 |
Monday
March 01, 2004
|
|
NEWS AND FEATURES
|
Sex in George Bush’s America
By
Justin Kendall
justinkendall@bpcdm.com
Sex
in George Bush’s America. Most people laugh at the thought. “Is there
any?” some quip. Others, like syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, get
depressed. In light of the president’s State of the Union Address in
which W. promised to double federal funding for
abstinence-until-marriage education and hinted that he might support a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as being strictly between a
man and a woman, Cityview decided to take a look at the state of sex in
Bush’s America. We talked to (s)experts from across the country and on
both sides of the bedroom debates. Here’s what they had to say about
the president’s culture of sex, or the lack thereof.
Dan Savage says he will abstain from sex with
President Bush. Most Americans will. Everyone loves abstinence in
theory, Savage says, but few people practice it. It’s one of those good
ideas for everyone else.
“George Bush can shake his abstinence [stick] in
our face whenever he wants to and it’s not going to inspire Americans
to stop having sex,” Savage says. “It seems a bizarre concern for the
president of the United States. Let’s worry about the
half-trillion-dollar deficit. … It’s not your job to worry about
whether my trousers are up or down right now, however old I am.”
Savage, who pens Savage Love for Seattle alt-weekly
The Stranger, has a solution for those who want every unmarried person
to stop the bedroom friction: spend a half trillion dollars on chastity
belts.
Savage also finds it interesting that those
preaching from the abstinence pulpit are invariably the “people who no
one on earth wants to have sex with,” he says.
“No one wants to sleep with John Ashcroft or
William Bennett or Jerry Falwell or Lou Sheldon,” Savage says. “All of
us out there having sex should just tell them we’re not because they’ll
have no proof to the contrary.”
Sex talk has always been an interest of
Republicans, Savage explains. It plays to the values of people in “red
states,” and although they are playing to their constituency, they’re
also enacting policies that destroy working-class people living in
those states, Savage says. They do so by playing to people’s fears, be
they about sex or black people, social unrest or Muslims, he says.
“It’s one of the ironies of the Democratic Party’s
paralysis and the Republican Party’s success,” he says. “Everyone who
is voting for the Republicans who isn’t filthy, stinking rich is
getting screwed by Republicans. Maybe the Republicans should abstain
from screwing working-class Americans who they fooled into voting for
them.”
No sex until you’re hitched
Mary Kay Casey agrees with the president on
abstinence being the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases
and unintended pregnancies. It’s a hard position to disagree with.
Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, where Casey works as director of
education and outreach services, teaches abstinence as “the first
defense” against both.
“The problem is, it’s not used 100 percent,” she
says.
Opponents of abstinence-only education echo the
same concerns. Proof the programs work doesn’t exist, they say, and the
Bush administration is abandoning science in favor of ideology.
Abstinence-only education is a vague notion, never
fully defined, Casey says.
“Does he mean abstinence from penis-vaginal
intercourse? Well, what we know is that young people are engaging in
oral sex earlier and more frequently and some of them are doing so and
saying that they are protecting their virginity. What’s that about?”
The vagueness becomes apparent when talking with
Linda Klepacki, manager of abstinence education for Focus on the
Family, which supports the president’s abstinence-until-marriage
programs. The programs vary from school to school, “but certainly the
overall caveat on abstinence until marriage is very obvious: We believe
that abstinence from any sexual behavior until marriage is the
healthiest choice,” she says.
“It’s been my experience over 25 years of teaching
sexuality education that kids are desperately hungry to know how they
can say no to sex and how they can be safe until marriage and not have
to engage in sexual behavior of any sort,” Klepacki says. “So to say
that all kids want to know how to put on a condom and how to use
contraceptives and that since they’re going to be sexually active, here
are behaviors they can use is just not true.”
Klepacki admits it’s too early to say
abstinence-until-marriage programs work, but she does say comprehensive
sex education “certainly does not work because we have higher epidemics
of sexually transmitted diseases today than we ever have in this
history of the United States. And if, in fact, comprehensive sex
education did work, then we should see very low numbers in STDs.”
Programs teaching abstinence and the benefits of
contraception have proven positive results in delaying sex, its
frequency and increasing contraceptive use, says Evelyn Becker, deputy
communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, which fights for
women’s reproductive rights.
“It’s by censoring information that abstinence-only
programs can actually harm young people because they put them at the
risk of STDs and pregnancy,” Becker says. “Young people need facts, not
blanket prohibition.”
Many say the Bush administration’s programs are
doing just that.
“In an abstinence-only approach, it’s not OK to lie
to young people to make a point,” says Heather Johnston Nicholson,
director of research for Girls Incorporated, an education and advocacy
group for young girls.
Abstinence-only programs feed kids misinformation,
which they will carry the rest of their lives, says Adrienne Verrilli,
director of communication for the Sexuality Information and Education
Council of the U.S.
Verrilli says abstinence-only programs will say
condoms fail one in six times, which isn’t true. Condoms are 99 percent
effective in preventing transmission of HIV or unintended pregnancy
when used consistently and correctly, she says.
“Kids are going to have sex and they’re not going
to use protection,” Verrilli says. “So we are putting an entire
generation of young people at risk.”
Sex education is more than condoms vs. abstinence,
she says. It’s how couples relate, communicate and feel comfortable
with each other.
“Sex is a natural and healthy part of people’s
lives,” Verrilli says. “You can’t be told something’s dirty and awful
and bad your whole life and then suddenly when you’re married you’re
not going to think that anymore.
“I really need to know how abstinence falls into
our top 10 issues when we’re in the middle of a recession, a jobless
recovery, a war, a massive budget deficit, 44 million people without
health insurance and all this president can come up with is a
multimillion-dollar program telling kids not to have sex,” Verrilli
says.
Saving sex for marriage implies too many things,
says Deborah L. Tolman, director of the research department of the
National Sexuality Research Center at San Francisco State University.
It implies sex is sexual intercourse, everyone will get married and
both are the norm.
“The bottom line is there is no scientific evidence
to support the notion that marriage is normal, necessary or natural,”
Tolman says. “It is a social idea.”
With some people choosing not to get married and
several ways to form a family in America, abstinence education excludes
many people, Tolman says. It also leaves out some of the young people
it intends to reach, such as teens who have already engaged in sexual
intercourse and gay and lesbian youth.
Adds Marjorie Signer, communications director for
the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice: “Our concern is that
the Bush administration’s policies are promoting lack of information,
lack of honesty and they’re doing this for political reasons, to appeal
to a certain political base that has ideas grounded in their personal
religious beliefs, or, sometimes we say, dogma.”
The underlying message is sex is dirty, and
pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease is a punishment for having
sex, Signer says.
“It’s not only negative toward people who are not
married or who are younger, but it is also negative to people who are
having marital sex, saying, ‘If you have sex, you should always be open
to conception,’” Signer says. “That’s a view that probably many people
don’t share. It’s a decidedly religious view.”
The right’s hypocrisy
Dennis Hof doesn’t have a problem with conservative
views. He has a problem with hypocrisy. The owner of the World Famous
BunnyRanch, a brothel in Northern Nevada, and star of HBO’s “Cathouse,”
Hof has seen firsthand the destruction of hypocritical right-wing
Republicans. He was in Larry Flynt’s office when the Hustler magazine
publisher offered a million-dollar reward for information about the
marital affairs of members of Congress during the Bill Clinton-Monica
Lewinsky scandal.
“I listened to the hundreds of phone calls coming
in,” Hof says. “This [Robert] Livingston was two days away from being
the third most powerful person in this country, the speaker of the
House. Guess what? He went up in flames. Larry could have absolutely
buried this guy except he got the call from Livingston’s wife saying,
‘Please, you’ve ruined his political career, don’t destroy our family.’
Larry Flynt showed him the compassion not to do that. You’ve got all of
these people. This [Rep.] Henry Hyde. Great, take the shot at Bill
Clinton but guess what? You had a mistress.”
At the time of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Hof
conducted a 90-day survey of the BunnyRanch’s johns. He found his
customer base was two-to-one Democrats. The kicker?
“The Republicans spent three times as much money
and are much kinkier,” Hof says.
A sign outside the BunnyRanch reads, “Warning: This
establishment features sexual entertainment. If this offends you,
please do not enter the property. There is a turnaround area provided
for you.” This is full disclosure, Hof says.
“As long as there is that type of disclosure, what
does anybody care what’s going on behind the doors of the BunnyRanch?”
Hof asks. “I don’t like hypocrisy in George Bush’s America because they
can’t live it. They just can’t live it.”
The examples are plenty. Hof points to former New
York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: “Hey, Rudy, you close up the topless
clubs so there’s no sex for the poor conventioneer who comes to town,
but easy for you to do because you’ve got a mistress and a wife. Where
does it end? It goes on and on.”
His accusatory finger also points to Bush. “The
hypocrisy of the right wing now is outrageous. I don’t know about all
of the allegations of George Bush, but there were a lot of them. And
where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Hof says he’s really a conservative guy. He
respects marriage and monogamy, but believes it should be up to the
people to decide how they want to live – as long as it’s legal.
“I’m single-handedly sanitizing this business,” Hof
says of his brothel. “I don’t have a big lobbying group like the liquor
or tobacco industry, but look at the transition they’ve all made.”
Hof wants to legalize prostitution across the
United States. People who don’t support legalized prostitution are
inadvertently supporting the exploitation of women, he says, because
these women get beat up by dirtball pimps or raped or maimed. Not at
the BunnyRanch.
“If you don’t support legalized prostitution, then
you’re supporting money going into a criminal environment,” Hof says.
“Illegal prostitution is driven by drugs. Legal prostitution eliminates
all that. We don’t have any girls in here on drugs. They don’t need
drugs. They don’t need pimps.”
Prostitution is legal in all of Nevada except for
Las Vegas and Reno, a misconception held by a lot of people, Hof says.
More than 300 prostitutes arrested in the Las Vegas area have tested
positive for HIV, Hof says.
“In the BunnyRanch and other brothels in Nevada,
there have been hundreds of thousands of tests, millions of sexual
experiences and no HIV. Not one case,” he says. “So if you don’t
support legalization, you are supporting disease in the workplace.”
Politicians shy away from publicly saying they will
support prostitution, but behind closed doors, they will, Hof says.
Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura boasted of going to the BunnyRanch.
But he wouldn’t go so far as to endorse prostitution.
“It’s going to happen some day, but it needs to be
controlled, it needs to be zoned, it needs to be taxed,” Hof says.
“Let’s take out the disease, take out the exploitation, take out the
criminals and do it the right way.”
Hof says he’s willing to pay $1 million a year to
open a ranch in Reno.
“Let’s use our resources to protect our country and
make this a safe, fun place to live in and let the people who want to
watch girls dance, and watch a little porn and come to the BunnyRanch
and have a little sex every once in a while, let them do what they want
to do,” he says. “Just tax it and regulate it properly and make sure
the right people are operating it.”
The far right’s side
“You say you’re an alternative paper. Does that
mean you’re a homosexual newspaper?” asks the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the
Traditional Values Coalition.
“I don’t believe so.”
“You don’t? How long have you worked there?”
“I’ve worked here for two years.”
“Well, you would certainly know it, wouldn’t you?”
“Well, I would hope so.”
“Every city has a gay paper.”
“No, we’re not a gay paper.”
Sheldon tips his hand with the conversation. He
stands firmly alongside the Bush camp’s position against gay marriage.
Keeping marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a religious
belief, Sheldon explains. Gay people are free to “have whatever sexual
arrangement they want.”
“But they’re not free to steal the word marriage
and call their sexual arrangement marriage,” Sheldon says. “Never in
the history of mankind has that been called marriage. Why now is it
morally right for them to steal something? They can go and have
whatever sexual arrangement they want. They’re perfectly free to do
that. Second, it just doesn’t make common sense to try to say a man and
a woman can now be replaced in marriage by people of the same sex.
“You can’t call it something that is going to
infringe on marriage because there is such a thing as trademark and
protection rights and things like that,” Sheldon adds.
Calling unions between gays and lesbians “civil
unions” isn’t acceptable either, Sheldon says.
“That is an absolute hijack of a classical and
antiquity institution called marriage,” he says.
In the State of the Union Address, Bush vowed to
“defend the sanctity of marriage.” Then came the declaration from
Massachusetts’ highest court that only full marriage rights for gay
couples will do, opening the door for same-sex marriages to begin in
mid-May.
President Bush called the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court’s ruling “deeply troubling,” adding, “marriage is a
sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist
on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the
constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend
the sanctity of marriage.”
“George Bush is really trying to tap into people’s
homophobia,” says Leslie Margolin, a professor in the University of
Iowa's Sexuality Studies Program. “So on the one hand, the country has
been more liberal and accepting. This is a tremendous advance from a
few years ago that we would support gay marriage, but he’s trying to
produce a reaction to that.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year that
invalidated a Texas law banning same-sex sodomy could become a
“watershed moment in the history of privacy in this country,” says Ben
Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union.
“It really does, kind of, for the first time really
make it clear that activities in the bedroom are nobody’s business in
the government,” Stone says. “It’s a pretty powerful ruling.”
As more people learn there isn’t a “gay agenda,”
people will realize gay marriage isn’t a big deal, he says.
“There is this constant repetition of ‘We must
protect marriage,’ but yet there is never an articulation of how
granting the right of men to marry men and women to marry women
threatens marriage. It’s never articulated,” Stone says. “They throw it
out there and just let it hang, but serious, thoughtful people will
realize that this doesn’t threaten marriage. It threatens intolerance
and bigotry. That’s what gay marriage threatens.”
Sheldon contends that being gay isn’t “like being
black, Hispanic or Asian or handicapped or Jewish. Homosexuality is a
behavior. It’s not genetic. You’re not born that way. Therefore it
doesn’t entitle itself to the same kinds of civil rights protections
that we must offer to minorities.”
Tolman disputes Sheldon’s claim.
“Why would you choose a life that leads to being
marginalized, ostracized, perhaps violently harmed?” she asks. “Why
would you choose that?”
Sheldon points to too many people leaving “the
lifestyle.”
“Now, from a practical standpoint, the reason
homosexual marriage is nonsense and not even common sense is because
the body parts don’t fit,” Sheldon says. “And you enter into a
high-risk behavioral pattern when you have homosexual sex. It is
against nature.”
Sheldon argues the Massachusetts ruling is
unconstitutional because the court became a legislative body. It’s
judicial tyranny and could backfire on the court, he says.
“The courts are not allowed to legislate, and
that’s what they’ve done,” he says.
Bush-whacked
The president holds a born-again Christian view of
the world. He is an evangelical Christian and he caters to the
conservative right wing.
Bush’s views resonate with a large proportion of
the population, says Arthur Sanders, associate professor of politics
and international relations at Drake University.
The talk of abstinence-only education and marriage
between one man and one woman in his State of the Union Address
featured a lot of language that signals to religious conservatives,
Sanders says. These same religious conservatives have been growing
frustrated with the president on the issue of gay marriage because he
has only shown implied support for a constitutional amendment, not
coming out and saying he will campaign for a constitutional amendment,
Sanders says.
President Bush has polarized America, Margolin says.
“The abstinence-only, the attempt to erode people’s
freedom of choice in abortion, the attempt to stop abortion, the
abstinence-only approach to sex education is really not popular widely,
but it’s popular among his base of supporters who are evangelical and
very right-wing conservatives,” Margolin says. “He seems to not seek
compromise but to seek his way and the way of his base.
“He appeals to kind of knee-jerk reflexes on
sexuality,” he says. “Instead of trying to elevate the discourse, he
lowers it. It’s just incredible. This guy is just incredible.”
President Bush is a “political animal,” pandering
to the religious right and a moralistic agenda, Planned Parenthood’s
Casey says. His sights are clearly set on a November re-election.
“It was a total political speech,” Casey says of
the State of the Union Address. “He was not coming out of a public
health agenda or a cultural agenda, what was best for this country or
for kids or best for families.”
Bush pushing for abstinence-only funding is simple
“political opportunism,” Verrilli says. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Print this Article
Email this Article