FRC: Don't hate the player

The Family Research Council is upset by this ABC News headline: "One in 10 Men Has Multiple Sex Partners."

That's the sort of thing they should be upset about, really, since it would seem to indicate that a whole lot of men are dogs and players and that there's a whole lot of cheating, betrayal and Seventh-Commandment-breaking going on. That would seem like something the watchdogs of traditional morality ought to be barking about.

But that's not why the Family Research Council is upset. They're upset because they think ABC News is overstating the situation in order to make the case for better sex education. ABC, the FRC claims, just wants to "bring graphic sex ed straight to your kids." (Emphasis original and, like so much of what FRC publishes, it's best if you imagine it read by that movie trailer guy.)

ABC's "One in 10" headline overstates the case, FRC says, because ABC reports:

Though the actual reported rate of such behavior in the study is 6.6 percent, the authors of the study estimate from adjusted measurements that up to 11 percent of men may have been involved with multiple sexual partners at some point during the previous year.

So here's a bit of a role reversal: The liberal media is lamenting the sorry state of modern-day sexual morals, while the religious right is arguing that American society these days is virtuous and morally upright. I suppose FRC has a nit-picky point -- "one in 10" is not precisely the same as "somewhere between one in 15.2 and one in 9.1." (On the other hand, "One in 10 Men Has Multiple Sex Partners" probably understates the case if the men in question are Republican U.S. Senators.)

Male promiscuity, the Family Research Council argues, isn't really much of a problem. "This kind of aberrant, dangerous behavior," they say, "is confined to easily identified subgroups of the population."

The implication there is clear: If you're a woman and your partner is being unfaithful, it's probably your fault since you should have known better because dogs and players are "easily identified" and thus easily avoided, so really you brought this on yourself.

Got that, Mrs. Vitter? Point taken, Mrs. Craig and Mrs. Haggard and Ms. Hanover and Mrs. Gingrich and Mrs. Terry and Mrs. Hager and ...?

The Family Research Council's own avowed principles ought to lead them to speak on behalf of women who have been betrayed and put at risk by their partners and spouses. But whatever those avowed principles might say, defending women -- even married women -- who have had sex is not something they're willing to do.

So instead of hating the players, FRC hates the game. Instead of defending betrayed women, FRC attacks ABC News.

- - - - - - - - -

I recently wrote to FRC on an unrelated matter and received the following automated reply:

"Thank you for your interest in the Family Research Council. As you may be aware, FRC champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society."

"The seedbed of virtue." Ewww.

Comments

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

And this surprises you, why?

Seems to me that the FRC is spinning the ABC report as an attempt to cram graphic sex ed down the throats of Amurrica's children because, Gosh darnit, ABC beat them to the punch.

It's only the religious right that's supposed to decry the decline in sexual morals in this country. If Anybody Else does it, then Anybody Else's morality somehow by comparison lessens the RR's morality.

Or something like that.

[ako]

Male promiscuity, the Family Research Council argues, isn't really much of a problem. "This kind of aberrant, dangerous behavior," they say, "is confined to easily identified subgroups of the population."

The implication there is clear: If you're a woman and your partner is being unfaithful, it's probably your fault since you should have known better because dogs and players are "easily identified" and thus easily avoided, so really you brought this on yourself.

I thought the implication was that it was all gay men's fault. Because if I were going to guess what 'easily identifiable subgroup' the Family Research Council would blame for having too much sex with too many people, I'd think gay guys.

[daniel]

You're totally right - if FRC cared anything about their "principles" over against scoring political points (against sex ed), they could use this news to provide some real value to their constituency.

Sad. Unsurprising, but sad.

[Jesurgislac]

I got into an argument with someone who is the FRC's intended audience. We were arguing about whether or not legalization and accessibility of abortion will bring down or raise the abortion rate. (This was before the Guttmacher report, which conclusively showed there's no real difference either way - a woman who needs an abortion will get one, legal or illegal.)

I made the point that in the Netherlands, though minors between 12-18 have special protection against sexual exploitation it's perfectly legal for a 12-year-old to have sex. (a Dutch friend explained it to me as "If you're under 18 and you complain about a sexual partner who's older than you or in a position of authority, the authorities will always take your side" which sounded reassuringly protective). Also, a 12-year-old can get contraception and access to abortion, and sex education starts in the Netherlands way younger than 12. All of which ideas this FRC-listener was saying would be bound to cause a massive rise in the abortion rate.

So I looked up abortion rates in the US for underage girls, and found that, proportional to population, the abortion rate for 14-18s were about seven times as high in the US as in the Netherlands, and while there were "only" a few thousand girls under 14 having abortions in the US in 2001 (18,280 pregnancies, of which 7,781 ended in birth, 8,130 ended in abortion, and 2,370 in miscarriage.) - but in the Netherlands, for the same year, no girl under 14 had become pregnant. (Smaller population, of course. But Belgium, bordering on the Netherlands, has never legalized abortion, which a Belgian friend tells me is because "They know they can get away with it, because anyone who wants an abortion just goes to the Netherlands." It's a short train ride at worst, or even a long bicycle ride.)

When I cited these stats (the American stats gathered from the US's admirable CDC website), what was the FRC-friend's reaction, you ask? It wasn't anything I'd predicted.

She said (exact quote) "Yes, there are teenagers who have sex, but that number is much smaller than television and the movies would lead you to believe."

I hadn't cited "television and the movies" - I'd cited CDC data about pregnancy and abortion in girls 14 and under. The fact that if a girl is pregnant, short of a really fairly unusual miracle she has definitely had sexual intercourse with someone at least once, evidently went right over her head. (And she added that "since teenagers cannot be legally accountable for their actions, it is stupidity itself to encourage abortions without parental notification or consent" - because obviously while an abortion is too big of a decision for a teenager to make, carrying a fetus to term and having a baby is a tiny little decision which teenagers are well able to make without ever telling their parents.)

That's the audience the FRC are aiming at, Fred.

[Jesurgislac]

ako: Because if I were going to guess what 'easily identifiable subgroup' the Family Research Council would blame for having too much sex with too many people, I'd think gay guys.

Yeah, but the FRC are all for gay men having "Brokeback Mountain" marriages. Or should that be "Republican" marriages? Perhaps "wide stance" marriages is less partisan... ;-) In fact, given their refusal to support any woman who's had sex, it probably strikes them as ideal to hound a gay man into a marriage where the woman will have very little sex at all.

[Doctor Science]

ako:

My gut reaction, too, was that they meant "gay men". But then I realized that they would have no compunctions about coming right out and saying, "well of course that's because of homosexuals, the pervs."

So upon reflection I think they mean black men.

[Chris Koeberle]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what the study reported - I think a man only counted as "multiple sexual partners" if, at some time during the prior year, he had sex with one person, and sandwiched that sex in between two instances of sex with a second person. So men who haven't had sex with their wives in the past year might show up as "faithful" as long as they only have one affair at a time.

[cjmr]

Funny, I would have thought that more than 10% of men had had more than one sexual partner in the last year. I guess men are less promiscuous than I thought...

[bulbul]

All right, 'fess up guys, which one of you is it? It sure as hell ain't me, Duane's got hardly any energy left, Bugmaster doesn't seem like a playa and Ecks is weird. Who else?

I'm not entirely sure I understand what the study reported
I think it's pretty clear: "a significant percentage of men are engaging in multiple sexual partnerships with women". Plus, they juxtapose (that the right word?) this kind of behavior to monogamy.
On second thought, I see your problem. I understand what they mean, but it's kinda difficult to put it into simple words. "11% of men cheat" was the first thing on my mind, but that hardly seems the right way of putting it.

[Duane]

All right, 'fess up guys, which one of you is it? It sure as hell ain't me, Duane's got hardly any energy left, Bugmaster doesn't seem like a playa and Ecks is weird. Who else?

I'm proud to say that I've been married for 19 years and have never been unfaithful!

Of course I should also acknowledge that, generally, men are only as loyal as their options. :)

[Cyllan]

I would have thought that more than 10% of men had had more than one sexual partner in the last year

The study was focused only on multiple concurrent sexual partners. Thus, someone who had 12 back to back relationships lasting one month each would not be included in the 1 in 10 figure.

[Geds]

So upon reflection I think they mean black men.

Not entirely sure why, but I found that completely hilarious.

All right, 'fess up guys, which one of you is it? It sure as hell ain't me, Duane's got hardly any energy left, Bugmaster doesn't seem like a playa and Ecks is weird. Who else?

Not me. I'd have to be in a relationship to cheat on someone first.

[pharoute]

"is confined to easily identified subgroups of the population."
West of Colorado, East of Nevada...
/I keed, I keed

[hapax]

I guess men are less promiscuous than I thought...

Obviously, to judge by the comments on this thread, it's blog-commenters who are holding down the national average.

Get to work, men! To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, "if you want to stop war and stuff, you've got to screw around more."

Your world is counting on you!

[Edo]

All right, 'fess up guys, which one of you is it? It sure as hell ain't me, Duane's got hardly any energy left, Bugmaster doesn't seem like a playa and Ecks is weird. Who else?

I spend my free time playing D&D and practicing on my electric guitar. I'm innocent.

[Funkula]

Yeah, I also think they mean black people. Not only is their circumspectness (circumspectitude?) a bit unusual, but gay people are not easily identifiable, unless one seriously believes that all gay guys are lisping, mincing queens.

Which they very well may believe, but I still think they're talking about black people.

[hapax]

We-e-e-ll, I hate to be fair to the FRC, but the "easily identifiable subgroups" refers to a statement in the original report:

"Men who did have concurrent relationships were more likely to be intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, to have relationships with women who had multiple partners, and to have had sexual relationships with men in the past," she said.

So yeah, there's Teh Gay. And I guess you could translate the first two categories to Teh Black (since Good White Christian Men never touch the stuff, and don't date sluts). But if they are using "code words", they come from the original report, not the FRC.

[mmack]

On the other hand, "One in 10 Men Has Multiple Sex Partners" probably understates the case if the men in question are Republican U.S. Senators.

Now Fred, you KNOW that's only true if they can find willing partners who won't turn them in for playing footsie in the men's room stall. After all, sometimes a wide stance is just a wide stance.

[pepperjackcandy]

All right, 'fess up guys, which one of you is it? It sure as hell ain't me, Duane's got hardly any energy left, Bugmaster doesn't seem like a playa and Ecks is weird. Who else?

I vote it's Fred. 8-)

And, yeah, my first thought with "easily identifiable" was gay, too.

[Ember Keelty]

Actually, given that the figure is one-in-ten, I'm absolutely astonished that the FRC has yet to start jumping around shouting "IT'S THE GAYS!"

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

Ecks is weird?

Bugmaster is the one who is waiting for the sun to turn into delicious candy. Apparently, he thinks that would be proof that there's a God, or somesuch.

[Kevin Hayden]

I wonder how much the other 9 guys have to pay the overworked mook to keep their girls entertained so they can head down to the pub for an uninterrupted game of football or billiards.

Look for the guy with the Distinguished Service Medal or the Rotary Club Man of the Year if you want to know who it is in your hamlet.

[hapax]

Ecks is weird?

Yep. He keeps trying to interject sweet reasonableness, moderation, and responsive listening into our periodic flamewars, which as a result has earned him the reputation of being a limp-wristed homophobic feminazi misogynistic moonbat reductionist pony-hugging Tool of the Patriarchy.

Oh, and he boils his tea. And eats poutine. What more do you want?

[Toby]

First there's a block quote highlighting "poverty... discrimination, poor access to health care and education... HIV", and this is what the post follows up with "In other words... easily identified subgroups". Of course HIV is going to be associated with The Gay, but taking into account the rest of the characteristics on that list as well, the FRC is most certainly thinking of black guys as one of those "subgroups".

[Kevin Hayden]

Oh, and he boils his tea. And eats poutine. What more do you want?

His little black book and the NSA wiretap recordings from his iPhone?

[Lurker]

I fail to see why sex education (as a natural part of health education in general) would cause any moral problems. After all, understanding the process of reproduction in plants and animals (humans included) is one of the key things you must study in order to understand biology. The issue is even rather simple and straightforward. Making the thing complicated only increases the danger of getting mental problems due to suppression of urges.

Having the basic knowledge on e.g. sexually transmitted diseases is not a moral question, it is a public health issue. To limit the spread of such diseases (which is naturally a good thing), everyone must be able to identify symptoms that require going to doctor. It is quite as important as being able to understand that a persistent cough might mean tuberculosis.

The questions of contraception and abortion are a bit more tricky, but in my opionion, they are natural things to discuss with sexuality. If we want to reduce teenage pregnancies, the teenagers must know about the different methods of contraception. (And, of course, recommending the use of condom is the best thing, as that is a good way to prevent venereal diseases from spreading.)

As for "graphic", I cannot understand what should be wrong with it. A good, matter-of-fact presentation of the different sides of sexuality is not something I would find sexually exciting. To my experience, the class usually listens these lessons very somberly. In addition, reading about them as homework and for exams is rather dull. (Think about the questions: List the beginning of the development of the following organs of human fetus. Name the marked parts of human female reproductive system (fig. 1). Name the initial symptoms of syphilis. List the advantages and disadvantages of female condom. Cramming these things into your head becomes very fast quite as dull as everything else at school.)

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Jesurgislac: I've marveled about that very thing - how open and tolerant the Dutch and Germans are with teens about sexuality, and how much lower their teen pregnancy and abortion rates are compared with more "moral" America.

I got a laugh out of a young pharmacist in a small Bavarian town when I told her that some American pharmacists are campaigning for the "right" to reject birth control prescriptions like the one she was filling for me. "But it is their duty to fulfill the doctor's prescription!" she exclaimed. Note that the name of the pharmacy was "St. Marien" and there was a non-subtle crucifix on the wall. I would imagine that most pharmacists in Bavaria, like most Bavarians, consider themselves to be loyal (if not perfectly obedient) Catholics.

Birth control pills, incidentally, are about 7 EUR/month, cash. I suspect they're cheaper on the state-mandated health plans most Germans are part of.

[Lurker]

BTW,
I don't think that birth control bills are part of the usual social security health plan in most European countries. They usually cover only medicines prescribed for illness. Other medical needs (vaccinations outside the national plan, extra preventative drugs, homeopathy etc.) are covered by the individual. I don't know the specific rules of Germany, though.

[not_scottbot]

ako-
blacks is the most likely group - after all, gays shouldn't be faithful, they shouldn't ever have sex. That is, the FRC doesn't worry in the least about the faithfulness of homosexual pairings - they don't those pairings to ever arise in the first place.

If the kind host of this blog had wanted to remove a touch of ambiguity, he could have written 'playas' or some equally clear term, but since Burning Man (as compared to lynching 'boys') has co-opted the term in the Internet realm, he probably refrained.

[bad Jim]

Cavilled Fred:

"The seedbed of virtue." Ewww.

Grossed out by the wet spot, eh?

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Lurker: Ah, that would explain why they were so cheap in cash compared to their prices in the US (typically, $25-35/mo), when I've found that medicines for actual illnesses have higher cash prices here than in the US.

I wonder if they're subsidized, or if usage in Germany (85% of child-bearing age women is the figure I've heard) is just so high that it keeps the price low. Hm.

[not_scottbot]

Germany, birth control, and health insurance - complicated, but also straightforward. Generally, birth control is not covered for adult women by health insurance (obviously, the fact that the pill is hormonal means it does have a medical role apart from contraception - which is not true with an IUD, for example). Currently, I have no idea what the policy is for females under 18 - all people under 18 are essentially automatically health insured for free in Germany - but as teenage pregnancy is seen as a bad thing (compared to teenage sex, which is seen as part of growing up), it would not surprise me in the least if birth control is free for females under a certain age.

And it is always a problem for me personally to try to present the facts of German teen life to Americans. Mothers here, for example, tend to be very upfront about birth control, even if the 14 or 15 year old girl says they don't even have a romantic interest, much less a boyfriend. Or that a teen/young adult has their own room, and the closed door is part of that person's rights, and not a signal that sex is happening, or something that only an irresponsible parent would allow. Most German parents of a 17 year old with friend/partner would assume that a certain amount of sex is occurring, and generally feel that home in a comfortable setting makes a lot more sense. After all, a decent parent should be pleased that their no longer children are enjoying something which marks the difference between child and adult.

And why is this a problem to explain to Americans? Because of all the binary assumptions about 'encouraging risky behavior' or being 'irresponsible' which simply aren't part of the German framework. After all, this is a country which has a significant amount of male nudity, too, not simply female (yes, it is possible for a child here to actually see a penis in any number of ways). Where, for example, a public pool reserves one night for female naked swimming, one night for male naked swimming, and one night for male AND female naked swimming (one spa in Baden-Baden forbids bathing suits, but that is a slightly different point). Where it is not unusual to see a group of 12/13 year olds changing their outer clothes for gym (not underwear or later showering, however) in the same common room, not separated by sex. Or where in kindergartens (nursery schools) the bathroom is shared equally by girls and boys - who cares whether a 4 year old is male or female in the bathroom, as long as they don't make a mess?

Such simple pragmatism tends to lead to a lot less problems than in the U.S., but this contradicts the views of those most concerned about the subject, which means they reject the reality of how other societies deal with basic aspects of being human (alcohol comes equally to mind). Which, not so oddly, is exactly what Germans in general expect - the people most obsessed by such topics are the ones with problems, not those who don't really care, but who do handle it as part of daily life.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: [Ecks] keeps trying to interject sweet reasonableness, moderation, and responsive listening into our periodic flamewars

Is that what he's trying to do, you think? I wonder how good he is at making sandwiches.

Lurker; I don't think that birth control bills are part of the usual social security health plan in most European countries.

In the UK, whatever kind of contraception a woman wants to use is available free from the NHS, no prescription charges. (The logic is fairly obvious: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.) The only problem with this is that most women go to their GPs to get contraception, and that leaves a girl with no option but to go to the same GP her parents go to. While the GP is legally forbidden to tell her parents anything, the girl may well feel shy of it. Teenage pregnancy rates in the UK are unacceptably high - but they're lower anywhere a teenager can get contraception from a doctor who isn't her family GP.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: [Ecks] keeps trying to interject sweet reasonableness, moderation, and responsive listening into our periodic flamewars

Is that what he's trying to do, you think? I wonder how good he is at making sandwiches.

Lurker; I don't think that birth control bills are part of the usual social security health plan in most European countries.

In the UK, whatever kind of contraception a woman wants to use is available free from the NHS, no prescription charges. (The logic is fairly obvious: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.) The only problem with this is that most women go to their GPs to get contraception, and that leaves a girl with no option but to go to the same GP her parents go to. While the GP is legally forbidden to tell her parents anything, the girl may well feel shy of it. Teenage pregnancy rates in the UK are unacceptably high - but they're lower anywhere a teenager can get contraception from a doctor who isn't her family GP.

[Tonio]

"The seedbed of virtue." Ewww.

There used to be a drug treatment ministry named Save the Seed. But the name sounded like the program targeted addiction to masturbation.

Because if I were going to guess what 'easily identifiable subgroup' the Family Research Council would blame for having too much sex with too many people, I'd think gay guys.

That would have been my assumption as well.

[Soil]

‘FRC champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization’

So near, and yet so far. Everyone knows that civilization is just the result of a tremendous number of people trying to get laid. Marriage and family are just inadvertent consequences of this necessary essential. Give me a moment and I'll figure out a hypothesis for how marriage arises according to this argument. OK here goes a rough draft

"Hey, if I go off to kill a tiger so that you'll sleep with me, how do I know you won't sleep with Ugg behind my back while I'm gone?"
"I promise I won't"
"OK.. no, wait, what's to stop you breaking your promise?"
"I will promise in front of the whole tribe"
"Hmm, alright then"

[Soil]

Does this fix the italics?

[Francis]

Teenage pregnancy rates in the UK are unacceptably high - but they're lower anywhere a teenager can get contraception from a doctor who isn't her family GP.

Indeed. And just to chime in, there are a handful of PCTs (semi-independent health areas) with significant problems this way where you can obtain the morning after pill free and over the counter, no questions asked. Regardless of age.

And I'm not one of the 10% either...

[Tonio]

Repairing the italics...

[Francis]

Italics begone!

[Tonio]

Trying again...

[Francis]

Just a quick note to Fred - the one bit of functionality that would be nice here is automatic closing of unclosed tags in a comment...

[Jesurgislac]

I think Fred knows that.

[Soil]

No, apparently not, maybe this will. In any case before people get too excited by the data from the Netherlands, keep in mind that this is cultural. Just as introducing 24-hour licensing to Britain didn't fix its binge-drinking overnight despite being modelled on the laws from countries where it's less of a problem, so you can't expect that implementing Dutch laws in the US will fix American culture.

The specific situation with the law regarding underage sex is that the Netherlands rules are closer to the reality of law enforcement anywhere. It's very hard to prosecute the older boyfriend of a teenage girl who is openly hostile to the prosecution. Jurors aren't stupid, they'll want to know why the girl isn't giving evidence. So in practice such prosecutions are rare although not unheard of. Actually the model in the US is closer to the accepted "cheap fix" for low success in rape prosecutions. The presumption that a 14 year old can't consent makes it very hard to "try the victim", analogous to a universal prohibition of sex between unmarried adults it avoids the problem of reasonable doubt concerning consent. Of course the only proponents of "no sex outside marriage" in the US also tend to be against gay marriage, which makes it a non-starter.

[not_scottbot]

Actually, I don't think the point was Dutch/German laws, but Dutch/German attitudes - that is, neither the Dutch nor the Germans think teenage pregnancy is good, and neither do they think teenage sex is bad (within broad frameworks) or unnatural (most certainly they do not consider it unnatural).

Moreover, neither consider pregnancy to be punishment for sex, which so often seems to float in the background of much American discourse on this subject.

By essentially accepting a normal part of being human, and teaching younger people who to handle the subject with information and understanding, neither the Netherlands nor Germany have the problems the U.S. does. And let's have a bit more fun with this - the Dutch can buy pot, and the Germans can drink at 16 - and even then, neither country has the problems the U.S. does. Worse by a wide margin - though numbers were sketchy the last time I checked, the German rate of abortion was 1/12th that of the U.S. then.

Starting to see a pattern? Of course there are problems in the Netherlands or Germany, but those problems seem to be in the normal range of a fairly well functioning society. It is the U.S., with its incredibly unrealistic frameworks, which seems to be following solutions (solutions in the eyes of the stupid) which make the problems supposedly being solved worse.

Sort of like how heroin is the cure for its own disease.

Just before departing the U.S. in 2006, I read a Washington Post Magazine article about 'poisionous' parents. What was strange to recognize is that essentially every parent I know in Germany, including myself, fits into that American category. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine how silly Germans find American prudery - Germans consider this an adorable if hopeless part of Americans, and one that explains so much that is wrong in American culture.

[Scott]

so you can't expect that implementing Dutch laws in the US will fix American culture

What, you can't fix us morally inferior cattle with nothing more than an exercise in glorious political power? I guess you'll just have to exercise said power for the sheer delicious thrill of it.

[jamoche]

And let's have a bit more fun with this - the Dutch can buy pot, and the Germans can drink at 16 - and even then, neither country has the problems the U.S. does.

I think the drinking age should be lower than the driving age. I started going out with friends for beer and pizza several years before I had a car; by the time I did, I knew quite well what my tolerance was. Seemed like the people who did things in the opposite order had a harder time of it - knowing how to drive and learning how to drink is a bad combination.

[Scottbot_in_lederhosen]

Yo-da-lay-de-hoo

Ja, ja, Scottbot has just flown in, and boy, its ancillary propulsion units are tired.

Just arriving from the land of heavily regulated beer - that's right, since 1516 or some such outrageous date of state power, German beer can only be made of barley (an exception for wheat beer was grandfathered in, it seems), hops, yeast and water. And we all know how the 'exercise [of] said power for the sheer delicious thrill of it' has turned out. German beer being the world standard for bad, flat, tasteless, over-priced, over-regulated recycled quadraped urinary tract excretions. Unlike American Budweiser, which proudly advertises that is made with rice, right on the label. Love that free market beer, since goverment is not allowed to interfere in the creation of such a wonderful brew. It is only a sign of how badly the world misunderstands the role of government that Budweiser has not yet reached its proper position of respect (and profit) all over the world.

Nonetheless, I feel the Original Programmer(TM) just might be missing the point here - Germany, that hotbed of socialism, actually thinks people swimming without clothes is fairly natural, especially when said people are very young, while in the U.S., someone being naked at a lake or beach in the summer is something which seems to lead to 'exercise said power for the sheer delicious thrill of it.' As compared to the delicious thrill of cool water on sun warmed skin.

[bulbul]

. Unlike American Budweiser, which proudly advertises that is made with rice, right on the label
*shivers*
Surely not.
Please tell me, it's not true.

[Jesurgislac]

Mmm, beer.