Archive

Archive for the ‘abstinence only’ Category

Oh the scandal!

December 19, 2007 6 comments

I am sorry that I have to make a post about the most recent famous teen pregnancy, but after reading some responses on People (I know, it’s horrible that I occasionally read that trash!), I have decided that I really do see a feminist issue within all of this.

First off, Jamie Lynn Spears and her boyfriend, Casey Aldridge, made a mistake. Probably some unprotected sex, because you know, abstinence only education is the way to be! And…seriously, who let’s there teenage children live together? But obviously this pregnancy thing wasn’t purposeful, and all we’re hearing now is how it’s all Jamie’s fault, as well as her mothers. This is why I had to respond to this news. Here are some quotes from People:

“This is a shock to anyone? Where are the role models? … I blame the parents on this one for not educating their daughters to behave like ladies (bold mine).

Ladies? Ladies? Seriously? So, her boyfriend had nothing to do with this? Give me a break! This was a decision on both their parts, and Jamie shouldn’t have to have misogynistic expectations on her just because she happens to have a vagina. We’re in a new age people! Women, and young women at that, have SEX. Oh there! I said it! They have sex! Get over it. And she doesn’t need education on how to behave like a lady. She, and her boyfriend, and the rest of the youth in the U.S. need a good, solid, sexual education program. That’s what they need.

And now onto the mother. Huffington Post said:

“Lynne Spears, what were you thinking? Or not thinking and not doing?”

Well, I must say, kids are growing up quite fast these days and they happen to have their own minds and make decisions for themselves. No parent can stop their child from having sex. And what about Jamie’s dad? Is he in all of this? Is he being held responsible with words like these? No. He’s not.

This is hopefully the first and last time I will posting on this, unless more feminist issues arise from it. I don’t want to make some spectacle out of this, as it already has been made out to be! But this is a clear example of why a comprehensive sexual education is needed. Teens are going to make these decisions either way, but they need to be educated about damn contraceptives!

What pro-life really means

December 6, 2007 1 comment

Pro-Life

Mark Crutcher, at WorldNetDaily, discusses the pro-life stance and what pro-life really means. And, of course, I disagree with some of his statements. But hey, that’s to be expected!

First, he states that to be pro-life is to believe “that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.” Question, what about the legal rights of an already grown human being?

Also, according to him, this is a complete black and white situation. You’re either pro-abortion or you’re pro-life, by his definition of course.

Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality. As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.

In reality, this is the most insidious and despicable of all positions on abortion. After all, there is no reason to oppose abortion other than the belief that it takes the life of a living human being. So what the “personally opposed” crowd is saying is: “I agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a baby, but if other people want to do it I support their legal right to do so and it’s not my place to interfere.” That is not a pro-life position. It’s like someone in 1860 saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery and I would never own one, but if someone else wants to own a few that’s their business.”

I don’t like the analogy. A slave is not inside my body, or anyone else’s. It’s a completely different situation and it seems to me to be quite far-fetched when we’re talking about abortion and pro-life.

In conclusion, he states:

So the problem is not that women have abortions, but that children die. And that only occurs because our nation took away their right to life. So maybe we need to talk a little less about stopping abortion and a little more about returning legal protection to the unborn. Perhaps then, all these people claiming to be pro-life would know what being pro-life actually means.

Actually, I have a better idea! How about real sex education and making sure teens or anyone who doesn’t want to have a child, is having safe sex? Protection, people! Condoms! Yay! I agree that we do need to talk a little less about women having abortions, and getting to the root of the problem. The root is not that the unborn don’t have legal protection, but that the youth of today are not educated properly about sex and contraceptives. Not to say that other women who are older don’t have abortions, because they do, but in general, we need to get the youth to understand the basics. And they aren’t getting that. But, guess what? They are going to have sex. So, shouldn’t someone take responsibility for telling them to have safe sex?

Reminding everyone of Puirty Ball creepiness!

December 3, 2007 Leave a comment

I came across this interesting news article from the Chicago Tribune that discusses Purity Balls, sex, abstinence and the question of daughters being property to their fathers. It’s definitely a good read.

He signed a pledge to be the protector of her purity and to live his own life with integrity. She gave her father a gold key to her heart, and asked him to hold on to it until her wedding day, when he would hand it over to her husband. They walked down the aisle with locked arms and she laid a white rose beside a cross, sealing her commitment.

“It’s like I’m devoting my virginity to my dad, saying that I will stay pure because it is the Christian thing to do,” said Lindsay Anne Schell, 18, a freshman at Bradley University in Peoria. “The rose shows the world that you are devoting your purity to God and to your father.”

Huge issues. Devoting your virginity to your father? Sounds really messed up. Of course, girls need these purity balls because they obviously can’t stop themselves from having sex. Their father has to make sure they don’t have sex. And this gold key thing? Eww. That reeks of the time when women were property. And why the hell don’t they have these things for boys? Riight, their sexuality isn’t worth as much. They can just go fuck around if they want. But girls, nope, they need to remain pure! So many sexist issues and double standards come out of this. Too many to really talk about right now.

So, property? I say yes.

“These events represent an idea that there is something about female sexuality that needs to be controlled by dominant men in the household,” said Mary Zeiss Stange, a professor of women’s studies at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “That relates to a patriarchal position in the evangelical movement that not only defines female sexuality but females themselves as property. What happens with purity balls is, in effect, the daughter becomes her father’s property until he hands her off to her husband.”

How are these balls even accepted or allowed? Are people still so old fashioned and sexist that they think this is just the best thing since sliced bread? Oh…one more thing. Why aren’t mothers involved? They gave birth to their children. They deserve a little input, I’m thinking.

Sooooo many things wrong with these things.

Isn’t it ironic?

November 5, 2007 1 comment

Texas has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the United States! Hm…I wonder why that is?

Texas’ policy is to deny contraceptives without parental consent wherever possible and to push an abstinence-only sex education program in public schools.

Experts, though, are questioning that approach. They note that from 1991 to 2004, the state’s teen birth rate dropped by 19 percent, while the U.S. rate dipped by one-third.

There is clear correlation here. Abstinence-only education and parental consent for contraceptives equates to teen pregnancy. What teen would want to ask their parents for consent for freaking condoms? I sure wouldn’t ask my parents for consent. And obviously most teens aren’t, and are having sex, “hoping for the best”, as in hopefully they won’t get pregnant.

When will the government realize this mistake of abstinence-only education and parental consent? It is very true that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent a pregnancy, but it’s not realistic in our society today. The government needs to be doing what’s best for the people they are trying to govern, instead of thinking about their own religious ideaologies.

A sex education debate! Yay!

November 4, 2007 Leave a comment

The debate is “Are schools encouraging kids to have sex?

Shaunti Feldhahn thinks so,

King Middle School in Portland, Maine, has handed out condoms to 11-year-olds since 2000. And the school board just decided to provide prescription contraceptives without parental approval. So the school nurse can know a young girl is sexually active, privately put her on the pill so she can avoid pregnancy and keep that knowledge from parents who want to teach their daughter about sexual choices. If this isn’t encouraging students toward sex, I don’t know what is.

Should kids be having sex at 11? No. But unfortunately, some kids do decide to have sex at 11 and they need the proper education and protection. And parents can still teach their kids about sex and try to persuade their sexual choices, but in the end, it’s not their choice. And we all know we have to get to these kids early now! They are bombarded with sex…everywhere.

Oh right, and we know that abstinence-only education doesn’t help one bit, and it’s pretty much a pile of crap, so even if kids are taught abstinence-only, they will still have sex. Probably without protection.

Moving onto Andrea Sarvady, who thinks that schools aren’t encouraging kids to have sex. And she does the beat down on abstinence-only education!

Pregnant teens? No one wants that. Yet I doubt the solution lies with people like Pam Stenzel, a Bush appointee to the Department of Health and Human Service’s task force for abstinence education guidelines. Here’s Stenzel, when she thinks she’s among “friends,” addressing the effectiveness of an abstinence-only curriculum at a religious convention: “I don’t care if it works, because at the end of the day . . . I’m answering to God.”

Oh, and…

She adds: “AIDS is not the enemy . . . a hysterectomy at 20 is not the enemy . . . An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can . . . sin without consequence . . . spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy!”

This is sick! Where has religious freedom gone in the United States? I mean, that’s not what we’re talking about here…but it sure seems like the government is simply pushing abstinence-only education on every youth, whether they are Christian or not, because the Christian Bible forewarns of pre-marital sex. I really have no problem with this being taught in homes or churches, but to bring abstinence-only into schools under this condition is simply not right.

Ran a little tangent there, didn’t I? The point is, we really do need youth educated about sex and they need to know the protection that is out there and they need to use it when having sex. Sex is going to happen, and the government, as well as some conservative Christians need to stop denying this.

Lots of news!

November 3, 2007 Leave a comment

Every year, 25000 baby girls are not carried to term in Vietnam.

A judge has lost his job for asking a woman to drop her pants in court.

A woman was freaking thrown out of a moving SUV and two young men have been arrested for it.

A smart woman slashed a young man with glass who was threatening to sexually assault before he could do anything to her!

A Muslim marriage “expert” explains how to beat your wife “properly”. Disgusting!

Domestic abuse is a workplace issue too!

Sexual violence and HIV continue to rise in Haiti.

Funny, funny, abstinence only education video!

The abortion rate and adoption rates aren’t really correlated at all, despite what Giuliani says.