Just say "No"

A "Purely Girls!" Christian camp to be held to promote chastity among young women. I applaud this move and endorse celibacy and monogamy for all single youths, both as a corrective to promiscuity (there's no sound, practical reason to promote sluttiness) and as a preventative health measure: physical, psychological and social.

I've become more conservative as I've aged. The heady promises of the sexual revolution seem empty and false given the disastrous results of abandoning traditional morality. The sexual liberation movement is barely 50 years old. Our mindsets may have progressed but our emotional reactions are mired in a primordial past, our physiology stubbornly entrenched in instinctual urges below the subliminal threshold and beyond conscious control. Nature is obdurate and doesn't defer to liberal well-wishing or social engineering. The casualties are many: diseases, unwanted pregnancies, the ill-effects of single-parenting, etc. We are yet to fully pay the social costs of our sexual experimentation.

Our easy, breezy sexual climate was promulgated by (possibly) well-meaning, but ultimately deluded, adults. Grown ups who at least had some maturity, wisdom and life experiences to deal with the problems and pitfalls of sex. That's partly why I resent many public school teachers with their cavalier expectations that students will engage in responsible, carefree, consequence-free coition. Their recklessness has condemned and endangered younger generations to untold needless hurt. For once I agree with feminists; it is young women who are most vulnerable, for they alone bear the burdens of pregnancy (and abortion). It's imperative to protect them from adult folly. So the chastity movement has my blessing.

You might think the "Purely Girls!" initiative might enjoy the cautious approval of anyone concerned about NZ's alarming rate of teen pregnancies (2nd highest globally). After all, abstinence has 100% success rate in preventing unwanted children, STDs, and all sorts of post-coital 'remorse.' Alas, the Family Planning Association, somewhat predictably, are quick in their condemnation. FPA chief, Jackie Edmonds, claims most (biased?) studies prove abstinence education a failure that does nothing to alleviate teen pregnancy and STDs. Maybe it's the church component that has her spooked. She says:

The abstinence movement in the US had "been dressed up to be a public health message but actually if you dig down it pretty much comes from a religious background."

FPA are also openly hostile to Catholicism's stance on pre-marital sex, although remarkably silent about Islam, which is likewise prohibitive (maybe because Catholics don't riot and kill people who criticise their faith?) Perhaps it's a turf war? Are they threatened by alternate viewpoints despite similar aims? Does FPA want to be the sole authority on sexual advice? Never underestimate the 'territorial jealousy' of specialists and knowledge brokers.

But who cares what the FPA think, anyway? Abstinence can benefit all teenagers, not just the religious: secular girls have unplanned pregnancies, too; atheists also suffer post-abortion trauma; agnostics contract STDs, as well.

My default advice to anyone outside a monogamous relationship is: "Keep your pants on!" I'm not a prude. You can regularly indulge in orgiastic excess; whatever talkes your fancy. I won't recoil with shock. But I fully concur with the libertarian maxim: "Freedom with responsibility." So you're free to shag whomever, wherever, whenever...

BUT... if you feel like trash the morning after.. if you get the clap.. if your reputation's sullied.. if s/he breaks your heart.. if your one-night stand starts stalking you.. if you're haunted by that abortion for years to come.. if your x-rated video gets posted on the internet.. if you're fired for bonking the boss' spouse.. if your partner deserts you because of adultery and your messed-up kids need years of therapy..

...if there are ANY nasty consequences, then: Hey! You didn't listen to my advice, did you? Oh, well...