Sara at Diotima uncritically quotes from an article in Frontpage:
I don’t want to pick on Sara too much – she’s better than most anti-feminists, and even agrees with feminists on some issues while occasionally diverging from anti-feminist orthodoxy.
But this quote is dishonest. The YWCA doesn’t oppose abstinence education – it opposes abstinence-only education. Abstinence-only education is an entirely different thing than just teaching and encouraging abstinence; to pretend the two are the same thing is a lie.
Also, the quote is plain wrong. Maybe the extremists at Frontpage Magazine believe that abstinence education (as opposed to abstinence itself) guarantees “100% protection” from STDs, but no one with a working brain could agree with them (which makes it puzzling that Sara seemingly endorses the quote). Since fewer than 100% of teens who attend an abstinence education program actually will abstain (the American Academy of Pediatrics says “26% of adolescent couples trying to abstain from intercourse will become pregnant within 1 year”), it’s obvious that abstinence education doesn’t provide “100% protection.”
The Frontpage article (in another bit uncritically quoted by Sara) goes on to complain that the YWCA “seeks to eliminate racism.” The horror! The horror!.
An end to **gasp**RACISM?
What an absolutely henious threat to the Amerikkkan way of life!
The article also seems to take issue with the fact that the YWCA doesn’t condemn homosexuality. When, oh when will this leftist tyranny end?
It would be in the interests of her credibility for her to correct that claim. Definitely in the interest of her credibility. 100%.
Abstinence-only education as an approach to preventing sexually transmitted disease (and the other dangers of sex, such as babies) reminds me of the DARE program for preventing drug abuse.
As I understand it, the DARE program has no measurable effect on kids’ subsequent use of drugs (I don’t really understand why not). But rather than scrapping a program that is a waste of time, energy and money that could better be spent elsewhere, the DARE program continues to have widespread support by parents. To me, that’s what such programs are really about—making parents feel better.
I’m sure that the same sort of criticism can be leveled against programs that liberals favor (for example, mandatory “sensitivity training” classes in some colleges).
What?!? You mean telling kids not to have sex before marriage didn’t work all that time? You are aware that pregnancy before marriage didn’t happen until the 60s…
Daryl is completely correct–it’s about making parents feel better. Especially head-in-the-sand type parents.
My counter to such is this: I have daughters. They’re too young now but won’t be young forever. In ten years or so, when *your* son is in the backseat with *my* daughter, and the hormones are raging, and his dick is telling him to forget all that “just say no” crap–he had *better* know what a frickin’ condom is. End of story.
Hey, frank, don’t pin this on my son. He’s a good boy. And also doesn’t exist. So there.
The difference between DARE and abstinence-only programs is DARE doesn’t work because people eventually realize it’s nothing but propagandistic lies. But then abstinence-only programs don’t work, and are filled with propagandistic lies like that condoms are dangerous or non-preventative, so that if someone actually believes them, they’d be likely not to bother with condoms, and therein lies the danger.
(Great stuff, Amp. I just discovered your bastion of sanity in the midst of the chaos that is the Internet, and I will get my reason fix here much more often.)
As for the issue at hand, I think the ladies of Diotima are proof that not every woman has to hand her brain over to her feminist mistresses. However, since Sara really is quite intelligent, I’m sure she’ll thank you for catching her grammatical slip of the keyboard. Of course you know that they love your work, too–that’s how I found this blog. Anyway, I figured out what she was getting at, and where that’s concerned, Frank has the right idea. I would prefer to wear a jimmy hat than get stalked by a new grandfather. Listen, people, it’s really quite simple: if you don’t like the idea of more babies, you should logically like the idea of more contraceptives. That having been said, the most basic level of the debate seems to be whether or not most people (of any age) will be able to abstain from sexual activity until some arbitrary point in the future. Some say “no, it ain’t gonna happen” and others say “you can do it if you try”. A few people might be able to stick it out, but the human libido is a force of nature: oppose it if you want to, but if you value your safety, you’ll get the hell out of its way.
(Your cartoons are hilarious [when they’re supposed to be]. By the way, who’s Bean?)
Thanks, Lucius.
You know, I haven’t the slightest idea who Bean is. She always wears a mask and a cape. But whenever I need someone to write an editorial about women in the developing world, I just shine a bean-shaped icon into the clouds and in just a few minutes the Beanmobile roars up…
Isn’t she a millionaire industrialist? (Now I can guess how Bean will feel about that one).
The Beanmobile has arrived, carrying with it the Amazing Bean!!! First, let me just take care of a little business with John for that silly comment. [Bean goes behind the scenes for a little “talking to” John. Just ignore those scuffling sounds, everyone.] :-p
Phew, ok, that’s done. Now on to this post.
In all fairness, I think part of that was a simple gramatical error (although, I could be wrong — no, really, I could be :-p ). I don’t think they were trying to say that “abstinence education” is the only known guarantee of 100% protection from an STD, but rather that “abstinence” is the only known guarantee of 100% protection from an STD.
Now, if they did, in fact, mean “abstinence education” is the only known guarantee — then they seriously need to pull their heads out of the sand. If they simply meant that “abstinence” is the only known guarantee of 100% protection from an STD, then, quite frankly, I’d have to agree with them.
I advocate for “abstinence education” — but stronly oppose “abstinence only education.” Absitinence should be taught, along with birth control, condoms, and other sexuality and sex issues. Teens should be taught that abstinence is a viable choice — there are some who feel pressured into having sex when they’re not ready — and don’t feel that they can say “no” and not be rejected by their peers.
However, “abstinence only education” harms more teens than it helps, and therefore should be done away with. It’s sickening that schools can be denied federal funding if they teach about birth control and condoms and STD’s.
But if they meant to say “abstinence,” not “abstinence education,” then their agrument makes no sense, because the YWCA doesn’t oppose abstinence. So then they’re criticizing the YWCA for opposing something the YWCA doesn’t oppose.
I certainly agree that “abstinence only” education should be avoided. It also shows how hypocritcal so many conservatives who claim to favor “state’s rights” and “local control” are.
Yeah, true enough, Amp.
Bean wrote:
“Teens should be taught that abstinence is a viable choice — there are some who feel pressured into having sex when they’re not ready — and don’t feel that they can say “no” and not be rejected by their peers.”
True statement.
However, this ties into why I do *not* plan to tell my daughters, “I don’t want you having sex until you’re married” or, worse, what my FIL told my wife, “You ever come home pregnant and I’ll disown you and kill him.” (And that was the *extent* of my wife’s sex ed at home.)
Because if you tell them that, it becomes a daddy vs. boyfriend/peers/etc. contest. Daddy said no, but my boyfriend says yes. Daddy does *not* always win that fight. (He didn’t with my wife, who miscarried at 16.)
What I plan to tell them is this: your body is *yours*. Only *you* can decide when you’re ready. What Daddy thinks doesn’t matter–however, what your boyfriend, your best friend, the kids at your lunch table think doesn’t matter, either. This is *the* most personal decision you can make. If you’re uncomfortable with saying yes, then *don’t* say yes. Don’t let anyone else push you into it. If you *are* comfortable saying yes, then this is how you protect yourself. Etc.
This is the approach my parents took. And, yes, I’m a guy :-) but I have a sister, and they took the exact same tack with my sister. I daresay that all three of us (I also have a brother) are on the “older” end of those “when did you lose your virginity” statistics (not while we were still in high school for any of us). And *nobody* ever pushed my sister into *anything* :-)
I had a brain once but bean ate it. Lousy no-good feminists. :p
Frank, excellent post. I wish more parents were as enlightened as you and your parents seem to be.
And amp, good point. I should think that sex education, no matter what, will never say something to the extent of, “it’s never too early for the first time.” Really when someone says “abstinence education” they can’t mean anything besides “abstinence-only education” since any sexual education will include abstinence in it.
Sex ed is a very shaky issue, no matter what, from my own experience, I think it could and should be improved. The point shouldn’t be just preventing teen-pregnancies and STD’s but also for the mental health of kids growing up in a generally sexually repressed society, and that makes things very delicate.
Not only does “abstinence education” not guarantee 100% protection from STDs, abstinence itself doesn’t guarantee protection either.
You could be raped.
I’m not interested in reading any arguments that being raped means you’re not practicing abstinence, nor any arguments that the 100% guarantee only covered voluntarty sexual contact. It didn’t say anything about -how- you get the STDs, it didn’t say 99% guarantee, it just said 100% guarantee.
I am 16 and a teen mom. I think there should be a struggle of abstinence in school, I think we should have a stronger sex education in school.
Some Teens Are Immune to AIDS
Hello,
Following is a link to our press release of 7/27/04.
Please feel free to email this release link to others.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb144425.php
Thank you,
Max Anderson
M V P Productions
P. O Box 4126
Rockford, Illinois 61110
(815) 877-1514
“[T]he DARE program continues to have widespread support by parents. To me, that’s what such programs are really about—making parents feel better.”
That is so true. DARE and abstinence only programs are excuses to absolve parents, busy with careers, of passing good values and educating their children.
“This is *the* most personal decision you can make. If you’re uncomfortable with saying yes, then *don’t* say yes. Don’t let anyone else push you into it. If you *are* comfortable saying yes, then this is how you protect yourself. Etc.”
This is great also. A friend of mine, a federal prosecutor once told me that he would say the same thing to his daughter. His daughter would trust him not to embarrass her because she respects him for respecting her. She would then feel comfortable bringing her boyfriends home. He then would pull her boyfriend aside and tell him this: “I am a prosecutor. My daughter will try her best to have sex with you, most certainly to get back at me for some unknown reason. If you fall to her devious demands, I will ensure that you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You will go to jail and room with a very large angry man. If you tell anyone about this conversation, reference the above statement.”
I think that would be effective. The only thing holding men back from screwing everything in site are women and the daughter’s fathers. So if she is respected and he is terrified, it’s like wearing suspenders with a belt.
The only thing holding men back from screwing everything in site are women and the daughter’s fathers.
Are you serious? As a man, with many friends who are also men, I hold this as a false stereotype. With a statement like that, I wouldn’t want to be left alone with you for fear that you’d screw me.
Sheesh. The only thing holding men back from screwing everything in site is….. a billion things ranging from personal morals to societal pressures to…. You get the idea.
I would believe Jake. He’s a man. I would say that I have personally witnessed male friends not screw everything in sight, but I would probably just be accused of stopping them. But I promise, I don’t care enough to stop them.
jstevenson, that was just hilarious.
However, to the: “the most personal decision you can make, and it’s private to you, not your best friend, not your boyfriend”…. I would like to add a codcil.
I honestly don’t know anyone, who at the age of 16 knew themselves well enough to make that kind of choice in a way that was not extremely likely to get themselves hurt.
A good friend of mine once proclaimed (I was 19, he was 29) “The age of consent should be raised to 21. You don’t know anything about who you are before you’re 21.” Then he looked at me, laughed, and said “Okay, maybe 25.”
When you’re a teen, you are convinced that you know everything. You are smarter and wiser and just plain better than any generation before you. But these are lies, no matter how much you believe them.
How can we encourage very young people to make such big decisions at an age when we KNOW full well (because we were all there), that they don’t know themselves well enough to make good choices?
I wish I had a buck for every time I’ve had this conversation:
RANDOM GUY: Men are horndogs. They’ll screw anything anytime.
ME: Okay, let’s fuck. What day and time are good for you?
RG: Uh…um…well, I didn’t mean ME, of course, you know, I’m married and my schedule is pretty fully, just in general that…blah blah blah backtrack…
yes, aside from the obviously stupid comment about lack of male restraint, I’m more concerned about your thuroughly unethical prsecutor friend.
because what he’s doing isn’t just creepy and immoral, it’s highly illegal. tell your friend if he wants to keep his job, he’ll stop with that behavior post haste. because of he doesn’t someone who knows enough to know how illegal that is will take him to court and screw him sideways
“The only thing holding men back from screwing everything in site are women and the daughter’s fathers.” Oh did I say that out loud. I did not mean all men, married men over thirty, substitute the cable box and something better on t.v. for fathers and women. (see: “aside from the obviously stupid comment about lack of male restraint”).
Where, I do not know if my friend’s tactics are effective. I am certain they are not illegal, immoral or unethical. Creepy maybe, but that is only because he is a prosecutor not because of what he said. I am sure that any father would want to protect his daughter from the hormones of teenage boys. Anyone who is so PC as to not believe most (regardless of the race, color, creed, or nation) teenage boys have raging hormones are living in a COMPLETE fantasy world. A world where either they were not teenage boys or have never had contact with teenage boys.
Nevertheless, I don’t see what is unethical about a prosecuting a person who commits a crime and making sure they are prosecuted. Please inform me of the illegality of his statements. Investigate the crime; prosecute the offenders. Immoral?, Illegal? You have gotta fill me in on that one. That has to be clarified.
Protect his daughter from teenage boys? Sounds like he’s afraid that she has actual desires of her own and that’s what’s worrying him.
Raising the age of consent will be effective the minute you raise the age of puberty.
“Raising the age of consent will be effective the minute you raise the age of puberty.”
That was well said. I will have to remember that one.