Portrait of an Adoption
Victoria's Secret: No Daughter Does Not Need A Thong that Says "Call Me" on the Crotch
If my tween were in the market for, oh, say, highly inappropriate sexy thongs, she would be awash in options, such as the new brand coming this spring from Victoria’s Secret called “Bright Young Things”
The new product line features panties with phrases like “Dare You” and “Feeling Lucky?” on them. And how about this gem -- a lace trimmed thong with the words, “Call me” on the front. I guess a middle-school girl needs to strip down to her thong to let the object of her affection know she is interested.
How do the powers that be spin this? Chief Financial Officer Stuart Burgdoerfer of Limited Brands, (of which Victoria’s Secret is a subsidiary), spoke at a recent conference, describing why this lingerie will appeal to younger girls:
“When somebody’s 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be?” Burgdoerfer asked. “They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic of what we do at Pink.”
Burgdoerfer may call it "magic", but I call it "sexualization". The company clearly intends to sell the items to children far younger than age 15 or 16, as evidenced by the tiny sizes offered and the marketing campaign aimed at tweens and middle schoolers. Teen and tween heartthrob Justin Bieber, who is idolized by girls as young as age 8 or 9, was hired to perform during the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show in November.
The proliferation of racy underwear marketed to children has drawn attention around the globe. In June 2011, the British Retail Consortium announced that it would be banning the High Street shops from selling sexualized clothing for children. Padded bras and thongs were deemed inappropriate for young children, as were clothes with suggestive slogans.
A petition has already been started on Change.org to get Victoria’s Secret to Stop Marketing Sexy Lingerie to Teens and Tweens; maybe if enough people speak up, we can achieve the type of results that the British Retail Consortium did. And in case you have any doubts about whether or not the lingerie has crossed the line, consider that a reporter covering the “Bright Young Things” Product launch for NBC’s TODAY show confessed that, “The latest campaign features underwear too racy to show here.”
What is sexualization, and how does it cause problems? Many of us are so accustomed to it that we do not even question it. In my new book on social conflict, aggression and bullying in our culture, I write extensively about the phenomenon of sexualization, and how this increasingly-accepted marketing tactic contributes to problems with male-female relationships when the children grow older.
The following excerpt is from my chapter called "Stop Marketing Make-Up and Sexy Clothes to Children":
In the winter of 2011, Walmart announced that it was introducing Geogirl, a new line of cosmetics, specifically designed for girls 8- to 12-years-old.[i] The mass retailer wants a piece of the tween make-up market, which earns more than $24 million per year, with the top sellers to kids being lip gloss, eye shadow and mascara.[ii] When I heard about WalMart’s expansion into kiddie makeup, my first thought was, this doesn’t help the movement to prevent bullying. Parents may wonder, how is bullying at all related to make-up? The connection goes through sexualization.
According to the American Psychological Association’s Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls:
There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when
- a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
- a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
- a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
- sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
When mass retailers are marketing make-up to eight to twelve year old girls, unhealthy sexualization is occurring.
"I like blush, lipstick, um, mascara," a nine-year-old girl said to ABC News during a report on children wearing makeup.[iv] Of course she likes blush, lipstick, and, um, mascara. She is a kid. Katie asks me for make-up all the time. I hand her a tube of bubble-gum-flavored Chapstick and tell her to have fun. “I want something with color,” Katie protests. I practically need to put a child lock on my make-up drawer to keep Annie Rose’s groping little hands away from my powder and blush. And if you walk into an elementary school, be prepared to see little girls wearing lipstick and eye makeup. Toy, clothing and make-up manufacturers have a name for this phenomenon: KGOY (Kids Getting Older Younger).[v] They market along strict gender lines: sexualized products for young girls and macho or violent products for young boys, pushing kids into gender-based stereotypes that harm their perceptions of each other. As soon as a twelve-year-old needs a bra, the clothing stores are right there pushing a bra to her younger sister, telling her that she, too, needs breasts to be sexy and attractive. Abercrombie and Fitch is one of many retailers that offers string bikini push-ups for girls age seven to eleven. Parents of little girls are left asking in bewilderment, where has childhood gone?
The retailers are quick to blame the parents, claiming that they are not forcing mom and dad to buy sexualized products. While there is parental accountability involved, it is not that simple. The stores enticingly market inappropriate items to young kids, and parents are in the difficult position of having to say no, not just to a single purchase, but to an entire glamorized lifestyle. Perhaps a parent has initial resolve and manages to escape the shoe store without buying high heels for her ten-year-old. But then the child begs her for a tube of lipstick at the grocery store, and a bottle of perfume at the drugstore, and a short skirt at the clothing store . . . the barrage is endless. In a moment of exhausted weakness, the mom purchases a pot of eye shadow, just for “fun.” But the girl sneaks it out of the house and puts it on at school. Once one girl in the class starts wearing make-up, the other girls beg to wear it too.
Peggy Orenstein mulled the problem over with me.[vi] She predicted that “what’s going to happen is that the cool girls are going to start wearing makeup at age nine and ten, and then the kids who are being raised more healthily will end up being targeted and bullied for being uncool.” Unfortunately, Orenstein’s predictions are playing out. The “cool” girls are the ones who wear make-up, and the other girls are desperate to fit in. Worn down from picking their battles, some parents give in, and now we have a generation of nine-year-olds who wear mascara to school. What do we do with that as parents? Do we say, I’d rather have my daughter be the mean girl than the picked-on girl? Orenstein thinks the answer is to teach your girl how to value herself inside out, and to provide her with skills for conflict resolution. “It’s not easy,” she commiserated, “but you try to make decisions based on what you know is long-term healthy.”
For generations, little kids have played dress-up at home, and for some, this includes applying mom’s make-up. Nothing unusual about that. And it is perfectly appropriate for kids to get their faces painted at carnivals, amusement parks and the like. These activities are within the realm of a normal childhood. The trouble is that little girls are now applying blush, lip shadow and mascara as part of their regular grooming before leaving the house. Can't a ten-year-old be free of the social pressure to feel suitably attractive before going to school? I know a woman who refers to putting on her make-up as putting on her "face." What does that tell her children? That without painting herself up, their mother doesn't even merit having a face? Makeup alone is not where young kids end their beauty regiments and procedures. There are now spa treatments, eyebrow waxing, facials and massages marketed towards little girls between the ages of eight and twelve,[vii] and there are plenty of parents who are willing to pay for these services. "I feel it's part of hygiene. I do all of these types of things myself and I think they're better off starting young," one mother told ABC News.[viii]
Part of good hygiene for a ten-year-old does not need to include facials and electrolysis. This doesn’t mean it is harmful for a girl to get a manicure on a very special occasion, such as for a birthday treat or before a big event. It is fun and enjoyable! What it means is that kids who receive a weekly mani/pedi and regular spa treatments are at risk of feeling entitled at a very young age, and this contributes to discrimination against those girls who simply get their nails trimmed by mom's clippers. We don’t want kids to look down on other kids who are different, creating an “us” and “them” mentality, which allows kids to view each other as objects. Once that happens, kids (and adults) find it increasingly easy to taunt and torment someone who is Other. A nine-year-old with a freshly waxed upper lip is more likely to view a hairy-lipped peer as Other. But what is a parent to do if other kids are teasing her daughter for having a mustache? Leave her to suffer? It is a dilemma, a slippery slope of perfection, because if you allow a young girl to wax her lip hair in order to protect her from taunts, what do you do when she then wants to get a bikini wax?
Body hair has emerged as a surprisingly common reason why kids target others. An Indian mother told me, “There are some fair-haired girls in my daughter’s fourth grade class who make fun of my daughter for having a lot of dark hair on her forearms. She wants to wear long sleeves every day, even when it’s hot outside.” While it is true that kids with poor hygiene are at higher risk of being bullied, arm hair is not a hygiene problem. The pressure for girls to maintain hairless bodies has propelled children as young as eight to seek out painful treatments such as electrolysis and waxing for body hair. Just as disturbing is the behavior of mothers who want their daughters to look perfect. Diane Fisher, owner of Eclips Salon and Eclips Kids Day Spa in McLean and Ashburn, Va., both Washington, D.C., suburbs, told todayshow.com that “I had a mother who brought her daughter in, pulled up her shirt and asked us to wax the girl’s back. The hair didn’t seem to be bothering the little girl, but the mom was embarrassed and wanted it done,” Fisher recounted. “I told the mom to wait until the child wanted it, but she refused.” The girl with the hairy back was six years old.[ix]
- Excerpt from Carrie Goldman's highly-reviewed book, Bullied: What Every Parent, Teacher, and Kid Needs to Know About Ending the Cycle of Fear
Follow Carrie Goldman on Twitter and find her blog on Facebook
To keep up with Portrait's blog posts, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. The list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.
Black Professor Melissa Harris-Perry Calls Pre-Born Baby ‘This Thing’
“But the reality is that if this [as
she holds up a marble-sized object representing the fertilized egg]
turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The
cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re
talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into
a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with
as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate
this process?”
Melissa Harris-Perry says that she understands how religious people argue that personhood begins at conception, that it’s “a particular kind of faith claim,” but such a claim “is not associated with science.” So what is it about science that says a 5 or 7 year-old child is a person?
Science is not in the value judgment business. Scientists can measure brain waves, but they can’t say there’s a mind or if there is a mind whether it has any significance in a matter-only universe. Science can determine if a human meat bag is dead or alive, but it can’t say whether that meat bag’s life was worthwhile.
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould (1941–2002) described religion and science as “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”:
“The net of science covers the empirical
universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way
(theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning
and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass
all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the
meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks,
and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and
they determine how to go to heaven.”
But evolutionists don’t believe in the reality of religion or the
moral universe that is derived from God. Gould and other atheists borrow
their morality from a worldview that they work day and night to prove
false and irrelevant.Science can’t say whether what Adolf Hitler did was moral or immoral; it can only count the bodies and determine how they expired.
Melissa Harris-Perry finds it easy to argue for the pro-abortion position when she starts with a fertilized egg and moves toward birth since what can be seen is so small. Yet everything a human being is can be found in the union of sperm and egg.
By the way, Melissa Harris-Perry couldn’t argue the same way if she were holding some bird eggs. “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11).”
But what if the abortion argument started with a newly born baby and moved backward second-by-second to the point of conception?
Here’s a line of reasoning that I use with people who have not thought through the abortion issue but who would say that it’s up to the mother to make the decision.
I draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper capped on both ends with short vertical lines that represent the beginning and end of a nine-month pregnancy. I then ask: “At what point on this nine-month horizontal timeline would you say that it would be wrong to kill this pre-born baby?”
They are initially reluctant, so I facilitate the process. “Would it be OK to kill the baby as soon as he or she is born?” (I draw an oval, representing the just-born baby, at the right-end of the vertical line.) No one says yes.
“How about when the baby is half in and half out of the birth canal?” (I draw an oval so half the oval is bisected by the end portion of the vertical line.) Again, I get a “no.” “Would it be OK to kill a pre-born baby when the crown of the baby’s head begins to show? “No” is still the most universal answer.
It’s at this point that I offer the pencil to anyone to mark on the line where it would be morally justifiable to kill the pre-born baby. Most are non-committal because they begin to see the logic of what I’m doing.
So I pick a point around three months, the end of the first trimester. I make a vertical mark on the line. To the left of the line, abortion is morally justifiable. To the right of the line, abortion is not morally justifiable. Some will agree with this.
I then ask what has changed from one second before the three month period when abortion is legal and one second after when abortion would be illegal and morally unjustifiable.
Melissa Harris-Perry, who is black, has her own personhood problem. There was a time when it was thought that “the average intellect of the negro race . . . was exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and Europeans or white men.”[1]
There’s nothing in science that says that it’s immoral to view blacks or whites as morally significant. They just are. Without God to impute value, there is no value. What’s true for Melissa Harris-Perry’s fertilized egg is also true of Melissa Harris-Perry herself.
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/black-professor-melissa-harris-perry-calls-pre-born-baby-this-thing/#ixzz2Oax2W6Fl
Victoria’s Secret “Bright Young Things” Line Targets Teens
The lingerie retailer taps into the teen market with a new range of sexy beachwear.
Editor's Note: This story was updated after publication with a statement from Victoria's Secret.
Victoria’s Secret has hit a new low. Following the expansion of its teen brand, PINK, the lingerie retailer has rolled out a new campaign, “Bright Young Things,” reportedly geared toward an even younger tween demographic.
The new collection of beachwear,
billed as “Spring Break Must-Haves,” includes lace bandeaus, triangle
halter-top bikinis, and towels emblazoned with flirty phrases like “Call
Me” and “Kiss Me.” The models for the new range are noticeably younger
than those of the regular Victoria’s Secret brand.
Up until now, the company has made no secret of its interest in targeting a younger audience.
“When
somebody's 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be?" Victoria’s
Secret CFO Stuart Burgdoerfer said at a conference in January, according
to Business Insider.
“They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in
college, and that's part of the magic of what we do at PINK.”
While
a line for tweens may seem like a natural step for the brand, “Bright
Young Things” has already been received as the latest example of
teenagers being sexualized in the fashion industry. Readers have taken
to Victoria’s Secret’s Facebook page to express their disapproval. Cali T. Rossen,
an ambassador at Save the Children of Tibet, wrote, “Please do not
create sexually suggestive underwear for teens or even college girls!!!
It’s just not appropiriate [sic]. Would you want your daughters to wear
them???" Debbie Lowre McFarland,
a jewelry consultant, pled for the brand to stop targeting young
children: “You make it very difficult to raise wholesome children when
porn is on your television ads and the promotional materials that come
in the mail,” she wrote. “I implore you to not take things even further
and make things even more difficult for us parents who want to allow our
children to be children. I beg of you, please do not come after our
children with your alluring, sexy ads with the new line for middle
school children.” There’s even an online petition circulating that urges Victoria’s Secret CEO Lori Greeley to halt production of the line.
On
Tuesday, Victoria's Secret released a statement responding to the
criticism, saying, "Despite recent rumors, we have no plans to introduce
a collection for younger women. “Bright Young Things” was a slogan used
in conjunction with the college spring break tradition.”
This isn't the first time the younger set has been the subject of a fashion scandal. Marc Jacobs raised eyebrows in 2011 when a perfume ad
for the brand featured then-17-year-old Dakota Fanning with a flower
between her legs, and, this past fall, Chanel made headlines when Karl
Lagerfeld cast 15-year-old Ondria Hardin as the new face of the brand’s spring campaign. And who could forget Thylane Loubry Blondeau, the 10-year-old model who struck some very suggestive poses in French Vogue?
Victoria's
Secret may not be the only industry giant inflicting maturity on
prepubescent girls, but it is certainly perpetuating the problem.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and
follow us on Twitter for updates all day
long.
Claire Stern is a fashion intern for The Daily Beast and a master’s candidate at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She has served in the editorial departments of Vogue.com and Elle.com.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
This article was originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ. The article was republished with the permission.
By Doug Mainwaring
Just as chess requires players to seriously consider every possible consequence of their moves, we need to seriously consider every possible consequence of the push for same-sex marriage, especially for children.
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.
In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.
The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.
In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.
It also looks like a winner for media outlets, concerned about revenues and readership, and for large corporations, eager to polish their images and create goodwill. Few of these outlets are interested in playing chess because a quick win at checkers is more important to them.
The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.
Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.
As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.
Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.
Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.
This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?
The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.
For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.
Mainwaring is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots.
Claire Stern is a fashion intern for The Daily Beast and a master’s candidate at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She has served in the editorial departments of Vogue.com and Elle.com.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
3/25/13 at 11:06 AM 34 Comments
Same-Sex Marriage: We're Playing Chess, Not Checkers
This article was originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ. The article was republished with the permission.
By Doug Mainwaring
Just as chess requires players to seriously consider every possible consequence of their moves, we need to seriously consider every possible consequence of the push for same-sex marriage, especially for children.
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.
In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.
The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.
In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.
It also looks like a winner for media outlets, concerned about revenues and readership, and for large corporations, eager to polish their images and create goodwill. Few of these outlets are interested in playing chess because a quick win at checkers is more important to them.
The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.
Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.
As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.
Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.
Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.
This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?
The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.
For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.
Mainwaring is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots.
Leave a Comment
The forum is limited to discussions about the content of an
article. Please note that anything you post may be used, along with your
name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.
- Sort by
- Highlighted
- Newest
- Oldest
- Most agreed
- Most disagreed
Page 1 of 1 Ι See all (34 comments)
6 Followers
Mute
2:30 PM on March 26, 2013
"Homosexual marriage" is neither checkers nor chess. It's Russian roulette with all six chambers filled.
9 Followers
Mute
11:40 AM on March 26, 2013
In what
way will SSM deprive a child of a mother and father? Divorce deprives
children of both parents. Dead-beat dads deprive children of both
parents. Even parents in the military deprives children of both parents!
Gay people adopt and provide loving homes to the children that
heterosexuals produce and then cannot or will not raise. The idea that
SSM deprives kids of a mother and father is a HUGE fallacy.
7 Followers
Mute
2:33 PM on March 26, 2013
chicago24
- Most divorced mothers and fathers still have a relationship with
their kids. When same sex couples conceive children via paid surrogacy
or anonymous sperm donors it 100% of the time deprives kids of a mother
or father. When lesbians use an anonymous sperm donor who is their
child's father? Why do kids born ...more
chicago24
- Most divorced mothers and fathers still have a relationship with
their kids. When same sex couples conceive children via paid surrogacy
or anonymous sperm donors it 100% of the time deprives kids of a mother
or father. When lesbians use an anonymous sperm donor who is their
child's father? Why do kids born via anonymous sperm donors need a
father when society says that 2 mothers is just as good as a mother and
father? The issue is not same sex couples adopting...the issue is same
sex couples conceivng. Check out itsconceivablenow.com and see how many
same sex couples are conceiving kids. less
1 Follower
Mute
5:27 PM on March 26, 2013
chicago24
- Just because some heterosexual relationships do deprive a kid of a
father or a mother, it doesn't change the fact that gay couples do
deprive kids of either a father or a mother. Having a father and a
father or a mother or a mother is not having a mother AND a father.
7 Followers
Mute
10:34 AM on March 26, 2013
This
article is right on point. Christians do not need to use the Bible to
win this debate. The majority of Americans still beleive that kids have
a right to a mother and father so we can take a lesson from this author
in how to debate this issue using logic and rationale.
21 Followers
Mute
7:50 AM on March 26, 2013
Good article. The casting aside of morality is the reason same-sex marriage is growing in support.
3 Followers
Mute
3:07 AM on March 26, 2013
I
expect that the Supreme Court will evade the issue of marriage equality
and go with no standing in the Prop 8 case and States rights in the
Windsor case. Marriage equality will be a fact in California and DOMA
will be history.
But if the court does decide to rule on the issue it will consider the
arguments of the ...more
I expect
that the Supreme Court will evade the issue of marriage equality and go
with no standing in the Prop 8 case and States rights in the Windsor
case. Marriage equality will be a fact in California and DOMA will be
history.
But if the court does decide to rule on the issue it will consider the arguments of the Witherspoon Institute that have found its way in legal briefs.
These arguments have tortured logic and will not win the day. They will help the justices make a choice to expand marriage equality in many states. less
But if the court does decide to rule on the issue it will consider the arguments of the Witherspoon Institute that have found its way in legal briefs.
These arguments have tortured logic and will not win the day. They will help the justices make a choice to expand marriage equality in many states. less
2 Followers
Mute
12:23 AM on March 26, 2013
The Bible
says that homosexuals like Mr. Mainwaring are given up to a reprobate
mind. Romans 1:28. Therefore, Christians would be well advised to heed
the Bible and reject the claims of this sodomite.
3 Followers
Mute
8:01 AM on March 26, 2013
ShawnBaglio
- Did you bother to read what he said? Or did you stop at "I am gay?"
What of your sins should keep me from listening to you?
2 Followers
Mute
9:57 PM on March 25, 2013
Ho-hum.
Mainwaring is just one of the handful of self-hating Quislings that NOM
had paid to betray his own people. Every movement has endured such
people who happily put their bank account ahead of their own
self-interest. There are millions and millions and millions of gay
Americans and NOM has found exactly THREE who are willing to take their
paychecks.
2 Followers
Mute
8:05 AM on March 26, 2013
JoeMyGod1 - Who are the other two quislings, if you don't mind me asking? (Great word, by the way)
Follow
Mute
8:32 PM on March 25, 2013
This
isn't a game of checkers or chess. It's about loving, committed couples
be recognized for civil marriage. It's about all the rights and
privileges (over 1,000) that accompany civil marriage. The best part is
that nobody's existing marriage is affected in the least. The sky
won't fall just check the numerous states and countries where SSM is now
legal.
19 Followers
Mute
8:36 PM on March 25, 2013
Dis0p6
- ...of course it affects society negatively. Here - the miserable
state of things in Holland - from the NYT:
"The total number of new marriages here dropped from 89,428 in 1999 to
71,572 in 2011 (of which 1,355 were same-sex). In the meantime, the
number of heterosexual couples opting for registered ...more
Dis0p6 - ...of course it affects society negatively. Here - the miserable state of things in Holland - from the NYT:
"The total number of new marriages here dropped from 89,428 in 1999 to 71,572 in 2011 (of which 1,355 were same-sex). In the meantime, the number of heterosexual couples opting for registered partnerships has jumped from 1,500 in 1999 to 8,343 last year, while the number of same-sex partnerships has stayed steady around 500 since 2001"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/world/europe/08iht-letter08.html
...an almost 800% rise in "registered partnerships" (!!!) and a 20% drop in hetero-sexual marriage -- marriage has LOST its meaning. less
"The total number of new marriages here dropped from 89,428 in 1999 to 71,572 in 2011 (of which 1,355 were same-sex). In the meantime, the number of heterosexual couples opting for registered partnerships has jumped from 1,500 in 1999 to 8,343 last year, while the number of same-sex partnerships has stayed steady around 500 since 2001"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/world/europe/08iht-letter08.html
...an almost 800% rise in "registered partnerships" (!!!) and a 20% drop in hetero-sexual marriage -- marriage has LOST its meaning. less
Follow
Mute
8:53 PM on March 25, 2013
damascusroad
- It may have lost it's meaning to you, but not to all of those who are
striving to enjoy it equally. Do you think the US Supreme Court would
be hearing these cases if it had? You might be better served trying to
outlaw divorce. You're trying to create boogeymen where none exist.
Exactly how will SSM negative affect your marriage or mine?
19 Followers
Mute
8:57 PM on March 25, 2013
Dis0p6
- ...look at the numbers. It has lost its meaning to the PEOPLE OF
HOLLAND - not to me... - 800% opt for "registered partnerships" INSTEAD
OF MARRIAGE.
Regarding your second question: it will DEFINITELY affect, negatively
the marriage (or lack thereof) of you children.
110 Followers
Mute
9:55 PM on March 25, 2013
Dis0p6
- The homosexual argument is just NONsense from the NONsensical. It's a
good thing the Justice's at SCOTUS have sense and will deliver BIG GAY
twin losses.
2 Followers
Mute
10:56 PM on March 25, 2013
damascusroad
- Is there evidence of causation between the two--between registered
partnerships and the legalization of SSM? Did the numbers only start to
plunge when SSM was introduced? Netherlands is an extremely secular
country, and there's nothing to suggest that marriage registrations
wouldn't have plunged ...more
damascusroad
- Is there evidence of causation between the two--between registered
partnerships and the legalization of SSM? Did the numbers only start to
plunge when SSM was introduced? Netherlands is an extremely secular
country, and there's nothing to suggest that marriage registrations
wouldn't have plunged anyway--or that they hadn't plunged long before
SSM. I know I read somewhere that Netherlands has long had one of the
highest percentages of co-habiting couples in the world. Yet,
incidentally, its birth rates are on the high side for western Europe. less
19 Followers
Mute
11:07 PM on March 25, 2013
Lauren
Bertrand - .....an almost 800% rise in "registered partnerships" (!!!)
since SSM - and a 20% drop in hetero-sexual marriage... 800% percent is
an immense rise since this particular event. Also, holland is not
"extremely secular" - I've been there many times. It is still a
seriously protestant country.
2 Followers
Mute
10:02 AM on March 26, 2013
damascusroad
- I have no doubt there’s been a huge rise in registered partnerships
in the Netherlands since 2001, when SSM was made legal. There’s still
no evidence to indicate it was the instigator though. What if the
number of partnerships grew by an equally large rate in the 10 years
prior to SSM?
It’s ...more
damascusroad
- I have no doubt there’s been a huge rise in registered partnerships
in the Netherlands since 2001, when SSM was made legal. There’s still
no evidence to indicate it was the instigator though. What if the
number of partnerships grew by an equally large rate in the 10 years
prior to SSM?
It’s hard for me to imagine how you can draw the conclusion that the Netherlands is “seriously protestant” if you’ve actually been there. Sure, it has some old Reformed churches. Many of them are empty. The Oude Kerk in Amsterdam is surrounded by brothels in the Red Light District. The Nieuwe Kerk has a pot-growing head shop built into one of its storefronts. The Westerkerk has a gay rights monument ON the church grounds. If that doesn’t suggest a cavalier attitude toward religion, I don’t know what does. Studies such as this EU report from 2005 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) show on page 11 that only about 35% of Dutch believe in God.
Sure, there are slightly more religious parts of the country outside of Amsterdam, but the Dutch in general were mercantile and secular even when the neighboring monarchies bordered on theocracy. That’s why the most conservative ethnic Dutch live in the US, keeping their Reformed tradition alive in settlements like Grand Rapids since they didn’t feel they enjoyed religious freedom in the homeland. less
It’s hard for me to imagine how you can draw the conclusion that the Netherlands is “seriously protestant” if you’ve actually been there. Sure, it has some old Reformed churches. Many of them are empty. The Oude Kerk in Amsterdam is surrounded by brothels in the Red Light District. The Nieuwe Kerk has a pot-growing head shop built into one of its storefronts. The Westerkerk has a gay rights monument ON the church grounds. If that doesn’t suggest a cavalier attitude toward religion, I don’t know what does. Studies such as this EU report from 2005 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) show on page 11 that only about 35% of Dutch believe in God.
Sure, there are slightly more religious parts of the country outside of Amsterdam, but the Dutch in general were mercantile and secular even when the neighboring monarchies bordered on theocracy. That’s why the most conservative ethnic Dutch live in the US, keeping their Reformed tradition alive in settlements like Grand Rapids since they didn’t feel they enjoyed religious freedom in the homeland. less
19 Followers
Mute
10:18 AM on March 26, 2013
Lauren
Bertrand - ...there has been a clear and strong - albeit under-reported
- resurgence in Christianity in the past 10-12 years in Europe. Not
just the Netherlands - but also in France... Paris is now a center of
Christian thought and theology (!!) and there are buddings in Germany as
well... - this is a ...more
Lauren
Bertrand - ...there has been a clear and strong - albeit under-reported
- resurgence in Christianity in the past 10-12 years in Europe. Not
just the Netherlands - but also in France... Paris is now a center of
Christian thought and theology (!!) and there are buddings in Germany as
well... - this is a counter-reaction to the anti-Christian ideology of
the pervious generation and its disastrous effects (as seen in Amsterdam
for example).
In fact, the solid and orthodox theological writings coming out of Europe in our day far eclipse anything coming out of the US. This counter-reaction is still in its infancy, but it continues to grow and I rejoice greatly in it.... the Lord will always keep His remnant fed. Always. less
In fact, the solid and orthodox theological writings coming out of Europe in our day far eclipse anything coming out of the US. This counter-reaction is still in its infancy, but it continues to grow and I rejoice greatly in it.... the Lord will always keep His remnant fed. Always. less
1 Follower
Mute
5:30 PM on March 26, 2013
damascusroad - I did not realize this. That is good news.
2 Followers
Mute
7:16 PM on March 25, 2013
This
Mainwaring fella must be raking in the dough, for all he's been trotted
around on various SBC blogs. He's perfectly entitled to his own
opinion, and it's not particularly badly argued one. But if this is the
best situational treatise the anti-SSM crowd can provide--a gay man
sharing a house (but not a bedroom) ...more
This
Mainwaring fella must be raking in the dough, for all he's been trotted
around on various SBC blogs. He's perfectly entitled to his own
opinion, and it's not particularly badly argued one. But if this is the
best situational treatise the anti-SSM crowd can provide--a gay man
sharing a house (but not a bedroom) with his ex-wife while raising
adopted kids together in a platonic arrangement--then the battle for
them is already lost. This is NOT a remotely traditional family
structure, and it is hard to imagine it appealing to very many people
who aren't completely asexual. Are there any examples of similar
households?
Furthermore, the point is moot, since 9 states (and over a dozen other countries) already have legal same sex marriage, some of them for several years now. The best approach for the anti-SSM contingent is to find evidence that these nine states offer quantifiably worse results for children than the other 41 states. Considering that most of these 9 states are wealthy, well-educated, and have below-average rates of teenage pregnancy or children born out of wedlock, it’s going to tough for their arguments to carry a great deal of weight. less
Furthermore, the point is moot, since 9 states (and over a dozen other countries) already have legal same sex marriage, some of them for several years now. The best approach for the anti-SSM contingent is to find evidence that these nine states offer quantifiably worse results for children than the other 41 states. Considering that most of these 9 states are wealthy, well-educated, and have below-average rates of teenage pregnancy or children born out of wedlock, it’s going to tough for their arguments to carry a great deal of weight. less
Follow
Mute
6:27 PM on March 25, 2013
Very thoughtful opinion
21 Followers
Mute
6:20 PM on March 25, 2013
The
author is correct in being concerned for the welfare of children raised
by gays. Many previous studies suffer from design and methodology
problems that make their results equivocal. However, recent research
results from two large, scientific, peer-reviewed studies, summarized by
Barber (8), show that 1) adults who ...more
The author
is correct in being concerned for the welfare of children raised by
gays. Many previous studies suffer from design and methodology problems
that make their results equivocal. However, recent research results from
two large, scientific, peer-reviewed studies, summarized by Barber (8),
show that 1) adults who were raised in gay households are 12 times more
likely to self-identify as gay than adults raised in heterosexual
households, 2) 58% of the children of lesbians and 33% of the children
of gay men self-identified as homosexual as adults (compared to only
2%-3% self-identified adult homosexuals in the general population), and
3) children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those
raised by heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control,
depression, suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy, choose
cohabitation, be unfaithful to partners, contract sexually transmitted
diseases, be sexually molested, have lower income levels, drink
excessively and smoke marijuana. And now we can add to this list that
children being raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make
normal progress through school than are children being raised by
heterosexual married couples (16). Read more at
http://rethinkingtheology.com/2012/10/29/what-homosexuality-advocates-dont-want-you-to-know/
less
6 Followers
Mute
5:31 PM on March 25, 2013
I am
mostly uninterested how Mainwaring's marriage works... A gay man, not
ex-gay but gay... married to a woman and has children. How does she
feel? How does that work?
2 Followers
Mute
7:19 PM on March 25, 2013
Timothy
Lehmann - They're no longer married. They have a mixed-orientation
platonic relationship, while raising adopted kids together. Pretty
unusual.
6 Followers
Mute
2:44 PM on March 26, 2013
Lauren Bertrand - very unusual.. now i am almost interested in her side of the story
8 Followers
Mute
5:17 PM on March 25, 2013
I
don't normally post full articles of mine on another website, but here
is what I wrote today and posted on my own site:
While watching a round-table style news debate on homosexual marriage, I
heard a defender of it claim that heterosexuals are simply by accident
able to procreate. If there is no God and everything ...more
I don't normally post full articles of mine on another website, but here is what I wrote today and posted on my own site:
While watching a round-table style news debate on homosexual marriage, I heard a defender of it claim that heterosexuals are simply by accident able to procreate. If there is no God and everything happened by accident, then heterosexuals are only able to have children because of some cosmic accident, rendering such reasoning for marriage nullified. And somehow that then allows for homosexuals to marry. Her reasoning is that if there is no good physical reason for any couples to marry, then there is no good physical reason for any couples not to marry. She then goes with the "love" theory. --It would be nice if someone would ask her how we describe love, without getting into beliefs.
I would use the reasoning of the gender body parts, as clearly not all heterosexual couples can have children. And actually biblically marriage is about a man and a woman coming together and being one flesh. Of course biblical reasoning would not be acceptable to humanists.
I would not mention the bible in a court hearing on this topic. I would instead speak of logic, intelligence, and a civil society; one that is ran in an orderly manner. I would arm myself with medical facts of how the male and female gender parts are formed in a way that they are meant to come together and that that is what consummates and makes a marriage, something that two people of the same gender cannot do. And for those who want to believe that everything is a cosmic accident, I would point out that no matter what a person wants to believe as to how the male and female bodies came to be this way, the fact is that they are this way. Heterosexual couples can consummate a marriage, homosexual couples cannot. I would also point out some state laws that allow for an annulment of marriage, if one spouse cannot consummate the marriage.
It is a sad thing that America ever got to this point, where people are sworn in on a bible in a court of law, but not allowed to mention anything that is in it when the issue is that of our laws. Our founding fathers never meant for lawmakers to ignore what God says. That is just foolishness. But if that is what people want to claim, then let's talk about logic, intelligence, and a civil society. Let's be wise as a serpent (Matthew 10:16).
Copy Rights Reserved - Debra J.M. Smith 03-25-13 less
While watching a round-table style news debate on homosexual marriage, I heard a defender of it claim that heterosexuals are simply by accident able to procreate. If there is no God and everything happened by accident, then heterosexuals are only able to have children because of some cosmic accident, rendering such reasoning for marriage nullified. And somehow that then allows for homosexuals to marry. Her reasoning is that if there is no good physical reason for any couples to marry, then there is no good physical reason for any couples not to marry. She then goes with the "love" theory. --It would be nice if someone would ask her how we describe love, without getting into beliefs.
I would use the reasoning of the gender body parts, as clearly not all heterosexual couples can have children. And actually biblically marriage is about a man and a woman coming together and being one flesh. Of course biblical reasoning would not be acceptable to humanists.
I would not mention the bible in a court hearing on this topic. I would instead speak of logic, intelligence, and a civil society; one that is ran in an orderly manner. I would arm myself with medical facts of how the male and female gender parts are formed in a way that they are meant to come together and that that is what consummates and makes a marriage, something that two people of the same gender cannot do. And for those who want to believe that everything is a cosmic accident, I would point out that no matter what a person wants to believe as to how the male and female bodies came to be this way, the fact is that they are this way. Heterosexual couples can consummate a marriage, homosexual couples cannot. I would also point out some state laws that allow for an annulment of marriage, if one spouse cannot consummate the marriage.
It is a sad thing that America ever got to this point, where people are sworn in on a bible in a court of law, but not allowed to mention anything that is in it when the issue is that of our laws. Our founding fathers never meant for lawmakers to ignore what God says. That is just foolishness. But if that is what people want to claim, then let's talk about logic, intelligence, and a civil society. Let's be wise as a serpent (Matthew 10:16).
Copy Rights Reserved - Debra J.M. Smith 03-25-13 less
110 Followers
Mute
10:25 PM on March 25, 2013
Debra
JM Smith - Well written and very timely. I concur. America has been a
panDenominational Christian Nation from the outset and will be until the
end of time!
Let's all get together, put our Denomination differences aside and end
abortion in America after SCOTUS rules to uphold both PROP 8 and DOMA,
8 Followers
Mute
10:28 PM on March 25, 2013
Jim Liberatore - Thank you. --And I'd love to end abortion on demand, as well.
2 Followers
Mute
12:29 AM on March 26, 2013
Jim Liberatore - That's about as likely as you getting a job at CVS.
19 Followers
Mute
4:03 AM on March 26, 2013
ShawnBaglio
- how very mature of you. And predictable, can't bring an intelligent
argument to the table so you make personal attacks. Nice.
1 Follower
Mute
4:24 PM on March 26, 2013
Debra
JM Smith - I am glad you decided to post that article here. I agree
completely. It's time for Christians to all we can to reverse the self
destructive path our nation is on. Don't forget to pray, Christians.
34 Followers
Mute
4:32 PM on March 25, 2013
Ah yes, Doug....http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2012/03/strange-anti-gay-world-of-doug.html
Christina Gao juggles skating, Harvard studies
BOSTON -- Walk through Harvard Yard with Christina Gao and she sounds like any other freshman.
"See that statue of John Harvard?" she says. "Don't touch it, ever. People pee on his left foot."
As the legend goes, rubbing the foot brings good luck which is why tourists line up at the statue and why Harvard students, after a few drinks, relieve themselves on it.
Walk through the Skating Club of Boston with Gao and she sounds like any figure skating hopeful heading into U.S. Championships, which begin Thursday in Omaha with the women's short program.
After finishing fifth in the event the past three seasons and just about quitting the sport last year, Gao is having the best season of her career — while going to Harvard full time.
"I don't want to be No. 5 this year," she says. "I want to be better than No. 5 and I think this year I'm capable."
Other elite skaters have gone to Harvard, but none had the same success while taking a full course load. Olympians Paul Wylie and Emily Hughes went to Harvard, but Wylie attended part time before winning a silver medal at the 1992 Olympics and Hughes' career peaked prior to her enrollment. Hughes also took a semester off from school in a failed attempt to qualify for the 2010 Olympics.
Rachael Flatt, a 2010 Olympian, is a sophomore at Stanford but her skating career has stalled. She took this season off due to injuries.
So why is Gao having so much success? In part because she has no free time. Her fall semester consisted of classes in economics, calculus, Chinese for Heritage Students (her parents are Chinese immigrants) and the biology seminar "What Is Life?"
How did she do? "My parents were happy," she says. "Almost all A's."
Her fall semester also consisted of competing in Skate America, where she finished second behind Ashley Wagner, the favorite heading into nationals. In November, she was fourth at the Trophee Bompard in Paris. She was then a last-minute addition to the Grand Prix Final in Sochi, Russia, when one of the six qualifiers withdrew. Gao placed sixth.
"It was such a whirlwind," says her coach Peter Johansson. "We didn't know until four days before, and that was hard on her going into an event of that caliber not feeling prepared." Plus, Gao had final exams waiting for her as soon as she returned.
"It's a good balance," she says. "School keeps my mind busy, so I don't even think about skating. I don't get caught up in drama or high expectations. Before I had time to do that; now I don't have time."
Gao sleeps in the top bunk of a cramped dorm room with three other freshmen, an occasional cockroach and several mice.
Last semester, Gao's days began at 6 a.m. (not long after some of her roommates go to bed). Since the dining hall isn't open yet, she usually stops at a store to grab a yogurt. Then she either hops on bus No. 86 that stops by the rink or if the weather is nice, she'll walk.
When the semester began, she biked to the rink, which is about two miles away. Then her bike was stolen. So then she got the bright idea (she does go to Harvard) to use a scooter. When her coaches got wind of that injury-prone mode of transport, they quickly nixed it.
Most days she skates from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., returns to class in the afternoon, the goes back to the rink for off-ice training. Some mornings, she's been tired enough to fall asleep while lacing her skates.
"Doing both complements each other," she said. " ... My body may be tired, but I'm not mentally tired, because I love skating. I love going to school here. When you're doing something you love, it's not work."
At Harvard, her classmates don't know she's an elite figure skater unless a professor happens to mention it. Early in the semester her new group of friends found out she was a skater when they all decided to Google each other.
She defies the ice princess stereotype in other ways. For lunch, she polishes off a chicken burrito bowl at Chipotle and waxes poetically about her love of Big Macs and french fries. Gao is a big fan of Harvard's dining hall, Annenberg Hall. "Doesn't it look just like Hogwarts?" she says as she peers through a window that does seem straight out of Harry Potter.
This life is opposite from her past three years. After her freshman year in high school in Cincinnati, where her parents work for Procter & Gamble, she moved to Toronto with her father to train under Brian Orser and took classes online.
However, after struggling last season, she decided she needed a change. She returned home last March and barely skated.
"I came in fifth three years in a row in nationals and I thought maybe I don't have anything left," she says. "It's fine. There's nothing wrong with just going to Harvard."
She took a summer internship at a hospital shadowing a gastroenterologist, a job she loved. But as the summer wore on, she contacted her coaches, Johansson and Mark Mitchell, about skating again. They told her they expected a full commitment to both skating and school for the arrangement to work.
"They are exactly what I needed," Gao says. "They really really push me. They don't take many excuses, unless you're injured."
Though Gao is battling a recent groin pull, Johansson thinks she'll be fine this week.
After nationals, she'll pick classes for next semester and then, who knows? A top-two finish would send her to worlds in March. If she doesn't go, there's school, preparation for next season's Olympic push and perhaps even some skating for fun.
Walking past an outdoor rink Harvard just finished, Gao says she'll be in demand. "All my friends want skating lessons," she says, smiling.
Cloudy, 44° F
"See that statue of John Harvard?" she says. "Don't touch it, ever. People pee on his left foot."
As the legend goes, rubbing the foot brings good luck which is why tourists line up at the statue and why Harvard students, after a few drinks, relieve themselves on it.
Walk through the Skating Club of Boston with Gao and she sounds like any figure skating hopeful heading into U.S. Championships, which begin Thursday in Omaha with the women's short program.
After finishing fifth in the event the past three seasons and just about quitting the sport last year, Gao is having the best season of her career — while going to Harvard full time.
"I don't want to be No. 5 this year," she says. "I want to be better than No. 5 and I think this year I'm capable."
Other elite skaters have gone to Harvard, but none had the same success while taking a full course load. Olympians Paul Wylie and Emily Hughes went to Harvard, but Wylie attended part time before winning a silver medal at the 1992 Olympics and Hughes' career peaked prior to her enrollment. Hughes also took a semester off from school in a failed attempt to qualify for the 2010 Olympics.
Rachael Flatt, a 2010 Olympian, is a sophomore at Stanford but her skating career has stalled. She took this season off due to injuries.
So why is Gao having so much success? In part because she has no free time. Her fall semester consisted of classes in economics, calculus, Chinese for Heritage Students (her parents are Chinese immigrants) and the biology seminar "What Is Life?"
How did she do? "My parents were happy," she says. "Almost all A's."
Her fall semester also consisted of competing in Skate America, where she finished second behind Ashley Wagner, the favorite heading into nationals. In November, she was fourth at the Trophee Bompard in Paris. She was then a last-minute addition to the Grand Prix Final in Sochi, Russia, when one of the six qualifiers withdrew. Gao placed sixth.
"It was such a whirlwind," says her coach Peter Johansson. "We didn't know until four days before, and that was hard on her going into an event of that caliber not feeling prepared." Plus, Gao had final exams waiting for her as soon as she returned.
"It's a good balance," she says. "School keeps my mind busy, so I don't even think about skating. I don't get caught up in drama or high expectations. Before I had time to do that; now I don't have time."
Gao sleeps in the top bunk of a cramped dorm room with three other freshmen, an occasional cockroach and several mice.
Last semester, Gao's days began at 6 a.m. (not long after some of her roommates go to bed). Since the dining hall isn't open yet, she usually stops at a store to grab a yogurt. Then she either hops on bus No. 86 that stops by the rink or if the weather is nice, she'll walk.
When the semester began, she biked to the rink, which is about two miles away. Then her bike was stolen. So then she got the bright idea (she does go to Harvard) to use a scooter. When her coaches got wind of that injury-prone mode of transport, they quickly nixed it.
Most days she skates from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., returns to class in the afternoon, the goes back to the rink for off-ice training. Some mornings, she's been tired enough to fall asleep while lacing her skates.
"Doing both complements each other," she said. " ... My body may be tired, but I'm not mentally tired, because I love skating. I love going to school here. When you're doing something you love, it's not work."
At Harvard, her classmates don't know she's an elite figure skater unless a professor happens to mention it. Early in the semester her new group of friends found out she was a skater when they all decided to Google each other.
She defies the ice princess stereotype in other ways. For lunch, she polishes off a chicken burrito bowl at Chipotle and waxes poetically about her love of Big Macs and french fries. Gao is a big fan of Harvard's dining hall, Annenberg Hall. "Doesn't it look just like Hogwarts?" she says as she peers through a window that does seem straight out of Harry Potter.
This life is opposite from her past three years. After her freshman year in high school in Cincinnati, where her parents work for Procter & Gamble, she moved to Toronto with her father to train under Brian Orser and took classes online.
However, after struggling last season, she decided she needed a change. She returned home last March and barely skated.
"I came in fifth three years in a row in nationals and I thought maybe I don't have anything left," she says. "It's fine. There's nothing wrong with just going to Harvard."
She took a summer internship at a hospital shadowing a gastroenterologist, a job she loved. But as the summer wore on, she contacted her coaches, Johansson and Mark Mitchell, about skating again. They told her they expected a full commitment to both skating and school for the arrangement to work.
"They are exactly what I needed," Gao says. "They really really push me. They don't take many excuses, unless you're injured."
Though Gao is battling a recent groin pull, Johansson thinks she'll be fine this week.
After nationals, she'll pick classes for next semester and then, who knows? A top-two finish would send her to worlds in March. If she doesn't go, there's school, preparation for next season's Olympic push and perhaps even some skating for fun.
Walking past an outdoor rink Harvard just finished, Gao says she'll be in demand. "All my friends want skating lessons," she says, smiling.
Thursday, Mar. 28, 2013
Cloudy, 44° FA league of her own
With Harvard on hold, Christina Gao is skating to the top
Harvard Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Photo by Elaine Thompson/Associated Press
It was the evening after the Four Continents competition in Japan, and the Harvard College freshman, who has been racing toward the top of the figure skating world, needed her fast-food fix — a salty counterpoint to the discipline, travel, and sacrifice a career in athletics demands, a career that recently led Gao to make the difficult decision to take a yearlong leave from Harvard to dedicate herself to Olympic training.
Gao placed fourth in the Four Continents competition, and got her reward in the form of a Big Mac. She then boarded a plane back to Boston, where she’s continuing her training, and where the busy Harvard world is just a train ride away.
“It wasn’t an easy decision,” said Gao, who also recently placed fifth at the nationals. “I wasn’t able to work out my courses to fit my schedule, and so I decided to take this year to train. Harvard will always be here for me, but the chance to try for the Olympics doesn’t happen very often.”
Raised in Cincinnati, Gao began skating when she was 7. “It began as just an after-school activity,” she recalled, “but started growing into more than that, and soon I was training three or four hours a day.”
As a high schooler, Gao uprooted to Toronto, where she could focus on training, taking courses through online correspondence, and traveling to 11 countries over the past few years while competing with Team USA.
When she visited Harvard to skate in An Evening With Champions, “I knew this was where I wanted to be,” she giddily confessed.
Gao’s down-to-earth personality could be attributed to her Midwestern roots. She offers no pretense about her concentration of choice: “I have no clue,” she said. “There are so many neat things to dive into and I’m excited to have the opportunity to discover what I’m passionate about.”
But Gao is passionate about skating, its peaks and pitfalls. “It’s really hard most of the time. I’m always tired and sore, and sometimes I don’t think I can handle it. But in the end, I always seem to push through, I think because I truly love it,” she said.
“I’ve had an amazing time at Harvard so far. I had to balance skating and school, which was hard at first, but very rewarding. I found a nice balance between the two. School kept my mind sharp, while skating kept me physically sharp. I’d train three hours in the morning, go to class, and then go back to the rink for another hour of training. It was definitely tough, and sometimes I wanted to give up, but I’m glad I pushed through.”
As Gao moves forward with the 2014 Olympics in mind, she’ll be contending not just with competitors, but herself. “I get really nervous when I compete,” Gao said.
To counter that, like many athletes, she has some superstitious practices (though fewer, she said, than she used to): “I always put my left skate on first, and I usually try to take a nap before I compete.”
Another necessary ritual? McDonald’s, of course — post-competition, at the airport, before the flight home.
So far, it all seems to be working. Gao garnered a silver medal at Skate America in 2012, and that year placed fifth in the U.S. Figure Skating Championships.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
