In a "perfect world," "no teenager" would have sex? Really? That's news to those of us who had fulfilling sexual experiences in our teenage years, and credit those experiences with helping us mature into well-adjusted adults.

My idea of a "perfect world" would be one in which everyone would always have safe, responsible, mind-blowing, multi-orgasmic sex as soon as they were ready, be it at 15, 18, or 30. (My "perfect world" certainly wouldn't include this country's nonsensical instructions to its youth to abstain entirely from sex, alcohol, etc. until they reach a specific age, at which time they magically gain the ability to do it with no restrictions whatsoever).

Sexual interaction is a normal, natural part of adolescence. Being honest isn't telling teenagers that they should not, under any circumstances, have sex. Honesty would involve teaching about the positives and negatives of sex, the alternatives to intercourse, and the importance of treating oneself and one's partner with respect, among other things that you couldn't tell kids without howls from the religious right.

This sort of honesty would help these teenagers become better-equipped adults, too. The hand-wringing over the teen pregnancy rate has always struck me as odd, as it implies that a 19-year-old's pregnancy, planned or otherwise, is more of a cause for concern than a 20-year-old's. Instead of "end teen pregnancy," how about "end all unwanted pregnancy"? Instead of "no teen sex," why not "responsible sex for everyone"?

You know that seems to be the heart of the matter. I'm astonished after that soapbox lecture of yours that you don't make the connection.

Your end quote reads like you believe everyone thinks like you do. Some people believe responsible sex begins at 21, others only in marriage, while others believe as soon as she can bleed. The inherent problem with "responsible sex for everyone" is that there are more than a few people who believe that teen sex is immoral and allowing this slogan "responsible sex for everyone" would be tatamount to supporting an immoral action. Judge them as you will but rememeber that they are voting citizens of this country too and as such their opinions carry the same weight as yours do - brushing them aside as kooks is essentially revocation of their First Amendment rights and also their right to representation. Their opinions must be respected, even if they AREN'T supported by law. Nothing says we have to vote that way - the trick is getting enough votes to silence them properly.

If mind blowing pleasure is always a positive then we'll have to include crack and heroin use along with sex to the list of must-do activities for teens.