NOTE: I have been told, by very clever and insightful people, that I have been far too subtle here. While explaining the joke is a good sign that it’s not a very good joke in the first place, let me just say that the following is satire, based on the inanity of abstinence-only sex education. There. Now enjoy.
Every year, many children are injured, and many accidents occur, because kids cross the street. This continues to occur, despite so-called “educational programs” that purport to tell kids how to cross the street “safely” — suggesting kids “Stop, Look, and Listen” or teaching that the clearly-misnamed “safe crossing” is possible at crosswalks and with crossing signals.
Despite such permissive and misguided attempts, accidents continue to occur. After all, sometimes cars run the lights at intersections, or go through crosswalks and hit pedestrians. Sometimes kids simply forget the right rules to follow in their immature passion to get to the other side.
Indeed, a consideration of the matter will show that teaching kids about “crossing safety” simply encourages them to cross the street, sanctions their self-endangerment, with the predictably tragic consequences.
So I’d like to propose a federally-mandated, nationwide Street Crossing Abstinence Program. This program’s message would be simple and direct: do not cross the street until you grow up. The simple motto “Just Say Don’t Walk” will keep kids away from streets — after all, as part of the program, they’ll have to promise to adhere to the code — and so solve this horrible national tragedy.
Such teaching must be absolute — it mustn’t be diluted by saying, “Don’t cross the street — but if you do, use the crosswalk and crossing signals.” No, we need to be morally firm and unambigious in our societal expectations: crossing the street under any circumstance is wrong, and no other option is to be even discussed.
Just Say Don’t Walk. It’s that simple.
I expect to get a call from the White House any day now …
So what exactly prompted this post, Dave?
The growing proliferation (with federal support) for Abstinence-Only Education related to sex. Ran across multiple posts and articles about in the past few days (e.g., Ted), and the analogy struck me.
Very nice, Dave. It made me laugh. A lot.
Then I’ve done something worthwhile today. 🙂
Thanks, DOF.
“Then I’ve done something worthwhile today. :-)”
Yep. Hope it travels far and wide…
I would be tickled by that, both from an ego-boo perspective, and because it’s a subject that I feel strongly about.
I have some very strong, personal beliefs about abstinence before marriage. But I am going to make damned sure that my daughter both (a) understands how I feel about it, and (b) knows how, if she chooses a a non-abstinent course, to keep herself as safe as possible.
That some folks feel that it’s too dangerous to teach kids, in public schools, those valuable lessons, strikes me as incredibly short-sighted, not to mention an insulting intrusion upon the moral teaching that ought rightly to be the purview of the home. As well as being more than a bit ostrich-like.
But here I’ve gone and turned a light-hearted satire into a screed. Sorry about that … 🙂
Further link-to’s here and here.
This made me laugh a bit. Nothing like heaping a bit more political wood to the fire.
Joy. Your tax dollars at work.
1. While it is arguably true that avoidance of unwanted pregnancy and STDs will tend to give one a better quality of life (certainly in the short run), leaping forward from there to “guaranteeing” anything is appalling. Though, to be fair, I’d like to actually see the guidelines, rather than just hear them interpreted by Planned Parenthood (who I generally support, but who are anything but unbiased in this).
2. Avoiding television? Maybe family Parcheesi nights every night, or homework and then a few hours of prayer and then to bed.
At the risk of being politically incorrect, at what point does it make more sense to simply call them NSS (“Not Simply Straight”) and stop adding more letters to the “exceptions” categories? (This is the first time I’ve seen “Q” tacked on.)
They guarantee it? So, what, if you don’t live a happier, wealthier, longer, better-adjusted, higher-educated and more fecund life, you get back all the pre-marital sex you gave up?
Since I’m not sure how you can test alternate time lines (though if they’ve figured out a way, I’m certainly interested in peeking), so I’m not sure how you’d collect.
Too subtle? Oh Good Grief! Dave, I have learned to expect that kind of anti-intellectual attitude from my students, but I don’t cater to it, and I don’t think you should either. If those who told you it’s too subtle are trying to protect you from others who are unable to understand satire and who might get on your case, that’s a good motivation but I think it encourages people to further anti-intellectualism. If they were saying that they didn’t get it, then perhaps they’re not so clever or insightful after all.
Actually, I think I was being too subtle for them. And since they are, normally, pretty subtle thinkers themselves, I have a hard time not accepting the judgment (grudgingly 🙂 ).
Maybe they don’t know you well enough. I suppose someone who didn’t know you very well might not get the satire, but I’m still dubious.
Your satire is not lost on this small earth feline. I am already restricted from crossing the street, but I fell over laughing at this anyway.