For the longest time the left has used the education system to attempt to hijack the next generation’s beliefs on numerous social issues.  Using the pulpit of the school teacher’s classroom, the public school system espouses the values of the Secular Humanist, knowing that if they are patient, the seed that they are planting every day will bring forth fruit.

And in most cases it has paid off well for them.

However, there is one sector that they’ve actually lost ground—and that is in the area of abortion.  Younger people consistently poll more pro-life than their parents.  I believe that this is partially because the linkage between pro-choice and feminism isn’t as strong with the current generation as it was with the previous, but I also believe that we can credit some of it to the fact that this generation has been influenced by more teaching about what truly is inside the mother’s womb.

You see, when you have a “comprehensive sex education” you don’t simply have discussion of abstinence and various other types of birth control, you have discussions about abortion.  In order to discuss abortion as an alternative to child bearing, you have to phrase the discussion as saying that it’s a moral choice.

With abstinence based education, the storyline is clear—it’s not that the young lady is just avoiding getting pregnant, it’s that pregnancy represents life.  The focus is on the life inside the woman.

The focus of “comprehensive” is on the girl and her choices.

This is the fundamental struggle, and part of the reason that the pro-choice side is fighting so hard to get abstinence based education out of schools.  They realize they are losing the hearts and minds of the next generation, and they don’t like it.

A program in Greensboro, NC has added a financial incentive to keeping pure– $1 a day for ever day that they keep from getting pregnant.

Brown said she hopes the program, which pays $1 each day to 12-to-18-year-old girls, will keep them from getting pregnant. In addition to remaining pregnancy-free, the girls must also attend weekly meetings.

The program is funded by a four-year grant from the state.

The money is deposited into an interest bearing college fund.  Some recent graduates have earned as much as $2000 toward future schooling.  Nearly 100 percent of the girls who have finished the program have gone on to graduate school.  If a girl drops out or gets pregnant, the money she earned is divided among the others.

This sounds like an interesting idea.  The easiest way to make sure you get the money is making sure you don’t have sex.  The longer you’re not pregnant, the less incentive you have.

It seems to me that, to be truly effective, they would have to start higher than $0, however, because the incentive only truly kicks in the further down the line you are.

Is giving a financial reward for purity a positive thing, or just objectifying the whole thing still?

The common refrain from the younger generation regarding sexual activity is that it is impossible not to become sexually active.  In fact, it’s usually not a question of if a person will have sex before they are married, but a question of how young is too young.

However, like many things, if we were to set our mind to it, and consider it a worthwhile goal, we could accomplish anything—like Charlotte Baird, who is a virgin at 36.

Before you start criticizing her or making fun:

Even though she’s now 36? A 21-year-old virgin is a pure, unsullied young woman, but a 36-year-old virgin, well, it’s not quite the same, is it?

But Charlotte is not one to be pressured into conforming to perceived norms. She also confounds expectations of what ‘a 36-year-old virgin’ might be like. Charlotte isn’t a frumpy spinster leading a lonely, eccentric life with her cats.

She is an actress turned theatre producer and also works as an artists’ agent. After studying English, drama and theatre at Bedford College she spent three years at an acting school.

The truth is that we all can wait for the appropriate time—within marriage.  The lie is that we cannot control ourselves.  You see, we’re all for telling kids that they can control themselves when it comes to things that we believe they can do.

We tell them that they can wait to go to the bathroom, that they should not interrupt when someone else is talking, that they don’t have to have a snack until dinner, and that they don’t need a glass of water when they go to bed.  We tell them that they have to go to college and get good grades so they can get a job.  We teach them the process of making choices.

But when it comes to sexual activity, parents have decided that they just can’t teach this.  I mean we believe that we can teach them that smoking is wrong, and “just say no” to drugs, but in the area of sexual activity—that’s something fun that we they’re just going to do.

What hypocrisy.

Miss Baird makes the point abundantly clear.  It’s not a question of whether or not you can wait.  It’s totally a question of will you wait.  You have the ability, now take the responsibility.

So, what’s my problem? I mean, it tells them to wait. It tells them that a boy’s not worth it if he doesn’t love her enough to respect her.

My problem is that this commercial, along with much of the other abstinence based messages, do not go far enough. Let’s examine this commercial, and see what I mean.

The slogan “not me, not now” begs the question– then who and when? It implies that she can tell that boyfriend that right now, when she feels a little hint that he’s asking for it, “not now” is a good answer. It lacks the follow up, though. When? When he puts more pressure on? When they’re in a committed relationship (ie. going steady)? When they’re
engaged? When they’re married?

Granted, telling this kind of pressuring boyfriend “not me” might be enough for him to look elsewhere. It may also have him turn up the pressure and get her to cave.

What about helping this girl avoid boys that will pressure her into sex? They attempt to get into this by saying that the boy is not worth it if he’s not going to respect her, but how about the fact that she feels that he might be wanting it? The danger signs are already present. And usually it’s a gradual build up, not a immediate thing. More on that in a moment.

How about the ad in the mall I saw the other day with this same campaign?

We have a picture of a young girl with short shorts on with a flirtacious smile over looking at your saying “not me, not now.” This is clearly a conflicted poster. It’s tryiing to show a sexually attractive girl saying no to sex.

Herein lies the second problem. This campaign ignores the fact that rarely is it just sex that’s ask for– there’s usually a build up. Teens hold hands, they kiss, they hug, they make other contact and then feel like they’re morally ok because they did not have intercourse.

If these campaigns wanted to really put a dent in teen pregnancy, teen sex, etc. they would do well to encourage responsible relationships that aren’t based on physical contact. They would encourage parental involvement, chaperones, and when one person in the relationship even hints at pressure for sex (boy or girl), that should end the relationship.

Of course, the greatest problem here is the lack of a moral directive.  The Creator of this Universe said that we are to only have sex in marriage. There are many lesser reasons why not to do it, but this is the greatest– that is sin to do otherwise.