All About Sex

May 22, 2002

by Dennis Lombard

Thoughts while reading the Sunday paper: White is black, black is white, and polka dots are square. The goofiest people are not in the funnies but in the editorials. And "abstinence-only" Sex Ed for America’s "poorly informed" teenagers, even though it always works, "only works when it works."

Okay, I’ll try to untangle all that buffoonery if I can. I’m only mortal, I don’t write for the Washington Post. I’m reacting to a column by Richard Cohen, a resident wag of that esteemed rag, entitles "Sex ed without truth is farcical." It just appeared in our local daily, which makes the local editors guilty of complicity in some awful double-speak - on the Lord’s Day no less.

The headline of the story does not immediately tell you which side of the "abstinence" debate the author is on. Both sides in the hotly contested "abstinence" issue claim the other side tells untruths and forces teachers to lie to our kiddies. Let’s rattle off some of the pronouncements of this Post columnist and compare them with some of my own impressions of fact and truth (I’ve been a student of sex since, oh, about age 12) and see who comes off best.

Cohen says: "The abstinence-only provision (in a California bill) is a measure so illogical that just to contemplate it raises the sound fear that you will lose your mind."

I say, this fait-accompli sentence is a marvelous example of what your Rhetoric teacher taught you was called "begging the question." My reading of this article convinced me the author has already lost what mind he might have had.

He says, that in the CA course, "Condoms may be mentioned, but only their failure rates."

I say, duh, their failure rates are rather critical information, huh? And they do fail, not only in preventing STDs and pregnancies, but also broken hearts, poor marital preparation, and sin.

He says, "The fact that they most often are effective must not be mentioned [in the CA course]."

I say, effective for what? They are scientifically known to be virtually ineffective for protection against HIV-AIDS, this millennium’s most feared and dangerous STD. Despite free condom distributions, young girls still get pregnant before graduation by the millions. And tell any teenager, struggling to manage his own personal bodily hormone invasion, that there is a chance a condom might protect him and he’ll weaken ... especially if he has a free supply in his jeans pocket.

He says, "Now consider the American teenager. More than half ages 15-19 have had sex ... "

I must ask, first of all, who’s encouraging them? Hasn’t 30-40 years of wide-open amoral Sex Ed in our schools seen rapidly rising instances of teenage sexual experience, STDs, especially HIV-AIDS, teen pregnancies, moral falling out of young people, erosion of the schools in which Sex Ed is taught, and rising marriage failure rates? I’m not saying I can irrefutably connect all of these social phenomena with Sex Ed, but isn’t it time for some radical new ideas such as "total abstinence" teaching?

Now get this: he says, "It’s not that there is anything wrong with abstinence, which is ... 100 percent effective. Rather, it’s that abstinence only works when it works ..." and he goes on, " ... when the well-intentioned kid falls off the wagon, he ought to know what to do."

Let me try to answer that run-on absurdity and wrap up my little debate. I say:

Everything is right with abstinence, period. It is pregnancy-free and HIV-free, it is morally and emotionally healthy and comes highly recommended by almost all reputable religions, excluding ultra-liberals, satanism and wacko New Age cults. Yes, it’s 100 percent effective in every way. It prepares young people for success in school, marriage, and all later stages of life – which should be a central goal of all educational programs.

When the well-intentioned kid falls off the wagon? First of all, let’s teach them not to get into the whoopie wagon in the first place. Wisdom of the elders can help them avoid sexual activity and tendency and proximity that lead to unprotected sex. Young lads and lassies are notably clumsy in proper application of a protective device under the heat of the moment. And even if they win the condom lottery, all the other problems of premature pre-marital sexual intimacy strike the uninformed, untaught, unprotected victims of educational malpractice.

I’ll leave it up to you. Who won this pop-off debate?

The next time your child asks you to sign off on his Sex Ed class, demand to see the textbook, the syllabus, the visual and physical aids. Even go meet the teacher and ask how he or she feels about abstinence - because Sex Ed course outlines are rarely followed, teachers have confessed. Don’t be afraid to ask if he or she really cares about your kid or is reluctantly teaching some course shoved at him by the educrats. Even consider teaching them yourself – your way because they’re your kids! – or arranging perfectly legal "shared time" Sex Ed by professionals chosen by you, the loving parents.

_________________________________________

© 2002 Home Times Family Newspaper

Dennis Lombard has been a community newspaper editor since 1972, and is currently editor and publisher of Home Times Family Newspaper, a traditional conservative monthly which he founded in 1990. He resides in Lake Worth, Florida with his wife, Mary, and they have seven children, 13 grandchildren, and one great-grandson. Home Times, soon going weekly, serves Palm Beach and Martin Counties in Florida and the nation by mail subscription, covering world, national, and local people and issues, home and family, arts and entertainment, and religion, all with a traditional conservative worldview. For a free copy call toll-free: 888-439-3509 or go to http://www.hometimes.org.

Send the author an E mail at Lombard@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Dennis' articles, visit his archives.