Abstinence only implies that the parents will discuss the issue when they feel it is appropriate with their children. Thus they’ll transfer the moral lessons with the physical activity explanations.

The school leaves morality out of the question, and thus gives the children the physical knowledge on the how, but not the why. There is a reason it’s called Making Love by some, and Sex by others. Making love is something emotional, while sex is purely physical. I’m certain that even the Liberals will acknowledge that making love is beautiful between consenting adults.

Sex education focus’s on the physical, while parents want to accentuate the emotional, the love part of the action.

I think the answer to abstinence only opposition by the usual critics is simply this. “I believe it’s the parents duty, and their jobs, to cover the moral and emotional issues involved in sex. Sex education as currently taught focus’s on the physical, while totally ignoring the after effect from an emotional standpoint. For example, how does a woman feel after she has slept with a man, only to find out he was a complete jerk. He got what he wanted, a notch on his gun, and she was thrown aside. Caution and restraint are the only ways to prevent this harm.”

They physical is pretty easy to explain. Insert Tab A into slot A and wiggle furiously. LOL. The diseases could be covered in health class, as STD education without discussing the various physical activities that make up the modern sexual world.

Snake307 on September 1, 2008 at 9:45 PM