Author Archives: jtjim

Order in the Courtroom!

May 14, 2004

Her steely eyes shoot laser beams over the bench.  “You got it wrong!” she lashes out to her targeted victim.  “WRONG!”

The camera pans around the courtroom past a young lady at a podium, moves across an aisle and a gallery of spectators, and lands on a young man at another podium.  His shoulders sag an inch, and his eyes fall to the ground.

“Look at me!” Judge Judy’s sharp voice commands.  She has lost her sense of humor.  And it’s hard to blame her.

Week after week, her courtroom is filled with young men and young women fighting it out to the bitter end.  Lots of young men and lots of young women, but their stories are the same sad song.

They fell in love.  He moved in.  They had a baby.  He moved out.  And now, standing on opposite sides of the aisle in a courtroom, they are laying out all the reasons why the other person is awful.  It’s all his fault.  Or her fault.

“I only want what’s fair,” the young man says.  “I paid the rent for a year.”

“But he said he would support me,” the young woman challenges.  “And then I caught him with another girl.”

All the while Judge Judy shakes her head.  Impatient…she taps her pencil on the papers.  She looks at her bailiff Burt.  “Do I look stupid?” she asks him.

Smiling, Burt shakes his head.

“Stop!” the Judge snaps.  “Stop, I’ve heard enough.”

“But I haven’t finished.”

“You don’t need to finish, Madam.”

“But he wrecked my car and he said he would fix it.”

“But I paid her rent, and she owes me half.”

“STOP!”  The boy and girl stand silent, and the audience giggles.  They know what is coming.  They’ve heard it all before.

“You got it wrong, Sir.  Young lady, you got it wrong.  First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes boy and girl with a baby carriage.

“None of this makes any difference.  You aren’t married.  You decided to do things your own way…out of order…and you created this mess.

“The saddest part of this is that you now have a child together.  The baby is going to pay for your mistakes.

“No.  If you had been married, then you would have had an agreement. Marriage means there are certain obligations and definite rules about how to start a marriage and make it work. Then we could talk.

“But you have nothing.  That’s it.  You had a friendship, and now you don’t.  Case dismissed.”

It makes for entertaining television.  But it makes for tragic lives.

If members of Congress really want to know why marriage is important, they need to watch Judge Judy during each lunch recess.  They will have a front row seat to witness the endless stream of young girls and boys who never learned the natural order of life, of producing families, and of creating marital harmony.

America abandoned marriage in the 60s for the promise of “real love,” and now we have a culture where order doesn’t matter.  Fall in love, get pregnant, live together, move out and start over again, it’s a new modern order that never gets down to the basic question of life.  What about the children?

The traditional order of love and life was not an arbitrary structure forced upon society by some mad social scientist.  It is a natural order established in all world cultures over thousands of years, an order that recognizes the basic desire of humans to fall in love and to build families.  It’s an order that we used to teach our children, an order we used to honor in our own lives as their parents.

The young people in Judge Judy’s court room are funny to watch when we treat their problems as entertainment.  But they and their problems are tragic when you think of what we have failed to teach them.  We have failed to address the true path of building life together with another person and planning for success.

Order in the courtroom:  first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Dad and Mom with a baby carriage.

See April 23, 2004: m…m…m…Married?

Thank You, Janet

May 7, 2004

I may be the only person in America who wants to thank Janet Jackson for her trashy NFL debut.

I have nothing to add to the volumes already written about Janet’s breast.  How many times can you say disgusting?  Inappropriate?  Filthy?  Degrading?  My thesaurus is worn out!

Besides…I really need to thank Janet.  She accomplished more in the flash of a moment than all the letter writing campaigns and citizen phone calls did during the past twenty years.

I know.  I tried.

A short five years ago, while changing channels, my husband was assaulted by a porn-fest on our basic no-frills television service.  Up to that moment we had considered our home porn-free, having rejected any and all offers for HBO and similar pay-for-filth stations.  We just wanted the basics.

We had no idea that basic service would funnel XXX movies (relabeled NC-17) into our home right along with the Disney, Toons, History, and Food channels.  Right there, passing from channel 40 to 44, an IFC movie with blatant oral sex was in full swing.  And we decided to take action.

We called and we wrote.  I have a fat folder of all the letters and faxes demanding a change.  Our little battle campaign took months and involved everyone we could think of:  IFC, ABC, COX, FTC and FCC.  The answer in each case was the same.  WDC.

WDC…We Don’t Care.  The universal response to the filth funneled into our home, unbidden and unwanted was, “We don’t care.”  Each person had their own version of WDC.

The program director for IFC (Independent Film Channel) said she hadn’t seen the XXX movie because she didn’t “watch that kind of filth.”  She would sell it.  But she wouldn’t watch it.

The cable network said it was our fault.  “You should have known it was there before you turned on the television.  Read the television guide.  All of it.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) representative told me to buy a new television…”with a V-chip.”

They all agreed on the basics.  Basically, according to them, my husband and I were the guilty parties.  Our problem could be easily solved.

We should, they explained, carefully pour through the TV guide and make note of all the programs, on all 300 stations, all 24 hours, each and every day of the year.  As conscientious parents, we would then know for each and every minute of the day what potential filth might be there ready to attack us.  Like media sentinels, we would stand guard 24/7 in front of the household television ready to pull the plug at just the right moment.

Or…they told us…we could get rid of our television.  Really.  After all, being an American does not guarantee us the right to watch television.

I wrote the Federal Communications Commissioner.  What in the world was he doing to guarantee basic standards of network programming to homes with children?  What did he intend to do about stations that put nudity, profanity, and porn onto basic television service?

WDC.  His answer?  Silence.  We don’t care.

What did five months of letters, phone calls, faxes, and newspaper editorials produce?  Nothing.  Actually…worse than nothing.

Five months after writing the first letter of protest, while studying my television guide, I found the same XXX movie slated for rebroadcast, once again as a basic program option for all families.   There it was in the program guide, three separate broadcast dates in October, three opportunities to teach children the basics of sadistic sex and porn on family television.

Five years ago, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission put his stamp of approval on porn for families when he failed to care, when he failed to take action.

As much as it pains me to say it, “Thank you, Janet.”  You did what I was never able to do.  You got their attention.  Maybe you were crass, maybe you tarnished the image of America abroad, and maybe you defiled the ultimate family entertainment known as the Super Bowl.  But someone had to do it.

At long last, we have the attention of the FCC.  Legislators are serious about taking care of the needs of families and children.  Finally, we are ready to draw a line in the sand and stand for decency.

If we had been doing our job all along, we would never have suffered through this year’s Super Bowl fiasco.  And for that, we owe you, Janet.  Thank you.

See April 9, 2004, Dear Paul

Condoms: A Failure to Protect

April 30, 2004

Apparently, there are not enough condoms in America’s schools.  And there is a group intent on fixing the problem.

They will soon introduce the “Putting Prevention First Act” in Congress.  Prevention first?  Promoting condoms?  Where have these people been during the past ten years?

They need to check with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  In June 2000, the CDC worked with experts from around the country to examine all major research on condom effectiveness.  The results of this study exploded the claims that condoms are a “safe sex” approach.

In fact, the CDC study detailed a long history of condoms and their failure to protect.  It finally nailed down the facts that document why we are in the midst of a raging epidemic of STDs.  For one thing, virus and bacteria live on the body outside areas covered by the condom.  Even the body contact required to put on a condom can spread STD infections.

Condoms, even if used consistently and correctly, fail to secure the health of our children.  Don’t take my word for it.

Ask the CDC.  Their fact sheet spells it out, “No protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD.”

Today, serious and lifelong STD infections run rampant.  One such STD, human papilloma virus (HPV) is the primary cause for over 99% of all cervical cancer.  What does that mean to you and your children?

More women die each year from cervical cancer than from AIDS.  Cervical cancer occurs in approximately 13,000 women every year in the United States, and kills almost 5,000 American women yearly.  Many of these are young women…in the prime of their life…mothers who leave behind husbands and children.

Five to six million Americans become infected with genital HPV every year. Twenty million Americans are currently infected with the virus, and another 80 million have been infected at some time in the past. This means that 75 percent of sexually active Americans are or have previously been infected.

HPV is only the first STD on a very long list of failures of the condom to protect the health of sexually active people.  Certainly, Americans need prevention.  And we need it now.  But what exactly is “prevention”?

Ask the CDC.  They spell it out on their fact sheet.  “The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”

We have had over thirty years of condom education, condom distribution and condom reassurance.  One organization promoting condoms to our children received over $240 million dollars from the government in 2001-2002 and expended $40.7 million for sex education.

Today, do we need to throw good money after bad?  Do we need really need more government money to teach our children the intricacies of using a condom that will fail to protect them?

Sure.  Let’s put prevention first.  But anyone who is serious about sex and prevention will not be fooled into wishful thinking about condoms.  They will stand for truth.  Research proves that condoms do not offer the kind of protection that will keep our children safe.

If we really believe prevention comes first, we will take the time to get our facts straight.  And we will deliver the facts in an uncompromising message that our children hear.

Prevention first, second, third and fourth means exactly one thing.  Healthy sex belongs inside a marriage commitment between two people who will love each other for a lifetime.

See April 2, 2004:  Sex Education: Spinning the Truth

m…m…Married?

April 23, 2004

They were a tender sight across the room, the two of them leaning across the table, talking and laughing, smiling into each other’s eyes.  Even as they ate dinner under the low lights, they kept their fingers laced together on the tabletop.

As the waiter cleared their table, they sat in silence.  Then, in the quiet interlude before dessert arrived, the young man reached into the inside pocket of his coat and pulled out a small box.  Scooting his chair backwards, he stood tall and moved to the side of his date.  Slowly, kneeling on one knee, he looked up to her.

Everyone in the room knew something special was happening.  Cooperating with the young man, voices drew lower, and when the young woman’s face lit up with joy, the couple was met with an impulsive collective applause from the strangers seated around them.

It really happened.  But it seems quaint today, an awkward public moment to declare one’s intentions.  One simple question, Will you marry me, ushering in a lifetime of commitment.  One question, followed with an answer and a promise, a tender moment that will be tested by the trials of time.

Boy, how things have changed.

My husband and I met in the 60’s when marriage vows were passé.  Quaint promises were given on the beach and meant, not for a lifetime, but for as long we both shall get along together.

During our college years divorce was elevated to a social duty for unhappy married people.  And the advent of birth control seemingly eliminated any consequences of sex…along with the need for parents to usher in a late-night wedding to save the family honor.

In 1966, Robert Rimmer’s The Harrad Experiment portrayed an experimental college where students were “expected to couple up in various combinations and permutations in order to develop a free and uninhibited approach to sexuality.”  None of that had a single thing to do with marriage, vows, and fidelity.

And in 1969, this experimentation spawned the movie Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice where two couples applauded one another’s affairs and swinging.  Billed as a farce, the foursome under the sheets provided Americans a voyeuristic romp with the “neighbor next door” that made marriage vows a laughable anachronism.

For people of our generation, confidence had been shaken in traditions of the past.  Marriage was seen as just a piece of paper.  Cynicism grew.  And grew.  Even the word itself came under suspicion…m…m…m…marriage, “You want to get m…m…m…married?”

As we saw it, marriage was difficult.  It wasn’t perfect.  People cheated on each other.  They got divorced.  Why try it if you knew it wouldn’t work?

Well…after all these years, we got what we wanted.  And now we are paying the price.  Congress is working to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment.  Meanwhile, abstinence educators are working to teach children the benefits of saving sex until marriage.

Yet, the hardest work lies ahead…even if we restore marriage as a timeless and honored relationship between a man and a woman…even if we lead the coming generation to the altar.

Marriage as an institution is only as good as the love that blooms when a young man bends his knee and a woman reaches out to accept his hand.  Cynicism has no place in marriage.

Marriage as a lifelong relationship will only flourish if we restore the sense of dignity and hope contained in a vow to love and honor, till death do us part.

If marriage matters, we must bestow honor on those who work to make their marriages last a lifetime.  We must work to understand the desires and emotions that cause marriages to crumble, and we must honor our marriages enough to work for their preservation.

Most of all we must muster up the courage to admit that marriage is a good thing.  We must stop the stammering and stand tall.  We must ask boldly and answer gladly.

Will you marry me?  Yes!

One Stop Shopping

April 16, 2004

Comprehensive sex education…it’s being sold all over America.  The best thing about comprehensive sex education, we parents are told, is that it teaches our children everything.   That’s right…everything.

It teaches children how to say no…and then it teaches them that they can pleasure each other with mutual masturbation.

It teaches children how to say no…and then it teaches them how to put on a condom.

It teaches children to ask their parents…and then it hands them the address to the nearest clinic where they can get birth control and abortions without telling their parents.

It teaches children that some people save sex until marriage…and then it teaches children that marriage isn’t for everyone.

What is the true message comprehensive sex education gives our teens?  This is only clear when put into context with a real child.

In my first interview with an expert who had been teaching comprehensive sex education for over thirteen years, I came to the end of the hour totally perplexed.  “Safe sex”, perfect use, neutral values, healthy attitudes?  In a moment of frustration, I asked this expert about “my Daughter Debbie.”  What if “Daughter Debbie” sat in on your sex education class?

It’s a simple question, and I have tagged it the Ultimate Test Question for all sex education programs.  If you want to know what all the fancy talk and clever rationales mean, just ask someone about “your own Daughter Debbie.”

13-year-old Daughter Debbie

OK, so, what do you really teach?

What if my 13-year-old Daughter Debbie sat through all of your lessons on sex education and came to you as you were packing to leave with this question:

My boyfriend is at the high school.  He’s 16, and we’ve been talking about having sex.  It seems like if we use a condom we’ll be safe.  I’ve talked it over with some of my friends, and they’re already having sex.  We’re mature.  We know what we’re doing.  Everyone says if we use a condom that we’ll be safe.  I’m thinking I’m going to go ahead…What do you think?

In every interview with every adult who teaches comprehensive sex education, I have concluded with this question.  Not one of these adults would express any opinion to Debbie in answering her question.

At best, several said they would do a quick re-run of all the lessons and options presented.  They might encourage her to talk with “someone she trusts.”  I suggested that Debbie had chosen them as a trustworthy person.  They said she needed someone else.  I mentioned her boyfriend and her girlfriends.  Well…they paused.  And silence set in.

Thinking perhaps I had caught them off-guard, I suggested a possible response:  “As gently and quietly as possible, what if you told Debbie that ultimately she would have to make up her own mind, but that since she had asked you, you would have to say you would not recommend having sex at this point in her life.  Could you tell her that?”

“No,” came the quick reply each time.  “We don’t teach values.”

Most of these educators had been in “the business” for more than ten years.

Consider this additional fact concerning Daughter Debbie.  At 13, she and her sixteen year-old-boyfriend are considering the kind of sex called statutory rape in many states.

Can we really call it conscionable sex education to deny her the wisdom of our counsel—especially when she asks us?  “No, Debbie, I do not believe it is wise for you to begin having sex with your boyfriend.  Can I offer you some help in dealing with this problem?”

One stop shopping that sells children anything they want at any time in their lives is the core of the problem with sex education in America.  If we fail to place a value on sex, if we fail to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate, if we fail to make value judgments, then we have no reason to be surprised when our children become pregnant and infected with STDs.

One stop shopping…educators who give our children a free pass to do whatever they want when they feel they are ready to do whatever they want…and educators who give them the tools to do it…are they part of the solution…or part of the problem?

One stop shopping…if we tell Daughter Debbie that she can buy anything in the store whenever she wants and that we will write the check for her…then we shouldn’t be surprised if she buys sex with her boyfriend.