Earlier this year, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced new guidelines for organizations applying for grants for abstinence-only education programs.
In addition to being costly, inaccurate, and ineffective, the programs must now operate under a strict new definition of abstinence:
Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: “Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse.”
Later, the guidelines explicitly define marriage:
Throughout the entire curriculum, the term “marriage” must be defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” (Consistent with Federal law)
In other words, if you’re gay, the Bush administration has decided that you should be taught to never, ever engage in “any type” of “sexual stimulation” — ever.
So where does this leave Jeff Gannon and whoever it was he kept visiting in the white house?
Z.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pmWhy should we be surprised? The present administration is bound and determined to keep us from having any kind of fun with sex at all. Not just gay sex, but pornography, sex toys, obscenity, and anything having to do with sex for the fun of it.
In Orwell’s classic “1984,” a “sexcrime” was any kind of sex not for the specific purpose of procreation within the bonds of marriage.
Seems the Bush Administration is using “1984″ as a textbook on governing the U.S.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmThis dumb shit adminstration. You’d think by now they would have figured out that you can’t run the (formerly) most powerful country in the world with a Bible verse.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmWhy do conservatives hate sex?
April 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pmOsama has won. The Taliban aren’t in Afganistan any more. They are in Washington DC in the bushco administration.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pmPretty interesting how bent out of shape people get when they are faced with reality.
Seems straight forward to me. Abstinence education is designed to keep kids safe and help them set the highest standards for their lives. No sex until marriage. The only thing that’s 100% safe.
Marriage is defined as a leagal union between a man and a woman.
Reconciling those 2 facts with a lifestyle choice that flies in the face of them is not the administrations problem. The problem is with those who want to somehow try to change those facts.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pmUmmm are the Bush twins celibate????
April 17th, 2006 at 1:09 pmC Storms, it’s great that you think the only sex that occurs should be within the confines of heterosexual marriage. That sounds like a pretty boring life, though, and as an adult I’m not going to live that way. Nor are most adults.
Why do you and other conservatives have such an issue with sex? Can’t you simply enjoy it?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmDon’t be silly. Homosexual people can have sex - as long as they have it with people of the opposite gender and they get married first. You are assuming, like most liberals, that sex i supposed to be pleasant. In fact, gay men marrying women they can never be attracted to is a good thing. It will discourage them from having sex for any purpose other than procreation. Heck, it may even discourage them from having sex at all, reducing the liklihood of them passing on those nasty “gay genes”. .
April 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pmSo where does that leaves Dick Cheney’s daughter?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmRepublicans know how awesome sex is. They just can’t admit it and feel disgusted with themselves when they’re spent.
Beyond anything else, just plain sad.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmYou know, this whole thing seems rather stupid. Why not just print posters of the world’s current top Republicans in the nude and put them up all over your schools? I doubt any American kid who isn’t blind will ever be able to get it up after that, gay or straight.
The suicide rate might go up though.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmI wonder if the twins are celibate. Any guesses?
I wonder if George and Laura engaged in premarital sex. What about Dick and Lynn, author of that steamy smutty novel?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmC Storm probably only does it in the missionary position with the lights turned out. Wouldn’t want to see any boobies, let alone a vagina.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmSo how does Cheney’s daughetr figure into this? I guess having a hypocritical dad is something of an inconvenience as long as she’s a REPUBLICAN…
BUSH IS AN IDIOT
April 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmYea! The real IraqVet is back.
Good to have you. Some moron has been using your handle.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#12 - It’s a delicate balance, Bruce. ;)
What about perverts? Does it say anything in there about perverts?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#16 - I wondered about that. Thank goodness, I thought IraqVet had gone around the bend.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmThis is straight out of Wilhelm Reich’s “Mass Psychology Of Fascism”. If you can intimidate people enough to control their sexuality, then effectively, you control them. A non touching authoritarian German culture of the 1930s was the perfect incubator for Nazism and the process was well documented by Reich who lived through the early part of “the process”.
Like Reverend Falwell and his new buddy Faustus McCain keep sayin: “Kids shouldn’t be told about sex until they are old enough to control it.”
Praise the lord and puncture the condoms.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#17 - No, I think they missed including information about Republicans. Er, um. . . . “Perverts”! Yeah, I meant to say “perverts”! ;-)
April 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThe even-dirtier-little-secret with all the anti-gay-marriage legislation is that it also outlaws common-law marriage and civil unions between straight couples as well.
Something to think about.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pmThe only question remains how to define sexual stimulation outside of contact with genitals.
Kissing is an activity engaged in by very many people including republicans prior to marriage. Does this qualify as sexual stimulation?
Does reading steamy novels qualify as sexual stimulation? For some people it does, which means that people should not be allowed to read them anymore.
And how about suggestive scenes in movies?
This is all very complicated, and we Americans have limited experience when it comes to that kind of censorship.
That is why we will be inviting some prominent Talibans to advise the adminstration
April 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pmThe even-dirtier-little-secret with all the anti-gay-marriage legislation currently being used as get-out-the-bigot-vote for the GOP is that it also outlaws common-law marriage and civil unions between straight couples as well.
Something to think about.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmBenjamin (#2) I was thinking along the same lines. We are witnessing the creation of the Junior Anti-sex League.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmummmm…what if one lives in Massachusetts? Or Vermont?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pmReconciling those 2 facts with a lifestyle choice that flies in the face of them is not the administrations problem. The problem is with those who want to somehow try to change those facts.
Comment by C Storms — April 17, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Give us the link to the site offering “proof” that it’s a lifestyle choice, Crapstorms!
April 17th, 2006 at 1:36 pmI have a question for the conservatives in the audience.
What’s wrong with having sex for pleasure?
Please answer as simply as you can. That is, if I said “What’s wrong with killing someone?” You’d say “It takes away someone’s life and hurts a lot of people.”
So I want to know. What makes it bad?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmThanks. If you want to chat further on the subject e-mail me at thewitchnextdoor, domain name gmail.com.
LOL,LOL,LOL> Fill our heads full of more BS by the Bush bunch while they pick our pockets clean and bomb the shit out of the world. Geeeeees it doesn’t get any funnier than this, major sucking up to the bible thumpers.
Big thought for the day. Now we know why all the wiretapping, snooping and spying by this bunch of peepers. Yep! they all get off by snooping on what the rest of us are doing in our bedrooms because they either can’t “get um up, or the little women won’t put out.” Given the look’s of all these guys what woman would ever want to. The sales on blow up dollies should be at an all time high…..Ha Ha!……….Blessings
April 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmDoes reading steamy novels qualify as sexual stimulation? For some people it does, which means that people should not be allowed to read them anymore.
Comment by Vice President Richard Cheney — April 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
Got a copy of Lynne’s lesbian love story “handy”, Dick?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmReconciling those 2 facts with a lifestyle choice that flies in the face of them is not the administrations problem. The problem is with those who want to somehow try to change those facts.
No, I’d say the task to be accomplished is to change them. Because the fact you’re referring to is not that marriage is only between a man and a woman, it’s that current law defines it thus. I think the law should be changed, and what’s more, i think we should change how we teach our children about this vital part of life.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmStinks to be Ken Mehlman and Condoleeza Rice.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI’m committing a thought crime..right……..now! ….no,wait …..now!….hold on …….now! ……..you just missed it.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#29 - Got a copy of Lynne’s lesbian love story “handyâ€, Dick?
Comment by Barfly
It’s stuck to his hand — permanently.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pmSee, these laws don’t apply to Republicans. They can be as gay as a Frnechhorn, but as long as they never talk about it..well they can suck away.
How do people like David Drier, Ken Mehlman and Jeff Gannon live with themselves?
-GSD
April 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmIf a troll uses someone elses handle,and we see their opinion go 180o to the right….DUH…..
April 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmMy republican grandmother told us boys, tha sex was nasty,dirty,and we would go blind and turn to stone….then she laughed out loud……then said, ‘just watch where you put your pecker’….(true story).
The Bush Misadmistration has been sodmizing most of the nation for 6 years. When are they getting brought up on morals charges?
-GSD
April 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pmhow do we make it mandatory that republicans must be celebate>>>>>
April 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pmWell, George and Laura should become celebate now. They can’t reproduce anymore children at this age, so they have no reason to have sex. Let him live by his own ideals, and leave everyone else alone.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pm“…between two persons…”
Ha! I think I found a loophole!:
“So what happened?”
April 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pm“She’s into it.”
“Into what?”
“The menage. And not only that. She just called me and said she talked to the roommate and the roommate’s into the menage too.”
“That’s unbelievable.”
“Oh, it’s a scene man.”
“Do you ever just get down on your knees and thank god that you know me and have access to my dementia?”
“What are you talking about? I’m not goin’ to do it.”
“You’re not goin to do it? What do you mean, You’re not goin to do it?”
“I can’t. I’m not an orgy guy.”
“Are you crazy? This is like discovering Plutonium … by accident.”
“Don’t you know what it means to become an orgy guy? It changes everything. I’d have to dress different. I’d have to act different. I’d have to grow a moustache and get all kinds of robes and lotions and I’d need a new bedspread and new curtains I’d have to get thick carpeting and weirdo lighting. I’d have to get new friends. I’d have to get orgy friends. … Naw, I’m not ready for it.
“If only something like that could happen to me.”
“Oh, shut up you couldn’t do it either.”
“I know.”
- George and Jerry, Seinfeld, “The Switch”
My daughter is working on a research paper that in part compares the teenage pregnancy rates of students in states that teach abstinence only in schools with states (and other countries) that teach an all around program. It appears states like Texas that teach abstinence only have a higher teen pregnancy rate than states such as California which teaches teenagers how to protect themselves not only from pregnancy but STD’s.
Now who would have ever thought that educating a teenager would promote desired behavior?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmFact: Abstinance is the only 99% effective way to make sure you don’t get an STD from your partner. There’s still the chance you can catch herpes from your partner from kissing, so abstinance is not 100% effective.
Fact: Not all teenagers will abstain from having sex. Try as you might to stop them, teenagers will do things that aren’t safe.
Fact: Providing information on how to control STD’s does not make teenagers rush out to try them.
Fact: NOT explaining ways to protect against STD’s (outside of abstinance) leaves them vulnerable to STD’s if/when they decide not to wait.
Fact: “abstinance programs” do not have 100% records in stopping pre-marital sex.
Fact: Teenagers that are in abstinance programs that do decide to have pre-marital sex are much more likely to not use any protection at all.
My concusion: “Abstinance only” programs are not sufficiently preparing teenagers for the realities of the world, and leaving them vulnerable when we could be educating them.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#35 - ‘just watch where you put your pecker’….(true story).
Comment by wisedup
I just coughed pop up my nose, damn you!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pmYour grandmother is obviously a great and very wise woman.
This is really reaching here.
The Administration for Children and Families offers among many types of grants one for classes on Abstinence.
In order to get said grant you must define abstinence as listed above.
Do you think they should get rid of all of those stupid grants for classes they claim are helping people. Like Mentoring children of prisoners, Family violence prevention, Job opportunities for low income individuals. Or is it just the grants for classes you don’t like?
27,
What’s wrong with having sex for pleasure?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pm(I’m not a conservative here but heck, I’ll throw a shot out there) Absolutly nothing provided it is between 2 consenting adults. Abstinence courses are geared toward children.
Of course it so easy for Bush..it would be for you too to abstain if youtook 200-300 mg of Zoloft every day as he does.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmI would like to be the person in charge of letting Mark Foley, David Dreier, and Ken Mehlman know that they can no longer have sex. I would like to do it personally, which will require face-to-face meetings.
Would anyone like to send me to Washington to do this. Find my email address at Daily Kos and get in touch with me.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:05 pmEveryone always talks about how uptight and angry Republicans are, but reading all the posts makes me wonder what middle school is allowing all their kids to post to the websites during the day. Actually, I take that back, post 40 was a pretty logical response. Well done for a lib.
Where’s the love? Where’s the tolerance for another point of view?
After all, I was born a Conservative. I can’t really help it.
Can’t you just let me be?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pmIf only Bushes Father had been Celibate
April 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pmThis is a continuing effort of the bush/cheney mis-administration to give the religious right control of federally funded “family” programs and especially sex education programs. These programs are pulling down $millions and perhaps billions of dollars. Little $50,000 a year programs now have $Million dollar budgets. . . . . my guess is that there are lots of staff making lots of money to tell kids not to have sex. When an unbiased federal agency finally evaluates these programs will it be possible that problems will be found? My bet, YES!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#43 - The problem with absinence only courses is that they give absolutely no information about precautionary measures against STDs and pregnancy — only fear. Our teens are sexual beings, and we really need to have our heads out of our asses on this issue. The penalty for getting out of hand shouldn’t be as heavy a price as disease or pregnancy.
See Jules’ post at #40, and DemSoldier’s post at #41, and for that matter, wisedup’s post at #35.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:09 pm43 - since you are implying it’s OK to ‘manage’ the sex lives of pre-adults by supporting an abstinence-only agenda, why not just go a step further and make any sex between minors a crime? Seems logical, per your mindset.
The truth is that abstinence-only education is proven to be ineffective. Kids are going to have sex - let’s give them the information to do so safely.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pmUmm, Tundra, the abstinence courses may be for children, or teenagers, but it is teaching them that they should not have sex until they are married. So, either you are teaching them about what they should do when they are adults, or you are teaching them that they should marry young, when they are still teenagers, so that they can have sex. Statistics show that teenage marriages, particularly those that occur to sanction (or correct for) sex and pregnancy, have higher rates of divorce, lower rates of educational achievement, and higher rates of poverty than those marriages where the kids waited until they were older, educated, and employed.
If you think sex is OK between consenting adults, then how can you support a system that teaches kids that, even if they wait until they are adults, its not OK for them to have sex?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pmAh, more crap from the sexually perverse Bush administration. Their only ideas about morality occur between the waist and the knees, and always the waist and knees of someone else.
I advocate civil disobedience, and plan to go out and have as much not abstinence based sex as possible. As a further flaunting of my rights I will use condoms! So there Bushistas.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#43 - I agree, abstinence courses are geared towards children.
The problem is that children don’t always do what we say. (Gasp!) When you provide information about sex to teenagers, you want to make sure they’ve got information that is useful and that doesn’t make them question you about consequences.
I had a female friend in high school who was told that if she had sex, she would get pregnant. Her friend said “That’s not true! I’ve had sex, and I’M not pregnant!” She ended up having sex with her boyfriend, and didn’t get pregnant. The first five times. The sixth time was the one where she ended up preggers.
Just telling a teenager/child that condoms help prevent STD’s will not make them rush out and try them! Believe me. I, and most of my friends in Junior High and High School were told about condoms, and we didn’t all rush out to use them.
What works best is having an open communication with your children, and talking about the options. If they’re afraid to talk to you about sex, then they’re more likely to listen to their peers than they are to you.
Abstinence only is good, but far from perfect. Abstinence and SOUND INFORMATION is the best way to go.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/ PUBLICATIONS/ transitions/ transitions1203_2.htm
April 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pmwhat is it with sex and the bushies:
lynne cheney and her lesbian novel;
April 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pmscooter libby and his bestiality/pedophile/rape fantasy novel;
jeff gannon/guckert;
department of homeland security and their pedophiles;
and the most depraved government sanctioned sexual abuse this side of the nazis — abu ghraib
There’s nothing wrong if some people, contrary to common sense and psychology, think human beings should repress sexual feelings. Some people in our society go as far as whipping themselves. There are all kinds of wackos in our society.
What is wrong is that the current American administration applies a fanatic, sexophobic and dissociated approach for the WHOLE society. An approach that is humiliating for everybody, teenagers included. Not to mention dangerous as it does not provide crucial health information on contraception and safe-sex.
I still don’t understand how come all people in school in the States do not go on strike and protest against these policies of misinformation and non-education which humiliate people intelligenge and self-determination. People have the right to be properly educated, not indoctrinated.
I also wonder if the Republicans who used the, let’s say, loving comfort, of Jessica Cutler were, in public, staunch defenders of puritanical, Republican “morality”.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pmTo all the people with something along these lines “The problem is that children don’t always do what we say.”
So should drivers ed cover how to drive drunk, because so many teenagers do. And lets be relisitic, whats better, never teaching kids how to drive drunk, even though they will, or at least letting them know good advice on how to in case they end up doing it?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:24 pmAll gays ought to be celibate?! Like that will help them get over this cocksucking, pillow-biting nonsense? Are these people completely insane?
Quote o’ the day: “As I listened to the victims pleading desperately for help as the smoke and flames closed in on them, the same thought came repeatedly to mind:
We were attacked by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. What are we doing in Iraq?â€
He’s not the funniest guy in the world, but nobody puts it better than Bob Herbert. Welcome back, Bob. We missed you.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pmDriving drunk is illegal, thus, not a valid argument.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#46 - there’s not major problem with your point of view. It’s just based on misinformation.
First, you’re assuming that all teenagers will do what they’re told to do. Sorry, but it aint gonna happen. Unless you somehow slept through the ages of 10-21, you should know what I mean.
Second, at what age did you decide that you were a heterosexual that that the opposite sex was attractive to you? The disingenuous label “lifestyle choice” is used to marginalize sexual minorities, and give credence to the claim that people can “change†if they just try hard enough. If you don’t believe me, try doing this: (assuming you’re male) think about holding hands with another male. Now, think about kissing this male on the lips. Now, think about having sex with this male. Having problems getting past the “kissing†part? Don’t worry, you’re just not trying hard enough. See? Not quite the cut & dried choice you want everyone else to make.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pm49
The problem with absinence only courses
The grant says nowhere that the courses cannot teach more than abstinence. If you are applying for a grant for an abstinence course it must define it as. I don’t see anywhere on their site where it says you can’t include STD/pregnancy information in your course.
50
since you are implying it’s OK to ‘manage’ the sex lives of pre-adults by supporting an abstinence-only agenda
No, I am saying that offering a class teaching them about it is fine with me. Although you seem to imply that kids should not even be taught about that option. It’s like evolution and intelligent design, heck teach my children everything and let them decide what they want to do.
let’s give them the information to do so safely.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pmThat’s my point, let them learn it all, claiming abstinence will never work for any child is BS. Did I, hell no, but I know people that choose that option (Pretty silly to me, but it’s what they wanted to do). Taking away their choice by removing the grant is pushing your will on them.
The complaint that teenagers won’t do what they are told is like saying.
Don’t bother to teach them anything because they will do what they want anyway
April 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pmThese are such great comments, I can’t add anything to them.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pmThe hypocrisy of the Bush&Co. (their families, and their public pronouncements of morality against the obvious contradictions in private) is bold and outrageous.
#56 - Good point. I guess it would be like saying “Make sure you vote Republican!” and completely leaving out “Because the Republicans will increase the debt and deficit until our country dissolves in ruin.” Well, not an exact comparison, but it does drive the point. ;-)
Driving while drunk has always been against the law. It would not just be foolhardy to “teach” teenagers to drive drunk, but it would be illegal to provide them alcohol.
This is a better analogy: “Don’t go skydiving. You have 100% safety from a faulty parachute if you just don’t do it.” Now, the teenager who decides to go skydiving shouldn’t be told about how to open the emergency parachute because s/he was told not to go skydiving, and is responsible for his/her actions.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:34 pmSexuality cannot be compared to drunk driving, squegeeboo. Sexuality is a natural drive, part of being human.
Surely the same cannot be said of drunk driving. Although I would not be surprised if some evangelical pastors came out with similar arguments.
Good advice is welcome in education, as long as it is comprehensive and does not use partial or distorted notions to indoctrinate and carry out psychological and emotional (and political too) “engineering” on people.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pmGee.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pmI really give a fuck what Bush & Adm says about anything.
#56 - Squeegy, sweetie, I’ve been missing you.
1. Do you have children?
2. Are you under the illusion that said children will always do as you say?
3. If said children do not do as you say, does getting an STD or pregnant serve ‘em right?
4. Did YOU always do what you were supposed to do?
Your drunk driving dodge is just that.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#56 Great point, but it won’t fly here. This is the crowd that doesn’t want to hold our kids to a standard that will make their lives productive. No, they would rather default to the true fact that kids will have sex and kids will drink, so they just tell them how to do all those things safely.
I’ve been around kids enough to know that if you set high standards, more often than not, they meet those standards. Those who don’t live up to them end up being examples for the rest on why those standards are so good.
Those who end up being examples get upset because those with high standards seem to have more productive fullfilling lives, so the examples end up voting Democrat to try to make things equal out, even though they messed up their lives in the first place. They also don’t want anyone else to have standards, because it makes them feel better about not having standards themselves.
It’s a big cycle and that’s why this website exists.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pmI dunno. I think all this prohibition just makes sex sexier!!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:40 pmWhat’s wrong with having sex for pleasure?
(I’m not a conservative here but heck, I’ll throw a shot out there) Absolutly nothing provided it is between 2 consenting adults. Abstinence courses are geared toward children.
So we should not teach our kids how birth control is safely used because they might actually use it.
In that case let’s not teach them about sex AT ALL. if they never learn about it, they’ll never know it exists and thus never use it!
/sarcasm
You teach your kids to look both ways before crossing the street — long before you let them cross the street on their own, right?
Just in case.
anyway Tundra, I appreciate what looks to be a fairly libertarian POV from you. The problem of course is not that the grant exists but that it is being pushed as the only acceptable way of teaching about sex, to the extent that we are denying foreign nations aid if they do not comply. In terms of taking choice away, what choice do we have without all the relevant information?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:40 pm63,
This is a better analogy: “Don’t go skydiving. You have 100% safety from a faulty parachute if you just don’t do it.†Now, the teenager who decides to go skydiving shouldn’t be told about how to open the emergency parachute because s/he was told not to go skydiving, and is responsible for his/her actions.
Perfect analogy.
Now we can offer a course on not skydiving that runs 2 hours and a course on safetly skydiving which runs a week. Now to get the grant to teach the not skydiving course it must include a description of what skydiving is (Hence the educational value here). To get a grant for safetly skydiving you have to teach about reserve chutes and landing procedures.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWhat’s wrong with having sex for pleasure?
(I’m not a conservative here but heck, I’ll throw a shot out there) Absolutly nothing provided it is between 2 consenting adults. Abstinence courses are geared toward children.
So we should not teach our kids how birth control is safely used because they might actually use it.
In that case let’s not teach them about sex AT ALL. if they never learn about it, they’ll never know it exists and thus never use it!
/sarcasm
You teach your kids to look both ways before crossing the street — long before you let them cross the street on their own, right?
Just in case.
anyway Tundra, I appreciate what looks to be a fairly libertarian POV from you. The problem of course is not that the grant exists but that it is being pushed as the only acceptable way of teaching about sex, to the extent that we are denying foreign nations aid if they do not comply. In terms of taking choice away, what choice do we have without all the relevant information?
And incidentally, “what’s wrong” with teaching children what sex is?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pmThe program requirements for receiving grants, which have to be matched by State and/or Local funds, which has resulted in funding for broader based health education programs to be shifted to abstinence programs. Secondly, the “eductional” component of this program has to teach the following:
It seems to me that the possibility of teaching children about “safe sexual practices” is not going to happen in this program if you understand that in requirement (A) - that the Exclusive purpose of this program is to teach abstinence.
The reality is that this is a “morals” program as well as an educational “sexual education program.” The message isn’t intended as an alternative it is intended as the ONLY alternative from a moral perspective.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#61 - The complaint that teenagers won’t do what they are told is like saying.
Don’t bother to teach them anything because they will do what they want anyway
Comment by Tundra
That’s completely irrational. As parents we have a relationship with our children from infancy. If one waits until a teen’s sexuality is an issue, one has waited too long, and has abdicated their responsbility as a parent. The reality is that some parents simply do not address this issue, and those children are getting their sex education from school and friends. Scary thought, eh? The penalty for a parent’s lack of responsibility or ignarance should not ruin their child’s future.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#73 - *ignorance* Shit.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pmTrolls - I teach my child that there are adult activities and there are “kid” activities. However, having said that, if I send her out into the world ignorant of the fact that teenagers are illogical, just like many adults (i.e. the entire Bush administration) and will test the waters I am being negligent. You just cannot tell them, “I expect you not to do this” without telling them the consequences of those actions. I try to set a good example for my child, but I am not going to have my child die because I did not teach her what is out there.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#76 - Amen, Jules.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmCertainly it’s fine for you to be conservative republic*nt.
Just not in public, where anyone might ever see you or be influenced by your anti-social behaviors. We must protect the family!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmBush’s thought process on this subject:
We are right in saying that gays shouldn’t have sex and remain abstinent. We wouldn’t want them to breed and have little gay children of their own now would we.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmOld Bushie had a girlfriend in the 70’s that had to have an abortion.
He is a hypocrite.
What about the guy that was in the HLS that was arrested for trying to have sex with a 14 year old girl that he met on the internet. They have kept this very quite.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:51 pm#70 - In a perfect world, that would be the best solution: offer to the students what their parents would want.
Then, the non-skydiving parents couldn’t complain if their child decided to ignore their desires and went skydiving and dies or ended up permenantly hurt if their parachute failed.
If you see the guidelines, these programs completely leave out information that would benefit “gay” teenagers. Whether you believe that teenagers can be gay, there are teenagers that identify themsleves as gay.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:52 pmYou just cannot tell them, “I expect you not to do this†without telling them the consequences of those actions. I try to set a good example for my child, but I am not going to have my child die because I did not teach her what is out there.
Comment by Jules — April 17, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Amazing how people don’t understand that their brains are still developing while their hormones have matured, and they cannot always use logic to over ride their natural desires. I agree with you Jules, teachthem the best you can, but prepare for their worse case scenario. My father wouldn’t let me drive a car until I could change a flat tire, with good reason.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:52 pmAfter all, I was born a Conservative. I can’t really help it.
Can’t you just let me be?
Comment by C Storms — April 17, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Certainly it’s fine for you to be conservative republic*nt, as long as you vote liberal, support programs for kids and the elderly, and actually think that millionaires should pay a larger tax bill than folks making $35K/a year.
Don’t be a c*ntservative in public, where anyone might ever see you or be influenced by your anti-social behaviors. We must protect the family (as defined by ME!!) And that means making everyone in this country think and act exactly as I do!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pmWhether you believe that teenagers can be gay, there are teenagers that identify themsleves as gay.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 17, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
Absolutely! And it’s ashame how much that term ‘gay’ is used in high school in the South to connotate a negative. They routinely call undesirable things gay and denouce homosexuality as some intentional evil. It’s really sickening that we cannot, as a culture, accept people for who they are. And then we wonder why the rates of teenage drug use and suicide are higher now than ever. In this current culture, it is unacceptable to be yourself.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pm#63 “Driving while drunk has always been against the law. It would not just be foolhardy to “teach†teenagers to drive drunk, but it would be illegal to provide them alcohol.”
In some states isn’t any sex under the age of 18 illegal, such as two 16 or two 17 year olds?
Also, Parachuting is done by private companies, if they choose to only teach that section of saftey they would go out of business. So you could argue that sex education should be taken out of the hands of the gov’t and given to private companies to do different versions of, and compete in the marketplace. Maybe some would even be hands on, I’d sign up for that.
#66 Zookeeper
“Squeegy, sweetie, I’ve been missing you.
1. Do you have children?
2. Are you under the illusion that said children will always do as you say?
3. If said children do not do as you say, does getting an STD or pregnant serve ‘em right?
4. Did YOU always do what you were supposed to do?
Your drunk driving dodge is just that. ”
Sorry about being away, but I’m pretty sure Jesus died for my 3 day weekend.
1. No
2. If I beat them enough
3.Medical science will deal with the first one soon enough, and the second one? HOORAY a grandkid, one more republicancog in the machine :) or an abortion, if thats what my kid wants.
4.Of course, I was a eagle scout and everything.
As to the drunk driving, some people would feel there’s a real moral equivalance in it, others would view it as a total straw man, either way its a good way to keep a thread going :)
April 17th, 2006 at 3:00 pmIf you see the guidelines, these programs completely leave out information that would benefit “gay†teenagers.
A course on Wicca lacks any benefit to a Catholic child. Every course cannot match every child, we do not live in a cookie cutter world.
83,
April 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pmAbsolutely! And it’s ashame how much that term ‘gay’ is used in high school in the South to connotate a negative.
It’s not just the south or the Red States. I live in New York state (You once asked if it was Alaska hehe). It is pretty rampant everywhere.
#64 Crazy analogy, huh? Who thinks like that?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#83 - Fortunately, the stygma of “gay” is changing. Younger people may use “gay” as a derogative, but they’re much more supportive of “gay marriage†and “civil unions†for gay Americans than at any other time in history.
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39
“A closer look at the opinions of various demographic groups on this issue shows that young people, especially those in their late teens and twenties, are more supportive of gay marriage than are older Americans. Even this youngest group of Americans do not, on balance, favor this idea; rather, they are divided. But that is in stark contrast to people in their forties and fifties, where twice as many oppose gay marriage as favor it. Among those in their sixties and seventies, opposition outnumbers support by as much as four-to-one.
People in their early thirties today have a relatively favorable view of gay marriage and their views are similar to those of younger generations. But those in their late thirties are much more opposed; in fact, opposition is as widespread in this group as among people in their forties and fifties.â€
I’d say, give it about 20 years for the radical anti-gay folk to die off, and we’ll see a big change in our country.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:05 pmI guess progs didn’t get the word that AIDS rates are climbing AGAIN. To see how many gay activists did not give a rat’s a$$ (sorry rats!!) about the spread of AIDS, hepatitis, or other STD’s read Randy Shilts’ book “And the Band Played On”. With the advent of pharma cocktails, safe sex has not been seen as the necessity today that it was. (Now progs, on cue - PLEASE blame the AIDS epidemic on Ronald Reagan….)
April 17th, 2006 at 3:05 pmSo they have come to realize that the abstinence only campaign simply led teenagers to avoid sexual intercourse while engaging in numerous other sexual activities. I fully understand that parents are fearful when considering the potential consequences of teenage sex. At the same time, sex should not be stigmatized such that children see it as inherently bad or shameful. The problem with teaching abstinence exclusively is that it ignores the realities on the ground. Children need to receive education that also includes a discussion of contraception and how to protect themselves from STD’s. As much as people would prefer otherwise, sex is inevitable…making it a safe and thoughtful act needs to receive further attention and funding.
read more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 17th, 2006 at 3:06 pmNever have I seen an administration so full of crap. Now the yellow belly deserter has decided to telll everyone what they should be doing in their bedroom? This yellow belly scumbag? Just because his sex life is a bad joke who is he to make everyone elses life miserable.
It’s time for GW and his ilk to go. First we take back the Congress and then we impeach the monster, both he and Cheney. At the same time we need to push for the Internation War Crimes Court to indict these crminals. The only place Bush and his ilk belong is behind bars for the rest of their lives.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pmIn keeping with this philosophy, I presume that the administration will soon be ordering Condoleeza to undergo a public medical examination to prove that her hymen is intact.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pmIt’s not just the south or the Red States. I live in New York state (You once asked if it was Alaska hehe). It is pretty rampant everywhere.
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Well, I didn’t want to speak for stuff I didn’t know about.
Actually, I asked if you were from Alaska originally :) It’s one of my favorite states. Amazing place. Just wondered if that was the origin of your screen name.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pm73,
The penalty for a parent’s lack of responsibility or ignarance should not ruin their child’s future.
Here is where we differ. I take my children very seriously (Yes 2 teenagers are in there) I give them every ounce of information available on any topic. I do not come into your home though and demand you educate your kids a certain way. It is not my job to tell you how or what to teach your kids. If they fail in life because you failed as a parent it is your failure not mine.
Personally I think only teaching abstinence is a pretty darn stupid idea. But there are alot of people that think it is the only way, because they are very old fashioned or way out of touch with the times. Who am I to tell them they are uneducated and go off and teach their children myself? If someone took it upon themself to say your ideals/ideas were wrong and demand that you taught your kids something you would get upset.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#89 - Mighty Aphro, blaming AIDS on gays. Where have I heard that one before?
Well, sweetie, you’re infomation is out of date.
“HIV transmission patterns have shifted over time. Heterosexual transmission accounts for a growing proportion of newly diagnosed AIDS cases, rising from 3% in 1985 to 31% in 2003. Over that same period, the share of new AIDS diagnoses due to sex between men fell from 65% to 42%. The share of AIDS diagnoses due to injection drug use was 19% in 1985, peaking at 31% in 1993, and was 22% in 2003.”
http://www.kff.org/ hivaids/ upload/ Fact-Sheet-The-HIV-AIDS-Epidemic-in-the-United-States-2005-Update.pdf
But dont worry! Your obvious distaste for gay men will be appeased: “Despite declines in HIV infection rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) since the early years of the epidemic, they continue to be at high risk for infection, accounting for an estimated 57% of AIDS diagnoses among men in 2003.2 Studies indicate that risk behavior continues among MSM and that they are at significantly greater risk for HIV infection than other groups in the U.S.
Younger MSM and MSM of color are at particularly high risk. CDC studies have found high HIV incidence and prevalence among MSM in some cities, particularly among African American and Latino MSM, and low levels of awareness of infection status among those with HIV.”
The truth will set you free, but first it’s gonna tick you off!
April 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pmI’d say, give it about 20 years for the radical anti-gay folk to die off, and we’ll see a big change in our country.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 17, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Only if the Southern Evangelical Baptists die off with them. It’s a large source of the problem here in Georgia. ‘Cause if you ask the kids why they hate gays, or if they tell you voluntarily, it is because God said so in the Bible - 99% of the time.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pmThis piece of crap is better than most of Bushie’s policies, where you can’t be totally sure exactly how many people he’s @#^ing and how he’s @#$#ing them.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pmIf someone took it upon themself to say your ideals/ideas were wrong and demand that you taught your kids something you would get upset.
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Man, and I thought that was why we have a public education system… to teach children the things that their parents don’t know about.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#95 He’s just an idiot. Just remember, he is in that very low percentile of those that think Bush is smart and doing a great job. You can’t shine shit.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#6 C Storms:
Pretty interesting how bent out of shape people get when they are faced with reality.
Seems straight forward to me. Abstinence education is designed to keep kids safe and help them set the highest standards for their lives. No sex until marriage. The only thing that’s 100% safe.
If you really were interested in keeping kids safe, then you would provide them with ALL of the information that they need. Kids today face dangers that we never imagined during our teen years. Pregnancy isn’t their only worry. THERE ARE STD’S THAT KILL PEOPLE. You don’t want to teach kids how to protect themselves from diseases that could end their lives? How irresponsible is that?
I understand that when it comes to issues of morality, some people are very intent on arguing their point and being right. That’s fine. I just don’t think that being right is more important than saving lives.
Are you unaware that this tactic leads to riskier sexual behavior? It’s true. Kids exploit the “loophole” in their pledges of abstinance. They participate in risky sexual behavior in order to hang on to their “virginity”. Check the increase in the number of teens participating in oral and anal sex. Is that the direction that you would prefer they head in? Technically, they are still virgins.
Marriage is defined as a leagal union between a man and a woman.
Oh yeah, tell that to the republican polygamists in the midwest. Shouldn’t these sinners be brought to justice as well? Aren’t they too in violation of the one man one woman argument? Why is there no outcry against them? Shouldn’t we throw these folks in jail that dare to attack the sanctity of marriage? I’m disgusted. One man with 12 wives and 30 kids. Where is your outrage C Storms? After all, it would be hypocritical of you to deny gays the right to marry while supporting polygamy in the midwest.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pm#95 ““HIV transmission patterns have shifted over time. Heterosexual transmission accounts for a growing proportion of newly diagnosed AIDS cases, rising from 3% in 1985 to 31% in 2003. Over that same period, the share of new AIDS diagnoses due to sex between men fell from 65% to 42%. The share of AIDS diagnoses due to injection drug use was 19% in 1985, peaking at 31% in 1993, and was 22% in 2003.—
So the highest plurality of cases still comes from gay men.
““Despite declines in HIV infection rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) since the early years of the epidemic, they continue to be at high risk for infection, accounting for an estimated 57% of AIDS diagnoses among men in 2003″
And the majority of men diagnosed with aids are also gay.
It seems like Mighty isn’t out of date yet.
However teaching gays about abstance until marriage won’t due them any good unless you also allow them to marry, so for the gay community safe sex lessons seem to make more sense then abstinence ones.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pmif you ask the kids why they hate gays, or if they tell you voluntarily, it is because God said so in the Bible - 99% of the time.
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
And they are right when they say the Bible says so. I do not recall the exact wording and/or passages, but the Bible states repeatedly that a man “laying with a man as if with a woman” is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, or something like that. But then you are looking at yet another instance of selective reading of the Bible: Whatever happened to the women being “impure” during *those* days of the month, hhmmm?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:29 pm#100 - The supposed “threat” to marriage does not come from gays. It comes from those who consider “marriage” a temporary thing and jump from marriage to marriage to marriage.
They should be replacing the phrase “till death do you part” to “till you get tired of each other, or find a better mate, or just don’t want to be married anymore”.
If the people who want to “save marriage” were really worried about MARRIAGE, they’d do better to outlaw divorce. If you don’t think it’s going to last, then get a “civil union”. If you think “this is the one, and I’m not going to change my mind”, then make it “MARRIAGE FOR LIFE”.
Of course, the so-called “conservatives” seem to get divorced more often than their “progressive” counterparts. Go figure.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pmWhat do you expect from someone who believes a storybook where its first human characters are shamed into wearing fig leaves and getting thrown out of their home???What about sex with animals? They don’t mentyion anything about that, I guess that’s why that Republican judge went out and sexed his neighbor’s sheep. These Christians are etting a holy bug in their holy shorts.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#103 The supposed “threat†to marriage does not come from gays. It comes from those who consider “marriage†a temporary thing and jump from marriage to marriage to marriage.
Now thats a position I can agree with.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmAn excellant point, ‘Str8UpNoChaser’. Sean Hate-aty,do you want to comment about that? (I couldn’t handle 1 wife,alone 12…eeeee)…no offence ladys…lol.
Zookeeper, you got me several months ago, coffee all over my keyboard!…Cheers
April 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pm#101 - Yes, gay men are still the highest percentage in America. But it’s MUCH lower than it was in the 80’s and early 90’s. In fact, if the trend continues, the US will be like every other country in the world (except Canada) where heterosexuals are the highest percentage and rate of all infections and new infections.
Mighty Aphro isn’t completely out of date, but the implication in her post is that it’s all due to gay men. Sadly, that kind of ignorance is what leads to increased heterosexual infections.
AIDS isn’t something I would wish on my enemies. I’ve lost enough friends to this disease, I want not want to see my (rhetorical) enemies afflicted by it either.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:40 pmYou see, you switch meanings in the middle. One meaning of the word teach is the concept of indoctrinate or train. and the other part is to provide information.
What you’re saying in your argument is, “you say indoctrination doesn’t work, so why try to give them information?”
I have no problem saying this to a kid. “Condoms help prevent STDS–but they don’t always work. You can get STDs from practices that won’t get you pregnant. So you can use these safeguards, but be aware that you’re still taking a risk, and a big one.’
If there were a dset of skills for driving drunk, I’d teach them. But there isn’t. But should we deny kids the numbers on how much alcohol after how long is how dangerous? And should we deny telling them about drinking on an empty stomach, and the compensating effect of caffeine? Should we present kids with an image that drinking half a glass of beer at 6p.m. means you can’t drive for the next two days? Change ‘how to drive while drunk’ to ‘how to know whenhow much alcohol is dangerous to your life,” and we’re at the same place.
Some conservatives really do think that teaching involves lying and d manipulation. My experience has been: lie to a kid, and he’ll never listen to you again. Try to browbeat a kid, and he or sje will regard you as a thug and a liar.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#107 - I meant to write: “I would not want to see my (rhetorical) enemies afflicted by it either.”
Can’t type on Mondays! ;-)
April 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pmConservatives have such a hard time with sex ONLY when it concerns OTHER people. Like Lynn Cheney (and her published lesbian novels) or Scooter Libby and his pederastic novels or Bill O’Rielly and his dominator/dominatrix novels, they will mind everybody else’s business except their own. Conservative Catholic priests will molest children and then the Church will blame the “liberals” or the “gays” for the problem. Sex repression among conservatives always leads to hypocrisy and just being busy bodies.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pmHow about celibacy for the warloving sadists?No more sexual sadism and torture, no more raping of nations, no more military exhibitionism, no more mindfucking of the American people, no more jerking off in front of town hall meetings, no more peeping tom government, no more clusterfucking of anything they put their hands on.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pm98
Man, and I thought that was why we have a public education system… to teach children the things that their parents don’t know about.
But the argument here is don’t teach them abstinence at all, it’s not effective and not one child will ever do it. I disagree and think they should be taught it as well. It’s no different than saying don’t teach them evolution because I don’t believe in it.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmNow thats a position I can agree with.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 17, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Pun intended?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pm#109 Goode thing you posted that corection, becuase when people use bad grammer/spelling on the interweb I feel they are stupid, and I can theirfor ignore any valid points thye make.
So whats up with canada? To lazy to google it, and you seem to know.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmIt’s no different than saying don’t teach them evolution because I don’t believe in it.
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Welcome to Georgia. Home of the double standard.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pm#112 Not at all, unlike you perverted dirty deviants on the left, I would never make a sex joke. After all, there might be children reading this, and won’t somebody please think about the children.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmWhatever happened to the women being “impure†during *those* days of the month, hhmmm?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — April 17, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Yeah and other crazy tennents they like to ignore such as helping the poor, being faithful to your spouse, and showing your parents respect… :)
April 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmAfter all, there might be children reading this, and won’t somebody please think about the children.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 17, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Does your momma know you’ve hacked the parental controls and are in here again? ; )
April 17th, 2006 at 3:53 pm116
I wouldn’t say all of the leftists are dirty perverted deviants.
Perhaps just Unbelievable (mind drifts off to the furry hippy chick :)
April 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pmAny and every public policy formulated by anyone in the Bush Administration, anyone connected to the Bush Administration or anyone indebted to the Bush Administration on any subject whatsoever, from Middle East policy to HIV/AIDS education to Social Security ‘reform’ to energy policy, needs to be frequently and repeatedly mocked, spit on, scratched out, stomped on and made tremendous fun of because the ‘people’ in the Bush Administration putting these idiotic policies forward, in addition to being evil and dangerous, are the most incredible bunch of symps, retards, busybodies, hypocrites, repressed sexual hysterics and certifiable morons that have ever held the levers of control in the U.S.A. Ever. No one else comes even close to being as destructive to America as the Smirking Chimp and his band of automatons.
Laugh at them, fight them, beat them.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#113 - No probs. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ publicat/ epiu-aepi/ epi-05/ pdf/ epi_05_e.pdf
The number of new infections (incident infections) continues at approximately the same rate as three years ago. In Canada, there were an estimated 2,800 to 5,200 new HIV infections in 2002 compared with the estimate of 3,310 to 5,150 in 1999 (Table 2). Examining the estimates for 2002 by exposure category, it is clear that MSM continue to account for the greatest number of new infections, 1,000 to 2,000. This represents about 40% of the national total of new infections, which is a slight increase from the 38% estimated in 1999 (Figure 1). The proportion of new infections attributable to IDU has decreased slightly, from 34% of the total in 1999 to 30% in 2002 (800-1,600 new infections in 2002). The proportion attributed to the heterosexual exposure category increased slightly, from 21% in 1999 to 24% in 2002 (600-1,300 new infections in 2002).”
MSM: men who have sex with men; IDU: injecting drug users; heterosexual: heterosexual contact
April 17th, 2006 at 4:00 pmPerhaps just Unbelievable (mind drifts off to the furry hippy chick :)
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Men’s peak is 17, and women’s is 40. I’m guessing I’m closer to 40 than you are to 17? :)
April 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pmBTW - As a gay man in his fifties, I can make one bold and almost completely unassailable prediction regarding celibacy for gay males:
You would have better luck hitting the moon with a spitball from the top of Everest than you would have getting any large number of gay men to practice celibacy.
Even thinking you could accomplish that marks you as a moron supreme.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pmSomebody get the condom industry on the phone. They’ll want to know about this.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm[…] read more @ http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 04/ 17/ busy-abstinence-policy/ […]
April 17th, 2006 at 4:10 pm#122 - Who says men peak AT 17?!?!?
It’s a plot by men over 17 who’ve already lost their urge, trying to get all other men to believe they’re “over the hill”. I turned 38 last month and I’m still “peaking”! ;-)
April 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmI think it’s a plot by women in their 40’s so they can get 17 year old men :)
April 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pmWho says men peak AT 17?!?!?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 17, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Then you’ll like this:
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/ sexinfo/ ?article=anatomy&refid=008
It ruins my joke, but what they hay…
April 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#82 “…..you vote liberal, support programs for kids and the elderly, and actually think that millionaires should pay a larger tax bill than folks making $35K/a year…..”
April 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pmComment by B*ob
*****Gosh B*ob, it’s hard to believe you survived to adulthood grew being so damn ignorant. Take a look at just now much the of federal taxes the top 5% PAY!!! Liberals may actually win an election or two when they stop thinking everyones’ $$$ is the federal or state governments. Liberals like to think the cash in our wallets is a result of the kind and generous government letting us keep a bit…..
Who says men peak AT 17?!?!?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 17, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Then you’ll like this:
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/ sexinfo/ ?article=anatomy&refid=008
Ruins my joke, but what the hay… ; )
April 17th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#123 - “You would have better luck hitting the moon with a spitball from the top of Everest than you would have getting any large number of gay men to practice celibacy.” - Billy Bob
****Thank you, Billy for stating the obvious. Check back in when you have something NEW to report ….
April 17th, 2006 at 4:28 pmI think it’s a plot by women in their 40’s so they can get 17 year old men :)
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
I assure you, that’s mostly a guy fanatasy. As men age they get better in other ways. :)
April 17th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#129 - While conservatives believe the money they stole was stolen fair and square!
Actually, the conservatives believe in paying as little as possible in taxes. Of course, if their house burns down because there weren’t enough taxes to pay for the service, then the government is at fault.
If they get hit by a drunk driver because there aren’t enough funds for police, then the government is at fault.
If they get food poisoning because there aren’t fund to support clean food standards, then the government is at fault.
Basically, the perfect “conservative” wants all the services of a federal government, they just want someone else to pay for it.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#127 - I think it’s a plot by women in their 40’s so they can get 17 year old men :)
Comment by Tundra
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Quantity v. Quality… *snapping out of fantasy…*
#84 - Squeegy, darling, no kids (there must be a god) AND an eagle scout? I knew you were a pissant.
#106 - We’re even, then! On the marriage thing, too. Geez…
April 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#133 “Basically, the perfect “conservative†wants all the services of a federal government, they just want someone else to pay for it.”
Just like liberals, thats why they want the rich to pay for it all.
#134 (there must be a god)
Is your side allowed to say that? Careful, I think unbelievable lost her moonbat card for much less.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:44 pm#131 - Look out! You’re going to get Mighty Aphro jealous about how much higher a gay man’s sex drive is over hers!
April 17th, 2006 at 4:46 pmTrolls do it with . . . out?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:51 pm#135 - “Just like liberals, thats why they want the rich to pay for it all.”
Not true. If you’ve got a million bucks dropping out of your butt every two months, then a 39% tax bracket isn’t going to make you miss out on any meals to pay your rent or taxes. You might, just might, not be able to buy a new house every other week if your tax rate is slightly higher than someone making $100,000 annually. Cry me a river.
Liberals just feel that if you’re making buku-bucks, then it’s because of the government that fosters capitalism. If you can’t help support that government with your taxes, then you’re just a selfish person who doesn’t deserve the $7,000,000 you make annually.
Calling on “god” is not just saved for the “right” crowd. I’ve been praying to Him for years, but Pres. Bush is still in office! I guess you can’t always get what you want! ;-)
April 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pm#135 - (there must be a god)
Is your side allowed to say that? Careful, I think unbelievable lost her moonbat card for much less.
Yes, Squeegy, we are allowed to say that. In fact “our side” believes in your right to say anything you would like to say (see 1st Amendment). As a matter of fact, Squeegy, my love, many on “our side” believe in god. A loving god, Squeegy, not the hateful god so many on “your side” believe in. You’re not a believer in the hateful god, are you, Squeegy? Because then I’d find it hard to respect you.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pm139
In fact “our side†believes in your right to say anything you would like to say (see 1st Amendment).
As long as it’s not mean or hateful right?
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 04/ 10/ murdering-border-crossers/ #comments
April 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pmTypical TP overstatement. The quoted policies do not mention gays at all, and do not comment at all on homosexual practices.
Abstinence used to be a widely shared virtue. Now promiscuity is the rule, not the exception. Abstinence education is aimed at promting voluntary self-denial by unmarried heterosexuals. What’s wrong with that?
Self-denial is required of everyone in a civil society, especially in the realm of sexuality. The only safe and sound sex is that whic