I must share, at least in part, something that Nash (Review co-editor extraordinaire and author of his weekly CRdaily column The Man Who Was Thursday that will start up next Thursday) shared with me. We were discussing UNC and how anything it chooses to do on any given occasion no longer surprises us. He alluded to Bill Simmon’s Mike Tyson Zone which was apt I think. When it comes to questions of sex and sex education this is especially true.
Although it is against the rules around here to “offend” anyone, crude images of dogs humping each other, of transgendered people’s chests, dildos, and or shouting ‘cunt’ apparently do not fit into this policy. I know, if you are new here, because it happens all the time. UNC feels a constant need to get iin your face and in your pants.
I must admit, however, that the DTH’s article on the ever important Health Services program Sex After Dark surprised me a bit. I suppose they were just reporting the facts, ma’am, but the facts are hilarious. They are hilarious mostly due to their blatant stupidity.
First I offer you a few of my favorite lines in case you missed it. The opening sentence remarked about how “Team Sperm won Body Bingo.” Next a priceless gem from a health councilor: “A lot of the students are coming from abstinence-only educations, so we have some tips on safe sex.” Uh-huh. Lastly, a freshman’s insight: “[it’s timely] Especially this week, I’ve noticed a lot of people were having sex.”
But my all-time favorite part of the Sex After Dark program was the question and answer period. Now I recognize that these questions are offensive, I relate them to illustrate the utter disgusting nature of UNC’s official stance on fornication (a rebuke that is not meant as an un-loving jab). Seriously, it is disgusting but, in context, humorous.
The first question, “What do you do when you’ve been ‘sexiled'”, was met with a reassuring note from the oh-so-purposeful counselors. They answered by saying that of course “It’s good to have good friends to take you in. But talk to your roommate if it bothers you.” Wait, wait, wait. So, I’m confused. What does sexiled mean? (Join me Monday when I call UNC’s Sex Hotline to try and find out!)
The second question was a bit more serious: “Is oral sex while driving dangerous to my health and driving?” First of all, who would ask that? Second of all, why would you ever ever need to ask that? The counselor’s answer: “Blow jobs aren’t bad for you, but if you’re having an orgasm while driving, you’re probably not paying enough attention.” Wow. You can’t make this stuff up.
The third question is even more useless. The person asks: “Is it better to have sex with someone who speaks a foreign language?” The obvious answer: “That is the second stupidest question I can think of.” The counselor’s answer? “It depends if you can give consent in the other language. Love is a universal language. Some sounds translate in every language.” Initial reaction: HAHAHA. Yes, I am sure love is involved. Yep.
Perhaps we are being too judgmental here at CRdaily. Perhaps Health Services is simply doing its part to usher in the Son of Man. I just hope fire and brimstone don’t shower down on me first.
None of that is as silly as the evangelical obsession with abstinence and their desire to return to the pre-1972 era when it was illegal for unmarried couples to obtain birth control.
Haha, I mean, I think you’re just making that up.
Yeah, those crazy Christians and how they stubbornly hold on to morals. I mean, it’s just crazy to tell these kids to not fornicate.
Contrary to your limited view of the world, there are actually a good number of kids who can make it through college without finding the need to have sex with ever person within reaching distance. It’s called “moral standards”.
It’s twits like you who claim that we need to teach sex ed to 2nd graders. We’ve all seen how well that has worked out. I mean, never mind the fact that they have to separate girls and boys in inner city schools because they are having sex in the bathroom. At least it’s “safe” sex.
“They’re all going to do it anyways, so let’s at least tell them to be safe”. How you actually justify that is beyond me. Sex ed began as an attempt to stop kids from having sex “before they were ready”. Now, since that obviously didn’t work, they’ve just given up and said, if your going to do it, just don’t get her pregnant, because abortions cost money. What kind of a sick world are you promoting here? You’re promoting a world of animals in which “people” simply give into carnal desires and emotions.
njr, i think half of it is moral standards (which differ for each person-let’s be realistic here) and the other half is just plain self control.
c’mon guys, we’re better than those pigs whose orgasms last for half an hour (see http://dailytarheel.com/content/students-come-hard-sex-questions)
also this girl’s quote from the article was the most amusing for me,
“Especially this week, I’ve noticed a lot of people were having sex,” she said.
…
Making what up?
The whole idea about protestants wanting to make birth control illegal for unmarried couples. Unless, by “birth control” you refer to abortion.
Some evangelicals think any form of birth control is equivalent to abortion — it’s hard to get a grasp of just how many think that way, since birth control is so popular in general — but then you have influential groups like Iowa Right to Life which categorize the pill, the IUD, Norplant and Depo-Provera as abortifacients; and websites like No Room for Contraception, Quiverfull and One More Soul which are explicitly opposed to any form of birth control. Crazy, right?
At this time there isn’t a visible national campaign to ban birth control like there is against abortion, perhaps because activists realize that such a position would be widely unpopular and could further harm the anti-abortion cause — but conservative activists are still attempting to chip away at the issue, attempting to prevent minors from having access to or information about birth control and to prevent insurers from offering coverage for birth control.
You’re still dodging the main point. Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach kids to simply not have sex until marriage? Saying that they will do it anyways is not only false, but is beside the point. We also teach people to not steal, and yet, robberies occur. That doesn’t mean that you throw in the towel and tell people to use gloves so they don’t leave finger prints.
The problem with birth control is the underlying attitude that it teaches. Birth control teaches kids that they don’t need to worry about the consequences of their actions.
Think about it. The actual purpose behind sex is procreation. Sex without that in mind is just unbridled pleasure. When you introduce birth control, it means that they can have the pleasure that comes with sex without the responsibility of bearing or raising children. It means that there is no consequence to their actions, unless, of course, the birth control fails.
That is why intelligent people are apposed to birth control. I believe that birth control is wrong because it makes the bearing of children a nuisance, when that should be the focus. And, if you treat procreation as a mistake, then abortion is just the next step.
Yelena,
To say that moral STANDARDS differ from person to person would imply that it is the individual that governs what is right or wrong. That means that having sex before marriage could be bad for someone, and good for another, using your logic.
NJR: “Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach kids to simply not have sex until marriage?”
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with teaching kids that they shouldn’t be sexually active, but abstinence-only programs have been demonstrable failures, resulting in higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
NJR: “That is why intelligent people are apposed to birth control.”
Well… there we have it. The virgin NJR compares sex to criminal activity and is opposed to “unbridled pleasure” without lifelong consequences — and you think that intelligent people share your opinion… Are you trolling or are you serious?
Really? You have actual studies that have shown that abstinence only programs result in a higher rate of teen pregnancy? I would like to see that.
Considering that sex ed has been teaching “safe sex” for a while now, why is that we’ve seen a massive rise in STDs and teen pregnancy? In fact, I was reading somewhere that the US had the worst rate of teen pregnancy in the industrial world. You can go into anything gas station’s bathroom and buy a condom. We have advertisements for condoms, and we have a sex ed program that begins very early in a child’s life that advocates “safe sex” and what have we got now?
Whether I am a virgin or a married man with 2 kids has no bearing on this discussion. Let’s refrain from ad hominem attacks.
You have put words in my mouth. I never likened sex to stealing. And yes, I am apposed to lust. Are you in favor of unbridled lust? Let’s be honest here. High school kids who have “safe sex” only focus on how good sex feels. And if everything is only about whether it feels good then we lose all sense of morals.
Let me ask you this. Why would we teach abstinence along with safe sex? Don’t have sex, kids, but if you do, use a condom so that you don’t get her pregnant. And we included that little bit about abstinence, why? Kids shouldn’t have sex because the girl can potentially become pregnant and neither of them are mature enough to raise a child. So, when you remove the only real reason (morals aside) for not having sex by teaching safe sex, what’s the point?
Assuming that you are the same * that I have argued with before, I can only hope that you have no idea what a troll really is.
Why do you think the US has such high rates of teen pregnancy and STDs compared to European countries that have comprehensive sex education?
Why do you think evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews? (Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, Oxford University Press, 2007)
I’m asking you if you’re trolling because I find your stated opinions to be so fantastic that I have a hard time believing that you are earnest in your belief. I mean, if you really think that “[all] intelligent people are opposed to birth control,” then there’s no point in discussing this, because you live in a fantasy world.
In the first paragraph of your comment above, you do indeed compare sex to robbery. I don’t have a problem with you having a utilitarian view of sex, you’re free to deny yourself pleasure — but that’s not enough, you would also prevent other people from having pleasurable sex, and you would deny other people access to family planning. You can talk about your morals all you want, but what you’re really saying here is that pleasure is bad; and I just can’t get behind that. Pleasure is good. Regarding the failures of abstinence-only programs — there are many studies that show this to be the case, and they’ve been widely publicized. Here are a few:
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/impactabstinence.pdf
http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/PUBLICATIONS/AfterThePromise.pdf
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/nosex_programmes.html
Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 72-81
Did you actually read your own sources? Because, the Mathmatica Research findings indicated that there was no difference between the abstinence only program and the control program, in terms of being sexually active. The Journal of Adolescent Health also found that there was no statistical difference between those who took a pledge of virginity and those who did not, in terms of whether they contracted STDs. Let's look at your claim: "abstinence-only programs have been demonstrable failures, resulting in higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs." That is simply false, by your own sources.
Your claim that the program has failed is flawed because you have different standards of failure for abstinence only programs and "safe sex" programs. Since there is no statistical difference between the relative "failure" of both abstinence only and safe sex programs, you have no right to claim that one has failed while another has succeeded.
You do a fantastic job of taking my words and twisting them into bizarre claims. I don't compare sex and stealing. My comparison, which you have obviously failed to grasp, was about the telling kids not to steal, and yet they do. That doesn't mean that you just give and up and stop telling them not to steal.
"[all] intelligent people are opposed to birth control," Anyone who actually believes that giving kids condoms at the age of 12 will help decrease teen pregnancy is simply a moron. Your own studies have seen that while there is no difference in terms of how many STDs are contracted, there is a difference in terms of number of partners, whether pregnancy or STD is reported with numbers favoring those who were in the abstinence only program. I look at the long reaching effects of "safe sex", while you just focus on the statistics behind the debate.
Yes pleasure is good. Pleasure for pleasure's sake, however, is not. That you can't wrap your mind around that just indicates to me that your passions dictate how you act. "If it feels good, what's wrong with it? Are you saying that good feelings are bad?!?!?!"
Let me put it like this. I'll use food. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cookies. They taste good, and, while they lack nutritional value, in and of themselves, they don't cause any harm. But you can't live on junk food, and having unlimited access to junk food is NOT good, regardless of what you may claim.
I chose my words carefully. "unbridled pleasure" There is a rather large difference between condemning pleasure and condemning unbridled pleasure.
So, yes, I would prevent other people from having casual or pleasurable sex. You just fail to see the behavior that that teaches. Personal responsibility disappears, and feelings determine everything. It puts the passions on top of the thought process with the intellect at the bottom. The thought process is becomes "If it feels good, do it. If it doesn't feel good, then don't do it." And you want this kind of thinking because?
"I would prevent other people from having casual or pleasurable sex."
I rest my case. Your opinion is that of a tiny minority who would enforce their bizarre views on the majority. You must find the modern world to be very scary and confusing, and I grieve for your future sexual partners.
And what case was that? Whether I represent a small minority or the majority doesn't take away anything from my argument (the majority of which you ignored).
I don't find the world scary. I find it sad that people like you only think with their passions. I grieve for those people who may have the misfortune of having to depend on you.