"It's only rape if he's not my religion"

I might write more about this later - once I've had time to let it settle in my brain and I stop with the mindless exclamations of "No, seriously, what the hell?", but for now I'll just leave this here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

So a nice Israeli Jewish lady meets a guy who introduces himself, at least by name, in a manner that implies that he is a nice Jewish boy, and he's looking for some love. They go off together and have sex and, I assume, a good time is had by all. Then he reveals that actually he's not Jewish. Since she's now sullied herself with gross non-Jew bodily fluids, our young lass does the only reasonable thing: accuses him of rape. And the jury does the only reasonable thing: finds him guilty. He's off for an 18-month stay in prison.

So, uh...as I said, I'll try to come up with some more cool-headed thoughts later, but for now: seriously, what the hell?

Some historical reflection

Did you hear about the Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to sign a marriage license? He refused because he was concerned that the parents, who are of different races, would have a child.

He's not racist, he just doesn't believe in mixing the races "like that".

A few points:
1. If you don't believe in 'mixing races' and go so far as actively preventing it, guess what? You're racist.
2. It is no longer 1950.
3. He's concerned because, in his universe, people don't like interracial children:

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

So, uh...I've got some bad news, I guess?
4. Seriously, it's not 1950.
5. Nor is it 1967, when we stopped doing stupid shit like that.
6. Says the justice:

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

Well, my read on it is slightly different, in that I read the situation as you're being a dick who's blatantly breaking the law because you're racist. And saying "no, I won't marry you because I'm a racist dick" is indeed mistreating people.
7. My god, am I actually compiling a list of "things that are wrong with denying people a marriage license based on race"? In 2009? Nearly a year after we elected a black president? What the hell?
8. He also says:

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

..."Piles and piles?" He lets black people use his bathroom, therefore he's not racist? What the hell, does he think we'd otherwise assume he's got his own little Jim Crow setup at his house? Or that if he happens to have black visitors (which, somehow, I imagine isn't as frequently as he's trying to express) he makes them go piss in the backyard? The "I'm not racist, I have ________ friends" argument isn't particularly meaningful to begin with, but his phrasing is just baffling.

14 year old abuses herself

A 14 year old in my fair home state has been charged with both possession and distribution of child pornography.

What that means is she took and posted explicit photographs of herself and put them on her own MySpace page for her boyfriend to see. If she is convicted, under Megan's Law, she'll be labeled as a sex offender.

For posting naked pictures she took of herself.

Honestly, I think the most interesting thing that might come out of this is if she could be tried as an adult for it, because if she's an adult, then are her own nudie shots really child porn?

Let's talk about balls!

Purity balls, that is.  The creepy, creepy, creepy 'swear your virginity over to your daddy' things.  Time apparently thinks that they're swell and in no way creepy.

It was an elbow in the ribs from his wife that drove Ken Lane to his first purity ball with their daughter Hannah, now 11. Tonight is their fourth, and they are sitting in the gold-and-white Broadmoor ballroom, picking at the chicken Florentine and trying to explain what they're doing here. "My kids are on loan to me for a season; it's important how I use that time," Ken is saying as a string quartet plays softly. "There's a lot for us to talk through--the decisions she'll have to make are more complex. I want to be close enough to her that she can come talk to me. That's what my wife understood. I didn't understand the role dads can play to set her up for success.

"Okay, so far it's pretty benign.  I'm not a tremendous fan of this approach but, hey, fine.  Let's continue to the next paragraph...

In the face of the hook-up culture of casual sexual experimentation, he explains, with its potential physical and emotional risks, he wants to model an alternative. Even with older teenagers, many of these families don't believe in random dating but rather intentional dating, which typically begins with a young man's asking a father for permission to get to know his daughter. Lane was so stymied by how exactly that conversation would go that he even asked Randy Wilson if he could sit at a nearby table and listen in one day when Wilson met one of Khrystian's potential suitors at a local Starbucks. "We're trying to be realistic," Lane says. "I'm not ready to be like India--have arranged marriages. But there is some wisdom there, in that at least the parents are involved."

...And take a screeching hard right straight into Loony Land.  "Random" dating?  Asking for dad's permission to "get to know" a teenage girl?  What the hell?  Amongst the many, many issues with this is the fact that, unless Little Princess is cloistered in an all-girls boarding school, she's going to get to know guys even without Daddy's permission.  Seriously, that's just ridiculous.  You want a 15-year-old boy to sit down with a potential girlfriend's father to ask permission to take her to the movies?  What universe do these people live in?*

So they're a lot of crazy.  Let's move on to Time's take:

Maybe mixed messages aren't just inevitable; they're valuable. On the one hand, for all the conservative outcry, there is no evidence that giving kids complete and accurate information about sex and contraception encourages promiscuity. On the other, a purity pledge basically says sex is serious. That it's not to be entered into recklessly. To deny kids information, whether about contraception or chastity, is irresponsible; to mock or dismiss as unrealistic the goal of personal responsibility in all its forms may suit the culture, but it gives kids too little power, too little control over their decisions, as though they're incapable of making good ones. The research suggests they may be more capable of high standards than parents are. "It's always tempting as a parent to say, Do as I say, not as I do," says a father who's here for the first time. "But it's more valuable to make the commitment yourself. Children can spot hypocrisy very quickly."

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.  For one, you know what else is generally regarded as serious and not to be entered into lightly?  Pledges and oaths, you asswits.  An eight-year-old has no idea what they're committing to in this case, for the love of god.  If you're four years away from really entering puberty, swearing to daddy to stay his virginal princess is rather meaningless.  

Secondly, I do agree absolutely that withholding any information regarding sex when kids are being taught about it is grossly negligent and setting them up for failure.  It wasn't really great but compared to a lot of programs, the sex-ed component of my high school health class was pretty solid.  Here are the diseases you can get if you have sex, and some of them can't be treated.  Here are various ways to prevent disease and/or pregnancy.  None of them work perfectly, but some - such as condoms used together with the Pill - are nearly perfect if used properly.  Abstinence is the only truly perfect way of avoiding sex-related unpleasantries**.  Sex can be a big deal both physically and emotionally.

There.  That's what kids need to be taught about sex.  It's supported by scientific fact, not religious woo-woo bullshit.  Teaching about contraception does not take away from the message that sex is serious; in fact, if it's done right, it strengthens that message: Here's what condoms prevent, fun things like gonorrhea and syphilis and babies.  Father-daughter dances do nothing to really support that message, but rather, they treat sex and virginity as some sort of ethereal...thing that has more to do with being Daddy's Little Girl*** than making rational choices about your physical and emotional health.  

Argh.

*Okay, I can't possibly resist saying this, but I will bet you anything that these are people who do not hesitate to scream obscene condemnations at Islam for their rules regarding male/female interactions.  I bet you anything.  

**So one day in either 11th or 12th grade health class, we're given these newsletter-pamphlet things published by the Wasting Department Money branch of the education or public health department of a local university.  One of the stories - and I remember this so vividly - is "Think Abstinence is 100% Effective?  Think Again!"

...yeah.

So I read it, and it's some girl's boo-hoo story about how she swore she was going to be abstinent until marriage.  Then she had sex with a guy and got pregnant.  So the moral of the story was that humans have sex drives, and abstinence doesn't work if you don't, you know, abstain.  *sigh*

***But hey, if we want to just support father-daughter bonding, I'm all for that.  Dads are great.  The world needs more active, involved dads.  My dad is and always was fantastic: there when I needed him, we did fun stuff together, taught me how to ride a bike and throw a ball and all that.  Father-daughter bonding is absolutely great and something we as a society probably need more of, but intertwining it with virginity turns it into a creepy, possession-themed thing.

Oh god no....

I'm writing a paper on Romer v. Evans, a Supreme Court case that struck down an anti-anti-discrimination measure (Colorado: "No, you can't offer special protection to homosexuals" Supreme Court: "Yes, you can."). Scalia wrote a dissent, which is basically a big heap of homophobia, smothered in idiocy and a slipper-slope argument.

My mind started to wander a bit as I reread his bit about how "Someone who admits a tendency to want to engage in sodomy, which is illegal (though actually not in CO, but that doesn't matter because he's not saying if they do it, just if they want to) obviously shouldn't be afforded any special favors." My mind starts scoffing at that, in my Godless Liberal Way: Oh, what, and Scalia never in his life received a blowjob?

Then I realized Oh god, I'm thinking about Antonin Scalia's sex life.

*shudder*

Thank you Senator Specter!

Sen. Specter has been trying to squirrel away nearly $900,000 for abstinance-only sex ed in PA.

“There are people who say that abstinence education doesn’t work,” Mr. Specter said, but “I’ve seen a lot of indicators that it does work.” In addition, he said, “I have 12 million people in Pennsylvania, they have a lot of different ideas,” some of them strongly favor abstinence education, and their values “ought to be recognized.”

Okay. What evidence is there that it does work? Because a minute or two with Google reveals plenty of evidence it doesn't, and, uh...none that it does.

So, yeah, let's try to spend that money on something that doesn't work, because Specter has seen "indicators" that it does work.

Either hypocrisy or something else

It's now going around the Interwebs that Condi Rice shares a house with another woman (a "liberal filmmaker"). A little bit odd, I'm sure Rice can afford her own place, but whatever.

They also share a credit line. For, uh, groceries, I guess.

Also, an openly-gay professor is the third co-owner of the house.

Hm. What's that phrase about "do as I say, not as I do?"

I have no true interest in Rice's personal life. As a general rule, I don't give a crap about any politicians family/sexual orientation/financial situation/religion/etc. But if you're such a high-ranking official in an administration that is so vehemently anti-gay, then...I don't know, perhaps it might be appropriate to provide the public with a bit of information.

"Don't have sex"

There's been a bit in the news lately about abstinance-only sex-ed programs. It's becoming more and more apparent that they don't work. Granted, this is something that pretty much anyone in the target age group could have told you from the start ("You, there, 16-year-old! Is the idea of having sex appealing to you?" "Uh...yes." "Will my telling you not to have sex make you not have sex?" "...No..."), but it's nice to hear that it's finally getting some press. Most of it is based off this report (.pdf).

My problem with the programs (beyond it's a useless waste of money, of course), is twofold. For one, it assumes a moral viewpoint that, while it is the norm in this country, is not universal. Not everyone sees the value of abstaining until marriage (hell, not everyone sees the value of marriage). It's a norm, yes, but the opposite of the norm does not necessarily lead to direct harm. It can, but that's not a given, and I'm sort of uncomfortable with requiring schools to teach things like that.

The second issue is that the federal government's idea of abstinence-only means you can't speak in favor of using contraceptives of any sort, and that's just a thousand types of stupid. If you're in a private Catholic school? It's still stupid, but knock yourselves out. If you're in a public school, then we have a problem, because there is no non-religious way in which you can justify that. It's an indisputable fact that condoms prevent disease and pregnancy. No, they're not perfect, and yes, you can still get sick/pregnant even using them properly. But the chance is drastically reduced, making it a rather common-sense issue.

If we must be puritanical, what's wrong with saying "You probably don't want to have sex until you're married, because there are a lot of risks both physical and emotional that go with it, so maybe it's best to just wait. But, if you can't wait, USE A CONDOM YOU STUPID IDIOTS."

I mean, other than the part where teachers are generally discouraged from calling their students stupid idiots.