"They Gave The Stickiness Away"

Sometimes I think we might need to keep abstinence-only sex education around just for the sake of the hilarious analogies. Ann Friedman brings us the news of the comically named Eric Love of the East Texas Abstinence Program. The New York Times explains that he runs a Virginity Rules program (and, indeed, it's almost as fun as sex) which includes the following delightful analogy:

To make the point, Mr. Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. “Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily,” he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. “Why? Because they gave the stickiness away.”

By the same token, if gay tape comes to live in your house all the rest of the tape will suddenly lose its adhesive properties. That's why even though there are gay bars, there's no such thing as a gay tape shop. Everyone understands that we need to preserve the sanctity of tape.

Photo by Flickr user RileyRoxx used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Yes, we must protect out precious bodily fluids.

Don't you agree Mandrake?

Posted by Greg Abbott | July 18, 2007 1:04 PM

"Another way that love is similar to tape - that I've noticed - is sometimes it's hard to see the end."

-- Brett, The Tape of Love, FOTC

Posted by SoCalJustice | July 18, 2007 1:07 PM

Hey baby - I want to give my stickiness to you!

Posted by tiparillo | July 18, 2007 1:19 PM

Yeah, OK, the guy is silly. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

That aside, MY, would it kill you and the rest of the leftie intelligentsia to tone down the smugness for a minute and entertain the notion that the sheer scale and intensity of our culture's obsession with and valuation of casual sex might be a problem? Before anyone pulls out their long knives, I am NOT advocating a return to the "good old days." But maybe it wouldn't hurt to tone down the emphasis on sex a little?

Posted by Claudius | July 18, 2007 1:20 PM

Gives new meaning to 'Let's go to the tape'.

m, why though, the picture of the guy with the water bottle taped to his nuts?

Posted by max | July 18, 2007 1:20 PM

Does that guy in the picture have a bottle of urine taped to his thigh?

And if that isn't urine and it's just your basic run of the mill delicious American sports-beverage, why is it taped to his thigh at all? Is that for when his penis gets thirsty?

Posted by Nate W. | July 18, 2007 1:23 PM

Virginity Rules program (and, indeed, it's almost as fun as sex)

. . .and indeed would be as fun, if you added sex. (Nice parenthetical.)

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 1:23 PM

Two problems with the analogy:

1. Tape does not have glands that produce fresh amounts of stickiness whenever needed.

2. The stickiness in humans actually functions as lubricant so that the parties do not adhere.

Posted by blah | July 18, 2007 1:24 PM

So... all successful marriages are rooted exclusively in sex, is that his point? If there's nothing else to gain in getting married, why not let everyone do it?

Posted by Mrs. Beasley | July 18, 2007 1:25 PM

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and... bad analogy.

Posted by David Vitter | July 18, 2007 1:28 PM

Dumbest. Analogy. Ever.

Posted by Joel | July 18, 2007 1:32 PM

Oh no, the lefties admit that sex is a part of life. Look, who is really obsessed with sex, the people who admit it's natural or the people who devote their lives and their votes to preventing other people from having the sex they want? If conservatives didn't spend their time trying to ban teaching kids how to use condoms correctly, gays and lesbians from entering into happy marriages, making sure you can't say "abortion" in a health clinic in Kenya that receives US funds, etc. these would not be political issues. People have always been fascinated by sex. Look at Renaissance art. Look at Inger's work. Look at ancient Greek and Roman sculpture. The idea that all of a sudden society became obsessed with sex in the 1960's is a nostalgic fantasy. If anything, we are just being more honest today about what it means to be human, which is healthier. Put it another way, who is more obsessed with sex: the guy who between the ages of 16-27 had sex with 29 different women before getting married when he was mature and ready or the priest who has to use all of his willpower to stay abstinent and not even masturbate while Cardinal Law makes him help the Church cover up the raping of young children?

Posted by Reality Man | July 18, 2007 1:33 PM

Claudius wrote: "But maybe it wouldn't hurt to tone down the emphasis on sex a little?"

how? By planting the seed in people's minds that tape is a fetish object?

That said, if I had a kid I'd be concerned about how sex and sexuality really are everywhere in a direct way they weren't even a decade ago. That's a concern that rightwingers can exploit to jawbone and spread fear -- they just can't really do much about it (other than maybe win a few votes).

I think Hillary makes a few noises about this problem, which may be enough to keep vote-loss on the issue down a bit. I dunno-- cause by talking about how much sex their is you're not "toning down" the emphasis. You're talking about sex!

Posted by blatherskite | July 18, 2007 1:35 PM

the sheer scale and intensity of our culture's obsession with and valuation of casual sex might be a problem?

Who said anything about "casual" sex? Why do you have to be married to have "formal" sex? Why can't you have "casual" sex with your wife? Why can't you have really really serious sex with someone you only recently met?

I, for one, will react to the "sheer scale and intensity" of casual sex when, and only when, it can be shown to me that the "scale and intensity" we see today are in any way abnormal by historical standards.

Maybe human beings just really like sex? Especially between the ages of, say, 15 and 30? Ever read any Shakespeare? Maybe the 1950s one-partner model was the aberration. Or maybe, since 90% of adults of all ages have had non-marital sex, that model never really happened at all? Ever seen a Marilyn Monroe movie? The only difference I see between a Marilyn Monroe movie and a Sharon Stone movie is what gets said aloud versus what gets implied to a presumably knowing audience. And that's the 1950s. Forget about the, say, 1650s. Or what your great-grandad did while on leave in WWI. Or whatever.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Andrew Edwards | July 18, 2007 1:37 PM

"Eric Love And The Texas Abstinence Program" sounds like a great name for a band or a weird legal precedent.

Posted by Mike Hoye | July 18, 2007 1:39 PM

"That aside, MY, would it kill you and the rest of the leftie intelligentsia to tone down the smugness for a minute"

Yes. Yes, it would kill us. Because this is so unbelievably, monumentally silly that to NOT ridicule it would probably cause all of my internal organs to stop functioning. And maybe my external organ. Which I need for casual sex, since our culture values it so highly.

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2007 1:41 PM

But maybe it wouldn't hurt to tone down the emphasis on sex a little

Sure, if these wingnuts would just stop obsessing over it.

Posted by rb | July 18, 2007 1:43 PM

Did MY have all these pictures on the old site? This is getting old; I'm beginning to think of Dean Barnett's old blog with the pictures.

Posted by Klug | July 18, 2007 2:13 PM

What is with these people and duct tape?
See Amanda's post about the Sex Lady.

Posted by Karlyn | July 18, 2007 2:28 PM

"if gay tape comes to live in your house all the rest of the tape will suddenly lose its adhesive properties."

This is false.

Instead, the tape will actually become *more* inclined to stick--to other pieces of tape.

It's just that it won't stick to any non-tape items.

That's a proven fact--the scientists from the Discovery Institute have demonstrated it.

Posted by Count Cant | July 18, 2007 2:33 PM

Everyone really ought to check out Karyn's link. The "Sex Lady" chairs Eric Love's notion that sex is like duct tabe, but far outdoes him in sheer weirdness.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 18, 2007 3:00 PM

how? By planting the seed in people's minds that tape is a fetish object?

Heh heh...planting seed...heh..heh.

Posted by Beavis | July 18, 2007 3:36 PM

I'm in favor of keeping abstinence-only education around, but only if they keep using the Surrealist Metaphor Generator when they prepare their course materials.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 18, 2007 3:52 PM

Oh man, I *just* got that Flight of the Conchords' song out of my head from last week's episode, and now the refrain has started again...

Lives are like delicate pencils
If you push them too hard they’re gonna break
And people are like paper dolls
Paper dolls and people, they’re a similar shape
Hmm hmm hm
Love is like a roll of tape
It’s real good for making two things one
But just like that roll of tape
Love sometimes breaks off before you were done
Another way that love is similar to tape
That I’ve noticed
Is sometimes it’s hard to see the end
You search on the roll
(search on the roll)
Search on the roll
(searching round the roll)
Search on the roll
(search)
With your fingernail
Again and again
And again and again
And again.
Brown paper, white paper
Stick it together with the tape
The tape of love
The sticky stuff

Brown paper, white paper
Stick it together with tape
The tape of love
The sticky stuff.
People people Chorus: Brown paper, white paper
Paper paper Stick it together with tape
Paper paper The tape of love
People people
People people
Pencil pencil
Pencil pencil
Paper paper
Put the pencil to the paper
Give the paper to the people
Let the people read about the sello tape
Oh baby baby
Yeah
You know, Jemaine, I’ve been thinking about love. And I guess it’s the very stron-
gest adhesive.
Oh sorry, Bret. Were you talking to me? I was humming. What did you say?
Oh, just…nothing.
Brown paper, white paper
Stick it together with tape
The tape of love
The sticky stuff
Yeah
Ooh brown
Brown paper, white paper
Stick it together with tape
The tape of love
Say it
Sticky
Stick stick
Stick it together
Ye-yeah

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 18, 2007 4:09 PM

This is a great analogy b/c it also explains why it is so important for woman to remain pure virgins until marriage, but it is okay for guys to screw around. As long as one piece of tape is still sticky, the two pieces can be stuck together.

Posted by mpowell | July 18, 2007 4:14 PM

Rumor is I'm double-sided tape...

Posted by Rudy G. | July 18, 2007 5:32 PM

The point this guy is trying to make, although inanely, is that sex in marriage is the glue that keeps the marriage together. Marriage is stressful and difficult and married couples continuously alienate each other - over money, children, housework, friends. In a good marriage, sex heals the wounds that the partners inflict on each other. Sex reminds the couple that they like each other. Sex keeps a marriage healthy.

If people are accustomed to having sex without the intimacy and commitment of marriage, he's arguing, then once they do marry they will have no internal barrier to seeking sex outside the marriage when they are alienated from their partners. And if they do that, it will be hard to use sex within the marriage to heal the wounds of marriage.

I'm not advocating this position. This guy didn't invent it and neither did I. I'm just trying to put it out there in a coherent form - shoot at it as you will.

Posted by Bloix | July 18, 2007 6:57 PM

Ever have sex with a virgin? Since when is that fun? Sure, it's sticky, but more in an "oops" way.

Posted by Reality Man | July 18, 2007 8:36 PM

Does that mean that Christian girls have to marry their waxer?

Posted by Jon H | July 18, 2007 9:02 PM

So, for all those years when Red Green referred to duct tape as "The Handyman's Best Friend," he was really making the case for abstinence?

I never knew...

Posted by cleveoh | July 19, 2007 8:32 AM

This was a pretty sad thread. It took until Bloix to try and understand the analogy ("stickiness" refers to emotional bonding that comes with sharing intense physical experiences), and not a single person has made fun of the analogy according to its actual meaning. Just because the abstinence folks are whacked doesn't mean every single thing they say is stupid (ad hominem fallacy).

The level of discourse here is getting worse. I think I blame Matt for the number of posts in which he randomly mocks things about which he has no insight to offer.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 19, 2007 8:32 AM

Nolaboyd, everyone understood the meaning of the analogy. They're making fun of it because, unlike you, they understand that the physical properties of duct tape prove absolutely nothing about how human beings interact emotionally.

Posted by Brittain33 | July 19, 2007 8:43 AM