Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Smart, vile, or hokey?
(Note: Some viewers will find the content of the “Take Care Down There” website offensive.)
Planned Parenthood recently launched a trendy new website aimed at helping teens make “wise” decisions when faced with sexual dilemmas. Featuring a catchy theme song and various video vignettes–highlighting everything from using a condom to choosing masturbation as a form of abstinence–proponents of the “Take Care Down There” website are hailing it as a funny, smart, and innovative way of reaching young teens with a safe sex message.
But some critics have called the website hokey, while others are questioning what they call inappropriate and vile propaganda: “TakeCareDownThere.com is yet another example of Planned Parenthood’s attempt to sexualize even the youngest children,” said Katie Walker, director of communications at the American Life League.
What’s your take on Planned Parenthood’s latest resource for spreading its safe sex message?
back to top73 Comments to “Smart, vile, or hokey?”
Planned Parenthood is in and of itself vile. The organization’s racist origins should be bothersome to everyone, and the way they prey on children and minorities today should be of concern to everyone.
Report comment to moderator
You know the rest of us learned about these things without having to have a special website to teach us.
1.Multiple sex partners increases your risk of disease, some of which can kill you.
2.Each time you have sex, even with birth control you run the risk of getting pregnant.
3.Boys will only take you out for one reason if they find out you are easy.
4. Heavy petting can get you in trouble.
And I had an alcoholic mother and a father that would have died of embarrassment before he discussed these things with me.
PS I grew up in the backwood, Bible Belt of Aller- Bammer
Report comment to moderator
I watched the STD and HPV clips and figured I’d quit. The STD one was kind of cute, the HPV hokey. Judging from the titles alone, I suspect they get vile farther down the page.
Overall, I vote hokey. I’m 46 years old and could hardly watch 2 of them. The teen demographic has an even shorter attention span. However, hokey probably plays well with PP’s donors, who may be the real target.
Report comment to moderator
You think hey could have chosen an adult actor who looked a little less like a child molester?
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone else click on various things to find out that you can order birth control or emergency contraceptives. To me this is scary. A friend of mine was laughing the other day about her 11 yr kept asking to go to Barnes and Noble. Finally one day the door bell rang and it was the UPS guy deliving Maggie’s Barnes and Noble order.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of targeting the younger crowd with sexual “stuff”…. Recently I noticed an ad for an MP3 player accessory in a catalog, and finally realized (after several minutes of denial) that it wasn’t something innocent at all. Basically it’s a vibrator you can attach to an MP3 player and it uh… works to the beat.
What is our culture coming to?
Report comment to moderator
I cannot remember where I read this so take it for what it’s worth to you, but I recently read about a scientific study regarding homosexuality that identified several factors that may contribute to a higher incidence of homosexual behavior or orientation in males. One of the strongest factors was identified as “early sexualization.” The earlier we expose our children to sex and sexuality issues, the higher incidence of homosexuality we find in these children as they grow up.
Report comment to moderator
Who among you think that some people have decided to define down abstinence “to choosing masturbation as a form of abstinence” making it no longer a term anyone can understand?
I’m thinking that abstinence through masturbation is something only a whack job, child murderer could come up with. They are bound and determined to take the fun out of everything
Report comment to moderator
Llama: I’m thinking that abstinence through masturbation is something only a whack job,
Masturbation…. whack job … I get it.
Report comment to moderator
The push to greater sexual experimentation (albeit with condoms and such) will end up leading to STDs and pregnancies and abortions – because the “safer” sex techiques are not full safe and fail more often with younger, inexperienced users.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the thing: If you advocate abstinence because it’s the only 100-percent effective form of birth control, then there should be no problem with encouraging masturbation. It allows people to relieve sexual urges without actually having sex, so there are no pregnancies, diseases, etc. Except maybe some chafing.
Since the “abstinence-only” crowd is forever assuring us that they’re not trying to instill religious principles, only smart public-health ones, they should have no problem here.
Report comment to moderator
MIM What is our culture coming to?
Why do Christians hate enjoyment of sex? This is one of the most bizarre aspects of Christianity to me. Sexual pleasure is one of the most natural human impulses, and you folks put so many limitations, inhibtions, guilts and restrictions on what forms of it you will consider acceptable as to rob it of almost all of its power to bring joy.
Here’s MIM, despondent about the idea of people seeking sexual pleasure in a way of which he does not approve. You know what? Mind your own freakin’ business and stop being obsessed with what other people might be doing that they enjoy.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #12 “Why do Christians hate enjoyment of sex?”
Who says that Christians hate enjoyment of sex?
What twisted logic did you use to come up with that one?
Never mind, I don’t want to know.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
With every comment you post, you show your ignorance of and prejudice against Christians. If you had any open-mindedness whatsoever towards those different from you (which you don’t), you could answer your own questions.
I think it’s a mark of high intellectual maturity and honesty to be able to articulate faithfully and respectfully the positions of one’s antagonists in a given debate. Suffice it to say, you exhibit only the opposite of those characteristics.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the warning, with the comments of others, I won’t be viewing the stuff. But who am I to let something like that keep me from sharing my thoughts? It is not the business of schools or organizations like planned parenthood (with an agenda to sanitize the world), to educate my children on these issues. An organization like this can exist in this country, we do have brothels and gambling halls and drinking halls, but they should not be given free access to the children. Children are forever changed when they are sexualized early and it is not to their or our benefit. The damage is not something to be taken lightly. By allowing this, even endorsing this, we cut our own throats.
Report comment to moderator
Just to help you along, Steve G., I’ll try to answer your questions for you. Even though they’re nothing but rhetorical questions means to stab the Christians who read them. (Are you really as adolescent as your comments suggest you are? What, like 14?)
You talk about the power of sex to bring joy. Sex also has the power to bring great misery. We Christians believe that the happiest sex, the most joyful, is that within the context of a lifelong, monogamous marriage. Sex is either consecration or desecration, as I read somewhere once.
Next, you say that “we folks” put limitations on it, but in fact those limitations are divinely ordained. Are you really so naive as to think we thought this stuff up on our own? As a man, I can assure you we did not.
Again, it’s not “we Christians” who disapprove of sexually promiscuous behavior, but God. Take it up with Him, if you have a problem with His rules.
Finally, if I think a behavior is harmful and leads to bad consequences, why shouldn’t I warn someone of it? Christians refuse to “mind their own business,” because they believe there are values in the universe that transcend libertarian privacy.
Report comment to moderator
Since this stuff is aimed at my kid, it is my business.
Report comment to moderator
Discussions about sex on worldmagblog are evangelical Christian pornography.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Random Name,
Buy a clue. Pornography is evangelical Christian pornography. Unlike you, they just recognize it as bad.
But if you’re right, then it’s obvious that reading WMB and insulting Christians is your porn.
Report comment to moderator
Laura: Post #6 is proof enough.
I know the arguments. But the truth is that any sexual expression that is not between a married man and woman, conservative Christians call it sin.
And even talking about, thinking about it or, God forbid, coming up with a way to enjoy it that Make It Man doesn’t like, is strongly frowned upon.
David L.: We Christians believe that the happiest sex, the most joyful, is that within the context of a lifelong, monogamous marriage. Sex is either consecration or desecration, as I read somewhere once.
Exactly. But that’s a specific belief. “We believe,” you say, and I am sure you do, but that has no provenance over me or others who do not share your belief.
Next, you say that “we folks” put limitations on it, but in fact those limitations are divinely ordained.
You believe. I do not.
Are you really so naive as to think we thought this stuff up on our own? As a man, I can assure you we did not.
Oh yes, you did. Men in Bible times frequently had multiple wives and concubines. As the church’s power structure developed, the alleged “unchanging moral standard” of the Bible changed into monogamy and chastity … because if you can only have sex with the consent of the church, under threat of hellfire, the church has enormous power over you.
This is why many Christians find sex so shocking and regrettable … the threat of hellfire for being normally human has been drilled deeply into them.
Finally, if I think a behavior is harmful and leads to bad consequences, why shouldn’t I warn someone of it? Christians refuse to “mind their own business,” because they believe there are values in the universe that transcend libertarian privacy.
Uh huh … again, they believe … so what?
My questions, by the way, are not “meant to stab” Christians. I am frustrated by the wilting flower and tut-tutting attitudes that always seems to arise whenever a sexual topic comes up here, which is not all that often. Sex is about as fundamental to being human as food and water. It shouldn’t be something to lament.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G – Along with what David L wrote, I’ll add …
I think we Christians actually have a higher regard for sex because we save it as something special for marriage, not merely as a casual activity. I’ve read comments by young people (in various articles) who say they no longer even feel anything real in sex because they’ve had it too often & with too many. Sex has lost it’s meaning & “specialness” for them.
A young lady would not think of wearing her wedding gown (pre-wedding) out & about, nor eat some of her wedding cake before the wedding. So why give away the most intimate part of oneself before marriage?
For the record, I was not a Christian as a young lady, & did not wait for marriage. That is one of the deepest regrets I’ve had. Yes, I would want to discourage young people from making the same mistake, but I know & respect that it is their own decision.
If Planned Parenthood & others can promote the “safe sex” side of things, why can’t we promote the “special sex” (so to speak) side?
Report comment to moderator
There are so many problems with your comment, Steve G., that I don’t know where to start. As usual, your anger at “Christians” in general, your bigotry, simply cripples your ability to be reasonable.
First off, the statement that sex is better and less harmful in monogamous relationships is not just a religious belief. It’s supported by experience and science. Do you think STDs and AIDS would be rampant–would even exist at all–if lifelong monagamy, as the Bible teaches, were universally practiced?
Second, the fact that poygamy existed in Old Testament times doesn’t mean it was right in God’s eyes. After all, in the beginning God created one husband and one wife, and Christ re-affirmed that relationship in the New Testament.
Third, you missed my point entirely when I said that, as a man, I can assure you humans didn’t invent biblical sexual morality. My point was that male sexuality tends to promiscuity by nature. If I had it my way, do you think I’d argue for monogamy? Ask my wife. God demands monogamy because marriage reflects a spiritual reality. Read the Old Testament and see how God describes the unfaithfulness of His people in terms of sexual promiscuity and adultery. There’s more to sexuality than body parts, you know. (I continue to be convinced that non-Christians have no capacity to appreciate, understand or even acknowledge the spiritual dimension of life. It’s simply non-existent for them.)
Fourth, being “fundamental” to human nature doesn’t make something an absolute good. Even your example of food and water is problematic. Ever hear of gluttony? And surely you won’t argue that unrestrained consumption of food is a good thing? Yet you say that unrestrained indulgence of sex is? You want your kids to be sexually promiscuous but not obese, right?
And finally, this is America. I can share my opinions freely, and your personal dislike of my opinions or my religious beliefs is entirely inconsequential to my expression of them. (Do you know what the word “provenance” even means, by the way? By your use of it, I gather you don’t.) If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
No, Steve, I’m pretty sure most of the abstinence crowd doesn’t claim to be dealing only with birth control. There’s far more to sexual purity than that. I also think most don’t care all that much, one way or the other, about masturbation. (Most probably aren’t dumb enough to say, “It’s an alternative that will meet your sexual needs,” however. First of all, we don’t have sexual needs. But second, sexual stimulation of any sort, pornography or foreplay or whatever, is not a way to “meet” one’s sexual desires, but to encourage them.)
As a single woman, I’m not denying others a particular pleasure; I’m accepting that God has given this denial to me personally. And know what? I wouldn’t trade places with a sexually active single for anything in the world. As a pure single, I’m also a content single. And if God someday gives me a husband, I’ll enter marriage with no regrets and nothing given to another man.
And whether you believe something or not is meaningless to me. They’re God’s laws; people answer to Him, not to me or any other Christian. But I am fairly certain that He won’t accept “I didn’t believe this” as a good answer when you meet Him face to face. In other words, whether or not you “believe” is nearly irrelevant; the important thing is whether or not something is true. Your lack of belief isn’t enough to make it untrue.
Report comment to moderator
I saw this when it first came out. I wouldn’t say its hokey so much as crude.
Of course when the girl dropped her pants everyone saw her naked, and yet everyone claimed they saw nothing unusual – that’s the whole point – kids aren’t embarrassed about anything anymore, as the ad suggests, THEY DON’T SEE IT – that’s exactly what those who concocted this trash want and expect – no big deal dropping your pants, no one sees a girl’s nude body (waste down) and of course the excuse is, you can’t see STD’s –
This isn’t educational, its taking immodest behavior, and using it for so called ‘educational purposes’- kids are getting used to adults using all sorts of techniques and calling it education – Every kid has been lectured in school about STD’s its no secret.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells: Since this stuff is aimed at my kid, it is my business.
Unfortunately, your stuff, of which there is a ton more, on, say 5 different cable channels, and knocking on my door, is aimed at my my kids, which makes it my business.
And when your stuff makes it into public policy and takes away my freedom, it is also my business.
I honestly don’t care whether you believe in one god, five, or a spinning dervish with irridescent pitchforks. That’s your right and I will fight very hard to protect it.
But when that entity’s pronouncements, as discerned by you or anybody else are aimed at my kids or enforced by armed cops and soldiers, you better believe I will react.
When what’s aimed at your kids bothers you, it is your responsibility to keep them away from it. As it is mine. I’ve done my job, it time for you to do yours and not rely upon the state to do it for you.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Arcadia, since the scenario mentioned in your bold paragraph is nowhere close to happening, it’s a little hard to picture what you’re even talking about. Are you saying that people are being arrested for murder and it’s all God’s fault because it’s one of the Ten Commandments, and otherwise they’d be getting away with it with no penalty? Because certainly people aren’t being arrested for illicit sex, the point of this thread. By the time pornography is this mainstream, I think your scenario isn’t anything to fear, because our culture no longer fears or honors God or any sort of moral standards.
Would you really rather live in a culture like we have, where lawlessness has run amok and rape and murder, child pornography and molestation are commonplace, than a world where the law of God is the norm? If so, your anger against God has left you in an unenviable spot. In the law of God is our peace and safety. In lawlessness is our doom.
Report comment to moderator
#9 SteveG,
Well, it’s the first thing you got but all whack jobs can figure out anything about masturbation can’t they ?
Report comment to moderator
Kim – I read your comment to my daughter (age 16). She must not have gotten the point, cuz she looked at me with a puzzled expression & asked,
“They sell birth control at Barnes & Noble?”
Report comment to moderator
“5 different cable channels,
Most of which are aimed a adults. Unfortunately there a hundred more AIMED at my kid that teach junk like this.
Report comment to moderator
Seems pretty hokey to me, but I guess they had to do something to make it viral and group appropriate. And that’s part of the point, to make something teens can share so these lessons aren’t left in the dark. I can see teens finding this useful.
I agree about the casting though. I think using an adult is supposed to enforce that adults are the authorities and approachable about sexual issues. But I would have cast a different guy, and mixed it up so both and adult man and an adult woman were used.
And I appreciate the LGBT inclusiveness, but not the pink and blue color coded t-shirts.
Report comment to moderator
#12 SteveG.
‘Why do Christians hate enjoyment of sex?’
This is your problem isn’t it? You don’t even know what sex is do you and are just too afraid and embarrassed to ask? Don’t feel bad. Clinton didn’t know what sex was either and he was a fine sexual predator because of his ignorance. I’m worried your genitalia will be deformed, or worse, if you don’t know how to masturbate …..eeeerrrr I mean abstain like a Clinton Pro Bowler. Don’t be afraid to ask a stupid question ever again. Your manhood may depend on it.
All polls show that conservative Christians enjoy sex more than people who do not know what it is, or what is is or those that believe masturbation is abstinence in drag.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
Why is it that your most plausible explanation for my incredulity about vibrators aimed at young people, is that I hate sex? Why must you not only impugn me but all Christians with this ludicrous explanation?
Perhaps I should turn the tables.
Why is it that you have no morals, hate all Christians, and hate God?
Report comment to moderator
That’s obviously the best explanation for your diatribe…
Report comment to moderator
I should just stay out of conversations on this topic.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Hilarious! Good sport, bud.
Report comment to moderator
Kim:Would you really rather live in a culture like we have, where lawlessness has run amok and rape and murder, child pornography and molestation are commonplace, than a world where the law of God is the norm? If so, your anger against God has left you in an unenviable spot. In the law of God is our peace and safety…
The law of god where one person’s bite of piece of fruit is punished forever by the pains of childbirth for every person of her gender?
The law of god where when Ham views his father naked, punishment is visited not upon him but upon his son?
The law of god where rape victims are punished, but not their rapists?
The law of god which requires a priest to kill a pigeon or dove after woman gives birth?
Or, just to try the New Testament for a change, the law of god that says if a child disobeys his parents he gets the death penalty? (Matthew 15:4)
Or, sticking with Matthew, the law of god that prescribes genocidal cleansing of any city that doesn’t worship the right god?
Sorry Cheryl, your law of god is primitive ugly and vicious.
And, while we’re at it, why do you suppose all non-Christian countries also condemn murder, theft violence, etc?
I’ll settle for good old human common sense over your vile deity.
kbells: Are you suggesting that kids don’t watch TV? You want to take down material which they have to seek out, while I only object to material which comes unbidden through basic cable.
But you knew that, didn’t you.
Report comment to moderator
REPOST due to left out tag. NOT SURE THE FORMATTING ON THE BLOG IS WORKING
Kim:Would you really rather live in a culture like we have, where lawlessness has run amok and rape and murder, child pornography and molestation are commonplace, than a world where the law of God is the norm? If so, your anger against God has left you in an unenviable spot. In the law of God is our peace and safety…
___________________________
The law of god where one person’s bite of piece of fruit is punished forever by the pains of childbirth for every person of her gender?
The law of god where when Ham views his father naked, punishment is visited not upon him but upon his son?
The law of god where rape victims are punished, but not their rapists?
The law of god which requires a priest to kill a pigeon or dove after woman gives birth?
Or, just to try the New Testament for a change, the law of god that says if a child disobeys his parents he gets the death penalty? (Matthew 15:4)
Or, sticking with Matthew, the law of god that prescribes genocidal cleansing of any city that doesn’t worship the right god?
Sorry Cheryl, your law of god is primitive ugly and vicious.
And, while we’re at it, why do you suppose all non-Christian countries also condemn murder, theft violence, etc?
I’ll settle for good old human common sense over your vile deity.
kbells: Are you suggesting that kids don’t watch TV? You want to take down material which they have to seek out, while I only object to material which comes unbidden through basic cable.
But you knew that, didn’t you
Report comment to moderator
Steve G writes:
“I should just stay out of conversations on this topic.”
Not necessarily. I think you should quit substituting your own fallacies to explain our objections to certain behaviors. Especially when several of us take the trouble to give perfectly good explanations for you. You should take those explanations at face value.
Obviously they don’t fit your paradigm, so you won’t understand them, and will continue to substitute your own fallacies for the truth.
Unless you want to know the truth instead. Or not.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: I just have a very different perspective on things. I think it sounds really silly for someone to lament the state of our culture because there’s a vibrator that works with a music player to match rhythm. You say it’s aimed at young people — maybe it is and maybe it’s not. Everybody, of all ages, has digital music players these days.
I do understand the Christian belief that sex is intended to be reserved for heterosexual marriage; I also know that plenty of people don’t believe that, and I would say, need not be bound to what you believe.
Report comment to moderator
David L.: First off, the statement that sex is better and less harmful in monogamous relationships is not just a religious belief. It’s supported by experience and science. Do you think STDs and AIDS would be rampant–would even exist at all–if lifelong monagamy, as the Bible teaches, were universally practiced?
No, they would not, of course. But then, people wouldn’t die in car crashes if no one drove cars, yet I don’t see you making a moral argument for banning cars.
Sexual behavior does carry some risk; moral behavior does not always mean engaging only in risk-free activities.
Second, the fact that poygamy existed in Old Testament times doesn’t mean it was right in God’s eyes. After all, in the beginning God created one husband and one wife, and Christ re-affirmed that relationship in the New Testament.
Paul said a man could become “one flesh” with a prostitute by having sex with her, so becoming one flesh does not necessarily refer to a deep, lifelong monogamous relationship. A man could become “one flesh” with any number of women.
And I’d say that the fact that many of the Biblical patriarchs and heroic figures had multiple wives with nary a hint of God’s disapproval shows that God did approve.
Third, you missed my point entirely when I said that, as a man, I can assure you humans didn’t invent biblical sexual morality. My point was that male sexuality tends to promiscuity by nature. If I had it my way, do you think I’d argue for monogamy? Ask my wife.
No, I got your point. You missed mine. I don’t mean that men, in general, developed monogamy as a social norm. The development of any social norm is a complex thing, and in this case it mixes religious authority, family-building and child-rearing.
God demands monogamy because marriage reflects a spiritual reality. Read the Old Testament and see how God describes the unfaithfulness of His people in terms of sexual promiscuity and adultery. There’s more to sexuality than body parts, you know. (I continue to be convinced that non-Christians have no capacity to appreciate, understand or even acknowledge the spiritual dimension of life. It’s simply non-existent for them.)
You are dead wrong about that. Christianity isn’t the only religion or spiritual path around, you know.
Fourth, being “fundamental” to human nature doesn’t make something an absolute good. Even your example of food and water is problematic. Ever hear of gluttony? And surely you won’t argue that unrestrained consumption of food is a good thing? Yet you say that unrestrained indulgence of sex is?
Nope, I did not say that AT ALL. Unrestrained indulgence of sex is dangerous, foolish and superficial. All I am saying is that a responsible, intimate and yes, spiritual, sexuality does not have to be within a monogamous marriage, and is nothing to be ashamed of.
But I do not and would never advocate easy, cheap, promiscuous superficial sex.
You want your kids to be sexually promiscuous but not obese, right?
Wrong. See above.
And finally, this is America. I can share my opinions freely, and your personal dislike of my opinions or my religious beliefs is entirely inconsequential to my expression of them. (Do you know what the word “provenance” even means, by the way? By your use of it, I gather you don’t.) If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Sheesh.
And I have an equal right to argue with you. If you don’t like that, don’t come to a message board set up for debate.
I did misuse the word “provenance.” That one point I concede.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the problem with the CCR’s views on sex: they have used and would use the government to enforce their narrow religious views on all of us. Groups like Planned Parenthood would be banned. Contraceptives would be illegal.
What do you think they would do to gay people? They would arrest us and prosecute us. They would support the police breaking down consenting adult’s bedroom doors and arresting them for having sex.
Make no mistake about it: the CCR’s want to force all of us to live under their sexual strictures.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: “…a responsible, intimate and yes, spiritual, sexuality does not have to be within a monogamous marriage, and is nothing to be ashamed of. But I do not and would never advocate easy, cheap, promiscuous superficial sex.”
_________________________________________________________________
I agree that sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. But let us not confuse sex (the act) with sexuality! To be a woman well, exuding femininity, is an expression of my sexuality. In this respect, I can be very “sexual” (life-giving, pro-creative, nurturing), while in my virginal state.
I’m wondering your definition of “promiscuous”, the kind of sex for which you say you aren’t an advocate???
Neither do I advocate (or want) sex that is easy, cheap, promiscuous or superficial. That is why I wait. It’s NOT easy, and the commitment will be costly–for life, mine for his. But for him alone; I’m a one-man woman. “Deep calleth unto deep”–there’s nothing superficial here. I would never trade what some consider “lack of experience” in place the baggage that I do not carry.
So, Steve G., if any man offers me “responsible, intimate, and spiritual” sex outside of a monogamous maritial relationship, I am not interested in his mere anatomy for my momentary pleasure. That would be too easy, cheap, promiscuous, and superficial.
Report comment to moderator
“I just have a very different perspective on things.”
So that gives you permission to impugn those of other perspectives, by promoting a fallacy about them, that you know is a fallacy? Thanks, but no thanks, Steve.
Report comment to moderator
It’s in threads like this that the absurdity of SteveG’s views blows naked in the breeze. He announces, as if it were supposed to be a refutation of something, that abstinence-only advocates (I’ll just call them abstainers) merely “believe” stuff. This, in itself, is a weightless point, but coming from a guy who denies moral absolutes, you have to wonder where he gets off being so certain of himself.
Abstainers have their set of beliefs; SteveG has his set. It’s wrong for the abstainers to argue the truth of their position, but not wrong for SteveG? There are liberties and restrictions implicit in the views of both. SteveG is imposing his view no less than abstainers are. His view allows for a greater degree of license, but it’s imposed nonetheless–by arguing for it, he’s attempting to impose it. Maybe SteveG is just advocating anarchy. It doesn’t look like he is, though, when in #40 he says, “I do not and would never advocate easy, cheap, promiscuous superficial sex.” Wait, SteveG, that’s just what you believe.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: By allowing a greater degree of liberty, the abstainers are not harmed. Abstain all you like.Those who are more open to indulge are also not harmed. They can indulge.
That’s freedom.
The other approach is to favor the abstainer’s approach and shun the indulgers. The indulgers thus are harmed, but not the abstainers. Advantage: abstainers.
That’s perhaps more to your liking, but less free.
FTW: So, Steve G., if any man offers me “responsible, intimate, and spiritual” sex outside of a monogamous maritial relationship, I am not interested in his mere anatomy for my momentary pleasure. That would be too easy, cheap, promiscuous, and superficial.
If you think that’s what I was talking about, you clearly have no idea what I was talking about.
Example: Joe and Sue meet in college and start dating. After a few weeks or months, they begin having sex. At the start of their second year, they move in together in an off-campus apartment. They share a bed and they love each other.
They graduate, and after a few months, Joe gets a good job offer in Seattle. Sue’s family is all in Camden, NJ, and she doesn’t want to move to Seattle. They love each other, but there are other factors pulling at them and, not being bound to believe that a sexual relationship must include a lifetime commitment, they part as friends and go their separate ways. Later they each get married, have children and have good lives, with fond memories of their college years together.
Was their relationship sinful? You say yes, I say no. But whether or not it was sinful, it was a far cry from the half-drunk bar hookup one night stand that you seem to think was what I meant.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: When have I ever denied moral absolutes?
In fact, I’ve said the opposite. I believe there are moral absolutes; I just don’t always believe that they are the same ones you would name.
Report comment to moderator
I believe there are moral absolutes; I just don’t always believe that they are the same ones you would name.
******Based on WHAT? What are your moral absolutes based on?
If there is no higher authority, then your absolutes are meaningless and are “just your beliefs.”
Moral absolutes are only absolutes if there is something other than your opinion that makes them TRUTH.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: In this thread you said,
” ‘Absolute’ moral codes are over-rated and probably non-existent” (post 148).
In the same thread, you said,
“I know conservative Christians make a lot of to-do about the idea of an ‘absolute moral code,’ but the fact is, even YOU don’t really believe there is. For every absolute presented in the Bible, there are any number of exceptions … sometimes in the Bible too, sometimes not.
And people who believe in absolute moral codes rarely agree on what they are. In point of fact, most human societies develop moral codes that work to allow people to live together peacefully without harming each other, or with systems of punishment in place when they do” (post 156).
————-
It’s fine if you misspoke or didn’t articulate what you meant. Can you put a finer point on your understanding of moral absolutes?
Either way, you can’t help being hypocritical here. You get exercised about Christians who advance a certain set of morals; in so doing, you’re attempting to impose your own set–merely a more liberal one in degree.
And you beg the question as to what constitutes harm at the top of #45. Also, when you say “by allowing” sexual liberty, do you mean to imply Christians want to make it illegal, stigmatize it, or what?
Report comment to moderator
TRS: If there is no higher authority, then your absolutes are meaningless and are “just your beliefs.”
Likewise, I never said I don’t believe in a higher authority. (Well, I don’t see it as “authority” so much, but it has the same effect in this regard.)
You are operating on the assumption that a person must either believe in the Christian God and embrace Christian theology, or else must be devoid of any spiritual dimension and reject the idea of anything transcendant.
There are many, many other options.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Good catch on that. I suppose my thinking has evolved a bit since I made that statement. I would say now that human attempts to discern and articulate the moral absolutes are prone to human error. (And let’s please not hear how the Bible tells us what it is, else we’ll have to argue about the Bible’s advocacy of slavery, polygamy and genocide all over again.)
I do not claim certain knowledge of what the ultimate Source of the universe is, but whatever it is, we can call it God. The natural order of the universe, and of life on this planet, creates harmony when people act in accordance with nature and strife when they don’t. So without laying down specific rules, I can say that we’re doing right when our actions create love, peace and prosperity, and we’re out of harmony when they create anger, strife and loss.
I suppose I am attempting to “impose” my set of morals, if by that you mean I’m trying to keep you from telling other people what they can and can’t morally do.
And you beg the question as to what constitutes harm at the top of #45. Also, when you say “by allowing” sexual liberty, do you mean to imply Christians want to make it illegal, stigmatize it, or what?
By “harm” I just mean, disallowed from doing what they believe is right. Under the more liberal situation, abtainers can abstain and indulgers can indulge. Under the conservative siutation, abstainers can abstain but indulgers have to either abstain or deal with stigma.
And yes, I think most Christians do want to stigmatize it. Some, though a smaller number, would criminalize it.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Women and children are harmed in a culture in which woman are expected to have sex without commitment. Men may applaud such a state, but it hurts women. (A woman who doesn’t give out is simply dumped for someone less “frigid.”) It doesn’t help men either, because marriage is a whole lot better for men than a playboy lifestyle is. But women and children are particularly harmed. When “freedom” hurts others, it makes sense to have a moral stigma against it. In losing that moral stigma, we’ve lost much of the foundation for a strong culture. We’ve also lost much of the incentive for marriage, which further limits women’s choices, because women do better in a culture that values marriage. And children definitely do.
So yes, I’d rather stigmatize illicit sex, and have the social harm go to those who are indulging in moral harm. Right now the stigma goes to “socially backward” people who abstain, which is absurd. It’s in society’s best interest to stigmatize that which harms others.
Report comment to moderator
I just watched a clip from the Take Care Down There video about the HPV.
First, the man tells the girl in the clip that she has HPV without even knowing if she is sexually active or not.
“close to half of all women have it” which is misleading. He should have said half of all women who are sexually active have it.
The Pap test was invented to determine HPV status. If you are not sexually active, you don’t need a Pap test. If you are in a monogamous, faithful marriage, you don’t need it. 99.99% of cervical cancer is from HPV. When someone says they have cervical cancer, they have been promiscuous or with someone who was.
Just another little example that being monogamous and faithful keeps you from getting stuff you don’t want, which is probably why God said one woman, one man. For Life.
No one knew when they started down the road to sexual freedom how costly it would be, in fact, that it could cost you your life.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G:
But whether or not it was sinful, it was a far cry from the half-drunk bar hookup one night stand that you seem to think was what I meant.
Who are you to judge half-drunk bar hookups? On what basis?
Report comment to moderator
Example: Joe and Sue meet in college and start dating. After a few weeks or months, they begin having sex. At the start of their second year, they move in together in an off-campus apartment. They share a bed and they love each other.
They graduate, and after a few months, Joe gets a good job offer in Seattle. Sue’s family is all in Camden, NJ, and she doesn’t want to move to Seattle. They love each other, but there are other factors pulling at them and, not being bound to believe that a sexual relationship must include a lifetime commitment, they part as friends and go their separate ways. Later they each get married, have children and have good lives, with fond memories of their college years together.
How sweet- what a wonderful fairy tale!
What I am interested in is what the college reunion looks like years later. Maybe they decide, hey, we had sex without marriage and it was great then, and besides, my current partner just doesn’t have the same zing that we had years ago. Looks like everything turned out fine anyway, why not a little rendezvous for old times sake? Would that be okay? Would that relationship be sinful and on what basis would you say so? No one but Joe and Sue know about it or and no one ever finds out.
If a sexual relationship is not defined within the boundaries of marriage, why would it matter 25 years later?
Report comment to moderator
and another thing that I find amusing these days.
My daughter is 25 and is getting married in three months. She has known this guy, who is also 25, for one year. They got engaged on August 30th. Funny, people don’t have a problem if they were sleeping together; but the response about them getting married is questioning about how “soon” and shouldn’t they wait.
For me it is the opposite.
I say wait for sex and bring on the weddings!
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: Women and children are harmed in a culture in which woman are expected to have sex without commitment. Men may applaud such a state, but it hurts women. (A woman who doesn’t give out is simply dumped for someone less “frigid.”)
Well that’s pretty insulting towards men, Cheryl. There are men out there who would respect her abstinence, even prefer it. So let those who share that value find each other, and those who have different values choose partners accordingly.
Do you seriously mean to say that all men, but only some women, are interested in early, easy sex? I’d say it’s only some for both sexes.
Report comment to moderator
Annelise: My “fairy tale” is pretty much the norm these days and you know what? Most people turn out ok.
See, a lot of us can distinguish between the time before marriage and the time after. In my little fairy tale, Joe and Sue are not committed to other people when they’re together in college.
When they meet at the class reunion in 25 years, what happens most often in real life is that Joe meets Sue’s husband, and introduces his wife, and they have drinks and talk about old times. And they respect the fact that they now are married to others, so even if there is a spark of attraction (which happens a lot less often than you probably imagine) they don’t act on it.
It’s called being a mature adult who doesn’t need to envision a stern judging God glaring down in order to be a decent person.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
Why even have marriage? What is the point if you can do everything that a married couple does without it and no one cares? What does it change?
Why marriage if sex before marriage is okay?
Who says you have to get married, anyway? And if lovers can be just as committed without “marriage”, what does it change when they do get married?
I have a friend whose daughter was taught to wait for marriage, but didn’t. She now has a baby and a hubby overseas for one year.
Gets me that they couldn’t wait before they got married and now all of sudden, they have to, they are expected to, and they should. But what makes them able to do it now when they couldn’t then?
I say if they can do it now, they could do it then. If they couldn’t do it then, chances are, they won’t do it now, either. Once you become sexually active, it is harder to make it lie down. Oh, sure, people can do it and that is my point. Everyone who is married has to practice abstinence at certain times during their life. But abstinence is the big bad word when it comes to our singles. How can anyone expect them to wait? Well, wait they will when they are married unless they don’t intend to be faithful.
By the way, my friend’s daughter’s interest on her Facebook is “Men”. Curious as to how this will all turn out.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:It’s called being a mature adult who doesn’t need to envision a stern judging God glaring down in order to be a decent person.
For me, that is not the case.
It’s believing that the Creator of the universe and the inventor of marriage/sex would know something of how it works. It was His idea and time and time again, He is proven right.
Just consider this little fact: I have been married 31 years and my husband and I have been faithful to each other all those years. No STD’s, even though we have had sex countless times. Now why is it, when you leave those boundaries of protection, that you leave yourself vulnerable to all kinds of diseases? Why is that?
I would rather keep myself from all the troubles of trying to find my own way and the consequences not only to my body, but to my spirit and my mind. You are dealing with something that is a mystery, this whole idea of a man with a woman and a sexual relationship. We trivialize it, cheapen it, and make it common by saying it doesn’t need marriage to protect it. It does. And only because God says so.
Report comment to moderator
Annelisefrench
What a point you make -
Marriage does bring about abstinence whether one likes it or not. Being pregnant has its moments, when abstinence is a must, not to mention the care and tenderness a wife needs during this time, when sexual activity ceases until the infant is born.
Blessings my friend. Keep up the good work!
Report comment to moderator
As a preface: I am planning to honor Mickey McLean’s request to abstain from political bickering on this Sept. 11. I do hope that continuing to debate this issue does not count as political.
Annelise:
Why even have marriage? What is the point if you can do everything that a married couple does without it and no one cares? What does it change?
Why marriage if sex before marriage is okay?
Are you suggesting that the only purpose of marriage is to legitimize sex?
Marriage is a public declaration of commitment. In legal terms it creates a partnership that affects a whole host of things, such as taxes, rights of survivorship, community property, etc.
Marriage, in short, is about a LOT more than sex. The ability to have pre-marital sex without social stigma does not detract from a hundred other reasons to marry — when a person reaches the time of their life to be ready for the commitment.
Who says you have to get married, anyway? And if lovers can be just as committed without “marriage”, what does it change when they do get married?
I kind of agree with you on this point. I don’t see any problem with people having short-term sexual relationships at certain points in their lives, but once you decide to make the lifelong commitment, marriage is the appropriate way to undertake it.
On the other hand, you ask “who says you have to get married, anyway,” and that’s a good question. While I think marriage is better than long-term cohabiting, people who feel differently may have good reasons for disagreeing.
I have a friend whose daughter was taught to wait for marriage, but didn’t. She now has a baby and a hubby overseas for one year.
Gets me that they couldn’t wait before they got married and now all of sudden, they have to, they are expected to, and they should. But what makes them able to do it now when they couldn’t then?
I don’t know. I don’t know the people involved. I don’t know how old or mature they are, or what their reasoning was.
I say if they can do it now, they could do it then. If they couldn’t do it then, chances are, they won’t do it now, either.
I say, why do you think it’s your business?
Once you become sexually active, it is harder to make it lie down. Oh, sure, people can do it and that is my point. Everyone who is married has to practice abstinence at certain times during their life. But abstinence is the big bad word when it comes to our singles. How can anyone expect them to wait? Well, wait they will when they are married unless they don’t intend to be faithful.
I will agree with you that voluntary celibacy should not be stigmatized either. It’s a respectable and wise course. I’m not arguing people shouldn’t abstain … I’m arguing that people who choose not to are not evil and vile for indulging.
You seem to be assuming that the sex drive is overwhelming and once unleashed, it can never again be reined in. That’s not really true, you know.
It’s believing that the Creator of the universe and the inventor of marriage/sex would know something of how it works. It was His idea and time and time again, He is proven right.
The idea of “one man, one woman, for life” is not really in the Bible, you know. Through all of the Old Testament, and alluded to in the New, it was “one man, any number of women” and “for life” was optional. God did approve — at one point, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, reminded David that he (God) had given David multiple wives.
Lifelong monogamy is a social convention, and it’s a good one and works for most people, but it is not a clearly-articulated divine mandate. The closest the New Testament comes is in declaring that holders of certain church offices must be the husband of only one wife — meaning that obviously many people in the church were husband to more than one, and it disqualified them only from leadership, not salvation.
Just consider this little fact: I have been married 31 years and my husband and I have been faithful to each other all those years. No STD’s, even though we have had sex countless times. Now why is it, when you leave those boundaries of protection, that you leave yourself vulnerable to all kinds of diseases? Why is that?
Because diseases are caused by germs that are spread in various ways. People who never fly never die in plane crashes … if your argument is that STDs are God’s way of punishing or discouraging multiple sexual partners, you might was well say (by the same logic) that flying is sinful and crashes are a way God occasionally punishes people who fly.
It is true that abstinence and monogamy guarantees no spread of STDs between the two involved. And that’s a pretty good argument for abstinence as a health measure .. but it’s also true that any two people who are not infected with anything — even if they’ve each had 10 past partners — have nothing to spread. And it’s also true that monogamy without marriage has the same benefit. And it’s also true that consistent and proper use of condoms is almost as effective as abstinence at stopping disease.
No one would dispute that abstinence followed by faithful monogamy is a good course, maybe the best one. But it’s not the only honorable or respectable one.
Report comment to moderator
Are you suggesting that the only purpose of marriage is to legitimize sex…
******************************************************************
I can do anything with anyone in the entire world that I can do with my husband, except have sex. He is the ONLY person that I do share that part of myself with.
Everything else is pretty much common ground if I so choose.
So, yes. That is correct.
What makes marriage unique in your corner of the world? What do you do in your marriage that you don’t do and wouldn’t do with someone outside of it?
Report comment to moderator
Just consider this little fact: I have been married 31 years and my husband and I have been faithful to each other all those years. No STD’s, even though we have had sex countless times. Now why is it, when you leave those boundaries of protection, that you leave yourself vulnerable to all kinds of diseases? Why is that?
Because diseases are caused by germs that are spread in various ways. People who never fly never die in plane crashes … if your argument is that STDs are God’s way of punishing or discouraging multiple sexual partners, you might was well say (by the same logic) that flying is sinful and crashes are a way God occasionally punishes people who fly.
*****************************************************************
Wrong conclusion…
If you fly in a plane and it crashes because someone didn’t fly it the way it was supposed to be flown, then you can expect to have a crash.
You can expect to have diseases when you step outside the boundaries that God designed for sex. It’s that simple.
Report comment to moderator
Annelise: I can do anything with anyone in the entire world that I can do with my husband, except have sex. He is the ONLY person that I do share that part of myself with.
Everything else is pretty much common ground if I so choose.
So, yes. That is correct.
What makes marriage unique in your corner of the world? What do you do in your marriage that you don’t do and wouldn’t do with someone outside of it?
There’s a LOT more to intimacy than sex. I would share a much greater depth of my inner thoughts, fears, desires and worries with my one intimate partner — and future wife — than with “anyone in the entire world.”) Even my parents and closest friends don’t get the level of access to my heart, soul and mind that that one person does.
If you really believe sex is the only differentiator between a marriage and any other relationship, I feel sorry for you.
Report comment to moderator
Annelise: You can expect to have diseases when you step outside the boundaries that God designed for sex. It’s that simple.
And yet, many many people have sex outside of marriage, even with many partners, and never get a disease. Because they take the needed steps to prevent them, and that does the job 999 times out of 1,000.
So actually, you can expect NOT to have diseases if you choose your partners carefully and take some precautions such as using condoms.
On the other hand, sometimes planes crash when nobody does anything wrong at all, because, they just do sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, sometimes planes crash when nobody does anything wrong at all, because, they just do sometimes
And your point?
How exactly to do you propose to choosing your partner(S!) carefully?
Doctor’s note? Exam? Their word? PI? What if they have HIV and don’t know it yet? What if they lie to you? Are you willing to take that risk?
How many partners do you think is a reasonable number to have, by the way? And when is that number too many?
I had to choose just one partner, my husband. If we continue to choose each other, we will not have to worry about STD’s or protection.
Nothing is fail-safe as far as protection. Condoms do not protect from HIV completely, as per the CDC website…
“It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, sometimes planes crash when nobody does anything wrong at all, because, they just do sometimes.
Maybe.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a LOT more to intimacy than sex. I would share a much greater depth of my inner thoughts, fears, desires and worries with my one intimate partner — and future wife — than with “anyone in the entire world.”
You aren’t married yet?
Then what you are telling me is what you imagine it would be like?
Nuff said.
Report comment to moderator
Annelise: I resist revealing too much of my personal history on this site because it’s just not your business. For the sake of this discussion though, I will say I have been married in the past, and I will be married in the future.
I also have lived long enough and deeply enough to understand the difference between a partner who shares your life on a deeply intimate level and “anyone in the entire world.” Despite your high-handedness, I am not sure that you do.
As for your comment in #66: I don’t disagree with that. I AGREE that abstinence until marriage and faithfulness within marriage is the best way to prevent disease (though again, I find it kind of sad that that seems to be your strongest reason).
What I don’t agree with you on is that it’s effectiveness as a personal health measure means it’s the only morally right path. Nor is it always as easy a path to take up and stay on as you seem to imagine.
And I’m not just talking about the strength of the sex drive, although that’s part of it. But even people who decide to take that course are depending on other people to facilitate it. What if your husband abandons you? Or dies? If you find yourself a young widow or divorcee, you’ve lost your chance to confine sex to only one person for life, unless you decide to spend the rest of your life celibate … which would be a hard road for most. (And at this point you lose the ability to invoke fear of disease as a motivator, because it’s no longer possible to be a virgin marrying a virgin.)
Report comment to moderator
Annelise, here’s the test: Imagine that your husband developed a close relationship with another woman. He shared secrets with her that he shares with few other people … maybe even tells her a thing or two that he’s not told you.
They spend a lot of time together, sometimes meet for dinner or a movie. When she feels lonely at midnight, sometimes she calls him at your house and they talk for an hour. Maybe you even hear him say “I love you” at the end of the call.
BUT … they’re not having sex (and you know this for certain.) They are not physically intimate in any way and have no plans to become so.
Are you ok with this? Because if sex is really the only difference between a marriage and another sort of relationship, you should be.
Report comment to moderator
No, of course I am not okay with this. Just like I wouldn’t be okay with my husband having a collection of porn, either.
I am not denying the intimacy, etc. that goes along with the sexual relationship. Sex is more than just the act, of course.
In guarding against adultery, I would not allow any kind of close female relationship with my husband that excluded me because that is just naive.
When does adultery become adultery? When it crosses the line into the sexual act. Would you consider your scenario adultery?
My original point stands. God designed us male and female, designed us with sexual desires and provided marriage as the place for that to happen. Nowhere else. And if a couple are faithful to each other they will find that they don’t need STD protection. It is when you step out of the boundaries of marriage, with premarital/extra-marital sex that you will find all kinds of trouble, physically and emotionally.
Report comment to moderator
Is my scenario adultery? I think so. The emotional intimacy that you should have is being shared with another, without your consent. Perhaps he’s just sharing it, perhaps he’s actually taken it from you and given it to her. Either way, the marriage bond is compromised, I think.
But is that what you think? You say so now, but earlier, in #62, there was this:
Are you suggesting that the only purpose of marriage is to legitimize sex…
******************************************************************
I can do anything with anyone in the entire world that I can do with my husband, except have sex. He is the ONLY person that I do share that part of myself with.
Everything else is pretty much common ground if I so choose.
So, yes. That is correct.
By that definition, my scenario should not trouble you. It does, though, so it seems you do see that there’s more reason for marriage than just sex.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage includes a lot more than sex, but sex is never intended to be shared with anyone other than my husband. It is exclusive, except at death.
I still stand by what I said.
I have intimate conversations with my girlfriends that I would never share with another man. So intimate conversations are not out of bounds, it just depends on who it is with. They share very sensitive things about themselves, so I don’t know what your point is. There can be close intimacy with other people that has nothing to do with sex. Sex is reserved exclusively for my husband.
An intimate conversation and a relationship with a man that excludes my husband would be setting up my marriage for failure.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!