The Volokh Conspiracy

"Abstinence" becomes "biblical sex only":

Walter Olson, who runs a terrific website about litigation abuse, sends me some info and commentary about the latest salvo in the culture war from the Bush administration:

According to online reports, the Bush administration in January issued regulations redefining "abstinence" in federal educational programs to mean avoidance of sex at any age whatsoever except within the framework of conventional heterosexual marriage. Loads of tax dollars will now be spent in American classrooms to enforce the message that gays and unmarried heterosexuals, no matter how ripe in age, should never have sex at all, no matter how monogamous. To quote the regs:

Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

[And later:] Throughout the entire curriculum, the term 'marriage' must be defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Consistent with Federal law)

Olson adds this additional commentary:

It seems to me that a classic bait-and-switch has gone on here. The federal government has devoted more than a billion dollars to "abstinence-only" education programs in schools. These programs have commanded fairly broad public support or at least tolerance, I think, because people who disagree on many other things will often agree that youngsters are better off postponing sexual experience until they are old enough to handle the consequences. Now it turns out that the message wasn't "teens are better off if they wait" but "let's reverse the sexual revolution".

Note also the confusion about "consistent with Federal law". The regulation-writers do not seem to realize that the Federal Marriage Amendment hasn't actually passed, and that nothing in federal law forbids Massachusetts from marrying same-sex couples. Such language inadvertently makes clear, however, that the abstinence program has cut loose from whatever original public-health rationale it may have had, and is now about enforcing social conformity, not reducing risks of disease or out-of-wedlock pregnancy or empowering novices to make more considered decisions.

An additional source of information on the new guidelines, complete with more links to the problematic nature of this policy, can be found here.

Joel B. (mail):
Okay, first...Federal Law does define marriage as the union of one man and woman. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Further it seems that we could do a lot worse than encouraging abstinence until marriage in our schools and we frequently do. As far as the abstinence program "cutting loose" from any public health rationale, let's not forget that many people, reasonably so, believe abstinence until marriage not only to be the best for people's physical health, but mental, emotional health as well.
4.22.2006 10:24am
Richard Riley (mail):
While Walter Olson is probably right that the Bush Administration is pushing "abstinence only" beyond its fair meaning, but he is not right to accuse the administration of "confusion" about federal law in this area. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, 1 USC 7, states:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The regulations that Walter Olson criticizes are simply quoting a federal statute currently on the books. Bad policy, maybe, but no "confusion."
4.22.2006 10:28am
jab (mail):
Joel &Richard,

I think it is pretty obvious/clear from context that Dale was referring to the fact that nothing in federal law prevents individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, not that federal law does not recognize same-sex marriage vis a vis federal institutions/regulations.
4.22.2006 10:39am
ak (mail):
To the extent that the guidelines expand the Defense of Marriage Act's definition of "marriage" into the only allowable, legal definition -- completely ignoring state law to the contrary -- they're misleading.

And one other weird element of the above-quoted text: "Sexual activity refers to any kind of sexual stimulation . . . between two persons." What doesn't this include? Kissing? "Second base"? Just one more area in which the Administration has acted in bad faith--and incidentally wasted a lot of taxpayer money.

Which is too bad, since a more modest (and honest) abstinence program, simply letting HS kids know that they're probably too young for intercourse and urging them to wait a couple of years, might do some good.
4.22.2006 10:47am
Been There, Done That:
Kids understand the difference between what is achievable and what is not. It's hard enough to contain the hormones to refrain from sex until some measure of adulthood, but they're just going to tune out the message of celibacy until marriage... the average age of which is not what it used to be.

So while the original abstinence message may get some traction, this Biblical approach is destined for complete failure.

I wonder whether the President and all his staff and the members of the GOP congressional delegation were all virgins on their wedding nights. Assuming the answer is yes, they are dangerously detached from modern American society and cannot possibly have a perspective on things relevant to leadership. Of course the answer is no, which suggests some combination of rank hypocrisy and self-delusion.

To those more libertarian right wingers, it is another embittering and alienating moment: this administration sells out free speech with mccain feingold, it generally pays no respect to our civil liberties, it cannot or will not preserve the tax cuts, it allows horrendous out of control spending, creates new entitlement programs, wants to put Harriet Miers (!) on the court...

but they are committed to repressing sex. That's what the GOP has become. The party of big government, but without sex. That's what we get voting for these guys. Not smaller government, not sound economic policy, not respect for individual rights, not much effort to fix the judiciary... just Bible study. ....sigh....
4.22.2006 10:50am
Freder Frederson (mail):
As far as the abstinence program "cutting loose" from any public health rationale, let's not forget that many people, reasonably so, believe abstinence until marriage not only to be the best for people's physical health, but mental, emotional health as well.

But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people, including most mental health professionals, in this country, do not. This is nothing but a very small minority trying to impose their warped, stilted, view of sexuality on a majority that is not buying it. What does this ultra-orthodox view of sexuality say to all those kids of divorced parents who may be in sexual relationships. Are they supposed go home and condemn their parents for being fornicators?
4.22.2006 11:06am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
I wonder what would happen if I called someone else's sexuality "warped" or "stilted." I'm guessing I'd be called a bigot by several of the usual suspects on this board.
4.22.2006 11:10am
Freder Frederson (mail):
I wonder what would happen if I called someone else's sexuality "warped" or "stilted."

I didn't call anyone's sexuality "warped" or "stilted", I called "view[s] on sexuality" warped and stilted. There is a huge difference.
4.22.2006 11:16am
check yourself:
Dale and others:

I disagree with much of what is being said here. Simply because it is unrealistic to expect people to live in accordance with the policy the government is promoting doesn't mean we shouldn't promote it. Should the speed limit laws go, simply because no one follows them? Of course not - they serve to dramatically reduce the average speed of a driver.

So, too, I would argue that abstinence education serves to reduce the number of sexual parterns one has in their lifetime. Even if it only reduces that number by 1 partner, that will significantly slow the spread of AIDS. And there is simply no question that the federal government has the power (and perhaps responsibility) to fight chronic communicable diseases. I see no reason to bash the Bush administration for wanting the "reverse the sexual revolution."

In libertarian terms: Why should my tax dollars be spent on AIDS research and treatment if I'm willing to engage in lifelong monogamy? AIDS is like drunk driving - virtually completely prventable at the individual level. We don't spend time and money teaching people how to safely drive drunk. Instead, we enforce abstinence. Surely, I don't want to criminalize sexual behavoir. But is it really that different?
4.22.2006 11:16am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
ahhh... huge difference. I see. So what happens if I call someone's VIEWS on sexuality warped? Would that be ok then?
4.22.2006 11:18am
ak (mail):
ahhh... huge difference. I see. So what happens if I call someone's VIEWS on sexuality warped? Would that be ok then?

If someone is not pushing their views about sexuality on you, then it would be rude. If, however, that someone is trying to get a billion dollars of Federal funds to push their views on your children ... well then, I think it's ok.
4.22.2006 11:26am
Quarterican (mail):
Of course, it's my impression that there are no studies to suggest abstinence education of the sort being pushed by the right wing is effective at preventing kids from having sex, AND ESPECIALLY at encouraging them to have safe sex once they do.

Who here has actually had sex ed in school in the last decade? (Raises hand.) Luckily, I was at a private school, where they covered the basic mechanics of sex, the risks involved to your physical health, the emotional aspect, how to have safe sex/what constituted safe sex, told that contraceptives weren't 100% certain (only 99%!) and that abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid disease and pregnancy, encouraged not to be so immature as to have sex due to some sense of peer pressure, and that it was our choice to do what we wanted when we felt we were ready. That's an effective message, I think, certainly helped by the fact that it was supported by my parents, and quite different from the "abstinence education" method, which seems like a shoddy way of fighting the spread of communicable diseases since it doesn't actually provide you with a complete set of tools to do so.
4.22.2006 11:27am
Freder Frederson (mail):
ahhh... huge difference. I see. So what happens if I call someone's VIEWS on sexuality warped? Would that be ok then?

Yes, it's okay with me--as long as you are not just using it to cover for a direct attack on that persons sexuality.

So, too, I would argue that abstinence education serves to reduce the number of sexual parterns one has in their lifetime. Even if it only reduces that number by 1 partner, that will significantly slow the spread of AIDS. And there is simply no question that the federal government has the power (and perhaps responsibility) to fight chronic communicable diseases. I see no reason to bash the Bush administration for wanting the "reverse the sexual revolution."

Well, you can argue that abstinence education serves to reduce the numbers of sexual partners one has in their lifetimes and aids in HIV prevention, but the facts would be against you. The studies show that abstinence education, while delaying first vaginal intercourse, actually increases the incidence of unprotected sex at first vaginal intercourse and other risky behaviors like anal intercourse.

The government is trying to impose a sexual morality on the nation that is a distinctly a minority view. Are you seriously arguing that most Americans believe that any sex outside of marriage is per se wrong and a point of view the government should be advocating?
4.22.2006 11:29am
TheSaint517:
I think the point my sex-ed teacher made was along the lines of this:

"Sex with a condom is like wearing a rubber glove...you don't feel as much. So you should wait until you're married so you can get the full pleasure without a condom."

Now that's compelling education!
4.22.2006 11:33am
Shangui (mail):
So, too, I would argue that abstinence education serves to reduce the number of sexual parterns one has in their lifetime. Even if it only reduces that number by 1 partner, that will significantly slow the spread of AIDS.

Except that the NIH's own studies have shown the students who take the "abstinence pledge" and actively participate in these programs, while they lose their virginity and average of about a year later than other students, are more likely to have unprotected sex when they do. So goodbye to any public health rational for the program.

See: "According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex" (Brückner H, Bearman P. After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health 2005; 36:271-278. Bearman PS, Brückner H. Promising the future: virginity pledges and first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology 2001; 106(4):859-912.
4.22.2006 11:34am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Only the government would seek to define sex by regulation. I hope they complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, NEPA, etc., etc. And didn;t try any categorical exclusion BS under NEPA, because sex affects the population affects the environment. It should have been done with a full blown Enviro Impact Statement.

By the end of the rulemaking, it will have achieved its end of encouraging abstinence. Government intervention will have made sex so boring that for the first time in the history of the human race no one is interested.
4.22.2006 11:35am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Well, I really don't want to get into another discussion of who's "pushing" what... I just felt like pointing out the rather hostile tone of Freder's post.

I've noticed something while reading the threads dealing with sexuality... When the rhetoric becomes especially nasty, it always seems to favor the "left." (I use that term because it's pithy and understandable... I understand it's far from perfectly accurate.) People attempting to (effectively) argue in favor of traditional sexual mores often go out of their way to avoid "hostile" language because it's understood that no one will be persuaded if you come across like a homophobic redneck or a crazy bible-thumper. (Yes... I realize these people exist, but I think on this board we can probably presume they don't represent the thrust of the argument)

On the other hand, people in favor of loosening or eliminating sexual stigmas in this country seem to benefit by turning the debate in as nasty a direction as possible. When the discussion degenerates into a snarling session of ad-hominems and name-calling, it naturally seems to favor the side that can claim "injury."

I dunno... I probably haven't seen this from every angle yet, but I just find it odd that Freder can use terms like "warped" to describe my "view of sexuality" when some kid can't use the word "shameful" without being subjected to government censorship. One side of this debate is being silenced because the rules of engagement are being written by the other side. I think I'm going to start calling people out on their rhetoric more often.
4.22.2006 11:42am
Andy Freeman (mail):
The above discussion reminds me of the "would you sleep with me for a million dollars ... we've already established that, we're just working out a price" story.

Does anyone really believe that a govt that is empowered to do something (teach values in this case), will always do it the desired way.

Perhaps using schools for "social education" wasn't such a good idea. After all, different folks think that social education means something else.
4.22.2006 11:48am
Freder Frederson (mail):
People attempting to (effectively) argue in favor of traditional sexual mores often go out of their way to avoid "hostile" language because it's understood that no one will be persuaded if you come across like a homophobic redneck or a crazy bible-thumper. (Yes... I realize these people exist, but I think on this board we can probably presume they don't represent the thrust of the argument)

Apparently, you have never read any of Clayton's postings whenever the subject turns to homosexuality.

And what exactly do you mean by "traditional sexual mores"? Those held by a small portion of the Western European Elite, (and then very hypocritically, check into the estimated number of prostitutes in Victorian London) for a couple hundred years?
4.22.2006 11:51am
Freder Frederson (mail):
Well, I really don't want to get into another discussion of who's "pushing" what... I just felt like pointing out the rather hostile tone of Freder's post.

Well, I do get hostile when the government tries to impose what is a distinctly minority view of what is unquestionably an issue of personal morality (which most of us should agree the government has no business having any opinion on--the private consensual sexual activities of adults).
4.22.2006 11:55am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Yes, freder... those.

And yes. I read almost all of Clayton's threads, unless I don't pick up on it until the 80th post or something. I stick by my last post.
4.22.2006 11:57am
Joel B. (mail):
Clayton is so unfairly maligned on this site it is amazing, even the way he was treated during his short residency was pretty grating.

Why shouldn't the government encourage private morality? Don't most "private" moralities eventually spill over to the public. It is amazing to watch however that what appears to be a very short period of time, that which used to be good and decent has become warped and stilted, and that which use to be considered damaging to oneself and others has become the paramount freedom. The most amazing thing is how few people choose to realize this is course of events is exactly the kind of behavior that is predicted.
4.22.2006 12:12pm
Fishbane (mail):
Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

Does that mean that under this definition, 3-ways are OK?
4.22.2006 12:20pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
Why shouldn't the government encourage private morality? Don't most "private" moralities eventually spill over to the public. It is amazing to watch however that what appears to be a very short period of time, that which used to be good and decent has become warped and stilted, and that which use to be considered damaging to oneself and others has become the paramount freedom.

What particular private morality should the government encourage? Mitt Romney is considering running for president. Do you want you want the private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob a hundred sixty years to become the official policy of the U.S. government? What if Tom Cruise became president? Do you really want us to have government pushing morality based on the ravings of a second-rate science fiction author?
4.22.2006 12:23pm
Christopher M. (mail):
There doesn't seem to be proper appreciation here of how extreme these regulations are. Under the definition of "sexual activity," the message here is supposed to be that it's immoral or at least wrong to engage in any sexual touching whatsoever until marriage. In other words: until your wedding night, men, you should not have touched your wife-to-be's breasts; you should not have engaged in any kissing of body parts below the neck (if that's even allowed); you should not have pressed your bodies tightly up against each other while kissing. Women: you should go into marriage never having touched, even through clothes, your husband-to-be's penis; probably never having even seen it. Probably never having let your hand even graze over his rear end -- again, even through clothes.

I know people sometimes like to call views "extreme" when they're not, but come on. These are not mainstream views, and they certainly do not describe the way the vast majority of Americans (of this generation or the last or the one before that) lived their dating/courting years. And you're not going to fool many high school kids into thinking that this standard is anything close to normal.
4.22.2006 12:28pm
Bryan Long:
One side of this debate is being silenced because the rules of engagement are being written by the other side.

Is this like the 'teach the controversy' argument put forward by the adherents of 'Intelligent Design'? The response here is identical to the response there: there is no controversy. Practically no one not servient to a fringe ideology supports such a view; its logical underpinnings are nonexistent and unsupported by either scientific research or lay intuition.

I would go beyond Freder and assert that it can scarcely be called a moral issue rather than a sectarian one. And I think we can all agree that the government should never be in the business of promoting sectarian viewpoints, particularly when devoid of secular value.

It is amazing to watch however that what appears to be a very short period of time, that which used to be good and decent has become warped and stilted, and that which use to be considered damaging to oneself and others has become the paramount freedom.

It would be my guess that prohibitions against premarital sex have largely been ignored where young people have not married as adolescents. And this when the specter of damnation had a much tighter grip on the minds of the people than it does now. In other words, however 'good and decent' it may be, it has never been anything more than an unworkable ideal; its only abiding contribution to the sexual lives of teenagers has been to make their sexual lives more confused, haphazard, secretive and guilt-ridden.

But this is all speculation and opinion, which is worthless. Can anyone on either side of the argument produce links to the effects (or lack thereof) of abstinence education? Does it serve the secular purpose it claims to, or does it have little value outside its crypto-Biblical underpinnings?
4.22.2006 12:29pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
If Tom Cruise were president and tried push an agenda of "sexual morality as dictated by Scientology," and assuming congress went along with it, it sounds like that would be quite a campaign issue, wouldn't it? Now what happens if the Supreme Court tells us we all have to obey the ACLU's vision of sexual morality? What are our options then?

Frankly, I'll take my chances on the bet that Tom Cruise will never be elected.
4.22.2006 12:30pm
Shangui (mail):
Clayton is so unfairly maligned on this site it is amazing, even the way he was treated during his short residency was pretty grating.

No, he pretty much maligned himself. His obsession with his belief that eating shit is a regular part of male homosexual culture and his tendency to get increasingly angry until he starts saying things like "now you're arguing like a homosexual" really don't do him any credit.
4.22.2006 12:42pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

Does that mean that under this definition, 3-ways are OK?


I suppose the question would be whether "two persons" means "only two" or "at least two." I hate it when regulations are drafted imprecisely. Perhaps the justification given for the final rule in the Federal Register would give a clue.
4.22.2006 12:43pm
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
My response whenever confronted with an ethics expert's lecture is to raise my hand and ask if it's ever okay to lie.

I hope this program doesn't prohibit shacking up with your girlfriend, by the way.

Perhaps that could be formulated as another question.

In any case, mocking is the way to go, here.
4.22.2006 12:44pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Why shouldn't the government encourage private morality? Don't most "private" moralities eventually spill over to the public.

Side issue: what do we mean by private morality? Schools and other institutions do stress "save the earth," "Earth Day," etc, whether or not the earth cares about being saved, or from what. They chastise certain behavior (smoking) in the terms that a puritan minister might use for homosexual behavior. Debate about global warming, and near-religious faith in or against it, has replaced debate about transubstantiation.
4.22.2006 12:48pm
lee (mail):
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK! Just when you think nothing could be more stupid than "the war on drugs", Voila! Sorta reminds me of Orwell's anti-sex league in "1984".
4.22.2006 12:59pm
Reg (mail):
I think the federal government should teach kids that it is better for them to abstain from sex until they enter a heterosexual marriage.

We aren't talking about banning anything here, only about what we will tell high school kids they ought to do. From the perspective of society as a whole, I don't see any benefit arising from telling people to have gay sex. What is the argument here? Gays might have their feelings hurt? True, but they are free to go to a different school if they don't like the message taught in public schools.

Like all these debates about what to teach in public schools, the easy answer is vouchers. But until then, telling kids what they ought to do should reflect what is best for them and society, and I'm not convinced by any argument I've heard or personal experience I've had that any good arises from telling kids that gay sex is just as good for them as sex in a heterosexual marriage.
4.22.2006 1:54pm
Shangui (mail):
they are free to go to a different school if they don't like the message taught in public schools.

What exactly is your definition of "free"? 20K+ a year?
4.22.2006 1:58pm
therut:
Above comments is why Sex Education in school should only be voluntary and with permission of the parents. One group wants to teach children that sex is O:K as long as you do it safely(by their standard) and both people are consenting. Their slogan has gone from "Do what feels good" to "Do what feels good but with a condom". No matter the age, gender, marriage status of the two persons. Another group believes in the traditional Biblical idea of fornication as a sin. As abstience as the ideal and wish their children to be taught this if anything about sex. Sex education has become nothing but a political football for adults pushing their views of the world and their perticular sexual perversions or freedoms upon children.
Hence another reason to have separation of schools and government.
4.22.2006 2:05pm
Fishbane (mail):
I hate it when regulations are drafted imprecisely.

Exactly my point. Absent other guidance, though, a textualist might say that the drafters could have said "two or more" and didn't.

That this is the type of absurdity this sort of morality legislation leads to makes me agree with Ron and lee above: the propert response is mockery.
4.22.2006 2:11pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):

his tendency to get increasingly angry until he starts saying things like "now you're arguing like a homosexual" really don't do him any credit.

Mcbain: That outfit makes you look like a homosexual.
Audience: Booooo!!!
Mcbain: Maybe you all are homosexuals
4.22.2006 2:19pm
WPT:
There's a lot of philosophical speculation in the preceeding comments. But how does sex-ed really work in the real world?
If abstinence-only delays sexual activity by about a year, that's still much better than the "values neutral" sex "education" espoused by Planned Parenthood who is the biggest purveyor of sex-ed programs other than the abstinence-only advocates. Before they stopped taking post-education surveys a few years ago, their follow-ups indicated that their "values neutral" program actually
increased the rates of sexual activity, STD's and teen-age pregnancies over the rates experienced by groups of teen-agers who had no formal sex ed whatsoever. So this is better than abstinence-only approach?

From another viewpoint, a few years ago my wife, who is an ER nurse, had to explain to a young woman who was a college student that she was pregnant. Which, according to the young woman couldn't be because she and her fiance always stopped short of "real" sexual intercourse, or done an "alternative." Yes, her hymen was intact. But it was a real baby she delivered a couple of hours later. It was not a case of strong denial, her doctor who had treated her for gastrintestinal inflammation and bloat only a month earlier also believed her when she said she "hadn't had sex." According to some of the critics of the above quoted regulations, she hadn't had sex, either. But she was pregnant, nonetheless.

Critics who scoff at this definition of sex in the regulations forget that this was actually the socially accepted definition up until the early part of the 20th century. It didn't work perfectly, but from my far from scientific or statistically valid observations of those who don't generally agree with such a definition, it works better than the more "liberated" and "modern" approach.
4.22.2006 2:24pm
Smithy (mail) (www):
I enjoy watching the relexively anti-Christians of the people here. These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.

The whole notion of what constitutes Biblical sex is complicated. I think that some view it too restrictvely. Anyone who has read the Song of Songs knows that Christianity is a sensual religion. The Bible does forbid sex outside of marriage, and the government should discourage it as well, but within the context of marriage, I do not believe that there are any Biblical restrictions on sexual activity.

That's my two cents.
4.22.2006 2:25pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Speaking of inflamatory rhetoric...
4.22.2006 2:31pm
Huh:
Health tip:

Just burying your head in the sand will NOT prevent infection or pregnancy. You must actually immobilize the entire torso with sand in order to fully immunize against disease and babies.

And gay-ness.

And impure thoughts.

In all seriousness, I'm not against the government voicing its opinion on the matter. Even if that opinion ignores all evidence of reality. It's okay to dream.

But I can't understand why you wouldn't want to provide kids with useful, practical information just in case the whole abstinence thing is unable to overcome the average teenager's tornado of hormones. Why not support a marketplace of ideas in this context? Why not tell them everything, and see what works?
4.22.2006 2:47pm
Porkchop (mail):
Fisbane wrote:


I hate it when regulations are drafted imprecisely.

Exactly my point. Absent other guidance, though, a textualist might say that the drafters could have said "two or more" and didn't.

That this is the type of absurdity this sort of morality legislation leads to makes me agree with Ron and lee above: the propert response is mockery.


We'll have to interpret as best we can. I think that it depends on what is contact with what and when. Some forms of the daisy chain might be okay, I think. :-D
4.22.2006 2:47pm
Chimaxx (mail):
Ahh, the "Reefer Madness" underpinning of the abstinence-only argument finally comes into the open: "One French kiss before marriage and you're doomed to a miserable AIDS-ravaged death"

Check yourself says "Simply because it is unrealistic to expect people to live in accordance with the policy the government is promoting doesn't mean we shouldn't promote it." After all these years, does no one recognize that when aouthorities promote unrealistic policies that no one expects most people to actually follow, all it does in the long run is engender contempt for authority?

Daniel Chapman writes: "Now what happens if the Supreme Court tells us we all have to obey the ACLU's vision of sexual morality? What are our options then?" Honestly, if any arm of government puts forward a regulation mandating adolescent sex and making homosexuality compulsory, I'll man the barricades with you. But no one has ever proposed such a thing--not even the ACLU--and no one would. It would clearly be a hostile act, and everyone would understand the hostile reaction--which is why your feigned surpirise at the sometimes hostile reactions to a hostile act like these new regulations is so clearly disinigenuous.

These regulations are just this generation's version of the Nanny State--writ large.
4.22.2006 2:48pm
Smithy (mail) (www):
"One French kiss before marriage and you're doomed to a miserable AIDS-ravaged death"

Caricature much? Kids will be kids. A little experimentation of that sort is probably healthy. No one is coming out against letting teen-agers make out. Except the nonexistent extremists that exist in the minds of the far left.
4.22.2006 2:54pm
Garrett Biehle (mail):
No one has mentioned (not really, anyway) the message this new definition of "Abstinence Only" gives to gay/lesbian/bi youth: "You are never to have sex. Sex is for marriage, and marriage is not for you. You can never fulfill your deepest desire for companionship, nor can you address the loneliness you feel, unlike us normal people." The subtext is loud and clear: "You are subhuman. You pollute the air of good people. You create evil in whatever you touch. It would be better if you were dead." You think I am exaggerating? This is the message that I and my gay friends got very strongly when we were growing up. Gays who despair of monogamous relationships turn to promiscuity.
4.22.2006 3:09pm
Chimaxx (mail):
Some have articulated one danger of abstinence-only indoctrination (it's hard to call it education, since it withholds so much information). As Shangui says "while they lose their virginity and average of about a year later than other students, are more likely to have unprotected sex when they do."

The other side is increased divorce. Why is it that the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates? Simple: Adolescents see marriage as a license to have sex, so they marry too early and too quickly, then end up divorcing, disrupting real families and real children. Abstinence-only education under these guidelines will only increase that problem.

Finally, I find it ironic that WPT tells the story of a college woman who thought she couldn't be pregnant, since there had never been penetration--somehow without realizing that this is a clear indictment of abstinence-only sex-education. Comprehensive sex-ed would have made it clear that pregnancy could happen without penetration.
4.22.2006 3:10pm
wm13:
I think people are missing an important point. Most people here seem to believe that sexual activity outside marriage is okay for adults, but not young teenagers, and criticize the guidelines for going well beyond that point. But quite a few studies have shown that telling teenagers that an activity is for "adults" is totally counterproductive. Come on, guys, every teenager wants to be a grown up. Just think, for example, why did you (the cool ones, that is) start smoking? Would telling you that smoking is for adults have stopped you or encouraged you?
4.22.2006 3:10pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
My point was that SOMEONE has to decide what form of education is best for our society. School boards and legislatures (and to an extent, Presidents) seem to be the lesser of two evils. In order to take them out of the process, the Courts step in and say what can or can't be taught. I never intentionally implied that the Supreme Court would be "making homosexuality compulsory," and I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

My "feigned surprise" was neither feigned nor surprise. It was just a comment on a trend I've noticed that's been going on for a long time. Believe me, there is nothing disingenuous about my concern.
4.22.2006 3:13pm
Chimaxx (mail):
I wrote:
"

One French kiss before marriage and you're doomed to a miserable AIDS-ravaged death"


Smithy replied:

Caricature much? Kids will be kids. A little experimentation of that sort is probably healthy. No one is coming out against letting teen-agers make out. Except the nonexistent extremists that exist in the minds of the far left.


But isn't that in the plain language of the regulation?

"Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."


Under what possible definition is french kissing or "making out" not "sexual stimulation between two persons"?

If you want to argue that that part of the definition is an ideal not to be taken seriously, then what part isn't? Why doesn't making the expectation so restrictive encourage an "in for a dime, in for a dollar" mentality among adolescents? ("Making out is just as much against the rules as intercourse, so since we've already broken the rules by making out, we might as well go all the way")
4.22.2006 3:19pm
AA (mail):
"Mitt Romney is considering running for president. Do you want you want the private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob a hundred sixty years to become the official policy of the U.S. government?"

Are Romney's attempts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as well as oppose bias and intolerance directed at gays and lesbians generally considered the "private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob?"
4.22.2006 3:19pm
SLS 1L:
That's pretty darn impressive. "Abstinence" means not "abstinance from sexual intercourse" but "abstinence from all sexual contact other than kissing on the mouth or face"?
4.22.2006 3:24pm
Perseus:
I'm just waiting for Judge Reinhardt to prohibit a student from wearing a T-shirt saying "Fornication is shameful" in a health education class because it constitutes a "verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development."
4.22.2006 3:30pm
Smithy (mail) (www):
Do you want you want the private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob a hundred sixty years to become the official policy of the U.S. government?"

Seeing as there's Vermont whackjob running the Demoacratic National Committee, maybe that's not the best point to try to make.
4.22.2006 3:34pm
Chimaxx (mail):
Daniel Chapman:
My point was that SOMEONE has to decide what form of education is best for our society. School boards and legislatures (and to an extent, Presidents) seem to be the lesser of two evils. In order to take them out of the process, the Courts step in and say what can or can't be taught. I never intentionally implied that the Supreme Court would be "making homosexuality compulsory," and I don't see how you came to that conclusion.


I was just reacting to the plain language of what you wrote: "Now what happens if the Supreme Court tells us we all have to obey the ACLU's vision of sexual morality?" and I honestly thought you meant that literally--that some Supreme Court would mandate that all US citizens had to obey the ACLU's vision of sexual moality (whatever that is). Sorry I missed the context that would have made it mean something different.

But as to the point you meant, I've never seen the courts "step in and say what can or can't be taught." I've only ever seen the courts respond to lawsuits by parents disputing regulations, then weigh whether the regulation accords or conflicts with existing laws. Sometimes these suits are from parents who want more restrictions on sex-related education (like recent cases in Massachusetts) and sometimes less. Sometimes the case goes in favor of the parents and sometimes in favor of the schoolboard/legislature/president--regardless of which side brings it. Sometimes the cases are decded well and sometimes not. Each side in this debate can point to a handful of cases that went against their interest and try to pretend it's a trend of discrimination against them. But overall, the results of the court challenges have seemed to steer a middle course. Am I missing something?
4.22.2006 3:35pm
wm13:
I realize that everyone here is having too much fun making fun of Christians to use actual legal analysis, but under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, sexual stimulation should be construed as involving the sex organs, so kissing won't qualify.
4.22.2006 3:35pm
SLS 1L:
wm13 - The rule has to do with "sexual stimulation," and lots of things that don't involve the sex organs can sexually stimulate.

Dale - I'm unconvinced taht this is a "Biblical" definition of sexuality. Where does the Bible say "no second base until marriage"?
4.22.2006 3:49pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
I dunno... I saw the conversation moving towards the "It's religious indoctrination to teach abstainance" meme, which tends to carry the implied "It is unconstitutional to teach it in public schools" in my mind. I see now that based on what's been said (explicitly) so far, I probably jumped the gun by invoking the Court.

I still believe there's nothing wrong with elected officials deciding what should be taught in sex ed. (As the lesser of two evils, of course... vouchers would be a better solution) As long as we're going to have sed ed in schools, the majority will decide what's appropriate to teach. If you disagree, use it as a campaign issue and change the officials.
4.22.2006 3:49pm
18 USC 1030 (mail):
Something that has yet to be quoted, yet, I think holding the most weight is that little thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .


This, I think to some degree at least, not only dictates against saying religion X is the official religion and religion Y is prohibited, but also, to some degree dictates against creating law as reflected in that same religion.

Also, this nation was not built by Christians, for Christians. This nation was built by reasoned men for all men regardless of religion. For one, Jefferson was by far not a Christian as one, today would classify a Christian. He believed in Jesus only to the extent that the teachings thereof were the morals by which to live. As to dictating religious standards Jefferson said

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson

The free exercise of intercourse between consenting adults cannot, in anyway be deemed injurious to another person. These activities ought to be up to the individual to determine whether or not they are in-line with their own views of morality.

As far as teaching our students, I do not believe we have a right to teach rules of morality on anyone. There is a difference between the example of smoking, drunk driving, and saving the environment. Obviously, the later 2 have direct negative impacts on others. The drunk driver who hits and kills a child is not acting in a way injurious to himself, and therefore it is the responsibility of society to curb this behavior. Society cannot prevent one from drinking, nor can they prevent one from driving for merely consuming alcohol. But, when that consumption reaches the degree of impairment that leads to injury or death to another, it becomes a risk to others; thus, it is under the realm of the government.

As to saving the environment, no matter your views on global warming, all individuals with any sense of logic are able to see the injurious affects of pollution-- at least some types of pollution. The reason for requiring emissions standards is not to ease global warming, but is to prevent many toxins from entering the air and causing breathing problems for all residents of the area. This is a public good by definition.

Smoking can go either way; one can argue that the second hand smoke is in fact injurious to others, thus, can be regulated. I agree with this argument to the degree that it is up to the community to decide-- not the federal government (which is how it is regulated). However, not banning smoking doesn't mean you cannot speak of the dangers of smoking. Telling people not to smoke because it can cause lung cancer is not the same as telling people smoking is wrong; therefore, you are not to do it.

Similarly, if schools were to teach that abstinence is best because of the risk of pregnancy and disease, it would be ok. However, for the schools to say practice abstinence because sex is bad unless in the case of marriage is not ok. There is a difference; this is a moral guideline that which it is not the school's responsibility or authority to teach. Parents and religious leaders serve this role, not public school teachers. This is the type of moral discipline spoken of by Jefferson. Not that Jefferson saw this "sexual revolution;" but that Jefferson anticipated the family to instill moral views on children, not the government.

Furthermore, sexual activity includes genital contact and any sexual stimulation. Stimulation can be defined as:

Any stimulating information or event; acts to arouse action

Does this, therefore, include words spoken that may cause arousal? This seems to be a bit far-fetched in defining sexual activity. I am not necessarily fighting for the Bill Clinton definition of sex; but, this is going way too far. I do not see why what I learned about 10 years ago is not sufficient.

We were told sex causes pregnancy and many diseases can be transmitted through sexual contact, including but not limited to intercourse. Condoms were the best form of protection against disease and pregnancy. They were, however not 100% effective. The only 100% effective way to stay safe was abstinence. Therefore, you should, in order to prevent disease and pregnancy practice abstinence. If you were going to ignore this; use a condom.

Why are we so repressed a society that this is no longer acceptable? Why do we force moral beliefs on others? Whether it is the majority view or the minority view does not matter; the minority is to be protected from the majority, just as the majority ought to be protected from the minority. An issue so sensitive as ensuring the health and welfare ought to be based on science and logic; not religious or political beliefs.
4.22.2006 3:50pm
Jacob T. Levy (mail):
I enjoy watching the relexively anti-Christians of the people here. These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.

Of course, the country was founded [in large part] by deists and unitarians who explicitly disavowed doing it *for* Christians only; the intense linking of Americanness with Christianity postdates the founding.

The whole notion of what constitutes Biblical sex is complicated. I think that some view it too restrictvely. Anyone who has read the Song of Songs knows that Christianity is a sensual religion.

Er... I rather thought that it was Jews who viewed the SoS as actually being about sex and love between humans, and that Christianity tended to identify it as being about soemthing else entirely...
4.22.2006 3:50pm
Broncos:

These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.


Mullah Smithy has obliterated the unintentional comedy scale.

Maybe we should create a word for this; just so we can distinguish this type of perverted mess from the loving theology that the rest of us normal, God-loving Christian people partake in? Something along the lines of "Christiano-Fascism"?

And does Jesus really require the power of the United States government? Give me a break. This is just (some) of our churches being lazy; and refusing to take individual responsibility for their own failures. They're is just lobbying for a government handout. And a second dose of irony.
4.22.2006 3:53pm
SLS 1L:
Daniel - Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that there's something improper about criticizing the decisions made elected officials unless you are in the process of making a campaign issue out of it. Why can't we criticize the decision as it's made?
4.22.2006 3:55pm
TheSaint517:
wm13, if that were the case then why did the author of this language specifically write "genital contact or sexual stimulation"? It would seem to me that the intent was to include things other than just the sex organs.
4.22.2006 3:58pm
Smithy (mail) (www):
As far as I'm concerned, the most important errogeneous zone is the one between your ears. Sexuality doesn't have to be crude, not in the context of marriage. There's more to the birds and the knees than the hips and the knees.
4.22.2006 4:04pm
wm13:
Well, Saint (and others), under your interpretation, the words "genital contact" are entirely superfluous, since that is obviously a subset of "sexual stimulation."

I have set forth the proper interpretation. People who aren't using standard canons of construction, which is most of the people here, are just playing silly word games. In fact, I have to believe that most of the comments about the wording of the regulations aren't being written by people with law degrees. Is there someone in the group who believes that they can write any document directing future behavior (from legislation to loan agreements) that can't be misinterpreted by someone who is wilfully trying to do so? The impossibility of that enterprise is maybe the most important thing I learned in law school.
4.22.2006 4:07pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Oh by all means criticize it... I'm not sure I agree with this one myself. (But since all I've heard so far was Mr. Carpenter's explaination, I'm guessing I might be persuaded as I learn more.) I was specifically responding to Freder's claim that "government" shouldn't be able to decide this issue. I take the position that it can and should. If the "government" makes a mistake, criticizm of that mistake will tend to lead to a change in government.

"What particular private morality should the government encourage? Mitt Romney is considering running for president. Do you want you want the private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob a hundred sixty years to become the official policy of the U.S. government?"
4.22.2006 4:11pm
SLS 1L:
wm13 - I don't have a law degree, but exclusio unius ex exclusio alterus cuts the opposite way from the canon you've cited. The whole point is that sexual stimulation is different from genital contact, but your interpretation says it's the same thing.

In any case, not all genital contact is sexual stimulation, unless "genital contact" (implausibly) means "two people's genitals contacting each other" rather than "one person contacting the genitals of another person."
4.22.2006 4:13pm
Shangui (mail):
I enjoy watching the relexively anti-Christians of the people here. These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.

It's a sad moment when the comment thread hits the point at which Clayton Cramer jumping in with his thoughts on sex might actually raise the level of discourse.
4.22.2006 4:18pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
I was scared the first time I had sex...I was all alone...My daughters a great kid..in highschool she was voted most likely to conceive..
4.22.2006 4:25pm
wm13:
No, no, no, sls1l, that's not what expressio unius est exclusio alterius means. It's quite common in legal writing to use two words or phrases which are more or less synonymous e.g. "ordain and establish" or "null and void." Expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not mean that the two phrases "genital contact" and "sexual stimulation" have to be interpreted to mean radically different things. In fact, noscitur a sociis means that they should be interpreted to mean something similar.

In this case, we have two phrases that might encompass slightly different but closely related activities, as in such legal phrases as "assign or sublease" or "bequeathe and devise." "Sexual stimulation" might include, say, cunnilingus (since neither the tongue nor, arguably, the clitoris is a genital organ). The reader may exert his mental energies in coming up with something that is "genital contact" but not "sexual stimulation."

It most assuredly is not the case that any court, administrator, or lawyer who was actually trying to give good advice would interpret "sexual stimulation" in the regulation to encompass, say, looking someone in the eyes and saying "I love you." Only someone who was playing silly word games as part of an anti-Christian fulmination would do that.
4.22.2006 4:30pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.


Smithy


Of course, the country was founded [in large part] by deists and unitarians who explicitly disavowed doing it *for* Christians only; the intense linking of Americanness with Christianity postdates the founding.


Jacob T. Levy

Professor Levy is right. I should note that anyone interested in the scholarly case for the religious views of the Founders should check out my blogs; this is one of my specialties.
4.22.2006 4:46pm
Shangui (mail):
As far as I'm concerned, the most important errogeneous zone is the one between your ears. Sexuality doesn't have to be crude, not in the context of marriage. There's more to the birds and the knees than the hips and the knees.

Smithy, real human being, or computer generated weird cliche machine?
4.22.2006 4:55pm
BobN (mail):
What do you call a wasteful government program which ignores established science and promotes an unrealistic, hypocritical, even absurd policy related to the sex lives of other people?

Food for the base.
4.22.2006 4:56pm
Anonymous Reader:
To all:

The comments in this thread have been very interesting. I for one am a proponent of abstinence education. Should we teach children "how" to have sex and how to wear protection and whatnot? Since many parents fail to educate their own children, which leads to experimentation, then YES... With one big caveat... most high schools require some kind of biology or anatomy class and if my memory is correct (I attended HS in the 90's), we learned a lot about sex of many different species, to include humans. So, if the concern is that the only place kids can learn about the mechanics of sex is Sex Ed, then I would have to disagree. If the concern is to teach kids the responsibilities that come with sex (premarital or marital), and how to best protect themselves, then yes, teach it in a Sex Ed class.

I remember we had a banner on the wall in my Sex Ed classroom that said something to the effect,

"Abstinence if the best form of birth control."

I have yet to hear anyone say that if you don't have sex, you can still get pregnant or STD's, simplistically speaking that is. All I know is that I've seen more and more pregnant teenagers and young unwed mothers. Of course the govt has a compelling interest in stemming the tide of early pregnancy! Let's see.... teenage pregnancy will cause young women to either carry the psychological scars of an abortion... or women who due to their unmarried state, must rely on WIC or other govt social programs to stay afloat in life... or even worse, we end up with children raised by "children" who perpetrate the cycle.

I would ask for someone to please show me where I am wrong. Show me that the number of pregnant teenagers has gone down due to the current Sex Ed curriculum. I am just going off anecdotal evidence that I've seen with my own eyes and my own experience. Also, answer this question, when should Sex Ed be taught? Doesn't it sadden you when you hear about a pregnant 12year old? Show me that the govt has no business in trying to provide the best possible starting point for HS graduates by promoting abstinence education (after age 18, you're on your own). With everything on MTV and other popular shows, people still think the govt shouldn't stress abstinence? If they don't? Who will?

Anonymous Reader
4.22.2006 4:57pm
jvarisco:
Waiting until marriage is the ideal, not the practical result. We have speed limits, but expect people to go a couple miles over. It is hardly extreme to want people to limit their sexual activity during their lifetime to a single person who they eventually marry, and in fact would be quite beneficial in stopping AIDs and other diseases. It has also been the ideal for nearly two thousand years in Western society.

Most of the libertarians here oppose abstinence in itself. I don't see anything making this worse - telling consenting children rather than consenting adults not to engage in harmful behavior? For most of us, graduating from hs/college hardly confers the capability to judge any better than most children, and this is borne out by the number of adult single mothers. Not to mention that the majority of abortions are for people (in the libertarian view) old enough to decide if they should have sex.
4.22.2006 5:01pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):

Smithy, real human being, or computer generated weird cliche machine?


I don't know, but I'm sure one could spend hours racking the old "errogenous zone" trying to answer that.
4.22.2006 5:05pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Mike BUSL07:

Re your "Simpsons" reference, it was just perfect. Bravo.
4.22.2006 5:05pm
BobN (mail):

Where does the Bible say "no second base until marriage"?


I seem to recall some biblical admonitions, but apparently it's ok to go to third base, in fact, it seems to be encouraged:


Then, shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.


Pardon the descent into Monty Python, but when faced with absurdity in real life, where can one turn?
4.22.2006 5:06pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
Are Romney's attempts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as well as oppose bias and intolerance directed at gays and lesbians generally considered the "private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob?"

That's the problem with Mormonism. To outsiders they present such a reasonable and clean cut image. They call themselves "Christians" and most people who are unfamaliar with the cult actually think Mormons are Christians. But once you really talk to a Mormon and find out what you believe you realize that their religion has very little to do with Christianity at all. Their beliefs are every bit as bizarre and heretical as anything Tom Cruise spouts while he is jumping up and down on the couch on Oprah.

But back to the main subject. Do you really want your kids to learn that it is absolutely wrong to have sex outside of marriage? I don't have kids, but in between marriages (I'm on my second now), I dated a woman with high school aged kids. Are you seriously telling me you want the public high schools telling people that is wrong for two forty-year old consenting adults who care deeply for eachother to have sex. "Hey kids, your mom is a slut!". Gee, that is real sensitive to the children of divorce who are trying to deal with their parents dating.
4.22.2006 5:09pm
SLS 1L:
Anonymous Reader - if a man ejaculates sufficiently near the vagina, the sperm may be able to crawl in, leading to pregnancy. Very rare, but it does happen.

wm13 - I think we are being thrown off by an unaddressed underlying interpretive question: namely, what does "genital contact" mean? You seem to think it means "genital-to-genital contact," while my default reading is to take it to mean "one person's genitals contacting another person," so mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, etc. would be "genital contact." If it means "genital-to-genital contact," then you may well be correct about "sexual stimulation," but if "genital contact" means what I think it means then it would be insane to give "sexual stimulation" your reading, since lots of things that don't involve the genitals will be sexually stimulating.

Either way, I don't think it's plausible that it includes sex talk.
4.22.2006 5:15pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):
Thanks Joseph - I try to conceal the extent to which I'm a Simpsons geek, but sometimes i just can't help it.
4.22.2006 5:16pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
It is hardly extreme to want people to limit their sexual activity during their lifetime to a single person who they eventually marry, and in fact would be quite beneficial in stopping AIDs and other diseases.

Speak for your own damn self. I find it extreme to expect or even want people to limit their a single person during their lifetime. I didn't. I'm not a worse person for it. And yes, I had a couple sexual encounters I regretted. But do I feel like I am a morally corrupt or bad Christian because of my sexual history or ashamed of what I have done. Hell, no. I think have had a healthy, normal, sex life.

I think it is silly for the government to believe that such a policy is either desirable, realistic or even something that they should be concerned with.
4.22.2006 5:22pm
Keith (mail):
Unfortunately this is the kind of hijinks that really give the overall conservative movement the bad rep as a bunch of repressed, missionary position only, finger pointers.

I will be the first one to argue that a young teenager is usually not ready emotionally for a serious sexual relationship. Not to mention the other possible health consequences or the impact on ones future of an unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, abstinence only is akin to sticking ones head in the sand (aka South Park with Muhammed). At the other extreme, having pre-teens or teenagers practice using condoms by putting them on dildos or bananas in class seems to go to far in the other direction of explicity encouraging their sexualization. Let them enjoy the relative innocence of their teen years.

Logically the rationaly response would seem to be to emphasize that sexuality is an integral part of being human, while also emphsizing the the complexity and emotional/health/moral belief issues of a sexual/romantic relationship. In short, don't treat pre-teens and teenagers like little children, or full grown adults, but rather like burgeoning adults they are. Give them good and detailed information, discuss the issues in an open manner without explicitly encouraging sexual activity and let them make the decisions.

Unfortunately, you have the extremes on both sides that shout the loudest.
4.22.2006 5:24pm
jvarisco:
Freder) If they care deeply, they should get married. If they don't care that much, then no they should not have sex.

Keep in mind, this is being taught to hs kids. Regardless of the message, they are being told not to have sex. How long they are supposed to wait is less relevant than the message of abstinence itself. It's not like 40 year olds are being forced to go to a class and told not to have sex.
4.22.2006 5:24pm
Keith (mail):
Unfortunately this is the kind of hijinks that really give the overall conservative movement the bad rep as a bunch of repressed, missionary position only, finger pointing nannies.

I will be the first one to argue that a young teenager is usually not ready emotionally for a serious sexual relationship. Not to mention the other possible health consequences or the impact on ones future of an unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, abstinence only is akin to sticking ones head in the sand (aka South Park with Muhammed). At the other extreme, having pre-teens or teenagers practice using condoms by putting them on dildos or bananas in class seems to go to far in the other direction of explicity encouraging their sexualization. Let them enjoy the relative innocence of their teen years.

Logically the rationaly response would seem to be to emphasize that sexuality is an integral part of being human, while also emphsizing the the complexity and emotional/health/moral belief issues of a sexual/romantic relationship. In short, don't treat pre-teens and teenagers like little children, or full grown adults, but rather like burgeoning adults they are. Give them good and detailed information, discuss the issues in an open manner without explicitly encouraging sexual activity and let them make the decisions.

Unfortunately, you have the extremes on both sides that shout the loudest.
4.22.2006 5:25pm
Keith (mail):
Ooops, apologies for the double post.
4.22.2006 5:26pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
Freder) If they care deeply, they should get married. If they don't care that much, then no they should not have sex.

Like I said, you have no right to lecture me.

It's not like 40 year olds are being forced to go to a class and told not to have sex.

No but their children are. And the vast majority of people in this country see nothing morally wrong with two unmarried consenting adults having sex, your morality notwithstanding. For the government to teach children a moral stance (and that is what it is, nothing more) that directly contradicts the established mores of the society at large, is just appalling. What kind of message does it send the children? That their parents are immoral sinners? Although you may agree with that sentiment, that is certainly not the prevailing view. What's next, the government teaching that divorce is wrong?
4.22.2006 5:34pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Speak for your own damn self. I find it extreme to expect or even want people to limit their a single person during their lifetime.

At least you're honest, freder. I disagree completely.
4.22.2006 5:37pm
Shangui (mail):
For Mike BUSL07:

"Because they never gave in to their throbbing biological urges."

From the Fluffy Bunny sex-ed film ("she faking it").
4.22.2006 5:40pm
Cornellian (mail):
I think the federal government should teach kids that it is better for them to abstain from sex until they enter a heterosexual marriage.

That would be under the often overlooked "promote abstinence" clause of Article I.

Remember when conservatives believed in a federal government of limited and enumerated powers?
4.22.2006 5:40pm
Cornellian (mail):
Of course, the country was founded [in large part] by deists and unitarians who explicitly disavowed doing it *for* Christians only; the intense linking of Americanness with Christianity postdates the founding.


Heck, today's evangelicals are very recent arrivals on the scene, historically speaking. They have very little in common with the view of the Founders.
4.22.2006 5:43pm
Anonymous Reader:
Freder,

Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you. Murder is wrong, lying is wrong, etc, so you're saying the govt shouldn't create laws about that? I know I'm generalizing, but you get my point.

I would like for you to prove to me or anyone who may agree with me why it's okay for teens to become pregnant. Granted, it's not like in the old days with the negative stigma, but was that necessarily a bad thing? Do you feel that teenagers these days are ready and able to handle the complex world of being a parent? I don't think they know enough to make that kind of decision. There are plenty of adults that I know that don't feel ready to have kids either. Shouldn't we do our damnest to steer children towards waiting until they were older and wiser to make that kind of life changing decision? I don't care for making moral judgements about adult behavior, what I care about is if teenagers should be taught about abstinence, with the understanding that they will also learn what safe sex is, but with an emphasis on abstinence being the best form of birthcontrol.

Anonymous Reader
4.22.2006 5:43pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
At least you're honest, freder. I disagree completely.

Your loss.

And I hope when you say you disagree, you disagree with whether or not it is better to only have sex with one partner, not whether I am a moral person or not. To judge someone's morality who you have never met would be mighty unchristian of you.
4.22.2006 5:44pm
Cornellian (mail):
Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

So for now at least, it appears that solo masturbation is still beyond the purview of Big Brother in Washington. Of course, only a fool would think that that isn't on the religious right's agenda of evils to be eradicated. They just haven't got round to it yet.
4.22.2006 5:52pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
I would like for you to prove to me or anyone who may agree with me why it's okay for teens to become pregnant. Granted, it's not like in the old days with the negative stigma, but was that necessarily a bad thing?

Where in this entire thread did I say teenage pregnancy was a good thing or it was okay for teens to be sexually active or pregnant? I never said any such thing and never came close to implying it.

This proposed regulation promotes the outrageous proposition that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. That is what I object to. Every point I made referred to sex between consenting adults, not teens. I agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of high school students are too immature for sex and that high school sex education should carry that message. I did advocate sex between 40-year-olds, however I know a few of them who I consider too immature to have sex too.

I don't think that there is a magic age when you are suddenly "ready" to have sex, but just because you get married doesn't mean you are ready either. But for the government to adopt a position that sex is only acceptable within the confines of marriage is just perverse.
4.22.2006 5:59pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
As a matter of public health education, AIDS is as much a STD as gonorrhea, syphilis and genital herpes, isn't it?

It is spread by genital-genital contact, genital-anal contact and genital-oral contact, between one HIV positive individual and one HIV negative individual. In addition, it may be spread by contact with blood from or a needle used by or administered to one who is HIV positive. That seems to be the extent of scientifically recognized means of transmission.

As a matter of public health (not religion), does anyone on this thread seriously question the following statements:

That reducing the above-described contacts will reduce the risk of acquiring AIDS.

That having oral, anal or vaginal sex with individuals whose HIV status is unknown increases one's risk of acquiring AIDS.

That those faithfully following the tenets of at least three of the world's traditional religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) will reduce the contacts described above, and thus decrease the risks of acquiring AIDS.

Just asking.
4.22.2006 6:00pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
That would be under the often overlooked "promote abstinence" clause of Article I.

Remember when conservatives believed in a federal government of limited and enumerated powers?


"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more--it is intercourse." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824). Trump.
4.22.2006 6:05pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
That those faithfully following the tenets of at least three of the world's traditional religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) will reduce the contacts described above, and thus decrease the risks of acquiring AIDS.

I thought the main tenet of Christianity is that we all fall short of being able to faithfully follow its tenets. Therefore, we shouldn't expect absolute perfection and abstinence and should prepare our children for when they do succumb to temptation (by teaching them about condoms).
4.22.2006 6:07pm
Fern:
What strikes me as bizarre is that religious people (and I consider myself part of that group) keep on pushing the definition of marriage as being a legal union between a man and a woman. But that's not what I believe my marriage to be. If I had forgone getting a marriage license, I would still believe myself to be married. It seems that the religious people in government are turning marriage into nothing more than a piece of paper. However, I'm married because my husband and I created a special covenant with G-d, not because some cranky government employee working at a California Courthouse issued me a piece of paper giving my husband and I a quick way to exchange legal rights. The state doesn't have the power to speak for G-d, therefore the state can offer nothing more than a civil union.
4.22.2006 6:08pm
Porkchop (mail):
wm13 wrote:

"Sexual stimulation" might include, say, cunnilingus (since neither the tongue nor, arguably, the clitoris is a genital organ). The reader may exert his mental energies in coming up with something that is "genital contact" but not "sexual stimulation."

Not to nitpick here, but the last time I checked (this morning), my wife's clitoris was definitely part of her genitalia. :-p
4.22.2006 6:12pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more--it is intercourse." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824). Trump.

I bet you took a trip to Pennsylvania just so you could take a picture of the road sign that says "Intercourse 69"
4.22.2006 6:13pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):
Fern, not that I agree with the government's position on marriage - and plainly enough, I don't - but the "marriage as a piece of paper" is a standard under which both sides muster. By the other side, I mean pro-gay marriage folks, (of which I am one). Sure, you can have a meaningful union without a stamp from the state, but the tax treatment alone can be worth fighting over (for couples that benefit). If a couple, gay or straight, believes their union to be right in the eyes of God, and that is important to them, then that's that, but I don't think it's what the fight is about.
4.22.2006 6:15pm
Sydney Carton (www):
"For the government to teach children a moral stance (and that is what it is, nothing more) that directly contradicts the established mores of the society at large, is just appalling."

Apparently, the voters disagree with you. Bush was elected, he gets to make the policy. Too bad for you.

"What kind of message does it send the children? That their parents are immoral sinners?"

Implicit in this statement is the assumption that their parents are regularly engaging in adultery and sex outside of marriage. Somehow, in the vast swath of Red State America, I doubt that's the case.

"Although you may agree with that sentiment, that is certainly not the prevailing view. What's next, the government teaching that divorce is wrong?"

Hopefully. Because it is.
4.22.2006 6:15pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Cornellian: You're absolutely right... in fact, "conservatives" were the ones who were against sex education in schools in the first place, weren't they? I think that ship has sailed though. Same could be said for having the (federal) government involved in public education in the first place.

Freder: If course I'm not judging you. I think you're wrong, and I would encourage the rest of society to adopt a different moral stance than you've taken. Divorce is bad, monogomy is good, and sex within marriage is the ideal. Although momentum seems to be moving your direction, I still think the population at large agrees with me on these points, and there is a legitimate government interest in promoting them no matter how isolated it makes you feel.
4.22.2006 6:15pm
plunge (mail):
Let's not forget that "abstinence only" is really just another name for "keep kids less informed."

Next, we hould push for biology free science classes! Oh.... wait.
4.22.2006 6:16pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
So for now at least, it appears that solo masturbation is still beyond the purview of Big Brother in Washington. Of course, only a fool would think that that isn't on the religious right's agenda of evils to be eradicated. They just haven't got round to it yet.

There's already been a move to regulate it, from the left. I'm serious -- in my files I've got a proposed rulemaking, from the very end of the Carter Administration, proposing consumer safety rules for dildos. It makes for hilarious reading as the authors try to describe, in stilted bureaucratese suitable for the Federal Register, just what they are used for and how the standards would be laid out (pardon the phrase). As I recall, concerns included electrical fires (maybe they had some 110 volt jobs back then, or the agency knew no better), friction burns from overuse, and some other worries. Fortuantely, the new administration killed the proposal.
4.22.2006 6:17pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
FF:

I agree with you that the commandment against adultery has been broken since it and its nine companions were first brought down from Sinai. Jews and Christians alike believe that.

That doesn't mean that a large proportion of believers didn't (and still don't) take it and the other nine seriously and try to live according to those teachings.

To the extent they are successful in so doing, I think the point still remains.

While Christians do believe that all fall short of the laws and glory of God, most adherents do not believe they have a special license to break them.
4.22.2006 6:18pm
Porkchop (mail):
As an unabashed libertine in my younger years, I definitely agree with Fred Frederson on this. It's none of anyone' business how many sex partners anyone has.

I find it odd for someone to base his concern with people having multiple sex partners on the potential for transmission for disease while defending a policy that, at its heart, seems to be "keep 'em ignorant and scared, and maybe they won't 'do it.' " That is, as we have seen, a recipe for increased pregnancy and/or disease transmission.
4.22.2006 6:20pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
Implicit in this statement is the assumption that their parents are regularly engaging in adultery and sex outside of marriage. Somehow, in the vast swath of Red State America, I doubt that's the case.

You really don't get out much, do you? And check the stats, Red State America, as a whole, has higher rates of all the bad stats (divorce, teen pregnancy, etc.) than blue states. That hot bed of liberalism, Massachussetts, has the lowest rate of divorce in the country. Generally, the Red States are not very good at practicing what they preach.
4.22.2006 6:23pm
Sydney Carton (www):
"I thought the main tenet of Christianity is that we all fall short of being able to faithfully follow its tenets. Therefore, we shouldn't expect absolute perfection and abstinence and should prepare our children for when they do succumb to temptation (by teaching them about condoms)."

Um. No. The main tenent of Christianity is NOT that we're so flawed that we should prepare people for when they succumb to temptation (aka: sin). I can't believe you'd actually suggest with a straight fact that Christianity's main tenent is to PREPARE PEOPLE FOR SIN. Have you ONCE read the New Testament at all?

For the record, the main tenent of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God and that on the Third Day he rose from the dead, in fulfullment of the scriptures. His main teachings were: 1. To love the Lord God with all your might (implying following his laws and commandments), and 2. To love your neighbor as yourself. According to the New Testament, Jesus said that that was the summary of the law and the prophets.

I'm still shocked by the ignorance or perverse lunacy of people's ideas about Christianity on this blog. The idea that its main tenent is that we're so unperfect so that we should prepare you for when you sin... it's just so STUPID. Sheesh....
4.22.2006 6:24pm
plunge (mail):
"That reducing the above-described contacts will reduce the risk of acquiring AIDS."

It will reduce a person's risk if they have less sex, yes.

"That having oral, anal or vaginal sex with individuals whose HIV status is unknown increases one's risk of acquiring AIDS."

Again, yes.

"That those faithfully following the tenets of at least three of the world's traditional religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) will reduce the contacts described above, and thus decrease the risks of acquiring AIDS. "

For them personally, yes.

But here's the kicker. Depending on the sexual habits of the population as a whole, it could actually make the rate of AIDS transmission go UP. And if prudish people all suddenly started having more sex, in many cases, the rate of AIDS transmission in the population as a whole would go down. Counter-intuitive? Sure. But still true. :)
4.22.2006 6:24pm
Sydney Carton (www):
"You really don't get out much, do you?"

Liars believe everyone lies. Theives believe everyone steals. Adulterors believe everyome commits adultery.
4.22.2006 6:28pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):
Yeah, though I resent Freder's (usual) vitriol, I totally agree with him that sexual promiscuity is an indiviudual choice, and for a lot of people not a bad one.

Also, an interesting policy comparison can be drawn with the way we regulate the stock markets. When people who, quite frankly don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to investing and are in that sense "children", decide to trade in securities, we make companies fall over backwards to ensure that someone with a 2nd grade education has access to all sorts of information he will never understand.

On the other hand, we have children, who will have sex at some point, probably fairly early on in their lives, yet the government wants to shut down the streams of information that help make informed decisions. I understand that there are huge distinctions here, but I think it's still worth a reflection.
4.22.2006 6:30pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
No one cares how many sex partners you've had... but that doesn't change the fact that as a group, we are better off if the national average remains as close to one per lifetime as possible. We're not talking about throwing you in jail if you reach a certain number, but we should definitely try to promote monogomy as the standard. No enforcement, just the general promotion of the idea that you're not "expected" to have sex. I think the STD epidemic outweighs your need to feel good about yourself.
4.22.2006 6:31pm
</