The fallacy in logic here is that you're skirting the emphasis in education issue. Drill something home well enough and even the dullest student in the classroom will figure something out that is this simple: KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO ASSUME X, Y, Z RISKS. There is little, to NO, idea of monogamy or commitment with sex any longer. I find that distasteful. Old fashioned? Perhaps. But it works.<quoted text>
Well, here is a nice scholarly article summarize a good bit of comparative research: http://www.moappp.org/Documents/articles/2006... .
A piece of the evidence that must be figured in is the failure rate of those who pledge to remain abstinent. Like all other forms of pregnancy or disease prevention there is a human factor that must be accounted for. Condoms serve much better when used 100% of the time than when they are used sporadically. Likewise, the efficacy of the pill starts to fall off when the user forgets to take it frequently. And the reality is that many who pledge abstinence do not delay sex until marriage (heck--even George didn't wait). And the issue then becomes that those who slip up in their commitment but have little knowledge of some basics with regard to hygiene and responsibility are the ones who are MORE likely to end up with an STI or unintended pregnancy.
Hell, do you think most of us were virgins when we married? No. Do you think there's a reason people like George, myself, Glitter, and others didn't raise kids alone or with a gaggle of baby mommies/baby daddies and none of us has an STD?(I prefer DISEASE vs. INFECTION. Why? Most ARE harmful these days beyond the point of embarassment of facing your doc. Hell, gonorrhea these days is antibiotic resistant, herpes is your lifelong friend once you contract, and HPV increases the risk for cervical cancer in women.)
We play with semantics too much here. Time to get "real" as they'd say in the hood...