Famously, Conservapedia refuses to define sexual intercourse so that children may be "protected" from the "vulgar" details of the act. All I can say is, parents: don't be surprised when your kid comes home pregnant because you were too foolish to inform them of EVERY SINGLE important detail surrounding the sex act (i.e., protection). Believe it or not, it is highly likely that your children will have sex in their teens (indeed, despite their good Christian upbringings), and it is extremely dangerous to withhold such crucial information from them. Remember, many so-called "conservative" parents who are so-called "pro-life" have a drastic change of heart regarding the abortion issue when their kids come home knocked-up. It is not wise to keep your kids in the dark - you will likely regret it.
==Two objectives that cannot be reconciled==
Conservapedia is trying to be too many things. It can never satisfy all of them. In particular, two things that must be separate are:
#A resource for primary school and early high school students
#An alternative to Wikipedia, with a [[conservative]] point of view.
Both of these are worthy goals, but they can't both be satisfied by the same project.
[[Conservapedia:About]] is linked from the bottom of every page, and it talks about an alternative to the [[Liberal bias]] of [[Wikipedia]]. One way to address that would be to encourage more conservatives to edit Wikipedia to sway the average back. The founders of Conservapedia have chosen instead to establish an alternative wiki, and hope to encourage both readers and editors to trust Conservapedia (look at the logo on the top left of the page). The result has been a strong interest in articles on contentious topics where there is a significant difference between "Conservative" and "Liberal" points of view and opinions. These articles led to a lot of publicity (not all good) for Conservapedia, but the resulting influx of new editors has led to many of these articles being protected so that only a few editors may alter them, and often show their own biases. Examples include:
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[dinosaur]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Abortion]]
However the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] require all edits and articles to be [[family-friendly]] and [[clean]] as it is used as a resource for children. This has led to many articles being limited or restricted from fully covering the topic as it might not be suitable for the younger readers.
*[[Bisexuality]] (see its [[talk:Bisexuality|talk]])
*[[Abortion]] has a single 8-word sentence defining it. The rest is about why it shouldn't be allowed.
*[[Sex]] is redirected to [[gender]], rather than being defined
A number of other articles have been deleted and protected due to the topic not being suitable for a "family-friendly" website, even if they are topics that parents ''should'' be discussing with their children. The range includes:
*[[Pedophilia]] and [[Pedophile]]
*[[kissing]], [[condom]], [[safe sex]], [[intercourse]]
*[[rape]]
*[[Masturbation]]
*[[Anus]], [[Anal]], [[Anal sex]] and [[Butt sex]], [[sodomy]]
*[[Oral Sex]]
*[[Scientology]]
*A range of swear words including [[shit]], [[fuck]] and [[nigger]]
The irony is that the effect of not hosting explanations of these things doesn't mean kids will ask their parents, they'll just go and look at some other website. Some of these are linked (or could/should be linked) from serious topics like amendments to the U.S. constitution or other political, historic or Biblical articles.
