Dark Cloud logo





Dark Endeavors

Sex Keeps You Young or Looking Young Gets You Sex?

Sex Is Good? NO! And England Agrees.......

This is Dark Cloud on Wednesday, October 11, 2000.

Two items on the Web, neatly juxtaposed, beg for comment even without the salacious aspect, always an attraction to me.

In Scotland, one of those surveys conducted without undue methodology clogging the article about it, announces that people who have a lot of sex look seven years younger and tend to live longer. In England, however, which has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, the government has entered on a virginity campaign with all the high intelligence that you could imagine. After committees issued their opinion, it turns out that the thrust of the campaign will include strong attempts to inflict the notion that virginity is, and I quote, both "cool" and "groovy." Where to begin. I repeat these articles are from different news services, if such might be called, so there is no actual connection beyond that existing along the two nation's common border. But because both these articles touch upon so many of the idiocies that lacerate the media about the public and its supposed current sexual attitudes and practices, and the authorities reaction to same, lets dissect them. It ought to be remarked right off that the fuelling impetus behind the articles are rather opposite. Sex is neither groovy nor cool but is good for the health if you have a lot of it.

In England, the terms "cool" and "groovy" were probably last used by someone under the age of forty in 1982. The use of these terms alone condemns any project for the benefit of teenagers to oblivion right off the bat, as surely as use of the term Church Teen Social, or anything with the word 'teen', does. This is so obvious that anyone who would ignore it, like a government, is too stupid to recognize well deserved scathing sarcasm which, in any case, they could not spell. England has always considered itself above the rest of Europe, easy when it ruled the rest of the world, somewhat easy with the United States as a huge child behind it, but now it has adopted one of the more absurd notions straight from the Southern Baptist Manual of Social Fantasy rather than learn from its more adult eastern neighbors. Virginity, as a concept, has always been rather notional in any case. If restricted to the structural integrity of the female, there are many ways that this could be altered in the course of growing up without the use of a male. If referring to the spiritual innocence that supposedly exists before the irrevocable step, unless it is lost unwillingly there was no innocence. Most virginity is lost all too willingly. But unless you know what is involved, what is going to be lost, how can such a step be made willingly without all the facts? Or even some facts? And is this an appropriate area for government? Shouldn't government provide all the facts to parents and children in schools, raise the questions, but leave the conclusions to the families? Easy to say, but we have thousands of years of absolute failure behind us facing us with an overpopulated world of mostly unwanted children growing up into confused, hateful adults who want nothing so much as to inflict horror on a child to exorcise the horror inflicted on them. Why has the issue of sex become confused intentionally with birth control? The debate ought to be about birth control, not sex. Sex is good. Unwanted pregnancy is bad. We know, after millennia, that we cannot control sexual impulse, period, but that we can install everyone with pregnancy barriers, be it informational, pharmaceutical, or plastic, and teach people.

But what about beloved Scotland, home to Robert Burns and some of most happily sexually explicit poetry on the planet? To say someone looks seven years younger than they should is a ridiculous statement. What should you look like at sixty? Until that is established, you can't say someone looks younger. Further, why doesn't the data support the opposite theory. Rather than "lots of sex makes you look younger", why not "people who look younger and better get more sex?"

There has been a lot of ridiculous talk in my generation about the Sexual Revolution, supposedly brought about by the Pill and the Media and a steady decline in the collection plate at traditional churches. Only people who have yet to read history are convinced. In reality, the sexual practices and frequency of these practices probably has been restricted only by starvation and life span throughout all our existence. The Sexual Revolution proved conclusively that men will brag about their grossly exaggerated conquests on impersonal forms as easily as in the locker room, and that women will say whatever they think is the popular way to go on the same forms or in their, eh, discussion groups. It takes a believing mind to think there is more extramarital or marital sex today than in Victoria's time, just as it does to conclude that we can convince people that sex is bad, rather than unwanted pregnancy, or to slap our forehead at the amazing claim of younger looking people have more sex than those who do not. Stupidity this deep deserves punishment, and our full prisons, soup kitchens, and decreasing environment foreshadows the end result.

This is DC. See you next week.