October 28, 2008
Red Sex, Blue Sex
There seems to be an odd contradiction between Red and Blue stater’s perspectives on teen pregnancy:
During the campaign, the media has largely respected calls to treat Bristol Palin’s pregnancy as a private matter. But the reactions to it have exposed a cultural rift that mirrors America’s dominant political divide. Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t choose to have an abortion.
The analysis is interesting and objective, and anybody who is honestly surprised about the discontinuity between belief and practice knows very little about the human heart.
comments
Leave a Reply
“Anybody who is honestly surprised . . . ” That’s what I call wisdom.
I reckon I may get slammed for writing this, but I once worked in a rural place where teen pregnancy was rampant, and I felt that one of the undercurrents was that, if a girl had a kid before she graduated from high school, then she’d be less likely to move away and go to college and not come back ‘home’ afterwards. Meaning, that grownups tacitly approved of the pregnancies as a way of keeping their kids nearby.
I’m having trouble seeing the contradiction. Liberals tend to think of sex as a normal, natural part of life, and they know that teenagers will likely engage in it. If they are upset about teen pregnancy, it is generally because they recognize the limitations this places on the life of the teenager and the baby. They are upset because their efforts at sex education didn’t work, not because the teenager had sex. Social conservatives, on the other hand, might be upset over teenagers having sex, but they view the pregnancy as a gift from god–and some view it as a “lesson” to the teen who didn’t heed their warnings.
Seems pretty consistent to me.
I wasn’t saying there was a necessary but wanted to acknowledge a possible perceived discontinuity.
As an aside, you people know some sick fucks.
As an aside, you people know some sick fucks.
Yep.
Well, of course. If we liberals didn’t hate babies, we couldn’t very well abort them, now could we? We only love poor people (the fetus can’t apply for food stamps), people of color (all fetuses are in the purply-pink majority) and flag-burning Islamic-terrorists (the matches get wet, and even if the fetus could organize a bombing, it would most likely take place in an abortion clinic, the one sort of terrorism we actually do condemn!)
Suddenly, I want Anne Coulter’s job….this is too much fun.
Slammed, Cooper? Oh, no, I think not. Anyway, I took Andrew’s general point to be that rational adherence to coherent and somewhat abstract positions and principles is not something at which humans shine especially. Certainly not when it comes to matters involving sex.
Ditto what Sheila said. I took no particular joy in the Palin-baby-revelation, aside from a passing sense of irony, because it is an issue too complex to be painted as “good” or “bad.” The media still can’t figure out how routine adjustments to the tax code aren’t Marxism, but at least they had the sense to leave this one alone.
I think the Palin family has done an admirable job of embracing Bristol’s pregnancy and not shrinking from it. I’ve known far too many families–my own included–who regard any pregnancy outside of marriage with a sense of shame and judgment. It’s terribly unfair to all concerned–especially the innocent child.