Savin' It!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

In Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," he talks about a letter he sent to the Bush administration shortly after they came out with the policy of only supporting high school sex education classes that taught 'abstinance only' in regards to birth control. He asked for everyone in the administration to recall for his young readers how they reacted when confronted with the proposition of premarital sex. He wanted to know how they were able to put the 'abstinance only' message to work in their own lives so they could be role models for his readers. The title of his fictitional article was to be called 'Savin' It'.

MDM was appalled that a school would expose 14-17 year olds (I'd have guessed 15-18) to a play called 'The Vagina Monologues' as, I'm guessing, it would be too mature for their young minds to understand. I've also read a lot from some of the folks here who talk about other people's morality in such a way as to imply that we have some of the most morally upright posters right here.

Now, I have to admit (and have) that I've not fallen into that category too often in my life. I try, but I fail, so I won't try to BS you all by giving some rant about how I was able to 'save it.' You all would see right through it if I tried. But, I WOULD like to here some of your stories about how you were able to rise above temptation through moral supremacy and 'Save It' so to speak!!!

Fire away and spare no detail, it could be the one that makes a difference!!!

[MDM4AU 336]

OK, I'll bite. First of all, my position was that the school was not the place for this type of show. Secondly, 14-17 were the ages I used because a) 18 you are an adult; my wife teaches high school and her students age range starts at 14 (grades 9-12).

Now, I was brought up to believe you wait until you are married. In church I was taught you wait until you are married. Was it difficult at times? Absolutely! Though I haven't always done the right thing or made the right decision, I did stick to my convictions on this. I am glad that I did.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

I wouldn't call it moral supremacy, but I did wait until I got married to have sex. That's not to say it was easy. There were opportunities. I stopped dating one girl in high school because she wanted to "take it to the next level" and I wouldn't do it (and suffered the requisite "you must be gay" comments from the neaderthals). Like I couldn't see that she was hot (she modeled for a clothing store in town). That wasn't the issue. The desire for a clean conscience before God and for my eventual wife to be my first ultimately overcame the desire to go further in the physical aspect of our relationship.

I dated three women seriously (i.e., dating exclusively each other for more than a month) before getting married (the last obviously being my wife). I had a great time and learned a lot from every relationship. Sometimes the making out got intense but fortunately, one or both of us were able to back away from the ledge, so to speak, and not let it get that far. I'm glad for that.

So, even though I know you asked this in jest somewhat, there it is. I had some things that were more important to me than a momentary sexual encounter. And I think that because sex didn't become a quick substitute for real depth and intimacy (emotional, spiritual), those relationships were much richer than they would have been otherwise. I wouldn't change a thing. Well, except I wouldn't have let the idiots in high school bother me as much as they did.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Al, this makes me ill. You may have intended this as tongue-in-cheek, but the intent behind your question really makes me mad. Kind of like the Ah-nold thing - why should something that happened in our lives ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years ago have an impact on the values and morals we may believe in and try to uphold today? You and people like Al Franken are just looking for ammunition so you can call us all self-righteous hypocrites for trying to stand up for something that is more important to us now than in our younger days. "Shoot the messenger" since you can't kill the message. Of course many liberals today want to expose the personal warts prominent Republicans have - it makes them feel better about the moral failures in their own lives - the multple Hollywood marriages, out-of-wedlock babies and rampant drug and alcohol abuse.

No, I did not wait - but I tried, and sat dateless many a night because my position on the issue was well-known. I was a senior in college when I met the man I knew in my heart I was going to marry. Seven months later, he apparently changed his mind, even though I had not. Am I sorry? You bet. But does that change the way I plan to raise my daughter? Not one bit. My parents made sure we knew their feeling on the subject, and I lived up to their beliefs as my own, until I made a decision AS AN ADULT. So call me a slut and a hypocrite, but my intrinsic values that I maintain to this day have not changed because I made a mistake, a bad choice, about an important moral decision. I also was smart enough to use birth control - and no one ever taught me that - I was smart enough to figure it out on my own.

I also don't believe in divorce - but I am on my second marriage. I plan to telling Katie about that someday when the time is right, and use it to show her why you should be absolutely 100% sure that the person you are marrying is the right one for you. I hope my marriage to Katie's daddy will be all the object lesson she needs for what makes a good marriage.

Typical liberal smokescreen - try to use someone's past, especially things that happened in their youth, to make your case as to why the positions we take now are wrong if we didn't make those same choices as a young person. We are just a buncha hypocrites - if we didn't live it then, how can we expect others to? Easy - those of us with feet of clay can point to our own lives and use our own experiences as object lessons, and hope that something will take hold in that young person's mind and stay there. By your logic, an alcoholic couldn't preach sobriety to someone, or a drug user or felon couldn't try to influence someone away from the path they themselves had taken.

For the record, I don't agree with the abstinence only policy - but politically, it is the only position for any politician to take. The can of worms that gets opened is too huge. Try to preach birth control and you offend Catholics. Try to mention abortion and you offend right-to-life people, or even pro-abortion people for not giving an appropriate explanation. The REAL hypocrisy here is that this climate of "offending each and every person in some way shape form or fashion" was created by the Liberal "let's make sure we don't offend anyone at all" coalition and the litigation attorneys that fund their lawsuits.

[Donutboy 0]

Sorry guys!! There wasn't any way in Hades I was waiting until that wedding night. I applaud those of you who felt it was your moral obligation to abstain and managed to do so. Abstinence just wasn't my thang!!

[WarEagleFL 0]

Sorry guys!! There wasn't any way in Hades I was waiting until that wedding night. I applaud those of you who felt it was your moral obligation to abstain and managed to do so. Abstinence just wasn't my thang!!

I didn't wait and made some mistakes, but I have all the respect in the world for all of those people who wait. I don't think that means I have no morals though.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

TA: are you yielding moral supremacy to those of us who 'saved it'? is that what i'm reading here?

[DKW 86 7,481]

Didnt wait and I was wrong. I teach SS to the youth of my church. I can tell you without reservation that TVM would fly hopelessly over their heads. The are very sharp and top students. The intellectualization of the sexual experience is just way over 95%+ of the high schoolers out there. Heck, they cant even understand Shakespeare for the most part.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Just for the record, I don't want anyone to read in what I said about my own experience ANY condemnation for decisions they made differently. I don't think it means you have no morals if you didn't wait. I don't think it means that if you didn't wait, but now hold the position that waiting is best that you are some kind of hypocrite.

It just irritates me when liberals like Frankenstein pose questions like this. It's not a genuine search for understanding. They aren't looking for information to help process their own view on the subject. They are looking to bash those who hold a particular moral view on the subject of sexuality. If you answer like I did, you get painted as rigid, "holier-than-thou", a loser (presumably because abstinence was more a product of you being undesireable than a conscious choice), and so on. If you answer like Jenny or some others have, then you're a hypocrite. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't and it annoys the hell out of me.

[Donutboy 0]

Just for the record, I don't want anyone to read in what I said about my own experience ANY condemnation for decisions they made differently.  I don't think it means you have no morals if you didn't wait.  I don't think it means that if you didn't wait, but now hold the position that waiting is best that you are some kind of hypocrite.

It just irritates me when liberals like Frankenstein pose questions like this.  It's not a genuine search for understanding.  They aren't looking for information to help process their own view on the subject.  They are looking to bash those who hold a particular moral view on the subject of sexuality.  If you answer like I did, you get painted as rigid, "holier-than-thou", a loser (presumably because abstinence was more a product of you being undesireable than a conscious choice), and so on.  If you answer like Jenny or some others have, then you're a hypocrite.  It's damned if you do, damned if you don't and it annoys the hell out of me.

In all honesty TT, I didn't read into any of the posts what you seem to have. Here's what I said about those who abstained.

"I applaud those of you who felt it was your moral obligation to abstain and managed to do so."

I never made reference to anyone being undesirable.... I wouldn't know the most of you if I passed you on the street..... I never made reference to "holier-than-thou or loser..... I truely and honestly commend you for your convictions and sticking to them. End of story!!

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Donut, I realize you didn't do that. I was actually referring to Franken and others who have pulled similar stunts (although not to the level he took it). I've been in debates with people over issues like this and they always lay out this trap as if it's the silver bullet that decimates any argument for traditional morality. Have your moral values mocked gets old, that's all.

[Tiger Al 0]

TA: are you yielding moral supremacy to those of us who 'saved it'? is that what i'm reading here?

No, ct. I can't yield what I don't own. Even if I did 'own' it, I don't claim to be or think I am morally superior to anyone. That's not a call that I'm allowed to make.

[channonc 466]

Ok, here's where I stand on the subject. I had sex ed classes in some form or another from 6th grade until 9th grade. Every year. I went to public school in SC and I didn't go to an inner city school by any means. This was middle to upper class neighborhood with schools that reflected that demographic.

That being said. When I was in 6th grade, we had a couple of girls get pregnant. Mostly b/c no one had ever talked to them about sex, pros and cons, birth control the like. Of course the classes split up the guys and girls so I can't really tell you all that the guys talked about.

In all of our sex ed classes (which got more and more involved every year) we had an anonymous question box... the teacher would pull a few questions out of the box, read and answer before every class. You would be surprised the types of questions that were asked. For example, "Can you get pregnant from oral sex?" "How do you know if you are pregnant?" "What happens if I say no and a guy still has sex with me?"

Topics we discussed in class included popular forms of birth control, how they work, etc. Abstinence was always discussed, and of course was the only sure way to not get STDs, pregnant, etc. Also, we were required the first couple of years to know exactly how both male and female reproductive systems worked, we had a test that included labeling all the body parts and lines at the bottom to describe how a man produces sperm, and explain a woman's menstral cycle. All of these issues are very important and must be discussed.

So... while I do admire those who do save themselves, I must say that the majority of people don't. I do agree that these discussions should be started at home, and not the schools. But the reality is, most kids never have talks with their parents about sex, morally or even physically. Unfortunately, most kids are subject to "word on the street" type of information, which we all know is often exaggerated or just plain wrong.

In sum, to ignore this and just focus on abstience with no other info is dangerous.

[texaubie 0]

In sum, to ignore this and just focus on abstience with no other info is dangerous.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. Honest discussion of the subject is the best option. In the end, most 16-18 year old kids are going to do whatever they want to do once out of their parents sight. I think its better to arm them with ALL the information so that they can at least make an informed decision and know the risks that they are taking.

That said, if I ever have a daughter (and we are trying for a baby now), she won't be allowed to date until I'm dead.

[CCTAU 3,355]

In sum, to ignore this and just focus on abstience with no other info is dangerous.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. Honest discussion of the subject is the best option. In the end, most 16-18 year old kids are going to do whatever they want to do once out of their parents sight. I think its better to arm them with ALL the information so that they can at least make an informed decision and know the risks that they are taking.

That said, if I ever have a daughter (and we are trying for a baby now), she won't be allowed to date until I'm dead.

Luckily my daughter says she's never leaving home.

You know, had I just attended a school like Duke. With all those ugly chicks, I might just have made it. But AU was just TOOOOO much for me. Loved those women. Drank a few beers too. But would now propose a more conservative approach for my children. They still have to make their own way. But maybe we can point some of the pit falls out to them.

Like the 10 and 2 phenomenon. Go to bed with a 10 at 2 and wake up with a 2 at 10.

Or...If you're gonna go ugly. Go ugly early...

Any more out there? Just to put a little humor in.

I know Jenny. I am a pig!

[Tigermike 3,078]

I have my granddaughter convinced that she can not date untill she is 25 and cannot get married till she is 33.

She is only 7 now so I don't know how much longer she will want to go along with that.

[AURainman 6]

Okay, I'll take a swing at this one. As a Christian, I was always taught that abstinence 'til marriage was the right thing. I was taught that sex was something to be shared between a husband and wife. Sadly, the world sees it very differently. Anyone who stays oblivious to this is an embecile (sp?). That said, when I got out from under the shadow of my parents, I saw a whole new world. A world where people didn't think like me. I was removed from my Christ-centric Southern Baptist community and thrown into a predominantly Christian society that often times doesnt act very Christian at all. A.K.A. College. Had I never taken the "blinders" off in high school, I would've been caught in an interesting predicament.

Classes like SexEd often help to remove the blinders. I had SexEd in school, but it was always centered around "abstinence is best." However, it did describe contraceptives, protection, etc. It is basically an attempt to lower the negative effects that premarital sex can cause, instead of attacking the problem at its root. It's like wearing glasses. It helps you see, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because this is a secular world, this is the best option we can hope for. There is no universal morality code that will ever be accepted across ANY society, therefore, the only thing a society can do, is run damage control. SexEd does an decent job of this. It is not the ideal way to handle the problem, but it is the only thing we can hope for.

I still feel that America would GREATLY benefit from a program that encourages young people to stay abstinent. The church does a good job of this. Teaching abstinence ONLY would be a problem though, because this country is filled with numerous moral backgrounds. That is why we have SexEd. It SHOULD be the parents responsibility to raise their children correctly. However, the ideal is not reality.

[texaubie 0]

I still feel that America would GREATLY benefit from a program that encourages young people to stay abstinent.

With all due respect, my belief is that this would have about the same success as the "Say No to Drugs" program.

[channonc 466]

Tex, I think you made the point I was trying to make. Realism has to play into effect here. Not to acknowledge that others have different beliefs and/or different circumstances isn't logical.

[texaubie 0]

Tex, I think you made the point I was trying to make. Realism has to play into effect here. Not to acknowledge that others have different beliefs and/or different circumstances isn't logical.

That and the fact that when I was 17 I did exactly what my parents told me NOT to do...

[AUloggerhead 2,268]

Al, it's well known that the teenage mind is not known for consistent wisdom & good judgement. The issue is not what we as adults did as teenagers but what wisdom & good judgement we as adults want to impart to our teenagers -- or rather, what we want to teach them before they become teenagers. The stakes are a little higher now. It's not just birth control either. Now there are STDs that can kill you, as opposed to causing you a little discomfort & some major embarrassment. We also know the social consequences of babies having babies from the data of the last 40 years or so. Single motherhood is fine if your a wealthy actress/pop music star like Madonna. But it's devastating to poor, unwed teenagers because it entraps them & their offspring into a cycle of poverty.

I think it was the noted economist Walter Williams who said the key to avoiding poverty is based on three things: get a HS diploma, don't have kids until you're married, and don't get married until you're at least 21 and have a steady job. So the Bush administration wants to push abstinence for birth control in HS sex ed classes. Well, you've got to admit it's a different approach than what's been tried previously. And based on the observed consequences of what's been taught before, maybe it's time to go in a different direction? Remember, according to Walter Williams it only has to work for their minor teenage years. Once they become an adult then they can (and will) do what they please.

[Donutboy 0]

In sum, to ignore this and just focus on abstience with no other info is dangerous.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. Honest discussion of the subject is the best option. In the end, most 16-18 year old kids are going to do whatever they want to do once out of their parents sight. I think its better to arm them with ALL the information so that they can at least make an informed decision and know the risks that they are taking.

That said, if I ever have a daughter (and we are trying for a baby now), she won't be allowed to date until I'm dead.

Luckily my daughter says she's never leaving home.

You know, had I just attended a school like Duke. With all those ugly chicks, I might just have made it. But AU was just TOOOOO much for me. Loved those women. Drank a few beers too. But would now propose a more conservative approach for my children. They still have to make their own way. But maybe we can point some of the pit falls out to them.

Like the 10 and 2 phenomenon. Go to bed with a 10 at 2 and wake up with a 2 at 10.

Or...If you're gonna go ugly. Go ugly early...

Any more out there? Just to put a little humor in.

I know Jenny. I am a pig!

CC, I always liked the "coyote ugly" terminology. She was so ugly, you'd chew your arm off to keep from waking her by removing it from under her. Like CC, my apologies for being a pig.

[Donutboy 0]

I have my granddaughter convinced that she can not date untill she is 25 and cannot get married till she is 33. 

She is only 7 now so I don't know how much longer she will want to go along with that. 

Trust me TM, when they get about 21 and are still living under your roof and sponging off of you, you'll get a lot more lax about their dating. I don't think my daughter is ever going to "leave the nest".