July 31, 2001

7:02 AM

just say no to sexit gets worse...
posted by christina (58 comments total)

What do we have to do to set impeachment hearings in motion?
posted by starvingartist at 7:46 AM on July 31, 2001

Children, you are now all entering a time in your lives when hormones in your body will be, for the next 10 years or so, causing youre sex drive to go wild. But don't ever have sex! Never! Not even the "safe sex" we've been telling you about. Because I say so, that's why!

Yeah, that'll work.
posted by CrayDrygu at 7:48 AM on July 31, 2001

ughh, the ignornorance. And if that weren't bad enough, a council of South African Catholic Bishops continue to condemn the use of condoms in AIDS-ravaged south Africa despite the fact that 1 in 9 peopl has AIDS. (Interestingly, they did concede that it might be ok for married people to use condoms if one of them was infected with HIV (from NPR).
posted by jnthnjng at 7:55 AM on July 31, 2001

If they want this to work, they'll have to give Jocelyn Elders her job back.
posted by MonkeyMeat at 8:12 AM on July 31, 2001

Just for spite, I'm going to increase the amount of sex I have! Damn you Dubya Bush, damn you to hell!
posted by chrish at 8:18 AM on July 31, 2001

Yeah, I'm always amazed that people can still subscribe to the foolish thought that maybe if we just tell teens to not have sex they magically won't. I think frank and factual information about condoms and what does and doesn't prevent pregnancy is a much better path to pursue as opposed to telling them "its bad so don't do it". Although, "just say no" works so gosh darn well for drugs...
posted by srw12 at 8:19 AM on July 31, 2001

On the one hand, we have science and what it has to tell us; on the other, a view that hearkens back to some biblical notions that in fact the bible shows us were almost never followed. Alas, it is this way with sex education and with the global warming issue.
posted by Postroad at 8:21 AM on July 31, 2001

Huh. The Catholic bishops in Africa denounced condom use and proposed abstinence today. you would think that they may be a little more responsible with the ridiculously high AIDS numbers in Africa. Education has been noted to be a large part of the problem, as many over there have no idea how you get HIV. Good going Bush, maybe you can convince everyone that babies come from storks. "And you poor people, no more sex for you..."
posted by adampsyche at 8:27 AM on July 31, 2001

it gets worse...

Referring to the president or the page design?

Same article, DHTML-free for your reading pleasure. Call me old-fashioned...
posted by joemaller at 8:36 AM on July 31, 2001

That site degrades more gracefully than any site I frequent. Don't be insulting iht.com ;)
posted by jragon at 8:49 AM on July 31, 2001

It's completely possible to not have sex as a teenager. I managed to abstain for years, and didn't even have to try!
posted by kindall at 8:51 AM on July 31, 2001

yeah, stinkin' catholics.
posted by tomplus2 at 8:53 AM on July 31, 2001

Can we classify the US as a third-world country now that their social and foreign policies have eroded so much? It's like the dark ages down there.
posted by dithered at 8:59 AM on July 31, 2001

it gets worse...

I almost posted this article yesterday, because it covers so much ground.

First there is the no sex thing. Yes, let's ignore reality by putting our heads in our bibles and into the sand, that's the way to cope with life.

Then, the pulling of money from any federal agency that has anything to do with family planning or abortions. Thanks for doing that, Mr. Bush.

There's even the republican quoted saying how he doesn't trust the motives of the Health and Human Services director, since the guy is devoutly religious.

And then the article mentions stem cell research. Don't get me started talking about stem cell research. You have aborted babies. No one is happy that we have them, alright? No one is doing cartwheels knowing that we're using basically dead babies to do research, but we have them, and they are very important as research material. What is wrong with using these lost babies for research? People donate their organs and their bodies to science all the time, after they are dead, and they can help many, many others. But in this case, it's better that we just dispose of the waste because it makes some very uncomfortable. Stem cell research may unlock the keys to numerous diseases, but the climate is so hostile that two prominent scientists have had to pack up their entire labs and move to England where they are welcomed. It's sad to see religion halt the advance of science, just because the president doesn't like it.

And I can't believe this is the way things are in the year 2001.
posted by mathowie at 9:16 AM on July 31, 2001

You know, it's times like this that make being the cynical prophet of Doom that I am less fun. Believe me, I'm not thrilled that I was right and the US is trying to roll back society to the 1950's.
posted by Ezrael at 9:26 AM on July 31, 2001

It's the 21st Century! Every white man a businessman, every woman pregnant and happy, and all the browner peoples of the world gladly toiling for The U.S. of A!!!

So when does deliberate stupidity cross the line into evil? I mean, I'm no philosopher, but there is certainly a point where having one's head in the sand stops being stupid and starts being wrong.
posted by solistrato at 9:58 AM on July 31, 2001

If this is an attempt to corral the "Catholic vote" in 2004, then it's not only cynical, but futile: it's based on the assumption that most lay Catholics act like fundamentalists, and that just isn't the case. (I may respect the Pope's moral consistency, but he's not really my source of practical guidance when it comes to sexual morality.)
posted by holgate at 10:32 AM on July 31, 2001

All of us enter the world ignorant and slimey... some stay that way.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:38 AM on July 31, 2001

I hate to be a semi-troller, but I can think of no greater argument for untrammeled school choice than this.

Without school choice, we face a dilemma, pitting the absolute legal and ethical right of parents to direct the content of their children's education on a question like this, against the clearly worse outcomes of abstinence-only sex ed compared to comprehensive sex ed.

Those parents that feel that teen pre-marital sex is absolutely wrong are quite reasonable in feeling that sex education, even abstinence-preferring sex education, which is open to the possiblity of teen pre-marital sex, fatally comprises that message. After all, the driver's ed teacher isn't allowed to say, "Now, I know that driving after you've been drinking is wrong, but if it happens anyway, here's how it's less likely the cops will pick you up, and here's how to avoid getting tossed in jail if they do pick you up..."

For these parents, quite simply, the "cost" of abstinence-only education in terms of some kids getting VD or knocked is worth it -- even morally consistent (violators get the punishment they have coming).

For parents who don't hold to such views on pre-marital teen sex, it is absolutely absurd to subject their children to abstinence-only education, as it has a more or less proven worse set of outcomes than comprehensive sex ed.

School choice is the only way to go: it puts these questions out of the hands of politicians, who can never address them in a satisfactory way, and into the hands of parents, who by the diversity of choices their buying power generates, will provide solutions which satisfy each parent.
posted by MattD at 10:41 AM on July 31, 2001

1268 days, 22 hours to go...
posted by starvingartist at 10:42 AM on July 31, 2001

Did I read it wrong or did the article claim that there's a proposition to deny contraceptive coverage for government workers? So, not only can teens not have sex, but neither can consenting adults or even married adults without fear of pregnancy. Unfrickingbelievable. My wife works for a (very) conservative Christian Church, and even her insurance (provided through the church, not from an outside company) covers birth control.

Bush to federal employees: No Ortho Tri-Cyclene for you!!!
posted by OneBallJay at 10:43 AM on July 31, 2001

Holgate, if most Catholics don't believe the policies of their church then why don't they switch to a religion they agree with?
posted by SuperBreakout at 10:58 AM on July 31, 2001

Holgate -- nominal and dissident Catholics (who are certainly the majority of Catholics) may have views on sexual questions which are statistically similar to those of the demographically-similar population at large, but religious Catholics do honor the Church's teachings on sexual morality questions with some seriousness.

Many, if not most, of these religious Catholics are historically Democratic voters and often quite liberal on social questions aside from sex, and are heavily concentrated in swing states that Gore carried in 2000.

There is no reason to believe that Bush cannot consolidate these voters just as Republicans consolidated white evangelicals (who were once predominantly Democrats) in the 1960's and 1970's.

If he can do this, Bush will move Midwest states that he won narrowly in 2000 -- like Ohio and Missouri -- firmly into his column, and make states that he lost narrowly -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin -- into tossups that probably favor him. That spells re-election in 2004, even if Florida goes for Gore in fit of get-out-the-vote Democratic vengeance.

(My father and his church community of religious Catholics is a great example. These are hard-core liberals in terms of their life experiences; most who were old enough to do so were Vietnam War / Civil Rights demonstrators in the 60's, and nuclear freeze / anti-apartheid demonstrators in the 70's and 80's, the firmly believe in soaking the rich to provide for the poor, etc. They were firm Democrats all throughout that time, including in the most dire of Democratic days (Mondale '84, etc.) They are now almost all Republican voters because of the disconnect on personal morality issues.)
posted by MattD at 11:01 AM on July 31, 2001

Accountingboy: Bush's position: is "no Orth Tri-Cyclen for you out of the pockets of taxpayers who believe it is wrong." Federal workers will be free to get birth control from their own pockets, just like most private sector employees (health plans covering regular contraception are a minority.)

I'm actually more disturbed by the proposals which restricts on-base access to reproductive care to military personnel, who have limited access to civilian care alternatives while deployed.

There's also a proposal to prevent federal prison hospitals from performing abortions. I wonder how they propose to deal with Roe vs. Wade on that one.
posted by MattD at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2001

Contraceptive coverage made it through intact.
posted by gnutron at 11:10 AM on July 31, 2001

MattD - Without school choice, we face a dilemma, pitting the absolute legal and ethical right of parents to direct the content of their children's education on a question like this, against the clearly worse outcomes of abstinence-only sex ed compared to comprehensive sex ed.

School choice is the only way to go: it puts these questions out of the hands of politicians, who can never address them in a satisfactory way, and into the hands of parents, who by the diversity of choices their buying power generates, will provide solutions which satisfy each parent.

I sincerely hope you jest.

Any parent that feels so strongly about his or her children's sex education can teach them at home, free of charge and politically-motivated banter.
posted by dogmatic at 11:13 AM on July 31, 2001

I think it's very unlikely to swing the Catholic vote firmly into their hands. Even most Roman Catholics(the most devout I've encountered) are liberal enough to only expect Catholics to follow their tradition. I've never had a Catholic trying to tell me to be a Catholic or even a Christian.

Most that I've known are able to keep their politics seperated from their religion. Yes, they don't want abortions, they don't want sex ed. But they set up their own private schools to circumvent that. They disown children who have abortions, and try to force shotgun marriages.

I think the Bush administration is going to have a hard time convincing these voters.
posted by witchycal at 11:15 AM on July 31, 2001

No parent who feels strongly about a moral issue can or should easily tolerate their schools teaching to the contrary.

I don't think any of us would say that the schools should be allowed to teach that slavery or the Holocaust was o.k. while teach that it was bad at home -- and sexual morality has every bit of the same gravity as those issues to those who feel strongly about it.
posted by MattD at 11:16 AM on July 31, 2001

Sorry, left out a thought:

Nor, is it reasonable for parents whose values were the overwhelming majority position in this country for almost its entire history be denied, on the grounds of a shift of public opinion, the right to public subsidy of their children's education in a manner which does grossly undermine those values.
posted by MattD at 11:18 AM on July 31, 2001

Sorry, left out a thought:

Nor, is it reasonable for parents whose values were the overwhelming majority position in this country for almost its entire history be denied, on the grounds of a shift of public opinion, the right to public subsidy of their children's education in a manner which does grossly undermine those values.
posted by MattD at 11:19 AM on July 31, 2001

Bush's proposal to deny contraceptive coverage for federal employees was rejected on July 17th by a House panel, and it sounds like it's dead in the water.
posted by muta at 11:23 AM on July 31, 2001

[Having problems ...]

"in a manner which does not grossly undermine those values."
posted by MattD at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2001

MattD - Personally, the Holocaust analogy doesn't wash. My sex education in school had nothing to do with "sexual morality". From what I remember it was: make your own decision, but if you decide that it's right for you, don't get pregnant or contract a disease, be safe. I don't equate that with "morality". They never said it's ok for teens to have sex, and I believe if you asked any of my teachers outright they would say that they personally believed it was wrong.

They don't teach that the Holocaust is right in school because mass murder is pretty much universally looked down upon. They don't teach that underage drinking is ok as long as you don't get caught because it is illegal. Teen sex isn't illegal at all - it's just that some people think it shouldn't happen. But it's not the school's official place to teach that unless the school is run by a private organization like the Catholic church. Public schools should be teaching what is best to educate our children and keep them safe and smart.

As has been said countless times before, telling kids simply to abstain isn't going to work for many of them. It didn't work for me. I lost my virginity my senior year, and given the choice I would probably do it again; I might even do it earlier. But I knew enough to be safe, because I was educated that way. If parents don't think safe sex education is right, then they can pound their ideology into their kids at home, and it's still the kid's choice to mesh the two teachings into one.
posted by starvingartist at 11:37 AM on July 31, 2001

On a different note, I'd like to wish everybody a happy national orgasm day.
posted by GirlFriday at 11:37 AM on July 31, 2001

I've never had a Catholic trying to tell me to be a Catholic or even a Christian.

You never grew up with the Catholics I did.... quite paranoid, fearing that the Lutherans were organizing an attempt to oust them. This, btw, is small town North Dakota.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:45 AM on July 31, 2001

starvingartist: religious conservatives would argue that your sex education had everything to do with morality -- just the wrong kind.

They believe that the notion that sex is "your choice" or that one is allowed to make a decision in the matter is, itself, a profound violation of the traditional (i.e., Judeo-Christian) sexual morality of our country, which dictates that sex is no choice at all: forbidden until marriage, and obligatory (with certain exceptions) thereafter.

hincandenza: the absolute legal and ethical right of parents to direct their children's education is settled law in this country. The open question is how to resolve the conflict between that absolute right and the necessity of any particular school to have only curriculum on any particular matter.
posted by MattD at 12:07 PM on July 31, 2001

No parent who feels strongly about a moral issue can or should easily tolerate their schools teaching to the contrary.

I don't think any of us would say that the schools should be allowed to teach that slavery or the Holocaust was o.k. while teach that it was bad at home -- and sexual morality has every bit of the same gravity as those issues to those who feel strongly about it.

The flip side to that, MattD, is that you wouldn't want "the Holocaust was ok" being taught in your schools simply because a minority of parents in your district are neo-Nazis. So why should a minority of parents--those that feel sex education should not be taught, or should consist only of abstinence--control the content of sex education in public schools?

And to move back to your original point, using your own analogy, should we create "school choice" for neo-Nazi children to be taught how the "holocaust was ok"?

Or even better, should we cater to sympathizers of slaveowners? After all, they represented the opinion of an overwhelming majority for a fairly good portion of this nation's history. We wouldn't want that opinion to be denied.
posted by dogmatic at 12:08 PM on July 31, 2001

Teaching abstinence is not the same as approving the Holocaust for the simple reason that no responsible parents oppose their teen's not having sex. Some people may wish to have a safety net of condoms and abortions strung under the abstinence tightwire, others think that the tightwire is the point and the safey net defeats the point, but there is still fundamental agreement that it's better to cross the wire than to fall.

I wouldn't want the Holocaust or slavery being taught approbatively in my kids' schools and I would fight against it -- in the same manner, for the same reasons, and with same right to be heard and to prevail if I could , that religious conservatives fight against "pre-marital sex is OK" being taught in their kids' schools.

Whether or not you agree, it is just a fact that most "abstinence only" backers think that it is just as morally necessary for teens not to have pre-marital sex as it for them not to be racist. And they are as entitled to insist upon that as you are as entitled to insist that racism not be taught.
posted by MattD at 12:27 PM on July 31, 2001

Holgate, if most Catholics don't believe the policies of their church then why don't they switch to a religion they agree with?

You obviously weren't brought up Catholic, SuperBreakout ;) I think Joyce's Stephen Dedalus said it best when asked if he was to become a Protestant:

-- I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost selfrespect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

I think your term "policies" is a good one to pick up: religions don't have policies in the manner of parties, they have beliefs, tenets of faith. And you have to expect absolutism from the upper clergy, though you'll normally see greater pragmatism at the parish level. But the idea of changing religious affiliation to underwrite personal behaviour... well, where do you think the whole concept of "Catholic guilt" comes from?

MattD: if Bush is going to get whatever there is of a "religious Catholic" vote on board, he may have to go beyond selective listening. After all, the Pope told him that observing the sanctity of life also means outlawing the death penalty. And that's what I mean by moral consistency.
posted by holgate at 12:35 PM on July 31, 2001

If they want this to work, they'll have to give Jocelyn Elders her job back.

For sure. I dont understand why most people aren't open about masturbation.

Everbody does it, but no one talks about it. :P
posted by ewwgene at 12:49 PM on July 31, 2001

no responsible parents oppose their teen's not having sex.

But there are plenty of responsible parents opposed to a third-party telling their kids the only preventive measure that can be taken in regards to sex is abstinence.

The fundamental difference here is between what is ideal and what is practical. Most parents recognize the difference. Those that don't have allowed their morality to get in the way of their judgment.
posted by dogmatic at 12:50 PM on July 31, 2001

If they're really are going to tell horny teens that intercourse is a bad idea, shouldn't they give kids some way to burn off that pent up sexual tension? Shouldn't they be having classes on how to masturbate? Shouldn't they be sending kids home with copies of Playboy and Playgirl?

Or is masturbation bad also?

And with all the messages in media telling kids how cool sex is, I suspect they'll need to be wacking off on a regular basis. Perhaps they should set aside an hour each day.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2001

I don't know about that.
It's never taken me an hour to masturbate.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:00 PM on July 31, 2001

What's wrong with naive and immature people participating in what is essentially a naive and immature act?
posted by Ptrin at 3:09 PM on July 31, 2001

i knew holgate would bring up Stephen, masturbation and catholics. Damn he gets all the good stuff.
posted by clavdivs at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2001

the absolute legal and ethical right of parents to direct their children's education is settled law in this country

it's not an *absolute* legal right, and saying it's an absolute ethical right is, because of the nature of ethics, arguable.

shouldn't they be having classes on how to masturbate?

i didn't need a class to teach me. i picked it up on my own, and consider myself an avid and expert masturbator.
posted by tolkhan at 4:18 PM on July 31, 2001

"I don't know about that. It's never taken me an hour to masturbate."

Everyone's different. Takes me an hour sometimes (and I absolutely hate it). My boyfriend's usually done in 5-10 minutes.
posted by CrayDrygu at 4:25 PM on July 31, 2001

2001.
Don't have sex.
But, dear Lord, Zeke is so hard,
and Zelda beckons...
Did You screw up again?
posted by Opus Dark at 5:50 PM on July 31, 2001

MattD, what you are failing to realize is that schools are not promoting pre-marital sex. It has been realized that, to a degree, that kids will do what they want. And what they want is to have sex. Would you rather these kids not have any prior knowledge as to how to help prevent the spread of diseases or unwanted pregnancy? They're gonna do it anyway. And who knows, if they're taught about all of the diseases and bad stuff that accompany promiscuity, maybe they'll wait, or at least restrict their number of partners.

To many, pre-marital sex is not fundamentally wrong. The Holocaust is. Slavery is. Pre-marital sex? Sorry, pre-marital sex is not. It may be in conflict with your, and others, religious upbringing, but, as we all know, you can't impose those views on anyone else. Which, of course, is even more true for the government (no matter how hard young bush has and will try). I'd like to see a politician make an argument for school vouchers in this vein. Ain't no way it flies.
posted by crustbuster at 7:37 PM on July 31, 2001

Crustbuster: please note, if it wasn't already apparent, I am playing the devil's advocate (no pun intended) to a substantial extent. I do not care for many of the positions of religious conservatives with respect to education. It is my personal opinion that abstinence only education on balance is not the better approach, and it would not be the approach I would prefer for my children. (Of course, it is my intention that the "birds and the bees" will be well-covered by wife and me in the home, leaving classroom sex-ed to be a simply amusing adolescent rite of passage.)

However, I do respect absolutely the right of religious conservatives to insist that education which is compelled twice upon them (once through their taxes, again through mandatory attendance unless they pay again for alternative education) not undermine their fundamental moral beliefs, particularly when those beliefs are ones which constituted the absolute social consensus at the time that the present tax and political structure for education in this country was arranged. As in all cases in a democracy, the burden of changes in a compulsory system must be carried by those who wish it to change, not by those who wish it not to change.

To many, many people, pre-marital sex is a sin, as is murder. (Which is what the Holocaust was, times 6-10 million.) Although no one would equate murder at any scale with pre-marital sex, on the other hand, few people are tempted to commit murder, nor is murder something which is broadly condoned in the popular media.

Therefore, from the standpoint of one who regards pre-marital sex as sin, teaching which in any way appears to do anything except unconditionally condemn it is in some ways the greatest evil: because it may be the thing that pushes things over the line, that weakens the moral message that the parents wish to convey. Murder and anti-semitism aren't particularly tempting things, nor are they broadly condoned in the media (gansta rap aside, which condones both.)

The argument that government shouldn't impose moral views is rather an empty one: the imposition of moral views describes most things the government does. The question simply is the choice of moral sources. Religious conservatives take as their choice (at least in matters of sex) a fairly straightforward interpretation of milenia old religious texts; other people have their sources elsewhere. But the political phenomenon are not distinguishable.

To return to the school choice issue, my feelings are thus: it keeps the government from having to make these decisions which, in the end, cannot help but to impose one set of people's values upon another.

In fact, part of why school choice advocates, many of whom are libertarians with a deep mistrust of religious conservatives, are somewhat enthusiastic about religious conservatives taking charge of public school curricula is that it may win over the secular liberals to the cause of school choice, realizing that they need the protection it affords.
posted by MattD at 9:25 PM on July 31, 2001

Those parents that feel that teen pre-marital sex is absolutely wrong are quite reasonable in feeling that sex education, even abstinence-preferring sex education, which is open to the possiblity of teen pre-marital sex, fatally comprises that message.

And yet we teach science and logic and in English they read The Catcher in The Rye. Kids put two and two together. That's what they're taught to do. In fact that's what humans do naturally. Humans also naturally, have sex. Above and beyond any religious dictate, nature comes first. I betcha Bertrand Russell said sometime, somewhere, "Religion is invented". That's science that did it to him baby. Science has also helped determine that humans are best informed about sex when they understand it--not frightened that it's a sin to even ponder sex with a condom. And on it goes. No, you can't get pregnant from a toilet seat. The penis may bear ejaculate material even if the male hasn't orgasmed. Sex isn't always as perfect as it's depicted on MTV. And therein lies that crux.

Sex is everywhere. Blame who you must for that. Indeed, blame god if you believe in one. We're all the products of natural sex. We're also all the products of rape and incest endured by generations past. Kids should be taught about something as fundamental as that. The hideous fear of sex perpetuated by relgious zealots is not a decent alternative to what, we as humankind, understand about sex, today in the year 2001.
posted by crasspastor at 10:27 PM on July 31, 2001

Humans also naturally, have sex.

Correction: humans also naturally want to have sex. The idea that you always get what you want, or that it is necessarily good when you do, seems to be a relatively recent development.
posted by kindall at 10:59 PM on July 31, 2001

The urge to have sex is natural as well as the act of having it is. Naturally speaking, sex is had by a male and female and offspring are born to yet create anew the cycle of life when they one day couple with another delectable sexy beast such as they find themselves to be. Thus, diversifying the population's gene pool. Religion has yet to catch up with the beauty of nature. Nature ruled the universe, untermed and unthinkable, before humankind emerged to define and manipulate it. There's nothing recent about contemporary sexual mores.

I also believe homosexual sex is natural. But for reasons we shouldn't go into here.
posted by crasspastor at 11:25 PM on July 31, 2001

crasspastor - amen.
posted by crustbuster at 12:41 AM on August 1, 2001

...But for reasons we shouldn't go into here

Ah, c'mon crasspastor. Enquiring minds want to know. Plus I want to see you line it up with what you were saying in your previous paragraph. :-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:30 AM on August 1, 2001

That's an amen for all of your points, not just that last one. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
posted by crustbuster at 3:10 AM on August 1, 2001

Yeah....what Crasspastor said. Tell it brother!
I only wish I were as lucid as some of you here on MeFi.
posted by nofundy at 8:05 AM on August 1, 2001