Something so simple turned into something so damn difficult.
Last night, Marc make the extremely good point that people who dismiss Stephen Colbert’s run for President for lack of seriousness are themselves Not Serious People by real world standards.
The only people who deserve to be the next President are people who had the gall to stand up to the current one before it was cool. And you know who did that? Stephen freaking Colbert. He may well have been the first person in the history of the universe to stand in the same room as George Bush and point out *exactly* why Dubya’s an embarrassment, a war criminal, and a sourpuss. That it was also funny is incidental; Colbert demonstrated more backbone in the face of Republican evil than the other candidates combined. I’m surprised he’s still breathing, honestly.
It’s a shame that Colbert’s possession of a pair of non-gender-specific gamete-producing organs should be a rare trait, but I was reminded again yesterday of how the Democrats could start learning from him instead of waving him off as if he’s just a joke.*
Today, we learned that the Democratic controlled Labor HHS Appropriations conference committee report includes the full $28 million increase requested by President Bush for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs. The Democrats have now granted the president and his anti-sex education zealots a whopping $141 million dollar budget for abstinence-only programs — something they could never achieve even under a conservative Republican Congress!
I’m sure there’s some behind-the-doors hand-shaking going on, but I’m also just as sure that this is another god-forsaken situation where the Democrats are running so hard from the position of common sense called “liberal” that they dash to the right of the Republicans. Abstinence-only is sort of a free-standing political dirty trick; in reality it doesn’t work and harms kids, but if you oppose it, you run the high risk of tripping up the ingrained sexual paranoias that have so much sway over voters these days. So in order to give the impression of helping kids, you have to hurt them. Appearances completely eclipse reality.
As James Wagoner notes, abstinence-only is no boondoggle lark, but a very serious threat to public health. Discouraging kids from using condoms—ever—not only puts teenage girls at risk of getting pregnant, but it’s bound to cost lives. A big way that abstinence-only educators try to convince kids to ride bareback is to tell them that HIV seeps through condoms. Read: So when you fuck, don’t bother using them. Which means that there are going to be a lot of kids regularly taking the risk of exposure to HIV. And it’s not like the anti-protection lesson stays with you only through high school; the “don’t wrap up” message plagues many people throughout adulthood and hurts their contraception use. In next Monday’s podcast, I’ll have a story about a young woman whose abstinence-only education obviously damaged her abilities to use contraception properly, to the tune of two abortions before the age of 20. Abstinence-only might better be labeled anti-contraception propaganda.
Telling kids that contraception doesn’t work doesn’t mean that they’ll never, ever fuck. We know that 95% of Americans have sex before marriage. We know that people need to use contraception within marriage. We know that people divorce and cheat and sleep around. Telling people not to fuck is like telling people never to listen to music. Sure, it might work on a small minority, but most people will give in eventually, and why shouldn’t they? Isn’t pleasure one of the reasons that life is even worth living? Knowing that it’s both not going to work and openly cruel to tell people to deprive themselves of pleasure for no good reason, the only way to address public health concerns is to teach people how to protect themselves.
The whole “condoms don’t work” message would be like telling people that flu shots don’t work and insisting that the only realistic way to protect themselves against the flu is to never leave their house and encounter other people. It won’t work, it’s a lie, and it’s fucking cruel. Leaving the house is part of life, and we’d immediately recognize anyone who lied about basic protections in order to try to trick us into having an isolated, depressed, pointless existence as the misanthropes who are probably trying to get us killed that they are. So why is it so hard to see that with abstinence-only pushers?
This is no small thing. The lack of use of contraception has a serious human toll, and should be considered a public health crisis by any reasonable measure.
I am constantly told that it’s not “politic” to call out our friends on an issue like sex education. There are bigger fish to fry. I’m not buying that anymore. Not when ten thousand young people get an STD, two thousand become pregnant and fifty-five contract HIV every single day in this country.
The casualties—those suffering unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and AIDS—are victims of a sex-phobic culture that makes it hard to communicate about contraception use, use protection properly, and even get access to it. Look past all the sentimental “wait for marriage” rhetoric to the cold reality of the situation, which is that abstinence-only educators want to amplify the existing causes of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, want people to have less knowledge and less access and less courage, and in doing so, they are setting up this country to have more of these avoidable problems. And now they have the Democrats assisting them on their rampage. For shame.
*Wise people know that good jokes speak truth, anyway. If a joke is “just a joke”, it’s probably because it’s not a good joke. Something to keep in mind when someone is whining that you don’t laugh at their unfunny just-a- racist or sexist joke.
28 Responses to “Democrats cave and put kids in danger”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Done!
The difference between my education (comprehensive sex-ed, delivered in health class by our school nurse who was also an RN) and my daughter’s (abstinence-only until marriage) is stark. I’ve had to completely re-educate her, give her the facts and debunk the bullshit. “Condoms don’t work, HIV can get through the latex, birth control pills are a form of abortion, abortion causes cancer, sex is dirty, nasty and dangerous, blah, blah, blah”
Good thing is, now that she has the facts, she challenges the bullshit in class in front of the other kids. And the best part is that most of the teachers don’t challenge her. They just say something like, “Well, I’m not allowed to say that.” or they say nothing at all.
The other day, she came home laughing because her friends told her, in all seriousness, that one can’t get pregnant if one douches with Mountain Dew afterwards. She told them it wasn’t true, of course, but seriously, can you imagine?
Mountain Dew!? That crap has so much sugar in it that I can’t even imagine the nasty yeast infections that could cause. I’ve heard some ridiculous teenage myths, but not that one.
And I’m not surprised the Dems caved on this. Not a single one has any kind of backbone, balls, or ovum. If it weren’t for the fact that the republicans were even more evil bastards, I would vote straight Green next year. Unfortunately, compromise seems to be called for here.
There is good legislation running around in committee right now that would introduce funding streams for good, medically-accurate, comprehensive (*abstinence-plus*) sex-ed. It’s called The REAL Act. I recommend that folks call their reps about it, especially progressive congresspeople and senators who have not signed on as sponsors (Russ Feingold, for instance).
I was in DC with a bunch of progressive clergy for a lobby day on this and the whole Prevention First package a few weeks ago. The only way this stuff will move is if people tell their reps it’s important to them.
Heard that one. It’s right up there with drinking Corona (or Heinekin) afterwards, having sex after smoking marijuana (lowers sperm count you know), and using ear wax to determine STIs in young women (the wax’ll cause ‘em to burn if they’re infected). Fun things ignorance can breed.
How horrible it must be to be a teacher forced to say things you know to be false to keep your job.
I think I just hurt myself laughing. Except it’s not funnny, it’s sad.
Given that Mountain Dew would be almost a sure bet for various bacteria and fungi to eat themselves sick, and thereby make the bearer of the vagina at least uncomfortable, it’s a less harmful myth.
Because I’m confident that a high percentage of girls who douche with any Pepsi product will need to see their health care practitioner about the cooties they got from doing it.
PhoenixRising,
Bacteria from a Dew-Douche is certainly worrisome, but seriously, that CAN’T be good for the vagina dentata, either!
In seriousness, though, given what soda does to teeth, I’m sure it’s not good for vajayjay.
If I were in charge of the DNC, I’d be running this ad in response.
But I’ve got a perverse sense of humor.
Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein
Democrats will always cave.
We got that abstinence only crap in school and like Christina is, I had parents who debunked that shit to death and encouraged me to think/research for myself.
Though I do feel sad for my niece and nephew.
I don’t understand how anyone can allow their sexual hangups to be more important than their child’s health. I’ll never understand that.
Some of the stuff is so old it has a beard–bowed legs, stretched out, and all that, but the one that REALLY got me was that if you let boys touch your boobs too much, they’ll get saggy. See, and all this time I thought it was time, gravity and two pregnancies but it was Keith’s fault all along. He shall PAY!! (Well, unless his sagging areas are my fault and then we’ll just have to call it even.)
Same thing happens to your butt if you have anal sex, even once. I guess it deflates.
non-gender-specific gamete-producing organs
gamete…
haploid…
diploid…something or other…
Testicles!!! Is that it?
Fuck. Do you have to ask such hard kweschuns?
This is one thing I can’t really blame the Democrats on to be honest. Really. I just can’t. The culture, by and large doesn’t like the idea of their children having sex, even safe sex, and because of that, laws will be made to try and prevent it.
It’s not a political issue, it’s a cultural issue.
“The culture” is full of rampant hypocrisy on the question of kids having sex. I’ve posted a fair number of times recently about the Catch-22s my own officially Puritanical sexual upbringing involved, so not to repeat that.
But there’s a roundtable discussion that was held and published by the CoEvolution Quarterly, back in the ’70s I guess, in which Herman Kahn (aka “the original Dr Strangelove,” wunderkind of the Rand Corporation) was very explicit that he was being hypocritical in his moralizing regarding his teen (or perhaps by then, early twenties-aged) daughters. He expected them to fool around, he’d worry a lot about them if they didn’t, but he also expected them to “respect his authority” as their father to avoid him catching them at it. To his mind, and that of all half-honest “conservatives,” the gyrations and games hypocritical preservation of appearances require are the very point and accomplishment of civilization. It supposedly makes us all crafty and clever and therefore fit to compete and rule.
So–I don’t know if it is at all realistic to expect representatives of even veering-toward-progressive Americans to be honest about real human sexuality, but at the very least, can’t we expect them to use the divergence between these fantasy norms and the realities of Love American Style as leverage to get some balance in the legislation–to require the “abstinence” crap to be taught alongside scientifically justified sex ed, and let the kids choose which to believe, for instance?
Of course the former has no power unless it is presented as the Only Way.
The other day, she came home laughing because her friends told her, in all seriousness, that one can’t get pregnant if one douches with Mountain Dew afterwards. She told them it wasn’t true, of course, but seriously, can you imagine?
Unsurprising. Kids are told that pills don’t work, condoms don’t work—but they see that adults have tons of sex with infrequent accidental pregnancies. Clearly something works, so they’re going to fill in the gap of knowledge with urban legends.
What they’re not going to do? What they shouldn’t have to do? Wait 10, 15 years until marriage to have sex and/or get married waaaaaay to young to enjoy this rather basic and if done properly, relatively harmless pleasure.
Some of the stuff is so old it has a beard–bowed legs, stretched out, and all that, but the one that REALLY got me was that if you let boys touch your boobs too much, they’ll get saggy.
I’ve met grown adults who think you can tell how many sex partners a woman has had by whether or not she’s “banged out”. I gently correct them and point out that in fact orgasm is good exercise for the Kegels, and someone who indulges in lots and lots of orgasms probably has a suction cup of a pussy, it’s so strong.
Blue Jean, that was hilarious.
I wasn’t surprised that kids would believe stupid shit, I just hadn’t heard that particular bit of stupid shit before.
I was subbing in a biology class yesterday and I had a girl ask me if it was true that some boys dicks are too big for regular condoms and if condoms come in different sizes. Because apparently her boyfriend was using that as an excuse to not use one (he just couldn’t find a condom big enough). Since that exact scenario was the cause of my first teenage pregnancy scare (my bf was willing to use one, we were both just too stupid to know about different sizes–luckily I wasn’t pregnant) I quickly disabused her of that notion and told her that she absolutely was not obligated to sex if he was too selfish to buy a bigger condom.
When I was in high school the belief was a Coca Cola douche after sex was the way to go. Given how acidic Coke is I wouldn’t be surprised if it did have at least some effect.
About the Coca-Cola (now Mountain Dew) douche: I remember my Mother laughing her ass off telling me that she heard this myth in high school….
…In 1957…
We have been set back 50 years.
What’s next, ads that scream “Do the Dewche?”
I worry that my parents will talk to my younger siblings about sex–because it’s almost for sure going to be abstinence-only. Maybe not quite as drastic as the federally-funded programs, but whenever I bring up the topic around my mom, I get hedging and “there’s some stuff I want to tell you about this when you’re married that will be very useful”–and I’m 27! She knows I’ve had sex! Luckily both I and my 18-year-old sister have gotten on the pill when we needed it, simply by going to our doctor or the local health clinic, but I always wonder what I ought to say to my 12-year-old sister. I know she’s getting “gays are wrong” even though she has a couple of non-straight siblings, so I can imagine there’s a lot of “if we ignore it and frown when the idea of sex comes up, she won’t do it until she’s married” going on. I mean, just last night my mom said she thought the first Mrs. Rochester (from Jane Eyre) went crazy “from living an immoral lifestyle” and had to be prodded to admit that meant that she may have contracted the crazy-making bug syphilis. *sigh*
How does one get one’s parents to talk about sex if they are too shy and/or repressed? Anyone have any luck?
And yeah–I heard the “douching with Coke” theory…as a historical “isn’t it funny what they believed in the 1950’s?” note on Snopes. Wow…
If the parents don’t talk about sex, don’t wait for them. If you have a close relationship to the child, talk to the child him or herself. The parents aren’t just failing the child — they’re failing his peers and you. Who he or she has sex with will affect everyone else. Out of all the friends and associates I know who grew up in religious households and, as a result, had to observe omerta when it came to sex. The ones that grew up witout being rather fucked up were all of exceptional intelligence. The “normal kids” got pregnant, diseased, or neurotic. Basically, from what I can figure (and from my own experiences) quick and clever kids with poor parenting on sexual matters will find out the truth before they do something horribly stupid. Maybe — not a hard and fast rule.
As a result, there’s no ethical bar to talking to a child about sex so long as it’s well-received. If the parents aren’t going to do the job, somebody will. TV and inane peers will fill the void — something _always_ does. If you don’t talk, you’re leaving it to madison avenue and the spastic guy in fourth period to educate — the parents have already abicated.
Right up there with “eating ice cream after hot spicy food will make it less painful the next morning when you dump”- who comes UP with these???
Amanda, et. al. now you all wonder why only one in every nine people approve of the job the Democratic Congress. They should be spending more time responding to the demands of the people in this country and less time responding to the demands of George Bush and his crooked cronies.
As for my fellow Palmetto Steven Colbert, it was supposed to have been a one-state only deal. I’m disappointed that he won’t be on any ballots. For those who don’t know, where I reside at in Williston is 104 miles west of Charleston, where Colbert lives.
Why are political and cultural mutually exclusive, again? I must have missed that day of political philosophy 101.
I can sure as fuck blame the democrats for this. They’re bending over backwards to rim the values-voters ever-so-softly, meanwhile throwing kids to the goddamn wolves. Give me one fucking reason that the democrats should get a pass for this?
See, this is the problem. The Right’s shift to abstinence-only education only came about because their previous position of no sex education in the schools was no longer tenable. One of the things the AIDS crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s did was increase popular support for sex education that included the use of condoms for disease prevention. Most people favor comprehensive education. However, when the right wingers took over Congress it took ‘em a few years, but in 1996 they finally started to get federal funding of abstinence only education.
The reason the Democrats don’t fight this sort of thing is not because there’s actual popular opposition to comprehensive sex education, but because they’re frightened of the whackjob opposition that does exist. For crying out loud, the abstinence freaks here in MA tried to claim that Governor Patrick supported 11-year-olds having sex because he rejected federal abstinence only funds. People understand that these folks are whackjobs. The Democrats would do better to take them on than to try to get on board with them.
send them the cojones they so very desperately need.
www.ballstocongress.com
as soon as we figure out how to send backbones U.S. mail, we’ll provide that service, too.
(sorry about the blank post! it was supposed to be an apology for shameless blogwhoring.)
I would just like to add that even with religious condom use during all sexual encounters it is still possible to contract an STD.