> Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect [...] Sorry, I had assumed it as an idiom without establishing a sha

> Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect [...] Sorry, I had assumed it as an idiom without establishing a shared lexicon. I mean, an effect so small as to only possibly be significant via an appeal to the butterfly effect. As in, ultimately we can't rule out that assassinating Hitler when he was a teen would have caused the sun to go supernova, because X, but it's vanishingly unlikely. > I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior [...] Sure, this can always happen. We always need to have our eye on the metric (the 21st century "ball"). But unless you've actually got a good argument for why it's likely that this program will go wrong, you're more likely to cause harm by kvetching than by letting change happen. > [...] as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs [...] Sure, if the alternative is emulating reality shows then anything, including _Catholic Hour in the Nursery_ would probably be better. Thankfully we don't live in a black and white world. And of course any classes should include a huge dose of self-esteem and other training supporting the right/desire to say "No", but when a couple want to have sex do we really want to punish their offspring? Sins of the father? Srs? Or do you really deny the plight of the unwanted/required (high death-rate) child? TL;DR What I'm saying is that we know people will have sex despite it being wise. (Do you really require a cite? If so, list the keywords you've searched and I'll help you use the internet.) So when they do, though we may wish/help to delay that a while, lets help them do so safely when they inevitable do.