I am definitely not a supporter of abstinence-only education, but I thought I'd provide a perspective of what it's like to go through such a program. Take from my experience what you will.

The first sex ed class I had was in the 6th grade, and it was just two weeks of being taught basic anatomy, what happens during puberty, and reasons for not having sex (unwanted pregnancy, STDs, the financial cost of babies). All I remember from that class is that babies are a financial and emotional burden, and that if we laughed at the videos we were threatened with detention. They heavily emphasized abstinence and I don't remember any discussion of birth control except to mention the fail rates of each.

The second sex ed class I had was in the 9th grade, and it was more of the same, except more focus on general hygiene and less focus on babies. We talked a lot more about puberty and we watched some weird video named "If You Want To Play the Music, You Have To Put Your Quarters in the Jukebox," which was apparently about what guys talk about in locker rooms with respect to how "easy" their girlfriends are and stuff. (I don't remember much about the video except the locker room scene and the jukebox line there. I think it was supposed to illustrate that guys thought of us as nothing more than sex boxes.)

The sort of third sex ed class I had was a two hour talk at my Lutheran church, when we watched a video named "Sex Is Dynamite," and for you Christians out there, it provided a decidedly progressive view about sex and God's plan (personally I'm a Humanist now, but I still have respect for my church). The video was a lecture from a guy professing very sex-positive values, while also saying that sex was something that shouldn't be rushed into.

The fourth sex ed class I had was in the 8th grade, and it was a two-day addition to biology class, and we got the basic anatomy and we got to ask whatever questions we wanted. This class gave me the most information about birth control, which was pretty much a one-page description of each method (it still took me two years to figure out what a diaphragm was, though).

The classes taught in my school emphasized abstinence mostly. I don't know how typical this was of other abstinence-only classes, but this is just my experience. Honestly, most of my sex ed came from the internet. I never got a "talk" from my parents and I'm still pretty uncomfortable talking to them about this subject (and I'm almost 23!).

And for any parent who is looking to educate their young ones, or for any adult looking for a comprehensive book about all things sexual, I highly recommend The Guide to Getting It On. It not only goes into the mechanics of everything (and I mean EVERYTHING), but it also presents an unbiased and fun view of sex, and the beginning chapters provide interesting insights about the culture of sex and question the values of different societies.

nice Mary.

I know what you are saying in terms of how its at risk of "its the girls fault" sort of thing, but i definitly agree with her viewpoint. when you have many aquaintance rapes that occur bc of misunderstandings, people being afraid to say no, men not realizing that anything but an enthusiastic yes is a no, i think something like this could be super beneficial. of course, there are just some asshole guys out there, in which case additional communication wouldnt do anything for, but for some, i think this would make boundaries alot more clear.

I find it really amazing, actually, that sex ed seems to have regressed since I took it (about 9 years ago, now). From what I remember from 9th grade health, our sexual education was really straightforward: this is what happens during puberty, this is how sex works, this is how babies are made, these are the different types of contraception, this is how they work, here is how you put on a condom, here is how you check it, here is how you use it to minimize the risk of pregnancy. Hardly the "complex" sex ed discussed in the article (our teacher was a guy's guy who had a policy of cancelling class when the Mets won a game), but enough that, the first time I had sex, I knew what I was doing contraception-wise. It wasn't thrilling, but it offered no value judgements; I don't think the clinical diagrams we had to look at encouraged any of us into having pre-marital sex.

I always thought that the world moved forwards, progress-wise...it's a litlte scary to realize how far we've regressed.

I think Courtney has hit upon the reason why Americans have such screwed up views about sex.
The media, educators, etc., essentialize sex as either all good or all bad; they divorce biology from emotion, when in reality, it is a mixure of the two.

Abstinence-only education renders sex biologically "dirty" (sex is the devil's playgroud!) and emotionally burdensome (you can only have sex with a person to whom you've pledged your entire life!).

Hollywood glamorizes sex without accurately portraying the physical and emotional realities. Notice that everyone always has an orgasm, no one looks ridiculous, no one farts at an inopportune moment, no one gets herpes or other STDs.

And in promoting this dialectic, they divide men and women (and their "proper" corresponding sexual behaviors) into nice, neat, opposing little camps (like Mary B's experience with the jukebox movie).

It's not a big leap to make from essentializing sexual attitudes to essentializing gendered sexual behavior.

Which is why society fetishizes gay sex so much (either negatively or positively) because homosexual sex confuses that stringent dichotomy.

I had very "progressive" sex ed, which had its benefits. I thought that the main downside is that it ignored some abstinence values. Personally, I think that you can be both sex-positive and pro-abstinence.

I could not disagree more with Courtney's thesis. Objectively, it simply isn't true that abstinence ed promotes sexual assault. As someone who has (sadly) been sexually assaulted several times, I can tell you that the problem is men don't think that a woman doesn't want to do it. After all, sex is normal and healthy, so why don't I want it? I've either been berated and browbeaten for being "repressed," or, better yet, having "hang-ups."

The assumption is that all normal, healthy women want sex. There is no discussion in sex ed about love. There is no mention that women like me exist - women who don't want to be jaded when they find the right guy and women who want to share something with their husband that is unique to the relationship. (Please note that I also strongly advocate for male chastity!) Nooo... if I'm not putting out, it's clearly because I'm a screwed-up individual.

"Choice" in sex has gone from giving women the option to have sex to mandating that women have sex.

Fairly recently, I was hanging out with a friend and two of her friends. One of them started coming on to me. I wasn't in to him, so I asked where the bathroom was and left, planning to make my exit afterwards. When I got out of the bathroom, he was waiting for me. He shoved me against a wall, started kissing me, and said, "I really wanna f--- you." I told him, quite emphatically, no. He asked why. (Oh, yeah, what we need is better sex ed. ::Rolls eyes::) Me: We're not married. In fact, I don't even know you and I don't want to sleep with you. Him: So? (Then pulls his pants off and tries to get mine off.)

Oh, yeah, what we need is MORE sex ed. How 'bout we teach men that it's okay for women to NOT have sex? Oh, wait, because that's evil abstinence education and we can't have that!

Yeah, Courtney has an interesting thesis. It's always interesting to watch people blame others for their own messes. Abstinence ed didn't give us date rape - because abstinence teaches you to say "no" when you don't want sex. Sex ed teaches you to use a condom and get Plan B if that fails. Guess what? Men assume that, if you use a condom (or the Pill, because all young women should be having lots of sex and therefore, take the Pill for his convenience), then sex is fine.

Abstinence teaches men to NOT do it. Yeah, if men aren't having sex, it's hard for them to rape someone. It is beyond modern male comprehension that a healthy woman doesn't want sex. Guess why? SEX ED! Everyone's doing it, so we'll teach you how to do it safely!

Sorry for the rant, but I am bitter at having to deal with the fall-out from the sexual revolution (hands down, the worst thing to happen to women).

Apparently I got the only good sex-ed class in the world. They taught us about contraception, STDs, pregnancy, hormones, decision making skills, emotional and physical impacts of sex, and also that it was okay to wait until you were ready to have sex. Both boys and girls got this information. They never pushed sex, and treated most of the contraceptive information as if it were information we would need when we were older, but they wanted us to have it. They also never treated sex as if it were something dirty, or as if we should be ashamed if we'd had sex. They also talked about mixing sex with drugs or alcohol, and the importance of setting your own boundaries and not allowing anyone else to set them for you (while not ignoring the fact that you aren't always given a choice, particularly females).

Did nobody else get a truly comprehensive sex ed class like mine? If so, that says sad things about sex ed in this country, and not just the abstinence only version.

I dont't even know where to begin with your post oenophile so i just think i wont.

Aside from saying that I am sorry you have been sexually assaulted, because I am, but that is NOT the result of the sexual revolution.

furthermore, those who wait until marriage, which of course is fine, are only about 5% of the population, so i think courtney focusing on the majority, the EXTREME majority, is fine.

furthermore, abstinence only education is only teaching that you should say no, and since 95% of people DONT say no, why would we have it be the focus? any sex ed worth its salt would make it clear that you have the choice to say no for as long as you like,.

and also, the point about it increasing date rape is bc they arent getting any sort of balanced view of sexuality, which may and can lead to miscommunication btw the sexes. i just think your post is way off, and very subjective.

"Objectively, it simply isn't true that abstinence ed promotes sexual assault."

I don't think Courtney was saying that abstinence ed promotes sexual assault. I think she was saying that abstinence-only education is a) out of touch with 95% of the population (only 5% of people are virgins when they marry) b)by ignoring that pre-marital sex is prevalent, they ignore the needs of most of the teens they are trying to educate. Presumably, comprehensive sexual education leads to a greater understanding between people when they decide to become sexually active, married or not.

And I have to majorly disagree with oenophile's assertion that "the sexual revolution (hands down, the worst thing to happen to women)."

Do you think that rape didn't happen before the sexual revolution?? If you don't want to have sex, good for you, if I want to, good for me. The point is not having to do anything, it's about having the choice to do either.

"Sorry for the rant, but I am bitter at having to deal with the fall-out from the sexual revolution (hands down, the worst thing to happen to women)."

oenophile, I am sorry that you have been a victim of sexual assult, but, as katie said, you cannot blame it on the sexual revolution. Sexual assult is nothing new in our society; men have viewed sex as their perogative and have forced women to have unwanted sex for 1000s of years.

The problem with abstinence-only education is that it is not comprehensive. It does not tell the people who DO want to have sex what to do. A good, comprehensive sex ed should address all aspects of one's sexuality - emotional, physical, that abstinence is a perfectly valid and healthy thing (as is masturbation, but that would probably be a miracle if they even mentioned masturbation in public school sex ed), but it is also ok to have sex if you feel ready, and if you do, then here's how to do it safely. Communication is a vital part of being sexual with another person and a comprehensive sex ed should address that as well and teach young people how to communicate effectively (especially the LISTENING end of it). That is perhaps what Courtney was getting at.

My mother disagrees oenophile. She grew up in the 1950s, and all she was ever told about sex was that "men have urges." Period. That's it. For her, the advent of the sexual revolution is so closely allied with feminism in its liberating effects that she almost does not distinguish the two.

Sexual assault is obviously terrible, as you know. But men were assaulting women long before the sexual revolution, not as a result of any kind of sexual license, but as a result of male privilege. Indeed, it could be argued that prior to the sexual revolution, since the normative idea of "regular" sex was the man wanting it while the woman tried her best to fend him off (but secretly wanting it too), that the sexual revolution, which made it acceptable for women to express sexual desire, was necessary in order to highlight the (obvious) difference between sex and rape. The sexual revolution did provide a new kind of rhetoric for the kind of sexist man who sexually assaults women and/or pressures them into having sex when they don't want to ("What's wrong with you, sweetie? You're not uptight, are you?"), but the act itself, and the fact that men justify it, is nothing new. Unfortunately.

Heh. You know what the late lamented Ellen Willis said when asked what she thought about the sexual revolution? "It would be a good idea." (And, yeah, she's quoting Ghandhi's response to being asked what he thought about Western civilization.)

Does anyone here know what the general trend of sex ed in the US is? For example, has it been liberalizing, gotten more conservative, or fluctuated with no trend in the last 30 years?

Even assuming that the 95% figure is correct, let's consider a few things:

-Doesn't mean 95% of women are having sex now, or have sex with the man they are currently dating/hooking up with.
-In our society, having sex is okay. It's expected, in fact.
-Not having sex is, among the 20-30 year old set, NOT okay. It's okay in the Bible Belt, but, otherwise, most men have a very reasonable expectation of sex.
-You can wait for sex and be sexually healthy. I'm a complete, die-hard romantic in many ways, and everything, including kissing, is better for me when it develops slowly.
-"Comprehensive sex ed" ignores abstinence or even modified abstinence. (I made up that last term. Basically, meaning sex in long-term relationships, not random hookups.) As someone once said, a 300-page sex-ed book she saw never once mentioned LOVE.

"Don't want sex? Don't have it," is not realistic. Trust me, I often don't have the choice whether or not to have sex - I assert my right to not have sex via physical force. But I'm not given the choice. :(

Furthermore, this isn't the 1950s. Anyone with an internet connection can learn about contraceptives, but the internet doesn't teach men that "No" doesn't mean, "I'm not sure," it means, "I don't want to have sex with you, and that's my perogative as a sexually healthy woman to not have sex."

I disagree that Courtney was getting at communication. Jen communicated damn effectively: "No."

Oenophile, Internet or no Internet, the US has an off-the-charts teen pregnancy rate. A 15-year-old American girl has a 2 in 5 chance of getting pregnant before she turns 20. A 15-year-old Dutch girl's chance is 1 in 20.

If what you say about rape is right, then sexual assault rates will be lower in the South than in other parts of the US.

oenophile, be fair. I've already said that my comprehensive sex ed class included discussions of abstinance and a person's right to not have sex.

You might fairly say that bad sex ed ignores abstinance, but you also can't really call it comprehensive. By definition, a comprehensive sex ed class would cover all the options, as mine did. Anything else can't really be called comprehensive.

So what we need is not abstinance only. It's true, honest-to-goodness comprehensive sex ed. It's possible, I promise.

"Comprehensive sex ed" ignores abstinence or even modified abstinence. (I made up that last term. Basically, meaning sex in long-term relationships, not random hookups.) As someone once said, a 300-page sex-ed book she saw never once mentioned LOVE.

This is why I said that comprehensive sex ed SHOULD include these things. It should talk about abstinence and love and contraception and anything else you can think of related to sexuality.

Anyone with an internet connection can learn about contraceptives

Not if you don't know that you need to go learn about them in the first place. Sure, those of us who are middle class and well educated know perfectly well how to go find the information we need. But a lot of people are not well educated, live in poverty, and have never been taught how to use resources effectively to get information they need. They may not have easy access to the internet, either.

"No" doesn't mean, "I'm not sure," it means, "I don't want to have sex with you, and that's my perogative as a sexually healthy woman to not have sex."

I disagree that Courtney was getting at communication. Jen communicated damn effectively: "No."

This is precisely why learning about communication and respecting the other person is critical -- men need to learn that "no" does in fact mean "no". That is what I meant when I said that perhaps Courtney was getting at communication. Communication and respect and true listening.

"Anyone with an internet connection can learn about contraceptives"

The internet is not a particularly trustworthy or reliable source of information. Without bedrock sex ed., how is your average young person going to know the difference between what's true and what's random internet garbage? I don't let my students use the internet for their research papers, and those are not integral to their physical health.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I had comprehensive sex ed at my public school, and we did indeed cover abstinence, especially with respect to the fact that it is the only foolproof way to avoid STDs.

Honestly, I'm far more concerned about what it mean for schools to teach about love. Schools in general don't teach about emotions (God knows, nobody taught my phys ed classes anything about, oh, not being mean to other people), and I'm not sure I want the unsubtle hand of the school board deciding what counts as love and what it means.

I would also point out that it is a very privileged young person who has a private internet connection. Obscenity "protections" at school and library computers would put paid to any attempts to look up such info there, and computers hang onto search histories and the like. Your average teenager is not going to take the chance. Given that myths such as "you can't get pregnant your first time" are still circulating, I'm not willing to rely on teenage internet use.

I live in Texas, am 25 years old, and have NEVER had a sex ed class. It was never even an option. In high school, I wouldn't have known what a condom was if I had seen one. I also grew up with a very strict Catholic family so abstinence is/was the only thing ever mentioned. All I have ever learned about sex has been because of and with my current boyfriend.

However, I have an additional aspect to discuss with regard to abstinence-only education. My brother is gay, and my sister is currently living with her boyfriend. Both of them deal with massive amounts of guilt because abstinence is the only thing that was ever discussed. However, to my mind, it's not a logical or reasonable choice for EVERYONE, and to assume it is can be detrimental to a person's sense of self worth and self image.

I would have liked to have had a sex ed class, sure, but even more, I would like to see a comprehensive one (and I do believe they can exist). I don't understand how curriculum can be so regulated and yet, there is no uniformity or requirement for curriculum in sex ed classes.

-You can wait for sex and be sexually healthy.

Sure you can, oenophile. But you should also acknowledge that someone who's having sex regularly does not have to be 'jaded'! Good sex is ALWAYS fun!

I grew up in a conservative environment where I was told that the 'first time' was the most important, I would never forget it and would never be able to love anyone else and all that crap. Nope. It's all in the mind. Every new partner that I have is new, fresh and exciting, that is the beauty of the sexual act.

I believe that mutually good sex is a natural, healthy part of a relationship. So personally, I will not go into a sexless relationship at this time. But I do not respect a woman any less or more solely based on her sexual choices. In particular, I do not think a man/woman who "waits" deserves any more or less respect than one who has sex regularly (out of marriage, of course). It's just a different choice.

Again, as a man, I think I cannot claim to represent the general crowd here, but I have found that sex can be enjoyed as a pleasurable activity by both partners, with or without 'love'. It's all in the mind :)

Oenophile, you deserve respect for making your choice about your sex life. It is only right for you to grant the same to others.

Not having sex is, among the 20-30 year old set, NOT okay. It's okay in the Bible Belt, but, otherwise, most men have a very reasonable expectation of sex.

Having lived in the Bible Belt, I disagree. People had just as much sex down there, even if some of them were weirdly in denial about it. During my first week of university, my roommate and her best friend were talking about their senior year in high school, and how it seemed like almost every week, someone new was pregnant. That boggled my mind; I didn't exactly go to a privileged high school, but I personally only knew one pregnant teen, and she transferred in from a Catholic high school after she became pregnant.

We didn't get the absolute best sex ed, but we got something, and we got "it's ok to say yes, and it's ok to say no." We had to write about exactly what we would say, and why. One of the questions on our final was where the Planned Parenthood clinic was.

The way I see it, abstinence-only education hurts people like you, oenophile. Teenagers aren't stupid, and they know when they're being fed bullshit. Apparently, 95% of them are going to have pre-marital sex, and if they equate the idea of abstinence with religion, and ONLY religion, they naturally start to think of those who want to wait as "repressed" or "brain-washed."

NOTHING gives anyone the excuse to disrespect your wishes, and the people here are saying that sex ed should discuss that. But to say that "people who do wait until marriage should have their wishes respected," you have to acknowledge that a lot of people don't wait until marriage.

I know a guy who told me that when he was a teenager, he thought that hetero sex was basically something the girls let the boys do because they really loved them. Basically, "I love you, so I'll let you have access to my vagina even though I really have no interest in the activity." I've heard this elsewhere too, and not everyone grows up to realise it's bullshit.

If you're assuming that women don't really like sex in the first place, and need to be coerced into it, you end up with women who really don't want to be there, therefore don't enjoy the sex, perpetuating the belief. Women who DO enjoy sex (because there's always porn stars and unashamed ladies) are then called sluts.

Do you see how that kind of thinking hurts people like you, oenophile? And next time someone tries to do that to you, kick his coercive teeth in.

Actually, I'm going to speak up for the notion that it's quite possible that abstinence-only education makes rape more likely.

It makes intuitive sense if you think about it. Kids get the following messages:

1. Rape is bad.
2. Sex is bad.

Kids are going to have sex, no matter what you tell them. If you associate any kind of sex with "sin," or being "bad" or "dirty" or "unclean," then people who are going to have sex will see the step from sex to rape as a smaller one than they should.

This is one reason why we don't punish rape with death. If rape was punishable by death, you would see a lot more rapists killing their victims. The punishment will be the same either way, so there's no incentive to draw the line at rape and let her live -- especially since she might identify you in a lineup and then you're dead. Indeed, it would create an incentive to kill your victim.

When people are taught that two things are equally bad, when in fact they're quite distinct on the morality scale, then people's actions will reflect this. This is a basic, simple, formulaic notion.

oenophile, please understand that we're not trying to knock you -- it's just that it almost sounds like you're saying people should be told NOT to have sex -- which isn't fair to those of us who have it. The comprehensive sex ed we want would make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that NO ONE, male or female, has the right to coerce ANYONE, male or female, into doing something he or she does not want to do. Period.

As to "no means no" -- teaching communication means this, of course, but it means more than this. It means teaching that the absence of "yes" means "no." It means pulling back means "no." It means "I don't know" means "no." The only thing that means "yes" is "yes." But in order for "yes" to mean "yes" we have to make it okay to say "yes" in the first place. If none of it's okay, it's all the same -- so regardless of whether she says "yes" or "no" it's bad, and therefore who cares if she says "no"? It makes no difference.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD,

I am not saying that sex is bad. I'm just saying that sexual restraint is a personal choice of mine.

I DO NOT CARE (shouting!) whether people have consensual sex. What upsets me is the EXPECTATION that ALL sexually healthy young adults have sex. Because that rationale has lead men to think I'm not really saying, "No," and try to rape me. I really really hate being forced, and it's happened more than once and will continue happening until men realise that I don't want to sleep with them.

It's not the rationale that sex is bad; it's the idea that of course I want to have sex, being in my mid-twenties and a friendly, happy young lady.

What REALLY is starting to piss me off is that you all INSIST on reading, "I don't want to have sex for personal reasons" as a criticism of other people. I don't know how the hell you get from one to the other, and, frankly, I have ZERO interest in finding out. Because discussing the right choices for MY psyche has ZILCH to do with other people.

(I know, love, and respect a lot of people for whom abstinence is the WRONG choice, psychologically, morally, and spiritually. Like a lot of things, I respect the well-thought out choices of others and just ask that they respect mine.)

---
(Sarcastically): Wow, thanks, Raj, never even CROSSED MY MIND that sex could be fun. Let me run out and have it RIGHT NOW.

:(

I think the problem is that you're implying that people *besides* misogynistic jerks say that sex should be for everyone, when from the experience of every person I know, they're the only ones that say that. If abstinence before marriage was the norm, the people who say "sex is for everyone" as a cover for rape would just use another cover; their actual behavior would be the same.

Oop, there should be a break of some sort in the first sentence--obviously the problem isn't *because* of experiences of people I know, but I think you guys got the point anyway.

(Sarcastically) What can I say, oenophile? I am so jaded from having had sex already.

What upsets me is the EXPECTATION that ALL sexually healthy young adults have sex. Because that rationale has lead men to think I'm not really saying, "No," and try to rape me

Bullshit. When a man tries to rape you, it's because he is an asshole who thinks he's entitled to your body, not because the so-called "expectation that all sexually healthy young adults have sex". Even if half of the sexually healthy young adults were suddenly not having sex, and veryone knew and accepted that, guys like that would still exist. It's not about some expectation of sex, it's about an expectation of women doing as they're told, wether that's staying abstinent or putting out or making me a damn sandwich, and that is what needs to change for (date) rape to be stopped.

Anyone with an internet connection can learn about contraceptives, but the internet doesn't teach men that "No" doesn't mean, "I'm not sure," it means, "I don't want to have sex with you, and that's my perogative as a sexually healthy woman to not have sex."

But what you seem to be implying, and what people are critisising you for, is that sex ed teaches men that "No" does mean "I'm not sure," which is patently untrue.

Look, I'm a 26-year old virgin, so i know from experience that there are people in the world who can't understand not everyone starts having sex as soon as they get the opportunity, and that some of them are assholes about it, but that's because they're assholes, not because they had sex ed.

“What REALLY is starting to piss me off is that you all INSIST on reading, "I don't want to have sex for personal reasons" as a criticism of other people.�

Oenophile,

People are only responding to such assertions as “sexual revolution (hands down, the worst thing to happen to women).�
Or you claiming that a comprehensive sex education is what causes some men not to respect your decision to abstain, where as “Abstinence teaches men to NOT do it. Yeah, if men aren't having sex, it's hard for them to rape someone.�

These are pretty problematic claims and that’s what TLF, Raj, EG, prairielily and others have been responding to, and I am not going to try to rehash because they have done it quite eloquently.

Exactly Sophie,

Oenephile, how you are phrasing things makes things out to be like, somehow, people like you who dont want to have sex until they are married are more likely to be victims of sexual assault or rape bc of societies expectations that people "should" have sex. that could NOT be farther from the truth. Whatever asshole is forcing you would have done the same thing to any other woman, not just a virgin who was waiting until they were married. Like sophie said, they arent forcing you bc of sexual education and the sexual revolution, they are forcing you bc they are jerks. there is just no two ways about it.

I also agree with EG about mentioning love is sexual education manuals. The predominant view of women who enjoy sex without love is that they are sluts. the last thing we need is to have some sex ed manual talking about love when it comes to sex (not to mention EG's point that you should never have schools teaching about emotions). What really needs to be reinforced is that you have sex when you are absolutely ready, which is not necessarily when you are "in love", which personally to me, is just superficial romantic bullshit that has been shoved down womens throats for years. that we have to be "in love" to haave healthy sex. Personally, I also don't like to be saddled with the typical, lame stereotype of "women like/need/want to be romanced in roder to be "convinced/coerced into having sex/getting married"-which seems to happen alot for some reason. anyway, i digress.

I want to mention that I went to a private school in NY that was, in many ways, very progressive and open, and encouraged creative expression etc, and didn't even have grades (yet still sends people to top colleges at a very high rate) - point being, a place kids learn a lot. Yet, I never once got any legitimate sex ed. I got old-bachelor advice from my father once he realized I was heading down that road, skittish fears from my mother (though neither wanted me to abstain till marriage, necessarily), and, my school, which i loved for many reasons, just never gave it to us. I t was a small school (75/grade) and, expensive though it was, it didn't have much of an endowment, so I could blame it on that, but, really, I look back and it's unforunate. For my own sake it was good that I'm generally extra cautious, assuming that female contraception didn't work as well as it does and acting accordingly, but, to implicitly compliment myself for a second, not everyone errs on the side of caution. I think I turned out all right in terms of sexual maturity for my age (I'm 20), but I know that others aren't as lucky as I was, and that, even without sex ed at all, it's certainly better than abstinence-only, which was never really something I hoped to achieve. Anyway, I tell my little story just to say that I really found the linked article quite interesting, and i've been sending it to all that will listen. But then, I've been keeping them posted on this site's goings-on since I came across it and spoke to Ann this summer.

Such is my six cents.

-JPBG

Since I was one of the ones who mentioned love in sex ed, I'd like to clarify what I meant. I most definitely did NOT mean that schools should teach that you need to be "in love" before having sex. What I was really trying to get at is that in order to make wise, healthy decisions about when and where to have sex, you need to:
1) have self-respect
2) be aware of your own physical and emotional needs and boundaries
3) have respect for others' needs and boundaries

Obviously, everyone's boundaries and needs will be different. I learned these things because I was lucky enough to grow up in a loving and supportive environment where my parents modeled such things. However, many people are not so lucky and so I wonder where they are going to learn how to be self-aware and have respect if not in school?

Katie, I feel the need to be completely emotionally safe and comfortable with a person before having sex, which for me meant waiting until I was in a long-term committed relationship. I do not like the implication that I feel this way because I have bought into some "superficial romantic bullshit". I feel this way because that is what I need to do to feel physically and emtionally safe and actually enjoy it. I completely respect people who feel differently and make different choices in their own lives.

you werent the first person to mention love. And I agree with the self respect part and other things they should teach you that you need to have before having sex. But not one of those things should be love as oenephile stated.

Having the need to feel comfortable in a relationship before having sex is a little different from the stereotype I was speaking of (in terms of romantic bullshit) Sbsanon. there is a prevalent stereotype, at least as i see it, that women like /need all that romance stuff, and that sex is something you give in return. Clearly, I don't think waiting for a relationship to have sex is in any way that. Of course people need different things to feel comfortable to have sex, and thats exactly what we should be teaching in sex ed! Some people don't need much, others need security, either way is fine, its just important to be true to yourself.

Thanks for clarifying, katie, I see now that we are basically saying the same thing :)

Where is this magical place you speak of, where people have the ability to have a mature dialogue about sex?

I love sex ed rants! As for my 2 cents... I work on a sex ed information line that's basically for everyone, but is frequented by young people, and I must say that the internet is my worst enemy when it comes to having honest convos about sex, sexuality, and STI's. There are SO MANY blatantly incorrect "beliefs" out there, even in my liberal, progressive, Canadian city. Makes me happy that we at least have something here for kids (and adults for that matter) to turn to...

I can see how the internet could actually be impeding the dissemination of accurate information about sex and related subjects among young people, judging solely by the number of bulletin boards I've seen that are basically just opportunities for misinformed people to spread their misinformation. It's pretty depressing to read.

Although I think oenophile could be misplacing blame for guys being jerks (I can easily see how the sexual revolution, as well as anything else Jerk Guys can think of, gives them yet another sorry "excuse" for their arsenal), I can understand her frustration to some extent. I recently had an annoying discussion with a male friend in which he conveyed to me his "epiphany" that all sexual "kinks," no matter how extreme, are perfectly fine and healthy as long as everyone involved is consenting. I can dig that, at least from a hypothetical standpoint. So then I asked him "what about people who just don't have any drive to have sex, or at least aren't interested in sex on any sort of regular basis?" Well, according to him, that's downright abnormal and unhealthy. *eyeroll* then he asked me to tell him a sexual secret. Well, I could tell exactly where the conversation was headed, and since I didn't want to hear about HIS latest sexual kink, let alone share mine (I uh, like being on top?) I declined to answer and ended the conversation.

I will venture to assume that many other things besides the sexual revolution can and do feed into these attitudes, including such things as egocentrism ("I think sex is great and want it all the time, therefore everyone else must feel this way, even if they profess that they don't") and the faulty reasoning of such "educators" as kooky religious indoctrination (purity balls) and the dehumanizing, twisted versions of sex ed mentioned in previous posts. Which can all be boiled down to "Whoa, I can totally use XYZ to justify doing ANYTHING I want to do!" (clarification: I'm not trying to imply that it is only males who think this way)

ANYway, nowadays I'm somewhat surprised that I got a pretty progressive, comprehensive (included abstinence as well as pretty accurate contraceptive information) and straightforward (not to mention timely, starting in middleschool) sex ed experience about fifteen years ago in western (sorta redneck) Maryland. I don't have any numbers, but it does seem to me that things very well could be regressing instead of progressing in U.S. sex ed. And obviously, I think that sucks, if it's true.

"Abstinence teaches men to NOT do it. Yeah, if men aren't having sex, it's hard for them to rape someone. It is beyond modern male comprehension that a healthy woman doesn't want sex. Guess why? SEX ED! Everyone's doing it, so we'll teach you how to do it safely!

Sorry for the rant, but I am bitter at having to deal with the fall-out from the sexual revolution (hands down, the worst thing to happen to women).
"

I'm going to be frank with you, oenophile: That's a complete load of nonsense. Comprehensive sex-education is about saying yes to sex you DO want and saying no to sex you don't want. This kind of thinking that we're all sexless and that sex-ed suddenly makes everyone into a nymphomaniac is exactly the same misconception conservatives are spreading in an attempt to repress normal, healthy human sexuality. Sure, we all have times when sex is completely unappealing and we definately do not want to have it, but everyone's sex drive is different. You seem to have a low sex drive and require intimacy and romance to have sex, but not everyone else does. Your lack of desire is absolutely, positively, in no way your fault, and there is never an excuse for rape or sexual assault. But you have to understand that these young "men" suffer from a lack of self-control, respect for other people, and communication skills. REAL sex education teaches people to respect their partner's wishes at all times. It teaches people that no means no. What these "men" need is not a bunch of repressive, religiously-based sex-is-all-bad propaganda, but a REAL sexual education that emphasizes equity and respect as essential.

And if it weren't for the sexual revolution, we'd still be getting knocked up by husbands with no knowledge of sexual pleasure. The sexual revolution may have lead to a lot of dangerous behvaior and had disastrous results at times, but it taught us that sex, when done safely and respectfully, is a wonderful thing we should not be ashamed of or try to repress. Sexuality is a joyful and important part of people's health. Don't you dare try to tell me I don't deserve to be educated about it and left free to make my own decisions.

I agree! Sex is a complex thing, and sex education should reflect that. The emotional consquences in making choices is almost always neglected as you've stated, since the "Just say no" mantra is in full force in most schools.

There are so many different issues that contribute to this situation - inadequate sex ed, cultural norms, gender inequality, etc. -- you did a great job putting together a coherent commentary.

Amie Newman links to this post in her roundup of the blogosphere buzz on this topic - check it out at RH Reality Check.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/2132