Abstaining from Common Sense 

I knew that if I surfed long enough, something would make me angry. I came across this post at Bark Bark Woof Woof through a link at the Miserable Failure Coalition page. It's about a new abstinence education grant or something that's going to some schools. I'm about to respond to it. Isn't that exciting?

First of all, the post is entitled, "The Religious Reich Is Endangering the Lives of Our Children," so you can tell what perspective it's written from, but I need to cover both sides of this issue. The post provides an excerpt from the grant, taken from this source. Here's a sample:

Eligibility is open to public and private entities, including faith-based and community organizations, which develop and/or provide an abstinence program consistent with the definition of "abstinence education'' in section 510 of the Social Security Act. In addition, the entity must agree not to provide a participating adolescent any other education regarding sexual conduct in the same setting.

All right, I think abstinence is definitely the way to go, but there's a problem here, namely the fact that they're not allowed to teach anything else. There are some good lessons in the program, such as these points:

(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only
certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted
diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the
context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage
is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have
harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society...

Definitely good things to learn. I'll cover that later, but again, the problem is that they're only teaching abstinence and nothing else. You have to educate students in the basics so they at least know what to abstain FROM.

I was going to write about this in a different context earlier, but I can use it here for now. This kind of thing reminds me of the Knights Who Say "Ni" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You know...

"Don't say that word!"

"What word?"

"I cannot tell, suffice to say 'tis one of the words the Knights Who Say Ni cannot hear!"

"Well, how can we not say the word if you don't tell us what it is?"

That seems like a pretty accurate parallel. Once again, as a conservative Christian, I'm all about abstinence, but sex education needs to be taken far enough that people know the facts about sexual behavior and have full knowledge of what to do, what not to do, what the consequences are, and so on.

Now, on to the other side of the argument. Like I said, the post in question is obviously against abstinence education, but uses much different reasoning to come to that conclusion. The poster, as you can see by reading it, sent a letter to a Planned Parenthood volunteer (don't even get me started on those sick freaks), and has their response on the blog. Some of the information given there is interesting and demonstrates the lack of knowledge that necessitates sex education programs, but once again, the logic is all wrong.

But I must tell you that to go into our clinic on a Thursday afternoon is to see how needed real information on sexuality is, as well as a source for getting either the pill or condoms (we give the latter out for free). That's the day for our Teen Clinic and the waiting room is standing room only with little room to move.

Now, the question is, whose fault is that? Is it the fault of education programs that don't give people the proper information, or is it the fault of a general lack of common sense in the younger population, or a lack of moral messages, or lack of parenting, etc.? This blogger seems to have an answer:

This is what our government, at the behest of the Religious Reich, is doing to "protect" the morals of our teenaged children: teaching ignorance and preaching abstinence. The teachers can't even talk about anything else, and meanwhile the HIV / STD infection rate is on the rise again...

Yes, that's right, it's all because of abstinence education. It couldn't possibly be because the entertainment world has decided that all a woman has to do to be a famous singer is go on stage half naked and dance around like an idiot.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that children are being bombarded constantly with messages from society and the media that tell them that if they don't go out and f**k everything with a pulse, they're a social reject and will never be able to live a happy life, so they might as well just go live in a monastery. Using the word "virgin" as a derogatory term is a sign of social progress!

It couldn't be because too many parents are trying to relive the "free love" period and don't even know the definition of restraint or morality. It's not their fault, even though they have no idea how to talk to their children about these issues because they made the wrong decisions years ago but don't want to seem like "prudes."

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we're teaching more and more detailed sexual education programs to younger and younger children. Check out another quote about the recommended curriculum from Planned Victimhood Parenthood:

...the individual teachers can request a session that [our educator] gives to her junior high and upper grades. The age that should be getting it is, of course, fifth grade or sixth at the latest. But that's pushing it.

AT THE LATEST? AT THE F***ING LATEST??!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? AT LEAST WAIT FOR THEM TO HIT FRICKIN' PUBERTY BEFORE YOU TELL THEM TO GO OUT AND SCREW EACH OTHER!

Honestly, this is ridiculous. My philosophy TA said that his school distributed bags of condoms when he was in fifth grade. Yes, he really did say that. Yes, I remembered it correctly. No, I'm not exaggerating. BAGS...OF...CONDOMS...TO...TEN...YEAR...OLD...CHILDREN.

The rise of AIDS couldn't have anything to do with that. And don't even mention homosexuals. They're not at risk at all. If you even imply that gays are responsible for ONE case of the disease, you're a homophobic bigot and should be locked up for your horrifyingly intolerant views.

No, none of those has anything to do with pregnancy, AIDS, STDs, or any other problem. It's the abstinence. It's always the abstinence. Here's the money quote from our ignorant liberal blogger friend:

Condoms have a failure rate of less than one percent. The failure rate of abstinence is a lot higher.

Wrong. DEAD. WRONG. First of all, birth control pills have a failure rate of less than one percent. Condoms can go anywhere from 75% to 95% effectiveness, but there's no consensus that I know of. That's called a myth.

Oh, and the failure rate of abstinence is always 0%. As soon as you have sex, it's not abstinence anymore.

It's ignorance. Pure and simple.

Posted by CD on December 11, 2003 08:33 PM
Category: