Irresponsible Parents and Purity Balls

If the story of Chicken Little has an antithetic counterpart, this just has to be it.  Sometimes you just have to sit and wonder how these people manage to make it to adulthood without choking on their own total idiocy.  Story via Crooks&Liars:

In what is becoming a trend among conservative Christians in the United States, girls as young as nine are pledging to their fathers to remain virgins until they wed, in elaborate ceremonies dubbed “Purity Balls.”

The gala affairs are intended to celebrate the father-daughter relationship.

The highlight is when the fathers and daughters exchange vows, with dad signing a covenant to protect his daughter’s chastity by living an unblemished life and the daughter promising not to have sex until marriage.

Many fathers at the ceremonies also slip “purity rings” around the finger of their misty-eyed daughters or offer them “chastity bracelets” and other jewelry that the girls can entrust to their husbands on their wedding night.

“The father makes a pledge that he is going to keep his mind pure and be faithful to her mother and there is also a time when there is a conversation about putting the right kinds of things in your mind, such as the father not using pornography,” Leslee Unruh, founder of Abstinence Clearinghouse, a leader in the so-called purity movement, told AFP in describing the balls.

Ah, where to begin?  Surely not with the laughable name “Abstinence Clearinghouse.”  Get yer virgins, get yer virgins here!  I’m surprised the Muslims aren’t lined up around the corner!  No, seriously, they have a contest every year, and if you win Ed McMahon shows up at your house with the key to your chastity belt!  You’ll be the center of attention in church! 

All kidding aside, this entire concept fails in several obvious ways.  Not only does it reek of being a man-made sacrament–not one Divinely Inspired–with the father and daughter exchanging vows–but it’s clearly a sexist exercise that emphasizes the vagina as a prize to be won and places the onus of sexual responsibility on the girl.  While at the same time, the only thing these people tell their children about sex is not to have it.  That’s it.  That’s the extent of the education.  I certainly don’t have a problem with teaching abstinence, but if that’s all you’re teaching then you’re abstaining from teaching important facts! 

Imagine yourself as a young girl, say, oh, I don’t know, nine years old or so.  You go to this famous, fabulous Purity Ball, get a ring and exchange vows with Daddy (I’d be freaking out already, people), Vow to Never Have Sex Before Marriage, then go home afterwards with nothing more said about sex until some cute young boy comes up to you in school and says he wants to show you something.  Well, you wonder, whatever could he want to show me?  Because you don’t know what a penis is, being home-schooled and all.  (If you do, that’s a whole other problem.)  Then what happens?

Read the studies(2005):

Slightly more than half of American teenagers ages 15 to 19 have engaged in oral sex, with females and males reporting similar levels of experience, according to the most comprehensive national survey of sexual behaviors ever released by the federal government.

The report released yesterday by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the proportion increases with age to about 70 percent of all 18- and 19-year-olds.

I was so born before my time. 

Oh, the irony of it all.  These kids don’t use protection because they don’t believe that “oral” sex is “sex,” and they think they’re not at risk.  Because no one has ever told them what the risks are.  They’re forbidden from using condoms or contraception because sex outside of marriage is a sin.  MEANWHILE they’re practicing what the BIBLE calls SODOMY-(anything besides missionary, folks, not just in da butt).  And the increase in teen participation in oral sex came after Bush initiated his Abstinence funding programs.   

So, here’s what we’ve got:

  • The Heresy of a man-made, not divinely inspired soon-to-be-sacrament (mark my words)
  • Fathers exchanging vows and rings with their daughters (ew, ew, ew)
  • Young girls vowing to not take place in sex before marriage, even though they have no idea what sex is or what any of the risks are or any relevant information. 
  • Young boys who seemingly have no responsibility at all–it’s all up to the girls to keep their treasure safe!
  • These same kids breaking their vows because they don’t think oral sex is sex at all.  Which, if these people really wanted their kids to remain abstinent, they’d have taught them about in the first place. 

I’ve never understood how avoiding a full disclosure conversation with your kids about sex is supposed to keep them safe.  Ignorance is the STD’s Trojan Horse.   

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Irresponsible Parents and Purity Balls

  1. Yeah, this doesn’t have any pagan overtones whatsoever. 100% pure Christian.

    Er, wait…

    I also know it’s sophomoric, but I just had to giggle that Leslie Unruh was “describing the balls”. I suppose she has to since no one else can know what they look like till their married.

    Thank you and goodnight!

  2. Pingback: Forgotten Beatitudes » Blog Archive » Women always marry their fathers.

  3. As a father with two gorgeous daughters who are in their teens, I would love to find some magic way to keep them from having sex before marriage. All I can do, however, is hope and pray, love and respect them for the beautiful children of God that they are.

  4. I am imagining my sister will be monumentally relieved that these balls weren’t around when we were that age.

    The religious folk who go in for this kind of thing usually believe that male sexuality is a rather uncontrollable force, in my experience. I think the lives of Solomon and David in the Old Testament were used as evidence. Unlike the highly sexed Jezebel they weren’t thrown from towers with dogs eating the palms of their hands and soles of their feet. ( I never could work out the dogs’ dietry preferences in this story). I recall the old ‘women love with the heart, men love with the …’ speech although now, for the life of me, I cannot remember what word they substitued for ‘penis’. At this particular summer camp ‘snickers’ was used as a metaphor for ‘sex’: “Do you want to have a few snickers now or wait and have lots of snickers later?” Of course, this was before we knew that married people don’t really shag that much.

  5. These kids don’t use protection because they don’t believe that “oral” sex is “sex,” and they think they’re not at risk. Because no one has ever told them what the risks are.

    Hmmmm…..I wonder what happens when they allegedly are told.

    Paly students learn about the dangers of oral sex in Living Skills, a class devoted to educating students on sex, drugs and other health issues. Living Skills teacher Letitia Burton said she tries to show students that oral sex is no less significant than intercourse.

    “One of my goals is to have students understand that oral sex is sex,” Burton said. “Many students have the misconception that if it isn’t penis to vagina, it isn’t sex.”

    And the success rate?

    According to a November 9 Campanile survey of 445 students, 79 percent of Palo Alto High School students who have engaged in oral sex, but not intercourse, consider themselves virgins. Only 3 percent of students who engage in oral sex said they always use a condom or dental dam, and 75 percent said they never use protection.

    So let’s see, teaching kids about it DOESN’T prevent them from doing it and DOESN’T do much for making them do it safely.

    And I would lay odds that those kids whose parents care enough to do this sort of thing with them are far less likely to indulge or misbehave later, as opposed to kids whose parents leave their education in the hands of advertisements and what appear to be ineffective sex ed classes.

  6. And I would lay odds that those kids whose parents care enough to do this sort of thing with them are far less likely to indulge or misbehave later, as opposed to kids whose parents leave their education in the hands of advertisements and what appear to be ineffective sex ed classes.

    I would lay odds that you’re completely wrong. 75% choosing to not use protection is still better than 100% not using protection because they don’t even know it exists, or because it’s been religiously forbidden.

    It’s not like I’m saying Don’t Teach Abstinence. But if that’s ALL you’re teaching then you’re not properly equipping the kids with the knowledge they need to make an informed decision.

  7. It’s not like I’m saying Don’t Teach Abstinence. But if that’s ALL you’re teaching then you’re not properly equipping the kids with the knowledge they need to make an informed decision.

    You know, it’s interesting. Sex is the only thing where we tell teenagers, “You shouldn’t do it, but since you’re going to do it anyway, you might as well do it under close adult supervision and with full information so it minimizes the risks.”

    Everywhere else, that logic is decried as increasing the likelihood of unsafe and dangerous behavior.

    Teenagers lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to intelligently assess the risks of driving, smoking, and drinking or to consistently take measures to mitigate them — which is why we restrict severely or outright forbid them from doing these things.

    I fail to see why sex is or should be any different.

  8. Teenagers drive at sixteen.

    Smoking and drinking are directly and specifically harmful to one’s health.

    The logic isn’t the same because the situations are not the same and because different topics have different tolerance levels.

  9. which is why we restrict severely or outright forbid them from doing these things.

    And yet they do them anyway with often disastrous results. Which bespeaks the fact that we’re not sufficiently educating them about those issues, either.

  10. Teenagers drive at sixteen.

    Not unrestricted in Missouri they don’t.

    Which bespeaks the fact that we’re not sufficiently educating them about those issues, either.

    Jamie, you can teach a three-year-old all you want about thermodynamics, the effect of heat on human flesh, and the settings on a range top, but that’s not going to do squat in terms of keeping them from touching a hot stove. “No” is far more effective.

    Teenagers do not possess the emotional or intellectual restraint necessary to evaluate the risk and reward of sex; furthermore, the natural consequences of indulging, i.e. STDs and pregnancy/children, are incompatible with our preferred desire that they wait until they are of legal age to marry and that they stay in school until then.

  11. You didn’t just really put up a straw-man argument about three year olds, did you? Because we’re not talking about three year olds. We’re talking about ten to twelve years and up.

    Teenagers do not possess the emotional or intellectual restraint necessary to evaluate the risk and reward of sex; furthermore, the natural consequences of indulging, i.e. STDs and pregnancy/children, are incompatible with our preferred desire that they wait until they are of legal age to marry and that they stay in school until then.

    Um, thanks for helping my side of the argument. “Should” doesn’t mean “do.” They “do” have unprotected oral sex in increasing numbers when only taught abstinence. Which is exactly why they should have the information to begin with.

  12. They “do” have unprotected oral sex in increasing numbers when only taught abstinence.

    Show me precisely where that is written in the article you referenced, as well as your claim that 100% of evangelicals are having oral sex and not using protection.

    Then again, I forgot; you’re too busy to cite sources.

    That’s all right, though; as you made clear, you can just arbitrarily declare it to be true based on “common sense”, immediately dismiss anyone else’s citations as “propaganda” based on its source, and claim that anyone who provides information to the contrary or objects is incapable of critical thought.

    Meanwhile, my point in putting up the argument of the three-year-old was this; just as telling the three year old “no” is more appropriate to their age and comprehension capabilities than a lecture on thermodynamics when it comes to keeping away from the stove, so it is for sex with teenagers.

  13. Not unrestricted in Missouri they don’t.

    I fail to see your point. Everyone has to have a license to drive. In order to get a license, you have to pass a test showing not only that you possess a level of understanding of traffic law, but also how to operate a vehicle and drive on city roads.

    Are you suggesting that, before you can have sex, you should have to pass a test showing a certain level of sexual knowledge and also take a practical exam?

  14. Why not?

    Or, perhaps simpler and easier to administer, simply make it a crime for teenagers to have sex unless one of their parents or guardians is present and awake in the actual location. You can screw as much as you want, as long as your mom is downstairs and paying attention.

  15. Show me precisely where that is written in the article you referenced, as well as your claim that 100% of evangelicals are having oral sex and not using protection.

    First of all, I never claimed that 100% of anyone was doing anything. Secondly, the statistics are in a CDC report, I believe it was November of 2004.

    And Yes, I damned well can dismiss anything put out by the Heritage Foundation as propaganda, and will continue to do so, so you might as well stop referencing them here.

    I don’t know why I bother when you seem to think that having kids get “sex licenses” makes more sense than simply educating them on the subject in the first place.

    Boggling. Truly.

  16. As to the 100%……

    75% choosing to not use protection is still better than 100% not using protection because they don’t even know it exists, or because it’s been religiously forbidden.

    Next:

    And Yes, I damned well can dismiss anything put out by the Heritage Foundation as propaganda, and will continue to do so, so you might as well stop referencing them here.

    Fine. Then any source you bring forward can at any point be arbitrarily declared “propaganda”, which makes it null and void.

    It is not by any stretch of the imagination “critical thinking” to automatically dismiss information because you don’t like from where it came. What would be more impressive is for you to actually read the link in question.

    I don’t know why I bother when you seem to think that having kids get “sex licenses” makes more sense than simply educating them on the subject in the first place.

    For the same reason that you don’t just hand kids the driving manual and then turn them loose on the road. Teenagers are naturally irresponsible because they a) lack experience and b) lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to assess risk and consequences. Like I said above, you are doing the equivalent of giving three-year-olds lectures on thermodynamics and expecting it to keep them away from a hot stove.

    And frankly, I like the last proposal; teenagers can have sex whenever and wherever they want without it being a crime, as long as at least one of their parents or guardians is in close physical proximity. What’s wrong with that?

  17. Fine. Then any source you bring forward can at any point be arbitrarily declared “propaganda”, which makes it null and void.

    If I ever bring forth a “source” that’s clearly either a right-wing or left-wing clearinghouse, be my guest.

    And this:

    For the same reason that you don’t just hand kids the driving manual and then turn them loose on the road. Teenagers are naturally irresponsible because they a) lack experience and b) lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to assess risk and consequences. Like I said above, you are doing the equivalent of giving three-year-olds lectures on thermodynamics and expecting it to keep them away from a hot stove.

    is just so patently ridiculous that I’m done responding to you on this topic. You’re relentless in your pedagoguery and obviously just wish to remain obtuse.

  18. Or, perhaps simpler and easier to administer, simply make it a crime for teenagers to have sex unless one of their parents or guardians is present and awake in the actual location. You can screw as much as you want, as long as your mom is downstairs and paying attention.

    Well, NDT, you’re certainly a big government Republican, I’ll give you that.

    In several states, having sex as minors is already a crime, in certain situations. Jamie pointed out one such situation on this blog with Genarlow Wilson.

    I would say there are two problems with criminalizing minor sexual relations in this way. First, the age old question: What is sex? Is it defined by the presiding parent or is there a federal/state definition that once and for all defines exactly how far is all the way. Does a parent have to be there if two teenagers kiss or hold hands?

    Second, the sheer volume of additional work this would create for courts across the nation. While this may not be a good reason not to do something, I can’t believe it will sit well with parents when little Johnny comes home after getting busted for getting to second base.

    I have no real objection to having teens take a test to assess their actual sexual knowledge , their Boning Quotient, or B.Q., if you will. I tend to be more libertarian and generally wonder at the efficacy and necessity of additional laws like this that swell government, but if we’re going to do it, let’s do it right.

    Make those licenses extend into adulthood and make adults have to pass a test, both written and practical as well as means-based, before they can have children. One of the chief problems facing this country, frequently directly relating to teen sexual activity, is people having kids they either can’t or don’t know how to care for. Baby licensing would seem to stem directly out of the idea of licensing teens to have sex. All women would undergo mandatory tube tying at the earliest possible time and all men would get vasectomy’s until two partners both having passed the exam and getting a single baby license met up and decided to conceive. Additional testing would have to be instituted for couples wishing to have multiple children.

    So you should get a license to have sex, proving you know how to have the right kind of sex in the right way, and then get another license to be a parent. The government can then create a department of sexual affairs and hire prostitutes from states where prostitution is illegal to administer the practical examinations. If you thought it was hard out there for a pimp before, wait till they have to start bidding on government contracts.

  19. Good, because I was just about to demand you produce the CDC link that you claim shows evangelicals having more unprotected oral sex.

    Especially since your red herring of, “if we teach teenagers, they won’t have unprotected sex” died when I showed that, in a typical group, barely 3% of teenagers who had been educated used protection consistently when having oral sex (and 75% never did at all).

  20. Well, NDT, you’re certainly a big government Republican, I’ll give you that.

    That’s odd that you would say that, QJ, given that my proposal represents a loosening of the rules.

    As you pointed out, In several states, sex between teenagers or with those under the age of consent, such as in Genarlow Wilson’s case, is illegal. Under my proposal, it wouldn’t be — as long as a parent or guardian of one of the involved parties is alert and physically present.

    What is sex? Is it defined by the presiding parent or is there a federal/state definition that once and for all defines exactly how far is all the way.

    Interestingly enough, state liquor laws (as in, those laws dictating how bars can serve alcohol) usually do a very fine job of defining sex acts. It’s really not that difficult.

    Second, the sheer volume of additional work this would create for courts across the nation. While this may not be a good reason not to do something, I can’t believe it will sit well with parents when little Johnny comes home after getting busted for getting to second base.

    And yet, we bust kids all the time for drinking while underage, smoking while underage, driving on restricted licenses without supervision, and the like — all without anyone whining or complaining that it puts too much work on the courts.

    Here’s the deal; you can have as much sex as you want with whomever you want as long as your parent/guardian or theirs is in the same place and paying attention.

    Genarlow Wilson would still be in prison now because he did it with a fifteen-year-old in a motel room without either of their parents being present. But had he and this fifteen-year-old gone to his house, with his mother there, they could have gone to town without any worry. Little Johnny can have little Susie or Jeffie smoke his pole all she or he and he wants — as long as they do it under the supervision of one, both, or all of their parents.

    It works on the same principle as allowing teens to drive under the supervision of their parents. They have the benefit of their parents’ experience in matters and it tempers their behavior.

  21. Go to the site http://www.cdc.gov and search for the November 2004 study. It clearly demonstrates the correlation between abstinence education and a rise in oral sex among teens. If you’re going to hang up about the word “evangelical” then please do so.

    You’re consistent in your obnoxiousness about this, I’ll give you that.

  22. Actually, Jamie, I can go directly to the study your article cites, and the summary leads off with this interesting statistic:

    At ages 15-19, about 12 percent of males and 10 percent of females had had heterosexual oral sex but not vaginal intercourse. (The male-female percentages are not significantly different.) This percent drops to 3 percent for both males and females at age 22-24, when most have already had vaginal intercourse. There are no trend data for females. Trend data for males suggest that no large changes in these behaviors have occurred since 1995.

    What your article did was to simply look at the table in the referenced PDF there on pages 21-22, where it says that approximately 55.2% of males age 15 – 19 and 54.3% of females age 15 – 19 have had oral sex. But what it skipped was the breakout table on pages 23 and 24, where the statistic cited above was pulled about kids who had had oral sex only.

    Also, nowhere in that study is mentioned anything about religious belief OR, for that matter, whether or not one had abstinence-only education.

    In short, the article you cited conflated numbers (as the Heritage Foundation paper I cited also pointed out) by combining those who had vaginal AND oral sex with those who had oral sex only. They were trying to pitch the story, as you were, that abstinence-only education and religious beliefs caused more oral sex; however, the study did not even gather data on either, not to mention its very clear finding that there was no significant change in oral-sex-only behaviors.

    What you need to realize, Jamie, is that it is in the best interests of abortion providers to encourage teens to have sex for the same reason that it costs you far more money to get auto insurance for teenagers; they lack experience, tend to take greater risks, and have a high probability of making mistakes in the process. There are over 1 million abortions in the United States annually at an average price of $500 each; that represents a half-billion dollars in revenue. Anything that tells teenagers strongly not to have sex represents a danger to that dollar amount — which is why abortion providers pay Democrats an enormous amount of endorsement money every year to shield and protect that.

  23. it is in the best interests of abortion providers to encourage teens to have sex

    Prove it. Using impartial facts, show that the vast majority (90% or higher) of ob/gyns that perform abortions use this one-off procedure to provide a significant portion (at least 30%-40%) of their yearly practical income. Until you can, that paragraph is one of the most cynical and transparent examples of partisan douchebaggery I have heard you spout, NDT. It’s also simply untrue.

    According to the National Network of Abortion Funds, the average cost for a first trimester abortion is $250, half of your figure. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.29 million abortions occured in 2002 (greater than the CDC’s figure of around 850,000 for the same year). Teenagers account for only 19% of those abortions, with women 20-24 obtaining 33% of the total figure. Furthermore, the incidence rate of teen pregnancy has been dropping since 1980.

    To suggest that ob/gyns providing abortions, which frequently puts their own person at risk, both professionally and physically, would actively work to promote sexual activity in teens for an increase in “business” is not only hateful and repugnant in the extreme, but patently untrue in business terms. Not only is the strategy not working as fewer teens are getting pregnant, but given that the average ob/gyn can make far more money simply providing regular gynecological services to women (not even dealing with pregnancies and the ridiculous insurance problems that’s making it next to impossible to find an ob/gyn that will actually deliver a baby), it’s stupid business sense.

  24. According to the National Network of Abortion Funds, the average cost for a first trimester abortion is $250, half of your figure.

    Interesting, QJ; here’s how the National Abortion Federation puts it.

    In general, though, women getting an abortion between six and ten weeks’ gestation can expect to pay about $350 at an abortion clinic and $500 at a physician’s office. Providing abortions later in pregnancy is somewhat more complicated, and is usually more expensive. For example, at 16 weeks gestation, abortion clinics generally charge around $650 and physicians’ offices generally charge around $700. After the 20th week, the cost rises to above $1,000.

    Next up:

    Using impartial facts, show that the vast majority (90% or higher) of ob/gyns that perform abortions use this one-off procedure to provide a significant portion (at least 30%-40%) of their yearly practical income.

    One, how exactly am I supposed to get the earnings records of medical clinics, most of which are private entities that have no requirement to open their bookkeeping to the public? Give me subpoena power, and then we’ll talk.

    Next up, in many states (including Vermont and Kansas), you don’t even have to be a licensed physician to perform abortions, which means there are a lot more people than OB/GYNs making money off the process. In many states, you don’t even have to meet the criteria for outpatient surgical clinics, which would require abortion to be treated the same way as other similar procedures.

    You see, QJ, it’s rather cheap to provide abortions, when you don’t even have to do them yourself — you can have a physician’s assistant, LPN, or midwife do it — and you don’t have to do so under any rules above and beyond just a simple doctor’s office, unlike most other outpatient surgical procedures. Furthermore, since fewer and fewer OB/GYNs are WANTING to provide abortion services, those people who are willing to do so, like Dr. George Tiller, are seeing more and more people.

    And what facilitates that in Kansas, for one, is the amount of money that Dr. George Tiller gives to the Democrat Governor, among others. Do you really think she wants to do anything that could affect the revenue potential of one of her largest donors?

    My fix for abortions is rather simple, QJ; I would pass a law that makes charging for them illegal. We’ll see how long Tiller, Planned Parenthood, and other abortion mills continue once they aren’t able to collect for their saintly actions.

  25. In short, you’ve made an extraordinary claim regarding the morals and ethics of all abortion providers based on nothing more than supposition and a personal distaste for the service they provide, offering no real proof to back up that claim.

    Odious.

  26. No, I’ve demonstrated that abortion providers have a significant financial interest in performing as many abortions as possible, and that they have in several cases used Democrat politicians to ensure that their profit margin is kept as high as possible, both by allowing non-physicians or non-OB/GYNs to perform abortions and by not requiring abortion clinics to meet the health and safety standards required of other outpatient surgical facilities, both of which drastically lower costs.

    Of course, instead of providing your own facts to refute that, you simply start ranting and demanding that I provide more “proof”.

    I’m not that naive.

    What I have stupidly done, QJ, is, by bringing up this topic, to allow you to dodge the fact that, as I pointed out above, the study Jamie cited as “proof” that abstinence education and religious belief produce an increase in teens having oral sex a) did not even gather data on whether or not one had abstinence education, b) did not even gather data on one’s religious belief, c) pointed out that the number of males who had oral sex, but not vaginal sex, had seen no large changes since 1995, and d) pointed out that those who had oral sex, but not vaginal sex, constituted barely over 10% of the total population of teens who had ever had any sexual contact at all (about 65% of total).

    In short, since you haven’t said a word about that, it makes it rather clear that the problem here is less with my data or my practices than it is with your unwillingness to interpret it inconsistent with your ideological belief on abortions and abortionists.

    And what this is really boiling down to is this; you want to bash evangelicals for causing kids to have more sex, and you want to insist that abortionists have no financial motive whatsoever to encourage teenagers to have sex. Those are absolutes, and you want no discussion or contrariness on them.

    Like I said, I can handle the game; I just have to know the rules.

  27. The CDC study I told you to go look up does indeed correllate religious beliefs, abstinence only education, and the increase in oral sex. I have now told you to go read it three times. Yet you insist on harping on one quick article I half-handedly referenced and insist that since that one study may not completely elucidate the points we are making that therefore our arguments are false.

    ALSO, I thoroughly tire of your deliberate obtuseness by insisting, (Paraphrase) “where is the proof that evangelicals are the ones behind Abstinence Only Education?”

    If you need proof that the sky is blue then get your eyes fixed.

    And your insistence that there is some sort of conspiracy among abortion providers to hard-sell their services to increase business is nothing more than your ideological opinion.

    I’m sure you can find somewhere where I’ve said I’d never ban anyone. Not that you’ll care, but you are firmly pressing the issue. Disagreeing is one thing, calling my character and QJ’s into account simply because we find your arguments distracting and fallacious is beyond the pale. Desist.

  28. No, you’ve made an outrageous claim phrased specifically as fact while offering no real evidence to support your claim other than your own biased viewpoint. That’s evident and I’m done with it.

    And I’m getting really sick of being told I want to “bash evangelicals” when I haven’t said word one about evangelicals. But once again, you seem incapable of having a discussion without demonizing anyone who has a different point of view from your own. Additionally, critique is not bashing. I have seen no “bashing” of evangelicals except in your overly sensitive, if-they’re-not-exactly-like-me-then-they-must-be-bashing-me world view. Frankly, it’s sounding less and less like a coherent argument and more and more like a paranoid, whiny fall-back position.

  29. The CDC study I told you to go look up does indeed correllate religious beliefs, abstinence only education, and the increase in oral sex. I have now told you to go read it three times.

    And this will be the third time I tell you to cite it.

    I have provided link after link after link to my sources. You?

    And I do not have time to cite the myriad articles that you can find by yourself with Google. Please try to read some objective science that isn’t propagandized by folks like the Heritage Foundation.

    Then:

    But let me correct myself. Instead of saying, “I don’t have time,” let me be more specific and spell it out for you. I don’t care to take the time to source refutations of your biased theories because it would only be a waste of my time.

    And then this hilarious statement:

    Yet you insist on harping on one quick article I half-handedly referenced and insist that since that one study may not completely elucidate the points we are making that therefore our arguments are false.

    made even funnier by the fact that behind you is QJ screaming bloody murder:

    No, you’ve made an outrageous claim phrased specifically as fact while offering no real evidence to support your claim other than your own biased viewpoint.

    So in other words, you were allowed to make this post, stated as fact, with a reference that you yourself doesn’t think elucidates your points — but you insist that other peoples’ arguments are “fallacious”? Furthermore, QJ says nothing about it as you make outrageous claims about evangelicals based on this flawed reference, but then screams at other people who provide far MORE references and links as having “no real evidence”?

    I’m sure you can find somewhere where I’ve said I’d never ban anyone. Not that you’ll care, but you are firmly pressing the issue.

    Good. You can be exposed as a hypocrite, and you can demonstrate to the world what gays do to anyone who demands they provide references and who holds them accountable for their statements.

    The reason I do this at all is in the hopes that someone out there may realize that not all gays are devoted to mocking sexual restraint, religious beliefs, and peoples’ rights to raise their children, including homeschooling, to implying that evangelicals are practicing incest, and to implying that parents who teach their kids to abstain from sex are “irresponsible”.

    In short, I am thinking beyond the short-term crack hit of petty revenge and irrational hate to the longer-term demonstration that gays do value restraint, religious beliefs, and the right of parents to raise their children, and that we applaud fathers like this who take initiative and value in building a relationship with their daughters. But if the former is where you and QJ want to stay, that’s your problem.

  30. The reason I do this at all is in the hopes that someone out there may realize that not all gays are devoted to mocking sexual restraint, religious beliefs, and peoples’ rights to raise their children, including homeschooling, to implying that evangelicals are practicing incest, and to implying that parents who teach their kids to abstain from sex are “irresponsible”.

    Which I did NONE of. Nor did QJ. We belittled what is clearly an escapist act that does nothing substanstive to prevent sex before marriage, and barely reinforces an already failing policity of Abstinence ONLY Education. Get that word? ONLY? THAT’S what I have a problem with. But that’s clearly too nuanced for you to understand.

    You’ve provided no evidence whatsoever. You’re only throwing darts in the hopes of catching a bullseye. When I said, “I don’t have time to source refutations” we were arguing about a different topic than the first time. Again, nuanced conversation. Well, enough. I don’t care if I’m called a hypocrite by a manic egomaniac who makes unbased slanderous assertions based on his own tunnel-vision opinions.

    And since you’re only interested in clearly biased sources as refutations (and since I can’t find the damned study–I didn’t know the CDC had that many in Nov 2004!) here’s one just for you–which I would never usually cite, FYI, but Heritage just demands it:

    Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn’t work. There is little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain from intercourse longer than others. It is known, however that when they do become sexually active, teens who received abstinence-only education often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives. In fact, 88 percent of students who pledged virginity in middle school and high school still engage in premarital sex. The students who break this pledge are less likely to use contraception at first intercourse, and they have similar rates of sexually transmitted infections as non-pledgers (Walters, 2005; Bearman and Brueckner, 2001). Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active (AGI, 2003a; Jemmott, et al., 1998; Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2000; NARAL, 1998).

    It’s no wonder you keep getting booted off sites. Ever wonder if the problem was within you?

  31. “Screaming bloody murder”? Really? Again, you intentionally mis-characterize, misconstrue and misunderstand what I’m actually saying, and now even the way I’m saying it, so as to fit it into your narrowly-defined reality and attempt to re-frame the discussion and minimize my points.

    Your consistency is to be marveled at.

    For the final time, I have not in this exchange or in the exchange at my blog, said word one about evangelicals. I haven’t praised them or denigrated them or indeed even linked them to the Purity Ball concept. Frankly, you yourself are proving Jamie’s point by trying to link evangelicals to my post and comments. If even the seemingly self-proclaimed defender of all things evangelical sees the word “abstinence” as so inextricably linked to “evangelicals” that writing about purity balls and abstinence pledges is the same as “bashing evangelicals”, then I’m not sure how you can turn around and deny that linkage in the same breath.

    So in other words, you were allowed to make this post, stated as fact, with a reference that you yourself doesn’t think elucidates your points — but you insist that other peoples’ arguments are “fallacious”?

    No, NDT, I insist that you have put forth an argument directly to the moral constitution of abortion providers that is both extreme and against common sense and have portrayed that argument as fact without providing any level of evidence to support it. I have made no such extreme argument, therefore I have no burden of proof to satisfy. However, I am uncertain which evidence I’ve offered doesn’t speak to my points regarding your charges.

    If you’re going to make outrageous assertions, you should probably have some specific, extraordinary facts to back them up or risk being perceived as a crackpot. So far, you’ve produced none, relying instead on supposition and attacks on the character of myself, Jamie and every abortion provider in this country while attempting to turn this into an issue about “bashing evangelicals” which no one is doing. While such a parade of horribles is a time honored rhetorical device, using it in such a desperate way reduces your arguments from interesting and plausible to simply pathetic.

    As for banning, I won’t ban you from my blog and certainly encourage you to disagree with me more in the future. I think it’s very important that you speak, NDT, and people read what you say. I always believe in providing rope to interested parties. I also hope Jamie doesn’t ban you from his blog, but this is his house and he makes the rules.

  32. Which I did NONE of.

    Mhm.

    Because you don’t know what a penis is, being home-schooled and all.

    That’s one example.

    Next up, an interesting thing in your source:

    The students who break this pledge are less likely to use contraception at first intercourse, and they have similar rates of sexually transmitted infections as non-pledgers (Walters, 2005; Bearman and Brueckner, 2001). Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active (AGI, 2003a; Jemmott, et al., 1998; Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2000; NARAL, 1998).

    So the theory the abortionists are pushing here is a) that kids who receive abstinence-only are having sex just as often, if not MORE, than kids who receive sex-promoting education, b) that kids who receive abstinence-only education are not using protection and kids who receive sex-promoting education are, and c) that they have the same STD infection rate.

    In short, this study “proves” that people who don’t use protection, and have sex as often or more often than those who do use protection, have the same STD rate as those who use protection.

    Right.

    It’s no wonder you keep getting booted off sites. Ever wonder if the problem was within you?

    Often.

    But, like I’ve pointed out on my sequence of ironic statement posts, the people who are booting me invariably have trouble with practicing what they preach.

    Furthermore, given that I have the same problem with the irrationally-homophobic types who do the same thing, I have a feeling it’s less that I’m an awful person than it is that I am far too iconoclastic for fundamentalism, be it gay-based or religious-based.

  33. Riiiiight, so now I’m the fundamentalist here.

    This blog thread brought to you by the twilight zone, where NDT knows all. Where is the lithium when I need it?

    As for this chum:

    Because you don’t know what a penis is, being home-schooled and all.

    That’s one example.

    Yeah, of HYPERBOLE. Get A Grip.

    And one last thing: Don’t come into my home and shit on the rug like this any more. You make the assertion that this was a “fact” piece:
    “So in other words, you were allowed to make this post, stated as fact . . .” Stop right there. This was clearly an OPINION piece, as noted by the tags: humor, musings, the life eclectic; also noted by the tone and tenor of the writing. Clearly just a jab at the OBVIOUSLY OVER-THE-TOP NATURE OF THIS HIDEOUS PRACTICE OF PSEUDO-MARRYING ONE’S DAUGHTER!!!

    You are being purposely malevolent and I’m starting to delight in the depths of your shallowness.

  34. And to clarify that statement, I simply believe that you did not start out with the intention of writing this as a joke, just as I don’t believe Coulter’s words were intended for humorous effect only.

    As for dishonesty, I don’t believe that you’re dishonest. You certainly have not been when it comes to saying what you think and feel about me, my tactics, and my sources, not to mention the people you are criticizing in this post. As long as you’re open in that regard, it seems silly to claim that you are dishonest; indeed, I respect more people who tell me the truth about what they’re thinking.

  35. I never said it was a “joke.” I’m serious about the fact that I think it’s a completely ridiculous and borderline blasphemous ceremony. But I made sure to at least try and be humorous about it so that people would take my criticism with a grain of salt: hence, it was, in fact, a humorous opinion piece.

    I criticized one source, not “your sources.” I’ll try and find the CDC study I was looking at before, because it directly attributes the rise in teen oral sex to the teaching of abstinence-only programs.

    And if you’re going to be so intensely scrutinizing of every word I write that you can’t tell that this:

    Because you don’t know what a penis is, being home-schooled and all.

    is OBVIOUSLY hyperbole, then there’s no point in you reading my writing at all, because I do it all the time. The difference is that you THOUGHT I was impugning all evangelicals and rushed up like their knight in shiney armor. Without cause.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s