Wednesday, October 05, 2005

sfweekly.com | What Part of "Wait Until Marriage" Don't You Understand! | 2005-09-28

sfweekly.com | News & Features | Infiltrator | What Part of "Wait Until Marriage" Don't You Understand! | 2005-09-28

i have thoughts on this, but i'm at work and it made me laugh so hard i have to recover. so look for my thoughts later tonight.

(yes, the guy is not exactly christian-friendly, but his experience at the conference is hilarious. so familiar...)

10 comments:

MEP said...

Lord, I am NOT a fan of ab-only sex ed. I actually posted a RANT about it last week on someone else's site.

ding said...

i've written about it too, here, earlier this year. (i think if you search sex education, it should pop up.)

it makes me so mad. it's not sex education!

sex education is about teaching sexual responsibility; abstinence is just one technique out of many within the larger area of sexual responsibility.

why don't ab-'ed' proponents get that?

Anonymous said...

applying common sense to it actually makes it HARDER for our side to understand.

However, looked thru the lense of religio-terror and fears of the eternal hellfires of damnation, it makes sense.

yeah, these people are whacked.

this may be cruel, but does it look like Patricia Miller (R-Ind) has *ever* had a fulfilling sexual experience??

sum guy

ding said...

sum guy,
you're bad. very very bad.

Xpatriated Texan said...

The first step to understanding our Right-sided friends is to understand that we live in the Best of All Possible Worlds. If you screw up (no pun intended) and have sex, then you have violated God's rules and you deserve whatever happens to you - unless of course you have an orgasm.

The purpose of God's forgiveness for this bunch isn't to help people deal with their problems or to help them make their lives better - it's to help them accept whatever sorry lot in life they currently have. Unless, of course, they are having a unsorry life. Then they need to be convicted of their sin so they will have a sorry life.

XT

Anonymous said...

maybe so, ding...but in the mart of competitive sexual commerce, I've taken my lumps and never tried to strap anyone into a lifestyle of automatonical surrender that a paperclip would look down on.

I feel it's no accident that those with such dour expressions look the way they do.

You have to EARN that kind of bitter emptyness.

sum guy

ding said...

i have to admit that i'm befuddled by the bitterness. i mean, it's not just that their idea of sex education isn't really 'education.' it's that their idea of sex is so ... untruthful, in some ways. i mean, there's no discussion of pleasure, no discussion of fun, no thought of play.

the rules and methods they create to prevent a teenager from even thinking about their bodies - do they think about what kind of sexual person they're creating?

jesus chick said...

sometimes you have a good idea but the way you create the message and promote it totally bombs. i get the whole "no sex before marriage" thing but i think this particular group needs a better delivery. hopefully not all ab-sex groups are so . . . geriatric.

Anonymous said...

Well, it's great that you "get" it, but how about the idea of NOT trying to legislate morality, thereby inflicting values or religion on people who do not share those values or religious convictions.

To be perfectly honest, I think it's just plain pathetic that anyone helps themself to a position of advisor when it comes to anyone ELSE's private business.

"Mind your own bees wax" is something I remember from kindergarten. More people should observe it.

yup.

A Guy

ding said...

having been a virgin until i was 28 i also 'get' the premarital no sex thing. (clearly i got over that.) but i *don't* think adolescents should necessarily be sexually active.

however, i don't think we should hobble them with misinformation because the idea of teen sexuality skeeves us out. there is nothing wrong with a church or a group of people saying that teens shouldn't have sex. but it's better to say that teens shouldn't have irresponsible sex.

church folk or not, i would think that we'd all like teenagers to grow up to be sexually responsible adults who can treat the complexity of sex with the complexity of thought it deserves.

most church folks don't think of sex as being complex. it's simply a matter of sticking a hoo-ha into a cling-clang. so of course, their way of dealing with sex is in the most simple way possible- let's legislate it; that way everyone will have to listen and obey. unfortunately that's the most ham handed way of dealing with anything.

is it these little old ladies' business who teens have sex with? of course not. but they can't help it that they think of sex in legislative ways. the church teaches them that.