Tag Archives: STD

Dead Sexy

In a previous article, Priorities Of Preservation, I discussed the importance Christianity puts on the entirety of an person: body, mind, and spirit.

While the world, in a misguided and myopic view constrained by sin, only really cares for the preservation of the body. And through ignorance, loses the whole person.

In a report released last week which most have already heard of or commented on, it was noted that 1/4 of the US Teenage Female population is infected with one of several Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

The immediate cry was that Abstinence Education must be completely abandoned and further explanation of the ins and outs of safe sex be taught to every child.

I find those making that argument to be their own worst enemies, and I am determined to sit and watch them tear themselves apart trying to make sense of what they’ve said.

Better have a good belt to hold these sides in. The problem is, this is no laughing matter: peoples lives are at stake.
At the blog dbTechno (“Providing Science And Technology News Since 1996”) under the headline “Teens Having Sex, Getting STD’s Due To Lack Of Knowledge” (strongly caution) there is a small picture of three bikini-clad young women shaking their derrières before the camera. This was the picture Google had selected on it’s news aggregator to highlight the several articles on this topic this morning.

In our sexified culture it is considered “emancipated” for a woman to be so “comfortable” with her sexuality that she feels willing to flaunt her body either scantily clothed or free of clothes before the whole world.

I don’t think that it is a sign of a healthy self-image that women are willing and even choose to clothe themselves that way.

I am not for arbitrary requirements in clothing, but it is saddening that, younger and younger, we are compelling out daughters and sisters to choose between frumpy and scandalous.

Removing their modesty with bits of lycra and spandex.

Revealing their bodies for the eyes of all the world.

And then we worry that too many of them are having sex.

I think a healthy self image will result in true self-worth, where the woman will not feel compelled to dress “sexy” to get the approval and acceptance of others.

When a woman is dressing revealingly they are revealing their insecurity, not their assuredness.

The Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board this morning published an article titled “Abstinence-Only Education Needs To Go” (no scandalous images here) in which they completely demolish their own claims, twice.

First, early in the article they lay claim to the moral high ground:

From here, it would be easy to play the blame game. But that would be unproductive. It doesn’t matter if you’re the pro-sex education or abstinence-only type, the statistics speak for themselves, and what matters most is that something be done to make our children more sexually responsible and safe.

And then, in the very next paragraph:

Let’s start with re-tooling the failed abstinence-only approach backed by the Bush administration. Let’s teach teenagers about contraceptives and other precautions that could help protect them if they are sexually active.

Yes, lets avoid the blame game, and lets look at the facts. The Bush Administration has indeed backed and supported an abstinence-only education approach, because no one who practices abstinence contracts an STD, no one. It make sense to back a winner. But how many education programs has the Bush Administrations policy actually affected? Good question.

I would be willing to bet that with state policy, and NEA policy, and DoE policy, there is precious little abstinence-only education going on in the public schools of America.

The article then goes on to make an astounding statement. I very nearly cheered, at work, when I read this:

Abstinence teaching has its merits. It not only promotes a sure-proof defense against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but also the idea that sexual activity requires a high level of maturity and understanding. An adolescent who engages in “protected” sex prematurely may not run the risk of physical infections, but could be exposed to long-term emotional and psychological damage.

And then gets to the…

BOTTOM LINE: Place more emphasis on contraceptives and STDs in sex-education classes.

And they reached that how?

With this simple caveat they have attempted to justify their entire tortured argument, and by extension, rationalize their continued support for the torture of young minds and bodies with illness both physical and psychological:

Like it or not, half of the teenage girls in this country are already sexually active, according to the study. Something has to be done to make them wiser in their choices, or we soon could have an even bigger public health crisis on our hands.

Do they not see the cruel irony?

Because we’re a bunch hapless, helpless dolts who’ve bought the lie that children are capable of making their own informed decisions regarding sex and mature relationships.

Because we’re a bunch of laissez-faire non-present parental units who feel no particular responsibility to counter the culture’s claims that boys are animals and girls are meat.

Because we’re a bunch of lazy do-gooders who value intentions over actions and outcomes and are willing to allow our children to do whatever they please so long as it makes them feel good.

We will complete ignore what we already know to be true: that premature involvement in adult relationships, emotional and physical, will not only harm the body but will also damage the mind.

So long as we tell enough of them to use condoms, we are perfectly willing to let them hop into bed with any yahoo or floozy who comes along.

Yea, that’s advanced society and parental love for you.

See also:

The Condom Conspiracy: Sex, Lies, STIs and Teenage Girls – the evangelical outpost

While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.

STD Data Comes As No Surprise, Area Teenagers Say – Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver in the Washington Post

The Marrow girls offered several reasons why teenagers have sex.

“It’s to fit in, peer pressure,” Christine said, noting that virgins are often mocked. Also, “sex sells on TV.”

Khadijah chimed in that some young girls found their inspiration in the popular R&B singer Rihanna, whose latest album is titled “Good Girl Gone Bad.”

But Christina suggested something closer to home. “Write this down,” she said. “Bad parenting.”

Quick Takes, October 15th, 2007

Democrat House staffers recommend getting full immunizations before going to NASCAR events. Recommended immunizations include the Hepatitis B (an STD) vaccine. Apparently their caricatured idea of NASCAR fans include homosexual and promiscuous hicks of varying degrees of uncleanness openly engaging in sexual acts in the stands and infield.

…either that or they think conservatism is transmittable. Heh, they have no idea.

(Ain’t worth a)Hill(of beans)ary Clinton says that for African Americans, she’s going to be Clinton.

…and how long ago did she drop Rodham?

…and that means they should vote for her, why? The inscrutable logic simply does not follow.

…and for all the Chinese- and Mexican-, and German-, and British-, Australian-, Swedish-, Spanish-, Brazilian-, and every other (hyphen) Americans, who will she be? Urkel?

Run, Al, run!

…anything to give the nutroots more choices. They are pro-murder “pro-choice”, right?

Speaking of running: Harry Reid may want to start running, along with Clinton, Schumer et al.

Democrats push through bill making sure we all know the Turks committed genocide 60 years ago.

I don’t deny it’s a good thing to be accurate, especially about such heinous events and crimes as genocide. But they’re our staunchest ally in the Mid-east region. And we need some clout with them to keep them from beginning a war on the northern border of Iraq with Kurd rebels who are taking shelter among some of our strongest supporters inside Iraq, the Kurds.

Either intelligence on the left side of the isle is lower than even I thought, or ego is even larger. Do we really have to lose at all costs?

It was aliens, I knew it.

Quote:

You do not negotiate peace until you’ve kicked somebody’s rear end.
~Rush Limbaugh

You Will Get Very Mad

So I’m going to make a lot of people mad. People who generally agree with me as well as people who generally don’t agree with me will be very mad. In fact, I’m only sure of one person who will not be mad with me after they get through reading this. So, be forewarned, and consider anger to be a warning that something might not be right with your worldview, because I am certain that while my worldview is by no means perfect, when it comes to this it is the only sensible view.

So major disclaimer aside, here’s what I want to discuss: Homosexuals. Not homosexuality, but the people who practice it. So, laser focus with me on the people, not the action.

First, they are people. Duh, says you. So then I ask what are the implications of being ‘people’? From the Judeo-Christian perspective, that means several things. The pertinent things to this discussion being that people are fallen and people are loved. Fallen from God and loved by Him. If you are not from the Judeo-Christian perspective, I recommend that you get that bit sorted out soon. You may still proceed with this discussion, but there are parts you may not understand completely.

A basic fact of sin is that is it an all-or-nothing state of being. You either are a sinner or you’re lying to yourself and everybody else, and that means you’re sinning. Jesus is the only human able to truly claim perfection. God is also sinless but as He is the creator of humans, he falls outside the category being discussed. There are no grades in sin, no degrees or permutations. This will fly in the face of catholics who believe that they must do things here on earth to shorten their time in purgatory, and that they must spend time in purgatory working off the penalties for sins they’d committed. Also, Muslims will be offended by this because they believe that they need to be as good as possible and follow the demands of Allah and hope Allah is in a good mood when they die so they can get their virgins or whatever a Muslim woman gets in heaven. And even among the Protestant category there are people who argue that there are degrees of sin due to there being differences of apparent punishment. This is ludicrous on its face. The particular gentleman I talked with who espoused this view claimed that because homosexuality resulted in various forms of deadly diseases not generally found in the general population, the homosexuals were damned by God to two punishments, one here on earth and another in the hereafter. To follow this logic one must ignore the plethora of mental illnesses, stress disorders, and various maladies which can be traced back to the most ‘mundane’ of sins. Who has ever refused to forgive someone and found themselves grinding their teeth at night? Stress disorders are common and becoming more common and they can be attributed to or exacerbated by any number of simple sins committed daily by each one of us. Also, if sins were not equal, the payment would not be equal. This is refusing the grace found in the propitiatory act of Christ on the Cross, or at least denying its efficacy. If STDs such as AIDS were punishment, the homosexual, even if they came to Christ and rejected their former ways, would still be under Gods punishment, and we know that there is “no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,” none. Sin is sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners and equally deserving of the same punishment, an eternity of torment and separation from God (I would submit that the torment is not in addition to separation but rather a result of it, but that is a totally different discussion for a totally different day). We are also all equally invited to forgiveness, and offered the same chance at a new life, a clean slate so to speak.

A friend of mine, in a recent conversation, clarified what I see among Christians in general. We are so abhorred by the very idea of homosexuality that we cannot see the sinner for the sin. So quick to judge the person with the action. So eager to condemn a soul because we cannot see their pain. I do not excuse the actions of homosexuals, but neither do I excuse the actions of a child stealing a candy-bar, they’re both sin. I believe that most of the vitriol that exists in this debate results from the knee-jerk reaction that is felt by both sides of this issue whenever they encounter the other. I cannot speak to the pro-homosexual side because they have no reason to believe I have their best interests at heart. Personally, I cannot witness to anybody until they know that I love them unconditionally, and then that very love is what will draw them to me and then to Christ. This is not to say that I will not do what I can to prevent society from accepting and normalizing homosexual ideals and behaviors, and even this is a result of my love for those who practice homosexuality. However, I will not, extenuating circumstances excepting, engage in head-to-head arguments full of misunderstanding and hate for the person on the other side.

Socially, I cannot allow a ‘redefinition’ of marriage. This is a totally separate issue from accepting homosexuals as humans with all the rights embodied therein. The homosexual lifestyle is not safe, in fact far from that it is destructive, primarily to those actively engaged in it, but also, secondarily, to those around. The average lifespan of a homosexual is significantly lower than that of a heterosexual. This is not propaganda or lies, it is verifiable and true. Just as the shortness of life has never been a result of the backwardness of medicine, homosexual lifespan is not a result of poor medical knowledge. Better medical knowledge improves life expectancy and quality, but that is not a proof of causation, merely correlation. The homosexual is many times more likely to have been sexually victimized by someone in their youth, and also many times more likely to sexually victimize someone else. I will do my best to prevent such a destructive relationship from ever being legitimized and normalized by any society of which I am a member. I do not celebrate the ruination of peoples’ lives.

Why do we agree to call homosexual people gay? Gay is a beautiful word that has been co-opted to identify those who are homosexual. We all abide by those descriptions that define us, as long as they define us accurately, and note there is a difference between accurately and completely. A homosexual might very well be classified by any number of other terms each showing us a small portion of who they are. Just as I can be classified as ‘conservative’, ‘musical,’ ‘dull,’ ‘blonde,’ ‘Christian,’ student,’ and so on, Homosexual is only one aspect of the identity they have chosen for themselves. Just as I can change any number of my descriptors, any one else can too. The word homosexual is a statement of fact, defining those who practice homosexuality, or sexual relations between those of the same gender. Gay means happy, and a person who is gay may very well be a homosexual, but they may very well not be as well.

But the homosexual is a person, first and foremost. They are humans with all the beauty built in them by God and with all the struggles and problems inbred by the fall.

Now I have made everyone mad. If not, wow, send a comment and add any thoughts I believe I missed. This topic could easily fill a large book and I feel as though it is woefully incomplete.

Just remember, words mean things and ideas have consequences. What have your words meant (what you meant to say does not matter), and what consequences result from your ideas?