15 Comments

Three Years of Hell is exactly right – this is just another double-standard, “bash of the Republican” situation.

Did anyone actually think abstinence mean “abstain from having sex until you decide to not abstain anymore,” or something? The definition has ALWAYS been “abstain from sex until you are married.” Or, to be a bit more accurate, “abstain from sex with everyone but your spouse.”

At the risk of being rude, anyone who thought otherwise is being either disingenuous or stupid. Or possibly both.

I am not a Democrat (I’m fiscally very conservative), but I cannot vote for a Republican (other than, say, Arnold for California governor), since doing so tends to mean voting anti-science, anti-separation of church and state, and basically, for the increasing intrusion of the primitive belief in god into our once-secular society. I linked to your thoughts, too — on from Volokh, since I couldn’t find them on your site. I’ll post the link below.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/04/abstinence_bait_1.html

Thanks to the Volokh link in the post about this, I now check your site daily.

Deoxy: I think the point here is that “abstain from sex until you are married” unfairly includes the term “married.” Since “married” means between a man and a woman, the Bush administration is teaching that people should abstain until the government allows them to marry. If you’re gay, that means never. In which case, this is an open call to all gay people — don’t ever have sex. This kind of paternalism is simply unconscionable, sorely misguided, and an abysmal waste of taxpayer dollars.

Piotr, you still haven’t answered Deoxy’s point. Your objection is to abstinence, not to the supposedly deceptive use of term that is the topic of the post.

Rather than getting all hung up on the marriage thing, consider the biology that the message is trying to convey.

Fewer partners means less risk of disease transmission and lower risk for pregnancy (a sexually transmitted condition specific to heterosexual genital sex). Whether marriage referrs to the Republican one-man-one-woman definition, or the biologically applicable principle of one partner only is a needless distinction. The sexually transmitted diseases do not follow partisan politics.

Deoxy, in which dictionary is abstinence defined as “abstain from sex until you are married”? Defining a word by using a variant of it is pretty crappy defining. “Continence” refers specifically to abstaining from sexual activity, but has no implication of marriage (see the infamous prayer of St. Augustine: “Lord, give me continence, but not yet”).

If the federal government is concerned about maximizing people’s health, they should urge us not to have sex with other people at all, because marriage is not a guarantor against infidelity, STDs or unwanted pregnancies (marriage does not equal “wants to have babies”). Moreover, while 3YoH bolds “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity,” he does nothing to develop this point. There would be no argument with the regulations if they urged only “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship.” In saying that such relationships should include sex only if they are recognized by a discriminatory state, the regulations open themselves to attack.

Clinton’s responsibility for signing DOMA into law cannot be ignored, but in the partisan stackup of how that legislation came about, the Republicans bear far blame: they originated the legislation, put it up for a vote during a presidential election year and all voted for it.

“At the very worst, the ACF has made the intent of an objectionable law more clear, but they hardly seem to be breaking new policy ground.”

The executive branch need not promulgate regulations that carry congressional intent into law, as the Bush Administration’s refusal to fund the UNFPA has made clear. If such regulations were necessary, they would have been made during the Clinton Administration, yet they were not. Therefore the criticisms of the Bush Administration are not misplaced; the Administration is going to carry out legislation it finds sympathetic and ignore that which it doesn’t.

Piotr,

What Ron Coleman said. Your objection is noted, but that has been the status quo since 1996. There is no change to be upset about at the moment. Where was the outcry when Clinton signed this stuff back in th 90’s? Oh, wait – that question answers itself (CLINTON).

Amy Alkon,

“…for the increasing intrusion of the primitive belief in god into our once-secular society.”

What alternate-reality do you come from? The most secular thing about our society has been the belief and/or claim by a sizable portion of “public figure” type people that we are secular. This country has been highly religious since before it began.

If you would LIKE it to bee mor secular, hey, knock yourself out, but simply claiming that it is or has been does not make it so.

(All of that without getting into the ridiculous contortions one must go through to get from the Constitution and its clear meaning to the men that wrote it to the current understanding of “separation of church and state”.)

Deoxy, in which dictionary is abstinence defined as “abstain from sex until you are married”?

“Abstinence” means to abstain from something.

In this context, it means to abstain from sex.

Unless you (the generic “you”) are advocating society simply stop having children, then that “abstinence” is temporary.

For that temporary abstinence from sex to mean anything other than “looking for my next sex partner”, it maens adbstinence until some particular point.

As politely as I possibly can, I would like to just mention thatevery “abstinence” sex-ed program I have ever heard of only promoted abstinence until marriage.

Abstinence “until it’s right” or “until I really want to” is not abstinence at all. Abstinence until ” a commmitted monogomous relationship” has traditionally been referred to as “MARRIAGE” – that would be the “committed” part.

If the federal government is concerned about maximizing people’s health, they should urge us not to have sex with other people at all, because marriage is not a guarantor against infidelity, STDs or unwanted pregnancies (marriage does not equal “wants to have babies”).

Thanks for giving me a good example of disingenuousness. OF-FRICKIN-COURSE it’s not a “guarantor against infidelity”, etc. WHEN YOU FIND SUCH A GUARANTOR, PLEASE LET THE WORLD KNOW. The position you just stated is logically equivalent to “Perfection is impossible, therefore, there is not reason to attempt anything at all.” And actually, FIDELITY by both partners IS a guarantor against STDs. Also, in such a relationship, there tends to be better planning for children (both not having them until ready and being ready when they come) AND better capability to deal with both planned and unplanned children.

Moreover, while 3YoH bolds “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity,” he does nothing to develop this point.

He does not need to. The “mutually faithful” part has been somwhat winked at (especially for men) historically, but the expectation and goal of such has been the norm for western society for over a milennia.

There would be no argument with the regulations if they urged only “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship.”

Except that non-married “mutually faithful monogomous relationships” tend to be serial in nature without marriage, which is still much better than wonton sexual free-for-alls, of course. (Admittedly, MARRIAGE has become much more serial than it used to be – but still not as bad as it’s made to sound. “50% of marriages end in divorce” is a good bit less than 50% of people who get married, as many who divorce remarry… and divorce again.)

Our society is supposed to be secular. Unfortunately, the primitive religious fanatics are no longer closeted and demure, but openly campaigning to have the Ten Commandments up as decor for public buildings and against stem cell research and the like.

Moreover, I am among those who don’t believe in marriage. I don’t make promises I can’t keep, and it’s ludicrous to expect that a relationship will necessarily stay alive for a lifetime. I plan to earn enough money to pay somebody to change my adult diapers someday. I find the prospect that I’d pair up with somebody now for that purpose disgusting and pathetic.

Data shows that the kids who take the abstinence pledge tend to have sex a year to a year and a half later than kids who don’t. The difference is, they tend not to use birth control when they do — thus making them more prone to pregnancy and disease.

I still find it hard to believe that, in 2006, so many people not only believe, without evidence, in The Big Imaginary Friend, but seek to base public policy decisions on their primitive beliefs.

I regularly rail against the stupidity of believers on my site, and will continue to do so, hoping a few people are inspired to consider the benefits of rational living. Unfortunately, I’m not optimistic that the message will trickle down to the ragtag bunch of sleazebags (with the occasional ethical public servant here and there) that we elect to run our government.

Deoxy,

Actually, our society could keep having children even if it urged lifetime abstinence from sex: the children would be produced by those who failed to heed the urging (you know, like the Very Large Number of people who fail to heed “wait until marriage” education) and by reproductive technologies. We no longer would have to fret about destroyed embryos, as they’d quickly be adopted by women who wanted to be virgin mothers. Also, we could forego children and just accept enough young immigrants to replace our aging population, so we wouldn’t have to expend money on education & such.

I’m not saying that in the absence of perfection, we should attempt nothing. I’m saying that the federal government is selling a false set of goods, and a lot of their prospective audience (being children of divorce, or children of parents who were unfaithful but stayed together anyway) will know it. Marriage is not a guarantor of the *expected* benefits. We would be better off teaching children to aspire to the benefits than to think only of the formal license. “Oh, I’ll get married and everything will work out!” is Britney Spears thinking. Teach teenagers about what it takes to make a commitment, about how to deal with the temptations to stray from monogamy. Don’t teach marriage as the magic pill.

I swear I’m not picking on your spelling, but “wonton sexual free-for-alls” cracked me up. Bodies writhing in Chinese soup…

It should be noted that I’ve never made an argument that abstinence based education under this statute was necessarily a great idea. My argument was simply that the ACF definition of abstinence seems to be required by congressional statute, and hence not really a new policy.

If we had taxpayer-paid free public schooling only for the very poor, and people had to pay for each of their children, use of contraception would suddenly become very popular. I’ve written a column on this: you tell kids not to “abstain” because “Jesus wants them to,” or some other crap like that — a dumb denial of human nature (they’re going to have sex anyway, and without a condom)…but you tell them babies are expensive, and wouldn’t they really rather spend that $500 they earned last summer on a new car stereo instead of a breast pump and diapers?

“Our society is supposed to be secular. Unfortunately, the primitive religious fanatics are no longer closeted and demure…”

According to… you? If you actually look at the people who MADE this country, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM thought our country was “supposed to be secular”. “Supposed” by whom?!? You can claim something repeatedly if you like, but that doesn’t make it true. In fact, I’d say that your belief there is just as crazy and dogmatic as “The Big Imaginary Friend” you mock. You WANT it to be secular, that’s all.

The “primitive religious fanatics” have never been closted and demure. Religion has been one of the primary defining characterisitcs of this country since before it even became a country. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “Lah lah lah, I don’t HEAR you” to history doesn’t make it not so, nor does it make you a good example of “the benefits of rational living.”

PG,

“Marriage is not a guarantor of the *expected* benefits.” When you find something that is, please let me know.

That said, you are certainly right that some people have been sold on marriage as a cure to everything. That’s not good, either.

“We would be better off teaching children to aspire to the benefits than to think only of the formal license.”

COMPLETELY true, and I agree.

But, all other things being equal (), marriage is better than not. That is:

“Teach teenagers about what it takes to make a commitment, about how to deal with the temptations to stray from monogamy. Don’t teach marriage as the magic pill.”

That’s exactly right. BUT, after teaching that, MARRIAGE IS STILL GOOD. Marriage is a COMMITMENT. It is the easiest, most obvious, and societally enabled method of committing. Can one be “committed” without being married? Sure! But, um… why? It’s like driving on the right side of the road – that’s the method we use.

So, you’re “committed”, but you don’t gt married. OK, short of really badly implemented marriage laws (which have happened from time to time), I sincerely question your “commitment”. It’s that simple. A JP marriage costs, what less than $100? You’re committed, but not enough to put your name on a piece of paper and drop $100? Oh, yeah, that’s commitment, alright.

As to the spelling… you are absolutely right – that was a HYSTERICAL typo on my part!!!! I’ll be laughing at myself on that all day…

Was George Bush a virgin when he married? Dick Cheney? Any Senator or member of the House? The teacher with the misfortune to be stuck with the job of peddling this laughable tripe to teenagers? Teenagers have acutely sensitive BS detectors that will be going off the scale when they’re getting preached the “abstinence until marriage” line from a bunch of adults who all managed to have pre-marital sex without ending up in the gutter from some fatal disease.

“It’s like driving on the right side of the road – that’s the method we use.”

Except if you were an interracial couple before Loving. Or if you’re a same-sex couple outside MA since Goodridge. To bring up an already hoary example, if Britney Spears can get married and annulled in a weekend, while Dan Savage can adopt kids and stay with one partner for over a decade without being able to marry, how are we signaling that marriage is the ultimate sign of commitment?