The Obvious End Result

If you've never heard of 7xsunday, it's a website that makes Rapture Ready look mainstream. It's message boards are populated primarily by people raised in the Quiverfull lifestyle, people who were homeschooled, attended home churches, whose every waking moment was controlled by their parents. People who accept as being perfectly normal extreme notions of modesty, courtship rather than dating and marrying a person without ever having held their hand. Yeah.

It's a busy site, because there are lots of them. Oh, and the abstinence only crowd is only a half step removed from them, so don't think this isn't relevant.

We talk a lot about modesty here in Hell, so I thought I'd show you the natural result of being raised with such beliefs:

Its got to do with love making. I hope i dont offend anyone by being blunt but id rather get to the point rather than not stating properly what i have on my mind. Ill start at the beginning. During my teen years i started to develop strong attractions for the opposite sex and my mom told me thats normal and taught me on saving myself for the man God had for me.

I am not going to mock her use of English. It's painful to me, but she was homeschooled for the purposes of pushing out as many babies as she can while keeping the house clean and her husband fed, nothing more. It's not her fault.

I found this very hard as i felt myself getting 'turned on' easily if i saw a handsome man that i fancied or got very aroused if a boy i liked touched my hand - eek i said it- However i kept pure and trained my thoughts with the Holy Spirits help to be pure and not think those things even though i struggled many times. Fast forward a few years, i got married young but by that point my struggle to not think impure thoughts about men had vanished. I thought oh when i get married i can finally think of my husband in that way.

You know where this is going, right?

Well, the strange thing is, i feel nothing. I mean i am very much attracted to and in love with my husband but -embrassed to say this- i feel NOTHING physically during love making. This was a shock to me because i was so easily turned on before. I no my hormones were crazy then because of puberty but still. I read a book 'The act of marriage' before getting married which explained how women get aroused etc but i dont no whats wrong with me. Im not on any medication, pills, my diet is good, no health problem because i checked that out already. I have only been married for a year but i can tell things are not looking good for us. I am extremely sad because we have such an amazing relationship and im trying to be the best helpmeet i can for my dear husband except for this one vital area. When it comes to love making i dont feel any pleasure, its not painful or anything and i can do the act just feel no pleasure. Its frustrating me so much because i cant O.... and my DH because he feels its one sided. Is this normal or what? Everyone told me once im allowed to have sex, it will be amazing and id be doing it non stop but to be honest i feel that i can easily live without sex since i feel nothing. Urgh i am so sad

Oh, honey. You trained yourself, no doubt with great effort and difficulty, to never think a sexual thing about another person and now you're surprised that you can't? *sigh* Of course you can't think sexual thoughts. The mind gets very good at whatever it practices. If you practiced adding large numbers in your head, you'd get good at that, too. Unfortunately, you practiced turning your brain into a Ken doll.

See, you can't turn off your sexy thoughts and then assume you can just turn them back on when you want to. And, there's the fact that the only reason you would turn off your sexy thoughts is because you were led to believe they were bad. It's ridiculous that people told her that as soon as she was married, she'd just love sex and be thinking sexy thoughts nonstop and having neighbor-scaring, bed-shattering fuckfests 24/7.

I think there is another issue at work here, as well. There is such a thing as chemistry. See, I never restrained my sexy thoughts. I also wore miniskirts and dated and had- gasp- premarital sex. It didn't take me long to learn that my body likes some people and doesn't like others, and it's not always related to how my brain feels about those people. I can like a man, find him intelligent and funny, find being around him an absolute joy and feel not an iota of sexual interest in him. I can also find a man to be an arrogant prick and my body is raring to go. If your relationship is going to include sex (I'm not saying relationships have to, asexual people need love, too), you need to be in a relationship with someone you are physically attracted to.

Unfortunately, this poor woman turned off her sexual attraction, so she would have no way of knowing whether or not she was attracted to her husband. Maybe she isn't. If she's not, not matter how hard she tries, she's never going to be into sex with him.

This is, btw, why I'm terribly leery of expecting teenagers to simply turn off their sexual urges instead of teaching them about safer sex. Evidence says that most of them can't turn off their sexual urges, and now we can see the price of actually doing so. Poor woman.

Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Shoulders, Skip to the Knees . . .

The first time I was supposed to be taught about sex, we were 10 and the teacher was a nun. I think she was actually going to give an in depth technical explanation of reproduction (there was a chalk drawing of a flaccid penis on the board, not that I realized it at the time), but the girl sitting next to me had a tonic clonic (grand mal) seizure before the nun could begin, and that was the end of sex ed. (Apparently, you either got sex ed on that day or you didn't get it at all.)

Until I was 14, and the football coach walked into homeroom and said something that has stuck with me ever since. "When you're little your parents tell you these are your ears" points to ears "and these are your eyes" points to eyes "and this is your nose and this is your mouth" points "these are your shoulders" touches shoulders "and then they skip down to your knees as if there were nothing in between."

And he was right, in my case anyway. Which made it way more difficult than it should have been to tell my mom when I had a UTI- the main symptoms of which are frequent urination and a burning sensation in the urethra when urinating. If you can't discuss your urethra, it's kind of hard to discuss a UTI.

I'm not bashing my mom here. She graduated high school in 1961 was a faithful Catholic- up until my father leaving with a woman younger than me and the priest child abuse scandals hit simultaneously and she was left bereft and righteously pissed about it.

The thing is, until the football coach told me so, I had no idea my vagina and my urethra were not in the same place*. Think about that for a second. At 14, I could have a reasonably intelligent discussion about my amygdala and duodenum (I was a strange child), but I thought I peed out of my vagina.

I was absolutely determined that no child I had responsibility for would grow up so ignorant of their own body. Which is how I became the preferred sex ed teacher for a good portion of Northeastern Pennsylvania. It's not just my family and my husband's family that send their kids to me. I've had friends and coworkers** ask me to give their kids "the talk".

Anything to avoid saying "penis" or "vagina" to your own child, I suppose.

Why? I know and I don't know. "Penis" and "vagina" are medical terms, just like "duodenum" and "amgydala". I don't think anyone would have a problem discussing lungs with their child, but get to what's covered by their underwear, and all of a sudden they're whipping out phrases like "down there" (Australia, perhaps?) and "privates" (in the Army?).

There has been quite a trend lately to start telling even tiny tots all about the human body and its capacity for reproduction, in scientific and clinical terms. Some parents do this because they shun "lying" and insist on telling the two-year-old just exactly how his baby sister got into mommy's tummy--oh, wait, into her uterus--while others believe that child development requires frank talk about sex as soon as a young child asks any questions. I was not a part of that generation and don't really think it's a good idea; while you can, certainly, give a child all the anatomical names for body parts and explain to him or her using simple charts or diagrams just what reproductive activity involves, you can'tgive him or her an adult understanding of these matters. Which means, at the very least, you can't stop him or her from shouting out in church, at a crowded restaurant, or on a plane "My [anatomically correct body part] is really itchy!" or from telling a pregnant neighbor, helpfully and in detail, just how that baby got into her uterus.

I fail to see the problem here. I don't think this person would be upset if their child said "my elbow is really itchy!" And wouldn't you want to know if your child's labia are "really itchy"? That could well be an infection or allergic reaction. It's the sort of thing you'd think a parent would want to know.

I also want to know why small children can't handle knowing how fetuses end up in uteruses. Would this person quail at telling their small child how their lungs work? I think not. Ignorance is only a virtue with itchy labia and fetuses, I guess.

As for the child telling a pregnant woman how she got pregnant (a) so what? I'm sure the pregnant woman knows how that happened, and (b) you can stop that conversation by saying, "Honey, she's pregnant. She knows how that happened, and we don't discuss other people's sex lives. It's rude." End of conversation.

I fail to see how ignorance, which leads to pregnant teens with syphilis is better than a lapse in etiquette.

*For any guys out there wondering how crazy I am, female genitalia is a black box unless you get out a mirror and are particularly flexible. It's not right out in front like a penis is. Women have to work to see their own genitals.

**I've done it for friends, but not for coworkers. I don't want a coworker freaking out on me at work after discovering I've told their teenage daughter there's nothing wrong with kink if that's what you're into.

I Regret a Lot, But Not the Sex

safe sex, candies, abstinence,

I have regrets. You can't get to age 5 without regrets. You know what I don't regret? Being powerful, active and involved in my own sexuality and sex life.

I didn't "give away" my virginity, I enjoyed the first time I had sex. Sure, it was akward and painful at first, and exciting and fun. I've said no to a few people in my time, and I've never "given in" to anyone's demands to have sex, either. I've never had sex in order to be loved or keep a man. I have had sex because I wanted to. I've had sex with a man I had no intentions of ever seeing again. I've used condoms and been tested for AIDS*.

My point is that it's my body, my life and my choice. Every choice I've made, I made, and I've owned it. I've owned the good and the bad, and let me tell you, if you want to be satisfied with yourself as a person, if you want to like yourself, owning your decisions is crucial. If you want to stop being the victim of your own life, you have to make our own damn choices.

So it really pisses me off to see girls exposed to this kind of crap from the candie's foundation.

Facts:

91: The percentage of teens who think it's important to get a strong message that they should wait to have sex.

76: The percentage of teens who wish the media showed the consequences of sex more.

75: The percentage of teens who don't thinks it's embarrassing to admit to being a virgin.

60: The percentage of teens who wish they'd waited longer to have sex.

First of all, I can't figure out where these "facts" come from. Have these teens never seen the Lifetime Channel? How about Bristol Palin? Who doesn't know the consequences of . . . oh, right, people who haven't had sex ed. Okay, then, what does candies have for teens to help them be strong, independent owners of their own existence?

A tank top with a slogan across the breasts, involving the word "sexy" in bright pink. That sound? That's my forehead repeatedly slamming into my desk.

Here's the advice I give all the girls in my family. If you're not sure you should be having sex, you shouldn't be. And that applies equally the first and the millionth time you have sex. If you're too embarrassed to buy condoms, you're not ready to have sex. If you can't deal with the possible consequences of sex, i.e., an unplanned pregnancy or an abortion, you're not ready to have sex, and that applies to 16 year olds and 40 year olds alike.

It's your body, own it.

*Actually, having had a blood transfusion prior to 1979, I've had lots of AIDS tests. Like 15 of them. Oh, and at least that many Hep C tests.

Spiritual Care?

religion, christian, health care, hatch, enzi, kerry, public option, rape, birth control, abortion, abstinence, safe sex,
The Secular Coalition for America is fighting three amendments to the health care bill that are egregious examples of religious intrusion in government that we all should be aware of and fight against.

Of great concern is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) that would require private and public health plans to cover all "spiritual care" - whether or not the individual has religous objections to medical care. This proposed funding undermines our Constitution and will open up your tax dollars to scam artists.

This amendment will make an existing problem worse. Religious people who object to medical care already have some "spiritual care" covered by Medicare and Medicaid. This "spiritual care" includes reimbursements for payments that Christian Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them when they are ill. Numerous children have died while receiving this "spiritual care" when modern science would easily have saved their lives. And you helped pay!

We currently pay people to watch children die. Allow me to repeat myself: your tax dollars pay people to watch children die. This is appalling and should not be allowed to continue. The fact that the government doles out tax dollars for this reprehensible practice is . . . I don't know what to say. I don't have words for that.

One Christian Scientist congregation presided over the deaths of 64 children between 1975 and 1995, and Orrin Hatch and John Kerry want to encourage that. I suggest contacting them and telling them no.

Senator Enzi wants to make sure that if my doctor is opposed to birth control pills or, well, anything, he doesn't even have to tell me the treatment exists. This is already a problem with morning after pills, especially for rape victims. Rape victims who visit Christian (usually Catholic) hospitals, or who are seen by those opposed to birth control, are often not even told that after the fact birth control exists. I am personally quite opposed to exposing already traumatized rape victims to the further trauma of having to choose between giving birth to their rapist's baby or aborting it.

We are fighting another amendment, proposed by Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), which would ensure that doctors can deny patients any care or information that violates the doctor's religious beliefs. This violation of medical ethics is labeled with the Orwellian term "Conscience Clause" - i.e. denying or delaying proper care for a person in need. This amendment cruelly places the religious beliefs of practitioners (such as pharmacists) above the medical needs of patients. This amendment threatens your access to contraception, end-of-life care, HIV care, and any other care to which a health provider employee objects.

Senator Hatch also wants to revive abstinence-only programs, despite the fact that they are a miserable failure.

Third, Senator Hatch has submitted an amendment requesting that funding for Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs be restored. Congress has wasted $ 1.5 billion on such programs since 1996. Numerous studies, including a 10-year government-funded evaluation of the Title V abstinence-only program, have found that these programs do not delay sexual initiation and have no beneficial impact on young people's health or sexual behavior. In addition to being ineffective and leaving out information on safe sex, many such programs contain false and misleading "medical" statements and teach religious propaganda and theologically-driven gender stereotypes to our children.

There is no reason to teach abstinence only other than religion. Abstinence-only programs don't work, as is ably demonstrated by the fact that teens in highly religious states have the highest pregnancy rates. Abstinence-only programs deter birth control use, not sex.

Please help out teenagers, women, rape victims, children, yourself, and everyone else and tell these politicians, in no uncertain terms, to keep their religion out of the health care bill.

Grinding the Abstinence Axe

abstinence, education, religion, institute, research, evaluation, onenewsnow
Onenewsnow, your source for a great many things that are not news, offers a defense of abstinence only education, fantastic failure that it is. Oddly, the very title of the article proves my point, or someone just doesn't understand the proper use of sarcastiquotes.

Abstinence ed "outperforms" comprehensive sex ed. (That's exactly how the title appears on onenewsnow.) The article is the usual hysterical complaints about teens having sex !!1!!!eleventy!!! and condoms spread disease !!1!!!eleventy!!!, but it includes a link to a study that purports to show that abstinence ed is, in fact, effective, and much more effective than sex ed. I always ask myself in these situations, "Who performed the study, and do they have an axe to grind?"

It was an excellent question in this case. The study was performed by the Institute for Research and Evaluation, which includes information about AEGIS International, the Character Education Company, whose program is represented by the following picture:

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the Institute for Research and Evaluation might have a vested interest in proving that abstinence education works. Considering the billions of dollars spent on abstinence education over the last decade, they may have a quite large interest in proving that abstinence only works.

This Is Not A Poe - Part IV

wingnut, republican, GOP, oklahoma, religion, homophobia, abstinence, insane,
(or: I Just Couldn't Stay Away)



The Oklahoma GOP Party Platform 2009 actually gets worse after the sections on religion and sodomy. (You know, for the longest time I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "sodomy" was, because any time I saw a definition of sodomy, my reaction was "isn't that just sex?" Which it is, of course.)



The OK! GOP just can't get away from praising evangelical christianity. (The GOP: You can take the tired, the poor, the Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims and the atheists. We don't want 'em!) This ridiculous "god's the bestest thing evah!" crap continues right through the section on education. Public education, mind you.



Preamble:



We acknowledge our dependence upon Almighty God again. and again. and again. and ask His blessings okay, we get it, you're really into god. upon our students and their parents, teachers, and nation. It is the right and responsibility of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education whether public, private, charter, or home school, without interference, regulation no regulation on schooling. at all. think about that for a second. what they're saying is that if a parent or a religious school wants to teach children that the world is cube with a 96 hour day and that god wants us to enslave our black citizens, that's fine by the GOP. uh, yeah., or penalty from the government. The primary goal of public schools should be to teach proficiency in the basic subjects of phonics based reading, written and oral communication, mathematics, sciences, traditional history including our founding documents (none of that women's history or black history, good ole white manifest destiny history), the Godly heritage of our nation the witch burning or the slave owning?, and critical thinking skills BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Locally elected school boards should have the authority to determine and implement all public school curricula, I think this is an attempt to backdoor in intelligent design. policies, and procedures for their districts. We demand excellence and accountability from all tax-funded institutions of education in Oklahoma. The federal government has no constitutional role in education i guess bush disagreed; furthermore, we support the creation of a free market education system vouchers. We believe Oklahoma students are among the best and brightest and deserve a quality education isn't that sweet? not sure why it's part of the platform, but props to the Okies!



1. The traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman and child(ren), first of all, this is like the fourth time this has come up in this document. we get it, you're not into the gays. secondly, i love that it isn't enough to define the desired relationship as "man and woman" because that might include sinful unmarried men and women, who are little better than gays. is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Education and various Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family, at all levels of public school and higher education. including college, apparently. asshats.



2. Funding of School-to-Work in any form should be eliminated. Individuals should have the right to choose their own education and career. We oppose any tracking system, which presumes to know what is best for the individual and economy or predetermine the occupationsof students. as best as I can tell, the GOP is against students that are not college material having actual marketable skills. school to work is a program that apprentices high school students in useful, well-paying fields like car repair, plumbing and carpentry. how dare schools prepare children for the rest of their lives with necessary, marketable skills. it's appalling.



4. Parents have a right to exempt their children from required school vaccinations for medical reasons, religious reasons, or other reasons of conscience. No child should be required to take a medication as a requirement for attending a public school. it's not like vaccines have any kind of purpose or anything.

5. Parents have a natural right to home school their children. We oppose any and all regulation of home schooling. we wouldn't want to make sure that children have certain knowledge prior to reaching adulthood, would we?

6. We affirm the right of students and teachers to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by he First Amendment, including the right to wear and display religious symbols, voluntary vocal prayer, optional Bible and religious study, religious expression including holidays, and equal access to use of school facilities for these activities. i wonder if they'll feel the same way when muslim students start wearing their religious symbols and demanding the use of school facilities for q'ran studies?

7. The American flag should be displayed in the classroom. Students should start the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including “one nation under God,” and be taught the history of and respect for our American flag. why do these asshats conflate christianity with patriotism?

10. The Ten Commandments should be posted in all public schools as a means of moral guidance along with our national motto “In God We Trust” and the Bill of Rights. the first four of the ten commandments:


I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

first of all, how are any of those four "moral" guidelines? wtf does "remember the sabbath day" have to do with morals or with education? wtf does any of that have to do with learning your abc's? secondly, how are any of those four applicable in a public school, where nonchristian theists and atheists may be in attendance?

oh, right, they're not.

11. We oppose the deliberate misuse of standard English and the alteration of historical facts. a slam on "urban" speech and a refutation of what was stated earlier about the US being a "christian nation" founded on Judaic law. nice.

13. Public schools shall not prohibit the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which our country was founded. Public schools shall be prohibited from promoting other worldviews such as, but not limited to, secular Humanism, New Age philosophy, deep ecology, reincarnation, psychotherapy, channeling, transcendental meditation, altered states of consciousness or any occult practice.
wait, i thought we weren't altering historical facts. and, i love that anything other than the worldview of evangelical christianity (worldviews held by millions of US citizens) are strictly forbidden. Also, psychotherapy is a forbidden worldview? and what the fuck is "deep ecology"? What planet does the GOP live on?

17. We believe the public school system is for the benefit of U.S. citizens and for those who havethe legal right to be here. fucking illegals!

18. We oppose any government required community service as a condition of graduation. Obama wants high school students to help out their community! commusocialfacism! HITLEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!!!

next up, the GOP supports the use of the bible as a history text. a history text. a fucking history text.

1. Basic school curricula should include reading, composition, literature, mathematics, science, history, and government. Reading shall include phonics instruction, and composition shall include grammar and spelling instruction. We encourage the teaching of art, music, foreign languages, sports/physical fitness, and the option of using the Bible as a history or literature text.

a history text. i don't know whether to laugh or cry. a history text.

2. American heritage should be taught in public schools and include representative government,limited government, the lives and beliefs of the founders, the influence of the Bible andreligion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should studydirectly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distribution of power amongthe three branches of federal government and between federal and state government. students shall be taught GOP talking points to the exclusion of all else. where else will we get more republicans?

4. We believe that the scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design and biblical creation should be included in the Oklahoma public school curricula, and where any evolution theory is taught, that both should receive equal funding, class time, and material. Teachers should havethe freedom to cover creation science without fear of intimidation or reprimand. the GOP: we're not exactly certain what science is, but we're against it!

7. Any mandated sex education shall hold to the following guidelines:

a. Neither homosexual nor extramarital sexual activity shall be presented as safe,nor shall they be presented as morally or socially acceptable behaviors.

b. HIV shall be presented as incurable and fatal.

c. Abstinence or lifetime fidelity shall be presented as the only safe sexual practice.

I'm fairly certain my brain just exploded. abstinence training does not work. i certainly do not want my tax dollars to support homophobia. HIV infection can be prevented- with condoms. you know what, maybe i do support their stance on homeschooling- because if this is what is going on in Oklahoma schools, i certainly wouldn't send my children there.

9. We oppose the portrayal of homosexual or promiscuous behavior in a positive light in public schools. the GOP: we do NOT have to represent our gay citizens, too.

1. We support meaningful reform in the structure of our higher education system, including:
a. Evaluation of all programs and elimination or reform of substandard programs.
b. Control of grade inflation.
c. Accountability of administrators to include performance evaluation.
d. Reform of the faculty tenure system.
e. Budgeting tied to comprehensive planning process with increases in funding directly related to specific goals and objectives listing expected improvements.

translation: we'll get those liberal college professors yet!

Honestly, after wading through the muck of wingnuttery that is this party platform, I can't even imagine why the GOP has the support that it does. It's frightening that 1 out of 5 USians thinks this insanity is the way to go.

Walrus Does Not Like the BBW's*

asshat, editorials, jackass, opine, preterm, stupid, walrus, misogyny, feminism, feminist, labor, pregnant, abortion, abstinence, birth control,
The Playful Walrus is at it again! Only this time it's not teh gayz- it's fat, ugly feminists! Is no one safe from The Judgey Walrus? (I have to wonder what this asshat looks like. Suggestions welcome.)

Associated Press Medical Writer Mike Stobbe reported, prompted by a CDC report found here.

While it shows the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. Wait, does this mean no more Demographic Winter, or are there too many brown babies in this study?

While it sounds bad that the teen birth rate was up, the article goes on to say point out that the birth rate was up in general. maybe the teen birth rate was up because of abstinence only training? it's been proven that doesn't work.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

Which means that almost 25% were 19 or younger. i'm impressed. walrus subtracted 75 from 100 and got 25. let's give him a round of applause!

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher. you just know that's going to set an opiner off.

It helps keep sperm banks in business and is one reason I plead with men to never, ever donate sperm. because married couples in which the wife is fertile, but the man's sperm isn't doing anything never, ever use sperm banks. ever. sperm banks are only used by evil, single feminists and lesbians.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, they might be, we don't know. duh. experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status. countdown to the opine misogyny explosion in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

If a woman doesn't have the time or personality or patience to find, attract, and keep a man she is willing to marry (or a man who will at least have sex with her), should she really be a child's only parent?

that's right. if you're not angelina jolie, you have no business ever being within 5 feet of a child. unmarried women are all ugly and mean. and probably lesbians anyway. in fact, i'm willing to bet that anyone that wouldn't fuck walrus is a lesbian by definition. boy, my hubby is going to be really disappointed when he finds out i'm a lesbian.

Walrus, you just don't like women. I'm not saying you're gay, I'm just saying you clearly do not like women. You are a misogynist of Limbaugh proportions. And possibly dimensions, but I don't really know.

Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports.

Good.

Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

I don't think I've ever heard in recent decades, from an anonymous source or otherwise, "I wanted to get an abortion, but I couldn't find a place where I could get one." Please. There are people out there willing to fly you somewhere and pay for it. as if anyone would suggest to an opiner that they desired, or even worse, had obtained, an abortion. actually, it is incredibly difficult to obtain an abortion in large portions of the country. there are fewer and fewer abortion providers and laws in many states require all kinds of hoops to jump through, including sitting through prolife seminars and waiting periods, and who are these people flying women places for abortions? link? something? anything? nah, just an assertion.

The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s.

The March of Dimes likes to use this as a call to fundraising. helping babies with birth defects is bad! bad! However, I wonder just how much of it is due to 1) an increase in multiple-baby pregnancies due to the use of “reproductive technologies” sarcastiquotes why? they are indeed reproductive technologies. i think some people don't know what sarcastiquotes are for, exactly. (remember – twins born prematurely are two births, while a singleton born at full term is just one, easily skewing the statistics about “births” i'm not sure that's true when it comes to the data collection on preterm births. i know some studies count multiples as one pre term birth (it is after all, only one pregnancy), and some studies throw out multiples altogether precisely because they are more likely to be born preterm and thus skew the results.), and 2) an increase in obesity, adding complications to a pregnancy that prompt doctors to remove the baby before full term.

see, it's not just mean, ugly feminists Walrus hates, it's BBW's, too. Actually, I looked up the causes of pre term births, and obesity wasn't mentioned at all. Here are the primary causes of pre term births:

When preterm labor starts on its own (as opposed to being induced):
Infection. About 40-50% of all preterm labor can be traced to infection. Many women do not show classic signs of infection, like fevers. One good note here is that with antibiotic treatement for Group B Strep, we have seen a reduction. Other than for Group B Strep, antibiotics usually lead only to antibiotic resistance and not a reduction in preterm labor rates.
Bleeding. This does include placental abruption, where the placenta tears away from the uterine wall too early. It also includes bleeding disorders that may be genetic or acquired. Bleeding of any sort should be reported to your doctor or midwife.

Stretching of the uterus. The stretching or overdistension of the uterus has also been linked to preterm labor and birth. This can be caused by fibroids, multiple pregnancies (twins, triplets, etc.), or even having too much amniotic fluid (polyhydramnios).

About 25% of all preterm births to mothers with one baby are ended early for maternal or fetal well-being. This can be acheived either through induction of labor or by planned cesarean section, depending on the reason for the early arrival and the condition of mom and baby. The American College of Ob/GYNs (ACOG) says that there should not be any induction done prior to 39 weeks without medical reason (often called social induction), because of the increased risks. That leaves 75% of preterm labors as spontaneous. About a quarter of the spontaneous preterm labors are due to premature rupture of membrames (PPROM).

See, no fat chicks. Jackass.

Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate mormons and Vermont the lowest. not mormons

Which could mean that more people who will grow up in larger families and want larger families themselves – and value marriage – are being raised than people who will be accustomed to, and will be more likely to create, a smaller family, perhaps without marriage. "We'll win through attrition!" Also the premise of Idiocracy.

*Big, Beautiful Women.

Sex, It Leads to Dancing

abstinence, only, sex, education, lobby, vagina, misogyny, stupid,
Apparently, the abstinence only crowd (it doesn't work, but we don't care!) has realized that they are in for a little trouble. Science has proven that abstinence only doesn't work, and is in fact worse than no sex ed at all, and well, with the new President in place, the going might be a little rough.

What's a lobby to do?

Rebrand!

"the talking point repeatedly drilled into the young lobbyists’ heads was that their programs aren’t just about not having sex. Oh, no… they are actually “holistic approaches” to promote “healthy lifestyle choices”.

Longtime abstinence-only defender Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation spoke, giving the standard false talking points of the movement . . . His most blatant falsehood is that “0%” of comprehensive sex education programs talk about abstinence.

This study was thoroughly debunked by ETR Associates in 2007, as they found that ACF merely studied curricula by doing word counts of “abstinence” and “condom”. . . limited use of the word “abstinence” stems from studies that have shown this word to turn off students and instead used language that produced better results.

Another falsehood he pushed was that “0%” of unintended pregnancies could have been prevented if they had access to or knowledge about contraceptives. Literally… zero. Why? Because they all wanted to have babies. One might say that he pulled this stat out of his “Rector”, so to speak.

Referring to the fact that abstinence only doesn't work, Rector laid out a strategy to spin this report to the media, saying “The other spin I think is very important is not [program] effectiveness, but rather the values that are being taught”, further stating that whether or not these programs work is a “bogus issue”.

That's right: protecting teens from unwanted pregnancies and STDs is a "bogus issue". I'm a little surprised he came out and said it, but that is the truth about the abstinence only crowd. They don't care if teens get pregnant or end up with STDs, in fact, as far as their concerned, babies and AIDS are simply justice for the sluts who dare to have sex. You like fucking? Hope you like herpes, too, whore!

The morals they're teaching, by the way, include the idea that what you're buying with an engagement ring* isn't a symbol of commitment, it's an unused vagina. The more used the vagina, the smaller the ring:

Following their next round of Congressional visits, they held a concert of sorts in front of the Russell Senate Building, full of raps and Christian rock songs about abstinence (including one speaker claiming that if a girl is not a virgin, she doesn’t deserve to have a nice engagement ring).

There's nothing like adding a little misogyny to the mix!

I love it when the religious right wants to lecture me about values.

*I don't wear an engagement ring, and neither my hubby nor I wear wedding rings. What I have instead is a house. I don't like diamonds, but do I ever love my hardwood floors!

Accidental Wisdom

right, religious, religion, palin, christian, abstinence, sex, teen, mother
Every now and then you see someone achieve wisdom, perhaps without even knowing it. Such is the case in the following rant from the Rapture Ready message boards.

Original post:

Cellophane: Teen abstinance unrealistic say's Bristol Palin
I'm surprised this hasn't been here yet!

Quote:
So says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, who told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Monday night that the abstinence her mom preaches is "not realistic at all."

Bristol Palin, who gave birth in late December, described the rigors of being a teen mom, and while she wouldn't go into detail why it isn't realistic for guys and gals her age not to have sex, she did say it isn't smart to get knocked up.

"Everyone should wait 10 years," Palin said. "I hope people learn from my story. It's so much easier if you're married, have a house and career. It's not a situation you want to strive for."

She denied that her mother's anti-abortion views were the reason she went ahead with the pregnancy."It was my choice to have the baby," she said. "It doesn't matter what my mom's views are on it. It was my decision."

I'm not surprised that wasn't on the RR message boards before. Sarah Palin is their hero: fundamentalist, pro life, wife, mother to 5 children, dumb as a rock.

This post has so far generated 3 pages of replies, but it's this exchange started by Felixthecat that I find interesting.

Felixthecat: Well we do't have Palin family values in this household. If Sarah and her husband can't raise their own family properly, I sure don't want her as my President which is also a postion of leadership ... .I like Paul ... and his requirements for positions of leadership ... home life had to be lived as an example and that included the kiddies ... .

This is exactly what liberal critics of the religious right have been saying all along. Don't preach about everybody else when your own actions are exactly the same as those you preach about. (Felixthecat is not a troll. He/She has been posting regularly, in accordance with all the rest, for as long as I've been following the RR message boards.)

HeIsEnough (a SUPER Moderator!): That's really only in reference to leadership in the body of Christ, which is a higher calling than even the President of the United States, imo. So you only need to practice what you preach if you are a minister? Presidents shouldn't be expected to live up to their own morals? I bet that's exactly the tune SuperMod would sing if Obama were caught en flagrante.

Howdy: So easy to judge

felixthecat then achieves wisdom, perhaps accidentally: Oh, so Christians aren't to strive for what are His values? Since when is this true?

So a politician who openly claims to be a politician doesn't have to live what they believe? Where in the Bible are politicians excluded from this? I missed that.When any person takes on a public office they are being judged. We are to make judgement calls. THAT is in my Bible.

How they live and what their values and beliefs are are reflected in their lifestyle choices. How they raise their family shows their values and beliefs in action and how well they manage others.

To be brutally blunt I am so tired of Christianty used as a club to silence people like me when hypocrisy is pointed out. I am so tired of leaders of either stripe claiming to be "Christians" and leading lives that are very unChristian.

This kind of unChristian living hurts Christianity. It makes Christianity laughable. It fuels disbelief and cynicism.

Next you'll hear ... "no one is perfect". Of course that's true but many do a significantly better job than others and are more credible as authority figures and better suited for leadership in a church or politics.

Teen pregnancy is a MAJOR problem. Not all teens get pregnant. And here you have a duaghter proclaiming that it is impossible to have self control when it comes to sex. Now what does this say about "family values"? Or even "family values" from a Christian standpoint? Has abstaining just become a campaign slogan to recruit social conservatives? Is it I say one thing and my family lives another and that's fine?I'm a wierdo.

If someone claims to be a Christian, I want Christian family values promoted and lived by the person claiming to be a Christian. I YEARN for someone, male or female that can LIVE Christian values in the political arena. I'd like to see a Christian run, win and show how Christian family values DO WORK and see it in their family. THAT would be the example I'd like in a leader - secular or "religious".I know the media says otherwise ... but it is really true that Christian PARENTS can make a huge difference in the life of their kids. Parents teach them right from wrong. It is PARENTS that have the most impact. When they aren't around much ... trouble brews.

Getting back to the Bible, Paul also talks about the obligation to the family if a person serves Him directly. Often "saving souls" and "missionary work" is used as an excuse to NEGLECT their own family. I see lots of that going on ... . For what? Fame? Self game? It's not worth it.

wow. I'm used to that sort of stunning indictment- from the left, from atheists, not from fundamentalist christians. felixthecat is absolutely right. Abstinence, prolife, family values, etc are just campaign slogans used to secure votes. I've never seen anyone on the right actually notice before.

note: I am not blaming Sarah Palin for her daughter's behavior, nor am I judging Bristol Palin's decisions. However, the blatant hypocrisy of the right setting themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of "family values" is just plain wrong.

You Can't Rape a Slut

abstinence, only, conservative, religion, christianity

This is what our children are being taught in school. Gee, you better hope your daughter isn't the victim of both vicious rumors and a rapist in the same year- no justice for her.

Intellectually Bankrupt and Oxytocin

turner, keroack, abstinence, liar, lie, lying, study, science, sex, sexism, misogyny,

So, the abstinence only crowd has found a scientific (scientists, you guys like scientists, right?) reason for abstinence: Women who have multiple sexual partners lack oxytocin, which is to emotional bonding what superglue is to physical bonding.

Unfortunately, this simply isn't true.

This post quotes a study by Eric Keroack, except Keroack didn't do the study, Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University did. And she was appalled to see what Keroack had done with her study.

From hugthemonkey:

Dana Wilkie of Copley News Service tracked down Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University whose paper found its way into a treatise Keroack wrote for the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

According to Wilkie, Turner found that:

When women were asked to recall memories about close relationships, whether familial or romantic, those with a tendency to be anxious about such relationships had lower oxytocin increases than those who were married, living together or dating. Hardly surprising. If oxytocin is emotional superglue, it's not shocking that women who are anxious about their relationships have low levels of oxytocin. However, Turner's research did NOT delve into why those women had low levels of oxytocin. Perhaps low levels of oxytocin cause anxiety in relationships, which destroys relationships, which forces a woman into many relationships. We don't know.


Turner was shocked and dismayed to find that her research was being misrepresented, she told Wilkie.

But here's the kicker: No matter what the level of oxytocin in women who were anxious about close relationships, Turner's paper found that oxytocin activity was “completely unrelated” to the number of previous sexual partners.

Understanding that finding doesn't require a course in logic; a simple ability to read will do. Still, Keroack somehow made the leap that sex with multiple partners inhibits the brain's ability to respond to oxytocin, and therefore the ability to bond.

During a follow-up study three years later, Turner found no links between oxytocin levels and emotional conditions, but that was after Keroack's paper came out.

So, intellectually bankrupt or just Liar for Christ(tm)?