Woman to Woman

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

Diane could’ve built a much better argument by pointing out that abstinence-only programs do not, in fact, work.

Really, what’s left to argue about? Shaunti’s claim is an out-and-out lie; abstinence-only education has been a failure, proven time and again. Therefore, it should be abandoned.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this

And really, it would only have taken a little digging to turn up the evidence.

“There is no conclusive evidence to date that these programs reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and there is some evidence that shows that they deter sexually active teens from using condoms and other contraceptives.” http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/12670res20041201.html

“American Academy of Pediatrics: …the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

“Despite charges from abstinence-only advocates that teaching about contraception makes it more likely that teens will become sexually active, study after study has determined just the opposite.” http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/17_02/Abst172.shtml

Advocates For Youth study of programs in 11 states: “Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time.” http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

The Surgeon General’s report: “This evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity, either by hastening the onset of sexual intercourse, increasing the frequency of sexual intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners. In addition, some of these evaluated programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for adolescents who were sexually active.” http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm

The lies and misinformation spread under the cloak of “abstinence education”:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinence-only-sex-education.html

http://irregulartimes.com/abstinenceed.html

http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139536

By Lyrazel

January 8, 2007 08:41 AM | Link to this

I feel the government should not waste money on abstinence programs or sex education. All children should be neutered at birth, if the neutering is irreversible the government can issue: Oops Sorry letters at the appropriate time. Then and only then will the continued waste of taxpayer money trying to educate these stupid nits end. The only children to be born will be to celebrities and upper income families (those qualifying for the tax cut now). In case some unlucky teen should give birth their child would be removed and sent to a faith-based orphanage. Another solution is to gather up all babies born to unwed underage girls and smuggle them into Canada where they will get free government health care and for once not be a burden on our great country! When they grow up they can provide their parents with low-cost prescription drugs thus reducing their parents Medicaid costs.

By baker-NG

January 8, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/index.html >usaa auto insurance quotes [url=http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/index.html]usaa auto insurance quotes[/url] http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/liability-auto-insurance.html >liability auto insurance [url=http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/liability-auto-insurance.html]liability auto insurance[/url]

By lovelyliz

January 8, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Government $$$ should only go to programs that work and when they don’t the $$$ should be pulled. Success must be the unltimate guide.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

If I remember a certain news item awhile back, abstinence only programs(religious indoctrination in disguise), resulted in more teens engaging in oral and anal sex. So the girls can nicely say I am a virgin(but can give a great BJ instead).

I also think they tried that in Africa as well, resulting in a high rate of HIV. But they also recently were able to correlate the high incidents of malaria with the HIV rate, as well a correlation between being a circumcised male and getting HIV.(In Africa).

So is the poster Schoolgirl advertising some of her adult in nature videos? How did she know what the topic was?, thought she was a drone-bot(or whatever the term is for cyber-zombie).

By Jan Hudson

January 8, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

Teens who abstain are more likely to engage in ORAL SEX. So it seems the Abstaince training has been a miserable failure.Would you like your 14 year old daughter to engage in ORAL SEX so that the boys are sexually gratified and the girls run the risk of STDs? Come on, tell your kids the truth. All of it. Encourage your own family values as well. Then your girls will be able to make intelligent choices.

By kimberly

January 8, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

The abstinence-only cirriculum is a joke. My kid brought the little workbook home. I looked through it and said, “You’re sh-tting me, right?” Then I educated my kid. How sad for the children whose parents don’t believe in actual education.

By NetBanker

January 8, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this

BC…thanks for the factual information. I noticed that Shaunti neglects to mention that while kids who pledge abstinence after abstinence-only education may delay having sex when the do cave in to their hormones they are LESS likely than their peers to use contraception. What I don’t understand about her position and what I haven’t seen explained is WHY teens shouldn’t have all the facts? The liberal position that Shaunti derides allows room for abstinence and even Diane says that maybe it should be encouraged. Yet we find that Shaunti tries to position the left as against good moral choices since they want to provide comprehensive information to teens that INCLUDES abstinence. And that makes sense, how?

To be honest I didn’t wait to get out of my teens to have sex with both genders, but wish that my first encounters had been more like the ones in my early twenties when I had sex with people who were older and more experienced. I’m certainly not advocating pedophilia or anything like that, but I learned a whole lot more about my body, how to give and receive pleasure, and how to communicate when I was with experienced partners than I did fumbling around with people my own age. Which leads me to another question that I’d like to ask everyone…why is it that if one has reached the age of consent to have sex (16 in GA, yes?), but gives that consent to someone over 18 that other person can be charged with a crime? What the laws are saying is that you’re old enough to decide to have sex, but not old enough to decide with whom. That just goes against common sense. If one can decide to do the deed then one should also be able to pick any partner one chooses.

I asked friends in the U.K. about this when age came up during a discussion about sex and they said that the ages of the people involved don’t matter so long as both have reached the age of consent.

By Archie

January 8, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Come on Shanti what world are you living in? Abstinence-only programs work for a small percentage of people. Small percentage. Diane points deal with facts not wishes. In the 1960’s people were having premarital sex and this is according to factual information published just a few weeks ago in national newspapers so I don’t know what Shanti is thinking about or why she would write her opinion the way she did. My answer to the topic question is yes provided that the government deals with facts. Abstinence is what I want for my child until adulthood but I want factual information to be provided as well. You can preach abstinence and facts just as one multi-tasks with everything else.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget the GAO’s recent report…there’s some information in there as well.

www.gao.gov/new.items/d0787.pdf

And don’t forget the recent study that shows that an overwhelmingly large percentage of the population was getting busy before marriage, extending back to the ’40s.

You know, I’ll never forget the first time I heard the “It’s only ANAL sex, so I’m still a virgin” argument, from a girl I went to college with. I thought it was the largest pile of self-delusion I would ever encounter. Then I read Shaunti’s latest argument.

By Sten93227

January 8, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

We must allow the government to provide our kids with programs that teach ‘em to be god-fearing and moral no matter what it might cost. We don’t want contraception taught in our schools; we want the schools to keep ‘em ignorant just like us! Teach ‘em bull about sex just like we teach ‘em bull about everything else. Teenagers will do IT if the school doesn’t teach them not to do IT. It is the government/school system’s responsibility to tell ‘em not to do IT. Then I don’t have to ever talk to them about IT. But if the school program tells ‘em not to, they won’t! Well, a few of ‘em won’t. Well maybe a few of “em won’t and I know my kids would never do that! We want our kids to have their heads up their bu—s just like us! That’s the way god wants it to be! You crazy libruls!

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Funny that Shaunti says we taught abstinence-only about drugs, not how to safely use drugs. That ‘just say no’ policy is about as effective as ‘just say no’ to sex.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

72John, ROTFLMAO. “I thought it was the largest pile of self-delusion I would ever encounter. Then I read Shaunti’s latest argument.” Of course you’re one of them damn libruls ain’t ya? You don’t even know sex is immoral, and dirty, and disgusting. We have to pretend teenagers will not have sex if we don’t teach them anything about sex. We must not teach them how to have safe sex because that’ll make them want to have sex. They’ll start thinking sex is not immoral and dirty and disgusting. We must never teach them the facts. Not giving them the facts (abstinence education) will make them NOT want to have sex. Loco!

By lozen

January 8, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hey Kimberly. I’ve never seem any of the actual material they use but I can imagine what it must be like.

By Mara

January 8, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

This is one case where the odd liberal bias against a good-moral-choices program…

Once again the representative for the political right seems to be insisting that THEY are the definers and arbitors of what “good morals” consist of. What exactly makes “don’t have sex until you’re married” moral and “be a responsible participant if you have sex” to be immoral choice? The only IMMORAL sex is coerced sex.

But to Shaunti and her ilk, it seems that only straight sex with your spouse can be considered “moral”. No toys, no aids, no fun little oils, outfits, or movies. No protection, no contraception, no “un-Godly” positions.

I guess it’s that odd conservative bias against defining your own moral values instead of following an archaic and arbitrary set of rules…

and to echo EVERYONE else who’s posted so far…abstinence only education DOES NOT WORK. Despite Shaunti cherry picking data that seems to support her argument, an independant reading of the data in context will ultimately show how weak her assertion really is.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

The abstinence-only crowd is doomed on at least three levels:

Get over it, folks. It’s not the school’s job to raise your kid, it’s yours. The reason we had to install sex-ed courses in the FIRST place was because of irresponsible parents like you who couldn’t be bothered to remember that “parent” is a verb as well as a noun.

By Randy Jones

January 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Wouldn’t the same argument for government funded programs therefore apply to their programs anitsmoking, drunk drinking, and unhealthy eating?

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

I read the book from Herbert Armstrong/PlainTruth/Ambassador College about Sex when I was about 16.

In it, the author argued that sexual activity among humans had to be God-inspired since Humans were the only species that engaged in face-to-face missionary position sex.

And me pointing out that lions also engage in missionary position sex and then asking if that was why they were called The King of Beasts did not go over well. LOL And further comments about lions must have a soul, attempting to follow the PlainTruth book’s logic, went over even less well. LMAO

But my dad pointed out to me(at about 16) over the dinner table(of all places) that women had penises too, and since I knew what one tasted like, raised my hands and with index finger/thumb, indicated/said Yeah, real little ones. He almost fell out of his chair. LOL

By Mara

January 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Randy Jones - drunk drinking? LOL!!

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Chilao,

Wow, your dinner conversations were a lot more interesting than dinner at my family!

By etc.

January 8, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

So here is my question BC. If weare only teaching abstinance, what would the criteria for success of that program be? Here is one indicator that tells me it must be working:

Each year, almost 750,000 teenage women aged 15–19 become pregnant. The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy.1 • The teenage pregnancy rate among those who ever had intercourse declined 28% between 1990 and 2002. • The teenage birthrate in 2002 was 30% lower than the peak rate of 61.8 births per 1,000 women, reached in 1991. • Between 1988 and 2000, teenage pregnancy rates declined in every state and in the District of Columbia. • By 2002, the teenage abortion rate had dropped by 50% from its peak in 1988. • From 1986 to 2002, the proportion of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion declined more than one-quarter from 46% to 34% of pregnancies among 15–19-year-olds. • Among black women aged 15–19, the nationwide pregnancy rate fell by 40% between 1990 and 2002. • Among white teenagers, it declined by 34% during the same time period. • Among Hispanic teenagers, who may be of any race, the pregnancy rate increased slightly from 1991–1992, but by 2002 was 19% lower than the 1990 rate. In general, states with the largest numbers of teenagers also had the greatest number of teenage pregnancies. California reported the highest number of adolescent pregnancies (113,000),California teaches Contraceptives, not abstinance followed by Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (with about 37,000–80,000 each). The smallest numbers of teenage pregnancies were in Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, all of which reported fewer than 2,000 pregnancies among women aged 15–19.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

LT - I actually think my dad was real proud of me for knowing that. My first ex was raised by her mother with the belief that the way to a man’s heart was to keep his stomach full and his bleep empty, and she did a good job of both. My Dad, I believe, had the belief that the way to keep his wife content was to keep her little penis well stimulated. (if later convos from my Mom are any indication of how he thought…LOL)

KNOWLEDGE is 1/2 the battle, right?

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I think those big/small numbers(113,000 to 2,000) are only meaningful when expressed as a percentage of the sexually active.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

What’s that quote about lies, damn lies and statistics? I googled “Columbia University teenagers pledging abstinence” and got a lot of hits. One was probably Shaunti’s source, called strong families or something, but there were a lot of web sites debunking the success of abstinence. So all of us can find some statistics supporting our view. I choose the pragmatic approach. Advise teenagers to not have sex until they are more mature, but if they do engage in sex make sure they know about contraception. I’d rather take my daughter to the gyn for birth control than to get an abortion.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

and expressed as percentages, it would probably look like CA is doing something right, since I wonder if there are even 2,000 teenagers in ALL of South Dakota. LOL Might mean 85 percent got pregnant in South Dakota, but only 3.5 percent of Californians.

Ima justa sayin’ (when dem kinda Statistics gets whipped out)

Aside from abstinence only programs, can the introduction of HIV in the early 1980s, be quantifiably measured as it affects these kinds of stats?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I BELIEVE the highest at-risk group nowadays, for HIV in the USA, are rural teens, epecially southerners, of all races, and urban black females.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Chilao, Yeah, I think when parents have the conversation with children about the difference between girls and boys they should include the c******, not just emphasize the vagina. Certainly using that knowledge is the way to a woman’s heart!

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Yes, the teen pregnancy rate is dropping. And that has what to do with abstinence-only education?

Answer: nothing. It was dropping before this silliness was instituted, and it’s still dropping in spite of it. Not because of it, as the other research and links have proven.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

What’s that quote about lies, damn lies and statistics

first thing my first Stats instructor put on the overhead, a quote from Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s either Prime Minister or Foreign-Affairs Officer(he may have had multiple positions over the years), there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

In a way it’s like “child abduction” scares and the current “online predators” hysteria. No matter how small or shrinking the problem really is, the hype and moral panic continue to grow.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

As usual, the religious conservatives miss the point. No one suggests that abstinence shouldn’t be a PART of sex ed for teenager. The problem arises when the curriculum is abstinence ONLY. Here’s a telling sentence from chu…er…ETC’s little cut-and-paste:

A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy

Notice that is says BOTH abstinence and contraceptive practice is responsible for the decline. Not abstinence only.

By all means, teach kids that the most certain way to avoid complications is to abstain completely from sex. Just don’t add in the decidedly religious “until marriage” component, don’t teach the blatant scientific falshoods cited by the GAO study, and make sure that teens know that they can buy condoms in the auto-checkout line at Wal-mart without the embarassment factor.

By chuck

January 8, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Actually the rate increased to a peak in 1990. Abstinance had just begun to be implemented then.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

buy condoms in the auto-checkout line WalMart

and they do not even have to answer the drug-store clerk(clown-punk!) who will always ask “What size”?

By CTM (confuse them more)

January 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Let’s confuse them more like Diane implies. Tell them not to cheat, not to steal, not to lie, not to copy homework, be tardy, etc. But if you can’t handle the peer pressure there are goodies to help you cope. FORGET all the politics and data. Any fool with a child knows that you can’t say one thing to one child and say (allow) another thing with another child. It will create lawlessness. The main issue is TEACHING and it seems that Diane came from a very slack upbringing or she is simply inexperienced with raising kids.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Yes. The way to a woman’s heart is to be sure to take care of her “little monk wearing a robe”

On another note, prohibition worked as did the drug war. Bla, when your daughter grows up don’t let her go to a rainbow party.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this

Except that lying, plagiarizing, stealing, cheating, etc. are inherently unethical and having sex isn’t. It’s something that shouldn’t happen without the emotional maturity needed to engage in such behavior responsibly, which is what sex education is supposed to provide.

Knowledge gives power, ignorance and fear lead only to greater ignorance and fear. That’s what “TEACHING” is about, not about propagating false information and religious fear.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Hi John. Yes I snuck the laptop in again. Can’t get too involved today, busy, busy, busy.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

How come the censor zapped “cl!toris” and didn’t bleep penis?

By Monica

January 8, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Hi to all! Chilao, glad you brought up the point that percentages of those state should be considered as well. I imagine that California has ten times as many teens as the other mentioned states combined!

Statistics can say anything you want them to say. Surveys are only as reliable as the people who complete them. I wonder how many teens claim to practice abstinence yet don’t?

As for government funding of abstinence-only programs, I don’t see why not, as long as they are not sponsored by a religious organization. Perhaps they are effective for some kids. HOWEVER, I think funding should also go to “comprehensive sex education.” Though I do believe that sex should be reserved for husband and wife, I also know that teens have sex! I would much rather them regret having sex with someone than regret having an abortion.

BC, great comments about the parents’ roles in this topic as well.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

LilyToad - and here I thought you have self-editted it that way. Maybe it is because the p word is related to the all important thing reproduction, (like the v word), however we know the c word only related to pleasure, and we know how terrible and hedonistic THAT is. LOL

really have no idea, but it obviously ON the list. LOL

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

CTM: We also teach them not to drive without a license, but we also offer driver’s ed. I suppose that’s “confusing” too?

By chuck

January 8, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

Yeah BC. Great comments coming from someone who doesn’t HAVE ANY KIDS.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

Chilao, this reminds me of when filters would screen out any website with the word breast, but women complained about not being able to research breast cancer. Of course, none of the “porn” sites would use such a proper name as breast!

By chuck

January 8, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

BC, that last comment was just asinine. We don’t teach them driver’s ed until they HAVE a learner’s permit that ALLOWS them to drive WITH a licensed driver.

If the government is going to step into the fray and teach ANYTHING about sex (and I don’t think it should be doing it at all) then it ought to teach only that which is BEST for our society and way of life. That is CLEARLY abstinence. Under ideal circumstances how can ANYBODY argue differently?

It is virtually impossible to get pregnant “accidentally” if you are abstinent. It is virtually impossible to contract an STD if you are abstinent and don’t use IV drugs.

I don’t think the government ought to be usurping the role of parents in this regard but IF they insist on teaching anything it ought only to be the IDEAL.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this

Well chuck you don’t have a uterus so you are now banned from any discussion or comment on abortion.

Stupid argument that only shows you have no real points to make.

By Archie

January 8, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

Mara, I read your earlier post and there are some preachers that do say it’s wrong to have a certain kind of sex even with your spouse. But please understand as a church-going person myself I can say some of us do not pay any attention to the restrictive opinions of certain preachers. Good post.

The good book says all,all have sinned so that means chances are the sin in question may include sex outside of wedlock or sex in other than the missionary position in wedlock. It is a good thing that teen pregnancy rates have dropped but that maybe due in part to the number STD’s that the kids have been made aware of moreso than abstinence. In other words, many things explain why a person makes a decision. The main thing I have to say is if you are doing the right thing then you should not have to lie or withhold information.

By chuck

January 8, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Yeah Joe L. Bite me.

By Suzi-Q

January 8, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Hello all, interesting topic. I have some personal knowledge I would like to share. I participated in one of the abstinence pledge programs in the 1990’s it was called “True love Waits”. First of all it was taught at our church not our school. And the posters who mentioned the rise in other ‘sex’ are exactly right! All of my friends who signed the pledge learned how to give great head. And when that didn’t make their boyfriends happy they had anal. I know of over 15 girls that thought this was totally acceptable and kept their ‘virginity’. They also didn’t use condoms because by the time they were ready to go all the way it was “true love” so why would you make him wear a condom? Like everyone else said, only providing one type of information on sex is not teaching it is preaching.

By Lyrazel

January 8, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Well, sure who can argue that telling kids to wait to have sex until they are financially and mentally responsible to have children is a bad idea? Put all these facts on a different level: most teens (and this means children below age 18) get pregnant and diseased NOT by other teens but by adults.

etc., I am wondering WHY you left out statistics for GA. How about it?

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

Look at the big brain on chuck!

And the hits just keep on coming. Open your mouth again and prove the adage that being thought dumb is better than proving it.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - I don’t think you’ll find many, if anyone, who argues against teaching kids the value of abstinence. However don’t fall for the conservative straw man that abstinence ONLY is the sole way to teach abstinence. Reality teaches us that since the dawn of time people have sex and nearly always before marriage. To teach people the truth of sexual activity and how to prevent pregnancies and diseases is nothing but responsible.

To the people who talk about Just Say No (which has done away with drug use right?), even with that program you still taught what drugs did and their dangers. Same thing we are talking about with sexual activity.

By kimberly

January 8, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

LOL! Haha, I second Joe L’s motion at 2:04. All in favor say, “Zip it, Chuckie!” Haha! Unless of course Chuckie can prove he deserves a separate, different standard than what he advocates for others.

But back to the topic: Knowledge is power. Empower young people with all the knowledge and tools they need to take personal responsibility for themselves. We’re supposed to be training them to be ADULTS, not scared, superstitious little sheep who need a piece of paper from the government and permission from some robed pedophile to explore the great mysteries of life.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

Schools are in a way like candy stores. Members of the opposite sex are pieces of candy. OK boys and girls, you may look at the candy but you may not eat it until you are married. Uh huh. Yeah.

Hey Sweetness. :)

By CTM

January 8, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

The72John you still miss the point. We dont allow double standards on the job, (at least not mine) in the Army, in law enforcement, etc. But we want to teach a double standard to children when they are being formed to respect adults and themselves?? I can see you telling your 14 year old daughter going on a date with her 15 year old boyfriend “hey kids do you guys have your condoms just in-case you steam up the windows…driving without your learners permit??” I see kids and parents in the mall with you all the time. They cuss you out..show you mass disrespect in public because you mislead them in private. You as parents need to practice abstinience so you wont bring up any more confused kids. Or in Diane’s case don’t have any and talk foolishness to adults…no harm done!!!!!!!!

By chuck

January 8, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

First little Joe, you’ve made what, 3 posts on this blog and the first 2 were about others having “no argument”. A little weak don’t ya think to be criticizing others in that regard.

Second, if BC was a parent, he would understand that it is NOT the parents who have abdicated responsibility for raising their children who are against “anything goes” sex education. Parents who are raising their children the right way are being undermined by a system that says “we know you are going to have sex anyway so here is how you can avoid the consequences of it.” That attitude is why so many kids are having sex at early ages NOT abstinence education.

The school nurse can’t give my kid an aspirin without my permission but some butcher can go in and do major surgery on that same daughter WITHOUT MY PERMISSION?!?!

While you do need at least some experience such as teaching OR actually being a parent to understand how children think and to know what works with them and what doesn’t, you don’t have to BE a murderer to KNOW that murder is wrong. So as I said earlier…Bite Me.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

Actually chuck, I have posted on this blog various times over the past year plus. I just don’t have to shout my (usually uninformed) opinion when many others hear have already expressed similar thoughts. Second you made a sad and desparate attempt at an “argument” that holds zero logical value when it’s held to the light. And thus you had no response outside that which I would expect from a 6 yr old (who matches both your maturity and intellect).

Kids are having sex at a younger age because we live in a society where they are being sexualized and poor role models are held up for them everyday and the parents are the most culpable of all parties. And surveys and anecdotal evidence shatter the false belief that people didn’t have tons of pre-marital sex in the past. It’s just a more dangerous world than the one where at worst you had to get one shot in the butt and everything was okay.

And you are a moron if you think that only parents have ever dealt with children or understand how they think. Because only half of us have been women, but ALL of us were children once. Of course in most of our cases we moved past that stage of development and reflect back on it but not for others like yourself.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

No, CTM, I don’t miss the point. You are still confusing issues of right and wrong with morally neutral issues. It isn’t a double standard to teach children openly about sex and give them both the positives and the negatives about the activity. It’s simply complete education.

It’s time we woke up to the fact that people have been having sex for centuries and will continue to do so. You can pretend that sex doesn’t happen, but it does. Given the choice, if my neice decides she’s going to have sex, I’d much prefer that she use a condom and be safe than not.

By Suzi-Q

January 8, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck quick question: do you consider your daughter yours? Is she your property?

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

And you don’t have to be a parent to know that brainwashing kids with religious bigotry and superstition is wrong.

So… well, you know the rest.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck. I see your point. This is not the “Leave it to Beaver” days. The Mrs. and I were talking the other day after I heard someone on regular TV say the lord’s name in vain. back in the “old” days, couples didn’t sleep in the same bed, curse words were a no no and forget about nudity. Now we can hear everything but the “F” word, see people doing “it” and talking about it and bare arses. We can mention abstinence but the responsibilities associated with sex should also be taught as these times they are a changing. (and the candy will be eaten whatever we do.)

By Jack

January 8, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

It’s time we woke up to the fact that people have been having sex for centuries and will continue to do so. You can pretend that sex doesn’t happen, but it does.

HA HA HA ! I needed that one. Gotta go. See ya next week.

By Lyrazel

January 8, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Joe L you said: Reality teaches us that since the dawn of time people have sex and nearly always before marriage. Anyone who studies history knows this is not true. Historically children were married at a much younger age—twelve-fourteen or if nobility age 3-10.

Recent findings have uncovered that teens who abstain from sex who marry young (right out of high school or drop-out) end up divorced. This is one reason southern states have such high divorce rates (but include here global stats and countries where arranged first marriages are dominant also have high first marriage divorce rates)—so its not just one religion or country coping with this. Which is worse, teen sex or teen divorce (which probably includes a child by then)? This is one of the facts etc. did not want to expose, also the fact that the health of GA babies is considerably less than other states.

One can always look at countries in western Europe and find very thorough sex education, very low teen births, very low marriage rates and very low birth rates. Which is worse?

By CTM

January 8, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

The72John, if you had a daughter (not your niece) you would’nt be commenting so recklessly. I guess I’m unaware of having been in college for 4 years , totally oblivious of the premarital sex stats. But again I see parents and kids like you in public all the time. Scene 1 Act 1: Nicole is 14. Dad is 46. Dad to Nicole: please get off the cell phone now and let’s go. Nicole to Dad: shut up and go get me my condoms cause I might decide to have sex tonight and justify the stats you boast. My boyfriend who I was just talking to wants to abstain but I told him you are cool with it. Thanks dad, in about three years I’ll be the school tramp. The72John, the operation is simple and painless. It’s call a vasectomy.

By chuck

January 8, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

You are right about one thing little Joe. Your opinion is “UNINFORMED”. Name ONE survey that “proves” your point. I don’t recall saying that people NEVER had pre-marital sex, but I can assure you statistics will show that there has been a MARKED increase in the past 30-40 years in pre-marital sex, births out of wed-lock, and divorce. No doubt, the promiscuous ideas of the sixties and seventies have taken hold, probably for good, but not for THE good.

Abstinence only programs can only overcome so much. Children are confronted at every turn with sexually charged material. Great cartoon in the paper yesterday. Pediatrician talking to Mom, little kid by the door says, “Yes I think your child IS being overly exposed to sensual material. He asked me if I thought Cialis was right for him.”

The point is that it IS the job of parents to educate their own children in these things. It is NOT the role of government to UNDERMINE what I am teaching my children at home.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Firstly nobility are such a minute percentage of the world’s population they are not important to any discussion. Second, many of those people who were married at 12-15 had sex before those marriages (if they ever actually got married which was often reserved only for the more well off). It wasn’t until the Victorian times that sex became the vastly tabboo subject it is today in America. In the middle ages people were not overly concerned with virginity.

And if I understand your comments about arranged marriages these are actually more resilient than Western marriages. Not that I would say that makes them superior.

Are you saying that there is something wrong with low teen birth rates? I’m not sure I see where your last comments are going.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

No Chuck I was saying that you spew YOUR vastly uninformed opinions constantly and I have enough maturity to not have to parrot what has been expressed already.

Actually statistics show you are wrong about sex. I was reading a book about WWII recently and vet mentioned sex and said “We were having just as much pre-marital sex back then, people just didn’t talk about it”. Your perception, like many other things about you, is vastly skewed.

Out of wedlock births is due to changes in cultural acceptance (and mostly a poor move at that) NOT anything to do with increases in pre-marital sex nor sex education.

The government is in no way undermining what you teach and only a fundamental zealot who can only teach through ignorance and isolation would think that. Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to again…

By The72John

January 8, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

The very same institute that Chuckie “borrowed” from earlier is responsible for the recent pre-marital sex study.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html

It will come as no surprise to many of you that all sorts of fundamentalist-type web sites are shrilly proclaiming that the study is wrong, wrong, wrong…but then, they also think the world is six thousand years old, so consider the source.

If 95% of all Americans have engaged in pre-marital sex, then…who is out of step?

By The72John

January 8, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

The government is in no way undermining what you teach and only a fundamental zealot who can only teach through ignorance and isolation would think that. Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to again

Seriously. You know, it’s sad how little “faith” Chuck has in his own parenting skills. A rational human being who trusts his children would feel secure in his child being exposed to knowledge without feeling the need to act on it.

If Chuck or anyone else has taught their children that sex is something that should take place only within marriage, then why would merely having more knowledge about sex overturn that teaching?

“Dad, I know that you’ve always taught me that I shouldn’t have sex before marriage because we believe it’s wrong, but I’ve recently learned about something called a condom. I’m off to screw like a bunny - later!”

I seriously don’t see it happening. Of course, people like Chuck hate and fear knowledge because it is inimical to superstition and that’s all he and his ilk really have to live for.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this

Presenting the facts is only “undermining” what you teach your kids if you’ve chosen to hide the facts from them. How is that the school’s fault?

The facts are these: sex education is necessary because parents were (and are) living in denial rather than educating their kids on these important topics.

Sexual activity is neutral, not wicked; if students choose to avoid it entirely (i.e., abstinence), fine. If not, it’s best that they understand what they’re doing and what could happen, just as with driver’s ed. There is no moral or ethical difference.

There’s nothing contradictory or confusing about presenting information on a topic without any pushing or leading, as schools do. If you want to skew their choices in the direction you prefer (such as toward abstinence), that’s YOUR job as a parent… not the school’s.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

Brian - I think in a general sense I basically agree with what you are saying, but I don’t know if I would go as far as to say sex is neutral. I think that between adults that is certainly true. I think that teens are still very emotionally immature and commit risky behavior too easily and therefore sex is a little more loaded of an issue. As a matter of fact I wish more sex ed was really about the social issues surrounding sex and not just the “nuts and bolts” (no pun inteneded). But I think for the most part we are in agreement and it’s probably more a matter of semantics.

Certainly we are in complete agreement about parenting. It’s funny that fundies will rail against knowledge which is by it’s nature neutral (evolution, sex ed, etc.) and say it’s “undermining” them when all it’s doing is exposing their children to cold hard facts.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this

Zip it, Chuckie!

By Jessica Alba

January 8, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

Hi! Thank you for good site! http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html - Jessica Alba Nude Jessica Alba Nude [URL=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/URL] [LINK=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/LINK]

By Jessica Alba

January 8, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

Hi! Thank you for good site! http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html - Jessica Alba Nude Jessica Alba Nude [URL=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/URL] [LINK=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/LINK]

By chuck

January 8, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

So YOUR SUPERIOR point of view is based on an anecdotal comment from ONE WWII era guy and you say MY opinion is uninformed?!?!

little joe, you are obviously as warped as 72john…sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. The Guttmacher Institute publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Policy Review and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute’s mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation

Not exactly a conservative group john.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

some butcher can go in and do major surgery on that same daughter WITHOUT MY PERMISSION?!?!

Chuck, you better hope abortion stays legal or else it will be butchers who will be performing abortions WITHOUT REGULATION.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck, chuck, chuck again your comprehension skills fail. I pointed out that SURVEYS show you are wrong and those surveys have always been posted. I also pointed out an anecdotal evidence that shows that people like you are delusional about the “good ol’ days” and how different things are now. More things are in the light, but they have always been going on.

Sound and fury signifying nothing? Hypocrisy thy name is chuck. Actually fury would imply that you had some sort of weight in your rants. It’s more like whimpers and gossamer signifying nothing with you.

The Guttmacher Institute is the most highly regarded SCIENTIFIC group studying reproduction and sexual issues. But again you can’t even accept simple facts and reality so why would complex science be any easier for you?

By Jen

January 8, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

Abstience programs should not seen as programs funded by the government, but rather programs for parents to invest in the future of their own children. When the schools host abstinence education programs, it feels like another school subject to children and is therefore not very useful. If the parents are send kids to these programs on their own time using their own resources, then kids may be more “inclined” to pay attention and learn. Parents can all use it as an opportunity to spark a discussion on that very uncomfortable conversation that all parents need to have with their children. As the rate of HIV is increasing among lower-income communities,now more than ever there is an even greater need for abstinence education programs.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

What great comments from JoeL, John72, BrianCurtis. It’s true, people like Chuck hate and fear simple knowledge and for exactly the reasons you state. Chuck did manage somehow to cling to his superstitions and get an education. The way he did that was to develop a system of such rigidity he can’t even begin to admit that he could be wrong. Sex before marriage is wrong, bad, immoral! Why? Because a book written thousands of years ago says so! Simple. As long as you stay in your mind-box and never, ever let yourself step outside it.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

As the rate of HIV is increasing among lower-income communities,now more than ever there is an even greater need for abstinence education programs.

Except that as we keep saying over and over and over, abstinence programs don’t work. The ONLY sources that claim that they do are those with some kind of vested interest in them, be they the purveyors of said programs or conservative religious organizations.

Every objective study of abstinence education programs that I have ever seen has said unequivocally that they do not do anything to stop children from engaging in sexual activity, and that while the kind of moral bludgeoning that religious conservatives engage in may prevent vaginal intercourse, it does NOT stop oral and even anal intercourse.

If teens don’t learn about the proper use of condoms and safe sex yet still engage in ONLY oral or anal sex, they are STILL at risk for diseases. It absolutely boggles the mind that there are so many naive people out there who think that all the abstinence programs in the WORLD are going to stop teenagers from heeding the call of their hormones. Don’t you WANT your kids to know how to keep from DYING?

By GOB

January 8, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Joe L - You really are completely wasting your time arguing with Chuck. I mean, he believes that there were dinosaurs on the arc with Noah. If someone can believe that, there is no point using logic and rational thought when trying to debate them.

By CTM

January 8, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

ATTENTION ALL KIDS, ATTENTION ALL KIDS, The72John and lozen will be conductn “After School Classes” on sex education just in case the school system drops the ball. Condoms will be handed out after the session. Razors will also be distributed just in case any of you girls become cutters due to feelings of rejection and abusive overbearing boyfriends. Drug education will also be offered on weekends and sample drugs will be given to prevent shell shock at parties. Call 1-800-the-72JO helpline any hour of the nite in-case you need counseling on keeping a steady supply of condoms or razors or drugs. After graduation from these classes you must promise to sign up for “Swingers 101”.

Tell me please…where do you draw the line???????

By blablabla

January 8, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

any education in schools regarding sex should contain all the facts - meaning we should inform our young people about what their options are and, just as importantly, the consequences of their actions. no spin, no religious dogma, no “sex is taboo”…just the honest truth.

i’m fine with part of that equation including abstinence. in fact, it needs to include abstinence - it’s one of the options, and when considering one’s personal health and the impact on society - it’s probably the best option for young and immature teenagers. i don’t think i’m going out on a limb by saying 14 year olds probably shouldn’t be having sex. but abstinence is only a piece of the education, and relying solely on abstinence strikes me as putting our collective head in the sand. pragmatically speaking, we all know that in today’s society, lots of teens will engage in various forms of sexual behavior. whether that’s a good thing or not is a different topic, but acting like it doesn’t happen and not arming our children with all the facts is ludicrous.

brian touches on a good point - parents need to be involved when it comes to the sexual education of our children. relying solely on the school system has several obvious drawbacks.

By Chica

January 9, 2007 08:38 AM | Link to this

ATTN AJC,Shaunti & Diane:

You just lost a reader. I don’t appreciate all the porn you allow to remain on a blog for Women (& the men who love them lol)

It’s offensive nobody does anything about it that’s all.
And the topic is how to keep young people from having sex???????????? Does anybody see the irony here?

Maybe I’ll check back in a few weeks & see if there has been change. :) bye all.

By Brian Curtis

January 9, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

CTM: Your hysteria notwithstanding, I suggest we “draw the line” where reasonable people always have… when something reaches the point of hurting someone or violating their rights.

Having safe, consensual sex, of course, does neither.

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

And we worry about teens being exposed to sex but the AJC keeps up the running tab of spam sex-links? Now, why does a newspaper not supervise itself, cull the unwanted ads that were not paid to advertise? What we see here is an important commentary the AJC is making toward this column. NOWHERE ELSE on the AJC is spam allowed so rampant!

Joe, I was not saying arranged marriage was good. My point is Most people who argue for abstinence programs do so siting that it decreases teen sex and further, sex before marriage is a sin. Thus they encourage young people to get married before having sex—even before these teens understand the consequences of marriage and its difficulty; thus so many divorces. I dont feel that you can have a discussion about abstinence without discussing some of the consequences: divorce.

One of the biggest reasons teens have sex is because ADULTS lure them into it. Most teenage girls think their classmates are: inferior, not mature, dumb…but Studly DuBois down the street who can get her champagne at 4:00pm while mom and dad are at work…and easily coerce her into sex because he is: older, has a cool car, has a big screen TV. Most teen sex occurs while the parents are at work—not with other teens but with adults.

Training adults to abstain from having sex with minors is never mentioned mainly because our society loves its: teen slut porn—loves its pop a virgin porn—loves its sweet innocent girls gone wild—and if one looks at the film industry and media current stars ages 50+ usually are portrayed in roles with women in their early 20s as wives & sex partner. The role of sex-object comes early in this society and is promoted everywhere popular culture. Look at the Disney studio and its stable of slut-teens: Britany, Lindsay etc…sweet girls gone wild all promoted by such studios.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Did Chuck say Noah’s Ark had dinosaurs? I thought it was dinosaur eggs, set in hay, in wooden crates, hand-carried on to the ark by Shem and Them. And then when the little dinies broke out of the eggs, they were immediately pounced upon by a larger predator, and THAT was why/how the dinosaurs went extinct. Okay, maybe I ad-libbed that last part. LOL

By lozen

January 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

That CTM post at 5:18 yesterday was truly hysterical! Loco.

By Mara

January 9, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Archie - thanks for the pat on the back yesterday

Lyrazel - the NYT recently did a peice about the rising number or porn actresses in the 40+ age group. I happened to catch an interview with the reporter (sharon waxman) on CNN. Titled “The Graying of Naughty”, the article itself is sequestered behind their “subscription only” firewall.

Stinkin’ bastidges!

By The72John

January 9, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Lyrzael, do you have any evidence that would support your assertion that most teenagers are having sex with adults? Because, forgive me, I don’t buy it. Most teenagers are having sex with other teenagers if what I hear from teens is remotely true.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Not that I know THAT much about it(LOL. maybe in the course of some research, once), but for every teen-girl porn site, there is probably a cougar/MILF site(30 years old and over).

By Reason

January 9, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

“Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.”

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

72John: although I did not bookmark this I tend to get such facts from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Also look at Planned Parenthood/stats for teens having more sex during the hours of 3-6pm after school.

Chilao, bet you there are MORE teen sites(adults playing teens, of course). Also dont forget the teen webcam plethora as well as chat sites where the only people on are cops and pedophiles…The double standard of not wanting teens to have sex and the culture of youth exploitation by media/fashion/music still grows.

Mara: old men porn does not seem to exist does it?

By Archie

January 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I have to ask the same question as 72John about this teenage sex opinion of yours. Also, to CTM, I was given condoms a few years ago the University of SC. They had a health fair and as an alumni I received the leftovers upon entering the PE center. Drugs are illegal and razors are way different than condoms. I feel as we are beating a dead horse but the best approach is sex education and abstinence combined not one or other. As a dad I have already said that I would prefer abstinence for my child but I don’t want my child ignorant. People make mistakes all the time which is why we have airbags,etc. All drivers know if you run a red light you risk serious bodily harm but just in case you do something crazy let’s educate you on the value of seatbelt use and airbags,child restraints, what to do in the event you are hit but are okay. There is nothing wrong with 72John’s attitude on this subject and I don’t understand why he would be bashed on this subject because his opinion is quite logical.

By Logic

January 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

“All overgeneralizations are false, every last one of them!”

By Monica

January 9, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Sex “education” should be taught even in abstinence only programs. There are actually girls out there who are pregnant because their boyfriend told them “girls can’t get pregnant if they are on top.” Kids need to know what they are supposed to abstain from!

~Please excuse me for ending that last sentence with a preposition.~

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Did I bash someone Archie? If so I apologize. I believed I just answered the question as to where I got references to statements I post.

“All overgeneralizations are false, every last one of them!” Even yours Logic?

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - well, I am not going to get BellSouth DSL and hit the end of the internet to tally them all up, so I’ll take your word for it… Reminds me of the L&O-SVU where they barge in on some film shoot, thinking they can arrest the people for child porn, coming to find out, the little-girl ‘cheer-leader/actress’ is 23 years old.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

doing a google on The Graying of Naughty yields alot of interesting blog-topics related to the subject. however the NYT has ‘porn’ in the url, so it is unavailable from work.

By Conscience

January 9, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

“47.9 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot”

By Archie

January 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel I never said you bashed 72John. There were some folk that called him by name and those were the people I was referring to. You must have glossed over my post. No need for you to apologize. I defend people on the right and the left because we all have opinions.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

37.7948 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot

LMAO

By The72John

January 9, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Monica,

I don’t think you fully understand what an abstinence only program entails. There is no information given, no education about sex. Abstinence only programs are just that…abstinence only. They don’t tell kids about birth control, they don’t tell them about anything other than “Don’t have sex.” The assumption, of course, is that if teens abstain from sex, they don’t NEED to know anything else.

It’s why abstinence-only programs are so deeply flawed - the assumption that upon being exposed to them that no teen will ever have sex. That’s simply not a reasonable assumption, but the Ab-Only programs are so ideologically rooted that they are unable to even consider the possibility that some, or even MANY teens will engage in sexual activity even after being exposed to the Ab-only program.

I have absolutely no problem with the concept of abstinence, or with abstinence being taught to students in sex-ed. Its the absence of all other information that disturbs me.

By The72John

January 9, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

I have to point out that there is a distinct bias on this board from a number of posters whenever this kind of topic comes up. The focus is always on girls, and girls are almost always portrayed as being innocent little lambs led astray by bad men. I have some issues with this.

First - why do you assume that girls aren’t as sexually driven as boys? I remember being a teenager, and I remember the girls I went to high school with talking about sex as much as the guys. Why are girls the victim in sex? Isn’t it likely that most sex is consensual?

Second - in response to the specific assumption, that most sex takes place between younger girls and older men while their parents are at work. If all the teenage girls are having sex with older men, then…who are all the teenage boys having sex with?

By Mara

January 9, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Mara: old men porn does not seem to exist does it?

LOL!! It’s that old double standard again. I can easily think of more than one guy who’d look at anything nekkid and female, but for some reason all the women I know who use porn seem to prefer strapping young hunks! How shallow! LOL!!!

Monica - “girls can’t get pregnant if they are on top.” - and you still hear those myths today! Like doucheing immediately afterwards, or having him “pull out”, or virgins can’t get pregnant…soooooo dangerous for these young ladies :^(

By Mara

January 9, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this

John - perhaps the girls are usually portrayed as relatively innocent because historically, the girl is younger than the boy, thus usually doesn’t have the maturity or the experience of the boy. One routinely hears about 18-19 year-old men hitting on 13-14 year-old girls, but not often the other way around. It’s more common now than in the past, but still…

I certainly agree that girls can be as randy as boys and just as courious and persistant. Unfortunately nature has made the physical and social consequences of experimentation a bit more severe for girls than boys. IMO, of course.

By Monica

January 9, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

John, I know that abstinence only programs only talk about abstinence. That’s why I said that it needed to include information about sex. Even if they don’t talk about birth control, they need give info on sex.

And I agree with you that girls are falsely portrayed as the innocent victim. I worry about my boys falling prey to girls with less than wholesome plans. It may be a sexist statement, but I think that boys have a more difficult time saying no than do girls (given that so many girls advertise their wares these days!)

By chuck

January 9, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Hey Archie. I have to disagree with your analogy. You said:

People make mistakes all the time which is why we have airbags,etc. All drivers know if you run a red light you risk serious bodily harm but just in case you do something crazy let’s educate you on the value of seatbelt use and airbags,child restraints, what to do in the event you are hit but are okay.

Sex is not a mistake IT IS A CHOICE. People are not tempted to have wrecks, but they are to have sex. Do you tell your kid, “Son, we don’t want you to have a wreck, but if you choose to please make sure you use your airbag.”

This argument is not about INFORMATION as 72john would have you believe. It is about choice and schools not only CONDONING bad choices against the wishes of parents, but also AIDING and ABETTING those bad choices by handing out condoms and birth control pills.

By Brian Curtis

January 9, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you’re right. Sex is not a mistake; unprotected sex, VD, or accidental pregnancy, those are mistakes. And that’s what the safety equipment is for.

As long as you know what you’re doing and have the right precautions, you can CHOOSE to drive (or CHOOSE to have sex) and nobody gets hurt. So what’s your problem with that?

Look: Suppose a high school offers a personal finance class. Now, a lot of people misuse their credit cards and drive themselves into debt; it’s a real problem. Should the school then be ordered to make no mention of credit cards as part of personal finance? Should it be covered in a single paragraph, such as “Credit cards lead to debt, which is a horrible thing to happen. It can ruin lives. Don’t use credit cards.”

Of course not. What schools SHOULD teach is the consequences of using credit cards, the reality of how they work, and the hazards of using them unwisely. Then the students make their own choices. Ditto with sex. How can any reasonable human being possibly have a problem with this sort of education?

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

72John let me give my short sweet only-opinion answers… there is a distinct bias on this board from a number of posters whenever this kind of topic comes up. The focus is always on girls Yes, the board we post to is: Woman to Woman. girls are almost always portrayed as being innocent little lambs led astray by bad men I agree because people tend to use innocence as a wedge to spur debates. I also feel this society values virgins far more in girls than boys…I see very little spam for Little Leroy Teens…(of course, I confess I dont go looking for Teen boy porn so I am using my spam-in-email as judgement) why do you assume that girls aren’t as sexually driven as boys? I dont. Girls are just as prone to experiment sexually as boys—little angels are as curious as little saints. Why are girls the victim in sex? Isn’t it likely that most sex is consensual? Usually most sex involving teen-teens is consensual. When looking at adult/teen sex there is a larger % of girls victimized by males than by females—REPORTED. Could it be that little boys dont report sex-abuse by stepmoms & aunts as frequently as girls do? Little boys dont get pregnant and most cases of abuse are found in doctors offices. who are all the teenage boys having sex with? Themselves=masturbation. Of course there are teen-teen sexual relations and I never said there wasnt! What I have read is teen girls can and do resist their peers in favor of older men. (20 isnt old to me but its not teen thus qualifies).

Mara—heard the one where if you are standing up when you have sex it wont get you pregnant? We had one (back in the day) where if you rub salt inside the vagina after sex you wont get pregnant.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

BC—Your comparison between teen sex and driving is invalid. Having sex is strongly tied to our identities and thus requires unique analysis.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

In fact, that seems to be a hallmark of Libs: the vain attempt to divorce any consideration of morality from decidedly moral issues like teen sex.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

For you ladies still hung up on the “double-standard”, get over it. Simple economics says that the more rare something is, the greater its value. A woman’s greatest asset is her virtue. Why make it cheap?

By Brian Curtis

January 9, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

Wrong as usual, dog. This seems to be a hallmark of Bruno: the vain pretense that his personal standards and choices are somehow a moral imperative for everyone (or anyone) else.

By Monica

January 9, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Sex is not a mistake; unprotected sex, VD, or accidental pregnancy, those are mistakes. And that’s what the safety equipment is for.

Just wanted to add that “accidental” pregnancy can occur even with the safety equipment! Trust me on this one! :) Kids also need to know that little piece of information.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

BC—I understand where you’re coming from—the world of theories, in which reality never intrudes.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

Once again, BC, the REAL epistemological impact of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in its proof that there is a “one-way” quality to reality that “normal” scientific theories can’t prove, or even predict. In other words, Life is meaningful. Unfortunately, this fact appears to be lost on most “scientists”. That’s how you get idiots like Stephen Hawkings speaking of time as nothing more than a variable in some equation. That’s how you get “Abstinence-free” sex education. It all stems from an existentialistic view of the world in which meaning is something you can invent.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

Can we bring back the honour killings? They are real popular in more primitive cultures.

By chuck

January 9, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

2 problems with your reasoning BC.

1) There is no such thing as guilt free, consequence free sex. If you really want to know, come meet the girls in my class who are cutting themselves because they got dumped by an older boy after they gave “it” up. There is NOTHING good about premarital sex except GRATIFICATION…especially among 11-17 year-olds. That’s what happens when people believe that we are controlled by “animal urges” rather than the other way around.

2) Sex with someone under the age of 16 is a felony in Georgia even if you are under 16 yourself. On the one hand we are incarcerating teens for statutory rape and on the other hand teaching them how to do it?!?! Yeah that makes sense.

By Archie

January 9, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

I have to point out that there is a distinct bias on this board from a number of posters whenever this kind of topic comes up. The focus is always on girls, and girls are almost always portrayed as being innocent little lambs led astray by bad men. I have some issues with this.

I have some issues with this as well but I will let 72John lead this discussion as I don’t want to get into a bash session. 72John’s 12:58 post was logical and unbiased. Mara is right that consequences of sexual experimentation can be more severe for girls than boys if you think about pregnancy.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

Feminist can’t stand it, but the fact remains that the smartest thing any woman can do is to marry well. And when it comes time for the most eligible bachelors to pick their brides, they certainly don’t want damaged goods .

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

A woman’s greatest asset is her virtue. Why make it cheap?

If that is true Li’l John? You are saying women should be evaluated by the use/lack of use of their sexual organs: USED or UNUSED goods: same as a car once driven off the lot it looses value. Or are you saying women should charge men exorbitant prices for sexual relations?

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

chuck—Why do you suppose that all the Libs here ignore the emotional reality of teen sex? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

By RectilinearPropagation

January 9, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

A woman’s greatest asset is her virtue. Why make it cheap?

Li’l John, are you admitting to being cheap?

As to the topic: Why should the government fund a program that 1) doesn’t work and 2) gives teens false information? Why should teenagers trust teachers, parents, or other adults when they are being told such blatant lies like, “AIDS can be transmitted through tears”?

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—I’m just being honest about the way reality is. I didn’t invent the system. Sure it’s “unfair” that there is a double-standard for boys and girls, but so what?? For every drawback of being male (or female), there is a benefit. And of course, there will always be certain individuals who operate outside of the norm, which they should have the legal right to do. However, these truths still hold for most people. Why deny the truth??

By RectilinearPropagation

January 9, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Feminist can’t stand it, but the fact remains that the smartest thing any woman can do is to marry well. And when it comes time for the most eligible bachelors to pick their brides, they certainly don’t want damaged goods.

Li’l John, your brain is damaged goods. The smartest thing any woman can do is to educate herself so she doesn’t have to depend on anyone. Those bachelors looking for virgin bridges will only find that those women who abstained are looking for men who abstained as well.

By lozen

January 9, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

Wrong as usual Dog! Keep that jar of peaches on the shelf ladies for as long as you live if need be. You may very well NEVER meet the man of your dreams and you may never marry. But do not forget that double standard. You may never experience sexual pleasure, but what the heck. Wouldn’t you rather have your lack of sexual experience and pleasure seen (by SOMEONE, whoever that might be) as a great thing?

This is but one more example of a man telling women how to view themselves and live their lives according to his weird ideas and standards.

A woman’s greatest asset just might be defining herself based on her needs and not the way some man may see her. It might be deciding to enjoy her life fully and experience everything life has to offer. It could be reaching that mature mental state where you don’t really give a flying flip what some unknown man with weird ideas thinks about your value; you decide your value for yourself. It might be deciding you will create your happiness, give and receive as much as possible in this one sweet life, and using all of your gifts, including your wonderful body for your satisfaction. What’s that old saw: It’s the things you didn’t do that you regret on your death bed and not the things you did do!

By chuck

January 9, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

Brudog, I blame it on the teaching of evolution. wacko scientists have convinced them that we are nothing more than animals at the top of the food chain. They deny the existence of God and His POWER. They claim to have all knowledge when really they are just confused, scared little kids who think that because something makes sense to them it must be true. They have no faith except in what they can touch and see. Sad really.

By Joe L

January 9, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck your view of sex ed would be comparable to thinking that telling kids to wear seat belts ENCOURAGES them to have accidents. If they didn’t wear seat belts they would drive more carefully because the consequences would be harsh and immediate right? Now I know you are going to saying many accidents are not the driver’s fault and that’s true, but many, many times it is indeed the driver’s fault.

And I believe over and over again people here have said that teens should be educated on all facets of sex including the social and emotional aspects. The reason you teach kids sex ed before they are 16 is that once it’s “legal” behavior it’s way too late to start instilling good behavior. I wasn’t allowed to actually drive when I was 13-14 but that was the time my parents started to teach me good driving skills and behavior so that I was ready when I did start driving.

And again if you are talking to your kids about sex and telling them to wait no amount of information should matter if you are doing your job. But a lack of information can surely hurt.

By lozen

January 9, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

Chuck and Dog, simple minds do think alike!

Advising females the best thing they can do is marry well! Snort. In the 21st century when females can be doctors, lawyers, lesbian mothers, managers, scientists, ministers, university department chairs, senators, whatever! How old are you anyway - 70, 80, 90? Whatever your age you are an anachronism. Move on out of the way of those with far more advanced ideas.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

Chuck/Dog - can we point out that one of the primary reasons a girl might be cutting herself after giving it up is society’s and religion’s treatment of her as a whore for doing so?

Certainly that figures into the equation there as well.

Like I said, bring back the honour killings, that will eliminate even the need for abstinence-only education.

Wait, let’s speak OldTestament speak, bring back the stonings.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

lozen—Obviously you are one of those exceptions to the norm I was talking about. You have the legal right to pursue your own version of happiness; I will not stand in your way. However, when it comes to public policy and how our tax dollars should be spent, I don’t want you and your kind propagating the Liberal lies that kids have been told for more than 40 years now.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

And Chilao, Although chuck and I agree on many topics, our reasons for doing so are very different. My views are based on science and common sense, not some mistranslated ancient book written by men that is somehow passed of as being Divine.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

I mean, seriously folks, I have sat in a church pew and listened to some neanderthal primitive preacher man rant and rave about harlots as he pointed to my two oldest sisters who had the gall to wear dresses with the hem line at the KNEE.

But I saw his wife’s car parked outside the courthouse, the car with the George Wallace for President bumper sticker, and since I was walking to school, was able to quickly write a note and drop it on her open-window seat: Let Wallace Go to Hell. Unfortunately, I don’t believe she had a heart attack, but..LOL

By Joe L

January 9, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this

sigh I hate to even acknowledge pure demagoguery and idiocy but I am soooo curious to hear these liberal “lies” that have been so knocked around. I must have missed the latest ones at the last meeting of PLCFEA (Pinko Liberal Commies For the End of America).

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

For proof of my argument, consider all the alcoholic women board members that Chilao has had to deal with. No woman I ever met was satisfied with just business success. I bet the vast majority of those lady board members are single (and miserable).

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

Chilao—Great line from a movie called “Joe”, starring Peter Boyle, made in 1970: “Didn’t you know that 42% of all Liberals are queers ? Yeah, the Wallace people did a survey”.

By blablabla

January 9, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

the smartest thing a woman can do is marry well? puhlease…what the heck kind of nonsense is that???

i am certainly no feminist, yet i prefer to have women in society who are educated, motivated, and through their choices are focused on making the most out of life. i prefer women who are defined not by who they married but by who they are as a person and the whole of their positive (and negative) attributes. and there are plenty of men that believe as i do on this point.

By Julia

January 9, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you better hope abortion stays legal or else it will be butchers who will be performing abortions WITHOUT REGULATION.

Actually, Lilly Toad, butchers are doing it and it’s NOT a regulated “business” because people like you do not want to place ANY restrictions on abortion. No regulations on the butchers who destroy fetuses whatsoever.

Doesn’t that make you feel safe???(NOT)

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

I bet the vast majority of those lady board members are single (and miserable).

would that include the male Senior VPs who also, while accomplished in the business sense, were also alcoholics? You must have been speed-reading there…LOL

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

Joe L—Watch for a new movie in about 6 months which I appeared in over the weekend. It’s a political satire in which I portray a “Businessmen For Christ”. My only line is when I shout “You Communist Scum!”. The movie is called “Liszt For President”. Check it out at

www.lisztforpresident.com

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

It’s a low-budget film, so I’m not expecting superstardom. The director told me that with one more speaking line, however, I will qualify for membership in the Screen Actors Guild.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

speaking of movies, Children of Men has a scene where they are driving in the country-side/in-transit, and the song being played is the intro to Court of the Crimson King.

The dance of the puppets The rusted chains of prison moons Are shattered by the sun. I walk a road, horizons change The tournaments begun. The purple piper plays his tune, The choir softly sing; Three lullabies in an ancient tongue, For the court of the crimson king.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

blablabla—I will agree that a woman better bring more than just booty to the table these days if she expects to land a top-quality husband. I’ll never marry for just booty, since I can get it for free any time I like.

By kimberly

January 9, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Wow. What an education I’m getting here today! Gee, if I’d only known y’all 20 years ago, I could have saved myself all that THINKING and sh-t….

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:36 PM | Link to this

Making the movie was a blast, however. My buddy Mark, who financed the project, paid for an open bar. Between that and all the trips to the parking lot, all of the “Businessmen For Christ” were in fine spirits when the cameras started rolling!

All of you here will love the movie—Mark makes Michael Moore look like a Republican.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

Hey kimmy—You missed your chance to be in the movies this weekend. I’ll try to give you more advance notice next time.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

Chilao—“Confusion will be my epitaph, as I crawl this cracked and broken path….”

By blablabla

January 9, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

ANYBODY (man or woman) should bring more to the table than just their looks if they want to have a “top quality” spouse and a relationship that will last. that’s hardly an earth-shattering revelation.

i think you do women just a teeny tiny bit of disservice when you imply the best thing they can do is marry well.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

Well, I was around 20 years ago, kimmy. Where were you? I was a young doctor, fresh out of school, working in my first associate position down in Stockbridge. All of the moms tried to fix me up with their daughters, which is how I met my little Georgia Peach for a wife later in 1987.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Pain! without love, Pain! can’t get enough, Pain! I like it rough, cause I’d rather feel pain than nothing at all.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

kimberly—On a serious note, do me a big favor and change out your furnace filter ASAP. If it’s dirty, as I suspect it is, you will greatly shorten the life of the furnace. Since you won’t take me on as your Handy Man , I’ll have to watch out for you here on the blog.

By NetBanker

January 9, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

If all the teenage girls are having sex with older men, then…who are all the teenage boys having sex with? Each other!! Sorry, John…I just had to do that even though you make very good points about the constant assumption that girls are always the innocent ones and “the victim.” My GF in high school generally was the one who initiated sex and my female friends talked about sex and about which boys were hot, etc.

I think that boys have a more difficult time saying no than do girls (given that so many girls advertise their wares these days!) And don’t forget the pressure boys place on each other with all their bravado.

Lil John…why is teen sex a decidedly moral issue any more so than sex between folks of any other age group? I’m working from the assumption that the teens have reached the age of consent. If they’re old enough to consent what is the moral difference between them and sex between 80-year olds in nursing homes?

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

That’s what you’re missing out on with a guy like me, kim. To me, love means being concerned about all of the non-glamorous elements of a relationship, like the furnace filter, in addition to being #1 in the romance department.

By Joe L

January 9, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

Julia - What fantasy world do you live in where doctors are NOT regulated? Actually one of the most regulated industries in America and rightfully so. More silly emotional false outcries.

By Li'l John

January 9, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

NetB—In case you haven’t noticed, young peoples’ judgment is generally poor, so they need guidance. I’m all for explaining the biological facts, as everyone should be, but to not promote abstinence is doing a grave disservice to our young people.

By Mikky

January 10, 2007 04:08 AM | Link to this

Nice site! http://2morrow.foros.tv/ ">mortgage loan

By chuck

January 10, 2007 08:02 AM | Link to this

Not really wanting to answer for brudog, there really is no difference in the eyes of God NetB. All sex outside of marriage is wrong MORALLY. One of the definitions of the word moral is: (from dictionary.com)

From the same site, chaste is defined as:

By Reason

January 10, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

Q: What do you call people who are on the rhythm method?

A: “Parents”

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck: Which would be interesting if we were discussing church doctrine. We’re not.

Instead, we’re discussing what should be taught in religiously neutral public schools. And schools are obliged to teach FACTS, not religious dogma.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Chuck - And what is “virtuous”? I would say being honest with a sexual partner, using precautions, and taking care of any problems that arise from said behavior is “virtuous”. They fact of the matter is that uptight people who live to control other people’s behavior have never liked sex and that’s it. Thank God they only marry other people who are the same and the ice is shared beneath the sheets.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Apparently some people absorb only the details they want when reading. I don’t believe anyone said that sex education classes shouldn’t encourage teens to wait to have sex, nor was any suggestion ever made that emotional maturity was NOT important in deciding when to be sexually active. I believe the topic is abstinence ONLY. Not abstinence PARTIALLY, abstinence ONLY.

And if you think sex outside of marriage is wrong, then by all means, don’t have it. But no one else’s sexual activity is any of your business. Much like 90% of what you people choose to shove your rat-like noses into.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Admittedly, I have not read all the comments, so forgive me if I’m redundant. And heyyy!!! everyone!

All I have to say is this: 1. Sex outside of a marital commitment is wrong, in the eyes of God, as stated in the Bible. 2. I believe in the Bible, so I believe premarital sex (or fornication) is wrong. 3. Morals are determined by society and culture, not the Bible. 4. Premarital sex, in and of itself, is not immoral. 5. Premarital sex among teenagers is usually immoral. Premarital sex among the promiscuous is immoral. 6. Abstinence should be promoted in public schools, but not based on Biblical foundations. 7. Safe sex should also be taught in public schools. 8. No public school curriculum should be Bible-based.

I believe in God, and I believe in the Bible. I want my children to be taught the Word of God, the values of Christ, and the doctrines of my church. However, it is undeniably, unquestionably, inarguably wrong to force MY beliefs on the children of hundreds of thousands of American adults who don’t believe what I do.

By Lyrazel

January 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

I love how certain male posters like to jab morality bites for the women to follow—but say nothing of male behavior. Sure I do agree with: who wants a slut?, though who wants a guy who has had far too many frequent fliers on his… When guys say: I can get it anywhere one flashes the yeah he wishes they just were not from the same gutter where the last one came from…but thats irrelevant.

I see no problem with parents hooking their children up with abstinence programs and sure I believe they work for some kids. I see no problem with parents acquiring condoms and BC for their children either way is fine with me. My problem is with the government involving itself in reproduction education. Government programs have a history of not working—and of being underfunded, its embassaries in Washington seem undereducated in social mores of our neighborhood. In other words the government loves making blanket programs. As many remember, the welfare program did its best during the 60s-80s to rid families receiving benefits of any male parent residing in the house. This gave rise to 3 generations of impoverished women raising families without fathers, not getting married etc. Oops. Well, then you look at the current situation of health care in the USA and find there is a stratosphere of difference between the have health care insurance and the have none. Why is the government involving school teachers to teach contraceptive and sexual awareness when clinics in schools cannot prescribe an aspirin? The government likes to lump a host of programs into schools but cut school budgets, yet still require science teachers to become health care professionals dispensing advice. (They arent using gym teachers as sex-ed teachers, right?) If sex-ed subjects are not on the NCLB exam then the course is skimmed over—and students remain underserved by another government program. If the government wanted to do something about rise in unprotected sex. rise of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases it would be better to open free clinics with licensed practitioners—clinics where parents who have difficulty speaking about sex can take their children to learn from nurses and doctors how to protect themselves and enjoy sexual relations. As for teaching morality of promiscuity and the like—is that the job of a school teacher? Is that the job of the government? No, that is called parenting.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Hi, JBM!

Good comments, and I bet that you ALSO believe that your influence over your children is strong enough, and have enough faith in both your own convictions and in your children that you know that no matter what they learn about sex and contraception that they will remain TRUE to what you’ve taught them to believe. Right? Right?

By lozen

January 10, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Joe L., great comment at 10:49am. Could sexual disfunction be the root cause of religious fanaticism? Or is religious fanaticism the root cause of sexual disfunction? Vicious cycle? There is absolutely no question in Chuck’s rigid system of morality about what virtue is. It’s what he interprets using his limited perspective in his reading of that 2,000 year old book of moral laws for jews and early christians. And it is good fanatics tend to marry other fanatics and share the boredom/ice between the sheets. Works for them you would think until you see the control others factor working. They don’t have any fun and they cannot stand the thought that someone else might be having hot sex.

By Mara

January 10, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Hey JBM! (~waving~)

John - LOL @ shove your rat-like noses into

Brian - schools are obliged to teach FACTS, not religious dogma Hear, hear!! Unfortunately, regarding reproductive information, facts are sacrificed on the alter of political and religious ideology.

just as an observation…I don’t personally know chuck so I may be waaaay off here, but isn’t it odd how adolescent girls seem to be eagerly confiding in him their sexual history, not to mention their penchant for despair-induced self-mutilation (“cutting”)? I mean, from the way he talks, there’re throngs of young women standing in line, eager to tell him all about “it”. He just doesn’t come across as one of those adults a teen-age girl would confess these private matters to. Could be wrong, but having been a teen-age girl once, it just seems….weird.

By lozen

January 10, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, what good ideas. And you’re beginning comments nailed the dog’s hypocrisy too!

By chuck

January 10, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

BC, as usual you’ve gone off half-cocked. The post was in response to a question asked by NetB about whether teen sex was any different MORALLY from any other type of sex outside of marriage, and it was addressed to him.

As for whether this is a religious discussion, I contend that it is. Sex education programs (other than Abstinence Only programs) as I have already pointed out are attempts to circumvent the wishes of parents in the MORAL upbringing of their children AND the laws of the state of Georgia. They are NOT about information but indoctrination, designed to normalize promiscuity, homosexuality and deviancy. It has been the mission of the left since the 60’s to turn this country into a Bacchanalian, anything goes free-for-all and they want it to be financed by those of us who actually work for a living.

So yes, this IS as much about Faith as it is about politics.

By chuck

January 10, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hi JBM, long time no type. I have one basic problem with what you wrote when you said:

However, it is undeniably, unquestionably, inarguably wrong to force MY beliefs on the children of hundreds of thousands of American adults who don’t believe what I do.

If that is as you said “inarguably wrong”, then why is it okay for them to “force THEIR beliefs on OUR children?

Most of the people on this blog have NO IDEA what is in most sex ed classes. I have a health teacher that actually uses my room during my planning period to teach one and I have had a couple of graduate courses that included studies of various curricula. They are based on the ASSUMPTION of promiscuity. It begins and ends with that assumption that “everybody” is doing it. To advocate that is to advocate the indoctrination of Christian children with decidedly ANTI-CHRISTIAN principles.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - You said “Why is the government involving school teachers to teach contraceptive and sexual awareness when clinics in schools cannot prescribe an aspirin? The government likes to lump a host of programs into schools but cut school budgets, yet still require science teachers to become health care professionals dispensing advice. (They arent using gym teachers as sex-ed teachers, right?)”

Well first teaching about BC (most of which is not medication based) and having the knowledge to actually ADMINISTER said things or other medical solutions are vast worlds apart and not relatable at all. And the aspirin thing is about litigious issues not knowledge. And for the second my sex ed teacher which was just 15 years ago was indeed our gym teacher!

Chuck - “They are NOT about information but indoctrination, designed to normalize promiscuity, homosexuality and deviancy. It has been the mission of the left since the 60’s to turn this country into a Bacchanalian, anything goes free-for-all and they want it to be financed by those of us who actually work for a living.”

We have very good medications now. You should try some, really. For your own good.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Chuck, if you want your children to have religious instruction please send them to a religious school. Public schools are not supposed to teach morality. Although I wouldn’t object to classes in critical thinking, ethics and philosopy as well as comparative religion.

By chuck

January 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Just so you know Mara, We have small “advisement” groups that we work with all year for “character education”. When they come to me with those kinds of problems, I refer them to the guidance counsellors. We have had a number of those cases this year from throughout the school and it has been the subject of faculty meetings concerning how to address those concerns when they arise. Get your mind out of the gutter.

By chuck

January 10, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

I’m sure a lefty like you knows all about “MEDS” little Joe

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Chucky, chucky, chucky - Again your denseness never fails to astound me (and yet at the same time not surprise me in the least).

*”If that is as you said “inarguably wrong”, then why is it okay for them to “force THEIR beliefs on OUR children?” *

FACTS are not BELIEFS. Your children are having absolutely no BELIEFS forced on them. And besides if their FAITH is strong it shouldn’t matter. If you are so scared of what they might hear obviously you don’t believe your faith has any true strength.

By Mara

January 10, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

It has been the mission of the left since the 60’s to turn this country into a Bacchanalian, anything goes free-for-all and they want it to be financed by those of us who actually work for a living

evidently NOBODY but up-tight, dogmatic, holier-than-thou moralists actually work for a living…

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Chuck - Indeed as a thinking, rational person who embraces such modern things as “science” and “medicine” I do know a good amount about medications. Especially by my education and training. But again your cuckoo comments are backed up by nothing but empty vacuous rhetoric.

By chuck

January 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

I don’t usually like to call names on the blog little joe, but really this is more of a description than a name…you are an idiot.

I’m going to address your “points” one last time in hopes that a person of your limited intellectual ability and education might finally understand how the world works. Then I’m going to put you on “ignore” in honor of your “Ignor…ance”.

First, these are NOT morally neutral classes. They indeed DO START with the idea that everybody is doing it…even 6th through 8th graders. That in and of itself is indoctrination. The veiled message is that if you aren’t doing it you are not normal. That is a powerful message from an authority figure to a 12 year-old.

Second, they teach the mechanics of the process. While those are “facts”, they are presented in the light of the above-mentioned veiled message. If you teach a kid HOW to drive, are you not expecting them TO DRIVE? That is an additional implied message.

Third, EVERY person on this blog who has supported teaching this kind of program with the exception of JBM, has done so because they see NOTHING WRONG WITH PREMARITAL SEX. They in fact PROMOTE premarital sex. Again, why else would they want these things taught to OTHER PEOPLE”S CHILDREN?

Then FINALLY, you opened the perfect door when you said:

If you are so scared of what they might hear obviously you don’t believe your faith has any true strength.

If you really BELIEVE that, then I expect you to be consistent in that beleif. Next time the discussion turns to say, “prayer at graduations”, You should absolutely advocate for that because after all,

By chuck

January 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

I don’t usually like to call names on the blog little joe, but really this is more of a description than a name…you are an idiot.

I’m going to address your “points” one last time in hopes that a person of your limited intellectual ability and education might finally understand how the world works. Then I’m going to put you on “ignore” in honor of your “Ignor…ance”.

First, these are NOT morally neutral classes. They indeed DO START with the idea that everybody is doing it…even 6th through 8th graders. That in and of itself is indoctrination. The veiled message is that if you aren’t doing it you are not normal. That is a powerful message from an authority figure to a 12 year-old.

Second, they teach the mechanics of the process. While those are “facts”, they are presented in the light of the above-mentioned veiled message. If you teach a kid HOW to drive, are you not expecting them TO DRIVE? That is an additional implied message.

Third, EVERY person on this blog who has supported teaching this kind of program with the exception of JBM, has done so because they see NOTHING WRONG WITH PREMARITAL SEX. They in fact PROMOTE premarital sex. Again, why else would they want these things taught to OTHER PEOPLE”S CHILDREN?

Then FINALLY, you opened the perfect door when you said:

If you are so scared of what they might hear obviously you don’t believe your faith has any true strength.

If you really BELIEVE that, then I expect you to be consistent in that beleif. Next time the discussion turns to say, “prayer at graduations”, You should absolutely advocate for that because after all,

By chuck

January 10, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

I don’t usually like to call names on the blog little joe, but really this is more of a description than a name…you are an idiot.

I’m going to address your “points” one last time in hopes that a person of your limited intellectual ability and education might finally understand how the world works. Then I’m going to put you on “ignore” in honor of your “Ignor…ance”.

First, these are NOT morally neutral classes. They indeed DO START with the idea that everybody is doing it…even 6th through 8th graders. That in and of itself is indoctrination. The veiled message is that if you aren’t doing it you are not normal. That is a powerful message from an authority figure to a 12 year-old.

Second, they teach the mechanics of the process. While those are “facts”, they are presented in the light of the above-mentioned veiled message. If you teach a kid HOW to drive, are you not expecting them TO DRIVE? That is an additional implied message.

Third, EVERY person on this blog who has supported teaching this kind of program with the exception of JBM, has done so because they see NOTHING WRONG WITH PREMARITAL SEX. They in fact PROMOTE premarital sex. Again, why else would they want these things taught to OTHER PEOPLE”S CHILDREN?

Then FINALLY, you opened the perfect door when you said:

If you are so scared of what they might hear obviously you don’t believe your faith has any true strength.

If you really BELIEVE that, then I expect you to be consistent in that beleif. Next time the discussion turns to say, “prayer at graduations”, You should absolutely advocate for that because after all,

HEARING A PRAYER WON’T AFFECT THEIR BELIEFS. THEY SHOULD HAVE TO JUST SIT THERE AND DEAL WITH IT.

I guess you should also come out in favor of allowing religious displays on public property, giving complete information and waiting periods for women considering abortion and a whole range of other issues. I think we have opened up a whole new world for you little joe.

By chuck

January 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

OOPS, I think I hit the tab button instead of the caps lock button. Hence double incomplete posts. Sorry about that.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Chuck: And what evidence do you have to support your claim that value-neutral informational instruction is “indoctrination against your religious values”?

I know you like to bang the drum about the Evil Liberal Society we’re apparently all wallowing in… but how can you substantiate your claim that schools are “indoctrinating” anyone with a particular set of values or attitudes? Sure, your religion may disagree with schoolchildren even hearing the facts about sex and birth control… or evolution… or the fact that gays are human… or the fact that blacks and whites are the same species…

…but so what? Presenting the facts is not the same as “indoctrinating children with opposing values.” If your values are opposed to simple objective knowledge, then that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s.

By Chilao

January 10, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I THINK you only have to hit the POST button ONCE. LOL

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

chuck is 100% right that you have to take a moral position when teaching about sex whether you want to or not.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

For a quick education regarding “values-free education”, BC, look no further than the Soviet Union. By taking all references to God out of the classroom under communism, they have raised several generations of criminals now.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, what is the real objection from you Libs regarding teaching morality in school? Sounds pretty crazy to me. Morality can be taught without referring to the Bible for any of you concerned with governmental endorsement of religion.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

My only guess is that, once again, the Libs keep foolishly wishing for a guilt-free, shame-free life for themselves. Sadly, they can’t see what a disaster that would be! Feeling shame is one of the most important gifts our Creator bestowed upon us.

By Kevin

January 10, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Mara - teachers are taught to look for cutting and other signs of self-mutilation. It is a red flag that the child is potentially being abused (physically, emotionally, or sexually). Normally kids don’t try and hide this behavior (at least in my limited experience) because they are crying out for help. So no, it would not be unusual for Chuck, as a teacher, to see this behavior and investigate it.

As a conservative Christian, I do not mind sex education in our schools as long as we stick to facts and we don’t try to impose beliefs. Let’s look at some examples:

Example #1 - It is a fact that condoms are somewhat effective in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD’s. It is a fact that abstinence is a THE BEST method of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD’s. If you are teaching the former without teaching the latter, then by omission you are pushing the BELIEF that sexually promiscuity is OK. If you teach both, then I have no problem.

Example #2 - Teaching the facts about reproductive organs and how pregnancies occur is OK. Teaching that sex (as have been mentioned in some of the posts) is not a moral issue is a BELIEF. Teach the facts about sex and let me handle the moral issues with my children.

If we are to operate on the assumption of promiscuity (probably a valid assumption), then we most also operate on the assumption that the vast majority of promiscuous students will not use condoms at all, or will not use them correctly in 100% of the cases. Because of this, I believe that abstinence should be the keystone (not the be all end all) of every sex education program.

I also believe that most conservative Christians and liberals can agree on some type of fact-based sex education. I think (not sure) that even Chuck has posted in the past that he would rather promiscuous students use condoms than have abortions. We are not as far off as we are led to believe by politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle that use scare tactics to polarize our country on a particular issue.

By Lyrazel

January 10, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Yeah, hey coach I have an itch…movies really did so much for broadening sexual awareness, Joe L. When I was in school we had Marriage and Family as part of Home Economics—completely all girls—no charts—no figures—nothing but: when you meet that special boy…heavy petting is a no no. How to please the husband was to learn how to make his favorite pie, know what he liked to smoke and how to entertain his boss so he could get a promotion. As I drift into nostalgia I also remember in the 50s Lysol had a product (I believe it was the first Lysol product) for feminine hygiene problems. It was to be used in the vagina…men I guess loved the smell of Lysol…(it was antiseptic too for a clean feeling).

By lozen

January 10, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Evil liberal society! I just wish I could buy a bottle of champagne on Sunday!

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this

Anyone want to bet with me about who wears the pants in Mara’s family? :^P

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—Good lesson for the day: Don’t sleep around and you won’t need so much Lysol.

By Mara

January 10, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this

Who decides what is and is not “moral”? You, Li’l John? Chilao, chuck, Renee? How do you define “morality”, anyway? I’m absolutely certain that many of the things you or chuck define as “immoral”, I find absolutely unobjectionable. The reverse is probably true regarding what I consider right and proper and you consider depraved and disgusting. Either way, I doubt you’d want me teaching your kid morality and I know that I wouldn’t want either of you teaching mine.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

You see, if I were in charge of sex ed, we’d be spending a lot of time on microbiology—i.e. the biology of cooties.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Are we back to the ultra-Right’s favorite strawman argument? Liberals have no morals and they don’t want anyone else to have morals either! Gasp!

It’s utter nonsense, of course. Our view of what is and isn’t moral isn’t quite as rigid as the ultra-Right wingers. It’s more ethically based than anything else. Things that are intrinsically harmful to others are immoral.

So, yes. There is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, unless you firmly adhere to a code that says there is. However, that is a personal decision and often a religious decision, not a societal one. If anything, society seems to uphold the belief that pre-marital sex is the norm.

Absolutists like Chuck screech and shriek about the evils of a bachanalian society, but it’s all just hot air. We haven’t descended into orgies of self-indulgence. We haven’t become incredibly decadent and cruel. 22-year-old Bobby and 22-year-old Jane living together before they get married and having sex hasn’t destroyed the fabric of society.

Believing that pre-marital sex is OK is also not tantamount to PROMOTING pre-marital sex, as our resident fundamentalist would have you believe, just as believing in reproductive choice does not mean we wander around trying to sign random women up for abortions. The REAL difference between fundies like Chuck and liberals like me is that I believe that everyone has the right to decide for himself. If someone wants to wait for sex, then he absolutely has that right. If someone is of-age and wants to have sex, well then he absolutely has that right as well.

You can call that moral relativisim if you would like - I know it’s yet another catch-phrase that the ultra-Right loves using. I call it basic human rights.

By Monica

January 10, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this

*Third, EVERY person on this blog who has supported teaching this kind of program with the exception of JBM, has done so because they see NOTHING WRONG WITH PREMARITAL SEX. They in fact PROMOTE premarital sex. *

Actually, I oppose premarital sex but support teaching sex education, for the reason that I stated earlier: kids need to know what they should abstain from. I learned in detail about the birds and the bees from my sex ed class in 7th grade, and I was not persuaded to have sex, nor was I indoctrinated with the belief that “everyone was doing it.” Granted, that was about 20 years ago, but I don’t think that teaching about sex encourages kids to have sex.

By NetBanker

January 10, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this

Why do you suppose that all the Libs here ignore the emotional reality of teen sex? On what basis do you make this statement when the Libs keeping saying COMPREHENSIVE sex education. You do understand the concept of comprehensive don’t you which would include stressing abstinence as the only guaranteed method to avoid all STDs and pregnancy? I agree with your later post that teens need guidance, but that needs to be provided by the parents not the school. The school should teach facts and PARENTS should teach values. This whole discussion and the various examples about drug avoidance education and driver’s ed reinforce to me that we have a whole lot of people in this country with serious hang ups about sex. It’s OK to have comprehensive education about other topics and for all the right reasons, but suddenly that same logic goes right out the window when it comes to talking about sex. To be blunt if parents took the time to properly educate their children about sex AND discuss their personal values with their children then this whole topic would be a non-issue. Interestingly the people with the most problem about comprehensive sex education are the ones who want to keep not only their children, but ALL children in the dark about sex. One more point, unless things have changed parents must give PERMISSION for the school to educate their child about sex. If you want abstinence only education for your child then don’t sign the permission slip and teach abstinence at home. Why do abstinence only advocates also seem to think that as parents they don’t have a greater influence over their child than the schools or that education about sex in the school trumps their ability or right to have discussions in the home about the materials presented so that the child understands through the lens of the family’s value system?

Actually, Lilly Toad, butchers are doing it and it’s NOT a regulated “business” because people like you do not want to place ANY restrictions on abortion. No regulations on the butchers who destroy fetuses whatsoever. What on earth are you talking about, Julia? There ARE restrictions on abortion beyond the 1st trimester as well as MEDICAL regulations/procedures that must be followed for a surgical procedure. And the people like Lily Toad who support CHOICE (as in you are free to choose NOT to have an abortion) aren’t saying available with no restrictions. No restrictions is only in your own mind that refuses to actually take the time to understand what pro-choice is actually saying and you CHOOSE to do that because it allows you to feel morally superior not because it’s actually true. * They are NOT about information but indoctrination, designed to normalize promiscuity, homosexuality and deviancy.* Isn’t that just your OPINION, Chuck?
* They are based on the ASSUMPTION of promiscuity. It begins and ends with that assumption that “everybody” is doing it.* Well, Chuck, since survey after survey after survey such as http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr23/sr23024.pdf or http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf or http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html or http://www.pal-tech.com/web/ASPEBrief/ASPE%20Brief%20-%20Teen%20Sexual%20Activity.pdf ALL indicate that almost HALF of all teens have had sex at least once before graduating high school I’d say the assumption is pretty darn valid. It is only possible to indoctrinate a child with values that are not set by the family if the parents are absent from actual parenting and not having discussions about sexual activity with their own children. If you think indoctrination is occurring, I suggest that your issue is really about a lack of active parenting and not the presentation of factual information to children. I suggest that you are tilting at a windmill instead of the real problem and I base this on my own upbringing during I received sex education in public school and during which my parents did have discussions about the Christian position on the morality of sexual activity as a teen and outside of marriage. Teaching right from wrong in regard to sexual activity belongs in the home and in now way negates or is negated by factual information about the mechanics and potential consequences of sexual activity. As an educator, parent, Christian, and relatively intelligent man I would think that you would understand this.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

Kevin: You raise good points, and while I don’t agree with all of them, I appreciate that you’re taking a sane, rational stance that can be debated. Chuck and Bruno could learn a lot from you.

Of course, that would get in the way of their favorite hobby—vilifying liberals with snide and fact-free “assumptions” and strawmen.

By GOB

January 10, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, what is the real objection from you Libs regarding teaching morality in school?

Whose morals should be schools be teaching? Morality is not a black and white issue. I know there are things that people like Chuck view as immoral that I dont at all. He uses the bible for his moral basis (well, at least the parts that talk about gays; not so much on the humility and love thy neighbor stuff), but there are a lot of people that dont feel the need to rely on a 2000 year old book as a basis for their treatment of others and their own personal behavior.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

Mara—On a serious note, I understand that teaching morality can be problematic. However, to avoid the topic altogether is tantamount to teaching immorality by default.

The word moral comes from the Latin word “more”, which refers to public customs. Obviously, 100% of all folks will never agree as to what constitutes acceptable public behaviors. However, we can form a reasonable code of conduct for young people based on good health, both physical and psychological.

By chuck

January 10, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Very well said Kevin as far as the signs of abuse. I have to disagree with you about sex ed. I do not believe that anyone can teach sex ed in a morally neutral way. It really is the job of Parents to teach their children about sex. We have a harde enough time teaching them the things that they HAVE to know to pass, both the grade level AND the standardized tests.

Most non-educators have no clue what goes on in the classroom and how many non-education activities eat away at instructional time. I’ve had 3 kids come up to me today to ask about assignments for Friday because they are going out of town. We haven’t been back from Christmas break 2 weeks yet and they are going to be pulled out of class by their parents to go skiing. We have character ed, assemblies on every subject imagineable. Just for standardized tests alone, we are losing parts of 23 days of instructional time. It is time for parents to “man up” and take some of these responsibilities back.

By Kevin

January 10, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Believing that pre-marital sex is OK is also not tantamount to PROMOTING pre-marital sex

72John that is your belief. You have every right to believe that. You don’t have the right to teach my children that pre-marital sex is OK, no more than I would have the right to teach children (in school) that believing in Christ is the only way to heaven.

Again, stick to the facts in sex ed and let me handle the moral issues with my children

By The72John

January 10, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

Again, stick to the facts in sex ed and let me handle the moral issues with my children

Kevin, when did I say otherwise? In fact, I believe if you read over my posts you’ll see that I said EXACTLY that.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

BC—You can’t handle debating me because I cut to the chase and get the most important facts out on the table. Your belief that sex ed is “value-neutral information” , to use your words, reveals to me what a total imbecile you are. Do you have any common sense at all, BC, or is it all theories to you?

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

Chuck - “If you teach a kid HOW to drive, are you not expecting them TO DRIVE? That is an additional implied message.”

Here is the first of many of your logical breakdowns. As I pointed out if you as a parent are not teaching your child how to drive BEFORE they are licensed you are irresponsible and a complete idiot. My parents teaching me HOW to drive when I was 13,14 in no means conveyed a message to me that I SHOULD drive at that point. Only a fool would connect the two and any assertion that it’s what is done is ridiculous. It would be akin to saying teach gun safety encourages people to buy guns and shoot them at other people.

And again there IS nothing wrong with premarital sex. Other than a few (vague) verses in the Bible there is very little reason to believe otherwise. The morality of sex in many other ways is more complicated. But premarital sex is perfectly healthy, normal, and moral.

Hearing a prayer is not about advancing any FACTS! It is not about knowledge - which is neutral - it’s about faith. Trying to connect the two is again logically false.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

It’s this simple, folks: Children welcome and respond to guidance, even if they pretend they don’t. As such, we owe it to them to project positive expectations to them, especially concerning important issues such as teen sex. These positive expectations don’t have to be codified into law to be effective.

By Monica

January 10, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

I just read my post… I actually learned about the birds and the bees a lot earlier than 7th grade from my parents. :) The sex ed classes in middle school were very thorough, and my teacher was incredibly detailed about it, which was my point. Just wanted to clear that up!

By NetBanker

January 10, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this

John…well said in your 1:29 post! It’s the Bush approach of “If you’re not with us, you a’gin us!”

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Joe L—You’re not as smart as you think you are. We transmit our attitudes to our children during the education process whether we intend to or not. By initiating teaching of a subject, and by presenting it in a positive way, we are most certainly giving our endorsement to that activity.

The topic here this week is sex ed, with the implication that we are talking about children in school. As such, your general observation that you personally don’t object to pre-marital sex is irrelevant.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Looks like some people are using promiscuity and pre-marital sex interchangeably. These are not the same thing. If an unmarrried couple are having sex this does not necessarily mean either is promiscuous. And shouldn’t we say non-marital sex? Pre-marital sounds like the couple is going to be married.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

The bottom line is that you Libs are endorsing teen sex. As such, I would like to see you list all the positive benefits of teen sex for evaluation. There are many documented negatives of teen sex, especially for girls. Let’s make a list, and make a fair comparison.

By Chilao

January 10, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

Yeah, LilyToad, it is only pre-marital if you plan on marrying, otherwise it is just good healthy sex..LOL

or Good Clean Healthy Fun, the more primitive among us use terms like dirty, etc.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Negatives of teen sex: Pregnancy, lifelong STDs, emotional turmoil.

Positives of teen sex: Kids getting their rocks off.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

The strawmen just keep on coming, don’t they.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

We keep coming back to the absolutely nonsensical assumption that WITHOUT sex education, teens will not have sex, or that with abstinence-only education, teens will not have sex.

I hate to break it to the absolutists among us, but with or without sex education, teens WILL have sex. They’ve BEEN having sex and they will CONTINUE to have sex, whether we like it or not.

Given that FACT, it is absolutely MIND-BOGGLING to me that people have any complains whatsoever about sex education that teaches teens about the possible risks of sexual activity and the things that can mitigate those risks.

THOSE are the facts, people. Teens have sex. Teens don’t always know the proper use of condoms or about how to obtain birth control. Teens SHOULD know these things so that if and when they DO have sex, they don’t get pregnant or die.

By Kevin

January 10, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

And again there IS nothing wrong with premarital sex. Other than a few (vague) verses in the Bible there is very little reason to believe otherwise. The morality of sex in many other ways is more complicated. But premarital sex is perfectly healthy, normal, and moral.

Again, that is your opinion and it cannot be backed up with facts, just more opinions. Your statements about what the bible says about pre-marital sex are misleading. I will teach my children what the bible does or does not say about these issues. It is not your job, the school’s job, or any government agencies’ job to teach your belief system to my children. I promise that I will not use my position as a teacher to promote my belief system to your children. Fair enough?

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

Hey John!

Well, I kinda sorta believe that… lol. But in all honesty, my experience with teenagers (my own teen years, my sisters, and my daughter) has taught me that teenagers make their own decisions, and there’s really no way to determine in advance whether your kids will stray from what you’ve taught them or not. You just have to do everything you can to instill good values in them, and pray that they have enough self-respect, dignity, and reverence for God to make the right decisions.

Chuck will probably try to get you to believe that his daughters have never/would never have premarital sex because of what he’s taught them over the years. However, the truth is that teaching is only a part of what makes kids do the things they do. Their individual personalities also have a lot to do with the decisions they make, and unfortunately, we have very little to do (other than genetics) with the personalities our children have. Some are born rebellious. Some are born adventurous. Some are born risk-takers. Some are born thrill-seekers. Some are born extroverted, some introverted.

The decision to have sex as a teen is a combination of upbringing, personality, culture, opportunity (let’s face it, some kids just don’t have the opportunity… lol), personal values, and environment. Kids don’t decide not to have sex because their parents taught them not to.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

72John—You keep skirting the core issue with all of your ad hominem attacks: Is teen sex an activity we should endorse, or not endorse?

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

Kevin - “…we most [sic] also operate on the assumption that the vast majority of promiscuous students will not use condoms at all, or will not use them correctly in 100% of the cases”

European countries have proven this statement to be quite untrue. With proper education and sane, rationl evaluation of sexual behavior (in culture as well as the classroom) condom use will be quite high even among “promiscuous” students.

The morality of premarital sex NOT being OK is vague at best and limited to certain people. In any sort of educational, scientific, social and even religiously neutral ethical view premarital is okay and thus should be approached as fact. If you have a problem with that (or want to teach your kids the earth is flat) keep them out of rational schools.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this

If that is as you said “inarguably wrong”, then why is it okay for them to “force THEIR beliefs on OUR children?

Chuck:

It’s not. For the most part, everything taught in public schools can be categorized as fact or theory, and is usually taught as such. At least that was the case in my public school experience, and my daughter’s too.

At the risk of ruffling some feathers, black children were taught for decades a history that basically excluded contributions from black Americans. Slavery was taught, if at all, as an aside to a more significant lily-white lesson.

In effect, that’s what I deem to be a perfect example of “them” forcing “their beliefs” on “us.”

And like I said, it’s not okay. But, that is hardly what happens in public schools today. What actually happens is that the holier-than-thou Christians scream and preach about what they believe and why it should be forced on everyone, including those who may not believe the same. You never hear American atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, or Hindus screaming that their beliefs should be taught in public schools.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

So, according to Lib Logic, we need to start having drinking classes at school as well. After all, kids are going to drink anyway, so we should educate them on how to avoid hangovers, but not to abstain.

By Reason

January 10, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

“THOSE are the facts, people”,What page of the “Facts” book is that listed on?

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

72John: Be kind to Bruno; don’t hit him with too much reality at once, his tiny mind can’t handle it.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

Joe L—before you pick on Kevin’s spelling, you better check your own more closely. You remind me a lot of BC in that you believe you are way smarter than you really are.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

“By initiating teaching of a subject, and by presenting it in a positive way, we are most certainly giving our endorsement to that activity.”

There’s nothing wrong with giving an endorsement of sex. Who and when you have sex is the issue (well some fundies like Chuck probably cut a whole in a sheet and only do it when she’s “fertile”) here and that has nothing to do with teaching about sex and everything that goes with it. This logical fallacy keeps being among the favorites of the abstinence only group.

By Lyrazel

January 10, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

What is so strange is the rate of marriages keeps going down. Now it is almost the norm for younger couples to live together. Possibly had more to do with watching their parents divorcing than their sex class lessons—So, if you have zero intention of getting married but only one life partner—is it still premarital thus promiscuous sex? Or if you cannot get married because the state passed a law—does that qualify as premarital sex? There are quite a number of adults in GA whose parents could not get married because the government insisted races could not interbreed.

By Logic

January 10, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Wrap your brain around this: “Your belief system IS a religion just like Christianity. Everyone has a belief system, so everyone is pushing their own religion.” Why should I belive yours if you won’t believe mine?

By Troglodyke

January 10, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

If I had kids, I’d want:

a daughter who would wait until she is emotionally mature before having sex, and then have it with a young man who she had been dating a while, and who seemed genuinely “into” her, and was also emotionally mature. I would want them to practice safe sex, always.

This may mean she waits until later in life. No problem. It might also mean she has sex at 17, and can handle it.

She would need to know that ANY genital-genital contact with the opposite sex, condom or no, could lead to pregnancy and/or STDs, and she would need to decide if it was worth it.

I would much rather have a daughter who was sexually active, safely, and delayed marriage and childbearing until she was emotionally ready for that, than one who gets married at 17.

“Pre”-marital sex, if done with love and honesty and protection, can help young people figure out what this part of relationships is about, before they dive into marriage with someone with whom they are incompatible. My daughter losing her virginity, safely, at a young age would be far preferable to her being married at a young age.

People shouldn’t be allowed to get married until they are at least 30. Marriages would last much longer, don’t you think?

When the Christiano-fascists bemoan premarital sex and call it unholy, and then turn a blind eye to the ridiculously high divorce rate, especially in the Bible Belt, where young marriages are thought to be gifts from god, they are even more hypocritical than was once believed.

By the way, sexual contact between parties of the same sex NEVER results in unplanned pregnancies. Therefore, gays are helping keep the abortion rates down. What a quandary for the religionists.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Actually, the freshmen learning community course at GSU has a segment on responsible drinking. This is an instance of a university recognizing that drinking can be a problem and addressing it.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Kevin - You say that sex being natural and normal is NOT a fact? You say that pre-marital sex is not moral? You can use any of the oh dozen or so forms of RATIONALLY and non-dogmatically determining morality and not a one would say that pre-marital sex is immoral. THOSE are facts, not dogmatic words that have only the value of FAITH not FACT.

And any Bible verse concerning pre-marital sex talks about “adultery”. Adultery is a vague term which has been extrapolated by the uptight fundies to mean any sex outside of marriage, while most reasonable people would understand it to mean stepping outside the bounds of your marriage. So you can take ALL of those facts and put them in your pipe and smoke them!

By Reason

January 10, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me, How many schools did you personally visit in order to draw the conclusion that Christians “scream” and all the others don’t?

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

Lil’ John (I VERY appropriate name I’m quite sure) - I used proper quoting for Kevin’s quote to show that the material was presented in it’s complete and original form. It’s actually the respectful thing to do.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

Joe L—I do give you some points for honesty by revealing your core belief that we should endorse teen sex. The other Libs here can’t even bring themselves to admit that.

By Monica

January 10, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

The morality of premarital sex NOT being OK is vague at best and limited to certain people. In any sort of educational, scientific, social and even religiously neutral ethical view premarital is okay and thus should be approached as fact. If you have a problem with that (or want to teach your kids the earth is flat) keep them out of rational schools.

You lost me on that one Joe L. You can tell my children all about sex and condoms and abstinence in school; that’s fine. You can’t tell them that it is okay to have pre-marital sex. That’s an opinion, not a fact. Sex education is about facts.

By Chilao

January 10, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

The alcohol-abstinence program is a good example, since Mormons, who teach alcohol abstinence, have a very high rate of excessive alcohol use among high-teens and into their mid- 20s.

Thanks, Dog, for drawing my attention to that.

kinda like that Southern Baptist joke, if you are going to invite some to your party, you best invite two or more, since if you invite only one, they will drink all of your booze, if you invite two or more, they won’t drink any at all. LOL

By Monica

January 10, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

The morality of premarital sex NOT being OK is vague at best and limited to certain people. In any sort of educational, scientific, social and even religiously neutral ethical view premarital is okay and thus should be approached as fact. If you have a problem with that (or want to teach your kids the earth is flat) keep them out of rational schools.

You lost me on that one Joe L. You can tell my children all about sex and condoms and abstinence in school; that’s fine. You can’t tell them that it is okay to have pre-marital sex. That’s an opinion, not a fact. Sex education is about facts.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Actually, an acquaintance of mine recently attended her parents’ wedding in Mobile. They had been together for 40 years and raised 6 children, but never legally married because her mother is white and her father black.

Not that has anything to do with anything… it just crossed my mind after reading Lyrazel’s comment… carry on. LOL

By NetBanker

January 10, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

THOSE are the facts, people”,What page of the “Facts” book is that listed on? Please see the links to 4 web sites (some of which are conservative sites supporting abstinence only) for some statistics on rates of teen sexual activity. ALL of those sites, regardless of philosophical position, are pretty consistent in a rate of 45-47% of teens 15-19 having had sex at least once. As the previous poster stated teens ARE having sex.

There’s nothing wrong with giving an endorsement of sex. Who and when you have sex is the issue Well said!

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

Joe L—Keep patting yourself on your back regarding how “logical” your arguments are. Your belief that moral issues can be decided in an amoral framework reveals tremendous stupidity on your part. Sure, you can win against the Bible-thumpers here by discrediting the Bible, but you can’t hold a candle to a real debater.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

Lil’ John (I VERY appropriate name I’m quite sure) - I used proper quoting for Kevin’s quote to show that the material was presented in it’s complete and original form. It’s actually the respectful thing to do.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

Since I was once married to a man, but now a law has been passed prohibiting me from marrying my girlfriend, I’m having post-marital sex. She’s never been married, so she’s having non-marital sex.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

Chilao—The issue of how to effectively promote abstinence is extremely important, but is different from the question as to whether we should promote abstinence or not. I will agree with you that most abstinence endorsement programs are a joke, and often end up acting as a de facto endorsement. I know the anti-drug films shown in school during the 1960s did nothing more than pique my curiosity.

By Conscience

January 10, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

extrapolated by the uptight fundies to mean any sex outside of marriage, while most reasonable people would understand it to mean stepping outside the bounds of your marriage.

So, you’re saying we’re both saying the same thing?

(and it didn’t go unnoticed that you referred to the right in a negative light and the left in a positive uplifting light)

and are fundies anything like underoos, I had some of those as a kid…

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Lil’ John - You must be a farmer with all the straw men you keep setting up. If you could read (or cared to since you have been nothing but a demagogue from the start) you would know that most of us are advocating teaching kids to be responsible NOT for them to have sex. Responsibility could mean abstaining or using a condom. Keep setting up the straw men to prove you have no real ground to stand on.

By NetBanker

January 10, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this

By the way, sexual contact between parties of the same sex NEVER results in unplanned pregnancies. Therefore, gays are helping keep the abortion rates down. LOL, Trog!

Lil J…can you point to SPECIFIC posts in which Libs are ENDORSING teen sex? Seems to me you’re putting words in Liberal mouths. Pragmatism and endorsement aren’t the same thing.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

Ha! Best comment by Lil’ John so far: Your belief that moral issues can be decided in an amoral framework reveals tremendous stupidity on your part.

Lack of religion and dogma DOES NOT equal AMORAL. There are many ways of LOGICALLY determining morality that do not rely on superstition and dogma. If we are determining morality it’s impossible to be A-moral (lacking any morality). Much, much smarter men than all of us put together (many of whom did indeed believe in God) have discovered many ways of logically defining morality.

By Chilao

January 10, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

and are fundies anything like underoos, I had some of those as a kid…

yeah, the kind that leave skid marks. (thanks, Tina Fey/SNL WeekendUpdate)

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

Quoting directly from the 1977-78 Harvey Mudd College catalog: “Harvey Mudd College students are as familiar with calculators or computers as most persons are with ball point pens. Big deal. Not that computers aren’t important. They are. But calculators, computers, and hardware never brought light into dark corners, or lifted the human spirit.”

Later: “….technology divorced from humanity is worse than no technology at at all.”

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Oh and btw not all of the right are fundies, actually most of the right and/or Christians are far from. If you think so, then you must be one of the fundies who think they are “just right of center”. And trust me there is very little FUN or UNDIES with the fundies!

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Conscious — unmarried persons can’t commit adultery. Your bold highlights of the quote left out bounds meaning adultery is sex outside of an existing marriage, while for fundies adultery is any non-marital sex.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

NetB—I am a realist, a pragmatist. As a realist, I know that the expectations we communicate to our young people are very influential in the decisions they make. Many of the posters here keep stating that sex education can be taught in a value-free context, but it can’t. I love sex, along with many other adult pleasures, and have no “hang-ups” which are secretly influencing my endorsement of abstinence for young people. My strong, unequivocal endorsement of abstinence for young people is based on observation and common sense, nothing more.

By Conscience

January 10, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

“You truly have a dizzying intelect.”

The man in Black to Vizzini in The Princess Bride

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

Common sense that a large number of teens won’t have sex? That’s neither sense nor common. Most of the people I see here trying to advocate some sort of “value free” education are people who are morally opposed to pre-marital sex but don’t have the nerve to talk to their kids about it in any context and particulary to educate them in case they are. They want the school to stay away from “values” but teach the things they can’t. You can’t have it both ways. But VALUES and endorsement or even morals are quite different. Being safe, being mature, choosing to abstain, talking to your parents or other trusted adults, not rushing into things or being pressured, those are all VALUES that should be taught in sex ed.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, did the mongrel just accuse someone else of making ad hominem attacks? Someone whose core argument in this particular issue, and frankly on just about every other issue is “Libs do insert strawman argument here”? Because that’s really funny.

Either way, the so-called “core issue” isn’t “should teen sex be encouraged” as he so erroneously attempts to paint it, (yet another poor strawman) it’s “should teens be given all information in sex education classes”.

As to the specious drinking analogy - it wouldn’t be a matter of avoiding hangovers, it would be a matter of avoiding things like drunk driving and alcohol poisoning. So, since I believe health classes as early as ninth grade already teach about these things, then I think the point is a moot one.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

Truly amazing — here it is late Wednesday and we’re still on the W to W topic!

By chuck

January 10, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

There are 2 separate words used in the Bible to denote sex outside of marriage. Adultery is when a married person has sex with someone other than his or her spouse. Fornication refers to people who have never married who have sex. Both are prohibited….Idiot.

Fortunately for you this blog is anonymous.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

72John—“Technology divorced from humanity is worse than no technology at all”. It’s a matter of priorities, John. Another one of your “errors of proportion”.

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this

Care to point out verses that PROHIBIT fornication? There are certainly verses that use the word but the only ones that speak to outright prohibition are adultery. And btw not knowing everything that a 2000 yr old book of mythology says (and neither do you unless you speak ancient Greek and Hebrew) has nothing to do intelligence. Far from it.

By kimberly

January 10, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this

Sex, sex, sex! Is that all you perverts ever talk about? Sheesh….

Hey, y’all don’t forget to watch the Great Decider’s very importuitous speech tonight.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

kimmy—did you have time to check your furnace filter? I don’t want to have to buy you a new furnace this year. I’d much rather take you to Costa Rica with the money.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this

72John—“Technology divorced from humanity is worse than no technology at all”. It’s a matter of priorities, John. Another one of your “errors of proportion”.

This statement is completely meaningless in the context of this argument, as we are not discussing technology or basic humanity. However, we’ve come to expect such condescending and meaningless statements from you whenever you run out of things to say.

Also, as I have pointed out before, there is no such thing as “an error of proportion” in the language of critical thinking or debate - it’s a term that you’ve cooked up out of whole cloth and applied in an equally meaningless sense. What is being taken out of proportion? An error of proportion would mean that one is giving either too much or too little credence to a particular facet of something. Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this

72John—Let me break it down for you. “Technology”, in our current context, refers to condoms. “Humanity” refers to endorsing Abstinence for young people. Thus, the statement “technology without humanity” can be restated as “Condoms without the endorsement of abstinence for young people are worse than no condoms at all”.

The facet of sex ed which you continue to give too little credence to is the moral aspect. Hence, an “error of proportion”.

Did that clear things up for you?

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

So, I say let’s teach ALL the facts when it comes to sex ed, including the skank factor. After all, the P is kind of like the ultimate Petri Dish, so warm and moist. BC will back me up on that, won’t you buddy? Putting all moral discussions aside, who wants their woman to be skanky?

By The72John

January 10, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

Oh my, aren’t we being just a little bit glib in defining condoms as technology.

The first problem with your so-called error of proportion, Cur, is that the idea that sex is morally charged is your opinion. No matter how much you would like to pretend that your opinions about everything are fact, I hate to break it to you and your colossal ego - they ain’t. The morality of sex is dependent on the person, not some inherent truth.

The second problem is that you confuse, wilfully I suspect, the belief that complete education should be given to teens with the false idea that those who believe it should be provided A) Want nothing more than to encourage sex, B) Are immoral themselves, and C) Lack basic compassion.

Frankly, Mongrel, my humanity and compassion far outstrip your own, as you seem to believe that teenagers should remain ignorant of things that might save their lives and prevent abortions. But then, that’s just my opinion.

But please, oh please - continue to bombard us with more of your self-congratulatory and bombastic manifestos. They give us reason to go on, every day.

By Kevin

January 10, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this

Joe L

Your posts suggest that you want no compromise on this issue. Your “my way or the highway approach” to sex education is just as polarizing as anything Chuck advocates. It appears that Monica and I are willing to compromise, but you won’t let us.

While I am sure you believe your motives to be altruistic, it is becoming more evident that your brand of sex education is less about facts and more about pushing your morality on my children. Again, none of you have the right to try and promote a sex education curriculum that teaches my children that sex before marriage is OK, just as I don’t have the right to teach my students that sex before marriage is wrong. This is an issue that should be left up to the parent’s discretion. If the parents aren’t teaching them anything on this subject then I would suggest (paraphrasing one of NetB’s arguments from a few weeks ago) “they are resilient and resourceful little buggers, they will survive”.

Finally, if you want to play “grammar policeman” on the blog then so be it. Maybe you can get a job with the AJC. But do not give me the “it’s actually a very respectful thing to do” crap. You could have left the quote in its original form without correction, or you could have corrected it for me. But you, Oh Grand Pooh-Bah of Prose, decided to point out an obvious typo to try and ridicule my argument. To make matters worse, you have the gall to lie about your motives.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

72John—I completely understand the fact that you’re lost in life, confused about basic truths, such as the fact that sex is imbued with our deepest emotions. C’mon, John, aren’t you getting tired of a constant parade of new lovers?

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Right on Kevin—I support you 100%. Joe L is an obvious intellectual lightweight who thinks using (sic) makes him appear smart. What is laughable is the inordinate amount of typos contained in his own, confused posts.

By StoneMtRanger

January 10, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Ladies Beware, Guard your Virtue, for failure to do so might result in having your only chance of sexual activity super-drunk, in the back-seat of some car out around Stone Mountain, as some smelly/doggy guy grunts on top of you*

By The72John

January 10, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Again, none of you have the right to try and promote a sex education curriculum that teaches my children that sex before marriage is OK, just as I don’t have the right to teach my students that sex before marriage is wrong.

Kevin,

No one has said this. I’ve pointed this out once before but you’ve ignored it. No one has suggested that a sex education class should contain anything other than factual information. This is how this works. This is what can happen. These are things you can do to prevent “this” from happening.

Dry, factual information. No ethical content whatsoever, because yes, that SHOULD come from parents.

Joe’s statements concern his personal beliefs about sex, not about what should be taught in the classroom. Not a single person on the “comprehensive sex ed” side of this issue has ever suggested otherwise.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me, How many schools did you personally visit in order to draw the conclusion that Christians “scream” and all the others don’t?

I didn’t have to visit schools to draw that conclusion. I drew that conclusion based on the images I see on local and national news, my experience as a lobbyist, and my experience as a Christian consultant.

By The72John

January 10, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

In fact, Kevin, here are Joe’s exact words:

Being safe, being mature, choosing to abstain, talking to your parents or other trusted adults, not rushing into things or being pressured, those are all VALUES that should be taught in sex ed.

Where do you see “premarital sex is OK” in there? I see “talk to your parents”.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

Stone Mountain Ranger—Why stay in the car when that beautiful mountain is sitting there waiting to rumble?? You must have seen me up there a few times, no??

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to tell you this, but breaking one rule to preach another is quite hypocritical.

By Li'l John

January 10, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

One more thing you’re missing with Mongrel, kim—Mountain moving sessions on top of Stone Mountain.

By Kevin

January 10, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this

72John you said: Joe’s statements concern his personal beliefs about sex, not about what should be taught in the classroom. Not a single person on the “comprehensive sex ed” side of this issue has ever suggested otherwise. I didn’t ignore your post. I believe you when you say that you aren’t advocating this, but I am not so sure about Joe L. As I have said earlier, conservatives and liberals are not as far apart on this issue as we are led to believe.

Li’l John – Thanks for the support, but I am more perturbed with his intellectual dishonesty than I am with his supposed “intellectual superiority”.

By Sten93950

January 11, 2007 05:42 AM | Link to this

Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.

By Lyrazel

January 11, 2007 07:42 AM | Link to this

Kimberly said: Sex, sex, sex! Is that all you perverts ever talk about? Sheesh….

Them that have do; them that dont have: talk.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 08:24 AM | Link to this

So, the consensus from the Abstinence Only crowd seems to be this: “If the schools are going to talk about sex, they MUST take a position on whether it’s good or bad {unlike any other topic where facts are presented and choices are made}. And since I can’t be bothered raising my own kid, and I’m not secure that I’ve taught them good values, I insist that all schools adopt my personal belief system and no other. Or else!”

Very convincing.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

Especially since, as noted waaay back on Monday, abstinence-only education doesn’t accomplish even THAT purpose.

By Kevin

January 11, 2007 08:46 AM | Link to this

Sorry BC, but it is clear that is not my position. It is however Joe’s position to teach HIS morality to my kids. As evidence I will paste this tidbit from Joe:

The morality of premarital sex NOT being OK is vague at best and limited to certain people. In any sort of educational, scientific, social and even religiously neutral ethical view premarital is okay and thus should be approached as fact. If you have a problem with that (or want to teach your kids the earth is flat) keep them out of rational schools.

I feel the open-mindedness radiating from this masterpiece.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

BC - yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head.

This all reminds me of the humour piece I cannot find, parents who insisted on public prayer in school and then realized that it might be from a Buddhist(oooom), or a Mormon(some inspirational from the Book of Mormon), or gasp a Moslem(some quote from the Quran) teacher, so therefore concluded they really would like to keep prayer at home where it belongs. Which I had kept that piece, probably have somewhere at home, but….LOL

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

Kevin—Don’t worry about Joe L too much, he’s no match for you.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

BC—Why do you find it so hard to grasp the fact that some topics are so emotion-laded that they can’t be presented in an emotional vacuum? I would say that slavery might be another topic to fall into this category.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

So, let me once again shed a little light for you, BC. Humans are motivated by emotion , not logic . In technical terms, logic is a necessary condition to create a good argument, but not a sufficient condition.

By Roy

January 11, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

As long as government (taxpayer) money is used to pay for the results from non-use of abstinence, (i.e. welfare pregnancy), then government money should be used to help prevent some of these pregnancies including abstinence.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

The deeper, more general question revealed by this discussion is this: Is morality something which can be invented by men and therefore voted upon, or is there some kind of natural morality which is intrinsic to the system, which can’t be voted on. It’s the same old moral relativism vs. moral absolutism.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this

Roy, If you think about it, even non-welfare babies are a tax liability if you figure in all the school costs. As such, I believe society should have some say as to whose kids we are supporting.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 09:54 AM | Link to this

In a similar vein, a good argument can be constructed for motorcycle helmet laws. When a motorcyclist gets in a wreck, the medical costs are shared by society, and are not paid for by the individual.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Changing the topic a little—I don’t think there are many country music fans here, but there is a hilarious new song out called ” ‘Fore She Was Mama “. It’s about two boys who find an old box full of pictures in the attic of Mama, before she was Mama. Here are some of the lyrics:

‘Bout ten years old, hide and seek I found me in the closet Ready or not I stumbled on And opened up that box of Yearbooks, letters, black and whites A hundred, maybe more Next thing I know my brothers and me Got ‘em scattered on the floor (Yeah)

There was one of her, flippin’ the bird Sittin’ on a Harley And a few with some hairy hippie dude Turns out his name was Charlie Her hair, her clothes, her drinkin’ smokin’ Had us boys confused I’ll never forget the day us nosey kids got introduced

To Mama, ‘fore she was Mama In a string bikini, in Tijuana Won’t admit she smoked marijuana But I saw Mama, ‘fore she was Mama

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

To those of you who claim that schools are there strictly to teach facts, give me a break! Values are taught at school all the time, such as the precept that “Diversity is good.” The problem is, only Liberal values have been taught for the past 30 or 40 years, with disastrous results.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

For proof of how presenting facts can be twisted into expressing a political opinion, look no further than the AJC. Which facts are included, excluded, or emphasized is nothing more than a reflection of the writers’ biases.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Speak of da debil:

I am always reminded of Don Quixote’s admonishment in Man of La Mancha, “Facts are the enemy of truth

the full article: http://www.predatordefense.org/species/cougar.htm

By Archie

January 11, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

What actually happens is that the holier-than-thou Christians scream and preach about what they believe and why it should be forced on everyone, including those who may not believe the same. You never hear American atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, or Hindus screaming that their beliefs should be taught in public schools

72John, I go to church 3 or 4 times per month and I agree with your statements!!!

Also which liberals are advocating premarital sex because based on everything I have read here no one conservative or liberal has endorsed premarital sex. It appears some lack reading and comprehension skills or have nothing serious to add to the discussion.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Kevin - Yes because calling pre-marital sex “immoral” is such an open-minded enlightened position. The FACTS are 90% of people engage in pre-marital sex. You can stick your head in the sand but the FACT is that by any standard outside of dogma pre-marital sex is accepted and moral. You are trying to turn something that isn’t (sex) into a morality play and it’s the same ploy that people keep falling for. I believe that everyone on the side of comprehensive education has expressed their views that teens need to be more serious and discerning about sexual activities and that abstinence should never be EXCLUDED from said education. The only close-minded people here and the dogmatists screaming about “immorality”.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Oh and care to point out this alleged “intellectual dishonesty”? Because it’s a baseless and hollow accusation.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Oh and for such a intellectual heavyweight Lil’ John is using the term “moral relativism” incorrectly. Moral relativism is the belief that there is nothing that is certain in morality and that it’s merely what any group decides is right or wrong. You can (and most people do) have systems that are not morally relativistic that have nothing to do with DOGMA which is what he is mistaking for “moral absolutism”. One does not have to believe in a supernatural force or being to believe in moral absolutes.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Joe L—I don’t believe in supernatural forces or beings. You’re confusing me with chuck. Your whole argument is based on moral relativism, chump. You’re just too stupid to realize it.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

As for Kevin’s claim of intellectual dishonesty, that’s just a nice way to say that you’re a stupid prick. When you drew attention to his obvious typo with the inclusions of (sic), you tried to claim it was a display of respect. In fact, it’s usage is pejorative in all contexts. Your own posts are full of typos, yet I didn’t see Kevin trying to score brownie points by pointing that out.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, Joe L, how old are you? You sound like a good example of liberal training gone wrong. Were you in High School during the Clinton years?

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

No Lil’ John YOU are obviously too uneducated and ignorant on morality and ethics to even understand what moral relativism means. YOU are merely using the incorrect demagoguery that is thrown around by the propagandists on the right. But keep on keeping on, you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole. I mean we just can’t keep up with your ASTOUNDING intellect.

Have I ever pointed out to anyone that they committed a typo? No. But I use correct from when I quote someone. It was not targeting Kevin at all. Typos are errors (meaning to do the correct thing and failing). Not quoting correctly is an error (meaning to do the wrong thing). Pointing out a silly mistake is childish. Making an error of your own choosing is ignorance.

Keep it up Lil’ John! Everytime you flash the brilliance of things like “stupid prick” you make all of us bow to your superiority!

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

But since you’re obviously dense, Joe L, I’ll summarize your arguments for you by cutting and pasting your own words:

Moral relativism is the belief that there is nothing that is certain in morality and that it’s merely what any group decides is right or wrong .

The FACTS are 90% of people engage in pre-marital sex. You can stick your head in the sand but the FACT is that by any standard outside of dogma pre-marital sex is accepted and moral .

You are trying to turn something that isn’t (sex) into a morality play . The only close-minded people here and the dogmatists screaming about “immorality” .

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Yes LIBERAL training. Indeed. Sorry but unlike drones like you who think mindsets only come through training, I was able to find my own way in the world. Seriously I’m barely able to keep up with the blazing speed of your mind.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Whoops I made an ERROR myself and got that backwards. A mistake is starting with a wrong idea, an error is having the right idea and wrongfully executing.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

You see, Joe, when you referenced what percentage of people engage in premarital sex, that’s an example of “what any group decides what is right or wrong”, which, by your definition, is “moral relativism”. You state that premarital sex is “accepted and moral”, yet later claim that sex is outside of the realm of morality altogether:

You are trying to turn something that isn’t (sex) into a morality play and it’s the same ploy that people keep falling for .

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Wow, it takes an amazing intellect to CUT AND PASTE Lil’ John. I always mess up and press ALT+C or ALT+Z. Of course it takes a little more intelligence than that to actually form a logical and correct argument. Keep reaching for the stars though!

90% is related to the word ACCEPTED. I could reference any of a dozen non-relativistic ethical systems that define exactly why pre-martital sex is not inherently immoral. But it’s obvious to anyone who understands these things and too long-winded (and over the heads) for those that don’t understand.

By Sten73054

January 11, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

JoeL - com’on, man, get with the program, if you have liberal leanings it is solely because of those pinko-Commie-bleep teachers misedgamacatin our youth. LMAO

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Beautiful come-back, Joe:

I could reference any of a dozen non-relativistic ethical systems that define exactly why pre-martital sex is not inherently immoral. But it’s obvious to anyone who understands these things and too long-winded (and over the heads) for those that don’t understand .

Why don’t you offer just ONE reason? Also, the discussion this week is what is appropriate behavior for young children still in school, not what consenting adults choose to do.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

In case you missed it, Joe, I posted a modest list of what I thought the pertinent facts were in deciding whether to endorse teen sex or not endorse it.

Benefits: Kids getting their rocks off.

Drawbacks: Pregnancy, lifelong STDs, emotional distress.

By my moral addition, I see no reason to promote teen sex, and lots of reasons to discourage it.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Yes see the word AND joins too different things together to describe one thing. ACCEPTED is different from MORAL and BOTH apply to pre-martial sex. I know reading above the 8th grade level can be tough, but keep putting in the work and you too may one day read at the HS level!

No the discussion is whether students should be taught sexual education that goes beyond “Don’t do it”. The right-wingers who know they have a losing argument try and twist it into a pseudo-argument that is both specious and unconnected of “condoning” “immoral” behavior. A decision entered into by two knowledgable individuals with forethought and care that affects themselves alone is a completely moral behavior. Outside of “the Bible told me so” (which is also arguable) there is little reason why pre-marital sex (again what we have been discussing not necessarily TEEN sex) is immoral. Keep up with the convo if you can.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

It’s this simple, Joe. Society has a legitimate say in what constitutes acceptable behavior for young people, who lack both good judgment AND the resources to pay for their mistakes.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Again you forward a specious argument of encouraging teen sex. NO ONE is saying that. You are erecting the same straw man over and over because you have no legitimate argument. The discussion has been abstinence only education and the MORALITY of PRE-MARITAL sex. But since you are beaten down there you erect the same ignorant argument people turn too that none of us are forwarding or supporting.

But keep showing us that big brain!

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

I agree, Joe: “Accepted” is different from “moral”. So far, you’ve only offered proof of “acceptance”, not of the inherent “morality” of teen sex. Why is teen sex immoral? I offered you a short list above, which you haven’t responded to.

Again, if the discussion is about what students should be taught, then it is students’ behavior that we are focusing on, not what consenting ADULTS choose to do. Why are you unable to separate the two?.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Joe—Seriously, are you some kind of college student? You have strong opinions, but are unable to support them other than to define any position contrary to yours as being “dogmatic”. I’ve offered you legitimate facts and arguments, which you haven’t rebutted in any way other than to scream “strawman”. Did you learn that from 72John?

By lozen

January 11, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

“To those of you who claim that schools are there strictly to teach facts, give me a break! Values are taught at school all the time,” DUH! And by teaching abstinence only in public schools the value being taught is the biblical/christian one: “Sex is BAD unless you have a piece of paper from the state and/or church saying it’s okay!” The values you’re talking about are anachronisms. “Girls, hang on to that virginity until you have that piece of paper.” Why? Because people like you think girls who have sex are “skanks” but brag about how much you can get anytime you want it. If you call girls who have sex “skanks” then you are a skank idiot. Although it’s hard to imagine you finding a woman who would have sex with a jerk like you!

You are the kind of man who will make this world a better place just by dying out. Go on and leave it to younger men who aren’t as emotionally repressed and sick around sex as you are.

The narrow, archaic beliefs instilled in me in my youth by uneducated southern hick preachers and my family’s culture were a crock. You and Chuck seem to be products of the same milieu. However I learned these were JUST their beliefs and nothing more. My beliefs changed when I had enough education and knowledge to compare those beliefs with the rest of the world, other cultures, other religious ideas, history about sex and women’s place in history. I began to understand the real reasons behind the insistence that women save that virginity until they are the property of a man and have to prove to him that the kid is his cause he don’t wanta raise some other man’s kid and have some other man’s kid inherit the farm, damn it! There is no god sitting up there shaking her head when teens have sex. To pretend that does not make it real. Chuck learned his values and beliefs about sex from his parents and his church and his culture and his school. We all did. Some imaginary old man in the sky and/or the bible has not one whit to do with any of this. The world has changed and there’s nothing any of us can do to stop that. keep fighting those windmills if you want to waste all that energy. We follow the road laid out by our parents and our culture without even realizing it most of the time but the next generations do not. They have their own culture, their own times, and they grow beyond their parents limited views if they’re lucky.
Teen sex is a fact, face it. It is biology, get used to it. Try to think of some new ways to deal with the problems instead of trying to turn back the clock because you cannot do that! The sap rises around 14 or 15! It always has and always will. It’s just out in the open now. It is nature! It is nature’s way of continuing the species and nothing any of us do or say is going to keep teens from having sex when the sap rises. Teens used to be married at 14 or 15 and sex before marriage was not a problem. the world changed, not nature.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

lozen—It is of no importance to me whether a given moral imperative is in the Bible or not. That’s not the standard I use, pro or con. It’s obvious to me, however, that if the Bible is FOR something, then you are AGAINST it. As such, I think it is religion which unduly influences YOU, not ME.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

I have stated ad nauseum that I don’t believe in supernatural beings. At the same time, I don’t believe in existentialism, either, in which our actions, and thus our lives, are inherently meaningless. For some reason you keep creating a false dichotomy in which non-acceptance of the Bible leads automatically to existentialism.

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

the fact that sex is imbued with our deepest emotions I’m not buying this as a fact or inherent truth. Sex CAN be imbued with our deepest emotions when done with a partner for whom one already has an emotional connection or feelings. If one does not have an emotional connection with the partner it can simply be a physically pleasing experience that satisfies a basic, biological need.

Humans are motivated by emotion. Humans are also motivated by purely biological/physical needs regardless of emotion or logic. Sex falls into this category.

As such, I believe society should have some say as to whose kids we are supporting Be careful with that can of worms!! I could use that statement as a basis to say that as a gay male who will never have children of my own that I shouldn’t have to pay the school portion of property taxes because I’m supporting everyone else’s children. Of course, that ends up being a selfish position since a child I’m paying to educate may end up being the next Einstein or Bach or whatever.

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Values are taught at school all the time, such as the precept that “Diversity is good.” The problem is, only Liberal values have been taught for the past 30 or 40 years, with disastrous results. So are you trying to say that Diversity and acceptance of people different than ourselves is not good?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

I also don’t accept your “there’s nothing we can do about it” attitude, either, lozen. You constantly accuse me of pessimism, but yours is the ultimate pessimist’s view.

Did you ever hear the story about a beach in which thousands of starfish had washed up on? A kid was rescuing the starfish, one by one. A man pointed out to the kid that he couldn’t possibly save them all and recommended that he give up. The kid replied, “Well, I saved this one” as he carried one more back to the ocean.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

NetB—I think Diversity is great, but not at the expense of Unity. As a businessman, I’m sure you can appreciate that statement.

Of course, Diversity and Unity are just one more Yin-Yang, in which both qualities are needed and are important. The question is, which of the forces do we want to assume the dominant position? To me, the pendulum has swung WAAAYYY to far to the “Diversity” side when employees are required by the Southern Company to take “diversity training” in which they are required to write an essay regarding “White Privilege”. True story.

By Sten67137

January 11, 2007 01:04 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven’t been up to much these days.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

NetB—of course, there are times when we just want to get our rocks off; I’m no exception. Putting it into a Yin-Yang framework once again, however, meaningful sex should be what dominates, not meaningless sex.

By lozen

January 11, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

If we accept the fact that the biological drive is stronger than all the “moral” teachings of western culture then we could move on and set up systems to take care of real problems. Then we would want teens to have the information they need to protect themselves instead of pretending they won’t “do it”. Then we could come up with systems that really work for unwed pregnancy, STDs, emotional problems. Then we would stop trying to stop the world from going where it needs to go. It’s like growing up and facing reality instead of pretending you are carrying out some great handed down for-all-time morality. Morality is invented by man and always has been. It’s been different for different cultures throughout time. But you just keep on telling yourself you have the only true set of moral rules - “my daddy can beat up your daddy!” Juvenile.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

Also, NetB, we constantly make “actuarial judgments” regarding shared costs and benefits all the time, whether we realize it or not. The issue of who should pay school taxes is a grey area, to be sure. (I spelled grey the Limey way to acknowledge Chilao’s love for Brit spellings. Hopefully that will meet my Diversity quota for the day).

Another good actuarial/societal question comes up regarding car insurance and life insurance as well. Can I say that I’m being discriminated against since I have to pay more for car insurance as a male driver?

By Kevin

January 11, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

Joe,

It is out of respect for the good people of the W2W blog that I have not responded to your challenge: Care to point out verses that PROHIBIT fornication? In case you haven’t noticed Joe, very few people on this blog care what the bible has to say on any issue, but especially when it comes to matters of sexuality. Therefore, they would never dream of asking such a foolish question. Since you believe the bible to be myth, I cannot fathom why YOU would demand an answer to such a question.

It must be that your oversized ego will not allow you to drop any argument. I call you intellectually dishonest not only because you have lied about the typo correction, but because you set yourself up as a biblical authority in your early posts. When Chuck exposed your lack of knowledge, (adultery vs. fornication) you fell back on the position that the bible is superstition and that you can’t be held accountable for knowing everything about it.

What? Joe - the fount of knowledge on all matters of faith, the diviner of dogma, the one who is solely and uniquely qualified to justify the Words of Jehovah - doesn’t know everything? Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Let me help you with your argument Joe, because my 10 year old daughter could easily respond to your challenge with her limited knowledge of the bible. The better question would have been “show me that fornication means sex before marriage?” The original Greek and Hebrew translations of that word incorporate many sexual sins and sins related to idolatry. You could have then used a Clinton-esque argument to have Chuck define what sexual behaviors are “illicit”. The debate would have gone round and round with no winner.

By lozen

January 11, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

And you lil willy john are a crude f—cker too! Brian or NetBanker or 72John or any reasonable man on this blog can talk about sex without making it sound like we’re in some porn movie but you cannot. You are a sick man and a perfect example of what so-called western “morality” has done to men. You wear us all out with your constant spouting of nonsense. I hate to give you the attention you desperately crave but sometimes you go too far. Like your cess pool comment to Lyrazel about lysol. What a stupid, stupid old man you are.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this

lozen—Are you saying that we should be slaves to our emotions? I strongly advocate considering the emotional side of teen sex with the idea of delaying the onset. You seem to just want to throw your hands up in the air.

Again, I will agree that much of Abstinence Propaganda is pure silliness. The solution is to come up with better propaganda, not to give up because previous efforts were misguided.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

Kevin, Don’t waste your breath on Joe. I already took care of him for you. He isn’t man enough to admit that he pointed out a small typo of yours in an effort to discredit your argument. He can’t debate in any real way, so falls back on 72John’s favorite tricks. You have more intelligence and class in your butt than that guy has in his whole body.

By Lyrazel

January 11, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

Can I say that I’m being discriminated against since I have to pay more for car insurance as a male driver...

No, you cant. According to actual accident statistics males tend to: drive faster, have more accidents, collect more tickets and make more claims and more men die in traffic fatalities than women—which is the reason your car insurance is higher. Nya nya nya!

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this

lozen—I plead guilty to being crude on this blog, but a few of you need that cold slap to wake up. It is a biological fact that women are forced to “share” bacteria with the men they sleep with. “Skank” refers to a condition in which too many nasty bacteria are breeding. If you’re going to teach women about the facts of reproductive health, this fact should be heavily emphasized, IMO. It’s not a Bible issue, lozen, it’s a health issue.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

That’s what I object to, lozen, the Lib penchant for telling only half the story. Yeah, tell the kids about condoms, but don’t teach the girls the reality of skank. Good job, lozen.

By GOB

January 11, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

*Let me help you with your argument Joe, because my 10 year old daughter could easily respond to your challenge with her limited knowledge of the bible. The better question would have been “show me that fornication means sex before marriage?” The original Greek and Hebrew translations of that word incorporate many sexual sins and sins related to idolatry. *

Kevin - It is really impressive to have a 10 year old who can already easily translate and interpret the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures. Well done.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—so how far are you willing to take the concept of personal responsibility and shared expenses? Should NetB have to pay school taxes or not?

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

sap rises around 14 or 15! It always has and always will. It’s just out in the open now. It is nature! It is nature’s way of continuing the species and nothing any of us do or say is going to keep teens from having sex when the sap rises. Teens used to be married at 14 or 15 and sex before marriage was not a problem. the world changed, not nature. Well said, Lozen! Tiara to you today!! Even in the new movie about the birth of Christ Mary is 16 and betrothed to be married. As life expectancy has increased so has the delay in getting married, but the biological drives still arrive at the same age.

I do believe that you’ve forgotten a reason that men would value a virgin so much. She’ll have absolutely no idea what a horrible lover her husband is if she has no point of reference for a comparison.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

GOB—Your kid doesn’t know Hebrew and Greek? I’m betting on Kevin’s kid in the spelling bee! ; > }

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

To be honest, perhaps my crusade against skank is strictly for selfish reasons. I just hate to wine and dine a girl for a month only to find out the skanky truth.

NetB—My ex-wife was a virgin when I met her. Her lack of experience wasn’t a turn-on, but her lack of skank was.

By Mara

January 11, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

One point that doesn’t seem to have been addressed much is the purpose of educating children at all. It is, IMO, to prepare them for adulthood. Those of us who support comprehensive sex ed (INCLUDING, but not limited to) abstinence, want every child to have the information that they’ll (most likely) need to stay healthy and safe as an adult. It was said earlier that because the topic was about sex ed in schools, we needed to be focusing on telling our teens NOT to have sex at all. What many people seem to be overlooking is that our children won’t be children forever. Even if they, as teens, abstain until adulthood and marriage (which statistics suggest will happen only to a minority of people) that’s no guarantee that they’ll pick the best, most honest and faithful mate. Nor does it mean they want to become pregnant on their wedding night. Isn’t it better that they learn about protecting themselves before they need to? When would you “abstinence ONLY” folks suggest we give them the info? Or shall we just let ‘em figure it out by trial and error?

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

lozen—Are you saying that we should be slaves to our emotions? I don’t see that she’s saying that at all. What I ‘hear’ her saying is that those arguing from the ‘moral’ standpoint completely overlook that sex is an ingrained biological drive that is inherently stronger than the man-made constructs of morality. As such, this crowd attempts to attack the problems/concerns of teen sex in superficial ways that will have little real chance of achieving the results they desire in terms of delaying sexual activity, avoidance of STDs, and reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I tend to agree with her from a logic standpoint as well as my own experience with my conservative Christian upbringing that I described in a post yesterday.

By Kevin

January 11, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

Nice try GOB, but his challenge was: Care to point out verses that PROHIBIT fornication?

My daughter could answer THAT question. I could break the verses down into Hebrew and Greek ‘cuz I gots me one of dem dar compewtors an passer billy joe bob haz done learnt me rel wel when it comes to dat dar bibel. But I still knows I ain’t as smart as dat dar joe feller.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

class in your butt than

speaking of butts, do you know the Islamists have a moral absolutism(to them) of making sure their butts are washed clean, with water, after using the restroom. Seems simply using toilet-paper is insufficient.

Now how many American households do you know with a bidet?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:09 PM | Link to this

NetB—Like I said, it’s a matter of better propaganda, that’s all. Will any program promoting abstinence for teens be 100% effective? Of course not, but it’s better to save one starfish than none at all. So you know, I wasn’t brought up in a conservative Christian environment. In fact, my home life was wide open. I was essentially on my own from age 12 on. I smoked cigarettes at 6, and was partying heavily by age 12. Kids out my way were shooting up drugs by 11 years old, having babies by 13. I oppose these activities due to personal experience, not from any ancient document.

By GOB

January 11, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Nice try GOB, but his challenge was: Care to point out verses that PROHIBIT fornication?

My daughter could answer THAT question.

Sounds like your daughter might be a perfect match for one of Chuck’s kids…

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Chilao—you’ve been around the block a few times. Surely you have an opinion about skank.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

Kevin—BTW, have you given any thought to the reason behind the many different names for God used throughout the Biblios? Masculine names, feminine names, plural names. Speaking of Diversity….. It’s a terrible shame to me that all the English Bibles translate these many different names into just two or three words. I feel like a lot is lost by doing that.

By Lyrazel

January 11, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

Men dont value their own virginity what makes people think they value a woman’s virginity?

Lyrazel—so how far are you willing to take the concept of personal responsibility and shared expenses? Should NetB have to pay school taxes or not?

I believe that everyone should pay school taxes mainly because the alternative would be a far worse consequence (as seen historically repeatedly in every known culture on this planet). Second, I have no children either but I pay school tax and have paid and will continue to pay until my estate is spent by my nieces and nephews. As for personal responsibility, I dont want to pay for wars started by draft-dodging pseudo-intellectual liars and a group of lily-white cowards who wont send their own sons and daughters to serve in the same war! Here is where responsibility to ones nation is clearly not being shared and yet I pay my taxes because I don’t need to learn what Martha Stewart learned: dont fk with the feds and their money.

Third: if NetBanker is gay then he is not being given full citizen tax rights—thus being delegated to third-class citizenship which can only mean NetBanker and every gay person in America should receive 1/3 off their taxes for this lack of being allowed a deductible spouse allowance by that ludicrous piece of legislation that further proves my point that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED TO DICTATE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS OF ITS CITIZENS. ‘Nuff said?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

GOB—Whose daughters will likely snag good husbands? I’m betting both Kevin’s and chuck’s daughters end up with good men. Now as for some of the other blogger’s daughters, I’ll bite my tongue before I get into too much trouble making any predictions. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

By GOB

January 11, 2007 02:24 PM | Link to this

GOB—Whose daughters will likely snag good husbands? I’m betting both Kevin’s and chuck’s daughters end up with good men.

That would depend on one’s definition of a good man.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—I like your standard “the alternative would be far worse”. Let’s apply it to teen sex: I support abstinence, because the alternative would be far worse. Similarly, I support the War in Iraq, because the alternative (fighting on our own soil) would be far worse.

So you know, I do support school taxes, even though I have no kids, because the alternative would be worse. Also, I think all gay people should have the option to enter a civil union with the same benefits straight people can enjoy, because the alternative isn’t fair. Just don’t call it a marriage.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Skank? Never had one. Can’t comment. sounds like your area of experience/interest/exposure.

By lozen

January 11, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this

For a so-called doctor wee wee john, you don’t seem to know much aoout the female genitals. The most marvelous self-cleansing system you can imagine. You are a real creepy sicko; that’s what you are.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

Chilao—You’re telling me that you never ran into a bad-smelling coochie? If so, you’re a lucky man. Just the olfactory memory of the experience can make me impotent for a month.

By chuck

January 11, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

BC, a word comes to mind when trying to explain things to you:

ob·tuse –adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

Either you are obtuse OR you are disengenuous. You cannot possibly have any kind of intellectual acumen AND believe the drivel that you type.

You have ZERO experience concerning the teaching of sex ed in school. YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it outside of the 6 or 9 week class you had in high school 10-20 years ago. In fact, outside of Kevin and Monica and myself, I would wager that is true for the rest of you as well. As teachers we all had to take classes dealing with sex ed curricula and we all have the classes in our schools. While that does not give us universal knowledge of the subject and how it is taught EVERYWHERE, it does give us enough knowledge and experience to make some generalizations.

While we are very careful to teach as objectively as we can, EVERY teacher I know has occasions where opinions come in. Sometimes, it’s because students are curious…especially when the topic is controversial. I have had a number of health teachers use my classroom over the past 17 years. In our building there are not enough classrooms available and they have to travel. Of the 5-6 different teachers who have gone through here, EVERY ONE was asked questions that called for their opinions. Some of the teachers were conservative and some were liberal and they all answered the questions as honestly as they could. I can’t imagine a classroom where this would not occur.

Even though I ALWAYS try to preface my opinion in class with a statement that it is what I believe and that they should talk to their parents, there is always the possibility that I will influence a child with my beliefs. Just because you are a teacher it doesn’t mean that the lenses you filter ideas through disappear magically when you walk through the doors of a classroom.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

oh, Lozen - congrats for being, shall we say, more evolved..LOL

By lozen

January 11, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

Thank you Net. I think I will wear that tiara tonight with my lacy black bustier, my black stockings, my black lacy garterbelt under a very simple black dress… Having dinner and dancing with my baby and then “sinning” as much as possible ;->!

“Skank” might be considered a state of mind and in that case we all know who the “skank” is on this blog.

Good response Chilao. An example of a younger man who didn’t get so screwed up by the western morality invented by the catholic church to keep people miserable so they would give them their money!

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

how far are you willing to take the concept of personal responsibility and shared expenses? Should NetB have to pay school taxes or not? In the same vein, should those who enroll their children in school have to pay MORE in taxes? Or if one’s child completes their schooling should one be required to remain in the same taxation area until one’s tax contributions fully pay for the expense of that education or be required to payoff the debt in order to move to a new area? As I recall it takes something like 25-30 years of tax payments to cover the cost of 12 years of school for a single child. So what would that mean for people who have more than one child enrolled?

I’m not opposed to the school tax per se, but it really gets my goat that gay people and single, non-parents are expected to pay for other people’s children to go to school and to supplement their health care and any other child or family government services. The basic message we receive is “your money is good enough for us, but that’s all.”

By lozen

January 11, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

Thanks Chilao. You are one of the good, young guys who is more evolved also!

By lozen

January 11, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

As for personal responsibility, I dont want to pay for wars started by draft-dodging pseudo-intellectual liars and a group of lily-white cowards who wont send their own sons and daughters to serve in the same war! Lyrazel, I appreciate you more and more as we get to know each other better!

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Kevin - The word FORNICATION appears SIX times in the Bible, and fornicate none. And even those verses are vague at best and not at all the clear admonishments of “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Funny that God didn’t bother to tack on “or fornicaton” onto the end of that which would have been easy enough.

And I brought it up to point out the even from a dogmatic point of view the entire pre-marital sex is evil thing is not based on verse but on the intentions and wishes of the readers.

Next “intellectual dishonesty” is not the same thing as lying. If you want to accuse me of lying, say so. But I have made it quite clear that I always quote people with correct form and you are no exception. Also notice that I don’t play the silly “ooo you made a typo” card ever. You and Lil’ John are the ones trying to play the victim card and not use a established sound argument because you are losing in that venue.

And as has been established I bet you or your 10 yr old daughter no zip about translating Greek or Hebrew and therefore are completely ignorant about the origins of such words as “fornication”. That is intellectual dishonesty. Language is loaded with context and evidenced by “making love” to someone or “hooking up” with them. They could both be translated to one word and would lose the meaning.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

NetB—If you don’t want your blood to boil, stay away from the WIC facility where they hand out free grocery coupons. Every last one of them drives up in an expensive SUV or minvan. I’ve seen many brand-new Cadillacs and Lexuses there. Glad to see my tax dollars hard at work.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

gee, thanks, Lozen, I’m slightly over 50. LOL

On that Catholic Church thought, did you hear the woman on NPR this morning, had at least 5 sons/nephews molested by that Father Gaugin(sp?, the one stabbed to death in prison) in Boston, she said it was God’s Will that all of that came to the public eye and was exposed.(the story was about the Boston Archdiocese)

Somehow I did not hear her say the molestations themselves were God’s Will, though.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

chuck—Honestly, is it possible for someone to teach any topic without their own personal view of the world intruding? 90% of communication is non-verbal, which is extremely difficult to consciously control. Especially if the topic is controversial?

From what I hear, college professors are not shy to express their hatred for Bush in the classroom. Of course, that’s A-OK in the minds of the Libs, because then “they are only speaking the truth.” But speak up for abstinence?? NOOOOOO, too controversial.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

So, lozen and Lyrazel: What is the alternative to the war against political Islam? I’m getting a little tired of this “If only Bush would play nice with the terrorists, everything would be ok” drivel coming from the Left. They want you dead, ladies. Doesn’t that register at all?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Joe—get real, will you? You only used (sic) one time, and that was when you were quoting someone you disagreed with. By using (sic), you were drawing attention to the fact that there was an obvious misspelling contained in the quote. Your own posts are chock-full of typos, grammatical errors, etc., but no one is wasting time pointing out every small error.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Chuck: In that case, I strongly support having public schoolteachers be as free from religious insanity as possible when letting their personal opinions slip in the classroom.

Because the abstinence-only teacher (in addition to being ineffective) will pass along a lot of really bizarre and damaging attitudes that could warp kids for life. Stuff like “Premarital sex is always wrong and evil, and if you even buy a condom or learn about lube you’re BAD BAD BAD.”

You know, the kind of stuff that leads directly to STDs and unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and all that other stuff you claim to be against.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

So, Joe, are you going to fess up about being a college student? Usually only college students have the combination of false snobbery and total lack of real knowledge that you keep displaying. So are you a grad student at GSU, majoring in trans-gender studies?

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Chilao…as I recall one also does all wiping and washing with the left hand since the right is used to eat as well as to shake hands in greeting. This is why thieves have their right hands cut off for that offense…it is an extra source of shame that they must then eat with their wiping hand.

By Troglodyke

January 11, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

To the fundies on this blog:

You believe sex outside of marriage is immoral, sinful, and wrong, period. You grudgingly admit that consenting adults will still practice it outside the context of marriage, and you don’t seem to mind this, as you tend to overlook adultery in your cherished public figures. But for teenagers, it’s doubly wrong—no exceptions.

The facts are clear that teens are having sex whether you like it or not. You oppose that they receive instruction on how to prevent pregnancy and disease, clinging to the antiquated notion that “they should know it’s wrong.”

Amazingly, you also object to a practice which could possibly save lives, prevent pregnancy and STDs, and delay intercourse between young people. It is a practice in which pubescent teens could safely learn about their “god-given” bodies, and its practice often results in adults who are comfortable with their bodies and do not have debilitating hangups about sex when they are later married and able to “do it” within your constraints.

The practice is masturbation, which has very little side effects and has been determined to be healthy and normal.

Why do you reject it?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

BC—it’s people like you who make me disrespect Libs. You have personal opinions about things, just like we all do, you’re just not honest enough to admit it. I may not agree with chuck, but at least he’s man enough to say that he does have opinions and that these opinions color his world view. Get in touch with your feelings, man!

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Trog, be honest. Did you really learn anything in sex ed class? The factual part is a joke. I knew about the birds and bees by the time I was 4 or 5.

By Lyrazel

January 11, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

As I said before: I see no problem with parents hooking their children up with abstinence programs and sure I believe they work for some kids. I see no problem with parents acquiring condoms and BC for their children either way is fine with me.

What I do object to is: government involvement in advocating under-referenced, untried quasi-religious programs that do not provide the necessary information for all students at ANY age level. To understand why you should abstain from sex or have safe sex you have to have THE FACTS and abstinence programs seem to be judgmental basing decisions on morality not medical data.

By Kevin

January 11, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

And as has been established I bet you or your 10 yr old daughter no zip about translating Greek or Hebrew and therefore are completely ignorant about the origins of such words as “fornication”.

Established by whom - you? Wow! The lord of language is back now to declare victory based on his own judgment. That is exactly the tactic I would expect from you.

Claiming to know what the bible says when you clearly don’t is intellectual dishonesty, or ignorance, or sheer stupidity. Again, I will not post what the bible says about fornication (including the original Greek and Hebrew words along with the multiple meanings) because only two other people beside me would even care. I have already told you how to win this argument, but you are too egotistical to take advice.

And yes, you are a liar.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

Maybe that’s why I prefer the company of bikers to phonies who wear a suit and tie. A biker will tell you where he’s coming from. Cowards like BC won’t tell you, but will stab you in the back in a heartbeat.

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

Mara…good point in your 1:55pm. If we don’t provide the education while they’re in school we can’t guarantee that said teens will ever receive or search out the correct information once they’re adults. To simply your position…it’s too late once the horse is out of the barn!

How about those in favor of abstinence only education just buy their children chastity belts. Then the parents won’t have to actually trust the little buggers to keep the “knees together” pledge and even if they do become “indoctrinated” by them no-morals libruls it won’t be an issue due to lack of physical access. It would also keep them from any experimentation with oral or anal sex too!

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

For the same reason, I would rather support a President like Bush who tells it like it is, than some phony like Clinton who tells you what he thinks you want to hear.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—the medical evidence is indisputable that abstinence is the best course for teens. So, do you support promoting abstinence, or not? I know it bothers you that you will have to share an opinion with chuck, but it’s not so bad.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Kevin—I care. Share the Greek and Hebrew with us, by all means! Those ancient writers knew what time of day it was, often better than modern writers. Maybe there were less distractions like TV back then.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

Kevin—You forgot to put (sic) in Joe’s quote in which he misspelled the word “know” as “no”. You owe him that “respect”. Real genius, that Joe.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this

Joe—Was that GSU or Perimeter College that you’re attending?

By chuck

January 11, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

little joe, rather than cutting and pasting a rather lengthy explanation of the Biblical stance on fornication I’ll just post the link. There is another site that is a little clearer but I can’t access it from work. It probably doesn’t matter, because I doubt seriously that you will bother to read because that might actually challenge your poorly constructed view of the world.

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

I agree, Mara made an excellent point as well. Even if you don’t want them having sex NOW (like you can control that anyway), they’ll need this information eventually.

So the abstinence-only approach is triply stupid: it doesn’t affect their behavior, it’s driven by religious superstition, and it inhibits the students’ acquisition of needed knowledge—if not now, then when they’re adults.

By chuck

January 11, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

And as has been established I bet you or your 10 yr old daughter no(sic) zip about translating Greek or Hebrew and therefore are completely ignorant about the origins of such words as “fornication”.

By lozen

January 11, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

To celebrate my freedom from catholic/western “morality” I just bought two coffee table books on the Kama Sutra. I remember Joseph Campbell talking about his discovery of eastern religion which does not have that split between body and spirit that western religions have. What a wonderful thing to learn that pleasure is good and not evil, sex is good and not bad, life is good and not to be struggled with all the time, the heart, mind, body and spirit are one. Sex is a religious experience. As Yeshua said, “The kingdom is spread out around us now but men do not see it.” (Or something along that line).

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

well, at least FEMALE prostitutes are in.. LOL

By Troglodyke

January 11, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

Trog, be honest. Did you really learn anything in sex ed class?

Actually, yes, I did. It was 5th grade science class in a Catholic school, of all places. The teacher (who was not a nun) was pretty confident, and was very scientific in her explanations, and she only faltered when she tried to gloss over one very important part, and someone (not me, as I recall) raised a hand and point-blank asked, “But how does the sperm get into the woman’s body to unite with the egg?”

Faced with the daunting question she’d hoped to avoid directly, she straightened up, and told the truth. As I recall, I was surprised, and a bit queasy. I had not known…maybe I’d suspected, but there it was, and there was no turning back.

Of course, after that, I learned much more outside of science class, and unfortunately, very little about the emotional aspects of sex, at least in class.

I actually lost my virginity at 15 with a boy I’d gone to that Catholic school with. By the time I graduated high school, I’d been with several boys, and found it not unpleasant, but very lacking. When I came out at 19, I realized why.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

Run away Kevin with your tail between your legs. You know that there are only an EXTREMELY small number of verses about fornication and they are far from strict condemnation. Run away and hide since you can’t produce any proof.

Lil’ John, again I’m sure your experience is determined by your aspirations to someday attend any sort of higher education, but start with HS and work your way up to college. Wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself. I’m well past my college years and could have bested the likes of you in grade school.

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

tay away from the WIC facility where they hand out free grocery coupons. Every last one of them drives up in an expensive SUV or minvan. I’ve seen many brand-new Cadillacs and Lexuses there. LOL…I see enough of them being redeemed. I recall the first time I really got PO’d about aht while being in the Kroger on Memorial near the Avondale Mall and being appalled as the woman in front of me paid for her steaks and ribs and crab legs with a WIC card and then climbed into her shiny new caddy while I’m only able to afford chicken breasts and getting into my 9-10 year old Oldsmobile. WTF?!!

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

NetB - the point about the lack of American bidets was that CULTURES determine morality. (absolute ones or otherwise..LOL)

and not all cultures or even individuals evolve at the same rate.

By Troglodyke

January 11, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

So the abstinence-only approach is triply stupid: it doesn’t affect their behavior, it’s driven by religious superstition, and it inhibits the students’ acquisition of needed knowledge—if not now, then when they’re adults.

Not only that, but think of all the sexual dysfunction we have in this country. Wouldn’t a less-Puritanical approach as humans are entering into puberty serve society? It absolutely would. Who wants their loved ones to be dysfunctional, or sexually aberrational? Who wouldn’t want to have a normal sex life?

Masturbation and healthy sex ed are the stepping stones to a functional adult life. Sex is normal and natural, and the sooner we embrace that, the better off society will be.

By Joe L

January 11, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck every verse they referenced proved exactly what I was saying - they are vague at best and not one is a strict condemnation of pre-marital sex. They are vague mentions of “sexual immorality” (without what is immoral being spelled out) and ‘pureness’. Also nearly all are from Corinthians which are not Jesus’ or God’s direct teachings.

Am I going to follow what the Bible says personally? I’ve already established it means nothing to me personally. However, for those that use it as justification I say that they are merely adopting it to their own twisted needs, no different than most of religions are subverted for selfish, worldly needs.

By Chilao

January 11, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

My own Mom expressed concern over the holidays over so many young people being led astray by incorrect translations of the Bible. When I pressed her, she let me know she considered some of the newer versions Unauthorized.

I had to laugh and ask “Unathorized by WHOM, Mom, The King?” (since her’s is the KJV)

she stammered, but that is what she meant.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Chilao—You’ll be proud of me. My local video store was selling used videos for 99C, and I was able to pick up two Jacques Cousteau vides: “Lost Relics of the Sea”, and “Diving For Roman Plunder”. I really miss old Jacques.

lozen, I am a big Joseph Campbell fan as well. We can all learn a lot from him.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

Joe L—You couldn’t carry my jockstrap academically. I was a National Merit Scholar at 16, then first in my class at Harvey Mudd College. You would never be admitted there in a million years.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

I am amazed how much people love that KJV Bible, Chilao. Somehow the Middle English lenda an air of authenticity to it, perhaps, lacking in the modern English versions. But don’t ever mention the NIV Bible to a KJVer, they go ballistic.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:44 PM | Link to this

But real smarts, Joe L, means retiring early, as I did in 2005 at age 45. How close to retirement are you?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

I wonder where kimberly has been all week. If there ever was a topic tailor-made for her, this has to be it.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Netb—if your 10 year old Oldsmobile breaks down, you can borrow my 15 year old Toyota.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

I am retired and financially comfortable, but I think I might be spending too much time annoying people. Does someone have a job for me? I could really use something meaningful or productive to do with my time, to thwart my constant urge to boast, swagger, lie, and gross people out. No wonder I’m so obnoxious! Yes, I do think I need a job. Does anyone know where I can get a job?

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

I can’t wait until there is a W2W involving Horoscope signs. I’d be very curious to know what everyone’s signs are. I’m a Virgo, of course, the Virgin. I’m betting (actually hoping) that kimberly is a Pisces. Jack must be a Scorpio. With my luck, however, kimberly will probably turn out to be a Capricorn, the goat.

By Li'l John

January 11, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

To the fake Li’l John—I agree that I need something more productive to fill my time than blogging. I’m working on it. I already volunteered to be kimberly’s Handy Man, but she won’t have me. Probably a very smart woman, that kimberly.

By Kevin

January 11, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Run away Kevin with your tail between your legs. You know that there are only an EXTREMELY small number of verses about fornication and they are far from strict condemnation. Run away and hide since you can’t produce any proof.

Wrong again. No need for me to run, I have been mopping the blog with your feeble arguments and outright lies all day long. If by extremely small you mean there are a dozen or so verses that deal with fornication (with its multiple meanings), then yes, I will concede that point. But just so you know, I could clog up this blog with each of those verses, along the Greek or Hebrew translation for each word in that verse.

Is it because I am so smart that I know Hebrew and Greek? No. It is because I know where to look to find the information. I reviewed the translations for the verses on a software program that I own. Trust me, I have no fear of your foolish assertion that you know what the bible says about fornication, because unlike you, I have done more research into this matter than simply “Asking Jeeves” as you have apparently done. I seriously considered executing a cut and paste exercise last night with the information I found, but no one (with the exception of Li’l John) would have been happy with me.

If you actually did some real research the evidence COULD support the argument that fornication has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, although I do not interpret the information that way. But that would be MY interpretation of the bible – a point that is debatable. You however continue with the foolish argument that fornication is not prohibited in the bible – a “fact” that you and you alone seem to believe.

By lozen

January 11, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

Hey Trog remember when some female government official (don’t remember what she was exactly) made the suggestion to teach teens to masturbate? People were outraged. Just shows how up tight most still are in this country.

By NetBanker

January 11, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

• I’m getting a little tired of this “If only Bush would play nice with the terrorists, everything would be ok” drivel coming from the Left. They want you dead, ladies. Doesn’t that register at all? You’re falsely generalizing AGAIN! Liberals don’t have a problem with the war on political Islam/terrorist organizations. We have a problem with the War in Iraq and it’s being falsely portrayed as The War on Terror. Afghanistan was the right war because we attacked the country in which terrorists were training and planning attacks against us. Instead of finishing that war and doing the job well we pulled the troops to attack a country that was run by a lunatic who was no friend to the terrorists and had no terrorist training camps in his country. Where we’ve ended up is that Afghanistan has been under funded and is being taken back by The Taliban (the source of the original problem in the first place if you’ll recall) and we’ve given the Islamo-facsists the perfect recruitment tool (American Infidels occupying Arab Islamic lands) as well as a training ground for urban guerilla warfare tactics all while not fully securing the border so even more terrorists in training can come into the country to learn skills and then leave to take those skills elsewhere. All for the low-low cost of billions of dollars.
•
• The other part of the liberal message about this war is that we need to consider additional tactics that include diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn’t have always mean playing nicey-nicey. It can mean delivering some harsher messages. Or if we are playing nice it would be to encourage Muslims to start condemning violence in the name of Islam and reclaiming their religion from the ultra-fanatics who are giving it a bad name. We really do have no hope of winning this war until that happens. No one I’ve heard wants Bush or the Administration to “play nice with the terrorists” but we do want changes in our tactics because almost every military report/study in the past 2 years coming out of Iraq are pretty clear that ‘stay the course’ wasn’t working and was, in fact, making the overall scenario worse.

By BGWOSGOQX1

January 11, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

Hello. BGWOSGOQX2 [url=http://www.tBGWOSGOQX3.com] BGWOSGOQX3 [/url] Thanks

By Sten80279

January 12, 2007 01:51 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By Sten68113

January 12, 2007 02:46 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2007 07:51 AM | Link to this

There you go again with your pesky facts and logic, NetB. Don’t you see that you’re only frustrating simpleminded folks like Bruno who don’t like having their prejudices challenged? After all, his opinions are FACT. Just ask him!

By Lyrazel

January 12, 2007 08:46 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I appreciate you more and more as we get to know each other better! The feeling is mutual Lozen. Lyrazel—the medical evidence is indisputable that abstinence is the best course for teens. So, do you support promoting abstinence, or not? I know it bothers you that you will have to share an opinion with chuck, but it’s not so bad. Actually I believe putting condom dispensers in every school bathroom would work better at controlling teen pregnancy and spread of diseases than all the boring lectures, pledges and movies now being offered. Chuck does not agree with this opinion.

Further, the argument is not about abstinence per se but about TEACHING abstinence with government funds! I have yet to find any course work on abstinence theories that does not entwine the Christian religion, that clearly explains birth control, that examines personal responsibility and responsibility to one’s society. What I find are Johnny & Jane Do Good balderdash vows of chastity, obedience and sanctimonious praise of copulation in marriage—for heterosexual relationships only! If you have links to scientific abstinence curriculums for public schools that are better than what I have uncovered post a link. Like most liberals my opinion can be changed by factual proof because I remain open to ideas from both sides including from men like Chuck who has never used words like: skank in reference to women and who actually is involved in teaching children.

Happy Friday. Enjoy

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

There you go again with your pesky facts and logic, NetB.

Ditto. Please don’t confuse simple-minded, less-evolved folk. geeez.

I am 1/2 done with the book The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf(growing up female and Moslem in America). Main character goes to do the Haj at about 19, learns women cannot attend mosques in Saudi Arabia(and she goes WTF). Additionally, since it jumps around in time, as an adult she has a book in her car Recovery for Children of Missionaries(since one of the goals of her parents is to share the light with Pagan Americans), that alone might be an interesting read, if it is really a book. What is hilarious is it is filled with more of the religious elitism within the Moslem culture about which group is the BETTER Islamic. Kinda sounds familiar to many Christians I have known.. LMAO

By earl

January 12, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

This whole teen sex thing puts me in mind of the Titanic. According to the story I’ve always heard, the people that built it never thought it would sink, so they didn’t put enough lifeboats on it. When it did sink, a lot of people died because the ship wasn’t prepared.

Whether that’s true or not, or just something for dramatic effect, it still makes a for a good comparison. Teens and sex are like being on a ship - You don’t want it to sink, you pray it won’t sink, but if it DOES sink you want everyone to know where the lifeboats are.

By FVBAMOBD1

January 12, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Hello. FVBAMOBD2 [url=http://www.tFVBAMOBD3.com] FVBAMOBD3 [/url] Thanks

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

But, Earl! By putting lifeboats aboard, you’re encouraging sinking, and that’s irresponsible.

Far better to ingore the facts and just send in more troops… whoops, I forgot which type of denial we were dealing with this week. Sorry!

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

See, the Titanic is an excellent example of a group of people who probably wished they’d paid attention in the Abstinence from Travel course.

By ZPYLESFQ1

January 12, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Hello. ZPYLESFQ2 [url=http://www.tZPYLESFQ3.com] ZPYLESFQ3 [/url] Thanks

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

NetB—I would agree with you regarding the proper execution of the war against political Islam if it were a new problem. Unfortunately, the build-up has been going on for more than 50 years. At this point, the problem is much wider than just the Taliban, or Al-quaeda, or even Hamas. We tried a “soft” approach for many years (think Clinton), and the problem only grew worse.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

BC—I don’t view my opinions as fact. I am happy to identify my opinions as opinions. Your problem is that you claim not to have opinions at all, when, in fact, you do, just like everyone else. You’re just not man enough to state your opinions as opinions, but try to hide them in “logical” arguments.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

The deepest question this week, still unanswered, is Where does morality come from ? Apparently chuck thinks all morality springs from the writings contained in one book. Joe L thinks it is something you can take polls to determine. BC can’t address the issue at all because it’s “illogical”.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Many others here, like Mara, point out that determining morality is problematic, and therefore advocate no morality at all. Lozen in particular seems to subscribe to the “just throw your hands up in the air and let the cards fall as they will” approach.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Obviously I enjoy poking at the Libs here, but I really would enjoy what all of you think should be our basis for morality. To me, there is a natural morality which we can discover. Is it a simple code, able to be codified into non-conflicting “rules”? Of course not, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem tells us that that is not possible.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

The answer to me is contained in the philosophy of the Mennonites (among others)in their dualistic observation that God is truly unknowable, yet we can get gluimpses of God’s Truth through revelation. I can already hear BC howling about the word revelation. Yes, BC, revelation is a tricky thing, because people often have false revelations. However, truth cannot be revealed through logic alone, because logic is ultimately sterile. How can we judge revelation? There are several criteria you can use to determine whether the revelation comes from the Good side or from the Evil One.

By History Junkie

January 12, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

I seem to remember the USA giving guns to the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan to combat communist threat. 5-6 years into their Afgan war the Russians gave up and went home leaving weapons. Who was in power to receive our gifts of weaponry and cash? Taliban. Remember how the USA supported the Shah of Iran? When the Shah was deposed who did America give money and weapons to: Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran. We gave guns, weapons and MONEY. Maybe these problems the US has in the world now is from our own previous intervention in the politic of other nations and our constant support of puppet dictatorships who are opposed by the very people we are always trying to save from evil.

By petunia

January 12, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, the build-up has been going on for more than 50 years and We tried a “soft” approach for many years

yup, we did. Soft and gentle like overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and installing a puppet Shah). Like training, arming and funding Bin Laden and his followers as our surrogates vs. the Soviets in Afghanistan. Like supporting the House of Saud and, indirectly through them, the fundamentalist Wahhabis (or Salafist, iyp) sects. Like befriending Saddam Hussein and using him as our surrogate vs. Iran after they ousted our Shah in the ‘79 Revolution.

Interestingly enough, though you “blame” Clinton for being soft on terrorists, the ones who played the largest role in creating the terrorists happened to be…Republican.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Maybe it would be simpler if one consistent set of “rules” existed by which we could live our lives. Then we wouldn’t have to talk about nebulous things like spirits. However, the “system” we live in is not “rational”, and therefore cannot be well-described by rational statements alone. That is the source of my disrespect for BC. He keeps trying to fit an infinite-dimensional system into just a few dimensions. Apparently his math education didn’t include any courses in Linear Algebra in addition to the lack of any courses on Formal Logic or Set Theory. Once he passed basic Statistics, he found a gold mine in the world of “scientific research”.

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf discusses representatives from the Reagan administration State Dept coming to college-campuses, addressing Moslem Student Groups, in an attempt to persuade them to go first to Pakistan, then to Afghanistan, to fight the Soviets.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

petunia—Read some History, will you? Republicans didn’t create political Islam, Mohammed did. Prior to WWI, the Ottoman Turks controlled most of the world for hundred of years, long before Republicans were in existence. My point is that this is truly an ancient conflict, as amazing as that sounds to young people. Listen to the Muslim speakers, will you? They continue to reference events which happened 500 and 1000 years ago as justification for their actions.

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Obviously I enjoy poking at the Libs here,

that’s true, but if you have any knowledge of history, any at all, you would know that eventually old-fart conservatives DIE AWAY, and humankind PROGRESSES(a fancy way of saying librul) onward. LOL

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

History Junkie and petunia—Unfortunately, it is difficult to deal honorably with low-lifes like the Arabs. They seem to understand only one thing: brute force. As such, we’ve had to make deals with the Devil to get the oil we need to power our homes, cars, and factories. The problem will end only when we don’t need their oil any longer, at which point I predict that they will return to desert nomads.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

But, I will agree with you guys that the most evil regime in the Middle East has to be that of the Saudis. They are not our “friends” at all. We just have to pretend to like each other so the oil flows our way and the dollars flow their way.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this

Chilao—Conservatives support healthy progress. Progress isn’t the issue. The issue is socialism. Liberals want someone else to pay their bills for them.

By Lyrazel

January 12, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this

low-lifes like the Arabs. They seem to understand only one thing: brute force yes they said that about Native Americans & blacks in America too. You are saying its ok for the US to come in and plunder other nations resources, instill dictatorships and ignore the people so long as they provide the USA with cheap oil. You know with friends like US its no wonder we forbid other developing countries to have nuclear weapons.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Take Lyrazel, for an example of Lib thinking. She enjoys paying less for her car insurance and feels justified in doing so because male drivers get in more accidents, etc. In return, however, she is indignant that I feel no obligation to subsidize her health care costs, which are far greater than mine.

By Mara

January 12, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Li’l John, bluntly speaking, you, sir are a liar and a knave. I have NEVER said that since defining morality is so difficult there should be “no morality at all”.

Morals are not fixed or static concepts. They change as society changes. Even murder, in certain situations, can be the moral choice. So teach your kids what you think is moral and I’ll teach mine what I consider moral. Eventually, through societal interaction, experience, and temperment, your kid and mine will decide for themselves what is or is not “moral”.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

I see Bruno’s still rambling and raving, begging for attention. Too bad everyone here already knows what a cowardly liar he is. Go away, troll.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—Has it ever occurred to you that the Native Americans, Arabs, etc. had the same opportunity to succeed as we did? They are not the innocent victims you keep portraying them as. Certainly they were not “gentle” people living in peace before White man came along. Do you think Indian squaws had any real human rights? You think Africans didn’t enslave and torture their brethren before the Dutch sailed up to the African coast in the 1400s?

I guess in your perfect world, peoples will never fight over resources, expand their territories, etc. Sorry, it just ain’t happening, Lyrazel.

By kimberly

January 12, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Pentunia and History Junkie, thanks for the historical reminders. The Republican judgments regarding which middle-easterners are “good” and which ones are “bad” appear to be completely random until you start following the flow of money around.

Mongrel, there’s nothing “soft” about Bill Clinton (hee hee) which is why men like you seem to resent him so much. Actually, I take that back. There is a softness in his heart for women, children, and underdogs (make all the jokes you like) as evidenced by his policies and causes. He’s a Leo, and Leos are H-O-T. (BTW, to answer your previous irrelevant question, it is not possible to be more astrologically incompatible than you and I. Worst possible match ever.)

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

Mara—If everyone has an individual, uniquely determined “morality”, not to be shared with others, then it is not morality at all. Morality refers to standards of conduct deemed to be good for all people, which have to be discussed and ultimately adopted by more than one person to be considered “moral”.

By Mara

January 12, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this

Liberals want someone else to pay their bills for them

Yeah, Chilao. ONLY conservative have jobs. ONLY conservative pay their bills. Don’t you know that all the Liberals are driving brand new Lexuses to pick up their welfare checks? We have babies at extraordinary rates so that we can get more of that free welfare money. Wooo-Hoo! And don’t you know that the “Blue States” are the ones sucking at the federal teat the hardest?! Oh, wait…it’s the conservative “Red States” that take the most from the tax payers in the Blue States. Hmmmm. And aren’t conservatives the ones always insisting that instead of paying their own bills, women should just breed and let someone else (like men)be the ones paying the bills?

What a maroon…LOL!!

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this

kinmberly—I know you will gladly misrepresent your sign to shake me, but, really, what is it? Be honest.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

But seriously, kimberly—You really think Clinton has any real compassion for anyone but himself? The man paid out millions to settle numerous sexual harassment suits, which included allegations of outright rape. You guys think I’m a scumbag??? Take a little closer look at Clinton, if you dare.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this

Mara, I grew up in a poor neighborhood in which a high percentage of people received some form of government assistance. None of them really needed it, they were just too sorry to keep a job. Fortunately, my family was too proud to take assistance, and climbed out of poverty through hard work.

By Jack

January 12, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

Hi Sweet Thing. :) BTW I’m a Leo and not Scorpio Dog.

Hey Mara, can you get me a beer while you’re up and put the TV on fox on your way back?

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

But maybe you think the Clinton Health Security Act of 1993 is an example of true compassion. Puh-leeeze. It was nothing but socialism at its worst.

By Lyrazel

January 12, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Take Lyrazel, for an example of Lib thinking. She enjoys paying less for her car insurance and feels justified in doing so because male drivers get in more accidents, etc. In return, however, she is indignant that I feel no obligation to subsidize her health care costs, which are far greater than mine Lyrazel has never owned a car nor does she drive, so she does not need car insurance, nor has she requested subsidies from the government including Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. P** poor knowledge of Lyrazel, dude, but she is a liberal!

Liberals want someone else to pay their bills for them Then GWB & crew is as liberal as they come because he has completely deferred the bills for his Iraqi war to subsequent generations and imposed crafty legislation allowing his generation to escape debt free…with tax cuts.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

My other two guesses for you Jack would be Cancer or Sagittarius. Mara sound like a Gemini.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

OOps—you say you’re a Leo, Jack? Too bad you have to share a sign with Clinton. I am very familiar with the Leo personality, however, as both of my secretaries were Leos. Lot of pride in the Leo personality. It doesn’t pay to insult a Leo.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

For the record, Lyrazel, I don’t support Bush’s free-spending policies at all. If we need the money for war, then we have to cut other places, which they haven’t done.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

Jack, let me know how quickly Mara fetches that beer for you. I’m still waiting on kimberly.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

I have no guesses as to BC’s Horoscope Sign. What sign do eunuchs fall under?

By Jack

January 12, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Just teasing Mara. I LMAO when Dog said that to Kim knowing she would throw the beer at him.

Iraq. Big mess. You cannot win any war if you worry about killing civilians. In fact, you need to kill as many as you can so that the remaining ones will pressure those in charge to give up. Would we have won WW11 without killing innocents?

By Jack

January 12, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel is the wisest on the blog. You had me worried when you disappeared from the blog for a long time last fall.

By JNXMUC1

January 12, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Hello. JNXMUC2 [url=http://www.tJNXMUC3.com] JNXMUC3 [/url] Thanks

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

kimberly—In support of Clinton, Linda Goodman’s Love Signs states : “The Leo soul has already passed through the painful experiences of infancy, babyhood, childhood, and adolescence, so Leo leads with sympathetic consideration for those who are more vulnerable.”

However, later on, “To the Leo, in the symbolic Teenager state of development, love is shimmering romance, the song-of-songs, the fulfillment of all ideals and beauty. Leo is ‘in love with love’ and with himself or herself .

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

“Leo’s positive qualities are warmth, generosity, nobility, strength, loyalty, leadership, and a soothing, gentle tenderness. Expressed in their negative form, they become arrogance, false pride, vanity, tyranny, haughtiness, and romantic promiscuity .

Apparently, kimberly, you see the “positive” side of Clinton, but I see the “negative”.

By Jack

January 12, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

Everyone have a great weekend! Wish I could blog like the old days but I have to eat. Love to All.

By Mara

January 12, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

No problem, Jack. I don’t mind tossing you a beer…since I’m up anyway :^) You’d do the same for me I’m sure. And how’d you know I was getting ready to watch my TiVo’d episode of “House” on Fox? Are you sying on me? Is your real name George?! LOL!

and instead of owning up to my “sign” I’ll define the traits most usually identified with my sign -

“…are humanitarians that want to make the world a better place in which to live through their revolutionary thoughts and ideas. They are creative, innovative, original, progressive thinkers – visionaries. They have a keen intellect and an ability to think “out of the box”. Creative, original and non-conformist, they are sometimes considered eccentric. While broadminded, [they] are quite fixed in their opinions (consistent with the Fixed energy) and can be impatient with those who disagree with them. [They] tend to have many friends and acquaintances.”

shrug…pretty much defines my personality, even the impatience with those too blind to see how right I always am (j/k)

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

For Virgo (me): “The youthful Leo soul soon senses that summer is ending—and regretfully steps into his first awareness of the coming harvest, through the Indian Summer soul expression of Virgo. Earlier Leo enthusiasms have been replaced by resignation and quiet dreams. Virgo is driven by the fear of dependence into dogged determination not to waste time or shirk duties.”

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

“Virgo’s positive qualities are clarity of thought, discrimination, courtesy, service to others, practicality, and self-honesty. Expressed in their negative form, they become criticism, crankiness, timidity, pessimism, inferiority, and hair-splitting.”

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

Virgos get retired and then “waste” their time hanging out on-line? I tell you, if I was retired, a computer would be the last thing I would want to be looking at. different strokes, I suppose. LOL

Bye, Jack.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

For you, Mara, Aquarius represents idealism. “I know”. You are able to teach that love is tolerance, but need to learn that love is Oneness.

By Lyrazel

January 12, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this

Jack, there is a cold beer waiting for you whenever ya want. Thanks for the compliment but I don’t agree. I am just articulate with my overblown opinions. I was born under the sign of trouble…

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

“To Aquarius, love is a detached and unselfish emotion, to be explored and enjoyed. The Water Bearer understands love’s scope and investigates all its dimensions, but scatters it carelessly, confusing it with friendship. Physical fulfillment leaves Aquarius emotionally empty and still wistful, failing to sense the mystery of Oneness with the mate—the final truth of Love…”

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

“The Aquarian positive qualities are vision, individuality, tolerance, friendliness, inventiveness, originality, and genius. Expressed in their negative form, they become eccentricity, neurosis, detachment, absentmindedness, and refusal to cooperate.”

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

Chilao—I’m just having fun reconnecting with computers. I avoided them for 26 years after leaving Harvey Mudd. I don’t expect to be blogging much longer, especially once kimberly reveals what her Horoscope sign is. If it’s not Pisces, I’m outta here!

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—what is “the sign of trouble”? Is that a reference to a specific Horoscope sign, or just a joke? Sagittarius like to stir up trouble.

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - you’re a Taurus, right? Okay, Libra? Okay, Capricorn? Okay, Aries?(probably not that one) (what are some others?, non-Pisces of course)…LOL

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

Any guesses as to chuck’s sign? It can’t be Aquarius since Water Bearers are tolerant of others. Maybe he’s a Taurus—The Bull.

By Lyrazel

January 12, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Li’l John. You say you have retired? As one retiree to another I suggest you look at photographs of Alan Greenspan in the years since his retirement and let it sink in. Some people need to be industrious or the deterioration begins. You have mentioned how you thrived through youth—always busy achieving—but now that same man is in a stand-still. Alan went on vacation for a month and look what happened to him! His wife knowing what was best sent him on lecture tours (for her sanity) but the wrath of his month of idleness took its toll.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Chilao—4 months of blogging must be a waste of time, but I will say that my typing skills have improved tremendously, as well as my internet skills in general. I didn’t realize that there were databases which contain the lyrics to almost every song. Now I know what David Bowie is saying during the song “Changes”. I also discovered imdb—the International Movie Database, which has helped me locate some old movies I saw as a kid, e.g. Cisco Pike with Kris Kristofferson.

By kimberly

January 12, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Yeah, funny how those Republicans are always combing through trailer parks looking for all the young women who have ever been hit on by their boss and paying for them to file lawsuits, get nose jobs, and be all indignant on TV. Why, the numbers must be in the tens of thousands by now! Gee, had I known I could get three-quarter mil for every time in my 20’s an exec suggested something unseemly, I’d be retired now too! HAHA! Talk about fostering the “victim mentality!” Puh-leeeeze.

No Mongrel, you could never keep up with me, as I contain multitudes. Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. Further, I have an extremely low, if not non-existent tolerance for your finicky, perfectinistic, nit-picking criticisms of everything, everybody, and everything everybody does. There is one Virgo trait I find particularly attractive, though: Whenever I need to know EXACTLY “what my problem is,” I can simply say hello to one of you, and bingo! it’s my lucky day, ‘cause I’m fixin’ to find out. Woo-hooo!

Sidenote: In addition to Leos, Aries men are hot hot hot hot hot.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—Admittedly, retirement has not been good for my sanity. However, my physical health became very poor near the end of my “first career” as a chiropractor due to the long hours and stress. It’s taken me nearly a year to feel well again.

By Mara

January 12, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

understands love’s scope and investigates all its dimensions, but scatters it carelessly, confusing it with friendship

and just what is the difference between “love” and “friendship” except degree of intensity? Shouldn’t one strive to scatter bits of love and friendship everywhere, regardless of where it falls?

love is Oneness

“Oneness” has nothing to do with it. I loved my parents but I wasn’t “one” with them. I love my husband, but we aren’t “one”. My friends, whom I also love, span the gamut of ideology, theology, race, class, and politics so we certainly aren’t “one”. What a crock…

but what would a “Virgo” know about it anyway? “On the surface they are emotionally cold, and sometimes this goes deeper, for their habit of suppressing their natural kindness may in the end cause it to atrophy, with the result that they shrink from committing themselves to friendship, make few relationships, and those they do make they are careful to keep superficial”

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

kimberly, I’m getting the picture that your sign is not compatible with Virgo, but don’t be too quick to dismiss us out of hand. Look deep into a Virgo’s eyes and you might get a glimpse of Heaven. But maybe Heaven isn’t important to you, with all of your “hot, hot, hot”s.

By NetBanker

January 12, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

A blond woman calls the fire department, “Help! My house is on fire!”

“How do we get there?” inquires the fireman.

“Duh! The big red truck.”

By Mara

January 12, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Just finished reading the entire “Virgo” description…since it is Friday and all…here’s a treat!

http://www.astrology-online.com/virgo.htm

highlites for those who’d rather skip it -

Both sexes have considerable charm and dignity, which make some male Virgoans appear effeminate when they are not. In marriage they can be genuinely affectionate, making good spouses and parents, but their love making is a perfection of technique rather than the expression of desire, and they must be careful not to mate with a partner whose sex drive requires a passion they cannot match

they are such perfectionists that, if things go wrong, they are easily discouraged. Because of their ability to see every angle of a many-sided question, they are unhappy with abstract theorizing. Appreciating the many different points of view as they do, they find philosophical concepts difficult, and they vacillate and have no confidence in any conclusions at which they arrive

With these qualities, they are better as subordinates than leaders. Responsibility irks them and they often lack the breadth of strategic vision that a leader needs Virgoans are essentially tacticians, admirable in the attainment of limited objectives. Their self distrust is something they project on to other people and tends to make them exacting employers

They love country life but are unlikely to make good farmers, unless they can contrive to carry out their work without outraging their sense of hygiene and cleanliness

and lastly - Male Virgoans may have trouble with their sexual organs. Both sexes are strongly interested in drugs and esoteric cuisine and as their delicate stomachs require them to be careful about their diet, it is essential that they treat their fascination with exotic food with extreme care

Which, I suppose, explains a lot!!! ROTFLMAO

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

Mara—Your 3:05 post proves that Linda Goodman knows her signs. Apparently the concept of surrender eludes you. Yes, love means surrender which sometimes scares Virgos. We are serious people. We do have few relationships, although I disagree that they are superficial.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

Seriously, Mara—That’s why you and I differ about women dressing provocatively. You draw no boundaries between Love and Friendship. That’s okay, but remember not everyone views it that way.

By Monica

January 12, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack! My hubby’s a Leo, and yes, Kimberly, I agree that Leo men are HOT!

BTW, I’m an Aries - yeah, Leo and Aries - both very stubborn, proud, and fiesty! We can get into some nice arguments now and then! It’s good for the soul! :)

NetB, that same blond moved recently because she heard that most car accidents happen within two miles of home.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

I’m not familiar with the website you get your info from, but I have to disagree with the author’s assessment that Virgos are tacticians. Not true at all. Virgos shine at Strategy, and less so at Tactics, Logistics, and Diplomacy.

If you notice, Mara, i presented both positive and negative qualities for your sign, but you chose to only look for the negative in mine. Typical.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

Bad news for you, Chilao. I think kimberly is a Pisces based on her statement that her sign “contains multitudes”. You see, Pisces is actually all of the other signs rolled into one. They have dreamy, murky eyes, and tend to be alcoholics.

By NetBanker

January 12, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

See, the Titanic is an excellent example of a group of people who probably wished they’d paid attention in the Abstinence from Travel course. ROFLMAO, Chilao! Good thing most people around me are in some meeting or other because I baha’d outloud.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

Ok, Mara, here’s straight from your website regarding Aquarius:

In spite of the often intensely magnetic, forthcoming and open personality of the more extrovert kind of Aquarian, and of their desire to help humanity, neither type makes friends easily. They sometimes appear to condescend to others and take too little trouble to cultivate the acquaintance of people who do not particularly appeal to them. They do not give themselves easily - perhaps their judgment of human nature is too good for that - and are sometimes accounted cold.

By Lyrazzzel

January 12, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

Prison versus Work

If you ever get these two environments confused, this should make things a little bit clearer…..

IN PRISON……you spend the majority of your time in a 10X10 cell. AT WORK……..you spend the majority of your time in an 8X8 cubicle.

IN PRISON……you get three meals a day. AT WORK……..you get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it.

IN PRISON……you get time off for good behavior. AT WORK……..you get more work for good behavior.

IN PRISON……the guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you. AT WORK…….you’re often required to carry a security card and open all the doors yourself.

IN PRISON……you can watch TV and play games. AT WORK……..you get fired for watching TV and playing games.

IN PRISON……you get your own toilet. AT WORK……..you share the toilet with some people who pee on the seat.

IN PRISON……they allow your family and friends to visit. AT WORK……..you’re not supposed to even speak to your family.

IN PRISON……all expenses are paid by the taxpayers. AT WORK……..you pay all your expenses to get to work, and then they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners.

IN PRISON …..you must deal with sadistic wardens. AT WORK…….they’re called managers.

IN PRISON……you spend most of your life inside bars wanting to get out. AT WORK …….you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars.

OK - N O W!         Have a Good Day AT WORK!

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

And more for you, Mara:

Among the faults to which they are liable are fanatical eccentricity, wayward egotism, excessive detachment and an inclination to retreat from life and society, and a tendency to be extremely dogmatic in their opinions. Aquarians can be a threat to all they survey or a great boon for humanity in general. Circumstances - for example, continuous opposition to a cause they hold dear - may cause the atrophy of the openness of mind that is one of the Aquarian’s most attractive traits. They may express a lack of integrity in broken promises, secretiveness or cunning. Simmering anger and resentment, rudeness or, worse, a tense, threatening silence which may suddenly burst out in eruptions of extreme temper, these are all part of the negative side of the Aquarian. This can also reveal itself in a sustained hatred for enemies that is capable of enlarging itself into a misanthropy toward the whole of mankind.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

But even if you are Pisces, kimberly, which is my perfect foil, I will respect the fact that you find Leo qualities more endearing.

By Last One from Lyr

January 12, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

Amy, a blonde city girl, marries a Texas rancher. 

One morning, on his way out to check on the cows the rancher says to Amy, “The artificial insemination man is coming over to impregnate one of our cows today. I drove a nail into the two-by-four just above the cow’s stall in the barn. You show him where the cow is when he gets here, okay?” 

So the rancher leaves for the fields. After a while, the artificial insemination man arrives and knocks on the front door. 

Amy takes him down to the barn. They walk along a long row of cows and when she sees the nail, she tells him, “This is the one….. right here.” 

Terribly impressed by what he seemed to think just might be another dizzy blonde, the man asks, “Tell me little lady, how did you know this is the cow to be bred?” 

“That’s simple. By the nail over its stall,” Amy explains very confidently. 

Then the man asks, “What’s the nail for?” 

She turns to walk away, and with complete confidence, says: “I guess it’s to hang your pants on…”

Enjoy. Happy Friday

By kimberly

January 12, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, your deductive skills fail to impress. I offered you a famous quote from Walt Whitman, a famous Gemini, speaking of himself. As for the Leo’s propensity to tom cat, I say I much prefer one who spreads his sunshine around to one who inspires a migraine in all he meets. Even Chuck would agree with the biblical advice that one should not hide his light under a basket, even though he suggests a woman hold hers for ransom. It is with a heavy heart that I urge you to seek your Pisces mermaid elsewhere. You and I are as utterly incompatible as a man and woman could ever be.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this

kimberly—if you are Gemini, then you are right, we have nothing in common. One of my sisters is Gemini, and she is the only one I feel almost no kinship toward. With her, it’s all about materialism and her “status”.

By NetBanker

January 12, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

The problem will end only when we don’t need their oil any longer Thanks for the reminder of one more part of our needed solution that is being overlooked by our Administration and which I consider the real lynch pin in not only the war on terror, but also the future of American competitiveness in the global economy. Launching a ‘Manhattan’ Project and/or issuing the nation a challenge such as the Kennedy “Man on the Moon by the end of…” on alternative energy would be one of the most prudent steps this nation could take. It would speed our ability to free ourselves of the Mid-East and let’s face it…eventually the oil is going to run out and THEY are going to need access to renewable or alternative energy technologies. How sweet would it be to turn THAT table on them, hmmmm? Energy independence would mean stopping the flow of cash to the very regimes that support Islamo-facism. The U.S. would move into a position to sell either the technologies or actual energy to other countries. The focus on energy independence would bolster the need for math and science and engineering education which are areas in which we are falling behind in numbers of citizens educated. I’m sure others of you can think of benefits, but seems the ones I listed should be motivating enough to get us off our butts! Oh, I forgot to add that by using multiple forms of renewable or alternative energy (such as wind + biofuels + making all shingles contain photoelectric cells so houses become more energy independent themselves) our own power distribution system becomes better insulated from terror attacks. Think about it…a few, very well-timed and well-placed attacks on power plants could grind our entire economy to a halt.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

From Linda Goodman: “Gemini, the child, ‘I think’. Gemini teaches that love is awareness, but needs to learn that love is feeling”.

By Chilao

January 12, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

NetB - I’m still laughin about that one myself. LOL

That ‘nail’ joke reminds me of the farmer who was attempting to milk a rambunctious cow. The cow kept kicking the bucket and swatting him in the face with her tail. So the farmer took his belt off, and had just successfully finished tying the cow’s tail to one leg, and tied the belt up to an overhead rafter. Then, because he did not have a belt on, his pants fell down. So there he is, standing behing a bound cow, and who walks in but his wife…

aw, the Visual…..

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

“Gemini has not stopped needing or desiring love, but when love becomes a barrier to their freedom, they rashly discard it, forgetting its warmth and safety—not caring that they may get lost and be unable to find their way back home.”

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

“Gemini positive qualities are versatility, mental alertness, quickness of perception, deductive reasoning and flexibility. Expressed in their negative form, they become restlessness, glibness, shallowness, double-talk, unreliability, and self-deception.”

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

NetB—Scientists have been working on new energy sources for a long time. It’s not for lack of effort, it’s just a difficult problem. Apparently you agree with my statement that the Arabs will become desert nomads again once their oil runs out. They have done nothing productive with all the money rolling in to develop collateral industries.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

My Gemini sister works for a crooked attorney. The guy receives a $10,000 per month retainer from the Catholic Church to defend them from all the pedophile suits.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

Again, NetB, my faith in America lies in “bread and circus”. We are both the breadbasket of the world and the leader in entertainment. That should keep us on top for a long time.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

So are you really Gemini, kimberly? Be honest. If you are, you are off the hook with me. I’m sure the other bloggers would be happy to hear that.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

If only we could develop an inexpensive way to harness nuclear fusion, then we would be home free, energy-wise.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

Another possible way to exploit the sun’s energy, NetB, is by tapping the temperature differential which exists in the ocean. (The surface is warm, the bottom is cold). It is possible to create a flow of electrons in certain metals by subjecting them to temperature differentials.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Well, good news for W2W. kimberly is a Gemini.

Lyrazel, you are the wisest blogger. “The Devil finds work for idle hands”. Hopefully, I’ll find a new way to serve the public that doesn’t drain my soul.

Take care, guys. Go Iggles!

By kimberly

January 12, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

Gee Mongrel, you’ve broken my heart. Fortunately, I’ll be over it before I finish typing this post. We’re not all shallow and materialistic. I’m soooooooo not into status symbols, but am much more impressed by qualities that money can’t buy. (Any sch-muck with a few bucks can buy the things money can buy.) I would say that I’ll miss you telling me what my problem is and condescending to me (as if I can’t change the bleeping filter on my furnace), but you’d know it would be disingenuous.

By NetBanker

January 12, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

You see, Pisces is actually all of the other signs rolled into one Well that would certainly explain all the voices in my head! hehehe.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

People express caring in different ways, kimberly. Pardon me for being concerned for you.

By NetBanker

January 12, 2007 05:02 PM | Link to this

Apparently you agree with my statement that the Arabs will become desert nomads again once their oil runs out. They have done nothing productive with all the money rolling in to develop collateral industries. For the most part, yes, but there are a few exceptions such as the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar which are smaller countries without all that much oil. They are working to become tourist and financial/banking centers for that part of the world. Note that they are also the least Islamo-facist and allow more open access to the outside world for their citizens than do other Arab countries.

By Li'l John

January 12, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

“But the Gemini girl is Twins, sometimes even Triplets. And a Virgo man has enough trouble coping with just one woman. He wasn’t born to be able to handle a harem—or a mate with a multiple personality. To achieve happiness with him, the Gemini girl must first decide who she is, then forever after remain indivisibly his.”

I can see that it would be a lost cause, kim. But I truly respect the right for everyone to choose the life which is best for them. You’ve said before that you value freedom more than love, and I accept that. I would just drag you down, and you would be unhappy.

By DUZQC1

January 12, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

Hello. DUZQC2 [url=http://www.tDUZQC3.com] DUZQC3 [/url] Thanks

By Adult

January 12, 2007 06:49 PM | Link to this

Hello :) have a nice day!

http://adult-live-cam-386sf1.adult-chat-world.org/ >adult live cam window [url=http://adult-live-cam-386sf1.adult-chat-world.org/]adult live cam window[/url] http://adult-cam-sites-386sf1.dildo-chat.org/ >adult cam sites [url=http://adult-cam-sites-386sf1.dildo-chat.org/]adult cam sites[/url] http://adult-cam-chat-386sf1.nasty-sex-chat.org/ >adult cam chat [url=http://adult-cam-chat-386sf1.nasty-sex-chat.org/]adult cam chat[/url] http://adult-chat-cam-386sf1.adult-sex-chat.org/ >adult chat cam [url=http://adult-chat-cam-386sf1.adult-sex-chat.org/]adult chat cam[/url]

By QSUWS1

January 13, 2007 02:08 AM | Link to this

Hello. QSUWS2 [url=http://www.tQSUWS3.com] QSUWS3 [/url] Thanks

By Sten22580

January 13, 2007 04:57 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.

By Sten93655

January 13, 2007 05:39 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything today. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t gotten anything done recently, but oh well. Not much noteworthy going on worth mentioning.

By VKYPI1

January 13, 2007 06:28 AM | Link to this

Hello. VKYPI2 [url=http://www.tVKYPI3.com] VKYPI3 [/url] Thanks

By Sten65713

January 13, 2007 06:42 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

By Sten66361

January 13, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.