Dispatches from the Culture Wars

This will only make way for the next political fad: abstinence-only firearms education.

Posted by: Jason Failes | September 10, 2008 10:05 AM

I don't remember where I read it, but I almost fell down laughing when someone brought up abstinence only driving education:
Just Don't Crash.
Don't ask about seat belts, they will encourage crashing. And give you STDs (which are seatbelt transmitted diseases, of course)

Posted by: Chris Anderson | September 10, 2008 10:21 AM

When I read the title, I though this post was going to be a Brayton home-made porn video ;-).

Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 10, 2008 10:46 AM

This is a big mistake.
Abstinence only education is working just fine for them,
because this is not about minimizing damage from unwanted pregnancies, this is about maximizing it,
just think about it.
If you want that teenagers don't have sex at all, what are you going to do ? to tell them ? They would not listen.
The only way to achieve it is sexual apartheid like in saudi arabia.
but something as extreme as that is justifiable only by making the other alternative even more extreme.
So, the more harm is done by unwanted pregnancies the better.
just prohibit or prevent all other means to reduce them, and make their consequences as bad as possible, and then present the sexual apartheid as the only solution ( or "solution" ).
For sure, they don't consciously want to do this, but they are instinctively pushing towards reduction of reproductive freedom and sexual apartheid is just a couple steps in that direction.
And it is a pretty big attractor in the control freakism phase space, so they would settle for it after a few iterations. Just like almost all patriarchal societies did.

sorry for the rant

Posted by: T_U_T | September 10, 2008 11:15 AM

6:7 chance?

I see you are experienced in the pleasures of aural sex.

Posted by: Jason Failes | September 10, 2008 11:46 AM

My understanding is the study simply showed that abstinence-only sex education is not statistically different from other sex education. That means it wasn't worse, either.

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp

Now, on to the op-ed.
"Denmark's teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours". So, obviously, relative to the U.S., a larger fraction of teens are using abortion as birth control. The author will not convince any socially conservative people that Denmark is worth emulating.

It seems that the data show that the teen sex and pregnancy rate is driven by cultural factors other than sex education.

Posted by: delurking | September 10, 2008 12:09 PM

That should be "Off the convention stage."

Posted by: Julian | September 10, 2008 12:23 PM

"Denmark's teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours". So, obviously, relative to the U.S., a larger fraction of teens are using abortion as birth control.

What the heck? It's the opposite, if their abortion rate is HALF of the US's.

Perhaps you meant that of those Danish teens that get pregnant, a larger fraction choose abortion than their counterparts in the US.

Posted by: windy | September 10, 2008 12:48 PM

"Denmark's teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours". So, obviously, relative to the U.S., a larger fraction of teens are using abortion as birth control.

Not at all. Birthrate is not the percentage of pregnant teens who carry to term. It's the percent of teens who give birth. As condoms, pills, etc. prevent people from getting pregnant in the first place they also reduce the birthrate. So there's no direct relationship and your claim is not supported.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 10, 2008 1:03 PM

They don't want to reduce teenage pregnancy, they want to increase it.

Basically they want to punish teens for having sex, by ensuring that sex has serious consequences for teenagers, either from pregnancy an STD or both. This is why they're opposed to abortions, birth control, and the HPV vaccine. They just can't bear the thought of vaccinated teens using condoms and the Pill to have pleasurable sexual experiences -- especially girls.

Posted by: Chayanov | September 10, 2008 1:38 PM

Re: windy and Abby Normal

Abby's description of the variables is correct: Birth rate is the percentage of all teens who give birth, and abortion rate is the percentage of all teens who have abortions. Now, obviously only teens who get pregnant either give birth or have abortions. So, when looking at the percentage of pregnant teens who have abortions, it is higher in Denmark than in the US (assuming the quoted numbers are correct). We certainly need more info to conclude how much higher, but there is no way given the quoted data that it can be lower. You won't convince people who believe that abortion = the killing of a human being that Denmark is to be emulated.

Anyway, everyone has ignored my main points, which were that the referenced US study about abstinence education simply points out that it had the same effectiveness as other sex education; and that it is likely that other cultural factors are far more important than the details of sex education.

Posted by: delurking | September 10, 2008 2:29 PM

Now, obviously only teens who get pregnant either give birth or have abortions. So, when looking at the percentage of pregnant teens who have abortions, it is higher in Denmark than in the US (assuming the quoted numbers are correct).

Yes, that's what I and Abby said already.

You won't convince people who believe that abortion = the killing of a human being that Denmark is to be emulated.

Uh, if abortion kills human beings, Denmark kills a lot less human beings!

And the original article was not about emulating Denmark in the abortion rate, but emulating Denmark in preventing teens from getting pregnant in the first place.

Posted by: windy | September 10, 2008 2:44 PM

Ah I see where you're coming from delurker. You're saying that if the Denmark teen pregnancy rate is many times lower but the abortion rate is only half the US rate, then many more of those pregnancies that do occur end in abortion. But the abortion rate is only looking at pregnancies. In Denmark half the number of teens who get pregnant decide to abort as the US. If you look at the abortion rate as total number of teen who choose to abort Denmark is about 15% of the US (27.5 per thousand teens in the US verses 4.2 per thousand in Denmark.)

As to your main point about abstinence only being equivalent in effectiveness to other sex ed option, as Shygetz points out it equivalent to no sex ed, not to other programs.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 10, 2008 3:24 PM

windy wrote:
"Yes, that's what I and Abby said already."
That is what you said, but not what Abby said. I didn't understand your first two sentences at all, but I just let them slide. After your subsequent comments, I think the confusion arose because you think that having an abortion in order not to give birth is not "birth control".

windy wrote:
"And the original article was not about emulating Denmark in the abortion rate, but emulating Denmark in preventing teens from getting pregnant in the first place."

And I commented that his line of reasoning was not going to convince socially conservative people. Girls in Denmark are more sexually active than girls in the US, and when they get pregnant they are more likely to have abortions. Social conservatives do not embrace an "ends justify the means" approach, so emulating Denmark by increasing the fraction of girls who have sex and the fraction of pregnancies that end in abortion will be rejected, even if it results in a smaller total number of abortions.

I think the op-ed author is off the mark. It is not sex education that is driving these differences, it is other societal differences. He almost gets there in his last paragraph, where he says we can't talk about sex without giggling.

Shygetz wrote the typical "you should read the study" line that always shows up. From the study:

"Two of the programs—ReCapturing the
Vision and FUPTP—operated in communities with a rich set of health, family
life, and sex education services available through the public schools, while the
remaining two programs operated in schools with limited services as part of
their existing school curricula."

and:

"Findings for each of the four individual sites indicate few statistically significant
differences in behavior between program and control group youth. In each site, most
differences between youth in the program and control groups were small"

Posted by: delurking | September 10, 2008 3:43 PM

Bill in NC wrote:

...it's intellectually dishonest to assume that you can have a completely value free sex ed.

This is utter nonsense. Teaching the factual/technical aspects of sex has nothing to do with values, just as teaching someone how to use a gun has nothing to do with the morality of using it. Do you not agree that you can teach a kid HOW to use a gun without taking a stand on WHO it's okay to shoot? It's perfectly obvious that either one can be taught without the other. And the same is true of sex, and any other subject one might teach one's children.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2008 3:57 PM

@delurking:

If I and my partner use a condom, and it breaks and my partner gets pregnant, and then she has an abortion, are you claiming that she did not use abortion as birth control?

No. I am assuming in, your favour perhaps, that everyone who has an abortion, Danish or American, is using it as birth control. It's not a relevant point. The relevant point is that the proportion of sexually-active American teenagers using abortion as a method of birth control is many multiples of the proportion of Danes doing so.

Posted by: Robin Levett | September 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Raging Bee wrote, "Teaching the factual/technical aspects of sex has nothing to do with values, just as teaching someone how to use a gun has nothing to do with the morality of using it. Do you not agree that you can teach a kid HOW to use a gun without taking a stand on WHO it's okay to shoot?"

No, because a gun by it's very nature is a device that cannot be used without a moral context. Why do you think people are so passionate about gun control? Both pacifists and the NRA would take exception to the idea of presenting guns as a matter of mere mechanics. You wouldn't teach kids how to safely use matches then make the question whether to light alter candles or crack pipes an option?

People cannot act on their sexuality without a moral context regardless of whether they're being celibate or promiscious or somewhere inbetween. The idea that you can reduce firearms to mechanics or sexuality to biological plumbing makes their use an open ended question.

Posted by: Bill in NC | September 10, 2008 5:17 PM

No, because a gun by it's very nature is a device that cannot be used without a moral context...People cannot act on their sexuality without a moral context regardless of whether they're being celibate or promiscious or somewhere inbetween.

No more so than any other tool or action. If it is true of a gun, it's true of a golf club. If it's true of sex, it's true of blowing your nose. If you want to argue that no one can blow their nose without a moral context, fine, I can live with that. But if you suggest that sex is inherently a more morally weighty act than blowing your nose, you'll have to back that assertion up.

Both pacifists and the NRA would take exception to the idea of presenting guns as a matter of mere mechanics.

And their indignation, whether real or in your imagination, does not change the fact that it can be done.

You wouldn't teach kids how to safely use matches then make the question whether to light alter candles or crack pipes an option?

Yes, I would, especially if I knew someone else would be addressing the subject of drugs. In fact, I would be willing to bet you that most people in the world learned how to use matches independent of learning about crack.

Knowledge of the natural world is morally neutral, and sex is part of the natural world. Perhaps you mean to say that one should not divorce sex education from morality, but you wrote that one could not, which is false (at least, is no more true of sex than any other subject).

Posted by: Shygetz | September 10, 2008 6:23 PM

Bill in NC -

The idea that you can reduce firearms to mechanics or sexuality to biological plumbing makes their use an open ended question.

But this is exactly the point. It is taking the doit/don't doit issue out of play, which is essential to making sure that if they actually do it, they will do so safely. The use of the tools should be left open ended, what's important is making sure that kids have the tools to make sure that whether they choose to do it or not, they will know how to do it safely.

And for the record, I would go ballistic if my son's teacher told him that having the sex is bad. Sorry, but I just don't believe that and take issue with the notion that it's the schools job to impose some ambiguous moral frame on my child (not that I have to worry about that yet, my oldest is six).

Besides, talking about condoms and why they are so important can be a huge turn-off for a lot of kids, if it's done right. Talking about HIV/AIDS, or better, bringing in speakers who actually have tested positive, is a hell of a way to promote abstinence. A dear friend of mine does just that and it really hits home when he mentions the importance of adult diapers to someone on HIV drugs.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 10, 2008 6:41 PM

The responses to my posts acknowledge that sex has a moral component, even if it is unspoken. I'm not saying that measures shouldn't be taken to prevent teen pregnancies and std's, but sex education cannnot escape a moral component. I know it's tautological but saying that there is no moral component to a human activity is still saying that there is a moral component. To declare a human activity to irrelevent and superflous is still making a moral assessment.

Shygetz wrote "If it is true of a gun, it's true of a golf club."

The lethal potential of golf clubs, kitchen utensils, motor cars, etc. does give them a moral context. But we normally don't think about it unless someone has converted them into a weapon or has used them incompetently. A gun is a weapon so the moral component is more evident.

"Perhaps you mean to say that one should not divorce sex education from morality"

No, I'm saying you cannot divorce human sexuality from morality.

"But if you suggest that sex is inherently a more morally weighty act than blowing your nose, you'll have to back that assertion up."

Let's see... stds, broken hearts, unwanted prenancies. I'm not calling for a return to the 1950s, but sex isn't always inconsequential.

DuWayne wrote,"And for the record, I would go ballistic if my son's teacher told him that having the sex is bad. Sorry, but I just don't believe that and take issue with the notion that it's the schools job to impose some ambiguous moral frame on my child"

And some other kid's parent would go ballistic if the teacher said premarital sex was acceptable. I agree that it's not the schools' job to impose an "ambigious moral frame" but that includes any moral frame.

Leni wrote, "if we wish to focus on other aspects of life besides morality- like health and safety"

Health and safety is morality. Why do people desire health and safety? Because of moral considerations. When health and safety are neglected it is usually considered unethical. Such as greedy cost cutting leading to shoddy construction that endangers people. What you're really saying is that avoiding std's is more important than premarital chastity. Which is fine, except that it's still as much a moral consideration as the promoting abstinance. I just think it should be acknowledged as such. Which is what I meant when I said that the religious right has a point.

Posted by: Bill in NC | September 10, 2008 8:36 PM

Both pacifists and the NRA would take exception to the idea of presenting guns as a matter of mere mechanics.

I'm quite sure NEITHER would take exception to idea of teaching people how to handle guns safely -- a good thing to learn regardless of whether or not a gun makes sense in a given situation.

You wouldn't teach kids how to safely use matches then make the question whether to light alter candles or crack pipes an option?

Actually, I learned how to safely use matches before I even knew what altar caldles or crack pipes were. The mechanics and the morality are both necessary, but they can be, and very often are, learned separately. Also, in drivers-ed, students are not commonly asked WHY they want to learn to drive, or told what errands they may or may not do with a car; that's not the instructors' job.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2008 10:28 PM

And remember folks: schools don't impregnate people, people impregnate people.

Posted by: Mandy | September 10, 2008 11:04 PM

After all the comments flowing back and forth up there, all I can say is Wow! Finally, somebody has gathered up the courage, in a very public place(the New York Times) to say what really needed to be said a long time ago --- abstinence only education sucks! And teens need to be given enough information to make reasonable and intelligent decisions about these things!
Anne G

Posted by: Anne Gilbert | September 11, 2008 1:03 AM

When my daughters reach 15, I want them to be able to make that decision, with knowledge of what they are agreeing to, how to protect themselves, and how it all (physically) works. What I do not want is for them to be conned into it with little understanding of the mechanics or consequences, or the boy being able to convince them with myths such as "just once won't matter", "you can't get pregnant your first time", "if I pull out, it's not really sex", etc. Nor do I want them getting carried away and ignorantly following instinct, without understanding that this leads to pregnancy and STDs, and that there is a safe way, and a not safe way. Also, if they choose absinence, I want it to be because they're being picky about who, not because sex has been made out to be this fearsome thing, to be avoided, and not because it's the only way they know of to not get pregnant.

Posted by: eleanora | September 11, 2008 3:54 AM

However, this was the basic method I used on my nephew

mroberts - probably typing the bit about fucking teenage girls with one hand and furiously masturbating with the other. The salacious glee with which abstinence types describe this sort of behaviour never fails to make me chuckle.

Posted by: Matthew | September 11, 2008 6:31 AM

So Anne, you would have no problem with your own 15-year-old daughter sleeping with a 17-year-old boy? After all, its her decision, right?

Yes, it's her decision because you can't watch her 24/7. Hypothetically, if you were the parent, even if you absolutely forbid her to have sex, or even to date, it's still her choice as to whether or not to follow your rules. You can influence her with things like punishment, heart-to-heart talks, your example, etc. But it's nearly impossible to take away her ability to make that choice.

Studies show that the most effective way to positively influence that choice is treat our young men and women with respect. If you want them to be trustworthy, you must show them trust. If you want them to act responsibly you must give them the tools they need to make responsible decisions. Giving them the facts about sex helps build that trust and the foundations they need to make good decisions.

At that age people are developing independent identities while also trying to find where they fit into world. That identity and position is strongly influenced by how they are treated. By treating them as children, incapable of making decisions for themselves, they will tend to think of themselves the same way and act accordingly. Refusing to give them the facts about sex sends a strong message that they're not trustworthy or capable of making good decisions.

By treating them as responsible decision makers, they will tend to see themselves a responsible decision makers and try to live up to that instead. You are helping them to build a positive self-image, confidence, and a sense of autonomy. You are empowering them. Particularly for young women, this is exactly what they need to fight peer pressure and counter the desperate need for acceptance and validation that drives too many teens to seek it through sex. Whether or not one thinks it's appropriate for teens to be having sex with each other, I think just about everyone can agree that doing it for acceptance is the wrong reason.

Or you could look at it this way. If you deny her the validation she craves, bet that some boy will gladly give it too her instead. At that point which of you do you think becomes more influential on her decision making?

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 11, 2008 9:54 AM

Whether or not one thinks it's appropriate for teens to be having sex with each other, I think just about everyone can agree that doing it for acceptance is the wrong reason.

Actually, this is where my beef on this with you all hinges. It seems that far too many that lean to the left on this issue have no issue with teenagers sleeping around. In previous arguments with people I've discovered that their main point of disagreement with me was that they thought my view was stuffy and prude. It didn't matter whether it made sense or not, it was prude, therefore to be rejected.

So, do you think it is appropriate for teenagers to be sexually active? Do you have an issue with it?

Posted by: mroberts | September 11, 2008 10:02 AM

Mroberts wrote:

It seems that far too many that lean to the left on this issue have no issue with teenagers sleeping around.

Aha, this old canard. Look, mroberts, educating teens about sex with comprehensive sex education is not the same thing as encouraging them to have sex, much less have sex promiscuously. For one thing, an older teenager having protected sex responsibly and monogamously with his or her steady SO is not "sleeping around". Being promiscuous is a bad idea for anyone, teenager or adult, married or single.

But accepting the idea of one's teenage son or daughter having sex is not the same thing as teaching or even accepting the idea of one's teenage son or daughter being promiscuous. Part of good sex education, IMHO, is teaching the dangers and futility of sleeping around indiscriminately, with strangers or people one does not have an emotional bond with, and without using protection against pregnancy or disease.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 10:43 AM

So, do you think it is appropriate for teenagers to be sexually active? Do you have an issue with it?

My entire point is that the question is irrelevant to whether or not comprehensive sex education is a good idea. It's none of my business whether someone chooses to view sex as legitimate only in marriage, only in a loving relationship, or in a "free love" way. It's a family matter and my personal opinion is irrelevant. Nor is it appropriate for government educators to offer such opinions. But comprehensive sex ed supports all those views for the reasons I just gave.

I would also add that demystifying the subject by teaching the facts often makes teens more likely to listen to any moral advice their parents might offer. Apart from the trust, responsibility, self-image issues I talked about, it helps teens to see adults as credible sources of information on the topic rather than clueless obstacles that must be circumvented. Sex before marriage can be taboo, but making talking about it taboo as well serves no one.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 11, 2008 11:15 AM

In response to Anne, who said:

And teens need to be given enough information to make reasonable and intelligent decisions about these things!

mroberts blithered:

So Anne, you would have no problem with your own 15-year-old daughter sleeping with a 17-year-old boy? After all, its her decision, right?

I'm going to pass over the fact that this is a complete non-sequitur, and instead belabor the obvious: Unlike babies and small children, teenagers cannot be monitored or controlled 24/7. Whatever we tell them, whatever prohibitions we shout in their ears, however repeatedly we shout them, sooner or later they will find themselves in a position where they are uncontrolled and free to make their own decisions. That's what growing up is about, and it's unavoidable. IF you don't give your kids the information they need to make the RIGHT decisions when such circumstances arise, then you have been derelict in your duties as a parent. This is the logic we apply when teaching our kids about EVERY OTHER SUBJECT, from guns to driving to drugs to personal finance; so why do we not apply it to sex as well?

Besides, if you can't trust to make the right decisions WITH an education, how would NOT giving them an education make them more trustworthy?

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2008 11:25 AM

It seems that far too many that lean to the left on this issue have no issue with teenagers sleeping around.

This is utter disgraceful slanderous bullshit. All over America, and the world, there are plenty of parents who "lean to the left on this issue" who have LOTS of problems with teenagers sleeping around. They've found that explaining the problems to their kids, along with all the other facts they'll need to stay out of trouble, in an honest, explicit, complete and helpful way, helps them stay out of disasterous situations.

(BTW, unlike you, we recognize there's a difference between forming relationships and "sleeping around." Not all teen sex-related activity is "sleeping around.")

The fact that mroberts could say something so lazy, stupid and insulting, after repeatedly being informed of the facts, proves he's unwilling, if not unable, to discuss this issue in adult fashion. Whassamatter, boy, hormones getting out of control? You sure do get excited and loopy every time sex is mentioned.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2008 11:40 AM

Just because of the potential exposure to diseases like herpes, etc., especially with people you don't know very well, and the fact that men and women report that sex is more satisfying with a partner with whom there is an emotional bond, I would recommend that any child of mine avoid casual sex.

That sounds fine. But I think language like "bad idea for anyone" is a bit hyperbolic. A lot of non-sexual activities are risky (like motorcycling and horseback riding) but you rarely hear that they should be discouraged altogether. I would recommend that any child of mine avoids riding a motorcycle, though, at least until they get a bit older :)

Posted by: windy | September 11, 2008 12:31 PM

I could not imagine handing a decision like that off to them with no input from me.

So, do you think it is appropriate for teenagers to be sexually active? Do you have an issue with it?

Your question is moot. A high percentage of youngsters will engage in premarital sex, regardless of your input. How much do you think your input will matter when faced with raging hormones?

Posted by: Genuinely Doug | September 11, 2008 12:53 PM

Didn't Sarah Palin's daughter have sex (and get pregnant) before she was a married adult? As Saint Ronnie of Alzheimer's said "there is a word for this: 'promiscuity'". Moral relativity anyone? -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2008 1:24 PM

As Adrienne and others have indirectly pointed out, school is only one source of information about sex ed.

While kids are learning this in school (and in my ancient experience as a public school student in the 60's and 70's, parents always knew when sex ed was being taught) is when parents need to give their input as well.

When I was being taught sex ed as a part of health class in H.S. my mom sat me down and gave me the speech that started with "I know you're learning about sex in health class; here's how I feel about the why's and who's and where's and when's of sex..."

Sure, it was awkward and unpleasant for both of us, but it let me know that I could come to my mom with concerns and questions and that I had her support.

School and home are still only two sources of sex education; there are also peers, books, popular culture and others which are maybe not so factual or in line with some families' values, so the information coming from school and home really need to be on the mark.

Posted by: twincats | September 11, 2008 1:46 PM

mroberts wrote:

Sounds a little risky, does it not? Guttmacher reports that 1 in 4 teens has an STD. You honestly would have no problem with your daughter engaging in something that carries a 1 in 4 risk that could lead to disease - many of which are incurable and/or lead to sterility? Let's not forget that condoms are not guaranteed protection.

Life is risky, mroberts. Driving a car is also risky for teens-- probably riskier than having sex, actually--but I haven't heard of parents asking their teens to wear the equivalent of "purity rings" to signify the desire to remain abstinent from driving automobiles until marriage or even just adulthood.

I'd prefer that my 15 yr old daughter (or son) not engage in sexual intercourse for two or three years, at least, until some more emotional maturity were in place. But I'd make sure that said teen also had all of the information needed to make an informed decision, including the risks involved. I'd also make sure that he/she knew that besides sexual intercourse and oral intercourse, there were other ways to express sexuality by oneself or with a partner (such as mutual masturbation) which carry a much lower disease risk than coition.

And besides HIV/AIDS and herpes, what exactly are the "many other" incurable STDs? Gonnorhea, chlamydia, and PID can lead to sterility if not treated, but these are eminently treatable diseases if caught early. I'd make sure my daughter felt comfortable to come to me for help if she happened to contract any of these. I'd also make sure that while under my care she had regular OB-GYN appointments and checkups.

By the way, when did this discussion become just about daughters? Please don't tell me that you share the Christian Right's unhealthy fixation on the alleged "purity" of teen girls.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 2:25 PM

Sounds a little risky, does it not?

Not if the kids who do it have a solid body of good information on how to stay out of trouble. When I was in high school -- those hedonistic '70s -- I knew lots of other students who were engaging in some sort of intimate relationship and/or sexual activity; very few of them got pregnant, and very few others got involved with guys who seemed (to me at least) creepy and untrustworthy. Also, listening to other teens talking at the time, I got a strong impression that they knew a bad idea or potential partner when they saw one, and had little trouble seeing and avoiding danger.

Besides, mroberts, why do you insist on acting as if sex were the only "risky" thing we had to deal with? If you'd just stop obsessing on the sex and think for a minute, you'd know that teens have other dangers to deal with as well. Then maybe you'd ask yourself how best to deal with THOSE dangers. Then maybe you'd have a more sensible idea how to handle the dangers of sex. It's all been pointed out to you before, right here, and all you can do is repeat the same old scare-lines to express the same old hangups.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2008 2:31 PM

Besides, mroberts, why do you insist on acting as if sex were the only "risky" thing we had to deal with? If you'd just stop obsessing on the sex and think for a minute, you'd know that teens have other dangers to deal with as well.

You're right, so why heap on a 1 in 4 chance of getting an STD, Bee? Seriously, why do you have a problem with telling a teen NO to sex until marriage? Answer this question for me.

Then maybe you'd ask yourself how best to deal with THOSE dangers. Then maybe you'd have a more sensible idea how to handle the dangers of sex

I do. It's "NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE". Seems to me the best way to handle the dangers of sex is to tell kids not to engage in it until they are married. What is the harm in that, Bee?

Posted by: mroberts | September 11, 2008 2:36 PM

Life is risky, period. There are all sorts of things we do on a daily basis that involve risk: cooking, driving, taking showers (don't slip in the tub!). Getting married is risky: one's spouse could cheat; the marriage could fail. Heck, even having sex with one's spouse confers risk. You might be monogamous, but what about your spouse? I know of a few women who contracted STDs from their cheatin' husbands. I'm sure the reverse happens too; I just have personally happened to hear about husband-to-wife transmissions.

All straw men. Still doesn't change the fact that the most responsible course for a teenager that is not capable of making good decisions to stay away from engaging in activities that could seriously impact their lives in a negative way. For some reason, people that think like you cannot bring themselves to tell kids they are not to engage in sexual behavior. I honestly cannot fathom that. If I told my child that they could engage in sex and they caught an incurable disease, I would never be able to forgive myself. Sorry, but that is bad parenting in my view. Sorry if that sounds too judgmental or intolerant.

Posted by: mroberts | September 11, 2008 2:45 PM

I have never advocated no education.

Then why is it that every time one of us DOES advocate complete and explicit sex-ed, you always react by accusing us of encouraging kids to "sleep around?" What, exactly, are we to make of such illogical knee-jerk responses? If you don't advocate no education, then what, exactly, DO you advocate?

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2008 2:55 PM

I have no such issue at all, as I already explained. You made a very incorrect inference and are perpetuating your error here. What I abhor is the 1) pressuring teens to swear to remain abstinent until MARRIAGE, which presupposes marriage is the only permissible state in which to express sexuality;

Pressuring? Don't you "pressure" your teens to obey your other rules? Or is your policy to tell them not to do something, then how to be safe just in case they decide to do it? Or better yet, let them make their own decisions on what rules to obey? Like, don't drive with a drunk friend in school. Do you tell your kids not to do that, or do you tell them to make their own decision but just do it safely? What about "don't do drugs"? Do you tell your kids to not do drugs, or to go ahead and make their own decision on it, but make sure to do it safely if they choose to do drugs?

2) pressuring girls specifically to make chastity pledges and wear "purity rings" and

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And I think chastity pledges are good for boys too, but they typically won't wear a ring. "Pressuring" kids to obey rules that protect them sounds to me like GOOD PARENTING. Kids are not equipped to make their own decisions on big issues, that's why parents are there to make rules.

3) the religious right's effort to deprive everybody in the public education system of comprehensive sex education due to certain moral views

Blatant mischaracterization. The religious right is NOT in favor of no sex ed like liberals often like to say. Dr. Dobson himself has audio series that go pretty comprehensively through sex ed. And along with the info is a prohibition - supported by parents - that kids are not to engage in sex until marriage.

And let's not forget that moral views come into play even if the "religous right" is not influencing sex ed. Like another guy on this blog said, it is pretty hard to do sex ed without value judgments. Plenty of value judgments have been made in opposition to my positions already. Value judgments such as prohibiting sex until marriage is prudish and backwards.

Posted by: mroberts | September 11, 2008 3:00 PM

OK, how about, "Bad idea for almost everyone". ;-) Actually, I think "bad idea for anyone" is a valid generalization when it comes to casual sex. I think that the facts bear this out such that the generalization holds true.

I don't think so, and the young woman who wrote the Salon article doesn't think so. I don't think you would approve of mroberts generalising "premarital sex is a bad idea for everyone", even if it increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs. I think it's more important that we agree on sex ed and contraception than try to draw a line between acceptable and "promiscuous" behavior.

Posted by: windy | September 11, 2008 3:04 PM

Still doesn't change the fact that the most responsible course for a teenager that is not capable of making good decisions to stay away from engaging in activities that could seriously impact their lives in a negative way.

Are teenagers really "not capable of making good decisions?" As I've said before, most of the teens I knew when I was a teen seemed perfectly capable of making good decisions: very few of them got into any real trouble. Some chose not to have sex, some avoided intercourse (Ever hear those phrases "second base," "third base," etc.?), some used birth control, most of us drove safely enough not to kill anyone, and most were fairly sensible in our choice of drugs (mostly weed, hash and cocaine, occasional LSD, no sign of opiates, and downers and PCP shunned). We all had plenty of opportunity to get into trouble, between sex, drugs, driving, etc.; and yet most of us, despite some mistakes, came out of high school in one piece, with our brains still functioning, and no permanent damage.

The idea that teenagers are inherently incapable of making good decisions is pure horseshit; it's true only of those teens who get both bad parental support and bad information. Burdening kids with such low expectations as mroberts' is an act of negligence, and possibly endangerment.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2008 3:10 PM

Windy wrote:

I don't think so, and the young woman who wrote the Salon article doesn't think so.

Yes, I realize that. I still stand by my generalization, though, for various and sundry reasons I don't think we could cover in the comments of this thread.

I don't think you would approve of mroberts generalising "premarital sex is a bad idea for everyone", even if it increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

True, but I think there is much sounder reasoning behind my generalization about casual sex than behind mroberts's generalization about premarital sex (which, for all his blathering and smokescreens about risk, is really based on his religious mores).

Here are some other generalizations I would make:

1) Smoking cigarettes is bad for anyone.
2) Eating a typical "Western" diet is bad for anyone.
3) Practicing and believing any form of the Christian religion is bad for anyone.

Do I think most or all people on here or even on the Internet agree with me on even one of my four generalizations? No. But these are the conclusions I've come to based on my 36 yrs of being alive, including my own experience, those of others, and the reading I've done on the various subjects. I stand by them. You are welcome to disagree, of course.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 3:12 PM

True, but I think there is much sounder reasoning behind my generalization about casual sex than behind mroberts's generalization about premarital sex (which, for all his blathering and smokescreens about risk, is really based on his religious mores).

So what if my thinking is based in part on religious beliefs? Even without bringing religion into it, I think my reasoning stands just fine on common sense alone.

3) Practicing and believing any form of the Christian religion is bad for anyone.

Ah, so you are a bigot against religious people. You are showing your true "tolerant" colors there Adrienne.

Posted by: mroberts | September 11, 2008 3:22 PM

My position is to inform kids about sex - yes comprehensively - and include a strict prohibition on sexual behavior until marriage.

Fine; but chances are, if anything deters them from having sex, it won't be the prohibition; it will be the information. Some of the teenagers I knew who behaved most "irresponsibly" (as in having sex, doing drugs, etc.) also spent a lot of time complaining about their parent's "stupid rules." The rules didn't keep them out of trouble; their own understanding of their situations did. My own parents gave me "strict prohibitions" against doing drugs; the reason I'm still alive is not because I obeyed their prohibition; it's because I got good information that steered me clear of the most dangerous stuff (even though a lot of it was easily available).

No one here is against prohibitions. We're merely aware that prohibitions aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2008 3:22 PM

mroberts again:

So what if my thinking is based in part on religious beliefs? Even without bringing religion into it, I think my reasoning stands just fine on common sense alone.

Common sense, huh? Even when, for as long as the US has been collecting data on this sort of thing, even people back in the "good old days" of yore still overwhelmingly had sex before marriage?

Ah, so you are a bigot against religious people. You are showing your true "tolerant" colors there Adrienne.

First of all, I've never claimed to be "tolerant". I definitely believe there are limits to tolerance, and I don't buy into the "every culture and its values are equivalent" type of multiculturalism, either.

Secondly, I'm not a bigot against religious *people*. Not necessarily at least, not until they show themselves to be arseholes. I volunteer at a local abortion clinic, to help patients get past the screaming meemie protesters. I encounter plenty of religious arseholes there...typically Catholics with a sprinkling of evangelicals. On the other hand, I have friends who are deeply religious in various ways and traditions, and my in-laws, whom I love greatly, are very deeply religious Mormons. Generally, I believe that good people are good despite their religion, and arseholes probably would stay arseholes no matter what religion they belonged to.

I am, however, "bigoted" against religion, especially the Muslim and Christian faiths. I think the whole idea of faith as a virtue is nonsense and intellectually defensible. I believe that religious people would be better off without the silliness of believing in doctrine, dogma, and "Sky Fairies". When given the opportunity, I like to debate people along those lines. But I am absolutely in favor of tolerating all religions (or none) in LAW. In short, my views on religion are a lot like Ed Brayton's.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 3:31 PM

First of all, I've never claimed to be "tolerant". I definitely believe there are limits to tolerance, and I don't buy into the "every culture and its values are equivalent" type of multiculturalism, either.

Wow, a point on which we agree. I don't claim to be tolerant either. I find it amusing that most people that do claim to be tolerant are in fact just as intolerant as anybody else.

I am, however, "bigoted" against religion, especially the Muslim and Christian faiths. I think the whole idea of faith as a virtue is nonsense and intellectually defensible. I believe that religious people would be better off without the silliness of believing in doctrine, dogma, and "Sky Fairies".

Fair enough, you have a right to your opinion. I would argue, though in another thread maybe, that many people with views to the left of mine are just as dogmatic about them. Religious people do not have a monopoly on dogmatism - as a fair reading of many of the posts on this blog can demonstrate.

Anyway, I have to go. It's been good arguing with you all!

Posted by: mroberts | September 11, 2008 3:40 PM

Argh, in my previous comment, I should have said "not intellectually defensible".

Anyway, back to mroberts:

Adrienne, I was trying to draw a comparison between making rules about sex and making rules about anything else, such as doing drugs. For some reason, you don't want to prohibit kids from engaging in sexual activity, but I cannot imagine that you not be willing to prohibit your kids from doing drugs.

I don't think that is a fair comparison for many reasons, some of which I will get to later.

But first, what is all this talk of "prohibition"? Short of locking your teenager up (and putting a video camera on them 24/7, otherwise he or she could masturbate when you aren't there), how do you plan on "prohibiting" your teens from having sex? Or do you think it's reasonable to lock teenagers up for their own good?

When my husband was a teen, he smoked pot with friends. His parents knew about it, and vocalized their strong disapproval of it, but my husband was (and is) a bodybuilder who stands at 6'1" and 220 lbs. How were his parents going to "prohibit" him from smoking pot? Try to lock him in the house?

I would tell any teen of mine that I did not want them having them having sex before age 18, and that I did not want them to do drugs. I think the whole "until marriage" business is not only nonsensical but derives from the Religious Right/Christian viewpoint, which I reject. As with drugs, I would want my teen fully informed of all potential risks and benefits, as well as alternative methods and proper contraceptive practices, however.

Where I think your comparison between drugs and sex breaks down is that I don't think the risk of addiction and bodily harm that comes with doing drugs (marijuana perhaps being the exception) outweighs the benefits of doing them. With sex, there are a lot of benefits, that, in the proper context and with the proper precautions, outweigh the risks, IMHO.

And now that you mention it, yes, I am opposed to teachers making young teens promise and swear not to do drugs. For one thing, programs like DARE have actually shown to increase drug use among teens, not decrease them. Secondly, I don't think much of the premise of making kids promise things. Really, they are promising almost purely out of pressure by parents and teachers rather than something they really believe themselves. I have a problem with that. And so, they typically break the chastity pledges (and the promises to avoid drugs too), so the promise becomes meaningless anyway. Forget the dog-and-pony promise shows and give the kid information and TRUST instead.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 3:43 PM

Absolutely idiotic when you consider that it is common sense that the best way to stay of sex-related trouble is to not engage in it until you are with a monogamous partner for life in the context of marriage.

And the best way to stay out of car-related trouble is not to drive, ever. And the best way to stay out of alcohol-related trouble is not to drink, ever. And the best way to stay out of emotional trouble is not to have a relationship, ever. Et cetera.

So why do we do these things? Well, first and foremost, no one truly views life as a process wherein you follow the path of minimal risk (even though you pretend to with your risk argument for abstinence; I'm willing to bet you drive a car, though). More important, though, is that in many cases the rewards justify the risk.

So driving may be risky, but it has a very high utility for many people, so they'll continue to do it. Relationships can be heartbreaking, but the emotional benefit is worth the risk for most people. And sex has some (very slim) risks involved, but many of us have found that engaging in sexual activity introduces more joy into our lives and results in more satisfying relationships.

It's certainly your business if you decide *you* don't want sex outside of marriage. But that's a matter that belongs in your home, and nowhere else. When sex ed is given in the schools, it is not their place to push this view (and many students are smart and independent enough to grate at such moralizing). To anyone who has received proper sexual education, it will be obvious that abstinence is risk-free, and that other methods have some risk involved -- there's no reason to make this the focus.

Posted by: Davis | September 11, 2008 3:58 PM

mroberts spewed -

But catching an STD carries about a 1 in 4 chance.

No, no it doesn't - unless of course you refuse to provide kids with the tools to minimize risk. One in four teens has an STD (don't believe that but it will work for this). Using a condom reduces the chances of catching an STD, by about 97%. I am not good with math, but according to your figures, there is a 25% chance that the teen another teen sexes will have an STD and a three percent chance that if they happen to hit on that 25% they will still get an STD. Not sure how to combine both for the actual chance of getting an STD, but it's pretty fucking low.

Seems to me the best way to handle the dangers of sex is to tell kids not to engage in it until they are married. What is the harm in that, Bee?

Though I haven't had much time since we found out the nine month old was on the way, I used to volunteer for an organization that provides help for folks with HIV/AIDS. I used to run a regular support group that included in it's ranks a young lady who was diagnosed when she was fifteen. Her parents opted her out of sex ed and were extremely adamant that abstaining until marriage was essential. They also filled her head with bullshit propaganda about the failure rate of condoms. She had sex with two young men when she was fourteen, having been pressured by friends who mocked her for being a virgin. She had sex nine or ten times - while it's hard to contract HIV, she had the shit luck of the draw and will spend the rest of her life paying for it.

When you do not provide your children with the tools necessary to minimize risk, should they choose to have the sex, you are literally gambling with their lives. And it's not just STDs that you need to worry about. Do you really think it would be grand to become a grandparent of your baby's baby? Because that is a very real and increasingly common risk of sex without protection.

Funny how we had this decline in teen pregnancy and STDs, that has seen a dramatic reversal since bush's abstinence only bullshit came along.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 11, 2008 4:37 PM

DuWayne wrote:

I will provide them with the best information possible, again to minimize risk. I will also actively discourage them from using drugs, at least until they are old enough that their brains have fully developed. I will explain exactly what the risks are and make sure they know what can happen if they use such and such a drug and what will happen if they use that drug.

Nicely written. I agree completely. This is the approach I would take w/ sex as well: Discourage my teen from trying sexual intercourse or oral intercourse before age 18 or so, but provide all the info available.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 4:55 PM

mroberts, I'm glad to see we're in agreement about the importance of comprehensive sex education. It happens so rarely between us on social issues. But it's unclear to me as to where you think that education should take place. You and others keep talking about what parents should do. What is the roll of schools in all this? The way I see I see it schools should teach the facts about sex, how our bodies work, what happens during pregnancy, risk factors for various choices, and so on. I have no problem with a teacher saying that no sex is the surest way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, that risk increases with each additional person you have sex with, and the roll birth control plays in mitigating, but not eliminating, those risks.

I would however, object to a teacher then trying to issue a "strict prohibition" against sex outside of marriage. Though I'm not sure what that would look like. It just seems like something that's best left to parents. What are your thoughts?

DuWayne said:

One in four teens has an STD (don't believe that but it will work for this).

Close enough, 26% of girls 14 to 19 were found to have an STD. They didn't say anything about teen boys. Though I'd think they'd be similar. The two most common were HPV (18%) and Chlamydia (4%, and I can't believe I knew how to spell that). You can read the CDC Press Release here. I'd say this highlights the importance of young women getting the HPV vaccine. Encouraging regular screening is also important as Chlamydia is easily treatable with antibiotics but its symptoms often go unnoticed until after damage is done.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 11, 2008 5:34 PM

mroberts wrote:

My position is to inform kids about sex - yes comprehensively - and include a strict prohibition on sexual behavior until marriage.

What the hell does this even mean? Is the school supposed to give them detention or demerits every time they get caught engaging in "sexual behavior" before they are married?

"That's going on your permanent record, young man!"

I have a better idea. How about we not teach your religious ideas in the public schools, and you put your own kids in the religious school of your choice. Or supplement with the moral instructions of your choice.

Posted by: Leni | September 11, 2008 6:20 PM

Leni -

last time I will utter such a thing, I would like to express my sincerest wish that you reproduce if you have not. So get fucking, mister! We need your genes!

I have this problem. On the one hand, I am concerned about population growth, being a huge believer in sustainability. On the other hand, the only people who really embrace that are the ones who should be reproducing. Contrasted with the nastiest sorts pumping out babies like fucking production machinery.

Not that I can talk, having reproduced a few times now.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 11, 2008 9:48 PM

Wow Leni, I'm touched. Thank you.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 12, 2008 10:12 AM

Thank you for putting this up, I'm Dutch and it's nice to see some positive feedback on some of the libiral rules in our country!

Posted by: Fleur | October 24, 2008 6:21 PM