There may never be a DIV: Mighty Ducks.

As much as we'd all like to see that team of loveable, rag-tag teenagers back on the ice; for as much hilarity and joy Emilio Estevez's wisecracks could bring; the next installment in this socio-political farce may never come.

It's not just because Pacey looks like he's 35. We could work around that. It's because the Ducks lack a formidable enemy. The children of the ice have always fought not only against a rival hockey team, but a threat to American well being thinly veiled as a rival hockey team. First, they battled against class inequality and the "system." Then, they took on the mighty Icelandic team, an obvious metaphor for threats from abroad. Finally, they fought for the right to equal education. And in the process, didn't we all learn something?

In this time of peace and prosperity, there's just not much for the Ducks to conquer. Luckily for any Hollywood producers out there, I've found the perfect enemy, one America has been fighting a losing battle with for years — sex.

Americans have been fighting against sex since we landed on this rock, and the fight continues to this day.

Right now, the U.S. is spending $50 million in federal funds to support "abstinence-only" sexual education programs, programs which "require that children be taught the 'harmful psychological and physical effects' of premarital sex." These programs teach contraceptives as unreliable and paint sexual urges as something one needs to "overcome."

But despite their best efforts to make sex appear dangerous, unattractive, and deadly, sex keeps on emerging victorious: 60 percent of the seniors at a Texas high school which implemented an abstinence-only education program were sexually active. Ten of the girls in a class of 200 were pregnant by graduation. It's not that they're teaching abstinence. Abstinence is the best and safest way to protect oneself from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and there's a lot to be said for that. It's that they teach abstinence at the expense of all other forms of birth control. More importantly, they're taking what should be a loving, healthy act and equating it with degradation and terror. They're not teaching sex as an amazing thing one should share with someone they love. They're saying if you have sex, you'll die. And once you're dead, you'll probably go straight to hell. According to that pedagogy, sex is shameful. And the natural urges and every teenager experiences are painted as sinful and dirty. This same attitude goes beyond the classroom and into the consciences of the American people. Despite the pervasiveness of sex in advertising, pop culture and media, we as Americans are still unable to sit down and have a good conversation about sex. Not in the Sex and the City R-rated, detail-heavy way, but in a general, open, honest forum.

To listen to Americans talk about sex makes it sound like sex is unnatural and unhealthy. It's not something we're born wanting to do, it's not something wired into our genetic code. It's something we're tricked into liking by the wily Marilyn Mansion. Sex is seen as a villain, which preys on the morally weak members of society.

Except sex can't be a villain, because sex is not an independent being. Sex doesn't have itself. People choose to have sex. People are sex. Sex doesn't lurk in dark corners or hang around outside of Old Main and clobber unsuspecting freshmen on their way to church. But somehow we still work under the understanding that you can have sex, just shut up and don't ask questions about it. Unfortunately, all the evils that can come from sex — the spread of STDs, unplanned pregnancies, sexual assault, and psychological trauma — normally result from people having sex without really taking about it first. We need to ask questions. We need to have uniform and detailed answers.

Unfortunately, when we try and talk about sex, we're silenced. Programs like the Vagina Monologues and Sex Faire, both of which talk about our bodies and how we use them and how sex affects our lives, are either threatened to be closed down or written off as radical and extremist.

When we can't talk about having sex, we can't talk about consent. And when someone does have sex without giving her consent first, she doesn't receive support. She gets shushed, shamed and silenced into a sexless corner. If we can't teach safe sex, then people will have unsafe sex. It won't keep them from having sex in the first place. It will not inspires our sexless youth to use their bodies in deviant ways they never would have thought of on their own.

Many people do find sex offensive. They see it as immoral, unhealthy or against their religious grain. And that's cool. They are entitled to that opinion. They are not, however, justified in demanding the universal censure of those who don't share their beliefs. If there truly is the better option, people will come to that conclusion on their own after reviewing all the evidence. Shaming people into action is probably the least effective tactic around.

What it comes down to is this: There can be no such thing as too much conversation. Talking about sex isn't going to make people want to have sex. People want to have sex anyway. The talking part doesn't change that. What it does change is the way people go about having sex. And the more we can talk about sex as an objective fact rather then a subjective evil, the less dangerous sex will become.