil too. And I've noticed two people point it out, one was a woman a few years ago who was the head of Planned Parenthood and the other was Sinead O'Conner who was talking about her experiences with sex and I'm quoting this from memorty but she said something to the effect that she'd grown up to believe that sex was dirty and it wasn't something you did with someone you "loved" which kinda screwed up her relationships.

Apparently, the sex zealots ('cause even though they're *not* doing it, they sure the hell are thinking an awful lot about it) have wisended up and are now preaching that marriage is this magical thing that cleans teh sex so it's not dirty anymore when it's between husband and wife but if you don't have God to approve it then you're a whore who's gonna use up your rose buds/oxytocin/[insert flower analogy here].

And yes, these people honestly don't believe that women could possibly want sex because--and I'm going to toss out a guess here--but it's probably not too good for these evangelical women, if you know what I mean.

With drugs and alcohol we encourage them to make wise and healthy choices. We don't turn around and say, 'If you are going to do these things, this is how to do it.'�

you know why? because drugs and alcohol, for people under 21, are ILLEGAL.

In some states having sex under the age of 18 or having oral sex is illegal also.

I personally think sex education, whether geared towards telling teenagers how to use protection or how to abstain from sex, is kind of a flop. It's not realistic to think that just because teenagers know about controceptives that they will use them each and everytime or that they will even be able to have access to them if they decide to have sex. And obviously this whole idea of waiting until marriage to have sex thing, isn't going to work in a culture where most people don't get married until their late twenties and hit puberty around the age of 11. Plus, adults aren't always the most informed when it comes to sex. The people who teach sex ed in this country are not doctors, nurses, or healthcare professionals. They are gym and drivers ed teachers who have been pushed into teaching students about drugs and sex...which is all lumped together into one class.