"everyone should be abstinent"

by

MaryAnn Johanson

on February 17, 2009 6:58 PM | permalink | comments (8)

So font of wisdom Bristol Palin tells CNN.

*wipes tears*

At least she goes on to say "but it's not realistic at all.

Everyone should be abstinent. The mind boggles. Truly, it boggles.

No one should have sex ever. That's what she's saying. She may not realize that's what she's saying, but that is indeed what she's saying.

We're so insane about sex, it's, well, insane. Imagine if someone went on TV and said, "No one should be laughing." Why not? You don't actually need to laugh to survive. But look at how our culture, at every turn, is tempting us to laugh. There's comedy -- blatant, outright humorous comedy! -- on TV every night. There's jokes and puns and satire and amusing greeting-card verse everywhere we turn. No wonder even our children -- our children! -- are laughing all time. We have to stop the laughter.

We would rightly, ahem, laugh that person right out of the room. But when people, even 18-year-old kids, suggest that we should stifle another equally human impulse -- except within some very narrow confines defined by a two-thousand-year-old book -- we take them seriously and nod solemnly and commend them for their wisdom.

We should laugh them out of the room.

8 Comments

by Tonio Kruger on February 18, 2009 11:32 PM

There are a lot of women I'd take advice from but Bristol Palin is not one of them.

by david on February 23, 2009 8:53 AM

I don't know, I've met some very dumb people who probably should have remained abstinent.

by MaryAnn Johanson

on February 24, 2009 3:48 PM

And how do you enforce absintence, david?

I know you were being funny, but I'm serious. How do you convince people to refrain from engaging in what is one of the most basic human activities?

by Paul on February 24, 2009 5:33 PM

Well, in my case, the word "No" has been working pretty well. Or, "I like you as a friend." Or "I already have a boyfriend" which for years I thought meant no, but college dissuaded me of that opinion, but I didn't know when it meant "maybe" so it still had the effect of "no." Or when I found out that Americans handle sex so irresponsibly and ineptly that we have 17 times the STD rate of Amesterdam, a city where prostitution is legal. Actually, that stat was for a particular STD, but I'm too lazy to look up its spelling. Please note that is not an argument against sexual freedom, just having sex with Americans. Actually, CS Lewis compared our attitudes towards sex and towards food. He said both were natural, and too much or too little of either were bad for people. I realize that where he would draw the line of "too much or too little" is different from our hostess, but I think the basic idea is sound. And if you go to aldaily.com and scroll down a little, you can find an essay about how sex and food have switched positions in modern society; how we've gone from careful sex and mindless eating to mindless sex and careful eating.

by MaryAnn Johanson

on February 26, 2009 11:32 AM

Well, in my case, the word "No" has been working pretty well.

I guess you're trying to be funny, too, Paul. But I'm still being serious. You're suggesting that people turning you down is an effective way to promote abstinence. But you're not trying to be abstinent. So you've proven my point.

The reason some Americans are stupid about sex is because America is stupid about sex. Again, you're proving my point.

I haven't read that aldaily article, but I'd argue with the conclusion you seem to have drawn from it. We're not less "careful" about sex than we once were, we're just more open about it (but not open in the right way), and our eating wasn't "mindless," we were just less exposed to really harmful food (like high fructose corn syrup and other ultra refined carbs). I think the obesity epidemic we're coping with now puts paid to the idea that people are eating carefully... except other cultural factors are at work that make "mindful" eating hard for many people.

It all comes down to larger forces at work. When our federal government subsidizes corn *and* abstinence, you can only expect that people will get fatter and that teen pregnancies will go up. Because no one is going to stop eating or stop having sex, and when forces much larger than you put cheap crappy food and ignorance about your own body in your path, that's what's going to happen.

Most people, regardless of nationality, aren't "mindful." Most people take the path of least resistance. That's why we have to be careful about what ideas and programs we promote as a society. We shouldn't make it harder for people to live healthy lives -- we should make it easier. But that's not what we've been doing in America lately.

And I don't think we can blame Americans as individuals, per se. Because the minute the crappy American diet becomes a factor in other places, like in the U.K. and in Japan, people start getting fat and diabetic in larger numbers. If those governments started getting stupid and started promoting abstinence and limiting other information about sex and birth control, we'd see teen pregnancies going up there, too.

by Paul on March 10, 2009 5:18 PM

Yes, I was half joking the entire time. But the other half of me would remind you that lots of people end up managing to live without this most basic of human activities for much longer than people go without food or water. And from having spent two decades listening to my sexually active friends, I'm not convinced sex makes people happier, either. Love and affection are necessary, this is true, but there are lots of ways to express those. If there is not love or at least affection, then what is sex but a way to get hurt? With love and affection, sex can just be an optional extra.

by Tonio Kruger on March 10, 2009 11:37 PM

True, Paul. Sex ultimately means nothing unless there is some type of love and affection to go with it. That's one lesson I learned the hard* way. And the one time I discussed this point with a married friend, she agreed with me. Unfortunately, modern society finds it far easier to promote the idea of sex without love than vice versa. And unfortunately, people under a certain age get so afraid of being thought unsophisticated that they rarely protest this. Ironically, a lot of conservatives have taken the opposite tack from MaryAnn and have found fault with Ms. Palin because of her remarks about abstinence not being "realistic at all." Perhaps because they prefer to believe that abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.** * No pun intended. ** D'oh! Sorry, MaryAnn, I couldn't resist.

by MaryAnn Johanson

on March 11, 2009 12:22 PM

But it's not an either-or proposition. It *is* possible to be neither deliberately abstinent nor so randomly promiscuous that you're damaging your mental and/or physical health. But the Bristol Palin crowd seems to think that's the case, which is as crazy as all the other crap they pretend to buy in to (until it has to apply to them).

Leave a comment

I'm MaryAnn Johanson, writer and editor, and this is my scratch pad, idea-jotter-downer, portfolio and resume, and general hang-out blog.

• film/TV/pop culture critic at FlickFilosopher.com
• contributor, Film.com
• member, Online Film Critics Society
• member, Alliance of Women Film Journalists
• member, International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences

[become a Facebook fan]
[visit my personal Facebook page]
[follow me on Twitter]

Location: New York City
[email me]

photo by David Speranza