Fasting from abstinence
A generation of classroom sex-education has produced a steady rise in teen pregnancy (partially masked by teen abortions), and a quiet epidemic of venereal diseases. Meanwhile abstinence-based programs are encourging young people to avoid sexual activity.
This, in the eyes of the sex-ed lobby, is a crisis. They need their government subsidies! How can they counter the threat of teen chastity!
Now we have the answer. The sex-ed lobby (which, you'll notice, claims to represent a "traditional" approach, although our grandparents would find it appalling) points out that when abstinence programs don't have a 100% success rate; some kids will still lose sex. And when they do, they're less likely to use condoms than their neighbors who have been battered for years with the safe-sex message. All perfectly true, I'm sure.
But the safe-sex approach is also considerably less than 100% effective. Some kids don't use condoms, despite the constant harangues. And condoms often fail.
So let's cut to the chase: Teenager A has been told that he can and should control himself, and avoid all extra-marital sexual activity. Teenager B has been told that he probably can't control himself, so he should use a condom. (But sometimes there won't be a condom handy when the urge strikes, and sometimes the condom won't work.) All things considered, who is more likely to engage in "unsafe" sex: A or B?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!