All the sex a girl needs

TownHall.com ^ | Thursday, November 7, 2002 | by Ben Shapiro

[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.

[hocndoc]

Let's do our best to teach them differently.

Education and love at home. Preferably with their own mother and father in the home. (I may have stepped on toes in that last, but we all know the statistics prove what is "ideal.")

[Jeff Chandler]

Preferably with their own mother and father in the home. (I may have stepped on toes in that last, but we all know the statistics prove what is "ideal.")

Amazing what has become controversial.

[Phyto Chems]

So VERY SAD when will the sheeple wake and turn way from the RAT's lie.

[RLK]

Damn. I knew I was born too late. Oh to be a teenage boy again...

----------------------

That's what you are.

[RLK]

It's pretty sad when you see some 15 year old girl in the emergency room of a hospital because she tried to overdose on a bottle of tylenol. These girls may be promiscuous but they get dumped a lot and turned down. It's natural for the woman to let the male do the pursuing but what does it do to a girl's emotion when boys reject her offers?

--------------------------

What's your problem, man? Are you trying to point out life isn't as simple as women spreading their legs?

[ccmay]

Did you hear that doctors have now discovered a food that kills all sexual desire in women?

Wedding cake!

-ccm

[Southack]

The reason that the Communist Party funded Betty Friedan and her whole "Feminine Mystique" party of NOW women was that their overlying goal is to make individuals more dependent on the state.

A broken family means that the woman and the child depend upon the state, especially when society is telling the parents of the woman that being a single mom is "empowering". Likewise, the man becomes dependent on the courts to enforce his visitation rights, while at the same time the woman depends upon the state to enforce divorce settements for her.

And true to card-carrying Communist Betty Freidan's ideology, NOW encourages divorce, abortion, single parenthood, female sexual "empowerment" (a catch phrase meant to imply that a woman can engage in ALL male activities without any different consequences, ala pregnancy).

[joonbug]

Yes it was a joke. A sense of humor is sometimes necessary to maintain sanity.

[quietolong]

This is not new. It's the way it's always been. The woman have always ran every thing.

[RLK]

I have sons, all of whom are hunks. They don't get phone calls from girls. In fact, they are/were rejected en masse by females when they call(ed) girls. I never could figure it out.

-----------------------------------

I'll figure it out for you. What is taking place today is sex, not personal involvement. Many, probably most, woment today can screw the football team with bravado, but can not engage in personal intimacy or involvement. If your sons are worth a damn it will scare the hell out of these women.

An idiot they can shack up with for a night won't require anything from them and won't scare them.

Sexually active women are required to adopt the self-protective measure of engaging in emotional distance from men in order to preclude getting hurt in their serial disposable relationships. Any man attractive enough to threaten that defense creates fear.

Men sense that emotional distance and toughness on to part of today's sexually liberated women and don't want them for more than a night. Involvement with them is emotional suicide.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: joonbug Damn. I knew I was born too late. Oh to be a teenage boy again... ~~~~~ That's what you are. 24 posted on 11/06/2002 11:37 PM PST by RLK

Maybe.

Or maybe he is cynically observing that modern young women are turning themselves into throwaway objects for the kind of "teenage boy" so many of us (in our youth) used to be.

He may be a cur, but I suspect he is making a sarcastic point.

I could be wrong. I'll reserve judgment until he responds. ;-)

[JoeSixPack1]

See, I'm always in the wrong generation...:-(

[RLK]

What is occuring is a national tragedy. There is no place for flip humor or bravado or bullshit regarding the area.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian What is occuring is a national tragedy. There is no place for flip humor or bravado or bullshit regarding the area. 33 posted on 11/07/2002 0:07 AM PST by RLK

I'll agree it's a national tragedy.

Hell, what is worse, it's a cultural tragedy.
Nations come and go.

That said, Mencken would have laughed. He would have laughed derisively, and ruthlessly -- with a poison pen.

But he would have laughed. It was how he made his points.
Frankly, we could use him now.

Sobran has his place, but so does P.J. O'Rourke.

[RLK]

Menken was an ongoing nuclear bomb who left craters in the walls of human delusion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian Menken was an ongoing nuclear bomb who left craters in the walls of human delusion. 35 posted on 11/07/2002 0:34 AM PST by RLK

That's a rather left-handed compliment to him... damning with faint praise.

And in all fairness, I doubt he'd have it any other way.

regards, op

[RLK]

I meant it to be praise. He had a way of cutting through the bullcrap.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I meant it to be praise.

I know.

He had a way of cutting through the bullcrap.

He did.

Hence my choice of Sobran and O'Rourke as his "heirs"...
...the Curmudgeon and the Jester... neither of whom is heeded.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hence my choice of Sobran and O'Rourke as his "heirs"... ...the Curmudgeon and the Jester... neither of whom is heeded.

As proof, try to post the thoughts of either on FR and see how far you get. ;-)

regards, op

[MHGinTN]

There is a seldom used word that points to the void we now face in America. This word defined generations past and the relationship between men and women and the children of thier unions. This word undergirded our institutions, such as marriage and family, our courts, our military whose fidelity to this nation never wavered, and defined our embrace of freedoms, such as freedom to worship in the religion of one's choice or no religion. Lastly, this word even defined our status as a planet as we ventured out to explore our planetary neighborhood, and it defined our sadness when a political leader was murdered before our eyes and the nation mourned. Americans seem unable to 'cherish' as we once did.

One might place this loss squarely at the feet of political correctness and the mutational power that pernicious perspective has upon the societal psyche. We are no longer cherisher, only users in the main, and we've bankrupted our future, shortchanging our children by not teaching them by example this most powerful human quality.

How do we once again teach our young that our culture --mutated as it is now-- is to be cherished as something unique in human history? But how do we do that? How do we overcome the commonness now passed off as desirable and pounded relentlessly into our young via television and advertising? How do we teach our young that they are cherished and the fundamental institutions so terribly corroded at this juncture are to be cherished?... We start by openly cherishing LIFE, the life of the unborn, for they are the future upon which we will fail or succeed, beyond the selfish drive to pleasure our senses and avoid our duties. There, with that word added, is the key to our loss of vision. We have lost the determination to do our duty, thus that which we value is less worthy of our cherishing because it is so banal ... and our young then seek that which is banal, selfish, and self-consuming, unable to do their duty for there is nothing to be cherished thus nothing for which duty is paramount.