Sex Ed

Hearing a lot of the debates surrounding Sarah Palin recently have caused me - not to form a strong opinion one way or another about the candidate - but to reflect a lot on some of the topics covered in my sex ed and theology classes.

A lot of people mock the conservative abstinence teaching because it tends to come across as a lot of bible thumping, self righteous, moralizing that has little relevance or use in a culture that values the individual and the individual's right to live as one wishes. I think that a lot of conservatives do, unfortunately, use issues like sexuality to stand on a soapbox for the sake of self-righteousness.

However, I also think that the conservatives do an awful job representing what merits there are both to practicing abstinence and to opposing birth control.

When I was in high school, sexual intercourse was discussed as a "perfect union" of souls, as a complete sharing in love. It made sense, even to a teenager preoccupied with being the class agnostic, that jumping into sexual relationships quickly or at a young age might result in a less than ideal sexual experience - harmful to one's own self, much less one's relationship with "God". It seems like "abstinence" is used to make sex a taboo when it should actually be used to emphasize how GREAT sex is supposed to be, and why it's worth it not to just give it away.

At the same time, I will recognize that youth is characterized by a great deal of impatience and a need to experience things first hand. From a practical standpoint, I think that conservative schools could benefit greatly from a sex ed curriculum that includes more practical approaches to birth control. It would be great to see that be accompanied by programs for young people to build their self esteem and confidence, rather than turning to sex as a means for defining one's self and relationships. In other words, I really think that moderation from both sides would be splendid.

Regardless, the view of a sexual ideal that incorporates total sharing and total love also includes an explanation of why birth control is frowned upon by the Church. Most people would agree that a necessary component of an ideal sexual situation is openness. Both partners need to be open to the other, both need to be completely comfortable with their bodies and emotions, and both would like to be experiencing as little anxiety as possible. Anxiety is distracting, right?

Now. This is going to sound like hand waving logic, but I promise it's not. This is the part where a lot of people would say that the whole POINT of birth control is to cut down on the anxiety that the sexual intercourse could result in unwanted pregnancy. It is absolutely true that for people worried about becoming pregnant, using birth control will cut down on anxiety. That isn't what I'm arguing.

What I AM arguing is that even when one does use birth control, there is still some element of anxiety. There is a worry that the birth control will fail, and depending on the type of birth control, there may be mild physical discomfort. Further, I think that it's inarguable that couples engaging in sexual intercourse who are not averse to having children have NONE of that anxiety, and really are free to just enjoy the moment spontaneously, to the fullest extent possible. And THAT is where the arguments for abstinence and against birth control come in. If you are going to do it, you may as well aspire to do it right and have the best time possible - that's what the Church is saying. [In the case of homosexuality, I think you can make similar arguments, perhaps replacing the anti-birth control with an argument in favor of monogamy or committed relationships...]

Ok, the Church also talks about God. Going against the above teachings is usually classified as a "sin" and "sin" is defined as "separation from God's grace." Depending on how you want to define "God's grace", the normal anxieties I described enough are probably synonymous with sin. There's not some old guy keeping tabs on your every move; there's just an acknowledgment that we all have to face the consequences of our choices. (Isn't that enough? What's the point of the record keeping?) I'm not arguing that it's even supposed to feel like a punishment, just that there actually is a framework here that's trying to give people some guidance that may be useful.

So. Here's where the pro-life stuff comes in. Being open to having kids means that a couple is open to the creation of new life. Deciding against having kids means that there is the potential for the creation of something shared (life) that both partners are choosing not to share with each other. There is some element of "No, we don't want that" present. I'm not saying that it makes practical sense for everyone to be gung ho about getting pregnant all the time; but again, I *am* arguing that having the unconditional attitude that the creation of new life is nothing but a good thing not only builds on letting couples share fully with each other, but probably carries over into other aspects of a couple's life. Maybe it allows people an easy way to consider the magnitude of their actions? I'm not even saying that it's the only way for that to happen, just that it seems like it's definitely *a* way.

So. I deeply respect Gov. Palin's decision to keep her Down Syndrome baby. I'm not sure that it says anything (either way) about her qualifications to hold political office, but it means a lot to me to see the valuation of human life in a public figure. I wish that her daughter's decision to carry her baby to term was being portrayed as something other than the punishment / scarlet letter thrust upon her by an overly conservative family. I would really like to see some acknowledgment that life is valuable, and something to be celebrated. Granted, being 17 and pregnant carries a certain stigma - but given that she's already had to take responsibility - nationally - I think it's time to just leave it alone, and let her carry her baby. People act as though pregnancy is a burden, but ... I've heard a lot fewer accounts of women regretting pregnancies that they carried to term than I have of women regretting the trauma of having an abortion. Instinctively, humans are wired for procreation and reproduction. It would be great if we could be collectively a bit more sensible and mature about our sexual activities, but given that we're the imperfect beings we are, it just seems really senseless to me to react to that by putting ourselves through a more traumatic experience to try and "fix" it, hurting ourselves and our respect for life in the process.

As for the Governor herself? I have no idea. I'm tired of hearing the same 4 or 5 arguments on both sides which are either gross generalizations, unsubstantiated, or substantiated on technicalities. I think maybe that's part of the strategy for choosing her - she's such an unknown, and so many people probably WANT to like her, that maybe she'll win over a lot of the "optimism" vote. Who knows.