Decades ago I attended an elementary school PTA meeting at which an emotional discussion broke out about sex education in the schools. There were a variety of viewpoints, but the most vocal parent insisted that no information on sex or reproduction should be provided by the schools until ninth grade.

She insisted that "good" families would provide the information for their children at the appropriate time. This mother did not recognize that other students would educate or "enlighten" her children prior to the time she wanted them to learn about the "birds and the bees."

That parent's attitude, while caring and involved, was not realistic. And today the theory or belief that sexual abstinence is the only way to handle sexuality in teenagers is also not realistic.

Perhaps the most salient statement was made by Bristol Palin earlier this year when she said that abstinence "is not realistic at all." The 18-year-old new mom, who was thrust into the national spotlight last year when her mother was the Republican vice-presidential candidate, is now advocating abstinence, but she has to know that even the best abstinence intentions can fail.

This young woman was raised in an intact, educated and supportive home whose family values clearly say abstinence is the right way to deal with sex prior to marriage. If abstinence did not work for Bristol, how do we expect it to work for those living in less informed and caring environments?

In a New York Times column by Gail Collins, David Wiley a professor of health education at Texas State University refers to Texas, where "virtually all the schools teach abstinence and abstinence alone," as a "teen pregnancy disaster zone" because of the high pregnancy rates in Texas.

Another New York Times article by Jan Hoffman, reported on the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention campaign based in Durham, N.C., which is concerned because that state, which mandates an abstinence-only education program in schools, has the nation's ninth-highest rate of teen pregnancy.

Since 2003 North Carolina's pregnancy rate rose, resulting in almost 20,000 teen pregnancies in 2007. If a state where abstinence-only education is required has an increased number of adolescent pregnancies, it would be a good indication that the abstinence only program is not achieving its goals.

This education program in North Carolina is now using cell phones to teach sex education and is modeled after one in northern Virginia. It does not advocate abortion or give medical advice. Rather, it provides factual information. A typical question, highlighting misinformation, was, "If you take a shower before you have sex, are you less likely to get pregnant?" The answer was, "Nope, doesn't make a difference."

There is nothing wrong with abstinence. It certainly is a guaranteed method to prevent pregnancy. But the problem with sexual abstinence is the same problem that occurs when people choose behaviors that they would be better off not doing but do them anyway because they are enjoyable at the moment. If such were not the case, we would not have large numbers of teens (and others) who drive too fast, overeat, get drunk or make other decisions that have serious or long-term negative repercussions.

Adolescents need factual sex education in order to make good choices about sexual activity. Abstinence, while being a good idea, may work for some young people some of the time. Obviously it does not work for all teens all of the time. In today's world, sex education programs that insist on "abstinence only" are unrealistic.

Diane W. Mufson is a licensed psychologist in practice in Huntington. She is a former citizen member of The Herald-Dispatch editorial board and is a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page. Her e-mail is dwmufson@comcast.net.

National Video