A study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that, despite parents attempting to curb their teenagers’ sexual appetites with abstinence pledges, no virginity is safe.

Worse yet, students who take such pledges and don virginity-protecting purity rings are less likely to use protection when they finally do take the proverbial plunge. And so, abstinence pledges are, in fact, detrimental to a teenager’s sexual health.

Oh, the irony is palpable.

The Washington Post reports:

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active -- and most do well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves or their partners?"

The takeaway from the study's findings is this: 1. Obama should use the $176 million to fund sexual education, not abstinence; 2. In the war between hormones and morals, hormones will always win.

Always.