"Blatant Disregard for the Laws of Nature"

"Archistrategos" is the pseudonym of a college student in the Philippines who writes the excellent blog Ecce Me, Quia Vocasti Me. As you might guess from the Latin ("Here I am, for you did call me,") he's a fervent Catholic. He also has an admirable way with words. For instance:

Some brief thoughts: one thing that has always annoyed me about people who claim abortion to be a 'right' is their seemingly blatant disregard for the laws of nature. When one has sex, the logical-- and natural, I may add-- outcome would be pregnancy, assuming that there is fertilization that occurs. Today, things are a lot easier, since the sexual revolution of the 1960s has irrevocably introduced the contraceptive mentality into our culture. Given these two basic facts-- what the hell is abortion necessary for, anyway? What the hell is it good for? What the hell is it for? If I may be so blunt, the answer is fairly obvious: that is, to guarantee a totally guiltless, totally free from consequence, and totally irresponsible, and immature lifestyle.

It goes on from there and gets even better. Read the rest.

Conservatives: Fox News Is Not Your Friend

I used to be an avid viewer of Fox News Channel. Lately, not so much. I'm not sure whether it is because they have changed, or because I've changed. In any case, plenty of people who consider themselves traditional family-values conservatives think of FNC as "their" network. They shouldn't. News Flash for conservatives: "Your" network is betraying you.

Here is the proof. Watch "On The Record" with Greta Van Susteren at 9:00 CT weeknights. Pay attention to the commercials. Usually in the second half you will see a lady dining in a nice restaurant with a boorish male who turns out to be her husband. He leaves her and she makes eyes with a handsome man at another table. It's an ad for AshleyMadison.com.

AshleyMadison.com is an online dating service for married people who want to have affairs - and is now a regular advertiser on the alleged "traditional values" TV network. Very strange, yes? Even stranger, less than a year ago a Fox news spokesman told ABC News that Fox would "never" air these ads. Something seems to have changed.

Three things come to mind about this. First, why are none of the conservative big guns telling Fox News that these ads are unacceptable? The only criticism I could find in a Google search was a Deroy Murdock column in Human Events. Murdock makes the excellent point that such things give the same-sex marriage proponents good reason to cry hypocrisy about those who defend traditional marriage. Could it be that the right-wing powerhouses are so dependent on Fox News Channel that they dare not complain?

Second, the decision to air these ads is clear proof that FNC is nothing more than a business whose goal is to make money. Roger Ailes identified a demographic that was underserved by other networks, and now he owns it. His primary goal is to sell advertising, not promote conservative causes. He and his boss Rupert Murdoch will gladly wreck marriages and destroy families if they can make a few bucks in the process.

Third, what does this tell us about Fox News Channel viewers? Advertisers run their spots where they think they will find a favorable audience. Is there any real difference in the ethical commitment of FNC viewers and, say, MSNBC viewers? I don't know. AshleyMadison.com obviously thinks the network has enough potential philanderers in the audience to justify advertising there.

Conclusion: AshleyMadison.com and the honchos of Fox News apparently believe their audience is a bunch of stupid, easily-manipulated sheep that can be led to slaughter without a peep. I'm beginning to think they may be right.

Rick Warren, Inauguration and Gay Rights

Gay rights activists are up in arms because Obama asked Rick Warren to offer an invocation at the presidential inauguration next month. Warren is unacceptable, in their view, because he supported the Proposition 8 drive to outlaw gay marriage in California. They feel betrayed because they thought Obama was devoted to their cause. They forget he is also a politician who is keenly interested in attracting more Christian voters to his cause. This was a chance to do so and also reinforce his image as a unifier. I do not think it indicates any sympathy on Obama's part for conservative Christian beliefs.

For his part, Rev. Warren is getting it from both sides. The gay-marriage advocates consider him a bigot while many on the right consider him a turncoat for daring to participate in the inauguration. Personally I don't see the problem. It is appropriate and fitting that Christians pray for our national leaders - whether we agree with their actions or not. Warren has made his disagreements with Obama about abortion and gay marriage crystal-clear. Presumably, his invocation will not ask God's blessing on those parts of the Obama agenda that conflict with Christian belief.

What's interesting to me is how the Proposition 8 defeat has so galvanized gay activists in the last few months. Any Christian who disagrees with gay marriage is now a de facto bigot. The anger is palpable, and it is leading to all kinds of intimidating and even violent rhetoric against people who gave even casual support to Proposition 8. The Mormon church is a particular target of gay wrath. Rick Warren also endorsed the proposition, but was by no means a leader or even particularly vocal about it. Indeed, he is regarded as far too soft on the culture-war issues by many conservative Christian activists. No matter - he made the wrong choice, and now he has to pay. To get a taste of it, read this post by a liberal who found himself sympathizing with Warren, and then read the comments that follow.

Al Mohler rightly points out that the angry response to Warren's presence at the inauguration will not be the end of this battle. Gay marriage is quickly becoming an issue where everyone will have to take a stand - and there is no middle ground. It's going to get ugly.

Rick Warren has just found himself in the midst of a whirlwind. We must pray that God will give him wisdom as he decides what to do -- and what to say -- as he stands in this whirlwind. But every evangelical Christian should watch this carefully, for the controversy over Rick Warren will not stop with the pastor from Saddleback. This whirlwind is coming for you and for your church. At some point, the cost of being "cool" will be the abandonment of biblical Christianity. We had better decide well in advance that this is a cost far too high to pay.

Consummation Confusion

Last week I listened to the podcast of attorney Charles LiMandri being interviewed on the Catholic Answers Live radio program for July 28. (Listen or download here). LiMandri is heavily involved in the campaign to amend California's state constitution to prevent gay marriages. He brought up an interesting point to this debate that I have not heard anywhere else.

Historically, both civil government and most religions have said that a marriage is not valid unless it has been consummated. The meaning of this is clear when the two parties to the marriage are a man and a woman. There is no doubt about the particular responsibilities of husband and wife.

In a gay "marriage," on the other hand, consummation in the traditional manner is impossible. There are, instead, several possible acts that the putative spouses can engage in, based upon their own desires and preferences. More permutations are added by the particular role each putative spouse takes during these acts. The possibilities are also different for men and women. The requirement that a marriage be "consummated" becomes very complicated once same-sex unions are legalized.

LiMandri said that courts or legislators will inevitably have to step in and clarify this ambiguity. For instance, sooner or later there will be a gay version of Anna Nicole Smith who "marries" an elderly male and inherits a fortune - drawing protests from blood relatives. A court will then have to rule whether the marriage was "consummated." At that point a major goal of the homosexual activists will be accomplished: legal recognition that their sexual acts are equivalent to those of male-female couples. If you think this isn't one of their goals, you are sadly mistaken.

On a related note, recently I was in a situation where I had no choice but to listen to a radio station that I would normally avoid. I was trying to think of other things but one song had a particularly catchy tune. I was starting to actually enjoy it when the words of the female vocalist hit me: "I kissed a girl and I liked it..."

Whoa, I thought to myself. This can't be. Later a Google search revealed the complete lyrics. There is no profanity per se - which is why they can play it on the radio - but the message is clear: it's just a kiss. Your boyfriend won't mind. Try it. People seem to like it because the song is topping the charts.

Now I do not believe that listening to a song will make someone who is otherwise straight turn gay or lesbian. It will, however, start to infuse the idea that there is really no difference between the sexes and that experimentation is fine. This may not be what the artist, a Ms. Katy Perry, intends; in fact it appears she is probably just trying to create publicity for herself. Some gay people aren't happy with her, either. It is the result, though.

The bigger point is that our popular culture is slowly but surely coming to accept all varieties of sexual behavior as normal. If you're not shocked yet, just wait a few years.

How Not To Cut HIV Rates

From Bloomberg News:

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- On a typical day, Robert Bailey has 20 to 30 men waiting to be circumcised at his clinic in Kisumu, Kenya. The men are enduring the pain because they don't want to get AIDS.

Since a study by Bailey in 2006 found the operation drops the HIV infection rate in men by 60 percent, the procedure most often performed at birth has become a popular elective surgery among grown men in southern Africa. The push has been fueled by $16 million from the U.S. for clinics, personnel and procedures, funding expected to double this year, and $10.8 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The operation, in which skin covering the end of the penis is removed, may help lower infections among men of the traditionally uncircumcised Luo tribe by more than two-thirds, to 5 percent, said Bailey in a telephone interview July 14 from the Nyanza Reproductive Health Society Clinic he runs. Widespread use could prevent 5.7 million African infections and 3 million deaths over 20 years, according to the United Nations. [more]

While I appreciate what Dr. Bailey is trying to accomplish, I doubt it will work. In fact, I predict it will actually increase HIV rates among these men. Why? Because they will view it as permission to continue and accelerate their promiscuous behavior.

It's the same principle as low-fat food. If you want to lose weight, low-fat drinks, snacks and sweets are rarely much help. The reason for this is that we see "low-fat" and give ourselves permission to eat twice as much. It's an unconscious process most of the time, but real nonetheless.

We should also note that the men showing up to be circumcised are probably not living in faithful, monogamous relationships. If they were, there would be no need to go through this pain because their chances of getting HIV (and a variety of other diseases) would be minuscule. Promotion of such behavior helped Uganda drop its HIV rates by 70% in recent years.

Despite the proven success, few other nations are interesting in copying Uganda's methods. Why? In their view, anything that stands in the way of maximum sexual pleasure is unacceptable. They seek the post-modern Holy Grail: complete sexual freedom without negative consequences.

As with those who sought the real Holy Grail for the wrong reasons, they will likely find only pain, suffering, and eventually death.

Another Reason To Avoid McDonald's?

We would all be well-advised to remove McDonald's food from our diet. Now there is another reason. The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of McDonald's over the company's financial support of the gay and lesbian political agenda. McDonald's is a "corporate partner" of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a privilege it acquired by donating $20,000. A McDonald's executive now sits on the board of NGLCC and the company's logo is featured on the NGLCC web site.

It is important to note that the AFA is not asking McDonald's to refuse service to gay people, avoid hiring them, or to discriminate in any way. What they want is for McDonald's to simply remain neutral in the ongoing culture war. Given that NGLCC actively lobbies the government for things like same-sex "marriage," McDonald's is effectively taking sides in this battle. And it's the wrong side, in the view of many Christians and family groups.

What's interesting to me is the official reaction from McDonald's. According to LifeSiteNews, a company spokesman said the boycott is motivated by "hate" and they have refused to give an inch. What does this tell us? Presumably, McDonald's is not in business to lose money. If they thought the boycott was going to cost them a significant amount of business, they would give in immediately. They haven't. Why?

If affinity for one group risks losing the business of another, the larger group ought to get its way. That's the cold, hard reality of the corporate world. McDonald's has calculated that it has more to gain by courting gay and lesbian groups than it will lose by insulting Christians and others who wish to defend traditional marriage.

Other companies have reached the same calculation. Look who else is listed on the NGLCC web site as a corporate sponsor: American Airlines, Intel, Wells Fargo, Motorola, American Express, IBM, Kodak, Burger King, PepsiCo, OfficeMax, AT&T, and more. All these companies think there is some kind of value in supporting gay and lesbian causes. Obviously, they've concluded that gay people are more valuable than faithful Christians.

I don't like saying it, but the evidence is that we've lost this battle, folks. Yes, we have numbers on our side (for now). Unfortunately the gay marriage people are better organized and funded. They're going to get their way. It is only a matter of time.

As for the boycott, I'm really not sure how effective it would be anyway. Most of their locations are actually owned by franchisees who may or may not agree with what the decisions made by corporate headquarters. McDonald's does some good things, too. I understand the impulse to boycott, but the truth is that pretty much every large company has some kind of objectionable activity or policy. We can't boycott everyone. With all due respect to Donald Wildmon and the AFA, I think there may be better ways to get the point across.

Politics Will Not Stop Abortion

Today's Peggy Noonan column is particularly incisive about the Republicans and this year's electoral prospects.

The Democrats aren't the ones falling apart, the Republicans are. The Democrats can see daylight ahead. For all their fractious fighting, they're finally resolving their central drama. Hillary Clinton will leave, and Barack Obama will deliver a stirring acceptance speech. Then hand-to-hand in the general, where they see their guy triumphing. You see it when you talk to them: They're busy being born.

The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light. They're frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness, his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.

By the end of the column she holds out a little hope for McCain and the GOP. But not much.

Rod Dreher is even more pessimistic. As you may recall, I've been slowly concluding that political means are not going to achieve the ends that social conservatives desire. At Rod's post some of the reader comments argue that we need to hold our noses and vote for McCain for one reason only: there is at least some chance he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, while there is little or no chance Obama will do so. This idea is compelling at first, but consider this response from one reader:

If McCain is elected he can attempt to appoint as many strict constructionists as he wants but not one of them will even get to a committee vote. There will be NO pro-life justices confirmed to the Supreme Court by this next Senate.

If, by some bizarre occurance, Roe V Wade were to be overturned, within two election cycles there would not be enough Republicans left in office at any level to influence or stop anything and there would be federal legislation codifying roe into law. The reason that no anti-abortion constitutional amendment was ever introduced was very simple. There has never been, and probably never will be, 67 votes in the Senate to pass it.

In other words, if anyone thinks that abortion can be outlawed again in this lifetime--forget it. That battle is lost, probably forever...

If Roe were to be overturned, California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota and Massachussetts at the very least, would immediately codify abortion rights into state law even before all the Republicans would be thrown out of office. That means that abortion would be available to everyone with only a relatively short airplane ride.

And then within four years it would a guaranteed right under federal law anyway and everyone opposed to it would be packed into some internment camp in Cuba.

This is closer to the truth than I think most of us want to admit. We live in a representative democracy. Abortion will stay legal as long as a majority of people want it to be so, which they quite obviously do. Why? Because abortion permits them to indulge their sexual desires without annoying and distracting consequences such as pregnancy. Like it or not, that is a fact in 2008.

If we elect McCain and if he appoints conservative Supreme Court justices and if they overturn Roe v. Wade, then what? All that happens is that states will be permitted to ban or regulate abortion if they wish. Some will do so, but the practice will be just as legal as it is now in many states. Women from other states who want abortions will simply go to where it is allowed. Maybe a few poor women who don't live near a state border will end up carrying their babies to term, but for the most part there will be no fewer abortions than there are now.

This suggests to me that the better strategy is cultural and spiritual. We need to work on building a society in which people appreciate life for the great gift it is. We need to help people respect the power of their sexuality and keep it in the right context.

The sad fact is that American Christians haven't done a very good job of this. Our sexual behavior is often indistinguishable from that of the pagan cultures we say we oppose. Only when we repent and start to lead by example will the culture begin to follow. Yes, it will take many years. That's why the time to start is now.

Investing in Sin

Investing in sin actually sounds like a pretty good idea. Sin has been a growth industry for several thousand years now. A new exchange traded fund now makes it easy to capitalize on the Fall of Adam & Eve. The FocusShares ISE SINdex Fund is available under the ticker symbol PUF.

There are, of course, endless varieties of sin. The SINdex fund buys the stock of companies in the alcohol, tobacco, and gambling sectors. This is where I begin to question the strategy. Are alcohol, tobacco, and gambling actually sins? If you ask a Southern Baptist, the answer will be “Yes.” Other Christian traditions take a more nuanced view.

Alcohol is obviously not an intrinsic evil; Christ himself turned water into wine. Yet drunkenness – the abuse of alcohol – is clearly condemned in Scripture. So the production of alcoholic beverages is not sinful, unless the producer is specifically trying to make people drunk. Alcohol manufacturers are no more responsible for the misuse of their products than gun manufacturers are for the misuse of guns.

The same can be said for tobacco. Yes, the human body is God’s temple and we have a duty to maintain it as best we can. Where do we draw this line? Big Macs aren’t good for you, either. As far as I can tell, McDonald’s isn’t in the SINdex fund. As with alcohol, moderate use of tobacco products isn’t sinful, nor is it sinful to produce and sell them.

What about gambling? We are obliged to make wise use of whatever money God gives us. We have a duty to our families and all those who are sick and poor. Yet it is not a sin to have fun. If someone has enough money to cover all their other responsibilities and finds gambling to be a pleasant diversion, it is no more sinful than playing golf or watching TV.

Given all this, it seems that the SINdex fund is probably guilty of false advertising. It does not invest in sin at all. If you want to invest in real sin, here is a good example. Producing drugs that are specifically designed to kill unborn babies is clearly sinful. Sadly, it is also very profitable.

Our Most Important Freedom

From Red Cardigan:

The one cultural value our current society elevates above all others is the notion that sex without consequences is the most important freedom we have, and if children or innocent spouses or unborn babies or anyone else has to suffer for this freedom to be paramount, then so be it.

This principle is not (yet) written into the Constitution, but for all practical purposes it might as well be. Most Americans certainly consider their pelvic freedom at least as important as the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

It is beyond government's ability to guarantee that sex will have no consequences because those consequences are natural. They are programmed into us - biologically, psychologically, and spiritually. They cannot be eliminated by law. Yet people keep trying.

Those Who Cast Stones

Today's news that New York Governor (and sometime moral crusader) Eliot Spitzer was apparently a patron of a high-class prostitution ring is getting lots of play. Initial reports said he planned to resign. He may yet do so, but my guess is that unless criminal charges follow Spitzer will survive to launch more crusades.

Why do I say this? Simple. We already established the precedent back in 1998 that it is perfectly fine for high government officials to carry on perverse sexual affairs, lie under oath in official proceedings, lie to the press and the public, intimidate witnesses, and attack anyone who tries to stop them. If the charges against Spitzer are true, then the only difference between him and Bill Clinton is that some money changed hands.

The public doesn't care because it has been conditioned that all manner of personal conduct must be "tolerated" if not actively encouraged and even celebrated. Those few of us who disagree with this are, in the popular view, nothing but cranky religious fanatics.

At the personal level it is a great tragedy, of course. Mr. Spitzer's wife and children have been betrayed and will suffer greatly. They need our support and prayers. So does the governor himself. We all have our weaknesses and failures. Hopefully he will learn from this experience and find forgiveness and redemption.

That having been said, it would certainly be nice to see Spitzer's downfall as a public official. He's been promoting some truly odious policies and the common good will be well served if he takes the opportunity to retire.

American Idol Misses Out

So American Idol is holding auditions around the country. A young man named Bruce Dickson came to the Dallas try-outs. Bruce is 19, Christian, and comes from a home-schooled family. He made it past initial screening and went before the Golden Trio of TV judges: Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul, and Simon Cowell.

As you can see from the picture here, Bruce is an attractive, athletic guy, and apparently has some musical talent as well. Before his chance to sing, Bruce was asked to share something interesting about himself. His response: "I've never kissed a girl." He went on to explain that he has made a pledge to remain chaste until he is married.

The three judges, accustomed as they are to Hollywood hedonism, almost fell out of their chairs. This just didn't compute. It was like Siamese twins had showed up and asked to sing a duet. Needless to say, Bruce did not get a chance to go on to the next round. Randy Jackson's parting advice: "Go kiss some girls."

It was the voice-over narration by Ryan Seacrest that really makes me mad, though. "Maybe next year he'll come back less a boy and more a man."

So let's get this straight. Because, unlike most of his peers, Bruce chooses not to sleep with every girl who will have him; because he actually seems to understand the meaning of love and commitment; and because he refuses to go along with the pelvic obsession of American culture, he isn't really a man. He's still just a boy. That is the way Ryan Seacrest sees it.

I'll be a gentleman here and not question anyone's manhood, except to say that I think Bruce has nothing to be ashamed of. I also think he's probably better off staying out of the Hollywood spotlight. It's hard enough to maintain purity in places like Bastrop, Texas, where Bruce lives. In the kind of cesspool American Idol glorifies, I'm sure it is almost impossible.

Lydia at WWWtW makes a good point: the very goal of shows like American Idol is to create sex objects for the titillation and pleasure of the audience. Is this the kind of thing a Christian who values chastity should want to compete in, much less win? Maybe not. On the other hand, aren't we called to engage the culture and try to change it for the better? It's a tough call.

Rebuilding Gomorrah on Reality TV

I have created a new tag on this blog called Rebuilding Gomorrah. Many people, I think, don't quite comprehend the depths of depravity our society has reached, and how near it is to all of us. Click the link to see what I mean.

Today's example comes from the Czech Republic but will soon be on a screen near you...

Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- If you want to watch Nick having sex with a prostitute, he's happy to let you.

The 36-year-old bank-security technician drove eight hours from his home in Metz, France, to Big Sister, a Prague brothel where customers peruse a touch-screen menu of blondes, brunettes and redheads available for free. The catch is clients have to let their exploits be filmed and posted on the Internet.

``Sex is no taboo,'' Nick says, though he asked that his last name not be used. ``You have to free your mind.''

Big Sister is marrying 21st-century technology with the world's oldest profession to profit from the public's appetite for ever-more graphic reality TV. Since 2005, more than 15,000 men have taken up the offer of free sex in return for 15 minutes, or less, of fame, according to the brothel. Big Sister is now expanding into the U.S. with a local version of its Web site.

Visitors to the virtual brothel pay 29.95 euros ($43.88) for a one-month subscription to a smorgasbord of sex listed by position, preference and number of people. Big Sister also produces cable TV shows that air on Sky Italia and the U.K.'s Television X, as well as DVDs such as ``Sex Hyenas'' and ``Voyeur's Eye.''

``Our goal is to attract as many people as possible to catch the first reality sex TV,'' says marketing manager Carl Borowitz, who goes by the name Carlos. ``This is National Geographic for adults. Everyone's curious to watch their neighbor.'' [more]

(How, you might ask, did I happen to find this story? It was at the top of the Bloomberg "Most Read" list today. It's happened before.)

I'm not sure who is more depraved: the people who manage this enterprise, or its customers. A liberal-minded person might argue that it's all voluntary and no one is harmed. I beg to differ.

Consider poor Nick, who is quoted above (something tells me that Nick isn't exactly a Don Juan back home in France.) This 36-year-old, unmarried "bank security technician" isn't doing himself any favors with this activity, especially if he has any visions of ever settling down with a woman. And there is probably a woman in France who would like to settle down with a guy like Nick - but she won't get to do so because he has taught himself that women are nothing but sex objects. She's a victim, too.

Then there are the prostitutes. They may be well-paid, but at what cost to their dignity, their health, and their self-image? Finally there are the thousands of people, mainly men, who view this material and become addicted. Many marriages are destroyed in this way, leaving wives and children shattered into pieces. From there the trail of destruction expands geometrically.

Yes, pornography has been around for a long time. The difference is that now it travels at the speed of light. It's a big problem in society, in our churches, and in many families. There are some good resources here and here for people who are touched by this evil. And make no mistake - it is evil.

Mandatory Safe Sex IV

Last year I had a series of posts (here, here, and here) about Texas Governor Rick Perry's attempt to force parents to administer the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil to all young girls. The political support and contributions Perry received from the drug's manufacturer was pure coincidence, of course. Ultimately he gave up under pressure from the state legislature. Parents are free to have their children vaccinated if they wish, but it is not mandatory.

At the time Perry's opponents argued that the vaccine was untested and not proven safe. Today's news suggests they may have had a point.

Health officials have touted the Gardasil vaccine as an important new protection against a cancer-causing sexually transmitted virus. In recent months, they've also noted reports of pain and fainting from the shot.

During its first year of use, reports of girls fainting from vaccinations climbed, but it's not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction....

Officials at Merck & Co., which makes the vaccine, acknowledge the sting. They attribute it partly to the virus-like particles in the shot. Pre-marketing studies showed more reports of pain from Gardasil than from dummy shots, and patients reported more pain when given shots with more of the particles.

Meanwhile, U.S. health officials have noticed a rise in reports of vaccine-associated fainting in girls. From 2002-2004 there were about 50 reports of fainting; from 2005 until last July, there were about 230. About 180 of those cases followed a shot of Gardasil, which came on the market in 2006.

Keep in mind that the virus Gardasil supposedly prevents is caused exclusively by sex. It doesn't spread by casual contact. The reports of pain and fainting make the whole idea of giving it to sixth-grade girls even more ludicrous.

Obscenity at Barnes & Noble

So this weekend I went shopping at the new Barnes & Noble in my area. Mrs. D.O.T.S. and I were pleased when it opened because there were no other bookstores nearby.

At the front of the store near the checkout counters is a table featuring 2008 box calendars, the kind where you tear off a page each day. There are all manner of such calendars: dogs, cats, cartoons, happy thoughts, etc. I took a picture of it for you. Which one grabs your attention? Keep in mind this is only a few steps away from the children's section of the store.

I dare say most eyes will be drawn straight to the bright red "Sex Every Day In Every Way 2008 Daily Calendar." (Click here for a better look on the B&N web site.) This is just what America needs because, as you know, we just don't think about sex often enough in this country. Having such a daily reminder will be good for everyone.

If people want to buy this thing, so be it, but is it really a good idea to display them out in the open, alongside products that will draw the eyes of small children? There are more than words, too. The box has illustrations that graphically depict people engaged in a variety of (ahem...) acrobatic maneuvers. I don't want to show them on my blog, but you can click here for a small sample.

On the same table was another calendar, shown in the second photo. If you can't read it, the headline reads "The Dictionary of Corporate B------t." This is slightly less offensive than the sex calendar but still not appropriate for public view, in my opinion. Movies that use this word get a PG-13 rating, so parents at least know what to expect. Barnes & Noble doesn't give you the courtesy of a warning.

I took one of the sex calendars to a female store employee and asked her if she thought it was appropriate to display where children would almost certainly see them. She took one look and called the manager.

He offered no regrets whatsoever. All he could say was "People have different tastes" and he would pass on my concern to their corporate office. I again asked, what kind of person could even remotely think that it is appropriate to let children see this product? He would not answer the question. So I wished him a Merry Christmas and left without buying anything.

If B&N is like most large retailers, the store manager is given detailed directions from above on how products are to be displayed. He probably doesn't have authority to move them. This means B&N has made a corporate decision that it doesn't care if young children are exposed to sexually explicit images. Their first priority is to make money however they can. That is their right, of course. It is also my right to not shop at their store. I urge everyone else to do likewise.

One more indication of the priorities at Barnes & Noble: there is a large display of Phillip Pullman's atheism-promoting Golden Compass line of children's books and related merchandise. If they can't corrupt your kids one way, they'll find another way to get the job done. Their persistence is admirable.

You can express your concern to B&N management by using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Moms go after CVS; Is Barnes & Noble Next?

Legal Child Pornography

Those on the right who promote capital punishment and other harsh penalties for child pornographers are being stymied in Syracuse, New York. In that state it is perfectly legal, according to news reports, to take provocative naked pictures of 11-year-old girls and distribute them far and wide, even to males who will almost certainly use them for prurient purposes.

How can this be? There is one little complication. The models, photographers, distributors, and consumers of these photos are all themselves minors. Under New York law kids who do this are breaking no laws, and students of at least one Syracuse middle school enthusiastically took advantage of this loophole. About a dozen girls, aged 11-14, took naked pictures of each other with cell phone cameras and sent them to their boyfriends. Some of the boys copied the pictures onto discs and began selling them at school. Amazingly, this was not a crime as long as both parties were minors.

It became a crime for one young man, Michael Wixson, when at the age of 17 he provided some of these photos to a 15-year-old girl. A-ha! Now we have an "adult" giving "porn" to a "child." The police swooped in, arresting Wixson and charging him with various crimes. Bill O'Reilly reported the story on Fox News. [video]

You might expect that the adults whose children were involved in this would be a little disturbed. Some were. Many were not, according to the local prosecutor.

“Some of them were furious. A good percentage of them were, ‘stuff happens, what are you going to do?’ and don't want to cooperate and don't want to be interviewed, which, to me, is mind-boggling.”

The girls involved were equally nonplussed.

What people in the schools are struggling with now is making it clear to students that, what they think is silly behavior, can be permanently damaging and criminal.

“I think the parents should realize that this kind of behavior is not as shocking to the kids as it is to them,” says Resource Officer Scott Smith. He is one of two officers who keeps track of whats happening in the halls of the high school.

Smith watched as C-NS students reacted to, first, a naked picture CD, and now a felony charge for sharing those pictures. Smith says he was shocked by kids thinking neither was a big deal. “They weren't phased by it; some were a little more concerned than others but overall it wasn't the reaction I expected from a group of girls just learning that they were on it.”

Could it be that the girls see no problem with this behavior because their own parents see no problem with it? Having been raised with free access to MTV, HBO, gangsta rap, Britney Spears, and other such influences, why should we be surprised that they don't mind exposing themselves to all the world? Britney does and everyone loves her. Quite a few Moms want their daughters to be sexy. They're getting their wish.

Some adults will say that kids do these things, and we all sowed our own wild oats. Really? Not like this. Digital cameras only became common in the late 1990s. Before then, making your own porn was a lot harder. Unless you had your own darkroom you had to take the film somewhere to be developed. Ditto to make copies. And there was no Internet to speed them to anonymous eyes around the world in seconds. Kids today face temptations that prior generations never imagined.

Once a photo goes on the Internet it is out of your control. It will be copied, stored, and reproduced a million times over. You can't get it back, ever. These girls will be porn stars in all corners of the globe for the rest of their lives. That's a big decision to make at the age of 11.

The real failure lies with the adults. As in this case, if your daughter reaches high school and still doesn't understand why it might be a bad idea to have naked pictures of herself floating around the hallways, she probably missed some lessons much earlier in life. Now she will have to learn them the hard way.

All this adds up to a most disturbing picture. We have constructed a culture that glorifies images of raw sexuality, even for children. We have equipped those children with the technology to easily produce and distribute their own pornography. We have failed to provide them with a moral framework that explains why doing so is harmful. And now, it seems we have a legal system that allows minors to carry out this activity without interference by the authorities.

My guess is that the school in Syracuse isn't the only place where such things happen. If it's not already in your community, it will be soon. What's the answer? The only one I have is to get out - and don't look back.

Parents Not Freaked By Freaking Teens

From The Wall Street Journal

ARGYLE, Texas -- Karen Miller, 53 years old, saw her first "freak dance" four years ago when she was chaperoning a high-school dance attended by her freshman daughter.

One boy was up close to a girl's back, bumping and grinding to the pounding beat of the music.

"I thought, 'That's just dadgum nasty,'" Ms. Miller recalls. "It really had me sick to my stomach."

Ms. Miller took the initiative and broke it up. School employees at the dance seemed oblivious, she says.

They're oblivious no longer. A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."

This story sounds remarkably like a replay of a certain 1980s movie, but is apparently the real thing. The video that WSJ provides doesn't look so offensive to me. However, it's only a demonstration and not actual events. (It's worth watching just to hear the monotone NPR-like reporter say words like "freaking.") The school superintendent is insistent.

"This is not just shaking your booty," he said. "This is pelvis-to-pelvis physical contact in the private areas...and then moving around."

To make his point, Mr. Ceyanes held a community meeting and played a video pulled from YouTube demonstrating freak dancing. "I cannot imagine that there is a father in this room who could watch this video and be all right with a young man dancing with his daughter in that fashion," he told the gathering.

Many parents support Mr. Ceyanes's actions. But another vocal faction has been harshly critical of the new superintendent, creating a deep rift in the community. These parents defend the children of Argyle as "good kids," and say they should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want.

Angry, Internet-empowered parents have searched public records to dig up personal details of Mr. Ceyanes's past, blogging spitefully about his divorce and his earlier marriage and fatherhood at the age of 17. In community chat rooms, some people were calling him a hypocrite and a power-crazed autocrat showing too much interest in teenage girls.

Supporters fought back on their own blogs, where one posted pictures of Argyle students in skin-baring clothing culled from MySpace and Facebook pages. "Check your kids profiles," the blogger wrote. "These are some of the pictures your little angels have posted on the World Wide Web." The post was later removed, and the anonymous blogger refused to discuss the matter or give his or her name in an email exchange, citing fears of retaliation. "We had several comments that were extremely threatening," the blogger wrote.

Without judging the propriety of the dancing itself, the laissez-faire attitude of some parents is disturbing. Those who believe their young teenagers "should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want" apparently don't care enough to even find out what is going on.

News Flash for the Parents of Argyle: teenagers, including yours, routinely "want" things that aren't good for them. They even "want" things that are harmful. Your job as a parent is not to simply let them do what they "want." You owe them guidance and boundaries so they can make a good transition to the responsibilities of adulthood. Maybe the freak dancing is not a problem. I haven't seen it so I don't know. But isn't it a good idea to at least open your eyes and look before you decide there is nothing to worry about?

Yes, it's important to give teenagers some degree of freedom so they can learn from their mistakes. It is also true that teenagers who willingly engage in foreplay on the dance floor probably didn't get the right lessons earlier in life. There may not be much you can do once they reach that point - except pray that they avoid the physical and emotional damage that often comes from premature sexual activity.

It's going to be an uphill battle, according to dance experts. In the age of round-the-clock music videos on television, iPods and computers, teenagers are just copying what they see. Grinding has been around for a long time, but it has been getting raunchier as videos keep pushing the envelope. "If you're dancing to a song that says 'shake that, shake that, shake that,' it's kind of hard not to shake that," says Gino Johnson, a Dallas area choreographer and producer specializing in hip hop.

Related Posts:
Sexy Girls
Enough Wild Oats
Sixth Grade Contraception
Birth Control Shocker
Schoolgirl Wrestling
Dr. Anonymous Talks About Sex

No More Miller Time

This story has been all over the blog world the last few weeks but I'll pass it on anyway, in case some people missed it.

In San Francisco the gay and lesbian community has an event each year called the Folsom Street Fair. It includes a wide variety of sexual acts that normally occur behind closed doors between consenting adults. Here are some very graphic images of the event. Prepare to be shocked.

Disgusting as this is, it would not be so bad if these people would simply practice their lifestyles among themselves. For some reason, however, they feel compelled to use the opportunity to attack the religion most Americans hold dear. Their promotional poster is a satire of Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper, featuring a table covered with sexual devices. You can see it here.

The fair also features a group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the purpose of which seems to be mocking the dedication and sacrifice of Catholic nuns. Clearly the Folsom Street Fair is an anti-religious event. In particular, it is an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic event. (For some reason Islam gets a pass, despite its history of violence toward homosexuals.)

The Folsom Street Fair is supported by numerous local businesses in San Francisco and one national sponsor: Miller Brewing Company. After complaints, Miller had its logo removed from the Last Supper poster but continued to sponsor the main event.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is leading a campaign to boycott of all Miller products until the company promises to no longer sponsor such anti-religious events. I think it's a great idea. Miller can't have it both ways; if they want Christians to buy they products, they need to stop funding events that insult us and degrade our culture.

So next time you feel like it's Miller time, find something else to drink. A company that supports obscenity and religious bigotry does not deserve your business.

Sixth Grade Contraception

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) - Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.

The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

There are no national figures on how many middle schools, where most students range in age from 11 to 13, provide such services. [source]

There is an excellent discussion about this story underway at the Crunchy Con blog. I've never seen so many people from all political and religious viewpoints agree on anything like the do on this. The consensus: it is a monumentally stupid idea.

Set aside for a moment the question of whether schools should be in the business of enabling or encouraging, however tacitly, sexual activity by middle school students. The plan is medically dangerous.

Students treated at the centers must first get written parental permission, but under state law such treatment is confidential, and students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive.

It is a small comfort that parental permission is required, though I wonder how closely the clinic workers will scrutinize whatever signatures or forms the kids bring from home. Nevertheless, exactly how feasible is it to expect an 11-13 year old to provide accurate medical information to the clinic?

Birth control pills and patches are prescription medicines. They have risks, side effects, interactions with other medications. You can overdose on them. They have to taken on a precise schedule in order to work. Yet "students decide for themselves" whether to tell their parents about any medicines they receive. Any parent who lets their kid go to this clinic, as well as any physician or nurse who works there, is taking a huge risk.

The very same public schools that are terrified a kid with a headache might take a Tylenol are now happy to administer birth control pills. The logic behind this escapes me. We know that school-administered sex education isn't preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even as the states outlaw the one technique that actually is effective: abstinence. Is there a method to this madness?

I can only think of one thing that fits: school administrators (and the parents who cooperate with them) must want the kids to be sexually active, as early and often as possible, and are willing to risk medical complications in order to achieve this. The plan in Maine makes perfect sense if that is their motivation. So far, they seem to be succeeding.

A Healthy Lifestyle That Isn't Promoted

Reports show that one in five youths (age 15-24) in California are infected with some kind of sexually transmitted disease - genital herpes, gonorrhea, HIV, etc.

I do not know what the rates are in other states. Given the licentious nature of that state's culture it wouldn't be surprising if the STD rate is higher there. In any case, this figure illustrates just how "effective" modern sex education is. In California middle schools are required by law to teach HIV prevention techniques. It seems clear that whatever they are teaching is not working very well, while the only 100% effective technique, abstinence, is actually banned from public schools.

The ironic thing is that the people who nag the rest of us to live "healthy lifestyles" very frequently come from California. Yet it seems that at least 1 out of 5 of their own young people are living a lifestyle that is anything but healthy.

The behavior that spreads STDs is almost always voluntary. It is a choice that carries a cost to one's health, similar to smoking. Insurance companies know this - which is why people who smoke have to pay more for their life and health insurance. Many employers encourage their workers to eat healthy foods, exercise, stop smoking, lose weight, etc. It has nothing to do with morality. It's all about the money.

This brings up an idea: maybe those who choose to live promiscuous lives, and allow their children to do so, should pay for this privilege. Is it really fair that people who live in chastity or monogamy be forced to underwrite the inevitable costs of other people's choices? That is what happens, either through higher insurance rates or higher taxes.

I'm not saying anyone should be prevented from fooling around however they wish. I am simply suggesting that they pay for the consequences of their choice and not expect other people to subsidize them. With freedom comes responsibility, right?

This is, of course, not what will happen as a result of this data. What will happen is that the citizens of California will get more and more explicit sex education that is introduced at younger and younger ages and is less and less effective. Where it will end, I don't know. Many people will die -or live their lives with awful afflictions that render them unable to enjoy true intimacy and union with another. This is the cost of so-called "freedom."



Hat tips: Mark Shea and Darth Beckman

So Much For Growing Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.