Teens having sex
My local radio station blasted the news the other morning. A newly released survey has found that in my home state of Connecticut, a large majority of high school seniors have had sex within the past year but—and this seemed to be the headline—many of them didn’t use condoms.
In fact, the first sentence of the Associated Press report reads as follows:
“A survey by Connecticut health and education officials shows that about two-thirds of high school seniors in the state have had sex in the past year but only 59 percent of them say condoms were used.”
The story goes on to lament the fact that this must be evidence that students aren’t getting good information on “safe sex.”
Also mentioned is the apparently not-very-newsworthy detail that 25 percent of high school students say they had sex beginning in ninth grade.
So to be crystal clear, what’s deemed worthy of note here is not the fact that so many teens are engaging in sex, a quarter of them starting at age 14. What’s newsworthy and of concern is that the “safe sex” message just isn’t getting through.
Would it even be a news story if 100 percent of teenagers had sex but used condoms?
Posted on the Heritage Foundation website is a lecture given by Dr. Miriam Grossman, author of You’re Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Hurt Your Child. Early on, Grossman tells the story of a patient she worked with as a campus psychiatrist at UCLA. Stacy was an athlete who worked hard and didn’t smoke or drink. Her health was important to her. But as a result of a single sexual encounter—during which a condom was used—she is now infected with an incurable genital virus.
What sex educators fail to instill in their students is the simple fact that condoms do not prevent all sexually transmitted diseases, nor do they offer perfect protection against pregnancy. No artificial method of birth control does.
If students like Stacy can learn the disciplines of being an athlete, including abstaining from alcohol and cigarettes, surely they have the potential to exercise self-control when it comes to sex.
So why don’t sex educators make that their goal? Because, according to Dr. Grossman, “Sex ed is a social movement. Its goal is to change society. . . to promote sexual freedom and to rid society of its Judeo-Christian taboos and restrictions.”
I’d have to agree.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top89 Comments to “Teens having sex”
What sex educators fail to instill in their students is the simple fact that condoms do not prevent all sexually transmitted diseases, nor do they offer perfect protection against pregnancy
So…um…er, telling students not to have sex prevents the diseases and offers “perfect protection”? Convincing them that a god will strike them down or they will rot in a place called hell if they have sex will actually work?
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Grossman’s assessment is, I think, a non-disputable given. But what I recently found interesting is the thesis of a book by E. Michael Jones called Libido Dominandi, a phrase taken from Augustine’s City of God. His thesis is that the end-goal of the push towards unrestrained sexual expression has been political control. From the editorial review on Amazon,
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me that society has wrenched apart many concepts that are supposed to go together: marriage, sex, male and female, procreation, family. And if what I see is any indication, the presumption of virginity on the marriage bed is all but lost even within the church.
American culture made it unnecessary for a woman to “depend on” a man for financial support, unnecessary to have “unwanted” children if they do marry (and eventually, more and more the thought of having children has become undesirable), and eventually unnecessary to wait for marriage to have sex (or even to have children). Also, by “freeing” women so much–making women undependent on men financially, socially free to pursue unchastity without any disapproval, and socially not all that interested in being a wife or a mother–culture has removed any strong reason for women to stay married. And if women don’t feel it necessary to stay married, and men don’t have to get married in the first place in order to have sex, and if men do choose to marry they cannot have any guarantee that their wives will stay married to them . . . incentive for men to choose marriage is greatly weakened.
So we now have a vicious cycle: no strong reason to abstain from sex, weakened reasons to marry. I think one of the most important things a parent can do (but one set of parents cannot do this alone) is instill in children a desire for marriage. Unfortunately, right now we seem to have a lot more women than men desiring marriage–culturally the church has to turn back toward teaching its men to desire marriage and to look for women who will be faithful wives. I honestly think this is the battle of this generation; if we lose the concept of family within the church, it doesn’t really matter whether we “win” everything else.
Report comment to moderator
How ironic that religion seeks to both control and intimidate concurrently. Religion seeks control through and over sex, while threatening that non-compliance leads to political control.
Report comment to moderator
If only schools could adopt the same zero tolerance attitude about teen hanky panky that they now have about teen smoking. Could you imagine if the cig companies came into the schools to promote “safe smoking”?
And yet all too often sex ed curricula is accepted with no qualms when it is provided by SIECUS or other pro- teen sex groups.
At Town Hall dot com Brent Bozell (Wm F Buckley’s nephew) has a great article today about the “lyrics” your kids are hearing RIGHT NOW in their iphone ear piece.
Mom and Dad, you might wanna check it out!
Report comment to moderator
“They’re gonna do it anyway, so why not make sure they do it safely..”
Odd how that’s not said about teen drinking, teen smoking or other dangerous activities.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, interesting thesis.
Unrestrained sexual freedom left in its wake what exactly? Single moms who never married their children’s dads cuz dad never asked her to. And kids brought up in purposefully single mom homes often correlate with a host of social pathologies.
That having been said, many moms who were abandoned by their babies’ daddies have great supportive parents. A good involved Grandpa can make a work of difference in the life of a fatherless child.
Report comment to moderator
“So to be crystal clear, what’s deemed worthy of note here is not the fact that so many teens are engaging in sex, a quarter of them starting at age 14. What’s newsworthy and of concern is that the “safe sex” message just isn’t getting through.”
They’re reporting the news. It’s not news that kids are having sex. That’s pretty much common knowledge. People may not have known, however, the extent to which these kids were having sex without condoms.
Where I’d disagree with the article, though, is that the cause of this is “lack of information”. Kids know condoms are fairly effective at preventing pregnancy and disease prevention. They’re just irresponsible.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t have sex until marriage. My husband and I have never used a condom. It sure seems like it would be very ackward, really not an intimacy builder–I’ll have sex with you but I don’t want to touch you and I don’t want to have your baby. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of teen girls, yearning for a male relationship, tricked into thinking this guy cares, don’t want to interrupt the “intimacy” of the moment and get the guy thinking about the possible consequences of this act. Of course, that’s assuming the girl even wants sex–or just wants to keep the guy, or is scared to say no because so many girls are pressured/forced into sex they don’t want.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, if it isn’t news that kids are having sex in such large numbers, then it also isn’t news that they’re not using condoms. The real crisis in these figures is the huge number of children having sex.
Lack of condom use wouldn’t matter at all if no teens were having sex. And 100% of teens who had sex using condoms would still be hugely problematic–because they’re still choosing immorality, and they are still vulnerable to heartbreak, suicide, serious health concerns, and pregnancy.
And why would we expect kids to be “responsible” about how they have sex when the very act of sex before marriage is an act of irresponsibility?
Report comment to moderator
Are there any Christian young people learning about the victory WITHIN?..
…Purity as to the affections and thoughts?
“The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and MAKE NOT provision for the flesh, to [fulfil] the lusts [thereof].” (Ro 13:12-14)
If one would seek to honor the King WITHIN, wouldn’t the outward activities simply coincide?
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.” (Php 4:8)
Do you think that’s too old fashion?
Report comment to moderator
DaughterWifeMother #9 very insightful!!!
Are liberals / progressives willing to describe any limits to our cultural and social changes? It seems that they generally just tolerate pushing the limits farther and farther from our historical norms. Is there a limit to our definition of marriage? Is there anything our children should be prohibited from doing?
They will likely ridicule this question as silly. But their comments and their behavior show little desire to actually describe some limits to cultural and social changes. Where is their line in the sand? As we are trying to be our own god it seems the only rule we are willing to follow is “I can do whatever I want”.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia
You missed the point. Sex education failed. Condoms are not dependable. Abstinence “does work” – 100% of the time! The teaching of morality is something that needs to be taught at home and supported by the educational system. The teachings to have sex outside of marriage denigrates those who accepts that concept. Sex outside of marriage diminishes the specialness of marriage and the importance of fidelity and self respect. Sex education has gone too far…. some educators want to begin teaching kids in kindergarten about sex. They should find another line of work as kids are not prepared to learn about sex at that age, nor should they…. let them be kids.
Report comment to moderator
“Buddy Glass, if it isn’t news that kids are having sex in such large numbers, then it also isn’t news that they’re not using condoms.”
I don’t follow. If the public generally understands the rate at which kids are having sex but is woefully ignorant about the rate at which kids are using condoms, then the “rate at which kids are using condoms” is the more “newsworthy” of the two. Here I’m defining newsworthy as “giving people information they don’t already have”.
Report comment to moderator
Lust of the flesh is a very strong sin to over come. This is only going to get worst as the left pushes for sex education to more of younger kids.
Report comment to moderator
Baby Girl and I went to church Wednesday night. She went to Youth Group and I went to my Bible study. On the way home she was telling me what was discussed. According to her sex outside of marriage is an unforgivable sin. You will go to hell. OK stop right there. There is NO sin that God cannot forgive. Even murder? Even murder. God can forgive a murderer. Man probably will not and the murderer needs to be punished anyway. I know you will all be relieved to know that my almost 13 year old (September 9th) is still a virgin. I like that occassionally she works that into conversation…Just in case you were wondering Mom, I am a virgin. Good. Stay that way.
I used the conversation as a way to tell her that each time a woman has
Report comment to moderator
sex with a man she gives away a piece of her heart. Unless that love is returned and if she gives her heart to too many different men then eventually she has no heart left to love herself. I also tell her that many people misunderstand the verse that says Love thy neighbor as thyself. One must first love and respect oneself before they can love and respect another.
I make sure she knows that my preferance for her is to wait until marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, actually that was my point–you seem to think that the public knows already that teens are having sex in large numbers, and I think the public is largely saying, “Yeah, it’s fairly common, but not common enough to pose a danger to MY kid.” And you think the public knows that large numbers of teens are having sex, but not that they aren’t using condoms (as though somehow it’s “success” to have teens using condoms!!) . . . and I think that anyone who knows anything about teenage sexual activity knows that statistically teens don’t use condoms in very large numbers. Thus, if it’s “news” that teens don’t use condoms, it’s even bigger “news” how many of them are having sex at all (since both are fairly well known facts, but the “pool” of kids who have sex is larger than the “pool” of kids who have sex and use condoms).
I do think that if 30 years (more than these teenagers’ lifetimes) of telling kids, “You have to use condoms” hasn’t worked, and if in fact we have a huge rate of HPV (which condoms don’t keep from spreading, BTW), a high pregnancy rate among teens, and other signs that kids are having sex in greater and greater numbers with greater and greater consequences, then maybe, just maybe, the news story should be “What We’ve Been Teaching Kids About ‘Safe Sex’ Isn’t Working.”
Do teens really know the risks of fornication (even “protected” fornication)? No, they do not. That is a bigger news story than how many use condoms.
Kim, does she know it goes beyond Mom’s “preference” and actually is God’s command? This is no more an issue of “preference” than is “Thou shalt not murder.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes Cheryl she does, but I do think that I need to keep the lines of communication open. I don’t ever want her to feel she cannot tell me what is going on in her life. I have also pointed out behavior to her that I think is vulgar and tacky and that I will not accept from her.
I have enough sexual hangups from my own upbringing that I refuse to allow her to think that God cannot forgive her if she has sex outside of marriage. That is NOT me giving her permission to be promiscuous.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a strong proponent of sex ed – after all I do teach grade 7/8 health — but I don’t think that’s the entire answer. Teen birth rates and sexual activity are also influenced by family, peers, social economic conditions, etc.
An interesting proposition put forth by a British author is to link teen pregnancy ( and I guess sexual activity) by the rate of inequality in society. According to his stats, societies with inequality – UK, US, and Portugal – have high teen pregnancy rates, whereas societies with low inequality — Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark — have low rates. This pregnancy trend continues within the US to separate states with high inequality — Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi — from states with low inequality — Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire. In general, the lower the inequality the quicker children are to enter more adult like activities.
The rate of inequality is used to explain a wide degree of societal indicators including physical health, mental health, violence, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, crime. One can argue here and there about some specifics, but its hard to ignore their general findings.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, the person who said that sex outside marriage is unforgivable needs to be corrected.
Take the story of David and Bathsheba, and Psalm 51 and Ps. 32. God forgave David.
It is not right to teach a lie to obtain some good objective.
The same goes for smoking and drinking. Teach properly, but teach the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, God can forgive any sin, praise Him. I just would be afraid of singling out any sin as one we expect to have to forgive our kids for. I wouldn’t say, for example, “I hope you never kill anyone, but I do know that you may someday be tempted to do so. If you are, and you succumb to that temptation, know that I’ll forgive you.”
I’d make it general–if you commit any sin, there is forgiveness with God, and with me–but not leave the expectation that this is one sin you’re likely to do and that I expect you to do. Rather, this is a sin that’s particularly hard to master, and where you have special need of God’s grace, and particular rules of behavior, and also accountability, because culture expects you to make sinful choices on this one.
Report comment to moderator
My only problem HRW is that it is his stats. I indeed would like a full study into that. What the author whose name you failed to mention did was probably a pilot study. I would love a full study into that issue though.
What I know from personal experience is that the rich suburban kids were having more sex than the kids on the streets of Harlem. Also about half of my grade in my school in the suburbs lost their virginity by 8th grade, then again I think that was because that school was an unusual breed of Catholic.
The last thing that I want to say is that I believe that the reason for the increase in teen sex and the decrease in “safe” sex is due to is not due to inequality. I think the same for violence, crime, drug addiction, etc. I suspect that they are correlated but are not cause and effect. It is quite likely that their is a more central cause that results in both an increase in crime, teen sex, teen pregnancies, drugs, and a decrease in equality.
P.S. Correlation does not imply causation. One of the first rules my statistics teacher drilled into me. Just because there is a big correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks does not mean one causes the other.
Report comment to moderator
#18:
“that was my point–you seem to think that the public knows already that teens are having sex in large numbers, and I think the public is largely saying, “Yeah, it’s fairly common, but not common enough to pose a danger to MY kid.””
Well, yeah. I think most people who don’t totally have their head in the sand know (approximately) the rate at which kids are having sex. They just think their kid is “different”. That’s the part that’s slightly irrational.
“as though somehow it’s “success” to have teens using condoms!!”
See, that’s the thing. According to “most people”, i.e. the readership of the Associated Press, the above statement is true. “Most people” acknowledge that kids are going to have sex and are more concerned with ensuring they take reasonable precautions when they do.
I’m not saying this is “right” or “good”, but its the way “most people” feel. Especially in a northeastern (read: secular) state like Connecticut.
“and I think that anyone who knows anything about teenage sexual activity knows that statistically teens don’t use condoms in very large numbers.”
I wouldn’t have thought this. If you’d asked me what percentage of sexually active high school seniors were using condoms, I might have said 75%. Seriously, what girl in her right mind takes that sort of risk?
Really- Knowing what I do about condoms, I don’t think I could recommend them to a teenager and keep a straight face. Not because they’re ineffective per se, but because for many men, including me, they sap most of the enjoyment out of sex. My honest advice to a teenager would be, “It’s very, very risky to have multiple partners. On the other hand, if you’re going to use a condom (and you should), then you might as well not have intercourse in the first place.”
#20:
“I’m a strong proponent of sex ed…”
Couple questions for you:
1. Do you really think the issue for most older kids (17-18) is “lack of information”?
2. To what extent do you think sex-ed should include something more than just “information”. That is to say more than just: “These are some forms of contraception. Here’s how effective each is at preventing pregnancy. Here’s how effective each is at preventing disease. Here’s a list of sexually transmitted diseases and how gross they are. There you go.”
3. How frequently do you think sex-ed teachers (or sex-ed curriculum) wanders into the realm of teaching “values” (about which people may disagree) rather than just factual information? Do you think this is a valid concern?
I’m generally not one who drinks the World Mag kool-aid, but even I balk at some of the stuff that’s included in some sex-ed curricula.
On the balance I don’t feel like its as evil or corrupting as most WMB posters probably do; I just feel like its a big waste of time and money. Kids are going to do what kids are going to do. You can give them information, but you can’t “make” them responsible. And I’d argue “lack of information” probably isn’t the issue in our internet age.
Report comment to moderator
One last thing, there is only one unforgivable sin, and it is most definitely not sex outside of marriage. It is good Kim that you corrected your daughter on that one.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass I just want you to realize that the percentage using condoms are not that high, at least it wasn’t at the high school I attended.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA 1
Actually their body might ROT before they die.
My husband, retired Navy, used to see lots of military on ship who were getting all kinds of nasty diseases. They were in a lot of PAIN.
People need to know what nasty stuff they can get from sex.
Just telling children not to smoke because they can get cancer, or not to do drugs isn’t enough to keep them healthy. And telling children where to get condoms and abortions isn’t going to help either.
What will the GOV’T under OBAMACARE require of Americans, when THEY have to pay for the consequences of CASUAL SEX?
Report comment to moderator
HRW
Are you saying that rich kids aren’t having sex?
Or they are having sex because they are more rich and thus RICH inequality is making THEM have sex too.
I’d say more RICH kids are likely to have sex than poor kids. It’s just that rich kids and/or their parents will take care of business (birthcontrol, etc.) without being counted in the research numbers.
Report comment to moderator
ROM116 and others
The stats come from a book called the Spirit Level.
And its not that poor kids have more sex, more pregnancies, and more babies. They do but kids from all social strata are more likely to have all three if they come from a society with a high degree of inequality. Rich and poor kids in Mississippi have sex while rich and poor kids in Vermont have less. Similarly, the rich and poor in Sweden abstain more than the rich and poor in America.
I agree that correlation as opposed to causation may be a possible explanation but almost all healthy societal indicators correlate with inequality (violence, drug addiction, physical and mental health, infant mortality, life expectancy) that inequality must be regarded as a factor.
Report comment to moderator
buddy
1. No.
2. There’s a thin line between giving information and giving advice. When you prioritize the information you give or spend more time with one type of birth control, you are giving advice. As it is I try to give equal time but abstinence does get priority (it is middle school). But I don’t moralize — I give practical reasons and leave it at that.
3. Most middle school teachers prefer not to teach health (at least the sex ed portion), hence they tend to stick to the curriculum and get it over with. Again its a thin line between values and facts; some people might object to homophobia awareness and date rape when we discuss bullying, etc. I think I stick to the facts but … I teach in a diverse neighborhood which has a large Muslim minority as well as evangelicals. I’ve never had complaints from either but some parents like to review the sex ed portion of the curriculum.
Report comment to moderator
What I have seen in my many years of going to church is that the church is rather light on teaching that there is still a price we pay for our sins. The old song “Jesus Paid it All” is not accurate. Even though we receive forgiveness we will still have to live with some results of our sin. These results can be in many forms. What is wonderful is that if we chose to follow God’s way he lightens the results of our sin and gives us a new life. If the church teaches God is always there to forgive you and doesn’t add we will still have a price to pay it softens sin and is not telling the full truth.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, where there is inequality there is usually cultural diversity. Some cultures are more accepting of premarital sex than others. For example due to the shortage of marriageable men it is almost the norm in the black community. How do these stats stand up where the poor are Latino, Asian or Muslim?
Report comment to moderator
#30:
Re: #1, does that mean you consider sex-ed mainly effective only for younger kids?
Re: #2, I agree the line is thin. I feel like most of what people object to in sex-ed instruction are the value judgments. That, and inappropriate info that isn’t directly related to contraception or venereal disease. IMO a sex-ed teacher should almost never use the word “should”, or say something’s “okay” or “not okay” (those being value judgments). Words like “normal” and “natural” can also be dangerous since they carry a connotation of positivity.
Re: #3, I wasn’t trying to imply that you personally value-ize your instruction. But that practice does seem to be pretty prevalent, often being codified directly into the curriculum.
I feel like its possible to teach sex-ed in such a way as to not contradict “orthodox Christian thought” (while simultaneously not ticking off those who are utterly opposed to it), but that it rarely happens that way.
I’m guessing you do consider it valuable and useful. Honestly, looking back on mine (6th grade, taught by my science teacher, a woman), I can’t say it was very helpful. This was nearly 25 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, your #2 suggests that maybe sex ed “should” indeed not be taught in schools at all. How on earth does one (or why should one) teach sex ed without value judgments? Sex is properly between husband and wife; saying so is a “value judgment” . . . but avoiding saying so, and saying (for example) “partner” instead is also a value judgment! (I get disgusted at modern books on pregnancy and childbirth that say only “your partner,” Please, go ahead and say “your husband” and show marriage as the norm for childbirth!!)
Wisdom would say that a teacher use enough value judgments to say “husband and wife” and to leave off discussion of such topics as aren’t necessary to the discussion of reproduction (such as alternative sexual practices).
Report comment to moderator
“How on earth does one (or why should one) teach sex ed without value judgments?”
Easy. Don’t teach values; teach information. And try to confine that set of information to things that the vast, vast majority of parents (including evangelical Christians) wouldn’t object to.
Describe the anatomical aspects of men and women, and how procreation takes place from a biological perspective. Provide information on what forms of contraception exist, along with their efficacy (or lack thereof) for preventing pregnancy and disease. Provide information on the seriousness (and general grossness) of venereal disease. Encourage kids to talk with their parents about the subject of sex. Maybe outline the local laws governing who can have sex with whom (age wise). Define sexual abuse and rape.
Report comment to moderator
I think most of you here know me and my values well enough to understand that it is a fine line a mother walks. I want my child to know that sex outside of marriage isn’t acceptable BUT I also don’t want some boy convincing her to go for it and her not being protected. My standard line with her is “Boys have cooties until You are 30 and they carry diseases”. Sure I can take her to the doctor and put her on birth control all day long but that will only avoid a pregnancy. What about herpes, HPV, HIV, etc. A condom is still the best way to protect against diseases IF they are going to have sex. THE ABSOLUTE BEST WAY TO PROTECT AGAINST AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY AND DISEASES IS NOT TO HAVE SEX AT ALL.
As I used to tell guys, no one has ever died from NOT having sex and quite a few have died FROM having sex. You’ll get over it.
Report comment to moderator
But in all of this I want my daughter to know that no matter what she can come to me.
My mother wasn’t in the picture when I decided to have sex the first time and even if she had been I didn’t have the kind of relationship with her that I could talk to her about that sort of thing. All she ever told me about sex was “DON’T”. She told me that all the boys/men would slap the guy on the back and congratulate him and the girl (meaning me) would just be called a slut and a whore. When she was still functioning she would did through my stuff for evidence of what I was doing. To this day I cannot keep a diary or journal and write down my thoughts. She once found a little snippet written down where a guy thanked me for the “Cherry”
Report comment to moderator
It was the cherry was a soda fountain cherry coke and it was a joke between the two of us because we were friends and sex just was not going to happen between the two of us. My mother got on the phone and called everyone she could think of to talk to them about what Christopher had written in my memory book and what did they think it meant and should she take me to the doctor to be tested?
Do you people honestly think I would treat my child that way? NO I wouldn’t. I want to raise her to respect herself and her body. A confident young woman with a lot of self respect is not going to fall for the first smoothISH line some guy floats out there. I actually laughed in the face of one guy who had gotten a l
Report comment to moderator
a little too aggressive on a date one night. He stated that he only wanted to give me pleasure. Yeah right! I know whose pleasure you are worried about, now I think it is time to take me home.
Report comment to moderator
#31
What I have seen in my many years of going to church is that the church is rather light on teaching that there is still a price we pay for our sins.
Other than STDs, the (Ontario)curriculum is rather light on consequences. I like to tell the kids there is a certain order to life — school, career, marriage, kids. And mess with the order and any chance of social mobility will go down the drain. I also tell them that there is a one-year paid maternity/paternity leave (Cdn federal gov’t program) waiting for you after you have a kid — if you have a kid while flipping burgers part time at McDonald’s the payoff is a lot lower than the pay off if you wait until you have secured your career. (Its based on unemployment insurance premiums). Kids need to be informed of the long term financial consequences.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, where there is inequality there is usually cultural diversity. Some cultures are more accepting of premarital sex than others. For example due to the shortage of marriageable men it is almost the norm in the black community. How do these stats stand up where the poor are Latino, Asian or Muslim?
I’m not sure if you mean cultural diversity causes income/wealth inequality? This could mean one’s ethnicity determines their wealth or racism causes inequality? The first is racist and latter can’t be held to be a central cause.
If you mean cultural diversity could be a better explanation for higher pregnancy rates, I would still disagree. Outside of America, race has very little to do with rate of teen pregnancy. In fact, the relationship of inequality to a host of social health factors still stands even when race is not a factor.
When stats are broken into income groups (grouping the population into 5 groups of 20% for example), lower income groups regardless of race have higher rates of pregnancy. More interesting though is the rate of teen pregnancy is higher in each income group in unequal societies than in more egalitarian societies. For example, teen pregnancy in the UK is higher in every income group when compared to Sweden. Its as if the social and health problems of lower income groups infect the rest of society. Even in conservative Catholic Portugal and Ireland, the rate of teen pregnancy reflects their place along the inequality graph, that is, in the case of Portugal its quite high.
Even within the US, when you compare high inequality states — mostly the old South – with relatively equal states mostly the Upper Midwest, Vermont and New Hampshire — teen pregnancy rates reflect rate of inequality.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #1, does that mean you consider sex-ed mainly effective only for younger kids?
No that means after they get through middle school health class in Ontario (if taught properly) they should have enough information to make the right decisions. However, high school students are notrious for making wrong choices despite being given the right information — (even adults make bad choices despite the information available, look at American mortgage brokers, stock managers, and Republican voters)
IMO a sex-ed teacher should almost never use the word “should”, or say something’s “okay” or “not okay” (those being value judgments). Words like “normal” and “natural” can also be dangerous since they carry a connotation of positivity.
In a perfect world maybe but when discussing STDs I do say “should” use a condom. And I do say its okay to tell someone “No”. “And guys when a girl says NO it means NO” “its normal/natural for you to think you need to continue but a cold shower also works”
Re: #3, I wasn’t trying to imply that you personally value-ize your instruction. But that practice does seem to be pretty prevalent, often being codified directly into the curriculum.
Elementary education is probably the most bourgeois/middle class institution out there with secondary education close behind. There’s very little danger of curriculum stepping outside middle class values. I do see some conflict between rural and urban values but that conflict is present in almost everything in North America. Canada (and esp. Ontario) surprisingly is a more urbanized country than America. In fact, all western countries are overwhelmingly urban except America and hence I think the value conflicts are more prevalent in America (for more than just sex ed)
I feel like its possible to teach sex-ed in such a way as to not contradict “orthodox Christian thought”
so far I haven’t upset the conservative Muslims but I also think some of what I say does make it to the evening supper table conversation (esp with the female students)
I’m guessing you do consider it valuable and useful. Honestly, looking back on mine (6th grade, taught by my science teacher, a woman), I can’t say it was very helpful. This was nearly 25 years ago.
35 years ago in grade eight science. It may have cleared up a few things but it was nothing the vast majority of the class hadn’t already figured out. But it was the bare minimal information.
Report comment to moderator
oops should be “doesn’t make it to the supper table discussion”
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass,
I assume it’s possible to teach sex the way you have outlined–but don’t you see that isn’t “value-free”? Your approach isn’t saying (for example) that a happy result of sex is pregnancy, or that sex is only done within marriage, and thus it IS presenting the “value” that sex is recreational and pregnancy a potential negative result. That’s a “value.” Not a virtue, but a value.
For the child who is waiting till marriage for sex, birth control is quite literally irrelevant and so is the age of consent, so presenting such information “value free” and NOT as something you’ll need to know when you’re married is presenting it as information you may need to know today. When you tell kids how to write a book report, it isn’t because they may do it in ten years, it’s because you want them to write one this week. “How to” information goes beyond informational into preparation, and thus drivers ed waits until kids are ready to drive, and we generally don’t teach high school kids how to fill out a 1040 long form. They don’t need to know that information. We don’t tell them how to get a marriage license either, because they probably don’t need to know that information yet. But then we DO tell them how to use a condom (and perhaps show them how as well) and hide our telling under the pretense it’s “informational.” No, “how to” is instructional, not value free. Do you think it’s value free to take a class of kindergartners and show them how to take a car out of neutral and put it in gear? You didn’t say you’d show them how a condom is used, so perhaps you agree with me on this part of it. But even presenting the information at all, without pointing out that this is a choice you may make when you’re married, is giving a “value” that sexual activity is a choice the child may make today.
Report comment to moderator
“If you mean cultural diversity could be a better explanation for higher pregnancy rates, I would still disagree. Outside of America, race has very little to do with rate of teen pregnancy.”
Race and culture are two different things. I should have said black American culture is more accepting of premarital sex. This may not be the same for blacks in other countries. I just noticed that all the state you mentioned either had large black populations or hardly any at all.
Beside what do you mean by inequality? Are there more rich people in the inequality states or just more poor people? Are the rich richer in the inequality state than in the other states?
Report comment to moderator
It’s almost as if we teach these kids that they are nothing but animals and that they should behave like they are nothing but animals.
Meanwhile, kids are getting STDs at an unprecidented rate and the rate of babies born to Americans out of wedlock is at 40 percent. In my opinion, that makes America a rather evil country nowadays, in this regard. If you want to argue with that, then give me your justification for letting that rate get that high. We certainly despise children in America these days, though few would admit this because they don’t “feel” any despising feelings for them. But the proof that we despise children in America is in how we treat them and neglect their real needs (not in how we feel)..
Report comment to moderator
I recently read Miriam Grossman’s book, “Unprotected.” It was about how political correctness on the college campus is hurting young women terribly. Grossmans sees first hand what is hidden from most of us. At first, she wrote the book annonymously out of fear that there would be a backlash from those in her profession who are sold out to political correction regardless of how silly it is and how much it hurts our kids.
Report comment to moderator
I should have said black American culture is more accepting of premarital sex.
Somehow I doubt it. Class factors — lower income vs middle class probably have more to do with it than race or culture. Or rural vs urban.
I just noticed that all the state you mentioned either had large black populations or hardly any at all.
I said Old South but in looking up the book in front of me I should have also added New York and California.
In terms of income inequality from highest to lowest: New York, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Alabama, Connecticut, Texas, Florida. Of these states only Conn does not have a high teen pregnancy rate (includes birth and abortions). The same pattern is exhibited in countries when you compare high income inequality to teen pregnancy. If African American culture was the crux of the problem, then the results wouldn’t be replicated on an international scale. For example Portugal or New Zealand — two relatively homogeneous cultures. And in the UK, teen pregnancy is mostly a white teen phenomenon — Caribbean culture (at least the Canadian variant) frowns on premarital sex. Also note, teen pregnancy even among the middle and upper income brackets is higher in unequal societies than in more egalitarian societies. That is the top 20% in the US have a higher rate of teen pregnancy than Japan or Sweden.
Beside what do you mean by inequality?
In this particular case I mean the difference in income between the top 20% of the population and lowest 20% of the population. There are measurements using 10% or something called the Gini co-efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality#Effects_of_inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Report comment to moderator
Joel
I don’t think we treat children as animals when we tell them how babies are made. In fact, we treat them as humans when we communicate to each other. Learning about sex by watching the neighbors dog or cow (depending on an urban or rural setting) is more animal like.
No-one here is justify the rate of teen pregnancy (for example) rather we seem to be stuck on causation — beyond the rather obvious.
I suggest it may have something to do with economic structure of the society. Others have other ideas but noone thinks its a good idea.
Now what are their real needs — a loving caring family which values them for who they are?? I think everyone here will agree that’s something that should be a given. However, I think we have disagreements about how to achieve these needs.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, As I have said before, the more acceptable immorality and irresponsibility are in a society the more those who avoid them will rise above the fray. I bet if you look at these same stats on a time line you will also see a correlation.
Report comment to moderator
1 – When kids ask ‘how far is too far?’ in regards to sexual activity before marriage, I tell them there’s a better question – which is ‘What do I want to save for the one person I will be married to for the rest of my life?’ That opens up an entirely different conversation.
2 – Tell young men to treat every girl they become close to as if they were someone else’s wife – and the way they’d want their future wife treated.
3 – Practice ‘relational stewardship’ – part of biblical stewardship is taking care of something (that’s loaned to you) such that when it’s returned to the rightful owner it’s in better shape than when loaned. Practice that in all your pre-marital relationships.
4 – Read Elizabeth Elliot’s book ‘Passion and Purity’ … it’s a great read for all teens (and older) – guys and gals. It’s principles apply far beyond relationship too.
Report comment to moderator
Young people need accountability just as much as adults do.
If we can teach our youth to obey God and parents, then I think it’s reasonable to expect that they can obey God in keeping themselves pure. Of course knowing that we are prone to sin, we need to keep the temptations as far away from our children and ourselves as possible. Just as wise husbands and wives would want to be totally transparent in their computer usage and time spent with the opposite sex, our children should not have unlimited access to the opposite sex, especially without our knowledge. That just sets them up for failure.
We should teach not just purity, but practical ways to remain chaste and pure. Boys and girls should not be alone together. When they are seeking to get to know one another, they should not tempt each other by engaging in those activities that make it hard to be pure. Going to the movie theater where the cover of darkness may be a temptation, for instance. I think focusing on marriage points young people to the goal of finding a mate, not just having fun and allowing infatuation to dictate how one behaves.
Is that so unreasonable?
Report comment to moderator
I think there have been some really good ideas put forth here, but I question if some of the posters are living in the real world. If you aren’t going to let them go to the movie theater, what alternative do you have planned? I attended a Christian school who made each student sign a contract on the things they wouldn’t do.
I will not listen to (Popular Radio Station),
I will not attend movies.
I will not attend dances.
The list of I will not’s was quite long. The list of what we were allowed to do was quite short.
Remember that nature hates a void and will find something to fill it.
Report comment to moderator
I probably am not a good person to post on this thread because I have a 13 year old daughter and have not faced all the situations yet. I will let her go to the movies with a group and I will let her go skating with a group. We have a rule that she can only spend two nights a month away from home during the school year. This summer was different. She would go spend the night with one friend and drag two home the next night.
Perhaps some of our older parents can weigh in on what has actually worked for them.
Were your sons and daughters virgins when they married? Were you?
Report comment to moderator
#50
kbells
I have no idea what that means
Kim
I agree — controlling the atmosphere and the situation is nearly impossible and leaves them unable to make hard decisions on their own. Information and honesty is the key — “this” is why you don’t go out alone, “this” is why you drink in pairs, this is why I don’t trust this guy, etc.
My daughter is the same age as yours and similar social life — girls come and go at my place (even when its not my “week”) but boys are not yet part of the scene although they are a definitely a part of the conversation esp in summer camp.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, Baby Girl has a friend who is younger than she is but is built in a way I never was even when I spent an hour and half in the gym 4 days a week. The girl is completely boy crazy. Her goal was to have a boyfriend by the end of the first week of school. I listen to a lot of conversations on the way to school. I interject my thoughts into the conversation. Why would you want to pick out a boy the first week of school? You hardly know them. You haven’t seen them all summer. They could have gotten weird or something. Better to wait.
I would rather talk to my daughter and tell her the mistakes I made and help her make the right decisions. If I come at her with a hammer fist telling her what she can and can’t do the first chance she gets she will do it to spite me. And then where have we gotten? And NO I am not one of those freako mothers who wants to be my child’s best friend. I am her mother. We can be friends when she is grown.
Report comment to moderator
My daughter has a similar friend who has the body of 18 year old and the mind of a 12 year old. She tried to convince my daughter to go to community dances in an other town (ages 11 to 14), I refused to let her go as I thought there was no point in meeting new people in an other town when the local town (20, 000) and the school (500) were big enough. I’m glad I did because her friend constantly talked about meeting guys and making out etc when she went to the dances. My daughter lost interest and spends more time with other friends from soccer, dance and school.
I can remember doing things precisely because adults told me I shouldn’t so I’m careful to outline why as well as say No.
Report comment to moderator
In the “Women’s Interest” magazine shelf, lots of titles contained one of two words: “Wedding” and “Bride”.
No men’s magazine title contains either of those words, to my knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney, I am not sure where you are going with that. I have the opportunity to councel some women online. Just tonight one shared that she broke up with her boyfriend, lost her job, etc. Turns out she move across the country with her boyfriend. Things weren’t going well and they broke up. A month after the break up she lost her job. She now has plans to move home. The glaringly obvious thing to me is I wouldn’t move across the country to be with a man who wouldn’t put a wedding ring on my finger.
Report comment to moderator
Kim
It’s merely an observation on the difference between males and females that seemed appropriate to the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
It is the mixed messages we are sending our children. I once had a man say to me that his father had told him “Every piece of a&& you don’t get is a piece you never will get.” and another say, “How am I going to tell my son to get as much a&& as he can and my daughter not to give it up?” THEN we turn around and want to protect our daughters?????? YES we need to protect our daughters but we also need to teach our sons to respect the girls/women they date. Who was it along the lines here who said something about treating every woman as you would want your future wife to be treated???
Report comment to moderator
#20
“The rate of inequality is used to explain a wide degree of societal indicators including physical health, mental health, violence, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, crime.”
Is inequality the cause or the effect? And you just know that inequality is the excuse for some measure of the behaviors.
Report comment to moderator
62. That’s what I’m trying to say. Immorality and irresponsibility can and usually do lead to poverty. The more immoral, irresponsible people you have the more poor you will have. The wealth is going to go somewhere, usually to that ever shrinking group who have shown some common sense.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, good summary. I’ve wanted to answer what seems like a weird assumption that “inequality” somehow forces people into immorality (like the assumption that poor people–even people with enough food to eat–are somehow “forced” to steal), but didn’t know where to begin. American poor are nearly all better off than the poor of the rest of the world, and often live off others’ hard work and not their own. What’s cause and what’s effect?
And if you can say that American poor tend to come from fatherless homes, find it “necessary” to depend on others for their existence, often have family members in jail, are sexually immoral in large numbers, and a number of other social pathologies that aren’t necessarily true of poor people in other nations, how can we choose “inequality” as THE deciding factor, the “cause” in the cause and effect? We could just as easily choose any other random factor that’s true of American poor and not of other poor people (say, they are more likely to be renters and not owners, or perhaps that they all have TVs and most don’t work for a living) and say that is the cause. Or maybe it’s that they got flu shots when they were children, or maybe it’s because they speak English. “Inequality” seems a rather unscientific place to settle.
It’s actually far more likely that people in a mobile society, who CAN move from one class to another, and DO NOT, but instead live on government handouts, are more likely to have social pathologies in the lower classes, and that social pathologies in a relatively free society will not stay in the “class” where they started. Or how about this: that those in a society free enough to have people moving from one class to another also have more leisure time (more time to be involved in immorality, and to watch it and listen to it in their entertainment)? In societies where nearly everyone works sun-up to sun-down and is tired in the evening, having a functional family unit is more likely. Also, with more freedom and more ability to move between classes comes less likelihood to stay in the community where one grew up, more privacy, and thus less accountability to the community for one’s moral choices. Have all these possibilities been eliminated in the foregone conclusion that “inequality” is the ogre and thus rich people should be made poorer?
Honestly, the main reason we have inequality is because we have more rich people–because our poor aren’t “lower” than other nations’ poor, they’re higher. Getting rid of rich people won’t solve this problem; it will simply make the whole nation poorer.
Report comment to moderator
Is inequality the cause or the effect? And you just know that inequality is the excuse for some measure of the behaviors.
Good question and one can argue the relative merits of different explanation for different patholigies or even for singular stats. However, the inequality rate is a common denominator.
kbells
Immorality and irresponsibility can and usually do lead to poverty. The more immoral, irresponsible people you have the more poor you will have. The wealth is going to go somewhere, usually to that ever shrinking group who have shown some common sense.
Are you saying the rich are rich because they are less immoral or irresponsible?? And the poor are poor because of immorality?? A simple example may serve as rebuttal. Working class wages rose significantly in America from the 1950s to 1970s but since that time the wages of the bottom 20% stagnated. Union membership also rose during the 50 and 60s and began to decline in the late 70s and are at record lows today. Are the poor now poor because they are bad or because they lack unions?
The claim has nothing to do with the achievement of individual wealth only that the extent of inequality increases the chances for developing a wide range of pathologies throughout society.
Report comment to moderator
95% of Americans have had sex outside of marriage. We need more sex education, not less. Abstinence training has been proven ineffective and a waste of federal dollars.
Kids have sex. It’s a fact, we need to prevent as much harm as possible by providing birth control, condoms, and Plan B as needed. In a perfect world, they’d wait until they’re 18, but it’s not and they don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone who is poor isn’t immoral and irresponsible, some are just unlucky, but almost everyone who immoral and irresponsible will become poor. The first group, the unlucky, has probably stayed about the same size. I’m betting the second group has grown.
And the Unions served a purpose until they got greedy and started putting their own companies out of business.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve wanted to answer what seems like a weird assumption that “inequality” somehow forces people into immorality but didn’t know where to begin.
Noone is forced to do anything however the statistical evidence indicates greater social problems in societies with greater inequality.
American poor are nearly all better off than the poor of the rest of the world,
I’m discussing the top 20 countries here. The poor in most western countries are definitely better off than the bottom 20% in America.
It’s actually far more likely that people in a mobile society, who CAN move from one class to another, and DO NOT, but instead live on government handouts, are more likely to have social pathologies in the lower classes, and that social pathologies in a relatively free society will not stay in the “class” where they started
I’m a little confused by the above — are you saying that social mobility causes greater social problems???
That’s not true either because social mobility is more prevalent in more equal societies. That is a working class youth in Sweden is more likely to move up income and class than his/her American counterpart. In the post WWII era that wasn’t true but since the 80s, American social mobility has stagnated. So America is less equal and has less social mobility but more social pathologies.
that those in a society free enough to have people moving from one class to another also have more leisure time …. In societies where nearly everyone works sun-up to sun-down and is tired in the evening, having a functional family unit is more likely
That’s quite a bizarre claim — Americans work harder and longer than any other country yet have higher rates of violence, teen pregnancy, etc. It seems despite all that hard work and long hours, Americans still find time to misbehave while their European counterparts are spending a month at the beach and not misbehaving.
Also, with more freedom and more ability to move between classes comes less likelihood to stay in the community where one grew up, more privacy, and thus less accountability to the community for one’s moral choices.
Again class mobility is more probable in Europe than in America yet the incidences of violence and lack of accountability is in the US. I would think frustration and stress at not achieving a better life than their parents may be a cause for some of the frustration.
the main reason we have inequality is because we have more rich people–because our poor aren’t “lower” than other nations’ poor, they’re higher.
When you are comparing the top 20% or the bottom 20% its relatively the same. America may have a super wealthy 1% but when you slice it in 20% blocks it doesn’t make much difference.
As I said I’m talking about the top 20 countries and in that case America’s poor is either the same or worse off.
When discussing social mobility and how its achieved I suggest the following
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Report comment to moderator
“The Frivolity of Evil” is an interesting insight by Theodore Dalrymple, pen name of a doctor who practiced medicine in an English slum for a decade and a half.
Report comment to moderator
A quote:
“Intellectuals propounded the idea that man should be freed from the shackles of social convention and self-control, and the government, without any demand from below, enacted laws that promoted unrestrained behavior and created a welfare system that protected people from some of its economic consequences. When the barriers to evil are brought down, it flourishes; and never again will I be tempted to believe in the fundamental goodness of man, or that evil is something exceptional or alien to human nature.”
Report comment to moderator
HRW, if you’re only talking about the top 20 countries we’re talking about different things. I still think “inequality” as a cause is highly unlikely.
Baywife, if 95% of Americans have sex outside of marriage (a ridiculous exaggeration), it would seem that our kids have already figured out how to have sex, and maybe it’s time for some training in morality. More sex education is highly unlikely to help, though.
Report comment to moderator
“As I said I’m talking about the top 20 countries and in that case America’s poor is either the same or worse off.”
Define “worse off”. My Dad grew up hungry and barefoot poor, not “I don’t have designer shoes poor”. Education was not totally free back then. You paid fees and provided your own supplies and lunch. His Mom could barely afford to send a piece of cornbread in his lunch so he had to borrow books to do his homework. Yet he NEVER resorted to crime. He raised us working class. We raised our kids middle class. A couple of them are backing up because they are lazy and irresponsible. (you don’t buy a new laptop when you don’t have heat in the house) But a couple of them are going places.
Report comment to moderator
#70
that’s an interesting quote and it sounds good but its wrong. Those countries who have either a welfare system to reduce inequality (eg Sweden) or reduvce inequality through other means (eg Japan) have less social problems or what your quote would refer to as “evil” — mental health issues, murder, large prison population, breakdown of trust, etc.
Kbells
Its not that the working class commit more crime than the upper class its that society in general will commit more crimes if there is inequality.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl — your right, there is enough “information”. Adults need to instruct children that actions have consequences.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, But according to you there was more inequity before the 1950’s was there more crime then?
Report comment to moderator
“That’s quite a bizarre claim — Americans work harder and longer than any other country yet have higher rates of violence, teen pregnancy, etc. It seems despite all that hard work and long hours, Americans still find time to misbehave while their European counterparts are spending a month at the beach and not misbehaving.”
Are the same one who are working so hard committing the crimes?
Report comment to moderator
John Denney
Here’s another quote from the same article
But if the welfare state is a necessary condition for the spread of evil, it is not sufficient. After all, the British welfare state is neither the most extensive nor the most generous in the world, and yet our rates of social pathology—public drunkenness, drug-taking, teenage pregnancy, venereal disease, hooliganism, criminality—are the highest in the world.
Actually its the second highest (America’s is the second highest). Here Dalrymple recognizes he can’t blame it on the welfare state since statistically it doesn’t make sense. Britain with a minimal welfare state has higher pathologies than those with extensive welfare states. He goes on to blame the Left’s culture of rights without responsibilities and the Rights culture of consumer choice. In both cases he simplifies the right and the left. He need to look elsewhere.
At one point he mentions the difference in crime from 1921 to 2001. And yes reported crime is up dramatically. But I think if he compared the years 1971 (or maybe even 1981) and 2001 he would have found the same dramatic rise in crime. Until the 1980s and similar to the US, England had an improving rate of social mobility and lessening level of inequality. Post-Thatcher and Reagan, both the UK and the US saw a rise in inequality and a lower rate of social mobility. The result has been an increase of social pathologies. There is barely a resemblance of a welfare state to blame.
Report comment to moderator
Y’know, I really think this thought of American society being sexually immoral because of a wide gap between rich and poor is an interesting hypothesis, not provable, in my opinion probably not true, biblically irrelevant (non-marital sex is wrong, regardless, and we have specific commands about the poor, regardless), and a distraction from the main point, so I won’t discuss it further.
Report comment to moderator
Truth is truth. We can twist it, pervert it, pretend about it, deny it, face it, live it, etc. and it still is the truth. As musician, I can choose to do my thing without any thought to anyone else. I might play some great stuff. However, it might take away from the song. And playing my own thing probably won’t bring the result I desire – to feel good (pleasure) in what I am doing—-for a sustained amount of time. In playing music, I have found much pleasure in restraint. I believe that same restraint is what makes the moments where it is intended for me to play out actually very satisfying. Just like my sex life..with my wife. I have had sex with no restraint and with restraint. NO COMPARISON. Having sex the way it is intended to be had (we all know what that is if we can be honest with ourselves) is SATISFYING and good. It is a shame many kids don’t get taught that using a gift as intended makes the gift very enjoyable. (It will last longer and won’t hurt you). That is the real shame. Most kids probably either are taught about sex by their classmates anything goes)or by their parents (sex is bad or wrong – until you are married). And then we tell them to give it the person you are supposed to love the most. Either no boundaries or it bad. That, to me is the sad thing. No wonder kids are confused about this stuff. Just my thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
I think a big part of the problem is the way irresponsible sex is portrayed on TV and in the movies. Virgins are made fun of and the promiscuous are heroes. It is consider stupid to turn down any sex offered to you at any time. And these are the “family” shows.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl says:
<>
That’s a real statistic, courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute. There’s nothing immoral about having sex outside of marriage, as long as it’s with someone you have a relationship with. More sex education helps prevent the consequences of sex — pre-marital, extra-marital, or marital.
Most people don’t want to be part of that tiny 5% minority.
Kim is doing a great job of talking to her daughter realistically. The chance of her finishing college a virgin is slim to nil. Virginity is only likely is teen-aged brides, so expecting an adult in their 20s or 30s to be untried is remote. And most of us don’t want our children to marry in their teens.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Baywife, I suppose maybe I’m hanging out with too many people in that 5%. But I’m suspicious of that statistic, and would want to know what group of people they got it from. For example, more than 5% of people are virgins on their wedding day, and these days a person who makes it to the wedding bed a virgin has passed some pretty strong odds . . . the chance of adultery from that person seems fairly slim. Also, today’s under-30 crowd (for example) is a lot more likely to have extra-marital sex than the over-60 crowd, so who are they including in their surveys? If they are looking at a very narrow slice of people, say those aged 25-35 who claim no transcendent sexual ethics, then it’s believable. Otherwise, I’d like to see the data.
For the record, I’m 43, never been married, and have chosen to honor God with my sexuality. I likewise know a lot of people who were virgins on their wedding day and sexually pure in their marriage or, if still single, are still virgins (ranging from teens to sixties). The group includes both men and women. Granted most of these are Christians, but the 5% figure is still not a realistic one, and I doubt it is true, even if one limits it only to unbelievers.
And yes, it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage, and “having a relationship” is a really broad way to determine what is and is not immoral. Does that mean as long as it isn’t paid prostitution, it’s OK? At least the second date?
Report comment to moderator
My husband, as a family physician, often sees young college men and women with STDs. One question he has to ask is, “How many partners have you had?” Many have wondered what time frame he was talking about and come up with answers like 5 in the last month. Sometimes, he will ask if they are getting paid. He says that question will make some think a little more about what their behavior is, but not often.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, you’re one of the unfortunate few who hasn’t had sex. It’s too bad you saved yourself for God; I doubt he’s interested.
Here are the statistics:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html
Report comment to moderator
Baywife,
I am sure you have heard this one, “Statistics never lie, liars use statistics.” You sound like many of the couples I counsel that do not posess the ability to be self controled when it comes to sex. Their sex life in one dimensional. We exist in three dimensions (Body, Mind or Soul, and Spirit). Sex between a husband and wife is the only way to satisfy all three dimesions. I can say this a happily married man. As a single man, I was promsicuous. Sex always left part of me wanting more. I also knew deep inside myself that being sexual outside of marriage was wrong. I was not a Christian at that time in my life, and did not grow up in a Christian home. I have experienced both being sexually active outside of marriage and in a monogomous marriage relationship. I have seen many couples allow God to change their perspective, their minds, and thier hearts. They are some of the most compotent and satisfied people I have ever met. Most of them are experiencing sexual purity for the first time since childhood. AND THEY LOVE IT!!! Sex is created to be a covantnat between husband and wife, not just a enjoyable release of doppemine between two people. And I don’t think you or any one else needs to be mean spirited about someone saving themselves. I think that is much more difficult than giving in and having sex before marriage. Be careful with how you treat people. After this vapor of a life is over, you may find that you are one God is no longer instersted in.
Report comment to moderator
Baywife,
By the way, I have atending multiple weddings this years where wonderful, productive, and social accepted people got married where both the bride and groom are Virgins. And they are not teenagers. Maybe finding a healthy church to build some relationships would allow you to see that not everyone is the way you see them. And yes, I am fully aware that many couples and teenagers that go to church on regualr basis are sexually immoral (sex of any type outside of a hetrosexual marriage). That fact does not discredit the people that “save” themselves for marriage. I mentioned in my previous post my promiscuity prior to marriage. The only sexual regrets I have are the encounters I had before marriage. I CHOSE to not wait for God’s plan and have had to work through much heartache and bad habits. God forgives, but often he lets us experience and work through the consequences of our choices. My sex education class and my parents did not help me of teach me much in regards to sex. Parents are the best options to teach kids about sex. It is not “the talk”. Our kids will most likely experience sexually feelings multiple times a week. We as parents need to talk to our children about sex as often as we do about all their other activities. I beleive this in the best way to help them cope with overly sexualized world.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! Sorry for all the typing mistakes. I should have made a better effort in typing class.
Report comment to moderator
Congrats, Cheryl. You are in the top 5%.
Report comment to moderator
Do as I say..not as I do… seems to be my generations philosophy. We live our lives going about with stiff necks and pampas hearts and beat on our chests…and really believe we are a god, and yet shake our fingers at our kids ( who imitate us) and write articles on teen “unprotected sex). Yes it is a valid issue…but sex education begins with parents ,and knowing we should teach our children that pleasing God is much more valuable then pleasing others or self! Sex outside of marriage is a symptom of a sinful heart of adults and kids, not the issue!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!