Abstinence Bait & Switch
Think about what "abstinence" means -- what it really means, not just what it means in concept. Hmmm...a girl only taking it up the butt until she walks down the aisle with some boy from the church youth group? Well, basically. No formal intercourse until marriage. Until marriage. Hmmm...ask yourself something: Thanks to all the fundanutters, who gets to get married in this country? Straight people only, please! Which is why Walter Olson, of Overlawyered.com, makes a very good point -- that "abstinence" actually means no sex but biblical sex.
Here's some commentary Olson sent Dale Carpenter over at Volokh.com:
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)
None for you, all you homos! No, just a life of sexual frustration, per church orders. Well...then again...there's always a life in the priesthood!
P.S. In the general population, heterosexuals are much more likely than homosexuals to be child molesters. I think you can probably chalk up the large number of priests molesting boys to the church's sick view of homosexuality as some kind of sin, which, tragically, forces believers to try to sublimate their sexuality. Altar boys and the like become easy targets -- or the only available targets.
Posted by aalkon at April 24, 2006 11:58 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1269
Comments
Just how young do they want their kids to be when they get married, anyway?
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 24, 2006 11:38 AM
From what I've read, there are lots of teenage "technical virgins" out there who are pretty proficient at blowjobs. Some are even relatively indiscriminate about sex (who, what, when, etc.) as long as it's not intercourse. Their religious mothers must be so proud.
Posted by: Melissa at April 24, 2006 4:30 PM
From what I've read, there are lots of teenage "technical virgins" out there who are pretty proficient at blowjobs. Some are even relatively indiscriminate about sex (who, what, when, etc.) as long as it's not intercourse. Their religious mothers must be so proud.
Posted by: Melissa at April 24, 2006 4:38 PM
You know, I never saw this so much as a failure in sex-ed (religous based or otherwise) so much as a way of guys taking advantage of 'loopholes.' I knew quite a few Catholic girls who regularly gave blowjobs and anal sex (because it 'didn't count'). I never knew any whose boyfriends reciprocated.
And not to come off sounding like a GOP asshole, but I do think that we have Pres. Clinton for 'blowjobs are not sex.'
Incidently, in the Greek Orthodox church, oral and anal sex are sins (even when engaged in by married heterosexual couples). Right up there with condoms and birth control.
Posted by: LXV at April 24, 2006 8:52 PM
This is NO CHANGE. This has been the official possition since 1996.
And it's NOT "bait-and-switch" - what do you think "abstinence" means, anyway?!? Abstaining from sex... until you don't feel like abstaining anymore? Abstinance has always been "only have sex with your spouse." ALL ALONG.
You are certainly free to complain about it, of course, but blaming Bush for bringing this about is simply factually wrong.
(And yes, the whole "blow-jobs and anal aren't REALLY sex" thing is just plain stupid...)
Posted by: Deoxy at April 26, 2006 11:28 AM
P.S. The study you link to has some SERIOUS problems.
-sample size (WAY too small)
-sampling method (those brought to the hospital - no effort is given to show that they are representative)
-sampling method again ("of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified" - especially problematic with such a small sample; also, that's going to skew certain directions... like family members - oh, look, the study said family members are mor likely to be the abuser...)
-"A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual." Except by the vast majority of the world population.
-"The experts agree that there is no link to homosexuality and child abuse." How convenient. xcept that they don't list any support for that statement or explain who the "experts" are. Unless things have changed in the last 3 years, that statement is just plain false. They probably justify it with redefinition of terms and/or who qualifies as an "expert" (my favorite is when people are excluded from being "experts" by holding certain positions... such as people who would otherwise be experts who hold that homosexuality and child abuse DO have a link... creating a circular definition.)
Now, I'm not saying that the article is WRONG, mind you, only that it's crappy. Find better support.
Posted by: Deoxy at April 26, 2006 12:03 PM
There are other studies that DO support this. I was in a bit of a rush - should have read a little more closely.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 26, 2006 2:20 PM
Leave a comment