Gender Blender: Adolescent Girls and 'Heteroflexibility'

BreakPoint ^ | Feb. 9, 2004 | Charles Colson

[Brad’s Gramma]

#38 BTTT

[Gerasimov]

It's not to tuff to figure. Young men want to see nudity. They don't care what they're doing.

Exactly ... and two naked women are better than one. (At least that's what I'm guessing the attraction is... my puritanical mind would never dwell on such things.) :-)

[lentulusgracchus]

As one Brown University female said, “I like women only right now, but who knows where I’ll be in 25 years?”

Where you'll be is outside the reproductive zone . You're a societal disaster-in-the-making, and liberalism, careerism, and lesbian feminists are to blame.

[Fledermaus]

It's all the culture. All the girls I grew up with from the ninth grade on through college were boy crazy! Oh sure, there were "those" we knew were lesbians in college, but the vast majority were 100% men loving women!

But now the culture shows it's "cool" for two women to play around. We know the adolescent men like to watch it. Just look at late night TV for the dozens of Girls Gone Wild infomercials!

[lentulusgracchus]

Homosexuality goes even farther in that it destroys the very foundation of marriage - that it is a union of a man and a woman.

It goes even further than that: as an abominate activity, literally an activity "warned against by the omens" going by the etymology, homosexual activity destroys the connection between humanity and the higher orders of existence that lead back to Deity because it is both malum in se, execrated in revelation, and contra naturam, so that indulging in it takes a person outside nature and outside any relationship with ordered Creation.

Your Straussian argument is good as it goes, but I just wanted to point out that one should never give up the moral argument as well, or let the moral argument be cut adrift, by clever antagonists, from its revealed bases.

[lentulusgracchus]

And for Bryn Mawr: "Lesbian For Life."

When I was attending a state land-grant cow college in Louisiana, I was surprised to see a new Chi Omega coed show up that I knew from high school, who'd gone away with much applause and high hopes to Bryn Mawr. I always wondered why she'd washed up in our little corner of lower academe after only a year or two up East. Now, seeing your post, a couple of light-bulbs go on. I doubt it was because Daddy's stock portfolio cratered, or her GPA.

[lentulusgracchus]

Is it just me or is the thought of a school making someone declare sexual-related aspects about themselves incredibly fascistic, even setting aside that youngsters may not be fully certain?

Excellent point. Fifty cents says a homosexual adult was in the room when that transpired. That little mise en scene is very liberal, very GLSEN-ian. Wonder if there was a homosexual adult in the room, taking names?

[lentulusgracchus]

Parents are concerned, and Dr. Richardson--"pedigreed, carefully-spoken, determinedly nonthreatening--has become the schools' gay issues consultant of choice" because he is "sane and clear," according to the Spence headmaster..."

Five bucks says that headmaster has an interesting personal life.

[lentulusgracchus]

That exchange was actually a dinner-party exchange between Winston Churchill and a British "society woman", who were at dinner with an Arab multimillionaire. Churchill asked the woman if she would sleep with the Arab magnate for a million pounds, and to her eventual regret she said she might indeed, for that kind of money.

[NYCVirago]

"...The article describes a parent-faculty meeting at The Spence School, a private enclave overlooking Central Park, where several eighth-grade girls had declared themselves "bisexual."

Gwyneth Paltow went to school there -- this school's a hotbed for every limousine liberal cause out there.

[mrustow]

When the Edmund Burke School in Washington, D.C., held a “diversity day,” students gathered in a circle and were asked to step into the middle if they described themselves as homosexual. No students stepped forward. Then they were asked to step forward if they thought of themselves as bisexual, and of the sixty students present, fifteen stepped forward, including eleven girls.

Is it just me or is the thought of a school making someone declare sexual-related aspects about themselves incredibly fascistic, even setting aside that youngsters may not be fully certain?

It's not just you.

[fr_freak]

Your Straussian argument is good as it goes, but I just wanted to point out that one should never give up the moral argument as well...

I agree completely. In fact, it is the moral argument that I give the most weight. However, for those who believe in the Bible as the true guide for morality, there is no need, nor room, for debate on this subject, so a debate in that context is pointless. It is for the benefit of those who do not follow the Bible, but still claim to be moral, that we can present this more secular proof.

[lentulusgracchus]

It is for the benefit of those who do not follow the Bible, but still claim to be moral, that we can present this more secular proof.

Point taken. Thanks for your courteous reply.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

As one Brown University female said, “I like women only right now, but who knows where I’ll be in 25 years?”

Just more proof that Homosexuality is a choice !!

[wooden nickel]

Excellent analysis!

[91B]

...Edmund Burke School in Washington, D.C., held a “diversity day,”

Dear Lord, he must be spinning in his grave.

[homeland_maturity]

Just responding to some points in your well-stated response:

The first aspect to consider is societal ramifications. The family is the bedrock of society. It is there that the child learns (or fails to learn) the values that he will then carry over to his role in society at large. How the child sees men, woman, peers, and his own place in society will all be shaped in these formative years.

I agree with everything here. I'm not advocating sexual experimentation for parents; my unstated assumption is that they've gotten it out of their system by the time they've decided to have children.

The second aspect to consider is the individual's own mental and physical health. Even for those who claim to be purely homosexual, it appears to be very unhealthy to engage in that behavior. The health risks for men are indisputable - vastly increased risks of diseases such as AIDS, Hepatitis, and Syphilis, among others.

Hence my qualification about protection, etc. I'm not advocating unprotected orgies, or even casual promuscuity. The original article was about women having sexual experiences with other women. My point of anecdote is that there isn't the mental damage some responders and you here seem to imply. I'm open to counter arguments/anecdotes, but my point was, "not in my neighborhood."

Whether one is ashamed of the behavior or not is immaterial; there are plenty of unashamed rapists, thieves and murderers.

Clause 1: point taken; clause 2: rein in the hyperbole. We're talking about consenting adults, not criminals. Don't destroy a good argument with rhetoric.

Given that such behavior, in reality, actually degrades an individual's chance at any real happiness, the promotion of it is inherently destructive and immoral.

I don't believe you've demonstrated that. I think it depends on the individual, frankly. I agree with your point about kids needing a solid familial base to be nurtured in, and I'll even concede that pre-marital promiscuity and experimentation may weaken some marital bonds. But "destructive and immoral"? There are so many ways people can grow up, so many influences, and so many opportunities bad and good, that I don't believe you can point to this one thing -- more girls are having having sexual relations with other girls -- and say that it is destroying the moral fabric of society (I like to blame television).

I'd say poverty is probably the biggest predictor for degrading an individual's chance for happiness, and the causes of that are muddled and recursive. A trend in sexual behavior is just one piece of the equation. And is individual happiness truly your metric?

[fr_freak]

The original article was about women having sexual experiences with other women. My point of anecdote is that there isn't the mental damage some responders and you here seem to imply.

I imagine it would be difficult to devise a study or experiment that could quantify the extent of mental damage in a girl when she gives in to the pressure from our trash pop culture to experiment with sex with other girls. I don't know if anyone has ever tried such a study. However, I would expect problems from this kind of behavior for the same reason I would expect problems from promiscuous heterosexual behavior: at some point these girls may wish to have marriage and family (an instinct most of us eventually feel), but may discover they are unable to function within a stable, monogamous relationship because they have cheapened the act of physical intimacy and jaded themselves to it. This won't be readily apparent to them when they are young and in an atmosphere, such as college, where this behavior is encouraged by the left-wing establishment and applauded by the young guys. But these same young guys who find such a thing exotic and erotic in college typically avoid such women completely when it comes time to find a wife for same reason they instinctively avoid sluts, prostitutes and porno stars. Does this all translate into proving damage to a young woman? Perhaps not concretely, but I think it makes a very strong case.

Whether one is ashamed of the behavior or not is immaterial; there are plenty of unashamed rapists, thieves and murderers.
Clause 1: point taken; clause 2: rein in the hyperbole. We're talking about consenting adults, not criminals. Don't destroy a good argument with rhetoric.

This statement did not compare a homosexual act between consenting adult women to rape, murder, and thievery. It only demonstrated the degree to which a perpetrator's level of shame is irrelevant to the morality of the act. That was in response to your statement here: "I don't see what the big deal is. My girlfriend is quite comfortable and unashamed about sexual relationships she's had with other women", a statement which seems to suggest that you believe if someone is unashamed of an act, it must be no big deal. To that end, it was not hyperbole. You simply misread the statement.

Given that such behavior, in reality, actually degrades an individual's chance at any real happiness, the promotion of it is inherently destructive and immoral.
I don't believe you've demonstrated that. I think it depends on the individual, frankly. I agree with your point about kids needing a solid familial base to be nurtured in, and I'll even concede that pre-marital promiscuity and experimentation may weaken some marital bonds. But "destructive and immoral"?

Although I do believe that homosexual behavior, and promiscuous behavior in general is self-destructive and immoral to a degree, my statement about being "destructive and immoral" actually referred to the promotion of such behavior (by entertainment media, advocacy groups, left-wing school teachers, etc.) when, at the same time, it is known that such behavior would be detrimental to the individual engaging in it. It would be similar to encouraging kids to take up smoking, or drugs.

...I don't believe you can point to this one thing...and say that it is destroying the moral fabric of society (I like to blame television).

I agree. This whole girl-on-girl thing is not the lone cause of our moral decay (I see it more as a symptom), but every little bit hurts. And television these days is almost pure poison. How any responsible parent can use that idiot box as a baby-sitter is baffling to me. I almost never watch TV anymore (how can I when I'm too busy making these incredibly long posts on FR?).

I'd say poverty is probably the biggest predictor for degrading an individual's chance for happiness...And is individual happiness truly your metric?

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is no reason why poverty should even relate to happiness. In fact, viewing money as a source of happiness would probably be a huge impediment to being happy. Money is a resource, nothing more, and a resource readily acquired in this country as long as you have the will and drive to apply yourself. If a person cannot find happiness with his family, friends, and the endeavors toward which he devotes his life, he will probably not find happiness, period.
And no, happiness is not my sole metric for correct behavior, but surely unhappiness is an indicator of a problem?