"The shin-bone's connected to the, knee-bone. The knee-bone's connected to the, thigh-bone. The thigh-bone's connected to the, hip-bone. And the hip-bone's connected to the penis-bone. The penis-bone's connected to the…."
Here shown with an oracle boner.
There are few kids who would read sing that jingle aloud and be appalled. There are more adults who might put up a fuss, but only because they perceive the word "penis" (scientifically accepted) as more nefarious than "pee-pee," since the former makes genitalia sound like something sort of serious you may have to acquaint your children with, rather than some repetitive nonsense syllable he can learn about from that eccentric middle-aged counselor you leave him with for extracurriculars who admittedly "loves young people."
Don't have sex, your boners are evil, and gays cause earthquakes and Growing Pains.That, of course, reassures you of his affable and decent nature—much like his WWJD belt buckle—as you conveniently forget that Jerry Sandusky echoed the same sentiment because you're a parental apathete who moonlights as someone who knows what's best for your (and frankly everybody else's) child on Facebook.
In all of this, totally disregarding that the penis contains no bones and the only time you should hear it referenced in a song is when you're driving your disappointed date home because her first sexual exploit in the back of your mom's Grand Am didn't even last until the second verse of "Doin' It Well."
"Shhh. During the first time it only hurts for a couple seconds. Then I'll be done."
I digress.
We have a chronically and tragically undereducated young populace on the subject of sexuality. Unfortunately for theocrats, Billy Joel was sorely mistaken by assuming "Catholic girls start much too late" and even more incorrect for the "I Go to Extremes" video. As we remain stuck in the Humean "is/ought" dilemma of ethics and morality, for the purpose of maintaining abstract concepts such as "purity" we continue to advocate policies regarding sexuality that directly contribute to the problems we're trying to solve because "it's just the right thing to do," not because "it works."
The extent of my sexual education at a private school went as follows: "You have this dangly thing between your legs. You pee out of it. Girls don't have that dangly thing. They pee out of something different. There's even another different part girls have babies out of. That thing between your legs fits perfectly (unless you're black, but there aren't any of them at this private, Lutheran school) into that thing girls have babies out of. If you stick it in there and thrust repeatedly, it's called sex and you'll experience an ecstasy unparalleled by any other means. Unless of course you tried this cool drug called Ecstasy, but don't do that either. Hey, that sex feels pretty good for her, as well. Some combination of the previous information leads to girls getting pregnant; sorry for lying the last 13 years. All in all, don't have sex, your boners are evil, gays cause earthquakes and Growing Pains, and women can only be liberated from their icky lady parts by procreative sex after marriage. John 3:16. Colossians 3:12. Corduroy pants. Jesus."
Who needs condoms when you're not having sex.
As comprehensive as that may sound to someone who spends each year listening to the same stories out of the Sabbath Saga every Sunday and expresses his or her humility by telling people how many good things he or she did all week, it may not suffice for ensuring that a boy doesn't notice his shrinking pants length at the sight of the first-girl-to-mature's growing bust. The argument for waiting until marriage for sex is kind of like saying "Stay alive, drive 55" in that Sarah Palin is incapable of either, being that one involves numbers and the other involves not having a teenage daughter who got knocked up because her alcoholic drink was roofied with alcohol.
There's no controversy involved; periods of history with restricted sexual liberty have unequivocally—by correlation—been the shittiest. Strict bans on homosexuality and the admiration of the abstinent (whether adhered to or not) were rampant during the Dark Ages; the maintenance of a hygienic race caused severe repression of teenage sexual angst in Nazi Germany; and Look Who's Talking, Too didn't show any mandick, at all.
Hunger is a drive; a drive nobody has any problem with somebody satisfying (unless you're a vegan, and in that case, fuck you). However, eating is only a behavior that we undergo to survive and successfully perform a more important drive: reproduction. Nobody has a problem with eating, even if we only do it for the purpose of fucking.
Contrarily, people have a colossal problem with fucking, despite that it is natural, inherent, and the most empyrean drive that guides us, even more so than eating. We understand some of the deviance resulting from restricting food, but we remain perplexed when deviance results from restricting sex, a more ultimate driving force. It's like they say, "Don't shit where you eat." (Although, fellas, given a female's anatomy, we eat dangerously close to where they shit.)
This has to cease being a discussion of virtue, and become a pragmatic appraisal of the aptitude of our sexual precepts instead. Until then, AIDS isn't going anywhere, teen pregnancy rates will stagnate, women's rights will be used as bargaining tools, and we'll run out of fags to blame it on.
