February 02, 2010
— Ace Linking to Hot Air, since that's where I saw it.
The Washington Post reports:
Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.
The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.
Could work? Seems like did work. Of course, it is probably true that the students who completed the program were more motivated by their parents to not have sex. But that, in turn, undermines the cop-out attitude that underlies most of this pro-sex-for-kids agenda: That there's nothing we can do, might as well let them start humping in seventh grade.
I know liberals and, as people, they're just as alarmed about this as anyone -- well, the ones with kids are, anyway.
I just don't understand how their personal beliefs -- kids should not be having sex and we ought to discourage this to the extent possible -- wind up getting subverted by their group political belief.
I just think that they don't see themselves as pro-sex-for-kids (and most aren't, of course). It's just they have it stuck in their heads that conservatives are anti-sex, and who wants to be anti-sex? So they run away from that position, just automatically reject anything a conservative might say on such issues, and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction without even thinking much about what they're doing... and find themselves, on a group political level, at least, supporting a position that they find horrifying on a personal level.
Bill Maher has said exactly two things I agree with: "All rumors are true" is one. (Well, not all rumors, but that's the way to bet.) And that liberals are taken with this idiotic idea that kids are just "Little Adults."
They're not. They're kids. They should not have full freedom. Where a parent draws the line is up to that parent (and up to the kid, quite frankly -- you can't break a kid if he sets his mind to rebel and resist). But this idea that we should just go into schools and have a "rap session," treating them as if they're adults and able to make "the right choices for themselves," is preposterous.
Almost no liberal -- certainly not one with kids -- would embrace that idea on a personal level.
But because they're all agitated and angry about "anti-sex conservatives" they keep supporting this dangerous nonsense anyway.
Furthermore, I don't even understand the point. Kids are curious about sex. I knew all about rubbers and The Pill and crabs and the clap of the rest of it well before I even had a chance to kiss a girl.
The problem with these classes is that they normalize this, and it shouldn't be normalized. Taboos are important in a functioning society. Many taboos are jackass, and are rightly abandoned. But not all.
And if kids are thinking sex is a taboo and something frightening they shouldn't mess with -- Good. They should be thinking that.
Most kids will, unfortunately, begin having sex long before his or her parents want him or her to. And long before it's prudent for him or her to.
But we have gotten to the point where "sexually precocious" no longer means a girl who has sex at the still-almost-a-baby age of 14. Now that's kind of normal, unfortunately. The new "Bad Girls" are doing it by age 11 or 12.
When does it stop, and when do good-intentioned liberals realize that a bit of that judgmental, holier-than-thou, old-fashioned, cranky, unhip anti-sex attitude is useful and necessary especially as regards children?
This is something I cannot get, myself. I think I have told this story, but I'll tell it one more time: A while back, I contacted a left-wing feminist type abut something she'd written. She'd been angry at some "anti-sex, anti-girl" conservative who was writing about the alarming tendency of girls to have sex earlier and earlier.
"You are a sensible person," I gambited. "How on earth can you possibly say that girls having sex at such young ages is a good thing, and it's wrong to try to reverse that or at least arrest the long fall downwards?"
Well -- her answer was perplexing. She assured me that she herself was in a committed relationship with her boyfriend, was strictly monogamous, did not support sex at such young ages, would strongly warn any girl against this, had not had sex at such an early age herself.
She was trying to reassure me, someone she barely knew, that she largely shared my anti-sex conservative values!
What the hell?!!
Then why was she getting on this "pro-sex" hobbyhorse and attacking this right-leaning feminist author for in turn attacking this alarming trend?
"Because she gives off an anti-sex and anti-girl vibe," I was informed (approximately). "She's always trashing girls for their sexual choices."
B-b-b-but-- you just said you also strongly disapproved of girls's sexual choices, if they were having sex at such young ages!
She really couldn't square the circle. I didn't press her, because I barely knew her and she was polite enough with me, but I was sputtering over the massive disconnect between what she really believed and what she was claiming she believed in print.
Guys, guys, guys? This "hip" thing you have? This "pro-sex" thing you have? This distaste for "anti-sex conservatives" you have?
Most of you have some "anti-sex" in you too -- because it's normal and good. And just because your self-conception is sexually liberated and loose does not mean you have to just brainlessly endorse the opposite of whatever a conservative does and wind up on the bizarre side of the issue where you're basically giving kids the Green Light for sex at age 12.
Or earlier. For God's sake! I don't even have kids and I find this hair-raising!
I mean, almost none of them -- some, but few -- really believe that crap.
So what the hell is going on in their heads when they keep basically endorsing it?
Is it so important you always appear hip? Carefree? Sexually libertine?
Is it so important you always put the maximum possible distance between yourselves and those dreaded, crochtty, Footloose-dance-banning anti-sex conservatives?
Even to the point that doing so requires you to endorse a position you actually recoil from?
Guys -- you are always going to be able to play the "I'm hipper than conservatives/I am more sexually light-footed than conservatives" card in almost every debate. You will have it to play about movies, tv, plays, music, gay sex, gay marriage, open marriage, etc.
It is unnecessary to play it here.
And no "intellectual consistency" requires you to extend anything like the same rules you apply to yourselves and other adults to children.
Rethink this, guys. Maybe we "anti-sex conservative prudes" are the enemy, but there is a bigger enemy.
You don't always just have to take a position contrary to us just to prove you're superior.
Posted by: Ace at
11:22 AM
| Comments (275)
Post contains 1247 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: brak at February 02, 2010 11:28 AM (W5NBA)
Yes. This is why many of us feel that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Posted by: taylork at February 02, 2010 11:29 AM (4jZ56)
Posted by: Picric at February 02, 2010 11:29 AM (xJEYd)
Sarah Palin represents abstinence only and she is a failure of a mother, proof positive that we have to sex-ed up our kids in kindergarden because her daughter had a kid (or several).
Posted by: Typical Liberal Idiot at February 02, 2010 11:31 AM (X2i5s)
What's wrong with telling girls to keep their legs closed and boys to keep their puds in their pants, anyway?
Posted by: This is Timmy in the well at February 02, 2010 11:31 AM (z37MR)
Posted by: John F Not Kerry at February 02, 2010 11:31 AM (HF2US)
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2010 11:33 AM (jlvw3)
This is something I cannot get, myself.
They are also in favour of unfettered abortion on demand, any time in a pregnancy, as often as you want, and (preferably) with the state picking up the tab, and favour it to weed out retards and cripples (see Britain for this policy in action) while claiming that "no one really wants abortion and we wish the need for them would end tomorrow." So, SOP.
Posted by: andycanuck at February 02, 2010 11:34 AM (2qU2d)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 11:35 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Kevin Jennings at February 02, 2010 11:35 AM (Q41Zh)
You wait. They're going to find out that someone involved in this study had sex as a teenager. Hypocrites!
Posted by: Brewdog at February 02, 2010 11:36 AM (xdB/i)
I didn't mind scaring the crap out of the many boyfriends that came by over the years either. Nothing overt or rude, I just left them all with the impression that I was quite serious.
Fear is a useful tool if employed properly.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 02, 2010 11:36 AM (WvXvd)
Ideology usually makes you stupid and the Left is increasingly ideological, so we are increasingly dealing with a Mass Movement of Idiots who still think they're smarter than everyone else: The True Morons truly believe that conservatives and libertarians are morons, and the irony is so thick you could skate on it
And now they have a pseudo-Messiah and the control of the national government. If we let them, they will ruin us, ruin this nation, and do so much damage that we won't recover--not for many years, or ever.
No more arguing with libs!!!!!!!!!!!! Start with castration, then work from there......
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 02, 2010 11:36 AM (JrRME)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 11:37 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Rocks at February 02, 2010 11:37 AM (Q1lie)
C'mon, Ace. We all know hookers don't let you kiss them
Never heard of GFE?
Posted by: GFE at February 02, 2010 11:37 AM (cvvNY)
Isn't Joycelyn Elders the world's foremost expert on juvenile pudd pulling? What does that renowned oracle have to say???
/mega snark
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 11:40 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Jean at February 02, 2010 11:40 AM (tJF9l)
I really hate the argument that kids are gonna do it anyway so we might as well just teach them the 'how-to's' and how to be safe.
I'm a big proponent of ignorance. Seriously. I truly believe ignorance is bliss. No need to dump the burden of sex onto a child. Let them be innocent and young for as long as possible.
Posted by: This is Timmy in the well at February 02, 2010 11:41 AM (z37MR)
Word. I call this the 'Fuck tha PO-lice' effect. IMHO, I think there's a lot of revisionism going on since the 60's about how 'punk' or 'rebellious' they actually were back in the day. It's easier to do when you have a job in academia/journalism/the 'arts'/etc, where that can be worn as a badge of honor. The rest of us, who have actually had to work for a living, know different.
"Yeah, I'm cool. I hate republicans who try to censor my rock music (cough...Tipper Gore...cough) and shit. Bush is a war criminal because he broke the law of the the government of the United Nations. My age? Forty-two, why do you ask?"
Or another way to put it is that conservatives are the 'grown-ups'.
/rant off
Posted by: Navin R Johnson at February 02, 2010 11:42 AM (HpT9p)
It is: It haunts both would-have-been-parents for the rest of their lives. All those possibilities, all that potential happiness and accomplishment--all gone with no 'do-overs'. What would have been a human life is gone and you can only wonder and imagine What Would Have Been.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 02, 2010 11:43 AM (JrRME)
They do not say the things you are arguing they should say because they are afraid that if they do, then their moral authority will be in question, and they worry that will lead to the christian conservatives saying they should not be having sex outside of marriage. That is the only reason they promote this.
Yes, you are correct in the implication being they are willingly sacrificing their children for their own guilt free pleasure seeking. It is their nature and they will not change if they haven't yet.
Posted by: Dan at February 02, 2010 11:44 AM (UpqKo)
|Shut up and go masturbate until your eighteen, like I did.
Oh, was I supposed to QUIT then?
Posted by: People's Front of Judea at February 02, 2010 11:44 AM (i58mj)
But because they're all agitated and angry about "anti-sex conservatives" they keep supporting this dangerous nonsense anyway.
It's amazing how far a leftwing/moonbat/liberal/Democrat will go spite a conservative. They'll poison the minds of children, kill the unborn, promote sexual disorders, and even sabotage a war effort and thus kill our soldiers.
Posted by: This is Timmy in the well at February 02, 2010 11:44 AM (z37MR)
I mean, are you getting paid by the word? or have you switched from valu rite to meth?
You've had some rather long rants lately. It is hard for the old morons to read that much shit. Can you give us a Reader's Digest version?
Posted by: Kemp at February 02, 2010 11:45 AM (2+9Yx)
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at February 02, 2010 11:46 AM (pZEar)
Cleaning your guns at the kitchen table when they come over is one thing.
Having a shovel leaning against the counter at the same time is probably over doing it.
Posted by: toby928 at February 02, 2010 11:46 AM (PD1tk)
How about squaring this circle: libs support zero tolerance for drugs, to the point that they will arrest students for taking tylenol while on campus, while at the same time trying to allow these same kids to get an abortion without parental/guardian/adult consent. What? Nevermind the pro-anti-abortion part. How are these beliefs consistent?
Nanny statist power. It is really simple as that. I call them Commiecrats for a reason, although the rhetorical pizzazz is nice too.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 11:47 AM (ujg0T)
One of the reasons you are incredulous is that you are thinking along mainstream, common sense moral lines. It all makes sense when you ponder that the only way socialism/communism can take deep root is through the breakdown of all existing social moral orders. Stalin didn't blow up churches because he was a pyro. This is about remaking society. The lefty chick you referred to is just a useful idiot.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at February 02, 2010 11:48 AM (5aa4z)
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2010 11:48 AM (jlvw3)
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 11:48 AM (OlN4e)
Leftards should soon replace lab rats in medical experiments. They have the advantage that you don't tend to get attached to them...
/s
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 11:49 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Kevin Jennings at February 02, 2010 11:52 AM (Q41Zh)
I think a big divider in politics is that liberals tend to think as teenagers
The rank and file "useful idiots" do, but as Herr Morganholz pointed out, the leaders know exactly what they are doing.
and conservatives as parents.
No objections there. Actions, consequences and all that.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 11:52 AM (ujg0T)
It's not about logic. She's like all liberals: subjugate the masses through bad policy while doing the opposite herself. More spoils for her.
Cf. the Clintons advising people to "give" and "sacrifice" while Chelsea becomes a hedge fund manager. Etc.
Posted by: arhooley at February 02, 2010 11:52 AM (B/dEP)
Heh. I actually had an America-hating Anthropology/American Studies (go figure) professor who seriously believed children should have equal status in society as adults. He preached that children should be able to vote, and have all rights and freedoms that adults do, since they have better judgment and are just as rational. It was only our "cultural norms" that created the "children as lesser beings" mythology.
Posted by: Pyrocles at February 02, 2010 11:52 AM (xzSvW)
There were two major items that kept kids from having sex in the old days. First was community pressure under the taboos that viewed unwed mothers in a bad light.
Second was the fincial burdens imposed when pregnancy occurred, either through early shotgun weddings or through child support.
We removed the first barrier in starting in the 60s with the beginning of "free love" and we removed the second in the late 60s with LBJ's great society.
There is little we can do to restore things to the way they were until we undo those two items.
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2010 11:53 AM (QrA9E)
Word, ace.
And the notion that conservatives are pent up prudes is horseshit. The liberals think they're so fucking smart but they're stupid.
It was written a long long time ago...
To everything there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven...
Posted by: This is Timmy in the well at February 02, 2010 11:53 AM (z37MR)
I had a date last week that would subscribe to this memo--he was a....wait for it....35 year old virgin big Jerry Seinfeld not that there's anything wrong with that. moment.
(I would wait for the ONT for that one but (a) it's topical and (b) I'll be in bed by 8pm tonight!)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 02, 2010 11:54 AM (vgUA+)
Yada yada yada. Hey, you want a copy of my guide for junior high school students on the best gay bars to pick up older men?
Cause, you know, I'm all about keeping the students safe.
And so many schools are suddenly sprouting "Gay-Straight Alliances". The agenda is on the march....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 11:54 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Dan at February 02, 2010 11:54 AM (UpqKo)
I wish they were directed at boys only. And men. But I repeat myself.
Posted by: arhooley at February 02, 2010 11:54 AM (B/dEP)
Remember the Bob Zimmerman "Dylan" song, "Forever Young"? It's the Libard Anthem: Their equivalent to 'Amazing Grace' and Star-Spangled Banner rolled into one big Blunt. It's the key to Understanding Your Liberal Co-Workers and Associates. Read the lyrics; Dylan used to end his concerts with this puke-inducing juvenile shit.
They're frozen in time, each lib Stuck on Sixteen: Still playing with themselves while believing that the world revolves around them.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 02, 2010 11:55 AM (JrRME)
More sex at a younger age means more unwanted pregnancies.
More unwanted pregnancies mean a greater demand for abortions.
More demand for abortions means a greater demand for Democrats who will appoint judges who that ensure that Roe v. Wade is never overturned.
Which means more activist judges who will shove leftist policies down our throat.
You get rid of those unwanted pregnancies and you destroy the rationale for denying the appointment of judges who aren't going to read their political viewpoints into the Constitution.
Posted by: RayJ at February 02, 2010 11:56 AM (YcjCJ)
Well, for your information, I requested several million dollars of stimulus funds for just such a thing. It will be big in San Fransico.
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at February 02, 2010 03:54 PM (V9SYy)
And the leftists can't even get *that* right. Private sector "bath houses" were already going gangbusters in San Fransicko over three decades ago.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 11:57 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: WalrusRex at February 02, 2010 11:57 AM (xxgag)
He preached that children should be able to vote, and have all rights and freedoms that adults do, since they have better judgment and are just as rational.
He is right up to a point. In agragrian societies during ages past, children became "adults" much sooner. Girls got married at an early age not much past puberty and boys were out doing the work of men by the time they reached 16.
But that doesn't mean that 8 year olds should be entering contracts and voting.
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2010 11:58 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 02, 2010 11:58 AM (vgUA+)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at February 02, 2010 11:58 AM (Q41Zh)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ---John Quincy Adams
"Rainbow Party!!"-- 13-year-old girl in skin tight t-shirt with "Sperm Gurgling Princess" emblazoned on it in glitter.
This is raw politics. Nothing more or less.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at February 02, 2010 11:59 AM (5aa4z)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:00 PM (oC1jk)
That was good.
I've always hated that attitude, "Well, they're doing it anyway." I always figured it was the rancid people who were "doing it anway" when they were kids who were saying that--and universalizing their own experience. Universalization, a handy trick to make you feel better about yourself, among other things. But I think the social status marker Ace alludes to is the better explanation. It is, again, about superiority.
Notice how often this shit comes back around to the superior self-view? Blow writes about how the Donk message is just too complicated (not for him--for the little, inferior people). That little rat-man, Joe Klein writes about people being too stupid to know what's in their best interest. (And a smart person like him does know what's in their best interest.) The Donk message is rejected, and it's because people just don't understand (like they do). Some people really, really have a need to feel superior to those relegated to "the out-group." It's an essential part of their makeup. They go back to it constantly.
It must be weird to be dominated and driven by primitive R-complex urges, needs, and/or thought processes to that degree.
Posted by: rdbrewer at February 02, 2010 12:01 PM (7eSB7)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:01 PM (oC1jk)
I had a date last week that would subscribe to this memo--he was a....wait for it....35 year old virgin big Jerry Seinfeld not that there's anything wrong with that. moment.
(I would wait for the ONT for that one but (a) it's topical and (b) I'll be in bed by 8pm tonight!)
And I'm guessing not with him!
Posted by: runningrn at February 02, 2010 12:01 PM (CfmlF)
Problem is we have a big segment of society that feels no shame.
Posted by: nickless at February 02, 2010 12:01 PM (MMC8r)
Has anyone noticed that every single Conservative position is always eventually proved right?
We're right about everything. And the Left is wrong about everything. Every. Thing.
Posted by: This is Timmy in the well at February 02, 2010 12:02 PM (z37MR)
That little rat-man, Joe Klein
who wrote "Primary Colors", but could not admit it. Rodent indeed.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 12:03 PM (ujg0T)
I think a big divider in politics is that liberals tend to think as teenagers and conservatives as parents.
Or maybe another way of saying that is liberals are all about freedom, while conservatives are ALSO about responsibility. As you say, it's not like conservatives are against sex. They just recognize it as one of the most powerful motivators in the human psyche and would like to be cautious about how it's treated.
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at February 02, 2010 12:03 PM (pZEar)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:04 PM (oC1jk)
Suspected of bringing Tylenol to school=Get strip searched by the school nurse.
Suspecting being pregnant=Get the morning after pill from school nurse.
Knowing you're going to get bonked by the football team after homecoming=Get BC pills and free condoms from school nurse.
Posted by: CUS at February 02, 2010 12:04 PM (wOGfT)
Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years,
OMG
Sixth graders are ELEVEN years old. A THIRD of them are having sex by the end of EIGHTH grade?
My dad isn't happy I'm having it now and I've been married 25 years.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:04 PM (726kZ)
Funny how the one time that liberals don't want to tell someone else what to do is when it happens to be in the parent/child relationship.
Libeal Caricature: Did you know that your daughter is secretly stopping by Braums on the way home from school and getting a Double-Dip Peanut Butter Hot Fudge Sundae? Her irresponsible behavior will ultimately ruin us all when she becomes overweight and drains off precious resources from the healthcare industry!
Also, did you know that she runs the water while she brushes her teeth, and that she lets her car idle while hanging out the window and talking to her friends in the parking lot? Gaia weeps!
Lastly, she told us that you monitor what she wears out, constrain her to a curfew, and never once let her boyfriend spend the night. Who do you think you are, Stifles McPrudington? Let the girl rut!
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 12:05 PM (kZVsz)
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 12:05 PM (OlN4e)
The problem here, and someone may have already said this, sorry didn't read all the posts, is that mothers these days want to be all Gilmore Girls with their daughters. Mothers thought it was hip that Oprah taught them that their kids werer "tossing salad" a few years back. Better to understand what they're doing and talk it out rather than just locking their kids up and saying, no way in hell you're going out with that boy.
Some of these women acted outraged their kids could be performing that act. However, bet your bottom dollar, they are the first ones taking their 14 year old girls to Victoria Secret to buy inappropriate thongs because "all the girls are wearing Victoria Secret pink products, Mom!! Sheesh".
I thank God every day my Mother was actually a mother.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 02, 2010 12:05 PM (vgUA+)
Problem is we have a big segment of society that feels no shame.
We've been shameless for years, unfortuantely. One of my first realizations of this was when Marion Berry got caught with that hooker and instead of being ashamed was all defiant and in full "The Bitch Set me Up!" mode. Then we he got elected once he got out of jail, that was just unbelievable. If there was any shame in America, he would have quietly gone away once his sentence was done.
Posted by: runningrn at February 02, 2010 12:06 PM (CfmlF)
Remember the Saturday morning show KIDS ARE PEOPLE TOO?
No, they're not people. They're stupid little people who need grown-ups to teach them right from wrong.
Posted by: Timmywing Plover in the well at February 02, 2010 12:06 PM (z37MR)
Posted by: Jean at February 02, 2010 12:06 PM (/8Gs3)
We don't need and shouldn't want, for example, a sexual thunderdome in the public square where anything goes.
The annual Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco.
Just saying.
Posted by: apachewarrior at February 02, 2010 12:07 PM (g9HtA)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:08 PM (oC1jk)
I've always rather been of the opinion that I don't want my kids learning about sex at school or through some program, period. I don't care if it's the liberal, safe sex crap or the conservative, abstinence program. I really think that should be something parents have a responsiblity to do.
Sadly, most parents aren't acting much more adult than teenagers anymore -- and what is really distressing is the whole "hip, cool" Mom and Dad thing. People, parents aren't supposed to be hip, nor cool -- by default we're supposed to be old fuddy duddies; just embrace it for fuck sakes. Ditto with being your kids' "friend" (cough, bullshit, cough).
I never pushed abstinence only on my kids, nor did I push sex ed. We breed animals -- my kids kinda get where babies come from and how they are made from an early age by proxy. No biggie; it's a natural thing -- and just as with the animals, I've pointed out that there is a responsible and an irresponsible way to bring life into the world, and there is a time to "man up" and responsibly deal with life's accidents (sometimes breedings with the animals don't go off quite as planned, but nonetheless the errant product is coming into the world, and you are responsible for that life/lives). I made sure they knew what birth control was and what making a responsible choice was, and that once they left my house at 18 they were adults, capable of making their own decisions but bound to the consequences of those decisions by themselves, as adults. Seems to have worked so far.
I get annoyed that we can't seem to understand that until a person actually experiences the whole sex, birth, life, death thing -- in all its fascinating, beautiful, ugly, sad, joyous, wonderful entirety -- there is no way for that person to fully comprehend it. That's what's missing from any sex program for kids imho -- you can preach to them about anything and everything...but the most important factor is missing, and that's the magic of it all, and that can't be taught secondhand.
Posted by: unknown jane at February 02, 2010 12:09 PM (5/yRG)
I wish they were directed at boys only. And men. But I repeat myself.
Posted by: arhooley at February 02, 2010 03:54 PM (B/dEP)
You are wishing against nature. The males are not wired to avoid any kind of sex that's offered. Females in most species are wired to be choosey. Except it seems now in the human species. Once sex became mostly about enjoyment instead of reproduction, we lost that nature safety net.
Posted by: polynikes at February 02, 2010 04:02 PM (m2CN7)
I am a woman and I have 3 sons + a husband and two brothers. I agree with arhooley. I think girls need a good hard slap. They need to have some self respect and realize men are pigs. PIGS. They are now, were then, and always have been. Even animals know this. Most of the animal kingdom struts it's males around with extra fur or feathers or whatnot to impress the female. She is supposed to choose.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:09 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Starboardhelm at February 02, 2010 12:09 PM (SgSfB)
Ain't it grand, libbies? Way to go!
Posted by: Beverly at February 02, 2010 12:09 PM (rQ9Nm)
Posted by: Jean at February 02, 2010 12:09 PM (QFzyw)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:10 PM (oC1jk)
Posted by: schizoid at February 02, 2010 12:10 PM (ks/IK)
We've been shameless for years, unfortuantely. One of my first realizations of this was when Marion Berry got caught with that hooker and instead of being ashamed was all defiant and in full "The Bitch Set me Up!" mode. Then we he got elected once he got out of jail, that was just unbelievable. If there was any shame in America, he would have quietly gone away once his sentence was done.
Ah, but the Leftists cry "Waah! That's racist! You're demanding that Mr. Berry act white!"
Sex is just one angle for the Commiecrats. Race is another.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 12:10 PM (ujg0T)
Two men enter, one man leaves.
Reminds me of Joel McHale's joke about Khloe and Khourtney Kardashian being like MasterBlaster.
Posted by: wooga at February 02, 2010 12:11 PM (2p0e3)
Not so. Welfare offices register a lot of new D voters, after all.
I disagree that they do not hate children. They do hate them. Children are to be used through shit policies and lack of parenting to become non thinking drones to the government. Once they are old enough to vote, and vote for who they are told to vote for, they are useful, but still despised and looked down on by the leftards, who only wish to enslave them and use them for their own ends.
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 12:11 PM (OlN4e)
"Shut up and go masturbate until your eighteen, like I did."
You'll need the practice for when you're married and have several small children who, when presented with a locked bedroom door, will simply start knocking on it until a) you open it or b) their knuckles bleed...
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 12:12 PM (kZVsz)
Leftards hate children and those who have them.
Not so. Welfare offices register a lot of new D voters, after all.
It's a weird disconnect really. Dems wouldn't have to legalize illegal aliens or trawl for new voters in cemetaries and prisons if they just stopped pushing the whole abortion industry. Isn't it like almost 1.5 million babies are aborted a year? (40 million since abortion was legalized) I bet the vast majority would have grown up to vote Democrat.
Posted by: runningrn at February 02, 2010 12:12 PM (CfmlF)
There were two major items that kept kids from having sex in the old days. First was community pressure under the taboos that viewed unwed mothers in a bad light.
Second was the fincial burdens imposed when pregnancy occurred, either through early shotgun weddings or through child support.
We removed the first barrier in starting in the 60s with the beginning of "free love" and we removed the second in the late 60s with LBJ's great society.
There is little we can do to restore things to the way they were until we undo those two items.
Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!
There are consequences to actions. When our social mores changed, it meant that things like premarital sex became OK. Because hippie "tolerance" is the greatest virtue of all.
Is this helping society? No.
Is it helping the individuals involved? No.
Can this change?
I don't know.
Posted by: shibumi at February 02, 2010 12:14 PM (OKZrE)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:15 PM (oC1jk)
Brings a whole new meaning to "Two men enter, one man leaves!"
Posted by: grognard at February 02, 2010 12:15 PM (v0kvW)
In high school, the eye opener for me was reading the surveys that revealed the majority of my peers were still virgins. I assumed the "virgin at 16" percent was down in the single digits. That's where the peer pressure comes in.
Posted by: wooga at February 02, 2010 12:15 PM (2p0e3)
Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years,
OMG
Sixth graders are ELEVEN years old. A THIRD of them are having sex by the end of EIGHTH grade?
Is there a 'racial breakdown' of this stat, along with a 'socio-economic' factor?
Are children living in poverty, disproportionally non-White & non-Asian, the ones having sex & babies earlier? If so, can The White Man be blamed? Has this been reversed during the past year and two weeks?
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 02, 2010 12:15 PM (JrRME)
Posted by: grognard at February 02, 2010 12:16 PM (v0kvW)
No doubt every parent should be having honest discussions with their kids as they near/cross puberty about the many hazards of teen sex. But some parents just suck at their parenting job.
Posted by: Gnubreed at February 02, 2010 12:16 PM (PvbOJ)
Why is the Left is so hot to get open homosexuality in the US military?
They know it will weaken our military and further weaken our western society.
Our military is already turning into a Jobs Program, and now they want to shackle it with the constraints of political correctness.
Posted by: Timmywing Plover in the well at February 02, 2010 12:16 PM (z37MR)
Posted by: Jean at February 02, 2010 04:09 PM (QFzyw)
Yeah, but they aren't having it with 25 year olds, except in florida high schools.
My post came off (Heh) wrong. I love men and I love how they are but I don't think they have the power to refuse themselves sex unless 1. they already have a place to get it, or 2. there is some type of deterrant; a child, a shotgun, a beating, a disease, etc.
Women need to know that sex does not equal love. They do not respect you in the morning, quite the opposite, and that they don't always have any emotional attachment to their partner.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:17 PM (726kZ)
No. Every kid "sets his mind to rebel and resist" - to a point. The point to which different kids are willing to go may vary, but that does not put the limit in the hands of the kid, unless the parents are willing to concede it.
Posted by: ashowalt at February 02, 2010 12:17 PM (QojlK)
I get that they claim abortion isn't a big deal but, come on -- even if you're pro-choice, it's a BIG DEAL.
It is: It haunts both would-have-been-parents for the rest of their lives. All those possibilities, all that potential happiness and accomplishment--all gone with no 'do-overs'. What would have been a human life is gone and you can only wonder and imagine What Would Have Been.
Ehh. I'm not so sure about that. I was having a conversation with a woman a couple of weeks ago. At one point in her life (years ago) she had become a junkie. She started to get her shit together and was on methadone. It was at this time she became pregnant.
Well, for a number of reasons I won't get into, she didn't want to have a baby at this point in her life. For her, in retrospect, yes it was a big deal. She's made a certain peace with her decision and she's moved on.
However, she related her experience at the clinic to me. She said there were women there that were on their third and fourth abortions. They wore it on their sleeves like it was something to be proud of. Either it was no big deal to these women or it was a convincing display of false bravado.
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at February 02, 2010 12:18 PM (E0EDC)
"Shut up and go masturbate until your eighteen, like I did."
You'll need the practice for when you're married and have several small children who, when presented with a locked bedroom door, will simply start knocking on it until a) you open it or b) their knuckles bleed...
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 04:12 PM (kZVsz)
Is that you honey?
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:18 PM (726kZ)
We are at a time in our nation's history where a tv commercial with a mom telling people how happy she is she gave birth to her son is controversial.
Posted by: Timmywing Plover in the well at February 02, 2010 12:18 PM (z37MR)
Posted by: joeindc44 at February 02, 2010 12:19 PM (QxSug)
No doubt every parent should be having honest discussions with their kids as they near/cross puberty about the many hazards of teen sex. But some parents just suck at their parenting job.
And the schools do surrogate parenting oh so well.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 12:20 PM (ujg0T)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:20 PM (oC1jk)
FIFY
Big difference between "could not" which implies an ethical choice, vs "would not" which is much more venal and dishonest in that situation.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 02, 2010 12:20 PM (I/MqP)
Until I showed up, that is. Suck it, bitches.
Posted by: the AIDS virus at February 02, 2010 12:21 PM (hoowK)
The important thing that needs to be understood is how this is supposed to fit in "the narrative", because as I understand "the narrative", this doesn't fit.
Just sayin'
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at February 02, 2010 12:22 PM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Unclefacts, Proprietor International House of Bacons at February 02, 2010 12:22 PM (erIg9)
Men are pigs? Well, yeah, I suppose.
Example: My wife forced me to take anti-nausea pills and sit through a program on Lifetime. Nearly killed me but she said I needed to learn more about love.
When it was over, I switched the channel over to HBO that had an adult show. The wife announced she would not watch that stuff and started to walk out of the room. I said "you need to watch this, and learn about love!"
She said "That's not love, it's sex!"
To which I replied: "What's the difference?"
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 12:23 PM (OlN4e)
Women need to know that sex does not equal love. They do not respect you in the morning, quite the opposite, and that they don't always have any emotional attachment to their partner.
Yup. Mammas need to be telling their girls that (a) the guy will most likely leave them after the dirty deed and (b) it won't even be good until they're much older.
Sadly girls don't seem to be receptive to consequences of teenage pregnancy or disease.
But tell them they'll be lonley and heartbroken when the little turd dumps them, that may work.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 02, 2010 12:23 PM (vgUA+)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:24 PM (oC1jk)
You'll need the practice for when you're married and have several small children who, when presented with a locked bedroom door, will simply start knocking on it until a) you open it or b) their knuckles bleed...
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 04:12 PM (kZVsz)
And why can a guy "finish" in this situation but not a woman. What genetic f-up was that? Spreading the cave man genes and all that crap, I guess.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:24 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Adlib at February 02, 2010 12:26 PM (k/CNO)
We are at a time in our nation's history where a tv commercial with a mom telling people how happy she is she gave birth to her son is controversial.
In 1969, when my mother was giving birth to my younger brother, her fourth and last child, there were eco-fiends going on and on about over population, and a couple eco-fiends even brought up the subject with my mom, she recalls.
Today, the decent modern Judeo-Christian (and in fairness, often Shinto and Buddhist) world is below replacement level, while the schimitar swinging, suicide bombing, clitoris chopping savages are breeding like vermin. The eco-fiends are just fine with the latter.
What does this tell you?
Maybe I'm paranoid, but as I opined about Ace's discussion about abstinence with presumably a twat over at Feministe or Pandagon or some such blog, I honestly think it's not leftist stupidity. It is leftist *treason*.
I mean, they are so much smarter and more educated than us, right?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 12:26 PM (ujg0T)
How Bonnie, Clyde And Pauline Gunned Down Middlebrow Culture at Ed Driscoll.
"Kael assumed she was safe to defend the choices of mass audiences because the old standards of taste would always be there. They were, after all, built into the culture. ... Schrader argued that she and her admirers won the battle but lost the war. Acceptable taste became mass-audience taste, box-office receipts the ultimate measure of a film's worth, sometimes the only measure. Traditional, well-written movies without violence or special effects were pushed to the margins. "It was fun watching the applecart being upset," Schrader said, "but now where do we go for apples?""
"As the above article concludes, "Not long before she died, Pauline Kael remarked to a friend, 'When we championed trash culture we had no idea it would become the only culture.'"
Posted by: Looking Glass at February 02, 2010 12:27 PM (LJSfA)
Yup. Mammas need to be telling their girls that (a) the guy will most likely leave them after the dirty deed and (b) it won't even be good until they're much older.
I told my son not to take the virginity of his hot little 15 year old girlfriend because of several reasons but also because it would be bad for her and she would remember the asshole that did it for the rest of her life. That actually seemed to strike a chord.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:27 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 02, 2010 12:27 PM (PQY7w)
Let's not forget that those in the 'abortion-on-demand' crowd (which constitutes a lot of liberals) are 100% behind the anti-abstinence initiatives.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 02, 2010 12:27 PM (554T5)
FIFY
Big difference between "could not" which implies an ethical choice, vs "would not" which is much more venal and dishonest in that situation.
Good point. A little linguistic laziness on my part.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 12:27 PM (ujg0T)
Rates a 3 on the moron scale, balls for doing that.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 12:27 PM (8NGHm)
What was my biggest fear as a young man if confronted with a pregnancy?
Not the castigation of peers, and not the pregnancy itself, but the wrath of my father who gave me sage advise and expected it to be followed to the letter.
This was an era when father's were respected and admired. My father was a WWII pilot who returned to America and established a great life for his family, which included respect from his children. Dad passed in '04 at 96, and is missed by all.
Posted by: Fish at February 02, 2010 12:28 PM (M5t+h)
We are at a time in our nation's history where there is a tv commercial media frenzy over with a mom a woman living as a man telling people how happy she was to give birth to her son is controversial.intruiging.
/fixed
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 02, 2010 12:28 PM (vgUA+)
Look here you non pig man moron! If a woman gets killed in a Planned Parenthood clinic it's just business. But a crisis pregnancy center won't refer a patient to an abortion clinic I am going to cut their funding and recommend prosecution to the Department of Justice.
Now, I have a Beverly Hills fund raiser to attend. b'dee b'dee that's all folks.
Posted by: Henry Waxman at February 02, 2010 12:30 PM (+zo63)
The truth is that any neurologist will tell you that a teen's brain architecture is not fully formed, especially parts of the brain that, for example, control risk taking and delayed gratification. That's why sixteen year olds drive so well. Mix in the fact that teens' brains are marinated in several times the adult level of sex hormones, and you have a recipe for disaster. But, you know, there's always Planned Parenthood to get rid of the evidence, so shut up you anti-sex weirdos.
Also, I really think the Leftie pro-sex thing is really just a pose born of insecurity. Do you really think someone like Amynda Marcotte is really a sexually open person without a raft of hangups?
Finally, as a strikingly handsome, masculine man, I have to say that I would prosper even in a seemingly repressed, Leftist charicature of the 50s, so the pro-sex pose doesn't appeal that much to me.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 02, 2010 12:30 PM (IVQSY)
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2010 12:31 PM (jlvw3)
My sister and her husband are 34 and got one kid. Cousin and her husband have two, other cousin and the father of her children (dead beats the lot of them) only had two kids).
I can't find a woman who wants to have 3 sons and 3 daughters.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 12:31 PM (8NGHm)
I'm horrified by the whole "oh it's no big deal if a 12 yo looks like/acts like a whore" thing. Hell, I'm horrified by it when it's a 16 yo. I am absolutely fine with being that way. I fail to see how it's cool and hip and awesomeface to encourage children, and, yeah a 12 yo is a child, to have sex. Any kind of sex. Kissing maybe but anything else? No. A trillion times no.
This doesn't make sense even from the feminist point of view. I don't have the studies to hand, but I believe there is empirical evidence that the later a girl starts having sex, the better she is academically, financially and emotionally. The Girl Power thing to teach is hell no you aren't doing that to me.
I just don't get how teaching kids to be sluts is so fantastic.
Posted by: alexthechick at February 02, 2010 12:31 PM (8WZWv)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 12:32 PM (xGIqT)
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 04:23 PM (OlN4e)
I have nothing to add to this masterpiece. I get the giggles everytime I hear about how men and women have similar views about sex. My wife doesn't believe me when I talk about what it was like being a teenager. Women have no idea...
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at February 02, 2010 12:32 PM (pZEar)
Leftards hate children and those who have them.
Not so. Welfare offices register a lot of new D voters, after all.
Posted by: LibertarianJimLiking children for the political entitlements they afford and actually liking children because they can become productive, good, thoughtful people are two entirely different things.
Posted by: Iskandar at February 02, 2010 12:32 PM (/o58C)
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:32 PM (726kZ)
I only have a boy, thank God.
Here's my message to him when he's older: Sex has consequences. You knock up some girl, you man up and take care of your responsibilities. Think about this the next time you wanna get with some skank because she'll be in your life forever if you get her pregnant. And herpes will be on your dick forever if she has it.
Whatever you do, you own it. Take the coward's way out and I'll disown you.
Posted by: Warden at February 02, 2010 12:32 PM (QoR4a)
OTOH, I seem to have missed out on a whole bunch of STD's
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 02, 2010 12:33 PM (TsR9Q)
Posted by: changer1701 at February 02, 2010 12:33 PM (xktXL)
Hey, you know who this helps don't you? Mitt Romney! Quick we need to organize a Million Mormon March!
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at February 02, 2010 12:33 PM (CfmlF)
Here's my message to him when he's older: Sex has consequences. You knock up some girl, you man up and take care of your responsibilities. Think about this the next time you wanna get with some skank because she'll be in your life forever if you get her pregnant. And herpes will be on your dick forever if she has it.
Erections have consequences, people!
Posted by: John Edwards at February 02, 2010 12:34 PM (CfmlF)
I play online games. There are plenty of kids on there. I tell them: Use it to pee out of til you're married. They get the message, and they laugh.
I'm sure they're still all out there sucking each other's dicks, those little scamps, but it makes me feel better.
Posted by: Truman North at February 02, 2010 12:35 PM (e8YaH)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 04:32 PM (xGIqT)
If my kids didn't respect me I would consider myself a failure at life.
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 02, 2010 12:35 PM (Sghlv)
Not the castigation of peers, and not the pregnancy itself, but the wrath of my father who gave me sage advise and expected it to be followed to the letter.
Yep. Me too. I can't even imagine. On my wedding day I was pleased that I had been freed up not to piss him off.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:35 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: LGoPs at February 02, 2010 12:35 PM (tm/sN)
dagny, not always. There was one Saturday morning that our then-infant daughter woke up "five minutes too soon," if you know what I mean. It was the usual "Helllloooooooo, the Center of the Known Universe is awake now, slaves!" cry that we were met with every morning. Mrs. reason scootched over and turned off the baby monitor, and was ready to go...
...I'm sure I'll get the Man Card revoked for this...
...I was the one who couldn't go on. There is pretty much any sort of backdrop to which I can get my freak on. A crying baby is NOT one of them.
re: mommydaddymommydaddyMOMMYDADDYMOMMYDADDY. Let's not forget that usually the reason for interruption was always VERY important. Like, tattling that one of the other children burped and didn't excuse themselves.
maddogg - do you still sleep on the couch for that?
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 12:36 PM (kZVsz)
They recoiled in horror against its perceived religious origins. Effectivness was never an issue.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 02, 2010 12:36 PM (TsR9Q)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:36 PM (oC1jk)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 02, 2010 12:36 PM (8WZWv)
But consistency is exactly what kids need to be raised properly, IMHO.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 02, 2010 12:36 PM (554T5)
That's because lefties are stunted individuals and want to be taken care of instead of providing that for children.
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 02, 2010 12:37 PM (Sghlv)
And the schools do surrogate parenting oh so well.
You need a license to style someone's hair, but to raise a kid? Meh. If I wasn't a libertarian, I'd say there oughta be a law. Yup schools suck at it, but that does not change the fact that some parents suck worse.
Posted by: Gnubreed at February 02, 2010 12:37 PM (PvbOJ)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 12:38 PM (xGIqT)
Posted by: Settled Scientist at February 02, 2010 12:38 PM (nz654)
"Ace is being a little generous with the Lefties. Yes, many want the kiddies to have sex as soon as they're curious - they like to undermine parental authority as a rule. I mean, have you ever actually read pandagon or feministe?"
It would be such karmic justice if Amanda Marcotte, Jill Flipovic et. al. were placed into cells with a gang of Gitmo prisoners, or a gang of California Correctional Facility inmates for that matter. The leftist "multicultural" crap would be knocked right out of them, in a very painful and intimate way, and lessons about life would be taught, also in a very painful and intimate way.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 12:38 PM (ujg0T)
"You don't always just have to take a position contrary to us just to prove you're superior"
How else are they going to do it?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 02, 2010 12:38 PM (d0ih6)
All nonmarital sex is illegitimate.
Actually, it works pretty well as a societal building block. It encourages marriage, discourages adultery, and keeps all manner of deviant sexual practices in the dark. That society may not look like much fun, but the social network it builds are pretty stable.
It's just amazing to me the amount of effort and energy that's been expended over the last fifty years on denying, attacking, and subverting that premise.
Posted by: slarrow at February 02, 2010 12:39 PM (ktOPW)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at February 02, 2010 12:39 PM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 02, 2010 04:36 PM (554T5)
Absolutely; children need to know that an action will produce a given reaction time after time. Any deviation from that will confuse the hell out of them.
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 02, 2010 12:40 PM (Sghlv)
And if kids are thinking sex is a taboo and something frightening they shouldn't mess with -- Good. They should be thinking that.
Noo. That's just ignorant.
Posted by: Zombie Michel Jackson at February 02, 2010 12:40 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Scott Ritter at February 02, 2010 12:41 PM (1fanL)
maddogg - do you still sleep on the couch for that?
After 33 years she is resigned to my being an intolerable asshole. Besides, she laughed! I also serve as her best warning to our daughter as to what to avoid
Posted by: maddogg at February 02, 2010 12:41 PM (OlN4e)
Abstinence programs should be directed at women only. I long for the days when women said no. It was a challenge and a feeling of accomplishment when you were able to convince someone to sleep with you. Now you can do it without putting in even a third of the effort. Its made men less respectful and forgetful on how to be gentlemen.
Just say no. Unless I ask really, really nice.~polynikes
HEAR, HEAR! I second that notion.
Posted by: Underemployed Hooker that Hates Lady's Night at the Bar at February 02, 2010 12:42 PM (o0R2E)
...I was the one who couldn't go on. There is pretty much any sort of backdrop to which I can get my freak on. A crying baby is NOT one of them.
Well, mr. dagny had no problem with that but is worried about the teenagers "hearing". The six year old is still knocking and sliding things under the door, and demanding breakfast or whatever. All this would be fine if I could get in bed and stay awake for more than 30 seconds if not seriously occupied.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:42 PM (726kZ)
Actually, it works pretty well as a societal building block. It encourages marriage, discourages adultery ...
Posted by: slarrow
Actually I think you have it backwards. Successful societies pressured young adults to get married quite early and thereby avoiding the whole debate.
Posted by: Iskandar at February 02, 2010 12:43 PM (/o58C)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 02, 2010 12:43 PM (8WZWv)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:43 PM (oC1jk)
Wait--
How did we go from discussing abstinence-only programs in school to this "premise": All nonmarital sex is illegitimate.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 02, 2010 12:45 PM (vgUA+)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 02, 2010 12:46 PM (oC1jk)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 02, 2010 04:43 PM (8WZWv)
Have I told you lately that you are the coolest thing EVAH?!?
Posted by: Jerry Lee Lewis at February 02, 2010 12:47 PM (1fanL)
Now gents, let's get real. Claiming that "abstinence always works" or that "sex outside marriage is a bad thing" is just as silly as claiming that "homosexuals have no business being in the armed forces."
C'mon, we've progressed past all that voodoo superstition. We know better now. This is the 21st Century, okay?
Tired old copybook headings, faugh!
Posted by: J. Moses Browning at February 02, 2010 12:48 PM (3G4di)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 12:48 PM (xGIqT)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 12:49 PM (xGIqT)
Think about this the next time you wanna get with some skank because she'll be in your life forever....
Meat Loaf -- Paradise By The Dashboard Light
Posted by: Gnubreed at February 02, 2010 12:49 PM (PvbOJ)
"because it would be bad for her and she would remember the asshole that did it for the rest of her life. That actually seemed to strike a chord."
Threadwin. One of the few things 15-year-old boys understand is humiliation, and can respect and fear the notion of someone being out there in the world, who will be all too happy to point-and-laugh at you FOREVAR...
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 12:50 PM (kZVsz)
We are at a time in our nation's history where a tv commercial with a mom telling people how happy she is she gave birth to her son is controversial.
Only to the media and the phony "inteligencia". I think we allow the media to influence us too much, even as conservatives. Anttime I see soemthing like that pop up on TV I just call them a lying C..... and turn the channel.
And in fact, I simply do not watch very much TV at all anymore. I have even cut down on the news since Fox has been moving more and more to the left.
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2010 12:50 PM (QrA9E)
You think it's the former, outlaw in HH; I think it's the latter. Each experience is unique and some people have an amazing ability to Repress, or whatever.
Like everyone else, I can only speak for meself ( and project it onto everyone else )
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 02, 2010 12:51 PM (JrRME)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 12:51 PM (xGIqT)
Posted by: wrg at February 02, 2010 12:52 PM (7t+Ws)
And the hook up culture seems to destroy women, even women who scorn it. The women I am attracted to don't follow the hook up culture but they are jaded and cynical because of it.
For some odd reason, I find the average conservative women more attractive than the most beautiful easy woman out there.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 12:52 PM (8NGHm)
The worst effect I've witnessed from teenagers doing it isn't the pregnancy -- although that happens. When it happens, it's very bad. But fairly infrequent. What happens every single time though? Severe emotional overinvolvement from both the guy and the girl. It leads to sooo many problems and missed opportunities.
The kids I know who waited until they were in college basically did so because 1) their parents cared and were really involved in their lives; 2) they were way to busy; and 3) they had way too much to look forward to in their future to screw it up with either a super-serious boyfriend in high school or through pregnancy.
Posted by: mr.frakypants at February 02, 2010 12:53 PM (pffBj)
That's because she has high self esteem and a brain.
Posted by: wrg at February 02, 2010 12:53 PM (7t+Ws)
This doesn't make sense even from the feminist point of view. I don't have the studies to hand, but I believe there is empirical evidence that the later a girl starts having sex, the better she is academically, financially and emotionally. The Girl Power thing to teach is hell no you aren't doing that to me.
I just don't get how teaching kids to be sluts is so fantastic.
Amen! Amen! I think every girl should play sports! I was involved with a non-profit, "Girls on The Run", for a year. It basically introduces running to young girls (8-11). We met twice a week after school and had a lesson plan (topics included nutrition, why bullying and gossiping are bad, developing good habits, being a girl of your word, etc.) There was a slight lefty tilt (we had one lesson on the environment, but not too obnoxious). The goal was to educate the girls and empower them through running. After the lesson, we would play a game to reinforce the lesson and encourage team building/camaraderie and after the game, we would run with the girls, slowly building their distance. The goal was for them to do an organized 5K race at the end of the program (we had one practice race a couple of weeks before the actual race). We had women volunteer from the community to be running buddies and run the practice race and the race with them. Each girl got her own buddy. The amazing thing was watching these girls finish their first 5k race--the looks on their faces. They were like "if I can run a 5K I can do anything."
Anyways, this program was started by a woman who did research and found out that girls who play sports were more likely to do better in school, stay in school, choose better friends, and not get pregnant than girls who didn't play sports. It's funny because I was probably the only conservative coach there (not that politics ever came up, but just because of where I live), but we all thought that empowered, strong girls were a good thing, and we all took it very seriously, hoping we were helping prevent unwanted teen pregnancy later down the road as we instilled a love for running.
Posted by: John Edwards at February 02, 2010 12:54 PM (CfmlF)
Maddog and jeff, you both have girls? Interesting. Wonder if mr. dagny could have been so uninterested in the Mommymommydaddymommy if it had been his princess instead of the boys?
Parents are probably preprogrammed to not engage in procreative activity when there are children small enough to interrupt. That's why I've never seen HOW you can have more than say, 4, there just isn't the time.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 12:54 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 04:49 PM (xGIqT)
That's some funny shit!!
Posted by: Hedgehog at February 02, 2010 12:54 PM (oQIfB)
It's the mindset they have...and I have known many people like that. Certian individuals adopt a contrarian position in a gambit (sorry I stole Ace's word, but it works too well here) to make others think that they are superior to them...and will come up with the most fuckheaded arguments to try to support their positions.
It comes from a place of insecurity...not conviction.
It's liberalism in a nutshell. They really want others to see them as more enlightened ...and superior. If they are able to get others to come around..they 1) constantly remind them of it, or 2) adopt another position to once again distance themselves ...which is another way of putting themselves on a pedestal.
Posted by: beedubya at February 02, 2010 12:54 PM (AnTyA)
The Lefties, rather than being encouraged by the results of this study, will immediately try to undercut its findings and demonize its authors. The Leftie "tell," if you will, that the proposition of kids delaying sexual activity is what they find wholly intolerable.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 02, 2010 12:54 PM (IVQSY)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 02, 2010 12:54 PM (DIYmd)
For some odd reason, I find the average conservative women more attractive than the most beautiful easy woman out there.
Hey! We're not mutually exclusive, you know!
Posted by: Megyn Kelly at February 02, 2010 12:56 PM (CfmlF)
I remember reading something about being very protective of her daughters and mindful about what they were exposed to..
...but she didn't mind the fact that she was instrumental in turning scads of tweeners into sluts
Posted by: beedubya at February 02, 2010 12:57 PM (AnTyA)
Hey! We're not mutually exclusive, you know!
Posted by: Megyn Kelly at February 02, 2010 04:56 PM (CfmlF)
If I kill and field-dress our Husband will you marry me?
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 12:58 PM (8NGHm)
203 191 Have you ever tried to stuff a marshmallow in a piggybank? It's about that easy with your kids yelling thru the door while you've got mommy in the Hucklebuck.
LOL! Hey, have you considered a career in the ever burgeoning romance genre? All you needed was an heaving bosom! Heh!
Posted by: runningrn at February 02, 2010 12:58 PM (CfmlF)
Posted by: Blustering Buffoon at February 02, 2010 12:59 PM (C39a6)
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2010 01:01 PM (jlvw3)
"There's nothing that kills the mood for me like a three year-old girl hammering on the door yelling "MOMMY I NEED TO TELL YOU SOMETHING!""
And that "something" is usually Earth-shattering, like "there was a dog that just ran through the front yard!"
Posted by: reason at February 02, 2010 01:02 PM (q/kmn)
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2010 01:02 PM (QrA9E)
"Abstinence only" goes against human instincts. I have a 16 year old daughter that has remained a virgin so far (I honestly think and pray). Her mother and I have warned her for years that sex has consequences that could derail her life ambitions, that she will be better prepared to deal with the emotional entanglements of sex if she waits until she is older, that STD's exist in large percentages of the population, etc. But the bottom line is she has hormonal desires that are pushing her to procreate. For tens of thousands of years our species has existed because of its ability to breed sucessfully. Do you think this stops because we overlap our current societal life timelines on top of our genetic code. Add to that societal pressures that come from a porn infused, sexually saturated culture and tell me how a parent can simply tell his teen to not to have sex. Teens have sex. Seeking, having, and recounting sex is the freaking essence of high-school.
Now, all the BS about the 11 and 12 year olds might be another subject all together. At that age, we preached abstinence only. It is only in her mid-high school years that her mom and I felt we had to do more.
Posted by: California Red at February 02, 2010 01:03 PM (X2i5s)
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 04:52 PM (8NGHm)
Yup.
Posted by: changer1701 at February 02, 2010 01:03 PM (xktXL)
Finally, as a strikingly handsome, masculine man, I have to say that I would prosper even in a seemingly repressed, Leftist charicature of the 50s, so the pro-sex pose doesn't appeal that much to me.
It ees, as I say, bether do loook goood than to feeel goood.
Posted by: Fernando Llamas at February 02, 2010 01:04 PM (Zi+FQ)
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 01:04 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Fernando Llamas at February 02, 2010 01:05 PM (Zi+FQ)
213: Just curious, ace, but is telling someone younger "Don't make the mistakes I did..." REALLY hypocrisy?
In the world of the Demunists, of course it is, but in the real world....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 01:05 PM (ujg0T)
Personally I don't think men/boys are pigs -- unless they've been allowed to be, unless they get taught that they're supposed to act like that. I don't think women/girls are sluts either -- unless for the same reasons as men/boys and the "pig" thing.
That's taking all the personal responsiblity out of the equation, denigrating the act of procreation to some mere wallowing in the mud, and not having a lot of respect for the potential product of the act.
There's no shame in sex or wanting it, or liking it. Now, there can be irresponsiblity and the consequences of bad choices, and that a person should be taught to be ashamed of, or taught that the nonshameful action is to bear full responsiblity for the choices and actions one partakes in. But the act and actors themselves? No, how can that be?
Same for boys as well as girls -- don't do it unless you're ready, willing, and able to deal with the potentialities, but don't be ashamed of wanting to do it because that's just the normal way of the world. You're not a pig or a slut for wanting that, just don't be foolish in choosing to do it. The desire is a natural thing, but it can lead to things you may not be prepared for and you have the ability to make the right choice (and your parents have quite a lot of say over your choices until you leave their house because they are affected quite firsthand if your actions lead to something that they have to bear responsiblity for).
Posted by: unknown jane at February 02, 2010 01:06 PM (5/yRG)
#139
WWII generation of parents were different. I'm one of them. Movies didn't show even a married couple sharing a bed. Other tabus: swearing, sex, dirty words, half- or fully undressed people on the TV. Furthermore, at that time most mothers were home when the kids came home from school and there wasn't one iota of a chance that there would be any sex play going on at home. Parents were a bloc and we tattled on our kids; they didn't get away with much outside the home either.
'NamGrunt - I can't help but wonder how many, if any, liberals you know. Your statements are pitiful.
Posted by: Java at February 02, 2010 01:07 PM (PEFmX)
Today. 2010.. that rate is over 40%
You would think with the invention of pill, abortion now legal in all 50 states, manufacturing processes that gives us condoms with no holes in them, and sex ed that starts in second gtrade...... our unwanted pregnancy problem should be damn near zero. Yets its now ten times higher than it was in 1940.
I'd say sex ed has been a dismal failure
Japan has the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies at 2% of all industrialized nations..... all that honor and family tradition and not bringing shame to the family doesn't work at all?
Posted by: fixerupper at February 02, 2010 01:07 PM (J5Hcw)
#216 CA Red: But it should be *your* decision to give your daughter the condom, not the nanny-state's. Or better yet, have her go to the drugstore and buy them herself with her teenybopper job money.
Oh, but she's ashamed to? Well, in the words of a great Trojan Advertisement: "Get Real--If you're not ready for condoms, you're not ready for sex..."
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 01:08 PM (ujg0T)
Honor culture works. And Japan is a fairly liberalized society, this is the country that gave us Bukkake and Hentai Porn.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 01:10 PM (8NGHm)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 01:10 PM (ujg0T)
Well, how about that. Now, let's see a study that shows how many kids abstain from sex when their education is handled by their PARENTS instead of some generic program fed to the kids at an age the state has determined to be appropriate.
Sex Ed shouldn't be taught in the schools, it should be taught by the parents at an age the parents have determined their kids should learn it, and that age is different for every child. This is the first problem caused by parents who surrender their responsibilities on this issue and it plays right into the basic liberal concept that everything should be handled by the government.
Second problem: children have the opportunity to have sex, either because parents are letting their child date at too young an age (stupid) and/or both parents are working (liberals just hate placing importance upon the role of a HOUSEWIFE -- and how many folks these days look down on women who don't work thanks to feminism?). This is another problem with parental responsibility and plays into the liberals' hands.
Third problem: liberals will not agree to Abstinence Only because it places the primary responsibility on the female, and liberals will not acknowledge there is a difference between the 2 genders' sex drives or choices. The female carries the primary burden because she bears the greater possibility of consequence and is born with a different sexual attitude, one naturally prone to abstinence. Males can overcome their stronger libido and should be taught to do so, but realistically the girl is going to have what guy wants and is ultimately the one to make the decision. This problem can be avoided by parents if they don't permit themselves to be persuaded by the liberal concept that there's Zero difference betweeen the sexes.
So, more than any type of "program" kids go through, the best way to guarantee teen abstinence is to get the parents off their tails and have them do their jobs instead of letting the state, peer pressure, and liberal doctine dictate to them.
I still laugh at the number of people who lost their minds when I said the Palin parents bore some responsibility for their daughter's pregnancy.
Posted by: barbelle at February 02, 2010 01:11 PM (qF8q3)
"there is no slut quite as bad as a rich, white slut" - Dave Sim.
Posted by: Looking Glass at February 02, 2010 01:15 PM (LJSfA)
However, the onset of sexual activity is only part of the concern. Generally liberals don't think sex is that bad of a thing. Not by itself anyway. The bad things are the STDs and unwanted pregnancies that go along with doing it wrong.
Abstinence only education (by nature of being abstinence only) does not adequately prepare people to avoid the actual bad outcomes once they do become sexually active. And they invariably do.
So whether they begin having sex at 14, 18, or 21, the point is we want kids to engage in these behaviors safely. Abstinence only education does not provide the education to make this possible.
So I can see this study validating an abstinence component to a comprehensive sexual education. However, merely delaying sexual behavior does next to nothing if the behavior (when it is inevitably engaged in) is engaged with a lack of basic reproductive health education.
Posted by: seattle slough at February 02, 2010 01:16 PM (JRGA6)
It's not hypocrisy if you try to do the right thing ( and know what the 'right thing' is ) but fail or fall short--and then expect others to also try and to know what the 'right thing' is.
It's only hypocrisy if you never tried and /or don't know Right from Wrong, but insist that others do what you never attempted or appreciated
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 02, 2010 01:17 PM (JrRME)
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 01:20 PM (8NGHm)
Abstinance Only is a crime against men.
Abstinance eventually leads to marriage. Marriage eventually leads to more abstinance.
Whats a poor guy to do?
Posted by: Spider79 at February 02, 2010 01:20 PM (nILWR)
Yeah, except it doesn't take all that long for young people to understand how sex works, and how to reduce the chances of getting pregnant or of contracting a disease. People are intensely interested in sex, so that part is easy. It is practicing carnal forbearance that is the issue, together with the fact that 14 year olds are by nature very, very bad decision makers.
I simply don't think you need to begin the Sex Ed at the age of 10, or that you need to teach Sex Ed in every grade and all the time in order to get the "plumbing" down and the idea of contraception to work. You need comprehensive Sex Ed from young ages and all the time in order to change sexual mores, which is why so many people resist it in the first place.
Also, parents are more than capable of teaching what needs to be taught.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 02, 2010 01:22 PM (IVQSY)
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2010 01:22 PM (jlvw3)
Whats a poor guy to do?
Posted by: Spider79 at February 02, 2010 05:20 PM (nILWR)
Develop well defined forearms?
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2010 01:22 PM (8NGHm)
There is no shame in the sex act in and of itself, just like there is no shame in the desiring -- hell, it's a natural thing; none of us would be here if the desiring and the act hadn't taken place.
Now, there is a fair bit of shame in being foolish in how one acts on the desire and how one goes about conducting the act in an irresponsible way. I think that's the big issue for me: that sometimes gets forgotten all the way around. I don't think anybody, much less impressionable, of an age kids, should be made to feel shameful about the act or wanting it -- it's going against nature. They should be taught how to successfully and responsibly think and act in regards to the natural impulse though and that there are consequences.
Posted by: unknown jane at February 02, 2010 01:22 PM (5/yRG)
However, the onset of sexual activity is only part of the concern. Generally liberals don't think sex is that bad of a thing. Not by itself anyway. The bad things are the STDs and unwanted pregnancies that go along with doing it wrong.
And this is the problem with liberals. Sex *is* a bad thing for minors. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, not discouraging sexuality to minors is like not discouraging giving whiskey and the car keys to teenage boys.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 01:28 PM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Glen at February 02, 2010 01:28 PM (BSbOk)
So, it never even entered my mind to have premarital sex (I mean actual intercourse... the other stuff never entered my mind until college). And my reasons for living that way -- yes it is a "lifestyle choice" -- evolved as I got older. When I was in middle school and heard the whispers about Slutty Susie, I felt awful for her, but thanked God I was raised the way I was. When I was in high school and each and every one of my girlfriends began having sex I saw them either A) get an STD, B) have a pregnancy scare, or C) get dumped by their boyfriends three weeks later (this one happened like clockwork). It just didn't seem worth it to me... and I had watched my parents live the consequences of premarital sex gone wrong -- my brother whose birthday is coincidentally four months after my parents' wedding anniversary, resentment, accusations, you name it. Why would I want to even CHANCE any of that, just to make my pimply, skinny boyfriend happy for - let's face it - five minutes? What-the-eff-ever.
And you better damn well believe I'll teach my son to live the same way -- and my daughter, if I'm lucky enough to have one. S/He won't love you in the morning. You WILL get a bad reputation. Son, if you can't keep your little soldier in his tent then you better man up and take responsibility. They hand out condoms like #2 pencils in schools today, there's NO REASON not to use one.
And like several posters above said: fear is a very useful motivator. My father would routinely clean his Glock in front of my boyfriends (I knew my husband was "the one" not only after he said, "whatever you want, I respect your beliefs" when I dropped the "I'm waiting for marriage" bomb but also when he asked my dad if he could go to the range with him). My older brothers would drop little gems like "Don't forget what I said about the baseball bat," when a date would come to pick me up. Only one ever had the smarts to ask me "Oh, was that meant for me?" And I most certainly will be saying the old "I've got a gun and a shovel, no one will miss you" line.... I mean, isn't that part of my job?
Posted by: CMS2004 at February 02, 2010 01:28 PM (DlVI/)
So I can see this study validating an abstinence component to a comprehensive sexual education. However, merely delaying sexual behavior does next to nothing if the behavior (when it is inevitably engaged in) is engaged with a lack of basic reproductive health education.
Really. I think delaying it from 12 to 19 makes a huge difference. The 19 year old has at least had time to date, to understand the biology behind the event, the chance to be a child/teenager, the chance to make friends without sexualizing them, a chance to learn about their bodies, a chance to learn not to bow to peer pressure every time, a chance to recognize when they are being used, a chance to know about and understand pregnancy, birth control, etc.
Who would you trust more to put on a condom? A 19 year old or a 13 year old? 13 year old boys barely remember to shower.
It really is a shame, and I'm in it too, that when we discuss this we see the inevitable pre-marital sex. The argument is largely over and now we're just quibbling about age.
Liberals don't like abstinance because it smacks of morals. Morals smack of religion and religion is the opiate.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 01:28 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Hairy Palms at February 02, 2010 01:29 PM (C39a6)
I saw the opening to an episode of Boston Legal the other night where a girl who contracted HIV "because her high school teaches abstinence only." wanted to sue the school. Of course she was bright, erudite and capable of understanding that she could legally apply to be emancipated – and yet she went out and had sex with someone who turned out to be HIV positive. I couldn't bring myself to watch any further. Maybe David Kelley didn't follow the brain-dead liberal line in the end, but I kinda expect that he did.
And of course, the question of how HIV was contracted was never asked. Why, it just came out of the blue like polio used to! Doing dozens of men a night in the bath house or shooting up junk were not mentioned.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 02, 2010 01:34 PM (ujg0T)
248 Yeah I got it backwards. I also meant pigs in the most affectionate sense possible.
I saw a "portrait of a teenage mother" in like, oh, 1975? It scared the crap out of me. I think it starred Jan Brady (whatever her name was). She ended up in a trailer park with an abusive alcoholic guy. That movie and fear of my dad kept my knees together for years.
Posted by: dagny at February 02, 2010 01:36 PM (726kZ)
Posted by: Cincinnatus at February 02, 2010 01:39 PM (euuyg)
Yes. One's discretion and ability to act contrary to what one's peer group does is much more developed at 19 than at 12. I think discretion in the number and character of sexual partners can be a good thing.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 02, 2010 01:41 PM (IVQSY)
So whether they begin having sex at 14, 18, or 21, the point is we want kids to engage in these behaviors safely.
There's no such thing as safe sex. I wish people would stop pretending that there is.
Posted by: Warden at February 02, 2010 01:42 PM (QoR4a)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 02, 2010 01:49 PM (Xuxia)
Posted by: Warden at February 02, 2010 01:52 PM (QoR4a)
yea, but what about that old saw about pigs having 30 minute orgasms? I mean c'mon...if that's the case I'd sure as hell want to be a pig! On the actual topic though, I'd have to agree with being educated by the parents and argue for abstinance until they're sixteen or seventeen at least. Unfortunately the cats been let out of the bag back before I was born in 79, and I don't think there's any way to bring it back. The whole doing sex for pleasure, not procreation is just too rampant.
Understanding that there are in fact consequences to your actions, odds being that they'll be harmful to the girl at least is a great point and one that needs to be hammered home by parents. My kid sister got married at age 19 and is now getting a divorce at the ripe old age of 21. Poor decisions often made at a young age? Case in point.
Posted by: Dale in San Antonio(Not Dave!) at February 02, 2010 02:04 PM (0ihy/)
Think about it: most of them are airheads who don't pay attention to what's going on in the world, but let them know that Dick Cheney favors enhanced interrogation techniques, and that's all they need to know! It's off to the rally with a "NO TORTURE" sign!
What caused this? Why are liberals so motivated by hate? That's really what drives them. Where does it come from?
Posted by: Trimegistus at February 02, 2010 02:12 PM (OW3Eh)
I think it is critical to encourage (in a classroom setting) kids to remain abstinent, just because of the peer pressure. The more that these kids feel that they're not alone, that they're not "one of the cool kids" for abstaining, but rather amongst the majority, the better it will be to them physically and psychologically. The better it will be for society.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at February 02, 2010 02:20 PM (+3fAP)
Posted by: Adrian at February 02, 2010 02:21 PM (HqFA1)
And according to the writers she had no idea what a condon was. Typical leftist drivel.
Posted by: Javems at February 02, 2010 02:40 PM (/IQA9)
I think that boys need to be taught to have just as much responsiblity for their actions as girls -- it takes two to tango and make a kid after all. And I'm not hung up on no premarital sex as much as I am no irresponsible sex -- the cachet of the virgin bride just doesn't make much sense to me. I've known a couple of virgin brides who were unholy scrunts as far as the rest of their personality\ies were concerned, and about the only claim they had was that they "waited" (and one of these liked to brag about how she waited for her husband...and then complained about how she wished marriages could be open because there were a couple of guys she'd like to $%k..."damn, she's a real catch", was all I could think when she started in on being a virgin before marriage and yada yada)...I'd rather my son married a kind hearted girl who'd done the deed but had a lot going for her as a wife and mother than something like those two. Same for my daughters: marry a good person who looks to be a good bet as a husband and father to your kids, and for both: don't go fooling around with anybody but someone who passes the kid/marriage test...because every time up at the plate that's exactly what could happen...and don't do it until you yourself could pass the kid/marriage test (because even if you don't marry marry them, the mother/father of your kids is somebody you're going to be dealing with for the rest of your life). Segues great into the talk about watching your own back while chemically impaired...or the waking up next to coyote ugly is bad enough, but having to live with it the rest of your life is the suck kids, so let's be careful out there.
Seems to have worked so far for me at least -- my kids are hardly pure, clean saints, but they've been practically hermit monks compared to their peers (now the "I'm in love and this is The One" stage is one that I'm afraid they're going to have to go through on their own, but at least we got to that stage intact).
Posted by: unknown jane at February 02, 2010 02:53 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Roman Polanski at February 02, 2010 03:36 PM (mHQ7T)
Signed,
Fatih Akin, Stephane Allagnon, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Jean-Jacques Annaud, Alexandre Arcady, Fanny Ardant, Asia Argento, Darren Aronofsky, Olivier Assayas, Alexander Astruc, Gabriel Auer, Luc Barnier , Christophe Barratier, Xavier Beauvois , Liria Begeja , Gilles Behat, Jean-Jacques Beineix, Marco Bellochio, Monica Bellucci, Djamel Bennecib, Giuseppe Bertolucci , Patrick Bouchitey, Paul Boujenah, Jacques Bral, Patrick Braoudé, André Buytaers, Christian Carion, Henning Carlsen, Jean-michel Carre, Mathieu Celary, Patrice Chéreau, Elie Chouraqui, Souleymane Cissé, Alain Corneau, Jérôme Cornuau, Miguel Courtois, Dominique Crevecoeur, Alfonso Cuaron, Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Jonathan Demme, Alexandre Desplat, Rosalinde et Michel Deville, Georges Dybman, Jacques Fansten, Joël Farges, Gianluca Farinelli (Cinémathèque de de Bologne), Etienne Faure, Michel Ferry, Scott Foundas, Stephen Frears, Thierry Frémaux, Sam Gabarski, René Gainville, Tony Gatlif, Costa Gavras, Jean-Marc Ghanassia, Terry Gilliam, Christian Gion, Marc Guidoni, Buck Henry, David Heyman, Laurent Heynemann, Robert Hossein, Jean-Loup Hubert, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Gilles Jacob, Just Jaeckin, Alain Jessua, Pierre Jolivet, Kent Jones (World Cinema Foundation), Roger Kahane, Nelly Kaplan, Wong Kar Waï, Ladislas Kijno, Harmony Korinne, Jan Kounen, Diane Kurys, Emir Kusturica, John Landis, Claude Lanzmann, André Larquié, Vinciane Lecocq, Patrice Leconte, Claude Lelouch, Gérard Lenne, David Lynch, Michael Mann, François Margolin, Jean-PierreMarois, Tonie Marshall, Mario Martone, Nicolas Mauvernay, Radu Mihaileanu, Claude Miller, Mario Monicelli, Jeanne Moreau, Sandra Nicolier, Michel Ocelot, Alexander Payne, Richard Pena (Directeur Festival de NY), Michele Placido, Philippe Radault, Jean-Paul Rappeneau, Raphael Rebibo, Yasmina Reza, Jacques Richard, Laurence Roulet, Walter Salles, Jean-Paul Salomé, Marc Sandberg, Jerry Schatzberg, Julian Schnabel, Barbet Schroeder, Ettore Scola, Martin Scorsese, Charlotte Silvera, Abderrahmane Sissako, Paolo Sorrentino, Guillaume Stirn, Tilda Swinton, Jean-Charles Tacchella, Radovan Tadic, Danis Tanovic, Bertrand Tavernier, Cécile Telerman, Alain Terzian, Pascal Thomas, Giuseppe Tornatore, Serge Toubiana, Nadine Trintignant, Tom Tykwer, Alexandre Tylski, Betrand Van Effenterre, Wim Wenders.
EDIT: new names
Isabelle Adjani
Antoine Aronin
Paul Auster
Morgane Beauverger
Candice Belaisch-Goldchmit
Yamina Benguigui
Pascal Bruckner
Jessika Cohen
Philippe Corbé
Jean-Paul Dayan
Katarina De Meulder
Arielle Dombasle
Nathalie Faucheux
Corinne Figuet
Pierre Forciniti
Louis Garrel
Albert Gauvin
Johanna Gozlan
Davide Homitsu Riboli
Taylor Hackford
Isabelle Huppert
Neil Jordan
Thierry Kamami
Milan Kundera
Gaelle Lancien
Claude Lanzmann
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Sam Mendes
Camille Meyer
Patrick Mimouni
Yann Moix
Mike Nichols
Sandra Nicolier
Marie Nieves Perez Neël
Salman Rushdie
Carine Sarna
Ysabelle Saura Del Pan
William Shawcross
Olivier Soares Barbosa
Steven Soderbergh
Nil Symchowicz
Danièle Thompson
Eugenia Varela Navarro
Diane von Furstenberg
Scott Foundas
Margaret Walker
Elsa Zylberstein
Let's not forget the women at NOW and Whoopi "Rape Rape" Goldberg.
Posted by: Petition of Godless Sexual Libertine Assfucks at February 02, 2010 03:41 PM (mHQ7T)
I dig the whole 'hip' thing you brought up; much like the white guilt that rode the current president into office on his unicorn. Caring so much to look like something you're not to get something you don't need.
Posted by: GW McLintock at February 02, 2010 04:08 PM (zFh1t)
It's amazing how society can be so violently reactive regarding child molesting, then basically assist the molester in "grooming" the child by getting them interested in sex, and normalizing it.
As usual, none of this makes any goddamn sense.
I'm glad I don't have kids. Those of you who do, Lord give you strength.
Posted by: Nemo from Erewhon at February 02, 2010 04:18 PM (vgjDD)
From the "Abolition of Man" by CS Lewis. Essentially saying the educational system strips any semblance of right and wrong; absolutes vs particulars from teaching. Then the very same group of educators are 'shocked, I tell ya', shocked!' when kids actually do what the educators have promoted.
Posted by: GW McLintock at February 02, 2010 04:19 PM (zFh1t)
You don't always just have to take a position contrary to us just to prove you're superior.
That is likely the most important part. How to be with the 'cool kids'.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 02, 2010 04:27 PM (nlRuk)
Also, your sister gave me an STD, so I'm getting on board with the whole abstinence thing, after all.
Posted by: sandy burger at February 02, 2010 04:52 PM (mfxaK)
I presume they intend for only Westeners to adopt this cultural destruction.
Posted by: FB at February 02, 2010 06:26 PM (Bu9Jo)
What isn't a good idea is lying to kids about sex. So much of the "wait training" that I've read about seems to be disinformation and scare mongering, which doesn't do anyone any good.
Of course the real question that all of this always brings to mind for me is, why on earth is this something that the schools are tasked with as some kind of special duty?
Kids don't have to learn how to tie their shoelaces in school, or how to feed themselves, or wipe their asses. So why are schools somehow the place where they need to go to learn about sex? Such learning should be part of a kid's everyday life, not something requiring special attention from the kid's school.
It isn't that I think discussions about sex have NO place in school. Quite the contrary, I think discussions about sex have a place EVERYWHERE because sex should be freely discussed, just like any other subject. It's just that I find it kind of silly to pretend that kids are really learning anything fundamental about sex in school. How can they be?
What kinds of kids are these that they don't know what's what by the time they reach junior high?
Now maybe I'm exceptional, but I always tried to learn as much as I could about sex when I was growing up (and I don't mean from porn either.) I'd go to the library and find books on the subject, like the Joy of Sex. Nowadays with the internet, the library is obsolete. There's more information out there that's just a click away than I ever had access to back when I was a kid.
Yet our society persists in this delusion that specially trained handlers have to be brought into classrooms to oh-so-carefully reveal the secrets of human reproduction to the sexually unaware.
I find the entire concept ridiculous.
People fuck and fucking is how girls get pregnant and have babies. Anyone past the age of 8 or so who doesn't know this, is probably retarded or has been raised in isolation on a polygamist compound somewhere in rural Utah (same difference really).
Sex should be treated as a normal and ordinary part of human existence and not a topic to inspire hand wringing, histrionics, and efforts at disinformation and obfuscation. In a world where anyone worth a damn has internet access, such efforts at lying are futile anyway and will only inspire disdain from those who are subjected to them.
Posted by: Lee at February 02, 2010 09:10 PM (zF8wD)
I have ZERO sympathy for someone who collects child pornography. There is no excuse for that. When someone acts as a consumer of child pornography they are a party to the sexual abuse required to create it. You can't have snuff films without someone being murdered, and you cannot have child pornography without a child being molested.
That being said, I'm not willing to convict someone based solely upon what shows up in their image cache. I've found all sorts of bizarre things in mine that I certainly was not looking for. The standard for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and finding strange things in someone's cache does not meet that standard.
I feel sorry for the young couple you mentioned. They did nothing wrong. The moral of the story however is to be aware of the law and to keep your fucking mouth shut. Don't ever confess to anything under any circumstances. Don't say anything, demand a lawyer, and keep your mouth shut.
Young people are generally penalized for being young, and this has only gotten worse in the almost 20 years since I myself was a teenager. Back when I was in high school, a case such as that would never have even been subject to police involvement, let alone resulted in a fraudulent conviction and labelling of a normal young woman as a "sex offender." How does that protect anyone? Are children safer now because the government pretends that she is a threat to them? Kids are not made safer when the government cries wolf. If anything they are endangered because people will take the classification of sex offender less seriously, and that is not something that should be trivialized by applying it where it does not belong. That scarlet letter should be worn by the monsters who deserve it, not by this woman.
That being said, the monsters who do deserve it shouldn't even be out on the street anyway. If someone is a rapist or a child molester, lock them up, throw away the key, or simply take them out somewhere and put two in the back of their head.
Contrary to popular belief, pedophilia can be cured, though the patient never survives the operation.
Posted by: Lee at February 02, 2010 09:39 PM (zF8wD)
Posted by: JEA at February 03, 2010 03:55 AM (2X4q0)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 03, 2010 04:01 AM (mHQ7T)
(1) When in doubt, liberalism trumps everything else. Despicably, this apparently even applies in this case when you have kids.
(2) There is something else going on with this whole edgy, hip, jaded, faux sophisticated, intellectual vibe that liberals so desire to cultivate and embrace. Can't put my finger on it, but it's all part of baby boomers' growing older and becoming less "cutting edge" as they age, Hollywood lefty celeb sucking up, anti-Palin sentiment from people who ought to be her allies, creases in Obama's pants, etc. Don't know quite what this is, but trust me, these people (and many 'moderates') are desperate to be thought of as hip, nuanced, intellectual, whatever.
Posted by: RM at February 03, 2010 04:08 AM (1kwr2)
Posted by: Rob B at February 03, 2010 05:34 AM (q32Ly)
First and foremost, as Ace concluded, is that any idea presented by a conservative is wrong. Conservative=Christian Right=Evil with a capital E.
When it comes to sex, a liberal cannot make any judgment about the sexual behavior of others without undermining gay rights. This is especially true of children because so many homosexuals admit they became sexually active at very young ages.
The homosexual "community" considers sex at the age of 8-10 to be perfectly normal. I have read many accounts from gays themselves who have no problem recounting their first sexual relationship at that young of an age. I have also followed such discussions and watched (in horror) as liberals accept this premise as being perfectly normal. Not only do liberals view sex between two children normal, they are willing to accept the premise that pedophilia is nothing more than a misunderstood sexual preference. As long as it's same sex sex and pedophilia, that is.
I've been absolutely amazed at the hoops liberals will jump through to justify the behavior of a group they consider noble.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at February 03, 2010 07:24 AM (YjQWV)
Actually, Jaynie59, in your case conservative equates with S=stupid.
"The homosexual "community" considers sex at the age of 8-10 to be perfectly normal." Really? Where'd you see that? I'd be happy to agree with you if you offer some proof.
I'm sure you could find a way to link the 'homosexual agenda' with nuclear power, the budget deficit, rising gas prices, or anything else you like.
Unfortunately, dealing with facts is different. Abstinence - last I checked - was instituted by a Republican administration to discourage heterosexual intercourse.
My theory is use anything that works - we have to keep teens who are too young from having sex. If abstinence works, great.
But we also might think about all those sexual images our society bombards young people with - in music, video games, ads, etc. - even toys for pre-teen girls. We also muight think about the fact that society has changed in the last century dfrom one in which children were working at 10-12 and only living 35-40 years to today's, in which they aren't considered adults until they're 18, but human biology equips them to have babies at 13-14 or even younger.
And I'll pose my question again, since nobody here seems to want to answer it. What do we do about the 1/3 who engage in sexual intercourse anyway?
Posted by: JEA at February 03, 2010 07:55 AM (bWB5j)
Posted by: sgtbone at February 03, 2010 09:00 AM (RhLRo)
"What the hell is wrong with expecting and demanding that your children wait until they are married???? They most likely won't if you have the attitude that "their going to do it anyway"."
I don't think most parents, at least the ones I know, liberal or conservative, think that way. I don't. But my 20 yr old son knows how to use protection.
Of course I don't want him getting a girl pregnant or coming home with an STD, but kids sometimes do foolish things depsite all our lectures. I wouldnt want him driving drunk either, but that doesn't mean he might not get drunk, and I want him to understand he has to call his mother or me to pick him up. To me, it's about them understanding precautions.
If you feel that's the parent's obligation rather than the school's, I'm not disagreeing with you. But somebody should be telling them about it.
Posted by: JEA at February 03, 2010 10:16 AM (cq3pU)
I'm serious. What's the big deal? Yes, there are risks, but you don't see the same kind of hand-wringing over 21-year-old college students taking those exact same risks. Why? Is it any less tragic if a promising pre-med student contracts HIV or has her medical career derailed by an unplanned pregnancy?
The fundamental disconnect is in both liberals AND conservatives. It's not a right-or-left issue. It's a cultural one, and it's causing all of us, conservatives and liberals and moderates and whatever-else alike, some pretty painful cognitive dissonance that results in us fighting over what schools should teach about sex and pointing fingers when children still wind up pregnant and/or diseased.
The problem is the taboo itself. Why does sex need to have a stigma attached to it? Why does it need to be taboo? The ONLY thing this accomplishes is to instill fear, guilt, doubt, shame, and other negative emotions in people (not just children, adults too -- this whole sex-is-evil-and-bad-well-except-when-it's-good thing is making shrinks filthy stinking rich). But just as hungry people with the means will sooner or later find a way to eat, able-bodied and free human beings with a sex drive (there's a handful without one) will sooner or later find a way to have sex. And trying to pretend that there is anything "wrong" with this is where the problem lies. This is a problem that plagues people all over the political spectrum, because those of us who grew up in America grew up being exposed to a puritanical mindset (it permeates American culture) whereby even those of us who intellectually understand there's something wrong with trying to deny people basic sexual agency can't always get away from the indoctrination that sex, especially for kids, is Bad And Wrong (TM).
Yes, people need to understand the consequences and risks (physical and emotional) of sex, and responsible education will teach children this. But making sex into this Big Deal, this holy grail of entry into legitimate adulthood, makes it into much more than it needs to be (and paradoxically probably part -- I said PART -- of the reason so many kids who aren't ready to have sex do it anyway).
Here's the thing. Kids have sexual desire from an extremely young age, well before puberty. Many (most?) children start masturbating before they even start school. Maybe instead of making them feel as though there is something wrong with them for wanting to do something that is specially reserved for adults (again, WHY?) we should be talking to them openly about where their needs and feelings might lead them so that they can be equipped to make better decisions. Indeed, it strikes me as particularly bizarre that religious conservatives -- those who are always going on about how "natural" heterosexual intercourse is and how it's a healthy, "God-given" desire -- are so threatened by the notion that their children would experience the same desires they have for likely most of their lives.
And in fact, you might be surprised by what the "abstinence-only" class actually taught. The teachers leading the "abstinence-only" class didn't bring up birth control themselves -- but answered honestly any questions that were asked. The kids weren't taught that sex is wrong or bad or some gigantic elephant in the room to be avoided -- they were simply taught about the possible consequences of having sex and allowed to draw their own conclusions about the advisability of intercourse.
Finally, it's worth noting that the percentages were based on SELF-REPORTING. It's certainly far from inconceivable that kids who went to an "abstinence-only" class might feel more pressure to under-report their sexual activity, whereas kids in the safe sex course might feel freer to be honest (or perhaps, even, to over-report, as certain teens are wont to do).
* with each other. Disparate power relationships and similar problems that arise in adult-child couplings are the kind of thing I imagine there isn't a ton of disagreement on, though feel free to unfairly accuse me of being pro-pedophilia (I'm not) given that I'm one of them libruls and all.
Posted by: LeGal at February 03, 2010 10:23 AM (OD5Qf)
Posted by: China Gifts at February 26, 2010 01:02 AM (wmE7S)
;"> ;" href="http://lifeinsurancequotesfinder.com">life insurance quotes ;">, 29399241
Posted by: Judge Judy at June 10, 2010 11:34 AM (HfkEF)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2728 seconds, 403 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at February 02, 2010 11:28 AM (5aa4z)