In this Times op-ed, Caitlin Flanagan admits that teenage sexuality can be a bad thing.  Quite an admission from a newspaper and an elite that continues to talk about sexuality mostly in the rhetoric of liberation.  She even manages to compliment the Victorians for their prudishness:

Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected – in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences. The feminist historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has written that “however prudish and ‘uptight’ the Victorians were, our ancestors had a deep commitment to girls.”

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free – perhaps for the first time in history – from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

Can you believe this?  She would seem to suggest that, for girls to be “equal” with boys, they should be spared the “trauma of pregnancy”!  The opening of this op-ed seemed to progressive, so new and different, and by the end, I realize that this is the same thing we’ve heard from the left for decades: we must transcend biology!