Here’s a question for you:

Do you really think there are any kids left in America over the age of 12 who don’t know what a condom is and how to use it?

You can rephrase the question this way: do you really believe that the number of pregnancies in America due to ignorance exceeds 2 digits? Seriously?

IF she went against doctor’s orders and traveled when doctors say not to, THEN it is perfectly reasonable to question her judgment.

IF she went against doctor’s orders, THEN she took a risk, possibly for a less-than-compelling reason. I’m not sure that she did this. As I said, she was in her 8th month. And to be candid, in addition to being appalled at the reason we’re even discussing this, I’m tired of the discussion.

So, lemme make sure I get this right, you’re suggesting that by NOT teaching kids about sex ed, they have LESS curiosity about sex?

Nope, you didn’t get it right. In fact, I’d really like to hear you explain how you got that ridiculous statement out of what I wrote.

What I was saying is that kids will not take seriously a message about abstinence when it’s immediately followed by instructions how not to abstain. I don’t blame them; I wouldn’t either.

The point is NOT that they won’t be curious about sex, but rather that they’ll be clear about where we stand on the issue. And yes, it does make a difference to adolescents where the adult world stands on such issues. (Truth is, they hold us in contempt for not taking such stands — and they should.)

Kids are also curious about what snorting cocaine feels like. Most of them don’t do it because there are serious barriers, including 1) the cost, 2) the availability, but most relevantly, 3) the clear message that they’re risking their lives by just trying it out. There’s a clear cultural message about cocaine — “it’s seductive, and it will kill you.” Clear cultural messages work.

There needs to be a clear, consistent message about sex if we want the message to take hold, and not just in school, but at home, on billboards, in the movies, etc. That message needs to include “This is nothing to be casual about; it’s powerful, it’s meaningful, and it’s for life.” It also needs to include “If you’re not ready to raise a kid, you’re not ready for sex.” Hell, I’m in favor of “If you want to say ‘Thank you,’ give him a peck on the cheek, not a blow job.” Ambiguous messages like “Don’t, but here’s how to do,” will not have any impact, and we may just as well save our breath.

That being said, it still remains provably true that “abstinence only” programs do make a statistically significant difference in teenage sexual behavior. That this is so even while the culture is hammering “do it” into their heads, suggests that there are lots of teens who wish they were not under so much pressure to perform sexually, and are relieved when somebody tells them it’s ok to take their time.

“Besides, given what we know about her background and career, I imagine telling her to take it easy is like standing on the Gulf shore in New Orleans and telling the hurricane not to come on shore. We have to leave room for people to be who they are, and knock off this hyper-criticism.”

I agree with you that she is likely quite hard to slow down…she has spunk that I admire very much. However, the argument I offered remains valid: IF she went against doctor’s orders and traveled when doctors say not to, THEN it is perfectly reasonable to question her judgment.

I think she was very, very close. If I disagreed this: “I stand by my original position; the decision was Gov. Palin’s, and it’s not for us to tell her what level of activity she’s capable of sustaining.”, I’d be pushing for laws against air travel in the final stages of pregnancy. I am not. I am making a reasonable assertion that her judgment is something worth considering.

C’mon Phil, no need to defend Palin at all costs. I don’t need her to be superhuman to appreciate her as a candidate.

First of all, if you were a kid, and you were told “Don’t do this — but if you do, do it this way,” what would your take be from that message?

So, lemme make sure I get this right, you’re suggesting that by NOT teaching kids about sex ed, they have LESS curiosity about sex?

Fabulous. ‘Don’t tell kids about it, because if they don’t know about it, they won’t be curious!’

I can’t wait to see the litany of things we can apply that same logic to.

“If we don’t tell kids about fire, they won’t know it exists, thus they won’t burn themselves!”

“If we don’t tell kids about terror, they won’t have to worry about it!”

Seriously, I know you’re an old-fashioned guy, but are you suggesting that kids didn’t know about sex before the sex ed classes came along and ruined the surprise?

I’m stunned what it is about your world where demystifying something makes people MORE curious about it. If Sarah Palin, Conservative Champion Mother, can’t drive the point home, who can? Are we simply doomed to have these kinds of pregnancy rates nowadays? Or are you suggesting a return to the 50s and the ‘decency councils’?

Let’s be serious; you simply cannot teach both and be credible. You have to choose.

In the second place, the emphasis on condoms is one of the genuine shames of modern advocacy. Condoms are notoriously ineffective among young people — a 20-year-old, sexually active single woman relying on condoms for birth control is statistically likely to be pregnant within a year of beginning sexual activity. The numbers are even worse for younger users.

And that’s just the pregnancy factor. They barely slow the spread of STDs. I’ve said this several times on this blog, and I’m backed by medical opinion: birth control is not disease control. The viruses are considerably smaller than the smallest holes in latex, and many of them are spread by skin contact rather than fluids. The current epidemic of STDs has occurred while condom use was significantly on the rise.

I’m in agreement with Gov Palin on this one. I’m also thinking about local PTAs and governments being permitted to filter programming and internet service into their communities, and I’m thinking about whether there’s a way for parents to hold TV and movie producers responsible for the content of their broadcasts through court action. Seriously, sexual behavior in this country is simply out of control.

Look, Ray, I know I’m being a little overbearing on this, with the flood of statistics and all, and I really don’t mean to be rude or insulting. It’s just, there’s a veritable flood of misinformation out there, and millions of kids are suffering because of it. I don’t think many folks have a clear sense of the level of national disaster that’s underway in this field. Encouraging sexual activity among teenagers is ruining them, and sometimes killing them, in large numbers, and needs to be stopped.

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
A: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

I think you’ve got your facts wrong.

Sarah Palin was flying around during the last month of her pregnancy… Doctors have routinely advised against flying during the last month of pregnancy.

I believe this is not correct. Gov. Palin was in her 8th month. The baby was born a month prematurely.

I stand by my original position; the decision was Gov. Palin’s, and it’s not for us to tell her what level of activity she’s capable of sustaining.

Besides, given what we know about her background and career, I imagine telling her to take it easy is like standing on the Gulf shore in New Orleans and telling the hurricane not to come on shore. We have to leave room for people to be who they are, and knock off this hyper-criticism.

Look, Zanzibar, the problem is not education or family at this point, it’s a culture of casual sexuality. There has, if I’m not mistaken, never been a culture of casual sex like ours in the history of the planet. Americans have more sex partners than just about any other nationality, and way more than they used to have.

This is pretty much entirely the product of grotesquely irresponsible media production and political activism — a completely deliberate attempt to make young people believe that there is no valid objection to casual sex, that any stated objection constitutes bigoted, fearful ultra-conservatism, and that anybody who doesn’t engage in it is either a religious freak or too ugly/awkward to attract any positive attention. The people who brought this about have earned a special spot in hell. There are now 80 million Americans with STDs, and they’re not the kind we grew up with that are curable by way of a few penicillin shots. The largest group of people living in poverty in the US are single women with children. Sex-related and romance-related depression are at the root of most of the teenage suicide in America — and also, by the way, at the root of most of the gay suicide as well. Our culture of irresponsible sex is a form of national self-destruction.

In the face of constant media bombardment and insane peer pressure, even a strong family has little chance of training their children to avoid casual sex. Abstinence education has to fight an entire culture.

However, we know that a proper effort can, in fact, fight an entire culture. It happened with racism; it’s happening with global climate change. What’s missing is the willingness to try. The simple fact is that the culture of sexual irresponsibility is preferred by most of those on the Left, which is why they will not make the attempt to actually tell young people to stop f***ing like bunnies and start treating their bodies with respect. The failure to own up to this fact is one of the reasons I feel so little respect for my political opponents.

Having said that — that the one change that’s really needed is for the Left to admit that they actually want teenagers to be screwing around, and to change their minds — I also need to say this:

There are at least 10 sound, scientific studies demonstrating that abstinence education does make a significant difference in teenage sexual behavior. The opposition to such programs is without merit; the contrary studies are nowhere near as good, nor as conclusive. Anybody who’s interested in the truth should read the Heritage Foundation backgrounder on the effectiveness of such programs, and follow the footnote links to the actual research.

As to this:

Kids will be kids…

…we have absolutely irrefutable epidemiological evidence that kids did not engage in sexual activity in the past at the level they’re engaging in it now. This is not an unavoidable behavioral situation, it’s a deliberately encouraged situation. The evidence is in the STD data; the spread and development of STDs goes up exponentially as the average number of sexual partners increases. There was no epidemic of STDs until the 1980s; ergo, there was not the same level of sexual activity before the 1980s. There were only 3 common STDs in 1960; now, there are more than 50, therefore there’s been a huge increase in sexual contact between multiple partners since then. QED. “Kids will be kids” is a lame, lame excuse for inaction.