After reading the Leykis thread on the radio board, I thought I'd ask/mention something here:
Has all the attention that's been given to the welfare, had kids before 18, etc., crowd caused part of the problem of women and girls thinking they should get married as soon as they meet the first person of the opposite sex they find?

No the 1950's America, good girls don't have sex outside of marriage. Bad girls probly have Social Illneses.ETC.

Kids having kids is never a great thing for a society especially when the child is raised in a single parent home. The message that has not been recieved/caught is that having sex demands responsibility (prenancy-std's-aids) and our culture/media/peer pressure says there is none/no shame and in more recent years the government in it's welfare state has stepped in with programs to help single motherhood to which I have mixed feelings about...the child didn't ask for this and glad the mother did not abort.
Most kids are not getting married...just having sex/children outa wedlock and struggling to survive via gov't monies, family and friends...not a way to start adulthood/parenting.
Sex within committed marriage friends...elimates a lot of drama.

Alot of my peers did not go straight into marriage. It seems that the majority waited 5-10 years before settling down. And those that did settle at a young age aren't married anymore. I graduated in 95 btw. However I did attend a high school that was in an upper middle class community. So its really more about socio-economic backgrounds than anything else. IMHO.

Yeah well there are a coupla other messages not received too.

We have essentially single parent homes in a lot of cases because BOTH parents have to work, sometimes multiple jobs to make a family work in this low wage, high cost environment.

Mix health care issues in there, and we've a real mess at the lower income classes.


If you take a harder look at say, the lower 40 percent of us (and that number is growing daily), what you will see is their income levels and risk are rising.

Where the parents begin to have to take on extra work, say both of them work, or one works more than the usual, the kids begin to have issues.

Basically, what I am saying is that if we think a single parent scene is less than ideal (and it is, but it's not impossible), then a strained family is the same way.

Broadway, regulating sexual and developmental behavior through shame sucks ass. It's harmful, often abusive and severely impacts communication.

If we are to tell kids that sex comes with responsibility, and I absolutely support doing that because it's the truth, then we also have a responsibility to fully and completely educate them so that they are actually capable of assuming said responsibility.

The hard truth is that at that age, sometimes stuff happens. This is an artifact of how we are built, and no amount of lecturing about what should be, or what is best is going to do any good.

Frankly, if we are pushing an abstinence only program, we run the significant risk of alienating the kid we are trying to help. Couple that with shame, and it's near certain to happen.

Finally, there is a difference between empowering people in trouble, and doing what we can to prevent that trouble.

Clearly, if there is a birth, some help is going to be required. If that's seen as expensive, then that's a clear incentive for us as a society to get after it and bring education, prevention and alternatives to the table.

Denying that help, just makes the problem worse and often more costly without actually doing anything positive in return.

The use of shame has the same impact.

If we have educated teens, with supportive families that can communicate, that's our best case scenario for preventing the problems.

Also, say there is a problem. Then we must be extremely careful about shame there as well. Empowerment, education and alternatives are all off the table, if we've shamed the new mother and father into thinking they are not worth greater consideration.

I think I detect you wanting everybody to broadcast constantly, "sex is bad", "don't do it", "wait until marriage". You not seeing enough of that = "no shame".

Here's the truth!

Sex is good. It's really good. We are built this way.

Waiting is good. Waiting until marriage is silly. How does one know they've picked the right partner? Answer is they just don't!

Sex is dangerous. (list all the ways)

People have options. (list all of them)

Sex changes lives. (tell the stories)

Sex has consequences. (tell the stories, particularly about the families impacted by the problem, not just the new parents)

Simple shame doesn't cut it. Given the potent drive to have sex, your average teen isn't going to respond to simple shame. They've got to know why, how, who, when, and what surrounds the issue, and they've got to have supportive and honest people they can come to with their questions and struggles.

Newflyer: No. I think it's actually gone the other way. More than ever, teens and 20 somethings are playing the field for a whole lot of reasons.

Only a small fraction just jump into marriage, and of that fraction a very significant percentage of them are the abstinence or sex after marriage crowd, both of whom will be pressured into a marriage by their families, and may feel strong need to marry due to expectations set by the same.

Assuming that I understood the original question in this thread correctly, no, I do not see any reason to conclude that young women today are marrying as soon as possible to avoid the stigma of being labeled "white trash." I have heard, from a friend who has spent a lot of time around Gen-Y folks, that there does seem to be a trend amongst that demographic to marry during or shortly after college, rather than waiting until after age 30 or 35, as many Gen-X people have done. I don't know why these young people feel motivated to marry earlier, but I am skeptical that the "White Trash" factor would play a role, as these are college-educated people.

Interestingly, I do agree with one of the sentiments that Broadway expressed, namely that people lacking the maturity to provide a stable upbringing for their children cause a burden on society. Having said that, I believe that our culture today is such that very few people under the age of 25 (approximately) have the skills, the mindset, and the support necessary to raise families. Up until 40 or 50 years ago, many young people started their careers right after high school, and there was a set "path" that they were expected to follow. Changing one's mind about one's career or spouse was taboo (see my review of the movie _Revolutionary_Road_). Since then, our cultural values have changed, partly as a result of college education becoming imperative for most young people. The new values provide more options, and young people now have the better part of a decade (their early 20s) to decide what to do with the rest of their lives.

Broadway, I agree with you on the stress on our society, and the kids having kids, when kids DO have kids. Often they decide to make it "right" and get married for the sake of the child, which of course is the wrong reason. Whatever it is, it is what it is.

"Sex within committed marriage friends...elimates a lot of drama."

Noble cause, but not feasible. Go back to Biblical times (you should know this) and sex out of wedlock happens. Illegitimate children, STDs, the whole gamut, it happens. Even in religious circles, extramarital affairs happen, constantly. It HAPPENS, and ALWAYS HAS, and ALWAYS WILL.

Maybe if we focus more on contraception/protection and less on straight abstinance-based education, and putting the tools out there for people to protect themselves, we can see some of these numbers go down. Burying our collective heads in the sand and ignoring the problem, and advocating solely abstinance-based education and programs, will only expand the issue. Faith-based programs are a GREAT tool, I am totally with you on that Broadway. But, there are so many non-believers out there, who won't take part, how are those people reached? Dangling the God carrot on the stick in front of them isn't going to do the trick, so we have to do it as a society, in a way that they WILL LISTEN.

Here's the thing. We live in a society where if you do the "right thing", get married and have your 2.8 kids, you are set up for failure. The way the divorce laws are written, if she gets something up her ass, she can divorce you and clean you out. Even if she does something wrong like cheat on you, she can still take it all. I have a coworker than can tell you all about this. The divorce laws need to be written so if someone wants out, they are going to have to show a valid reason. Now here's where I think Broadway and I will agree. Couple need to be required to go through pre-marriage therapy prior to marriage, whether it's through the church or whatever in order to teach them how to deal with the difficulties of marriage or to at least bring out any underlying issues. Studies have shown this does help.

My second point is we live in a society where if the CEO of the company you work for decides his compensation package isn't going to be big enough this year, he can fire you, isn't that nice? I know I've been accused of being socialist, but if I decide to give society the privilege of having a family (and it is a privilege to society not an entitlement I don't care what the bible thumpers tell you), society owes me a steady family wage income. Of course, I'm not asking for a handout, I'll work for everything I earn, but if you expect me to have a family, I expect you to help me succeed and that's what this society DOESN'T do.

Society doesn't take care of it's privilege, so I don't feel I owe what it expects from me.

> Couple need to be required to go through pre-marriage therapy prior to marriage, whether
> it's through the church or whatever in order to teach them how to deal with the difficulties of
> marriage or to at least bring out any underlying issues. Studies have shown this does help.

I think that it would have been beneficial if high school health classes were to delve into the psychological aspects of relationships as part of sex education. The health class that I had in the 10th grade talked about this in only a very cursory manner: we watched a video that said that physical violence is not OK. There wasn't any discussion on how to effectively resolve conflicts and build healthy relationships.

I have heard people comment that in all industrialized countries today, the birth rate is below the "replacement rate," resulting in an aging, shrinking population. The main factor that is cited is that raising a family with 2-3 children at the standard of living that most people in the industrialized world have been conditioned to expect is just too expensive today.

Sex within committed marriage friends...elimates a lot of drama.

Until..... The marriage ends in divorce like over 50% in the US do....

>>marriage ends in divorce

that's not good but how's your way working for ya?

I would tend to agree that the divorce rate is terrible. I also agree that there should be more "hoops" to go through before couples (regardless of orientation) get married. I am not sure that I want more government intervention to further regulate marriage.

I went through a very amicable divorce. We discussed the state of our marriage and my ex-wife felt that I needed to change -- I wasn't sure that I was the only one who needed to change and suggested counseling. She very rationally told me that she did not want to go to counseling and I advised her that without a third-party to facilitate the discussion, I did not see a solution to the disagreements between us. We chose to rationally end the relationship.

I know that it was hard on my oldest son who really had issues when I married again. We ended up discussing those issues in counseling and I believe that we have both grown beyond for difficulties.

Ultimately I ended up much happier than I was before but overall the ability to get divorced rationally without lawyers was key to that happiness.

By the way, while I was separated from my x I spent time catching up in all of the meaningless liaisons that I could manage to arrange... none of it was very good or truly satisfying. That is the message that young men and women need to hear ... in the framework of a committed relationship, the physical expression of love is immensely more powerful, satisfying and fun! That is the part of the "player's game" promoted by Tom Leykis that Tom never really admitted... hit it, hit it, quit it (repeat over and over) is only one step up from taking care of it by yourself... it is only in a committed relationship that the true connectivity of the physical act can blossom.

I do believe that you can have commitment without the state recognizing the partnership but there is something to be said about the social "blessing" of the relationship. I guess that is why I am in favor of granting that blaessing to all individuals seeking it.

HOW ABOUT "tRAILER tttrash"??

I realize that I started this thread, then quickly left it.

Probably time to chime in again.

The way I see it, there are two main problems:
1. Those who only tell their kids "children come from God," give no other explanation, and hide them away from all other forms of sex ed. They then have no clue what is changing about their own bodies, have no idea why they're attracted to someone else, and if it goes that far has no clue how they (or someone else) got pregnant.
2. The fact that we're trying to define a political/social definition of marriage, which is actually a ceremony for religious benefit purposes.

As for the divorce stuff where one spouse cleans out the other, etc., yeah there should be something against this, as there are people out there who have never done anything for themselves their entire lives, then wanting a divorce that will make them independently wealthy at their ex-spouse's expense. However, they could've realized that the entire time they have the right to independently decide to do something else.