29 Comments

1. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-05 13:46:55

   Jason, I'm not saying that people don't get married, only that many people have sex before marriage. Many of my single grad-school friends are in long-term monogamous relationships. So I don't get your point about giving men free rides, since I've never seen any evidence that these responsible, educated, productive people are becoming barbarians or ne'erdowells - because of sex or anything else. Heck, I've got two brothers who were enlisted (and thus, non-cowardly), both were non-abstinent before marriage, and they both now have families. /// Many people have sex before they get married. Some do it only with their future spouse, some are promiscuous but eventually settle down, and many have sex only with their romantic partners (one of whom they eventually marry). I don't see how any of these cause a degradation of society.

2. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-04 23:37:01

   Well Ben, the practical reason I already mentioned, that we don't want to give men a free ride(Women don't have a free ride one way or another anyway) as that will turn them into either barbarians or cowardly, lazy neer do wells or both still applies. It is hard to see how "culture" has made that obsolete. Indeed it is hard to see how "culture" exists, if people don't marry. That goes a long way to converting a "culture" into a "crowd." As for "technology" making that obsolete, you are of course assuming that our technology will always stay far enough ahead of others for us to be able to do without a cohesive society. As it is not quite clear how much technology will be advanced or maintained when men are either barbarians or lazy, cowardly, neer do wells that argument flys apart.

3. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-04 20:42:35

   The sacs are made of tetroploid blastocysts. IIUC, take a fertilized egg that has split once, fuse the two cells together so that the # of chromosomes doubles, and let it grow for a while. Inject the iPS cells into this blastocyst (the sac). The blastocyst then acts like support for the iPS cells and provides the extra tissue needed for embryonic development. /// Each sac contains 1 potential mouse. The success rates were low: 3% live born pups, and a third of those survived to adulthood (all of which were fertile). But since they were testing multiple ways of doing this, they did manage to figure out a lot of the things not to do :). /// To me, this shows the moral equivalence of skin cells and embryonic cells by showing that both have the potential to become a full human being. The reprogrammed skin cells only lack the ability to form the "support" cells of placenta and other developmental organs that are shed during birth.. although given a few more year's research, I wouldn't be surprised if we figured out how to turn skin cells into those, as well.

4. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-04 01:10:52

   Thanks Ben, that iPS stuff sounds pretty amazing. Questions: Do they just stuff a whole bunch of iPS cells into a sac and they become one mouse? Or many? How do they make the sac? Were the mice all 'born' healthy? I still fail to see, though, the moral equivalence (of skin cells and embryonic ones). But, thanks for the conversation.

5. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-03 17:59:16

   Steve, we probably mostly agree on what fulfilling biological urges "properly" means, and I'd bet we also agree that this is difficult to convey to a non-Christian. On the other hand, I just realized I've got more than one definition of "properly" bouncing around in my head, so... somewhere in my brain I've drawn a line between Christian and secular morals. Pretty much along these same lines of "what is evidence-based" and "what is theology-based". (Of course they overlap in many areas, but not all). /// What I meant by "obselete" was that culture and technology change have made the practical reasons against unmarried sex less important, leaving it mostly a matter of taste and religion. /// Stem cells: for the experiment in mice, the scientists created a special sack of cells that the iPS cells were put into. This sack became the placenta, amniotic sac, and other developmental organs, while the iPS cells became the baby mouse. After birth, the scientists did tests to ensure that the baby mice came only from the iPS cells. So although the iPS cells weren't capable of becoming mice without support, they *did* eventually become healthy, reproducing mice. All of the cells in the baby mice came from skin cells of another mouse.

6. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-03 15:07:22

   Ben, my point is that it is "just because" when you follow it far enough, not that the immediate reason is "just because"

7. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-03 14:35:47

   Ben, granted, it's a Catholic leaning stance, though my experience is that a Catholic would be able to point out a great many of my argument's deficiencies. In any case, I think we're agreed that abstinence-only doesn't work for the non-religious. I'm trying to understand why that is and what fulfilling our biological urges "properly" means. Almost all our actions are morally founded (i.e. within a moral framework), and I'm interested in tracing that. Re: physical pleasure/aspect, I agree creation is good. I'm only saying that we must live wisely... and you are too. We just disagree, I think, on what is wise (which could be a very long discussion). I agree with this: "I'm not saying that unmarried sex is "better" than marriage. I'm just pointing out that most of the pro-abstinence arguments that are used are obselete or religious. There's not much meat there for non-Christians." Though I'm not sure that 'obsolete' is the best description. Also, I'm not sure that people are happier, more balance, or better, since the sexual revolution. I definitely agree that the question of "no sex" is not a message that secular people hear, though they might appreciate the reasons someone would not commit to a temporary relationship... // Stem cells: I really can't comment too much (with my limited knowledge) but if the results of iPS cells are potentially viable human beings (like the result of fertilization), and these humans are then destroyed, well, yeah, I don't support using them...

8. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-03 13:49:54

   Hmm, Steve, that seems to be a very Catholic stance to take - that sex shouldn't be divorced from it's original purpose of reproduction. I'm not really buying it. I don't have any problem whatsoever with "fulfilling biological urges", as long as it's done properly. There's no shame in the physical aspect of our lives, and we shouldn't dismiss or disdain physical pleasure just because it's physical (not that we should exalt it above others, either). /// You're right that the effects of pregnancy are the same across the board. But, abstinence-only is more likely to cause pregnancy, since there's no birth control use to back it up. /// I'm not saying that unmarried sex is "better" than marriage. I'm just pointing out that most of the pro-abstinence arguments that are used are obselete or religious. There's not much meat there for non-Christians. The question is not whether unmarried sex is better than married sex, but whether it's better than *no* sex. /// Back to stem cells: the procedures are different, but both kinds of stem cells can make distinct organisms. Unless you support killing identical twins in the embryo stage, I don't see how you can support using iPS cells. (Or there's another alternative, which is believing that a cluster of a few cells isn't a human person). /// Jason: I agree. But is the reason for not getting burnt or run over just "because I said so"?

9. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-03 12:13:47

   Really Ben? Why should the child not get burnt or run over then? My point is that every tangible reason has a reason for that reason, until you get back to something that is self-evident which you must reach if you follow far enough.

10. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-03 11:48:27

    Ben, but you said yourself "to turn away from their biological urges, ... is very difficult (and mostly pointless) if they aren't religious". It's the "mostly pointless" I'm thinking about. Given the opportunity, many will choose to pursue pleasure / the physical / things of this world over what is 'from above'. Granted, things in this world are good gifts from God, but I submit to you that some form of material gain is usually the driving force. // Of course, since we've separated sex so much from procreation, God's commandments would seem arbitrary. Abstinence doesn't make sense *when sex is not seen as between two people wanting a family*. It thus becomes a pursuit of fulfilling biological urges. Yeah, there's some great things thrown in, relationally and all the rest, but that doesn't mean it's the pursuit we ought to undertake. "Because we can" is not a good way to live. I don't see how Abstinence-only "fails" any worse than "protected" sex? Unless you're saying that "abstinence-onlyers" are more "pro-life" and so they "fail" to get rid of their "mistake". But even if you're saying that, girls who get pregnant having safe sex can "[drop] out of high school to raise kids, or [become] single mothers". The consequences of getting pregnant apply across the board and they happen across the board. //"You can be non-abstinent, monogamous, and pretty STD-safe, or you can even be non-monogamous and safe if everyone's been tested recently". I don't see how this is better or even on the same level as sex until and only within marriage. Your statements are true. But then, that doesn't in any way mean that these scenarios are good for someone. // And I'm surprised no one commented on this: "I don't have any problem with embryonic stem cell research, and it seems to be morally equal to using induced pluripotency stem cells (iPS cells), which can be made from the skin cells of adults". Morally equal? Do you mean the procedures are roughly the same? It's even less equal than saying deer-hunting and cannibalism are morally equal, because no unique organism dies using skin cells. And we're back to "because we can" morality anyway, and not everyone agrees it would be immoral to clone humans. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/whyclone.php

11. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-03 00:26:15

    Jason, I'm not sure that "I told you so" is really what most commands come back to. When a parent tells their child not to play with fire or play in traffic, there's tangible physical reasons for doing so. Likewise for when a parent tells a 8-year old not to watch a scary movie or a 14-year old to have sex, as most children don't have the emotional maturity to handle sex and horror movies at these ages. /// I've always been the kid that asks, "But *why*?"

12. Posted by Gina on 2009-11-02 23:49:56

    Yes, well, I'm not going to go play in traffic, either. :-) As for monogamy, if you study current trends, I think you'll find that it's far from being common practice, even among those unmarried people who hold it up as an ideal. When one's sexual relationship inherently includes the freedom to walk away, the likelihood that it will remain monogamous becomes much, much lower.

13. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-02 23:10:49

    It's true, Gina, that HPV is one of the most dangerous STDs, particularly in developing countries where women don't have access to ob-gyns and pap smears. I'll grant that HPV is also one of the most dangerous STDs in the U.S., but for what "most dangerous" means, well, last year there were 11x as many deaths in the U.S. from traffic accidents as from cervical cancer, and that's with the vaccine relatively recently approved. I'd expect HPV rates to drop as the vaccine becomes widely accepted, but I don't expect anyone to stop driving. /// And even so, HPV is only an argument against stupid promiscuity, rather than an argument for abstinence. You can be non-abstinent, monogamous, and pretty STD-safe, or you can even be non-monogamous and safe if everyone's been tested recently.

14. Posted by Gina on 2009-11-02 22:18:25

    Also, men don't get cervical cancer.

15. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-02 22:10:16

    Well coffee is highly relational too Ben. And I doubt that Frederick the Great will be revived to forbid it to us commoners again. In any case, most moral precepts do sooner or later end in "because I said so" if you follow them far enough. However, as far as pragmatic reasons, the male has an unusual advantage in not being able to become pregnant. He therefore has more of an ability to be irresponsible. Marriage tames that and connects his sexual instinct with obligation to the wife, the children and by extension the group. Other "methods" don't do that to the same degree. One can say there is a relationship, but where there is no obligation there is little relationship. This point at least is not obsolete, for it gives people the motive to work for the benefit of the community.

16. Posted by Gina on 2009-11-02 21:42:01

    Ben, one very quick note (I would like to go much more thoroughly into all this, but I'm pressed for time this week): Never mind whether Christians have made a case; haven't scientists and doctors made a case for the high risk of -- to take just one high-profile and particularly dangerous example -- HPV? Why else did we have that mad rush to get the vaccine on the market and into young girls, if not because of a disease that -- as Christians *and* doctors warned for years -- cannot be prevented with condoms? And even the vaccine only prevents against *some* strains, not all. Personally, my faith is a major factor in my decision to practice abstinence, but even if I had no faith, I can tell you the threat of cervical cancer would be a pretty major deterrent. Jason, don't be too sure that "it's too dangerous" couldn't kill the mood.

17. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-02 18:02:36

    Eh, I don't think that that most people mostly value what is "physical". Sex is highly relational and can provide great emotional pleasure, even outside of marriage. To me, abstinence has mostly become a "because I told you so" kind of commandment, at least since the advent of birth control, condoms, etc. Sometimes, I wonder about God's reasons for the commandment, and whether those reasons have changed. My wonderings don't generally reach any conclusions. But I'm married =D, so the issue no longer causes me any personal struggle. /// I'd guess the other reason abstinence-only isn't state-funded any more is that when it fails, it fails pretty badly. Kids dropping out of high school to raise kids, or young girls becoming single mothers; to me these are much more harmful to society than a few extra kids having protected sex. /// I also found the stem cell article interesting. It's a step towards understanding infertility, and many steps away from test-tube babies - I recommend reading the original article on Nature, which doesn't hype the results so much. /// I don't have any problem with embryonic stem cell research, and it seems to be morally equal to using induced pluripotency stem cells (iPS cells), which can be made from the skin cells of adults. If iPS cells can be used to make fully functional offspring/twins (and they can, as has been shown in mice), then our own skin cells are just a few lab procedures away from becoming fully-functional embryos. Of course, everyone agrees it would be immoral to clone humans, but it still helps you understand why many people don't see embryos as distinct persons. (Re: the genetic argument, these would be like identical twins).

18. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-02 15:40:56

    Safety should carry some weight Gina. But sometimes it kind of seems that it is overemphasized in our culture, especially when compared to more important things. In any case the idea that people should abstain because sex is unsafe does seem kind of prosaic if nothing else. "Frankly my dear, I think it's too dangerous", is kind of a let down. In any case, will youths care if they are told that it is unsafe? Sometimes that is the whole point.

19. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-02 14:42:17

    Ben W., I think yours is the interesting point: "but the truth is that youths have to decide for themselves to turn away from their biological urges, and that this is very difficult (and mostly pointless) if they aren't religious." A few comments: I agree that resisting biological urges makes very little sense from a non-religious perspective... and I think that's what this boils down to from that perspective. One reason "abstinence-only" is rejected is it goes against the grain of some of our strongest biological urges. Better to let the people have their opiate (sex) and train them appropriately so the healthcare costs (and family growth) are minimized. We have difficulty with abstinence-only because all our mainstream input is anti-abstinence, but it's complected (thanks Rolley's poem) with a lie. This lie is that the physical pleasure is what life is about. The "reason" men and women have such hilarious struggles in romantic comedies is to ... have consequence free sex. There's very little real life, very little cause-effect (in a scientific age no less!). This also has an effect where our main pursuits are physical, and what we value is physical. It nearly always ignores the spiritual side of humanity. I think that "abstinence-only" is the best and only way everyone would be most healthy (keeping those health costs down) and happy (given the ancient definition). (I don't know how you could think differently. Of course, people who commit to abstinence-only may not practice what they preach, but, that has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments). However, I don't think it's realistic in our culture (as a whole), and so am not surprised if it isn't state funded. /// I would say though that the most interesting link is the Stem Cell one.

20. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-02 14:12:15

    Rather, Jason, I would say that Christians have not made a good case that non-abstinence is so unhealthy as to be avoided. Of course Christians promote abstinence, as we've been commanded to keep sex within marriage, but most of the negative effects of unmarried sex are easily mitigated/prevented these days, making abstinence a tough sell for those who don't have religious motivation. In general, STDs can be prevented by being in exclusive relationships, using protection, and getting tested for disease early in a relationship. Pregnancy is nearly completely preventable, particularly if using multiple forms of birth control. And of course sex can have "emotional effects" which can be positive or negative, depending on the relationship. // Compare the dangers of sex leftover after all these with one of the most wonderful two-person experiences in the universe, and I understand why non-Christians would reject abstinence.

21. Posted by Gina on 2009-11-02 12:21:51

    I'm not sure I follow you, Jason. I wouldn't argue that personal safety is the be-all and end-all of existence, but it should carry *some* weight, don't you think? (By the way, I like your "Shameless One" euphemism. Says it all without being offensive.)

22. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-02 12:07:06

    I agree Ben, interestingly enough. The idea of teaching abstinence because it is healthy begs the question of how high a value we want our youth to put on personal safety. I can in fact make other pragmatic arguments for traditional rules of sexual discipline(they boil down to tribal cohesion effectively). But refraining because one should refrain is best even if "should" is unfashionable.

23. Posted by Lee "Strictly under blog and key" Quod on 2009-11-02 01:08:24

    Gina wrote: "(I should probably mention, Benjamin, that I've seen your blog[...])". And thanks to a quick Googling, now I've seen it too. But as much as I sympathetically ache to do so, I won't comment further on that blog, to avoid taking this thread off-topic. Instead, I'll note that I like how the African-American community is finally beginning to hold its men accountable for their sexual behavior. I hope it is an accountability that spreads to other groups.

24. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-01 10:38:35

    I agree, Gina. I grew up with conservative, abstinence-only sex ed, and it was appropriately aimed at both sexes (as brothers and sisters in Christ). I wish I had some statistics for how well it did, but the truth is that youths have to decide for themselves to turn away from their biological urges, and that this is very difficult (and mostly pointless) if they aren't religious.

25. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-01 09:47:52

    Actually Benjamin, my church has always maintained that a male Shameless One was just as shameless as a female. So I never had an experience like that. The double standard is part of the honor-code not Christian morality and the honor-code only overlaps with rather then being the same as morality. I have sometimes thought though, that complaints about it don't take into account that under the non-christian gentlemanly dispensation, men are not forgiven for cowardice any more then women for unchastity.

26. Posted by Gina on 2009-11-01 07:28:56

    It would be interesting. Bear in mind, though, that in MCCAP's case, we're discussing a quote ABOUT the group, not by the group. We have only "Newsweek's" word about what the girls were taught and whether they were taught something that the boys weren't. In fact, I think it's rather careless of the writer to cover only half the curriculum in that manner. I think "Newsweek's" bias is coming through pretty clearly here, as it often tends to do. (Hmmm -- weren't we just talking somewhere about the problem with "like/dislike" thinking versus "good/bad" thinking? Interesting application.) Mind you, I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist in the church. It does, and it's troubling. But the best abstinence education programs are designed to appeal to, guide, and protect both sexes. (I should probably mention, Benjamin, that I've seen your blog and have some idea of where you're coming from here. One of our bloggers once came across it and passed the URL along to me.)

27. Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-11-01 02:54:27

    Jason, I think it reveals a certain way of thinking about the two sexes, a way-of-thinking which may possibly correlate with a certain way of thinking about how sex-ed should be done. Of course this is largely influenced by my own experience in the church I grew up in, which was both very sexist and very pro abstinence-only sex-ed. I obviously don't have enough evidence to generalize to the larger abstinence-only sex-ed community. It very much sounds to me like this particular organization, MCCAP, has a sexist perspective, focusing on talking to the girls about their virginity and their wedding day, rather than talking to both sexes in such terms. Then again, perhaps I'm reading too much into the quote, because of my own experience. It would be interesting to do a large scale language analysis of the curriculum of a broad sample of abstinence-only sex-ed organizations, and compare it to a similar study for comprehensive sex-ed organizations, to see the differences in how the two groups think about the two sexes and their mutual responsibility to prevent pregnancy, prevent the spread of disease, etc.

28. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-31 18:43:31

    What do you think it reveals, Benjamin?

29. Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-10-31 14:44:45

    Thank you for linking the Newsweek article on the downsizing of abstinence-only sex ed. It was interesting. I found this quote about one particular abstinence only program, MCCAP, very revealing: "They taught kids proper dating behavior, encouraged female students to think about their wedding days and why their virginity would matter then"