Why did the rates of sex go up remarkably after abstinence ed was introduced for just a short time?  Fact is, MTV has been there for a long time.  Did it suddenly get worse when abstinence-only-ed was introduced in Texas?  

I tend to think all "directed video" is bad for kids, not just MTV, and not because of it's sexual nature.  It is damaging to  developing minds when they are shown where to look and what to look at for hour after hour.  

So, I agree with you about MTV, strangely enough, but not for the reason you are giving.  I'd say the same kind of harm comes from "Lassie" or the "Andy Griffith Show," but perhaps intensified with MTV due to the use of the quick cut.  Our nation is now in the clutches of several successive generations damaged by television, the latest generation being the worst.

/Zin    

... after all, we didn't turn out so bad (I think).

Party of Larry Flynt?  Does "Hustler" even have sales these days?  I think those sales have already gone down with the advent of the internet, which is why Flynt has spanned out into clubs, which definitely don't have teens wacking off to them.  I might be wrong, but I dont' think those magazines ever made money from the teen market, the teens and pre-teens just found their uncle's cache of magazines.  

Abstinence education makes as much sense as having a drivers ed class where for the whole thing, you tell teenagers, "Don't go near cars.  Think of a better way to travel.  Like a bus, or a train or walking.  Besides, why do you want to travel to begin with?"  In fact, that makes more sense than abstinence education because cars are far more deadly and crippling.

Or, how about math education, where we tell kids to do things instead of math?  In what other endeavor, in what other subject, is this approach even acceptable?   If you want to get from point A to point B, how would you see it if I told you, "Why do you want to go to point B?  Go to point C instead, you don't need to be there."  You'd feel like you're being snowed and manipulated,  right, which is probably the way teenagers in Texas feel right now.  Abstincence-only will work only if the punch line to that joke is true: that teenagers don't know the difference between a hamburger and a blow job.  If they want a BJ, tell them to have a hamburger instead.  That works until they really want the blow job, and aren't just asking about it curiously.

In what other human drive is this manipulative striving toward anorexia considered something good?

Now, there's one good message to abstinence, and that is that one should never consent to sex, at least not early on, unless they themselves want it.  They should never do it, at least as a teen, just because their partners do.  That, however, hardly covers the topic-- it isn't enough for a whole sex-ed class.    

How about times when they want to have sex, but don't have the knowledge to do it safely, or the knowledge to get proper treatment in the aftermath?

I.e. lots of pregnant teenagers, and rampant V.D. among them.   Which leads to poorly raised kids, and/or abortions.  Sex education, when done correctly, is designed to REDUCE pregnancies and V.D.  There is no other reason for it.  I agree that other political agendas are inappropriate.  But, it is sheer idiocy to assume that teaching nothing means kids won't have sex.  They will, only it will be unsafe sex.  The desire to get rid of sex-ed has always been based on ill-informed denial among the religious right that their kids wouldn't have sex if they were kept ignorant.  But that has NEVER been supported by the evidence.