Teenage ‘daisy chain’ sex alert

Posted by Guessedworker on April 30, 2005, 06:07 AM | #

You beat me to it, Phil.  There have been several such stories in the mainstream media of late.  I was just turning over in my mind the possibility of posting on the complementary fruits of liberalism:  governmental tyranny and social anarchy.

The inescapable conclusion is that our extended pursuit of freedom has involved into self-harm.  This is a bitter fact for liberals to accept, and most turn away rather than contemplate it.  In the act, of course, they also turn away, if they are parents, from those who are most precious and close to them.  What liberal pride can there be in bequeathing one’s children licentiousness and disease?

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 30, 2005, 06:35 AM | #

governmental tyranny and social anarchy

I think the two compliment each other. The more amoral a population becomes, the more it needs nanny-stateism.

Liberty surivives in a society of moral men and women who understand the fundamental virtue of restraint. Once that is gone liberty degenerates into licentiousness.

Nothing is more susceptible to government tyranny than a population in which amoral licentiousness has run amok. Here is another factor which explains why our sense of nationhood as a people is a mere shadow of what it used to be and why we seem incapable of stopping the tide of aliens wandering into our midst. Can ruthless tyranny (to prevent the whole thing from falling apart) be far off?

Posted by Pericles on April 30, 2005, 07:08 AM | #

“The inescapable conclusion is that our extended pursuit of freedom has involved into self-harm.”

Who said “There is no freedom without responsibility”?

I have taught my kids they are free to do whatever they like——so long as they accept the consequences. Freedom is the willingmess to accept the results of one’s actions. That is the point. The dysgenic offspring of so many on Britain’s population all know their rights, but do they have respect for those how worked to get them those rights? Of course not!

The work ethic that existed up to the 1960’s has gone forever. Now the little bastards just want handouts. A return to the old Roman punishment of decimation is called for. Line up all teenagers “known to the police” facing the sea on Beachy Head. Every tenth one is thrown off, This was the fate that awaited Roman soldiers if they ran from a battle. This would encourage the other soldiers to stiffen their resolve.

I think this technique would only need to be used once. A British version of flinging plebs from the Tarquinian Rock. http://www.novaroma.org/forum/mainlist/2003/2003-04-04.html

Pericles

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 30, 2005, 07:47 AM | #

Line up all teenagers “known to the police” facing the sea on Beachy Head. Every tenth one is thrown off

Not with women making up fifty percent of the voting population. This is what you’ll get more of, in all likelihood.

Posted by Effra on April 30, 2005, 08:16 AM | #

Danger- moral panic alert.

Stories such as this come up every ten years or so. It’s always a brand-new craze, so new that nobody can give chapter and verse for its actually having happened, as opposed to being talked about. I prescribe a very large grain of salt, especially since the alarums are being raised by heavily unionised workers with a vested interest in obtaining more ‘resources’ to tackle the ‘problem’.

(It would also be interesting to know how the incidence of participation in daisy chains correlates with IQ and/or race, not that the DHSS bean counters would dream of releasing such ‘hateful’ stats. But the real headache and expense of sexual incontinence among the underclass is illegitimacy, which seldom results directly from what the Roaring Twenties knew as ‘petting parties’.)

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 30, 2005, 08:51 AM | #

Effra,

While it is true that these problems afflict blacks the most, whites are probably second in line in this country.

The question I ask is: What is the definition of “Underclass”? More than forty percent of all children born in this country now are born out of wedlock. Blacks (and mulattoes of varying degrees) don’t constitute more than 5 percent of the total population. That still leaves us with an unanswered 40 percent or thereabouts.

Here is Sailer on the phenomenon.

Posted by onetwothree on April 30, 2005, 12:55 PM | #

Notice this statistic:

42 out of every 1,000 girls aged 15-17 become pregnant

No doubt this was included with the others because it is considered very high, and very bad.  But the fact is, given the behaviour of these kids, those numbers are extremely low.  If 250 out of 1000 girls became pregnant, I suspect all of the other statistics would quickly moderate.  Such numbers (250 out of 1000) would be consistent with natural behaviour, and would solve the country’s population problem.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 30, 2005, 01:44 PM | #

would solve the country’s population problem

What kind of a population would that be? Born out of wedlock to mothers the age of 15? Without fathers?

Posted by Effra on April 30, 2005, 07:15 PM | #

For example: 38% of teenagers admit ‘trying’ illicit drugs. Shock horror! From all the coverage, you’d think it was 99%. I presume ‘illicit drugs’ includes the occasional puff of Bob Hope—big deal. And how many, having sampled, decide drugs are not for them and give up?

Then there’s the supposedly appalling “42 out of every 1,000 girls aged 15-17 become pregnant”. That does not sound a very high proportion to me. It compares well with Bavaria during the Third Reich, for instance. I bet Victorian housemaids became enceinte at much the same rate.

Nature intends us to mate and reproduce, not necessarily to marry. Formal nuptials are a late-18th century device invented by bureaucracy, and the average length of marriage (though terminated more by divorce than by death or desertion as in the old days) has remained pretty constant at around 14 years for centuries.

Adolescents are more self-disciplined and readier to respond to the countervailing call of continence than dirty-minded middle aged male journoes, or nurses shilling for a doubling of their numbers, are ready to admit.

Conservatives do not fall prey to hysteria about behavioural trends, believing that *within races* human nature does not change much between eras. Any aberrations tend to be self-correcting, with or without the tender concern of the nit nurse.

Posted by Lurker on April 30, 2005, 09:00 PM | #

I second the moral-panic alert.

A search on the subject always yields the same article. If its a new trend its entirely escaped the media radar until this week.

Back in early 90s (I think) there was a similar story. Some researcher was trumpeting the collapse of all morals - until it turned out she was basing her entire theory on one group of kids - something less than a dozen.

Posted by chris w on May 01, 2005, 01:53 AM | #

Pardon me for not joining the hand-wringing session.  One of the things that conservatives don’t realize is that many people who embrace a hedonistic lifestyle only do so for a short period of time before becoming burnt out on it.  The pursuit of sensory pleasure eventually fails to produce continued excitement, and the stress associated with the lifestyle wears you out.  Although many people go through a hedonistic phase, most eventually abondon it for a more stable and routinized way of life.  This is obviously not the case for everybody, but I see no evidence to suggest that those who remain hedonistic for their entire life comprise a significant chunk of the population.

Posted by Effra on May 02, 2005, 02:04 PM | #

Thanks, chums. Another fallacy that occurs to me is the ‘high fliers in the City are strung out’ story, which has been around at least since the early 1980s. First it was yuppies on crack, then yuppies on acid, and now whatever they call yuppies these days on plain old coke or junk. Somehow the fallout from these epidemics of middle class addiction to hard drugs never shows up in the medical or mental health stats in years to come; it’s the longevity of the Brits, chavs and all, which is ruining the NHS, not premature deaths from recreational follies.

The boring truth is that even most junkies give it up in time not to harm their long-term prospects: because it’s so damned expensive and boring, and they’ve found better things to do with their money. Physically getting straight is no harder than putting up with a bad dose of flu for two or three weeks; if you’re determined you’ll do it, and most do it without any specialist assistance, any methadone or counselling or whatever. People have more will power than they appreciate until they test it.

But that doesn’t make nearly so dramatic a double-page spread as a scare story about young fools experimenting with the stuff.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 02, 2005, 05:22 PM | #

“Although many people go through a hedonistic phase, most eventually abondon it for a more stable and routinized way of life.  [...] I see no evidence to suggest that those who remain hedonistic for their entire lives comprise a significant chunk of the population.”  (—chris w)

Should we raise the voting age to 40 then, Chris?

Posted by Shanie on July 15, 2008, 04:33 AM | #

I suggest she gets a condom from here free condoms online

Posted by EC on July 15, 2008, 05:01 AM | #

How do you close the barn door once the cows are out?  It’s a little late in the game to be glad-handing condoms, don’t you think?  Besides, shouldn’t these children be kept more busy, like with studies?!

Posted by EC on July 15, 2008, 05:10 AM | #

Effra said, “Adolescents are more self-disciplined and readier to respond to the countervailing call of continence than dirty-minded middle aged male journoes, or nurses shilling for a doubling of their numbers, are ready to admit.”

Do you have any adolescent children?  They are in fact more vulnerable to sexual disease and health problems than adults, precisely due to their immaturity.  Let’s hope you grow a brain before bringing any into the world yourself.  We need more responsible parents, not nit-wits like you.