Yes, I agree -- why on earth was this ad running, at taxpayer expense, in the middle of the Redskins game.
« Class Warfare | Main | The China-Burma Connection »
Abstinence on My Teevee
07 Oct 2007 04:42 pm
Comments (46)
Did it stop the announcers from fellating Joe Gibbs?
Hey, I find advertisement campaigns often work well against millions of years of evolution.
hey the elephant disappeared! quit stealing my schtick!
Or Doug Henning, or whoever the blowdried fucker was.
Certainly glad my DVR let me miss that
Yes, I much prefer those Cialis "Smiling Bob" ads...
Matt, can you be specific about your objection to the ad?
Is it:
1) the ad itself?
a) the content
b) the quality
c) the presumed ideology
2) the fact that it was aired during a Redskins game?
3) the fact that it was a government ad?
4) some combination of the above?
As someone with two young daughters who are constantly bombarded with highly sexualized ads (or gossip about ridiculous celebrities like Britney and Paris), I didn't mind it all that much.
Matt, just in case you're going to start answering questions around here: why'd you take down the short-lived post above this one, making fun of the Republican 2008 convention logo (something along the lines of "an elephant adopting a 'wide stance,' looking as if it's mounting the number 2008")? Did some sort of Atlantic cop object? Or did you have a change of heart?
Blog commenters are among the dumbest self-righteous nit-pickers there are. Of course the bit about during the Redskins game was just a light-hearted injection of context into the discussion of the ad!
I think the linked blogger sums it up pretty well. The ad doesn't tell people to wait to have sex, it tells them to wait 'til they're married. This is the 21st century, the average age of marriage is sliding towards the mid/upper twenties. How many people are going to follow this advice? Isn't it just as likely to boomerang, when young adults find that their elders are giving them unrealistic, totally unworkable advice?
Does running a pro-abstinence commercial during Redskins games qualify as a form of eugenics?
Actually, there is something called "self-control." What's wrong with people waiting until they're married?
Nothing's wrong with people waiting until they're married -- it's just that, for most people in today's society, it's a stupid and irrelevant idea.
Why do all bloggers misspell TV?
Other than that, your post is spot on.
the bit about during the Redskins game was just a light-hearted injection of context into the discussion of the ad
This would be a little more plausible if Matt had actually posted anything that could be called a "discussion of the ad."
What's wrong with people waiting until they're married?
Like the man said, nothing. Nothing wrong with not waiting, either, per se. What's really wrong, of course, is the government telling kids everyone ought to wait until they're married, which is both untrue and extremely unrealistic.
It's particularly ridiculous that this is the position of self-styled social "conservatives." It's hard to imagine a more nanny-state approach to the issue than disseminating taxpayer-funded prime-time TV propaganda aimed at shaping young minds.
As someone with two young daughters who are constantly bombarded with highly sexualized ads (or gossip about ridiculous celebrities like Britney and Paris), I didn't mind it all that much.
As someone who also has two young daughters, I say fuck that noise.
What's wrong with waiting until you're married? Well, you're not having sex, and for most adults, having sex is better than not having it.
"live" finally got it right. There's nothing wrong with saying "wait" to a teenager; the problem is "wait until what?" The goal post this campaign creates is marriage and implies that if you don't wait until marriage, then you're going against its advice. Such an implication adds an arbitrary and possibly religious moral standard to this ad campaign. This moral standard is inappropriate. To say "wait until you're an adult" would be preferable, because there is some civil standard there for ability to make choices for yourself.
However, personally, I find objectionable the ad's exclusion of "but if you don't wait, use a condom." The binary approach to sex-ed is offensive to me, whereas a message of "you should wait, but if you don't..." does not negate the message of "you should wait." Thus more conservative people shouldn't object to this more nuanced and inclusive message unless such people object to any discussion of birth control, and such an objection would be an imposition of their values on everyone else.
Yes, I too am sick of my TV constantly telling me to wait until marriage for sex.
What's wrong with people waiting until they're married?
It makes for weaker marriages. Entering into a marriage without knowledge of sexual compatibility is a bad idea. Also, sex is fun, when enjoyed safely and responsibly by consenting adults, and I defy anyone to make a moral argument for why sex before marriage is wrong, beyond "The Bible/Torah/Koran says...."
What's wrong with people waiting until they're married?
I think the economists call it an opportunity cost. The more time you wait, the less your naughty bits throb in consensual pleasure. I think it was either Ladell Betts or Robert Herrick who said 'gather ye rosebuds while ye may'. Rosebuds = knocking boots.
Do you have any of the following problems:
1.Feminine itch
2.Feminine odor
3.Erections lasting more than 4 hours
4.Anal leakage and the inability to control it
5.Heavy flow days
6.Need of a personal lubricant
7.An asshole that is so uncomfortable it makes you squirm during that long business meeting or car ride
Are you in need of quick relief? I, for one, appreciate hearing about the various pills, pads, creams, and oils that can help alleviate your suffering. Especially while I'm eating.
Some topics just don't belong in television advertisements. A personal decision about when to have sexual intercourse is one of those topics.
"Actually, there is something called "self-control." What's wrong with people waiting until they're married?
Posted by response to mattnot | October 7, 2007 10:00 PM"
For one thing, it's kinda creepy. For another, considering that 1) gays and lesbians outside of Mass cannot get legally married and 2) the generation this ad targets has probably a higher percentage of gays and lesbians out of the closet than any beforehand, then what message is being sent? Also, many people in this day and age don't believe marriage is necessary to having a lifelong relationship. Marriage as we know it was a bit of religious propaganda (Paul said marriage was for only those sinful enough they could not commit to a life of celibacy), a form of contract (binding families with property together), etc. It is not exactly completely necessary for fidelity. Should the government be pushing a religious agenda regarding a personal decision?
Imagine some group of Muslims or conservative or orthodox Jews had a lot of influence on social police. Imagine, also, that they were really into keeping kosher or halal.
Now, imagine that they found studies that eating a lot of pork tended to be correlated with various ailments, like colon cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc. This is all pretty much true, as far as I know, although, of course, a diet without pork can still be very unhealthy, and a diet with some pork can still be healthy.
Now imagine that they ran ads on TV talking about how you shouldn't eat pork and should try to get your kids not to eat pork either.
The nominal rationale, of course, is that pork is unhealthy, and there's some true, scientific basis for this, but the underlying motivation here is that Leviticus 11:6-7 says don't eat pork.
Do you see the problem?
The "during the Redskins game" point is worthwhile though. Why are you showing it to me at an exceedingly high cost to the government, let alone at all?
But two things:
1) It's just a fucking creepy ad.
2) What percentage of the kids in that ad actually wait till their married? I'm gonna go with less than the national average, they're actors! Maccaully Culkin had sex at like 10.
Amplifying my earlier comments: this is your federal government spending your money in order to issue propaganda as to how you should structure your pursuit of happiness. If you're not creeped out by that (Al?), you're very likely a Republican.
And, considering the source of this 'abstinence-only' strategy, it's worth considering what they are really after. If they could succeed at making kids think they have to wait until marriage to have sex, they'd succeed in making more people get married a lot earlier than they do now in the US (because the drive to get it on is really strong in young people, in case anyone here forgot.) Specifically, more women would be getting married a lot younger, and therefore would be more likely to forgo an advanced education and/or career in favor of having kids and being housewives. Given where this stuff is coming from, it's not hard to see that as a specifically anti-feminist, anti-women's-independence goal of the producers of such ads.
I'll pursuit my happiness the way I see fit thank you very much, federal fucking government.
It makes for weaker marriages.
Yes, the sexual revolution has been such a boon for stable marriages.
Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but in the ad, there's a shadow that looks like a cross above the boy who says, "Tell me I should wait."
Yes, the sexual revolution has been such a boon for stable marriages.
If stability is your goal, I suppose you're right. But I have always failed to see how having more people locked in unhappy marriages because social pressure makes marriage stronger. It's a strange way of defining success; for me, people who truly don't belong being married anymore remaining so is damaging to marriage, not strengthening.
"It makes for weaker marriages.
Yes, the sexual revolution has been such a boon for stable marriages.
Posted by Mark Adams | October 8, 2007 5:32 AM"
Well, the sexual revolution hit the Northeast stronger than the South and the Northeast (especially MA and CT) tend to have people that get married later, stay married and have a higher percentage of their population married than the South, where people get married younger and get divorced more often and have a lower percentage of their population divorced.
I would consider myself, while generally on the political extreme left, to be a moderate on social/sexual issues, so I would ideally prefer an ad which said something like, 'wait until you're 18', 'wait until you're in a long-term relationship', 'wait until you're in love with someone you could envision being married to someday,' etc. I don't think that waiting until marriage is necessary although of course I admire the self-abnegation of anyone who chooses that path. I think the sexual revolution was in its essence a good thing that went too far.
But it's worthwhile noticing that this ad is, as it were, a bit of conservative silliness that goes perhaps 1 percent of the way to balancing out the tons and tons of liberal silliness (about sexual issues) that swamps our media. When I start hearing my fellow left-wingers utter some mild criticism about the Folsom Street Fair, anonymous bathroom sex, pornography, prostitution, Bill Clinton's adventures, Britney Spears' exhibitionism, legalization of incest and polygamy, denigration of natural family planning and priestly celibacy, etc. then perhaps i will be more critical of ads like this one. This ad is a response to the idea that you should be able to f#$% whoever you want, whenever you want, and have no consequences whatsoever, which it seems that some liberals espouse. naturally it's a rather ridiculous antithesis to a ridiculous thesis. Extremism on one side is the only good response to extremism on the other.
Hector Dauphin-Gloire, the criticisms here are not about the message. The problem is that the government paid for the message. If the Mormon's or Pat Robertson want to buy a bunch of network time to air pro-abstinence ads, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever.
But where are these pro anonymous bathroom sex, pornography, prostitution, etc. ads paid for by the government? I guarantee you I'd be against each of these as well. What business does the US government have telling kids they have to get married to have sex? I don't think our society is anywhere near to any kind of consensus on that issue, so the government should kindly but out and not waste our money on transparent sops to the religious right.
It's not that anyone literally speaks in favor of anonymous bathroom sex. But the failure to loudly condemn it is in itself a form of approval. As More says at the end of 'A Man for All Seasons'. If you talk about prostitution as just another job, or bath-house sex as just another way that people have fun, without saying that you are in favor or against, then that itself is a form of tacit consent to living in a society where these things are common.
I wasn't actually aware that the government was paying for the message. Well, OK, under the Clinton administration there were lots of public service messages that stressed condoms instead of fidelity as the means to prevent STDs, and generally tried to tread around the fact that there are moral issues involved as well as health ones- condoms are not some sort of 'quick fix' to the AIDS epidemic. no doubt that trod on some people's toes as well. Either way, the government is going to be trying to incuclate some value system, and ultimately what you think of those efforts is going to depend on what you think of the message. I don't necessarily agree with this message here, but then I don't agree with the Clinton messages either, so I don't see what the big deal is with this one.
Our society doesn't 'have a consensus' on very much- I disagree with virtually every foreign policy decision the US has made since Carter, but I still have to pay my taxes to fund the US military/industrial complex.
You know, I almost took the time to point out to Mr. Dauphin-Gloire that feminism (and those crazy lesbians having sex on the street) have actually been driving the divorce rate down (see the link in my signature).
Then I realized that anyone who signs their name Hector Dauphin-Gloire and calls themselves "politically extreme left" is just a concern troll.
Then I realized that anyone who signs their name Hector Dauphin-Gloire and calls themselves "politically extreme left" is just a concern troll.
Well, s/he could be some sort of Dworkinish sex-phobic prude. There are those on the left who aren't squeamish about the idea of the government legislating a particular morality.
I would hope that people choose to delay having sex until they are mature enough to make good and responsible decisions. Wait until they are married. I don't see a lot of evidence that people have ever done that and I don't see what business it is of the government to tell them that they should.
Hey Justin,
Please read a bit on the history of the Left and its opinions about sexual morality. Start with Eric Hobsbawm's article 'Revolution and Sex', in which he notes (and regrets) that most of the left-wing revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries (probably even before) eventually became fairly puritan in their sexual morality. Hobsbawm also notes that 'The sort of societies in which the poor are kept firmly in their place are quite familiar with institutionalized outbursts of free sex, like carnivals.' Remember how the communist states used to boast about their having got rid of prostitution. Remember Cuba's closing down the brothels and rehabilitating prostitutes in the 1960s. Remember that Marx and Engels called homosexuality a typical bourgeois perversion that would disappear with the revolution. Remember that Israeli Kibbutzes in the 1960s surprised anthropologists by their de-sexualized nature (this was not actually by anyone's design, it appeared to arise out of the byproduct of communal child raising). Recall that Maoist China even had a slogan 'Sex is a mental disease'. Think further back- the English nonconformist churches, the Albigensians, Savonarola, More's Utopia. All (in their own way) with strong puritan tendencies, and all (relative to their time and place) on the left. I.m not necessarily endorsing any or all of this, just bringing it to your attention. There is no necessary connection between liberation from economic injustice, and sexual 'liberation'.
Two of the furthest left governments today, in Venezuela and Bolivia, are both extremel;y pro-natalist, and the government of Bolivia is actually pursuing a campaign against family planning.
I'm not particularly a fan of puritanism, but neither am I a fan of libertinism. Like I said, I think the sexual revolution was in its essence a good thing, that went too far. And no, I'm not 'squeamish' about the government legislating a particular form of morality, because I recognize it as a fact of life. That's simply what governments do. The question is whether it will be my morality, or Mark Adams' or yours, but if only by default, a government inevitably winds up pursuing one particular vision of the Good.
I'll grant the general veracity of all your historical examples. You still haven't give any evidence that the institution of marriage per se is a good defense against--I'm not even sure what you are trying to defend against. Having your daughters taken advantage of by lecherous men? My feeling is that the worst case scenario is a young marriage to an abusive husband in a society which doesn't condone divorce.
If you're not trolling, tell me why you think marriage is a better prerequisite for sex then emotional maturity? (I know a lot of people who achieve the first without the second). And if one of your daughters turns out to be a lesbian, how long should she wait to have sex?
Hector Dauphin-Gloire,
It's not about whether one agrees or not. This is about facts vs. government propaganda.
The Clinton-era ad was factual. Condoms do prevent STIs and condom use does have a beneficial public health impact.
The ad under discussion is pure propaganda. There's no evidence that abstaining from premarital sex, as opposed to, say, fully informed sex, offers any health benefits. [As you probably already know, 95% of people in the U.S. engage in premarital sex.]
Don't you love it how pseudo-intellectuals can remove the humanity from sex by abstracting it into a formless non-entity dependent on subjective values systems? Hector Dauphin-Gloire, what's the rent like in your cave? Have you really not heard a single liberal stand-up comic for the past ten years? How has the sexual revolution really gone too far? Teenage pregnancy rates have been on a secular decline for decades. If you don't like "Sex and the City," just change the channel.
"It's not that anyone literally speaks in favor of anonymous bathroom sex. But the failure to loudly condemn it is in itself a form of approval. As More says at the end of 'A Man for All Seasons'. If you talk about prostitution as just another job, or bath-house sex as just another way that people have fun, without saying that you are in favor or against, then that itself is a form of tacit consent to living in a society where these things are common."
This is so funny I don't know if the humor is intentional? Life is too short to spend it denouncing everywhere unsavory thing in the world. Certain sexual things, like priests raping kids, are important enough to denounce. But foot-tapping in a bathroom stall? What's your opinion on Lorne Michaels's decision to fire a bunch of old SNL cast members? If you don't denounce it, then you're for it.
Let's recall Hector D-G's original hit here as well:
When I start hearing my fellow left-wingers utter some mild criticism about the Folsom Street Fair, anonymous bathroom sex, pornography, prostitution, Bill Clinton's adventures, Britney Spears' exhibitionism, legalization of incest and polygamy, denigration of natural family planning and priestly celibacy, etc. then perhaps i will be more critical of ads like this one.
The straw is piled high here, but among it we can discern Hector hectoring us to the effect that Criticism Should Be Voiced of, among other things, competent adults making uncoerced choices as to how to express their sexuality, and free speech. (This is leaving out the 'legalization of incest/polygamy' thing, which to me looks like some sort of whacked quasi-Santorum riff, but feel free to educate me about whatever I missed.)
Granting that there are problematic aspects of the cultures of prostitution and porn, I mean, for example, what exactly would you criticize about Folsom St., or Bill Clinton, or Britney, that would make you anything other than a moralizing prude?
Also, there's this can of worms:
And no, I'm not 'squeamish' about the government legislating a particular form of morality, because I recognize it as a fact of life. That's simply what governments do. [...] if only by default, a government inevitably winds up pursuing one particular vision of the Good.
I'd rather say that government should leave room for citizens to pursue their own vision of the Good, without itself coming down in favor, coercively or via propaganda, of any one particular vision/version. I take that to have been a major concern of the drafters of the US constitution.
I'm not sure whether: Hector agrees with that but argues that, in practice, any given gov't winds up pushing a particular version of the good, or: Hector actively thinks gov't ought to be in the business of pushing a particular version of the good. The latter is pretty far along towards a kind of totalitarianism.
Perhaps I didn't emphasize clearly enough the first time around, so let me repeat. I'm not opposed to premarital sex, in principle. I think that sometimes it can be a good thing, when it takes place within a healthy, long-term relationship between legal adults. I am not a social conservative, and I think the idolization of marriage by social conservatives is more than a bit silly. A relationship doesn't become any better or healthier because the state puts a legal stamp on it.
that said, I do think the sexual revolution went too far. When the sexual revolution began in the 1960s, it was about women wanting to be able to use birth control and to sleep/live with their long term boyfriends, etc., and to escape unhappy marriages, all good and healthy things in and of themselves. by the 1980s, the 'sexual revolution' meant the Manhattan gay bath house scene and its heterosexual equivalents, the details of which I will spare you, because they make me want to throw up. now i believe there is nothing inevitable about the 'progress' from 1968 to 1988, slopes are only as slippery as we choose to make them. The problem is that both the conservatives and the liberals want to make this slope very slippery indeed. Conservatives because it allows them to argue that any erosion of the traditional 19th century model of married, procreative sexuality leads inevitably to Babylonian excesses. Liberals, because.....frankly, I don't know why some liberals seem to have this inexpicable attachment to the idea of abortion, promiscuity, gay bath houses, etc. Your guess is as good as mine. Babylonian excesses certainly have nothing to do with the reasons for which I consider myself on the Left. I believe we should have a moderate position on sexuality.
Yes, I do think that at least to an extent, the State ought to be promoting a vision of the Good. That's what it's there for. Read Plato. The 'drafters of the US constitution' were for the most part, a bunch of slaveholding planter-aristocrats intent on holding on to their own privileges, so forgive me if whatever they had to say about some matter is scarcely very convincing to me. I've always liked what George III had to say about them, "How strange that we hear the loudest cries for liberty from the drivers of Negroes."
There are people today making the argument that polygamy and incest should be legalized. You've heard them, I've heard them. That they do not currently occupy the seats of power is irrelevant. The fact that these arguments are even being made is the problem, and shows how in rejecting a particular, conservative conception of natural law (which it was right to reject) our society has gone to the opposite and equally perilous extreme of rejecting any concept of natural law whatsoever.
I have read Plato. Thank you for clearing up that you are a fan of totalitarianism. Though I wonder: since you think that the ideas of the Framers aren't worth listening to because of their personal moral failings, why would you have any time for Plato, who celebrated sexual relations between men and boys that would presumably "make you want to throw up"? Not to mention that slavery was also a feature of Greek society and was accepted by Plato (in the Laws) and explicitly defended by Aristotle, who put forth an argument that some people are "slaves by nature."
frankly, I don't know why some liberals seem to have this inexpicable attachment to the idea of abortion, promiscuity, gay bath houses, etc.
The attachment is to the idea of free, competent adults making their own decisions as to how to live, even if those choices would be found unappealing or repugnant by other free, competent adults.
The fact that these arguments are even being made is the problem
I'm a fan of free speech and unfettered argument, myself, rather than wishing for some sort of prior muzzling of discussion of certain topics deemed to be verboten. Thanks for the discussion.
Comments closed October 21, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I take it you mean to ask why it's running at all (that would be my question). Or is there something special about a Redskins game?
Posted by live | October 7, 2007 4:54 PM