Adams State University is my alma mater. I still live in the town where it’s located, and I know members of the faculty and some of the students through my local church. I still care very much for the school, and want to minister to the campus.
Last year I heard about an event the school held called “Sex in the Dark.”
“Sex in the Dark” is not original to Adams State. It appears to be a common presentation in most universities. It is a kind of “sexual awareness” event where a panel of “sexperts” answer anonymous questions from students about sex.
What I heard last year about this event was shocking to say the least, so this year I mustered the gumption to attend it for myself.
I did not protest, I did not make a scene. I sat and listened quietly, and I would like to share some of my thoughts from the event with my readers…
Setting the Stage: The Panel
The line to get in was long, so I missed the introductions for the panel. However, I was able to ascertain most of their credentials during the process. There were a total of 8 panel members. From the audience’s left to right there sat a medical doctor, a lawyer, and the woman who “runs” the local Planned Parenthood (PP). (I will call her the director, although I do not know if that’s her official professional title.)To her left was an expert in the field of Psychology. (I imagine he teaches at Adams State.) The man next to him worked at Adams through the tech. department, but seemed involved in sex-awareness events regularly on campus. The woman next to him I remember being a theatre professor while I was in school, but I do not know if she currently maintains that role, and lastly there were two women to her left that worked for our local community care clinic, one of them was a sexual abuse counselor of some kind, and also has other professional work in sex education.
Not So Safe Sex
The vast majority of the night was just the regurgitation of the importance of “safe sex.” Nearly every question eventually came back to cliche safe-sex slogans. The answers varied from “wear condoms always,” to the more cheeky “wrap it up.”
The ironic aspect of this was that the medical doctor shared some pretty devastating facts. He mentioned-although he did not cite any specific study-that statistics indicate STI’s/STD’s are growing at a rapid and alarming rate. He mentioned the medical community is panicked over this, and he even talked about how these diseases are evolving immunity to our drugs. Specifically, Gonorrhea is on its “last” vaccine. I cannot tell you what that means precisely, but he explained it as meaning the drugs which currently work, soon will not. STI’s are skyrocketing, and the diseases are outsmarting us. God’s Law is the only thing which teaches true safe sex, and when we abandoned that, pregnancies and diseases ran out of control. Who woulda thunk?
To summarize, safe sex is not so safe, and safe sex education is not working. Rather than repentance, the plan is to just stick with it and beat young, passionate, pagan adults with more of the same condom-advocating they have been ignoring for years.
The college kids were just that…kids. The behavior of the students can be described politely as immature. College has truly become what many fundamentalists have been preaching for a long time, an extension of high school.
The purpose of government college for the average college student is to have parents subsidize the partying taking place among those desperate to prolong adolescence four more years, while they receive indoctrination by zealous secular priests, until the day they graduate with a worthless degree they spend the rest of their lives paying off with the job it took them far too long to obtain, which happens to be unrelated to their field of study.
(Some careers need higher education. Some people need higher education, but many do not, and I would encourage all parents to deeply evaluate the condition of higher education, and think very deeply about the cost.)
This prolonged adolescence was on full display at “Sex in the Dark.” The questions were often not intended to be serious, but to merely make a inappropriate jokes, evidenced by the eruption of laughter that ensued each time.
What made it all worse was that even the serious questions were often met with laughter, even though the event is advertised as a safe, non-judgmental place to ask questions. There was nothing “safe” or “non-judgmental” about the event, despite the fact those buzz-words echoed into the auditorium from the panel relentlessly.
Most of the outrageous comments of the night I had expected. What took me by surprise was one of the statements made by the P.P. representative. A question related to the reality that many students fear the embarrassment of getting tested for STI’s, which make them hesitant to get tested. This prompted her to mention how many students avoid getting tested because they are on their parents insurance and “don’t want their parents to know.” At that point, she assured them to go to P.P. anyway, informing the audience the clinic can figure out how to keep it confidential.
Although I shouldn’t be surprised that an organization which murders children isn’t ethical across the board, I was. In case you need help reading between the lines:
Students who are freeloading on their parents’ insurance, and most likely not paying into it at all, are told the owners and providers of that plan will be intentionally manipulated, or possibly even lied to, from a medical provider. That is outrageous (although not more outrageous than butchering babies).
Anticipating objections, I presume many will appeal to these kids being “adults.” Don’t adults deserve privacy since they are making their own decisions? However, being an adult in this scenario is irrelevant. They are on someone else’s plan, and they are not paying for their insurance. What entitles them to privacy?
A ten year old child does not have a right to his own room where he can be alone whenever he wants. He has no right to privacy there. His parents may choose to honor him by giving him his own room and privacy out of the kindness of their hearts, but he has no right to it. At any point in time they can take the door off that room, and they can be in that room as long as they want. Why? They own and pay for the house; it’s actually his parents’ room. They are not indebted to their ten-year-old, and he certainly does not have the right to secretly bring in a government subsidized organization to padlock the room, giving him alone the pass-code, and then billing his parents for the installation and equipment.
That simple logic applies here. There is nothing shameful about remaining on your parents’ insurance in college. I did it. It’s legal, and oftentimes affordable. However, if a student makes that decision, they are surrendering many things, including medical privacy.
If you want to be a big boy or girl, sleep with whomever you want, and keep anyone from knowing about your activities, get a job and pay for your own healthcare.
When your healthcare is actually yours, so will be your privacy. You can visit your local infant-slaughterhouse as often as you want, expecting privacy along the way.
Speaking of abortion, there was another fascinating moment of the night. During one of the moralism sermons, the lawyer tried to appeal to child support as a deterrent for unprotected sex. He told the students that child support, at the bottom end, will be around $330 a month. He then rhetorically asked them if they, as college kids, can afford those monthly payments for the next 19 years of their lives.
At that moment, you could feel the tension in the air. The lawyer, sitting directly next to the PP director, mentioned birth control payments as if they were an inevitable consequence of an unexpected pregnancy. And, although I do not know the hearts of men, you could sense that everyone was thinking the same thing. Everyone’s eyes locked in on the P.P. director waiting for her to remind us all that child support payments are not at all inevitable… but she didn’t say it.
Why was abortion not recommended in that moment? Is it not a viable option for an unexpected pregnancy? In fact, I was amazed that the only time abortion was mentioned was when the P.P. director reminded the students at the very end of the night that abortion is not all that is done at a P.P. clinic, and they can go to P.P. for many other things.
In my opinion, what everyone was thinking was not said for one of two reasons:
Either, everyone in that auditorium still has a seed of moral consciousness, pre-programmed by God (Romans 2), convicting them. They know abortion is immoral, and that is why it remained taboo to mention in that moment.
Or, everyone on the panel inherently recognized in that moment that abortion is actually an anti-deterrent to safe sex. The abortion option almost completely nullifies all of the safe-sex sermons we heard. They did not want to say the obvious. The obvious being, “You don’t need to pay 19 years of child support. After all, a few of those payments will cover an uninsured abortion. With insurance, it could be less than one of them.”
The same lawyer tried to remind the women that getting pregnant, statistically, will most likely disrupt their education goals permanently. Again, that scare tactic does not work as long as abortion is on the table. Abortion encourages unprotected sex. As advertised, it is a “safe” and affordable means to “terminate a pregnancy.” Apparently it’s the woman’s body, not the baby’s, and there is nothing immoral about it.
By What Standard?
The bulk of what I would like to say about the night is in regards to an audience question I got to ask. The night was broken up into two kinds of questions: ethical and scientific.
There were many answers involving raw science. “This causes that.” “This cannot transmit that.” Etc. However, most of the night was simply the promulgation of gross immorality. Sex was encouraged and promoted. Absolutely nothing was off the table other than illegal, non-consensual sex. It was clear that any behavior at all, provided everyone involved consented (which means constant “consent checkups” during fornication) was permissible.
Moral language was utilized all night long. Things were said like:
“Sex is good. If you want to have it, good for you, you do it. There’s nothing wrong with it.”
“Leave people better than you left them.”
“Don’t be a garbage person.”
“If you do that, that’s wrong.”
“As long as it makes you happy, there’s nothing wrong with it.”
This kind of language was utilized all night long. Premarital sex, homosexual sex, poly-amorous sex, robotic sex, and many other blatant rejections of God’s holy Law were encouraged among the students. Even during a question of whether or not “friends with benefits” was wrong, after the laughter and anger died down from someone daring to even ask the question, the panel resounded in a bold consensus that it is right and good as long as you keep open lines of communication. “Have at it” in other words.
I have written elsewhere about how even the “legal” and “consensual” pillars of secular sexology cannot stand for long, so I will keep my comments here focused on the common question relevant to this, “By what standard?”
The last two questions of the night were posed to the audience. The grace of God provided an opportunity to ask this question (without opportunity to follow up or engage further). Seizing an opportunity no one else wanted in my section, I took the microphone and asked the panel what authority we ought to turn to in order to determine, objectively, whether human behavior is permissible or impermissible (secular jargon for sin and righteousness). After about three seconds of silence, I got two answers.
The first answer was from the lawyer, and his answer was
“Whoa. That’s a big question… I’m not sure there’s an answer to that.”
To which I wanted to say, “Then why are you up there? And why have you been speaking all night as if there is an answer to that?” You cannot condemn any human behavior, nor can you condone as “good” any other human behavior without this objective standard. Movement cannot be progress unless we know where we are supposed to be going. Without this standard, there is no wrong or right sex. There is just diversity. Whether it is consensual, marital sex, or statutory rape after slipping someone pills, it doesn’t matter, the universe does not care, it’s just activity with no objective standard above to speak to it. Everything that was said by that panel would be completely demolished by one simple question, “Says who?”
Anyone can become a professional boundary-drawer. This panel draws the line at consent and law. If it’s illegal or non-consensual, you must not cross that boundary. The religious draw the line at anything outside of consensual, marital, heterosexual sex. Others would consider this panel to be bigots, asking why can’t the Arkansas cousins make consensual love? Why can’t I sleep with someone who chose to get intoxicated so severely? Who says minors can’t consent? Says who?
You see, lots of people draw lines. But unless there is an objective line, no one has business being on a panel calling some behavior “good” and other behavior “wrong.” Why is their line more authoritative than mine? In other words, without an objective standard for sexual ethics, “sexperts” can’t exist.
The other answer I received to my “by what standard” question, from the computer technician, was that “it’s relative to each person.” Ironically, this was followed immediately by an objective moral expectation “that’s why you should find a partner who shares your morality.” Wait, wait, wait. Where did that “should” come from? I thought we each get to make our own “shoulds.”
Not long after that, “a garbage human being” was referenced, and “leaving someone better than you found them” was offered. But those statements do not support the theory that sexual ethics are relative. When you call someone else a garbage human being, you are indicting them with a moral standard they didn’t choose. When you command us to leave someone “better,” you’re assuming there is a standard above both of us which a term like “better” is measured.
But the panel gave that standard up, and unfortunately, salvation along with it.
Sex in the Light
“Sex in the Dark” is a very fitting title for such an event as it was the promulgation of sin, and sin loves the dark. John 3: 19-20,
“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
I write this blog in the hopes of bringing some light into the darkness. I want to expose the sin, rebuke it, mock it, and remind people of God’s Law and His Gospel.
God’s sexual ethic is far superior and far more loving, by definition, than anything heard at “Sex in the Dark.” Had mankind obeyed it, STD’s and abortions would not even exist, but we have broken that Law, all of us. Thankfully, Christians have good news; we have Gospel. We can offer God’s forgiveness from sexual sin, pardon from future judgment, and a transformed life lived with the Spirit, and that Gospel message comes just prior to the text cited above in John,
“No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (13-18).