greenie_breizh: (clothesless)
greenie_breizh ([personal profile] greenie_breizh) wrote2009-02-05 03:30 pm

Savage, sex and abstinence ed

Helping me procrastinate these past couple of days has been Dan Savage's column. I don't agree with everything he says but as far as sexual stuff is concerned he's a pretty amazing (and amazingly honest) sex columnist. I really enjoy some of his more political rant, too, so here are a couple. Read them through - they're hoot and he's painfully right. (Both are related to abstinence ed.)


First one:
And, hey, here's another interesting study: While straight kids are busily boning each other's butts—the better to preserve their virginities!—gay teenagers are knocking each other up. According to a study out of the University of British Columbia, lesbian and gay teenagers are seven times likelier to get knocked up than their straight peers. How the hell does that happen? Well, gay teens are having straight sex in order "to prove they are heterosexual to avoid harassment and discrimination" by their parents and peers. In other words, gay kids are still having heterosexual sex under duress. This is where abstinence education and homophobia have gotten us: Gay kids are having vaginal intercourse and straight kids are having anal intercourse. Good work, sexphobes!

--

And the second one, longer but worth every word:

The 17-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, the GOP's vice-presidential nominee, is pregnant. The news was released by the McCain camp during a busy week—a hurricane, the Republican National Convention, Dick Cheney getting us into a war with Russia—so it didn't receive the coverage it deserved. To recap:

Seventeen-year-old Bristol Palin got her ass knocked up five or so months ago by 18-year-old Levi Johnston. Among the hobbies listed on Levi's since-yanked MySpace page—"fishing, shoot some shit, and just fuckin' chillin'"—was this revealing tidbit: "I don't want kids." But Bristol, says her mom, "made the decision on her own to keep the baby," and is now engaged to Levi "Shootin' Shit" Johnston.

As the adoptive parent of a child born to a pair of unwed teenagers, I'm certainly not in favor of abortion in all circumstances. But I believe that it's a choice teenagers should be able to make for themselves—with input from their families whenever possible—and, so it seems, does the GOP's VP nominee. Sarah Palin is pleased that her daughter made the decision—on her own—to keep the baby.

But Sarah Palin doesn't believe that other girls should be able to make their own decisions. Sarah Palin believes abortion should be illegal in almost every instance—including rape and incest. So Bristol Palin is being celebrated for making a choice that Sarah Palin would like to take away from all other American women. Apparently, today's GOP believes that choice is a special right reserved for the wayward daughters of Republican elected officials.

Oh, and Sarah Palin also believes that birth control shouldn't be made available to teenagers, she opposes medically accurate sex education, and she backs abstinence-until- marriage sex "education."

Sigh.

The GOP has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into abstinence "education" programs during the Bush years. I believe this enormous investment of public funds begs the obvious question: Is our children abstaining? Sarah Palin's aren't. Despite this massive outlay on the part of the American taxpayer and the example set by her Christian parents, Bristol Palin became sexually active while still in high school. Excuse me, but if abstinence education can't keep the daughter of the evangelical governor of Alaska off the cock, what hope is there for the daughters—and some of the sons—of average Americans?

I'm a cad for writing this, of course, because shortly before Bristol and Levi were paraded before cheering throngs at the Republican National Convention, the Palins asked the media to respect their daughter's privacy.

Another special right: When it comes to respecting your family's privacy, Palin and the GOP see no need. They want to micromanage the most intimate aspects of your private life. And if their own kids fail to live up to the standards that Palin and the GOP seek to impose on your family, well, that's a private matter between the Palins, their daughter, their God, and the thousands of screaming imbeciles in elephant hats waving McCain/Palin signs on the floor of the Republican National Convention.

[identity profile] greenie-breizh.livejournal.com 2009-02-06 04:38 am (UTC)(link)
I have to think about why I like his tone. I think I just like his underlying assumptions about sex - he might be just a guy expressing his opinions but that alone couldn't make me like him. If you're honest about your opinions but they're heterosexist bs, I'm not gonna like you, y'know? Dan just manages the right note between being obnoxious and sympathetic somehow. :)
shiraz_wine: (pondering)

[personal profile] shiraz_wine 2009-02-06 04:45 am (UTC)(link)
Well, his opinions tend to mesh with mine, so I guess that helps. But I also respect people who have differing opinions than mine, but express them in a way that's neither preachy nor PC. I've had many a friendly debate with people like that.

Sort of like when Biden said that he personally didn't believe in abortion because of his religion, but that he knew that didn't mean that other people couldn't have the right to choose.

[identity profile] greenie-breizh.livejournal.com 2009-02-06 04:52 am (UTC)(link)
Yep, that makes sense. I'm the same way, really - after all, I'm a big proponent of same-sex marriage and I'm not sure I ever want to get married myself one day, but I think people should have the choice to agree or disagree with the institution regardless of what I think of marriage - but unfortunately it's extremely rare that people who are on the other extreme of Dan's spectrum are anything but preachy about what they believe.

It's something that's always bothered me in the field I know most, LGBT rights, how we're supposed to respect the opposite camp's position when they want to deny us our right to a happy existence and we just want to exist alongside them. Their perspective requires that we don't exist, that we don't speak up - ours doesn't require that of them.

But if there was some kind of conservative equivalent to Dan, I'd be very curious to read it... just to see what it looks like because I'll admit I have trouble picturing what it would look like. :)
shiraz_wine: (read)

[personal profile] shiraz_wine 2009-02-06 01:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Haha, that would be an interesting column. Although, realistically, it would probably still make me a bit angry and/or puzzled.

I once had a discussion with a friend of mine about gay marriage, sparked by a radio debate. He couldn't see what the big deal was between calling it marriage or a civil union if it had the same benefits. I was trying to explain to him that that was exactly the point: what was the big deal in calling it a marriage if it endows the same civil rights, because then it just boils down to semantics. I also explained that unfortunately, most civil unions don't give exactly the same rights as marriages. I don't think he ever saw my way of it, but he gave his opinion in a non-preachy and non-judgmental way. There should be more discussions like that in the world.
Edited 2009-02-06 14:03 (UTC)