Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, November 16, 2007
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dying to Date
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


WASHINGTON -- If you're younger than 30 or maybe even 35, you may not recognize the word "date" as a verb. But once upon a time, dating was something men and women did as a prelude to marriage, which -- hold on to your britches -- was a prelude to sex.

By now everyone's heard of the hook-up culture prevalent on college campuses and, increasingly, in high schools and even middle schools. Kids don't date; they just do it (or something close to "it," an activity that a recent president asserted was not actual sex), and then figure out what comes next. If anything.

As one young woman explained "hooking up" to Washington Post writer Laura Sessions Stepp (author of the book "Unhooked"): "First you give a guy oral sex and then you decide if you like him."

This conversation took place in the family room of the girl's home. Immediately after that definition was served, the mother offered Stepp a homemade cookie. And we thought cluelessness was for teenagers.

Too often what follows the hook-up is emotional pain and physical disease, the combination of which has created a mental health crisis on American campuses.

That diagnosis comes from Miriam Grossman, author and psychiatrist at UCLA and one of five women, including Stepp, who spoke recently at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center about sex on campus.

Grossman is most concerned that politically correct ideology has contaminated the health field at great cost to young lives. As Grossman sees it, when the scientific facts contradict what is being promoted as truth, then ideology has trumped reality.

Speaking to a packed room of mostly women, Grossman noted that while some in the audience had attended college during the free-love days, the world is far more dangerous now. Today there are more than two-dozen sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) -- 15 million new cases each year -- some of which are incurable.

The consequences are worse for young women, says Grossman. In her psychiatric practice, she has come to believe that women suffer more from sexual hook-ups than men do and wonders whether the hormone oxytocin is a factor. Oxytocin is released during childbirth and nursing to stimulate milk production and promote maternal attachment. It is also released during sexual activity for both men and women, hence the nickname "love potion."

Feminists don't much like the oxytocin factor, given the explicit suggestion that men and women might be physically and emotionally different. But wouldn't a more truly feminist position seek to recognize those hormonal differences and promote protection for women from the kind of ignorance that causes them harm?

Physically, young women are getting clobbered by STDs with potentially deadly results. If a young woman begins having sex as a freshman in college, there's a 50 percent chance she'll have the human papillomavirus (HPV) by her senior year. While most cases of HPV are harmless, the virus causes nearly every case of cervical cancer, says Grossman.

Stacey, one of the college students featured in Grossman's book "Unprotected," contracted HPV even though a condom was used. But HPV, like herpes, lives on skin that may not be covered by a condom. An HPV expert tells college women, "You'd be wise to simply assume your partner has HPV infection."

Your partner. What happened to your dearly beloved? He -- and she -- disappeared with coed dorms and the triumph of reproductive health ideology. While coed dorms replaced obstacle with opportunity, ideologically driven sex-education programs promoted permissiveness and experimentation.

Because sex ed is based on the assumption that young people are sexually active with multiple partners, kids have been led to believe by mainstream health professionals that casual sex is OK. That's a delusion, says Grossman, because scientific data clearly indicate otherwise. Casual sex is, in fact, a serious health risk.

Rather than spread that word, sex educators have tweaked their message from urging "safe sex" to a more realistic "safer sex," any elaboration of which would defy standards of decency. Interested parents can find out for themselves by visiting one of several university-sponsored sex advice Web sites, such as Columbia's GoAskAlice.com.

To all good and bad, there is an inevitable backlash, and casual sex has lost its allure for many students. Having learned painful lessons from their elders' misguided altruism, they are seeking other expressions of intimacy.

At Duke University recently, Stepp asked how many in her audience of about 250 would like to bring back dating. Four out of every five raised their hands.

It would seem that young people are not hook-up machines, but are human beings who desire real intimacy and emotional connection. Toward that end, parents might buy Grossman's book for their children -- and themselves.

Serve with cookies.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Absolutely right!
UNPROTECTED ought to be required reading for every young man or woman, and for every parent. Grossman is a psychiatrist at the UCLA Health Center (or was at the time of her book). As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Dating should be brought back, and sex should be reserved for married couples only. One generation of that would cure a great many of society's ills.

We all have our shortcomings and make our mistakes, but society ought to promote that which is best for society. That's why when Romney says marriage before children, he is spot on.

Sowing the wind and reaping
the whirlwind.

We used to say that if every gay turned blue, you would be surprised who they were. Then came AIDS, and essentially they did. That cleaned up the act of those who were able to learn and killed off the rest. Perhaps this new epidemic will do the same. Nothing like a good kick in the goolies to get your attention, maaaaaaaan.

I agree!
As I almost always do with the incomparable Ms. Parker. And Fairfacts, I agree with you that "dating should be brought back, and sex should be reserved for married couples only." I just wonder - is it possible? Can a culture as far gone as ours really turn back the clock, especially when so many people don't even see our sexual licentiousness as a problem? (Just turn on the TV any night of the week for evidence!)

Excellent Piece!
I couldn't agree more.

But there is the leftist agenda...

Never, EVER, forget that there is politics behind the hook-up culture. First, the family unit, with fathers, is the greatest threat to the state-centered socalist approach to society.

Second, radical feminism depends on women - and women alone - being the sole persons making decision about child conception, childbirth and child rearing.

So if you reduce it to random sex and random conception and women becoming pregnant without really knowing who the father(s) is/are, so much better for the state to assume power.

Heaven forbid that young people have a love for someone other than themselves, heaven forbid that they love another person more than Big Brother. There is a reason why Orwell made such a point about love being forbidden by the state...

for Fairfacts
Fairfacts writes: "Dating should be brought back, and sex should be reserved for married couples only."

So single career women, like Condoleeza Rice, would have to remain virgins till they die, in your model, eh?

May I make a suggestion: Once a woman turns 18, what she chooses to do with her body is no one else's business. She can choose to remain a virgin or she can choose to have sex with 4,815 different men. Ditto, what a man chooses to do with his body is no one else's business.

As for the history of all this: Syphilis was a virtual epidemic in the 19th century, killing hundreds of thousands horribly; proving that even then, men and women didn't stay virgins till marriage and didn't stay faithful after marriage either.

What finally got syphilis under control was the invention of effective antibiotics, not abstinence or any other attempt to put prior restraints on one of the most oversexed species on our planet.

The right answer to infectious disease is to develop new antibiotics and new vaccines. Not attempt to change human nature.

You would think that after 2,000 years of failing to stop young people from having sex, social conservatives would have accepted reality by now. That they haven't means that the rest of us will have to continue to look for practical solutions without their "help."

Good points all

Kathleen Parker and the previous posters make good points about the dangers and woes of modern mating practices. Even so, I don't think attempting to return to the past will yield the desired effect. Few pundits and nobody on this thread have grappled with the idea that much of the "degenerate" behavior now prevalent is driven by technology that we applaud for the most part.

In the post-agrarian world, children are not the asset they once were. They're a big expense, often until their mid-20's. That's why next to nobody -- even the staunchest family values types and the fiercest opponents of abortion and birth control -- has fourteen kids anymore. Better nutrition has lowered puberty and the onset of desire to 12 or 13; the need for education and delayed job competence has raised the feasible age for responsible marriage to 20-something. Being expected to endure intense sexual frustration for over ten years is historically unprecedented. Is it any wonder that the improvised coping mechanisms are sloppy?

Traditional dating and marriage offers much to admire as an idea but it hasn't been all that successful. That's why support has eroded. Dates with fancy dinners and gifts encourage reckless spending which sets a bad precedent for successful family and estate-building. Early marriage had a higher success rate when people died young. Lately it has pushed untold numbers of people into fates worse than death. Why do you think tragedy is the highest form of literature? Why do you suppose ruinous divorce has been an ad hoc "solution" for so many couples?

Rush cited this column ...
... and Stepp's book as further evidence of the "chickification" of America.

Rush is right.

Prudes 'n' Bluenoses

Kathleen Parker wrote:

> Rather than spread that word, sex educators have tweaked
> their message from urging "safe sex" to a more realistic
> "safer sex," any elaboration of which would defy standards
> of decency.


Decency. That's always what it comes down to with social
conservatives, doesn't it? They woudn't say "p*nis" if
they had a mouthful.

(When I originally tried to post this comment with the un-
Bowdlerized form of the P-word above, it was rejected with
the following message: "This comment contains the following
unacceptable words: P*nis." See what I mean? And that's a
clinical term, not profanity or even slang! These people
are mentally ill. Maybe they'd benefit from a good roll
in the hay. Is that a sufficiently wholesome euphemism?)

It's clear that qualms about sexually transmitted disease
is just a convenient smokescreen with these people. If
there were no such thing as STDs, they'd find some other
reason to be anti-sex.


-CB-


Hermione

hermione writes:

> And Fairfacts, I agree with you that "dating should be
> brought back, and sex should be reserved for married
> couples only." I just wonder - is it possible? Can a
> culture as far gone as ours really turn back the clock,
> especially when so many people don't even see our sexual
> licentiousness as a problem?

Not a chance. I hate to tell you this (not!), but people
are going to keep on bonin'. That means we're just going
to have to address sexually transmitted diseases like any
others and find *cures* for them. Then we can all get
back to enjoying one another's bodies without qualms or
inhibitions.


-CB-

Science and ideology
Sure you must be wrong. Only the Bush White House discards science for ideology.

Darwin will take care of it
Those who are capable of learning to be real adults capable of self-restraint and moral responsibility will remain uninfected and live. They will reproduce and teach their children the same lessons of restraint and responsibility.

Those who refuse to acknowledge anything other than the childish insistence that all urges and whims must have immediate satisfaction will die or be rendered infertile.

Those who cry for better antibiotics need to remember that not one viral disease has ever been cured in the history of medicine. Vaccinated against, yes, but never cured.

The world of natural selection is harsh and cold. Yet this cold science teaches the same lesson as the moral teachings of every major religion -- reserving sexual intercourse for marriage is the best course for your physical and spiritual well-being.

One might call it strange -- unless one knows whose hand formed the world and who laid down the very laws of nature that some hold as the ultimate truth.


Sex and God
Once we have discarded the God of Christianity, the State can reign supreme, unless Allah and his jihadists manage to restore control of sex to the Muslim approach. You know, the one where men have all of the women locked up as wives and concubines.

Its true that however you wish to explain life of all plants and animals, the reproductive system has to be encouraged for any mortal species to survive. Somehow modernists have made the mistake of thinking that because some few sex addicts have always been around, that all in a hedonistic world should seek maximum activity without time for emotional connection.

This mistake will not last forever, but it can help hasten a major decline in global population from disease, but far faster will be the decline wrought by nukes in the hands of the jihadists whose opponents are too busy getting hooked-up to pay attention to something coming that is far bigger than the next orgasm - a nuclear vaporization.

Re: Darwin will take care of it

Mother of 4 writes:

> Those who are capable of learning to be real adults
> capable of self-restraint and moral responsibility
> will remain uninfected and live.

Even if you believe that restraint is the key to survival,
what's morality got to do with it? Not to sound like a
Randroid or anything, but I'd think that pragmatic self-
interest would be sufficient. But the fact that you see
it as a moral issue marks you as yet another sex-negative
SoCon. Sometimes I suspect such people dress and bathe in
the dark, and reproduce by binary fission.


> Those who cry for better antibiotics need to remember
> that not one viral disease has ever been cured in the
> history of medicine. Vaccinated against, yes, but never
> cured.

Well, if you vaccinate enough people, it amounts to the
same thing. I remember the polio vaccination campaigns
of the early '60s, going down to the gym at the local
high school with my parents and eating a sugar cube laced
with Salk/Sabin vaccine. There hasn't been any polio in
the civilized (read: Western) world in decades. That
demonstrates that vaccination can be effective if it's
pursued with enough diligence and determination. I can
live with that.


> One might call it strange -- unless one knows whose
> hand formed the world and who laid down the very laws
> of nature that some hold as the ultimate truth.

That's an interesting thing to see, coming from someone
who invoked Darwin just a few paragraphs earlier. Which
way do you want it?


-CB-


No wonder some college students ....
have stopped dating. My daughter is a senior in college, and she isn't dating, as are many of her friends, including the men. And no, they aren't gay!


IF KIDS ARE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY?

.....Why not ball baths? If the Muslims can have foot baths to wash their stinking feet before praying ...then teen age boys should have ball baths in the boys room to wash up before engaging in sex ...

.....After a steamy sex-ed class gets the the young lad as horny as a rabbit on steroids ...he can go to the nurse for a condom ...stop in the boys room for a good wash ...and then grab the first girl he sees for a quicky behind the stairway ...

.....The times they are a changin' .....COLOSSUS

Ironic
I find it ironic that Ms. Parker would cite the opinions of female students at an anti-male bastion like Duke University, w/ its federally funded Misandry factory, i.e., “Women’s Center.” Does anyone remember the behavior of many charmingly demur Duke University waifs? Women-children stood enmasse outside a Duke University "lacrosse house" shouted profanity and made verbal threats in the interest of extorting confessions from the guilty evil white males? Or the demure waifs who held man-hating signs: “Castration”, “Rapist Can’t Run from the Truth”, etc. Who would want to consider traditional dating in such a toxic environment?

Mother of 4
Sex is not just a basic urge; it is a way to express intimacy with someone you care about, or a way to prove one's manhood.

Really?
“In her psychiatric practice, she has come to believe that women suffer more from sexual hook-ups than men do and wonders whether the hormone oxytocin is a factor.”

Really? Financially, physically & emotionally, who really is most negatively affected by post-modern female promiscuity & infidelity: MEN & children of course. Female-chauvinists (i.e., LIBERAL women) have been extremely successful in engineering what essentially amounts to consequence free, responsibility-optional lives. Thanks to their lobbying efforts focused on chivalrous male politicians & judges, women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Result? Women are abusing “No-Fault Divorce”: women apply for 70% of all divorces while utilizing children as financial assets in order to leverage the largest amount of de facto Alimony: i.e., child support. Why find a new boyfriend if you don’t have an ex-husband to subsidize you new love life. Given their child custody monopoly, mothers commit 60% of all child abuse. Moreover, in recent poll 30% of women were willing to commit maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control) depending on the prospective father’s income. Fifty percent (50%) of all married women commit adultery which results in at least 1-10% of women committing the most despicable act of domestic abuse: paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father) w/ impunity by legally forcing their husbands to pay for some else’s children. Why not have an affair if you have an ambulatory wallet to pay for consequences of said affair.

Really? (cont'd)
Thanks to the rape-shield laws women lie about rape 40-50% of the time. Women routinely employ abortion as de facto birth control that results in 25 % (1.4M) of all children conceived yearly being aborted for pure convenience. Also, those same chivalrous male politicians enacted social welfare programs ($1.4T per year) that benefit promiscuous irresponsible women at the expense of the majority male taxpayer base. Why is it always some woman implying women are the sole “victims” of their own misbehavior when that really isn’t the case.

Thank you Ms. Parker for another female-chauvinist piece of work.

Spare the moralizing
Let me get this right - we are supposed to feel sorry for adult women (and 18 is the age of adulthood) who choose to engage in unrestricted sex and then come back later complaining that they feel "empty" or "used" - as well as running the risk of catching a social disease. I don't think so. Modern American Woman has what she claims she wanted - the opportunity to live her life without the restrictions of patriarchy, middle-class morals or any other limitation. Adult decision - adult consequences. Since Modern American Woman has come to expect sex as a recreational right, there is no reason for we males to not avail ourselves of this bounty of no-strings-attached pleasure. Diseases? Be more circumspect in your choice of partners. Or, let's discuss the other viable alternative - legalize prostitution on a national basis, require monthly medical exams, lixcense the practitioners and slap a five percent "entertainment tax" on the transaction. That would eliminate have the budgetary problems at mny levels of government and also give the non-pretty boys in the male population an equal opportunity for a little physical release. Callous and hard-hearted? No more so than the modern female attitude that has flipped the middle finger at sexual responsibility for the last three decades.

Bring back Sinatra!
I never bought into that jazz about "sugar and spice and all that's nice." Broads are every bit as capable of doing evil as guys. It takes two to tango, or "hook up," as they say now. Rape-shield laws are the best way for a woman to screw a guy and then screw him over afterward.

The worst mistake we conservatives can make is to support feminism under the guise that this "coalition of the unwilling" would abolish sex. You can't abolish sex!! But you can avoid rewriting law to accomodate anti-sex feminists.

Frank Sinatra in his prime would have known how to deal with these nasty broads.

How do you think I got those kids?
Those who think that people who believe in the traditional morality -- traditional in all stable cultures and all major religions -- of reserving sex for marriage are anti-sex are nuts. Do you think I got these kids from a test-tube?

That's where women whose disease-scarred Fallopian tubes have rendered them infertile get kids. Those who preserve themselves for marriage rarely fail to conceive naturally.

Marriage offers the only setting where sex can truly be enjoyed in its most perfect form -- as the full mental, physical, and spiritual joining of a man and woman committed to a lifetime as one. My husband has never had to chase me around the bed because I've never had any reason to run.

Its not just me either -- time and time again surveys have shown that married, Evangelical Christians have sex more often and enjoy it more than any other group.

Reducing sex to the mere rubbing together of body parts in pursuit of a few moments' physical pleasure or a hollow imitation of togetherness which has no more relationship to real intimacy than a tawdry glass bead has to a diamond does young people no favors.

Who has the best interest of our young people more at heart? Those who promote sexual behavior that is proven to lead to disease, depression, and destruction? Or those who promote sexual behavior that is proven to lead to health, happiness, and fulfillment?

CB
Who do you think laid down the laws of genetics and selection that made evolution possible?

There is no necessary theological conflict between Christianity and science. The cause of the Big Bang was God's command "Let there be light" and the statement that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth does not say that He literally modeled him out of clay. Neither is God, who stands outside time and space, bound by our conception of what an earthly day means.

dbz77
Prove one's manhood?

A dog is capable of achieving an er*ction and sticking it into any b*tch who is willing to stand still long enough to be mounted.

A man proves his manhood by controlling his impulses, demonstrating responsibility, and making the true commitment of the marriage vows.

Mutual prostitution
We might as well call "hooking up" what it is: mutually agreed-upon prostitution. Or, as the song says, "I used her and she used me and neither one cared; we were getting out share." I personally believe that sex should be reserved for marriage only, and yes, I wholeheartedly believe that means that if you never marry you never have sex. (Part of the liberal lie is the belief sex is a basic physiologic need . . . despite the evidence that no one has ever died from a lack of it.) What I can't accept is the undertone that college women are being victimized by college men. College men and college women today are equally immature, equally willing to give ear to the liberal lie referenced above, and should be equally accountable for the consequences of having agreed to prostitute themselves if they engage in a "hook up" relationship.

reaping what you sow
Ok lets get real on several levels. To those who say all we need to do is find more cures for STD's I say wouldn't it be better to avoid the risk to begin with? Who's to guarantee a cure will be found? To those who say you can't stop premarital sex so why bother I say I think it is worth the results to try. Nothing is always 100% successful but it doesn't hurt to try. I further have to laugh at the feminists who for so long wanted to be treated as other than sex objects but now defend hooking up. You can't have it both ways. I know the sex urge is strong. God made it that way to encourage procreation or the human race would have died out long ago. But all evidence does point towards the best situation being the traditional one of abstinence until marriage. I know this is not a popular view but we who believe in it feel it has the most benefits for society.

The sex drive
is an urge, much like going to the bathroom. A baby has no control, but as the child grows, he learns to control that urge. He learns to wait to go to the bathroom until an appropriate time. The sex drive is also an urge that can learn to be controlled. That's what separates us from the animals.

SteveL ...
SteveL writes:
"May I make a suggestion: Once a woman turns 18, what she chooses to do with her body is no one else's business. She can choose to remain a virgin or she can choose to have sex with 4,815 different men. Ditto, what a man chooses to do with his body is no one else's business."

You know, in a free society I would love to agree with you. I wish it were that way in the United States. But you see, for every poor decision made by a "woman" or "man" of the grand old age of 18, or any age, your liberal/statist collegues in the state houses and in Congress make their poor decisions my fanancial burden. If you want the freedom to do as you please, the you gotta know your on the hook for the results of the choices you make.

Before you run screaming I'm a mean-spirited, heartless Republican, please know that I give regularly to both secular and religious charities that assist unwed mothers (abortion is a particularly vile thing to me). The difference being that many government run organizations don't teach the young women about the responsibilities that come with being sexualy active. I wouldn't give a dime to an orgnization that didn't attempt to help the young ladies learn to be responsible for their actions.

So, let's do as you say. But, to paraphrase the feminists mantra of "get your laws of my body," get your laws out of my wallet.

I couldn't believe
a TV program I watched the other day. It feature two couples who were engaged in a practise called "Friendship with benefits." It means friendship with sex without committment. In each case, one of the couples cared more about the other and therefore was emotionally hurt by the relationship. Surprise Huh!!!

I wasn't just amazed at such a relationship but even more amazed it could be the subject of an hour long TV program. It demonstrates,we are a vulgar nation without values. (should also mention the epidemic level of the STD Clymidia in teens and young adults.)

Straight Edge Youth
For twenty years Anarchists have supported a positive youth culture called Straight-edge.

It's creed: Don't Smoke, Don’t Drink, Don't F*ck.

But unlike religious dogma this creed is predicated on rationalist self preservation and self actualization... Not immoral church dogma.

At the core of straightedge philosophy is the social anarchist principles of selfish altruism, and conscious self determinism.

In short Straightedge does not stop with STD's, but makes a moral stand against animal exploitation, tobacco, caffeine, over the counter drugs, illegal drugs, Alcohol abuse and religion...

Unlike Christianity which preaches salvations... Straightedge preaches accountability...

It is not an accident that the most Christian nation in the world invented the hookup culture. Only a society which worships avoiding accountability could make self destruction a virtue.

uber ...
I'm not quite sure where you are getting your info from, but you may want to seek a better, more reliable and up to date source.

For the vast majority of the Christian churches in the US, your "immoral church dogma" is an oxymoron at best. More likely it is a pious atheistic view that appears to come through in the rest of your rant.

Another oxymoron (boy you're just full 'em aren't you?): selfish altruism. Huh? Webster's online dictionary defines altruism as:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
How in the world can you possibly join those two terms together?

Then, you state:
"In short Straightedge does not stop with STD's, but makes a moral stand against animal exploitation, tobacco, caffeine, over the counter drugs, illegal drugs, Alcohol abuse and religion..."
First, moral from whose interpretation? You appear to want ot one up some of my Christrian brethren by going even further to control some people's behavior. How arrogant for you to know what's better for me than I do myself. I mean, caffeine? For Pete's sake, what are you? A militant Mormon?

uber ... cont'd
This statement:
"Unlike Christianity which preaches salvations... Straightedge preaches accountability..." demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Christian faith. While not untrue, it is incomplete. Christianity teaches that we are accountable to God for the charge He has given us. If we fail, we answer to Him.

And your last statement:
"It is not an accident that the most Christian nation in the world invented the hookup culture. Only a society which worships avoiding accountability could make self destruction a virtue."
Appears to attempt to make the connection that we are "hookup culture" because we are a nation of Christians (NOT a Christian nation as some try to mistakenly state). Au contraire, mon ami. It is because we are a nation that is moving away from God and denying His providence, that we seek things like selfish altruism, and ignore His commands. Besides all that, European countries were leading the way on the hookup culture decades before Bill "cigar" Clinton decided that oral sex wasn't really sex.

uber
That post is laughable.

First, the rules for the conduct of anarchists is an oxymoron since anarchy, by definition, denies the existence of rules.

Second, the hook-up culture is the creation of the anti-Christian left who deliberately set out to undermine Christian teaching and traditional morality.

Third, accountability is a key feature of Christian teaching -- we are accountable to God for every action we take, every word we speak, and even the thoughts we entertain in the privacy of our own minds. How can an anarchist, who by definition denies all authority over him, be accountable without anyone to be accountable to?

Fourth, your Straightedge code there, though promoting a desirable self-control in behavior, is merely a handful of the Ten Commandments dressed up in modern language.

Take off the anti-Christian goggles and contemplate the contradictions of your words.

Wolfgang, garageman, et al ..
Did we read the same article? I've never been under the impression that Ms. Parker is feminist or a bleeding heart. I've always found her to be insightful and straightforward. She takes a middle of the road approach which sometimes casts a net over conservatives as well as liberals.

It is my understanding that Ms. Parker is trying bring to light the misperception, in not outright lie, that uncommitted sexual activity has no negative consequences. This revelation is as much for the young ladies as it is for the young men. Just because it feel good, does not mean that there will be no bad side effects.

Just because a young woman is willing, does not mean that a young man has to take advantage of the situation. Whatever happened to chivalry? Whatever happened to putting others well-being before yourself? Especially with regard to men treating women with respect? From the earliest days of their childhood, I had my son take care of his younger sister by opening doors for her, as I did/do for their mother. Do I do that because I think women are not capable of doing so for themselves? Nonsense! While women are not to be placed on a pedestal, they are to honored and treasured as the precious gifts from God that they are.

Some of the responses here, just had me thinking we haven't read the same words.

Mother of 4 ...
Bless you!!! If I see you on any other thread I'll just shut and let you have at it. Your comments are what I would like to state if I had an ability with words. Your husband and children are truly blessed!!

Mother of 4: sin and go in peace
"For the vast majority of the Christian churches in the US, your "immoral church dogma" is an oxymoron at best."

That's because they have a vested interest in their immorality. Everyone thinks they are moral... The worst atrocities in history were done by people who believed they were doing good.

"selfish altruism."

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Studies_in_self ish_altruism.html

"How arrogant for you to know what's better for me than I do myself. I mean, caffeine? For Pete's sake, what are you? A militant Mormon?"

How does it feel?

""Unlike Christianity which preaches salvations... Straightedge preaches accountability..." demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Christian faith. While not untrue, it is incomplete. Christianity teaches that we are accountable to God for the charge He has given us. If we fail, we answer to Him."

Exactly Christians want us to be accountable to a an invention of their imaginations.... Accountability to an imaginary authority is the same a no accountability.

"Besides all that, European countries were leading the way on the hookup culture..."

Prove it?

Mother of 4: Straight Edge
"First, the rules for the conduct of anarchists is an oxymoron since anarchy, by definition, denies the existence of rules."

No anarchism proclaims the individual as authority over himself.

"First, the rules for the conduct of anarchists is an oxymoron since anarchy, by definition, denies the existence of rules."

You wish... Why are there more STD's in the bible belt than in the Liberal North East?

"Third, accountability is a key feature of Christian teaching"

Yeah accountability to a figment of our imagination.

If I said "we are accountable to Santa Clause for every action we take." He's making a list, he's checking it twice...

You would laugh at me... or think I'm five... Grow Up...

"Straightedge code there, though promoting a desirable self-control in behavior, is merely a handful of the Ten Commandments dressed up in modern language."

Accept that it's not predicated on self delusion and open to improvement unlike the TEN Jesus says your saved even if you brake them all COMMANDMENTS.

JerryMc Thinks:
The "Hook-Up" philosophy of today's youth is shallow, inconsiderate and raw animal behavior. The emotional bonds that males and females have for each other are much more important than the "thrill-of-the-moment" that young males display. If something as intimate as this comes along later, then that's fine provided both partners feel OK about it. It is something special -- not a theatre ticket. But to use it as a "try out to see if I like you" type thing, is pathetic and just more proof of how our society is sinking into an abyss just like it did near the end of the Roman Empire days.

FROG: sin and go in peace
That was for you

Over and above Ms. Parker's concerns....
Over and above the physical dangers specified in Ms. Parker's column, which are real enough, my heart aches for these young girls who jump right into a relationship defined by sex, because they are missing the sweetness of romance. I'm 65 and I still remember the thrill when my wonderful husband of 44 years held my hand for the first time and that precious first kiss we shared.

There is a song by the late Sigmund Romberg that says "When I grow too old to dream, your kiss will live in my heart". The joys of that romance lives forever in my heart and become even more precious as I have reached this stage in my life, while the memories from sex are short-lived.

Guess I'm showing my age, aren't I?

uber
Those confused posts show only that you have neither logical coherence in your reasoning nor the faintest understanding of the Christian faith.


Marriage no STD protection
Getting married or even waiting till marriage does not protect against STD's.

The only protection is a life rutted in empiricism and reason and accountability.

i.e.

Demand a doctors check up.

Even married partners cheat and bring home STD's (demand regular checkups)

Hold partners who don't divulge an STD accountable.

Divorce your STD ridden husband or wife... And refrain from relationships with people with STD's

Don't judge a book by it's cover... i.e. how many sexual experiences a person has had... Rather demand a test.

Marriage gives suckers an irrational sense of security.
Don't get married and don’t get fooled.

uber
Chastity before marriage and faithfulness in marriage never fails. This is the teaching of all major religions and the traditional rules of all stable societies.

A relationship founded on suspicion, mistrust, and the assumption that betrayal is immanent can only fail.

A marriage between people who had enough self-respect and enough respect for the commands of God and traditional wisdom to preserve themselves to make the full commitment of their vows will prosper.

Who has the welfare of society's young people more firmly in mind? One who would condemn them to a lifetime of loneliness, mistrust, and fear of betrayal or one who would lead them onto the path that produces happiness, security, and the true union of bonded souls that banishes loneliness forever?

No, Maverick,
you aren't showing your age, you are showing the wisdom and beauty that comes from time. While I don't remember every intimate moment my wife and I have shared, I consider them to be blessings we gave each other at the moment we needed blessing. Just as I don't remember what I had for dinner last Tuesday, it was nourishment that my body needed at the time. Likewise, the moments I've shared with my wife nourished my soul when it needed nourishing.

Thanks again, Mother of 4. There are few things I'd like to say in response to uber, but the Holy Spirit has annointed you with a wonderful gift. Share it, Sister!

FROG
Thank you.

With 2 of my kids in their teens and facing the need to make these decisions that will permanently set the course of their lives I've done a lot of thinking on the issue.

I like many elements of the Biblical Courtship movement -- especially the idea of not seeking casual romance but rather waiting until one is ready to seriously consider the commitment of marriage. Then one seeks out and courts a mate -- getting to know each other and form a friendship before forming a romance.

My husband and I were friends long before we started dating. Since my parents were divorced I thought very seriously about making 100% sure that I was making the right choice because I didn't want to do that to my kids. Encouraging my children to do the same comes naturally.

Foolproof!!
My first sexual encounter was on our wedding night. My wife's first sexual encounter was on our wedding night. That night was, admittedly, a little awkward, slightly clumsy (on my part) and ultimately sweet.

Neither of us has ever been tested for an STD and we've never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. And we have an incredible bond between us that has provided an anchor whenever things got tough. I plan to follow through on the "till death do us part" portion of our covenantal vows. And I'm looking forward to growing old with a wife; not just a partner.

"Abstinence works every time it's tried." - Bill Bennett

Tweaky:


Beautifully said. My husband of 44 years is my life, my heart and my soul and it means more to me than I can say that he is the only man I have ever been with sexually and it saddens me that so few people today can know that joy and that special bond.

I realize many people think I am just old and very archaic because I feel that way but I believe society HAS lost a lot in these times of total sexual freedom and promiscuity.


Leisha C:
"The sex drive is an urge, much like going to the bathroom. A baby has no control, but as the child grows, he learns to control that urge. He learns to wait to go to the bathroom until an appropriate time. The sex drive is also an urge that can learn to be controlled. That's what separates us from the animals."

Did I read this right? This person actually compares having sex to taking a dump?! I guess that shows the typical Social Conservative's view of and disgust for "doing the nasty" (and in their view, it really is nasty)!

Makes one wonder what kind of partners these people make. My money is on "not very good."

Mary C.

Another question for you all....
What would you suggest for a woman who has no interest in marriage?

Why is there always this assumption that all women want to get married? Everywhere, from books and movies about girls who obsess and dream since childhood about their wedding, to ones that act like all women are happiest when the man pops the question.

I have no desire to get married, and never did. The only reason I could see for doing it (unless a 90 year billionaire came along - ha ha) would be to have children. Since I just turned 42, that is not bloody likely and never has been a burning desire for me either. However, at least being expsed to my sister's and friends' kids has mellowed me to be tolerant, as opposed to the outright loathing I had towards the little darlings in my 20s.

Mary C.

Mother of 4
Yes, I meant proving manhood.

I can show you posts by males who failed to have sex.

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/3371628datingPostpage5.aspx

"may only be 37.5 years old, and never been married, and NEVER had a girlfriend... I have never kissed a girl or have ever been kissed either... Going to probably die a lonely old virgin..."

Reading the above, do you really think that hooking up can be possibly worse?

Mary C:
Obviously marriage isn't for everyone and that's fine. I am just relating what a wonderful life I have had being married to my husband for 44 years. I would not trade these years for anything in the world and truly feel blessed by God.

Oh, by the way, my parents were happily married for 71 years and their relationship was a wonderful example to my husband and me in what marriage CAN be.

Maverick
Wow, most married people I have met seem miserable, or at least regretting it on some level. I think they miss their freedom. You appear to have lucked out.

Mary C.

Mary C.
Its called trade-offs.

If you make the deliberate choice to remain single you get the benefits of that status -- minimal responsibility in your life, never having to consider anyone else's desires when you make decisions, the ability to take risky chances for the possibility of a big payoff, the ability to devote every moment of your life working towards a goal or a cause without being derailed by others' needs, and so on.

But you also lose the benefits of marriage -- lifelong partnership and companionship, improved security and stability, someone to take care of you when you are in need, and the joys of physical intimacy.

Its your choice to make according to your own priorities.

Trouble arises when people try to have it both ways. A married person trying to act like a single person by refusing to put the relationship first and refusing to fulfill his/her responsibilities towards the other partner will destroy the relationship.

A single person trying to act like a married person by demanding a level of closeness from his/her friends that isn't justified by the non-marital status of the relationship will not reap happiness from the situation and the hazards of non-marital sex are obvious and serious.

If you loathe children then you've got even more reason to keep your clothes on because sex causes babies and there is no such thing as perfect birth control -- my #4, while welcome, was not 100% intentional.

dbz77
Of course hooking up would make such a situation worse. If a person is a meaningless loser who is incapable of creating a worthwhile life for himself becoming a slimeball predator is not an improvement.

The solution to being a male meaningless loser is not to seek out female losers in order to rub body parts together. The solution is to get off his self-pitying rear end and get a life.

A guy who becomes a productive member of society, a man of good character, and a person more concerned about helping others than wallowing in narcissic self-pity has proven his manhood. A man with the good character, sense of self-worth, and sense of responsibility to make the deliberate choice to keep himself pure for the woman he marries is the finest example of manhood in existence.

Sorry, Uber..
but Mother of 4 has is all uber you.

I had to laugh, especially when, after she laid it all out so well, you came back and tried to gainsay each of her points, and each of your responses was nothing but one inanity after another.

Then you have the gall to tell her to "prove it" when you never set forth a single proof for any of your ridiculous assertions.

dbz77

You need help!

You apparently have some real physiological problems.

If you have some friends that you consider good trustworthy friends, females preferably, tell her that you have never learned to kiss properly, and that you feel like the ladies think that you are strange. Tell her that you really are not strange, unless you are really strange, but that you are inexperienced, for what ever reason you want to give.

See what happens! If it works, thank the lady and begin your quest for affection.

Just be a nice guy and see what happens. Don’t try to get fresh with the first girl you see.

Let nature take its course.

After you have dated for a while see if she is interested in marriage. Maybe you’ll like it.

You would be surprised how many girls aren't experienced.

You apparently think that love and sex is like the movies. Not so fella!

They get paid to act that way.

Why do you think there marriages don't last?

N/A
This is how I see your situation from a secular view point.

If you were a God fearing, Bible believing earthling, I would say that the Bible prohibits sexual activity with the opposite sex before marriage, or same sex anytime.

You’re absolutely right in you presumption that the sex drive is natural, and pleasurable. It was designed by God for procreation and mutual pleasure of both partners, male and female.

God intended for it to be enjoyed within the bounds of marriage, but since the fall of man from Gods original design, man has used sex to suit his own purposes.

If you are not a Christian and have no desire to be a Christian, then by all means do that which is right in your own eyes. The penalty can be no greater for having sex without the benefit of marriage than lying about your age.

Same with homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter.

So, if you are one of those who do not think that God judges sin, there’s no reason why you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage.

Be careful for STD's, they can be nasty, I've heard.

Signed, Dear Abigail

Mother of 4
"A man with the good character, sense of self-worth, and sense of responsibility to make the deliberate choice to keep himself pure for the woman he marries is the finest example of manhood in existence."
A man whose sense of self-worth comes from failing to get laid has some serious issues.

And besides, women do not keep themselves pure for men; 95% of Americans have had premarital sex.

"
Of course hooking up would make such a situation worse. If a person is a meaningless loser who is incapable of creating a worthwhile life for himself becoming a slimeball predator is not an improvement."
Slimeball predators, as you call them, get things sone.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.