The Condom Conspiracy
October 12, 2011
Joe Carter
A few weeks ago, the promoters and supporters of World Contraceptive Use Day received the latest news of their continued failure. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals released results of a survey that questioned more than 6,000 young people from 26 countries on their attitudes toward sex and contraception. The report revealed, among other findings, that over the past three years the number of young people having sex without a condom with a new partner increased by 111 percent in France, 39 percent in the U.S., and 19 percent in Britain.
In response to the report Jennifer Woodside, spokeswoman for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, replied, “What young people are telling us is that they are not receiving enough sex education or the wrong type of information about sex and sexuality.” She’s absolutely right. Many teens have been receiving the wrong type of information about sex and sexuality because groups like Planned Parenthood have conspired to withhold the truth from them.
For over twenty years the pattern has been the same: Whenever surveys and studies reveal a rise in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancies, the advocates of “comprehensive sex education” feign surprise and stammer that the results prove that we need to double down on an approach that has consistently proven to be a failure. Any evidence presented to show that pro-condom sex-ed is failing is seen by them as evidence that condoms need to be promoted even more.
A prime example is the reaction to the separate reports issued in 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the University of North Carolina. Both organizations found that in 2000 there were 9 million new cases of STIs among teens and young adults aged 15 to 24. The response by Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute was to double-down and claim that that sex education that includes information on condoms was vital to preventing STIs. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, added that, “Given the prevalence of STDs, young people need all the facts—including medically accurate information on condoms.”
But the Clinton Administration had pushed “safe sex” education for nearly a decade prior to the results. Why had years of “medically accurate information on condoms” led to such a growth in the rates of STIs? An examination of the evidence by the pro-comprehensive sex-ed advocates at the University of California, San Francisco showed that lack of knowledge wasn’t the most significant factor:
• In 1999, 51% of high school seniors said they had been sexually active within the last three months. (p. 3)
• From 1991 to 1997, the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse increased from 46% to 58% (p. 6) Condom use declines, though, as young people get older. Also, the longer a sexual relationship lasts, the less likely they are to use condoms.
• 52% of teens say that one of the main reasons that teens do not use birth control is because their partners don’t want to.
• 53% of teens say the main reason teens do not use contraception is because of drinking and drugs.
• 66% would be suspicious of their partner’s sexual history if they suggested using a condom.
• 30% want more information about how to use a condom.
Why would 70 percent of the students not want more information on condom use? Perhaps because they already know how to use condoms. (How long does it take to learn all you need to know?) The problem is not a lack of education but a lack of application.
Although I’m in favor of abstinence-based education, I believe that if sex education teaches about condoms then “medically accurate information” should be provided. And what is the most accurate medical information about condoms?
In 2000, a Federal panel surveyed the published epidemiology literature and found there was not enough evidence to drawn an adequate conclusion. In other words, while we have sex educators claiming that condoms can “effectively reduce” the spread of STIs, we have known for a decade that there is no scientific basis for that broad-based claim.
What the evidence does show is that men and women who always use a condom can reduce their risk of being infected with HIV and men can limit their exposure to gonorrhea. When it comes to chlamydial infection, trichomoniasis, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid, and gonorrhea in women, the evidence is inconclusive. And there is no evidence at all that condoms can prevent the transmission of the HPV infection.
Additionally, three percent of couples that reported “perfect use” every time they used a latex condom will be surprised to find themselves pregnant.
The “medically accurate information on condoms” is that while they are adequate for preventing the spread of HIV, nobody really knows how effective they are for most other STIs. In addition to this risk, you have a three percent chance of getting pregnant if you use condoms “perfectly.” No wonder the sex-ed advocates conspire to downplay this information. Telling kids that using condoms is only moderately safer than unprotected sex is not an appealing message, especially in an age when STIs like gonorrhea are becoming uncurable.
When the report was released, Tom Coburn, who at the time was a Congressman, told the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “this report means that when condom use is discussed, it is no longer medically accurate—or legal for the CDC—to refer to sex as ‘safe’ or ‘protected’.”
Of course, truth in advertising is not a priority for the propagandists. Ten years later their program to mislead the public about condoms has been effective while the actual effectiveness of condoms to prevent disease has not. Each year millions of teens are surprised to find they contracted an STI even though they were “protected” and “practiced safe sex.” What they should have been told is the truth: The only completely effective method for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy or STI is for both partners to abstain from sexual intercourse prior to marriage. There are no other options. There is no magical contraception that will allow you to have all the sex you want with whoever you want and remain perfectly healthy. Reality doesn’t work that way.
The fact is that while you have almost no chance of getting an STI by being abstinent, you have a high probability of acquiring some type of disease if you are sexually active. Rather sobering, isn't it? Maybe instead of keeping a condom in their purse or wallet a teen should carry a photo of genital warts. Look at those types of photos enough and abstinence will seem a more rational option.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
National Institutes on Health, Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention [PDF]
WCD 2011: Clueless or Clued Up media report
Reuters, Half of young Americans to get sex diseases
University of California, San Francisco, Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education
Reuters, More youngsters having unsafe sex: global study
BBC, UK doctors advised gonorrhoea has turned drug resistant
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.12.2011 | 10:59am
jason taylor says:
It strikes me that it is odd that people are peculiarly worried about unsafe debauchery. As if the only legitimate reason for chastity is cowardice.
10.12.2011 | 11:45am
Joe Carter says:
Jason,
Shouldn't we be concerned about the self-harm of people who are unpersuaded by moral arguments?
Shouldn't we be concerned about the self-harm of people who are unpersuaded by moral arguments?
10.12.2011 | 12:07pm
David Nickol says:
Jason says: "It strikes me that it is odd that people are peculiarly worried about unsafe debauchery. As if the only legitimate reason for chastity is cowardice."
Joe says: "Shouldn't we be concerned about the self-harm of people who are unpersuaded by moral arguments?"
Jason,
There was a post recently that reported "80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex – slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults, according to the teen pregnancy prevention organization." Are you really willing to write that many people off on account of their "debauchery"?
Joe says: "Shouldn't we be concerned about the self-harm of people who are unpersuaded by moral arguments?"
Jason,
There was a post recently that reported "80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex – slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults, according to the teen pregnancy prevention organization." Are you really willing to write that many people off on account of their "debauchery"?
10.12.2011 | 12:15pm
Paul says:
@ Jason,
I think natural lawyers would be inclined to predicate their argument on the intrinsic wrongness of sexual liaisons outside of marriage and on the intrinsic goodness of sexual intimacy practiced in the confines of marriage, to be sure. However, consequences are not irrelevant. Natural consequences are part of the fabric of reality that tell us something about our wellbeing as such. And Joe's essay reminds us of the lengths to which human beings will go to deny the cost of sex divorced from its unitive and procreative purpose. It seems worth reminding people that there is such a cost and that there is something less than honest about pretending there's not.
I think natural lawyers would be inclined to predicate their argument on the intrinsic wrongness of sexual liaisons outside of marriage and on the intrinsic goodness of sexual intimacy practiced in the confines of marriage, to be sure. However, consequences are not irrelevant. Natural consequences are part of the fabric of reality that tell us something about our wellbeing as such. And Joe's essay reminds us of the lengths to which human beings will go to deny the cost of sex divorced from its unitive and procreative purpose. It seems worth reminding people that there is such a cost and that there is something less than honest about pretending there's not.
10.12.2011 | 1:00pm
Dave Eden says:
Great article, Joe.
For further depth on the topic, I highly recommend the book "Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Meg Meeker. The book isn't just about scary facts of what can go wrong, but she does that part particularly well. Speaking from her experience as a family physician, she explains some of the limitations of condom use you mention above. And how a father's relationship with his daughter can greatly help avoid some very sad situations.
For further depth on the topic, I highly recommend the book "Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Meg Meeker. The book isn't just about scary facts of what can go wrong, but she does that part particularly well. Speaking from her experience as a family physician, she explains some of the limitations of condom use you mention above. And how a father's relationship with his daughter can greatly help avoid some very sad situations.
10.12.2011 | 1:02pm
Artaban7 says:
Jason, I too find it peculiar that pro-chastity arguments are accused of being based on fear by sexual libertines. When one actually uses a modicum of human intelligence to analyze the data, it becomes clear that a choice for chastity is the only rational, intelligent decision.
When humans rut like beasts in the field--actually an insult to beasts, as their mating patterns are far more limited and discriminatory than most secular humans--is not too far removed from playing Russian roulette. You have to be stupid AND undisciplined to be sexually promiscuous, condom or not.
When humans rut like beasts in the field--actually an insult to beasts, as their mating patterns are far more limited and discriminatory than most secular humans--is not too far removed from playing Russian roulette. You have to be stupid AND undisciplined to be sexually promiscuous, condom or not.
10.12.2011 | 1:30pm
pentamom says:
"We don't expect you to exercise a modicum of restraint over a practice loaded with potential physical, spiritual, emotional, and moral consequences. Here, be sure you remember to use this uncomfortable and embarrassing device every time you make a poor choice."
Sounds reasonable.
Sounds reasonable.
10.12.2011 | 1:32pm
Matt says:
"In 2000, a Federal panel surveyed the published epidemiology literature and found there was not enough evidence to drawn an adequate conclusion."
Joe what is the reference for this statement? Thanks
Joe what is the reference for this statement? Thanks
10.12.2011 | 1:42pm
Joe Carter says:
@Matt ***Joe what is the reference for this statement? Thanks ***
Oops. I thought I included that under the "Resources" section. (It's added now.)
The direct link is: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf
Oops. I thought I included that under the "Resources" section. (It's added now.)
The direct link is: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf
10.12.2011 | 3:49pm
Brian English says:
"The report revealed, among other findings, that over the past three years the number of young people having sex without a condom with a new partner increased by 111 percent in France"
This is obviously the result of the French educational system being dominated by Conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protestants who insist on abstinence-only sex education.
This is obviously the result of the French educational system being dominated by Conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protestants who insist on abstinence-only sex education.
10.12.2011 | 4:53pm
CKG says:
@ pentamom - I couldn't have said it better myself. . .
But of course, the agenda of the 'Safe Sex' crowd isn't really about Safe Sex, nearly as much as it is about overthrowing the Old Moral Order. Sex-on-demand is really the one, firm non-negotiable principle, reality-be-damned. . .
But of course, the agenda of the 'Safe Sex' crowd isn't really about Safe Sex, nearly as much as it is about overthrowing the Old Moral Order. Sex-on-demand is really the one, firm non-negotiable principle, reality-be-damned. . .
10.12.2011 | 5:28pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
"The only completely effective method for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy or STI is for both partners to abstain from sexual intercourse prior to marriage. There are no other options. There is no magical contraception that will allow you to have all the sex you want with whoever you want and remain perfectly healthy. Reality doesn’t work that way."
Reality sucks!!!
Reality sucks!!!
10.12.2011 | 8:46pm
David Nickol says:
I've been getting a lot of use out of this quote lately, which is from C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and was called to my attention by someone who was distressed to find a shortened version of it reproduced in the margin of one of the pages of YOUCAT, the Catholic Youth Catechism:
**********
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
**********
Love, hate, jealousy, sexual attraction, sexual desire, and many other human traits and experiences aren't rational, and you will find that throughout history, people have done many very noble and also many very foolish things that mathematical assessments of risk or or perfectly disinterested calculations of cost/benefit ratios would have ruled out. I'm with C. S. Lewis when it comes to cutting the prostitute a lot more slack than the cold, self-righteous prig, and I think much the same attitude can be found in the Gospels.
**********
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
**********
Love, hate, jealousy, sexual attraction, sexual desire, and many other human traits and experiences aren't rational, and you will find that throughout history, people have done many very noble and also many very foolish things that mathematical assessments of risk or or perfectly disinterested calculations of cost/benefit ratios would have ruled out. I'm with C. S. Lewis when it comes to cutting the prostitute a lot more slack than the cold, self-righteous prig, and I think much the same attitude can be found in the Gospels.
10.12.2011 | 10:50pm
Gil Costello says:
From the beginning sex liberationists had to build their case on lies, and their cause is perpetuated with ever-advancing lies, and now educators, counselors and psychologists have been thoroughly indoctrinated into passing along these now institutionalized lies, often without being aware they are lies. And teachers in grade schools and high schools who are aware are intimidated into not only keeping quiet (their jobs are on the line), but coerced into participating. This is the nightmare we are living across our country.
Just last week two researchers at the University of Washington, Dr Jared Baeten and Renee Heffron, who are on board with the ideals of sex liberation, published an astounding finding: the generic version of the hormonal birth-control drug Depo-Provera, which has been distributed to approximately 12 million women in poor African nations to stop the spread of AIDS, turns out to make the women twice as likely to spread AIDS (the risk is doubled for their partners solely on switching to this drug from other ones). Renee Heffron writes, “We measured concentration of HIV in their genital fluids. We saw that women using hormonal contraceptives—especially injectables—had a higher concentration of HIV than women not using any hormonal contraceptive. We also know that if you have a higher concentration of HIV in your [genital] swab, you’re more likely to transmit the virus.” And what of the women in America who were sold on the high promises of this drug?
Sex liberationists have been at this for 50 years, and all they are asking for is another 50. And they want your children as major participants in their experiments. Can’t you see the poster of Margaret Sanger, sleeves rolled up, pointing a finger at youth and sternly saying, “We want your bodies!”
Just last week two researchers at the University of Washington, Dr Jared Baeten and Renee Heffron, who are on board with the ideals of sex liberation, published an astounding finding: the generic version of the hormonal birth-control drug Depo-Provera, which has been distributed to approximately 12 million women in poor African nations to stop the spread of AIDS, turns out to make the women twice as likely to spread AIDS (the risk is doubled for their partners solely on switching to this drug from other ones). Renee Heffron writes, “We measured concentration of HIV in their genital fluids. We saw that women using hormonal contraceptives—especially injectables—had a higher concentration of HIV than women not using any hormonal contraceptive. We also know that if you have a higher concentration of HIV in your [genital] swab, you’re more likely to transmit the virus.” And what of the women in America who were sold on the high promises of this drug?
Sex liberationists have been at this for 50 years, and all they are asking for is another 50. And they want your children as major participants in their experiments. Can’t you see the poster of Margaret Sanger, sleeves rolled up, pointing a finger at youth and sternly saying, “We want your bodies!”
10.13.2011 | 1:18am
David Nickol says:
Gil Costello,
You say: "the generic version of the hormonal birth-control drug Depo-Provera, which has been distributed to approximately 12 million women in poor African nations to stop the spread of AIDS . . . ."
Depo-Provera was not distributed to stop the spread of AIDS. It is an injected contraceptive. It's purpose is to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent the spread of AIDS. It is definitely alarming that it seems to increase the spread of AIDS, but note that the same study said *pregnancy* also increases the spread of AIDS.
**********
In another troubling finding, results from the same study, published separately, showed that pregnancy also doubled the risk of women’s contracting H.l.V. and of infected women’s transmitting it to men. That may partly be due to increased unprotected sex, but could also relate to hormones, researchers said.
But there are no simple solutions, the authors acknowledge. Any warning against such a popular contraceptive method may not only increase complications from pregnancy but increase H.I.V. transmission, too, since pregnancy itself may raise a woman’s risk of H.I.V. infection.
**********
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04hiv.html?_r=1
You say: "the generic version of the hormonal birth-control drug Depo-Provera, which has been distributed to approximately 12 million women in poor African nations to stop the spread of AIDS . . . ."
Depo-Provera was not distributed to stop the spread of AIDS. It is an injected contraceptive. It's purpose is to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent the spread of AIDS. It is definitely alarming that it seems to increase the spread of AIDS, but note that the same study said *pregnancy* also increases the spread of AIDS.
**********
In another troubling finding, results from the same study, published separately, showed that pregnancy also doubled the risk of women’s contracting H.l.V. and of infected women’s transmitting it to men. That may partly be due to increased unprotected sex, but could also relate to hormones, researchers said.
But there are no simple solutions, the authors acknowledge. Any warning against such a popular contraceptive method may not only increase complications from pregnancy but increase H.I.V. transmission, too, since pregnancy itself may raise a woman’s risk of H.I.V. infection.
**********
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04hiv.html?_r=1
10.13.2011 | 3:13am
Gil Costello says:
David Nickol,
You know…I've been wrestling a long time with the word "conundrum", not able for some reason to grasp its meaning to my satisfaction. But after reading what you wrote, I'm definitely getting closer.
In any case, the research I was referring to involved testing women who used Depo-Provera who had also been infected with the AIDS virus. So the ultimate question for me is: is there any way we can separate any particular agenda of sex liberationists from any of their other particular agendas, (in other words, does any of it have any redeeming value), and it appears not: all of it is interconnected in a worship that is ultimately not of pleasure, but of death.
You know…I've been wrestling a long time with the word "conundrum", not able for some reason to grasp its meaning to my satisfaction. But after reading what you wrote, I'm definitely getting closer.
In any case, the research I was referring to involved testing women who used Depo-Provera who had also been infected with the AIDS virus. So the ultimate question for me is: is there any way we can separate any particular agenda of sex liberationists from any of their other particular agendas, (in other words, does any of it have any redeeming value), and it appears not: all of it is interconnected in a worship that is ultimately not of pleasure, but of death.
10.13.2011 | 4:48am
Gil Costello says:
David Nickol,
You quote C.S. Lewis:
"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
I would have loved to ask Mr. Lewis this question:
I am always interested in how a particular movement has its vanguards in a cultural phenomenon; as, for example, in those who gained prominence in promoting the sexual revolution, and how a cultural (artist) faction of men seeking the sexual pleasure of boys moved that movement forward. Men like Allen Ginsburg and William Burroughs (whose son had probably been molested by Burroughs’ gay friends and how gay misogyny moved Burroughs to humorously put a bullet in his wife’s brain). Are these persons who engage in fleshly sin the same as those women who prostitute themselves for cash?, or homeless boys on the street who prostitute themselves for cash? (which still goes on without comment from those in media who abhor the sexual exploitation of children). Or is there something more attached to their fleshly sins, like power and narcissistic self-edification?
Then I would ask another question of Mr. Lewis:
So we go into schools and indoctrinate children who are experiencing same-sex attraction into pursuing same-sex activity and insist that there is no major sin here, only insignificant fleshly sin. Is this true – that the sin is insignificant?
I already know what Mr. Lewis’ response would be, and it’s not what you, Mr. Nickol think it would be. For he would say, “That is diabolical.”
You quote C.S. Lewis:
"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
I would have loved to ask Mr. Lewis this question:
I am always interested in how a particular movement has its vanguards in a cultural phenomenon; as, for example, in those who gained prominence in promoting the sexual revolution, and how a cultural (artist) faction of men seeking the sexual pleasure of boys moved that movement forward. Men like Allen Ginsburg and William Burroughs (whose son had probably been molested by Burroughs’ gay friends and how gay misogyny moved Burroughs to humorously put a bullet in his wife’s brain). Are these persons who engage in fleshly sin the same as those women who prostitute themselves for cash?, or homeless boys on the street who prostitute themselves for cash? (which still goes on without comment from those in media who abhor the sexual exploitation of children). Or is there something more attached to their fleshly sins, like power and narcissistic self-edification?
Then I would ask another question of Mr. Lewis:
So we go into schools and indoctrinate children who are experiencing same-sex attraction into pursuing same-sex activity and insist that there is no major sin here, only insignificant fleshly sin. Is this true – that the sin is insignificant?
I already know what Mr. Lewis’ response would be, and it’s not what you, Mr. Nickol think it would be. For he would say, “That is diabolical.”
10.13.2011 | 5:43am
Gil Costello says:
I often forget that university professors and popular media are still on board with the sexual revolution that involves immortalizing Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs (and why I sound like a lunatic in criticizing them). They, in satisfying Mr. Nickol and others in sustaining and moving forward in institutionalizing ideals of the sexual liberation movement, have to suppress all the information that gives us a clue as to who they are immortalizing. Besides Ginsberg bragging about his membership in NAMBLA (an organization that argues that sex between men and boys is glorious), we have this from
http://dgvcfaspring10.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/burroughs-son/
“Burroughs had a son of his own, Billy Burroughs. I’m continually surprised at how few people know this – or even believe it – when I mention it. But it’s easy to understand why, really. Not even taking into account his homosexuality, Burroughs just doesn’t seem like father material. He had, after all, shot the boy’s mother. And he in fact wasn’t much of a father to Billy, mostly allowing his own parents to raise him. Billy went to stay with his father in Tangiers where, according to an article Billy wrote for Esquire, Burroughs allowed at least one of his friends to molest his son. Billy wrote that article shortly before he died at age 33, saying that his father had poisoned his life. He did, though, read and reread his father’s books – I imagine this was a way to feel close to his shadow-father – and cherished every scrap of affection his father threw him, like the Rimbaud copy mailed to him when he reached puberty, the glass-cased Amazonian butterflies, and the shrunken heads mailed from Africa. Billy also wrote two novels. While his father was recovering from his heroin addiction, Billy became an alcoholic of the most extreme sort, vomiting blood while having dinner with Ginsberg, needing an experimental liver transplant, and eventually dying alone in a ditch in Florida. William Burroughs was in New York when Ginsberg called and told him. That was 1981, the year Burroughs moved to Lawrence. Burroughs fell back into methadone and/or heroin use around that time, and was addicted for the rest of his life.”
http://dgvcfaspring10.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/burroughs-son/
“Burroughs had a son of his own, Billy Burroughs. I’m continually surprised at how few people know this – or even believe it – when I mention it. But it’s easy to understand why, really. Not even taking into account his homosexuality, Burroughs just doesn’t seem like father material. He had, after all, shot the boy’s mother. And he in fact wasn’t much of a father to Billy, mostly allowing his own parents to raise him. Billy went to stay with his father in Tangiers where, according to an article Billy wrote for Esquire, Burroughs allowed at least one of his friends to molest his son. Billy wrote that article shortly before he died at age 33, saying that his father had poisoned his life. He did, though, read and reread his father’s books – I imagine this was a way to feel close to his shadow-father – and cherished every scrap of affection his father threw him, like the Rimbaud copy mailed to him when he reached puberty, the glass-cased Amazonian butterflies, and the shrunken heads mailed from Africa. Billy also wrote two novels. While his father was recovering from his heroin addiction, Billy became an alcoholic of the most extreme sort, vomiting blood while having dinner with Ginsberg, needing an experimental liver transplant, and eventually dying alone in a ditch in Florida. William Burroughs was in New York when Ginsberg called and told him. That was 1981, the year Burroughs moved to Lawrence. Burroughs fell back into methadone and/or heroin use around that time, and was addicted for the rest of his life.”
10.13.2011 | 8:15am
David Nickol says:
Gil Costello,
I am struggling to determine how (and why) you take a post about condoms and a quote from C. S. Lewis and use them to turn the conversation to Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs.
I am struggling to determine how (and why) you take a post about condoms and a quote from C. S. Lewis and use them to turn the conversation to Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs.
10.13.2011 | 8:20am
johnfromnewzealand says:
Here in New Zealand condoms are extremely expensive, and strictly for the rich and famous.
10.13.2011 | 10:53am
Artaban7 says:
David,
I can't speak for Gil, as I don't know his mind, but what I think he's getting at is that the cold, spiritual sins don't seem to cause the real, observable pain and suffering the sexual sins produce.
I'd be interested to read the context of the Lewis quote. Presented in isolation, I'm shocked to say I may actually disagree with Lewis. But then again, he lived in a culture that was nowhere near as sexually dysfunctional as ours. He lacked the perception of the problem we now face.
Look at it from any number of approaches...one-third of all cases of infertility in America are due to previously contracted STDs. One study found 92% of cases of cervical cancer were caused by an STD. A fourth of Africa has HIV-AIDs, because of a multitude of sexually sinful behaviors, and the passing of that disease from infected mother to child.
I can't speak for Gil, as I don't know his mind, but what I think he's getting at is that the cold, spiritual sins don't seem to cause the real, observable pain and suffering the sexual sins produce.
I'd be interested to read the context of the Lewis quote. Presented in isolation, I'm shocked to say I may actually disagree with Lewis. But then again, he lived in a culture that was nowhere near as sexually dysfunctional as ours. He lacked the perception of the problem we now face.
Look at it from any number of approaches...one-third of all cases of infertility in America are due to previously contracted STDs. One study found 92% of cases of cervical cancer were caused by an STD. A fourth of Africa has HIV-AIDs, because of a multitude of sexually sinful behaviors, and the passing of that disease from infected mother to child.
10.13.2011 | 12:00pm
David Nickol says:
Artaban7,
The chapter from Mere Christianity, of which the part I quoted is the last paragraph, can be found here:
http://merelewis.com/CSL.mc.3-05.SexualMorality.htm
I don't think C. S. Lewis is saying something that can be answered by quoting statistics. I think he's talking about matters on an individual level, which is why he gives the example of a "cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church" and a prostitute. It seems to me that in the Gospels, Jesus used his harshest language ("brood of vipers," "whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness") for people who more closely fit the definition of self-righteous prig than of prostitute.
The chapter from Mere Christianity, of which the part I quoted is the last paragraph, can be found here:
http://merelewis.com/CSL.mc.3-05.SexualMorality.htm
I don't think C. S. Lewis is saying something that can be answered by quoting statistics. I think he's talking about matters on an individual level, which is why he gives the example of a "cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church" and a prostitute. It seems to me that in the Gospels, Jesus used his harshest language ("brood of vipers," "whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness") for people who more closely fit the definition of self-righteous prig than of prostitute.
10.13.2011 | 12:05pm
@ David Nickol:
Sin is sin and ranking one over another is ill-advised, since we tend to cut ourselves slack for our own sins that we don't give for others' sins. However, sexual sins are in a special category of destructiveness and offensiveness to God, per the Apostle Paul:
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (NIV84)
What part of "flee" don't you understand?
Someone who knows and loves God will increasingly have a zero tolerance for sin of any kind. Trying to defend anal sex as not that dirty (as you have before in these pages), or sexual sins as not that worthy of condemnation on the curve (as you do here), is a fool's errand for any of us, and does not become you. You were created for better things than that.
We need to receive God's word as it is, not as we would like it to be.
Here's an illustration. I know that a 220V electrical power outlet will do more damage to my kid than a 110V electrical power outlet, but I don't discriminate between them in my warnings to my younger children. To them, electricity is harmful; it is deadly; keeping their hands off is what they need to know.
With my older kids, when they have questions, I can go into more detail. I can tell them that 100 milli-amperes of current is enough to stop the human heart, and that the minimum electrical resistance of the human skin is on the order of 1100 ohms (http://www.ohmcheck.com/human_electrical_resistance.htm). Since voltage divided by resistance equals current, 110V / 1100 ohms = 100 mA. So yes, it is enough to kill you. But I would add that even a 12V battery can harm you if, for example, you short the terminals across a gold ring you happen to be wearing, not to mention the potential for explosion and resulting acid spill.
I think this is the way that Paul's teaching to the Corinthians is to be taken. To the general fact that sin is toxic to our spiritual well-being, he provides details on "why" and "how" sexual immorality is especially damaging.
Connecting ourselves up to "non-deadly" voltages and trying to explain why it is OK, or at least not so bad as other harms, is foolish and not appropriate for God's children, especially when he has warned them repeatedly.
Sin is sin and ranking one over another is ill-advised, since we tend to cut ourselves slack for our own sins that we don't give for others' sins. However, sexual sins are in a special category of destructiveness and offensiveness to God, per the Apostle Paul:
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (NIV84)
What part of "flee" don't you understand?
Someone who knows and loves God will increasingly have a zero tolerance for sin of any kind. Trying to defend anal sex as not that dirty (as you have before in these pages), or sexual sins as not that worthy of condemnation on the curve (as you do here), is a fool's errand for any of us, and does not become you. You were created for better things than that.
We need to receive God's word as it is, not as we would like it to be.
Here's an illustration. I know that a 220V electrical power outlet will do more damage to my kid than a 110V electrical power outlet, but I don't discriminate between them in my warnings to my younger children. To them, electricity is harmful; it is deadly; keeping their hands off is what they need to know.
With my older kids, when they have questions, I can go into more detail. I can tell them that 100 milli-amperes of current is enough to stop the human heart, and that the minimum electrical resistance of the human skin is on the order of 1100 ohms (http://www.ohmcheck.com/human_electrical_resistance.htm). Since voltage divided by resistance equals current, 110V / 1100 ohms = 100 mA. So yes, it is enough to kill you. But I would add that even a 12V battery can harm you if, for example, you short the terminals across a gold ring you happen to be wearing, not to mention the potential for explosion and resulting acid spill.
I think this is the way that Paul's teaching to the Corinthians is to be taken. To the general fact that sin is toxic to our spiritual well-being, he provides details on "why" and "how" sexual immorality is especially damaging.
Connecting ourselves up to "non-deadly" voltages and trying to explain why it is OK, or at least not so bad as other harms, is foolish and not appropriate for God's children, especially when he has warned them repeatedly.
10.13.2011 | 1:19pm
David Nickol says:
With God all things r possible,
You say, "Sin is sin and ranking one over another is ill-advised, since we tend to cut ourselves slack for our own sins that we don't give for others' sins."
Yet you immediately say, "[S]exual sins are in a special category of destructiveness and offensiveness to God." So apparently sin is sin, except when it is sexual sin, and then it's in a category by itself.
You say: "What part of 'flee' don't you understand?"
C. S. Lewis is not recommending one category of sin over another. Neither am I.
You say: "Someone who knows and loves God will increasingly have a zero tolerance for sin of any kind. Trying to defend anal sex as not that dirty (as you have before in these pages), or sexual sins as not that worthy of condemnation on the curve (as you do here), is a fool's errand for any of us, and does not become you. You were created for better things than that. "
Thomas Aquinas says:
**********
Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 3
. . . . It would seem that fornication is the most grievous of sins. . . .
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxiii, 12) that the sins of the flesh are less grievous than spiritual sins . . . .
. . . The fornicator is said to sin against his own body, not merely because the pleasure of fornication is consummated in the flesh, which is also the case in gluttony, but also because he acts against the good of his own body by an undue resolution and defilement thereof, and an undue association with another. Nor does it follow from this that fornication is the most grievous sin, because in man reason is of greater value than the body, wherefore if there be a sin more opposed to reason, it will be more grievous.
**********
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-sex.asp
Of course, the fact that I quote C. S. Lewis and Thomas Aquinas immediately opens them up to contradiction and condemnation, and if they are aware of this thread, I offer them an apology.
I would ignore the remark about anal sex, but I think the subtext of a lot of the discussion here is that sex is dirty, in many senses of the word. If anal sex is immoral, it is not because of the bacteria count. Feelings of disgust about particular sex acts, be they anal intercourse or PVI when a woman is menstruating, have nothing to do with morality. Urine is human waste, too, by the way, but no one has ever suggested that men should avoid heterosexual intercourse out of respect for women.
It was not my purpose in quoting C. S. Lewis to suggest that sexual sins are to be "preferred." It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners.
You say, "Sin is sin and ranking one over another is ill-advised, since we tend to cut ourselves slack for our own sins that we don't give for others' sins."
Yet you immediately say, "[S]exual sins are in a special category of destructiveness and offensiveness to God." So apparently sin is sin, except when it is sexual sin, and then it's in a category by itself.
You say: "What part of 'flee' don't you understand?"
C. S. Lewis is not recommending one category of sin over another. Neither am I.
You say: "Someone who knows and loves God will increasingly have a zero tolerance for sin of any kind. Trying to defend anal sex as not that dirty (as you have before in these pages), or sexual sins as not that worthy of condemnation on the curve (as you do here), is a fool's errand for any of us, and does not become you. You were created for better things than that. "
Thomas Aquinas says:
**********
Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 3
. . . . It would seem that fornication is the most grievous of sins. . . .
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxiii, 12) that the sins of the flesh are less grievous than spiritual sins . . . .
. . . The fornicator is said to sin against his own body, not merely because the pleasure of fornication is consummated in the flesh, which is also the case in gluttony, but also because he acts against the good of his own body by an undue resolution and defilement thereof, and an undue association with another. Nor does it follow from this that fornication is the most grievous sin, because in man reason is of greater value than the body, wherefore if there be a sin more opposed to reason, it will be more grievous.
**********
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-sex.asp
Of course, the fact that I quote C. S. Lewis and Thomas Aquinas immediately opens them up to contradiction and condemnation, and if they are aware of this thread, I offer them an apology.
I would ignore the remark about anal sex, but I think the subtext of a lot of the discussion here is that sex is dirty, in many senses of the word. If anal sex is immoral, it is not because of the bacteria count. Feelings of disgust about particular sex acts, be they anal intercourse or PVI when a woman is menstruating, have nothing to do with morality. Urine is human waste, too, by the way, but no one has ever suggested that men should avoid heterosexual intercourse out of respect for women.
It was not my purpose in quoting C. S. Lewis to suggest that sexual sins are to be "preferred." It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners.
10.13.2011 | 3:04pm
@David Nickol -
"It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners."
I certainly agree with you here. There are more ways to sin against the body than sexual immorality. I'm reminded of the adage that if I point one finger than others, we have three pointing back at me. I'm just looking for the most scripturally accurate knowledge of sin, or whatever else the issue may be.
As far as ranking sins, what I meant to say is that we ought not to go further than what scripture states. If an author in scripture ranks one sin above another, or gives it special attention, then we should agree with that, observe the distinction(s) given, and add no additional rankings.
But even if we have "all knowledge" of sin or anything else, but have not love, it profits us nothing. So, if I misinterpreted your previous comments, I apologize.
I also agree that "ick", by itself, cannot stand alone as a moral compass. But I do detect design by the great Designer. I think he made things icky to our senses so we would stay away from them for our own good. If poop smelled sweet to us, well, who knows what people would be doing with it? I also look at the designs of the male and female sex organs and note that they are designed for each other in ways that other body parts are definitely not. I assert that honoring the body necessarily includes honoring the intent of the Designer of the body. With God's help, I'll do that more and more faithfully as I grow in Christ.
"It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners."
I certainly agree with you here. There are more ways to sin against the body than sexual immorality. I'm reminded of the adage that if I point one finger than others, we have three pointing back at me. I'm just looking for the most scripturally accurate knowledge of sin, or whatever else the issue may be.
As far as ranking sins, what I meant to say is that we ought not to go further than what scripture states. If an author in scripture ranks one sin above another, or gives it special attention, then we should agree with that, observe the distinction(s) given, and add no additional rankings.
But even if we have "all knowledge" of sin or anything else, but have not love, it profits us nothing. So, if I misinterpreted your previous comments, I apologize.
I also agree that "ick", by itself, cannot stand alone as a moral compass. But I do detect design by the great Designer. I think he made things icky to our senses so we would stay away from them for our own good. If poop smelled sweet to us, well, who knows what people would be doing with it? I also look at the designs of the male and female sex organs and note that they are designed for each other in ways that other body parts are definitely not. I assert that honoring the body necessarily includes honoring the intent of the Designer of the body. With God's help, I'll do that more and more faithfully as I grow in Christ.
10.13.2011 | 3:20pm
Oops--should have been "...if I point one finger at others, I have three..."
10.13.2011 | 5:08pm
David Nickol says:
With God all things r possible,
I think we have come pretty close to agreement on the main points!
I am reminded of the Joan Baez song, "There But for Fortune." To whatever extent any of us are virtuous, we can't claim all the credit for it. To whatever extent any of us are not virtuous, we shouldn't get all the blame. Good or bad, nobody does it all by himself or herself alone. The Good Shepherd doesn't denounce the lost sheep. He tries to get it back.
I think we have come pretty close to agreement on the main points!
I am reminded of the Joan Baez song, "There But for Fortune." To whatever extent any of us are virtuous, we can't claim all the credit for it. To whatever extent any of us are not virtuous, we shouldn't get all the blame. Good or bad, nobody does it all by himself or herself alone. The Good Shepherd doesn't denounce the lost sheep. He tries to get it back.
10.13.2011 | 5:20pm
Brian English says:
"But then again, he lived in a culture that was nowhere near as sexually dysfunctional as ours. He lacked the perception of the problem we now face."
Exactly. I highly doubt if Lewis was still alive he would be with the "if it feels good, do it, and don't feel bad about it" crowd.
Exactly. I highly doubt if Lewis was still alive he would be with the "if it feels good, do it, and don't feel bad about it" crowd.
10.13.2011 | 7:26pm
David Nickol says:
Brian English,
You say: "Exactly. I highly doubt if Lewis was still alive he would be with the 'if it feels good, do it, and don't feel bad about it' crowd."
Are you implying that Lewis would have approved of an "if it feels good, do it" crowd in his "Mere Christianity" years (the 1940s and 1950s—and certainly there were hedonists then) because it was small? Did anyone imply Lewis would approve of "if it feels good, do it" if he were alive today? Mere Christianity is still a best-seller on Amazon in its own category (#19 in Christian Theology, #53 in Christian Living). Do you feel it needs to be rewritten so as not to mislead people into thinking the "if it feels good, do it, and don't feel bad about it" crowd of today would be acceptable to Lewis?
You say: "Exactly. I highly doubt if Lewis was still alive he would be with the 'if it feels good, do it, and don't feel bad about it' crowd."
Are you implying that Lewis would have approved of an "if it feels good, do it" crowd in his "Mere Christianity" years (the 1940s and 1950s—and certainly there were hedonists then) because it was small? Did anyone imply Lewis would approve of "if it feels good, do it" if he were alive today? Mere Christianity is still a best-seller on Amazon in its own category (#19 in Christian Theology, #53 in Christian Living). Do you feel it needs to be rewritten so as not to mislead people into thinking the "if it feels good, do it, and don't feel bad about it" crowd of today would be acceptable to Lewis?
10.13.2011 | 9:20pm
pentamom says:
"It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners."
That's good to do. Why did you pick this time and place to do it? Did you see any evidence that anyone here was engaging in "haughty condemnation," or do you simply equate any straightforward discussion of the non-negotiable harm caused by sexual sin to be "haughty condemnation" that denies that other forms of sin exist and cause great harm?
That's good to do. Why did you pick this time and place to do it? Did you see any evidence that anyone here was engaging in "haughty condemnation," or do you simply equate any straightforward discussion of the non-negotiable harm caused by sexual sin to be "haughty condemnation" that denies that other forms of sin exist and cause great harm?
10.13.2011 | 10:39pm
Gil Costello says:
David Nickol,
You write, “I am struggling to determine how (and why) you take a post about condoms and a quote from C. S. Lewis and use them to turn the conversation to Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs.”
Because to employ C.S. Lewis to in some fashion mitigate/ameliorate the sins of what adults are doing in sex education classes and on the streets of our cities and now suburbs to children (setting them up for a lifetime of misery and/or premature death) and to imply that Lewis would not acknowledge these sins of promoting degeneration and death by prominent sex liberationists like Ginsberg, Burroughs, Kevin Jennings and other vanguards of that movement as certainly greater sins than an attitude of a “cold, self-righteous prig” is the height of absurdity and could only come from a mind that seeks to mitigate the abominable crimes against youth in our time, something I truly believe Lewis didn’t foresee (even a multitude of priests and bishops rejected its possibility when Pope Paul VI outlined it for them in “Humanae Vitae”), for he could not conceive the notion that de Sade and other early sex liberationists (yes, “fisting” and other violent sexual acts against the body are being taught to children as beautiful acts of intimacy) would ever be taken seriously by anyone other than extreme fringe dwellers committed to a life of debauchery with no remorse, and rejecting the voice of the Holy Spirit (revealed by a conscience that is suffocated piecemeal) surely is high on the hierarchical list of sins.
You write, “I think [Lewis is] talking about matters on an individual level, which is why he gives the example of a "cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church" and a prostitute. Sure, a prostitute who is often a victim and has a deep awareness that she is sinning no matter how deep she represses that guilt. So, too, with those who from weakness end up cheating on their spouses and a variety of other sexual sins that have not escaped the awareness of the sinner that they are in fact committing sins, and why Jesus did not hesitate to remind those persons to sin no more. He knows they know they are sinning when they do sin! They are not urinating in God’s face or dumping feces on the Virgin Mary.
So how do you extrapolate from that phenomenon a justification for those destroying the lives of children with aplomb and arrogance (as is Kevin Jennings & Company) with the assertion that their sins are no greater than a cold, self-righteous prig? This is exactly the problem I have with Selmys: her attempt to subsume these sins of abomination into a realm of insignificance, a cute dismissal of “We’re all sinners.” When a hyper-sensitive youth goes to Kevin Jennings and tells him he had sex with an adult and is obviously devastated by it, Jennings’ first and apparently only concern was if the child uses condoms in these encounters.
You conclude that “…the subtext of a lot of the discussion here is that sex is dirty, in many senses of the word…”, when I see the subtext of what is being discussed here not as dirt, but sexual violence being promoted as intimate, especially to children, when violence against another, even if he/she learns to masochistically enjoy it, is never intimate, for violence is the absolute negation of intimacy.
And then you insist that “It was not my purpose in quoting C. S. Lewis to suggest that sexual sins are to be ‘preferred.’ It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners.”
No one I can think of on this thread claimed that you were suggesting that sexual sins are to be preferred. Nor has anyone in any way suggested that we should have no empathy and compassion for those weak persons who commit sexual sins. We, all of us, as far as I can tell, are talking about persons who are haughty and arrogant in insisting that it is good to promote deadly sexual practices, especially to children, that far from perceiving themselves as one of us sinners they are in fact perceiving themselves as enlightened vanguards determined to promote the greater good as they envision it, pursuing one's sexual bliss in any manner one conceives it and encouraging children to do the same, even suggesting to them some violent sexual acts to try out, for, after all, so many persons they know enjoy those acts. We are talking about persons who do not see themselves as weak, but strong advocates of the destructive sexual practices they promote. They are in fact “cold, self-righteous prigs” on high horses for the simple reason that they not only deny the horror they are inflicting, but promote it as a greater good than what God prescribed for us, which involves life more abundantly as opposed to disease and death more abundantly.
You write, “I am struggling to determine how (and why) you take a post about condoms and a quote from C. S. Lewis and use them to turn the conversation to Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs.”
Because to employ C.S. Lewis to in some fashion mitigate/ameliorate the sins of what adults are doing in sex education classes and on the streets of our cities and now suburbs to children (setting them up for a lifetime of misery and/or premature death) and to imply that Lewis would not acknowledge these sins of promoting degeneration and death by prominent sex liberationists like Ginsberg, Burroughs, Kevin Jennings and other vanguards of that movement as certainly greater sins than an attitude of a “cold, self-righteous prig” is the height of absurdity and could only come from a mind that seeks to mitigate the abominable crimes against youth in our time, something I truly believe Lewis didn’t foresee (even a multitude of priests and bishops rejected its possibility when Pope Paul VI outlined it for them in “Humanae Vitae”), for he could not conceive the notion that de Sade and other early sex liberationists (yes, “fisting” and other violent sexual acts against the body are being taught to children as beautiful acts of intimacy) would ever be taken seriously by anyone other than extreme fringe dwellers committed to a life of debauchery with no remorse, and rejecting the voice of the Holy Spirit (revealed by a conscience that is suffocated piecemeal) surely is high on the hierarchical list of sins.
You write, “I think [Lewis is] talking about matters on an individual level, which is why he gives the example of a "cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church" and a prostitute. Sure, a prostitute who is often a victim and has a deep awareness that she is sinning no matter how deep she represses that guilt. So, too, with those who from weakness end up cheating on their spouses and a variety of other sexual sins that have not escaped the awareness of the sinner that they are in fact committing sins, and why Jesus did not hesitate to remind those persons to sin no more. He knows they know they are sinning when they do sin! They are not urinating in God’s face or dumping feces on the Virgin Mary.
So how do you extrapolate from that phenomenon a justification for those destroying the lives of children with aplomb and arrogance (as is Kevin Jennings & Company) with the assertion that their sins are no greater than a cold, self-righteous prig? This is exactly the problem I have with Selmys: her attempt to subsume these sins of abomination into a realm of insignificance, a cute dismissal of “We’re all sinners.” When a hyper-sensitive youth goes to Kevin Jennings and tells him he had sex with an adult and is obviously devastated by it, Jennings’ first and apparently only concern was if the child uses condoms in these encounters.
You conclude that “…the subtext of a lot of the discussion here is that sex is dirty, in many senses of the word…”, when I see the subtext of what is being discussed here not as dirt, but sexual violence being promoted as intimate, especially to children, when violence against another, even if he/she learns to masochistically enjoy it, is never intimate, for violence is the absolute negation of intimacy.
And then you insist that “It was not my purpose in quoting C. S. Lewis to suggest that sexual sins are to be ‘preferred.’ It was to respond to those who haughtily condemn others from their high horses without empathy and compassion and with no acknowledgment that human beings are weak, and all men and women are sinners.”
No one I can think of on this thread claimed that you were suggesting that sexual sins are to be preferred. Nor has anyone in any way suggested that we should have no empathy and compassion for those weak persons who commit sexual sins. We, all of us, as far as I can tell, are talking about persons who are haughty and arrogant in insisting that it is good to promote deadly sexual practices, especially to children, that far from perceiving themselves as one of us sinners they are in fact perceiving themselves as enlightened vanguards determined to promote the greater good as they envision it, pursuing one's sexual bliss in any manner one conceives it and encouraging children to do the same, even suggesting to them some violent sexual acts to try out, for, after all, so many persons they know enjoy those acts. We are talking about persons who do not see themselves as weak, but strong advocates of the destructive sexual practices they promote. They are in fact “cold, self-righteous prigs” on high horses for the simple reason that they not only deny the horror they are inflicting, but promote it as a greater good than what God prescribed for us, which involves life more abundantly as opposed to disease and death more abundantly.
10.13.2011 | 11:08pm
Gil Costello says:
A psychiatrist Tennessee Williams was in therapy with encouraged Williams to examine more deeply his suppressed conscience (as opposed to an exploration of even more deeply repressed sexual urges), and the result was, in my opinion, his writing his greatest play, "Suddenly Last Summer". How unorthodox it would be for a psych to do that today, to encourage a client to delve more deeply into a suffocated conscience.
10.14.2011 | 8:16am
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
You say: "That's good to do. Why did you pick this time and place to do it? Did you see any evidence that anyone here was engaging in "haughty condemnation" . . . ."
If it's good to do, why not leave it at that? Would you like me to name names and accuse individuals of being haughty and self-righteous? Can't we make statements here without turning them into personal fights?
I think the C. S. Lewis quote is clear. And the quote from Aquinas. I stand by them.
You say: "That's good to do. Why did you pick this time and place to do it? Did you see any evidence that anyone here was engaging in "haughty condemnation" . . . ."
If it's good to do, why not leave it at that? Would you like me to name names and accuse individuals of being haughty and self-righteous? Can't we make statements here without turning them into personal fights?
I think the C. S. Lewis quote is clear. And the quote from Aquinas. I stand by them.
10.14.2011 | 8:29am
David Nickol says:
Gil Costello,
You say: "Because to employ C.S. Lewis to in some fashion mitigate/ameliorate the sins of what adults are doing in sex education classes and on the streets of our cities and now suburbs . . . ."
Let's take adultery. To commit it oneself is a sin of the flesh. To teach in the schools that adultery is not wrong and in fact should be applauded is not a sin of the flesh. You are going far, far beyond what I am saying.
You say: "Because to employ C.S. Lewis to in some fashion mitigate/ameliorate the sins of what adults are doing in sex education classes and on the streets of our cities and now suburbs . . . ."
Let's take adultery. To commit it oneself is a sin of the flesh. To teach in the schools that adultery is not wrong and in fact should be applauded is not a sin of the flesh. You are going far, far beyond what I am saying.
10.14.2011 | 10:46am
Brian English says:
"Did anyone imply Lewis would approve of "if it feels good, do it" if he were alive today?"
Yes, you did. As pentamom points out, you intruded on this comment thread, which is primarily about people being misled as to the protection afforded to them by the use of condoms, to beat your drum about sexual sins being no worse than any other sin. Joe is writing about STIs; how is your Lewis quote relevant to that?
Yes, you did. As pentamom points out, you intruded on this comment thread, which is primarily about people being misled as to the protection afforded to them by the use of condoms, to beat your drum about sexual sins being no worse than any other sin. Joe is writing about STIs; how is your Lewis quote relevant to that?
10.14.2011 | 1:21pm
pentamom says:
"Can't we make statements here without turning them into personal fights? "
Sure. But it seems natural to me to assume that there is some reason behind a felt need to start talking about haughty condemnation, unless you think you're just making a random observation comparable to, "Oh, and we shouldn't light cats on fire, either."
The implication is that somewhere in the immediate context, you're detecting haughty condemnation, and that leaves me mystified, unless you equate plain statement of a moral position with haughty condemnation of unnamed individuals who do not live by it.
Sure. But it seems natural to me to assume that there is some reason behind a felt need to start talking about haughty condemnation, unless you think you're just making a random observation comparable to, "Oh, and we shouldn't light cats on fire, either."
The implication is that somewhere in the immediate context, you're detecting haughty condemnation, and that leaves me mystified, unless you equate plain statement of a moral position with haughty condemnation of unnamed individuals who do not live by it.
10.16.2011 | 9:48am
Someone says:
To be honest, I agree with both the C.S. Lewis and Aquinas quotes: lust, greed, idolatry, envy and in particular pride are (in my view, and many others) worse than acts of fornication (although it would be difficult to fornicate without suffering from some of the more deadlier sins). (It is also a bit like saying that 100000V is worse than 220V; which is true, but irrelevant as both are enough to kill you). Christian morality is based mostly on the natures of one's character, both its flaws and strengths, and it is more important to focus on the health of the tree, then the quality of the fruit will, in time, sort itself out.
However, I do not read the main article as being so much about the evils of fornication, but about the evils of the promotion of fornication as a good (or at least a "neutral"). That promotion, with its denial of the facts; manipulation of the data; complete reversal of the virtues of prudence, repentance and humility; abandonment of reason; idolatry of physical pleasure; lack of compassion for those suffering who are influenced by it; inherent sense of self-justification; and most of all the lust and pride on which it is based most certainly ranks among the "diabolical" sins of Lewis or the "spiritual sins" of Aquinas. A man who fornicates damns himself (and his partner); a man who teaches it damns thousands.
Thus I think that the citations from these two eminent authors condemn the "the promoters and supporters of World Contraceptive Use Day" as effectively as any.
However, I do not read the main article as being so much about the evils of fornication, but about the evils of the promotion of fornication as a good (or at least a "neutral"). That promotion, with its denial of the facts; manipulation of the data; complete reversal of the virtues of prudence, repentance and humility; abandonment of reason; idolatry of physical pleasure; lack of compassion for those suffering who are influenced by it; inherent sense of self-justification; and most of all the lust and pride on which it is based most certainly ranks among the "diabolical" sins of Lewis or the "spiritual sins" of Aquinas. A man who fornicates damns himself (and his partner); a man who teaches it damns thousands.
Thus I think that the citations from these two eminent authors condemn the "the promoters and supporters of World Contraceptive Use Day" as effectively as any.
