Posted on 11/06/2002 9:23:49 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Teenage girls are now almost as likely to initiate sex as boys. So reported The New York Times on Nov. 3, in a piece entitled "She's Got to Be a Macho Girl." "After a half-century during which generations of young women were advised to never even call a boy on the telephone," read the article, "it is now teenage girls who not only do the calling, but who often initiate romantic and even sexual activity." The article highlights this new girls-as-aggressors phenomenon as "daring," a logical outgrowth of women's "empowerment." But in truth, the new development reveals the failure of the modern feminist movement. A major goal of the feminist movement was to put women in the workplace. Advocating job over family, the "women's equality crowd" told women that men were unnecessary for long-term relationships. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," said militant male-basher Gloria Steinem.
Men became "boy-toys." Use them, and then, lose them. Men became to women what for too long women had been to men -- sexual objects. Sex is fun, the logic went, and the more sex the better -- so go get 'em, tigress! "There is a kind of machismo among girls now," Marty Beckerman, age 19, told the Times. "They have the male-conquest attitude."
Where were the parents to prevent such a despicable chain of events? The feminists had discarded them, too. Marriage was a sham perpetrated by the male power structure, the all-knowing feminists told society.
Just check the National Organization for Women's web site. NOW's web page links to an article by Mary Garden ripping pro-marriage politicians. "We also need to ignore the wailing of politicians and journalists who, fueled by such research, want us to return to a romanticized version of nuclear family life in the 1950s that simply never existed," Garden writes. When in doubt, lie about the 1950s. Statistics show that the nuclear family was far stronger in the 1950s than it is today.
Divorce, shacking up and single motherhood are just as good as traditional marriage, both for children and for women, feminists claim. "No one is a stay-at-home mom anymore," Sarah Durrell, 17, explained to the Times. "Women don't have to wear skirts. We are empowered, and we can do whatever we want."
This supposedly "empowering" ideal cuts men out of the loop. Want a career and a kid? Get pregnant, and then, throw the bum out. A single mother is sufficient for the child. The liberal media endorses this idea, championing pregnant single mothers on many prime-time television programs.
And so men have become non-entities in the household. Young men suffer without the presence of a father -- paternal absence is perhaps the primary cause of gangbanging and other crime. But what is less talked about is the effect on young women who lack strong fathers.
The Times quotes a young girl who says her mother approves of her forward behavior. What about her father? He doesn't approve and says, "I used to be a boy once, and I know what they're after, and they're only after one thing." Wise advice. But she writes him off as "old-fashioned." Because what would a man know about male lust, after all?
The feminist movement calls parental advice illegitimate. Give a girl a condom, and let her loose, they say. If she gets pregnant, give her an abortion. But whatever you do, don't let parents raise their own children.
That's Planned Parenthood's way. It posts a fact sheet about teen pregnancy. Guess what solutions it recommends: an end to abstinence-only education, plus on-demand abortion for minors without parental notification if the teens get knocked up. "Presently, an unrealistic emphasis is placed on preventing adolescent sexual behavior," the fact sheet states, "which overlooks the fact that sexual expression is an essential component of healthy human development for individuals of all ages."
In Deuteronomy 15:15-17, the Bible describes a seemingly strange ritual. If a man marries a woman to whom he was engaged and then accuses her of not being a virgin prior to marriage, the parents of the woman must bring proofs of her virginity to the elders of the city. Why is this the job of the parents? Commentators explain that if the accusations are true, the parents must shoulder the responsibility.
If The New York Times is correct, and today's teenage girls aggressively pursue sex, it is a reflection of the feminist movement, which has castrated parents' ability to raise their children properly. And it's the promiscuous girls and their unwanted children who pay the price.
I was refering to this woman.
Oh, I don't know. Check out the disease stats HERE.
I never could figure it out. All three boys are conservative, Christian and Eagle Scouts. Miraculously, the eldest (founder of a dry fratnerity on his college campus) found the right girl (another "True Love Waits" prototype) and is getting married July 4. They will both be 22.
Boys #2 and #3 pine for girls who reject them, turn out to be lesbians, hate Republicans, etc.
The secret, I have found, is that alot of these girls are coming from homes with no parental supervision or core set of values. They are "sl*t" material, though I would never point that out directly to the boys.
Amazingly, as my parents would have predicted 40 years ago, "nice" girls do crop up and somehow G-d will find the right girl for someone at the right time.
Girls who have standards, one whom a parent would want a son to date, come from families who do not tolerate such behavior. They are still out there, probably wondering what's wrong with them, too.
America has divided into two factions: those who fight evil and those who do not believe in evil. The dividing line is religion.Those who believe in a Judeo-Christian God know the difference between good and evil because they know the value of human life. They know that an element of man is divine and that man has a purpose in the universe. They know that man has free will to choose between good and evil. And because they know the value of life, they know the evil of those who take it for non-defensive purposes.
They realize that terrorists who smashed airliners into buildings were not provoked by American foreign policy -- the terrorists were seeking death because they were part of a culture that loves death. Deeply religious people knew what America had to do in response: kill those responsible for the terrorism and those who supported them, and prevent the evil from growing.
The other faction does not believe in God, at least not actively. There is no good, and there is no evil, these people believe. If God has no purpose for man -- as they believe -- then life is meaningless, and the death of thousands of Americans has no more meaning than the death of a colony of ants.
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.