The title of this post was uttered by a retired school principal to Meghan Cox Gurdon, the author of an opinion piece in today’s online WSJ: “Emily Post Would Be Rightly Appalled.”
The article discusses the appalling (lack of real) sexual advice given to teenagers in the “Prom and Party Etiquitte” book by Peggy Post and Cindy Post Senning — the relatives and cultural heirs of manners maven Emily Post, whose own book on “Etiquitte” came out in 1922. Mrs. Emily Post once wrote to young girls at such dances, “Don’t let anyone paw you” — frank and, regrettably, necessary advice. Under the watch of her descendants, that advice has become asking oneself “Am I willing to buy and use condoms?” How sad.
The authors of the newer book apparently recognize that sex on prom night has become a big expectation and they “made a conscious decision not to try to lecture teens or tell them what to do,” as Ms. Post told the author in a phone interview. “We didn’t want to preach to teens.”
However, “[f]oolishness is bound up in the heart of a child” (Prov. 22:15) — and if anyone doesn’t think that applies to most teenagers, they haven’t taught in the public schools like I have. Teenagers need to be told what to do, how to behave. They need to have explained to them right expectations and then given support in meeting those expectations.
The idea of creating “morally neutral” instruction in this area is a farce, as Ms. Gurdon explains:
“Here’s the problem with morally neutral sex advice to teenagers: It isn’t neutral. It can’t be. The very discussion of coital practicalities creates a moral framework, a matrix of what is reasonable and acceptable.”
How many teenagers are going to make one of the greatest mistakes of their lives this prom season, not fully understanding the far reaching consequences of their decision? Thanks to the descendants of Mrs. Emily Post, perhaps even more than would otherwise. The title of the WSJ piece is right: she would be appalled.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Here are three Tomorrow’s World articles related to this topic that you might want to check out, whether you are a teen or a parent:
- Teaching Chastity in an Unchaste World
- Is Saying “No” Enough?
- The Sex Age
- The other side of “Twilight”
In all the excitement of the transfer announcement, I forgot I was going to mention something something Boy #3 (the eight-year-old) said Friday.
Dude who isn't me on a Segway
My family and I went to the St. Louis Auto Show last Friday which was fun. (I confess: I mainly went to see the Mach 5.) One of the highlights (other than the Mach 5) was that they had an area where you could ride a Segway, something I have wanted to do for a while. However, the limitations were that the driver had to be at least 12 years old and weigh at least 100 lbs.
Well, that meant that the only folks in our family who would be able to try it out were myself, my Beautiful Wife, and my oldest, twelve-year-old Boy #1 (who was, frankly, a bit nervous, but who did just great!). Needless to say (then why am I saying it?), the other boys were quite disappointed, especially ten-year-old Boy #2 and eight-year-old Boy #3. Six-year-old Boy #4 didn’t seem to mind so much, perhaps because he is used to being told he is too young or perhaps he found the things intimidating. Regardless, they sat on the sidelines with Mom while Boy #1 and I tooled around for about five minutes, driving around the enclosed area like professional Segway racers. It was a lot of fun, though I did get in trouble when I purposefully began going backwards. (The nice lady in charge told me that the Segway company doesn’t like it when you do that — or perhaps she meant the Segway machine itself, I don’t know.) Mom Smith dutifully captured it all in iPhone video glory.
Anyway, when our time was up, we traded places with Mom who got her own five minutes of Segway time in while I manned the iPhone to record it for posterity when Boy #3 decided he should share his utter disappointment with me. I was not as sympathetic as I should have been, perhaps, which led to my well-deserved comeuppance. Here is the conversation as best I can remember:
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Boy #3: Dad, it’s not fair.
Me: What’s not fair?
Boy #3: It’s not fair that you got to ride one and I didn’t.
Me: Well, it’s just that you’re too young right now. Besides, one day you’ll be old enough and you can drive a Segway, too. [Picture smirk on face, here.] Of course by then I’ll be older, too, so while you’ll be driving a Segway I will probably be testing out rocket boots.
Boy #3: That’s true. [Picture smirk on face, here.] Then, when I’m old enough for rocket boots, you’ll be dead.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
I should note that his observation (about which he was very pleased) wasn’t communicated nearly as morbidly as it looks in print.
And of course, my mind began struggling to come up with a comeback — perhaps explaining that his argument suggests that I will be dying in the next eight-or-so years, which, though possible, is not an accurate actuarial expectation — but I thought better of it (since the possibilities were all as pathetic as that one) and quickly conceded defeat. He had zinged me well. He was, indeed, young, and — barring the return of Christ or the self-destruction of Western civilization — he very likely will see technologies that I will not.
Ah, mortality… You trump card, you.
Hats off to you, Boy #3! Remember me well, when you are flying around in your rocket boots and teleporting to and from work. And I’ll be thinking of you when we’re at the Feast this year when we go to the Segway track in Branson and you’re still under 12. 
A tip of the hat to BT who linked today to a Washington Post article by Rob Stein about a study of sex education programs (“Abstinence-only programs might work, study says”) with some interesting results.
Abstinence-only sex education in schools has taken a beating in the past from studies that purport to show it to be ineffective compared to other programs (so-called “safe sex” programs, et al.). However, this study, which apparently focused on a particular program used with middle school students, showed much more success with abstinence-only education than other approaches — even better success than approaches that combine abstinence with “safe sex.” Here is a summary of the approach and the results from the Washington Post’s article:
The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004.
Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.
Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.
(You can read the entire article here.)
There is so much that could be said here, but I will confine my thoughts to a few bites:
- The fact that only 1/3 of the middle schoolers having sex within two years is the most positive outcome is sad. Admittedly, some of these (some!) would be in high school, but still, I find that result appalling.
- While 33% of those who went through abstinence-only education consequently began having sex, 42% of those who had the “comprehensive” education — meaning both abstinence plus “safe sex” instruction — began having sex within two years. That is, the abstinence-only was much more successful.Still, for me, this isn’t the real kicker (though it is significant). That’s coming next…
- What was the control for this test? That is, what was the “standard” against which the different approaches should be compared? I would presume it was the “other ways to be healthy” education, which apparently did not include any “sex education,” at all. And yet, compare the results of that “eating well and exercising” instruction to the “safe sex” instruction… “Safe sex” focus = 52% of kids began having sex in two years. “Other ways to be healthy” instruction = 47% of kids began having sex.What?!?Doesn’t this indicate the possibility that if one’s goal is to delay sexual behavior in children, it’s better not to teach them any “sex ed” at all than it is to teach them “safe sex” approaches? That it’s better to teach them about eating carrots and counting carbs than using condoms?Of course, it is possible that those 47% who did begin sexual activity practiced more “unsafe sex” — I’m not discounting that, at all. However, it does bolster the arguments of some that teaching kids “safe sex” in the public schools leads to increased promiscuity.
There’s much more to be said here (for instance, one should note that this “abstinence-only” program did not include moral judgments and stressed the concept of waiting “until you’re ready” versus waiting until marriage), and the cultural and religious backgrounds of the participants should be considered, as well, which would be difficult to do given the limited info present in the article.
Regardless, it’s nice to see a pro-abstinence piece in the news. Frankly, it is rather a moot point for our family, given that we homeschool and are raising our children with our own “comprehensive sex education” approach based on Deuteronomy 6:6-7, but, still, it is nice to see positive study results in this direction for the public schools.
I’ve written before on the generally depressing mixture of schools and sex. Here are links to some of those posts:
- Add Birth Control Pills to Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice… (lots of comments on this one)
- Pity this man’s patients (discusses the nature of objections to And Tango Makes Three)
- Sexually abusive teachers: Frighteningly numerous
- The Pope, sex abuse scandals, and the AP on U.S. schools
The report I received from Mr. Pyle yesterday said that the thousands of responses from Mr. Roderick Meredith’s fantastic program “How Does Satan Deceive You?” may be near a new record for that particular booklet and will clearly be a record response for our ION network broadcasts. If you missed it on television this weekend, click on the title in the last sentence (or here) to watch it online.
As a wordsmith, I appreciated the comments from James Taranto, today, about some of the incoherent criticism and commentary coming out about President Obama’s State of the Union speech and the surrounding political climate. As a part of what is apparently my ongoing effort to give the WSJ free advertising, here is a portion of Mr. Taranto’s critique:
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
[Excerpt from Taranto's Best of the Web Today in the WSJ:]
Charles Blow of the New York Times is even more confused about Obama’s rhetoric. Blow, as we noted last week, attributed Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts to stupid angry voters, eight months after praising the intelligence of Northeastern voters, who would never elect a Republican. This week he returns to the subject and attempts to reframe his contempt for the voters as a criticism of the president’s rhetorical manner. He does not succeed completely:
Obama has to accept that today’s information environment is broad and shallow, and we now communicate in headline phrases, acerbic humor and ad hominem attacks. Sad but true. . . .
The president must communicate within the environment he inhabits, not the one he envisions. The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, “Mr. President, we’re down here.
[Obama] seems to believe that if he does a better job of explaining his aggressive agenda, then he’ll win hearts and minds. It’s an honorable ambition, but it’s foolhardy. People want clear goals, clearly defined and clearly (and concisely) conveyed. They’re suspicious of complexity. . . .
But look at that first paragraph again. To Blow, doing “a better job of explaining” is the opposite of offering “clear goals, clearly defined and clearly (and concisely) conveyed.” In fact, if the purpose of an explanation is to explain, clear and concise conveyance is precisely what one is aiming for.
Blow’s description of what happened to ObamaCare is a great example of what not to do:
The president overreached, pushing a convoluted bill with a convoluted message. The Republican response: “Just say no.” They countered with a series of crisp attacks that shrouded the bill in a fog of confusion. Now it’s in danger, and the public may well blame the Democrats. People don’t care as much about process as they do about results.
At first glance, Blow seems to be saying something simple and banal. But if you read this paragraph carefully, you will see that it is actually nonsensical. According to Blow, “they”–by which presumably he means Republicans, although there is no plural noun to serve as antecedent–answered Obama’s sales pitch with “crisp attacks.” Crisp in this context is a synonym for clear. So the clear attacks served as an enshrouding fog of confusion. Moreover, if ObamaCare was “a convoluted bill with a convoluted message,” why would one need a fog, clear or not, to enshroud it in confusion?
Before Blow criticizes the president’s rhetoric again, he may want to reflect that clarity begins at home.
[End excerpt.]
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
“Clarity begins at home.” Brilliant.
You can read more, including the full entry that is excerpted above, here: “A Crisp Fog Blows In.” And I don’t read this with a “finger-pointing” attitude. The excerpts highlighted by Taranto are, to be sure, the work of a professional, but when looking at the details one sees a sloppiness that really detracts from the message for a discerning reader (and I assume Mr. Blow believes he is writing for readers of the discerning variety). I admit to similar mistakes, myself — getting so caught up in the “good stuff” of what I want to say that I fail to consider carefully whether or not my words are actually as coherent as I imagine them to be. For this reason (among others), I appreciate good editors (as we have on the Tomorrow’s World team, but which I lack for this blog), and the element of sheer nonsense in Mr. Blow’s comments is a black mark for his editors, as well.
In Psalm 141:3, King David prays, “Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips.” Ditto, for me, and I would ask that He throw in a guard for the tip of my pen and the typing of my fingers, as well.
As some of you may have heard in the recent announcements from our headquarters in Charlotte, my family and I are being transferred to Ohio in the coming months. [EDIT: Thanks to LD for pointing out my typo in the previous sentence!] Let me take some time here on the blog to discuss it very briefly.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
To those who may be reading this in Ohio & Pittsburgh, PA: Howdy! We are very much looking forward to the move and getting to know you all! My family and I have had only a few opportunities to drive through Ohio so we haven’t seen much, but we’ve heard that there is a lot of beautiful country up there and we look forward to seeing it for ourselves. More importantly, we’ve heard so many good things about all of you. We only know a few folks from the area — some we’ve met at the Feast and some we’ve worked with in various projects, such as the Missouri Pre-Teen Camp — but from the impression they have made on us you must be a great group of folks!
I was actually born in Kentucky (perhaps you’ve seen the memorial statue? Yeah, me neither…), though my mom & dad moved down to Texas shortly after I was born. We used to travel up there every summer to visit my mother’s side of the family, mainly in the Louisville area. (I even know how to say “Louisville” properly!) So, in one sense, I will be returning to a part of the country that had meant a great deal to me earlier in my life.
We’ll be talking with many of you soon, I am sure, but in the event that some of you read this blog I thought it would be a good place to let you know how very much we are anticipating serving in that area and getting to know you all better!
To those in our current areas in Missouri & Illinois who may be reading this: I don’t want to say too much here, as I really want to be able to talk to everyone in person as we got a start at doing in St. Louis this Sabbath — and my thanks to Mr. Oswald and Mr. Travis for being flexible and helping me to make the announcement as “in person” as it is possible to be in three different places at once. However, let me say here that this area here in central and eastern Missouri has been remarkable. Your faithfulness and dedication has been an example to me. Those whom God has called amongst us here — and those He will call amongst you here, in the future — are also well served by your example, and I charge you to keep up the good work. I have no doubt that the pastor God will bring you after me will appreciate all that I have had the chance to appreciate these past several years.
It has been a joy and a privilege to be your pastor, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for allowing me to be so. My family and I have been blessed by the opportunity we have had to serve you, and I can only hope that we have been half the blessing to you that you have been to us.
But I’m not gone, yet! If any of you have any questions or concerns about the move, please let me know — call, e-mail, smoke signal, cans-and-string… whatever works for you. We are modifying the sermon schedule for the next two months so as to maximize our time in each of these areas before our departure, so everyone should have a chance very soon to talk with me face-to-face to discuss the transfer and ask whatever questions your heart desires.
Again, there is so much more for me to say to those who have come to love so greatly, but I will save it for our visits where I can say it in person.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
And that’s all for now! I don’t plan to blog extensively about the transfer, though I’m sure that news of progress (finding a home, memorizing the capital of Ohio, etc.) will find its way here from time to time.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled web surfing…
Busy day, today (spending it with the family after being absent for much of this week) and what’s on my mind at present I would rather wait until tomorrow to discuss. So today I present a Previous Post Potpourri! The following links are those that seemed to catch someone’s fancy in the last few weeks or so (call them “reruns” if you will). I’ve thrown in a few new links for some added benefit. And, as a bonus at the end, I give you my highly anticipated, very technical, and thoroughly exhaustive review of Apple’s new iPad.
- The State of the Union speech hasn’t changed my opinion of the state of our union, I’m afraid, and I still believe that Peggy Noonan really did a fair job of hitting the nail on the head in her October 29, 2009 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. I discussed it in my post “A Nation Run by Callous Children” and will note, here, that you will see a similar theme in her piece published online today, “The Obama Contradiction.”
- It generated more talk on Facebook than it did out here on the blog, methinks, but it’s apparently an issue many are talking about: “Spanking bans, good idea or not?”
- Yes, my children will be taking over the chess world soon. We discussed their marvelous and innovative chess strategies here.
- The post “‘Avatar’ and, believe it or not, 2012″ on worldwide academic acclaim for providing a much-needed phrase to the English language: “naked space smurfs.”
- I’ve been linking to the Living Church of God’s countdown of 2009’s most downloaded items, and I realize now that I have missed the publishing of #8 & #7. Here they are!Top 10 Website Downloads in 2009: #8 (click here) & #7 (click here)
And, finally, as I promised, I present my exhaustive, in-depth technological review of Apple’s new iPad: Bleh. It’s just a giant iPhone.
(My apologies for the technological lingo I had to employ in that extensive review. Some nuanced concepts can only be communicated through the specialized and somewhat esoteric words that are specific to a technical field.)
That’s it, and I apologize that you had to sit through this post — I’m in a bit of an odd mood, today, and I suppose my posting reflects it!
Have a wonderful Sabbath!
(Do you need a longer title?)
Brief and very random post today. But… Big Trak! You know? BIG TRAK! When I was a wee laddy the Big Trak was one of my favorite toys. And I have had an opportunity today for a brief few moments to relive the glory of being a Big Trak driver by stumbling across a link to its Wikipedia entry, which led to the Big Trak Homepage as well as to a fellow who has done an amazing job reverse engineering the Big Trak (click on the picture to go to his website).
If you were a child in the U.S., the U.K., or Europe during the 70s (like I was) perhaps you remember this great toy. If not, maybe the American commercial will spark your memory (available at Retrojunk.com)
I know Paul said that when he became a man he put away childish things (1 Cor. 13:11). But it doesn’t mean I can’t blog about them, right? And it’s OK to wish I still had one, right? I mean–for my kids, you know. Yeah. The kids.
With the missus out of the house for a while this evening, I am quite distracted by domestic duties (Can he successfully heat dinner in the oven? Will he burn the bread?), but these recent revelations in the news caught my eye and I thought them worth passing along. It looks as though the science of climate change is getting some more black eyes.
James Taranto of the WSJ highlights them in his Best of the Web feature today (see the “The Continuing Global-Warmist Crack-Up” section). It appears that in the Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientist included a claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have completely melted by 2035. Trouble is that (1) the result was not peer-reviewed and (2) the scientist responsible, Dr. Murary Lal, admits that he included the statement purely for political purposes in an attempt to sway policymakers to take action.
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s head, also admits that the same section (presumably the chapter on Asia) may have additional errors and he is currently meditating on what actions to take about those mistakes. Additionally, the claim in the IPCC’s report that increases in natural disasters, such as hurricanes and flooding, are due to global warming are now declared not to be based on peer-reviewed studies. In fact, the claim were based on an unpublished report that was withdrawn by its own authors because they felt there was not enough evidence to support the claim.
This is horribly sad to me. Global warming may be real and might even be human-caused. But it may not be. How is someone supposed to decide when the no one can tell when the science ends and the political advocating begins? How can “scientific” pronouncements be trusted to be science when the traditional rules of scientific integrity are seen as inconveniences that can be ignored?
Personally, I really do believe that — whether they should or not — these revelations reflect not only on climate science, but on the practice of science in general. Seeing scientists play so fast and loose in an area of such great concern and put personal desire over scientific integrity and the normal caution that serves the discipline so well is disheartening.
As usual, Taranto includes links in his piece to the news sources reporting on the matter (sorta fits the title “Best of the Web,” doesn’t it?). I’ve blogged a bit on all of this, too, as I feel the increasingly messy affair is giving black eyes to more than just climate science. Here are some of my comments in the past:
- Climategate and faith in “science”
- “Science is Dying” and “When Scientists Become Politicians”
- The real implications of Climategate
The title above refers to the choice of some nations to completely outlaw spanking as a tool for discipline for parents. The choice is generally made by leaders and legislators who equate any spanking at all — any sort of corporal punishment — with child abuse.
I clearly do not feel the same way. Now, I certainly do feel that if spanking is the only tool a parent has for disciplining a child, he or she is an ineffective parent, indeed. And I feel that choosing to spank takes wisdom. (How many aspects of child-rearing do not?) But to completely equate the spanking of a child by a parent to child abuse without any qualification whatsoever is ignorant at best and dogmatically stupid at worst.
I’ve written about this topic before. Most directly, you can read my thoughts in these two posts:
But I mention it now because of a Wall Street Journal article I read on the topic that is really balanced, discussing the scientifically demonstrated benefits to children of appropriate spanking and the mistaken thoughts of those who believe spanking is all there is to disciplining children. You might consider reading it yourself: “Spare the spanking, spoil the report card?” (Subtitle: “What a new study and the Bible say about punishing children.”)
Reading the article should be encouraging to those who believe that spanking is a valid tool for parents who are devoted to rearing successful, happy children, while also serving as a warning to those who wield it unthinkingly and unreflectively.
Actually, it reminded me of another article I had read in, of all places, the Akron Law Review: “The Science and Statistics Behind Spanking Suggest that Laws Allowing Corporal Punishment are in the Best Interests of the Child” by Jason M. Fuller. (The website contains the abstract of the paper, but the entire paper is downloadable from there.)
As these articles make it clear, those countries that ban spanking outright really have no idea what they are doing and may end up harming more children than they help.
I’ve discussed before other things my wife and I have done instead of spanking (e.g., “Children in Church Services” and “Twilight and Children in Church sure bring ‘em in!”), but I readily and happily admit that spanking has also been in among our other tools in child-rearing. It’s certainly a topic that deserves more discussion than this blog post will give it, but I really thought that the WSJ article and the Akron Law Review article were both worth passing along.
We have great resources on the Tomorrow’s World website, as well, including our booklet “Successful Parenting God’s Way” and many articles, such as this one by the late evangelist John H. Ogwyn, “What Is Happening to Our Kids?” (which I found by doing a search on the word “discipline”). Check them out!
