John Oliver on Sex Ed

John Oliver covers the sex ed situation in the US fantastically. Our youth deserve better.

“There is no way we’d allow any other academic program to consistently fail to prepare students for life after school. Human sexuality, unlike calculus, is something you actually need to know about for the rest of your life.”

Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy

My Business Card Purity Pledge

Since coming home I’ve spent a lot of time cleaning my bedroom and getting rid of old items I don’t use or need. Some of the many things I’m having trouble getting rid of (even though they’re thoroughly embarrassing) are my diaries from when I was in middle and high school. I wrote in them sporadically, usually about boys, and I’m not entirely sure how my fiancé would feel picking up and reading the diary I filled with entries about my high school crush who never liked me back. As cliché and whiny as these diaries are, I did find one hidden gem:  a purity pledge I made between my junior and senior years of high school. I had tucked it between random pages of the diary, probably because I had no idea where to store it. Here it is:

Front

Front

Back

Back

I’m not 100% positive, but I believe I got this card at the Steubenville conference I attended that summer. The date that I signed is right around when I went, either during or right after the event. The best part? This supposedly binding promise to myself is on a business card. Someone went through the trouble of designing business-card-sized purity pledges that could be passed out like the much more-effective condoms of actual sex educators.

Despite the brevity of this particular purity pledge, I do have something to complain about when it comes to its contents. Ignoring the fact that it’s clearly meant to be a promise to myself AND God, whom I no longer believe in, there’s one particular sentence that doesn’t sit well with me:

“As a daughter of the King, I pledge now to live my life in a way that will guard my dignity, my purity, and my beauty…”

In a promise that’s generally understood to mean “I’m not going to have sex until I get married,” what are “beauty” and “dignity” doing in there? How does having premarital sex compromise a person’s beauty or dignity? Have I gotten uglier as a result of having sex? Do I no longer have dignity? This is especially disconcerting when one considers the definition of dignity:

“The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.”

Does a woman surrender her dignity when she has sex? Is she no longer worthy of esteem or respect? Do people who have premarital sex not deserve respect?

With just a few words, this pledge becomes disturbingly dehumanizing. It ties a woman’s worth to the state of her genitals rather than to the fact that she is a human being with a brain, and feelings, and all the things that go into a person. Furthermore, in the process of trying to get young women to choose abstinence, it puts down the people who don’t.

Regardless of whether or not you think purity pledges are a good idea, this kind of language shouldn’t be included in them. It’s degrading, it’s sexist, and it’s wrong.

Have any of you made purity pledges? What do you think about them? Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy

What Arguments for Inadequate Sex Ed and Banning Condoms Sound Like

It will appear at first that I’m not talking about the topic I identified in the title. Do not be alarmed by this. Read on.

Many argue that cycling on the road is bad.  Although it is an excellent form of physical activity that boosts personal fitness, traveling through the streets on a bicycle puts cyclists at risk of being hit by cars. Riding a bike on the sidewalk is much safer, and is the best way to avoid a fatal accident. The fact that many drivers dislike cyclists should be taken as proof that riding a bike on the road is bad for you, even though it is illegal for a driver to turn and hit a cyclist on purpose. Because of the widespread dislike of cyclists, the conservative political party has proposed several laws prohibiting parents from teaching their children how to ride bicycles.

“Most parents I know don’t want their kids riding bikes,” says an infamous conservative politician. “Not everyone has a sidewalk on their street, so a lot of people end up riding their bikes in the road. Parents can tell their kids to stick to sidewalk cycling, but not every kid lives in a neighborhood with sidewalks. If you teach a kid how to ride a bike when the nearest sidewalk is several minutes away by car, you’re basically enabling them to ride in the road, especially if you hand them a helmet. We need to include anti-cycling classes in our schools so that children are aware of the dangers of cycling in the road, and learn to save cycling for where it belongs:  our sidewalks.”

The politician on the opposing side disagrees. “Riding a bike is not a bad behavior, and regardless of whether or not it is, what we really should be worried about are the fatalities in accidents involving cyclists. Wearing a helmet saves many lives every year. Besides, kids often don’t listen to their parents, and if they really want a bike, there are plenty of ways to get them, whether from friends, or using their own money. If we really want to protect kids, we should teach comprehensive cycling lessons in schools. These lessons should include rules of the road, how to wear a helmet properly, and an explanation of where it is safest to ride, with emphasis placed on riding on slow-moving residential streets, and sidewalks for safety reasons. That way, kids can choose to ride, or not to ride, but if they choose to do so, they will do it in the safest way possible.”

Religious leaders have their own points to make on the matter. “It is very important that people avoid cycling in the roads,” says the Pope. “It is especially holy to abstain from cycling altogether, but when cycling is reserved for the sidewalks, there is a holy purpose for that cycling, and that purpose is safe transportation under God’s watchful eye. Transportation in the road is not a valid form of transportation because it is like testing God. We should not expect God to protect us from our unsafe decisions. Mountain biking and cycling in parks should also be avoided because cycling must always be used as a form of transportation. Doing it for recreational purposes, regardless of the benefits of fitness, is an invalid form of cycling, and it offends God.”

The Pope has also spoken out against providing helmets. In countries where cycling is a common form of transportation because most cannot afford cars, the church has been providing anti-cycling education, treating injured cyclists’ wounds, but also forbidding the use of helmets. “I will not condone giving out bicycle helmets,” the mother superior of the Sisters of the Sidewalk says. “These injuries are the result of poor behavior. God is offended that people will test him by cycling in the road. And you know, he is even more offended by people who do this while wearing helmets. These people are testing God, but are not fully trusting him to protect them during that test. Besides, even with a helmet, people can still get bicycle related injuries. We must legislate against road cycling everywhere, and protect people from these injuries. Walking is the safest form of transportation. Next time you need to get somewhere without a car, ask yourself, how would Jesus travel?”