Heart to Heart Talks Blog

Greetings from merry olde England!   I’m here in London for 2 weeks with my husband celebrating our 30th wedding anniversary.   I hadn’t intended to blog from the UK, but during our visit to Windsor castle today, a certain exhibit raised some thoughts worth sharing.

At the castle, a series of display cases contained two large dolls–about 30″ tall–and their extensive wardrobes.     These were gifts from the French government to Queen Elizabeth & her sister Margaret as young girls (both princesses at the time).     The numerous complete doll ensembles were custom-designed & crafted with real silks, furs & jewels by the top Parisian fashion houses such as Cartier and Lanvin.   Every item was exquisite & meticulously detailed.

As a mother of three lively daughters, my first thought was:  “Why give such expensive & delicate playthings to little girls who don’t understand their value.   Surely even royals’ children  damage their toys.”   But the pristine condition of the doll collection indicated otherwise.

It then occurred to me that little princesses Elizabeth & Margaret were learning through their play how to dress and act as royalty.    Their nannies surely supervised their recreation, teaching the girls to dress their dolls carefully in the elegant ensembles required for morning, afternoon tea, evening and special ceremonial occasions.   Every article of clothing and accessory had significance.   There was a “proper way” to dress the dolls and serve them high tea.

As restrictive as that playtime may have been, it was part of instilling the traditions unique to those in the line of succession to the throne.

I saw parallels to our responsibilities as Christian parents in Deuteronomy 6:6-9.   Do we take every opportunity (including recreation) to raise our offspring to dress and act as children of our heavenly King?

I’ve written before about why I didn’t buy Barbie dolls for my daughters . . . Barbie’s wardrobe does not inspire Biblical modesty. My girls each received a fragile porcelain doll instead, along with instructions for careful handling.

Beyond clothing, do we teach our children to recognize, appreciate and properly cultivate things of great spiritual value . . . like patience, honesty and self-control?  I did an  imperfect job of instilling these things in my daughters because I am still growing in these virtues myself.

Like the Windsor girls, our children must learn and practice the decorum of God’s royal family.   But unlike mastering British royal traditions,  mastering the dress and actions of  heavenly royalty is a lifelong process.

A recent Peanuts comic strip featured Charlie Brown listening patiently to an impassioned monologue on love delivered by his friend Linus.   [I wanted to post the actual comic but this base model blog template won’t support images. Yes, yes I need to upgrade . . .]

Linus – “I am a friend of all nature.   I love people . . . birds . . . fish . . . animals . . . and plant life.   I love without reservation!   I love without qualification!   I love without even THINKING!!!”

The character’s last sentence got my attention:  “I love without even THINKING!!!”  That statement seems to be the basis of the shallow views of love so prevalent in our culture:  love is a feeling, love is random, love is blind, love is out of our control, love happens ‘at first sight,’ love means we should have sex (even outside of marriage), love means ‘never having to say you’re sorry.’   These and countless other trite, conflicting sentiments suggest that love is outside the realm of intellectual exercise.

But is love really disconnected from thinking?   God says absolutely not!!   Consider a few of the myriad Scriptures on love:

The source of love
“God is love.” (1John 4:17)
“. . . love comes from God.” (1John 4:7)
“We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)

The manifestation of love
“Love is patient, love is kind . . . (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)

The command to love
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . soul . . . mind . . . love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39)
“Love each other as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)
“Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church . . .” (Ephesians 5:25)
“Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44)

The highest expression of love
“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

These verses demonstrate that love isn’t a random feeling.   It is an act of the will that originates with God Himself.   He gives us the ability to love each other and then commands us to do so whether we feel like it or not!   We could not choose to obey or disobey this command if love did not involve thought and reason.   And despite what the U.S. entertainment industry tells us, self-sacrifice, not sex, is love’s highest expression.

Such truths may not sell many Hallmark cards, but they define real, everlasting, unconditional love . . . the kind everyone seems to want.   With the Lord’s help we can be intentional about teaching and role-modeling that kind of love to our children, our grandchildren and anyone else who will listen.   God’s love is far more satisfying than Peanuts.

The delay in this latest blog post is due to the July 4th birth of my first grandchild amidst the crackling of fireworks.   He’s a 9lb. 5.5oz bundle of preciousness.   But I struggle to stay optimistic about the culture in which he will grow up.   Two recent news stories illustrate the ongoing battle for hearts and minds of America’s children.

The first story illustrates senselessness.   It comes from Provincetown, Massachusetts where on June 8th the school board voted unanimously to make free condoms available beginning this fall to all district students – including the ELEMENTARY students – without parental notification or consent.   Local talk show hosts spoofed the absurdity of the decision:  “So what size will they give out to little first grade boys . . . how about finger cots?”    Once the story gained national media attention, public pressure prompted a modification of the policy to exclude the elementary students.   But middle schoolers are still included . . . that would be 11-13 year olds!

Here is what disturbs me most about this controversy:   Provincetown School Superintendent Dr. Beth Singer indicated that parents would NOT be notified nor required to give consent if their child requests condoms.   Worse still, her school officials have been directed TO IGNORE the pre-emptive demands of concerned parents who become aware of the policy and do not want their minor children to receive condoms.   This is a gross usurpation of parental authority, and violates the federal statute that gives parents the right to direct the upbringing of their children . . . especially the moral upbringing which shapes children’s character.    As in so many other public school systems across America, Provincetown’s arrogant policy contributes to the delinquency of minors, and facilitates risky behavior that can have serious, even life-long consequences.

By contrast, the second story demonstrates a refreshing sensibility.   Apple CEO Steve Jobs unapologetically established a company policy which does not allow pornographic applications to run on company products.   An article in the July 3rd issue of World Magazine reported Jobs’ stated intent to offer “freedom from porn.”   Critics falsely accused him of censorship, belying their own misunderstanding of its definition.   Jobs was not trying to ban all porn (actual censorship) . . . he simply wanted to offer consumers a choice of porn-free devices regardless of the impact on Apple’s bottom line.    Plenty of other companies make products for folks with appetites for pornographic apps.   To the naysayers Jobs replied, “You might care more about porn when you have kids.”

Upon purchasing Apple devices,  some techno-savvy users might illicitly reprogram them to run porn apps.   Nevertheless,  Steve Jobs has publicly taken a principled stand, and I applaud him for it.   I think he’d make a terrific school superintendent in Provincetown, don’t you?

Some kids never grow up.   Yesterday my husband and I attended a late night showing of Toy Story 3.   While chuckling over the antics of Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Mr. Potato Head and Barbie, I reflected on “Spud Stud”- my previous satirical post about the Elvis Mr. Potato Head.   Several of my astute readers commented on the serious theme underlying the spoof:  that toy manufacturers are still producing items geared toward the sexualization of young children.   Today I’d like to disclose (confess?) my personal experiences with controversial sexy toys.

I actually had one of the original Barbie dolls with the severe, aloof facial expression, the blonde bubble-like hairdo and the non-bendable legs.   The bendable leg version came out a few years later in 1965 . . . but I’m not bitter.   I did not ask for a Barbie, and I rarely played with mine.   A natural tomboy, I was too busy climbing trees and playing dodgeball, softball or kick-the-can with male neighborhood friends.   My doll spent most of her time stuffed awkwardly in her plastic black case wearing only her swimsuit-like underwear.   Most of her tiny high heels and accessories had been sucked up by the vacuum cleaner shortly after her arrival at my house.   Clearly Barbie failed to sexualize pre-adolescent me.

As a mom, I refused to provide Barbie dolls to my three daughters.   Ironically, they never asked for them. My refusal was aimed at a relative who insisted that my girls would become social misfits without “hands on Barbie experience.”   Eventually, this relative defiantly gave a Barbie as a birthday gift to one of my daughters . . . this doll even had bendable legs, long pony-tailed hair and a pleasant face.    But her fate was similar to that of my own Barbie doll decades earlier.    Because she didn’t come with a carrying case, this Barbie spent her days naked and bent in unnatural positions under the furniture.   Her tiny accessories filled my vacuum cleaner dust bag.

I mentioned in my previous post that the Bratz™ dolls appeared in 2001, with fishnet stockings, midriff-baring tops, micro-mini skirts and other pieces associated with strippers and prostitutes.   They made Barbie look tame.   Marketed to girls ages 4-8, they caused a public outcry.    Thankfully, my own daughters were well past playing with dolls when the Bratz arrived.   My girls preferred creating handmade tack and stables for their Breyer horse models (purchased at yard sales), thus averting doll-induced sexualization.

But the Bratz controversy raged on in the culture, and professionals weighed in:

“The American Psychological Association cites the Bratz dolls as one of many cultural influences that contribute to the sexualization of girls. And this affects cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality and attitudes and beliefs, the group said in a report. “ [From “Lolita Lives” June 1, 2007 http://promomagazine.com/eventmarketing/marketing_lolita_lives/ ]

Armed with studies like this,  I wrote a paper on the sexualization of girls for one of my masters courses.   By themselves, these sensual dolls don’t have much impact.   But my research revealed other prurient influences such as vampy clothing sized for little girls, sexual innuendo in many kiddy cartoons and movies, and Disney channel child stars who morph from wholesome role-models to racy icons.

Moms and dads today have to be vigilant, tough and persistent to fend off the barrage of sexually-charged kid stuff that destroys childhood innocence.   The Toy Story 3 producers seem to be doing their part to help parents . . . near the end of the movie, we learned that Barbie is a Constitutional scholar.

**NOTE** The following post has been written “tongue-in-cheek” . . . sort of.

Is there no end to the depravity of toy manufacturers??  They keep producing items geared toward the sexualization of young children, especially little girls.  First there was Mattel’s Barbie™ who debuted in 1959 with her controversial larger-than-life “proportions”.  She’s been evolving according to cultural trends ever since.

In 2001 the Bratz™ dolls appeared, making Barbie look tame.  Marketed to girls ages 4-8, they caused a public outcry by sporting ensembles with fishnet stockings, midriff-baring tops, micro-mini skirts and other pieces typically associated with strippers and prostitutes.

Now,  just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, along comes a toy seemingly designed to turn a little boy into a hunka-hunka-burning-lust . . . the Elvis Presley Mr. Potato Head !!!  I am NOT making this up.  Paste the link below into your browser to see this latest seductive scourge.

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PPW02117

Do its features include a gyrating pelvis?   Blue suede shoes?  Sultry, snarling plastic lips?

To me,  the  most disturbing thing about the Elvis Mr. Potato Head is that it transforms an innocent classic children’s toy – a plastic asexual vegetable – into a sensual icon.   The basic Mr. Potato Head is recommended for ages TWO and up, which begs the question:  Who are the target users for the Elvis version?  Preschool boys who can be sexualized into babe magnets?  Aging Elvis groupies?  Collectors?

What’s next, Lady Ga-Ga Raggedy Ann™ and Gangsta Rapper Winnie-the-Pooh™?  Sigh . . . it’s tough being a Christian parent these days.

I look forward to your tongue-in-cheek (or serious) comments.

I was surprised and saddened to read yesterday about Al and Tipper Gore separating after 40 years of marriage.  Their friends are insisting to the media that there was no affair or other specific cause . . . the Gores have just “grown apart” and the separation decision was “mutual.”  Yet, just eight years ago they co-authored a book about marriage, and have been publicly projecting the image of a devoted, happy couple since before the Clinton years.  They also have a Baptist background.

Having been married 30 years myself, I find stories like this disconcerting.  What happened ?!?  And how can I make sure it doesn’t happen to Bob & me?  I want to believe that after a certain number of years, a couple “gets so used to each other” that their marriage bond becomes impervious to non-sinful corrosives such as boredom, annoying little habits, or the effects of aging.   In other words, unless one party does something stunningly selfish such as adultery, it seems that a marriage of 20 years or more should be on “cruise control” until death parts the couple.

The Gores have just torpedoed that faulty thinking.  Marriage is like a good warm campfire . . . it needs continuous stoking or it will die out.  Unconditional love is the “renewable fuel” that must be diligently re-applied every day . . . the kind described in 1 Corinthians 13.   I am reminded to actively nurture my relationship with Bob every day for the rest of my life, and never rely on familiar routines, length of time or other reasons to take my marriage for granted.

I don’t know what caused the Gores’ marriage to fail just eight years after they co-authored Joined at the Heart, a book on marriage and family life in America.  But as I write my own book to equip parents to teach their children about how sex and God’s institution of marriage are intertwined, I don’t want my marriage to shrivel 8-10 years from now . . . or ever!  The best gift we can give our children – even after they grow up and leave the nest – is to role model daily an attractive, strong Christian marriage that will give them something to aspire to.

Now that I’ve reached the empty nest years, the children aren’t constantly watching us.  And I’m noticing how easy it is to become complacent and lazy about nurturing my relationship with Bob.  With God’s help, Bob & I are determined to guard against letting the fire go out.   Meanwhile, I’ll be praying that the Gores reconcile.

Readers, along with any feedback about this post, have you known of a long term marriage (Christian or not) that split up or was on the verge of ending, but was restored?  What brought about reconciliation?

After a 3-month hiatus to finish my masters thesis, I’m back to blogging.  Many thanks to all who supported me with prayers and cheerleading during these past few years of study.  On May 15, I received my masters of communication degree from Spring Arbor University (SAU) in Michigan.  (You can see the photo album on my Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?aid=211291&id=736996053&ref=mf ).  My husband, my mom and I drove from Massachusetts for the commencement.  As I toured the beautiful campus, I was struck by the irony of finally seeing and photographing where I’d been “going to school” online for three years.  My friend and fellow graduate Tanja wryly noted,  “Now we can prove that Spring Arbor University is a real place, not some bogus operation run out of a rundown warehouse in Detroit.”

The SAU online masters program is just as rigorous as any conducted on the brick & mortar campus.  I was challenged & stretched beyond my expectations.  In fact, without SAU, my Sex-ed Homestyle book would not be on the path to publication, and I wouldn’t be blogging about it right now

Initially, I had doubts about my ability to handle the “technology layer” of online education.  But I’m  “living proof” that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks.  In fact, I’ve become so captivated by the marvels of the internet that I’m having to be disciplined about keeping my online activity from encroaching upon prayer time and other elements of a balanced Christian life.

Like most innovations, the internet can be used for good or for evil.  My masters research opened my eyes to the perniciousness of cyberspace in regard to sex.  That is why I am devoting an entire chapter in my book to how the internet and portable wireless devices have impacted young people’s sexual exposures and behavior.  For example, in 2009, Google found over 700 MILLION pornographic sites.  Many of these can be accessed inadvertently by kids doing research with innocuous keywords  for a school project.  Parents need to know what is happening, how to protect their children, and how to keep up with constantly evolving technology. . . no easy task when kids tend to be more techno-savvy than mom & dad.

God is not surprised by man’s misuse/abuse of intellectual & creative gifts.  While the internet’s power seems unfettered and its dark side so pervasive, I am reminded of the lyrics from one of my favorite hymns:

“This Is My Father’s World,
O let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the Ruler yet.”

It’s been 2 weeks since the Superbowl, and I’m still thinking about a certain commercial. [Click the link below to see the ad] Isn’t it sad that one of the few real men portrayed in this year’s SuperBowl ads was actually a little boy? While many other commercials showed adult males as clueless, beer-worshipping buffoons – some sans pants – a precociously principled half-pint slapped his mother’s leering boyfriend across the cheek,  got in his face,  and firmly declared:  “Keep your hands off my mama; keep your hands off my Doritos!”  This child stepped in to defend his mother’s honor just the way fathers and brothers of yesteryear defended the women in their lives, even though Jaelin’s mom was provocatively dressed and had obviously already given birth.

A few writers have criticized the ad as condoning the child’s supposed rudeness and “violence” (violence = slapping a grown man 3 times his size? Oh puh-leeze!).  I think they missed the much nobler point . . .  that through little Jaelin’s words & actions the Doritos ad strongly implied the man’s observable lust for the single mom was morally wrong.  This rare acknowledgement of a biblical standard comes straight from Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:28,  “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Kudos to Frito Lay for a clever, 30-second bible lesson.  Sure, we could legitimately criticize other aspects of the ad, but this time, I prefer to focus on what it got RIGHT, while I nibble on a bag of Tostitos™ (another Frito Lay product – I don’t eat Doritos).

Superbowl ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJDLws_l3Ok

By now, you may have heard of a remarkable new study published last week in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (February 2010, volume 164, #2) which demonstrated that abstinence-based sex education works – even when it’s applied for a limited time to a high risk middle school population – and even when the reasons taught for remaining abstinent are related only to avoiding sexually-tranmitted infection (STIs).

The study is titled “Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Intervention Over 24 Months” by researchers Jemmott, Jemmott and Fong.  It was long term, meticulously conducted according to the highest research standards, and unconnected to any religious framework or organization.  662 African-American middle-schoolers were randomly divided into 4 groups, each receiving a different 8-12 hour health intervention program:

The “control group” received a health program without a sex-related component.
One group received an “abstinence-only” program without a morality component.
One group received a “safe-sex-only” program.
One group received a “comprehensive program” which included a mix of abstinence, “safer sex” & HIV risk reduction information.

Within two years after participation in the program, 33.5% of those in the abstinence-only group reported sexual activity,
48.5% of those in the control group reported sexual activity.
42% of those in the comprehensive group reported sexual activity.
And about 52% of those taught only safe sex reported sexual activity.

In other words, because students are more likely to do what they are unequivocally taught, the abstinence-only group resulted in the lowest amount of sexually active teens, and the “safe sex only” group resulted in the highest amount.

Here’s an excerpt from the researchers’ findings:
“The results indicate that a theory-based abstinence-only intervention reduced self-reported sexual involvement among African American students in grades 6 and 7, a population at high risk of pregnancy and STIs, including HIV. The abstinence-only intervention compared with the health-promotion control intervention reduced by about 33% the percentage of students who ever reported having sexual intercourse by the time of the 24-month followup . . .” (p. 157)

To almost everyone’s surprise (except those of us who trust God’s wisdom) the researchers also stated:

“Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.” (p. 152).

So, it’s NOT abstinence’s fault after all.  Increased rates of teen pregnancy & STIs result from increased sexual activity.   Since more teens were sexually active after taking the “comprehensive sex–ed mix”, and the “safe-sex-only” classes, our schools need to reconsider their sex-ed strategies if they wish to produce the healthiest outcomes for our children.

I think the bigger story is this:  if a short term (8-12 hours), secular abstinence-only program can reduce sexual debut & activity in a high-risk population, then think of how effective abstinence-based sex education can be at home when presented by loving parents as a continuum of reproductive information intertwined with protective biblical principles throughout a child’s formative years.

Whaddya think?

According to a January 26th story on breitbart.com, a study by the Guttmacher Institute revealed that “. . . the US teen pregnancy rate rose in 2006 for the first time in 16 years . . . Three percent more girls between the ages of 15 and 19 became pregnant in 2006 than in 2005, four percent more gave birth, and one percent more had abortions. . . experts speculated that the increase was due to abstinence-only sex education in schools. . . The rise was ‘deeply troubling’ and ‘coincides with an increase in rigid abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which received major funding boosts under the Bush administration,’ said Guttmacher Institute senior public policy associate Heather Boonstra.” (Emphasis mine.  Below is the link to the Breitbart story)

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.efd4e61c5f7640532d11aae7a1186e02.421&show_article=1

Like Sessions Steppe & other authors referenced in my previous post, Ms. Boonstra is perpetuating the incongruous speculation that abstinence-programs are to blame. But authentic “abstinence-only” programs are in a tiny percent of the nation’s schools. Thus they could not possibly produce the increases cited in the Guttmacher study.

The vast majority of public schools utilize some form of “comprehensive sex –ed” which is sometimes misleadingly titled “Abstinence Plus”. In these programs abstinence isn’t properly or consistently defined, and is typically cast as “technical virginity”.  This inaccurate meaning allows instructors to promote oral sex & other disease-spreading non-intercourse behaviors, all of which can progress to actual vaginal intercourse. (There’s a reason these behaviors are still called “foreplay”!) Abstinence by any description usually receives token attention in these “comprehensive” sex-ed programs, and teachers’ attitudes are often dismissive. Even if abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula were truly to blame it would simply prove  that the government-funded institutional version doesn’t work . . . sex ed belongs at home!