Bristol says, Abstinence “Not Realistic At All”
My eyes were glazing over as I read the article above until one part caught my attention and made me pause.
“The larger and more important issue is that sexual abstinence until marriage is the biblical expectation and command. Once this is realized, the responsibility of all concerned is to ensure that expectations and structures are in place so that abstinence is realistic.”
Biblical norms and so-called commands are hardly qualified reference material when attempting establish reality, especially with regards to teenage sexual abstinence. A book of mythology written nearly two millennia ago, where culture, life expectancy and the biological/disease knowledge bases were vastly different, is held as a standard of how society must behave by those who believe the text is sacred. Yet, many of those who profess the book’s merits have not read the entire tome.
Mary was an unwed teenage mother, Lot had relations with his daughters, Jephthah murdered his own child for ‘god’ and many characters who are held up as the moral standard were polygamists, pedophiles and perpetrators of various deviant behaviors. Most of these characters are not heroes, holy men or ’sinners’, rather they are people who existed and operated within the culture of the bronze age. Some committed what we consider crimes in the modern age though skeptics are regularly admonished for condemning these acts based on current societal norms. Yet, when the evangelical wishes to enforce biblical tenets upon society the culture of the first century should be extrapolated to modern day.
Sex education of our youth is the ultimate responsibility of the parents, not the church, and when the parents allow schools to supplement what is taught in the home, the students should be met with facts and information. Not with moral statements from a theology book that may or may not be an item of reverence for the student and his/her family.
What we can garner from the stories of the bible are not moral absolutes, but instead an insight into the ways culture evolves, yet also remains similar. No one human is perfect, all have ownership in foibles and faults, but also integrity and honor. It is up to the individual to determine their own value structure, ethical tenets and the direction they would like to take with the ownership of their person.
“Your kindness for weakness I never mistook
I worried you often,yet you understood
That life is so fleeting,these troubles won’t last
Forever”
I would counter with this: The sexual revolution occurred in the 60’s (in America). Statistically, you begin to see a huge increase in divorces and broken homes in that same period, and it’s been growing more so since then. Sexually transmitted diseases weren’t a concern until we began to embrace our sexual freedom. It’s possible there is no correlation, but I think it is equally possible that sexual freedom didn’t exactly lead to what we thought it would lead to.
I think we generally define freedom as the ability to do something. But we fail to see how limitations and restrictions could grant us greater freedom. Freedom from disease or heartbreak.
Matt
Christian2.0
I understand what those statistics may indicate, but I think there may be a few misnomers. My ex-wife and I are divorced and get along much better now, our son is not a product a ‘broken’ home, he had two parents who responsibly did what was best for all parties involved and in a way he is from a ‘repaired’ home. When we were together the home was ‘broken’. No couple should stay together for the good of the children if they are incompatible, the children will nearly always be better off with the parents separating and remaining involved. Too many times incompatible couples stay together because of fear of being ostracized by their church. The father stays, but is absentee, mothers are left to bear much of the burden or even vice-versa. I do not see increased divorce as necessarily a bad thing. You could argue that those couples most likely should not have gotten married in the first place, but divorce is not in and of itself a bad thing.I think the increased proliferation of stds also may be a misnomer. It is very possible that we are more aware of std statistics because increased reporting and less social taboos regarding the discussion of those statistics.
Christian…what statistics?
I have been reading your responses on this blog and I respect you as you seem to be a thoughtful person. However, this most recent comment of yours is terrible on every level. Sexually transmitted diseases have always been a concern and always will be until we increase sexual education and teach respect and responsibility with ones own body.
I know of no statistics that support your statement. Please be so kind as to provide them.
I respectfully disagree.
“Yet, when the evangelical wishes to enforce biblical tenets upon society the culture of the first century should be extrapolated to modern day.”
Not too many folk actually think this way. What “evangelicals” are you speaking of? I am an Evangelical Lutheran and my interpretation of the Bible is completely different from what you may think. You may actually be surprised by what I think as I am one who values both a God and the sciences. It is possible.
While I agree with you that sex education should be taught by parents, I am wondering why you think sex education in schools is “Biblical”. I’m pretty certain it is a matter of self respect. At least, that is how I see it.
Kyra,I appreciate the comment though I have two key problems with it.First, I can understand that you see the term evangelical as term referring to yourself and all others of the same doctrine, I clearly stated “the evangelical” not ‘all evangelicals’. There is a slight difference. I was referring ‘the’ evangelical that wishes to teach a theological brand of abstinence. Which is a very common brand in the bible belt and mid-west, I am not sure of your location but if have visited/lived in the part of the country and have not encountered such individuals you are an anomaly.Secondly, the attempts to teach theological abstinence are commonplace in the south and heavily conservative portions of the country, especially communities that are populated with the religious right brand of born again evangelicals. I do appreciate your comment and visits. Thanks.
I would love to see BGH’s son reply to his father’s comment about BGH’s divorce.
As I will ask him to when he gets home from school. Yes! Being from a ‘broken’ home you would think he is on the street all day beating up old ladies, but we actually make him attend school.
First. Anonymous above. It’s comments like that make it difficult for people to have a civil dialogue. This thread has been generally respectful until you decided to end that.
@BGH
Thanks for being respectful of my voice. Sorry for not including sources for my stats, there is no reason to believe me without sources. Here you are. And I gave the links to the entire site, so you don’t think I’m just trying to find information that only supports my case. There are statistics in there that show the use of condoms reducing the frequencies of STD’s.
Learn about STD’s
Stats on everything from divorce to STD’s
My argument in favor of abstinence goes beyond the practical “disease prevention” argument. There is no more intimate act between two people than sex. When you enter into that kind of intimacy without the responsibility of commitment, there is a significant amount of emotional scarring that happens.
Matt
Christian2.0
if one doesnt have the facts right then arguing with him will be difficult. though if he opens up his mind for reason then at least one might be helped
Kyra, the ELCA is a progressive branch of the Lutheran religion but generally speaking, the term Evangelical refers to born-again, bible-literalists.
The author did not state that sexual education in schools IS biblical, but rather that there is a consistent push by the religious right to teach a course of sexual education heavy in biblical influence. Sadly, the tradition of religion is to regard sex as a sin and the sum of education is “Don’t.” As you said, sexual education should be focusing on respect and education since those are the tools that will best protect children and adults.
If you are not convinced that this is happening, remember that our last president heavily funded and supported abstinence only education. He also claimed that it was working, which it clearly was not. Biblical influenced sexual education is not nearly as isolated as you think it is although I wish it were.
“What we can garner from the stories of the bible are not moral absolutes, but instead an insight into the ways culture evolves, yet also remains similar.”
Take the story of Sarah and Abraham for instance. Sarah “gave” their slave Hagar to Abraham so he could have sex with Hagar and produce children.
How would that play in today’s world? A woman is not able to produce children, so she sends her husband to someone else to impregnate. Note that Abraham did not divorce Sarah before having sex with Hagar and it was with Sarah’s blessing!
Personally, I see that as pretty poor morals by today’s standards*, yet it was acceptable then. It was their culture that men should produce children by whatever means necessary.
*Poor morals with respect to slavery as well as a married man having sex with someone other than his wife.
Very good one Susan!! I forgot all about that story, but is a shining example of the topic.
There are all sorts of things that were acceptable “back then” that aren’t now (Isn’t that convenient?) just as our society has things that are acceptable now that weren’t then.
Sex was permissible if the couple was betrothed. Shakespeare became a father when he was “just” engaged because it was acceptable then. Sex was permissible prior to marriage. I don’t know it for a fact, but breaking up before the wedding and after pregnancy was probably when suing for breach of promise came about.
Think about all the mistresses in history being kept by their rich lovers. In the days prior to reliable birth control, when a couple decided they didn’t want any more children, many men took mistresses because their wives sent them to someone else’s bed.
There was a time that pregnant women weren’t supposed to be seen in public.
Social values and morals are simply what’s acceptable at the time.
When I was in high school [back in the Stone Age!], if a girl got pregnant she had to complete her schooling at night and away from the other students. People were afraid that girl set a bad example. Today, there are pregnant teens attending classes with everyone else. In some current social groups, it’s perfectly OK to be pregnant while you’re in high school (or even junior high!) and having multiple babies with different fathers before they’re even 18. Not a wise choice, but they’re not ostracized in most circles.
I’d like to offer some actual facts instead of well… those other things…
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/myth-culture-sex-part-3/
First, you must read that post. Second, you must realize that the 1950s social statistics are horribly skewed, and that people did not start having more sex in the 1960s. They started having sex more openly in the 1960s. In general, there have been some statistical blips on the radar, but for the most part, sex has remained mostly constant throughout history. The prevalence of STDs today is not because of more sexual “immorality” but because of more sexual diversity. Large populations move easily between and among each other, and a disease that a hundred years ago would be confined to a small region is spread through the population much more rapidly.
It was not acceptable in the 60’s the younger generation rebelled and during a time of war, the government did not handle the situation properly. Hippies used the war as an excuse to shuck responsibilities and lead a life of Partying! They excelerated the drug problem we now had, practiced unsafe and Un-Moral sex, and turned their backs on our soldiers because they were too damned many big cowards to fight. They pissed away the countries moral’s and were mockeries to God!
They also commited crimes of murder and murder by abortion.