« Previous | Main | Next »
November 29, 2006
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
-« Previous | Main | Next »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
-Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Abstinence doesn't work for adults. Trust me.
Posted by: ubetcha | November 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM
So people 30 and over can have all the sex they want??!!? Alright!!
Honey, I'm cumming home early!!
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM
So... are we going to get instruction into the alternatives?
No, wait, they fired a Surgeon General for suggesting that, didn't they?
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 11:20 AM
whewwwwwwwww for once I'm glad I'm not in my twenties then!
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Not to bring the jaundiced eye of logic to look at this problem, but isn't the "don't screw, you could get a disease" exactly the same as the "don't smoke, you could get a disease" message? Why is one Politically Correct™, while the other isn't?
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM
I'm just so gosh-darned glad that we have pappy gov't there to tell us to wipe our chins and to make sure that we're home by 10. Can I get a new nappy, while we're at it?
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Yeah, Chris, and neither one of them should be any business at all of the State. Let adults be adults, and let kids turn to their parents for guidance. There's a radical damn concept.
Gimme gumball.
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 11:23 AM
*tosses gumballs for all*
here ya go kiddies!
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM
People, it's just a recommendation. Nobody is slapping a chastity belt on ya.
Posted by: Val | November 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM
dps, perhaps it's the majority-rule thingy. Not everyone enjoys smoking.
Posted by: pepe | November 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM
The only way to ensure abstinence is to marry them off at an early age. Everyone knows that marriage prevents sex. Duh....
Posted by: Casey | November 29, 2006 at 11:26 AM
*trying to think of 29-year-olds I know who abstain from or would willingly abstain from sex* *nobody*
Posted by: Jemmy | November 29, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Siouxie - thanks for the photos! Looks like it was dark in there, but the obligatory blue shirt was glowing.
Posted by: ubetcha | November 29, 2006 at 11:28 AM
No Val, they are spending OUR tax money on this program. I thought Republicans believed the less government the better. When did that go out the window?
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | November 29, 2006 at 11:29 AM
19 to 29 is the age when a lot of people start families -- and just because the woman isn't married doesn't mean she has a partner. Whu!
Posted by: AmerInParis | November 29, 2006 at 11:31 AM
"you will not be in the pool of out-of-wedlock births"
pass the chlorine, please....
Posted by: russell | November 29, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Doesn't mean she doesn't have a partner, I meant to say, of course.
And it's one thing to suggest abstinence as the most effective way of avoiding STDs and babies, but morally and ethically unsound not to include safe sex and contraceptive info as well. Also a very patronizing attitude, like in the old days when doctors told patients only what the doctors thought the patients needed to know.
Posted by: AmerInParis | November 29, 2006 at 11:33 AM
uh...more gumballs anyone?? squirrel melts??
ubetcha - welcome! LOL yeah...that blue shirt was
irridens iridensecntwhat you said!Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM
While this could be debated on moral and libertarian grounds ad nauseum (in theory), science has already devised a solution.
You'll all recall the 1994 study in which monkeys at the Washington D.C. zoo (really, the zoo, not Congress) were given condoms.
They of course immediately filled these condoms with their feces, lit them on fire, and threw them at Senators. While this was promising, it did not reduce their unwed pregnancy rates.
Next, researchers tried yelling "Stop it! STOP IT! STOP!"
That also proved ineffective in terms of unwed monkey pregnancy.
However, when the monkeys were subjected to six or more hours of Cher in any 24 hour period, they were rendered sterile for up to three days. Add in some Manilow, and the effects lasted for over two weeks.
So, all single people under 29 should be given free Ipods (at gov't expense) fully loaded with Cher and Manilow.
Posted by: Christobol | November 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM
C'bol: STOP IT!!
Posted by: Mr. Completely | November 29, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Two thoughts:
1) a href=http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/04/21/and-i-quote-the-best-one-liners-of-the-week/>Tina Fey has a book titled Your Mouth Can't Get Pregnant
2) Am I the only one who thinks that deflated blow-up lawn decorations look like giant used condoms?
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 11:39 AM
No, Jeff, Republicans believe that taxes should be (a little) lower, but that gov't should have control over your life. Democrats just want your wallet, but you can have (a little) control over your personal life.
Libertarians believe the less gov't the better.
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Why not have them make squirrel melts?
Posted by: qsman | November 29, 2006 at 11:40 AM
crap - hosed my link...
Tina Fey
I think that's got it.
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Poor Chris, with his deflated link.
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Can't we do that with teenagers too?? or are they already too brain dead from hip hop?
start 'em out early, no?
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Once again, I would like to point out that the 11:26 post by Casey is not mine! The post is witty, and I would like to claim it, but it is not mine. Should I add a "1st" to my name so we can keep up?
Posted by: casey | November 29, 2006 at 11:43 AM
casey--I can now tell you apart. I'd like to think that uppercase Casey doesn't reroof houses. Oh and that whole part about him being a guy. You can tell cause of the big C. Or something like that.
Posted by: Cheryl Howard | November 29, 2006 at 11:51 AM
I don't mind them having sex, it's fun; it's that some of what is produced ends-up as social trash.
Posted by: Dr. Doug | November 29, 2006 at 11:51 AM
casey, as someone that went through a name confuzzlement phase, my best advise is to
get rid of kill offdecide between you and Casey. I chose to use a different version of my name (Susy) as to NOT be confused with SuzyQ. We're all adults here, right? ;-)Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM
oh my.
as far as your tax dollars at work in the field of sex education/health class, ch, you'll love this, my son came home monday to tell me that he learned that it is illegal for teens to have sex. the nurse told them they would go to jail if they were caught. she explained that the reason you don't hear much about this is the police don't have enough man power to effectively enforce the law, but it was still a law and teen sex is illegal. and no, she did not mean adults having relations with teens was illegal, she actually told the kids that teen w/teen sex was a crime. now i have to ask every day what he's learned so i can weed out all the misinformation. thank goodness he has a mom he can talk to.
Posted by: crossgirl | November 29, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Honey there is someone at the window. Oh that is just Uncle Sam making sure we arent doing anything wrong.
Posted by: Addicted to 24 | November 29, 2006 at 11:56 AM
CG, the sad part is that he may have been given the correct information. In many jurisdictions, anyone having sex with someone under a certain age (often 16) is guilty of statuatory rape.
Gah. Need another @#*&! gumball.
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Is this better...Big C....little b. ? Sorry for the confusion. I'm still kind of new here. For the record, I'm definitely not a guy :)
Posted by: Casey b. | November 29, 2006 at 11:58 AM
crossgirl, I would have been on the phone to the school. If they are going to teach--teach the facts. Sheesh. Poor kids get enough misinformation from each other, we grown ups don't need to further complicate matters.
Posted by: Cheryl Howard | November 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM
uh...make up yer mind casey/Casey b!! (although Casey b could be mistaken for Casey boy??)
*doesn't mean to confuse more*
*gummyball for CH*
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:01 PM
DPS, on the issue of the difference between smoking=disease vs. sex=disease, i just want to point out one thing... you can't put a condom on a cigarette.
Posted by: Sloan | November 29, 2006 at 12:03 PM
I have a feeling that if you trace this program back, you will probably find a congressperson who is no longer going to be in office in January.
It's good advice, of course. More women need to fully understand the plain fact that single men in their 20s are, quite simply, disease vectors. But in terms of federal spending priorities, it's tough to disagree with the argument that there may be better places this money could go.
Posted by: Bill | November 29, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Casey b, are you sure about the boy part? I mean, have you been checked for utilities and all? As I am sure you know by now, it is no longer safe to make a determination based upon ownership of rackage.
My lack of utilities is verified. Would anyone care to see my certificate of authenticity?
Posted by: casey | November 29, 2006 at 12:10 PM
snork @ casey
Posted by: Cheryl Howard | November 29, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Also, I would like to say that all sex should be outlawed. I think that sorta adds to the activity, ya know? Like say if I was wearing a cop-girl outfit and if my partner was say, being bad and like breakin the law and stuff, I could use my handcuffs and sorta
Ooops, did I type that outloud?
Posted by: casey | November 29, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Sloan, I agree w/you. Or in your throat or lungs. Well, technically you could on the former, but only if there is a slip-off... and we won't go there! Oh, never mind.
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 12:13 PM
ooooookkk...so let me get this straight.
BOTH Casey and casey are girls, correct??
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:14 PM
So Casey b. is a girl too? Does she roof houses? Oh now I'm totally confused.
*someone gumballs--stat*
Posted by: Cheryl Howard | November 29, 2006 at 12:16 PM
ec, that's like choking on a balloon, no?
*not going there*
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:18 PM
*Not buying innocent routine.*
Siouxie, oh sure, yeah... balloons.
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 12:22 PM
casey, what's funny is that, at least the way the laws and regs were interpreted lo these many years ago when they applied to me, for military personnel, most sex is illegal. THe only thing NOT subject to prosecution was missionary, in your own bed, with your own spouse. Color outside of those lines, and it's against the law, and a felony at that.
Yeah, it did add a certain frission. :-D
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 12:24 PM
CH??
friction?
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:33 PM
World's best birth control:
13 year old daughter who says you're not allowed to date.
That is all.
Posted by: blurk | November 29, 2006 at 12:35 PM
One of the more interesting things I did last year was serve on a committee for my school district, and helped develop a 'repoductive health' curriculum. The debate between Abstinence-only and Abstinence-based is a big one. I did some research on this back then and one of the best explanations of the two is here. Especially note the Fed funding as it compares to the research facts.
We also approved a video that explains the statutory rape laws here in Michigan, and kids under 16 can't legally consent to having sex....period. We recommended kids see it in 8th and 10th grades (the former at age when the girls mature and the latter when the boys hit 16 and are dating jail-bait.)
Posted by: Olo Baggins of Bywater | November 29, 2006 at 12:37 PM
blurk,
Happened to me...wait till SHE wants to date. Now it's like MOM!! sure you don't need a bf???
kids!
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Siouxie, what I meant to type, of course, was frisson.
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 12:41 PM
blurk, perhaps when she has her own boyfriend (I know, I know - perish that thought), she'll lengthen the release on your leash.
Hope so for your sake.
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Siouxie, great minds once again...
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 12:43 PM
CH, same difference...one can cause the other, no???
EC - ^5!!
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Siouxie and ec, if that's the alternative I shall willingly remain celibate.
Posted by: blurk | November 29, 2006 at 12:46 PM
"Do you smoke?"
"Only if I'm doing it wrong..."
Posted by: Clean Hands | November 29, 2006 at 12:47 PM
I took the subject line literally, Dave. Some group here in Virginia gave us (high school) posters that are hung on the inside of toilet stalls. They preach abstinence.
However, I'm seeing lots of "bumps", and the Alt Ed program has a nursery, so I'm thinking that the abstinence preaching isn't working.
Posted by: rita | November 29, 2006 at 12:53 PM
it's my understanding that two teens having sex is a civil issue, not a criminal offense. a teen and an adult of a certain age, which is usually a few years more than the much believed 18, is criminal. most states use an age gap to determine if it's worth persuing. the bigger the gap, the more interest the state attorney may have.
for the next lesson class, we'll learn how homosexuality is illegal as well as oral sex!
Posted by: crossgirl | November 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM
dear dear blurkie...you naive man you...
talk to me in a couple of years ;-)
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Sloan- You could put a condom on a cigarette It might not work the right way.
Bill- I'm single guy in my 20s and I'm pretty sure i don't have any disease. That would be called a generalization and they're usually wrong.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | November 29, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Law professor teaching last class before holiday break:
"here is the quick reminder. If the 2 participants in sexual intercourse are under-age, it's rape. If the one participant is underage and the other is an adult, it's rape. If both particiapants are adullts, Merry Xmas folks!"
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 01:11 PM
crossgirl wait! oral sex is illegal??
*gulp*
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 01:11 PM
Hope that *gulp* wasn't a balloon...
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 01:16 PM
I believe that *gulp* was swallowing the evidence.
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 01:17 PM
Granted DPS, but read the exchange higher on the string!
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 01:21 PM
no balloons, ec ;-)
what evidence??
Posted by: Siouxie | November 29, 2006 at 01:25 PM
cg, the laws vary widely from state-to-state. In Michigan a 16 year old can quickly end up on the sex offender's list for 25 years if his 15 year old girlfriend's parents prosecute...even if she initiated the act.
Posted by: Olo Baggins of Bywater | November 29, 2006 at 01:27 PM
Siouxie, wipe your lip, dearie.
*gotcha*
Posted by: estrogen centrale | November 29, 2006 at 01:29 PM
what i have heard from the teenage volunteers that i work with is that they aren't having sex. but... they are having anal intercourse and oral sex, 'cause - "That doesn't count!" what a wonderful message our government is spending major bucks on. who do they think they are kidding? and what is this actually teaching our kids.
Posted by: wickedwitch | November 29, 2006 at 01:30 PM
My niece's friends used to encourage her to participate in oral sex because it "doesn't count".
Posted by: rita | November 29, 2006 at 01:36 PM
I think a focus on disease prevention is more helpful.
Posted by: Lisa Bisa Fo Fisa | November 29, 2006 at 01:43 PM
certainly, no one is going to be 'preached' into abstinence. how about we try 'teaching' disease and 'unwanted' pregnancy prevention. i fear the rise of more 'backstreet' abortion clinics is in our 'morally correct' societies' future.
Posted by: wickedwitch | November 29, 2006 at 02:06 PM
Art--you're "pretty sure"? :-)
Posted by: Bill | November 29, 2006 at 02:10 PM
thanks for clearing that up olo, i understand now that the nurse was from michigan.
Posted by: crossgirl | November 29, 2006 at 02:32 PM
So I guess we've come to the conclusion that 20-somethings are just a bunch of brain-dead zombies who have no self control and MUST go around having sex with everything on two legs. That doesn't say much for our 20-somethings, does it.
Posted by: Val | November 29, 2006 at 02:37 PM
w-witch...that's exactly what the researchers say happens with abstinence-only programs because A-only doesn't allow teaching safe sex, STDs, birth control, or condoms. The kids coming out of those programs are totally clueless, and saying NO just isn't an option among peer groups.
See that link I posted. (Sorry, I've seen a lot of identical data and having debated this with a couple A-only wingnuts I have strong opinions. :-) )
Posted by: Olo Baggins of Bywater | November 29, 2006 at 02:38 PM
and saying NO just isn't an option among peer groups
But that's EXACTLY what the anti-drug programs do. D.A.R.E. and whatnot supposedly teach kids to stand up to the peer pressure and not take a tuke on the doobie that is passed to them.
I'm not disagreeing. I just don't understand why it works for drugs but not pant's zippers.
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 02:45 PM
Good point. I'd guess the issue is hormones.
FWIW the A-only programs work as long as the kids are in them, but once summer comes or they're out of that class, the backup support isn't there and they falter. And they work a lot better for kids with strong religious backgrounds, kids who make major lifestyle choices already.
Posted by: Olo Baggins of Bywater | November 29, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Didn't I hear earlier this year that according to scientific studies, the D.A.R.E. program is a miserable failure?
Posted by: casey | November 29, 2006 at 02:59 PM
Should we abandon DARE and A-only and all the rest and go to How To Make Major Lifestyle Choices classes?
"This is your svelt 18-year-old tummy."
"This is your flabby 19-year-old tummy with stretchmarks."
"Any questions?"
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 03:00 PM
DARE may not work, but other things are.
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Scrooge | November 29, 2006 at 03:09 PM
Yeah, DPC, I certainly agree with that. I always go behind the barn when gettin stoned so my kids dont see.
Posted by: casey | November 29, 2006 at 03:28 PM
WTF? Can't they keep their minds on war for a while?
Posted by: Kathybear | November 29, 2006 at 05:20 PM
*zips in to change the subject for just a minute*
Shout out to Siouxie:
Where are your pics and how can I see them? :)
Resume regular programming.
Posted by: Eleanor | November 30, 2006 at 12:56 PM