feminine-genius

How did this slip through?

Let's see: We cannot blame it on societal guilt. We cannot blame it on misunderstandings. We cannot blame it on kids not knowing "how to do it creatively." We cannot blame it on ignorance. It seems to be an unvarnished fact: sex is harmful to kids.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Teenagers often suffer emotional consequences from having sex, even when it's "only" oral sex, a study published Monday suggests.

Researchers at the University of California San Francisco found that up to one-half of the sexually active teenagers in their study said they'd ever felt "used," guilty or regretful after having sex.

So, shall we discourage them from an activity that doesn't benefit them, carries the potential for disease and pregnancy, and actually brings with it emotional harm? Nope. Just warn them, and then carry on.

The study, according to the researchers, suggests that parents should be sure to talk with their kids about the potential negative effects of having oral sex, not only intercourse.

"When parents and teens talk about the consequences of having 'sex,' they may not take the time to define what sex is," Brady and Halpern-Felsher noted in comments to Reuters Health.

"It is important for parents to help teens understand that having oral sex may result in social, emotional and physical health consequences -- just as having vaginal sex may result in these consequences."  [snip] This suggests that when parents talk with their kids about sex, it might be a good idea to acknowledge the potential positive outcomes, like emotional intimacy, Brady and Halpern-Felsher note in their report. Parents could then talk about other ways to find those same feelings.

Right. And what colour is the sky in that universe where parents talk about vaginal sex, oral sex, and the underlying desire for intimacy -- with their children? Remember, these are the same parents that have been completely marginalised by the public schools, the print media, the music industry, tv and film promotors, the strategically placed Planned Parenthood offices, widespread medical duplicity and legal structures that guarantee the children's rights to information and condoms. And they're supposed to say what?

I'm glad to see this small effort expended on the harms of early sexual activity -- but if only we could approach it as resolutely as we do, say, smoking. Warning labels, posters, public service announcements, etc. "Don't be used." "Harmful to your emotional health." "STD's kill." Just brain-storming, but it's an uphill slog.

Anything but irrelevant

Yesterday was the feast of Saint Agatha, patroness of bell ringers and bakers. Fr. Dwight had some lovely thoughts as he said Mass for a group including students.

I had often thought that these ancient virgin martyrs were a little bit irrelevant to our day and age. But this morning at 7am I celebrated her memorial by saying Mass at St Joseph's Catholic School. In the congregation were about thirty people including a good number of our Middle School and High School young people. Like St Agatha, they are struggling with all the battles of purity and chastity in an increasingly pagan, decadent and sexually rampant society.

I only had a moment to speak of St Agatha's life and sacrifice, but I suddenly knew that she was anything but irrelevant. Instead she fought the very same battles that the teenagers today are fighting. They may not face immediate martyrdom, but they face exclusion and ridicule should they stand up for chastity, sexual purity and the higher and more noble ideals that their faith offers them.

Yes, it's the battle of the day -- for parents, educators, and the kids -- to focus on something more noble than the immediate gratification of baser instincts. This effort has to counter the nearly ubiquitous references to flesh and desire in our culture.

Saint Agatha is also the patroness for those who suffer with breast cancer (good to know) and she endured her own suffering (having her breasts hacked off as a punishment for not giving herself to a pagan husband). Life has never been a cake walk for those who pursue virtue, and this dear girl could be a tremendous intercessor for those who need the graces in this day and age.

Defining -- or being defined

In this rough and tumble piece (not modest fare, to be sure) Kay Hymowitz goes a long way around to say what has been blatantly obvious to anyone who understands the mystery and lure of modesty. Using contemporary anecdotes (yes, our beloved Paris Hilton and Britney Spears) she shows that women have shot themselves in the foot by baring too much to strangers.

The problem with a Britney or a Bentley is not that they are floozies. It is rather that they are, paradoxical as it might seem, naive. They underestimate the magnetic force field created by intimate sexual information and violate the logic of privacy that should be all the more compelling in a media-driven age. People in the public eye always risk becoming objectified; they are watched by hordes of strangers who have only fragmentary information about them. When that information includes details that only their Brazilian waxers should know for sure, it's inevitable that, humans being the perverse creatures that they are, all other facts of identity will fall away. Instead of becoming freer, the exhibitionist becomes an object defined primarily by a narrow sexual datum.

Every publicist knows this. Even in the world of politics, the first question a candidate has to consider is whether he has "name recognition;" and secondly, for those who have it, is the name associated with "positives" or negatives."

Thus, in this modern, fast-paced world, people reduce public figures to bullet points: Monica = intern, blue dress; Arnold = body-builder, Terminator, Maria Shriver; Hillary = universal health care, Whitewater, constant makeovers. You get the drift. People make quick associations and move on -- and a public figure is happy to be on anyone's radar screen, even as a blip (go figure).

But even small town talk and high school memories end up with the same result. Sherry = athlete; Jessica = the brain; Carly = fast. These are probably unfair labels for complex people, but it's how a large world operates. In that sense, one has to carefully guard one's reputation because our fallen nature rarely gives us room to explain. Interestingly, Susan Sontag, it is presumed, understood this.

It was doubtless for this reason that Susan Sontag hesitated to write about her romantic relationship with the photographer Annie Leibovitz. After her death, many accused Sontag of cowardice and hypocrisy for avoiding the L-word, but this seems an unlikely charge. A woman who braved the brutes of Kosovo, Sontag was probably less fearful of having it known that she was in love with a woman than of having it become the defining trait of her public identity; she must have dreaded being boxed in as the "lesbian writer Susan Sontag."

She wanted to define herself, rather than be defined with a bullet point created by others. Thus for her, virtue was not the point, but "ownership" of her public personae was. That we could all be this wise.

The overall point is one of common sense, one that the Church has argued since her inception: women who are free with their bodies will be objectified, which is beneath their dignity. In living chastely in all states of life, a person is most respected as an integral being of depth, intrigue, and complexity.

Ironically, the more you show (physically), the less folks process. Cheap. Fast. Easy. With these bullet points attached to one's name, the face, the personality, the beauty of the soul are shot. Of course, our motherly hearts would never reduce anyone to this inhuman vision, right? When we see more in others -- especially their potential, we remind them of who they are called to be. Modesty says the body is so important, that less is so much more.

Read it and weep

Please read this with attention, and give it time to sink in. It was a comment left below in the discussion about women's fashions:

Wow, this is unreal.
I am a man who used to be plagued with lust. I was actually obsessed with sexual desires. Lust ran my life. I was a womanizer and have been accused of being a harasser. Thanks be to God I have been set free from this torture, largely due to spending time before the Lord in Adoration daily.
In all that time of sordid desires I have NEVER been tempted because a woman wore pants. I mean, come on, people, get real here! A mini-skirt, a halter top or bare midriffs, but pants? People, please, get a grip on reality here. This is a bunch of overblown hooey. Some of you have too much time on your hands. You need to concentrate on inner holiness and obedience to the Lord not prescribing to some surreal standard that does nothing than puff someone up with silly and dangerous pride.

My dear sisters, this is more fundamental than "draping" or being beautiful so that men will hold doors. I know if we could dress everyone out of a Talbot's catalogue, the whole world would be a more attractive place, but we have to step back and think chastity, modesty, and humility.

My brother in Christ, I am so sorry that women led you into sin. I rejoice in your healing, and ask your prayers for wisdom to descend on us all. Peace.

"Veil of Innocence" et al

There has been a great deal of controversy over the bishops' response to the abuse crisis in recent years, none more so than their insistence that "armed" children will not be abused. Rather than placing the onus on each diocese so that priests are well-formed men of integrity, they place the burden on the children, who should know a "good touch" from a "bad touch" at very young ages. This approach is so deep and penetrating that the programs themselves interfere with the normal development of young children and introduce sexual ideas (and fear) when latency should prevail. Wrong and bad.

I would like to point out three site that are well-suited to speak to these programs, each with a wealth of information as well as the ability to connect parents who wish to discuss this further. These are Veil of Innocence, Primary Educators, and The Primary Educators' League. Knowing what the programs entail and what can be safely offered to your own priest as a virtuous alternative will go far in truly protecting the children who need solid formation.

Baring our souls, not our midriffs

This is a nice commentary from a woman who has had a gradual change of heart over her way of dressing. Obviously, one sticking point is the way that modern fashions are accepted in church.

Today, a majority of priests seem to be so afraid to say anything that might “offend” anyone that people come to church in clothes more suited for mowing the lawn or a day at the beach than to receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. If Disney World can give a young woman a warning about her immodest dress, why won’t our church set some parameters for acceptable dress in the church? One shrine I have been to does have posted guidelines and makes robes available for Mass-goers who show up in shorts or inappropriate clothing. But this is the exception, not the rule.

This is one area where I partially disagree. I'm not sure that priests should be forced into this position alone. Can mothers and women self-police so that we show reverence in our dress -- both to God and to the men with whom we worship? If the parish had a policy that would back up mothers, then they would have more authority, but in the end, women have to take care of the extra skin that reveals our lack of concern about modesty.

Maybe the answer is for pastors to invite a large handful of regular parishioners (women) to a meeting and discuss it. If he could explain the male "hard wiring" (as though women don't know this?) and ask for a consensus, it would be a win-win. Thoughts?