Running away from a problem, it caters to the mentality of those who perpetuate that problem, norming us all to their level of stupidity:
The Department of Health labelled the campaign: “Condom confidence boosts sex appeal”.
The £5.2 million publicity drive tells women in their late teens and early 20s that men are attracted to girls who carry the contraceptives.
It advises that “men like nothing better than a woman who knows what she wants”.
Recommended phrases include “If you make it clean, I’ll make it dirty” and “Let’s get you ready for the ride of your life”.
Women are told that they are no longer regarded as “easy” for carrying a condom.
Ah, lowest common denominator, if you were only rare — but you’re not, you’re the default, and the default of all things in life is basically failure.
Easy girls are only attractive to underconfident men. Women who carry around condoms in case they get lucky in the toilet paper aisle at the local grocery store are people incapable of planning their lives.
Normally we call these drones, whores, sluts, slaves, etc.
First, let’s be real here. We’re not talking about adults. We’re talking about kids acting like adults. If we cannot get beyond the notion that there is no magical ‘age threshold’ defining the -process- by which individuals make the transition between the two categories, we are not going to get anywhere with any campaign designed to synch up staid mores with aberrant sexual advertising and actual physical safety. This means treating the individuals as such and not giving into a uniformity of approach.
As an element of illustrating the latter: if a young man doesn’t walk around with a condom, he’s considered crass and inconsiderate if not actually effeminate in his lack of preparedness with his girlfried -because it’s assumed- that he won’t know when she decides.
This is particularly ludicrous because /carrying/ such a prophylactic (in his wallet) is not recommended because heat, flexing, compression and potentially tanic acid can all break down the latex.
OTOH, most women carry purses yet seldom sit on them. And since she is the one at greatest risk to both STD transmission and pregnancy; she NEEDS a condom, as well as the pill, to make sure that a first time with anyone, under any conditions, is _her time_. By choice.
The subtler reality here is that we have also idealized our ‘new age women’, as our men, as mindless robots dedicated to propping up a society, the majority of whose ‘occupants’ are non-contributively deserving of it’s complexity.
Where the sum effort to be successful in this social cess pit is equivalent to what Europeans did to their intelligentsia by locking them up in monasteries in the middle ages, what happens is a sharp decline in TFRs among the higher IQs so that you end up with subreplacement level population shortfalls which only justify /yet more/ ethnic wage slave importation as undercultures with whom limited interbreeding falls short of melting pot mergence.
Their presence in turn making it even harder for any ‘just a Joe’ to find pride and fulfillment in job categories which are snobbily considered too demeaning for the middle class. Like my friend the plumber tells me: “As long as people gotta eat…”.
This applies equally to the ‘Just Joanne’ who maybe was born to be a mom with a warmth of personality and a body made for the role and doesn’t mind the apparent social inequity because it appeals to her innate sense of self. The one sure way of getting her to a _very valuable_ social status is through NOT DEMONIZING the appeal of sex as an understood element of growing up, safely. Which is of course the principle evolutionary driver for it’s pleasure anyway.
Of course, you don’t want particularly your smart women getting knocked up before they have gained at least enough education to refine their intelligence so that they can both support the raising of smarter children and potentially help offset the financial burden of participating in an ever more hostile, expensive, jobmarket and lifestyle.
But you do want -all- women in natively indigenous populations to participate in the process of rebuilding our species and those who don’t get enough sexual initiation at an age where they are apt to trigger the hormonal cascades we call a ‘biologic clock’ are increasingly not considering that option. Or considering it so late that they compromise the genetic health of their kids and the child rearing energy available to nurture them.
Whether the woman immediately becomes a mom and a home maker. Or ‘keeps it in mind’ as she pursues a career; we cannot afford to make our smartest people also our least procreatively active.
And putting safe sex on the table in a way that also keeps them smart about consequences is a good thing as an alternative to the assumption that ‘the smart ones’ are any less fumbling in their teen behaviors. ‘When they are ready’ they will find out or find a way to ask about it is asking ignorance for wisdom in a fashion that -never- works. As indeed, a recent study of children sexual belief systems found that both inner city and rural children had some truly bizarre and utterly inaccurate ideas (unprotected oral and anal sex cannot cause pregnancy or transmit STDs through multiple partners for instance), even into their early teens.
It similarly criticized a ‘fad of bad’ approach (adopted by a well know baptist ministry) to negative sexual behavior endorsement because, again, by cohort age group, it was found that promissary rejection of premarital success is only as successful as the CA based hormone levels, irrespective of initial belief. More importantly, those who went into a sexual situation with prior ‘shouldn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t’ indoctrination were a lot LESS likely to be safety-first prepared for the impromtu event.
As a part of this, I believe we should all take a step back and consider what ’10 as the new 15′ really means as boys enter puberty as much as 8-10 months earlier than prior generations (high fat content diets and large amounts of synthetic hormones in the food) and girls even sooner. This means that 8-9 year old females are starting to think about 10-11 year old males and the isolationist/confrontationalist swings of behavior to an approachable level flatten out around 13-15 instead of 16-17 when hormonal efficiency actually peaks.
i.e. Now we must consider CA and MA conjointly in minds which are neurologically unfit to make complex decisions but which are occupying -bodies- that are relatively saturated in rapid development hormones.
As a function of this, to keep things from going totally crazy, I think we should, on our own, create a supported consort program thru the highschool years that encourages young men and women to make early contact across the gender line using behavioral norms to initiate companionship bonding (dance, movies, competitions) and perhaps (later, 14-15) begin to define intimacy as conditional to practicing the art of constant courtship _over a staged time interval_.
As practice for later marriage.
Before adjusting our age of consent.
That again, we might find a balance between dangerous behaviors and those which help stabilize acceptance of gender roles at the most basic of necessary levels via nothing more than simple rote exposure.
The government program outlined may be crass in their approach. But they will appeal to ‘that kind of person’ as someone who really needs a slogan based sense of group-think appeal to controlling their own reproductive carelessness, not to smart people that reject any overt sense of externalization of their behaviors through advertising banners.
But that doesn’t mean that smart young people won’t be thinking about the subject itself, regardless.
If the alternative to -taught- reproductive responsibility is the certainty of governmental forced immigration of ethnies which _do not_ gain social acceptance but are isolated in outer-level economic positions for which our attitudes as much as bell curve IQs consider ‘inappropriate’, one must consider the harm done done to the society and species as much as the risk to individuals here. We can teach smart kids about smart sex. At home. We can expose them to opposed gender courtship training through their peers at school. But we cannot expect ignorance to develop into biologic responsibility if we do nothing at all to endorse the act which brings us all full circle. And I for one enjoy seeing young parents with young children. It brightens life.
KPl.