The Waxman Report

I used to teach a life skills course for an independent NFP. Included in our information were segments which encouraged youth to abstain from sexual activity. Because of my occupation, I grew quite accustomed to being asked questions about the many reports in existence which seem to contradict the validity of abstinence education. Typically these questions were offered with an air of antagonism, for which I have no patience. Unfortunately, I have grown weary of the lack of education on the subject from the vast majority of the individuals participating in these insidious questionings. Therefore I have no remorse when these discussions culminate in their shame and embarrassment. I am often able to befuddle the minds of these antagonists by simply asking them which report would they like to discuss first. They don’t know because, not only have they not read them, but they don’t even know what the reports are called. I would like to take a moment and evaluate one anti-abstinence report that was presented to congress by Henry Waxman. In the following essay we will be evaluating a congressional report titled “The Waxman Report”.

In pages three and four of Sen. Henry Waxman’s congressional report on the content of abstinence only education programs, Sen. Waxman states that rigorous studies of abstinence only curricula do not show any overall effect on contraceptive use or the sexual behavior of participants. He then contradicts himself and states that the study showed that abstinence only education might increase participant’s risk. The only two explanations for an increase in risk are that abstinence educators are injecting their pupils with an STD serum, or perhaps the sexual behavior of students who have experienced abstinence education has been somehow affected. I have to ask the question Sen. Waxman, do these programs show no effect on sexual behavior or do they increase risk taking sexual behavior? You’ve stated both, but you must choose one, because both scenarios cannot co-exist. Next, Sen. Waxman states that researchers found that these abstinence programs helped some participants to delay sex. Another contradiction. I thought that these abstinence programs show no effect on sexual behavior. Sen. Waxman has stated that abstinence programs offer no effect; he then stated that they provide negative effects, and then he stated that they provide positive effects. These statements are inconsistent, conflicting and, therefore, illogical.

Next, Sen. Waxman states that students who have gone through an abstinence education course are less likely to seek STD testing. This is an interesting piece of research indeed. Which cow pie did Sen. Waxman lift to find that one? Considering comprehensive sex education programs portray condoms as adolescent brain proof protection from STDs and pregnancy, where does the motivation for STD screening come from? If comprehensive sex education makes teens feel adequately protected, what is motivating these teens to get screened? And if comprehensive sex education aspires to communicate with teens the benefits of condom usage and the overall protection which condoms offer, with hopes of motivating students to use condoms, and, after receiving this program, teens are running out to get immediate screening, then the logical conclusion is that comprehensive sex education is failing tremendously. Or could it be that research has failed us again? If you doubt the fallibility of research, then consider, it was research that concluded that Social Security was a good idea. Phrenology was based on over one hundred years of research and was an accepted branch of neuroscience in the nineteenth century. It was research that put us in Vietnam and research that caused the French to sell the Louisiana Territory. Research claims that Polar ice caps are melting due to global warming, and researchers freeze to death on their mission to investigate. Please, no more bogus research Sen. Waxman, You are insulting my capacity to think rationally. Abstinence education instructs students on some of the possible risks involved with being sexually active with multiple partners, even with the use of a condom, as stated by the CDC, The Department of Health and Human Services and even the Trojan condom company. Considering the risk teens face of acquiring an STD when engaging in sex with multiple partners, abstinence educators strongly recommend immediate STD screening for any participating students who profess to be sexually active, with or without the use of a condom.

I’m wondering something, and I’m not going to approach this from a research perspective. Instead I will attempt to think for myself and incorporate logic into the equation. If comprehensive sex education, which teaches that condoms offer full protection (a claim which even condom manufacturers don’t support), delays the initiation of sex and reduces the frequency of sex, why are the STD and teen pregnancy stats climbing? You can’t reasonably blame abstinence programs; these figures were rapidly climbing long before the “invasive” abstinence education programs infiltrated our school systems. Abstinence courses are only offered in about one third of our nation’s schools, so we can’t practically place the blame on them anyway. This brings me to two points that I would like to make. I was only recently a teenager, and have not forgotten the way my brain functioned in those years, so my first point is as follows: (1) If, when I was in school, you had told me to not have sex, then you had told me how to use a condom, and where to buy them, I would have heard you saying that you expected me to ignore your telling me to not have sex.  And you would have been telling me just that; otherwise there would’ve been no need to explain to me how to use a condom.  After all, why would I need to to be taught how to properly use a condom unless I was expected to have sex? If a boy is not having sex, then he would not need a condom. And if you are telling him that you expect him to fail on the first point to not have sex, should he not assume that he is also expected to fail on the second point to use a condom? You cannot pick and choose what part of your message he will listen to. He either listens or he doesn’t. And if he listens closely to what you would be telling him, he would hear you telling him that he is is expected to ignore some of your instructions, and adhere to others. And who is to come behind you and tell him which points to ignore and which to adhere to?  He would be getting a mixed message. So you are setting him up to fail by communicating to him what he must do when he fails. This would be like me telling my son to not play in the fire, yet then handing him a fire extinguisher and a Band-Aid. My second point is as follows: (2) If someone had told me of all the great benefits of condoms, which I am not presently refuting, then what would have been my motivation for limiting my sexual activity? If my teacher is telling me not to have sex, and then telling me that as long as I use a condom there will not be any risks, and then hinting to me that I’m expected to ignore her and become sexually active anyway, then I would not be motivated to delay my sexual debut due to a perceived lack of consequences. And considering my teacher is implying that she is expecting the worst from me in terms of sexual behavior, well, I’m only human Sen. Waxman, and I perform up to the level that is expected of me.

Nathan Gray

Raising Children From a Beginner’s Perspective

Stephanie and I have chosen to raise our children with high, but not unattainably high standards. Some of these standards might seem somewhat parochial, according to modern logic; nevertheless, we actually expect our children to adhere to them. Don’t misunderstand, when I say we expect them to adhere to our standards, I certainly don’t expect this to be accomplished without the occasional hiccup. Instead, our intention is to not lower the standards that we’ve set for our children simply because they fall short of achieving them a time or two. To lower the standards to something more achievable would not give our kids an accurate perspective of the “real world”. Lowering standards or changing rules to suit the needs of the rule breakers is not a common practice in the everyday life of a grown up, yet parents so often seem dead set on providing such conveniences for their children. Notice that no matter how many times we are caught speeding through a particular area, it seems the powers that be never even consider raising the speed limits to help compensate for our inability to adhere to the existing ones. If we arrive late for work a few days back to back, the boss never calls us into their office to discuss changing the time to something that would be better suited to our needs. Instead we are expected, even after failing once or twice, to eventually conform and live up to whatever standards are put before us. In this same way, should Stephanie and I some day catch our son Alek stealing, rest assured that our response will not be to lower our standards because, through his falling short of our standards, Alek has proven his inability to achieve them. Nor will our response be to keep our high standards, but determine that Alek is simply not capable of living up to our expectation of moral behavior. The appropriate response, should we find that Alek has been stealing or falling short of any standard that we might place for him, will be to sit him down and explain to him that he has done wrong, but that his wrongdoing does not make him a bad person; instead, his behavior has created a condition by which he must make right his wrong and leave it at that. He mustn’t dwell on his wrong doing and consider ways to steal the next time and not get caught, or consider ways to excuse it and perceive it as right. Instead he must own his wrong, believe that it was wrong, and turn his focus from the atrocity and back to the standard, which is still exactly where it was, unmoved. It seems that a Rousseauian influence has crept into many homes around the globe. When I say Rousseauian, I’m speaking of a modern philosophy edicting new standards of sexual liberty, neglect of discipline, compassion for rebellion, and a general acceptance that a fourteen year old is growing and maturing and therefore should be regarded as a fellow adult by her parents. All of these are considered by modernists to be important freedoms for an evolving generation of species, but really they are nothing more than examples of poor parental leadership. Leadership is one thing that is no longer held to a high standard because in a world where modernism rules, there is no existing standard to which one may hold leadership accountable. An obvious and surely overused example would be Bill Clinton. Upon hearing the news of his promiscuities, most of the world recoiled a bit and maybe even threw up a bit in our mouths. Then someone blurted the question, “What did he do that was so different from what any of us has done or at least been tempted to do at some point?” This question would only be valid if it held true that, when we are tempted to engage in an activity that was previously perceived as immoral, the activity suddenly becomes permissible, or justified once we grow comfortable enough with it. The president committed adultery while inhabiting the respected position of our nation’s leader, and then lied to us about his affair. It’s time we stop making excuses for our leadership and ourselves, and realize that the fact that a particular sin may have at some time been on our own plate doesn’t excuse or justify the sin or the sinner. Immorality does not find salvation in numbers or with familiarity. Now, remember that the president’s actions are still forgivable, only not justifiable. (More on the subject of forgiveness vs. justification in a  following paragraph)

I recently watched the Ron Howard film “Parenthood”. There are lots of great things I could say about the film, but in an effort to stay on course, I’ll only describe one scenario that pertains to the heart of this essay. In a compelling scene set in the nineties, an aged Woodstock flower child is depicted trying to figure out how to be a single mom of two rebellious teenagers. At one point in the film she manages to break into her thirteen year old son’s padlocked bedroom where she discovers the boy’s stash of violent, sadomasochistic porn. She becomes concerned for her son’s well being, and thus turns to her daughter’s nymphomaniac teen husband, Todd Higgins, for advice. Todd decides that it would be best to discuss the issue directly with the boy, and in the next scene we see Todd emerging from the boy’s bedroom to rest the worried mother assured that the boy is in no immediate psychiatric danger. He informs her that he put the boy at ease by letting him know that masturbating to porn is, “Just what little dudes do”. It comes as no surprise that we see the same thing happening in Hollywood that we see from our leadership in the White House. That is, condoning misbehavior rather than correcting it; “Hey, I did it when I was young so it can’t be that bad”. I have been tempted to use that same mentality with my own children. I have even been heard saying, “Alek will probably get into a lot of fights growing up. That is, after all, just what little dudes do.” When I said those words, I was really just attempting to trivialize my own shortcomings. By saying that fighting is just what boys do, I was excusing myself from any guilt of my immorality. Rather than dealing with the reality that I should have avoided fighting while growing up and accepting the fact that my sin has brought on many consequences and much heartache, I chose to excuse it by saying that not only did I fight, but so will Alek. Had I kept up that attitude, I would have been predisposing my child to a particular immoral behavior from my past that I was unwilling to deal with and seek forgiveness for. Here’s a challenge for all of us, no more making excuses for our shortcomings. Whether our sins involve lust, pornography, stealing, overeating, overspending, violence, dishonesty or any one of millions of other examples, let’s view them for what they are, own them, repent of them and continue striving for the standard, that of biblical morality. If we as parents are willing to do that, then will be assisting ourselves in coaching our children around the land mines that we trotted through at their age rather than sitting by and watching them make the same mistakes that we did, all the while excusing their immoral behavior as something that is “just what kids do.”


Christians have a slightly different way of wording their condonance of other’s sins. Often times Christians, in their theological ineptitude, will refer to justification as “forgiveness”, and they explain it away by saying that we should not judge (C. S. Lewis effectively communicates the distinction between justification and forgiveness in his short essay titled “Forgiveness”). This new doctrine of not making an animadversion on immorality, even if it kills us, is only an attempt to excuse our own equally unjustifiable behavior. Funny, I don’t remember Samuel in the Bible ever saying to Saul, when Saul disobeyed the Lord’s command and spared the king, “Who am I to judge you Saul? Heck, I might of done the same thing if I were you”. Instead, Samuel chopped the king’s head off and told Saul that his sin would have consequences that would affect entire generations. Then there was Nathan who told David that Bathsheba was just hot, and it would be difficult for any man not to commit adultery with her, and the murder that ensued was simply a byproduct of man’s gradual evolution and praescindere from his animalistic, territorial instincts. Obviously that was not how the story went. Christians, let’s read the Old Testament, and learn how God expects his people to function in society. Now that we have grown quite adept at justifying the misbehavior of our nation’s leaders and Hollywood’s finest, why stop there? This is where we come back to the subject of our children, yours and mine. Modernists claim that we are evolving. They also claim that the evolutionary process consistently yields improvements to the evolving species. Yet these same modernists allege that with each new and improved generation, our children become increasingly less likely to make good, sound, moral choices. Should our response to this obvious paradox be to lower the standards for our children in hopes that their more evolved generation could more easily achieve a standard that is less rigid? This seems an absurd notion, but I can’t tell you how many of my students have told me that their parents have informed them that they are incapable of making good choices when it comes to sex, given them condoms and told them to hope for the best. These students wonder aloud why their parents have so little faith in them. Of course, I’ve never told them that this may be their parents’ way of excusing their own shortcomings. There is a tendency to reason that if we as parents were unable to make good choices in the area of our sexuality, whether in thought or in action, then certainly our children will be as hopeless as we were. Only, we were not hopeless. The Lord promises to provide a way out of every misguiding temptation. That we may have failed to notice the exit door doesn’t doom our children, thank God, to being so blind as we were.

How might things change for our children if we were willing to own up to the fact that our breaking the law was inexcusable, our adultery was immoral, and our overindulgence was damaging? What would happen if we stopped making excuses for our misbehavior and began discouraging our children from making the same mistakes we made. Think about it, do you really expect your children to not smoke? Probably so if you don’t smoke: probably not if you do. Consider this, your willingness to observe your own trespasses against moral standards could be the very thing needed to break the generational pattern of a particular behavior. Our view of our own moral behavior affects our expectations of our children’s moral behavior, and our expectation of their moral behavior is the influence that molds that behavior either closer to, or further from the biblical standard of morality.

Nathan Gray