Fred Hutchison
Abstinence only plus condoms is a contradiction
By Fred Hutchison
Letter to the Editor — Columbus Dispatch
The Columbus Dispatch advocates both abstinence-only for teens, plus condoms, which is a contradiction. It is a classic case of political moderates trying to split the difference.
The argument for condoms is that hyper-sexual teens, in what the editors call a "sex-saturated society," will not have the will-power to avoid sex. It is quite true that teens can obsess about sex and become pathologically hyper-sexualized, so that it is unrealistic to hope for self control.
The liberals assume that teens are hyper-sexualized by nature. Quite to the contrary, man is a developmental creature. We can develop the sex drive to a high level or we can live a celibate life and allow the sex drive to fade down to moderate and controllable levels. Teens who practice abstinence-only combined with avoidance of pornography and sexual fantasies, are often successful in avoiding sex. However, to be told by adults, "take these condoms because we know you will fail," undermines their resolve and invites them to keep their sex drives pumped up.
Liberals blame the recent increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease on abstinence-only policies. Could it not be that sexual permissiveness plus condoms as taught by the public schools is responsible for the increase in teen sex? If the educators tell teens that their raging hormones make their sex drives hopelessly out of control, abstinence only will sound to them as an impossible dream.
When teens hype up their sex drives with the consent and complicity of their teachers, it is unrealistic to expect them to have the self-control to be consistent in their use of condoms. Perhaps that is the reason for the increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease.
© Fred Hutchison
Letter to the Editor — Columbus Dispatch
The Columbus Dispatch advocates both abstinence-only for teens, plus condoms, which is a contradiction. It is a classic case of political moderates trying to split the difference.
The argument for condoms is that hyper-sexual teens, in what the editors call a "sex-saturated society," will not have the will-power to avoid sex. It is quite true that teens can obsess about sex and become pathologically hyper-sexualized, so that it is unrealistic to hope for self control.
The liberals assume that teens are hyper-sexualized by nature. Quite to the contrary, man is a developmental creature. We can develop the sex drive to a high level or we can live a celibate life and allow the sex drive to fade down to moderate and controllable levels. Teens who practice abstinence-only combined with avoidance of pornography and sexual fantasies, are often successful in avoiding sex. However, to be told by adults, "take these condoms because we know you will fail," undermines their resolve and invites them to keep their sex drives pumped up.
Liberals blame the recent increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease on abstinence-only policies. Could it not be that sexual permissiveness plus condoms as taught by the public schools is responsible for the increase in teen sex? If the educators tell teens that their raging hormones make their sex drives hopelessly out of control, abstinence only will sound to them as an impossible dream.
When teens hype up their sex drives with the consent and complicity of their teachers, it is unrealistic to expect them to have the self-control to be consistent in their use of condoms. Perhaps that is the reason for the increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease.
© Fred Hutchison
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
