That's pretty harsh. If there's anything teenage girls don't get enough of its unconditional love. Between the 'slut goddess' images peddled by MTV & the 'porn star' fantasies of teenaged boys, teenaged girls hardly have a chance to develop a healthy, empowered self-esteem. They come to believe their self-worth is embodied in their skin & their vagina. That is, in how they look & what they do. Unconditional love and support from the men in their lives is probably the single biggest thing that can be done to combat that.

sly - I agree that young women receive many harmful messages about their value from society, and that unconditional love and support from the people in their lives is an important combatant to those messages. However, the implication that a young woman cannot simply make an informed decision to be sexually active is incredibly harmful. Many times, it's not because her Dad didn't hug her enough, it's just because she wants to have sex, and that is perfectly acceptable.

Ah, yes. Because girls can't possibly be having sex because they enjoy it. You know, like boys do. Because that wouldn't be "giving in" anymore.

How ridiculous would it sound to say that boys give in to sex because they need validation, much like "hugs" from their mothers? Not buying it.

The notion that all a girl needs is some love from Daddy and she won’t have premarital sex is disturbing to say the least. My Dad is very supportive, gave/gives me many hugs, and he loves me unconditionally, but *surprise* I wasn’t thinking about him when I decided to start having sex.

Of course, seeing as how my father truly does love me unconditionally and he is truly supportive of me, he doesn’t treat me as his property and he believes that my sex life is my personal business.

If you had somehow tried to equate a hug from my dad and sex with a guy to my teenage self, she would have never stopped throwing up.

"How ridiculous would it sound to say that boys give in to sex because they need validation, much like "hugs" from their mothers? Not buying it."

If you don't think teenage boys screw as many teenaged girls as possible in order to validate themselves you've never stepped foot in a boy's locker room--or have had a teenaged brother.

This program is oriented toward women who didn't grow up with fathers. For these women virtually the only male influence is from the horny predelictions of teenaged boys, or the hyper-sexed images of Hollywood producers. In a society that teaches women that their purpose in life is to fulfill men's fantasies, having the men in a woman's life counteract the image is critical. Its not that the women in the girl's life can't do it, its just that oftentimes the teenaged girls are more interested in what men have to say on the subject, and as a result, they often discount the advice of the women around them.

And if either teenaged boys or teenaged girls could make informed decisions about sex, we wouldn't have consent laws. Most teenagers think they can avoid pregnancy by having sex standing up. Where's the informed consent in that?

I have never decided to have sex because I needed a hug from my dad. I did it because I wanted to HAVE SEX.

Yes, girls should get affection from parents.

But hell no--when the parentals are working late, phone lines do not light up with girls giving in to their boyfriend's pleas to fornicate.

That is plain insulting. Teenage girls are sexual-aka human-and if they are having sex, maybe they wanted to, maybe they gave into some kind of pressure, and maybe they were the ones doing the pressuring. But it is not out of some deep desire for daddies' hug--at least not on any mass level where the absence of dad hugs is the single leading cause of teenage sex.

Most teenagers think they can avoid pregnancy by having sex standing up. Where's the informed consent in that?

Um, exactly. That's why we need to do away with that abstinence-only bullshit.

And if either teenaged boys or teenaged girls could make informed decisions about sex, we wouldn't have consent laws. Most teenagers think they can avoid pregnancy by having sex standing up. Where's the informed consent in that?

Consent laws exist to protect young people from adults, not young people from each other. If teenagers were given comprehensive sex ed instead of this "if you have sex, you will get pregnant and die (and God will hate you)" message, then when it comes time to make a decision regarding sex, they could make an informed decision. It is ridiculous to say that since young people are not informed about sex, so we shouldn't teach them about it honestly. Instead, we should just encourage their dad's to hug them? That is just not logical. Maybe we should just teach them that having sex standing up will not prevent pregnancy.

Suppose our girl gets knocked up or comes out gay. Then we'll see just how "unconditional" Purity Dad's love really is.

I think there are a few things being overlooked as this becomes a more virulent debate than it needs to be.

There is a difference between "promiscuity" and "sex". Promiscuity I think can be reasonably defined as "meaningless sex for purposes other than personal gratification or pleasure", in other words some people do indeed have sex in order to validate some feelings of inadequacy or to fill some kind of perceived void in their life. Notice I'm not referring to male or female people, this is something that anyone can do, and many of us have done (I know I have).

Is the idea that some people use sex in a personally damaging manner really up or debate here?

And is it really up for debate that there are a disproportionate number of young men and women who grow up w/o parental affection who end up becoming addicts or who engage in damaging compulsive behavior as they grow up?

Take a good look around you. How many people do you know or have known who have engaged in damaging sex who have poor parental relationships? In my own personal life I have indeed noticed a lot of women (I'll admit to having been involved with a lot of them, because sexually damaged people tend to gravitate to one another for obvious reasons) who have either no relationship with their fathers or some kind of abusive relationship with their dad.

How can it be controversial to state that if a young person, male or female, has a healthy and open relationship with their dad and mom then they are less likely to have some kind of void they try to fill with sex and/or drugs?

The only real oversight I see here is the narrow focus of the original article; but this is a reflection of societies attitude toward women having sex and we should all be well aware of this kind of myopic vision by now and be able to at least recognize it and overlook it in order to get to the actual merit of the idea.

If she really thinks sex "is like a hug" clearly she hasnt experience an actual orgasm. The idea of seeking physical contact from my father in place of sexual intimacy is a bit nauseating.

If you had somehow tried to equate a hug from my dad and sex with a guy to my teenage self, she would have never stopped throwing up.

"The notion that all a girl needs is some love from Daddy and she won’t have premarital sex is disturbing to say the least. My Dad is very supportive, gave/gives me many hugs, and he loves me unconditionally, but *surprise* I wasn’t thinking about him when I decided to start having sex.

Of course, seeing as how my father truly does love me unconditionally and he is truly supportive of me, he doesn’t treat me as his property and he believes that my sex life is my personal business"

amen!

"How can it be controversial to state that if a young person, male or female, has a healthy and open relationship with their dad and mom then they are less likely to have some kind of void they try to fill with sex and/or drugs?"

except that's NOT what turner was saying here so yeah, kind of off-topic.

I'd like to say something intelligent here, but I'm having trouble getting past, "Oh my God, WHAT?"

Logrus - look at what the original quote says: "Girls give in to sex not because they want sex - it's like a hug."

So basically this person is saying that 1) girls "give in" to sex because apparently it's impossible for them to initiate or seek sexual activity, and 2) girls don't want sex on its own merits. (Which, I suppose in this person's twisted logic, explains why they only "give in to" instead of seek out sex.)

This person isn't saying, "People who have abusive or neglectful parents tend to wind up in similarly damaging relationships later on." This person is saying, "Girls would stop having premarital sex if their daddies would keep closer watch over them."

rileystclair: I read the same article as you did, the difference is that I try to see the valid points that lie beneath all the propaganda. This woman is clearly equivocating all sex with damaging sex. This is a byproduct of the fact that she is coming from a conservative xtian viewpoint, and is probably marketing herself toward paid public speaking toward that kind of audience (ok, that was cynical of me).

So, sure, I disagree with her message in it's broadest sense but she isn't wrong in her implication that people do often use sex as a substitute for something they never got as a kid. How could you read the same article as I read and miss this?

No, it's not "off topic", not even "kinda", to look at someone's statements w/o a blinding prejudice and try allow the merits of that argument that are present to come forward.

A lot of what xtians, even queer bashing hate-tanks, have to say has merit but people throw the baby out with the bath water because of who is presenting the message or because they are to intellectually lazy to sift through the dirt for the bit of gold that is buried in there.

When she says "It's like a hug...." she is using using something called a simile. She is saying that what a person looks to sex for is the same thing they could have gotten from parental affection. She is not saying fucking daddy is like fucking some guy in a bar, but that the feeling of intimacy and security that many people seek from casual sex is the very thing they should have gotten from their parent(s).

I'm sure the reason she is directing this toward fathers in particular is that a father is more likely to be absent from his child's life than a mother is.

Logrus:

Is the idea that some people use sex in a personally damaging manner really up or debate here?

Um, no, it isn’t. As a matter of fact, that isn’t even what this post is about and not one single person has even brought it up until your comment. And, as someone who has worked with people with addictions, parental affection – or lack thereof – has little to do with their addiction; although, a good, supportive family can help the recovery process.

Not one person on here has claimed that girls (the quotes is aimed specifically at girls – hence, we are referring only to girls) don’t need positive affection and attention from their parents. With the exception of one person, we all seem to agree that the quote (again, that’s what this post is about, Janice Turner's quote, not sex addiction) was offensive and gross and not at all representative of a healthy father/daughter relationship. People like Janice Turner aren’t interested in girls having healthy self-esteem, they’re all about the shame. So, rest assured, there is not “virulent debate” and no one is saying that parental affection isn’t important to a child’s well-being.

P.S. The definition of promiscuity has nothing to do with “meaningless sex for purposes other than personal gratification or pleasure.” It only refers to having multiple partners. It’s an old, antiquated term used to shame people (women and girls in particular) for daring to have sex with someone other than their (future) spouse.

Sex = 10% reproduction 90% pleasure and social cohesiveness. For both sexes.

When religious abstinence programs get rid of that 90%, both males and females are driven psychotic by the urges that they have and cannot act on.

The whole purity father idea sickens me as it's just renaissance of the daughter as property patriarchal rubbish that's been forced on us by ignorant savages.

Get sex education out there, get feminism out there and the world would be a much less scary place when you're going through puberty.

I think Janice Turner is referring to her own reasons/need for sex during her teenage years. Creepy yes. Anyone agree?

Agh, I HATE this idea. Mostly because it's been thrown at me before.

My mother is convinced that I become too attached to my first boyfriend and "gave in to sex" at 18 (18! I waited 4 years! HOW IS THAT GIVING IN?) because my father died when I was 12 and I "lacked a father figure". It couldn't possibly have been because we loved each other and decided we were finally ready to have sex.

"The only real oversight I see here is the narrow focus of the original article; but this is a reflection of societies attitude toward women having sex and we should all be well aware of this kind of myopic vision by now and be able to at least recognize it and overlook it in order to get to the actual merit of the idea."

So, because this idea so saturates society we should just ignore it and dig for the kernels of truth underneath all of the bullshit?

All this woman is doing is parroting what society is screaming at girls every day. "Girls are not sexual." "If you want sex, there is something wrong/broken about you." "Women who have sex have low self esteem."

Sure, some women AND men have sex for unhealthy reasons. If that had been what Janice Turner had said, no one would have had a problem with it. But that's not what she said at all. She said girls who have sex are emotionally lacking, and more importantly, are only lacking the FATHER'S love.

Can you not see why this statement is more problematic than it is truthful?

I think ShelbyWoo makes a good point by helping to refocus the discussion on the specific problems that exist in the quote from Janice Turner: alienating girls from their sexual desires, exclusive focus on father relationships and male attention, and bizarre lack of nuance between hugs and sex.

Still, I thought Logrus' post was a thoughtful look at the bigger picture. As many people have affirmed, healthy parental relationships are important to emotional development, which includes developing non-destructive sexual behaviors.

But of course, the way Janice Turner puts it is so daddy-centric and bizarre that she makes a different point entirely.

Yea, see when I am horny I think of my dad.... =.=
Is that lady have a electra complex?

GottaBeMe commented at July 15, 2008 12:24 PM: "So, my dad took off and didn't hug me, but I'm not promiscuous"

Likewise, my dad stayed and did hug me, but that didn't and still doesn't do anything to fulfill my desire for sex.

I actually agree with Logrus on this one, because of the wording "Girls GIVE IN to sex". That has nothing to do with wanting, desiring or needing sex, giving in means capitulation and a lack of desire.

I usually can read into anything way further than necessary, yet when I read that, I thought, bang on. Girls should have healthy, emotionally sustaining relationships with those around them,(not just males!) so they don't feel like they have to "give in" to some male wanting sex to fill that void.

If you re-read it realizing that its not about girls who want a normal healthy round of sex, makes a hella lot more sense. Capitulation is NOT normal or healthy.

AverilJ, I read it as saying that WHENEVER girls/women have sex they are "giving in." Not just that they "give in" in some situations - but that girls/women "give in" to sex AS A RULE whilst boys/men actually desire it strongly.

And way to argue in a circle, Sly. Kids aren't informed about pregnancy prevention, so we shouldn't teach them about pregnancy prevention. Yeah. Good idea!

Turner appears to be crying "what about teh menz!?" to me. It's not about girls or women. It's about the poor, "devalued" men and their fragile honor. If only we women somehow stopped them from abandoning, neglecting and/or mistreating their (female) children!

and here i thought i was having sex because i was horny, when all i really wanted was more hugs from daddy!

thanks for showing me the truth, Power of Purity!

@SarahMC

I'm confused; where did sly say that?