Casual Sex and Cigarettes
by
Motte Brown
on Apr 9, 2008 at 7:57 AM
If you want to understand the meaning of indoctrination, take a look at the "Ask a College Student" blog in today's New York Times.
It's a post about what's in store for high-school seniors preparing to enter the college ranks. So they ask some New York college students the real important stuff like "Do you smoke?" and "How many more people do you think you'll sleep with before you get married?"
But never mind the questions, what's interesting is the responses.
These young women being interviewed are all indignant about the health risks of tobacco but seem to have no concern whatsoever about the risks of having multiple sex partners.
Maybe it's all those benign herpes medication ads that make it seem like casual sex would be worth an incurable sexual infection. I mean, compare those to the anti-tobacco ads from The Truth. You remember the one with all the body bags and scary facts like, "Hydrogen cyanide is found in cigarette smoke. Hydrogen cyanide is also in rat poison."
Imagine if it were politically correct to do similar "truth" ads about the risks of casual sex. Maybe New York college students would be just as wary of having up to 30 sexual partners as they are about cigarettes.
HT: World Mag Blog
1. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Apr 9 at 8:06 AM:
One of the reasons why cigarettes smoking has been on the decline and not casual sex is because of the social stigma involved. Smoking used to be perfectly acceptable (by adults anyway) just about everywhere. In airplanes, in restaurants (remember we used to have something called a "smoking section"?), even at work.
But then health awareness as well as general social pressures made smoking "not cool" any longer, at least among the majority.
However, there is a distinct difference between trying to ban/reduce smoking and banning/reducing casual sex: With smoking there was aggressive legislation to limit where/when people could smoke. And "public health" were the reasons cited. However, with casual sex, there is no public health threat to the general population (only between those involved) and besides, many would argue that condems could mitigate that risk anyway.
2. Louise had the following to say on Apr 9 at 8:13 AM:
Mr. Brown, cigarette smoking can pose a health risk to all people who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
This certainly would include the roommate or rommates of a smoker.
A roommate's sexual habits would not result in a physical health risk to the other people at the residence, at least not that I am aware.
It is important however that one selects a roommate with which one can be compatible and the sexual habits of prospective roommates would fall into this category.
3. Louise had the following to say on Apr 9 at 8:25 AM:
I just read the linked blog and it seems these are strange questions to be asking people: "How many more people will you sleep with before you get married?" and "How many would you like to sleep with?"
Maybe the people on the linked blog ran out of regular questions.
4. Laura Grace had the following to say on Apr 9 at 8:29 AM:
Classic and thought-provoking!
5. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Apr 9 at 8:36 AM:
That's messed up.
I can't even imagine DATING that many people in a LIFE time. Let alone sleeping with them >.<
You know with the rate of STDs nowadays, it will be the number one killer in America...I bet its time to start some Truth ads...
6. Katie B had the following to say on Apr 9 at 9:46 AM:
I like the comparison between the herpes med ads and the anti smoking ads. Its true society tends to stigmatize tobacco far more than sex. But does that stop people from smoking? I've lived in DC, VT, CO, and now, NY, as well as a short time in italy, and as far as I remember, there was smoke everywhere in all those places. maybe less in italy, surprisingly, and they had no anti tobacco ads. By logic if we advertize and teach that casual sex is something terrible and unhealthy and uncool, like the anti smoking and drug ads, will it really make a difference? there was another NYtimes blog titled How is Abstinence-Only Sex Education Like South Africa’s Driving Exam?that was interesting, on how the way abstinance only sex ed is failing.
What frustrates me most is that in all our 'save it' rhetoric, we have turned sex into the 'dirty evil shameful thing that you save for the one you love,'
Also, what might anti-sex ads look like? I couldn't imagine any that I could take seriously.
7. Michele had the following to say on Apr 9 at 10:44 AM:
"Truth" ads for the consequences of casual sex would be amazing - the question is, would they be seen at all?
Secondhand smoke is what drives/drove the fight against smoking (amazing that personal responsibility got lost in the mix, but that's a different comment for a different website). There's nothing quite similar in the casual sex discussion - you'd have to make the point that it's harming people who aren't directly or purposefully participating.
Interesting idea, though. I'd be very interested in those "truth" ads.
8. Michael Bertrand had the following to say on Apr 9 at 11:01 AM:
RE: "A roommate's sexual habits would not result in a physical health risk to the other people at the residence, at least not that I am aware."
Sure they would- when you consider that the question from the NY Times specifically references promiscuity. If the dorm is promiscuous, then the STD one person has becomes a risk for all dormitory residents in (sexual) contact with that person. And the chain of contact does not have to be direct. It can be rather convoluted, but the end result remains the same: if you/ your dorm/ your campus are promiscuous then your roommate's sexual behaviors do affect you.
The only logical solution to the problem that I can see is to adopt monogamy and abstinence. And that's not necessarily a religious solution- it's a logical solution based on how STD's spread.
I think comparing cigarette smoking to promiscuity is a great idea. Wish an ad. company would take up the cause.
9. Susan had the following to say on Apr 9 at 12:49 PM:
Several comments about sex not affecting anyone other than those directly involved, I just have to chime in with a few questions and stats....
How about all the kids born out of wedlock who are living in poverty and other circumstances they cannot control b/c of the choice of others? How about all the kids living with only one parent in their life? How about all the kids in foster care who don't even have parents? How about broken marriages b/c of someone committing adultery? How about the kids in those marriages? How about the spouse who gets an STD from her spouse's adulterous relationship?
The list could go on and on.....And, add to it the fact that STDs alone now cost the nation approximately $14 billion in healthcare annually (don't have the number right off for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, but I know it has also been in the billions for years)!
Ummmm.....looks like casual sex affects all of us whether we want to admit it or not.
10. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 9 at 4:03 PM:
Christina,
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but the majority of STD's are not fatal. In fact with the exception of AIDS and Syphilis I am struggling to think of many that are. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about STD's, but we shouldn't me making baseless assertions either...
11. B.M. had the following to say on Apr 9 at 4:08 PM:
You make a nice point, but I think it is important to remember that the main reason we as Christians choose not have 30+ sexual partners (as that one girl claims to want!) is NOT because of the potential health risks, but simple because we are called by Christ to a different lifestyle. Remaining sexually pure isn't about protecting your health - that's just a bonus. Remaining sexually pure is something we do simple because it is a command of the Lord.
12. Julia H had the following to say on Apr 9 at 5:09 PM:
Jethro:
Add HPV to your list of fatal STDs. HPV causes cancer and cancer can cause death.
To whoever said your roommate getting an STD does not affect you:
Ever heard of pubic lice. UGGGGHhh.
13. skp had the following to say on Apr 9 at 5:59 PM:
Whether or not casual sex is a health risk is a moot point. The point is whether or not a roommates behavior- in this case sexual behavior- will affect your life. While I
am with Christina post #5 that I can't even comprehend dating let alone having sex with that many people and with BM post #11 that I personally don't live that way, I most importantly wouldn't want to be locked out of my room everynight so that my roommate could persue his or hers goal of 30+ partners. Jethro- WOULD YOU WANT THAT!
14. Ross had the following to say on Apr 9 at 9:05 PM:
I strongly agree with comment 9. Casual sex can affect individuals outside of those participating. Look at the divorce rate in this country and it is obvious what the "free sex" rhertoric has done to my generation. Not only that, but commenting from the position of a single parent home I for one believe it is time that the people of this nation stand up for the lives of the next generation. Abstitence with a purpose is a powerful practice that honors God, your spouse and your future children, who will be affected by the legacy you leave whether it is good or bad.
15. Adrienne had the following to say on Apr 9 at 10:17 PM:
Katie B, you're completely wrong. All of the places that you list have stringent smoke-free laws, and prevalence has decreased dramatically.
I work in the tobacco-control field. There are several reasons that we've been so successful:
1. Money. Several MAJOR foundations have poured billions in to reducing the use of tobacco in the world.
2. A combination of public health and legislative advocacy.
3. Changing the social norms. 30 years ago 75% of the US population smoked. Now it's roughly around 20%
4. Research. Part of the reason we know so much about how advertisement affects us is because of studies done on kids and cigarette ads.
It's taken the movement 30+ years to succeed. The first Reader's Digest story saying tobacco was bad was in the 1950s.
I'm not saying that this couldn't be replicated, but it would take a ton of money coupled with political champions not afraid to touch this issue. Who's harder to beat? Big Tobacco or the combined forces of the NEA, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Emily's List, NOW and any other group that covers these issues.
Before you can change an issue, you have to make it safe for politicians to touch and make it relevant to everyone's lives. Given the epidemic levels of HIV in DC, it probably is relevant (1 out of 20 people is infected), but elsewhere it's a hard sell.
16. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 9 at 11:59 PM:
Skp (#13)
What my roommate does with their time and their body is their business. Mind you, I would no more want my roommate locking me out of the room so they can have sex with someone than I would want them locking me out of the room so they could have quiet time with the Lord.
As far as I'm concerned living with someone is about mutual respect. One thing I can say is that I don't perceive myself as having any right to prevent my roommate from having sex merely because I don't approve of it. Mind you, it's all a bit of a moot point for me because I'm married.
17. Brian K had the following to say on Apr 10 at 8:57 AM:
I wonder how representative this is of college youth. NYU is a very unbounded school (liberal). I wonder if Texas or Nebraska or Stanford (or....) would be the same. Sadly, I think so. I live in a college town in the bible belt and would say the brazenness of the answers (pride in saying "I plan on sleeping with 20 people") may be different, but the underlying concept is the same.
I think those who called this survey vacuous are misplaced (and missed the point). I think it is a frighteningly telling comparative set of questions (OK, well, the cigs vs. sex questions). The fact that many (of the commenters on the NYTimes site) saw this as unimportant points to just how trivialized sex is. And how consequences by and large are of no concern (one responder said about partners: “…like 14—and without consequences.”).
Also, I understand the “on paper” concept of promiscuity being only between two persons (and thus not affecting roomies, parents, etc.). However, in addition to crabs (pubic lice), unintended pregnancies and the impact of health care, I, for one, don’t want multiple strangers traipsing through my house. Or, for those single ladies, did your licentious roomie borrow your lipstick (herpes strikes more than below the belt)? Again, saying it affects no one but those engaged in the act seems shortsighted. And ignoring consequences doesn’t eliminate them. As B.M. put it, though, that is not a Christian’s reasoning, just a bonus (I liked that!).
As a community promoting a God-centric view of this subject, the best thing we (including myself) can do for any of those living outside a biblical mandate is to walk across the hall, the street, the room and start a conversation with them. As many have already indicated here, live by example first and foremost. Your words won’t ring hollow. Let them see Godly living by your deeds, words and heart. Pray for them.
18. Louise had the following to say on Apr 10 at 9:52 AM:
I'm the one who introduced the roommate concept to the comments.
Compatability is the key to choosing a roommate.
J. Bud-whateverthesamhill wrote a Boundless article on this: "Does It Matter Who You Live With."
While I dislike his description of non-biblical (secular) people (he went to far as to compare them to prison inmates) I do agree with the article's basic premise that people with a biblical people should seek out other biblical roommates.
And...by inference secular people should choose secular roommates, and believe me there are plenty of us who has never had to room with Bubba/Bruno is a prison cell!
19. Louise had the following to say on Apr 10 at 10:11 AM:
Re comment 17, if you are going to go onto your neighbor's property in order to preach to him/her, please do not go there after dark, ignore the doorbell, knock on the siding and then open the storm door, thereby scaring your neighbor half to death!
The above scenario happened to me in Jan.
I called the police.
20. Brian K had the following to say on Apr 10 at 10:53 AM:
That's awful. And wise idea (calling police), needless to say. Being relational is the concept. Being rational goes with the application. And being a neighbor should not involve what you described (not rational).
That's actually a good contrast. The idea (I was putting forth) is not just to go door-to-door or to stand on the proverbial (or real) street corner (though I certainly don't deride those that do), but to have a relationship with others in the same manner Christ did (though Christ was certainly direct in His application as well....without frightening His neighbors in that way described).
21. Louise had the following to say on Apr 10 at 11:31 AM:
Re comments 17 and 20.
I read "walking across the street to start a conversation with someone living outside a biblical mandate" as intruding onto someone's property with a gross invasion of privacy.
Now, I know most of the people on this blog will not agree with the above statement, and indeed feel they have a biblical duty to preach to other people, tell them how to live their lives, etc.
:)
I just request that people who feel that it is their "Christian duty" to go door to door preaching, to please remember to "Love one's neighbor as oneself" and do not scare the neighbor half to death by behaving like a burglar.
What would Jesus do?
Hopefully he would ring THE DOORBELL.
22. BDB had the following to say on Apr 10 at 1:41 PM:
Katie B (#6) wrote:
>>What frustrates me most is that in all our 'save it' rhetoric, we have turned sex into the 'dirty evil shameful thing that you save for the one you love,' <<
Ha!
That reminds me of the standard bachelor refrigerator joke:
"Whoa - this milk has spoiled - here smell it!"
The social stigma against smoking took a couple of generations to develop. Of course, if "the big one" hits in California, it will be the smokers standing outside who survive the earthquake...
I don't completely buy the "public health" arguments for banning smoking. It's quite possible to require air filtration systems that would attenuate the public health risk as much as walking through a crowd of smokers on the way out the door of a restaurant. That said, after California banned it, I immediately noticed the difference when traveling to othe parts of the U.S. that still allowed smoking. I went to a wedding in Vegas and the smoke almost made me sick.
23. Katie B had the following to say on Apr 10 at 8:07 PM:
BDB: my flatmates and I do the same thing, more because we are so frugal that we take votes on whether things are inedible.
I never thought of the alternatives to dealing with second hand smoke. you make a good point. It did always seem to me that the anti tobacco campaigns are more about vilifying smoking rather than informing, with the info being the convenient rather than the primary purpose. Not that that makes the ads bad or wrong, but intention is crucial to integrity.
Adrienne.
Your absolutely right, smoking has been banned in establishments in new york, but the streets are full of smoke, banning smoking indoors, while nice for us nons, just takes the cigarettes outside; and it wasn't on your list of reasons why prevalence has gone down. While I appreciate your work, I wonder how you can tell me that I am 'dead wrong' about the existence of smoke in the places I have lived, as I was making a connection between ads and prevalence, rather than banning. I am very glad that banning smoking has gained popularity, has your research shown it to correlate to the lower rates of smoking? I certainly appreciate having smoke free zones, I am glad to have left vt for that reason, while I lived there there were no bans, at least that anyone there heard of and respected. Also, if you'll allow a side question, do you know if cancer rates are down? or is it to soon, and is it expected?
24. Katie B had the following to say on Apr 10 at 8:22 PM:
oh and Adrienne, you are absolutely right about the HIV in DC, I was in high school when it seemed like all of the sudden everyone had aids, comic books came out trying to teach prevention and destigmatize it, (I got handed my first condom when I was 8, the lady told me they were fun to play with) And the testing campaigns are amazing. I would say that casual sex is so much a part of the culture that it would still be a hard sell, especially since the IV drugs are also a huge spreader, especially for the men. We grew up hearing about HIV and knowing people who had it, but it didn't make anyone think twice about their sexual habits, except to make the free STD testing and condoms very popular.
I still wonder what these ads would look like, since we want to avoid stigmatizing sex in itself. I think on our basic level most of us (Christians) believe that casual sex is wrong for moral and spiritual reasons, and health risks are just convenient talking points. At least it is for me, so I try to avoid making them the foundational argument, because its a pretty flimsy one.
25. Brian K had the following to say on Apr 11 at 7:06 AM:
Re: 21, I would add, at the bare minimum, go during day time hours ;-). But walking across the street means seeing if the neighbor needs help carrying groceries or is interested in a meal or just to chat in the front yard (for those so equipped), etc. It’s not false, but a genuine interest in who they are. The hope being they take a genuine interest in who you are and, by extension, who God is.
Of course, neighbors are also at Starbucks, the gym, the park.....
As far as the concept of telling others how to live their lives, I would say the way it is written is a tad abrasive, but correction and training one another, etc. is part of one of the many biblical balances. There are several articles that speak on that (one is here)
Also, re: #6, my conjecture is that the ads would be sex at the appropriate time, not anti-sex (another biblical balance).
26. Rachael had the following to say on Apr 12 at 9:02 AM:
It is quite amazing that smoking seems to carry a stigmatism now. It might very well have to do with the many advertisements exposing the dangers of smoking and also the various limitations imposed upon where smokers can smoke. While I'm glad that it seems people are smoking less now in America than they did decades ago (this is my impression anyway), I think smokers should be treated with love. I believe sometimes knowledge about the hardcore truth can help people quit bad habits. I believe my dad quit smoking cold turkey (well maybe with a few cigars thereafter or something) perhaps under the influence of someone saying something about someone dying and not being ready to die. Either that or/and he took another puff after he heard that news. I'll have to ask him about that.
As for hardcore ads about the dangers of casual sex -- I think it would be neat if there were such ads; I also think it would be neat if there were advertisements showing love toward people who struggle and would like to change but don't know what to do - they haven't met Christ. It'd be neat to both expose the dangers while embracing the sinner through a message about the hope in Christ. Maybe in smaller letters at the bottom of the advertisement could be the name and address of a church or Christian organization that could help should the individual want to stop by for help and to receive a dose of the gospel.
27. Rachael had the following to say on Apr 12 at 9:56 AM:
One more thought. Think it would be neat if there were evangelism ads that highlighted the fact that we are ALL sinners and directing people to the One to look to for hope. That said, I'm not into bumper stickers....don't think a lot of the Christian ones are very gracious or humble anyway. But it would be neat to see evangelism ads on billboards, busses, etc. Sure it might turn some off, but you never know who it might cause to think...I have seen pro-life advertising, I think on a billboard(s), so maybe the idea of evangelism advertising isn't too out there...I suppose, though, that advertising would cost a lot of money, and the money spent on that could otherwise be invested in relational types of evangelism...anyway...
28. BDB had the following to say on Apr 12 at 3:06 PM:
Katie B (#23) wrote:
>>we take votes on whether things are inedible. <<
Ah. Sometimes I'm glad I've outgrown this stage. I read the pull dates on food - and if I can't find the date on the package...better to buy a new one.
But I guess that's why I don't get offended by jokes about bachelors being slobs. I knew some women in college...my goodness did they need to tidy up a bit!
Come to think of it, I've got some work to do around here today...