Not abstinence.

Sheesh. That explains it, no?

So thanks for the correxshun Vicki glug stumble...

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

absinthe only programs are really about making women ashamed and uncomfortable with their bodies, and thus easier to control by small dicked men. teaching that sex is 'dirty' and 'bad' before marriage to a man of whom you've not actually sized up for compatibility is a sure way to make sure that a woman is confused enough about her feelings never to become a feminist. happily, it doesn't always work and some young women realize that 'that sex stuff' feels good and it's worth sampling before tying the knot. ha, that's a pun. anyway, just another $176million piece of the patriarchy. notice that most of the talk about 'purity' and the 'value' of waiting centerns on the intact hymen, and little negative mention is made of horny young men who cornhole anything other than a vagina as they learn the secrets and sensitivities of their zucchini.

those damn librul facts!

By Scott Swenson on Friday, April 13, 2007.
Published under: Sexuality Education
The news for the Bush Adminstration's abstinence-only policies just seems to be getting worse, some might liken it to a swiftly sinking boat or ship.
So a burial at sea is appropriate, and by releasing the latest federal report on abstinence-only, Impacts for Title V. Section 510, Abstinence Education Programs: Final Report, from Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. late on a Friday, that is exactly what the Bushies are doing.
“After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions,” said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth.
“The tragedy is not simply the waste of taxpayer dollars, it is the damage done to the young people who have been on the receiving end of distorted, inaccurate information about condoms and birth control. We have been promoting ignorance in the era of AIDS, and that’s not just bad public health policy, its bad ethics”.
“This report should serve as the final verdict on the failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country,” said William Smith, vice president for public policy of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS). “It shows, once again, that these programs fail miserably in actually helping young people behave more responsibly when it comes to their sexuality,” Smith continued.
In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to the welfare reform law establishing a federal program for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. This program, Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, dedicated $50 million per year to be distributed among states that choose to participate. States accepting the funds are required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars (for a total of $87.5 million annually, and $787.5 million for the eight years from fiscal year 1998 through 2006). Programs that receive the Title V funding are prohibited from discussing methods of contraception, including condoms, except in the context of failure rates.
On a call yesterday organized by the Abstinence Clearinghouse, abstinence-only proponents were clearly rocked by the potentially ruinous news in the report. High profile abstinence-only advocate, Robert Rector, led the preemptive damage-control planning. He outlined several strategies the abstinence-only movement could use to rationalize the findings in the report saying, “The other spin I think is very important is not [program] effectiveness, but rather the values that are being taught,” Rector said. Whether or not these programs work is a “bogus issue,” Rector continued.
Noting that the study was posted on a Government web-site with no press release or advisory, Wagoner said: “The ‘stealth release’ of this study on an obscure government website on a Friday afternoon is clearly meant to bury its contents. But policy makers must now know that funds for these programs must now be eliminated”.
Citing the fact that the Institute of Medicine, the nation’s leading health authority, had called for the elimination of these programs back in 2000, Wagoner said: “Congress must now move to de-fund these programs. Anything short of eliminating these programs would be a dereliction of its duty to promote public health and protect young people in the era of AIDS”

oooops.

the absinthe effort was aimed at young men as well.

Which does not make the effort justifiable. I am convinced that in reality, absinthe is an effort to control young people's bodies. Clearly, there is more control both desired and exercised over young women, but that doesn't change the fact that it is aimed at both.

As a father and grandfather, I am conflicted. I was raised in this society where, for all of my life, control of women's bodies has been so embedded it is invisible. So emotionally, it is hard for me to let go of sex as an issue of control of women. Oh, it gets couched in other words - physical and emotional health, pregnancy, and so on. Intellectually, I have come to grips with the issue - our bodies are our own.

End of story.

I don't think that very many in this nation are ready for that particular insight.

Jake

The other spin I think is very important is not [program] effectiveness, but rather the values that are being taught,” Rector said. Whether or not these programs work is a “bogus issue,” Rector continued.

It was never about anything--it was never even about SEX--it was about pushing Christianism and then Dominionism as the new social standard.

And making very large bux for pushing this form of social control of course. If these people had any genuine interest in, much less knowledge of, the Bible they so gleefully and selectively cite, they would have seen the passages on the postlife fate of those who sell religious offices or teachings for money. I believe the technical term is "simony" and seem to recall that according to later writers the practitioners thereof get a special circle of Hell just to themselves.

.. in the fight on AIDs in Africa, most particularly. The large percentage our country requires to be spent on abstinence programs go to evangelical groups who do not help to promote any measures to prevent AIDs. The cretin in chief loves to applaud himself for the money going to prevent AIDs while denying a large part of the money to actually doing what he says he is.

Ruth

Plenty of men with small dicks--even as small as, say, 9 inches...

Well, let's not go there. We know what you mean.

And the entire "sex positive" industry gives me the creeps. It reminds me of Tupperware, for some reason.

Of course sex is "dirty" and "bad" but no more than life itself is "dirty" and "bad" and good and splendid and hurtful and loving and funny and a gift from the God(ess)([s|es) of Your Choice, If Any, or a divine affliction...

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

(and i'm sure we just lost new reader seatech1 for good)

but seriously, are there any studies? my experience with republican men suggests to me that many of them are, well, compensating for something. i wonder if a study could be performed. do we have any gay male readers who'd like to chime in? women? i don't have a lot of fleshly experience with republican dick, and although when it comes to our marriage he acts like one, my ex is even more to the left than i am.