All the sex a girl needs

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.

For us, courtship means no romantic involvements and no dating until one is ready to look for a marriage partner....Just think what the teen pregnancy rate would be if teens didn't date recreationally.

I want my kids dating at 16 because I want them married at 18 and pregnant at 19. If they happen to find true love at 16, and have to wait a few years to be together, that's okay: "Jacob served seven years for Rachel"... "True love waits"... I sure don't want them to be single, frustrated virgins til age 38 (like me) -- and let's face it, most people just can't or won't wait that long; heaven knows how close I came to the breaking point.

Dating as a recreational activity is NOT encouraged!

Agreed. "Don't date for sport, date to mate". But as I noted above, I have no problem with the mate quest beginning in the teen years. I definitely don't want it postponed til gradschool or later!

Anyway, at the right time, some dating might be permissable.

Here is where we utterly part company. In the coursthip movement, it is generally assumed that a suitable person will eventually come along, and courtship procedures (including possibly some "permissable" dating) are mainly aimed at confirming the choice of person. How to go about finding someone to begin with, is NEVER meaningfully addressed in courtship doctrine, except to say that going out shopping -- dating lots of different people, looking for a mate -- is somehow "wrong".

I beg to differ. Based on my experiences and observations, I contend that for many adults, this casual "shopping around" dating is ESSENTIAL, because that's the only way they'll ever find someone. That being the case, for many people a prohibition of dating amounts to a de-facto prohibition of marriage (remember "doctrines of demons... forbidding to marry...")

For many years, I resisted parental injuctions to "just get out there and date around", as I wanted to get to know the girl first through group activites, bible studies, blah blah blah.... All this led me nowhere. When, around age 35, I snapped, angrily rejected everything the church folks had told me, and started doing exactly what Mom said along -- "Go out with a different girl every weekend!" -- things started to change for me very quickly: My social skills rapidly improved, my confidence skyrocketed, and I met several good prospects in fairly short order -- one of whom I married.

Ironically, right around the time I was kissing my old, failed strategy goodbye, some kid made a fortune by writing a book promoting it! Fortunately, she who was to become my wife, wasn't stupid enough to fall for it. (Maybe I owe IKDG a backhanded thanks, for taking all the dumb women off the dating market?)

"Dating is serious business. It is part of the process of finding a mate."

Amen to that.

Dating has become a game in and its own purpose.

Take the fornication out of the equation and that will all change. If people reserved sex for marriage, marriage would suddenly be everyone's paramount priority in dating. But people need to believe in God before they'll do that, usually.

Back many years ago the hardest thing for me to find was a woman who would talk to me like an honest relaxed intelligent human being.

Ain't that the truth. Thank God I finally found one.

Opinion please: Our 20 year old college junior son wants to share a two bedroom/two bath apartment next year (his senior year - he will be 21) with a girl who is a friend, not a girlfriend. In fact, she has a boyfriend who apparently is okay with this. So are her parents. On the other hand, his father and I think this is just too intimate even if, and I do believe this is the case, they are just friends, nothing romatic between them. Our son says this is no different than the coed dorm he lived freshman year where girls were next door and across the hall. What do you think? Are we in the dark ages and being foolish to think something is wrong with this? If so, exactly what? I need the words to express to my son exactly why we think this is a bad idea. Thank you.

I think it is a bad idea because men and women are made to be attracted to each other, despite what the current cultural political correctness may say. Despite best of intentions, a man and a woman will have a subtext of attraction. This has been known for the ages but forgotten recently on some college campuses where men and women share dorms suites (and each other's beds). Dear Mrs Web knows. She receives the letters... Men and women have a duty to keep themselves out of situations that can lead to them doing things that are not in their best interest or intent. This is called living a life with thoughtfullness and open eyes.

You are not in the dark ages. Your children are living in the New Dark Ages where the wisdom of the great cultures has been tossed aside for the Marxist credo of utter equality and interchangability of humans. Your son has been brainwashed by television and the rest of the culture which is telling him what to do and how to proceed in life. I hope you are not footing the bill here. If he were mine, I would say very clearly and kindly: This is not morally appropriate for you or your friend. I am afraid if you do not find alternative housing you will be on your own as of next month. People who are dependent upon their parents need to follow their parent's wishes. Give him a choice. And make sure you can live with it if he chooses to cut the cord.

I hope this helps.

Best,

Dear Mrs Web (Dear Mrs. Web Personal Advice Columns)

I happen to agree that once one is in their thirties, that dating improves one's chances of meeting someone.

Glad we agree on something. Don't ever admit that at Courtship Connection, though -- some of them will want to burn you at the stake! I was accused of wanting to "hold on to the things of Sodom" (?!?!) when all I really wanted was to get married!

However, I know many kids who are committed to not getting involved in the "dating scene" who are finding mates on college campuses

Hardcore courtship radicals insist on no dating/courting until one is FINISHED with education... I tried to tell them, this is madness, as college is probably one's best shot at meeting someone (especially if one doesn't "date") because it concentrates a lot of young single people in one place like no other social institution does.

Even so, I don't see how a match could possibly happen without at least some dating going on, especially for an engineering/science guy who doesn't meet many women in his classes or study groups the way other guys do. If a techno-geek doesn't make a special effort to get to know women ("dating", in my dictionary), it's not likely to happen, even at college. (Bitter memories here!)

Finally, we are completely forgetting the large percentage of the population that doesn't go to college... how are THEY supposed to find mates? Once again, execept for the fortunate few who find suitable matches in their home church, dating appears to be the only answer.

Bottom line: I think it's madness to stigmatize dating, since people aren't stupid and many will correctly recognize that dating is, for them, the only path to the altar. Far better, to teach them wisdom as to HOW to date, WHY to date (or not), and above all, WHOM to date.

[On that last point -- note to Christian gals: dating jerks is a sin! If you can't find anyone righteous to go out with, have the faith to SIT AT HOME Friday and Saturday night (like the nice guys you've been rejecting), rather than date scoundrels. To do otherwise is a deep insult to every righteous man.]

Josh Harris' book spoke mostly to younger kids to discourage recreational dating

Too many 20-30somethings interpreted it as applying to them, too -- to their great harm. To be fair, however, he apparently recognized the problems; his second book, Boy Meets Girl, is a lot more realistic (and not coincidentally, in it he backpedals from his former doctrinaire no-dating stance.)

I think he wrote the book from the point of view of the homeschooling community where there is much support for courtship....the rest of the world doesn't have the support system necessary to make it work.

Thank you. If I had "kissed dating goodbye", I would've been single til Judgement Day. But I could never convince the courtship radicals of this.

Ironically, when I finally found someone, I approximated courtship as closely as circumstances would allow (100% chaperoning was impossible, for example, but parental oversight was sought and welcomed). Some of the courtship folks were willing to concede that some flexibility was necessary, though they wrongly imagined my situation to be an exception rather than the overwhelming norm.

But the real sticking point was this: in order to find someone worth courting, I first had to date around a lot. There was simply no other way, period. And they would never, never concede this.

I agree with you Motherbear. I didn't care for his interpretation of virgins at all. I happen to be one, and I am NOT irrational, unhappy, priggish or stuck up. However, (and admitting this will probably result in many angry responses. So anyone reading this, please do not take it the wrong way.) I do consider myself a feminist in certain respects. (Remember, I said feminist, not feminazi) I don't believe in abortion, and I don't believe in sleeping around. But I'm a feminist in the respect that I think women are equal to men, and have a right to hold whatever job they want. I realize you were speaking of most hardcore feminist. I was just stating my opinion that all feminists aren't necessarily that way. (and I hate the reputation that has come from it) As for virgins, I've found them to be very rational, moral, generally happy and friendly people, who know what they want out of life.

I do consider myself a feminist in certain respects.

See typical of most virgins im not often wrong your post shows the kind of dour and serious disliked in all mankind but especially unbecoming in a woman.

and I am NOT irrational, unhappy, priggish or stuck up

If you weren't you wouldn't be a feminist. Men and women are not equal they are diffrent. Women have better social skills, language aptitude, writing ability, are better at understanding people( except themselves). Men are better at physical and scientific/mathematical/analytical activity. This of course varies between diffrent individuals but the trend holds.

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.

Yikes, I'm hooked !!! Anyone know where I can find a bicycle ???