You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
If the empty mantra, "Just Say No," failed to keep teenagers off of drugs, it certainly is not going to work for sex. Yet, our government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on "abstinence only" programs that promote ignorance over education, while offering a warped view of sexuality. Like all programs steeped in religious extremism, these are fear-based, anti-science and prone to great exaggerations.
Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a report in 2004 that found 11 out of 13 curriculums that preached "abstinence only" were rampant with scientific errors. In another study, researchers found that those who took so-called "virginity pledges" refrained from sex merely eighteen months longer than those who had not made such a pledge. However, the pledge-takers were six times more likely to engage in oral sex. "The Values Virgins" were also much less likely to engage in protected sex when they finally broke their pledge or to be tested for an STD. Disease rates between the two groups were similar.
Unfortunately, the New York Times Magazine reports that "condemn the condom" clubs are taking root at premier universities. As usual, they rely on breathless, overblown tales of breaking condoms, saying, "safe sex is not safe." Well, actually, condoms are pretty effective for those of us who had comprehensive sex education and know how to use them. I've yet to find one Bible-waving fanatic who can show me an HIV epidemic that broke out among people consistently wearing condoms. The Harvard virginity group, True Love Revolution, makes the ridiculous claim that waiting until marriage enables "better sex in your future marriage." To buy this theory, one must conclude that sex is the singular activity where practice erodes performance.
The most illogical argument comes from the co-leader of True Love Revolution (TLR), Janie Fredell, who claims that sex releases a powerful hormone, oxytocin, which blurs the distinction between infatuation and lasting love. If released during gratuitous sex, she says, it can have unhealthy consequences because the hormone can cause, "palpable sense of loss, betrayed trust and unwelcome memories." (unlike the near 50% of marriages that end in divorce?)
In the same story, Leo Keliher, the co-director of TLR, spoke of his harrowing struggle to remain celibate. He told the Times he constantly had, "physical, lustful temptation," and called his sexuality an, "untamed beast" that causes, "thoughts that come out of the blue -- basically pornography in my head...like a fly buzzing around."
It is clear that celibacy is causing a great deal of stress in Keliher's life -- which can release the deadly hormone cortisol. If you want to follow Fredall’s rationale, her co-director should have copious amounts of enthusiastic sex to limit his stress level, thus reducing his body's production of unhealthy hormones, which would likely increase his lifespan. Obviously, it is really easy to use cut and paste psychiatry to support one's ideological agenda -- which is exactly what these holier-than-thou anti-sex groups are doing.
The Princeton abstinence group, The Anscombe Society, has come out against same-sex marriage - leaving gay students no option but lifelong celibacy. What they are really doing is setting some members up for failed marriages to so-called "ex-gays." Closeted homosexuals with religious hang-ups are drawn to these groups because it absolves them of having to explain why they aren't sexually active. And, quite frankly, it sometimes allows these damaged and opportunistic men to find meek wives who won't demand much sex because they were made to believe lust is dirty.
A perfect example is Fredell, who described oral sex in the Times as, "disgusting and disrespectful" and found it shocking and implausible that anyone would walk down the street thinking of sex with strangers. The biggest farce is the marketing of such groups that claim they want to, "make abstinence look fun and interesting." (It's not) They also portray sex outside of marriage as an act that, "deeply compromises human dignity" and causes, "personal unhappiness and social harm."
While this can sometimes be true, casual sex can also be fun and harmless -- which these groups deny. People can and do find a tremendous amount of satisfaction hooking up with people where there is no lasting spiritual connection -- just immediate physical compatibility. The all-or-nothing approach pushed by these dishonest groups is a deep distortion of reality, uses sexual desperation to create marriages that are likely to fail, and unrealistic in a nation where the average marriage age is twenty-six.
No one should be pressured into sex and there should be strong support systems for teenagers who feel they are not ready. The best option is arming young people with the facts and offering honest, comprehensive discussions on sexuality. Sadly, these propaganda programs are really only interested in abstinence because they believe sex outside marriage is sinful. In my view, however, these groups create more sin, as the "virgins" often bare all, and then bear false witness to cover-up their hypocrisy.
22 Comments:
Well their whole premise is stupid to begin with, because comprehensive sex education always begins by mentioning that abstinence is the only way to be 100% safe, and all the curriculum I've seen also includes telling people that it's okay to be a virgin, that you shouldn't give in to peer pressure, that it's perfectly normal for people to want to wait until marriage, etc.
Comprehensive sex education is already sending the message they claim to want to send. But as usual with the right wing, the message they claim to care about is very different from their real agenda and the actual message they are sending, which is that their narrow and ignorant beliefs are the only valid ones and should be forced on everyone else, that people should be deprived of any information about anything else, and that it's okay to lie (for example about the effectiveness of condoms) as a means to an end.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/02/2008 12:39 PM
Oh and miechael ejercito, what exactly is a "gay club" anyway? Do you even know what you're talking about? I doubt it.
At my university we have an LGBT Campus Center which is part of the university's library system and offers information and resources about sexuality and gender issues, support groups for coming out, etc.
It is open to all students and, unlike the abstinence-only program Wayne discussed, it doesn't take any stance against the relationships or civil rights of heterosexuals. It doesn't preach that being gay is right and being straight is wrong. It doesn't preach that sex outside of marriage is preferable to abstinence. It doesn't discriminate and it doesn't advocate that everyone should live or love a certain way.
So again, what exactly is a "gay club", and what makes it similar or analogous to abstinence-only groups?
posted by Anonymous, at
4/02/2008 12:47 PM
I recently saw a program on the History Channel about sex in Medieval Europe. The parallels between what the virginity programs preach and what the church taught are almost identical; right out of St. Augustine's handbook of sexual neuroses. Even with harsh penalties like torture and slow death (sodomites were hung up in small cages and allowed to starve to death), people *still* took the chance and engaged in prohibited sexual activity. As usual, the more a powerful drive is repressed (they're fighting millions of years of evolution), the more it will come out in dark and destructive ways. The church issued illustrated, highly descriptive manuals on prohibited sex acts that would put the Kama Sutra to shame. They even showed a page from a Book of Hours (a prayer book)that had in one of the margins, an illustration of a man going down on a woman and behind him was a bird with a big beak sticking into the guy's ass. Go figure!...frustrated monks I guess. Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
4/02/2008 12:53 PM
Oh my god awesome, where can I see these illustrations? They sound hilarious and fascinating all at once.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/02/2008 12:58 PM
"And, quite frankly, it sometimes allows these damaged and opportunistic MEN to find meek wives who won't demand much sex because they were made to believe lust is dirty." [emphasis mine]
Wayne, I appreciate and agree with your commentary however I still take issue with your gender biased focus on gay MEN who marry women. Over and over you act as if this phenomenon is almost exclusive to gay men when no doubt at least as many lesbians do the same thing.
I've brought this up before, only to get an angry and defensive response from you, but once again in this commentary you showed that you either don't recognize or don't care about the fact that straight males are also victimized when lesbians marry them.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/02/2008 4:27 PM
where is your diversity?
where is your acceptance of someone who is "outside" of the mainstream?
where is your tolerance of someone who wants to abstain?
Gary (NJ): Those sodomites were hung up in small cages and allowed to starve to death and still took the chance to engaged in prohibited sexual activity. Oh, a dream come true. That whole Zombie sex thing, I mean.....thanks boi
posted by Anonymous, at
4/03/2008 10:17 AM
The author is a bit permissive in terms of sexuality.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/03/2008 10:23 AM
I'm starting to find that being gay and in my early 40's I'm being forced into celibacy which is not of my choice, Being that the gay scene is so obcessed with youth and washboard abs that guys like me who are still young looking but because no longer 20 something is shuned and written off as trolls. It's No fun being celibate ):
posted by Anonymous, at
4/03/2008 10:39 AM
Anonymous above, 40 is not old! I didnt meet my significant other until I was 49! And he was worth the wait. Not to worry, you WILL find someone.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/03/2008 11:22 AM
Anonymous-- I'm going to take a chance here. Please don't think I am attacking you. I'm not.
It is true that there is an emphasis on youth and beauty in the gay scene-- if by scene you mean the bars and such. Pretty sells here, same as in the straight world. No differnece there.
I'm 57 now. before i met my husband 5 years ago, i had no problem getting laid, often by cute boys young enough to be my son. (ooh, Daddyyyyyy!!!!) But that was it. I was getting laid, but hwat I wanted was a relationship.
early 40's to me is a great time to be alive-- the intersection of your youth and experience. you're still youthfuly hot, but now you KNOW something.
The bars and baths are the first place i would look for sex, because that is what they are about, but the last place I'd be looking for a relationship, because THAT scene trades in youth and beauty. You are at worst at a small disadvantage being in your 40's, but the keyword is small. I never found my age to be much of a disadvantage.
There are plenty of gay interest groups, churches, associations etcetcetcetc, hwere you will be judged as a person instead of the Meat O' the Week.
Which leads me to the question: are you sure it is not YOU who are obsessed with youth and beauty? Are you clear what you want?
I wrote this to a guy some years ago. I saved the letter becuase I felt this so deeply.
"Just a thought: Maybe you haven't found a boyfriend because you haven't found a good enough fit to invest in a partnership, to use your words. Maybe if you took the trouble to get to know the man in front of you, find out who he is and what he has to offer in your life, it would work better than holding up your checklist of qualifications, expectations, and specifications and seeing if he conforms to it. Maybe if you invested in the partnership, you might find a man that is a good enough fit.
This is not to say that we are not entitled to like what we like. But I can tell you that the great love of my life was a man who was HIV+ and earned about 1/3 of what I did. But he had the qualities required to make a great relationship, and once I got over my stuff, and saw him for who he was rather than who I wanted him to be, it made the difference. We had 5-1/2 wonderful years together, and I would not trade them for anything.
I am a 52 year old man. I've been dating since my husband's death 7 years ago. I have all the qualities that make a great catch. I have a good career, many wonderful friends, a beautiful home, the ability to communicate clearly and well, I'm emotionally available, in better shape than many men 15 years younger than I am, good looking enough to get laid whenever I want to by attractive men, am well thought of by friends and colleagues alike.
And except for nine months with a boyfriend three years ago, I have been single all this time. Not because I wanted to, not because there is something wrong with me, but because I have met mostly men who say they want a relationship, but only if all of their checklist has been met, and who think they are ready for a relationship, but in fact, haven't a clue. They are always on the lookout for the magical, elusive chemistry--the best legal drug available. And they don't know that chemistry means nothing more than chemistry. They don't notice that they can have great chemistry with someone, and it still doesn't go anywhere. And of course, without chemistry, they are not willing to get to know the man in front of them, and to give that chemistry a chance to develop."
Hi, It's me again 40 something lol. Thanks for everyone's insite, I do feel a bit better now, But before I was'nt making this up,when I would go out and even try to introduce myself to someone who may be younger, I would get this snear facial expresion from them. When I would go into chat rooms and they ask Age,sex and live? I would be honest and in reply they would tell me they are looking for someone in thier 20's I agree with you all that it should'nt be this way and that being in your 40's is a good advange in someways that if your still in good fit shape and still young looking but have more life expeariance can be a good thing to offer. I'll try to as someone advised to look in other areas then just the clubs.
Ken, I agree with the guy who posted above you in that clubs are probably the worst place to meet someone, especially us 40+ guys. If you have any interests that could be translated into a social group activity, there may be a gay group for it. There are gay sports clubs, professional groups for police, firefighters, Drs, etc. There is a club for 40+ gay men in the city where I live. If one doesnt exist, maybe you could start one. I even belonged to a gay Italian speakers club for a while. I realize if you live in a small town, this would be much more difficult than a large city. One last thought, why not start a pot-luck movie night once a month for glbts or just gay men or just people over 40 or whatever...
posted by Anonymous, at
4/03/2008 4:47 PM
Another thought for you, Ken.
I like boys, too. By boys, at my age, I mean someone under the age of 40. they're cute and sexy etc. And lots of boys like older men, but usually just for sex. As one told me back in 2001--"Oh yeah. I think you're really hot and I like talking with you. but your almost as old as my mother, and what would I tell my friends?"
that pretty much summed up the problem.
If you're chasing after boys, don't be surprised at the results. I satisifed my desire for a younger man by keeping it at a maximum of a ten year difference. My husband is exactly 10 years younger, and he liked older men, and he is middle aged like i am. much more suitable than a man in his 30's, and certainly than a man in his 20's.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/03/2008 5:51 PM
Getting back to the original subject, I believe there is much to be praised and encouraged about virginity clubs. My personal experience, as a no longer young and very straight male, is that I have never been able to engage in any serious sexual activity with a women without waking up the next morning committed to devoting the rest of my life to my current partner.
I have found there really is something magical and commitment forming about sex. I realize that my experiences are not everyones. A lot of men, and no small percentage of women, are either not born with the commitment inducing property of sexuality, or have learned to ignore it. And I suppose that if I really wanted to I could learn to be intimate with a partner without wanting to binding my life to hers. But why on Earth would I want to?
posted by Anonymous, at
4/13/2008 5:14 PM
Continuing the pro-virginity rant.
I am a long long way from being right wing religious prude. But one thing I have always found appalling about current sexual mores is the frequently unspoken and occasionally explicit assumption that two people who like each other are supposed to be sleeping together. And if they aren't sleeping together there must be something odd and strange about them.
If there is one thing I wanted my daughters to learn before they set off on their own lives, it is this.
You do not,ever, have to do something intimate or sexual that you do not want to do or do not feel ready for. And you do not, ever, have to justify or explain to anyone, why you feel unwilling or unready for whatever they think you should be doing.
I do not think these are unreasonable expectations. And I find the prevalence of pro-virginity clubs among adolescent you encouraging and helpful in passing that message along. Much as I appreciate Wayne's caustic wit and wisdom, in this particular case he is being neither encouraging nor helpful.
