a little later, but not never

Well, it's been about 9 months, so naturally the next fetus of sex education controversy is on its way out of the oven. After all, teen pregnancy is on the rise.

The latest study, however, takes us on a somewhat different genetic path than the previous siblings in this family. Just as Obama reduced/eliminated funding for abstinence-focused education, research is now suggesting that abstinence education actually worked to curb sexual activity in a group of middle schoolers in Philly.

No, that's not a typo. I said abstinence education was effective.

In the past, I've been pretty clear that I take major issue with a lot of these "just say no" approaches to sex ed. A product of this attitude myself, I especially take issue with many of the religious groups and guilt-laden misinformation that gets infused into many of these programs.

But there's a key difference with these new findings. As pointed out by a New York Times article, and again by their staff editorial today, the program urged students to delay sexual activity until the student felt more mature. This is quite the departure from many program's "if you pop the balloon the angels will cry" approach. As Quinn clearly demonstrates on "Glee", this is not the way to go.

I've always believed that sex ed HAS to be more than either of the two extremes, neither "jesus is watching" nor "take a handful of condoms and here's some pictures of clamydia." As a newcomer to the education scene, I'm constantly told to not just spoonfeed my students the answers, but to teach them how to think. It's not always about the right answer; it's how you get to that answer that really has any consequence.

I'm still not ready to throw all my tax dollars back into the abstinence bucket (although it might be a better choice than spending them on a Superbowl commercial. Grrr.). But I think the conversation is finally headed in the right direction.

we take what we get

I haven't gone on a serious feminist crusade in at least 5 posts, so it's high time to be outraged at something once again. Well it's actually not too terribly infuriating, just an interesting observation.

In a recent online Q&A from New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, a reader asked this question: "I find it a bit peculiar that the two women columnists, Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins, are satirical and humorous. I adore their writing, and generally think they are spot on, but it is almost like you cannot get a "serious" woman columnist. Do you agree?"

Rosenthal responded by essentially saying he would be the "last person alive" to say either woman wasn't a serious columnist. GOOD FOR YOU. Though I admit I'm not as familiar with Collins' work, Maureen Dowd is usually my first stop if I'm perusing the NYT's editorial pages. (It used to be Nicholas Kristof, but for a while they were charging for his stuff online, so I got out of the habit cause I'm cheap.) So anyway, I just wanted to say I appreciate Rosenthal standing up for his staff, and would hope that in future queries, readers take a minute and think about the fact they would never criticize a paper for only having satirical male columnists.

In other woman rage, the NYT staff editorial today, titled "Women, extremism, and two key states," deals with the recent activity worldwide that shows us once again the high cost some of our world pays for being born with a vagina. In Afghanistan, marital rape is now essentially legally sanctioned. In Pakistan, a woman was publicly flogged for denying a marriage proposal. In Saudi Arabia, a judge refused to nullify the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a man of 58.

Even though some steps are being taken globally in the right direction (example: 10 villages in Niger have officially denounced female circumcision, and the Pakistani chief justice rebuked the attorney general for allowing the flogging), we still aren't there. It's one thing to see the videos of starving children and say "oh, that's sad." But for most of those children, they aren't hungry because their country's religion or cultural heritage forbids them food.

Even in the states, the leading cause of death for most pregnant women is homicide, usually by a close intimate partner.

So stand up for the vaginas around the world. Religious, cultural, or otherwise, we all deserve to live a life of safety, especially from the government or power-holding group of any given society. Maybe Maureen Dowd can write a sarcastic column about it, since apparently that's the only style some readers feel is used by women. Oh wait, she already has:

Should Michelle cover up?
Sweet on Caroline
Boxers, briefs, or silks?
A Makeover with an ugly gloss