Finally, we have a broad consensus that somewhere, someone's "lifestyle" has gone too far.He speaks of the almost unanimous outrage regarding the Yearning for Zion's abuse of the young girls. In our culture of sexual liberation and deviancy, they, the leaders of this cult, have gone too far. We won't accept the indoctrination, brainwashing and abuse of these young girls.
We've picked a battle. Praise be.
But Kevin wonders if it isn't a bit hypocritical?
But how is it that so many of us fail to see - or choose to ignore - the same things befalling young girls everywhere?I think he hits on something here. Given his points about how the media, Hollywood or whatever cultural bogyman we fear treats young girls, why cry foul here? The proverbial slippery slope, Kevin is happy to see something has finally elicited people to dig in their heels and "No, we don't allow that here."
Long before they're 18, the prevalent culture in America's cities steers black girls into lives of single motherhood and serial relationships with men who aren't interested even in "spiritual" wives.
Mom took that route. So did Grandma. No stigma. No outrage. It's just how life works.
Or how about girls in idyllic, white, small-town America? The prevalent culture rushes them through childhood, has them dressing provocatively at 12 and involved in "serious relationships" and/or casual hook-ups with potentially life-altering consequences before they're 16.
That's what the appealing young people on MTV do. That's how the popular girls play it.
Polygamy or older men marrying young girls? Either may seem weird or downright distasteful to us, but aren't those just different kinds of marriage? If we declare the whole one-man, one-woman thing obsolete, how can we then draw artificial lines by age, sex or number of partners? Besides, who are we to doubt the capacity of two (or more) people to love one another enough to make a marriage work?
Young kids having sex? Aw, they're all doing it. Right? Can't stop 'em. Just issue the girls condoms, explain the plumbing and invite them to make "wise choices." Isn't that how we "empower" girls who don't live in cults?
He is right, we, and I emphasize 'we', need to say that more often. It isn't the job of the media or Hollywood to raise our daughters; to say 'NO' once in a while. It is the job of the parents, especially the fathers.
I don't believe the outrage of the media regarding the abuse of these girls. They are just angry that it was not the approved method of indoctrination and sexification of these children. If the polygamist leaders would have been handing out condoms and telling the boys to "be boys" and score as many girls as they could, the silence would have been deafening. If the girls were instructed to "make their own choices" and sleep with whom they wanted, no cry would have been raised. But since this wasn't the "approved method", and it makes news, the media has been all over it.
But the media doesn't control the destiny of our children. Hollywood only has the influence that we give it. But have we already lost that battle? Do we fathers even know there is a battle going on?
Were does our attention turn when Brittany, Paris or the latest pantiless young girl is paraded across the news? What is being spewed from the TVs in our living rooms, the magazine on the coffee tables or the computer in the den? Do we think our daughters are so naive not to notice what gets our attention? Where do girls learn the basics for relationship? From the actions of the fathers. So we can lament the state of the world all day long, but undue those eloquent words with a few simple actions that speak otherwise.