You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Purity Day mañana
2004-02-13
Hat tip Drudge Report
Melissa Millis feels bombarded by everyday messages of sexual promiscuity, whether it’s Janet Jackson’s bare udder titty breast during the Super Bowl or her classmates’ casual sex talk. So Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine’s Day, to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They’re calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers. "The way sex is talked about, it’s so casual, like it’s an everyday thing, like going to McDonald’s," said Millis, 17.
"No Big Mac for you!"
The grass-roots effort is supported by Christian groups nationwide and organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious rights group based in Orlando. It comes as President Bush is pushing in his budget proposal to double federal funding for sexual abstinence programs.
Because they work.
But the Day of Purity is being watched with a wary eye by groups that promote sexual tolerance, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. The Day of Purity Web site accuses those groups of "a concerted effort in the schools and media to turn our youth away from traditional values."
I'm really stuck here. I admit to having a fondness for depravity and occasional debauchery, and have even been closely acquainted with a few 15-year-old Thai hookers. I've never been known to avert my eyes from the sight of a scantily-clad maiden. On the other hand, I'm trying to figure why the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays seem to have gotten together to encourage their children to diddle each other.
"The word ’purity’ in this context is morally self-righteous," said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It’s redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda."
Ahah! Maybe that's it! I'm simultaneously put off by the fact that Melissa sounds like a self-righteous little thing, while the Parents, Families, Friends, Lovers, Agents and Managers of Lesbians and Gays sound like they're requiring her to join their own orgy, under penalty of vilification...
Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said in an e-mail that her group applauded any effort to promote healthy sexual choices by young people.
So you've got nothing against it, huh?
"Unfortunately, this program seems to have a limited idea of what that means and doesn’t appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need," she said.
Then her lips fell off.
I wonder what part about "no" she had trouble with?
Day of Purity touches on a controversial social issue — how to teach sex education in schools, said Bill Barker, a spokesman for Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based group that helps youth make responsible decisions about sex. "You’re walking into one of the fiercest debates out there," Barker said.
Which kinda reinforces my feeling that schools should be reserved for math, science, lit'rature, and that sort of thing, with the sex part left for street corners, where it belongs...
Participants said having the Day of Purity right before Valentine’s Day is especially appropriate since teenagers often feel pressure to have sex with their girlfriends or boyfriends on the holiday.
"Awwww, c'mon, baby! They're Godiva choc'lates!"
"Well, okay, Brad. Go ahead. Make me pregnant. But just this once..."
"A lot of girls feel that in order to keep their relationship, they have to have sex," said Kelly Cruse, 16, who plans to pass out sexual abstinence literature at her high school in Illinois. "I think this need for acceptance is very destructive to a girl."
And a lot of Parents, Friends, etc. of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, etc. seem to have the opinion that if you don't there's something wrong with you. Now, to me, despite some mighty fond memories from the heady days of my youth, it seems that the very idea of sexual freedumb should also include the right not to indulge. Whether as a matter or mood or principle is irrelevant. Once something becomes mandatory all the fun goes out of it.
Posted by:Korora

#3  Frank, agreed on all points. I have an uncle who is gay. Doesn't phase me, what he does in his house is his business. I just don't want them serving openly in the military nor do I want to hear their rhetoric that they're somehow worthy of special rights since they're outside the mainstream. I also believe marriage is man & woman not same-sex. If they want a civil union for fiscal purposes, fine by me, so long as they don't try to call it marriage. I also don't think they should make every state that doesn't agree w/same sex couples have to honor another state's civil union.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-2-13 7:32:54 PM  

#2  Ok, let's be honest here: the idea of sexual restraint makes the folks at these Gay, Lesbian, and So Forth groups extremely uncomfortable. After all, their entire world view centers around not denying oneself those pleasures which are traditionally viewed as sinful, antisocial, and unnatural. Promoting the idea that homosexual or merely promiscuous behavior is perfectly normal as well as ethically acceptable is pretty much the bulk of their agenda. Any group or person who's beliefs or behavior even implies indirectly that their agenda might be.... uh, well, even an agenda is going to get attacked, let alone this chick who is actually implying that such behavior is unacceptable. Also, the purpose of these organizations is basically to recruit new members by getting their message out to kids while they are adolescent, vulnerable identity-questioning phases. Which is kind of yucky, actually.

That said, I don't have some major axe to grind with gays and lesbians. I live in San Francisco and I can tell you for a fact that gays for the most part don't make bad neighbors or fellow citizens. Nor do I want to see gay youths getting beaten up in high schools or anything: if your organization is trying to stop than, than bully for you. Only I have my doubts about the motives of these groups. After all, if you belong to a minority group that cannot by definition biologically reproduce to replenish its ranks it HAS to recruit actively. If it doesn't, it goes the way of the Shakers. Does anybody remember them?
Posted by: Secret Master   2004-2-13 7:31:18 PM  

#1  "A lot of girls feel that in order to keep their relationship, they have to have sex,"

Jeebus, and here I thought not pressuring was the best way to go...

I resent the GLBT's efforts to force anyone not enthused by their proselytising to wear the bigot sign. I know and like several gays, each of whom is discrete and not in-my-face about their lifestyle, and that's OK with me. I resent being branded when I say that I'd prefer that my kids marry straight, make me a grandaddy, and conform to, oh....3000 yrs of societal rules? However, hot girl-on-girl porn is OK with me
Posted by: Frank G   2004-2-13 7:04:43 PM  

00:00