Posted on

Sex ed: abstinence only?

Whilst browsing the interweb recently, I stumbled upon a column called “‘Abstinence Only’ Exposed as Subversive of Actual Evangelical Values” by best-selling author Frank Schaeffer.

It’s def worth the read. In it, Schaeffer sums up a book he read, called Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns by Christine J. Gardner, which I really want to read now. In his analysis of the book, Schaeffer – who agrees with what Gardner wrote – makes several points, including these: that abstinence only programs make sketchy promises and, in the long run, don’t achieve what they’re designed to achieve.

Schaeffer says:

“…abstinence only programs like True Love Waits, Silver Ring Thing, and the Pure Freedom are selling virginity as a sexy choice of personal affirmation using consumerist techniques that are promising ‘better sex,’ in fact ‘great sex’ and perfect marriages if virginity is maintained as a ‘gift’ for the prince or princess …”

I have never been to a legit True Love Waits rally, nor to Silver Ring Thing or Pure Freedom events (although I did play the part of “teen 1” in a radio ad for a Silver Ring Thing rally on Spirit FM, the radio station where I interned in college. Memories!). But from what I’ve heard and gathered, what Schaeffer says is true. The teens who sign the pledge and buy the rings often are told that because they wait, sex for them will be “amazing,” and better, in fact, than the sex their friends have who aren’t waiting.

Amazing in what way?

Better how?

No one defines these terms, so the assumption – and naturally so – is usually that if one saves sex for marriage, sex will (instantly and intuitively) be fabulous, as early as the wedding night.

The problem with this is twofold.

1. When the focus is on how the reward for waiting is sex that’s more gratifying than other peoples’ sex,  it promotes “world sex” (or the phrase I just now made up to describe sex as the world sees it). To quote what I wrote about it in a column for RELEVANTmagazine.com,** “its primary purpose is pleasure, and it is often utilitarian in practice (‘I’ll use you, you’ll use me, and it is good as long as both of us enjoy it.’).” World sex, therefore, does not always require love, and isn’t necessarily selfless, which is the ultimate reason we – and by we, I mean people who worship Jesus Christ and follow his teachings – choose not to participate in it. Anyway, my point is this: If in promoting “saving sex for marriage” our primary focus is on the pleasure (i.e., how much of it, or how much more of it, we’ll experience if we’ve waited), what we imply (even if unintentionally) is that the primary purpose of sex is the pleasure, and that the reward for waiting is maximized pleasure. But a) not necessarily, and b) there is so very much more to this than that.

and

2. When abstinence only organizations promise people knock-your-socks-off sex (in terms of physical pleasure) at marriage because they waited, there are a lot of people who’ll be pretty disappointed on their wedding nights. Obvs, I don’t know this from personal experience, but there are some fabulous people who have courageously stepped up and said a) sex will not necessarily initially or always be effortlessly gratifying, b) just because you save sex for marriage doesn’t mean sex will be “amazing” right away and c) that it is ok if it isn’t. People need to hear this.***

So this brings us to sex education.

How much information should young people be given about sex? And what kind of information? Is the amount and kind of information given in abstinence only programs enough?

In his column, Schaeffer calls out abstinence only education for falling short of actually teaching about sex, and for not accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish. He says:

“The abstinence only program not only fails but sets up young people to fail doubly. First, as the book notes, at best sexual activity is delayed only by a few months or years and then when the young person enters into sexual relationships, they are more exposed to pregnancy and venereal disease, not less.”

His point, and the book’s point I think, is that kids who signed the pledge but had sex anyway are more likely to conceive a child, more likely to acquire an STI because, a person who pledged not to have sex didn’t plan to have sex and as such, isn’t prepared to have sex “safely.” And that’s true. (For the record, I am not for the use of contraception, but that’s for another post.)

And so in my observation, people who aren’t proponents of abstinence only education are often in favor of the kind of sex ed that involves free condoms. But do we only have two choices?

I think there is probably something better in the middle. Something that covers the biology and spirituality and psychology involved. We act like if we talk about sex with young people, young people are going to go have sex right now. But do you think sex is treated the way sex is treated in our culture because too many kids got good sex talks?

Maybe it isn’t because kids know a lot about sex that they decide to have sex. Maybe kids decide to have sex because they don’t know enough about it. And – here’s where else we have to step up – maybe kids decide to have sex because they don’t know enough about love.

– – – –

*Click here to read Frank Schaeffer’s column.

**Click here to read the “erotica in Christianity” column I wrote for RELEVANTmagazine.com

***Click here to read one woman’s story about sex as a challenge.

Posted on

The beginning of the end.

It is in pajamas and on the couch that I ignore the TV and focus for once on what is about to begin:

The end.

I am now three classes and one comprehensive exam from finished with my master’s degree in rehabilitation and mental health counseling. Monday marks the start of my second-to-last semester of grad school (if all goes as planned).

It also marks the start of my second counseling practicum.

Of being new, and learning how to counsel troubled children and adolescents, one on one and in groups.

Of 46 hour work weeks (the practicum plus the paper).

Of reasons to be in three separate cities three days a week, and two separate cities two days a week, and four cities total.

Of a minimum of 300 miles, or seven hours and 45 minutes, in the car each week.

Of being in bed by 10 and awake by 6, and of not hitting the snooze. Which is probably what I’ll mourn most. The loss of the snooze button.

The truth about all this is none of it will be easy. But the point is how it goes depends on my perspective. I can wake up Monday expecting to be kicked in the pants by the semester, or I could wake up Monday expecting to kick this semester in the pants. I could call this semester impossible, or I could call it difficult.

I could call it torture (big stretch), or temporary (truth).

I could pout since it’s the end of summer break, or I could smile, since it’s the beginning of the home stretch – the beginning of the end of schedules like this one.

Until I get my PhD.

😉

Posted on

Books in 2012: Successful Strategies for Working (or Living) with Difficult Kids

In prep for my second counseling practicum (which starts Aug. 27 – prayers are appreciated!), in which I’ll work with children and adolescents, I borrowed a bunch of relevant books from my mom, who is a therapist.

One of them – Successful Strategies for Working or Living with Difficult Kids by Joyce E. Divinyi – is the 18th book I’ve read in full in 2012.

What I ultimately got out of the book is a better understanding of the importance of rising above your reflexes. When a difficult child is agitated, it might be instinctual to yell back, or return insult for insult, or criticize the kid for bad behavior. But those responses (and others like them) meet the needs of the adult (to be right, to be liked, to protect the ego, for instance). This is a problem because while the adult is meeting a need of his or her own, a child’s need goes unmet – the need for a role model, for example, or the need to be encouraged, even as he or she appears prepared to make a bad decision, to make a good choice (and that you believe he or she can do that).

The book is chock full of gems, as helpful for parents and future parents as for people whose professions require work with difficult kids (defined in the book as either defiant/disruptive or lethargic/unmotivated, whose emotional development might be arrested, all for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to having experienced a childhood trauma).

Here are some of my favorite excerpts:

On judging children: 

“Just as our emotional reactions to these children lead to judgments, our judgments have a significant impact on our expectations for these children. And children respond to our expectations. If we believe they are trouble, and will continue to be trouble, often they are. … The first step, therefore … is to suspend your judgments. … Start with the idea that this child has the potential for success at some level, and that with creativity, perseverance and the right structure, you just may be the one to help him or her succeed.” -pages 22-23

On the problem with “passive activity”:

“Passive activity may sound like a contradiction in terms but it is a good way to describe television viewing. Many children are being overexposed to passive activity because they spend most of their free time in front of a television. It is not just the content of television programming that can have an impact on their lives. … (There are) some excellent programs available for children and adolescents–but there are many things children can never experience or learn by passively watching. … how to play, how to imagine, how to problem solve, how to communicate, how to handle their emotions, how to think, how to develop a skill, how to overcome mistakes, how to set goals, how to compete, how to work, how to interact with others, how to respond to authority, how to discern right from wrong.” -pages 30-31

On discerning the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior:

“If the behavior is unacceptable in the workplace, make it unacceptable in the classroom. … If a behavior would get someone fired in the workplace, it should not be tolerated in the classroom.” -page 49

On predicting a positive future:

“Be careful not to predict a negative future. Do not say, ‘If you keep this up, you are going to fail.’ Say instead, ‘You’re too smart to fail. If you decide to work hard at this, you will pass.'” -page 56

“It is especially helpful to affirm their ability to make a good choice when they are very agitated and most apt to do something wrong. You can say, ‘You’re a smart person. You can make a good choice now,’ in the place of saying, ‘You better not do that!’ or ‘If you do that, I’ll…'” -page 57

On giving kids choices instead of demands:

“(Say) … “These are choices, these are the consequences and these are the benefits or rewards,”. The system helps eliminate angry reactions and battles of the will by defining expectations in the form of choices the child makes rather than demands you make.” -page 65

On the importance of being consistent:

“Inconsistency in your responses to inappropriate behavior reinforces the very behavior you are trying to eliminate.” -page 73

On the importance of being firm, but respectful (i.e. don’t yell or talk down, don’t use “threatening words, tones or gestures”):

“These children need instruction in appropriate behavior and they need role models for positive behavior, conflict resolution and anger management. You are the model. You must show them how people work out differences or deal with angry feelings without being destructive to themselves or others. Many times you are their only opportunity to see these skills and traits in action.” -page 75

Yelling “communicates the message that you are not in control of yourself.” -page 84

On praising the deed instead of the person: 

“Praise should always focus on behavior or actions, not on personality or personhood. Say, ‘You did great.’ Do not say, ‘You are a great guy.’ Say, ‘It was so good to hear you use words to express your anger instead of hitting or yelling.’ Do not say, ‘You are so good because you are learning to say your feelings.'” -page 88

On our mission with children:

“Sometimes parents, and even those of us who work with children, forget that our mission is to teach children to be independent of us.” -page 95

On why kids should experience reasonable, natural consequences:

“…When you take away opportunities to experience the consequences of mistakes, you rob children of their personal power, especially the power of resilience.” -page 97

– – – – –

Click here to read about all the books I read in 2012.

Posted on

“You throw like a girl.”

Ever hear one guy tell another he “throws like a girl” in effort to insult him?

EspnW.com contributor Sarah Spain weighs in on why men (and women!) ought not to use words as insults that are actually intended to identify females (and I wholeheartedly agree with her):

“It’s time to put an end to these lazy, damaging jeers. It’s time to stop spreading the message that being female is inherently wrong or inferior. The use of ‘woman’ or ‘female’ or ‘girl’ as an insult is sexist, plain and simple. … Assigning characteristics like ‘tough’ and ‘strong’ to men and ‘soft’ and ‘weak’ to women is not only lazy, it perpetuates stereotypical gender roles and can be harmful to both boys and girls. Those qualities are personality traits, not gender traits.”

Click here to read what she wrote in full. (And big thanks to reader Andrew for pointing this article out to me  in his comment on my post about the book The Purity Myth.)

Posted on

Our call to counter-intuitive love: How do we respond to people who commit crimes?

Last month, I stumbled upon a blog by a guy named Chris Schumerth. From it, I found a column he wrote for a newspaper, about his brother Shane.

On March 6, 2012, the principal at the Jacksonville school where Shane taught Spanish fired him. Shane left the grounds, but returned with a gun and fatally shot the principal and himself.

“Given the tragic events at Episcopal School of Jacksonville on March 6, it is certainly fair for the impacted communities to have questions about who Shane Schumerth was and why he would do what he did,” Chris wrote. ” … But like so many questions, perhaps the first step to answering who Shane was is to pose another question: Which Shane Schumerth are we talking about?”

Chris went on to tell Shane’s story–a truer story than the one our culture might have told about him otherwise.

What Chris wrote really moved me, and I invited him to write with me about why true stories like his brother’s are important. He agreed:

Arleen: Last month, I watched a video of James Holmes in a jailhouse jumpsuit in a courtroom, accused of killing 12 and injuring 58 others in the movie theater shooting in Colorado. After I watched it, I overheard somebody else who saw it share his opinion of Holmes: “What a piece of trash.”

A couple years ago, in the middle of the night, I watched Tampa cops corral the crowd that surrounded a man named Dontae Morris. Morris was in cuffs, arrested for fatally shooting two police officers. A cop led him through the crowd, from the police station to a squad car on live TV. The crowd erupted. People yelled obscenities. Shouted “dead man walking.” Spat at him.

The affected (directly and indirectly) respond. There is anger and grief. There are calls for justice (if not retribution). In it all, there is commentary. The community calls it as it sees it: “The perpetrator deserves the needle. Is scum. Evil. A monster. A loser. A street rat. A piece of trash.”

But in the wake of a tragedy, one truth unchanged by it is forgotten: The perpetrator is a person.

Chris: First of all, I should say that in the aftermath of my brother’s death, my family’s experiences with Episcopal High School in Jacksonville have been positive ones. They have honored Shane’s humanity and respected that we, too, were experiencing loss. But that does not in any way diminish what you say; the kind of discourse you mention is very common and real.

You hint–correctly, I think–that the anger serves as a way for people to cover up their pain or vulnerability. We certainly can understand those feelings after something like Aurora. People have lost someone they care about (or at least are reminded of a time when they did) and they feel more scared about the world they live in, so they lash out. Our cries for retribution are often just that: a way for us to not have to feel our own weakness or tenderness. It’s easier to hate than it is to say “You hurt me,” isn’t it? I have certainly been guilty of this myself at various points in my life, more often than I’d like to admit.

To offer up another situation for comparison, think about the sex scandal at Penn State. It is certainly right to advocate for victims and to seek some sort of justice for those who either acted violently or inappropriately with children, or knew it was happening. But too much of the discourse–both publicly and privately–is so much more than that. It’s dehumanizing. We forget that even criminals have fears, insecurities, questions, dreams, and perhaps what we might be able to connect with the most, pain. People don’t just wake up one day and decide to kill someone. There is a whole series of complexities that lead a person there. This does not in any way “excuse” a crime like murder or rape or terrorism, but I think there is a certain way we can talk about people that honors their dignity. And I also think there is a drastic difference between disciplining or convicting from a position of love–which is possible but difficult, for sure–and doing those things from hate, which is what usually happens.

Sometimes it doesn’t even take death or tragedy for us to resort to this kind of oral or written dehumanization; it may just be that a person is on the other side of the political spectrum. Listen to certain Democrats talk about Rush Limbaugh or Republicans about President Obama, and too often you will hear language that suggests there are no redemptive qualities whatsoever about the person in question. If policy disagreements are enough for us to completely dismiss other people, you can imagine that we only escalate when a tragedy occurs.

Arleen: Sincerely. And I think it’s counter-intuitive in our culture to imagine after a tragedy that the person responsible for it had a childhood, hobbies, a personality, a sense of humor, a family that loves him or her no matter what. It’s counter-cultural to admit that he or she has dignity, let alone to talk about him or her in a way that honors it.

Instead, we rob them of their humanity, and of their intrinsic value. We reduce them to trash or we spit on them (often even we who aim to model our lives after Christ’s, who would never do that). We are afraid, really, to relate to them (and when we deny their humanity, disregard their value and distort the truth about them, we don’t have to admit that we can.).

But if we don’t let ourselves relate, how can we forgive? How can we reconcile? How can we love? To which (my gut says) the world would respond with this: Why should we?

Maybe we should love because love is what we’re made for. Or because a crime does not erase the humanity or dignity of the person who commits it. Or because in acknowledging that people who commit crimes can be loved (and by loving them), we model the kind of love the world desperately needs.

Chris: It’s interesting that you mention Christ, who was betrayed, spit on, whipped, and crucified. Real love and forgiveness certainly are counter-intuitive in our own culture, but these things are more perennial than we’d like them to be. The human condition is, indeed, very fallen. Still, it’s sad, and we all feel the effects in our broken relationships.

We particularly feel the effects when we are the ones dehumanized or dismissed–some people unfortunately spend their entire lives there–but I think we also lose when we do the dismissing. I recently read a book called The Wisdom of Stability by Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove, and I was struck by his referring to people as “gifts.” I grew up in the church, and yet, why hadn’t I been taught that, or better yet, why hadn’t it been instilled in me? That I am a gift, and so, too, are the people in my life around me. Too often we treat each other as burdens, and that message gets ingrained into our psyche. If Shane had believed and known with his whole being what a gift he was, he wouldn’t have done what he did. It is certainly not all my responsibility, but in some ways Shane’s final act was as much my failure as his own.

Yes, we are flawed, blatantly so. We will make mistakes, hurt each other. And if we’re going to talk about love and respect and dignity and forgiveness, let’s not be naive. It takes a ton of work to forgive. You don’t just take two warring sides the day after a huge battle and have them hug and sing Kumbaya together. Not to mention, it takes two willing sides to reconcile, and it’s usually hard enough to find one. A willing individual or family or community or nation is ready to put in the intentional time and effort and heartache to work things out together. That’s a lot different from what we usually see, which is that we put all the onus on one particular side to change, and when they’re willing, then we can move forward.

Meanwhile, we avoid, or we fight, and we part ways, because frankly, it’s easier to live that way. And yet, I trust that there is in fact a better way. I, for one, cannot afford to move forward with my own life without having been changed by the loss of my own brother.

– – – –

Click here to read what Chris wrote about Shane in the Florida Times-Union.

Click here to follow Chris’s blog.