...okay? Would this be abstinence-only or just adding abstinence to a list of other options? Your translation makes it sound like the latter, which doesn't strike me as weird at all, especially in a curriculum where people learn how to use a condom at ten.
Because abstinence isn't a contraception method?
Is not driving a car safety feature?
Where I come from, sex ed classes teach many things that don't fall under the category "contraception method," such as the right to say no to unwanted sexual advances, the physical changes of puberty, and symptoms and treatments for common STDs. The fact that not having sex is an option for the most prudent and/or morally conservative among us seems like a fairly natural outgrowth of the first of these things, does it not?
I agree with not wanting to teach abstinence as the only possibility, and understand not wanting to moralize by teaching it as the most desirable possibility. But why the hell would anybody object to teaching it as a possibility, unless they were just trying to unthinkingly rack up culture war points at all costs? What exactly are people afraid of? Is the concern that Albert Mohler has put a Taboo from Harry Potter on the word "abstinence," such that if you say it in a health class he'll materialize in Portugal and whisk you away to a Baptist summer camp in 2004?
Well, in my sex ed course, years ago, they asked us to name contraception methods, I named abstinence and the nurse explodedm saying it's not valid since, in the heat of the moment, things happen anyways and is inefficient unless you have iron will, which is usually not the case of teenagers.
Then, that nurse said later than everyone tries having sex with both genders and then choose afterwards, so, I wouldn't trust her judgement 100%.
