(no subject)
Nov. 10th, 2004 03:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
akujunkanSo I had the lucky opportunity to break the news to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cinderfalling that there's a movement afoot to allow doctors and even pharmacists to refuse to prescribe or dispense birth control for 'moral reasons.' This sent me off on a goose chase to find all the references to this I could. Unfortunately, I didn't have to look particularly hard.
What I also found was this. Now, I was put through an abstinence only program in high school. I found it pretty fucking insipid, and well as offensive on religious grounds. (As in: my religion? has nothing to do with this backwards fundamentalist Jesus Is a Hater crap you're shoving down my throat.)
Now this is going to be a bit of disjointed ranting, so bear with me here. But yeah, I get worked up about this stuff. Gender Studies major and all. Anyway, here we go:
Your body is a wrapped lollipop.
When you have sex with a man, he unwraps your lollipop and sucks on it.
It may feel great at the time, but, unfortunately, when he’s done with you, all you have left for your next partner is a poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker.
These words were actually uttered by Darren Washington, an abstinence educator, at the Eighth Annual Abstinence Clearinghouse Conference, an informational three-day trade show for abstinence educators, anti-abortion pregnancy care centers and medical professionals
Um? Let's talk about all the things that are wrong with this statement. First: sex does not make women dirty. It certainly doesn't make women a 'poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker.'
Speaking of women, let's take a look at the implicit assumptions this statement makes about gender. I am SO FREAKING TIRED of hearing that sex is something a man is going to do TO ME. As if I'm not even going to be there for it, other than to feel cheap and used afterwards.
I think it's telling that the above statement is uttered by a man, because again, judging by my experience in abstinence education in high school, there sure do seem to be some men who get off on the idea of 'fouling' women by having intercourse with them. It's purient; moreso than a lot of actual pornography I've encountered, which although cheesy, is willing to admit that sex can be silly and absurd and fun.
And where is the man in this picture? You know, the one who was going to turn his partner into a 'saliva-fouled sucker?' Where did he go? What happens to his self-esteem and sense of worth after he has sex. Oh wait, that's right. Abstinence isn't ever about men at all. He can do what he likes. It's the women who need to learn that sex is dirty, and men who need to learn that women who enjoy sex are below contempt.
Yes, abstinence is a good idea if one is worried about diseases, or pregnancy, or if one isn't ready to have it. (Finally, a statement that holds equally true for women and men.) But let's look at the other side of the coin here. Let's start teaching teenage women, who are just starting to experience true sexuality, that sex is dirty and wrong, that men are out to use them, and that their worth (in their own esteem and the esteem of others) is cheapened by sex.
Great. Maybe you scare them off of having sex for awhile, though that's debatable. Anyway, assuming that's the case. What happens when these women marry? Does anyone honestly believe that decades of conditioning that sex is shameful and dirty and wrong, conditioning that avoids mentioning that it's fun and feels good (or worse yet, mentions that even the good feelings are tawdry, as in the example above) can be overcome just by the presence of a wedding ring? Overcome even those these women have not heard any official messages about how sex can be fulfilling and completing? Not. Fucking. Likely. It's not just women who are ill-served by abstinence only education. Of course, I'd still rather be a man, with all the social and cultural privilege that implies, and listen to this shit, than otherwise.
But jesus.
This stuff makes me sick. Enough ranting. I'm going to go look at some porn.
That will be all.
cinderfalling that there's a movement afoot to allow doctors and even pharmacists to refuse to prescribe or dispense birth control for 'moral reasons.' This sent me off on a goose chase to find all the references to this I could. Unfortunately, I didn't have to look particularly hard.What I also found was this. Now, I was put through an abstinence only program in high school. I found it pretty fucking insipid, and well as offensive on religious grounds. (As in: my religion? has nothing to do with this backwards fundamentalist Jesus Is a Hater crap you're shoving down my throat.)
Now this is going to be a bit of disjointed ranting, so bear with me here. But yeah, I get worked up about this stuff. Gender Studies major and all. Anyway, here we go:
Your body is a wrapped lollipop.
When you have sex with a man, he unwraps your lollipop and sucks on it.
It may feel great at the time, but, unfortunately, when he’s done with you, all you have left for your next partner is a poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker.
These words were actually uttered by Darren Washington, an abstinence educator, at the Eighth Annual Abstinence Clearinghouse Conference, an informational three-day trade show for abstinence educators, anti-abortion pregnancy care centers and medical professionals
Um? Let's talk about all the things that are wrong with this statement. First: sex does not make women dirty. It certainly doesn't make women a 'poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker.'
Speaking of women, let's take a look at the implicit assumptions this statement makes about gender. I am SO FREAKING TIRED of hearing that sex is something a man is going to do TO ME. As if I'm not even going to be there for it, other than to feel cheap and used afterwards.
I think it's telling that the above statement is uttered by a man, because again, judging by my experience in abstinence education in high school, there sure do seem to be some men who get off on the idea of 'fouling' women by having intercourse with them. It's purient; moreso than a lot of actual pornography I've encountered, which although cheesy, is willing to admit that sex can be silly and absurd and fun.
And where is the man in this picture? You know, the one who was going to turn his partner into a 'saliva-fouled sucker?' Where did he go? What happens to his self-esteem and sense of worth after he has sex. Oh wait, that's right. Abstinence isn't ever about men at all. He can do what he likes. It's the women who need to learn that sex is dirty, and men who need to learn that women who enjoy sex are below contempt.
Yes, abstinence is a good idea if one is worried about diseases, or pregnancy, or if one isn't ready to have it. (Finally, a statement that holds equally true for women and men.) But let's look at the other side of the coin here. Let's start teaching teenage women, who are just starting to experience true sexuality, that sex is dirty and wrong, that men are out to use them, and that their worth (in their own esteem and the esteem of others) is cheapened by sex.
Great. Maybe you scare them off of having sex for awhile, though that's debatable. Anyway, assuming that's the case. What happens when these women marry? Does anyone honestly believe that decades of conditioning that sex is shameful and dirty and wrong, conditioning that avoids mentioning that it's fun and feels good (or worse yet, mentions that even the good feelings are tawdry, as in the example above) can be overcome just by the presence of a wedding ring? Overcome even those these women have not heard any official messages about how sex can be fulfilling and completing? Not. Fucking. Likely. It's not just women who are ill-served by abstinence only education. Of course, I'd still rather be a man, with all the social and cultural privilege that implies, and listen to this shit, than otherwise.
But jesus.
This stuff makes me sick. Enough ranting. I'm going to go look at some porn.
That will be all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2004-11-09 05:29 pm (UTC)Studies by independent researchers indicate that at best no reliable evidence exists as to whether abstinence-only programs work — meaning that it’s unclear whether they prevent teen pregnancy and lessen cases of STDs.
A study commissioned by the Minnesota state heath department found that sexual activity actually doubled among junior high students who took part in an abstinence-only program.
Which pretty much eliminates the only possible benefit that this sexist crap could be providing, doesn't it?
I'm all for encouraging kids (male and female) to have the courage and self-respect to say no to sexual activity they're not ready for. I wonder how many high school kids know that there's a 1-3% chance of getting pregnant even while using the best available methods of contraception correctly. And I shudder when I read stories of how common it's become to peer-pressure 12 year old girls into providing oral sex because hey, it's not really sex, right? (I thought my junior high years were the pits. Man.)
But what on earth is the point of abstinence-only training that doesn't even WORK??
Four more years of this president. Now I'm depressed again.