Orthodox Union Joins in Abstinence-Related Anti-Condom Rhetoric
Advising teenagers that condom use is dangerous is widely assumed to lead to less condom usage among those who are sexually active, and now a Jewish group is giving the same advice you’ve heard of Christian abstinence classes giving.
The Orthodox Union has just launched its counterpart to the abstinence movement we’ve all read so much about. Read through the literature on the abstinence movement making its way through public schools and other childhood education, and you’ll find that it leads to decreased condom use among the sexually-active, that self-proclaimed “virgins” frequently choose instead to engage in sexual activity that they simply don’t consider “sexual intercourse” and tend to do it in an unsafe manner, and myriad other issues.
Now, if you were thinking that when Jewish groups, with so many health professional among their ranks having spoken out against these pro-abstinence tactics, would veer away from suggestions that could tempt Jewish youth into unsafe practices, you’d be wrong:
Condoms Are Not the Answer!
Condoms might protect people from pregnancy and most forms of STD, but there’s a lot they don’t protect people from.*
For starters, condoms do not protect against human papillomavirus (HPV), which can be passed by body parts left uncovered by a condom. There are over 100 strains of HPV, which can cause a number of things, from genital warts to prostate cancer in men and cervical cancer in women. (Over 12,000 women develop invasive cervical cancer a year and over 4,000 women die from it.) HPV is most common among men and women who have multiple sex partners. (HPV can be detected in woman by a Pap test but there are no HPV tests for men.)
Additionally, a particular spermicide used in some condoms can actually make people more likely to contract HIV! Nonoxynol-9 (N9) is a spermicide used in many condoms (and most diaphragm jellies). N9 makes tiny scratches in the vaginal walls, which makes the transmission of disease more likely. A four-year study found that people who used N9 had a 50% higher rate of infection than those who used a placebo. (Use of N9 can also lead to vaginal lesions and urinary tract infections.)
Oh, and that asterisk at the top? Just in case you were wondering:
*There are certain forms of birth control that a married couple may be permitted to use under certain circumstances, but a condom is not among them. Married persons in search of guidance in this area, please consult your rabbi. If you do not have a rabbi, please email AskNCSY@ou.org.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:52 am
This stupid youth group is so inappropriate for liberal and secular Jewry in so many critical ways. It’s mind boggling they are in our schools deceptively under the “JSU.”
NCSY is simply not normal. Ever.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Notice nothing encouraging girls to get an HPV vaccine? No, of course not. That would be the responsible thing to do.
JERKS!
May 11th, 2007 at 10:37 am
What NCSY is saying seems to be accurate. However, they are giving this message to the wrong audience.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Steve,
I don’t remember you taking a position against the secular Jewish organizations when they come out for various immoral positions, as they always do.
Perhaps you will argue you are only focusing on the anti-health, not the anti-morality.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
According to Rabbi Yitzchok Breitowitz, whoi I think is NCSY-affiliated:
1. Use of condoms: While Jewish law generally frowns upon the use of condoms as a contraceptive, it would permit their use as a means to prevent the spread of a life-threatening illness. The Torah would not require an AIDS patient to practice lifetime abstinence. Whether condoms should be openly distributed to students in schools is a more difficult issue. Obviously, Judaism believes that sex should take place within the framework of a loving and committed marriage and frowns on any efforts that would openly legitimize alternative lifestyles and premarital affairs. At the same time, if adolescents are going to be sexually-active, they should be aware of precautionary steps. The school must walk the tightrope of affirming abstinence and responsibility as the desired norms but making condoms available as a far distant second best, an evil that is the lesser of two evils.
...
May 12th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I agree with that, and I’m agnostic.
The surest way not to get diseases, pregnancy etc. is to not have sex.
I don’t believe that teenagers stop using condoms because of abstinence education.
I received some abstinence education and I’ve never had sex without a condom.
The worse thing you can get from sex is PREGNANT. No sex is worth 216 monthly installments of child support!!
I tell friends who claim sex is much better without a condom, that its cheaper to get a prostitute than risk getting her pregnant and paying child support.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:49 am
What I meant, was that I agreed with the article and the OU’s position.
(just clarifying)
May 13th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Does that web site sound like the OU? Is that how NCSY communicates these days? Is the tone consistent with other NCSY web sites?
My hunch is that the answer is no. (It certainly doesn’t read like any NCSY material they gave us in the ’80s).
My suspicion — and since it’s only a suspicion, it doesn’t rise to the level of libel (sorry, Steve) — is that this web site may be a result of federal abstinence funding, or an effort to get such funding. Seems like some enterprising Forward stringer should investigate…. though if you play your cards right, you ought to be able to sell it to both the Forward and the Voice.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Reb Yudel - A very interesting theory, though it wouldn’t be by far the first effort among the shifting-rightward Orthodox that mimics the tone and tenor of evangelical-right programming, even when those in the former camp have no state interest in the funding going to those in the latter camp. I’ve already spoken to some insiders on this and heard nothing about such a possibility, though you’re correct that it should be looked into.
As to it reading like other contemporary NCSY material, though, it doesn’t seem wildly inconsistent (though of course David Kelsey could speak with far more authority on that than I can). Things have changed a helluva lot not just since your tenure in the ’80s, nor just mine in the ’90s, but really quite a lot in just the last five years. If you check through some of the stuff Kelsey’s been digging up on The Kvetcher, you’ll be really surprised, especially if the last time you checked it out was 20-odd years ago.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“I tell friends who claim sex is much better without a condom, that its cheaper to get a prostitute than risk getting her pregnant and paying child support.”
David Re - How is a prostitute any less risky than having sex with his girlfriend? Prostitutes are women, too, and if you get a prostitute pregnant and she can track you down, you will be paying child support to her, too, if she decides to have the baby. Your suggestion, however flip it was meant to be, sadly degrades the humanity of women who find themselves in the unfortunate position of prostitution.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I see this as somewhat related to the one-man push on Arutz Sheva by one Tzvi Fishman (”former Hollywood screenwriter,” which is enough to fill volumes on the sociology of Orthodoxy today). He’s created blogs and webpages devoted to preaching against masturbation and- I kid you not- anything that isn’t the missionary position in marriage. (Having sex from behind is particularly dangerous from a kabbalistic perspective, as negative spiritual energy surrounds the buttocks, or something. Check it out for a laugh- or a cry.) It seems to be catching on; there are even prayer services in Israel devoted to rectifying masturbation or some such. In fact, when Arutz Sheva did a news story on the OU’s efforts, comment number one was from someone wondering why the far greater sin (in his mind, certainly not in halacha) of masturbation was mentioned by NCSY.
Of a piece with that is NCSY’s flippant dismissal of oral sex (without mentioning it by name) as “nasty.” Um, isn’t that rather a subjective statement to be making in a theoretically dispassionate website?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I’m proud to say the Reform Movement is dealing with this more realistically.
Check out the “Sacred Choices” curriculum at ...
We’re implementing the middle school module next year at our shul’s religious school for 7th and 8th graders.
When the high school module is complete, we expect to implement that, too.
It’s worth taking a gander at.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Nachum, it’s not the oral sex that is “nasty” per se; it’s the fact that hepatitis A is transmitted through fecal-oral contact.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:39 am
The reference is to herpes. And in any event, “nasty” is still subjective, expecially when speaking in this context. People get turned on by all sorts of stuff- you’d be surprised.