The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

12 July 2003

Knees together

Virginity has never done a thing for me, so to speak; while a case can be made that too many people are having sex too early, you'll never convince me that I derived any benefit from waiting until I was [actual age suppressed due to acute embarrassment].

Still, I'm not quite ready to embrace Mark Morford's call for lubricity:

We have no true sexual role models in this nation. We have no delicious icons of healthy vice and open-thighed attitude and responsible divine lust and intelligent sexuality to thwart the bitter ass-clenched proto-Christian conservative agenda. Nina Hartley needs a national TV show. This is all I'm saying. But that's another column.

What we do have, however, is a BushCo that actually has the appalling gall to set aside $135 mil to force kids to learn all about the joys of repressing all sexual desire and bliss and bodily exploration and sensual spiritual power in favor of abstinence until they get married and then half of them get divorced because they were so goddamn lousy in bed.

I hasten to point out that this is not why I got divorced. (And even in Oklahoma, it's possible to obtain Nina Hartley videos.)

But do we really need national sexual role models? Do we need any kind of national sexual policy at all? Should there be a Cabinet-level Department of Screwing? (And will the IRS move out of Treasury when there is?) The less the Feds have to say about the subject, the better I like it, even if Morford is correct about our level of dissemblage:

We are perplexed. We are hypocritical and hilarious and two faced and upside down back-asswards. We are confounded and ridiculous and hypocritical and shy. Europeans laugh at us. We are terrified of our sexuality and horrified and/or weirdly shocked when presidents do it or teenagers do it or anyone at all does it unless it's us and then it's a fun little dirty secret but we don't talk about it shhh.

I admit to being perplexed, and barring divine intervention, I've probably had all the sex I'm ever going to have, but I suspect that Morford's concept of sex in the, um, hinterlands is somewhat skewed; okay, people in Des Moines probably don't have the sort of access to glory holes that's available in San Francisco, but I don't think that this necessarily means that Iowa is some sort of hotbed (or coldbed) of repression.

As to those "bitter ass-clenched proto-Christian" conservative types, well, I'd like to see the research that found a correlation between political stance and sphincter diameter.

Posted at 9:50 AM to Table for One


TrackBack: 2:54 PM, 12 July 2003
» Voodoo Science: political style from Tiger: Raggin' & Rantin'
All of this sounds really great [dustbury] . . . if I could only figure out what it all meant. I think I need a nap! See also where CG Hill commented that your sexual repression is measurable by how......[read more]

TrackBack: 9:28 PM, 13 July 2003
» BLOG: Department of Screwing? from Baseball Crank
Chaz over at Dustbury, in a hilarious skewering of the Totally Insane Mark Morford, asks the question: "do we really need national sexual role models?" For the record, waiting until you are married is not an impediment to, shall we......[read more]

We are perplexed. We are hypocritical and hilarious and two faced and upside down back-asswards. We are confounded and ridiculous and hypocritical and shy. Europeans laugh at us. We are terrified of our sexuality and horrified and/or weirdly shocked when presidents do it or teenagers do it or anyone at all does it unless it's us and then it's a fun little dirty secret but we don't talk about it shhh.

Methinks Br'er Morford is indulging in the regal 'we'. I prefer to think that than imagine him indulging his we...

Posted by: McGehee at 10:13 AM on 12 July 2003

Christ on a pogo stick. I'd write to Mr. Morford directly, but I don't think rubber rooms get postal service.

For a change, it's not about sex. It's about consequences. Sex freed from its consequences is a pure good, a delight unmatched by anything except filet mignon sauteed in garlic butter or a Stanley Cup for the New York Rangers. The consequences of sex are the thorny part. Below a certain age, you're neither equipped to handle them nor likely to be sober enough to avert them. What that age is, I am not prepared to say in a suitably ponderous and authoritative voice. But for each of us, there's a transition from incapable irresponsibility to capable responsibility -- and on the windward side of it, you're better advised to keep your legs together.

The transition appears to happen around sixteen to eighteen for most youngsters. What would Mr. Morford have us do before that? Adult supervision for juvenile sex acts, to make sure they're doing it right? Or perhaps at menarche, each fertile teenaged girl should be forcibly inoculated with Norplant and required by law to visit the doctor once a week for a Wasserman series and HIV antibodies tests?

I know, I know. Morford is merely a provocateur. His emissions are sense-free. But it boggles the mind that anyone could be so dense. Sigh.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at 11:10 AM on 12 July 2003

Well, virginity didn't do a thing for me or against me until I was no longer one, at the age of none of your beeswax. (Heh heh, I said "wax.") Anyway, this isn't the first time Morford has written about his need to be able to do it in the road while the crowd applauses, which is how I always read his "you prudes!" squealings. I'll bet you he gives birth to these things after each time his S.O. tells him, again, that she/he/it will not dress up like Granny in the Beverly Hillbillies and chase him around the bedroom with a pitchfork.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 3:25 PM on 12 July 2003

We have no sexual role models in this nation? Call the clinic... Mr. Morford's been smoking the crack pipe again.

Either that or poor Mr. Morford can't even afford basic cable.

Posted by: Cam at 12:57 AM on 13 July 2003

Only three years since we got rid of the role model, ferchrissakes. And the problem with Clinton wasn't that he, um, did it in the White House, with someone other than his wife. Noooo. The problem was low crimes and misdemeanors: sexual harassment, perjury, and obstruction.

Posted by: Alan Sullivan at 9:39 PM on 16 July 2003