The Shame of St. Louis

posted by Peter Rothberg on 02/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (255)

Subscribe Now

Over the past seven years, as Michael Reynolds wrote in a Nation cover story last June, George W. Bush's faith-based Administration has transformed the small-time abstinence-only business into a billion-dollar industry profiting off tax-payer money being spent on ineffective new school curriculums.

"I can't think of another federal program where so much money was spent without any oversight and to such little effect," James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, told Reynolds. "It wasn't that policy-makers didn't know that abstinence-only didn't work. In 2000 the Institute of Medicine issued a scathing report on these programs. But they went full steam ahead despite the warning. It's beyond na�ve. It's immoral."

Thanks to recent Nation guest blogger Jessica Valenti for alerting me to the story of two eighth grade students in St. Louis who felt the same way and recently tried to protest this naivete and immorality. Other than a local CNN report, Valenti's website, Feministing.com, was the first--and still one of the only--publications or broadcast operations on or off-line to report on Tori Shoemaker and Cheyenne Byrd's brave stand against abstinence-only education.

The two students at Louis & Clark Junior High School protested their school's abstinence-only education program by wearing shirts to school adorned with condoms, reading "Safe Sex or No Sex." For daring to make a statement, they were suspended for two days from school by the regional superindent, who called the shirts "inappropriate" and a "distraction." As Valenti adds: "Yes, because a 'distraction' in the form of free speech is clearly much worse than spreading dangerous misinformation about sex to teens."

The CNN video shows the girls to be smart, thoughtful, engaged citizens--just the sort of students our schools should be proud of producing.

Comments (255)

This is the danger of the theocratic right wing of the Republican Party - they think it is OK to FORCE their religious beliefs on others!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/08/2008 @ 5:28pm
well...i agree with the kidsm but...ya can't let middle school kids run around with condom shirts on...trust me.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/08/2008 @ 5:35pm
Novel idea. However, most ideas look great on paper or are great in theory but not in practice. Wasn't there some other way they could have brought this to the attention of folks? Like at a school board meeting or something? Letters to the editor of their newspaper?

Gotta give 'em kuddos for taking a stand.

Posted by FritztheCat at 02/08/2008 @ 5:36pm
The CNN video shows the girls to be smart, thoughtful, engaged citizens--just the sort of students our schools should be proud of producing.

Like others have said...it's all in the presentation. Time and place are key. Nothing smart or thoughtful about a student (subordinate in the context of middle school) using shock value to drive an agenda that their parents could have privately and appropriately consulted with the principal on.

If they had worn "Fuck liberals" t-shirts, I imagine this column would have rethought the standards of free speech.

Slow news day?

Posted by Sliver at 02/08/2008 @ 5:57pm
I wear shirts that say that all the time, although it's more fondly than pejoratively. These girls should be commended for practicing good citizenship. If we don't encourage the youth to speak out against oppression, then society is truly lost. Saint Louis needs a lecture on raising effective children.

The CNN video shows the girls to be smart, thoughtful, engaged citizens--just the sort of students our schools should be proud of producing.

Like others have said...it's all in the presentation. Time and place are key. Nothing smart or thoughtful about a student (subordinate in the context of middle school) using shock value to drive an agenda that their parents could have privately and appropriately consulted with the principal on.

If they had worn "Fuck liberals" t-shirts, I imagine this column would have rethought the standards of free speech.

Slow news day?

Posted by ztuscanue at 02/08/2008 @ 6:06pm
"I can't think of another federal program where so much money was spent without any oversight and to such little effect,"

hmmmmm?

iraq comes to mind.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:26pm
LLIB -- Tell it to the Founding Fathers. Slaveholders some of them may have been but thocrats they were not. You might like it in Iran.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 02/08/2008 @ 7:27pm
well, well.

this will make a much better supreme court case than "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS"

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:31pm
"Fuck liberals" t-shirts

Posted by SLIVER 02/08/2008 @ 5:57pm

now that's something we should encourage.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:33pm
SILVER -- I honestly stand by my free speech ideasl consistently. I really couldn't care less if someone wears a "Fuck Liberals" shirt and I certainly think they have the right to wear it.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 02/08/2008 @ 7:35pm
telling people to abstain from sex is STUPID.

i mean i wanted sex from the time i was five.

my parents never explained anything to me, except saying "ALWAYS USE CONTRACEPTION".

i read books! and they taught us at school when i was 12.

THANK GOD.

abstinence? what a stupid waste of money. at school, they say "SEX IS BAD." and then the kids go home and watch "The OC" or similar sexdrivel.

such hypocrisy. you think the republicans would love to promote sex (and i guess they do from the programs offered on the FLOCKS network) BECAUSE IT'S BIG MONEY.

almost as much money as violence.

these girls are heroes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:45pm
hey peter,

on your last thread,

i was being sarcastic "anti-mask" when i said that college students only need drunken debauchery for spring break.

strictly verbal communication is much more difficult with its lack of non-verbal cues.

thanks,

fz.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:55pm
hey peter,

on your last thread,

i was being sarcastic "anti-mask" when i said that college students only need drunken debauchery for spring break.

strictly verbal communication is much more difficult with its lack of non-verbal cues.

thanks,

fz.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:55pm
oops double clicky

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:55pm
oops double clicky

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 7:55pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 7:12pm

LVLIB, what did they do specifically that was "immoral"?

Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 8:04pm
Or perhaps you think it is good for 13 and 14 year old girls to be sexually active? Got any daughters?

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:10pm

of course it's not good.

but it's there.

t.v. movies music magazines..............................

less so than violence...

but wait, that's o.k. with bomb makers.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 8:20pm
I'm with Liberty here. It doesn't even have to have a religious context. More about discipline (a very useful commodity for success in life) and distancing human from farm yard sex.

On a more politically correct note the two fatties are unlikely to have much intimate contact with real condoms so why not let them wear the symbols closer to their hearts. At least they can dream.

Posted by harvey 79 at 02/08/2008 @ 8:22pm
Or perhaps you think it is good for 13 and 14 year old girls to be sexually active? Got any daughters?

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:10pm

after having lived away from here for 10 years, i was left in utter disbelief about how sexualized we've made young girls.

Preteens Trading Fairy Wands for Fishnets

Halloween Trend Toward Racy Get-Ups Vexes Parents

By Brigid Schulte Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 30, 2007; Page A01

Gabby Cirenza wanted to be a referee for Halloween. The outfit she liked had a micro-mini black skirt and a form-fitting black and white-striped spandex top held together with black laces running up the flesh-exposing sides. She looked admiringly at the thigh-high black go-go boots that could be bought as an accessory. And she thought the little bunny on the chest was cute.

"Absolutely not," said her mother, Cheryl. "That is so not happening."

Gabby is 11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR200710 2902095.html?nav=rss_print/asection

IT'S BIG MONEY!

fucking stupid people.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 8:25pm
these kids are going to live to be 100.

why must we insist on making them into adults by the age of 12 is beyond me.

nonetheless, they must be prepared not to get pregnant or sick from

THE SEX WE (i.e. society) THRUST UPON THEM.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 8:27pm
LLB, indeed we do live in different worlds. Your position is a fairly typical one, I would say unfortunately. Your comment that most 'immoral' thing here is Peter and Jessica lauding these girls cuts right to the point. Some rhetorical gesture with which you disagree is 'immoral.' And not some actual act. Lauding girls is immoral, having a condom is immoral and so on.

If it were a moral issue, the real immoral position is turning your kids loose without teaching them about safe sex and the moral imperative of practicing safe sex. If someone's kids cannot distinguish between doing the right thing as regards contraception and 'permission' - I would suggest that the parents in that case are the ones who lack skills.

And again - morality aside, kids will have sex, probably yours did too LLB. It's been shown over and over that abstinence program work not at all, and many studies suggest that teen sexual activity increases in abstinence teaching schools and with a much higher incidence of pregnancy and disease. Not just an increase over sex ed, but over doing nothing at all. Only a fool would insist on a failed policy based on some misguided sense of morality. And an immoral fool would insist on that policy for their children

Posted by smparsons at 02/08/2008 @ 8:32pm
On a more politically correct note the two fatties are unlikely to have much intimate contact with real condoms so why not let them wear the symbols closer to their hearts. At least they can dream.

Posted by HARVEY 79 02/08/2008 @ 8:22pm

after all,

HARVEY is the first thing that pops into people's heads when they think of sexy.

i'm dumbfounded by the stupidity of that remark.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 9:12pm
I think my wife and I will stay with our "foolish" beliefs.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:45pm

and what of the purity of the children your cluster bombs have disembowelled?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 9:23pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:16pm

Okay, so the "immorality" was that those girls were ....in posssession of condoms.

Not that they were USING them...merely that they owned them?

Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 9:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 9:12pm

You don't seem to be across how teenage girls think. It is unlikely that either understands the rationale for their demonstration that others like Peter impose upon them. If the sex education some teenagers demand is best symbolised by condoms then they deserve that gross response.

Adolescent girls may be interested in the mysteries of the mechanics but as the article below indicates (if from a less promiscuous society than ours) what kids want is sex education in terms of human intimacy, their own family and cultural background and even the permission to say no.

Maybe the abstinence only program has not reduced adolescent pregnancies or STDs but one needs to ask why such an approach has been championed since the 1980s if the alternative was successful at meeting the desired goals of in-school sex education:

http://tinyurl.com/fw6je

Posted by harvey 79 at 02/08/2008 @ 9:45pm
SILVER -- I honestly stand by my free speech ideasl consistently. I really couldn't care less if someone wears a "Fuck Liberals" shirt and I certainly think they have the right to wear it.

Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 02/08/2008 @ 7:35pm

Actually, no they don't. Oddly enough, Supreme Court jurisprudence has held that an adult, in various contexts, couldn't wear that shirt. A middle-school kid certainly couldn't. Why? 'Cause that's swearing, and a school can clearly prohibit that.

Posted by SMPARSONS 02/08/2008 @ 8:32pm

This is oversimplifying a more complicated issue. I think there is decent evidence that abstinence-only education just doesn't work. However, to go from that to "eh, they're gonna have sex anyway" is both unwarranted and false. Most middle-school and high-school-age students don't have sex as far as I know, and I certainly don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that they shouldn't. Even if you don't want to argue anything about the appropriateness of sex within marriage, how about the fact that high-school kids almost certainly aren't capable of supporting a child that sex certainly can create? Condoms and the like are reasonably effective but they're far from perfect. Kids should not be in the position of having to choose to either raise a kid that they're incapable of raising, or to have an abortion performed that may be against everything that they believe in.

Posted by Thrawn at 02/08/2008 @ 11:40pm
Posted by HARVEY 79 02/08/2008 @ 9:45pm

you obviously haven't read my subsequent posts.

i don't not wish to inspire a fuck-a-thon.

quite the contrary.

kids should start school when they are ten. cut down on sugar. watch out for all those hormones in our environment and take their time.

finish school when they are thirty. what's the hurry? as we live longer, we should trying to be encouraging that puberty begins at fifteen, not ten.

but sex is fun.

i loved being in love as a teenager and enjoying the fruits of my hormones.

but i'm so thankful i knew how to use a condom etc.,

do i seemed depraved now as an adult?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 12:43am
I agree: fatties. On another note, I wish 13-year old girls were that interested in the subject when I was in junior high.

Posted by viking10475 at 02/09/2008 @ 12:47am
of course it's not good.

but it's there.

t.v. movies music magazines..............................

less so than violence...

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 8:20pm

Are yo blaming these things for children's actions? How ironic. Conservatives have been fighting Hollywood and the over-sexualization and overt violence in all forms of media for years. We have been fighting for retricting access of minors to such things through warning labels and rating systems...telling those who would listen that it would lead to moral depravity. And what did we get for it? A bunch of liberals telling us to shut up and loosen up...telling us to let kids be kids...it's freedom of speech...that we're a bunch of fuddy duddies...that we're too uptight...stuffed shirts...too strict...that we're just so...so...Conservative! And now you're trying to pin the problems of the kids on the exact thing that Conservatives have been telling you is bad for children all along...and liberals were fighting us on it.

And where has it led us? To a less moral, more permissive society that has to have sex education in schools to counteract the liberal attitudes that created the problems in the first place!

Posted by usc1 at 02/09/2008 @ 01:04am
do i seemed depraved now as an adult?

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/09/2008 @ 12:43am

Hmmm. As an adult? Maybe not but who knows, if you don't?

That will be $150.00 (only money order or paypal accepted)

Posted by harvey 79 at 02/09/2008 @ 01:10am
And speaking of stupid, irresponsible parents...

Why the fuck did that dumbass of a father allow his daughter to walk around school with condoms on her shirt when he should have just sat the little twerp down and discussed sex education with his child in a manner that was consistent with their values and not rely on the public school to do it?!?

I guess ol' Pete didn't pick up on that one, did he? No way...too busy trying to place blame on a policy instead of where it rightfully belongs...the irresponsible parents.

Posted by usc1 at 02/09/2008 @ 01:15am
It's 30 minutes later and I'm actually getting pissed about this. The so-called father is upset because the school didn't discuss sex education with his daughter?!? He lets his daughter go to school in a condom shirt and its the school that has the problem? WTF?!? What the hell is he doing? Too busy being part of the problem, I guess.

I gotta go to bed.

Posted by usc1 at 02/09/2008 @ 01:57am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person

beating your children? it's called assault. and it's illegal. yes, I know, Jesus would have beat his kids, if he had any. maybe your wife gets one once in a while too.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 08:52am
I agree: fatties. On another note, I wish 13-year old girls were that interested in the subject when I was in junior high.

Posted by VIKING10475 02/09/2008 @ 12:47am

otro pendejo.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 09:12am
Posted by USC1 02/09/2008 @ 01:04am

i think our society is full of all sorts of stupid stuff.

it's ironic that i can see viscera spewed on t.v. at 3 in the afternoon, but i can't see people "having" fun at anytime (unless i pay for it, of course).

violence is a much greater problem,

oversexualization, nonetheless, is also troublesome.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 09:20am
It's 30 minutes later and I'm actually getting pissed about this. The so-called father is upset because the school didn't discuss sex education with his daughter?!? He lets his daughter go to school in a condom shirt and its the school that has the problem? WTF?!? What the hell is he doing? Too busy being part of the problem, I guess.

I gotta go to bed.

Posted by USC1 02/09/2008 @ 01:57am

he should be proud that his daughter has the fortitude to stand up to stupidity.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 09:22am
My father was a high school teacher and I'm a community college teacher. It really does depend on circumstances, but as a rule intellectual offenders of all sorts, call them "thought criminals" for short, are easier to deal with than vandals, thieves and the like.

If these girls were trying to express a political view in any way, then they can be dealt with politically. We're too far away from the circumstances to tell if the two-day suspension was brutally dismissive of a popular political stand, or agreed upon between the school, the girls and the parents to placate an angry community. Or anything in between. We don't know enough to tell.

As for the girls' having condoms in the first place, anyone who wants to make a political gesture can get hold of condoms without necessarily having any personal experience of sex or condom use. That's what friends who work in pharmacies are for -- but again, we don't know enough about the circumstances, surely not enough to get mad at the parents because their daughters "had" condoms: for all we know the parents bought the condoms for the daughters, and ruined them all for sexual use before they allowed them to be placed on the shirts.

I think the BONG HITS FOR JESUS case was wrongly decided, but it was close, and this one is close, too -- so close that virtually every posting here so far is an over-reaction, no matter what side it's on.

Posted by chessw at 02/09/2008 @ 10:34am
sigh...the abstinance only "sex ed" is indeed a sign of the stupidity of the christo-fascist idiocracy, but...

you cannot allow middle schoolers to run around school with condom shirts on! you cannot! trust me...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/09/2008 @ 12:01pm
The so-called father is upset because the school didn't discuss sex education with his daughter?!? See, this is where you miss the point entirely. The protest is not because there is no sex education. It is in response to the "sex education" being given. It is full of dangerous misinformation and does not discuss any alternatives not related to abstinence. Just like with the mislead "just say no" approach to drug education, it leads to students never looking towards their educators for any knowledge because they know they are being fed bullshit when it comes to two of the most important issues facing our youth. Teens are intelligent, and usually have finely tuned b.s. radars. When it comes to sex and drug education, not only does it not improve the situation, it leads to uninformed and misinformed experimentation.

Posted by davefoley0 at 02/09/2008 @ 1:18pm
Teens are intelligent, and usually have finely tuned b.s. radars. When it comes to sex and drug education, not only does it not improve the situation, it leads to uninformed and misinformed experimentation.

Posted by DAVEFOLEY0 02/09/2008 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person

i generally agree, but teens also have under developed frontal brain lobes which impairs their ability to discern consequences and make long term plans...like the consequeces of unprotected sex...lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/09/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by DAVEFOLEY0 02/09/2008 @ 1:18pm

Sorry, buddy. I think you're missing the underlying, much more important point. Yes, there is a big, BIG problem with this issue, but it ain't with the schools.

Posted by usc1 at 02/09/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/09/2008 @ 2:06pm

i do. i would have no prob with the sentiment, nor if it said "eff liberals" or "liberals suck", but "fuck" is still generally agreed upon as being unacceptable. but i understand peter's intention.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/09/2008 @ 2:13pm
just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

however, being pregnant and 14 must really suck.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 2:34pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/09/2008 @ 2:51pm

yeah...the kids got a short suspension? not exactly martyrs...

i just know middle school kids and although i'm not dissin' the protest motive...i'm also not discounting the natural early adolescent oppositional defiant impish desire to get attention and popularity by wearing a shirt with condoms on it to school...lol...

but the school officials absolutely, positively, whether they personally agreed or were prudishly offended...HAD to stop it and punish the little birth control gandhis...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/09/2008 @ 3:00pm
I wonder if Toledo, OH qualifies for an article..."The Glory of Toledo"???????? I sent an email `applauding' Toledo's brave mayor for keeping the Marines from harm by Toledo's war-zone-like cityscape and kill-or-be-killed crazies--those that elected the good Mayor!

========================================================

Roger Kimball

February 9, 2008 6:59 AM

Toledo to Marines: Drop dead

OK, so 200 Marines stationed in Grand Rapids, Michigan, piled on to five buses and came to Toledo, Ohio, yesterday to practice some urban patrol exercises. The Toledo police knew about the request for the three-day exercise well in advance, but somehow Mayor Carty Finkbeiner didn't see the memo requesting permission for the event. So when when the first bus arrives at 3:20 p.m. and Staff Sergeant Andre Davis steps off, he is greeted by a city employee and told that the mayor wanted him and his soldiers out of town by 6 p.m......

I gather that Mayor Finkbeiner (a Democrat, readers will be surprised to learn), like the folks in Berkeley, California, can't think of the United States Marines without.....

Lance Corporal Brandon Bukrey-McCarty recalled how useful such training was when he had been deployed in Fallujah in 2006-2007. The training, he said, "got me used to looking up on rooftops, looking around every alley, every open door."

Too bad, Brandon! Carty Finkbeiner thinks having U.S. soldiers in town will frighten the voters, so your comrades will just have to do without that training.

.......I hope part of the adaptation will be to present the City of Toledo--or maybe Carty Finkbeiner himself--with the $10,000 tab that the aborted exercise cost the Marines.

Mayor Finkbeiner can boast on his official website that Tony Packos Restaurant in Toledo was "made famous on the television show M*A*S*H." But when he has an opportunity to help the men and women who in real life protect this country, including the City of Toledo, he refuses to grant them the sort of permit he would routinely give to a bunch of anti-American activists who wanted to organize a protest march down Main Street. I think it's disgusting. If I lived in Toledo, I'd be wondering when Carty Finkbeiner was up for re-election and would look forward to sending him out on a 6:00 p.m. bus at the earliest opportunity.....

[Update: A resourceful reader suggests writing Mayor Finkbeiner to express your appreciation for his superb leadership. Good idea. Here's the address: mayor.toledo@toledo.oh.gov

Posted by Happy at 02/09/2008 @ 5:49pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/09/2008 @ 2:13pm

If you think about it the point is a little subtler than that and is not directed at the girls but rather at those who would exploit their exhibitionism and even vulnerability to make a political statement.

The girls, it seems, hardly need a lesson on how to use condoms. That is hardly rocket science or a skill that needs more than a few minutes to master. So we are really back to a discussion about what sort of in-school sex education meets community expectations and reduces STDs and unwanted teenage pregnancy rates.

Those more familiar with teenagers of both sexes will be aware that, even for those who know how to use condoms and have ready access to them, there is still pressure on girls to not use them because "who wants sex with a raincoat on". A sort of false intimacy argument but one that many girls accept. That is why a more comprehensive sex education will be aimed at teasing out what sexual intimacy is about. Which of course brings up the context of relationship and fulfilment and just about everything else but how to use a condom.

Posted by harvey 79 at 02/09/2008 @ 6:41pm
I wonder where Rothberg stands on freedom of speech (or expression or religion) when Christian teachers wear their necklaces with crosses on them to public schools.

Posted by usc1 at 02/09/2008 @ 9:11pm
Posted by USC1 02/09/2008 @ 9:11pm

as long as they don't lead kids in jesus prayers why would he care?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/09/2008 @ 9:21pm
Posted by USC1 02/09/2008 @ 9:11pm

how would you feel about a public school teacher wearing a satanic pentagram? its a religion...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/09/2008 @ 9:25pm
This is just another example of the leftist moral sickness that permeates our society. Really sad.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person

you must cream in your shorts waving a finger at other people, you do it so often. just the sort of person Jesus warned against.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 11:23pm
Posted by USC1 02/09/2008 @ 9:11pm | ignore this person

dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 11:28pm
sex is a normal, healthy, and fun part of life. everyone should have as much sex as they possibly can.

and therefore, the more we teach our children about sex, the better.

same with drugs.

Posted by darladoon at 02/09/2008 @ 11:36pm
It's remarkable how many on the left think their free speech rights are violated when they are criticized--that is, when others exercise their free speech rights

it's remarkable how many on the right thing their free speech rights are violated when they are criticized--that is, when others excercise their free speech rights.

it goes both ways, honey. you really, really need to understand that.

Posted by darladoon at 02/09/2008 @ 11:38pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/09/2008 @ 11:36pm |

wish you were heterosexual and lived next door...lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/10/2008 @ 08:22am
I live in Sweden. To start with a little fact: "The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world, despite the fact that our teens are not more sexually active than Swedish teens, or Canadian teens, or British teens." http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm

Why this difference? Maybe because we teach our children to take responsibility, not try to adhere to dogma trumpeted by false prophets.

Being a teenager father, I am proud over the way my two kids handled their first sexual experiences. My son at 14, after having a relationship with a same age girl for 6 months, went to the youth clinic to get condoms and be taught how to used them. They stayed together for another 6 months and parted as good friends. This early sexual experience did not turn my son into a sex maniac, he continued with a high level sports career. It is not until now at 18 that he has a steady girlfriend again.

My daughter at 16, after having a steady boyfriend for a year, informed me that she was going to the youth clinic to get advice on contraceptives. I endorsed that and felt proud that she hade this trust in me. She still goes with the same boy more than a year later and they often stay at my house together.

I have tried to give them two lines of advice: Don't ever accept pressure to do something you don't like and treat your partner likewise; i.e. demand and give respect. That I believe is a far better protection than fairy tale stories about abstinence! (Btw, wasn't Brittney Spears at one time and abstinence advocate....)

Posted by Pagodroma at 02/10/2008 @ 08:42am
Posted by PAGODROMA 02/10/2008 @ 08:42am | ignore this person

swedes are rational, modern people. you are talking to an irrational, highly developped nation of semi barbarians...

You never, ever here of leftists being shouted down on campus by conservatives/College Republicans. It is a daily occurance on the Left.

There are enough things to criticize us Righties about without claiming this ridiculous fantasy bears any resemblance to reality.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/10/2008 @ 09:23am

daily occurance???? more hyperbole please!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/10/2008 @ 10:37am
If they had worn "Fuck liberals" t-shirts, I imagine this column would have rethought the standards of free speech.

~Slither 02/08/2008 @ 5:57pm

Brilliant analogy, Ace.

And then Wiley Coyote "Super Genius" --aka Mary Bret Brad (actually some lame brained lawyerdude named "Darin")-- comes in with the "what if some kid comes to kindergarten with a Fuck Liberals teeshirt?"

Jeezuz H Kryst. Can you guys get any more dull?

The whole monstrously titanic nonentity of an argument rapidly whittles down to, "Can we puuuuuleeze get some sanity here?!"

Any kid who comes to school with a well reasoned and well argued point of view, ala the two obviously intelligent, and reasonable young women seen in Peter's video link, is already three steps ahead of the likes of Slither and Darin.

'Nuf said.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/10/2008 @ 12:00pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=b_kool_66

ya got that right. they're off the reservation. any shirt with the word fuck on it would be prohibited. they are erecting a strawman. fools.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/10/2008 @ 12:36pm
Kudos to the girls for their public statement to their peers. Expressing their discontent with the school district's adherence to the Bush administration's unconstitutional yet under-the-MSM radar pro-abstinence policy is admirable. I agree and understand that it is all in the presentation, as one who was nearly suspended for an article I wrote in my high school paper. But how can you honestly fault the girls or even their parents for not understanding or even being aware of the time, place, manner restrictions on free speech? Neither a teenager nor the average adult should be expected to think of consulting a First Amendment lawyer before making a public protest statement.

Posted by guanabana at 02/10/2008 @ 12:39pm
The is no way in hell you can pretend there is some moral equivalence between left and right when it come to respecting free speech

there is no such thing as "moral equivalence". there is only quantifiable equivalence. and even if, in terms of hard numbers, the right had more historical examples on their side, it would mean nothing.

only small minds inquire as to which political "party" is more abusive of free speech rights, mary. you cannot possibly prove it, and any attempt to do so would be futile because, as i said, only small minds would care. i can find as many examples as you can......

Posted by darladoon at 02/10/2008 @ 12:40pm
The Left respect free speech only when they agree with the content of the speech, otherwise they are against it

well, when if you create these neat little divisions between Right and Left, then these simple claims of yours are so easily supported........

who is the "Left", mary?

college campus liberals??? and, who else????

Posted by darladoon at 02/10/2008 @ 12:44pm
left wing interests may want to limit or contain speech which many (not just lefties) widely consider to be either hateful or harmful. but that is not entirely in the interest of lefties. many people on the right wing find racist, sexist comments to be harmful and hateful. ergo, we have rules.

there is nothing shocking about this.

Posted by darladoon at 02/10/2008 @ 12:47pm
I have tried to give them two lines of advice: Don't ever accept pressure to do something you don't like and treat your partner likewise; i.e. demand and give respect. That I believe is a far better protection than fairy tale stories about abstinence! (Btw, wasn't Brittney Spears at one time and abstinence advocate....)

Posted by PAGODROMA 02/10/2008 @ 08:42am

keep up the good work, dude.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 1:41pm
The Left respect free speech only when they agree with the content of the speech, otherwise they are against it.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/10/2008 @ 09:20am

well, they still let you post here..................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 1:42pm
Expressing their discontent with the school district's adherence to the Bush administration's unconstitutional yet under-the-MSM radar pro-abstinence policy is admirable.

Posted by GUANABANA 02/10/2008 @ 12:39pm

Unconstitutional how?

Posted by Thrawn at 02/10/2008 @ 1:43pm
it's funny how stupid people are about words.

for example:

a) "the concert fuckin' rocked!"

b) "we have begun our campaign of shock and awe."

it's not the collection of sounds that matter, it's the ideas they express.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 1:47pm
only small minds inquire as to which political "party" is more abusive of free speech rights, mary. you cannot possibly prove it, and any attempt to do so would be futile because, as i said, only small minds would care. i can find as many examples as you can......

Posted by DARLADOON 02/10/2008 @ 12:40pm

yep.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 1:48pm
Unconstitutional how?

Posted by THRAWN 02/10/2008 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person

separation of church and state, is what I believe he means. Bush has been shoveling money to the religious.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/10/2008 @ 2:16pm
it's not the collection of sounds that matter, it's the ideas they express.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/10/2008 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person

this does not apply to 20th century music, nor to non western music, it is at best a limited and partial view. very 19th century. for example what ideas do the Brandenburg concertos express? or the music of say, John Cage?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/10/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/10/2008 @ 2:43pm

i'm talkin' 'bout words, not music.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 4:12pm
separation of church and state, is what I believe he means. Bush has been shoveling money to the religious.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/10/2008 @ 2:16pm

I think, then, that a distinction needs to be made here. I assume no one's actually arguing that simply mandating abstinence-only education is unconstitutional, because that'd be a pretty difficult position to sustain.

What the argument really is, then, is that this is unconstitutional because it's aid to religious organizations. Due in part to the huge ambiguity in constitutional jurisprudence about religion, I think this conclusion is still more definite than it has any right to be. Unless the money goes to actual religious worship or direct religious practice, I don't think that aid to religious institutions is inherently unconstitutional, especially since that would constitutionally enshrine monetary discrimination against religious organizations. That, of course, assumes that they're paid to begin with. If they're not, and if their message contains no manifest religious advocacy, I don't know how this can be unconstitutional.

Posted by Thrawn at 02/10/2008 @ 4:37pm
asking humans (especially here in violensexland) to abstain from sex is like

asking stimpy not to press the history erase button.

it's obviously better to be prepared for the inevitable.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 4:50pm
LVLIBERTY1

I'm puzzled. Have you given this subject any consideration outside what it tells you in a book that was written ~1500 years ago? It appears not.

You think 'just say "no"' is a realistic solution? If so, you're deluded. There are so many arguments, so much evidence that demonstrates the stupidity of this approach, but I'll just use one (and save you needing to do any proper research).

Let's compare some hard, cold facts about two countries. USA and Sweden. One deeply religious / superstitious, the other one of the most 'godless' on the planet. A study in 2005 puts atheists / agnostics in Sweden at up to 85% - this immoral, godless country should be murdering, fornicating and raping like there's no tomorrow (according to the logic of the morally superior religious). However, reality is a little different:

* teenage pregnancy per capita: USA = 53, Sweden = 7 [UNICEF Research Centre, 2001] * HIV AIDS-infected per capita: USA = 3.2, Sweden = 0.4 [CIA World Fact Book]

And I haven't cherry-picked Sweden. The same sort of disparity between 'god-fearing, moral' USA and almost every other 'godless, liberal' European country can be seen.

Also, read http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1213875,00.html. Get a clue. Spread it round.

Finally, "Abstinence sex education = just hold it in potty training".

P.S. "If any of my 5 sons had ever had condoms as minors, they would have had difficulty sitting for at least a week..."

Beat some sense in to them, eh? Yeah, you morally superior Christians have got it all worked out. You're not too far from the Islamic 'stone some sense in to them'.

Posted by MonoApe at 02/10/2008 @ 8:31pm
Posted by MONOAPE 02/10/2008 @ 8:31pm

Actually, Sweden has a much higher out-of-wedlock birth rate, somewhere around 53%. The U.S. is around 37% (most of the increase is due mainly to Hispanic immigrants coming from neighboring countries south of the US border). As of 2005, the number of teenage births had declined about 2%.

Posted by ACook at 02/10/2008 @ 9:55pm
ACOOK,

"out-of-wedlock birth rate" says nothing about teenage pregnancy, and that's what is being discussed here. I could state that Americans are more than twice as likely to marry as Swedes [United Nations, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, April 2001], but, again, that's irrelevant here. Also, 'the sanctity of marriage' is a nominally religious concept - so no surprise that the highly secular Swedes are happy to have children 'out of wedlock' ... there's no stigma attached to it.

However, let's not move the goal posts to try and win an argument.

For those who cling to the peculiarly conservative, Christian view of "shining city upon a hill"-USA, http://www.nationmaster.com/ provides a rather sobering reality check. For such a wealthy nation, it all-too-often keeps company with third world countries when viewing health, education and crime. Whereas, 'godless and immoral' Europe is a paradise by comparison. Note - *"by comparison"*.

Maybe once Bushco and the Republicons have been removed, the long rebuilding can begin?

Posted by MonoApe at 02/10/2008 @ 10:43pm
Posted by MONOAPE 02/10/2008 @ 10:43pm

oooh, nationmaster. stats addict heaven.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:19am
monoape, while i appreciate the data you provide as to the discrepancies between sweden and the usa (i myself am an atheist, polyamorist, herbalist), you really need to take into account the many cultural and geographical differences between the two countries.

for one, sweden does not border a third world country. nor does it have many.....you know.....black people. or even brown people. or even poor people.

nevertheless, i do agree with your bottom line point.

Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2008 @ 12:40am
for one, sweden does not border a third world country.

Posted by DARLADOON 02/11/2008 @ 12:40am

yeah, but canada does :+]

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 02:08am
DARLADOON,

No doubt there are socio-economic factors that impact teenage pregnancy and associated societal ills, but the education given to children and young adults is going to play a rather large factor, however you slice it.

Remember, I picked Sweden as an example - there are plenty of other European countries that are relatively poor or neighbored by poor countries that don't see teenage pregnancy anywhere near USA rates. The one thing they all have in common is a matter-of-fact approach to sex and they provide their young with information and support in sexual matters. They don't treat it as a 'sinful' act that must be avoided until some god ceremony is performed on them.

I don't see any connection that Mexico is south of the border - unless you're suggesting that it's Mexicans impregnating all those teenagers in Arkansas and Alabama? As for black and 'brown' people - do you wear a pointy pillow case on your head while typing?

Posted by MonoApe at 02/11/2008 @ 08:26am
Posted by MONOAPE 02/11/2008 @ 08:26am

she claims to be black and jewish...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 09:50am
PAGODROMA - do you think you could fly over there and teach? ;)

I am honestly mystified why the subject of teenage sexuality always seems to provoke such incredible overreactions. You do realise that making teen sex the big, evil, immoral elephant in the room makes it all the more interesting, right? And the less information you give a teen, the more risks you expose them to.

I honestly don't want to get into a debate about values (...spare me). But I would say that hormones are a fact. The challenge for parents is to give their teens enough information to keep them safe, and enough self-assurance to do nothing they don't want to do as they struggle through puberty and try to figure out who they are and what they want.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 10:13am
Also, kudos to HARVEY for exceptional insight into the mind of teenage girls. [/sarcasm]

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 10:16am
Posted by MONOAPE 02/11/2008 @ 08:26am

what's more, i'd say that mexico has a much lower teenage pregnancy rate.

"The northern border state of Chihuahua suffers from one of the highest rates of teen-age pregnancy in the country, with 20% of babies being born to mothers aged 19 or younger, Huidobro said. "

maybe it's the other way around, darla.

"Approximately 40% of young women under 20 become pregnant in the US. 95% of these are unintended, one third end in abortion, one third end in spontaneous miscarrage, and one third will continue their pregnancy and keep their baby. "

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Health__Science/In_Mexico_burpin g_baby_dolls_help_fight_teen_pregnancy/articleshow/1662300.cms

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 10:31am
Posted by MONOAPE 02/11/2008 @ 08:26am

MONO, the teen pregancy rate in the US is on the decline for females aged 14-18 (among US citizens).

Posted by ACook at 02/11/2008 @ 10:45am
"Teen births up for first time in 15 years" - CNN , dec 5, 2007:: "U.S. Teen Pregnancy Rate Rises for First Time in Years" - The report reveals that between 2005 and 2006, the birth rate for teenagers 15-19 years rose 3%. This follows a 14-year downward trend in which the teen pregnancy rate fell by 34% from its all-time peak in 1991:: just though I'd share

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 11:06am
just thought I'd share

Posted by JRO555 02/11/2008 @ 11:06am

seems you're not the only one ;+]

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 11:12am
Actually, no they don't. Oddly enough, Supreme Court jurisprudence has held that an adult, in various contexts, couldn't wear that shirt.

Which SCOTUS decision is that? The phrase "Fuck Liberals" isn't obscene so it is protected speech.

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 11:57am
Our kids didn't even date in high school. But all of them now have wonderful wives and families (I have 5 grandchildren)

I think my wife and I will stay with our "foolish" beliefs.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:45pm | ignore this person

And have they all grown up to be homophobes like you? Have they grown up to be someone whose critical faculties regarding the Constitution consists of unsubstantiated statements about the "Constitutional Republic?"

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 12:05pm
Students are not allowed to promote things that are illegal with their dress while at school. A shirt that says Safe sex or no sex has an implication of promoting sex (especially with condoms on it)and I have to agree with the superintendent---the shirts were inappropriate.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 12:17pm
I don't think that aid to religious institutions is inherently unconstitutional, especially since that would constitutionally enshrine monetary discrimination against religious organizations.----Posted by THRAWN 02/10/2008 @ 4:37pm

So you wouldn't mind Government aid to....mosques?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 12:20pm
And have they all grown up to be homophobes like you?

Because you don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle does not make you a homophobe. I am not scared of homosexuals---nor do I hold them ill will----I do however, believe that their lifestyle is a sin--- but no greater sin than anyother sin. So if you want to call me a homophobe that's fine, but if I am anything I am a sinaphobe.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 12:22pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:17pm

If they had shirts that said "Legal Wars or No Wars"...would that have the "implication" of supporting war?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 12:23pm
So you wouldn't mind Government aid to....mosques

I wouldn't mind----as long as they are providing a social service such as housing, food, etc.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 12:24pm
but if I am anything I am a sinaphobe.----Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:22pm

Why are you afraid of Chinese people?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 12:25pm
If they had shirts that said "Legal Wars or No Wars"...would that have the "implication" of supporting war?

Your example would be a political statement and protected free speech. The ban on promoting things that are illegal would deal with things like beer, tobacco, drugs, and sex.

By the way---what makes a war a "legal war"?----the courts have found many times that a declaration of war is not necessary for the President and Congress to involve the country in a war. We have been involved in 5 declared wars---we have been involved in military engagements without a declaration of war over 200 times in American History.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 12:30pm
Why are you afraid of Chinese people?!?!?

Yes, especially the really tall ones like Yow Ming----seems strange doesn't it---breaks sterotypes.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:17pm

So sex is illegal in that state?!

Besides..."Safe sex or no sex" doesn't promote sex. Condoms don't promote sex. T-shirts with Kama Sutra-Cartoons and the slogan "Try it - now!!!" might promote sex...or a chiropractor.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 12:38pm
So if you want to call me a homophobe that's fine, but if I am anything I am a sinaphobe.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:22pm

what about gay chinese?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 12:23pm

keep 'em roastin', brother.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:24pm

�a school?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:49pm
we have been involved in military engagements without a declaration of war over 200 times in American History.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:30pm

'nuff to make any mother proud.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:50pm
Yes, especially the really tall ones like Yow Ming----seems strange doesn't it---breaks sterotypes.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 12:32pm

are you afraid of steve nash?

how about ginobli?

tony parker?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:51pm
T-shirts with Kama Sutra-Cartoons and the slogan "Try it - now!!!" might promote sex...or a chiropractor.

Posted by DEADRA 02/11/2008 @ 12:38pm

that's not for school!

that's for t.v. after school (and before).

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/11/2008 @ 12:52pm

Of course...my bad.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 12:55pm
So sex is illegal in that state?!

Is in every state for Middle School kids.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:01pm
Really? If they're about the same age and consenting?

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:02pm
Only afraid of Ginobli---the danged Argentinans are a tough out in the Olympics

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:03pm
so when does sex become legal, then? (if feels weird to ask this)

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:04pm
LL And have they all grown up to be homophobes like you? Have they grown up to be someone whose critical faculties regarding the Constitution consists of unsubstantiated statements about the "Constitutional Republic?"

My remark was inelegantly phrased. Although I'm sure they're fine people in many respects, the thought of a clan of LVLIBERTYs made this liberal, atheist, ACLU member pause for a bit.

LENMOSSE Because you don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle does not make you a homophobe. I am not scared of homosexuals---nor do I hold them ill will----I do however, believe that their lifestyle is a sin---

Then you do hold them some degree of ill-will. It isn't a lifestyle, one is born with it.

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 1:04pm
By the way---what makes a war a "legal war"?----the courts have found many times that a declaration of war is not necessary for the President and Congress to involve the country in a war. We have been involved in 5 declared wars---we have been involved in military engagements without a declaration of war over 200 times in American History.

But there has usually been some sort of Congressional approval. This is a derivative of Congress's power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal". An early example is Congress signing-off on Jefferson going after the Tripolitanian shipping in response to Tripoli's depredations.

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 1:07pm
Deadra The age of consent is the age when the law says you can agree to have sex. Until you reach this age you can't legally have sex with anyone, however old they are. Sometimes the law is slightly different when the partners are of a similar age, but there is usually still a minimum age below which sex is always illegal. The age of consent differs from state to state---however, 16 is the most common.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
Interesting. Needless to say, things are a bit different on my side of the Atlantic. We have laws on the age of consent for cases where one partner is older than 18 and the other isn't. Other than that, there is, I guess, a formal law that says you have to be 12 years old...but nobody cares about that one...it's not enforced (and how would you, anyway...nightmarish).

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:36pm
Then you do hold them some degree of ill-will. It isn't a lifestyle, one is born with it.

No scientific proof that your claim is true---only conjecture. It was thought that the homosexual gene would be found soon after mapping the human genome. However, it has yet to be found. There is an other theory about predispostions to be gay---but if a person is predisposed to be gay that would mean that they still may not become gay---not everyone who is predisposed for heart disease gets heart disease.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by DEADRA 02/11/2008 @ 1:04pm:: thats because it IS weird. Every state has a different law, but most rule that at 17 a person can legally have sex with whomever they choose. Before then, anyone having sex that is two years older than their partner, consenting or not, can be tried of statutory rape (at least in CT). Makes me curious though- what are the legal penalties if two consenting kids of the same age, let's say 15, are caught in the act??

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 1:38pm
But there has usually been some sort of Congressional approval.

I am in complete agreement---and of course the current coflict that we are in had the approval needed for the President to order military action---therefore---not illegal.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 1:39pm

This is, of course, hyperbole, but invading Poland in '39 was legal under German law, too. ...my point being that 'legality' is both fluid and relative.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:41pm
Deadra

The current consent laws dealing with two juveniles are hardly ever used to fine or inprison the kids. They are usually used by the police to break up a parking session that has gotten too heated and take the overheated pair to their parents for parental action.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by JRO555 02/11/2008 @ 1:38pm

I'm getting flashes of SWAT teams busting me and my boyfriend... ...on the other hand, that *might* just have put me off sex for life ;)

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:44pm
LEN -

'Parental action' of the LVLIBERTY-variety? I'd prefer the cops, thank you.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:47pm
Germany violated no German law with the invasion of Poland---and France and the U.K. violated no French or British law declaring war on Germany. The question that people have raised numerous times on this board is can the U.S. legally enter into a war without a declaration of war by Congress---the answer is without question yes. Now as to a violation of international law you would get many on this board to agree with you---me---I don't believe in allowing international organizations to decide American foreign policy. I have no use for the U.N.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:49pm
seriously- what would the penalty be? Let's say two 15 year olds have sex, in one of their homes (not in a public place- thats definitely illegal), and is caught?? Let's say by parents like LV- who decide punishing them on their own terms weren't enough, but wanted to prosecute their kids in court to further traumatize them so they'll never think of having sex again. What kind of punishment can a judge hand down to kids having consensual sex before the age of consent?

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 1:49pm

Since I spent a year and a half discussing this at university, I'll dodge this debate, if you don't mind. I promised myself at least 3 years off when I triumphantly set fire to my Int Law coursework ;-)

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 1:53pm
'Parental action' of the LVLIBERTY-variety

How would you presume to know what those actions might be???? From what I have read on this board LVLIBERTY is a caring and loving person whose parental actions would probably lead to no more than a discussion of the problems that could arise from teenage sex and a restriction put on the free time of the child. Sounds appropriate to me.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:55pm
What kind of punishment can a judge hand down to kids having consensual sex before the age of consent?

Posted by JRO555 02/11/2008 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person

Probably nothing more than probation and a curfew.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 1:58pm
ok- quick search. Apparently, underage fornicators are added into the sexual offenders registry if caught. bit over the top don't you think? "States ease laws that punish teens for sex with minors" USA today-Governors in seven states have signed bills in the past two months that mean no prosecution for some teens or no requirement to register as a sex offender.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 1:59pm
some more: "Officials in some states say tough laws should be changed -- as Georgia did last year -- to focus on predators, not irresponsible teens. They say those teens need to be punished but labeling them sex offenders on public registries may do more harm than good."

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:00pm
since you missed it Len:: "If any of my 5 sons had ever had condoms as minors, they would have had difficulty sitting for at least a week and suffered some serious grounding time also."Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:16pm ::: Apparently physical punishment is the answer in LV's household- physical punishment and fear of god.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:02pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 1:55pm

There was something about "not being able to sit for a few days" (apologies if I'm misquoting). I would say that is more than a 'discussion'.

Yes, my mother would probably also have had a discussion with me, if I'd been picked up in a parking lot. It would have gone along the lines of "if you think you're mature enough to have sex, how come you're not mature enough to find somewhere safe?" Seriously...parking lots? I know it's part been part of your culture since the invention of the car (or probably the cart, what do I know)...but it's creepy. And uncomfortable.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:03pm
Sorry ----I also believe in spanking----not beating ---but spanking. Never spank when angry and make sure the child knows for sure what offenses are punishable by spanking (lying, cheating, hurting another child, etc.). Grounding is also appropriate. So if LVLIBERTY had made clear that having condoms was a spanking offense---good by me. Also, I think that we would all be better off if we had a litte more "fear of God" and a little less "anything goes".

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:07pm
Also, I think that we would all be better off if we had a litte more "fear of God" and a little less "anything goes".

The fact that you present those two as the only options worries me, frankly.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by DEADRA 02/11/2008 @ 2:03pm :: yea no kidding!! but that's where it happens because its the only place teens can find privacy. That and a lot of younger teens make use of a dark movie theater- not terribly romantic or comfortable either (hah not for sex, but for other naughty things like french kissing)

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:12pm
"Not being able to sit for a few days" is an old American saying for describing a spanking-----it is rarely meant to mean that the person would actually not be able to sit for a few days because of the spanking. I was warned by my parents that if I did certain things that I would not be able to sit for a few days---------being young and foolish I tried them a few times---I got spanked----I was able to sit on my posterior immediately afterwards.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:14pm
Also...possession of condoms demonstrates juvenile curiosity at best and responsible thought at worst. In my book, those would be worthy of encouragement, not spanking. But well, who'd want responsible teenagers. ... Much better to put the fear of God into them.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:15pm
"a little more Fear of God and a little less anything goes" does not presume that these are the only two options.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:15pm
I have watched this article but have yet to comment. I will address a few things, first I believe abstinence should be taught as a teaching of the intimacy implied by sexual activity. However I do not believe abstinence only is an intelligent method of teaching. You need to give kids a realistic view of realationships. So while abstinence is good to have around you need to understand that most kids do not practice it so you have to teach safe sex just ad thoroughly.

On the other issue of free speech. It tickles me when people try to draw a distinct line of behavior between right and left and we are all guilty of it. I am apart of the left I guess, by someones definition I'm sure. I'm not sure what defines me as left but someone has put that definition on me. I however do not believe in inhibiting peoples right to free speech as was so callously and wrongly put forth by someone else. I have defended neo-Nazis right to say they hate me because I am black. I criticized what they were saying yes but not their right to say it.

I k ow when I was in high school we were politically active. We went through the proper channels FIRST before openly protesting. You need to commit to an act of dissidents when the proper channels do not work and you do so with the full knowledge that action may be taken against you. This was not an infringement on their right to free speech it was sayig what is appropriate to be worn in school.

Also I hate to show down LLB's sense of moral superiorty but morals are subjective. Your morality is not mine. I grew up growing to Catholic school all my life. I am spirtiual. I believe there is some guiding force I do not believe in the one god I believe in a binding conciousness. I believe our morals are derived from each other not some ancient dogma written 1500 years ago that no longer applies today. The church rarely follows its own rules so how can it be a guiding light of anything? So many rules made by the church to heed religious law were made rules so the church could make more money now you hold them as moral law. Your morals are not shared by many many people because morality is subjective. I don't fault your morals what works for you works for you but it doesn't work for me. I consider myself a good person I don't need religion to tell me how to be good. I figured it out for myself.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:07pm :: I think a kid is well beyond the age of spanking if he/she should come across condoms. Would you spank a 14 year old?? I stopped being spanked around 8, and good thing, because I find it to be traumatizing. And dare I say it? almost sexual in a way- in a very bad way. I mean think about it!! you are slapping a childs bottom!! I'd rather get a slap on the back of the head- my butt is a personal area.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:15pm
Possession of condoms deserves a conversation nothing more----but some obvious questions need to be asked---like "what did you plan on doing with these"? If the answer is water ballon fight you might might want to put a litte more "Fear of God" into them.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:18pm

What's wrong with water balloon fights? We had condom balloon-fights during school breaks when I was about 13...granted, they don't fly that well, because the shape is wrong. But that didn't stop us :)

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:21pm
And dare I say it? almost sexual in a way- in a very bad way.

Dang----I can guarantee you that when I was spanked while growing up, sex was the furtherst thing from my mind.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:22pm
But this is just the type of twisted sense of morality that only validates the concerns of many Americans when we Pastors and others tell them that the left want's to abandon morals and family values.

This is just another example of the leftist moral sickness that permeates our society. Really sad.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 7:12pm

Fuck you. No, wait.... yeah, fuck you.

Moral sickness my ass, prick. How many of your believed conservatives have been caught fucking in bathrooms, fucking kids, fucking ANYBODY but their wife.... and you have the nerve to come here with your godammed self righteous moral bullshit and lecture US????

Pastor my dick.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/11/2008 @ 2:30pm
It seems you people live in a very different world than I do.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2008 @ 8:16pm

Yeah, jackass, it's called the REAL WORLD.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/11/2008 @ 2:31pm
The sex in the car thing is slowly disappearing. With more parents absent from the home after school the kids are just going home and doing it.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:31pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:22pm :: I know Len- me 2. Of course the child isn't thinking that. spanking is about ultimate control, submission, in a very raw physical form. Interestingly enough- why do many men pay dominatrixes or other fantasy provocateurs to spank them as adults?? I wonder if being subjected to it enough as a child can affect how a person grows, how they develop sexually, whether or not they suffer from insecurity and low self confidence... who knows what the long term affects are.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:33pm
Dr. Decibels

you seem to be a very angry person----I hear that they are doing Exorcisms in Poland ---you might be a candidate----God Bless

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:34pm
JRO555---2:33

Couldn't be that----that would mean that it was a learned sexual behavior and as we all know stuff like that you are born with.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 2:33pm :: well, I said parents like you, not you precisely. But if one were so serious about forcing their children never to have sex as a minor/before marriage, wouldn't you use all resources available to you?? fear of spanking, burning in hell, AND being tried as a criminal in the court of law- bet that would scare the crap out of your kids. That would do the job for sure.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by JRO555 02/11/2008 @ 2:33pm

They actually did studies on that in Europe and found a correllation [sp?].

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:40pm
"and as we all know stuff like that you are born with."Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:36pm :: people are born with low self esteem and a desire to be spanked?? I don't think so- those inclinations are a result of a certain kind of environment.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:41pm
I don't think so- those inclinations are a result of a certain kind of environment.

Posted by JRO555 02/11/2008 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person

I was making a point---comparing your hypothesis to the claim that people are born gay. I guess I was too vague---sorry.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by DEADRA 02/11/2008 @ 2:40pm:: I'm not surprised in the least. I have to say though, I've observed that a lot of younger parents are not spanking their children like older generations have. Its actually becoming sort of taboo.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:44pm
They actually did studies on that in Europe and found a correllation [sp?].

I was spanked during my childhood and I can honestly say that stuff like that is about the biggest sexual turn off I can think of.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:45pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:43pm :: oh. well I never claimed such a thing, I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I don't pretend to know what makes a person gay, and frankly I don't care. They can do whatever they like with their lives, and I'll do the same.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:45pm
I am in complete agreement---and of course the current coflict that we are in had the approval needed for the President to order military action---therefore---not illegal.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person

Illegal as a war of aggression. Even if one dispenses with the UN, to launch a war against a country that has not, and had no plans to, attack you is a war of aggression. Iraq had simply not given us a casus belli.

If you want to cite the WMD-related cease-fire violations, then you have to go to the UN since the final cease-fire was a UN Security Council resolution.

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 2:46pm
Jro555 I know that you did not make such a claim---but others did----I was hoping they were reading along.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/11/2008 @ 2:47pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:45pm ::: Well, I think what they find mostly is that children who were spanked are more likely to suffer from a lack of confidence more so than the submissive sexual preferences.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:49pm
Well said Len. What we have with the persistent ad hominum of "homophobe" is the religious intolerance of those on the atheist left who refuse to acknowledge the right of Jews and Christians to hold the teachings of their faith.

Considering that you have referred to homosexuals as "perverts", characterizing your position as homophobia is quite accurate. What is at issue isn't the right of Christians or Jews to hold to their faith, it's the attempt to get the state to continue to permit discrimination against them. Homosexual marriage, for example, does nothing to prevent people from believing what they want or from being in churches that would never perform such a service themselves.

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 2:50pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:45pm

That's why I didn't say one causes the other. Correlation. Look it up - I just did ;) Anyway, I just tried googling that study...big mistake.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:50pm
LVLIBERTY - If you love the Taliban, you'll love LUVVY.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/11/2008 @ 2:53pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 2:48pm

Thanks for referring to me as the 'liberal crowd' - I'm honoured. Also the explanation of 'American colloquialisms' was generously offered because I'm not American and English is not my first language. While it wasn't necessary in this case, it was certainly appreciated.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 2:54pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 2:48pm:: LV, I think laying the blame for the spread of STDs on liberals is a bit over kill. We ask that teenagers try and abstain from sex. If they still decide to have sex anyway, we ask them to use protection. You seem to think you can FORCE young people to obey your rules- apparently your offspring were terrified enough not to question your authority(as far as any of us know anyway). Your methods would probably fail miserably with the majority of the teenage population.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 2:54pm
Adultery is sinful but we don't put people in jail for it.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 2:23pm

You would if you could.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/11/2008 @ 2:55pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/11/2008 @ 2:34pm

Self righteous moralizing BULLSHIT does piss me off.

Ain't going nowhere. Deal with it.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/11/2008 @ 2:58pm
Perhaps if LVLIBERY and LEN MOSSE would provide objective scientific evidence (not from some religious website) that "abstinence only" education has been successful....

it would help their case?!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 3:02pm
LVLIBERTY1: For your information, spanking children is illegal in Sweden...

Posted by Pagodroma at 02/11/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 2:23pm

This is true but you have tried to make certain things illegal. You have tried time and again to take away homosexuals rights to marry. And in certain states homosexuals sex practices are illegal, IE. sodomy. So no you don't always try to make them illegal but you can't deny you haven't tried with some.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 3:04pm

Actually the bond of marriage has been around long before judeo-christian belief. There have been union ceremonies amongst many many religions including pagans, which has been around a lot longer than your belief system. So it is not yours to claim LV. According to your own definition marriage belongs to the people who came up with it first. So the pagans should have a say in who is allowed to marry.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 3:11pm
LVLIBERTY -

You are aware that for terms like 'homophobia', 'xenophobia', etc. , the term 'phobia' is extended to mean hatred, rather than fear, right? And when it means 'fear', 'phobia' usually refers to irrational fears. Hence 'claustrophobia' - enclosed spaces aren't inherently dangerous. Whereas the fear of, say, bees would never be called a phobia in a person allergic to bees.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 3:08pm :: and if one of the had a condom in his possession at 15 years old, would you have spanked him? Kids usually don't come across condoms until they are teens...I don't think anyone spanks teens, you may be a special case LV.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 3:07pm

LV you still haven't figured out that in most cases wrong and right are subjective? What is wrong to you may not be to someone else. Human sacrifice is right to some religions but you argue because your religion says it's wrong it is ultimately wrong. What makes your belief system right and everyone elses wrong? Age? Yours is not the oldest religion. Attendance? Yours does not have the most believers. The rule of God? There have many interpretations of God on this earth. What says the Greeks and Romans were wrong? In the end you are judging people on your FAITH not your fact. In a world that shares space with many religions we can not base the rules we apply to others on faith we must base them on fact because your faith is not shared by many others. You can practice whatever you want. Please be religious. Worship, drink, eat, be marry. But please do not try to force your beliefs onto me just as I would not try to force mine onto you. I will speak to your of your beliefs of which I have a very intimate knowledge. But I will not presume to think I can change them and would not try. Have the same courtesy of me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 3:18pm
Brunowe, that is utter nonsense. I refer to child molesters as perverts but I don't fear them.

So you now equate homosexuality with pedophilia? Sounds prejudiced to me.

Posted by brunowe at 02/11/2008 @ 3:18pm
The rate of teen STD's today is a national tragedy and epidemic. Many if not most of these kids are now sentenced to a life of consequences for those choices. And in some cases, a reduced lifespan. That hardly seems an outcome that is desirable for young people. Yet it is the natural consequence of this liberal philosophy of permissiveness on sex with teenagers.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 2:48pm

yep. makes more sense to send them off to towelheadland to lob cluster bombs on

kids.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 3:31pm
Frankly, I don't think the state has any business being involved with religious institutions like marriage.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 3:04pm

nope. just killing kids with cluster bombs.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 3:32pm
It's always a source of bafflement to me that so many people get engaged in these conversations about sex while violence is far more dangerous to human beings and other living creatures. For example, boxing is a "sport" in which most participants wind up with permanent damage. It's perfectly legal, while prostitution is illegal and condemned.

Some really bloody horror movies are rated pg13, but if there's any sex, it's usually an R. TV shows like CSI show unimaginable bloody violence, but Janet Jackson's nipple was a national outrage. It's ridiculous.

When I was a teenager, over 40 years ago, sex among my peers was pretty common, just as it is today. Most of my 60something friends were sexually active by the age of 16, and they are all responsible adults today.

I agree with the Swedes; teenagers should be given good information about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases and treated realistically. They WILL have sex whether we like it or not.

Someone once asked me if I'd want my daughter to be a prostitute, and of course that would not be my choice. But if prostitution were as legal, controlled, and in the open as boxing, I would absolutely-no-doubt-about-it prefer to have my daughter be a prostitute than have my son be a boxer.

But as things stand, a student who had a picture of a face-battered boxer on his or her t-shirt probably wouldn't even cause a stir! Go figure.

I'm soooooo glad I have all the freepers on my ignore list!

Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/11/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 3:07pm

So, teenagers having sex is the moral equivalent of ....murder?

Actually "YES" would have to be your answer. The old Christian dilemma of "equivalency of sin" argument. Can't say some sins are worse than others, or else you fall into the Catholic "moral, venal, cardinal" arguments which Protestants such as yourself reject.

However, to equate MURDER with a couple of teens getting "jiggy"...comes off as ludicrious. Especially since there is no "safe murder" or "safe burglery".

In point of fact, the evidence is in...and abstinence-only FAILS. Teen pregnancies go up, STDs (which you cite) go up. Where as where safe sex or abstinence-PLUS is taught...those number go down.

But hey, let's not let EVIDENCE and RESULTS get in the way of failed programs and insane comparisons of immorality, huh?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 3:44pm
But hey, let's not let EVIDENCE and RESULTS get in the way of failed programs and insane comparisons of immorality, huh?

Careful, MASK, you'll blow LUVVY's world view, and he'll have to go bomb an abortion clinic.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/11/2008 @ 4:46pm
Some really bloody horror movies are rated pg13, but if there's any sex, it's usually an R. TV shows like CSI show unimaginable bloody violence, but Janet Jackson's nipple was a national outrage. It's ridiculous.

Posted by LEEANNG 02/11/2008 @ 3:38pm

a voice of reason..........

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:48pm
and he'll have to go bomb an abortion clinic.

Posted by DR DECIBELS 02/11/2008 @ 4:46pm

well, he does know how to make them.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:48pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 02/11/2008 @ 4:46pm

Sorry Doc, but "fuck you" usually doesn't prove your superiority over LVLIB's position.

Try just simple, calm reason, logic, and facts.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 4:49pm
Peter, do you ever get the feeling that sometimes these guys don't understand you? (hehehe...)

Posted by ACook at 02/11/2008 @ 4:54pm
But hey, let's not let EVIDENCE and RESULTS get in the way of failed programs and insane comparisons of immorality, huh?

he's making a moral argument against tacit endorsement of condom use by school sex ed programs. therefore i don't think he's going to be swayed by your "ends justify the means" logic regarding the success or failure of abstinence only programs.

given the oversexualized cultural environment we live in, and the tremendous pressure that must exert on children to experiment sexually before they are ready, i think it's almost heroic that there are institutions that ask children to reconsider the consequences of being sexually promiscuous.

Posted by katamantulo at 02/11/2008 @ 5:02pm
LVLIBERTY1 and LEN MOSSE,

You advocate beating children (it doesn't make any difference that you like to call it 'spanking') to instil a sense of right and wrong. Thank the gods that you can't get anywhere near my children.

You advocate mental abuse of children (making them believe they will burn for eternity if they don't comply with some nonsensical, Bronze Age version of morality). Again, my kids are better people for not being exposed to your 'morality'.

You continue to argue for more of the same even though your prescribed method is proven wrong beyond all doubt and never stop bleating about a "liberal philosophy of permissiveness". To go back to my earlier example, you should give a lecture in Sweden - they'd be highly amused ... your brand of parenting was abandoned 100 years ago.

You hand wave any argument that disproves yours and label it 'left' and 'liberal'. I imagine the only people who don't recognise the weakness of your position is you.

You employ straw men arguments that Bush would be proud of - trying to conflate the failure of abstinence only sex education with approving murder! Again, the only people not laughing at your 'argument' is you.

As has been said by others - inflict your Bronze Age morality on you and your family, but STFU about how me and mine should live.

Posted by MonoApe at 02/11/2008 @ 5:31pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/11/2008 @ 5:46pm

Then doesn't that argument then follow that they shouldn't teach ANYTHING about morality in school. So it then follows they should only teach the facts. Abstinence is an issue of morality. Safe-sex is a factual issue with no moral involved. Whether you abstain or not teaching safe-sex is about protecting you in case you do. Abstinence should be taught at home Safe-sex needs to be taught in school so that those who do try it will know how to protect themselves against the facts of life STD's, Teen pregnancy.... If you uphold that the parents should teach their kids morality, then don't teach abstinence in schools. You can't argue that the parents should teach morality and then argue that they should also teach abstinence in school since abstinence is solely an issue of morality not safety because if you have half a brain like I did when I first starting to have sex you can have sex safely. I never got anyone pregnant and never got an STD.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 5:55pm
i think it's almost heroic that there are institutions that ask children to reconsider the consequences of being sexually promiscuous.

Posted by KATAMANTULO 02/11/2008 @ 5:02pm

you mean like parents............

still, it sure is good to know how to use a condom.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 5:56pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:11pm

no wonder you are so VIOLENT.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 6:16pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:11pm

Wow really? I don't now-a-days we assume teenagers are intelligent and somewhat rational beings who don't need violence to be metted out on them to act right. If a teacher hit me when I was a teenager I would have hit them back. As a teenager you are at the point where talking works you no longer need to be hit. As a child I would agree with you that giving them a swat on the behind is fine. I was spanked as a child and I turned out fine. However my parents knew that spanking a child is because a child doesn't act rationally therefore rational discourse doesn't always work. As a teenager you tend to act more rationally so you can rationally speak with a teenager and give out punishment that doesn't involve violence. Jesus at 18 aren't you legally an adult? If you walked up and tried to spank me when I was 18 I woulda have laughed in your face. Also if you continued to try I would have utilized my right to defend myself. I guess that's what makes me liberal.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:38pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:35pm

As Americans we have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I believe marriage falls under the pursuit of happiness as I would think marriage makes most people happy well except the 50% that end in divorce.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:40pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:35pm

I don't subscribe to Adam and Eve I subrscibe to a belief that says Dinosaurs according to fossil records existed millions of years before human beings. Therefore there were belief systems before Judeo-Christians came around. Also either way your third argument is mute. Adam and eve were not Judeo-Christian. They were around long before the laws and names of religions existed if you want to try to use that argument. Laws about homosexuality were not passed down in the times of adam and eve. But again I don't subscribe to the rather comical belief that the world was created in 7 days only 6'000 years ago...so sorry.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:43pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/11/2008 @ 5:55pm

You're kinda getting there. Most conservatives believe the entire issue of premarital sex, use of birth control, etc. are moral issues and should be handled by the parents at home.

Posted by usc1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:44pm
LVLIBERTY -

- With all due respect to your founding fathers...no doubt they were great men, but they didn't come up with the idea of marriage.

- Marriage is not a religious monopoly. Do you need a priest to perform the ceremony? Do you need to be in a church? Do you need to be baptized? No. No. and no. And since marriage can exist without religion, it should also exist without religious dictate.

- ... as confirmed by Jesus in the Gospels Wasn't Adam living in sin, technically? Given that he already had a wife before Eve? Just asking. Also...if you're talking about great models to marriage in the bible...I seem to remember a few examples of polygyny, then there were handmaids...Not really supportive of your argument, in my view.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 6:46pm
Posted by USC1 02/11/2008 @ 6:44pm

Then why argue that schools should teah abstinence only birth control. You can't argue both.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:46pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:47pm

I'm wondering...do you reject all arguments not based on the book of Genesis as morally weak, or does your acceptance extend to the whole of the Old Testament?

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 6:52pm
Posted by DEADRA 02/11/2008 @ 6:46pm

I love the Bible don't you...so full of hypocricy. Here God talks about thou shalt not kill then he scythes away the lives of Sodom and Gammorah. He says he is going to allow his people to find the promised land then makes them roam the desert for 40 years. Awesome guy that God. Really loving and forgiving.

What's also funny to me is that Catholics so often quote the Old Testament. Which is not their book. It's the book of the Jews and very few Jews I have met take the book to be fact. They use it as a general moral outline and book of teaching lessons not history. But I guess Catholics believe in the times of the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades where they believed they could make other subscribe to their beliefs.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:52pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:53pm

I have never seen you say that so I apologize for my linkage. I thought you like many Christians I speak with will argue that the earth has only been around for 6'000 years. I apoligize once again for my indescretion.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 6:56pm
CCCOMFO -

Yes, I love the bible. It's a great book. Better than Hollywood...blood, sex, intrigue, special effects... I just wouldn't read it as a factional account any more than I'd read Gilgamesh, or similar books.

Note 1: Yes, Catholics love the OT, because it's more bad-ass than the NT - if you're going for guilt and fear, 'let he who is without sin' doesn't quite cut it.

Note 2: LVLIBERTY isn't Catholic. (He'd probably be offended by that.) I am...for now. And I quote my favourites all the time.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 7:00pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2008 @ 6:57pm

Please Rio just go away. You contribute nothing to the argument but a bunch of tired old crap that the stereotypical far right spews in order to prop up your baseless and factless arguments. If your case is that Abortions fall due directly to the influence of abstinence-only teaching then why is it in much of Europe, where education is that of teaching responsibility and not infusing children with religious dogma, the Abortion rate, teen pregnancy rate and STD rate follow much much lower trends than in America?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 7:03pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/11/2008 @ 6:46pm

I don't think it belongs in school at all. This information means a lot more coming from a parent. I still remember when sex education was introduced at my high school...the jokes, snide remarks, stupid stories...and that was from the "teachers." I got a lot more and had a lot more respect for the subject when I got it from my dad and mom.

My guess for abstinence-only education in schools if I had to defend it would be that it's the only part of sex ed that everyone agrees on and won't offend anyone. If you want yoyr kid to know about birth control,etc. then you can still do that at home. But that's only my guess.

It's funny now that I think about it. Christians are one of the only remaining groups where other people can make fun of their beliefs and liberals will defend the offenders and ignore the offendees.

Posted by usc1 at 02/11/2008 @ 7:14pm
So if I am assuming correctly that you don't believe in seeking moral absolutes or guidelines from the Bible, what source do you use to resolve or even establish a moral code?

You are assuming correctly, for the most part. I very much like the distinction between sin and sinner that is drawn in the NT. I'm still not quite decided on the Golden Rule...but I'm sort of leaning towards it, at this point. You called me a liberal earlier...so, just to set that in stone, my moral guideline is liberalism. Do whatever you feel you want/need to do, provided it does not harm anybody else. Which, if taken seriously, is actually a very, very hard thing to do. But I shall endeavour to try, as they say.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 7:25pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2008 @ 7:19pm

What?! I won't be among the 144.000?!? Excuse me while I bawl my bloody, sweaty eyes out.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 7:29pm
Don't know the song do you?

As evidenced by my response, no, I don't. My memory of music is lousy.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 7:36pm
Never heard of the song...but I know the attitude.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 7:37pm
As has been said by others - inflict your Bronze Age morality on you and your family, but STFU about how me and mine should live.

Posted by MONOAPE 02/11/2008 @ 5:31pm

I'm going to butt in here......to each their own morality and the proof in the pudding of the collective morality of each society is in the renewals of said societies.

IF the God-less Europeans (<20% are Christians) are so wonderful in raising families, and by no means am I criticizing how you folks live, I just have questions: why don't your younger generations, well, raise families w/2 or more children? Why are the natives dying off? Why do I see more and more Europeans in my city, and very happy to be here while grinding their teeth that the Europe they loved, is gone, is intolerant and unsuitable for `families'? Have them been Americanized, Chistianized, Islamophobic, or confused?

Our problems w/teens is we don't have a national consensus on how to deal with it....and we have a huge underclass that thinks it's not `intimate' to wear condoms and a bunch of boys from father-less households that think it's macho to impregnate girls....it's really that simple. When I was young & stupid, in the late 60s', I understood the `penalty' was quite possibly to marry the girl....a very effective `condom'!

Posted by Happy at 02/11/2008 @ 7:45pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/11/2008 @ 7:45pm

I don't know where you get your stats from...So, the main 'religion' in the UK seems to be Jedi, but still...<20%? Anyway...I for one never said that Europeans are so great at raising families. But I think your point supports my argument that Europeans are really good at avoiding pregnancies ;-)

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 7:51pm
"My guess for abstinence-only education in schools if I had to defend it would be that it's the only part of sex ed that everyone agrees on and won't offend anyone. If you want your kid to know about birth control,etc. then you can still do that at home. But that's only my guess."

Posted by USC1 02/11/2008 @ 7:14pm

Len,

Exactly what do you think they teach in sex-ed? The karma sutra(sp?)?

You entirely miss the point. (Or maybe, the point merely irritates you); Sex-ed isn't for the children of godless liberals. They teach their children at home. It is for the children of the parents who won't teach this stuff at home. (You know, the people who bitch the loudest about welfare mothers).

My personal opinion. (and experience) is actually to teach them about sex at a young enough age, that it is boring to them, not uncomfortable to talk to mom and dad about yet. Before their peers fill their heads with bullshit.

Some conservatives think talking about sex with children will encourage them to experiment earlier, but i have not found any evidence to support that.

Posted by Malcontent at 02/11/2008 @ 7:57pm
It is for the children of the parents who won't teach this stuff at home.

Then make it an after-school program.

Posted by usc1 at 02/11/2008 @ 8:06pm
"I'm not aware that we ever gave homosexuals the right to marry according to our constitution. Can you cite the Fed law or SCOTUS on that?"

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:35pm

I don't think it mentions anything about cat lovers, knitting enthusiasts or velvet elvis aficionados...but they get married just the same.

What was your non-biblical distinction between the rights of homo and heterosexuals again?

"But as to the 7 days, there is no evidence to dispute that particular aspect of creation. So I neither affirm or deny it's possibility."

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:53pm

Um...no evidence? Deny if you like, but there is a huge body of evidence.

Methinks you've neglected to even look for it. Your loss. (and humanity's).

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 02/11/2008 @ 8:06pm
Posted by USC1 02/11/2008 @ 8:06pm

Just curious...

was that suppossed to be even remotely responsive? Maybe funny?

I don't get it.

Posted by Malcontent at 02/11/2008 @ 8:09pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 7:16pm

I think that we don't need a book written by man to tell us moral guidelines. That is just like having a government tell me my morals. Everyones books say different so whos is right? I think there are base human morals that we all follow or subscribe to whether we believe it or not. You scrape off the top layers of years of dogma and tradition all religions say the same thing. Be good to each other. What does that mean? Don't kill, steal...etc. I didn't need religion to teach me that. Nor did many of my friends who grew up with Atheist parents. Morality doesn't go to bits without religion. Religion is a construct of man therefore it is subject to man. Morals are not a construct of religion they are a construct of man.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 8:10pm
Opps! Sorry USC1...I called you Len.

No inference implied.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 02/11/2008 @ 8:10pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/11/2008 @ 8:10pm

I'll just second this and sign off for the night.

Posted by Deadra at 02/11/2008 @ 8:13pm
"... why don't your younger generations, well, raise families w/2 or more children?"

You're making assumptions about where I live - I never said.

Who said the goal for a full and rewarding life is to produce large numbers of children?! Have you noticed the never-ending articles about collapsing eco-systems and extinction of species all around the planet? And you think increasing the global population is desirable?

"Why do I see more and more Europeans in my city, and very happy to be here while grinding their teeth that the Europe they loved, is gone ..."

I know nothing about your personal experience, but it's not a winning argument. If you travel globally, as I do often, it's impossible to find someone with warm words about the USA. Bushco and the neocons have poisoned global opinion of the USA - torture, war based on lies and greed, contempt for the environment, etc. etc. ... but don't take my word for it, search 'global opinion usa'. Reality doesn't always match your personal experience.

"... it's really that simple"

There's nothing simple about the issue, but all the evidence points to the conservative, religious goal of abstinence only sex education as being an utter failure and, to my mind, immoral.

P.S. I had to chuckle that LVLIBERTY1 ignores my posts but immediately uses my words against others - 'conflate' and 'strawman'. Ah, the intellectual paucity of the religious mind....

Posted by MonoApe at 02/11/2008 @ 8:15pm
"... teach them about sex at a young enough age, that it is boring to them, not uncomfortable to talk to mom and dad about yet. Before their peers fill their heads with bullshit."

Woot! Someone gets it. :)

I had a date with a woman a while back who told me her mother gave her a book at age 8 which explained just about everything to do with sex - hetero, gay, masturbation, conception, contraception, oral. Her mum had a chat with her after she'd read it, answered a few questions and that was it. She lost her virginity at age 17. She's now a doctor.

I'm guessing the likes of LVLIBERTY1 herniate when they read 'filth' like that? lol

Posted by MonoApe at 02/11/2008 @ 8:24pm
Anyone ever stop to think that maybe the reason for the rise in pre-marital sex and teenage pregnancy isn't because of the religious right or the godless liberals but because of bad parents. No matter what you teach a kid in school about morality nothing becomes engrained unless their parent talks to them about it too. Maybe the rise in pre-marital sex has something to do with the fact that marriage is no longer a cared for institution in this country. The divorce rate is 50% for god's sake. No body cares about marriage whether they be Catholic or not. You then presume to take the ability to marry away from homosexuals because you say they don't deserve it but you don't manage to maintain your own marriages unless it's specifically to keep them going because of religious needs but not because of love. So I contend that the lack of morality about relationships and sex isn't because of schooling it's because of a lack of respect for relationships driven by a high divorce rate and a lack of parental guidance which can also be linked to a high divorce rate because of single parent homes where the parents have to spend all their time working instead of talking their children about the things they should be learning.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 8:35pm
as confirmed by Jesus in the Gospels).

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 6:35pm

confirmed?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:23pm
So if I am assuming correctly that you don't believe in seeking moral absolutes or guidelines from the Bible, what source do you use to resolve or even establish a moral code?

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 7:16pm

being nice.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:29pm
And it was just as moral when I worked in the defense industry (though I understand you will never agree much less understand the why to that thinking).

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 7:22pm

oh, i understand why.

it's just wrong, that's all.

innocent people are not evil. littering the ground with (5% is still way too high) cute little bomblets for the kiddies to pick up months or years later

HAS NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION.

sorry, dude, i will never let this go.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:32pm
even though i disagree with many of your points of view, i always respected you pastor larry.

but to find out you are a murderer of children,

disappointed me like few things have.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:34pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 7:22pm

and if you served in ww2, i thank you.

but that is one thing. self-defence.

but subsequent conflicts have been based on greed.

and your typings have shown me that your heart is full of violence.

violence aimed at people you just don't even want to try to understand.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:37pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/11/2008 @ 7:45pm

i people have 2 or 1 kids, you should thank them happy.

we already have resource wars.

water's next.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:40pm
That is all that a parent can ask for.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/11/2008 @ 9:42pm

no, they've got to wash dishes, too.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:43pm
I think the biggest problem with LV and his likes is their profound lack of humor. But this clip shows a way to solve both global warming and the pregnancy / STD problem....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwNcZWhlAl4

WARNING: For out-of-touch w reality adults, teen advice is strongly advocated before watching!

Posted by Pagodroma at 02/11/2008 @ 10:06pm
LVLIBERTY1,

And now you seek refuge in ad hominem - the

"I do love my sons so much ..."

So much so that you were happy to beat them so hard they "couldn't sit down for a week". And you advocate that same brand of 'love' to everyone else. Do your sons beat their children? How about their wives if they get out of line? Violence - it solves so many of life's problems, eh? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

As for your claim that the conservative Christian population do not think themselves morally superior?! Have you read the comments on just *this* thread, let alone the continual stream of it on TV and in the media? Can you not see how ridiculous claims like that make you look some combination of dishonest and stupid?

Posted by MonoApe at 02/11/2008 @ 11:01pm
snow petrel.............pagodroma nivea

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 01:12am
This thread started out as a free speech issue and has gone all over the place. I have noticed that someone said something about since I believed in spanking that they were glad that I was no where near their children and others have said that spanking is illegal in Sweden. To the poster who does not believe in spanking I say fine, great---I support parental rights to determine how to raise their children. However, I have raised three children and I used spanking as part of their discipline---they are well adjusted, confident, achieving young people--I am very proud of them. As to spanking being illegal in Sweden my reaction is "so"! Move to Sweden--you might like the climate and the socialism. Now to the issue of sex ed in school. I support sex ed in school, but I do believe that the emphasis in those classes should be abstinence. Young people are bombarded with sexual images in television, music, and movies---together they send the message "do it". And judging from the response on this board many parents are ok with their children beinging sexually active--they way they see it they are going to do it anyway. With all this pressure from the outside, and all the hormones raging wild--shouldn't their be a calming voice somewhere that says "hold on" "you can wait", there can be negative consequences???? I have no doubt that teenagers are going to have sex. I have no doubt that abstinence only programs will not have overwhelming success---but if you send a message in the schools that is no different than what the kids are hearing on the outside, you are just pouring gasoline on the fire.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 08:26am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 08:26am :: len- I don't think anyone here opposes parents telling their kids to wait, its perfectly sensible. I think what we are against is kids not being told the scientific facts- what sex is, what contraception is, what condoms do, what STDs are, what AIDs is...etc etc. Abstinence only education curtails a lot of this vital information. I mean, no kid goes to sex ed and thinks "woohoo let's get freaky!"- its actually kind of odd and embarrassing. I don't know about anyone else, but my health and sex ed classes were bombarded by lectures on AIDS and STDS- I can't think of a bigger turn off than that. Sex ed also taught me condoms are a must, and helped me understand that birth control + condoms are even better protection. This kind of information, combined with a parent's assertion to abstain, can do so much to protect our kids.

Posted by jro555 at 02/12/2008 @ 09:02am
Posted by JRO555 02/12/2008 @ 09:02am

of course.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 08:26am

my dad hit me once 'cause i broke a cloisonn� (well, the outside enamel) vase "playing ball" in the house.

but that was anger not discipline. never hit my brother or sisters.

we're all fine, too.

to me it seems oxymoronic to teach discipline by losing one' own.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:29am
one's

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:29am
Frosty

That is why you never spank in anger----the waiting is part of the punishment----I also like to let the child pick which switch they want from yonder willow tree.

As to the role of parents in sex ed I worry that too many of them are relinquishing this responsibility to the schools. Some, as is evident from some of the comments on this thread, just throw up their hands and say "they are going to have sex no matter what I do so I just make sure they use birth control". Shouldn't someone out there be the voice of reason--a voice in the wilderness asking kids to wait???? Right now with many parents relinquishing their responsibility, the teachings of the church becoming less and less of an influence on teenagers, and children being bombarded every day by sexual images---we have a problem---where is the voice of abstinence?

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 09:59am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 09:59am

although the oversexualization is a problem

i'm MUCH more worried about the violence.

there were at least FOIUR terrorist attacks in the u.s. last week.............................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:01am
FOUR

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:02am
Apparently the schools have also been unsuccessful in teaching kids to not be violent----should we change the curriculumn and teach the kids how to be violent but in an unlethal manner???

Just having a litte fun.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:07am
Frosty--I just figured that FIOUR was Canadian for four.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:10am
Were these attacks truly terrorism? I don't know about each incident but I was under the impression that in most of the cases it was a person who was very upset with their wife/husband/friend and wanted to kill them. Techinically this is not terrorism because the intent is not to incite terror in others.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:13am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:07am

well, like with sex, education about violence begins at home.

name some movies you've seen recently.

top GROSSERS for 2007

1 Spider-Man 3 Sony $336,530,303 4,324 $151,116,516 4,252 5/4 8/19

violence for kids

2 Shrek the Third P/DW $322,719,944 4,172 $121,629,270 4,122 5/18 8/9

kids

3 Transformers P/DW $319,246,193 4,050 $70,502,384 4,011 7/3 11/8

violence for kids

4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End BV $309,420,425 4,362 $114,732,820 4,362 5/25 10/4

kids (i imagine there's plenty of violence for the kiddies)

5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix WB $292,004,738 4,285 $77,108,414 4,285 7/11 12/13

kids (i doubt it's violence free)

6 I Am Legend WB $254,161,107 3,648 $77,211,321 3,606 12/14 -

violence

7 The Bourne Ultimatum Uni. $227,471,070 3,701 $69,283,690 3,660 8/3 11/29

violence

8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets BV $212,752,399 3,832 $44,783,772 3,832 12/21 -

seems o.k.

9 300 WB $210,614,939 3,280 $70,885,301 3,103 3/9 7/12

violence

10 Alvin and the Chipmunks

kids

and we're worried about sex.............................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:17am
I believe that it is possible to be worried about too much violence in society and at the same time be concerned that kids are be exposed to too much sexual imagary at the same time. One does not preclude the other.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:21am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:13am

well, if a kid starts shooting people at my son's school, i'd be pretty terrified about sending my son back there.

it's nihilistic terrorism.

and people just brush it off as "well, they're crazy.................."

but it keeps happening and happening and happening...............

i bet the students and faculty at virginia tech will never feel the same.

nihilistic terrorism.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:25am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:21am

of course.

especially when they are combined.

that really sells.............

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:26am
I live near Va. Tech----things have slowly gotten back to normal. The memory of the events are still fresh in the minds of everyone, but I do not feel that they feel any less safe now than they did before the incident. Now, if heaven forbid, something else would happen in Blacksburg I am sure that might change how people feel forever.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:31am
Blacksburg, Va. was a very unlikely place for the shootings to take place----I guess that is why it so scary to people---because something like that could happen anywhere.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:35am
I think that people living in this area kind of feel that the shootings were just a random incident----kinda of like being hit by a meteor.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 10:39am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 09:59am :: Len, admitting kids will be kids and do what they want does not mean a parent condones their kid having sex. "the teachings of the church becoming less and less of an influence on teenagers, and children being bombarded every day by sexual images---we have a problem---where is the voice of abstinence?" - why not the voice of masterbation? It is completely safe- no STDs, no pregnancies, no sex. Self love can be gratifying and help certain individuals with an abundant sex drive to abstain from sex. Why is the church so against this act- what harm does masterbation cause?? Why forbid it?

Posted by jro555 at 02/12/2008 @ 11:13am
should we change the curriculumn and teach the kids how to be violent but in an unlethal manner???Just having a litte fun.Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:07am::: Yes its called football ;)

Posted by jro555 at 02/12/2008 @ 11:17am
Blacksburg, Va. was a very unlikely place for the shootings to take place----I guess that is why it so scary to people---because something like that could happen anywhere.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:35am

happens.................

the columbine used to be just a beautiful flower.................

(http://www.flowerpictures.net/perennials/pages/columbine_004.htm)

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:35am
I think that people living in this area kind of feel that the shootings were just a random incident----kinda of like being hit by a meteor.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:39am |

random + random + random + random + random + random + random = a pattern

soon these deaths will surpass the death toll of 9/11

if they haven't already.

the terrorism is coming from within not without.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:37am
JR0555

My church does not condemn materbation per say---however, to allow lust to dominate your life is sinful.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 11:57am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 11:57am::: um... how does masterbating become the equivalent to allowing lust to dominate one's life? Thats kind of a big jump to make Len. Everything is good in moderation.

Posted by jro555 at 02/12/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 08:26am

For once I have to agree with this assessment Len. I do believe you should teach kids abstinence and I do agree a parent should take some responsibility and talk to their kids. I think moral issues begin at home definitely. I think they should ALSO be taught the safe ways to have sex because if they are going to do it and I can't stop them I at the very least want to know they are being safe about it. I had sex through a lot of highschool and the one driving force that kept me safe was that my mother always told me that if I had a baby she wasn't going to help me. So if I was going to be doing it at least I had to be safe about it.

Also this whole thing of people thinking that if a kid goes into a sex ed class that they are all of a sudden going to want to try it is bollocks. I was in a Catholic school. When we had sex ed they showed us two things. The Miracle Of Life which shows a birth and I know some of you are older and have seen births. It's not a pretty sight. All the juices. Then they showed us the STD slide show. Which showed us what it looks like and what happens when you get them(benefits of a private education, they could never do that in public school). THAT did NOT make me want to have sex.

But like I said before. It begins at home. Only an irresponsible parent who should not be having children would throw up their hands and just say whatever I can't stop them. That should never be your attitude towards your children.

About this spanking issue. I was spanked as a child in two very different ways. My mother would spank me to teach me a lesson. She would always talk to me about what I did wrong. She never did it out of anger and she stopped when I was old enough to think rationally and address issues like an adult(I grew up really fast). When I lived with my father he beat me. He hit out of anger. My mothers discipline was in no way detrimental because even at that age I understood it. My fathers was. If you don't want to spank your kids all fine and good. No one should tell you how to raise your children unless you're actually beating them. Beating is spanking in anger not to teach a lesson. There is a vast difference. I can speak from experience because I have known both. I would spank my kids but I would not spank them in anger.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 12:44pm
how does masterbating become the equivalent to allowing lust to dominate one's life? Thats kind of a big jump to make Len. Everything is good in moderation.

Posted by JRO555 02/12/2008 @ 12:11pm | ignore this person

Have you seen the reports concerning Pornographic web sites? These type of sites outnumber everything else on the web. I have even read and heard of people being addicted to such sites, staying on the computer for hours viewing pornography. I think that this would qualify as lust dominating someone's life.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 1:20pm

Yeah but staying on a site for hours isn't normative before Len. That will happen to some people no matter what you teach them. People who do it every once in a while is different than someone who sits on a website for hours. It's like saying you shouldn't eat meat because SOME people eat too much and get fat or you shouldn't eat sugar because SOME people get addicted to it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 2:11pm
Yeah but staying on a site for hours isn't normative

I would disagree---it is becoming increasingly "normative" for kids and adults to visit these web sites and spend inordinate amounts of time----I read an article recently (can't remember from where) that said that it has become addictive behavior.

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 2:51pm
I do think that our mass media is pushing "lust"---it has become increasingly more accepted behavior to allow lust to dominate one's life. Lust is natural,like breathing, however, we can hyperventalte from breathing too rapidly. Same problem with allowing lust to dominate our t.v., music, movies, dress, magazines, etc., etc..

Posted by Len Mosse at 02/12/2008 @ 2:55pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/12/2008 @ 2:11pm:: thank you CCC- and insightful commentary on the whole too.

Posted by jro555 at 02/12/2008 @ 2:58pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 2:55pm:::: Its like I said before- moderation is key. In the decades before, sex was complete taboo. You didn't speak of it, didn't partake in it before marriage- sex was vilified and made anyone who had it feel like criminals when in reality its a perfectly normal and healthy urge. Nowadays, we suffer from the backlash. Yes, there is a complete overload of sex now- on tv, movies, internet, etc etc. We have to find moderation- not chastise our kids for their natural impulses, not make people feel like "sinners" and criminals for partaking in a natural act- but also not make everyone feel like they have to be sexy 24/7 and act like porn stars. Where's the middle ground!?!?! we need it desperately.

Posted by jro555 at 02/12/2008 @ 3:03pm
It's funny the God that many religions offer to us is kind of a mean and vindictive God. He gives us all these natural impulses. Instincts that every other animal on earth partakes in freely but tells humans we have to do everything we can to fight our instincts. He gives us urges and then says we can't use them? Why? That is one of the principal reason I am no longer apart of any religion. I don't think an all knowing benevolent being would give you instincts and then tell you to deny them seems very vindictive to me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 3:14pm
however, to allow lust to dominate your life is sinful.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 11:57am

......and expensive

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 4:24pm
Sorry Doc, but "fuck you" usually doesn't prove your superiority over LVLIB's position.

Try just simple, calm reason, logic, and facts.

Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 4:49pm

Yeah, well, I felt better afterwards.

Just say I 'cheneyed" him.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/12/2008 @ 4:44pm

Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

The Shame of St. Louis

posted by Peter Rothberg on 02/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

Peter Rothberg

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

The Shame of St. Louis

posted by Peter Rothberg on 02/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

Share this article

Peter Rothberg

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation