The ninth annual Sperling Sexual Health Report Card survey was recently released.

According to Sperling’s website, the survey “is an annual ranking of the sexual health resources and information available to students nationwide.”

Sperling surveyed 140 campuses covering every state and the District of Columbia.

Their primary focus seems to be the student health center on each campus, and the center’s services are evaluated based on 11 different categories, including hours of operation, contraceptive and condom availability [free or at a cost], HIV/STD testing and sexual assault programs, among other factors.

The study was sponsored by Trojan Condoms [surprise, surprise]. Trojan’s group product manager stated that the report card “has been a great way to identify schools that provide their students with access to the best sexual health resources.”

Left unsaid was the marketing information and publicity windfall for Trojan. For the record, our university came in at 80 out of 140 for 2014. For 2013 and 2012, we ranked 70th and 69th, respectively.

However, leaving aside the vested interest Trojan Condoms has in funding the study, a deeper analysis might be in order.

First, the existence of drop-in appointments is probably important, as well as the existence of sexual assault programs. Sexual assault is a problem on American college campuses, despite the wildly inflated number of 20 percent purporting to represent the estimated percentage of college women who are sexually assaulted.

A combination of young people out on their own for the first time with hormones run amuck and the presence of alcohol or drugs make for a toxic brew.

Second, providing condoms or birth control medications is not the logical next step. Sandra Fluke notwithstanding, these are not entitlements.

It’s difficult to justify a university incurring an expense as a consequence of a voluntary student decision [male or female] to become or remain sexually active.

Some will object to this, maintaining that it’s a “personal” decision and that people have the “right” to be sexually active if they desire.

The response: it is indeed a “personal” decision between partners and a third party should not be compelled to become involved in this “personal” decision between adults.

And the alleged “right” to be sexually active does not confer a corresponding obligation on any third party to incur costs to facilitate or promote it or alter any consequences of that “personal” decision.

Regarding rights: we have the right of free speech, but are not entitled to be provided with bullhorns, markers and poster paper for our next demonstration. Freedom of the press does not entitle us to a printing press or broadcast station at no charge.

All of this, however, dances around the central issue, the 900-pound gorilla in the room: sexual activity [except in cases of assault] is purely voluntary. And because it’s voluntary, there are alternatives.

There is a proven method for substantially decreasing the number of transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and sexual assaults. This method obviates the need for contraceptive devices and drugs, as well as their side effects.

This method has no side effects and no downside — except perhaps to Trojan Condoms. None dare speak its name, however, for fear of being accused of possessing obsolete morals or being labeled “repressed.”

The name of this method begins with the letter “A.”