This is in the news because Sarah Palin supports it, but it really didn't make me angry until I thought about it for a while. I understand teenagers having sex is bad (in a relative sense) and abstinence is a good thing and all that, but the fact is that around 60% of high school seniors will have had sex at least once before they graduate. (saw this recently, although I can't find a reliable citation at the moment)
If you think condoms are immoral (looking at you, Catholic Church) then I can at least understand the objection here (not that I agree), but imagining that not telling kids anything else except "don't have sex, it's horrible, etc." will make them (teenagers! the most rebellious age group?) just decide not to have sex, despite the fact that hormones are raging.
Not telling these kids about how to protect themselves is irresponsible. Only 15 percent of Americans support only teaching abstinence.
"Traditional" gender roles
This weekend, there were some books and movies and stuff in the beach house we rented, one of which was "Husbands Who Won't Lead and Wives Who Won't Follow". This really grinds my gears (I read like half a page over breakfast and couldn't continue). Firstly, the existence of gay couples is brushed aside with no explanation or anything, which almost makes me more upset than if one were arguing against us directly.
But even beyond that, this is flat out sexism. And what is the justification for this? I know that's the way it was in the past, because men were slightly stronger so they could go kill the mammoths while the women cared for the children, but I don't see anything fundamentally good or bad about that. Why is sex supposed to determine our role, and not personality and the particular relationship we're in or whatever? This is a conservative point of view ("conservative" in the this-is-how-things-were-done-in-the-past-s