A must read: New Yorker article on college that trains Christian politicians

Parent Cafe
201

<p>“I agree about the dual approach. I have taken this approach with my D. I was 100% full-tilt abstinence when she was a kid and then as she got older I made sure to add that Plan A was abstain but plan B was not to Abandon plan A with no safety net at all.”</p>

<p>Can I ask why you were “full-tilt abstinence”? I’ve always thought that to be a wrong-headed, and dangerous approach, often resulting in youth becoming secretive, less likely to discuss things with their parents or elders, and less likely to take care of themselves and the people they care for. I think it is perfectly okay for people to be abstinent. However, in the absence of overtly and openly teaching safety measures, I believe teaching it is immoral, as it endangers not only those who are supposed to learn it (most don’t remain abstinent), but their friends and community. I don’t want ANYONE preaching abstinence at my kids, or at anyone else’s kids either, other than, perhaps, their own.</p>

202

<p>Bneg, I didn’t say EVERYONE gets Wisdom when they grow up. I believe Bush never has grown up, he still relies on others to read his info and then they are requied to feed him sound bites of information like pablum. Adults read from a wide variety of sources and then do their own analysis. My S is very smart, but common sense takes a much longer time to develop! Very few 17 year olds have wisdom, however bright they are…and point well taken some will never develop it.</p>

203

<p>mini, to clarify, I was saying to a kid, you should not do this adult behavior. Period. I was saying a more simple rule to a more simple person. As she got older as I said above, it was broadened.</p>

204

<p>Mini - in some ways, I think it’s like drinking - when the kids are YOUNG (like elementary school) the party line (if it comes up) is wait until marriage & don’t drink until you are 21. At that age, they don’t even know what they don’t know and are less able to understand a nuanced approach. “Only have sex when you are in love” is not something constructive to tell a kid - what is love to them? As they get older and can understand a more nuanced approach, that is the time to do it. By the time high school rolls around, the approach ought to fit their evolving psyches. In short - let the development dictate the approach.</p>

205

<p>LOL! As usual, SBMom says it better and in half as many words. :)</p>

206

<p>Right - let the development dictate the approach - which is why I would NEVER teach abstinence - neither in sex nor in drinking, not even to 8 year olds. There is no time I would ever want them to think that I believed that. I am quite willing to tell my kids that there are certain behaviors (driving being at the top of the list) that are okay for responsible adults but not for them, but I would never want them to embrace a model of human behavior which I believe is dangerous. </p>

<p>By the way, I never use the “only sex when you are in love” line - for many people - adults as well as youth - sex then becomes understood as the only way love can be validated. I think that is as mystifying for adults as it would be for a teenager.</p>

<p>My wife’s line is - “you’re ready to have sex (if you choose) if you can fully negotiate safe sex in all its dimensions with your partner without either of the two of you giggling.”</p>

207

<p>There’s a new book title for you, Mini…“The Tao of Giggle-free Sex.” :)</p>

208

<p>It’s only “the talk” that has to be “giggle-free”; the sex can be a real laugher.</p>

<p>God made it that way. ;)</p>

209

<p>okay, bnge what do you consider abstinance? </p>

<p>And, if you read the quote from the article I provided, you would see where I am coming from. Of course it would be ideal if people had sexual relations when they were mature enough to handle all the consequences and to be sure they are ready for it emotionally. But that DOES NOT HAPPEN all the time, and I would want people to have facts, “well condoms fail, so I guess we won’t bother” “this isn’t SEX, so we don’t have to take precautions”… gimmee a break. </p>

<p>My point is and has been that teaching just abstinance is flawed. THESE KIDS ARE HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS!!! THEY ARE!!! So why not at least let them have the correct medical information. And, if you think hearing about sex ed from a teacher will give kids ideas, I have another thing for you. The ideas are already there. And while some kids hold onto their pledges a little bit longer than others, when they do have sex, they are more likely to NOT BE SAFE because they don’t know how, or don’t think they need to.</p>

<p>If you read Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasizes praying, fasting, by not making it a public display.</p>

210

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>Perhaps I can address some of the questions you asked:</p>

<p>“Which one of those “traditional” marriages” - Abraham’s, where his wife gave him a concubine as a present? (he marries again after Sarah’s death); Jacob’s four wives? David’s? Solomon’s? Or maybe you are referring to Jesus’ marriage? "</p>

<p>You absolutely have the right to reject the Bible and its teachings, but you should at least be straight that you are not at all pointing out any inconsistencies in the Bible. Just because the Bible records God’s people acting in various ways does not imply that all of their behaviors are considered righteous. When you mention Abraham and Sarah, for example, there were obviously consequences regarding Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham also acted improperly by endangering his wife by stating she was his sister, rather than his wife.</p>

<p>Similarly, David certainly had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba (and even effectively had her first husband murdered) but his Psalms and other portions of the Bible are clear that adultery is not righteous behavior – even David himself recognized this.</p>

<p>Likewise, I have never met a Christian who has used Jacob or especially Solomon as the model for a perfect marriage.</p>

<p>The Bible is full of examples of real people who are all sinners (except for Jesus Christ, who is the sinless, Son of God). With respect to Jesus’ “marriage”, perhaps you are reading too much popular fiction.</p>

<p>The Bible is very clear that ever since the fall in the garden of Eden, all men have been born with an orientation toward sin (e.g. I have been around hundreds of young kids in my lifetime, and I have yet to meet one who had to be taught how to be selfish). The Bible provides instruction for those who want to know God’s will, which in regard to sex is as follows: it is designed to be between one man and one woman who are married, and marriage is expected to last until the death of one of the partners. Re-marriage after death is not considered adultery.</p>

<p>I found it interesting how you referred to teaching abstinence in the absence of overtly and openly teaching safety measures as “immoral” (By the way, I definitely teach my children that the only proper place for sex is within marriage, but I do not keep them ignorant of biology). Insofar as you are so negative towards Christianity, I am curious if you even believe in God. If not, then what does “immoral” mean? Perhaps we should take a poll.</p>

211

<p>I am a Quaker. I follow the teachings of Jesus, as a paradigm. He didn’t say a single word about sex. He said virtually nothing about marriage. He wasn’t married. He wasn’t involved in a “traditional marriage”, however defined. For al we know he was gay. The Puritans who likely knew their Bibles an awful lot better than you or I do saw premarital sex (and pregnancy) as virtually a requirement. I know - they weren’t Christians either.</p>

<p>It is immoral to deprive people of the information that could save their lives, and worse, to deprive them of information which puts them at risk of endangering others. Since we KNOW with 100% certainly that a large percentage of those who are taught only abstinence do not remain so, it is no different morally than equipping them with an automobile that you know to be unsafe. It is immoral, and not in keeping with any teaching that Jesus himself ever put forward. It cheapens human life. </p>

<p>What you teach your kids is your own business. But that’s the limit of my tolerance, and I made no special claim or ownership upon tolerance to begin with. Youth not explicitly taught safe sex practices are unsafe for other people’s children to be around, and I’d prefer mine not be around them, though I am aware I do not have any such choice.</p>

212

<p>I think it equally bad that the groups that advocate abortion can not be given money that can save lives in Africa by distributing condoms. We do not allow needle exchange programs. We hide our heads in the sand and say we won’t help people who live by different rules if they don’t do things our way. We are a very sick society. Hardly what Jesus would have advocated. BTW My son when to a Quaker school. I loved it.</p>

213

<p>citygirlsmom, I agree with you that teens need to be informed, and always have agreed. And i know abstinence does not happen all the time; and I said that does not mean abstinence is unreasonable. And I may agree that teens who practice abstinence may know less about safety, and I said that we need to inform about abstinence and safety at the same time. Sorry if i seem to be repeating the same points over and over again, and I hope I won’t need to.</p>

214

<p>to mini: to make things a bit clearer, the best way is to advocate safety and abstinence together. Safety provides a motivation for abstinence. And these two things do not contradict each other.</p>

215

<p>Pafather,</p>

<p>Wonderful and informative post, I couldn’t agree more and wish I would have been the one to post it
…I hope you’re not 17 though, around here it’s an intellectual death sentence.</p>

216

<p>Everyone here who is arguing with Fountain Siren must remember you are “arguing with a 17 year old, Albeit one who is articulate.”
“Wisdom takes years”
“I didn’t say EVERYONE gets Wisdom when they grow up.”</p>

<p>Well said. Although it might be wise, in the future, to point out the things I’ve said that lack wisdom rather than making an ad hominem attack on the wisdom of the one who said it. That’s a little 17 year old wisdom for you. </p>

<p>Is it that I think it is better to have a sexual relationship with one you are committed to; or that we should all tolerate each others beliefs even when they are vociferously advocated and contrary to our own. Many older people maintain these positions, but then I guess by your definition, they are lacking in Wisdom, as their opinion diverges from yours, like for instance, the President’s opinions. </p>

<p>In the end, it seems, Your definition of wisdom mainly involves people agreeing with your well seasoned opinions (in years); Which, I might add, seems to be the opposite of the most famous definition of Wisdom—that is, ‘to know that you do not know.’ That’s what Socrates thought, at least. He carries a whole lot of water in these areas.</p>

<p>“some will never develop it.” No comment.</p>

217

<p>“to mini: to make things a bit clearer, the best way is to advocate safety and abstinence together. Safety provides a motivation for abstinence. And these two things do not contradict each other.”</p>

<p>Only if the kids don’t take a double message, that sex is sinful, and therefore to think about it when doing it is sinful, and thinking about it means planning for it which means condoms and talking to one’s partner, etc. is an indication of sin, and…</p>

<p>You get the drift. If there is a double message involved, I DON’T necessarily think it is the best way, and from a public health perspective, I haven’t seen anything that supports it.</p>

<p>(By the way, I DO think it is better to have a sexual relationship with one you are committed to - though it is perfectly acceptable to be committed to someone else without sex – and I hope nothing I wrote suggested otherwise.)</p>

218

<p>yes, thank you pafather.</p>

219

<p>yes to mini, and I believe people need to instruct carefully and not just give up on instructing.</p>

220

<p>“which is why I would NEVER teach abstinence - neither in sex nor in drinking, not even to 8 year olds.” </p>

<p>Curious, and yet strangely innovative and peculiar.</p>

<p>Correct me if I am wrong (like I need to encourage that) but at the very least I believe Christianity prefers the following ‘Cardinal’ virtues “Prudence, temperance, Justice and fortitude” none of which amount to strict abstinence but neither would one seem a lunatic to think that there will be occasions when one should abstain; for instance, from sexual congress without commitment and sexual congress outside of a commitment, as seen, for example, in the following famous imperative: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” A form of abstinence to be sure. It may logically follow that a commitment is involved in sexual congress between two individuals. On the other hand, perhaps it takes a great deal more wisdom and chutzpa than a 17 year old might possess to form a brave new moral strategy to replace this old and dated (and true) one.</p>