When an American mom took her 17 year old daughter to the doctor's for an appointment, she learned that a nurse may meet with her daughter to have a private discussion. This response is an open letter to that mom's unrealistic, scary and sheltering opinion on the situation.
Mrs Duffy took her 17 year old daughter to the doctor's and was met with this sign at the reception desk:
On the surface that sign doesn't seem worthy of upset and a whole blog post. But continuing to read the post, it becomes clear, Mrs Duffy is afraid, deathly terrified, by the sounds of things, that someone would dare to speak to her 17 year old daughter, Amy, about "sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll - who knows?)"
Mrs Duffy continuously alleges in this post and the one that follows it that she is the parent and that she should be the sole one responsible for talking with her child about such things. But I can't help but wonder: the child in question is 17 years old. That means in 11 months or fewer, she will be 18. A legal adult. Mrs Duffy is harping on and on about parental rights over someone who is as good as an adult! Furthermore, it sounds to me as if this is one soon-to-be-adult who will have no experience with sex or drugs. If Mrs Duffy has raised her daughter with abstinence being the only option when it comes to sex, is Amy going to be prepared to face the world?
Assuming Amy goes to college, what happens when she is confronted with sex, drugs and rock and roll (gasp, shock, horror!) in the dorm? Or outside the dorm? Even if she goes to a Christian college, she'll be confronted by it. Unless Mrs Duffy is planning on enrolling and being roomies with Amy, she's going to have to loosen the apron strings, eventually. But that's not what I'm concerned about and this post isn't intended to pick apart Mrs Duffy and the way she chooses to bring up her children. Instead, I wanted to address the issues I have surrounding this radical Christian belief that makes abstinence the only option when it comes to sex.
Let me state clearly, I'm not suggesting teenagers should be having sex. When my son is a teenager, I'll be encouraging him to abstain. Not until he's married, until he's mature enough to understand the implications, the emotions, the effects etc. I don't want him to view sex as thing you do when you're bored or something insignificant and unimportant. Sex is one of the greatest, most powerful, most intimate ways to know someone. It shouldn't be shrouded in mystery and mystique and it shouldn't be cloaked in ceremonies, rings and vows.
On Mrs Duffy's G+ page sharing this blog post, there's dozens of comments of people supporting her, stating that she could continue sticking it to the man! "These are our children! We'll raise them; not the government," they cry. That's all well and good, but I wonder if they've taken just five minutes to look at the situation from a different viewpoint? Anytime any government does anything to look after its citizens from passing a law regarding sexual health to placing restrictions on the FDA, it has to brace itself for a curtail of insult and up-turn noses from the radical right wing. It has to be braced for the criticisms, the cries of socialism, for the absurd, near-sighted approach people like Mrs Duffy take. And that just isn't fair. Christians and people like Mrs Duffy box the government against the wall and put them in a damned if they do; damned if they don't situation.
I wonder if Mrs Duffy stopped before asking to opt out of the policy to think about what its intentions are. From the sounds of things, Amy is a lucky 17 year old girl. She has a mother who is involved with her life and who cares enough about her to protect her from things that children should be protected from. One gets the impression that Mrs Duffy had a firm hand in the upbringing of Amy and insured that she had the type of childhood a child needs. Kudos to you, Mrs Duffy. But where Mrs Duffy oversteps the bounds is in assuming that this policy is in place to drive a wedge between child and parent and to undermine everything Mrs Duffy has worked so hard to instill in her child.
Mrs Duffy, before you kindly asked to opt out and before you attacked the purpose of this policy, did you stop to consider the fates of children not as fortunate as Amy? Not every child has a parent who cares enough about them to speak to them about HIV, STDs and maybe even rock and roll. What about those children who don't have a personally-invested advocate the way Amy does? With this policy, there's a bit of insurance that these guideless children will finally get some guidance and some much needed knowledge about HIV, STDs and other important issues.
Quite stupidly, Mrs Duffy writes:
Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?
Here's the issue I have with that statement: Mrs Duffy doesn't seem capable of understanding that doctors and nurses might be intelligent enough to have discretion and common sense. No one on the planet is going to sit a 12 year old down and give them a five minute lecture on birth control. No one. No one on the planet is going to a 12 year old down and fill their pockets with condoms and lubricants. No one. But Mrs Duffy seems to lack the intellect necessary to see past her own misguided understanding of the medical industry. She seems incapable of understanding that there are two sides to every story.
I don't know Mrs Duffy, but I get the feeling that there's only one right answer in her household: hers. Or her partner's. (If she has one.) I get the feeling that the Duffy household is rife with rules and policies (which is good!) that go unchallenged, simply because Mrs Duffy laid down the Duffy Law. That's the issue I have. We cannot expect our children to develop into fully functioning adults when we don't give them space to fully develop.
The point of this new policy is not to fill children's heads with wild ideas about sex and to fill their pockets with condoms. It's to give them a chance to ask the questions kids NEED to ask. It's to give them a chance to speak openly about a subject that might be taboo in their households. What would Mrs Duffy say if Amy wanted to discuss sex? More than likely, she's probably be given some pat answer about abstinence and sex being something that only married people do. That would most likely be the end of the discussion. There'd be no advice nor information given about being safe, about STDs or even about a person's right to deny sex.
The environment in most houses where abstinence is preached and practiced is one where no sexual health whatsoever gets discussed. If children can't talk about sex, they can't ask questions about their own bodies. Half of them probably know less than my toddler about their sexual anatomy. That's not cool. There are some things regarding sex that should be discussed. There are some things that children should know that wouldn't infringe on their choice (whether genuine or forced) to practice abstinence.
I have to point this out: why are people so up in arms about this policy? Remember that verse? Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Mrs Duffy and all other parents, if you have trained your child properly. If you have given them the information they need and have instilled in them the ideals and ideas that you deem are necessary and correct, what are you so afraid of a five minute conversation? Years of properly informing your child and insuring that they live life in accordance to what you feel is doctrinally sound cannot be undone in a 5 minute conversation. What's the big deal? Mrs Duffy should be happy for Amy to have these types of discussions with a medical professional. Mrs Duffy should know that Amy knows what is expected of her and knows what she believes. If she doesn't, is it perhaps because Mrs Duffy's opinions aren't Amy's? Is it because Amy might want to live her own life? God forbid! Or is it because Mrs Duffy and parents of a similar ilk are coming to realization that their idea of living is becoming increasingly the opposite of what their children believe and how their children want to live? Is this their desperate way to cling onto their children a little longer, to fill them with their personal convictions?
Mrs Duffy continuously alleges in this post and the one that follows it that she is the parent and that she should be the sole one responsible for talking with her child about such things. But I can't help but wonder: the child in question is 17 years old. That means in 11 months or fewer, she will be 18. A legal adult. Mrs Duffy is harping on and on about parental rights over someone who is as good as an adult! Furthermore, it sounds to me as if this is one soon-to-be-adult who will have no experience with sex or drugs. If Mrs Duffy has raised her daughter with abstinence being the only option when it comes to sex, is Amy going to be prepared to face the world?
Assuming Amy goes to college, what happens when she is confronted with sex, drugs and rock and roll (gasp, shock, horror!) in the dorm? Or outside the dorm? Even if she goes to a Christian college, she'll be confronted by it. Unless Mrs Duffy is planning on enrolling and being roomies with Amy, she's going to have to loosen the apron strings, eventually. But that's not what I'm concerned about and this post isn't intended to pick apart Mrs Duffy and the way she chooses to bring up her children. Instead, I wanted to address the issues I have surrounding this radical Christian belief that makes abstinence the only option when it comes to sex.
Let me state clearly, I'm not suggesting teenagers should be having sex. When my son is a teenager, I'll be encouraging him to abstain. Not until he's married, until he's mature enough to understand the implications, the emotions, the effects etc. I don't want him to view sex as thing you do when you're bored or something insignificant and unimportant. Sex is one of the greatest, most powerful, most intimate ways to know someone. It shouldn't be shrouded in mystery and mystique and it shouldn't be cloaked in ceremonies, rings and vows.
On Mrs Duffy's G+ page sharing this blog post, there's dozens of comments of people supporting her, stating that she could continue sticking it to the man! "These are our children! We'll raise them; not the government," they cry. That's all well and good, but I wonder if they've taken just five minutes to look at the situation from a different viewpoint? Anytime any government does anything to look after its citizens from passing a law regarding sexual health to placing restrictions on the FDA, it has to brace itself for a curtail of insult and up-turn noses from the radical right wing. It has to be braced for the criticisms, the cries of socialism, for the absurd, near-sighted approach people like Mrs Duffy take. And that just isn't fair. Christians and people like Mrs Duffy box the government against the wall and put them in a damned if they do; damned if they don't situation.
I wonder if Mrs Duffy stopped before asking to opt out of the policy to think about what its intentions are. From the sounds of things, Amy is a lucky 17 year old girl. She has a mother who is involved with her life and who cares enough about her to protect her from things that children should be protected from. One gets the impression that Mrs Duffy had a firm hand in the upbringing of Amy and insured that she had the type of childhood a child needs. Kudos to you, Mrs Duffy. But where Mrs Duffy oversteps the bounds is in assuming that this policy is in place to drive a wedge between child and parent and to undermine everything Mrs Duffy has worked so hard to instill in her child.
Mrs Duffy, before you kindly asked to opt out and before you attacked the purpose of this policy, did you stop to consider the fates of children not as fortunate as Amy? Not every child has a parent who cares enough about them to speak to them about HIV, STDs and maybe even rock and roll. What about those children who don't have a personally-invested advocate the way Amy does? With this policy, there's a bit of insurance that these guideless children will finally get some guidance and some much needed knowledge about HIV, STDs and other important issues.
Quite stupidly, Mrs Duffy writes:
Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?
Here's the issue I have with that statement: Mrs Duffy doesn't seem capable of understanding that doctors and nurses might be intelligent enough to have discretion and common sense. No one on the planet is going to sit a 12 year old down and give them a five minute lecture on birth control. No one. No one on the planet is going to a 12 year old down and fill their pockets with condoms and lubricants. No one. But Mrs Duffy seems to lack the intellect necessary to see past her own misguided understanding of the medical industry. She seems incapable of understanding that there are two sides to every story.
I don't know Mrs Duffy, but I get the feeling that there's only one right answer in her household: hers. Or her partner's. (If she has one.) I get the feeling that the Duffy household is rife with rules and policies (which is good!) that go unchallenged, simply because Mrs Duffy laid down the Duffy Law. That's the issue I have. We cannot expect our children to develop into fully functioning adults when we don't give them space to fully develop.
The point of this new policy is not to fill children's heads with wild ideas about sex and to fill their pockets with condoms. It's to give them a chance to ask the questions kids NEED to ask. It's to give them a chance to speak openly about a subject that might be taboo in their households. What would Mrs Duffy say if Amy wanted to discuss sex? More than likely, she's probably be given some pat answer about abstinence and sex being something that only married people do. That would most likely be the end of the discussion. There'd be no advice nor information given about being safe, about STDs or even about a person's right to deny sex.
The environment in most houses where abstinence is preached and practiced is one where no sexual health whatsoever gets discussed. If children can't talk about sex, they can't ask questions about their own bodies. Half of them probably know less than my toddler about their sexual anatomy. That's not cool. There are some things regarding sex that should be discussed. There are some things that children should know that wouldn't infringe on their choice (whether genuine or forced) to practice abstinence.
I have to point this out: why are people so up in arms about this policy? Remember that verse? Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Mrs Duffy and all other parents, if you have trained your child properly. If you have given them the information they need and have instilled in them the ideals and ideas that you deem are necessary and correct, what are you so afraid of a five minute conversation? Years of properly informing your child and insuring that they live life in accordance to what you feel is doctrinally sound cannot be undone in a 5 minute conversation. What's the big deal? Mrs Duffy should be happy for Amy to have these types of discussions with a medical professional. Mrs Duffy should know that Amy knows what is expected of her and knows what she believes. If she doesn't, is it perhaps because Mrs Duffy's opinions aren't Amy's? Is it because Amy might want to live her own life? God forbid! Or is it because Mrs Duffy and parents of a similar ilk are coming to realization that their idea of living is becoming increasingly the opposite of what their children believe and how their children want to live? Is this their desperate way to cling onto their children a little longer, to fill them with their personal convictions?