Tag Archives: abstinence

“Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.”

The title is a memorable line from the movie Mean Girls, where the gym coach is teaching sex education (see the video below).  Whether by design or not, it demonstrated the ineffectiveness of both extremes of teaching kids about an extremely important topic.

Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.  Don’t have sex in the missionary position, don’t have sex standing up . . . Just don’t do it, promise?  OK, everybody take some rubbers.

I like how it skewered both ends of the spectrum.  Repeating the Nike hybrid of  Just (Don’t) Do It won’t be effective without some guidelines on avoiding temptation and more, and passing out condoms like that is an implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex outside of marriage (in addition to giving them a false sense of security).

Of course I endorse chastity and the abstinence of any sex acts outside of marriage as the ideal for everyone.  It is the only proven way to avoid pregnancy, disease, and emotional damage (and, if you are one of those religious types, the only way to obey God).

Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

They should also emphasize the most recent statistics demonstrating that those who finish high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage are extremely unlikely to end up poor, whereas if you do the opposite you are very likely to be poor.

They should teach girls the lines that guys often use and how to respond to them, for example:

  • Male: If you loved me you’d have sex with me.
  • Female: If you loved me you wouldn’t pressure me to have sex with you.

They should teach guys the lines girls use as well.  I know of one young man whose girlfriend recently broke up with him because he wouldn’t have sex with her.

But the abstinence / chastity message should include simple but effective ways to avoid temptation.  Too many people have good intentions but put themselves in situations that inevitably lead to compromise.

They should also coach you on how much your actions regarding sex are influenced by:

  • What you view
  • What you think about
  • Who you spend alone time with

Contrary to stereotypes, I have no issue with schools teaching a balanced sex education program, provided it is thorough and fact-based.  Birth control options are real and it is acceptable to discuss them, provided the whole story is told and the schools don’t distribute the condoms or other birth control themselves and don’t facilitate the abortion process.

For example, truly comprehensive sex education should teach the following regarding birth control pills:

  • They are X% effective at preventing pregnancies (but the data must be given for different demographic groups, because discipline and effectiveness tends to be lower for younger and poorer women).
  • They offer zero protection against STDs
  • They offer zero protection against emotional issues
  • There are possible side effects

More considerations and possible elements of a truly comprehensive sex education program:

  • Surveys demonstrate that married couples have the most satisfying sex lives.
  • It is absolutely ridiculous for schools to dispense birth control.  It sends the implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex and that the adults say you should use birth control.  Guess which message they will listen to and which one they will ignore?
  • Hey parents, how about supervising your kids?  Giving kids unrestricted time alone with the opposite sex is virtually guaranteed to turn out badly.
  • Teach the truth about the “hookup” culture, where kids barely know each other and have sex.  Girls participating in “hookups” are basically acting like free prostitutes.  They have all the risks of pregnancy, disease, crushed self esteem, etc., but they aren’t making any money!  Somehow they convinced themselves that they are proving their equality by acting like guys do.  And of course there is the associated drug and alcohol abuse required to numb their minds to what they are doing.  Sad.
  • How Sex is Like Duct Tape (great illustration about chemicals, bonding and the pain of out-of-wedlock sex)

And of course, Christians can teach their children about God’s plan for sex and how great it is when used as designed.

The primary problem isn’t what one class teaches in one part of its curriculum in high school.  Whether  you use the falsely titled “comprehensive” Planned Parenthood type curriculum or that of the abstinence groups, the whole thing is doomed to fail if kids aren’t supervised, aren’t equipped to say no, aren’t given support by parents and just wallow in the sewer of our sex-obsessed culture. 

All of the evils of Planned Parenthood-style sex education are brought to you by the “Christian” Left, mocking God and his word since their inception.  Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” have nearly identical views to the world. It shows who their real father is.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Jude 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

When I pointed out problems of sex ed on one post I got this answer in reply:

The problem is that people screw.

My reply to him:

How Zen-like ;-).

Yes, and people steal.  And lie.  And don’t study in school.  And do drugs.  And drink alcohol and drive.

So do we give up educating them that abstaining from these and other behaviors would be wise?

Do we let them escape from consequences when they do the behaviors?

Do we just focus on making is safer to do these things?  “If you are going to drink and drive, be sure to have an air bag in the car.”

Fortunately, one commenter saw the light:

I think his point was that no matter the sex ed, the rest of culture undoes it.

That sums it up nicely.

Should you believe the Wintry Knight or Planned Parenthood on whether to have out-of-wedlock sex?

Go with WK, of course.  See How premarital sex damages a woman’s ability to be in a relationship.  Better yet, just see what the Bible has to say and then don’t be surprised when the logical consequences of fornication are destructive beyond measure.

Then again, via Planned Parenthood Tells Teens Nothing Wrong With Multiple Sex Partners:

Alex the “expert,” pronounced through Planned Parenthood’s Tumblr: “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”

And you can totally trust Planned Parenthood.  I mean, just because they kill babies for a living, systematically hide rape, incest and sex trafficking, encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably, commit Medicaid fraud, teach kids the joys of BDSM, and so much more, they are still worthy of receiving hundreds of millions of $ in taxpayer funds, right?

“Landmark” abstinence education study

Read the whole thing: via Jill Stanek – Breaking from WaPo: “Landmark” abstinence ed study “could have major implications”.

The Washington Post posted a breakthrough story this afternoon about a “landmark” scientific study showing abstinence education works and comprehensive sex ed, well, not so much.

High points:

  • Study subjects were African-American students
  • Study controls and results were so airtight the Obama administration, which devised new rules to cutting abstinence ed from federal funding, admitted the new evidence may open the door for grants
  •  Study results were stark (33% of abstinence educated students had sex within 2 years vs. 52% who had comprehensive sex ed)
  • The new study involved 662 African-American students who were randomly assigned to go through 1 of 5 programs: An 8-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an 8-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an 8- or 12-hour program that did both; or an 8-hour program focused on teaching the youngsters other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising.

    Over the next two years, about 33% of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared to about 52% who were just taught safe sex. About 42% of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47% of those who just learned about other ways to be healthy. The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

    Even Dear Abby has limits. Sort of.

    But she can’t explain them.  At all.

    I remember a column a few years back when Abby did some quick math and informed a girl that if she kept acquiring sexual partners at her current rate, then by the time she was 25 she will have had sex with 100 different men.  Abby thought that was too many, but was a little sheepish in saying so.  And I know why.

    Now I think that most rational people would agree that 100 sex partners is too many for a lifetime, let alone a 25 year old. 

    Unfortunately, while Abby knew that 100 was too high she didn’t elaborate on what the proper limit was.  Abby certainly wasn’t limiting it to 1 partner — only one of those crazy right wing domestic terrorist Bible thumping abstinence promoting Christian freaks would suggest that. 

    But what is the proper limit?  Probably not 2, or 3.  Is it 90? 80? 50?

    Hey Abby and other Planned Parenthood types who don’t think the ideal is just one: What is the limit, and why is that the limit?  If not 1, then why not 100? 

    Here are a few reasons you should not use:

    • Diseases — everyone knows they go up dramatically as you add partners, but they increase a bunch when you go from 1 to 2 as well.  If 100 partners is bad because of the risk of disease, then so is 2.  And the risk doesn’t increase that much when you go from 99 to 100.
    • Emotional attachment — again, if 100 would impact your ability to attach emotionally then so will 2.
    • Pregnancy — having sex 1 time with 100 different people is no more likely to result in pregnancy than 100 times with 1 person.  And we know that if you just do what Planned Parenthood says then you are very, very unlikely to get pregnant, right?!

    In short, you need to explain why there would be a specific limit other than 1.

    Theological Liberals should also explain why breaking God’s laws for human sexuality is acceptable before marriage, and why if your partner breaks them before the marriage you can still trust that he/she will follow them afterwards. 

    I’m sticking with a target of 1 per person per life — other than death of a spouse or a biblical divorce (e.g., abandonment or adultery by your spouse).  I’ve got a bunch of reasons for why that is the ideal — no risk of diseases, built-in male and female parents if you have kids (go figure, and what a convenience!), less stress, more confidence in your relationship, it is the loving thing to do for your spouse, obeying what God says, and so much more.

    —–

    Another bad bit of reasoning by Dear Abby: She doesn’t recommend Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they “might” show pictures of abortions (I am not aware of centers which show pictures of abortions, but it may be possible.  CareNet pregnancy centers do not maintain any such images nor do they show them to clients).  And CPCs do a wide variety of amazing things to help women in their time of need. 

    So Abby basically says that showing the picture of an abortion is so bad that because someone might do it you should ignore the great things they offer women, but the abortion itself is morally acceptable.  Everybody got that?

    —–

    When you deny the obvious ideal of one man, one woman marriages for life and you ignore the scientific fact that life begins at conception, then you end up trying to support all sorts of bizarre and illogical ideas.  It must be exhausting propping up such a worldview.

    Of course many people break these commands of God.  Jesus even noted that lust was akin to adultery, which pretty much convicts us all many times over.  The good news is that forgiveness is possible.  But in the mean time, what ideal are we aiming at?  The consequences are serious.  Countless ills of society can be traced to sexual sin and the breakdown of the family.  And people like Dear Abby are not helping.

    Roundup

    Virginity in the NBA: Mission Possible — Great article about A.C. Green (former Laker)

     NY nurse forced to assist in late-term abortion, career threatened — that’s courtesy of the pro-abortion crowd, thank you (yes, that’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice)

    A history of who thought the world was flat and when they thought it — Guess what?  It wasn’t the Christians or even the West in general.  But I wonder why this myth persists?  Uh, actually, I don’t wonder.  It is one of those myths that helps advance a particular worldview.  (Hat tip: Duane’s Mind)

    The 6 Worst Abortion Arguments Jon Stewart made to Mike Huckabee— I appreciate Huckabee’s pro-life views.

    YouTube aborts pro-life videos

    YouTube allows almost any surgery video imaginable, like gastric bypass, gallbladder removal, toe amputation, appendectomy and brain tumor removal, and gross-out body parts videos like a buttock fecal fistula or peritoneal cancer – but not abortion.

    Neither does YouTube have a problem with videos pertaining to the female anatomy like mastectomies, breast augmentations, hysterectomies or even baby deliveries – but not abortion, unless it is in the form of bloodless illustrations.

    YouTube also seems to go out of its way to protect the abortion industry, particularly Planned Parenthood

    When a nation turns its back on God–Romans 1:18-32 — terrific sermon by Four* Pointer.  Check it out.

    “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.”

    Hi — thanks for visiting!  If you like you can get these posts delivered to your email.  Just go to the main page of the blog and click “Follow Blog via Email” at the upper right hand corner.  

    —–

    The title is a memorable line from the movie Mean Girls, where the gym coach is teaching sex education (see the video below).  Whether by design or not, it demonstrated the ineffectiveness of both extremes of teaching kids about an extremely important topic.

    Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.  Don’t have sex in the missionary position, don’t have sex standing up . . . Just don’t do it, promise?  OK, everybody take some rubbers.

    I like how it skewered both ends of the spectrum.  Repeating the Nike hybrid of  Just (Don’t) Do It won’t be effective without some guidelines on avoiding temptation and more, and passing out condoms like that is an implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex outside of marriage (in addition to giving them a false sense of security).

    Of course I endorse chastity and the abstinence of any sex acts outside of marriage as the ideal for everyone.  It is the only proven way to avoid pregnancy, disease, and emotional damage (and, if you are one of those religious types, the only way to obey God).

    Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

    They should also emphasize the most recent statistics demonstrating that those who finish high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage are extremely unlikely to end up poor, whereas if you do the opposite you are very likely to be poor.

    They should teach girls the lines that guys often use and how to respond to them, for example:

    • Male: If you loved me you’d have sex with me.
    • Female: If you loved me you wouldn’t pressure me to have sex with you.

    They should teach guys the lines girls use as well.  I know of one young man whose girlfriend recently broke up with him because he wouldn’t have sex with her.

    But the abstinence / chastity message should include simple but effective ways to avoid temptation.  Too many people have good intentions but put themselves in situations that inevitably lead to compromise.

    They should also coach you on how much your actions regarding sex are influenced by:

    • What you view
    • What you think about
    • Who you spend alone time with

    Contrary to stereotypes, I have no issue with schools teaching a balanced sex education program, provided it is thorough and fact-based.  Birth control options are real and it is acceptable to discuss them, provided the whole story is told and the schools don’t distribute the condoms or other birth control themselves and don’t facilitate the abortion process.

    For example, truly comprehensive sex education should teach the following regarding birth control pills:

    • They are X% effective at preventing pregnancies (but the data must be given for different demographic groups, because discipline and effectiveness tends to be lower for younger and poorer women).
    • They offer zero protection against STDs
    • They offer zero protection against emotional issues
    • There are possible side effects

    More considerations and possible elements of a truly comprehensive sex education program:

    • Surveys demonstrate that married couples have the most satisfying sex lives.
    • It is absolutely ridiculous for schools to dispense birth control.  It sends the implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex and that the adults say you should use birth control.  Guess which message they will listen to and which one they will ignore?
    • Hey parents, how about supervising your kids?  Giving kids unrestricted time alone with the opposite sex is virtually guaranteed to turn out badly.
    • Teach the truth about the “hookup” culture, where kids barely know each other and have sex.  Girls participating in “hookups” are basically acting like free prostitutes.  They have all the risks of pregnancy, disease, crushed self esteem, etc., but they aren’t making any money!  Somehow they convinced themselves that they are proving their equality by acting like guys do.  And of course there is the associated drug and alcohol abuse required to numb their minds to what they are doing.  Sad.
    • How Sex is Like Duct Tape (great illustration about chemicals, bonding and the pain of out-of-wedlock sex)

    And of course, Christians can teach their children about God’s plan for sex and how great it is when used as designed.

    The primary problem isn’t what one class teaches in one part of its curriculum in high school.  Whether  you use the falsely titled “comprehensive” Planned Parenthood type curriculum or that of the abstinence groups, the whole thing is doomed to fail if kids aren’t supervised, aren’t equipped to say no, aren’t given support by parents and just wallow in the sewer of our sex-obsessed culture. 

    When I pointed out problems of sex ed on one post I got this answer in reply:

    The problem is that people screw.

    My reply to him:

    How Zen-like ;-).

    Yes, and people steal.  And lie.  And don’t study in school.  And do drugs.  And drink alcohol and drive.

    So do we give up educating them that abstaining from these and other behaviors would be wise?

    Do we let them escape from consequences when they do the behaviors?

    Do we just focus on making is safer to do these things?  “If you are going to drink and drive, be sure to have an air bag in the car.”

    Fortunately, one commenter saw the light:

    I think Neil’s point was that no matter the sex ed, the rest of culture undoes it.

    That sums it up nicely.

    Update: A couple links from Luke with helpful statistics.  Leave more in the comments section if you’ve got ’em.

    Well, duh.

    newsI have always found advice columns to be interesting.  I typically prefer Carolyn Hax to Dear “just to be on the safe side, you better get divorced” Abby.

    Part of a recent letter was interesting.  The part in bold warranted the title of the post.

    I’m in a relationship phase that always makes me feel nuts. It’s the space between “being together” and not. One aspect is that the fling started more on the physical end than the, “Wow, you have really good morals and we like the same Chinese restaurant” approach. The similar interests, humor and understanding our compatibility came second.

    It’s been about a month and it’s understood that we’re exclusive, but I don’t know how to take those steps to feeling secure in what we have without leaving tampons and a toothbrush over there to nudge us in the direction I want to go. He’s generally not much of a question-asker about my life and history, and so our emotional intimacy is less than what I want, mostly because my last relationship ended horribly and I’m hesitant to really share myself until I know I’m in something for real.

    Not to pigeonhole men, but I think, as a guy, he’s pretty content with hanging out, sleeping together, eating out, playing guitar and having fun without worrying whether I’m his “girlfriend.” Yet here I am, over-analyzing, feeling a little nuts, but not wanting to show that, lest he run for the hills. Help me out here.

    So let’s see: You don’t really know the guy that well, but you are already sleeping with him and are looking for more commitment.  Let’s just say you have things completely backwards.

    I wish the writer would read how women who have multiple sexual partners damage their ability to bond with a future partner due to low oxytocin levels.  I also wish they would teach this in schools as part of truly comprehensive sex education that includes the horrors of abortion, the (un)likelihood that guys will stick around after having sex with you, the fact that if you finish high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage that it is virtually impossible that you’ll be poor, etc.  (The Liberal version of “comprehensive” is basically passing out condoms with a wink-wink theme that says, “Don’t have sex until you’re ready (and you’re ready whenever you want to be ready)”.)