So this stupid girl spends six months banging her supervisor all over town, and somehow it's Starbucks fault to the tune of $16 million.
Between the ages of 14 and 16, Moore had "sexual encounters" with seven men, according to the records. She had encounters with another five during the time she knew the supervisor.
"They are trying to defend themselves by calling me a slut," Moore told the program.
What else do you call it after you've treated your vagina like a drive through window?
The funny part is the claim for $200,000 in lost wages. That's over $50,000 per year in salary, to pour coffee and maybe warm up a bagel?
Damn. I guess I'm in the wrong line of work.
44 comments:
What else do you call it after you've treated your vagina like a drive through window?
I will tell you what you call her: a girl who is allowed to have sex with as many people if she wants to without incurring the judgement of society. If you want to live in a country where we police the sexual activities of women, move to the Middle East!
Of course, if she is below 18, she cannot give legal consent. On that, I don't have a particular opinion on the fact of the family suing Starbucks.
Really, Gino? I see $16 million that says she (or someone she was savvy enough to grab as an advisor) isn't "stupid."
I do agree with your implied secondary point, that unless Starbucks should reasonably have known about this relationship and upon that theoretical discovery did not act immediately to discipline both employees for illegal (and presumably against company policy) conduct ... unless they could be held reasonably responsible for knowingly allowing/encouraging illegal conduct, there shouldn't be a case. against them at all. (I also agree that in many cases I've watched here in Oregon, organizations have been rightly held to the fire for not keeping a reasonable eye out for such things.)
Amanda, I do think it is pertinent that she was very sexually active, as it demonstrates that old definitions of statutory rape, upon which millions of dollars are in this case riding, would not be perhaps a very pertinent description of the relationship--since the idea of statutory rape is based on the theory that the minor in question is not capable of consent, and that society can and should protect the minor from being seduced into activities they would not otherwise participate in. If the older man was her first sexual encounter, stronger argument that the relationship contributed to the delinquency of a minor ... if he was her seventh or so, maybe not so much. $16 million is presumably some sort of payment for "damages" ... if she was in fact damaged by having sex/a lot of sex (which I am willing to guess she was), her choices to have many partners indicate that she was at least somewhat responsible for her own damage. And that not working at Starbucks would probably not have significantly changed her overall behavior pattern, unless this particular guy was "her first" (or particularly horrible) and she was trying to prove to herself that even being sexually active (or abused) she still had worth.
If *she* played the "slut" card, if she chose to bring that word into the conversation/debate when the other side had not used it (even though they had undoubtably implied it), *she* is encouraging the stereotype--which you are *not,* by righteously proclaiming a right to a potentially positive (in your opinion) set of actions. Of course, the report may have (and probably did, for "newsworthiness") cut any/all of her better philosophically based arguments defending herself.
.
On the other hand, (now that I've read the actual article,) the supervisor who told them "no same-store dating" and transferred the guy to another store? Shades of the Catholic Church scandal, there. Clearly she knew their ages. And given modern life (hello?), someone should have checked up on the sex question. Gossip isn't that hard to come by.
So, Gino, your problem here with the corporate responsibility is?
Plus the article clearly supports the 'perceives self as broken' thesis. Once that comes into play, ABSOLUTELY it is appropriate to admit that the minor was in fact not mature enough to carry on multiple sexual relationships in a consentual way.
And now (and Gino you know I love you but this time I'm calling it out) I'm really pissed off that you used the word "stupid" to describe her, you frikking bigotted git. She was a broken little girl in a big girl's body (a pretty common reality), and you are a bigot for asserting she was "stupid" when she was caught in a VERY NORMAL (and societally established/encouraged) cycle of despair.
See also Amanda's recent rant about the messaging society gives about feminine sexuality and the handicapping that *directly causes* to (*both* sexes experiencing) healthy female sexuality.
"Damn, child, you took all the social teachings to heart and believed you were worthless? Well, aren't you a stupid bitch?"
That's gonna work, Gino, and I think you know better than that, actually.
Speaking of rejecting valid responsibility for a problem.
That's *not* gonna work. I meant to type. Although the version that printed up is interestingly extra-sarcastic.
My take; if the law doesn't protect the worst whore (never mind a person who merely sleeps around), it doesn't protect me, either. What Starbucks is trying to do is simply embarass a former worker into abandoning a lawsuit, and that's disgraceful.
Do I agree with Gino that the woman should have been more discriminating with her sexuality? Absolutely. Do I think it allows Starbucks to avoid the rightful provisions of the law? Absolutely not.
"I will tell you what you call her:"
Try again, we'll give you a second chance.
So please do tell us, Amanda, and remember that she was 16 years old.
.... .... ....
So why is this person now suing Starbucks and not the supervisor?
Is this just a money making civil suit or have criminal charges been filed?
Bottom line is she won't get $16 million -- even if she prevails, the lawyers will get a big chunk of it and Sammy will take another chunk. But most likely, the matter will be settled for significantly less because Starbucks doesn't need this sort of publicity and will want the matter to go away.
Whether the young woman had dalliances with other men isn't particularly relevant to the case at hand. The question seems pretty straightforward; if Starbucks had policies in place and ignored them, they're likely to lose in a civil trial. And as a general rule, it's never a good idea to schtup the help, which is why companies have rules against such things.
(walks by staring at the sky, whistling...)
Why is the rape of a 16 year old flippantly tossed aside?
It's criminal.
K-Rod, supervisor is a 24 year old now with a felony sexual conviction and just spent half a year in jail for his crime, according to the article.....good luck getting a financial settlement out of him. His punishment for life is that every HR director at any good job is going to see THAT on his application (or worse, find out on the background check) and file it in the "unacceptable risk of sexual harassment" circular file.
And the rest of this young lady's lovers also need to get the same treatment....hopefully they will.
Sounds like she isn't pressing charges against the other six men.
I also find the parents at fault.
If 51% fault means 100% payment, then Starbucks might be screwed.
Starbucks should be more careful in the future, there are an awful lot of ambulance chasers and gold-mining-opportunists out there.
.... ....
OK, now, this story gets weirder and weirder by the moment:
"When Moore's mother discovered the relationship and called the police,...
Moore agreed to be transferred to another store, but continued to see Horton in secret, according to the records.... ...her mother called Integrity House, a home in Utah for troubled teens. Counselors from Integrity House "abducted" Moore with her parents' consent, shoving her into a car and driving her to their facility, where she lived for the next year...
Moore's family has sued Starbucks in federal court,... and $200,000 in loss of earnings to date.
Wait, did Starbucks abduct her?
Who is suing Starbucks?
Is there a child-in-a-balloon angle to this story?
Minor at the time, state presses charges regardless of her will--she cannot consent. Starbucks is liable even if only 1% liable, and Integrity House did the kidnapping--SOP for many homes like that.
I don't envy her as she's "invited" to the witness stand by Charbucks lawyers.
"Minor at the time, state presses charges regardless of her will--she cannot consent."
It sounds like they only pressed charges on one out of six.
....
"I don't envy her as she's "invited" to the witness stand by Charbucks lawyers."
She doesn't have a choice in the matter, especially if it is the family (aka mom) that is suing.
.... ....
It's not a good situation and I feel sorry for her and what she has gone through, but something seems a bit fishy.
and to think i approached the keyboard last nite thinking "i got nuthin..."
kr: i think the girl may well agree with me that she was indeed stupid to allow herself to fall into that behavior.
but you know what...
i can see the feminists all at war to nail this guy/starbucks because this girl was too young/emotionally unfit for sex...
while arguing that she is a women capable of making the decision to abort any baby that came out of this relationship.
I'm just astounded, doing the math, at how much sex that is: seven sexual partners over three years...that's over two a year! If those are the only sexual partners she's ever had, then that's seven more than I've ever had! I'm not saying it's good or bad...I'm just amazed...
(;
Tully, when a young lady casts off restraint, there are those who will take advantage of her. I'm personally the great uncle of a child whose mother isn't exactly sure who the father is.
(and it may not be that much sex, but it sure is a lot of PARTNERS....studies find that those who have the most actual sex are married people, specifically married people who wait for marriage to partake)
Gino, exactly.
K-rod, agreed that the state ought to be going after the others. There may be a "not a chance of conviction" issue, of course, but yes.
OK, now that I've read the article, I'm filing this under "a story in which I feel sympathy for no one."
There is something terribly patronizing about the concept of statutory rape. Especially considering that what makes you a loser with a high school girlfriend/a sexually empowered female in one state makes you a sex offender/a rape victim in another.
Could there be mechanism in place to determine competence after the fact(analogous to finding competency to stand trial), if someone decides to press charges for rape? In other words, retain the idea that if one is not capable of consenting, then they were raped, but without drawing arbitrary and problematic bright lines?
Also, the fact that a guy named Tim Horton works at Starbucks is freaking hilarious.
What I find particularly interesting in all of this is the double standard. Society preaches SEX to teenagers all the time! They get taught how to have sex "safely," they get entertained with it, they get copious amounts of advertising that pushes it, etc...
And then we find this surprising? Of course heartbreaking, life-changing traumas like this happen. We've given it the rubber stamp. Why do we think that teenagers are going to exercise good judgment on these matters?
They might do so, but only if they are taught what they should be doing (and what they shouldn't) in no uncertain terms. Sex for teenagers is a disaster for teenagers, period.
Bike Bubba: cf. my previous emoticon indicating sarcasm...
(:
kr - I loved reading your comments. You always bring a very nuanced POV. I can see the idea of using the word "slut" in a different way, though. Here's what I'm thinking:
Bringing the word "slut" into the conversation is empowering, not the other way around. The lawyers representing *bux are trying to influence the results by "slut-shaming" the woman. Since "being a slut" isn't legally reprehensible, the fact of the woman calling it out makes their implications lose power, because the notion that *bux mgmt should avoid their HR responsibilities just because the girl is a slut doesn't hold water.
Bike Bubba - I completely agree that it's disgraceful of Starbucks to embarrass her out of a lawsuit.
K-Rod - Starbucks is getting sued because as kr noted, mgmt types in Starbucks knew about the affair, and failed to report it up the HR chain.
***
I am surprised and pleased to find that I agreed with everything Mr. D said.
***
Tully - Two people a year is a lot? What if you date someone for six months, have sex with them, and then break up. Then date another person for six months, and have sex with them. And then break up. The partners start to add up in the life of someone who waits a long time to get married. Unless you have the opinion that you should only have one partner for life; if that's the case, there's no difference between 2 and a million - both are over the limit. If that's not the case, then # of partners one ought to have throughout their life is rather subjective/arbitrary.
Gino - Would you argue that though a girl is too young to give consent to have sex, she is emotionally capable of bearing and raising a child?
Feminists wouldn't argue that she can have an abortion because she is capable of making the decision; they do say that women are capable of deciding, but the arguement is that a person should be allowed to have an abortion because she is an autonomous human being who has a right to make her own decisions about what happens to her body.
Bike Bubba again - studies find that those who have the most actual sex are married people, specifically married people who wait for marriage to partake
I'm not buying that - the latter part about people who wait to partake. If you don't mind citing that, and can remember where it is, I would really like to read it.
Brian - but without drawing arbitrary and problematic bright lines?
You do mean statutory rape, right? (Not all rape?)
Statutory rape is problematic, the reasons you listed. Especially when the data gets mixed into sex offender stats. An 18 year-old sleeping with their 17-year old boy/girlfriend is rape? That's so wrong. I wish I could add some great legal insight into how to fix that, but I have none.
WBP - (Sorry, this starts with what you said, but then I get a little tangential.) I think we will disagree across the board on the topic of teens and sex. But I know your heart is in the right place.
Teenagers who are taught safe sex, who have access to contraception - use it. Teenagers who are taught abstinence, at one point or another will give into raging hormones and go for it anyway. And they probably won't have condoms on hand. Evidence for this is that after eight years of the government pouring money into abstinence-only education during the Bush years, the teen pregnancy rate went UP for the first time since 1990.
People can be taught abstinence, by the religions to which they ascribe, but religion has no place in public schools, or other federal programs that contribute to educating and raising children. It may be offensive to many religions to teach kids how to have sex safely, but it's truly for the public good. Less teenagers getting pregnant contributes to the public good.
Anecdotally, I can't name one friend among my acquaintance who waited until marriage to have sex (though some purposely only had sex with the person they later married), many were teenagers at the time, and this fact about them hasn't been a disaster in the least. Why? Because we were educated, we were trusted to make our own decisions (sort of), and we had access to birth control. Period.
As for the girl in question, this relates to a larger topic. Statutory rape laws were created to protect young girls from being preyed upon (and thus impregnated) by older men who are not looking for relationships (as in, they wouldn't stick around to help raise the kid). The man who slept with this girl committed statutory rape, not because teenagers are taught sex, or overloaded by sexual messages in the media, but because he has bought into a culture that glamorizes the sexuality of young women, youth in general, and the sexist notion that women are objects to be controlled. Why else would you prey upon a 16-year old, unless you were looking for a sexual relationship in which you could enjoy unquestioning authority and leverage? The fact that he was her boss makes it that much more reprehensible.
Which isn't to say that one day when I'm a parent, if I have a child involved in that kind of a dalliance, that I'm going to be prosecuting their adult predator while at the same time cheerleading my child's sexual conquests. Hell no. I believe that equipping a kid with education, resources, and teaching them about people who only want to use them, who may sexually prey on them (whether they are older men/women, or same-age frat boys), is the way to raise them up right to begin with.
***
Good discussion, y'all!
"...mgmt types in Starbucks knew about the affair, and failed to report it up the HR chain."
I saw no evidence that Starbucks Corporate knew that one employee raped another employee and did nothing about it.
.... .... ....
Some excellent points on the double standards in our society. Nice job, folks!
Amanda-yes, of course...I meant statutory rape specifically there.
Amanda, the source was a study out of the U. of Chicago circa 1990 or so. I was going to look it up, but the first page Google returned....was pretty gross.
The logic isn't that hard to understand, though; those who have a significant number of partners are simply far more likely to have a gift that keeps on giving (1999, NIH, 1/3 of adults do) and are also going to be far more likely to be thinking of the wrong person.
I can think of few more effective ways of putting a crimp in one's "romantic style," to put it gently.
Which is one big reason why, ahem, half of marriages are ending in divorce, about a million children each year are murdered in the womb, and another million are born outside the protetion of an intact family--and yet another million each year end up with single parents before they graduate from high school, a huge portion of them in poverty.
I don't know what data you're looking at, Amanda, but quite frankly, those are some pretty significant consequences of "fooling around" that just seem to have gotten worse since they started teaching comprehensive, SIECUS based sex ed.
But there is enough distance between the libertine act and the moral consequence that many are able to cling to plausible deniability. At least there is for awhile, if you're looking for it.
Cool conversation; I'm sorry I missed most of it. Interestingly, I agree with an awful lot of it. (Although Tully, you are putting the lie to my image of Catholic colleges being more or less like regular ones ... I agree with Amanda, two sexual partners a year does not seem very surprising ;) ... and for a female who is open to sex? Pretty open playing field.)
Gino, damn it, *I AM A FEMINIST* ... I happen to be in the style of Susan B Anthony instead of Hilary Clinton is all. I asume you've heard of the Susan B Anthony List?!? I am anti-abortion.
I am arguing from an earlier standpoint--this girl was victimized a LONG TIME BEFORE the actual sexual penetrations/etc occurred.
If y'all want to stop seeing irresponsible teenage behavior (from both genders), society needs to make real and protracted and actual commitments to one of two things:
1) de-sexualizing youth images and messaging or
2) actually teaching our children sufficiently so that when they reach sexual functionality they have some chance of entering the fray mature enough to deal with it.
(I am not at all convinced #2 is possible, and I strongly thing #1 is more developmentally appropriate, according to a variety of neurological and less hard-science studies.)
In either case, an absolute rejection of all messaging and imagery that denigrates females, especially females who are being sexual, would need to occur. You want happy sexually active women? Don't pound them with reasons to feel inadequate and/or sinful. Don't teach them that "giving it up" is a concept that can be considered healthy--because "giving it up" usually means a girl gave up self esteem, sense of worth, sense of her own identity, sense of control ... not "just" opened her legs for some "fun" (or, to pleasure the male, or, probably more often in a society that teaches females that life is all about Fear--to try to keep the male interested).
I appreciate, by the way, that your former Wednesday feature has not made appearances for a while.
Anyone who thinks porn or soft-porn is "alright" needs to recognize that it cannot coexist with an anti-abortion culture. It's the girls who get stuck with the babies, team, and as long as that is true you aren't going to see abortions repealed ... too convenient for the "daddies" as well as the "mommies," and every pro-lifer should have seen aplenty pamphlets by now about how many of the girls/women going in for abortions felt forced by the other people in their life, usually their sexual partner ... so we need to make sure the girls don't get stuck with babies. And to do that, we need to either arm them with fullproof contraception, or deliberately ramp down pro-sex messaging.
Or clip all the males, of course. I hear that's usually reversible now.
In any case, this girl probably does not consider herself "stupid" in the regular way. And really, she's hated herself for long enough, don't you think? And I still think you were posting in a reactive manner, and I was (am) disappointed that your reaction was so bigotted--denying a very common experience for young women in our society, which you *must* have had presented to you before, because it is foreign to your own experience/way of thinking.
I've rejected plenty of male-centric experience descriptions in my day ... but I'm working to change that. I'm calling you out, because I *think* you are also working to change your auto-reject function.
Amanda, I had a similar conversation with two gay men on Christmas afternoon about the word "cunt" (yes, I had a weird Christmas) ... I can see your point, and yes, it ought to shame the Starbucks lawyers if they were trying to use unspoken and distinctly extra-legal societal judgments to tip the case ... the thing is, though, that I doubt that most of America would yet think "Oh, yeah, Starbucks should be ashamed" ... I think most of America, given that easy-out word, will think "oo, you know, Starbucks has a point, um, er, oh, maybe I shouldn't have thought that first ... but really ... " (see also unfortunate blogging choice by Gino).
If she/her lawyers had been savvier, they could have redirected the watercooler conversation to something like this string has been ... like Ronald Reagan, who, when questioned during his second campaign about his age compared to that of his opponent, said, "Well, I prefer not to talk about my opponent's youth and inexperience." Dunno if that line was his idea or his speech team's ... but it totally diffused the criticism. (It is among the first political moments I remember. That and Geraldine Ferraro standing next to Walter Mondale, and--now that I am an adult I can appreciate this second part--Mondale actually looking like he was glad to have her there.)
Now, as it turned out, America SHOULD have paid a little more attention to that age issue with Reagan ... but, I'm just saying ;) (sigh), a little rhetorical savvy goes a long way, and playing into traditional categories of vicitimization just doesn't strike me as a good public relations(/civil litigation) strategy.
"Cunt" I think can be recovered, since it actually refers to something and it's just the derogatoriness that needs to go away. "Slut" I can't figure how it could ever be anything except derogatory--except in circles where rampant casual sex is considered a truly positive behavior. I've heard teens and 20-somethings use it that way ... but really the underlying sense of irony they project suggests they are raging against the machine instead of stepping out in pride.
However, I *don't* think "cunt" can properly be recovered by gay men, even if they are riding on the coattails of a feminist female friend who told them it was ok.
Just sayin'.
I'll dispute Amanda's and KR's points that suggest you can't stand in the way of hormones (Amanda: Teenagers who are taught abstinence, at one point or another will give into raging hormones and go for it anyway. And they probably won't have condoms on hand. KR: 2) actually teaching our children sufficiently so that when they reach sexual functionality they have some chance of entering the fray mature enough to deal with it.
(I am not at all convinced #2 is possible).
My scientific sample may be limited to my family, but I tell you that you most definitely can create a standard and expectation of behavior for your children that helps them develop a healthy self-control and to rise above animal instincts. You don't just throw up your hands and say "What are you gonna do?" or "All hail the mighty hormone!".
Granted, this is more difficult when the culture tends to be a gigantic hormone cheering section, but for us it started with spending time with our daughters from their earliest ages, being around them, communicating our standards not in a list of Do's and Don't's on a wall, but an ongoing series of "Why's" and "Why not's" on a wide range of subjects as we lived our daily lives. Of course, it takes consistancy and commitment on the part of the parents, but it's not such an insurmountable assignment. In fact, spending the time with your children and seeing them develop both in intellect and character is a delight. Yes, it can be hard work, but not - it seems to me - more difficult than the heartache of seeing your children ensnared.
Further, my wife and I didn't feel as if our own shortcomings and youthful misadventures disqualified us from desiring better and expecting more for our children. In fact, these events made us even more aware of the importance of instilling such values. I don't write this to condemn anyone but to exhort others that it is possible, regardless of what "everyone else" is doing. And for any who might be tempted to suggest that my daughters are repressed automatons who can't think or speak for themselves, I can only say that you obviously haven't spoken with, or read, them.
"...your reaction was so bigotted..."
Would you care to explain yourself? Why not?
....
Good points, NW, and good for you. Nice job.
bigotted is in the eye of the beholder.
i call them how i see them, but i think that is already known to my readers by now.
as for my own kids, yes, i absolutely taught my daughter the meaning of 'slut', and how becoming one devalues her personhood. she bought the lesson, and i have no regrets.
i can also vouch for NW's claims per his daughters. i've met them, and read them. he's done a fine job, above and beyond what some may think possible.
anyway...
this whole posting was about my opinion as regards the validity of her claim that her muffin was worth so much money ($16mil) seeing as how often it had been buttered.
that, and how a coffee pourer can be making $50k per year. i know its a lie, because both my kids have worked starbucks, and one currently does again. this is in the same geographic region as the story.
unless, of course, she was selling muffin with the coffee. its the only way.
Holy crap, I totally didn't realize all these new responses had been added.
Before I say anything further, please tell me, all of you fathers in this thread, PLEASE tell me you are only mentioning talking to your daughters not being sluts - BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SONS. Is that right? Or is this conversation completely hopeless?
kr, I agree with your interpretation about the tendency of the average person to foster the "slut meme," but I really am convinced that in a professional lawyerly setting, the accusation (by the woman) is salient. It is possible for respective legal teams to bow to outside pressure, but that's not something I can predict.
Personally, I am interesting in stripping the power from the word slut in general. And it's funny you should mention "cunt" because I wrote about this in my blog a long time ago. It's basically - you might already know this - from an old word meaning "vagina." That's right - the "c-word," which is supposed to be the worst word you can call a woman, means "vagina." Kind of pathetic that this should persist in being an insult. (Here's the entry! http://memeopolis.blogspot.com/2008/09/my-new-boyfriend-mr-blogger-d-com.html)
Which is one big reason why, ahem, half of marriages are ending in divorce, about a million children each year are murdered in the womb, and another million are born outside the protetion of an intact family--and yet another million each year end up with single parents before they graduate from high school, a huge portion of them in poverty.
I don't know what data you're looking at, Amanda, but quite frankly, those are some pretty significant consequences of "fooling around" that just seem to have gotten worse since they started teaching comprehensive, SIECUS based sex ed.
How does sex before marriage affect the divorce rate? The number one reason for divorce is money - disagreement on how to arrange financial matters, irresponsibility on the part of one or both of the partners, the accumulating stress as a result of money matters. How does sex before marriage affect that? Or any other divorce reason?
I can tell you that my mother tells ME that people who live together before they get married (ahem, her DAUGHTER, currently) are more likely to get divorced, though MY decision (and his) for living together first, is due to the fact that we take marriage very seriously, and don't want to make a mistake. Now, how would my mother know better than me? She didn't live with her husband first; that's MY experience. I know better how it works, and what couples are thinking when they go down this path.
(If I would have married in my last serious relationship without sleeping with him first, it would have been HORRIBLE, because our physical connection so to speak, was awful, awful, awful. And apparently unfixable, though not for lack of attempting to fix the situation. I deserve to be miserable my whole life in the bedroom and be denied the God-given gift of intimacy with my loved one just because I got stuck with a selfish partner? Hell no. I would have divorced his ass.)
Sex before marriage MAY be a factor of abortion (not the only one, by a long shot), but whatever the current rate of abortion is, it's not something that can be considered detrimental to the public good, however repulsive that idea may be to you.
I also don't know the number of babies being born to single parents, but an intact family isn't a foolproof method for protecting a child. Despite my immoral attitude toward sex before marriage, I wasn't deviant at all as a child. I didn't drink or do drugs in high school, I was on the high honor roll, I graduated from college. And I grew up with "non-intact" family until I was 12 yrs old. A family that's "intact" can still be detrimental for a child, either due to poverty or abuse. What I suffered from MOST was the attitude from society that I should feel ashamed of not having an "intact" family.
Finally, how is teaching a teenager how to use a condom going to increase the pregnancy rate? That is truly, truly perplexing. Condoms are 99% effective, when used correctly, and still pretty damn effective when used sloppily. Adults don't want to teach teenagers to give into their hormones. They want to teach them to protect themselves.
It's the job of parents and churches in other words, to tell kids they're going to hell if they have sex. Not schools.
Granted, this is more difficult when the culture tends to be a gigantic hormone cheering section, but for us it started with spending time with our daughters from their earliest ages, being around them, communicating our standards not in a list of Do's and Don't's on a wall, but an ongoing series of "Why's" and "Why not's" on a wide range of subjects as we lived our daily lives. Of course, it takes consistancy and commitment on the part of the parents, but it's not such an insurmountable assignment. In fact, spending the time with your children and seeing them develop both in intellect and character is a delight. Yes, it can be hard work, but not - it seems to me - more difficult than the heartache of seeing your children ensnared.
Further, my wife and I didn't feel as if our own shortcomings and youthful misadventures disqualified us from desiring better and expecting more for our children. In fact, these events made us even more aware of the importance of instilling such values.
None of my argument or anecdotes is to contradict raising a child like Night Writer describes. "Whys" and "Why nots" are great, and self-control IS important. But instilling these values didn't also mean keeping them in ignorance of sex and birth control, right? I mean, the difference is exactly what I'm trying to say.
"Look, here's the deal, and you will probably be safer and happier if you act this way, and here are some reasons why I am telling you that."
"PLEASE tell me you are only mentioning talking to your daughters not being sluts"
Hello? Do you need to go back and re-read the post?
Per one of Amanda's recent comments, I don't have any sons, only daughters. Because I have daughters, however, I took it upon myself to reach out to groups of young men their age to try and establish or reinforce notions of decency and respect. The Fundamentals in Film series on my blog is one example. In one of those meetings one of the young men said something about "sluts" and "bitches" and I asked him what he thought those words meant and how they applied to the group of young women he was talking about.
He was pretty flummoxed by the question and being put on the spot but it forced him and the others to think about the words they used so casually (as with a similar conversation we had with a boy in the group who's favorite word was "retarded" to describe something he didn't like). Essentially, re bitches and sluts, we "determined" that bitches were girls that didn't do what you wanted them to, and sluts were those who did. "Dude," another boy said, slapping the back of the first one's head, "you're hating on them for being just like us!"
I don't have any illusions about changing the lives or thinking of these young men, but I know I have challenged their thinking and held them to account for their language and actions, and hope it will have a positive effect at some point, though they will likely have to go through a lot of pain to get there.
For my daughters, yes, they know the facts of life and the facts of birth control, but also about self-control (and not just what not to do in a situation, but especially how to keep yourself out of that situation in the first place). An important lesson we taught is that sex doesn't create intimacy, it obscures it. If you're really trying to get to know someone - to determine if they have the makings to be a reliable friend and perhaps even a marriage partner - sex is literally the last way you want to find that out.
(Continued...)
As I once wrote in a post about abstinence and in response to the argument to "try before you buy":
Of course, if you buy the logic that not having sex before you’re married is a sure recipe for marital trouble you’d naturally have to believe that having sex before marriage is a major factor in today’s record-low divorce rate. My experience is that sex may make you physical, but it hardly makes you intimate. In fact, once sex enters the relationship it clouds your ability (or even your desire) to properly evaluate your partner’s character, personality and long-term goals if doing so could interfere with getting sex. Rather than taking the time to talk out important issues, or raise questions about troubling actions or statements by the other person, you keep quiet so as not to cause a fight that might mean “no sex tonight.” At the very least, you take up time that could be invested in finding out what the other person is really like.
The physical passion will eventually wane to some extent but the person’s character and personality will stay the same. A person’s inherent witchiness or sloth, ambition (or lack thereof), the number of kids s/he wants, the way s/he treats others — all can be missed during the “interview” process while you’re focusing on immediate gratification.
The question, at heart, is a good one but it is missing the crucial point. It is important to find out in advance “who” your partner is, how s/he performs under pressure and if you’re “compatible”; these are all things, however, that are better revealed before physical intimacy takes place. Sexual compatibility ultimately comes from knowing you have a partner you trust and understand, and who trusts and understands you. And let’s not forget that the most important sex organ is the brain. Good sex — no, great sex — begins long before you ever get into bed.
(Full post here: http://thenightwriterblog.com/2008/11/30/area-couple-enjoys-abstinence/)
Continued...
My wife and I never tried to be mysterious about sex in raising our kids. My daughters have long had the habit of flopping on the bed with my wife in the evening when she retires to talk about anything and everything, including the words and activities they heard or saw in the media. We also haven't been embarrassed to tell them that there'd be no such discussion on those nights when she and I were going to spend some "quality time" together. Of course they'd roll their eyes and groan, but I think it also helped establish a sense of security for them in the strength of our relationship and the role of sex and of how joy and intimacy are earned. I think that is part of why they are mature beyond their years and perhaps what was missing from the life of the young lady at Starbuck's (to go way back to where this thread started).
My wife and I didn't take this approach - and I didn't share it with you here - to show that we are super parents or win any medals. We did it because we truly wanted the best for our children and weren't afraid to try and show them what that looked like, figuring it was far better coming from us than from "unreality TV", movies and friends and classmates. Neither of us had perfect lives or did everything right before we were married, but we learned from our experience and most importantly from other teaching and committed ourselves to our children's well-being. Many adults - and hence, their children - haven't had these "advantages" and have to rely on their feelings and being in the moment; almost always a recipe for disaster or, at the least, heartache. I share all this here merely to offer a glimpse that there is another way and we don't have to do what "everyone else" is doing.
amanda: i have a son and a daughter. i taught them the same standards.
my son bought into it too.
i'm not claiming my kids are pure (both in thier 20's). but they do not treat sex as a recreational activity, and my son, especially, wont date a girl who's easy because he's not easy,either.
Same standards! Bingo.
21 year old boy
18 & 19 year old girls
The youngest is probably the most promiscuous. The oldest sounds a lot like Gino's kid. He dumped a girl when he was a teenager because she was pressuring him to have sex.
No two kids are the same.
sigh, I posted a response to this but it didn't show.
NW, essentially I think kids cannot (mostly) be brought to full, self-sufficiently responsible maturity about sexual decisions by age 12. They can be brought to knowledge and maturity enough that with sufficient social support (family, friends, church or other social groups) they can navigate the situation responsibly. I was a kid who got morally responsible really early (probably too early) and so i recognize that my generalization is not applicable to every case. And unlike Amanda, I am an advocate for no extramarital sex (I don't expect people to follow or even appreciate my viewpoint, but it's the one I have ;) ). I actually expect you and I might agree pretty deeply on a lot of that thinking.
Amanda, thanks for the link; I'll try to get to reading it soon ... I did know it was a "synonym" of sorts, for that other word I also object to on feminist grounds ;). My first angry tirade at Gino used it in it's literal sense. I'm beginning to think think I just need to artificially construct a less objectionable word and propagate it through the internets ;).
Gotta run to a school meeting ...
Amanda, to illustrate all about what you ask--about divorce correlating to premarital sex, and so on--consider your former boyfriend. If you asked your friends, or your mother or grandmother, about his character, I would guess they would have warned you about his selfishness and narcissism.
You figured it out only when in bed with him for some reason, but such character doesn't occur in a vaccuum.
And like you say, your big struggle wouldn't have actually been in bed; the same selfishness he showed you between the sheets would have shown itself in the checkbook, too.
And to wit: actual condom failure is about 10%, much higher when people are drunk when putting them on--and 27 of 28 STDs aren't stopped by them. 2/3 of abortions involve single women. Living together before marriage raises the divorce rate by 50%--and triples the rate of domestic abuse.
Denying God's Word about sexuality has consequences; we're intended for one person, not many, and we suffer when we ignore that fact.
Post a Comment