From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:48:15 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

The following article is used by permission from Focus on the Family. 
Reference numbers are enclosed within square brackets (e.g. [1]). The
article is over 300 lines long.

		In Defense of a Little Virginity

The federal government has spent almost $3 billion of our taxes since 1970 
to promote contraceptives and "safe sex" among our teenagers. Isn't it time
we asked, What have we gotten for our money? These are the facts:

	The federal Centers for Disease Control estimate that there are
	now 1 million cases of HIV infection nationwide. [1]

	1 in 100 students coming to the University of Texas health center
	now carries the deadly virus. [2]

	The rate of heterosexual HIV transmission has increased 44%  since
	September 1989. [3]

	Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) infect 3 million teenagers 
	annually. [4]

	63% of all STD cases occur among persons less than 25 years of 
	age. [5]

	1 million new cases of pelvic inflammatory disease occur annually. [6]

	1.3 million new cases of gonorrhea occur annually; [7] strains of 
	gonorrhea have developed that are resistant to penicillin.

	Syphilis is at a 40-year high, with 134,000 new infections per
	year. [8]

	500,000 new cases of herpes occur annually; [9] it is estimated 
	that 16.4% of the U.S. population ages 15-74 is infected, totaling 
	more than 25 million Americans - among certain groups, the 
	infection rate is as high as 60%. [10]

	4 million cases of chlamydia occur annually; [11] 10-30% of 15- 
	to 19-year olds are infected. [12]

	There are now 24 million cases of human papilloma virus (HPV),
	with a higher prevalence among teens. [13]

To date, over 20 different and dangerous sexually transmitted diseases
are rampant among the young. Add to that the problems associated with
promiscuous behavior; infertility, abortions and infected newborns. The
cost of this epidemic is staggering, both in human suffering and in 
expense to society; yet epidemiologists tell us we've only seen the 
beginning.

  Incredibly, the "safe-sex" gurus and condom promoters who got us into 
  this mess are still determining our policy regarding adolescent sexuality. 
  Their ideas have failed, and it is time to rethink their bankrupt policies.

How long has it been since you've heard anyone tell teenagers why it is
to their advantage to remain virgins until married? The facts are being
withheld from them, with tragic consequences. Unless we come to terms 
with the sickness that stalks a generation of Americans, teen promiscuity
will continue, and millions of kids ... thinking they are protected ...
will suffer for the rest of their lives. Many will die of AIDS.

There is only one safe way to remain healthy in the midst of a sexual
revolution. It is to abstain from intercourse until marriage, and then
wed and be faithful to an uninfected partner. It is a concept that was
widely endorsed in society until the 1960s. Since then, a "better idea"
has come along ... one that now threatens the entire human family. 

Inevitable questions are raised whenever abstinence is proposed. It's 
time we gave some clear answers:

  Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should
  be taught to abstain from sex until marriage? 
         
No other approach to the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases will
work. The so-called "safe-sex" solution is a disaster in the making.
Condoms can fail at least 15.7 percent of the time annually in preventing
pregnancy. [14] They fail 36.3 percent of the time annually in preventing 
pregnancy among young, unmarried minority women. [15] In a study of 
homosexual men, the British Medical Journal reported the failure rate due
to slippage and breakage to be 26 percent. [16] Given these findings, it 
is obvious why we have a word for people who rely on condoms as a means of
birth control. We call them ... "parents."

Remembering that a woman can conceive only one or two days per month, 
we can only guess how high the failure rate for condoms must be in 
preventing disease, which can be transmitted 365 days per year! If the
devices are not used properly, or if they slip just once, viruses and
bacteria are exchanged and the disease process begins. One mistake after
500 "protected" episodes is all it takes to contract a sexually 
transmitted disease. The damage is done in a single moment when rational
thought is overridden by passion.

Those who would depend on so insecure a method must use it properly
on every occasion, and even then a high failure rate is brought about 
by factors beyond their control. The young victim who is told by his
elders that this little latex device is "safe" may not know he is 
risking lifelong pain and even death for so brief a window of pleasure.
What a burden to place on an immature mind and body!

Then we must recognize that there are other differences between pregnancy
prevention and disease prevention. HIV is 1/25 the width of sperm, [17] 
and can pass easily through even the smallest gaps in condoms. Researchers 
studying surgical gloves made out of latex, the same material in condoms,
found "channels of 5 microns that penetrated the entire thickness of 
the glove." [18] HIV measures .1 microns. [19] Given these findings, 
what rational, informed person would trust his or her very life to such 
flimsy armor?

This surely explains why not one of 800 sexologists at a conference a 
few years ago raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin 
rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV-
infected person. [20] Who could blame them? They're not crazy, after all.
And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that "safe sex" is
within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity.

There is only one way to protect ourselves from the deadly diseases
that lie in wait. It is abstinence before marriage, then marriage and
mutual fidelity for life to an uninfected partner. Anything less is
potentially suicidal.

  That position is simply NOT realistic today. It's an unworkable
  solution: Kids will NOT implement it.

Some will. Some won't. It's still the only answer. But let's talk about
an "unworkable solution" of the first order. Since 1970, the federal
government has spent nearly $3 billion to promote contraception and
"safe sex." This year alone, 450 million of your tax dollars will go
down that drain! [21] (Compared with less than $8 million for abstinence
programs, which Sen. Teddy Kennedy and company have sought repeatedly
to eliminate altogether.) Isn't it time we ask what we've gotten for
our money? After 22 years and nearly $3 billion, some 58 percent of
teenage girls under 18 still did not use contraception during their
first intercourse. [22] Furthermore, teenagers tend to keep having 
unprotected intercourse for a full year, on average, before starting 
any kind of contraception. [23] That is the success ratio of the experts who 
call abstinence "unrealistic and unworkable."

Even if we spent another $50 billion to promote condom usage, most 
teenagers would still not use them consistently and properly. The nature
of human beings and the passion of the act simply do not lend themselves
to a disciplined response in young romantics.

  But if you knew a teenager was going to have intercourse, wouldn't
  you teach him or her about proper condom usage?

No, because that approach has an unintended consequence. The process 
of recommending condom usage to teenagers inevitably conveys five
dangerous ideas: (1) that "safe sex" is achievable; (2) that everybody
is doing it; (3) that responsible adults expect them to do it; (4) that
it's a good thing; and (5) that their peers know they know these things,
breeding promiscuity. Those are very destructive messages to give our 
kids.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood's own data show that the number one
reason teenagers engage in intercourse is peer pressure! [24] Therefore,
anything we do to imply that "everybody is doing it" results in more ...
not fewer ... people who give the game a try. Condom distribution
programs do not reduce the number of kids exposed to disease ... they
radically increase it!

Want proof of that fact? Since the federal government began its major
contraception program in 1970, unwed pregnancies have increased 87 
percent among 15- to 19-year-olds. [25] Likewise, abortions among teens
rose 67 percent; [26] unwed births went up 61 percent. [27] And venereal 
disease has infected a generation of young people. Nice job, sex counselors.
Good thinking, senators and congressmen. Nice nap, America.

Having made a blunder that now threatens the human family, one would
think the designers would be backtracking and apologizing for their
miscalculations. Instead, they continue to lobby Congress and corporate
America for more money. Given the misinformation extant on this subject,
they'll probably get it.

  But if you were a parent and knew that your son or daughter was 
  having sex, wouldn't you rather he or she used a condom?

How much risk is acceptable when you're talking about your teenager's
life? One study of married couples in which one partner was infected
with HIV found that 17% of the partners using condoms for protection
still caught the virus within a year and a half. [28] Telling our teens
to "reduce their risk" to one in six (17%) is not much better than 
advocating Russian roulette. Both are fatal, eventually. The difference
is that with a gun, death is quicker. Suppose your son or daughter were
joining an 18-month sky diving club of six members. If you knew that one
of their parachutes would definitely fail, would you recommend that 
they simply buckle the chutes tighter? Certainly not. You would say,
"Please don't jump. Your life is at stake!" How could a loving parent
do less?

  Kids won't listen to the abstinence message. You're just wasting 
  your breath to try to sell them a notion like that.

It is a popular myth that teenagers are incapable of understanding that
it is in their best interest to save themselves until marriage. Almost
65 percent of all high school females under 18 are virgins. [29]

A few years ago in Lexington, Ky., a youth event was held that featured
no sports contest, no rock groups - just an ex-convict named Harold
Morris talking about abstinence, among other subjects. The coliseum
seated 18,000 people, but 26,000 teenagers showed up! Eventually, more
than 2,000 stood outside the packed auditorium and listened over a hastily
prepared public address system. Who says kids won't listen to this
time-honored message?

Even teens who have been sexually active can choose to stop. This is 
often called "secondary virginity," a good concept that conveys the
idea that kids can start over. One young girl recently wrote Ann Landers
to say she wished she had kept her virginity, signing the letter, "Sorry
I didn't and wish I could take it back." As responsible adults we need
to tell her that even though she can't go back, she can go forward. She
can regain her self-respect and protect her health, because it's never
too late to start saying "no" to premarital sex.

  Even though the safe-sex advocates predominate in educational
  circles, are there no positive examples of abstinence based 
  programs for kids?

Thankfully, some excellent programs have been developed. Spokane-based
Teen-Aid and Chicago's Southwest Parents Committee are good examples.
So are Next Generation in Maryland, Choices in California and Respect 
in Illinois. Other curricula such as Facing Reality; Sex Respect; Me,
My World, My Future; Reasonable Reasons to Wait; Sex, Love & Choices;
F.A.C.T.S. etc., are all abstinence-themed programs to help kids make
good sexual decisions.

A good curriculum for inner-city youth is Elayne Bennett's Best Friends
Program. This successful "mentoring" project helps adolescents in 
Washington, D.C., graduate from high school and remain abstinent. In
five years, not one female has become pregnant while in the Best 
Friends Program!

Establishing and nurturing abstinence ideas with kids, however, can
be like spitting into the wind. Not because they won't listen, because
most will. But pro-abstinence messages are drowned out in a sea of 
toxic teen-sex-is-inevitable-use-a-condom propaganda from "safe-sex"
professionals.

  You place major responsibility on those who have told adolescents
  that sexual expression is their right as long as they do it 
  "properly." Who else has contributed to the epidemic?

The entertainment industry must certainly share the blame, including
television producers. It is interesting in this context that all four
networks and the cable television entities are wringing their hands
about this terrible epidemic of AIDS. They profess to be very concerned
about those who are infected with sexually transmitted diseases, and
perhaps they are sincere. However, TV executives and movie moguls have
contributed mightily to the existence of this plague. For decades, 
they have depicted teens and young adults climbing in an out of each
other's beds like so many sexual robots. Only the nerds were shown to
be chaste, and they were too stupid or ugly to find partners.

Of course, the beautiful young actors in those steamy dramas never 
faced any consequences for their sexual indulgence. No one ever came
down with herpes, or syphilis, or chlamydia, or pelvic inflammatory
disease, or infertility, or AIDS, or genital warts, or cervical cancer.
No patients were ever told by a physician that there was no cure for
their disease or that they would have to deal with the pain the rest
of their lives. No one ever heard that genital cancers associated
with the human papilloma virus (HPV) kill more women than AIDS, [30]
or that strains of gonorrhea are now resistant to penicillin. [31]

No, there was no downside. It all looked like so much fun. But what
a price we are paying now for the lies we have been told.

The government has also contributed to this crisis and continues
to exacerbate the problem. For example, a current brochure from the
federal Centers for Disease Control and the City of New York is
entitled, "Teens Have the Right," and is apparently intended to free
adolescents from adult authority. Inside are the six declarations that
make up a "Teenager's Bill of Rights," as follows:

	I have the right to think for myself.

	I have the right to decide whether to have sex and who[m]
	to have it with.

	I have the right to use protection when I have sex.

	I have the right to buy and use condoms.

	I have the right to express myself.

	I have the right to ask for help if I need it.

Under this final item (the right to ask for help) is a list of 
organizations and phone numbers that readers are encouraged to call.
The philosophy that governs several of the organizations reflects the
homosexual agenda, which includes recruitment of the young and vigorous
promotion of a teen's right to sexual expression.

Your tax dollars at work!

Surely there are other Americans who recognize the danger now threatening
a generation of our best and brightest. It is time to speak up for an
old-fashioned value called virginity. Now, more than ever, virtue is 
a necessity.

If you agree with Focus on the Family that it is time for a new approach
to adolescent sexuality, copy this ad and save it. Take it to your next
school meeting. Send it to your congressman or senator. Distribute 
copies to the PTA. And by all means, share it with teenagers. Begin
to promote abstinence before marriage as the only healthy way to survive
this worldwide epidemic.

For a reprint of this ad as it appeared in USA Today, or a copy of the
booklet "How to Teach Your Kids to Say 'No' to Sex" call 719-531-5181.
Or write Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO 80995.


                   Copyright 1992, Focus on the Family. 
                               719-531-5181


                               Data Sources

1. Pamela McDonnell, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Division, Centers for
Disease control, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, t.i., March 16,
1992.

2. Scott W. Write, "1 in 100 Tested at UT has AIDS virus," Austin
American Statesman, July 14, 1991, p. A14; The federally funded study
was based on a non-random sample.

3. "Heterosexual HIV Transmissions up in the United States," American
Medical News (Feb. 3, 1992): 35.

4. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers
for Disease Control, 1991 Division of STD/HIV Prevention, Annual Report,
p. 13.

5. Ibid.

6. McDonnell, CDC, HHS, t.i., March 18, 1992.

7. STD/HIV Prevention, CDC, p. 13.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Robert E. Johnson et al, "A Seroepidemiologic Survey of the Prevalence
of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection in the United States," New
England Journal of Medicine 321 (July 6, 1989): 7-12.

11. STD/HIV Prevention, CDC. p. 13.

12. C. Kuehn and F. Judson, "How common are sexually transmitted infections
in adolescents?" Clinical Practice Sexuality 5 (1989): 19-25; as cited by
Sandra D. Gottwald et al., "Profile: Adolescent Ob/Gyn Patients at the 
University of Michigan, 1989," The American Journal of Gynecologic Health 5,
(May/June 1991), 23. 

13. Kay Stone, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Division, Centers for Disease
Control, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, t.i., 23.

14. Elise F. Jones and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, "Contraceptive Failure
in the United States: Revised Estimates from the 1982 National Survey of
Family Growth," Family Planning Perspectives 21 (May/June 1989): 103.

15. Ibid, p. 105.

16. Lode Wigersma and Ron Oud, "Safety and Acceptability of Condoms for
Use by Homosexual Men as a Prophylactic Against Transmission of HIV During
Anogenital Sexual Intercourse," British Medical Journal 295 (July 11, 1987): 
94.

17. Marcia F. Goldsmith, "Sex in the Age of AIDS Calls for Common Sense
and Condom Sense," Journal of the American Medical Association 257 (May 1, 
1987): 2262.

18. Susan G. Arnold et al., "Latex Gloves Not Enough to Exclude Viruses,"
Nature 335 (Sept. 1, 1988): 19.

19. Nancy E. Dirubbo, "The Condom Barrier," American Journal of Nursing, 
Oct. 1987, P. 1306.

20. Theresa Crenshaw, from remarks made at the National Conference on HIV,
Washington, D.C., Nov. 15-18, 1991.

21. "Condom Roulette," Washington Watch 3 (Washington: Family Research
Council), Jan. 1992, p. 1.

22. William D. Mosher and James W. Mcnally, "Contraceptive Use at First
Premarital Intercourse: United States, 1965-1988." Family Planning 
Perspectives 23 (May/June 1991): 111.

23. Cheryl D. Hayes, ed., Risking the Future: Adolescent Sexuality,
Pregnancy and Childbearing (Washington: National Academy Press, 1987)
pp. 46-49.

24. Planned Parenthood poll, "American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and
Birth Control," (New York: Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., 1986), p. 24.

25. "Condom Roulette," In Focus 25 (Washington: Family Research Council,
Feb. 1992), p. 2.

26. Gilbert L. Crouse, Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Dept of 
Health and Human Services, t.i., March 12, 1992,
based on data from Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute. Increase
calculated from 1973, first year of legal abortion. 

27. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee
on Health and the Environment, The Reauthorization of Title X of the
Public Health Service Act, (testimony submitted by Charmaine Yoest),
102nd Congress, 2nd session, March 19, 1991, p. 2. 

28. Margaret A. Fischl et al., "Heterosexual Transmission of Human 
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): Relationship of Sexual Practices to
Seroconversion," III International Conference on AIDS, June 1-5, 1987,
Abstracts Volume, p. 178.

29. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Centers for 
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, "Percent of Women 15-19
Years of Age Who Are Sexually Experienced, by Race, Age, and Marital
Status: United States, 1988." National Survey of Family Growth.

30. Joseph S. McIhaney, Jr., Sexuality and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,
(Grand Rapids, Baker Publ., 1990), p. 137.

31. A.M.B. Goldstein and Susan M. Garabedian-Ruffalo, "A Treatment Update 
to Resistant Gonorrhea," Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, (August 
1991): 39.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

[I should note that conservative Christians have been doing things
that I regard as not helpful in this regard.  Much of the Christian
comment on AIDS has centered on homosexuality.  I understand why this
has happened.  But I think that has a potential for being as much of a
problem as the emphasis on condoms (if indeed condoms are a problem --
I don't know what the medical evidence is).  The danger is exactly the
same as the one described here -- that it will send mixed messages to
kids.  As long as they think that AIDS is primarily a homosexual
problem, they (at least the 90% who are heterosexual) will have an
excuse not to do anything.  The concentration on condom use in secular
sources is understandable.  My concern is what goes on in the church.
The church needs to start giving an unambiguous message about the
connection between STD and promiscuity.  --clh]