 |
Harrison Scott Key posted earlier this week over at World Magazine's blog about the difference between values and virtues: The minister made a distinction between values and virtues. Values, he said, were subjective things, the kinds of things even Christians have been duped into embracing. We talk about values, your values, my values. It means nothing, except "that which I deem important."
Virtues, he said, were objective and timeless -- and terribly out of fashion. ...The seven virtues, written about by Prudentius in the 5th century A.D., are these: Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Kindness, Patience, Humility. Those aren't values, and they aren't subjective. They are timeless qualities that are appreciated and needed in every age and every culture.
His inclusion of chastity reminded me of a comment I heard last week that Christians who have heard much about abstinence don't always know as much about the larger concept of chastity that it's derived from. That comment came from Christopher West, a friend of Focus on the Family who briefed us recently on some of the rich insights on human sexuality from the Catholic tradition.
Christopher told us that he often hears people say, "You should be chaste until marriage." But that demonstrates a misunderstanding about chastity he explained. Chastity is bigger than abstinence. "When you understand what chastity actually is you know that you can't stop being chaste once you're married," he emphasized.
"In the western world, the term has become closely associated (and is often used interchangeably) with sexual abstinence, especially before marriage, due to the restriction of sexual relations to marriage deriving from the Ten Commandments," reads the Wikipedia entry on chastity. "However," it continues, "the term remains applicable to persons in all states, single or married, clerical or lay, and has implications beyond sexual temperance."
"Chastity," Christopher West explains, "is first and foremost a great yes to the true meaning of sex, to the goodness of being created as male and female in the image of God. Chastity isn't repressive. It's totally liberating. It frees us from the tendency to use others for selfish gratification and enables us to love others as Christ loves us."
Am I the only Evangelical who heard more growing up about abstinence than about the overarching (and amplifying) virtue of chastity?
Over on the Radical Womanhood blog, Carolyn McCulley has released an unedited chapter from her upcoming book, also titled Radical Womanhood. In the chapter, Carolyn reminds us that there was one thing that feminists and Christians used to agree upon--the fight against pornography.
McCulley writes about the group, Women Against Pornography, which, "coalesced in the late ‘70s out of several organizations, and was loosely led by feminist author Susan Brownmiller...and the militant feminist Andrea Dworkin, among others... Dworkin campaigned frequently on the subject, helping to draft a law in 1983 that defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women. The law was later overturned by an appeal court as unconstitutional."
McCulley writes later in her post: "Opposition to pornography was the link between two groups that typically had little else in common: the Christian Right and feminist activists. For a brief period in 1980s, they found themselves on the same page."
And what about today? For myself, I haven't heard a whole lot from either the church or the feminists about this issue.
As Steve pointed out in the latest podcast, around 60 percent of guys now feel that viewing pornography is perfectly okay (listen to find out why Lisa blames Chandler from Friends). Not only is this a problem because of the violence against women that pornography can encourage, but also, as Steve pointed out, that it makes "consumers" of men.
That phrase really struck me. God has designed and commanded men to protect women. But pornography turns God's design completely around, encouraging men to be "consumers"--to shop for, be entertained by and exploit women to serve their own purposes.
Thankfully, some in the church are taking a stand against pornography. Focus on the Family, specifically, created pureintimacy.org, to explain the biblical view of sex and also to give advice on how to overcome sexual addictions.
Though I couldn't find much about pornography at the National Organization for Women website, I did find one reference to a workshop at a 2005 conference called "Sexploitation: Trafficking, Prostitution and Pornography." The workshop description states that: "Scholars and activists pinpoint pornography and the rising acceptance by the mainstream as a major cause for demand of prostitution and trafficking—especially in wealthy destination countries like the U.S...Only by focusing on ways to reduce demand will this destructive trade come to an end."
Who knows? Maybe 30 years later, though we still can't agree on much else, Christians and feminists could agree on the danger of pornography and fight it.
eHarmony says that they "regret" having published an advice column last week titled "Navigating the One Night Stand." Truth is, saying "We apologize to anyone who read the column and found it inappropriate" is only a step above the "I'm sorry if you were offended" pseudo-apology.
I think it's actually more of a damage control editorial than a sincere mea culpa. In my opinion, eHarmony has become all about market share and money, and only tangentially about facilitating healthy marriages. They seem more concerned about affirming its less-virtuous dues-paying members than about guiding couples into forming good marriages. Consider another not-yet-deleted advice column, "How to Fan the Flames of Desire," which begins by affirming premarital sex: "You meet that special someone. You talk, you date, oh and did I mention that you two have amazing chemistry in the bedroom."
Elsewhere, eHarmony published an advice column that assumes that after a few dates with a guy you met through eHarmony, "you're probably crashing at his place." It goes on to characterize sleeping together as quaint: "spending an impromptu night at your significant other's house is a lot like camping."
As Lisa said in this past week's Boundless Show podcast, "This is not your mother's eHarmony."
It's my prayer that Boundless and Focus on the Family never put the love of money and increasing market share over the love of ministering in the name of the Lord, as eHarmony seems to have done.
It's a significant split; the conservative, evangelical community nourished Warren's nascent business, and now he appears to be leaving it behind for the secular world.
That's a line from an interview with Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony, on Salon.com published almost three years ago. It's about Dr. Warren's ties with, and subsequent separation from, Focus on the Family. But it has proved prophetic in ways beyond Dr. Warren's decision to promote his services to non-Christians.
A Focus on the Family colleague sent me an article published on eHarmony's advice site titled "Navigating the One Night Stand." And it's one of the most hedonistic articles I've ever read. Here's the lead: While most of us are looking for that special someone to spend our lives with, the single life dictates that sometimes the opportunity for companionship presents itself in the form of a one-night stand. While a one-time roll in the hay isn't exactly emotionally fulfilling, sex in any form can be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun.
That's right. Sex is as consequenceless as watching television. So go ahead and get your orgasm on with someone you've just met. But be warned, it's profitable only if you don't read too much into it. After all, it's only sex. It's not like you two have done something as intimate as *gasp* holding hands.
I'm not sure of Dr. Warren's oversight of eHarmony these days. But he is still very much a part of its brand. And it's clear from his Web site's content (and from his interviews) that he thinks it's possible to separate business interests from Christian principles. Or maybe this new direction is simply a reflection of what has always been his Christian principles.
God or mammon, Dr. Warren. God or mammon.
Oh, and we'll be discussing this in this week's Boundless Show podcast. Check back tomorrow afternoon for that.
We live in a society that is increasingly accepting of those living the gay lifestyle. Media portrays homosexuals as a vibrant part of social circles. Many young people today can claim multiple gay friends. And, in the name of tolerance, many in our society would eagerly say, "Gay is OK."
That's why it's surprising that Details magazine, a magazine for the hip, young adult male, published an article called "Would You Really Be Okay With a Gay Kid?" [warning: offensive language]
The article considers Jerry and Geoff, progressive, self-proclaimed liberal dads who interact with homosexuals on a daily basis but are squeamish about the idea of their kids being gay. Dr. Al Mohler comments: These are men who clearly want to say that homosexuality is okay. They live and work in a social world in which that is the only politically correct position. And yet, when it comes to their own sons -- they would definitely not be okay with them being gay.
One interesting observation reported in the article has to do with a discovery made by Ritch C. Savin-Williams, the director of Cornell University's Sex & Gender Lab. Parents who say they're open to the idea of homosexuality are often the most difficult for a child to come out to. "Perhaps they make a distinction between your kid and mine," he says. "It's nice for other people's children to be gay or to have gay friends, but one's own child is a different story. Indeed, some of the young people say religiously conservative parents respond the best, because of the value of family. But it's the progressive, holier-than-thou parents who often can't cope."
An obvious reason for that is the biblical expectation that parents love their children no matter what, but Mohler believes there is more: I hope there is another key reason that Christian parents might respond differently. Christians believe in the transforming power of the Gospel. What strikes the world as increasingly out-of-step is the biblical belief that homosexual behavior in any form is a sin. But the idea that people can change -- or even ought to change -- is increasingly out-of-step with the cultural mood as well.
The situation detailed in Details reveals tremendous confusion on the cultural left about the question of homosexuality, not in the culture, but in the lives of their own children. Is hypocrisy revealed in this picture? Of course it is. But hypocrisy is the danger inherent in any moral position -- on both sides of the debates over homosexuality.
The men interviewed in this article also reveal the power of common grace -- a lingering shadow of moral conscience. The hesitation concerning their sons and homosexuality -- almost a panic -- is a subtle sign that they possess a moral knowledge that complicates their moral reasoning. They want to be okay with their sons and homosexuality -- they just can't.
It's commendable that a magazine like Details took on a counter-cultural topic. As Dr. Mohler says: "God sometimes has a strange way of getting our attention."
If you want to understand the meaning of indoctrination, take a look at the "Ask a College Student" blog in today's New York Times.
It's a post about what's in store for high-school seniors preparing to enter the college ranks. So they ask some New York college students the real important stuff like "Do you smoke?" and "How many more people do you think you'll sleep with before you get married?"
But never mind the questions, what's interesting is the responses.
These young women being interviewed are all indignant about the health risks of tobacco but seem to have no concern whatsoever about the risks of having multiple sex partners.
Maybe it's all those benign herpes medication ads that make it seem like casual sex would be worth an incurable sexual infection. I mean, compare those to the anti-tobacco ads from The Truth. You remember the one with all the body bags and scary facts like, "Hydrogen cyanide is found in cigarette smoke. Hydrogen cyanide is also in rat poison."
Imagine if it were politically correct to do similar "truth" ads about the risks of casual sex. Maybe New York college students would be just as wary of having up to 30 sexual partners as they are about cigarettes.
HT: World Mag Blog
In her Wall Street Journal article "Sex Education," Donna Freitas warns parents of the rampant "hookup culture" found in today's colleges and universities. The emphasis on casual sex, however, does not reflect the underlying desires of students -- nor is it doing them any good. Freitas writes: After conducting a national college survey of over 2,500 students, I found that among those who reported "hooking up" -- a range of sexually intimate acts, from kissing to intercourse, that occur outside a committed relationship -- at Catholic and nonreligious private and public colleges and universities, 41% are profoundly upset about their behavior. The 22% of respondents who chose to describe a hook-up experience (the question was optional) used words like "dirty," "used," "regretful," "empty," "miserable," "disgusted," "ashamed," "duped" and "abused" in their answers.
Not only do students have negative feelings toward casual sex, they seem attracted to conservative, biblical values when it comes to sexuality. When last semester I taught Wendy Shalit's "A Return to Modesty," in a class at Boston University called "Spirituality & Sexuality in American Youth Culture," I assumed that my mostly left-leaning students would reject her arguments about the terrible effects that the hook-up culture has on young women and the positive effects of traditional religion and morality on young women's well-being. Instead, my students ate up her critique and were fascinated by her descriptions of modesty as a virtue, especially within the context of faith. One student said that she felt empowered to stop tolerating vulgar remarks about sex made by peers in her presence.
Freitas points out that while there is a disconnect between what young people desire when it comes to romance and sexuality, and what they actually do, the church may have an avenue of opportunity here. Perhaps the various church leaders would be interested to know that their young people are longing for the kinds of guidelines and rituals for dating that religion can offer. It might make them more willing to actually explain church teachings on sex and engage the students in honest discussions about how to foster healthy, fulfilling romantic relationships.
More than one of my friends has expressed regret for innocence lost. One recently said: "I made those choices and now I'm having to work through all that comes with that." Studies like Freitas' show that sexual "freedom" really doesn't deliver on its promises. Just another reminder that God has our best interest at heart in establishing boundaries for sex.
HT: Justin Taylor
Watch any teen show (think The CW) and sex among teens is presented as commonplace. However, the consequences of sex -- unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and emotional fallout -- are not. And yet the reality of sexual activity among teens is bleak. Citizenlink reports: One in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That adds up to more than 3 million girls.
Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent, The Associated Press reported. Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, is the most common STI in teen girls ages 14 to 19, the CDC found.
In light of this finding, you'd think the CDC would take the opportunity to at least mention the benefits of abstinence before marriage. It seems like the responsible thing to do. However, not only are they not mentioning abstinence-until-marriage as a valid solution, but experts at the CDS mock the idea. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said bad public policy is to blame for the STI epidemic.
"Current public health policies are clearly failing to reduce the spread of STDs among young women," she said. "Public health officials need to admit their failures that have led to kids paying the price. Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active."
How foolish -- and very sad -- that the only surefire protection against STIs -- abstinence from sexual activity before marriage -- is overlooked and even mocked but the gatekeepers of disease control. And we all have to pay for the irresponsibility. Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, explains: "In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs."
Thanks to those of you who've written to comment on this week's Q&A, "Female Self-Pleasure." I was distressed that until a few minutes ago, all the e-mail coming in was from men saying that while I gave good tactical advice, I had missed the boat by not focusing on grace and forgiveness. Then the female perspective emerged with a comment that said, I have faced my own struggles with the issue in question, and know many other women who have. I also know that, even more than our male counterparts, it is very hard to ask for support in this area, because it is thought that females simply do not have this problem. Hopefully articles of this sort will open people's eyes and [they] "won't blush when [we] confess [o]ur sin," but instead will be "honest about sin's grip and ... willing to walk through this with [us]."
To those who think I missed the mark, I hope you know that I believe strongly in grace and forgiveness. I said as much in the Q&A that ran last month ("A Hopeless Sinner"). And the letter I answered this week came in after that one ran. So I figured the person writing had read that. Maybe I assumed too much. If so, the section that also applies to this week's column appears below. It applies to every question I answer about sin. It's just that I don't have room to restate this point every time I write. Typically I only have room to answer the specific question being asked. I will, however, work harder to include relevant links for more in-depth information on the overarching worldview of sin and forgiveness. Here's what I should have linked to: Christ came to die for sinners. Sinners like you and me. Sinners like all the readers of this column. Though we may not be in a situation that feels as hopeless as yours does, it's just a matter of degrees, not kind. Jesus said he came to heal the sick. They're the ones who need a doctor.
The good news is that no one is beyond salvation. Romans 1:16 says the gospel "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (emphasis added).
Christ's gift of salvation is good news. But it's only good news if the person hearing it recognizes that they need it. Jesus came to forgive sinners, but He called them out of their sin. You don't get a pass because you face such seemingly hard, seemingly unique temptations.
1 Corinthians 10:13 says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
Stop thinking it's all up to you. You can't do this alone. Thankfully, you don't have to. Jesus is the ultimate intercessor precisely because He came in the flesh and knows what's it like to be tempted — and to successfully resist that temptation. He even told us what to do: "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
Instead of agonizing over how much you've failed ... take the focus off you and put it on Christ. Seek His forgiveness, as well as a community of Bible believers who will walk alongside you and help you mature in your faith. And stop doing the things that set you up for failure. ...
It's not helpful to camp out on the idea that you're the worst of sinners. While it is essential to acknowledge your sin, it's also important to realize you're not alone. Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The danger of convincing yourself that you've blown it more than any other is that you'll start thinking you should get a pass because you're in a category by yourself. That you're somehow "the exception." You're not. Paul wrote, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:15-17)
John MacArthur's commentary on this passage says, "Paul was living proof that God could save any sinner, no matter how great a one he might be."
When you're tempted to stop fighting sin, remember it's not just you you're at war with. Peter wrote, "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). The battle raging in and around you isn't just physical. It's spiritual. And to fight it, you need both physical boundaries and spiritual protection (Ephesians 6:10-12).
...You can't continue living this way without suffering the effects of your sin. I suspect you realize that and that's why you wrote. In fact, your e-mail is evidence that your conscience is still working, trying to move to back toward right living. It's not too late to change; not too late to act on what guilt remains. I'm really glad you wrote. I think it's a sign of God's mercy, evidence that He does love you and wants you to get right with Him. It's not too late to repent; truly repent, as evidenced by sorrow for your rebellion against God and His ways and His laws. Just because you don't feel like repenting doesn't mean you can't confess even that to Him in prayer.
But don't stop there. You can do a lot to make it less likely that you'll fall again.
...If you are truly a follower of Christ, you have access to the power that brought Him back to life. But it's up to you. You have a choice to make.
Madison Avenue hates women. Can I say that without controversy? The female physique has been used to market everything from cars to power tools. In fact, this blog title derives from Big Tobacco's generous decision to allow women to share in the same ghastly death as male smokers.
But even with today's crass exploitation of the female image, it's hard to believe that we live in a relatively enlightened age when it comes to women and advertising. Have a look at some really cringe-inducing advertising from the not-so-distant past. Every stereotype is exploited. The Palmolive soap ad plays on many women's fears and reinforces the belief that beauty is, literally, only skin deep. And the ones for Chase & Sanborn Coffee and Bitney-Bowes postage meters are just mind-boggling. Imagine trying to run something remotely similar today. (More such ads have been collected in a gift book called You Mean a Woman Can Open It...?)
But as I think about it, Madison Avenue hasn't become more enlightened. It's just changed its target. In place of the Helpless Woman is the Doofus Dad. Ward Cleaver has been replaced by Homer Simpson. How advertisers expect to be successful by insulting half their intended audience is beyond me, but apparently it works; they keep doing it.
So, in the end, maybe we haven't come a long way at all. So why am I not surprised?
The gift of singleness, as it were, has subtle associations with the intricacies of both climate change and certain individuals' concern over social justice. Some might argue that there's merely a correlation, with no causation, but both global warming theorists and progressive activists would disagree. In fact, because some marry in their teens, and others marry in their mid- to late-30s, the consequences are much more dire -- especially for those who've chosen to "date" rather than "court." And especially especially among the "marriage mandate" crowd. Factoring in to the entire equation is the polemical political talk coming from both the liberal wing of the Democrat(ic) party (which some would associate with Nazism) and the far right wing of the Republic(an) party (which some would associate with Nazism). The introduction of children, whether intramarital or extramarital, further complicate the matter. As do aliens, both illegal and extraterrestrial, some of whom support the practice of capital punishment in certain instances. And puppies.
Discuss.
For the first time in 15 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. According to the report on abcnews.com, Despite millions spent on ad campaigns and abstinence-only programs, for the first time in 15 years the teen birthrate rose, according to government statistics for 2005 to 2006, the most recent numbers available. That translates to 750,000 women who have become pregnant at least once before age 20.
How can this be? 18-year-old expectant mom, Teka Steward, a Young Life member, mission-trip participant and self-described “goody two shoes,” said, "It was just kind of an image and then temptations of doing stuff.”
Steward concludes, "I'm a regular teen. I fall sometimes ... all the times."
At least she understands that sex before marriage and unwed pregnancy is "falling." Given the avalanche of sexual information teens get in school, most of it "how-to" in nature, this stat really shouldn't surprise.
But, it does. "In the last two decades, tweens and teens have been inundated with info and programs about sex and protecting themselves in a post-HIV world," says the story. "Some wonder how a generation with access to so much information and so many contraceptives, unlike previous ones, can have a higher rate of pregnancies."
Huh.
The news story links readers looking for more information and help to the teenpregnancy.org website. According to the site, "The goal of the National Campaign is to reduce the rate of teen pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy in young adults by one-third between 2006 and 2015."
It's a reminder that until the goal is to reduce the rate of pregnancy among unmarried women, whatever age they are, any "progress" will be hollow. Yes, it's better when babies have mothers who are done with high school and no longer spending their weekends cheer leading. But without the support of a stable family, including a mom and a dad, babies suffer.
And women who mess up the order of what used to be the life script for success –- first love, then marriage, then baby in the baby carriage –- are often consigned to a life of poverty and hardship.
In "Confessions of a Teenage Mom," Bethany Torode sets the record straight, Despite what you may read in the papers or hear on the nightly news, America does not have a "teen pregnancy crisis." In reality, we have a crisis of children born outside of marriage -- to parents of all ages and classes, from impoverished teenagers to fifty-year-old movie stars, who want the fun of sex without the responsibilities of marriage. We have a crisis of maturity and morality.
Yes, I am among those contributing to the teen pregnancy rate. [But I am married.] I would encourage other responsible young Christians in their late teens and early twenties to do the same. Women, these are the best years of your life to have a baby (ages 18-to-27 are when your body is at its peak for childbearing, and having your first child during these years significantly reduces your risk of breast cancer). Men, why not channel your youth and energy into something with profound eternal value?
I do hope the ranks of pregnant teens can, in the words of 18-year-old mom Ashley Chapman, "make new statistics." For their own sake and the sake of their babies. Sadly, it's not that easy. Until the "adults" who think it's a good idea to fill teens' minds with visions of sex (years out from when most of them will marry) start connecting the dots, it's likely wishful thinking.
A new study by BYU has found that today's college women are growing more permissive about pornography -- with 49 percent of the female college students surveyed finding pornography acceptable. The key question asked of students and their parents was if they agreed or disagreed that viewing pornography is an acceptable way to express one's sexuality. Lead author Jason Carroll, a BYU family life professor, offered two explanations for high acceptance among college women and men, 67 percent of whom agreed.
"One is that this is a life-course finding," Carroll said, "that we captured them at a high point in time and their acceptance will decrease and they'll be like their parents. The other argument is that because of the proliferation of pornography, this generation has a unique acceptance of pornography different from their parents, and that it will last. I think there is a compelling argument that is the case."
...
"This is a hugely important issue," he [Jeffrey Arnett, editor of the Journal of Adolescent Research, which published the study] said, "given that pornography is so massively popular on the Internet. There are questions about how will it affect people's sexuality and their views of gender roles, and how is that going to affect relationships between men and women. Maybe it will just be a form of entertainment. We just don't know yet."
My hunch is that the mainstreaming of pornography is making it easier for both men and women to cover over their hunch that something's inherently wrong with porn with the fig leaf that it's just entertainment. For every problem we'll come across in life, there will be two camps -- one camp that says we just don't know how bad the problem really is and another camp that says the problem is really not a big deal and in fact the real problem is those prudish people who think it's a problem.
It's my perspective that the "porn is not a big deal camp" is clearly beginning to win the day -- and we just don't know how bad that problem really is. No woman is going to experience meaningful sexual intimacy by expanding her tolerance of material that "educates" men to treat her like an object of their self-centered fantasies. It might seem sophisticated for some to tolerate porn as mere entertainment, but it's a lot like saying, "oh, it's just a cute little kitty" while letting a fox into your house.
I like the way Candice handles the topic of premarital kissing in her most recent Boundless Answers column, "He's a Bad Kisser." In short, she says it's not a good idea for reasons we've covered on this blog before, "Physical affection leads to more physical affection all the way to sexual fulfillment." But there's more to it.
Let's consider this portion taken from the young woman's inquiry:
"However, after kissing him, I started getting doubts. He is not a very good kisser. He is not experienced and I find myself not wanting to kiss him."
I'm going out on a limb but it seems that the boyfriend is suffering by comparison here. Meaning the girlfriend has been kissed before. And apparently her previous kiss or kisses clicked in a way that it didn't with him. Sad.
All dating couples who engage in passionate kissing and beyond run the risk of being compared to someone else. They also run the risk of arousing passions with someone not yet their spouse that may adversely affect expectations of passion with the one they end up with.
And even if you do end up with the one with whom you shared your first kisses, it can negatively affect post-marriage kisses as well.
But if you've already done so, it's not too late. Your "after the wedding" kisses can be renewed. Candice writes, Think back to what it was like before you found out what his kisses are like. Did you anticipate a good physical connection? Did the idea of being kissed by him make you swoon? That's a wonderful state of expectation to be in when you're approaching marriage. In that state, you can trust that the passion will follow — after the wedding.
Believe me. On your wedding day, you will not regret your lack of physical intimacy experience. As Candice has said before, this is the one area where inexperience is a good thing.
I've just arrived in Las Vegas for this year's GodblogCon. The last time I was here was in 2000 for an outdoor billboard convention. I feel like Forrest Gump saying this but it's funny how you remember some things, but some things you can't. I remember New York, New York; the volcano eruption at the Mirage; the opulent Forum Shops at Ceasars; and the fun pirate show at Treasure Island.
What I didn't remember was all the smut.
Maybe back then Vegas was still in the midst of their family-friendly marketing campaign and limited strip tease ads. I remember thinking it wouldn't be a bad place to bring the kids. Boy was I wrong.
As soon as I got to the airport tram, I noticed two male stripper promos. When I got to the baggage claim, it was ads for a magic show with Pamela Anderson and for some show called Fantasy. And on the cab ride to the hotel, it was a billboard revealing a portion of a woman's behind.
I called my wife as soon as I checked into the hotel and said, "I'll never bring our kids here." Then it occurred to me, is it OK for me to be here?
I wasn't surprised to read Candice's post about sexy Halloween costumes for tweens. I've been noticing the "slutification of America" for years. And the fastest growing segment has to be young girls between the ages of 12-17.
Yesterday I found this article from The Philadelphia Inquirer about Victoria's Secret's new clothing line targeting young girls. Victoria's Secret's Pink line, launched in 2004, has bloomed into a $1 billion brand. The company publicly promotes Pink to college kids, but dog prints, slumber party pj's, sweats aping soccer attire, camis and panties in ice cream-cone packaging suggest a decidedly younger demographic.
Have we mentioned that there are dress-up dolls "plush and pretty for the ultimate girly-girl?" Sure, that's what every college sophomore desires.
Pink is the Joe Camel of thongs. The line is advertised in YM and Teen Vogue magazines, which boast 12-17 aspirational demographics. The success is in the bottoms. All you need to do is count the number of teens with "Pink" plastered on their rears, the word in the VS world being more suggestive than simply being a "girly-girl." What kind of parents are paying for these clothes, which give strangers the pleasure of reading their daughters' keisters?
When I first saw a young girl with the lettering "S-E-X-Y" written across her bottom several years ago, I asked the same question, "What kind of parents...?" The answer is, there are many kinds of parents who'll let their daughters dress provocatively or immodestly. Here are a few "kinds" I've thought of:
Prideful Parents: I think some moms and dads take pride in the sexual attention their daughters attract, regardless of age. You might think that parents would want to protect their child's innocence but the sexualization of young girls has so infiltrated our culture, parents are oblivious that this has affected the way they see their daughters.
Feminized Parents: These moms and dads may be uncomfortable with the way their daughter dresses but the feminist movement has so "empowered" women (even very young "women") that parents feel powerless to exact appropriate parental authority over their daughter's bodies.
Disengaged Parents: These parents have indolently delegated the responsibility of raising their children to day-cares, public schools, other kids, other kids' parents, and organized activities and clubs (including churches) without proper oversight. These children are highly susceptible to the influence of today's youth culture which in turn is heavily influenced by today's sexualized pop culture.
These are just a few. And I can tell you that based on what I've seen young girls wear in some churches, Christian parents aren't immune.
Last week I published an article from an author who was married to a woman. The thing is, the author is a woman.
If you're interested in gaining a heart of compassion for those in the gay lifestyle, if you're wanting to grow in empathy for their struggle, if you'd like to see what our redemptive Lord can do with a broken life given over to sexual sin, check out "Out of Lesbianism."
The Lord is kind and forgiving.
Writing from one of the biggest porn producing regions in the country, L.A. Times columnist Meghan Daum says that the porn age has lost its sexiness. She writes that "sexiness itself, which is rooted in mystery, has been replaced by the far less interesting -- and less titillating -- 'porniness.'"
"As the Porn Age marches onward," she writes, "it seems only logical that fake sex between fake people will become increasingly humdrum." She explains how it's already driving viewers to boredom: Mainstream entertainment outlets were once forced to treat sexual material with coyness and innuendo; today's characters -- at least those on cable -- can just rip their clothes off and get it on. This is worth watching ... once. After that, it's easy to change the channel and get sucked into a Cold War documentary on the History Channel. And no wonder -- compared to naked bodies, Sputnik seems downright fresh.
Daum writes,"it's human nature to become inured to repeated images of anything, but pornography throws a kink in that assumption because demand for the product seems to increase even as genuine enthusiasm wanes."
This observation is very similar to the one made by C.S. Lewis -- that men and women have an "ever-increasing appetite for ever-decreasing pleasure." Ultimately, images and pleasure lose their "sexiness" when they are severed from the mystery of intimacy that God weaved into marriage. Our culture's current binge on cheap and easy pornography is proving it.
Last month I wrote about your online footprint. I never thought about countries having one as well.
Based on statistics provided by Google, Inc., Reuters lists some random keywords and the countries that searched them most. Here are some of the results ,
"Sex" - 1) Egypt 2) India 3) Turkey
"Hangover" - 1) Ireland 2) U.K. 3) U.S.
"Burrito" - 1) U.S. 2) Argentina 3) Canada
"Viagra" - 1) Italy 2) U.K. 3) Germany
"Jihad" - 1) Morocco 2) Indonesia 3) Pakistan
Interestingly, these keywords seem to support certain stereotypes of some countries: Irish like to drink, Americans like to eat, and Italians ... well, you know. But I'm a little confused about the top searches for "sex." I thought the western countries were supposed to be most sex obsessed.
Are there broad cultural changes depressing marriage motivation among young men? A new book by Dr. Leonard Sax suggests a few. In Boys Adrift, Dr. Sax reviews educational, entertainment and health trends that he believes are sapping the motivation young men have for marriage among other pursuits. Here's a portion of an interview Dr. Sax did with National Review Online touching on the marriage connection: Lopez: The Matthew McConaughey character in the movie Failure to Launch is funny and smart and good-looking -- but completely unmotivated. He doesn't want to get married, either. Is he the exception or the rule?
Sax: He used to be the exception. Thirty years ago, it would have been very unusual to find an intelligent, capable man in his late 20's or early 30's, from an affluent family, who was still living with his parents, who had no interest in launching his own career, in starting his own family, in really having his own life. It's becoming more common. It's not the rule -- not yet.
One of the more odd connections Dr. Sax makes is between the explosion of plastic products over the past 50 years and a drop in testosterone among males. To be honest, the first time somebody suggested to me that drinking bottled water out of plastic bottles might be part of the reason that boys are disengaging from the real world, I thought that person sounded pretty gullible. I figured the next idea they'd try to push was the notion that little green men from Mars are controlling our thoughts.
But as I researched this idea, and as I read the scholarly papers, I came to see that there's really a huge and rapidly-growing body of evidence now linking these endocrine disruptors, these environmental estrogens, to many of the phenomena I describe in the book: boys being less motivated, young men having more problems with erectile dysfunction, boys breaking their bones more easily than boys did a generation ago, and so forth.
This unconventional potential connection made me think of a scene in the original Sabrina where Linus Larrabee (played by Humphrey Bogart) shows lots of masculine excitement over all the great potential of plastics technology. "We'll be wearing suits made out of plastic some day," he says. Could Bogie have popularized the very plastics that are making today's Bogarts harder to find?
Having just wrapped up three recent books about singleness and marriage: Marriage and Caste in America, Now and Not Yet and The Thrill of the Chaste (review to run soon on Boundless), I'm starting Wendy Shalit's new title, Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It's Not Bad to Be Good. Her first book, Return to Modesty, was a favorite among readers concerned about our ever-coarsening culture, specifically where it regards sex. This book promises a similar wave of applause as it encourages young women to dress, date, think and live counter-culturally.
I'm not far into the book yet, but already there's much to recommend. Even though this book talks about young teen women and the choices they're being denied when it comes to clothes, entertainment, culture and more, there's much that applies to their older sisters. Just one example: Studies show that kids as young as ten are increasingly ambushed by unwanted online pornography; seventeen-year-old Emily Duhovny from Marlboro, New Jersey, told CNN that she now finds X-rated images "annoying." There can be no dipping your toe into mature waters when you're already swimming in a triple-X lake to begin with. There is no longer any mystery or power to sex -- it is just expected that everything will be sexual, and so nothing is. There is nothing to wait for, or to look forward to.
This idea that our hyper-sexualized culture is destroying the mystery of sex echoes something else I read this week in the New York Magazine: As she [Andrea Dworkin] foretold, pornography did breach the dike that separated a marginal, adult, private pursuit from the mainstream public arena. The whole world, post-Internet, did become pornographized. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training—and this is having a huge effect on how they interact.
But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as "porn-worthy." Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.
The article, "The Porn Effect," goes on to show how much damage ubiquitous porn is doing to our society; rending the social fabric. I didn't notice till the end of the piece who had written it. I kept thinking, this is so provocative, and yet principled, it must be written by a spiritual, or at least moral, leader. Imagine my surprise when I read the byline: Naomi Wolf. The porn problem is so overwhelming even a mainstream voice commenting about it sounds like a bit like a preacher.
She concluded with this sobering point: "Why have sex right away?" a boy with tousled hair and Bambi eyes was explaining. "Things are always a little tense and uncomfortable when you just start seeing someone," he said. "I prefer to have sex right away just to get it over with. You know it's going to happen anyway, and it gets rid of the tension."
"Isn't the tension kind of fun?" I asked. "Doesn't that also get rid of the mystery?"
"Mystery?" He looked at me blankly. And then, without hesitating, he replied: "I don't know what you're talking about. Sex has no mystery."
All this serves to confirm the biblical sexual ethic. As tempting as the world's ways can seem at times, especially when you're still single and wondering if marriage will happen, the fallout of sexual sin is devastating. Even non-believers see it. Single women who are chaste, modest, reserved, have everything to gain when it comes to their relationships not only with God, but with the opposite sex.
You remember those stats released a few months ago in a book about evangelical teens having sex at earlier ages than liberal protestants? Well, Gene Edward Veith believes it's partly because evangelical churches "follow the path of cultural conformity as a way to grow bigger and bigger."
Here's the other part: Churches used to teach and exemplify self-control, the necessity of keeping one's emotions in check, the discipline of self-denial and mortification of the flesh. Today the typical evangelical church, in its example and practice, cultivates "letting go," emotionalism, self-fulfillment, and an odd religious sensuality.
The Bible is utterly realistic about the weakness of our fallen flesh. The law alone and external restrictions cannot make anyone righteous. We need Christ for that. An encouraging finding of Regnerus is that the 16 percent of American teenagers who say that their faith is "extremely important to their lives" are living chastely.
The remnant of God fearing teens who remain chaste is encouraging. Although external restrictions have their place. I would add one qualifier to Veith's "necessity of keeping one's emotions in check" message: Why tempt them in the first place?
I believe the age at which evangelical teens have sex mirrors society because the way they date mirrors society. These mini-relationships between teens have all the intimacy and passion of mini-marriages. And with the evangelical community approving of the exclusive, romantic relationships in which their sons and daughters are engaged, it just isn't realistic to expect them to keep their emotions in check.
Veith also says that we need to encourage younger marriages. And the Bible does offer a direct solution for people who are burning in lust: marriage (1 Corinthians 7:9). Adolescence—that time when a person is physically an adult but socially a child—is a modern invention. In the past, people married much younger, as soon as they were sexually ready. Today's culture postpones marriage while stretching celibacy to the breaking point.
A counter-cultural church may do well to encourage younger marriages. The young couple may still need the financial support of their parents and the social support of their fellow Christians. But this would be better than the current hypocrisy and guilt. And it would fulfill God's positive purpose for sexuality.
Veith certainly doesn't take the sex drive lightly here. Similar to Ted's conclusion in a recent post, "If you burn with passion, take that as a sign from God that you should be preparing for married life." And as Veith would say, the sooner the better.
HT: World Magazine Blog
We are entering a "post-homosexualist" era. Or so hopes Will Young whose article on the subject was published in The Times [London] over the weekend. The trademark of this era, he says, would be to get people to view gays as "utterly normal." Dr. Al Mohler comments on why this "next stage" is improbable: Young, who is a well-known figure in Britain, became famous when he won the first "Pop Idol" contest on British television. In his view, a public acknowledgement of homosexuality should be a matter of no real interest. As he wrote, "Coming out should just be a statement of fact –- I have red hair, I drink tea, I sleep with the same sex."
It isn't that simple, of course. And it isn't that simple precisely because there is a deep moral instinct within us that continually reminds that sex between persons of the same sex is not natural or normal....
The stubborn fact is that most people still notice when two men or two women hold hands in public. When two men tell their colleagues and neighbors that they are "having" a baby, those neighbors can't help wondering how.
Will Young undoubtedly believes that this inability to see homosexuality as a matter of no consequence is explained by deep prejudices that are woven throughout the culture. But Christians believe that this moral instinct is explained, not by social custom and prejudice, but by the revelation of God in nature and in the human conscience -- the very knowledge the Apostle Paul described in the first chapter of Romans. God has given his human creatures the knowledge that homosexuality is just not "utterly normal." This knowledge may be denied or suppressed, but it will not disappear.
While same-sex attraction may feel utterly normal, God has established a natural order. In his article "Still Struggling With Same-Sex Attraction," Mike Ensley asserts that this natural order is motivated by love: I also am confident that when God said, "Do not practice homosexuality," he wasn't switching gears from "Loving God" to "Rule-Making, Fun-Hating God." His commands come from his loving heart, the same heart that sent his Son to save me.
The fact that temptation remains is only to be expected, for many reasons. First of all because while my sinful nature is fading away to make room for Christ's new life -- and it is -- I will not be fully free of it until Heaven.
As Dr. Mohler affirms, an intolerant culture is not the reason homosexuality cannot be considered "normal." The reason is the plan for life, sex and procreation that God has established and revealed to people's hearts.
Here's a new article you'll probably want to read: "The Possibility of Platonic Friendship."
We published it today on TrueU, and I think it's pretty interesting. Blake Roeber (who's way into philosophy) talks about more than just guys and girls being friends. He explains the meaning of "Platonic" and, based on that meaning, argues that men and women cannot have Platonic friendships. Blake does a much better job of explaining this, so let's let him do the talking: On the Platonic view, you are not your body. Your body exists in space and time, in the world we can see, smell, taste, touch and hear. The real you — what we'll call your Soul — exists in the world of the Forms.
Platonic friendship, then, is any friendship that isn't mediated by physical bodies. It's friendship between Souls. It's friendship that's supposedly so deep that those involved aren't even aware of (or, at least, aren't at all concerned with) the trivial features of their respective bodies. In particular, it's friendship where those involved aren't at all concerned with their respective sex organs. It's as if the friends involved are asexual.
Blake argues that it's pretty difficult to be in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex and not be aware or concerned with the fact that they are ... a member of the opposite sex. He doesn't deny that guys and girls can be just buddies, but it's a difficult and tricky process: To say that Platonic friendship isn't possible is also to recognize that, even where a guy and a girl do exercise enough caution to be "just friends," the friendship they form will still be one between a guy and a girl, not one between two neuters.
I would encourage you to check out the article so that you fully understand the meaning of "Platonic," and then let me know what you think.
p.s. College students, make sure to sign up for the free TrueU e-newsletter!
Fifty percent of Christian men and 20 percent of Christian women are addicted to pornography according to a new survey by ChristaNet.com. Is it really that bad?
Eight years ago, I was an Internet Research Analyst here at Focus on the Family and I followed the impact of Internet pornography on families. It was almost impossible at that time to find any research on Christian viewing of porn and so I commissioned a study with Zogby International. That survey found that 25% of Christian men admitted to viewing porn online.
Later I wrote a book called Real Solutions for Overcoming Internet Addiction and research for that book led me to numbers indicating that around 10% of the general population had an online struggle that rises to the level of addiction.
This latest report, based on a poll with a thousand respondents, implies that not only has Christian viewing of porn doubled since the survey we did but that addiction has increased fivefold.
I'm skeptical of the validity of this online poll (that I suspect will generate a lot of headlines). I'd be surprised if the addiction rates are really that high. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the debilitating sin of porn consumption. I'm convinced that porn is one of the primary tools our enemy uses to take the life out of Christian marriages and to take vital energy away from the formation of good marriages.
If you or someone you care about is losing the battle against online temptations, I encourage you to visit Pure Intimacy. We created this site back in 1999 and advertised on Yahoo.com's sex-related key words so that people seeking porn would find our ad that said, "Great Sex...Should Not Require a Modem."
Because modesty has been an issue on The Line lately, I found a relevant article from our Best Of archives and republished it on Boundless yesterday. In "Modest Revisited," author Wendy Shalit identifies four "myths" about modesty that undermine our culture:
- Modesty is Victorian
- Modesty is synonymous with prudery
- Modesty isn't natural
- Modesty is solely a concern for women
She concludes by noting that "the more precious something is, the more it must conceal and protect itself." This was true in the case of the angels surrounding the throne of God as depicted in Isaiah, and it's also true as it relates to our sexuality.
Thoughts?
Despite parents' and pastors' best efforts, Christian teens are having sex in record numbers. In "Even Evangelical Teens Do It," columnist Hannah Rosin talks about a new book that blows the covers off premarital sex trends among the abstinence-minded.
Her review of Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers by Mark Regnerus is sobering. She writes, [Among] teenagers who identify as "evangelical" or "born again" ... 80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age — 16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.
This is bad news on lots of fronts, but especially for their future marriages. What these sexually active teens likely don't know is that for every sexual partner, their chance of divorce goes up. Why so much pre-marital sex among kids who've been encouraged to wait till marriage? ... partly the problem lies in the temptation-rich life of an average American teenager. The fate of the True Love Waits movement, which began with the Southern Baptist Convention in the '90s, is a perfect example. Teenagers who signed the abstinence pledge belong to a subgroup of highly motivated virgins. But even they succumb. Follow-up surveys show that at best, pledges delayed premarital sex by 18 months — a success by statistical standards but a disaster for Southern Baptist pastors.
Evangelical teens today are much less sheltered than their parents were; they watch the same TV and listen to the same music as everyone else, which causes a "cultural collision," according to Regnerus. "Be in the world, but not of it," is the standard Christian formula for how to engage with mainstream culture. But in a world hypersaturated with information, this is difficult for tech-savvy teenagers to pull off.
So who, among the many who singed abstinence pledges, is following through on their commitment to save sex for marriage? Rosin says Regnerus found, What really matters is not which religion teenagers identify with but how strongly they identify. After controlling for all factors (family satisfaction, popularity, income), religion matters much less than religiosity. Among the mass of typically promiscuous teenagers in the book, one group stands out: the 16 percent of American teens who describe religion as "extremely important" in their lives. When these guys pledge, they mean it.
It seems that no matter what, this group of believers is set on waiting. Rosin writes, But among this elite corps of evangelicals, the women are breezing around in what one girl I know called "shockingly slutty conservative outfits" while the men hold their tongues.
This is the part of the review I found most dismaying. Why add to the challenge of waiting? It's like Eve offering Adam the apple. Young women in this group of devout believers should know, and do, better. They have only good to gain from obeying God's standard of modesty. It will make the waiting that much more bearable for themselves, and even more so, for the young men they hope will one day take them as wives.
I thought some of you might benefit from an e-mail exchange between a Boundless Line reader and me. It's self-explanatory so I won't spend any more time introducing it.
* * *Hey Motte
I really enjoy the blog and appreciate the things you have to say. I have an issue I'm hoping you can help me with. Your article "Dealing with Sexual Confusion" struck a nerve with me. I'm a 22 year old male who's seeking to follow Christ in every way. A few weeks ago, I was reading an article on homosexuality written from a Christian perspective, when all of a sudden a gripping fear came over me that I might be homosexual.
I recognized immediately that this was a full-out attack of hell itself. I have never dabbled in anything remotely related to homosexuality, nor ever experienced any same-sex attraction -- and still don't. I am currently pursuing a beautiful, Godly young woman to whom I am very attracted. So the issue for me is not an actual same-sex attraction, but rather the fear that "that will happen to me."
I have prayed, fasted, rebuked the devil, sought God in his word, and sought Godly counsel from my pastor and father. Though I have experienced temporary freedom from this fear, Satan still keeps shooting his fiery darts my way. When the fear comes, it often seems overwhelming. I'm wondering how you found freedom from confusion and fear, and how might I go about doing so?
Thanks so much.
Reply
Thanks for writing. I'm not a counselor but I believe I understand what you're going through since it's sounds so much like the fears I had when I was your age (and at various other times to be honest).
Like you, I don't believe I've ever experienced sexual same-sex attraction. But I've been fearful of becoming a homosexual none-the-less. My fear was more that my male friendships could become something more. So I began to distrust my feelings and that led several minor crises about my own sexuality. I never really understood this irrational fear until I read something Dr. Albert Mohler wrote about two years ago in response to the movie Brokeback Mountain.
In "Sexual Confusion and the End of Friendship," Dr. Mohler clarifies what happens to young men in a society that wants you to not only question your sexuality, but experiment with it as well. He references an article from Touchstone magazine titled, "A Requiem for Friendship: Why Boys Will Not Be Boys and Other Consequences of the Sexual Revolution" from Anthony Esolen, Professor of English at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island. In a truly haunting section of his essay, Esolen asked us to imagine a society in which the taboo against incest has been removed. Under such circumstances, no uncle would be free to hug his young niece without an accusation of sexual interest. Relationships between parents and children, brothers and sisters, and relatives of all varieties would be corrupted and undermined by the imposition of sexual suspicion.
As Esolen understands, this is exactly what is happening as homosexuality is normalized in the culture. Normal, non-sexual, fraternal friendships among men now come under suspicion. This is especially true for teenage boys and young men, who are less secure about their manhood and more concerned about their own -- and their peers' -- sexual identity.
The normalization of homosexuality destroys the natural order of friendships among men. "Think about that friendship, the next time you see the perpetual adolescents and feather boas as they march down Main Street, making their sexual proclivities known to everybody whether everybody cares or not," Esolen instructs. "With every chanted slogan and every blaring sign, they crowd out the words of friendship, they appropriate the healthy gestures of love between man and man. Confess -- has it not left you uneasy even to read the words of that last sentence?"
Earlier in his commentary, Dr. Mohler wrote that men need an "uncomplicated heterosexual expectation." I think that's what I needed. And I think it's what you need as well, an uncomplicated heterosexual expectation; an understanding that the feelings of love or admiration or closeness you feel with another male are perfectly normal, and even manly.
As for the overcoming the fear, you are right, it is directly from the devil. But you may also be predisposed to worrying about such things. I know I am. I worry a lot about what I'm capable of so I've dealt with more than just a fear of homosexuality. But God has sustained me throughout all my struggles.
My advice to you is to stand fast; abide in God's Word and in prayer; and if you are overwhelmed like you say you are, seek the counsel from godly men you trust.
I hope this letter proves helpful. Know that I've already prayed for you and will continue to as the Lord leads.
In Christ,
Motte
There've been a few studies recently claiming that gay couples actually make better parents than straight couples.
Being the inquisitive person that I am, and being familiar with how studies are done and how they can be skewed (I participated in a few during grad school), I wanted to know more. I studied the reports. I sought the counsel of Glenn Stanton, Research Fellow for Global Family Formation at Focus on the Family. I read the debates.
Turns out, the studies are flawed to such a degree that the findings are in fact invalid.
For the purposes of this blog entry, I'll just stick with a study by Charlotte J. Patterson entitled "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents" which was published in 2006 by the Association for Psychological Science.
She begins her report by acknowledging that previous studies are flawed because the participants of those studies (the "sample") were not sufficiently representative of the general population, and therefore reliable conclusions about the general population couldn't be made.
The thing is, Patterson's studies are flawed because she doesn't sufficiently describe the study participants (or "sample") that she's selected. She compares same-sex "parents" with heterosexual parents (who are in "marriage-like relationships"), for example, but doesn't tell us what kind of heterosexual parents are included in her study. Are they biological parents who are in fact married? Are they cohabiting college students who just happened to have a child out of wedlock? Are they step-parents? She doesn't say, and that is significant.
In her report, Patterson concludes that "the findings suggest that parental sexual orientation is less important than the qualities of family relationships. More important to youth than the gender of their parent's partner is the quality of daily interaction and the strength of relationships with the parents they have."
The problem is that there's an incredibly large, diverse and conclusive literature showing that family formation DOES matter to children, even when the adults in the home are very loving, a body which Patterson has never recognized in any of her work. This body shows that children suffer when they live apart from their own fathers, really for any amount of time, as well as when they live with single, divorced, cohabiting or remarried parents.
See these studies from Child Trends and the Center for Law and Social Policy which survey this research:
This is the concluding problem with Patterson's work: She says that children from same-sex homes look like kids from two-parent heterosexual homes. (She makes that stark conclusion elsewhere, but seems to not make it as boldly in this paper, but she assumes it.) The significant problem is that the various forms of heterosexual two-parent homes are very different: married biological, married non-biological, remarried with step children, cohabiting, etc. Patterson makes no effort to say WHICH heterosexual homes she is comparing her same-sex home kids to.
And that is the fatal error which should get her paper failed in any respectable graduate school program.
It shouldn't make a difference in a truly scientific study, but it is notable that Patterson is a lesbian in a relationship with a female partner, and the couple has three children between them; that may account for her bias and activism on behalf of those practicing the homosexual lifestyle.
For more information showing how these studies are flawed, see "Refuting Points No One is Making" and "Are Same-Sex Families Good for Children?"
In the end, frankly, regardless of what the researchers tell us, we at Boundless and Focus on the Family unequivocally oppose homosexual "parenting" and adoption, and believe that such living arrangements are inherently immoral and are detrimental to the wellbeing of children.
Gary Thomas's article "Blinded By the Sight" is an instant Boundless classic. His focus on how men view women as objects to be enjoyed rather than sisters to be protected cuts right to the heart of sin -- the exulting gratification of self.
Here's an excerpt (from many worthy of excerpting): If I'm committed to not have sex before marriage, I won't relate to young women based on whether they would be good in bed. Who I spend my time with, and who I choose to get to know, won't be dictated by the size of their breasts or the color of their hair or the shape of their legs. And if I'm committed to my wife after marriage — mentally as well as physically — I won't undress women in my mind, I won't give stereotypically attractive women more attention than others because I'm not viewing them as potential sex objects.
We treat our lustful glances like the five second rule, thinking a few seconds won't hurt anybody. But it does. Because when we do, we certainly aren't thinking of them as sisters or ourselves as their protectors or valuing them as God does. No, they are our prey and we are their hunters, if only for those few seconds.
I would add that a man's role extends to the protection of women not only from our lustful eyes, but from fraudulent, flirtatious eyes as well. Whenever we enjoy knowing glances with a woman with whom we have no intention of pursuing, we're lying to her by signaling that we're "interested" or "available" when we're not.
In another Boundless classic "Physical Intimacy and the Single Man," Matt Schmucker writes, "a single man should recognize that any single woman with whom he speaks will probably be someone's wife ... maybe each other's, maybe not." The same is true for every woman he sees.
Have you ever considered moving in with your boyfriend? If you have, or are seriously tempted to do it, consider: It is common knowledge that women and children suffer more poverty after a cohabiting relationship breaks up, but it's not so well understood that there is typically an economic imbalance in favor of the man within such relationships, too. While couples who live together say that they plan to share expenses equally, more often than not the women support the men. Studies show that women typically contribute more than 70 percent of the income in a cohabiting relationship. Likewise, the women tend to do more of the cleaning, cooking and laundry. If they are students, as is often the case, and facing economic or time constraints that require a reduction in class load, it is almost invariably the woman, not the man, who drops a class.
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., lists this and other common myths about cohabiting in her article "The Myths and Reality of Living Together Without Marriage." It's a quick and worthwhile read. As convincing as moral arguments are for lots of believers, others need a reality check comprised of practical, financial reasons for passing on the shared apartment.
As a prepubescent youth, when I first learned the meaning of homosexuality from friends at school, I remember immediately questioning every emotion I had for my male friends when I was around them. It was the first of several sexual identity crises I experienced in my young life. To be sure, my own growing attraction to girls provided great relief but it didn't eliminate the questions altogether.
All this from simply learning that some men have sex with other men. And though I believe it was more of a depersonalization problem -- a fear that one can't control his own actions -- than a real struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA), it left an indelible impression. It's probably why I'm so interested in the "why" of men who struggle with SSA, because there's usually a story, some life altering experience(s) or unusual family dynamic or something -- notwithstanding the current debate raging about a gay gene.
Last month, First Things ran an article about a faithful Christian's struggle with same-sex attraction. The author tells the story of "Chris," a young man who feels isolated in his battle to stay chaste in a college environment hostile to the idea of denying one's "true self."
His roommates and friends wouldn't know how to take it. Others on campus would encourage him to embrace his true self: They'd label him a homosexual and call him gay. But he's not -- and neither does he want to be: Sexual attraction, he thinks, doesn't define a person. Indeed, he particularly fears coming out about his attractions while struggling against them, which would get him labeled a repressed homosexual, the gay-basher who himself is queer, the gay kid who thinks it's just some disorder. All he wants is to live chastely and try to make progress in addressing the causes of his same-sex attractions. But at the modern American university, this is anathema. For all their celebrations of diversity and pledges of tolerance, this choice is not to be celebrated or even tolerated.
It may not be exactly the same, but this reminds me of the campus response to Harvard's abstinence group, True Love Revolution. People love sex in all its deviations from God's plan. And they want you to join them, lest they feel condemned by your refusal.
"Harvard abstinence group fights against mindless sex on campus" reports The Boston Globe's news website boston.com.
From the looks of the story, it's not just mindless sex they're battling: Harvard student Rebecca Singh said she was offended by a valentine the group sent to the dormitory mailboxes of all freshmen. It read: "Why wait? Because you're worth it."
"I think they thought that we might not be 'ruined' yet," Singh said. "It's a symptom of that culture we have that values a woman on her purity. It's a relic."
Others on campus have mocked the group. Murray said his friends take pleasure in loudly, and graphically, discussing their sex lives just to taunt him.
"On campus there is such a strong attitude of pluralism and acceptance, but then it doesn't extend to this," Kinsella said.
The message from the administration isn't much different. According to the story, Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard health services, believes "students mistakenly think everyone on campus is having sex."
Are they?
The story continues, "The National College Health Assessment Survey, which included Harvard and hundreds of other campuses, found that about 29 percent of students reported not having sex in the past school year." That means 71 percent of students are. 71 percent.
And Rosenthal thinks that for them, "it is crucial to promote safety." Safety, as in, "be safe, stop having sex"? Doubtful. As Dr. Miriam Grossman reveals in her expose Unprotected, where sex on campus is concerned, latex and licentiousness is the name of the game. And if that's your idea of "safety," you may be in for some scary news at the student health center.
Rosenthal continues, "Some students may have a feeling that acknowledgment is condoning," he said, "and it's not."
As I discovered reading Grossman's book, Harvard's approach to the 71 percent of sexually active -- or in this case, hyperactive -- co-eds is a far cry from acknowledgment. I wonder which side of condoning the student-run porn magazine and the "Free Lube" day at the campus health center fall on.
I say good for the students -- seniors Sarah Kinsella and Justin Murray -- who've had the courage to stand against the status quo. I hope their True Love Revolution, as the group is called, will ennoble and maybe even add to that 29 percent.
In her review of Dawn Eden's book Thrill of the Chaste, Lauren F. Winner explores the implications and spiritual purposes of chastity inside and outside of marriage. Calling the book "a refreshing call to chastity," Winner writes: Eden underscores that chastity is a lifelong discipline — not just a tough thing that single Christians have to deal with, but also a call to embodied holiness in controlling one's sexual appetite that every Christian must submit to. (Do the details of that submission differ depending on whether one is married or single? Sure. But a Christian vocabulary for sexuality might lead us to the radical claim that a married person practicing love, discipline, and fidelity has more in common with a single person who is abstinent than with an unmarried person who is fornicating.)
An interesting point, considering that many times singles feel alone in this struggle. True, there is a main difference between singles and those who are married in that married people are permitted to enjoy sex, but chastity in single life sets one up for a discipline that will continue into marriage. Winner takes issue with is Eden's seeming implication that chastity leads to marriage. Indeed, Eden veers close to suggesting that marriage is a reward for practicing premarital chastity or that marriage is somehow the telos of chastity: "Chastity ... relies on faith that God, as you pursue a closer walk with him, will lead you to a loving husband." Well, maybe — although as Jesus and Paul made clear, everyone is called to sexual self-control, but not everyone is called to marriage.
Those who view marriage as a reward for sexual purity are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The motivation for sexual purity should be a desire to obey Christ. "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry" (Col. 3:5). Any other motivation will ultimately end in disappointment. In conclusion, Winner writes: Maybe chastity bids us to not make any assumptions at all about whether we will marry. Maybe chastity requires us to enter into the reality that all Christian callings involve renunciation. Maybe chastity is most helpfully conceived as a call to turn our attention away from other people and more wholly toward God.
If you're a young adult female, you'll likely get cervical cancer because you'll likely contract HPV (human papillomavirus) because you'll likely have multiple sex partners before you get married. At least that's what Texas Governor Rick Perry likely believes. And doggone it, he'll inoculate you against the consequences of having premarital sex whether you engage in it or not.
Last month, Gov. Perry issued an executive order requiring schoolgirls ages 11-12 to receive the HPV vaccination before being admitted to the sixth grade. Yesterday, the Texas House voted to reverse this order because of concern about long-term affects of the vaccine, parental rights and drug costs. Gina Dalfonzo over at The Point |
