Part-Time Pundit

Why Abstinence Education Does Not Work (and It’s Not What You Think)

Every few months the abstinence education advocates and the comprehensive sex ed advocates trade studies back and forth. “Comprehensive sex ed works!” “Abstinence education works!” The back-and-forth clubbing of studies may make for good headlines but largely misses the point.

While it can be argued that comprehensive sex ed may increase sexual activity (much like the anti-drug program DARE has increased teen drug use in many cases), the success or failure of abstinence education relies on factors largely outside the classroom. Simplistic one-factor statistical analysis is not useful in dealing with a problem that involves more than one variable.

The fact is, teenage (and childhood) sexual activity is a new historical phenomena. Abstinence education was all that there was for centuries and it works. The spread of sexually transmitted disease, teenage motherhood, single motherhood, and broken homes being the norm has never been seen on this magnitude in the history of mankind. It is naïve to think that a 45 minute lecture will be all that is needed to reverse that tide in any meaningful way.

The problem found its biggest catalyst in the sixties under the guise of the “sexual revolution”. It is important to realize that it is the generation of youth in the sixties who are making the policy decision today. That generation steeped themselves in anti-authority rhetoric; it should come as no surprise that they now rail against parental involvement.

For some time, it has only been that generation who has been preaching the sexual liberation message from the rooftops. Those who held to chastity simply remained effectively silent out of a false sense of modesty. It was a “false sense” because modesty strives to put sexuality in its proper place, this reaction however was not modest, it was prudish which seeks to avoid all discussion to begin with. It is this prudishness cloaked in modesty that has led to one of the biggest criticisms of the chastity ideology… that it really is about “sex being a dirty thing.” I know of no one who believes in chastity that thinks sex is some dirty chore married people are bound to do from time to time.

It is important to also take into account all the messages children get about sex from sources outside the classroom. One only needs to watch a few sitcoms, listen to a few of the Billboard Top 40 songs, or look at a few magazines, and we see only one ideology of sex presented (i.e. loose and cheap sex). When no other message is conveyed, we should not be surprised that “kids will just have sex.” That is also why it is so invidious that organizations would use the hammer of the United States Constitution to drive out any competing ideas (or at least those that treat chastity seriously) out of the public square.

On a personal note, before I was married I had considered the priesthood. I found it quite telling that the most frequent response people had to that (including Catholics) was “but you can’t have sex!” It was as if they thought I didn’t already know that and the Church was hiding it from me. Hey, thanks for the hot tip guys!

However, the most important implication about those exclamations was that it was about sex. Not that I couldn’t have a wife, or a family, or that I could get lonely (and in fact, I never heard those objections). Celibacy, or more crudely not having sex, is viewed not as an acceptable sexual option but an outright heresy. Life without sex is a life not worth living, apparently.

The common social idea, even among adults, is that not having sex is a crime against humanity. Take a look at the number of people who insist that the Catholic Church should allow married priests even though they explicitly reject the Catholic Church and its doctrine outright. People who have no interest in the Church, her ministers or her teaching are passionately and loudly interested in the sexual freedom of her clerics.

Further, the reduction of sex to a “medical issue” has dehumanized it and drained it of its value. The comprehensive sex ed crowd describes their material as “medically accurate”. Abstinence education, the last time I checked, doesn’t try to rewrite our biological knowledge. When the only consequences considered are disease prevention and pregnancy, is it any wonder that men and women can’t relate to each other as well anymore?

This creates a situation where people are less free to choose to be chaste. Or more accurately, they are pressured to not be chaste. It’s an unacceptable lifestyle. It’s a socially intolerable lifestyle. People who don’t have sex are pariahs. Is it any wonder “kids just have sex?” Society insists nothing less. That’s why people will argue with a straight face that because X% of people have premarital sex that makes it okay and moral to do so.

Abstinence education will always be handicapped in a society that insists from every quarter that free sex is the only way to live. Until our movies, music, television, and magazines reflect a level of sexual maturity beyond that of a seventh grade boy, this trend will likely continue. Parents will have to display and engender the sexual morality they wish their children to have. In the meantime, those who can speak intelligently, passionately, and openly about chastity must be allowed their say in the public square. A free country requires nothing less.

May 4th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Pro-Life, Religion, Sex, The MSM | 3 comments

Review: Emma’s Journal by Juli Loesch Wiley

As a male reading Emma’s Journal by Juli Loesch Wiley, I was somewhat uncomfortable. The book reads is if I picked up a diary of a woman who I did not know and started flipping through it. The account is a frank and open recollection of a 5 year period of the author’s life. That is, by far, the book’s biggest strength.

Juli is a vastly talented writer and it comes out in her book. She describes events and her inner struggles with wit and candor. She writes from the backdrop of the 80s as a peace activist and pro-life activist. That combination of activities when you include a serious and devout Catholic faith creates a unique life situation that comes out in the first few chapters.

The oddity that more a group or individual tends to take up social justice or peace activism, that they become less pro-life and less orthodox merits exploration (that is beyond the scope of the book). It’s rare that an individual synthesizes all those positions and you can’t help but feel the loneliness of someone who does, because they find themselves in “no one’s camp”.

The book is less a story of conversion (the author was a practicing Catholic at the time the journals begin), but a struggle of trying to live within the bounds of chastity in an environment and society that certainly isn’t built to foster that. The book retells events that seem to be familiar among other women I know, men who are out to simply bed women as if they were objects.

At points, the book does get somewhat detailed into various scenes of sexuality in the past of the author which could cause some to be a little squeamish. However, there needs to made a strong distinction between chastity and prudishness. Chastity seeks to put sexuality in its proper and sacred place; prudishness seeks suppression of any mention as if sexuality was some dirty and forbidden thing.

If the arguments for chastity are to make any inroads into society; people need to bare their souls and talk modestly about sexuality. That does not translate into an injunction against all discussion. Juli should be praised for her openness and courage in baring her soul in this way, much as Dawn Eden did in her book, Thrill of the Chaste. More books like these need to be written.

The book is an easy and enjoyable read along Juli’s 5 year journey chronicled in journals. I highly recommend it, particularly for Christian women, who are looking in frank personal testimonials in the trials and tribulations of being chaste in an unchaste country.

May 2nd, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Book Reviews, Features, Pro-Life, Religion, Sex | one comment

Supreme Court Rules Abortion Not Sacred

The partial birth abortion ban ruling is a watershed moment in the abortion debate. It isn’t because it “restricts a right for a woman to choose” or that “it is the beginning of the end of abortion”, it’s that it is a vindication for a common-sense understanding of the Constitution.

The foundational rights of this nation at the time of its creation were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process. These ideas were supreme and everything else was built from there. Many laws were struck down simply because they conflicted, even tangently, with those rights. With Roe v Wade, something quietly but dramatic occurred.

The foundational right of the nation changed to be a “right to abortion”. Even if one were to argue that abortion was a constitutional right encapsulated in a right to privacy that simply does not translate into a “right of abortion” that overrides all others.

Want to express your free speech in protest? You can’t do it if it is too close to an abortion clinic because it might interfere with someone else’s “right of abortion”. Want to express your free association in forming a crisis pregnancy center to provide alternatives to abortion? You can’t do it without significant government oversight, regulation and outright suspicion because it might interfere with someone else’s “right of abortion”. Want to be a pharmacist and still hold true to your religion? You can’t due it because it might interfere with someone else’s “right of abortion”.

Skipping past the absurdity of applying the Bill of Rights to relations between people (as opposed to people and the government which it is supposed to do), the “right of abortion” became the foundational and formative governing principle of this country. If a right of abortion and free speech conflict, free speech must give way. If a right to religious expression and abortion conflict, religion must give way.

Not only in conflicts of rights, but also in the application of the law abortion has held pride of place. Children have no rights outside their parents consent, except in the sole case of abortion. Statutory rape laws and mandatory reporting laws apply universally, except when abortion is in the picture. Even normal medical regulations for clinic safety often go flouted by abortion clinics.

The partial birth abortion ban is nothing more than the government exercising regulatory oversight of medical practice. It does this every day. Procedures are restricted, drugs are restricted, medical providers are restricted. Yet, opponents argued that the partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional because it supposedly conflicted with a “right of abortion”.

The ban was also called unconstitutional because it was supposedly born in a “religious” idea that life begins at conception versus the idea born in convenience that life starts when… well, whenever it’s convenient. The sweeping aside of ideas on church-state grounds simply because they may also be held by the religious is an absurd concoction of the First Amendment that very clearly requires institutional separation not state-mandated atheism.

The partial birth abortion ban ruling is a return to common-sense constitutional jurisprudence. While we continue to argue about the constitutional status of abortion, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion isn’t the formative governing principle it has become. Regulation is possible and the abortion-industrial complex simply cannot ignore the law anymore. The Court has finally moved back towards a more sane conception of rights and that is a tremendous victory.

Know Your Rights

When you have to deal with court matters you must make sure that you’ve found local attorneys who can do the job right. Whether you need a workers compensation lawyer or labor law representative there is sure to be a local attorney who’s right for the job.

April 27th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Politics, Pro-Life, Supreme Court | no comments

The Problem with the Culture of Drive-Thru Abortions

In the quest to remove any and all obstacles and delays in the race for a woman (or girl) to get an abortion, people starting become aware that abusive men were coercing women against their will to get them. By bringing down the full force of constitutional law to make it not only constitutional to kill one’s unborn child, but to be able to do so as fast as possible, it made it possible for women to be abused in the process.

First, Planned Parenthood knows and knowingly covers up obvious cases of abuse. One study shows that Planned Parenthood and related organizations failed to report about a minimum of about 10,000 cases of child sex abuse in Illinois in the year 2000 alone. The law is clear that medical providers are required to report suspected cases of abuse. When authorities try to investigate child rape, they are thwarted by Planned Parenthood, who has a financial stake in the problem remaining unaddressed. Legally, this is called a “conflict of interest.”

Second, women are coerced to get abortions. I know this because I know women it has happened to. By eliminating even the most sensible restrictions such as parental notification (note that is not parental consent), a woman can be rushed to have an abortion and no questions will be asked. This is a boon to men who don’t want to pay child support, don’t want to “lose face” for having a child, or want to cover up for their crimes of impregnating a minor. Coerced abortions are a problem.

However, laws such as HB 5882 in Michigan are a profoundly bad idea. Instead of going after coerced abortions by preventing them, it makes it a crime for a man to even be involved in the decision-making process in any way except for complete deferral. It’s another attempt to separate men from children. “Constitutional” law says men have no say in the decision to get an abortion. This law says they aren’t even allowed to speak on the subject. Considering the current state of child support laws and custody laws, apparently the only thing men can contribute is their paycheck and all other effort is disallowed.

Sure, the law could catch men who engage in coercion. However, how such violations would ever be proven is a problem since it is entirely a “speech crime.” Further, “battered woman syndrome” suggests that women most in need of protection are least likely to seek help and the redress that such a law would allow. In short, more innocent men would be prosecuted than true domestic abusers who ought to be nailed to the wall.

The problem is not that there are no laws to punish coercion, there are. The problem is the weight of the Constitution being brought down to rush women through abortion mills without question. Planned Parenthood has no incentive to think twice about killing a child, abortion is a profit-center for them.

Taking the typical image the pro-abortion crowd likes to use, imagine an abused woman (or girl) who has an abusive boyfriend or family. She discovers she is pregnant and she knows her family or boyfriend will be livid once they discover the pregnancy. She is lonely, scared and has no place to turn. In come the knights in crimson-stained armor, Planned Parenthood. They pledge to help this young woman and bring her into their clinic. They abort the child and send her on her way. The problem is they send her right back into the abusive situation she came from. The problem wasn’t the child, the problem was the abusive relationships that remain unaddressed until the next time she gets pregnant and Planned Parenthood wants to make a buck.

It is the failure of “constitutional” law that leaves these women prey to abusive and coercive relationships. The solution is not more bad laws but to rethink the culture of drive-thru abortions.

December 19th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Around the US, Freedom of Speech, Law / Legal Issues, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion | 6 comments

Human Harvesting for Stem Cells Begins in Ukraine

The BBC is reporting that healthy new-born babies appear to have been killed in order to harvest stem cells for the flourish stem cell trade that has begun in the country. Dr. Hwang Woo-Sook was found last year to have fabricated his scientific claims on stem cell research. A scandal which in no small part involved his subordinates donating their ova or paying women for their ova.

Despite the fact that the science is clear that embryo-destroying stem cell research will require either massive efforts to get women (usually poor ones) to donate their ova or other behaviors that amount to human harvesting, stem cell supporters either ignore the problem or ridicule the claim. Today they can no longer do that.

Ukraine, it appears, killed healthy babies in the name of getting the “biological materials” they need to continue their work on stem cells. The pathological scientific obsession with embryos for this research is disquieting. Adult stem cells are treating people today and have none of the ethical problems that embryo-destroying stem cell research has. Yet they press on.

Far from an anomaly, Ukraine is the future of embryo-destroying stem cell research. There exists no way to even produce enough stems cells for research, much less medical treatment, without getting massive donations of ova or killing babies in the womb. Or for that matter, killing babies already born. Imagine abortion providers, who already have a problem covering up for child rapists, starting up a trade of stem cells from aborted fetuses.

I have every confidence that the scientific community can eventually figure out how to make cures with embryo-destroying stem cell research. However, that was never really what was the concern. I could stop drunk driving by cutting off the tongues of those who commit the crime, yet that would hardly be just. Embryo-destroying stem cell research, and the treatment that it might eventually produce, will require a massive pool of ova (from poor women of course), human harvesting, or both. We have seen the future in Ukraine, the question is, will we still embrace it?

December 16th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | International, Politics, Pro-Life | one comment

Sex on Campus: Not as Fulfilling as you Think

A recent study in the Journal of Sex Research links depression in women to casual sex. This flies in direct contrast to a campus culture that tries to celebrate “uncommitted sex.” The problem is it flies in the face of our internal nature, and is the case in most emotional matters, comes down hardest on women.

Like most campuses, the University of Illinois hosts an annual celebration of uncommitted sex called “Sex Out Loud.” It presents a generally one-sided account of sex which doesn’t represent reality. Sex has consequences and those consequences are felt mostly by women.

One interesting feature of the study shows that it is more typical for uncommitted sexual encounters to take place between friends instead of strangers. What this indicates to me is that women and men have a hard time in this society relating to each other in non-sexual ways. “Friends with benefits” used to be a joke a decade ago when I was an undergrad, now it’s a sad reality.

The study shows what many on the right (particularly religious) have always known, that sex has meaning beyond the physical. People long to be in an intimate relationship and meaningless sex does nothing but break down those relationships. Women begin to feel like little more than objects instead of people to who deserve to be cherished.

Likely this story will be ignored on campus and the general media but it’s another statement that the sexual revolution got it wrong. Those who surfer most from that error is women.

November 9th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | DailyIllini, Pro-Life, Religion, University of Illinois | 6 comments

DI Column Up: Preventing the Exploitation of Children

My latest Point/Counterpoint column is up, Preventing the Exploitation of Children.

September 26th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | DailyIllini, Politics, Pro-Life | no comments