>>>>>I was EXTREMELY disappointed to learn that North Carolina ONLY teaches abstinence in sex education. I had already covered all of the information at home so my daughter was surprised in class when she discovered they weren't going to cover alternative methods of birth contol. I originally thought they would. She brought it up in the class and the teacher responded that not only would it not be covered, it would not be discussed. It was forbidden by the school district, the PTA, and the state. Surprise surprise. What surprised me MOST is that most of the PTA's in North Carolina actually supported that stupidity. The general idea is that since alternative methods of contraceptive are often based on religious principles, it is up to each family to discuss what they feel is appropriate for their family AT HOME. The program is a good one overall (covers all the health issues, diet, exercise, basic anatomy, et al) except for that one MAJOR lacking point. I understood that it was
>>>>the
>>>>> decision of North Carolina and it is different in each state. When I was in the 8th grade and living in Colorado, sex education was mandatory and it covered EVERYTHING.
>>>>
>>>>Well, maybe it's not so bad. Once they get the needed number of enforcers that can visit people at home and make sure that the parents aren't shirking their duties in teaching the rest of it, it should be a pretty good program overall.
>>>>
>>>Saying that abstinence 'does not work' is the same logics as saying that law protecting system doesn't work because so many criminals around and (next step) police and courts should be disbanded because it's just waste of money.
>>
>>
>>You are misrepresenting the positions here. I haven't heard anyone say abstinence is not an option that should be presented. What we are saying is that with teenage hormones being what they are, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to follow that path. NO MATTER WHAT WE TELL THEM. The other point is that an alleged sex education program that promotes abstinence as the only option is irresponsible. When kids under 18 succumb to their urges (or achieve their objectives, as the case may be) do we really want them doing it with sketchy knowledge of pregnancy risks and STDs?
>
>Nobody expects that everyone will follow. There are no absolute things. This program may provide relative improvement and it's already good. In regard to misrepresenation: well, there are enough people, this thread inclduing, saying that $87M annual expense (huge amount, btw) is a waste. Imho, it precisely means that it should be discontinued.
>By the way, you may check sexual education programs in your area schools. If they mention nothing about condoms and other stuff then I will apologize to you, if not - well, maybe you will apologize to me.


Fair enough. I will ask my daughters and get back to you. We don't talk a lot about "girl stuff," it's too uncomfortable for everyone, but I'm pretty sure they will answer that one.

I have no wish for an apology from you. Nor should you expect one from me, since my daughters' school district may not be representative.