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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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....
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?
I didn't call anyone's sexuality "warped" or "stilted", I called "view[s] on sexuality" warped and stilted. There is a huge difference.
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?
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.
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.
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?
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
Does that mean that under this definition, 3-ways are OK?
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?
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.
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?
Frankly, I'll take my chances on the bet that Tom Cruise will never be elected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What exactly is your definition of "free"? 20K+ a year?
Hence another reason to have separation of schools and government.
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.
Mcbain: That outfit makes you look like a homosexual.
Audience: Booooo!!!
Mcbain: Maybe you all are homosexuals
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"
Smithy replied:
But isn't that in the plain language of the regulation?
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")
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?"
Seeing as there's Vermont whackjob running the Demoacratic National Committee, maybe that's not the best point to try to make.
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?
Dale - I'm unconvinced taht this is a "Biblical" definition of sexuality. Where does the Bible say "no second base until marriage"?
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.
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
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:
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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?"
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."
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.
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.
Smithy
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.
Smithy, real human being, or computer generated weird cliche machine?
Food for the base.
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,
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
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.
I don't know, but I'm sure one could spend hours racking the old "errogenous zone" trying to answer that.
Re your "Simpsons" reference, it was just perfect. Bravo.
I seem to recall some biblical admonitions, but apparently it's ok to go to third base, in fact, it seems to be encouraged:
Pardon the descent into Monty Python, but when faced with absurdity in real life, where can one turn?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
At least you're honest, freder. I disagree completely.
"Because they never gave in to their throbbing biological urges."
From the Fluffy Bunny sex-ed film ("she faking it").
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Not to nitpick here, but the last time I checked (this morning), my wife's clitoris was definitely part of her genitalia. :-p
I bet you took a trip to Pennsylvania just so you could take a picture of the road sign that says "Intercourse 69"
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.
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.
Next, we hould push for biology free science classes! Oh.... wait.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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. :)
Liars believe everyone lies. Theives believe everyone steals. Adulterors believe everyome commits adultery.
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.