Jason Evert #fundie #kinkshaming

Jason Evert #fundie #kinkshaming chastity.com

ABSTINENCE IS FINE, BUT DON’T YOU THINK SCHOOLS SHOULD TEACH ABOUT CONDOMS FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO BE SEXUALLY ACTIVE?

When I played college baseball, we were expected not to use steroids. Sure, some athletes do it anyway, but no coach would ever walk into the locker room and say, “We want you all to abstain from using performance enhancing drugs. But since we know some of you will do it anyway, we’ll have a basket of free, clean syringes in the dugout,” with a special class for those who don’t want to abstain.

19 comments

Dunno if he fucked around, but at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics the only thing that Fucked Around was the then Cycling 4Km Pursuit record: it Found Out it was wrong when Chris Boardman destroyed it. Fact: Condoms are available for athletes during Olympics. All Boardman needed was that Lotus 108 carbon fibre bike. Of course - like all other athletes there - he gave samples before & after events. For performance enhancing drugs he tested negative.

With condoms, one doesn’t need to find out they’re positive: and for things that can not only jeopardise Olympic medal wins.

Chris is still alive, and still has that Olympic Gold. When it comes to major cycling wins, just ask Lance Armstrong.

Oh, wait.

When I played college baseball, we were expected not to use steroids. Sure, some athletes do it anyway, but no coach would ever walk into the locker room and say, “We want you all to abstain from using performance enhancing drugs. But since we know some of you will do it anyway, we’ll have a basket of free, clean syringes in the dugout,” with a special class for those who don’t want to abstain.

I dunno, I would have no problem with a coach who said such a thing. I utterly fail to see the logic behind why that would not be a good thing. If “some athletes do it anyway” then why the hell not at least make it a little bit safer for them?

Uhm, since when is just having safe, sane, & consensual sex the same thing as using illegal steroids?

@Timjer #182531

Ever since wingnuts decided premarital sex should be illegal.

Teenagers are going to have sex. Get over it. As long as it’s consensual, with other teenagers, and they’re using protection and contraceptives as needed, it’s none of your business. Harm reduction does a hell of a lot more to help people than self-righteous moralizing. With teens, the latter is only going to make them more interested in whatever it is you’re railing against.

On the other hand, on every boat i was ever on, the corpsman pushed condoms.
The guy whose job it was to keep us safe from avoidable harm pushed condoms in every port.
He didn’t care if you were married, or virgin, or Christain, or Muslim, or gay, or about as social as a tire iron. If you went ashore, he gave you condoms.
Because every independent duty corspman has seen it all. Married men with STDs, guys insisting they were still virgins with STDs, Christains, Mormons, Muslims, elitists, IQs of above 140.
Better safe than sorry.
The fact that they have genitals means there’s going to be a certain amount of sex. We can help them avoid unnecessary consequences, or we can feel smug when they come to harm.
Fuck the smug.

@TheKingOfRhye #182522

Because in their minds the risks shouldn’t be lowered, they should be raised to force abstinence of anything they deem “immoral” through fear. Same goes for drugs. You can tell people like this all day long that punishing the users and furthering both drug use and criminality with senseless and ever increasing “wars on drugs” is pointless, and that the few countries who instead choose to help people with drug problems and put much effort into information campaigns and even going as far as helping heroine addicts get their fix in a secure and measured way, showed huge improvements, and they not only will not believe you, but will double down on their way being necessary.
They want people to stay uninformed and in fear as long as possible, to then use the negative outcomes of this to even further control their lives. Just look at the high rate of teen pregnancies in areas with abstinence only policies in schools. No one can tell me that putting these policies in place is in any way rational.

@ChrisBP747 #182541
heroine addicts

People addicted to, say, Supergirl, Wonder Woman or Katniss Everdeen?

I remember when I was in high school and we for some strange reason got an “abstinence only” proponent instead of proper sex ed one year. He insisted abstinence was the only 100% guaranteee against pregnancy or STDs so why bother bringing anything else up like condoms or the actual biological process of impregnation and “provoking curiosity” like it was only logical if somebody mentioned jumping off a cliff into the sea and how landing in water from a certain height would be just as lethal as if you faceplanted on concrete everyone would march to the nearest bridge just to see.

I asked him if a blowjob was sex. He responded that I don’t have to worry about questions like that if I’m not having sex, notably not saying yes or no. I countered that going by the information that he was giving us the correct answer is “what the hell is a blowjob” and pointed out that kind of ignorance makes even the idea of not having sex a lot harder especially if you’re dealing with somebody trying to push you into it without your full understanding which is often the case with groomers who first build a relationship of trust to exploit so all that vague deflecting bullshit about “things you’re uncomfortable with” or “ask someone you trust” become traps.

… So I got a talking to from the school counsellor.

There’s a major values disconnect here. The ones promoting comprehensive sex education range from “it’s totally fine, as long as it’s safe, consensual, and among similar ages” to “we really shouldn’t encourage it, but while far from ideal it’s not the end of the world, we might as well equip them to be safe”. The “if they’re going to anyway” language is largely a conciliation towards people near the latter end of that scale.

The ones promoting abstinence-only education mostly go well beyond “far from ideal”. To them, it’s just plain morally wrong. STIs and unwanted pregnancies are just punishments for moral failure. (Though this gets weird when pregnancy becomes both a blessing and a punishment. That’s not actually a contradiction, as the opposite of punishment is reward, it’s just weird.) Teaching kids to be safe is like teaching potential criminals to not get caught.

This metaphor doesn’t land because it presumes that nearly everyone sees adolescent sex as a severe negative, similar to how most people would see steroid abuse, it’s just that the sex-ed promoters are recklessly tolerant of moral failure for some strange reason. The fact that the people they’re aiming this metaphor at simply don’t see it that way renders it incoherent if one doesn’t know where they’re coming from… and fails to provide any reason to change their views if they do.

(Side note: Steroid *use*, not abuse, is perfectly legal in most countries. One can use them in moderation, and while under medical supervision. Though if you plan to go pro, you need to be off them for long enough for it to be undetectable. So while the general public might have an ignorantly unjustified view of steroids in general, for those in the know, it doesn’t quite work on this level either.)

@Passerby #182577
“He responded that I don’t have to worry about questions like that if I’m not having sex, notably not saying yes or no”
Actually, that answer places blowjobs squarely and completely in the group: Sex havers.
If the celibate don’t have to worry about blowjobs, there’s no way it’s a form of not-sex.
So his clever evasion was actually an answer.

Which certainly would have gotten me a talk with the counsellor. But i’d have asked Mrs. Burton to back me up on the included/excluded sets.

@Zinnia #182580

I have taken steroids, namely Prednisone, to treat my lupus flares. My coworkers were very concerned until I explained the difference between anabolic and corticosteroids.

but no coach would ever walk into the locker room and say, “We want you all to abstain from using performance enhancing drugs. But since we know some of you will do it anyway, we’ll have a basket of free, clean syringes in the dugout”

Speaking of drugs, there’s programs giving clean needles to addicts to prevent the spreading of blood-borne diseases such as HIV, along with drug testing to check the presence of poison.

As for steroids, they’re banned in sport because, in addition of being disloyal and thus cheating, their abuse is also health-endangering.

@Zinnia #182580

I’ve heard similar analogies before, in that case I think it was “why don’t we teach every child from age 3 and up how to safely use a gun because some of them are going to use guns anyway”.

@PMSFKS #182595

Who would even make that particular argument though? At least sincerely. There’s quite a lot of overlap between the “abstinence only” and “would train their 8-10 year old to use hunting rifles, or at least be okay with others doing it” groups.

Just recalled, when i worked in my grandfather’s drug store, the Idaho legal age to buy condoms was 19. May have changed since then, what with the AIDS crisis. But anyway, i got a strict lecture on that, before i ran the register.
If a kid worked up the nerve to buy condoms, we sold them to him.
Asked if he had ANY questions. Anything at all. We can go into the back, if you need.
Never asked for ID.
Didn’t drag kids into the store for a seminar, but if they made up their mind, they should be supported.

@Zinnia #182600

I believe his thought process was ’I’m talking to a liberal who must hate guns, so if I compare sex ed for children to teaching children to use guns, they will realize that the former is bad’. Or something.

Not the same thing. At all.

Jason Evert #fundie #kinkshaming chastity.com

19 comments

Confused?