Tag Archives: Parenting

News

New study explains the best way for young people to avoid sexual risks

Leave a comment

Story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

A new study from Marquette University has found that religious attitudes toward sexuality, parent-based sexual education and intact two-parent households have a positive influence upon youth in their sexual practices and the onset of first sexual intercourse.

Researchers took a nationally representative sample of 3,168 men and women ages 15-21 years old from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and obtained the data from 60-90 minute interviews with participants from the 2002 survey.

The study’s findings confirmed previous research literature, which suggests “religiosity” – defined by the authors as a set of institutionalized beliefs, doctrines and rituals, and ethical standards for how to live a good life – is “a protective factor that appears to contribute to decreased sexual risk behaviors.”

According to the study, those who viewed religion as “very important” reported an average of 1.9 lifetime sexual partners and on average began sexual activity at 17.4 years. In contrast, those who viewed religion as somewhat important or “not important at all,” began their first sexual activity at 16.9 years and had an average of 2.9 lifetime sexual partners.

However, researchers found that high religious attitudes toward sexuality (RAS) “appeared to be the most protective religiosity variable in terms of decreasing sexual risk.”

Good parenting from both parents in an intact family and a teleological outlook on life works well during the teen years, because teens sometimes don’t respond to arguments and evidence. They tend to think that bad things won’t happen to them, no matter how much evidence you show them. I would still show them the evidence, though.

But these numbers from the study do surprise me, because it seems as though not very many young people are abstaining from sex before they are married. I am in my thirties and radically, radically chaste. So it is definitely possible to abstain from sex and hold out for a more solid commitment and radical intimacy.

Related posts

Share

News

How Democrats vote on illegal immigration, abortion, marriage and corporations

1 Comment

Here’s a little round-up of stories (mostly from ECM) that will help you to understand what it is that Democrats really stand for. The best way to know what they stand for is NOT to listen to speeches or media bias. The best way to know what they stand for is to look at how they vote.

Democrats want Americans to pay for health care for illegal immigrants

Story here from The Hill.

Excerpt:

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley’s amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

Democrats want to destroy traditional marriage

Story here from The Hill.

Excerpt:

A House Democrat will introduce a bill on Tuesday to repeal the infamous Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but he will not have the support of one of the law’s biggest critics.

The latest effort to revise federal marriage guidelines comes from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, which oversees DOMA. His proposal, which he will unveil at a press conference next week, will include a provision to allow same-sex couples in one state to marry elsewhere, return home and still receive federal benefits.

Nadler has already secured the support of two congressmen — Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who will co-sponsor his effort.

Democrats want to fund abortion in their health care bill

Story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed to amend the “America’s Health Future Act of 2009” under consideration by the Finance Committee led by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). His amendments would have codified current conscience protections for health-care providers with moral objections to abortion and also made permanent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from paying for abortions.

Hatch instead proposed that women could purchase additional coverage for abortions through “riders” that would not be subsidized by the government.

However, the amendments were rejected by the Committee by votes of 13 – 10. In both amendments, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) joined committee Republicans in support of the measures, while pro-abortion Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) joined Baucus’ committee Democrats to vote against the bill.

Democrats support taxpayer subsidies for big corporations that help them get elected

Story from Green Hell Blog.

Excerpt:

Sen. Barbara Boxer’s climate bill set to be released today contains a provision that will compensate General Electric quite nicely for its lobbying and media efforts promoting climate legislation.

[…]So the Boxer bill would compel airlines and the military, when purchasing new aircraft and new aircraft engines, to purchase more expensive “green” engines made by GE, according to standards set by the current and GE-lobbied Obama administration.

Keep in mind that GE CEO Jeff Immelt is member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Council.

This is what people who voted for Obama voted for, knowingly or unknowingly. They are still responsible for these policies.

Share

Commentary

MUST-READ: Has the decline of chastity and courtship hurt young people?

2 Comments

Here’s an article by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. (H/T The American Thinker via ECM)

Excerpt:

The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage.

[…]…having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment. Some of this expresses preexisting traits — people who already have a “nontraditional” view of commitment are less likely to be committed in marriage. But there is also evidence, according to Wilcox, that multiple failed relationships can “poison one’s view of the opposite sex.” Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce.

I actually think that a series of sexual experiences outside of marriage poison’s one’s view of the opposite sex and trains people for divorce. I’ve put a lot of thought into the things that should be done during friendships and courtships in order to train the couple for marriage, and pre-marital sex is not one of those things!

There are a lot of people out there today who think that they can get the end goal of a fairy tale wedding, a long, stable marriage, and well-behaved children, by making moral decisions significantly different than their grandparents made. The blessings that our grandparents enjoyed were causally connected to many moral realities that young people seem to have rejected as old-fashioned and outmoded.

I think one of the major reasons why I value chastity so much is because I have come to realize that sex outside of a commitment really affects people, especially women. There is a real difference in the way that I am treated by women who are chaste – they are a lot more vulnerable and susceptible. They are also a lot more open, interested and engaged in our platonic friendships as well.

I think there is an awful lot of sex going on out there, but not a lot of chivalry and romance. I think one of the problems we need to face is that we need to be more cautious about tearing down the morality that was been in place for centuries in the Christian West. Before destroying the foundations, we should first ask ourselves what the consequences will be on other people’s incentives.

Share