The old ACLU seems to have its fingers in a lot of pie’. A genuine parental movement to end such programs would add legitimacy to the cause and these charges. Between Jessica and Venessa’s post below, one wouldn’t know if any of the feministing crew though sexual restraint is even possible. On the other hand, many commentators seem to find the approach beneficial.

Of course sexual restraint is possible. Restraint is also possible in the use of drugs and alcohol, the consumption of overly fatty and sugary foods, etc. At issue is whether it is effective, if not harmful, to only tell students to simply not do something. I mean, really. "Don't have sex." "Don't do drugs." Don't drink alcohol." "Don't watch too much TV." "Don't play violent video games." Then there's the "do as I say, not as I do" aspect of a student listening to an adult preach to them. Most of the students I know don't like being told what to do -- they feel like they're being talked down to. Orders come in one ear and go out the other.

Furthermore, if students are only educated about one option concerning their behavior, then they lack the tools to protect themselves should they choose another course of action. This is particularly dangerous when life-or-death consequences (disease, pregnancy, etc.) are at stake. Students should have the knowledge and the tools to make their decisions, and have resources to deal with the consequences.

Sex ed at my high school covered many options and resources, always with the caveat "The only fool-proof way to prevent disease and pregnancy is to abstain from having sex." But we were still introduced to the proper use of a condom, various other forms of birth control and disease prevention, resources such as Planned Parenthood (for information and disease control, fwiw) and hey, your family doctor, and so on. The most effective program I heard of, from the perspective of the student, was one that covered all of that AND went into graphic clinical detail about what exactly happens during sex. It stuck in the students' minds and effectively grossed them out.

Back to the point, though, hooray to Rhode Island for standing up for their principles and not for the almighty dollar.

If education is supposed to prepare students for life, what does telling them not to have sex until they are married teach them about what to do for family planing and sexual health after they are married? (Assuming the conservatives get the world they want and everyone gets married to people of the opposite sex and have no sexual relations until after marriage. Right, that's really going to happen.) How are hetrosexual men supposed to have any understanding of their wives phisicality and vice versa if they have been purposely kept ignorant by the public school system? If health is part of the general public curriculum -- and I believe that health education falls under promoting the general welfare -- it needs to include full-life health, child, teen, young adult, adult, geriatric. Clearly, sex education would fall under one of these categories.