The March 25th, 2013 cover story of People magazine was titled: “Waiting for Our Wedding Night.”  It featured a couple who became engaged “on air”  after following the program format of the reality TV show Bachelor.  The latest bachelor, Sean Lowe, chose contestant Catherine Giudici to be his bride.

I have never watched Bachelor, and I don’t subscribe to People.  But the cover story caught my attention while I was waiting in the grocery store checkout line. My first reaction to the cover headline? Amusement that saving sex for marriage is now such a novel concept it’s a “hook” to sell fluffy magazines.  I mused that the story inside probably offered feeble respect for the couple’s principled decision, followed by plenty of skepticism, naysaying, and even a suggestion of sexual inadequacy as the *real reason* they were foregoing  pre-marital intercourse.

Well, I bought the magazine for um, research purposes . . . and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the interviewer presented the couple’s unvarnished responses to her thoughtful questions.  Sean Lowe, age 29, is described in the story’s introduction as a conservative Christian who became a “born-again virgin” after indulging in sexual sin during college.  He explained that he was “tired of being selfish.”  Catherine is honoring his desire to consummate their relationship on their wedding night.  The story doesn’t mention anything about her faith background though, so sexual  temptation may be difficult to resist if the couple does not share Christ-centered values.  Hey, temptation is hard to resist even for couples who do!

My one disappointment with the story was that the abstinence-related portion of the interview was quite short: fewer than 2oo words.  In fact only 3 of the 21 questions had to do with the headline hook on the mag’s cover.  And the responses were probably heavily edited to meet the story’s word limit.

But role models are hard to find in pop culture, and this couple deserves kudos for their decision.  I pray that God will bless them with the strength to stick to it and draw them to Himself for a long,  happy, equally-yoked marriage.

Meanwhile I keep observing the rolling tide of cultural decline.  The first 2 months of 2013  continued to poison the social environment for parents trying to raise virtuous kids. Here’s a sampling of what we’re up against.

Wolves in (black) sheep’s clothing
My friend & fellow blogger Susan Johnson alerted me to a bizarre fashion line pitched specifically to Christian teen girls that is just as indecent & provocative as any trendy secular collection. The company is called Heart OMG, a name associated with casually taking God’s name in vain. On the company website three teen girls model the clothing in church & home settings. Some of their “come hither” poses are EXACTLY the same as those found in Victoria’s Secret catalogs or on the giant display window posters at VS mall stores. I can’t improve on Susan’s scathing critique, especially this excerpt from her post:

        No matter what they may say, Heart OMG isn’t really selling Christian fashion. They are selling sex, pure and simple. These girls are dressed like street walkers. They pose seductively and provocatively in skimpy clothing with the express purpose of inflaming lust in the male of the species. This has nothing to do with advancing the kingdom of Jesus Christ and everything to do with making a buck off a group of consumers they must figure are too ignorant to know the difference. http://manoahswife.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/fashion-forward/

Prime time trash
Early in this year’s Superbowl a sickening Go Daddy ad startled viewers with its extreme closeup of a prolonged, open-mouthed kiss between a supermodel and a nerdy guy. If I didn’t already know that the company sells domain names, website hosting and other related services this ad wouldn’t have enlightened me about its products. The Superbowl stopped being family-friendly years ago . . . especially at halftime. But sadly, an unprecedented number of families were subjected to Go Daddy’s vulgar ad, because according to the Neilson ratings the 2013 game attracted the largest viewership in television history. I wonder how many dads faced uncomfortable questions from their kids or scrambled to change the channel when the ad appeared?

Prime time sex ed stupidity                                                                                                 The Superbowl ad for the Kia Sorento SUV perpetuated the stereotypical notion that parents can’t handle sex ed.  http://www.mostwatchedtoday.com/tag/babylandia/  Media commentators praised the ad for its “cute space babies” but my take on this ad was: the Kia Company advertised its vehicle by portraying parents as hapless fools who lie to their son and command the car’s media system to distract him instead of seizing an opportunity for an important discussion. For many of us “drive time” provides a captive audience and privacy for character-shaping conversations about sex, love, faith and other weighty matters.

Underage trash                                                                                                                               In contrast to Kia’s inquisitive and under-educated little boy, a Brockton, Massachusetts youngster is getting too much sex-ed too soon.  Viral video sensation Luie Rivera Jr.—a.k.a. Lil’ Poopy–is a 9 year old who raps about drugs, women & bling while slapping the buttocks of gyrating voluptuous adult women.  Don’t we have laws against contributing to the delinquency of a minor?  . . . and against sexual activity between adults and minors?  And yet this child receives $7000+ per gig with his band “Coke Boys,” which is probably funding the defense lawyer who’s handling the charges of child abuse & neglect recently filed against Luie’s dad.

Once again the lyrics to a favorite hymn keep me from discouragement over all this depravity: “. . . O let me ne’er forget that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.” (This is My Father’s World, by Maltbie D. Babcock)

Please understand that I am NOT complaining.  I am just reflecting on what drives me to carry out holiday preparations befitting royalty for guests who are “just my kids.”  And because they’ve left the nest, I must do all this exhausting prep without their help!

Like any other family during the parenting years, we were used to sharing the spectrum of messy-to-tidy household conditions, weighted more often toward the “messy” end, complemented by meals of macaroni & cheese or peanut butter & jelly sandwiches.  Now as adults my daughters probably would be content with a simple Christmas lasagna dish against a backdrop of moderate clutter & dust bunnies.  Yet I strive to provide a spotless home, beautifully-wrapped gifts and a delectable, elaborate spread of homemade goodies.  Why?  Because this labor-of-love is one way that I can honor them as the magnificent young women they have become.

My husband & I raised our daughters as best we could.  But our work as parents is never truly over . . . we pray for them daily, try to communicate often, remain available as much as possible whenever they need/want us, and mostly watch them with awe from afar (on Facebook).  Just as God’s love motivated us to sacrificially give our girls their academic & sex-education at home, I believe His love is what prompts my annual holiday preparation frenzy. Colossians 3:23 says: “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart as unto the Lord.”  Because my children are gifts from God they are far more precious than royalty.  They deserve “all my heart” . . . . and my homemade goodies.

Happy New Year everyone!

With all the progress our society has made in extending the broadest freedoms and equality to women, how could any thinking person take this plotline seriously? And yet, the book has been purchased primarily by young to middle-aged mothers and thus has been dubbed “mommy porn.”  What draws predominantly female readership to a graphic story about a female who consents to debasement through bondage, domination and sado/masochistic sex (BDSM)?

One theory comes from a Lord Henry Wotton, a despicable character in another “grey” book about sensuality written over 100 years ago: The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) by Oscar Wilde.

Students of literature will remember this dark cautionary tale about hedonism and its ugly, destructive consequences.  In brief, Dorian Gray is a remarkably handsome upper class young man who is influenced by the utterly worldly, amoral and egocentric Lord Henry Wotton to pursue a life of pleasure.  Dorian’s artist friend Basil has painted a captivating portrait of Gray.  Jealous that his painted image will never grow old, the naïve and narcissistic Dorian wishes aloud that the portrait would take on the ravages of age instead of him.  Mysterious forces grant that wish.

As Dorian descends into decades of sordid pleasures his youthful good looks remain unchanged.  However the face in the painting not only grows older, but also becomes progressively more hideous in reflection of its owner’s increasingly depraved soul until the story ends with Dorian reaping the horrifying consequences of his choices.

While reading this classic novel recently on my new Kindle, I came across a stunning, timely quote from Lord Henry in chapter 8:

“I am afraid that women appreciate cruelty, downright cruelty, more than anything else.  They have wonderfully primitive instincts.  We have emancipated them, but they remain slaves looking for their masters, all the same.  They love being dominated.”

Could this explain today’s “50 Shades” craze?   Is Lord Henry Wotton right that women willingly relinquish freedom to submit themselves to a cruel master?  The book’s profits suggest that modern readers at least approve of this behavior.  Wotton’s cavalier commentary actually echoes the truth about our sin nature stated in John 3:19: “. . . Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

With its meteoric rise to the top of the best seller list, 50 Shades has successfully mainstreamed a deviant “relationship” based on BDSM proclivities that are the antithesis of God’s design for fulfilling male/female relationships.  We need to instill in our young daughters the Bible’s message that women are to be loved, cherished, respected and protected.  Cultivating healthy perspectives at home and speaking candidly about unhealthy relationships in trendy books will empower our young women to eschew the trashy ideas espoused in 50 Shades and its ilk . . . and maybe someday they’ll help a college roommate escape sin’s bondage.

Here are two of my favorite cartoons from “For Better For Worse” by Lynn Johnston:

The one below made me laugh-out-loud:

Teenagers offer another “spin” on sex ed humor:

I’ll conclude with a little anecdote of my own:

When my oldest daughter was nearly age 5, I was pregnant with my third child and was experiencing a lot of back pain through all three trimesters.  For relief I began visiting a chiropractor in between prenatal checkups.  While helpful, it involved lots of extra trips for medical appointments.  Apparently, my oldest was getting used to Mommy’s frequent departures for doctor visits.

One afternoon very late in my pregnancy, my husband got home from work early so that I could get to another chiropractic treatment without having to take kids along.  Seeing me put on my coat, daughter number one asked, “Where are you going Mom?”  I told her I had to visit the doctor again.

She replied, “Which one Mom? The back doctor or the front doctor?”

I laughed so hard I thought I was going into labor on the spot.  Art Linkletter was right–”kids say the darndest things.”

The text inside said “Older & wiser, baby. Older & wiser.”  It reminded me of the 2002 film version of Oscar Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest” which contains one of my all time favorite scenes.  Upper class and rigidly proper Lady Bracknell (Judy Dench) interviews John Worthing (Colin Firth), a would-be suitor for her daughter Gwendolyn.  The interview is actually more of an interrogation as Bracknell demands of Worthing detailed financial disclosures, family pedigree and other indicators of his social status.  Everything about Bracknell’s demeanor, formal appearance and tone-of-voice is intended to intimidate the young man.  The atmosphere in the large lavish room is cold & business-like.  Bracknell is seated on a throne-like chair while Worthing has to stand for the entire uncomfortable interview.  In Lady Bracknell’s Victorian mind Mr. Worthing must meet the criteria for a social contract—a business alliance of two families.   Love has nothing to do with it.

Today’s young men & women often go to the opposite extreme when seeking a spouse . . . they have NO criteria.  Instead they seem to believe that “all you need is love.”  Why bother vetting each other’s unromantic practicalities such as steady employment, self-sufficiency skills, responsible money management and positive family relationships?  Why take someone’s moral character into consideration prior to booking the reception hall?  That would be [[gasp!]] judgmental, right?  So what if one’s love interest abuses alcohol, cheats on exams, is heavily in debt, has earned dozens of speeding tickets, has a history of promiscuity or any other red flags?  Doesn’t the Bible say “love covers a multitude of sins” or something?  Unfortunately many modern couples don’t know what “real love” is.  Steeped in the constant mixed messages of secular mass media and entertainment they typically believe love is a warm, fuzzy feeling sparked initially by attraction and stoked to greater intensity—usually by pre-marital sex—as the relationship continues.

While premarital sex can heighten the feeling of ‘being-in-love’ for awhile, it actually clouds a couple’s judgment about each other’s suitability as a marriage partner.  They get fooled into marrying the wrong person, a notion suggested by our current 50% divorce rate.  It’s clear that ignorance and naïveté about love have failed modern men and women.  They are not choosing wisely . . . and many of them are not choosing at all, but instead are letting sexual feelings render them willfully blind to serious character flaws that are incompatible with a deep permanent relationship.

I am not suggesting that we return to the social norms of late Victorian England, but we can certainly teach our children that deferring sex until marriage frees us to focus more objectively on a potential mate’s moral character and practical attributes.   In fact, a comprehensive home-based sex-education should encompass instruction about real love,  godly qualities necessary for a happy lifelong marriage, and even winsome “interview skills” for use with a potential suitor.  The “Prince Charming” card has it right.

A 21st century courtship founded on biblical love, virtue & practicality will more likely result in a marriage of the same. That’s a message that should be everywhere, including in the greeting card aisle.

There is at least one athlete who will not be taking advantage of the condom giveaway:
Lori “Lolo” Jones, a single, 29-year-old, bi-racial Christian from Louisiana, who is

Lolo Jones hoists the American flag

representing the USA in hurdling events.  Through her Twitter account Lolo recently revealed that she is a virgin, and is committed to remaining so until marriage.  She was also interviewed about this by Bryant Gumbel on HBO.  Predictably, public criticism and crude mockery has followed, much like that endured by quarterback Tim Tebow.  Lolo doesn’t let it get to her, and sometimes tweets back at naysayers with snappy repartee.

She has been candid about how difficult it is to maintain sexual virtue.  But Lolo has already overcome other challenging “hurdles” . . . especially her childhood.  She was raised in poverty by a single mother; her dad was in prison.  Just as Christ redeemed her early life, she trusts Him to help her honor His sexual principles no matter how strong the temptation.

So parents can point to Lolo as a fine role model when teaching their kids biblical virtue, right?  Well, maybe . . . but they will also need to address a big “blind spot” that undercuts the positive impact of her virginity: Lolo doesn’t seem to understand the connection between biblical modesty, sexual purity, and not deliberately provoking men to lust.  It’s not her fault that women’s Olympic uniforms have gotten much skimpier over the years to boost worldwide viewership—especially for track and beach volleyball—but she has intentionally posed for media publications wearing far less . . . and in 2009 she was featured completely nude in a sports magazine.  So far Lolo has no regrets, as indicated this past May by her response on Twitter to a Christian man who gently asked her how she reconciled her exhibitionist behavior with her faith.  In her reply she compared her full color, come-hither naked image to classic nude statues in a museum . . . sigh.

I suspect Lolo’s attitude about over-exposing her body flows from her hard-scrabble background and her immersion in a culture that says “if you got it, flaunt it.”  And sadly, elite female athletes gain more sponsorship money with less clothing . . . which explains why so many of them willingly appear in exploitive racy ads and photo shoots.  In my opinion, such objectification diminishes the significance of their sporting achievements.

Kylie Bisutti, a Christian and former lingerie model, used to share Lolo’s naïveté about over exposure until the Holy Spirit set her straight about biblical modesty, (see my February post: “A Tale of Two Victoria’s Secret Models http://www.hearttohearttalks.com/Blog/?p=383 ).  I pray that Lolo will soon clear the hurdle of spiritual blindness regarding this issue.  She is a “work-in-progress” as we all are, and she seems to be attending a solid church that can help nurture her maturity in Christ.On the Olympic global stage she has an opportunity to honor God with both athletic excellence and edifying character.  Parents trying to conduct godly sex education at home will welcome such an uncompromising role model for their children.

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.”