What William Saletan Never Gets

Jan. 22 is the anniversary of Roe Vs. Wade and it’s typically a day for pieces about abortion. So of course Slate’s William Saletan felt the need to weigh in another moralizing piece about why don’t pro-choicers just don’t say abortion is bad (while trying to defend it). Many people have said what exactly is wrong with this strategy, better than I can. I think part of what bothers me/us-Saletan-haters the most about him, is that he thinks he’s pro-choice. But he’s not. He’s pro-choice with a side of “I want you ladies to feel really guilty about what you are doing.” He doesn’t view his own ideologically allies as the Right to Life association but I wish he would just own up to the fact that he’s not a pro-choice WRITER. I think it’s the bait’n’switch that bothers me more than anything about his pieces. It’s like listening to Joe Lieberman lecture the Democratic party about the right way to be a Democrat (to vote like a Republican).

So Saletan’s pieces are always coaching pro-choicers that the right way to be pro-choice is really to adopt the morals and language of the anti-choice crowd.

But the part of where he talks about teen sex really got to me because for the last two weeks I’ve been enveloped in the world of abstinence-only education programs. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, I was searching the internet for the most perfect example of how crap these programs really are. Something better than a program in Texas that tells sixth graders that “men sexually are like microwaves and women sexually are like crockpots….” Or the East Texas abstinence lecturer who uses (a quite common tactic) of tearing up two pieces of tape and as the tape collects dirt it shows how having sex with multiple people gives up your “stickiness” and you can no longer bond with another piece of tape. (Also a person who has lots of sex is full of dirt).

Here are some examples of abstinence lesson plans…can you spot what is wrong with them?

Worth The Wait

The curriculum explains that a mayor of a small town had a beautiful statue placed in a park, and told the townspeople that the lustrous golden metal would turn “a putrid shade of green if handled too much.” A year after the statue was erected, the mayor held a celebration in honor of the statue, only to find that the golden statue had turned green, because everyone had thought that “one touch would not hurt.” The story ends with the statement, “what each person thought was a harmless touch turned into the total destruction of a beautiful statue.” (Worth the Wait, Section 2-27) The curriculum makes a quick analogy to sexual activity: “sex is special. When someone is able to save this gift for his/her wedding night, it is a gift that is irreplaceable. However, if a person has had numerous partners and numerous sexual encounters, sexual activity loses its special quality.” (Worth the Wait, Section 2-27) Like much of the curriculum, the story portrays sexual activity as a destructive and harmful force and implies that those who have had sex outside of marriage are tainted—they have gone from lustrous and beautiful to a “putrid shade of green.”

Why kNOw?

The same lesson plan instructs teachers to construct an eighteen-foot long Speedy the Sperm © out of what essentially amounts to a pillow and a piece of rope. Speedy is designed to be exactly 450 times the size of a penny, because “the HIV virus is 450 times smaller than a human sperm.” (Why kNOw?, 8 th grade and high school, p. 96) The teacher is told to stretch Speedy © out to his full length, then hold up a penny and ask the students: “If the condom has a failure rate of 14% in preventing Speedy © from getting through to create a new life, what happens if this guy (the penny) gets through? You have a death: your own.” (Why kNOw?, 8 th grade and high school, p. 96) While the curriculum does not actually state that condoms may have holes large enough for the HIV virus to travel through, this is clearly the implication behind this activity.

Heritage Keeper

A similar message of shame regarding STDs is presented in the “Pink Water Game.” The teacher prepares one clear plastic cup that is 1/3 full with ammonia. Each student is given a cup that is 1/3 full of water. Students are told to “swap fluids” with one another and the teacher by pouring their liquid into someone else's cup and swirling it around. Each student is told to swap fluids with three other people. One student, however, is taken aside by the teacher and told to abstain from the activity. After all students have swapped, the teacher is instructed to reveal that one cup was “infected” and that students “will find out who has been ‘contaminated.'” (Heritage Keeper, Teacher Manual, p. 51) This is revealed when the teacher puts a drop of the chemical phenolphthalein in each cup. Those that have some ammonia will turn pink. The teacher then discloses the name of the student who was abstinent, notes that his cup is not “contaminated,” and points out that while other students probably felt nervous about getting tested, the abstinent students had no questions about the results of his test. Once again, the curriculum is setting up a dichotomy in which students who are abstinent are good and those who have been sexually active are, in this case, contaminated.

And this is just some activities; it’s not even the crap that the abstinence speakers spew to the kids. Don’t think these are just the “bad” examples. They’re all like that. They all use a fear-based curriculum that says sex is bad, you can’t possibly be responsible enough to avoid all the diseases we’re going to tell you about, and there’s no way you can do any kind of sexual activity that doesn’t involve penetration. (I swear the narrow view of what constitute “actual” sex, bothers me the most of all. The fact that some men never get the idea that sex can involve a penis *not* entering a vagina/mouth/anus and STILL BE SATISFYING SEX, bugs the hell out of me.)

I honestly think that the truth that dare not speak its name is that most parents really don’t want their children to be virgins on their wedding night. Setting aside even the issue of virginity, what if you heard of a couple that was getting married that had slept with each other yet? Most people would not think that was a wise thing to do, get into a marriage without exploring that part of a relationship first to find out if you are even compatible.

But it’s like we’re in some kind of Peter Pan world where we all just clap our hands and pretend that the norm is not to have pre-marital sex (or not to have sex in high school). But we all have to hang on to this pretense because otherwise Tinkerbelle will die.

I strongly want to ask William Saletan when he lost his virginity and if it was before the age of 20, does he think his teenage sexual antics ruined his life? Because I think what a lot of people haven’t gotten over is the fact that teen sex may not be an inherently bad thing. The key word is “inherently.” Sex for 13 year olds is not a good idea. Some 17 year olds probably shouldn’t have sex. But in between there is a lot of healthy sexual exploration between high school and college that is actually positive and can be a maturing experience for understanding as much about yourself as growing up does.

But what Saletan doesn’t ever get, is that his ideological allies in abortion and teen sex, do not view the world the way he does. They have a rather unhealthy view of human sexuality, which is that it is inherently sinful except in marriage (and even then…unless you’re doing it to make babies…its still bad). Saletan lives in a dream world where there is a perfect compromise. He never gets that he doesn’t live in a perfect world and just because he thinks he’s being reasonable that if one side lays down their arms the other side won’t rush to fill it with a theocracy. Saletan might think that all teen sex is bad but early 20something sex is probably okay, if not healthy. But his allies don't. He doesn't get that.

Heh, as I was composing this post, I found this.

William Saletan: Women Just Don't Know Their Minds (But I Do)

Is it possible for the reproductive rights collective to stop William Saletan from representing himself as "pro-choice" in media outlets everywhere? He's becoming the "pro-choice" version of the "Joe Lieberman democrat."

For someone who claims to be supportive of keeping abortion legal the man seems to be following in Justice Kennedy’s thinking that women really don’t know enough about what abortion is when they choose it. His Slate/Washington Post column today states that asking forcing women seeking abortions to view ultrasounds isn’t so bad. In fact maybe they should be forced to feel guilty about what they are choosing to do.

Pro-lifers are often caricatured as stupid creationists who just want to put women back in their place. Science and free inquiry are supposed to help them get over their "love affair with the fetus." But science hasn't cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn't want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we.

Really Saletan? We are?

Critics complain that these bills seek to "bias," "coerce," and "guilt-trip" women. Come on. Women aren't too weak to face the truth. If you don't want to look at the video, you don't have to. But you should look at it, and so should the guy who got you pregnant, because the decision you're about to make is as grave as it gets.

Like other grave decisions in our lives we women need to be lectured by males that we’re not taking this process seriously enough. We're "strong" enough to hear the bad news like big girls.

Are ultrasound pushers trying to bias your decision? Of course. But of all the things they do to "inform" your decision, this is the least twisted. Look at the Senate's "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act." It would order your doctor to deliver a 193-word script full of bogus congressional findings about your "pain-capable unborn child." Ultrasound cuts through that kind of garbage. The image on the monitor may look like a blob, a baby, or neither. It certainly won't follow some senator's script. All it will show you is the truth.

And what truth is that pray tell? Most people can’t interpret what the images are on an ultrasound without a fully-trained technician to tell them what they are seeing. Interpretation of what pregnancy is and means to the individual is the heart of what being pro-choice is.

Saletan then gets awfully cute with his moralizing.

If I were a legislator, I'd offer four amendments to any ultrasound bill. First, the government should pick up the tab. Second, the woman should also be offered a six-hour videotape of a screaming 1-year-old. Third, any juror deliberating whether to issue a death sentence should be offered the chance to view an execution. Fourth, anyone buying meat should be offered the chance to watch video from a slaughterhouse. If my first amendment passed but the others failed, I'd still vote for the bill.

Again, because women don’t really know what their minds are until some authority figure helps them out. (And nice way to conflate abortion with "slaughter" and "death penalty" Bill.)

But the clash between ultrasound and the partial-birth ban is ultimately a choice between information and prohibition. To trust the ultrasound, you have to trust the woman.

Really? You don’t seem too, Bill.

With all this talk about how women are supposed to feel guilty over having an abortion Saletan doesn’t seem to ask why a woman should feel guilty about her choice, regardless how how the procedure is performed. Because clearly he's as conflicted as Justice Kennedy is over how abortions procedures are described. So since he's conflicted we all should be. Therefore it doesn’t seem incongruent to him to use measures that associate guilt with abortion. Because, he's essentially saying, as long as she’s sorry for what she’s about to do, a woman can have her abortion. But she must be very, very sorry about it.

Because let’s not forget women are children who need to be lectured at and told how to feel about their reproductive choices. Frankly, considering how irresponsible us women are with our vaginas, its surprising anyone lets us run around with them.