I once read an article about sex education in schools that horrified me.

Of the fifty states in the U.S., forty-eight of them can only receive government funding for sex-ed programs if they teach "abstinence only." That's disgusting.

Teens will have sex if they want to, whether or not they're told that it's wrong. Authority had better resign to that fact and begin teaching them how to do it safely instead of telling them not to do it at all.

The U.S. is a country that was once run by Bill Clinton. And believe it or not, this hypocrite put this clause into effect. He's the one that signed this law that says schools will not receive funding if they don't teach abstinence-only in their sex-ed programs. And he's the one who was getting blow jobs under his desk from his intern.

Abstinence is a word that holds so many double standards. Girls often feel that holding on to their virginity until they marry will make their wedding night special - but the men they marry could have screwed anything that exuded the scent of floral perfume. In the eyes of this society, it seems, females who sleep around are chastised for being "sluts," while males who do the same are lauded for their lady-killing. Similarly, women who remain abstinent until marriage have "high morals," whereas males who do are thought of as wimps who can't get laid. Men are expected to have sex. Women are expected not to. I for one am sick of this.

I suppose we could have it worse. In some cultures, it's demanded that women remain virgins until they marry. If they do not bleed on their wedding night, their husbands and families can, in a process called "honour killing," legally murder the woman for shaming them. [more]

From the aforementioned article, I excerpted this lovely opinion.

Since no birth control method is 100 percent effective, teaching kids anything other than abstinence doesn't make sense, says Donna Cook, community relations director of Choosing the Best, which is based in Marietta, Ga.

"Teenagers who have sex suffer in tons of ways, from diseases to lowered self-esteem. Demonstrating how to put condoms on cucumbers and broom handles won't teach kids the refusal skills they need," said Cook, adding, "An adult married person uses sex in a positive and wonderful way—teenagers do not."

What a laugh. How preposterous of her to pretend she knows how all teenagers think, her opinions on which are probably based on past experiences of her own. Too bad the article didn't include a picture of this shitbag, so I could recognize her in the street if she went by, and kick her judgmental ass to the moon.

Regarding her quote: so much is wrong with it. For one thing, I'd like to point out that abstinence isn't 100-percent effective, either, against things like rape, coercion, raging hormones, or the perfect night with the one you love looking seriously into your eyes. Better to be prepared.

I also take issue with her assumption that it's never immoral for adult married people to have sex. Right now, in some part of the world, two married adults could be having sex. Adults married to others, each clueless to the other's age or name, drunk out of their minds, in a dirty alley under the dripping air-conditioner of a seedy bar, where they met hours ago. Hey, former President Clinton is adult and married.

Now think of two teens, nineteen and eighteen, who have been seeing no one but each other for two years. They've waited this long, and this night just feels so perfect. They love each other deeply, and he doesn't want to hurt her. They take it slowly, gently, passionately, and the depths of their love and bliss in these moments feels endless.

Which is the more positive of the two scenarios?

Some people think that all teen sex is emotionless, hormones and discovery and curiosity - that participants would hop into bed with anyone after a few beers and flirty glances. Is that ageism, or discrimination against those of different lifestyles?

Why such a focus on age? Age is nothing but a date, on which a person was born. It can tell you nothing about how mature that person is inside, emotionally. Is it more right, then, for a drunk thirty-year-old to be having sex with everything he sees than it is for a mature, cautious eighteen-year-old to be having protected sex within a serious relationship? I guess, according to these rules, it must be - because the first person is older. Well, gee.

Sex isn't a wedding present to us all. For some, it's a recreational activity; for others, much like a kiss - a momentary expression of a feeling. You do not have the right to tell me that I'm stupid or a slut if I've chosen not to wait until I'm thirty and married to express that feeling in this intimate way. Mind your own business. That, in my book, does not include minding the sex lives of other people.

Sixteen is the age of consent, where I live. The law is saying that sex at sixteen is okay, and our schools are contradicting that. The threat of having to learn on their own won't stop teens from having sex when they reach legal age. That lack of information results in teens - who didn't know not to use two condoms at once, or even how to obtain them - carrying babies or STDs.

If a kid wants to hear "abstinence only," he can go to a fucking church. The purpose of public education is to teach young people to become functional social adults - not to opine about right and wrong, only to inform the uninformed of the way things are.

Let the program live up to the name, "sex education." It shouldn't be anti-sex.