Three of the biggest stories of the last couple of weeks have been sex related: Adam Lambert’s simulated gang-bang at the American Music Awards, Tiger Woods having sex with everyone (it’s bad enough that he stole the white man’s game, but now by having sex with porn stars and Hooters’ waitresses, he has now stolen the redneck’s fanstasy) to make up for lost time that his large teeth and bug eyes cost him in his younger days before his $1 billion net worth, and I saw today on CNN that one-third of 9th graders in America are having sex and that one half of 10th graders are.

I know this will make me appear as a Puritan relative to many of my contemporaries (especially in comedy), but perhaps the sexual revolution has swung the pendulum too far.  Like the nuclear bomb creators thought, sure we can, but should we?  Like gun control and abortion, it seems advocates of individualized morality and sexual freedom to the nth degree seem to consciously or sub-consciously fear ceding any ground for fear that it may validate an opposition that they dislike, hate or from which they fear judgment.  But isn’t this enough?

First there was the Lambert story.  He claims that he has been banned from most ABC shows (except that bastion of freedom, The View – will Hasselbeck boycott?) because there is a double standard – when women act extremely sexual in heterosexual or lesbian acts during performances it is not treated nearly with the same outrage and repulsion as homosexual men.  And I agree with Lambert (but to be fair, I can’t say I can help my instinctive – “did he just tongue rape that guy? ewwww” reaction.  The double standard is true (Janet Jackson’s nipple crossed the line from simulated to actual, so don’t bring up that hoopla).  However, I would simply ask, why is any of it actually appropriate or necessary?  Maybe people getting dry humped or skull-fu-ked is inappropriate for general public viewing, regardless of who is doing it with who.

I often try to stand up for religion, not even in doctrinal specifics, but as an overall structure of values that I think people can benefit from  – you can get them from other places besides religion I suppose, but the sense of being part of something bigger is important to a healthy society I think (believe me if Twitter, cell phones, Blackberries and Facebook are now providing us with our sense of belonging, unity and community I think we are in trouble as a culture and society.  That faux-community is based solely on the importance of, and focus on, self. Say what you want about religions (not necessarily religious people), but they usually have community well-being as their bases, at least the way I’ve experienced them).

Following that, one of the biggest criticisms of religion I hear from my friends is the sense of repression and shame religion attaches to sex.  A valid point, but even jaded atheists will agree that at some point (perhaps as “innocent” as 16 year old Britney Spears or as gross as Jerry Springer/Maury Povich guests) people should feel some degree of shame for their conduct in the sexual realm – not knowing your baby’s father, but narrowing it down to 11 guys is sort of nasty (or being one of 11 guys on that panel).  But with religion, or at least the sense of community well-being that it can foster and nourish, being diminished in our society, as well as many of my friends believing “judgmental” is the worst epithet that can be thrown at a person, it has come to feel like, “do whatever you like because we are free, we have no restrictions, no code of decency beyond our own individualized sense of what that entails and most importantly no judgment from others.”

However, I think there is still a sense of outrage at Tiger Woods, which I think is appropriate (note to his wife – marrying a driven, successful man, who was driven by his Dad from a young age and is not that attractive, but-for the media saturation of his face that creates a comfortable familiarity mistaken for attractiveness and is now worth a billion dollars is a bad recipe for marital bliss – as if a nerdy loser with money, met a horny black guy and a pushy Asian with a sense of entitlement  to form the perfect storm of cheater)  Some people say, who cares?  Or he’s a celebrity – that’s what they do.  But this guy did not just have an indiscretion.  That was five or six or twenty-two women ago.  This guy’s endorsement shouldn’t be worth anything that is not golf-related.  Not that we put much stock in his endorsement to begin with, but I think you can agree with me.  We have gotten to the point where the only realistic role models we can have (or are allowed to have without incurring the wrath mentioned in the previous paragraph) in terms of personal conduct are men like Derek Jeter or George Clooney, guys who don’t cheat on wives because they don’t have them (please don’t let Obama have an indiscretion).   Most of young people’s role models for moral behavior are now those who decide to sit out of the game basically.

It reminds me of something that happened when I was engaged.  I remember hearing from a friend of my ex that she had been releived when she found out I had once cheated on a girlfriend in college (which I told her).  And I asked, “relieved?” And the friend said, “well no girl feels secure if they think their guy is perfect.”  Now I know this is not every woman’s opinion, but it still startled me, which it probably should not have.  The reality television culture we live in is now a race to a view of the bottom – so we can always see that we are better than someone else, rather than a view of the top – so we can aspire to be better (once again Obama being the exception – even just for this can’t the self-righteous conservatives give him a break?).  We seem to enjoy people’s failings because they make ourselves feel better about ourselves.  We want less Kennedy and Obama and more Jersey Shore and Real Housewives.

And now there is a trickle down effect, which is sort of the point of this whole rant.  Congress held hearings about steroid abuse by athletes because of “the children.” But to those who may have felt that concern it should be no surprise that 9th graders are banging each other at record highs in this country.   Some may not feel there is anything wrong with this, but doesn’t that feel a bit young for such high numbers?  Sure it seems a little more appropriate for that kid that was shaving in 4th grade or that girl with the really touchy-feely uncle, but one of of every three?  And then one of every two by 10th grade?  Kids are impressionable to what is marketed to them and to peer pressure.  Even the best and most enlightened parents will have a tough time combating that.  And between all the social tools that act to separate us despite their purported connectedness, sex has become the latest thing to depreciate in this country to record lows along with the dollar and letter writing.

Liberals and libertarians (yes you comedians!) love bashing the Puritanical views of sex in this country and mocking the religious right (who sadly, often turn out to be hypocrites, at least the ones you are told about because America loves to hate a hypocrite), and I will admit I am no saint.  But at some point when will we feel liberated enough?  I don’t want to have to make sure my future daughter is using protection when she still has a lunchbox (for the record I will make any future daughters use a lunch box through graduate school).