To me the most troubling bit of madness was the President’s response to Sandra Fluke, the 30-something Georgetown University law student who wanted to make her case to Congress for why students’ contraceptives should be funded under Obamacare by this Roman Catholic institution in violation of the denomination’s doctrines.   The legislature denied Ms. Fluke a hearing.   But she was instead invited to speak before a small steering committee of sympathetic liberal lawmakers, and some media outlets treated this minor venue as if it was a full-blown Congressional forum.   Without a trace of shame, Fluke asserted that 40% of Georgetown college coeds were having “so much sex” that they couldn’t afford the alleged $3000 worth of contraceptives needed to avoid consequences through 3 years of law school!  The link below recounts the incident:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/28/georgetown-co-ed-please-pay-for-us-to-have-sex-were-going-broke-buying-birth-control/

I was appalled when President Obama dignified Fluke’s demand for Jesuit-funded, consequence-free promiscuity by personally reaching out to her on the phone.  He came to her defense because she’d supposedly been “victimized” by a talk show host who described her extreme sexual behavior with a crude term.  Even more stunning was Obama’s stated motive for supporting her:
“The reason I called Ms. [Sandra] Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” he said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind [sic] in a civil and thoughtful way.”

Yikes! Wasn’t there a more edifying role model from whom Malia & Sasha could learn “to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way?” Did the President actually believe that free speech would be the only lesson his daughters learned from Ms. Fluke?

I personally don’t think the President intended to convey to his daughters that wanton extra-marital copulation is just fine.   But his sympathies toward Ms. Fluke and his lack of disapproving commentary about sexual promiscuity imply such a message to his daughters . . . and to the general public.  Indeed, sex education can occur by omission as much as by pro-active instruction, especially in regard to moral constraints & attitudes.

Surely the President doesn’t want his daughters engaging in risky hook-ups with multiple partners during college & beyond.  And I hope he had a private discussion with Malia & Sasha to that effect after the public flap.  Unfortunately the President’s defense of Ms. Fluke was a debasing sex-ed lesson for the rest of us.

Danish-born Helena Christensen, a top VS model of the 1990s, eventually “aged out” of her job with the lingerie giant.  Now age 42, she has managed to maintain her super-model looks and still peddles sensuality by designing & provocatively modeling undergarments through assorted venues.  While she has other talents & interests—she’s a photographer and has done charity fund-raising—it’s her scantily-clad/sometimes naked body that has brought her international fame & fortune for decades.  However, her personal life has suffered.

Christensen was married for 5 years, had a baby boy, and oddly enough, never shared a household with her husband.  As a divorcee raising her now pre-adolescent son she seems to prefer “serial boyfriends.”  To her credit, the middle-aged model insists she has never lived with any of these men—a good thing because numerous studies have shown that living unwed with sequential sexual partners can be detrimental to one’s children.  However, Christensen doesn’t eschew cohabitation out of principle: she simply travels a lot & prefers to manage her own place & possessions.  She did recently admit that someday she might let “the right guy” move in.  Perhaps her marriage might have survived if she had been willing to live with her husband after the wedding as God intended.

Kylie Bisutti was raised in an American non-Christian home.  In her mid-teens she was invited by friends to attend church and was soon baptized.  Though an adolescent, Kylie was truly a “baby Christian” in need of substantial Bible study and discipleship.  In 2009, at age 19, she won a contest which netted Bisutti her dream job as a Victoria’s Secret model.  She also got married later that year.  As she gradually studied Scripture and grew in her faith, Bisutti began to sense something was wrong with appearing scantily clad in public.  Then her cousin, an 8-year-old-girl, said she wanted to grow up and be a model too, and that throwing-up food on purpose would make her beautiful.  Horrified at this admission, Bisutti realized she had contributed to the child’s distorted thinking.  This incident, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s conviction about modesty, prompted her to give up her lucrative VS career.  She told Fox News during an interview: “. . . . it broke my heart.  I don’t want to be that kind of person that (sic) makes little girls feel that way.” http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/21/former-victorias-secret-model-kylie-bisutti-on-trading-in-her-wings-for-her-faith/

In an email to Baylor University’s publication The Baylor Lariat, Bisutti stated: “I quit lingerie modeling altogether because I wanted to honor God with my life and my husband with my body . . . . if I want to pursue [being] a Proverbs 31 wife, I must be pure in the way that I present my body; I must be a lover of people, kind hearted, humble and meek   . . . When I was modeling lingerie, I was not humble, I was not pure, and many men fell into temptation looking at pictures of me half naked.”  http://baylorlariat.com/2012/02/22/angel-quits-job-to-model-proverbs-31/

Bisutti now does fully-clothed modeling and promotes inner beauty.  She is also committed to being a godly example to young girls . . . especially girls who have not learned at home that their true worth is in Jesus Christ, not in sex appeal.

By God’s grace Kylie Bisutti gets it. I pray that someday Helena Christensen will too.

Image from Courtney Christine Shingle via Facebook

In case you can’t read the fine print on the photo above, here’s the complete caption:  “A short skirt is not always enough to get a boy’s attention.”

“Writing a book is an adventure.  To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement;  then it becomes a mistress, and then it becomes a master, and then a tyrant.  The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster, and fling him out to the public.”

Churchill’s metaphoric perspective got me thinking about where I am in my own authorship process for my first book (and this companion blog) Sex-ed Homestyle: Equipping Parents to do the Job Right, at Home . . . Where It Belongs!

An adventure?  Yes, I’m still considering the entire project an adventure . . . albeit a much longer one than I had anticipated.

A toy and an amusement?  No, I can’t say I agree with Churchill about this phase. My non-fiction opus has always been an arduous task … words flow far more efficiently and confidently when I speak than when I write.

A mistress?  No, even though my manuscript discusses numerous aspects of sexuality with candor and explicitness, I won’t compare any stage of my process to an adulterous affair.  Besides, there’s nothing secretive or forbidden about my writing.  My husband knows all about it and cheers me on, while my accountability partners pray for me.  All of you blog readers have sampled my handling of various sex-related topics, and some of you have provided meaningful feedback.  To my knowledge no one has reported me to the vice squad . . . or to my pastor.

A master?  Yes, this seems to be where I am right now.  At this stage the writing process is a “friendly master” because I consider the book idea a calling from God Himself.  I willingly embrace the servitude, committing myself to this heavy topic, which appeals only to a limited & struggling demographic . . . those who value biblical virtue.  Sex education is such a high stakes endeavor that I feel external & internal pressure to ensure my instruction manual offers impeccable facts & statistics, clarity, utility and winsomeness.  The pressure is intensified by my internal drive to equip beleaguered parents and to glorify God.

A tyrant?  Yes, but I expect to feel the fullness of that tyranny once a publisher accepts my book proposal and gives me a firm deadline by which the manuscript must be completed & submitted.  I’ll have to scale back outside work commitments and my already skimpy social life.  My dear husband will have to tolerate months of convenience food and a lower standard of housekeeping . . . just like he did when I wrote my master’s thesis.

A monster that I’ll kill and fling to the public?  Yes, I hope so.  But I’ll keep my sword & shield handy . . . especially when hostile segments of the public try to fling the beast back at me defaced by nasty mocking & sharp criticism.  To fight discouragement I’ll pray hard and recall more of Churchill’s advice:

“Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.”

Often dismissed by libertines as a pointless collection of prudish prohibitions, the Bible actually expounds on topics good, bad & ugly within the scope of human sexual experience. From the simple, matter-of-fact Nativity account and the moral tutorials in Proverbs to the unflinching, graphic detail of Ezekiel 23, there are relevant sex-ed lessons for all ages.  Parents’ age-appropriate selections from God’s word can richly complement most any biology material.  I was reminded of this fact during the 2011 Christmas season.

At my church a few weeks ago, a family with 3 young daughters was asked to conduct the first week’s Advent wreath-lighting ceremony at the beginning of the Sunday service.  With remarkable poise and clarity, the oldest daughter—age 10—stepped to the microphone and read the passage designated by the pastor: Luke 2:26-38.

I was impressed with the child’s precocious reading, and wondered if she understood the candid biological details addressed in the passage.  I later queried the girl’s mom who admitted to not yet teaching her daughter about these particular things.  In fact, her daughter had not even asked about anything while practicing the reading at home!  We discussed the golden opportunity within this Scriptural account to broach topics such as virginity, conception, pregnancy and childbirth in a wholesome, positive way at an age-appropriate level.  It happened that this mom had already explained to her daughter some other sexual realities raised in Old Testament readings at home.  Thus, I encouraged her to continue that wise approach with the Nativity story and not wait for her child to ask questions.

While the Bible does not give tutorial-ready descriptions of reproductive processes, it does matter-of-factly reference such sex-related functions as an impactful part of daily life.  It especially provides a clear, timeless moral context for sexual intimacy, upholds its benefits, and spells out the consequences of violating God’s laws.

Non-inquisitive children are not necessarily uninterested in reproductive matters.  And it’s become almost impossible these days to shield children from all premature or inappropriate sexual exposures.  Thus we must take the initiative to conduct godly sex education whether our kids ask first or not.  Uninformed youngsters WILL unconsciously (and uncritically) absorb non-biblical sexual messages from the culture around them despite parents’ protective efforts.  How much better is it to equip our children early & often to repel the influence of those corrosive messages . .  . And with what better weapon than a “sword?”

On a lighter note, I’m including a photo of our vintage window Nativity scene.  Some of you may have seen this on my Facebook page.  It contained an extra character this year

Happy New Year to all!

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/218510/250/Teens-having-sex-at-home-Are-you-OK-with-it

This trend isn’t actually new.  Having worked in crisis pregnancy ministry for nearly 2 decades I have met more than a few teen girls who claim their boyfriends are allowed to sleep with them in their homes.   Nor is it shocking . . . all kinds of bone-headed parenting decisions occur everyday to the detriment of offspring: letting minors drink alcohol/smoke cigarettes or marijuana in the home, watching x-rated movies together “as a family” etc.

The justifications for such parental malfeasance usually have to do with “safety” or “satisfying curiosity/getting it out of their system.”   In other words, risky behavior is supposedly less dangerous under parental supervision.   Predictably, one of the moms who is okay with teen sex at home stated in the article: “. . . kids are going to do it anyway.  Why not make it so that it’s in a comfortable, safe environment?” (paragraph 6, emphasis mine) Comfortable??   That’s got to be one of the most depraved reasons given by a parent for facilitating sin.  A male radio caller mocked the mom’s rationale by pointing out that a teen boy would probably be so UNcomfortable with the weirdness of his mother knowing what he was doing on the other side of the door that he’d be unable to “perform.” Sexual sin should be discomforting, especially to the conscience.   According to God, only married heterosexual couples have the right to comfortably enjoy sexual relations.

Of course I’m preaching to the choir.  Surely you, my readers, would never allow such “hands on” sexual experimentation under your roofs, but you WILL eventually meet libertine parents, or your children will meet their children.  If these folks bring up their permissive sexual policies do you and your children know how to lovingly refute these unbiblical ideas?  Rather than providing my list of talking points I’d love to read yours in the comments thread.

The wisest person quoted in the article was a teen girl who noted that permissive parents actually remove a powerful tool for resisting sexual pressure.   She said “. . . her ‘out’ with her boyfriend is that they can’t do it at home or they’ll get in trouble.   If her parents allowed it, she wouldn’t be able to say no.” (paragraph 9).   Indeed, this is just the way contraception and abortion virtually eliminated pregnancy as a deterrent to extra-marital sex and left girls more vulnerable to predators.   And the family home cannot prevent sexually-transmitted diseases from harming daughters & sons no matter how “clean” the bedroom is or how many condoms are provided.

Parents need to be upholding truly protective virtues such as self-restraint and self-respect.   They also must actively preempt threats to their children’s health and well-being no matter what the source.  Adult approval of at-home teen sex, along with supplying the condoms & other contraceptives, is not “safety” . . . it’s dereliction of duty.

A few days ago, my Christian college-aged friend Julianne lamented on her Facebook Page: “okay, costumes just get sluttier and sluttier. . .”

Apparently she was invited to a Halloween party.  Because most college students don’t have the time (or know-how) to sew an alter-ego, Julianne may have gone shopping for a whimsical—possibly prize-winning—outfit, and observed that the selection for young women was predominantly akin to hooker-wear.  She’s right. . . and she’s not buying.
Ironically a group of Ohio University students has begun a campaign against what they consider “racist” children’s Halloween costumes such as an Indian Princess, a Mexican Mariachi Band member, a China doll, an Italian gangster and more.  But they did not mention popular costumes such as the busty German barmaid or the provocative French housemaid.  So titillating caricatures of western European women are not racist (or sexist) stereotypes?  Does sex trump racist inferences?  Apparently lust is above criticism.

Real racism is despicable, but its definition is sometimes distorted by folks who tend toward extremes of political correctness.  Personally I think Halloween’s increasingly blatant sensuality is more damaging to our daughters’ collective moral fiber than allegations of racism over a baggy Indian Princess costume.  That costume will likely be worn once and then outgrown.  But provocative Halloween costumes reinforce the false notion promoted by the vampy clothing sold everyday in mainstream stores: that a girl’s worth is directly proportional to her sexual charms.

An article in last year’s New York Post decried the racy costumes pitched to girls under age 10.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/fashion/would_you_let_your_child_trick_or_h8mp2O3njiy6iXlRNWihZJ

Sadly this degrading trend continued in 2011.  Immodesty never takes a day off . . . neither should our efforts to uphold virtue.

Fuzzy Mare - Circa 2000

I’ll always favor classy homemade costumes as the best kind. And I’m grateful that at least one of my daughters has carried on the creative tradition.  Can you guess who is inside the fuzzy mare?

Boxer rebellion?

“Pants on the ground.  Pants on the ground.   Lookin’ like a fool with your pants on the ground.”                     Larry Platt 2010

Years ago when I began to give chastity presentations to youth in group settings I addressed the concept of Biblical modesty as applicable to both girls & guys, and I tried to make it relevant against the backdrop of modern cultural norms.  By definition, Biblical modesty is holistic . . . it involves dressing, speaking and acting with dignity and virtue, and eschewing provocative clothing, speech and behavior.  The purest external manifestations of modesty flow from a redeemed mind motivated to draw attention to Christ rather than to one’s sexual charms.

I have found that most folks, including Christians, think of modesty primarily in terms of women’s clothing.  That’s understandable because immodest women’s fashions are so prevalent among females of all ages.  As portrayed in the laundry detergent commercial in my previous post, countless parents are frustrated with sexy fashion trends for teens and younger girls: micromini skirts,  lowcut & midriff-revealing tops, teeny bikinis, skintight “skinny jeans”. . . and the ubiquitous indecency of camisoles & spaghetti-strap tops that fully expose one’s bra straps.  Thus, when speaking to young people, I have always started with the obvious externals before tackling the other aspects of modesty.

I have urged my my daughters and my female audiences to dress with dignity “. . . to honor God with their bodies” (1 Corinthians 6: 20), respect themselves and avoid becoming vulnerable to lustful men.

I have urged young men to avoid clothing with vulgar slogans & images, especially those associated with misogynistic entertainers.  There weren’t really any mainstream male fashions paralleling female skin exposure trends . . . until recently.

In the past few years exposed underwear has come into vogue among young men.  I’m not referring to the fleeting glimpse of a guy’s Fruit-of-the-Loom™ waistband when he bends over to retrieve dropped keys . . . . no, I’m referring to the deliberate display of the top half (or more) of his boxers/briefs.  This exhibition results from intentionally wearing oversized, unbelted pants that sag well below the underwear and impede walking & other movement.  The trend is said to have originated in male prisons where belts are not allowed, and has become popular with “gangsta rappers” and other males who think it makes them look tough.  Having walked behind suburban middle-class teen guys who were constantly tripping over and hitching up their low-riders, I must say “tough” was not the impression I received. It was more like . . . foolish.

If I had a son who wanted to join the “boxer rebellion” I would dissuade him with talking points from the Bible and Larry Platt.

Tide Laundry Liquid

It’s harder than ever for parents to instill virtue in their offspring . . . especially in a western culture so thoroughly infiltrated with advertising.  The most provocative brands have inserted themselves without obstruction into every facet of a young person’s world: malls, movie theatres, magazines, television, the internet . . . gaining access to the minds of teens, preteens, and “pre-preteens” both in & out of the home.  Even toddlers are being subtly conditioned to accept racy images:  in a mall near my home, the “Build-a-Bear” shop is located just a few doors down from a huge Victoria’s Secret store.   The kiddos can’t miss the life-sized mannequins draped in diaphanous teddies on their way to creating their furry ones.  A coincidence?  Maybe not . . .

My friend Tanja has a two-year-old daughter who loves Dora the Explorer.  Recently Tanja heard about an upcoming change for Dora:  “I’m a little concerned about the Nick Jr. ad that boasts  ‘Dora like you’ve never seen her before’  all grown up and on her way to see Shakira.”  Nick Jr., have your producers ever seen Shakira in concert?  . . . I just hate when television tries to make girls grow up too soon.”  Yes, and Dora’s handlers seem to have struck a mutually profitable business deal with Shakira’s agents to influence the entertainment choices of future consumers.

Not only must Mom & Dad stand against the tide of unbiblical sexual messages from the “usual suspects”–Victoria’s Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein etc–sometimes they have to stand against . . . Tide™ the laundry detergent.  Perhaps you’ve seen the ad linked below which began running last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ywA8gHztU

As a Christian parent with 3 daughters, I found this 30-second ad infuriating on several levels:
• The dad’s attempt to protect his daughter’s virtue is portrayed as “a problem to be overcome.”

• The dad takes an indirect, sneaky approach to preventing his teen daughter from wearing an immodest skirt, rather than directly exercising his authority.

• Mom figures out Dad’s scheme immediately, and is determined to undo his efforts with the help of Tide laundry liquid.

• The skirt is “saved,” dad’s scheme is thwarted, and mom becomes the daughter’s heroine for helping her dress like a prostitute. (Sadly, I know too many real moms just like this one who put their girls at risk for sexual assault, pregnancy & other serious consequences.)

• Dad is shown looking dumbfounded at his daughter in the micro-mini that he thought he’d ruined. Missing another opportunity for direct confrontation, he sits helpless & open-mouthed as his daughter condescendingly pats his head on her way out.

• There is no dialogue among the characters, just actions & facial expressions. In the background the rap song I See Girls plays ominously until a female voiceover extols the product’s secret ingredient.  The rap lyrics candidly glorify a shallow view of girls.

So what has Tide taught us in a mere half minute? Moral values are outdated . . . marriage is nothing more than a battle-of-the-sexes . . . Mom is savvy & on her daughter’s side . . . Dad is stupid, incompetent and undeserving of respect from his wife & daughter . . . sexy clothes are the norm for teen girls . . . style trumps substance & dignity.

Why would Proctor & Gamble want to associate a long-standing laundry product with such negative messages? The ad’s target audience is clearly mothers. Did the company really believe this storyline would prompt a broad swath of American moms to purchase Tide?
The silver lining of the Tide commercial is that it can be used by wise parents to teach their children discernment about false or unbiblical ideas.

Meanwhile, I’ll keep on washing clothes with my trusty generic laundry detergent.

The quote above comes from my church’s “official poetess” . . . Sally Manning.  Its simple truth is proven daily, and sometimes in disturbing, high profile cases such as the 1998 revelation of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and the recent Congressman Weiner sexting scandal.  Adultery is nothing new, and among elected officials it certainly occurs “on both sides of the aisle.”  Sadly, in our relativistic post-modern era, this sin doesn’t prompt the broad moral outrage that it once did.

The continuous mainstream media coverage of Clinton’s & Weiner’s tawdry activities focused on ratings-boosting salacious details, predictions about these men remaining in office, and questions of legal process.  But political journalists & pundits also injected much confusion into the national psyche–particularly to the detriment of young teens–when they opined that:

a. oral sex isn’t really sex (Clinton scandal)
b. texting sexual messages & sending images of one’s genitals to someone other than one’s spouse isn’t really adultery (Weiner scandal)

Both assertions belie either profound biological ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deflect social disapproval (and possibly assuage personal guilt).  Methinks it’s not the former.

In some of my chastity presentations to church-going teens, a few students have really believed these assertions and tried to argue with me.  I asked them a rhetorical question: “So would it be okay with you and your mom if your dad announced he was going to engage in oral sex tomorrow with a woman at work?”  The stunned silence indicated that these teens suddenly grasped the reality of the situation . . . intimate activities with someone other than one’s spouse are always adulterous, even non-intercourse activities that do not cause pregnancy.  I then emphasized that such intimacies are sinful for an unmarried couple as well.  After that, some audience members began to look mighty uncomfortable.

During the Clinton scandal I recall being surprised at the media response to the President’s brazen public denial: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . .”  After contradictory forensic evidence was introduced, Clinton parsed the definition of sex to exclude oral/genital activity so that he could appear “technically truthful.”  Many media outlets played along.  Additional soundbytes were crafted and repeated by spokesmen and sympathetic commentators to diffuse the public’s sense of disgust:

It’s no big deal. . . everybody does it . . . it doesn’t affect his job . . . it’s blown out of proportion by his political opponents to distract him from his executive duties.

Myriad editorials were more critical of the Clinton/Lewinsky age gap and the taxpayer-funded location of the affair than of the President’s betrayal of Mrs. Clinton.

Recently, a few pundits similarly tried to spin Weiner’s sexting as “technically not adulterous” because it didn’t involve physical activity with his extra-marital partners.  If there was nothing wrong with his sexting, then why did he hide it from his wife?  Why did she go into seclusion and separate from him as of this writing?  This time public & media moral outrage was sufficient to prompt the congressman’s eventual resignation.

Jesus succinctly cut through the fog of adultery in Matthew 5:28: “But I tell you that anyone who even looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (emphasis mine).  No “wiggle room” there.  The Lord addresses the heart-level origin of adultery and upholds the purest standards of faithfulness because marriage is so sacred.  Maintaining a lifelong happy marriage relationship takes intentional, continuous effort.  This isn’t drudgery!  There are countless ways great & small to keep marital romance growing strong.  When we single-mindedly pursue these, we keep adulterous temptations at bay and become stellar role-models for our kids.  The Rose is Rose cartoon below (5/17/11) features one creative romance-enhancing idea.  My daughters grew up seeing a gallery of similar pro-marriage cartoons adorning the front of our refrigerator. . . and lots of appropriate “P.D.A.” between their parents

. . .  justifying sexual sin isn’t so clever after all.

Stoking Marital Romance

My Senior Prom - Circa 1971

Formality in dress and etiquette distinguishes certain milestones in life such as graduations, Bar Mitzvahs, weddings, awards banquets and funerals.  Elevated attire externally symbolizes respect for the people being celebrated or commemorated, while motivating us internally to behave with dignity toward others.  This is a biblical concept that parallels how we are to honor God.

Scripture mandates specific clothing and ceremonial actions for the temple priests (Exodus 28 & 29) and reveals ancient expectations for attire at weddings (Matthew 22:8-14).  Throughout the Bible we are told to dress, speak and act modestly (1 Timothy 2:9, Ephesians 5:3-5). Salvation and righteousness are symbolized as beautiful garments (Isaiah 61:10).  Strength and dignity are also compared to fine clothing (Proverbs 31:25), and heavenly multitudes in pure white robes stand before God’s throne shouting praises to Him (Revelation 7:9-14).

But simply putting on nice clothes doesn’t automatically induce proper behavior . . . young people must be taught social etiquette and see it role-modeled by adults.  This lack of instruction may be the root of the problem with proms today.  (To read my related post “Raising Royals” written while in London last year click here: http://www.hearttohearttalks.com/Blog/?p=63 )

According to http://www.prettyforprom.com/prom-history.html proms had their origins in UK upper class society in the early 1800’s.  They were strictly chaperoned formal banquets and balls for college-age students that served as rites-of-passage into adult social life and propriety.  This tradition came to America in the late 1800’s, underwent numerous changes, and extended to all social classes.  The prom was eventually downshifted to the high school level where its original noble purpose seemed to disappear along with the strict supervision.

Many teens today see the prom as a night of high-priced glamorous attention and an opportunity to get away with uncivilized or illegal behavior.  For those who aren’t already sexually active, prom night is considered the time to lose one’s virginity . . . a misguided notion reinforced by movies such as American Pie and What Women Want.  Given these problems, I understand why some school officials want to do away with the prom, but I disagree.  There are so few soirees or coming-of-age rituals for teens.  I think the prom could be scaled back to a simpler, less pricey event at the gym, with more parent involvement in the planning and supervision.  Intractable trouble-makers would likely stay away.

And what if concerned parents and schools collaborated to educate young people about the purpose and conventions of dress up events long before students reach high school?  I envision an ongoing series of special workshops beginning in middle school (or earlier) where students could experience a formal tea service, ballroom dancing and other “social graces,” as shown in the hit movie The Princess Diaries.

Ultimately the civility and values associated with formal events are best instilled within the family in the broader context of character development . . . especially in regard to virtuous interaction between ladies and gentlemen.   My husband & I, and many other parents have facilitated special occasions and prom alternatives for our children with this purpose in mind. Some formal events can be multi-generational like the elegant 18th birthday ball of

A Unique 18th Birthday Ball

the lovely young lady in red pictured here, who was recently celebrated by dozens of relatives and friends in a church hall.  Her ball featured music coordinated with lively group dances, plus great food, laughter . . . and lots of gorgeous clothes!  Jane Austen would approve.