Woman to Woman

By Lee

October 28, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

The ONLY time a government agency should be allowed to obtain a prescription for a child without the parent’s permission is if said child is in the care and custody of the Dept of Family and Children’s Services (DFACS).

That’s it. Period. No exceptions.

For too long, the politically correct parasites in the public school systems have tried to undermine the parental authority.

In our area, the number of private schools have grown exponentially in the past 20 years.

There is a good reason for that…..

By Geoffrey Broocker, M.D.

October 28, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Please think carefully before writing something that is incredibly untrue and misleading the public. AIDS HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED AS BEING TRANSMITTED THROUGH TEARS OR SWEAT. There are enough things out there to frighten the public!

Geoffrey Broocker, M.D. Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Chief of Service, Grady Memorial Hospital

By No name please...

October 28, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

A. Sarvady rocks this one! Apparently, some people are torn between “sending a message” and sending the truth. As a mom, I choose to arm the kids with knowledge and truth — their best defense in a crazy world.

By comp133xi7y

October 28, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Dr. Broocker - apparently your medical education did not include basic understanding of punctuation.

Yet a 2004 congressional study showed that most commonly-used curricula were filled with falsehoods regarding reproductive health: Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time. AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears.

Please note the colon after “reproductive health”. That indicates that the items following are related to the phrase before the colon. In other words - “AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears” is one of the falsehoods mentioned.

By GOB

October 29, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

I’ve said for years that we need to do away with vaccines too. All they do is encourage kids to get polio.

By chuck

October 29, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Gob as usual, you have reduced the topic to the absurd. BUT, since you’ve gone there, When was the last time that you know of that a kid was given a polio vaccine WITHOUT HIS PARENT’S PERMISSION?

While vaccines are REQUIRED for students to attend school, parents have A CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT their children will receive them. In most states there is an “opt out” provision for religious reasons.

I thought You lefties were all about choice. So let me get this straight, last week you said that gay marriage had nothing to do with UNDERAGE kids getting married (i.e. the slippery slope) because kids are supposed to PROTECTED from pedophiles and they aren’t supposed to having sex anyway. NOW, when it comes to the RIGHTS of parents to control the MEDICAL decisions for their own children, you want to hand over that RIGHT to the STATE?!?!

I thought ya’ll were against government intrusion into your family. A kid can’t get a license to drive until he’s 16, but you want him to be given ASSISTANCE to do something MUCH MORE DANGEROUS to his physical and emotional health at 11 years-old? You people are NUTS.

By chuck

October 29, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

Maybe you missed the FIRST SENTENCE of Shaunti’s commentary.

King Middle School in Portland, Maine has handed out condoms to 11-year-olds since 2000. And the school board just decided to provide prescription contraceptives without parental approval.

How can ANY SANE PERSON JUSTIFY THIS?!?

I want you to remember this moment. 10-12 years from now I want you to recall this prediction. If we don’t keep lunatics like this school board out of the decision making process, you will be looking at the demise of PUBLIC EDUCATION. You can mark my words on this. There will be a backlash of monumental proportions if this kind of idiocy spreads. Right now we are talking about one small group of lefty loonies, but if it spreads, people with means will stop sending their kids to public schools.

When that happens, public education will no longer be a viable means of educating children. There will be a nationwide push for voucher programs and the only kids that will be left are the ones who need the most help. But guess what? That help won’t be available to them because the BEST teachers will go where the money is.

By Billy

October 29, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

…you want him to be given ASSISTANCE to do something MUCH MORE DANGEROUS to his physical and emotional health at 11 years-old…

Avoiding pregnancy is dangerous? Seriously, though, I’m not sure I agree with the distribution of what is ordinarily a prescription medication by the school. Is the school nurse qualified to prescribe the pill in a clinical setting? The fact of the matter is that the pill can wreak havoc on a woman’s body and I personally wouldn’t want my daughter subjecting herself to that without my knowledge.

That said, I aim to be the same sort of parent my parents were, trusting me to make the right decisions but also being there for me should I make the wrong ones. This is the test for you, chuck. You have a fifteen or sixteen year-old daughter. She comes to you and tells you she’s having sex. Do you ground her or take her to the gynecologist where she can get a medical examination and professional info about the dangers of sex and how to protect herself? The catch-22 about the “pill/condoms in school” brouhaha is that the adults who make all the fuss tend to be the ones whose kids wouldn’t feel comfortable seeking parental advice and therefor get into sexual situations without knowing all the facts and options. They’re the kids who need easy access to birth control because they know their parents will go apeshit if they talk to them about it.

Again, not crazy about the pill being distributed. I think condoms are just about as reliable (if they are used correctly) and they have no side effects while protecting against STDs.

The thing we’re missing is that this particular school had something like 17 pregnancies last year. Regardless of the school size, that number is just about an epidemic. They obviously feel that they no longer can rely on the parents to teach their kids what to do and are taking drastic steps to try and fix things.

And honestly I have a hard time with the whole “sending the wrong message” argument. If you raise your kids to think for themselves, they’ll be more likely to resist peer pressure and less likely to be swayed the way Shaunti and chuck fear. At least if these kids come into the school nurse’s office for the pill she’ll be able to talk to them, give them information, tell them they don’t have to have sex just because their boyfriends want to, maybe find out if there’s any abuse going on. Any girl who is going to willingly have sex at 11 because she has access to the pill is going to have sex at 12 whether she has it or not. Better to get an adult involved and offer a modicum of protection so that her life isn’t ruined by getting pregnant as a preteen.

By Anonymous

October 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

quote: “Are Schools encouraging students to have sex?”

No, being [i]alive[/i] encourages students to have sex. Schools encourage them to be safe about it.

By Mara

October 29, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

So the school nurse will know a young girl is sexually active, privately put her on the pill so she can avoid pregnancy, and keep that knowledge from parents who wants to teach their daughter about sexual choices.

I’m totally confused by this. The kid is already having sex and now the parents “want to teach their daughter about sexual choices”? Aren’t they a bit late?! Shouldn’t that have been discussed before she started having sex? Shouldn’t that have been one of the primary conversations they had when the girl first hit puberty?

And because the school is picking up the slack from parents either oblivious to the intimacies of the childs life or too embarrassed to be talking to their fifth grader about s-e-x…now these parents are offended that they (and “the street”) aren’t the only source of information their little princess has about sexuality and safety?!!

By Lyrazel

October 29, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Uh gee. Someone should have sent Shaunti the actual FACTS about this Portland case. It seems the parents WERE involved/informed in the actual planning of this landmark decision. Read the Portland Press Herald to find details where you will also be informed that once a middle school child goes to the school nurse for birth control the school notifies the parent. The state law says that anyone under the age of 14 who is known to be having sex must be reported to state officials which the school will also do. Now the school can help the state to find and incarcerate pedophiles plus help the middle school children who cannot resist sexual relations by giving them very needed information if they continue having sex at this age. Middle School is 10-14 year olds, btw.

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Billy: nicely put (9:27)!!

Was trapped in a doctor’s waiting room on Friday, enduring the sensory assault of Fox “News” from which I was unable to escape. They were all over this story, giving, as usual, HALF the story, followed by ten minutes of urgent voice inflection, telling us how we’re supposed to feel about it. Clearly this is where Shaunti and Chuck get their “information,” since they seem oblivious to the full scope of the situation, and quite certain of their own patent on the definitions of right and wrong.

By Archie

October 29, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

No schools are not encouraging students to have sex. Schools are doing what they think is right and sometimes you have extreme liberal and extreme conservative viewpoints taking over. It is a shame that the extreme political viewpoints dominate any topic because frankly, I want my child to abstain from sex and I don’t have a problem with abstinence but I also want my child to get a comprehensive education on the human body which means education on sex. I do not want my child given birth control pills without my knowledge and I would be quite angry if such a thing were to occur. Condoms at age eleven is an extremely liberal thing to do in my opinion and if you are teaching about human body I don’t have a problem if you simply say to an eleven year-old “don’t have sex”. No need to lie to them just tell them point blank “don’t have sex”. Eleven year-olds don’t work anywhere so they can’t pay for their actions and they need to be told exactly what to do. I am all for being liberal but there are times when politics need to leave and common sense needs to come into play.

By Scalia

October 29, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Chuck, have you been to a school on the southside? For some reason, I see you being a teacher at a northside school. If you have, you would hear some very inappropriate things coming out of the mouths of these students. I heard an 11 year old asking another 11 year old what was the strongest muscle in your body. The student answered with his thing.

For some students, the ones that have parents absent from their education and their lives, need to have this option. However, I believe that the teachers should sit down and talk to these students. A lot of times, they just don’t know. Teachers and schools are taking on more and more responsibilities that used to belong to parents. I have a friend that is a Pre-k teacher. She had to potty train several students age 4 because the parents didn’t do it.

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

The year my mother retired from teaching, there were three sixth graders who were pregnant. ‘Nuff said?

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

well, i was going to make some comments as the mother of a 14-year-old who just completed the harrowing middle school years last year, but billy@9:27 and mara@10:08 covered a lot of the ground i was going to cover.

i will say that i started sex-ed with my daughter before middle school so she’d know what the heck she would be heading into. waiting until a kid is in the thick of things is too darn late. attitudes toward sex and drugs should be shaped early on in a rational manner (meaning not telling your kid: “if you have sex you will die” or “if you smoke pot you’ll go to hell”) or they’ll learn from their friends and their friends older siblings. not good. i don’t trust the schools to tell her what she needs to know, especially with all this abstinance-only stuff, and i sure as heck don’t trust her friends because i can only assume that they are getting the same bad info as she is getting.

i understand that some people want their kids to be abstinate, but you can teach abstinance and still give them factual information so they can use their God-given brains to process it all. You can tell them “this is how everything works, but i feel very strongly that you not have sex before marriage because _____.” it might also help to say that even though a body is physically “ready” to have sexual feelings, it’s a good idea to wait until their emotions are able to deal with the fallout.

It is especially helpful if you can tell them with a straight face that you didn’t have pre-marital sex, because my strongest belief in regard to child-rearing is that you shouldn’t expect your kids to make better choices than you did yourself. if you try to scare kids into doing the right thing, they’ll look around and see that other kids are doing the things you’re saying will kill them and since nothing happens to those kids, then it must not be so bad. then you’ve lost their trust. and once you lose credibility, you’ll lose their respect and you won’t be able to guide them anymore. i think a lot of well-meaning parents stumble on this.

i certainly don’t encourage my daughter to be sexually active, but i feel confident that i’ve done my job as a parent (so far) getting the information she needs either from me or from reliable sources so she knows exactly what will happen if she becomes sexually active. this seems to be working pretty well. she’s not scared of sex, but on the other hand, she knows the consequences ranging from emotional well-being to disease to pregnancy. i know she is armed with facts and is making good choices.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

many American schools are not helping children stay abstinent — which is the only real solution for emotional and physical health. IMO, it’s not the job of American schools to help children stay abstinent…it’s the job if their PARENTS! If the kids are having sex during school hours AT the school then the school has some level of responsibility, but I’ll venture a guess that little Susie and Johnny are getting it on at one of their homes while Mom and Dad are both at work.

how about helping the little girl with the self-destructive choices make better ones, for heaven’s sake? Once again…is this the responsibility of the school or the parents? I do think that the school should be notifying parents of a minor child that the child is requesting birth control, but beyond that it’s over and out. What I observe is Shaunti and many conservatives talking about how schools should teach abstinence, but not about sex because it could send the wrong message. What I can’t wrap my head around is how many of us who went through the public school systems in the 70’s and 80’s received comprehensive sex education but somehow it didn’t encourage us to have sex back then but it does now. Maybe it’s not the schools or the information being presented, but the culture and lack of parental involvement?

The catch-22 about the “pill/condoms in school” brouhaha is that the adults who make all the fuss tend to be the ones whose kids wouldn’t feel comfortable seeking parental advice and therefor get into sexual situations without knowing all the facts and options. Billy and Mara both make great points about “Where are the parents?” and are they approachable for this discussion?

Thanks for the research Lyrazel!

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

my strongest belief in regard to child-rearing is that you shouldn’t expect your kids to make better choices than you did yourself. GO ERYN!! You sound like one great Mom and completely on the mark about the downward spiral of losing credibility with your child!! I think your statement above is a key point many of us would miss. I wonder how many of the abstinence only crowd didn’t wait and think that by pushing abstinence only will be able to manipulate their child into not having sex prior to marriage?

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

thanks netB! my day is now officially made.

‘parents in denial’ is one of my biggest pet peeves. especially when one of these parents starts telling me what i need to do with my kid. jeez.

one of my daughter’s best friend’s parents told her she would get AIDS (her words) if she kissed a boy. not a specific boy – any boy. two problems here: 1) you can’t get HIV from kissing; and 2) if her kid knows any number of her friends and acquaintances that are already kissing and they aren’t HIV+ (including her family members, who clearly are kissing or have kissed someone), why would she ever believe anything her mom says about sex from then on. that’s entry-level.

By barb nelson

October 29, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Something in this picture seems chavonistic. The school has been passing out condoms since 2000 and this didn’t seem to be a big deal. But when they want to give the pill to the girls there’s a problem. Come on. If any of you have ever worked in a public health facility then you know the truth. Kids start experimenting with sex at a very early ages. Yea, 11 years old. And they can have babies at 11. And let’s be realistic how many kids really tell their parents everything. You probably can count them on one hand. Some may say they say they do, but let’s survey and see. I am quite sure if the parents make a request to the school not to allow their children to participate I am sure the request will/should be honored. Let’s all think back, the girl that was considered “the bad girl” wasn’t the one that got pregnant, most of the time it was the innocent girl. How many years have we been hearing about teaching abstinence, but what has happened. Are they really abstaining? When we really look a the whole picture, are the kids the ones that have the highest pregnancy rate in this day in time? Are they the ones that really need the birth control? Last I read the highest rate of unwed pregnancy is not among teens any more. Guess who….?

By Jack

October 29, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

It is not the scool’s responsibility to provide birth control for a student of any age. A parent that goes for that isn’t an involved parent.

By Jack

October 29, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

My speling on that last post maks me lok unedgicated. Sorry.

By Maxwell

October 29, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Apparently parental permission is required at the Maine school for a child to receive birth control pills at the clinic. Somehow all that got missed in the hoopla.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/29/national/main3422488.shtml

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

So… should the children of uninvolved parents suffer their whole lives, wallowing in an ignorant, disadvantaged state because, for some “moral” reason, other adults in their community and society write them off as “not my problem?” Who cares if Johnny can’t read or Suzie is an ignorant sl-t? They’re not MY kids; and Jesus only wants me to care about MINE! Thank goodness some people actually care enough to step in when they do!!

By Scalia

October 29, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

No name Please, that is exactly what I am saying. For some kids, school is their parent. School provides them with breakfast and lunch. It provides them with social skills. It stimulates their minds. It also provides them with safety.

It also provides them with sex education.

That is what gets me about our society. The adoption laws are so hard, and abortion is not an acceptable option. Child healthcare is underfunded. It is like we really don’t care about our children. I look at the kids that show up to school unprepared. It is really sad.

By Besuttediaded

October 29, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se ">buy viagra http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se - buy viagra

By BitWooxorie

October 29, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se ">buy viagra http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se - buy viagra

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

yeah, it really is sad. parents SHOULD be the ones helping their kids figure out what is going on, but if the parents don’t care or they misguidedly try to ‘protect’ their kids by willfully withholding information, who’s going to deal with the consequences?

education, education, education. knowledge, knowledge, knowledge. the more you know, the better prepared you are to make sound judgements. works for kids… and grown-ups, too.

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

72John - The year my mother retired from teaching, there were three sixth graders who were pregnant. ‘Nuff said?

Just curious - 3 out of how many total students? If we are talking about 3 out of 100, MAYBE one could make the argument that we have a serious problem. However, if it is a typical metro-Atlanta school with 800+ students in one grade, you are promoting a plan (at taxpayers’ expense) for a “problem” that affects less than one half of one percent of the students.

NetB - Billy and Mara both make great points about “Where are the parents?” and are they approachable for this discussion?

Does it matter if the parent’s are approachable or not? If their kids are having sex, the parents will have to clean up the mess, not the school. The parent’s approachability, or lack thereof, does not give the school the right to pass out birth control without their permission.

Let’s face it - this issue boils down to beliefs and feelings and not facts and figures. Most liberals have predetermined that passing out birth control is a good thing. Most conservatives will disagree. Neither will pay attention to pertinent data.

My “feeling” is this - when you have authority figures pass out condoms and pills, this sends a message to children that it is OK to have sex. Is that true? I don’t know. I do know that it would take mountains of data from non-biased sources to make me change my mind.

My liberal friends will disagree with my “feelings” because they have their own core beliefs. Despite claims from the left that they have superior critical thinking skills, it will take mountains of data for them to make a paradigm shift on this issue as well.

By Jack

October 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

NNP. Are you saying the school should be the children’s parents?

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Jack - NNP. Are you saying the school should be the children’s parents?

Remember Jack - it takes a village. Hillary ‘08! LOL!

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

NNP. Are you saying the school should be the children’s parents?

Is that what I said? I don’t think so. I asked a question and then made a comment. Did you want to answer the question?

AARP: Nice segue into candidate bashing. Humankind survived for millenia largely because communities (villages) looked out for the young therein when the life expectancy of parents was much lower. But HEY, it must be a BAD thing if Whats-her-face points it out, right?

Y’all disappoint today. Going back to work now.

By Mara

October 29, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR - If their kids are having sex, the parents will have to clean up the mess, not the school

most likely the parents won’t be dealing with “the mess” either. Odds are that unprotected sex will end up in pregnancy. If the girl doesn’t abort or give the child up for adoption, society as a whole will end footing the bill. Thus it ends up being a “public” health issue.

this issue boils down to beliefs and feelings and not facts and figures

It is a fact (not a “feeling”) that the majority of teen mothers and their children end up impoverished and on public assistance. It is also a fact (not a “belief”) that access to birth control does impact unintended pregnancy numbers. It is also a fact that NOT having access to birth control doesn’t discourage sexual activity.

The only “belief” issue is whether you believe “better safe than sorry” or vice versa.

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

The school in question was a very small school, perhaps 200 children across all grades.

I also disagree with this statement: My liberal friends will disagree with my “feelings” because they have their own core beliefs.

The only ideology involved in this debate is the ultra-conservative one that sex is immoral and wrong unless it takes place between a married couple. That ideology informs all attempts to promote abstinence-only education.

No mainstream liberal supports the opposite ideology, if such an ideology can said to exist anywhere but on the fringe, that sex is great and harmless and should be entered into freely and with as many partners as possible.

As a liberal, I think that adults should be free to make sexual choices with other adults. I also realize that no amount of abstinence-only education is going to prevent teenagers from experimenting sexually. Do I want my neice or nephews going out and getting involved in sex without understanding the physical and emotional effects - “consequences”, to use the more ideologically-weighted phrase - of sex? No. Do I want them having sex as teenagers at all? No. However, I DO want them to have the tools necessary to protect themselves should they decide to engage in it.

The religious right has a dog in this fight - abstinence, abstinence, abstinence! The moderate and left-leaning folks simply want to ensure that as few young people catch STDs and get pregnant as possible. There is no ideological axe-to-grind on that side.

By Jack

October 29, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

That’s what it sounded like NNP. Giving out BC is just like saying “go ahead and do it, this will fix it”. I’ll look out for my children, I don’t want or need the school to do it for me.

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

Mara - It is also a fact (not a “belief”) that access to birth control does impact unintended pregnancy numbers. It is also a fact that NOT having access to birth control doesn’t discourage sexual activity.

You may very well be right - but are you sure about these facts? Do you even remember where you read them, or do you just “believe” them to be true.

And to use a favorite line of my leftist brethren - “correlation does not prove causality”. How do you know that abstinence programs haven’t aided in the decline of teenage pregnancies, or that parents have done a better job educating their kids about sex? And how many studies did it take for you to be convinced of your “facts”? How many different studies would it take for you to be convinced otherwise, or would you simply dismiss those studies as being “biased”?

My point is that we believe what we want and dismiss evidence to the contrary. The right does it on this issue – but so does the left.

By Scalia

October 29, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Jack, you are one of the only ones. I used the potty training example earlier. I know of another student that stole a t.v. from somewhere, and bring it home. His mother looked at the t.v., and asked him where he got it. He told her he stole it. She told him to sit down, and didn’t do anything about it. She actually kept it.

By NNP

October 29, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

I’ll look out for my children, I don’t want or need the school to do it for me.

Well geepers! If you are an “involved” parent, then the question of how to deal with the children of “un-involved” parents doesn’t really apply to you or your kids, does it? D’OH!

The question therefore remains conspicuously unanswered: Should the children of “un-involed” parents be left without knowledge or guidance by the adults in their communities, leaving them struggling with a lifetime of lessons learned too late? Are you saying you don’t care about kids that aren’t yours? Sounds like it.

By chuck

October 29, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding me NetB? You thought this statement from Eryn was SMART?

my strongest belief in regard to child-rearing is that you shouldn’t expect your kids to make better choices than you did yourself.

That is asinine. Of course I expect my children to make better choices than did I. What is the whole point of the transmission of culture if not THAT? So Paleo Indians who saw chief head-in-butt eat a poisonous berry and die shouldn’t have pointed that out to their kids? Sorry you just ate a poisonous berry. I could have taught you better or stopped you but my liberal friends say that you should make your own choices.

One of the best things I learned growing up was the perils of alcohol abuse and smoking. My Dad constantly told me not to pick up those bad habits. I watched him quit drinking when I was about 15-years-old and it dramatically changed our family life. Unfortunately, he quit smoking too late and died of lung cancer…but it prompted BOTH of my smoking brothers to QUIT much younger than he did.

I don’t touch either one of those things because I LEARNED FROM MY DAD’S MISTAKES.

By Lily Toad

October 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

This whole situation is blown out of proportion. First of all, most of the teenagers in middle school who are provided birth control are 15, not 11. I personally don’t think a 15 year old should be having sex, but some do but can’t talk to their parent(s) about it. In such case I think it is entirely appropriate for a teacher or health professional to get involved. I don’t think they are “handing out condoms and birth control pills” freely like this phrase implies. I hope some counseling is going on.

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

I assume we’re all reasonable enough to appreciate that the comment concerning choices was made about children while they are children, not about choices made as an adult based on experiences as a younger person.

It’s perfectly reasonable - not at all asinine - to assume that hormone-charged teenagers confronted with the possibility of sex may make different choices than those that their parents would make for them.

I’m sure the misinterpretation was not deliberate.

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

NNP - The question therefore remains conspicuously unanswered: Should the children of “un-involed” parents be left without knowledge or guidance by the adults in their communities, leaving them struggling with a lifetime of lessons learned too late? Are you saying you don’t care about kids that aren’t yours? Sounds like it.

And who gave you the right to determine who is an “un-involved” parent so that YOU can make decisions for their children? Have you ever considered that they don’t want your advice nor do they care for your opinions?

And as far as my Hillary bashing statements - I’ll stick with my wife, other relatives, and friends to help me raise my children. I don’t need strangers from the government to “help” me. The villagers you mentioned were in control of the lessons taught to their children because they knew those who were giving them assistance in child-rearing, and they more than likely shared a common set of moral values. It is becoming more apparent that the government doesn’t share mine.

72John - I am sure you believe this statement with all sincerity: The religious right has a dog in this fight - abstinence, abstinence, abstinence! The moderate and left-leaning folks simply want to ensure that as few young people catch STDs and get pregnant as possible. There is no ideological axe-to-grind on that side.

But do you really believe that deep down the left doesn’t see any problem with sexual experimentation for younger and younger children? I know you have read Brave New World! I don’t think this ideology is as “fringe” as you believe it to be.

By Mara

October 29, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR - but are you sure about these facts? Do you even remember where you read them, or do you just “believe” them to be true

As a matter of fact I do recall where I saw the studies…the HHS and WHO websites and I’m as “sure” about them as one can be who hasn’t personally overseeing the methodology. The studies have been peer-reviewed and the data compares to other studies done on the subject. shrug But with the history this administration has with censoring the science from their own experts…who can say for certain?

My point is that we believe what we want and dismiss evidence to the contrary

If there were studies as solidly grounded in science as the HHS and CDC reports, I would certainly look at them. Unfortunately most of the reports that tout A.O. education as the be-all end-all of public sex ed come from suspect groups, like “Physicians for Life” and “Concerned Women of America”.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding me NetB? You thought this statement from Eryn was SMART?…I could have taught you better or stopped you but my liberal friends say that you should make your own choices.

Chuck…I think you missed the point that Eryn was making and I agree with. Knowing you made some poor choices as a child by not expecting your children to make better choices than you did you will be more watchful, involved, and TEACH them. Certainly you erred a few times and certainly your parents wished you had made a better decisions and likely this has happened with your own children, yes?

chuck, you also go on to finish that “I LEARNED FROM MY DAD’S MISTAKES” What if your Dad hadn’t continually reinforced avoiding drinking or smoking? What if you hadn’t learned from his mistake? How do you know what type of choice you would have made? What if there was no mistake to have learned from? Would you still have have made the same choice?

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

But do you really believe that deep down the left doesn’t see any problem with sexual experimentation for younger and younger children? I know you have read Brave New World! I don’t think this ideology is as “fringe” as you believe it to be.

Really? Is your view of liberals so skewed that you really believe that the average liberal parent - liberals are parents too, you know, and only a few of us still have our horns and tails - wants his or her child to get busy with a high school classmate? Do you actually know any liberals, or are you just going on what the Hannitys of the world tell you about us?

Let me guess - you also honestly think that liberals want murderers and other dangerous criminals running free, wreaking havoc, and that we really, really want the terrorists to kill us all.

Obviously the idea that liberals are just people like you, with basically the same motivations, has never entered your thinking.

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

chuck, i’m not saying you shouldn’t tell your kids that you did something stupid and you don’t want them to do it because you already know how bad it is for them. that’s not what i meant at all.

i’m saying that if you are a human being and ever did anything stupid in your entire life, chances are your kid will, too. major or minor. it is human nature to fail, and by your past comments, that’s why i think you probably believe God will forgive you for making mistakes.

of course our role as parents is to protect our children from harm, encourage them to be the best person they can be, and try to raise them well enough and give them the knowledge to minimize their mistakes which are, unfortunately, inevitable.

a kid can and will slip up, but the magnitude of the mistake can be greatly reduced. you can demand that your kid not to do something, but what happens if they do it anyway? did you ever do something that someone told you you shouldn’t because they had already done it and knew it was bad for you? did you maybe think, “well you did it. why shouldn’t i?”

just some thoughts. i really think you misunderstood my meaning, though.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

do you really believe that deep down the left doesn’t see any problem with sexual experimentation for younger and younger children? You seem rather convinced that the mainstream left doesn’t see this as a problem. Can you define sexual experminentation? What is your basis of your ascertion? Children have always experimented sexually at various ages finally crossing the line into full blown sexual activity somewhere in their teens. It just is…and acknowledging that and wanting to educate them on the consequences while discouraging crossing that final barrier isn’t, IMO, what I would call not having a problem. It’s pragmatic because it addresses reality instead of the AO fantasy that ‘Just Say No’ will provide a young person enough substance to actually resist giving in to their hormones.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

What does Brave New World have to do with anything? BTW, does anyone know where I can score some SOMA?

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

HA! soma… funny : )

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

And who gave you the right to determine who is an “un-involved” parent so that YOU can make decisions for their children?

I never said I had that right or was that person. (Nice try, though.) I asked what others thought was the appropriate thing to do regarding children whose parents are “un-involved”, (clealy these people do exist) at least with regard to them becoming sexually active. It sounds to me like you’d rather bash candidates and hold your own life up as being morally superior to others than answer the question.

It’s the CHILDREN, not me, who find their way to the counselor or nurse’s office, if there is one. The CHILDREN who seek answers should not be turned away, in my humble opinion. Is it your opinion that they should be? Why not own up to the fact that your own kids are the only ones that matter to you, and that if some child who’s being pressured or molested is refused contraception and her life is ruined, who cares? Don’t pretend YOU do!

Caring about people (offering, making help available) and controlling them (forcing it on them) are not the same thing. If YOUR kids are so well-brought up, then what are you in a snit about? Surely they’re not over at the nurse’s office!

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

OK Mara - I will try one more time to get my point across - let’s look at two of your statements:

First, what did these studies truly say? Did they say that there was a correlation between the decline of teenage pregnancies and the availability of contraceptives or was the study done for all age groups?

Second, even if there is a correlation between those data sets, it is still next to impossible to prove that “X” input causes “Y” output.

Third, since you have admitted to not reviewing the data yourself, you don’t know that data from “suspect” groups isn’t just as valid.

Mara - trust me when I tell you that I believe you may be right with the data you have provided. The point that I have been trying to make is that data doesn’t drive our beliefs. We have beliefs and then look for data that supports our conclusions.

I know that you want to believe in your heart that you are a rational person that looks at all sides of an issues before making a decision. You’re not. Neither is Chuck, or Monica, or Kimberly, and most certainly not me! We are ALL driven by our pre-conceived notions.

Comp - I would respond to your statements @4:06 in kind. How many conservative do you actually know? Or do you simply believe what moveon tells you about us?

In all seriousness, if I really thought that mainstream liberals like NetB were in control of the Democratic party, I would be as concerned for the future of my children.

NetB - Brave New World - sorry not to be more clear with that reference. In the book the children were encouraged to have “erotic play”.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

I take offense to being called a mainstream liberal. I’m a former republican who has switched to being a libertarian. Why would you be concerned if someone like me was in control of the DNC? Still too liberal in social matters?

It’s been a very long time since I read BNW so I didn’t recall the erotic play part of the book.

By sharemania

October 29, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

sharemania or [url=http://sharemania.ru]sharemania[/url] or sharemania.ru

By sharemania

October 29, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this

sharemania or [url=http://sharemania.ru]sharemania[/url] or sharemania.ru

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 7:16 PM | Link to this

First, I don’t pay attention to MoveOn. Organizations like MoveOn do nothing but increase the angry rhetoric between liberals and conservatives that is destroying any hope of reasoned discourse between us. As an example, while I believe that General Petraeus’s report has been influenced by the “with us or against us” mentality of the Bush administration, I believe that the personal attack against him by MoveOn was both inappropriate and adolescent.

Second - yes. I know and am friends with MANY conservatives. I do live in Georgia - one can hardly NOT know conservatives personally in this state. I also know that many of those friends and acquaintances are not afflicted with this “liberals as other” mentality. We are able to discuss our issues and differences with civility, and we do not view each other as less than human.

You’ll forgive me, but your regular comments about those of us on the opposite side of the political fence suggest to me that you believe we are somehow flawed, or perverse, or want something very different from what we actually want.

To address the specific - I can, with only a few minutes work on a search engine, provide you with links to mainstream ultra-right organizations, in this case basically exclusively right-wing evangelistic, that proclaim quite boldly their intent to eliminate any and all sex-ed initiatives that are not abstinence-only in nature. In fact, the Bush administration has quite clearly defined its position along those lines.

Can you point to mainstream liberal political organizations that support your assertion that liberals encourage and embrace sexual promiscuity and experimentation among - what was it…”younger and younger children”?

By SeemymnIdeace

October 30, 2007 6:24 AM | Link to this

http://www.zloyonline.info ">dallas school bus safety equipment http://www.zloyonline.info - true stories of teen suicide

By Pauscunse

October 30, 2007 6:24 AM | Link to this

http://www.zloyonline.info ">churchhill downs weddings in louisville http://www.zloyonline.info - what is cinco de mayo

By JOHN D

October 30, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this

DUH! A yes abstinence programs work!!!! When they are done RIGHT!!! with boldness and facts!!!! Like there are over %) different kinds of STDs and STIs and many are contracted by skin to skin contact alone of an infected area in which condoms will do NOTHING!!!! Also any woman who gives into the sexual from her boyfriend outside of marriage is a woman who is gonna get played these types of men laugh all the way to the bank!!!! They are theives. I have proven this and have seen it be proven for over 20+ years and have seen the reseach and it too profoundly agrees! Women who give in get played I dont care if it is a boyfriend for ten years. Its all about what his selfishness is about without signing on the dotted line, so to speak.

If this was taught in abstinence classes then you would see even more results. And it isnt just teens, as a matter of fact it is just as many adults. Did you know women who cohabit put themselves at 6 to 8 times more likely to be abused. Did you know women who give into the sexual outside of marriage fall in to the 80 to 90 % bracket for women who get divorced within ten years. While the others no doubt who dont divorce have not yet figured out whats going on behind their backs. Men who do not practice abstinenec outside of marriage are liars and they are cheaters can absolutly gaurantee proof! Peace!

By Craig

October 30, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

Kinda new to this so I don’t know if you meant this seriously.

“data doesn’t drive our beliefs. We have beliefs and then look for data that supports our conclusions.”

This is one of the problems with the whole debate - facts, and truth, don’t matter.

Last week Shaunti referenced a study that purported to show heterosexual marriages in Scandinavia were weakened by gay marriage. It’s been widely and easily debunked. This week she quotes a poll that was shamelessly and crudely skewed to get the answers the pollsters desired.

I don’t blame her, or you, for having the beliefs you do. However, the people who develop these polls, and studies, and research, skewing it to get the results that support their beliefs, are not being honest with you. They are in fact, lying. In the Ten Commandments, it’s called “bearing false witness.”

The so called Christian right wing has set up a whole industry to develop erroneous and dishonest information to provide to well meaning but misinformed Christians. So as someone else said, when you see something by “Concerned Women for America”, know that it may or may not be based on fact.

By AGFNPR

October 30, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this

NetB – I made a serious typo. Please accept my deepest apologies. What I meant to say was that I WOULD NOT be so concerned for my children’s future if someone like you were in charge of the DNC. I truly enjoy debating with you, even if we disagree on many issues! I consider you to be conservative on financial issues and moderate on social issues. However, I do believe that far left wing elements control the DNC, just as I am sure that Comp believes the far right runs the RNC.

Comp – I do know many liberals and I am even friends with a few! Yes, we tend to dehumanize each other on this blog, and I am just as guilty as anyone. No, I do not believe mainstream liberals are perverse. No, I do not believe that you are perverse.

Yes, with little effort in Google I can find organizations that promote sex for younger teenagers. However, you would dismiss these as “fringe” elements, or you would defend their positions with “that’s really not what they are promoting”. For instance I can easily make the case that for years Hollywood has promoted sex with younger teenagers by making a plethora of teen sex films in which they hired 25 yr. old actors to portray 15 yr. old kids having sex. But of course you will respond with “Hollywood is pushing for peace, environmental awareness, child health care, etc., but not teen sex.”

By Mrs. RepubLady

October 30, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I don’t usually come here to this blog, because I don’t have any “womans issues” but I have to agree with Mrs. Feldman and John D today. A good woman never gives up any affection without an iron clad contract changing her name and giving her all the man’s money and posessions and a prenuptual agreement stating if he ever fools around on her he gets nothing and will never see his children again. The problem with the women in this country is that they think they can give there love away for love or for fun, which is disgusting. Sex is not about love or fun. Good, churchgoing Republican women only give it up for money, but not just money, for money and a solomn oath that you will never give any money as long as you live to any other women, and you will never get to decide how to spend it either. God intended for women to be the keepers of the gates and only when you give us everything we want and forget about what you want, are you living the way God intended. I never had to work a day in my life like loose women do, and thier shame is upon them.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

Hollywood has promoted sex with younger teenagers by making a plethora of teen sex films in which they hired 25 yr. old actors to portray 15 yr. old kids having sex. But of course you will respond with “Hollywood is pushing for peace, environmental awareness, child health care, etc., but not teen sex.”

“Hollywood” isn’t a monolithic entity. It is a community of people and these people most likely don’t care if your kid has sex or not…just as long as the money keeps rolling in. Nor do they base their business model on “peace, environmental awareness, child healthcare, etc”. They base it on how much money they can bring in. They make movies and TV that people will pay to watch. If more people will pay to see a movie about the sexual awakening of a teenage character than will pay to see the tired peccadillos of two forty-something adults…that’s what they’re gonna make. It’s about the MONEY, not about the age of consent.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

What’s with all of the name changes on the blog? I know that Brudog is/was a pain in the butt, but is it that bad?

So, just so I can keep this straight in my mind:

Kimberly is now “No Name Please”

2D is now “AGFNPR”

Who else do we have here in “sheep’s clothing”? I will say this 2d, I don’t think that comp133 is 72John. Comp133 and 72John have both been here at the same time in the past. I just don’t think that he would go to all that trouble. I think he left because he got tired of being wrong all the time. Before a few conservatives came to the blog, he could kind of say anything he wanted to without being challenged. He would just get pats on the back from all his groupies.

It seems to me that the purpose of this blog is to DEBATE. Yes it should be civil for the most part, but it doesn’t always have to be. I think we learn a lot from our “opponents” when they attack. It usually points out the weakness in their argument. It certainly doesn’t bother me as it appears to bother some. I like to mix it up a bit.

Some have taken it over the top on occasion. I’ve had people wish me a horrible lingering death and so forth. What I sometimes have a hard-time understanding, is why liberals get so mad about the desire of conservatives to protect our children. EVERYBODY knows that the lives of our children will be easier if they aspire to a permanent, committed, heterosexual marriage. You need only look at the comments on this blog to see that. I could be wrong, but I believe every homosexual on here with the exception possibly of JBM, has made a statement to the effect that nobody would CHOOSE to be a homosexual. While I would disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, to me that implies if not explicitly states dissatisfaction (for whatever reason) with life as a homosexual.

Another thing they (liberals) don’t understand is that we can’t do what’s BEST for our children without doing it for ALL children at least to some degree. There are at least 2 reasons for this:

1) In addition to wanting what is best for our own children, we also want what is best for ALL Children. We aren’t satisfied with leaving these other children behind, to use a well-worn phrase.

2) Second, our children are in the public arena also. Things that are done by the government necessarily affect our children also whether it is in education policies or in such issues as that being discussed this week.

I took an informal poll with my public school students. I asked them to write down anonymously the answers to 2 questions. 1) Should the school give out birth control pills and condoms to students? Then I asked them if we did that, what message would they get from it?

These are 8th graders in a very diverse school. Here’s what they said. About 40% of them said yes and the predominant message that they got from that was that there was nothing wrong with sex. 55% said no. The message that they said would be given by the school was that it was okay for them to have sex. 5% said they didn’t know. 2 of those students said that they would not take them, but they didn’t want to make that decision for the others.

After I collected the poll answers I asked them another question. I asked whether or not being able to get condoms/birth control pills anonymously at school would make them more likely to have sex. The majority said yes. I also asked them why? Several of them said that they would not want their parents to know because they would not approve.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SCHOOL should not sanction, assist or encourage students to participate in activities that would go against what parents are teaching at home. Let me ask the lefties this question? Would you like me teaching that all the things you hold dear, all of your deeply held beliefs are a load of crap? Do you want me to give them materials (NOT RELIGIOUS BASED MATERIALS) saying things like homosexuality is bad, that PETA sucks and is a danger to society, or that liberals are the same thing as terrorists? You see, the left is AGAINST indoctrination UNLESS it is THEIR indoctrination.

What’s really bad is that they can’t even see the difference!

By Billy

October 30, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

“Give into the sexual”

tehe

By HoRadar

October 30, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

A good woman never gives up any affection without an iron clad contract changing her name and giving her all the man’s money and posessions and a prenuptual agreement stating if he ever fools around on her he gets nothing and will never see his children again.

In other words, she charges, just like a good HO?

By chuck

October 30, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Craig, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE LEFT DOESN’T DO THE SAME THING?

I will say this, though. John Zogby ia a pollster who does not cave to pressure from EITHER side. I have seen him on a number of political talk shows and he explains the process like this. He asks the people commissioning the poll what they want to find out about? Then HE WRITES the questions. I have read many of his polls in graduate research classes that I have taken and they are clearly without bias. He does not manufacture numbers. I have seen him report results commissioned by conservatives that were not favorable to those conservatives. As AGFNPR said, we care less about the numbers than we do our personal beliefs.

In this context, what happens is that if we see results we don’t like we BLAME the poll or the person/group that commissioned the poll. This happens on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. You CAN manipulate a poll by HOW you ask the questions. That does NOT mean that just because a conservative or liberal group commissioned the poll that that has been done. I don’t always trust polls just because they came from a group with which I agree. I find it is best to actually READ the poll to see how the questions were framed before I accept or reject the results. I also don’t think it is wise to use opinion polls to decide public policy.

By DocHollywood

October 30, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Hollywood reflects the culture, and if teens are having sex, and they are, hence this topic, it will be reflected in the movies they make.

a major DUH! there.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Sorry doc, but you are absolutely wrong about that. What hollywood does is take isolated incidences and makes them seem to be the norm. There is a difference there.

It seems to me that john d and republiclady are our name stealer trying to be cute. I don’t think those are “real” posts.

By lovelyliz

October 30, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

I hate to break it to you, but people including teens have been having sex since the beginning of time. In my parents day, you married, had an unsafe abortion or went off to one of those homes for unwed mothers a.k.a. going to visit your aunt.

It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to decide when sex if right for them and how to control themselves until that time.

The schools on the other hand are left to deal with the consequences are irrelevant, nonexistent and often false information given out about sex education. As a former student and teacher, I’ve seen what happens when a school is forced to deal with pregnant students, students with STD’s, etc. You wouldn’t believe the lies that some of these teens are taught or simply buy into.

Schools teach the science, parents the morality.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Another thing they (liberals) don’t understand is that we can’t do what’s BEST for our children without doing it for ALL children at least to some degree

the problem is that you (conservatives) don’t understand that you don’t have a monopoly on deciding “what’s best” for the children. You think you do, but you don’t. Some people don’t think that teaching children to hate or fear gay people is “what’s best” for them. Or that demonizing anyone for their political beliefs is “best”. Or that lying to them about sex is “what’s best”, or any of a hundred other things that conservatives believe liberals should be teaching their children.

your statement implies that ONLY conservatives can judge “what’s best” for America’s children.

Would you like me teaching that all the things you hold dear, all of your deeply held beliefs are a load of crap?

If you could do it without lying about the facts or presenting your opinion as a fact…sure, why not? Unlike conservatives, liberals aren’t afraid to answer questions from their kids. We aren’t apalled when a kid has the temerity to test the validity of his parents beliefs. Were I a parent I believe that I’d be glad to have a conversation with the kid and tell them why I hold the beliefs I do and why YOU might, perhaps even unconciously, be shading the truth…

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

thank you both, lovelyliz and mara – i was still struggling with how to put the science vs. morality and facts vs. belief into an answer to chuck’s post. i think you both summed up what i was thinking pretty well.

By No name please...

October 30, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

What I sometimes have a hard-time understanding, is why liberals get so mad about the desire of conservatives to protect our children.

Chuck, despite your history of (and continued) overt malevolence, I’ll join the spirit of earnest debate today. Are you truly saying that you think liberals are opposed to protecting children? If so, you’re not debating. The desire to protect children is not the debate, but rather what constitutes protecting them, and how to best ensure that they are not falling through the cracks of an unforgiving system, and additionally, what constitutes an appropriate system.

I agree with you that people who avoid sex outside of marriage (or comparable committed relationship) do indeed avoid the pitfalls of STDs and unwanted pregnancy at a significantly higher rate than those who do not abstain. They also avoid the serious heartbreak that comes from trusting the wrong people with their most private selves. It is therefore logical and reasonable to dispense this information to our young people. It’s good advice.

To say that liberals are somehow opposed to dispensing good advice to our children is false. Your assertion that I, or a school nurse or counselor, would encourage children to go out and experiment before reaching adulthood is, at best, unfounded, and more likely, a perjorative assertion attached to an agenda beyond what’s best for the children.

The idea of protecting “ALL children at least to some degree,” as you put it, is NOT one with which most liberals disagree. Therefore, as a “conservative,” you actually do NOT OWN that value. Disappointing I know… Rather, there is a widely-held and supportable opinion that restricting a child’s access to information and health care, to the point that they give up, is NOT protecting them.

I would never advocate dispensing these things without common-sense counseling on the pitfalls of young sex, heartache, disease, pregnancy, and an irretrievable reputation. Yet, it seems you are advocating the opposite: dispensing advice without the knowledge and healthcare. Do you agree that this is your stance?

ALL the children are important, IMO. But they are not all the same, and they do not have the same backgrounds, families, physical development, or emotional maturity. A one-size-fits all response to a universal issue is simply, by any quantifiable measure, NOT going to fit them all. Can you truly argue that it would? By implementing one rigid standard, you ENSURE that some kids are left out. Is that what you want? I don’t.

P.S. — While some of your 8th graders no doubt engage in sexual activity, the vast majority are engaged in a self-gratifying activity known as “wishful thinking,” and are likely still sniggering about Mr. Chuck’s condom talk.

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

oh snap… someone just got served…

; )

By Jack

October 30, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Has a study been done as to the effects of BC pills on females younger than 16? I don’t have stats but it seems couples now a days are having a much harder time having babies than it used to be. Could BC pills be the reason. They change the body and if I wanted my daughter’s body changed the school isn’t the one who should do it.

I kinda miss 72John. Made any ham tartlets lately?

By Mara

October 30, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

lovelyliz - people including teens have been having sex since the beginning of time

(gasp!) they have!? I’m shocked…LOL!

But they used to get married at younger ages, too…well, at least the girls did. Remember when a woman in college was refered to as “studying for her Mrs.”?

Billy - LOL @ “the sexual”

eryn - thank you for the compliments

By Lily Toad

October 30, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I didn’t choose to be a lesbian, but I did make the choice to live my life that way. (I was once married to a man.) And, I would choose to be a lesbian because I love my life. My partner and friends are more important to me than the hatred of people who don’t know me.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Exactly how do you Libs reconcile Age of Consent Laws with your eagerness to dispense birth control to 11 year olds? I’m racking my brain, and I just can’t envision any scenario in which it is healthy/sensible to give permission to young children to have sex, whether they are “being pressured” or not. Exactly who are the 11 year old girls having sex with? Probably with a much older guy. As such, how is dispensing birth control the “solution”?

By lovelyliz

October 30, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

There is a big difference between protecting children and lying to them. When you lie to children about sex (remember the whole hairy palms, going blind thing?) and they figure out that you haven’t been truthful, they aren’t likely to listen or ask for information.

There are very good reasons for waiting to have sex until marriage or at least well into adulthood, but be honest.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Also, NNP, I’m going to have to throw a BS flag on you today. Your “solution” to poor parenting is to allow strangers to make legal decisions for children. Pretty crazy.

Also, you state today that you don’t see yourself as a person who would usurp parental authority, but have stated on the blog in the past that you go out of your way to “speak” to the kids in your neighborhood because (in your opinion) their parents just don’t “understand them”.

And this is all coming from a person who screams when folks on the Fox News Channel “tell you how to feel”. If you don’t want strangers telling you “how to feel”, why do you think it’s appropriate for strangers to tell your child “how to feel” about sex?

By Mara

October 30, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Not Convinced - …your eagerness to dispense birth control to 11 year olds…can’t envision..healthy/sensible…give permission to…children to have sex…11 year old girls having sex with…with a much older guy. how is dispensing birth control the “solution”?

and how is forcing a sexually active 11-year-old to birth a baby the “solution”? I say “Better safe than sorry”, which is completely different from “giving permission” to have sex. Like chuck, you seem to have this picture of liberal mothers and fathers pushing their little children into the beds of adult sexual predators when in fact, it’s usually a schoolmate that’s within a couple years of their own age.

you willfully equate pragmatism with advocacy.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR…thanks for the clarification and ‘vote’ of confidence, but I doubt I’ll ever be running for any elected office. Too many ‘skeletons’ buried in the mud in my closet.

I believe every homosexual on here with the exception possibly of JBM, has made a statement to the effect that nobody would CHOOSE to be a homosexual. While I would disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, to me that implies if not explicitly states dissatisfaction (for whatever reason) with life as a homosexual. Chuck…the point about not choosing to be homosexual isn’t about any dissatisfaction with actually being homosexual. It’s 100% about the treatment, discrimination, and constant barrage of negativity from society…especially conservative Christians and more specifically from radical, conservative Christians the likes of Westboro Baptist, Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family. It take a lot of inner strength to be openly gay in our society. There have been comments about the ‘persecution’ that christians face today in America, but you’re legally protected by the ERA while gays have no legal protections. Have you ever been verbally or physically assaulted for being Christian? Know of any christians that have? How many? It’s plenty easy to find news and crime reports of assaults on gays and I have been verbally assaulted countless times and physically assaulted about 1/2 dozen times (mainly people yelling out car windows or spitting at me or throwing things…most of which missed, but the intent was perfectly clear).

ALL the children are important, IMO. But they are not all the same, and they do not have the same backgrounds, families, physical development, or emotional maturity. A one-size-fits all response to a universal issue is simply, by any quantifiable measure, NOT going to fit them all. Can you truly argue that it would? By implementing one rigid standard, you ENSURE that some kids are left out. Is that what you want? I don’t. I think that this response coupled with Loveliz’s comments are a pretty honest assessment of the mainstream liberal position and is quite pragmatic. If sex ed or distribution of birth control in public schools is coupled with facts, full disclosure, and parental involvement that is the best case scenario for reaching ALL children in a manner that doesn’t trample any parent’s teaching THEIR values or create cracks for a kid whose parents are stepping up. Abstinence IS best, but it is not mutually exclusive of the information that is factual. In school we didn’t receive the AO education, but the photos of genetalia infected by various diseases sure scared enough of us to abstain for a while.

they used to get married at younger ages, too…well, at least the girls did Quite a good point. When life expectancy was lower in prior centuries events such as marriage, sex, and child birth also occurred at younger ages. Waiting until 25 to get married when life expectancy is 45-50 doesn’t leave a whole lot of time to raise a family. Want an example? Little House on the Prairie.

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

sigh. permission is not the issue. if a young child has sex, permission does not really factor into his/her decision. birth control is not endorsed, it is a last resort for children who are doing something dangerous that can have repercussions throughout their & their family’s lives. THE IDEA IS REDUCTION OF HARM, not giving children permission to do something. you can tell a kid a million times in a million ways not to do something, but there’s no guarantee they won’t do it.

i don’t think the most flaming liberally liberal on this board advocates sex for children. i’m sure of it.

but seriously – what happens if a kid makes a bad decision? what happens to the kids that don’t have the benefit of a wholesome, conservative christian upbringing some of you guys so strongly endorse? not every kid has good parents, and clearly not everyone agrees on what constitutes a good parent. we all want what’s best for the children, but we don’t agree on what’s the best way to achieve it.

in all this discussion (and i’m sure you’ll correct me if i’m wrong), but i can’t recall anyone answering the chorus of commenters’ question: what happens to those kids? do we write them off? this is where the religious conservative dogma breaks down for me. there’s not really a back-up plan for the worst-case scenario. and to add insult to injury, if you do make a bad decision, “well, it’s your own fault. you deserve what you get.”

and then what?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Mara—If an adult provides birth control to a child and simultaneously does not take active steps to prevent the sexual liasons from occurring in the first place through monitoring, that constitutes de facto permission.

Somehow, you’ve equated my proposed solution of actively discouraging young children from having sex to “forcing 11 year olds to have children”. How do you come up with that?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Why are you “adults” here giving so much respect to the “decisions” that children make?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

eryn—Why do you oppose facing consequences in life? Seems to me the recogintion of consequences is the quickest path to good behavior.

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

“Somehow, you’ve equated my proposed solution of actively discouraging young children from having sex to “forcing 11 year olds to have children”. How do you come up with that?”

apparently the same way i did : )

also, who is supposed to be doing this “monitoring”? do you mean the school? this is taking a turn for the weird…

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

I’m going make a suggestion that I hope will be accepted by all parties. How about phrasing questions in the 3rd person and without associating any political offiliations where possible?

For example: “Exactly how do you Libs reconcile Age of Consent Laws with your eagerness to dispense birth control to 11 year olds?” Could be rephrased as “Exactly how does one reconcile Age of Consent Laws with dispensing birth control to 11 year olds?” it’s the same question written in a manner that puts no one one the defensive nor does it reveal the inquirerers politics.

But to attempt to answer the question…I haven’t seen anyone here saying that “dispensing birth control is the “solution” to children having sex at what we all seem to agree is an inappropriate age. What it IS a solution to is avoiding a pregnancy that the child isn’t really ready to handle physically or emotionally nor would their sexual partner be ready to handle. By making birth control available upon request of the student, after notifying and obtaining permission from the parents, is to provide an opportunity to counsel the child AND reduce the possible fallout if the child doesn’t heed the advice to not have sex…which they apparently weren’t doing in the first place.

Maybe we should just mandate chastity belts for ALL males and females under the age of consent. On your birthday you can go to the state offices to have the device removed. We’ll have them embedded with electronic monitoring devices like those home confinement anklet thingys so if you try to remove them an alarm will sound at the monitoring station and the sex police can be sent to the location to stop any activity.

By Connie

October 30, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t aware school nurses could practice medicine without a license. The school nurse at my daughters high school can’t dispense advil with out parental permission, much less a prescription drug. If the nurse gives medicine without premission and something goes wrong… life threating allergy… or the pill fails because the parent took their sick child to the doctor for an antibotic which then causes the pill to fail…who picks up the bill for that? Not the school, not the nurse, that’s right the parent! Can we all say lawsuit waiting to happen?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

who is supposed to be doing this “monitoring”?

eryn—So, in your mind, it’s not possible for parents to monitor the whereabouts of their children? Give me a break.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

you’ve equated my proposed solution of actively discouraging young children from having sex to “forcing 11 year olds to have children”. How do you come up with that?

the topic (and the dispensing of birth control)focuses on children that are already sexually active, regardless of whether their adult caretakers have “given them permission” or not. Most likely, their relations are unprotected and unprotected sex often leads to pregnancy. By denying birth control to those who are having sex, (without “permission”, abstinance lecture or no), one can be pretty confident that eventually pregnancy will happen…

at that point the kid will either have to carry the fetus to term or abort it. Now that wasn’t too tough to follow, was it?

By No name please...

October 30, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

• Your “solution” to poor parenting is to allow strangers to make legal decisions for children. Pretty crazy.*

Not convinced: Those were your words, not mine. I’m calling BS on your BS, and frankly, I don’t care whether you’re convinced. You seem to me like someone who’s incapable of thinking outside your pre-defined scope, and wouldn’t be convinced of anything beyond that, regardless of who debates what.

I do talk to the kids. Why? Because they talk to me, and when they do, I’m honest. That doesn’t mean I dump unwarranted info on them. Do I go up to them and pound them with my views like my scary, violent, fundie neighbor did to me as a child? Nope. Do I tell them their parents or their churches are full of doo doo? Never! Do I take measures to usurp parental involvment on behalf of “the gub’mint?” Nope. Do I think kids deserve the truth, and, in the absence of someone at home to turn to, someone else capable and available? Yep. To I tell them how to feel? No freakin’ way, Bozo. Unlike you, I actually know how to listen.

But if you’re tending your own children’s needs, then none of this is an issue for you, now is it? (If your orders are always followed, and you said they are always followed, then why would Santiago’s life be in danger?)

You may continue your tantrum now, and kick some more sand in my face. Wah wah.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

I think that Netbanker put it best…”If sex ed or distribution of birth control in public schools is coupled with facts, full disclosure, and parental involvement that is the best case scenario for reaching ALL children in a manner that doesn’t trample any parent’s teaching THEIR values or create cracks for a kid whose parents are stepping up. Abstinence IS best, but it is not mutually exclusive of the information that is factual.”

By Jack

October 30, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

“forcing 11 year olds to have children”. Not if pro-choice. When Daddy & Mommy have to get the big “A” for their 11 y.o.,I would think they will become more involved. The father of said fetus should be made to pay too.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Why are you “adults” here giving so much respect to the “decisions” that children make? It’s not respect, but acknowledgement that children make decisions when their parents aren’t present.

If an adult provides birth control to a child and simultaneously does not take active steps to prevent the sexual liasons from occurring in the first place through monitoring, that constitutes de facto permission. What “active steps to prevent the sexual liasons from occurring in the first place through monitoring” do you prospose? Most teens (and kids as young as 11) have sex after school and before their parents come home. Whose job is it to monitor them? Why can’t the schools partner with the parents on this? Parents monitor and discourage, schools (with the permission of the parents) discourage AND provide the backup plan of birth control.

Why do you oppose facing consequences in life? You’re extrapolating eryn’s position WAAAAYYYY too FAR. She’s specifically discussing pregnancy avoidance while you’re taking it to ALL consequences in life. Becoming pregnant at a young age and cheating on a test have quite different consequences while potentially achieving the same consequences message.

By Maxwell

October 30, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

By Maxwell

October 29, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Apparently parental permission is required at the Maine school for a child to receive birth control pills at the clinic. Somehow all that got missed in the hoopla.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/29/national/main3422488.shtml

AND STILL GETTING MISSED

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

upon request of the student

NetB—You’re assuming the student has the emotional maturity/legal right to make such a request.

To use an analogy, suppose one of your employees requested to start toking up on the job. According to your logic, denying the request is simply not an option, because “they’re going to do it anyway”. Therefore, any employee wishing to toke up on the job should be provided with burn-proof lighters and spill-proof bongs to “minimize any damage.” Right?

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

“Why are you “adults” here giving so much respect to the “decisions” that children make?”

because children, like all people, are autonomous beings. they will make decisions for themselves whether you like it or not. you can do your best to tell them what you want them to do, why you want them to do it, demand they do exactly what you tell them to do… when it comes down to it, they will still make their own choices. if you’re really lucky and have a good kid and you’ve done a great job conveying your values and aspirations for them, they will live up to it. but they might not.

“eryn—Why do you oppose facing consequences in life? Seems to me the recogintion of consequences is the quickest path to good behavior.”

i don’t, but some consequences are a little harder to recover from than others. there’s a big difference between a kid barfing their guts up and having a wicked hangover because they did something i clearly told him/her not to and bringing another person into the world because they did something i clearly told him/her not to.

By Jennifer

October 30, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

Not Convinced is childless. But full of OPINION about child-raising.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Connie - This isn’t your parent’s “school nurse’s office”. The school in question has an independently operated health care center to provide a variety of services to students, including immunizations and physical checkups in addition to birth-control medications and counseling for sexually transmitted diseases. For the child to use the healthcare facilities, the parent is required to sign an authorization…though they do not get to specify what type of healthcare their child does or does not need.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Jen—I may be childless, but I’ve paid plenty to help raise your kids over the years via taxes. Shouldn’t I have a say in the matter?

No taxation without representation, right?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

NNP—I thought you liked guys who “wear their a***** on their sleeves”? I’m just trying to please you… ; > }

By Mara

October 30, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Jennifer - not to be nit-picky, but Not Convinced isn’t the only childfree poster with an opinion on the best way to raise a child. Heck, I don’t even like the little blighters but that doesn’t stop me from putting in my two cents worth…

;^)

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Heck, I don’t even like the little blighters

Well, we do have at least at least one thing in common, Mara. That, along with a shared opinion that your hubby is extremely lucky to have such a brainy wife. I’m still jealous!

By Jack

October 30, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

No Dog. Just paying taxes doesn’t get it. If you haven’t raised kids you really don’t know what it’s like. You may think you do, but you don’t.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

I’ll come back and address your posts in a bit Kimmie, lovely and netB but first I want to give you a common sense test. Read this little tidbit and pay special attention to the section in BOLD.

The age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual relations in Maine is 16. This is the age at which a person may legally consent to sex with someone over the age of 21.

In many cases, Maine law permits sexual relations between adolescents, as long as both are aged 14 or over and the age difference is no more than 5 years. This “age differential” test is a feature of the age of consent laws in 27 states. It states, for example, that a 15-year-old girl can legally consent to have sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, but not with a 22-year-old.

Stay with me now…What is the age at which they are passing out birth control pills in Maine? 11-years-old, right?

Brudog, aka not convinced, has it exactly right. An arm of the STATE GOVERNMENT is aiding and abbetting the violation of STATE LAW. In other words the state is encouraging people and even assisting them in violating their own laws?!?!? That would be akin to a parent telling their kids, “You will not drive the car for one month. I know you are going to drive anyway, so here are the keys.”

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

Jack—I was just being facetious. Honestly, I’m too sensitive to be a good parent. I couldn’t bear going through the heartaches that come along with being a parent. Heck, I’m still weepy over the loss of my beloved Boo-Boo.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

NNP—I’m still looking for a brainy wife who isnt afraid to put me in my place. Are you up for the task? In return, I’m sure I’ll be a major pain-in-the-a* to you, but will love you with all that my puny heart can muster.

At least money won’t be a problem….

By chuck

October 30, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

So eryn, you said:

…clearly not everyone agrees on what constitutes a good parent. we all want what’s best for the children, but we don’t agree on what’s the best way to achieve it.

So here is the million dollar question. If what you said is true, and I believe that it is in part, then why do we have to do it YOUR WAY instead of mine!?!??!!? If we can’t agree that means somebody is probably right and somebody is probably wrong. Now I have my own ideas about which is which, but regardless, since we can’t agree, wouldn’t it make more sense for those decisions to be left up to PARENTS and NOT the GOVERNMENT?

This is why we say that to a large extent “liberals are opposed to protecting children”. I would go further to say that what liberals are really into is CONTROLLING other people’s children for the purpose of INDOCTRINATION. That’s what this debate is really about Kimberly.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

chuck—NNP has requested that we not use her former blog name. Will you honor that request, please?

By No name please...

October 30, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Clearly there is no respect in this debate, and for that matter, no debate in this debate. One who advocates options, choices, and the freedom to learn is accused of controlling and indoctrinating others? Could that conclusion possibly be more absurd? Perhaps if you stick mutt’s dead bunny on your head and hopped on one foot while you said it.

And since y’all can’t respect people’s wish for privacy on this blog, in the bedroom, or inside the bodies of another, simply speaking to some of you at all is an exercise in pointlessness.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

You’re assuming the student has the emotional maturity/legal right to make such a request. If student has gone to the school clinic about contraception then obviously they have the emotional maturity to ask the question. And I’m not sure about this, but I don’t think we deny anyone the right to make a request based on the age…it’s a request that we might legally deny them to fulfill based on their age, but that’s not the same thing. Regardless upon asking the school will contact the parents and kick off the whole process. As Maxwell has pointed out.

To use an analogy, suppose one of your employees requested to start toking up on the job. Not a good analogy because sex between teens isn’t illegal, but toking up is illegal regardless of age. Additionally, the stoned employee could hurt another employee which opens a whole can of legal worms for me and my employer while the sex between the teens is a legal act between consenting parties without legal consequence for non-participants.

Chuck…I get it about age of consent laws, but it still comes down to pragmatism for me in some way. Additionally, knowing how both editorialists write we should all be able to admit that Shaunti used the lowest age possible from a request just to stir the pot. The chances of the requestor being 11 is pretty darn slim. But let’s go ahead and assume it is an 11 year old. I’d like to know YOUR personal response to how to handle the situation that an 11-year old strolls into the clinic, tells the staff they ARE actively having sex, requests birth control. What do you do? Call the police? I’m also curious as to your opinion of whether it would be acceptable for the clinic to provide the BC if the child IS above the age of consent.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Sorry Maxwell, but that is not correct. The students have to have parental permission to be treated by the health center in the school, but it SPECIFICALLY allows them, once they have that permission (which by the way includes permission to treat a bee sting or a scraped knee, you know the things a parent would WANT their children treated for) to seek CONFIDENTIAL medical treatment and then decide for themselves LATER, whether or not to tell their parents. This comes directly from the Portland Newspaper.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=140910&ac=PHnws

By chuck

October 30, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

NetB: Why can’t the schools partner with the parents on this?

Because the schools make this decision and they don’t tell the PARENTS?!?!?! What kind of partnership is that?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

NNP—Serious question for you: When Fox News advocates options and choices, you invariably balk at “being told how to feel” and claim that any willing watcher of Fox is being indoctrinated. Do you not have the same opinion of CNN or any of the more “liberal” news outlets? Do you hold to the view that CNN = truth, while Fox = indoctrination?

BTW, you may be entitled to “privacy” in your bedroom and inside your body, but you’re taking your chances when you reveal personal things on the blog, as I have found out the hard way many times myself. Make any sense?

By chuck

October 30, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Come on Kimberly:

One who advocates options, choices, and the freedom to learn is accused of controlling and indoctrinating others?

You left out ONE IMPORTANT LITTLE PART. You advocate this FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN. If you want to advocate this for your OWN children, fine…but leave mine the heck out of it.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

NetB—Usually you’re up on your facts, but you fumbled in your last post. Sex between young chidren is not legal, and like toking up on the job, has potentially serious consequences.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

So the school nurse will know a young girl is sexually active, privately put her on the pill so she can avoid pregnancy, and keep that knowledge from parents who wants to teach their daughter about sexual choices. I was just re-reading this and found a logic hole. In the scenario above how does the keeping of the knowledge from parents impact their ability to “teach their daughter about sexual choices?”

Last year, 5 of 134 students visiting the school nurse reported having sex. This problem needs to be addressed, but this is a terrible way to do it. Does anyone really think fewer students will have sex once the pill is available? * First of the number of students reporting sex is .037% of students visiting the nurse. There is zero information as to whether any or all of them requested contraceptive or specifically The Pill. We can be pretty certain that there are more than 134 students in the school and likely more than 5 having sex, however we’re still talking about this issue *POTENTIALLY affecting less than 4% of students. The Pill issue could be even fewer students because we don’t know how many of the 5 were male. Looked at through this lense this appears to be much to do about nothing other than controlling FEMALE access to contraception.

This is an extreme example, but unfortunately many American schools are not helping children stay abstinent Question for all…is it the responsibilty of schools to help children stay abstinent?

By Mara

October 30, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

why do we have to do it YOUR WAY instead of mine!?!??!!?

because OUR way provides protection in the worst-case scenario instead of just hoping for the best? because sometimes children do what they want, not what they should? because too many children do not have dependable adult role models or sufficient supervision to guide them into making good choices? Because we believe that the kid with the involved parent isn’t going to be harmed if we provide information and health care for the kids that don’t have that resource?

why are you so offended that we consider the well-being of the least of these children, the ones without a strong adult bond, instead of concentrating our policies and resources on those who have a solid family base and thus are likelier make healthier choices? Is it the “consequence-free” fornication that offends you? Do you think the kid should be punished for “being bad”?

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

chuck—I’m asking you man-to-man to honor NNP’s request to not use her former blog name. Can you do that? If not, why not?

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

sorry, netB, my brain already hurts and i don’t think i am clever enough to respond in third person to direct questions posed to me in bold all-caps…

“why do we have to do it YOUR WAY instead of mine!?!??!!?”

chuck, what is your preferred way? i’m not trying to be a smart alek. what would be ideal for you? no sex ed in school, period? distribution of birth control to minors (even with parental consent) is definitely crossing your line. but maybe you could back it up to what you do think is appropriate.

is there any point where any kind of sex ed would be acceptable at school? sex ed is essentially biology, right? so would it be ok to at least cover the basic bodily functions in context of a biology class? that’s pretty neutral. facts are not biased, right?

ok, slight segue here: did anyone see the headline about the pope urging pharmacists to refuse to fill “immoral” perscriptions? http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/10/29/PopePrescriptions_1029.html

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Mara—Your point about providing some help in the worst case scenario makes sense, until you attempt to make the “worst-case scenario” the official government policy which is advocated and applied to all students.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Because the schools make this decision and they don’t tell the PARENTS?!?!?! What kind of partnership is that? Then let’s change the rules to require specific parental consent for BC so that it IS a partnership.

Sometimes I feel like debating here is just like at work…if something doesn’t work exactly right the first time it’s throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than figure out what we can modify to be a better fit.

One who advocates options, choices, and the freedom to learn is accused of controlling and indoctrinating others? You left out ONE IMPORTANT LITTLE PART. You advocate this FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN. If you want to advocate this for your OWN children, fine…but leave mine the heck out of it. Chuck, how does one do this exactly…present “options, choices, and the freedom to learn” to all children in the same school while respecting the “Leave my kids out of it” position of some?

I’d like to hear a COMPROMISE solution from you because the darn libs here seem to be advocating requiring the school to contact the parents for permission before distributing birth control. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me because it allows the parents to say NO or to say YES, but either way they become information as to what their own child is asking for and doing or planning on doing.

By Lily Toad

October 30, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

But, Not Convinced, this is “Woman to Woman,” not man-to-man!

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Lily—You’re right! But, I will offer a M-to-M butt kicking to chuck if he doesn’t start showing more respect to NNP.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

NetB, as noted in my last post, Maxwell was wrong. They CANNOT notify parents unless the CHILD gives them permission. That is the BIGGEST problem I have with the whole thing. It really is usurping the role of the parent. The other thing that bugs me is that assumption that these parents are “uninvolved”. Maybe the consequence that you spoke of earlier should be that they HAVE to talk to parents. Then the chorus from the left would be, “If you do that, the kids won’t go and see the health professional, blahblahblah.”

AND, how is it pragmatic for a state to advocate breaking its own laws. Shouldn’t they be advocating OBEDIENCE to laws. Isn’t THAT what we should be teaching our children? Also, while that may be the case in Portland that 2 teens cannot be charged with underage sex in Maine, that is not the case in Georgia.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

So I’m slipping a little on a very busy day…Sex between young chidren is not legal So arrest the children! And do we reallllly do this? First someone has to catch the little buggers buggering and then report them to the authorities. I’m dubious as to how frequently that honestly occurs. And on the last part…potentially serious consequences for whom exactly? An innocent bystander?

By Mara

October 30, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Because the schools make this decision and they don’t tell the PARENTS

er…the school isn’t making any decision other than to allow a health care facility to share their campus and provide medical care to students contingent on the parents permission to do so. In this case, it’s an independant health clinic. The personnel are NOT employees of “the state”.

What I find kind of amusing in all this is that they’ve been giving away condoms to the 11-year-old boys for years and only now, when accomomdations are made to protect sexually active girls does the pearl clutching and shocked gasping begin.

By Lily Toad

October 30, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

In reading the link Maxwell provided, it turns out the policy was intended for high school aged kids who were still in middle school, since the services are available in the high schools, not for prepubescents. The 11-year-old is purely hypothetical, not typical, nor is the scenario typical for ANY middle-school student. The policy is for the rare instance of a middle school student who is engaging in sex, as NetB pointed out, less than one percent of students. Can we at least start talking about 15 year olds instead of 11?

By Jack

October 30, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Because he’s superior to all Dog. His way or the highway. Isn’t that right “Chuckie”????

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Gotta run, but one more time, chuck: Will you honor NNP’s request to not use her former blog name? A man of integrity like yourself should have no problem with that, right?

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

ERyn…it’s ok to not respond in 3rd person if the question is specifically directed at you. My suggestion was in hopes of keeping this a discussion of options and compromises instead of devolving into personal attacks or critiques without counter suggestions.

I must admit that is something of a personal peeve of mine. If one is going to criticize then offer of up an alternative or a suggestion for improvement instead of just pick, pick, pick.

Your point about providing some help in the worst case scenario makes sense, until you attempt to make the “worst-case scenario” the official government policy which is advocated and applied to all students Why? What is the flaw with basing policy to ensure the worst case scenario is covered? What do you see as the consequences of applying the same rules to all and how can those be addressed into a workable plan?

By chuck

October 30, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

NetB, you asked:

Question for all…is it the responsibilty of schools to help children stay abstinent?

It durn sure is IF THEY ARE TEACHING SEX EDUCATION.

I would of course prefer that schools teach ACADEMICS and leave the other stuff to parents. I can tell you for a fact, that there are a lot of teachers that I don’t want teaching my kids “character education”, much less sex education.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

N.C. - until you attempt to make the “worst-case scenario” the official government policy which is advocated and applied to all students

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate…

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

So I’m slipping on a busy day

I forgive you, buddy. Making $$$ at work is far more important than perfect blogging!

potentially serious consequences for whom

Can’t answer for the kids of the world, but when I get worked up, there is definitely a hazard for potential hearing loss for anyone within earshot. I tend to get a little loud. Also, if it’s been a few days, the old “money shot” can become a dangerous projectile for anyone within 15 feet at the moment of bliss. Absolutely, sex can be dangerous for the innocent bystanders! ; > }

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Net—The flaw with making the “worst-case scenario” the norm lies in the unspoken “expectations” such a norm carries with it.

I know that I’m an anachronism in this world, but I’d like to believe that we humans are a little bit more than “animals in heat”. I’m not sure of the physiological reason, but when I am in a “spiritual mode”, I never think about sex.

By Lily Toad

October 30, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

chuck, when have under-aged GA minors been arrested for having consensual sex? All I hear about are men or women over 18 being arrested for having sex with minors.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Really got to run now, but still want to know, NNP, if you would be willing to take on a “salvage project” like myself. Can you teach me about tolerance and respect—about what “love” really means? Or am I a lost cause, in your opinion, who has nothing to offer in return?

Your opinion means the world to me, BTW.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

as noted in my last post, Maxwell was wrong. They CANNOT notify parents unless the CHILD gives them permission. That is the BIGGEST problem I have with the whole thing…The other thing that bugs me is that assumption that these parents are “uninvolved”. I haven’t seen that post about Maxwell being wrong and (sit down, Chuck) I agree with you that it shouldn’t be the child providing permission for disclosure. It should be a required disclosure to the parents to provide any prescription drug to a minor child. We are making an assumption that it’s the uninvolved parent and you are correct that it could just as likely be an involved parent that the child is trying to circumvent so they won’t get caught…~whistling while eyes look at ceiling~ not that any of us ever tried anything like that. Either way requiring parental notification and approval by phone and signed paperwork would ensure that the parent (involved or not) will BE involved after that phone call.

If Mara is correct about the health clinic being an independent organization then the state aiding breaking state law doesn’t apply although I understand your point.

Question though…should birth control be made available to teens OVER the age of consent without parental notification? IMO…yes. The kid is defined as old enough to consent so they should also be old enough to be able to get protection.

By Dog's Girlfriend

October 30, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

B, why you chasing No name? Don’t you love me anymore?

By AGFNPR

October 30, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

As much as I am flattered that you would think I am 2D, I am not. I am less level-headed and more argumentative. I am also more of a religious conservative than him. If you read our posts, his overall sentence structure and grammar is superior to mine. I do wish he (not she) would come back. And yes, I believe 2D is a guy because I have seen him post on the Tech sports blog. Very few women do this.

While I have posted on this blog before under differnet names (Just a Question, Just a Statement, etc.), I am going to keep posting as AGFNPR.

I still think Comp is 72John. When I read the blogs of both, they appear to be constructed from someone who writes as part of their job. Both have admitted to having parents as teachers. But, I have been wrong before and I may be wrong this time!

By B

October 30, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Why you chasing No name?

Probably because she is smart as a whip and has more soul in her little finger than any religious blowhard like chuck has in his whole body. Plus (at least in my imagination), she is incredibly beautiful, with a smile that will melt your heart.

Of course, I have nothing to offer in return…..

By chuck

October 30, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

eryn, to answer your question. I have no problem with teaching the mechanics and abstinence. By mechanics I mean the teaching of how the reproduction system works and teaching about STD’s. Using this along with abstinence works well. Along with this, ALL SEX ED should require parental permission. What we have is an OPT OUT method where if parents don’t want their students to be in the class they have to sign a note. That is ineffective because it depends on the child to bring the note back in. Rather, parents should have to sign giving permission. Since we ALL AGREE that abstinence is best, let’s teach that.

NetB present “options, choices, and the freedom to learn” to all children in the same school while respecting the “Leave my kids out of it” position of some

I’ll tell you netB, YOU CAN’T do that…at least not at school. The school should be in the business of ACADEMIC education. Parents and churches should be in charge of MORAL education. If a sorry parent wants their 11 year old to have BC, they should take them to the doctor (and yes, poor people have this choice through an abundance of free clinics).

Brudog, I was not aware that she cared one way or another. I have no problem with that, but certainly not because you asked me, but because I am aware that she doesn’t want to be referred to by her OTHER blog name that she’s been called for what…3 years? Why would ANYBODY care about that?

So mara, your answer lies in your own post:

Because we believe that the kid with the involved parent isn’t going to be harmed if we provide information and health care for the kids that don’t have that resource?

You don’t KNOW they won’t be harmed. That’s where we disagree. Children are ALWAYS harmed when convinced to go against their parents wishes. ALWAYS!

By Jack

October 30, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Lily. They just let one out. You know Mr. Wilson. He was 17 and had consensual oral sex with a 15 y.o.. Glad they let him out. Bet her Daddy is proud of her.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

Question for all…is it the responsibilty of schools to help children stay abstinent? It durn sure is IF THEY ARE TEACHING SEX EDUCATION. Chuck…is it the responsibility of the school to TEACH “Abstinence is best” while teaching sex ed or is it the responsibilityto HELP CHILDREN STAY ABSTINENT? If the latter, what practical steps can a school acutally take beyond deliverance of the ‘abstinence is best’ message to live up to that responsibility?

IMO…it is NOT the school’s responsibility to help children stay abstinent beyond reinforcing the ‘abstinence message’ while providing factual information about sexual functions.

Another though just occurred to me also…I think that when the tern Sex Education is used that people’s minds focus on SEX rather than (as Eryn pointed out) the class is about the biological functions of each sex and technically how one gets pregnant along with discussions of diseases that can be transmitted between sexual partners. Unless sex ed has radically changed, there isn’t any discussion of how to actually have sex like teaching about the stages of arousal or how to perform oral sex or how to find a G-spot,etc. My recollections were that it was all very technical. Still true?

The flaw with making the “worst-case scenario” the norm lies in the unspoken “expectations” such a norm carries with it. But I didn’t say to make it the norm, said to plan for it! A good plan covers many scenarios, including worst case, but it does not establish the worst case as the most probable or ‘the norm’ in any way.

By B

October 30, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

I was not aware that she cared one way or another

Perhaps adopting the moniker “No name please” is a clue, chuck. Tell us again how smart you are, will you?

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Bet her Daddy is proud of her SMACK! Double standard, Jack and mean to boot!!

Although if it was established that it was consentual even back during trial and the issue was simply about the age, isn’t SHE just as guilty as HE and why shouldn’t the same penalty be applied to her? To my knowledge only he went to jail, but she didn’t. Fair?

By Jack

October 30, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

I totally agree Net. She should have been charged also. Did you here about the politicians passing the video around so they could all get a look?

By Just the Facts

October 31, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

It’s illegal to give a 15 year old child alcohol & illegal drugs. It’s illegal to coerce a drunk child into giving oral sex. It’s ILLEGAL TO FILM IT, that is CHILD PORN !!!!!!

A 15 year old should not be punished because of BAD PARENTING.

A 15 year old who is not mature can become pregnant. A 17 year old who damn well knows what he is doing is wrong, cannot get pregnant. I don’t want to hear “he didn’t know it was illegal or that there was anything wrong with it”. That’s bull they knew they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

A 15 year old girl isn’t old enough to give consent. No matter what she is wearing, acting or whatever. A 15 year old girl that has bad parent’s cannot give consent.

I’m sick everytime I see that Wilson guy on TV. He is NO HERO. He was being a thug, a child molester & a child pornography maker.

By Monica Blewbillski

October 31, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

Most of the high school boys I know couldn’t get laid in a WH0REH0USE with a $100.00 bill.

By chuck

October 31, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

Thank you Whiley…for once we agree.

By andrea

October 31, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

Greetings all! You probably won’t see me post here again—I think we can all agree that I get plenty of “say” already. Just wanted to let you all know,once, that reading this blog is one of my favorite things about this gig. From both sides of the aisle—and standing in the middle—you people are, as they say up north, “wicked smart.” Any questions, or whatever, feel free to e-mail me (address with bio). Otherwise— just thanks for all the food for thought, and frequent laughs. I’ll shut up now. As you were saying…

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

!^#*! I always get busted when I get mad.

hee hee.

By Jack

October 31, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Hey Whiley.:) Missed Ya!

By Monica

October 31, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Good morning and Happy Halloween!

I was wondering when the Genarlow case was going to appear. I have to say that I absolutely don’t condone his actions on the night of the party, and you’re right, Whiley, he is not a hero. I also absolutely don’t believe he should ever have been in jail for those actions. I respectfully disagree with your position that 15 year old girls are not capable of making those decisions. I teach 15 year old girls, and they are instigators as much as the boys are. You should see some of the notes I have found in the hallway or that I have taken up en route to a recipient, written by young “ladies.” Girls are not always the victim.

With regard to the topic, I don’t think that schools encourage kids to have sex. Kids at our school can’t even hold hands during classes in the hall. Society, on the other hand, encourages kids to have sex. When the fashion industry sells thongs for 7 year old girls, and parents buy them, what message does that send?

Chuck, you hit the nail on the head when you said that Hollywood takes out-of-the-ordinary situations and portrays them as ordinary.

One more comment: providing birth control prescriptions through the school nurse, with or without parental consent, is a lawsuit waiting to happen. There is a reason that doctors perform a patient evaluation before dispensing medication. And hey, since we are giving them their bc prescriptions, why not just write their Adderall and Lexapro refills too? That would save parents lots of co-pay fees.

By chuck

October 31, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Hey Monica

You are right from a practicality standpoint. Schools should stay out of the medical business.

By Lyrazel

October 31, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

My question is this: How do parents decide at what age their children can have sex? Ah, I am basing this on the fact everyone posting has an ideal age (21 and away from home) when their child can have sex and most parents truly believe their kids have low inclinations to do it. But in Georgia the legal age of consent is 16 because that is the age they can legally get married without parental consent if she is pregnant. Is this an archaic law or does it say most teens start being sexually active at 16?

I think a lot of parents are deliberately delusional about their children having sex because it does not fit the ideal child syndrome. Ideal child syndrome parents have the bumper sticker logic that their kids are both gifted and pure and will stay that way until moving to college. I am curious if parents can look at their 12 year old objectively or if they assume the child is still innocent because they WANT innocence to be there.

By Jack

October 31, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Hey Monica. Great post.

By Scalia

October 31, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

I disagree. The 15 year-old should have been charged. I hate to bring the race card in, but how would have been if Genarlow had been white?

And I had a friend in middle school that would giggle with her female friends because a male student wore fitted jeans, and he was advanced for his age.

By chuck

October 31, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Hey Andrea, Welcome to the jungle. You really should feel free to mix it up with us on occasion. It may give us some insight into what the heck you were thinking when you wrote that stuff.

By Jack

October 31, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

“and he was advanced for his age” You mean “well hung”

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

“I disagree. The 15 year-old should have been charged. I hate to bring the race card in, but how would have been if Genarlow had been white?”

So now you want to charge children for sex crimes committed against them? So now you want to charge children when a much older person coerces them into drinking alcohol & consuming illegal drugs? Should we arrest the children who are are coerced into pornography?

If that thug Gernarlow had been white he wouldn’t have been such a hero. The clan wouldn’t have protested outside his jail to have the child porn producer released.

By NetBanker

October 31, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

A 15 year old should not be punished because of BAD PARENTING Whiley..I take it this applies to 15 yo girls only, but not boys who had bad parents? How do you know he ‘knew what he was doing’ as if it was a premeditated plan instead of a group of teens getting drunk, being horny as teens tend to be with all those hormones rolling around, and being stupid…as teens are prone to be regardless of intoxication level?

That’s bull they knew they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Absolutely right! THEY knew it! The girl also knew that she had no business being in a hotel room drinking alcohol just as much as he. The 2 year age difference shouldn’t matter nor should she get a pass just because she could get pregnant and he couldn’t….although I’ve not heard of a case of getting pregnant from giving oral sex.

I’m not defending him nor do I think he’s a hero or condone his actions, but where’s her responsibility for HER actions? She chose to be in that hotel room, she chose to consume alcohol, etc. She’s not completely innocent in the scenario.

Jack…I found the lawmakers passing around that video to be incredibly seedy and unbecoming. But everyone loves a good scandal don’t they?

I think a lot of parents are deliberately delusional about their children having sex because it does not fit the ideal child syndrome. I think Lyrazel is on to something. It seems to be a natural reaction of ‘not my child’ or ‘my child wouldn’t…’ I absolutely know I did things and got away with them when I was in my teens because I was a ‘good kid’ who earned good grades, played sports, had a part time job, went to church, and was an officer in the church youth group. ‘Good kids’ are as closely watched as not good kids. I partied more with my Church Sr. Youth Group than my regular high school friends.

By MrsLV.blogspot.com

October 31, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

I’ve got to say this because it’s been bugging me the entire time while reading this. “Young women who take oral contraceptive pills before they become pregnant with their first child run a significantly higher risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, according to new international research. “-I got this from one of many articles found online with a simple search for “birth control linked to cancer”. Why would the schools administer prescriptions without the parents concent, not considering the medical history of the child and his/her immediate family members. My immediate female family have had breast cancer, my mother having died from it a few years ago. My doctor suggested that I not take oral contraceptives any longer, though I did take them as a teenager. I wonder if this possibilty was ever considered? This procedure just doesn’t sit well with me at all.

By Archie

October 31, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

was wondering when the Genarlow case was going to appear. I have to say that I absolutely don’t condone his actions on the night of the party, and you’re right, Whiley, he is not a hero. I also absolutely don’t believe he should ever have been in jail for those actions. I respectfully disagree with your position that 15 year old girls are not capable of making those decisions. I teach 15 year old girls, and they are instigators as much as the boys are. You should see some of the notes I have found in the hallway or that I have taken up en route to a recipient, written by young “ladies.” Girls are not always the victim.

Monica I agree with your statements in the paragraph above and I don’t view Genarlow as a hero but I do think he was a victim. Also you don’t film something if you really think you could go to jail for ten years so a 17 year-old isn’t really that mature. I really agree with your last sentence Monica but you must understand that some folk have major psychological problems against men. There is a reason that doctors perform a patient evaluation before dispensing medication. That’s how I feel too Monica and it’s why I am not liberal on this topic. I like the conservative approach on this topic.

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

“I’m not defending him nor do I think he’s a hero or condone his actions, but where’s her responsibility for HER actions? She chose to be in that hotel room, she chose to consume alcohol, etc. She’s not completely innocent in the scenario.”

I’ll bet the 15 year old wanted to attend a new years party where there were popular boys throwing a party at a real cool hotel, where there would be dancing & laughing, flirting & making out. I doubt very seriously she was hoping she would have the opportunity to give oral sex while intoxicated & have the whole thing on video.

At what age can a male coerce a 15 year old child into sex, alcohol & child porn before he should be charged with a crime?

If the thugs wouldn’t have videotaped the crime they wouldn’t have spent a day in jail. They convicted themselves.

By Mara

October 31, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

MrsLV@blogspot - “Young women who take oral contraceptive pills before they become pregnant with their first child run a significantly higher risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, according to new international research.”

I’m going to make an assumption that the website you got this off of is by one of those anti-contraception groups and they are citing outdated data. It probably also links abortion to increased cancer risk…another refuted “fact”. The most recent study done in 2002, under the auspices of the CDC and the NIH, unequivically states that the pill does not increase the risk of breast cancer. The entire article is worth the read if you are truly concerned…

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020627002452.htm

“This has been a concern for women who use oral contraceptives,” said CDC Acting Director David Fleming, M.D. “Previous studies have shown that for healthy women who do not smoke, the health benefits of oral contraceptives far exceed the health risks. This study should ease women’s fears about oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk.”

Compared to women who had never used oral contraceptives, women who had used any type of oral contraceptive did not have a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, examination of multiple aspects of oral contraceptive exposure (ever, current, or former use, duration of use, age at first use, time since last use, and use by estrogen dose) revealed little evidence that oral contraceptives increase breast cancer risk. Oral contraceptive use among women with a family history of breast cancer was not associated with a significantly increased breast cancer risk, nor was the initiation or oral contraceptive use at a young age. Results were generally similar across age and racial groups.

By JokesOn

October 31, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet the 15 year old wanted to attend a new years party where there were popular boys throwing a party at a real cool hotel, where there would be dancing & laughing, flirting & making out. I doubt very seriously she was hoping she would have the opportunity to give oral sex while intoxicated & have the whole thing on video.

And ill bet it was not her first bj. Should we be looking for the others that came before him?

At what age can a male coerce a 15 year old child into sex, alcohol & child porn before he should be charged with a crime?

Showing up at a party drunk, with booze, and offering to give bjs usually WILL get you in the door at any party. They did know it was being taped and apparently showed no objecttion.

I think they wanted to show off their abilities and found a place/persons to complete that goal.

By Mara

October 31, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

one wonders if Whiley would be as outraged if the girl was 17 and the boy 15…

By Scalia

October 31, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

LOL…yeah Jack, he was. I just didn’t want to put it in those terms.

And, who was the one filming Gernarlow? Shouldn’t the guy that was filming it be in jail, too? And the person that passed the tape around.

I agree with Netb. The girl should not have been up there, and where were her friends? Every time I go out with my friends there is always a wing man or in women’s terms, there always is a girl that keeps the group from getting to rowdy and making bad decisions i.e. driving drunk or doing something that you may regret the next day.

By Monica

October 31, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Even the girl’s mother said that Genarlow should not have been arrested. The girl lied to her parents about where she was going to be.

Does anyone know if the other boys involved were over age 18? How old do you have to be to rent a hotel room? Did someone’s parents rent the room for the party? If so, then should that parent be arrested for aiding and abetting?

BTW, Net and Jack, at one point there was a lawyer (I can’t remember who) who wanted to press charges against DA DAvid McDade for…using his own description of the video… distribution of child pornagraphy! Was it really necessary for the media to show footage of that video? Was it really necessary to display it to that many lawyers, judges, and politicians not directly involved in the case?

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Good one Jokeson. Blame children for thier own sexual abuse. We both know that’s not how that night played out. It is very common for children to be drugged in order for sexual abuse to happen.

15 year old girls should not be free-bees for older boys just because they have bad parents. 15 year old children should be protected by law even if their parent’s allowed them to be sexualized early in life by too much TV, certain types of music, little or no life lessons taught, little or no supervision etc. 15 year old children are at risk if laws against children are not enforced. Boys are not above the law & are not allowed to commit crimes just becuase they are under 18.

Again Jokeson, At what age can a male coerce a 15 year old child into sex, alcohol & child porn before he should be charged with a crime?

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

“one wonders if Whiley would be as outraged if the girl was 17 and the boy 15…”

Absolutely. I don’t think anybody should be giving a child alcohol & illegal drugs for the sole purpose of sexually molesting them. I also think anyone male OR FEMALE that video tapes a child in a sex act, especially if it was coerced, should be put in PRISON.

I DO think it’s much worse when an older boy sexually molests a child. That child could very well end up pregnant. Isn’t that why the laws are what they are? Because way too many children have become pregnant by much older boys?

By Jack

October 31, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Whiley. It didn’t appear that she was coerced or forced into the act. Had she been forced they wouldn’t have let him out of jail. Her own mother said he shouldn’t have gone to jail.

By JokesOn

October 31, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

You are utterly mis-informed as to what happened before and during the party (and are also insane to boot;).

By JokesOn

October 31, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

“one wonders if Whiley would be as outraged if the girl was 17 and the boy 15…”

“Absolutey….but it is much worse for an older boy to molest a girl than vice verse.”

What do you think “as outraged” means??? Classic!!!

By Jack

October 31, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Not many boys would object to being “molested” by an older girl.

By Mara

October 31, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Whiley - what do you consider “much older”?

Do you think that that Wilson and his boys shared their drugs and alcohol with those girls “for the sole purpose of sexually molesting them”? I’m just wondering because I’m not so aged that I don’t remember some of the wild parties I went to in high school and, as I recall, it was usually a bunch of friends having some fun getting tanked together, with the occasional couple wandering off for a while. I don’t think any of us 14-17 year olds considered messing around with each other “sexual molestation” regardless of what the LAW might call it. We were, after all, classmates who found each other attractive.

By B

October 31, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Shaunti stated in her essay that she believes the most appropriate intervention that adults can make when they discover that a child is engaging in self-destructive behavior is to assist the child in stopping the self-destructive behavior. Makes a lot of sense to me. What doesn’t make sense to me is how some of you folks here equate giving birth control to minors with helping them to stop the behavior. Can someone explain that to me?

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

What do you think “as outraged” means??? Classic!!!

I would be just as outraged, but there is more to lose for the girl because she CAN become pregnant, not the boy.

CLASSIC you try to pick me apart than deal with the real issues.

So let me get this straight, some of you think that if a child shows up at a party with boys, it’s a free for all? There is no crime committed, even if she is intoxicated & has that normal young girl tendancy to get approval from boys? If a child APPEARS to be enjoying oral sex with an older boy, there is no crime being committed?

By B

October 31, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Whiley—If I’m understanding your POV correctly, young girls never choose to initiate sexual liasons of their own volition, they can only be “victims”? Assuming that is the case, then shouldn’t the goal of society be to protect all these young innocent flowers from the aggressive males? As such, do you see dispensing BC meds to young girls as part of the “solution”?

By JokesOn

October 31, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Not many boys would object to being “molested” by an older girl.

Having once been in the therapy field, I can assure you that the guys that were intoduced to sex via a 40+yro coochie disagree totally.

By B

October 31, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Mara—When I think about some of the parties I attended as a teenager, my memories aren’t as warm and fuzzy as yours apparently are. What I remember were immature kids drinking heavily and taking dangerous drugs, with many engaging in high-risk sex.

By NetBanker

October 31, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

‘Good kids’ are as closely watched as not good kids. Missing word. Good kids are NOT as closely watched…

By Archie

October 31, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

I absolutely agree with JokesOn’s 12:36 pm post and no we are not the same person. It is amazing how much sound logic and reasoning some of you are using but yet Genarlow spent time in jail. Like Monica, I don’t think he should have done a day in jail and like I said earlier common sense has to trump political leanings sometimes. Also, Whiley, the term thug is now the new ‘n’ word when used to describe young black males. I blame the hip-hop culture for adopting negative words but it is straight up prejudice the way some whites use the term “thug” so prevalently to describe young black males. Months ago I would have just ignored that reference but since people don’t really like you anyway, I just post exactly the way I see it. Finally, Scalia is right that there is always a woman around to make sure her friend does not get taken advantage of and that way of doing things carries over into adulthood.

By JokesOns

October 31, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

So let me get this straight, some of you think that if a child shows up at a party with boys, it’s a free for all? There is no crime committed, even if she is intoxicated & has that normal young girl tendancy to get approval from boys? If a child APPEARS to be enjoying oral sex with an older boy, there is no crime being committed?

First, get educated on WHAT HAPPENED because the girls did not just show up. Geeze.

Seeing as you are not providing any limits in your question, I will use the current example (15ish year old girls arriving drinking and offering bjs) as a general case. I personally do not think that anything criminal is going on, although it may or may not be inappropriate behavior.

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Having once been in the therapy field, I can assure you that the guys that were intoduced to sex via a 40+yro coochie disagree totally.

jOKES ON wants the world to know what a sexist pig he is.

B, young girls do very often initiate sex. Girls are just as full of those crazy hormones as boys are. 17 year old boys know that when 15 year old children show up at their party, it’s against the law to give them alcholol & illegal drugs. 17 year old boys know that 15 year old girls are boy-crazy & can be easiley coerced into doing things that can hurt them. 17 year old boys know they are doing something wrong when they have coerced (even a willing child) to oral sex when his buddy’s are in the background high-5in him & filming it. 17 year old boys also know it’s probably illegal to film a 15 year old child in the act while intoxicated by the alchol & drugs that THEY PROVIDED.

OLDER MALES ALSO HAVE A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THEMSELVES TO NOT HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A 15 YEAR OLD CHILD NO MATTER IF SHE THROWS HERSELF ALL OVER HIM.

I think schools & parents should absolutely give out birth control. Birth control should be so available no teen is never without it. Birth control PILLS I’m not for because of possible health risks, heart attack, stroke, blood clots. You would think this day & age birth control would be better.

By NetBanker

October 31, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

We both know that’s not how that night played out. NO, we don’t know that. WE weren’t there, were we Whiley?

I don’t think anybody should be giving a child alcohol & illegal drugs for the sole purpose of sexually molesting them. This I can agree with, but it doesn’t describe what occurred in that hotel room. They ALL got drunk and sex happened…as happens all the darn time between drunk people. You keep approaching this as if you were in the room or participating in a premeditated plan to get the girls drunk just to get into their panties.

What I remember were immature kids drinking heavily and taking dangerous drugs, with many engaging in high-risk sex. That pretty much describes high school parties for the last 30 or more years so I still agree with Mara that from the teens’ perspective there may have been sex, but not molestation.

By B

October 31, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

NetB—What do you mean by “good kids are not as closely watched”…?

Sadly, my parents were divorced when I was about 12 and my mom had to work constantly to keep a roof over our heads. Because of that, my sisters and I received absolutely no adult supervision when we were teenagers—we could do exactly as we pleased. Not a good situation, to say the least. The only ‘role model’ I had was a math teacher who took some interest in me. When he noticed I was coming to school wasted every day, he confronted me about it in a caring way.

By Monica

October 31, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Hey Net, do you remember the “Hookah Party” scandal in the news several months ago? Many “good kids” attended, much to their parents’ dismay.

I was a good kid because my parents closely watched me. I was never allowed to attend a party unless my mother had called the mother of the friend who was hosting, and made sure that a parent would be in attendance (I didn’t go to many parties!). I could never spend the night with a friend unless the same protocol was followed. My parents always opened our home to my friends, which was good. I never snuck (sneaked?) out of the house for fear of what would happen to me if I got caught. Good kids are only good if their parents watch them!

By Mara

October 31, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

B - What I remember were immature kids drinking heavily and taking dangerous drugs, with many engaging in high-risk sex

yeah…and you hated it, right? My point was that even though we were “immature kids drinking heavily,taking dangerous drugs, and perhaps even engaging in high-risk sex”…it was what one did on the weekends in a sparsely populated rural county. It was fun, it was acceptable, and it was a social “scene”. The parties weren’t organized for the boys to get the girls drunk so they could molest them. They were, in fact, a bunch of immature friends engaged in risky behavior because that’s what we did for “fun”.

By B

October 31, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

NNP—If you care to know, which I doubt you do, I admire and applaud your efforts to be a sounding board/source of advice for some of the young people in your area. Having been raised virtually parent-less, I wish a responsible adult had taken some interest in me and my sisters.

By B

October 31, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Whiley—I actually had several opportunities as a young man to have sex, but I always said no, and waited until I was 18. Part of the reason was likely fear, but, as corny as it sounds, an inner voice always spoke up to me and said “No, it’s wrong. Wait until you’re in love.”

Pretty sappy, huh? Now, if I could only get that darn voice to be quiet now that I’m an adult!

By NetBanker

October 31, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

there is always a wing man Always a good plan, Scalia. My friends do the same thing. Sometimes you just need someone you trust to step in to let you know that your ‘beer goggles’ are affecting your vision and decision-making skills.

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

Excuse me, but I would describe any young man acting like those boys did as THUGS. WHATEVER COLOR THEY ARE. I’m thinking you must be black because you are going for the race thing, which has NOTHING TO DO with sexual abuse of young teens.

They were drinking & taking drugs, giving drugs to CHILDREN & FILMING A CHILD DURING A SEX ACT & LAUGHING WITH THE OTHER THUGS.

Some of you people are sick. A child was sexually molested & given drugs & was filmed in child porn.

IT’S ILLEGAL ! !

I think the real crime here is that some of you don’t think 15 year old children can be molested or taken advantage of. That says a LOT.

At what age should an older male be procecuted for giving a 15 year old alchohol & drugs & making child porn?

By B

October 31, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

yeah—and you hated it, right?

A little bit of partying can be fun, but not when people are shooting drugs into their arms and get hooked on heroin and crystal meth when they’re not even 16.

BTW—Your mom is my kind of gal!! Glad to know you had loving parents.

By JokesOn

October 31, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

jOKES ON wants the world to know what a sexist pig he is.

How does having knowledge of the effect of molestation on men exhibit that?

You are just spewing hate bc your pi$$y today;)

By B

October 31, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

Whiley—I’m very curious to know what type of upbringing you received. I’ve noticed you have very strong feelings about male-female relationships. Is there anything in your upbringing that contributed to your strong feelings?

BTW, the reason I’m a hard-core conservative when it comes to raising kids is because I experienced first-hand the negative effects of being raised in a “permissive” home.

By B

October 31, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

NetB—Since it’s Halloween today, can you tell us about some of the skeletons in your closet?? I’m sure it would make great reading!!

By Mara

October 31, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

people are shooting drugs into their arms and get hooked on heroin and crystal meth when they’re not even 16

and do you think this is the norm for adolescent parties?

BTW—Your mom is my kind of gal!! Glad to know you had loving parents

Huh? WTF is that supposed to mean?

By Dr. Smelsarat

October 31, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

B, my advice to you is get a shrink and stop acting out on blogs. You have serious issues, such as your guilt feelings around sexual activity as a grown man, and you should take care of them. Otherwise you will never find peace in your life.

By B

October 31, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

I did see a nice piece on ABC news last night about John McCain and am now thinking strongly about throwing my hat in the ring with him. Guliani has been slipping badly, IMO, especially when he started talking about a “co-Presidency” with his wife ala Bill Clinton. I have nightmares about Thompson winning the Republican nomination though. IME, Mormons are generally nutty people.

I do think Cindy McCain would make a terrific first lady, and would expect her to be an effective advocate for women’s and children’s issues like Barbara Bush, Sr. was.

Would any of you on the more liberal side of the aisle object to John McCain?

By Archie

October 31, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

Whiley don’t call JokesON a sexist pig unless you’re willing to be called a sexist pig. If the jury used the reasoning Netbanker used in his 2:03 pm post Genarlow would not have gone to jail. Also you cannot coerce someone if they are willing that is not possible since the word coerce means to force someone to do something against their will.

I never snuck (sneaked?) out of the house for fear of what would happen to me if I got caught. Good kids are only good if their parents watch them! I agree with you once again Monica. At 17 I shared a beer with a friend of mine, well, back then it was legal to drink beer at age 18 so basically at 17 I did something illegal, and stupid but I guarantee you if I had to stand in front of my parents when I got home that would have been the last time I drank anything underage.

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

using the term 40+yro coochie is what I have a problem with.

I was supervised closely as well as my brothers. We didn’t even try to lie about where we were because my parents were always close behind or without me knowing were checking up on what I was doing & where I was. We never felt too restricted because they were sneeky about it, we found out later on LOL. They made sure we were doing things that were good for our age at the time. Rollerskating, supervised dances & parties, video arcades, etc. If I was spending the night out at a friends house there was no question the other parent got a check in phone call from my mother. It was no big deal she never embarrassed me(too much), it was nice to feel loved. Now college was a different thing all together!

Hey B you aren’t sappy at all !

Today most parents do NOT PARENT.

By B

October 31, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Mara—My point is simply that kids need close supervision from adults, and without it, many will “push the limits” to dangerous levels. The parties I attended were full of kids whose parents didn’t really give a s** what happened, with predictable consequences. Sorry my compliment to your parents for caring enough to check out where you were spending the night came out wrong (apparently).

By B

October 31, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Dr. Smelsarat—Thank you for the kind advice. I guess it would be better than killing myself.

By NetBanker

October 31, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

NetB—What do you mean by “good kids are not as closely watched”…? My experience and observations are that kids who are defined as ‘good kids’ have involved parents as Mara indicates, but that they aren’t questioned and grilled quite so much as bad kids. It’s easier for good kids to get away with the same thing a bad kid gets caught doing because, in general, people either don’t think to consider a good kid doing something wrong or if you do get caught you tend to get a pass or less severe punishment. The other important factor is to act with confidence because being nervous is always a dead giveaway.

To give you a couple of real-life examples: Caught in high school by the principal trying to sign out early to play hookie with my girlfriend and another friend Julia so we could go boating for the afternoon. Principal pulls us into his office, gives us a lecture about his being disappointed and knew that we were smarter/better than that…then let’s us go with a wink and a ‘be sneakier next time because if you get caught no more Mr. Nice Guy.’

Clean-cut, in a suit, carrying briefcase college student went to D.C. to visit friends and do research at Library of Congress for a paper. While there school asks if I can visit some congressmen and senators to hand-deliver letters and meet with them to discuss changes in federal grants and student loans. After the last meeting I’m wandering around one of the office buildings and noting that there are fewer and fewer people the direction I’m heading. I realize I’m lost, but just keep wandering around hoping to find someone to help me. I finally hear people so I head that direction and round a corner to see an elevator at the end of a short hall. I rush toward the elevator, passing a security checkpoint, and another guard holds open the elevator so I can get on. As I look back there is a sign “Restricted access. Senate Members and Staff Only.” As I exit the elevator I see another set of signs indicating the same and discover I’ve been tooling around restricted areas with not a soul saying a word because I looked the part and blended in.

Mara…I had an 11:30pm curfew and NEVER attempted to sneak out for fear of the consequences of getting caught. My point was that even though we were “immature kids drinking heavily,taking dangerous drugs, and perhaps even engaging in high-risk sex”…it was what one did on the weekends in a sparsely populated rural county. True that! I went to many a bonfire field party. We also drank and drove….of course you could drive for miles and never pass another car, but WOW were the roads winding and DARK. You had a greater chance of running off the road into a field or hitting a cow that got loose from the pasture than you did of hitting another car.

By B

October 31, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Whiley—Thank you for sharing. I’m glad to know that you also had caring parents. And thanks for not mocking me for being an old-fashioned romantic at heart.

By Monica

October 31, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Genarlow was 17. The last time I checked, the age of a legal adult is 18. We should really find out who gave him drugs and alcohol, since technically he was still a child himself, and as you said, it is illegal to give alcohol to children.

Also, according to ABC news, the 15 year old girl told authorities that she had not been drinking.

By B

October 31, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica! How ‘bout them Dawgs! It’s always sweet to beat Florida, even though Spurrier has been gone for a long time. Looks like it will be quite a showdown with Auburn this year.

Have you seen any of the ads for the movie “Beowulf’ yet? Looks very exciting! Way better than the book! ; > }

By Monica

October 31, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

I’ve seen one preview for Beowulf, and I’m guessing that we won’t be able to show it in school! But I can’t wait to go see it!

By chuck

October 31, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Don’t be too hasty Brudog. Dr. Smellsarat could be wrong.

By B

October 31, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Net and Mara—Your developmental model of “kids will be kids” makes a lot of sense for children raised in good homes. I don’t see any harm with a kid having a few beers before 18, as long as s/he is doing well in school, etc.

At the same time, do you have any appreciation for what life is like for kids who don’t come from a good home? I have a feeling that if you grew up in my neighborhood, you wouldn’t have such a “permissive” outlook. Not an insult to either of you, just an opinion.

By Mara

October 31, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

B - regarding my parents, it did come out sounding kind of snide.

Net - LOL! Ah, bonfires. Ya gotta have a good bonfire, how else would people find the party?!

You had a greater chance of running off the road into a field …than you did of hitting another car”

Been there, done that…lost a muffler and got brush stuck in the undercarriage. But we did miss the snow fence…LOL!

anyway…catch y’all later.

By Jack

October 31, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

“some of you don’t think 15 year old children can be molested or taken advantage of.”

Wrong Whiley. Everyone on this blog would agree to the opposite. Name one on this blog who thinks that. Just one.

By GOB

October 31, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

If that thug Gernarlow had been white he wouldn’t have been such a hero. The clan wouldn’t have protested outside his jail to have the child porn producer released.

Only because if he were white, the chances of us ever even hearing about it are about zero. How many parties do you think the cops bust up in east Cobb every weekend where this same stuff is going on?

And I write that as a white guy who was raised in the suburbs.

By Newscast

October 31, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Those poor abused Malaysian men, unable to pray properly due to distractions of women in tight dresses:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306658,00.html

By Archie

October 31, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

*Only because if he were white, the chances of us ever even hearing about it are about zero. How many parties do you think the cops bust up in east Cobb every weekend where this same stuff is going on?

And I write that as a white guy who was raised in the suburbs.*

GOB, that was a good post. You are acknowledging something that a lot of people know and that’s why I have a problem with the term thug being thrown around so much these days. I do realize that it was popularized by hip-hop culture so I am not saying all whites are wrong for using the term but it is used so often to describe young black males and yet so many petty crimes do happen as you suggest in the suburbs all the time but no such term is used. I like a lot of the posters on this blog but I have to respond when I see something crazy. Anyway I am impressed with a number of posters on this topic Netbanker,Mara,GOB,Jack, and Monica just to name a few. Heck it makes me wonder how did G. Wilson end up in jail.

By NetBanker

October 31, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

Whiley….if the ‘older’ male is still a minor himself then he IS still a child too. You seem to keep losing sight of the fact that in the case we are discussing they were 2 years apart in age and BOTH minors. So I suppose I’d stick with the current/recently revised law that includes the romeo/juliet clause.

I think the real crime here is that some of you don’t think 15 year old children can be molested or taken advantage of. HELLO! Breathe for a damn minute because NO ONE HAS SAID THIS!! Of course a 15 year old can be be molested, but not by someone who is only 2 years older than they. You keep shreiking like G. Wilson was a 20+ year old taking advantage of a 15 yo.

do you think this is the norm for adolescent parties? Mara…apparently we country folk had different kinds of parties.

At the same time, do you have any appreciation for what life is like for kids who don’t come from a good home? I have a feeling that if you grew up in my neighborhood, you wouldn’t have such a “permissive” outlook. Not an insult to either of you, just an opinion. Not insulted at all. I can appreciate what that is like because a few of my friends didn’t come from the greatest of homes…two were molested by a parent, one had an alcoholic mother who was verbally and emotionally abusive.

By Whiley

October 31, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Only because if he were white, the chances of us ever even hearing about it are about zero. How many parties do you think the cops bust up in east Cobb every weekend where this same stuff is going on?

ANY IDIOT that kept a video tape of thier crime would have been thrown in jail. ANY COLOR ! ! This is not the first time a bunch of idiots have gotten themselves busted because they just had to video tape that passed out girl. That’s nice recording the rape of another person.

And if somebody is going to act like a thug, don’t get mad if you are called one. No matter what race you are.

By John D

November 1, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this

Hey Chuck your post are pretty good! Mrs republady is probably a liberal trying to spread more propaganda! But John D is a real poster thank you very much.

Schools concerning sex ed are as holly pushing their agendas. It is not just ABOUT MONEY as another poster tried to say. Schoools are pushing free sex agendas as all liberal institutions do, this also why they do not want homeschooling to flurish or private schools when private schools and homeschoolers far excel public schoolers.

Wheres the media why dont they debate abstinenece, the reason why is they know it works and they know they will be shown scientificaly and theologicaly the truth behind the matter. Its the same as the lies of evolution that they teach when there is no real evidence to support evolution i.e. there is and has never been an example of A bio genesis anywhere or you cannot add to the genetic code and natural selection has nothing to do with macro evolution, there is not one example of a connection. so you see Schools and hollywood and mainstream media etc…etc… push their agendas they dont tell women of the dangers of giving ibto a guy who brings sexual activity out of marriage and the countless research that shows she is the one who is gonna get left in the dust ( also to mention men who bring sexual antics out of marriage are liars and cheaters) research shows it and I personaly have observed it for 20+ years.

Also we do not look at statistics for support of own agenda if one is honest about looking for the truth! then you look for the FACTS and ALL of the evidence, this is an honest researcher who does this! Peace!

By ThereIsAGod

November 1, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Scum-bag Westover Baptist Church will soon be asset-less, sucessfully sued into the StoneAge, where they belong.

By chuck

November 1, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Let the record show that the “pastor” of that so-called church is a registered democrat.

By Jack

November 1, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Next time they demonstrate at a funeral the fire dept should take the hose to them. Better yet would be Tony Soprano and his boys open a can of whupass on them.

By Mara

November 1, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

new poll out on this topic -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110100136.html

WASHINGTON — People decisively favor letting their public schools provide birth control to students, but they also voice misgivings that divide them along generational, income and racial lines, a poll showed.

Sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many - 62 percent - said they believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage pregnancies.

Minorities, older and lower-earning people were likeliest to prefer requiring parental consent, while those favoring no restriction tended to be younger and from cities or suburbs. People who wanted schools to provide no birth control at all were likelier to be white and higher-income earners.

Younger people were likelier to consider sex education and birth control the better way to limit teenage pregnancies, as were 64 percent of minorities and 47 percent of whites. Nearly seven in 10 white evangelicals opted for abstinence, along with about half of Catholics and Protestants.

Though men and women have similar views about whether to provide contraceptives to students, women are likelier than men to think it will not encourage sexual intercourse, 55 percent to 43 percent.

Asked when young people should first be allowed to get birth control, ages 16 and 18 drew the most responses, while only a third chose age 15 or younger. Women’s selections averaged just over age 16, slightly higher than men, while young people and Westerners preferred younger ages than others.

By Anonymous

November 1, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Let the record show that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are Republicans, and that’s more than enough embarrassment for one party.

By ThereIsAGod

November 1, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Let the record show that the “pastor” of that so-called church is a registered democrat.

And Senator Larry Craig, certified for public-restroom-homo-sex, is a registered Republican.

By ThereIsAGod

November 1, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

CHUCK - you COULD have kept your mouth shut, about the Westover’s pastor’s political party affiliation.

But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

By Jack

November 1, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Don’t critize Chuck. He is perfect in every way.

By Calling B.S.!

November 1, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Chuck: “Let the record show that the “pastor” of that so-called church is a registered democrat.”

What’s your source on that little gem? A right wing web site whose mission is to slander anything non-republican and make excuses for the sickos on the right? Or did you just pull that out of your lower torso because you can’t make a poopie in the morning until you spread a a few lies around? But then, lying’s not a sin if you heard it Hannity’s radio hour first, right?

By Mara

November 1, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Schools concerning sex ed are as holly pushing their agendas

am I the only one who doesn’t “get” what holly has to do with school, sex ed, or the “librul agenda”?

By Jack

November 1, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

I thought holly was a prickly bush. Didn’t think they had agendas. Could use a baby wrap about now, had a light breakfast.

By GOB

November 1, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Schools concerning sex ed are as holly pushing their agendas

am I the only one who doesn’t “get” what holly has to do with school, sex ed, or the “librul agenda”?

Mara - It is clearly part of the pro free sex/war on christmas that all public schools are engaged in. We had a faculty meeting this morning to discuss new ways to promote free sex and how we could crush christmas this year.

By Mara

November 1, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

calling B.S. - sorry sweetie. much to my dismay, chunk is correct in saying the Phelps is a registered Dem. In fact he’s run for office 5 times as a Dem. Never won, but he did run as a Dem. Why he chose my party I’ll never know because we support pretty much everything he’s against.

Unless, like Steven Colbert, he can’t afford the fees to file as a Republican…LOL!

By Hans Christian Brando

November 1, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

When a biology teacher has the students dissect a frog, is the teacher teaching the students to go cut up animals outside of class for fun?

By lozen

November 1, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Hmmmm Mara. I noticed that too but just chalked it up to… well, you know, typical. The whole thing didn’t make too much sense with all the misspellings, words left out and no punctuation. No Jack. holly is an actress with a squeaky wittle voice. And I haven’t been keeping up with the news. Tell me about this church you’re talking about.

By B

November 1, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Wow! I missed all the fireworks this AM. It sounds like more than one poster woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I guess having to face spending the whole day in a cubicle can get discouraging…..or even facing a classroom full of 13 yo kids, eh chuck?

By B

November 1, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

I didn’t hear about the latest church scandal either, and I’m not sure I really want to. Very discouraging when our “role models” in society fall….

ThereIsAGod—You’re right about one thing, the more “sanctimonious” a person is, the more skeletons they’re usually hiding in their closets. You seem a little too gleeful about the pastor’s fall from grace, however. My reaction is usually sadness when I hear of scandals, regardless of the political affiliation of the person involved.

By B

November 1, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Hans—It would be wonderful if sex-ed could be taught in a “value-free” fashion, but I just don’t think that’s possible. Overtly or covertly, consciously or unconsciously, I believe the teacher’s core attitude toward what constitutes normal sexual relationships will come through, whether intended or not. That is the reason I had a concern about NNP’s stated role as a neighborhood counselor to the kids. She may believe she’s only transmitting the facts, but I wonder if that’s truly possible.

By B

November 1, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

If anyone cares, I did ask my GF last night if she thought I needed help for my ongoing anxiety/depression/OC tendencies. She agreed that stress is a big contributor, especially having to sweat it out until my properties are sold. I agreed to see someone if things don’t improve soon. I absolutely don’t want to take any medication, however. I think all those “mind meds” are poison.

By NetBanker

November 1, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

We had a faculty meeting this morning to discuss new ways to promote free sex and how we could crush christmas this year. LOL, GOB! I don’t know why the focus on the schools with the ‘war on Christmas’ or ‘taking the Christ out of Christmas.’ Follow the money!! It’s BIG BUSINESS who has taken the Christ out of Christmas and turned the holiday into a secular orgy of needless consumption.

B…you need to do some quickie research on Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. They’re the ones who were protesting at the funerals of military personnel killed in the war with claims that God is punishing America because of gays. They’re one of those “Christian” (in quotes on purpose because they are anything but) groups that holds up signs and shouts at protests that God Hates (fill in blank).

Let the record show that the “pastor” of that so-called church is a registered democrat.

And Senator Larry Craig, certified for public-restroom-homo-sex, is a registered Republican.

Grow up people! We all know that neither one of these individuals represents the entire party.

By B

November 1, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Gotta run. I told my GF I’m going to do my best to stay away from the blog and quit pouting about NNP’s (cruel) rejection. Love to all…..

By Mara

November 1, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

GOB - We had a faculty meeting this morning to discuss new ways to promote free sex and how we could crush christmas this year

you’re so crazy, LOL!!

Jack - Baby wraps are like chinese food. You can stuff yourself til you’re ready to burst, but two hours later…hungry again :^)

lozen - The “church” is Westboro Baptist. They’re the yahoo’s going around protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers and murdered gay people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WestboroBaptistChurch

“The church bases its work around the belief expressed by its best known slogan and the address of its primary website, “God hates f*”, and expresses the idea, based on its Biblical eisegesis, that nearly every tragedy in the world is linked to homosexuality – specifically society’s increasing tolerance and acceptance of the so-called “Homosexual Agenda.” The group maintains that God hates homosexuals above all other kinds of “sinners” aand that homosexuality should be a capital crime.”

By B

November 1, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the “education” regarding Phelps and Westboro Baptist, Net and Mara. Like lozen, I’ve been avoiding the news lately….

For the life of me, I can’t understand why some of these church leaders can’t be satisfied with “leading by example” and feel such a compulsion to spread a gospel of hatred.

By B

November 1, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Anyone watch the new show called “Phenomenon”? It features “mentalist” magicians, and is hosted by Chriss Angel and Uri Geller. Some of the performances are pretty mindblowing. Not on the order of Chriss Angel’s “Mind Feak” series, but not bad. As a kid, I had a fascination with Houdini that persists through the present.

By Mara

November 1, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

on the plus side, as ThereIAGod mentioned this morning, Westboro is in for some hard financial times. They chose the wrong funeral to protest at a while ago and the aggreived father sued their butts for emotional distress. Jury awarded the father 2.9 million in compensatory damaged and levied another 8 million in punative damages.

By B

November 1, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

NNP—If you can find it in your heart to send an encouraging word, I’d love to hear from you. brunoez123.

By erynmarch

November 1, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

the rev. phelps has been around for quite some time. he’s got himself a little cult made up mostly of his own family members.

in keeping with the talk of bully nutbars and “war on (insert religious holiday)”… hannity has declared halloween a liberal holiday. ha ha ha ha!!! i know, i know – halloween is not a religious holiday. but it’s still funny.

HANNITY: “By the way, Halloween is a liberal holiday, because we’re teaching our children to beg for something for free.”

if you want to read what hannity, colmes and rivera think about birth control in schools here’s a link:

text to be linked

By B

November 1, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

I remember now, Mara, who Westbrook Baptist is. I agree they should be liable for some damages, although I’m always a little skeptical when juries award damages in the millions for “emotional distress”.

By B

November 1, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

eryn—Halloween, or more specifically, The Day of the Dead, actually is a religious holiday for Wiccans. Not due to the free candy, but as a recognition that the soul and spirit can transcend death.

By chuck

November 1, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

This is not a “new church scandal” as someone said. This is bout a group of lunatics who have been protesting at military funerals for the past 2-3 years. That group from Kansas. They just lost a lawsuit and have to pay damages because of a protest at a Marine’s funeral. As much as I hate it, it’s probably going to be thrown out on appeal. I can’t imagine that the courts will not uphold the groups right to freedom of speech, as horrible as that speech is.

By erynmarch

November 1, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

yeah, i know, samhain and day of the dead and stuff. i’m not trying to make light of wiccans’ religion, i have a dear pagan friend or two.

i was just afraid someone might have a heart attack if i called halloween a religious holiday. it might constitute a war on christianity!

: )

By Stanford-Binet

November 1, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

chuck—What is your opinion about the relationship between how “sanctimonious” a person claims to be vs. the number of skeletons in their own closets? Our rating of your IQ depends upon your answer….

By chuck

November 1, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

eryn,

I read the transcript. Was that not one of the dumbest conversations ever? Geraldo is a real idiot. You ought to hear him when he talks about illegal immigration.

By chuck

November 1, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Stanford-Brudog, your iq isn’t high enough to evaluate mine.

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Thankfully “Mischief Night” seems to have fallen by the wayside. Back in the day, Mischief Night was the real holiday for us hoodlums. Halloween was anti-climactic by comparison. Of course, you always had to watch out for flying buckshot when the homeowners caught us in the act.

By JohnF

November 1, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Actually Chuck, the Westboro Baptist Church has been protesting for almost a decade…but no one cared when they showed up to protest at the funerals of gay men who had died of AIDS…so to get more attention they turned to the funerals of military veterans. I don’t think it will be turned over on appeal…this seems to be a solid tort case of “intentional infliction of emotional distress”…the fact that they did it from a public venue doesn’t absolve them of that offense. I wish more people would sue them…I doubt if they have infinite financial resources…they may all be lawyers but that doesn’t make them good lawyers.

By JokesOn

November 1, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

This is not a “new church scandal” as someone said. This is bout a group of lunatics…

You call them lunatics, they call themselves guided by the holy spirit!

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

your iq isn’t high enough to evaluate mine

Thanks for the belly laugh, chuck. haven’t laughed that hard in a long time…….

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—Wouldn’t you think a man with an IQ as high as chuck’s would catch on to the “Holy Spirit” scam? I guess he’s profiting too much to care to seek the truth.

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—Would it be too personal to ask what your home life was like as a kid? I have a feeling that not everything was Ozzie and Harriet out your way.

By erynmarch

November 1, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

chuck - yeah, i’m not a big fan of geraldo. never have been.

By Monica

November 1, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Mara, I think “holly” should have been Hollywood. He referenced Hollywood later in the post. I think he was trying to compare schools to Hollywood, both having financial agendas.

Also, I think Dog/B/Bruno’s reference to parents should have been addressed to me instead of you. I had mentioned how strict my parents were yesterday, and then he commented not too long afterward.

To all: real Christians don’t protest at funerals of anyone, especially people who are fighting for our country! :)

By JokesOn

November 1, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—Wouldn’t you think a man with an IQ as high as chuck’s would catch on to the “Holy Spirit” scam? I guess he’s profiting too much to care to seek the truth.

Don’cha know it?

I can hear em’ now:

Chuckie: “My holy spirit is better than yours!”

phelps: “Nuu-Uhh. Is not!”

Chuckie: “Is too!”

(repeat and rinse)

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

eryn—you may find it humorous to know that Geraldo’s real name is Jerry Rivers. A friend of mine’s mother dated “Geraldo” back in the 70s. Anyone remember the “Opening of Al Capone’s Vault” by Geraldo on live TV way back when….?

Actually, Geraldo made his name as a reporter during the Vietnam War in which he did display true courage. I personally beleive he has matured in his views, though he is still too liberal for me overall.

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

I didn’t forget you, Monica. I remember well how your daddy kept the shotgun handy for your boyfriends to see. My kind of guy!

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Any of you ever look down the barrel of a gun? Very scary feeling. I’ve had two guns pointed at my head so far. Very unnerving.

By Jersey Boy

November 1, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Oh well, so much for my no-blog pledge for today. Thank God my GF doesn’t read the blog, or I’d be out on my a* for sure.

Have a great day, everyone.

P.S. I love you too, chuckie.

By No name please...

November 1, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Against my better judgement, thought I’d pop in to ask a question.

Background to question: Some people I know buried a teenaged boy this week who died of a gunshot wound in a neighborhood where that happens all the time. You probably skipped right by the tiny blip in the news, if there was one. No one is in jail for this crime.

Question to those who want to protect “all the kids”: What if you spent the same amount of outrage, energy, passion, and activism trying to keep GUNS away from children as you do keeping information about, and control of, their own bodies away from them? Do you ever think about that? If you think one effort is more worthy than the other, can you please explain why?

By Lily Toad

November 1, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

NNP, this is a good question to pose to Shaunti and Andrea in their Suggest a Topic.

By Mara

November 1, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Monica - I think “holly” should have been Hollywood. He referenced Hollywood later in the post. I think he was trying to compare schools to Hollywood, both having financial agendas

perhaps you’re right…except he denied that either schools or “Hollywood” had any financial agenda.

According to his badly written, disjointed, unpunctuated post it’s all a librul plot to ruin the chil’dens by teaching them that well-discredited theory of evolution and the lies of “natural selection”. Oh, and also destroying our wimmenfolk by not telling the unmarried wimmen that sex is bad,(m’kay) and that unmarried wimmen can’t handle having sex,(m’kay)and it’ll lead to their mental and emotional destruction, (m’kay)…just the wimmen though; the unmarried guys having sex don’t seem to bother him nearly as much. And married wimmen don’t have to worry either…just the umarried ones.

By unepinuecoria

November 1, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map1.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map2.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map3.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map4.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map5.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map6.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map7.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map8.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map9.html "> http://www.freewebtown/luckydayforyou/map10.html ">

By AGFNPR

November 1, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

NNP - Question to those who want to protect “all the kids”: What if you spent the same amount of outrage, energy, passion, and activism trying to keep GUNS away from children as you do keeping information about, and control of, their own bodies away from them? Do you ever think about that? If you think one effort is more worthy than the other, can you please explain why?

Naw NNP. I has nevah thunk about that ‘fore. Me and my frend Billy Bob believe that our chillens should play wif guns jus as if they is toys. Ain’t you herd? Good Christian folk don’t think.

Seriously, do you really believe people that hunt regularly don’t teach their children from an early age the proper respect for firearms? I have spent HOURS with my wife and two older children teaching them how to properly handle, store, load, unload and fire shotguns, rifles, and pistols.

My wife and I have also spent time discussing the issue of sex with my two older children. But, since a gun will kill you quicker than having unprotected sex, I have spent more time ensuring they know how to safely and properly handle firearms.

AND JUST MAYBE I would spend more time fighting to keep guns out of the hands of children if the government were in the in the business of dispensing firearms to my 11 year old daughter without my permission.

By NetBanker

November 1, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Just to back us up to yesterday’s discussion about Genarlow Wilson, I noted the following in the AJC Letters to the Editor. If I didn’t know better I’d swear Whiley wrote the letter. Please take note of the phrases that I put in bold that, IMO, highlight that she made poor choices/a mistake yet somehow that isn’t supposed to count. Reading between the lines it’s rather misogynistic suggesting that she shouldn’t bear any consequences for her part in the affair. I do feel for the young lady the same way I do Monica Lewinski. I don’t think either was innocent in their acts, but the societal double standard will brand them far longer than their male counterparts.

“Those who have bleated over and over again that Wilson’s depravity was a consensual sex act between two teens miss the harm heaped on a young girl who allowed her foolish actions to be placed on public display in a room full of her peers and filmed for future enjoyment and distribution for those who may have missed the live performance. The only aggrieved party to this sickening and disgusting affair is the young woman who will long (always) be remembered for her gigantic mistake.”

As much as I hate it, it’s probably going to be thrown out on appeal. I can’t imagine that the courts will not uphold the groups right to freedom of speech, as horrible as that speech is. I don’t know about that Chuck. In the AJC story they do mention that protests have been banned elsewhere at federal facilities and there was something else in there that makes me think it could be upheld. I think it’s the concept that a private funeral isn’t really a public venue. Don’t know, but I hope the guilty verdict sticks! Me thinks the Rev. Phelps has some serious homosexual feelings that he’s suppressing b/c the church’s whole foundation and message seems to be that gays cause all problems in America. FYI…they only have 60 members and most are related to Phelps. Not sure I can blame the daughters so much (although they should know better as adults) only because I’m guessing they’ve been brain washed by years of Daddy’s hog wash.

Eryn…Halloween IS an assualt on Christianity. It’s a stealth attempt to steal all the attention away from TODAY’S religious holiday. And who knows what that holiday is called?

By lozen

November 1, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

This is a crazy world. 11 year olds can get birth control at school(?) but our prez seems to be against any woman having it!

National Organization for Women Oct 30

The Bush administration’s latest choice to oversee federal family planning services opposes birth control. Susan Orr, the new Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA), hails from the Family Research Council (FRC). The FRC, in case you don’t know, is a rabid right-wing organization that opposes reproductive rights.

Orr applauded Bush’s proposal to cut off birth control coverage for federal employees, and argued strenuously against local Washington, D.C. legislation to require employee health insurance to cover contraception. The Weekly Standard quoted Orr as saying: “It’s not about choice. It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.” I can’t stress this enough - that quote is not about abortion; it’s about contraception. Now she’s in charge of it. At least for the moment.

www.now.org/news

By AGFNPR

November 1, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

NetB - Eryn…Halloween IS an assualt on Christianity. It’s a stealth attempt to steal all the attention away from TODAY’S religious holiday. And who knows what that holiday is called?

I promise I didn’t google so this may be wrong. Is it Protestant Reformation Day? If I am wrong, give me a failing grade and call me parents! LOL!

By lozen

November 1, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Today’s religious holiday according to my calender NB, is “Last Quarter.” ; ^) Or maybe you mean that old pagan/indian holiday that was incorporated into latin Catholicism: Dia de Los Muertos?

By lozen

November 1, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

Ooooooopppppps; it’s actually All Saint’s Day today and Dia de los Muertos tomorrow.

By Pam

November 1, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

Seems to me that this issue is NOT about sex, but it is about equality. Young males are given condoms (non-prescription)and no big deal. But when young females are given prescriptive access to protect themselves, it becomes paternalistic and all about sex. Females take or are given ALL of the responsibility of pregnancy. Because the protection from pregnancy by birth control pill is a prescription, there is a big stink. There was apparently not big stick when the boys got the condoms. Goose and Gander

By lozen

November 1, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

“Most conversations are simply monologues delivered in the presence of a witness.” Margaret Miller

By John D

November 2, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

Schools and Hollywood push their agendas along with biased media and along with politicians. They do it for MONEY and they do it for pushing their AGENDAS!!!!

there is no such a thing as safe sex. there are OVER 50 different kinds of STDs and STIs and MANYare contracted by SKIN to SKIN contact of an infected area many of the symptoms are so mild many women today dont even know of these strains presence. And they are rampant today to epidemic proportions. Wheres the media? DUH!

Women folk as you so inmaturidly put it because you are defensive. MARA are approvers and men are pursuers. men who bring sexual activity outside of marriage are liars and cheaters. I can prove this to any woman in most likely but a few days!!!! This notion of safe sex and lying men who refuse to be the kind of integral man who practices and has the mind set of wanting to practice abstinence until marriage are liars. This is a deadly combonation, and the stats reveal it! Lets look at ALL of the evidence!!!!!!! The demise of our society today ought to tell us something!

By JokesOn

November 2, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

The demise of our society today ought to tell us something!

Can I get an AMEN!?!?!

Really John D,

The ranting with no data/info to back your murky point is not compelling to say the least. There is a lot of data that proves your abstinence only position does not work and is actually more harmful than doing nothing.

Your point, which, best I can tell, is that cheaters lie and then you make an empty correlation to those who do not wait until marriage to have sex being liars also.

By Jack

November 2, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

“Schools and Hollywood push their agendas along with biased media and along with politicians. They do it for MONEY and they do it for pushing their AGENDAS!!!!”

Amen to that John. Every generation says society is going to hell in a handbasket. My grandfather said it, my father said it, and I say it. My sons will say it when they get older too. Getting old is hell.

By NetBanker

November 2, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Happy Dia de los Meurtos, kids. Cheers and a tiara to Lozen for getting All Saint’s Day. Apparently there aren’t too many Catholics or conservative Lutherans here.

Mara…too funny on your 3:33pm wimmin folk post.

John D…you seem to place ALL the responsibility for sex outside of marriage on WOMEN and yet give men a pass because they are “pursuers.” What’s up with that?! Why so little understanding that women are sexual creatures just as much as men? You continue to perpetuate the false stereotype that men are completely unable to control themselves or their lustful desires. This is why the burka and chador exist in those repressive societies. How about holding men and women to the same standard…and that includes “men who bring sexual activity outside of marriage are liars and cheaters”?

By Selective Outrage

November 2, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

According to the US Health Resources and Services Administration, in 2002, 2,474 adolescents ages 15-19 were killed by firearms. Of these, homicide accounted for 63 percent of firearm deaths, suicide accounted for 30 percent, and 4 percent were considered to be unintentional. Happens every day in America, often right here.

But hey, let’s get all worked up about sex eduction and birth control, right? I mean, IF all those dead kids were virgins, they’re going to heaven, so it’s not like it’s a tragedy, right? If not, well… Either way: “Blame the Liberals! I showed MINE how to use my shotgun, so there. To heck with the rest. It’s their fault for being born in a bad neighborhood and walking home from school. GOD BLESS THE NRA!”

By Mara

November 2, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

John D - Women folk as you so inmaturidly put it because you are defensive. MARA are approvers and men are pursuers

er..not defensive merely scornful. Not just at your syntax and spelling, but at the silly picture you paint of poor, overwhelmed victimess’s unable to fend off the ravening pig-men. (Whiley…is that you?)

I mean, do you take yourself seriously? If you are to believed, sex inevitably lead to pain, desease, and horrific epidemics for women. You also seem to believe that horny men are instruments of death. Husbands, boyfriends, fiance’s, friends-with-benefits…it doesn’t matter. Having sex with men WILL kill you…mwaaaaahahahahahaha!

According to you “there is no such a thing as safe sex”. How much wackier does it get than THAT?! There have literally been millions of years and billions of people having sex, living healthy lives, and dying at ripe old ages…how do you explain that? If “sex” is so terribly dangerous, how do you explain the continued existance of the human race? On the same vein, one could just as honestly say that literally nothing is safe. There is no “safe eating”(you could choke, or be allergic, or…) There is no such thing as “safe walking” (you could trip, you could twist an ankle, you could hyperextend your knee…) Heck, in the end LIVING kills, so there’s no such thing as “safe living”.

Frankly, I think you’re just a nut without a spell-check.

By Mara

November 2, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Net - Thanks…m’kay? LOL!!

Jack - Every generation says society is going to hell in a handbasket. My grandfather said it, my father said it, and I say it. My sons will say it when they get older too.

Hear, hear!! Every generation believes that the previous one was too provincial and the one after too permissive.

Unlike others, I don’t worry about the “demise of our society today”. Morals change, ideas change, attitudes change and still “society” keeps ticking along…

By Jack

November 2, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

However it is safe to eat the special stew.

By Mara

November 2, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

at least the stew is fresh…LOL

By Mara

November 2, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

at least if the stew is fresh…LOL

By NetBanker

November 2, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Having sex with men WILL kill you…mwaaaaahahahahahaha! That must be why men love to see and fantasize about 2 women together. LOL! And it’s been so long since we’ve had a good eeeeevil online laugh.

Why do you think it is that the concept of “ravening pig-men” are unable to control themselves therefore women must be protected from them as well as protectors of ‘virtue’ persist without ever considering that maybe it’s the men who need to learn to behave? Menfolk had best beware because Western women are NOT weak and birth rates provide for more women than men. With advances in fertility and cloning men may become obsolete! Maybe that’s why they’re so darn scared and want to supress women…they know that the ladies could eventually survive without them.

Morals change, ideas change, attitudes change and still “society” keeps ticking along… Just goes to show that them darn libruls are unstoppable!

By lozen

November 2, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Mara, LOL. You’re brilliant. As an experienced older woman who lived during the days of “make love not war” and took full advantage of our new sexual freedom, how could I have no sexual diseases? How would JohnD explain that? I value all my experience; I learned a lot, and I had a bunch of fun doing it. The people I really feel sorry for are women like my aunt who had 8 kids and never experienced the big O with her husband, her only sexual partner in a lifetime! I’ll never forget this quote, although I don’t remember who said it, “When we’re old, and look back on our lives, it will be the things we didn’t do we regret and not the things we did!” Underneath a lot of this male concern about women having sex (and never any concern really about men having sex) is a deep fear that the woman he wants will know, due to her past experience, that he’s inadequate or physically challenged! Saw Ann Coulter last night on one of those televangelist’s shows. She says christians need to breed more christians. We do need more little consumers don’t we?

By Monica

November 2, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Hey guys! Here’s a little Presidential candidate quiz. See which candidate shares your line of thinking!

By AGFNPR

November 2, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

NNP - According to the US Health Resources and Services Administration, in 2002, 2,474 adolescents ages 15-19 were killed by firearms. Of these, homicide accounted for 63 percent of firearm deaths, suicide accounted for 30 percent, and 4 percent were considered to be unintentional. Happens every day in America, often right here.

That is the best you can do to refute my post from yesterday? Would you care to take the time to see how many adolescents between the ages 15-19 were killed in 2002 from automobile accidents? Happens every day in America, often right here.

And please read your own statistics - 30% were suicides. Those deaths were not caused by the proliferation of guns, or by the NRA, or by those darn ignorant pushy Christians (as I am sure you refer to folks like me).

Please come down off your high horse. It seems as if you are the one who has “selective outrage”.

By Mara

November 2, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

Net - With advances in fertility and cloning men may become obsolete!

they’ve already created mouse sperm from the animals stem cells. Physiologically mice are comparable to people so your statement isn’t farfetched at all…other than we women wanting to keep you guys around for the sheer beauty of the male physique.

lozen - thanks for the kudos!

Underneath a lot of this male concern about women having sex …is a deep fear that the woman he wants will know… that he’s inadequate or physically challenged!

I don’t know that it’s really a fear of having their inadequacies made “public”, it may be. OR…the man is merely reflecting the evolutionary urge to guarantee that any offspring from “his woman” is actually the product of his genes.

By Mara

November 2, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

(sigh) I have no candidate. Of my four “make-or-break” issues, every single candidate disagreed with me on at least two. Woe is me….

By NNP

November 2, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

30% were suicides…. Of the “Oh shoot, I’m pregnit!” kind? (Yes I knew a nice Catholic girl who took her own head off with a shotgun at 19 because she was knocked up and her fine upstanding parents threw her out. Guess her abstinence training failed, huh?)

BTW, thanks for validating my belief that when conservatives say they care about the children, they mean their OWN children in particular, and not the collective mass that will make up America’s future. I rather wish you would have refuted that, but I understand.

Y’all have a great weekend!

By Jack

November 2, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Lozen. Your aunt was married to a sorry, poor excuse for a man. Maybe one day she’ll have a good religous experience.

By Al Bumen

November 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Q: How does a guy from Alabama propose? A: “You’re what?!”

Q: What do you call people on the rythm-method? A: Parents.

Q: How do you get a NY girl to stop sleeping with you. A: Marry her.

Q: What’s the UGA sorority girl mating call? A: I’m sooooo drunk!

Q: What’s the difference between an Auburn co-ed and a limo? A: Not everyone’s been in a limo.

“Thanks, I’ll be here all weekend, try the veal……”

By NRA_Member

November 2, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Blaming the NRA for gun deaths is like blaming Planned Parenthood for teen pregnancies.

By AGFNPR

November 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

BTW, thanks for validating my belief that when conservatives say they care about the children, they mean their OWN children in particular, and not the collective mass that will make up America’s future. I rather wish you would have refuted that, but I understand.

Validate your belief? Please - your mind has been made up and nothing I say will change that. However, if it will make YOU happy I will try to refute that statement.

In addition to raising my three children (which IS my first responsibility), in the course of my adult life I have worked with youth groups at church (even before I even had kids). Most of these kids came from broken homes and almost all would be labeled as poor “at risk” children. I have also given of my time to coach recreation football and basketball teams (yes - even when my child was NOT part of the team). I currently take time to tutor kids that need extra help with their school work. Tomorrow I will be helping with a children’s activiity at church.

Now please tell me miss-know-it-all-high-and-mighty-NNP, what do YOU do (other than whine on a blog about those darn Christians not caring about anyone else) to help children? Oh wait, I forgot that you will be voting for Hillary. Your “vote” will ensure that the government will do all of your work for you.

Please continue in your delusion that liberals are the only ones who care.

By lozen

November 2, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack, he was just an ignorant southern boy who probably didn’t know any better. I don’t think he ever read a book or had any of that awful sex edjucashun in school. And it continues even today. Wham bam, thank you maam! A friend of mine just had a little fling with a mexican man in his early 40s who had the same lack of knowledge. She said he was very passionate but totally inept and too insecure to even want to know why she didn’t - um - really enjoy the experience. He convinced himself there was something wrong with her.

By Mara

November 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

haven’t made up my mind who I’ll be voting for. I may even end up voting for a republican. That said, I just finished an Andrew Sullivan article on Barack Obama that was, frankly, pretty inspiring. Thought you all might want to read it…

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

excerpt -

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race

The traces of our long journey to this juncture can be found all around us. Its most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. The high temperature—Bill O’Reilly’s nightly screeds against anti-Americans on one channel, Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” on the other; MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” on the one side, Ann Coulter’s Treason on the other; Michael Moore’s accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity’s assertion of treason in the opposition to it—is particularly striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices on the table. Something deeper and more powerful than the actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.

By Jack

November 2, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

What cures females with nymphomania?

Wedding cake.

By lozen

November 2, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Bad day at Hallmark Ever wondered what happens when Hallmark writers are having a bad day..?

My tire was thumping. I thought it was flat When I looked at the tire… I noticed your cat. Sorry! ;

Heard your wife left you, How upset you must be. But don’t fret about it… She moved in with me. ;

Looking back over the years that we’ve been together, I can’t help but wonder… ‘What the hell was I thinking?’ ;

Congratulations on your wedding day! Too bad no one likes your husband. ;

How could two people as beautiful as you Have such an ugly baby?;

I’ve always wanted to have someone to hold, someone to love. After having met you .. I’ve changed my mind. ;

I must admit, you brought Religion into my life. I never believed in Hell until I met you. ;

As the days go by, I think of how lucky I am… That you’re not here to ruin it for me. ;

Congratulations on your promotion. Before you go… Would you like to take this knife out of my back? You’ll probably need it again. ;

Happy Birthday, Uncle Dad! (Available only in Tennessee , Kentucky , West Virginia & of course Hope Valley ) ;

Happy birthday! You look great for your age. Almost Lifelike! ;

When we were together, you always said you’d die for me. Now that we’ve broken up, I think it’s time you kept your promise.; We have been friends for a very long time .. let’s say we stop? ;

I’m so miserable without you it’s almost like you’re here.;

Congratulations on your new bundle of joy. Did you ever find out who the father was? ;

Your friends and I wanted to do something special for your birthday. So we’re having you put to sleep. ;

So your daughter’s a hooker, and it spoiled your day. Look at the bright side, it’s really good pay.

By lozen

November 2, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

“If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps. As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.”

Naomi Wolf warns we are living through a dangerous “fascist shift” brought about by the Bush administration. Her book, “The End of America, Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” outlines the “Ten Steps to Fascism” citing historical corollaries (as well as the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm), with headings like “Invoke an External and Internal Threat,” “Establish Secret Prisons,” and “Target Key Individuals.” In other words, fascism can exist without dictatorship.

Read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-ab46695.html

By 18 mike

November 4, 2007 1:43 AM | Link to this

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/

By Will Roberts

November 8, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Now folks, I want you to bear with me for a little while. Because I am going talk to you about a subject I know very little about — SEX. Now, I might just be the only male to admit my ignorance on this subject. Seems this subject has found its way into our kids’ lunch boxes. When I was a kid, 13-16 years old, all we cared about was 1st, 2nd and 3rd base. Now, all kids want to know is if you “scored”. The days of the innocent kiss may be gone or at least lowered to 5-6 year olds. As a kid, my parents fought to keep a Sears catalog out of our hands. Now kids get emails with pictures and chat with folks who are 2 to 3 times older than them. Now, I am not sure you all are with me on this, but our kids are born grown up. Remember when a song title was “More Than A Feeling”? Now kids are being told to go for a whole lot more than a feeling. Oh, just so you don’t think I am some 70-year-old man that is trying to parallel 1950s to 2007, I am 43… so that makes the 70s when I grew up… ‘nuff said.

Reports say that we are living longer, and by the same token we know more at an earlier age. If you think your kids know less than you did when you were a kid, than pull your kids aside and ask them if they know about the birds and bees and see if they don’t laugh at you, merely because you said “birds and bees”. They know more about the parts of the body than we know. Now, with all this being said, why would we be shocked that schools are trying to introduce Sex Ed and services that help kids make the right choices when we are not around. As parents, we try to let our kids know we will be there for them whenever they need us. However, I can guarantee you that we won’t be there when the FIRST time happens, or the second for that matter. I would rather be the parent helping my kid choose preventive birth control than be the parent that is helping them pick out what crib and clothes for the unplanned child. I don’t mean to rock the crib here but back a few years ago, I lived in California with my girlfriend— who worked with an agency that consoled young girls that had unplanned children, the youngest 12. I won’t go into that, but I will say, if this young lady had choices and felt comfortable with her choices, things might have been different. Remember what you knew about sex at that age.

I don’t know about you, but I learned what I know about sex off the streets. Now, that does not sound right, but I think you know what I mean. People fear things they don’t know. Talk to your kids and talk again. And again, until you are blue in the face. Oh, and listen as well, that might help. Communication seems to be scarce in our world. If you don’t believe in what is happening with our kids these days, then TALK to them, not at them. The shoot first and ask questions later method does not work anymore. Talk first and be there for questions later is my campaign. It is when we don’t talk first that gets us into trouble. There is a political joke there, but I will leave it alone.

Now, if you are sitting and thinking, “Oh Will, sure he’s pushing his opinions on us today”, then go to the top of this story and read where I said I don’t know much about this subject. Mine are just thoughts and maybe a different angle to look at. I just would like to think I am part of the solution and not the problem. You know choice A B C… but not “D none of the above”.

By the way, some folks believe that abstinence— I think that is the word— abstinence is the best and only way to help our kids. Now, that would go over as well as asking our kids to stop texting on their cell phones at the dinner table. It just ain’t going to happen.