Matt Walsh says there is no "safe sex" other than marriage

[TrueRebel1]

themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/05/i-will-not-teach-my-kids-about-safe-sex

I don't have time to break this down and comment/snark on it. But wow, is this post a doozy, and really it's just a re-hashing of what the fundies have been preaching all along: safe sex and true love are only possible in marriage, and if we just tell our kids that pre-marital sex is not an option, they will remain virgins until they marry. :roll:

[polecat]

I can't get through all his bloviating, but I will admit to being bothered by the term "safe sex." I'd say solo sex is almost the only truly safe sex. Just about all other sex carries at least some degree of risk. You can practice safeR sex by using condoms, dental dams and appropriate contraceptive measures, but there will still be some degree of risk of HPV, herpes, etc.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to teach my kids how to be as safe as possible because "hey, it's not totally safe." That's just stupid. Taking precautions can keep us safeR and dramatically reduce the risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy in most cases.

[apple1]

Know-it-all twenty-something-year-old who has 15 month old twins (that's on the post before the current one) who is oh, so sure of what he WILL do when his kids are teens and young adults - and that his kids will never do anything he disapproves of when they are older.

Gah.

[TrueRebel1]

One thing that bothers me about this post is the mentality that because they believe in teaching their children that only traditional sex within marriage is okay, that it's an excuse to be ignorant about the dangers of sex. See, I was raised in one of those families where we didn't talk about "safe sex" because it was assumed that there would be "no sex" like Matt is promoting. Honestly, if I had decided to go against my parents wishes and explore sex before marriage (which I didn't), I probably would have ended up pregnant right away, or with a STD. I had no knowledge of what would lead to what, and what I should be aware/cautious of.

As a parent now, even though I intend to teach my kids about the sacredness of sex and how it should be a meaningful experience, I also intend to teach them what will happen if they aren't careful about it, and what precautions they should take. And I don't think teaching them about the "dangers" of sex is the same as advocating my daughter being a whore, as Matt basically implies.

I also don't believe that just because you have sex within the confines of marriage that it will be safe and an expression of love. You can have an accidental pregnancy and meaningless sex in marriage just as easily as the partying college kid.

[snuggles911]

The sad part is that Mark's kids won't even have the opportunity to learn about safe sex because he's committed to homeschooling them. If they decide to stray from his abstinance-only beliefs they will be at risk of disease or pregnancy.

This reminds me of a lady who attended my old fundie church. She became enraged when she brought her 16 year old daughter for an annual physical and the doctor started talking to the girl about birth control. She later told our Bible study that her daughter didn't need this info because she was going to remain pure until marriage.

Well, a few months later her daughter ended up pregnant, by a violent loser nonetheless. :angry-banghead: Maybe if she had allowed the doctor to finish the conversation things would have turned out differently.

[lilah]

Walsh is a smug obnoxious price and a professional mansplainer. I refuse to give him any clicks unless it's a do not link.

Also bet he's one of those dick wads who doesn't "believe" in domestic violence or marital rape.

[Firiel]

I can't get through all his bloviating, but I will admit to being bothered by the term "safe sex." I'd say solo sex is almost the only truly safe sex. Just about all other sex carries at least some degree of risk. You can practice safeR sex by using condoms, dental dams and appropriate contraceptive measures, but there will still be some degree of risk of HPV, herpes, etc.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to teach my kids how to be as safe as possible because "hey, it's not totally safe." That's just stupid. Taking precautions can keep us safeR and dramatically reduce the risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy in most cases.

Yeah, I feel the same way. Under MW's definition of safe sex (NO risk), even married sex isn't safe sex, emotionally or physically.

My ex-husband cheated on me. Luckily, I didn't catch anything. But I sure feel shitty when I think about sleeping with him when he was fucking another chick. I've sure got emotional hangups from it. It sure wasn't "safe."

[DGayle]

He better get ready to have a pregnant teenager or two. I'm not joking in the slightest. I went to a private Christian school as a teenager, and guess what we learned. Save ourselves for marriage, but in case we don't, here's info to keep us safer. My 14-year-old mind was blown finding out a little pill could prevent conception.

[ViolaSebastian]

Clearly this man has never met a wife whose two-timing husband gave her an STI.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Let's try this logic with any other risk, shall we?

1. Need to avoid anything that can help someone because scary consequences are necessary

There's a warning label on some household cleaning products that says something like: "Poison - Do not swallow". Then, immediately after, it says, "if accidentally swallowed, induce vomitting and seek medical attention".

Would anyone in their right minds say, "but you'll give people ideas! They may think it's okay to swallow poison!"

I'm required, by law, to drive safely. I do so. However, I also make sure that everyone in my car is wearing a seatbelt. Would anyone argue that taching about seatbelts is wrong, because I might be tempted to drive recklessly? Then, even though we are all wearing seatbelts, my vehicle also has air bags. Anyone arguing that this just encourages reckless driving without consequences?

We know that many cases of lung cancer are linked to smoking. Still, we let people know that they can see a doctor if they have symptoms, and we don't deny treatment as a way to scare them away from smoking.

Ditto with junk food and heart disease or Type 2 diabetes. Shall we not tell people that medications exist, because they'll be careless with their diet?

2. Must ensure that nobody is ever able to make a mistake or fail to follow good advice

Nuclear reactors have multiple, redundant safety systems, because one error shouldn't cause a nuclear meltdown. Is this a bad thing?

Sometimes, you see spots allowing for u-turns on the road. Is this bad? I mean, shouldn't people have considered the consequences before they missed their turn?

Some computer programs will ask "Are you sure" before permanently doing something that might be bad. Is this bad?

Some schools allow you to drop courses midway through. Shouldn't you have to live with the consequences of failing your first test?

3. We should expect kids to simply listen to parents.

We all see that every child always cleans their room and makes it home by curfew and studies for every test and eats their broccoli, right?

And no teen has ever lied to their parents?

And no teen has ever rebelled, only to settle down as an adult?

And not listening to parents is so hideous that kids deserve to get a disease, and possibly die, if they slip up at all ever?

[Maggie Mae]

Did anyone mention the inherent risk to women? Women in developed countries still die during childbirth. Sex is not safe. It's fun, and there are ways to prevent pregnancy & condoms reduce the risk of STDs, but marriage alone won't reduce any risks that occur during intercourse.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Marital sex is NOT safe at all for many women around the world. Gender inequality places women at risk for HIV. http://www.who.int/gender/hiv_aids/en/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2443629/

Empowering women to say no, giving women more rights, protecting women from spousal violence, making it clear that women can refuse sex with their husbands, stopping husbands from having sex with prostitutes on the side, increasing access to sex education and health care - these are all things that could help. Is Matt Walsh encouraging any of this?

[Coco]

He's forgetting teenage hormones. Even just being together on a date holding hands can turn into making love. Young people will do this in the most uncomfortable places because hormones are that strong. You just don't think with your normal logical process, it's what keeps the species going.

So take a young girl who has been taught to obey, place her in really any situation with a young boy she is attracted to, and the inhibitions will fall. Especially if the young guy is bigger or stronger than she is. It's so easy to rationalize away the mental no's when your body is screaming yes, it's okay.

People like Matt Walsh (does he even have kids?) forget that we're not just spiritual and mental, we're physical and those drives are strong at puberty. Doesn't he remember thinking everything was new and exciting and thinking wow i must be the FIRST person to feel this feeling!! because he discovered it at that age? Kids don't know enough about the world to make a decision considering all the angles. And sometimes, if they've been kept ignorant and isolated, bad information and rumors about sex come from friends who are just as clueless. Once they hit that age and are alone with a crush it's like going over a waterfall, they don't have the ability to row fast enough to get away even if they realize it's a bad situation to be in. Parents absolutely must provide their kids with the knowledge about sex and tools like condoms and the BC pill to be safe. At least, knowing about those things will help them see sex more clearly and not just fall into hormone autopilot when placed in that situation. No one can isolate their children from other kids, and kids don't need perfect circumstances to stumble into this. And some parents that try to isolate their kids from every possibility have even had problems with brother/sister incest, because of hormones. It's built in. (see michael pearl article about "when the worst happens")

TL:DR Just fences in kids' rational minds aren't going to keep them away from having sex if they are in that situation, sex education is crucial to their safety.

The sad part is that Mark's kids won't even have the opportunity to learn about safe sex because he's committed to homeschooling them. If they decide to stray from his abstinance-only beliefs they will be at risk of disease or pregnancy.

This reminds me of a lady who attended my old fundie church. She became enraged when she brought her 16 year old daughter for an annual physical and the doctor started talking to the girl about birth control. She later told our Bible study that her daughter didn't need this info because she was going to remain pure until marriage.

Well, a few months later her daughter ended up pregnant, by a violent loser nonetheless. :angry-banghead: Maybe if she had allowed the doctor to finish the conversation things would have turned out differently.

This is another thing too... isolation means that the kids might end up with bad romantic partners because sometimes the bad ones are the only ones who are reckless enough not to go through all the stupid steps and barriers (ie courtship) that the parents set up against a more respectful relationship.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I don't like how he says people having sex outside of marriage are just seeking a thrill, a shallow, joyless thing with no mutual respect or intimacy involved. Does he think only married people are in relationships? Like, what about a man and woman in their twenties or thirties who are in love and monogamous? They might not want to know about preventing a pregnancy?

Also annoying that the abstinence only states have the highest teen pregnancy rates but of course he doesn't mention that.

[fundiefan]

Unless you intend your child to grow up and become an Olympic swimmer, don't bother to teach the kid to swim. The kid lives nowhere near water and even if that kid comes upon some, he/she will know better than to fall in and drown because they were taught that value!

The stupid hurts.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Oh dear...for a terrible moment I thought this was about actor/comedian Matt Walsh and was afraid I wouldn't be able to watch "Veep" anymore. :lol:

[utter solitude]

Thank you, Matt Walsh, for reassuring me that, if the only sex I have is with my husband, I'll never get an STD or STI! Thanks for taking that weight off my shoulders!

[2xx1xy1JD]

Just read his actual post.

His examples are BS. No, we don't tell kids, "don't drink and drive, but wear a seatbelt if you do", because the biggest risk isn't that they will get hurt, but that they will hurt someone else. We do, however, tell kids: "We expect that you will follow local laws and will not drink. That said, if you are ever in a position where you or your ride are under the influence, you can call us/call a cab at our expense, no questions asked." We do that because one night of stupid underage drinking shouldn't ruin lives forever.

His column is a good example of both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy.

I got my sex ed during the late 1980s, at the height of AIDS paranoia. I'm now seeing my daughter's sex ed curriculum at school, which includes info on safe sex. Not once does anyone suggest that sex under the influence of alcohol is ever "safe". Not once does anyone say that multiple partners or unknown sexual history do not come with risks. Instead, you get handouts with all the various diseases, their descriptions, methods of transmission, and recommended ways to control the risks. You find out, for example, that condoms don't prevent all infections (oral-genital contact can spread some stuff, for example), and that condoms can fail if not used properly. You learn about pregnancy and get a handout with all the various methods of contraception, how they work, and their failure rates.

These lessons don't make teens want to have sex. Hormones and the constant messages that they get everyday make them want to have sex. These lessons hammer home the idea that there are risks, that they need to actively think about these risks and evaluate them, and that they need to plan to avoid risks. In short, they need to take responsibility for making good sexual decisions. Sometimes, after hearing all of this, that decision will be, "I will not have sex until I am in a committed monogamous relationship/marriage and have a partner who has disclosed their full sexual history and been tested for everything and we would be in a position to carry a pregnancy to term if the birth control failed."

The stats suggest that the evangelical and abstinence-only teens still have sex - but they are less likely to use protection.

I've heard that these kids are more likely to feel guilty about planning to have sex and less likely to have good knowledge, but more likely to think that it's somehow better if they just stumble in the heat of the moment. Any FJ members with first hand experience who can say if this is accurate?

BTW - someone should tell Matt that HIV and Hep B aren't just spread through sex. My husband has been tested, because he sometimes treats patients with these diseases and occasionally needle sticks happen.

[utter solitude]

BTW - someone should tell Matt that HIV and Hep B aren't just spread through sex. My husband has been tested, because he sometimes treats patients with these diseases and occasionally needle sticks happen.

^^^^THIS. It's part of their religious holier than thou dogma.

My husband works for a major retailer, catching shoplifters. Occasionally, they fight him. He was bitten recently: he was taken to an urgent care facility and given a tetanus shot, and tested for HIV, Hep, and other diseases. He'll be going back to be retested for these things again.

But it's much easier to just blame sex ;) My ex-fiance was raised in a family that fancies itself very conservatively Catholic, he went to a Catholic all boys school. They were taught that sex is not just for marriage, but for creating babies. They were told that sex outside of marriage leads to deadly diseases and infections. That's literally all they were told. It scared the shit out of him! Even after he decided he did not want to part of the church, it stuck with him, to the point that when we were together and made the conscious decision to have sex (it was his first time) he (told me all this later) agonized over it, out of fear of catching a disease he was sure he would catch.

[2xx1xy1JD]

One more point:

Kids don't live in a total vacuum.

If they have any exposure to the outside world, they will see that some non-married people have sex, and that it doesn't always result in babies. Even if you don't teach your kids about birth control, it exists and therefore TV and internet and movies all assume that it exists. They will probably hear the term "safe sex" at some point, even if they don't hear if from their dad. The word "condom" may get mentioned. In short, they will know that it's possible to have sex without necessarily getting pregnant or getting a disease - but they won't know the details of exactly how to assess risks and exactly how to use methods properly. So, the condom won't work, or they won't know that Vaseline is a big no, or they won't know that herpes can be spread through oral-genital contact, or they will think that wishful thinking and little magic fairies prevent pregnancy and diseases in other people so they can trust that it will work for them too.

ETA: Found this article on the appalling ignorance of abstinence-only education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-leyb ... 96696.html

So, how many girls will think, "it's just once, getting pregnant the first time is really rare", without knowing that they are probably super-horny because they are teens at the peak of their fertility and because they are ovulating? Yes, some women struggle for years to TTC, but it's not so rare for egg and sperm to unite if the couple is 18 and she is ovulating.

Remind me to thank my parents for being from the "knowledge is power" school of thought.

[lawlifelgbt]

Actually, Matt, you douchebag...Look at Mary, she got pregnant without even sex!

I practice the safest sex possible, even safer than most married couples! You still have risks for an STI or pregnancy from marriage. However, I face none of those things! It's awesome.

But wait, I'm not preaching abstinence here. I'm preaching homosexuality!

(No joke: lesbians have THE lowest rates of STI transmission than any other group, cannot pass HIV (well, one isolated case), and obviously can't get pregnant. This means I've barely ever thought about protection or needed it).

[doggie]

Hell fundies should love homosexuality it almost eliminates abortion.

[Alye]

^^^^THIS. It's part of their religious holier than thou dogma.

My husband works for a major retailer, catching shoplifters. Occasionally, they fight him. He was bitten recently: he was taken to an urgent care facility and given a tetanus shot, and tested for HIV, Hep, and other diseases. He'll be going back to be retested for these things again.

But it's much easier to just blame sex ;) My ex-fiance was raised in a family that fancies itself very conservatively Catholic, he went to a Catholic all boys school. They were taught that sex is not just for marriage, but for creating babies. They were told that sex outside of marriage leads to deadly diseases and infections. That's literally all they were told. It scared the shit out of him! Even after he decided he did not want to part of the church, it stuck with him, to the point that when we were together and made the conscious decision to have sex (it was his first time) he (told me all this later) agonized over it, out of fear of catching a disease he was sure he would catch.

I once had to have a lump removed and the nurse cut herself on the scalpel after the operation. The doctor asked me if I was willing to have a blood test for the nurses peace of mind (she still had to go through all the tests). Every time I have blood taken (at least once a year) I ask them to do the test. I'm a virgin and I have never had a blood transfusion but I do have tattoos. The place I go to has a good reputation but you never know.

Actually, Matt, you douchebag...Look at Mary, she got pregnant without even sex!

I practice the safest sex possible, even safer than most married couples! You still have risks for an STI or pregnancy from marriage. However, I face none of those things! It's awesome.

But wait, I'm not preaching abstinence here. I'm preaching homosexuality!

(No joke: lesbians have THE lowest rates of STI transmission than any other group, cannot pass HIV (well, one isolated case), and obviously can't get pregnant. This means I've barely ever thought about protection or needed it).

Really? Sex Ed at my school focused quite heavily on the need for protection even between lesbians. You know because it was an all girls (government) school so obviously we were all lesbians. :cray-cray:

I wouldn't say though that Sex Ed at my school wasn't great. We had 1 day a year which focused on safe sex. We called it Banana Day because we spent about 10 minutes of it putting condoms on Bananas. We would then focus on the consequences- This included in year 10 the robotic baby that cried every 5 minutes because those of us that weren't lesbians were going to be teen mothers (I'm not joking my 70 year old health & home ec teacher said this. She was a miserable old cow). Within 2 hours I'd worked out that by hooking a rubber band around the key in the back and over the baby's arm meant that whenever the baby cried I just had to lift the arm. The lesson was lost on me.

[sockinshoe]

I really don't understand the fundie mindset towards sex/reproductive health. I get that they preach abstinence (which doesn't work most of the time, but whatever). But what about after marriage?

Based on 19KaC, they only inform their children about sex right before the wedding (at least, going off that painful and more than a little scripted Boob-Josh conversation).

But what do they tell girls about menstruation? I know I'd be concerned as heck if I randomly bled every month and lacked the understanding as to why (and the ability to talk to an adult about it because sex is super taboo). I assume they must know something, at least the daughters, because they have to track Michelle's cycles and attend births. Do they know about the woman's role in reproduction, but no the man's? What's the point of that?

Also, JB and J'Chelle are always waving their sex life in front of their oldest children (minigolf, anyone :disgust: ?) like "you can't have this yet, but we can!" I really really don't get it.

And, I'm sorry, but I learned that 99% of safe sex practices are a form of self-care. For instance, peeing after sex to avoid UTIs or self exams. Those measures aren't contraceptives, nor do they prevent STIs (so no fundie could possible disagree with them). All they promote is a greater understanding of the body and a more enjoyable, lower risk sex life.

[TrueRebel1]

I really don't understand the fundie mindset towards sex/reproductive health. I get that they preach abstinence (which doesn't work most of the time, but whatever). But what about after marriage?

Based on 19KaC, they only inform their children about sex right before the wedding (at least, going off that painful and more than a little scripted Boob-Josh conversation).

But what do they tell girls about menstruation? I know I'd be concerned as heck if I randomly bled every month and lacked the understanding as to why (and the ability to talk to an adult about it because sex is super taboo). I assume they must know something, at least the daughters, because they have to track Michelle's cycles and attend births. Do they know about the woman's role in reproduction, but no the man's? What's the point of that?

Also, JB and J'Chelle are always waving their sex life in front of their oldest children (minigolf, anyone :disgust: ?) like "you can't have this yet, but we can!" I really really don't get it.

And, I'm sorry, but I learned that 99% of safe sex practices are a form of self-care. For instance, peeing after sex to avoid UTIs or self exams. Those measures aren't contraceptives, nor do they prevent STIs (so no fundie could possible disagree with them). All they promote is a greater understanding of the body and a more enjoyable, lower risk sex life.

Most fundie girls I knew had a vague and basic understanding of menstruation -- just that a woman made an egg every month, and if it wasn't fertilized (you know, when you're married!) then you have a period. All the sex ed fundie young people need is knowing that sex=babies and babies are what God wants us to have. Specifics of how reproduction works aren't focused on....I guess most fundie newlywed guys are supposed to be able to figure out how to make babies. :?