15 Comments   
After more than a billion dollars and a decade of government-funded abstinence-only education, the belief that we can lower the teen pregnancy rate by telling girls "Just Say No" has proven to be a dismal failure.

Not long ago, Researchers at Columbia University demonstrated that when you hide contraception and lie about its effectiveness, kids still have sex, but with less protection and more pregnancies. With evidence like that, even former abstinence-only supporters such as Representative David Obey had to back a bill zeroing out the funding for abstinence-only and ask for suggested replacements -- replacements that will actually lower the teenage-pregnancy rate.

However, eliminating a bad program doesn't mean a good one will take its place. Kids will tune out your message unless you talk to them about the things they really want to hear about, such as how anal sex works and what orgasms really feel like. If you want them to learn to pinch the tip of the condom when they put it on, you have to be blunt about the actual situations they'll have sex in, including the drunken, fumbling parts.

There are a number of different approaches to sex education that guide the programs vying for the funds that will be in the 2010 appropriations bill, probably being voted on this summer. Generally, they break down into abstinence-only, conservative, realistic and sex-positive.

Which type of sex education do you agree with? Read more about them after the jump.

1) Abstinence-Only: The Candie's Foundation is the most obvious example. They don't hide that contraception exists, but they mostly ignore it and put all their energy into trying to scare kids into abstaining.

2) Conservative: These programs feature contraception, but not prominently, and seem more interested in telling kids to wait for some commitment and avoid experimenting too much with sex. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy is the most obvious example. You have to dig through piles of scare stories about college-aged women who didn't wait until the 50th date to have sex. Some school curricula are less judgmental, but they still do things like ignore gay people, skip over the sexual violence issue and downplay STD prevention.

3) Realistic: These programs assume that abstinence is a choice some people will make, but know that it's not for most people (95 percent to be exact). You learn about contraception and STD prevention up front, and you get information about negotiation skills, respect, and violence prevention, but there's not a lot of talk about pleasure. Planned Parenthood's materials tend to fall into this category.

4) Sex-Positive: Scarlateen is the best example. Sex-positive sex education assumes that questions that really interest teenagers -- like what sex feels like or what oral's all about -- should be answered honestly, along with questions about safety. Britain's National Health Service has started to take this approach, but has faced a lot of controversy over it.

I prefer programs in the 3-4 area, because kids won't listen to you unless you validate their real concerns and experiences. But I suspect most programs that get funding will be closer to the 2-3 area, which is much better than abstinence-only, but not enough. What do you think the best approach is for teaching kids about sex?

Amanda Marcotte is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There" and writes about politics daily at Pandagon.net.