So the upshot is that this demonstrates pathological sex negativity? I can't think of anything to refute this conclusion.

Actually, what conservatives REALLY hate is WOMEN having consequence-free sex for pleasure; MEN can have all the c-fsfp they can get, because, you know, MEN! But, teh ladies can only have sex for making babies, preferably within the bounds of holy matrimony, otherwise they're just welfare-leeching sluts, whether they end up having babies or not.

Sex is too.good for the common folk, dont ya know?

It should only be reserved for married white, middle class Christian heterosexuals, who can afford contraception and to raise their children right.

The rest of you mongrel, slutty slackers can go fuck yourselves, or be punished with disease -- or babied, as God intended.

Let's all take a moment to remember chemist Carl Djerassi, who passed earlier this year, for his contributions to developing the first oral contraceptive, which greatly changed the ability of women to join the labor force/society on their own terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Djeras…

Now let's laugh at the anti-vaxxers and those who fear the "fish genes" of GMOs for turning their backs on the benefits of science.

Sex is too.good for the common folk, dont ya know?

It should only be reserved for married, white, middle class Christian heterosexuals.

The rest of you mongrel, slutty slackers can go fuck yourselves -- or be punished with disease and babies, as God intended.

Slightly off topic, but I see Dan Savage will be speaking at U. California, Davis next week. I attended there in the late 60s. You might be interested to know that UCD was among the first US colleges to offer an undergraduate course in human sexuality. It was taught by an embryology professor who had noticed the intense interest displayed in the one week he taught about sex in his human embryology course. So he lobbied the administration to allow a full course in the subject open to any undergraduate, not just biology or premed majors. The first quarter it was offered in 1969 (I think) it filled the largest lecture room on campus. Amazing class--I had been married for 6 months when I took it and still learned a lot. In addition to the lectures the professor set up a room with displays of contraceptive devices, models of human genitalia, additional reading material and so forth. First time I had actually seen a condom (this was the era of the Pill and of 'don't worry, I don't have anything penicillin won't cure'). I really wish I could remember what was taught about homosexuality and gender identity, or the name of the professor, but that was a long time ago. Just thought Dan might enjoy this glimpse of the past. I'll bet current students have no idea that UCD was a leader in the field.

The same results as the large-scale program providing poor women in St. Louis who had already had 1 abortion with any kind of contraception they wanted for free, and comparing the results with control groups (women in a similar-sized city in the same state, Kansas City, and in rural Missouri.) It cut the repeat abortion rate in half for the St. Louis women; who'dathunkit?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23168…
"Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception", in Obstetrics & Gynecology, v.120, pp. 1291-1297, Dec. '12
You don't think it changed any minds in the Missouri legislature, do you?

It's the same as the argument against giving poor people health care. Who cares if it saves the state money and improves the quality of living for the destitute and downtrodden? They're getting stuff they didn't earn, goshdarnit!

Refusing contraception. Restricting abortions out of existence. Teaching misinformation under the guise of "abstinence only sex education." Fraternities and football players. Rape victim-shaming. "Conversion 'therapy'." Porn-abstinence-pledge-takers.

Why are we so fucked up about human sexuality? And who are those entitled frat boys and football players supposed to rape . . . I mean "have sex with" if all the women are properly shamed into not having sex? Do those motherfucker legislators think about that? How will their sons be able to get the sex they want so badly if all the "good girls" are terrorized into abstinence? Oh, that's right: they'll just have to rape for it. And since the only women who will let themselves be raped will be filthy sluts (defined through socioeconomic and racial factors, naturally), they'll deserve it and it won't be "legitimate" rape. So they can't abort any pregnancies that should result.

When will we require our legislators to take an IQ test to qualify for serving in public office?

I need a T shirt with "Mongrel Slutty Slacker and proud of it" on the front.

And these same conservatives say "We want smaller government" while trying to get into everyone's bedroom and deny them sex--straight and gay. Where does "smaller government" equal dictating morality?

@4, an underappreciated polymath. I recommend The Pill, Pygmy Chimps, and Degas' Horse, published (*gulp*) nearly 25 years ago now.

Dan just nailed those mother-effers to the wall so hard it made the whole Colorado statehouse tremble.

Sigh. Well, at least we'll have some new data to underscore the point: if you provide birth control, then abortion, teen births, and WIC dependence all drop noticeably. When we look again in another five years, we'll presumably see the corresponding increases.

Hey @6 - thanks for your post about UC - Davis' sexuality class. What a cool and amazing class that had to have been, and I'm sure controversial and daring. Amazing to think how advanced they were nearly 50 years ago about this topic, and yet how backwards we are about it these days.

Sigh.

This is a good example of how elections have consequences. After the 2014 midterms, the CO Senate went from majority Democrat to majority Republican. (The CO House remained in Democratic control by only one vote.) Thanks to that change, Republicans have the power to kill any legislation they don't like.

And there was no excuse for this result. Elections are entirely by mail ballot; if you want, you can drop off your ballot at a number of special drop-boxes instead. Ballots are mailed out to all active voters automatically about 3 weeks ahead of when they're due. And while we have voter ID laws, the requirements are not too onerous, compared with states like Texas, which try to deter registration by non-white voters. If you have a state drivers license or state ID, you qualify automatically. But in 2014, Republicans sent their ballots back while Democrats, liberals, progressives did not.

I really do not know why this happens at every midterm election. Theories, anyone?

Thanks for the shout out, Original.

The idea that sex was too good for the lower classes was also part of the fight against birt hcontol in the early 20th century--everything old is new again, unfortunately.

@13: For what? Revealing the big secret that they've been trumpeting for the past 70 years? I'm sure their response - should they care to give it - would be along the lines of "yes. And?"

@2 I agree. I don't think conservatives hate sex, they have so much of it, they hate women. And they really hate the idea of a woman not being 'punished' for not having enjoyable sex with someone she's not married to.

it's 'gantlet', dan, not 'gauntlet'. thank yew.