So, basically if you are a girl and have sex with one guy before you marry that makes you a used up slut? Wow.

*thinks*

OH MY GOD WHAT DOES THAT MAKE ME.......

I'd think more highly of them as educators if their website didn't have so many typos and other such issues.

Of course, I'd still think they were crazy people. Refusing to see that sexuality has many levels? That's just nutty.

And next year's theme...

Abstinence is Good: Because if You Have Sex Before Marriage, You're a Dirty, Rotten Whore Who Deserves to Die from Cervical Cancer or AIDS or Have Your Future Destroyed Because You Got Pregnant and We Don't Want to Help Support Your Bastard Child

They could have chosen a better graphic. This one just screams "throwing away my hymen in the wind!"

Am I the only one who thinks 'black and white' might be inappropriate on even more levels?

Or am I reading too much into their word choice? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, just that it didn't occur to them to think too hard about it.

Yeah, that graphic is quite odd. What exactly does the red fabric symbolize? Is the woman waving her "fertility flag" or some such? Why is she clad in all-white?

Also, does the theme of "Black & White" have anything to do with race?

Hmmmm...

Why is it always a woman that's the face of abstinence? That just shows how backasswards they are. Only women can be whores, don't you know!

It looks like an AIDS ribbon.

Which is *really* confusing.

I think it represents the blood that's supposed to come out of your vagina after your new, ignorant Christian husband rips apart your hymen on your sweet little wedding night.

"They could have chosen a better graphic. This one just screams "throwing away my hymen in the wind!"

Hahaha!!!

In terms of the graphic, I'm going with the red cloth symbolizing the awesomeness of getting your period every month. Dirty whores who have sex and who might worry about missing their period can't wave around their used pads and tampons in the air like this woman can!

Lindsay – ah! Yes, I get it now.

I figured it was the bloody sheet she has to wave around the morning after her wedding night to prove her hymen was intact, so that her husband wouldn't return the dowry and send her off to be stoned to death.

Or maybe I'm confusing it with something else.

Cheers,

TH

Damn, Tom beat me to it!

Welcome back Tom, btw.

I just realized this in in Mpls, where I (sadly, today) live. Perhaps I should infiltrate...I'm dying to see the Wizard of Oz theme. Abstinance, whores, munchkins, Toto. Its a natural match.

I guess that puts me on the side of promiscuity. Oh noes! I'm always fascinated by the idea that if you've had sex, you're somehow impure. Do they think that those of us getting some don't shower?

Well, it could be my tinfoil hat, but black and white photo with the bright red sash made me instantly think of Julia and the Junior Anti-Sex League from 1984.

damn. i guess i'm promiscuous. it must have been that damn cervical cancer vaccine. or the media. if only i had gone to church more . . .

Gah! The virgin/whore dichotomy is disturbingly pervasive among conservatives.

When debating about abortion, it's always "promiscuous sluts" who have abortions. Do they not realize you can get pregnant the very first time you have sex? Who told them it was necessary to have casual sex with 50 different men in order to get pregnant?

Those cleaning crews at the Minneapolis Crowne Plaza are gonna be workin' overtime!

Well, of course they have to make it black and white, if they had the courage or the eyes to see the millions of shades of gray they would lose their tiny little conservative legs to stand on. If they see everything in black and white, then they do not have to see the women themselves. If they saw the women themselves they would have to admit that every women is somewhere between their definitions of pure and promiscuous. If they leave no room for us to move and grow, then they assume we will lose our voices which we can use to argue against their ideals.

I agree that this "theme" has interesting (if non-intentional) racial implications.

Who ARE these people who get together and talk about not having sex, obsessively? It's so weird.

I'm with you, Sarah (and Bowleserised, I think).

Whiteness = purity, blackness = sin. Gee, guess that works out pretty well for the white people.

It's funny how this is one of the first problems that comes mind for some of us, but most of the earliest comments, and the original post, just focus on the virgin/whore dichotomy.

I would like to see some of the white writers on the blog tackle racism and classism, and their connections to sexism, more consistently. Y'all do it well sometimes, but mostly it's Samhita and Celina who regularly talk about race (or profile folks who talk about it), and even then, there's rarely any discussion about white privilege. It's like racism is only a POC problem.

standpoint333, i think all the writers here try to bring up the racism/sexism/heterosexism/classism intersections in posts. in fact, just looking at the stuff on the front page there seems to be a lot...and we've def all written about privilege. but point taken that you feel differently and i'll of course keep it in mind.

Ever since I read "Their Eyes Were Watching God" in high school, I've been struck by how racist our "black/white" talk really is. In TEWWG, the sky takes on black flesh--the night is embodied and a safe-time. It was so beautiful and I thought about how "black" is used and how "white" is used commonly. I try to avoid such language as best I can.

Consciousness in terms of language and our multiple meanings is an art that most of the religious right willfully ignore. Pat Robertson the other day said how horrible it is that the new Episopal leader, a woman, used Mother language when speaking about God. God for him can only be expressed in masculine terms (though there is feminine language in the Old and New Testament for God/dess).

Conservatives are the first to throw out "whore" and "slut" langauge for rape victims, sexually active adult women, and prostitutes. There is little nuance (by the way, having worked with recovering prostitutes, I am deeply offended by off-hand comments about sex workers and their sexual voraciousness, hence dirtiness. No one is ruined by commerical sex work, although they can be traumatized, raped, and invected with deadly diseases, but the "ruination" is mostly brought on by the isolation and hatred of society at large for them).

The image and message above is disturbing on many levels. White woman in white waving her symbolic bloody sheet. Also, notice that she's not a teen or even a young adult--she's at least 30. 30 isn't old, but if one waits until 30 to discover her sexuality (with or without a partner) I truly feel sorry for her. I first had sex at 19, but didn't really discover orgasms until I was 20-21 when I got my first vibrator. I think that I had a pretty healthy sexual development--I was safe and in the context of good relationships. I hope more women can discover their sexuality in just such positive ways, but to wait until marriage is a kind of sexual retardation that seems to me a disservice!

awesome. i'll be in town, and ready to heckle.

Heather, I hope you didn't mean to offend with the comment about waiting till marriage, but I had to jump in. I think waiting until marriage (or at least a committed monogamous relationship) is a valid choice for those who view their sexuality as inherently linked to emotional intimacy and vulnerability. I'm not saying that's a better choice, but it's preferable for some people. That's different from viewing sex outside of marriage as exclusively the province of promiscuous sluts. It's also different from telling others that they must also wait for marriage.

That said, this conference poster is ridiculous. And so it abstinence-only education. But we need to remember that any worldview that declares perfectly healthy sexual drives and behavior as somehow defective and wrong (or as "retardation"). And monogamy and abstinence are healthy behavior, they just aren't the only acceptable options.

I just realized I did a little accidental moralizing of my own: I didn't mean to say that only monogamous sex can include emotional intimacy and vulnerability, only that some people don't feel comfortable expressing those things outside the context of monogamy.

Just wanted to commend the forum commenters here for being not just civil, but thoughtful and self-reflective, listening to one another and actually taking note of and considering alternate opinions. It's so important to maintain that level of discussion in the sorts of political issues (like this one!) that are also deeply personal. When we can simultaneously advocate for those who (on their own) want all kinds of great consensual sex with all kinds of partners, and for those who (on their own) decide to have sex only within a marriage--when we can support both types (and of course there are more than just two types!) without judging or excluding either, we have a good thing going on.

"When debating about abortion, it's always 'promiscuous sluts' who have abortions. Do they not realize you can get pregnant the very first time you have sex?"

Do they also not realize you can get pregnant after you and your husband are already done having all the babies you want? I've seen this pop up on other forums, with antiabortion teens going on and on and on about teen pregnancy and I'm the only one who remembers that abortion laws apply to 40-year-olds too.

"And monogamy and abstinence are healthy behavior, they just aren't the only acceptable options."

Good point. It also helps to remember that while we're concerned with access to contraceptives and abortion, some girls and women out there still don't even have access to abstinence (think of forced marriage and other rapes).

"When we can simultaneously advocate for those who (on their own) want all kinds of great consensual sex with all kinds of partners, and for those who (on their own) decide to have sex only within a marriage--when we can support both types (and of course there are more than just two types!) without judging or excluding either, we have a good thing going on."

Yeah. :)

Saying it's "a black and white" issue only means that, to them, there is no middle ground. Nothing to do with race in this instance. You'll notice that nowhere on this poster is black associated with promiscuity or white with purity. In fact, if you were going by the order in which the words were written (black and white, purity vs. promiscuity), the opposite would be true. These people are ridiculous and dispicable for many reasons; we don't have to invent more.

legallyblondeez, I'm glad you added your caveat that you don't think that emotional intimacy and vulnerability can happen outside of marriage. I am concerned, however, that advocating sex only until after marriage retards sexual development in those who seek out higher education (or spend time getting to know themselves as adults) or it rushes young people into marriage--and early marriage has a very HIGH divorce rate. My mother married her first husband while still in college because she really wanted to have sex and that seemed the only way. Her first husband was a bit of a disaster (he even committed suicide, leaving her two young children). When I became sexually active, she was very pleased because she wanted me to know that sex wasn't the be all and end all--it was part of one's life experiences, but only part and when experienced in safe ways and with pleasure in mind, sex can be a lovely part of our embodied experiences.

My mother, and many women of her generation, were trapped by the sex only in marriage framework the religious right wants to bring back--and it was not good for her and I don't see it better for my nieces or my children.

I do recognize that their are some who may only feel "safe" having sex in the context of heterosexual marriage because of their religious beliefs--and I'm not saying, "start screwing retards!" But, systematically, a public policy that seeks to either render people sexually ignorant until their late twenties-early thirties OR that encourages early marriage (18-24?) IS disturbing as a denial of he beauty of sexuality as its experienced by the individual, in her life (let's face it, we're mostly talking about women) or it serves to potentially curb professional attainment (once again, among women--whose supposed to sacrifice her career for the strenght of the marriage? Whose supposed to support her husband's education/career for the sake of the marriage?). These controlling trends that are now becoming PUBLIC POLICY and supported by MY TAX DOLLARS are based on a religious view of sexuality that I do not hold. Those repressive and patriarchal responses to human (and especially female) sexuality ARE offensive to me. So, if I have offended you, I am sorry that you are hurting, but you are hurting because of the cultural conditions in which you live and in which you seem to believe are vital for your own sexual fulfillment (though, have you tested them? Are you married? Are you heterosexual and therefore can marry? Are you a virgin? Have you ever had an orgasm? Have you ever given a partner an orgasm?)

Peace

Sorry, I meant:

legallyblondeez, I'm glad you added your caveat that you don't think that emotional intimacy and vulnerability can only happen inside of marriage.

Heather, I don't quite understand your comment. Legallyblondeez has said that abstinence-only education is bad propaganda and that that abstinence and monogamy are not the only health choices. She agrees with you that this nonsense is a poor excuse for public policy, and damaging. It doesn't seem like you disagree with each other about this.

But I don't like your quizzing her about her personal choices. If she were sexually active, we wouldn't be asking her if she'd "tested" her beliefs about what would make her happy by abstaining from sex. Who would know better than she what works for her? Why assume that she's speaking from a position of ignorance?

i have to agree with Heather Nan concerning the racist bent of the banner. having come from a southern evangelical-fundementalist background, i can comfortably say there are likely some racial overtones that, of course, the promoters of this event would deny, but just happen to make the conference evn more attractive to certain groups they target. so many of the southern religious movements have spend so much time "othering" people of color,and those who advocate for sex rights, that often, just mentioning something like abortion conjurs a very specific mental image of someone who is black, female and living in an urban area. it's incredibly difficult discussing issues of sex rights or race with people from these groups because they are so intertwined in many peoples' minds.

Heather,

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I am not advocating that everyone wait until they are married to have sex. I agree with you that a culture that demonizes and pathologizes sex outside of marriage, or forces young people into marriage because they feel it is their only sexual outlet, is harmful in many ways. I think that guilting people into monogamy does everyone a disservice. I understand that some of my personal discomfort with the idea of casual sex *in my own life* is caused by my upbringing and society's views of sexuality. But I try not to criticize anyone else's sex life, unless you count encouraging people to take precautions against stds and unwanted pregnancy as criticism.

My parents also married young, probably in large part because they believed that sex outside of marriage was not acceptable. They were lucky and have stayed together. My parents were not very happy about my choice to live with my now-husband (and therefore, presumptively, have sex with him) on and off while we were dating. However, they recognized that my choices and the social context in which I made them were different, and that I was no less responsible about my choices than they were.

I happened to marry the only person I have chosen to have intercourse with, but that was not important to me at the time I first decided to have sex. What was important at that time was that I loved and trusted him. And if it's important for you to know, I had (and still have) a satisfying sex life for seven years before I got married, and we delayed marriage because of my education and career choices. I have a non-traditional marriage in many ways, and I wouldn't have married someone who didn't respect and support my feminism. If anything, part of my hesitation to have sex when I was a teenager was the lack of respect I felt from many young men--it wasn't exactly a turn-on to be called a feminazi every time I expressed an independent thought. Hopefully others have had a larger number of respectful suitors.

I mostly spoke up because there are a number of people on this site, some without any religious impetus at all, who have chosen to practice abstinence and/or monogamy (within or outside of marriage) and have felt that their life choices are lumped in with the conservative religious abstinence-only crowd when abstinence-only education is being discussed. I just want people to realize and respect the diversity of sexual and relationship choices that can be made without preaching or forcing a particular choice on others.

One last thing: monogamy is not the same as marriage. There are plenty of same-sex couples who are (unjustly) denied the right to marriage but nonetheless practice monogamy. In addition, if you are in a sexually exclusive romantic relationship, you are practicing monogamy--it isn't necessarily a lifetime commitment.

Good points, LegallyBlondeez.

I think that the sex-positive crowd (how's that for a positive term? better suggestions, anyone?) forgets that they have a strong majority which does, occasionally, trample on the minority of the pro-abstinence crowd. I've lost count of the number of times that I've been dumped for not having sex after three weeks of dating, been criticised for my choices, been told that no man will wait for me, or that I'm frigid, or I don't know what I'm missing, or sex is fun so I should try it, or you wouldn't buy a car without test-driving it first, so why would a guy marry me without screwing me beforehand? (Please note that it's basically "No man will want a used woman" in another form.) Oh, let's not forget the fact that all women who have a healthy sexuality have lots of sex.

Those are things said to me, directly and personally. I have a hard time really feeling badly for anyone in the sex-positive crowd, considering what I've encountered.

The abstinence crowd desperately wants waiting to be seen as a valid, healthy choice made by sane, rational, sexual, and healthy people. Societal pressure to have sex when I don't want to isn't exactly a vindication of feminist principles.

The reason for this rant is that I really, really understand why people feel the need to promote abstinence beyond their own lives. Until it is seen by society as a valid choice, those who choose to remain abstinent (or even refrain from sex outside of long-term, serious relationships) will have a really tough time. It's not like "live and let live" is really working for women who don't want to have sex.

Rant over. Please disagree with anything I've said or modify it or propose alternatives.

Two things:
1)Racism - Given that the words Black and White stand out so prominently, and that black women are portrayed as highly sexualized in the media, it's hard not to see an implicit "how to keep white women pure" subtitle to the conference

2)Abstinence- Being abstinent is a valid choice. It's something that a person has a right to do. Not having sex doesn't make you sexually "ignorant" and it's wrong to criticize people for making informed choices about what they want to do with their own bodies. However, framing abstinence in terms of purity and pollution, as the conference planners do, is wrong. Just as it is wrong to frame it in terms of ignorance and enlightenment. Choosing to be abstinent isn't wrong, even if you choose abstinence without ever having sex. The truly sex positive know that sexual behavior exists along a continuum, and are capable of looking at the various ways people express their sexuality without making judgments about the people who choose different portions of the spectrum.

oenophile,

Although I am the quintessential "bad girl", I can sympathize with you about being judged due to personal sexual choices. I think that either end of the spectrum is judged as not "normal" or "healthy" by society. As a young adult, I was having fun finding myself and I really enjoyed sex. I enjoyed it with many different partners and in many different ways. I personally feel as though I learned something from every one of my lovers, I have kept these experiences with me throughout my life and they have helped to shape the person I have become. I do not regret what or who I did. The only thing that hurt me was the judgmental attitudes of others who took it upon themselves to try to police my sex life.

It seems ridiculous to me to even try to tell people what to do when it comes to sex. Whatever two or more consenting adults decide to do or not to do in private (or semi private ;) should be respected and not seen as deviant or weird.

Oenophile, you're both right and wrong. Yes, there is a lot of pressure on women (and, to a lesser degree, on men) to have sex, sex, sex. But there's also a lot of pressure in the other direction. It just depends on what part of culture you scrutinize. Certainly, the pressure to have sex is very obvious (turn on any teen show, and there it is), but the pressure to remain "pure" is more pervasive.

Also, regarding the racism bit, I don't think that the planners were consciously (and possibly not even unconsciously) intending to send a racist message. These are people who know, in their heart of hearts, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with race relations today. They're the same ones who were insisting that they treated their Negroes fine in '60s and everything would be great if it weren't for outside agitators.

Also regarding race, it's not so much that black women are portrayed as hypersexualized, as the way that the hypersexualization is used. For white women it's often seen as a good thing, but since black women are poor (in the media), they shouldn't be having more children. Thus, abstinence programs, welfare reform, etc.