Friends with Benefits

Monte Kuligowski

They call the show “Good Morning America,” but on a certain morning last month the program provided countless Americans with a “good mourning.” We found ourselves feeling grief over the airing of the egregious sins of three teenagers on the national broadcast.

On June 1, 2004, the modern concept of “friends with benefits” was explained to a multitude of unsuspecting viewers. Appearing on the program were three teens, one female and two males, from age 14 through 17. The kids explained the concept: it is a way to have sexual desires relieved with the aid of a friend. Because romantic, emotional attachment can be a bit heavy, why not have a disinterested friend satisfy your urges?

So many issues arise from this mentality and practice that I’m hard pressed to know where to begin the analysis. For starters how about the archaic acknowledgment that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong? Of course, that subject didn’t come up during the broadcast. I guess we’ve somehow gotten past that issue.

In the advent of the “free love” movement in the late 1960s, premarital sex was justified because the participants “loved” one another. A marriage license was just a piece of paper; the real issue was love.

Of course, each new generation raised without the awareness of an obscure principle known as absolute truth, will descend a little lower than the previous. Presently, sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage, it appears, do not require any justification. The present focus is to just do it safely.

These three youngsters informed America that most often the benefits don’t involve actual intercourse; other methods are employed to satisfy the urge. Pragmatically, this is safe sex; pregnancy is avoided and communicable diseases aren’t spread as easily. You have to give the kids credit, inasmuch as they took what was being taught to them and ran with it.

They view their practice as safe, but it doesn’t necessarily provide equal rights for girls. Most often, the young female explained, girls are the ones providing the benefits to the boys. The fact that they are willing accomplices doesn’t take away the nefarious reality that young ladies are being used as obtuse objects. (Let’s see if the feminist movement takes up their cause.)

There can be no doubt that our culture has sunken to an all-time low. In this context, how, one might ask, are humans distinguishable from the animal kingdom? Animals don’t have sacred honor and dignity. They aren’t moral beings possessing the ability to restrain their prurient cravings. All they have is a base nature; to which they are slaves. They act upon impulse; there is no reasoning or contemplation of the future. There is no higher purpose to attain or fulfill. For years many have warned that without biblical absolutes in the societal equation, men would become mere animals. What do you think? Were they right?

Even as it’s natural to grieve for the younger generation, it’s easy to be grieved by the older.

You may have thought enough has been said about Bill Clinton. But of all that has been said and written, only the surface has been scratched. Indeed, the fallout from the volcano was not fully perceivable. Clinton forced young people to process the reality of having a president of the United States who received “benefits” from a young, willing accomplice, who was more than half his age and under his authority. They were listening attentively when the definition of the word “is” was at issue. They were watching when his behavior was downplayed as a private matter. They were listening when he boldly proclaimed that he “didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.” They took note of the later clarification that his involvement with the intern didn’t amount to sexual relations. They especially took notice of the fact that consequences seemed to elude the man.

If ever there were a time for the defenders of the indefensible to feel shame, it is now. Clinton could have preserved honor and respect in the national conscience only with a heartfelt apology to the younger generation and to the country at large; followed with his resignation from office. Instead, five years later, we get a book from Clinton containing the claim that his selfish clawing to keep the presidency after impeachment was a “badge of honor.” If badges, medals and ribbons all mean the same thing, then Clinton would be well-advised to toss his badge over John Kerry’s proverbial wall of dishonor.

The younger generation needed to hear from him that his behavior and deportment was grossly wrong and they needed to see consequences. With much authority there is much responsibility. Whether Clinton was a republican, democrat, communist or a card carrying greenie, it makes no difference to me. If his party line were altered not one word of this column would be altered. The issues are larger than Clinton. Men and even presidents are dwarfed by the principles raised.

I grieve because I see the younger generation engaging in blatant sin with no sense of shame or guilt. Indeed, some are comfortable with appearing on national television to casually explain their behavior. There was a time, not too long ago, when virtue was demonstrated by the restraint of one’s base nature. Now, apparently, it is virtuous to express it. Children were once raised to fight against immoral desires. Now they are taught to “obey your thirst,” so to speak.

I grieve because kids are being raised to become animals. Once married, what confidence will anyone have in the younger generation to remain faithful to their respective spouses? What confidence will they have in themselves? When a wife is out of town on business or to visit family, will the husband discover a neighbor or coworker with benefits? What if his bride is laid up in the hospital? Will he be able to control his sexual urges? How so? He has never learned to be disciplined.

You must know that the reasoning from the last paragraph will not reach the younger generation. They can very ably reason around any argument you can make. At this level, you are fighting pragmatism with pragmatism.

To reach this generation, absolute truth must be resurrected from the grave it was buried in.

Copyright ©2004 Monte Kuligowski

###

Monte Kuligowski is a practicing Virginia attorney and a freelance writer. During law school he served on the Editorial Board of the Regent University Law Review. He has been published as a legal author and his opinion columns are published at ConservativeTruth.org and have appeared on other internet sites. He holds degrees in history, biblical studies and law. As a Christian and conservative advocate, Monte desires to see the foundations of our nation restored.

columns@att.net