Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

It's so wrong but it feels so right
November 30, 2006 9:32 PM   Subscribe

With the success of its abstinence only educational programs aimed at teenagers, the federal government has taken aim at another age group. Some think that this is the brink of madness, but for others, it's probably an excuse to sell more jewelry.
posted by Bistle (59 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
A ring to help you say "I don't"

These rings seem very small for this job...
posted by pompomtom at 9:55 PM on November 30, 2006


"I think the program should talk about the problem with out-of- wedlock childbearing — not about your sex life," Brown says. "If you use contraception effectively and consistently, you will not be in the pool of out-of-wedlock births." (from the end of the USA Today article.

That seems like the better row to ho (find a pun if you dare). Good luck with telling twenty-somethings not to fornicate...kind of like telling the pollen to not blow in the wind.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:58 PM on November 30, 2006


Those rings do seem smaller than traditional chastity devices.

Here's an obligatory google link to chastity belts (probably NSFW). Appropriately enough for this post, the site says you need to be 21 or older to view.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:02 PM on November 30, 2006


I think the government should teach people to be gay, if their goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Let's get some money for that.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:07 PM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]


SEX BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!!!!!! SHAME NO SEX!!!!!

I wonder if the prez had out of wedlock sex, somebody should ask him, I bet he did with all that carousing he did. Hell this is just church integrating with government.
posted by edgeways at 10:07 PM on November 30, 2006


This is your GOP, trying to make life no fun whatsoever. For anyone. Have these dumbasses never heard of condoms or other birth control methods or do they not care about the premise of their "arguments" they just want to control whatever they can?

strangeleftydoublethink, exactly. How can gay sex be so wrong if it accomplishes their goals? Or maybe they should start an anal-sex until marriage plan?

The nice part is that history will look back at these tools and recognize how thoroughly insane, stupid and out of touch they really are/were.
posted by fenriq at 10:14 PM on November 30, 2006


"The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it...
"The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it."

-- 1984, George Orwell

The GOP just makes it way too easy...
posted by cows of industry at 10:15 PM on November 30, 2006


It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."
posted by arcticwoman at 10:17 PM on November 30, 2006


I wonder if the prez had out of wedlock sex

I wonder if Jen and Barbie have... I find myself wondering that a lot.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:17 PM on November 30, 2006


Fun synopsis of Willhelm Reich's Mass Psychology of Fascism. (hope that doesn't count as a Godwin, if so it would be my first!)
posted by Burhanistan at 10:19 PM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]


Is it just me, or does that Crucifix Ring make anyone else horny?
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:20 PM on November 30, 2006


Is it just me, or does that Crucifix Ring make anyone else horny?

Might just be you, but that outline ring of the white man's Jesus creeps me out. Also, the Unblossomed Rose chastity ring would be more interesting if it was a gold likeness of an intact hymen.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:24 PM on November 30, 2006


sneaky comma link!... good post
posted by wumpus at 10:34 PM on November 30, 2006


George Bush's ceiling cat is watching you masturbate -- and shouting, Oi, you! -- NO!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:35 PM on November 30, 2006


For a bunch of upstanding virtuous folks Republicans sure seem obsessed with sex.
posted by clevershark at 10:40 PM on November 30, 2006


What exactly is this "out-of-wedlock childbearing" problem I keep hearing about? The Lady and I have managed to bring a neat little person into the world, buy a house and be relatively productive members of society without giving anything more than a passing thought to marriage all before the age of thirty. Neither of us plan on kicking the other out of bed anytime soon, most of the bills are getting paid on time and that little person I mentioned earlier seems to be adjusting to life outside the womb quite well.

So am I to assume that it's all the other heathens living in dens of sin who have this problem? Does this problem hurt? How would I even know if I have the problem?

As a side note, can I apply as an individual for some of this grant money? It might convince us to get married if I could pull in a few million for a kick ass party.
posted by paxton at 10:45 PM on November 30, 2006


The out-of-wedlock 'problem' is that such activities, uh, degrade the sanctity of marriage, the cornerstone of our blessed civilization.

Or something.
posted by unmake at 10:58 PM on November 30, 2006


It is simply a way for the administration to give money to church groups. In other words, it's just more Bushit.
posted by Goofyy at 11:30 PM on November 30, 2006


Just in case this whole discussion wasn't creepy enough.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:05 AM on December 1, 2006


Also, have you ever heard a more butch name for a piece of jewelry than "The Rugged Cross"?
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:08 AM on December 1, 2006


Orwell was almost right, Burhanistan's Reich more so. Keeping people you don't know from having sex is 0% about preventing disease, pregnancy, etc., and 100% about control. And control is 100% about fear. We're a scared, scared, scared people.
posted by facetious at 12:37 AM on December 1, 2006


Man, I feel sorry for all those poor men who aren't getting laid. I've been sexually active for around 9 years and I can't imagine having to wait to sort out my shit until I got married to some uptight christian lady who does nails for a living because it gives her a chance to spread the word of god.
posted by dobie at 12:41 AM on December 1, 2006


Yeah, but when she starts "spreading the word", there's gonna be no stopping her!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:44 AM on December 1, 2006


daaaaaamn. ;)
posted by dobie at 12:48 AM on December 1, 2006


So they're raising the Age of Consent to 30?

Doesn't affect me... I'm already past the Age of Collapse.
posted by wendell at 1:10 AM on December 1, 2006


EatTheWeak: "Just in case this whole discussion wasn't creepy enough."

The woman, Susan Chess, looks reeeeeally creepy; I kept waiting for her to say "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion" or something like that. Eerie similarity.

As an aside: I usually see three different ways an act can be "wrong". It can be There seems to be a tendency lately to conflate all these elements; if an act is "wrong" in one sense, it is assumed that it is (or should be) "wrong" in the other interpretations, too. Also, while I tend to assume that the legal framework, the religion and the ethical position that should be considered are those of the person committing the act there has been a marked tendency to use those of the person observing the act and judge people using a different framework than the one they themselves operate in.
This actually cuts both ways when applied to this chastity cult; but it is, I think, a useful tool to make hidden biases visible, so I thought I'd mention it.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 1:48 AM on December 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


From EatTheWeak's video link:

"It is so neat to see these fathers showing godly affection to their daughters. Because their daughters yearn for that affection from a male. And they're either going to get it from their fathers or they're going to seek it in other relationships."

If this makes me want to make all sorts of really lewd, wrong jokes, does that mean I'm a bad person?
posted by Tuffy at 1:56 AM on December 1, 2006


It's The War on Sex.
posted by markdj at 2:25 AM on December 1, 2006


Before they just want their pages to be virgins. Now after Foley they realize that they need age appropriate virgins so they are going after their assistants.
posted by srboisvert at 2:33 AM on December 1, 2006


"In other words, will there ever be a time when we can honestly look to the United States government for valid and reasonable and healthy and truly informative, positive information about human sexuality, information that does not embarrass us and humiliate us and insult our libidos the same way Dick Cheney insults sunlight?"

Great writin', if a bit preach-to-the-choir.
posted by notsnot at 3:33 AM on December 1, 2006


The chastity ball stuff is indeed about as creepy as it gets. The fathers might as well wear a t-shirt that says "if I can't pork my daughter, no one else can."

(So, does anyone who voted for Bush and the republicans not feel completely ashamed about their negligence and, frankly, their idiocy? I can perhaps understand voting for him in 2000 when you might have dismissed his idiocy as just a front, but in 2004? That makes no sense. The result of that bit of slack-jawed "yay team" voting is crap like this.)

Jenna and not-Jenna have been photographed many times partying with their boyfriends in ways that would make the fathers in the video excuse themselves to the lavatory, only to fall under the watchful eye of ceiling cat.
posted by maxwelton at 4:23 AM on December 1, 2006


Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder, yeah?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:46 AM on December 1, 2006


With the success of its abstinence only...

Success? Can someone point to this program in specific making one iota of difference? Maybe 20 kids put of having sex for 2 weeks, or what?
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:05 AM on December 1, 2006


Abstinence makes the heat grow hotter. Then you go stark, raving, MAD.

Maybe that's why the right are such nuts?

At least, I've always heard it was so. I wouldn't know, I've never been so inclined.
posted by Goofyy at 5:10 AM on December 1, 2006


I think the government should teach people to be gay, if their goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Let's get some money for that.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:07 PM PST on November 30 [+] [!]


I wholly support that suggestion, and am ready to man the jewelry concession.
posted by maryh at 5:10 AM on December 1, 2006


Heh, don't worry, soon enough you won't have to worry about having sex out of wedlock, because the government will simply choose your spouse for you! You'll also be rationed the proper amount of nutrients, no more, no less, enjoy enforced exercise, and all the hard stuff, like thinking, will be done for you! Holy shit, sign me up!
posted by cellphone at 5:46 AM on December 1, 2006


Is sexual repression really the sole cause of fascism and totalitarian control? (I'm not disagreeing that sexual repression would be a form of control, but is that the spark which sets off the fuse?)

I would think sexual repression, abstinence specifically, developed by ancient humans as an attempt at controlling other parasitic organisms which spread as STDs, and attempting to control disease within the population.

Sure abstinence obviously isn't that great a safeguard against—well, biology—but back in the day, if you contracted syphilis, and had no access to penicillin, sucks to be you.

Through abstinence, marriage, and codified religious sexual rituals, theoretically, one could avoid contracting a terrible disease.

This seems to be another example of antiquated aspects of our society and culture being out-of-sync with the lightning pace of our technology. Most people still adhere to very ancient ritualized sexual practices that were meant to ensure containment of a disease within a population, and just can't get their heads around safe sex practices.

I'm optimistic though. Give standard safe sex practices, and technologies, developed during the last century maybe 200+ more years (if AIDS doesn't kill us all) to become the norm.

That being said, most 20+ somethings can do what they do with other Bush Administration decrees: ignore them.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 5:59 AM on December 1, 2006


Colloquial Collision...interesting idea, but I don't think that men have ever had to worry all that much about whether or not the culture sees them as abstinent. the rings and the purity balls etc. illustrate that this is targeted towards women, and is about the control over that singularly terrifying object.... the vagina
posted by Bistle at 6:11 AM on December 1, 2006


Maybe that's why the right are such nuts?

I guess it's a pretty common meme anymore, but back in the day, I was astonished, nonplussed and, after some reflection, gratified when Frank Zappa pointed out that an awful lot of hypocritical and repressive attitudes among the Powers that Be seem to arise from unresolved and often unacknowledged psychosexual developmental difficulties.

I'd have a hard time believing that Karl Rove or Don Wildmon, for example, got so much as one hot kiss in high school.
posted by pax digita at 6:51 AM on December 1, 2006


DevilsRancher: I think he was being ironic...

Anyway, why are they only targeting people through 29? Does that mean once you're in your 30s you can fuck like a rabbit and no one cares?

And I thought my last birthday was something to be depressed about! Bring on the orgies!!!












[waiting for orgies]






Oh, OK. Nevermind.
posted by papakwanz at 6:54 AM on December 1, 2006


These people are crazy.

No more, no less. End of discussion.

They have lost touch with reality.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:30 AM on December 1, 2006


Reminds me of a moment in Sunday school about ten years ago. Our teacher asked us "What's the only 100% sure way of preventing pregnancy?" I didn't even wait to raise my hand, but shouted out "Sex with dead people!" One of my last visits to that class.
posted by sy at 7:38 AM on December 1, 2006 [2 favorites]


With the success of its abstinence only...

Success? Can someone point to this program in specific making one iota of difference? Maybe 20 kids put of having sex for 2 weeks, or what?
If by success, they mean abject failure, then they are correct.
posted by beelzbubba at 8:08 AM on December 1, 2006


Nice sy! I'd love to have been there when you said that.
posted by Mister_A at 8:13 AM on December 1, 2006


I too was alarmed at "With the success of abstinence-only education programs.."

What quantifies this success? A low rate of pregnancies in children from grades 1-8? Christ, these people are full of themselves.
posted by tehloki at 8:16 AM on December 1, 2006


*Al Gore sigh*

"Success" was a joke. The first link takes you to a blue post that talks about the 88% failure rate. And I thought I was dense.

*sucks face with Tipper*
posted by Mister_A at 8:39 AM on December 1, 2006


At the risk of sounding a bit crazy, I do think there's something to the idea of making sure that dads give their daughters affection to prevent them from seeking it out through sex. I definitely think some people (both men and women) use sex as a replacement for not feeling loved enough.

That being said, I just want to go on record as saying that sex is awesome.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:44 AM on December 1, 2006


That's not crazy at all deathalicious.
posted by Mister_A at 8:49 AM on December 1, 2006


I do think there's something to the idea of making sure that dads give their daughters affection to prevent them from seeking it out through sex. I definitely think some people (both men and women) use sex as a replacement for not feeling loved enough.

Of course there's something to it. The problem here is that fathers are substituting a shady (probably heretical, definitley skeezy) religious ritual for genuine intimacy and trust in their relationships with their daughters.

Maybe I am not being fair to these men, but it seems like if you really had a loving fatherly relationship with your daughter, one which would not cause her to crave male attention in the way we are discussing, you wouldn't feel the need to ask here to sign a cootchie pledge, nor would you need such a ritual to have an excuse to take your daughter out to a nice dinner.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:08 AM on December 1, 2006


Really!

Why not just take your daughter out for a nice dinner because...well, just because she's your daughter and deserves a little fuss from her Dad once in a while -- no "ritual" necessary? And maybe apropos of nothing on the way home, or while you're washing and drying the supper dishes some other night, you casually mention, "Y'know, it took me a while to figure this out for myself back in the day, but...since sex is the most personal thing you'll ever do, I hope you'll be incredibly picky about where, when, why, and with whom until you get used to the idea."

(Who knows? Build a little trust, and you might even develop some entrée to bring up things like contraception and STDs.)
posted by pax digita at 9:27 AM on December 1, 2006


Success? Can someone point to this program in specific making one iota of difference?

Well, it's made one difference - many kids choose to have unprotected anal sex, because they're told condoms don't work and loss of virginity equals vaginal penetration. Brilliant!
posted by jack_mo at 10:02 AM on December 1, 2006


So, it's Gonnohrea=bad, Fistula=good! Got it. Christers out of govt. Now.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:19 AM on December 1, 2006


Other ways to reduce pregnancy include bestiality and messy pulling-out-related money shots, but only if your timing is good...
posted by clevershark at 10:35 AM on December 1, 2006


When I was in highschool we used troll the Saturday night dances at the Mormon Youth Center. Those chicks were waaay easy. The strategy was simple. They were uptight and over controlled. And like a bottle of Champgne that has been shook up - once you twist the cork even a little.... KABOOM! Tell them they were rpetty. Tell them they were sexy. Slow dance a couple of times and breathe on thier neck softly. And then invite them outside to "talk." The head wasn't great... not troubled Catholic Teen great... but pretty good.
posted by tkchrist at 11:16 AM on December 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


A twist of the cork indeed, Mr. Christ.
posted by Mister_A at 11:45 AM on December 1, 2006


pax digita: and if you keep taking her out and building trust, well maybe one day you can convince her to give you some of that sweet, sweet pre-teen poon.


Sorry.
posted by papakwanz at 6:20 PM on December 1, 2006


As if on cue...
posted by cows of industry at 7:29 PM on December 1, 2006


There are of course a multitude of "100% sure ways to avoid pregnancy", in no particular order:

Homosexuality
Oral Sex
Anal Sex
Mutual Masturbation
Beastiality
Necrophilia
Abstinence

Amazingly, the only method of sexual contact that *CAN* cause pregnancy is vaginal penetration by a penis.

But, interestingly enough, practically EVERY form of sex can transmit a STD.

How incredibly ironic that the two most attractive options, homosexuality and sodomy (sorry necro's) is prohibited by their religion.

(/obvious)
posted by Ynoxas at 12:14 PM on December 2, 2006


As a heterosexual male with no big love for the anus, I'd say that the two most attractive options are mutual/cross-masturbation and oral sex.
posted by tehloki at 10:39 AM on December 3, 2006


« Older AustralianPoliticsFilter: Congressman John "Orlean...  |  Jonathan Richman - I Was Danci... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments