"Why Monogamy Matters"

[Alma]

I never said abstinence led to an uptick in anything.

But pregnancy prevention is certainly not the operative concept among white middle-class suburbanites. It's some PromiseKeepers notion regarding the preservation of virginity.

Are cultural forces at work? Of course they are.

What does the teaching of "abstinence" hand teenagers to deal with those cultural forces? Nothing.

The teaching of "abstinence" in most cases seems to mean "no sex education at all."

Teach sex ed. Teach abstinence and moderation. Teach hygiene and infection prevention.

But teach them something.

That notion of virginity, however quaint and poorly-worded as it may, directly refutes the cultural forces at work. Culture says "do this" and the notion says "culture is wrong." It may be a narrative argument at best - and people don't like narratives today, they like numbers, because at the root of those numbers, somewhere, is money - but it is an argument.

Contraceptive sex education simply says - well, culture is pretty much right, but, once you get in the thick of your sexual heat, remember to slip one of these on. Or perhaps not take it in your mouth.

It's applying the Band-Aid of reason to matter of desire. It's what we've been doing for more than a century on all matters of issues. It doesn't ****ing work.

I'm not sure why someone so smart thinks the teaching of morality and the teaching of practical hygiene are mutually exclusive.

Your argument presumes the contraction of a STD somehow violates a moral precept. If it did, then the matter would presumably have a sliding scale of morality. At one end you'd have, perhaps, "you are Tommy Morrison's girlfriend." At the other you'd have: "You don't have sex at all." As a precept, if you want to avoid STDs, not having sex is the very best way to do it.

Kind of like saying: "If you want to avoid credit card debt, do not get a credit card."

I think it boils down to Americans - mankind in general - holding sex as a tool for pleasure to such a high regard that restricting in any way is considered a fool's errand. Thus the call of "well, just don't have sex then" is met with catcalls and boos where "just don't have a credit card" would be met with, I suspect, a lot of nodding heads.

 

[Azrael]

I never said abstinence led to an uptick in anything.

But pregnancy prevention is certainly not the operative concept among white middle-class suburbanites. It's some PromiseKeepers notion regarding the preservation of virginity.

Are cultural forces at work? Of course they are.

What does the teaching of "abstinence" hand teenagers to deal with those cultural forces? Nothing.

The teaching of "abstinence" in most cases seems to mean "no sex education at all."

Teach sex ed. Teach abstinence and moderation. Teach hygiene and infection prevention.

But teach them something.

That notion of virginity, however quaint and poorly-worded as it may, directly refutes the cultural forces at work. Culture says "do this" and the notion says "culture is wrong." It may be a narrative argument at best - and people don't like narratives today, they like numbers, because at the root of those numbers, somewhere, is money - but it is an argument.

Contraceptive sex education simply says - well, culture is pretty much right, but, once you get in the thick of your sexual heat, remember to slip one of these on. Or perhaps not take it in your mouth.

It's applying the Band-Aid of reason to matter of desire. It's what we've been doing for more than a century on all matters of issues. It doesn't ****ing work.

I'm not sure why someone so smart thinks the teaching of morality and the teaching of practical hygiene are mutually exclusive.

Your argument presumes the contraction of a STD somehow violates a moral precept. If it did, then the matter would presumably have a sliding scale of morality. At one end you'd have, perhaps, "you are Tommy Morrison's girlfriend." At the other you'd have: "You don't have sex at all." As a precept, if you want to avoid STDs, not having sex is the very best way to do it.

Kind of like saying: "If you want to avoid credit card debt, do not get a credit card."

I think it boils down to Americans - mankind in general - holding sex as a tool for pleasure to such a high regard that restricting in any way is considered a fool's errand. Thus the call of "well, just don't have sex then" is met with catcalls and boos where "just don't have a credit card" would be met with, I suspect, a lot of nodding heads.

Sorry Alma, but you're the one using morality - by implying that if only it were taught correctly, or used to dismantle some postmodern cultural apparatus, it would be a sovereign weapon against desire or pregnancy or infection.

I agree that the teaching of morality and restraint is important. But teach condoms, too, because in all the human history preceding the invention of mass media, morality and restraint batted about .250 against desire and human weakness.

 

[Alma]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

Actually, plenty of people can figure out that killing is bad without G-d telling them so, so please stop leaning on that argument. It is one of the dumber ones used by the crowd that thinks it is okay for religion to guide government.

Huckabee's motivations aren't hard to ferret out at all. Neither are those of most of the people pushing abstinence while fighting against proper sex education.

I don't think it's OK for religion to guide government. "God says so" is not a policy basis. "Single mothers do not collect child support and therefore drain public dollars" is a policy argument. The fact that the two sources are in concurrence is utterly meaningless to the larger question of whether it is good policy or bad policy.

God Says So is no better or worse a reason than "my Mom always believed" or "I learned at my first political job."

I mean, what authority, really, exists to say what's good and what's bad? So (in your example) single mothers drain theoretically public dollars. Big deal. So what? You think that's too bad, and this guy over here thinks it's great. He'd like to see more single mothers in fact, more public dollars, more degradation of government services. You think he's a bad guy. He thinks you're a bad guy. Who's right? Why? Are you going to have a "good person" standoff? A fistfight? Who gets to decide the terms of "good?" And how come they get to decide those terms and not somebody else? And why isn't "bad" actually "good?"

You can do this all day. In fact, TV shows makes millions off of recycling those very questions, again and again, convincing the masses relativism is an absolute truth.

If that seems off course for this discussion, I don't think it is. We're talking, essentially, about why it's better to have fewer sexual partners, and your argument is based in, what? Utilitarianism?

You can call it that. Social costs vs. social benefits.

And I recognize the flaws of pure utilitarianism. (Extreme Example: Justifying a wrongful execution.)

Who defines costs? Who defines benefits? And why do "they" get to define them?

I admire you starting the thread, but you have a daunting task: Using reason and facts - which can be disputed both for their gathering and their value when pitted against other facts - to resolve a moral issue. I mean, everyone kinda secretly knows that fewer sexual partners is a good thing on pretty much every level. It reduces the potential for immediate abuse and abuse byproducts, it promotes a world where sex has an important-but-not-exaggerated place in culture, it promotes two-parent families (less adultery=less divorce=more happy kids) it promotes emotional and verbal intimacy over physical intimacy, it helps address body image issues, etc.

We all kinda know that. But it's not quite we <i>want</i>. We want all the above stuff - but we want to have a little <i>more</i> fun, a little <i>more</i> sex, take a little <i>more</i>. So we redraw the line. <i>Well, this is OK, too. And this. And this.</i> Until we feel kinda bad when we say that isn't OK. Because who are we to be hypocrites? So we include this and this and that over there and we keep redrawing line, all somehow adhering to some universal standard everybody apparently agrees upon that moves on a yearly basis.

It's called being a lemming. It's right where cultural leaders want you: Afraid of being labeled a hypocrite, and thus susceptible to attitudinal reprogramming.

And you think they don't have those conversations at HBO and Viacom and BBC and Al-Jazeera and Fox News, they do.

 

[Dick Whitman]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

Actually, plenty of people can figure out that killing is bad without G-d telling them so, so please stop leaning on that argument. It is one of the dumber ones used by the crowd that thinks it is okay for religion to guide government.

Huckabee's motivations aren't hard to ferret out at all. Neither are those of most of the people pushing abstinence while fighting against proper sex education.

I don't think it's OK for religion to guide government. "God says so" is not a policy basis. "Single mothers do not collect child support and therefore drain public dollars" is a policy argument. The fact that the two sources are in concurrence is utterly meaningless to the larger question of whether it is good policy or bad policy.

God Says So is no better or worse a reason than "my Mom always believed" or "I learned at my first political job."

I mean, what authority, really, exists to say what's good and what's bad? So (in your example) single mothers drain theoretically public dollars. Big deal. So what? You think that's too bad, and this guy over here thinks it's great. He'd like to see more single mothers in fact, more public dollars, more degradation of government services. You think he's a bad guy. He thinks you're a bad guy. Who's right? Why? Are you going to have a "good person" standoff? A fistfight? Who gets to decide the terms of "good?" And how come they get to decide those terms and not somebody else? And why isn't "bad" actually "good?"

You can do this all day. In fact, TV shows makes millions off of recycling those very questions, again and again, convincing the masses relativism is an absolute truth.

If that seems off course for this discussion, I don't think it is. We're talking, essentially, about why it's better to have fewer sexual partners, and your argument is based in, what? Utilitarianism?

You can call it that. Social costs vs. social benefits.

And I recognize the flaws of pure utilitarianism. (Extreme Example: Justifying a wrongful execution.)

Who defines costs? Who defines benefits? And why do "they" get to define them?

I admire you starting the thread, but you have a daunting task: Using reason and facts - which can be disputed both for their gathering and their value when pitted against other facts - to resolve a moral issue.

I mean, this is kind of the whole idea, right? You present your costs and benefits. I present my costs and benefits. Then let the public or the legislature or the public decide.

I don't see how spending time ferreting out Mike Huckabee's motives is particularly useful when there is so, so, so much measurable information out there on this and any policy decision. (Like I said, I understand that a lot of the measuring is assuming a can opener. But certainly there is enough measurable information on cause and effect to make some pretty education policy decisions).

All right, I've got work to do. Later. I leave you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham

 

[outofplace]

Nobody's having less "sex." They're having less vaginal sex. More oral, more anal. I'm sure Ross Douthat is too polite to mention it. Otherwise, why the epidemic of teen STDs? Abstinence instruction does nothing but leave American kids ignorant about sex and infection and condoms.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html


One in four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In Wisconsin, the rate of four of the most commonly reported STDs among teens jumped 53 percent between 1997 and 2007. Females and minorities, especially African-Americans, have been hit hard. And these are numbers that have been reported; actual cases may be much higher. But it remains a hidden epidemic, not just because many STDs have no symptoms, but because of the stigma and politics that complicate efforts to fight them.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50917596-78/utah-health-sex-teens.html.csp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/teen-std-rates-higher-now_n_384291.html

You think abstinence education leads to a uptick in oral and anal sex? That would require proving that abstinence education primarily promotes abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Which, in my experience, it does not.

I'd argue that culture - TV, magazines, the Internet, movies - has overwhelmed <i>any</i> gains that <i>any</i> form of education could make on kids having unprotected sex in, um, <i>any</i> orifice with <i>any</i> person. A small handful of network head and TV/Movie/Reality Shows writers have decided that kids will have sex no matter what, that hormones rule, and the depicting it in as many ways as possible is the best way of being truthful.

What if your child told you they were going to have sex and you said no. But then your child said "but you let me watch 12 shows where kids have sex all the time!" What would be a parent's answer to that?

Yes, teaching abstinence while refusing to allow for proper sex education will absolutely lead to an uptick in oral and anal sex. But religion continues to inspire some people to stick their heads in the sand, or to blame television and movies rather than acknowledge our natural sex drive.

Kids are going to ****. Deal with it and help them do it safely.

 

[qtlaw]

Yet the birth rate in America, rather than soaring, is holding constant or dipping downward slightly while the population in Indonesia, India and China continues to grow. Is it because those people are not monogamous? Are they more promiscuous? Are they draining the financial resources of their governments?

 

[Bob Cook]

You know why monogamy matters? Because my wife says it does.

 

[Alma]

Nobody's having less "sex." They're having less vaginal sex. More oral, more anal. I'm sure Ross Douthat is too polite to mention it. Otherwise, why the epidemic of teen STDs? Abstinence instruction does nothing but leave American kids ignorant about sex and infection and condoms.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html


One in four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In Wisconsin, the rate of four of the most commonly reported STDs among teens jumped 53 percent between 1997 and 2007. Females and minorities, especially African-Americans, have been hit hard. And these are numbers that have been reported; actual cases may be much higher. But it remains a hidden epidemic, not just because many STDs have no symptoms, but because of the stigma and politics that complicate efforts to fight them.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50917596-78/utah-health-sex-teens.html.csp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/teen-std-rates-higher-now_n_384291.html

You think abstinence education leads to a uptick in oral and anal sex? That would require proving that abstinence education primarily promotes abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Which, in my experience, it does not.

I'd argue that culture - TV, magazines, the Internet, movies - has overwhelmed <i>any</i> gains that <i>any</i> form of education could make on kids having unprotected sex in, um, <i>any</i> orifice with <i>any</i> person. A small handful of network head and TV/Movie/Reality Shows writers have decided that kids will have sex no matter what, that hormones rule, and the depicting it in as many ways as possible is the best way of being truthful.

What if your child told you they were going to have sex and you said no. But then your child said "but you let me watch 12 shows where kids have sex all the time!" What would be a parent's answer to that?

Yes, teaching abstinence while refusing to allow for proper sex education will absolutely lead to an uptick in oral and anal sex.

Prove it. And here's the key: You have create a corollary between telling kids <i>not</i> to have sex, that the emphasis is solely on preventing pregnancy and so, as a result, kids don't have the kind of sex that would lead to pregnancy, but do have the kind of sex that leads to STDs.

And then you'll have to show me the sex education program in high schools that address the appropriate way to have oral and anal sex.

Beyond that, do you realize how astonishing your position is? Imagine being in a court of law, and a father being on trial for accessory to murder.

The lawyer asks him: "So what did you tell your son when he relayed how angry he was at his friend."

The father says: "I told him to set his emotions aside and not give in to his impulses."

The lawyer responds: "So you actually told him to kill his friend?"

Father: "No. I told him not to do anything violent."

Lawyer: "But didn't you understand that by telling him not to do something, you were actually pushing him to do it?"

It's utter nonsense.

If I told you not to touch a pot because it was hot, and you touched it anyway, would you honestly say "it's your fault for not telling to use a potholder. Bah!" Would you? Do you think a 15-year-old boy doesn't know what a condom is? He has to be told to put it on? One of the reasons schools began giving them out is because they knew kids were too embarrassed to buy them; I'm sorry, but handing out condoms in junior high and high school is essentially arguing for kids to circumnavigate an honest dialogue about sex with their parents or, well, anyone. I don't think handing out the cheapest possible condoms on the market to kids so they don't have to manage the stigma of buying the damn things says or does anything useful for the conversation.

Beyond that...my goodness, we sit here and rail on schools to no end, and we actually think some 45-year-old sex ed teacher is going to reach these kids on this matter with a mid-line argument of "indulge your uncontrollable desires, but, please do it within reason?" I don't think schools should be involved at all, but the smartest play is an abstinence-only position; it's the most efficient, the least confusing and the least vulnerable to liability. We ask schools to do so much as it is; now we're asking them (again) to begin divining, often independently of parents the best way to hypothetically keep kids safe in a manner that measures up to your "the hidden pratfalls of reverse psychology" argument.

 

[Azrael]

Prove it.

Although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" begin engaging in vaginal intercourse later than teens who have not committed to remain abstinent until marriage, they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active, according to a study published in the April issue of the... Journal of Adolescent Health, the Washington Post reports.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php

STD Findings

Bearman and Bruckner in March 2004 at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference in Philadelphia presented their findings that teens who make abstinence pledges have similar rates of STDs as teens who have not made pledges. The study -- also based on data from the NLSAH -- found that, although teens who made the pledges had sexual intercourse an average of 18 months later than teens who did not take a pledge and averaged fewer sexual partners overall, they had similar rates of STDs.

 

[Alma]

Prove it.

Although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" begin engaging in vaginal intercourse later than teens who have not committed to remain abstinent until marriage, they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active, according to a study published in the April issue of the... Journal of Adolescent Health, the Washington Post reports.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php

STD Findings

Bearman and Bruckner in March 2004 at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference in Philadelphia presented their findings that teens who make abstinence pledges have similar rates of STDs as teens who have not made pledges. The study -- also based on data from the NLSAH -- found that, although teens who made the pledges had sexual intercourse an average of 18 months later than teens who did not take a pledge and averaged fewer sexual partners overall, they had similar rates of STDs.

I hit post before I posted the whole thing...which I believe posted the same question to you.

The study is, well...I'll get into it, if anybody chooses to. Bruckner's conclusion - that abstinence-only education is at fault - doesn't match up with what the study initially examined: Whether kids with virginity pledges were sexually active in other ways. That presumes virginity pledges - usually done through churches - are in any way corollary with what kids are taught in school. Abstinence-only education is not, in any way, pregnancy prevention. It's a much broader and simpler conversation. To equate it to the rise in any sexual activity defies everyday logic. The actors outside the classroom - i.e. culture - are the agents increasing the behavior. Period. If you taught a bratty kid that 3+3 = 6, and he decided 3+3 = 7, you'd examine the forces working inside and outside the kid to arrive at such a conclusion. You wouldn't say fault the teaching.

What makes this issue different is that people just feel differently about sex. They want to draw their own lines. Somehow, we think there's a systemic solution to a personal desire. It's educationally schizo: On the one hand, we're grant the desire is too overwhelming to control; on the other, we'll design a curriculum to control it right at the moment when the desire in the strongest, during foreplay. It points to a larger matter: We think we can reason our way our of moral conundrums. And that road eventually heads to a bad place.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I am having trouble following the thread.

But sex isn't some new phenomenon.

My question is, what did the world do before there was sex education in schools? There were less teenage pregnancies 30, 40 and 60 years ago, by all accounts.

It seems to me that sex education might have little or no effect on anything. Kids know about sex. It's social mores that have changed., isn't it? And bogging down our schools with that when it can't handle basic education might be a poor use of resources.

Attitudes about sex come from your environment. Not from an 8th grade health teacher. At least that is my perception.

 

[YGBFKM]

The world began with the onset of modern liberalism. We went from cavemen to enlightened beings some time around the mid-1960s.

This thread makes me wonder one thing: For those of you who are so offended that religion could be the motivation to do (or not do) something that, most would agree, is the right thing to do, if you had a child who came to you and said they were abstaining from sex because of religion, would you be upset? Would you sit them down and explain to them that such a reason is not sufficient for doing good? How would you explain what the acceptable reasons are for doing a good or right thing?

 

[Azrael]

If I were a religious person, and my child actually abstained from sex as a function of religious conviction, I'd be tickled. If I were not a religious person, and - having made their own choice about religion - my child abstained from sex as a matter of religious conviction, I'd still be tickled.

If however, in either case he or she vowed abstinence, then turned up with the clap or chlamydia, I'd be pretty disappointed.

 

[YGBFKM]

If I were a religious person, and my child actually abstained from sex as a function of religious conviction, I'd be tickled. If I were not a religious person, and - having made their own choice about religion - my child abstained from sex as a matter of religious conviction, I'd still be tickled.

If however, in either case he or she vowed abstinence, then turned up with the clap or chlamydia, I'd be pretty disappointed.

OK, but does that mean you'd be less disappointed if your child got an STD and religion (or the talk of it) wasn't involved in any way?

 

[Azrael]

All things being equal, I would be no more or less disappointed in either case.

Unless the religious instruction had intentionally kept my child ignorant of the possible consequences of their action.

 

[zagoshe]

Yes, yes - what horrible thing it is to teach your kids to wait to **** until they are emotionally and phyiscally mature enough to handle having sex and to be responsible enough to have it with someone they are in a committed relationship with.

How dare us teach our kids things like that.....

 

[printdust]

Meanwhile, my kids come home Friday and tell me girls especially THINK (as in making a choice) "switching" from straight to gay is "cool" and is rapidly becoming a fad.

 

[Azrael]

Yes, yes - what horrible thing it is to teach your kids to wait to **** until they are emotionally and phyiscally mature enough to handle having sex and to be responsible enough to have it with someone they are in a committed relationship with.

How dare us teach our kids things like that.....

Who said anything like that?

 

[Big Circus]

Yes, yes - what horrible thing it is to teach your kids to wait to **** until they are emotionally and phyiscally mature enough to handle having sex and to be responsible enough to have it with someone they are in a committed relationship with.

How dare us teach our kids things like that.....

Who said anything like that?

No one. But you'd better not teach them how to use a condom.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

Meanwhile, my kids come home Friday and tell me girls especially THINK (as in making a choice) "switching" from straight to gay is "cool" and is rapidly becoming a fad.

You must live in BFE. That one's at least 10 years old.