Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    There are a lot of Roman Catholic priests, and nuns also, who are
    recieving their religious vocations late in life. A considerable
    percentage of them were formerly married (usually widowed).
    
    I think you made a good point to note that to be celibate does not
    mean that one is a virgin.
    
    Mary
    

    My understanding is that celibacy actually refers to being unmarried,
    not to sexual abstinence.  Although, or perhaps because, those two
    states don't necessarily correlate, the term seems to have become
    associated with abstinence.
    
    -- Mike

    Being unmarried is one of the definations of being celibate, but that
    was used primarily in relation to those who had taken religous vows;
    the underlying definition of 'sexual abstinence' was already implied
    by that usage. 
    
    Until the sexual revolution of the 60's, the unstated assumption was
    that anyone who was not married was refraining from sexual activity
    and therefore the application of the word 'celibate' could apply 
    to the unmarried.

    re: .0  Basenote
    
                      I have yet to understand this form of religious
    worship called "Celibacy".  I have always considered intimacy with a
    willing partner as a beautiful expression love and one that I believe
    that God ordained.  Medical evidence even suggests that the absence of
    sex could be a contributing cause of cancer of the Prostate gland in men.  
    
    
    Dave

    -- Mike
    
    I checked a dictionary.  Celibate does mean unmarried and it also
    means abstinent.
    
    I have heard of some couples who voluntarily (and amicably!) practice
    celibacy within marriage. (!)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>  Medical evidence even suggests that the absence of
>    sex could be a contributing cause of cancer of the Prostate gland in men.  
 
	The so called "priests sickness"? I thought that was a myth used by
	men to convince woman they "needed" to have sex. Is it really true?

			Alfred   

    RE: .6  Alfred,
    
                     I thought so too.  A doctor friend of mine told me
    that it was true.  Or so many think.  It does seem to effect those men
    that are very active and then have a sudden ending to their sexual
    lives and even then when their older.
    
    
    Dave

    Hi,
    
>  Medical evidence even suggests that the absence of
>    sex could be a contributing cause of cancer of the Prostate gland in men.  
    
    I don't know about that guys.  Nature has a perfectly natural way of
    "relieving" someone sexually;  its called a wet dream.
    
    Jeff

Note 361.8

>    I don't know about that guys.  Nature has a perfectly natural way of
>    "relieving" someone sexually;  its called a wet dream.
    
Jeff,

	I cannot speak for all, but I've never found nocturnal emissions
to be particularly "satisfying" or a "natural relief" (though I do agree that
wet dreams are normal and natural).

Peace,
Richard

    Hi,
    
    Does celibacy mean no masturbation, either?  If priests and other
    abstinent guys are more likely to develop prostate cancer -- a
    statistic I doubt -- then they apparently believe masturbation is 
    sinful.  Is it?                                 
    
    Paul
    
    P.S.  Christian Shakers believed in celibacy (in or out of marriage). 
    That's probably why they ain't around anymore!  ;) They believed
    that earthbound sexual energy/satisfaction can be re-channeled and 
    directed toward heightening the flow of the holy spirit indwelling.  I'm 
    not so sure they were off the mark.  I mean, so many married couples make 
    their sexual activity into a major part of their existences, like 
    a sport.  It seems any major pursuit of any earthly (physical/material) 
    comfort -- food, drink, and other things that heighten the PHYSICAL
    senses -- does nothing to close the gap of separation between ourselves 
    and God, does nothing to heighten the Spiritual aspects of our own beings.
    Physical comforts aren't necessarily "sins," but I don't think they do
    anything to close the gap nevertheless.
    
    I think to a large extent, the idea that "anything goes" on the marital
    bed has been stretched beyond what the New Testament teaches about the
    non-spiritual aspects of lust.   Oddly enough, I find the anything-goes-
    on-a-marriage-bed concept to be proliferated in GOLF::, more so than 
    anywhere else, while pre-marital sex, even if it is between a loving, 
    monogamous couple who perform sexual acts, say, in the missionary position
    -- you know, nothing oral/anal, no toys, and so forth (things commonly 
    found on the marriage bed) is soundly condemned.

                                              
    Looking to the East, the practice is called brahmacharya in Sanskrit.
    Among unmarried people living at Kripalu Center, this practice is
    required.  Literally it means 'movement toward the Lord'.
    
    There isn't much literature in the West to assist people in
    understanding the true purposes behind celibacy.  However during my
    first trip to Kripalu back in September 1990, I purchased the first of
    three books written by the Swami Kripalvanandji, for whom the center is
    named.  He was celibate all his life, and became liberated in this 
    lifetime (which means he consciously left the body vs. dying in the 
    more traditional sense - mahasamadhi being the correct word for it). 
    What he had to say about it made a lot of sense, and in fact I'm now
    consciously practicing it as well.  The word 'consciously' is key.
    Indeed, it is even practiced in marriages, and Gandhi toward the end of
    his life practiced total brahmacharya.
    
    While Swami Kripalu (the guru of the founder of the center who is Yogi
    Amrit Desai, a.k.a. Gurudev) was celibate, Gurudev is married with
    three children, so it is a very good balance - one practicing totally
    and another practicing within marriage.
    
    I believe that the Catholic Church has the right idea overall, except
    with the lack of information, there is no real way of dealing with it
    because then you'd have to get into talking about the etheric body and
    discussing it from that standpoint (refocusing the energy to higher
    centers in the body).  And since that information doesn't exist either,
    everyone is pretty much left to their own.
    
    Cindy

    RE:11
    Cindy,
    	the Catholic Church has plenty of information about celibacy. The
    idea behind it comes from the New Testament itself. Perhaps its the
    motivation for being celibate that differs between eastern religions
    and Catholicism. In the Eastern religions such as Taoism, the motivation 
    for celibacy seems to be the desire to obtain a good for oneself. In 
    Catholicism, the motivation for celibacy is to free the person so that 
    the person can give them self to God completely. 

    Peace
    Jim

              
    Re.12
    
    Jim,
    
    > 	the Catholic Church has plenty of information about celibacy. The
    > idea behind it comes from the New Testament itself. Perhaps its the
    > motivation for being celibate that differs between eastern religions
    > and Catholicism. 
    
    Can you summarize this for me, or provide some verses for me to look
    up?
    
    >In the Eastern religions such as Taoism, the motivation 
    >for celibacy seems to be the desire to obtain a good for oneself. In 
    >Catholicism, the motivation for celibacy is to free the person so that 
    >the person can give them self to God completely. 

    It may seem that way from your perspective, however it isn't true.
    
    Brahmacharya literally means "movement toward the Lord".  The
    renunciate brothers and sisters at Kripalu have also given up their
    worldly possessions and now serve God and humanity just as (I believe) 
    the Catholic priests and nuns do.  The term used is Sanatana Dharma,
    which means to look upon and serve humanity as one family, therefore
    they view all people as either parents, siblings or children, depending
    upon their age.  The term 'Father' is used to refer to a man older than
    they are, for example.    
    
    Btw, there is a difference between residents and renunciates at
    Kripalu.  Residents practice brahmacharya for 4 years, then they are
    allowed to marry, whereas the renunciates have given their lives
    totally to God and humanity.  They live to serve and claim nothing for
    their own.
    
    Cindy

              
    Re.13
    
Cindy,
        
>    > 	the Catholic Church has plenty of information about celibacy. The
>    > idea behind it comes from the New Testament itself. Perhaps its the
>    > motivation for being celibate that differs between eastern religions
>    > and Catholicism. 
    
>    Can you summarize this for me, or provide some verses for me to look
>    up?

   1 Corinthians 7:32-35  for starters.

    >The  renunciate brothers and sisters at Kripalu have also given up their
    > worldly possessions and now serve God and humanity just as (I believe) 
    >the Catholic priests and nuns do.  

    Not all priest take vows of poverty. Usually those belonging to
    religious orders such as Franciscans do, but many diocesan priest
    do not.  I'm not sure if all nuns take vows of poverty. Celibacy and 
    chastity are taken however by  nuns and priest.

    Jim

    Re.14
    
    Jim,
    
    Thanks for the reference.
    
    Do you still believe that the Eastern renunciates are practicing
    celibacy solely for themselves?
    
    Cindy

    Re.15
    
Cindy,
    
>    Do you still believe that the Eastern renunciates are practicing
>    celibacy solely for themselves?
    
    Based on what you've said, no I don't, but in Taoism, the goal as I
    understand it, is to reach immortality. So the motivation for celibacy 
    in this case would be self serving.

    In Catholicism the motive is to Love God. To love God is to give
    oneself to God for the purpose of loving Him, not immortality or 
    salvation for oneself. However, I would expect that there are many 
    that have a self serving goal of salvation and  that is the motivation 
    for their religious practice. But then, that  isn't love.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim, that is an interesting comment.  I think that a lot of
    Protestantism (or at least the fundamentalist variety) emphasizes
    personal immortality as the goal.  For example, once in Colorado
    Springs I had some proselytizers come to the door; one of the questions
    they asked me was whether I knew if I was going to heaven when I died. 
    They told me that they "knew" that they were going to heaven, and
    seemed to be a major selling point of their religion as far as they
    were concerned.

    As I have mentioned before, I think that we serve God by serving
    others.  To me, celibacy in and of itself neither serves God nor
    doesn't serve God.  If it does someone some sort of good to live the
    celibate life, then more power to them.  But I think that we can easily
    feel good about ourselves because we adhere to this or that discipline,
    while there, war, and disease in the world--things that need to be
    addressed, real problems.  Perhaps we should ask ourselves what is more
    important to God: adherence to some spiritual discipline because we
    think this somehow "demonstrates" or "expresses" our love for Him/Her,
    or participating in the world in ways that enhance the lives of others. 
    We can sing all the praises to God we want, we can pray and meditate
    all we want, but unless our faith translates into action, what good
    does it do?  It becomes nothing but spiritual masturbation, in my view.

    -- Mike

re:17 Mike

>    As I have mentioned before, I think that we serve God by serving
>    others.  To me, celibacy in and of itself neither serves God nor
>    doesn't serve God.  

    But it gives you the freedom to serve God in a way that married life
    would restrict you. So indirectly, it does serve God.

    >If it does someone some sort of good to live the
>    celibate life, then more power to them.  But I think that we can easily
>    feel good about ourselves because we adhere to this or that discipline,
>    while there, war, and disease in the world--things that need to be
>    addressed, real problems.  Perhaps we should ask ourselves what is more
>    important to God: adherence to some spiritual discipline because we
>    think this somehow "demonstrates" or "expresses" our love for Him/Her,
>    or participating in the world in ways that enhance the lives of others. 
>    We can sing all the praises to God we want, we can pray and meditate
>    all we want, but unless our faith translates into action, what good
>    does it do?  It becomes nothing but spiritual masturbation, in my view.

       True spiritual disciplines aren't guaranteed tickets to heaven. 
       Spiritual disciplines strengthen us to do the will of God, nothing more.
       It's the spirit overcoming the desires of the flesh, not to destroy
       the flesh, but so that the flesh doesn't rule the spirit. "The
       spirit is willing, buy the flesh is weak," Jesus said. Spiritual
       discipline puts the balance necessary between spirit and flesh so
       that we are better able serve God according to His will not our
       own, which the flesh would have us do if we allow it to have control over
       us.

       Celibacy is a discipline that not all are called to. I'm married and
       I'm a father. That's what I was called to and that's one of the ways
       I serve God. Celibacy would not enhance that service, it would 
       hinder it.


    Peace
    Jim

    
    Re.16
    
    Jim,
    
    I'm interested further in what the Taoists have to say about this.  
    Do you have any references or pointers to books I could read?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Cindy

    Hi Cindy,
    		well you got me there. I read about Taoism about three
    years ago from a book which all I remember the title being is "Taoism."
    I got it from the public library. It wasn't a large book, and it
    described Taoism and the balance of Yin and Yang to develop Chi,
    and once one accomplished chi they could grow in wisdom and reach
    a state of immortality. Celibacy at some point in ones life would
    be necessary to become balanced, otherwise either Yin or Yang would
    be stronger.  The book also told of misunderstandings people had in
    interpreting ancient Taoist writings. Writings that told that in
    order to reach immortality one must drink the elixir of life which
    is composed of mercury, silver and gold. Some took it literally and
    poisoned themselves drinking mercury silver and gold. What the
    writings actually meant was that health was mercury, wisdom silver
    and love gold, or something like that. 

    Taoism is where Tai Chi came from I guess, because I've seen a lot of
    Taoism in the Tai Chi I've learned about.

    Sorry I can't help more. If I'm down at the library, I'll see if they
    still have the book.

    Jim

Dear Planned Parenthood,

	My 17-year-old stepdaughter is not old enough nor mature enough to
vote.  My 17-year-old stepdaughter is not old enough nor mature enough to
enter into a legal contract.  My 17-year-old stepdaughter is not old enough
nor mature enough to purchase alcoholic beverages.  Yet my 17-year-old
stepdaughter is old enough and mature enough for you, Planned Parenthood,
to freely dispense prescription birth control pills to her without parental
knowledge or consent, so that she and her boyfriend (also 17) could have sex.

	Mind you, I don't object to you providing birth control to adults.
I do object to you dispensing birth control pills to a 17-year-old and
bestowing your tacit approval of her having sexual relations at her age
and level of maturity.  At what age do you draw the line?  15?  12?  9?

	As nearly as I can tell, abstinence was never discussed or considered
as a desirable option.  As nearly as I can tell, the counseling you, Planned
Parenthood, provided was minimal while the provision of product was contrarily
plentiful.

	You have lost me and my spouse as supporters of Planned Parenthood
until such time as your policies change with regard to your endorsement of
minors engaging in sexual activity.

Richard Jones-Christie

re Note 361.22 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	As nearly as I can tell, abstinence was never discussed or considered
> as a desirable option.  As nearly as I can tell, the counseling you, Planned
> Parenthood, provided was minimal while the provision of product was contrarily
> plentiful.
  
        This certainly is my impression, although I must admit a
        great deal of ignorance about actual PP practices.

        For the same reason, I'm very wary about school-based
        sex-education courses and AIDS-awareness lectures.  I must
        confess ignorance of most such programs (how could I be aware
        of most such programs!?), but the popular perception, which I
        share, is that condoms are pushed far more than abstinence.

        Bob

    
    Richard,
    
    From my perspective, Planned Parenthood is not responsible for your
    step-daughter's possible decision to have sex.  At least she and her
    boyfriend are seeking to prevent unwanted conception.  May I ask why
    she went to Planned Parenthood, and also how you found out about it?
    Are you fully aware of exactly what transpired at Planned Parenthood?
    
    Carole

>    From my perspective, Planned Parenthood is not responsible for your
>    step-daughter's possible decision to have sex.

	Ultimately we are all responsible for our actions, however, minors
	are usually more influenced than adults. AS such they often seek
	support for things they know to be wrong but want to do anyway. Thus
	they go to someone they believe will support their wrong choice. 
	Rather than go to a parent who wants the best for them they go to
	someone else who has a vested interest in supporting the "other"
	choice. Sometimes this is a peer who wants to see others do what they
	to so they can rationalize their own actions. Other times, as this 
	appears to be, they go to an adult who they know has different 
	values then their parents. It seems likely that PP could have helped
	support the parents values here but chose not to. For what reason I
	don't know. I can't think of any honorable ones.

				Alfred

    
    
    Alfred,
    
    How would Planned Parenthood know what the parents' values are?
    
    Carole

>    How would Planned Parenthood know what the parents' values are?

    Firstly, they could have helped without knowing. It's irresponsible
    to encourage sexual activity in minors anyway. And isn't it 
    reasonable to assume that if the parents supported the sexual
    activity the parents would help?

    And they could have asked about the home situation. One would think
    that would be part of any responsible counseling as a matter of
    course. Carole, I don't think there is any way one can say this
    was handled in a responsible way by PP. 

    			Alfred

    I don't think the objective of Planned Parenthood is to influence the
    moral choices of those who seek them out.  My impression is their
    objective is to simply help sexually active people prevent unwanted
    pregnancies.  
    
    A parent's objective may or may not be the same.  In either case I
    don't think it's fair to place blame for a person's moral choices on a
    group whose objectives don't include influencing said morals.  In my
    opinion it is up to the parent or spiritual councellor to do that. 
    
    I would hope that when my daughter reaches puberty she will come to me
    before making the decision to become sexually active but if she doesn't
    I would hope that she'd have sense enough to go to a group like planned
    parenthood for help.  I did.
    
    Nanci                       

    Richard & Alfred,
    
                      Our culture says one thing while our bodies are
    saying another.  I would be *VERY* happy that I had a daughter that
    understood the consequences enough to visit and endure some
    embarrassment for information and help reguarding something that 
    could, and does, effect the rest of her life.  My personal opinion is
    that it is a sin to bring unwanted children into this world.  
    
                      While I understand your concern that the
    organization did not contact you, I would submitt that it is her body
    and her life.  My questions would be directed at her and not at Planned 
    Parenthood.  I would applaud her maturity and feel that I had done a
    very good job raising her to be independent and self motivated.
    
    
    Dave
    

   Richard,

   I have to agree with Dave and others.  PP have only provided
   contraception, you as the parent provide the morals and guidance.

   If you feel the counciling was inadaquate do something constructive
   like working with them instead of attacking them. They may need help
   instituting a better program.  I'm certain they do as too many young
   women are getting pregnant before they even know how it happened.
   Celibacy is a choice, certainly the safest ever devised when it comes
   to pregnancy and STDs but it does not answer everyones needs.

   It's however her decision and her body.  I don't agree with her
   going ahead either, only that she has some serious decisions and 
   has apparently thought about the risk and consequences.  For the
   rest of her life she will face the reality that she can become
   pregnant (by her choice and otherwise) and others will hold her
   responsable for her choices, no matter what.

   Do not hold others responsable for your preferences or your daughters
   actions.  While PP may have made it easy, it would be impossible to
   to prevent her if that's her wish since there are over the counter
   methods she can buy... with even less counciling.

   If I have offended you I am sorry, this is a difficult subject for
   me to be unemotional about.

   Allison

>   Celibacy is a choice, certainly the safest ever devised when it comes
>   to pregnancy and STDs but it does not answer everyones needs.

	Really? What underaged childs needs does it not answer?

			Alfred

    RE: .31  Alfred,
    
                     Even Paul understood that sexual urges were strong and
    said that it was a "good" thing if a man could remain unmarried
    (celibate) however it is understood that if you couldn't control yourself 
    then it was good and proper to marry.  With children maturing between ages 
    10 to 16, they *HAVE* to be considered as an adult as far as their sexual 
    urges go and to try to "teach" those urges out of them is asking for far
    greater problems later.  IMHO of course.
    
    
    
    Dave

    I submit to you that she and he are both minors, who are not even
    entrusted with the power to vote.  Where do you draw the line?  15?
    12?  9?
    
    Her natural mother and natural father both had long and frequent
    talks with her.  Planned Parenthood could be heavy on counselling
    instead of contraception.  It is not.  PP paved the way.
    
    While she may be foolish, my stepdaughter is not stupid.
    
    Richard

    RE: .33  Richard,
    
                       While it is unfortunate that society's idea on
    maturity is different than our internal clock, both have to be delt
    with.  The issue on counselling is a judgement call and were it my
    daughter I might think like you.
    
    Dave

    .31

   Alfred,

   I do not care to endevor the rathole of what constitutes underage.
   We clearly are not talking about 9 or 14 year children, nor is PP.
   Any discussion refering to and under that required for a legal
   marriage is unreasonable.  And ugly or not that is as low as 14
   in some states and 16 in most.  Must we confuse state conferred 
   rights and privelges with personal responsability?

   On second thought,
   In a former life and 20 years ago. I was unable to vote, or drink,
   I still attended high school, but my draft number said I will serve,
   and likely die.  I was underage also.  Without revisiting the 
   Vietnam debate how is that different from a 17 year old woman?

   Like I said, please excuse the harsh wording if seems that way.  
   This evokes strong feelings for me.

   Allison

    I was not sexually active as a teenager, but not because I thought it
    was morally wrong.  Neither my parents nor Planned Parenthood had
    anything to do with the conclusions I drew about sexual morality.  My
    parents considered it wrong, period; but I came to disagree with their
    views.  Nevertheless, being a shy and insecure teenager, the
    opportunity for sex simply never presented itself.  Actually, I wish I
    *had* gotten laid back then; at least in that way my otherwise
    miserable adolescence would have been punctuated with a bit of fun here
    and there.

    The comparison between voting age and sex is rather interesting.  I was
    deemed too young to vote by society, even though I was probably more
    politically aware than a large percentage of adults who can vote.  I
    read newspapers, political journals, and news magazines avidly, and had
    followed political events since a very young age.  The summer of my
    16th year I attended a special program that allowed high school
    students to earn college credit, and received a A in two college-level
    Political Science courses.  That fall, in my high school government
    class, I scored 196 out of 200 on the final exam, the highest score any
    student had ever received in the years that the teacher had been giving
    that exam.  

    I recognize that you have to draw a line somehow, and establishing a
    minimum voting age is a legal necessity.  Also, one could argue that my
    perspective as an adult would inevitably be more mature and thus alter
    my views, regardless of how informed those views might be. 
    Nevertheless, I met a certain qualification (albeit a legally
    non-binding one) for voting--I was *informed*--that many legally
    qualified voters don't do.  But I could not vote.  I was, however, old
    enough to hold other people's lives in my hands as I guided a
    several-thousand pound, internal-combustion-engine-powered machine down
    city streets. 

    Didn't kill anyone with that old AMC Hornet, though.  Perhaps I was
    lucky.

    -- Mike

	I note with some amusment that while people seem to decend down the
	rathole of underaged easily enough the question in .31 is not addressed.
	I will put it an other way.

	What unmarried persons problem does celibacy not address? 

			Alfred

    The problem of not getting laid.  Next question?
    
    -- Mike

>  The problem of not getting laid.  Next question?

	No answer for the first yet. Not getting laid is not a problem. Getting
	laid *is* if one is unmarried. What you said is like saying that non
	violence doesn't solve the problem of people getting hit.

			Alfred

   Mike,

   That was certainly one possibility.  The other is non-sexual
   intimacy.  For a woman celibacy is not to be argued against
   but it still leaves her impregnable, in the real world that
   may not be enough for some.

   Personally my first worry that if a woman recieving the pill
   (or any other BC) is getting adaquate medical care including
   followup services to insure correct dosage or fit and freedom
   from  undesireable side effects.  The hormones used in the pill
   are potent drugs and require some care and understanding both to
   insure they are safe and perform the intended function.  

   Obviously, I hope it's clear that responsability, understanding
   and factual advice must be understood by all concerned, councilling
   is important that is only way to acertain that understanding and 
   responsability exists.

   Allison

Re: .35
    
    One of the reasons the young are drafted is precisely because they are,
generally speaking, so immature and naive.  See "Born on the Fourth of
July" if you get a chance.
    
    In the military, you're not allowed free reign.  You're not allowed to
make profound decisions, not even about your own life.  All those decisions
are made for you.  Basically, you're a pawn.

Peace,
Richard

    Allison,
    
    You do bring up a valid point--for women, sex may have a different set
    of implications than it might for men.  While birth control gives
    people more options, and makes it possible for men and women to enjoy
    one another sexually with greater freedom, the decisions and the
    resulting implications must ultimately up to each couple.  That is
    where responsibility necessarily lies. 
    
    -- Mike

Re:  361.28

  >I don't think the objective of Planned Parenthood is to influence the
  >moral choices of those who seek them out.  My impression is their
  >objective is to simply help sexually active people prevent unwanted
  >pregnancies.

I understand.  They seek to be value-free.  Possibly this is a
worthy goal; in my opinion it is not.  In reality, this is an
*impossible* goal, since everything you say (and don't say)
and do (and don't do) reflects your values.

Planned Parenthood's values in terms of sexually active minors
is quite clear, despite the pretense of being value-free.  If
you want to engage in sex, they are there to help you do it.
Their behavior clearly says that they are for responsible, active 
sexual behavior (even if that is an oxymoron) for all who come.

Collis

  >I have to agree with Dave and others.  PP have only provided
  >contraception, you as the parent provide the morals and guidance.

You have been taken in.  PP did *NOT* provide only contraception.
They provided *approval* both by their existence and their willingness
to provide contraception.  They also abdicated their God-given
responsibility to others by refusing to uphold His morals both
by their own example and by what they say and do (and don't say
and don't do).

  >If you feel the counciling was inadaquate do something constructive
  >like working with them instead of attacking them.

Richard *is* doing something constructive.  He is, in his own
small way, rebelling against what he sees as descructive behavior
by an adult-run organization.  Sometimes the most constructive
thing to do is to tear down that which is destructive.  In my opinion,
Planned Parenthood's actions (and non-actions) promote what is
sometimes (although certainly not always) destructive behavior.
And it is clear that they have no intention of changing as an
organization.

  >It's however her decision and her body.

Simply because God has given each of us a will does NOT mean that
we have a right to choose whatever we want - or that parents do not
have a responsibility to guide and sometimes make that decision.
That is what parenthood is all about.  The body is on loan to her
from God and she has a responsibility both to God and to her parents
(since she is a minor) to submit to their authority.  Her parents,
likewise, have a responsibility before God to give her the freedom
that she needs as she matures.  If you think that this freedom includes
unmarried sexual intercourse, you indeed have a different God than
the God of the Bible.

Collis

    RE: .43  Collis,
    
                      I disagree...so whats new right? :-)  If you want
    them to be "value-free" in terms of the two people sitting before them,
    then I might agree but in terms of a society I think they can be and
    for the most part are depending on the individual offices.  There are
    more important questions than just 'are they going to have sex'.  Since
    they are sitting there then I think the question is moot.  HIV and
    other threats makes it vital that young men and women be responsible
    in their actions.  To try and get information and "devices" sure tells
    me a lot about their maturity.  But to blame PP is ignoring the real 
    problem and possibly projecting anger and shock.  
    
    
    Dave

    And what if a sexually mature person doesn't accept the responsibility
    that you say he or she has towards acquiesing to theis parent's moral
    values.  What if that child chooses not to recognize his/her parent's
    right to choose and enforce his/her personal morality?   What are you 
    going to do?  Lock them in a closet until they're 21?  Deny them any
    alternative method of protecting themselves from making a physical
    mistake that might affect them for the rest of their lives?  In my
    opinion I'm glad that groups like PP are out there.  If a sexually
    active teen seeks them out then the moral choice has already been made. 
    As a parent I would have to support my daughter in protecting herself 
    against possible future repercussions of that choice.
    
    After all, when they get to be that old there's only so much a parent
    can do.  Eventually you just have to let them make their own mistakes
    and (hopefully) learn from said mistakes.  
    
    Nanci    

    re: >What unmarried persons problem does celibacy not address?
    
    Just a few thoughts... I feel that asking teenagers to simply
    choose celibacy is like the campaign "Just say no to drugs."
    Instructing a teenager to just say no to drugs or sex, (in
    this case) is I think being naive to the particular worldview 
    the teenagers experiences.  There are many reasons why sexual 
    relations attract teenager's interest enough to participate in
    them.  Peer pressure being a big factor.  Lack of love and a sense
    of belonging at home may be another.
    
    I'm not advocating pre-marital sex here, but I feel that one thing
    society is not good at providing yet is adequate sex education. The
    option of celibacy needs to be combined with a comprehensive sexual
    education program, whether in that occurs in the home or at school.
    We also need to consider the quality of sexual messages communicated 
    everyday to teenagers through the various forms of media, from TV,
    movies, music videos, and advertising.  
    
    Let's face it.  We're continually blitzed with sexual images.  How 
    many of these carry the implicit or explicit message that celibacy 
    is a good, admirable, virtuous choice?   Who do we have as heros who 
    display celibacy as one of their characteristics?  What kind of images, 
    and what types of messages do we want our children to be fed?  
    
    All of these things influence the way in which teenagers view sexuality
    in our society, and the reasons why celibacy may appear not be a 
    "desirable" choice for them.
    
    Karen

Granted, PP didn't force these two to have sex.  However, I seriously doubt
that they'd have proceeded without the goods.  Like I say, she may be foolish,
but she's not stupid.

The boy, who I understand never really wanted to be a part of this, has
dumped her.  He thought they were getting too serious.  Too bad he had
not the fortitude to make that assertion ahead of time.

She's still on the pill.

Some 17-year-olds might be mature enough.  These two were not.

Richard

   Collis,

   I haven't been "taken in" as you put it.  I do have a view that is
   considerably wider than yours.  I respect the idea that some of the 
   world is not Christian or hold beliefs as you or I do.  For those
   people PP is neither imoral or destructive except by your word.

   I've said enough about this topic that is it clear I don't think
   young adults or for that fact anyone should partake of sex with 
   abandon.  I suspect if PP wasn't there the corner drugstore still
   exists where you are.  They do promote the sale of every thing and
   they aren't fussy!

   If you really believe PP is not doing the job FIX it don't destroy
   it and leave a vacuum that is more destructive.  In a very real sense
   that means becomming involved, improving the values, and yes talking
   about sex in a non-judgmental way.  I see much to much destroy it 
   and the problem will go away, it doesn't, just the icon you have
   targeted dissappears.  

   So far 40+ notes on the topic and still no other suggestions that would
   clearly have made a difference.

   Allison

    
    
    Richard,
    
    This may be the kiss of death for you... ;) ;) ;) 
    but my hat is off to you for the stand you have taken.
    
    (BTW, 'just say no' is not enough, they have to be taught why and how)
    
    Jamey
    

>   I suspect if PP wasn't there the corner drugstore still
>   exists where you are.  They do promote the sale of every thing and
>   they aren't fussy!

That brings up another point.  PP provides the pills at no charge.  Another
inhibitor overcome; another hurdle removed.  Why didn't they just snip a
hole in the crotch of her pantyhose for her?  Better yet, why didn't they
just rent her and her boyfriend a motel room?  Surely PP suspected that
none of the parents (neither hers nor his) would allow them to have sex
with each other under their roofs, which would have been absolutely
correct.

Another point, teen boys are refusing to wear condoms, whining, "I can't feel
you!" and they're getting it exactly the way they want.  Is it any wonder the
group experiencing the most rapid growth in cases of AIDS is among teens?

Mind you, I am not against all that PP does.  Supplying contraceptives without
charge might be a blessing in some instances.

Richard

   Richard,

   Whoa there, your preaching to the choir...  I never said they had the
   act totally correct.  Those things are not candy.  Free to anyone is
   out of line, free to those who cannot afford is proper.  Go after them 
   and smarten them up, they can do a better job.

   Pill vs condom, I'd say both.  Tough on the little boys who can't feel,
   cause there's more at stake then that.


   Allison

    Re .52
    
    I'm sorry to appear to be getting on your case, Allison.  I'm really
    not.  Perhaps you understand that I'm just having difficulty being
    objective about the matter at the moment.
    
    Richard

    I totally agree with Nanci in .28 and .46!
    
    To "seriously doubt that they'd have proceeded without the goods" is,
    IMO, being very naive.  There's always the corner drugstore for other,
    possibly less effective, "goods."
    
    Where do you "draw the line"?  You don't!  Kids' maturing bodies
    determine when they make decisions about becoming sexually active.  If their
    bodies and hormones are ready AND their *own* internal values are not
    strong enough to inhibit them, then protection -- without preaching
    and without the third degree -- should be available to them.  And, yes,
    it should be free if at all possible.
    
    BTW, I do agree with you that 17 is too young.  But I also strongly
    disagree that PP should have done anything differently than they did.
    They need to present "just the facts" they are asked for; if they 
    behaved "in loco parentis" kids who need their services would not be
    likely to seek them out.
    
    You certainly sound angry, Richard, but I think your anger is either
    misplaced or maybe just "spread around."  Sounds like you're angry
    with your stepdaughter and maybe just a bit angry with yourself --
    like you feel guilty and responsible.  But it was * her * decision, like
    it or not, and you and her mother and her natural father are *not*
    responsible for her decision.
    
    Perhaps getting dumped so soon will help her to make better decisions
    next time.  We can hope so.
    
    Peace to you all,
    Nancy

re Note 361.51 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Another point, teen boys are refusing to wear condoms, whining, "I can't feel
> you!" and they're getting it exactly the way they want.  Is it any wonder the
> group experiencing the most rapid growth in cases of AIDS is among teens?
  
        Good point.

        I'm old enough to remember when "rubbers" were the only thing
        available, and "the pill" was considered a great
        breakthrough, in part, because condoms -- as used (or not!)
        in practice -- were just not very effective.

        They had a lousy reputation "back then", and I would expect
        that any fair presentation of their effectiveness today would
        be the same.

        Bob

Re:  361.45

Hi Dave,
    
  >There are more important questions than just 'are they going to have 
  >sex'.  

Why?  If you answer the first one with a negative, what are the other
questions that Planned Parenthood intends to address?  I for one am
not aware of how Planned Parenthood actively helps those who are not
sexually active.  (That must do something else, musn't they? - but I 
never hear anything about it.) 

  >Since they are sitting there then I think the question is moot.  

The question is NOT moot.  You are saying that Planned Parenthood
has the right to lay full responsibility for the decision made on
minors.  This is not Biblical.  We as parents and we as society have
a responsibility before God to uphold His values.  These Biblical values
obviously include a ban on sexual activity outside of marriage.  Planned
Parenthood has not only abdicated their responsibility before God, but
they have also assisted in breaking down God-given parental authority
in this area.

What I hear from you Dave, and I'm somewhat surprised, is not a
Biblical perspective, but a wordly perspective.  Does what you preach
really match up to what the Bible teaches?  Do not parents have a
responsibility for their children?  Does not society have a responsibility
before God to adhere to His principles?

  >But to blame PP is ignoring the real problem and possibly projecting 
  >anger and shock.

We were discussing PP, so I pointed out where PP is lacking.  You
are quite right in inferring that they are only one part of the
issue.

Collis

Re:  361.46

  >And what if a sexually mature person doesn't accept the responsibility
  >that you say he or she has towards acquiesing to theis parent's moral
  >values.  What if that child chooses not to recognize his/her parent's
  >right to choose and enforce his/her personal morality?   
  >What are you going to do?  

First, let's look at what you are going to do.  You are going to
say (either explicitly or implicitly), go ahead and do what you want
with my approval and without my knowledge because I can't control
you anymore.

What I would say is, "You are old enough to know God's standards and
my standards.  It is my God-given responsibility as a parent to do
the best that I can in raising you first and foremost to submit to
Him and secondly to think for yourself.  (Yes, I know many people
believe that thinking for oneself is the most important, but that's
not what I read in the Bible.)  You will always have my love regardless
of what you do, but there are consequences for doing that which
violates God's rules and my rules.  As long as you live in my house
and God has given me parental responsibility, I will support you
in your desires to live within these rules.  There will be consequences
for living outside of these rules, both natural and parental."

You are quite right, Nanci, that 17 year-olds have a lot of freedom -
and that is how it should be.  That does NOT mean that God-given
standards should now be ignored because they are tougher to enforce -
particularly tougher since PP and other influeces are out there
tearing down parental authority (by being "value-free" and ignoring
the existence of such authority).

  >If a sexually active teen seeks them out then the moral choice has 
  >already been made. 

A moral choice that may have been partially made because PP exists!
A moral choice that is much harder to change both because PP exists
and what it does!

  >As a parent I would have to support my daughter in protecting herself 
  >against possible future repercussions of that choice.

I would suggest that the "protection" that you offer your daughter
is very incomplete.  The consequences of premarital sex go far beyond
the physical.  There are also psychological, relationship, spiritual,
self-esteem and other consequences.  Choosing to engage in sex most
likely will affect the dating and marital experiences (negatively!) for 
the rest of his/her life.  Why are these so often ignored?  Because
they do not fit well into the promotion of sex which so many people
want to do.

  >After all, when they get to be that old there's only so much a parent
  >can do.  

Then do it and don't abdicate your responsibility while you still have
a say!

  >Eventually you just have to let them make their own mistakes and 
  >(hopefully) learn from said mistakes.  

You'll let them suffer through all the psychological, self-esteem,
spiritual and relationship problems that pre-marital sex will produce 
as long as they reduce the risk of physical problems?  This, in my
opinion, is short-sighted.

Collis

Re:  361.49

Allison,

  >If you really believe PP is not doing the job FIX it don't destroy
  >it and leave a vacuum that is more destructive.

Removing that which promotes pre-marital sexual activity does not leave 
a vacuum.  There *are* forces our there which are actively seeking 
to discourage sexual activity.  I doubt that you've heard them because
the voices promoting it are too loud.

Collis

  >I respect the idea that some of the world is not Christian or hold 
  >beliefs as you or I do.  For those people PP is neither imoral or 
  >destructive except by your word.

Thank you!  At least there is one mild reference to God in this
string of replies.  Is this Christian-Perspective or Wordly-Perspective?
Is there anyone out there who wishes to consider (and state that
consideration!) of how God views all this, other than me?  Or does God
not have a perspective?

Collis

    Here are some possible reasons that why celibacy might be preferable to
    sexual relations:

	o Celibate people never have to worry about who sleeps on the wet
          spot.
	o Sex causes you to lose sweat and other fluids containing vital
	  minerals that may affect your overall health.
	o Celibate people don't have to change the sheets as often.
	o Not having sex during waking hours may lead to more interesting
          dreams when you are asleep.
	o Semen molecules released into the atmosphere during sexual
          activity may be harmful to the world's protective ozone layer.
	o When you come right down to it, sex is a pretty gross and
	  disgusting activity anyway.
    
    -- Mike

    Collis - 
    
    
    Collis -
    
    I am very offended by your implication that because some of us have not
    cited that which you believe defines God that we don't speak from a
    Christian-Perspective.  I'm trying very hard not to go ballistic on
    this.  I would appreciate it if, in the future, you leave your
    judgements to yourself or to the God that said "Judge not lest ye be
    judged".
    
    You only present one viewpoint of God, that which you get from your
    church's dogma and what personal beliefs you have added to that.  My
    view of God and what God wants is not based on the same thing.  In my
    opinion part of what we are put on this earth to do is to explore and
    learn from our environment and those circumstances presented to us
    by life.  We may want to protect those we love and sometimes, in
    protecting them, for whatever reasons, we end up hurting them by not
    allowing them to make their own decisions and so not allowing them to
    learn from experience.  If you keep a child locked indoors you may
    protect her from the harm that might come from that which is outdoors
    but you also protect her from learning about the world around her and
    how to make sound decisions about how she can relate to the world.  You
    take away her free will and, instead, impose yours on her.  God gave us
    each free will to make our own decisions because the rightness or
    wrongness of those decisions are going to vary depending on what the
    circumstances are and who we are.  If God won't take away that right
    from our children, who are we, as parents, to take it away.
    
    Before you attack, I am not advocating that parents give up on teaching
    their children what they think is right.  I'm just saying that at a
    certain point the parent has to let go and let the child live as she
    chooses and suffer the consequences, if any.  Much as we'd like to, we
    can't live their lives for them.
    
    Now, before we go down more of a rathole, I'm dropping out of this
    conversation.
    
    Nanci    

    I dare to be the minority liberal view here.  I think that a 17 year
    hold has the right and responsibility to make her/his own decision
    about sex.  (I do hope that I still can be as definitive when my
    children are 17 I do understand how difficult this must be for a
    parent).  I admire PP and other health organizations that help young
    people be responsible about these decisions.
    
    I also think it is inappropriate to quote scripture in this regards
    where early scriptures support the practice of giving virgin daughters
    to strangers to protect men.  i.e. Lots daughters.  Also Sarah and
    others.  
    
     I also think Paul's hang up about sex is neurotic.
    
    In my humble opinion, responible Human sexuallity is a gift from God, and
    Christianity from Paul to Augustine has done a lot to make sexuality
    seem evil.  
    
    I would agree that I would prefer that young people wait before
    engaging in sex but I think that after about 16 that that decision
    belongs to the individual.  I support PP and other organizations in
    making sex safer for everyone.
    
    pat

   Collis,

   Please do not presume what I may hear or not hear it offensive to
   me.

   If the world is Christian and believes exactly as you do the issue
   is moot.  Not every one reads the same bible or even believes in
   Christ.  I am not stating a position of which is the one and true
   God, only that imposing your beliefs on those that don't believe
   exactly as you do is likely to be meaningless to them.  I say that
   because there are many temptations, and what we consider ok is totally
   unacceptable to others.

   Allison

   Collis,

   .63 was a reply to .57 I'm glad I replied to it then instead of after
   .58.

   .58 is rude.  While I agree God word is significant your presentations
   of it only make me feel bad.  Mostly because I can't tell which is
   God's word and which is your invocations.

   A bit of history, PP was started not to enable teens to have sex at
   will, they were doing well enough on their own before that.  It was
   started to help married adults with managing the procreative part of
   their sex lives.  I know this as my mother was given Catholic last
   rites for the last three children she had two of which were born dead.
   If she had gotten pregnant again she would not have survived, and
   none of those children were planned.  PP getting into the other thing
   is purly an attempt to do something for the problem of children 
   having children.

   Richard,

   Don't think me unfeeling of your situation, you love your step daughter
   and want only the very best for her.

   Allison

Nancy (S) .54,

Yes, I am angry.  I am angry with all her friends who encourage sexual
relations as a badge of maturity.  I am angry with their parents and with
society for encouraging sexual relations at a younger and younger age.
My 11-year-old is already bragging to his friends about his "prowess".

I am angry with Planned Parenthood because, wittingly or unwittingly,
they were co-conspirators.  I acknowledge that I would probably be more
dispassionate about the involvement of PP if this matter concerned
somebody else's child.  I don't doubt that they'll simply trash my
letter, dismissing it as being from one 'of those fundamentalist kooks.'

I am angry with my local church for evading the issue of teen sexuality,
saying that our church didn't have enough interested teens to make it
worthwhile.  (My stepdaughter is part of the "baby bust" generation)
I am angry with the Senior High Youth Sponsors, who have set up an
adversarial "us vs. them" relationship against the parents of the teens.

I am angry with the boy and have considered sharing my feelings of anger
with his mother and stepfather.  I suspect it would backfire on me.

I am angry with my stepdaughter, and very disappointed.  I thought she
had the internal strength to rise above the peer pressure.  I thought
she had more class (incidentally, these words echo the boyfriend's).
Yes, I still love her.  But, it's all I can do to keep my mouth shut
about this in front of her.  I'm chewing my tongue into hamburger.

I am angry with myself because I saw it coming and I was powerless to
do anything about it.

Richard

re Note 361.59 by COLLIS::JACKSON:

>              -< a reference to God - who would have believed it! >-
  
        Collis,

        I resent the implication that a discussion without explicit
        reference to God is therefore a "worldly discussion".

        If Christ does not affect who we are and our very perspective
        on the world, then Christianity has failed.  The frequency of
        occurrence of references to the divine in a conversation has
        nothing to do with the perspective of the speaker or writer
        -- examples abound!

        If you want a conference where references to God are
        sprinkled everywhere on the surface but the content of
        people's character is quite worldly, you might have to look
        elsewhere.

        Bob

Re:  361.61
    
  >I am very offended by your implication that because some of us have not
  >cited that which you believe defines God that we don't speak from a
  >Christian-Perspective.

I'm sorry to offend you.  Truly.  I guess you want me to assume that 
whenever you write in here, you are writing from your understanding of 
what God is saying to you.

The point I was making was that the only reasons being discussed
could (and probably would) be found in an atheists notesfile just
as easily as they are found here.  There were no explicit references
to God (other than mine).  There were no implicit references to God
(other than a response to my note).  There was no explanation of
why a particular action was more or less godly or more in accordance
with God's Will (other than mine).

Again, the intent is *not* to say that you do not have a perspective
based on God.  (I'm not claiming it is, either.)  It *is* to say
except for it's presence in CP, there is no verbal indication that God
has any relevance to most of the views presented.

  >You only present one viewpoint of God...

I present many viewpoints of God.  I reject most of them.  :-)

  >Before you attack, I am not advocating that parents give up on teaching
  >their children what they think is right.  

No attack.  I'm sure you believe that and, to some extent, we all believe
that.  The question, as you point out, is when do we let go.  The area
of sex is *so* important, that this should be one of the last areas
that we as parents should give up total responsibility for guidance in.
(As in all areas, giving guidance is something that gradually shifts
from total guidance to no guidance at all.)

Collis

Note 361.62

  >I admire PP and other health organizations that help young people 
  >be responsible about these decisions.

Did PP discuss abstinance?

Did PP discuss AIDS?

Did PP discuss VD?

Did PP discuss pregnancy?

Did PP discuss commitment?

Did PP discuss parental responsibility?

Did PP discuss the minor's responsibility to the parent or to God?

Did PP discuss emotional consequences? e.g.
  - the fears of pregnancy
  - the fears of disease

Did PP discuss the impact of sexual activity on a relationship -
how it invariably changes it in a very significant way

Did PP discuss the impact of sexual activity on future relationships?

etc.

	OR 

did PP provide free birth control to minors without discussing
any of these things and without *any* responsibility for any of
these issues after the fact.

*This* is what you call helping young people make "responsible"
decisions?  Clearly, you can see why I disagree.

  >I also think it is inappropriate to quote scripture in this regards...

Yes, your disdain for Scripture is noted.

  >I support PP and other organizations in making sex safer for everyone.

That's wrong.  PP does NOT make sex safer.  It actually makes sex
more deadly by its actions.  (Lots of wordly reasons; only one
Scriptural reason: promoting sin - in this case pre-marital sex -
is not without consequences to all concerned.)

Collis

Re:  361.63

  >...only that imposing your beliefs on those that don't believe exactly 
  >as you do is likely to be meaningless to them.  I say that because 
  >there are many temptations, and what we consider ok is totally 
  >unacceptable to others.

All I'm saying is that we should follow God's guidelines and
God's principles as He has outlined them for us (in the Bible).  If
following them imposes my beliefs on others, so be it.  God has given
me the option of following Him or not.  I see this issueas one where
God has definatively spoken (although it is true that some others 
do not).

I, as a follower of Jesus, am to hold other organizations to God's
standards just as I am held to God's standards.  Those organizations
which flaunt these standards should be corrected, if possible, or
removed, if correction is not possible.  Those organizations which support 
these standards should be supported.

It is common to complain that those who follow God are "imposing
their beliefs" on others.  If this is consequence of following God
(as revealed in the Bible), then I plead guilty.

Collis

Re:  361.64

  >.58 is rude.  

Really?  Sorry to have been rude.  I re-read it and why you think/feel
it is rude still escapes me.  If it is because I implied that you don't
hear the voices that seek to discourage sexual activity, this was
not a comment on you (since I hardly know you), but was rather a
comment directed at all of us in general living in the society we
live in.

  >While I agree God word is significant your presentations
  >of it only make me feel bad.  Mostly because I can't tell which is
  >God's word and which is your invocations.

References have been made to both sexual activity outside of marriage
(condemned as sin by the Bible) and to the authority of parents
(instituted and ordained by God in the Bible).  Also, references have
been made to society's responsibility to recognize and follow God.
If you'd like to extract the Bible claims from my commentary, I'll
provide references for you if you ask.  I think it would be *great*
if we all knew what the Bible said on these subjects (then at least
we're more likely to know if we're following it).

  >A bit of history...

Yes, I know their history.  I only wish that had stuck with
their original goal and not moved into supporting and encouraging
immoral behavior (no matter how worthy they view the actions as).

Collis

   Collis,

   Why I felt .58 was rude.  You extracted a segment of my note replied to
   it in a general way.  I perceived it as a direct comment to me.  When
   read that way it's rude and agressive.  Unfortunatly you don't know
   me.

   Yes we do differ in style.  I don't actually disagree with you.  I also
   don't see sin in everything, I do see people and institutions that have
   gone amuck.  To judge PP as promoting sin is to me judgemental, why?
   To me PP is people, I cannot judge people I am not God.  Judging PP
   is certainly more likely to create controversy than trying to fix the
   problem.  Again controversy is like smoke.  It clouds the air and hides
   the fire.  Of course you could find out what PP actually does first hand.
   It's been pointed out that without guidance from within the religion
   and the home maybe responsability has been abdicated, we as adults are
   not perfect.  Do aspire to improve the world, help, don't condem.

   Allison

Re:  361.66

  >I resent the implication that a discussion without explicit reference 
  >to God is therefore a "worldly discussion".

or implicit reference.  And you are right that it is not necessarily
a "wordly discussion".  However, the inference is there whether you
choose to resent it or not. 

  >If Christ does not affect who we are and our very perspective
  >on the world, then Christianity has failed.  

I strongly agree.

  >If you want a conference where references to God are sprinkled 
  >everywhere on the surface but the content of people's character is 
  >quite worldly, you might have to look elsewhere.

No, I want to look both at people's perspectives and the reasons
for their perspectives.  Many people supplied reasons - no one
(except me) supplied reasons that had anything to do with God.  I
am very disappointed that in a forum where discussing God is not
only acceptable but encouraged, that people did not care to express
how their experiences/beliefs/whatever with God impacted their
perspectives on this issue.  I expect that it does have an impact for
most if not all of the writers here - but no one (excepting myself)
shared it.  Why?  And, yes, I think the worldliness of our culture
has something to do with type of replies that have been entered.

Collis

Hi Allison,

Yes, I hear you.  The comment about being judgmental is one that
is very common in this conference and will always be common here,
I expect.  Many noters in this conference believe in a live and
let live approach - both because someone may be offended and
because we are perceived to not have to right to judge something.

And, although I agree with this in some situations, in general I
have found that this philosophy does not measure up well with
Scripture.  What you call judgment (in this instance) I call
discernment - which is something we are *required* to do according
to Scripture.  We are to be salt and light to the world - something
that contradicts a live and let live philosophy.

BTW, condemnation is good and appropriate at times.  Jesus certainly
thought so (since the Scriptures are full of condemnation that he
spoke).  I would agree that balance is very important here.

Collis

   Collis,

   I don't get it.  I didn't say live and let live nor did I imply it.

   If anything, I said live so you can guide others gently.  In my life
   waving (figuratively or otherwise) a bible at me is the same act as
   swinging a bat.  It is not a weapon nor are it's words.  It is a point
   of sensitivity for me.

   Enough as I have excessively digressed, 

   Allison

Okay.  Let me see if this makes a difference.

Her 17th birthday was late January.  She started having sexual intercourse
last November, so she was actually 16 years old at the time.  (Who knows?
By the time all the truth surfaces, we may find out she started having sex
when she was 13 or younger!)

She is not an emancipated minor.  She is not living on her own.  Not one
of her natural parents or stepparents are pleased about her decision to
begin engaging in sex.

Richard

re Note 361.70 by COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >A bit of history...
> 
> Yes, I know their history.  I only wish that had stuck with
> their original goal and not moved into supporting and encouraging
> immoral behavior (no matter how worthy they view the actions as).
  
        While the original goal of Planned Parenthood may have been
        to aid married couples to avoid problem pregnancies and
        pregnancies resulting in children they could not properly
        raise, it is a reasonable and morally defensible extension of
        this objective to help all couples, married and unmarried, to
        avoid such pregnancies.

        Now one could raise the objection that the only proper way
        for an unmarried couple to avoid such pregnancy is abstinence
        -- and I would agree with them.  This is the moral situation
        that the couple faces.

        But what about the moral situation that Planned Parenthood
        faces?  Do they face the same moral choice?  I don't think
        so.  Unlike the couple, who have ultimate absolute control
        over what they themselves do, PP does not have absolute
        control over the couple.  In that situation, PP, in carrying
        out what I believe is a morally defensible role in advising
        people how to avoid a child they are not able to love and
        care for, would be negligent if it did not make available all
        the options that in themselves are morally acceptable to
        achieve that goal (for example, I would distinguish between
        counseling birth control and counseling abortion).

        Ultimately, they can't prevent the evil of fornication if the
        couple wishes to engage in it, but even if the couple chooses
        fornication, there is still a chance to prevent the further
        evil of an probable neglected child, and PP or any other
        organization in this role would be wrong to forgo the chance
        to prevent the second wrong just because they couldn't
        prevent the first.

        Now, it may be that PP doesn't even try to suggest
        abstinence.  I believe that this would be a wrong choice, and
        I hope that letters such as Richard's may have some effect on
        this policy.  On the other hand, this is hardly enough to
        call the whole enterprise into question.

        Bob

RE: .56  Collis
                  
                   *Note:  Richard, you might want to NEXT-UNSEEN this one.
    
    
    
    
                   It seems to me that these two people have already 
decided to have sex and are looking for ways to do "it" safely.  The
"more important" questions are; do they do it safely or are you going
to turn them away so they can jump into the back seat on a lonely road
and take their chances?  Seems to me that this is a way to spread disease
and promote unwanted pregnancies.  I would hate to with hold the info
and "devices" just to spread a form of gospel that they obviously didn't
want to listen to at home.  I know that you would just rather that they
didn't "do" anything but again its obvious that they have already decided.

                   I would doubt that PP went out into the streets looking
for young people that they could corrupt.  No, these two went to them 
looking for honest answers and someone that wouldn't just tell them that
they were too young and force their brand of "religion" on them.

                  Ok Collis, you have wondered how I match my Christianity
with my previous statements.  To do so I will ask you a few questions about
what I read in the Bible.  Moses was given the ten commandments and one of
those talked about adultery.  Why did God allow David 10 concubines?  Why
did he allow Solomon 150?  He didn't count their "sexual" behavior as
sin, so how do you "fit" this into your religion?  To me its obvious.
God doesn't have a problem with sex....we do.  And for that reason he
tells us to have only one wife.  In light of these two incidents, look 
again at the "sin" that God counted against these two men.  When read 
carefully, you will find that in both cases they broke promises to their
wives to marry another, a promise made before God so the promise was 
also made *to* God also.

                 Now, before you think that I would condone sex between
two people casually, the answer is a resounding NO.  But then again
reality has to set in with these two young people.  Yes I would try my
best to discourage them but not to the point of driving them away and
away from any influence I might have on them.  I love them and my love
also includes being there when they make mistakes.



Dave

re Note 361.72 by COLLIS::JACKSON"

> Many people supplied reasons - no one
> (except me) supplied reasons that had anything to do with God.  I
> am very disappointed that in a forum where discussing God is not
> only acceptable but encouraged, that people did not care to express
> how their experiences/beliefs/whatever with God impacted their
> perspectives on this issue.  I expect that it does have an impact for
> most if not all of the writers here - but no one (excepting myself)
> shared it.  
  
        C'mon, Collis, can you at least give us a break and accept
        that it is quite normal and reasonable to discuss an issue
        without giving one's theological underpinnings?  Can you
        accept that there are some here, myself included, who have
        heard (and seen on TV) such patently hollow talk wrapped up
        in God talk that we would rather err the other way (solid
        reasoning with references to God only when asked)?

        I don't state every mathematical assumption or theorem I use
        in my work for Digital;  likewise, I don't casually insert
        "proofs" into moral statements I make, either.  In either
        case, I am prepared to provide them if I am requested or
        challenged.  But my work isn't done in an atmosphere of
        constant challenge to my technical foundations, and neither
        do I choose to engage in moral discussions where my moral
        foundations are to be constantly challenged and scrutinized
        by so-called colleagues.

        I could probably draw upon a dozen connections between my
        statements on this issue and my faith in Christ.  Do I have
        to, at every turn, do this, in order for my participation in
        this to be "Christian"?

        You may not accept this, but I will let you know another
        thing I believe strongly:  an informed mind of a moral person
        having a spiritual relationship with God, in dealing with
        complex everyday issues, will have to come up with many
        "conclusions";  and they will be conforming to the will of
        God even though they cannot be easily traced back, in their
        entirety, to specific chapter and verse, canon law, or creed.

        Bob

    Well, since Collis wants everyone in this discussion to refer to God, I
    for one will comply:

    	God supports what Planned Parenthood is doing.

    There.  He should be satisfied now.

    
    Okay, so that may not be what Collis really wants.  Well, what *does* he
    want?  Perhaps it isn't just God that he wants mentioned; maybe what he
    really wishes is for all of us to cite the Bible.  His desire in that
    case would then be that participants in this and other topics in C-P
    base all discussions on (his conservative interpretation of) the Bible. 
    Of course, this is despite the fact, as  has been repeated over and
    over again, that this notes community is theologically heterogeneous,
    both de facto and as a matter of official policy, with a variety of
    views on the Bible accepted here.  So why would he nevertheless take it
    upon himself to tell others how they should express their theological
    views here?

    Well, one possibility is that the heterogeneous character of C-P hasn't
    really sunk in yet.  Maybe he doesn't understand that other
    participants who view Christianity in different ways from his may have
    come to their conclusions with as much sincerity, forethought, and
    conviction as he has; maybe he doesn't understand that others believe
    they follow God's will as much as he believes he does, and that
    therefore telling others that they are wrong because they ought to be
    following God's will on a given matter (as if they didn't sincerely
    believe they were following God before he reminded them of it), is thus
    insulting and obnoxious.  It's hard to believe that anyone could be
    that dense; but who knows.

    On the other hand, maybe he knows damn well how this notes file is
    chartered, but perhaps he also has an agenda--one of striving to alter
    the de facto character of this notes file so that its predominant
    perspective resembles his own.  Spiritual warfare would be the
    justification here; as the white knight riding into devil's territory,
    he can strive to alter this notes file according to his own conception
    of God's image.  He's on a mission from God, like the Blues Brothers. 
    All is fair in love and spiritual war, one supposes.  and when all bets
    are off it doesn't matter if you offend or not.  If that is his goal,
    he has succeeded admirably, since he has managed to drive several
    people who I care for and respect away from this notes file already.

    Whatever his agenda is here, it doesn't really matter; the result is
    the same.  Since he insists that we bring God into this discussion, let
    me just say that She really doesn't like the notes he writes here.

    -- Mike
    

Re:  361.74

  >I don't get it.  I didn't say live and let live nor did I imply it.

I don't get it either.  You say that to judge PP as pomoting sin is
judgmental and that you "cannot judge people" since you are not God.
Obviously I'm missing something here that you intended because to
me this implies that you should not interfere in what PP is doing
because this could be considered "judgmental", i.e. live and let
live.

Collis

Re:  361.75

  >I gave a reason that did have to do with God, namely, I stated
  >that the common implication that condoms are reliable is false.

I'll accept your assertion that this is a reason having to do with God.

I'd point out that (just so you may consider my comment still
reasonable as well) that it was not (and still is not) obvious how
this reason relates to God and that many who would very willingly
call themselves godless would (and do) make the exact same comment.

  >However, just as I don't state every mathematical assumption
  >or theorem I use in my work, I don't casually insert "proofs"
  >into moral statements I make, either.

No, Bob, I certainly don't expect you to state every assumption.
However, I do think that the fundamental reasons for your beliefs
are worth stating whether on this subject or any other subject.
Personally, I find it impossible NOT to discuss God and the Bible
when dealing with an issue such as this - because these are the
sources of information that I base my morals on.

Obviously you think that talk based on God is going on all the time
without any (obvious) references to God or His Laws.  I've said
before and I'll say it again - perhaps it is.  Then again, perhaps
it isn't.

You are free to talk about God or not talk about God as you see fit.
Just don't be surprised and offended when I make a comment that I
don't *hear* anyone else talking about God when his name is never
mentioned, when His Laws are never referred to and when His Word is
never proclaimed.

Collis

Re:  361.77

  >Do they [PP] face the same moral choice?  I don't think so.

What do you see as PP's God-given responsibility?

Collis

Hi Dave,

Re:  361.78
    
  >It seems to me that ... two people have already decided to have 
  >sex and are looking for ways to do "it" safely.

This always seems to be the premise of those that advocate making
birth control available.  This premise is *wrong*.  It may or may
not be correct in the current situation.  Who knows?  But it is
certainly NOT a valid premise in the general sense.

Example in a slightly different area.  A man (I believe a high school
teacher) in Massachusetts was very disturbed about the high rate of
smoking by teenagers in the high school.  He decided to try and do
something about it.

As you may be aware, it is illegal to sell tobacco products to those
under 18 years of age.

The first thing he did was to take a survey at the high school.  Then,
with the cooperation of the town police, they notified all the stores
selling tobacco that they were going to start enforcing the law about
selling tobacco to minors.  This was a very active campaign.  (Previously,
well over half of the stores in the town would sell tobacco to minors.)
After a significant period of time (I don't remember how long - it was
less than a year), he took another survey at the high school.  Smoking
was down 40%.  Forty percent!  By those who had already *decided* to
smoke - a very addicting behavior.

Admittedly, the parellels are *not* perfect.  But it points up a basic
fact in human nature.  If we want to do something, we are much more
likely to do it if we can find approval for it and if it is easy to
do.  It is NOT the case that people, in general, will do whatever they
like regardless of the consequences.  Certainly some will; most will
not.

  >Seems to me that this is a way to spread disease and promote unwanted 
  >pregnancies.

Unwanted pregnancies are promoted in many ways.  You've ignored the
social acceptance of sex which promotes unwanted pregnancies.  Now you
want to target only the lack of birth control.

What has changed in the last 50 years?  Is birth control more available?
Yes.  Is sex more socially acceptable?  Yes.  Are pregnancies down?
Are you kidding.  Are abortions down?  Be realistic.  Now, I freely
admit that these questions point to simplistic reasons and the reasons
are not all that simplistic.  However, the underlying point is still
valid.  The basic problem we are facing is NOT one of disease and
unwanted pregnancies; it is one of values and morals.  And as long as
we continue to focus on partially preventing the (physical only!)
consequences of sex, we as a nation and as a world will continue
to experience the many problems that playing fast and loose with the
sexual drive will bring us.

How does sex in one relationship affect the next relationship?
Introducing sex into one relationship tends to make the next
relationship less stable.  We shouldn't be surprised - but those who
insist on promoting (safe?) sex either by what they do or by what they 
refuse to do never address this issue.  And this is just one example.
See my list of questions to PP about other issues.

  >I would hate to with hold the info and "devices" just to spread a 
  >form of gospel that they obviously didn't want to listen to at home.

No, 'tis much better to undermine parental authority.  :-(

  >Ok Collis, you have wondered how I match my Christianity with my
  >previous statements.  To do so I will ask you a few questions about
  >what I read in the Bible.  Moses was given the ten commandments and
  >one of those talked about adultery.  

I do not condone David's (or anyone's) decision to have multiple
wives.  God does not encourage it and, in fact, discourages it in
the Bible.  It was not what God intended as we can see both by the
creation story as well as real experiences of those with multiple
wives.

  >Why did God allow David 10 concubines?

Reference, please?

What does this example have to do with pre-marital sex?  Are there not
explicit commands in the Bible about pre-marital sex i.e. fornication?  
Why do you ignore the explicit and infer from the general?  Are you 
being intellectually honest with yourself?

  >God doesn't have a problem with sex....we do.  

I assume you're aware what Jesus said - he who even lusts after
another woman in his heart has committed adultery.  How in the world
(can I say it any more strongly?) can you reconcile this statement
with your promotion of fornication or adultery (take your pick)?

Collis

<         <<< Note 361.81 by COLLIS::JACKSON "The Word became flesh" >>>
<                            -< Here's my thinking >-
<Re:  361.74
<
<  >I don't get it.  I didn't say live and let live nor did I imply it.
<
<I don't get it either.  You say that to judge PP as pomoting sin is
<judgmental and that you "cannot judge people" since you are not God.
<Obviously I'm missing something here that you intended because to
<me this implies that you should not interfere in what PP is doing
<because this could be considered "judgmental", i.e. live and let
<live.
<
<Collis

   Let me try again and borrow one of your words.  PP is a thing that
   results from the efforts of many people.  I will not judge either as 
   good or bad on the whole.  I am discerning enough to recognize that
   what they do can be better, a non-judgemental statment.  That is
   not live and let live.  It is let live and teach (or guide) as I
   cannot force anyone.  I can show them a way, lead gently, translate
   my beliefs into actions.  It's a gentle approach.  What I see as sin
   need not enter into to my words, yet my actions can make it clear
   there can be room for improvement. 

   I don't condone premarital sex.  I accept that I cannot force others
   to see that as sin.  I can help them to do the best they can with the
   hope that time and guidance might show them a better way.  Some may
   never see a better way, but I feel an obligation to help them do as 
   little damage as possible, be it unwanted children, sexually tansmitted
   disease, or abusive relationships.  

   Allison  

    I would like to point out that my letter to Planned Parenthood
    (.22, I believe) never intimated that I believed that PP should
    be abolished.  It did call for a policy change.
    
    Something is terribly wrong when parents have no rights and no say
    about important behaviors of their dependant children who are legally
    minors.  I dare say some of you now reading this will someday
    experience this also and you'll have a better understanding of
    what I'm talking about.
    
    Richard

    
    
    A couple of things
    
    - a measure that would have required abstinence to be taught anywhere
    sex education is taught was just defeated in committe in the Colorado
    State Senate. The bill was proposed by Mary Anne Tebido of Colorado
    Springs.
    
    - The Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center has an abstinance program,
    called Education for Life (EFL) that teaches a 5-day abstinence
    program, including refusal skills, primarily in the public schools.
    Last school year, EFL taught the program to over 7,000 students *at the
    request of the schools*. Programs are also available to teach in Sunday
    Schools. There is even a pilot program that recently had a simultaneous
    program for parents on how to talk to their kids about sex. Teachers,
    administrators, parents, and counselors are fed up with the safe sex
    message, because it does not work. Kids need to be told that it is a
    responsible, safe, mature choice to choose abstinence. 
    
    - The most recent letter from Focus on the Family lays out nicely the
    case for abstinence.
    
    Jamey

I don't think we need to justify the lack of "God-talk" in this string.
It's definately a discussion of morality which is linked to Christian
understandings and traditions.

Richard

Re:  361.85

Thanks, Allison, for your explanation.

Collis

   Jamey,

   Some thoughts while reading your note...
   
    
    - a measure that would have required abstinence to be taught anywhere
    sex education is taught was just defeated in committe in the Colorado
    State Senate. The bill was proposed by Mary Anne Tebido of Colorado
    Springs.

   I'm form the east coast so I have no difinitive info on the bill.  Is
   it possible it was poorly written or got tied to something else that
   was clearly unwanted?  The basic concept sounds good.
    
    - The Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center has an abstinance program,
    called Education for Life (EFL) that teaches a 5-day abstinence
    program, including refusal skills, primarily in the public schools.
    Last school year, EFL taught the program to over 7,000 students *at the
    request of the schools*. Programs are also available to teach in Sunday
    Schools. There is even a pilot program that recently had a simultaneous
    program for parents on how to talk to their kids about sex. Teachers,
    administrators, parents, and counselors are fed up with the safe sex
    message, because it does not work. Kids need to be told that it is a
    responsible, safe, mature choice to choose abstinence. 
    
   The description sounds good.  The safe sex message is incomplete if
   it doesn't include abstinence.  It's certainly a valid message to
   deliver on it's own merit.  It's a message that has to come from
   schools because as most parents(generality I know) are not adaquately
   equipped to explain sex, sexuality, and all the related aspects.  
   Maybe if a generation of children have the knowledge of why and the
   morals they can pass it on.  I didn't need God words or the Bible in
   the years before AIDS to show me that there were things out there that
   were bad for my body, but in the late '60s I had to study medical texts
   and  read things beacuse the adults were fighting over weather I should
   be told in school.  At that point in my life you couldn't prove God,
   you could prove STDs, contaceptive failure, and pregnancy, and I'm very
   happy with the choices I made based on those proofs.  I'm unhappy that
   information was not readilly available to me nor was there anyone who
   could explain it.

   I'm not saying there shouldn't be a spritual base for doing this, but
   even of you reject any religion there is a good sound medical basis
   for teaching it.  It's about time we give children the owners manual
   about their body and explain why it's important to maintain their
   health both spritually and in body.

   Allison




   

Note 361.78

>                   It seems to me that these two people have already 
>decided to have sex and are looking for ways to do "it" safely.

The truth of the matter is that in this case my stepdaughter felt "left
out" because of all her friends she was "the only virgin."  Great reason, eh?
A whole lot of mature thinking going on here!

PP was promoted by her friends as the quick and easy solution.  She only
went to PP after experimenting with her girlfriends' birth control
prescriptions and getting sick from them.  She went without her boyfriend.

I'd like to know what it takes to raise children with the strength of
character and moral courage as demonstrated by the young people in note
223.29.

>                   I would doubt that PP went out into the streets looking
>for young people that they could corrupt.

True, but then handgun salesmen aren't on the streets for looking for people
who would like to kill someone either.  Granted, this is a flawed analogy.
Still, it makes a point about availability and responsibility.

Perhaps PP should consider a "cooling off" period for minors instead of
perpetuating their automatic reflex action to reach for a medical and
invariably insertable remedy.

More than this, I would suggest that PP should not maintain blanket solutions,
but instead carefully weigh each situation individually.

Richard

   Richard,

   Our peers of the school ages were frequently unkind in their behavour.
   It's burned in my mind the comments, assaults and outright lies I had
   to endure in that time. 

   Suggestion, follow the letter up with a visit to PP.  First understand
   how they work and maybe why, then when you have the facts can you then
   challenge them to improve.  If you bring your sincerity, no doubt
   you'll be asked to help.  Surely if you do nothing, nothing will
   change.

   Allison

    Thanks, Allison.  I'll consider your suggestion.
    
    'Suppose I should go with her to pick up her next cache of pills?? 8-}
    
    Richard

    
    'Suppose I should go with her to pick up her next cache of pills?? 8-}
    
   Richard,

   You might do that!  I understand it was a joke and is very painfull
   but you are trying to understand how it comes to this and at the same
   time communicate with her.  It's clear you want the best for her, it's
   not unreasonable to insure she does get the best of care.  On a real
   basis you need to keep contact with her, she's had her moments of pain
   and I'd guess some doubt.  Every moment of her life she has choices
   some we may not like, it's fair to be their to help her understand,
   suggest ideas she may not have thought of (even ones you don't like),
   and point out in a non-judgemental way the good points and weakness
   of each choice.   Yes I'd even ask you to support her choice, cause
   the next choice maybe more important and you wish to help in that
   choice as well.  I know it all doesn't sound Christian, but it's
   in between the lines of many a parable.   We don't write off the
   sinner for continued sins, one day they they might also see light.

   I could alway opt for plain language, God doesn't abandon us because we
   are stupid!

   Allison

    Re: .80
    
    I agree with your assessment from my own experience.

    re: .65
    
    Richard,
    
    I really hear your pain.  My disagreements with you are, in part, an
    attempt to help you feel it less!  
    
    Of course you are disappointed with her and sad for her -- we all want
    desperately to protect our children from being hurt -- and she *is*
    being hurt, in many ways, such as loss of innocence too soon, getting
    dumped by her boy friend and finding out that not *all* men can be
    trusted, *and* knowing she disappointed you!
    
    But we *can't* protect them.  We didn't grow up sinless and neither
    will they!  I have two sons, 24 and almost 21.  I haven't experienced
    raising a daughter, but I certainly feared for my boys lest they
    impregnate a girl and be financially responsible for an unplanned child
    for the rest of their lives!  I talked to each of them as they entered
    FIFTH grade to let them know that even some 5th grade girls could get
    pregnant!  I worried when our oldest son was sexually active before
    I felt he was emotionally ready.  I know the emotional bonding that
    sexual activity brings with it and I know that kids are not very able
    to break out of that emotional bond and give up the sex even if the
    relationship as a whole is not good for them.  He even proposed to
    the girl because he thought he was about to lose her.  Fortunately,
    they did break up and he married someone much better suited to him.
    
    I worried when each boy experimented with alcohol and made totally 
    opposite decisions about it.  My feeling is that each one made a
    rather extreme decision, but it's THEIR DECISION.
    
    I'm only saying all this here so you will understand that I *do*
    understand your pain.  I also know that IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT!!
    
    When you can stop owning the problem, you'll be able to help and
    influence her much more.
    
    Much love and care,
    Nancy
    
    
    (PS - And, no, as I said before, the age she was when she became
    sexually active is really irrelevant.)

    Oh Richard, although I have not read all the notes in this string, I
    too as a mother of two teenagers, feel your pain.  My 18 year old
    son who is a Freshman at college out in Washington is testing his wings
    in ways I never expected.  Sometimes the phone calls and letters I
    receive with news of his adventures (often of a sexual nature) cause me
    much anxiety.  When this happens, I try to become centered and remember
    what a loving spiritual being he is and know that he is being led by
    that inner Light to learn lessons that will help him become the person
    God intended him to be.  Please know that the same holds true for your
    daughter and she is in the hands of a Higher Power.
    
    Love,
    
    Ro
    

I am thankful for all the thoughtful and caring replies and even offline
messages I've received since entering 361.22.

It has helped me to work through some of the feelings I've been wrestling
with (not that I am through yet) concerning this particular situation.

Peace,
Richard

    Hi Richard,
    
    Re .78
    
    > The truth of the matter is that in this case my stepdaughter felt
    > "left out" because of all her friends she was "the only virgin."
    > Great reason, eh?  A whole lot of mature thinking going on here!
    
    In the process of maturation most people go through the phase where 
    personal validation is derived almost primarily from the peer group 
    one belongs to.  This is particularly true in the teen age years!  Most 
    grow out of this period having learned much through trial and error 
    and go on to explore themselves and through this, the validation process
    begins to shift and value comes more from inside themselves than from peer
    group pressure and other "outside influences."
    
    I remember those years well :-) and how I eventually transitioned out of 
    them.  As I've read your notes Richard, I sincerely feel your daughter's 
    level of maturity is congruent with her years and the wisdom she has 
    gained through her experiences thus far.
    
    > I'd like to know what it takes to raise children with the strength of
    > character andmoral courage as demonstrated by the young people in note
    > 223.29 
    
    I too was inspired by the stories of these young people.  However, if
    I'm sensing a note of failure on your part as a parent Richard, I would 
    hasten to say that the behavior and conviction these young people 
    demonstrated are anomalies, imho, not only when comparatively considering 
    the behavior of people their own age, but to that of many so-called adults.
    Human behavior being what it is, examples like those cited in 223.9
    will probably not only mystify us, but inspire us as to what is possible. 
    :-)
    
    Though it may not appear so now, knowing you as I do, I feel your life 
    has and is serving as an example to help your stepdaughter as she learns 
    herself how to cultivate greater levels of wisdom in her own life.
    
    peace & blessings,
    Karen 

	As a kind of PS to the situation, my stepdaughter had a boyfriend
over last night.  When she started to trot him downstairs to her bedroom,
I declared that our house rules don't allow young men downstairs.

	He yielded.  She gasped, "What *are you* talking about?"  You
see, this is the first time it's ever been enforced.

	They talked for about an hour upstairs in another room.  She was
not a happy camper, but she didn't say anything about it to her mother,
whom she usually uses for leverage.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    Sounds like you handled that very well!
    

                                                          
    Hi Richard,
    
    I have a few things to say...at age 34, looking back many years. 
    
    Back when I was either 17 or 18, I went to Planned Parenthood to get 
    information.  My girlfriends suggested I go there as there wasn't any 
    other place to go.  My parents only passing reference to sex and birth 
    control was to "keep the pill between your knees".  Great.  I thank 
    *GOD* that Planned Parenthood existed!  Otherwise I would have learned
    from the street...and guys with very selfish intentions (believe me,
    they tried too).  And I would have ended up pregnant.  As it is, this 
    did happen to one of my sisters due to lack of adequate information. 
    
    I really did go to PP just to get information, and you are correct, the 
    main assumption by the counselor when she and I talked was that I was 
    *going* to have sex or *already* having sex, and that they would provide 
    ways that would keep me from conceiving an unwanted child.  You see, 
    that's the norm.  I was the exception.  Celibacy was never talked about 
    or suggested.
    
    Even two years earlier when I contracted a yeast infection at age 16 
    in Florida while staying with an aunt and uncle, the doctor asked
    when the last time I had sex was.  When I replied that I hadn't, he
    said, "It's OK, you can tell the truth here."  And even when I repeated
    it, he still didn't believe me.   
    
    When eventually I did begin engaging in intercourse (at some age after
    18), I practiced birth control Every Single Time without exception. 
    That's where the PP information came in.  That's why I don't have any
    unwanted children today.
    
    In light of all this, here are a few of my opinions:
    
    - Change the counseling at PP to stress that celibacy is a viable
      alternative...if they are not doing this already in light of the
      AIDS epidemic.
    
    - I disagree with your stance about giving birth control pills to
      minors.  While it may not be the best solution as far as you are
      concerned, there are probably *millions* of children that have *not* 
      been conceived because of them...thus preventing abortions, and so
      on. 
    
    - The young women who go to PP to get birth control pills may also be 
      getting their very first internal exam by a legitimate doctor who 
      keeps the visit confidential.  I know I did.  Family doctors do not 
      do always do this (or at least it appears this way in the eyes of a 
      teenager).  I feel at age 16, confidentiality is very important, 
      because otherwise you'll scare them away from seeking medical 
      treatment/advice altogether.
    
    You have a right to be angry.  And powerlessness breeds that.  But 
    like Ozzy Osbourne (sp?) said to the Congress over the rating of 
    certain musical lyrics:
    
         "You can prepare the child, but you can't prepare the road.
    
    The problem in this society is far deeper than Planned Parenthood
    giving out pills to minors.  They're only trying to cope with *what
    is*.  And it's a veritable battleground out there.  What is the 
    solution?  I'm not really sure...
    
    I am sure that some of the participants here will respond with Christ
    being the solution.  Yes, ultimately it is Christ (Consciousness) - 
    each person realizing their own inborn divinity and knowing beyond a 
    shadow of a doubt that they are a child of God.  From that comes the
    inner self-respect so powerful that they need not give in to peer
    pressure for fear of not being 'accepted', since they already love,
    respect, and accept their own Selves.
    
    Regarding celibacy as a topic, I have a chapter on what celibacy really
    means from the Eastern perspective, and I'd be happy to send it to you.
    It's from a book by my guru's guru, Swami Kripalvanandji.  Actually, I
    make the offer to anyone here who would like a copy.  Contact me
    offline and send your preferred mail address - postage isn't a problem.
    
    Since reading this chapter back in September 1990, I have practiced
    celibacy in fact - just not abstention, but true celibacy (it's
    referred to as brahmacharya, or "Movement toward the Lord" in Sanskrit. 
    (I'm divorced).  That is how much of an effect it had on me.
    
    Cindy

    
    Now looking back at this note string, I realize I first mentioned this
    topic of brahmacharya in note .11.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

Cuz'n Cindy,

	You've shared with me most of the things you shared in 361.102
before.  And, I truly appreciate your reiterating them with me now.

	I'll share with you that your story has played through my mind
several times during this whole episode.  As unfair to her as it might seem
to make the comparison, I kept wishing my stepdaughter had been more like you.
Even now, I wish she had waited until she was 18 or 19.  Even now, I wish
she would consider becoming sexual abstinent until she is more mature or
married or both.

	Alas, it is not likely.

	The one good thing is that I've already had several talks with
my now 12 year old son, Ricky.  I've asked him to come to me when he thinks
he ready to start having sexual relations, that I might try to talk him out
of it, but to come and talk with me anyway.  He said that he would.

	We've never skirted the subject of sex with our children.  They've
always known the facts.  At the same time, we've tried not to make our talks
too clinical, either.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
<<	Alas, it is not likely.

    It may be very likely after your step-daughter's recent experiences she
    may shy away from sexual involvement for quite awhile.  Till she's
    ready for a mature loving mutual giving relationship.  Sex for teenage
    girls is certainly not the romantic wonderful act they expect it will
    be as most teenage boys are not interested/ready for that type of love/
    committment.
    
    Don't give up hope, as she may realize she deserves better and that it
    is worth waiting for.
    
    IMHO,
    
    Ro
    
    

                                                    
    Re.104
    
    Hi Cuz'n,
    
    There are two wonderful books I can recommend which talk about these
    subjects.  They are: "Challenge Of The Heart", and "Journey Of The
    Heart", both by John Welwood.
    
    Hopefully Ro is right.  God knows it took me the better part of a
    decade to realize what I wrote in .103.  In the meantime, continuing to
    stress safe sex (in addition to all the other things you are doing) is
    probably the best thing to help her get through this period in her
    life.
    
    Cindy

Note 361.106

>    They are: "Challenge Of The Heart", and "Journey Of The
>    Heart", both by John Welwood.

Are these books recommended for me or her or both of us?

>   In the meantime, continuing to
>   stress safe sex

I don't consider the pill safe sex since it does nothing to prevent
STD's.  As far as I know, the pill is all she's using to maintain her
state of sexual readiness.

In two months, she'll be flying off to Germany to stay with her Aunt
and family.  I hate to say this about someone I love, but I can hardly
wait.

Richard

    
    Re.107
    
    Richard,
    
    Back again...
    
    Both of you can, and should, read the books.  "Journey Of The
    Heart" is the easier one to get through in the shortest amount 
    of time, and the ideas are far better organized and flow well.  The
    other book is more of a collection of essays. 
    
    Regarding safe sex...since she's having sex anyway, you should 
    probably have a talk with her about AIDS and condoms.  Might save 
    her life.                                    
    
    Cindy

		Fortunately, due to a recently change in policy, abstinence
	is finally being taught in schools in Colorado Springs as a reasonable
	and responsible option.  Abstinence is *not* considered a genuine
	option by Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood, I've learned, has
	distributed birth control paraphenalia to girls as young as 14.

	Richard

>Abstinence is *not* considered a genuine
>	option by Planned Parenthood.  
    
    I can understand that. People get pregnant all the time without having
    sex. :-)
    
    		Alfred

    
    
    Richard,
    
    You might want to find a copy of a recent issue of Teen America, a
    publication produced somewhere here in the Springs and distributed in
    the public schools all up and down the front range. There is a
    half-page ad entitled "DON'T CARRY AROUND MORE THAN YOU HAVE TO THIS
    SEMESTER" or something very similar. ANd the appropriate text to go
    with it. 
    
    BTW, it was the Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center who has taught over
    7,000 kids per year how and why to exercise abstinence AT THE REQUEST
    OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They don't buy the PP line anymore and are doing
    something about it.
    
    Jamey

    re: 109
    
    Richard,
    	We are unfortunately back to the old argument.  If a 14 year old is
    going to have sex(and the kid *will* eventually make up their own mind
    about having sex, no matter what you do), then I would much rather he
    or she has it with birth control than without.
    	I applaud Planned Parenthood as a resource for *anyone* who is
    having sex.  It is a miserable job and a lot of people give them flak
    for it.  
    
    George
    

Note 361.112

>    	We are unfortunately back to the old argument.  If a 14 year old is
>    going to have sex(and the kid *will* eventually make up their own mind
>    about having sex, no matter what you do), then I would much rather he
>    or she has it with birth control than without.

	Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against the existance of Planned
Parenthood.  I am against the practice of skirting around the parents of
minors and those parents having no say in the matter.

	I don't buy the idea that making it easier to have sex won't make
a difference in whether a kid will have sex or not.  I think the easier it
is made to accomplish, the more likely it will happen - not in all cases, of
course - but in most cases.  Indeed, some will go ahead anyway.  Some, believe
it or not, will have the birth control paraphenalia on hand, but won't use it.

	Mind you, the absurdity of this is that a 14 year old cannot see an
R-rated movie without being accompanied by a parent or guardian.  The parent
is still legally responsible for the 14 year old.  It seems incredible to me
to leave the parent out of the loop (and I don't mean an IUD).

Peace,
Richard

.113>   I don't buy the idea that making it easier to have sex won't make
.113>a difference in whether a kid will have sex or not.  I think the easier it
.113>is made to accomplish, the more likely it will happen - not in all cases, 
.113>of course - but in most cases.  Indeed, some will go ahead anyway.  Some, 
.113>believe it or not, will have the birth control paraphenalia on hand, but 
.113>won't use it.
.113>
.113>   Mind you, the absurdity of this is that a 14 year old cannot see an
.113>R-rated movie without being accompanied by a parent or guardian.  The 
.113>parent is still legally responsible for the 14 year old.  It seems 
.113>incredible to me to leave the parent out of the loop (and I don't mean an 
.113>IUD).

     (slight reformatting mine)

     I agree with your sentiment, Richard, but I think it's  a  little  too
     ideal,  much  as  I  wish  it  weren't.   True, 14 year-olds can't see
     R-rated movies, but what they get to see on TV nowadays is a h*ll of a
     lot  more  explicit than what I got to see when I was 14 three decades
     ago.  A 14 year old is starting to try  and  act  "grown-up"  and  the
     message  that  comes  across  loud  and clear, from TV anyway, is that
     grown-ups have sex regularly with no  consequences  or  after-effects.
     Those that would be influenced by their parents we probably don't have
     to worry about anyway.  The others...  What are the statistics  saying
     about  kids  getting  AIDS and other diseases through sexual activity?
     (Let's leave drugs for another note.)  You're right  about  some  that
     won't  use  the  condoms  and IUDs, but I guess I'm in favor of making
     them available *without* parental notification because I think it  may
     just save a few lives that wouldn't be saved otherwise.

     I think celibacy is good for  teen-agers  *and*  adults  for  lots  of
     reasons, not just birth-control.  But we're all getting bombarded with
     messages explicit and subliminal that contribute to  undermining  this
     way  of  thinking.   Until  we start making hero's and heroines out of
     higher-minded people and stop selling products with sex,  we're  going
     to have to do some things to save a few that "go against the grain".

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Alvin .114,

Unfortunately, birth control pills, which is all this child will use, provide
no protection against STDs.  She knows it.  She doesn't care.  Don't know if
you remember what it was like when you were 17, but people of a certain
maturity level think they're invincible.  (The military really capitalizes
on that particular folly of youth.)

Peace,
Richard

I realize that it has been over a year since this topic was active.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to write because I am shocked at
the attitude of a good friend.

I would much rather have my child have access to birth control and
totally confidential exams, than not.  If my child is mature enough to
seek out this help, I am encouraged.  I will teach my children the best
that I know, and encourage them to think about their actions.  If they
decide (they have "free will", you know) to have sex, then I will be *most*
grateful if they get birth control or other help that they might need,
whether they tell me or not.

Really, Richard, if you were my dad, and I saw you act this way toward
my older sister, there is NO WAY I would confide in you about sex or
any intimacy.  I still love you, though, dear.  It's just that if I were
your child, I wouldn't *trust* you in this regard.

When I was an underage teenager, I was a virgin.  My mother didn't think
I was a virgin, but I was quite the prude.  She told me that I could come to
her for birth control, and she would take me to her Ob/Gyn and help me get it.
What's more, when I was 17 my mother made my curfew *much* later, later than I
ever wanted it.  When I was 17 1/2, she took away *all* those rules.   She said
I would be an "adult" in less than a year, and that if she hadn't taught me
well enough by now then I wasn't going to learn it.  I believe she was right. 

Even with all the freedom she gave me, I stayed a virgin; it was my decision to
make, and I made it how I was comfortable. 

One last thing:
<you remember what it was like when you were 17, [...] people of a certain
<maturity level think they're invincible.  

This also applies to the belief that a person won't get pregnant.  Obviously,
she was mature enough not to have that belief.  If she were my daughter,
I would be proud of her.  If I had found out that Planned Parenthood had
helped her, I would have written a letter to thank them.

That is my opinion, shared for others who may someday also be in this
situation, and who may benefit from it.

      Peace,

          Carol

    .116  I love you, too, m' friend.  I once held attitudes like yours.
    It was radically different in practice than it was in theory, I
    found out.
    
    Don't worry about Jennifer.  I was *always* the wicked stepfather.  Her
    natural father and mother were more supportive of her being sexually
    active.  At least, their disapproval was kept tacit.  Since I often
    couldn't express my feelings at home, it was actually therapeutic to be
    able to get it out of my system here.
    
    About two years ago my son and I had a long talk, just the two of us.
    He's promised to remain celibate until he's either married or 21 years
    old.  We have refresher talks about it and he wears a ring as a symbol of
    his promise.  Girls are very aggressive compared to when I was his age,
    so I've given him permission to make us, his parents, the bad guys
    whenever he needs to excuse himself out of a difficult situation.  I
    hope it works.
    
    Peace,
    Richard