Wednesday Open Thread: Teens and Sex Makes Front-Page News
Posted by Roger, March 12th, 2008
Today's Aurora Beacon featured an article, on the front page, titled "Diseases blossom with teen sexuality, with the sub-title of "1 in 4 teen GIRLS NOW has an STD".
The article points out that 1 in 4 teenage girls nationwide currently has an STD. Noreen Transier or the Kendall County Health Department is quoted in the article as saying "There are more kids having sex."
More kids having sex is probably not news, but the statistic that 1 in 4 girls currently have an STD should be alarming. Apparently, something is not working when STDs are spreading to 25% of our teenage females. (The article did not mention any statistics about teenage boys for some reason.)
Kai Tao of Planned Parenthood is featured in the article:
"This misconception and the study itself indicate that adolescents are not getting the right information, according to Kai Tao, associate medical director of Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
"Not getting the right information"? What does that mean? What is the "right information" and who is going to get it to them? The implication here is that Planned Parenthood has the "right information" and that Planned Parenthood is the right organization to provide it to them.
Does Planned Parenthood provide true and accurate information? Do they tell teens that most STDs are incurable, and that they will have it for LIFE? Do they tell them that the more sexual partners they have the higher the risk of getting and STD? Do they tell them that condoms DO NOT 100% prevent STDs?
Transier stressed that teens need to be honest when they become sexually active and get tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
Getting tested for STDs is all well and good, but what about prevention? Nowhere in the article is any mention of prevention, nor the best prevention and taboo word - abstinence!
Planned Parenthood does not believe in abstinence . If they were really interested in curbing the spread of STDs, they would embrace abstinence as the primary method of prevention. Instead, they say, "well, teens are going to be sexually active".
Well, I say that teens will rise to the level of expectations we have for them. Lower the expectations and lower that which they will rise up to meet. Teens deserve better than this.
And we, the Aurora Beacon readers deserve better. How about some articles about STDs and the how to prevent them? How about articles about the cures, or lack there of, for STDs?
How about not setting up Aurora for Planned Parenthood's "comprehensive sex education" agenda?
What do you think about this Aurora Beacon article? What would you say to the Aurora Beacon?
Browsing the web, I found some other articles about the same subject:
- Sun-Hearld—CDC: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD
- Seattle Times—1 in 4 teen girls has an STD, study says
You may be interested in comparing these articles with the Beacon article.
God Bless,
Roger
P.S. Maybe you might want to let the Beacon know your thoughts through a letter to the editor or the call in line.
Abstinence only works in the minds of the parents.
Is everybody on this blog so old that they cannot remember what it’s like being a teenager?
The kids will tell you one thing and do another. There was no way that my girlfriends and I would tell our parents about our sex life. I think my parents would have been more understanding that my girlfriends, two of which preached abstinence.
Sex education in school is worthless. The student body learned about sex from the older students before the school finally got around to it.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Tom,
Actually, most parents did not "abstain" to become parents.
I don't know how old you are, but sex today is much more risky than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. As I understand it, there used to be only about 4 types of STDs. Today there are over 40 types.
The more sexually active a person it, the more partners the person has, the greater the risk of becoming infected with an STD.
Also, just because you "did it", does not mean that "everybody's doing it" or that we need do not teach our kids right.
Both my wife and myself "didn't do it" with anyone until our wedding night. It was a great gift to share with her and her with me. We don't have to worry about who our spouse has slept with in the past. It is freeing.
And yes, we both were teenagers once upon a time. And yes, we remember what it was like. It was tough, but not impossible.
God Bless,
Roger
March 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
This news is terribly disturbing, of course, but not at all surprising, considering the Bullwinkle approach ("This time for sure!") our country takes to promoting so-called
"safe sex""safer sex".In 2001, a scientific panel co-sponsored by the CDC, NIH, FDA, and USAID looked at 138 peer-reviewed, published studies and found that — with the exception of AIDS and the female-to-male transmission of gonorrhea — "epidemiological evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of condoms in actual use for preventing most other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)".
At the time, noted chastity speaker Mary Beth Bonacci commented:
March 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
The article from Mary Beth Bonacci from which I quoted above is here.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Approves Taking Donations Specifically to Abort Black Babies
Mike
March 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Early sex may play a role in helping these teens develop better social relationships in early adulthood. You can find a study to say just about anything you want.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
*****
Early sex may play a role in helping these teens develop better social relationships in early adulthood.
*****
Adolescent sex is unhealthy and full of unhealthy consequences. Unhealthy physical effects of girls polluting their bodies with concentrated hormone doses. Unhealthy spiritual and psychological effects of commiting abortion. Unhealthy emotional and fiscal consequences of "unexpected" pregnancy. I can't think of any healthy social behaviours adolescents "learn" by having sex. Maybe you could name a few me student.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Early sex may play a role in helping these teens develop better social relationships in early adulthood.
Or may not, of course—which is, um, a lot more likely.
Indeed, one can find a study that says just about anything one wants. I'd be curious to read some critiques of the aforesaid UVA study.
Apropos of same, I can't help but recall one of Mark Shea's memes: Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that despises children.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Student—I love the headline on that study you linked to: "Early Teen Sex May Not Be a Path to Delinquency, Study Shows".
As a father of eight, I can tell you I'm always on the lookout for things that "may not" be a path to delinquency for my kids. As long as they're not delinquents—that's all I ask.
Self-confidence, stable marriages, sexual health—sure it would be "nice" if I could secure these things for my kids. But the main thing—what keeps me up at night—is avoidance of delinquency.
Great stuff!
(For the record, I didn't read the article; I only caught the goofy headline when I was plopping your long URL into a nice text link—something which I would encourage you and everyone else to learn to do; see the instructions above the comment editing window.)
March 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
John: "Indeed, one can find a study that says just about anything one wants."
And THAT was my entire point. While I would not advocate "young teens having early sex," I would not advocate waiting until marriage for sex either.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
While I would not advocate "young teens having early sex," I would not advocate waiting until marriage for sex either.
Student,
Please clarify whether you mean you would not advocate waiting to have sex until marriage for yourself personally or whether you would not advocate waiting to have sex until marriage as a general principle for anyone and everyone.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
John,
I wouldn't advocate it for anyone.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Please listen online to Jason Evert speak to a group of high school students about Chastity Education. I think this is the best talk I ever heard on Chastity Education…
http://www.pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3
Mike
March 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Mike,
That talk is good advice and teaches responsible sexual health education.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
People that promote promiscuity and aborting unwanted babies are a scourge on society.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Student says:
John,
I wouldn't advocate it for anyone.
Student, I would be interest in hearing from you what the downsides would be if a person waited?
March 19th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Why is the emphasis of this article limited to the prevalence of STD's among teenage women? Where is the concern for our young men?
Also, in response to Roger's post, the majority of STD's are curable. The argument that they are not is clearly a scare tactic.
Similarly, condoms are highly effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Any argument that posits otherwise is also a scare tactic.
I would hardly describe the word "abstinence" as "taboo." Our public schools are quite accepting of it.
The downsides to abstinence include:
1. Lack of sexual fulfillment, which is important for anyone who is old enough to get turned on,
2. Disappointment when one discovers that marriage is less effective in preventing the spread of STD's than condoms are,
3. A society that is incapable of negotiating the polarizing messages launched at us from the media, such as the condemnation of women's sexuality alongside the perpetual objectification of their bodies,
4. How about saying "no" to your spouse? Is that ok?
5. No one is educating teenagers about the positive role sex can play in a healthy relationship,
6. Not everyone is capable of or interested in marriage,
etc., etc., etc…
March 19th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Citizen said: "Similarly, condoms are highly effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Any argument that posits otherwise is also a scare tactic."
Um, what?
Apparently you didn't deign to read comment #3 above, in which noted:
March 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Student said: "I wouldn't advocate it [waiting until marriage for sex] for anyone."
You mean, even for those who freely choose, for whatever reason, to wait to have sex until they're married? Or what about those who freely choose to never have sex or get married?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you style yourself "pro-choice"? Don't you see the disconnect here?
Here's my main question, though: Since you clearly don't see a problem with non-marital sex, surely you likewise don't see a problem with any and all non-marital sex, including adultery, right?
March 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Citizen says:
Why is the emphasis of this article limited to the prevalence of STD's among teenage women? Where is the concern for our young men?
****
Citizen, you are correct in noting that society should be focusing equally on men when teaching them about STD's and when teaching them about the responsibilities that come through sex and pregnancy. ———-
Also, in response to Roger's post, the majority of STD's are curable. The argument that they are not is clearly a scare tactic.
**********
Having fear of disease is a "healthy" thing wether the disease is curable or not.——————
Similarly, condoms are highly effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Any argument that posits otherwise is also a scare tactic.
*********
Citizen, the correct way to state that would be condoms are somewhat effective in reducing pregnancy and STD's on a per incident basis. If you put your faith in the effeciveness of condoms and so youhave more sex because you think they will "prevent" these problems then condom use can actually increase your risk. ————
I would hardly describe the word "abstinence" as "taboo." Our public schools are quite accepting of it.
********
Unfortunately our public schools are being infiltrated by people with pro-abort backgrounds who would bring their curriculum that teaches our children promiscuuos behaviours are "healthy". You know what I am talking about. Things like the six "downsides" to abstinence that you placed above:
The downsides to abstinence include:
1. Lack of sexual fulfillment, which is important for anyone who is old enough to get turned on.
There are pedophiles out there who think the same thing
when they are "turning on" the children they molest.
2. Disappointment when one discovers that marriage is less effective in preventing the spread of STD's than condoms are.
Just get tested prior to marriage and remain faithful and STD's are a non-issue.
3. A society that is incapable of negotiating the polarizing messages launched at us from the media, such as the condemnation of women's sexuality alongside the perpetual objectification of their bodies.
How is teaching boys sex prior to commitment is healthy
going to solve that???
4. How about saying "no" to your spouse? Is that ok?
Of course it is.
5. No one is educating teenagers about the positive role sex can play in a healthy relationship.
Sexual relations is only "healthy" between responsible men and women (not boys and girls).
6. Not everyone is capable of or interested in marriage,
etc., etc., etc…
But everyone who has sex should have sex responsibly wether they are married or not. Part of having responsible sex is avoiding the "negative" health consequences like
Unhealthy physical effects of girls polluting their bodies with concentrated hormone doses. Unhealthy spiritual and psychological effects of commiting abortion. Unhealthy emotional and fiscal consequences of "unexpected" pregnancy etc..etc..etc
March 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Citizen,
I think you are mixing a few too many things together when you compiled that list. Yet, am confused about how these strengthen you argument against abstinence.
1 – Perhaps you mean to say “less” and not “lack.”
2 – This makes the assumption (and perhaps wrongly so) that their mate didn’t abstain as well.
3 – Are you saying that people lack self-control? If so, how does is that relevant? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter relating to #1.
4 – Again, how is this relevant to the question?
5 – Tell me how abstinence prevents this; as the two are not mutual exclusive.
6 – I not sure how this strengthens you position abstinence is somehow bad.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
John: "You mean, even for those who freely choose, for whatever reason, to wait to have sex until they're married? Or what about those who freely choose to never have sex or get married?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you style yourself "pro-choice"? Don't you see the disconnect here?
*********************
No, I see no disconnect at all. I said I wouldn't "advocate" waiting until marriage — not that I wouldn't allow it. According to the New Heritage Dictionary, advocate means "to speak, plead, or argue in favor of." You really don't see a difference between advocating for something and telling a person they have no choice? Personally, I don't think it's any of my business what type of sexual behavior two consenting adults choose to engage in (or not engage in) in the privacy of their home.
**************
John: "Here's my main question, though: Since you clearly don't see a problem with non-marital sex, surely you likewise don't see a problem with any and all non-marital sex, including adultery, right?"
How and why did you make this leap? Isn't that along the lines of "If you don't have a problem with driving, surely you likewise don't see a problem with driving drunk, right?" One does not logically follow the other.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Charles: "Student, I would be interest in hearing from you what the downsides would be if a person waited?"
I can think of many reasons but I'll share a somewhat humerous one. My family is quite religious and my sister waited for marriage. She and her (now former) husband went to Hawaii for 2 weeks. They attempted intercourse only to find that her hyman would not break — no matter what they did. After the honeymoon was over (not that it really began), they came back home and she had to have her hyman surgically broken. It made for a pretty disastrous first time.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Hi Student,
I think we can all agree that wouldn’t be the “ideal” situation. However, if the two of them were honest, open, and in a truly loving relationship, I am sure this would have been a minor bump in their relationship. Hopefully, this was not the basis for the “now former” comment.
Now while this could/would have been a little awkward, how would that have been any different if this “first time” was prior to their trip/marriage. I guess I am missing the connection here.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I am actually feeling sorry for Student. Ughhh
March 20th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Charles: "Hopefully, this was not the basis for the “now former” comment. Now while this could/would have been a little awkward, how would that have been any different if this “first time” was prior to their trip/marriage. I guess I am missing the connection here."
I don't think it was the "basis" for their breakup, but sexuality between the two of them was certainly one of the issues. How would it have been different if they hadn't waited? Well, they would have known about the problem, taken care of it, and then enjoyed intimacy during their honeymoon. I think sexuality plays a big part in a healthy relationship.
It takes time to learn how your body works and what is pleasurable — that can be different for each of us. Having some experience allows one to learn a bit more and gives ideas on how to please your partner (as well as yourself). What happens if you marry and later find you are sexually incompatible? I'd rather know I work well with a partner prior to making a committment.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:56 am
The Beacon News editorial writers mused (March 18) that a great many of our teens are no more informed about sex than was the Beverly Hillbilly's character Jethro. I know the television sitcom character to whom they refer, so I guess that dates me as well as the editorial writers. The problem with their analogy though is that today's average pre-teenager could run circles around ol' Jethro on this subject. Information overload before kids really know what to do with it or handle it maturely and responsibly just may be part of the problem.
Of course, that is not the way the editorial writers see it. They opine that a "wide swath of American teens need some frank talk about sex." Really? After more than 40 years of mandated sex-ed programs in our schools and the proliferation of Planned Parenthood facilities across the country and every manner of media pounding away on the subject, all of which is supposed to eliminate ignorance, we find ourselves in what some are calling an "epidemic" of unprecedented proportions. Even if the numbers are "only" half as bad as that reported, we are seeing our kids get diseased at alarming rates.
Nevertheless, there are those who will say the only way to deal with this issue is through more of the same. They denigrate things like abstinence and chastity, and even suggest that it is irresponsible to counsel our children in those ways–so unrealistic and out of touch with modern realities.
But who really is out of touch? For one, our friends on the Beacon's editorial board do not even hint at a sense of urgency. Rather, they seem to be happy to just try to tweak the status quo even as thousands and thousands more of our youth will contract an ever expanding list of new and more virulent strains of STD's. And there are those who pretend that these times are no different than any other age when a couple in love did not wait for their wedding. Wrong again. These ARE different times, and that is precisely why we have an unprecedented epidemic of STD's.
The answer to these problems is to be found mainly in self-control and a greater awareness of the Creator's loving designs for our lives, meant to be lived in a balance of the spiritual and physical meanings of the human experience. John Paul II's teachings on the "Theology of the Body" is an excellent starting point. An excellent resource for more information on this can be found in writings by Fr.Thomas Loya and many other writers as well.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Student said: "No, I see no disconnect at all. I said I wouldn't "advocate" waiting until marriage — not that I wouldn't allow it."
I never said nor implied that you wouldn't "allow" it. The point is that if you truly are "pro-choice", you wouldn't "advocate" one way or the other whether anyone other than yourself have sex before marriage. You simply wouldn't care—as, apparently, you don't, given that you said:
You're being inconsistent here.
If you really were indifferent to whether other people choose to have sex before marriage, why the blazes do you advocate that they do?
It's fruitless to advocate or a given behavior unless one really does care whether said behavior is practiced.
If you don't care, don't advocate.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I had asked Student: "Here's my main question, though: Since you clearly don't see a problem with non-marital sex, surely you likewise don't see a problem with any and all non-marital sex, including adultery, right?"
…to which Student replied:
How and why did you make this leap? Isn't that along the lines of "If you don't have a problem with driving, surely you likewise don't see a problem with driving drunk, right?"
In a word: no.
You opened the door on this one by saying you see no problem with sex between two people who aren't married to each other. Adultery is one example of sex between two people who aren't married to each other.
For the sake of consistency, it would seem that if you believe it's not necessary (morally speaking) for two people to be married to each other before they have sex, why would you see a problem with adultery—other than for reasons that are entirely arbitrary?
March 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Citizen said: "The downsides to abstinence include:
1. Lack of sexual fulfillment, which is important for anyone who is old enough to get turned on…"
Are you unaware, Citizen, that there is a not insignificant number of genuinely real members of the human race who are very much "old enough to get turned on" who have freely chosen abstinence from sex—not just temporarily, but for their whole lives—and who are utterly happy?
Your comment brought to mind an article in the January 2008 issue of First Things magazine titled "Not Your Father's Pornography".
Not only is it an excellent primer on just how bad the let's-see-how-far-we-can-push-the-limits porn of today is compared to that of, say, a generation ago, but more to the point of the discussion here, it also has some sublime insights, to wit:
March 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I think it is cheaper to wait until you are married because protection and the pill costs alot and also medication for std's are probably expensive, add to that doctor visits and besides what if you get pregnant? Then you have to worry about the cost of prenatal care, and all the other things that come with being pregnant.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
John Jansen says: "I had asked Student: "Here's my main question, though: Since you clearly don't see a problem with non-marital sex, surely you likewise don't see a problem with any and all non-marital sex, including adultery, right?"
…to which Student replied:
How and why did you make this leap? Isn't that along the lines of "If you don't have a problem with driving, surely you likewise don't see a problem with driving drunk, right?"
In a word: no.
You opened the door on this one by saying you see no problem with sex between two people who aren't married to each other. Adultery is one example of sex between two people who aren't married to each other."
*******
And driving drunk is an example of driving — but I DO NOT find it acceptable.
John Jansen says: "For the sake of consistency, it would seem that if you believe it's not necessary (morally speaking) for two people to be married to each other before they have sex, why would you see a problem with adultery—other than for reasons that are entirely arbitrary?"
Following your logic I wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beatiality either. I think your "consistency argument" needs significant work.
I have a problem with adultery because of the dishonesty. If you're comfortable enough to be intimate with someone, you should be honest with them. If you want to call that an arbitrary reason, so be it.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
John Jansen says:
Student said: "No, I see no disconnect at all. I said I wouldn't "advocate" waiting until marriage — not that I wouldn't allow it."
I never said nor implied that you wouldn't "allow" it. The point is that if you truly are "pro-choice", you wouldn't "advocate" one way or the other whether anyone other than yourself have sex before marriage.
*************
John, please re-read and, instead of looking for a way to be judgmental, read what I actually said. The sentence reads, "I WOULDN'T advocate one way or the other……"
Where did I say I would "advocate" anything???
March 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Hi Student,
By your comments –
I think sexuality plays a big part in a healthy relationship.
It takes time to learn how your body works and what is pleasurable — that can be different for each of us. Having some experience allows one to learn a bit more and gives ideas on how to please your partner (as well as yourself). What happens if you marry and later find you are sexually incompatible? I'd rather know I work well with a partner prior to making a committment.
Are you suggesting that sexual compatibility trumps all other aspects of a couple’s relationship?
Are you also suggesting that a couple cannot learn how to please one another within the framework of marriage?
I would certainly hope that “sexual performance” is not the sole, or even large, indication of one’s love or commitment to their mate. Let me state it this way, Student, would you divorce or leave your mate if they could not perform for you? Would you leave them if they were in an accident and became debilitated to the point where they could no longer satisfy you?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Student-
Coincidentally, my husband and I were discussing this just the other night, before I started reading this thread. We were both virgins until we got married, and we were just discussing how great it was that we were able to learn together. After seven years of marriage, the sex is awesome and we are still learning new things. We didn't expect everything to be awesome right at the beginning, but learning together has kept our sex life exciting for seven years so far and as far as I can see, it will continue to be so. What you seem to be saying in summary is, "If your partner can't please you, you should know before you get married because that's going to ruin your relationship." What I am living is the truth that learning together allows you to grow in together compatibility.
Not only did we learn to be sexual together, while we were dating we learned how to control our sexual urges. I have absolutely no fear that either of us will ever succumb to the temptation of adultery, because we spent the four years we dated learning that you can't give in to every urge and that there is a time for sex, but there is also a time to control yourself.
How about emotional consequences. "Is it too soon?" "Am I ready?" "Was it ok for you?" "Is she telling the truth or faking it?" "Does he love me, or is it about the sex?" "If the sex fades, do we have anything left?" "Should I stay all night?" "Will it be awkward in the morning?" We never had to deal with any of that crap. Our love and respect and commitment were already established.
Then there are the other risks. I will never have cervical cancer (and I didn't even need a series of shots!). I will never have AIDS or another STD. I never have to worry that my partner has passed something to me, or that I passed something to him, or have a really awkward conversation about who might have passed what to whom. I never had to wonder if my infertility was caused by this, that, or the other that I might have caught from someone.
So, in case you couldn't tell, I think I chose the right path by waiting until marriage. I have been 100% happy with every sexual relationship I have ever had (which would be a grand total of one). Do you think that people who don't wait can say that?
March 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I thought this study was interesting for the discusion. It states cohabitation ends in separation 90% of the time.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06072106.html
It just shows sex should wait until marriage.
Mike
March 20th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
That talk is good advice and teaches responsible sexual health education.
Paul2,
I am glad you enjoyed listening to Jason Evert's talk. You can listen to more of Jason Evert at the following link (see post #2)…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=139949
Mike
March 20th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Mike,
Would you suggest that those not interested in marriage avoid sex altogether or just those that plan to eventually marry? Would you like to see cohabitation remain against the law (as in the article)? After all, the divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%, but I doubt you'd suggest that people not marry because almost 1/2 will end in divorce anyway.
While I don't doubt that many people who cohabitate separate, I think you'll find that # lowers with the increase in age of the couple.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Erin,
I'm really happy things have worked out well for you so far. You said, "I have absolutely no fear that either of us will ever succumb to the temptation of adultery, because we spent the four years we dated learning that you can't give in to every urge and that there is a time for sex, but there is also a time to control yourself." My sister and her former husband did the same thing. Unfortunately, one of them did "succumb to the temptation of adultery" even though they spent 5 years together w/o sex.
You also said, "I will never have cervical cancer (and I didn't even need a series of shots!)." While it does lower your odds, you can still get cervical cancer. It isn't just a result of STD's and I would strongly urge you to get a pap smear every year.
You really never asked, "'Was it ok for you?' 'Is she telling the truth or faking it?'" I imagine EVERY couple goes through that. I'm sure that you are concerned that it was ok for your partner. That's natural. While I've had more than one partner and, yes, some of those experiences were less than stellar, it's brought me to the place I'm at and I couldn't be happier. Those experiences have made me the person I am and the same is true of my partner (who I don't want to marry, but to whom I am very committed).
Regardless, I hope your situation continues to be a happy and healthy one for you both and that your experience turns out vastly different that that of my sister.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Charles says: "Are you suggesting that sexual compatibility trumps all other aspects of a couple’s relationship?"
No, it doesn't trump all other aspects but, at least for me, it is an important part of my relationship with my partner.
***************
Charles says: "Are you also suggesting that a couple cannot learn how to please one another within the framework of marriage?"
I'm saying I wouldn't enter into marriage without checking that out in advance.
***************
Charles says: "would you divorce or leave your mate if they could not perform for you? Would you leave them if they were in an accident and became debilitated to the point where they could no longer satisfy you?"
I would make sure we were sexually compatible prior to entering a long term relationshp. If my partner were in an accident or had another health issue that affected his sexuality I'm sure we would work together to find a way to satisfy one another. In fact, my partner does have a health issue (asthma) that affects sexuality from time to time but we've managed a work around during those times.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Student-
I've never faked it and my husband knows it. Why would I? In a relationship of such respect and commitment, honesty is the most important thing, not fake flattery. Of course, we do talk about what we might be able to do better for the other person, but this is not a stressful "did I do it right?", but a fun exercise in trying new things. Are pre-marital sexual relationships taking place in such a state of commitment and respect?
I've checked around on cervical cancer. What I see is that it is always caused by HPV, and the other risk factors listed help determine which women who have HPV are more likely to develop cervical cancer. If you do not have HPV, you will not get cervical cancer. But apart from HPV, there are literally hundreds of other variations of STD that you are playing roulette with when you have multiple partners. I'm assuming you have encouraged your sons to follow your own advice and experiment before marriage. How will you feel if some day one of them comes home HIV positive because they felt they needed to experiment in order to have healthy relationships later? It's a big risk to take when clearly healthy relationships are not dependent on pre-marital sex (as exampled by my own).
I am sorry things did not work out for your sister. I can only say that I have confidence in my marriage based in part on the discipline shown by my husband and myself while we were dating.
I read your earlier post about your sister's problems on her honeymoon. I'd first like to point out that even if you are a virgin, you can have your hymen broken by your GYN and eliminate that risk. Second, there are ways to please each other without full penetration if that is not possible on the honeymoon. It seems like her first time would have been a big problem no matter when it happened. Personally, I'd like to have that problem within the respect, love, and commitment of marriage instead of in the backseat of a car with "will he dump me because of this?" going like a mantra through my mind.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Erin,
Most cervical cancer is caused by HPV — but not all. Smoking also increases your risk (but I assume with 2 young kids at home you don't do that….at least I hope not). I would still have regular paps just to be certain.
Again, I'm glad things worked out for you, however, my sister felt exactly the same way. They waited 5 years for marriage & sex and things turned out to be a disaster. In fact, it was one of the ugliest divorces I've ever seen — not to mention extremely difficult on their two children.
I know for a fact that my kids have been sexually active and none are married. To date, they've been positive experiences. I don't expect them to come home one day with HIV because they know how to protect themselves and they know that they (and their partners) should get tested beforehand to avoid STDs. I am 45 and have NEVER had one, my partner has never had one and none of my boys have ever had one. The key is education, education, education.
On the other hand, my sister did the abstinance only nonsense with her kids (and went so far as to pull them out of sex ed classes when they went to public high school). My niece (age 17) has had gonnorhea (sp?) and currently has HPV. She is also pregnant with her second child. It seems to me, it doesn't work out so well for everyone.
I'm not judging you…..and am glad it worked out well for you and your husband. However, I believe you to be the exception rather than the rule (and I realize you would likely say the same to me).
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Student says:
On the other hand, my sister did the abstinance only nonsense with her kids (and went so far as to pull them out of sex ed classes when they went to public high school). My niece (age 17) has had gonnorhea (sp?) and currently has HPV. She is also pregnant with her second child. It seems to me, it doesn't work out so well for everyone.
*******
Student, of course there is more to sex-ed then abstinence. Kids need to be taught about their bodies and their sexuality in orderto understand what abstinence is. IMO there are many other components of a healty sex-ed class, abstinence should be a central part.
Are your nieces children beautiful? God bless her for choosing life. Is she struggling financially to make ends meet? Is the father being supportive? Sounds like she must have a supportive family?
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Student:
I'm enjoying our discussion and want to continue it, but I'm going out of town for a few days and won't be posting. I'm not giving up!
Also, though I know the "God thing" is not your cup of tea, on this Easter Sunday I want to tell you that God loves you. Really.
Erin
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Erin,
Enjoy your vacation. We're moving this week so my participation will be spotty as well. Have a wonderful time!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I had asked: "For the sake of consistency, it would seem that if you believe it's not necessary (morally speaking) for two people to be married to each other before they have sex, why would you see a problem with adultery—other than for reasons that are entirely arbitrary?"
…to which Student responded:
Following your logic I wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beatiality either.
Bingo!
Remove the sexual act from the context of marriage and openness to the possibility of procreation, and anything is possible.
Slippery slope? Maybe. But I'd say it's more of a package deal.
Two years ago, a Reuters article (which appears to no longer be available online) reported the following:
I can't say this comes as a surprise, as this party was (is?) merely attempting to take hopelessly liberal policies on sexuality to their logical conclusion.
At the time, Catholic blogger Mark Shea predicted:
Student said: "I have a problem with adultery because of the dishonesty. If you're comfortable enough to be intimate with someone, you should be honest with them. If you want to call that an arbitrary reason, so be it."
Who said anything about dishonesty? What if a couple mutually agrees to have a so-called open marriage?
Objectively speaking, is adultery within an "open marriage" wrong?
I should say, though, that I couldn't agree more with you when you say, "If you're comfortable enough to be intimate with someone, you should be honest with them." The only problem is that you're missing the point that any and all non-marital sex is, by its very nature, a dishonest act.
The sexual act speaks a language of permanent, committed love—a language that two persons who are not married to each other are not capable of honestly speaking, for they have not yet made said commitment, and either of them is free to end their relationship at any time.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:19 am
John: "What if a couple mutually agrees to have a so-called open marriage? Objectively speaking, is adultery within an "open marriage" wrong?
If the couple both agrees then, no, I wouldn't consider it "wrong."
*****************
John: "The sexual act speaks a language of permanent, committed love—a language that two persons who are not married to each other are not capable of honestly speaking, for they have not yet made said commitment, and either of them is free to end their relationship at any time."
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, I wholeheartedly disgaree. The relationship I share with my partner has outlasted MOST of the marriages of our friends. We are very committed to one another and don't need a piece of paper from the state to prove same.
****************************
John: "Remove the sexual act from the context of marriage and openness to the possibility of procreation, and anything is possible."
Wow! You got my number and are clearly on to me. I'd write more, but I'm off to look for children and farm animals.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
For clarification purposes, the last sentence of the prior post was sarcasm (I realize there are some who might not read it that way).
March 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Student,
Are you uncomfortable answering post #43?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
It's been a while, but I'd like to respond with some information about STD's that I found from the CDC and from The Medical Institute. There's also a good video, available on YouTube in three parts, that talks about STD's today. (links at the bottom) I hope that you find this information helpful, sorry it is so long.
Citizen mentioned two counter-points to my post:
Well, I did a little research into this area. True enough, the CDC does say that some of the STDs are curable. Although it is interesting to note too that they also say for some of the STDs, that it is easier to re-infected once you've been infected once. But for other STD's there are NO cures.
I would highly disagree with the "highly effective" statement. The effectiveness of condoms to prevent STD's is poor. The Medical Institute, quoted below, states that for most of the STD's the effectiveness is about 50%. This does not qualify as "highly effective".
It is also interesting to note that for each of these STD's the best way to prevent it is to abstain from sexual relations or to only have one mutually exclusive partner. In addition, for Chlamydia the younger the female, the more susceptible she is to become infected.
From The Medical Institute
From Center for Disease Control - Genital HPV Infection - CDC Fact Sheet:
From Center for Disease Control - Genital Herpes - CDC Fact Sheet:
From Center for Disease Control - Chlamydia - CDC Fact Sheet
Here are links to some interesting video on the subject:
Dr. Meg Meeker - The Rules Have Changed (part 1)
Dr. Meg Meeker - The Rules Have Changed (part 2)
Dr. Meg Meeker - The Rules Have Changed (part 3)
For me, this information makes it clear that monogamous, lifelong relationships are the only 100% way to prevent the spread of these STDs. Everything else is just a "try" to prevent it. Perhaps those who promote "safe sex" or "safer sex" are not really, 100% serious in stopping the spread of STD's?
God Bless,
Roger
March 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I wanted to throw out one more piece of information from the CDC for you to consider. The CDC states that for gonorrhea, new strains have formed for which there is no cure:
From Center for Disease Control - Gonorrhea - CDC Fact Sheet:
God Bless,
Roger
March 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Planned Parenthood provides testing and treatment for all the STDs and STIs Roger mentions, for both men and women, at affordable rates. They accept medical insurance and will bill on a sliding scale for those who do not have insurance coverage.
While it's true that not all of these diseases are curable, Planned Parenthood also provides counseling for infected individuals to help them understand their options and the risks they may be sharing with their partners. It's very important for sexually active individuals to be tested for the diseases Roger has mentioned.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Jane Ann,
Testing and treatment is NOT prevention and cures. If we are serious about stopping the spread of STD's then we need to seriously consider - and implement - the preventative measures. There are two options: (1) abstinence or (2) a monogamous, lifelong partner.
Planned Parenthood fights abstinence education. They promote an inferior, flawed way to stop the spread of STD's.
The more sexual partners a person has, the more the STDs spread.
Let's get serious. Not about treatment and testing, but about prevention and cure!
Also, there are any number of medical clinics who will do STD testing. Among them are:
(*) Sliding scale based on income
(+) FREE to Kane County residents
All of these provide STD testing and do not perform abortions, which Planned Parenthood thrive$ on.
God Bless,
Roger
March 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Roger: "There are two options: (1) abstinence or (2) a monogamous, lifelong partner."
Are you advocating legislating this?
March 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Student,
No, I am not advocating legislating this. I am advocating promoting this as a superior option to "comprehensive sex ed" or the promotion of condoms as "safe sex" option.
The type of "education" that Planned Parenthood promotes only leads to more sex with more partners. More sex with more partners leads to more STDs.
And more sex leads to more abortions. More abortions means more money for Planned Parenthood.
If Planned Parenthood is serious about stopping the spread of STDs, then they would promote this. Instead they promote condom use and more sex.
God Bless,
Roger
March 25th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Thanks, Roger. I'm glad to hear that. I don't think the government has any place in the bedroom.
I really don't care if PP provides sex ed or it comes from somewhere else — as long as it is COMPREHENSIVE. In my mind there's no problem with placing the emphasis on abstinance IF we give thorough education on sexuality.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Student,
So then, are you in agreement that the best way to stop the spread of STDs is to promote abstinence and monogamous, lifelong relationships?
God Bless,
Roger
March 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Roger,
Absolutely I would agree that the "best way" to stop the spread of STDs is to promote abstinance. I would also agree that the "best way" to avoid being injured and/or killed in an automobile accident is to never get into a car. However, I don't think either is particularly practical.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Student,
So, we relegate to a lesser "solution", addressing only the symptoms of the problem, rather than the problem itself?
I think we CAN do better. That we CAN live up to a better ideal. The only problem is that too many people don't think/believe this and settle for a "patch" rather than a cure.
Wouldn't a cure for AIDS be worth it? With the approach I advocate, AIDS could be virtually wiped out in a generation or two.
You say it's not "practical". Perhaps so, but I say that it CAN be done. It can be done through education and discipline/self-mastery.
Let us put our efforts into the 100% prevention/cure, not into something that perpetuates the problem.
God Bless,
Roger
March 25th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Roger,
We can prevent ALL auto related injuries and deaths if we simply don't drive. Why not do that? After all, driving perpetuates the problem.
We can avoid a lot of heart disease and weight issues if we ban McDonalds. Should we try that too? Eating this garbage perpetuates the problem.
There are lots of people who do not share your views on sexuality and who do not think having only one partner over an entire lifetime a good thing. I wouldn't want to be the only person my partner has been with and, after asking him, he wouldn't want to be the only partner I'd ever experienced.
Personally, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt (significantly reduces my risk of injury/fatality if an accident occurs), I rarely eat fast food (significantly reduces my risk of heart disease and weight issues) and I ALWAYS make sure I'm safe when sexually active.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Hey Student:
I'm back, and following your very interesting thread with Roger. I find it interesting that in your last post you are back to "banning" McDonald's and "banning" driving when Roger clearly stated that he was not interested in legislating anything. He made it clear that he is interested in the best prevention for STDs, which is promotion of abstinence or a long-term monogamous lifestyle. And basically, you agreed, but said that was "impractical"?
Why is abstinence or a long-term monogamous lifestyle not practical? In your opinion, is the ideal end-point of a relationship to become long-term and monogamous (either through marriage or "life partnership")?
March 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Student,
Your counter arguments are weak. Esp. the "McDonalds" one. I assume you know this and were being facetious.
As to sharing my views. Regardless of your views, and to that matter a lot of people also share my views, the information from the CDC is clear. More sexual partners means higher risk of STDs.
Like it or not, this is true.
Also, it is clear from the CDC information that the earlier a woman becomes sexually active, the more likely she is to contract at least one of the STDs - Chlamydia.
You say that you ALWAYS make sure that you are safe when you have sex. So, you have had each of your sexual partners, and all of their partners, and all of their partners, etc. tested for STDs? From the CDC information, most people don't know that they are infected with an STD.
And you ALWAYS make sure to use a condom? Even though with correct usage 100% of the time they are only 50% effective on many of the STDs?
I think your "safe" sex concept is an illusion.
God Bless,
Roger
March 26th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I think safe sex depends on both parties involved, not just the woman. The man should also take the necessary precautions. And both parties involved should take the same measures. Common sense should say that sex is not a good idea when one person has an outbreak of, for example, herpes.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Sasha,
I agree that both the man and woman are responsible. (As a man, I tend to feel that men are "more" responsible, as they should protect the woman they love, but I would not "advocate" this in general practice, nor is it a anti-feminist thing.)
What "necessary precautions" are you advocating? I'm advocating abstinence and exclusive, lifelong partners. What are the precautions you feel are needed? What do you base this on?
Actually, a person can become infected by a person with herpes between outbreaks. So this "common sense" approach does no good. Here's some information from the Genital Herpes - CDC Fact Sheet about this:
God Bless,
Roger
March 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Roger,
First of all let me say that Iam not trying to be critical, I am just trying to say what I think matters to me and what I would want from my partner if I were sexually active. I would want my partner to at least have the common courtesy to let me know beforehand if he had an STD.
I used herpes as an example of using common sense when you have sex and how both parties should think before they act, so to speak.
I do agree in advocating abstinence, and a lifelong partner, but I also think that if abstinence and a lifelong partner are not what you choose, then there should be something you should do to protect yourself.
Personally, I am opposed to birth control.
I now have two questions for you:
#1: What do you mean when you ask me what I base my stand for necessary precautions on ? ( Idid not understand your question and would like it clarified, please.)
#2 Do you advocate condom use? Just curious.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Sasha,
Thanks for your response.
(#1) What I meant, or was trying to ask was for the precautions that you thought necessary, what was your basis - the information you relied upon to make that decision. Is it from health classes, or internet research or what?
I raised this question because of the idea of "common sense". In that common sense does not always help one out. In the case of herpes, which you used and I continued the use of, common sense might say, if I have no signs of herpes, aka no "outbreak", then I can have relations. But this does not prevent the spread of the infection to your partner.
(#2) This might be a longer answer and better for another discussion thread but here goes…
No, I do not advocate condom use. I am opposed to artificial birth control. I oppose them because they are ultimately not loving of the other person.
To me, the giving of oneself to another needs to be a total gift, if it is to be "love", as opposed to "use". I have relations with a person because I love them, not because they make me feel good. (Although there is nothing wrong with feeling good.)
When you use birth control, you withhold a part of yourself from the other. You withhold your fertility.
I advocate for NOT using birth control because I think it is better, more loving. I understand that not everyone thinks this way, and I would not advocate "legislating" this in any way. (Nor would I advocate legislating pharmacists to dispense birth control or "morning after" pills as Illinois has done through Gov. Blagojevich.)
My views on this have been formed by my faith and my church. Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body and his book Love and Responsibility summarized here have much more to say about this and more elegantly that I can.
With that said, my arguments above on not advocating condom use are not based on my religious or moral beliefs, but upon scientific and health data. For every STD, the best way to prevent becoming infected, as identified by the CDC is abstinence and monogamous, lifelong partners.
The fact that my moral values, religious beliefs and the scientific data all lead to the same conclusion is just an added bonus for me.
God Bless,
Roger
March 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
One additional thing…
I DO recognize that condom usage can reduce the spread of some STDs. If you are not abstinent or in a mutually exclusive, lifelong relationship, I suppose some level of reduction of risk is better. But it's also a little like playing Russian Roulette. It's better not to play, as the consequences are too serious.
God Bless,
Roger
March 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Not impertinent to the ongoing discussion here is a devastating critique of primarily condom-based AIDS prevention programs in Africa in the current issue of First Things ("AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right").
(It's also worth noting that one of the authors of said article, Edward Green, is the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies; the other author, Allison Herling Ruark, is a research fellow there.)
Of particular note from the article:
And:
And:
Ah, yes— the Bullwinkle approach.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Roger,
Thanks for answering my questions.
First of all, I base my precautions on several things;
What I have learned in health class, from articles that I read, and from talking to others.
I asked if you advocated condom use because I myself am still undecided about the issue and thought that maybe your opinion cuold help me shed a little light on the subject , so to speak.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Roger,
I have also learned quite a bit about this from listening to both sides of th topic.
From the people going in and the people praying outside. Each side has their own unique opinion.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The questions raised in this forum are very relevant ones for me. I have a 12 year old daughter who will certainly be going through puberty soon. What advice would I give to her?
1) Know your biology. In other words, know about the diseases and risks of having sex. Know how to prevent pregnancy and avoid STDs. Know about both male and female biology.
2) Know your body. This includes self-exploration through masturbation, and use of mirrors to see how the general biology applies in her case.
3) Know how to relate to others as equals. This means learning how to communicate desires and fears as well as listening to their desires and fears.
4) Know yourself. This includes knowing her own motivations, and ultimate goals as well as how specific actions can impact her future. It includes knowing whether she wants to have children, knowing whether she wants to marry, knowing whether she wants to be monogamous, knowing what career she wants, etc.
5) Never have sex because she feels she 'has to'. If and when she has sex, I want her to *want* to have sex and not because she wants to 'keep' a partner.
6) Don't marry the first person you have sex with. In fact, have several partners before you even consider getting married. This is part of learning who you are and what you want. It is also part of learning how to relate to others and leads to happier relationships in the long run (my belief).
7) Always feel free to discuss fears, concerns, hopes, etc about *any* subject, including potential partners, etc with me.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
o me, the giving of oneself to another needs to be a total gift, if it is to be "love", as opposed to "use". I have relations with a person because I love them, not because they make me feel good. (Although there is nothing wrong with feeling good.)
——–
I strongly disagree with this. The choice to have children is an immense one and should not be taken lightly. The responsibility of bringing another person into the world, feeding them, educating them, etc. is HUGE. People should be able to express their love for each other sexually without the fear that this will lead to a pregnancy and the resulting responsibilities. It is not 'use' do so, it is real love.
For example, *neither* I nor my partner want to have more children. Ever. But we will not give up the bonding that results from a healthy sexual relationship. Because of that, I have had a vasectomy, so that pregnancy is not a risk we have to face. That, again, is love, not 'use'. While you might consider this as 'withholding fertility', that is *exactly* what both of us want in our relationship. It is no more 'use' than refusing to give someone nuts who is allergic to them or respecting a partners wishes when it comes to any other endeavor.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am
"People should be able to express their love for each other sexually without the fear that this will lead to a pregnancy and the resulting responsibilities."
Professor:
Now, sometimes wouldn't that be nice–not to have to worry about pregnancy. There are times when I don't want to get pregnant, like right after my son was born or even right now when I am waiting for an adoption placement. Of course, my husband and I still express our physical love and take precautions as we see fit, but I still get a little nervous when it comes time to find out if I'm pregnant or not every month.
But to say you "should be able" to not have any "fear" about pregnancy–like its a right or something–is really ridiculous.People should be able to express their love for each other sexually without the fear that this will lead to a pregnancy and the resulting responsibilities. Pregnancy is a natural result of having sex. That's like saying I "should be able" to eat cake for every meal without "having fear" that I'll gain a ton of weight. Actions have consequences. A consequence of eating a lot of cake (depending on your metabolism) would be weight gain. A consequence of having sex (depending on your fertility) would be pregnancy.
Is the ability to have sex without getting pregnant a "right"? If it is, then conversely getting pregnant exactly when you want to is a "right" too, right? How exactly to you intend to preserve the "right" of everyone to get pregnant or not get pregnant exactly as they want to all the time?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Professor says:
2) Know your body. This includes self-exploration through masturbation, and use of mirrors to see how the general biology applies in her case.
******
Professor, my 12 year old mentioned hearing about masturbation at school the other day and I discussed it "briefly" with her and let her know some people arouse themselves by touching their own privates. She actually was somewhat disgusted about it.
Are you really going to encourage your daughter to "explore" masturbation? Once upon a time I threw a perverted ex-father-in-law out of his house and came very close to leaving him bloodied on the sidewalk for "showing" my brother-in-law (fourteen at the time) about masturbation.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
6) Don't marry the first person you have sex with. In fact, have several partners before you even consider getting married. This is part of learning who you are and what you want. It is also part of learning how to relate to others and leads to happier relationships in the long run (my belief).
*******
Professor, you seem to be confused. One post says you tell your daughter to be concerned about STD's and another says you encourage her to have multiple partners. That is irrational. IMO you are really setting your daughter up for misery and unhappiness. You stress to her how important it is to find partners who can bring her "pleasure", so she practices masturbation and sex with multiple partners. You now have her exposing herself to STD's and possible unwanted pregnacy. And you'll have taught her that she need not stay commited to a relationship if that partner should become unable to "get her off" the way she likes it. What exactly are the "benefits" of this strategy?
April 5th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Erin,
I don't think Professor said anything about a right "to" get pregnant. That's an issue of biology. As to "not" getting pregnant, he said he's had a vasectomy so my thoughts would be that yes, in fact, he should not have to worry about impregnating a partner. Again, a simple issue of biology….if sperm can't get through it certainly makes the fertilization of the egg pretty difficult.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
You say:
Now, sometimes wouldn't that be nice–not to have to worry about pregnancy. There are times when I don't want to get pregnant, like right after my son was born or even right now when I am waiting for an adoption placement. Of course, my husband and I still express our physical love and take precautions as we see fit, but I still get a little nervous when it comes time to find out if I'm pregnant or not every month.
————————–
I say:
I'm sure you do. Precautions, as in birth control, can drastically decrease that nervousness. I encourage you to avail yourself of the technology.
————————–
You say:
But to say you "should be able" to not have any "fear" about pregnancy–like its a right or something–is really ridiculous.People should be able to express their love for each other sexually without the fear that this will lead to a pregnancy and the resulting responsibilities. Pregnancy is a natural result of having sex. That's like saying I "should be able" to eat cake for every meal without "having fear" that I'll gain a ton of weight. Actions have consequences. A consequence of eating a lot of cake (depending on your metabolism) would be weight gain. A consequence of having sex (depending on your fertility) would be pregnancy.
——————————————-
I say:
And we *have* birth control methods that will drastically decrease the chances that you will get pregnant. They are not free, although I like the idea of making them as cheap as possible. I also encourage those who don't want children to use this birth control (if they want children in the future) or get sterilized (if they don't).
If we ever develop a method whereby we can eat cake and NOT get fat, I would support people's right to choose to use it. Would you? Or is it just some type of punishment for someone to get fat?
—————————————-
You say:
Is the ability to have sex without getting pregnant a "right"? If it is, then conversely getting pregnant exactly when you want to is a "right" too, right? How exactly to you intend to preserve the "right" of everyone to get pregnant or not get pregnant exactly as they want to all the time?
—————————————–
I say:
Since we don't, as yet, have the technology to make people fertile whenever they want, it's somewhat difficult for that to be a right. We *do* have the technology to make it *far* less likely that they will get pregnant. Yes, I would consider this a basic right: to not *have* to be pregnant simply because you are sexual when we have the technology to prevent it.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
You say:
Professor, my 12 year old mentioned hearing about masturbation at school the other day and I discussed it "briefly" with her and let her know some people arouse themselves by touching their own privates. She actually was somewhat disgusted about it.
———————————–
I say:
A completely age-appropriate response, actually. Now, what will you do when she is 17 and asks the same question? Will you expect the same response?
—————————————-
You say:
Are you really going to encourage your daughter to "explore" masturbation? Once upon a time I threw a perverted ex-father-in-law out of his house and came very close to leaving him bloodied on the sidewalk for "showing" my brother-in-law (fourteen at the time) about masturbation.
—————————————
I say:
'Showing' is far, far, different than making sure that she has the resources to understand how her body works, to learn about techniques that others have found to work for them, and discussing it when she has questions. I am *certainly* not suggesting a 'show and tell', although having good literature for her to read is on the agenda.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You say:
Professor, you seem to be confused. One post says you tell your daughter to be concerned about STD's and another says you encourage her to have multiple partners. That is irrational. IMO you are really setting your daughter up for misery and unhappiness. You stress to her how important it is to find partners who can bring her "pleasure", so she practices masturbation and sex with multiple partners. You now have her exposing herself to STD's and possible unwanted pregnacy. And you'll have taught her that she need not stay commited to a relationship if that partner should become unable to "get her off" the way she likes it. What exactly are the "benefits" of this strategy?
——————————
I say:
First, I would make sure that she knows the types of STDs that exist, their symptoms, and how and whether they can be treated. I'd also teach her that *talking* with prospective partners about their sexual history and making an informed judgment for herself about the risks she wants to take is essential. However, one does not learn about one's own sexual responsiveness completely with only one partner. The 'benefits' of lifelong monogamy are *far* outweighed, in my mind, by the sexual and mental health obtained by not restricting to that first partner.
Yes, of course, multiple partners carries risks. I would want her to judge those risks for herself and decide when and if she wants to take those risks. But risks are part of life: every time we get behind the wheel of a car, there is a (big) risk of dying. That is not sufficient reason to give up driving. Neither do I consider the risks of STDs and pregnancy to be prohibitive *when proper precautions are taken*. That means using birth control. It means being able to talk to prospective partners (always a good thing even if (especially if) marriage is in the future).
As for staying committed to a relationship: by knowing what she likes and how to masturbate, I think this *drastically* increases the chances that a relationship will be satisfying in the long term, so that she isn't trapped in a bad relationship (which way too many people are). She would also know the relative importance of 'getting off' as opposed to having a caring partner, financial stability, a good career, etc. Then she can make the decisions for herself.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Prof,
*drastically* is a good way t puty it.
"Appropraite" literature…a lot of perverts use porn as their "appropriate" literature. If your daughter "share" the "literature" you Child molesters and sexual predators have that same mindset. They convince themselves and their victims that they are actually "benefitting" the sexual of your daughter cause they care more experienced and can share that experience with your daughter. Most would not consider that to be responsible parenting. You sayb the benefits of multiple sexual experinces *far* outweighs the negative consequences. Wow, I hope other parents know what goes on at your house. You are entitled to your "opinion" but know your ideas are way outside the mainstream of siociety who understand that minors are not capable of comprehending the long term consequences of being sexually active. People like you are the reason I have to be afraid to let my daughter go over to her friends house after school unless I know the parent on a personal level.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
You say:
*drastically* is a good way t puty it.
"Appropraite" literature…a lot of perverts use porn as their "appropriate" literature. If your daughter "share" the "literature" you Child molesters and sexual predators have that same mindset. They convince themselves and their victims that they are actually "benefitting" the sexual of your daughter cause they care more experienced and can share that experience with your daughter. Most would not consider that to be responsible parenting. You sayb the benefits of multiple sexual experinces *far* outweighs the negative consequences. Wow, I hope other parents know what goes on at your house. You are entitled to your "opinion" but know your ideas are way outside the mainstream of siociety who understand that minors are not capable of comprehending the long term consequences of being sexually active. People like you are the reason I have to be afraid to let my daughter go over to her friends house after school unless I know the parent on a personal level.
—————————————-
And if any treatment of sexuality is seen as porn by you folk, then who has the real problem? I am NOT suggesting looking at pornography with my daughter. I AM suggesting that she understand that women more often achieve orgasm by some methods than by others. I actually expect her mom will discuss this with her (which I see as much more appropriate) or that we will buy some books for her to read (Our Bodies, Ourselves is still out there and still gives good information).
What, exactly, do you think 'goes on in my house'? You seem to think that I'm just some leering pervert trying to get off on my daughters sexuality. This is the farthest thing from the truth. That you default to this only shows how sick and dirty minded YOU are. I just want her to have a healthy and happy sex life, where SHE gets to make her own decisions and live life to the fullest for HER. That includes giving her age appropriate information when she asks for it. It includes making sure she knows the risks of various behaviors (STDs, pregnancy) and how to lessen the risks. It includes teaching her responsibility and how to talk frankly with others.
I would suggest that she not marry the first person she has sex with: it is just too much of an emotional gamble with too little information going in. Instead, she should learn who she is, how she responds, and find someone that she meshes with, not just sexually, but in many other ways. I would encourage her to have a positive attitude towards sexuality rather than one of hiding it and being ashamed of it.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
You ask me what I think goes on at your house. If I take you at your word then I can see "kids" using your place as an after school hangout where they engage in sexual exploration. Sounds like I should be concerned if you live in my area.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Truthseeker,
I got my period at age 14 and thought I had cancer. My parents didn't have any discussions with me about how my body worked and I was petrified. My gym teacher gave me a copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" which my mother deemed "pornographic." I think it's much better to give kids age appropriate information than to keep them in the dark.
Given your responses to Professor, I'd be far more concerned that kids would use your place for "sexual exploration." It sounds like his daughter won't need that as she has parents who will actually discuss these things with her so she won't be forced to get her information from friends. I pity your children…..my guess is they'll end up with an STD or an unwanted pregnancy long before Professor's daughter. No wonder you want to push for parental notification….I'm sure your kids wouldn't talk to you if they found themselves in trouble.
Also, I had assumed that calling someone a pervert and a child molester were against the terms of blog. Guess that only applies to folks who don't tow the PL line.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am
You said:
You ask me what I think goes on at your house. If I take you at your word then I can see "kids" using your place as an after school hangout where they engage in sexual exploration. Sounds like I should be concerned if you live in my area.
—————————
Then you completely misunderstand my position. Kids *will* find places to explore, whether it is under a bush, or at a parents house. What I want is for my daughter to be *informed* about her biology, the risks of sexual exploration (so she can take appropriate steps when she *does* explore), and know that she should only do it when *she* is ready, not when someone is pushing for it.
Do I think 12 is *way* too early to be having sex? You betcha. You I think it's too early to be talking about the biology of it and the risks involved? No way! Do I think it's too early to start teaching negotiation and communication skills? No, in fact it is probably rather late. Will I think she is 'dirty' or that I have failed in some way if she becomes sexual at 16 or 17 and takes reasonable precautions? No.
I would bet that my daughter is *far* less likely to become a teen mother than yours. I bet that mine is far less likely to get an STD than yours. I bet that mine is less likely to engage in heavy petting than yours. Why do I think this? Because my daughter, unlike yours, will know how the information to makes intelligent decisions, while yours will be stuck with a 'head in the sand' mentality that, once broken, will leave her clueless. This, by the way, is what happens when 'abstinence only' programs are adopted: the age of first sex is delayed by the programs, but the rates of pregnancy and STD is increased.
My daughter, like yours, is not interested in masturbation or becoming sexual at this time. But I can assure you that both will go through puberty in the next few years. I'd much rather that my daughter be informed and mentally prepared rather than be told 'just say no'.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Student,
I did not call Prof a child molester or a pervert. I said that child molesters and perverts convince themselves what they are doing is helping the kids they molest by teaching them about their sexuality and denying any harm they are actually causing to the child.
You can pity my kids if you want, but I necer had to show my daughter graphic examples of masturbation and she came to us (her parents) as soon as she heard about it. I am sorry you thought you had cancer. It sounds like something was lacking in your relationship with your parents if you were afraid to go to your mother cause you had cancer. And teaching a girl about her period is a "far cry" from teaching her sexual exploration so she can learn the best techniques. All I can say is WOW.
And I beg to differ about what could/would go in in my house. Other parents know that kids in my house are watched over by responsible adults who do not allow "sexual exploration" between minors. No teen sex of "any" kind in my house. If that worries you then
we just have a realy,really,really dramatic difference of opinion in how to best keep our children healthy as adolescents.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Prof, I am glad to hear that you would not allow adolescent sexual exploration in your house. We are in agreement about wanting our children to avoid unwanted pregnancy. We also agree that supervision and "daily" inte