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.