In school we were fully educated about our options in regards to safe sex in primary school and again in high school. Of course we were also taught that abstinence is the only way to be completely sure you don't have a child but it definitely wasn't the cornerstone of our sex education.

Basically if the school district teaches Abstinence only sex ed. They don't talk about male/female condoms except (important) to mention their failure rates. They don't go into how to use a condom - where to purchase - benefits of using condoms, spermicides (i.e. pregnancy inhibitor but not STDS) etc. They will continually reiterate that the only way to be sure is abstinence (quite obvious-didn't know it needed teaching).

To answer your question yes- without discussing viable options outside of abstinence as I mentioned above. - The whole thing begs the question that if sex ed is being taught then why teach only a small portion of it (I.E. not having sex). Seems to become an anatomy and physiology class more than a sex education class.

My school was not allowed to talk with us about using condoms or any other kind of protection. We were blessed with an abstinence only education.

Not surprisingly, my hometown ranks in the top 5 cities in the nation for STD rates among youths! Thanks abstinence only education!

I'm just going to go ahead and name my own kid Kararot. You know, its Goku's name back on his home planet of Vegeta.

Kakarot's too harsh of a name, and can't be shortened well. Kal-El rolls off the tongue smoothly, and you can be called Kal for short.

But I'd seriously like to name my kid Logan 5.



@Kasz, as others have mentioned, in abstinence-only education programs, they can't mention any form of safe sex (or masturbation) or birth control, because they think that would encourage sex (or masturbation). They only talk about STDs and try to scare you away from sex, and teach you the only way to be safe is abstinence. It has the same effect as making your kids watch Reefer Madness to learn about drugs.

its already awkward enough for elementary school teachers to teach kids about what goes where. I think teaching kids about how it all functions and the risks is good enough. I don't think teachers should be expected to teach their students about the Donkey Punch or whatever.

The MORALITY of it all shouldn't be the burden of the state; it is and has always been the responsibility of the parents.

You should be able to teach your kid, Kal-El, whatever you want about the morality of sex "and stuff", and I could teach my Kid, Kakarot, whatever I deem appropriate.

If my last name was Wang. I'd name my kid, Richard Wang.
He'd have 3 dicks.

First of all, I don't even like Superman.  In fact, I hate him.  I'd never name my kid Kal-El.  And if I met some kids named Kal-El and Kakarot, I would assume Kakarot had the cooler parents.

I went to a Catholic school, so when they taught us about sex, they definitely taught us all about morality.  They actually taught us two methods: abstinence until marriage, and then after marriage, "the rhythm method."  It was hilarious.  It assumes that all females have the same 28-day perfect menstrual cycle, even though those things are as unique as fingerprints.

The idea that an unmarried man can live his whole life without ejaculating is quite possibly the lulziest concept ever, and I'd like to see a movie or read a comic book about it.  We were also taught that if a man had sex with his already-pregnant wife, with the full knowledge that he could not get her pregnant if she was already pregnant, and would thus be having sex for pleasure (huuuuge sin), it wouldn't count as a sin, because it would be practice until she was ready to conceive again.

If sex isn't a sin. Porn wouldn't be as popular.

What do you call people who support abstinence only education?
Grandparents!