So the question is why do we insist in making students take these courses? What is the added value. Well to many just getting rid of the myths is important. Learning what the risks of different behaviors is important. Leaning, that homosexuality is not a disease is important. There is much more to sex education than just having babies and spreading disease. An Yes having babies is down in the US, below the replacement rate.

The question in my mind is sex part of what should be taught in a well rounded curriculum as a separate course. My simple answer is of course. Sex is an important human activity that we should know more about; not just the yucc factor. Certainly enough money is spent advertising viagra and valtrex that one migh think that education in middle and high school is valuable.

So why the gutless approach to sex education proposed by Professor Zimmerman? I don't know. I have a hard time wondering what he can hope to accomplish. I believe that not only should there be sex education, but we should also make many birth control aides more available. I still cannot get over how showing students a small film of the proper use of a condom hurts anyone, as the anti-sex ed types fought so hard to keep their children from seeing in Montgomery County Maryland.

The answer in part lies in:

First of all, we don't know that it works any better than abstinence education does. Teens are using contraceptives more regularly than in the past, but they're abstaining more from sex, too!

Works has two different meanings. One goes back to the original purpose which is to change sexual activity. Well I don't buy that as the purpose of sex education. To me the purpose is to be able to make informed decisions; just like the purpose of the rest of education. So the proper question is will students make better informed decisions. Students whose parents do not receive all of facts will make be definition less informed decisions than students who do.

I also believe that students who receive a fuller factual sex education are less likely to change behavior than students that don't. I often wonder about the people who do not even know what sex is until they discover they are pregnant – the sometimes unfortunate result of abstinence only education.

The second reason scares me.

Second, the liberal demand for comprehensive sex education betrays a rather illiberal sentiment towards conscientious objectors. In matters of sex, like war, there are some Americans who think there's only one good choice to make. Why should their children be subjected to a curriculum that violates their deepest beliefs?

There are many people who want to conscientiously object to receiving an education period. Now, is it illiberal to say people must receive an education and that there are certain things students should be exposed to? I think not. I believe society has a responsibility to provide the best education possible until a student reaches the age of 25. This includes pre-K through graduate school. I also believe that starting in high school students have a responsibility to help educate those younger than them. Imagine first grade with two adult teachers with post graduate degrees, two teachers who graduated college and are working on post graduate degrees and two 9th grade students to run errands and help watch recess; all for a class of 15 students. Oh, and the students could be taught what is improper and proper social behavior; or given a little sex ed.