Idaho: Ban All Premarital Sex on TV

A bunch of Republican lawmakers in the Idaho state legislature is demanding that the federal government ban all depictions or even mentions of premarital sex on television — to protect the children, of course, the usual excuse for authoritarian laws.

Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.

“We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

But remember, they want “smaller government.” Except when they don’t.


  1. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Next: go to the library and to bookstores and ban all books and magazines with depictions of premarital sex. Then go to the internet and censor all mention of premarital sex.

    Because if you do that, you see, then abstinence-only sex “ed” will work. Because their students won’t know sex exists.

  2. bcmystery says

    Still, you have to admit, that one episode when Barney and Baby Bop started going at it kinda crossed the line.

    Also, I shouldn’t have to add this, but you know there’s always someone, so …


  3. says

    Were children really safer when all mention of ess-ee-ex on TV was either censored or sanitized? A quick look at some of the dates in the Catholic Church child-rape scandal strongly implies they weren’t.

    If it’s sexual abuse of children we’re worried about here, most of that comes from parents, uncles, and other adults the kids are forced to trust — and that sort of thing predates TV by centuries, and happens independent of any particular mass-communication media.

  4. says

    It would be nice if someone could stand up and address the entire Legislature, with cameras rolling, to say, “Doesn’t the ‘smaller government’ ideal you whack off to mean that government should not be regulating television AT ALL? Doesn’t this bill prove that your ‘smaller government’ meme is a flat-out lie?”

    Hey, a guy can dream.

  5. says

    Boy, talk about “57 channels (and nothin’ on)”

    You know what would really work good? So, yeah, you ban all of the television that has any reference to pre-marital sex (and when they do have sex SHE always gets teh preggers!) and you show more WAR MOVIES. Then you give allathem kids gunz and see how many of ’em get molested!

  6. reddiaperbaby1942 says

    That’s right, if we don’t talk about it it doesn’t exist. Likewise, if we ignore poverty, or climate change, ignorance, disease or death, they’ll stop existing. The ostrich syndrome, perhaps?

  7. zippythepinhead says

    What about extramarital sex? Oops, that eliminates a lot of politicians. How’s this for a law: anytime a politician has an affair, they are banned from all media, no interviews, talk shows, campaign commercials, nada, zip, for life. Non-person, non-grata. You know, to protect the children. No, I’m not referring to a certain Senator from, uhhhh, where was it, not Idaho, not at all.

  8. MikeMa says

    As soon as they make extramarital affairs a death penalty offense, I’ll support this idiocy.

  9. blf says

    Another wacky proposal, Arizona’s transgender community fights toilet ban: “Legislators in Arizona want to ban transgender people from using public toilets, showers and dressing rooms not associated with their birth gender …
    “Arizona’s Republican representative, John Kavanagh, has been campaigning to make it a criminal offence for a transgender person to use a public facility associated with a gender other than what is recorded on his or her birth certificate.”

  10. DaveL says

    What about extramarital sex? Oops, that eliminates a lot of politicians

    Oh, I’m sure they don’t want their extramarital misadventures being mentioned on TV, either.

  11. matty1 says

    I’m glad I don’t live in Idaho without sex on TV to watch what would do in the evenings?

  12. Akira MacKenzie says

    But remember, they want “smaller government.” Except when they don’t.

    You have to learn to “think” like a conservative, Ed:

    “Ah, but “limited government” is about protecting real freedoms: property rights, economic freedom, and of course, the right to keep and bear arms. So willie regulating the amount of pollution you dump into the environment, redistributing wealth from the rich to,the poor, and banning civilian access to military weaponry are all egregious violations of our liberty, policing the use of our genitalia to prevent moral turpitude is a perfectly legitimate function of government.”

    “Besides, just like the Holy Bible didn’t mention evil-ution or rights for queer-mo-sexuals, our flawless and god-like Framers did not mention fucking in the sacred Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is not protected! “

  13. says

    I guess the TV characters had better start prefacing each act or discussion of sex by loudly declaring that they never intend to get married. Then the sex won’t be premarital.

    Problem solved.

  14. Synfandel says

    The corollary to Gretchen’s insightful point is that once you’ve had sex, you should never marry. That way you won’t have turned your sexual experiences into premarital sex. I’m sure Idaho Republicans will be heartened to have a good argument against marriage.

  15. Moggie says

    The measure that’s moving forward is not a bill. Under the rules of the Idaho Legislature, it’s called a Joint Memorial and is simply a symbolic statement.

    Are these time-wasters paid to symbolically wank around like this?

  16. oranje says

    Probably why I’m not an elected official, but I’m all in favour of safe premarital sex. Let them learn what it is, not tell them it’s this horrible, dirty thing they have to save for the one and only person they will/can ever love. How to be responsible with it. How to care for a partner.

    Then again, I’m polyamorous, so my views on sex and relationships would cause fainting spells in the Idaho legislature.

    As an aside, do they ban pornography in Idaho? I assume that would be right out if they’re worried about the mention of sex on television. Maybe North Korea can help them with an Internet filter.

  17. cptdoom says

    What about extramarital sex? Oops, that eliminates a lot of politicians.

    Actually, even the premarital ban would eliminate Sarah Palin, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich from the airwaves when children were around. Hmmm, perhaps those kooky Idahoans have a point.

  18. Pierce R. Butler says

    It’s only premarital sex if the characters involved actually then, um, marry.

    Since gay marriage just doesn’t happen in Idaho, broadcasting gay sex will be completely kosher, right?

  19. jamesramsey says

    Wouldn’t that mean that you couldn’t show portrayals of the Christmas story?

    It may be an immaculate conception, but it was a conception none the less.

  20. says

    It’s funny that they want all references banned, instead of adding a corollary that’s it’s perfectly all right to mention premarital sex if it’s portrayed as a horrible mistake and sinful. Especially if the people involve develop some horrible disease and die, and are shown being promptly sent to Hell.

  21. redmann says

    our flawless and god-like Framers did not mention fucking in the sacred Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is not protected!

    So the Framers wanted us to have unprotected sex??

  22. says

    “So the Framers wanted us to have unprotected sex??”

    Hey, redmann, I like the cut’o’yer’jib, dude!

    No mention, no regulatin; dildoes and cockrings all around!

  23. says

    But if the two characters are married, hard core depictions of fucking are perfectly fine!

    So, they can have a Vegas wedding, fuck like rabbits, and then get a quickie divorce, Brittany-style. Because that doesn’t denigrate the sacred institution of marriage like them gays do.

    If I were in the ID legislature, I’d offer an amendment calling for a ban on any mention or portrayal of guns, just to see how fast it would take these republicans to discover the 1st Amendment.

  24. rabbitscribe says

    I’m getting sick of all this “for the children” folderol from both sides of the aisle. What have the little bastards ever done for us?

  25. raven says

    U.S. teen pregnancy rates at an all-time low across all ethnicities …
    www .cbsnews .com/…/u.s-teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-tim…
    by Michelle Castillo – in 94 Google+ circles

    Apr 10, 2012 – What’s behind the reduced rates? The CDC claims that the effective use at prevention messages has helped stop teenage pregnancy.

    In Reality land the US teenage pregnancy rate is at a 40 year low. They don’t want to censor nonmarital sex on TV because of the children. They want to because it is you know, yucky and evil. To some primitive tribes of Oogedy Boogedy cults any way.

    “We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

    Darrell Bolz (R) E-mail …. U.S. Army Reserve; farmer/rancher; L.D.S.; Bonneville County Commissioner for six years; East Central Idaho Private Industry Council; …”

    Bolz is a Mormon!!! A member of a dictatorial abusive mind control cult. He wouldn’t know what is best for anyone if it crawled up his nose. Idaho has a large Mormon population and you are looking at what passes for Mormon thought in action.

    The state of Utah delayed and tried to prevent cable TV from coming into Utah. Because the Mormons were afraid exposure to the outside world would make it harder to brainwash their kids.

  26. kantalope says

    ch1 – I Love Lucy marathon
    ch2 – Leave it to Beav….Leave it to Dam….Leave it to River Clogging Mammal Marathon
    ch3 – Father Knows Best Marathon
    ch4 – Roy Rodgers Marathon
    ch5 – In Search Of Marathon
    ch….Rest of the Channels: Greatest Story Ever Told, brought to you by the NRA, Marathon

    As for keeping the world safe for 6 year olds….every product in you house warns you to ‘keep away from children’ This is no idle warning.

  27. Synfandel says

    It may be an immaculate conception, but it was a conception none the less.

    That was Mary’s conception, not Jesus’. According to Catholic dogma, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. We’re not told whether her conception was premarital, marital, or extramarital.

    However, your point is valid: Mary was unmarried at the time of her encounter with the Phallus Dei.

  28. Trebuchet says

    Ah, Idaho. Nazis in the North, Mormons in the South, never the twain shall meet. Not even in the same time zone! My brother, for a while, was living near Couer d’Alene and working in Boise. He commuted once a week by way of Pendleton, OR, because the only road entirely in Idaho was two lanes, winding, and slow.

  29. busterggi says

    Next – a ban on all media that depict or mention that sex between married couples may be pleasurable.

  30. baal says

    Dems should stand up and demand a bill that all programs must include sex and must have integral discussions on safer sex techniques, clear consent and negotiations over what’s in scope or not.

  31. roggg says

    I get that there’s a lot of bat shit crazy people in the USA… there’s a percentage everywhere you go, but how did you get to the point where so many of your legislative bodies are collectively bat shit crazy?

  32. sillose says

    government: out of my business, into every element of your personal life. where it belongs, dammit!

  33. thebookofdave says

    @Moggie #17

    Are these time-wasters paid to symbolically wank around like this?

    That’s money well spent, at least until the Idaho voting public replace their government paid lunatics with actual politicians. A full-time congressional circle jerk is much less offensive or wasteful than any legislation they are likely to produce.

  34. lofgren says

    I think the penalty for pretending to have premarital sex should be fine of no less than 100,000,000 Monopoly dollars.

  35. says

    Dude, I’ve been sitting here for five minutes, trying to formulate a response, and I’m finding it’s just so mind-numbingly stupid that the only thing I CAN say is: …What.

    And uh… how hard is it to do what the rest of us do when we find something on the telly that we don’t like or find a bit uncomfortable or awkward, and change the damn channel? There’s a channel for damn near anything you can think of, including several that are nothing but religious programming!

  36. Ichthyic says

    how did you get to the point where so many of your legislative bodies are collectively bat shit crazy?

    last minute authoritarian panic, as the re-election of Obama has started to force reality in on them and shatter their visions of an imagined 1950s utopia.

    so, they all vote teaparty in a last ditch effort to resuscitate their failing dreams.

    the only question is how much lasting damage there will be.

  37. Ichthyic says

    …I guess if Idaho gets their way, they won’t be able to show the Bible on TV any more. Lots of premarital sex in that book.

  38. Red-Green in Blue says

    So to draw the logical conclusion, pre-marital sex (whether acted, discussed, or implied) on TV is unacceptable before 2200, but marital sex on TV is OK at children’s teatime. I’m wondering what exactly it is about simulated marital sex that makes it acceptable viewing for children who are to be protected from portrayals of premarital sex.

    I also note the legalistic attitude of the motion: apparently issues of consent, love, gender equality and the like seem not to be important to these Republicans, the only relevant matter being the piece of paper declaring them “man and wife”. Colour me unsurprised…

  39. gratch says

    Here’s the full headline. Idaho: Ban all premarital sex on TV to protect younger generation. Younger Generation look up from wireless streaming Ipads in confusion, “TV? That thing Mom and Dad watch? Sure knock yourself out.”

  40. skinnercitycyclist says

    Supporters say the Idaho Constitution requires government to protect the virtue and purity of the home.

    What about our precious bodily fluids?

Leave a Reply