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.

A Rather Bizarre Description of [Insert Euphemism Here]

Sex Ed 101 (Please, if you actually need Sex Ed, this ain't it. Email me. I've given the speech before.)

Human beings have corresponding they write letters to one another? fascinating. sexual organs sex organs. sexual organs, well, that's not what you mean. It's "their", unless you mean one sex organ primary function is to procreate on a biological scientific level. um, what? is there some other level of procreation? nonbiological procreation? unscientific procreation? wut? Human beings comma being social creatures comma do more then just mate and abandon their offspring. because our offspring aren't capable of surviving on their own immediately. in fact, most mammals don't immediately abandon offspring. i'm not sure what the point is here. We all bond and form relationships through our biological kinship as children with our parents. It's how we are able to survive beyond birth. is this advanced tautology or is renee slamming adoption? i have no idea.

Our first social interaction is with our mother, or the doctor slapping your ass. i guess it depends upon what you mean by social. this is something highly encouraged in modern day society. but not 100 years ago? what do you mean?! Babies born for instance commas aren't helping that. "babies born"? as opposed to babies appearing suddenly out of nothing? are placed on the mother's chest, babies are to be with mother's stop molesting the innocent apostrophe. along their bedside, and moms whenever possible are encourage and supported to breastfeed. advanced tautology, then.

We also know through science, women don't just self-produce. i, from science, WUT?! Human life is created with an egg released at the time of ovulation in a woman's body, if sperm is present from the conjugal act (ejaculation of millions of sperm from a man's penis inside a woman's vagina) conception may occur and human life is created.

i can't even imagine what the point was there. really cannot imagine. "conjugal act"? does renee mean fucking? mah brane, it hurtz.

Hopefully for the nest Rouge Angles of Satin strike again! 38 weeks of gestation a human being will be present in a woman's uterus. i don't . . . i . . . "present"? does that make sense? Again hopefully a woman may have natural childbirth and have a new born baby. as opposed to an old born baby? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?!

Man + Woman (Heterosexual Sex) = Baby I'm glad renee explained (Heterosexual Sex), because we wouldn't want to confuse anyone that anal or oral sex might result in a baby. or, you know, birth control. or woman on top, that's just wrong.

My six year old is just figuring that one out! yeah, well, if you're the one teaching said sixDASHyearDASHold sex ed, I can see why they don't just understand it.

Not all sex is equal. yeah, [redacted ex] just wasn't nearly as proficient as [other redacted ex]. that's so true. Just saying.... I'm not a hateful bigot, i'm definitely leaning towards stupid bigot who needs to read a freakin' grammar book but I have to say that's a really uninformed poster. i've never found posters to be particularly informed. especially about sex. and biological, scientific babies.

There are plenty of posts here on Opine for anyone who has any more questions on this unique way every human being is created actually, if we're all created that way, it's hardly unique. in fact, basically all mammals procreate the way we do. just not unique, sorry. incredibly fun if ur doin' it rite, but not unique. in which I can link marriage to healthy fathers for a mother's offspring. i can link your stupidity to natural disasters, that doesn't make it true or relevant. It does sound quite logical considering a woman needed his sperm to create a baby.

according to renee, this is logic:

A. A man and a woman having unprotected sex will result in a baby a certain percentage of the time.

B. Teh Ghey Is Bad!

So, Renee, when you're done reading that grammar book- there will be a test, it will involve electricity- I suggest some Logic 101.

Renee Aste Lowell Massachusetts

My Empire Will More Shocking for Some than Others

When I am Empress of the Entire Freakin' World, not only will you find yourself wearing purple and berets, and possibly purple berets (if you are lucky), I will extend comprehensive sex education to everyone. Five-year-olds, fifty-year-olds, nuns, dogs, absolutely everyone will be getting comprehensive sex education. We'll be shutting down all work in the entire freakin' world to have a week long discussion about consent. We'll spend at least one week on the clitoris, one week on fetishes, and at least a few days on appropriate lubricants. No one, in the entire freakin' world, will get to take a lunch break until everyone can say aloud, without blushing, "penis" and "vagina" (or whatever it is in their native language. we don't discriminate in the Empire.)

Apparently, some people are going to have more trouble with this than others, as evidenced by what some people consider, andiquote, disturbing.

Here are some of the more disturbing pieces of the [proposed Montana curriculum].

• Introduce basic reproductive body parts (penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, uterus) -- Kindergarten and Grades 1-3

What is disturbing about kindergarteners correctly identifying parts of the body by their proper names? Does this person have an issue with children saying "spleen"? It's a body part, get the fuck over it.

• Acknowledge that individuals & families have a variety of values as it pertains to sexual behaviors -- Grade 2

Reality, here it is. Acknowledging that something exists in reality is disturbing? Is it also disturbing to introduce children to the idea that some people speak a different language than they do?

• Recognize that there are a variety of reasons why people may end a committed relationship -- Grade 3

50% of marriages end in divorce. We may want to talk to children about it. Just a thought.

• Acknowledge that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals can establish lifelong
  committed relationships -- Grade 8

Again, acnowledging reality. Plus, eighth graders are 13-14 years old. I think they can handle the idea. About things that exist in reality. Really real reality.

• Understand that marriage is considered a commitment by two people to love, help,
  and support one another -- Grade 6

What definition of marriage is this guy using that the above sentence is "disturbing"? Do we know if his wife's been seen recently?

• Emphasize that no one has the right to impose their values
  on others -- Grade 6

Amen!

• Understand human beings can love people of the same gender & people of another gender -- Grade 1

Again, actual things that happen in actual really real reality. Is there some other way I can say this that would make it more clear? Do I need more adverbs? I like adverbs.

• Understand making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g., “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is
  disrespectful & hurtful -- Grade 2

BECAUSE IT IS. why is that disturbing? seriously, it's disturbing to suggest that yelling "fag!" at someone might hurt their feelings?

• Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal
  penetration -- Grade 5

Considering that someone told me once it wasn't sex if they didn't cum, I'm voting on the side of necessary for this one. (Don't ask.)

• Understand sexual orientation refers to a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender, and is one
  part of ones’ personality -- Grades 5 and 6

What else does sexual orientation refer to?

• Understand that sexual intercourse ncludes but is not imited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects -- Grades 6-12

Apparently, he was really disturbed by this one. it's listed twice. oh, wait, i see, "objects" are added in the later years. Meh.

• Understand teenagers who decide to engage in sexual behavior must also decide about
  pregnancy & STI/HIV prevention -- Grade 6

DUH.

• Understand barrier methods of contraception (e.g. male and female condoms, dental dams can greatly reduce but not prevent STIs) -- Grades 5-12

Is the teen birth rate under abstinence only not enough for you?

Apparently, being asked to experience actually actual really real reality is just too much for some people. And they want to educate your children.

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman- Poof! I'm Right!*

You know what's easier than logical argumentation involving research and facts? Illogical, emotional, inflammatory nonsense!

I recently listened again to an excellent speech that comedian and author Evan Sayet gave at a gathering of the Heritage Foundation. The speech, entitled "Hating What's Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds Up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue"reminded me of some salient points when looking at the ideology behind modern liberalism. (If you've never watched the speech, take a look at the end of the post.)

Referring to Allan Bloom's seminal work The Closing of the American Mind, Sayet reminds us of Bloom's observation that modern liberalism relies on the ideal of indiscriminateness in direct opposition to the liberal Satan of discrimination. As Bloom puts it, "indiscriminateness is a moral imperative"in the ideology of modern liberalism (pg. 30).

Modern liberalism finds discrimination, any form of discrimination, to be antithetical to modern liberal thought. We must not discriminate against race, we are morally compelled (by political correctness) not to discriminate against culture, lifestyle, moral behavior or indeed any action deemed ideologically pure.

Gee, did I not get the memo on ideological purity? The above is a load of nonsense flavored with sophistry. The English language is, at best, imprecise. "To discriminate" can mean a few things, some of them acceptable- she has discriminating taste- some of them unacceptable- they discriminate against minorities. Then there are things that could certainly be defined, loosely, as discrimination: refusing to hire a 3 time embezzler as your accountant, for example. No one would, in common parlance, refer to that as discrimination, but technically, the word is defined that way. All of which lends itself beautifully to sophistry, an artful play of language to obfuscate meaning and logic.

What Euripides is doing above is engaging in a such sophistry, blurring the line between acceptable and unacceptable, redefining the common parlance and generally obscuring meaning. I'll save you all an entire semester's worth of studying logical argumentation: If you have to redefine words to make your point, you don't have one. (See how good I am to you?)

So, what sorts of bigotry, oh, I'm sorry, let's just call it "roses", does Euripides wish to engage in? The usual.

Airport Security
Even though we know, we know, that a certain brand of young, male, Muslims are responsible for 9/11 and other airplane hijackings and terrorist activities, we must not discriminate, in fact we must be stupidly indiscriminate at airports, taking away rights from everyone during security checks in order to appear not to discriminate against any one.

Why do we do this? Besides the leftist moral imperative of indiscriminateness, we give up our rights so we might not hurt others' feelings or "profile" unsuspecting Muslims. In fact, we must become stupid in our indiscrimination.

Yeah. Because nobody but a Muslim man . . . um, what does a Muslim man look like, exactly? Muslim refers to a religion, not a race. It's not like they're all purple or something. Heck, I could become a Muslim right now. (I probably would if I got to be purple!) Oh, a "certain brand" of Muslim man. Ayrabs, you see. Which is kind of funny, because there are Afghani Muslims and they aren't . . . oh, never mind. We just need to stop searching white people at the airport. It's so obnoxious for blondie. (Seriously, take a look at his profile pic. If he gets any whiter, he'll glow.)

Never mind that racial profiling doesn't work. Why should reality get in the way of Euripides' roses?

Arizona Immigration
Speaking of racial profiling, the loud-mouthed leftists who jumped on the ideological bandwagon, lost no time at all in condemning Arizona's new immigration law because it failed the liberal test of indiscriminateness. Once again, liberals demand that we make ourselves stupid in order to avoid the Mortal Sin of discrimination.

Let's have no doubts, racial discrimination has indeed produced social and legal injustices. However, in their zeal for an indiscriminate society, leftist liberals would have us stupidly ignore illegal immigration or illegal activity in order to uphold an ideological belief instead of exercising common sense. We must be indiscriminate to the point of stupidity.

Nobody said that liberals want to ignore illegal immigration, Euripides. See, this is what we call a false dichotomy. Either we accept a flawed, bigoted law or we just throw open our borders and wait for everything to burn down. There are other options. Lots of them. But reasoned discussion doesn't allow you to call whole groups of people stupid!

Same Sex Marriage
The ultimate in indiscrimination is the leftists invented the ideal of same sex marriage or gay marriage. If discrimination is the Mortal Sin of modern society, then the ultimate discriminate conclusion is that there are any differences at all between men and women. The indiscriminate liberal logically concludes that if we must not discriminate, then we cannot discriminate between the sexes and hence, traditional marriage is a meaningless institution, destined only to become an indiscriminate union.

We must stupidly ignore the differences and complimentary nature of the sexes in order to support a redefinition of marriage to conform to the ideology based on indiscriminateness.

Considering that you completely redefined "marriage" to arrive at this point (marriage as it is today hasn't been around that long), I fail to see the issue here. Oh, and prove "complimentary nature of the sexes" without referencing NOM. Or the Book of Mormon. It's easy to win if you assume x is true and then move on to y and z, but we really should establish x first. Plus, TEH GHEY IZ BAD! isn't really logic.

Sex Education
According to modern liberal ideology, we cannot teach children not to have sex. That's discrimination. We must, instead, stupidly support an indiscriminate system that rewards children for their own indiscriminate sexual activity, despite any consequences of disease, pregnancy, or abortion. In fact, the system actually promotes the lack of self-control by removing, decriminalizing, and in the case of abortion, actively supporting the lack of consequences.

Dude, when could you ever teach children not to have sex? Srsly. My mother graduated high school in 1961. Girls were getting pregnant out of wedlock back then, too. It's nothing new. What I object to is people who have no knowledge of how their bodies work, how to prevent pregnancy, how to prevent the spread of disease going out and having sex anyway, cuz that's what they do. Abstinence only education led to a rise in teen pregnancy, asshat. You can't stop people from having sex, you can just make it more dangerous.

Modern liberals cannot understand other ideologies or moral systems, for the simple fact that the modern liberal ideology holds indiscriminateness as the Holy Grail of some fantastical utopian society. To comply with the moral imperative of indiscrimination, we must make ourselves stupid in order to comply with the moral imperative of liberal indiscriminateness.

None of the above is true, but strawmen are fun to set ablaze, I admit.

*h/t to [redacted]

pic link

That Can't Be Healthy

you'll know exactly when in the post i made this face as soon as you get there.

Every now and again people ask me why I pound on fundys on the internet*. "So what? blahblahblah Freedom of speech blahblahblah Who cares?"

The problem is, there are people who care what fundys think, and those people have children. It can get very disturbing, very quickly, thusly.

SARAH WRITES:

I’m a happily married mother of two young girls (ages 3 and 5). I want to bring my children up to embrace the kind of ideas and moral virtues you espouse on your blog, but there’s a small problem. Unfortunately, in my quest to encourage their remaining chaste until marriage, let’s just say that leading by example won’t be an option. My great fear is that a ‘do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do (or did)’ approach will ultimately be ineffectual. Should I lie to them about what went on before meeting my husband/their father, tell them the truth (with 101 disclaimers!) or simply hope that the topic doesn’t arise?! Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but rightly or wrongly, the issue is weighing on my mind.

I wasn’t really taught about the inherent morality of abstinence at my liberal Christian school (although I am Jewish…long story!). Abstinence was simply presented as a method of birth-control alongside the pill, condoms and IUD’s. My mother told me in a matter-of-fact way, when asked, that she lost her virginity at age 16. If she regretted having had premarital relations, she certainly didn’t let me in on it. Around the time I turned 18 she started to actively encourage me to dress provocatively in order to attract the opposite sex. When this inevitably worked, as it did time and again, her only advice to me was to use protection and, above all, DO NOT GET PREGNANT. My father didn’t get involved at all in such matters. The popular culture at the time was possibly more sex-obsessed than at any other time in history and I was fully immersed in it. Madonna’s ’sex book’ was a best-seller, George Michael was telling me that ’sex is natural, sex is fun’ and I believed it all. So, in 1992, at the age of 19, I lost my virginity. I regret it now. Oh, how I regret it. But I didn’t regret it back then. At the time it felt, well, inevitable. Until I found blogs like yours and ‘Oz Conservative’, I didn’t really know of any alternative reality. Sure I knew what chastity was, but I thought it was something that only the Victorians actually practised. Maybe if the Internet had existed back then with sites like yours…

Thank you for taking the time to read my little note and thank you again for your wonderful blog.

So disturbing on so many levels. The "wonderful blog" in question is a vomit-inducing barrage of misogyny, homophobia, fundyism and condescension that should only be viewed by professionals, and then only in small doses. This thing is on my reader, but unlike any other site on my reader, I time when I review the previews of the posts. The previews. Even the titles are occasionally enough to send me into red-faced rage. I can't do that first thing in the morning. That takes preparation. And I'm not clicking on that Oz Conservative link.**

Anyway, let's review what Sarah is saying: My parents let me make my own decisions about things. They trusted me to make good decisions for myself and felt that my body was my own to decide about. I was taught about abstinence, but at the time, I didn't think it was a better option than other forms of birth control. I chose to have sex before marriage and I didn't think there was anything wrong with that- until I found your blog and now I realize that I WAS A HUGE SLUT AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED. How can I remove decision making from my own children's lives?

I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this. First of all, yes, when you make decisions, you may make bad decisions. You may regret those decisions. Welcome to being an adult. Secondly, asking Laura for advice? Yikes. Seriously, if Laura told me that proper sandwiches involve bread, I'd have to reevaluate everything I know about sandwiches.

Laura's answer:

Thank you for writing. You are not making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue you raise is important. The majority of women who are now mothers have experienced promiscuity firsthand. Do mothers have any authority, let alone the desire, to raise children differently? The answer is simple. It does not require strained logic or unprincipled exceptions. There is only one answer. I hope you will see it and never have any doubts about this issue again.

SLUTS!!!!1!!!eleventy!!!! Of course there's only one answer- Laura's answer.

I used to know a woman who was very beautiful. In fact, she was the most beautiful woman I have ever known, perfect in every way, like a goddess. She had high cheekbones and doe-like eyes and a voice that was unusually deep for a woman but which added to her overall mystery and remarkable beauty. I knew her as a child, she was a few years older, and I have followed her life ever since. For years she had many lovers and one central boyfriend. They were perfecting their intimacy, this man and she, and both hedged about getting married. They went back and forth for years, dissecting their relationship. Finally, when she was in her mid-forties, he decided that the thing he wanted most in life was to have children. Needless to say, it was too late for her. She is still good-looking and has since found another man, incredibly wealthy and recently divorced. He asked her to quit her job and help him raise his young children. She did. He promised marriage but has since decided he’d rather not. He did, however, buy her a new car. For all those years of love, this ravishingly beautiful and self-assured woman has one thing left: a car.

Wow. You know what, I have written about Laura before, haven't I? She had a similar fascination with women in that post, too. Isn't Goddess Hobag's tale tragic? Isn't that what happens to every woman who has sex before marr- what? It's not? One little story does not a trend make? Your friend's tragic tale doesn't actually prove anything? Welcome to Logic 101, Laura.

This is a relatively trivial example of the harm the sexual revolution has caused. A river of tears runs through our culture. Sex is miraculous and we have made it dull and destructive, murderous even and cruel. But, I don’t have to tell you all this. You already know it. You have found happiness, but you still see the waste, the loss of something sacred.

A river of tears runs through our culture? Is that the Mississippi or the Rio Grande? And when did sex get dull, destructive, murderous (scaring me, you are) and cruel? When I have sex it's none of those things. You didn't accidentally wander into an extreme BDSM club at some point, did you? This is seriously freaking me the fuck out.

Oh, Quantum Field, no! She's probably the one who gives "the talk" to her children!

That’s the most important thing, that you see the waste and admit your own role in it. Wrongdoing does not disqualify a person from advising against wrongdoing. It is not hypocrisy to say, “Do not do as I have done.” It is hypocrisy to see that some activity is objectively wrong and then not advise others against it. That is inconsistent. That is hypocritical.

Okay, on the one hand, yes. It is a logical fallacy, tu quoque, I believe, to say, "Well, you do it, too!" Good advice is good advice no matter who gives it. On the other hand, hypocrisy is a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. It isn't hypocritical to see that something is wrong and not say anything, it's hypocritical to say something is wrong if you don't see anything wrong with you yourself doing it.

But that’s a long way off. In the meantime, you can prepare them for a better life. You can help them know what is right when they are still little girls. For most children, life is filled with beauty and God is real. You can confirm their impressions. Through stories and fairy tales, myths and legends, the works of the imagination that all children love, you can show them there is both danger and wonder ahead. The written word is indispensable. Faith and prayer are indispensable. Sex education starts in the imagination and the soul.

Does anyone read that as "lie, lie and lie some more"? Is that just me? Also, I'm fairly certain that is a good description of religious indoctrination, not sex ed. I can only imagine what some peoples' wedding nights are going to be like.

As they get older, you can talk to your daughters more and more about marriage and men. This is the job of mothers, not schools. They will trust what you say. If you tell them with conviction that love is much better when one is married, they will believe you. If you tell them with conviction, not once but many times, that many men do not respect a woman after they have had sex with her, unless they are married to her, they will believe you. If you tell them marriage and motherhood will be the best experiences of their lives, they will believe you. But, you can’t say it just a couple of times. The opposite message will be conveyed elsewhere.

The same could be said of the existence of unicorns. Or god.

When they are young women, you then can tell them all the brutal facts about the sexual revolution in an impersonal way, the truths that they may not hear elsewhere, such as that most women who have had abortions regret it and live in remorse for years and that abortion is objectively murder. You can point out all the cases of disease that lead to infertility and tell them the truth about single motherhood. You can tell them how unfair it is to raise children without a father.You can tell them about the women you know who have never had children and were lonely when they were old. You can tell them that adoption is often the best way with a pregnancy before marriage. They will believe you if you say these things often enough.

Oh, yes, those women living in regret. Except for the ones who don't. Also, you keep using that word, objectively. I don't think that word means what you think it means. You know, it's terribly dangerous to tell children things that aren't true. One day, they may discover that it isn't true, and then everything you ever said is in doubt.

Again, anyone has the authority to raise her children differently provided she has sincerely examined her own conscience. Parents not only possess the moral legitimacy to teach their children restraint, they have the absolute duty to do so. In fact, they may possess even more authority than parents in the past.

It is very unlikely if you do all this that your daughters will go wrong, but if they do, you should be prepared to detach yourself somewhat from them. That’s the hard part and that too is your duty. A mother’s disapproval is a powerful corrective.

It’s all worth it, don’t you think?

I do so enjoy advice from sociopaths. If your children fail to do what you want them to do, cut them off. That'll teach the little bastards.

Yes, what a wonderful website indeed!

*Cuz I can, that's why.

**I probably am. I'm probably putting it in my reader. I'm probably going to regret this.

pic link

Utah's Dirty Little Secret

Utah, land of the Mormons, who value virginity only slightly less than your average fundamentalist muslim, has a dirty little secret:

[Missy Bird of the Utah Planned Parenthood Action Council] said of the 123
Planned Parenthood Action Council affiliates around the country, the Utah
affiliate has the highest number of young women seeking emergency anti-pregnancy
treatments, known as the "morning after" pill.

That's odd. I wonder what else is going on in the most conservative, religious place in America (other than Amish enclaves)? A place that, btw, teaches abstinence exclusively.

Pregnancy rates among girls younger than 15 doubled between 2002 to 2007 in
that [Utah County], while the rate remained stable in the rest of the state,
according to the Utah Department of Health.

Statewide, chlamydia rates rose 150 percent and gonorrhea rates rose
122 percent between 1997 and 2007, according to the Utah Department of Health.

The majority of new cases of chlamydia (57 percent) were found in those
ages 15-24 and 30 percent of those were under the age of 19.

What do leaders in Utah have to say about this?

The head-in-the-sand approach that actually is harming the very children
they are trying to protect can be seen in a statement Utah Eagle Forum President
Gayle Ruzicka gave to The Tribune in its story about the poll.

"When you teach them about sex, that just encourages sexual activity," she said.

That would be hilarious if it weren't for all the unwanted pregnancies and disease.