Abstinence-only sex education, much favoured by the Bush administration, doesn’t work:
WASHINGTON — Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.
Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students _ 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.
Officials said one lesson they learned from the study is that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years to truly affect behavior.
Yes, that’s certainly the obvious lesson. Is there any non-religious reason to think that casual, safe sex is a bad thing? Other than the obvious problems with ‘safe’?
Closer to home, a ‘sex theme park’ will open in London later this year. It has, disappointingly, ‘no rides’. Not even a bouncy castle. Or a carousel. Or a log flume. It does, however, include plenty of attractions designed to get you in trouble:
The theme park will include life-sized silicone-made models [?] which visitors can touch to discover erogenous zones.
People will also be able to build their ideal partner from a series of body parts
The aim of the park is to “give you all the information you need to become a fantastic lover”. I think letting already-attached men build their ideal partner might guarantee them no sex for a long time.
And, since we’re on the subject (kinda):
Not really all that safe for work.