Not Quite Sex Ed. Quite Funny

Midwest Teen Sex Show: if you haven’t seen it, check it out. You’ll laugh in an enjoyable way, not those nervous giggles you remember from health class. Host Nikol Hassler’s dead pan delivery, and turn of phrase make the show funny in its own right.

The show is entertainment, not real sex-ed, and they’re semi-up front about that. Even so, I can see your average teen, especially your average teen who has been fed abstinence only sex-ed, confused by statements like “never wash your vagina” and the false implication that everyone is having sex. But teens are bombarded plenty of confusing messages around sex in these united states. It is refreshing to see something sex positive, potentially informative, and created to encourage “frank discussion about . . . teen sexuality” not shame.

(A Shot of Love Makes Me) Want My MTV?

I am waiting with baited breath to see who wins a shot of love with Tila Tequila. This is embarrassing on many levels. Like any other piece of reality TV whose premise is that someone will find true love, A Shot of Love is a crappy show. I got hooked while visiting folks who have MTV. I’d watch on the sly, flipping channels to CNN to avoid detection whenever footsteps came remotely near my door. So please don’t tell anyone my dirty secret. On second thought, do tell. Spread the word. No one will believe you anyway. This vice is way out of character.

Or maybe it’s not. The force behind my obsession with the reality soap-opera is Dani, a firefighter from Florida. Dani is easy on the eye, and, compared to other lesbians on TV, oh so butch. I am captivated by how her “futchness” plays out in popular entertainment. As we approach the finale, I wonder whether a non-feminine woman can succeed “win” in mainstream media, especially at the expense of her 16 strapping male competitors.

Following A Shot of Love reminds me of my teenage habit of reading Annie on My Mind or Two Teenagers in Twenty to assure myself other queers existed. Even in the age of the L Word ‘mos (homos) on TV are as invisible to me as they were in the halls of high school, so their presence is intriguing. Apparently this still applies when the show features a silly plot and perpetually tipsy lesbians who I don’t for the most part find attractive. Go figure.

Does Picking the Lesser of the Evils Count as a Luxury?

Last week, a self-assured, politically-savy colleague sprung the following idea on me: Financially well-off Americans us have the luxury of voting based on social issues, but for the rest of the country choosing a candidate is a matter of economics. I’ve been mulling it over ever since.

First of all, which vote will improve my economic well-being? According to the GOP mantra, Democrats may be “Tax and Spend Liberals,” but the way I see it, the other option is Spend Don’t Tax Conservatives. I have a hard time seeing politicians who throw money at pet projects like the war in Iraq and abstinence only sex-ed with out regard for their efficacy, or the billions in debt foisted on the next generation, as the fiscally conservative option. If there were a group of candidates who’d make quality health care affordable, I’d vote that ticket in a heartbeat, and consider it the economically responsible thing to do. Alas, the option just isn’t there right now.

And then there are the “social issues.” There isn’t much to get excited about here either. The Dems may be pro-choice, but they get squeamish when it comes down to the nitty gritty (partial birth abortion ban anyone?), and aren’t motivated to take on (and get rid of) abstinence only education. They say they are pro-equality, but they can’t get behind gay marriage. They participate in pride parades, but their willingness to chop the T out of ENDA reveals a discomfort with queerness. The list goes on. It doesn’t feel great to get behind democratic candidates when they have such a weak record on social issues. Gems like Huckabee, however, remind me that I’d be crazy to do otherwise.

What do you think?

Global Warming Makes Strange Bedfellows

Well it’s official now, everyone wants to appear green. Actually, it turns out Newt Gingrich thought of himself as a conservationist before worrying about global warming was hot. The difference now is that he has written a book about global warming. Is that de rigeur for politicians who have fallen from grace?

Anyhoo, today in an interview about said book, Newt said this about global warming: “Caution is key. . . you don’t have to prove the argument about carbon loading the atmosphere to think it would be prudent to try to find economically useful ways to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.” Agreeing with the words coming out of his mouth produced so much cognitive dissonance I almost had to stop driving.

Things returned to normal fairly quickly. First, Newt proposed Nuclear energy as the answer to our carbon woes. Brilliant--- let’s switch to an energy source that doesn’t emit carbon when burned, but takes carbon to mine/transport/process, is non-renewable, and produces very hazardous waste that we will have to store pretty much forever. How environmentally responsible. It even violates point 5 of his own contract, “think long term.” Before, and after, that slam dunk of a suggestion, Newt failed to impress. Just like most other politicians, when it comes to the environment, he seemed like all talk and no action. Even so, I’ll probably give the book a chance. There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell I’d elect him for anything, but if he actually works to solve our environmental problems, I’ll pay attention.

It'll Come In Handy Someday?

Yesterday Kate Bornstein gave me a get out of hell free card. As rule of thumb, I don't stay up nights worrying about my fate in the afterlife. Even so, I'll file it with the Queer card. Just to have it around. In case it comes in handy.

I'd like to think the card was a personal gift, but that's stretching it. She gave the cards to me and 600 of her closest friends after a speaking engagement yesterday, and you can download your very own off her website.

Of course, the card is 9/10ths marketing ploy, as are most cute freebies. The back side is an advertisement for Bornstein's new book.

Bornstein is an entertaining speaker, and self-described gender outlaw, two kinds of people the world needs more of. Otherwise I don't know much about her.

Friday Diversions

Call Me Lazy. No really, please do. It’s Friday. The work day is over. I’ll do what I damn well please, even if it means sticking a lot of hyperlinks on a page and calling it a post.

As usual, fake news, cuts right to the heart of things. Check out The Onion’s take on a Portland, ME school board’s decision to make birth control available to students through a health clinic on the school grounds. For those of you who missed the back story read all about it on RH reality check, then let me know how you avoided the story. Did you wear ear plugs and a blindfold 24 hours a day for the past two weeks? Run for cover each time someone flipped to Fox News?

Also, thanks to 802 online for pointing out the Which Dyke to Watch Out For (DTWOF) are you quiz. I had lots more fun at work because of it. Take a gander at it yourselves. You don’t have to be a ‘mo for it to be fun, but being a DTWOF reader prolly helps. Oh, and I’m most like Mo. Was there ever any question?

Come Again?

Lynne Cheney (when asked whether, as the mother of a gay daughter, she supports ENDA): “I don’t like questions that don’t reflect the fact I have two daughters . . .that’s my answer and I’m sticking to it.”

Cheney said this in a speech to the National Press Club that aired on NPR tonight. NPR is my best friend and constant companion, so I was listening. So that’s how Cheney deals with the cognitive dissonance of loving her gay daughter and being part of the Bush Administration? By pretending it’s a snub to acknowledge that Mary has different rights than Liz? What a silly (non)answer.

On a positive, and not entirely unrelated, note, it turns out I have a crush on the Unitarian Universalists sex-ed curriculum. Read all about it in this week’s Seven Days. Our Whole Lives (OWL), is aggressively sex-positive, and realistic. As such, it covers everything from body parts to “abortion, masturbation, sexual fantasies, incest, rape, and gender re-assignment surgery.” If only every teen had the opportunity to take such a course.