To sex or not to sex

Right after Newsweek informed us that Seniors are having a lot of sex, Steven Crowder, a Christian conservative online video maker (or something?) and Fox News contributor writes a column for FoxNews.com titled Why NOT having sex may be good for you. and yes, it’s about abstinence.

While Christians telling us how awesome it is to not have sex strikes a lot of us as… awkward.. Crowder weathers the subject in a decent manner, mostly by noting that it is America’s last taboo. Advocate anything you want or advocate NOT doing anything you want, but if it’s sex, then you make people uncomfortable and are subject to a higher scorn. Dude has a point there.

The best line of the column is an observation I’ve made myself (hence why it’s the best), which is that liberals exempt sex from their list of things they feel obligated and entitled to scold you for doing or legally prevent you from doing. -and I don’t say that as a knock against liberals, as it should be noted that I have no problem scolding or legally preventing people from doing things I judge in my own infinite wisdom to be bad for them individually or society at large, thus I agree with a lot of the fatty food regulations, calorie restrictions, soda bans, smoking bans, etc. Intellectual honesty just requires that I point out the contradiction in my sides advocacy:

Sure, Michelle Obama can run around the country and condemn little fatties for inhaling Little Debbies, but if you try and apply that same helpful, healthful concept to sex, it’s seen as pushy and/or prudish.

It’s a logically sound and solid statement. yet still.. passionate advocates of abstinence still creep me out.

Listen, one doesn’t need to be religious (nor a rocket scientist) to see the value of abstinence. Let’s disregard the immediately eliminated risk of increasingly popular STD’ and STI’s. Heck, let’s even discount the statistical data showing that sexual exclusivity seems overwhelmingly conducive to a successful marriage .Abstinence also provides an incomparable bond of trust in a relationship.

Yes, I admit it, I’m in a long-term relationship and I’m abstinent. Scandalous, I know. It’s an incredibly difficult thing to do (mostly for me, because she’s way out of my league), and that’s what makes it so important.

Okay, I like that. got to admit. I think it’s sweet. and I think its even sweeter that my now infant, future bride is preparing to save herself for me in the 10-20 years from now when we wed.

Crowder appeared on Red Eye to talk about his column and the subject at large and the result is pure awesome. Red Eye airs at 3AM eastern on the Fox News Channel and it’s pretty much the best show on cable news.

The creepy leering glare by Crowder in the videos freezeshot is just a bonus:

When trying to decode why I am not on Crowders side of the issue, especially when I acknowledge that he makes multiple solid points, I figured it all comes down to the quote from the clip that “ya, i’m at a higher risk of getting an STD. i’m also at a higher risk of having fun”.

It’s juvenile, but its lulz worthy. and true.

South Park slams Disneys teen sex marketing

In the recent episode of South Park, titled The Ring, Kenny takes his new girlfriend to a Jonas Brothers’ concert where they each get purity rings. Somehow this turns into harsh criticism of Disney that went completely over my head, which makes me think it was bullshit since not much goes over my head besides hats and maybe a fez on a Sunday afternoon.

I thought the episode was misplaced satire, even though I don’t know very much about the band. The thesis appeared to be that Disney is a big hypocritical fraud by promoting a band whose members don’t have sex, yet are sexually appealing. Huh? Where exactly is the hypocrisy beef? Did I miss something? They don’t prance around without a shirt (like I do) or have suggestive lyrics in their songs and I’ve never seen the brothers hump the air or pump around suggestively like the South Park versions of them did.

south park comedy central jonas brothers

So wtf? The South Park guys seem to just really hate the idea of teenagers not having sex whenever they feel like it. I’d get it if the Band appealed primarily to 17-23 year olds cuz then I’d be all duh – screw the purity ring and screw me. But aren’t the Jonas Bros 10 to 14 year old territory primarily? And eh… Isn’t this a group that maybe should probably not be encouraged to banging? Why is role modeling a no-sex policy to kids and young teens such a bad thing to deserve scorn and ridicule? The South Park kids are in 4th grade.

Combined with what I said earlier about the secondary charge against the Disney Corporation who peddles these sexy no-sex boyzes not making any more sense to me than targeting kids who aren’t having sex – wtf was with this episode? If it was all just an excuse to show Mickey Mouse beating the fuck out of someone and cursing then okay, fine, but we’ve come to expect a little more depth and meaning behind the crudeness of South Park gags.

This episode seemed 8 years too late and should have been about Britney Spears. She was much more obviously marketed on a foundation of sex from her outfits to her music videos to her orgasm moans in every other song. But the Jonas Brothers? really? It seemed like South Park was just attacking them simply because young girls like them. Therefore something sinister is going on behind the scenes? Maybe I’m missing something but it didn’t make any sense to me.