American Decadence—Part 2 of 4

What are we doing to our children? "The average age a child is first exposed to pornography online is 11 years old. Nearly all (90 percent) of kids aged 8-16 have viewed porn online." What kind society does that to their children?

Probably the kind populated with people who see nothing wrong with dressing little girls as prostitutes, or those who provide, "thong underwear for 7-year-olds," or "pole dancing for girls on television." Such a society is comprised of people who do not care that the sexualization of little girls means, "7 percent of children," will, "have had sexual intercourse before 13 years of age."

There is an attitude that pervades our decayed society that, "it is only sex," which is typical of the short-sightedness that accompanies the loss of principles and values typical of a decayed civilization. Even if it were, "only sex," (and it isn't), it would be terrible sex.

"Violence is increasing among young people. "... 36.4% of teenaged girls reported that they had experienced some physical violence in a dating relationship. Girls were more likely to be punched or forced to engage in sexual activity, sometimes because a boy "misread" a girl's cues [read, "sexy skimpy dress" and "cheap" language]. "... 13 year old girls were six times more likely to have sexual intercourse if a boyfriend was six years or more older than she." What kind of, "boyfriend," does one suppose will be attracted to a 13 year old girl dressed like a 20 year old hooker?

"Most teenaged girls who do engage in sexual intercourse live to regret it. ...almost 80% of the girls ages 14 to 17 lamented their choice. Many of the girls "gave in" because the boys wanted it and for other reasons that indicate low self-esteem on the part of the girls. A full 25% of sexually active girls said they felt depressed a lot or all of the time, compared with 7.7% of virgins. More than 14% of sexually active girls had attempted suicide in the previous year." But, "it's only sex."

There are other consequences. In the 50s, before a marriage license could be obtained, men and women had to have something called a Wasserman test, to ensure neither of them had what was, in those days, called a venereal disease (VD). Some did, I suppose, but I never heard of anyone testing positive for that disease, which was syphilis, a disease that was very nearly eradicated. There was only one other form of VD in those days and both were easily cured with penicillin.

Today those kinds of diseases are called Sexually Transmitted Diseases, (STDs), and there are at least 25 of them "(nearly 50 if you count the various strains of virus groups)," and they are no longer rare. "Nearly 1 in 5 adolescents is living with an STD," and "Over 80% of STD-infected teens are unaware they have an STD." Many STDs are now resistant to antibiotics. "Today there are no simple cures and, in most cases, no cures at all."

One that cannot be cured (although there is now a vaccine for it) is Human Papilloma Virus. One occasionally heard of people contracting one of the two STDs known in the 50s, but no one died of them. HPV kills, because the E6 and E7 varieties cause cervical cancer. In 1999, it was, "estimated that about ten million American women-most of them in their late teens and twenties-have active infections. A million of them have diseased, and perhaps precancerous, tissue as a result. About eighty thousand have early cervical cancer that is still contained within the inner lining of the tissue. Some sixteen thousand have cancer that has invaded the cervix more deeply, and each year about five thousand of those will die."

There was no government supplied "sex education" in the fifties. It was considered a parent's job, and they did that job pretty well. No one died from VD.

Today the government has taken over the parents job. The purpose of government supplied sex education was to prevent the spread of STD's and limit teenage pregnancies. So far, on the STD front, STDs are killing women at the rate of 5000 a year, and AIDS, which was not even heard of in the 50s, had already killed over 520 thousand by 2003, "including 18,017 in 2003," which is just about the yearly rate now.

Oh, yes, and how has sex education done on the pregnancy front? "In the 1950's, less than a third [far less, actually] of first births to teen mothers were conceived out of wedlock. By the 1980's, close to two-thirds of all Caucasian teen mothers were unmarried when they became pregnant. And almost all (97%) of African American teen mothers were single at the time of conception in the 1980's. (What have we done to our sweet black girls?) "Four percent of births in 1950 were to out-of-wedlock mothers." "In 2004, about 36 percent of births were out of wedlock."

"Sex Ed," is just one of the failures of government supplied "education," and there are worse things happening in the schools, which I'll address. But this began with the sexualization of little girls, and there is much more to say about that.

In the article about the "sexy" new styles for little girls, one psychologist asks the naive question, "Perhaps most importantly, do these sexualized portrayals of young girls change the ways adults think about young children in ways that make sex abuse and the trafficking and prostituting of girls more likely?"

In fact, it's probably the other way around. It's a society comprised of the kind of perverted hedonists that would seek child prostitutes who would not only tolerate but promote the sexualization of little girls. In 2001, "about 293,000 American youth [were] at risk of becoming victims of commercial sexual exploitation." "The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12-14."

This 2006 report on the DOJ "innocence lost," project puts the number of youth being prostituted at 300,000-800,000, and includes, "one 12-year-old girl [who] was forced to have sex to pay for her grandfather's crack cocaine."

A few hundred thousand American girls is not enough to satiate the perverted desires of Americans, apparently. Slavery was abolished in civilized America in 1865; today a much more vicious form of slavery flourishes throughout the US. "Each year an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human beings are bought, sold, or forced across the world's borders [2003 U.S. State Department estimate]. Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as 5, who fall victim to the sex trade."

The word "slavery" is no metaphor. These are truly sex slaves, who are bought and sold, but it goes by the euphemism "trafficking." "The United States has become a major importer of sex slaves. Last year, the C.I.A. estimated that between 18,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked annually into the United States. [There are] 30,000 to 50,000 sex slaves in captivity in the United States at any given time."

In Atlanta Georgia, "Men fly in, are met by pimps, have sex with a 14-year-old for lunch, and get home in time for dinner with the family." It's called sex tourism. The obsession with sex, particular sex with children, has spawned a major industry called child sex tourism. The children are in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, India, Mexico, and Central America; the customers are from formerly civilized Western countries of Europe and North America.

I mentioned in my previous article that during the 50s children were safe anywhere and with anybody. In the uncivilized society of today children are not safe anywhere or with anyone. One of the most dangerous places for children is where they are forced to be by their government—public school. In 2002, students in public schools, "ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.8 million nonfatal crimes," but only "about 1.5 million crimes while they were away from school." Obviously they aren't safe anywhere, but a lot less safe at school. "These figures represent victimization rates of 64 crimes per 1,000 students." Of those crimes, 659,000 were violent crimes, including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. In 2002, about 1.1 million thefts occurred at school.

In Western society women have always been thought to be the more civilized of the two sexes and a great civilizing influence. When a society's women become the perpetrators of the lowest possible kind of sexual self-gratification, there is little civilization left.

All of this of course was supposed to be prevented by sex education. That this was never the purpose of Seicus and Planned Parenthood is beside the point—it was a reduction in STDs and teenage unwed pregnancies that was used as the wedge to get sex education in the schools. That lie was put over so well, even the best of the critics who demonstrate its failure in every area think the solution is a "better program," when the problem is sex education itself—the wholesale acceptance that it is the governments job to teach our children about sex (or anything else, for that matter.)

So, what is sex education teaching your children that you as a parent would fail to teach them? "Safe sex," for one thing, which means knowing how to use a condom, which isn't safe at all. Of course there is 100% safe sex, and only one way to ensure it, but the "safe sex" being taught in school is everything but that; it is "safe promiscuous" sex, which is never safe.

There is another thing sex education emphasizes you would probably fail to teach altogether; that homosexuality, and other sexual "lifestyles" are good. If you went to school in the 50s it's unlikely you ever saw a Hollywood movie in school. There's a good chance your children will have the privilege of watching lot's of Hollywood movies, like Brokeback Mountain. This movie, being shown to 12 year olds, is so vile I would not even include its description in this article.

Sex ed is a very bad idea, not because it is ineffective, but because it is—it is very effective in teaching kids how to have sex, like these "two 11-year-old girls, 12-year-old boy and 13-year old boy," who had sex in the classroom while the other students watched. Sheriff Bob Buckley said, "Children now are subjected to sex in music and movies these days. They certainly are a lot more knowledgeable now." He forgot to mention sex ed.

This is hardly an isolated incident. Two sixth grade students in a Warren Township, Indiana, "completed the act of intercourse [while] at least ten students were witnesses," and the teacher was in the room. In Jacksonville, Florida, three students were arrested for oral sex in a classroom with the teacher present. And it's not just the students, teachers are also having sex in school.

The MSM doesn't report these incidents and most people are just unaware of how common they are. In case you missed it, I quoted earlier the 1999 figures for in-school rapes and sexual assault which was 4,200 to 19,000.

The total failure of government schools academically is well known, the depth of the cultural decadence and degradation that permeates its culture and practices is not.

I remember the 50s, and as this post points out, in may ways our society was better. Civility, Respect, Honor, Dignity, and of course Propriety were mainstream virtues.

Now our cable channels obsess over Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, etc. and their exploits are really considered virtuous.

Ah the romance about those Beaver Cleaver 1950’s. Let’s look at the facts. We had unions stangulating invovation and productivity, leading to manufacturing leaving America in the 1970’s. We had hardcore instiutional racism, not the manufactured Jesse Jackson type today, with segregated buses, lunch counters and water fountains. We had corportations dumping raw waste into our enviornment(See the Cuyoga River catching fire). Home ownership was on the rise but most people still hovered near the cities for work, while the landlord class ruled America. I love it when the cliches and falsehoods come out about the 1950’s. Most folks who actually lived and worked in 1950’s America can tell you that a semi-caste system existed then with not nearlly the access to capital and enterepenueal tools that we have today. If you were rich in the 1950’s you stayed rich, if you were working lower middle Class, well good luck. Life was’nt American Graffitti and Ike was’nt all that good of a President. So we did’nt have the internet and all the porn,is that all the social purtianist got, the access of kids to look at Paris Hilton’s oobies. Pretty easy problem to solve, I did it..No internet and no computer in kids room..whalla no internet porn.

Today the government has taken over the parents job.

I'd want to know more about the figures, assumptions and conclusions being thrown around here.

Just on a general perusal, I see that it says, or seems to imply that 5,000 women a year die of HPV. Then it says that 5,000 a year die from STDs in general.

The government has taken over the parents job, and everything else they can. Much, if not all of the statistical information is the product of government bureaucracies, who's research, studies and reports are generally an exercise in finding "problems" to be "addressed" and "needs" to be "met" - invariably by more bureaucrats and government programs. It is in their best interest to paint the worst possible picture of the situation.

I think the point is that the American nuclear family traces its roots back to the 1950’s, and that the family ties that cemented responsible social development are fast deteriorating in the socio-political climate of today.

Unions, racism, and corporate polluters are all problems that can be fixed if enough people get on the bandwagon against them. However, the problems we face today are much more difficult to remedy, partially because we are fed a steady stream of political correct-minded social instruction, and partially because (after several decades of “me first”, feel-good social instruction) those at the top of the political class no longer feel compelled to follow the rule of law or even rational thought itself. THAT is the epistemology that has gotten us to where we are today... and that philosophical underpinning is what these articles are about.

A “semi-caste system”? The “landlord class ruled America”? Have you actually ever studied the history of the 1950s? Home ownership was the NUMBER ONE INDICATOR of personal wealth accumulation... and people stayed near the cities for two reasons: 1) there were more jobs because of the industrial base, and; 2) it was fashionable to do so.
BTW, the 1950’s saw an explosion of small businesses, and with that came a parallel rise in personal wealth. The argument of the rich staying rich while the poor stayed poor doesn’t fly.

Also, it’s “viola”.

The facts you cite are certainly true but misplaced. The article addresses the role of personal resonsibiliy with particular emphasis on sexual norms and behavior. You point to institutionalized racism.

Note also that institutions were replaced precisely because enough people rejected it at the personal level.

Finally, your other examples deal with economic, not cultural, progress. We indeed have a greater capital mobility, which allows more entrepreneurs to become wealthy. But this is simply economic progress: he 50s were better than 1850s, which in turn were better than 1550s...

The author does not advocate reversal of economic or technological gains. But he is certainly convincing that the changes in our culture did not do us much good.

I grewup int eh fifties and remember them very well. Obviously you didn’t. In terms of the kind of socio-cultural issues actually being addressed in this post, the fifites were close to the ideal as they are porttrayed sometimes today. Most of your suppositions are not significant as you would like to believe. Check out some data on crime, divorce, drug use, two-parent families, etc., regardless of race or SES— you will learn things you don’t yet know about what it was really like.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.