Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, December 08, 2006
Rich Tucker :: Townhall.com Columnist
'Tis the (mating) season
by Rich Tucker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The very first virgin birth (an event many are preparing to celebrate later this month) didn’t make the newspapers, if only because there weren’t newspapers in Bethlehem during King Herod’s reign. Had The New York Times existed, it surely would have noted the birth of “a homeless child,” as Hillary Clinton described Jesus in 1999.

But today, an apparent rash of virgin births is in the news. “Success of abstinence in cutting teen pregnancies is a ‘myth’,” reported a headline in the London Daily Telegraph on Dec. 1. “Sexual abstinence as an effective tool in reducing teenage pregnancy is a complete ‘myth,’ the [British] Government’s advisory body on the issue claimed yesterday,” the story began, leading a reader to the logical conclusion that at least some girls who had abstained ended up pregnant, anyway.

Well, now. For years, most of us have believed that abstinence was a completely effective “tool” in reducing pregnancy, whether among teenagers or older folks. After all, those who abstain from sex, we naively thought, cannot become pregnant.

So if abstaining gives only “mythical” protection against pregnancy, we can only hope that the “experts” (and who wouldn’t want to be an intercourse expert?) have outlined a course of action that will actually work. And so they have. “The Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy said that research from the United States showed that contraception was the way to bring down rates,” the Telegraph story added helpfully.

So, to review: abstinence doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Contraception prevents pregnancy. Film at 11 (now that’ll boost those sagging TV news ratings.) All right, let’s be serious. This story is silly on two levels. First, because of course everyone knows that abstinence works. Excepting Mary, throughout history zero percent of women who abstained from sex became pregnant. And, as a bonus, zero percent contracted sexually transmitted diseases.

Second, this story highlights the backward approach our country has taken to preventing pregnancy. We give teenagers advice but assume they’ll ignore it. “You should abstain from sex,” we tell high schoolers. “But, if you don’t, here’s a condom and a handy instruction book to show you how to use it.” Imagine if our government approached really important topics -- such as seatbelt use -- this way. “Wearing a seatbelt will make you safer,” the PSAs would announce. “But if you refuse to wear one, here’s how to duck as your airbag deploys.”

In reality, with seatbelt use we’ve taken a zero-tolerance policy. Many areas have even made not wearing a seatbelt into a moving violation -- fail to buckle up and we’ll treat you exactly as we’d treat a driver who’d done something dangerous, such as run a red light or a stop sign. That’s actually silly, since drivers who don’t wear seatbelts are endangering only themselves.

But it does let drivers know we’re serious.

We ought to approach teen pregnancy the same way. Schools should explain to our children that premarital sex is dangerous. It leads to pregnancy and sometimes-deadly diseases including AIDS.

We should tell teens that we, as a society, don’t tolerate premarital sex. Just as students are urged to sign pledges to never drink and drive, they should be encouraged to sign abstinence pledges. These pledges, despite what you read in the newspapers, actually work.

As proof, just look at the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a long-term, government funded study of 90,000 seventh- through 12th-graders. “Teens who pledged to remain a virgin until marriage began sexual activity much later than their peers who did not take such a pledge,” the government reported in 2001. And the later they start, the better off we all are. Older teenagers are generally more responsible, and thus less likely to become pregnant or contract an STD.

Are some children going to have sex anyway, no matter what we tell them? Certainly. Just as some are going to drink and drive anyway, no matter what we tell them. Teenagers always have, and always will, think they’re immortal. They’re always going to take risks that seem foolish to adults.

But at the same time, they’re always going to look to adults for advice. We make it a point to let teenagers know they shouldn’t drink and drive, ride in a car without a seatbelt, smoke, or litter. Let’s make sure we give them the correct advice about abstinence, too.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Rich Tucker is an editor in Washington D.C. and a columnist for Townhall.com.

Be the first to read Rich Tucker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.< Sign up today!

Couple of problems here:
First, your equivocating

>abstinence was a completely effective “tool” in reducing pregnancy,

A tool is only effective if it is used. The policy of 'abstinence' education, and the teaching this as the ONLY way to keep from getting pregant, is what is at fault.

>Schools should explain to our children that premarital sex is dangerous.

Prematital sex is no more dangerous than post marital sex.

>They’re always going to take risks that seem foolish to adults.

Yes, so the policy should be 'harm reduction' (use a condom) rather that ignorance

>But at the same time, they’re always going to look to adults for advice.
I guess you dont know too many teenagers, huh?

To NP
Premartial sex is no more dangerous that post marital sex?

Note that the dangers referred to in the article are:

"It leads to pregnancy and sometimes-deadly diseases including AIDS."

Becoming pregnant by your spouse in a dedicated, monogamous marriage seems to me far less dangerous than becoming pregnant by some horny high-school boy. The former is usually called a blessing, the latter is a path to ending up poor, abandoned, diseased and uneducated. Remember, we're talking about instructing SCHOOLCHILDREN here, not middle-aged Murphy Browns.

Tell them the truth…

Men are personal beings and are created for personal relationship with the Creator. As image bearers of the Creator, they are far above the animals. They have the potential as sexual beings to be co-creators of other image bearers. This should not be entered into lightly.

The Creator has limited the expression of our sexuality to the marriage relationship. Within this relationship God says that sex is good and right. ‘Let marriage be held in honor among all men…the marriage bed is undefiled.’ Therefore, ‘safe sex’ is only found in the marriage relationship, as intended by the Creator.

God condemns all expressions of sexuality outside the marriage relationship as immoral. Not only do you risk deadly disease, but those who practice immorality cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is the definition of foolish ignorance: To settle for temporary, immoral sex over married love and to push a muck rake into the grave, rather than enjoy the blessing of God in this life and the crown of everlasting life in the presence of God.

Naked Pagan
So do you think then that we should scrap welfare for those teen couples who are pregnant; after all therre is no difference between them and someone who is married, has an education and hold a job to support their family?

The humor is getting out of hand
yep, keep lecturing those teens...you know, the ones who stopped listening to you when they realized you were FAR too old to be relevant to them (so they think). Sure, abstinence is the safe way to go. We also know that at least half of all teens IGNORE that anyway, and we have known it for decades. What planet do you people live on, anyway? News flash to the clueless...PEOPLE HAVE SEX...

Delay in sexual activity
The delay in sexual activity for kids taught "abstinence only" methods versus "Comprehensive" methods showed that the "abstinence" kids delayed sexual activity...


A grand total of eighteen months. Yeah, suure they got married, bought houses with picket fences even, in that eighteen months [/sarc]


Abstinence from sex involves a lot broader community support than a public school will ever be capable of providing. Abstinence works in churches because churches tend to be made up of like-minded people, who are involved with one another beyond the wall of the building. You can't translate that to a public school setting.

Again I sing my refrain of "Change the culture, not the law..."

RP
>"It leads to pregnancy and sometimes-deadly diseases including AIDS."

What dangers are you talking about?...If all it took to stop AIDS was allowing people to marry, same sex marriage would be a panacea.

IF marriage was a garantee for a dedicated, monogamous relationship, we wouldnt need a word like adultery

scon
Properly done, most all methods of birth control are 98% effective, which is a higher rate that kids that break their pledge of abstainance have....

wait, do blojobs count?

Dissembling and outright stupidity
Guess what? The teens ARE listening (most of them anyhow) at least part of the time. And a message is heard and sometimes acted upon. Anybody who doesn't think so had better watch kids listen to a coach, a prized teacher, a Scoutmaster, etc. The stupidity is to not put a message out which we want them to hear. And judging from some of the comments above, the problem is we don't want the kids to hear that having sex as kids is bad for mental and physical health as well as a good way into poverty.

Getting kids to hold off eighteen months (that's an AVERAGE, stupid; that means that there is a range where some kids hold off a lot longer_ is important for their mental health and their potential to avoid diseases. Older kids will make better judgments. If BC is 98% effective, why do teens get pregnant? Because they DON'T use it. They have the lesson, they may even put the condom on the banana, but they are out one night, and don't have protection with them, so what happens? At least with abstinence, there is a moral message which the kids can rely upon to use when things get hard (pun intended).

I think that there is a problem with most of the respondents above this, in that they don't believe kids should be given a moral message. And that is why this society does drugs, has gangs, kills people, and most of the other ills, is that a bunch of people believe in the mental illness called moral relativism. Abstinence is giving the kids a line to not cross. And that infuriates the moral relativist.

Historian et all
First there is this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

Then you have the issue of what the students will do when they are older....people need to understand their own sexuality to be function adults, and this type of teaching prohibits this.

TheHistorian
Moral relativists and secular progressives, whether they know it or not, subscribe to Kinsey's perverted view of child sexuality. They're all closet pedaphiles, yearning for an innocent sex partner they can control and abuse without the stigma of a moral society. They have no understanding of love and how God designed marriage between man and woman as a means to connect with Him.

Being a simple man, the best analogy I can make is think of the three-pronged plug on any appliance. If you cut off the ground prong (God), the chance of short circuiting is great. If one of the other prongs is cut, there is no electrical circuit.

Children should be taught that playing with sex is as dangerous as playing with electricity. If they aren't grounded in morality, they can be badly burned or even killed.

Naked Pagan has it wrong
"People need to understand their sexuality..." is a reason for sex outside of a committed relationship? Now all adults before the 1970's were dysfunctional as well by your argument. I would guess then that learning about your sexuality in a committed relationship is not learning?

I know only a few who says that sex education should not occur. What I espouse is teaching the morals along with it (abstinence, loving relationships, all of the other stuff which I have never seen in the sex education program or the mechanics of birth control). Not teaching our young morals is foolish.

What I compare to your approach is putting a gun or a car into the hands of a 13-year-old, teaching him how to put on the brakes or safety, and hoping he doesn't kill someone or himself.

There are ages and situations at which you are mature enough to commit and ages and situations in which you should avoid situations. And to not teach the morals, the committment of procreation, and the wonder of raising a child along with the technology is that with which I disagree.

Listen to what I'm saying
Abstinence is not something that can be taught only at a public school. Heck, they can't make the kids do their homework, what makes you think they will make them stay out of one anothers' beds?

Abstinence takes parental involvement. It takes peer involvement. It takes the involvement of the entire community.

And even more importantly, it really helps when the people advocating abstinence before marriage......actually abstained before marriage.

To a certain extent, we have had premarital sex ever since there has been a gap between puberty and marriage. Until the twentieth century, there just wasn't such a large gap between puberty and marriage. How many "premature" eight-pound babies were born six or seven months after weddings in the grand old days of family values?

I don't think as a society we are all that willing to encourage our children to get married at 18. Anybody can abstain for 4 years. How many can abstain for 14 years?

Me as a case study
Okay folks, how's this as a model:

From the time I was old enough to start asking about sex (around age 9 or 10), I received accurate, comprehensive sex education from my parents and from my public school. From my parents I learned that sx can be good and fun but you need to be careful who you choose to do it with, that you need to use a condom until you're ready to have a child, and that in any case, I should wait till I'm at least eighteen to start doing it. In school I learned about my body, about how sex and pregnancy work, how to use a condom (there's more to it than just putting it on) and other birth control methods, about the risk of pregnancy and disease, and finally, that the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and disease was to abstain from sex. There was no talk about marriage, no gender-role reinforcing, always accurate, scientifically proven information, and it was, as I said, comprehensive. I waited until I had graduated form high school, but not until I was married. I have had sex hundreds of times and never gotten anyone pregnant, and I remain disease-free.

Good sex ed policy will do the following:
1. Start early, before kids are actually having, or even thinking of having, sex. If you wait to until you catch them naked on the couch, it's too late.
2. Be comprehensive, and scientifically based, so when they become adults they have the knowledge they need to make sex work right.
3. Leave morality out of it. One of the problems abtinence-only education has is that it teaches about sex in term of right and wrong instead of effective and ineffective, and it asks kids to abstain from sex until marriage, not just until adulthood. The former will never work unless the kids already share that value system. The latter appeals to reason and to a certain healthy fear of having to change diapers or having open sores on your genitals.

Non-screed
I usually have a screed on these things, but I just don't have it in me at the moment. Words don't cure people anyhow.

For those who don't know my background, I'm a 24 Y.O. virgin male. It's been a struggle, and I can't say that there wasn't a lot of luck involved, especially in the high school years. But I can honestly say the proudest moment of my life was when the unhealthy sex urge (a tangent, but there are two: healthy/virile/on your skin and unhealthy/sickly/in the back of mind and pants) finally went away.

It's tangible when it stops. It's like, if you've ever lived in a city, there's a constant loud rustle that you stop hearing, stop paying attention to. You'd only hear it if it ever stopped...that's how it is. A deep breath of relief.

Again, there's no convincing anyone on this, but it's amazing when you can unhypocritically treat someone else's daughter the way you want your own treated, when you can honestly be a gentleman.

The modern tragedy isn't so much that people will fall short of that, or that people will do things they regret and hurt others and themselves in the process, the tragedy is that people truly believe it's impossible.

For those who care, the key is eating a naturalistic diet, giving your life to God, and developing the moral part of your mind (no joke, it's in the front of your brain).

Taking my word for it, look at modern society. Its diet, its faith, and its commitment to morality...and see the problem.

TheHistorian
I am not a moral relitavist here, because I do think that abstinence is the best option. I just don't think it is even remotely realistic to expect human nature to change because we think it is "moral". Teens have sex...and I would rather they they have access to birth control that can prevent pregnancy and prevent disease. Telling teens to abstain, and then ignoring the consequences of the 50 % who don't is utterly IMMORAL IMHO, and is destructive tp all involved. Tell teens ALL the options: Abstinence is best, and condoms are far better then nothing.

The problem is...
...that Sekhmet is right--the problem isn't what's in schools. The problem is every other thing in the culture. Teaching kids about sex in school--at the very least, understanding the biology of it--wouldn't be problematic if we didn't actually, as a society, push kids into "exploring their sexuality"... to the point of treating kids as unhealthy and warped if they decide that other things are more important in their lives, or have the slightest objection to being sexualized by adults. It takes an uncommonly strong kid to not be intimidated by the idea that he or she isn't "normal." At the point the culture is in, it makes sense to see to it that kids know about birth control, though I still think that should be a parents' job; it's not like the schools are doing such a good job with their *actual* mission--imparting academic knowledge--that they have lots of extra time to go into social services as well. If we were wiping the floor with the rest of the world on math, science, history, languages, philosophy, art, and music, then I could see adding some things to the school's mission, but we're clearly not.

But to get back to the point about parents, that *is* the ultimate point. We all argue about schools because they have a public component that makes it possible for everyone to meddle in them, but without parenting, nothing that the schools do is going to make any real difference. Parenting is the key. Parents need to stop being afraid of the "hypocrisy" charge--who knows the consequences of a mistake better than a person who's made it? My mother was a single mother at nineteen, and she made no bones about not wanting me to have the same life. Living on a single, non-college income, with no father to so much as talk to, and understanding why it was so, was more than enough for me to decide early that I wasn't going to take the risk of doing that to another child. Parents and clear-eyed home teaching is what it takes to fix social problems, but because we can't control that, we palm it off on the schools, which aren't equipped, or appropriate, for imparting values one way or the other.

Sigh...
I don't think there is any point trying to debate this issue with the "naked pagens" of the world. They have decided that teen sex is a right of passage, and apparently not just an unfortunate reality, but a necessary and desirable part of becoming an adult.

But I sure wish they could spend time in the counseling and pastoral offices of the world filled with people struggling over the damage that sex outside of marriage has inflicted in their lives. Yes, even consenting adults are not exempt. The mind may lie, but the heart knows better.

And no, this has nothing to christian guilt or morality...it is simply the way human beings are wired emotionally - to be monogomous. The fact that promiscuity abounds doesn't disprove this any more than the existence of lying disproves the superiority of telling the truth.

Most studies on human sexuality that have bothered to ask about the monogomy of the participants reveal that the monogomous have the most fulfilled sex lives. That isn't to say that promiscuous people never have great sex...or that monogomous people always have great sex. It is simply to say that as a whole, the monogomous have found the best recipe...that the best sex goes hand-in-hand with lasting commitment and the depth of relationship built over time. For the monogomous, sex gets better. For the promiscuous, sex plateaus once they get over the initial adolescent awkwardness. It remains a primarily physical experience rather than being able to add in the emotional and even spiritual dimensions that can only occur with time and commitment.

Contraception for teens is an argument based in pragmatism, not principle, nor in what is ultimately best for teens. Similar logic would lead us to augment our anti-drug programs in most high schools with “clean needle exchange” programs.

Frankly, I don't think abstinence is actually "taught" in schools anyway. "Mentioned" would probbly be more accurate...replete with an unspoken "yeah...we know it's totally impractical, but we're duty-bound to include it for completeness"

Is it any wonder teens don't listen when it's little more than a bullet point?



another issue...
Besides people not fully understanding their sexuality, this policy supports uses flawed and inaccuate data, as the article I posted says. Additonally, not safe alternatives, like masturbation, are taught (it performs all the functions of abstinance, and satisfies phyical appitites) and whole classes of people are told they can never have sex because they are never allowed to get married.

So while it may sound good in theory, the pratice of this policy leaves a lot to be desired...anyone want to post some stastics how effective it is?

nevadamistermom
passage, and apparently not just an unfortunate reality, but a necessary and desirable part of becoming an adult.

It doesnt have to be unfortunate. IT can acutally be a lot of fun. Like anything else there are risks, and you have to take precautions, but ignoring the risks is not the way to do it.


>the damage that sex outside of marriage has inflicted in their lives.

I will if you spend time with people who sex inside of marriage has inflicted damage on their lives.


>..it is simply the way human beings are wired emotionally - to be monogomous.
Nonsense.


>superiority of telling the truth.
Nonsnese

>..that the best sex goes hand-in-hand with lasting commitment and the depth of relationship built over time.
But this isnt necessarily marriage

>Contraception for teens is an argument based in pragmatism,
Yes, it is results orientated

>Similar logic would lead us to augment our anti-drug programs in most high schools with “clean needle exchange” programs.
I dont know too many high schools that have this issue, but it is a harm reduction policy, yes.

>I don't think abstinence is actually "taught" in schools anyway. "Mentioned" would probbly be more accurate...
Your wrong. Read the article I posted. Not only is that how things are taught, a lot of misleading and skewed facts are thrown into the mix.

>Is it any wonder teens don't listen when it's little more than a bullet point?
Its not a bullet point. Its part of this administrations 'faith based' initatives. A major government funded project that, if you read the link I posted, seems to fill childrens heads with lies and half truths.

And if you dont accuratly and completely teach these topics of reproductive health and human sexuality to high schoolers, when will they learn it, and what will they teach their children? This is how ignorance breeds ignorance.



sin....
Sex outside of marriage is sin. That should be something that is told to children from the time they understand and ask about sex. Listening to immoral rants from immoral posters should be sin also. Believing what they say definitely is sin. It is the devil speaking through his cohorts--people he has managed to deceive and doesn't even bother to worry about anymore. It is the "Post-its" of the world tht the devil is intent upon. It bothers the devil greatly when someone is in touch with God and doesn't buy into the cultural norms that he has managed to slyly incorporate into every segment of society. Changing societal mores is the devils forte. He's made much progress in America. Nothing is sinful if it feels good, everyone is doing it, no one will be hurt by it, the "enlightened" espouse it, the government mandates it, and on and on ad nauseam. The good news is that God also forgives those who participate in premarital sex. Of course it requires that we acknowledge our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. That is where the devil uses his trump card. Pride. It is the deadliest of the deadly sins. It is the basis for most life in America.

WISE Roadmaster, Post-it and Truetolife!
You've got AUTHENTIC LIVING figured out pretty well, I think - and can certainly concur based on my own experience after six decades! :)
Naked Pagan (have to howl at how appropriate that name is!!)and MacZed are at least two who will likely, sadly, never catch on to the truth of what you wrote.
Keep on keeping on - spreading your wisdom! :)

Either or?
"Imagine if our government approached really important topics -- such as seatbelt use -- this way."

Abstinence-only programs don't teach kids to wear seatbelts, they tell them that they shouldn't drive.

Snide remarks aside, the best programs, in terms of preventing teen pregnancy and STDs, are the ones that include both abstinence and birth control education. Some of these programs have been shown to reduce teen sexual activity as well. Encouraging them to use birth control doesn't mean you've given up on discouraging them from having sex.

The trick to a successful program, whether it's abstinence-only or comprehensive, is to talk to teens, not at them.

No down side
No one has mentioned it in the article or any of the posts, but I think that there's a widespread assumption out there that if we teach kids about birth control, we wind up encouraging them to have sex. Not true. There have been over a dozen studies on the subject, and not one of them showed an increase in sexual activity due to encouragement of use of condoms or other birth control.

A parallel
When I was a kid, my father kept a couple of pistols in his desk, a Browning 9mm and a .357 Magnum. Me being a curious sort, he knew that I'd probably go into his desk and see them at some point. He told me not to touch them, period, but he also sat me down and showed them to me. He showed me how they worked, the difference between a semi-auto and a revolver, how you chamber a round, along with some iron-clad rules (Don't ever point it at a person, always assume a gun is loaded, etc.). The rule against handling them was not weakened, but because my dad had taken the time to explain them to me, I wasn't as curious about them. I didn't feel the need to handle them and see how they worked, because I knew how they worked. And I saw the respect my dad had for their inherent danger, and that rubbed off on me, too, so when I did handle guns (target-shooting in college), the rules about how to handle a gun stayed with me. It seems to me that a successful sex-ed program would work using the same strategy. It's not enough to just say, "Don't do it," you have to explain why, address the teen's natural curiousity about sex, and give him or her the guidelines on what to do when he or she does take that step.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.