The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Of Abstinence, Sex Ed – And Why Gene Simmons Is Nobody’s Role Model

Gene Simmons of the rock band KISS is publicly and unabashedly celebrating being a sex addict and all the many “romps” he has had with women over the past 30 odd years.  He’s not the only “celebrity” to have expressed their delight in the opposite sex so openly and brag about it.  Remember the late, not so great role model, Wilt Chamberlain?  Chances are Simmons will not be the last, at least not until our society and our culture begins to demand guttersnipes like Gene Simmons and Wilt Chamberlain keep it in the hanger and just “shut up and sing”, or entertain.

Gene Simmons is a large part of the reason why so many young teenagers give in to peer pressure and engage in sex.  They see their favorite singers, actors, entertainers, etc. openly talking about their own experiences, as if it was the greatest thing to happen to them, and young kids naturally want to emulate and imitate them.  And although the percentage of teens having sex is declining, Simmons, and others, (and their nonchalant attitude toward sex) remain part of the problem why more children will not abstain from sex.

Sadly, those entertainers who promote the “abstinence until marriage” message are routinely mocked and criticized for not being “realistic”.  Abstinence pledges and the rings teens wear to show their solidarity for abstinence are frowned upon more than they are accepted, which puts added pressure on these kids to renounce their abstinence pledge and give into their carnal, hormonal lust.

It’s not only entertainers that are leading kids into having sex way too early.  Shockingly, ladies and gentleman, it is their own teachers.

It is altogether fitting and proper to call it an outrage for school districts to allow their teachers to promote this type of indoctrination.  And parents not only have a right to know what their children are being taught, they have a right to complain and have it removed from the curriculum.  Indeed, all taxpayers, including those who don’t have children in these schools, have a right to voice their displeasure.  Teaching anything but abstinence constitutes an absolute betrayal of the teacher-pupil relationship.  And for an adult, and a teacher, to instill in a child the attitude of  “well, kids are going to have sex anyway, so we might as well teach them how to safely do it” is, without question, absolutely irresponsible.  An act of extreme cowardice and depravity by an adult-teacher; a capitulation and surrender in common sense and sensibility; and borderline criminal.

When a teacher, an adult (and that cannot be stressed enough) instructs a child in the “finer arts” of “safe sex” that teacher, that adult, has effectively turned their back on the child and on childhood itself.  That some children are bound to engage in sex is all the more reason to teach abstinence, not to give in, not to give up.  Children need to be told there is no such thing as safe sex; that safe sex is still harmful, psychologically, emotionally and especially heath wise.  Children need to be taught that childhood, including their teen years, is a time for education and learning, not for engaging in adult behavior that is best left until after marriage.

For whatever reason teaching abstinence only seems to be more controversial today than teaching the so called safe sex curriculum despite the fact that teaching safe sex actually encourages kids to have sex, not abstain from it.  When an adult, and one in a teaching capacity, is telling a child it is alright to engage in sex at their young age, so long as it is “safe” sex, and coupled with their favorite entertainers reiterating the same disturbing message, is it not more likely a child will ultimately engage in sex, whether it is safe or not, than have the courage and fortitude to abstain from it?

Abstinence works every time it is tried.  Not one single pregnancy has ever occurred when abstinence has been practiced.  Not one case of STD’s or HIV-AIDS has resulted from abstinence.  Why is that?

For Simmons to brag about how many women he has had sex with shows his has a lot of growing up to do.  That some teachers would promote the “safe-sex” curriculum shows they have a lot of explaining to do (and ideally they can explain that to the unemployment agency where they go to collect their unemployment insurance).  That we as a society allow teachers to promote this garbage to our children and allow our children to be influenced by entertainers like Simmons shows we have a lot of work ahead of us to push back the tide of liberal corruption that has washed into our public school system and is drowning out the quality education our children both need and deserve in order to become productive, responsible adults.

As a parent, or even as an adult, we want role models who will instill in our children common sense values that will help shape and mold their lives in positive ways.  Children, after-all, are our future.  And they always will be.  Gene Simmons deserves the respect of no one.  He demands our universal condemnation.  Teachers, like-wise, who insist that children be taught safe sex curriculum instead of abstinence only deserve more than our scorn; more than a reprimand or suspension.  They deserve to be fired.

October 24, 2011 - Posted by | education, politics, public schools | , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. A recent study showed that 80% of christians are not waiting until marriage to have sex……and good for them. A lot of pundits beleive that this is because we live in a “sex-saturated” society where “weak-willed” people “succumb to temptation”. This is an incredibly cynical view, and grossly unfair to a generation that is better educated, more altruistic and more politically active than any generation that has gone before it. The simple truth is this: becoming sexually active is a natural and healthy part of becoming an adult and shouldn’t be delayed until you’re finanacially secure enough for marriage. So please stop blaimng the culture.

    Teachers are right to adopt an autonomy-respectful tyle of teaching, wher students will be allowed to find their sexual identity in time, as opposed to the paternalistic teaching style you propose. Everyone’s sexual identity is unique. Some people will happily wait until marriage, and that’s right for them. Others will have many sexual partners in a year, and that’s right for them. Others will be gay, bisexual or transgender, and that’s right for them. All should be given thorough information about contraception and sexual health, because education is empowering, and enables them to live heir life as they choose. It should be obvious that even married peple can suffer from unwated pregnancies or STDs, and therefore should have had a comprehesive sexual education in school.

    A final point: the failure rate of abstinence is between 26%-74% (Bruckner et al, Journal Adolescent Health 2005:445-59). This is medical statistics 101. The effectiveness of any treatment includes the outcomes of all patients randomized to that treatment regardless of wether they take it continuosly. The reason for this is that if a patient discontinues her treatment (i.e. stops practicing abstinence), this is often due to a property of that treatment (e.g. side-effects, burden of treatment) that should be taken into account when deciding effectivness. What drug companies and abstinence-advocates try to do when selling a treatment is use the intention-to-treat numbers, which exclude all patients who couldn’t or wouldn’t continue the treatment. It’s sleazy, dishonest and, most importantly, it it NOT how medical doctors decide if a treatment works. So, in the interests of honesty, when you next claim that abstinence is 100% effective, please add that you are using a different definition of “effective “to the medical profession.

    Comment by Mark | November 5, 2011 | Reply

    • In the “interest of honesty” it is impossible for pregnancy to occur when abstinence is practiced. You cite “a recent study” but do not provide a link for it. Children need to be taught abstinence, period. What they do when they grow up is up to them.

      Comment by Neosecularist | November 6, 2011 | Reply

  2. “In the “interest of honesty” it is impossible for pregnancy to occur when abstinence is practiced”

    Wether abstinence is able to be practiced is a facet of it’s effectiveneses. Unless a treatment can be practiced 100% of the time by 100% of people, it cannot be clamed to be 100% effective. To use an example, a hysterectomy for every women at age 40 would cause up to 100% decrease in endometrial cancer in women over 40. However, that benefit would be offset by complications of unnecessary surgery and many women would not consent to it. Therefore it’s medical effectiveness would be far below 100%.

    Once again, this medical statistics 101. Doctors are taught this so to recognise snake oil, unproven treatment such as abstinence teaching. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Can you cite a peer-reviewed medical research article that showed 100% effectiveness for abstinence?

    “You cite “a recent study” but do not provide a link for it.”

    Umm… are aware that peer-reviewed literature is not published on the internet, but rather in this fancy things called scientific journals? Just to reiterate, the journal is Journal of Adolescent Health, the main author is Bruckner, the published year is 2005, the pages are 445-59. You could access it either by paying for it through the Elsevier website or SciDirect, or by going to your university library. That’s what real research mostly is. A first-year nursing student could track down that citation, but if you need more information to find it, let me know.

    “Children need to be taught abstinence, period. What they do when they grow up is up to them”

    Actually, the roles of schools are teach skills that will be useful throughout adulthood. Do you think teachers enough maths or english just up to the point to get them through childhood? (Actually, that might explain a few things in America). What they do when they grow up reflects how well they were taught as children

    Comment by Mark | November 6, 2011 | Reply

    • Again, with regards to children teenagers – they need to be taught abstinence only. Teaching a child how to have sex (safe sex), or any sexual methods is absolutely irresponsible. Teaching more English or math, or science and history, is not going to harm a child, nor is it going to get them pregnant or infected with an STD. So by all means – teach more on those subjects.

      That some children are going to have sex is no reason for teachers – adults – to betray the teacher/pupil and adult/child relationship by giving up on them and encouraging them to have sex in a “safe” and “proper” way. The correct approach will always be “abstinence only”. And remember, I’m secular not religious. Yet, I still find the value in abstinence only. If you, or anyone else can show the value of teaching and encouraging children to engage in sex, even if it is the so called “safe” way, have at it.

      I’m also aware that peer review literature is often loaded with bias, inaccuracies and lies.

      Comment by Neosecularist | November 6, 2011 | Reply

  3. You seem to be buying into the idea that comprehensive sexual education somehow seduces children into sexual activity. That idea is complete rubbish. It has been refuted over and over by scientific studies, but, worse of all, it was never logical to begin with and displays a deep misunderstanding of adolescent sexuality.

    Once again, human sexuality is not a binary function that switches on on your wedding night. It is a perfectly natural and healthy process that begins in the early teenage years, usually with wet dreams and masturbation, and continues in adolescence with kissing and touching the erogenous zones. As the person becomes more physically developed and mature, it progresses to physical intercourse. Once again, this is perfectly normal and healthy. In fact cultures that attempt to retard this sexual development usually cause long-lasting harm. Stopping sex ed to prevent sexual activity is about as logical as stopping biology classes to prevent them from growing taller.

    Comprehensive sex education recognizes and celebrates this reality. They deliver a sex-positive messaage that sex is about more than just STDs and pregnancies. They teach that sex is not just intercourse, but encompasses a wide-range of behaviours, some of which are very low risk.

    It is worth noting that the World Health Organization of sexual health is “integration of somatic, emotional, intellectual and social aspects of sexuality in ways that are positively enriching and that enhance personality, communication and love”. Every school should offer knowledge, guidance and support so that its students can fulfil this definition.

    Alternatively, you offer a sex negative message, where sex is stripped of its developmental context, dissassociated from tis healthy emotional and identity benefits and broken down to a mere vehicle for pregnancy and STDs. Rather than adolesecent sexuality seen as healthy development, it is seen as inherently problematic. Really it is a clumsy and oafish attempt to impose behaviour control, rather than provide education. It also relies heavily on scare tactics and demonization of the sexually active. To their credit, young people have decided that this worldview is full of crap, and are voting with their genitals. Unfortunately they are doing so without education on the effectiveness of contraception, and hence the teenage pregnancy rates in America are over double that of Canada, England, France or Sweden.

    Because the education system has largely wimped out of providing comprehensive sexual education, popular culture has had to step up to the plate. Hence people are Gene Simmons are frankly discussing sexual matters, and young people are listening, because where else will they get answers to their questions? Are you going to discuss with children how sex is normal, often healthy and the wide range of sexual activies available?

    Parents are often a poor source of teaching. Sometimes this is because their own teaching was poor, but can also be due to the Westermarck effect. The Westermark effect is an evolutionary mechanism to prevent incest that creates sexual aversion among people who grew up together. It is the reason why parents feel grossed out considering their childrens sexual activities, and vicea versa.

    Can I show the value of teaching and encouraging children to engage in sex? I’m going to interpret that question as “can I prove that a sex-positive education leads to better outcomes that a sex-negative education?”. Here is some of the evidence that I found:

    Wyatt and Ward, 1994, Psychology of Women Quarterley, volume 18, pages 183-201:
    White women who were given predominantly sex-negative education were more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavious than white women who received sex positive education

    Fisher et al, Adolescents, Sex and Contraception”, 1983:
    Adolescents who received a sex positive education were more likley to be responsible with contraception than adolescents who received a sex negative education.

    Wyatt, Lyons, Rowe, 1990, Sex roles, volume 22, pages 509-524
    Girls who received a sex positive education were more likely to report higher levels of pleasure during their first sexual encounter.

    Comment by Mark | November 6, 2011 | Reply

    • I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that children and teens experience sexual tendencies, desires, etc. We’ve all been there. I am merely stating that so far as the teacher-pupil/adult-child relationships goes, it is irresponsible, and a betrayal, for adults to be encouraging kids to engage in sex because some of them are going to do it anyway. The more adults/teachers instill the idea that “safe” sex is a better alternative to abstinence, the more kids are going to give in to the temptations and have sex. Conversely, the more adults instill the value of abstinence, the less peer pressure there will be for kids to be tempted into having sex too early. Not all kids, obviously. But it is absolutely reprehensible for adults/teachers to give up and give in to the “safe” sex agenda just because there will always be some kids who are going to experiment with sex.

      Comment by Neosecularist | November 7, 2011 | Reply

  4. [...] Of Abstinence, Sex Ed – And Why Gene Simmons Is Nobody’s Role Model ( [...]

    Pingback by Teenager talks openly about Sex and Peer Pressure | The Official BLOG site of Ressurrection Graves | January 17, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar Logo

Please log in to to post a comment to your blog.

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.