While I see his point the article was about debunking myths, does he really want abstinence included, couldn't that and the resources be a separate article?

Exactly, and what he have "concerns" if the article were about anything but sex? I think not. Lack of additional resources is hardly cause for "concern".

Also, NO ONE practices abstinence just because it is a means of STD control/pregnancy prevention. If you want to have sex at all, you do and you use contraceptives.

Not quite no one. I went through a Texas education — we had the "scare tactics" sex talks, in middle school. It was downright terrifying. I cannot describe the ways they made sex sound like the worst idea ever. I'm serious: we left thinking our parents were terribly foolish for creating us.

And it encouraged me, at least, to be abstinent for a longish while. (And studies have shown that rates of oral and anal sex have climbed in relation to the rates of our parents; young people realized that those are ways to avoid pregnancy (and the well-known STIs) while getting the positives.

Most STD's can and still are transmitted via oral or anal sex. And when I say most, I mean all.

Oh, I know. But that wasn't the kind of sex that was talked about in these seminars. They only referred to the missionary bit. The assumption follows that if you don't do *that* you're still ok. Again, an overall flawed strategy.

wtf is up with these abstinence people?

the only people i knew that did not f**k before they were 'married' still really wanted to...except for a smattering of magic-believers...

It is like they never looked at a pair of tits, had a boner, or sat on a spin cycle...or climbed a rope in gym class...

speaking of climbing a rope...did anyone actually do that in gym class? we never did...I think it went out with leaded gasoline.

First of all: Free Speech, Schools, NOTHING to do with eachother. Schools are noted by the courts as special places where typical rights and freedoms do not apply.

Second: As a writer I had to have everything viewed by the Editor, a Proofreader and a Publisher. This didn't change the way I wrote it enhanced it. These kids have gotten away for 25 years by only being reviewed by their Editor and Proofreader, having the Principal (the Publisher) review the articles as well for content isn't going to ruin it, it's going to teach them real-world writing. And there are politics involved.

When I wrote an article about a Wal-mart fundraiser for kids it was thrown to page 13. It was a much bigger story than the 'cat rescued by...' type story that was on the front page, why? Because Wal-mart was one advertiser and we had 40. You don't piss off 39 advertisers by giving Walmart free press on the front page. The publisher knew it, and he was smart to bury the story. The Principal has insights as well which deal with the politics and manner in which a school work and how things should be done. And in the end, it's HIS money which is funding the paper.

Finally: This story is about a school paper which published an article which was incomplete, the Principal was unhappy with it's incompleteness and he wants to be able to review future articles to ensure they fit to the standards of his school. There is nothing different about this from any other school paper anywhere in the country. More power to him.