Un mir zaynen alle shvester,

Oy, oy, alle shvester,

Azoy vi Rokl, Rus, un Blogwatch,

Oy, oy, oy…

(sorry–have that stuck in my head.)

Don’t Link to Us–watchdog on sites w/bizarre linking policies, e.g. no deep-linking.

The Homeless Guy: A homeless guy with a blog (via public library computers). For real as far as anyone can tell. Interesting guy. Via InstaPundit, so I’m not sure why I’m pointing this guy out, but there you go.

Amy Welborn‘s comments are playing host to an interesting discussion on/critique of this Frederica Mathewes-Green article on teen pregnancy. I wonder if Mathewes-Green is focusing too much on the more provocative angle of her case (teen marriage is good), which is only going to be true in some circumstances (economic, personality, etc.). It’s 100% true that young couples need more community support (both emotional and financial), but I wonder if fixing some of the educational problems Mathewes-Green touches on will actually do at least as much to change the circumstances promoting late marriage and unwed motherhood. The article makes interesting reading in light of what the Old Oligarch had to say (his stoa is obscured for the moment, but it should be the first post or so when the site returns) about cheating in college. Both the O.O. and Mathewes-Green note the focus on college degrees rather than competency or skills. This focus seems to have gone from a useful shorthand to an obsession. I also suspect we can teach a lot more in high school than we typically do; though I guess that would rely on teaching more in elementary and junior high school. Finally, I note that I’m working on an article on groups that do outreach to street prostitutes, and one woman who tries to help prostitutes get off the streets noted that the child-labor laws indirectly create huge temptations to get into illegal employment (since you can’t get legal employment). I wonder how changes in the jobs high schoolers can get would indirectly effect the economic conditions that pressure people to postpone marriage.

She also asks a question about NFP which I’ll take a shot at answering. We now have tons of nifty scientific information and tools to make spacing pregnancies via periodic abstinence really accurate; we also have lots of nifty theology and philosophy, another good resource for couples. So the rhythm of honeymoon-courtship-honeymoon that many people praise NFP for providing (what one of Welborn’s commenters called the erotic appeal of “Noli me tangere!”) is a sweet byproduct of scientific and theological refinement. Why did that refinement happen recently? Because it’s only been recently that scientists and (to a lesser extent) theologians poured lots of talent and energy into understanding the various aspects of NFP and the female reproductive cycle. That commitment of time, energy, and talent has been so great recently, and so slight previously, for a whole slew of reasons: People are less likely to view the female body as icky, or an imperfect version of a man’s body; child-spacing is a major economic need (this has obviously also been driving the theological explorations); many women hate hormonal contraception and demanded better means of child-spacing, which happened to coincide nicely with Catholic requirements (it’s not 100% coincidence–a feminist respect for a woman’s body is not totally remote from a Christian respect for a woman’s body as part of Creation); Catholic entrepreneurs responded to the “competition” from the contraceptive culture and applied existing tech to Catholic needs; add capitalism, research grants, an individualist strain that leads many women to want a method of child-spacing that also helps us understand our bodies better, lather, rinse, repeat, and eventually you get a very accurate method of child-spacing that is in accordance with Catholic teaching. The comments on Welborn’s site get into other worthwhile issues, like the need for support for couples who find NFP difficult, but I figured I’d just address her original question.

Oh, and a pet peeve brought to the fore of my mind by Mathewes-Green’s essay and the NFP stuff and a recent counseling session: Why do we talk about teaching “abstinence” (a negative) rather than “chastity” (a positive)? Why does “sex education,” whether “safer sex”-oriented or abstinence-oriented, focus so relentlessly on the negative? Why is there so little emphasis on positive aspects like trust, responsibility, or building strong marriages? Here’s something I said elsewhere that I still believe: “Both ‘safe sex’ and [most–ed.] ‘abstinence only’ education fail to provide people with an ideal, something to hope for, something worth sacrificing for. Instead, these flawed approaches emphasize safety, fear, and rules. Sex and love are inherently unsafe–that’s part of what makes them attractive. Harping on safety won’t change behavior. And, of course, teens especially are born adherents to the letter of the law–teach abstinence only, and they’ll just switch to oral sex. Unfortunate but true.” Our emphasis should be on marriage and love, not fear and caution.