Anti-Chastity, the "New" Bigotry

[guest commentary by Paladin]

(*whew!*) Finals are done, and--for some reason--I actually have a few minutes to spare before my schedule swallows me again!

A rollicking discussion has started here, on the "This Present Darkness" post, mainly revolving around chastity (vs. the use of condoms), of all things (can we say "rabbit trail"?) A few key thoughts, on the items mentioned:

"Safe-sex" [sic--there you go, John! :) ] advocates seem to be relying on a largely unspoken assumption that "abstinence from extra-marital sex is completely unworkable, to the point of being laughable and/or despicable". From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, condom advocates--almost as a unified whole--see nothing at all wrong with extramarital sex, morally speaking; with rare exceptions, they usually regard sex as a "private matter between two consenting adults [or children, or adult/child (re: NAMBLA), or adult/non-human animal, etc.", and that's that. I suppose I *could* see how such a sexually amoral person might be confused at "all the fuss" that's made by faithful Christians about abstinence--and at our implacable resistance to their "just give them condoms, and stop making trouble!" attitude... but I have a much harder time understanding why such people get so very *angry* about abstinence efforts. It really makes me wonder whether there aren't several other dynamics behind the facade of "we're trying to be pragmatic and protect kids as best we can". Let's look at that:

1) Simple common sense (to say nothing of logic and mathematics) tells us that "perfect use abstinence" is undeniably safer than "perfect use condom application". If you need details, e-mail me, and I'll try to explain as best I can.

2) My mind truly reels at the appalling (and not terribly excusable) ignorance of pro-condom people about the destructive emotional effects of contracpetion, casual sex, and the like (read: men and women, boys and girls, using each other as sex objects for their own kicks, while exonerating themselves on the basis that it's "consensual"), to the extent that many of them talk quite flippantly about extramarital sex, as if it were another sport; as Fr. Corapi described the attitude: "Let's go bowling. Let's play tennis. Let's have sex.") Wretched.

3) I can *almost* understand someone holding the idea that "abstinence is ideal, but impractical"; but it rarely stops at that, with condom advocates. There seems to be an undercurrent in their attitudes that aims to liberalize, expand, redefine, and otherwise derestrict sex in all its forms (and perversions--subjectivists, my apologies for any distress caused by my reference to objective reality!)--and when challenged, they respond with a dizzyingly incoherent and eclectic mix of shallow satire, snickering behind hands, blustering rage, knwing looks to their confreres, and basically everything except reasoned argument. That smells fishy to me, frankly.

4) Relating to #3: I'm finding it more and more likely that abstinence foes have a vested interest (or two, or more) in resisting any efforts to hold people to high standards of chastity. If they are (or have been) sexually active outside of marriage themselves, they won't want to feel guilty and/or "judged" for falling short of an important standard, so they'll reject the standard; likewise, they won't want to think of their children as failing to live up to important standards (which might be seen as a bad reflection on their parenting--which isn't necessarily true, BTW!), they won't want to think thusly about their friends, and they'll desperately want to avoid the modern "secular cardinal sin" of "judgmentalism".

5) As several people already pointed out: not only are the "hyperventilating media claims" of "chastity pledges don't work!" sheer nonsense (it would help if the much-touted "JHU study" had compared apples to apples--seriously: are these statisticians so insecure in their position that they need to mangle statistics beyond its already lamentable condition?), but doesn't it strike anyone else that this has all the ingredients of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Here's what I mean:

As an example: take a child from an ethnic minority (or mixed ethnicity) from birth, and bombard him/her--from family, friends, and foes alike--with constant messages of "you're worthless!", "You're no good!", "Your skin-color, eye-slant, etc., will keep you out of anything even close to worldly success... so you'd better get used to the bottom!". What do you think will probably happen? Will you be very surprised if that child doesn't succeed in an illustrious career? It's remotely possible, sure--there are always "outliers" (which the less mathematical of us might call "heroes")--but highly unlikely for such success to happen. Since success is largely a function of self-will, attitude, and the like, it's no surprise that a child with a crippled sense of self-worth won't go far, even if he/she tries... and he/she usually won't even be moved to try.

Does anyone among our readers think that this is a good argument to support the "minorities are intrinsically less capable of success" idea? For the sake of all morality and sanity, I'm hoping your answer is "no".

Now, let's look at chastity. Take a child from birth, and bombard him or her with constant messages of "you're sexually addicted!", "You're a dog in heat!", "You can't stay a virgin until marriage; don't make me laugh!", "Oh, my dear, you'll just hurt yourself if you try to stay chaste--it's too hard, I've been there!--so take these contraceptives, ok?", "Hey, dude, watch all the nearly- (or fully-) naked women on the ads for beer, cars, waffle irons, and everything else!" Teach them, through advertising, through the unanimous verdict of the mainstream media, and through every lust-inflaming phenomenon capable of being produced by man, that they are--by definition--ruled by lust, and are incapable of doing anything about it except to surrender. Ridicule them for even aspiring to be pure, chaste, or anything else which even smacks of what the secular world derides as "repressive puritanical judgmentalism" (or whatever other militant psychobabble is needed to make it sound really, really bad).

Afterward, step back and--with a show of amazement that's sure to convince those who already believe it--exclaim in tones of sheerest exasperation: "Chastity programs? What planet are you from? They just don't work! Kids are going to have sex (aside from a few frea--um, I mean, "outliers"), no matter what! Give them condoms and maybe save a few lives, ok?"

In other words, the very same people who would be furious and indignant at the aforementioned "social programming" of a child born into a minority group (and rightly so) are now giving a "free pass" to the "social programming" which tells kids, relentlessly, that they're raging animals with no realistic chance of saving sex for marriage. They are, according to these self-proclaimed sexual pundits, "intrinsically less capable of success" in sexual restraint than are those of past generations who managed, through some mysterious means, to stay virginal until marriage with far greater frequency (doubtlessly at the cost of their mental health, these people would say).

Hypocrisy, anyone?

(Just for the record: my wife and I were both virgins when we married at ages 30 and 29, respectively--and it wasn't through lack of others *trying* to get us to lose our virginity! Now, were we just endowed with superhuman powers to resist sex for 30 years, or is someone lying about this "impossible to remain chaste" bit, here?)

This Present Darkness

[guest commentary by Paladin]

It begins.

Brothers and sisters in the womb, forgive us. Darkness has ascended the throne, and your lives are now offered to the spirit of the age. Pray for us.

"For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens." (Ephesians 6:12)

Warriors of Christ, take up your arms.

(Apologies for the cross-post; I don't intend to make that a habit, but the "Tuesday of Death" merited it, I think.)

Words Mean Things...

[guest commentary by Paladin]

While our esteemed host is attending to better and higher things, I thought I'd keep the engine running on his Blog, for a bit (hey, it's only a few degrees above zero, where I am! You want to get into an un-warmed blog at *that* temperature? :) ), and highlight this excellent piece from LifeSiteNews.com, written by the skilled champion of clarity, John Jalsevac.

Here's a taste:

January 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Most abortionists are euphemists. By which I mean merely, to quote Chesterton, “that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing.”

If, for instance, you say to an abortionist, “The excessive burden upon the mother, particularly in light of the rights to autonomy, privacy and reproductive freedom, of an unplanned pregnancy precludes any ethical objections to surgically removing the products of pregnancy post-viability, but prior to completion of delivery,” a gentle, indeed a radiant smile will cross his face, and he will dose off as if to a lullaby.

Say, on the other hand, in a forceful, straight-forward way, “Crush the skulls and suck out the brains of your children!” and he will leap from his seat, startled and full of objections.

But in every way the two sentences mean precisely the same thing.

If only a *few* more people could think so clearly, we could change the continent. Be sure to read the rest; it's a treat for the "nuance-phobic" (i.e. sane) mind!