No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Jeffret » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:22 am

[Maybe not directly Mormon or doctrinal related, but pretty much so.]

Governor cancels giveaway of Utah-themed condoms that were part of a campaign to combat HIV
“The Governor understands the importance of the Utah Department of Health conducting a campaign to educate Utahns about HIV prevention,” his spokeswoman, Anna Lehnardt, told FOX 13 in a statement. “He does not, however, approve the use of sexual innuendo as part of a taxpayer-funded campaign, and our office has asked the department to rework the campaign’s branding.”
I think what most concerned him was that by being unique and at least a little clever it would actually catch attention and might be a little effective. Better to keep it bland and dull so that nobody pays attention. Otherwise, how are we going to SL,UT shame women?
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Red Ryder » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:29 am

That’s too bad. It was a clever campaign.

Image
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Sheamus Moore
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Sheamus Moore » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:48 am

...Rework - at the taxpayers expense.

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by blazerb » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:22 pm

The only one that I would have a problem with is "This is the place." Clearly that's a religious reference. The government should not be in the business of religious teasing. Just because the church acts badly in the political arena doesn't mean everyone else should. The others are harmless.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Jeffret » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:32 pm

blazerb wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:22 pm
The only one that I would have a problem with is "This is the place." Clearly that's a religious reference. The government should not be in the business of religious teasing. Just because the church acts badly in the political arena doesn't mean everyone else should. The others are harmless.
I'm not sure religion owns that phrase. I'm not sure religion really wants to own that phrase.

If it's a religious reference, then the State of Utah needs to get rid of This is the Place Heritage Park, as it is promoting a religion.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by 2bizE » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:34 pm

I’m going on an adventure this weekend, hoping to bring along some of these condoms. First, I’m going to be exploring caves, then skiing, then climbing a mountin. I’m a bit confused though what to have for lunch; apparently jello is not in vogue. I will be hiking also, and am very confused on my distances. I’m pretty sure Fillmore and Beaver are more than 3 miles apart. Will need to use my GPS I guess. I hope bears don’t chase me. If I get too tired, at least I can put my arch into it.

I also wonder if the two guys from the Bronx and LA who are on the license plate rejection board helped them with this campaign....
~2bizE

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Jeffret » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:57 pm

2bizE wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:34 pm
I hope bears don’t chase me.
Some guys like bears to chase them. When we were in Paris we saw a bunch of them at The Bear's Den. You can see them standing around the bar as my kids walk past.
Image

But, the health department does want to discourage barebacking. Or at least they did before Herbert got involved.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

dogbite
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:28 pm
Location: SLC

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by dogbite » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:27 pm

Tossing the salad is usually a dental dam thing, not a condom. The jello reference works otherwise...

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by blazerb » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:57 am

Jeffret wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:32 pm
blazerb wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:22 pm
The only one that I would have a problem with is "This is the place." Clearly that's a religious reference. The government should not be in the business of religious teasing. Just because the church acts badly in the political arena doesn't mean everyone else should. The others are harmless.
I'm not sure religion owns that phrase. I'm not sure religion really wants to own that phrase.

If it's a religious reference, then the State of Utah needs to get rid of This is the Place Heritage Park, as it is promoting a religion.
My point is that the phrase is clearly referencing Mormon history. Religion may not own the phrase, but the reference is obvious. I think it would have been a mistake to make fun of church history in this way.

I'm ok if Utah wants to get rid of the park, but I bet SCOTUS would say that the park does not promote a religion. The park does not make fun of Mormon history. It may glorify it. Now I'd like to see the arguments by the lawyers. Has anyone filed a lawsuit over this, before?

ETA: I want to be clear. My problem is government making fun of religion. It should not do that to any religion. If a private company starts making "This is the place" condoms, more power to them.

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by 2bizE » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:15 am

Debate: was the “this is the place" statement by BY a religious statement, or was it the voice of the founder of the city and first governor of the territory? I could argue it was not a statement of the church, but rather of the future city.
~2bizE

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Jeffret » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:15 am

2bizE wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:15 am
Debate: was the “this is the place" statement by BY a religious statement, or was it the voice of the founder of the city and first governor of the territory? I could argue it was not a statement of the church, but rather of the future city.
Yeah, that's basically the tangential discussion between blazerb and I.

Under normal rules and legal consideration, this would not be a phrase owned by the Church. I don't know of anywhere they've tried to claim ownership in any way. It's a common term. If they tried to claim it here, they would have no basis because they have never done anything to protect that claim.

Admittedly there is a lot of mingling of church and state in Utah, but the state is pretty clear that there is a secular basis to the term. They approach it as secular, as the founding of the city and state.

There is nothing in the safe sex campaign or the condom packaging that indicates the phrase is about any church doctrine. It may as well refer to the state park.

Now, religion often demands special consideration or special protection from criticism or humor. This is more common in authoritarian religions and places where one particular religion controls the government. This is certainly Oaks' argument on "religious freedom". He contends that religious speech deserves special deference and that what he says should be given special weight. Or that as religious leader he should be special consideration, that his statements and wishes trump non-religious ones. He couches this in special phrasing so as to appear more reasonable than he is. Under this sort of heightened protection, the argument that this is an attack (of some sort) on religion makes some sense.

I find that really shaky ground, though. If we want to call "This is the place" protected religious belief or phrasing, then we need to be consistent and remove it from secular, governmental usages. It's a very slippery slope, particularly in Utah, to start granting special ownership of history to the church.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by blazerb » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:22 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:15 am
2bizE wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:15 am
Debate: was the “this is the place" statement by BY a religious statement, or was it the voice of the founder of the city and first governor of the territory? I could argue it was not a statement of the church, but rather of the future city.
Yeah, that's basically the tangential discussion between blazerb and I.

Under normal rules and legal consideration, this would not be a phrase owned by the Church. I don't know of anywhere they've tried to claim ownership in any way. It's a common term. If they tried to claim it here, they would have no basis because they have never done anything to protect that claim.

Admittedly there is a lot of mingling of church and state in Utah, but the state is pretty clear that there is a secular basis to the term. They approach it as secular, as the founding of the city and state.

There is nothing in the safe sex campaign or the condom packaging that indicates the phrase is about any church doctrine. It may as well refer to the state park.

Now, religion often demands special consideration or special protection from criticism or humor. This is more common in authoritarian religions and places where one particular religion controls the government. This is certainly Oaks' argument on "religious freedom". He contends that religious speech deserves special deference and that what he says should be given special weight. Or that as religious leader he should be special consideration, that his statements and wishes trump non-religious ones. He couches this in special phrasing so as to appear more reasonable than he is. Under this sort of heightened protection, the argument that this is an attack (of some sort) on religion makes some sense.

I find that really shaky ground, though. If we want to call "This is the place" protected religious belief or phrasing, then we need to be consistent and remove it from secular, governmental usages. It's a very slippery slope, particularly in Utah, to start granting special ownership of history to the church.
Woah! I never said the packaging would be illegal or the violation of some trademark or that there was any other legal protection. I just think it's in bad taste. (No condom pun intended.)

ETA: It's in bad taste for the government to create this item, in my opinion. As I noted previously, private groups who want to make religious jokes should go for it.

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by blazerb » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:52 pm

I guess I have a little more to say. I think the church is full of crap when it complains that private individuals or groups are violating its "freedom of religion" when church doctrines and policies are criticized or mocked. Only the government and its representatives can violate freedom of religion. But that means that government can violate freedom of religion.

Now, is "This is the place" a religious statement? I doubt the courts would rule that it is. However, I think the government should tread carefully when the potential for mocking religion exists. I do not think the church deserves special protection. I think every religious group deserves the same protection. I don't think the government needs to go right up to the line of what is legal in this area. There is no compelling public need for that particular phrase on a condom package. I would give examples of phrases that might be legal but offensive to other religious groups, but that would probably be inappropriate.

If a private company wants to create Mormon-themed condoms, I support their rights. I might have some suggestions for them. "This is the place" is a little tame.

I hope this spells out my position clearly.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 3211
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by moksha » Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:39 pm

Utah has allowed the personalized license plates DEPORTM and FUHRER. I imagine permission was given after some fasting and prayer. However, the name MERLOT was denied because it is a wine grape varietal name and therefore from Satan.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Jeffret » Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:40 pm

Admittedly I certainly got off into some tangents there, but my basic point is that the condom wrapper isn't making fun of the Church. It's making fun of the Utah State Park "This is the Place Heritage Park" and the founding of the government. It says it right there, it's a Heritage Park and not a Religious Park. In other words, the government is making fun of itself. Or was, because Herbert isn't having any of that. Not it's just making a mockery of itself.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by blazerb » Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:14 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:40 pm
Admittedly I certainly got off into some tangents there, but my basic point is that the condom wrapper isn't making fun of the Church. It's making fun of the Utah State Park "This is the Place Heritage Park" and the founding of the government. It says it right there, it's a Heritage Park and not a Religious Park. In other words, the government is making fun of itself. Or was, because Herbert isn't having any of that. Not it's just making a mockery of itself.
I would guess that the courts would accept this argument. I'll be honest. I think that the state park is promoting religion. If it were worth discussing, I'd like to hear what a lawyer would say. Moving on.

I thought the idea of the wrappers was pretty good, in any case.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by Jeffret » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:44 pm

blazerb wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:14 pm
I would guess that the courts would accept this argument. I'll be honest. I think that the state park is promoting religion. If it were worth discussing, I'd like to hear what a lawyer would say. Moving on.
It's been ages since I've been to "This is the Place" State Park. Probably 30 years. I see that they've rebranded it as a heritage park since I was there. It looks to me like they've worked hard to make it secular or non-sectarian. It seems to be focusing on life of early white settlers and side-stepping the religious issue. And a little bit about Native American life before then.

This part seems to be working hard to not identify it with any specific religion:
Visit the Mormon Battalion Museum, The Stoddard Gallery and see the iconic Monument that was erected under the supervision of a committee composed of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish and Latter-day Saint representatives. Visit the Walk of Pioneer Faiths honoring early religious groups and leaders who contributed to the religious diversity of our great community.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 3211
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by moksha » Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:17 am

Utah Governor's Chief of Staff, "It is best if we keep this under wraps".
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: No innuendo when discussing safe sex

Post by 2bizE » Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:51 pm

I’m surprised they didn’t use the famous Utah slogan “life elevated”.
~2bizE

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests