Regards, Ivan
Posted on 07/28/2004 3:56:30 PM PDT by MadIvan
SO VENEREAL DISEASE (as it was once called, in a strange tribute to Venus) has increased by 1,000 per cent since 1995, notably among the young. More than 1,000 cases of the nasty, lingering chlamydia occurred among girls under 15 last year.
Everyone agrees that the rate of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as they are now called, is disastrous. But there is an ideological war over how to halt the spread. In one corner are the liberals, who say that young people indulge in risky behaviour because they are ignorant, so we must have more and better sex education and immediate access to medical treatment. The Family Planning Association also recommends more expenditure on health education about sex and disease.
In the other corner are the conservatives, who say that children and young people should be taught self-control and abstinence. Robert Whelan of Civitas (I declare an interest, he is a friend) and Trevor Stammers of the Family Education Trust have both underlined the success of some American abstinence programmes as against the immorality of teaching nine-year-olds about condoms. Condom-based sex education encourages children to start an active sexual life as early as possible and sooner or later they are careless, become pregnant or catch an STI.
So who is right in the war against sexually transmitted infections? The utilitarian permissives or the austere self-controllers? I suggest there is a third way.
YOUNG people do need to know about risks to health, but they are not by inclination prudent and careful. They are incautious and risk-taking. That is why wars are fought by the young and great resistance movements have depended upon their recklessness. Sacrificial risk-taking — as in the Battle of Britain — depended upon the valour of the young. Therefore hammering home the risk element of behaviour is unlikely to be an automatic vote-winner among teenagers. It is not knowledge that determines conduct among the young, but passions and feelings.
But young people are also highly idealistic. Every fiery movement in history has also spoken to the young: Mussolini shrewdly called his anthem, La Giovenezza. The young rallied to Fascism, as they rallied to communism. These may be malign exploitations of youthful idealism, but the idealism is there.
So don’t wag fingers scoldingly at the young, but build on that potential idealism. Don’t lecture them about safe sex, since the very word “safe” is itself anti-youth. And don’t invoke penitential constructs such as abstinence. Instead, speak about the idealism of not being promiscuous, the enchantment of flirtation which can deepen, and make more passionate, an attraction between two people. Don’t call withholding physical commitment abstaining, call it building a deeper experience of erotic love.
It is true that you will not contract a venereal disease if you and your partner are romantically committed and faithful. For the liberal utilitarians, this may be unrealistic. Their approach is that young people today regard sex as no big deal and “shagging” as casual an act as watching Big Brother (in which such values are amply illustrated). And yet for many relationships are a big deal: they care desperately about the feelings which they have engaged, and they are vulnerable to the rejections that accompany promiscuity. Many studies have found that most young women regret embarking on an active sex life too early.
Treatment of STIs should be as swift and effective as possible. But if prevention is better than cure, then try the third way: not safe sex, not abstinence, but the idealism of true romance and faithful passion.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
I used to flirt with the baristas at Starbucks. This lead to a string of barista girl friends--disasterous relationships, all of them. Now that I am married I still flirt, but only with six hundred pound silver-back gorillas on crystal meth. They make better coffee and the loving mother of my unborn child makes less noise about it.
Well I agree that a lady who knows her coffee is worth knowing, but that isn't everything. :)
Now that I am married I still flirt, but only with six hundred pound silver-back gorillas on crystal meth. They make better coffee and the loving mother of my unborn child makes less noise about it.
You, sir, live life on the edge!
Regards, Ivan
Let's not forget SHAME.
That's used to be a powerful motivator, but has since been discounted as old-fashioned.
Floozies and Rogues were not willingly emulated, prior to 1968ish.
bttt
...bringing back romance means that males and females must be taught all about the true nature of masculinity and femininity.
This means that guys have to learn to get off their butts, take the girls out on real dates, and PAY! Open doors of restaurants, of movie theaters, of automobiles, etc. Learn that the mysteriously delighted smile of a girl is a reward worthy to be cherished, and the list goes on....
This also means that girls must learn how to let guys take care of them, let guys lead, make the plans, and the very important fact that men are who they are, and they don't exist for women to change them. A girl must learn to love that feeling of femininity that sweeps over her, every time a guy seats her at a table, or hands her a rose, or makes a solid date a week in advance, and that list goes on, too....
That's the basis for flirting, folks. Not pants way down to there, and shirts way up to there (and down to there, too). Flirting demands a context, an *atmosphere*. It's not just about how you feel about someone, but also how someone's presence, smile, and attention makes you feel about yourself in the very depths of what makes you a man or a woman. Yes, it's a mystery. The whole thing is a mystery that really *can* be taught to kids, and if they'd only learn, they'd hang onto it for dear life.
Oh, by the way, having a fake Russian accent at ones command doesn't hurt! (At least in my experience.) ;o)
"baristas"
What in the world is a "barista?"
He's a person who makes you a "vente."
Tanks for nuttin', Lauren. I don't know what a "vente" is, either.
BTW, I heard that when LB and Bogey came out of their appearance before HUAC, Bogey was muttering and grumbling about how the cryptoleftists had flim-flammed him.
Ever hear anything about that?
LOL! That's all Starbucks liberal Seattle speak! A barista is the person who makes the coffee and drinks, and "vente" is one of the sizes.
I enjoy a good Mocha Frappacino, but I always ask for a "medium," rather than a "vente," because I'm a good conservative! :oD
No, I don't know the Bogey HUAC story, so I can't help you there. Probably interesting to research, though....
Is the cute little conversation the two of you are having an example of flirting? :-)
Only because she can't see me through the Internet.
After I logged off for the night, the same thing occured to me! LOL!
Watch this movie:
If thats all it takes to get in a girl's pants, count me in :-)
Looks like it might be a good movie. Kind of familiar...maybe I've seen it.
like "barflies" maybe?
you know, bimbos that hang around acting sleazy.
By the way, Herbert Marshall is one of my favorite character actors. He was in the original The Razor's Edge:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038873/
His part is really interesting, because he plays the author, Somerset Maugham. Notice that as we have this pleasant conversation, we haven't caught any diseases? I think this theory is true. :oD
Another of my all time favorites is Random Harvest:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.