Amy T. Schalet, author of "Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex" advocates allowing children to have sex at home. The assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst was recently invited as a guest speaker to a Planned Parenthood luncheon in the "Consider This" series in Orange County, California.
The sociologist compares parental attitudes of the Dutch to those of Americans, whose ideas are clearly inferior, as they "dramatize" teen sex, have discussions of "raging hormones" and of boys "wanting only one thing," and promoting shame of not being a "good girl", as reported in thestate.com.
For Planned Parenthood, it seems that promoting abstinence is not an appropriate alternative, as made clear in this disturbing cartoon that has since been scrubbed from their website.
Ms. Schalet has stated, "In the Netherlands if a girl is in a relationship, she's not a slut for wanting sex, for making decisions about sex," she said. Most parents deem teen sexuality a "part of your life that you are allowed to own and make choices about." So, does this mean that in her mind American parents think their daughter is a "slut" if she wants to make decisions about sex?
The sociologist went on to say that in the Netherlands, parents feel that their children are ready for sex at around age 16, according to lifesitenews. In her op-ed for the NYTimes last year, Ms. Schalet stated, "Normalizing teenage sex under the family roof opens the way for more responsible sex education." She claims that this practice helps to control teen pregnancy.
Much of the work done by Amy T. Schalet is funded by the Ford Foundation, which professes to "Work with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide."
Is Planned Parenthood about Women's Health?
The ideas put forth here are reminiscent of those brought forth by a Planned Parenthood "whistleblower", who exposed a disturbing memo that was created by the organization in response to a request by the government to assist with overpopulation concerns. Why is the government asking a women's health organization about overpopulation?
The memo had such recommendations as sterilizing the water, encourage increased homosexuality, require women to work and provide few childcare options, confine childbearing to a limited number of adults, make contraception truly available and accessible to all, compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and other shocking suggestions.
The writer of this memo, Frederick S. Jaffe, received the Margaret Sanger Award, which the Planned Parenthood website touts as its "highest honor". According to the Planned Parenthood site, Jaffe "was a leader in helping achieve national recognition of the right of individuals to make their own private childbearing decisions." Interesting that such an award would go to a man who suggested sterilizing the water to reduce overpopulation.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 83
"Mary, are you having the pre-prom orgy at your house or should we have it at mine?" "Well, Sue, I was planning to have the post-prom orgy at my house, and I thought we might have the pre-prom orgy at yours." "Oh, okay," replies Sue. "I'll ask my parents to start helping me work on the arrangements now."
Um, no, Sue...it's a Sex product. ;)~
all i know for sure is, never keep it in the same night stand drawer as the ben-gay ..............................................................
Same as with drinking or gambling ... I don't subsidize either in my home by providing product, financial entitlements, or venue ... not for drinking, nor gambling, and not for teens to have sex.
Jan S. Mar 27, 2012, 3:27pm EDT
Just in case anyone had any doubts about Planned Parenthood's integrity, this should squash them.
what a dipstick!
and that is not true - they want a beer and sammich as well!
sorry - couldnt resist the levity ...................
This organization is completely irrelevant in this society. They truly believe kids don't know about sex. What, praytell, could any child with eyes MISS? The hypersexuality of the media could take a good run at making Caligula blush. Kids should be kids. Who's paying for this shit?
OK, thanks for the article, which CREEPED ME OUT. Gotta go have sex with the wife now. I'll post the results tomorrow. In riveting detail. Maybe you good people should too. Go, that is, not screw my girlfriend. That porn ain't gonna watch itself.;)
Well, this shows how much the Dutch don't know. I was "ready for sex" at 15. It goes without saying that children typically start thinking about sex when they enter puberty at around 12 or 13. Tell the Dutch to get with the program if they're going to pretend to do things so much better than the rest of US. Just what America needs, more European nonsense to intermingle in our already disrupted society thanks to them. By the time they figure out what they think isn't working, American radical Lefties have just decided it's a cool idea. The radical Left's ambitions are to take America down like the Europeans did -- if there isn't a problem create one so you can pretend to fix it. Geesh.
I didn't know this Jaffe fellow won the infamous Sanger award. Everyone should know, if they don't already, Sanger was subsidized by our government to use Planned Parenthood as a means to control the birth rate of whom they believed were "undesirable" poor as well as the black race, those elites (like today's elites) finding them to be inferior.
Get these jerks out of our White House.
;-) Well said. and I liked, "Lefty stalkers I attract" lol!
And between 1980 and 2007, "The largest increases were seen in the Netherlands, where out-of-wedlock births rose from 4 to 40 percent." as pointed out above.
Conspiracy theory time:
I think encouraging sex in the home is an effort to diminish the value and the love attached to the act, I was always taught that sex is a beautiful gift between a man and a woman that love one another (of course, I have fabulous parents, my dad went after a boyfriend with a shotgun once, so I don't think he would be down for Ms. Schalet's suggestion.)
So, as the breaking down of the family and the minimizing of our sacredly held beliefs and traditions continues, the more likely we will be to not care about holding close to those values. Only those who have strong beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage, the celebrating of the Constitution and the holding dear of traditions and values seem to be fighting this change that the radicals want to see.
Only those who have strong beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage, the celebrating of the Constitution and the holding dear of traditions and values seem to be fighting this change that the radicals want to see.
Oh, how easily we can be led in the wrong directions.
+sigh+ I so agree with you Fren. The old saying about traveling is still valid ... 'It's a great place to visit but wouldn't want to live there; and sure as heck don't want it to come live with me."
Just in case you missed it, some of the arrogant and elitist and intrusive quotes from this paper, "family planning can be perceived as a health measure", "introduction of family planning as a response to a country's population problem may be calculated to minimize opposition" or "the worse the problem, the more one is willing to "give up" an ethical position in order to attain "a solution".
Thought you may be interested ;-)
BTW, it's become clear that this is all wrapped in a much broader spectrum than just the America's Left. Once you understand what's really at play, the whole picture makes so much more sense. And it's much scarier than we even envisioned.
This could be the most important video you ever watch.
Thanks again Renee.
Call them on it. Ask any conservative media to demand the sexual predelictions of these people who want the authority to design them for our offspring. Forget liberals, they'll be PC useless for the task. Every sexual detail should be available to the parents of the kids these people intend to "teach". It's just "natural" to want our kids learning sex from people who aren't, you know, PERVERTS or something, isn't it? So own up, you want the gig or not?
Of course they'll say their sex life is none of your business. And that's when YOU say," That's exactly right. That is completely exactly right. Time for you to get a real job,you sad excuse."
There, I feel much better now. Thanks, Renee!
Of course they'll say their sex life is none of your business. And that's when YOU say," That's exactly right. That is completely exactly right. Time for you to get a real job,you sad excuse."...
Classic, just classic; and exactly directly hammer on nailhead correct.
Renee: Thanks for sharing, that is in direct contrast to Schalet's claims.
No, it's not in contrast to Schalet's claims. Schalet said that it helped lower teen pregnancy, which is not the same as out-of-wedlock births. Out-of-wedlock births applies to women of any age having babies without being married.
The US and the Netherlands have about the same rates (around 40%) of out-of-wedlock births. But the Netherlands has much lower rates of teen pregnancy (1.4% to 6.1%) and teen births (0.5% to 3.9%) than the United States. Teen abortion rates and STD rates (including HIV) are lower in the Netherlands than in the US, while the percentage of sexually-active teens (both male and female) who use condoms is higher, and the percentage of sexually-active girls who are on the Pill is 5 times higher in the Netherlands than in the US (55% to 11%).
Advocates for Youth
Centers for Disease Control
"Still can't say I endorse Schalet's proposal, how do you feel about it?"
I haven't read her book (I've read the first chapter, and it looks interesting so I've ordered it), and I'm not sure what you're suggested that Schalet is proposing. Based on the quotes from Schalet in both articles you linked to (thestate.com and lifesitenews.com) and also on her comments during an online chat, I pretty much agree with all her advice to parents.
From what I've read so far, it looks like mine are much closer to the typical "Dutch" view of teenage sexuality than to the typical "American" view.
I took a look at the online chat, and while she sounds reasonable, the one thing that is lacking is a discussion of sex and it being something "special". The only time she seems to mildly broach the subject is when she says that sex and love are not the same. I wonder if she addresses this in her book.
I would tend to "associate" it with a Child, in most cases, growing up without the benefit of the Love of TWO PARENTS. Of course, I'm sure that you couldn't possibly detect a problem with that sad and destructive scenario...
And I would say, again, that it depends on who you think ought to be in control of both marriage and pregnancy. And also whether you think out-of-wedlock pregnancy is something that is bad that should be controlled in order to minimize it or eliminate it. I don't.
The association of out-of-wedlock births with single-parent families is also one that often doesn't hold up. Looking at those Dutch numbers, 40% of births occur outside of marriage. But according to Statistics Netherlands, single-parent families with a mother who's never been married only account for around 5% of all households with children. Compare that to the 13.5% of households with children where the parents live together but aren't married.
To use another example, Iceland has an even higher out-of-wedlock birth rate. Two out of three children are born to unmarried parents. But most (80%) live in households with both parents, who aren't married. And apparently Iceland has had a high out-of-wedlock birth rate for (at least) hundreds of years. One reason given is that Iceland wasn't as heavily influenced by Christian notions of marriage and sexual propriety as many other countries in Europe and the Americas. And another reason given is that until relatively recently (late 1800s or early 1900s), there were laws forbidding servants, farm laborers, and other poor, propertyless people from getting married. Both good examples, I think, of "trying to manipulate entire populations."
Apart from Abby Johnson's unsubstantiated claim, I've seen no evidence that suggests that the "Jaffe Memo" had anything to do with the US government asking Planned Parenthood to "assist with overpopulation concerns."
The key to understanding the Jaffe Memo is to look at the source, indicated in the bottom left corner. That is an article that appeared in the October 1970 edition of Family Planning Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Guttmacher Institute. Yeah, the "something" Ms. Johnson claims Planned Parenthood employees weren't allowed to talk about has been available in print to anyone who cared to read it for over 40 years.
The title of that article is "U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature." See, it's a literature review, not a set of recommendations. It's an article about what other people have written about the particular topic. A big part of the article (more than a quarter of all the references) came from another literature review, by Bernard Berelson (the recipient of the Jaffe Memo) called "Beyond Family Planning" published in the February 1969 edition of the Population Council's Studies in Family Planning.
Again, this was a literature review, not a set of recommendations being made by the Population Council. It collected together a bunch of proposals made to numerous governments around the world, and then discussed some of the issues (including political viability, as well as moral/ethical/philosophical responsibility) associated with those proposals.
In short, the "proposed measures" mentioned in the Jaffe memo were not proposed by Planned Parenthood any more than your mentioning them in this article means that they were proposed by you.
I am curious about how you feel about Amy T. Schalet's proposal and the planned parenthood video?
I think there's an easy way to determine it. If I were to write an article about this article, saying "Renee Nal's article included recommendations like requiring women to work, encouraging increased homosexuality, and compulsory abortions for out-of-wedlock pregnancies", I doubt many people would consider that to be an honest representation of your articles message or content, and would judge my credibility accordingly.
"I am curious about how you feel about Amy T. Schalet's proposal and the planned parenthood video?"
I've already commented about Schalet's advice, and as for the video, I thought it was lame.
"Also, regardless of the fact that we do not know if the government asked for this memo specifically, the "literature search" does reveal some disturbing suggestions, no?"
Yes, some of the proposals are very disturbing. Which is why, I believe, the authors of "U.S. Population Growth and family Planning: A Review of the Literature" described them with words like "draconian" and "Orwellian".
And why Berelson, in his Beyond Family Planning, rates the proposals that involve the "Establishment of Involuntary Fertility Control" as low in political viability, in administrative feasibility, and in ethical acceptability.
And why both articles quote Ansley Coale in his 1968 paper "Should the United States Start a Campaign for Fewer Births?" when he said "[a]n ideal policy would permit a maximum of individual freedom and diversity."
The video was way lame. Not very descriptive, but I'll take it.
I am glad that Berelson was not advocating those particular strategies. I wonder if Jaffe ever spoke of them.
*Berelson was also a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award
*Margaret Sanger was a Eugenics advocate. She actually spoke at KKK rallies and has been charged with wanting to eliminate the black population through abortion.
*Berelson was the Pres of the Population Council
*The Population council, according to wikipedia "Controversially, the Council has its roots in the eugenics movement. The first president of the Council was a eugenicist appointed by Rockefeller; Frederick Osborn, author of Preface to Eugenics (New York, 1940), leader of the American Eugenics Society, and one of the founding members of the Pioneer Fund. Osborn was vice president or president of the Population Council until 1959. In 1968 he wrote, "Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics"
Even today, "involuntary sterilization" proposals are not a stretch, jeez, there has even been literature lately to abort children after they are born. John Holdren, science czar, has even been accused of advocating involuntary sterilization techniques.
wow. the attitude is so elitist, honestly, it sickens me.
"Several selections from the book have been highlighted at blogs critical of Mr. Holdren, particularly passages that appear to advocate sterilization, forced abortions and consideration of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force†for population enforcement capabilities."
Yes, Renee...and wil just loves that sort of thing!
I haven't seen any such supporting evidence provided by Ms. Johnson, and I'm aware that she has a history of making claims and providing no evidence to support them. There's an Texas Monthly article from Feb 2010 about Ms. Johnson that points out some of that history that I highly recommend. She has very little credibility with me.
"The video was way lame. Not very descriptive, but I'll take it."
I don't know if it was meant as an attempt to ironically lame, or so lame that it was cool, but it was pretty sad. But then I can't think of any attempt to use a superhero, either a purposefully created one or an already established one, to deliver any sort of "educational" or PSA-type message that wasn't lame.
On the other hand, I also thought Mike Opelka's "critical analysis" of the cartoon in his article at The Blaze was also lame. Even way lame.
It is not much of a stretch, Wil, to think that these same players were so concerned about the population explosion that they would consider less than ethical means to get there, as is surely heavily implied which such jaw-dropping phrases in "Beyond Family Planning" as "family planning can be perceived as a health measure", "introduction of family planning as a response to a country's population problem may be calculated to minimize opposition" or "the worse the problem, the more one is willing to "give up" an ethical position in order to attain "a solution".
As far as the video, that was my question, not the analysis, but we can discuss that if you want ;-) Way lame is some fighting words!
Is the Texas Monthly article you refer to the one found here? I will check it out, but even without her testimony, I have enough "evidence" of dodgy happenings within Planned Parenthood to be highly skeptical of their motives. I would like to say that I am only skeptical of their genuine concern for "women's health" from the beginning and since then it has evolved into a fine organization. However, with items like the video, I still have serious questions.
And yes, Margaret Sanger was into eugenics, and racist immigration policies, and white supremacist thinking. And yet she still did a lot of very good things. Never mind access to abortion, back then women were not only denied access to contraception, it was illegal to even provide information about contraception.
I've read Beyond Family Planning, and I didn't find the paper to be "dodgy" or filled with "jaw-dropping phrases". As Berelson says, "These are not light questions, nor easy ones to answer. And they have not been seriously analyzed and ventilated, beyond the traditional religious concern about the acceptability of contraception and abortion." I don't think it's shocking to say that there are plenty of situations where people feel that a problem is serious enough that they will "'give up' an ethical position in order to attain 'a solution.'" The creation and ratification of the US Constitution comes to mind.
The hell they aren't, wil. Unless, of course, Moral ambiguity is your "thing."
"And yes, Margaret Sanger was into eugenics, and racist immigration policies, and white supremacist thinking. And yet she still did a lot of very good things." -- wil
And this would be an excellent example of Moral ambiguity...actually, Moral disdain would be a more fitting description.
"I don't think it's shocking to say that there are plenty of situations where people feel that a problem is serious enough that they will "'give up' an ethical position in order to attain 'a solution." -- wil
And to think you admit this with a straight face. A position only the Morally-confused could possibly admit...in Public.
Unbelievable...
My jaw dropped with these phrases: "family planning can be perceived as a health measure", "introduction of family planning as a response to a country's population problem may be calculated to minimize opposition" or "the worse the problem, the more one is willing to "give up" an ethical position in order to attain "a solution". I guess we have different jaw dropping barometers. It reads to me like people are trying to manipulate entire populations, kinda like colonialism.
Given that Margaret Sanger is dead, and was dead at the time the Jaffe Memo was written, I don't think her credibility is relevant, other than as historical background info. On the other hand, I think Ms. Johnson's credibility is very relevant to the issue, and is in serious doubt.
"Way lame, as you would say."
"Way lame" is yours, not mine, so I see why you think I would say it. But in any case, I don't think Sanger was "way lame". I don't agree or approve of everything she did or believed, but I think her contributions to women's health and reproductive freedom were extraordinary.
I mean if you want to talk about trying to manipulate entire populations, surely banning contraception, and even the dissemination of information about contraception, that's some pretty hardcore manipulation, as I see it.
"I guess we have different jaw dropping barometers."
Apparently so.
"It reads to me like people are trying to manipulate entire populations, kinda like colonialism."
I can see a bit of that, too. But mostly they're talking about measures undertaken by national governments (in both developed and developing countries) in order to reduce the population growth rates of their own countries, and I don't think that's like colonialism at all.
Of course, the debate is not about abortion (well, I guess it is to the core), but about Planned Parenthood. Is it about women's health (ie, "family planning can be perceived as a health measure")? Was it ever? I think, based on what I have seen so far, that it is not. It is about population and social control.
I didn't say that Sanger wasn't relevant at all. Obviously, I think she's a hugely important figure in American history. I'm saying that her credibility isn't relevant to the questions about Abby Johnson's credibility. Whether or not Abby Johnson is lying about the events she claimed let to her decision to leave Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger speaking to a KKK women's auxiliary group, or with her white supremacist views.
"If you had a legislative representative who spoke at KKK rallies and was a known racist, interested in exploring ways to kill off people with "bad genetic disposition", would you still honor that person, despite the perceived good?"
I might honor them for the good things they did and still criticize them for being racist, speaking at Klan rallies, etc. in the same way that most Americans honor people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson despite their racism, their status as slave-owners, etc.
"You may think it is good for civil society to pressure women into working, supply abortions as birth control, etc, but that is the fundamental difference between you and I, I believe."
I don't think it's good for anyone, male or female, to be pressured into working or not working against their will. I do think it's good for women to have the option of getting a safe, legal abortion rather than have to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.
"For me, abortion is murder, and I don't think even you can tell me the moment a "fetus" becomes a "human" and I don't even think that pro-choice advocates really care too much about that."
For me, abortion isn't murder, and a human fetus is, by definition, human. But I don't think that fact empowers the government to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will.
"Of course, the debate is not about abortion (well, I guess it is to the core), but about Planned Parenthood. Is it about women's health (ie, "family planning can be perceived as a health measure")? Was it ever?"
I think it's pretty clear that Planned Parenthood is focused on women's health now, and always has been.
Your third point about a "human fetus" confuses me. So you are saying that you do believe killing a fetus is murder, but forcing a woman to stay pregnant morally overrides killing a human being? ("human fetus" reminds me of "white Hispanic")
Above, and many times, I make the claim that Planned Parenthood is about population control, as well as social control. So, you and I differ. But you make me think, and that is a good thing.
The sad thing to me (and I always suspected this) that even if pro-choice advocates knew with certainty that the fetus was a baby, if they knew with absolutely certainty that the baby felt pain while aborted, they still would not care. Do you think that is true?
I can understand that, but I guess it depends on what standards you set for deciding whether someone does or doesn't have integrity. My earlier examples of Washington and Jefferson were clearly both racists and slave owners. Jefferson stated, in writing, that white people were superior to black people. Given that they were both bigoted, racist, white supremacist slave-owners, does that mean that they have no credibility and couldn't possibly have contributed anything positive to the United States? I don't think so, but I can see why you might.
I think Margaret Sanger was a bigoted, racist, white supremacist who made huge contributions to women's healthcare, to women's civil rights, and to civil rights in general.
"So you are saying that you do believe killing a fetus is murder, but forcing a woman to stay pregnant morally overrides killing a human being?"
No, I'm saying that I do not believe that killing a human fetus is murder. I am acknowledging that it is human. I am acknowledging that it is alive. I am acknowledging that it is human life. But the fact that it is alive, and that it is human does not make it a person, morally entitled to rights equal to the mother or other non-fetal, postnatal, living human persons.
In other words, I don't believe the government has the right or responsibility to extend the same protections to a fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc. as it does to children after they've been born, or to adults.
For example, law requires that after a baby is born, various details (name, gender, date and place of birth, etc.) must be provided to the government. If embryos have the same legal status as postnatal children, then government can require that they be registered as well. After all, how can government extend legal protection to "people" it doesn't know exist? Since women don't always know they're pregnant (around two-thirds of fertilized eggs either fail to implant or spontaneously abort), mandatory pregnancy checks (monthly? weekly?) might be helpful for identifying previously unknown "people" who need government protection.
Once these unborn "people" are identified, the government can begin to protect the embryo or fetus as it protects postnatal children. It's hard to imagine all the things governments could insist on monitoring and/or investigating for the purposes of protecting the fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses inside women's bodies. I suspect that forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will would just be part of a much larger system of government control that pregnant women could be subjected to.