More anti-women-having-sex and anti-comprehensive sex-ed from the Rightwing
| May 27th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
24 Responses to “More anti-women-having-sex and anti-comprehensive sex-ed from the Rightwing”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Don’t forget the right wing’s latest efforts to ensure millions of women die of cancer rather than risk giving them a vaccine that might encourage promiscuous behavior - yes, by girls.
This comment was written by Don.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
http://asilentcacophony.blogspot.com/2005/05/right-wingnuts.html
This comment was written by Don.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Regarding the most asinine portion of the afore-mentioned idiocy:
What would happen in this country if the young women and young men were all taught about contraception, condoms, safe sex, making intelligent decisions and dealing with the emotional aspects of sex and, oh yeah, if young men were taught to respect women instead of objectifying and using them? And if everyone was taught how to recognize all types of abuse and how to prevent it and deal with it? And birth control, condoms, HIV tests and any other information anyone might need to make safe, informed decisions and act on them, were all made readily available with no stigma for using them?
Disease would go down, the unwanted pregnancy rate for women both married and unmarried (thus bringing the abortion rate down), domestic abuse and rape would decrease, and more people would feel perfectly happy, and safe, about whatever decision they made regarding sexuality.
And, of course, the last part of that would make this poor excuse for an elected official very, very upset. Imagine, women making their own, informed decisions, and enforcing them when they are threatened, and—maybe—having sex happily without the STD’s, pregnancy, and stigmatizing single-motherhood that wingnuts like this want to impose on them as punishment for not being meek little virgins before marriage and meek, obedient incubators after marriage.
And all of these wonderful results of my plan would happen without the need for millions of young women to sacrifice their sexual freedom. That’s the best part. Compared to the plan of Wingnut of the Moment here, I prefer the status quo.
Notice he never says anything about rape? What does that say about him? Does he honestly think that promiscuous young women are a worse problem than sexual assault? And did it occur to anyone else that some of the more manipulative young men might respond to the sudden lack of available classmates that they might forcibly override the girls’ refusal? They’d get their power, dispense punishment for making choices the guys find inconvenient, and sex all in one. Bet the Senator doesn’t give a damn. After all, it must have been something she wore, and how can you expect a guy to control his own urges?
I hope that he, too, meets a seagull who really has to go.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Ohhh, my, what a delightful idea. Darth Vader teaching sex-ed.
Wouldn’t need a cucumber to demonstrate condom use, either. That’s what the lightsaber’s for.
He’s your favorite too, Amp? Great minds think alike.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Uh, it was me who posted this, or are you actually asking Amp? But yeah, Darth Vader and his constantly loud wheezing-self is my favorite.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Why, why, why, why do people love to assume that saying no to sex is so easy for girls, so hard for boys. It’s always just too much to ask that the boys keep it zipped. I just don’t buy it. Never have, never will.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 9:00 am
You know, I have to wonder if they think it’s so easy for girls to say no to boys because it’s so easy for girls to say no to them.
It’s fascinating the view of the world that this stuff gives you. It’s so animalistic, but we’re the freaks? Girls with no sexual drives, boys with nothing but…and sex only for reproductive purposes. Girls are responsible for boys’, and if anything happens, it’s all the girls’ fault.
It explains why so many conservative men take the slightest criticism as being from man-hating malebashers. Either they don’t see the process by wihch all their actions are blamed on women, or they’re perfectly fine with that process.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 9:22 am
“Women with breast implants are healthier. ”
Hmm. That is the most picturesque statement I’ve ever heard of from a politician, I’m wondering how exactly does it relate to his other beliefs on sex and women.
Passive, choiceless, exclusively straight, irresistible sexual object for men but deprived of her own sex drive, and with breast implants… an inflatable doll?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 9:28 am
That hardly seems sufficient for this level of assclownery. Better he should meet one hundred seagulls, a lit cigarette, and a detailed re-enactment of that gas-station scene from Hitchcock’s The Birds.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 11:56 am
The worst part of this kind of right-wing chicanery is the lack of credible demonstration that there’s much of a problem to begin with. The facts seem to suggest that any of the supposed ills arising from teen sex have been declining steadily for some time now. Sure, it’s best to have real info and contraceptive/STD protection available to all who could use them, but the Christian right’s proposition that Rome is burning because of these things is a red herring. To my mind, it isn’t Rome that’s burning, merely some trashcans in isolated quarters of it.
This comment was written by DP in SF.We lib/lefts, of course, have our own versions of these harengs rouges designed almost with retention of the culture war’s viability in mind. I’m thinking of feminist hyperbole over ‘threats’ to Roe v. Wade and the equation of AIDS with bubonic plague or even the pneumonia pandemics of the early 20th century. The more things change…..
Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
So being unable to obtain an abortion in 85% of US counties doesn’t count as a threat fulfilled? That’s interesting.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
perhaps that’s because the rightwing *are* hormonal adolescent males.
This comment was written by nexy jo.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
over ‘threats’ to Roe v. Wade
Why do you believe that these threats are nonexistent?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
i too was a bit taken aback by the implant comment. what, if anything, that had to do with the subject at hand (sorry, couldn’t help myself.), remains a mystery to me.
you left one very critical aspect out of your otherwise interesting rant: coburn didn’t get to congress by writing a “why i want to be a congressman” , in 250 words or less, application. he got there because lots of people voted for him. so did the rest of his ilk. therein lies the problem.
mr. coburn is, sadly, representative of a significant segment of the population. this segment truly believes what he says. until you can change the outlook of his constituents, the coburns will continue to wield power. that is the real challenge. unfortunately, it is a challenge not taken seriously so far by the democrats.
This comment was written by cp.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Let’s be honest, the real reason the fundagelicals don’t wanty women to have sex until marriage is because they don’t want their wives to know how bad they are in bed.
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Y’know, if I were a woman from a state where there were a lot of men like Coburn, I might be driven to rampant lesbianism too. (Note: I don’t really think lesbians are usually “created” by bad encounters with men any more than straight women are “created” by bad encounters with women. I was just making fun of Coburn.)
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Hmmm… evidently <FONT> tags don’t work when posted. I meant to make the disclaimer the same color as the background, so that it had to be highlighted to be read, so it wouldn’t come off as taking things to seriously, but now I’ve gone and taken things to seriously with my monologue on why the disclaimer is visible so I’ll shut up now.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Women are allowed to have sex, they just arn’t allowed to enjoy it.
This comment was written by racya.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Young men and women are taught about these things to varying degrees both in school and society. Are you saying that because someone demonstrates safe sex, people (teens!) are mature enough to choose what is best for them? The safest choices? Dream on.
This comment was written by MC.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Women are allowed to have sex, they just aren’t allowed to enjoy it.
Well, married women, anyway. Those of us who would prefer to never marry are expected to stay off sex our whole lives, too. You know, it’s only fair– From the POV of a completely deranged person or elected official.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 10:27 am
They are mature enough by default- nature made them so. They are sexual, they can reproduce. Since we have more or less come to a consensus that teen marriage is undesireable, then we have to deal somehow with their sexuality, not pretend it doesn’t exist and not feed them lies. Babies cry, toddlers throw tantrums and teenagers are sexual and engage in risky behavior. ALL of them, not just the boys. Safe sex education is the most effective way of curtailing the risky sexual behavior, and it is also a way to prepare teens for their futures as husbands and wives. Maybe if we called it “marriage prep class” it would appeal to the hide you head in the sand types who apparently have amnesia about their youth.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:15 pm
“Never mind hormonal adolescent males as they are”“as usual”“absolved of any responsibility by the Rightwing for any of this.”
Well, that seems unfair, to be sure, but when it comes to sex, hormonal adolescent males satisfy the M’Naghten Test for insanity and are by definition not culpable.
This comment was written by Sui Generic.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:28 pm
“ALL of them, not just the boys. Safe sex education is the most effective way of curtailing the risky sexual behavior, and it is also a way to prepare teens for their futures as husbands and wives.”
Surely you jest.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Elena, not everyone marries and remember that some of those teens aren’t heterosexual so what would be the point of them learning how to be “good wives and husbands” if they aren’t allowed to marry their partner? Teaching teens how to be responsible adults period when it comes to sexual encounters (ie: condoms, birth control pills, knowing your partner, etc) would be more effective and realistic as not everyone ends up married. And those that do marry stand the chance of ending up divorced for various reasons. I seriously doubt that there can be a realistic “marriage prep course” as all marriages are different and there is no such thing as the perfect marriage. Reasonbly stable and successful–yes, but not perfect. A lot of those “marriage prep courses” are also deeply tied in with a religious beliefs that not all teens and people in general share within a public school system. And people certainly shouldn’t marry due to pressure from others especially if they themselves are still unsure of the stability of their relationship with their partner.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators