Lila Rose went to a Tennessee Planned Parenthood, posing as a 14-year-old girl pregnant by a 31-year-old "boyfriend".
First she coached the girl on how to answer the judge's question. Not to tell the judge the truth and allow the judge to make a judgment. No. She's to just answer "Yes."
And if the question of the "boyfriend" comes up?
"Just say you have a boyfriend, and he's 17."
HT: World Net Daily
39 comments:
Ever notice how that it's the same group of liberals who call 14-y/o girls "women" when they're sexually active and/or pregnant, and say they're old enough to make their own decisions in regards to abortion, etc., without their parents' knowledge or consent, and should be treated legally as adults... yet these same people pitch a royal fit when a 17-y/o or 18-y/o (or younger) person is to be tried as an adult in the case of a serious crime like murder, or the recent Somali piracy?
Of course, I shouldn't expect consistency from people who want to save the most hardened criminal from the death chamber because it's inhumane to give a lethal injection, while sentencing the innocent unborn to a brutal and violent death.
The real kicker is that 14-year-olds having abortions are "women making choices", but 14-year-olds giving birth are "babies having babies".
A not-so-subtle pressure to abort, no?
Exactly!!
These people do not worry the least bit about girls too young making babies, as long as they are "responsible" and kill them before birth. But woe betide the girl, er, young woman, who chooses a different kind of responsibility -- one not sanctioned by the liberal left!
Kathy, I agree completely with your irritation at the liberal double standard of pro choice and anti death penalty. It is impossible to have a death penalty now because of the ridiculousness of the modern legal jury system. Also it has been proven not to be a deterrant - just a big expense for nothing.
As for 14 year pregnant teens - from the research that I have done - it seems that poor and rich teens fall pregnant at the same rate. The rich ones have abortions, continue throughg education and maintain or increase their wealth and life chances for any future children.
The poor have their babies drop out of education remain poor or even get poorer - and produce again - the very type of welfare benefits class we love to hate.
Yes obviously there are exceptions - but these are rare.
Kathy, do you have any better ideas. I'm into forced birth control until the age of 20 - but I don't think its going to happen, but unless you have any better ideas, I'm ok with 14 year old having early abortions so that their lives and the future lives of any further children have a higher quality.
I know of three things that have been shown to reduce teen sexual activity. (not eliminate, so don't counter with examples; every rule has exceptions!) Reduce teen sexual activity and you will reduce teen STDs and ill-timed pregnancies.
1. A solid healthy relationship with a parent or mentor, that helps the teen to develop life goals and a sense of worth. Teens who have a sense of a future aren't as willing to jeopardize it with premature sex. Teens who have a solid sense of their own worth don't seek validation in sexual activity.
2. Sex ed programs that focus on mutual respect and building of strong relationships.
3. Being active in one's religious community.
Encouraging these things seems to be something everybody can agree on -- except for hardcore religion-hating atheists who are trying to convert everybody to godlessness, and people who make their living from teen sexual activity (getting paid by the government to provide STD tests, birth control, abortion, etc.)
Since this is about abortion not the death penalty, I'll just leave you to contemplate how much of a deterrent it actually can be to have one convicted murderer out of thousands be put to death some 20 years or more after his crime and conviction.
Yes, I have better ideas, but they don't come from the government. They cannot be "top down" policies that can be enforced. And I think this is one of the problems of the current state of our countries -- people look to the government to solve most or all of their problems, rather than looking to themselves first to see what they can do for themselves and their family and friends. You are wanting me to come up with a policy the government can implement to reduce the rate of teenagers having children. There isn't one, aside from forced abortion, forced birth control (which would be a *nightmare* considering all the problems and potential problems of chemical birth control, especially started so young on millions of young ladies) or the like. But then, this is government control like the nightmare which is communist China! We might as well just become a monarchy or oligarchy in name since we're almost there in practice, and as things like this get implemented more and more, we'll see our freedoms erode more and more, until we're as enslaved as the people in the book _1984_. And it *still* won't help, not really.
What can government do? First, stay as much out of our lives as possible (which they won't do, because people in government become addicted to power and control); second, put into place laws and strategies that encourage family togetherness and involvement -- this includes restricting divorce so that it is hard for couples to break up their families. Divorce is almost never the answer, but only brings in more problems, including the fact that breaking up families is **devastating** to the children, who are more likely to turn to drugs, alcohol, and sex to fill up the hole in their hearts caused by the breakup of their family. Strong, loving families are the antidote, and you can't legislate that! But you can make policies that discourage strong families -- including things like no-fault divorce; government welfare that makes it easy for men to get women pregnant and just leave without being a true father to their children, etc.
In a previous comment on another post, I mentioned "winning the battle but losing the war" -- this is what we've done. In trying to help the poor and fatherless as government and bureaucracy, rather than charitable acts in person or as groups, we have increased the number and rate of poor and fatherless! I suspect your country keeps track of rates of illegitimacy and other birth rates by race, age, income, etc., about the same as my country. We have seen an explosion of out-of-wedlock births since government "Welfare" was guaranteed during Pres. Johnson's "Great Society" of the 60s. And these children have been -- as you pointed out -- more likely to grow up poor and disadvantaged and get pregnant at young ages and repeat the cycle. [I know someone who became a grandmother in her early 30s.]
All I can say is, what we're doing now isn't working, so why not look back to the past at what *did* work, and try to emulate *that*, instead of blindly groping about for some other government program to be a "magic fix" for what ails us.
I agree with everything you've said above. I just did some googling to find out where the highest rates of teenage pregnancies are - they appear to be in states I would consider more religious - but I can't really say for sure as I don't know enough. It would be interesting to know what you guys think as to why some states have higher teenage pregnancies then others?
Hard to say, Lil. Part of the problem is that "teen pregnancy" merely means that the mother is in her teens. She might be a 13-year-old in any one of a number of bad situations, or she might be a married 19-year-old. In some communities it's considered normal to marry young and start having children early, but the births to those brides are "teen pregnancy" statistics, the same as births to younger girls in untenable situations. Until we start distinguishing, it's going to be hard to really tell what's going on. And, unfortunately, the money is in pumping up "teen pregnancy" as being as big a problem as possible, so there's no motive for the data collectors to start making distinctions between problematic teen pregnancies and the planned pregnancies of young married women.
Kathy, that a very interesting take. In my mind 19 is a very young age to be married with a baby - especially as its common nowdays to go to college or travel after University. Do you know any 19 year olds like that. I don't
From what I understand from my son's godfather, among Mexicanos, they value early marriage and large families. Which is something PP discovered when they first started opening facilities in Hispanic neighborhoods. So rather than respecting the local culture, they went into the schools and started trying to teach the girls that their culture was wrong.
It's certainly not uncommon in my area for girls -- oops, women -- to get married soon after graduating high school. The whole "high school sweetheart" thing is still hanging on.
But I think the problem is deeper than just kids having sex, abortions, or more kids -- the question I have is why do so many kids end up sleeping together in the first place? What is it that is lacking from their lives that they think that having sex will help? For too many girls (and boys too), they don't have a strong father or father-figure in their lives to love and protect them, so seek that from boys their age. Of course, they don't find it there. Others may want to be older and more mature, and think that having sex will do that. Which it might, but in ways completely unforeseen by these adolescents.
In all honesty, our children are being steeped in a culture gone mad with sex, so it's only becoming a wonder to me that every girl doesn't end up pregnant, since they are becoming more and more promiscuous, at earlier and earlier ages. Tell me, are you more concerned with children having sex, or just having babies?
My main concern is that every child born should have a happy, healthy childhood and the best possible education. The most important predictor of child outcomes at the moment is mothers age - so its in our best interest to reduce the number of teenage mothers. I believe that teenagers with the hormones they are flooded have always had sex however they have not always been fertile. In the latest book Im reading, "Motherhood, natural selection and the female of the species", the author shows that our hunter gathering ancestors did not become fertile till much later but now due to our sedentary lifestyle girls accumulate fat cells quicker and its this that allows them to have babies earlier, before they are fully able to look after them.
Its important to understand that teenage mothers had teenage mothers and are more likely to have teenage daughters. What stops this cycle is a decrease of relative poverty - and I mean relative to the rest of their society.
Of course I'm concerned about children having sex but them having babies has a much greater affect on me and the world then their having sex does. I somehow think its easier to stop them having babies then having sex - especially in these poor families where their isn't a great mother child bond particularly because the mother had her baby ( or too many babies) to young before she was emotionally mature enough to care for it.
I highly recommend you guys read this book by Sarah blaffer Hrdy - Motherhood, natural selection and the female of the species. She goes right through history looking at all aspects of motherhoods in all societies and species. I'm only half way but what it shows that being pro life is being pro choice in that a mother makes decisions about how to ensure that at least one of her offspring survive to produce at least one viable offspring in the future. When I first started reading this blog I wondered why I so many mothers did abort because it just seemed counter to what they should be doing. After reading this book, I can see that they and every other female living being on this planet has always done it. As always, death is a very vital part of life.
Lilliput, you can't ensure that every child has a happy childhood -- there are just far too many things that can go wrong. As an example, my brother lost his wife to cancer when they were 3 & 1&1/2 years old. That doesn't mean that they don't have a happy childhood, but it does mean that they have an extra measure of sadness that many children do not have. Your definition of "a happy childhood" may be different from others, and I would strongly draw back from sitting in my privileged position in America and say that a child born in this condition or that condition cannot be happy [nor would I say that happiness is all that matters, or is the most important thing, but we have a difference of opinion in that, so will likely never see eye to eye on that]. It is amazing to me that often the people who have the life that ought to bring the most happiness are usually the most selfish and unhappy of individuals. As an example, I would use Paris Hilton who has had a truly privileged life, and if there is anyone who should be happy it is her -- she's rich and beautiful, and has everything money can buy. But I don't think she is happy, and I actually pity her.
I recently read an article that mentioned a study that looked at rates of happiness in the world, and the astounding thing is that people in America rated themselves as consistently less happy than people in Nigeria. I wouldn't want to go to Nigeria if you paid me, and most people in the world want to come to America if they possibly can, but the people there tend to be happier than the people here. There is no other way to explain it, than that money does not buy happiness. Nor does wealth and privilege.
Yes, it's easier to stop girls from having babies than to keep them from having sex. It's also easier to kill people in a soup line than to feed them -- but it doesn't make it right!
Kathy, you're absolutely correct when you say that we cannot guarantee a happy childhood ( due to parental death etc) or if happiness is in fact a requirement of life.
This should make us even more careful about not bringing unwanted children into this world not less. It means that there will be children that we as a society will have to plan to look after eg orphans. So why must we have children where its possible to see from the very beginning that things will go wrong - it doesn't make any sense.
In terms of happiness, latest research shows that the more unequal a society is, the more unhealthy it is eg higher levels of demostic violence, drug abuse and stress related health issues. So the fact that people are poor eg Nigeria doesn't make them less happy, the fact that poor Americans have to live in a society where they see people around them having more then they do - that's what causes unhappiness.
There will always be a soup line and nobody is saying we should kill them instead of feed them but the goal is to reduce the number of people in the soup line - not make more.
As for feeling sorry for Paris Hilton - gosh I don't! Even if she was suicidally unhappy - at least she would be able to get the best mental health care available immediately. I'll tell you who I feel sorry for - that little 1,5,15,21 year old child of an alcoholic father or abusive mother who has 2-5 brothers and sisters, who has to fight with them to get food and attention (when sober), has noone to talk to, no education because he can't concentrate and therefore no life chances - and no access to any kind of mental health services cause he has no insurance. He will be the one to turn to drugs and then crime to pay for them - and I don't blame him - his reality sucks. He will either end up killing himself or killing someone else and wishing he had never been born.
Does this seem right to you?
Lilliput,
You are turning a "perhaps" into a definite occurrence, and you are just wrong. Yes, children born into adverse circumstances are more likely to have less fortunate lives than those born into more blessed circumstances, but this does not mean that most, much less ALL such children will end up homicidal or suicidal. You are advocating killing people because of a "perhaps"!
You said, "There will always be a soup line and nobody is saying we should kill them instead of feed them but the goal is to reduce the number of people in the soup line - not make more." -- Well, killing people who stand in soup lines will reach the goal of reducing the number of people standing in soup lines, no? My point is that the abortion criteria for which you advocate is in fact killing people who may -- or may NOT -- eventually stand in soup lines. The "making" of people happens at conception, not birth; it's just easier and more convenient (since the killing is more hidden) for abortion advocates to find it justifiable to kill the unborn.
You said you would not kill the people standing in soup lines -- why not? Because they're people? Well, so are the unborn. Because killing people isn't the way to solve their problems? Well, that's what you advocate when you advocate for abortions for the poor and unwed. Why would you alleviate the potential suffering of the yet-to-be-born by killing them, but would not alleviate the real suffering of the already-born by killing them? I simply don't understand your logic -- you would not kill suffering people, but would kill people who are not suffering but *might* suffer.
Furthermore, there are numerous very famous people (including some people who are extremely wealthy), who by your criteria should have been aborted. Barack Obama is one -- his dad left him and his mom when he was very young, and his mom was a single mother for years. Oprah Winfrey is another -- not only was she dirt-poor in Mississippi (my home state, so I know whereof I speak), she suffered sexual abuse in the form of incest and became pregnant as a teenager. There are many other examples, past and present. Yes, they are the exceptions -- but you don't know which are which -- nor do you know which "unhappy children" will grow up to become the best and happiest of adults.
Take another example -- Susan Boyle -- I am just in awe of her voice -- not because she's the best singer I've ever heard, but because she is so talented, but had never been given a real chance before to show her talent. She was horribly tormented as a child (I think due to her thinning hair), and sought solace in song. If you only looked at her at the age of 12 (and I will imagine what it might have been like, knowing the cruelty of children) and seen her sobbing day after day after day at the cruel jokes from her classmates, with those who should have protected her either could not or would not protect her, you might have suggested that she would have been better off dead before birth than to go through that torment. But look at her now. I've listened to her "Britain's Got Talent" performance over a dozen times, perhaps closer to 2 dozen -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
And if money is really that important, then why are so many celebrities drug addicts and suicidal? You say that Paris Hilton could get help if she were suicidally unhappy -- here's a list, including Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Elton John Elizabeth Taylor, Drew Barrymore, Brigitte Bardot, Nadia Comaneci, Sammy Davis, Jr., and even your own Diana, Princess of Wales, of famous people who have attempted suicide. I'm sure I could easily find a list of celebrities who have actually committed suicide. All their money, fame, and fortune -- everything they had -- was not enough to keep them from trying to kill themselves, nor from succeeding, such as Marilyn Monroe.
Going back to the beginning of your most recent comment -- I do agree that we should be more careful about bringing children into the world, not less, because of the pain and suffering that will inevitably befall some -- which is why I support abstinence before marriage and fidelity during marriage. Your solution is to kill children after they are conceived but before they are born; my solution is to be more careful about conceiving them in the first place.
Oh, yeah, and...
The above list does not include celebrities who have turned to drugs and alcohol for whatever reason (I personally think it is because they are missing something inside of them, and they are trying to fill that empty space). You almost make it sound as if the only people who commit crimes, get on drugs, and kill others or themselves are those with horrid lives, and that is simply not the case. Until we make a law that we should all for the "abortion" of celebrities after a certain number of years (i.e., before they become unhappy with their lives), we shouldn't have abortion for people of other groups or classes who may also be unhappy with their lives. Oh, yeah -- it smacks of racism and/or classism.
ALSO, in your last response, you talk about "happiness." I think this is a key word -- many times you use the word, I would choose the word "contentment". I may not always be "happy", but I can be content. Contentment is a choice. And this is what the world at large is missing -- whether the drug-addicted Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan, or the man I heard of her in the States who committed suicide because he couldn't bear the idea of being "poor" (as defined by himself as not being able to afford some luxury). Too many people mix up wants and needs, and this is really the root of unhappiness or discontent. I do not envy Paris Hilton, but rather think she should envy me. I may not have her money, but I have what counts, and I am content, and I don't think she is or ever will be.
This is why I think the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, speaks of contentment in such terms as "with food and clothing, let us be content"; and "I have learned in whatsoever state I am [whether poverty or abundance] to be content". We have really become selfish, spoiled brats who think we cannot be content if we do not have DVD players and high-speed internet and big-screen TVs, when in reality, we ought to be able to be content as long as we have enough food to eat and enough clothes to wear. And I indict myself in what I have said here. I am content, but it is because I force myself to look on the bright side of things, and to focus on what I *have*, rather than on what I do not have. I would not change places with Paris Hilton. I wouldn't mind having her money, mind you, but I would not give up my life to live hers -- not for all her money.
Lets leave Paris out of it - neither of us can possible know how happy or content she is or isn't. I don't think we can believe anything the media portrays. Lets also leave Obama and Oprah out because they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Lets rather look at our goal " Reducing people in the soup line" and think of the ways human beings have over the centuries reacted to poverty and reducing population. In the old days prior to affective birth control, babies throughout the world were left to die on the streets, in foundling homes, sold as slaves, prostitutes or just slowly starved. Therefore the situation we have today when babies are killed in utero - is actually believe it or not more humane to the baby then previously but much more risky for the mother. Obviously we are working towards better more affective birth control methods which will reduce the numbers of abortions.
Yes we need to have less sex, more monogamy - but these are counter to our human nature - which is why - no matter how many centuries of preaching in whatever language doesn't work.
In terms of your contentment - again we need to look at our primate cousins to realise that we are heirachical creatures - our brain is wired to understand where we fit into society and how to go about jumping up the ladder and ensuring our offspring will make it further up then us. The higher you go, the better food, space and mates you can have.
Thats why we can never eradicate wanting what other people have and contentment is fleeting.
Monkeys and other animals are not our cousins, so let's just leave them out of it.
It's true that denying oneself (whether in sex or anything else) is counter to human nature -- thank you for proving the Bible to be true when it speaks of man being inherently and completely sinful -- but that doesn't mean it's impossible to do, nor worth doing. It may fit human nature hand-and-glove for someone to end up as a drunkard or a drug addict, but that still doesn't mean we should just shrug and say "that's human nature, we can't do anything about that."
And we can't leave out "the exceptions to prove the rule" because in killing all the people who are "the rule" (which is what you want) we will kill all the exceptional ones too. Why are you so comfortable with that?? It's the damnable idea of "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out." Unacceptable!
I'm not arguing that some babies were not treated horribly, sold into slavery, left to starve, etc., but I do not agree that the only or best alternative to that is killing them outright! I'm presenting another solution -- a more difficult solution, but a better one. That is, to take care of the unwanted -- early Christians didn't just throw up their hands and say, "Well, there's a law in Rome that the father can choose to let his child die" -- No, they went out and got the child out of the field and took him or her into their own homes and took care of them. Your solution is to kill before birth because the other solution that man arrived at by nature was to kill or let die or abuse after birth. My solution is neither. I believe it was Amy Carmichael (missionary to India in the late 1800s, I think), who devoted her life to saving girls from temple prostitution. She seems kind of like Mother Teresa of a past generation. She didn't just say, "Hmm, some girls are being sold into prostitution, so let's support abortion so there are fewer Indian girls forced to become prostitutes" -- no, she rescued those girls!
YES, it's a much harder solution! No arguments here! But your solution is just heaping death upon death, which is simply not good.
Kathy, if we are leaving animals out, then lets leave sin out too - I don't think having sex is sinful. If you want me to not act like an animal then I can have sex for reasons other then procreation.
Lets also leave Mother Theresa and any other missionaries out of it - what they have done to thirld world countries is beyond reprehensible. Like Desmond Tutu said about the missionaries that came to Africa, "They told us to close our eyes and pray and when we opened them, we had th eBible and they had our land"
What I'm trying to tell you is that there has always and will always need to be an optimum population that maintains a certain standard of life. I believe that the most affective way to help poor people is to help them with birth control - which is the major difference between rich and poor countries and rich and poor people. So you're missing the point - too many children is what makes people poor, traps them in their situation and reduces the life chances of the whole family. I didn't make it like that - G-d did. He made women able to take decisions pre and post Row vs Wade about thier ability to provide for her new baby and the ones she already had. If she couldn't manage - she let the child die. Is that sinful - no its life!
I guess we have no common ground to base a discussion upon. If there is no sin, then nothing is wrong -- not abortion, not murder, not child abuse, not molestation, etc. If it's not wrong to murder or abuse, then you have no reason for supporting abortion so that children do not suffer. (But, of course, you are leaving out the tremendous suffering they must endure as their arms and legs are being torn off of their bodies, before their heads are finally crushed.)
Btw, the case was "Roe" vs. Wade -- Roe being a variation of the fictional "Doe", as in "John and Jane Doe." Just didn't want you to have somebody jump on you for misspelling it.
Hi Kathy,
You're right - its getting pretty obvious that we seem to come from such divergent places that we can't seem to meet somewhere acceptable to both of us.
I can't accept that you equate sex and murder as sin. I also think that God has given us the laws of nature and therefore anything that flows from that is not sin eg you don't think lions or humans are sinful when they kill to eat.
Thanks for the spelling correction - its why I come here to this blog, to learn new stuff.
Lil, what separates us from the animals is the capacity to choose. When an animal gets a sexual urge, it can't decide to ignore the urge. It just acts. When a shark sees what looks like food, it can't decide to ignore the urge, it just takes a bite. But we can choose to override our mere animal instincts.
And following an instinct can be evil. Ask a rape victim what she thought of her attacker following his instincts for aggression and sexual conquest.
Granny, thats the whole point - yes we can stop the urges but for how long before they become something even more sinister eg Roman Catholic paedophilia. Human beings were not made to be celibate.
Remember animals very rarely have sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation.
As for Rape - its not about sex, its about power. We need to reduce the inequality of society so that men don't feel the need to take out their frustration on those weaker then themselves. I'm not in any way excusing their atrocious behaviour. All I am saying is that we should try and get to the cause and therefore a solution to the bad behavior rather then the useless saying - you should be able to stop yourself.
Uh, yeah, but we're not animals!
Re: RC pedophilia -- I agree with you on that, but the solution to sexual urges is not to just have sex with whomever wherever, but to get married (to someone of the opposite sex, I might add), so you can have the proper sphere for sexual activity. However, perhaps, just perhaps pedophiles do not become that way simply because they try to celibate, but also because there is something of the "power" involved in rape like you mentioned in your last paragraph.
But about your last paragraph -- I agree that rape is at least partially about power. However, supposedly our society has become much more equal since the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s... yet the rate of rape has skyrocketed in that time! So, exactly in what way is society supposed to become more "equal" and how will that help? Because apparently some rapists like the feeling of power they get from overwhelming strong women, just to prove they are stronger, so making strong women stronger might just make them more of a target.
And I've gotta say, that it is just really weird for you all of a sudden to start trying to get to the cause of something, rather than just curing the symptoms, considering that you don't give a flying flip about the cause of pregnancy, as long as you can "cure" it by an abortion. Talk about double standards!
Hmm, so killing someone before birth is somehow better than the possibility that their life won't be all sunshine and roses later? Question: Does ANYONE here know ANY person on this earth that has NEVER known any kind of hardship?
I've told the story of my birth elsewhere in the comments section of this blog. During my childhood, there were some things that happened to me that were bad. An unstable mother, repeated molestation by a neighborhood teenager when I was 5 and 6, and later when I was a teenager, drug abuse, paganism and the occult, severe depression and suicidal thoughts and gestures, "searching for love in all the wrong places" (with boyfriends). There were many times in my life when I wished I were dead. But I can look back now and say that those times were bad, BUT I WOULD STILL RATHER DO IT ALL AGAIN THAN BE DEAD.
Yes, you read that right. I'd rather have to endure it all again than be dead. I would NOT have preferred being aborted (or committing suicide). I married young, which was what I always wanted. I have a loving husband and two beautiful children. Suicidal thoughts (or thoughts of "I'd rather die..." or "I wish I were dead") are the product of someone with problems, yes, but these problems can be dealt with successfully.
I would not trade what I have now in exchange for erasing the things that happened to me in the past. It would have been nice not to have some of the very bad things, but that's just life. Time to move on from that and be thankful for what I have now, not dwell on the past.
Every life is precious and has a purpose. Even the lives of those of us who have made really bad mistakes. Even those of us that some might consider to have been a mistake, personally.
Life will never be perfect. What you decide to do with the bad stuff will determine how it ends. We are not helpless puppets dangling on the stings of fate. Life hands us things we can't control and other things that are consequences of our own actions. It's up to us what to do about it.
And if you want a choice about having a child then here's the choice: either keep your pants zipped or not. Uh-oh! I've just suggested a level of personal responsibility and self-control. But the truth is the truth whether we like it or not.
And my value as a person is not diminished by the fact that in fact, bad things did happen to me as a child. I didn't deserve the death penalty before birth simply for existing at an inconvenient time for my parents, simply because I would eventually be molested, or because I battled depression later in life. I am a human being that is worth something. Not an insect that should have been stepped on before I grew too big and somehow "infected" the rest of the world with whatever "cooties" unwanted children supposedly must carry.
Lil, it's not true that people who control their sexual urges find them eventually overpowering. The more control you exercise, the more control you get. It's just like the person who controls their appetite is able to maintain a healthy diet better than the person who just eats when the urge strikes. It's only by controlling the urge that you get and maintain the strength to go on controlling them. What causes people to run amok isn't the fact that they're not acting on the urges -- it's HOW they refrain from acting on the urges.
If somebody substitutes, say, pornography or lurid fantasies for sexual activity, they're feeding the urge just like you'd feed your urge to eat if you watched cooking shows and thought about fantasy meals you'd like to eat. But if the person who has a sexual urge instead pursues something else that gives emotional satisfaction, then he learns to feed that desire to feel connected in a non-sexual way -- just as people learn to like to eat healthy foods once they develop the habit.
I've been celibate for about ten years now. I've found that celibacy becomes much easier with the passage of time -- because I find other healthy ways to feel connected to people and the world around me.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s there was a bunch of psychobabble about how it didn't matter what you thought about, as long as you didn't act on it. Then we learned the hard way that this is how sex offenders are made -- they fantasize first, then the urge gets stronger so they fantasize more, and eventually it breaks out in aberrant behavior.
And teaching people that they are helpless pawns of their hormones doesn't help them learn the skills they need to develop self-control.
Oy Christina,
I don't know what to say. I hope your prince comes even quicker then mine! I can only last 6 months before my body starts to protest so strongly that I can't think clearly anymore. I guess every person's need for sex is so different that it is impossible to say what's normal.
I'd just like to add that sex offenders (paedophiles) were abused themselves - thats how they become abusers. Its a learnt behaviour.
The food and control idea is not really a good example. Too much control brings anorexia - these are people fantasising about food non stop and yet not able to eat. It is taking too much control and not going along with the normal flow of body being hungry and needing food.
Kathy, its not the equality between men and women that affects rape statistics - its the equality between men and men ie when men are bullied and made to feel worthless, they won't take it out on men as they are likely to be beaten back, they will take it out on women who are lower down the heirarchy.
Kathy, I know the cause of pregnancy - its unprotected sex. Even sometimes protected sex. The issue is to try and reduce the amount of unprotected sex happening. So I don't exactly know what you mean by that last sentance - sorry.
Army wife - at no point did I say that we should kill somebody because they might have a bad life. All I said was that too many children lead to and keep people in poverty relative to the rest of society. This inequality leads to higher rates of illness, crime, child and women abuse among the poor population sector. Abortion is one of the means of birth control used by animals and man alike for thousands of years.
Don't think I'm just undersexed, Lil. Half the reason I'm hoping to get married again is the wanting to get some action. My last, shall we say secular relationship? Before I became a Christian, we rutted like weasels and practically blew the windows out. But my value system changed when I became a Christian and keeping sex in the context of marriage became far more important to me than the act itself. Chastity became a matter of self-respect. And that makes a HUGE difference. My self-worth was no longer measured in how "hot" I was -- it was how faithful I was. It's hard to explain -- sort of like how parents can't really explain to people who don't have kids the extent that having a child changes you. It's a change on a massive order of magnitude.
And really it's easier to abstain from sex than it is to eat healthy. After all, you can just do without the sex and substitute deeper relationships and emotional satisfaction. But you can't do without food. You have to go "just this far and no farther". But it is doable.
We recognize unhealthy eating appetites (anorexia, bulimia, and obesity) as unhealthy, and try to teach people to develop a healthy relationship with food and their appetites. But we treat sex urges as if they're irresistible, as if we'll just die if we don't satisfy those urges. And we make virtually no distinction between healthy urges and unhealthy ones. And sexual urges that lead you to STDs, unsatisfactory and/or abusive relationships, broken homes, pregnancy in untenable situations, are unhealthy sexual urges. Frankly, some of these urges are more akin to pica (the urge to eat nonfoods) than they even are to an urge to eat too much or eat junk food. But the cultural norm is that the only unhealthy sexuality is to refrain from following urges. No wonder people don't develop the skills they need to exercise healthy sexual choices! They're told it's impossible, silly, even WRONG! So why even try?
Christina,
Can you actually tell the difference between an unhealthy and healthy sexual urge?
1. A virgin has sex for the first time to her fiance but he has been with other women (just one ) and has given her Chlamidia.
2. A couple who has been faithfully going out for years and the condom breaks and she falls pregnant but they have both decided they don't want kids yet.
2. A confidant highly sexual women has tired of waiting for her imaginary knight in shining armour so has one night stands where she expects nothing else from her lovers. She is on the pill and always uses a condom so doesn't fall pregnant or ill.
These are people following healthy sexual urges with differing outcomes. Its when people use sex as love, as currency as anything else then what it is - thats when the problems start.
How long have you been a Christian?
Woman #1 has managed to get chlamidia from her sexual encounter with a man who has promised a lifetime commitment but hasn't delivered. Didn't he love her enough to at least make sure he was disease free before exposing her to something that places her health at risk? Not a high-risk choice, but hardly a paragon of protecting her health, either.
Woman #2 is having sex with somebody totally unwilling to commit in the first place, when she does NOT want something she knows sex can result in: Babies. Higher risk than Woman #1. Not looking out for her long-term well being.
Woman #3 has no qualms risking her health (complications of birth control pills, STDs from condom failure, and HIV which has been known to make it through the pores in condoms), and risking unintended pregnancy, for the sake of satisfying an itch with men she doesn't give a rat's ass about, and who don't give a rat's ass about her. What the hell is wrong with her that she is willing to risk STDs, cervical cancer, AIDS, and unintended pregnancy, purely to get a dick inside her once in a while? How pathetic is that?
At best these women are exhibiting borderline choices. And you sound like you're saying it's "healthiest" if love isn't involved at all. Then what's the point? Might as well watch porn and buy a dildo if all you want is an orgasm while some long object is stuck in your vagina.
I'd like to know where we as a society got the idea that the signs or maturity and independence is measured by the degree to which you are unable to cope with not having somebody stick his dick in you. Sounds like being VERY dependent on men for your identity to me. "Oh! I'm just NOTHING if I can't get a man to poke me!"
And I've been a Christian since right before the Branch Davidian conflagration. When was that? 1995?
Christina, don't you see that its the same thing:
You are basing your self respect on fidelity to someone else ie you are giving your all to someone and expect them to give their all to you. ( a highly risky endevour since so many man are unfaithful)
While #3 is giving her body and time for the exact same in return. Nowhere does self respect come into it - she isn't basing how she feels about herself on anybody else.
Where you got the self respect thing from - I just don't know? And in the first two situations there is a lot of love so I don't know why you think love is not included.
So its been 15 years Christina, have you been dating?
It's not a matter of basing your self-worth on having somebody willing to commit for life. It's a matter of NOT basing your self-worth on whether or not you can get a penis stuck inside you on a regular basis. And Woman #3 is risking her health and life (not to mention the risk of picking up a freaking psychopath who'll stick an ice pick in her head and leave her in a culvert somewhere) for what? A dick. Because that's all she wants the men for. They're not people to her, and she's not a person to them. A mutual agreement to treat each other like something you buy at a sex shop and stick in the nightstand drawer. Yippie ki yay. The slippery friction of mucous membranes is all you're getting out of it. Might as well pick your nose all evening.
I've dated -- even fell off the wagon a couple of times early on. I've found being chaste separates the sheep from the goats pretty quickly. I don't end up wasting my time on relationships that have no future, because if you're not stimulating the pleasure center of your brain (like a rat in a Skinner box), when the relationship has nothing to offer there's no hesitation to just drop it. If there's actually a real connection, and not just a biochemical reaction to establishing "This is where I get my orgasms", then the relationship will be worth investing my time and energy and emotions in.
If scientists plant an electrode in the pleasure center of a rat's brain, and give the rat a lever to push to get the stimulation, the rat will literally starve to death pushing that lever, ignoring food and water. And when I look at the way people turn their lives into total train wrecks over sex, I'm reminded of those rats.
Christina,
The rats are an excellent way of lloking at it - thank you - I don't think I'll ever look at sex again in the same way - that's if I can get the nose picking image out of my head:)
I don't know how old you are, but how many years will you devote looking for this male paragon of virtue? I haven't found mine either so am just interested in your ideas?
I keep hoping to meet one in church or doing volunteer work. I do some online dating but so far it's been less than promising. I'd rather do without something I want than get stuck with something I don't want!
I know a man that is, shall we say, the proper paragon of virtue -- chaste, Christian, smart, fun, and VERY attractive (the feeling being mutual), but we get on each other's nerves pretty quickly. We live on opposite ends of the state and have had (chaste!) weekend visits, but at the end of the weekend we were as happy to say goodbye as we'd been to say Hi at the beginning of the weekend. NOT likely to work as a marriage! And I know of men who waited for the wedding night (one waiting until he was 30, another until he was 42!) so I know they're out there. It's a matter of finding them.
Well, since neither of us are virgins we can't really expect (and in my case certainly don't want) virgins either.
And like you, I prefer to be on my own then with someone who doesn't bring out the best in me. I have conceded though - that at 35, I can't be single only due to the fact that I haven't found him. There is patently something wrong.I don't know why something that appears to be so easy and comforting for other people - sharing their life with somebody - is so difficult for me so am in my 3rd year of therapy and that, together will all the people praying for me will bring me to a position that when Mr Perfect for me shows up - I'll be able to at least recognize him:)
Well, C.S. Lewis was in his 60s until he found Ms. Right.
It's not a reflection on the single person's worth; it's more often a reflection on their sense of their own worth -- that they deserve better than to settle for whatever's just handy.
It's not about worth - I'm not more or less worthy then "whatever's just handy" Its to do with allowing intimacy and transfering the fantasy of our male paragons of virtue into reality - and unlike C.S Lewis - we have ovarian clocks that are ticking...........
I'm sure the both of us will meet him soon so until then we might as well enjoy the free single life:)
There is a lot to be said for the single life! I can just pick up and move to Korea, then come back, vacation in Mongolia, whatever, without having to consult anybody about it.
Tell me about it!
Post a Comment