[teh stupid] Speaking of abstinence-only education...

CBS:

At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.

CBS again:

On The Early Show Friday, [Kate] Walsh told co-anchor Julie Chen, "Abstinence-only is not working. It's a $1.5 billion program over the last ten years that has, quite frankly, failed. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) reported that one-in-four teenage girls (in the US) between the ages of 14 and 19 are infected with STIs (sexually transmitted infections), and that, to me, is appalling and shameful. And in the age of information, these women are just not getting adequate information."

Walsh says there's urgent need for a change in the way sex ed funds are appropriated: "In addition to abstinence, which is fine, there just needs to be a comprehensive sex education program, and we can't be relying on, you know, private foundations or parents or, you know, teens' peers to be educating each other. We really do need government help on this.

"It's a shame to me that we spend money on educating our kids on history, math, science, English literature, and we can't educate them sexually. And it's proof in these statistics. It's just shameful to me that, in our country, that these young women are being infected because they honestly just don't have the information.

"Abstinence is one aspect of sex education," Walsh continued, "but it is not the complete aspect. And to expect, I think, everybody to remain abstinent, it's like asking them not to grow. It's like we don't ask people to not try out for sports. We don't ask people to stop learning. It's just a natural human process, and we need to be educating people. If abstinence-only did work, we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of statistics. We wouldn't be seeing these young women suffering like this."

Go Kate Walsh!

.... and, no, I am not in favor of abstinence-only education. I think it's a moral crime to deny individuals knowledge that could literally save their life and then pretend that you've taken the moral high ground.

Remember: Good intentions don't prevent pregnancy.

[OSU] In Which a Poor Student Is Forced to Defend Ignorance as Education

Again from the Baro, this wonderful letter to the editor:

SEXtravaganza

I am not intolerant. What people do in the privacy of their homes is not my business. However, what people push in my face and spend my money on is my business.

Student Health Services has chosen to sponsor a "SEXtravaganza" event, with 10 different events, only one of which deals with abstinence. Furthermore, they have advertised extensively on campus and even on Facebook.

Has what little money I have been used to support a "Masturbation Workshop" and "Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity of Gingerbread Persons & Baking Workshop?"

...

Jared Hageman

student, pre-communication

OK. He's upset, and believe it or not, I understand that. But there are some real winners buried in this letter (click the link to read the whole thing). Let's look at a few of them:

"I cannot even read the Barometer anymore without being confronted with pictures of people learning how to use condoms or finding expert opinions on how to perform better in bed."

Translation: I really don't like to be exposed to anything that a) might make me uncomfortable or b) might be useful.

Welcome to the world, Jared. It's big and scary and full of things you may not like. Amazingly, this is true for all of us. I, for example, do not like the fact that Bush sits in the Oval Office. Does this mean if I complain he'll go away? Sadly, no. On the plus side, however - and this is key - we do not have to internalize and believe everything we are exposed to. We (and that includes Jared) have amazing ability to consider an idea and then not support it.

There's at least one more thing worth noting in the letter:

"I simply want to be able to get an education without "getting an education." These are the moral values I have chosen..."

Way to imply that a) you have a right to remain ignorant and b) ignorance is actually education! Good job!

Jared, I'm sorry you are being made uncomfortable by all this talk of masturbation and condoms. If you had only given the entirety of the OSU community a list of things that you don't want to be exposed to upon your arrival, I'm sure we could have hidden all the naughty bits for the next four years.

After all, nothing's more important than your comfort. Of course your Special Snowflake status is more important than everyone else on campus.

No one besides straight white dudes ooze this much privilege.

[Sex and Gender] Is This Subversive?

Found over at Feministing....



The comments at Feministing do a good job taking apart the ad campaign, but I think this ad could be put to good use fighting sexism.

Something along the lines of "Would you shame him if he came home looking like this?"

How about "Did he just commit himself to a future of diapers, or does that just apply to her?"

Eh, the second one's a little blunt, but you get the point.

I'm too tired to be posting....

Speechless.... and Highly Amused

The Air Sex Championships.

1. Semi-surprisingly, the link is work-safe, and as far as I can tell, the event itself is pretty clean.

2. YATTA! (A reference to the heads of the six men on the right side of the screen)

Search for Yatta on Youtube or Google Video and watch it in all its glory.

ENDA Passes US House (now what?)

Americablog has a good summary (though I should note that I disagree with Aravosis' position on the inclusion of transgendered folks).

That One About Feminists and Sex That's Making the Rounds

The original item that's causing all the commentary is this:

Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

Imagine my surprise. Utter and complete shock, I tell you.

The best commentary on this I've seen so far is this:

It’s not complicated to figure out why feminists would have more fulfilling relationships and better sex lives. When you see your partner as a human being and not a means to an end, you’re going to pick a partner you actually like, and your partner is going to feel valued for who they are, not for what they can give you. When you think that sex is a mutually pleasurable event where both partners should be comfortable and fully satisfied and neither should feel guilty or mistreated, you’re going to have better sex. When you see women as full-fledged people with full human rights — not baby incubators, not “the fairer sex,” not “compliments” to your existence, not status symbols, not holders of sex, not property, not your own personal support staff — you’re going to enjoy their company more. And they’re going to enjoy yours.

I agree fully.

"Now You Know"

Some time back I found this blog, Sexual Intelligence. I don't read it that often, but perhaps I should, with posts like this:

Dear Larry Craig:

Now you know what it’s like.

I don’t say this in a mean way, I’m just pointing out a simple fact: Now you know what it’s like.

You already knew what it’s like to be terrified of being found out. You already knew what it’s like to hide who you are. But like millions of other Americans, now you know what it’s like:

* To lose a job because of your sexuality
* To be entrapped and then busted for inviting consensual, adult sex
* To be told you don’t belong where you know you do belong
* To suddenly be seen as totally different because of one private thing
* To be told that your sexual interest is the only important thing about you
* To be told that your “perversion” is the only important thing about you
* To be an acceptable butt of jokes, with no moral standing to protest
* To suddenly have your rights taken away even though you didn’t hurt anyone
* To go from being one of “us” to one of “them,” even though you haven’t changed

continued....

Smarter People Have Less Sex

I feel compelled to point this one out, even thought it's in the Reader feed at the moment.

A study found a relationship between IQ and sexual activity.

As I read the post, I found that it actually responded to all the question I had about the study and the relationships. So I don't have any snarky comments.

Just go read it; it's really good.