I didn't really have the chupacabra's baby (only because I haven't seen the movie yet)
2004-11-26

This is such an example of the ridiculous that I have to be up at three in the morning to write about it.

I'm sorry, but if you have to be taught how not to have sex, then you're just stupid. The answer is simple, and I'm giving it to you right now:

Don't put a penis inside a vagina!

There, now I've provided free abstinence education for anyone with a computer!

Since there's really no way to teach any human being with even the vaguest conception of sex how not to have it, I assume that abstinence education is really more along these lines:

1. Sex exists.
2. If you have sex, you may contract a STD or, if you are a woman, become pregnant.
3. If you would like to have sex but not contract a STD or become pregnant, there are ways to decrease the odds of these events occuring.
4. But we're not going to tell those ways to you.

The reasoning that's always given for Step #4 is that abstinence is the only foolproof way to avoid STDs and pregnancy. (Not exactly true, seeing as plenty of nasty diseases can be transmitted without actually putting a penis in a vagina. But that's a bit much to worry about.) The reasoning makes some sense - teens are too young to be raising children, teens (well, anyone) shouldn't have STDs.

Think about it, though, for about a second. What possible harm could it do for people to know about contraceptives? If you're not going to have sex, you're not going to have sex. But if you are, is it better for you to be totally ignorant or to have some idea about how you can keep yourself from getting pregnant or getting sick? Let's put it this way - you shouldn't drive a car until you're, say, sixteen. But that doesn't mean they ban driver's ed on the basis that it makes teens run out, steal the keys, and drive underage.

Abstinence education works on the false premise that because somebody knows something about something "forbidden," they'll run straight out and do it. (It also works on the premise that watching somebody stretch a condom over a banana drives kids into frenzies of desire.) It's an extension of the old idea that if you have knowledge of something "wicked" (and we can debate whether sex is "wicked" or not, but that's neither here nor there) you're contaminated by your own knowledge. It doesn't matter whether you act on it or not, just knowing is enough to condemn you. Sex is something dirty enough to these people that knowing about how to use a condom is the equivalent of, I don't know, reading an English Bible back in the Dark Ages.

The one argument that could be used to defend "abstinence education" to a certain extent is that it's being taught to minors, people who are legally unable to make their own decisions and whom society at large generally agrees shouldn't be knocking boots. I don't really see the logic of the argument, but if I could see any evidence that this was really an effort to keep very young people out of situations they can't handle I could have some sympathy.

Instead all the evidence I see is that abstinence education is part of a general campaign against nonprocreative fucking aimed towards all segments of the population. It doesn't matter to these people whether you're under- or overage, they don't want you to fiddle around with other people's private parts unless those private parts are those of your legally wedded spouse.

That not only leaves out kids, but it leaves out singles, people who cohabitate but don't marry, and of course gays and lesbians. (Would trannies even count? I think that's just too far outside the abstinence structure to contemplate. Probably not, though, as they can't impregnate or be impregnated which seems to be the only acceptable reason to get out your gear. Oh, why do I even bother thinking about it?)

These people don't care what age you are, they have made it their life-long mission to make sure that people can only enjoy their sexual organs in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Witness their fury towards Kinsey, which seems to come mostly from the fact that Kinsey was interested in sex and somebody made a movie about a man who was interested in sex. As far as I know Kinsey doesn't involve any pornographic material, like a scene where Liam Neeson rides Laura Linney like a pony til she has a double orgasm. That would actually be rather wrong. The main sin that Kinsey commits is that the main character studies sex, comes to conclusions that contradict those of the Bible, and doesn't get struck down by the hand of God a la Onan. Witness this tirade from Abstinence Clearinghouse - apparently Kinsey was the direct cause of the increased wave of casual incest in this country. (Considering that incest is one of the "acceptable" reasons for abortion, even for conservatives, I would say that as a nation we still have a healthy horror of the act.) Again, it's the idea that knowledge makes people do things. Because Kinsey found that certain people commit certain acts, that means that everyone's going to run out and do them right now. (It's along the lines of the "gay culture" argument - if a boy sees a gay guy on tv, he'll be influenced into it, although the same people will claim that homosexuality is nasty and repulsive. Some poor boy just watched five minute of "Will & Grace," and if he hasn't suffered enough, now he's somehow compelled to go out and give out blow jobs on the street, against every desire on his own.)

I don't know what to do against this. I suggest that you read the actual Kinsey reports so you know what the fuss was about or at least check out the Kinsey scale. It's fun! Or you could watch the movie, but I warn you, you just might end up in a cold, lonely field, humping a goat. (If you live in a city, you might end up committing incest, just because those goats are too far away.) I'm warning you for your own good, you weak-minded piece of filth!

Don't end up like I did! Having the Chupacabra's baby!