January 11, 2005

• Wasn't there a huge ruckus about this not to long ago?
• Liberal lies. Or so they tell me.
• Old news, we've got pro-torture nominees to worry about these days.
• We can reconcile a pro-torture stance with an abstinance-only stance: It's a form of torture to be forbidden from fucking the person you love.
• "Pornography...causes masturbation, which causes release of the naturally occurring opioids. It does what heroin can't do, in effect." Dude, sign me up!
• I'm prepared to counter with my abstinance-is-for-pussies and abstinance-makes-the-dick-grow-harder campaigns.
• I thought abstinance was torture.
• Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.
• Yay! Sexual repression! dude, hand me that corset!
• They're just trying to stop a mutiny of deviated preverts, is all.
• At least we can rest assured that abstinence is a tried and true course of action when it comes to discussing . . . y'know . . . that.
• "Frist also repeated the abstinence-education lie that condoms fail 15% of the time..." "In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time" Ummm... I'm no math whiz, but by Frist's (overblown stats) in which condoms fail 15% of the time, how is it that condoms fail to prevent HIV 31% of the time? Last I checked, viruses didn't do so good with passing through rubber... but I'm no virologist either. meh... Maybe they use the power of God to punish those heathens....
• If putting on a corset is petebests's idea of repression, I'd hate to see his idea of cutting loose. Something involving scuba gear and instant mashed potatoes, no doubt.
• -- "Naked cheerleader pyramids suggested as a viable alternative to sexual intercourse." I'm another person with the sneaking suspicion that we've talked about this report a little while back - but I can't find where we might have done so. (This thread was on a similar topic, and was a good read, though.) Last I checked, viruses didn't do so good with passing through rubber... Oh, that's what they've told you, is it? They didn't tell you that condoms are only A MILLIONTH OF AN INCH THICK? And POROUS? That the AIDS virus is so small it can PASS STRAIGHT THROUGH A CONDOM!! Here. I have some cartoons for you to read (click the "Safe Sex" link). Cartoons are the best source of information I have.
• Debaser626: by Frist's (overblown stats) in which condoms fail 15% of the time, how is it that condoms fail to prevent HIV 31% of the time? There's often some tiny kernel of truth at the heart of these things, just enough to make the wilder claims sound plausible to people who don't bother to read up on this stuff. In this case, it's certainly true that natural-membrane (sheepskin) condoms are porous, and are not recommended for the prevention of STDs. It's conceivable that natural membrane condoms are more effective against pregnancy than against HIV. In actual practice and testing, HIV doesn't seem to pass through latex condoms at all, and the claimed 31% failure rate seems to be irresponsibly innacurate. This site references a few 2-year studies that recorded HIV transmission rates through latex condoms of 0% to 2%, and suggests that even the 2% figure was most likely due to broken condoms, not to HIV passing directly through the latex.
• If God wants you to get AIDS, you'll get AIDS. The sooner you accept that the sooner you'll realize that the use of protection of any sort is a hubris-laden attempt to thwart God's ineffable will. Plus, it doesn't feel as good.
• Waxman is my congressman. He kicks ass.
• But he obviously doesn't lick it.
• His name is Waxman. Obviously, he waxes that ass.
• Waxassman
• Jack Ass Wax it's not your mother's wax!
• Water is wet ... earth is round(ish) ... This is what happens when people who are opposed to all kinds of sex are given the right to determine what other people teach their kids about sex ...
• "-- In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time -- Couples who use condoms to avoid a pregnancy have a failure rate of 15%." These two statistics are not incompatible at all. Think of it this way: having unprotected sex would make it much more likely that you would transfer HIV than it would that you would get someone pregnant. I imagine that there are plenty of people here who have had unprotected sex who did not get pregnant, but there are probably not many who did not get HIV from unprotected sex with a partner who had HIV. "-- Touching another person's genitals can result in pregnancy." We don't know the context of this. Were they saying that the touching of genitals gets people so excited and irrational that they are likely to have sex when they had planned not to? Does it mean that semen on the fingers that go inside the woman could cause pregnancy? We do not have the context. "-- Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." This has been true of my general experience with the men and women I have known. "-- Following abortion, according to some studies, women are more prone to suicide." Do you know this to not be true? I find it rather credible that anyone is more prone to suicide following a very traumatic event. "-- Personal problems can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." This is obviously true. No, not all of your personal problems shall vanish. But some of them certainly could. Obtaining sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies are certainly two personal problems that would be avoided by abstinence.
• Personal problems can be eliminated ... 29-year-old virgin here I come!
• Pardon me for making a somewhat obvious point, but how ridiculous is the idea of abstinence education in general? We hear so much about "society is obsessed with sex" "the medis shows so much sex" blah blah blah, as if it is a silly thing to show an interest in. Show me an animal that is not "obsessed with sex" and I will show you an extinct animal. I guess my point is, of all the nautral behaviors to try to legislate away, they have really picked the grandaddy of 'em all. You might as well have "anti-breathing" classes or posters that say "dont use your heart to pump blood just because the other kids say it's cool."
• "-- Personal problems can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." They can also be elimated by feeding yourself to a tiger. People who have been eaten by tigers catch remarkably few STDs and hardly ever impregnate their girlfriend.
• drjimmy11: They can also be elimated by feeding yourself to a tiger. People who have been eaten by tigers catch remarkably few STDs and hardly ever impregnate their girlfriend. Bullshit. or rather tigershit? I refuse to believe this until a double-blind dummy-tiger-placebo controlled study is conducted. Anecdotes does NOT equal data.
• "-- Touching another person's genitals can result in pregnancy." We don't know the context of this. From the website of the organisation that produced the work that's quoted from:

  "True abstinence includes avoiding genital contact until marriage. Some have proposed mutual masturbation and "outercourse" as healthy and safe alternatives for single people. These activities are not consistent with the abstinent lifestyle. Sexual activity, such as these, can not only result in both pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, but can also lead to sexual intercourse."

  So they're not big on context either; and you'd think context and clarity was kind of essential in an educational institution, no? But it is clear that they mean that masturbatory and oral sexual contact can lead to pregnancy. Umm... This has been true of my general experience with the men and women I have known. Well, if that's not a sound basis for teaching something as fact in the classroom, then I don't know what is. "-- Following abortion, according to some studies, women are more prone to suicide." Do you know this to not be true? I find it rather credible that anyone is more prone to suicide following a very traumatic event. Oh. You didn't actually read the report, then? Page 14.
• "Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers." -- apis mellifera Heh, thank you for that. And remember, people: children are a sexually transmitted disease.
• Touching another person's genitals can result in pregnancy. Hysterical.
• Paraphrasing Sars: Dear Government, Please do not make our children more stupid on purpose. Thank you.
• Touching another person's genitals can result in pregnancy. Depends on what you touch 'em with. =)
• -- "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." This may be true for some women, but by no means is this true for all. Making this statement as an absolute fact is wrong. I have spent my entire adult life defending my stance. I need no man or no man's approval to validate me as a person, I don't gauge my happiness based on my success in a relationship. I think of my accomplishments as my measuring stick as to whether I have been successful or not. Teaching our kids this idea is a giant step backwards in my opinion. Abstinence is an option that should be taught along side safe sex. To give false information regarding condoms and birth control is wrong and dangerous. I am so disappointed in our government. When hormones rage, with certain teens, no amount of preaching/pushing abstinence will keep those teens from having sex. It is dangerous to those kids on many levels, to teach what our government thinks is right. This issue tends to piss me off, sorry, but right now I'd like to do a little sex education teaching for our wonderful leaders. GRRRR.
• bratcat's just unhappy because she hasn't gotten my approval yet. I'm withholding it from her until I get to second base. I keed, I keed...
• I laugh. I laugh. :)
• People will always fuck.
• Exactly.
• You sick abstinent fucks.
• "-- Personal problems can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." This is obviously true. No, not all of your personal problems shall vanish. But some of them certainly could. Obtaining sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies are certainly two personal problems that would be avoided by abstinence. I'm being cheated, then. For real. Also, STDs and pregnancies are not the first things that spring to mind when one thinks "personal problems." I believe they're using vague terminology in order to make misleading claims. Also also, just because it's "true in your experience" doesn't mean that it is universally true for everyone, nor should it be taught as inevitable fact. Here's how it goes: The claim is that this happens all the time, that it is a foregone conclusion. Stating that it happens that way some of the time does not prove that claim to be true. It's not even evidence for that claim. It's irrelevant unless you can prove that it happens that way always. ...captain obvious, over and out.
• Abstinence-only education also vilifies sex, leading young people who do get carried away and have sex (especially girls) less prone to demand a) respectful treatment and b) safe sex because they have "slipped" and they are "bad." Bad people, under this style of thinking, don't deserve to be treated well. We're teaching a(nother) generation of kids to hate their bodies, and not giving them the tools to treat themselves and others well.
• Well... *that's* muddled grammar. But you catch my drift, hopefully.
• "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." Which explains why all the people I know who are unhappy because they aren't in a relationship happen to be male.
• wingnut:"-- In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time -- Couples who use condoms to avoid a pregnancy have a failure rate of 15%." These two statistics are not incompatible at all. The main problem isn't that the two figures are incompatible; the main problem is that they're wildly inaccurate (about 5x-10x higher than studies suggest). Nevertheless, if the discussion is narrowed to latex condoms, then they're also incompatible. Properly used, latex condoms are good protection against pregnancy and superb protection against HIV transmission. Check out the links in my earlier post. Think of it this way: having unprotected sex would make it much more likely that you would transfer HIV than it would that you would get someone pregnant. But that's not the case. HIV is actually pretty unlikely to be transmitted by any given sex act, even if one of the people involved is known to be HIV positive. Getting pregnant is a cinch by comparison. Most new HIV cases probably result from poor habits and continuously repeated risky behavior, not from single indiscretions.
• When abstinence stances go horribly wrong.
• Health Experts Criticize Changes in STD Panel