There's a riff on the WSJ's piece on the evolution of the Boy Scouts.
There's a great piece highlighting new research on the devastating effects of sex-ed --none of which are new or surprising. But she chides the abstinence-only folks in a way I agree they (we) deserve --for not taking the sex drive seriously enough.
The whole, "It is wrong; just say no" argument has much to be said for it, but it fails by itself (and on the whole, miserably, I'd suggest) to appeal when put up against the siren song of the opposite view--appealing as that alternative does to very natural--and, yes, legitimate--urges.Which is another reason sex-ed really can't be done as mere "health class" --it really has to be put in context, as for example, in the positive context of the the theology of the body. But what the abstinence movement really hasn't dealt with is
the extent to which the culture (including many abstinence advocates) has accepted delaying marriage until late in the 20s and even 30s. Most people are not designed to have the fortitude of a nun or a monk . . . and there are good and natural reasons for this that ought to be addressed before an appeal to "abstinence-only" can be taken with as much seriousness as it deserves.The link in the quote above takes you to the third worthy post --this one on marrying young.
