Tag Archives: teens

From the flying pigs category, I sort of agree with Maureen Dowd

Maureen Dowd wrote Their Dangerous Swagger about some reprehensible behavior by some high school boys.

It was set up like a fantasy football league draft. The height, weight and performance statistics of the draftees were offered to decide who would make the cut and who would emerge as the No. 1 pick.

But the players in this predatory game were not famous N.F.L. stars. They were unwitting girls about to start high school.

A group of soon-to-be freshmen boys at Landon, an elite private grade school and high school for boys in the wealthy Washington suburb of Montgomery County, Md., was drafting local girls.

One team was called “The Southside Slampigs,” and one boy dubbed his team with crude street slang for drug-addicted prostitutes.

. . .

Before they got caught last summer, the boys had planned an “opening day party,” complete with T-shirts, where the mission was to invite the drafted girls and, unbeknownst to them, score points by trying to rack up as many sexual encounters with the young women as possible.

“They evidently got points for first, second and third base,” said one outraged father of a drafted girl. “They were going to have parties and tally up the points, and money was going to be exchanged at the end of the season.” He said that the boys would also have earned points for “schmoozing with the parents.”

. . .

Another parent was equally appalled: “I think the girls felt like they were getting targeted, that this was some big game. Talk about using people. It doesn’t get much worse than that.”

Landon is where the sons of many prominent members of the community are sent to learn “the code of character,” where “a Landon man” is part of a “true Brotherhood” and is known for his good word, respect and honesty. The school’s Web site boasts about the Landon Civility Code; boys are expected to “work together to eliminate all forms of disrespect” and “respect one another and our surroundings in our decorum, appearance, and interactions.”

. . .

Time for a curriculum overhaul. Young men everywhere must be taught, beyond platitudes, that young women are not prey.

I completely agree with the problems she identified and that women — young or old — should not be considered prey.

But where is Ms. Dowd’s grounding for such complaints?  How can a pro-Planned Parenthood person be surprised at such coarse behavior?  They have spent decades and millions of dollars teaching our youth that you can have sex without consequences if you are careful enough, that you can hide the evidence (i.e., abortion) if something goes wrong and that even if you end up HIV positive you don’t have to tell your sex partners.  They tell kids to ignore their parents and their religion and just have sex when they think they are ready — which, not surprisingly, is the same time as when they want to have sex.

It is extremely well documented that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape, so if Dowd really cares about these teenage girls she might want to speak up about that as well.

Dowd is correct to point out the despicable behavior of the boys.  What she misses is that she has been part of the problem.  She and all the Planned Parenthood-types successfully taught kids that sex is a recreational activity and that any relation to marriage or creating new life is purely coincidental.  Looks like these boys were listening.

Even Dear Abby has limits. Sort of.

But she can’t explain them.  At all.

I remember a column a few years back when Abby did some quick math and informed a girl that if she kept acquiring sexual partners at her current rate, then by the time she was 25 she will have had sex with 100 different men.  Abby thought that was too many, but was a little sheepish in saying so.  And I know why.

Now I think that most rational people would agree that 100 sex partners is too many for a lifetime, let alone a 25 year old. 

Unfortunately, while Abby knew that 100 was too high she didn’t elaborate on what the proper limit was.  Abby certainly wasn’t limiting it to 1 partner — only one of those crazy right wing domestic terrorist Bible thumping abstinence promoting Christian freaks would suggest that. 

But what is the proper limit?  Probably not 2, or 3.  Is it 90? 80? 50?

Hey Abby and other Planned Parenthood types who don’t think the ideal is just one: What is the limit, and why is that the limit?  If not 1, then why not 100? 

Here are a few reasons you should not use:

  • Diseases — everyone knows they go up dramatically as you add partners, but they increase a bunch when you go from 1 to 2 as well.  If 100 partners is bad because of the risk of disease, then so is 2.  And the risk doesn’t increase that much when you go from 99 to 100.
  • Emotional attachment — again, if 100 would impact your ability to attach emotionally then so will 2.
  • Pregnancy — having sex 1 time with 100 different people is no more likely to result in pregnancy than 100 times with 1 person.  And we know that if you just do what Planned Parenthood says then you are very, very unlikely to get pregnant, right?!

In short, you need to explain why there would be a specific limit other than 1.

Theological Liberals should also explain why breaking God’s laws for human sexuality is acceptable before marriage, and why if your partner breaks them before the marriage you can still trust that he/she will follow them afterwards. 

I’m sticking with a target of 1 per person per life — other than death of a spouse or a biblical divorce (e.g., abandonment or adultery by your spouse).  I’ve got a bunch of reasons for why that is the ideal — no risk of diseases, built-in male and female parents if you have kids (go figure, and what a convenience!), less stress, more confidence in your relationship, it is the loving thing to do for your spouse, obeying what God says, and so much more.

—–

Another bad bit of reasoning by Dear Abby: She doesn’t recommend Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they “might” show pictures of abortions (I am not aware of centers which show pictures of abortions, but it may be possible.  CareNet pregnancy centers do not maintain any such images nor do they show them to clients).  And CPCs do a wide variety of amazing things to help women in their time of need. 

So Abby basically says that showing the picture of an abortion is so bad that because someone might do it you should ignore the great things they offer women, but the abortion itself is morally acceptable.  Everybody got that?

—–

When you deny the obvious ideal of one man, one woman marriages for life and you ignore the scientific fact that life begins at conception, then you end up trying to support all sorts of bizarre and illogical ideas.  It must be exhausting propping up such a worldview.

Of course many people break these commands of God.  Jesus even noted that lust was akin to adultery, which pretty much convicts us all many times over.  The good news is that forgiveness is possible.  But in the mean time, what ideal are we aiming at?  The consequences are serious.  Countless ills of society can be traced to sexual sin and the breakdown of the family.  And people like Dear Abby are not helping.