staunch defenders of sexual laxity as ancivil right. In 1978 there were over anmillion pregnancies among ll-to-12year-olds.nDoctors and psychiatrists havennow begun to discuss the generationalngenetic damage which may follow thisnphenomenon, impairing the health ofnthe entire population; babies born tonchildren are often afflicted by mentalnand physical pathologies and gravelynimpaired nervous systems.nMany arguments are heard explainingnthe problem. The so-called sexual revolutionncontributed mightily, though wenwere assured by its repugnant theoreticiansn— in the academe, the nationalnmagazines and Playboy manifestos—nthat it was designed by and for adults.nNo one mentioned that it might “liberate”nchildren too; perhaps no onenthought about such an eventuality. Tonour mind, the abomination of juvenilenpregnancy can be traced to two mainnculprits: sex education and Americannjournalism—its shortsightedness andnmoral obtuseness.nSex education was supposed to improventhe world by making adolescentsnbetter informed — information purportednto better prepare them for thentraps of life. The minigurus of sex educationnassumed that “telling it like it is”nwould dispel any difficulty. They prevailed,nand sex education, sometimesnpushed to the extremes of obsession withnpromiscuity, is now a fixture in thencurriculum of the young. But a timehonorednwisdom tells us that matters ofnsex should be shrouded in a certainnamount of mystery and mystique in ordernto remain a propitious element ofnhuman life, both individual and social.nAnd we know, too, that it enrichesnhuman life only when it is treated withnreverence devoid of platitudes, obviousness,ncheapness. Sex education doesnaway with this wisdom and, by pullingndown every curtain, devalues everynvalue, makes the exceptional trite, anmatter of hackneyed pseudoclinical slogans.nIt annihilates any system of restraintnerected on the uniqueness ofnsexual phenomena. Sexuality becomes an4()inChronicles of Culturenshabby commonplace, and juvenile pregnanciesnfollow.nHowever, even more sinister and disastrousnis the role of the liberal press.nThe value-neutral reporting which thenliberal media see as equivalent to uncompromisingntruth—and truth is seennby them as morally justifiable per se—nis a powerful breeder of faddishness andnlifestyles. Yet the liberal media go onenstep further: the social proliferation ofnattitudes rooted in sexual permissivenessnis hailed as a victory of humannrights, civil liberties, a more humanenexistence. The New York Times Magazinenrecently ran a story on early pregnanciesnin Brooklyn entitled “Childrennof Desire,” in which objective reportingnturned into an outright glamorization ofnconduct that is socially irresponsible andnexistentially moronical. “The eroticnsight of Louis and Rose, touching andnsmiling …” intones the author, a NewnYork Times columnist, with suspiciousnrelish. “They combined in a twist ofninnocence and passion . . .” he writesnabout a 14-year-old mother and 13-yearoldnfather. “Jeanette is beautiful …”nhe says about a 15-year-old mother whonis a daughter of a welfare mother andnwho informs the Times’s man quitensoberly: “I want to get out on my ownn• . . The separate check will help. Theyngive you enough …” [Emphasis added.]nJeanette tells the Times s man about hernbest friend, a 19-year-old welfarenmother: “She’s great! She’s got five kidsn…” The reporter has nothing to saynabout parturition for public money—tonhim these girls, these people, their ethics,nthis sexual ambience are just “beautiful.”nFor possible solutions, he quotesna “leading professional, “the president ofnthe Sex Information and EducationnCouncil, who says: “If we are going tontalk about preventive measures, then wenhave to talk about preadolescence …”nThe influence on mores of thenTimes s reporting may seem negligible,nbut movie reviewing, with its consequentialnimpact on movie publicity innAmerica, offers an example of specialnnnloathsomeness. The success of a movienis determined more and more by medianbuild-up, and we would not hesitate toncall the practices of American journalismnin this respect just heinous. A particularlyndespicable movie about teenagenpromiscuity entitled, with a cutesynhint at irony. Little Darlings is advertisednin one of the Gannett chain’snmiddle-American dailies:n”Don’t let the title fool you …”nIn the Chicago Tribune:n”The bet is on: whoever catches a guynfirst wins …”nIn Rolling Stone:n”The bet is on: whoever loses her virginitynfirst—wins . . .”nThe movie has sociocultural ambitions;nits authors deftly mix pushy Hollywoodnhustle with “liberating-the-consciousness”ngibberish. They pretend tontell us “how it really is,” as if we didn’tnknow about life and its underside. ThatnRolling Stone, the Pravda of the LiberalnCulture, dispenses prescriptions for hownto live and succeed for 11.2 5 a copy, andnwould list defloration as victory, is nongreat discovery. However, the RollingnStone’s approach seems to us less dangerousnin its simplism than the nihilisticntrendiness of the smart hacks who makena fat buck as film “reviewers”—the C^/’cagonTribune insists on calling themn”critics.” Here are a few samples of suchn”criticism”:nTime magazine:n”The film has an amusing premise:nthe two heroines race to see who cannlose her virginity first.”nA Gannett “family” newspaper:n”The film pits a poor little rich girlnagainst a tough-talking tomboy in anrace to see who will lose her virginitynfirst . . . It’s admittedly a gimmickyn