Patrick on Sex Education

If you read this blog, you know I didn't support Deval Patrick for Governor and I'm not impressed with his "work" so far.  But I'll give him his due.  This makes sense, in a way abstinence-only education never did.  It's patent that teens will be having sex, theocrats' fantasies notwithstanding.  They should be taught about the implications. 

Comments

[mis kelly]

I have to disagree. The federal study referred to was quite small. The abstinence program in MA was to be done in conjunction with a comprehensive sex-ed program, so the students weren't only getting info on abstinence. The schools chosen for the abstinence ed were schools were 60% of the studetns aged 12-15 were sexually active. Students should hear all sides of sexual activity, including that there are very good reasons to wait.

I don't believe that most students would wait until marriage, few people do. But if 12- and 13-year olds waited even a few years before engaging in sex, that would be a good thing. Why is it that parents and schools have no problem telling kids not to do drugs or to smoke or drink, but they are unable to say don't screw around when you're so young? Where is the counterbalance to the hyper-sexuality of our popular culture?

[carpundit]

Thanks for the comment. I think we're talking about details here.

I certainly agree that 12-13 year olds, and even older kids, should be encouraged to wait.

What I don't accept is the only part of abstinence-only. When sex is a possibility, the kids should know about condoms. I'm just being practical, not idealogical.

CP