Promoting pro-life female bloggers
This morning pro-life blogger extraordinaire Dawn Eden of The Dawn Patrol will appear on The Today Show at 10:30a EST.
Dawn will discuss her book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On.
In conjunction with Dawn’s Today Show appearance, MSNBC has published an article by Dawn, “The thrill of the chaste: In defense of sexless dating.”
On the topic of female bloggers, I received an email last week from Women’s Voices, Women Vote. In celebration of Women’s History Month WVWV is running a contest through March 21 to pick the top 10 female bloggers.
I’d love to see a pro-lifer in that group. I sure wouldn’t mind if it were me, but I’d be happy with any pro-life woman’s face.
Click on the icon, right, to go to the voting link. Please forward the link to friends.
{HT for Dawn’s Today Show appearance: Thomas Peters of The American Papist]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Sexless dating is a great idea. Get to know the person. You may not like what you see.
I VOTE FOR JILL!
Okay, Jill I just cast my vote for you.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1686&year=
Who else thinks this is totally lame?
me.
I voted for Jill
I voted too!
PIP,
In 20 years these girls may regret their decision to put their story in the yearbook – for privacy reasons. I don’t think the principal is out of line.
Speaking of women:
Scientists, Govt Ignore Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Leading Surgeon Says
“Who else thinks this is totally lame?”
Me… No one ever has anything bad to say about the person who impregnated the woman to begin with. If she had gotten a secret abortion no one would care or know I guess. Pregnancy shouldn’t be looked at as a punishment. I’m really sick of people painting it that way. Yes, it’s a consequence. Consequence does not equal punishment!!!
Then there is the free speech issue. Why should your human rights be suspended every time you walk into a school building?? I think that the government has no place in education. Public education was originally started in America by the big industrial moguls in the late 18th century to create an army of sheeple to work in their factories. That’s why Americans are so stupid today. Our public education system is still just churning out more and more sheeple.
Thanks guys! The weirdest thing was when he said things like that are “educational only” and not for “student expression.” What?
This kind of attitude is responsible for many of these girls’ decisions to have abortions-I bet it seems better than to be completely socially ostracized.
Janet, if they regret it later it’s up to them. Who is the principal to deny things like that for political reasons?
It looks like the principal needs to grow up, not the journalists involved.
Ugh. Dawn Eden is awful. She’s like a self-righteous ex-smoker. So…she slept around looking for “love” and didn’t find it. Duh. Sex is sex and love is love. Sometimes they overlap, more often they don’t. But it doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with sex.
And it certainly doesn’t mean that those of us who never made the mistake of confusing sex with love made bad decisions when we just opted for the sex part. Geez, judgmental much Dawn?
Hmmm…I’m going to Barnes and Noble tonight..I may just have to pick that book up.
But it doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with sex.
Posted by: Hieronymous at March 3, 2008 1:02 PM
Who ever said there was something wrong with sex?
I mean that is how we got here you know.
PIP,
These girls have not been ostracized, they are graduating from school, right? The principal is paid good money (tax-payers money, I might add) to make decisions for his school. These kids are minors (for the most part) and he has a right to protect them how he sees fit. Do you suppose they got permission from the parents of these girls and their boyfriends to do the story?
When I was in school, our yearbook was about sports and drama club. We didn’t have social commentary or articles about individual students. Pregnancy and abortion are not political issues, They are social issues.
I think you guys need to give this principal a break. He’s just trying to do his job. Why don’t they put the article in the school newspaper, or even the town’s local newspaper instead of the yearbook? That’s a compromise that might work for all involved.
Tori,
Who is calling pregnancy a punishment? Are we reading the same article?
The government has no place in education? The government FUNDS public education, which is beside the point. The only way the government would get involved is if one party decides to sue, and that’s their right.
That said, why didn’t the school’s yearbook moderator run this idea by the principal a bit earlier? It might have helped avoid the situation they find themselves in now..
Hiero,
Just because sex for sex-only is OK for you, doesn’t mean it’s good for everyone else. Some people want love with their sex.
Dawn has a right to her opinion. Do you feel like she is judging you personally? Why do you care what she thinks?
Just wondering, are you male or female? My guess is female.
Hippie,
Dawn Eden and her like (Wendy Shalitt (sp?), Laura Sessions Stepp) are saying that sex outside of marriage (and I mean that the people involved are not married to each other or anyone else) is baaaadddd, and that all girls/women who have sex in that context are just silly dupes who are looking for love, but who are really just being used.
That’s who is saying it. I think it’s ridiculous, and it completely ignores the fact that there are a lot of us out there who are capable of distinguishing between sex and love, and that sometimes some of us just want the sex.
Hi Janet. I’m female. Of course Dawn is entitled to hold an opinion on the topic. Just as I am entitled to think that her opinion is ridiculous and hyperbolic.
And of course she’s judging me, and every other woman and girl like me. If she wants to remain chaste, good on her. But to pretend that her preference for chastity is the only valid choice that a person can make is offensive.
Hi Hiero,
I like Wendy Shallit too. Oh well! I have an opinion opposite of yours, but I’m not judging you.
These authors are saying that chastity is the smarter choice, the majority of the time. Just for discussion, look at it from a guy’s perspective. Even if you can separate sex and love, how do you know that the guy you’re having sex with isn’t one of those who can’t separate sex from love? Are you concerned with how your conduct might affect him long term? Maybe he’s the one being duped, used. It’s not just the girls.
If a woman doesn’t expect a man to be faithful to one woman outside of marriage, then can you expect him to be faithful within a marriage?
Hi Janet –
I guess my position is that when you go into a sexual relationship with complete honesty about what your goals and/or expectations are, then it’s hard to have that kind of misunderstanding. I’ve never used or duped anyone.
That is, at a time in my life when I was not interested in monogamy, I put that right up front, and I expected the person I was with to be as honest with me.
At the point in my life when I was interested in monogamy and commitment, I made that clear, and voila, now I’m married with two kids to a person who had the same goals and expectations that I did and still does.
I guess my point is that you can “expect” all that you want with respect to whether someone will be faithful, but it won’t control that other person’s behavior. What you can do is have a frank discussion to figure out whether your goals and expectations actual align with your partner’s, and then decide whether the relationship has a chance of going forward.
I think that while Eden, Shallitt, and Stepp are absolutely entitled to value chastity, abstinence, virginity and what-have-you, they are NOT entitled to proclaim that it is the only valid choice, and that other choices are shameful.
When it comes to sex, I am pro-education, discussion, and making the choice that is right for you based on the most complete knowledge that you can obtain. I think that these authors are trying to put sexual interest and activity back in the “shame” box, and I think that is absolutely counter-productive, and makes education about sexual health more difficult.
“I think that while Eden, Shallitt, and Stepp are absolutely entitled to value chastity, abstinence, virginity and what-have-you, they are NOT entitled to proclaim that it is the only valid choice, and that other choices are shameful.”
yes they are. who are you to say they are not?
“We didn’t have social commentary or articles about individual students. ”
They were just interviewing them on their experiences in order to graduate from high school. Our yearbook did plenty of paragraphs about individuals in our school. I don’t think that these people had to get permission from their parents or bfs either, especially if they weren’t mentioned in the story.
I’m glad to hear you found a good guy to marry.
Chastity isn’t just about sex. It covers more than that. I think these authors (Shallit, anyway) want to tell people to think about their actions, how they behave, and dress, and to know that it’s OK to be different. They don’t have to act like everyone they see on TV, movies, etc…
PIP,
These girls may not have had to get permission from their parents or boyfriends to be included in a story in the yearbook, but if it were my daughter, I would not have approved – they are going to be re-hashing the story of their out-of-wedlock pregnancies for the rest of their life. They’ll probably be ridiculed and who knows what else. If the point of the story was a pro-life message then I might feel differently. Like I said before, putting the story in the town newspaper instead of the yearbook makes more sense to me.
Dude it was TOTALLY a pro-life story!
Someone makes a mistake, takes responsibility, DOESN’T ABORT, and goes on to graduate from high school!
What makes that inappropriate and anti-life?
Chastity isn’t just about sex. It covers more than that. I think these authors (Shallit, anyway) want to tell people to think about their actions, how they behave, and dress, and to know that it’s OK to be different. They don’t have to act like everyone they see on TV, movies, etc…
Posted by: Janet at March 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Janet, I absolutely agree with the sentiment in your post.
I don’t agree that this is Eden/Shallit/Stepp’s message though, although they do make some attempt to frame it in that way. Their ultimate underlying message is that there is something inherently unclean, impure, and/or shameful about sexual activity unless it’s within marriage….and that’s just not true.
yes they are. who are you to say they are not?
Posted by: jasper at March 3, 2008 3:17 PM
Someone who knows that lying about human sexuality does more harm than good. That’s who I am.
Someone who knows that lying about human sexuality does more harm than good. That’s who I am.
How is HER OPINION a lie? Opinions are subjective…your’s could be just as much a lie as you think her’s is. You just don’t like her opinion so you call it a “lie.”
I agree with you completely, Hieronymous. I don’t actually have a problem with much that Dawn Eden says, but I roll my eyes at the constant implication that everyone having pre-marital sex is doing so because they’re seeking love — or that pre-marital sex is incompatible with love. Like if you were ACTUALLY in love you’d just get married, so obviously it’s all about sex if you’re not, and sex is a desperate grab for love, so therefore all non-marital sex is done in a futile and ultimately damaging quest for love. Heather’s initial comment is an example — the idea that it’s impossible to “get to know the person” if you’re having sex with them, or that anyone who is having sex has not taken the time to get to know the person beforehand. My own personal experience, as well as that of most of the women I know, has been vastly different from that, so it’s hard for me to just sit back and nod along with the massive generalizations, the applications of one’s personal dysfunctional experience to the entire female population.
I remember Dawn writing once about how she went to a concert by herself, and how she never did that before she was chaste because everything was about sex, every interaction was about sexual attraction, etc. That seems like a WAY bigger problem than just sex, to me, so it seems narrow-minded to whittle everything down to sex or to use sex as an indicator of a dysfunctional sense of self. I’m in a loving, monogamous, long-term relationship and I go to shows, restaurants, concerts, etc by myself — and I did before I was in the relationship. I read books for the pleasure of spending time inside my own mind, I have entirely platonic friends where the physical body or sexual attraction of the person in question never comes into the relationship at all. I always have. And I have had nothing but positive experiences with sex despite never having been married. So it seems like quite a generalization to say that sex is a cause of, or symptom of, low self-esteem, crisis of self, whatever. Sex certainly CAN BE those things, but just about anything can be.
I really don’t see the big problem with this woman writing a book about her experiences with sex and how BECAUSE of them, she decided to take the sex aspect of dating out of her life.
I don’t see why people think it’s a reflection of them or what they should/should not be doing. I always admire people who are virgins and/or waiting to have sex until marriage. Why? Because it’s a hard thing to do! Nobody ever said that it wasn’t. The only reason someone would have a problem with this woman’s book is because they are insecure over their own choices in life.
I really don’t see the big problem with this woman writing a book about her experiences with sex and how BECAUSE of them, she decided to take the sex aspect of dating out of her life.
—————– Elizabeth, I agree with you. Even if you have screwed up time and time again, you can always LEARN from those bad past experiences. It’s more fun when you take the sex out. PSSST…guys love the thrill of the chase!!
I talk to a lot of women who wished they would have waited. They wish they would have made the guy wait. A woman I know gives up the sex way too quickly all the time. As a result, she’s always left alone in the long run. Her heart is always broken. She’s in her mid 40’s and she has had 4 abortions. She finally decided to have her tubes tied. She is childless. Her current “relationship” is with a married man. Nobody is off limits in her book. Does anyone else see the tornado coming?..Just sayin.
The only reason someone would have a problem with this woman’s book is because they are insecure over their own choices in life.
Posted by: Elizabeth at March 3, 2008 4:39 PM
Uh yeah, that’s totally it. I’m completely insecure about the good choices I’ve made in my life, and the fact that I’m pretty happy with where I am and where I’m going. It makes me all shivery and scared inside.
Again, I am all for her decision to live a chaste life. Good for her. If that decision makes her feel better about who she is and where she’s going, great. If her story makes other people who have decided to be chaste feel better or more secure in their own decisions, great.
What I object to is the underlying message that HER PERSONAL DECISION to be chaste is the absolute best thing for EVERYONE ELSE. I call bulls**t on that.
Just to try to be even more clear, I am not calling her opinion that chastity is the best thing for her a lie. What I am calling a lie is her opinion that chastity is the best thing for EVERYONE, and that not being chaste makes you unclean, impure, and/or shameful. That is a lie.
Also, I already see this guy pulling away from “Meg”..He makes excuses about always breaking his plans with her. Heck, he’s gotten the sex. He got it on the first night. What’s left? “Meg” told me, “Joe” told me that he loves me.”..yeah, right.
So it seems like quite a generalization to say that sex is a cause of, or symptom of, low self-esteem, crisis of self, whatever. Sex certainly CAN BE those things, but just about anything can be.
Posted by: Alexandra at March 3, 2008 4:20 PM
EXACTLY.
Hier, if you are happy then what’s the problem?
Nobody is telling you what you HAVE to do. A lot of women will appreciate this book. It’s like a TV show. If you don’t want to watch it, change the channel.
Heather, the problem is that I have a sense of justice and fair play. I don’t like people who lie, and I especially don’t like people who tell lies in order to attempt to make other people feel ashamed of their choices. I’m a thinker and a fighter, and I’ve never had a problem shrugging off other people’s self-righteous judgments of my behavior. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of women out there who absorb and internalize these messages and aren’t able to shrug them off. I take issue on their behalf.
Hier, I’ve done the sex while dating also. It always left me feeling miserable.
Heir, I was also one of those women who took extreme offense to any criticism of my lifestyle. I just wanted to add that.
Hier, I’ve done the sex while dating also. It always left me feeling miserable.
Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 5:08 PM
Heather, I’m sorry that you felt that way. My experiences were much different.
I think my point is that there are different strokes for different folks…if you’ll pardon the pun.
LOL! Sure will.
Jill,
My vote has been cast. Good luck! You work hard to create an interesting blog and I think the spirited debates prove that we all really appreciate the forum!!!!
The only reason someone would have a problem with this woman’s book is because they are insecure over their own choices in life.
Right, yes, that’s exactly it.
I don’t see why people think it’s a reflection of them or what they should/should not be doing.
People see it that way because that is frequently what these women say. I specifically remember Dawn Eden making some comment along the lines of, women who complain about the virgin-whore dichotomy are usually women who take offense at people’s attempts to treat them like the former despite all their attempts to behave like the latter, or something. Yes, the fact that I take offense at the idea that I am either a “girl you marry” or a “girl you date” makes me a whore. Please.
Here it is:
As for the madonna-whore complex, I would believe such an animal existed were it not that it is usually propounded by women whose sympathies lie entirely with the whore. Their objections appear to be based upon the fact that, despite their best efforts to emulate whores, some men resolutely insist upon viewing them as potential madonnas.
Hieronymous said And of course she’s judging me, and every other woman and girl like me. If she wants to remain chaste, good on her. But to pretend that her preference for chastity is the only valid choice that a person can make is offensive.
Of course, she’s saying you’re wrong.
And you’re saying she’s wrong.
You both can’t be wrong, because you both believe you’re right. Which one is it?
Morality is not relative. Try telling me it is and you’ll undermine your own argument.
Saying there are different strokes for different folks when it comes to morality is an illusion because no such thing happens in law. Murder is okay for me, but you don’t like it – too bad. I don’t own any slaves, but I won’t enforce my views on others.
When someone thinks morality is relative, there’s good reason to believe that they haven’t really grown up and faced dire consequences.
Either that or they’re trying to conceal something incredibly painful.
Cheers.
Yes, thinktwice, committing murder is TOTALLY just like having sex. Yep, that’s a great analogy. I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it before.
Seriously though, I am not saying that Dawn Eden’s decision to be chaste is wrong. I am saying that it is wrong to say that being chaste is the only valid decision for everyone to make. I’m not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.
…and just as an aside, what the HECK is up with everyone deciding that the best way to criticize my point of view is to play armchair psuedo-psychiatrist? It’s SO BIZARRE.
Saying there are different strokes for different folks when it comes to morality is an illusion because no such thing happens in law. Murder is okay for me, but you don’t like it – too bad. I don’t own any slaves, but I won’t enforce my views on others.
Murder and slavery are not consensual. They involve one person imposing their will on another. Premarital sex between two people who both want to have sex with each other is consensual and does not involve either person imposing their will on the other or forcing the other. That’s an absurd analogy. Additionally, there are huge differences between the law and morality. That’s why they’re two separate concepts.
Of course, she’s saying you’re wrong.
And you’re saying she’s wrong.
Hieronymous is not saying Dawn is wrong to live her life the way she wants, she’s saying Dawn is wrong to tell other women how to live their lives. Dawn, by contrast, is saying that [women like] Hieronymous are wrong to live their lives the way they “want” (quotations because, of course, Dawn would argue that that they want is not actually what they want).
Thanks all for voting for me. That was nice… :)
You really can’t say that she’s telling others how to live their lives. It’s a book. I could run out and buy a diet book, but that doesn’t mean I’ll go on a diet. I could take the advice that the book gives, or I could eat the entire banana cream pie for dinner!;]
Jill, you’re welcome. Girls, just trying to lighten up the mood:]
You really can’t say that she’s telling others how to live their lives. It’s a book. I could run out and buy a diet book, but that doesn’t mean I’ll go on a diet. I could take the advice that the book gives, or I could eat the entire banana cream pie for dinner!;]
Maybe her book is different; I haven’t read it. I only know her from what she writes on her blog, and she frequently makes assertions that amount to: a healthy life will not include pre-marital sex. And that doesn’t jive at all with the experiences of the vast majority of women I know, so I must disagree with her and take issue with her generalization. I am not a fan of generalizations in most cases for that reason — everyone is different.
Hieronymous is not saying Dawn is wrong to live her life the way she wants, she’s saying Dawn is wrong to tell other women how to live their lives.
If you don’t want Dawn to tell you you’re wrong, DON’T BUY THE BOOK!
The word “duh” comes to mind but I guess you get that.
Alexandra,
You make generalizations about the vast majority of women you know, what’s different about Dawn doing it? I think it may be that she just doesn’t agree with you and that is your issue.
Again, like I said…nobody is shoving the book down your throat..if you don’t want to read about her opinions, don’t. Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.
You make generalizations about the vast majority of women you know, what’s different about Dawn doing it?
Where? When I say that ‘the vast majority of women I know’ have had different experiences with sex than Dawn has, I am speaking only of those whose feelings on their sex lives I’m aware of. I should have specified that.
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.
I did not say she made me feel inferior. I said I resented her attempt to paint pre-marital sex as inherently damaging or symptomatic of damage.
I said I resented her attempt to paint pre-marital sex as inherently damaging or symptomatic of damage.
If that is her experience, why can she not say her opinion is that?
Like I said, nobody can make you feel something is wrong unless somewhere, you actually think it too.
I think it may be that she just doesn’t agree with you and that is your issue.
Also, I have actually never said that I disagree with her views on sex. I noted that I have no problem with her views on sex as they apply to her. I am actually far more sexually conservative than most women I know. What I do take issue with is her application of her own experiences to the entire female population. It’s not about agreeing, because as far as personal behavior goes I have always felt that sex was something personal and intimate that I would not share with just anyone, that I would not enjoy sex outside of a loving relationship, that I would not be ready for sex until I was secure in my own identity, yada yada yada. I merely disagree that my experiences or preferences are universal.
If that is her experience, why can she not say her opinion is that?
She certainly can say that — and she would be 100% correct to say that about herself. As it is, I certainly can say that if she says that about everyone else, then I’m pretty sure she’s wrong. People who generalize are usually wrong, because all it takes is one person — much less many — with a different experience to make them wrong.
Like I said, nobody can make you feel something is wrong unless somewhere, you actually think it too.
For the last time, I don’t feel like something is wrong. I just dislike the insistence that something is DESPITE MY OWN FEELINGS, WHICH ARE THAT NOTHING IS. I’m getting pretty sick of the armchair psych stuff.
I said I resented her attempt to paint pre-marital sex as inherently damaging or symptomatic of damage.
If that is her experience, why can she not say her opinion is that?
Posted by: Elizabeth at March 3, 2008 7:45 PM
Because, Elizabeth, her own personal experience is NOT EVIDENCE that sex is inherently damaging or symptomatic of damage. To say that it is…is a lie.
Do you see the difference at all between saying “This is what happened to me, and this is what is true for me” and saying “This is what happened to me, therefore it must be true for all people?”
If you can’t even understand that there is a difference between those two statements, then this conversation really isn’t going to go anywhere.
Heiro,
I don’t honestly get why it bothers you so much. It’s a book she wrote that NOBODY is being forced to buy.
But if her book helps one woman from making the bad choices she felt she made in life, what’s wrong with that? Aren’t our own personal experiences supposed to give us wisdom that can help other people? I think it’s a good thing if someone can learn from someone else’s mistakes.
But like I’ve said, if you don’t like what she has to say in general, don’t spend your money on the book.
I think I might get it though just to see what she has to say and so I’m not making assumptions about what she is saying in the book.
Alexandra,
Like I said, nobody can make you feel something is wrong unless somewhere, you actually think it too.
For the last time, I don’t feel like something is wrong. I just dislike the insistence that something is DESPITE MY OWN FEELINGS, WHICH ARE THAT NOTHING IS. I’m getting pretty sick of the armchair psych stuff.
Just for the record, I wasn’t speaking specifically about YOU..I was just talking in general really, so I hope I did not offend you.
Elizabeth, I see nothing wrong with learning from mistakes. Everyone makes them. What I see as wrong is Dawn Eden using a very public platform to take the lesson that she learned from her life, and use it to accuse everyone else of making the same mistake.
I suppose it bothers me so much because all that does is join one more voice to the chorus that tells women that we aren’t able to think for ourselves. Whether it’s the corporate complex marketing hyper-slut-Girls-Gone-Wild sexuality, or the more-moral-than-thou faction pushing virginity and chastity, everyone seems to feel that they have a right to enforce their views of what a woman’s sexuality should be.
Frankly, it pisses me off. I don’t see nearly this much effort being turned to telling young men to either objectify themselves or to keep it in their pants. And considering that we live in a culture where women are the primary victims of male perpetrated rape, I just don’t see how this paradigm is working for anyone.
and use it to accuse everyone else of making the same mistake.
I really don’t see that as what is being done here.
I suppose it bothers me so much because all that does is join one more voice to the chorus that tells women that we aren’t able to think for ourselves.
How so? I mean, there isn’t any woman out there forcing another woman to behave a certain way is she? No, I really don’t think so. I don’t really think you can stop ANY person, be it male or female from being weak-minded and easily-influenced.
everyone seems to feel that they have a right to enforce their views of what a woman’s sexuality should be.
I really don’t feel that a book on a bookshelf is enforcing ANYTHING considering one has to go to the store, pick up the book, and pay for it in order to read it. If they are willing to read the book, they are willing to be open to the ideas within the book. There is no force involved. And even after they have read the book, this person has the ability to say to themselves, “Those were some really interesting points she brought up,” OR “That woman is full of shit.”
It pisses me off too when there are gang-bangin’ rappers talking about bitches and hoes in their music, and driving fancy cars giving young black males the idea that THIS is what they should portray in life and what they should strive to be like. As opposed to you know, getting an education, staying OUT of jail, and taking care of their kids. But when you are outraged by something, ALL you can really do is not succumb to it by BUYING the record OR the book.
Also, isn’t it more oppressive to silence this woman’s voice just because you don’t like what she has to say?
Frankly, it pisses me off. I don’t see nearly this much effort being turned to telling young men to either objectify themselves or to keep it in their pants. And considering that we live in a culture where women are the primary victims of male perpetrated rape, I just don’t see how this paradigm is working for anyone.
Posted by: Hieronymous at March 3, 2008 10:09 PM
I agree guys need to be responsible too. There is this website I found a while ago, that is directed to both boys and girls called “virginity rocks”. http://www.virginityrocks.com/ I don’t know if this kind of program interests you at all, but this guy is really entertaining, and he relates well to kids on their level. There are a few videos of his programs that you can view on the web site.
Here’s more info on him:
Keith Deltano has served and worked with youth for many years in various roles, including as a military police officer, public school teacher, youth leader, private counselor, and educational comedian. He draws on this varied background to reach out and share with youth. Keith taught sixth grade and is a winner of the Teaching Excellence Award. He has been listed in Who’s Who of America’s Teachers and Outstanding Young Men of America. His parent workbook, Fighting Back, has been well received by both parents and abstinence educators. Keith is also the creator of the Complete Parent Workshop Kit: How to stage and promote a well-attended parent event. He was a keynote presenter at the Abstinence Clearinghouse International Conference. For his work with parents, he was awarded the National Impact Award by the National Abstinence
Clearinghouse. Keith has presented to youth, parents and educators in 46 of the lower 48 states.
I’m curious to hear what you think of it.
Hieronymous –
I said Saying there are different strokes for different folks when it comes to morality is an illusion because no such thing happens in law.
My point is that morality, which is about discerning between right and wrong, upon which the law is built, cannot be relative. I’m saying your statement is untrue. The analogy is not about comparing sex to murder. I’m illustrating what would happen if you applied the same logic (moral relativism) to law.
It’s about subjective vs objective choices: some choices are subjective – like choosing our favorite foods. Other choices are objective, meaning there are consequences which occur which impact us all.
I’m saying consensual sex outside of marriage is objectively wrong. Historically, this was called fornication and adultery. Those terms and laws are disappearing because people think they are subjective. Yet the reasons behind such law is completely sound and quite objective.
When you say that what Dawn is saying doesn’t apply to you, I can prove you false, because pregnancy, abortion and STDs illustrate the need for purity when it comes to sex.
Life is sexually transmitted – the enjoyment of “doing it” doesn’t eliminate those consequences.
….and heart disease, obesity, and diet related diabetes illustrate the need for control when it comes to eating….So there goes your theory on objective choices versus subjective choices. You know, since life is sustained by eating.
Your analogies are just bad. Consensual sex outside of marriage is not objectively wrong. Sorry.
Also, isn’t it more oppressive to silence this woman’s voice just because you don’t like what she has to say?
Posted by: Elizabeth at March 3, 2008 10:30 PM
Where did I ever propose silencing her or not allowing her to speak? Vehement disagreement hardly amounts to censorship.
Hieronymous (8:15)
Because, Elizabeth, her own personal experience is NOT EVIDENCE that sex is inherently damaging or symptomatic of damage. To say that it is…is a lie.
You’re actually stating that Dawn is not a credible witness – that she wasn’t damaged by her experiences. (?!!!)
Wow. That’s about as subjective and judgmental as it gets.
Please reconsider what you’re actually saying, because you’re proving yourself to be a hypocrit.
I just saw the funniest cartoon that totally applies to this blog. I wish I knew how to post pictures. I’m going to try to figure it out so that I can post it here.
Ok, I hope this works…
You’re actually stating that Dawn is not a credible witness – that she wasn’t damaged by her experiences. (?!!!)
Wow. That’s about as subjective and judgmental as it gets.
Please reconsider what you’re actually saying, because you’re proving yourself to be a hypocrit.
Posted by: thinktwice at March 4, 2008 7:47 AM
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Look up the word “inherently” to get a better idea.
I am saying that while Dawn is a perfectly credible witness for HERSELF, she is not a credible witness for EVERYONE. To say that something is “inherently” damaging is to say that it is damaging for EVERYONE. Get it?
You’re actually stating that Dawn is not a credible witness – that she wasn’t damaged by her experiences. (?!!!)
No, she’s saying that Dawn is not a credible witness to assert that all women are damaged by their experiences as she was. No one in this thread has said that Dawn wasn’t damaged by her experiences.
Hiero – Don’t think that I missed your point about how the evidence applies – you’re stating that Dawn cannot speak for all women. I understand your point.
Frankly, it pisses me off. I don’t see nearly this much effort being turned to telling young men to either objectify themselves or to keep it in their pants. And considering that we live in a culture where women are the primary victims of male perpetrated rape, I just don’t see how this paradigm is working for anyone.
You don’t see how chastity works for anyone?
Yet, you agree some actions are objectively wrong, such as rape. Consensual sex outside of marriage is objectively wrong.
You’d never think of defending rape on the same moral grounds you’re trying to defend fornication – but you are.
Just as one woman can be damaged by rape and her testimony would be valid, one woman can be damaged by non-marital sex and her testimony would still be valid, and applicable to all women.
Except that it’s not valid or applicable to all women. How do I know this? Because if there is even one single woman who has had non-marital sex and hasn’t been damaged by it, then your conclusion is false.
…and guess what? Here I am. But it isn’t just me, it’s a large portion of the women I know who are living perfectly happy, undamaged lives.
I have never said that chastity doesn’t work for some people. That is a total misstatement of my point, but that seems to be par for the course for you. Please, continue to deliberately misunderstand and mischaracterize my point. It’s almost getting funny.
Heir and Alexandra,
Out of curiousity, since we are comparing whorish behavior to chasted behavior, do you think that actual prostitutes are making valid “Moral” decisions. Both parties are willing. No one is acting against their will.
Yet I would say, and of course this is my opinion, that prostitutes are definitely damaging themselves by damaging their dignity as human persons and women.
What do you say?
If one woman is damaged by an objective act, then that is one woman too many. Such actions are applicable to all women, because all women are equal, and within the set of “woman”. You’re trying to say Dawn isn’t in that set, and what she says about that doesn’t apply to that set. It does.
Your moral relativism is undermined by date rapes and sexual assaults which happen way more than most women willingly acknowledge within supposedly consensual sex outside marriage. In fact this environment exposes more women to these problems. We all end up paying for these things one way or another, such as with rape. There is a long term social impact and you know it, because you acknowledge it in your own words about men.
Sex within marriage is the most beneficial, least harmful act for procreation. Any other way leads to disease and despair.
That’s what Dawn is saying, and you’re saying she’s wrong.
Your own logic is circular.
Think about it.
BTW – great cartoon – how true. Okay – got the point I’ve got a life to live and so should you…talk later. Bye!
Heir and Alexandra,
Out of curiousity, since we are comparing whorish behavior to chasted behavior, do you think that actual prostitutes are making valid “Moral” decisions. Both parties are willing. No one is acting against their will.
Yet I would say, and of course this is my opinion, that prostitutes are definitely damaging themselves by damaging their dignity as human persons and women.
What do you say?
Posted by: mk at March 4, 2008 8:35 AM
Honestly MK, I don’t think that most prostitutes are prostitutes by preference. I think that it is a particularly sad set of circumstances that sends a woman into a place where she feels that her only value lies in selling herself for sex. I don’t think that “will” and “consent” are truly applicable in those circumstances. And I think that this is most especially true since most prostitutes are not free agents. Most of them have abusive and controlling pimps who not only put them on the street, but then take the money they earn.
Even those of us who see nothing wrong with non-marital sex object to women being used up by a system that places value only on their sexual availability for money. But that’s not what I’ve been talking about, and I think you know that.
Here’s the thing….what I value is a woman being the only person in charge of her sexuality. If she decides to be chaste of her own accord, I think that’s great. If, for her own reasons, she decides that she is willing to engage in a mutually consensual sexual relationship, then I think that’s great too.
What I object to is being told that I must accept that one thing or the other is right, and that other people have some sort of right to comment on an individual woman’s sexuality.
Do I think that some women are coerced into sexual relationships when they would prefer to remain chaste? Yes, of course, and that is absolutely wrong. Do I think that’s damaging? Absolutely.
However, do I think that every non-marital sexual relationship fits into that mold? Absolutely NOT. Do I think that there is a problem with two willing (really willing, not coerced or talked into or forced by circumstance) adults enjoying each other’s company in a mutually satisfactory non-marital sexual relationship? Absolutely not.
If one woman is damaged by an objective act, then that is one woman too many. Such actions are applicable to all women, because all women are equal, and within the set of “woman”. You’re trying to say Dawn isn’t in that set, and what she says about that doesn’t apply to that set. It does.
Except that’s not what I’m saying at all.
Drat, Hieronymous, you beat me to it. My views on prostitution are pretty much the same — as it is, I think most prostitutes are coerced into being prostitutes by economic, social, or addition-related factors, and would prefer to do something else with their lives. But if there is a prostitute who truly feels that’s what she wanted to do, or who is happy doing that, I don’t have a problem or an objection to that.
Hiero, 7:50,
Hilarious cartoon. A few names come to mind. I might have to print it and put it next to my computer! lol.
“That’s who is saying it. I think it’s ridiculous, and it completely ignores the fact that there are a lot of us out there who are capable of distinguishing between sex and love, and that sometimes some of us just want the sex.”
What Hieronymous is saying is true, I think, though as someone who’s mostly asexual I’d emphasize the other side of the coin: that some of us just want love, even if we were married.
The problem I have with Sessions and Shalit (I don’t know if Eden is guilty of this or not) is their clinging to gender roles. They stress that remaining chaste is important and beneficial for GIRLS. They tell GIRLS to dress modestly, so that BOYS aren’t distracted or tempted, but don’t tell boys to do the same to keep girls from becoming distracted or tempted. This, of course, is derived from their bogus idea that boys are from Mars and girls from Venus — that boys are visual but girls purely emotional, or that boys are just interested in sex and girls are just interested in love. (Hieronymous is female and I’m male, and I think the two of us, alone, are disspelling that one…) If you wish to encourage people to remain chaste, fine, but treat the genders the same, rather than acting as though girls really are sugar and spice and everything nice, while boys are mere sexual animals.
Drat, Hieronymous, you beat me to it. My views on prostitution are pretty much the same — as it is, I think most prostitutes are coerced into being prostitutes by economic, social, or addition-related factors, and would prefer to do something else with their lives. But if there is a prostitute who truly feels that’s what she wanted to do, or who is happy doing that, I don’t have a problem or an objection to that.
I have a lot to write about this, but I have biology homework due tonight and I don’t have the time to get into it right now.
But I just have to say one thing: If I were a prostitute because that was my aspiration in life and it made me happy, you would think I’m a great person? Somebody you would let your kids hang around with? And you wouldn’t secretly in your mind call me a “whore” or even say it when I wasn’t around? And BE HONEST. Would you really want your kid hanging out with someone who’s aspiration in life was to grow up and have sex for money?
Hey Heir,
Love that cartoon.
spot on.
And you wouldn’t secretly in your mind call me a “whore” or even say it when I wasn’t around?
I like to think I wouldn’t. I knew a woman who occasionally worked as an escort. Officially she would accompany men to parties or functions. She was attractive, and she was a good conversationalist; she was well-educated and witty and polite — she was basically the kind of woman a man would love to have as his date, which is what she was allegedly paid for. I never asked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if her work involved more than merely having dinner with these guys. I thought that she was a wonderful person, though. She was intelligent and kind and compassionate, and I wouldn’t mind any hypothetical children of mine hanging around her.
Yep, she’s witty and educated and has sex for money. That makes total sense. If she’s so educated, why can’t she find a better way to make money, than I don’t know, get paid to pretend she likes people she probably doesn’t. And then wind up having sex with them.
I mean I’m sorry Alexandra, I really am not trying to be rude here, but just because you dress something up in a pretty little box with a bow on it and try to call it something it isn’t, doesn’t change what IT IS.
Sure, she may be a nice person and funny, but she degrades herself for money. That in itself says to me she can’t have THAT much self-esteem or be very happy. And I have no problem admitting that I don’t think that’s the kind of influence I would want my daughter to have. If for no other reason than it is completely unrealistic to think prostitution is like that.
Elizabeth, Do you really find sex to be degrading?
Nope…but I find taking money for sex from someone you would have no interest in otherwise degrading!
But I just have to say one thing: If I were a prostitute because that was my aspiration in life and it made me happy, you would think I’m a great person? Somebody you would let your kids hang around with? And you wouldn’t secretly in your mind call me a “whore” or even say it when I wasn’t around?
Posted by: Elizabeth at March 4, 2008 1:55 PM
That’s not what Jesus would do.
Sorry, I’m an atheist, but I just had to point that out :-)
Sure, she may be a nice person and funny, but she degrades herself for money. That in itself says to me she can’t have THAT much self-esteem or be very happy.
That’s what it says to you. You asked what it would say to me.
Yep, she’s witty and educated and has sex for money. That makes total sense. If she’s so educated, why can’t she find a better way to make money, than I don’t know, get paid to pretend she likes people she probably doesn’t. And then wind up having sex with them.
She seemed happy enough with it. She had plenty of free time, and she made a good amount of money. She’s currently pursuing an advanced degree in architecture.
She had plenty of free time, and she made a good amount of money.
And that’s how happiness is measured?
Where did I say how happiness is measured? I could say that she seemed perfectly happy to me but that would mean nothing to you — as it did, apparently. I’m perfectly content to let you have your own opinion on this issue — nowhere have I tried to change your mind — so if all you’re going to do is twist my words to claim that I’m equating money with happiness, then I’m done with the conversation as I have little else to say. I can’t say much more than what I said before: she seemed happy, she had plenty of time and money to pursue the education she wanted, she was intelligent, she was compassionate, and I would not mind if any hypothetical child of mine were to spend time with her. I would, in fact, probably rather a child of mine spend time with her than with someone who would call her a whore.