Am I the only one who thinks both sides are wrong? Not having sex because god doesn't want you to is sort of insane, but not having sex because you won't get into a good college if you do is equally bad.
It's possible to do something dangerous, responsibly. Not that sex is terribly dangerous.
As a virgin and Stanford student, I can tell you it's pretty hard to get into a good college if you're trying to get laid in high school. I mean, it's not impossible, but...the opportunity cost is very real. It sucks, but that's part of the price I had to pay.
Good one. Apart from killing, sex is the most powerful biological thing a human can do. Like killing, it shapes and changes the genome (and the community) far beyond the creature that actually commits the act.
The problem with teen sex is that too many wield this power far too lightly. Like a child who's just found its father's gun, they don't really understand the ramifications of what they're doing or the risk that they are taking.
One of the best ways to learn is to take a risk or know someone who takes a risk. Obviously this doesn't work in all cases, one has to be mature enough to internalize and understand the ramifications when exposed to them. But they do have to be exposed to what these risks and ramifications are.
"Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t choose to have an abortion."
There's the answer right there. If the families and communities treat teenage pregnancy as a (relative) non-event, then there are no ramifications to getting pregnant. They "understand the ramifications" and "the risk of what they are doing" to be relatively low. By encouraging abstinence and not making it hard on those who don't practice abstinence, it's sending a message that sex isn't that big of a deal.
For this group, Regnerus says, unprotected sex has become “a moral issue like smoking or driving a car without a seatbelt. It’s not just unwise anymore; it’s wrong. [pg 3]”
Hmm, fair enough. Still, you combine that with people telling you that condoms don't protect you from anything, and you get a bunch of people terrified of sex.
It's possible to do something dangerous, responsibly. Not that sex is terribly dangerous.