Are Comprehensive Sex Ed curriculum actually comprehensive?

Heritage says no. They argue that so called programs are just re-packaged Safe Sex curricula. What is interesting in the article is a Zogby poll conducted with questions from Focus on the Family. They found, "Very few parents support the basic themes of comprehensive sex-ed courses." Parents have no idea what goes on in school. "Overall, the poll shows that parents are extremely supportive of the values and messages contained in abstinence programs."

I think that a prohibitionist program, be it regarding sex, alcohol, or whatever adult activity is considered, is a bad approach because at some point young people (including college students) experiment with the thing they were told not to. If no one ever communicates how adults behave responsibly, then responsible behavior is impossible, except by hard experience or happy accident. Everyone can use the reminder that alcohol, sex, gambling, and other adult behaviors burn adults, even when they act responsibly. That is the nature of a vice. Youth will explore vice. Our educational purpose should be to delay experimentation for as long as possible, to mitigate as much harm as possible resulting from experimentation, and to aid the transition away from experimentation to boring adulthood as easily (and quickly) as possible. Prohibitionists hope the experimentation step can be avoided for everyone (tell it to St Augustine). They focus on steps 1 and 3, youth who delays and adults who no longer are interested. The Safe Sex crowd by contrast focus only on step 2, mitigating the consequences of experimentation. We need all 3 steps. Steps 1 and 3, do as much if not more to mitigate harm in experimentation as condems, &c. Ignoring step 2 leaves young people totally vulnerable if they stray from the strairt and narrow. This has two ill consequences. First some people get badly harmed because they stray and could have avoided it by knowing how to partake more safely. Second some people avoid ill effects for a long time and come to believe that all the talk of harm is without a basis in reality. Neither case is good.

The Heritage interpretation of the polling does over reach a bit.

'Some 47 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual activity until they are married." Another 32 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual intercourse until they have, at least, finished high school and are in a relationship with someone they feel they would like to marry."

'When these two categories are combined, we see that 79 percent of parents want young people taught that sex should be reserved for marriage or for an adult relationship leading to marriage.'

Another question that asks this question directly: 'Some 68 percent of parents want schools to teach teens that "individuals who are not sexually active until marriage have the best chances of marital stability and happiness."'

So there are times when I thought the 68% figure was better applied in analysis than the 79%. This 11% difference isn't a big deal, but its something I took note of. Even the low figure is better than 2/3's. The analysis is right to point out that the schools favorite message is only approved by 7% of parents. How like the Progressive school to re-package the same unpopular policies rather than actually accomodate the will of parents, tax-payers, and citizens.