Curt,

Usually you have good stuff, although clearly not my persuasion, but this post is not based on any good links or information.

The first link to Mr. Keenan's article appears to be a blog post in which he offers a lot of unsubstantiated claims about sexual education and about sexual disease. If one goes to the UK government's page on teen pregnancy and downloads the statistics, you will see that "The provisional 2005 under 18 conception rate for England of 41.1 per 1000 girls aged 15-17 represents an overall decline of 11.8% since 1998 – the baseline year for the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. The under 18 conception rate is at its lowest level for 20 years."

So the UK's strategy appears to be working, as it does in all other EU countries. The more you educate children, especially girls, about their own bodies, they more they are able to protect themselves and avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Keenan makes all sorts of unsubstantiated claims that I won't address, but does link to an article in the Telegraph. However, it isn't really an article at all. It is an advice column, where one man writes in about an OTT sex ed curriculum. The paper takes no position and seems to offer no answer to his questions. All they say is "No. I would very much like to hear from other teachers required to teach similar lessons, and from parents of 12-year-olds about whether this is what they want their children to be taught."

Mr. Keenan alludes to a Telegraph article entitled, "Outrage over explicit sex lessons", but a quick search through the Telegraph's own search box doesn't show any results.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Keenan has absolutely no real hard evidence to back up his argument that sex ed is bad for students.

It is only anecdotal, but as someone who lived in London for 4 years, I never heard any uproar or concern about sexual education in classrooms. And considering how unliked Tony Blair is, if the Tories could use this as a political point, they would.