youre talking aout of your red butt-almost all teen moms have a present mother, but sometimes and absent father. The point of the article is that religious brainwashing teaches no birth control at all so, because EVERYONE has sex, more pregnancies...

The forces of nature, as you call it, can be controleld by sex education-use a condom and no disease or pregnancy over 95% of the time...end of story

Conservatives (in general) have always resisted sex education, for whatever reason. Whether or not you find that admirable is up to you, but the results are coming in and its not looking so good.

Sarah, Bristol, and Tripp Palin agree!

Norman: I was talking out of my frontal lobe. If you want to talk out of your lower orifice, more power to you. I was making the (obviously true) point that America today is shot through with secularism, and that the "conservative" red states are not conservative at all; they have massively compromised with the secular society. Don't call them conservative at all. If your gluteal prominences are not capable of comprehending my simple facts and logic, then poor you.

There was not a massive teen pregnancy rate in America, until the Great All-Powerful Sexual Revolution of the 60s. The church has compromised with the secular society, and the resulting failure is the fault of their compromise, not of their religion.

The Christian church has always had sexual education; it is known as, have sex with your spouse. St Paul said, if you can't contain yourself, and you just have to have sex with someone, by all means, marry them, and continue finding them irresistible on a permanent basis (1 Corinthians 7).

If the rest of you want to lack all self control, and mate like animals, then don't be surprised to have a society of animals. The human race is now evolving back into monkeys before our very eyes. Congratulations.

adhesiolyser "Perhaps paradoxically, states with a majority conservative population and higher degree of religiosity tend to have higher teen birthrates" that was the start of the second paragraph of the article.

If the rest of you want to lack all self control

I've never really understood why people concern themselves with other peoples sex habits. Its kind of weird when you think about it. Wanting to have casual sex is not indicative of a lack of self control, its simply a life choice one makes. (Provided its between consensual adults) Though I choose not to live that way, I know people who do and I don't look down on them for it. They are old enough to know what they are doing.

It may also have something to do with the enhanced "availability" of sex partners, ...

because in the "Red States", most "dating" is within one's own family!

:-)

The smart thing to do is look at those European nations that have low teen pregancy rates. I think the article mentioned the Netherlands. What are they doing right that we aren't? I would be surprised to find the Dutch are Bible thumpers.

Tao of wow: " 'Perhaps paradoxically, states with a majority conservative population and higher degree of religiosity tend to have higher teen birthrates' that was the start of the second paragraph of the article": one could definitely hypothesize that a lower abortion rate would go along with a higher birth rate. Sex ed, and abortion, are entirely different things.

The company: don't blame me for bringing up self control -- your cronies believe that men can't think with their head, their penile head will always win out, self control is impossible, and therefore a condom is the only answer. Hormones will always win. I didn't come up with this position. Well, I am a man, and I am an exception to their belief.

I didn't bring up other people's sex habits, the article did, and I was taking apart their logical argument. So far, nobody has touched my reasoning at all (or even really comprehended it). You all seem brainwashed to believe that the way the world is now, is the only was that it could be, and therefore everything that the culture does, is right. You have no historical perspective. By the way, why does your culture equate "liberalism" with "progress"? Change is not always for the better.

@AG99

Coming from germany I assure you we are not bible thumpers...The magical solution is serious sex ed and easy access to condoms. Simple as that. Sex ED must take place BEFORE puberty starts or else its useless...

America don't be prude... be safe... it works. As for our dear souther states... if you are no longer truly conservative vote to add some serious sex ed in the last year of elementary school. B/c if you wait till middle school its too late.

Paradoxical? I don't think so. You see, the quality of sex ed might be lacking in the red states. Condoms aren't easily available and abstinence is touted as the "best" option. But kids have sex anyways without access to any form of birth control, and since they can't get an abortion, the birth rate is unnecessarily high.

It's no paradox, it's a vicious cycle.

Adhesiolyser1729 - you say that this is the flat of the sexual revolution and you point to having a historical perspective and you say that it used to be so much better when people just got married and abstinence based on religion was emphasized.

Every bit of that is negated by once sentence in the article that points out... That the rate is falling and is at its lowest point in 70 years. It's a fact that the sexual revolution happened in the middle of that range and overall birth rates still declined. It's just that there is a direct correlation between higher teen birth rates where sex education is not taught and abstinence is. Those are the facts. You can't just deny them because it doesn't make sense to you or is unappealing to you.

There was not a massive teen pregnancy rate in America, until the Great All-Powerful Sexual Revolution of the 60s.

Actually, the highest teen birth rate was during the 1940s and 1950s.

The 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s included the twentieth century's highest teen birth rates (respectively 79.5, 91.0, and 69.7 per thousand).

The 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s reversed this trend.

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/So-Th/Teen-Pregnancy.html

Let's not cloud the issue with actual facts. adhesio is clearly more interested in convictions based on ideology. Convictions trump facts with some people, all the time.

And for the record, humans can't evolve back into monkeys because they never evolved from monkeys in the first place. Modern apes (which includes, gorillas, chimps, and humans, among others, but not monkeys) evolved from a common ancestor about six million years ago. If you're going to make statements about evolution, at least get it right.

Conservatives (in general) have always resisted sex education, for whatever reason. Whether or not you find that admirable is up to you, but the results are coming in and its not looking so good.

This gets to the crux of the issue: I suspect that if we dig deeper, religious reactionaries actively work against the positive impact of sex education, and their children suffer as a result. God made humans driven to be sexually active by age 15 or so; blindly denying that, and failing to prepare your children to constructive deal with that fact, as is standard practice among religious reactionaries, does harm.

The simple fact is as the German poster pointed out is that sex ed is taught in GRADE SCHOOL, is taken seriously, and everyone has easy access to contraceptives. However, what he missed and what the article didn't state was that the Netherlands, with grade school sex ed, and a largely agnostic society, has the lowest level of teenage SEXUAL ACTIVITY. In other words, teenagers in the Netherlands are less likely not only to engage in risky sex, the are less likely to be sexually active period.

And studies of conservative abstinence programs find those DO DELAY sexual activity in american teens, for about SIX MONTHS later than those teens who don't participate in such programs, and participants in such programs are at least THREE TIMES more likely to get pregnant almost IMMEDIATELY on starting sexual activity because they are completely ignorant about ANY aspect of sex, other than the basic acts. Abstinence teens are ALSO MORE likely to engage in oral and anal sex (both acts of sodomy) because they don't think of those as being really sex.

The simple fact is and of course complete denied by conservatives because ideology matters more than FACTS, is that early serious sex ed and easily available contraception tends to reduce both teenage pregnancy AND teenage sexual activity.

Robert in Oregon......You stole my line !

the reason the dutch have a low teen birth rate is because prostitution is legal .what funny is when your son comes home and says i got laid, dad shakes his hand pats him on the back, and says that's my boy, now your a man . when your daughter comes home and says i got laid ,you call her a whore, and if she is pregnant .your kicking her out of the house [ well in the middle east they call it honor killings ] . if you teach them about something like sex or how to drive a car you have less accidents . that's why we have car ins. and health ins. because accidents happen . how do you prevent accidents in the first place ??? never learn to drive or give your child drivers ed.

St Paul said, if you can't contain yourself, and you just have to have sex with someone, by all means, marry them, and continue finding them irresistible on a permanent basis (1 Corinthians 7).

St Paul's original position was that all sex was immoral and unnecessary because the Kingdom of God was right around the corner, and everyone should abstain until then. He later modified his position somewhat because he was losing followers left and right.

tommy-1549331.......and a lot of sex accidents happen in cars. Maybe comprehensive ins should cover them !

One of the first instances of Christian dogmatic opportunism.

Interesting.

It's okay. 8 lb 6 oz perfectly formed Baby Jesus needs his army.

A condom stops a beating heart!

I can vouch for at least one instance of conservative ignorance. My college roommate, who was VERY religious, didn't know where babies came from until 9th grade. How amazing is that?

So much CRAP from some of these posters - obviously they DON'T live in Red states and DON'T know what they're talking about! The most important part of the article follows:

Yet the analysis failed to consider pregnancy rates, which Cavazos-Rehg said are more difficult to obtain than birthrates. Could it be that, despite sex education, girls in both conservative and liberal states are getting pregnant at about the same rate, and that the girls in Arkansas are carrying their babies to term, perhaps as a result of higher religiosity, a lack of access to abortion services, or both?

The answer is both - I live in Oklahoma City, and there are only 3 abortion clinics in our largest city with around 500K citizens. Also, sex ed in this state is mandated, but consists mainly of AIDS education. It's not abstinence, it's ABSENT! In my daughter's school district, they allow students to attend an off-campus seminar on sex ed (with parental permission) when they are SENIORS! Yeah, I'd say that's too little too late. Why is this? Because it's an extremely hot-button issue, that's why! We don't want our daughters getting pregnant, but we don't want to promote sexual activity among teens, either. Yes, I agree that there needs to be a comprehensive sex ed program, which starts WAAAAY sooner than Senior year - I don't know about grade school, but surely by 6th grade!

But my point is, not everyone in Oklahoma is "against sex ed," and I don't know ANYONE who isn't Catholic who's "against birth control," and most of the Catholics aren't against it, either. I should know, I AM Catholic. We think abortion and birth control are two separate things; you can be opposed to one and be fine with the other. The bigger question is what to teach? How do you balance the need for sex ed with the desire to not promote sexual activity in teens? Nobody knows, which is why our state legislature took the easy way out & focused on AIDS. Even the article admits THIS is the REAL problem!

Cavazos-Rehg said she hopes to conduct a follow-up study with data on pregnancy and sexual behavior. Yet for now, she added, "though it still remains unclear as to what 'truly effective' sex education is, what we now know is that any future evaluations of sex education must consider the effects of sociopolitical characteristics in comprehensive analyses."

So how 'bout all you liberal "know-it-alls" who "don't-know-nuthin'" keep your damn inaccurate and judgmental opinions to YOURSELVES!?! If you can't say anything helpful or constructive, then DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL!!!

T Bourlon -

1. Oklahoma City does not = All of Oklahoma let alone all of what constitutes the "Red States". You can't use such a tiny population size and extrapolate it across all red states.

2. Birthrates vs pregnancy rates...Abortion is a perfectly acceptable legal response to pregnancy, so it is acceptable to the author of the study. This is as Cavazos-Rehg states...a study of birthrates. The studies point becomes more validated and pronounced when abortion is factored in as it is a major difference between red and blue state ideologies.

As for the highest teen birth rate in the 40's and 50's - well, folks were getting married in their teens then. My mom was 17 years old when she got married in 1943, and it wasn't unusual at all.

So far, nobody has touched my reasoning at all (or even really comprehended it).

Hahahaha! Yeah, dude, you're clearly the only intelligent person in this forum. Thanks for the laughs, sport . . . though, I'm sure that wasn't really your intent.

STMiller - you are correct, Oklahoma City does not equal all of Oklahoma, and for that matter Oklahoma doesn't equal all Red States. That doesn't seem to stop ANYONE on this blog from making sweeping generalizations about Red States and religious conservatives, though, does it??? And abortion may be a perfectly LEGAL response to pregnancy, but it is FAR from acceptable - even among many so-called "pro-choicers." I mean, who really can argue against a teen not getting pregnant in the first place? You really want to go there?

T Bourlon - I don't answer for all of the people in the forum, so I won't begin to answer while they may make broad generalizations. I don't sway strongly one way or the other, but make my own decisions issue by issue.

You're right that pregnancies should be stopped in the first place and I am a firm believer that early and clear education on the matter mixed with available birth control and counseling is the best method. Even later in life pregnancies happen among fully aware knowledgeable people, so some will always happen even when educated. For instance, I know multiple married couples in my circle of friends (lots of christians and catholics) that have devoutly tried "natural family planning" and they have all failed miserably. That's just silly. If you are saying that you don't want a kid...wrap it foil before you check the oil. Why take a chance.

In terms of abortion I know that it causes powerful emotions on each side, but I won't hide that I am pro-choice. That being said, I am not violently so. By that I mean that I am probably one of the few people in America that believes it is possible to have a compromise on abortions. i.e. early term ok...late term only ok in cases of rape, incest, health of mother, etc. That being said...you will never...never see compromise in America on this issue. Both sides just get too damn childish on the nuts and bolts.

My point in mentioning my stand on abortion choice is that I want it to be clear that people can have a position on an issue, but still be willing to listen to the opposing opinions and as always we should all be open to compromise.

adhesiolyser1729 - your attitude is one of the problems. How dare anyone not agree with your beliefs? If they do clearly they are wrong. This is the problem. Many people believe in God but do not believe as you do. I know - according to you they are wrong. But guess what? They're not - they just see things differently. And, yes, progress is a good thing. It is why we have penicillin, planes, electric cars, all kinds of things. We would NOT be better off in the dark ages. And, when people keep their children in the dark ages they reap the consequences. Young people experiment - it happens. Sex education equips them to make better decisions. It helps them learn the consequences of their actions and helps them plan accordingly. It doesn't promote sex - just, if sex is going to happen - safe sex.

Many (if not most) Oklahoma school districts do not allow sex education except for encouraging abstinence. Not a joke--in those localities, teachers will lose their jobs if they say anything, even privately, that is something other than abstinence-based.

What is much more important is that people in the "Red" states are so homophobic that they go way out of their way to "prove" that they are not gay--they are not upset when their children engage in sex with someone of the opposite sex. They dress their little girls in outfits that would be more appropriate on street walkers (I am discussing 4-year-olds here). When my child went to school dressed in a modest manner, she was called a "lesbian." Any girl who is not showing off her stuff and looking for attention is ridiculed--thus, teen pregnancy is the often the result of trying to prove that one is not gay and certainly aided by the fact that the parents encourage open displays of "typical" sexuality in children who are elementary-school aged.

Try reading the statutes regarding the teaching of AIDS/HIV information--it is packed with misinformation like having sex with a person who is HIV+, with or without a condom, places one at high risk of infection. The chief causes, they tell us, are homosexuality, promiscuity, intravenous drug use, and exposure to contaminated blood products. Basically, they are forgetting that a single encounter by a girl with an infected partner who is male is probably going to result in HIV transmission, while using a condom would have reduced that by 80%. The kids don't use a condom because they think they are useless, and the girls don't use birth control because there is no way for them to get it.

Combine a high pressure to prove oneself straight with a great deal of misinformation or no information, and one will get a lot of teen pregnancy. The amusing part is that these same people will then claim that the girls get pregnant to get on welfare and WIC and "marry the state."

Yes, this is a microcosm of what happens--but that is what we do, look at individual cases until a pattern emerges. I'm pretty sure the pressure to prove oneself straight will be key in nearly every red state.

no, it works-it just needs to be used-condoms stop pregnancies and disease over 95% of the time-thats pretty good-but if religious morons at home are tellign kids "dont have sex, dont use condoms because theyre of the devil" then you get-pregnant teen 5

Sex education in these states consists of abstinence only believing that explaining condoms and the potential of sexual diseases will only ptomote sexual activity by teens.

Condoms do not have a 95% effectiveness rate...most officials rate it as approximately 80%, which is what the industry standards require. Birth control pills are generally about 97% effective when used correctly. I remember these facts from high school just a few years ago. Yes, they gave us the approximate rates of success/failure for birth control options, which is definitely a good idea.

Keep in mind guys sex ed can only work IF the tools are in place... there is no point teaching sex ed if kids can't get their hands on condoms. Nurses should have them in schools, delis should have them, and yes grocers and Walmart should have them too. There is a serious problem if the clerk asks to see an ID and check you are 18 if you need a rubber. If there is easy access and parents stop their oblivious ignorance all will work out.

I think the issue is far more simple than this. Virtually all forms of education are less effective in so-called "red states." Ignorance is considered a virtue and knowledge is something the "liberal elites" spout to sound like pricks.

Doesn't surprise me at all that states that are more conservative also have a higher rate of "religiosity" and also have higher teen birth rates. In conservative/religious households, females are taught they have less worth than a man and men are taught they are the boss. Thus as hormones take hold, teenage males use their inflated sense of self-worth to push for sex from teenage girls who have difficulty resisting because they don't feel they are entitled to be treated with respect.

Use the gray matter please........You need to get out more. Most of those places already do have them available, but young kids are embarrassed to buy them.

Denver - actually, it is not a failure everywhere. It is very successful in most places.

ok, dumdum-more prisoners is linekd to less crime-in LA we have less cirme than ever because of 3 strikes...

Afghanistan? you mean teh war we fought because the taliban harbored bin laden who kileld 3000 of us?shoudl we have sent cake instead?

what low health stats?

Crime is at a all time low across the nation, yet more prisons are being built. And america has the highest incarceration rate.

I agree with you on this one adheisiolyser

Way too many people are being imprisoned for smoking weed and other minor or even victimless crimes. Prisons are being built to incarcerate these people while also letting them mingle with real criminals. And later on they emerge from prison as hardened criminals.

adhesiolyser1729 "Norman- Bin Laden didn't kill 3000 Americans on 9/11 ..."

Unbelievable. Someone still believes this 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory claptrap. This paranoid nonsense has been completely debunked by Popular Mechanics (see http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842), Scientific American, Skeptic magazine, and many others.

At least adhesio gets one thing right: "Your government lied to you, the Iraq ... [war was] fought on completely bogus pretexts."

Norman- Bin Laden didn't kill 3000 Americans on 9/11. Fires don't bring down high-rise steel structures. Jet fuel fires on 9/11 did not melt the steel. Explosives brought the WTC buildings down (including WTC 7 which no jet even hit and which had no reason to fall at all). Your government lied to you, as usual, and you swallowed the lie. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were fought on completely bogus pretexts. Congratulations, dupes.

Not that this is the appropriate place for such a discussion, but COME ON!!! There is absolutely ZERO shred of proof that "explosives brought the WTC buildings down, and you don't need a degree in architecture to know that fires do indeed burn even high-rise skyscrapers to the ground - even those that WEREN'T rammed by a 737-jet going 200+ mph. Most of this 9/11 Conspiracy CRAP comes from the movie "Loose Change," which the producers admit started as a WORK OF FICTION!!! I don't know if they started believing the CRAP they were shoveling, or if they just knew there were plenty of gullible people in America. Congratulations, dupe, you just bought the myth.

niceguy2011 - well aren't you a happy American. If you find it so awful here - why stay?

CA is a mix of libs and conservatives-it is HIGHLY conservative in many areas-what are you talking about?

California has some areas with very conservative population, and also large hispanic population which is quite concervative.

Good god, you really are an idiot.

The liberal parts are what people ususally talk about--SF, LA, SoCal, etc. but California is a big state and certain parts can be extremely conservative. One of my friends grew up in such a town; he told me it was a @!$%#hole.

It's up to us not to give too much credence to these studies. The author probably got a nice grant for his "study", interviewed a few good like minded friends and spent the rest of the money on a nice Government grant paid holiday. These 'studies' are mostly so some doctor or psych can publish for his personal resume and career growth. You will more than likely never hear such a ridiculous claim pitting of red states as opposed to a blue state (I guess that's the reason for this article) again.

California does not = LA and San Fransisco. A tenth of all Americans are Californians and they are a mixed bag of politics.

Michelle - go back to school. "A tenth of all Americans are Californians" - clearly you've been smoking those funny cigarettes again!

Population of California = 36,961,664  - Jul 2009 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population of United States = 307,006,550 - Jul 2009  Source: U.S. Census Bureau

36 961 664 / 307 006 550 = 0.120393731

So about 12%.

Mike,

It most certainly is not a causative relationship, but that doesn't mean we can't gain some insight into these data. There's been a long correlation between education level and age when first child is born. When we examine the test scores and education level of the populace in the so-called "red states" the overall education level and quality is lower by measurable standards. That still doesn't mean that education is a causative factor either. The true factor is more immeasurable, the prevailing culture. Education and birth rate are simply other effects of this cause. While we can't measure the cause, we can measure its effect in various ways.

I agree Pragmatic.. The information in the study is very useful and if used to promote appropriate education in certain areas would be helpful. My issue is that it being presented and reported as a red vs. blue state tends to minimize the other factors that greatly outweigh the political.

Much like the vaccination and Autism scare. Conclusions of a study even when blatantly wrong get taken as fact and the real underlying factors often get ignored.

As if the baby alone isn't bad enough. Nobody in their right mind would give birth without adequate financial support--and definitely not in their teens.

aw, have a heart, mrknowitall. those babies are innocent. we can't punish them because of those little sluts' fun and games, right? you ask, who's going to foot the bill? WE are, or rather, you are. i'm exempt from taxes, sort of a church thing i got going. my (ahem) 'congregation' simply worship me and my demonic staff ya know? of course they kind of have to, or spend ten thousand years in the lake of fire! hahahah sorry, inside joke.

Admit it, they've got you between a rock and a hard place. either you ease-up on that 'abortion is bad' thing, or you shell out more dough to raise all those snot noses. so what're decent God-fearing folks supposed to do? abortion or more taxes? abortion? more taxes?

well, actually, a guy could go either way, ya know? or . . . No! Grover's right. WE have to stand firm for our most deeply-held principles. NO MORE TAXES!!!

Give them sex ed, easy access to all kinds of contraceptives, and easy access to at least first trimester abortions. That'll fix everything except stupidity.

I think the Palins would disagree with you -"Abstinence Only" reallyl, really works!

I don't think it'll work--they might not be smart enough to realize how things are supposed to be done.

@Q Jordan:

Chosen ignorance, at that. I was born and raised in Virginia, and believe me, I know! I recently moved back to be with family. I feel weird here after being in California for nearly two decades. However, there *are* signs of blue here and there popping up--we did vote Obama in 2008, remember--however, it's like pulling teeth from a duck getting people to cough up true compassiomn (from the heart) instead of that "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, or you ain't worth anything" attitude. I'm a Virgininian, born and raised--proud of it. However, I am a lot more compassionate than today's lot of them. I grew up with people with a whole hell of a lot more smarts and compassion in their pinkies than many I meet today. I'm not joking, my old sociology teachers from high school would love to chat with me about an article like this -- they were these neat elderly ladies who really thought through issues. I never once heard any of them talk down to a student or allow any student control the class -- including when subjects like this arose.

Anyway, you are correct: Ignorance begets ignorance. Eventually, though, when enough people such as myself get sick and tired (like me) of this chosen path, we will steer it more to the left. Personally, I believe the education should be all-inclusive in some states, tailor-made, so-to-speak. The support system must be available, though: Birth control needs to be widely available, as well as the abortion laws need to be relaxed in many areas. An educated populace makes educated choices--they need the tools to do so, though.

Many Americans also need to get over their prudish attitudes regarding sex, hormones, teenagers and young adults. I remember when I was that age: Hormones on 24/7. Our bodies are designed that way--it is natural. It would have been nice, though, to have had a lot more knowledge back then regarding what was happening and what to expect. Thank goodness I don't have any little Beatties running around. :o)

My child participated in the sex ed in our school this year in 8th grade. It was abstinence only and they viewed a christian video that was hell fire and brimstone kind of scary. Instead if REAL information they only tried to scare them.

When I called to discuss this with the teacher she said, "do not worry it is abstinence only ed". I said, that is the problem and it does not work. She said I know. This is ther problem.

Why does the school have to be responsible for Sex Education? Teen pregnancy is not a school issue, it is a parenting issue. As a responsible parent, I take the time to talk to my kids about it. They know that I would prefer that they wait until they are older, but I also prepare them in case they submit to the "heat of the moment". More than anything, I want them to be safe and healthy, so I have explained all of the hazards, and how you work around them. Both of my children know that condoms are not an option but a requirement, and my daughter is on the pill because even condoms are not 100% effective, and she is not done being a teenager. She does not need to be a mother yet. She has also received the HPV vaccine, and my son will too, at his next appointment. As a parent, it is my responsibility to take care of those things. I want the school to prepare my children academically for their future, not worry about their sex lives.

Teen pregnancy is not a school issue, it is a parenting issue. As a responsible parent, I take the time to talk to my kids about it.

Does that mean that a teen who is relatively unaware of critical information constitutes proof of a parent's unfitness?

Ideally yes, parents should teach their children about the facts of life, where babies come from and how prevent having babies before you're ready to.

But they don't. Maybe it's that 'education' part of 'sex education,' so they abdicate that responsibility to the schools. It's easier that way. Some parents are too busy being their child's 'friend,' and don't want to do the hard stuff. Like actually teach them what they need to get along in the world.

Major Mike, you can bet that I teach my kids about sex ed and am very open with them. Unfortunately, not all parents do this, and if the school is going to teach it, then they should TEACH it. Not gloss over religious based nonsense.

I let my child participate in the sex ed at school and we sat at home, and watched the video the school was presenting, so we could discuss it and I could answer questions. Some of the things presented in that abstinence only video were misleading. I want my kids to have healthy attitudes about sex and be knowledgeable.