Dear Log,
«"You are having oral sex, and you don't realise it's wrong. It's like eating Pringles. Once you start, you can't stop."»--"No sex please, you're American": The Bush administration is pouring millions of dollars into programmes that persuade teenagers to hold on to their virginity. And it's working.
get a lot of teenage weddings. Of course, they likely aren't going to fund marriage counseling and daycare for all the babies...or even education for that matter. But, for the unthinking who want or need to be told what to do, it's certainly a winning strategy since not having sex is an effective method of contraception.
Good thing they're not Catholic as the pope issued an encyclical a few years back telling widows [ mind not widowers ] that sex with another husband was amoral. It seems like religions go well out of their way to may sex a far more fucked up deal than it should be. It's good to be an atheist living 3500 miles from the nearest US border.
Re:I guess that's one sure way to
rafael on 2003-09-12T08:59:08
But not only. Advocating chastity as the only contraception method leads as well to delegitimize delivering information about sex to teenagers. That's a sure way to spread unwanted pregnancies, abortions and sexual diseases. And of course all this craze about sex being bad is just going to give another boost to an already too powerful porn industry. Not mentioning prostitution. Even Paul was saying that chastity can't be enforced on everyone.In most civilizations that have a rule of no-sex-before-marriage, forbidding sex is just one way to keep women under control, so they can be used as money between tribes. This explains the gender descrimination in the encyclical you quoted. And this is a rhetorical rule. Noone in France ever thought seriously it was to be followed (except by ugly old women), beginning with our kings, who were also official leaders of the gallican church. Even nowadays Jesuit missionaries distribute condoms in countries where they are needed (and they give the finger to the Pope in the purest Jesuit tradition). But the modern protestants seem to hate sex just because they love to hate sex. Go figure.
Re:I guess that's one sure way to
pudge on 2003-09-17T03:17:40
Yes, people can go too far to extremes, but consider this gem from the article: "During the last few years Planned Parenthood itself has been forced to mention abstinence as a strategy for avoiding pregnancy and disease." Oh my gosh, you mean you can avoid pregnancy and STDs by avoiding SEX? What will they think of next? I can't even imagine what kind of warped logic it takes for anyone to find it remarkable that Planned Parenthood would mention abstinence.
There is plenty of room for middle ground. It's stupid to not teach kids about sex; it's stupid to not teach them about abstinence.
I will teach "abstinence-only" to my child. That is, I will teach her that the only reasonable course of action is to save sex for marriage. However, she will also know a lot more about sex than most kids her age, who do get taught about sex at school (just as she will know a lot more about most things); she will be taught how sex works and that it's a wonderful thing, to be saved for marriage.
The problem with most "abstinence-only" education is not that it doesn't work -- as this article says, it does, to some degree -- but that when it doesn't work, the consequences may be great, when the kids are not educated about sex. And my problem with educating about sex is that it is fundamentally wrong for any adult who isn't my child's parent to teach my child about sex. Say what you want about your own kids, but your filthy little mind won't be inflicting itself on her, unless you want your filthy little ass kicked. Pervert. Ha-ha only serious.
It's not that I hate sex. It's that I don't trust other people's ideas about sex, and on this planet, the parents get to make those sorts of judgments, because they are the ones who make those sorts of judgments every day. That's what it means to be a parent. And if you think I am being unreasonable, answer this honestly: would YOU want ME teaching YOUR kids about sex? I thought not.
Re:I guess that's one sure way to
rafael on 2003-09-17T19:53:08
The problem with abstinence-only education is that it leads children to avoid speaking and asking questions to their parents, who (in an ideal world) should be the primary and only teachers and authorities for that kind of private and intimate thing. (And you seem to agree with me on this point. Schools are just an expedient.) And usually abstinence-only education means no education about sex at all. (At least that's how it works in the Catholic families in southern Europe.) And without family or schools, the worst happens : sexual education is finally deferred to the porn industry. As you say, it's stupid to not teach kids about sex. And proper education about sex of course means teaching that sex is not a frivolous thing. That implies, in my opinion, teaching that sex is not sport, that sex is not procreation, that sex is not technique, and finally that sex is much less frivolous than a legal contract. Sex implies love, which is far beyond marriage : as almost every novel written those last 25 centuries tries to prove.Re:I guess that's one sure way to
pudge on 2003-09-17T20:13:20
The problem with abstinence-only education is that it leads children to avoid speaking and asking questions to their parents
Not always, no. That is dependent on the parents.
And usually abstinence-only education means no education about sex at all.
The fault of the parents.
And I think we agree on this, but the problem is that I see no logical line from "the parents are shirking their responsibility" to "therefore the government should do it." It's the wrong direction. When people are not required to live up to their obligations because the government does it for them, then they do not. This is the case with charitable giving, sex education, and a host of other social issues the government intrudes upon.
And actually, come to think of it, I don't think abstinence-only education -- in the schools, anyway -- "leads children to avoid speaking and asking questions to their parents." I think that will be the case regardless of what the schools teach, as long as the parents are not initiating the conversation with their kids, teaching their kids. And if they are talking to their kids, then there's no need for sex education in the schools anyway.
I do agree with you about "legal contract," however, I am speaking of the religious institution of marriage more than the civil one: my child will be taught that the place of sex is between a man and a woman who are committed to each other, for life, in the eyes of God. Whether or not there is a legal contract is merely incidental to that important relationship.
And while many of the people in that article TorgoX linked to said silly things, the one thing that struck me was the girl who said society wants you to be a "whore." It's true. Casual sex, using sex to get what you want, using other people for sex, self-gratification, it's all glorified. Sex shouldn't be about any of that, it should be about -- as you say -- love, which means putting another person before yourself.
Anyway, sex is so fucked up in our society, and I just don't see passing the baton to some random teacher as any sort of a solution. With the increase in sex education, we certainly haven't seen a decrease in teenage sexual activity or pornography. The only solution is parenting, and I, for one, will take on my own responsibilty for myself, not pass it on to whomever society puts next in line.
Re:I guess that's one sure way to
mary.poppins on 2003-09-18T14:33:40
> My child will be taught that the place of sex is between a man and
> a woman who are committed to each other, for life, in the eyes of
> God.
What would happen if they were interested in humans of the same
gender? It *does* happen, you know, even to the best of families!:P
Re:I guess that's one sure way to
pudge on 2003-09-18T15:26:09
I don't understand the question.Re:I guess that's one sure way to
mary.poppins on 2003-09-18T14:40:13
> It's not that I hate sex. It's that I don't trust other people's
> ideas about sex, and on this planet, the parents get to make those
> sorts of judgments, because they are the ones who make those sorts
> of judgments every day. That's what it means to be a parent. And
> if you think I am being unreasonable, answer this honestly: would
> YOU want ME teaching YOUR kids about sex? I thought not.
The thing I find galling about the billboard is that it is exactly
what you're complaining about: someone else (the State) pushing
views about sex that I disagree with strongly.
Re:I guess that's one sure way to
pudge on 2003-09-18T15:30:05
I am not in favor of the billboard. However, the reason it exists, the reason why people push for such things, is out of reactionary tendencies to the last few decades of things swinging the other way. Simply saying the billboard is wrong doesn't do much, if anything, to solve the problem.
-Dom
Sexy Sally: "Oo, so you want to be an engineer? That's sooo sexy! Let's screw!"
Engineer Ernest: "No! I need to study! Put that thing on ice!"
Re:What's wrong with oral sex?
mary.poppins on 2003-09-18T14:42:25
"Me too."
It's my future, sex can go screw
