Ever Heard of Hormones, Dawn?
Via Mouse Words I got a scary glimpse into the minds of conservatives. I suspect that the author of this National Review article, Dawn Eden, is actually an extraterrestrial disguised (barely) as a human, because she obviously has no concept of human biology. In regard to "Consent is Sexy" buttons distributed as part of a campus anti-rape campaign, she says:
The "Consent is Sexy" campaign means to show that sex should only be consensual. Fair enough. But changing the concept of consent in teenagers' eyes to something "sexy" and therefore desirable — as in "everybody's doing it" — gives them the false message that their best option is to engage in premarital sexual activity.
This is perhaps one of the stupidest things I have read since that book review about how the Nephilim built the pyramids. She is saying that kids who wouldn't have had sex otherwise will now have sex because someone wore a button that said, "Consent is Sexy." But here's what our alien friend Dawn Eden, if that is her real name, does not know about the creatures whose planet she is infiltrating: Young humans don't need anyone to convince them that sex is "desirable." Millions of years of evolution (which Dawn likely will claim never happened, as part of her alien overlord's scheme to disrupt human development so we will be an easy conquest) have seen to that.
There is no way to make consent, in and of itself, more desirable than sex. No one who isn't interested in having sex is going to say, "Well, I'm not interested in sex, but consent is sexy, so let's do it!" That makes no sense whatsoever. What our alien friend Dawn Eden wants to do is pretend that abstinence-based programs will stop all young people from having sex, ever, and therefore anything other than preaching abstinence is encouraging sex.
But, of course, we humans know that some kids are going to have sex no matter what adults tell them. Refusing to accept this fact, on moral grounds, doesn't make it any less true. Dawn Eden can stick her fingers in her ears and go "Blahblahblah!" pretending she can't hear us, but meanwhile her abstinence-based education will not only have not stopped kids from having sex, but it won't have done a damned thing to stop rape either, which is the freakin' point of the buttons in the first place!
Eden says, "In other words, students are being told that they're safe from violence — if only they consent to sex." No, it's telling students that it is better to have consensual sex than nonconsensual sex. That's all. Does Dawn Eden disagree with this? Is it better to rape someone than to have sex with a slut? That seems to be Dawn Eden's position here.
Besides, in any case, Eden's answer boils down to, "You are safe from violence if you aren't a slut." Maybe on Eden's planet this is true, but here on Earth, it isn't. Being abstinent one's self does not protect a person from being raped by someone else who isn't abstinent. And, if someone is not deterred from committing rape by the social and legal consequences, does Dawn Eden really think that a little abstinence education is going to stop him or her?
[M]ore women die of cervical cancer — caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV),
against which condoms offer no protection — than die of AIDS. Now, that's
violence against women — and its name is "consent."
Gee, is it just a coincidence that Dawn Eden is equating women having sex with women being raped as both being "violence against women," or do you think it's because Dawn Eden's Bible told her that sluts deserve what they get, be it rape or cervical cancer? I mean, if 4,921 deaths from HPV is "violence against women," what about the much greater number of women who die in car accidents each year? Or heart disease? If consenting to sex, that is to say, choosing to have sex, constitutes "violence against women," then women who choose ("consent") to drive, smoke, and eat fatty foods are "violence against women" of a vastly greater magnitude than having sex. But where is Dawn Eden's screed against those things? There isn't one, because the fact is that Ms. Eden is simply trying to make us believe that her personal morality and distaste for sluts is not the real reason she is preaching against slutiness. But it is.
For that matter, many more women every year are killed by their husbands than die of HPV. Dawn Eden wants us to tell women that having sex outside of a married, monogamous (as if you can ever really know) relationship will kill them, and therefore they should get married before having sex. But she doesn't tell them that, by the same standard, getting married will kill you too, and therefore, in comparison, it is much safer to have premarital sex than get married.
Faced with such a high rate of death and illness from sexual diseases —
particularly ones that, like HPV, are preventable only through abstinence and
monogamy — the Planned Parenthood-led anti-abstinence stance betrays an agenda
that steamrolls over any real concern for women's health.
Planned Parenthood and the other groups who work with them are not anti-abstinence and Dawn Eden knows it. They are pro-abstinence, but against pretending that abstinence education is 100% effective and therefore no other education is needed.
Using my conservative-to-English dictionary, I have translated what Dawn Eden is really saying: "Faced with the just punishment of sluts through contracting sexual diseases — particularly ones that, like HPV, are preventable only through getting married and becoming frigid — the Planned Parenthood-led slut-friendly stance betrays an agenda that steamrolls over letting sluts die of horrible diseases as they deserve to."