There has long been the problem that kids who are indoctrinated with the importance of their virginity are less likely to use contraception when they engage in sexual intercourse, as being in the possession of birth control simultaneously requires and establishes premeditation of the sexual act. When the focus becomes saving our “sexually pure” children from the “sexual depravity” of others, it does not necessarily create attitudes toward sex which are either healthier or less likely to result in sexual activity than those of other kids.

Amusing, perhaps, and the occasion for much snickering on the part of the so-called enlightened, but, in reality, a combination of errors. In the first place, we are supposed to believe that such studies are valid, not merely according to the criteria established by the ’social sciences’ for the ‘measurement’ of human behaviour, but as a judgment of the value of a particular approach to the training of children in the proper approach to sexuality, where the nature of the instruction is the only variable. This may be the methodology of the ’social sciences’, but it is about as intimately related to reality as the ‘Christianist’ ravings of Andrew Sullivan. The children who receive instruction in the imperatives of preserving themselves for marriage are subject to all of the frailties and temptations of human existence, particularly those of adolescence, so acute and seemingly overwhelming; they dwell, like everyone else, in the midst of a culture saturated by images of sexuality, by allusions to sex, tittilations, and enticements, from the music in which they immerse themselves to the films they watch and the fashions they ape; and most of them are not the beneficiaries of a rigourous tradition of disciplined virtue (asceticism) that inculcates the necessity and value of self-denial. And despite these various impoverishments, we are supposed to believe that a change in the content of the sex-ed course is sufficient to make all the difference, such that when those results fail to materialize, we are warranted in believing that we should simply revert to the assumption that the kids are the slaves of their passions and will inevitably yield, so that we should just reassure them that it’s perfectly fine for them to ‘plan ahead’?

Sure. It’s easy to derive that result when you factor out everything of consequence. You’ll never obtain a disconfirming result.

Another error here is the assumption that, rightly understood, the respective approaches to sex-ed have identical objects: the utilitarian avoidance of certain potential undesirable consequences of sexual activity. Whereas, if those advocating an emphasis upon abstinence truly comprehend - which is likely an open question - the moral tradition they purport, or are assumed, to represent, the object of that training is not so much the avoidance of certain consequences, but the cultivation of virtue, a possession and mastery of the self, and the orientation of that self towards a higher end, so that those things which deflect one from that object are cast aside. Things such as fornication, for example.

And then there is the unfortunate reference to a “healthy” attitude towards sexuality, the euphemism of those who seek to medicalize the moral sphere so as to evacuate it of its content. That would entail something between purity and promiscuity, no? It is left entirely undefined, save to assert, without much in the way of argument, that it is neither this nor that. Somehow, I am tempted to claim that anyone who could place the phrases “sexually pure” and “sexual depravity” in quotations marks might not know what either of those things is, although that might be overly harsh. Actually, the point is to distinguish those acts which conform to human nature and the end of man from those which do not conform, and which divert man from his end, and, in the process, to awaken the young to the conflict of impulses and desires within them - which they must master, mastery of necessity involving abstinence from certain acts, as things done in the body affect mind and spirit.

Wouldn’t it be as true, if not more true, to say “Show me a culture that places virginity on a pedestal, and I’ll show you a culture which devalues women.” Pick the nations with the strongest cultural attitudes toward protecting virginity and you’ll find first that they are protective of female virginity (but no so much of male virginity). And then you’ll see that they have a lot of other problems which aren’t so enviable.

Sadly, most people who support Gay/Bisexual/Lesbian/Transgender rights are not aware of what exactly is being promoted and that is exactly how its most ardent promoters prefer it to remain.The writings of Mary Daly, for example, are not merely pie-in-the-sky philosophy for Queer Studies majors. The National Organization of Women experienced a schism in the early 1970s in response to NOW’s decision against supporting lesbian rights at that time. In the years that followed, as Mary Daly and others explored the meaning of womanhood and of the politics of language in defining womanhood, many women decided to redefine themselves as “wimmin”, that is, woman without man, and to form communities in which they could define their own language, politics and gender economy. These strongholds represented then and still represent today the self-conscious drive to define and express self at the expense of family units, traditional religious mores and society at large. Just as monasteries are the spiritual “anchors” of the Christian Church in their dedication to prayer for the Church, so these lesbian (as well as gay and faerie) separatist communities were and are the spiritual anchors of the GBLT rights movement. The unabashed goal of these communities is the destruction of Patriarchy. While gender and sexual politics are expressed in a broad spectrum within the GBLT community, the underlying philosophies remain intact, however well disguised.

Changes in divorce law and the legal status of abortion were the first steps toward the destruction of Patriarchy in the United States, followed by legal protections in a growing number of states for same-sex couples and individuals. In the wake of the early days of the AIDS crisis, becoming “sex positive” and promoting “alternative” sexuality as a healthy expression of self for not only for people identifying as GBL or T but for ALL people - the popularization of overt “kink” - became a cause celebre. Today, we see an agenda pushing the destruction of the traditional view of gender among the very youngest members of society. When there are no “men” (in the tradition of the Patriarchs), there can be no Patriarchy.

This is spiritual blight, pure and simple, which is not the invention of man (or womon) but the spirit of an age. Traditionalism is our last and best hope for a stable future.

Many of those who practice oral sex during their preteen and teen years do not view it as “sex” (thank you, Bill Clinton).

Ah yes, how I remember the days when the world was safe for children… back before the evil Bill Clinton invented the blow job. Is there actually any evidence that Bill Clinton’s sex life had any impact on the sexual choices of minors? (For Clinton-haters, I don’t suppose that would matter.) Within the context of that relationship Monica Lewinsky as an adult personified the culture and attitudes you wish to pretend were somehow created by Bill Clinton. Let’s see - Clinton-Lewinsky broke in 1998. Here’s a wholesome (not!) rap ditty from 1997.

And then, to the extent that you wish to make it “Clinton’s fault” - why Clinton, and not the voyeuristic investigation led by Ken Starr, as facilitated by a media which seemed almost to stifle a giggle every time it disclosed a new prurient detail?

If that isn’t frightening enough, consider the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network’s efforts at “queering” public education right down to the preschool level…

Oh, the horror - a bugbear in our midst. But you didn’t explain - how is that Clinton’s fault? The funny thing about an analysis like the one you reference is that it isn’t an analysis at all - it is a collection of the most inflammatory examples the author can find, strung together in the most inflammatory way the author can structure them, to advance a frantic hysteria that… subsequent years have demonstrated to be wholly misplaced. So a second grade class used a book which included a play which suggested that a boy’s minor cross-dressing behavior (specifically, his wearing his “mommy’s high heels”) isn’t such a big deal - and just look at how you describe it…. If you caught your seven-year-old son wearing your high heels, how would you react? (My daughter’s two and she’s already trying on my shoes… but as I’m sure you would attest, “That’s different.” Right?)

Modest clothing, wholesome activities, proper supervision and fidelity to marriage vows would seem to offer a remedy, but too many children are growing up in the total absence of these.

I missed it again - how is this Clintons’ fault? Somehow, despite his nefarious influence, I suspect that you kept your daughters out of “porn star” clothes at the age of four. At what point can we place the responsibility for much of this where it belongs - that is, with the parents? I recall some statistics (and associated snickering) which circulated quite widely a year or two ago demonstrating how prevalent anal sex had become among communities of girls who had taken virginity pledges, and how the girls who had taken such pledges had an STD infection rate as high as that of their unpledged peers. There has long been the problem that kids who are indoctrinated with the importance of their virginity are less likely to use contraception when they engage in sexual intercourse, as being in the possession of birth control simultaneously requires and establishes premeditation of the sexual act. When the focus becomes saving our “sexually pure” children from the “sexual depravity” of others, it does not necessarily create attitudes toward sex which are either healthier or less likely to result in sexual activity than those of other kids. The best way to prevent our girls (and so much of this debate is really about the girls, it being [wink wink, nudge nudge] okay if a boy gets a blow job but quite problematic if a girl gives one) from engaging in early, inappropriate or promiscuous sexual behavior is to attempt to inculcate within them a healthy attitude toward sexuality. And in my humble opinion neither the extreme of “blow jobs aren’t much more than a handshake” or “you’ll get all of your needs fulfilled by a close relationship with your daddy until you get married” are likely to achieve that end.

“Show me a culture that despises virginity, and I’ll show you a culture that despises children.”

Wouldn’t it be as true, if not more true, to say “Show me a culture that places virginity on a pedestal, and I’ll show you a culture which devalues women.” Pick the nations with the strongest cultural attitudes toward protecting virginity and you’ll find first that they are protective of female virginity (but no so much of male virginity). And then you’ll see that they have a lot of other problems which aren’t so enviable. Which of those nations would you pick as a place to raise your daughters over the United States?

No question, one day my daughter is going to see the Deja Vu sign on I-94 near where we live at an age where she will have questions about it - which I hope she’s comfortable enough to ask. I don’t expect that she’ll somehow wilt or lose her innocence over seeing the billboard, and I expect that her mother and I can explain it in age-appropriate terms. Part of raising a child in this culture is providing her (to the best of your ability) with the tools to deal with our society’s often unhealthy approach to sexuality.

There is nothing like fatherhood to deepen one’s reaction against modernity. Last winter, there was a gigantic billboard near a shopping center we frequent - the local Whole Foods is located there - advertising a ‘gentleman’s club’, replete with the image of a woman looking provocatively at the viewer and the usual boilerplate text about the charms of the, ahem, ladies who plied their trade at the club. It horrified me to think of how even the imagery might deprave the mind of a child, and what I, as a father, would have to do to explain to a child what this billboard was advertising and why, if it was so wrong, why it was permitted. Because children do ask such things. Our culture even debases language. “Gentleman’s club”? Gentleman do not leer at scantily-attired women, regarding them as objects of their gratification. I take it as an indicator of a decadent society that it fairly compels even the decent to provide their children with certain forms of knowledge in what is, strictly speaking, a premature fashion, as a prophylaxis against worse evils. As Catholic blogger Mark Shea is fond of saying, “Show me a culture that despises virginity, and I’ll show you a culture that despises children.”

Try watching MTV for 30 minutes if you can stand it. When did you last see an intact family on any sitcom?

The ceremony you describe seems rather tacky, but the impulse behind it is sound, albeit, no doubt, an improvised invention of adherents to a faith that’s cut off from liturgical tradition.

If that isn’t frightening enough, consider the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network’s efforts at “queering” public education right down to the preschool level (”Queering the Schools” by Marjorie King; City Journal, Spring, 2003). A few years ago, in a medical office waiting room, I came across a glossy little magazine (much in the style of the Watchtower/Jehovah’s Witness publications) championing the “rights of children.” The rights of children, as it turned out, included dressing and identifying as the opposite gender (I assume that hormone “therapy” also falls into this realm) and participating in homosexual acts.

The mainline Protestant response to the sexual commodification of children may or may not be fruitful from the standpoint of maintaining chastity. Sexual purity, in the sense of being undefiled by exposure to sexual depravity, is another matter. In this culture, one might argue, it is almost impossible to protect the sexual purity of one’s children, given the prevalence of lurid images and sexually provocative fashions introduced to children at increasingly early ages. As a parent, I have seen shockingly suggestive clothing for girls as young as four, who apparently need to keep up with Christina Aguilera in order to maintain their “street cred” at preschool.

This is a monstrous problem that only continues to grow. Modest clothing, wholesome activities, proper supervision and fidelity to marriage vows would seem to offer a remedy, but too many children are growing up in the total absence of these.

Seriously, coming of age ceremonies are extremely important, and they need to be public. I have two sons, and I would so much like to have some kind of public affirmation of their adulthood, more than high school graduation. While I think formal dances should be mandatory, for everyone, at least twice annually, this kind of thing is just creepy, especially with the all the sex emphasis. Why not just have the “Junior Cotillion” or some equivalent, with both boys and girls invited? Make it an honor for the kids themselves, not just a signal that the parents have lots of cash, and make it open to kids from the entire town, as in all social classes, just that only kids who have good character and good grades get to participate. (I’ve always wondered why no one considered it worthwhile to teach kids from poor families manners. They need it the most.) Require the participants to attend classes in ballroom dancing and deportment, as well as maybe some local history. Based on my own experience, kids who believe they matter to the world, in that they have both opportunities and responsibilities, they will avoid sex and drugs.

Steve

I actually grew up about 20 min from Van Wert. That whole area of Ohio is by and large farming communities with a few small towns mixed in. Given the area, it doesn’t suprise me much that the ceremony is hokie, and definitely a bit odd. However, I remember having sex ed for the first time when I wasn’t much older than 10 years old and I’m sure they are doing it earlier now. Isn’t it more odd that we are teaching our kids about sex in the 4th and 5th grade? That question brings up tons of others, but for those that are in public schools, shouldn’t they take responsibility as parents and seek to train up their children with a Biblical perspective? When my wife and I have children some day, it would be my preference not to talk to them so early, but what choice do we have? I would rather talk to them early and talk to them about God’s perspective rather than let some sex ed teacher at a school do it.

Perhaps it is cheesy and hokie but what if it works? We attach ceremonies to things that are important so what if it serves as a reminder for both the Father and the daughter to be vigilant? Perhaps I am sensitive to this subject as my wife grew up in a family where her Father didn’t do a very good job of protecting her from creeps or showing/telling her how men and women were to interact Biblically. Likewise, I grew up in a family where my Dad was very absent with regard to helping me learn how a man behaves around women. Even if he had, I’m sure I would have still made mistake and sinned against others and hurting others, but it might have been helpful to have someone guide me and talk to me once in a while. My understanding of the book of Proverbs is that it is a manual for training young men to become MEN…..and those patterns where not lived out for me well (regardless the responsibility is still mine).

These things obviously don’t have to be done with some cheesy ceremony but it seems to me that teaching your children about Biblical views of sexuality and manhood/womanhood should be done some how.