Skip to comments.On teen sex, ‘practical’ goes awry
Posted on 04/20/2011 9:12:34 AM PDT by reaganaut1
ONCE AGAIN we return to the long-running morality play featuring condoms vs. abstinence as rival antidotes for the twin specters of STDs and teen pregnancy.
The grip of the bourgeoisie is vise-like; practical adult opinion in and out of government regards sex among the young strictly as a health issue. In that spirit, the Provincetown school board voted last June to offer free condoms to students of all ages without their parents consent. (Amid an outcry, the district reconsidered somewhat.) Earlier this month, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter launched a major condom-distribution campaign whose website offers to mail condoms to people as young as 11 years old. With the coming of the spring rut to high schools, adults and other educators across the country may follow a similar, if less conspicuous, approach.
But the young, who will live either up to or down to the standards set for them, deserve better than this well-meaning but flaccid approach.
Apart from the questionable efficacy (Will kids use them? Do they work?) and the fact that condoms have nothing to do with education, their free (another problem) distribution to high school students transmits two contradictory messages.
The first is amoral: sex in high school is tacitly okay, a recreational sport about which adults are agnostic, so long as it is safe. The second is irrational: sex for high school kids is, well, not okay, but we adults trust neither you kids to abstain nor ourselves to lead.
Sounded together, the two say: We are giving up hope in your good behavior in order to be free from the fear of your bad. And the kids see through this, and there is engendered in them cynicism and disdain for confused and cowardly adults and their incoherent ethical norms.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It is curious that as a society, we seem to expect teens who fall from the virtue of chastity to retain the virtue of prudence.
Or maybe not, as a society we seem to have lost sight of the notion of virtue entirely, so clear thinking on the subject is likely to be in short supply.
They are already working their way down to 11 year olds and this writer talks about high school kids.
This country has gone insane.
California Penal Code Section 261.5 defines unlawful intercourse. One element is one participant under 18.
California Penal Code Section 182(a)(5) gives one definition of conspiracy. An element is two or more persons, as in one student and one school official.
It’s always been a mystery why school officials can be guilty of both above crimes in distributing condoms to minors, especially given the attitude that “they’re going to do it anyway,” but never be charged.
Where are the District Attorneys?
The answer to your question is very simple: sex outside of marriage is destructive of the family, a non-state institution, and thus, permitting and encouraging it increases the power of the state. Other prohibitions (underage drinking, using psychoactive substances not popular in Europe at the time of the American Founding, selling 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, etc.) increase state power.
The only activities the left wants to leave unregulated by the state are those which, when unregulated, increase the power of the state.
The thing is, you can show a correlation between the home environment and expectations and the rate of promiscuity vs abstinence until marriage.
If it was inevitable that they would “do it anyway”, you’d see no difference between families who have a high moral standard and those that do not.
You are overlooking the California Penile Code which states, “If it feels good, do it.”
Righteousness exalts a nation: But sin is a reproach to any people.
45,000,000 “CHOICE” recipients cry out: REPENT!
“Teen” and “practical” do not belong in the same sentence.
Oh, excellent analysis. I have not seen that point made so concisely before.
I call it having a “Nero complex”. They need to get rid of the competition. Just like Nero burned out the patricians around his planned temple to himself.
If you look at anti-colonial screeds (the Marxist view of Africa, e.g.) they look to clog up the system with the “lumpenproletariat”, so they can step in with state power (read dictatorial militarism).
That's the 'Chicago way'. It has been Duh Won's approach to everything.
I know, this has been going on since before the 60s, and started with something as seemingly innocuous as the implied infidelities in Peyton Place.