So, How's That Abstinence-Only Sex Ed. Working Out?

[Spike-X]

An Ohio school board is expanding sex education following the revelation that 13 percent of one high school's female students were pregnant last year.

Hmm...not so good after all. (http://www.wyff4.com/education/9680361/detail.html)

Gee, maybe today's teenagers require a bit more than "Just say no!" after all. Who woulda thought?

[Grazzt]

Gee, maybe today's teenagers require a bit more than "Just say no!" after all. Who woulda thought?

I think the "Just Say No!" should be expanded to curtail every activity that the government finds offensive. It's the perfect weapon to fight terrorists. "Just say no to suicide bombings."

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think the "Just Say No!" should be expanded to curtail every activity that the government finds offensive. It's the perfect weapon to fight terrorists. "Just say no to suicide bombings."

People need to "just say no" to Bush and his allies.

[Christopher O]

People need to "just say no" to Bush and his allies.
People need to say "go to hell" to Bush and his allies. "No" is no longer enough.

[lonewolf23k]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.

[sirgod]

Unless that 13 percent where raped, then It seems to me at least , they didn't say no. Instead they said yes.

Stephen

[Christopher O]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.
Or, you know, educate kids on sex and the responsibilities that come with the path into adulthood. We could also discourage the use of terms such as "slut" and stop treating sex like it's murder. Obviously, that tactic isn't working.

[Spike-X]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.
Try making my daughter wear that shirt if she happens to make a wrong decision and see what happens, jackass.

[Magneto_X]

Hmm...not so good after all. (http://www.wyff4.com/education/9680361/detail.html)

Gee, maybe today's teenagers require a bit more than "Just say no!" after all. Who woulda thought?

Are these the same people from those "Virginity Balls"?

[Magneto_X]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.

Nah, just make them strippers and all the money they earn goes to the governemnt. Everyone wins. :D

[Puma]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.

and can we castrate the irresponsible boys who impregnated the girls? 'cause it takes two.

why do so many idiots just blame the girl?

[JeffreyWKramer]

and can we castrate the irresponsible boys who impregnated the girls? 'cause it takes two.

why do so many idiots just blame the girl?



My sig contains a good explanation.

[Christopher O]

why do so many idiots just blame the girl?

Because they're idiots?

[Jack Zodiac]

Who wants to rent a bunch of crop dusters with me and rain condoms on various high schools?

[Spike-X]

and can we castrate the irresponsible boys who impregnated the girls? 'cause it takes two.

why do so many idiots just blame the girl?


Because girls are evil and dirty and bad.

Because they'll have sex with other people, but not with us.

[lonewolf23k]

and can we castrate the irresponsible boys who impregnated the girls? 'cause it takes two.

why do so many idiots just blame the girl?



Sorry, my bad. And the castration works too. Along with a "I got castrated because I got my girlfriend pregnant" t-shirt.


I don't believe in half measures.

[Christopher O]

Who wants to rent a bunch of crop dusters with me and rain condoms on various high schools?
I'm in, but I insist on the Morning After Pill going down with the condoms. Afterall, you can never be too responsible.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm in, but I insist on the Morning After Pill going down with the condoms. Afterall, you can never be too responsible.

If these girls were going down, you wouldn't have to worry about the morning after pill. Condoms can still be good for preventing STDs, though.

[Jack Zodiac]

If these girls were going down, you wouldn't have to worry about the morning after pill. Condoms can still be good for preventing STDs, though.

Precisely! However, Chris, I'm all for tossing pamplets explaining "going down" for these girls, too. After all, you can never be too safe. ;)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Precisely! However, Chris, I'm all for tossing pamplets explaining "going down" for these girls, too. After all, you can never be too safe. ;)

Better include some explaining it to the guys, too. With detailed maps.

[Oke-Doke]

Abstinence, like any other form of protection should be promoted but not presented as the only option. I thought that general idea had been applied in every public school by now, it certanily is in my locale and I live in NE, one of the most conservative states in the nation. If something needs to be emphazized more it should be the non-physical consequences of engaging in sexual activity while so young. Many teens seem to be ingnorant of the financial and social risk they take in becoming sexual active so early. It needs to be pounded into their heads that moral condemnation will be the least of their problems if they are too reckless.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And this is all shit kids in highschool probably have no idea about because sexual education is so unreliable these days. If you said "dental dam" to a highschool student, he'd probably make a joke about drooling nerds with retainers.

The funny thing is, the research to date has shown that "abstinence only" sex ed tends to increase the rate of kids doing oral and anal sex, as well as unsafe sex in general. Also, the preliminary results of the research have tended to find reductions in rates and age of teen pregnancy. One has to avoid making too broad conclusions from one bit of anecdotal data - like the example of this school - but even that clearly can't be relied upon.

[Jack Zodiac]

It needs to be pounded into their heads that moral condemnation will be the least of their problems if they are too reckless.

I think that's the easiest one to nail them with, though. Teenagers are self-centered fuckers. :p If you tell them that one mistake they make by becoming sexually active too early could ruin the rest of their lives, that'll usually leave more of an impression on them than telling them it could ruin other peoples' lives.

And I don't know how it's taught today, because it's been a long time since I had to sit through sexual education, but I'm seeing this "Absitence Only" thing come up more and more when people refer to public school and sexual education. And that's a horrible idea. Yes, abstinence should be taught as an option, but just like you said, it shouldn't be taught as the only option.

[Pól Rua]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.

Maybe if we did something that'd make them not want to be sluts... maybe female circumcision... and we can't leave the boys out. They keep being inflamed by all that female flesh. Maybe burkhas.
Hey! There's always chastity belts.
Frankly, I think that once children reach puberty, they should be separated into concentration camps and fed a constant diet of Jesus, self-loathing, guilt, flaggelation and neurosis until they're so terrified of the possibility of sex that it'll make everyone psychotic. Of course, they'll all have to wear manacles so they can't interfere with themselves...

Yup.
That's the key to a better world for everyone.

[Magneto_X]

Maybe if we did something that'd make them not want to be sluts... maybe female circumcision... and we can't leave the boys out. They keep being inflamed by all that female flesh. Maybe burkhas.
Hey! There's always chastity belts.
Frankly, I think that once children reach puberty, they should be separated into concentration camps and fed a constant diet of Jesus, self-loathing, guilt, flaggelation and neurosis until they're so terrified of the possibility of sex that it'll make everyone psychotic. Of course, they'll all have to wear manacles so they can't interfere with themselves...

Yup.
That's the key to a better world for everyone.

How about the teenagers become babysitters for infants and babies for a week or two every few months. That'd sober them up!

[Pól Rua]

How about the teenagers become babysitters for infants and babies for a week or two every few months. That'd sober them up!
Do you want these lust-riddled psychopaths anywhere near YOUR children? No! Castration is the only answer!
Sex is Bad! Bad, I say!
Only through condemnation and prayer can we return to our blessed state of ignorance and fear.
Amen.

[Valmore]

Abstinence-only education has got to be the MOST STUPID thing ever thought of. I mean, seriously. Sex Education should promote abstinence as the most effective method of preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies, but birth control methods and devices should be taught about, so that these horny teenagers will know how to at least try to protect themselves.

I mean, sheesh. The more you make something taboo, the more likely a teenager is going to want to do it. A-duh.

[Charles RB]

Abstinence-only education has got to be the MOST STUPID thing ever thought of.

Yeah - everyone automatically knows how to not do something. It's just that doing nothing is goddamn boring.

[Noah Johnson]

Abstinence-only education has got to be the MOST STUPID thing ever thought of.
Nah, I can see how it would make sense on paper.

Now, continuing to push it after it has been conclusively and resoundingly proved an absolute failure... that's the stupidest thing ever.

Your Republican Party at work, ladies and gentlemen.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Abstinence-only education has got to be the MOST STUPID thing ever thought of.

Absolutely. Which is why probably the stupidest-ever President has made it part of his policies.

[Magneto_X]

"Probaly" the stupidest President ever?

Who even comes close to Junior in stupidity? :confused:

[JeffreyWKramer]

"Probably" the stupidest President ever?

Who even comes close to Junior in stupidity? :confused:

Go ahead and edit that to "definitely the stupidest" = Dubya.

I said "probably" the first time because I couldn't remember all the Presidents, and thus couldn't be entirely certain one of them wasn't an idiot on Bush's level. But, I have since looked up the list of Presidents, and I think it's pretty obvious that even the lesser lights among the previous Presidents is smarter than our Idiot-in-Chief.

[Oke-Doke]

"Probaly" the stupidest President ever?

Who even comes close to Junior in stupidity? :confused:

I wouldn't go that hard on the ol G.W., don't forget about Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. Hoover is still the champ.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I wouldn't go that hard on the ol G.W., don't forget about Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. Hoover is still the champ.


Neither of those folk were the least bit stupid. Hoover wasn't a very successful President, but that has little to do with lack of intelligence on his part. Carter was also not a very good President, but he is no dummy.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think the dumb thing is a pose/nerves around critics/speaking on a subject he's not informed on. I've read dozens of books about the guy (from both sides) and I think there is some evidence that he's not a moron.

In fact, I'd say he's as smart as JFK was: that is, moderately. Not brilliant but not dumb. (Although, of course, JFK compensated with a lot more discipline and hard work than Bush is capable of.)

So, why is he such a fuck-up? Because his management style is awful: his inner circle's inbred and he delegates responsibility but not authority.

He tells people what to do but is the "decider" (his own term) on policy. But to do that you have to either be a policy wonk (Clinton) or spend all of your time swotting up (Kennedy).

(Obviously, yes, the President gets the final word, but if you're going to delegate an area (as Presidents have to) you have to sacrifice some leeway on policy. With Bush it's the worst of all worlds: he doesn't do as much work as he should and then insists on being the absolute arbitrater of policy. So, he makes bad decisions.)

[Oke-Doke]

Neither of those folk were the least bit stupid. Hoover wasn't a very successful President, but that has little to do with lack of intelligence on his part. Carter was also not a very good President, but he is no dummy.

I don't know about Hoover, he saw the economy falling into ruble under his plan of natural market recovery and still pushed it up until his defeat. He had violently did away with honorable veterans who were peacfully protesting, who had just given their all for their country and had shantty towns named after him. How many warning lights did he need to see before he thought, maybe I made a mistake?

G.W. is a up and comer, but I think he sticks out more because of his inability to express himself in public.

[Wesley Dodds]

Eisenhower had the same problem, he couldn't be coherent on policy.

Well, that's what happens when you don't get engaged with what you're doing, people will ask you questions you don't have enough information to answer.

God bless talking points, they've scrubbed the Presidency of any need to know the facts: "We're going to stay the course."

[Magneto_X]

I think the dumb thing is a pose/nerves around critics/speaking on a subject he's not informed on. I've read dozens of books about the guy (from both sides) and I think there is some evidence that he's not a moron.

In fact, I'd say he's as smart as JFK was: that is, moderately. Not brilliant but not dumb. (Although, of course, JFK compensated with a lot more discipline and hard work than Bush is capable of.)

So, why is he such a fuck-up? Because his management style is awful: his inner circle's inbred and he delegates responsibility but not authority.

He tells people what to do but is the "decider" (his own term) on policy. But to do that you have to either be a policy wonk (Clinton) or spend all of your time swotting up (Kennedy).

(Obviously, yes, the President gets the final word, but if you're going to delegate an area (as Presidents have to) you have to sacrifice some leeway on policy. With Bush it's the worst of all worlds: he doesn't do as much work as he should and then insists on being the absolute arbitrater of policy. So, he makes bad decisions.)


JFK not only had charisma but didn't depend on speeches or staying on script if he had to. Junior has none of these things.

Once he is in a situation that he doesn't have a pre-prepared answer for he either babbles about nothing and/or repeats something he said before.

*That's* one of the reasons people see him as a moron.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yeah, that's the essential difference between JFK and Bush. OK, let's say they're about the same intelligence. Kennedy did his job by reading even when he was in the bath. Bush, on the other hand, gets oral briefings.

Neither was a policy wonk like Clinton. Clinton's famous for knowing more about a subject than the people who worked under him. Kennedy swotted to fake it (and won the heart of every journalist, as Clinton did in 1991). Bush takes vacations and clears brush.

[Spike-X]

The thing is, though, he hasn't always been that way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo&search=bush%20)

WTF happened between ten years ago and now?

[Wesley Dodds]

Watch his eyes, he's reading off a teleprompter.

[Magneto_X]

The thing is, though, he hasn't always been that way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo&search=bush%20)

WTF happened between ten years ago and now?

Drugs and booze.

Junior should be an example of what they can do to people. It'd scare teenagers into not doing it. :D

[Black Atom]

As dumb as Bush appears to be, he's president of the US and none of us are. How messed up is that?

Besides, everyone knows the best way to keep kids from having sex is reverse psychology. ENCOURAGE them to do it, man. Teens are needlessly rebellious--they will not have sex merely to spite authority figures who want them to.

[Iangould]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.

Yeah because that idea worked so well back when it was applied in the 1tyh and 19th centuries - when illegitimacy and teen pregnancy rates were much higher than now.

Of course, we COULD get serious about a return to "traditional values" and bring back stoning for fornicators.

I'm sure you'd be happy to cast the first stone.

[Magneto_X]

As dumb as Bush appears to be, he's president of the US and none of us are. How messed up is that?


That's only because he won the genetic jackpot. If he wasn't in the Bush family & like you or I he would never have been elected governor, let alone president.

[Iangould]

"Probaly" the stupidest President ever?

Who even comes close to Junior in stupidity? :confused:

Warren G Harding is often mentioned as a contender.

[StoneGold]

and can we castrate the irresponsible boys who impregnated the girls? 'cause it takes two.



Not always.

http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/2720/793jpg6qm1wo1sk.jpg

[Iangould]

http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.pdf

Further proof that, as Noah is wont to say, reality has a blatant pro-liberal bias.

Teen pregancy rates for develoepd English-speaking countries (preganncies per thousand female adolescents):

Australia 43.7
Canada 45.4
England 46.9
Ireland 19,2
New Zealand 54
Scotland 41.6 (blair might want to take note of that)
United States 83.6

A few more figures for comparison

Japan: 10.1
Netherlands: 12.2
Sweden 24.9
Spain 12.3

But obviously if reality conflicts with the teachings of fundamentalist American protestantism, reality is at fault.

[StoneGold]

http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.pdf

Further proof that, as Noah is wont to say, reality has a blatant pro-liberal bias.

Teen pregancy rates for develoepd English-speaking countries (preganncies per thousand female adolescents):

Australia 43.7
Canada 45.4
England 46.9
Ireland 19,2
New Zealand 54
Scotland 41.6 (blair might want to take note of that)
United States 83.6

A few more figures for comparison

Japan: 10.1
Netherlands: 12.2
Sweden 24.9
Spain 12.3

But obviously if reality conflicts with the teachings of fundamentalist American protestantism, reality is at fault.
All this proves is that America has the most potent men on earth!!!!

[Iangould]

All this proves is that America has the most potent men on earth!!!!

Nah, the eastern European countries are way ahead of you.

[Cephus]

The problem with most abstinence-only programs is that they fail to recognize that teenagers are human and never even mention how to protect yourself if, by chance, you decide you're going to have sex. The reality is that some kids are going to do it no matter what you teach them. Abstinence-only programs are terrified of that reality. But then again, if you look at the flipside, most other sex-education programs are terrified of telling kids the truth. They focus on how to protect yourself but don't bother to talk about whether or not the kids should decide to have sex in the first place. They assume that everyone is going to do it so just tell them how to be safer.

There is no safe sex outside of abstinence, period. You can have safer sex, you can do a lot to protect yourself, but if you have sex, any sex, with anyone, you are taking a risk. That's the reality that kids need to be told. It's stupid to watch people saying "kids are making mistakes". Yeah, but these mistakes can have life-changing, or even life-ending consequences. The kid who got pregnant at 14 because they told her how to use a condom, but not the fact that no birth control method is 100% effective, or that she has a right to say no, is just as messed up for the rest of her life as the 16 year old who gets AIDS because she was never told the truth.

We need to stop candy coating everything. Be honest with kids. Tell them that sex can kill them. Tell them that teenage pregnancy can ruin their lives. Tell them that they have a choice and let them make it. If they ruin their lives after being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that's their problem, but at least they deserve to know.

[Cephus]

http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/2720/793jpg6qm1wo1sk.jpg

Am I the only one who thought he should be green and saying "Hulk smash!"

[Spike-X]

Watch his eyes, he's reading off a teleprompter.
In a televised debate? I don't think so.

[Tages]

I don't know about Hoover, he saw the economy falling into ruble under his plan of natural market recovery and still pushed it up until his defeat.
Natural market recovery? Hoover's admistration for all intents and purposes started the New Deal. Many of Roosevelt's programs were just extensions of what Hoover started and Hoover later criticized FDR for going too far.

[Noah Johnson]

But then again, if you look at the flipside, most other sex-education programs are terrified of telling kids the truth. They focus on how to protect yourself but don't bother to talk about whether or not the kids should decide to have sex in the first place. They assume that everyone is going to do it so just tell them how to be safer.
No offense, but what are you basing that on? Certainly doesn't map to any sex ed program I've seen or heard about, but then again, the world is wide.

[Tages]

I think most sex ed programs can be summed up by that scene in "Mean Girls:"

"If you have sex, you will get chlamydia, and you will die. Now, everyone take some rubbers."

Certainly reminds me of the programs I had in school, particularly since in my sophomore through senior years of high school I had the exact same class three times in a row with precisely zero variation. They even reused the STD slide show intended to horrify impressionable teenagers into keeping their pants on for life.

[Valmore]

Go ahead and edit that to "definitely the stupidest" = Dubya.

I said "probably" the first time because I couldn't remember all the Presidents, and thus couldn't be entirely certain one of them wasn't an idiot on Bush's level. But, I have since looked up the list of Presidents, and I think it's pretty obvious that even the lesser lights among the previous Presidents is smarter than our Idiot-in-Chief.

Andrew Jackson wasn't the sharpest tack. He bankrupted the National Bank because of sheer mistrust in banking and used the money on rampant land speculation, which lead to the recession/depression Martin Van Buren endured after him. Jackson was also one of the worst "spoils system" Presidents ever. So the man on the $20 probably ranks up there.

[Tages]

Jackson saw the BOTUS as a tool of greedy aristocrats, and allowed its charter to expire in part because he hated central banking and part to embarass Clay.

[cactusmaac]

Harding was responsible for the turn-around in the economy and ending of the national mood of paranioa fostered by the Wilson years. He freed Eugene Debs from prison and called for the social, legal and economic equality of blacks in his speeches in the South during the lynching craze.

Hoover was one of the smartest men to have ever been President and was responsible for the Depression being as bad as it was thanks to his belief that government could engineer the private sector into prosperity.

It seems somewhat apparent that presidents derided as ignorant boobs during their terms of office achieve better results than the smarty-pants.

[thehod]

It seems somewhat apparent that presidents derided as ignorant boobs during their terms of office achieve better results than the smarty-pants.

I'm willing to bet that there's an exception to that rule....

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm willing to bet that there's an exception to that rule....
Gerald Ford was widely - and unfairly - derided as a dimwit during his tenure in office, and he was also possibly the most superfluous, and least notable, President in US history.

As to smart Presidents who accomplished things, there's always Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt. Lincoln and FDR were also astoundingly bright, and accomplished much (albeit some not so great).

[Michael P]

Eisenhower had the same problem, he couldn't be coherent on policy.

Well, that's what happens when you don't get engaged with what you're doing, people will ask you questions you don't have enough information to answer.

God bless talking points, they've scrubbed the Presidency of any need to know the facts: "We're going to stay the course."
"But sir, the course leads us directly over a waterfall."

[Winslow]

IN fairness, the article has nothing to do with Bush's endorsement of abstinence only programs

Health textbooks, older than some students, will be replaced.

[K'Nort]

How about the teenagers become babysitters for infants and babies for a week or two every few months. That'd sober them up!

Actually, variations on that are both common and effective.

[fly on the wall]

Or, you know, educate kids on sex and the responsibilities that come with the path into adulthood. We could also discourage the use of terms such as "slut" and stop treating sex like it's murder. Obviously, that tactic isn't working.

Dear me the horny little bastards had sex and now they may be shunned a little for it.

At least the shunning ends with high school and then they enter 'mybaby'sdaddyville'. There are plenty of people that continue to be shunned all their lives, like the obese, racial minorities and the mentally ill. These are the people I'll feel sorry for.

Frankly I doubt that any sex training works to slow down the unwed pregnancy rate. Kids want to have sex whether they have an education on sex or not.

The taboo against teen sex remains, although mostly in tattered form. I doubt the taboo against teen sex is causing pregnancies, as many people here infer. It probably prevents a few.

Mostly I don't think there is anyway to stop kids from having sex, be it rational or emotionally based.

[Tages]

Harding was responsible for the turn-around in the economy and ending of the national mood of paranioa fostered by the Wilson years. He freed Eugene Debs from prison and called for the social, legal and economic equality of blacks in his speeches in the South during the lynching craze.
He also reneged on Wilson's agreement with the British government to occupy Turkey after the war. I think we can all be glad of that.

[Black Atom]

That's only because he won the genetic jackpot. If he wasn't in the Bush family & like you or I he would never have been elected governor, let alone president.

Are you suggesting there might've been nepotism involved?

[Michael P]

Are you suggesting there might've been nepotism involved?
Inconceivable!

[FBHthelizardmage]

I think most sex ed programs can be summed up by that scene in "Mean Girls:"

"If you have sex, you will get chlamydia, and you will die. Now, everyone take some rubbers."

Certainly reminds me of the programs I had in school, particularly since in my sophomore through senior years of high school I had the exact same class three times in a row with precisely zero variation. They even reused the STD slide show intended to horrify impressionable teenagers into keeping their pants on for life.

The frightening thing is this is still better than the program we got.

[Black Atom]

The problem with most abstinence-only programs is that they fail to recognize that teenagers are human and never even mention how to protect yourself if, by chance, you decide you're going to have sex. The reality is that some kids are going to do it no matter what you teach them. Abstinence-only programs are terrified of that reality. But then again, if you look at the flipside, most other sex-education programs are terrified of telling kids the truth. They focus on how to protect yourself but don't bother to talk about whether or not the kids should decide to have sex in the first place. They assume that everyone is going to do it so just tell them how to be safer.

There is no safe sex outside of abstinence, period. You can have safer sex, you can do a lot to protect yourself, but if you have sex, any sex, with anyone, you are taking a risk. That's the reality that kids need to be told. It's stupid to watch people saying "kids are making mistakes". Yeah, but these mistakes can have life-changing, or even life-ending consequences. The kid who got pregnant at 14 because they told her how to use a condom, but not the fact that no birth control method is 100% effective, or that she has a right to say no, is just as messed up for the rest of her life as the 16 year old who gets AIDS because she was never told the truth.

We need to stop candy coating everything. Be honest with kids. Tell them that sex can kill them. Tell them that teenage pregnancy can ruin their lives. Tell them that they have a choice and let them make it. If they ruin their lives after being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that's their problem, but at least they deserve to know.

We Americans are notoriously irresponsible. The fact is that American high schools are a breeding ground for unaccountability. Teens are imparted with several new priviledges, such as driving, earning wages and adult anatomy, but rarely the knowledge or sense of responsibility that should accompany them. At that age you're able to make decisions that may change your life and that of others, yet the weight of these decisions isn't clearly communicated, in my opinion.

That's not just in regards to sex, but pretty much across the board. I remember reading that our underaged drinking and drunk driving deaths are pretty astronimical compared to other countries as well, even those that out-drink us. In a lawsuit-happy culture like ours in which adults blame all deviant their behavior on some newly-discovered chemical imbalance or some Freudian psychological maladjustment, how can we possibly ask a 16-year-old take responsibility for his actions?

[Spike-X]

The fact is that American high schools are a breeding ground...

Apparently so.

[Valmore]

Jackson saw the BOTUS as a tool of greedy aristocrats, and allowed its charter to expire in part because he hated central banking and part to embarass Clay.

Still doesn't make him any smarter. Especially with the slaughtering Native Americans he did as well.

[Nick Soapdish]

Still doesn't make him any smarter. Especially with the slaughtering Native Americans he did as well.

I saw Jackson's issues as not having to do with a lack of smarts, but just plain wrong-headedness. I don't think he drove the Cherokee out of Georgia because he was stupid. I think he did it because he was racist and because he had little respect for the Constitution.

[Cephus]

We Americans are notoriously irresponsible. The fact is that American high schools are a breeding ground for unaccountability. Teens are imparted with several new priviledges, such as driving, earning wages and adult anatomy, but rarely the knowledge or sense of responsibility that should accompany them. At that age you're able to make decisions that may change your life and that of others, yet the weight of these decisions isn't clearly communicated, in my opinion.

Of course they're not because no one wants to admit that they are responsible for their own actions. Look at how things have been changing in the past couple years. Everything is a disease or a syndrome. You're a lazy fat-ass? It's not your fault! It's a disease! You drink beer like a fish? It's not your fault! It's a disease! You're a social misfit? Hey, take these drugs and make it better! No one has to take any responsibility for anything, it's all someone else's fault. Can't pass a simple test in school? It isn't that you screwed around and didn't learn anything, it's RACIST! Don't like the laws? Ignore them and claim you shouldn't have to follow them.

This whole country is fucked up.

[Iangould]

It seems somewhat apparent that presidents derided as ignorant boobs during their terms of office achieve better results than the smarty-pants.

Intelligence is an asset obviously but its not the be-all and end-all msot people think it is.

Jimmy Carter was probably one of the smarter men to occupy the White house but a miserable failure as President.

Jackson may not have been brilliant but, for good or ill, his policies shaped much of subsequent US history.

[Iangould]

Frankly I doubt that any sex training works to slow down the unwed pregnancy rate. Kids want to have sex whether they have an education on sex or not.



Yeah but there are these things called condoms. They're about 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.

I suspect telling kids "If you have sex before marriage; regardless of whether you use a condom or not; you'll get pregnant, contract syphilis, gonorrhea; clamydia and AIDS, die the gutter and then burn in hell for all eternity." is less effective than that.

[Iangould]

He also reneged on Wilson's agreement with the British government to occupy Turkey after the war. I think we can all be glad of that.

I'm not sure the Kurds and Armenians would agree.

[Cephus]

Yeah but there are these things called condoms. They're about 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.

Only if you use them correctly every time which every study I've seen shows teens do not do. Most do not use them at all. Most don't really understand how pregnancy works. Contraceptives have to be used to be effective, you know.

[Iangould]

Only if you use them correctly every time which every study I've seen shows teens do not do. Most do not use them at all. Most don't really understand how pregnancy works. Contraceptives have to be used to be effective, you know.

Yes all of which is why you need sex education.

Which should include telling kids the potential consequences of having sex, recommending abstinence as one option and advising kids to use condoms if they do decide to have sex.

Or do you just think its a coincidence that the country promoting abstinence-only sex education has a higher teen pregnancy rate than countries which promote both abstinence and contraception.

[Tages]

I'm not sure the Kurds and Armenians would agree.
Not sure how American occupation of Turkey would have helped. It might have radicalized the country in the other direction from Ataturk's reforms and made the problems there worse.

[Iangould]

Not sure how American occupation of Turkey would have helped. It might have radicalized the country in the other direction from Ataturk's reforms and made the problems there worse.

On the other hand it mgiht have forced Turkey (and Iran) to accept an independent Kurdish state

[Tages]

On the other hand it mgiht have forced Turkey (and Iran) to accept an independent Kurdish state
I doubt it. Kurdish-majority areas were still in French-occupied Syria and British-occupied Iraq and both countries would need a compelling reason to cede territory. Putting pressure on Iran would have been easy enough though.

[Iangould]

I doubt it. Kurdish-majority areas were still in French-occupied Syria and British-occupied Iraq and both countries would need a compelling reason to cede territory. Putting pressure on Iran would have been easy enough though.

The British and French had agreed to an independent Kurdistan in the Treaty of Sevres. It was only when the turks beat the Greeks in the Grecoe-Turkish War and decided to hang on to their Kurdish provinces that the British and French decided to incorporate the Kurdish areas of their mandates into Syria and Iraq.

[Tages]

Sevres was never valid because the Turkish republicans wouldn't accept it. Not sure why the Americans would push the Kurdistan solution, or why the British and French would have gone through with it, especially if there was a successful revolt against the occupation.

[cactusmaac]

I saw Jackson's issues as not having to do with a lack of smarts, but just plain wrong-headedness. I don't think he drove the Cherokee out of Georgia because he was stupid. I think he did it because he was racist and because he had little respect for the Constitution.

That's a cop-out. Back then the average American regarded Indian tribes as savages who needed to be killed or driven away. Jackson was doing what the voters were quite happy with. Now two hundred years later, he's the one who gets called a racist who disrespected the Constitution.

[Cephus]

Which should include telling kids the potential consequences of having sex, recommending abstinence as one option and advising kids to use condoms if they do decide to have sex.

Which is what I've been saying all along. I disagree with teaching abstinence-only as much as I disagree with teaching action without consequence. Both of those are really what we're doing in this country. Either tell them no sex under any circumstances, or figure they're all going to have sex, so teach them how. Everyone is afraid to teach a comprehensive program that teaches that abstinence is the only truly safe sex, but if you're going to do it, here's how to make it safer and what potential consequences you are agreeing to if you engage in the activity.

[Cephus]

That's a cop-out. Back then the average American regarded Indian tribes as savages who needed to be killed or driven away. Jackson was doing what the voters were quite happy with. Now two hundred years later, he's the one who gets called a racist who disrespected the Constitution.

But that's pretty normal for the historically-ignorant American of today. They only judge things in the past by the standards of today and can't figure out why everyone wasn't behaving as if they were in modern-day America.

[Dan Apodaca]

That's a cop-out. Back then the average American regarded Indian tribes as savages who needed to be killed or driven away. Jackson was doing what the voters were quite happy with. Now two hundred years later, he's the one who gets called a racist who disrespected the Constitution.

Because he's a representative. You choose to be the one to receive credit for the action, then you have to deal with being the one to take responsibility for it, too.

Come on, now. Are you actually proposing that people take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task?

[Adam Crocker]

I disagree with teaching abstinence-only as much as I disagree with teaching action without consequence. Both of those are really what we're doing in this country. Either tell them no sex under any circumstances, or figure they're all going to have sex, so teach them how. Everyone is afraid to teach a comprehensive program that teaches that abstinence is the only truly safe sex, but if you're going to do it, here's how to make it safer and what potential consequences you are agreeing to if you engage in the activity.

Question: just what sex-ed programs are teaching kids that how to have sex because they figure they'll do so anyways, but leave out the consequences? I hear people mention this, but I've never seen examples of it.

[Dan Apodaca]

Wasn't there a study released recently that showed that kids who had gone through the DARE program were actually more likely to try drugs?

I can't understand why anyone would expect "Just say no!" to work any better for sexual abstinence, considering how much stronger the pull is for the average person.

[cactusmaac]

Because he's a representative. You choose to be the one to receive credit for the action, then you have to deal with being the one to take responsibility for it, too.

Come on, now. Are you actually proposing that people take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task?

Sure. It doesn't feel as righteous as scapegoating an individual, but it places the responsibility where it belongs. The federal government made treaty after treaty with various Indian nations. Settlers on the ground refused to abide by them time and again.

[Dan Apodaca]

Sure. It doesn't feel as righteous as scapegoating an individual, but it places the responsibility where it belongs. The federal government made treaty after treaty with various Indian nations. Settlers on the ground refused to abide by them time and again.

Okay, just for the record, you're seriously suggesting that people take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task.

I think that about says it all.

[Adam Crocker]

Sure. It doesn't feel as righteous as scapegoating an individual, but it places the responsibility where it belongs. The federal government made treaty after treaty with various Indian nations. Settlers on the ground refused to abide by them time and again.

On the other hand the feds didn't really enforce them and gave into the settlers quite readily. Besides its not as though the feds treated the Indians well when it came time for removal.

Okay, just for the record, you're seriously suggesting that people take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task.

I think that about says it all.

On the other hand it doesn't matter if they are deceased. The godawful treatment doled out to native Americans didn't merely stem from the actions of the American government. It was a product of the prevalent racism in American society at the time. And often their loss of land (especially economically productive land, even that doled out in the original treaties) was due to settlers encroaching upon that land and lobbying the feds to give it to them. (Which the feds seemed quite happy to do.) Yes those people may be deceased, but part of the historical responsibility for how Indians have been treated rests with them as well.

Wasn't there a study released recently that showed that kids who had gone through the DARE program were actually more likely to try drugs?

Never heard anything about that. I do remember Kramer mentioning that kids who are given an honest drug prevention program that doesn't go into over-the-top demonization of drugs and discusses their affects and why people get into them honestly has slightly better success rate than programs like DARE. Namely because kids are less inclined to disbelieve the things the drug program has told them when they smoke a stick of marijuana and find out that BOOM it hasn't turned them into a burnt out junkie.

[Iangould]

I disagree with teaching abstinence-only as much as I disagree with teaching action without consequence. Both of those are really what we're doing in this country.

Can you offer any evidence to support your claim that anyone in the US is "teaching action without consequence"?

[Dan Apodaca]

On the other hand it doesn't matter if they are deceased. The godawful treatment doled out to native Americans didn't merely stem from the actions of the American government. It was a product of the prevalent racism in American society at the time. And often their loss of land (especially economically productive land, even that doled out in the original treaties) was due to settlers encroaching upon that land and lobbying the feds to give it to them. (Which the feds seemed quite happy to do.) Yes those people may be deceased, but part of the historical responsibility for how Indians have been treated rests with them as well.

You guys keep trying to convince me of their culpability, but you're just wasting your time. Read the sentence again.

"...take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task."

Just think about that. Think about how you could possibly do that. Think about why you would even bother going to all the effort. Think about if it really makes a difference whether you blame one dead guy or a nameless mass of dead people.

[Iangould]

That's a cop-out. Back then the average American regarded Indian tribes as savages who needed to be killed or driven away. Jackson was doing what the voters were quite happy with. Now two hundred years later, he's the one who gets called a racist who disrespected the Constitution.

Well the fact that Jackson got elected suggest that 51% or so of the average American voter thought that - which, of course, is nto the same as the average American unless by average you mean "white, male and owning enough property to qualify for the franchise".

Jackson's actions seem to have been quite controversial at the time. I'm really only going on Jack Jackson's "Indian Lover" here. Sam Houston was a successful military officer and a protege of Andrew Jackson's who he served under in the war of 1812. Houston broke permanently with Jackson over Jackson's removal policy, resigned his commission and moved west, ending up in Texas. I get the impression (and it really is only an impression) that there was widespread opposition within the US to Jackson's policy.

[Adam Crocker]

You guys keep trying to convince me of their culpability, but you're just wasting your time. Read the sentence again.

"...take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task."

Just think about that. Think about how you could possibly do that.

What effort? No, we can't take dead people to task. They're dead. That isn't what I am saying though. I am saying that it should be recognised that the treatment that native Americans have received stems from not only the federal government, but also from the actions of many individual Americans. And arguably that policies such as Jackson's are an extension of racist attitudes towards Indians that have been prevalent in American society in the past.

[Dan Apodaca]

What effort? No, we can't take dead people to task. They're dead. That isn't what I am saying though.

Well, that's what cactusmaac was saying, and that's what I was criticizing him for.

[Adam Crocker]

Well, that's what cactusmaac was saying, and that's what I was criticizing him for.

Frankly I'm not sure he said much different from what I did in regards to the actions of the settlers. He's talking about where the responsibility belongs for these actions, even though I don't entirely agree with his statement which seems to absolve the federal government of a lot of its own responsibility.

[Dan Apodaca]

Frankly I'm not sure he said much different from what I did in regards to the actions of the settlers. He's talking about where the responsibility belongs for these actions, even though I don't entirely agree with his statement which seems to absolve the federal government of a lot of its own responsibility.

It's right up there in the posts. I said, "Are you honestly saying that we should take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task?"

And he said "Sure."

Plain as day.

[K'Nort]

It's right up there in the posts. I said, "Are you honestly saying that we should take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task?"

And he said "Sure."

Plain as day.

Not so plain. There are ways to cross wires there.

And you're talking dead people regardless, so comparing an individual to a group is pretty disingenous anyway.

It is a representative government. And any time you say "well it was the administration," that's denying culpability and increasing the odds of it happening again. I'll skip the obvious example.

It also seems odd to be summing up the intelligence of individual presidents based on what happened during their administration, considering how much influence is held by cabinet members and Congress.

[Dan Apodaca]

Not so plain. There are ways to cross wires there.

And you're talking dead people regardless, so comparing an individual to a group is pretty disingenous anyway.

Fair enough.

My point was that there's no reason to say it was the people's fault, not his, since it doesn't affect anything anyway.

And I still stand by my statement that if you choose to take the credit for something, you have to take the responsibility, too.

It is a representative government. And any time you say "well it was the administration," that's denying culpability and increasing the odds of it happening again. I'll skip the obvious example.

It also seems odd to be summing up the intelligence of individual presidents based on what happened during their administration, considering how much influence is held by cabinet members and Congress.

I'm not sure if this part is directed to me or not.

[Adam Crocker]

It's right up there in the posts. I said, "Are you honestly saying that we should take a nameless mass of deceased voters to task?"

And he said "Sure."

Plain as day.

I guess I missed that. But I also suppose there's something I don't understand here. If taking dead people to task in this matter really just involves a simple act assigning responsbility to them then what is the great effort that makes this so problematic?

[K'Nort]

I'm not sure if this part is directed to me or not.

Nope. There was assorted discussion about Jackson, Hoover, etc that seemed to be based on they came up with everything that happened all on their own.

[Adam Crocker]

Fair enough.

My point was that there's no reason to say it was the people's fault, not his, since it doesn't affect anything anyway.

Okay that's a lot clearer. Personally I disagree on this point, even if I think Cactusmaac's statement was going too far in absolving Jackson of responsibility. As a historian I feel how the responsibility is assigned affects people's understanding of Jackson's policies and the context in which they were carried out. Namely how racist policies that have detrimental affected (and whose after effects are still felt) continue to affect native Americans. It at least provides a better understanding of their current situation.

And I still stand by my statement that if you choose to take the credit for something, you have to take the responsibility, too.

I agree completely.

[Dan Apodaca]

I guess I missed that. But I also suppose there's something I don't understand here. If taking dead people to task in this matter really just involves a simple act assigning responsbility to them then what is the great effort that makes this so problematic?

It also involves figuring out some way of indentifying the people who you're trying to assign the responsibility to. That's the hard part.

[Tages]

Well the fact that Jackson got elected suggest that 51% or so of the average American voter thought that - which, of course, is nto the same as the average American unless by average you mean "white, male and owning enough property to qualify for the franchise".

Jackson's actions seem to have been quite controversial at the time. I'm really only going on Jack Jackson's "Indian Lover" here. Sam Houston was a successful military officer and a protege of Andrew Jackson's who he served under in the war of 1812. Houston broke permanently with Jackson over Jackson's removal policy, resigned his commission and moved west, ending up in Texas. I get the impression (and it really is only an impression) that there was widespread opposition within the US to Jackson's policy.
Such as in the Supreme Court, which directly ruled that the Cherokee were in the right and the state of Georgia was not.

Jackson ignored the ruling.

[Iangould]

Such as in the Supreme Court, which directly ruled that the Cherokee were in the right and the state of Georgia was not.

Jackson ignored the ruling.

I had a look at the wikipedia article on Jackson after reading this thread and they claim that Jackson didn't ignore the Supreme Court. He got the Cherokee to sign a new treaty after the previous Georgia State law, which didn't actually provide for the removal of the Cherokee, was ruled unconstitutional.

It's not an area I know a lot about so if you want to debate it further I'd suggest doing so on Wikipedia.

[Tages]

Debate? I was agreeing with you. A lot of people did oppose his actions.

[Iangould]

Debate? I was agreeing with you. A lot of people did oppose his actions.

Yes but he didn't disregard or defy the Supreme Court. He found another way, legally, to achieve his objective.

[Black Atom]

Okay, so here's the thing. I was watching the Teen Choice awards (yeah, I know--shut up) and the show was closed out by ultra-pregnant Britney Spears coming out to introduce a performance by her husband.

Granted, Britney Spears is a married woman, but what sort of message does that send to American teens, especially given the...questionable parenting skills that she's shown thus far? Like it or not, she's a role model.

See, I forsee a future far worse than any Bradbury ever imagined, in which bewildered infants have replaced those little rat-faced dogs hotel heiresses are always toting around as the hottest new fashion accessory. Really, I don't think teens have an understanding of the gravity of having a kid and the responsibility of teaching something like that shouldn't really lie with school teachers, should it?

[BigBoss]

It aint that hard to slip on a condom and why dont the goverment but out of are business. it is not thier buisness. so they should just leave.

[Black Atom]

It aint that hard to slip on a condom and why dont the goverment but out of are business. it is not thier buisness. so they should just leave.

Actually, it can be pretty tough sometimes. I use a technique called the "slippity dippity" myself.

In regards to the government, I'd normally agree with you. The responsibility should lie with parents, but I don't know that kids would learn anything if it wasn't for school-sponsored sex-ed. Ideally, there should be some sort of government sponsored program that encourages parents to get involved. Not just with sex-ed, but with school in general. I think there's a pretty big disconnection between parents and their kids at that time in their lives.

[P-Man]

It aint that hard to slip on a condom and why dont the goverment but out of are business. it is not thier buisness. so they should just leave.

Two points:

Condoms ain't 100% effective.

Condoms suck. Sex without a condom is vastly superior to sex with a piece of rubber on your dick.

Condoms are not some magic solution. I have no idea what a good sollution is, but I know saying "We have condoms so everything is alright!" is a load of bull.

[Jeff Brady]

Two points:

Condoms ain't 100% effective.

Correctamundo! However, it's better than not using them at all, except for, well:

Condoms suck. Sex without a condom is vastly superior to sex with a piece of rubber on your dick.

True, but there are ways of (forgive me) overcoming that particular obstacle. Two or three drops of KY warming lube on the INSIDE of the condom (on the glans) will increase sensation, but increase risk of it falling off. However, it's not too hard (sorry) to notice it happening. Lube on the OUTSIDE of the condom will help prevent it from tearing. Don't think that the lube on the condom will be enough. Used in conjunction with The Pill (and if necessary, the Morning After Pill), you won't have too much to worry about.

Condoms are not some magic solution. I have no idea what a good sollution is, but I know saying "We have condoms so everything is alright!" is a load of bull.

Agreed, but it's a step in the right direction.

[(A)//(E)]

Two points:

Condoms ain't 100% effective.
.

I vouch this because i have HPV now.

[Spike-X]

It aint that hard to slip on a condom and why dont the goverment but out of are business. it is not thier buisness. so they should just leave.
One might argue that their time would be better spent focusing on correcting the decline in literacy standards.

[Spike-X]

Okay, so here's the thing. I was watching the Teen Choice awards (yeah, I know--shut up) and the show was closed out by ultra-pregnant Britney Spears coming out to introduce a performance by her husband.

Granted, Britney Spears is a married woman, but what sort of message does that send to American teens, especially given the...questionable parenting skills that she's shown thus far? Like it or not, she's a role model.

What's your point? Are you saying that famous pregnant women should hide themselves away?

[Tages]

No, he's saying that woman shouldn't get pregnant.

I think.

[cactusmaac]

What's your point? Are you saying that famous pregnant women should hide themselves away?

I think he's saying that famous, stupid people who have questionable parenting skills shouldn't be reminding the wider world that they're breeding or they may encourage their naive, impressionable fans to breed too.

[Black Atom]

What's your point? Are you saying that famous pregnant women should hide themselves away?

I'm saying greater care should be taken when giving people the opportunity to influence masses of young people. Given the multitude of other candidates that could have filled the spot, surely they could've selected someone else
to address a demographic among which unexpected/unwanted pregnancy is an epidemic.

To answer your question more directly, Britney Spears is hardly a suitable champion for pregnant women in showbusiness. Someone who has publicly demonstrated motherhood with such indignity and irresponsibility SHOULD be hidden away, not celebrated. The fact that she's hosting a TV show reveals the sort of thought process that legitmizes this sort of shitty behvavior.

[Michael P]

I don't see how Preggo Britney being on the TV sends any message about unsafe sex to anyone. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Britney is married, and the baby is the result of sex with her husband, correct? So, how is the appearance of a married, pregnant woman telling kids to have irresponsible sex? There's a logical disconnect I'm not getting.

For that matter, you have to work really hard to read any message about sex into that at all. It's an awards show, she's in the entertainment business, and she was introducing a performer (her husband, as a matter of fact).

[Black Atom]

I don't see how Preggo Britney being on the TV sends any message about unsafe sex to anyone. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Britney is married, and the baby is the result of sex with her husband, correct? So, how is the appearance of a married, pregnant woman telling kids to have irresponsible sex? There's a logical disconnect I'm not getting.

For that matter, you have to work really hard to read any message about sex into that at all. It's an awards show, she's in the entertainment business, and she was introducing a performer (her husband, as a matter of fact).

Her apperance romanticizes teen pregnancy for a group that already has difficulty understanding the responsibility of siring offpsring. Before that, she romanticized sex. Like most pop idols, she maintains a confusing dichotomy of reinforcing adult themes, yet not really being allowed to appear grown-up so she remains marketable to 14-year-olds. I think that sends a mixed message.

I'm not saying the problem begins and ends with Britney Spears and her ilk, just that you can't place all the blame on backwoods bumpkins preaching abstainance. Kids know what condoms are. I'm willing to bet high school kids today know more about sex than I did in high school. I just believe the consequences are less real to them. Part of that is because teen pregnancy and abortion (sorry to say it) have become less stigmatized.

[Michael P]

Her apperance romanticizes teen pregnancy
She's twenty-five.

[Valmore]

She's twenty-five.

I think his argument is that her main audience is still the 15-21 set. I guess. And since that's her intended audience, blah blah blah...

Frankly, I'm not certain of his silly point. I figured her 15 minutes were over and only the media cared about her anymore.

[Black Atom]

I think his argument is that her main audience is still the 15-21 set. I guess. And since that's her intended audience, blah blah blah...

Frankly, I'm not certain of his silly point. I figured her 15 minutes were over and only the media cared about her anymore.

Well, you were wrong.

Dead wrong.

[Adam Crocker]

I think his argument is that her main audience is still the 15-21 set. I guess. And since that's her intended audience, blah blah blah...

I think it was more that she supposedly is still made to look like a teenager. Darned if I knew how, especially with the outfits she has worn.

[Tadhg Adams]

She's twenty-five.


I'm not getting it either. Is there a problem with the over-sexualization of teenagers, sure. But I don't know how a married pregnant woman exacerbates the problem.

[Michael P]

I think it was more that she supposedly is still made to look like a teenager. Darned if I knew how, especially with the outfits she has worn.
She sure as hell didn't look like one on Dateline.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/16/xin_22060316090098608216.jpg

[Magneto_X]

One might argue that their time would be better spent focusing on correcting the decline in literacy standards.

That would take work. Can't have that.

[Magneto_X]

What's your point? Are you saying that famous pregnant women should hide themselves away?

Women can be presentable, even hot, when pregnant. See Jennifer Garner, Demi Moore, Hiedi Klum, Monica Bellucci. Hell, even non-famous pregnant women can be beautiful!

[Iangould]

I'm saying greater care should be taken when giving people the opportunity to influence masses of young people. Given the multitude of other candidates that could have filled the spot, surely they could've selected someone else


Yeah obviously the government department that licenses performers and decided how many records they're allowed to sell messed up royally here.

[Valmore]

Well, you were wrong.

Dead wrong.

Wrong about what? Her 15 minutes and nobody but the media caring or the point you were trying to make?

I mean, she hasn't had a hit single in forever as far as I can tell.

[K'Nort]

Well, you were wrong.

Dead wrong.

Teens are dying because she's pregnant?

[atoningunifex]

Teens are dying because she's pregnant?

Yes. It seems that hosting a K-Fed Spawn requires regular ingestion of the "life energy" of teens. So Britney's people have been rounding up fans and Britney has been draining them dry.

[Mike Smash!]

Yes. It seems that hosting a K-Fed Spawn requires regular ingestion of the "life energy" of teens. So Britney's people have been rounding up fans and Britney has been draining them dry.

This is true. Every time I see the media cover them, it feels like a small part of me dies.

[howyadoin]

Here's my idea.. Take all the teenaged girls who get pregnant, and force them to wear a shirt with "I'm a dirty slut who couldn't say No and now I'm pregnant".

Maybe that should get the message across the others.That might be the most repugnant thing I've read all day.

[Paul McEnery]

That might be the most repugnant thing I've read all day.
Oh no. His attempt to start racial hatred was much worse.

[howyadoin]

Oh no. His attempt to start racial hatred was much worse.True. But I didn't notice that one till Brian closed it.

[Mike Smash!]

Oh no. His attempt to start racial hatred was much worse.

What the hell?

EDIT: Nevermind, saw it.

[thehod]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/16/xin_22060316090098608216.jpg

Yeah, she looks 25 there.

Age and dress size that is.