Abstainers Are Killers?
Portland, Maine found itself in the national spotlight on the morning of October 17. The King Middle School was debating whether to provide birth control to sixth graders without their parents’ consent or knowledge – not just condoms, but even birth control pills or contraceptive patches. ABC’s "Good Morning America" picked up the story, with anchor Diane Sawyer first professing shock at the young ages involved, but then echoing the proponents’ justification: Children “are caught in the changing worlds of early puberty and sexual messages everywhere."
That’s the line that rings in the ear. ABC is addressing a social problem: how to deal with middle-schoolers wanting to have sex because they’re inundated with sexual messages in ads, in music videos, with sexual themes endlessly discussed and dramatized on television? Sawyer invited on talk show host Glenn Beck and “sexologist” Logan Levkoff (promoted by fans as the ”Get It On Guru”) to debate it. Sawyer asked Levkoff "Would you draw the line anywhere? What if it were grade school?" Amazingly, she replied: "I don’t necessarily draw the line, because we’re in a world where we get so many sexual messages."
Levkoff lives in a parallel universe. We are talking about little boys and little girls, 11 years old.
The lesson from the anything-goes crowd is so illogical it borders on the obscene. In order to "protect the youth" from unsavory sexual messages, we should provide them will all the technology so they can have "safe sex" – even at age 11. But who is responsible for this bombardment of sexual messaging in our culture that’s fueling this fire? ABC and all the other networks, along with many of their advertisers, need look no further than the mirror. More than any other element in our society, it is they who are responsible for the deluge, primarily – though not exclusively – through their entertainment products.
It’s bad enough that they refuse to take any responsibility for their own sleazy product. But what’s unconscionable is that TV dramatists are now portraying those who want to keep children free and safe from premature sexual activity as mentally disturbed, even as a social menace.
The swaggering shysters of ABC’s "Boston Legal" went to court on October 9 on behalf of a high-school girl who contracted the HIV virus from "unprotected" sex with a boy. The girl in this script sued not the infecting boy, not the boy’s parents – but the high school which taught abstinence-only sex education.
The school’s crime was its failure to advance the righteousness of the Almighty Condom, which the “Boston Legal” lawyer ridiculously claimed was "arguably, the single most important invention of the past 2,000 years." Resistance to pop culture and peer pressure is futile, he argued. "They’re simply going to do it! We all do it. Birds do it, bees do it, educated fleas do it. One time unprotected sex can kill you. A condom can save you." With a flourish, the lawyer concluded his sermon: "We should be in criminal court this very moment trying this obscenely duplicitous school for conspiracy to commit murder."
ABC only suggested murder as a rhetorical device. CBS took it to the next level. On its drama "Cold Case," abstinence advocates are presented as killers. In the September 30 episode, detectives were investigating a 1998 murder, only to discover the devoutly Christian teens in the "Hearts Wait" abstinence club turned out to be sexually active hypocrites who murdered one of their own members to keep their sins secret. When the victim tried to convince her club mates that their teenage lust was understandable, they responded by denouncing her as "dirty," a "whore," a "slut," and the B-word before stoning her to death, while citing the Old Testament. Their leader, a youth minister, had one student confess her teenage lust for him with her back turned, so he could pleasure himself as she spoke.
The idea that Christian teenagers stone people to death could only come from a fevered brain in Tinseltown. In terms of cultural politics, this is simply mudslinging – a vile smear that requires no troublesome facts as it points an accusatory finger.
The get-it-on gurus who push “protection” are really encouraging sex between children. Like Hollywood, “sexologists” like Levkoff see themselves waging war “on a culture that condemns all things sexual.” But they’re really waging a war on anyone who suggests a limitation, anyone who wants to draw a line. Anyone who wants a child to wait, to grow and mature before leaping into bed or a back seat, is evil, deeply sick, and even capable of murder.
Meanwhile, the King School in Portland, Maine voted Yes to secret contraceptives for 11-year-olds.

Part of what they’re saying is true. The media used to be much more responsible in the content of their programs because people got outraged by sexual content and violence. Their answer to that was ratings. Cable TV has added another problem with that. I can also remember when the governor of our state banned playing "Louie, Louie" at school dances. Kids are really getting double edged messages these days. As long as sex sells, it will continue to be a problem. The blame can also be placed on those who watch the programs and listen to the music that make kids think sex makes the world go around. If it doesn’t sell in the media, it will be replaced by something else.


6 Comments

  1. Tom
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. If the girl who contracted the HIV virus had abstained from having sex, she wouldn’t have gotten the virus.References :

  2. ruth
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    People pushing children to live outside the protection of their parents are killers.References : I caught the tail end of that episode with the judge speaking of the evils of sex and then preaching against abstinence education. Talk about schizo.

  3. justagrandma
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    They initiated it because seventeen kids had become pregnant. Most of them so young that they don’t read the papers to know that there are get-it-on gurus. They are just doing what their hormones tell them too as their righteous moms and dads prepare speeches on what not to do even as they are out behind the woods doing it. By not intervening early they neglect to teach either morality or safety.
    The parents are allowed to refuse to have the school nurse take care of their kids, and I’m sure each and every one knew that birth control would be made available as its been news since day one. If the parents won’t step up, it only makes sense for the school to, unless you think pregnant eleven year olds who think they can’t get that way because they are too young is a good thing.
    Try not to get your ideas of whats happening in the real world from TV dramas, its neither balanced or accurate.References :

  4. cgi
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Abstinence works. You can’t get any disease if you don’t do anything to get it. You won’t have any unwanted babies if you stay away from sex until you are mature enough to handle it. The liberals do not want to hear of that because they want the unprotected sex so that there are more abortions and therefore more stem cells so that they can do research so that they can find cures for disease and live longer. That should make anyone sick.References :

  5. BekindtoAnimals22
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Part of what they’re saying is true. The media used to be much more responsible in the content of their programs because people got outraged by sexual content and violence. Their answer to that was ratings. Cable TV has added another problem with that. I can also remember when the governor of our state banned playing "Louie, Louie" at school dances. Kids are really getting double edged messages these days. As long as sex sells, it will continue to be a problem. The blame can also be placed on those who watch the programs and listen to the music that make kids think sex makes the world go around. If it doesn’t sell in the media, it will be replaced by something else.References :

  6. CHRISTOPHER K
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    For many liberals and elitists the term ‘abstinence’ is deemed to have too much of a theological etymology. Since American academia has made explicitly clear that religion has no place in the public classroom, is it any wonder that any issue even remotely tied to the ideals of Christianity are suspect?
    Abstinence implies that refraining from a sexual act until marriage is preferable, thus making a strong moral declaration. Per their normal modus operandi, secularists and moral relativists dismiss such moral assertions as the blind implementation of dogmatic theology. What do they offer instead? Limitless social depravity devoid of any individual responsibility……..in other words social chaos. This is why anyone suggesting an anaylsis and judgement of social behavior is labeled as the ‘morality police’ or religious zealots. Is it possible to believe that anarchists would actually heed the call of someone yelling "Fire" in a building they are burning down around them? I don’t think so, that is what they would call a buzz-killer.
    The other factor contributing to this social decay is the elevation of the judicially ‘implied’ right of free expression over the Constitutionally declared right of free speech. The former, designed to be practiced in the absence of morality and societal worth, has garnered the protection of the American courts, while the latter is increasingly regulated and restricted to avoid ruffling the politically correct feathers of America’s ‘most vulnerable’.

    David Horowitz, Thomas Sowell, and Dinesh D’Souza have brilliantly illustrated how secularists schemed to infiltrate our educational system and instill the ‘virtues of atheism and liberalism’. From the looks of society today, looks like they get an ‘A’ on their report card. Well done guys, just let me know when the whole house of cards comes crashing down.References :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>