BREAKING: Wes Students Have Sex, Like To Talk About It

Remember last week, when hundreds of Wesleyan students (and outside supporters) rallied around Planned Parenthood in the streets of Middletown and the seats of the Tishler Lecture Hall?

The latest in Wes’s reaction to the Planned Parenthood funding debate is “I Have Sex”—a video by Jacob Eichengreen ’13, Su Park ’12, and Wesleyan Uncut, which basically lives up to its title and serves “to make sure elected leaders know: Americans have sex, and we stand with Planned Parenthood”:

Park writes:

In order to “balance the budget,” the House of Representatives recently announced the intention to strip all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. This is unacceptable. It’s time to face reality: many young people have sex, and need to know how to stay safe and healthy. Even those who have chosen to wait still need to know how to be safe and healthy when begin their sexual activity. This extreme ideological measure threatens our youth’s ability to choose their own future.

In many parts of America, Planned Parenthood is the only place young people can go to learn about safe sex, access contraceptives, or have a simple question about “down there” answered.

With all the rhetoric centering on “government waste,” Congress’s refusal to close multi-billion dollar corporate tax loopholes and instead eliminate essential, multi-million dollar sexual health programs is beyond hypocritical.

We are starting a student movement to make sure elected leaders know: Americans have sex, and we stand with Planned Parenthood.

29 thoughts on “BREAKING: Wes Students Have Sex, Like To Talk About It

  1. Pingback: Responses to the “I Have Sex” Video – Wesleying

  2. Sylvie Stein

    yo zach,

    i think it’s really uncool that you would introduce the post this way, and wesleying should remove your lead-in to the video immediately. i love wesleying, but this is another example of posters overstepping their boundaries and including unfair, biased commentary in posts that should be objective and impartial. this tendency distorts the reader’s entire perception of the information and jeopardizes the credibility of this blog.

    You ask: “Clever glimpse at the sexual realities being distorted or obscured in the ongoing struggle to maintain federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Or gimmicky distraction from pertinent discussion of the underlying budget issues and PP services worth highlighting here?”

    1. you say you won’t include your opinion in your own post. but you put su’s pitch — which should be what is featured, as a student’s description of the event, piece of work, etc is what should always be front and center in a wesleying post — after the jump and your thinly veiled pitch before it

    2. all politics, all efforts to galvanize are to some extent tricky. “gimmicky” is an extremely harsh and negative way to portray this. the idea of something like this is to grab people’s attention, to provoke dialogue and call attention to the issues. what are campaign slogans if not, too some extent, gimmicks? don’t be so harsh and critical of something so innovative.

    3. your question incites a debate — the wrong debate. you ask whether the video focuses on the issues or distracts from them, therefore opening the style of the video open to criticism. how about the content of the video? how about the issue itself? your personal prejudices distract you from asking the productive question, opening a platform for the constructive debate: if young americans have sex, as this video clearly and creatively shows, then should or shouldn’t planned parenthood funding be guaranteed for them? similar constructive questions could have followed: should young americans be having sex? what kind of services does planned parenthood really provide and could they be found elsewhere? where is the funding going? why is it being cut? but zach, you chose to circumvent all of these questions and take a cheap shot. i really do not respect that.

    4. if nothing else, support your peers. of course you’re entitled to disagree. but you take issue in such a superficial way, it just comes across as antagonistic.

    the point of this message: wesleying, remove zach’s post. it is offensive and tangential. zach, next time you write for wesleying, remember to check your bias at the door.

  3. New_junker

    I don’t see this as an attack on PP – but as an attack taxpayer FUNDING of FF. I think PP is great – but I don’t think taxpayers like myself need to fund it.

    And regarding the claim that taxpayer funds aren’t used for abortions – look up “fungible.”

  4. Anon

    If budget is the real issue here, Zach, then what about the gigantic budget that goes into funding a war that has left hundreds or even thousands of children and families fatherless? Planned Parenthood should be the last program to be cut in attempting to “balance” the budget.

  5. JonGalt

    Planned Parenthood is great. Should it be funded by the federal government? – No way. Just as any of us would be up in arms over the federal government funding say the NRA. The elect have a point. The government is too big and spending like this should be cut. No doubt it can be divested into a private nonprofit. In some states you could get local funding which is more acceptable. I’ll just assume the video is targeted at private donors for a future non-federally funded PP.

    1. anon

      Planned Parenthood provides services that SAVE money on health care costs-$4 for every dollar spent. the Republican proposal would go so far as to prevent people on Medicaid from seeking treatment at PP even if the services they are seeking are normally covered, which is completely unjustified.

      If you look at any arguments given by people in Congress for cutting funding, it’s clearly motivated by them not liking Planned Parenthood as an organization. the amount of money PP gets from the government is peanuts compared to, I dunno, anything else. there’s no way cutting PP’s funding could balance the budget. how far do you think $317 million goes in Afghanistan?

    2. Ayn Rand

      While you may be right on principle, the issue is that it’s a selective cut by the corporatist Republicans, not part of a sweeping libertarian reform. If you want smaller government, don’t let the Republicans snooker you into thinking that’s what they stand for. All they’re interested in is using the power of government to serve their interests, not reducing its scope.

  6. lemuel

    i don’t know who “anon” is, but s/he has a case of bubble-paranoia. i’m a random guy in nyc who got to this page by googling “wesleyan uncut” after following a fb link. i grew up in the south, did not go to wesleyan, and i’m not even that super-progressive, and i think this is great. actually, compared to the kind of far-out leftiness i expect from wes and its kind, this is balanced and straightforward. it’s well produced and charming, and has a real possibility of going viral. keep up the good work!

  7. anon

    LOL what a joke. are you kidding me? “We are starting a student movement to make sure elected leaders know: Americans have sex.” you REALLY think “elected leaders” think americans, especially college students, don’t have sex? that is not the issue at hand in all of this. you all wanted to make a cute video with people blushing that “i have sex,” but it’s a total non sequitur that has little relevance to the issue you’re supposedly trying to be proponents of. honestly, a video like this, if it has any effect at all, is probably equally likely to bias lawmakers AGAINST young america because this video furthers the impression that we’re all just getting down with everybody and can’t be helped anyway whether or not planned parenthood exists. yes, in our progressive little bubble we don’t see it like that but face it, in the REAL WORLD that is how the people in charge see this video. christ.

    1. Freudster

      Actually, I would say that elected leaders really DO think American teens do not have sex. At the very least they probably do not think highly educated ones do. There’s a lot of loons in office. My understanding is that part of it is aimed at taking the shame away from the topic so that the moral front against the evils of young adult sex will seem an obsolete view. Unfortunately, I think coming from Wesleyan the video has less force because it can be cast aside as hippie nonsense, but I think otherwise it is a good video.

  8. Spark02

    i fail to see how this video may be construed as a “gimmicky distraction from pertinent discussion of the underlying budget issues and PP services.” Zach, please explain this interpretation

    1. Ayn Rand

      Don’t you recognize flamebait when you see it? Granted, in most places it wouldn’t be flamebait, but in the context of Wesleying, it is.

        1. panned plarenthood

          lol, opinions that differ from yours = inherently pointless statements.
          oh, wes.

          1. AGriffyn

            that wasn’t an opinion. and what you just said is, in fact, an inherently pointless statement.
            oh, ignorant child.

  9. Guest

    I hope Michael Roth sees this and reblogs it. I hope he’s not afraid to say that his students have sex.

  10. Wesleyan '13

    My fellow Wes bros and hoes,
    I LOVE YOU.
    Please keep up the activism, whether or not you have sex.

  11. Ayn Rand

    It’s not hypocritical; it’s self interested. Republicants (and many Tea Partiers) are in business to cut government spending they dislike while spending lots of money on corporate interests and an oversized war machine which benefits them.

      1. Zach

        From Park’s video explanation: “Congress’s refusal to close multi-billion dollar corporate tax loopholes and instead eliminate essential, multi-million dollar sexual health programs is beyond hypocritical.”

      2. Zach

        Presumably Rand is responding to the video description. It’s ironic when college students compulsively misuse words like “hypocritical.”

        1. um

          … ok the fact that it’s self-interested is kind of redundant. the hypocrisy is evident in the fact that the problem is being called “government waste” by those who insist on WASTING EVEN MORE ON CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND ENTITLEMENT

      3. Zach

        It’s a reference to the explanation:

        “Congress’s refusal to close multi-billion dollar corporate tax loopholes [. . .] is beyond hypocritical.”

Comments are closed.