Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Abuse High in Teen Romance

CNN reported on a study today that demonstrates a high level of abuse amongst teens who've had sex. According to a poll by loveisrespect.org, "Sixty-nine percent of teens who had sex by age 14 reported some type of abuse in a relationship, with slightly more than one-third saying they had been physically abused,"

Original article here.

The study describes the finding as surprising, and I admit, I didn't give much thought to the idea that sexually active teen relationships would involve abuse. But it makes sense that people who engage in one foolish activity, acting on destructive passions such as that in sex outside of marriage are likely to involve themselves in other foolish activities, such as abuse.

The report went on to discuss what legislators in Rhode Island have done to address the problem which primarily involves educating teens on abuse.

That's all well and good, to treat the symptoms. The root of the problem is that we don't view persons as sacred, and we've failed to teach younger generations of the sacredness of sexuality and the importance of entering that sort of relationship under the most sober agreement and with intentions to preserve that relationship and the dignity of the other unconditionally before God and society (and that is what marriage is about).

22 comments:

Barb said...

Planned Parenthood and other liberal sex educators think the answer to teen sex activity is a condom and the pill and an abortion if all else fails.

Reports of the big Boston sex educator conference, supported with some gov't education funding, indicate that the latest, cutting-edge, liberal trend in sex ed. is to teach kids more things to do and more equipment to use to have fun without disease risk.

Sort of Dr. Ruth style --and that other old gal who tells women to receive posterior sex, etc.

Nutcases!

Anonymous said...

Dear Lady,

Kindly count yourself among the nutcases. The article to which you kindly provided th elink, discussed "tween" sex, "tweens" being defined as children 11-14.

I assume that by "sexual relationship" the article denoted sexual intercourse and I would be the first person to advise that few 14 year olds that I have met and no 11 year olds of my acquaintance are mature enough to be in a that type of sexual relationship.

Where your train goes off the tracks quite badly-- as if trains could ever go off the tracks positively--is with the statement: "But it makes sense that people who engage in one foolish activity, acting on destructive passions such as sex outside of marriage are likely to involve themselves in other foolish activities, such as abuse."

How 11-14 year olds being abused lept to your statement is either a miracle or just faulty reasoning and I am certain that you would be the first to admit that miracles are not part of your daily repertoire.

To begin w/ the last, abuse is not foolish behavior. It is pernicious behavior, scarring at best and deadly at worst. Abuse occurs inside of marriage as well as w/out so it would seem that your statemant is not entirely logical.

As for sex outside of marriage being destructive, that too is perhaps a statement of your credo but hardly supported by all the evidence. If you make statements like that, you had better be sure that they are supported by the evidence. I fear you are an absolutist, nevertheless, I suggest that perhaps prefacing such a remark w/ "In my opinion" or even "In my experience" otherwise you will seem tinged w/ fanactism.

One last thing. I think we can agree that teenagers are not mature, even older ones are still maturing physiologically and emotionally. Otherwise, they would be adults which is not to say that adults do not continue to mature. Abstinence only programs have prooved to be a dismal failure in preventing teenage sex and teenage pregnancy out of wedlock. Therefore, championing its cause just seems silly.

Regards.

The Loop Garoo Kid

Barb said...

Loopy --be sure to see who wrote the posts on The Barb Wire --Sometimes, and in this case, it was Rob.

As for your idea that abstinence education is a failure --depends on how it is done. They found that the kids who did take the abstinence pledge of the religious programs like "true Love Waits" did delay the average onset of sex activity by at least 2 years if memory serves me correctly.

college is a big temptation with no curfews, daily access to one's sweetheart, no dorm rules and chaperones anymore --sometimes not even at Christian schools --so a lot of Christian kids who date steadily are probably getting the cart before the horse. And the big risk is of break-up --and going on to other partners. Dr. Don Joy of Asbury Seminary said that once a couple has become sexually active, they will be fast in their subsequent relationships if they break up. There is almost certain acquisition of the HPV virus when we have multiple relationships and a risk of many other diseases as well --some incurable and miserable.

good abstinence ed would encourage the girls and boys about all the benefits of waiting for marriage and all the risks of not.

I've been pondering why Jesus said that remarriage even for innocent parties in divorce was adultery for them --and for the people who marry the divorced --I think it comes from the word "adulterate" which means to bring something foreign into a pure substance --an adulterated lab chemical --adulterated food, etc. God's intention was the purity of virginity and the first union of a couple --going on to other relationships is adultery or fornication --but also inevitable after divorce. Fornication is an objectifying of sex, using people for sex, sex without marital commitment.

Jesus says the divorces and the remarriages are permitted by the Law for the hardness of our hearts, but God hates divorce and loves purity and fidelity and wants both the man and wife to work to preserve the sanctity of the first marriage. The only grounds for divorce Jesus gave was adultery--but the people didn't ask Jesus about being married to a criminal or a pervert or whatever. Perhaps He would have justified those divorces as well had the topic come up.

In any case, there is provision for divorce and remarriage --but God's ideal is the virginity of a couple at the marital altar --and they will be most blessed for waiting --and for never being with others.

Rob R said...

Dear loop garoo,

you wrongfully called my mom an absolutist on the basis of this article when you should've been mistakenly calling me an absolutist as I wrote it. But as mentioned you'd be mistaken. It would seem that you and not I am the absolutist by what is written here for you see, you made an issue of making an argument without evidence. The fact is, the blog post of topic was written by me supported by the evidence from CNN.com. Was my position proven by the study that cnn reported upon? No, but it is in a long line of evidence which supports our picture that sex outside of marriage is a bad idea and it is something that is sacred that belongs within marriage. As an epistemic absolutist, of course you'd have a problem, but epistemic absolutism, that is the idea that you have to prove beliefs to rationally believe them to be true is a bankrupt approach to knowledge that has been demonstrated as bankrupt by the last 300 to 400 years in philosophy.

The fact is, waiting for marriage to have sex among other things provides what these teens and tweens lack, clarity. The idea of waiting til one is "ready" as promoted by most liberals is completely uninformative and subject to the poor judgment of teens.

As for the alleged failure of the abstinence programs, there was one recent highly publicized study to that effect, without the balance of all the studies that demonstrate otherwise.

Furthermore, abstinence programs aren't enough to begin with. If parents don't understand how to teach their kids to be chaste and have a realistic curtailment of their liberties and "alone time" with the opposite sex, (and many of them don't, as highlighted in this article) then abstinence programs will do far less good than they otherwise would. More important than sex education in schools for teens is sex education education for parents who are to be the gaurdians of their kids well being and future potential, which absolutely includes potential for a good marriage.

Anonymous said...

barb and rob r.

I aplogize for confusing the two of you.

rob, you misrepesented the evidence cited in the study reported by CNN.

Two quick points: "There is almost a certain acquisition of the HPV virus when we have multiple relationships..." Barb. Welcome to Earth. Did you know there is a vaccne for the HPV virus? I would think that any parent concerned w/ thewelfare of their daughter would have her vaccinated. I did.

Meanwhile condoms are very effective in preventing the spread of STDs.

Clearly the position of both of you is faith based rather than empirical.

I am not advocating that parents be irresponsible, but your position regarding sex and marriage is archaic to say the least.

TLGK

Barb said...

Our archaic position as you called it, Loop, is the view held by all the Bible-believing churches --that despite the deleterious effects of media and the Sexual revolution of the 60's -80's, the church still holds that virginity culminating in monogamous hetero marriage is the healthiest, happiest, safest arrangement --designed by our Maker for our good.

I have no children of the age to vaccinate --and I would resent any md or educator assuming that my child was going to need that vaccination at age 12 or so. If it had to be given then to give the protection for her at college age, I might consider it --not knowing at that point what creepy promiscuous guy she might go with in the future--or Heaven forbid --she might even be raped.

Abstinence until marriage is the ideal; I would want them to experience the ideal and not assume that they are going to sleep around and go from one guy to another to another before finally marrying. There really still are kids who wait --in the evangelical churches --and many who do not, of course, also in evangelical churches.

the vaccination doesn't protect against all HPviruses --the condom doesn't either. And many fellows don't want to use condoms, we hear. So if I were you, I'd be very protective of my daughter's date life and pay attention to the character of people she admires and has crushes on. I'd try to enrich the date pool for her so that fellows she would know would be raised to value virginity, fidelity and life-long marriage --as we do.

Sadly, the children of the divorced have a more than 90 per cent liklihood of getting divorced themselves.

Rob R said...

rob, you misrepesented the evidence cited in the study reported by CNN.

Then you should be able to explain how I misrepresented the evidence.

The study clearly shows a relationship between teen, and tween sex and abuse and this is something that wouldn't be an issue if kids were properly guarded and taught by parents, schools and the culture that sex is not something for those who aren't mature enough for marriage. It's absurd that we emphasize sex ed so much when what kids need is sex ed within the context of relationship ed which when done with the best clarity emphasizes and explains marriage. But of course the culture is confused on marriage.

Did I prove that a young couple in their mid 20s or 30s is worse off shacking up or not waiting for marriage for sex? Of course not. Could this be why you think I distort the evidence (which you haven't explained, so I'm left to geuss that this is the sort of thing behind your claim of distortion) I didn't intend to prove the point on all issues at all angles. What I did is show how the evidence provided fits our picture (which of course entails many other things, other items all which need to be dealt with on their own terms).

The fact is undeniable that if many of these teens and tweens accepted and embraced and lived the chaste until marriage ideal, then they wouldn't be in these abusive relationships. Sure many would find themselves in abusive relationships anyway, but the positive correlation between young teen/tween sex and abusive relationships indicates that it would be reduced.

Here's another angle to look at it with admittedly a more worldly appeal. Someone who consents to be in an abusive relationship may not have the most respect for themselves, or we could say that those who don't have much respect for themselves are more likely to be abused. It is of the highest self respect for one to insist that no one can come close to him/her in a deeply sexual way without making a solemn oath before that person, the community and God (and this oath is what we call marriage) to always love and respect them and to remain faithful until death.

Clearly the position of both of you is faith based rather than empirical.

It's every bit as empirical as your position and every bit as faith based as your position. There is no such thing as knowledge without epistemic faith, or that is knowledge without the possibility that one is wrong.

Evidence often doesn't interpret itself. We all take the evidence and place it into our own frameworks in terms of our over all world views. The question becomes, who's interpretation is best, and there often may be some objective standards by which we measure that question, but complete objectivity is a myth. We all come from some place, we all have lenses, biases through which we look at the world. It doesn't mean the task is impossible, but it does make it challenging.

But here's one such piece of objectivity for you to chew on. It is a fallacy to believe that because a belief is old, it is also false (in as much as it is to hold that its age indicates that it is true). So whether or not our beliefs are "archaic" or not doesn't tell us a whole lot. It tells us something but clearly not enough to judge our claim.

Anonymous said...

Okay, let's see. "CNN reported on a study today that demonstrates a high level of abuse amongst teen who've had sex...69% of teens who had sex by age 14 reported some typre of abuse in a relationship. w/ slightly more than 1/3 saying they had been physically abused."

But only 10% of those respnding staed they had sex by agre 14. In total, 1,669 tweens and teens responded. So approximately 167 of them had sex by age 14. The # who reported abuse is then around 115 if my math is correct.

Meanwhile, ask yourself this: How many 11-14 year old girls (Frankly, my suspicion is that the % of girls having sex is much greater than that of boys)have healthy sexual relationships? Do we need to discuss incest or the 14 year old high school freshman w/ the 19 or 20 year old BF?

And then you're off. Mistatement by omisssion and suggestion.

Meanwhile there is too much to which to respond right now, except to say that b/f I go any farther w/ either of you, Google "The Thermodynamics of Hell." It is a joke that has been circulationg on the internet for years.

Regards,

The Loop Garoo Kid

Christian Apologist said...

I heard it said recently the following phrase.

"good sex just covers up everything thats bad in a relationship"

This statement is so true I dont think I even have to talk about it. But you can obviously see by analogy, why people who have sex before they have fully committed themselves to a lifelong relationship can find themselves in abusive situations.

Rob R said...

Loopy, what is your point. seriously, where is the problem.

So we are talking about a huge portion of admittedly, a rather small group. Is it any less true that these kids would've been better off if they had parents who were better guards of their virginity and if they had greater clarity on the issue of sexuality because they had the clarity of the importance of sexuality for marriage? I don't see this point coming through.

Yes, the article implies that the correlation goes down as the age of first experience goes up. That doesn't in any way shape or form invalidate my point. A stronger respect for sex within the bounds of marriage and consistent practice along those lines in our culture where it's next to impossible to get married at the age of 14 would drastically reduce early sexual experiences which hold this correlation with abuse.

I really don't believe that it will be of any more help to suggest to tweens that they just aren't old enough. Kids like to think of themselves as advanced, worldly, mature, and experienced... ahead of their peers. They demonstrate this in their insults (ex: "oh that's so immature"). Granted they are inconsistent in this desire, but they have it nonetheless. Of course add to this raging hormones which are telling them that they are ready for a sexual experience (or at least they want it real bad) and you've got issues and this vague encouragement towards waiting til one is "old enough" or "ready" greatly loses it's power. Now those who embrace marriage as the wise and sensible place for a sexual relationship, and of course with the backing of an intelligent framework behind this, and of course intelligent adult supervision and an accountability relationship since beliefs are, especially for hormonal teens and tweens not sufficient in themselves. And of course, I emphasize that the framework for that understanding of marriage be informed and intelligent because, what a lot of parents do just doesn't cut it. It doesn't do any good to tell kids that sex is dirty or if the girls have sex, they'll be sluts. It isn't even enough to suggest that sex outside of marriage is sinful. That part may be important, but its not enough.

Kids want to be intelligent about things so it helps to give them a framework about the nature of marriage and what it can do for sex and the family. It helps them to know the higher incidence of divorce with people who have sex outside of marriage (such as amongst couples who "shack up" before marriage), Of the STD's spread by the promiscuous including to those who don't have many partners and of the hardships of single parenthood and the hardships for the children of those relationships. And kids, believe it or not, have a natural desire for spirituality, so it is good for them to understand that the marriage relationship along with sexuality is a sacred institute that most deeply reflects the image of God, as highlighted in the 1st chapter of Genesis (and no, I don't expect public schools to get this one right, but of course, I never suggested that they hold the key to the problem(though what they do is important nevertheless as they can help and they can also sabotage efforts of parents)).

In essence, sex ed just isn't enough and the abuse ed suggested in the article isn't enough either. Even abstinence education falls short (at least in terms of emphasis). Kids need marriage education.

And no, all of these suggestions won't guarantee that one won't have a young sexual experience, abuse from a sexual partner or a divorce, but it can all help and it's a matter of doing better than we are now.

Anonymous said...

robbie,

I can't speak to any church's spiritual guidance with respect to training for marriage, so I won't go there.

My point? Perhaps we are inhabiting different dimensions. It is as if you are looking at the stats and saying: "If only little Susie and Billy had waited until they married, they would not have (fill in the blank.)

In our culture--USA--very few tweens are likely to be ready to have sexual intercourse. Conversely, if they are, the chances are probably about 69% that one partner is going to suffer abuse. As a matter of law, depending on the state, a difference of four years between the partners can constitute statutory rape. Perhaps you remember the enlightened case of Genarlow Wilson in GA. He was 17 and had consensual oral sex w/ a 15 year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Here is one point. Sex is an experience by which one gains maturity. Waiting until you are married to have sex is a guaranty for bad sex and might result in uncommon strains on the marriage.

Have you ever thought that our society might be evolving/devolving to the point where it is unrealistic to consider marriage to be a lfetime contract

Regards.

The Loop Garoo Kid

Rob R said...

My point? Perhaps we are inhabiting different dimensions. It is as if you are looking at the stats and saying: "If only little Susie and Billy had waited until they married, they would not have (fill in the blank.)

Yeah, that point isn't making sense, if you mean to suggest it is absurd or something. It simply isn't the case that it is "as if" little susie and billy had waited to get married, they wouldn't have the troubles associated with tween/teen sex. It is IN FACT the case, that if they wait until they are married... give or take a decade later, they are less likely to have these issues (but of course are probably less likely to marry each other specifically anyhow). This, isn't absurd. it's logical.

Sex is an experience by which one gains maturity.

This is demonstrably false, by the very article we are discussing, but also by vast experiences of many. Ever hear of college frats? There is also not a doubt in my mind that a reason why so many in my generation are slow to become productive members of society (like the folks who move out of their parents house, go into debt and then move back in) and committing to real deep lifelong relationships is because they can have sex without commitments. No, the world is full of sexually active creeps and ne'er do wells for your point to be made in any force whatsoever.

Of course it is part of the maturing process of marriage.

Waiting until you are married to have sex is a guaranty for bad sex and might result in uncommon strains on the marriage.

sounds like it could result in something that is healthy for a couple to work on... even to the extent of going to a therapist. nothing wrong with that.

Have you ever thought that our society might be evolving/devolving to the point where it is unrealistic to consider marriage to be a lfetime contract

I know far too many couples who have made it last to consider this a valid assesment. Fact is, the divorce rate is not as bad as people think. It's at 50% for all marriages, but this includes marriages of "serial monogamists", of people who divorce and remarry several times. 2/3rds of all first time marriages last for a lifetime.

Furthermore, even if the divorce rate increases, the fact is, to reinforce a point that I've been emphasizing, our beliefs and behavior choices make a difference. Just because people today collectively make worse and worse choices that make marriage more difficult doesn't mean that we should lose site of the fact that they were indeed choices that could have been made otherwise.

Of course, here I've been emphasizing divorce prevention (and granted, a limited view of that with regard to sex), but there is much that needs to be dealt with regarding the aftermath of divorce to repair the damage and redeem the broken lives. Children of divorced parents tend to have a 90% divorce rate. Well, alot of them do hate divorce and they tend to think that it's better to shack up to "try" out a relationship first before marriage. Well, this is a bad mistake as the divorce rate is significantly higher amongst couples that shack up thus it has the opposite effect of what was intended.

Rob R said...

Just thought I'd follow up my comment above to suggest that a sexual experience may indeed bring with it a degree of a type of maturity, but it definitely doesn't mean that the person will become a better person (which again is demonstrably otherwise).

Christian Apologist said...

Have you ever thought that our society might be evolving/devolving to the point where it is unrealistic to consider marriage to be a lfetime contract

So your solution to the problem of people not meeting standards is to lower the standards? The biblical solution is to change the person so that they can achieve the higher standard. Which do you suppose is the better way to go?

Anonymous said...

CA,

Consider tha the Bible is not the book of guidance for many people in this country. Therefore to say, "Well follow the Bible" is simply not a realistic proposal.

May I also point out that the newest portions of the Bible were written what? 1,800 years ago?

Consider that the older portions are not only a history of the Jewish people but also a book of conduct (see Deuteronomy and Leviticus) plus the entire Old Testament is at its heart the journal of a transition between a matriarchal agricultural based society and a patriarchal one based upon animal husbandry. (see Genesis--Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel in particular.)



TLGK

Rob R said...

Consider tha the Bible is not the book of guidance for many people in this country. Therefore to say, "Well follow the Bible" is simply not a realistic proposal.

So what if it isn't a guide. if one encourages people to use a guide, it very well may be the case that they are encouraged to do so because they aren't doing so to begin with.

May I also point out that the newest portions of the Bible were written what? 1,800 years ago?

It's fallacious to claim that just because a view is old, it must be false or even that it is probably false. It's just as false as the idea that just because it is old, it is true, or the notion that the newness of an idea indicates anything about it's truth or falsity.

Consider that the older portions are not only a history of the Jewish people

More precisely, it is a biography of God and the story of his relationship with his chosen people.

plus the entire Old Testament is at its heart the journal of a transition between a matriarchal agricultural based society and a patriarchal one based upon animal husbandry. (see Genesis--Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel in particular.)

It is a story of God working with flawed people and working with their flaws with sensitivity and progression.

Barb said...

Loop Garoo wrote: [quote] Here is one point. Sex is an experience by which one gains maturity. Waiting until you are married to have sex is a guaranty for bad sex and might result in uncommon strains on the marriage.

Have you ever thought that our society might be evolving/devolving to the point where it is unrealistic to consider marriage to be a lfetime contract [/quote]

You demonstrate today's secular, cultural thinking on this topic. And yes, it IS DEVOLVING! defining deviancy downward.

And it is the thinking that has led to so much single parenting, divorce, economic instability, transiency, homelessness, shacking up, etc.

Really, those of us who experience a good (at least stable and unshakeable) marriage in our parents are all so advantaged by monogamous and functional marriage. There is such a support network, emotional and even economic stability for the children of stable homes. such a help to us as we become senior citizens --and if our children can do as well, and bring grandchildren into the world, we are enriched indeed --by those old-fashioned Biblical values.

Waiting for marriage and working at marriage are still the most worthy of enterprises --and provide for the most emotional and mental health of its family members.

Christian Apologist said...

Anonymous said...
CA,

Consider tha the Bible is not the book of guidance for many people in this country. Therefore to say, "Well follow the Bible" is simply not a realistic proposal.

May I also point out that the newest portions of the Bible were written what? 1,800 years ago?


I didnt say anything about the bible as the standard for secular living. I simply said that lowering the standards because people cant meet them is not a good solution. It should be obvious, from a socialogical point of view, that a stable lifelong marriage is in the best interests of both the parents and the children.

Consider that the older portions are not only a history of the Jewish people but also a book of conduct (see Deuteronomy and Leviticus) plus the entire Old Testament is at its heart the journal of a transition between a matriarchal agricultural based society and a patriarchal one based upon animal husbandry. (see Genesis--Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel in particular.)

Your lack of understanding about the Old Testament is so obvious here that no response is really neccesary. Go and read the book and then come back and try and support what you said.

crusader09 said...

Hi Barb, it's me:) I told you I'd pop in!

Firstly, just on a merely factual note: The HPV vaccine is a vaccine much like those against chicken pox and polio, in that it is designed to be given to children... the md's I have talked to about it say that it should be given in early adolescence (the general feeling is that 10-12 is the right time to get the series) not because they expect girls that young to be sexually active, but because it is best absorbed by a younger immune system. In fact, my doctor told me that should I wait too much longer to get it (I am not yet 21), it would be ineffective for me... So, with regards to what you said, Barb, about getting a 12 year old vaccinated: I would agree that NO 12 year old has any business being sexually active: but it is designed to be effectively given at right around that age.

And I think that it is the most responsible thing to do for your daughter. Heaven forbid, what if she were sexually assaulted? Why should an HPV infection arise out of that situation? Or, if she meets someone and they have decided to get married and she has saved herself, but he has not. Men with more than one sexual partner have a 90% chance of carrying the HPV virus, which means that her chance would be exactly the rate of transmission because he will almost certainly have it... It should not, however, be an excuse to just have sex promiscuously, and that is the responsibilty of the parents, to teach values of that sort.


Rob said: "Here's another angle to look at it with admittedly a more worldly appeal. Someone who consents to be in an abusive relationship may not have the most respect for themselves, or we could say that those who don't have much respect for themselves are more likely to be abused. It is of the highest self respect for one to insist that no one can come close to him/her in a deeply sexual way without making a solemn oath before that person, the community and God (and this oath is what we call marriage) to always love and respect them and to remain faithful until death."

I think here is the key, Rob. Girls who don't respect themselves enough to demand what they deserve, which is sex only in the confines of a committed, loving marriage, they are not going to respect themselves enough to refuse to accept abusive treatment.

Loop dude said: "Sex is an experience by which one gains maturity. Waiting until you are married to have sex is a guaranty for bad sex and might result in uncommon strains on the marriage."

How will I know if the sex is bad if I have nothing to compare it against? I think that is an absolute cop out of the conversation: what you just said is the same as "if you don't practice, you won't be good at it." HA!

Good is a relative term to bad, and if you've had nothing, the sex cannot be good or bad, it's just sex. And what's the harm in learning sex with your spouse?

I'm going to leave the absitnence only sex education discussion alone, because it is a hot button one and I don't want to butt in too far on my first post :)

crusader09 said...

"May I also point out that the newest portions of the Bible were written what? 1,800 years ago?"

May I point out, Loop, that you would never doubt the veracity of the transcripts of the tales of Homer, or devalue them because of their age. What about the writings of Plato and Aristotle? Those are pretty old too... do we then simply discard the old because it is old?

That is ridiculous, and even a man of your intellectual calibur (which you have not evidence as terribly high from what I'm reading) could not argue that, because Aristotelian writings are old that we shouldn't study and learn from them...

Some people will say anything to make themselves appear right, even if it makes them look like an ass.

Barb said...

Welcome Crusader! Nice screen name! Now, where's your blog, Girl?

I did say this about the HPV vaccine a few posts back: "might consider it [for a daughter] --not knowing at that point, what creepy promiscuous guy she might go with in the future--or Heaven forbid --she might even be raped."

So we agree that the vaccination being available is a good thing.

My version of "abstinence education" is explained below:

People surely need to know that extramarital sex is a risk for diseases --even some of the HPV's --even with condoms and the vaccine. Sleeping around is inherently a high risk lifestyle to avoid --for spiritual and emotional and self-esteem reasons as well as health risks. And the risk of pre-marital pregnancy.

About abstinence sex ed --I am not against teaching that there are condoms that must be used by people who are not monogamous ("faithful to one partner for life as in marriage") for some protection against pregnancy and disease -because you end up, in effect, sleeping with everybody your partner slept with, disease-wise, if you do not go from a virginal status to a monogamous one for life. All outside relationships entail risk. you can't believe what people tell you when they are eager to have sex with you. you can't be sure that your partner will use a condom --or use it correctly--no matter what promises are made.

I THINK --In the old days, when you applied for a marriage license you also were screened for disease by your doctor --people knew what they were getting into and were informed by public health dept' if their intended had a disease so he would be "cured" before the wedding. I'm not sure if they told the prospective partner or not. They tracked partners to make sure they knew to get treatment. Of course, people could lie at that point.

and now we have bad diseases that cannot be cured -like herpes and AIDS. Why take such risks???

Abstinence education means, to me, laying out all the risks of pre-marital, extra-marital sex --and all the benefits of abstinence until monogamous, faithful marriage --and not assuming that kids WILL not wait --not demonstrating a condom on a banana. Not giving them LICENSE to have pre-marital sex by being "non-judgmental" about sex outside marriage as though the educator is morally neutral, value-neutral, morally relative.

They need to SELL them on, NOT abstinence (a cold concept) but MARRIAGE . Some have called it "marriage education." And then tell them there is the pill to prevent pregnany, though some churches forbid it --and the condom which is not 100 percent protective but better than nothing for people who want to prevent pregnancy and have SOME protection from disease. I guess I don't mind them mentioning the rhythm method of detecting the times of a woman's monthly fertility--with an emphasis on the fact that this method for birth control is not reliable, especially not for the unmarried. Even the married get pregnant using this natural method of birth control.

In such a class, everything should be done to help kids preserve virginity if they have it --and to guard themselves and/or be abstinate for the future if they've already crossed that line.

Rob R said...

Greeting crusader. Thanks for the food for thought. You make some good points.

Your are right on this:

I think here is the key, Rob. Girls who don't respect themselves enough to demand what they deserve, which is sex only in the confines of a committed, loving marriage, they are not going to respect themselves enough to refuse to accept abusive treatment.

In pointing out the relationship here of fidelity to marriage and self respect, I am not suggesting some fool proof way to promote abstinence til marriage but demonstrating how this principle on one level is a positive one (because some people do not think it matters). Will this sort of argument help the situation? Sure. But of course for many girls (and guys... let's not be sexists here) who do not respect themselves enough to wait for marriage and stay away from abusive relationships, very likely have emotional problems that go beyond this issue in and of itself. So this is very far from a cure all, but it is nevertheless a part of treating the whole person.