Regnerus argues that the Church's stance on abstinence is "unreasonable" when faced with the statistics on American marriages—namely, that men and women are marrying in their late twenties. "When people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry," Regnerus argues, "it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It's battling our Creator's reproductive designs." But instead of challenging the Church to reconsider their abstinence-only push, Regnerus says the answer is supporting early marriage, so that young Christians can remain faithful to their religion, even as hormones and the passage of time make it increasingly difficult for them to do so.

However, Regnerus tells the Associated Press that he's not trying to push young Christians to marry simply to avoid premarital sex: "I think marriage is just a fantastic institution for people who think rightly about it, have realistic ideas about it and put the requisite work into it," he says. Yet his piece seems to be fairly one sided when it comes to who, exactly, benefits the most from "young marriages."

Women, Regnerus argues, are outnumbered 3-1 in the Evangelical church, and their chances of finding a "chaste" man dwindle as they age. They're also faced with maturing faster than their male counterparts, which factors into this creepy argument: "It shouldn't surprise us when a young woman falls in love with someone three, five, even ten years her senior. Indeed, two of the finest marriages I've recently witnessed exhibit nearly a dozen years' difference between husband and wife. While there are unwise ages to marry, there is no right age for which we must make our children wait." One wonders how Regnerus would feel about a 20 year old Christian male falling in love with a 32 year old woman.

It's a fairly weak argument on his part, as he tries to brush aside the realities of young marriage (high divorce rates, money troubles, difficulties completing a college education, family disapproval) as thinks that are well-documented but easily avoided through—you guessed it—good Christian counseling. "Abstinence is not to blame for our marital crisis," he argues, "But promoting it has come at a cost in a permissive world in which we are increasingly postponing marriage." But is it really about "a permissive world?" Or is it about a world where young people are increasingly saddled with student loans, difficult job prospects, and social norms wherein their peers marry and have children later in life? Regnerus says it's not about the sex. But if that's the case, why the rush to marry? Why can't true love wait, like the church has been asking it to for years? For young Evangelicals, it seems, it's a matter of deciding what is, and isn't, worth the wait.

Wait For Sex And Marriage? Evangelicals Conflicted [AP]
The Case For Early Marriage [ChristianityToday]

In order to do so, she must, with the help of People, imply that her life totally sucks. People helpfully mentions that she didn't appear at all in her high school class's graduation slideshow, and that she spent graduation night "not with a gang of friends but at home, giving her 5-month-old son a bottle while her extended family plays 'Eskimo bingo.'" Bristol adds that she has had to write a school paper while listening to her son cry, and that "girls need to imagine and picture their life with a screaming newborn baby and then think before they have sex." But perhaps the strangest thing about the article is her statement that,

If girls realized the consequences of sex, nobody would be having sex. Trust me. Nobody.

Not only does the ignore the many ways to prevent the specific consequence Bristol's talking about, it also sounds incredibly condescending. Does Bristol really think that girls have no idea that sex can lead to pregnancy? And what about boys? Bristol's statement lets Levi off the hook pretty easily.

But she probably doesn't mean to talk down to girls. Bristol is in an incredibly awkward position — she was forced to be a public figure when she isn't particularly suited for it, the most private aspects of her life became national news, and now she's supposed to simultaneously adore her baby son and hold him up as the career-destroying consequence of bad behavior. Bristol probably never would have become an abstinence advocate if not for her famous mom, and her life would probably be better for it. She certainly wouldn't be called upon to make public statements about teen sexual behavior, something she's clearly not very good at.

Bristol Palin Exposes Her Sometimes Isolated Life [People]

Bristol, appearing on GMA this morning, said she isn't "quite sure" how her personal experience conflicts with her new abstinence-only message. What she was sure about is that "abstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% [...] prevent pregnancy." Is this a reversal of her earlier (and, frankly, more consistent with her own experience) position that abstinence is unrealistic? Not according to Bristol, who claimed she never said such a thing:

Bristol said her earlier words on abstinence were "taken out of context," and GMA's Chris Cuomo didn't press the issue, which is unsurprising in an interview padded with softball questions about Levi Johnston and Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonation. Today's Matt Lauer, who interviewed Bristol later in the morning, wasn't much better — in his sit-down with Bristol and, weirdly, her dad, he mentioned Bristol's earlier "unrealistic" statement but didn't actually ask her to explain her change of heart:

It was a little icky to watch Lauer ask Todd Palin, on the couch with his daughter and grandson, if he knew Bristol and Levi were having sex — at the same time, it was disappointing that Lauer let Todd totally sidestep the question. The weirdest part of the interview, however, was Todd and Bristol's different characterizations of Bristol's pregnancy. Bristol, holding Tripp, asked teens to "learn from my [slight pause] example." Todd went ahead and calls it a "mistake." Which goes to show that, as Lauer hinted, having a Teen Ambassador promote abstinence with her baby on her lap is kind of a strange choice. But The Candie's Foundation, whose "celebrity messages" include "Be Sexy: It Doesn't Mean You Have to Have Sex" and which counts among its spokespeople Jenny McCarthy of toilet ad and vaccine-hating fame, is no stranger to strange choices.

Update: On The Early Show, Levi Johnston disagreed with Bristol's new position, saying, "I don't just think telling young kids, you can't have sex, it's not going to work. It's not realistic."

Related: Bristol Palin Campaigns Against Teen Pregnancy [MSNBC]
The Candie's Foundation: History [Official Site]

No, for real, Slaughter's Prevention First Act which may actually see the President's desk this year is utterly shocking for what it proposes in this area:

(a) In General- The Secretary of Health and Human Services may make grants to eligible States to conduct sex education programs, including programs that provide education on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

(b) Requirements for Sex Education Programs- For purposes of this title, a sex education program is a program that—

(1) is age-appropriate and medically accurate;

(2) stresses the value of abstinence while not ignoring those young people who have had or are having sexual intercourse;

(3) provides information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptive and barrier methods used—

(A) as a means to prevent pregnancy; and

(B) to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS;

(4) encourages family communication between parent and child about sexuality;

(5) teaches young people the skills to make responsible decisions about sexuality, including how to avoid unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances and how to avoid making verbal, physical, and sexual advances that are not wanted by the other party;

(6) teaches young people how alcohol and drug use can affect responsible decision making; and

(7) does not teach or promote religion;

(c) Additional Activities- In carrying out a program of sex education, a State may expend a grant under subsection (a) to carry out educational and motivational activities that help young people—

(1) gain knowledge about the physical, emotional, biological, and hormonal changes of adolescence and subsequent stages of human maturation;

(2) develop the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure and protect their sexual and reproductive health from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS throughout their lifespan;

(3) gain knowledge about the specific involvement and responsibility of males in sexual decision making;

(4) develop healthy attitudes and values about adolescent growth and development, body image, racial and ethnic diversity, and other related subjects;

(5) develop and practice healthy life skills, including goal-setting, decision making, negotiation, communication, and stress management;

(6) develop healthy relationships, including skills to prevent dating and sexual violence;

(7) promote self-esteem and positive interpersonal skills focusing on relationship dynamics, including friendships, dating, romantic involvement, marriage and family interactions; and

(8) prepare for the adult world by focusing on educational and career success, including developing skills for employment, job seeking, independent living, financial self-sufficiency, and workplace productivity.

The damnable liberals are seeking to pass a law that requires states give medically accurate information to kids! That acknowledges abstinence! That teaches that men and boys have responsibilities to not pressure women and girls! That encourages parental involvement! That doesn't promote religion! It's like they're trying to destroy the very fabric of our society!

[Use this page to email your Congress member about H.R. 463 and this page to email your Senators about Harry Reid's companion bill, S. 21.]

Just Say No [The Economist]

Related: H.R. 463: The Prevention First Act of 2009 [Library of Congress]
S. 21: The Prevention First Act [Library of Congress]

As the Washington Post reports, a new study conducted by Janet E. Rosenbaum of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that teens who take "virginity pledges" are not less likely to engage in premarital sex than their non-pledging peers.

The study compared teens who take "virginity pledges" — who tend to come from families that are more religious and conservative and less sex positive — with teens who did not take a pledge but who come from similar backgrounds. In the past, studies of abstinence programs compared religious and conservative teens with more liberal and sex positive teens, which Rosenbaum says is like comparing "apples to oranges." By comparing pledgers with peers who come from a similar backgrounds, Rosenbaum was able to test how effective the "virginity pledge" was in reaching its desired audience... and discovered that the pledge was ineffective: by 2001 she found that 82 percent of those who took the pledge had retracted their promises and there was no significant difference in sexual activity from their peers. In fact more than half of both of the groups studied engaged in fairly typical sexual behavior: they had engaged in different types of sexual activity, had an average of three partners and had sex before they were 21, even if they were unmarried.

The most disturbing part of the study was that it found that teens who took the pledge were less likely to use protection when they eventually did have sex. (This morning on the Today show, Meredith Vieira discussed the study with psychotherapist Laura Berman.)

Ultimately, the study suggests that abstinence programs are ineffective since, as Rosenbaum notes, abstinence is more of an "individual conviction rather than participating in a program." Unfortunately, abstinence programs like "virginity pledges" can create poor sexual practices by not educating teens about different forms of contraception, yet our government spends more than $176 million annually on funding similar, abstinence-focused programs. As Dr. Berman said to Vieria, this is exciting news for the sex education-positive incoming Obama administration.

Study: Teenage 'Virginity Pledges' Are Ineffective [Washington Post, via MSNBC]

But, in that absence of a record — and as the Vice President on a ticket headed by John McCain — his stances are now basically her stances, or at least the policies she'll be called upon to defend. And, like her position on abortion, his stances on a range of issues important to women are not exactly progressive.

Abortion Rights: On abortion, they're clearly alike (now). McCain used to support an exception in cases of rape, incest or risk to the life of the mother but reversed himself this year. Glamour reports that he didn't support overturning Roe V. Wade in 1999, then he did and that he was kind of a dick when the magazine's editors asked for further clarification. He's definitely all excited about the 2-3 Supreme Court vacancies expected "by the people who decide these things," since that'll give him a chance to appoint justices that will see Roe v. Wade as a "bad decision" the way that he does.

Equal Pay For Equal Work: Moving onto pay equity, something else that Sarah Palin's said nary a word on. McCain's said plenty, including that he's "all for pay equity" but not for the Ledbetter bill because it would lead to, you know, women using the courts to enforce said equity. Of course, he's also said that we could solve pay equity by giving women better job training, which sort of pisses Lilly Ledbetter off. Nonetheless, the official position of a McCain-Palin administration would be "no" to any bill that attempted to resolve the issues in the law that allowed the Supreme Court to fuck over Lilly Ledbetter.

Women At War: McCain's somewhat more progressive on women in combat, telling Glamour:

I think this policy needs to be reevaluated constantly.... We have more and more evidence of greater abilities of women in combat. Also...this conflict is everywhere; we have had a large number of women wounded and killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I'm for integrating women as much as possible—with one exception: For example, in Baghdad today, a male combat infantryman puts on 50 pounds of body armor, then another 40 or 50 pounds of military equipment. I want to make sure that women are able to also do that. Now, I'm not saying women are physically weak. Some of the strongest [people] I have ever known in my life are women.... I just want to make sure that they're able to carry out these missions in the most effective fashion.... Women have proven to [everyone's] satisfaction as pilots, as combat medics, in any other role they've been in, that they're perfectly capable, and in some ways not only capable but superior.

Of course, that's a little bit different than what he said back in 1991, but even old dogs can learn new tricks. Is flip-flopping a doggie trick? Anyway, he'd "reevaluate" constantly, sort of like he already has, but I would say it's iffy whether he and Palin would reverse the women in combat decision; I doubt they'd be spearheading any women-in-combat initiatives — let alone any reversal of don't ask, don't tell, despite its disproportionate effects on feamles.

Sex Education: While, as I've previously mentioned, Sarah Palin's record on abstinence-only education is sketchy at best, McCain's positions are more robust. He supports teaching abstinence in schools and is less supportive of birth control education. In fact, he's said that he opposes eliminating the proved-ineffective abstinence-only education programs currently on the books, while leaving wiggle room on giving teenagers some information that there are ways to avoid pregnancy if you ignore the abstinence thing. He did vote against an 2005 family planning bill and, when asked to explain by Glamour first said it was because it have provisions on funding abortion (it didn't) and then clarified that it was because it had provisions relating to Plan B, which doesn't exactly make it better.

In the end, when it comes to women's issues, there may not be a ton of information out there on where Sarah Palin stands, but — like every Vice President before her — she's not going to have any choice but to stand by her man... who hardly stands by many of the women in this country on the issues outlined above. McCain thinks women should nonetheless vote for him because he wants to keep taxes low (not that he's actually correct about that) and make sure that when his plan goes through Congress, the (magical) markets will keep prices low.

Interestingly, McCain's economic adviser, Carly Fiorina thinks women shouldn't be voting just based on abortion, and that issues likes taxes and health insurance are important to women too — issues on which, as I've just noted, McCain is actually worse on. So tell me again how is McCain's candidacy is supposed to be about the issues?

For these reasons and undoubtedly many others, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee today endorsed Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the Presidency and Vice Presidency — one of the very few times the organization has ever made a general election endorsement. But even NOW's President, Kim Gandy, admitted on NPR that this would be controversial among some of their members despite the significant differences between Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin on the issues supposedly of importance to women. Bethesda, MD psychologist Lynette Long, a lifetime Democrat, probably knows a little about why — she's not voting on the issues, just on the gender that she shares with Sarah Palin. For all Fiorina's (and McCain's, and Palin's) posturing about the elections being about the issues (and about issues other than abortion), the McCain camp wants a lot of women like Long to completely ignore the issues, not choose between them.

Palin's Record on Women's Issues Questions [UPI]
Palin: Unserious About Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence [Shakesville]
Palin On Abortion: I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped [Huffington Post]
McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform [ABC News]
Is McCain the Nostradamus of the Supreme Court? [CBS News]
McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill In The Senate [Huffington Post]
John McCain [Glamour]
Women's Combat Roles Likely To Be On Next President's Agenda [LA Times]
McCain: Gay Troops "Intolerable Risk" [Gay.com]
John McCain Campaign to Brody File: Eliminating "Abstinence Only" Programs is Wrong [CBN News]
Health Insurance And the Single Girl [Glamocracy]
Tax Plans And the Single Girl [Glamocracy]
National Organization for Women PAC Endorses Obama-Biden [NOW]
National Organization For Women Endorses Obama [NPR]
In This Election, Putting Gender First [Baltimore Sun]

Because, for one, most schools in Alaska do teach comprehensive sex-ed, and the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development offers schools a choice of curricula that include programs focusing on abstinence without endorsing a specific program. In fact, there have even been debates in Alaska since the start of Palin's tenure whether exempting children from comprehensive sex ed is constitutional. Palin's statements on abstinence-only education date to one questionnaire from a right-wing group during her campaign in 2006 when asked the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

In answer to that leading question which conflates comprehensive sexual education with condom and Pill distribution, her campaign answered:

Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

In the last year and a half, searches of her office's website and the Guttmacher Institute revealed no abstinence-only initiatives by her administration. Simply put, Sarah Palin is by no means the world's biggest promoter of abstinence-only education, as some people are claiming.

Is it possible that she supports it (or supported it)? Sure, it's certainly a Republican initiative. But there's no evidence that I can find that she yanked Bristol out of sex ed classes or denied her contraceptive education. To make a 17-year-old girl who didn't likely choose either to be pregnant or to be some political football the new poster child for attacking her mother's policy positions doesn't leave any better a taste in my mouth this afternoon than I had this morning.

On a more personal note, though, let those of us who did remain abstinent in high school (and thereafter) and always practiced safe sex throw stones. I lost my virginity at 16 not because I wasn't exposed to comprehensive sex ed or because my parents were too religious or even too permissive. I chose to have sex with my high school boyfriend because I loved him deeply and because I wanted to. The two of us were honors students, tops of our classes, responsible and reliable and I'll be damned if I can sit here and swear that we were the safest sex practitioners on God's green earth. That we didn't end up pregnant had likely a lot more to do with luck than it did a rigorous adherence to what Ms. H. taught us in health class. And, had we gotten pregnant, I would've strongly preferred to get an abortion — but I don't think he would've been quite as enthusiastic about that alternative.

I can only imagine the courage it took for Bristol to go to her parents, pregnant at 17, and lay out one of the most personal aspects of human life — her sexual activities — and the consequences of those activities and that she was choosing to keep the child despite the high probability of political embarrassment that would be laid at her mother's doorstep. And all of that was before her mother was about to be made VP. She didn't by any means choose the easy path here, and everyone probably fully expected that this big reveal would happen at some point rather soon. That it has doesn't make my bile rise any less with every post I read about how, ha-ha, look what happens when you promote abstinence. Once again, even for this great lover of Schandenfreude, my lips are curling in a little disgust with the glee shown by some of my political compatriots at this news.

Yes, we need to have a rational conversation in this country about striking the balance between providing students with age-appropriate sex education and a rational discussion about moral values and their role in making sexual choices. I am a full and complete supporter of comprehensive sex ed — which includes information like "there is no such thing as blue balls" and "no means no" and "saying no to sex can be a sign of respect for both of you." But clapping our hands in joyous rubbernecking over Bristol Palin's being in the family way is not going to be the start of any discussion. It makes us look as judge-y as we accuse Them of being, it makes us look like abortion-promoters instead of choice-respecters (it does mean both choices, after all) and it makes us look like we think a 17-year-old target is easier to hit than a 44-year-old target. Sex education will be a great topic for discussion and reform in an Obama Administration, and it wouldn't — and shouldn't — involve the now rather-public embarrassment or shaming of a 17-year-old girl.

Palin's Daughter Pregnant [Politico]
To Rebut Rumors, Palin Says Daughter, 17, Pregnant [Reuters]
Health Education Curriculum in Alaska [Alaska Legislative Information]
HIV/STD and Sexuality Education Curricula [Alaska Department of Education & Early Development ]
2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire [Eagle Forum Alaska]
Alaska Schools Discuss Whether Exempting Kids from Sex Ed is 'Unconstitutional' [Christian Post]

"I just have a huge amount of frustration with guys," he told the Times. "They need to know that so much hurt can come from the lack of respect for women."

Dear Moe,

Here are some explanations of the conversation that I actually had with Randall, and the understanding that he surely had, but didn't present in writing. The main problem with the article is that it presents only the fact of sexual arousal and temptation, and says nothing about the degree. I carefully explained to Randall that almost all men in our culture live at a hyper-stimulated level of sexual arousal, fed by pornography, their own fantasy, advertising, women's fashion choices, etc. Almost everyone knows that men are "horny," but what they don't realize is that it's not a natural state. When you stop pouring gasoline on the fire, as it were, it goes down to a manageable level. Living a chaste lifestyle means not drooling over every attractive woman you see, fantasizing whenever something crosses your mind, and watching pornography. The sexual input is minimal, and so it is easy to live with it from day to day, so that you're not pulled around by your nose. It's an incredibly liberating and hopeful message for men, because they feel like they have no possibility of controlling their sexuality, when in reality it's entirely possible.

About the way that he manipulated the quotations from me: describing my lust as an "untamed beast" was a comment on the nature of lust itself, not the strength of my own. It's untamed precisely because it is lust, and if given free rein it considers nothing but its own gratification. It seeks to use another person to gain personal pleasure, which is why you have to take away constant fuel for it if you want to love and respect women for who they are, and not just how they turn you on. Also, the ways in which things like a touch, a glance, or a random thought can bring arousal is simply an observation about manners in which it can happen. The actual occurence of such stimulation goes down at the same rate as the willful input of lustful stimulation, and while such things (like a thought) may occur regularly, they rarely bring any arousal at all if you learn to let go of them and ignore them—like a fly buzzing around. Basically, it's not a huge deal! I'm frustrated that Randall didn't make any of this clear, because I said all of this to him, and more. It would have been easy for him to pain a picture of me as someone who had fought a battle and emerged free, happy, and comfortable with his sexuality, but instead he makes me seem like a repressed weirdo. All this does is perpetuate the myth that men have no choice except to be horny, and if you act like I do then you'll go crazy and salivate at every little thing that crosses your path. Our culture so badly needs role models of the opposite lifestyle.

Oh, and on another note—Janie was laughing when she was asked about being attracted to me! Lol, we both found it a funny question, but he totally changed it in the article. And we weren't supposed to smile in the photos either—somebody commented on that, lol. They said that Janie and I should smile more and lighten up!

Everything above is what I wrote, so if you could write up something to append to your blog, I would be very grateful.

Peace,

Leo

The one great difference between them seemed to be in their experience of abstinence. Fredell was unaware of that gap. Whenever sexual urges struck, she told me, she was able to manage them by going on a long run and assumed that everyone should be able to do the same. "The biological drive can be overcome," she said. "It's not like it reaches a peak, and you have to go out and have sex."

"And you don't go down the street thinking you'd like to have sex with him, him, him and him?" I asked.

"No!" she said, abruptly. "Is that what men do?"

It seemed a good time to talk with her about what else Keliher had told me. He described the act he has never experienced as something "breathtakingly powerful" that "lights all of your body on fire." He spoke of his lust as "this untamed beast."

Fredell was incredulous: "Leo said that?"

He told me that he struggles constantly against "physical lustful temptation" — that he can be aroused just by a woman's touch, by even a look at a woman or at a photo or sometimes by "thoughts that just come out of the blue — basically pornography in my head." They come to him when he's merely walking around campus, or even when he's alone in the library — "like a fly buzzing around."

To the matter of masturbation, he said, "This was really tough for me . . . because when you have a habit that's so deeply ingrained, it's hard to stop."

Fredell, when asked about masturbation, just said, "Oh, God, no!"

Keliher quoted to me what an abstinence speaker said — that the real meaning of masculinity is "being able to deny yourself for the sake of the woman." "To have that kind of self-control is really what it means to be a man," Keliher had told me. When he finds himself aroused these days, he endures it and waits for it to pass. In this way, he said he has "matured out of that more infantile need for a woman into a recognition of self-sufficiency." But some women, Keliher granted, continue to give him trouble.
One of these is a freshman — "a very gentle, caring soul," he said, who "works with little kids and stuff." Keliher can't help thinking about her glossy hair and beautiful skin.

Another appears to be Janie Fredell. Keliher smiled and said he was "a little bit" attracted to her — "in very superficial ways," he added. "It's something we laugh about — if we dated."

But Fredell did not laugh. "No!" she erupted, and with increasing volume, "No! No! No! I can't emphasize enough that there is nothing between me and Leo! It's just that we're not compatible in that regard."

Or actually, that is a lie, taking yourself too seriously is up there with "presumptuousness" when it comes to achieving things I guess, so what do I know; I'm still with Lena, for whatever it's worth.

Students Of Virginity [NY Times]

This baby-boom news also gives us the opportunity to go back to a tried and true mantra: It's the Republicans' fault! Is it any wonder that the birth rate is increasing (among women of all ages, teens included), when the Bush administration has limited access to abortion and financed abstinence only education? I'm also curious about the decline in contraceptive use. Is it because women are no longer scared of AIDS, so they forgo condoms? Is it because the price of birth control pills has risen?

So which is it, ladies? Is it a cultural shift backwards, in which women need babies to feel complete? Or can we blame President Bush for hating on abortion? Or are women just seeing Angelina look all perfect and shit with Shiloh and want a mini-me for themselves? The barren whores here at Jezebel want to know!

U.S. Experiences Baby Boomlet in 2006 [AP via Los Angeles Times]

Earlier: Having A Baby: Doctors Say Now Or Never; I Say No Fair
Teen Sex Drive Trumps Abstinence Education
Isn't A Subsidy For Birth Control For College Girls Missing The Point?

Sex Education Works, Study Shows [CBS News]
Syphilis infections on the rise in Europe [MSNBC]
Sex Education Requirements, State by State [Institute for Youth Development]
Earlier:
Teenage Sex Drive Trumps Abstinence Education

• Jennie Garth and Neve Campbell's hairdresser to shill line of hair care products in infomercials, natch. We think this sounds like an awesome idea... if it were 1992. [WWD, 1st item]
  
• Nicole Miller has created a new lingerie line which she's naming "3rd Date" since, we guess, that on the 3rd date people who actually bother to buy designer lingerie sometimes let dudes see it? [WWD, sub req'd]
  
• Big for winter: anything and everything with sparkles on it? [WWD, sub req'd]

• Ann Taylor's chief financial officer resigns the day after it is announced how unanticipated drops in sales figures had occurred in the company's first quarter. [WWD, sub req'd]
• Though meanwhile, Ann Taylor decides it should launch a line aimed specifically at baby boomers. Uh, wait: so the two other existing Ann Taylor lines are aimed at who exactly? Above item now makes much more sense. [NYTimes]
• TopShop is being accused of exploiting cheap labor in Mauritius. [Vogue UK]
• Ferragamo's brooding womenswear design consultant Graeme Black has finally made it official and said buh-bye to the Italian design house to design his own collection full-time. Paging Valentino? [Vogue UK]
• Trunk shows, once an experience offered exclusively to the rich and the aspiring, are now moving online, making them available to even poor suckers like us! Ah, the democracy of the market. [WSJ]

• Breast milk proponents in the UK are calling for a ban on baby formula advertisements after an ad appeared alongside a photo of mammary-enhanced new mom Jordan in a gossip rag. Um, clearly she was just worried about the baby suffocating. [Daily Mail]
  
• Statistics show that while more women vote than men, single gals don't vote as much as married women. People, register to vote already! [Feministing]
  
• A female Air Force officer is facing a court martial for refusing to testify in her own rape case. The charges against the alleged rapists were dropped and now she's being charged with underage drinking and "committing indecent acts". If convicted, she'll have to register as a sex offender. The mind boggles. [Houston Chronicle]

• Not that this is a heinous crimes competition or anything, but this story about a British sicko who raped a teenage girl and forced her into prostitution in return for gasoline may make us even sicker. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with the world? [Guardian]
• Doulas are out and you are in! Today the new birthing accomplice is you, your baby daddy, and a big ol' full length mirror! Apparently, unassisted home births are on the rise in the UK. [Daily Mail]
• Girls are entering puberty as early as six years old, with everything from television to divorced parents to blame. Mother Nature, you are so cruel. [Daily Mail]
• The Nation's Barbara Ehrenreich thinks it's pretty wack that Why Am I Tempted (WAIT) doesn't require its abstinence trainers to actually abstain from sex themselves. Totally agree. Besides, wouldn't you rather hear the truth — that lotsa men are 'eh' in the sack and you're better off waiting until you can find one who's at least good at oral — if abstinence is going to be rammed down your throat? [The Nation]
• A new study conducted on Finnish female twins suggests that the rate of anorexia might be underestimated and that the eating disorder actually occurs in as many as 270 out of 100,000 women. Count us out — we just ate a delicious salami sandwich. [Reuters]
• Children of single dads are less likely to get routine check-ups with their doctor or have medical insurance. Well, Britney, at least you have something to suggest you might possibly may be a better parent than K-Fed. But it's still probably not enough. [Reuters]
• If you're mega chubs before you get pregnant, your baby is more likely to have birth defects — luckily, the chances of that are still pretty midge, so don't start dieting for Junior just yet. [CNN]
• Ending on a lighter, more grrl-power note, movies from women directors are flooding the big screen, says CNN, and they're not all crappy romantic comedies either. Oh, but there's bad news. The Director's Guild of America still is only 7% female. Pout. [CNN]

Sarah, 26
This chick hasn't had sex for a year, despite the fact that she has a live in BF, who she's been with since she was 19. He goes out every night immediately after work to DJ in clubs and doesn't come home till 2 am, where he sleeps in a separate room. They used to bang three nights a week, but now they're both tired from work. Sarah isn't worried that he'll ever cheat on her, because he said he "loves" her.

Loren, 29
After breaking up with her first boyfriend five years ago, Loren hasn't had sex since. She says needs to be in love to bang, and that's understandable, but she's a bit preachy about other girls who don't have such hangups. ("I think being promiscuous can damage your self-esteem.") She doesn't like dating and she's afraid of getting into another relationship. Frankly, she sounds like a stick in the mud. She was set up on a date with a handsome guy who bought her drinks in a club. Then he offered her drugs. "It was a disaster." Disaster? He sounds dreamy!

Mandy, 41
This lady went into early menopause at 36. Sucks, right? [Ugh. maybe she smoked too much? -Ed.] She was with the same guy for nine years, but when she went through the change, her libido plummeted and they stopped fucking. She thinks it was a major reason of their breakup. Now she uses some sort of oil on her clit that stimulates it and she's been getting back in the mood and is seeing a new guy. (Why the hell did the Daily Mail profile her? She's totally gonna get it on by the end of this week!)

Denise, 27
Denise is a Christian virgin who started an abstinence support group called Celibrate. She can't see herself ever having sex, because even though she can recognize an attractive man when she sees one, she'd rather "appreciate him from afar." She prefers spending time working and hanging out with her girlfriends. Girlfriends! That's what's going on here, right?

Sue, 29
This woman is a single mother to four kids and she's only 29! No wonder she hasn't had sex in eight years—she's too busy. And she probably doesn't want any more kids. She admits to having lonely moments.

Beverly, 30
Beverly lives with her mom and doesn't have sex anymore because she was diagnosed with endometriosis, so intercourse is too painful. She has an understanding boyfriend and they are in love.

Seriously, those last two are just bad reporting on the Daily Mail's part. They really thought these were accurate representations of women choosing abstinence? Or maybe it's just too hard to find girls who are truly celibate because those crazy birds in Britain just love shagging so much. In any event, we hope that that these ladies don't forget to celebrate their country's National Orgasm Week. Just because they're refraining from being intimate with other humans doesn't mean they have to refrain from being intimate with something that requires batteries.

"The Women Who Haven't Had Sex In 33 Years" [Daily Mail]