Over the past five years, the Bush administration has put more than $600 million federal dollars into the coffers of abstinence-until-marriage programs. Critics contend that such funding is a back-door way to provide infrastructure funding to the religious right since many of these no-sex sex education programs are housed within Christian, evangelical, pro-life organizations. In mid-October, the U.S. Department of… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (61)Page 1 of 1 pagesI find it so hard to understand why Ms Talvi is so afraid of providing kids with a message that research supports as the best choice for them. The problem of STDs and pregnancy isn’t that kids didn’t use a condom the problem is that kids are having sex. Abstinence education follows a risk avoidance model and is a completely new way of thinking for people who relied on risk reduction in the 60’s and 70’s to protect them from basically two diseases, syphilis and gonorrhea. Kids today are facing over 25 STIs and 1 in 4 sexually active teens is contracting a disease. It is important to note that teens are figuring out that they are not safe and a majority of them are for the first time in a decade abstaining from sex. It is also important to note that comprehensive sex education has been effective at getting more kids to use condoms. Over the past 20 years, teens have shown the greatest increase in the use of condoms but simultaneously and unfortunately the greatest increase in STDs. New research on condom effectiveness is not returning the results we would all hope for and have come to depend on.
It is the responsibility of parents, educators, and community to provide kids with clear messages and expectations regarding areas of risky behavior. In a study done by Dartmouth College and the YMCA researchers found that people are biologically primed for relationships. They are ‘Hardwired to connect’ in two primary areas which nurture and govern healthy growth into adulthood. What the study found was that there was a crisis of American childhood for lack of connectedness. There are the connections to other people, and deep connections to moral and spiritual meaning. I am sure the first one is no big surprise and NBC was confirming the second with its recent broadcast of Baby boomers seeking spirituality for the latter half of their lives. “You mean there is more to life than money, sex, and power?” Keep reading.Ms Talvi is correct in that people of faith and moral conviction are standing up to defend the character of our kids. Character education which is what Abstinence is based on rejects the kind of moral relativism that so many people mistake for individual freedom. It is understandable why people are offended because it reasserts the idea of objective moral truth- the notion that some things are truly right and others truly wrong. For instance that adultery is wrong, torture wrong, date rape wrong, cheating wrong, and the taking of innocent life wrong are objective moral truths-even if many people don’t realize it. Objective moral truths have a claim on our conscience and behavior. The modern subjectivist notion touted by Ms Talvi is that we should each follow our own conscience, but that is a dangerous half-truth. We must first form our conscience to that which is objectively true and right. This involves trading some of our individual rights to be part of something that is so much bigger than ourselves.
We all need to ask ourselves if it is wrong to believe in our kids. We spend billions on roads, and wars we should stop to ask ourselves or better yet our neighbor, what are we fighting for and where are we going? Does it lead to increased hope for our kids? Does it lead to life?
Posted by 4life4hope4all on Nov 11, 2005 at 8:48 AM Abstinence is best. I started with sex at far too young an age. A fast and furious attitude towards sex in my teenage years and into my twenties has burned me out. I thank God I made it through unscathed.
Isn’t the free and loose attitude towards sex partially responsible for an abundance of problems.
Need examples? How about :
Explosions in numbers of teenage mothers.Irresponsible teenage fathers and mothers. Children suffering for it. Some children neglected and others unwanted. Dare I mention abortion? Sex is cheap and life is cheaper?
Adultery and Divorce. Parents and children suffering for it.
Sexually transmitted diseases.
Booming business in prostitution and pornography. Victims all around.
Some sexual revolution it has been.
I long for the good old days of prudence.
I am not old enough to have experienced the days before the sexual revolution(s) but am waiting patiently for a counter revolution.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 1:21 PM hey 4life, sorry but you’re looking at bad research - in reality, abstinence programs are insidious, superfluous and ridiculous. A self-indulging consecrated belief that it is your manifest destiny to ordain zealous, deluding biblical tenets upon teenagers is not only wishful thinking, but destructive as well. I have successfully raised my children by fomenting character, intelligence, reason and love, without obscuring them with the half-truths and blatant lies of religious or faith-based nonsense.
Posted by Pro-Phylactic on Nov 11, 2005 at 1:59 PM Abstinence is good. But funding the right wing of the Republican party with taxpayer money is not. Who is the absolute genius who came up with this idea that can’t be criticized without seeming to be pro-teen pregnancy?
Those Reps are smart, aren’t they? Maybe they SHOULD have control over our lives. Maybe some of their smart will rub off on us.
Mag
Posted by Mitcherino on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:04 PM Monogamy is best too.
I look at friends who were abstinent and waited for or waited until a faithful and monogamous relationship or a faithful and monogamous marriage for a (fully) sexual relationship and see the undeniable benefits.
They are more likely to be monogamous and continue to be so than those who were not abstinent or monogamous.
Like I say, I am burned out now, sexual relationships mean little to me and increasingly so. I blame my early lack of abstinence and monogamy. Maybe it is just a phase :)
If I had kids I would be telling them to wait and be faithful. My parents told me these things but I did not listen very well. Not too much regret but I sometimes wish I had waited longer and done some things differently.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:08 PM anyone read the latest from the FDA?
F.D.A. Reports Reduced Risks With Condoms
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/health/11condom.html?pagewanted=all
Posted by Pro-Phylactic on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:22 PM By David in Canada: “If I had kids I would be telling them to wait and be faithful. My parents told me these things but I did not listen very well. Not too much regret but I sometimes wish I had waited longer and done some things differently.”
David’s comment, unfortunately, is why you don’t want to limit sex education to abstinence. Birth control information HAS to be included because, David, your kids may be just like you and choose to “burn out” sexually, like you did, rather than to remain chaste. Do you really want your son or daughter to have sex even once UNPROTECTED? Do you want to risk their getting STD’s, unwanted pregnancy?
There may never be a bird flu pandemic, but I have got a storehouse of food and water and medicines in my basement just in case.
JUST IN CASE is the operative word when it comes to teacing sexual behavior.
Posted by Mitcherino on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:23 PM Teen sex increased after abstinence program
Texas study finds little impact on sexual behavior
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/
Posted by Pro-Phylactic on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:24 PM Study shows societies worse off “with God on their side”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. (cont.)
Posted by Pro-Phylactic on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:31 PM Mitcherino,
Yes, education should not be limited to abstinence and birth control information, STD information should be included. I never said otherwise.
I was merely sharing my opinion and experience.
I believe that abstinence and monogamy are the better choice to be made. Free will prevails.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:35 PM ... and my opinion has nothing to do with religious belief or politics. It simply is my belief based on my experience.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:45 PM I’m an ordained minister, so I have my own opinion, my own interpretation, and the responsibility to think about what I say to those who look to me for guidance. It doesn’t make me right or wrong, only influential to some. And I therefore have the responsibility to wield that influence to do the greatest good, or else all that I represent is hypocrisy, without credibility.
What is the bottom line objective? To have healthy children and adults, physically and spiritually. Do I accomplish that by selfishly relying on a monilithic approach of “abstain or go to hell”, with an STD or unplanned child as a consolation prize? Realistically no. We use a number of approaches, all with the same objective, of health. If the methods are not accomplishing that objective, they are imperfect, and need to be supplemented by others.
Part of the orthodox Christan tradition of abstinence comes from the teaching of Paul, who some consider the ultimate sexual role model, while others might contend he was a celibate zealot. Paul’s teachings and examples were a means to an end. What end? Physical and spiritual health and salvation. Salvation from a lot of things, worldy and otherwise.
Do we not want to save our children from teenage pregnancy and disease? If yes, then we should use all means necessary and appropriate.
Abstinence requires will power and commitment. Are these fully developed traits in teenagers? Not completely. So we guide them. And to those who are not matured, we can either coerce and instill fear, or we can make certain paths more attractive than others. The path of sexual activity with protection from pregnancy should be a more attractive path than activity without it. But if we give two choices, strong and saintly or humanly weak and unprotected, then we condemn our children and lose all hope of a supportive environment, especially in the light of our own hypocrisies of telling them to do as we say not as we have done. I don’t want teenagers to speed while driving. But I still tell them to wear seatbelts. Faith and passion of my wants don’t protect their heads from the windshield.
I think it’s represented well in Ecclesiastes 11:9 : Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart be glad in the days of your youth. And walk in the ways of your heart
and in the sights of your eyes; but know that for all of these things God will bring you to judgment.This calls for responsibility for our actions, however we conduct ourselves. We can’t teach wisdom, only knowledge. And to hold back the knowledge that a condom could save a life, be it unborn or adult, is, well, sinful.
Posted by RevGunther on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:56 PM Pro Phylactic,
I have seen the God on their side article before and the research it cites could be called a non sequitir : Jumping to conclusions.
Here is a quote from the article :
“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”
It is impossible to blame religion alone for this. There are many contributing factors.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 2:58 PM David,
religious affiliations all over the country are lobbying hard to undermine sound, science-based measures and programs that effectively deal with teen sex-related problems, all in the name of dogma. That’s one intentional, spectacular dysfunction we urgently need need to curb.
Posted by Pro-Phylactic on Nov 11, 2005 at 3:54 PM RevGunther
that sounds down right sensible
thank you for articulating it so well“Your heading to the grave....no cure”
scare tactics,thats real moralno doubt my disagreeing means i’m just another morally impaired product of these Godless times who can’t see through the wool pulled over my eyes but
wether you believe in some Moral absolute or not
teens deserve the facts, and limiting those facts or exaggerating them to instill fear so that they follow YOUR beliefs is disgustingyeah, lets believe in our kids, lets believe they can make the correct decision with a firm grasp on ALL the facts, with neither side of the equation slanted disproportionately by fear or opinion
and for the record, I actually believe Teens are NOT emotionally equipped to handle sex & should’nt be engaging in it
Posted by scott on Nov 11, 2005 at 4:00 PM Pro-Phylactic
... sound, science-based measures and programs ...
... should not condone or by lack of representation of all the options free and loose sex for teenagers. It is all a matter of being informed, about the physical consequences and the mental, emotional and spiritual consequences as well.
.... self-indulging consecrated belief that it is your manifest destiny to ordain zealous, deluding biblical tenets upon teenagers is not only wishful thinking, but destructive as well.
Agreed, hold the reins of the child/teenager to tight and they may kick against the pricks or may bolt when set free.
This is not about judging anyone’s actions or beliefs.
It is a simple fact that honest common sense attitudes from all sides of the debate towards teen sex problems wins hands down.
Education and information are good. Abstinence and monogamy are the best choices to make based on that education and information. Granted there are other choices as well. Sometimes we make the wrong or not so right choices.
We all have free will. Do what you will. Just know what you are doing and be responsible for the consequences.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 4:54 PM Scott,
Sarcasm is hard to detect in the written word. I think you were sincere in your compliment(?) to the RevGunther. Please confirm this for me as I don’t want to jump to any conclusions . Thanks.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:04 PM David,
I agree with you on the not judging, common sense, education & information bit. That’s how I live.The problem as exposed in the article, lies with our government squandering precious resources in catering to special interests with an agenda to set deleterious standards for our society.
Posted by Pro-Phylactic on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:10 PM Pro-Phylactic
You say religious affiliations all over the country are lobbying hard to undermine sound, science-based measures and programs that effectively deal with teen sex-related problems, all in the name of dogma.
Aren’t abstinence and monogamy just as sound? Regardless of any dogma you or others may attach to them?
Some of my friends are not religiously affiliated and they think abstinence and monogamy are the better way too.
I am not religiously affiliated but I am a believer . But I will excommunicate or kill you if you do not believe what I believe. OK ?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:15 PM Pro-Phylactic,
The problem as exposed in the article, lies with our government squandering precious resources in catering to special interests with an agenda to set deleterious standards for our society.
Yes, equal opportunity for all perspectives is best.
Both sides consider the other to be special interest groups. If we really have the best interests of the kids at heart we are all on the same side.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:20 PM oops .... sorry ... fast and furious typing without proofreading .... here is a very important correction.
But I will NOT excommunicate or kill you if you do not believe what I believe. OK ?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:36 PM ... not a Freudian slip. ... hehe ... more of a blooper.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:41 PM thanks Scott ... a double negative ... ? ... but I think I understand ... yes, not sarcasm ?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 5:48 PM sorry i came on strong
im not very articulate like other posters hereand i’m all for abstinence if its an individual’s choice
but shaming and scaring in order to push someone-whether it is in the pursuit of a worthy goal or not-is not the way to achieve results.
i would hope the abstinence pledge made that decision b/c he or she believed in it, not because someone held out a contract and said “Sign this, and you get a shiny new ring”,that seems insulting and repulsive to me
kids have enough baggage today as it is without having to be shamed and pressured by Christian fundamentalists
Posted by scott on Nov 11, 2005 at 6:23 PM Still can’t get over my oops and the subsequent correction.
Had a nice duality though. Believe that it was not subconcious.
Know it’s not if I will it not to be?
Scott, you are doing great. Understanding one another is the first step to knowing one another.
The step after that is loving one another. Or maybe loving has to come first ?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 6:31 PM I think that one of the things that this discussion brings to the surface is how poorly we approach providing kids with information about sexuality. In particular we are poor at communicating to kids the psychological aspects of sexual decision making.
Recently I taught a class on adolescent development to an undergraduate class and it was astonishing how much of the debate about sexual education focused on the delivery of information about the physical aspects of sexuality without incorporating any information about the psychological aspects. Further so much of the education was designed in ways that spoke at and not with adolescents. This is not just some phrase. Speaking with adolescents would mean including research on the emotional and mental impact of different sexual decisions. It includes qualitative research where a story like David’s would be included. It means sharing experiences and the outcome of those experiences.
Absitnence only is to my mind simply reactionary. It begins with a valid enough point. Sex ed is too focused on information about the physical aspects of sexuality. Then it skips over emotionality and mental life in favor of universal religiously derived morality. However it does tackle another aspect of sexuality. That is fails to address the psychological reality of adolescence is proven by the fact that it does not, on the whole, reduce sexual activity, decrease the rates of STDs, reduce teen pregnancies, reduce the rates of HIV infection while it does delay onset by about a year, it also slightly increases rates of oral and anal sex. Kids find loopholes. For a good reference see Bruckner & Bearman (2005). After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health.
I want to relate one story I heard while teaching. One of my students discussed the way in which her mother approached talking to her about sex. The student recieved information about sex and protection from her school. However her mother sat her down and told her that it was her advice, based on her own experience, that sexuality was a very important part of being a person and that she should respect her sexuality by making choices after she thought about their consequences. Specifically the mother’s student’s told her that while waiting till she got married might be considered ideal, what was truly important was that she only have sex for the first time in the context of long term relationship with someone she loved and respected and whom she felt loved and respected by. The student had sex for the first time in her senior year of high school with her boyfriend of one and half years. She remembers it as wonderful experience and it set the stage for her sexual life beyond that relationship.
Teens want to be able to communicate with adults openly about sexuality. This is a fairly reliable finding of research on adolescents. Here are a couple of citations on this Girl Scout Research Institute, 2002 The Net Effect: Girls and New Media
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2005National Survey of Adolescents and Young Adults: Sexual health knowledge, attitudes, and experiences. Menlo Park, CA. http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/3218-index.cfm
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). 2005. SIECUS position statement on adolescent sexual health. http://www.siecus.org/about/abou0001.html
Posted by Neruda on Nov 11, 2005 at 8:03 PM Great dialogue, it’s a passionate subject so I think it’s that passion (no pun intended) that we see in this interchange, not malicious judgmentalism. And thanks for the kind feedback, it’s a well valued affirmation. (Perhaps that’s where I often tend to depart from some of my colleagues; I think it’s not about being right, but being true. How can there be absolutism when it’s all been translated?)
Interesting point from David:
“The step after that is loving one another. Or maybe loving has to come first ?”
I believe we all progress in our emotional and spiritual maturity, and love moves through stages of capability, and manifests itself differently. Using the familiar greek terminology, we go from the most conditional to the unconditional. From Eros, to filos, to storge, to agape (erotic, brotherly, familial, and spiritual), each capability is a level of maturity. (The fine points could be argued, but work with me.) This is a generalization, but mostly holds true.
Let’s look at Christian principles or Christlike behavior for a moment. And let’s set dogma aside for a moment and take a secular, philosphical view of the figure of Jesus, the Christ (meaning the Anointed). Anointed, enlightened, whatever you prefer, let’s look at him as a standard bearer. And therefore philosophically as something to be a guide.
So it is said that Jesus, when asked what was the most important commandment, responded “Love thy neighbor as thyself” was above all others. Nice umbrella policy to have. So while the original text has specific love, agape, we can accept that the ability to unconditionally love your neighbor is a progression. Reward and encourage, support the path, and serve as an example to follow. Sounds simple. But why make it complicated?
Do I agree with David that the unfettered (maybe even fettered) pursuit of eros can be unhealthy? Yes, I do. Do I condemn those who are immature and act accordingly? Not my place or power to condemn. Knowledge plus context of life experience grants wisdom. So I can’t impart the wisdom of abstinence on the youth, I can only guide them and hope (or pray) that the decisions them make all add up to a healthy eventual acquistion of wisdom, and that they act responsibly, and positively reinfoce that responsibility. Because while I don’t expect them to have maturity, understanding and wisdom overnight, we can teach responsibility at an early age, and reward that behavior accordingly. Perhaps most importantly, to be responsible ourselves as an example without hypocrisy.
Perhaps that’s what’s missing in the equation. I see that we in society tend to abrogate our individual responsibility, casting fate to the wind or into God’s hands entirely, whatever your individual proclivity. Let’s rationalize our decisions, figure out why it’s not our fault, thus why we are powerless to dictate our own behavior. Actions, consequences. That can be taught early. Whether those consequences are deferred or immediate divine retribution, or a more immediate result of disease, unplanned children, and social upheaval, the risk is there, to measured against the possible rewards. If we provide both perspectives, hen I would hope that it makes all that more a compelling case to act responsibly, and create a result that you want to live with, one that makes your life and those around you richer, not poorer.
Here’s to moving past the selfish into the selfless. We have many examples to choose from. I’m enjoying the dialogue here, I think that’s what we need most, for the less we communicate, the more we assume and build barriers to understanding.
Posted by RevGunther on Nov 11, 2005 at 8:15 PM Thank you again Rev.
You took the love one another ball and ran with it for a touchdown.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 11, 2005 at 10:35 PM I was a born-again Christian, and was an “everything but” virgin on the day I married my husband, who is now an admired evangelical minister. I’m sure he still tells people he was a virgin too. Had it not been for the carrot-on-a-stick of intercourse, I never would have married this guy and then spent 3 years trying to extricate myself and my self-esteem from the prison that was my marriage. He was physically, emotionally, and spiritually abusive, and I am no longer a Christian because of the hypocracy of this type of thinking that is now rampant among the Bush administration officials and their religious-right ilk. I’m here to testify that no one who get married, even to a “wonderful Christian man” is insulated against a partners’ infidelity, and that holding out for marriage before having sex just keeps women in their subordinate position. Marriage as defined by evangelical Christians is not a healthy state of being for women, and is too high a price to pay for being able to express ones self in a healthy, loving relationship.
Posted by binskins on Nov 12, 2005 at 6:25 AM There is nothing rational or logical about our existence. Cosmic alphabet soup or purposed destiny we are here just the same. Five senses to make sense of it all. Are we angry because we lack control or because we need to exercise it? Are we passionate or are we scorned? Does each crystal blue sky day increase our joy or is it increased contempt we experience from behind the window pane with a chained spirit. Do we have hope for a future or fear that doom is around the next corner. Do we have all the information to decide or faith in our decision? Do we carry our shame, resentment, guilt, and pain or are we forgiven, unburdened, and healed. Either/or we all need to ask the question. Why are we here? Why do we know that we are here? Am I the religious right? I don’t think so. Over politics and above all I choose faith, hope, and love. I choose because for a reason I can’t explain, I can. Religion, if that is what this discussion is about, is not the underlying problem. Of course there are problems where there is religion, where there is religion there are people. In many cases these people are confused, messed up, and broken tormented by misery, despair, and emptiness.
Posted by 4life4hope4all on Nov 12, 2005 at 10:05 AM Suffering cheerfully endured, ceases to be suffering and is transmuted into an ineffable joy.
Mahatma Ghandi
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 12, 2005 at 3:51 PM Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Jesus Christ : Matthew 5:6
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 12, 2005 at 3:52 PM Those last posts were mostly for you Binskins.
Be thankful in all things. Not some things but all things.
Forgive others so that you may be forgiven.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 12, 2005 at 4:10 PM “ I am no longer a Christian because of the hypocracy ”
No, you have it backwards.
The hypocrite is no longer a Christian and maybe never was but maybe still can be.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 12, 2005 at 4:35 PM The hypocrite is possibly no longer a Christian and ......
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 12, 2005 at 4:38 PM I fear I’ve helped lead this into a discussion of spirituality, when the real topic is, I believe, the appropriateness of the current administration has funded programs around sex-education and other programs. (Not that the former is any more enrinching, but the current topic sorely needs some discussion right now).
I think there is a consensus that the government, when it provides funding or services, should be doing so with the greatest good in mind, or minimally considering the least harm. And while statistics can be thrown around to support various positions, the bare facts are that teenage pregnancy is up, STDs are on the rise, and millions of people in non-industrialized nations are dying each year from AIDS. Those are tragic facts. Even more tragic is our collective inability or unwillingness to take some of the simplest steps to reduce these problems. Linking condom discussions to promiscuity is as ludicrous as linking seatbelts to speeding.
To “biskins” I wish there were something I could say other than I’m pained and sorry to hear about what you endured, and I commend your strength and courage not only to get out of a bad situation (likely against tremendous peer pressure), but to be willing to share that with the group. Some might call that experience anecdotal or the exception to the rule, but it is the very exception that should make us look at what we blindly consider the norm. What pains me as well is that your husband nominally represented Christianity, though truly not in spirit or action. We must understand the context of marriage in Judeo-Christian texts: young women were married off soon after puberty, and the Old Testament (and some of the New) references about fidelity, marriage, and sexuality were not even close to egalitarian. This is not that world, and we must adjust accordingly.
We as a coutntry have lost much of our credibilty-- no, we have given it away, forgotten what it means. “Evangelical Christians” is a broad label, unfortunately it’s come to be represented by greed, xenophobia, and foolishness, which tarnishes the name of Christ, and disappoints me. It disappoints me because the millions who may be Christian, and who may evangelize, but aren’t represented by these narrow, destructive views, are allowing the message of Christ, of loving your fellow neighbor through act and spirit, to become tarnished, and to lose all credibility. And those who accept the Federal funds to forward their own agenda are not only shortsighted, they are selling the name of Christ to the highest bidder. To use an appropriate metaphor, they are in bed with the administration, without any protection. As a minister it makes my heart hurt. Maybe it radicalizes me, because to say nothing is to bear complicity.
Withholding AIDS funds from African nations unless they refuse to discuss anything but abstinence is reprehensible. We know that withholding condoms is directly and increasingly resulting in the deaths of millions, and it is part of the administration’s plan. It is therefore pre-meditated, and is murder. That does not value life. So by doing the same thing to people in this country, is it any less the same thing? With the billions spent on the “war on terror”, more Americans have been killed by contraction of STDs than by terrorist attacks. Malnutrition is rampant in our own country, and we’re going to say that chastity so much more important than life that we will kill children over it? If you think that this is melodramatic, then tell that to the child who contracted AIDS in the womb. We have enough martyrs.
I think that the backlash against the churches is not persecution, it’s righteous indignation, and until we, as individuals or as an institution, who attempt to profess a Christian philosophy, can look in the mirror and to God and say that we do no no harm, then we have no right to cast stones.
Posted by RevGunther on Nov 12, 2005 at 4:52 PM David,
I take exception to you reply to Binskins. Suffering is part of life and we need to find ways to learn from it but the types of quotes you present are too often used to encourage silent suffering. These sentiments are often used by the powerful as opiates to quell resistance and rebellion.
Also having grown up Catholic I saw so much hypocracy from church leaders that I am more inclined to see hypocracy as an organizing priniciple of Christianity and not merely the isolated behavior of one Christian-in-name only.
Don’t get me wrong I have known good caring sincere Christians but, like Jesus, they seem to be going against the current.
Posted by Neruda on Nov 12, 2005 at 4:54 PM Neruda,
Suffering is part of life. Learning from suffering and going on despite suffering is part of life too. Doing so with a cheerful spirit is better than with a bitter spirit.
I do not see any evidence of encouragement for silence. I commend Biskins for speaking her mind and you as well.
“Don’t get me wrong I have known good caring sincere Christians but, like Jesus, they seem to be going against the current.”
Yes, the path is narrow.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 12, 2005 at 5:25 PM “Withholding AIDS funds from African nations unless they refuse to discuss anything but abstinence is reprehensible. We know that withholding condoms is directly and increasingly resulting in the deaths of millions, and it is part of the administration’s plan. It is therefore pre-meditated, and is murder. That does not value life. So by doing the same thing to people in this country, is it any less the same thing? With the billions spent on the “war on terror”, more Americans have been killed by contraction of STDs than by terrorist attacks. Malnutrition is rampant in our own country, and we’re going to say that chastity so much more important than life that we will kill children over it? If you think that this is melodramatic, then tell that to the child who contracted AIDS in the womb. We have enough martyrs.
I think that the backlash against the churches is not persecution, it’s righteous indignation, and until we, as individuals or as an institution, who attempt to profess a Christian philosophy, can look in the mirror and to God and say that we do no no harm, then we have no right to cast stones.”
BRAVO! BRAVO!
You rightly point out what it is about all of these abstinence only crusaders outrages so many of us. In the place of “Love you neighbor” we have judgementalism and condemnation. In place of compassion and empathy there is cold self-rightousness. And in the place of knowledge and learning there is indoctrination.
Posted by Neruda on Nov 12, 2005 at 5:37 PM As a born-again, Bible-thumping atheist, I’ve read through these comments with a simultaneous sense of fascination and frustration. You don’t have to be a communist or a socialist or even a liberal to realize that traditional religious norms and prohibitions are the product of one basic, supreme principle, and that is the survival of the society whose ruling exponents promulgate them. The principal problem for any society, ancient or modern, or postmodern, is work: how do you direct and administrate the labor of all of its members to ensure the survival and continued succession of that society as a whole. Society, as such, assumes the metaphorical characteristics of the divine. It is, in effect if not in fact, divine. This ought to explain why the “clash of civilizations” mantra holds such a psychological stimulus for all of us. We’re wired—hard-wired—to respond to the threat of social decline and destruction, however fantastic or implausible such threats actually are.
Agricultural societies are labor-intensive. Industrial societies are capital-intensive. Agricultural societies therefore require a high birth rate to sustain a labor-intensive economy which is characterized by a correspondingly high death rate, one which is exacerbated by wars, famines, pestilence and disease, apocalyptic indications of either extinction or transformation. In fact, the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy is accompanied by all of the above, and almost invariably results in a sustained, relatively low birth rate. The reason the birth rate remains low is due to a correlatively high rate of literacy, the result of technological developments which are themselves the results of a progressively advanced program of mass education required to sustain the development of an industrial economy. Women’s rights, including abortion and birth control, are therefore essential to the survival of an industrial society, in order to avoid the social dislocations which a surplus labor force will inevitably produce. Namely, warfare and the welfare state.
The morality of sexuality is therefore a function of economic necessity. That we are currently debating the virtues of abstinence is an indication of the presence of another transition, from industrialism to post-industrialism, one which results from the out-sourcing of production to more cost-effective locations around the globe, and results in the domestic decline of education and literacy.
Posted by Major Major on Nov 12, 2005 at 9:48 PM I think a lot of people are missing the point of the article in their criticisms of it. No one has an issue with abstinence itself - frankly I thinks it’s a great thing, especially for teens whose bodies may be ready, but whose emotions are not. However, I’ve seen firsthand the so-called ‘abstinence-education’ programs and not only are many of them thinly disguised religious tracts, but they’re also very sexist and full of misinformation.
What also disturbs me about many of the comments is how sex-phobic the reponders seem to be and how it’s so easy to place the blame of society’s ills upon rampant sexual freedom. The real problem is the repressive and regressive sexual attitudes that pervade this country. Such negativity - much of it based on repressive puritanical thinking - surrounding something as natural and beautiful as sexuality is the main cause of why unhealhy sexual attitudes flourish. Pornography, whether we like it or not, is the direct result of these unhealthy sexual attitudes. Don’t believe me, think about the Victorian era - repressive as all hell and yet one middle-1800’s census of London revealed that at least 60,000 women identified themselves as prostitutes, not to mention the syphilis rate was extremely high. And as a student of literature, let me tell you that a great deal of porn (or erotica if you will) was being produced that interestingly enough, is still being read today (i.e. ‘The Pearl’).
Frankly, what bothers me most is that there has been no honest and open dialogue about sexuality without people’s value judgments getting all askew. Should we teach abstinence in sex education courses? Of course, and we should also encourage it - and not just for girls either (can anyone here name a single famous male who remained abstinent until marriage? I know of only one - A.C. Green, a former L.A. Lakers basketball star) and we should also give our children the correct information regarding sexuality and their bodies.
Posted by KymberlynR on Nov 13, 2005 at 6:26 AM Islam, Sex And The Western Left
by Kola Odetola
16th August 05While differing in their responses to the west’s war on terror, read non compliant Muslim nations, right wingers, liberals and a lot of silent leftists share in varying degrees a unity in support of one its most vociferously avowed aims – the liberation of the Islamic world’s women.
Of course the notion that a society which sells everything from yoghurt to high powered precision tools by the invitation to lust after naked female flesh, is an epitome of the rights of women is perverse, however remarkable the advances—political, social and economic—made by western women over the last century or so are still a benchmark in the age old struggle for sexual equality. Shorn of all high vaulting rhetoric this translates into western women no longer having to trade themselves in one form or another to guarantee the survival of their offspring and themselves. The currency of sexual interaction is no longer measured solely on the scales of male lust
Hence sexual permissiveness and its symbols—free choice of partners, the mini skirt and casual sex—are largely although not solely based on the unforced consent of women, free from the taint of calculation, corruption and compulsion. The basis for this of course is the material prosperity of western societies, the extensive division of labour, and advanced commodity economy requiring skills that can no longer be sensibly attributed only to the dominant sex.
But why is such liberty being increasingly rejected by not just the poor and downtrodden of the Islamic world, but also by most of its working class women, the same class who fought most eagerly for these rights in the west. For it is now clear that most ordinary women in the Islamic world are increasingly turning towards the more extreme variants of Islam and against their would-be western liberators. In Iraq’s much touted elections early this year, thousands of women in chador lined up to vote for the list most likely to keep it on them. In the Iranian election most women voted for the fundamentalist candidate shunning the pro west reformers. In Lebanon and Palestine, Hizbollah and Hamas clearly enjoy the support of most ordinary women in working class communities.
Of course this fact is not one willingly conceded by the western media and liberal commentators; For these gentlemen and ladies, horny handed hard working peasant and working class females, the overwhelming majority in these countries, are not women but statistics, in these lands the appellation “women” belong to the tiny rootless urban elite, who wear sunglasses, lipstick and look like they jumped out of the front page of Glamour.
Curiously missing from the western left’s narrative in the issue of women’s rights in the poor world has been the calamity wreaked upon it by neo liberalism over the last 20 years. While there’s a lot of talk of the poverty created by the colonisation of the third world by the IMF and World Bank, it’s rarely linked to the rise of Islamic consciousness in these parts of the world.
Posted by Major Major on Nov 13, 2005 at 9:58 AM (page2 of 3)
The fact is the economic genocide perpetrated by the west on the poor world over the last two decades has generated industrial prostitution there on a scale probably unprecedented in the entire history of the human race. Faced with ruin, deafened with spurious western talk of women’s rights - from Africa to Asia, from Latin America, to “recently liberated” Eastern Europe, most women from poor families can now only survive by selling their bodies to men, mostly wealthy mostly pro west males, in prostitution of one form or another of varying degrees of degradation. In the third world and parts of Eastern Europe, women are now the major bread winners, feeding their families, keeping a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, by trading their bodies for the means of survival. Imperialism and its local acolytes have turned two thirds of the planet, the home of the overwhelming majority of the world’s females to one giant brothel, underneath the blazing neon lit legend, forever flashing – “Women’s rights”.
In countries where endemic hunger, hopeless unemployment levels, mass homelessness and limitless poverty constitute the social landscape, women are not really in a position to relax and enjoy their “rights”, much less defend them.
Often the sole wage earner, and with previous social welfare provisions abolished by the (women’s rights loving world bank) they can’t really refuse the boss’s advances with 10,000 others on the job queue for their post; if the rent can’t be paid, with no public housing or housing benefit (scrapped by the IMF diktat) it’s not really an option to reject the landlord’s kind offer to accept payment in kind; if the kid is dying in hospital (commercialised on the advice of western experts) with unpayable fees, how many women would refuse the kind doctor’s help to forget the fee, if..., or the corrupt magistrate’s offer not to send a brother, a father, a child to prison on trumped up charges if the sister, wife, mother, did the necessary. This is the reality of most women in the third, Islamic and non Islamic world. It is also the reason why the daily humiliation and degradation of ordinary working class women in these countries generates especially amongst the majority poor and ruined middle classes a deep resentment against a permissiveness which the west celebrates as refreshing freedom but they can only associate with endless humiliation.
In the west a father sighting his teenage daughter going for a night out on the town, dressed in mini skirt and skimpy blouse, is generally relaxed, safe in the knowledge that any sex would most probably be a consensual conclusion to a night of fun, in the poor world, most fathers seeing their daughters similarly attired fight back tears of bitter or helpless anguish, realising she’s out to earn the family’s supper. It is this bitter despair, a reaction to the debauchery, corruption and depravity of a monstrously unjust system that hawks the children of the poor for the pleasure of the idle and criminal rich that has provoked most ordinary women and men in Islamic countries to the ascetic Puritanism of the Fundamentalists. Bullied, taunted, goaded, threatened and compelled into sex by predatory men at every turn, most of the women take refuge in a version of a religion that at least bends their knee before one, not every man. Even in the west, mini skirted girls don’t like being leered at by every man in the street; but at least they can walk away, most of their sisters in poorer places can’t. Surrounded by crushing humiliation on every side, it’s not surprising they black it out by the chador.
Posted by Major Major on Nov 13, 2005 at 10:00 AM (page 3 of 3)
The beneficiaries of female humiliation in these countries are the few with the resources to enslave poor women to their lust - the rich and upper middle class whose own daughters cry for “freedom” because they don’t have to pay for it with their bodies. Since the fundamentalists also target, however indirectly, the upper classes in these societies their slogans find a ready ear in the slums who supply the beds of the rich with their daughters, wives and mothers. If Cromwell’s Puritanism in debauched aristocratic England attracted the support of the oppressed poor why are we surprised that the roundheads in turbans hold the same sway in the slums of the Islamic world.
The Islamists provide welfare services while the secular corrupt rulers and their liberal “opponents” provide empty slogans. In the slums, food provided by the fundamentalists might mean the difference between prostitution and a level of dignity that all the self righteous women friendly western NGO’s do not even come close to supplying. Forcing men to at least take care of their offspring as radical Islam generally does appeals to ordinary women much more than secular divorce rights which in the third world force women and their children into the street and a life of nightmarish poverty.
Permissiveness in the west is protected by advanced but affordable medicine that has prevented the swamping of society with deadly sexual diseases. The secular third world hasn’t got these guarantees. When the women of the Islamic world look at the secular third world they see the results of freedom unsupported by the requisite development, ballooning sex transmitted diseases killing millions.
Is it not a fact that Islamist, unfree, and backward Muslim Arabia has the lowest AIDS rates in the whole world – a third of swashbuckling free South Africa is afflicted with the killer illness.
Is this a call for the Burkha, for the compulsory Hijab? No its not. To explain is not to endorse. It is simply to outline why the west’s corruption of the idea of female rights holds little appeal to those crushed under its economic heel and self serving concern.
For again let’s be blunt, if “women’s rights” are enshrined in say, Iraq today, who will be the immediate beneficiaries? Clearly the 150,000 western soldiers who would be deluged with a surplus of hungry jobless local females forced to sell their flesh to those capable of paying for its misuse - the wealthy invaders of their country.
Without a doubt ten years of such freedom would place the AIDS rate in Iraq right up there with western friendly women loving Botswana – 50%.
In the past a radical left would have mobilised these women under easily grasped, powerfully relevant slogans demanding and struggling for jobs, houses, living wages, and socialism - slogans that embarrass a lot of today’s left who prefer the anodyne, inoffensive and abstract ones of women’s rights, the environment, democracy and “freedom”.
They like talking about the ozone layer, the poor world’s women like it a bit closer to earth.
http://www.globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=4923
The rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East, I might add, is immediately apparent in its corresponding popularity in the US “heartland”, and for many of the same reasons.
Posted by Major Major on Nov 13, 2005 at 10:02 AM Great article Major Major - thanks for sharing it.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 13, 2005 at 11:58 AM What the article wrongly assumes is that the government is misallocating funds to abstinence education which by the way is sexuality education plus character education. From an economic standpoint it was in response to a social welfare explosion. People were making choices that the country couldn’t afford to subsidize in the long run. Teen pregnancies, STDs, and AIDs were leading to more and more social collapse. The current risk reduction model of contraception and treatment was not effective enough. The government’s guidelines for Abstinence education funding are in line with its goal to stabilize welfare costs and support family formation. The family unit is still the best means for raising children which last I checked was what we were all talking about. This funding for abstinence only adds to the body of knowledge and number of concerned people helping to raise healthier kids. It is a risk avoidance model which helps direct kids in the choice we know will have the best outcome for their future success and happiness.
While some localities may choose abstinence only others may choose abstinence plus contraception. Maybe what is best is a progression from risk avoidance skills to gradually introducing risk reduction skills as a child becomes older and more sexually active. I agree with the last comment that we need to become more open about topics of sexuality and especially cultural values. Whether we are farmers or industrialist or post industrialists we can still think and act. I am sure society does resemble a thermometer (economic model) but I think a thermostat would be even more accurate. We have a choice, will we only read the temperature or will we set it. The economic explanation bares some truth but it only balances out if we know the true value of things.
Ultimately, parents and local schools should decide what meets the needs of their community. With the common goal of healthy kids and families they should be able to choose. Right now there are very few choices for abstinence. SEICUS with the Planned Parenthood Federation have had a monopoly over sex education in America for over 30 years and they have molded us into anti abstinence conformists. They claim to have a comprehensive approach but really what they have is just the word comprehensive. It is as subjective and value laden as abstinence. Let’s open the door to greater understanding, Let the parents decide if the messages are gender biased or in the case of condoms demonstration overly suggestive. The issue about money is a non issue because our tax system doesn’t allow us to choose what we support. You may not want to pay for kids to hear a message on abstinence but the guy next door doesn’t want to pay for condoms and abortions. It can’t be a money thing.
Posted by 4life4hope4all on Nov 14, 2005 at 7:49 AM I was talking about the original artlicle. Major Major’s article gives us a lot to think about and opens another very important aspect to this whole disscussion.
Thanks Major Major.
Posted by 4life4hope4all on Nov 14, 2005 at 10:31 AM Was out and about on the internet today and found this :
Please click on the hyperlink but be warned ... it may offend.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 14, 2005 at 9:45 PM ... oh .. and read the comments .. well worth it.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 14, 2005 at 10:08 PM The previous hyperlink was a _________ response?
I like looking at all sides of the debate. Here is another link :
Sorry to drag this discussion into abortion, I did dare myself to say it in my first post, but it is a tangent on the topic. Yes?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 15, 2005 at 1:09 AM Just putting it all out there. Any comments?
It ain’t easy ... that’s for sure ... it ain’t easy ...
When you climb to the top of the mountain
Look out over the sea
Think about the places we have
Where a young man could be
Then you jump back down to the rooftops
Look over the town
Then you think about all of the strange things
Circulating ‘roundIt ain’t easy
It ain’t easy
It ain’t easy with all that’s going down
All the people have got their problems
That ain’t no bad news
With the help of the good Lord
We can all pull on through
We can all pull on through
Get there in the end
Sometimes it takes you right up
And sometimes down againSatisfaction, satisfaction
Keep me satisfied
I got the love of a hootchy-cootchy woman
She’s a-callin’ from inside
She’s a-callin’ from inside
She’s talkin’ to you, too
What the woman really wants
You can give her somethin’ too... lyrics Rick Davies ... ? ... sung once upon a time by David Bowie (and others).
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 15, 2005 at 1:20 AM well
im sorry
being an insufferable Liberal and all, and no doubt im discrediting myself with anyone posting here
but i don’t care what the hell someone comes up with in this eternal, ridiculous debate
a woman can do with her body as she wishes
if you don’t believe in abortion yourself
DON"T DO IT it but leave it to others to make up there own mind wether or not thy decide to pursus it as a course action
who the hell are you or anyone to tell somone what they cant do with their bodies?
i don’t care what what-if question gets thrown at me,
ive heard way to many “that whore shoulda close her legs” from supposedly sensible people to believe either side is going to get anywhere
there is no compromise on this issue, not from either side, that much is clear
Posted by scott on Nov 15, 2005 at 2:54 PM Easy there Scott. I am insufferable too. Just putting it out there for discussion. People can do what they want. I am into free will. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 15, 2005 at 4:00 PM Wow, Canadian David, when I read that you’re burnt out on sex I felt terribly chagrined. So life-enhancing and joyful a thing should be enjoyed often and intensely. Inshallah it really is just a phase, soon passed.
And nothing like a little intelligence before the fact (before the act?) to reduce the likelihood that later you’ll have to say, “Oh no, what have I done?”
Fill in the sex-related crisis that would make you say that yourself.
As the dad of two teens who have passed the age of consent, I’m thankful every day that they’ve made intelligent decisions about sex. Those decisions were made much more possible by the fact that since they were little, body-related issues have the subjects of ordinary talk in our house. It’s extremely important to keep things developmentally appropriate, and not every child matures in mind and emotions at the same rate, but I think one big factor in sexual mistakes is the mystification our society insists upon indulging in regarding sexual matters. The taboo topic we’re all obsessed with. So many people feel the need to postpone some sort of “big talk” until the last possible moment, avoiding substantive conversation with their kids about it up until then.
It makes much more sense to speak about sex as if it’s just part of life. It’s a special, wonderful, complex part of life, to be sure. Love, babies, self-image, spirituality, marriage, viral transmission, excitement, etc etc etc, all are caught up in it, but those are all just life too.
Based on my years teaching teenagers and now having two live in my house, I certainly think that the more varied and honestly discussed information they can get, the better. The state has a definite interest in promoting intelligent approaches to sex, as do families, as does every individual who intends to be sexual, so I advocate sex education that includes knowledge about all forms of birth control technology, including their strengths and limitations. The point made up-thread about the psychological features of sex getting discussed is also very well taken, along with emotional and values-oriented discussions as well. Medical info, social controversies, a grain of history about sex in society, all should be in-bounds. It doesn’t make sense to think that limiting knowledge about such a pivotal personal decision can help make that decision a sound one.
So it’s therefore wise to teach kids that becoming sexual is not a trivial decision. Demystifying sex and speaking about it openly, doesn’t mean it ought to be reduced it to the level of relieving oneself or grabbing a snack when the tummy rumbles.
No one is served by sex being a taboo topic. Similarly but in the opposite direction, no one is served by turning it into something mundane and devoid of significance. Honest, informative, scientifically sound discussions of sex, pregnancy, and the issue of abortion, definitely to include addressing the values that come into play, can only make teens better able to make smart decisions. I believe (and I’ve witnessed) this can be true whether they decide to preserve their virginity or to go for it and get naked.
One thing though. Although I think schools are perfectly legitimate places for these discussions to take place, I sure wouldn’t wait for a curriculum guide to be implemented before talking about sex to kids. That’s primarily my job as parent. Why be so squeamish? If the school assists in the way I described above, great. If the political winds forbid their assistance, it shouldn’t be an impediment. Cast your votes, advocate for your pet policies, but first and foremost, raise your kids.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 16, 2005 at 3:12 AM Great post Kuya.
Yeah, burned out, but I am sure the fire can be stoked again. Waiting for a spark ... or lightning.
A better description might be : Smoldering ... for now. Waiting for more wood (pun!).
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 16, 2005 at 12:27 PM ... and love is like oxygen.
Sorry, could not resist ... I am so insufferable sometimes !!
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 16, 2005 at 2:48 PM Scott wrote, “a woman can do with her body as she wishes”
I agree but what if the woman is still a fetus?
Scott wrote, “leave it to others to make up there own mind”
If we asked the babies whether they would choose abortion for themselves would we be having this discussion. Everything about that developing baby wants to live.
Scott wrote, “Who the hell are you or anyone to tell somone what they can or can’t do with their bodies?”
Is it right to rape someone with your body? What about killing and stealing and trespassing all done with your body. Freedom is great if we understand the need to balance YOUR rights with YOUR responsibilites towards others.
You’re right about there being no compromise. Respect for life is a natural principle which needs to be obeyed if society is to live. There are other courses a person can chart but they still need to sail around the rocks. Some things can’t be moved to suit our desires.
David, you are good moderator. Keeping the peace is important. I am defintately for free will too only let’s not take it too lightly. If you are not freely choosing life, well then…What are you choosing? We may think we are islands but really we desire relationships and being connected means it matters what I do because it somehow affects you.
Scott I am glad you are here to discuss this topic with us. I guess I am really grateful to your mom and those who supported her with the choice to bring you into the world.
Posted by 4life4hope4all on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:17 AM I have a deep respect for the human body. I also believe that it is a womans choice. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes.
I would however like to clarify that I do not support abortion as a method of birth control at all. I do agree if it is necessary as in the case of rape and such, noone wants a constant reminder of a nightmare.
i choose life, but who are we to say what someone else should choose?
Posted by Chemical Enhanced on Nov 19, 2005 at 7:26 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Silja J.A. Talvi
- Reporting From The Ground Up
The power of street reporting - Seattle Battles the Homeless
- Women Behind Bars
War on drugs leads to explosion of female incarcerations - Tupperware and Tasers
- Suffering Secondary Trauma
Finding Iris Chang: Friendship, Ambition and the Loss of an Extraordinary Mind explores the complexity of Chang's psychology as it formed around the demands of her profession and her personal struggles stemming from her writing about The Rape of Nanking - Justice Denied
One man stands between Flozelle Woodmore and the "free" world--California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
