In a comment on “The Child Brothel“, commenter Goat writes:
The focus on sex is silly. Sex is not harmful when consented and safe. I don’t like when it is lumped in with drug use, abortion and other objectively harmful activities.
Well, for that matter, drug use is not harmful when it’s safe. That’s what safe means.
There is an inconsistency about attitudes to sex, which is part of the problem I was describing in “The Child Brothel”. Children’s home staff who are looking after teenagers are trying to keep them safe, and if a 15-year-old girl has a girlfriend and is probably having sex with him, they probably aren’t going to see that as a significant problem. However, because it’s technically not allowed, there will be some concealment and deception going on, meaning that if the “boyfriend” turns out to be part of a prostitution gang, that might not be noticed.
That is, I imagine, what lies behind the story I tweeted about shortly before that article: when people go missing from care homes it isn’t treated as a major crisis:
There are two approaches to that problem: either you accept officially as well as unofficially that the children are going to be having sex, and hope that greater openness means the dangers are reduced, or you more effectively stop them.
My view is that casual, promiscuous, recreational sex is probably workable for an elite with a very solid social structure supporting them, it is damaging for a population as a whole. One of the best lives that a teenage girl from a broken family with no meaningful education or skills could aspire to would be a wife of a decent man with a good career, and an adolescence of casual sex is making her unsuitable for that role. (Yes, that is an unusual opinion, that’s why I call myself a reactionary). Also, by spending the next couple of decades making sex more easily available to men, she is reducing men’s interest in forming families, so making it harder for other women to achieve the role of wife.
As “infowarrior1” suggests in another comment, delaying assumption of adulthood to 18 or later is unnecessary, and I would add that also contributes to cutting that path off from all girls, including those in care. Suggesting to a 14-year-old girl that she save herself for a husband who she won’t marry until she is thirty is obviously preposterous. Girls without conspicuous educational attainment should usually be married before they are 18. Also, boys should normally be working before they are 18 and so in a position to marry a nice 16 or 17-year old girl by the time they are 21 or 22. The massive bubble in worthless education is maybe the deepest root cause of all our social problems.
Improprietary Influence 
True enough (though I would disagree that an elite can manage promiscuity – a promiscuous elite is undermining the virtue that maintains elite status, and is sowing the seed of their downfall).
When I look at my grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ generations, I see a consistent pattern. 16-19 year old young women, marrying young men in their twenties. I think reactionary folk need to start taking the initiative in this. Homeschool the kids, keep girls away from Feminism in the public school system, and arrange for them promptly to marry decent young men who have finished their schooling or vocational training. If young women marry early and give college, etc. a pass, focusing instead on having children – they can always take some classes or work a day job when the kids are old enough, anyway (as my grandmother did, managing a restaurant from her late 40s until she was 65) – strong families and a stable domestic life can develop. If a woman watches her own kids and is skilled in home economics, stretching every dollar to make it count (maybe even babysitting or running a small home business), families can get by without her working a “real job.”
LikeLike
Note I’ve addressed the question you raise in more detail:
Sympathy for the Feminist
LikeLike