Human physiology presents a good argument about the intentions of the God that Evangelicals describe and current social standards. Did God want young men to spend their sexual peak celibate or enjoying playtime with their wife? In previous centuries, teenagers starting families were normal. A nineteen year old man would normally have a wife to enjoy his sexual peak with. In the past century, Americans seem to have pushed the average family starting age well into the 20s and we all know that teenage pregnancy and marriage is highly frowned upon. So, if we follow "the plan" from our contemporary American Churches, we would be starting our families in our 20s, and men would first enjoy sexuality after having passed beyond their sexual peak. Is that what the Creator had in mind for American men, to go through their sexual peak celibate? And in the end, don't Evangelical Americans have a higher divorce rate than the rest of America?

It should be no surprise that the religious right is anti-sex except in marriage. They have always been about control. The only thing that is perhaps new is that the sexual revolution has produced a couple of generations where even the most dried -up fucked-up near human amidst the radical Christers can say the word orgasm in public without 100% of their crowd being scandalized. Oh boy Christo-gasms!

On the other side, I am constantly saddend to see the amount fear that teen sexuality generates among liberals with kids. Yes, they have sexual rights - that's what the hormones are about. Evolution has made humans ready at about 14 and it is only the development of agriculture and the growth of cities (and eventually the near complete control of the pill) that have allowed us the luxury of putting off childbirth.

Probably what is creating some amount of liberal backlash, is the idea that "Why yes lovely daughter, many of us did have sex at your age," and while it was pretty good we never came to terms with what our internalized guilt trips about sex that the religious right has made so much money selling all along.

On top of that, we got our hearts broken and learned to live with the loss of love, and found out what a profoundly liberating rite of passage it was to be fully sexual. Yes dad, I'm not a little girl / boy any more and there is nothing you can do about it. And what's the big deal? Sex is healthy and pleasure is good for us. Even the Christo-nazis are catching on, in their own perverted way.

And did you even SEE the Miley Cyruis pics? She's not "topless" she's showing less skin, covered in a sheet that most Land's End catalogues show in their one peice swimsuit sets. The photo is wonderfully and artfully done. There is a wonderful sense of sensuality about it. Topless, it ain't.

Boys and girls are invited to chew cheese-flavored snacks and then sip some water, after which they are to spit the resulting 'bodily fluids' into a cup...

Hey! That reminds me of this website I was browsing the other day...

...oops, did I say that out loud?!

Seriously though, if presented in yet another context -- the courtroom -- pushing minors through such an exercise could very easily qualify as serious psychological abuse.

Being disgusted with the functioning of your own body is, after all, a fundamental part of several psychoses.

a Turf War over who owns the Orgasm?

Liberals have a problem with sex because it is irrational, mysterious and powerful. In a word, spiritual. The Radical Right has a problem because it is spiritual, but not in a Christian way. Their attempts to contain sexuality under the umbrella of Christianity is ludicrous.

These are misleading terms that actually don't make much sense outside of the US.

As a Catholic I feel I am typical in finding my natural political position is socialist democratic.

But I know how you guys like your labels and navel-gazing above nuanced reality and teh wider world...that's why you've got the abysmal presidential options you've given yourselves.

Your "left wing" choice of Obama won't mandate universal healthcare, supports telecoms immunity and likes to threaten Iran/Pakistan.

"Oh God, I'm coming" is a common ejaculation in moments of sexual passion, and for many people this may be the only time they call His name, so maybe the religious right has its rationale.

I own the orgasm! Mine! It's mine! All mine!

that George and Barbara Bush didn't follow the abstinence program.

I'm done, get out.

Her box is for procreation. Period. She should gussy only to procreate. Anything else is profligate. So sayeth some part of the bible, I'm sure. Likewise, Viagra circumvents God's plan for universal drooping.

I listened to some fundy radio station the other talking about sex. They called it romance. They couldn't even say s-e-x.

Just as with all other aspects of human physiology and human psychology, one size definitely does not fit all. Some of us humans seem to be most related to chimpanzees when it comes to sex. We're possessive, territorial and even likely to kill children who are not of our blood lines.

Others of us are definitely most akin to the bonobo apes who have sex by way of greeting, have sex to resolve conflicts and seal agreements, have sex as thanks for food shared, have sex just for fun and as a way of reducing tension between competing factions.

The chimps among us do best with abstinence only, since the results of anything else tend to be nasty and bloody.

The bonobos among us do best with total sexual liberation since sex with anyone and any gender keeps them happy and well-adjusted.

But both the chimps and the bonobos both need to stop thinking that their way is the only way and need to stop telling others what to do.

Perhaps sex education can, at its best, help our youngsters to discover what their own instincts are, how to the best evaluate the instincts of others and how to prevent nastiness and blood letting while, at the same time, preventing unwanted pregnancy and the unnecessary wounding of others by violating expectations you didn't take the trouble to discover were there before sex entered into the relationship.

As to the Bible, itself. If Christian Conservatives took the trouble to read it (which they don't) they'd discover that its descriptions of sex and sexual practices are all over the map (in fact they'd probably have to have it banned from high school libraries as obscene without even getting into the implications of David and Jonathan).

What we most need to do with sex education, I suspect, is provide our sons and daughters with the emotional and psychological resources to navigate and negotiate how, when, with whom, and how often they'd like to have sex and help them to be good at sex and all the issues surrounding it in every way possible while protecting their own health and well being. Perhaps if we were to do that, they wouldn't grow up as "screwed up" about sex as their parents.