This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It's not what, I'm used to
Just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you
Caught my attention

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

No, I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter
You're my experimental game
Just human nature
It's not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain't no big deal, it's innocent

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

This is like an OWL discussion waiting to happen. There is so much here. On the one hand, I want to say, "Great, a little pop culture acknowledgment that sexuality is fluid, attraction does not depend on sex/gender, and it is no big deal for girls/women to kiss." I want to see the good in this. Yes, this is better than revulsion, or hate when it comes to two women or two girls kissing.

Maybe it is sort of like the eternal Will & Grace question. Is it better that we have it, even given the stereotyping, and other problems? Or does it do more harm that good....

Even before I found out (ugg) that apparently her last hit song was "Ur So Gay," which, let's be clear, is not some sort of queer power ballad, I was thinking that this song has got some problems. First, this is not for 25 year olds as far as I can tell. Her voice and demeanor make her seem like she is shooting for the Miley Cyrus crowd, not the college clubs (although, of course, you know this is a hug favorite of many college frat guys). So what message does this send to the 14-year old listeners?

1. Drinking is a key part of sexual experimentation. Is this the end of the world when done semi-responsibly in your 20s? No. Is it a good message to convey to 13 year olds? Not so much.
2. Kissing girls is fun for experimenting, but a boyfriend is really the main thing ("I hope my boyfriend don't mind it.")
3. It is more like a fun activity, not something to take seriously (No, I don't even know your name/
It doesn't matter/You're my experimental game)

Right, so when ever was pop music some sort of good example for kids? Probably never. Best hope is that this opens up some space for conversations...paves the way for songs not just about kissing a girl while you are drunk. Yet, at the same time, I'll be glad if/when we can move away from girls making out is so hot, especially when it is just for fun, but men making out is gross and not hot at all. This leads to questions about how bisexuality for women got to be so in/cool and what that really might mean. But that is for another post.

If this law had been passed prior to 1987, it would have been unfortunate but understandable.  At that time HIV, hepatitis B and C were diseases that were relatively untreatable.  A person who discovered he or she was HIV+ was looking at a life expectancy of under 10 years.  If the person did not know their status until an AIDS diagnosis was made, was looking at a life expectancy of under 2 years.  There were no viable treatments.  In 2004 however, not only are there viable treatments, the life expectancy in this country has exceeded the 20 year plus mark making HIV infection at best a chronically managable disease.  It is quite possible that a person diagnosed today with HIV for them to live to the average life expectancy in the US.   This however, does not excuse a person's responsibility in not telling their prospective partner of their status.  It only places the law into a different context for when it was passed.  We allegedly were better informed about this disease in 2004 than in 1987. 

But let's look a bit closer into that responsibility to discuss ones sexual health with a partner.  We have major taboos about sex.  So to criminalize the not revealing of ones status does not make sense when we as a society cannot even talk openly about healthy sexual relationships with our teenagers.  The school systems in this state insist on abstinence only education even though the state would allow comprehensive sexual education if the school boards supported it.  Even though research repeatedly finds that abstinence based only education does not prevent or slow down the onset of teenage sexual behavior.   Fear based education never works.  It is opposite to where teens are developmentally which is the age of risk taking.  Developmentally it is better to arm teens with the information and skills in how to make informed decisions.  All other countries who are on par with the US in standards of living have comprehensive sexual education AND the lowest rates of teen pregnancies, teen STI's, and teen abortions.  Why?  Because sex is not a taboo subject but a recognized healthy part of being human. 

If we taught that it was okay to talk about sexual relationships with one another, and taught how to bring up the subject of sexual behaviors and health in a relationship; then the wife might have been taught the skills in how to bring up this sensitive subject with her husband; who by the way has tested negative for the virus and so has their 4 year old son.  He also would have been taught the skills in how to handle a difficult subject matter.    Sigh... instead we criminalize the not telling instead of teaching the skills in how to discuss sensitive relationship topics.   How barbaric are we? 

Fortunately for Unitarian Universalists and members of the United Church of Christ, we have jointly developed a curriculum called Our Whole Lives (OWL) which is a comprehensive sexual education program for our young people.  It teaches the skills needed to have healthy sexual relations including how to discuss the sensitive topics in relationships.    The facilitators of this curriculum are trained in how to teach this course.  The parents are required to attend an orientation class prior to their children's participation to learn exactly what is being discussed and encouraged to further the discussion with their children at home. 

One more thing...  Does this law set the precedent for passing a law making it a felony for knowingly exposing second hand smoke to minors and others?  We know that smoke and second hand smoke causes cancer and heart disease both potentially terminal diseases?  With the children, smoking would become a form of child abuse, permitting the state to remove the child from an unsafe environment.   I didn't think so.