You will not believe this

[antone 0]

This isn't "news" it just an editorial, right? The guy has his right to his opinion as do those that teach and practice abstinence.

Girls 6 and 7 should be abstaining As should 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 year olds. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching girls to respect their bodies and that having sex doesn't make guys love you any more. And that girls this age want attention and they want boyfriends, but they marry girls that have standards for themselves and use girls that allow themselves to be used.

Nothing wrong with teaching a girl that it is in her best interest not to be a single mom.

Sure, young girls should be abstaining, and the odd bizarre hand-wring press story aside, they do. They don't have to be taught to. It's when they get a little older it's more of an issue. At 6 or 7, most people haven't truly felt sexual desire.

The problem is that, while sex doesn't indicate love, it sure feels good. Denying the obvious just makes us look daft in the eyes of the kids we are trying to educate. And when they realise we've been BSing them half their lives about this subject, there's a real risk they'll just stop believing anything we ever say.

I also agree with the poster who asked "Where are the *boys* in all of this?"

[PlatyPius 5]

I agree with the article. Yes, he was having a bit of a go at the religious right, but I do that all the time, so I found it amusing. I've seen the stats he mentioned, and they are spot-on. Lots of my guy friends would love to marry (or defile) a virgin. I wouldn't. I prefer a woman who knows what she's doing. But then, I don't believe I'll burn in hell for having sex before marriage.....

[Not Available 0]

"She then marries a man who will very likely have not the slightest clue (as he has had the same dreadful sexual miseducation as our fair virgin) as to what to do with a woman's body, who will, by most all accounts, be unable to tell an erogenous zone from an elbow, a ####### from a belly button."

OK, my husband and I were both virgins when we got married AND we are Christian and were taught about purity etc... and trust me, he knew the difference between a fricken ####### and a belly button. That's stupid, its not fricken rocket science. Sorry, that line just annoyed me and needed to vent.

[hockeygal 1]

It was a mocking article, but as someone pointed out, so are Ann Coulter's... mocking is kind of hate-filled. When you agree with it you laugh, when you don't, you get mad. I did a little of both with this article.

Purity balls creep me the hell out, but no one is forcing me to attend one so people can do what they like. On the other hand, I get bothered by the belief that the more sexual experience you have the better. Not sure how that became the "norm" in society, but I didn't run with a very fast crowd growing up, and I like to think we are all perfectly pleasing in the sack.

As for abstinence until marriage... that usually only works if you marry young. Most people I know married in their 30's....

[Ban Hammer 14,085]

my two cents - the author of said article is a guy. of course he's whining about that! duh!

[Chuckles 0]

I can't help but think the whole idea of women waiting till marriage to have sex was derived in 'ancient' cultures (were religions like Christianity and Islam started) as a tool to be able to sell your daughter more easily and for more money. Haven't we got past this? And yes, selling your daughter is ok in the bible.

If you want to wait till you are married, more power to you. If thats what you as an individual believe in, not because its what daddy wants because of his mis-interepratation of religous text.

I guess thats a little harsh, but it is my opinion. As a family you can believe whatever you want and I don't care, but at some point your kids become adults and they need the information to make the right choice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Welcome to the world of Mark Morford! He tends to write editorials in this tone; it's his trademark, and while I can see how it could be conceived as insulting, most of his readers think he is hilarious. It's more tongue-in-cheek than right-out serious.

However, as much I enjoy reading his editorials, I do think he's another outgrowth of current degenerated public discourse. I wonder if Ann Coulter's editorials which are at least as offensive in tone and not meant to be satire but rather outright assaults would cause the same reaction among those on here who are offended by MM.

As to the topic, he's right on. There's nothing wrong which encouraging kids to learn about sexuality, and knowing about it doesn't mean not being to able to wait until marriage if one wants to. Quite the contrary, sex education helps most people to make educated choices and to not rely on experience exclusively.

The mangling of our discourses continues. And so it goes...