Now, this is not to say that art gallery owners are peddling a bunch of crap. The same is true of everybody. You can see it in “practical” fields like engineering. In my experience, engineers are quite full of themselves. They jealously guard information and exalt their own positions as much as humanly possible. I remember once asking a CS major what a piece of code was. The conversation went as follows:

• Him: “It’s a return value.”
• Me: “Okay. What does that do?”
• Him: “It returns the value.”
• Me: “What value?”
• Him: “The return value.”
• Me: “Okay… but why do I want the return value?”
• Him: “Because otherwise the value doesn’t get returned.”
• Me: “Um…”
• Him: “Look, if you’re too stupid to take a CS101 class, which really ought to be taught in effing kindergarten anyway, then I’m not going to waste my time on you.”

Doctors stand around and lament how we’re all too stupid and lazy to figure out how our own bodies work. English profs wonder why we can’t see the beauty of Chaucer. Philosophers can’t fathom a person who doesn’t know if he’s a brain in a vat. Lawyers purposefully obscure contracts to get themselves hired. Architects demand we know what gargoyle goes with what kind of bricks or we’re all pikers. Priests tell us we’re all going to Hell if we don’t go to church.

Everybody’s got an angle. Once you do something, you protect it. Obviously you’re not going to say to people, “Yeah. You know, I’m an astrophysicist. My profession is not necessary in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word.” No, you’re going to say, “If it weren’t for me, we won’t have fusion power. And then we’ll all die when the oil runs out. Do you want to effing live or effing die?”

And the software engineer will say, “If it weren’t for me you couldn’t run your computer, and then your company will fail, and then you will starve to death. Do you want to effing live or effing die?”

Mailmen will say, “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t get your mail. Then you’d miss your bills. And then you’ll freeze your ass to death when they shut off the heat. Do you want to effing live or effing die?”

And artists will say, “If it weren’t for me, your life would be shallow and empty. Then you’ll sink into a deep depression and kill yourself. Do you want to effing live or effing die?”

And of course, everybody down the line will say this, because we all think we’re important. Life insurance agents, street painters, retail clerks, automotive assembly workers, potters. To hear each one say it, their existence is a matter of life or death. And isn’t that the truth? Who cares about the piker down the street? Let’s see how far they get without me!

Be that person for someone else. Say those extra 5 words of encouragement, that extra compliment for no other reason than you care about that person. Even if you barely know them, it can mean just as much.

Ghandi said, “Be the change that you want to see”

Make the world better one gesture at a time.

I am writing this post in response to two comments made on a post at Ambivablog on the teenage culture of oral sex. That post is a response to an Atlantic Monthly essay on the development of that culture. Essentially, Amba argues, the culture is bad for girls because it takes sexuality out of the larger context of the whole person. Amber Stuart responds in comments saying that this culture helps to build self esteem in both girls and boys. Amber Stuart's comments bother me for a number of reasons, both personally and philosophically; I will take each in turn. I think it important to note here, that this is not an argument against oral sex for all people in all situations (that can be discussed some other time), but against casual sexuality amongst teens. Stuart begins

"I'm both perplexed and amused by the tone of both the article and the comments. I can't help but think that there is a severe generational componant at work, here."

First off, I'm in my mid to late 20's. I'm not part of the "older generation". It wasn't much different when I was in high school and college. Amber may be able to use that argument against the original author's post, but it is a moot argument here. What I'm going to say comes from someone not much older than those we are discussing. When I was leading a small group on a retreat and sharing my past experiences, a girl said to me "That's my life to a T." Things haven't changed that much. She then continues

"You all seem shocked and dismayed at this behavior, seeking blame (the girls, the boys, their fathers, the society, gay men, George Bush) but you seem to be missing some important points. These girls have a casual attitude towards oral sex. When magazines and websites bemoan the state of 'the self-esteem problem with girls' here we have a way in which girls have found a way to improve their self esteem with little risk to themselves — and you're screaming because they are being used?"

The fact that they have a casual attitude towards oral sex is part of the problem. However, the real flaw in the analysis here is that it has little risk to themselves. Now I don't know of any studies of the psychological impacts of having casual oral sex, but I can't imagine it's completely neutral. One thing I can speak to is that I have read many reports of STDs being transmitted by oral sex. There are far healthier ways to improve one's self esteem. I would even contend that casual oral sex could lead to lower self esteem in the long run since girls could think they are only worth something for what they can provide rather than for who they are.

"I see both teenaged girls and boys in my practice, and I've noticed this trend since I started. It usually takes a while, but once you get them to open up they are quite happy to discuss this issue. BJs are seen by many of these girls as the 'great equalizer', a way in which the less-popular girls can improve their social standing in the vicious world of girl politics."

So, because it's something that any girl can do, it's the "great equalizer"? Or is she contending that less popular girls use giving head as a way to make up for their lack of "natural" popularity? Either way, I see the situation as making things worse for the "unpopular" girls. I see this as yet another way to divide women, to make us competitive with each other rather than supportive of each other. It could also even be argued that this is just another way to feed the patriarchal society. But back to the topic at hand…

"Do they form lasting relationships this way? No. But do you really want 15 year old girls forming lasting relationships? They see it as a low-cost, high-return way of gaining power — power among their circle of girlfriends. Some even see it as a way of acquiring a valuable skill."

You are most likely not going to form a lasting romantic relationship when you are 15, but it is possible. The most important thing, though, is to have healthy relationships. Even if they are short-lived, that they are upbuilding, healthy, loving relationships. I'm not even talking about romantic relationships, but friendships within their circle of girls. We want to have positive relationships, not competitive relationships where people are striving for power. Perhaps this is something we should be addressing. Rather than "How can I get more power?", we should be asking "Why is there this power struggle?".

Another thing, how is this a valuable skill? Let me be blunt. I haven't always had the same views I currently do. I considered myself a virgin until vaginal penetration at 17. I had given blow jobs plenty of times when I was a virgin. I enjoyed it. It was probably my favorite thing to do. However, I'm not sure I would say it was a valuable skill that I acquired. It's not as if it's that hard to learn. I'm sure these girls could learn the skill after they got married just as easily, actually more easily because they won't have to worry about "performing" as much, than when hooking up with 15 year olds. Most girls aren't that good at it because they a) don't focus on the correct parts and b) don't keep at it long enough. Acquiring a "valuable skill" is lame. There are many more valuable skills to be acquiring during one's teenage years.

"When a homely 15 year old beams at me for the first time in six months because she finally "did it" with her boyfriend, removing the pressure for a more intense and possibly more damaging physical relationship, I can't help but wonder why you are so disgusted and alarmed at this? This girl was in serious trouble, suicidal thoughts, a scratcher, etc. based largely on her inability to establish any kind of power within her group. With this one simple act she catapulted herself out of the dregs of teenaged anguish and felt empowered in a way she had never before. Do you expect these poor girls to gain self-esteem in our oversexed culture from their embroidery or their homemaking?"

Not necessarily, but I also don't think perpetuating the oversexed culture is the answer either. We need to ask why she was unaccepted in her group and address her needs. We need to address the whole power structure among teens in the first place. People are always going to be competitive, but we need to strive to do it in healthy arenas, like sports, for example.

"And you completely ignore the effect on the boys. You blame them, but you do not appreciate the profound effect that having an acceptable sexual outlet has on a testasterone-poisoned 15 year old. I've seen boys who felt as tortured by low self-esteem as any scratcher turn around entirely when they finally got a girlfriend willing to 'do it'. Grades improve. Behavior issues diminish in some cases. And far from being more willing to objectify women, the act brings an awareness of the girls around them that isn't usually present until college."

Again, I'm sorry. I still contend there are healthier ways to improve self esteem. Testosterone is not poison. Just like estrogen/progesterone (and all the effects they have including PMS) are not poison. It's called self control. Get some. I disagree that awareness is mutually exclusive with objectifying women. They may be more aware, but I would still come down on the side of the actions would lead to the objectification of women (and possibly also women's objectification of men).

"Are their abusers? Sure. Do kids get hurt? Sure. Are there risks? Of course. But by indulging in this fairly harmless bit of sexual expression, both boys and girls are able to find some level of security in the punishing torment of adolescent hormones — and no one gets pregnant. Tell them it's not a good idea, and you blow all credibility with them — they have no problem accusing you (justifyably!) of hypocrisy. The only people who see this as a problem are their parents, myopic feminists, and conservatives whose sexual ethic was formed in the 14th century."

I don't think I fall into any of those 3 categories; I know I don't fall into the first. I disagree that I would lose credibility with them by telling them it's not a good idea. In fact, I know I wouldn't from past experience; I have led small groups on retreats with middle and high school students across the country. Just saying "Don't do this." goes in one ear and out the other. However, relating lessons learned from personal experience gave me credibility. The young people gave plenty of feedback, so I knew what I told them had made a difference. It had changed their minds. They listened to me because I had been there, done that. It's not hypocritical if you are practicing what you preach.

Now, just like I was up front with those young people, I was up front with you folks about my past experiences earlier in this article. That was the past, though. To determine if I am a hypocrite, one must look at my current actions. It's easy to practice what I'm preaching when I'm not involved (if that's the word) with anyone…or, at least, easier. However, I am involved with a guy who I care deeply about and with whom there is definitely physical attraction.   We both respect each other enough, though, to not be engaging in oral sex (or a whole host of other activities for that matter). We actually have pretty restrictive physical boundaries. Is it easy? No. Is anything worthwhile easy? Of course not.  Stuart continues in a later comment:

"What do you say to a young girl about sex, when a lack of any sexual contact puts her in the back of the pack for prospective boyfriends, and a lack of sexual experience leaves her so totally outside of her peer group as to be ostracized?"

You tell her that she deserves better! You tell her that she should (as cliche as this sounds) "be herself because those who matter won't mind and those who mind don't matter." There are social circles that don't require sexual experience for membership and boys who don't require "putting out" to be involved with them. They are usually the better, healthier, more meaningful relationships (friendship and romantic) anyhow.

[I’m a big fan of giving a voice to those who lack a forum, so here’s another piece by Shaun Pierce. In response to an ad in The Pittsburgh Catholic opposing single-issue voting, he wrote the following. - Funky]

Strangling Ourselves
By Shaun Pierce

Is anyone steering the Catholic ship? Or are we all dancing in the ballroom while the ice burg floats dead ahead?

After learning about the ad that ran in the Pittsburgh Catholic newspaper, words cannot begin to describe how disappointed, disgusted and abandoned I feel by some of my Catholic brothers and sisters right now. The ad teamed up local priests, the Association of Pittsburgh Priests and other so-called "Catholics" in what amounted to a "read between the lines" endorsement of. Sen. John Kerry.

My entire life, I have been taught moral right and wrong through the Roman Catholic Church.  We have seen evidence of a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality, but now that has been reduced to telling the faithful they don’t even have to do as the church or Christ says.

I have often wondered how one could be in Catholic leadership and not scream the teaching of the church over the noise of the world. Yet I can see how one could be hesitant these days knowing those around you would not support you and may even censure you. Stand against homosexuality and you are a bigot. Vote pro-life and you are narrow-minded. Call yourself a Catholic and some wonder if you are even a Christian.

If you peer though the stained glass windows of the Catholic Church today you might wonder what they are stained with. It used to be the blood of Christ but it seems to have been replaced with a social gospel that overwrites the salvation message. Or maybe it’s ecumenism that transforms the church into a generic faith with little or no difference from any other religion.

The Catholic Church is under attack from the inside out. Forget "Catholic Bashing" if you give us some time we will strangle ourselves with our own hands. Without teaching and upholding basic truths, it’s no wonder many have lost their faith in the Catholic Church and in some cases, Christ himself. We are propagating our own extinction!

Just because you slap a "Catholic" label on something does not mean the world must bow. Yet the Catholic church and in particular Bishop Wurel seem to do just that. I, as a Roman Catholic, am required to accept the authority of the Bishop. However, I’m also free to respectfully ask questions of him.

Like why he would engage in dialogue with the Association of Pittsburgh Priests, a group that constantly and publicly opposes the Vatican on issues of ordaining women, homosexuality and married clergy? Or why the Masonic headquarters in Ross Twp. was built on property owned by the North Side Catholic Cemetery? Or why was it that a so-called "catholic" homosexual group used two Catholic parishes? Or why was it that St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Cathedral was the location for the consecration of Rev. William Duncan as Bishop of the EPISCOPAL DIOCESE?

I sent a letter to Bishop Wuerl on May 26th of this year asking him to explain why Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion should not be denied Holy Communion. I have yet to get any response.

We sit with a puzzled look wondering why Catholic School enrollment is declining? Yet a deaf ear is turned to parents who voice concerns over the abandonment of spiritual teaching.  Even as adults that teaching is pushed aside of new age ideas, put your conscience above the word of God and let’s blend all religion into one.

Don’t misunderstand me; this is not an attack on the Catholic Church. I believe the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ himself. The written and official stance of the Church is correct. The problem is our Shepard’s have left the field and told the sheep "you are on your own".

I’m some sure some will ask. "Then why remain Catholic?" The answer to that is simple. If a baby has a dirty diaper do you throw out the baby? No, you change it. This election has brought into the light a much bigger question then who will lead our country. The question is who is leading our spiritual life? There are some who have proved they should not be in any church leadership role. If only we could vote them out of office!

My heart breaks for all good and faithful Catholics who seek to be true servants of Christ. We are in a desperate battle for our faith and identity against ungodly education, homosexual advocacy, destruction of schools and parishes, sex scandals, ecumenism, multi-centralism, married clergy, politics, money and the consistent attack of the Faith from inside the church. God have mercy on those who seek to lead the faithful astray.

[In response to Bishop Wuerl's weak stance against pro-choice "Catholic" politicians, Shaun Pierce wrote the following letter. He has yet to receive a reply. - Funky]

Dear Bishop Wuerl:

I am writing in response to your statement that Catholic politicians should not support legalized abortion but that you do not advocate denying them Holy Communion.

First let me say that I am a lifelong devout practicing Catholic. I currently attend Risen Lord parish on the north side of Pittsburgh. I am a member of the Social Justice committee and active in the community.

I also am a radio personality on WORD FM. Our program is heard by thousands of people everyday and I am one of the few voices consistently defending the Catholic faith.

This issue of withholding the sacrament has caused not only a division among Catholics but has also brought to light the bigger issue of an inconsistent message from the Catholic Church. Why is there not a universal standard applied here? Archbishop Burke says he would not serve Communion; Cardinal McCarrick has taken the opposite stance. With your opposition now public, are Catholics to tolerate this division in our Catholic leadership?

Bishop Wuerl, I have stood by my Catholic faith in the most trying of times. It pains me to see that while you speak of official church teaching, you offer no consequence to those who willingly and publicly refuse to give witness to the faith and the sanctity of human life.

As Catholics, we are always called to protect life. This issue is not under any circumstance negotiable. While good and faithful Catholics serve this calling, those most in the public eye often serve only political purpose. When one fails to even attempt to practice what they supposedly believe, the lack of intervention by ecclesiastical authority is astounding.

I understand it may be uncomfortable and politically incorrect to hold Catholic elected officials accountable, but that does not void the responsibility and duty of Church leaders to deal with violators of cannon law.

'Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand more.' Luke 13:48

The government intervenes and regulates those aspects of human life that have a some bearing on the common good, and which may be made subject to state power (the amount of rainfall profoundly affects the common good, but it isn’t subject to state power). Interstate commerce, for example, is a critical part of our national life, and it must be regulated in order to be sure that it serves, or at least is not contrary to the common good. Other examples are the buying and selling of real estate, the licensing of drivers, the establishment of traffic laws, and so on. All of these activities share the characteristic of being activities that individuals undertake which have profound effects on the lives of others. In order to make sure that this profound effect is good, the state crafts laws that encourage citizens to undertake them in ways that serve the common good. There are many other types of human activities that the state leaves unregulated precisely because they have no effect on the common good. There are no laws, for example, regulating the celebration of birthday parties or the playing of tic-tac-toe. The state leaves the undertaking of these activities entirely to the discretion of individuals.

The state enacts laws to encourage and regulate marriage precisely because it has been thought for some time now that the common good is profoundly served by a man and a woman getting together and remaining together for life. The most obvious societal good is the propagation of society by the production of new citizens who do things like serve in the military, pay taxes, and become productive members of the work force. If there were no benefit to the common good, marriage would be like foosball or birthday cakes: the state simply wouldn’t care to become involved and marriage would a purely private concern. There would be no tax breaks so mothers could stay home with their children to make sure they become educated and keep out of trouble. Financial benefits such as the extension of health insurance to include family members are given to married couples for the same reason, in order to facilitate the growth and expansion of families, something of great benefit to society.

Thinking then of homosexual marriage, one must ask: "What compelling reason does the state have in granting them the rights of heterosexual couples; what goods are achieved when homosexual persons contract to live together, and how would the common good be served in granting them the same benefits of heterosexual couples?" One would be hard pressed to make a case that there is any good served by encouraging homosexual persons to marry. In light of the lifestyles of the vast majority of "married" homosexuals, the benefits that would accrue to them with a "married" status - shared health benefits, tax breaks such as married people might enjoy - would result only in their own enrichment. Those governmental bodies approving gay marriage would be merely making provision for the subsidization of a more leisurely life for homosexuals. This argument, of course, makes no moral claims. It isn’t arguing, for example that homosexual activity is intrinsically evil, it’s simply pointing out that there is no compelling reason for the state to be involved in regulating the love lives of homosexuals, and so it should stay out.

In light of this we can see that the movement to establish the legal recognition of homosexual marriage does, as the voices crying in the wilderness claim, undermines the institution of marriage as that has been traditionally understood in the Christian West. The suggestion that society stands to gain as much from encouraging two men to live together permanently as it does from encouraging a man and woman to do the same is as degrading to the latter as it is ridiculous. Proponents claim to exalt the dignity of marriage, opening it to all, homo and heterosexual, when in fact the real effect of their advocacy is to convince society that marriage is nothing more than a self serving enterprise made desirable by the benefits that accrue from the (fading) social esteem given to married persons, and the legal and financial benefits associated with that state of life. The great offense of legalized homosexual marriage is to empty the notion of marriage of all its meaning, to reduce it to a means of personal gain and self-satisfaction. This is hardly surprising, I suppose, in light of what marriage has become for so many. In our own time married couples have severely limited the size of their families by contraception and abortion, making their heterosexual marriages nearly as self serving and lifeless as homosexual "marriages" would be. One might imagine the homosexual person looking on such the average married couple of today and thinking, "I’m at least as capable of having such a sterile and lifeless relationship as they have, so why shouldn’t I also get to enjoy my lover’s health benefits?"