"Abstinence-only" sex education has not been effective.

This being my final argument, I'm going to defend my pretty wierd stand in all the ways it can be defended. First I'll elaborate as to what it is. It's an abusive re-reading of your topic? In which I propose that because "Abstinence-only" sex education has had -effects- it must be -effective- and then I go on to outline what I think is the funniest way of looking at its effects, all the while positing a group of people who would want the effect and so who would be able to see this effect as a true success. Then I find my own argument endearing and begin kind of defending it earnest, but only really by questioning yours. So I'll answer your last questions and then try to stick one real impact by drawing out something I said earlier. - Why arent my hypothetical group trying to make culture even more sex negative? - What if they are harming their children? (implied: wouldnt that make them stop?) - Are they a fringe group? (presumably this will become a claim that we cannot legislate according to such groups concerns) 1) They are, right? Or at least, they could be. Media, teachings and practices, movie rating boards and such. Sex is pretty villified in our culture. But also, why would they need to do more to want it done at all, and advocate this kind of sexual education? 2) Nahz. If their children are sinners, then they should be hurt. But also they are probably crazily unable to believe that their children are involved in this kind of behavior and so would not have to consider that possible harm. 3) Um. Yes. But that isnt really a question that matters as to the question of "is this policy effective" unless you buy the definition of effective wherein it equals: "having created a beneficial effect as defined by the majority." So my crazy people still stand through this round, at least up til now. They are still crazy, and still doing what they wanna do, which is make sex more dangerous. Abstinence Only education does that in spades. But given that they are not -just- hypothetical crazy people, but also cariacatures of the christian right, there might be a real impact hiding around here somewhere. It's like, sex-education is entirely voluntary right, parents can sign kids out of it. Parents who are opposed to sex, who would want abstinence-only education, are more than likely going to sign their kids out of any sexual education that -isnt- abstinence only. This has two possible ramifications: 1) Kids, even in an abstinence only classroom, can still ask questions of a figure of authority, so this way they have a shot at getting -some- useful information, even if 90% of these teachers are crazy psychotic and tell them lies, its more than they would have had. 2) Kids involved in -any- sexual education are more likely to talk about sex with their peergroup than kids who arent involved in any sexual education. That means that if you buy that these kids would have NO sexual education without abstinence only, because their parents wouldn't allow them to go to a normal sex-ed classroom, then they are safer with it because it creates an environment where they can talk about. Maybe get access to information that other students have. Could this be bad information? Dunno. Maybe. But not worse than they would get not researching, not talking, and they'll be less scared. They'll have more of a shot. Crazy people like crazy things remember? So it seems like if all you can do to help kids is cater to the crazy, then that's still what you should do. It's not great, but.