Florida legislators want to force schools to teach sixth-graders about contraception and stop touting the benefits of sex within marriage.

One of the latest battles in the culture war over sex education is being waged in Florida, where a lawmaker has said that touting marriage is “offensive” and that such discussion belongs at home and in church. It’s another attempt to scrap abstinence-only (AO) programs in favor of libertine sex education (LSE), motivated by critics who say that the former just don’t “work.” But are they right? Are AO programs just half measures?

Actually, it's true that AO programs don't "work." It's also true that LSE doesn't "work." That is, if you define “work” as reducing the social ills in question to, oh, let's say, our nation's historically lowest levels. And how else would we define it? Advocates for LSE will point to this or that statistic showing some reduction in the rate of teen-pregnancy, abortion or incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases after the institution of their paradigm, but this would be comical were it not so sad. For they are simply highlighting minor fluctuations in temperature during a moral ice age while ignoring the verdant world of bygone days. As to this, I’ll paraphrase a woman very close to my heart: “Fifty years ago you knew who the bad girls were; now you know who the good girls are.” (If you prefer statistics and analysis on the matter, I present them here.)

This reference to earlier times brings us to what works. At bottom, this isn't about AO, LSE or any other program, as they are all half measures. It's about having a chaste society. Chastity, mind you, is not synonymous with celibacy; rather, it refers to a state in which sexuality is kept within its proper context. This means within marriage and not reduced to simply the most popular form of recreation or a central ingredient of entertainment. In such a society, there are no "programs" for sexuality; in fact, that we think of targeting such a thing with programs hints at the problem. What if I told you that we needed a "program" to teach people about the proper acquisition of goods because large numbers of citizens thought they had just as much a right to others' belongings as to their own? Of course, in certain times and places such a thing might actually and quite regrettably be necessary. However, it would not even be a thought in a land where virtually all were instilled with "Thou shalt not steal" as children. If there is need of a program to address what should be woven into the culture, it means that the civilization is already far gone.

The truth is that in a healthy nation, the whole society is a sexuality program, in just the same way it’s a courtesy, reverence, anti-theft, anti-murder program and every other kind of program. In a nutshell, it’s a comprehensive virtue program. Such a place has strong traditions and social codes governing sexuality, with special emphasis placed where it’s most needed – on the young. This social governance includes powerful stigmas attached to undesirable practices and covers the who, what, where, why and how of the heart’s desire.

Some may say this sounds stifling and oppressive. But it’s no more stifling than a political correctness that stills tongues and ruins careers in an effort to suppress criticism of very fashionable sexual deviance. And it’s far less oppressive than hate-speech laws that imprison people for being right in an age of wrongness.

So, in a healthy civilization, chastity is the norm and lustfulness a deviation from it, but in ours it’s just the opposite. Despite this, people are shocked – shocked – when AO programs don’t “work.” It’s much as with a man who has a weakness for alcohol and attends Alcoholics Anonymous classes but lives in an alcoholic society. There is a bar on every corner; he lives among those who throw parties where drinks are continually waved under his nose; and movies, shows and advertisements are infused with messages and images concerning alcohol. I ask you: if he constantly fell off the wagon, would it be rational to conclude that the real problem is that Alcoholics Anonymous doesn’t “work”?

Yet this is precisely what we do. We say, “Be an exemplar, young man!” even though society sets the worst possible example. We say, “Practice sexuality in a proper way, young woman,” when its improper practice accosts her at every turn. We say, “Don’t turn on your libido and turn off your brain, young people,” but then they turn on the television, radio, computer or MP4 player and find creations of their elders designed to stoke the fires of passion. And then we’re surprised when sexuality programs don’t “work” within the context of our broken, libertine society. It’s like expecting a Sunday school class in the bowels of Hell to produce saints.

Of course, many libertines say my prescription is unrealistic, but understand why. It’s not that they can honestly say it wouldn't work because they have little idea one way or the other; it’s that any solution stigmatizing free sex is simply unacceptable to them. They will say, “We can’t go back to the 1800s,” but this is another mistaken notion. An embrace of virtue is never truly a movement toward the past or future but toward the eternal. When virtues get old, it rarely means they’re worn-out. It usually means they’re tried and true.

Also true, however, is that we are now far from a chaste society and cannot recreate one overnight. But this voyage of a thousand miles begins with a single step in the right direction, and this direction cannot be known unless the destination is defined. Ergo, the recognition of perfection. Thus, while attaining perfection is unrealistic, striving for it never is. It is a prerequisite for progress.

As for half measures, if a day ever comes when a person can be half aborted, half infected or half pregnant, they might be halfway successful.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Peter Steele said:

RE: SEICUS and the UN's Control over Us in terms of Sex Education As it is my late father nailed SEICUS and the UN as the socialists who tried to control male and female relationships in his reports as his friend Barry M. Goldwater and The John Birch Society got them. My family knew about the Kinsey Reports which did try to legalize homosexuality and lesbianism as Dad, Mother and I were heterosexuals. I had trouble finding a woman to marry because of this and I was the kind of man who would never doublecross his wife if he had one because of Scriptural beliefs in the Bible. I am sick of irresponsible people and media and I would be a very happy retired Marine Brigadier General if the anti-American United Nations left New York City along with the Communist Party, USA and Socialist Party, USA. FDR let the USSR put in the United Nations as he was a buddy of the Ukrainian killer Joseph Stalin and my book is going to tell the truth about the Fabian Socialists and Communists and my late father RADM Peter Steele, USN's fearless attempt to expose them. I want government off my back and I'm not afraid to confront Barack Obama and Joseph Biden as an ultraconservative Mayflower-Son of the American Revolution descendant. I want no part of the socialists and their New World Order as family friend Representative Philip M. Crane had exposed and he said people deserve the government they get. BGen Peter F. Steele, USMC [Ret] I have the Mount Vernon Ladies Association 2009 Calendar for George Washington as my name is there.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2009
Votes: +2

Alexa said:

You Don't refers to a state in which sexuality is kept within its proper context. This means within marriage and not reduced to simply the most popular form of recreation or a central ingredient of entertainment. When are you folks going to realize that you don't get to define what is or is not an acceptable "context" for sex for anyone else? I'm not sure why you folks can't come to the realization of the simple fact that people are going to have sex when they're ready to have sex, not when you or someone else decides it is right for them. They always have; they always will. Period. End of story. if you define “work” as reducing the social ills in question to, oh, let's say, our nation's historically lowest levels. No one except you defines it that way, hoss. For the rest of the real world, we define it as providing people with the tools to make critical decisions about when to have sex (on their own, not when someone like you decides it is "appropriate"), how to protect themselves when they do have sex (and plenty of studies have shown that what you refer to as "LSE" does work much better than AO for that purpose), and how to understand appropriate concepts of gender equality (again, a concept that is foreign to you but incredibly necessary for people who live in the real world). Basically, it boils down to the fact that most of us choose to live in today's "real" world and not wonder how we can get back to some imaginary place that never existed in the first place. Perhaps you might consider changing your slogan to "Standing for Imaginary Families and Freedom under the Conditions we Decide is Appropriate." ;-)

report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2009
Votes: -2

Zimmerman said:

	... I Support what alexa said.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2009
Votes: -4

realtorgal said:

Defining issues Alexa, says: "When are you folks going to realize that you don't get to define what is or is not an acceptable "context" for sex for anyone else?" Society defines what constitutes thievery, murder, and what a lie is. Sex education has a right and wrong way too. "Teaching" it our public schools draws a great deal of heat from those who want to teach it it their way, or the way it is currently being taught as if their way is the only way. Physiology books have been around a long time and the subject of reproduction can be taught without the Kinsey fomula, or as Mr. steele says, the SIECUS method, which in my opinion is the sick method. A red traffic light is a device that keeps traffic flowing and is beneficial to society. A traffic cop issue tickets to drivers who run them. No one is suggesting that we shoot red light runners. I just suggest we fire all sex eduation instructors and go back to the physiology books. Libertarians act as if though societies cannot pass laws prohibiting destructive curricula from entering into public schools. Aren't the Kinsey adherents "defining" what "sex' is to school children? Morality means to take on personal responsibility for one's own actions and to foresee the consequences of what one's actions will have on society as a whole. Sex education has had a destructive impact on society and so has the compulsory attendance laws that force many parents to subject children to the Kinsey method of defining sex. People can rule themselves but they do need someone or something to "define" what those rules are. May I be so bold as to sugest the 10 Commandments? They are still free to accept them or reject them. Happy societies accept them because they work!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2009
Votes: +10

weed said:

sad but true Mr Duke’s analysis hits the mark, and the moral cesspool that we are now floating in is intent on drowning us all. I am truly grief-stricken over what we have become. I see nothing but sadness in our children’s eyes, although they are fully equipped with cell phones, ipods, and a good dose of sex education. As individuals, we have a simple choice to make that will affect our lives and the lives of our children forever. Do we make materialism/sensuality or idealism (the worship of ideas) the fulcrum of our lives? Choose one, you cannot have both; and on that choice hangs our true happiness as individuals, and our success as a society. I feel sad for Alexus. She has been deceived into thinking that the morality and laws of the Universe, immutable since the moment of creation, are no longer applicable to our way of life; and by so doing, she has condemned herself to a life that never supersedes the senses. The building of character, the struggle to lead a virtuous life, and the search for the will of God has not, and never will be, an easy road, but I would not trade it for anything that the world could ever offer.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 25, 2009
Votes: +3

RonaldDBull said:

Traditions As much as I agree with Selwyn Duke’s insight and his article, Why Sex Education is Doomed to Failure, I think simply resorting to “traditions” to restore our culture’s moral base to a “healthy” state needs a bit different approach. Restoring “traditions” can mean a wide range of choices, subject to change – they are not moral absolutes. If our present state of affairs in the area of discussion continues long enough, they will become “traditions” themselves.The only moral absolutes are found in God’s law word. We need to again become a society that rests on God’s laws, not man’s ever changing majority moral view points and traditions. To do this, to again become a culture obedient to God’s law word we will need more than a “healthy” society, we will need a Biblically oriented and obedient society; we will have to again become a Christian nation, nothing less. Why are we so reluctant to use the terms God’s laws and Christian culture? Doing so we have lost the war before we ever get into the first battle – regardless of the battle front. We have been seduced as a country into accepting the cultural (religious) perspectives of polytheism and pluralism. It was a trap, and we are now suffering the consequences. We live under a sovereign and jealous God – we had better start thinking and behaving accordingly. Ron Bull

report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2009
Votes: +1

Trever V said:

what's important? Children must learn this matter first at home since home is their first school. And who are the nurturers? Of course, it’s none other than their parents. However, what’s more important about this is that government is paying attention on education matter. Education is one of the components of this stimulus plan of President Obama. There are a few piggyback riders on the economic stimulus bill and the two parts are; one for providing aid to child care on military bases, and the other is a chunk of change that will enhance sex education in the U.S. However, this may not be the best time for this kind of expense. These are good measures, but they deserve their own bill. Read more about quick payday loans and the stimulus bill here.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 03, 2009
Votes: +0