Here's a nice and stupid headline:
Yeah, they do. How does this idea get published? Not doing something results in more of the activity? Try it sometime. See how many chicks you get preggers when you don't have sex with them. I'm interested.
Of course a program doesn't work if people aren't sticking with it. It's not the program's fault. Do these social scientists blame the treadmill for not being trod upon when someone is obese?
The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."
Oy vey! The elusiveness of simplicity. When you give people something for free, they will use more of it. And the more people engage in an activity, the better the odds that something will go awry.
Think of sex as donut holes instead. If the newspaper said, "People eating less holes," you'd rightly conclude that the culprit for this was abstinence from eating donut holes.
And if some expert said, "Well, the reason people are eating less holes is because the government is giving them free liposuction," you'd think him batshit.
Abstinence works. Ya just gotta do it. Or not do it...whatever.