As reported yesterday in the L.A. Times, abstinence-only classes apparently work:
A new study shows for the first time that a sex education class emphasizing abstinence only — ignoring moral implications of sexual activity — can reduce sexual activity by nearly a third in 12- and 13-year-olds compared with students who received no sex education. (emphasis mine)
Detaching the “moral implications of sexual activity” from sex education has been a big priority for secularists. It’s okay to teach abstinence as ONE OPTION, they say. Just don’t try to frame it as morally superior. And DO NOT interject religion! But now that abstinence-only appears it might work, social liberals across the board are scrambling to downplay the results.
Other forms of sex education also worked…
The George W. Bush administration poured tens of millions of dollars into federal funding for abstinence-only programs, most of them religious-oriented, with little or no evidence that they worked.
Well I’ll be.
It “should not be interpreted as a signal that abstinence-only education works at all times and under all circumstances.”
…”no public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policymakers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies.”
Let the two-step begin.
My question: On what grounds other than moral grounds would one abstain from sex? Choosing Coke over Pepsi is a matter of preference. Choosing not to have intercourse is infinitely more important. That is unless we want our kids reducing fornication to the level of a choice of soda.