I took major insult to an article I read in the straits times Saturday supplement. I have copied the latter part of this writer's article and pasted it below. The insulting part is in BOLD font.
So whats so insulting you ask me? Just read. So this is what she is implying:
1. All Christian youth, because of their religion, value sex as something special, and therefore do not have premarital sex.
2. All the other non- believers are immoral and are unable to practise abstinence. They need an outside organization to help them. Abstinence for them is but a "Fad".
3. Non Christians are not grounded and need someone to help them because they have no religion. Apparently having parents who manage to instill it in them is not considered as an option.
4. Oh, and we should only "preach" to the "non converted". It is the non believers who are at risk and need help. All Christian youth, including her, because of their religion. are able to abstain from pre marital sex.
I hate to be so pissed but, "what a load of crap!"
Talk about assumptions, presumptions and disrespect. Did religion teach her that too? I thought we worked on a I respect your decision to choose a religion and you respect mine basis around here. Whats all this "everyone but Christians are immoral and are unable to make good choices" thing? So me practising abstinence will only be a passing hype I cling on to because I am not a Christian? This girl needs help. And she should not be an intern in the country's ONLY newspaper.
"Although undergraduates are not technically considered teens, these results signal a growing trend of youth promiscuity.
Equally disturbing, in an ongoing online poll conducted by the Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA), 55 per cent of respondents felt that youths today are unlikely to remain virgins. Five per cent were undecided, and only 40 per cent voted in faith of abstinence before marriage.
Gone are the days when a high premium was placed on chastity. People I barely know have no qualms about asking me if I am a virgin, anticipating a negative reply and waiting for me to regale them with kinky sexual experiences. When I say 'Yes, I am', they stare at me in mock disbelief.
The rising sexual appetites of teens have spawned a growing abstinence movement in recent years. One of my favourite initiatives is Worth Waiting For, the brainchild of charity body Focus On The Family. Started in February in time for Valentine's Day this year, it sold red and white purity bands to spread the message of abstinence from premarital sex.
I am an ardent campaign supporter, but I understand how hard it is for teens to disengage themselves from prurient thoughts and suppress burgeoning carnal desires which are only natural at their age. We are, after all, the Maggi Mee generation, raised on instant gratification.
This being so, I question the viability of abstinence campaigns - no matter how hip they are - as teens need something deeper to ground their beliefs on.
My own values are shaped by my Christian faith. Knowing what the Bible says about sex, I am grieved that it has become a frivolous transaction, rather than a sacred love act between husband and wife.
For teens who do not care for religion, what can be a strong enough grounding force for them to abstain from sex?
Abstinence is a noble initiative, but I believe that its hype will be short-lived and its long-term impact on 'I hear you but I don't care' teenagers is limited.
The pervasiveness of sexual activity among teens suggests it is more practical to promote safe sex than no sex. Abstinence-only education risks leaving out those who choose something else.
Groups like Action For Aids, Singapore Youth Challenge and SPPA, which jointly support initiatives like Sex In The Air, a campaign that has sex and fertility doctors answering queries by SMS, are moving in the right direction.
It is better to be inclusive than exclusive - be all things to all men and save more in the process.
Campaigns should focus on reaching out to the unsafe, instead of preaching to the converted."
The writer, a Nanyang Technological University School of Communication and Information student, is an intern at The Straits Times.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hey there. Take it easy yarh. The article WAS a little condescending wasn't it? Anyway, just FYI, chastity till marriage is not exactly very prevalent in Christian teens too. I think what it all comes down to is one's own personal moral/value system more than anything else.
i agree with the comment above. there are (supposedly) so many Christians in the whole wide world, and even here in the US where we're studying, but then look at them, do they really practise this chasity thing? its just diff moral values and even cultural values, personal values, family values.
i guess the so-called mistake of this intern would be to have generalized her own values to the entire Christian community, and in doing so, make relatively unsubstantiated (or not very substantiated comments) comments about the non-Christian community, mainly the free-thinkers.
she seems to not to realise that ppl like u & me can don't go to church, not be Christians, and yet still believe in abstinence. and in doing so, i think she has failed very sadly in writing a convincing article, for she has trapped herself in her narrow-minded thinking.
"For teens who do not care for religion, what can be a strong enough grounding force for them to abstain from sex?"
I don't think the author is saying that her religion or any religion is the ABSOLUTE reason for abstinence. Since this is an opinion peice, i think we shld read this instead as her personal thought that she HERSELF can't see a strong-enough non-religious reason WITHIN HERSELF for abstinence. And thus she worries for those who have no religion.
As you have shown, I guess her worries are unfounded=) so she prob has overgeneralised a bit, but I won't say she's condescending.
But anyway I think I understand where she comes from because I personally don't have any non-religious reason for abstinence. Even with a religion, abstinence is so difficult. Before I had an intimate rship I was religion-less and I thought I could/would abstain. Now that I am attached (fyi I strongly love this person too) and happen to be religious, I can assure you tat religion is the ONLY thing holding ME back. So it's easy to project my thinking on others, so pls forgive the author for making this mistake.
"4. Oh, and we should only "preach" to the "non converted". It is the non believers who are at risk and need help. All Christian youth, including her, because of their religion. are able to abstain from pre marital sex."
w.r.t to:
"Campaigns should focus on reaching out to the unsafe, instead of preaching to the converted."
I'm think I should be quite right in saying that her "converted" is NOT referring to Christians.. (although it may be a skillfully hidden parallel)
the paragraph:
"It is better to be inclusive than exclusive - be all things to all men and save more in the process."
is referring to this one:
"The pervasiveness of sexual activity ... suggests it is more practical to promote safe sex than no sex. Abstinence-only ... risks leaving out those who choose something else...."
then the author goes on to laud the groups who do more than preach abstinence - which she feels can only reach out to some, as many youths r already engagin in sex.
so no, she's not saying that we shld preach to the non-christians, but anyone in general who doesn't subscribe to abstinence....
so maybe she isn't that bigoted i guess! ;)
Post a Comment