In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Oh Dan Savage…

Angry readers respond to his advice to the pro-choice girl whose anti-choice boyfriend refused to have sex with her. I’m laughing out loud in an internet cafe, and people are looking at me like I’m crazy — so read it. Favorite parts:

Dan’s excuse:

I thought my response last week to the guy who wanted to fuck his brother’s girlfriend—go for it!—would be the one that sent turds through turbines, not my advice for OBGYN. I had no idea abortion was such a contentious issue. But a salient point that my furious readers seem to overlook is that I WAS FUCKED UP WHEN I WROTE THAT COLUMN, and I said so.

And when other readers call him out:

Q. You told OBGYN to use birth control and “cross your fingers.” There is no need for luck! She can fully protect herself by doing the basics. Pills or hormone patches used correctly give you 99 percent protection, and she should be using a condom too, to protect herself against STDs. If OBGYN takes these two basic precautions, not even the Holy Ghost can get her pregnant. —OVER THIRTY

A. Thanks for sharing, OT, but didn’t the Holy Ghost knock up at least one teenager already?

— ——————————————————————————

Q. They can avoid conflict by avoiding pregnancy. I’ve never heard of someone getting pregnant from anal sex! Also, in the interest of being egalitarian, anal sex should include taking turns. That is, OBGYN should strap it on and fuck his anti-choice ass frequently. —PINK PEARL

A. Anal sex—of course! Why didn’t I think of that? Actually, I did think of that, and it was in the first draft of my advice to OBGYN: “Or let him fuck your ass—but only if you get to fuck his ass too.” But I took it out because I didn’t want to be accused of promoting anal sex acts to impressionable teenagers. That’s Wonkette’s job.

And damn if she isn’t good at it.

Bad news from my alma matter

Shorewood High School, where I spent four relatively happy years, is in a bit of hot water about a “profane” word in the annual literary magazine, Imprints — a magazine to which I faithfully contributed, I think, three out of my four years at Shorewood.

A blank space appearing on page 50 of Shorewood High’s annual literary magazine, Imprints, was once filled with a poem about a teenager’s first sexual experience.

The 13-line verse was abruptly pulled from this year’s magazine after parental complaints about a profane word in its title.

The fallout prompted school and district officials to seize, shred and reprint the issue. They also reassigned the magazine’s faculty adviser, a move the teacher is now fighting.

The poem’s author, Zoya Raskina, 17, said her verse was about the pressure teenagers face to have sex and the disillusionment that can follow. She said she didn’t expect the reaction, which prompted district administrators to ask Steve Kelly, an English teacher with the district for 35 years, to step down as magazine adviser.

The faculty advisor, Mr. Kelly, is one of Shorewood’s most well-known and well-liked teachers. I don’t remember a single student who ever had a complaint about him. I never had him for a teacher, but I remember hearing story after story from otherwise disinterested students about what they had discussed in Mr. Kelly’s class that day. The stories were so impressive that, after a year of college, I went back to Shorewood with a friend of mine (a former student of Mr. Kelly) and sat in on his class. The first thing you notice about Mr. Kelly’s room are the walls — they’re covered in student-painted murals, mostly (if I remember right) depicting scenes from the various novels that his students studied. He’s amazing; he’s one of the reasons that Imprints survives. And he’s certainly the reason why so many students want to be part of the magazine.

Shoreline (the school district where Shorewood is located) also tends to be a relatively liberal place, like most of Seattle. We had good, comprehensive (but abstinence-based) sex education. We read Huck Finn and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and other commonly banned books. My senior year, the fall play featured a “coming out” scene — and I was the ####### doing the coming out.

So when my mom told me about this story, I was obviously disappointed. Pulling Mr. Kelly from his position is a huge mistake, and one that I hope they rectify. It’s a literary magazine, for goodness sakes — sometimes, literature contains bad words.

And I can’t help but remember that when I was a junior in high school, there was a short story in Imprints that used the word “#####” at least a dozen times — I think “####” and “####” were in there, too. But that story was written by a senior boy — this poem was by a girl, about her first sexual experience. Do I smell a double standard?

So today, I’m depressed about the state of things in Shoreline, Washington. And I can’t help but see this event as representative of the conservative grip that seems to be tightening all around the country.

Newsflash: Abstinence-Only Ed Misleads

Thanks, WaPo, for this shocker:

A government Web site intended to help parents and teenagers make “smart choices about their health and future” includes inaccurate or misleading information that may alienate some families or prompt riskier behavior, according to a team of medical experts who reviewed the material.

Three physicians and a child psychologist analyzed the Bush administration’s 4Parents.gov Web site and concluded it made many incorrect assertions about condoms, sexual orientation, single-parent households and the dangers of oral sex.

My anger, of course, is not directed at the Washington Post, but at the cretins who continue to peddle this crap to kids. Abstinence-only education is packed with lies — isn’t this about the 10,000 article we’ve read about how it “misleads” young people? It’s about time we started giving young people accurate information about sex and health — you know, something akin to “education.”

Sex makes you happy

File under “Duh.” But it’s good to know that having a lot of sex will make you happier than having a lot of money.

Posted in Sex

Pro-Life? Go fuck yourself.

You know it’s a bad day when Dan Savage is totally and completely wrong. A young woman writes in:

Q. My boyfriend and I are 18, and we’re in love. We’ve been together for almost four years. He recently decided that he is against abortion, to the point where he won’t have sex with me unless I agree to have the kid if I get pregnant. I told him there’s no way I can agree to that. It’s my choice what I want to do with my body, but he says it’s his choice if he wants to stop having sex with me because he disagrees with my views on the matter. (Which is something he read in your column, BTW.) Where do I go from here? I can’t be celibate until I’m ready to have a kid. But I don’t want to break up with someone I love because of a sincere moral disagreement. What now? —ONE BOY’S GIRL YEARNS NERVOUSLY

And Mr. Savage answers:

A. As a general rule, OBGYN, fertile pro-choice girls shouldn’t have premarital sex with controlling anti-choice boys. But you love him, and sometimes love makes exceptions. So if you do stay with him, and you agree and/or pretend to agree to his conditions, and you get pregnant, and you do decide to have an abortion, what the hell is he going to do about it? Lock you in the trunk of his car for nine months? Whatever you tell him now, it will still be your body and your choice then. Use condoms, take the pill, get a diaphragm, cross your fingers, and fuck his brains out.

Sure, he has a point — her boyfriend can’t exactly force her to give birth (although in many states, her parents certainly could have before her latest birthday). But I think the larger question is, is there a problem with having sex and being in what is apparently a serious relationship with someone who doesn’t believe that you have a right to your own reproductive functions? And if you love someone, is lying to them about what you’ll do in case of pregnancy really the best option?

My rule: don’t do it with someone who thinks they own your uterus. Don’t have sex with conservatives. Don’t even consider exchanging body fluids with anti-choicers.

Thy Virginity Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks.

From the Catholic Church’s press release factory, we have an update on federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, titled To Abstain or Not to Abstain.

On June 9 the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies approved an increase of $11 million in abstinence funding for fiscal year 2006, which would take the overall sum to $115 million. A press release issued the same day by Abstinence Clearinghouse, a nonprofit educational organization based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, welcomed the decision, even though the increase fell short of the $39 million boost sought by President George Bush.

“Promiscuity keepers, like SIECUS and Advocates for Youth, would have people believe that teen sex is normal, safe and healthy,” explained Unruh, “but science does not support these claims.”

This has got to one of the hackiest bits of “journalism” I’ve seen in awhile.

You don’t have to be a heathen like me to understand that comprehensive sex education programs are not endorsements of promiscuity. In fact, I would think it to be quite the opposite. Arming young adults with the facts about disease is kind of like a military boot camp under a Republican President: You know you’re eventually going to go to war, so it’s best to learn how to survive.

That’s not a particularly germane analogy, so I think it’s time to play the word game. My first contribution, to counter the “promiscuity keepers” canard, would be to call the abstinence-only crowd what they are: the Pro-STD Lobby. Any other suggestions?

Sex ed, ’50s style

Not only are young people today getting indoctrinated with abstinence-only miseducation, but the videos they’re watching in health class come from the days of the Feminine Mystique.

(Let me quickly add that this article is kind of irritating. I’m pretty sure it’s written by the same woman (if I remember right) who wrote the “Is Feminism Dead?” article for Time Magazine a few years back, and it gets a little condescending).

During the 50-plus years that sex education films have attempted to decode the mystery of adolescence, their informational content has remained relatively unchanged. In current versions, nods to the apparent sophistication of today’s young people are rarely invoked. Although 12-year-old girls today often dress as if they were college freshman during sorority rush week, the films confine themselves to the subjects of growth and menarche, never dealing with sex beyond a discussion of its clerically prescribed purpose — health education as if determined by the marketers of American Girl.

The consistency of the message, educators believe, reflects the fact that even in a culture where young adult novels include explicit references to sex, children’s ignorance about their own bodies has not diminished over time. Similarly, parents seem as reluctant to initiate the necessary conversations as they have ever been.

Of course, we can’t write an article on adolescent sexuality without referencing this apparent trend of younger girls dressing like sluts. But it does make some important points about films from back in the day… which, unfortunately, are still true of modern sex education:

“Traditionally,” said Rick Prelinger, an archivist who has collected sex education films over the years, “the boys’ films speak of pleasure and the girls’ films speak of puberty as a set of conditions to be endured.”

Geeks Do It Better

Something I’ve been saying for a long time:

When it comes to the between-the-sheets aspect of the relationship, Carroll agreed that a girl couldn’t do much better than a less-than-perfect male specimen. “We’ve all been to bed with the guy who is worried about what he looks like, checking the mirror before he gets in bed,” she said. “The nerd, gloriously, stunningly, perfectly, is into the woman. That right there is very stirring, sexually.”

via Shankar

Posted in Sex