Pages

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

How to Get Back at Your Girlfriend

My best friend, "Pov", called me last night. "We have a crisis on our hands," he announced.

Our friends, "Jim and Arlene", have four kids. For a farm family out of the 1900s, this would be a manageable brood, but in today's age it's rather overwhelming when neither parent has made it past high school.

Jim and Arlene are very kindly people but with little common sense and a lack of ambition. Recently two of their boys, "Romeo" (age 16) and "Howie" (age 14), were picked up for shoplifting. Jim called Pov in a panic to ask for advice, and Pov and I discussed the various options with them.

Pov and I came up with a few suggestions. Immediate punishment was of great importance: Both boys were to be grounded and have everything taken away from them. But Jim and Arlene are great at asking for advice, and then not taking it. We weren't too sure about how well they would handle the situation.

However, shoplifting turned out to be minor in comparison to the next revelation. It was at this point that Romeo also confessed to his parents that he was having a sexual relationship with Juliet, a 15 year old girl.

Sex between teens is, sadly, not uncommon. But there is a line drawn by the court system between 15 and 16 year olds. It is possible for a 16 year old to be thrown in jail if he's caught having sex with a child who is 15 or younger. Furthermore, it is something that can become a permanent part of his record.

I warned Jim and Arlene about this. "Well, what should we do?" asked Jim. Pov and I agreed that it was a tough call. If I were Juliet's mother, I would want to know. I would be furious if I found out that another parent knew and hadn't told me. On the other hand, being honorable and approaching the other parents could land Romeo in jail.

Jim and Arlene decided to tell Romeo to cool it, and call it off with Juliet for now. Since Juliet's father is on the S.W.A.T. team, Pov and I agreed that it was probably the smartest option that Romeo could choose.

Everyone held their breath, crossed their fingers, and hoped it had all blown over. We hadn't heard another word about it until yesterday, when Juliet texted Arlene with the news that she might be pregnant.

Arlene immediately went into a panic, and was ready to go charging out the door with a pregnancy test, until Jim pointed out that this would certainly send up red flags with Juliet's parents. "It's only been a day," Jim pointed out. Then he called Pov, who in turn called me.

Everyone agreed that it still was best to simply leave it alone: The last thing that Jim and Arlene should do would be anything which might make Juliet's parents suspicious. "Give it a couple more days," I counseled them. "Wait and see. You'll know soon enough!"

I finished up the call by asking Jim if he'd really grounded Romeo and Howie, and was following through on everything that we had all agreed upon.

"Oh yes," Jim replied. "They're grounded all right! I don't know what more we can do!"

In half an hour, Jim called me again. "Well," he said breezily, "I guess it's been taken care of."

"Already?" I said, surprised. "How is that?"

"Well, I guess Juliet's been going around at school, telling all of her little friends that she might be pregnant. Romeo had warned her to keep quiet about it, and he was so angry about it that he decided to get back at her by texting her mom with the news."

"WHAT?" I gasped.

"Yup," said Jim, "But at least it's all out in the open now."

"Er, yeah, you could say that," I agreed. "But what about jail for Romeo?"

"Oh, we think it probably won't happen," Jim said breezily. "Besides, Arlene feels so much better now that everyone knows."

"Uh, OK," I said hesitantly. "Well, good luck with that."

My grandmother had a saying for such silly behavior. She called it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Perhaps jail will smarten Romeo up a bit. And if Juliet's pregnant, he will have eighteen years of child support to teach him a permanent lesson.

But the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: None of that family has much sense. No one has stopped to think: If Romeo was truly grounded... how was he able to text Juliet's mom?

27 comments:

Ed Abbey said...

That kind of story is almost a cliche for the uneducated poor. I can think of several almost exactly like that one from my high school days. One of them did involve jail time.

undergroundlogician said...

I don't think this is a matter of education, which is a term I think that can be the panacea of the left. Not all the time, but sometimes.

Common sense is the domain of what is human, its use depends on the moral fiber of the person, upbringing, whatever. When the person is given over to sloth, or lust, etc., common sense is stuffed in the closets of our mind (how esoteric of me, lol) to allow some darker activity to take place. So in this place, the teen's ability to textmessage while grounded shows a lack of follow through with the parents to avoid the hard work of an unhappy teenage who doesn't get his way.

I say this is the case of the immoral poor. There are poor who are moral, even educated.

The Lazy Iguana said...

And this is why the nutty idea of abstinence only does not work.

It does not work.

In the 1800s this would not be a problem. The two would get married and that would "solve" everything. In fact for most of human evolution by the time you were 18 it was COMMON to have been married (or whatever) and already with at least one or two kids.

But now - suddenly - this is not supposed to be the norm. Problem is that nobody told the brain chemicals this.

By the way - there is a "Romeo and Juliet" law on the books now. And that is what the law is called. No longer do you have to register as a sex offender for life if you are 18 or 19 and have a 17 year old girlfriend or boyfriend. This law makes sense. I think it covers you up to age 23 or something. So you can have a 5 year age difference and it is not a crime. Up to a point - I am not exactly sure how it all works out. But I am pretty sure that a 16 year old with a 15 year old is NOT going to land anyone in jail.

And the girl is just at much "at fault" as the boy here.

If the girl is pregnant - it is bad news for everyone. That is for sure. I hope this all turns out to be a false alarm. It MIGHT teach someone a lesson - but I would not count on that.

What I would like to see is MANDATORY "poopy diaper detail" for all teens. But this is not really practical. I wish it were though. Kids need to know what the realities of actions are.

They should also be forced to obtain summer jobs - and then spend their paycheck on baby stuff. It can all be pretend spending. Kid gets a summer job, kid has to create a realistic baby needs list, and then "spend" the money by placing it in an account that they can NOT access a penny of till age 25. Unless of course they have a real kid.

So they can work some crappy job they do not want, while they could be having fun - and then when pay day comes there is only $5 left over for "fun". You can get a slice of pizza and a soda! Then in 2 weeks have another.

Again - not practical. But it would work. I think. But who knows.

Those brain chemicals are powerful.

undergroundlogician said...

Though I am in favor of allowing teens to see the consequences of future wrong actions, do you think that this will offset these "chemicals?"

Gee, we who live in this pluralistic society, or better, a secular society, are looking for ways to solve problems that are beyond the scope of secularism. We think that educating kids is the panacea of all that is wrong. If we hear some right wingnut talk about morality in the context of religion, we get in a pissing match over Church vs. State, freedom of religion or no religion, you have your truth and I have mine. So, when people don't like the religious component in cultural matters, which by the way "culture" comes from the word "cultus" which means "worship," they find themselves in a bind from the void of religion they reject. It is idiocy on parade.

So, we in Western Culture don't want to worship God, don't want to find out what criteria is expected for that worship, and we recoil with any moral requirements which may limit our orgasms to when and with whom. And then we get situations like this and we scratch our heads and wonder, "Gee, maybe these kids haven't learned that to have babies means we have to change their diapers, get a job. DAMN! I'm gonna stop having sex!"

This is Polyanna Liberalism in its clearest display. Phooey on it. There needs to be a grass-roots movement of religion back in this country and I nominate Christianity.

There...let the rants begin.

Angela said...

This reminds me of that movie Idiocracy, where the uneducate or just plain stupid, poor procreate like crazy, while all of the educated or intelligent people wait until the right time and only have one or two kids or none at all. Eventually you have an entire population of complete morons. The movie was terrible but brings up an interesting point.

Since we no longer believe in survival of the fittest (I sure wish we did) the poor, uneducated, or idiots keep mass producing. Man, I really do wish we had some sort of sterilization, or even some laws regarding how many children people can have. I know there are all sorts of moral objections to those thoughts and of course we wouldn't be a free country if we put restrictions on how many children people could have.

I guess I can only hope and dream. :-)

-Ange

undergroundlogician said...

Ooooo, Ange, either this is brilliant parody on your part, or I'm going to get really, really concerned.

One thing about the idiot masses...they're hard to control unless you give them what they want, free food, shelter and...GAMES! As in ancient Rome, the more hedonistic emperors knew that if they fed the bloodlust of the mob, they continued to have power. Keep the mob happy! BUT, the problem is, an immoral mob might be hard to please or hard to keep in a pleasured state, as Mr. Obama may learn. AND, they may not buy into the government's view of a good time if the government fails in fulfilling our right for entertainment. Then, all of this political stuff becomes work, work, work! And then the mob turns on the politico and then he'll have to flee the country, buy an island and arm it with thug protectors to kill the mob as they swim or paddle their floating bathtubs to the island in order to kill him.

On the other hand, let's go an easier route. Let's introduce the idea that the need for religion is deeply basic to human nature, and allow humankind to evolve with the help of our Creator. Let the religious have their way and see what kind of internal change can happen in people's hearts and minds when they worship the true God rather than the gods Orgasm and Moloch the fetus killer.

AQ said...

UL,
While I won't challenge your assertion that "religion" would help with the morality problem, I don't think it will solve it.

There are far too many people who claim the name of Christ who do not exercise any form of self-control. Therein lies another problem.

Scaring young people with babies or diseases is not going to fix the problem. If it did, then we would already have reduced the number of procreating poor. Many of those teens having babies have already had firsthand experience with babies as they help care for their younger siblings.

And for those who think that kids need a better sex education curriculum, I say you are crazy! These kids know how to prevent pregnancy. They choose NOT to. They are playing the risks. Ok, not all of them, but a good number of them. Ask around!

Their problem is they have not been taught self-control. The adults in our society don't believe they can - or should -control themselves.

daveawayfromhome said...

UL, you start off so well, advocating common sense, then you ruin it all by saying that the key to that common sense lies in an ancient book filled with contradictions that one is expected to accept uncritically.

Common sense is the ability to see that C follows B follows A, and to then be able to imagine D and E.

If you want people to see that actions lead to consequences, we could always start by making sure that politicians, celebrities, and other "role models" suffer the same consequences as the Little People do. Everybody thinks they're a star (even if they're an unknown star); when even the stars pay the price of foolishness, then you can expect the general public to believe they will, too.

And the idea that people religion because it cramps their style is ridiculous. People reject religion for many reasons, but I think few of them use that excuse (if they did, there would be no stories of devout Catholic Mafiosi). In fact, I'm pretty sure that one can find many examples of people who "embrace" religion as a cover for their bad behavior.
Most people reject religion because a)it makes no sense to them, and/or b)because it is too often abused by those who profess it, yet abideth not by its tenants.

Harlan Kraqurè said...

Teens getting or being pregnant is only a problem when the situation is seen and treated as a problem. It's all in how the participants and their families cope with the turn of events. If we were to wave a magic wand and remove all of those that were a product of a teen pregnancy over the course of the last 50 years we'd see a massive drop in the population, not exclusive to the poor uneducated demographic - nature happens - no amount of education or legislation is going to change that. I'd be curious to see a study or chart of the rise in incidents of teen violence as it relates to the cultural demonization of teen sexuality.

Saur♥Kraut said...

WOW! Everyone has such wonderful contributions and my first instinct is to say that I agree with every one of you because each one has great points that they've made.

But let's tackle them one at a time:

Ed, So very true.

Dave: I, too, believe in that "ancient book". And any Biblical scholar will tell you that it is certainly not filled with contradictions.

If you find it sometimes hard to swallow, and almost unbelievable, that is understandable. You can choose to disbelieve in demons and angels - that's your right. But the Bible does not contradict itself.

That doesn't mean it is easy to understand, I hasten to add! But there are good explanations for much of what a casual reader might misunderstand.

All that being said:

You are right that some people abuse religion or use it for their own purposes. It's one of the reasons I was agnostic for so long. I was tired of the hypocrisy and those who use the Bible as a club. And they do exist, in great quantities.

But that doesn't make the Bible itself wrong, even though many followers are.

This is also the case with Karl Marx, espouser of communist theory but NOT the communism we see in practice. Communism in theory is a great concept, but it's misused and always will be, due to human nature. And yet Marx's name has become a dirty word due to his followers misapplication.

Underground Logician, Thanks for weighing in. I think you are absolutely right, but...

Human nature is what it is. And we cannot impose our religious beliefs on others. This is only to a certain extent of course. As you and I know, Christianity brought civilizing influences to the entire world. Look at how many savages (yes, savages!) happily murdered and cannibalized each other. Look at all the human sacrifices and other atrocities which stopped when missionaries and civilized (yes, civilized!) people came to stop it.

But from a humanistic viewpoint, there is little reason to decry murder or cannabalism.

You can say that such behavior is damaging to the tribe, but it's not the truth. These tribes practiced such barbarities for thousands of years and survived.

So prohibition of murder, cannabalism, infanticide, and human sacrifice is not necessary, as such acts do not cause a civilization to go extinct (though there are exceptions). Such prohibition is a direct result of civilized thinking, which is influenced by a history of such thinking, which in turn is influenced by the Bible.

So anyway, back to human nature:

You know that we are regressing as a society. In part it is because no one can agree to a set of standards which are set in stone. The current set of shifting standards seem to be:

1. Abortion is not usually a great idea unless it helps me in some way. Then it's OK.

2. Murder is not usually a great idea unless it helps me in some way. Then it's OK.

3. Cannabalism is yucky and not necessary but if I were stuck in a cave, snowed in for 6 months with no food in sight and my best friend Tammy, well then...

(NOTE to Tammy: I'd make it painless)

4. Human Sacrifice: Yucky, for sure.

5. Child Molestation: Totally uncool unless it's a really hot blond teacher or if the rapist and the victim are pretty close to each other in age.

Well... you get the picture.

So, we can not get everyone to see common sense or exercise self control. This means that we can hold ourselves to higher standards, but we can't really do so with others. Therefore, Lazy's comment is valid as well.

Lazy, Abstinence always works: If it's applied.

However, there is no doubt that there are many people who are dumb and dumber, and there are kids out there who think that self control is a new type of remote for the TV.

So yes, condoms and birth control need to be available for these idiots.

Incidentally, I remember having raging hormones. It isn't easy, but you can control it. We're not like dogs, who just run up to the first bitch in heat that they see. We do have a higher reasoning facility.

I agree w/ the summer jobs and poopy diaper detail. BUT: There are some kids who will actually LIKE all that and it won't make a bit of difference.

Angela, Dittos all the way. Of course we can't regulate such behavior, even if we wish we could.

In my faith, we believe that God himself chose not to regulate human behavior by force. Instead, he set up laws which, if we violate them, can cause us to come to grief.

But: I surely would like everyone to be forced to go through mandatory parenting classes before they can have kids. But that would open a new can of worms: What should be taught? Should there be follow up courses? Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

AQ, I can't say more than this: I agree with you entirely.

Harlan, But there has always been a cultural demonization of sexuality to a certain extent in modern times. And in ancient times, violence was the norm.

There is no cause and effect here: Instead, you are dealing with two separate issues.

But there ARE studies indicating that abortion has caused our crime rate to go significantly down, as the majority of the promiscuous teens in the 70s who had abortions would have produced more problem children.

IMHO, the answer isn't abortions, however. The answer is either abstinence or birth control.

daveawayfromhome said...

"Abstinence always works: If it's applied."

Abstinence is the oldest available form of "birth control". I'd like to know of one era in history when it was used 100% of the time.

There's a reason that birth control devices were invented, and it wasnt to give married mothers a break from baby-making.

daveawayfromhome said...

"I'd like to know of one era in history when it was used 100% of the time."

Before anyone else jumps all over that sentence, let me acknowledge its stupidity.
What I meant to say was something along the line of, if there was a period of history in which abstinence was successfully used as a social movement, I'd love to hear about it. However, I suspect that even the Shakers had trouble with it.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Dave, Brilliant! But you're right, the Shakers used it and it was so effective that they no longer exist. ;o)

No one preaches total abstinence. But Christians (and many others) recommend abstinence until marriage for a variety of reasons.

That doesn't mean that everyone does it, and we can't expect them to.

undergroundlogician said...

Saur:

1. Well, you assume that when I suggest common sense or religion, I immediately mean that we must force it on others some how. Not so. It must be taught, it must be lived. We don't impose, we PROPOSE.

2. I'm not sure that we necessarily use the extreme of tribal extinction as a measuring rod of the goodness or badness of practices, though it can be ONE of them. Though tribes, societies and nations do suffer from the type of immoral climate, to say that a tribe has been doing it for thousands of years with no apparent negative side effects, like extinction hardly speaks to the injustice and harm done to individuals and people groups. Gee, some tribes and societies have allowed slavery for thousands of years, should we act so swiftly to remove this scourge? Islamic culture, principly in Central Africa flourished with supplying a slave hungry world with the human commodity they "harvested" from other native African tribes.

Your argument on extinction is moot.

3. The fact that we can't hold others to standards does NOT mean we become passive. Societies holds each of its members accountable through its laws, education, and even religious practices (GASP!). Are we to say that we are to let everyone find their own way? What kind of political chaos would develop. There must be rule of law, and in our Democratic Republic, an educated moral populace holds our leaders feet to the fire to make sure the rule of law is legislated and enforced.

4. Daveaway: I can't think of anything more idiotic than for a people group to ignore their religious heritage and the traditions that have forged the culture that we currently live in, though badly corroding with immmorality and illogicality.

Nuff said for now. I have to think.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground,

(BTW - Your name always makes me think of The Hobbit)


1. True. But they won't listen. It shouldn't stop us from telling it, but it should lessen our expectations.

2. You didn't get my point. I agree that anyone practicing such self indulgent behaviors such as the savages did and many modern people currently do does not lead ultimately to happiness or well-being. It's one reason that civilization has prospered. And no doubt when we lose sight of the right way to behave, society can suffer as a whole - as do individuals. I wasn't saying it WORKED.

What I was saying (and perhaps poorly) is that religion, and specifically Christianity, has overall caused civilization to be created and to flourish.

Seculary humanitarians have traditionally said two things:

1. We should leave the savages savage. Who's to say what's right or wrong?

2. Christianity doesn't have to exist - it's only common sense made into religion. BUT: If it's merely common sense, why hasn't it been practiced by the savages before? Because it ISN'T common sense but it does make sense and we've seen enough of civilization to know that it's a better way.

3. Chaos, no. I have no easy answers here, as I was trying to demonstrate (again, perhaps badly). My point is that because we have no common definitions of right and wrong any more, we will descend into chaos. But will we somehow decide to go back to our original standards (which were based on Christianity)?

I doubt it. Too many people want their way. We are going the way of the Roman empire and choosing to abandon our principles and morals. Therefore, you are fighting a rising tide and the battle is, most likely, over. We have lost.

Therefore, if we have lost, even though we are right and they are wrong, we must realize that there will have to be compromise. NOT compromise in our faith, but compromise in our laws, as not everyone shares the same faith.

So, laws to stop contraception from being sold are to MY mind an acceptable compromise. That doesn't mean that what they're doing is correct, but that we cannot stop them and don't need one more abortion, one more addition to the welfare rolls, or one more drug pusher on the streets.

But in MY faith, contraception is OK as long as it's not abortion. I realize this isn't true with the Catholic faith which you follow.

We BOTH agree that premarital sex is wrong, but we also both agree that our personal beliefs aren't going to stop horny, dumb people from having sex.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground,

P.S. Be prepared to see more of this in the future in so many areas. We cannot argue against evil and chaos from anything but a religious standpoint and our country is not a religious-based country as some of the kooky Muslim countries are. In a Muslim country, it's easy to set and enforce the laws because there is no other opinion or way allowed than the way of Allah.

HERE you will see more and more people challenging the very core of civilization. Remember that the Grand Canyon was eroded away gradually.

undergroundlogician said...

Part 2:

In terms of "forcing" someone to think or act with common sense or religious principle, in a narrow sense, of course this is true. I cannot force someone besides myself to act with good sense. But, again, in context with the common good, this is may be immaterial.

I can lend influence, I can persuade, I can even insist others act in accordance with the good depending on the type of relationship we're talking about, and also on the good. Here we MUST be able to identify what the GOOD is.

Persuasion is often misunderstood as an imposition by those who may not have an argument for the course of their own actions. Because of this, they get irked at the persuader. It does NOT automatically mean that the persuader is wrongfully forcing the other person, unless they are using some verbal or even physical manipulative devices. Physical threats, verbal threats, veiled threats, personal attack or ad hominen are real impositions and cannot be crossed in a free society...unless it is for the common good.

So, if a suicide bomber wants to enter a Pizza Hut and take 150 people to the abyss with him, it is well and good for the police, even the common citizen to impose the necessary means to maintain the common good of those Pizza Hut customers. We can persuade the bomber, entice the bomber, and even threaten bodily harm to the bomber prior to his entering said Pizza Hut.

Now for all that said, hard core relativists, though careful not to impose their own personal "truths" on others, do not hold back when it comes to relativism. To them, relativism is the LAW, it must never be violated; IT CANNOT EVEN BE QUESTIONED. All the primping and posturing to insure personal freedom of choice is out the window when it comes to the subject of relativism itself.

So what we have in our culture the reluctance to state what is GOOD, or TRUE. We don't want to violate the sensibilities of those relativists who demand that the individual person determine their own idea of what is good and true. We have turned into a bunch of sissified fragile people who are afraid to violate the so called "principles" of relativism.

This is why I say in fact, relativists are absolutists when it comes to relativism. They make it some crime for someone to have a strong opinion of what is Good or True, whether it is common sense or in religion, and want to persuade others to think the same. They go into attack mode and make absolutists out to be arrogant ninnies who embrace contradictions and who unequivocally force it on others. Yet, they don't realize that THEY DO PRECISELY WHAT THEY CONDEMN IN OTHERS. They are arrogant in their relativism, and they PUSH this relativism on others with all sorts of threats.

To conclude since I've way too long here, I am not allowed by charity to impose my beliefs on others. But when it comes to the commmon good and welfare of others, including the innocent, I can damn well make my thoughts known with gusto. And the arrogant ninnies who want to stop me with their absolutistic relativism better step aside or else their tender feelings may get hurt. But, since their feelings are a product of their own personal truths, it will not harm anyone else. That would be for the common good.

undergroundlogician said...

You and I are posting at the same time, so I didn't get to read your response after I posted Part 2.

We agree. I see that. And, for what its worth, we are probably in a losing battle. That being said, there are many good willed people out their, Saur, who for a lack of understanding, are trying to do and think with the moral and intellectual development they have been dealt. We, who have moral clarity and good sense, can be agents of influence, even if it means relativists condemn our actions as proseletyzing (sp?) and we become unpopular. It is the price of gaining and maintaining the good.

The Common Good, and the principles that define it, must be guarded and fought for or else, individuals will suffer greatly for it. Our individualized culture with its relativism will eventual cause our culture to decend into chaos, which destroys individuals. Ironic? YES.

I have no argument with you. You are sharp, and I learn from you. I don't want to give up, though. Perhaps, your blog and mine, along with others who think similarly is what is staving off the descent into cultural chaos. Peace, lil' sister!

Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground, Yes. ;o)

The Lazy Iguana said...

"Though I am in favor of allowing teens to see the consequences of future wrong actions, do you think that this will offset these "chemicals?"

Probably not. Brain chemicals are fairly powerful. You have millions of years of evolution and instinct buried in some of those chemicals - going back to a time before there were humans. We are a product of nature, part of the natural world. In many ways there are not many differences in us and chimps.

But humans DO have reason. Something chimps do not have. We can overcome some instinct and primal urges. For example, firefighters that run TOWARDS a fire. Lower animals would run away. Humans are instinctively afraid of heights, but yet there are rock climbers and pilots.

But still, there are throwbacks to earlier times buried in all of us. It is part of us. It is not something we can ignore, write off, or reason away. It is there.

Now consider that kids do not have fully formed brains. They may lack reason.

"This is Polyanna Liberalism in its clearest display. Phooey on it. There needs to be a grass-roots movement of religion back in this country and I nominate Christianity."

Pollyanna liberalism huh? What does that even mean? Why is your one system solution any better than any other one system solution? Why would church be effective here? In the "good old days" a 16 year old girl would just be married off. Problem solved, Jesus is happy, everything is fine. Or in the more recent "good old days" the girl would either make herself scarce and when the baby was born it would be shipped off to an orphanage, be raised by some other relative, there would be a shotgun wedding, or if the family had money there would be a vacation overseas, returning with a less pregnant daughter.

Yes - before abortion was legal the wealthy in the US could go somewhere else and get an abortion. Then some back home and pretend like nothing happened.

I do not think there is any easy way out here. Telling kids "don't do it till you are married" is way outdated. When do you get married? When you can afford to support a family? Well hell these days that means you would be in your 30s. Is it reasonable to push this idea? I do not think so. This is where "abstinence only" fails - it REJECTS all other options. If you get sucked into the idea, you are actually less likely to use any other method of birth control when the need arises.

There is a MYTH pushed by the abstinence only crowd about the alternative view. The myth is that the other side ignores abstinence as an option. It does not. Abstinence, IF PRACTICED, is always effective. People are told this right up front. Problem is that what to do when it is not practiced? Abstinence only ignores this part - leaving followers with a less than informed an realistic view of other methods in the dark.

But the other side does NOT teach that other methods are effective. Birth control pills can fail, and do nothing to prevent STD. Condoms can break, and if applied incorrectly have an even higher incidence of failure. And yes, there is an incorrect way of application. You can still get pregnant, and you can still contract or spread a STD. This is what "Pollyanna liberalism" actually teaches.

You know, reality. Is it perfect? No. Is the world perfect? No.

But is what is taught true? Yes it is.

Do kids still have sex? Yes. Do young girls still get pregnant? Yes. Did this happen 50 years ago? Yes. Did this happen 100 years ago? Yes. Did it happen 2,000 years ago in biblical times? Yes. Did it happen 10,000 years ago before written human history? Yes. Will it still be happening 50 years from now? Yes.

daveawayfromhome said...

"Pollyanna liberalism"? This is different from Pollyanna Christianity in what way? Less hellfire-and-damnation, presumably. Certainly no less belief that they have all the answers.

undergroundlogician said...

Dave:

Polyanna Liberalism: Utopianism, the idea that a relativism without discriminating between right and wrong; the belief that the cause of the wars, suffering and unhappiness is from religion and the pursuit of "right and wrong." If we remove the notion of right and wrong that cause the fighting in the first place, you will eliminate the causes of wars, suffering and pain.

Read Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind." He goes into this.

Lazy:

Gee, since we always had bad things since the beginning of time, let's stop the incesant fighting over it and accept it as a part of our evolution? How defeatist and well...LAZY!

Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground, Have you ever seen the movie "A Man for All Seasons"? You would love it.

undergroundlogician said...

Yes, I have, starring Charleton Heston! I'm glad you saw it also!

It is awesome and an excellent tool in understanding the role of law in society and the Church. Too often, we "colonialists" have a fear of religion in the public sphere because of the threat of oppression, which was VERY REAL in England and before the Revolution. Funny though is what is not recognized by our generation.

England's state religion, Anglicanism and the State itself, were both headed by one man, the Monarch of England, from King Henry VIII following. This was trouble from day one. It was a pattern that was used by the Caesars of ancient Rome. The emperor was "Pontifex Maximus", the "High Priest", who control the religion of Rome. Henry, in essence, became like a Caesar and ran both State and Religion; He became the "Pontifex Maximus" of the Christian religion in England. For the sake of so called freedom, Henry and then especially Elizabeth, then became very oppressive. It is the Catholic Church that separates itself from the State, well now that the Pope no longer rule the city states around the Vatican. The Church learned its lesson well. It definitely acts to form and prick the conscience of the State to make sure that true justice is taking place. It's when temporal rulers make themselves heads of religion is where the problems occur.

The other thing not recognized is that in America, we have a religion in full force; we just don't see as one. But it is becoming oppressive also. Secular Humanism, which currently allows religious pluralism, is the "religion" that rules the day. However, I think the time for freedom of religion is about up and we will see more attacks on those things Christian in our country than ever before.

Anytime the PC police squelch the freedom of religious expression in the marketplace, it is due to an infraction of the supposed tenets of secularism--religion is a private matter and must be practiced only in private. Any religious expression in the public sphere is seen immediately as proselytizing and is seen as a violation of rights. Ironically, secularists become coercive in creating barriers when and where religious expression is appropriate. What gives them this divine authority to marshall public religious expression? Under what principles? Do secularists have a say as to where God is to be followed, revered or talked about? Doesn't God own the market place too? Does God "answer" to these secularists in His/Her demands of behavior in the public square? Who do these secularists think they are?

The Doozie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Doozie said...

Well, I'm weighing in late which is unfortunate, because what I have to say is not going to be very popular.

First, I read and re-read the post. NO where in the writing is there any mention of these parents being "poor". What it says is they did not finish high school which does not mean someone is poor. You people got way off track here from the original post.

In my opinion the commenter’s are missing the point that Saur was making. BECAUSE the parents didn't finish high school, they should be a little more in tune with raising their kids to do better than they did. They don’t learn from their mistakes, and they have very little insight into their deficits. In other words, they are very low on Emotional Intelligence, which has NOTHING to do with an education or how much money you have.

With that said, I take offense to the comments about the "poor" and the "uneducated" not needing to pro-create, and or having too many kids. Do you want to know what ignorant, uneducated and uninformed statements are: “

“That kind of story is almost a cliche for the uneducated poor. I can think of several almost exactly like that one from my high school days. One of them did involve jail time”


“Since we no longer believe in survival of the fittest (I sure wish we did) the poor, uneducated, or idiots keep mass producing”

Anytime you generalize and or put one class of people in a box, you are being ignorant, and you are no better than the ones you accuse. I don’t know about you, but I have seen and known a lot of idiots that have money and educations.

When it comes to parenting, they spoil their kids, they don't pay attention to them, and the kids turn out to be nasty little mooches on society.


Define "poverty"
Define "uneducated"

If it is defined as people who did not finish high school, or did finish but never went to college, if being poor is defined as someone who lives at or below the poverty level of this country, then I am those things.

That is why I take offense. I was not "educated" until my late 30's. That education did very little to improve my wealth. In fact, I have a job that has nothing to do with my degree. I finished high school, I waited to have kids, and I only had one. I got my education, I have a job, and I have common sense. I had common sense well before I ever got educated. I was born with it.

I work at a 911 dispatch center and we dispatch for TWO University towns. I see the mug shots of the spoiled little frat/sorority snots. The "rich" "educated" kids are out getting themselves arrested for being idiots. Explain THAT to me.


Let me give examples of some of the “educated” and “non poor” that call my work.

They call 911 to ask for a phone number, to report someone stole their bike that wasn’t locked up, someone stole their car when in fact they were so drunk the night before they don’t know where they left it, they don't know which road or highway they are on, they have no idea which direction they are going, they didn't realize "mileposts where so far apart", or THEIR kid isn't going to be in the filthy, rat infested jail, no matter WHAT they did.

These are University towns, packed full of Educated, well off people. And yet a good majority of them are complete idiots. And they are PROCREATING. OH MY GOD


Nothing is going to change so long as human beings roam this earth. DNA provides that for us, as it follows its path and the stupid create more stupid. And the stupid come in all shapes and sizes, and all income levels. When someone figures out how to teach common sense, I want to know. In the meantime, before you look down on someone for their status in this society, you might want to think about how ignorant it makes you look.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Doozie, You know, these are very excellent points, indeed. I wish you'd weighed in earlier when you would've had more readers. This should cause us all to check ourselves. You make a very important and very valid distinction between emotionally/morally uneducated and the truly uneducated. After all, there are many educated who are also morally bankrupt. And you are one of the brighter women I know, education or not. ;o)