Dennis Prager makes a mis-step

Prager takes intellectual honesty seriously and I think he does a pretty good job, but today's discussion of the story on virginity pledges fell short of that goal. Prager read the news he wanted to see and ignored the point of the study and the intent of the article. This is what is known as a tortured reading. The concern of the study was rates of STD's are part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health funded by Centers for Disease Control. The article in the NYT spent most of its space on the rates of disease and closely related issues.

Prager is looking for social effects, not public health effects, so he is happy to see delayed sex, younger marriage, and fewer partners. However, since the question being asked was not about social effects but public health, these are extrernal issues. As a method of preventing STD's, pledges are not only worthless, since the rates are exactly the same, but actually pernicious, since pledge takers got the same number of STD's over a shorter period of time, having delayed sex, and with fewer partners. This is because they had a lower rate of preparation for sex, such as lower condom use, and engaged in less testing. Prager ignores this harm for the happy news he wanted to find from the beginning.

As I have argued earlier, the best policy is a true synthesis in which the practice of safe sex and the benefits of delayed sexual activity were both taught is superior. Unfortunately, no one wants both. Pro-chastity people might give lip service to safe sex but emphasize chastity, and the safe-sex people vise versa. Why is it impossible to say, don't have sex until you are married, and here is how as a married person you can prevent pregnancy until you are ready to have a child, and in the event that you give in to temptation, it prevents STD's too. Isn't two lines of defense better than one? Why is this idea so rejected by both sides?

I do know, its because neither side wants to admit the other has a point. Just as Prager refused to admit that the purpose of the NYT and AP articles were that despite the pledges, there is no better record on STD's than among other students. And all of this while patting himself on the back for looking at both sides.