Brazil bans gay and lesbian sex-ed videos

A series of educational videos meant to help students overcome homophobia are now being banned in Brazil by the country's President, Dilma Rousseff. After viewing them herself, Rousseff deemed them "unsuitable for youngsters," which is funny because you'd think homophobia would be the much more unsuitable choice given the options.

She also claimed that they “did not offer an objective picture of homosexuality.” What does that even mean? Were there too many Lady Gaga references in the films or not enough? In other words, it's pretty much impossible to objectively represent any form of sexuality when such a vast spectrum of experiences and preferences exist, especially when most of those choices are equally valid.

Of course there was also much political pressure from evangelical church groups, so the fact that the videos simply presented any image of homosexuality (and tolerance of it), probably has more to do with their removal than whatever representation they actually offered.

Commentarium (15 Comments)

May 27 11 - 9:46am
Observer

"She also claimed that they “did not offer an objective picture of homosexuality. What does that even mean?”

You might come to a different conclusion but what's difficult to understand about that?

"Of course there was also much political pressure from evangelical church groups, so the fact that the videos simply presented any image of homosexuality (and tolerance of it), probably has more to do with their removal than whatever representation they actually offered. "

Yeah, probably. So?

May 27 11 - 11:26am
huh?

At least these politicos still have courage to stand their ground. So what's the word if you aren't phobic of gays, but you just think it's wrong, unnatural, and against God's laws?

May 27 11 - 12:27pm
Observer

"Christian"

May 27 11 - 12:54pm
huh?

Touche', Observer, touche'.

May 27 11 - 1:13pm
ferkan

Is there a word that encapsulates "ignorant of what happens in nature'?

May 27 11 - 1:47pm
huh?

Yes, it's however you pronounce GLBT.

May 28 11 - 2:32am
man

While your comment may be insensitive, it make an interesting point. The ick factor involved with gays kissing is probably the biggest reason why people don't want same sex marriage. If they had sense enough to not do it in public, they might win some battles.

May 29 11 - 2:31pm
t

Perhaps christians should attempt to be more respectful of others - isn't your religion supposed to be about accepting others?

What happens in nature? Most animals are homosexual at some stage, haven't you seen a male dog fucking another male dog? They don't give a fuck - it's natural for them to have sex with both genders. (this is also true for the majority of animals you see in a zoo.....)

May 29 11 - 8:42pm
Observer

I will (and do) respect homosexuals. I won't, however, respect their homosexuality as I believe it to be a in. I, too, am a sinner and appreciate respect from those around me but I don't expect them to respect my sins. We are much more than our sexuality.

The animal kingdom analogy cracks me up. Some animals eat their young. I hope you wouldn't suggest such a thing should be accepted in human society.

Also the genetic argument is laughable. Alcoholism appears to have a genetic component. Shall we accept alcoholism with the same reverence as homosexual marriage.

May 31 11 - 1:53pm
AT

Observer, eating the young harms the young, alcoholism harms the alcoholic. Who the fuck does homosexuality harm, besides, er, the feelings of the homophobes (like you)?

Jun 01 11 - 10:08pm
Observer

Who? The homosexual.
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

Oct 31 11 - 7:56pm
Jud

...moving the goal posts, are we? You said "unnatural, so bad," he countered with "it happens in nature" and you countered with "natural doesn't mean good." You countered your own argument, but didn't have the decency to acknowledge it. Good for you.

It is true that statistically, men who have sex with men (who do not, necessarily, identify as gay) have higher rates of STIs. However, interestingly, women who have sex with women exclusively have far lower rates of STIs than women who have sex with men. Is straight sex, therefore, immoral for women? Should the only conceptions happen under laboratory conditions?

More than this, not every gay man has an STI, and not every straight person is free of them. If two gay men who are both without disease choose to have sex only with each other, there's no risk of disease transmission at all.

Monogamy, of course, tends to happen in the context of a relationship, and healthy and long lived relationships are notoriously hard to maintain in secret. It is therefore unsurprising that a study which came out recently found that lower rates of homophobia in a community (proxied by legal measures supporting gay rights) have been associated with lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases among MSM.

If "propensity to cause disease" is the definition of a moral wrong, perhaps homophobia meets that definition better.

May 27 11 - 2:35pm
anon

Dilma. Really? Dilma?! Nobody's going to touch that??!

Jul 16 11 - 5:22am
lesbian sex

from those around me but I don't expect them to respect my sins. We are much more than our sexuality. http://www.pk5.net/

Mar 02 12 - 10:08am
gaytube

lol this is bad as i see http://www.gaytubest.com/