Maine has recently refused funds for an abstinence-only education program because federal guidelines don’t allow any of the money to be used to teach “safe sex” practices. Cause god forbid your kids have safe sex. Much better that they resort to anal-cause-it’s-not-real-sex and only-a-slut-would-use-a-condom sex.
You know, if people want to argue against teaching kids about contraception, they might want to use different language. Arguing against “safe sex” just sounds foolish. Arguing against “sin sheaths”--now that’s convincing.
Any other suggestions for an appropriately terrifying phrase to replace safe sex?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Federal sex ed guidelines prohibit “safe sex”.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/2531
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Sweet loving Jeshua, tell me that picture's a parody.
As a Maineiac I'm pleased that we did this. I am, however, unhappy with the article itself. It scare quotes the terms "safe sex" and "comprehensive education" and it implies that the debate is over weather or not abstinence should be included in sex-ed at all.
I want that T-shirt.
Is it true that only sluts use condoms?
I have never heard that.
The logic tends to go as follows: If you carry condoms, you are *planning* to have sex, which only sluts do. Thus, condoms=sluts.
Well, it is true that sluts plan to have sex. So maybe we can break it down with ven diagrams and get this entire issue worked out??
Hmmmm. Instead of "safe sex" - "sperm roulette"! It's scary AND it gives you a mental image of tiny little revolvers loaded with sperm!