That Silver Ring Thing

So what are these kids doing in the above picture? They're wearing their silver rings. Before watching 60 Minutes tonight, I had never heard of this organization, but thanks to their unfavorable portrayal of this group, I am now aware and I'm disgusted with yet another piece of CBS News' slanted journalism.

What is Silver Ring Thing? It's a program that uses sketch comedy and music videos to promote sexual abstinence before marriage. The silver ring, which you can see being worn by the kids in the above picture, is a symbol of making a commitment to abstain from sex until marriage. Besides encouraging kids to abstain from sex, it also discourages them from using condoms, saying that they are not as effective as the manufacturers and other proponents would lead you to believe.

So what did Ed Bradley think of this? It was apparent he took a dim view. He kept trying to press the point that yes, abstinence was the best policy but if that didn't work and a person decided he or she was going to have sex anyway, then at least they should be prepared by using protection such as a condom. The founder of SRT, Danny Pattyn, disagreed. While condoms may work in the short term, he felt in the long term they were ineffective.

Ed also brought a fancy-schmansy so-called expert from Columbia University to point out how wrong Danny's attitude was. The stance they took was that while admirable, a high proportion of the kids who took the abstinence vow would break it after an average of 18 months and if they then decided not to use a condom, they were exposing themselves to the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy. In addition, while these kids who had made a vow to abstain may not technically have intercourse, it was pointed out that they may engage in other forms of sexual activity such as oral sex, etc., which exposed them to the dangers of disease.

Ed asked Danny, wouldn't it be better if you told your kid that you didn't want them to have sex but if they did, then at least give them a condom to protect themselves? Danny said no, aside from the fact that condoms were ineffective, that would be sending a mixed message to the kid.

No, said the expert from Columbia U. That is not sending a mixed message; it is telling your kid you love them and you are trying to protect them.

Well, time to get on the Monkubox. Let's see... telling your kid NOT to have sex but IF you do have sex, then make sure to use a condom. That's NOT a mixed message??? That's like telling your kid that you want them to study and get good grades in high school so that they can get into a good college, but IF they goof off and get lousy grades, then at least you will pay for their education anyway. Or telling them NOT to go out and get drunk but IF they do, at least sleep over a friends house instead of driving home. That doesn't send a mixed message? If I were a kid I'd take the low road because the low road would be more appealing to me and what the heck, there's no consequences for taking the low road anyway because I still arrive at the same place! Well on second thought I guess there really isn't a mixed message because you aren't giving your kid ambivalent feelings about it, you are implcitly winking your eye at the behavior you are saying with your mouth is not acceptable.

I don't think Ed Bradley or the Columbia expert really got the point of what Danny Pattyn was trying to say. He wasn't saying that condoms don't work in a literal sense. When used properly they are effective. What he was saying was that telling kids to use condoms is not going to solve the problem we have that arise from teens and pre-teens having premarital sex. Excuse the bad stab at humor but using condoms is just a band-aid approach to things.

This is just another example of trying to take responsibility away from the person who is doing the action. Let's just go for the quick fix -use the condom or whatever form of protection instead of getting to the root of the matter because people are going to have sex anyway.

Well, people are going to get drunk anyway, take drugs anyway, beat their spouse anyway, etc., so does that mean we shouldn't try to eliminate such things?

It is not an easy thing to abstain from sex because it is so pleasurable. Things that are pleasurable are hard to avoid doing in excess - eating, alcohol, etc. So you have to work extra hard at it. Quick fixes may work in the short term but in the long term they don't. Take a look at diets - people go on one diet after another, looking for the quick fix in place of the real answer of eating less and exercising more. Some of these diets work - for a while- but then the dieter finds himself or herself back where he or she started.

Premarital sex is also hard to control because unlike violence or overeating, the media very rarely shows any negative consequences of having sex. Look at the popularity of Desparate Housewives. Sex before or outside of marriage goes on all the time in tv and movieland and nothing negative really comes of it. Violence usually winds up with the offender paying some sort of price; fat people are made to look unattractive so the pressure is on people not to look like that. So trying to stop kids from having premarital sex is an uphill battle. It's not easy, and to take the cop-out way of saying, oh, please don't but if you do, (wink wink), then please use a condom because I love you - that's not going to help in the long run. And it sends the wrong message! If you really love your kids then you will explain to them the consequences of having premarital sex and let them know in no uncertain terms that it is NOT a good thing to do so and it is imperative that they don't give in to their urges. Then you have to let them take responsibility for their actions. To say all that and then say, but if you are gonna do it anyway then take this package of condoms is hypocritical.

You know, we all make mistakes in our lives. No matter what we do, there are always going to be those people who have premarital sex, who take drugs, who do whatever it is that they are not supposed to do. But if they aren't made to take responsibility for their actions and suffer some consequences, then they are never going to stop. If we give them quick fixes for everything, they'll just figure life is a succession of quick fixes and there's no need to be responsible in the first place.

I'm on the side of the Silver Ring Thing. I'm thinking long term solutions here that put the ball in the individual's court, not short term quick-fixes that give the wrong meaning to everything. I hope they can keep the ball rolling and get more commitments to wear these rings.