Abstinence for All?
by Elisabeth Garber-Paul, RH Reality Check
May 7, 2009 - 4:45pm (Print)
Of course Bristol Palin is pro-abstinence. She got pregnant, and now her son if four months old. And she realizes that if she didn't have sex, she wouldn't have to deal with this.
She says that her comments that she was too young to have a baby were taken out of context. She also says that her comments, that abstinence is not a realistic solution, was taken out of context.
How can this to be taken out of context? No matter what your upbringing, expecting that you won't have sex out of wedlock in unrealistic. Teens are curious and, at the risk of sounding repetative, sex is a natural way for anyone to experiment with their bodies and their feelings. To expect that teens won't have the same urges as adults is ludicrous. As far as I can tell from the lifestyle of me and my friends, sexual activity is perfectly normal. To be a teen is to already feel uncomfortable. Why make a teen feel more marginalized than they already do?
I can't say I remember coherently what it's like to be sexually confused, but I do remember just how hard it is try and fit in when I was under 20. In
order to have teens end up as have adults who are comfortable with their sexuality, we need comprehensive sexuality education, and there needs to be
the acknowledgement that sexual activity during your teen year is, if
not beneficial, at least normal. We need to explain to teens that
testing sexual feelings is, if not a normal expression of emotion, at
least normal experimentation.
We need to explain to teens that exacerbation of sexual feelings is, if not a normal exacerbation of feeling, at least a normal experiment.
Abstinence works. It needs to be taught in context to the consequences that a teen mother faces in her life.
until it doesn't. Miss Palin is a perfect example. Abstinence worked perfectly for her, until it didn't. She was not taught what to do when it no longer worked for her to protect herself from an unintended pregnancy and quite frankly, any sexually transmitted infections (on that aspect she appears "lucky"). We also need to teach what comes after abstinence, to prevent unintended pregnancies and STI reduction, especially since only 5% of the population doesn't have sex and/or relationships before marriage, and clearly she, and many other teens and young adults are not part of that group either.
The longer a young person delays sexual activity the healthier they are in the long run. (Eg: someone who waits until they're twenty doesn't face nearly the risk of std's unintended pregnancy, suicide, depression, etc as one who starts at fourteen.) With the benefit of a few years maturity, they're better advocates for themselves and are not as likely to think of themselves as purely sexual objects to begin with. So generally speaking, the longer they put it off the better. Sometimes though, its easy to lose faith in kids. This story reminds me of an excellent book called The Lost Children Of Wilder. Its was about fundamental changes in the foster care system and profiled both the thirteen year old plaintiff and her lawyer. The girl had already given birth at thirteen and the lawyer was very worried that it would happen again. The problem was that at that time she had been able to get her into a group home environment run by the Catholic Church and they didn't think having a thirteen year old on birth control was such a great idea. They thought it was not too late to teach the girl some self respect and to delay further sexual activity, but everyone else thought it was. Eventually the courts decided that the girl had to be allowed to continue to take the pills. So she did. Many years later the lawyer was able to once again see her client. She had never gotten pregnant again, but she had both AIDS and an addiction to crack. Maybe an attempt to teach a little respect for her own body all those years ago would not have been such a bad thing after all.
She should have been able to use condoms if she wanted to remain sexually active. Condoms would have prevented her diseases. You are equating a child who was in the Foster care system that no one wanted with normal teens who are loved by at least one parent. I don't think this girl's problems had to do with sex as I do that she was unwanted, unloved, abandoned. Maybe if her mom had had an abortion, this child would never have been born into such misery and to have another unwanted child and have wasted her own life, but of COURSE YOU would never see it that way, Catholic defender that you are. Thankfully, she did not have another child, I SO agree with the birth control pills being the right call, because your Catholic abstinence BS is sooo unrealistic. With the Catholic counseling, she would have had more babies AND those diseases too. You can be a teen that has had sex, and have perfectly good self esteem and self respect, go on to college, get a few degrees, and use birth control and never get pregnant. I am talking about myself here. There are millions and millions of other women like me, we are in the vast majority. Thank goodness I and my peers were taught COMPREHENSIVE sex education that included birth control information. It made all of the difference.
Of course you do. By the time the woman contracted AIDS she had been out of the convent school for years already. So even if condoms had been withheld (which they were not) it would be a bit of a streach to blame them. Please keep in mind that this was in the 70's. The courts and the lawyer were worried about pregnancy, not AIDS, but as the courts ruled with the girl and her lawyer of course she could have used condoms just as she used birth control. Once the decision was taken out of the Church's hands it was completly out of their hands. Of course, knowing what we know now, condoms would have been better. The Church was told "Stay out of it. These people are going to take care of everything." And since in 1974 "everything" meant reliable birth control they did, but it didn't solve everything.
"The longer a young person delays sexual activity the healthier they are in the long run."
OK, let's up the ante: how about making people wait until they're 35? 40? 50? Dead?
In case you hadn't noticed, the average age for marriage keeps going up, and more and more people are never marrying at all. What if nobody ever wants to marry you?
Smug married right-wingers have no ability to imagine the feelings of anybody who isn't just like them.
What a stupid question. I didn't say anything about marriage and I certainly didn't say anything about waiting until any point over 20, you did. I said the longer TEENAGERS wait the better for them.
Of course waiting to be sexually active is good, but when you do become active (after marriage or when you find the right partner etc) it is good to understand all of your birth control choices and what STD's look and feel like. Even if you stayed a virgin until your wedding night at 20yrs old, it is still good to have a working knowledge of your body and your husband/wives and the choices surrounding the sexual part of your life. What if your partner cheated and brought an STD into your marriage? Plenty of people with comprehensive Sex Ed do wait until a secure long term relationship to have sex. Many wait until marriage. Many don't wait at all but avoid pregnancy and STD's because they have the information required. I think the family of teens is really the influence on a young persons sexual activity. I know the Palin’s were/are a very busy family but even if they were just everyday working folk, Bristol just might of still had sex with her cute boyfriend. Maybe if she saw that as a possibility she could have had a condom on hand.
It really set me thinking… Rgds. BravoBride. http://bravobride.com
