…and this is a 
My career as a porn impresario is over
Category: Politics • Reproduction
Posted on: April 18, 2006 9:21 AM, by PZ Myers
I can't do it anymore. I can't possibly keep up with the competition, who are willing to sink to sick, perverse depths to which the real porn kings and queens willingly immerse themselves. And they're so close to me—just a few miles to the west, across that state line.
I'm talking about South Dakota.
They're sick puppies over there. I'm feeling a little tense sitting this close to them; maybe we should put up a razorwire fence or something.
Never in my rather exotic (I thought) imagination would I dream up a scenario like the Purity Ball, where daughters gaze deeply into their father's eyes and promise
…to remain sexually pure … until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. … I know that God requires this of me … that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.
That is just so disturbing. Daddies of the world, keep your hands off your daughter's sexuality, OK? Raise them to be independent and thoughtful and informed and able to make their own decisions, and then just trust them.
Unfortunately, it seems that these South Dakotans raise their daughters to think of themselves as a gift to be given to a man. That might be the source of the problem right there.
Another problem is that they let certifiably batshit insane (this is, I think, a clinically valid term in South Dakota) people speak for them. As one small example, here's how the organizer of these Purity Balls, Leslee Unruh, responds to a comment.
HINOJOSA: And people might say, "Well, the way you prevent unwanted pregnancies is through contraception."
UNRUH: No. It's wrong. We don't need, we don't have a shortage of condoms in this country. We should not be worshipping condoms. Let's start just telling the truth.
We shouldn't? So the little altar with the Trojan-wrapped dildo in the living room is something I should take down? Somewhere in crazytown that response might make sense to someone who is wearing their underpants on their head, but in the real world, in a state where about 50% of the teenagers are sexually active, pretending that giving good information on contraception is "condom worship" is just nuts.
I don't think Ms Unruh is actually interested in the truth. This discussion of a South Dakota panel to review the evidence is illustrative.
HINOJOSA: So you had an understanding that this was a panel that was gonna really look at scientific research and analyze this.
DR. BELL: Yes.
HINOJOSA: Is that what happened?
DR. BELL: No, not at all. Very early in the process vi-- it became very clear that looking at scien-- rigorous scientific evidence was not where we were gonna go.
HINOJOSA: Give me an example.
DR. BELL: The blatant disregard for scientific facts, government statistics. They went on and on in the report about the errors that occur at the CDC and vital statistics. Which is-- I mean that's the best in the world. Our CDC gets asked to go to every country in the world to-- to review vital statistics, and this committee disregards government statistics because it doesn't fit their agenda.
So in the world of the real porn masters, they disregard all evidence, the gears of their mind are stripped and spinning like wobbly pie plates, and they promote dances where daddy plays the boyfriend surrogate and daughters promise to wrap their crotch in saran wrap until they are sold in bondage to some equally ignorant conservative farm boy.
I can't match that. I'm going to have to stick to squid in love.
Comments
I saw the piece about the Purity Ball, and let me second PZ's sentiment: that purity oath bit was definitely weird.
Posted by: boojieboy | April 18, 2006 9:41 AM
Seriously though. These completely backwards ideas about sex probably drive a good number of people away from these nutty religions (that's what happened with me anyway). As long as we can keep secular culture at large sexually liberal, the number of people willing to fall for this crap will continue to shrink.
Posted by: JP | April 18, 2006 9:47 AM
"to remain sexually pure ... until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me ... that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness."
How many abortion or teenage pregnancies are there in SD?
This is gross. In all ways. On all levels. Gross.
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | April 18, 2006 9:57 AM
Talk about gross now:
Posted by: David W. | April 18, 2006 10:08 AM
I don't have the words. It's beyond revolting. It's *&^%$#@! child abuse.
Posted by: Roadtripper | April 18, 2006 10:10 AM
Okay, when my husband mentioned it . . . a father/daughter chastity ball . . . I immediately said . . . "well those fathers better be chaste with their daughters or it's just too creepy for words . . . or rather there is a word 'incest.'"
This . . . and all these other attitudes, pledges, about sex, sexuality, etc. is all about controlling girls' crotches . . . saran wrap indeed.
My son goes to an online school with a bunch of these religios who frequently complain/comment on "the devils" actions. And, apparently hormones have nothing to do with teen sexual behavior . . . only the devil. And, then, they screech that they are glad that my three sons can't go near their daughters, because they've been taught basic biology and to believe in science and not unseen mystical entity that has a huge problem with sex, even though that's the mechanism the entity was supposed to have given us to procreate . . .
It is scary, it is creepy, it's daft, it's whack!
I'm so glad to be able to be in community with you science types . . . even though I'm a humanities/arts girl myself! Viva la Science!
another proud member of the reality based community who thinks that sex is a-okay!
Posted by: m! | April 18, 2006 10:13 AM
SEX IS ICKY!
Posted by: Second Dan | April 18, 2006 10:15 AM
I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with a "purity pledge" (though this specific one with the father is a tad on the creepy side) so long as you are still providing the child with the most accurate and complete information possible about their sexuality AND their responsibility. But this is just not how it plays out in the "abstinence-only" crowd.
Take that "Ring Thing" for example. Those seminars are rife with misinformation for the sake of generating fear (not to mention the reinforcing the "be one of the crowd" nonsense).
I'm all for encouraging abstinence, but not at the detriment of education.
Posted by: thelemurgod | April 18, 2006 10:16 AM
Yikes. I hope my baby son doesn't end up with one of these giftwrapped virgins some day. Just imagine the let down...on both sides...on the wedding night. PZ, your advice to fathers of daughters is so right on the mark. What this world needs is more strong, confident, independent women.
Posted by: My Son's Father | April 18, 2006 10:17 AM
That's just sick, sick, sick! I don't blame you for being nervous about living so close to South Dakota...
Posted by: afarensis | April 18, 2006 10:18 AM
you're absolutely correct pz---they are perverse beyond mere pornographers. there is just so much sublimated sex in that scenario. roadtripper got it right. not merely child abuse. *&^%$#@! child abuse!!!!!!
Posted by: dread pirate roberts | April 18, 2006 10:26 AM
As there's nothing impure about sex, I think such pledges are all about control, and as such are wrong.
Posted by: David W. | April 18, 2006 10:30 AM
This is exactly the abortion recovery pablum that I mentioned in another post--"empty cradle!" "victimization!" etc. "If only someone had imposed his will upon me then, and given me the freedom to not make that choice!" blah, blah. You might as well have a damn funeral for all of the millions of sperm and eggs that never get together at all. It's the same result, isn't it?
Posted by: Kristine | April 18, 2006 10:32 AM
sun myung moon's words are disturbing beyond belief. i now see why christian conservatives love him. and this south dakota thing? fucking crazy...it makes me sick to share my citizenship with some of the most morally and psychologically retarded people on the planet.
Posted by: neal | April 18, 2006 10:35 AM
Oh man, that "Purity Ball" thing is disturbing (I wanted to say "creepy", but thelemurgod beat me to it.) Tell you one thing for sure, my daughter (8 mo old now) won't be raised that way--my wife and I are both committed to teaching her the hard facts, giving her alternatives, just plain preparing her to make informed choices--and to protect herself when the time comes (whether before or after marriage).
Purity Ball--ugh--I'll never watch porn again!......Aw, who'm I kiddin'?
Posted by: Leon | April 18, 2006 10:35 AM
As there's nothing impure about sex, I think such pledges are all about control, and as such are wrong.
Well, the word "purity" is a little off (just using common terminology), but I would have to disagree that it is always about control (well, external control). I've known young couples that, by their own volition, make as part of their commitment to each other a pledge to wait until marriage (whether or not they live up to it, is another matter entirely). Certainly this in and of itself is not a horrendous thing.
Posted by: thelemurgod | April 18, 2006 10:44 AM
I initially just skimmed the text of the post, which makes mis-reading easy.
I thought that "Purity Ball" was the name of some pr0n starlet.
An easy mistake to make, since only perverted people spend more than 0.3 neuron-seconds worring about "purity." Healthy people don't think there's something impure about having sex, or even just being female in the first place.
Posted by: Steff Z | April 18, 2006 11:01 AM
Don't forget the other trend - according to some recent surveys, those teenagers who take purity pledges are a lot more likely than other teenagers to engage in oral and anal sex instead.
Posted by: Carlie | April 18, 2006 11:02 AM
Soooo creepy to make your sexuality a part of your relationship with your parents, and you'll notice that there are no sons vowing in front of their mothers to remain chaste.
If these fathers really believe this is appropriate, maybe they should publicly vow to their daughters that they won't molest them or cheat on their mothers...oh, wait, sexual purity and fidelity is only for people who can get pregnant and bring shame to their families.
Posted by: Judy L | April 18, 2006 11:04 AM
Or we could define "purity" as "not making quasi-incestuous oath-taking a definition of purity".
Nah. Too self-reflexive.
How about "not lying through our teeth and sabotaging other peoples' health to promote our ideas"?
Nah. Too unlikely.
Posted by: Sumi | April 18, 2006 11:07 AM
Second Dan wrote:
SEX IS ICKY!
As Woody Allen might say, "Yeah, if you do it right."
And especially if there are tentacles involved.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2006 11:12 AM
"according to some recent surveys, those teenagers who take purity pledges are a lot more likely than other teenagers to engage in oral and anal sex instead. "
Exactly. Isn't that a hilarious result of these pledges. Clearly, the purity plege should be expanded to include all orifices. Because it wasn't creepy enough before. ;)
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | April 18, 2006 11:22 AM
Creepy, creepy, creepy!!
Just more proof that Christianity is truly one of the most effective STDs out there.
Posted by: Zbu | April 18, 2006 11:39 AM
PZ, you need to get your terminology correct if you're going to try and use it.
It's "batshit fucking loco".
Posted by: ranson | April 18, 2006 11:54 AM
Daddies of the world, keep your hands off your daughter's sexuality, OK?
Funny. Why don't you keep your hands off the way people choose to raise their children? Oh, no. You can't do that. You're a liberal. It's your duty to butt in to the personal lives of conservatives, but then condemn them when they do the same to you.
Raise them to be independent and thoughtful and informed and able to make their own decisions, and then just trust them.
And decades of STDs and teen pregnancies has shown us where that thinking leads.
Posted by: JMcH | April 18, 2006 11:55 AM
Ugh...When I read that "daughters gaze deeply into their father's eyes" while discussing their sexuality, I immediately thought of the state's "no exception for incest" rule. Creepy!
If I may paraphrase Genesis 19:36: "South Dakota's Purity Ball: Thus were the daughters of lots with child by their fathers."
lee
Posted by: lee | April 18, 2006 12:00 PM
Unruh's "Abstinence Clearinghouse" has a blog! The posts are all wonderfully inane bits such as:
Studies! Wonderful studies! Studies of "harm" to "culture," whatever that even means. Studies too important to be mentioned by name. Revel in their importance.Posted by: todd. | April 18, 2006 12:17 PM
After watching only a few minutes of the show, I was reminded of how President Reagan wanted Surgeon General Koop to issue a report on how abortion was harmful to women who had one. Koop told Reagan to get stuffed, the facts said otherwise. How rare such integrity is today!
Posted by: mark | April 18, 2006 12:18 PM
but in the real world, in a state where about 50% of the teenagers are sexually active, pretending that giving good information on contraception is "condom worship" is just nuts.
And there we have it, wrapped neatly up. The problem with the MRT (materially relativist tyrant) position: "they're all doing it. They can't be stopped. Let's have them do it right."
To you, PZ and the rest of your echo chamber sycophants, the human is an animal, incapable of self-control. They're gonna have sex, they can't help themselves.
But we AREN'T animals. We ARE capable of control. To suggest otherwise is to demean the wonder that evolution has brought about.
So, why NOT strive for making one's sexuality a gift to give to your spouse? Why not strive for the higher, disciplined calling? You know discipline, PZ. You had to engage in it so you could obtain all those fancy degrees that allow you to teach at Morris.
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets, and that ain't happening, not even in uber-liberal compounds like SF and Morris, Minnesota.
Posted by: compass | April 18, 2006 12:33 PM
"They are marching proudly backwards to the future." That's from the new book The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual. It's at www.homelanddecency.com
Posted by: bfranky | April 18, 2006 12:35 PM
Duh.
Posted by: todd. | April 18, 2006 12:38 PM
The American Talaban is alive and well! Women need to have their devilish wanton ways controlled. Maybe a veil to hide them from being looked upon, hey, it works elsewheres......
Posted by: Rocky | April 18, 2006 12:40 PM
"spouse"
Compass,
Why, oh why, aren't there Mother/Son balls? Why aren't boys signing these pledges? This is not about abstinence. It's not about preventing pregnancy or keeping daughters from harm. It's about controlling one's daughter's sexual organs. As digby points out, at the same time the father's worrying about the daughter's virginity, he's afraid his son's gonna turn out gay, so he wants him on the football team, with all the girls wanting to go out with.
They want the sons to be manly, attracted to and by the sons' female classmates.
Don't you see something of a problem here?
Posted by: jayackroyd | April 18, 2006 12:42 PM
Wait wait wait, I forgot "Who wants to spend his|her wedding night with a person who's never had sex before?" That strikes me as needlessly stressful.
Posted by: todd. | April 18, 2006 12:43 PM
JMcH:
Are you serious? Teen pregnancy has been continually declining since statistics were first kept in the 1940s. Nice try.
Posted by: JoB | April 18, 2006 12:43 PM
So, why NOT strive for making one's sexuality a gift to give to your spouse? Why not strive for the higher, disciplined calling?, said Compass.
Hey, if somebody else wants to "strive" to make his/her sexuality a "gift," that's fine with me. But don't try to imply it's in any way higher, better, or more disciplined to hold out as long as possible. Studies show (actually, my personal store of anecdotes shows...) that people who wait for marriage to have sex tend to get married younger, hornier and stupider.
My sweetie and I (married ten years and counting) were talking about this the other night, and we agreed it should be illegal to marry the first person you have sex with. Well, maybe not illegal, but exposed as a not-so-good idea.
Everybody's got ya-yas. Get your ya-yas out in a safe, contracepted, condom-wearing fashion... and then you can think clearly about relationships and the ultimate place of sexuality within them. Store up your ya-yas and you get eighteen-year-old dumbshits marrying each other, pumping out a series of dumbshit children and divorcing early.
And, oh yeah...
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets
Replace "sexual appetite" with "excretory urge" and "rutting" with "shitting" and the true absurdity of this statement is revealed.
Posted by: Molly | April 18, 2006 12:44 PM
The problem, douche bag, is that you're not keeping your ****ing hands off of my daughter. You're trying to control her through your attacking sex education and ability to get any sort of reproductive/contraceptive choice in her life.
You're the one interfering in the rights of others. Not the "liberals." Keep your daugher home and locked in a chastity belt for all I care. If your daughter suffers the consequences of your bat-shit stuipid ideas, too bad for the both of you because by the time she gets interested in sex, she'll be able to circumvent your BS and get the right scoop - if she's willing. But we don't want our daughters to suffer with yours, too, because you amoral Christo-facists have locked all the options away.
Are you willfully ignorant? The stats are clear -- the "absinence only crowd" gets more STDs because they (drum roll please) are just as damn sexually active as the non-abstinence crowd -- only their ****ing too ignorant to know how to minimize STD transmission and pregnancies.
Dang, but your a poster child for stupidity and ignorance.
Posted by: Moses | April 18, 2006 12:50 PM
"Studies show (actually, my personal store of anecdotes shows...) that people who wait for marriage to have sex tend to get married younger, hornier and stupider."
Fabulous point. Having grown up with, in, among, and part of a fundamentalist group, I second that observation. I know an awful lot of people who got married at or before the age of 21, in large part because they simply couldn't stand to live without sex any damned longer. Their parents were all for it, because getting married was so much better than the sinful alternative. And as we all know, horny teenagers are completely capable of judging who they'll be most compatible with for the rest of their lives.... did I mention that the divorce rate among 30-somethings in that group is fairly high also?
Posted by: Carlie | April 18, 2006 12:52 PM
For those of you who have applied the "shut up" filter to JMcH, he was bitching at us to stop telling him to keep his hands off his daughter's sexuality. I guess that just says it all, doesn't it?
Posted by: speedwell | April 18, 2006 12:53 PM
You want creepy? I gotcher creepy right here, honest to goodness photos from the "Purity Ball:"
http://www.abstinence.net/photos/index.php?id=b3ae357887597bf8e32c7a67466e4a52&category=2005+Purity+Ball
You just know that you're going to be seeing those pics on "America's Most Wanted" someday.
Posted by: MNObserver | April 18, 2006 12:54 PM
Compass--
Seems to me that you're advocating security through obscurity. Doesn't work in the computer world; doesn't work in real life.
And the stats are clear, indeed--teaching abstinence only leads to MORE STDS and MORE sexual behavior. I think it has something to do with treating teens as idiots---they tend not to trust folks who do that.
If you want teens to treat their sexuality with more reverance and respect, how about treating teens with more respect? Teach them everything, and emphasize the morality--just don't leave anything out.
Posted by: roger tang | April 18, 2006 12:55 PM
Posted by: todd. | April 18, 2006 12:57 PM
However, it isn't about self control. It is about knowledge. It isn't about giving the "gift" of sex to a spouse. It is about learning! It is about sexual compatibility. How many divorces come about because of incompatible sexual drives and desires? Woody Allen has had a career exploring that very question! How would you know if you saved it for the wedding night? Isn't it too late by then?
This isn't about having sex with everyone and everything you can. It is about making informed choices. It is about knowing the difference between "making love" and "f$#*ing."
However, most of all, it is about CHOICE. If you don't educate them on "why they shouldn't" and the media is full of "why they should" then you end up with individuals who do not have enough information to make an informed choice. These are the ones that end up in trouble. In the clinics with an unwanted pregnancy. The stats back this up too!
Posted by: DouglasG | April 18, 2006 1:01 PM
Ms. Unruh had an abortion which she regrets. I wonder if she felt pressured to have the abortion because of the "shame" of having an illegitimate baby. If so I feel very very sorry for her - having an abortion for the wrong reason must be emotionally painful. She has to realize that she can't unmake her mistake by coercing others to make different mistakes. Increasing girls' shame about not being "pure" can only lead to giving up wanted babies, underground abortions, or bad marriages. That was the way we did things back in the good old pre-Rowe days.
Of course if she's just a garden-variety hypocrite who made a lot of money off an adoption racket, no sympathy at all.
Posted by: Bufffalo Gal | April 18, 2006 1:10 PM
I myself sleep in my daughter's bed every night to make sure she remains pure.
Posted by: J/\/\cH | April 18, 2006 1:11 PM
DouglasG, you miss the point the fundies are making. It's NOT about making love or F#%King at all, those are both disallowed, and sins! It's about having a child ONLY. Sex is a beastly, dirty sinfull act in of itself. NOT ALLOWED, god hates sinfull sex for pleasure!
Posted by: Rocky | April 18, 2006 1:15 PM
So the little altar with the Trojan-wrapped dildo in the living room is something I should take down?
If you don't want it, I'll take it -- but only if it's ribbed.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 1:17 PM
Trollboy:
It's your duty to butt in to the personal lives of conservatives, but then condemn them when they do the same to you.
Who's butting into the personal lives of conservatives?
We're only pointing that, as a matter of incontrovertible fact, there are fundies in South Dakota who evidently like to look into their pre-pubescent daughter's eyes and think about their daughter's pussies and who organize bizarre little ceremonies just for that purpose.
Me, I think that's fucked up. But then again fundy nutcases do all sorts of fucked up things.
(shrug)
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 1:27 PM
So... tell me again which bit of the bible says to keep your goolies hidden until they rust? Was that before or after the bit that says you should execute people who work on a sunday?
I don't remember Jesus saying anything about chastity, come to think of it. Admittedly I was right down the back, but I could have sworn he was saying something about being tolerant.
This is less a Christian thing than a "OMG yucky sex!" Puritan thing. Way too many people listening to some poor folk with profound issues regarding their sexuality, as far as I can see. It's a mighty tribute to mental illness, and for that we can be proud, but I doubt it's the best way to develop parenting techniques.
Posted by: Second Dan | April 18, 2006 1:29 PM
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets.
And Molly responded:
Replace "sexual appetite" with "excretory urge" and "rutting" with "shitting" and the true absurdity of this statement is revealed.
I was going to point out that I don't see people eating food "in the streets" all that often --folks seem to like congregatin' in restaurants and dining rooms and so on to do that better than they do scarfing down food "in the streets," and they adjust their practice of satisfying this particular biological urge accordingly--but Molly's rejoinder is obviously better than mine.
Posted by: Rieux | April 18, 2006 1:30 PM
I myself sleep in my daughter's bed every night to make sure she remains pure.
Posted by: J/\/\cH | April 18, 2006 01:11 PM
Oh, how cute. Now you've resorted to lame attempts to impersonate me. And **I'm** the one who's the "troll?"
Now, I'm sure PZ will allow that comment to stay even though he'd never allow a comment from someone impersonating him to remain.
Posted by: JMcH | April 18, 2006 1:32 PM
Hey, jinxy, why won't you explain your understanding of 'Biblical inerrancy' to us? Isn't it IMPORTANT to you?
Posted by: george cauldron | April 18, 2006 1:36 PM
The problem, douche bag, is that you're not keeping your ****ing hands off of my daughter. You're trying to control her through your attacking sex education and ability to get any sort of reproductive/contraceptive choice in her life.
Oh, so that justifies you sticking your noses where they don't belong? So in other words, you're hypocrites.
And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. "Attacking" sex ed in public schools (which is an absolute joke and deserves to be "attacked") and supporting the abolition of abortion (which is what you actually mean by "any sort of reproductive/contraceptive choice") are not matters of control over anyone but our own children. The world you dream of is where kids are given free reign over whatever they want to do sexually without any heed for their parent's wishes. You probably would be happy with huge bowls of condemns... er, sorry... condoms available in every classroom in a school and the school nurse performing abortions of kids without their parents' knowledge or consent. (Why is abortion the only medical procedure you people don't want parental consent for?)
Oh, let me guess. Having control over one's own children is wrong (at least when it comes to sex).
Posted by: JMcH | April 18, 2006 1:42 PM
"But we ARE'NT animals."
Really? What kingdom are we in?
Maybe you should read "The Naked Ape". It has a pretty good section on human sexuality and why humans tend toward monogamy. Notice I said tend.
And recent studies have shown that STD rates and teen pregnancy rates are highest in states that primarily use abstinence only sex ed. (or as I call it "no sex ed.")
Posted by: King Spirula | April 18, 2006 1:50 PM
I would suggest that the the S.D. abstinence police add another bit of legislation to the books; this time criminalizing divorce. This measure would surely curtail the number of dumb sluts who gave it away to the wrong guy. I can't imagine the horrible discomfort of how any loving father could possibly explain to his pure daughter why mommy gets a pass for having once gobbled another man's cock. So, for the sake of purity, its one penis and one penis only. Screw that up and you gotta become the neighborhood cat lady.
Posted by: hickey | April 18, 2006 1:55 PM
Everybody can go home now. JMcH just won the internet.
I mean, really. I can't imagine anyone out there being either (a) more obtuse or (b) more dishonest than JMcH was in that little paragraph there. We should all just give up and go watch reality TV until our brains dribble from our ears.
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | April 18, 2006 2:00 PM
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets.
Or maybe in their cars. Or in parks.
Like that never happens, dipshit.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 2:22 PM
Or maybe in their cars. Or in parks.
I prefer the beach, but maybe that's just a Southern California thing...
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | April 18, 2006 2:26 PM
Trollboy
And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.
No, that makes you an idiot (which we already knew).
You seem to be unable to appreciate the distinction between legislation which affects everyone and some people in the comments section of a blog saying that some South Dakotan fundie daddies are pervs who fetishize their prepubescent daughters' hymens.
How dumb does that make you? Piles of dog poop, stumps, and fenceposts come to mind.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 2:29 PM
Just to throw some empirical evidence (ugly data has such a way of slaying beautiful hypotheses) on the floor (putting a bit of data into the debate):
One paper from a quick PubMed search: Bennett SE, Assefi NP (2005). School-based teenage pregnancy prevention programs: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Adolesc Health. 36(1):72-81.
"Abstract: We compared school-based abstinence-only programs with those including contraceptive information (abstinence-plus) to determine which has the greatest impact on teen pregnancy. The United States has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. Programs aimed at reducing the rate of teen pregnancy include a myriad of approaches including encouraging abstinence, providing education about birth control, promoting community service activities, and teaching skills to cope with peer pressure. We systematically reviewed all published randomized controlled trials of secondary-school-based teen pregnancy prevention programs in the United States that used sexual behavior, contraceptive knowledge, contraceptive use, and pregnancy rates as outcomes."
"Conclusion: Nationwide, over half of teens aged 15 to 19 are sexually active. Most of the decline in the teenage pregnancy rate over the past decade can be attributed to increased contraceptive use, with a small contribution from decreased sexual activity. To reduce the rates of teen pregnancy, programs must either improve teenage contraceptive behaviors, reduce teens' sexual activity, or both. The variability in study populations, interventions, and outcomes of existing school-based trials of teen pregnancy prevention, and the paucity of studies directly comparing abstinence-only and abstinence plus curricula, preclude a definitive conclusion regarding which type of program is most effective. Nevertheless, our results indicate that the majority of abstinence-plus programs increase rates of contraceptive use in teens, and one study showed the effects to last for at least 30 months. Whether abstinence-only or abstinence-plus programs will prove more effective at altering teens' sexual behavior remains an unanswered question. In the absence of strong evidence that either type of program can affect sexual activity, prohibiting contraceptive education in school-based pregnancy prevention programs prevents students' exposure to information that has the greatest potential to decrease the pregnancy rate. However, community attitudes toward teenage sexuality, not evidence-based medicine, may ultimately determine the acceptability of publicly funded, school-based sex education programs."
Posted by: FisEpd | April 18, 2006 2:32 PM
Compass
why NOT strive for making one's sexuality a gift to give to your spouse?
Do whatever the fuck you like, compass. After you pop your wife's cherry, you can wave the bloody sheet out the window just like in the "good old days."
Then you can go to church and confess your guilt about your uncontrollable anal desires to your priest.
Just like in the "good old days."
Religious conservatives = societal disease.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 2:35 PM
Just a quick question:
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
Replace "sexual appetite" with "excretory urge" and "rutting" with "shitting" and the true absurdity of this statement is revealed. Nice try. Go out on a 3 day hike with men/women mixed. "Shits" MUST be taken. . .but sex doesn't have to happen. Try again.
Ah, but you couldn't be more wrong. We ARE animals. Well buddy, maybe you are. And that, -as I said earlier- explains it all. Liberals generally consider the human race as no better than animals.
Others do not and strive for something higher.
Oh well. Enjoy grubbing in the mud there, echo chamber denizens.
Posted by: compass | April 18, 2006 2:43 PM
Do whatever the f*** you like, compass. After you pop your wife's cherry, you can wave the bloody sheet out the window just like in the "good old days."
Then you can go to church and confess your guilt about your uncontrollable anal desires to your priest.
Just like in the "good old days."
Religious conservatives = societal disease.
THAT was articulate. /sarcasm
And your point in that hyperbolic, totally unrepresentational rant was. . . ?
Posted by: compass | April 18, 2006 2:46 PM
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
Compass, have you ever seen a newborn nursing for the first time? Hunger is natural; the suckling urge is instinctual; but they still manage to make a pretty fine mess of it for the first few days of their lives.
And no, perhaps "men/women mixed" (hermaphrodites?) wouldn't necessarily have to get it on during a three-day hike. Extend that hike to three years (hell, probably three MONTHS), though, and I can guaran-damn-tee you there's going to be some mutual exchange of bodily fluids.
Hey, maybe you were born without a sex drive. That's cool... I do feel sorry for you, though... but the very notion that sex is not a natural, instinctive, inescapable drive is, well, just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. They don't even tell you that at fundie-church... the party line these days is that sex is a wonderful, natural Gift as long as it happens in the Marriage Bed with one's Lawfully/Sacramentally Approved Partner.
(wondering to self what could be "higher" than the amazing, mind-blowing, bodies-and-minds-as-one sex my sweetie and I have been known to have...)
Posted by: Molly | April 18, 2006 2:49 PM
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 18, 2006 2:50 PM
Ohhhhh, PZ, SNAP!
Posted by: Molly | April 18, 2006 2:53 PM
JcMH is perhaps the most clueless person ever on this blog.
no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. "Attacking" sex ed in public schools (which is an absolute joke and deserves to be "attacked")
why because they work? Every other developed nation uses them succesfully but it's not good enough for us?
The utter stupidity is just overwhelming.
yeah,thats what everyone wants. Build that strawman.
Oh, let me guess. Having control over one's own children is wrong (at least when it comes to sex).
No it isn't, but it is rather bizarre to be so sure that your method of sexual expression is a one size fit all and that your daughter and her vagina is a gift to be given to a man. How freaking medieval is that.
Posted by: GH | April 18, 2006 2:54 PM
Compass, have you ever seen a newborn nursing for the first time?
I think we can all agree that the average newborn baby is better at foreplay than compass ever will be.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 2:55 PM
I hacked the de-Jinxing script to say "Troll comment automagically removed." It looks so cool to see that for message after message. (-:
This topic keeps reminding me of the Kilgore Trout line, "We are healthy only so long as our ideas are humane." Does it really matter that one is pure in body if one is perfectly perverse in mind? Judging from the endless screeds on Dobson's "Focus on the Family" website ranting against porn --- "My son is addicted to Internet pornography! How can I save him through the power of Christ?" --- I'd say not. As always, we go back to Bill Hicks, who said fifteen years ago that if God truly wanted us to "be fruitful and multiply", we'd have centerfolds in the Bible. Miss Deuteronomy. Turn-ons: myrrh...
Everybody go now and watch Perversion for Profit from the Prelinger Archives:
http://www.archive.org/details/Perversi1965
I have to wonder: would one rather give one's spouse a wedding-night present of sexual skill, confidence and compatibility, or one of a broken hymen? Gee, when you say it like that, it's not much of a challenge at all.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2006 2:56 PM
Everybody go now and watch Perversion for Profit from the Prelinger Archives:
http://www.archive.org/details/Perversi1965
Blake, you rule. Great flick.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 18, 2006 2:58 PM
"strive for something higher"
Like using legislation to impose one groups religious beliefs about life on others?
Or is it the attack on science and scientist to drive evolutionary theory out of public education?
Posted by: King Spirula | April 18, 2006 2:59 PM
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
Anyone can piss. But, it takes practice to be able to write Shakespeare in the snow.
Posted by: thelemurgod | April 18, 2006 3:05 PM
But wait, there's more! Act now and we'll throw in a free remix:
http://www.archive.org/details/come_join_the_fun2004
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2006 3:06 PM
Honestly, if you want to why not save yourself, please first give us one good reason to do so.
Posted by: todd. | April 18, 2006 3:08 PM
A troll my software kindly blocked for me said the following, quoted by todd:
It doesn't have to happen, but it should.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2006 3:12 PM
Actually, I think the tail end of a three-day hike may be one of those rare times when sex should not happen.
Posted by: todd. | April 18, 2006 3:18 PM
If you simply raise the boys to be geeks, you don't have to worry about the girls.
At least, that's how it works with my boys.
And World of Warcraft is doing wonders to keep them away from icky girls, too.
Posted by: donna | April 18, 2006 3:19 PM
I think what I'm most disappointed by with compass is that his proposed methods is empirically shown to have the exact opposite effect of what he wants.
Perhaps he should slow down and think about things, and not try to pile up persecution points; what's more important---to look like you're being moral and upright, or to be moral and upright?
Posted by: roger tang | April 18, 2006 3:21 PM
OK, speaking more seriously (or at least at one-joke-removed), I can definitely sympathize with Todd's viewpoint. The actual attractiveness of the proposition would depend upon whether the fertility rites happen near the end of the hike or earlier, whether tentacles are involved, etc. I would like to point out, however, that our resident abstinence fetishist automatically assumes a hiking party of mixed gender. I'm sure that the thought of sex in any other combination would be even more infuriating.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2006 3:23 PM
I think what I'm most disappointed by with compass is that his proposed methods is empirically shown to have the exact opposite effect of what he wants.
I've long thought that the political policies of the religious right have everything to do with punishing people or stifling discussions they find offensive and nothing to do with actually demonstrably improving real-life outcomes. So to the minds of such people, banning all teaching of contraception to teens is admirable since discussing it would acknowledge the existence of sex outside their own accepted parameters not followed by suffering. The fact that banning discussion of contraception actually has nothing but negative consequences in the real world is