Most who know me know that I have rather strong opinions about... well anything about which I have an opinion. When Briston Palin was quoted as saying the abstinence was unrealistic, this touched on one of my more strongly held opinions. To be fair to her, I'll quote her more fully: "
everyone should be abstinent... but it's not realistic at all." She doesn't really give a detailed explanation as to why just that something is more accepted. She is not clear as to whether it is teen pregnancy or premarital sex that is accepted, but both are true. Whatever she happened to mean, her reasoning is faulty. I am of the (audacious) opinion that premarital abstinence is certainly realistic, and that those who insist it is not are either ignorant or evil.
I don't typically get this personal in blogging, but I'll state this: before getting married I did not have sex. Ever. Neither did my wife. Ever. I can state unequivocally that it is possible to abstain from sex until marriage because I did it. I made choices in high school and college with the intent of first having sex with my wife on our wedding night. And, hey! It happened! Do not tell me that abstinence is unrealistic because I know otherwise.
It has been my experience that the attitude of those of the "not realistic" opinion tend to think that "they're going to do it anyway" no matter what they are told. I find this insulting for two reasons:
- I didn't
- It treats todays youth as animals unable to withstand the force of their hormones.
Adolescents are not animals. Given the tools and opportunity, they can control the urges of their body. It seems, however, many would rather just teach them how to have sex without getting pregnant. I find that attitude very puzzling. Pop culture says that telling kids to not have sex doesn't work, and that it is better to teach them about various means of birth control. Of course, telling kids to not have sex only fails because these kids don't listen. What makes proponents of "comprehensive sex education" think that these same kids will listen when told about using birth control?
Perhaps the quality of "abstinence-only sex education" is problematic. I don't really know; I elected not to take a "sex education" course in high school. However, I know that other (specifically Christian) organizations actually give students strategies to avoid having sex. Its really not that difficult, and I can summarize them very briefly: avoid situations where people commonly have sex. How is that unrealistic?
3 comments:
Well said Mitch. When I was a "youth" I too thought this approach to be unrealistic, I only wish someone might have described this option and why it was important. That went by the wayside though. i don't blame anyone for that but had I had more information, i definitely could have made better choices.
Babe- you left out one big piece of the problem that those who want to teach "safe sex" leave out: pregnancy is not the only problem with having multiple sex partners! The diseases that are out there are scary and harder and harder to treat.
Moreover, what about the emotional cost? Why do people ignore this aspect of teen sex or even premarital sex? I can only speak from a woman's perspective, but there is a lot of emotion and expectation that goes along with having sex with someone, and if you are later rejected, even amicably, by that person, something is lost.
Papa J, you've got it right! If we accept the truth about sex in its best and purest form, we have to accept that someone designed the system!
Post a Comment