1) Standard Sex Ed classes -- students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is just the way things are.
2) Abstinence Only classes -- students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is a complete failure and funding needs to be completely cut for this totally flawed program.
Somebody's agenda is showing.
Why not look at it as the Standard Sex Ed class is a complete failure and funding needs to be completely cut. It seems the Abstinece Only class is just as good.
>>The article does not contain a lot of data (which I find highly interesting). But what I think I see is this:
1) Standard Sex Ed classes — students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is just the way things are.
2) Abstinence Only classes — students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is a complete failure and funding needs to be completely cut for this totally flawed program.
Somebody’s agenda is showing.<<
Careful! Your agenda is showing!
I believe that it depends upon how you define “failure.” Do the advocates of government-mandated sex education classes view e.g. an intact maidenhead as a particularly worthy goal? Perhaps not.
Specifically, “failure” for the “standard sex-ed classes” might possibly be defined (by its proponents) as “unwanted pregnancies,” “poor orgasms,” and “venereal disease,” whereas the proponents of “complete abstinence” would probably wish to use a different definition (e.g. “lost virginity”).
Great point. They could have easily headlined: early abstinence programs are as effective as previous long term sex ed programs. They chose instead that “zero effect” were if one follows the logic then long term sex ed programs also have zero effect.
Personally, I do tell my daughters and college students about condoms. I make sure they know that in ideal circumstances, they fail one in six times. These ideal circumstances are partners who know each other well, heterosexual relationships, and neither partner is drunk while trying to operate the condom.
Outside of these ideal circumstances, the condoms fail at an even higher rate.