Parents who turn their daughters into quasi-prostitutes

This morning I had a debate with myself. Ought I or not to cancel my subscription to Claremont Review of Books?

This same morning I serendipitously solved the debate through a fortunate click over to Ann Barhardt’s page.

Ann posted a link to an IMPORTANT piece from 2020 at The American Mind which is from the Claremont Institute.

Big Pimping

This piece is about how parents, especially AWFLs (affluent white female liberals) are in effect turning their daughters into quasi-prostitutes by putting them early on contraceptives and allowing them to be exposed to every sort of perversion in sex-ed classes.   The long term results, lots of really screwed up girls and a really screwed up society.

The writer, Peachy Keenan, is blunt.  A few samples…


[F]or the last twenty years or so, American girls have been raised from birth to be premium dating fodder, primed from the first whiff of puberty to be Available for Sex on Saturday Night. So why are they being ghosted in droves? Abandoned and left to die alone, clutching their pets and Warren for President signs?


When it comes to sex ed, I believe in the screenwriting theory known as Chekhov’s gun: if you show a gun in the first act, it must be fired by the third. If you show kids the sex toys (and worse) in the first grade, the sex toys will be used by high school.


At an institutional level, we are creating a cursed generation of females expert at every imaginable permutation of sex with an infinite number of partners, while largely shunning the other thing, the main thing, the only thing still emitting any heat in the cold, merciless hearth of contemporary life: the dream of forming a family.

Because the shocking truth is: No one wants to wife a sex expert. 


Why do AWFLS want their daughters to start dating so early? As anyone who has been involuntarily single can confirm, dating almost always totally sucks. Why do PARENTS (!) want to extend their child’s miserable dating window longer and longer, younger and younger? How many years of soul-destroying “dating” are they willing to subject their kid to? Ten years? Twenty? A lifetime of unfulfilled longing?

Shouldn’t parents be guiding children to make their dating windows as short as possible? Imagine if your entire dating history consisted of one date! It would be like pitching the perfect game in baseball. We met, went on one date, and that was it.


What happens when the 12-year-olds know more about sex than the most syphilitic Parisian madames of the 18th century? Does this ensure they will marry young and well, and be good and loving parents?

Or is it more likely that this blasted knowledge guarantees a tedious multi-decade Bataan death march through dating apps, therapists, anti-depressants, polyamorous cul-de-sacs, and (eventually) to a spiritual and biological dead end?


This is a must read, I’m afraid.   It isn’t pretty but it is needed.

And I’ll save you a little time: have another window open so you can look up some of the things she mentions, cultural references, etc.  I had no idea, for example, about DryBar (a hair styling place) ghosting (getting dumped after a brief time) and pleasers (high platform shoes used mainly by hookers and, I believe, certain Jesuits).

Young parents, read this.  Grandparents, watching your children raise children, read this.  Young people contemplating starting a family….

Claremont did us a favor by publishing it, so I think I’ll keep my subscription to their review.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, One Man & One Woman, Pò sì jiù, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. JacobWall says:

    “I had no idea, for example, about … pleasers (high platform shoes used mainly by hookers **and, I believe, certain Jesuits**)”

    I haven’t laughed so hard in months! I probably shouldn’t laugh, since it may actually be true.

    On a serious note, thank you for sharing. This is very important. The ever longer dating culture is a plague in our society. Even faithful Catholics I know seem to think it’s not only OK, but necessary for a couple who meets in high school to put off marriage for 5-6 years till they’re done university. “As long as they don’t have sex.” Smaller dose, but same poison.

  2. VForr says:

    Ms. Keenan hits the nail on the head with this one. My parents did not pimp me out thankfully, but I watched parents of my classmates do it. These parents also encouraged their children to become alcoholics by drinking in front of their children until they the parents were wasted all the while saying “do not touch that alcohol, children”. As a female nearing age thirty, dating is miserable. Ghosting is awful (I know) and leaves such deep psychological scars. So many sons are also suffering, lost, and disfigured as well.

  3. While I understand the points about dating, I must add that unless one’s children move in exclusively traditionalist circles, expecting the process of finding a spouse to be quick and efficient is not realistic, as much as we might pine for the past. These days, one has to be extremely careful about what sort of candidates are even allowed to be considered, starting with an acceptance of the simple principle that marriage is a lifelong commitment and not for the fainthearted. As late as 1960, one might be able to marry the girl next door for no other reason than she lived next door and was Catholic and have at least half a shot of making that into a sacramental marriage, but those days are, sadly, history.

  4. CanukFrank says:

    Peachy Keenan writes terrifically blistering article! I always remember the devastating critique of Bsp. Baron’s new initiative to get youth involved with today’s Church.

  5. Kathleen10 says:

    That article was very good. Parents today often have no idea about real parenting, young parents care dearly about looking cool. They want to be friends and they want their girls to be SEXY. Young boys are encouraged to be effeminate. Many boys in middle school and probably elementary are dyeing their hair purple and wearing earrings. Now you see boys with their long hair up in buns exactly like granny at bingo used to wear. Girls are completely immodest, they have no idea about modesty and quite frankly, are often so vulgar I can’t think of a fix for it. How do you introduce moral and polite speech as etiquette if parents don’t? Parents don’t mind if girls wear seductive gear at a very young age, this is what clothing manufacturers produce and parents buy it up. I do see girls who look like little girls once in a while, usually at a TLM, not much outside of that. Most little girls have very long hair and parents are clearly giving little thought to the creeps who eye their children, boys and girls. I still can’t get used to girls wearing what we used to call “tights” as outerwear. When the girls in my family wear them I always say hey, you forgot your pants. I saw a lovely young girl come out of a store with daisy dukes on, and when she got into her car the mystery was over. Parents would look at you like you stepped right out of a Victorian picture if you tried to tell them they might want to think of modesty. They don’t care they are raising slobs, because they’re slobs! I spend a lot of time with adolescents. Their parents are clueless and these kids are inundated with the most immoral junk, often pushed on them by schools. Poor kids have no chance.

  6. TonyO says:

    Andrew, that is so true. Even if your kids are in exclusively traditional circles, it is STILL not only plausible, but likely that they will be running into other kids who either (a) were exposed to the wider secular pimp culture before their family “got tradition”, or (b) have been exposed to it through cousins, neighbors, or something online. Our whole culture has been degraded by sexual immorality, and it is virtually impossible to put a complete shell around kids so that none of it hits them. Arguably, it isn’t even prudent to try to do that 100%, because those same kids will have to learn how to live in that degenerate world, while keeping themselves pure.

  7. grateful says:

    And why in the world do Catholic high schools allow the girls to wear the shortest of all uniform skirts?

  8. “Imagine if your entire dating history consisted of one date! It would be like pitching the perfect game in baseball. We met, went on one date, and that was it”.

    This is what happened to my granddaughter. Both she and her husband had only dated each other, had a brief intermission to discern things, got back together, got engaged and married three months later on the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows in 2018.

    They are expecting a son within the next two weeks. ? I raised her and homeschooled her, and we attended a very faithful and devout parish. As an adult on her own, she and her husband go to Mass every Sunday and I think they go to Confession once a month to dust off their wings. ? She is living what she learned for 20 years at home and I say, “Thank You Jesus and Our Lady!”

  9. bookworm says:

    “Parents would look at you like you stepped right out of a Victorian picture if you tried to tell them they might want to think of modesty.”

    Most likely they have had it pounded into their heads for at least the last 20 years or so that ANY criticism of female dress or behavior is unforgivably sexist and amounts to “blaming the victims” of sexual abuse or harassment. Like all powerful lies, it has some truth to it — no woman “deserves” or “asks” to be raped or abused solely because of how she dresses. But how do we balance that with the need to show some charity to men by not unnecessarily throwing temptation/distraction their way?

  10. bigtex says:

    These are ALL the result of what St. Augustine called “Libido Domandi” – sexual liberation as a means of political control. You must read the book of the same name by Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones, if you want to understand how we got to this level of sexual degeneracy in our Christian culture, who is behind it and why they do it. It’s psychological warfare meant to turn us all into slaves to the oligarchy. America has become the gay disco.

  11. Semper Gumby says:

    Welp, that was quite a read. To reiterate what Fr. Z wrote: that wasn’t pleasant but it’s a must read.

    From the article:

    “Care for an ominous peek into our future hellscape? CNN Business published a recent study that said “by 2030, 45% of working women aged 25 to 44 in the United States will be single, the largest share in history.””

    Now, there are many exceptions, but single females tend to vote for the Death Party, roughly 2-1 I think.

    As others point out above bad parenting (some of that is actually child abuse), bad teachers and vulgar entertainment are elements here. It’s the human condition, there always has been and always will be toxic individuals. But, as others point out above, it is possible to resist and live reasonably virtuously. It’s been done before, it requires faith, fortitude and perseverance.

    Another CRB article has something to say about this, a Summer 2018 review of “Why Liberalism Failed” by Notre Dame political philosophy professor Patrick Deneen. Deneen is one of a group comprised mainly of professors and journalists (shorthand: “Deneen and Co.”) who advocate for Integralism, or so-called “Common Good” constitutionalism, or whatever label they come up with next. They seek to correct what they see as the errors of Liberty and Freedom (thus, “The Failure of Liberalism”) by establishing a Catholic theocracy and socialist economics. In other words, Deneen and Co. will have their Catholic Heaven on Earth or heads will roll- which, of course, is not Catholic at all.

    Deneen’s book is recommended by Barack Obama, Cornel West and The Nation- obviously not a good sign (those Leftists reject God and a theocracy, of course, it’s the socialism and anti-Americanism of Deneen and Co. they find useful).

    From the CRB review, titled “Blame the Fathers”:

    “To many readers, much of what Deneen has to say about classical liberalism and the founding will sound familiar—because these same charges were levelled a century ago by such leading Progressives as Herbert Croly, Edward Bellamy, and John Dewey, and have been restated over and over by their modern descendants. Indeed, parts of Why Liberalism Failed read like the Port Huron Statement.”

    “[In Deneen’s book liberalism] is revealed as the source of such discontents and vices as loneliness, addiction, broken families, pornography, sexual violence, materialism, and corrosive individualism. Liberalism has created a world of selfish strivers, unhinged from community and even family, angry at the trap they find themselves in but clueless as to who or what has trapped them.”

    There is no precise and agreed on definition of “liberalism.” Hurling the word “liberalism” at societal problems is Deneen’s tactic to blame the Founding and the Constitution for the flaws of human nature. Blaming the Founding and the Constitution is an important factor in Leftist support for Deneen and Co. Furthermore, Deneen and Co. must attack the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, while simultaneously blindly following the Vatican, in order to build their theocracy on the backs of U.S. citizens for “their own good.” If all that sounds familiar, that’s because it’s all been done, and failed at great cost, before.

    Back to the review:

    “Books that attempt to explain everything have predictable weaknesses: overly simple explanations; incomplete or misleading summaries of other peoples’ ideas; wishful thinking…Focused as he is on liberalism, Deneen does not recognize that phenomena such as individualism and materialism predate liberalism…”

    Yep, it’s called human nature, it’s been around for a long time. But Deneen is mostly disinterested in human nature, he has a political project to promote, which means bashing away at the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

    “Deneen conflates classical liberalism with modern progressivism—a mistake that prevents him from seeing the obvious: progressives have always considered classical liberalism, and especially the framers, as their prime targets.”

    Thus, Integralists and so-called “Common Good” constitutionalists are merely Useful Idiots exploited by socialists, globalists and anti-Christians.

    Two key points from the CRB review that Deneen and his fellow tribalists, who are “excited” to promote their political-religion of Socialism tarted up with Catholic terminology and flawed Catholic theology, should grasp:

    1. “Deneen has it backwards. [Liberty] hasn’t failed; it is being destroyed.”

    2. “But what Madison and his generation had to say about virtue and civic education is worth knowing, if only to remind ourselves how difficult the problem of virtue is in a free republic.”

    CanukFrank: Yes, that was a good article.

  12. JacobWall says:

    CanukFrank – I read Peachy Keenan’s discussion on Bp. Barron that you linked. She hits the nail on the head. Thanks for sharing.

  13. pbnelson says:

    As if sent by God to confirm Fr. Z’s alarm, breaking news about a $55K/year elite prep school in Manhattan where AWFLS (i.e. affluent white female liberals) like to send their kids.
    Despite accepting the resignation of the teacher in question, the school “stands firmly behind” a curriculum that teaches 7 year olds how to ma******te. Save us Jesus, Joseph and Mary!
    Imagine a Catholic Priest teaching this “subject” to his first communicant charges; he’d (rightfully, hopefully) be sent out of the priesthood and straight to jail. But I guess if you’re an elite prep school headmaster: Tis well, tis well. *
    * Let them be turned backward, and blush for shame that desire evils to me: Let them be presently turned away blushing for shame that say to me: Tis well, tis well. — psalm 69:4

  14. Pingback: Mud Black: How Feminism Engenders Sluttishness | Mundabor's Blog

  15. @Fr. Z:

    Don’t give up your subscription to the Claremont Review of Books! I’m in it! Here’s the link

    Yes, it’s behind a paywall, but you can read it–because you’re a subscriber. See, isn’t that a good reason to keep on subscribing?

    That piece in The American Mind is terrific. But most middle-class American mothers are exactly like that. They’ve all got their daughters on Gardasil at age 11, which is basically saying, “Go ahead and have sex starting right now.” They are encouraged to do so by the entire medical and school establishment–and you are regarded as a crank and possibly a criminal if you refuse to let your daughter be thus “vaccinated.” Furthermore, the birth-control pill has been around for 50 years. Hasn’t anyone done any research on the medical consequences of women spending three full decades of their lives pumping their bodies full of hormones that prevent ovulation by faking pregnancy? Fake pregnancy for 30 years? I cannot believe that there aren’t consequences. The rate of breast cancer alone these days is staggering. I can’t believe how many women I know who have had severe breast cancer, and nearly all of them have been on the Pill. For decades.

Comments are closed.