The teenagers fucina controvento 20090501photo © 2009 Palliativo | more info (via: Wylio) From the department of bad ideas:

Patty Skudlarek strives to be a responsible parent. That’s why she says she told her 18-year-old son that if he wants to have sex, not only is she okay with it, but she’d prefer that he do it in the family home.

“I’d rather he … do it here than somewhere else,” Skudlarek told “Good Morning America.” “With the kids having sex at home, it’s a safer environment, because, you know, it’s clean … and usually the place they keep the condoms are in their bedroom.”

The facile justifications by some of the parents for the practice are painful to read, but inevitably the soft bigotry of low expectations makes an appearance:  “They’re going to do it anyways, so might as well make it convenient.”  They might be inclined that direction, but the concession to it as a principle makes what might–might–be plausible become inevitable.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sensible words come from those who would inevitably pay the burden for this sort of irresponsibility:  the young women who are being pressured into it.

“If your boyfriend knows or whoever knows that there is a perfectly open available house I think that takes away one of your big excuses,” Kelly Lund, 17, said.

“Yeah,” Grace McVey, 17, added. “Like, how do you say no? Like, a lot of times if they’re saying, ‘Let’s do it. Let’s do it.’ Like, ‘It’s time,’ whatever you blame it on your parents. You’re like, ‘No, I can’t. My parents would kill me.’ But if that whole thing is gone, like, what do you say?”

The abdication of responsibility to protect younger girls from those advances doesn’t leave them defenseless, but it does place a burden of responsibility on them to find creative points of rejection even while communicating that resistance is, ultimately, futile.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is the Founder and Lead Writer of Mere Orthodoxy. He is the author of Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to our Faith and The End of Our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Follow him on Twitter or on Facebook.

42 Comments

  1. I think it should be increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention that the real losers in the sexual revolutions—whatever people thought would be the case—have been women. The promises of feminist sexuality—of liberation, of power, of freedom from the control of men—have not only been found to be false in the sense of going unfulfilled, but false in the sense that the opposite has happened. And it’s a tragedy.

    Reply

    1. Very well said Chris. Related to this is the specter of sex-selective abortion, and the hundred plus million missing women worldwide. The silence of the feminist movement on this matter is deafening. Great point from Bethany too!

      Reply

    2. I love how we’re blaming feminists for the misogynistic abuse of women. This has always gone on – it’s just in the open now, thanks in large part to the feminist movement.

      I know it sounds enlightened and compassionate to say that the real losers in the sexual revolution have been women, but it betrays a low opinion of women and a blindness to the impact it has had on men. Yes, more women are sexually active outside of marriage than before and yes, that’s brought a lot of terrible consequences… but rape is no longer winked at in polite society. Women are no longer expected to sleep with their bosses rather than lose their jobs, and working in an office doesn’t mean putting up with physical and vocal harassment.

      Sex has consequences, good and bad, and they fall on both partners, whether externally or internally. This “tsk, tsk, the poor women who thought this would help them” attitude is every bit as sexist as attitudes toward women that predate the sexual revolution or the feminist movement. It assumes that either the men escape unscathed, or that they’re uniquely equipped to “handle it”. Neither is true, and both are insulting.

      Reply

      1. linds:

        Your comments seem to me like a response to a straw man.

        Why assume that someone who points out the bad parts without hastening to mention the good parts is sexist and insulting?

        Reply

        1. It’s this: “the real losers in the sexual revolutions—whatever people thought would be the case—have been women.”

          That’s a strong statement. Really? The real losers have been the women? I don’t see how that statement is statistically defensible, to begin with… but it comes from an assumption that women are the weaker partner in a sexual relationship, mentally and emotionally. It’s the same misguided theory that women’s purity needs to be protected by men, as if God hasn’t endowed the women He created with the will and means to govern their own actions. You could make a physical argument for that in the case of rape, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

          In many ways, the feminist movement and sexual revolution have been liberating. Women don’t have to get married to survive. They don’t have to have children when they don’t want to. Only about 45% of American society lives in a married home. There have been negative consequences for women, of course! But I fail to see how they are the “real losers” in this bargain, unless we’re confining the study to lesbians.

          If it takes a man and a woman to have sex, in what way is the woman the “real loser” in the sexual revolution?

          Reply

          1. I would like to point out that one of the consequences of this increasingly casual view of sex is the vast growth of single mothers over the last few decades. Being a single mother significantly increases the odds that her family will be in poverty. Certainly women in this situation can still find ways to “make it,” but poverty is by no means thriving. The reality is that despite the feminist revolution, women are still vulnerable, and yes, need men to protect them. Marriage provides emotional, financial, and physical security, especially for a mother. Interestingly enough, getting married also helps men to become protectors instead of predators.

            This was the basic meaning of my original post – a low view of sex prevents young people from becoming mature, godly adults, men and women alike, with the additional fact that it leaves women vulnerable. Is our only goal here to keep people from getting hurt? Then fine, let’s just focus on managing young peoples’ behavior and the consequences thereof. Do we want men and women who understand that they are made in the image of God and live accordingly? Well, that requires a much bigger shift. In the conversation.

          2. Thank you for your well-thought-out defense to “The Soft Bigotry of Low (Sexual) Expectations!

  2. Though this definitely hurts girls and women, I think it does a disservice to guys as well. We teach boys that, not only can you not control yourself, but your manhood comes by conquest, rather than by honor, and committing to protect those who are more vulnerable than you. As a teenager, I was always taught that the guy is the gas pedal and the girl is the brakes, that my purity depended on my vigilance. It wasn’t until college that I learned that a real man, the type of man I really want to be in a relationship with, considers it his duty to protect the honor and purity of the woman he is with. Instead we teach young men that they are dangerous and girls need to protect themselves them. I’ve even repeated it myself. How does that help them grow up to be good men? The whole mentality is demeaning to men and women, with the addition that it leaves women vulnerable.

    Reply

    1. Yes, yes, yes. Exactly right. An infantilizing doctrine like “It’s inevitable!” hurts everyone, male and female alike. Very well said.

      Reply

    2. Bethany, that’s a great point, and one that I hadn’t considered in those exact terms before. My thought was simply that feminist sexuality has actually disempowered women. The fact that it has likewise pushed men in an unhelpful direction is one that is too little discussed.

      Reply

    3. Thanks for this, Bethany. I quoted you on my blog!

      Reply

      1. Oh wow, thanks everyone! I’ve never been quoted before, this is cool, haha.

        I guess this is something I spend a lot of time thinking about. We live in a time and place where so many people are questioning and rejecting traditional views on gender roles, sexuality, etc. And you know what? Some of those traditional views are not biblical and need to be rejected! But as Christians, we must not accept the relativism the world substitutes on this matter, but get back to what scripture shows us about essential, godly masculinity and femininity. I have a lot to learn, a lot of ideas that need clarifying in my mind, but at the heart of it is the reality that men and women are different, yet both made in the image of God, and equally precious in his sight.

        Ok, I’m not really on the topic anymore, just, uh, enjoying the audience and maybe hoping for an opportunity to write more about this.

        Reply

        1. Bethany implies that when “we teach young men that they are dangerous and girls need to protect themselves against them,” it’s no wonder that the young men really are dangerous and the girls really are vulnerable. They’ve been baptized by their culture as sexually incontinent, and they duly go out into the world to fulfill their vocation. Extending Bethany’s argument a bit, we can say that, were the young men baptized as the ones in training to be virtuous men, they would duly go out into the world to fulfill their vocation. The boys and their hormones aren’t the problem. The problem is that the disease of sexual libertinism has metastisized; once the philosophy of fringe radicals, now ordinary moms and dads see it as their duty to turn home sweet home into a den of nubile iniquity.

          Reply

          1. Matthew Lee Anderson June 30, 2011 at 4:50 pm

            “The boys and their hormones aren’t the problem. The problem is that the disease of sexual libertinism has metastisized; once the philosophy of fringe radicals, now ordinary moms and dads see it as their duty to turn home sweet home into a den of nubile iniquity.”

            Also yes. Well put, Tom. Really well put.

    4. I quite agree, Bethany! I’d amend it slightly, though. Both partners are responsible for protecting their own and each other’s honor. It’s not just the guy’s job – which is not what I think you mean to imply – it could just as easily unduly place the burden on men and excuse women from guarding their partners’ honor and purity or their own. That would smack a bit of medieval gender studies (to me, anyway).

      It’s a strange idea we have lurking in our culture that it’s noble to be in a relationship in which one noble partner must be the responsible one who keeps the other in check, saving him from himself or vice versa. I don’t see how any relationship could be healthy and mutually beneficial for the souls involved under those circumstances.

      Reply

      1. You make a great point, that yes, both partners in a relationship need to protect the purity of the relationship. Once I learned that a real (as in, godly, mature) man upholds honor and purity, by no means did I forgo my responsibility to protect myself. And it did give new meaning to dressing modestly. Not only am I protecting my honor, but I am also guarding the purity of my brothers.

        Regarding your comment above in response to Tom, I think you have a point, the negative effects of feminism may be exaggerated. But most certainly so are the positive ones. Scripture teaches we are to live in mutual submission, which means no one has license to lord their gender over the other.

        Reply

  3. Hey Matt,

    Just a semantic question: where’s the bigotry here, and what’s soft about it?

    Thanks for drawing our attention to this. I think GMA and what’s her face the host are an insidious pair: who knows whether or not this is a trend? But now millions of mothers will wonder whether to be with it they need to do the same. Overton and all that.

    And Bethany’s comment is as wise a word as I’ve heard in a while.

    Reply

    1. Tom,

      Good question. It’s reappropriating GWB’s use of the phrase. I take it that the “bigotry” is against young people, as it inherently treats them as fundamentally sub-adult (we expect, I think, adults to be able to not copulate with whomever they happen to be with at any given moment!), and it’s “soft” precisely because that rationale is never fully articulated. I’m not devoted to the language, though, and will give it up if it doesn’t fit.

      You’re right about Overton here (and am happy to see you mention it, too!). I almost didn’t write about it for that very reason.

      Matt

      Reply

      1. Yes, that makes sense. It’s ironic in a way, though, because so much of popular culture, and parts of high culture (at least fashion), are guilty of idolizing the young.

        Reply

        1. Matthew Lee Anderson June 30, 2011 at 4:51 pm

          Ironic is exactly what it is. Our idols inevitably undermine our humanity.

          Reply

      2. Amen, amen, and amen on the bigotry against young adults. That view of teenagers drives me up and down the wall.

        Reply

      3. Your aticrle perfectly shows what I needed to know, thanks!

        Reply

  4. Watching the video make me nauseous – nauseous because it showcases “beyond good and evil” thinking, in which the only criterion for decision-making, by parents and children alike, is whether an action is “comfortable” or “uncomfortable” (notice the ubiquity of those words!).

    Reply

    1. Christopher, me too. There’s lots of angles to dislike here!

      Reply

  5. Agree completely with all that’s been said. I particularly like the gas/brakes analogy. And after all, what car would work without both? And what kind of driver would NEED to use the brakes constantly and suddenly all the time?

    For good or ill, sexual desire is a huge motivator, for all types of people at all levels of belief or righteousness. Commitment is what harnesses that and stops it from becoming destructive. I’ve always thought it tremendously odd that certain types of feminists would talk about how bigoted it is to assume that women should always be the ones to “apply the brakes” because it suggests that women aren’t allowed to like sex. Don’t they realize that it’s a compliment? That it implies that women are the more mature of the genders in this area, and the less easily manipulated? Being controlled by your sexuality is not empowering; how could it be? Anything that takes control of your rationality reduces your autonomy.

    I suppose I’m a bit more pessimistic on the idea of young men being as interested in the woman’s honor as she is. It’d certainly be nice. But whether we can reliably expect that or not, we certainly need the firewall of the women themselves, the parents of both, and society at large so that we’re not counting on it, anyway.

    The community aspect is probably underappreciated, too. I’ve often felt that the value in a wedding, for example, was somewhat about making the vows that you do, but more about making them in front of all the other people in your life. That’s why this store strikes such a chord, I think; it is one thing to fall short of our own vows. It is quite another to do so without the natural social consequences of it. Commitments don’t become meaningless when some people break them, they become meaningless when others stop trying to hold us to them.

    Reply

    1. Matthew Lee Anderson June 30, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      Chris,

      “I suppose I’m a bit more pessimistic on the idea of young men being as interested in the woman’s honor as she is. It’d certainly be nice.”

      Don’t we HAVE to be optimistic about this? Otherwise, I worry that we end up infantilizing young men by treating them as sexual mercenaries. Isn’t the only way to civilize men to expect it of them?

      Reply

      1. Matt,

        YES. Otherwise we’re doing what you said – treating them as sub-human. It’s like how we build schools to look like prisons, and then we’re shocked that the students act like inmates… :)

        Reply

      2. In other news, I had a neighbor in Texas who had out of control kids, and she told my mom: my kids are gonna do drugs anyway. If they’re gonna do it, I want them doing it here.

        Shockingly, their drug problems got a lot worse.

        Reply

        1. Shocking. This is me rolling my eyes along with you.

          Reply

      3. Yes, exactly. Set the bar high and believe (yes, perhaps optimistically) that young men really will measure up to it. They have in the past; some do today (I was in that number); some will continue to in the present, and I believe that some will in the future. The more we set the bar high, the more will meet it. Of course young men today don’t live up to those expectations: they have little to no reason to do so, however unfortunate that reality is. They have every reason to push for sex as soon as possible and with as little commitment as possible, given our society’s disregard for (or worse: encouragement of) sexual impropriety, and the concomitant lack of any help to either man or woman to wait. Couple that with a society that expects women to be just as sexually aggressive as men, and neither men nor women have any particular impetus to put the brakes on the throttle of sexual urges.

        Reply

      4. Oh, absolutely. My pessimism is not of the “let’s not even try” variety, just about how effective it will be. But it’s better than the alternative.

        I guess the thing that has me most aghast is not that women are expected to be the ones applying the brakes — whether it makes me jaded or not, I’ve just sort of come to expect that — but that we’re now talking about removing the last of the sexual safety nets. A society in which men want sex and women are regulating them is still, I think, a relatively respectful and ordered society. It’s not ideal, but I don’t feel it represents the same absurd breach of common sense as it does when both women and parents abandon these ideas, as well. That seems fundamentally worse, to me.

        Reply

        1. Hm… I’m not sure I agree with the idea that women regulate male sexual action leads to a relatively respectful and ordered society. Kind of like Chris K.’s statement about being concerned that women are encouraged to be as sexually aggressive as men, I think this is diagnosing the wrong problem.

          This is far too small a forum to talk about it adequately, but the idea that women should be “the brakes” or that they should in some way regulate male sexual aggression (I’m assuming we mean a vigorous desire, not forcing sex on someone, right?) still devalues women as beings with sexual desire. To say that being feminine means being less desirous of sex creates false inhibitions that are psychologically damaging even within sexual relationships sanctioned by Scripture.

          Plus, you get the Girls Gone Wild backlash, not because college girls are reading too much Steinem these days, but because the “you’re the brakes” mentality encourages young men to act on their basest urges, and girls who want sexual attention have to do wild spring break parties to get it. We could trace the origin of this behavior to quite a few factors, but the overall cultural stereotypes of “gas” and “brakes” provides an easy framework for those factors to manifest. It doesn’t provide an alternative role for women who acknowledge with strong sexual desire to play.

          I’d argue instead that acknowledging (1) sexual desire in both men and women and (2) each individual’s personal responsibility to guard his or her honor and interact with relationship partners in a way that best honors theirs would go a long way toward breaking down damaging stereotypes.

          It’s also a good idea to pay attention to biology. In most human societies until the last 100 years or so, people got married about the age most people these days are in high school. That’s not an insignificant change.

          In addition, I’d say that after spending the past seven years as a high school teacher, I’ve noticed that an almost sure-fire way to convince kids not to be promiscuous is to focus on inspiring them to pursue the life of the mind. Give them something bigger than themselves to live for, to think about, to do. When youth pastors just tell them why they shouldn’t have sex, we shouldn’t be surprised that all they can think about is sex. If we spent most youth materials telling them not to juggle machetes, we’d have a massive machete juggling problem on our hands – the power of suggestion isn’t insignificant.

          Reply

          1. Machete juggling indeed! I think you highlight two incredibly important points:

            Our message has been reduced to “Don’t have sex [but trust us, it’s great in marriage]!” We’ve pushed back so hard against a prudishness that now we emphasize sex almost as much as the culture at large in evangelical circles—just with the “but wait till you’re married!” mantra tacked on top. At the exact same time, most youth groups are not exactly places that are really challenging the young adults to be just that: adults, however young. Rather, they feed the infantilism of adolescence and leave people comfortable in their current state. (I could extend the same critique to the church in general, but that’s a much longer discussion, for which I’d simply direct you to my own site.)

            2. Related to this is your second point: the embrace of adolescence as a distinct, meaningful life stage. I fully believe that young adults are just that: adults. Most of the research I’ve seen over the last few years continues to indicate to me that much of the delayed developmental activity that we observe is entirely a product of our culture’s form of “nurture.” We make people immature. I remember being 15, wanting to be treated like an adult, feeling like an adult. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most cultures have had serious rites of passage between 14 and 18, with a lot right down the middle of that range. Give people responsibility, high expectations, and help, and they’ll go a lot further than we currently give them credit for. They certainly have in the past. This extends far beyond simply sexuality, too.

            More broadly speaking, some of what Matt has written in Earthen Vessels really is relevant. Our culture idolizes sexuality, and that includes our church culture. We’ve lost sight of the value of celibacy, and we’ve misunderstood the meaning and importance of sex—alternately either under- or overvaluing it. We need to reorient all of our thinking about it.

            Moving back to the point that spawned this discussion, I think one of the things we do need to focus on is building character in young men and women alike. If young men have real godliness, they aren’t going to be submitting to their appetites, but walking in self control. (Amusing side note: read Titus 2:1-6 and think about the various commands each group gets, with a special emphasis on what Titus is supposed to teach the young men.) Likewise, if the young women have godliness and real character, they’re not going to be tempted to yield to sexual advances to find their validation.

            By and large, we’ve substituted self-esteem and personal fulfillment for holiness and the longsuffering that builds character, and those are trends that we need to reverse if we’re going to make a difference in this or any other area.

          2. I’d have to disagree with the idea that regarding women as “the brakes” (and it might be useful here to point out that this is an admitted generalization, and not meant to represent all men or all women) somehow devalues women as sexual beings. I think it merely elevates them as responsible beings. In other words, there are two reasons this disparity can exist: an excess of male sexual desire, or a deficit of male sexual prudence.

            One thing I can’t echo enough, however, is your observation about adolescence. Defining “adult” in a legal sense as beginning at 18 or 21 has caused us to define it that way in a cultural sense, as well. But there aren’t many things a 20 year old can handle that a 15 year old can’t, provided you simply start encouraging the right mindset in them a few years earlier.

            These things used to be in sync: your sexual desire begins to multiply at the same time you’re expected to start acting like an adult. By pushing the latter back, there’s a gap of several years between when you have this potentially life-altering desire, and when you’re expected to behave responsibly. It’s pretty absurd, when viewed this way.

  6. Corey Whiteman June 30, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Historically if you look at society and look at humanity, and even biology… sexuality begins at adolescence. People have been having sex in their teens for a very long time. Romeo and Juliet, one of the highest praised love stories ever, were 16 and 14. Many cultures around the world still find teen sexual activity very normal. It IS going to happen, our teens WILL experiment. Even the “good kids”.

    Our job as parents is to educate them to what is proper, and what is not. We also need to educate them in what is safe behavior, and what is not. It doesn’t matter if you have a son or daughter, they need to know how to use condoms and other types of protection, they need to know where protection is available, and not be embarrassed or scared of being in trouble if they choose to seek it out. If they do feel scared to find that protection, they wont use it, which leads to much higher possibility of pregnancy and/or disease.

    Our job as parents is also to teach our children not just the “gross” stuff but try to help them understand the emotional stuff. We need to teach our children that the bond between two people during sex is important and that it shouldn’t be taken lightly. We need to help them understand that the emotional impact of sex a lot than they will expect.

    Honestly the parents of the girls in the article should be ashamed of themselves. As parent’s of daughters they should be teaching them to be strong, in her values and morals. She shouldn’t be making excuses of not having a place to do it, she should tell her boyfriend she doesn’t want to. And if he keeps pushing she will walk away. I realize that girls and women (and this is not a new thing AT ALL) deal with words like “slut” and “frigid” and “uptight”. Isn’t it our jobs as parents to teach our daughters that these words are used in error, and to be strong enough to ignore them? Isn’t our jobs as parents to teach the next generation to be better than ourselves and not use these words?

    But in addition to that thought: What about this woman who says it is okay for her son (an 18 year old man btw) to have sex in her home? It is her job to teach her son to respect women, and their wishes. To control his hormones and his urges. Women and girls should not be the only ones to know it is okay to “push the brakes”. I am fine with her opening her home to his bedroom activities. I just hope she has taught him to be a gentleman, taught him to be respectful, and taught him that, like alcohol just because it is available doesn’t mean it should be used all the time (maybe bad analogy, maybe perfect… not sure).

    I guess my point after typing all that… I do believe “they are going to do it anyway”. Because of that belief, I think they should be taught (by their parents) what it is, how to be safe, what the emotional (and physical) consequences are, when to say NO (boys and girls), and be okay with someone telling them NO.

    Just thought I should throw a different view into the mix.

    Reply

    1. Counterpoint: I didn’t. I was 22 when I got married, and had never had sex. Had plenty of struggles along the way, but didn’t ever do more than kiss, and that only with the woman I married. I can say the same of nearly all of my friends.

      That said, I do think that insisting that everyone wait until 22 (or 24, or 28…) to get married is just plain stupid, and ignores the very real impact that the body has on our person. [Seriously, people, go read Earthen Vessels already. The body matters.] Failing to recognize that is just silly. On the other hand, learning self-control and forbearance and how to wait well is one of the most important skills (and indeed, virtues) any of us can gain, and in that sense, expecting people to wait until marriage—whenever that may be—is truly a good thing.

      Reply

    2. Thank you Mr. Whiteman. I have to say that yours has been the only truly Christian comment in the whole series of comments I’ve read so far. I absolutely agree with you that young people should be taught that it is OK to say “I don’t want to have sex,” rather than taught to feel they need to have some other “excuse” for not having it. They also need to be taught that it is OK to have sex with someone they are passionately in love with, so long as that person is equally enthusiastic about expressing his/her love in that way and both take such an expression seriously enough that they are responsible in how they approach it. You are absolutely right. Young people, really young people, have been having sex from time immemorial. The issue is not sex, it is the larger values we are teaching our children. I’d like to see some discussion of THAT issue here.

      Reply

  7. Bah. Sorry about the bad link closure.

    Reply

  8. Feminism is about respecting the dignity of women and many of the points made in this discussion demonstrate that our society is still very sexist. Feminism is not about women being as sexually aggressive as men but it is certainly a repudiation of women’s responsibility to regulate male sexual behavior. The chastity of women is not a ‘sexual safety net’ and any contention that it is somehow empowering for women to be saddled with the responsibility for sexual conduct in their relationships is ridiculous.

    People tend to live up to expectations and, in our sexist society, boys are expected to be sexually aggressive while girls are expected to hold them off as long as they can. This could change if the values of feminism were broadly espoused in our society, as I hope someday they will.

    Reply

    1. I don’t see anything see anything in this discussion that is at all sexist. You condemn some of the attitudes here by saying it “[saddles]” women with the expectation of sexual discretion. But that, of course, is a selective way to view the issue. I could just as easily say that, by not expecting this of them, you are thinking less of them than I do. That expecting women to regulate sexual decisions comes from the recognition that they’re less easily manipulated by their own desires as men, and are more clear-headed about such things. Viewed this way, the idea you’re disagreeing with is the one that shows more respect for women.

      Anyway, you could merely be hung up on the word “expect.” It doesn’t mean it’s their job, it means that experience indicates they’re going to be the ones “putting on the brakes” more often than men are. You are, I suppose, free to make the case that this tendency is purely a social construct, but I don’t think it is.

      Reply

  9. Chris, the converse of that is that you think very little of males with regard to responsible sexual conduct and betrays a lack of respect for yourself and other males. It cuts both ways on both of us. I think individuals should be responsible for their own sexual conduct and the responsibility should not be on the supposedly more ‘sexually responsible’ female. The stakes are higher–namely, pregnancy–for a girl so that would be grounds for your argument.

    I didn’t mean sexism in a crude sense but a more nuanced sense in that sex is being used a distinguishing characteristic that entails differential (and unfair, in the case of sexual discretion) treatment of members of each respective sex (or gender). Ought a woman be the responsible one or is that just way it is? Both parties ought to bear that responsibility.

    To the main point: Matt’s post was about teens so I will say that I agree that parents should protect their children to the extent that they can and set high expectations. But, as Corey noted, they should also talk openly about sexuality and the repercussions of it.

    And your earlier point about the extended neoteny engendered by a formal period of adolescence is a good one.

    Reply

  10. Amazing, isn’t it? That Patty Skudlarek and the likes all hide under the safe umbrella of “responsibility” or “deep concern” or “safe sex” or something similar? May I suggest that these parents teach their children that one of the greatest responsibilities of sexual maturity is self restraint? Promiscuous sexual behavior as a teenager will certainly pave the way for sexual immaturity as an adult. My bets are that little Junior Skudlarek will end up a bed hopper for the rest of his life with all the attending consequences unless God gets a hold on him.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *