Sue Shellenbarger writes a column for The Wall Street Journal that generally sends me up any available wall. The column is entitled "Home & Family," and I keep up with it if only to counter its content.She recently answered a reader's question ( 4/30/08 ) that had to do with a divorced father wanting to take his 10 year old son to his native Australia for 10 days, but his ex-wife is fighting the plan. The father contends that life lessons of such a vacation trump school. He's going to court for the right to take him, and asks Shellenbarger what she thinks.First of all, there are laws which prohibit one parent from taking a child out of the country without the express permission of the other. The reason is obvious: child-stealing. Secondly, having divorced parents at war with each other over a child hurts the child as he or she feels divided loyalties and tremendous anxiety. Thirdly, taking a child out of school for a protracted trip teaches the child that education is less of a priority than personal desires for fun. This father could arrange a summer trip when no school is missed. My guess is that this is a major power play.Shellenbarger not only doesn't deal with any of these issues, but she focuses on the whim of the child: if he would be comfortable with the trip; if he would see it as an adventure....in other words, just considering what the kid wants. What?? Of course the kid wants to be out of school and hanging out with dingos and kangaroos! "The ideal route would be for you and your ex-wife to set aside your personal feelings and focus on what he truly wants," contributes a New Jersey Marriage and Family Therapist. "[It] depends on your son's openness to the experience. Try to give him a free and honest choice, unfettered by feelings of loyalty to either of you or fear of letting you down." Is she kidding? How can a ten year old do that? And why put the burden on the child? Aren't the parents supposed to want and do what is best for the child? This is more of the "if it feels good it is good" school of thought - an experiment whose failure doesn't seem to curtail its perpetuation. More >>

When I was a kid, I was desperate to become a Mouseketeer - wearing those mouse ears, dancing, singing, and acting in one of the weekly Disney specials.' Alas, telling them of my dream in a postcard sent to them at the age of 12 got no response.At that time in Disney's history, children's "things" were innocent and sweet.' No more.' We are now in the era of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Vanessa Hudgens and now, Miley Cyrus posing for Vanity Fair topless, beneath a draped sheet, and sporting a seductive look.It's no surprise that little girls and boys look up to young celebrities with enthusiasm and yearning, and it's obvious that these celebrities become instant role-models as well. My Disney role-models were talented and squeaky clean, because that was Mr. Disney's vision.' That was a good thing - or at least most families with children believed so.Most parents of 15-year-olds are pretty upset about this inappropriate display of an adolescent in Vanity Fair , where Cyrus is exposing her body in a vulgar way and giving their own children the wrong idea of feminine modesty and self-respect. Vanity Fair defends this travesty as beautiful, natural, and artistic.' How 'bout saying the truth:' they did this to sell magazines, and the best way to sell magazines is to sensationally exploit somebody or something.' When it comes to exploiting children and vulgarizing their innocence, somebody ought to pull the plug on the photographer's lights.'Apparently, former teen star Hilary Duff professed (according to Fox News) that she would never have made the mistake that Miley did by posing topless beneath a sheet.' When I first heard of Duff's statement, I got excited that someone of her celebrity would take on the elites of Manhattan and Hollywood.' Well, that dimmed immediately upon reading her entire statement, which included the following: "Everyone goes through things and takes their own path; who am I to judge decisions that she made?' People are pushing you to do something, and if you want to do it, that's your choice.' It's not what I would choose to do, but if she did, then that's fine.' That's her choice." In 2008, I am shocked to read the same lame, amoral, immature and gutless rhetoric of the 1960's.' Anything one chooses to do is fine simply because it is their choice?' So, there is not right and wrong?' There are no obligations to standards for the sake of others and the community?' All things we choose to do have value simply because we choose to them?Take that philosophy to your standard innocent and na've youth, and what do you get?' You get the blas' determination that the best thing for little girls is an injection for a sexually transmitted disease (venereal warts) almost as soon as she reaches double digits in age!' You also get Planned Parenthood aborting babies for these little girls and not reporting to the police that the fathers are adult men.'' You get young women so scarred and corrupted by all the "choices" they've made, that they can barely imagine, much less trust, the yearning for a safe, committed, happy marriage and family.That one look of Miley over her shoulder, with her chest barely covered with a sheet is an assault on the innocence of even more young girls...just when we thought they got the idea that becoming another Britney Spears was not such a good thing. More >>

I'm amazed at the constipated stupidity of many librarians who believe that privacy issues are more important than national security or the protection of children or the support of laws against child pornography.' Blame it on the extremist positions of the American Library Association, which I have long viewed as a family and values unfriendly bully group.Case in point:' a recent news report of a librarian who called the police because a fellow was a repeat offender in the library, downloading kiddie porn - a Federal offense.' The first time it happened, the news report tells us that the supervisor told this librarian not to report it.' When she saw him a second time, she called the police.' This heroine was fired.' Why?' Privacy issues!' What??' There is no presumption of privacy in a PUBLIC library - especially when one is breaking a Federal law.All of which makes it even more weird that Sprint Nextel Corporation has signed up hundreds of thousands of customers for a feature that shows them where their friends are with colored marks on a map viewable on their cellphone screens.' Basically, people would know, all day long, exactly where you are...right down to a restroom or a street corner.All the folks who use the social-networking websites don't seem to mind losing their privacy.' So when a librarian protects the children in the library by ridding it of a prospective child molester - who is the bad guy and who is worried about what privacy? More >>

About two months ago, my publisher, Harper Collins, called me up to tell me that The Today Show wanted to interview me in the 8AM hour on Tuesday, March 11, the day that my new book, Stop Whining, Start Living was going to be published.' I said, "Great!"Last week, I did the "pre-interview" with one of their producers, and they called me back to say they wanted to have my interview go for two segments.' I said "Even better!"Then, at 4PM on Monday, March 10, they called up and asked if I would also participate in a "panel" segment entitled "Why Men Cheat."' I went "uh oh."I hate doing panels.' I hate all the talking heads shouting over each other.' And I feared they would end up asking about tabloid gossip and not the real topic, but they reaffirmed that they really wanted to hear my opinion about "Why Men Cheat."So, silly me, on I went.' Meredith Vieira asked the three panelists, "Why do men cheat?"' Panelist' #1 said that the legacy of promiscuous cavemen has created an evolutionary tendency toward infidelity among today's men.'' Hmmm.Panelist #2 said something to the effect that men often cheat because they are missing something physically, mentally or emotionally in their relationship with someone.' Who might be responsible for this missing "something" was not specifically mentioned.' Hmm....could it be the wife?' The boss?' Co-workers?So Panelist #3 (that's me) responded: "Men need validation.' When they come into the world they are born of women and getting their validation from mommy is the beginning of needing it from a woman.' And when the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like a hero, he's very susceptible to the charms of some other woman making him feel what he needs.' And these days women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give a man what they need." Maybe I should have had a sign around my neck that said I was not talking specifically about the governor of New York's current alleged problems with money transfers and a $5,000 an hour call-girl ring.' Certainly a man who won the governorship of the second largest state in the nation does not sound like a man who needs validation to feel like a success.' I was answering the question asked:' "Why do men cheat?"Suddenly, the topic WAS about the New York governor.' To my utter amazement, Panelist #1 proclaimed that the New York governor's high cheekbones and protuberant eyebrows indicated high levels of testosterone which would be a strong indicator of infidelity.Panelist #2 said that, speaking of testosterone, highly testosteroned people tend not to worry as much about the consequences of the risks they take.' (I guess that explains the use of steroids in baseball).Ms. Vieira then asked why a man of such power as the New York governor would risk everything to carry on a tawdry relationship.' Note: This was the first time that Ms. Vieira referred to the governor in any way in the entire segment.' Panelist #3 (that's me!) responded: "When a person is in a high position of power, especially a man, there is a sense of entitlement and a sense of being...above the law because of the importance of what they do -' because of the importance of who they are." Since that fleeting moment, I have been accused of the most heinous of crimes (apparently far worse than the foibles of politicians and celebrities):' giving my opinion and advice. According to The New York Times, Meredith Vieira was "aghast" at my comments.' In the 10 am hour, Ann Curry tried to take me to task for "things that were said about the governor."' Wrong!' And finally the renowned News Team at The Huffington Post proclaimed "Dr. Laura Blames Spitzer's Wife".In three segments over 2 hours I never made a comment about the Governor's wife.' And my only direct comment about the Governor was that powerful men sometimes feel an unwarranted sense of entitlement.' I answered the question they asked, not the question I've been accused of answering.Now here's the good news.' Thank goodness I had bought a new outfit for the program, and I was feeling pretty good yesterday morning, or else I might have gotten a little ticked off that my words were so ludicrously taken out of context.If you don't believe me, feel free to go to the videotape ( click here ).' And don't whine for me.' I'm having a great time in New York - good friends, good restaurants, and almost-Spring weather.On a more serious note:' The stories that we see on the news and the Internet 24/7 indicate an epidemic of dysfunctionality in America in the relationships of the powerful, talented, and merely famous.' The sad part is it is only the tip of the iceberg in our society.' And sadder still is knowing that so many children are being hurt by these problems. More >>

Reuters' Julie Steenhuysen wrote a news essay recently which was a real shocker.' She quoted Janis Wolak of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire in Durham: A lot of the characterizations that you see in Internet safety information suggest that sex offenders are targeting very young children and using violence and deception against their victims.... Especially since social networking sites became popular, people are suggesting that these offenders are using information to stalk and abduct their victims.' We are not seeing those types of cases.' The great majority of cases we have seen involved young teenagers, mostly 13, 14, 15 year old girls who are targeted by adults on the Internet who are straightforward about being interested in sex. From the perspective of the victim, these are romances. Among the study's other findings:* Internet offenders pretended to be teenagers in only 5% of the crimes studied.* Nearly 75% of victims who met offenders did so more than once.* Youths at risk have "buddy lists" including strangers, and they discuss sex online with strangers.* Boys who are gay or questioning their sexuality are more susceptible to Internet-initiated sex crimes than other populations, resulting in 15% of criminal cases.Other than religious institutions, there is virtually nothing in our society that elevates sexuality to a spiritual status.' This is the result of a society which takes kids out of school (without parental notification) for abortions; which has peer sex classes showing how to put condoms on bananas; which has "sex fairs" at major colleges and universities; which has porn as mainstream, primetime television and advertising; which has practically naked models in store windows for Abercrombie & Fitch and Victoria's Secret; which has families repeatedly torn apart by busy, "two parent career" homes, divorce, re-marriage, shack-ups, and other adult misbehaviors that emotionally devastate children who look elsewhere for love and comfort.'What is normalized is yearned for by children who want to be "adults." More >>

One mother in Huntington Beach, California went through ten lawyers until she found Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute ( pacificjustice.org , a non-profit that advocates for the rights of students and parents) to help her.' All the other attorneys suggested she was a "prude" and chastised her about not being up to speed with 2007.Her advocacy prompted the Huntington Beach Union High School District trustees to consider a proposal that would regulate movies in the classroom.' The proposal would require teachers to obtain parental permission before showing portions of R-rated movies.' The policy essentially discourages the use of R-rated movies in the classroom.' Evidently, the Huntington Beach district did not have a written policy.' How convenient.'Mr. Dacus is quoted in the Orange County Register of January 15, 2008 ( www.ocregister.com/news/movies-kazor-policy-1959439-teachers-school ) as saying: "The garbage they showed these children...was a very serious breach of parental trust." The mother said: "These teachers are supposed to be us when we're not there.' They're supposed to be role models.' I wanted the opportunity to have the permission sent to me in the form of a permission slip." Taking up classroom time showing a whole movie seems to me to be a lazy way to approach a teaching job.' Recommending a movie to students and then sending a memo home to the parents making that suggestion and explaining its value, seems a more responsible and professional means to what is supposed to be an "educational" aid. More >>

Last week, I posted a blog entitled "Accidental Sex?" in which I commented about an article in Seventeen Magazine entitled " Shocking Ways You Could Get Pregnant By Accident ."'I got an email from a listener who had written to Seventeen to complain about the article.' She sent me a copy of their response, or as she said: "let's be sure not to alienate anyone, was their bottom line.' Good grief!"'Good grief, indeed.' I'll let you be the judge.' Here's the letter from Seventeen: Thank you for your letter.' We are very interested in all of your comments, questions and concerns. Seventeen has a readership of millions of girls, and it is our mission, indeed our obligation, to give these girls information, entertainment and advice they can turn to.' As the oldest magazine in existence for teenagers, we also have 60 years of experience in talking to them and finding ways of getting them to listen.' We have found that when teens feel they are being lectured, condescended to, or getting nothing but "don'ts," they stop listening. What we attempt to do in every article is to give teens basic facts and warnings, in an effort to make sure that if they do decide to take a step, like to become sexually active, they are aware of the most likely issues and safety conditions and will at least think twice about what they are doing and try to do it in the most responsible way possible. We at Seventeen work as best we can to get the right kind of message across without alienating readers.' We will continue to try to give our readers advice that works, and to serve them as well as we can. Thanks again for writing us. Sincerely, The Editors More >>

Any woman who has ever been pregnant knows how absurd it is when we hear about some young woman who did not know she was pregnant until the moment at which she is giving birth to a full-term baby.' Preposterous, of course.' Its more like she's not willing to take responsibility.' Well, the February issue of Seventeen magazine focuses on "Shocking Ways You Could Get Pregnant By Accident."' Huh?The cover piece does mention the option of not having sex, and even points out that "studies show that girls who have a big plan for their future are significantly less likely to get pregnant," but the main focus of the magazine article is not about how to avoid sex simply because you feel all tingly and your girlfriends are doing it or the guy tells you that you won't be popular if you don't.' It's mainly about accepting that it'll probably happen, so this is how you talk him into a condom or how you take the pill (which, by the way, does not protect against sexually-transmitted diseases)."...sex is a natural, healthy and fun part of loving relationships."' That is a fact.' What Seventeen does not take an entire issue to explain is that every time you feel butterflies or are hot for someone, it isn't love.' The issue does not spend page after page extolling the virtues of mature awe, respect, admiration, friendship, trust, etc., which take years to develop and can really only take place once you're a mature adult.Surely Seventeen magazine knows that the number one issue for teens is acceptance and fitting in.' To be such a formidable influence in the lives of teens and to be so remiss in cheating them out of the blessings of true intimacy - instead, touting the fulfillment of urges as love justifying sex - is a sad, irresponsible, and disgusting misuse of their power. More >>

Philosophers throughout the ages have contemplated and agonized over what causes people to fall in love.' Sociologists and psychologists have done the same over what causes people to stay in love.' Now neuroscientists are trying to solve both their problems by taking brain scans of folks in love looking for the "cause" of love.The report of their work prepared by the Wall Street Journal (2/8/08) seems to miss the main point.' Looking for brain sites of increased activity in people who after many years of marriage still feel fabulously in love, is not likely due to some abnormal hyperactivity in centers associated with affection or pleasure.' It is the opposite way around.' People who behave consistently in a loving manner constantly stoke the fires of affectionate and passionate love - all which will show up in their brain scans.The couple they "analyzed," the Turners, are described up front: "Ann Tucker is pushing a shopping cart through the produce section of a supermarket in Plainview, N.Y., when she turns to kiss her husband.' The supermarket kiss is a regular ritual for the Tuckers.' So are the restaurant kiss and the traffic-light kiss.' 'I guess we do kiss a lot,' says Mrs. Tucker...Mrs. Tucker is living happily ever after, and scientists are curious why." Why?' That's easy: she and her husband constantly behave like people in love.' Feelings follow behavior and both feed into brain pathways that become "well-worn" through constant activation.So, stop looking for supplements, hormone injections, or implanted brain stimulators, miracles or moonspots.' Instead, behave like a man/woman in love and you'll create what you wish for. More >>

In a never-ending supply of lows, TV's newest contribution to the destruction of dignity, modesty, and compassion is on the Fox Network, entitled " The Moment of Truth ."' The basic concept is to have people admit to immoral, illegal, embarrassing, stupid, crass or just plain dumb behavior while attached to a "polygraph," which purports to determine whether the answer given by the contestant is "truthful."' Truthful answers are rewarded by cash, up to a half-million dollars.' It's sickening to see what some folks will destroy in their own souls and relationships for money - even a lot of money.The New York Times ( January 25, 2008 ) described a scenario on the series' premiere show: 'Ty, a personal trainer, said 'yes' when asked if he has delayed having children because he is not sure that Catia, his wife of 2 1/2 years, would be his 'lifelong partner.'' After he replied, a disembodied female voice delivered the verdict:' 'The answer is....(long dramatic beat) TRUE!'' The camera panned to Catia, who stopped smiling and murmured 'I'm dying here.'' Her friend, April, turned to her and asked in a semi-whisper 'Is it worth $100,000 to learn that?'"Well, financially, it wasn't worth anything because when Ty was asked whether he had ever touched a female client more than was strictly necessary, his "no" was determined by the polygraph to be a lie, and he lost all his winnings This is sick stuff.' All truths ought not to be spoken.There is a new film out with a plot that I believe appropriately condemns society for caving into the basest part of human nature.' There is a "bad" guy who murders people and puts their lingering, torturous death on the Internet live.' The more people who log on....the faster and more horrific the victim's death.' What happens?' Well, more people log on.' The parallel is inescapable.' Shame on Fox, but more so, shame on us. More >>