I never said they did. I said that the unintended message from the program was that promiscuity was acceptable, and not taboo. They are two different things.
You are working with a strawman mischaracterization of my argument.
Actually, I was simply giving you my point of reference.
My point is irrelevant to that background. It is rather simple to see how kids will react in this situation, if you are objective and honest.
This article touches on some relevant facts...
For decades, "sex education" has been sold as a way to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal disease. But incessant repetition is not a rational argument, whether for "sex education" or for generic "change."
Before propaganda against traditional values regarding sex was introduced into the public school under the label of "sex education" in the 1960s, both teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years.
In 1960 the rate of infection for syphilis, for example, was only half of what it had been in 1950.
But teenage pregnancy and venereal disease were pictured as the problems for which "sex education" was the solution. In reality, the long downward trend in both not only ended, but rose dramatically, after new attitudes toward sex were promoted in the schools under the guise of educating students.
There are the result of ignoring any potential unintended consequences and basing change on soley good intentions and wishful thinking; a dramatic rising of both teen pregnancy and VD.
And make no mistake, that is what you are doing. You are trying to ignore the potential negatives and focus only on the good intentions and the rosy picture they create. Then you work to marginalize those who don't buy into your wishful thinking. Changed based in that kind of thinking is reckless, and leads to negatives consequences.
