Just remember, it wouldn't be a rainbow party without your rainbow party supplies.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Every day I grow a little more convinced that the Amish have the right idea.

I dunno, I'd have to read the book to make a judgment. I'm sure that the subject matter doesn't come as a surprise/new thing to most teenagers, and it sounds like a cautionary tale (everybody gets crabs or something).

It seems to me the more 'progressive' our society becomes the shorter childhood gets. Even if somehow this book is well-intentioned, is it really necessary?

I have read the book and give it five stars.

Elly Gore, a buyer for Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops in Milwaukee, concedes that the book is "edgy" but will stock it mainly because, she says, "I knew that if I skipped it, I would have been censoring it. ... I couldn't do that."

God forbid we censor anything.

According to a reviewer on Amazon, the book uses the word "fuck" in the first few pages.

Even though the book has a moral (at the end a bunch of people get STDs), I still think it is too much for a 14 year old.

I also think it's interesting that the ONLY people posting positive reviews were a teenaged girl from California, who went to a private high school, and a "proud homosexual" parent.

IOW, two of Hillary's "villagers".

I don't know. It doesn't sound that bad to me. From the USA Today article:

Bethany Buck, Ruditis' editor at Simon & Schuster, came up with the idea for the book and says she hopes it will "scare" young readers.

Suzanne Kelly, a buyer for the Chester County Book and Music Co. in West Chester, Pa., which will stock a limited number of Rainbow, agrees. She says the book's message that oral sex "really is sex" and that teens can contract STDs through such sexual practices far outweigh the controversial story line.

"I can't imagine anyone reading this book and saying, 'Hey, what a great idea. Let's send out invitations,' " Ruditis says.

"I can't imagine anyone reading this book and saying, 'Hey, what a great idea. Let's send out invitations,' " Ruditis says.

Ah, that explains it...he was never a teenaged boy.

I agree that I'd have to read the book first I suppose. First I'd have to want to read it. My first impression is not a good one though. I'm wondering how many times this perv of a so-called author had to stop typing to punch the clown. The pretty, multi-colored phallic symbols on the cover are a nice touch.

It's like saying, "Look how much fun this appears to be!"

Nice 'Peppers' ref. by the way. I thought the same thing.

I think some of you are naive about what kids of that age know and talk about and do.

The "message" of this book is something that should be taught by parents, or at least in sex ed (oral sex is sex and can have consequnces). To dress it up in some funtime, colorful, Judy Blume-esque "self-discovery" type book is going too far.

And I can't eblieve no one has said it yet: Where were these parties when i was in school?

I know all about Rainbow parties. I usually wear the orange lipstick.

The book sounds misguided but well-intentioned, although I can't say for sure without reading it. That's not gonna happen, because it would cut into the valuable time I've set aside for scrubbing the grout in my bathroom.

OTOH, this booklet, which was distributed to middle schoolers in Massachusetts, is pretty thoroughly indefensible. (The link comes from Michelle's post.)

> I think some of you are naive about what kids of that age know and talk about and do.

Naive? What do you think we're bitching about here anyway?

Ace, I just saw your update - I'm not sure how you can draw those parallels without reading the book. How do you know the lesson in cynically packaged at the very end?

The ought to paste these photos to the cover of every copy of this book.

It's really a debate-ender.

Oral sex is rampant in middle schools and high schools today. And yes, there are sex parties. A local radio station here delved into this topic after the host wondered if it was really as bad as all the stuff he was reading (he hoped it wasn't because he had a teenaged daughter). A bunch of people called in and said it WAS that bad. A school nurse called in and talked about how her school had seen an epidemic in oral-sex-related STDs. A college freshmen called in and said while she had changed her ways since then she had participated in that culture in high school. She described things like going to parties where one of the party games was a bunch of guys lining up, dropping their pants, and girls kneeling in front of them and competing to see who could get the job done fastest.

Don't ask me how they accomplished it but the guys in schools somehow have managed to convince girls that it's liberating for them to service guys in that manner, with little reciprocity. According to MANY callers on that radio station attitude is that it's something nice to do for the guy and it's no big deal ("it's not really sex") so why not do it.

With so many things in this culture telling kids sex is good, period, I can't see getting too worked up about a book that ends with an STD outbreak among the people participating in the sex parties. This is a "South Park Republican" message if you ask me.

Hubris,

Because that's how drama generally works, isn't it?

First comes the situation and the quandry: Should I do this? Gee, all my friends are.

Then comes foreshadowing: A friend, or probably a distant acquaintance, is rumored to have caught an STD, but the girls keep going to these parties anyway.

The actual problems would come at the climax (about two thirds or more through the book) when the heroine gets an STD or gets pregnant or the boy she loves breaks up with her for being a whore or whatnot.

No such thing as bad press...

Plus, I look really fetching in orange lipstick

I haven't read the book. But it's interesting to me that the "moral" of the story should be that something bad happens as a result of engaging in oral sex, a punishment (they all get STDs). It's as if the author is apologizing for the storyline and telling everyone not to do it after staging it as a fun event (complete with a trip to the Mall). Why didn't he/she suggest kids use condoms/dental dam instead?

Does a book that "promotes" oral sex for this age group bother me? Yes. But I don't know why. I was having sex at 17. So, I really don't know why I should care that someone a year or two younger than I was is having sex, or try to block somebody from getting info. on how to do it. I think it's natural.

As far as undermining someone's innocence through publishing this book- I think kids lose their "sexual" innocence when sex is forced on them. In a way this book is forced on them, but benignly. It's going to get promo'd through word of mouth; it doesn't sound like they have to read it for a class. If that were the case I think I'd have to say, no, borrow it from your friend.

If the "problems" come too early, they would dissaude any reasonable-intelligent heroine from continuing on with these parties, and then you wouldn't have a book. You'd have fifteen pages where a girl goes to a party, sucks off five or six guys she barely knows, and decides almost immediately that that's not for her.

See? You can't get 200 pages out of that.

To get 200 pages or so, you have to portray the parties as fun and exciting for sixty or eighty pages, with just the occasional bit of moral dilemma or foreshadowning of Bad Things To Come.

The actual Bad Things can't happen till fairly near the end. The Good Girl will turn away from this stuff, and then probably try to convince her attention-starved friend to turn away from these parties too.

I envision the good girl attempting to wrestle her friend away from a party, and then being ostracized for being a buzzkill.

But that stuff will happen in the last third or last quarter.

It's just the way the structure of things work.

Right, that's the essence of a morality tale. But I wouldn't equate that to a two-page resolution that's simply dropped in to satisfy censors. Sometimes a morality tale is really a morality tale.

I'm still trying to understand the harm that this would allegedly cause - it doesn't sound like an endorsement of dangerous behavior, and it's not giving out an idea that teenagers don't already know about.

I also never understood the concerns about what is in a school library, as you could always get the juiciest stuff at the public library (as I did as a child). Sweet, sweet Hollywood Wives.

I would also point out that even a weak negative message at the end would exceed the message from peers, i.e. that oral sex is awesome.

Don't ask me how they accomplished it but the guys in schools somehow have managed to convince girls that it's liberating for them to service guys in that manner, with little reciprocity.

I'm not sure the guys accomplished it. Guys have been trying for generations to accomplish this feat. I'm not sure the current group of teenager males is especially gifted in the art of persuasion.

At any rate, I've heard about this phenomenon for awhile, and I've often wondered how rampant it is, but I will, for the moment, take your word for it that it is quite common. Now I have to wonder, how did we get to this place? A place where teenage guys will get whatever they want with little reciprocity? Is this what Feminists had in mind when they wanted women to be sexually liberated? Free blow jobs for guys?

I think Steve over at "Hog on Ice" had it right when he said the Feminist Movement should have been called "The Horny Men's Movement".

It's obviously not all the fault of Feminism, but I think they played a significant role.

I'm still trying to understand the harm that this would allegedly cause

^ for starters.

Yeah, but where does this stop? Is the next book in the series Rainshower Party as some 14 year old gets ready for her first bukkake experience? I mean, this book is about an oral sex orgy. Not some "I'm curious look what my boyfriend wants me to do" type thing. And 14 is eighth or ninth grade.

Jason you wonder how we got to

a place where teenage guys will get whatever they want with little reciprocity? Is this what Feminists had in mind when they wanted women to be sexually liberated? Free blow jobs for guys?

Of course feminism did not have this in mind. Feminists work for sexual equality, which means reciprocity. Girls unfortunately are trained as children to please (everyone, not just men). I know, cause that's how I was trained. I never ever chose a partner who isn't "giving". Why these girls enter into one-sided sexual relationships is beyond me, but I don't think it's the fault of the feminist movement.

Anything that assaults a young girl's natural modesty is harmful. Anything.

I know, I know. You'll be surprised to know that many people find my naivete refreshing.

The ought to paste these photos to the cover of every copy of this book.

Looks like Katie Holmes has been kissing Brian J. Peppers.

I'm asking this sincerely, not just as a smartass rhetorical question: Did I grow up in some sort of libertine Zanadu in rural West Virginia? Seriously, by seventh and eighth grade everybody talked about/knew about the wildest shit you could imagine.

And one of my 3 kids is a seven-year-old girl, I'm not talking about this subject as a disinterested party.

Somewhat off topic but I find Malkin's comparison to Oprah's specific show to the worst done on the Howard Stern's show is laughable. When Oprah's show has a continuous loop of a track of a girl gagging while giving oral or having a woman guest put a stick in their ass so they can play ring toss, than that may be a logical comparison.

I don't think we need to get too worked up about this book. After all, who's going to read it?

1. Girls who already do this: I suppose there's a possibility that this book will dissuade them from these actions. In any event, if they're already having "rainbow parties" before reading the book, what's the harm?

2. Girls who don't do this: I don't find it particularly plausible that such girls would read this book, much less use it as an instructional manual.

3. Teenage boys: as all men know, no creature on God's Earth is more depraved. So no harm is possible.

As an aside: I am amazed that no one has made a Skittles reference yet.

So many people say, "I can't make a judgment until I've read it." Man, you must all be in your 20s, for you seem to have all the time in the world to spend reading books that you haven't chosen for your interest. Now that I'm middle-aged I'm realizing that time is running out, and I just don't want to waste it on a book about teenage oral sex. And yet, I have a 15-year old daughter, so I have to make a decision. Ergo - this is a bad book on a degrading subject, and my daughter is not going to read it. I'm not a literary critic or an English professor, so I'm not obliged to give every piece of smut that floats in on the tide a trial by jury complete with defense council before I make a decision. I remember when the last Harry Potter book came out, and I read it and hated it; I was told that I couldn't *really* properly evaluate the book until I'd read it twice, or maybe even 3 or 4 times! I have little enough time to read things that interest me, and I'm not going to waste it on Rainbow Party.

Yeah they may know about this stuff. When I was in junior high we joked about all kinds of sick stuff. But not really orgies. Even oral sex orgies. And even if this is a "cautinary tale" it seems to legitimize it in a way, and if it is "common" like some are saying then that is pretty sad.

Part of the problem here is that we tend to forget how thoroughly we've defined sexuality downward. When I was a horny adolescent (and in my day we didn't have rainbow parties, grump grump), Madonna came on the scene and--supposedly--reached the outer limits of celebrity sluttiness. Today most of us have evaluated Paris Hilton's blowjob technique online, and so can any halfway enterprising 14-year-old. Compared to Paris Hilton, Madonna in the 1980s had the dignity and restraint of Mamie Eisenhower. And Paris is cool, with her own TV show and everything.

The worst I can say about this book is that it displays that tedious boomer trait of trying to fix a problem by non-judgmentally talking it to death. But it's a minor symptom of a much more serious and pervasive problem, and it seems like an inappropriately small target to get upset over.

I think some of you are naive about what kids of that age know and talk about and do.

And I think that anyone who posts such insulting and false overgeneralizations anonymously should go have sex with himself.

You know something, I don't CARE if this book is the most fantastic morality play of all time. Kids should NOT have access to a book that deals with ORGIES.

I don't have to READ it to be able to figure that one out.

I'm sure there are people out there who know and talk about and engage in all kinds of sex. They're skanky, smutty, tramps regardless of gender or age. However, morality is not dictated by KNOWLEDGE, but by what these children perceive to be acceptable behavior by both society and family. And when you give children access to a book or a film that deals with amoral subject matter, then kids get desensitized and begin to believe that, even if their parents don't endorse such things, society allows it...and their morality takes a hit.

Now, some dummies -- like liberals -- may say, "But what about those stories that deal with murder or theft or violence? Will children learn bad behavior from stories like that?" Geez, GROW A BRAIN, people! There is a DIFFERENCE between violence and sex, between illegal action and immorality. So don't even go there.

Adult books that describe orgies in them are considered pornography, and now we have a kid's porn book being marketed as educational. Good grief, these publishers should be flushed along with the filth they peddle.

Later,
bbeck

Ruditis says the book was never meant to sensationalize sex parties. "We just wanted to present an issue kids are dealing with," he says.

This reminds me an interview with the “gangsta’ rap” group Bitches With Attitudes who had a song out about how they gave a boyfriend “three to the head” for cheating. When asked why they sang about how ugly and horrible life was they relied: “well, ‘ya gotta know what’s goin’ on before ‘ya kin fix it.” As if the were a bunch of fucking social workers! How transparent!

The really galling part is that they insult our intelligence by acting like they’re doing a public service rather than trying to get-rich-quick by a sleazy scheme of pandering sex and violence to kids. But God is not amused and they will all be held accountable for everything they do in life, including this.

Did I grow up in some sort of libertine Zanadu in rural West Virginia? Seriously, by seventh and eighth grade everybody talked about/knew about the wildest shit you could imagine.

Hubris,

No, you didn't. I grew up in a suburb of Cleveland and it was the same way. Although we didn't have blowjob parties. Or maybe I was never invited.

But we all knew who the slutty girls were, and we all wanted to date them, at least for a few weeks or so.

Man, you must all be in your 20s, for you seem to have all the time in the world to spend reading books that you haven't chosen for your interest.

33 years old, gainfully employed, 7-year-old daughter and twin 5-year-old boys.

Hey kids, wanna come to my house for some cautionary tales?

Now, some dummies -- like liberals -- may say, "But what about those stories that deal with murder or theft or violence? Will children learn bad behavior from stories like that?" Geez, GROW A BRAIN, people! There is a DIFFERENCE between violence and sex, between illegal action and immorality. So don't even go there.

Uh, murder and stuff is immoral, isn't it?

He who lies merely hides the truth, but he who tells half truths has forgotten where he put it.

Hiding a bad motive behind a good one is typical of the Liberal pathology. Pretending to be social reforemers when they're just trying to get-rich-quick by pandering dirty stories to underaged kids is truly disgusting and again, typically Liberal. What I wonder about is how much they believe they believe they're own bullshit.

Some girls are more wise to the world at age 12 than others at age 14.
Some will still be playing with their Barbies when others are making out with boys at the movies.

From my own personal experience as one of the more 'innocent' girls (who got teased by the others), the ones who were sexually active real early (13, 14yrs old) were screwed up in the head.

I ended up having an older boyfriend when I was just 17, but I was with him for nine years.

These other girls were running around getting used over and over before they finally realized its better to be a woman than an appliance.

STD's are often forever. They can affect a woman's ability to carry a child to term and cause other permanent health issues. There are strains out there that laugh at rubbers. It is inexcusable to allow a young girl to expose herself to this kind of risk when she has the sexuality of an adult but not the judgement skills.

A girl's innocence and modesty is not a joke for cynics to sneer at, it can save her life. Modesty is the spine of a young girl. It keeps boys from trampling her 'personhood.'

We're raising a generation of skanks who will never forgive us.

lauraw,

I think everybody here strongly agrees that we want to discourage bad behavior (for both girls and boys), we're just disagreeing on how best to achieve that end.

Uh, murder and stuff is immoral, isn't it?

UH, it's also AGAINST THE LAW, genius. Try taking the statements in context next time and they won't whizz over your head.

Later,
bbeck

I don't know, I get a 'they're gonna do it anyway' vibe from some posts.

"Does a book that "promotes" oral sex for this age group bother me? Yes. But I don't know why."

See?

lauraw summed it up nicely

Fellow genius,

I quoted your whole passage, so I'm not sure how they were taken out of context.

You set up a false opposition (violence as illegal action versus sexual behavior as immorality, when there is a component of morality to both). Live with it.

From my own personal experience as one of the more 'innocent' girls (who got teased by the others), the ones who were sexually active real early (13, 14yrs old) were screwed up in the head.

Lauraw hits on another consequence of letting this smut into schools and/or around kids in general; the kids who aren't exposesd to this stuff -- usually because they're not allowed -- are made fun of by those who are. Unfortunately, it's something my kids can look forward to shortly.

Later,
bbeck

lauraw,

I can only speak for myself: I'm not saying they're going to do it anyway, I'm saying they're going to know about it anyway.

Yeah, teenage boys are horney. But enough to get it up while being watched by their peers?

My question is do the girls swallow? Otherwise as a parent you could buy one of those sperm dectection kits, check your kids shirt for drippage. (Mom: "So that explains all those stains on your Sex Goddess T-Shirt!")

Anyhoo, here a few good links:

Unsettling New Fad Alarms Parents:
Middle School Oral Sex

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/students070899.htm

It's 10pm, Do You Know?

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/10.17.02/sex-0242.html

I quoted your whole passage, so I'm not sure how they were taken out of context.

No, you didn't. I posted more than one sentence. By all means, go count...but there's more than 10, so be sure to have access to your toes, too!

And you can go pick a fight with someone else. I've read your posts in other threads before and I'm not going to waste my time with your unfocused idiocy.

Later,
bbeck

Geez bbeck, what the fuck's your problem? I think I've been fairly polite throughout this thread, and haven't insulted anyone. Are you holding a grudge ("unfocused idiocy") against me for some reason I can't recall? Who's picking the fight - project much?

"Why didn't he/she suggest kids use condoms/dental dam instead? "

Dental dams???? WTF? I guess I join Dave in the 'naive and proud of it' club.

Hubris,

I continue to be perplexed by people like you who will say "All of this is bad and I'm against it of course" but then you take the position that it's best to remain silent about things like this.

I think a lot of people are so hung-up at being thought of as "uncool" or "judgmental" they just can't bring themselves to EVER say "This is wrong."

Laura, yes, that's my opinion they are going to do it. I was having sex, including oral sex at this age. I was sexually responsible and aware of how to protect myself from STDs and emotional harm. It bothers me that some girls are not prepared and have sex because of peer pressure. I do not consider having sex or oral sex bad behavior.

Ace, I have no concerns about being considered uncool and judgmental, as I'm comfortable that I'm both.

I'm in favor of parents being stricter than they generally are and being more involved in their kids' lives, I just think that assuming that children won't be exposed to something because it's kept out of the school library is a problematic perspective.

I'm also not assuming that because y'all are concerned about this book, that you're all knuckle-dragging book-burning censors; I appreciate your concerns and your motives, both of which are genuine. I would hope I could be extended the same courtesy, this is a good dialogue to have and I don't claim to have all the answers.

MyCountry: You were participating in BJ orgies at age 12?

How many did you gobble in one night? what was your record? how long did it take to satisfy a 13 year old (10 seconds)?

Another code-word to discuss: Chicken Head Parties

http://www.dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?ID=32482

"There have been reports of 12-year-olds engaging in oral sex and teenagers throwing oral-sex parties. These can get creative.

At some, boys line up in trains to wait their turn to be serviced by a girl. "Rainbow parties" consist of each girl wearing a different color lipstick and the guys try to get a ring of every color before the end of the night. And lastly, there are "chicken head parties," where girls perform fellatio on guys at the same time, so that their heads bob like chickens.

Oral sex has even become a bar mitzvah gift – it's given under the table during the reception. One caterer was actually asked to shorten the tablecloths in order to prevent these stealthy capers."

I read this really amusing article in the August 2003 issue of Seventeen. Entitled "Oral Report," it's about oral sex. The messag it's trying to send to the readers is don't give oral sex, but I think its hidden messages are given some of us ideas...

Excerpts from "Oral Report" - Seventeen, August 2003

Getting eaten out for a birthday present: "Last year I went to a party where everyone suddenly had to clear the room because the birthday gir1 wanted a very special present. She stood up on the bed and said, 'I need somebody to go down on me.' And she got a volunteer--not her boyfriend." --Rebecca, 18

Giving head is like the new Louis Vuitton? "Oral sex is definitely a trend, and it's happening in public because teenagers don't see it as that big a deal." --Peter Leone, MD

Rainbow or chicken parties, anyone? "At one party I heard about, they played somebody called Make a Rainbow: The gir1s put on different colored lipsticks and took turns making a rainbow on all the boys' penises. In the Northeast, parties where oral sex happens are called chicken parties, because of the bobbing of the gir1s' heads." --Heather Ross

"I wanna be watched." "I understand why people do it [oral sex]--for the thrill of being watched." --Lauren, 21

lauraw: We're raising a generation of skanks who will never forgive us.

I think you're absolutely correct. I work on a college campus so needless to say, I'm surrounded by 18-22 year olds. I'm often surprised at how slutty many of the girls are (from what I've heard and wtinessed). I'm hardly a tight-ass about sex, but I find it kind of depressing to see, although I'm not sure I can quite explain why. I think I partly feel sorry for them in that they are basically being used by guys, and don't realize it. Yeah sure, guys want them now, but no guy wants to marry the girl who had sex with all of his fraternity brothers.

And I know there's a double-standard where men can sleep around all they want, but I don't think this double-standard can be overcome by having the girls become more slutty than the guys.

I'm not sure the guys accomplished it. Guys have been trying for generations to accomplish this feat. I'm not sure the current group of teenager males is especially gifted in the art of persuasion.

Bill Clinton made it okay.

I think I've been fairly polite throughout this thread, and haven't insulted anyone.

*shakes head and giggles*

Let's see, you take ONE LINE from my entire post, place it out of context, say something IRRELEVANT -- "violence as illegal action versus sexual behavior as immorality, when there is a component of morality to both" -- like you have a freakin' POINT...when I NEVER EVER EVEN IMPLIED that there was NOT a "moral component to both," rather, I said THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between the two.

And THEN, after you've taken my sentence out of context, you say you DIDN'T!

And you claim you haven't insulted anyone? Sheesh! I find STUPIDITY entirely insulting.

Are you holding a grudge ("unfocused idiocy") against me for some reason I can't recall?

People can find you unfocused and idiotic without holding a grudge, you know. I've never posted to you before.

Who's picking the fight - project much?

Golly, YOU posted to ME first and then you insisted the one single solitary sentence wasn't out of context and then you made some 3rd-grade obvious and unrelated statement (shut UP, morality and law are related? Gasp, you're so dang DEEP!). Hmmm, let's see who's projecting here...

...or better yet, let it drop. I'm not interested in someone's opinion when they can't comprehend something as simple as a difference between moral and legal behaviors.

Later,
bbeck

Back in the day, I remember thinking: "I'd rather regret NOT doing it than regret doing it". One is fixable, the other is forever not.

bbeck,

I'm actually enjoying our conversation, because the innocence of a complete retard is always refreshing.

You said:

I'm sure there are people out there who know and talk about and engage in all kinds of sex. They're skanky, smutty, tramps regardless of gender or age.

Feeling that the "know and talk about it" portion would include me, I felt a response was in order.

You then proceeded to preemptively dismiss as "dummies" anyone who would make a sex/violence comparison.

None of the remainder of your initial comment dealt with the alleged illegality/immorality duality, so I took nothing out of context.

I realize that my critique of your comment was exceedingly banal, but it was necessarily so since what you said was so fucking stupid.

later,
Hubris

Poor kids will never know the satisfaction and excitement of the pursuit and the feeling of anticipation when finally the one you desire submits . It appears now that having sex is no harder than ordering a hamburger.

Uh huh, don't ever try to claim you're not picking a fight, Hubris. Guess you couldn't handle my last post and decided to just bring up NEW out-of-context stuff, eh? Geez, what a loser.

Like I said -- and this is the THIRD time -- I'm not interested.

Later,
bbeck

Oh, I didn't pick a fight, but I don't pass one up when someone seeks one.

Do I need to re-post your entire comment (which anyone can see if they scroll up to review) for you to stop your inane "out of context" defense of your non-point?

If you're not interested, why would you say it for the THIRD time? Just move on. Or continue. I'm fine either way.

Oh, I didn't pick a fight, but I don't pass one up when someone seeks one.

Oh, so you're a liar AND immature? LOL, I believe it.

Now, let's see if you're a Last Word Freak, too!

Later,
bbeck

Sigh.

My original comment to you:

Uh, murder and stuff is immoral, isn't it?

Your response:

UH, it's also AGAINST THE LAW, genius. Try taking the statements in context next time and they won't whizz over your head.

I think it's clear who started the personal insults. Of course, now I'm happily reciprocating. You're a fucking nutjob who's denying reality.

Now, let's see if you're a Last Word Freak, too!

Yep.

We're raising a generation of skanks who will never forgive us.

Spot on.

I just think that assuming that children won't be exposed to something because it's kept out of the school library is a problematic perspective.

What you seem to misunderstand, Hubris, is that keeping a book like this in one's school library is, by that act alone, a form of endorsement of its credibility and relevance.

When you take something that should be roundly and summarily condemned, and elevate it to the status of being an issue, you tacitly admit that the opposing viewpoint is worthy of consideration and has at least some merit. If it has zero merit, then you do the world a disservice by pretending that it has any merit whatsoever.

Remember, this book is not an adult-oriented book on the topic of teen sexuality. It is targeted at young teenagers. It is not merely talking about 13 year-olds. It is a way of talking to 13 year-olds.

Talking to 13 year-olds about 13 year-olds having group oral sex parties is something that ought to be summarily condemned. I'm even going to go out on a limb and say that 13 year-olds should not be allowed to have group oral sex parties.

And I know there's a double-standard where men can sleep around all they want, but I don't think this double-standard can be overcome by having the girls become more slutty than the guys.

Well there's a natural built-in double standard that no amount of social reprogramming can change; the women have the babies.
And the women are the ones who have to live at the hospital when they have an abnormal pregnancy because of previous STD damage.

I'm betting they don't explain to their child the real reason why he was born a tiny preemie and had to live in an incubator and have surgical procedures when he was still supposed to be in the womb.

Slutty behavior is glorified, from Friends to Sex in the City, and there are never consequences amid the laugh lines.

In real life, the people I see who behave that way are sad people with real problems that prevent them from forming good relationships (not just sexual) with others.

I am searching my memory for any time I know of when a child was harmed by not engaging in sexual behavior when she was 14 years old....

The act of condemning something is talking about it, and it doesn't lend merit to something automatically, I think.

I understand the point of disagreement on how much detail should be used in a discussion, but I don't think pretending something doesn't exist is sufficient to act as a tacit condemnation.

"It seems to me the more 'progressive' our society becomes the shorter childhood gets. Even if somehow this book is well-intentioned, is it really necessary? "

Really? What planet would this progressive society of your be on? Because here on Earth, childhood keeps getting progressively longer. The age at which you can get a real job, the age at which you can get married and support a family, is higher than ever before. While we've actually managed to get "teenage pregnancy" rates down significantly over the last 40 years, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed - because people can't get married and support families until several years later.

Leaving children in posession of working sexual organs is just asking for trouble. Adults have something to lose and an incentive for diligence and responsible behavior. Children are prone to do any idiotic thing they can get away with because they have little to lose with Mommy and Daddy ready to bail them out and no way to shorten their sentences no matter how responsible their behavior.

So why do people keep talking as if a shorter childhood would be a bad thing? People aren't growing up too fast - they're pretending to be grown up when they still haven't learned how not to act like idiots. Sheltering them isn't going to cut it, unless you've got an actual cage handy. They need to be trained to exercise actual adult judgement a lot faster and then given lives of their own and an incentive to actually apply that judgement before they have a chance to get themselves into trouble.

Wicket, funny you should mention that. I cancelled my daughter's subscription in 2003 when I noticed Seventeen just coudn't shut up about oral sex.

It bugs me more than I know how to express that the only "warning" message in crap like this is the chance of STDs... not that I want to trivialize that message. But I am deeply saddened about the emotional damage a 13 year old girl is going to have to endure from engaging in behavoir that makes her some guy's whore. Adolescent girls have enough to deal with without the cruelty of being used sexually.

The act of condemning something is talking about it, and it doesn't lend merit to something automatically, I think.

No. First, it depends on who is doing the talking. It's fine and proper if you and I are talking about it to each other, parent to parent, 30-something to 30-something. But the writer and publisher of this book are talking directly to the 13 year-old age group. School ibrarians who read this book and make it available on their shelves are facilitating that discussion, from adult to young person.

Second, condemning something is actually a way of ending a discussion, and communicates the appropriate attitude toward deserving subject matter. As Utron mentioned above, there is this horrid post-WWII tendency (among boomers,, unfortunately) to think that everything can and should be discussed to death, openly. This is part of their attempt to convey the idea that "everything is gray," and there is no such thing as right and wrong. It's part of their religion of non-judgmentalism. ("Only the Sith deal in absolutes.")

Talking directly to 13 year-olds about graphic pubescent sex is indefensible and does not deserve to be discussed as though it is debatable.

but I don't think pretending something doesn't exist is sufficient to act as a tacit condemnation.

Don't pull that strawman crap with me. I did not say that we should "pretend" pubescent sex does not exist. Of course it does. But even if we take this publisher's word for it that this book is a morality tale that ultimately concludes that 8th-grade group oral sex parties are not a good idea, we should all be disturbed that it is even a point of contention.

As a libertarian, I happen to believe that drug use and prostitution should not be illegal. But I also do not believe in debating with 8th graders whether shooting 8-balls is a good idea, complete with a fictionalized representation of Timmy the 13 year-old heroin-dealing pimp.

Even if the book comes to the right conclusion, even pretending to ask the question (of whether pubescent group oral sex parties are OK) gives the opposing viewpoint more credibility it deserves.

Adolescent girls have enough to deal with without the cruelty of being used sexually.

Oh, but Dave, haven't you heard? They LIKE it. They're savvy to the game. They protect themselves. Such pain does not exist for them.

Right.

It's interesting that you reference strawmen when you summarized your original comment with:

I'm even going to go out on a limb and say that 13 year-olds should not be allowed to have group oral sex parties.

...as if anyone here is arguing something to the contrary. That's when we heard the opening bars of Enter Strawman.

That it is wrong is not a "point of contention" among adults. The point is that is might be a point of contention amoung these kids. Diabusing them of that notion is not giving the issue merit or tacitly admitting that it is debateable, IMO.

On the other hand, Dave in Texas brought up a great point - does the book bring up the whole range of reasons this behavior is bad, or proceed on the theory that it would be fine were it not for STDs?

I'll have to read the book, I guess.

diabusingdisabusing

My apologies.

"It bothers me that some girls are not prepared and have sex because of peer pressure. I do not consider having sex or oral sex bad behavior."

That's not a good way to look at sex. What makes sex harmful or bad is the context, how each sexual action impacts the people involved. Therefore sex can go from great to extremely violent and while still being all "sex" or the same physical sexual act.

A lot of people don't deal with sex well (not only kids, adults too) and sex can involve a lot of "bad" (meaning harmful, hurtful, unhealthy) results.

"I do not consider having sex or oral sex bad behavior'

It all depends. Sex can be very bad if it harms the people involved. There is nothing obligatorily good about sex simply because it is sexual or there may be some physical pleasure involved in an sexual act. There is more to consider.

About the only substantive comment I have on this discussion is: Laura had an older boyfriend for nine years!?! At 17?!?

I *hated* girls like you. Because, charitably assuming you are as desirable as your posts imply, I hated when the high school girls went all steady with the older guys and removed themselves from the dating pool.

Of course, my love of playing Axis & Allies by myself in the basement probably did the trick in removing *myself* from the dating pool, so it was a wash.

As for oral sex, I'm all for it. For me. Preferrably, as often as possible.

For kids? Uh, no. Next subject please.

I remember when that Washington Post story "came" out on this topic. I couldn't believe it. . . but yet I could. We've been waltzing towards Gamorrah for a long time in this country.

It's not just that this behavior didn't occur when I was in school-- kids had sex, and talked about sex, but it didn't happen in the locker room, or in groups larger than 2-- it's that everybody talks about it now.

Seriously, everywhere it's nothing but sex. And sex in the most graphic detail imaginable. Hell, my parents wouldn't have wanted to talk to me about sex back when they thought it was only missionary style. I can't fathom having them tell me "Now Dave, don't line up with the other boys to have your knobbed polished by all the girls."

Since I'm still young enough to remember my teenage horniness, I can't say that I blame *any* boy who encourages this. What I don't understand is how girls could be like this. I would've loved to have guilt- and string-free oral sex in high school. Instead, it was like pulling teeth to get to first base most of the time. And not just for me, but for my jock friends. AND I went to a *Chicago public school*!

So, I have three simple questions:
1. Is it really as bad as everyone says it is?
2. What possibly changed in the last fifteen years that made it this bad?
3. What can be done to counteract this self-destructive behavior?

Before you answer #3 with a simple "parents must do their jobs" answer, stop and think-- if this is a new phenomenon, did parents suddenly get worse in the last fifteen years? Or are there external influences-- popular culture, two parents work, bad schools-- that either work alone or in conjunction to render the very concept of childhood innocence quaint?

A hundred years ago, children had to grow up faster than they do today. Yet, morality was stricter, and society was far more civilized.

Today, I find it ironic that in a world where people live longer than ever before, children are so eager to escape from the clutches of childhood to become an adult. What a surprise that once they get there, they'll wish they never left the good life they once had.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

An easy was to look at the material is to go to amazon.com and search for keywords in the book. You can then go to the page that has the keyword. You need an account to do this. You can't cut and paste, so I will provide descriptions.

I post these without comment. I reserve the right to make future comment.

The Rainbow Party

pg23 We are shown that the real problem with teenaged sexual activity is that the school isn't allowed to teach about sex ed in a graphic manner:

If anyone could have answered her questions about sex, it would have been Ms. Barrett. She was the only adult Skye knew who could deal with the "health issues" and still teach reality. The class had been much more helpful last week. Skye was actually learning about herself in terms she could understand and even relate to. But that was before the school brought down the hammer on Ms. Barrett in the form of Abstinence Only Education.

snip

The problem had started innocently enough last week, when Ms. Barrett had harmlessly asked if everyone knew what masturbation was. The ensuing discussion was interesting and informing.

pg43 A bisexual boy gives his "best friend" oral sex in the school restroom. The description is not overly graphic, but very is clear about what happened.

pg120 The hip and cool female teacher (she listens to Maroon 5) finds out about the Rainbow Party. She admonishes her student, Rose, but says she won't tell on her.

"Look," Ms Barret finally spoke. "This is none of my business. And I'm not going to give you some lecture on how sex is some evil, horrible thing. It can be fun, and it can be special."

That it is wrong is not a "point of contention" among adults.

Do you not own a television? Ever seen one of those Seventeen magazines that Wicket or Dave mentioned?

When I said, "I'm even going to go out on a limb and say that 13 year-olds should not be allowed to have group oral sex parties," I was describing the support for my position on writing YA books that pretend to debate the teen-group-oral-sex-party question.

The reason this Rainbow book is completely inappropriate (even if I accept the publisher's and writer's explanation at face value) begins with the premise that 13 year-olds should not be allowed to have group oral sex parties.

Building on that conclusion, we can also say that it is not only wrong, but it is so clearly, unequivocally wrong that to even pretend to debate the issue tacitly admits that the opposing viewpoint (that 13 year-olds should be allowed to have group oral sex parties) is at least debatable. It elevates it from being flat-out wrong to being just barely wrong.

Then, the book takes it a step futher and debates this issue directly with those very 13 year-olds.

If they discussed this issue directly with parents, I suspect it would not be considered an "issue" at all, and thus immediately lose traction. By bypassing the parents and going straight to the kids, they get an eager market, thus ginning up an issue where none would otherwise exist.

Everone here is MISSING THE POINT.

The kids are not just having sex, THEY ARE HAVING ORGIES.

How many orgies have any of you adults gone to lately? Any?

I don't know many adults who particiapte in group sex parties.

Yet it appears to becomming common with the kiddies.

> What possibly changed in the last fifteen years that made it this bad?

One factor in particular comes to mind (I think it's already been mentioned in this thread): vast numbers of WWII-generation teachers/politicians/journalists/executives supplanted by the Baby Boomers in the 70's and 80's.

Thanks for providing evidence Warden. Seems like a blatant little piece of sniveling propaganda. Whither Judy Blume, dammit?

did parents suddenly get worse in the last fifteen years?

Yes. Add the divorce/ single parenting rates to the need for 'me' time (the self-pampering people do astounds me), and a society which shows general disapproval to basic child discipline, and you have a totally different environment for raising kids.

Or I could be completely wrong.

My point is there is a difference between intimate oral sex with your boyfriend and sucking the cocks of many anonymous dirtball malesluts.

Jason said:
Now I have to wonder, how did we get to this place? A place where teenage guys will get whatever they want with little reciprocity? Is this what Feminists had in mind when they wanted women to be sexually liberated? Free blow jobs for guys?
--------------------
Couple of points:
1) there was never one Feminist group, there were many (still are, though less), and they were in various oppositions to each other regarding politics and society, including attitudes and behaviors re sex.

2) the sexual liberation group was not only formed by feminists, it was formed by many liberals as well (who were often quite sexist in many ways). What really developed later, and is quite dominant today, is the sexist locker-room mentality regarding people and sex that we see from a variety of posters at Ace.

3) several feminist groups were against porn, prostitution, sexual objectification of women.

Basically they lost, and society has been taken over today by people promoting the porn, prostitution, sexual objectification/celebrity/cult to looks attitudes/values/behaviors.

4) There's no major difference in the kids wanting to gawk at other kids giving orals and the guys here (plus the retarded lesbiunn who posts here occasionally) who wants to gawk at other adults and lesbians going at each other. The major problem is not the age of those involved. It's the culture and attitudes regarding sex and people.

5) In the 60s and 70s what some of these sexual liberation and feminist folks were reacting against was a cultural norm that prescribed women's sexual pleasure was not something to be taken into account, and that sex could only exist within marriage. Also the dicotomy between making women into "respectable"= non-sexual or "sluts"= sexual. However, the so-called active girls/sluts were nothing but girls with considerable emotional problems acting them out sexually, and totally exploited by the guys around them. This is what men often "laud" as sexually liberated women.

How did we get to this place? Responsibility and respect lost and exploitation, sexism, locker-room mentalities won. It went from repression to "exploitation and disrespect branded as freedom."

Laura, yes, that's my opinion they are going to do it. I was having sex, including oral sex at this age. I was sexually responsible and aware of how to protect myself from STDs and emotional harm. It bothers me that some girls are not prepared and have sex because of peer pressure. I do not consider having sex or oral sex bad behavior.

sogladIhomeschool.

13 or 14 is not "too young"? It's not "bad behavior." Moral relativism at it's best. If your opinion is "they're gonna do it anyway", why not just set them up with birth control once they start menstruating?

As for the comments regarding the "extended childhood", etc. Yes, it is true - too many young adults are given the easy life by overindulgent parents. I personally don't understand how anyone would WANT to live in their parents house after the age of 18. But, this isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about little 8 y/o girls dressing and acting like tramps. Thong underwear. Adult interests. When do girls give up their dolls? And, then there are the BRATZ dolls (ugh). My children are often "immature" in comparison to other kids- and I LOVE it. They still enjoy 'kid" stuff, and if that is immature, I don't care.

Alessandra,
What makes sex harmful or bad is the context, how each sexual action impacts the people involved. Therefore sex can go from great to extremely violent and while still being all "sex" or the same physical sexual act.

I agree with you, completely. There is bad behavior, but sex in itself is not bad. And, IMO, the book implied it was dangerous (i.e. bad).

A lot of people don't deal with sex well (not only kids, adults too) and sex can involve a lot of "bad" (meaning harmful, hurtful, unhealthy) results.

Agreed.

Sex can be very bad if it harms the people involved. There is nothing obligatorily good about sex simply because it is sexual or there may be some physical pleasure involved in an sexual act. There is more to consider.

I agree with your premise, but I disagree about the inherent nature of sex. I do think sex is inherently good and positive because it is sexual and does meet the pleasure principle need, as well as a host of other needs, including the desire to share love through physical expression. I would therefore say sex is "obligatorily good", while, at the same time recognizing that it can be used in many terrible, wrong ways.

Alessandra,

I'm aware of all your points; I was asking more rhetorically. My point was just that the current generation of teenage boys weren't born with the gift of being able to influence girls to get down on their knees. It came from the culture at large.

What really developed later, and is quite dominant today, is the sexist locker-room mentality regarding people and sex that we see from a variety of posters at Ace.

I'm not sure when this developed, but I think it's been going on among guys for quite some time, but it was kept in the locker room.

Carin: I was talking about when I was 17. I thought the book was for 16 year olds. I have problems with the book and distributing it to kids.

Carin: yes, I do advocate birth control for protection.

Jason said:
I'm not sure when this developed, but I think it's been going on among guys for quite some time, but it was kept in the locker room.
-------------------------
Totally agree, it's not anything new, but it was counterbalanced with other culture norms and restrictions before (as you said, "kept in the locker room").

Now it is the dominant culture, it went from the locker room to mainstream media, classrooms, bedrooms, and therefore, it's impacting kids at earlier stages and age groups in a way that was not happening before.

I am of the school that you scare the bejesus out of the kids that they absolutely FREAKEN cannot have sex w/o protection .... then you make it pretty difficult for them to get. I don't agree with the "blur all boundaries" approach -handing condems out in the school nurses office, for example.

In general, I think sex is a jipe for girls/women. That somehow society has convinced all these females to - pleasure men with little, to no, reward - just boggles the mind.

Carin: The first time I realized my boyfriend was in his own world when he and I were "together" was the last time we were together.

Carin's post reminds me of another point I'd like to introduce into this discussion:

How much influence, if any, have biological changes had on this discussion?

Regardless of reasoning-- good nutrition, bovine growth hormone, repeated viewings of MTV Spring Break-- both boys and girls have been hitting puberty earlier than ever before. *Particularly* girls, who in some studies are menstruating by an average of a year earlier than previous generations.

Now, don't ask me to explain menstruation-- I don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.

But I do know about puberty, having gone through it last week.

And if all these kids are hitting puberty that much earlier, combine that with the sexualization of the culture, and you're potentially taking a flamethrower to gasoline.

It's one thing to tell a kid at 16 to wait until they're older until they surrender to their raging hormones; they're almost out of the house. But what if we're adding in another year, two or three to that equation? That's an awful lot of pressure, not only on the kids, but their parents, schools and communities as well.*

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

*Because, as everyone knows, horny teenagers will eff anything that moves if you don't bolt them down.

Here's how my version of the book would go.

Page One.

Girl #1: Hey I've got an idea for tonight. Let's have a Rainbow party?

Girl #2: What's that?

Girl #1: We wear different color lipstick and give boys blowjobs.

Girl #2: Gross, you're such a slut. Why would we want to do something like that?

Girl #1:

Girl #2: Anyway, I like the lipstick idea though, let's just go to the mall.

The End

Now it is the dominant culture, it went from the locker room to mainstream media, classrooms, bedrooms, and therefore, it's impacting kids at earlier stages and age groups in a way that was not happening before.

That's exactly right. This is the result of growing up around adults who refuse to call a spade a spade. It comes from the attitude that everything belongs out in the open and is worthy of discussion and debate, even ideas that are off-the-freaking-chart wrong.

Putting books like this one on the middle-school library shelf is a way of pretending that we are having a mature discussion with 8th graders about whether ORGIES are a good idea.

Hubris, would you be comfortable with the idea of an adult having an in-depth "discussion" with an 8th-grader over whether it's really "wrong" for kids their age to have sex with farm animals? To deal smack? To pimp out their classmates?

Or would you need to read the book first to gather the evidence you would need before you could pass judgment?

Dave, you're f'in hilarious today. I think girls are driven by hormones but also in large part from a desire to feel desired, cause that's what we're schooled in early on. While a guy is told to get out there and score to prove his masculinity etc., we're told be desirable- to get out there and get laid. It's the total shits if you're masculinity is in doubt or nobody wants you. This is why I hate to see my six year old niece put on lipstick. The fact is there's more to all of us and sex than conquest and desire.

desire should be "desirability". Jeesh, the holiday's comin'.

How much influence, if any, have biological changes had on this discussion?
------------------------
None. It's all cultural. Different races/societies around the world have different average menstruation age rates and there are many differences in how they develop their cultural attitudes and behaviors towards teen sexual activity.

However, there is no way you can ask people not to have any sexual activity if you simply keep inscreasing the age until they get married. One thing is to wait until you are 17 or 19 or 21 to have sex, but 28, 33, 35? Not doable.

Can most 15-17 yr olds handle sex well? I don't think so.

Phinn,

I would have no problem telling my boys that they shouldn't nail goats, horses, or other animals. I would have no problem telling my kids that heroin is bad, or that pimping is bad.

And telling them those would not be an admission that they're debateable points. I would simply be making my position clear.

You seem to believe that a willingness to communicate is a willingness to "debate" with the youngster as to whether thing is wrong (I really don't mean this as a strawman, this is how I'm understanding your point). Communication isn't always a debate. I don't "debate" with my kids, but I do talk to them.

Ken,

My apologies for not making myself clear. When I talk about shorter childhood I'm talking about innocence. Children are confronted with and expected to digest things like homosexuality, and dating, and sex, etc. earlier and earlier in their lives.

That said, your statement:

"the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed - because people can't get married and support families until several years later."

is the biggest crock of shit I've seen anybody posit on this website yet (with the exception of cedarford, of course).

...and I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your last sentence; just in case, I'll clarify: I wasn't waiting for "evidence" to see if the behavior described is bad, I was waiting to see evidence as to whether the communication regarding the behavior was bad. That the behavior itself was bad was never in question to me.

Alessandra--

None? That's a little stark, no?

I'm not denying that the sexualization of the culture has a major-- if not *the* major-- impact on this issue, but if I find it intriguing that at the same time more overt sexuality on the part of increasingly younger teenagers occurs, average age of puberty in America declines.

The science could be faulty, or we could have been wrong on the average ages in the past, but if the numbers *are* accurate, I wonder what influence it has.

After all, far fewer problems occur with 8 year olds sleeping with 8 year olds. I'm not saying it doesn't happen-- unfortunately, *it does*-- but if you have two kids who are not in puberty, they are absolutely not going to be hormonally motivated to do what children who are in puberty are hormonally motivated to do.

Since we're dealing with statistical outliers here anyway-- the 11-14 year old age group seemingly the focus of our anger regarding your friendly neighborhood rainbow parties-- it seems intuitive to me that there could be at least some correlation between puberty hitting earlier and kids experimenting with sex earlier.

Of course, experimentation with sex used to be playing doctor, and not throbbin' bobbin' parties; again, I am *not* denying the cultural influence here.

Then again, this could all be a chicken-and-the-egg deal anyways. Early puberty could be contributing to their personal sexualization, or the cultural sexualization could be contributing to their early puberty (hormones are tricky things that way-- everybody's in "heat," so the body is tricked into getting the good while the goods are worth getting).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

BTW, I was joking with that "heat" comment.

Well, sort of. After all, if Will Ferrell ever taught me anything, it's that menstruating women attract bears.

Since we're dealing with statistical outliers here anyway-- the 11-14 year old age group seemingly the focus of our anger regarding your friendly neighborhood rainbow parties-- it seems intuitive to me that there could be at least some correlation between puberty hitting earlier and kids experimenting with sex earlier.
---------------------------------------
Dave,

I don't know what kind of stats you are talking about - btw, what are they? what do they show about average onset of menses for which populations?

But what I was pointing out is that societies do not make their rules about teenage sex based on average age that menstruation starts, but other cultural and value-based norms.

That means that you can find societies with the same average age for onset of menses and completely different controls and norms for teenage sexual activity. In other words, culture completely overrides biology in this aspect.

Where biology starts to override culture is the length of time that a culture prescribes people to be forbidden to have sex, after puberty starts.

Which, btw, is why celibacy has been such a fraud for many priests in the Catholic Church for centuries. Many priests with normal and healthy sexual drives simply would never be able to be true to any celibacy oath throughout their lives.

" Many priests with normal and healthy sexual drives simply would never be able to be true to any celibacy oath throughout their lives."

Indeed. Your penis/vagina always overides ones will/intellect.

Materialism 4 ever!!!!

I would have no problem telling my boys that they shouldn't nail goats, horses, or other animals. I would have no problem telling my kids that heroin is bad, or that pimping is bad. And telling them those would not be an admission that they're debateable points. I would simply be making my position clear

I know you would. Everyone I know would. I have no doubt that is your position.

That's not the problem here.

The problem here is twofold:

1. It is not a parent who is talking to the kids. It is a publisher.

2. The topic (teen oral sex orgies) is being discussed in a manner that is decidedly different from the heart-felt, one-on-one highly clear discussion you would most likely have with your kids. This is a morality tale, they said.

A morality tale about 8th-grade sex orgies.

Marshall Macluhan said that the medium is the message. This message (on which we all seem to agree, in substance) ends up being very different when it is conveyed by (a) mass media (b) in the form of a morality tale.

That is very different from the heart-felt discussion with your own child.

By discussing this topic in the form of a mass-market book sold directly to kids, and putting it on the junior high bookshelf, the substantive message that you would convey to your kids ends up being conveyed along with one or more meta-messages.

The meta-messages are: (a) other kids do this sort of thing often enough to make it almost normal, and (b) it's not completely 100% wrong but merely has some drawbacks worth considering, and (c) its only wrong because of the STD risk.

This book cannot be fixed by including more harmful effects than just STDs. That only remedies meta-message (c). Meta-messages (a) and (b) are conveyed no matter what is in the book.

Hey, I have a question about "being in heat".

Ok, female humans have menstrual flow about five to seven days after their peak fertility. The flow is designed to purge the egg and egg-support material, to make way for a new one. Women who have sex during their period have a very low likelihood of becoming pregnant, and they don't seem to be all that interested in doing it anyway.

Animals, however, seem to have a flow, or discharge, at the SAME TIME as their peak fertility (and peak desire). How does that work? Isn't that counter-productive? Or am I missing something?

Phinn,

I would agree with you on this specific book after seeing the excerpts from The Warden; I just think there's a way the story could have been told that would've been fine as a cautionary/morality tale.

I read all kinds of things that were very intense as to subject matter at a young age (just because I was a voracious reader and would read whatever I could get my hands on), and I didn't lose my moral compass or drift into an unsavory life of promiscuity/drug use/etc. Perhaps my potty mouth can be blamed on it, but that's about it.

That being said, everyone has a different (strong) opinion on how best to raise kids, and both of our hearts are in the right place. Respectful disagreement is fine by me.

Is it the same time? I thought "heat" was not during the menstrual flow.

Here are the details on being "in heat."

All I know is, my mom put underwear on the dog so it wouldn't get pregnant, and the underwear turned red.

Phinn, I agree with your meta-messages, and the idea that having to argue this is a bit of a mind bender.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that there's any improvement to the story by covering the other negatives. Far as I'm concerned, it's all negatives. This is sick.

I'm pretty sensitive about things that wound a young girl's self image (having two teen aged daughters will do that to you).

Put differently, I've told my girls "someday, a boy is going to tell you 'if you really loved me, you'd do this for me', and when he does, the best answer is 'if you really loved me, you wouldn't ask me to do that'".

I can't make their choices for them (not all of them anyway), I can only help them make good ones. This book would be of no use to me in that regard.

I don't suggest we burn the book, but the idea that it is helping to teach a moral lesson is crap. Kids think they are invincible, always have and always will. They don't have the intellectual capacity to see the danger of their actions, and without guidance from outside sources who know them better then they know themselves (ie their parents), they never will.

When Billy boy committed adultry of the oral fashion, and had the act shrugged off by the cultural elites, we all should have known that this type of activity was going to be the result. That is his real legacy.

"It's one thing to tell a kid at 16 to wait until they're older until they surrender to their raging hormones; they're almost out of the house. But what if we're adding in another year, two or three to that equation? That's an awful lot of pressure, not only on the kids, but their parents, schools and communities as well."

Yep. Which is why making we should set about making childhood shorter instead of longer. We need to do things like cut out summer breaks so that our kids can have a high school education at 13-14 and be through with college (not high school) at 18 - or have some college or other training under their belt at 16 if they can't stand to be dependent on their parents (or wind up with a baby and need to get married).

"That said, your statement:

"the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed - because people can't get married and support families until several years later."

is the biggest crock of shit I've seen anybody posit on this website yet (with the exception of cedarford, of course). "

Which part was false - that (a) the out-of-wedlock birth rate has increased considerably, that (b) the average age at marriage has also increased considerably, that (c) the need for more lengthy education has increased considerably, or that (d) that (c) might be a cause of (b) and (b) might be a cause of (a)?

"My apologies for not making myself clear. When I talk about shorter childhood I'm talking about innocence. Children are confronted with and expected to digest things like homosexuality, and dating, and sex, etc. earlier and earlier in their lives. "

And why is that bad? Seems to me that the only bad thing going on here is that children are confronted with blatant falsehoods and badly muddled misunderstandings about dating and sex. I don't see why correct information about dating and sex and homosexuality and whatnot is supposed to be hidden from them, or why complete ignorance about adult issues (aka "innocence") is supposed to be a good thing.

"Today, I find it ironic that in a world where people live longer than ever before, children are so eager to escape from the clutches of childhood to become an adult."

Doesn't seem so strange to me. People want to leave childhood for the same reason that their ancestors left everything behind and sunk every penny they had for a ticket to anything that floated across the Atlantic - because they wanted the blessings of Liberty for themselves.

"What a surprise that once they get there, they'll wish they never left the good life they once had."

I've been there for a while, and the only complaint I have is inadequate medical treatment, particularly the non-existence of a cure for aging. I miss my youthful body, but I most assuredly don't miss the "good life" where everything I read or saw was heavily censored, my travel was severely restricted, my belongings seized and searched without cause, my conversations eavesdropped upon, my every move scrutinized and criticized. I don't miss having to justify spending a few hours at the mall, being told to break up with a girlfriend, being forbidden to go for a drive in the countryside. I don't miss being utterly useless to anyone and everyone, lacking even the most rudimentary of skills and knowledge of the adult world and adult issues. I see that all of this was a necessary evil, but it was a temporarily necessary evil while a child learns to be an adult, and I see no advantage whatsoever to dragging this out one minute longer than absolutely necessary. We're shortening our kids' effective lifetimes so much with our stalling, we might as well be forcing them to take up smoking.

Everyone here is just jealous.

HOW MANY ORAL SEX ORGIES HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN?

I bet zero.

"I don't suggest we burn the book, but the idea that it is helping to teach a moral lesson is crap. Kids think they are invincible, always have and always will. They don't have the intellectual capacity to see the danger of their actions, and without guidance from outside sources who know them better then they know themselves (ie their parents), they never will."

They do have the intellectual capacity. What they don't have is the training, or the incentive to behave responsibly that comes from having a life of their own and no insulation from the consequences of their own actions, good or bad.

carin: The first time I realized my boyfriend was in his own world when he and I were "together" was the last time we were together.

Well, when I hear about rainbow parties, and the abundance of Oral sex - it is almost always (to be crude) blow jobs we are talking about here. I'm happy that you are "self-actualized" - but I don't think the same could be said to be true for the hordes of girls out there with their lipstick colored lipstick.

"HOW MANY ORAL SEX ORGIES HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN?"

Real or imagined?

I agree, Carin. I certainly think self-respect and worth play into how we handle sexual situations and whether or not we have sex with someone or continue to see them sexually. I think we need to communicate that to young girls without saying sex is bad or dangerous.

I don't believe every kid has uncontrollable raging hormones. I do believe peer pressure has more to do with it. Why are middle school mixed parties unchapparoned anyway? Everytime I think of Friends and dumbass Rachel getting knocked up I want to scream. It really was an irresponsbile storyline.

Ken, out-of-wedlock births are not exploding.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter08/0802.htm

In 2002, there were 43.7 births per 1000 unmarried women, aged 15-44.

From 1990 to 2002, the rate varied from 42.9 to 46.2 births, with the average being 44.1 births.

HOWEVER, the percentage of all births that are from single mothers has increased steadily from 28% in 1990 to 34% today (both percentages being the extremes of the 13 year range).

In other words, single moms aren't having any more babies now than before, but married moms are having fewer and fewer.

Oh, believe me ... sex can be bad. And dangerous.

Also, regarding horniness among teenagers:

Trust me, girls, you have NO IDEA what it is like being a male teenager.

One comedian, whose name escapes me, said it best. "Women have no idea what being horny is. Whenever they think they are horny, that's how men feel when we're not even thinking about it."

Carin: I clicked on your name to see if you had a blog site- it's not working (Bad Gateway).

Gee Ken, you have some issues with your childhood or something?

Hey, I've been in old age for a while too, and the only complaints I have are paying for my own travel, having to buy my own belongings, my conversations at work are eavesdropped upon, every move I make at work is scrutinized and criticized. I do miss having a few hours to spend at the mall, I would like to miss having a girlfriend pressuring me to register at Pottery Barn, I'd like to go for a drive in the countryside and have my parents loan me their car with a full tank of gas. I miss being utterly inconsequential to everyone, including my boss, my elderly father, my bank, the Internal Revenue Service, and Sallie Mae. I miss when life wasn't filled with medical exams, early-night hangovers, beer guts, mortgage payments, college funds, and child support.

Where you see the glass whole full, I see no advantage for children to be dragged into that life a minute earlier than absolutely necessary. We're shortening our kids' effective childhoods-- their training for an adulthood that will rest of their rotten, forsaken lives-- so much with our stalling, we might as well paint the kindergarten girls in fruit-flavored paste so the little boys can have at it real early.

What you see as a necessary evil, I see as safe harbor for children to learn how to lead a good life once they leave it. I also see it, in hindsight, as a completely different set of responsbilities-- ones that seemed bad at the time, but once adulthood came along, are merely swapped for an entirely new set of responsibilites.

The single most important lesson of childhood has always been, and always will be, the ability to responsibly deal with delayed gratification.

As my motto goes: life, is shit. Don't matter if you're 13 or 30 or 90.

Cheers,

Dave at Garfield Ridge

Oral sex parties are happening in our area for HS and some middle schoolers. Parents are freaking.

BJ competitions with several nonparticipants watching to see which girl can get it done the fastest and "is the best". . And chatroom discussions on how oral is OK with kids their own age, but to avoid blacks and adults because that's where the STDs are but not in their 13-18 year old peer population.

Spitting vs. swallowing protocol...spitting being OK and expected if it's a casual acquaintance, , but swallowing for a steady boyfriend is "meaningful". Pearl necklaces and facials...but definitely don't get it in the eyes..Talk of girls demanding oral reciprocity and buying products that promise to remove vaginal odor to get a friend to go down on them and not risk gossip that their parts "smell & taste bad" getting around.. Boys saying asparagus is bad to eat beforehand, but pineapple is good. Gals talking about whether or not blowing several guys at a party makes them a total slut, and if only doing one friend at a time doesn't make them a cumslut.

A lot of it is chatroom exaggeration. The party they weren't at - but EVERYBODY KNOWS that at the party 5 girls that they don't know got on their knees and were doing BJs for anyone that wanted it. The mystery gal with gold lipstick that got all the way down on some mystery guy at the same party who had a huge penis and she left gold lipstick marks on the base - EVERYBODY saw it!!

But parents are convinced that it is rampant, not just chatroom smoke, and like me, though I have two boys aged 3 and 5, are nervous and at least the guys I know - somewhat envious. "Why couldn't the gals back when I was in HS been so accomodating!!"

I certainly think self-respect and worth play into how we handle sexual situations and whether or not we have sex with someone or continue to see them sexually. I think we need to communicate that to young girls without saying sex is bad or dangerous.

Exactly! When I was 16 and getting peer pressure my dad said something like "Oh, don't do that with these boys, wait until you go out into the world and find someone worthy. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT. Don't waste yourself on these guys."

Just hearing that bolstered my self-respect and feeling of worthiness and make it easy to say no for years longer. Bonus--girls, if you wait till you are honestly MORE than ready, you will never have sex be associated with shame or guilt in your mind.

Sorry if that's TMI

Lipstick,

my sentiments exactly.

Dave, Even though I quoted someone else, your comment was the one that made me share that. Best of luck with your girls.

MyCountry - thanks, I checked, and yep, I made a mistake with the URL/link in my name (who knows how long ago - lol.)

Lipstick,

thanks. so far, so good.

Man, I never realized the teen section of the library could be such a hotbed of softcore teen and kiddie-porn. I should head out there more often and see what else they got... any suggestions?

(Yes, the above was sarcasm, I don't want suggestions, and I think its sick that any of you believed that).

After all, if Will Ferrell ever taught me anything, it's that menstruating women attract bears.

HEY Dave, that was Steve Carell's line, and it was the only funny one in that stinker. (Or were you referring to Ferrell's writing credit?)

And Lipstick Dynamite, I'll just bet you were called a tease for not putting out to those male skanks. Sex is such a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" at that age that you really need to have some fortitude to make the right choices. Books like this -- where the main consequence is STDs rather than lifelong guilt/pain and the fact that orgies are wrong regardless of age -- do not help. It's good to see that most people in this thread know that.

Master of None had the only version of this book I would buy.

Later,
bbeck

Anteres: What a wonderful thing! Don't forget that sex is wholesome and natural. It is very special thing for a young women (around 12-14) to be cummed in the face by 5-6 random guys. So special and important to a young girls development! Didn't they have backseats and sex with boyfriends/girlfriends when y'all were younger? Then wow dare you judge!!!

Know who wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"?

ROGER EBERT!!

I kid you not.

I do not post often on any sort of blogs (as in real life, I am crippled by my shyness), but I felt an inclination here...

I am fifteen years old, 10th grade. Perhaps I can mediate?

Although I can see the issue has sort of strayed from the book, here's my two cents: The book, from what I can tell, is as confusing as all get out. If the author is genuinely trying to offer a moral about sex, why is the rest of the book nothing but a glazed, sexual joyride? Did the author ever consider how confusing that is? I, personally, am baffled--I cannot figure out WHAT the author is trying to tell me and others like me.

The book is badly written enough; I read the first few pages and it reads like a third-grade book with the f-word on the second page. The biggest influence this book could possibly have on a teen is causing them to scratch their heads and skip through right to the actual sex.

I don't think such books cause any particular behavior--I think that's a confusion of cause and effect. I DO think the books are disgusting, but if one looks at my age-group's pop-culture, it should be pretty clear that these books are created in RESPONSE to fads. No teen is going to read this book and say "Hey, great idea!" They are going to buy and read the book because the fad is already in place. At worst, the author is just doing what commercialism does best--finds out what's popular and milking as much money as they can from it. It doesn't justify what they sell morally, but I think any product such as "Bratz" and other sexually-hyped things cannot be held responsible for the actual inducing of the fad. "Rainbow Party" is a symptom, not a cause, of a problem.

In clarifying that, of course, I've probably proved nothing except that the elimination of this book is really not going to help, and in fact keeping the book on the shelves may do nothing at all. Product flow does little to fads, for others will simply take their place.

There are other sex novels out there for kids my age: take "Addicted" for example. It's about--guess what?--a woman who is addicted to sex! At school, I think this is the #1 read novel. I see it everywhere.

I know, I know. We all have our buzz-phrases for correcting the entire rampant-teenage-sex problem. As well-intentioned as these ideas are, I personally see no solution in sight. I do think it CAN be solved, but the solution cannot take place under the current structure (i.e. who thought trapping hormone-crazed teenagers together in one building for seven hours a day was a good idea...?)

The only real hopeful news I have is that there is such a thing as "burnout."

I am... Er... Not skilled in brevity. Sorry. Questions? Comments?