Questions for social conservatives about boys and chastity

2007-02-14
By

The AIDS epidemic has led to a big fight between liberals, who want sex education and condom (safer sex) instruction in schools to save young people from disease and conservatives who believe that such teaching will only encourage sexual activity and exacerbate the spread of STDs. They call instead for chastity education, pre-marital abstinence, and marital fidelity. As Phyllis Schlafly says, there is only one sure way to avoid herpes and AIDS: “Remain a virgin until you marry, marry another virgin, and be faithful to each other.”

Most liberal-conservative discussions don’t get past this point. So many questions are left begging and the chastity partisans are not called on to explain the mechanisms they propose for restraining youthful sexuality. Some questions are (for both biological and cultural reasons) specific to the boys; others to girls.

Here I deal specifically with the boys. To wit, a “return to traditional morality” and virgin/virgin weddings are two very different things. The old-fashioned code allowed for experienced men to marry “hold-out” virgin women. Though pariahs to other females — and unmarriageable to males — there were always girls with whom boys gained experience (the rebellious, the unattractive and socially desperate, those who had been sexually over-stimulated in the home).

Indeed, conservatives frequently point to the power of the male sex drive, its restless insistence, especially in youth when guys are not yet used to their “raging hormones.”

So, how do can we keep boys virgins until the ring? What can counteract the sudden testosterone surge as well as the cultural imperative to “prove his manhood?”

Also, how are young women to know with certainty that the men they marry are in fact virgins? People are notorious for lying, especially in the sexual area and many a young woman has fallen for the one man who seemed to “respect” her only to discover sometime later that her husband was gay — and that can hardly be what conservatives want for their daughters.

I look forward to your suggestions.

44 views

  • thurston861

    I have not commented for a while because I am Just saying Noe to reading your thoughts

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/the-gonzman/ The Gonzman

    I put a challenge out years ago –

    I offer up six men. One is HIV infected. They all have condoms. Here’s the question – you do have enough faith in those condoms to allow your daughter to have sex with a random one, right?

    Didn’t think so.

    —————

    But here’s how you do it – return “consequences” and “shame” to the equation. The consequences being for girls that if they get pregnant it is their sole choice and sole responsibility. Same thing with an adulterine bastard.

    This will produce the consequence for a man of if he gets even a “loose” woman pregnant, and doesn’t “do the right thing” he’ll never get anything in the way of a good woman again. Women will demand it of men – and men will acquiesce.

    As with anything, the market best rules in these cases.

  • S Baker

    Well, when I was in my younger years everyone knew who the venereal disease carriers were and most folks avoided those as carriers of communicable disease. Homosexuals were recognized as the deviants they were and still are, but they morphed into something called “gay” to cover their abnormality. Thinking people still recognize that humans are a sexually dimorphic species and the male anus is not a sex organ.

    AIDS was the first lethal infectious disease treated more as a civil right than an epidemic for reasons of perverted politics. Check out the book “The Gift” to enlighten yourself on the lifestyle of “gay” (aka queers, deviants, mentally confused) men seeking intentional infection with the AIDS causing virus. Ah yes, just another episode on the Will and Grace Show.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Morality. Teach that in the schools. There is no more excuse for an immoral boy as there is for an immoral girl in my book. I concur with Gonz. Shame is an emotion that is natural.

    Our feminised society, our schools, shoves sexuality down children’s throats. The feminists take the worst aspects of a minority of male behaviour and say that women should have just as much ‘right’ to be promiscuous and degenerate. What a weasel excuse. There never was such a ‘right’ for boys.

    Bringing ‘virginity’ into it as a ‘norm’ is just a straw man. No one ever expected everyone to succeed 100% in staying chaste but there were expectations to try, to resist temptation, to control oneself, to develop a sound sexual character and there were consequences for those that failed.

    Feminists jumped on psudopsychological terms like ‘suppression’ and ‘repression’ where such self control, resistance to temptations, sexual character development and social expectations were in play, because they have such ‘victim’ potential, such resonance with ‘oppression’. Girls are encouraged to ‘empower’ themselves by being promiscuous.

    The ‘girls’ that you describe – “there were always girls with whom boys gained experience (the rebellious, the unattractive and socially desperate..)” were not generally of the same cohort. They were usually older or the early ‘professionals’. You describe hookers to a tee. Hookers are the feminists role model of womanhood.

  • MartianBachelor

    I’m not a ‘social conservative’ but I think I understand how this used to work.

    You keep all the girls locked up in chastity belts, either figuratively or literally, and of necessity the boys will be virgins (or very nearly so) in spite of their testosterone, best efforts, etc. — because we’re all in this together.

  • ncdad

    With the divorce rate as high as it is in this country and the number of children who have been through their parents divorces, do you really think marriage is on their minds?

    NOT! They have no plans for marriage and children and will use condoms just so they do not end up getting a wowman pregnant and having to pay child support for a child they will never get to see.

    Before you can preach abstinence, you have to change societies divorce problems and make marriage something worth investing in.

  • fourthwire

    ncdad is spot-on.

    No parent with the least bit of compassion and even moderate intelligence will pressure their boys to marry, given that half of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce (and even higher in “progressive” states like MA and CA….).

    Then there’s the nasty little fact that marriage provides ZERO benefits to men that are not also available without marriage….. only risks.

    There’s the risk of being forced to pay vaginamony, to pay child-support for children that they will never see (as ncdad pointed out), the risk of losing one’s home, the risk to one’s retirement plans, the risk to one’s emotional and physical health.

    Who the hell in their right mind worries about maintaining “virginity” when they ought to be concerned with future visits to “family court”?

  • AtomicSwirl

    Trying to shame boys into remaining virgins until marriage as a means of promoting marriage is laughable. This is really the same social policy reasoning that led to prostitution becoming illegal: It’s a roundabout way to encourage men to get married by making sex harder to obtain. (If the prevention of disease were really the reason, then ALL extra-marital sex would have been made illegal and single’s bars that facilitate “hook-ups” would be shut down.

    Gee, here’s a thought: instead of trying to trick or force men to get married, how about actually making marriage an attractive option for men.

    In today’s culture, the institution of marriage stinks. There’s not much benefit for men to be married (unless they just really want to have children)–and a ton of liabilities and burdens.

    The reasons for the marriage strike have been written about many times: the prevalence and severe consequences of divorce, the promiscuity of young women, etc.

    But there is another reason that isn’t talked about much: way too many 20- and 30-something women simply don’t have marriageable, WIFELY qualities. Simply stated, since many young women have been brainwashed with feminist doctrine from an early age, they are way too narcissistic and egotistical to be good wives and mothers. I mean, have you been around young women much lately? Talk about superiority complexes!

    Until the culture changes for the better, I think I’ll pass on marriage, thank you.

  • conservativation

    “explain the mechanisms they propose for restraining youthful sexuality”

    The first thing Denise is to realize of course we cannot keep everyone chaste, just like we cannot prevent 100% of drunk drivers. That doesn’t stop schools from showing gory wreck films and parking a smashed car out front for a few days…showing the consequences. It comes down to simply calling it wrong behavior, period.

    I don’t think there is any more a cultural imperative to prove manhood then there is womanhood “these days”. You’ve created a straw man in the notion of a social conservative that winks and nudges boys to go do it, and girls not. I represent to my boys and girls equally, rules are the same, stigma the same, etc.

    There is no way for gals to know the man is a virgin…so what? Every argument you present here has the common thread–if it is futile, why bother—and yet we have anti smoking, anti drug, anti violence, you name it, all subject to the same futility argument.

    The presentation of the futility defense is nothing but an agenda driven excuse…a posit in a loaded question.

  • DcFather

    1. Decriminalize fatherhood. We all know very well the best solution to these problems is a biological father, so either stop treating him like a criminal or accept the consequences to children and society as a price we’re willing to pay in order to have the entitlement matriarchy of big government as husband and father. Yes, there are some lousy fathers just like there are lousy mothers, but 99.9% make a better husband and father than Joe Biden (D-DE) or Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).

    2. Equal rights and responsibility. Instead of rights for women and responsibility for men, balance that out so both have rights and both have responsibility. Women will make better choices if they are held responsible for them, and men will make better husbands and fathers if they have a right to be there whether the mother wants to cash him in for a revolving door of sexual experiments in front of the children or not.

    3. Restore the Constitution. The worst criminal in every courtroom is the lawyer/politician dressed in a black robe up front demonstrating his loyalty to the almighty Bar A$$ociation and their anti-family allies.

    Without these three reforms first, any talk of solving social problems is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • Virtue

    Completly do away with Alimony palimony child support and welfare. These are all state sponcered positive monatary incentives for women to have children and NOT be married. If women are not given hand outs by the government and instead are left to deal with the unfettered consequances of their actions then you will find a LARGE percentage of women NOT having sex before marriage or with someone not their husband…..Logically that means there will be a very small number of women who will have sex with men not married to them…..Those women will have an astronomical chance of haveing and spreading STD’s….So men who want to not have STD’s or men who want to get married wont be having too much pre or extra marital sex.

  • MartianBachelor

    > way too many 20- and 30-something women simply
    > don’t have marriageable, WIFELY qualities. …
    > Talk about superiority complexes!

    AtomicSwirl, you’re right on about this. As incredible as it is, the new claim of the over-educated affluent women approaching the age of 30 with no husband in sight is that they’re “over-qualified for love”. Needless to say, we’ve got some seriously broken social feedback mechanisms.

    > I don’t think there is any more a cultural
    > imperative to prove manhood than there is
    > womanhood “these days”.

    Conservativation, I was going to comment on this much as you did, but did not do so because I didn’t have more than intuition to go on. Even though it’s getting to be a long time ago now, I never felt any such “cultural imperative to prove manhood” back when I was growing up, and I really don’t see it in popular culture today. If anything, we constantly see the guy who’s trying to get into a girl’s panties as a fumbling clueless bozo, not any sort of hero. The theater for heroism is pretty much restricted to sports. It’s definitely the women who are the strutting cocks these days; a guy who does so is instantly called “arrogant”.

    I also agree with ncdad. Back when people married in their late teens or early twenties it was much easier to sell abstinence because the end of the tunnel was much closer and it was expected that nearly everyone would satisfactorily get there sooner rather than later. Nowadays, nobody knows exactly when, if, or to whom to marry; it’s something nebulous off in the uncertain future, if it’s on the radar screen at all. Since marriage has been reduced to little more than notorized dating, this is not a symptom of moral decay but rather an expected result of the changed laws. When marriage is meaningless, extra-marital activities are similarly meaningless.

  • Ouderkirk

    DcFather makes some excellent points. Part of the problem is “no fault divorce”. A man or a woman can go out and screw around and when the spouse files for divorce, they get half of everything.

    Some men deserve their fate for being stupid. Stupid in several respects.

    First for screwing around AND getting caught.

    Secondly by marrying badly. Why marry a woman who has nothing? No assests, no skills and no wifely qualities. She brings nothing to the marriage but herself. Most men bring to a marriage, money, skills and earnings potential.

    For the unfaithful husband who gets caught, he kind of earned his fate by being stupid.

    For the unfaithful wife, ther are absolutly no consequences. She still gets half or more of everything. And in many cases half of something that was never hers in the first place.

  • thurston861

    Yes it is very easy.

    Never marry.

    Never believe the woman is capable of being faithful.

    Do not carry that delusion so do not expect such.

    Never ask her to take such a vow that you know she will not keep.

    Do not require her to be faithful.

    Make her sign a prenuptual and Arbitration agreement if she wants to live together.

    Always keep your own place.

    The nuclear family is gone.

    Children with a Mom and Dad at home is not an option.

    If you let her tell you what to do, open the phone book and select two lawyers to give each 50% of your property to. Since such is just a matter of time, just get it over with.

    If she takes you to meet her father before you go on a date, watcht he family carefully and listen carefully to her father’s knowledge of her.

    Then apply all of the above rules anyway. he will understand.

  • thurston861

    The only conservative position for men is Survivalism.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    By the way – “The AIDS epidemic has led to a big fight between ,,,”

    What AIDS epidemic?

    I am more concerned about the prostate cancer epidemic that no-one gives a shite about let alone fight about. Normal guys don’t get AIDS. Nor do women who make decent choices.

  • red pill

    A conservative is by any functional definition, one who takes care of their own affairs responsibly, and this would work in any social crcumstance. By exclusion a liberal is everything else, which is why there are so many of them of different stripe or hue for whatever social defect of responsiblity they may exhibit.
    Likely you dont want to be labled defective because you have problems being nonproductive and need/desiresomeone to provide for you by force especially as you apparently have no skills in finding a willing donor. All you seem to write about (along with your blame assessing responsibility-shirking colleages) is assessing some manner of blame to others and by implication, suggesting because they have flaws too, you get a pass and they have an obligation to help others which, curiously enough, extends to you. Or do you ever have some other real point to make?…






Search