This was taken from a local indie newspaper

Is sex necessary?
On knights and maidens and dragons slain



It's been a tough week for those who advocate neu-tering sex education programs in New Brunswick's middle schools. On word that a motivated group of concerned parents, physicians, and clergy were lobby-ing Tory MLAs to adopt an "abstinence-based" cur-riculum developed in the great state of Texas to pre-serve the innocence of 13-year-olds everywhere, liberal fiends emerged from their lairs.

"It's crazy," one pediatrician cried. "It's tantamount to giv-ing a kid a car, and telling him he can't drive it." "What a crock," another crowed. "It's like saying you can ignore puberty, and it'll just go away." Now we learn that the very curriculum most favoured among New Brunswick's principled guardians of moral rectitude does not, in fact, exist.

Oops!

The model in question was allegedly developed by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), based in Austin. The organization promotes the virtues of no sex before marriage, and it does maintain an impressive collection of brochures and videos dedicated to the proposition of "embracing secondary virginity".

But as for a curriculum, "Uh," says the Institute's founder, one Joe Mcllhaney, "we don't have one." Dr. William Corless, a family physician from Saint John who's been at the frontlines in the fight to per-suade the provincial government to rethink its sex-ed guidelines, and who first suggested it draw inspiration from the good people at MISH, was quick with the mea culpa.

"I'm partially to blame for some of the stuff in the press," he told a reporter for the Telegraph Journal. "To call it a curriculum is incorrect. . .It's not in the public school system." Don't fret, doc. There's plenty more of where that (almost) came from.

The Bush administration - that beacon of enlightenment - is providing more than $167 million (U.S.) this year to educators, school boards, and religious groups across the United States to develop abstinence-only programs.

Now, thanks to a report commissioned by Congressman Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, North America's "no sex please" lobby can actually review how some of their ideological compatriots propose to mould impressionable adolescents in the months and years ahead.

Here's an excerpt from one program currently being considered: "Deep inside every man is a knight in shining armor, ready to rescue a maiden and slay a dragon. Imagine a knight traveling through the countryside. He hears a princess in distress and rush-es gallantly to slay the dragon. The princess calls out, 'I think this noose will work better!' and throws him a rope. As she tells him how to use the noose, the knight obliges her and kills the dragon. Everyone is happy, except the knight, who doesn't feel like a hero. He is depressed and feels unsure of himself. He would have preferred to use his own sword." If that doesn't turn your pedagogical crank, try this on for size: "Females have the uncanny ability to remember the most insignificant details about past experiences. This terrifies the average male. The loaded question, "Do you remember when. . ." sends many an unsuspecting guy into a cold sweat. Men tend to be more tuned in to what is happening today and what needs to be done for a secure future." Still not your cup of tea? No problem. Here's anoth-er: "While a man needs little or no preparation for sex, a woman often needs hours of emotional and mental preparation. The five major needs of women are: affec-tion, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support, family commitment. The five major needs of men are: sexual fulfillment, recreational companion-ship, physical attractiveness, admiration, domestic support." Or perhaps you prefer the "scared straight" approach: "Sexual relationships often lower the self-respect of both partners - one feeling used, the other feeling like the user. Emotional pain can cause a downward spiral, leading to intense feelings of worthlessness... This depression may lead to attempted, or successful, sui-cide." Clearly, there's no shortage of ways to talk about sex while we're avoiding talking about sex. But is all this really necessary?

Anyone who has raised a teenager knows that injunc-tions, no matter how cleverly (or bizarrely) designed, never work.

If you want kids to avoid precocious, potentially harmful sexual experimentation, you have to talk openly to them about things like respect for them-selves and others, personal responsibility, integrity, and the real - not imagined - consequences of their actions. And then you have to let them go.

Trust me, as the father of two adult daughters, I know about these things. But, hey, I'm not preaching.
.

What the hell is "secondary virginity"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

This has been a heated debate around here lately.

With this kind of potential sex education being taught, how is anybody supposed to make an informed decision about something as important as sex.

While most reasonable parents will try to inform their children as they see fit, i feel that it should be presented in an honest and straightforward manner if a child is to understand the importance of such a major, potentially life altering decision.

Preaching abstinence doesn't fucking work. Kids are kids and kids will fuck just because they're told not to. At least be open and honest and provide them with everything they need to make an informed decision.

i think its one of those "born again" virgin things. like when i slut doesn't want to be a slut anymore, she can trade it in for something that sounds better

Amen.

I see abstinence-only education as analagous to Nancy Reagan's old "Just Say No" campaign. If you just say no, kids are going to say, "Why?"

Maybe related to 'born again'?

That's kind of what I assumed, but it still sounds like an oxymoron to me.

That's for the girls who think that if you do anal, you're still a virgin. :shrugs:

I remember in Elementary school where they gave all the kids these green just say no T-Shirts. Then we walked around the neighborhood for some kind of Just Say No Campaign. I had no idea at the time what we were doing and even what we were saying no to...I would make my teachers angry by saying Just say Maybe...or Just say I'll think about it. They didn't like it.

Sex is going to happen. Denying that is ignorant. Teach upper-middle school students and highschoolers about STD's and how to use condoms. Don't pretend you're going to change society because... breaking news... sex is fun, and teens like to do fun things. Follow the math, heh.

you were a bad little sheep

Why doesn't anyone advocate being honest to kids?

I had a friend who almost always wore a DARE shirt while smoking pot.

DARE made me want to smoke, just to see if I would really instantly turn into an unhealthy person with black lungs.

Turns out I didn't, but it sorely messed up my taste for Pepsi. Thusly, I stopped after one.

Those Dare T-shirts seem to be mocking the very thing they set out to do. Lots of pot smokers wear those.

"dude, its funny cause its like...he he...ironic er something"

sorry that was an unfair stereotype of pot smokers

Y'know, when you tell us "no," we're gonna want it. Remember that Eve chick?

GOD: No apples.
EVE: Mmmmmm ... apples.

N. REAGAN: No drugs.
KIDS: Mmmmm ... drugs.

TEACHER: No sex.
KIDS: Mmmmm ... sex.

You should make this into a political comic strip.

Replacing sex education with abstinence is like putting a blindfold on and stepping out onto the freeway. Great way to keep people completely ignorant of their bodily functions and the emotions associated with them. Its a human body, a person should know everything and anything relative to it, and then it is up to that person to decide if they wish to abstain from using it, or use it and protect themselves. Teaching a person to simply abstain is like handing a bald person a hairdryer: of what benefit is it really? People "know" they don't have to have intercourse - what sort of "education" does knowing that require? People need to understand their bodies, the body of the opposing gender, the reason the human drive is so strong, and they need to know the consequences of unprotected intamacy, as well as their protection options. Teaching someone those things doesn't mean that the person will then just run off and have sex, it means that an effort has been made to allow the person to have good judgement. Of what use is it to "teach" someone to abstain, if you don't give them an education and all of their options as well? It's like handing someone ONE choice - what sort of "choice" is that? People are going to do whatever they want to do when the moment presents itself - its best to give people as much information as you can so they can make educated choices.



c-

im no theologist, actually i only read the first page of the bible, but wasnt it Eve who ate the apple? you know the original sin? corrent me if im wrong...