I may be falling into a pattern here. It's about midnight; I have a glass of wine and Dido playing on itunes. Altogether, if it is actually a pattern, I'm not going to complain about even though I'm not somebody who enjoys routine.
It's looking like it may be the start of a promising week for me. I got two phone calls within about five minutes this morning. One was asking me to come in for a second job interview; the other was a request, following up on an interview, to fill out an official application so they can run a background check on me. It will be good to find another job. I find that laziness breeds laziness, and I have had little to do but be lazy lately. The first bible study for the singles ministry is Wednesday. I'm going to have lunch with some friends at my old company tomorrow, so I can buy some curriculum while I'm there. It should be a good afternoon. I also have an interview with the admissions director at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary on Wednesday morning. I had originally put them third on my list, but the more I work with the admissions office there, the quicker they move up it. Thursday is my second interview for one of the jobs, and it promises to be a l0ng one. They told me to expect to be there about two hours to do some role playing. Friday night/Saturday morning I get to participate in a 24 hour prayer vigil at our church. I signed up to pray at the church from 2 to 3 am. I love this event our church does. It's a chain of prayer stretching 24 hours with somebody constantly praying in the sanctuary. There are also prayers being offered around the church for the people and programs of the church, and some security type volunteer positions as well.
I know my mom and grandma read this blog so......sex sex sex sex sex.
Ok, I had to throw in a little shock factor just for fun. On a more serious note though, this does seem to indirectly be the topic of the month for me. We are talking about sexual purity with both youth groups this month, and I find that the curriculum has been good for me, in that it has challenged a little bit of what I have always believed regarding what is and isn't appropriate in a dating relationship. It's also brought up some great debate with friends regarding whether teaching abstinence is effective and useful, not only in schools, but church as well. A great friend of mine has been trying to push the point that abstinence education is a waste of money. He points to stats that say people are going to have sex anyways, and that education on things such as contraception is much more useful. I will consent to the point that it's good for youth to understand the choices regarding contraception out there, but I think that the birth control camp misses the biggest point in the sex ed war. More people have been hurt deeper from the emotional ramifications of a sexual relationship then all the STD, pregnancy stories put together. There is not an emotional condom and many young people (and older for that matter) don't understand the emotions behind physical intimacy. One of two things can happen to people when they endure emotional scars from premature sexual relationships. One, they can carry these scars into all their future relationships causing difficult expectations and baggage to emerge. These are not insurmountable obstacles to a relationship, but the can cause hardship. The second action people can use in these intimate relationships is making sex into simply a physical action and nothing more. People strip away the emotional side of intimacy altogether. Sex is one of the greatest gifts God has given us, and by taking the emotion out of sex we rob ourselves of the ability to share true intimacy with our partner when the time is right (marriage if you must ask). It seems to me in the end, sex education focused on contraception and birth control do teach about the physical sides of sex, but abstinence speaks about the physical, emotional, and spiritual sides. Which seems more effective to you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree that in public school it's important to teach how to avoid pregnancy and disease, but I don't think enough emphasis is placed on how to protect your heart and emotional health. We can as a society say, we expect you to have sex no matter what we say, so here is how to protect yourself. This to me tells kids though that "We expect you to fail". We can also teach people the emotional side of physical intimacy. Teach men to view women as more then a sex object; to actually treat them as a partner. We can teach that media gives us a skewed vision of physical intimacy. We can teach men that being a real man means looking out for the woman first and foremost. We can teach women that they don't have to be viewed as a sex object, and that they can say no. We can expect more from our kids and tell them that. If you expect mediocrity as a goal, you will get just that. My other question asks, who says that by teaching the emotional ramifications of sex means you have to preach the gospel. Abstinence is still safer then contraception, but it has real world practical benefits far beyond the realm of only disease and pregnancy prevention.
As the aforementioned friend who made the argument, I think it was a bit misconstrued, so I'll explain. I never argued abstinance should not ever be taught. I was taught it in public school as a birth-control option to be used for religious OR safety purposes.
My beef is with abstinance-only education. The "Waste of money" comment was regarding the fact that in all the aid we sent to Africa (and millions going to "educatioin"), it was explicitly forbidden by the Bush Administration that any education other than abstinance would be given. There is an epidemic there and they need actual prevention of spread. Abstinance-only education is a horrible solution for that region, which is facing mass elimination by AIDS. They need condoms. AND education about how to use them, and abstinance as well.
My argument was in response to you doing a youth group discussion and including only abstinance in the discussion. You are not trying to reason with reasonable teenagers. They are fine. It's when those same teenagers are horny and in the heat of the moment you need to reason with in those discussions. That is not as reasonable a mind. That person needs to know how to use a condom to prevent a mistake turning into one that changes a life's course for the long haul (whether disease or pregnancy).
I think we really just agree. Both should be taught. Abstinance is an option I would estimate that 10-30 percent take. You have to teach the rest as well, though. Because they will do what they will do. Therefore, just because a program is church-run doesn't mean protection shouldn't also be taught. BTW I really like the idea of emphasizing the emotion baggage sex brings. That should also be incorporated.
Ok, let’s take a shot at this one. I will agree with you that abstinence-only education is not the way to go in both this, or any other country, but I would like to see the emphasis placed more on that side of the equation as opposed to birth control. With the case of Africa, I still think it’s important to place a larger (notice I don’t say the only) emphasis on abstinence. Condoms are good, but they don’t work all the time. I can’t imagine that most people reading this would willingly engage in sex with somebody they knew to have AIDS, condom or no condom. Why teach people to play with fire. To prevent the spread of STD’s the only 100% option is not to have sex. We do need to make condoms available there, but not as the final, and not as the primary solution. It’s only a stop-gap fix, it will never completely solve the problem.
As for teaching birth control in a church setting to youth, I do and will continue to disagree to that. Church is a place where we are teaching values based on biblical teaching. Whether you agree or disagree with premarital sex, the bible teaches that sex should be saved for marriage. To teach our youth that we expect you to fail sets the bar too low. That is one of the worst messages we can send to today’s youth. I truly believe that by expecting more out of today’s youth we will find that they can match these expectations. I will agree that when teenagers hit the heat of the moment, anybody for that matter, they cease to be reasonable. Abstinence education goes so much farther then teaching people to say no, no matter what. The biggest aspect to a responsible program is to teach kids how to avoid putting themselves into “the heat of the moment”. We teach kids to put the brakes on, not when they are already hot and heavy on the couch, but before they get there, when they still are reasonable. I won’t argue that some will make some of the decisions I did, and not make it to marriage. Let’s face it though, without teaching birth control in the church, how many kids don’t know what a condom is in the US today.
You are also correct that probably only 10-30 percent abstain from sex until marriage right now. The question is to we react to those stats, by placing the emphasis on birth control, or do we try and change that stat, by moving the meat of the message to abstinence; the physical benefits, emotional benefits, and in the church, the spiritual benefits. In my school experience, I was taught all about the STD’s in the world. I was taught about the dangers of pregnancy. I was told of all the different forms of birth control out there, along with all the benefits and negatives to each form. I was also taught that abstinence was the only safe option in about three sentences as it was glossed over. I never was told of the emotional baggage sex can have. I wasn’t told that the best way to abstain is to avoid getting into a “heat of the moment” situation in the first place. Let’s teach kids more then “just say no”. Let’s teach them how to say no. Let’s turn 10-30 percent into 70-80 percent.
As a final comment, I'll just say that I don't think teaching how to protect yourself is setting them up to fail. Call it a simple differnece in philosophy. I consider it presenting all the info and letting them make choices after hearing what they SHOULD do. Life is made up of choices, and we can't expect everyone to make the right ones.
I think there is nothing wrong with abstinence education. Maybe my school was just better at that, but I remember abstinence being more than glossed over. I think it goes to trusting in their intelligence to say that there is the best way (abstinence) and then, for those who succomb or don't consider that option, here's how to use it. Secondary, to be sure. In fact, I think they don't teach enough about the actual use. Example, how many first-timers know that if you leave air in the tip of a condom, it'll almost surely break? Then, the "use a condom" rhetoric just sets them up to expose themselves. That leads to the ring of death, and no one wants that (they should call it the ring of life). :)
Anyway, I like the conversation. It's certainly a fun one. As for the church, I don't ever expect them to teach any other way. But, maybe they could gloss over it like "if by some fluke you end up in a situation, at least stop to make yourself safe... maybe the delay will bring you to your senses." Afterall, we also want them to know we can make mistakes and not be a failure.
Ok, you hit on a very important point that I have probably glossed over on my posts, and worded badly. People who fail in a goal of abstinence are not failures themselves. To take this on a bit of a religious slant, God forgives us for all of our stumbles, and we learn both from out successes and mistakes. I do question the message we give kids today though when we outright hand them a condom. I'm not saying every program does this, but many do. There is often a hidden message in someone’s actions, and the act of an adult handing a teen a condom is one of permission, regardless of the intent. The act of spending a majority of time in a classroom covering what to do if you don’t reach your goal of abstinence tells a hidden message of we don’t expect you to achieve that goal. By spending most of the time telling kids how to achieve that goal, we are sending a message that this is important. It does not mean that we can’t show a kid how to properly use a condom, but does it really take that much time (and yes at that age I did know to pinch the tip as I put it on). I would just rather see the majority of any program show somebody how to achieve the goal, rather then what to do if you don’t reach it. I have seen too many teens going through the traumas of a broken sexual relationship and the grief, self esteem issues, guilt, and other personal demons it can bring. I have experienced many of these demons firsthand as well. Most of the injuries I have seen come not from the physical side of sex, most come from the emotional side. Most teens are more then prepared on how to protect themselves physically, but are not prepared for the emotional toll premature physical intimacy can bring. I will agree that many of our goals are similar, and that in the end we want the same thing. I also think the debate is not only fun, but important. To be successful any program must have a goal that is the focus of its education. I would rather see the majority of the time and money spent on teaching kids the emotional as well as physical ramifications of a sexual relationship. I would rather spend more time educating them about how to avoid putting themselves into situations that will lead them into a larger likelihood of losing their virginity. I think birth control has a place in this education, but should not be the centerpiece.
This is a great debate Joe, and I thank you for having the guts to post here. I love that we have a friendship that lets us voice opposite views with respect, thought, and passion.
It's my pleasure to discuss it, and the groundrules have always been to maintain a respectful tone. That is indeed what makes these enjoyable.
We obviously just have a difference in philosophy, but the overall similarities are more prominent and the goal is the same for the end result. I really also wish more time was spent on the emotional complications because it never really was taught. I wonder how that would be taught? Is it for parents? For schools? Church? Not sure, but it should be taught. On that point, I think we both agree.
Also, I am a bit suspicious of ANYONE just handing them out. Teach the use, what they are, etc., but make them have to go through the awkward experience of trying to buy it. It's another obstacle you should have to jump before taking the plunge (no pun intended). And, it gives a teen time to think about it before just reaching into a pocket while in the moment on the couch.
I obviously don't view adult teaching as permission and you do. That's fine. The goal for both of us is to give them the type of info we believe will give them a chance to make informed decisions.
I'm sure each philosophy works for different kids as well. Some may respond better to either. Still, there is another point...
I know that I try not to take a second chair to anyone in will power. It has served me more than well in life and has gotten me through hoops I never felt capable of. It took me through Ride the Rockies, Law School, undergrad, my cookie and chocolate ban and countless smaller battles. But, it was no match on this issue. Any kid who can make it the whole way has my congrats and my hat comes off. They are up against enormous forces. No matter the philosophy, that is a truth of life.
Amen!!!
You make one more great point. Sex education needs to start at home with the parents long before it's taught in the schools and churches. So many parents are unable or unwilling to discuss this important issue with their teens today.
Post a Comment