Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
katievs ·
November 15, 2012 at 6:42pm
File this under "social issues matter, people." We either fight or succumb. There is no neutral.
“There’s tons of ways that people define ‘slut.’ Most, though, are f’d up.” That’s the lead in for an MTV video targeting teens and tweens on Planned Parenthood’s Info for Teens Facebook page. This denigrating instructional video takes place in a classroom setting and encourages young girls to become promiscuous and emphasizes that others should respect them because, as sluts, they are “confident in their sexuality.”
- Comment (67)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Which is so ironic, because in general, sexually promiscuous girls are those who arenotconfident in themselves, and who therefore feel a need to compensate by pleasing others with sexual favors.
Aug '11
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Huh. So Rush Limbaugh was simply remarking on Sandra Fluke's confidence? Then why all the kerfuffle?
Aug '11
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Anyway, "Reason #12 why we are homeschooling."
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Well, that's a round about way to drop population-- get young girls to have lots of sex with as many people as possible as early as possible, they get a wide range of STDs and their fertility is impacted, and then the population goes down.
Bonus: they'll do the shaming of those who don't sleep around for you! (Think I'm exaggerating Ask any girl who graduated in the last decade and change and who was known to not put out. I wasn't even very religious.)
Mar '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Jun '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Unbelievable.
Sep '10
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
After reading a post on the main page I was wondering what the definition of a slut was. I guess it hasn't changed, but is no longer considered derogatory unless it is used by a conservative male.
Apr '11
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Despicable video.
And sure, let's fight the culture war But not with government. Get government out of social engineering, and lets' fight this battle among the people.
May '10
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Jeff: Despicable video.
And sure, let's fight the culture war But not with government. Get government out of social engineering, and lets' fight this battle among the people.
Planned Parenthood receives many millions annually in tax dollars. Billions in tax deductible "donations". It is in our public schools. It has been warmly endorsed by the President. Its president was featured at the Democratic Convention.
Obamacare includes provisions allowing young girls to get free birth control and abortifacient drugs without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
It's in our politics, whether we like it or not. If we don't fight it there, it will defeat us.
Edited on November 13, 2012 at 6:20pmMay '10
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
In case anyones doesn't know, "tweens" are girls aged 10, 11 and 12.
Sep '10
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Jeff: Despicable video.
And sure, let's fight the culture war But not with government. Get government out of social engineering, and lets' fight this battle among the people. · 1 hour ago
Defunding $487 Million of taxpayer dollars to Planned Victimhood would be a nice start.
Aug '11
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
I think if more parents understood what Planned Parenthood was saying to their children in the public school settings, there would be a louder cry for defunding.
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Wellya.
But this message is no different in content than thousands upon thousands of songs intimately sung to 9 year old girls since the 1960s, and maybe a little beyond.
There in their rooms, when they're alone or with friends, they've been listening to this message on their radios, then their turntables, then their tape machines, CD players, and now, with their earbuds and iPods.
"Words of love, soft and tender, won't win a girl's heart anymore..."
Cass wasn't singing to adults, Cass was singing to those who buy the lion's share of records: 9-13 year old girls. Just like Mick Jagger was always singing to 9-13 year old girls. KC and the Sunshine Band. ACDC. Frankie Goes to Hollywood. Red Hot Chili Peppers. Tupac. Aguilera.
"He's a one stop shop, makes my panties drop, he's a sweet talkin' sugar coated candyman..."
Any record executive will tell you who their primary customers are.
Wasn't the movie Footloose about overreaction to lurid rock & roll music?
How willing are we to fight the battles?
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Neolibertarian
How willing are we to fight the battles? · 20 minutes ago
Very.
On the ground where it works: talking to folks about what the words actually mean. Folks may have seen my rather snippy little rants about how many songs boil down to "sleep with me, so I can leave you for the next easy lay."
Incidentally, your purchasing demos may be a bit outdated and/or off: folks over 45 buy the most, and 15-19 buy the second most. Other links say it changed sometime between 88 and 98.
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Foxfier
Neolibertarian
How willing are we to fight the battles? · 20 minutes ago
Very.
On the ground where it works: talking to folks about what the words actuallymean. Folks may have seen my rather snippy little rants about how many songs boil down to "sleep with me, so I can leave you for the next easy lay."
Incidentally, your purchasing demos may be a bit outdated and/or off: folks over 45 buy the most, and 15-19 buy the second most. Other links say it changed sometime between 88 and 98. · 35 minutes ago
Ouch.
Yes, out of date demographics, certainly--those stats are from the 1970s (the decade when they perfected music marketing).
Though it should be noted: 9 year old girls are too young to buy music at iTunes, but many certainly buy their music through their 38 year old mom's account. Is this measurable?
The marketing has changed greatly, especially from the 1990s on.
Even so, I venture to guess that the women who helped write and produce that tip-of-the-iceberg MTV abomination were listening to that same message when they were nine.
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Neolibertarian
Though it should be noted: 9 year old girls are too young to buy music at iTunes, but many certainly buy their music through their 38 year old mom's account. Is this measurable?
The marketing has changed greatly, especially from the 1990s on.
I believe they were using survey information, rather than direct sales information; that's based on the type of music being bought. (The stuff that...well, 40 year old folks listen to, generally.)
Does it help that most of the articles I scanned about it mentioned that they still target that tween-to-college demo as their primary buyers? (Explains so much....)
Nov '11
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
I agree, but am not sure the best way to fight.
I'm not anti-religious, yet it is possible that tying public discussion of morals too closely to religion has harmed both religion and morals.
I'm not phrasing this very elegantly, but perhaps you can understand what I mean: That in contemporary American life, religion and morality have become like two drowning men incapable of saving each other. As they try to scramble atop each other, both sink. If either or both are to be saved they must separate and swim on their own (or appear to the non-religiouis to have done so).
Put another way, we require a secular morality that actually is moral, a secular morality that can attract adherents without the obvious or overt support of religion, if that's possible.
I have in mind a "revival" of the beautiful idea of honor.
However, if one believes it is impossible for either individual or society to remain moral without remaining religious, then perhaps one should concentrate efforts on converting the non-religious, the widespread success of which will cause promiscuity and abortion to disappear.
Apr '12
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Astonishing-
I avoid specifically, overtly religious reasoning if at all possible, just because so many people have a knee-jerk hatred of it.
A slap-dash bit of natural law, and the embedded religious notions in our culture (such as "all humans are people") are very handy, though. Most people don't like to say "I'm fine calling that group of humans non-persons," even if they're totally willing to live that way.
May '10
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
Astonishing
I agree, but am not sure the bestwayto fight.
We fight every way we can, and we start now.
What we don't do is sit back and complain that the people in the trenches aren't doing it right.
Let those who think the best hope lies in a religious revival get busy trying to revive religion. Let those whose talent lies in policy-crafting, start crafting good policy. Let those who are skilled in rhetoric use good rhetoric, adapted to the understanding and interest of their hearers.
Parents can start objecting to Planned Parenthood being in the schools. They can get informed. They can expose it. Or they can decide to switch schools, or homeschool.
Let each act according to his gifts and his sense of how he can be most effective.
Edited on November 15, 2012 at 6:52pmNov '11
Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Teaching Young Girls To Be Sluts
katievs
Astonishing
I agree, but am not sure the bestwayto fight.
. . . .What wedon'tdo is sit back and complain that the people in the trenches are [not] doing it right. . . .
But what if they are not doing it right? And what if those same people presume that they are the only ones in the trenches and that they are in charge of the trenches?
How often I confront the objection (which is wrong but nonetheless pervasive) that "you are just trying to impose your religious views on everybody else" about abortion, homosexual marriage, etc! And then I exhaust myself explaining how that cannot be the case, because I'm not religious.
The misperception that religion must be the only basis of opposition has become a convenient excuse for intellectually lazy people not to consider any argument against abortion, homosexual marriage, cultural relativism, etc. (Most people are lazy intellectually. And they also vote.)
When reasoning with a religious person, resort to religious principles is appropriate, but when reasoning with a non-religious person, it is usually off-putting and couterproductive, unless you are trying to convert the person, in which case you probabably need not discuss abortion.