The progressives often argue that a sex education policy focused around abstinence is unrealistic, undesirable, and ineffective, I am not here to debate this, not as such, but if we assume the progressives to be correct on this front, we must also assume that a condom focused sex education policy is unrealistic.
Indeed, the progressives argue that the reason an abstinence based sex ed policy is unrealistic is because sex is a natural human desire, which provides pleasure to those involved. People will, they argue, have sex whether sex education focuses on abstinence or not, and so, for a sex education curriculum to be functional, it must recognize this fact and to all it can to make this sex ‘safe’. There are two major reasons we usually have sex, and they are for pleasure, and for procreation (and for money but I believe this discussion requires an entry to itself, and so I will not discuss it here). The progressives argue that an abstinence first policy ignores the desire for sexual pleasure, and if they are right, so does a condom focused one.
Condoms remove close to all the pleasure from the act, thus making condom usage almost as ineffective as abstinence as a focus for sex education policy in this country, and so, I say to the doctors, nurses, and therapists who look at us with judgemental eyes when we say we don’t use condoms, you are no different to the priests and Ayatollahs who judged us in the days of old for fornication! The only difference is that the clerics of old had a meaningful moral leg to stand on, whereas you, you moral pigmies, the condom brigade, have foundations of sand!
