Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    Sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is the women are the ones
    having the kids and getting the extra money from the state.
    
    If you want to be serious and talk about the guys being held
    responsible for contributing (at least) financially to the mother (if
    she keeps the child), then I am in full agreement.
    
    
    Mike

>guys being held
>    responsible for contributing (at least) financially to the mother (if
>    she keeps the child), then I am in full agreement.

as am I.  question is, how do you force them to be financially responsible
when many of them don't have a pot to pee in?

    Simple. take away most of everything he's got, so he can't afford
    anything to drink in the first place. Then he won't have to pee.

but you can't take away something from nothing, there's
nothing to take away.  when you're out there trying to 
prove your manhood by getting as many girls pregnant as
you can it indicates to me that you don't have long-term
financial goals in mind.

    
    Lock him up.  He won't get any more females pregnant.
    

    
    
    Can anyone say.. "salt-peter"???
    

that's an answer, I suppose, but not a very constructive one.

    You're right, you can't FORCE boys to be responsible for all the
    girls they may be capable of impregnating because for most boys their
    financial means are outstripped at the first one. This is why it is so
    important to prevent conceptions at the females. Females are far less
    able, on a biological basis, to have more children than they can
    support because they can only fill one uterus at a time. Males can fill
    an almost unlimited number of uteruses- as many as they are given
    access to. Preventing a particular male from impregnating anyone is far
    less effective as a means of controlling population growth than
    preventing one particular female from getting pregnant, because another
    guy can easily take his place if there are willing females. The focus
    has to be on the females if we are going to make inroads against
    irresponsible pregnancies.

    
    yeahbut...there are a lot of doctors (ones with degrees) that will not
    'sterilize a woman unless she has already had a kid...so you wouldn't
    be able to start at the beginning, but somewhere in the middle...
    
    
    

| <<< Note 17.7734 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "There is chaos under the heavens..." >>>

| They put zippers in the welfare mothers to reduce the cost of successive 
| C-sections.

	HAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!  That was too funny!

    RE: .7744  The Doctah

    / Males can fill an almost unlimited number of uteruses- as many as they 
    / are given access to.

    / The focus has to be on the females if we are going to make inroads 
    / against irresponsible pregnancies.

    Considering the first statement, anything less than concentrating on
    reproductive prevention for BOTH males and females is downright nuts.

>The focus
>    has to be on the females if we are going to make inroads against
>    irresponsible pregnancies.

yes, as long as "focus" is not a euphemism for "blame".
but judging from zipper jokes and all, i think it is.

    >Lock him up.  He won't get any more females pregnant.
    
     Hopelessly ineffective. Consider a population of 100 willing females,
    and 100 horny males. With 100 horny males free, you get 100
    pregnancies (assuming no physical problems preventing pregnancy, etc.)
    Lock up 1 guy. Effect? still 100 pregnant females, and nobody misses
    the guy in jail. Ok, so lock up 90 guys. These 10 guys are in heaven,
    and there are still 100 pregnant females. Even if you lock up 99, you
    could potentially have 100 pregnant females (and one happy but
    exhausted male.) Consider, on the other hand, teaching 50% of the girls
    to prevent pregnancy by using contraceptives. Now how many pregnancies
    do you get, regardless of the number of guys in jail/free? At most 50
    (+ contraceptive failures, but there's no need to be so anal.) that's
    why it is important to teach females to be responsible for their
    uteruses- it's so much more effective than teaching males to be
    responsible for their sperm. (Obviously, we should do both, but
    strictly in terms of effectiveness it is more important for girls.) And
    spare me the "you just want guys to be carefree and able to let the
    sperm fly with impunity" strawman.

    
    
    I agree with BSS::S_CONLON...
    
     What's wrong with making sure males only shooot blanks??
    

	why the males get to be "horny" and the females only "willing"
	in the doctah's scenario.

    >What's wrong with making sure males only shooot blanks??
    
     Prior restraint, or after the barn is emptied?

    
    >Prior restraint, or after the barn is emptied?
    
    So NorPlant isn't "prior restraint"??
    

    
    >but there's no need to be so anal.
    
    
    	But THAT could eliminate the other 50 pregnancies.
    

females never get horny, that's a guy thing.

    RE: .7749  The Doctah

    / Consider, on the other hand, teaching 50% of the girls to prevent 
    / pregnancy by using contraceptives. Now how many pregnancies do you 
    / get, regardless of the number of guys in jail/free? At most 50
    / (+ contraceptive failures, but there's no need to be so anal.) 

    Consider teaching 50% of the boys to prevent pregnancy (and disease)
    by using contraceptives.  You could reduce the number of contraceptive
    failures (because if one method failed, the other method could still
    prevent pregnancy) not to mention reducing deaths from AIDS.

    / that's why it is important to teach females to be responsible for 
    / their uteruses- it's so much more effective than teaching males 
    / to be responsible for their sperm. (Obviously, we should do both, 
    / but strictly in terms of effectiveness it is more important for 
    / girls.) 

    If sperm is the big danger which girls must be taught to guard against,
    then in terms of effectiveness, it is equally important to teach boys
    to keep their sperm from doing this damage.  How can it possibly be 
    less important to teach both parties (in a conception which takes
    two people) than the parties of one specific sex?

    / And spare me the "you just want guys to be carefree and able to let 
    / the sperm fly with impunity" strawman.
                     
    Why on earth would you want *half* of the sexual partners involved in
    unplanned pregnancies to believe that it isn't their jobs to prevent it?

    
    
    re: .7756
    
    >females never get horny, that's a guy thing.
    
    
    
    So.... what is it then when they say they do (get horny)...?

    > So.... what is it then when they say they do (get horny)...?
    
    Bad skin.
    
    -b

                         <<< Note 17.7748 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>
    >yes, as long as "focus" is not a euphemism for "blame".
    >but judging from zipper jokes and all, i think it is.
    
    Oh, I blame 'em both equally. I just thought my joke was amusing. I
    thought the one about the zipper on the pecker was amusing, too.
    
    Mebbee then you could zip 'em together so they couldn't get apart after
    they'd produced a rug rat.

    
    re: .7759
    
    ????
    
     They say...
    
     "Can we go upstairs now?? I've got really bad skin!!"
    
    
      Is that like when I say...
    
     "Excuse me, I have to see a man about a horse"?????
    

    >So NorPlant isn't "prior restraint"??
    
     You are comparing a contraceptive with sterilization. There's a huge
    difference there. One can be rectified at any time, in about 15
    minutes. The other frequently cannot be reversed, even with significant
    surgery. Not to mention the difference in implementing them in the
    first place.
    
     Besides, who said we should force pubescent girls to be accept a
    surgical implant? I'm just saying we should convince them to ensure
    they protect their uteruses somehow, whether that be by Norplant,
    sponges, the pill, diaphragm, even, God forbid, abstinence.

    
    re: .7762
    
    >You are comparing a contraceptive with sterilization. 
    
    Let me make myself clearer.... I wasn't talking about sterilizing
    anyone. There is no reason males cannot, with scientific advances in
    contraception, use them as equally as woman should (do).
    
     You don't have to sterilize a man to have him shoot blanks...
    

    If you lock him up, he may try to get men pregnant though.

    >Why on earth would you want *half* of the sexual partners involved in
    >unplanned pregnancies to believe that it isn't their jobs to prevent it?
    
     Because they are the important half. You simply aren't going to get
    100% of the girls to be responsible (any more than you could get 100%
    of the boys to be responsible.) If you get 90% of the girls to be
    responsible, then you get at most 10 pregnancies regardless of how many
    boys you get to be responsible. If you get 90% of the boys to be
    responsible, you are still looking at a number of pregnancies that
    scales with the percentage of girls that are not responsible.
    
     I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that boys should not be taught
    to be responsible. Of course they should. I am saying the damage that a
    small number of irresponsible boys can cause is much greater than the
    damage a small number of irresponsible girls can cause and because of
    this biological fact it is MORE important (not ONLY important) to focus
    on girls.

    >There is no reason males cannot, with scientific advances in
    >contraception, use them as equally as woman should (do).
    
     And the name of the currently available male contraceptive is?

    >  <<< Note 541.19 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>> 
    >females never get horny, that's a guy thing.
    
    
    wrong
    

    RE: .28  The Doctah

    // Why on earth would you want *half* of the sexual partners involved in
    // unplanned pregnancies to believe that it isn't their jobs to prevent it?
    
    / Because they are the important half. 

    Is this a Freudian slip?  (I was talking about men/boys above.)

    In any case, the idea of putting the responsibility of pregnancy 
    prevention onto females and not males is wrong-headed (no pun intended) 
    and it guarantees that the problem of unplanned pregnancies will go on 
    and on.

    Look at the western country with the best success record in the area
    of preventing pregnancy and reducing abortions (although abortions
    are legal there.)  The biggest difference between their system and
    ours is that they promote the idea that men are 100% as responsible
    as women are for preventing pregnancy.  (I'm referring to Holland.)

    In this country, this idea is fought almost to the death (and we never
    get an inch closer to solving the problem.)

    Salt-peter as a horniness reducing agent for males is a myth.   

 .30 Oph, are you for real?!  ;>

    >Is this a Freudian slip?  (I was talking about men/boys above.)
    
     No, I read it as "is their jobs" as opposed to "isn't"...

| <<< Note 541.15 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| why the males get to be "horny" and the females only "willing" in the doctah's
| scenario.

	I know this one!! I know this one!!! <insert hand waving>

	Cuz males are ONLY willing when they are horny, while the pretty
wimmins are willing even when they are not horny. :-)

    
    Salt-peter when mixed with sulfur, on the other hand, and
    placed in a brass canister behind a molded lead projectile,
    can be quite the horniness reducer. Oh yes indeedy.

    -b

    RE: .29  The Doctah

    / And the name of the currently available male contraceptive is?

    Why would pharmaceutical companies bother to do the research,
    development and marketing of a contraceptive for males in a
    society that says it isn't the males' responsibility to prevent
    pregnancy?

    We need to change the mindset first - if men truly want to prevent
    pregnancy (and there's a buck to be made by offering contraceptives
    for men), they will be created and made available in due time.

    > why the males get to be "horny" and the females only "willing" in the
    >doctah's scenario.
    
     Because females don't have to be horny, they only have to be willing.
    Males in general and young males in particular are in a continual state
    of horniness. it's not such a great privilege to be in this condition
    so often. I know of some guys who'd prefer to have a libido switch that
    could be used to turn it off.

    If the government were to promote people having sex with other species,
    then a lot of the current problem would go away.  No unwanted
    pregnancies, no need for abortions, no need for birth control, no more
    kids (I mean children) on welfare, and who cares if some old goat (or
    some attractive young ewe) ends up with an STD?
    
    Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of having your date over for
    dinner, doesn't it?
    

>    so often. I know of some guys who'd prefer to have a libido switch that
>    could be used to turn it off.


  I'll take one of them thar switches!





 Jim

    RE: .34  The Doctah
    
    // Is this a Freudian slip?  (I was talking about men/boys above.)
    
    / No, I read it as "is their jobs" as opposed to "isn't"...
    
    Ok.
    
    The thing is - the problem of unplanned pregnancy is so bad in this
    country that the last thing we need is to be telling *half* the people
    involved in this that it isn't as important for them to be doing anything
    about it.

    >  <<< Note 541.19 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>
        >females never get horny, that's a guy thing.
    
    |  wrong
    
    This reminds me of a line by Larry Miller (actor and stand-up comic).
    He says that the difference between a woman's sex drive and man's is 
    the difference between tossing and shooting bullets.
          

    
    Admit it, Mark.  You just want guys to be carefree and able to let the 
    sperm fly with impunity
    
    

    Ban impuned flying sperm!

    
    Beware The Sperminator!
    

    He comes from the future.

    
      Just think how lucky humans are that sperm stains aren't brightly
     colored.
    
      bb

    Brings new meaning to the word abstaining.

>    >  <<< Note 541.19 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>> 
>    >females never get horny, that's a guy thing.
    
    
>    wrong


GAVEL::JANDROW, this is for you:

;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

    Teach both sexes about contraception and disease prevention and teach
    young women that a man doesn't like you, let alone love you if he won't
    use a condom every time, but also use a backup method, in case there is
    a condom failure.  (Haven't had one yet in two years of usage but we
    RTFM when we started using them as primary BC.)  
    
    Teach young men that knocking up a woman is going to cost them mucho
    dollars for a minimum of 18 years, and it doesn't matter how it
    happened, particularly if they didn't use their protection, and then
    enforce it.  Put the little peckers in school and work programs and get
    them paying for their spawn.  Do the same with women, as there is never
    a guarantee that a man will take care of his or her own.  
    
    meg

Re .21

So.... what is it then when they say they do (get horny)...?

Well Andy, I know what it is that _I_ say...

    
    And there is never a guarantee that a woman will take care of her own
    either, Meg.  I know you know thins, you prolly just forgot to mention
    it.
    
    Mike(who knows a few men raising the kid(s) with Momma nowhere to be
    found) 

    
    >>(Haven't had one yet in two years of usage but we RTFM when we 
    >>started using them as primary BC.)
    
    
    i tried...really i did...but i can't figure out the 'rtfm'...
    
    

    [...] teach young women that a man doesn't like you, let alone love you 
    if he won't use a condom every time, [...]
    
    How about teaching them that a guy doesn't love her if he isn't willing
    to wait until marriage. 
    
   
    -steve 

yeah, steve, i'm sure that one works in the ghetto all
the time.

    .38
    
    Got one that can turn it on when wanted, too?

    
    > (Haven't had one yet in two years of usage but we
    > RTFM when we started using them as primary BC.)  

    aaahhhh....interesting choice of words.

    TTWA - If we didn't have Welfare/WIC/all the other stuff, would we
    still have as high an illegitimacy rate?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

    >>yeah, steve, i'm sure that one works in the ghetto all the time.
    
    as if the ghetto is the only place where promiscuousness is a problem...
    
    

middle class values are just that, middle class values.
live with it.

    and just what the hell is that supposed to mean?  you have to be filthy
    rich to have upper class values??  i think not.
    
     
    

    
    Doctah,
    
    re: male contraception...
    
     There was an article recently in the Boston Globe about the
    developement of a male contraceptive pill. It seems it was very
    effective, but wasn't too popular as the typical male machismo psyche
    couldn't stand the thought of only being able to shoot blanks..
    
     I'll see if I can dig up the article or at least the source, but don't
    hold your breath...

Re: .60 

>and just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

This is a statement that reflects a middle class belief that when you
grow up, honey, your prince charming will come along, sweep you off your
feet, marry you, treasure you, sire his children with you (preferably only
two) and you'll all live happily ever after.  So keep that hymen in one
piece until he trots up on his white horse.

>    How about teaching them that a guy doesn't love her if he isn't willing
>    to wait until marriage.

Well, there are _some_ people who just can't seem to swallow this 
wonderful little belief. 

You do remember how this back and forth started, right?  With
Leech's .54?  You do remember that, right? 

    
    	RE: Raq
    
    	Read The F****** Manual
    
    
    	RE: Would illegitimacy be as high without welfare, etc.
    
    	Depends on how you define "illegitimacy".  Children being born to
    	unwed mothers?  Probably.  Children living with unwed mothers?  I
    	doubt it ... not for long.  They'd find a way of disposing of the
    	unwanted kids, one way or another.
    

	So lemme get this straight.

	We got a bunch of boys with loaded guns and an unlimited
	supply of ammunition, lined up across from a bunch of unarmed
	girls.

	What we need to do is instruct the girls to always wear bullet
	proof clothing, as you can only get dead once, whereas the
	boys can shoot over and over and over.  Don't bother trying
	to teach the boys to stop shooting, 'cause some other boy with
	a gun will just come along and shoot the girls anyway.

	Have I got it about right ?

	Karen

    Karen sounds spot on to me

>>	Have I got it about right ?

	you left out the "willing" part.

    
    Karen, you hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.  For once
    in my life I agree with Suzanne Conlon.
    
    

    RE: .64  Karen Jennison
    
    / We got a bunch of boys with loaded guns and an unlimited
    / supply of ammunition, lined up across from a bunch of unarmed
    / girls.

    / What we need to do is instruct the girls to always wear bullet
    / proof clothing, as you can only get dead once, whereas the
    / boys can shoot over and over and over.  Don't bother trying
    / to teach the boys to stop shooting, 'cause some other boy with
    / a gun will just come along and shoot the girls anyway.

    / Have I got it about right ?
    
    Bullseye!  :/

	>>For once
        >>in my life I agree with Suzanne Conlon.

    don't worry - these things just happen.  you'll get over it. ;>
    
    

    >Got one that can turn it on when wanted, too?
    
     You need help in this regard?

.64

Indeed.  I know I'll be using this one.

    
    
    I don't see where that was said.  I have yet to see where anyone has
    said that the male should not be held accountable.  The fact remains,
    it's the female who gets pregnant and has more to lose if an unwanted
    pregnancy occurs.
    
    Mike

    >	So lemme get this straight.

     Ooh, er! :-)
    
    >	We got a bunch of boys with loaded guns and an unlimited
    >	supply of ammunition, lined up across from a bunch of unarmed
    >	girls.

    >	What we need to do is instruct the girls to always wear bullet
    >	proof clothing, as you can only get dead once, whereas the
    >	boys can shoot over and over and over.  Don't bother trying
    >	to teach the boys to stop shooting, 'cause some other boy with
    >	a gun will just come along and shoot the girls anyway.

    >	Have I got it about right ?

     Almost. Try to teach the boys not to shoot but because one boy's
    peashooter can kill lots and lots of girls that don't have their bullet
    proof vests on, it is more important in terms of the efficacy in
    keeping the girls alive to teach all the girls to wear body armor.
    

    
    
    re: .64
    
    Pretty accurate Karen...
    
    which means that Shawn should immediately say...
    
    
    Ban Men!!!!!
    

    No,
    
    Just ban wigglies!
    
    doc,
    
    Don't forget with more responsibility being turned onto the boys, they
    had best where bullet-proofing also.  Shoot at some of the girls and
    they may well shoot back.
    
    meg

    yeah, but it ain't spoim dat dey's shootin'!

    The solution is sheep, I tell ya!  Take 'em right up to the edge of a
    cliff -- they push back REAL hard!...
    

    
    How do you know?  Been double dating with Haag?

	Darn it, 'tine, I thought I got that out with Biz !

    
    Men are fertile 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
    
    Women are fertile ~3 days each cycle.  
    
    Seems to me that men should also use BC every single time they have sex,
    because they're the ones who are fertile 100% of the time.  Instead,
    they try to push the responsibility completely off onto the woman, who is 
    only fertile 10% of the time.
     
    Every man in here who uses a condom every single time he has sex, raise
    your hand.
    
    

    >Seems to me that men should also use BC every single time they have sex,
    
     They should, but what happens when they don't? Who's left holding the
    bag?

    
    back a few to bonnie...
    
    yes, i recall how it got started...i was regarding your ghetto/middle 
    class comments...since then, i was basically told not to take your
    notes seriously...so don't worry about it anymore...
    
    
    
    
    

re:                     -< Pregnancies - who's responsible? >-

A: Not me, anymore, ever since my youngest was about three months old.

    
    re: .81
    
    That's a rather personal question there... isn't it mz_deb??
    
    
    
    Can men classify that us their "Unusual other things"??

    
    We all KNOW who's left holding the baby.  MY complaint is that
    some/many/most/few/whatever men DO let their sperm fly with impunity,
    and then sit back and look in judgment on the women who are left
    holding the babies.  "Slut.  Shouldn't have had sex."
    
    All of the men who are complaining about welfare, teen pregnancy, bla
    bla bla, can they truly stand up and say they NEVER have sex without BC? 
    Or how many of them ask their partner, just before they're about to get 
    off, "Hey, um, are you on the pill or something?"  "Are you protected?" 
    "Should I pull out?"
    
    THIS is part of the problem!  Men are not taking responsibility for
    their fertility, and frankly I'm sick and tired of it.
      

    ...sorry, but my hand is busy.
    
    ;^)

    
    
    Careful everyone....
    
    Looks like mz_deb is about bite someone......... and hard!!!!!!!!
    
    

    
    >THIS is part of the problem!  Men are not taking responsibility for
    >their fertility, and frankly I'm sick and tired of it.
    
    
    	Sweeping generality and you know it.
    
    	Women who should be saying "No" or "Not now, we're not protected"
    	are just as much to blame.
    

    Lesse now,
    
    Girls don't like sex but only need to be willing. 
    Boys like sex all the time and will have it anywhere and anytime as
    long as there is a partner handy, willing or unwilling, no matter. 
    Boys see girls only as potential outlets for their sexual desires.
    
    How neat and tidy this world is now that I understand the rules.  
    
    Brian

	FWIW, I don't think a couple of handgun safety classes or
	bullet proof vests are the answer.

	I prefer teaching kids that it's ok to say no.  (And now, thanks
	to the gals in Beijing, we've got a resolution that says so, too!)

	Karen

    I really wasn't going to put my two cents in but....
    
    wouldn't the best solution to this problem be if the guys kept it 
    in their pants, the girls probably wouldn't know what was in them 
    to begin with, or care for that matter 
    
    I know we all want to think our little ones don't experiment, but they 
    do. So we should arm them with knowledge not ignorance and with the 
    ability to use the word "NO" without feeling degraded. Even when
    pressured by the opposite sex. Because by saying that the boys don't
    need to be as aware of BC, is saying, the girls will handle it."I don't
    have to be responsible". Society keeps that behavoir going by 
    people like the numb nut who thinks GIRLS are soley responsible because
    they get pregnant....duh! so what the guys not in on this...it takes 
    two to create...not only one! 
    
    How can we say that ONLY the woman should take full participation and 
    responsibility in caring for her reproductive organs but the boys don't. 
    I use the word boys because if the guys hasn't the knowledge of birth 
    control, I assume he isn't adult enough to be having sex to begin with. 
    So why would we as a society want to propogate that type of
    irresponsible behavior to very impressionable boys. They will be no
    different than the controlling freaks that walk this earth now as we 
    speak. 
     
    
    me
    imnsho
    

    
    
    	>Sweeping generality and you know it.
    
    So you're saying that many/most/all men always provide and use condoms?
    
   	>Women who should be saying "No" or "Not now, we're not protected"
    	>are just as much to blame.
    
    Of course BOTH partners should be equally responsible.  Of COURSE they 
    should be.  The problem is that in this society they're not.  Boys are
    not being given the message that BC is their responsibility too.
     

    
    
    
        When you look at many of these young pregnancies,.....you also
        have to take a look at the environment. Many of these kids have
        no hope, dreams, aspirations, direction, "family',..etc. Many
        aspects of there lives become transistory. Many of these "kids"
        are not "kids". They're "man-childs" and "woman-childs.
    
        Who's responsible..?? Society..??
    
        On the other hand,......what about pregnancies in middle and
        upper middle class America which are a result in an attempt
        to "help" disintergrating marriges?? You know the story...right?
    
        .....wife gets pregnant,......childs born,....more stress,..
        marrige continues to get worse,......husband begins to displace
        anxiety by beating up on his wife "every now and then",...child
        gets abused. What about those pregnancies?
    
    
       Ed

Re: .83

>    i was basically told not to take your
>    notes seriously...so don't worry about it anymore...

Well then, do what you're told.

> (And now, thanks to the gals in Beijing, we've got a resolution
>  that says so, too!)

This is what I fail to understand, to a degree. It would seem to me
that, generically, anyone who would need an "international resolution"
to reinforce or defend their right to refuse sex must have a pretty
piss-poor relationship to begin with. Besides which, what the hell
enjoyment is there in having sex with someone who's telling you
they're not interested?

    
    There's the enjoyment of power over the other person by forcing them to
    have sex.
    
    

Well, then lets call it rape, which it is, and there's not much point
in the pleasure, anyway. Right?

	All I know is I can stop spending money on Advil, and can
	just waive that silly paper around instead (you know, the one
	with the resolution printed on it).

	

    Sad but very true.

    
    for the record, you already have and i'll take your instructions under
    advisement, but no guarentees...
    
    

    
    Yes, but most importantly, did they reinforce my right to
    call myself Loretta and to have babies?

    -b

	Is that you, Prudence ?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I heard about the Peking (sorry -
it's just easier to spell correctly than Bei-whatever) resolution, my
first reaction was - what a sad state of affairs! These people are
rejoicing about this resolution when what they apparently really need
to do is march their spouse into divorce court and settle the real
problem. Anybody who has to deal with this powerplay issue in their
marriage has got be be living one hell of miserable lie on a daily
basis.

    
    What about those who live in countries where divorce is prohibited, at
    least for women?
    
    What about those who leave their husbands and said husbands promptly hunt 
    them down and kill them?
    
    

Re: 101

> but no guarentees...

guarantees

    
    > What about those who leave their husbands and said husbands promptly hunt 
    > them down and kill them?
    
    How often does this happen?  Any numbers?
    

It only happens, Dan, when the husband mistakes the
wife for a deer.

    
    My wife is very deer to me.

    
> It only happens, Dan, when the husband mistakes the
> wife for a deer.

    As opposed to when the husband mistakes the wife for a bitch?

    
    Or when the wife mistakes the husband for a kielbasa...
    

Do you have that problem, Dan?

    re: .110
    
    Well she wouldn't be if she didn't have to worry about the
    dang birth control all the time.... :-)

>    What about those who live in countries where divorce is prohibited, at
>    least for women?

Well, do you suppose that in such a country this resolution is going to carry
much weight?

>    What about those who leave their husbands and said husbands promptly hunt 
>    them down and kill them?

They should be speaking with legal counsel and legal authorities and have
approriate restraints and protections in place so that their husbands can be
dealt with by the law as they should, for starters. Again, is this resolution
going to make any difference in such cases?

This may be under discussion elsewhere, and I don't know how much facetiousness
is being coddled in a lot of what's being said here, but the resolution still
strikes me as a feelgood doo-daa which fails to address the real underlying
problems.

 Where do ya get one o' them switches that the Doctah was talking about?

    
    .107
    
    >How often does this happen?  Any numbers?
    
    Sounds like another homework assignment is in order.
    

    >Well, do you suppose that in such a country this resolution is going
    >to carry much weight?
    
    Yes.  It is going to show the women of those countries that their
    own representatives and the rest of the women of the world are on
    their side.  As for the men, they are going to have to learn the
    hard way just like they did in the US when they finally had to give
    women the vote.
    
    >They should be speaking with legal counsel and legal authorities and 
    >have approriate restraints and protections in place so that their 
    >husbands can be dealt with by the law as they should, for starters. 
    
    Jack, you are talking about countries where they burn unwanted girls,
    sometimes when they are adults, rather than pay dowries.  You are
    talking about countries where women are forced to cover themselves
    completely or face severe punishment.  You are talking about countries 
    where divorce consists of a bullet through the head, and nobody gets
    prosecuted for anything.
    
    But then, what're a few innocent lives when you don't have to let
    those messy old civil rights issues get in the way of what you want?
    

Well, actually, I hadn't heard the peals of rejoicing from foreign shores
yet, only here in 'Murrica.

And in those countries which you describe, please tell us in some detail
how this resolution helps to make a meaningful and timely change in
their social structures. You said it yourself, Dick - those societies
have some serious work ahead of them in terms of cleaning up their human
rights acts. The existance of this resolution isn't likely to be the
starting point for that custodial activity.

    
    re:.116
    > >How often does this happen?  Any numbers?
    > 
    > Sounds like another homework assignment is in order.
    
    Go for it Joan.  You have my permission.
    
    re:.117
    
    > Yes.  It is going to show the women of those countries that their
    > own representatives and the rest of the women of the world are on
    > their side.
    
    you are kidding right?  What makes you think that the women in these
    countries even know where China is, let alone any of this stuff is
    going on there?
    

    > please tell us in some detail how this resolution helps to make a
    > meaningful and timely change in their social structures. 
    
    If you want a serious answer, read on.
    
    'timely' I can't answer to- social change of this sort takes decades,
    generations, centuries.  It took the suffragists more than 72 years to
    get the vote here in the US, the supposed land of the free.  Social
    change is long, slow work.
    
    But the way that social change happens is for people to re-examine the
    justices and injustices of the systems under which they live, speak to
    others about it, and come to the realization that things must change.
    Knowledge of what is possible- that women in other countries don't have
    to suffer genital mutilation, don't have to marry whomever their father
    gets the best price from, don't have to marry at all- information and
    education- provide extraordinary catalysts for such speaking, for such
    people to realize that the systems under which they live are injust and
    must be changed.  Resolutions of international conferences, by stating
    a world-wide consensus, can carry enormous impact in such discussions.
    And thus such resolutions contribute.
    
    Can you imagine any *other* way for such social change to come about?
    It isn't guaranteed, nothing is.  Please describe the way you think it
    works, if you substantially disagree with what I've said above. 
    
    DougO

    
    
    	I'll take four!!!! ;*)
    
    

>    But the way that social change happens is for people to re-examine the

Certainly. And that's all well and good, but, as you say, it isn't timely
and it's not guaranteed. And, quite possibly for many generations until
it actually kicks in and has some real effect, it will be little more than
a feelgood doo-daa to the women who observe no appreciable differences
in the way that they are treated throughout their lives. Let's face it,
if it hasn't worked by the time one buys the farm, for all intents and
purposes it had no real measureable value. This conference could also
quite handily pass resolutions stating that women have a right not to be
physically abused, sexually mutilated, executed because of their gender,
forced to abort/not-abort their young, etc., etc., etc. And each of these
resolutions would be perfectly reasonable, supportable in principle by
most "right thinking" people in progressive western societies, and still
be worth just a little bit less than the paper upon which it was printed
in terms of the immediate or even short term affect on those who suffer
these inhumanities today.

>    Can you imagine any *other* way for such social change to come about?

Revolution comes to mind as one method that's been effective in the past.
Is that indicated here? I guess the answer needs to come from those women
who suffer these indignities. I'd guess there are often times when they'd
find that a welcome solution. Of course, if their society as a whole doesn't
accept that, that won't necessarily work.

>    It isn't guaranteed, nothing is.  Please describe the way you think it
>    works, if you substantially disagree with what I've said above. 

As (I think) I've said, it's not so much that I disagree with you, but that
I question whether or not there are better/faster means of fixing things.
Another option that comes to mind is "If you don't want to do as the Romans do,
leave Rome." A resolution from this international conference which might REALLY
have some teeth, is one which offered asylum to those who are persecuted
for their gender.

In any event, my commentary as originally entered in this topic still had
more to do with American women whom I've heard today in the media applauding
this resolution as being beneficial to them personally. This is the part I
fail to understand still. If you are in a relationship which pivots on a
"power play", then by definition you are in a relationship which you shouldn't
be for your own health and well being. Your solution is to get out of that
relationship at all costs, and legal aid is available to assist you to do
that. If, for whatever reasions, you cannot get out of that relationship
in a progressive Western Society, then what earthly purpose can this
resolution have for you other than as a feelgood doo-daa which allows you
to sit back and say, "Well - at least they care"? Is there any expectation
that this resolution is going to be a behavioral modifier for an abusive
spouse? Somehow, I sorely doubt it.

The other thing that strikes me as odd about this resolution is its
intuitive obviousness.

People who are involved in healthy, loving relationships where there is a
mutual respect between and toward partners never needed to be told that
the content of this resolution is advisable.

Again, for those who are in relationships that differ, this resolution isn't
going to change much. I can't really picture too many spouses of either gender
in a sick relationship where a power play is established who will, as a
result of learning of this resolution, smack themselves palm-on-forehead
and say "Duh! What was I thinkin'?" Likewise, I can't see those who suffer
from the power play saying, "Uh, uh, uh, darling. Remember the resolution!"
These people will not be helped by this resolution, ever. The only thing
which will help them is "out".

Let's try to be a little realistic as to what this will and won't do
before we go off bestowing laurel wreaths upon the Peking conference
for this move.

    
    These issues are very troubling to me.  Can you all please stop 
    having sex until we can get these problems worked out?
    
    
    re:  male contraceptive
    
    One of the cheapest methods of male contraception is a simple shot
    of at least 200 mg of testosterone a week.  This depresses a male's
    own natural testosterone production enough that sperm counts drop
    to zero in most cases, with virtually no harmful side effects.
    However, this doesn't work 100% of the time, so this method was
    not deemed effective enough for the mass market.
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    
    
    RE: .91 Amen, Karen.
    
    
    I'm going to teach my girls that a guy will say I love you and just
    about everything else to get them in the sack.  True love is not about
    sex, but about friendship and many other things.  
    
    I'm going to teach my boy to respect women and that love isn't about
    sex, but about friendship and many other things.
    
    A relationship built on sex, is harder to sustain than a relationship
    built on friencship.
    
    Mike

    >We all KNOW who's left holding the baby.  MY complaint is that
    >some/many/most/few/whatever men DO let their sperm fly with impunity,
    
     Precisely the reason why women ought to be protecting themselves.
    Relying on the guy is foolhardy, because if there's an intersection in
    the space-time continuum of fecal matter and an artificial wind
    generator, he can choose to leave and she can't.

    But Mark, that still seems to me to promote as good the idea that men
    can continue to do this.  This is definitely the wrong message.  

    
    > But Mark, that still seems to me to promote as good the idea that men
    > can continue to do this.

    'tine, maybe good isn't the right word here, I think realistic might be
    more accurate.

    Can you point out the part that "promotes as good" irresponsible
    behavior by men? I really, truly can't see it. To me, calling it
    irresponsible behavior is inconsistent with promoting it as good. To
    me, telling a girl she can't rely on her boyfriend to prevent her
    uterus from gaining an unintended occupant, that she has to take
    responsibility for it herself is quite different than telling boys
    "don't worry, it's their problem." People who are not in long term
    monogamous relationships ought to be using condoms each and every time
    they have sex- for the purpose to preventing the transmission of a
    deadly virus if for nothing else. It doesn't matter whether the boy
    actually buys the damn thing or the girl does (though I tend to believe
    that providing condoms is a guy thing). It just matters that they are
    there and they are worn. If a guy doesn't have one, then a girl is
    foolish to have sex with him (it also should explicitly be said that he 
    is foolish, too.) Guys who have unprotected sex with girls are being
    really stupid- they are relying on girls to prevent them from an 18
    money sink and a potentially unwanted parental responsibility. Once the
    sperm is gone they have no rights, only responsibilities, so it is 
    incumbent upon them to protect their rights ahead of time. 

    re: .126
    
    So, you're going to teach your son to respect women
    and teach your daughters not to trust men.  Pardon me,
    but I think someone's getting the short end of the stick here.
    
    We shouldn't need to give each gender a separate message.
    We should be able to tell men *and* women than sex is more than
    a simple biological need, can result in pregnancy (which can 
    carry with it additional emotional, financial, physical and
    psychological consequences for both parties), and should be 
    undertaken with extreme caution and always with protection.
    In a true relationship, sex is not a power that one person
    has over another, but an expression of love and commitment
    that is shared by two people.  If you want to sleep with someone:
    to get a notch in your belt; so you can get some "experience";
    because everyone else has; because the person you are with 
    doesn't want to have sex with you - you need to get yourself
    a life - quickly - before you hurt someone.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    

    
    Mary-Michael,
    
    
    Not really, but thanks for trying to read my mind.  Believe it or not,
    I was an adolescent male at one time.  I know the pressure put on males
    to get the notch in their belts.  It's reality.  I didn't put
    everything I'm going to tell my kids in the note, I really don't have
    that kind of time nor do I feel like expending the energy.  
    
    Mike

re: .131

>    So, you're going to teach your son to respect women
    and teach your daughters not to trust men.

I think Mike's teachings are reality-based.  Men know the
lengths that some men go to 'score'.  It's unfortunate, but
it's the way it is.

    
    Teach
    Your children well...
    

    So um,
    
    Are you guys saying men are driven by their hormones only?  I think
    that is a pretty anti-male type of statement.  maybe finding something
    along the lines of salt peter that really does work and feeding it to
    all boys from pubesence until they are married isn't such a bad thing
    after all.  

    
    	Eesh ... CSN.
    
    	Where's that sissy note?
    

    
    > maybe finding something
    > along the lines of salt peter that really does work and feeding it to
    > all boys from pubesence until they are married isn't such a bad thing
    > after all.  
    
    I'll second that motion.
    

    
    <--- You WOULD, eh?
    
    Never had sex outside of marriage, Dan?
    

	maybe a little actual parenting would help.

>Never had sex outside of marriage, Dan?

If yes, why?  If not, why not?

    RE: .130  The Doctah

    / Can you point out the part that "promotes as good" irresponsible
    / behavior by men? I really, truly can't see it. To me, calling it
    / irresponsible behavior is inconsistent with promoting it as good. To
    / me, telling a girl she can't rely on her boyfriend to prevent her
    / uterus from gaining an unintended occupant, that she has to take
    / responsibility for it herself is quite different than telling boys
    / "don't worry, it's their problem."

    If the "you can't just rely on your partner to prevent pregnancy"
    message is worthwhile to give to girls, it is literally *TWICE*
    as worthwhile to give to both boys _and_ girls (at the same time.)

    You've stated that you want to focus on telling the girls (since they
    are the ones who get pregnant.)  Since boys are the ones who provide
    the other half of the genetic material in a pregnancy, they need to
    hear this message precisely 100% as much as their partners need to
    hear it:

    	"Boys and girls, YOU have the responsibility to prevent pregnancy.
    	If your partner also tries to prevent pregnancy, great.  Twice as
    	much protection will make it even less likely that you will be
    	involved in an unplanned pregnancy.

    	"Ultimately, though, it isn't more important for your partner to
    	protect against pregnancy - it is more important for YOU to protect
    	against pregnancy whether your partner takes a similar responsible
    	role or not.  And by the way, if your partner refuses to take a
    	responsible role (for birth control) with you, ask him or her why
    	(then give them this message.)"

    Mark, the problem with your version of the message is that you do let
    boys off the hook when you go out of your way to make it clear that
    it is more important for girls to get the message.  Boys can say to
    themselves, 'YEAH, right on - SHE needs to protect herself from ME
    and if she doesn't, too bad.  I'm not the one who will be pregnant.'

    Birth control is not an 'either-or' situation (where if one person
    uses birth control, the other person is not supposed to use it.)

    It's best if BOTH people use birth control.  They do this in Holland
    (and the men don't fight against it as though it's an injustice to
    expect them to be responsible for their sperm.)  Boys _and_ girls
    promise themselves that they will never have sex without protecting
    themselves - and guess what?  Fewer teens have sex, hardly any teens
    get pregnant out of wedlock and their abortion rate is 1/10th the
    abortion rate of the US (per capita).

    Don't make such a point of aiming your message at girls.  It's a
    message that is equally important for boys _and_ girls to hear.

    re: .132
    
    Now, wait a minute.  Many of you men have expended a great 
    deal of verbal energy in other notes explaining that we are
    a "higher" mammal capable of greater restraint in sexual
    relations.
    
    To brush that off now with a "boys will be boys" type
    statement negates many of the other arguments you've made.
    
    Do you really believe men just don't have the fortitude to
    "keep it in their pants?"
    
    Mary-Michael

> Do you really believe men just don't have the fortitude to
>    "keep it in their pants?

Do you really believe that in some situations they do?  Or 
that they _want_ to have the fortitude?

    
    
    RE: .135  Again, no it isn't.  Hormones are involved, but there is a
    lot of peer pressure "Did you score?", "How far'd you get?", etc, etc.
    It's a confusing time.  Of course by reading the rest of your note I
    can see that you aren't really interested in discussing it, just being
    flip.  Carry on....
    
    Mike

    .140
    
    Sex outside of marriage? yes.
    
    Why? I like it.

.145

>    Sex outside of marriage? yes.
>    Why? I like it

now wait just a durn minute, you're the hermit, aren't you?

    Mark-
    
    re: you asking me how the statement promotes 'good'....see Suzanne's
    .141.  That says it well, IMO.

    .146
    
    Why yes, I said I was...I guess if hermit means "solitary," then I'm
    not quite the hermit. How 'bout antisocial? Yeah, that'll do.

    Being a single mother is a sure fire way of getting a free flat/house,
    furniture,bills paid for etc.
    
    Unlike me,who had to save hard for a mortgage and everything in it and
    still has to work to keep it going.
    
    So who`s the mug??
     

    I truly agree with Suzanne,
    
    The message has to be given equally to young men and women.  Since not
    even Kellogg and Graham managed to concoct the perfect diet to "control
    human urges" , and goddess knows they tried, the salt-peter in the
    water isn't going to work.  
    
    Instructing all children to avoid causing an unintended pregnancy and
    explaining in graphic detail how to use all over-the-counter
    contraceptions may well prevent more than pregnancies and STD's.  
    
    meg

    Cookster,
    
    There are a large number of us single parents out there who also clawed
    our way into our flats, food etc., with little to no help from the
    other 1/2 of the gene pool.  I know of one in here who is true to her
    word and raised her son to always use protection.  
    
    meg

    
    	"Cookster"??
    
    	I think that name is copyrighted, so you can't use it.
    
    	Contact PRC music for more info.  8^)
    

    
    Who knows, you might get an endorsement deal out of it, and
    be extremely popular in certain parts of Europe.
    
    -b

    re: .142
    
    It isn't a matter of "can they" (I believe they can).  It's a matter of
    those who will not, due to <insert reason>.  One male who
    refuses to control himself can do a lot more damage than one sexually
    active female can.
    
    I think this is the thrust of the Doctah's argument, if I'm reading his
    notes correctly.
    
    
    -steve

    omigawd. Steve gets the kewpie doll.

	i liked the "thrust" of your argument part.

    yeah, pretty prophylactic, eh? :-)

    RE: .154

    / One male who refuses to control himself can do a lot more damage than 
    / one sexually active female can.                           

    It is specifically for this reason that it is equally important to get 
    the birth control message to such dangerous individuals (as it is
    important to get the message to the targets of their saturation 
    spermatozoic bombing, so to speak.)
    
    Otherwise, the bomber figures he might as well make as many runs as
    he likes (since it is more important for others to worry about the
    damage.)

    
    >What about those who leave their husbands and said husbands promptly
    >hunt them down and kill them?
    
    Well, here's one to hold you while I find the report I originally read.
    
    
    *	  *	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
    
    
    
    AP 13 Sep 95 0:54 EDT V0220
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    Man Blows Up Car, Kills Family

    ESSEX, Md. (AP) -- Betty Louise Clark had agreed to meet her estranged
    husband one last time: He said they'd take her three children shopping
    for school clothes and talk. 

    A day later, all that was left of Mark A. Clark's station wagon was a
    crumpled, burned-out shell in the parking lot of a strip mall in
    suburban Baltimore. 

    Police believe Clark packed his car with dynamite and blew up his
    family and himself, shaking the neighborhood and sending debris and
    body parts raining down blocks away. The glove compartment was found
    half a mile from Monday's blast. 

    The Clarks, their 4-year-old daughter, Krysta Clark, and Mrs. Clark's
    other children, Malissa Ray, 11, and Ricardo Valdez, 6, all died. 

    Neighbors said Tuesday that Clark, 32, had threatened to kill himself
    and his family Sunday and Monday. 

    "We all just thought he was blowing hot air," said Pamela Pierce, who
    lived upstairs from Mrs. Clark. 

    Mrs. Clark, 32, moved in with her sister in Essex earlier this year.
    She had a new boyfriend and was studying to be a medical secretary. 

    Neighbors saw Clark talking to himself outside the building when he
    visited his estranged wife on Sunday. He also visited on Monday. 

    "When I asked what he was talking about, he said, 'You'll find out
    soon,"' said Mary Thomas, another upstairs neighbor. 

    "Sunday and yesterday he went out to the car a thousand times looking
    in the car, looking in the trunk. Last night when we saw the wreck on
    the TV news we put two and two together," Thomas said. 

    Mark Edward Weitzel, 30, who had been dating Mrs. Clark since May, said
    she had agreed to meet with her husband one last time to take the
    children shopping. He picked them up from Weitzel's house. 

    "We knew he was unstable," Weitzel said. "But we didn't think he would
    actually do something like this. Yesterday I had a family -- a
    girlfriend and three kids. Now I have nothing." 

    Police said they had no reports of domestic violence. 

    "You hope that if they're having these problems that they would call
    us. That's what make it so sad since there was no hope of
    intervention," said Capt. Brian Uppercue, a police spokesman. 

    Clark's last known address was in Cumberland. Police believe he had
    been supporting himself doing odd jobs in construction and plumbing. 

    His mother, Ruth Clark, said she and her husband had last seen their
    son in May or June, when he said he said he was going to visit his
    sister in North Carolina. 

    "We thought he had come to terms with the loss and that's when he
    decided to go visit our daughter in North Carolina, get and job and
    start a new life," Mrs. Clark said from their home in Ridgely, W.Va. 

    Police suspect a form of dynamite called slurry ripped apart the 1987
    Ford Taurus wagon. 

    The car was stationary when it exploded, about 20 yards from the
    entrance to J.J. Newberry's department store in the Middlesex Shopping
    Center, police said.

    Police cadets searched the scene Tuesday for more clues. Agents from
    the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were also on the scene. 
     

 Tell me we don't live in a sick and dying world.






 Jim

    
    	"I'm going to kill all of us!!  Want to go shopping?"
    
    	"Sure!!"
    
    
    	Does this make sense?
    

re: .159, Mz_Deb

Well, I can see that since he blew himself up in the bargain, a restraining
order wouldn't necessarily have helped, unless Betty had refused to go near
him (which, of course, is the reasonable way to treat a restraining order
from the other side.) 

But what bearing does/can a resolution from an international conference
have on a situation like this?

    
    No bearing.  No bearing.
    
    It's just sad that women feel they have to spell out their right to
    live, and it doesn't make one bit of difference anyway.
    
    

Well, I can't disagree with that. Which brings me back to avoiding
heaping laurels on the conferees in China, and the intuitive obviousness
of their action.

Abusive relationships are terrible things (more especially when socially
sanctioned). Personally, I get a lot more satisfaction out of measures
that _address_ the problems, than those that merely recognize them. I'd
be willing to expend effort for the former, but not the latter, simply
because the latter are a misdirection of potential.

    >It is specifically for this reason that it is equally important to get
    >the birth control message to such dangerous individuals 
    
     Perhaps we are having difficulty understanding. What does "refuses"
    mean to you? That someone hasn't heard the message often enough? There
    will always be people who will not behave responsibly. The bottom line
    is that biology dictates that irresponsible men are more dangerous than
    irresponsible women; having 99% of men behave responsibly and 50% of
    women behave responsibly is potentially no better than having 50% of
    men and 50% of women behave responsibly. On the other hand, with 99% of
    women behaving responsibly, it doesn't matter how many men behave
    responsibly because there is a hard limit to the potential negative
    results.
    
     I really don't understand the hard backlash about this. On the one
    hand, women say it's their decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy,
    but on the other they say that it's half the man's job to keep them
    from getting pregnant. Sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.

    
    RE: .160  We don't live in a sick and dying world.  Most people out
    there are decent folks and do the right things every day.  I have to
    remind myself of this on a continuous basis, especially after news
    reports like the one from Essex Md.  It's the truth, they don't make
    the news because good stuff doesn't sell.  
    
    Mike

    .165  Cake
    
    Bingo!
    
    It does not fit the feminist agenda
    
    
    Let's see:
    
    Teach condoms because it is more effective than abstinence
    Teach women they are primarily responsible for pregancy beacuse it is 
    	more effective than men
    
    It IS the same...

    Condoms are more effective than abstinance?

    
     >I really don't understand the hard backlash about this. On the one
     >hand, women say it's their decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy,
     >but on the other they say that it's half the man's job to keep them
     >from getting pregnant. Sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.
     
    Oh, puhleeze.  It's not cake, it's a vicious circle.  You refuse to
    take any responsibility for your sperm, so I refuse to let you tell me
    what I do with it once you give it to me.  So because of that you
    refuse to take any responsibility for it.
    
    I should think if both men and women thought of BC as 100% their
    responsibility, we'd have less of the abortion/illegitimacy problem. 
    But if only half the population is expected to be responsible, while
    the other half is told not to worry about it, we're going to have
    problems!
    
    Would you drive recklessly through red lights and stop signs just because 
    you figure the other people on the road are going to be paying attention 
    and avoiding you?
     
                     

    Also, I don't see any women here saying that they/we don't want to
    take control for pregnancy...I see women here questioning why men 
    are so damned reluctant to do so!  I don't know if any of you remember
    your first dating experiences, but I remember it always being the male
    to pursue/pressure for more intimate experiences.  Many boys are still
    socialized in manner that indicates it is acceptable for them to score,
    be experienced and women are socialized that they are 'bad' for giving
    in.  I think this is all related to the way the different sexes view
    this subject.

    
    Tine,
    
    How many men have said that men are reluctant to take control for
    pregnancy?  I see both sides agreeing, but many of the men saying that
    the women have a bigger interest in it because they are the ones who
    have to carry the child.
    
    Mike

    >Oh, puhleeze.  It's not cake, it's a vicious circle.  You refuse to
    >take any responsibility for your sperm, so I refuse to let you tell me
    >what I do with it once you give it to me.  
    
     What does this imply about what the situation would be if men took
    responsibility for their sperm? Would you be willing to allow a man
    equal say in the outcome of that sperm? (assuming a failure of birth
    control.) This is a key point, because men are now given exactly 0
    input into post-conception decisions (as a matter of law.)
    
     How do you propose to resolve disputes in which a difference of
    opinion exists between the male and female partners, post conception,
    after both parties behaved equally responsibly? Case 1: the woman wants
    to keep it, the man doesn't. Case 2: the man wants to keep it, the
    woman doesn't. The current situation is: Case 1: the man gets to pay
    for her decision to keep; Case 2: it's her body so she can choose to
    abort and he's left to "deal with it." This inequity is shrugged off as
    being "biological" by women, who say "there's nothing you can do about
    this biological difference." But when men say to women that preventing
    pregnancy is their problem because (using the women's own words, of
    course) "it's their body," we get this hue and cry about how unfair it
    is. They don't seem to like the biological argument when it's not to
    their advantage.
    
     So, show me how you'd break this vicious circle (hopefully by
    presenting acceptable outcomes of cases 1 and 2 above.)

    Well, I agree with the Doctah on this one.  It isn't a matter of
    reluctance to be responsible (on the male's side), it is about damage
    control- pure and simple.
    
    The Doctah's logic holds up very well, in this regard.  I am not, and I
    don't see any of the men in this file, proposing ONLY teaching that it
    is the female's responsibility.  What we are saying is that logically,
    it is more *effective* (within the context of 'some males will not be
    responsible') for the females to take responsibility.  It is a matter of
    simply biology.  A male can impregnate more than one female.  A female
    can only get pregnant once (at a time), regardless of how many sexual
    partners she has.
    
    I fail to see why this is being taken to task.  No one is suggesting
    males take no responsibility, the only suggestion is that logically,
    damage control is much better if more females take responsibility for
    themselves.
    
    
    -steve      

    I believe what we are seeing here is an evolution of sexual behaviour.
    Now that we know how it all works and we can control it, we now have
    new issues to deal with. Well, men have been letting their sperm fly
    with impunity ever since the beginning because that was how  our
    species was going to survive. Now, women have attained equal status in
    our societies and we are facing global over population so now a very
    primal and strong behavioural drive is being forced to change. It
    certainly isn't going to change in one generation to be sure, but it
    will change because the impetus for change exists. We are tampering
    with a basic instinct.

>>             <<< Note 541.175 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Kiss my GAK" >>>
>>Now, women have attained equal status in
>>    our societies 

	aagagagagag!

    perhaps Mike, it is more a perception problem.  i see nothing wrong
    with stressing to men and women the benefits of birthcontrol.  I  do
    dislike the arguement that the focus should be on women, tho.  If the
    men are so much more dangerous, it seems to me that logically, that's
    where I'd place the emphasis, but I'd rather that both boys and girls
    be taught it's their own responsibility if they don't want to have
    children. Boys and girls should be taught that they should depend on
    themselves to prevent such an occurance and not leave it to or assume
    that their partner already has this covered.

    Percent of women experiencing an accidental pregnancy
    in the first year of continuous use comparisons:
    
    I did take this off a Depo-Provera patient information sheet in the
    baby magazine my diaper service supplies.  

    Now I am not a statistician, but it seems to me that adding male 
    contraception (condom or vasectomy) in combination with female 
    contraception decreases the odds of an accidental pregnancy by a 
    pretty good margin.  

    Given the fact that the most reliable methods for women are also
    prone to some pretty major side effects, I would think a loving 
    partner would be willing to use a condom in addition to his female
    counterparts use of one of the less effective, but safer barrier
    methods.  

    
    Method		Lowest Expected		Typical
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Depo-Provera    |      	0.3		|  0.3
    
    Norplant	    |		0.3		|  0.3
    
    Tubal Ligation  |		0.2		|  0.4
    
    Vasectomy       |		 .1		|   .15
    
    Combined Pill   |		0.1		|  3.0
    
    Mini Pill	    |           0.5             |  3.0
    
    IUD's:
    
    Progestasert    |		2.0		|  3.0
    Copper T	    |		0.8		|  3.0
    
    Condom(no 	    |		2.0		| 12.0
    Spermicid)
    
    Diaphram(with   |		6.0		| 18.0
    Spermicide)
    
    Cervical cap    | 		6.0		| 18.0
    
    Withdrawal	    |		4.0		| 18.0
    
    Periodic	    |		1-9		| 20
    Abstinence
    (Rythym)
    
    Spermicide 	    |		3		| 21
    (only)
    
    Vaginal sponge  |
    Before child-
    birth	    |		6		| 18
    
    After child-
    birth	    |		9		| 28
    
    No method	    |		85		| 85
    
    

    
    
    Tine,
    
    We are in violent agreement.  See, I'm easy. :')
    
    
    Mike

    Gee, I didn't think it was that funny.

    I realize that equal status doesn't mean equal treatment.

I love Di's aagagagagag!s !!

    
    what i want to know (or perhaps i don't) is how vasectomies are
    not 100% effective.
    
    

    RE: .165  The Doctah

    // It is specifically for this reason that it is equally important to get
    // the birth control message to such dangerous individuals 
    
    / Perhaps we are having difficulty understanding. What does "refuses"
    / mean to you? That someone hasn't heard the message often enough? There
    / will always be people who will not behave responsibly.

    How do you expect men to take responsibility in this area if you decide
    to maintain the status quo of NOT targeting men for messages about
    preventing pregnancy?

    In the Netherlands, the men are responsible in this area (and they
    are the same species as the men in this country.)  People who don't
    want unplanned pregnancies in Holland use the "double Dutch" method
    (where both people use birth control) - and guess what?  They have
    a far lower incidence of unplanned pregnancy.  One Dutch teacher
    told 20/20 that he'd only seen ONE pregnancy at his High School in
    20 years (and even in the one case, those kids knew better.)

    Can you imagine having a public high school here where pregnancy is
    that rare?  It will never happen if you don't aim birth control
    messages at ALL the people who have sex (instead of just HALF the
    people who have sex.)

    .182
    
    Some docs perform a "vasectomy" by a mere ligation, and sometimes it
    doesn't entirely close the vas.  (It'd work on a woman's Fallopian
    tube, but sperm are much, much smaller than ova.)  Such a "vasectomy"
    is more easily reversed than the proper kind, which consists of
    removing about 8 mm of the vas and then folding back and ligating the
    severed ends.

    Anyone else have a cut on it?

    Yeah, stay away from large dogs and small kids afterwards.

I'm rethinking the zipper concept.

    But but but that would mean having the ability to talk frankly about,
    you know, the "s" word.  It would mean exposing the young innocents to
    the horrors of of the knowledge that people in engage in animalistic
    acts.  It would mean providing both boys and girls with the knowledge
    and the means of obtaining birth control.  It would mean a rational and
    informed approach to an problem that must surely be able to be solved
    simply and painlessly by a more moral means.  
    
    Brian

It would mean being grown-up!  Aiiiieeeee!

    RE: .165  The Doctah

    / I really don't understand the hard backlash about this. On the one
    / hand, women say it's their decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy,
    / but on the other they say that it's half the man's job to keep them
    / from getting pregnant. Sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.

    What?

    If men actually took responsibility for pregnancy in this country
    (what a concept), it would be some sort of unfair advantage for women
    as far as you're concerned - they'd have their cake and eat it, too??

    Now we get down to the real issue for you here. It isn't fair to men
    to have to take steps to prevent themselves from impregnating others
    as long as they can't control what happens if any others do get
    pregnant, right?  No matter that the pregnancy would be far, far, far
    less likely to occur if both people used their own protection.  Men
    just shouldn't have to be the ones to do it because it isn't fair to men.

    So let's just let the loose cannons out there (and even the loose
    pea-shooters) spread their sperm far and wide while some say 'Hey, 
    it's the women who have to protect themselves from these dangerous 
    guys because it wouldn't be fair if they had to be responsible for
    their own bodies without being able to make the decisions about what 
    happens to the other person's body - so let the loose cannons (and 
    the pea-shooters) fire away.'

    Doctah, would women (or men) be having their cake and eating it, too,
    if each person decided "It is MY job to prevent pregnancy, not someone
    else's job" (and they both used birth control as if the prevention
    of pregnancy were entirely up to each of them?)

    This is how it works in the Netherlands.  Each person is responsible.
    No one says "I'm only half responsible to prevent pregnancy, so I'll
    use half a condom or half a birth control pill."

    Each person is 100% responsible (so a pregnancy has to occur with TWO
    barriers being used to prevent it, not ONE.)  This is why so few young
    people have unplanned pregnancies.

    Men don't have the luxury of being told "Hey, you won't be getting
    pregnant no matter what happens, so we're going to aim our message
    at the women.  All you have to do is go out and try to get laid."

    STEVE .174
    
    What is wrong with this picture. Why is is more effective if women are 
    responsible for themselves but men aren't....?
    
    On the same line, if men can impregnate more than one woman, wouldn't
    it be prudent to say, they should keep their sperm under "MORE" control
    than they are currently required by society to do?
    
    Because is men can impregnate more than one woman, it serves to prove
    that they should be "more than conscious" of the amount of sperm being
    spread far and wide.....
    
    me

    Re .168:
    
    > Condoms are more effective than abstinance?
    
    Abstinence is more likely to fail than condoms.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

.193

that was a joke!  that was funny!

    
    It is interesting to note that no one has taken up the challenge that
    Mark presented in .173.  I wonder why this is?

    EDP is most likely quite correct unfortunately.  This is why it is
    imperative we focus our attentions on making sure education and
    b.c. availability go hand in hand.  Before anyone brings out the but if
    they just didn't do it fantasy again, abstinence should be part of the
    cirriculum.  It is irresponsible not to add and encourage active
    participation in prevention for both parties when they fall off the
    abstinence wagon.  
    
    

    re: Mark's .173
    
    From past debates on this issue, Mark should remember where I stand.
    
    Ideally, a couple engaging in intercourse should be aware of where they
    stand with regard to the birth control issue.  Ideally, they should
    both use 'something', but at a minimal, agree as to what they will use
    and who is willing to take primary responsibility if this is an either/
    or situation.  They should also discuss what will happen if there is an
    unwanted pregnancy.  IMO, if the man indicates he doesn't want anything
    to do with an unwanted pregnancy, before the fact, one would hope he
    would indeed take steps to insure he didn't impregnate the woman.  If
    the birht control should fail, he should only be responsible to
    cover 1/2 of the going cost of abortion, regardless of if the woman 
    chooses to bear the child.  In the case where he wants the child and
    she doesn't, it would be ideal if she were willing to bear the child
    and give up custody or even share custody should the pregnancy change 
    her mind.  Unfortuately, this is not an ideal world. 
    

    It is the circle of life that creates this vicious circle.
    
    See `The Lion King' for more info on sex in the clouds.

    RE: .173  The Doctah

    Doctah, have you ever heard the expression "shooting off your nose to
    spite your face"?

    It makes very little sense to protest the 'biological argument' about
    pregnancy by keeping men (as a group) in the status quo in this country
    of not being expected to prevent pregnancy (thus putting them in the
    situation which gives them the problem a lot more often than they would
    be in it if they actually tried to prevent pregnancy.)

    Your vicious circle amounts to "Well, hell, if I'm going to get royally
    screwed financially if I get women pregnant, then why should I be the
    one to try to prevent it?  I'm going to get as many women pregnant as
    I want - it would serve them right."

    / How do you propose to resolve disputes in which a difference of
    / opinion exists between the male and female partners, post conception,
    / after both parties behaved equally responsibly? Case 1: the woman wants
    / to keep it, the man doesn't. Case 2: the man wants to keep it, the
    / woman doesn't. The current situation is: Case 1: the man gets to pay
    / for her decision to keep; Case 2: it's her body so she can choose to
    / abort and he's left to "deal with it." This inequity is shrugged off as
    / being "biological" by women, who say "there's nothing you can do about
    / this biological difference." 

    This starts to look like a form of blackmail:

    	"Men are not going to take responsibility for preventing
    	pregnancy until women let men make the decisions about 
    	what happens to their bodies if the women get pregnant.'

    Why do some men fight so hard (no pun intended) against the notion 
    of preventing the thing (pregnancy) that they claim is so harmful 
    and unfair to them financially (and biologically)?

    Women aren't saying "YOU use birth control - we're tired of it and
    don't intend to lift a finger to prevent pregnancy anymore."  Many
    women and men are simply saying that each person must be responsible
    to prevent pregnancy.  Each person!  Not one or the other, but both.

    / But when men say to women that preventing pregnancy is their problem 
    / because (using the women's own words, of course) "it's their body," 
    / we get this hue and cry about how unfair it is. They don't seem to 
    / like the biological argument when it's not to their advantage.

    The situation doesn't turn to women's advantage when BOTH people use
    birth control.  Women aren't off the hook for using birth control in
    this situation - it just means that men are NO LONGER off the hook
    for it (which is, apparently, something that some men will fight to
    the death to keep from happening.)

    / So, show me how you'd break this vicious circle (hopefully by
    / presenting acceptable outcomes of cases 1 and 2 above.)

    The Netherlands has already broken this cycle.  Men are expected
    to use birth control every bit as much as women (concurrently with
    women's birth control) and the unplanned pregnancies simply don't
    happen.  They call it "double Dutch" (and it makes the scenarios
    you described a very rare issue.)

    Rather than keeping men into the fight about what they are allowed
    to do with the sperm they've spread far and wide (after it meets
    up with various eggs) - put men into the fight to make it a standard
    that men in our society are expected to prevent pregnancy (even when 
    their female partners are also using birth control.)

    This is the fight that would end the vicious cycle you described.

    Doctah, sometimes I get the impression that you don't think men (as
    a group) would enjoy sex as much if they had to think about it enough
    to prevent pregnancy.

    You keep mentioning how women would have an 'advantage' if both men
    and women prevented pregnancy - do you think that women would start
    enjoying sex more than men would enjoy it if both people used their
    own protection when having sex?

    I honestly don't see an 'advantage' involved when both people are
    responsible for birth control (instead of just one person being
    expected to take care of it while the other person spreads his
    seed freely.)

Well you know what they say:  wearing a condom during sex
is like wearing a raincoat in the shower.

    Oh, yeah.
    
    I should have said "...you don't think men (in general)
    would enjoy sex as much..."

    >IMO, if the man indicates he doesn't want anything
    >to do with an unwanted pregnancy, before the fact, one would hope he
    >would indeed take steps to insure he didn't impregnate the woman
    
     But even if he doesn't, why on earth would a woman fail to take her
    own precautions under those circumstances? 
    
>If
>    the birht control should fail, he should only be responsible to
>    cover 1/2 of the going cost of abortion, regardless of if the woman 
>    chooses to bear the child.
    
     If that were the case, there would be symmetry in the
    rights/responsibilities of both men and women post conception. This
    would be as fair as biologically possible.

    Why on earth would a woman fail to take her own precautions?  She 
    shouldn't and I didn't imply that.  I'm simply stating that if you
    are a man who doesn't want children, the only way you can be 100%
    positive of this is by ensuring you don't do anything to impregnate
    a woman, regardless of what actions she does or doesn't take.  I'm
    reminded of my soon to be ex-husband.  Had a terrible attitude with
    regard to 'women getting pregnant'.  But never once, ever, thought to
    use birth control all on his own.  And when asked to, griped.  But 
    that's neither here nor there.
    
    As to the rest, Mark, you and I have come to this conclusion in the
    past.  It is the most fair way to deal with the biological inequity,
    but I'm afraid many others disagree with us.

    
    >It is interesting to note that no one has taken up the challenge that
    >Mark presented in .173.  I wonder why this is?

    Could it possibly be because less than 3 hours of the workday had
    passed since he posted that note, and some of us have actual work to do
    during work hours?
    
    No, that couldn't possibly be it.  
    
    

    
    Well there were about 25 responses.  I was just interested what the
    various responses might be.  Didn't want it to get lost/ignored, that's
    all.

    
    A response to that sort of note takes more time than I have right now. 
    I have extracted it to address when I do have time.
    
    Is that better, or would you like to continue assuming that everyone
    will dodge the question?
    

    RE: .206  The Doctah

    // If the birht control should fail, he should only be responsible to
    // cover 1/2 of the going cost of abortion, regardless of if the woman 
    // chooses to bear the child.
    
    / If that were the case, there would be symmetry in the
    / rights/responsibilities of both men and women post conception. This
    / would be as fair as biologically possible.

    This wouldn't solve the problem of unplanned pregnancies, though.

    It would mean that a guy could figure that he had all the more reason
    to forget about preventing pregnancy since the worst that could happen
    to him would be a ~$200 monetary loss per pregnancy (if he could be
    nailed for each of the pregnancies, that is, when it often takes legal
    and medical expenses to establish paternity.)

    So the guy would still be 'off the hook' for preventing pregnancy in
    the first place.

    Women don't get an 'advantage' in all this by men and women both
    taking responsibility for preventing pregnancy.

    Which, of course, leaves us to speculate as to the effect on the
    accidental pregnancy rate when women could no longer rely on having the
    man on the hook for more than $200, if he wasn't willing. I suspect it
    would have a tendency to go down. ymmv

    RE: .212  The Doctah

    / Which, of course, leaves us to speculate as to the effect on the
    / accidental pregnancy rate when women could no longer rely on having the
    / man on the hook for more than $200, if he wasn't willing. I suspect it
    / would have a tendency to go down. ymmv

    Once again, you indicate that you want men to be even MORE off the hook
    than they already are for unplanned pregnancy - and you think this would
    help.

    It would only make sex more of a challenge and a conquest to many men
    than it is now.  All they have to do is get past the woman's defenses
    (built by those who say that men are the big danger in all this with
    their sperm flying around with impunity while the men are told to LET
    their sperm fly around with impunity *all they like* since they have
    very little to lose if anything goes wrong.)

    You would turn sex into a more dangerous game than it is already (and
    would not solve the problem of unplanned pregnancies.)

    The country with the most success at solving this problem is the 
    country which has convinced men and women that they are equally as
    responsible to prevent it.

    Every step you make to fight this idea is along the lines of finding
    reasons for men to care even LESS if they get anyone pregnant.  Don't
    you see that this is a big part of the problem in the first place?
    No way is it the solution!

    By the way, it's probably true that sex probably wouldn't be as much fun
    for some (many?) men in this country if they had to think about it enough
    to prevent pregnancy.

    Credit cards are not as much fun to use either if you have to think about
    paying the bills at some point.

    Perhaps it wouldn't hurt this country if men didn't find it as much fun
    (and so nearly-risk-free) to let their sperm spread around with impunity.

    I can certainly understand some men's reluctance to lose the idea of
    this kind of freedom.  It's the only way to solve the problem we're
    discussing, though.

    
    Okay all you bad men out there, hang your head(s) in shame....

    The men in Holland don't seem to find it impossible or too miserable
    to be responsible for themselves when it comes to preventing pregnancy
    (while their partners are also responsible for themselves.)

    We could adopt it as a standard in this country, too, rather than
    putting most of our energies into deciding who gets to make what
    decisions about the journeys of who's sperm (and who gets to 
    carry how much of the financial burden involved if the sperm meets
    up with a happy egg.)

AP
Washington - Heeding warnings that a national welfare family
cap would drive up abortions and punish poor families, the 
Senate derailed a conservative push yesterday to deny additional
cash payments to single mothers who have more children.

Twenty Republicans sided with every Democrat as the Senate
approved an amendment by Senator Pete Domenici, 66-34, to strip
a family cap policy from the Republican blueprint to overhaul
the nation's welfare programs.

Conservatives said the government, if it is ever going to
bring down the rising rates of illegitimate births, must stop
subsidizing the "reckless, irresponsible" behavior of women
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
who ask taxpayers to support their children.

    re: .174 by ABACUS::MINICHINO
    
>    What is wrong with this picture. Why is is more effective if women are 
>    responsible for themselves but men aren't....?
 
    If you have 100 men and 100 woman, the worst
    case scenario is that you get 100 unwanted pregnancies.  We already
    know that no matter what we stress in education or on the pulpit, some
    individuals WILL NOT BE responsible.  They will not practice
    abstinance, nor will they use BC.  
    
    Now, when we get to the numbers issue, you can reach 95% of the males
    and you can still end up with 100 unwanted pregnancies (if the females
    refuse to be responsible).  If you reach 95% of the females and no
    males, you can end up with only 5 unwanted pregnancies (not taking into
    account failure rates, which only confuse the example).  You don't have
    to reach ANY of the males if all the females are responsible.
    
    These are just numbers.  I'm not saying we don't try and reach both
    sexes.  No one is saying that.  It is simply more effective for the
    females to protect themselves.
         
>    On the same line, if men can impregnate more than one woman, wouldn't
>    it be prudent to say, they should keep their sperm under "MORE" control
>    than they are currently required by society to do?
 
    Sure.  But it only takes a few that won't do this.  A few really active
    men can impregnate a lot of women over a short period of time. 
       
>    Because is men can impregnate more than one woman, it serves to prove
>    that they should be "more than conscious" of the amount of sperm being
>    spread far and wide.....
 
    I agree.  I'm not talking ideology here, I'm talking cold, hard numbers
    coupled with reality. 
    
    Read a few of the Doctah's notes dealing with the numbers, he does a
    better job that I do above.
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .218  Steve Leech

    / You don't have to reach ANY of the males if all the females are 
    / responsible. 

    This is the most desired situation, obviously, for many men.  Leave
    them in a situation of having almost nothing to lose by having sex
    (which makes them all the more dangerous to the women who must bear
    the entire burden of preventing pregnancy.)

    / Sure.  But it only takes a few that won't do this.  A few really active
    / men can impregnate a lot of women over a short period of time. 

    Our society then blames the women for the actions of such men.  This
    is the problem.  The men have very little (or nothing) to lose with
    this behavior.  If we had a standard for men to prevent pregnancy,
    such guys would be discouraged (more than they are now) from doing this.

    .219
    
    > This is the most desired situation, obviously, for many men...
    
    Suzanne, are you looking for the best of all possible worlds, or are
    you honestly interested in dealing with the reality of the situation?
    
    Steve has clearly said it is not DESIRABLE that few or none of the men
    be reached, but the cold hard reality, as he said, is that reaching ALL
    BUT ONE of the men can still result in high numbers of pregnancies,
    while reaching MOST of the women - even if you reach NONE of the men -
    WILL result in lower numbers of pregnancies.
    
    If all you care about is a pretty picture, change your name to Pangloss
    and have done with it.  When you're ready to accept the fact that women
    really are in the driver's seat in this issue, come on back for some
    meanignful discussion.

	Pangloss Conlon.  no...no - that doesn't quite work.

I propose that all the women in the world swear off
sex for a year.  By gosh, then we'll be able to make
some real changes.

    RE: .220  Dick Binder

    // This is the most desired situation, obviously, for many men...
    
    / Suzanne, are you looking for the best of all possible worlds, or are
    / you honestly interested in dealing with the reality of the situation?

    I am very honestly looking at the reality of the situation.  When you
    have a certain number of people engaging in behavior which results in
    unwanted pregnancies and you make an absolute POINT of aiming birth
    control messages at HALF of these people, you set up the other half to
    regain any lost territory by simply trying harder to get the conquest 
    (since they still have very little or nothing to lose in all this.)

    / Steve has clearly said it is not DESIRABLE that few or none of the men
    / be reached, but the cold hard reality, as he said, is that reaching ALL
    / BUT ONE of the men can still result in high numbers of pregnancies,
    / while reaching MOST of the women - even if you reach NONE of the men -
    / WILL result in lower numbers of pregnancies.

    If you leave the men out of the responsibility loop for pregnancy,
    though, then when these women need most to remember the messages
    about birth control, they are ALONE with someone who has little or
    nothing to lose by having sex whether precautions are used or not.

    As for the numbers thing - good grief, we're not talking about
    salmon here.  If 99 guys decide to use birth control, they won't
    fall off the planet.  They're going to be *in the way* of the guy who
    has decided that since he's the only one with sperm to distribute
    then he might as well sleep with all 100 women while the other 99 guys
    go home alone.

    Besides, every time you reach even ONE GUY with the message about
    birth control, you keep him from trying to distribute his sperm to
    the next 100 women he meets.

    / When you're ready to accept the fact that women really are in the 
    / driver's seat in this issue, come on back for some meanignful 
    / discussion.  

    As long as society takes the attitude that women *get themselves*
    pregnant (by being in the so-called driver's seat for an activity
    which takes two people), we'll never get men to consider themselves
    as responsible as women to prevent pregnancy.

    Men in at least one other country have taken this step and the
    country enjoys the best success (in reducing unplanned pregnancies
    and abortions) of anyone in the western world.

    We can't honestly expect to attain their success by doing the opposite
    of what they have done to gain this success.

    Honestly - is it an unreasonable request to expect our society to aim
    birth control messages at men *and* women?  I mean, it's not as if
    they have to put out twice as many messages - all they have to do is
    to aim the same messages at a larger audience.

    Is it 'asking for the moon' to expect our society to regard men and women
    as being equally responsible for the prevention of pregnancy?

    What do some men have to lose by this (and how would a standard of both
    people using birth control give an 'advantage' to some women?)

    .224
    
    As usual, your volubility has missed the crux of the problem.  I, and I
    assume other men as well, support aiming birth control messages at both
    sexes.  The more sure the aim, the better I will like it.  But what you
    are overlooking, deliberately or otherwise, is personal responsibility.
    Regardless of the targeting of these messages, it's the personal choice
    of each individual who engages in sex whether or not to use protection. 
    The fact is that women are in a better position, when responsibility is
    exercised by only a part of the population, to control pregnancy.  This
    fact has absolutely nothing to do with the message or its targets; even
    given a situation in which vastly more men then women are being respon-
    sible, the number of pregnancies is still a function of responsibility
    on the part of the women.

    re: .225
    
    So then, what you are really saying is that women are 
    more rational, more logical, more practical and more
    emotionally stable than their male partners when it 
    comes to dealing with matters of sexuality.  In fact, 
    you would like to allocate full responsibility in this 
    matters to women because you feel that overall we are better
    equipped to deal with them.
    
    I'll buy that.
    
    Now, can we convince you to turn the rest of the country
    over to us as well? ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    Mary-Michael

    .226
    
    Crap, and you know it.
    
    I'd just soon see ALL persons, of BOTH sexes, taking full
    responsibility.  But we all know (we *DO* all know, don't we?)
    that SOME people will NOT take responsibility.  And when fewer than
    100% of the people take responsibility, the results are different:
    
    Take a population of 100 men and 100 women, and assume that choice of
    partner and frequency of activity are not restricted by anything other
    than biology.
    
    o   If 99 men are responsible and 0 women are responsible, the result
        can be 100 pregnancies.
    
    o   If 99 women are responsible and 0 men are responsible, the result
        cannot be more than 1 pregnancy.
    
    o   if 50 men are responsible and 50 women are responsible, the result
        cannot be more than 50 pregnancies.
    
    o   if 99 men are responsible and 50 women are responsible, the result
        can still be 50 pregnancies.
    
    And so on.  What it comes down to, no matter how you sugarcoat it and
    no matter how you start looking for sexism in every aspect of it, is
    that the number of pregnancies is a mathematical function of the number
    of women who choose not to be responsible.
    
    In our society, which does occasionally place some moral strictures on
    indiscriminate coupling, the number of men who are responsible becomes
    a factor of the total function because not every individual of one sex
    will couple with every individual of the other, but the hard truth still
    remains that the number of responsibile women is a far, far more
    important factor than the number of responsible men.

    .202
    
    Would you consider wearing a raincoat in the shower if it was
    required to prevent getting AIDS?  Married couples have had
    partners inadvertently exposed to the virus; they have to adjust
    to "wearing raincoats".
    
    

    RE: .225  Dick Binder

    / As usual, your volubility has missed the crux of the problem.  I, and I
    / assume other men as well, support aiming birth control messages at both
    / sexes.  The more sure the aim, the better I will like it. 

    Do you also comprehend that this is best developed as a standard (and
    not just a throwaway 'Oh yeah, and this applies to guys, too' inclusion?)

    / But what you are overlooking, deliberately or otherwise, is personal 
    / responsibility.      

    Actually, I'm looking to change the standards of this country so that
    we expect men and women to be equally responsible for the prevention
    of pregnancy (because I think that we can only solve this problem by
    making both sexual participants partners in this prevention.)

    / Regardless of the targeting of these messages, it's the personal choice
    / of each individual who engages in sex whether or not to use protection. 

    How diligently does our society try to get men to make this choice,
    though?  The reaction (against men being responsible for birth control)
    in this topic alone is a good indication of the resistance that many
    in our society feel about it.  It's something women are 'supposed' to do
    (so that when neither partner uses birth control, it's the woman who has
    been irresponsible, not the man - hell, the man wasn't 'supposed' to take
    care of this stuff so he's almost an innocent bystander.)

    / The fact is that women are in a better position, when responsibility is
    / exercised by only a part of the population, to control pregnancy.  

    Birth control is not a zero sum game (where if 50 men use protection,
    50 women will NOT use protection and can get pregnant by the 50 men
    who are also not using protection.)

    We don't have to choose whether women OR men get the birth control
    message.  The more it becomes the standard for both people to use
    protection (and unplanned pregnancies are reduced), the more people
    of both sexes will get the message that it works (and the more it
    *will* work.)

    / This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the message or its targets; 
    / even given a situation in which vastly more men then women are being 
    / responsible, the number of pregnancies is still a function of 
    / responsibility on the part of the women.

    Unless the guy left his sperm on the sidewalk for someone to scoop up
    and take home (to self-insert alone), the number of pregnancies is
    a function of the responsibilities of the men *and* women who have sex
    together.

    A great many men don't bother to use birth control at all in this
    country (mostly because our society doesn't expect men to be concerned
    about such things) - and this is a big part of the failure of this
    country to control unplanned pregnancies.

    In the Netherlands, both men and women are responsible for preventing
    pregnancy and they no longer have the huge problem we still have here
    with unplanned pregnancies.

    Getting both people to be responsible is the key to all this.  Saying
    that women are the ones responsible for what men and women do together
    is not the answer.

    .229
    
    > Getting both people to be responsible is the key to all this.
    
    No.  It is not the key.  It is the goal.  The key to reducing
    pregnancies is reducing the number of incidences of sexual intercourse
    that can result in pregnancy, and that is in women's power simply
    because of the numbers.  It's not pretty, it's not nice, it's not even
    fair.  But anybody who ever said, or even thought, that life is fair
    was full of chite.
    
    Work on the problem by the most effective way.  Then when the problem
    isn't a problem, work on making the solution pretty.

    RE: .227  Dick Binder

    / Take a population of 100 men and 100 women, and assume that choice of
    / partner and frequency of activity are not restricted by anything other
    / than biology.

    The numbers game in this topic is seriously flawed.

    If you put 100 responsible women with 100 irresponsible men, you have
    a situation where only HALF the people having sex are interested in
    doing anything to prevent pregnancy (which puts all 100 couples at
    risk.)

    You can't put women in the position of being 'defensive drivers' in
    sexual matters (where their partners' sperm is careening out of control
    but the women are expected to do their best to dodge it and are regarded
    as being 'responsible' - at fault - if there is a collision with an egg.)

    / And so on.  What it comes down to, no matter how you sugarcoat it and
    / no matter how you start looking for sexism in every aspect of it, is
    / that the number of pregnancies is a mathematical function of the number
    / of women who choose not to be responsible.

    The number of pregnancies is a mathematical function of the number of
    couples (men and women) who don't have adequate protection or whose
    protection has failed.  If the man didn't use protection, the pregnancy
    is a direct result of his choice not to be responsible (whether the
    woman used protection or not.)  The same applies to the woman.

    They are both responsible.  Further, the number of men who choose to
    not be responsible is one of the two biggest reasons why this problem
    is out of control.  Men own precisely 50% of the responsibility for
    any unplanned pregnancy in particular (and for the number of unplanned
    pregnancies in general.)

    / but the hard truth still remains that the number of responsibile women 
    / is a far, far more important factor than the number of responsible men.  

    Every pregnancy comes with a man who either didn't use birth control
    at all (or whose birth control failed).  Every pregnancy also comes
    with a woman who either didn't use birth control at all (or whose
    birth control failed.)  No pregnancy comes with fewer than two people
    who are equally responsible.

    (I do know of a case where three people were pregnant together - a woman
    got pregnant with fraternal twins by her husband and her lover.  In this
    case, TWO men failed to use birth control and only one woman.)  :/

    RE: .230  Dick Binder

    // Getting both people to be responsible is the key to all this.
    
    / No.  It is not the key.  It is the goal.  

    No, it is the key.  As long as it takes two people to procreate via
    sexual intercourse, we can only solve the problem by having both
    people cooperate by living up to their responsibilities (and this
    means men as well as women.)  It's not something one sex can do
    alone.  (Imagine trying to get men to prevent pregnancies all by
    themselves?  It would be a far worse disaster than we have now.)

    / The key to reducing pregnancies is reducing the number of incidences 
    / of sexual intercourse that can result in pregnancy, and that is in 
    / women's power simply because of the numbers.  

    An individual woman can only make her own choices (like an individual
    man can do.)  Individual women and individual men are both responsible
    for preventing pregnancies.  When pregnancies occur, they are both
    responsible for their situation.  Equally.

    / It's not pretty, it's not nice, it's not even fair.  

    Nor is it true [what you wrote above.]

    / But anybody who ever said, or even thought, that life is fair
    / was full of chite.

    It's not really about fairness.  It's about the fact that you can't
    prevent unplanned pregnancies on a large scale by dumping the
    responsibility for these pregnancies on HALF the people who are having
    sex (while the other HALF says, 'See?  It's their fault, not ours.')

    / Work on the problem by the most effective way.  Then when the problem
    / isn't a problem, work on making the solution pretty.

    This is precisely what I'm trying to do.  I'm going for the most
    effective way.

    The Netherlands way has the most effective solution in the western world
    (and they do it largely by getting men to consider themselves responsible
    to prevent pregnancy and disease every bit as much as women are
    responsible to prevent these things.)

    In this country, such a suggestion is fought tooth and nail.  No wonder
    the Netherlands is a success in this area and the United States is such
    a dismal failure.

    P.S. to .231
    
    (I do know of a case where three people were pregnant together - a woman
    got pregnant with fraternal twins by her husband and her lover.  In this
    case, TWO men failed to use birth control and only one woman.)  :/
    
    Actually, they didn't find out until the couple got divorced and went
    into a custody battle.  They did DNA tests on the two babies and found
    that one of the twins was the child of the husband and the other twin
    was the child of the mother's lover.  
    
    (Imagine their surprise, eh?) :/

    This is SO frustrating.  Perhaps we should just teach our girls that 
    since they will bear the greater responsibility for an unplanned
    pregnancy, they should not, ever engage in sex with a man until she
    and he decide as a couple that they want children.  I imagine that men
    might be a tad more interested in protecting themselves if the option 
    is to go without.
    
    E

    RE: .234  Christine

    / This is SO frustrating.  Perhaps we should just teach our girls that 
    / since they will bear the greater responsibility for an unplanned
    / pregnancy, they should not, ever engage in sex with a man until she
    / and he decide as a couple that they want children.  I imagine that men
    / might be a tad more interested in protecting themselves if the option 
    / is to go without.

    It still puts the responsibility on the girls, though.

    The boys will just try all the harder to talk the girls into having
    sex (without the boys being interested in preventing pregnancy),
    that's all.

    You've seen how difficult it is to introduce the idea of men and women
    both being regarded as equally responsible to prevent pregnancy.  The
    idea is fought tooth and nail.

    The only way men will ever be regarded as responsible for preventing
    pregnancy is for men to decide (as a group) that it *really is* their
    responsibility.  

    The men in the Netherlands have done it already.  It remains to be
    seen if the men in our country can bring themselves to take this step.

    I know Suzanne, but seeing the resistance we are getting with regard
    to the idea of men also using protection, well, being a woman, I guess
    I just can't see fit not to make them suffer :-)))  And my guess is
    having the option of going without will be more painful that slipping
    on a rainguard :-)))))

    Christine - I see your point.  :/

    Unfortunately, I don't think that a pre-marital sexual strike would
    work to get men (as a group) to accept that they are as responsible
    for preventing pregnancy as women can possibly be.  Ultimately, it
    would create more sexual tension than we already have in this country
    (and more unplanned pregnancies, I fear.)

    They have to reach this decision out of their own sense of personal
    responsibility (because that's really what we're talking about here.)
                                             

    Yes, Suzanne, you are right, spot on in your last paragraph.  I can
    still have vengeful fantasies, tho, 'kay? :-)

     Once upon a time, it was perfectly logical, reasonable and symmetrical
    to hold men equally responsible for preventing pregnancies. Neither
    party had any more rights or responsibilities than the other, save for
    those biologically imposed. If a woman got pregnant, it made perfect
    sense to hold the male accountable and force (if need be) him to
    support the resultant offspring. The advent of abortion changed this
    dynamic. It allowed women to choose after making a mistake to correct
    it. Men are not afforded this opportunity. The dynamic has changed.
    How many women would be willing to give up the right to have an
    abortion in order to retain the right to force their partner to
    shoulder 50% of the burden of raising and supporting any unplanned
    offspring that might arise from their coupling? Damn few, I'd bet.

    
    I don't see the resistance of which you speak, Tine.  Noone is saying
    that men shouldn't be responsible.  One of my favorite ads with regards
    to this subject is the one that ends with the guy pressuring the female
    saying, "She says she's found someone nice who doesn't pressure her. 
    What does that make me then?"  It then shows a rat running through an
    alley.  It closes with the word Virgin on a wall and says that it's not
    a dirty word.  Whereas I don't want to debate whether virginity is
    necessary or not, I think the message of the male putting pressure on
    the female comes through loud and clear.  
    
    Mike

    re: .239
    
    Untrue.  Women have always had the options of putting the
    baby up for adoption.  The only way for a man to have more
    of a sense of "destiny" in the decisions around his child is
    for the man to partner with it's mother and raise the child with her.
    If that is unpalatable to him, well, why is he having sex with
    her in the first place?
    
    What you seem to be saying is that in order for a man to have 
    some control, women need to give up all control.  Since it is also
    being argued that most men, given the option, will choose not to
    act responsibly in sexual matters, I don't see where women giving
    up the small amount of control they now have gains them anything.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

Note 541.241    
SMURF::MSCANLON 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>    re: .239
>>>    
>>>    If that is unpalatable to him, well, why is he having sex with
>>>    her in the first place?
    
    So she should not have sex unless it is to have a child, or with
    someone whom she could have a family with if an 'accident' happened?
    
    Sounds like the way it use to (was suppose to) be...
    
    
    
    

    Mr. Keith, the same applies to a man.  I'm reminded of a conversation I
    had with a Digital co-worker about 9 years ago.
    
    A woman walked thru the lobby.  He commented that she was a slut.  I
    asked him why he thought so.  He said he'd gone out with her a while
    and they'd {gasp} had sex and that some time after they broke up (he
    dumped her, btw), she began dating another man with whom she became
    intimate.  This, the fact that she 'had two men' in under a year is
    what made her a slut.  I asked him if he'd slept with more than two 
    women in the same time frame.  He puffed his chest out and replied 
    with a, "damn straight I have", very, very proudly.  I looked at him
    and asked him what the difference was.  I further told him that if 
    there were less men like him on the prowl, there would be less 'sluts'
    like her to be slandered later on. 

    re: .227
    
    I guess that would work pretty well is sex was a factor of
    statistics.  But it's not, it's a factor of biology.  I think
    you are trying to put a rational spin on a subject which is
    anything but rational.  
    
    If there were a war going on near your house, in your neighborhood,
    would you go out of the house after dark and walk the streets without
    a means to defend yourself?  Sure, you'd think the army would protect
    you, but if it's *your* life at stake, wouldn't you want to make sure
    you wouldn't be caught off guard?
    
    Think about it.  The war is AIDS.  Do you really want your sons
    and daughters to hand responsibility for their lives over to 
    their partners?  Isn't a condom better than cutting your life short?  
    Doesn't a diaphragm beat dying?
    
    Doesn't is pay to teach our daughters *and* our sons that they
    days of "notching the bedpost" are past? That if they refuse to
    act responsibly they could wind up dead?
    
    Mary-Michael

    >Untrue.  Women have always had the options of putting the
    >baby up for adoption.
    
     Yeah, but if a woman doesn't want her child and the man does, then he
    gets it so it's a case without conflict. Some women do not want to
    undergo a pregnancy only to give up their child (I don't blame them; I
    couldn't do it.)
    
    >The only way for a man to have more
    >of a sense of "destiny" in the decisions around his child is
    >for the man to partner with it's mother and raise the child with her.
    
     If she lets him. This is the crux of the issue; it's her and only her
    decision. If she decides she doesn't want to undergo the pregnancy,
    he's SOL if he wants the child. If she decides she wants the baby, it
    just doesn't matter what HIS feelings are, he's on the hook whether he
    likes it or not. His choice is to go along with her choice or be forced
    to go along with her choice.
    
    >If that is unpalatable to him, well, why is he having sex with
    >her in the first place?
    
     Most people don't have sex with the idea that procreation is in the
    offing. Most people don't say, "let's go make a baby now." Most of the
    time that two people have sex, it's for the mutual pleasure thereby
    derived. I hope this answers the question.
    
    >What you seem to be saying is that in order for a man to have 
    >some control, women need to give up all control. 
    
     I'm saying that women and men should have an equivalent amount of
    control, whatever amount that is. If women want to give men no control,
    why should they expect more than that? If women want autonomic control,
    why shouldn't men be allowed the same?
    
     Why is it that if a woman chooses to abort, it's "her body" but it
    isn't "her body" when it comes to prevention and it's "our problem" if
    SHE decides SHE wants to keep it (regardless of what the male thinks)?
    That doesn't sound just a teensy bit skewed to you?

    RE: .224
    
    
    Unreasonable?  No, definitely not, should happen etc.
    
    Asking for the moon?  Both parties should be equally responsible for
    prevention and consequences of joint action.
    
    >>What do some men have to lose by this (and how would a standard of
    both people using birth control give an 'advantage' to some women?)
    
    As ugly as it may seem and counter to your continual assertions that 
    men have the only power stake here, there a some/many/a lot of women 
    that are just as capable of using sex as a tool to manipulate, hold 
    power over, coerce, etc. men.  The continual litany of "it's all the 
    mans fault from the time they are conceived you penis wagging dolts!" 
    is getting quite tiresome.  Without widespread education and pinning 
    reponsibility for one's actions where they belong, nothing will change. 
    Nothing.  There, I have let my opinions fly with impunity.  I must be 
    the typical, power hungry, responsibility shirking, unthinking, knuckle 
    dragging, ever-randy bunny.  Oh yeah, imo, whatever, etc.  
    
    Brian

    >Think about it.  The war is AIDS.  Do you really want your sons
    >and daughters to hand responsibility for their lives over to 
    >their partners?  Isn't a condom better than cutting your life short?  
    
     That's a separate (but related) issue.

    re: .242
    
    Thanks, but I'll keep my feet on the ground where they belong :-)
    
    Personally, I cannot imagine sleeping with anyone whom I have not
    discussed the possibility of pregnancy with beforehand.  I am 
    certainly not going to avoid sex until I'm married and want a 
    child.  That's ridiculous.  My SO and I have discussed how we
    would handle it if it happened, although under the circumstances
    (he has had "The Procedure" and according to my doctor, my 
    reproductive system is so screwed up if I became pregnant at
    this point we could start a religion :-) the odds are pretty
    darn good it won't.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    RE: .243 The double standard suck, Tine.  I used to hold such views,
    but have since grown up a bit.  It is something that males are taught. 
    We need to get laid as much as possible, but we want to marry a "pure"
    woman.  I think the having sex part is driven mostly by peer pressure
    which perpetuates itself.  The desire to marry a "pure" woman has to do
    with a desire which is bred from insecurity.  What if we aren't as
    good, as well endowed, etc, etc.  What I have learned about
    relationships is that sex is the easy part, the friendship is the most
    difficult.  If a couple develops the friendship first, the physical
    part can be worked out.  If two people are friends, they are not afraid
    to show their vulerabilities to the other nor or they afraid to talk to
    the other even about such things as sex and what does it for them.
    
    Mike 

    
    >I'm saying that women and men should have an equivalent amount of
    >control, whatever amount that is. If women want to give men no control,
    >why should they expect more than that? If women want autonomic control,
    >why shouldn't men be allowed the same?
    
    Men DO have control.  They can control their sperm in the FIRST place.
    
    If this is how 'men' feel, why in the WORLD would they say "Well, if I 
    have nothing to say about any resulting pregnancy, I'm not going to do 
    anything to prevent one!"?
    
    This just doesn't make any sense.                                     

    RE: .245  The Doctah

    / I'm saying that women and men should have an equivalent amount of
    / control, whatever amount that is. If women want to give men no control,
    / why should they expect more than that? If women want autonomic control,
    / why shouldn't men be allowed the same?

    It always comes down to this.  Some men refuse to control themselves
    (with regards to birth control) unless women give up some control over
    the women's own bodies first.

    No matter how much some men say that men are made to suffer by
    unplanned pregnancies, they'd rather cut off their noses to spite
    their faces by refusing to hold men responsible for birth control
    thus continuing the high number of unplanned pregnancies (as a
    way to try to convince women to give up some control over women's
    own bodies in exchange for men controlling themselves.)

    Well, sorry, but it doesn't wash.  The men in the Netherlands ruined
    all this for American men by showing that men can be responsible for
    birth control while women still have a choice about their own bodies.

    The funny thing, though, is that the abortion rate per capita is
    1/10th the rate of abortions in America because when men take such
    responsibility (along with women), unplanned pregnancies become very
    rare.

    Mark, 'who gets to control the woman's body later' wouldn't be such
    a huge issue if men cooperated with women to prevent pregnancy on
    a large scale in this country.  The men in the Netherlands are doing
    this and their problems in the area of unplanned pregnancies are 
    very minimal compared to ours.

    .236
    
    Lest you misunderstand me, 'tine, I do not, repeat NOT, resist the idea
    of men's using protection.  I'm all for it.  But I'm not fool enough to
    think that if nearly all men did but no women did, we'd be better off
    than if nearly all women did but no men did.
    
    When you have a flood that is out of control, you take immediate
    practical steps to STOP it.  After you've dammed the tide, as it were,
    THEN you figure out and implement the best way to improve the dike. 
    Why is this so difficult to understand?

    
    
    dick, 
    
    it isn't hard to understand.  I just disagree with you.  I agree with
    Suzanne that by saying, 'well, gee, right now it's more important to work on
    the women to solve this problem....once the problem's nearly solved,
    we'll concentrate on the men, too" really means that in time (and not
    much at that) those pushing for your solution will figure this is
    working fine as is and the message to men once again gets forgotten.
    Ie:  I don't believe that we'd ever get to the part about how to
    improve the dyke, that message will lose it's place/importance.

>>     <<< Note 541.252 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>
>>    Lest you misunderstand me, 'tine, I do not, repeat NOT, resist the idea
>>    of men's using protection.  I'm all for it.  But I'm not fool enough to
>>    think that if nearly all men did but no women did, we'd be better off
>>    than if nearly all women did but no men did.

	Exactly.  While both parties should be equally responsible, it's
	impossible to argue with the simple mathematics.  Herr Binder's
	point is quite obvious.

    I like half and half cream.

    RE: .252  Dick Binder

    / Lest you misunderstand me, 'tine, I do not, repeat NOT, resist the idea
    / of men's using protection.  I'm all for it.  But I'm not fool enough to
    / think that if nearly all men did but no women did, we'd be better off
    / than if nearly all women did but no men did.

    Here, we get back to the idea of birth control being mutually exclusive
    (rather than something men *and* women do.  At the same time.)

    If men started using birth control, there's no reason to believe that
    women would just stop using it altogether.  The idea is to get both
    parties to use it.

    / When you have a flood that is out of control, you take immediate
    / practical steps to STOP it.  After you've dammed the tide, as it were,
    / THEN you figure out and implement the best way to improve the dike. 
    / Why is this so difficult to understand?

    The 'flood' is the millions and millions of sperm produced by almost
    every man in this country which flows out of their bodies with very
    little regard for where it will go.

    Women are in the path of this flood and what you're saying is for
    individual women to try to keep the flood out of their inner 
    sanctuaries because the men are out of control.

    Try getting the men to control themselves to stop or slow down the 
    flood.  The women are already trying to protect themselves, but a 
    lot of sperm gets through anyway.  Let's try slowing down the flood 
    (while the women continue to protect against it anyway) so that we're 
    working together to solve this problem.

    This is all a result of Protestants trying to promote sex for pleasure.

    In fact, today I think I'll have a French Tickler. For _I_ am a
    Protestant!

    Forget it, Suzanne.  I'm through being badgered by your cut-n-paste
    wasting of time and space.  If you had a sensible counterargument, I
    might plow through it, but you don't - you keep coming back to the pot
    of gold at the end of the rainbow.  Well, I want it, too, but I
    understand that I have to FIND the end of the rainbow first.  You
    don't.

   It's so basic.  It's like anything else - if you have a small child,
   it would be really nice to think you could, by instruction, keep the
   child from drinking the lemon-scented Clorox that's under the sink,
   but because you have a brain and know how things usually work, you
   move it to a cabinet above the sink and _then_ work on teaching the
   child about unsafe drinking practices.  

   

    
    I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand why this:
    
    >Here, we get back to the idea of birth control being mutually exclusive
    >(rather than something men *and* women do.  At the same time.)
    
    >If men started using birth control, there's no reason to believe that
    >women would just stop using it altogether.  The idea is to get both
    >parties to use it.
    
    is being fought against.
    
    
    

    .260
    
    It's not being fought against, Mz_Debra, the point is merely being made
    that having both parties use protection all the time is the unreachable
    star; it's simply not going to happen.  So, if we really care about the
    problem, we do what works BEST, RIGHT NOW, and then we make it pretty.

    Let's remember that we're not faced with a choice between men OR women
    (but not both) using birth control.

    The choice is between whether we concentrate on advising women to use
    birth control (thus perpetuating the cultural standard that men are
    not responsible for the prevention of pregnancy) or whether we start
    stressing that *both* men and women are responsible for pregnancy
    prevention.  (That's both men and women at the same time, not a mutually
    exclusive arrangement.)

    The second choice is obviously the key to all this.

    RE: .261  Dick Binder

    / It's not being fought against, Mz_Debra, the point is merely being made
    / that having both parties use protection all the time is the unreachable
    / star; it's simply not going to happen.  

    It happens in the Netherlands, though (enough for Holland to have the
    best success in this area in the western world.)  

    We don't need for it to be 100% (no country will ever reach that goal
    and no one here is asking for it.)

    We need for men to at least START to accept their responsibilities in
    preventing pregnancy, though (on a large scale.)  The problem can't
    be solved without men's cooperation (since they are HALF of the people
    involved in each and every intercourse pregnancy.)  As long as men
    are regarded as bystanders in the business of pregnancy prevention,
    they will continue to be a danger to women and society in this area.
    
    / So, if we really care about the problem, we do what works BEST, RIGHT 
    / NOW, and then we make it pretty.

    What would work best (right now) is for men as a group to accept the
    fact that they are responsible for preventing pregnancy as much as
    women are responsible to do this.

    This would be the most effective solution for this problem (and it
    has worked extremely well in at least one other country so far.)

    In Holland, it is now completely accepted that both parties use birth
    control of their own.
    
    If anyone goofs (or if any method fails), they usually have a backup
    in the other person's method.
    
    Why is this such an impossible standard for America to adopt?

>>    What would work best (right now) is for men as a group to accept the
>>    fact that they are responsible for preventing pregnancy as much as
>>    women are responsible to do this.

	That's what would _be_ best, but that doesn't mean we can get
	it to work (right now).

    
    >So, if we really care about the
    >problem, we do what works BEST, RIGHT NOW, and then we make it
    >pretty.
    
    I do understand the mathematics of this.  Next question:  HOW do you
    implement the "what works best right now" solution?  Is this an ad
    campaign?  Is this education in schools?  Is this forced Norplant at
    the onset of menses?  Birth control pills in the water supply?  How does 
    this work?
    
    You know my second question, of course:  once you've told me how it is
    you plan on making sure that all females know they need to protect 
    against pregnancy, tell me WHY it's an impossible goal to make sure that 
    BOTH sexes know that they need to protect against pregnancy. 
    
    If it's an ad campaign, for example, why would it be impossible to
    write the ads so that EVERYONE knows it's his/her responsibility?
    
    If it's education in schools, why would it be impossible to write the
    curricula so that EVERYONE knows it's his/her responsibility?
    
    Etc.
    

    RE: .264  Diane

    // What would work best (right now) is for men as a group to accept the
    // fact that they are responsible for preventing pregnancy as much as
    // women are responsible to do this.

    / That's what would _be_ best, but that doesn't mean we can get
    / it work (right now).

    We have no guarantees about any approach we take right now.

    Getting the 'other half' of sexual reproductive partners involved in
    the business of pregnancy prevention (along with the 'first half') 
    is an approach that has had amazing results in one other western
    country, though.

    Men in this country will fight it to the death, obviously, because
    men haven't been expected to show responsibility in this area before
    (on a large scale).  

    It's way past time they were given this expectation, though.

    
    RE.266
    
    You ask why?
    
    
    
    AIDS!

	for the record, i don't agree that it's an impossible goal
	or an impossible standard for the US to adopt.  it's _exactly_
	what we should be striving for.  but i do agree that the biggest
	bang for the buck is in getting women on the bandwagon first,
        simply to stem the tide.  it shouldn't have to be that way, but
	it seems like the pragmatic view to me.

    Let's see, encouraging women to use birth control couldn't be because
    it is wise for them to do so to participate in the prevention of
    pregnancies.  No, that cannot be part of it at all.  Now that I
    understand that it is a patriarchical conspiracy to keep women pinned
    to the mattress and submissive to the man's whims allowing the man to
    assert his power with impunity over the woman, I can begin my own 
    personal healing.  Thank you so much for the insight into my own 
    insidious behavior and motiviations.  I never knew I felt that way
    until just now.   
    
    

    RE: .266  

    / You know my second question, of course:  once you've told me how it is
    / you plan on making sure that all females know they need to protect 
    / against pregnancy, tell me WHY it's an impossible goal to make sure that 
    / BOTH sexes know that they need to protect against pregnancy. 

    Bingo!  If we're going to start a new campaign to get people to take
    action to prevent pregnancy, why limit it to females?

    Why not include everyone (since it's males *and* females who are having
    the sex which can result in unplanned pregnancy.)

    There isn't a reason in the world to leave men out of this campaign.

    
    
    Can you show me where anyone said to LIMIT IT to females?  I must have
    missed it.

>>        <<< Note 541.272 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>>    There isn't a reason in the world to leave men out of this campaign.

	Agreed.  But who is suggesting that?

    You don't limit it, you make it everyone's responsibility.  You use
    education and marketing messages aimed at both genders collectively and
    individually.  You enact legislation requiring that when people engage
    in acts with potential consequences, they be held responsible.  If the
    Netherlands is a model, great, use it as a model.  
    
    	

    
    In Holland, like in Most European countries, family planning services
    and devices are provided as part of the social health care programs.
    Low income families get these services very cheaply and are encouraged
    to use them through education programs starting in school.  At around
    $10 for a pack of condoms, doubling up on birth control would represent
    a significant cost to low-income families in the US.
    
    There may be programs in place to provide low-cost birth control in the
    US, but they'd probably need significantly greater funding.
    
    
    
    

    RE: .270  Diane
    
    / for the record, i don't agree that it's an impossible goal
    / or an impossible standard for the US to adopt.  it's _exactly_
    / what we should be striving for.  but i do agree that the biggest
    / bang for the buck is in getting women on the bandwagon first,
    / simply to stem the tide.  it shouldn't have to be that way, but
    / it seems like the pragmatic view to me.
    
    Women have been on this bandwagon for decades (mostly in order to
    have sex with men who are regarded as bystanders in the process of
    preventing pregnancy.)  We can always do better in getting women
    to use birth control consistently, of course, but not without
    getting some/many of their male partners to cooperate (by being
    held responsible for the prevention of pregnancy as well.)
    
    It's time to get men on this bandwagon.

    Fine, no one said we need to LIMIT the campaign to women - they just
    want to AIM it at women.
    
    Well, AIM it at everyone (men and women, equally!)  There isn't a
    reason in the world to aim a campaign like this at one sex and not
    the other (when it takes people of both sexes to create intercourse
    pregnancies.)

    RE: .276
    
    / You don't limit it, you make it everyone's responsibility.  You use
    / education and marketing messages aimed at both genders collectively and
    / individually.
    
    Thank you.

    
    .274
    
    I don't believe the word 'limit' has been used, but the overwhelming
    sentiment seems to be to 'focus' on the females currently and then (and
    only then) 'focus' on the males.
    
    Why not focus on both at the same time?
    
    

    
    
    I think what has been said is that you need to focus on both, but if the 
    females get the message first, then it would do more to address the 
    unwanted pregnancy problem.
    
    Mike  

    
    <-- Ohho, I diagree with that 8^).
    
    There's been a stunning lack of willingness to focus on the males, if
    you ask me.
    
    And I don't understand why it would be difficult to impossible to focus
    any new pregnancy prevention campaign at both sexes.
    

    RE: .282  Mike
    
    / I think what has been said is that you need to focus on both, but if the 
    / females get the message first, then it would do more to address the 
    / unwanted pregnancy problem.
    
    This is likely to be the excuse that many men use for not bothering
    to listen to the message.
    
    We have to include an answer to this excuse in the campaign.

  .282  that's what _i_ meant, anyways.

    
    
    Well Deb, we are both coming at this from different vantage points,
    that may have something to do with our perceptions of what is going on.  
    
    We both agree that it's both parties who need to address the subject. 
    I think the angle has to be different for the males and the females. 
    Someone has to tell the males that sleeping with a lot of different
    people does not make one a man and that it's okay to go out with a
    girl/lady and have a good time without it ending up in the sack.
    
    For the females, I think that the message has to be that a boy will not
    like them just because they sleep with him and that she should do what
    she feels okay about.  It's okay to say no or if you do say yes than
    use birth control.
    
    In closing, I'm not here to preach that pre-marital sex is wrong and
    all that, but I think that it is too often used as a device to try and
    win someone over and impress other peers.
    
    Mike
    
    P.S.  What I am writing deals mostly with younger people, both males
    and females who are more subject to peer pressure and the insecurity of
    being young.
     

                     
    
    
    | It's not being fought against, Mz_Debra, the point is merely being made
    | that having both parties use protection all the time is the unreachable
    | star; it's simply not going to happen.  So, if we really care about the
    | problem, we do what works BEST, RIGHT NOW, and then we make it pretty.
     
        in the string of notes i've heard little if any discussion of
        practical ways of dealing with the problem.  the string of arguement
        seems divided between crass discussions of rivers of sperm and
        strange theoritical labratories of 100 men and women mindlessly running
        amuk, driven exclusively by primal sexual urges.
        
        how would you use your observations to change messages of 
        moral suasion and public policy?  one would hope you wouldn't try
        to take this hyper-rational arguement to sixteen year olds.  
        if so, good luck to you and the red sox.
     
        besides the fault-line for the high pregnancy rate does not fall
        along the famous male vs. female rift.  rather it is along the 
        issue of whose responsibility it is to do the teaching. 
        secondarily there is the issue of morality which also seems
        to be missing from the discussion.
     
        nationwide campaigns to encourage men to use condoms will never
        fly in this country.  neither will campaigns 'aimed' at women.
    

    The people of the Netherlands decided to start a campaign to reduce
    unplanned pregnancies and abortions because these had become a serious
    problems there.  Their campaign worked.
    
    It's not impossible to conduct such a campaign in this country.
    
    It may be impossible to agree on the nature of the campaign itself,
    though (which is why the Netherlands has a big advantage over us.)
    The people of the Netherlands can make decisions.  We can't.

    
    .286
    
    Aha!  8^)
        
    >Someone has to tell the males that sleeping with a lot of different
    >people does not make one a man and that it's okay to go out with a
    >girl/lady and have a good time without it ending up in the sack.
    
    >For the females, I think that the message has to be that a boy will not
    >like them just because they sleep with him and that she should do what
    >she feels okay about.  It's okay to say no or if you do say yes than
    >use birth control.
    
    Now I see where we're differing.  (Incidentally, Mike, I noticed that
    when you mentioned the message to be given to the boys, you didn't
    mention that if THEY say yes then THEY should use birth control.  Why
    is that?  Just an observation 8^).)
    
    You're approaching this from a morals type perspective, a personal
    feeling type perspective, a just-say-no perspective.  And that's
    perfectly fine with me.  What I'M looking at, though, is a simple 
    biological perspective - "preventing unwanted pregnancies is EVERYONE'S 
    responsibility".  No talk about love or feelings or manliness or
    anything.
    
    If you want to work the just-say-no perspective into it, that's fine -
    for example, 'the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is not to
    have sex - but if you DO have sex, you must use birth control each and
    every time" and aim that at both males and females.  This is kind of
    how the AIDS education campaign works, isn't it?  (Oh, please, let's
    not get into discussing that now 8^)).)
    
    So you're going to have to hire both a male and female model to do the
    print ads, both a male and female spokesperson to do the filmed ads.  I
    realize this is twice as expensive as a start-up cost 8^). 
    
    
    And while I'm at it (oh, no), and remember now that I'm old and have
    led a sheltered life, but I've gotten the impression by reading Ann
    Landers and other influential members of our society 8^) that both
    males AND females are approaching sex in an aggressive fashion
    nowadays; that it isn't the aggressive male predator and the passive 
    female prey all the time anymore.  [Of course, I don't know if it ever
    was.]  Is this so?
         

    
    
    RE: .284  I can't help but think that you have another agenda here.  It
    sure seems like you are very down on men.  There really isn't any point
    in trying to reason because we just can't get through the preconceived
    notions.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    It was an oversight, Deb, that's all.  It (using birth control) should
    be there in my note for the men as well.
    
    It's not so much of a morals thing that I'm after Deb, it's about
    growing up too fast.  I don't think that peopl of the 12-16 age are old
    enough to deal with sex in a rational manner (I know that years ago
    people were married at 14, but times are different).  A person needs to
    get to know themselves and develop self esteem at these ages.  Many
    times sex is used to try and enhance the self esteem building process
    but it ends up doing the opposite.  If we (as a society) quit telling
    them that it's (sex) is the thing to do, maybe they'll hold off a while
    until they are better equipped to handle it.
    
    Mike

    I really wish someone would address the points raised in .173 (among
    other places.)

    I did.  Now, I wish someone would address Suzanne's point about why
    if this message to both parties works in the Netherlands, why we can't
    make it work here.

    
    
    Cuz noone's saying that it cannot, Tine.
    
    

    
    Then why aren't we _trying_?
    
    Look, who do I need to talk to to get on the Pregnancy Prevention
    Campaign Committee?
    
    

    RE: .290  Mike W.

    / RE: .284  I can't help but think that you have another agenda here.  It
    / sure seems like you are very down on men.  There really isn't any point
    / in trying to reason because we just can't get through the preconceived
    / notions.

    The men in the Netherlands have done an excellent (spectacular) job of
    accepting the responsibility for preventing pregnancy (as much as women
    have done so) and I believe it's worth it to try to get American men
    to do this, too.

    If I were against men, I'd argue to forget any hope of a focus on men
    (I'd say it's hopeless.)  I'd say they'll just run out and try to get
    100 women pregnant (or whatever.)  But I don't believe it IS hopeless
    to get men involved.

    I wouldn't argue for men to take the step of accepting responsibility
    if I didn't have the faith that they are as capable of doing this as
    the men in Holland have shown themselves to be.

    The U.S. won't do it because that would be admitting, in some strange
    way, that premarital sex is okay as long as you're being careful.
    This, is political suicide because of the obvious evil behaviour that
    is being encouraged. It's the act that is evil, not the result.

    >> Now, I wish someone would address Suzanne's point about why
    >> if this message to both parties works in the Netherlands, why we can't
    >> make it work here.
    
    I'm pessimistic about the prospects for the U.S., because we have
    a different culture than the Netherlands.  In fact, we have a
    multitude of sub-cultures, and I don't think we could find a
    common message that would effectively get through to both genders
    of the target audience.
    
    Chris

    
   |   I did.  Now, I wish someone would address Suzanne's point about why
   |   if this message to both parties works in the Netherlands, why we
   |   can't make it work here.
    
    for one thing we are not a small country.  neither are we
    religiously and ethnically homogenous.  even if someone at the 
    federal level was foolish enough to start such an effort, 
    the targets of the campaign would quickly tune it out and potentially
    cause a political backlash.
      

    Mike, people ARE saying it won't work by dint of the fact that they
    still want the 'focus' to be on women rather than on  'men AND women'.
    
    Also, nobody but Suzanne has addressed the fact that this IS working
    in the Netherlands.  Does that mean people agree it can work elsewhere,
    don't believe it's working there, say bully for them, but that's not
    for us?  What?  A whole lot of silence out there with regards to an
    entire population upon whom this message to both sexes IS working......

    
      Could it be the Dutch dykes ?
    
      bb

    
    re: .289
    
    >nd remember now that I'm old and have led a sheltered life,
    
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    

    Chris and Pvt. Parts-
    
    The points you raise being the case, don't you think those things
    apply to the women in this country as well as the men?  If so, how
    do you propose, if you are of the camp who wishes to place the 
    focus on women, to overcome these obstacles and get the message to
    just the women?  What is it about women that makes one think the
    message is easier given to them rather than to both sexes?

    .300
    
    > nobody but Suzanne has addressed the fact...
    > Does that mean people agree it can work elsewhere...
    
    Yes.  It can and does.
    
    > say bully for them, but that's not for us?
    
    See .299.
    
    Although, in fact, I'm not one to say it can't work for us.  What I do
    say is that Rome wasn't built in a day.  You can't change the behavior
    of the most diversified 260 million people on the planet overnight, so
    you START working on creating the Sistine Chapel roof - but while your
    artwork is being conceived, you'd better build the chapel.

    The  problem is that you seem to think that the Dutch public
    have spontaneously decided to implement this program on their own.
    Even if you choose to dismiss the observation that the actual cost of
    contraception is an issue for low-income families, you cannot ignore
    the socialization of these programs in Europe.
    
    Holland has arguably the most comprehensive cradle-to-grave social and
    healthcare system in Europe.  It consumes a huge proportion of their
    GNP but they are politically committed to try and maintain it. Their
    social programs to promote contraception represent an investment in
    minimising the social and fiscal cost to the state of unplanned
    pregnancies.   Holland also has severe concerns over land shortages and
    population growth.  They are under a very real threat of losing more
    land to rising seas as a result of global warming and they see
    population planning in the long term as one element of controlling this
    problem. Building dikes costs billions, contraception is cheaper.
    
    The Dutch have a very open attitude to sex.  While I was there I
    noticed it was not uncommon for TV adverts to show partial nudity.
    School children are exposed to this and to education on sexual
    behaviour as part of growing up.
    
    The US is not socially organized in the same way.  It's almost
    inconceivable (if you'll pardon the pun) that there would be
    a similar social program in the US.  Even if the program was
    in place, there would be bloody blue murder over the educational
    requirement.
    
    You can't make such simplistic comparisons between the infrastructures
    of different societies, or even make assumptions about basic social
    behaviours.   What works in Holland may well be impossible in the US.
    
    
    Colin
                                    
    
    

The Netherlands is filled with hedonistic Protestants.

    Kudos to Colin.  Well done.
    
    I think the biggest obstacle in the US isn't even this annoying 
    arguement re: male vs. females taking responsibility.  It is and
    will continue to be one of double standards with regard to who
    should and shouldn't be having sex.  These double standards exist
    along gender and socio-economic lines.  Throw in a bit of morality,
    too, just to shake things up.

I'm there!

    RE: .304  Dick Binder

    / Although, in fact, I'm not one to say it can't work for us.  What I do
    / say is that Rome wasn't built in a day.  You can't change the behavior
    / of the most diversified 260 million people on the planet overnight, so
    / you START working on creating the Sistine Chapel roof - but while your
    / artwork is being conceived, you'd better build the chapel.

    Do you really think that getting American men to regard themselves as
    responsible for preventing pregnancy would be as difficult as painting 
    the Sistine Chapel?  (Wow.)

>    Do you really think that getting American men to regard themselves as
>    responsible for preventing pregnancy

It would take a sea change of a shift in attitude...but it will eventually
happen if today's parents take responsibility for educating their children.

    And further to Colin's point...I don't think anybody is looking for nor
    expecting overnight results.  Just seems to me that by focusing on
    males and females with regard to birth control issues, the results can
    be seen more quickly that addressing first women for x amount of time,
    then, if we remember to later, yeah, include the boys.

     
     |   The points you raise being the case, don't you think those things
     |   apply to the women in this country as well as the men?  If so, how
     |   do you propose, if you are of the camp who wishes to place the
     |   focus on women, to overcome these obstacles and get the message to
     |   just the women?  What is it about women that makes one think the
     |   message is easier given to them rather than to both sexes?
     
     i'm not in either camp, given that both sides are non-starters and really
     don't deal realistically with the core problem of pregnancy in this
     country which is the unwillingness to shame both men and women
     who irresponsibly conceive unwanted children.
    
    

    RE: .305  Colin

    Thanks for the extra information.

    I'm well aware that the Dutch have a much healthier view of sex than
    we have in this country (and that this healthier view makes a lot of
    their success easier than it would be for us in the U.S.)

    Perhaps it is this healthier view which also makes it seem reasonable
    for men to do as much as women do to prevent pregnancy in Holland.
                 
    I'm not convinced that our society is totally stuck in the sick mindset
    we have about sex right now (and I think the attitudes about women
    'getting themselves pregnant' while men are considered to be bystanders 
    is a big part of the cultural sickness that needs to be healed.)

    
      sea change, Dutch, sea change, Dutch - yes, yes, Eureka, I have it !!
     The theme for the ad campaign to stop teenage pregnancies.
    
                  "Go Dutch."  Hollywood softporn teen actors, kissing
      beneath the windmills, the raging sea in the background, held back
      by the dikes.  A hole, sea pours in, boy sticks condom-wrapped
      finger into hole.   Fade to Heinekin...?
    
      bb

    >>   What's all this about getting a girl in Dutch?
    
    Hey, hey, leave poor old Reagan out of this...
    
    Chris

    re: Tine
    
    >> The points you raise being the case, don't you think those things
    >> apply to the women in this country as well as the men?
    
    Yes.
    
    
    >> If so, how do you propose,...
    
    Let's do the next clause first:  :-)
    
    
    >> if you are of the camp who wishes to place the 
    >> focus on women,
    
    I'm not.  In fact, I'd like to start by placing the focus on men,
    because they have "further to go" before they get the message.  On
    the other hand, to be effective I wouldn't start by charming them
    with talk of letting sperm fly, and with sea stories of tidal waves
    and floods of sperm causing everyone to capsize. :-)
    
    
    >> to overcome these obstacles and get the message to
    >> just the women?  
    
    Well, I wouldn't...
    
    
    >> What is it about women that makes one think the
    >> message is easier given to them rather than to both sexes?
    
    Women are probably more receptive to the message in the first place,
    because traditionally (and unfairly) they've had more to lose from
    the consequences, but to me that's not a good reason to target the
    message to women only.
    
    If this is to be done, it should be done so as not to further
    polarize the genders from one another.  In fact, it should be done
    so as to make the genders realize that they're in the same boat, so
    they should both take responsibility for their actions.
    
    But I'll still be cynical and claim that American society is far
    too diverse for this to be widely successful.
    
    Chris

    Chris-
    
    Thanks.  I'm on my way out and just wanted to let you know I appreciate
    your answer and agree pretty much with all you've said.

    
    Historical Sidebar:
    
    The Puritan pilgrims lived in Holland (Leyden, I think) for
    about 10 years prior to departing for Portsmouth and hence to
    the US. According to one side, the Dutch kicked them out because
    they were always preaching against Dutch social mores and lacked
    tolerance.  According to the other side, the Dutch were too free and
    easy for Puritan morals.
    
    I'll permit myself a :-)
    
    Colin
    
    
    

    > Why is it that if a woman chooses to abort, it's "her body" but it
    >isn't "her body" when it comes to prevention and it's "our problem" if
    >SHE decides SHE wants to keep it (regardless of what the male thinks)?
    >That doesn't sound just a teensy bit skewed to you?
    
     Anybody planning on addressing this issue, or does this just go in the
    "questions nobody wants to answer" pile?

    From some of the stuff that I've read, and I'm definately not an expert,
    shows that the Puritans got a bad rap because of one of their
    fundamentalist fanatics, John Knox. In the 1650's he initiated "Blue
    Laws" that were against amusements, smoking, drinking, gambling, and 
    fancy clothing. He also promoted public whippings, scarlet letters,
    executions for adulterers, and the Salem "witch" executions by
    executing 26 women, and 2 dogs in 1692.
    
    In contrast the 17th century Puritan, John Milton (Paradise Lost)
    projected healthy views of married sex. He displayed idealistic,
    romantic views about sex and marriage. Milton was known to send tracts
    to parliament urging modern-day easy divorce. Milton's "Paradise Lost"
    projects a benevolent view of Adam and Eve in a romantic-love context.
    Milton rejected St. Augustine's maleviolent view of life, sex and
    pleasure.
    
    16th Century Puritans combined the ideals of romantic love with the
    normality of sex in marriage. Women's status improved under puritanism
    (eg., if beaten, women could separate and even divorce.). Property
    rights and inheritance laws improved. Marriage became a civil contract
    under Puritanism.

>Salem "witch" executions by
>    executing 26 women, and 2 dogs in 1692.

Were the dogs caught fornicating?

    
    Nope... they wouldn't float...
    

    
    All right, I'll take a shot at it.
    
    > Why is it that if a woman chooses to abort, it's "her body" but it
    >isn't "her body" when it comes to prevention and it's "our problem" if
    >SHE decides SHE wants to keep it (regardless of what the male thinks)?
    >That doesn't sound just a teensy bit skewed to you?
                                      
    1)  I believe the choice to abort or not should be made jointly between 
        the woman and her partner.  However, because it is, literally, her 
    	body that is involved, her wishes need to come first.  If a couple were
        discussing vasectomy, and the woman wanted it to happen and the man
        didn't, you surely aren't saying it should still be a 50/50 decision -
        the man's wishes need to come first.  Because it's his body, you
        can't force a vasectomy on someone who doesn't want it, no matter how
        much his female partner might want him to have it.
    
    2)  It IS her body when it comes to prevention!  Nobody is suggesting
        that women STOP using birth control - they're simply suggesting that
        men use it ALSO.  Why are you pig-headedly insisting that it's an
        either/or matter?  Twice as much prevention is NOT a bad thing! 
        Think of the analogies that have been posted - loaded guns vs.
        shootees, bad drivers vs. careful drivers, bad information vs. good
        information - don't you agree that in each and every case it would 
        be preferable if both parties had the same goal in mind and took
        action to achieve that goal?  As the status quo is now, only half
        of the couple is being responsible and attempting to prevent
        pregnancy/drive carefully/give out proper information/etc.  Don't
        we arrest drunk drivers?  Or do we just tell all the other drivers not
        to drive at times when drunks might be on the road, and that if
        they do, it's their fault for getting hit?
    
    3)	Once an unwanted pregnancy has been created, it should be a joint 
        problem.  It SHOULD be the problem of both male and female. 
        Unfortunately, because the male can skip town, the woman is often 
        left holding the bag, and it is described as HER problem.  But he was 
    	half of the creation process, and needs to be half of the solution.
    
    
    Mark, I don't understand.  Why are you so against this?  God forbid I
    continue to agree with Suzanne Conlon 8^).  Do you really want women to
    give up all control (the right to abortion) before you'll accept men
    taking any responsibility?  Nobody ever said life was fair and equal in
    all things.  What hidden grudges are you holding?  
    
    What exactly do you WANT?

>    Mark, I don't understand.  Why are you so against this?  God forbid I
>    continue to agree with Suzanne Conlon 8^).  Do you really want women to
>    give up all control (the right to abortion) before you'll accept men
>    taking any responsibility?  Nobody ever said life was fair and equal in
>    all things.  What hidden grudges are you holding?

    .325
    
    Interesting that you should pick on vasectomy.
    
    No ethical doctor will perform a vasectomy on a married man without the
    explicit written consent of the man's wife.  To put the shoe on the
    other foot, no ethical doctor should perform an abortion on a married
    woman without the explicit written consent of the woman's husband.
    
    In these turnabout-is-fair-play cases, it is the wish of the OTHER
    party that is given first priority in terms of deciding not to perform
    a procedure.  Are you willing to buy into that?

    
    That IS interesting.
    
    Let me think about that and get back to you.
    

    RE: .321  The Doctah

    // Why is it that if a woman chooses to abort, it's "her body" but it
    // isn't "her body" when it comes to prevention ...

    Mark, how is it not "her body" if the guy puts a condom on "his body"?

    The guy has sperm coming out of "his body" (and this is the body people
    here asking him to use birth control on.)

    // and it's "our problem" if SHE decides SHE wants to keep it (regardless 
    // of what the male thinks)?  

    How about a pre-coital agreement (sort of like a pre-nuptual agreement)
    where the man and women BOTH agree to use birth control every single
    time they have sex (in exchange for the man being 'off the hook' if
    both methods fail and the woman wants to keep the baby?)

    If he uses birth control every single time they get together, he's
    fine.  If he decides *not* to use birth control and something happens,
    he's held financially responsible (whether she used birth control or
    not.)

    Actually, he gets the slight advantage in this arrangement because he's
    off the hook just for using birth control (and she could still end up
    with a problem if she did use birth control but both methods failed.)

    // That doesn't sound just a teensy bit skewed to you?

    It sounds downright nuts for some men to respond to this situation
    with 'Hey, if I can nailed financially for getting a woman pregnant,
    I might as well get as many women pregnant as I want.'

    Some sort of other arrangement is in order (and it most definitely
    involves men using birth control to try to help keep this situation
    from happening.)

    > No ethical doctor will perform a vasectomy on a married man without
    > the explicit written consent of the man's wife. 
    
    ??
    
    Are you saying this *should* be the case (ethics according to Binder)
    or are you reporting that this *is* the case (ethics per the medical
    profession)?
    
    DougO

    > No ethical doctor will perform a vasectomy on a married man without
    > the explicit written consent of the man's wife.
    
    When I got mine my wife was in agreement, but she was never asked. Of
    course that was 16 years ago.

    >1)  I believe the choice to abort or not should be made jointly between 
    >    the woman and her partner.  However, because it is, literally, her 
    >	body that is involved, her wishes need to come first.
    
     No argument here. I personally believe that it's entirely her
    decision, preferably arrived at after consulting with her partner. What
    I object to is the fact that under current law, if she decides to keep
    the child she then has a right to haul the sperm provider's ass into
    court and attach his paycheck for what is _entirely_ her decision. That
    is unfair.
    
    >2)  It IS her body when it comes to prevention!
    
     Except if she elects not to be responsible, she has someone else to
    rely on to foot the bill if "something happens." Of course, she also
    has the right to choose to eliminate the problem for herself (even if
    he is against that course of action.)
    
    >Why are you pig-headedly insisting that it's an either/or matter?
    
     I've never, ever said that men should not behave responsibly. I've
    said that woman should be given the full responsibility for their own
    bodies. This is not at all to say that men ought to be irresponsible.
    
    >3)	Once an unwanted pregnancy has been created, it should be a joint 
    >    problem.  It SHOULD be the problem of both male and female. 
    >    Unfortunately, because the male can skip town, the woman is often 
    >    left holding the bag, and it is described as HER problem.  But he was 
    >	half of the creation process, and needs to be half of the solution.
    
     This contradicts your point in 1). Yes, obviously everything is
    smoother when the man and woman agree; the problem is that men and
    women frequently disagree, and a policy needs to be in place which
    balances the rights and responsibilities of both parties. Such a policy
    is not in existence today; the current policy blatantly discriminates
    against men and treats women as if they are incapable of taking care of
    themselves on their own.
    
    >Do you really want women to
    >give up all control (the right to abortion) before you'll accept men
    >taking any responsibility?
    
     Of course not. I want men to be responsible. However, I believe that
    equal protection under the law is more than just words. The current
    situation sanctions discrimination, and that is wrong. I also believe
    it exacerbates the problem of unwanted pregnancies by failing to make
    it vital that a woman take care of contraception _herself._
    
    >Nobody ever said life was fair and equal in all things.  
    
     That doesn't mean we should eschew fairness when it is readily
    achievable.
    
    >What hidden grudges are you holding?  
    
     None. I've never been in this situation (for a couple of very good
    reasons.) Indeed, I have every reason to support the status quo given
    the fact that I have only female children and they would arguably stand
    to benefit from the inequity under discussion.
    
    >What exactly do you WANT?
    
     Equality, and ALL that it entails. Not just the pretty parts. Not just
    the easy parts. The whole thing. Saying "I support equality except when
    it's not convenient or might cost me personally" is pretty easy. Going
    the whole way isn't quite so easy, but is worth it IMO.
    
    

    .330
    
    It *is* the case.  I experienced this situation some 25 years ago, and
    since then I have discussed it with what I consider to be a respectable
    sample of vasectomized men, and each told me the exact same thing.
    
    Consider also the HUGE potential for a lawsuit - which may in fact be
    the real reason for the requirement.

    RE: .327  Dick Binder

    / No ethical doctor will perform a vasectomy on a married man without the
    / explicit written consent of the man's wife.  To put the shoe on the
    / other foot, no ethical doctor should perform an abortion on a married
    / woman without the explicit written consent of the woman's husband.
    
    Vasectomy is not the male equivalent of abortion.  It's the male
    equivalent of having ones tubes tied (or some other form of sterilization.)

    / In these turnabout-is-fair-play cases, it is the wish of the OTHER
    / party that is given first priority in terms of deciding not to perform
    / a procedure.  Are you willing to buy into that?

    If permission from the wife is required for a vasectomy, then 
    permission from the husband should be required for having tubes tied
    (or other sterilization procedure.)

    As it stands, some doctors won't perform surgery to tie tubes on women
    who aren't married (because doctors worry about what the future
    husbands might think, I guess.)

    Can you imagine the hue and cry if doctors refused to do vasectomies
    on unmarried men?

    > What I object to is the fact that under current law, if she decides to
    > keep the child she then has a right to haul the sperm provider's ass
    > into court and attach his paycheck for what is _entirely_ her decision.
    > That is unfair.
    
    eh.  The decision on abort/put up for adopt/keep was hers.  But the
    decisions (plural) that got them into that position were just as much
    his- if he didn't want to set himself up for such, he shouldn't have
    provided the sperm.  I'm objecting to that "_entirely_ her decision"
    phrase you use- it wasn't.  My take on this is that there is a place
    wherein our legal system which provides independence to women (these
    days) combined with the biological facts render the situation
    inherently thus- women *do* get an additional, later decision point
    (and what an unpalatable set of choices those can be) - after the joint
    decision was made to engage in risky behavior.  I don't think its fair,
    but nobody ever guaranteed that the universe was going to be- and so in
    this case, throughout my life, I've been mighty, mighty careful with my
    sperm.  No other course seems prudent.  And short of taking that
    decision away from women and making them not-independent, there isn't
    going to be any better solution for those cases where impregnators and
    impregnatees have different desires about the outcome of the event.
    Clearly that 'solution' is worse than the problem.
    
    DougO

    RE: .332  The Doctah

    / What I object to is the fact that under current law, if she decides 
    / to keep the child she then has a right to haul the sperm provider's 
    / ass into court and attach his paycheck for what is _entirely_ her 
    / decision. That is unfair.

    It takes money to establish paternity and haul anyone's ass into
    court.  Most of the time, the sperm-provider can walk away free.
    If men were forced to provide for the offspring of their sperm
    more often, they probably wouldn't be fighting so hard against 
    the idea of using birth control.  They'd be honestly nervous
    about getting someone pregnant.  As it stands right now, too many
    men in this country would rather risk it (because they know they
    probably don't have much to lose with this risk.)
    
    // What exactly do you WANT?
    
    / Equality, and ALL that it entails. Not just the pretty parts. Not just
    / the easy parts. The whole thing. Saying "I support equality except when
    / it's not convenient or might cost me personally" is pretty easy. Going
    / the whole way isn't quite so easy, but is worth it IMO.

    Your idea of equality is that men should not be the ones considered
    responsible for what happens whey they have sex (unless they can
    control what a woman does with her body.)  What you are seeking is
    not equality.

    > It *is* the case.  I experienced this situation some 25 years ago, and
    > since then I have discussed it with what I consider to be a respectable
    > sample of vasectomized men, and each told me the exact same thing.
    >
    > Consider also the HUGE potential for a lawsuit - which may in fact be
    > the real reason for the requirement.
    
    Bizarre.
    
    I generally don't quibble with other people's notions of what ethics
    they'll live by, but trying to tell *me* the terms of the contract I
    make with my life partner is not an area where I'll brook any such
    nonsense...and if the medical profession would hold my treatment
    decisions hostage to their interpretation of the institution of
    marriage, that's another reason for me never to get married (there 
    are many others.)
    
    DougO

re:     <<< Note 541.334 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

I had my vasectomy done by a GP in his office on a Saturday morning in 1974
in Syracuse. He did not require, and I did not provide, any sort of written
approval or acknowledgement from my then-wife.

Just to upset your sample.

    What would really upset the sample is the fact that not all doctors
    live in the US.  Most live in other countries where standards of ethics
    and risks of litigating the ligation are very different. 

.334>    Consider also the HUGE potential for a lawsuit - which may in fact be
.334>    the real reason for the requirement.

As I was driving home, it struck me that I fail to understand the grounds/basis
under which suit could be filed. A man, married or otherwise, makes a decision
to terminate his fertility, and engages the services of a surgeon to accomplish
this for him. Are you claiming that a woman has a legal right to his sperm?

    > Are you claiming that a woman has a legal right to his sperm?
    
    Only if she's an active participant in the collection thereof... :-)
    
    -b

>    Only if she's an active participant in the collection thereof

Why? Why should any woman have any "claim" to a man's sperm, any more than
any man should have any "claim" to a right to boff/boink/roger any woman?

If we agree that women have a right to say no, then why wouldn't men
have a right to say "no bambinos"? What on earth could possibly be
different? And besides, a guy decides to take the responsibility
to prevent further pregnancies, and a woman can sue the doctor who
wielded the knife? Simply too preposterous a scenario for me to
fathom. Even given the whacko judges that sit behind the bench in
this country.

    
    It was a joke, nothing more. Not an expression of opinion,
    just an attempt at humor. Apparently, a poor one.
    
    -b

    re.54  You cant be serious! I know some guys that waited for a long
    time to be with the "right" girl, it never happened. So what did they
    do? They asked the first willing female to marry them. Why did they
    want to get married? Because they wanted to get laid, something that
    had escaped them for a very long time.
    
    re.55 Give up on the ghetto thing bud you haven't got a clue what you
    are talking about.
    
    Before pregnancy the responsibility is 50% the male, 50% the female.
    during pregnancy the responsibility is 01% the male, 99% the female.
    after pregnancy the responsibility is 50% the male, 50% the female.
    
    But this is of course unrealistic bacause we all know that most people
    know more about what is on t.v. then they know about themselves as
    socially responsible people acting out organic life on a big watery
    ball in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps the question of responsibility
    is a bit advanced for a species that has only been kicking around for a
    few thousand years.
    

Well, I thought about it, and even though Mr.Binder's statement appears to have
been disagreed with by a few, it was certainly a worthy question, so I thought
about it some more.

My first idea was that vasectomy and abortion aren't really comparable, and I
didn't mean them to be when I used vasectomy as an example.  Or is that a
copout?  I suppose I could have used some other medical procedure, especially 
a male-only one, but vasectomy was the first one that came to mind. 
Perhaps...prostrate removal surgery or something?

That said, I thought about it some more and my next sticking point was the word
'consent'.  I realized that I feel differently about the word 'consent' 
depending on the context.  (I realize this is illogical.)  When it was used in
the vasectomy example, I thought of the wife AGREEING to the procedure.  When
it was used in the abortion example, I thought of the husband GIVING PERMISSION
for the procedure.  These may seem like small differences, and some people may
not see them at all, but they're large to me.

Third sticking point, the marriage bit.  I realize that not everyone has had an
awful experience with marriage.  Heck, my grandparents were married over 60
years, my parents 35.  I should be able to look at marriage objectively.  Well,
I can't.  The very idea of it makes me break out in a cold sweat.

So, my answer to the question - I really have no answer.  I can't fathom giving
another person control over my body any more than I can fathom wanting to
control another person's body.  I can't imagine life where I have to get
permission from someone else to do something private.  When I moved out of my
parents' home, I left that behind.

But as I admitted above, I have issues with some things that are inherent to
the question so I realize my answer would be unsatisfactory and arrived at
emotionally, not logically.

That said!  If one considers 'consent' to be agreement with the wishes of the
body-owning person, and if one considers that marriage is truly an equal
partnership where decisions are arrived at jointly and that everyone is happy
with the outcome, then no, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a
spouse be asked if they agree with a medical procedure that can affect THEM,
even though they're not the body-owner.

BUT, I do think that the non-body owner should realize they're being dinks if
they try to force their wishes on the body owner over his or her objections,
and if that is so, perhaps the dink would be happier not married to the body
owner.
    

    Body odor?

    
    8^p
    
    OWNER.  Body OWNER.
    
    

> That said!  If one considers 'consent' to be agreement with the wishes of the
> body-owning person, and if one considers that marriage is truly an equal
> partnership where decisions are arrived at jointly and that everyone is happy
> with the outcome, then no, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a
> spouse be asked if they agree with a medical procedure that can affect THEM,
> even though they're not the body-owner.

Of course not. Just like it's not unreasonable to expect consent on any other
issue which involves one's partner's body. Isn't that what a loving, respectful
relationship is about?

> BUT, I do think that the non-body owner should realize they're being dinks if
> they try to force their wishes on the body owner over his or her objections,
> and if that is so, perhaps the dink would be happier not married to the body
> owner.

BINGO!

I think that's what I've been trying to get at (however obtusely).

Having a standard which says "you can say NO" is far less important than
getting to the point that one gets out of a relationship that begs the
question.

This seems so obvious to me. Is it not to others?

> partnership where decisions are arrived at jointly and that everyone is happy
> with the outcome, then no, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a
> spouse be asked if they agree with a medical procedure that can affect THEM,
> even though they're not the body-owner.

Then there are the situations in which there hasn't been the joint agreement,
and one partner feels that they need to take the initiative with respect to
their own body, and thus the outcome of the relationship, regardless of the
wishes of the non-body-owner.

Like we said, what the hell are these people doing together?

>Of course not. Just like it's not unreasonable to expect consent on any other
>issue which involves one's partner's body. Isn't that what a loving, respectful
>relationship is about?

    I dunno, I've never had one 8^p.  Um, I think that 'consent' should
    only be necessary if the body modification actually affects the
    non-body-owner.  I certainly don't think I should have to get
    'permission' from my spouse to have my ears pierced or my nose jobbed.
    
>Having a standard which says "you can say NO" is far less important than
>getting to the point that one gets out of a relationship that begs the
>question.
    
    But Jack, not everyone lives in a nice tidy society that considers
    women even PARTIALLY equal to men.  You and I may live in that society,
    but there are plenty who don't - plenty of women who are the property
    of their husbands, to be used as the husband wishes, and I do mean
    used.  To these women, even being told "by the way, you CAN say no" is
    a revelation.
    
    Look at Saudi Arabia.  Women aren't allowed to drive!  Women just
    recently got the vote in Switzerland.  Women in India are murdered by
    their in-laws if their dowries aren't high enough.  Women in some
    fundamentalist Islamic countries have to cover themselves head to foot.
    
    I can certainly stand up and say "Bugger off, I'm outta here" but not
    everyone can.  [In fact, not every American woman can.]
    
    There were countries at the Beijing Conference who OPPOSED the simple
    declaration that women are equal to men and should be treated so.
    
    Oh heck, what does this have to do with pregnancy 8^)?
    
    

>				  Um, I think that 'consent' should
>    only be necessary if the body modification actually affects the
>    non-body-owner.  I certainly don't think I should have to get
>   'permission' from my spouse to have my ears pierced or my nose jobbed.

I don't think it should be a permission issue for that sort of thing either.
HOWEVER, I do feel if the relationship is such that, by taking that initiative,
one ends up involved in an unpleasant situation with an unsuspecting spouse,
which can't be reasonably cleared up with a civil discussion, then the issue
isn't the action, but the relationship. Most people in healthy relationships
already have quite a clear view of what they can "get away with" in terms of
actions not previously discussed/agreed.

>    But Jack, not everyone lives in a nice tidy society that considers
>    women even PARTIALLY equal to men.  You and I may live in that society,
>    but there are plenty who don't - plenty of women who are the property
>    of their husbands, to be used as the husband wishes, and I do mean
>    used.  To these women, even being told "by the way, you CAN say no" is
>    a revelation.

Granted. But my view is this -

   Day BEFORE the Peking resolution: Woman living in an oppressively sexist
   society in a bad relationship knows that if she says "no" she'll suffer
   something that she'd rather not.

   Day AFTER the Peking resolution: Woman living in an oppressively sexist
   society in a bad relationship knows that if she says "no" she'll suffer
   something that she'd rather not.

Revelations are all well and good, but how did it change this woman's life?

>    Oh heck, what does this have to do with pregnancy 8^)?

Very little, if anything, but Karen brought it up.

>Revelations are all well and good, but how did it change this woman's life?
 
    You're right, maybe it won't change that particular woman's life today. 
    But perhaps tomorrow or the next day or the next she'll know that even
    though something bad happens to her, IT'S NOT RIGHT, and maybe
    yesterday she just didn't know that it wasn't right.  Maybe yesterday
    she thought that was the way it was supposed to be, and tomorrow she
    knows that it isn't.
    
    So maybe she teaches her daughter differently.  Maybe she gets together
    with other women and tries to change things.  Who knows?  The point I'm
    trying to make is, even if the resolution doesn't change my life, maybe
    it'll help someone else, and where else would you suggest we start?
    

> and where else would you suggest we start?

Like I said several notes back - Do something really positive, like resolve to
offer asylum to those who suffer these types of indignities. Can that be done?
I don't know, but any attempt to, sure as hell would stir up a lot more in
short order than this resolution will.

       <<< Note 541.345 by POLAR::WILSONC "A dog is a womans best man" >>>
                             -< we need more time >-

    
    
    ! Before pregnancy the responsibility is 50% the male, 50% the female.

	YES!


 !!!! during pregnancy the responsibility is 01% the male, 99% the female.

	HUH?

    ! after pregnancy the responsibility is 50% the male, 50% the female.
    
        YES!

    	Wait-a-minute-here!

               I'm the father of 3 girls, and I was an active
       participant of the development of all three. ALRIGHT!, I agree
       that the FEMALE contributes to all of the PHYSICAL development
       of the baby (or fetus), BUT! (and my SO is sitting here watching
       me type this because I had told her about this 'debate'), What
       about the MALE SO taking the load off the FEMALE with the other
       kids, helping with the laundry, doing the grocery shopping,
       cooking, cleaning (I think I drove her nuts at times, the way I
       doted on her) letting the mother (and the baby/fetus) rest and 
       gain strength. HUH?....HUH?....What about it? :-)

               	As far as BC is concerned. 3 months after my 3rd was
       born, I went and saw the Dr., One month later I had joined
       "CLUB 'V'"...Yes I did!. And for the record, the MD 'DID NOT' ask 
       my SO's permission. 

               OK.....My SO 'JUST' made a comment. She said, that I do
       more laundry, cleaning, kids, taxi, homework helping, cooking
       than most men. Ther is no generlines in this house. KIDS are
       KIDS and ALL THREE ARE OURS - and so is the responsibility!

	       FWIW. Condoms in the Schools....I know this is a HOT
       TOPIC.....BUT!.....I Think That the condoms should be offered
       in the schools - By the nurse - after a training session by the
       nurse, and a 'test on the content, and understanding of sex BC
       and use of'. The Idea here is, 'Fine, You want BC, Sit here, 
       take this this test, and if you pass, you can get BC...No 
       questions, and we're glad taking responsibility'. I am NOT for
       passing out BC to everyone, Yungsters need to be informed on
       the use of, and understand the concequences of or using BC or
       not. I'm not in favor of mass-handout of BC. THEY MUST BE
       RESPONSIBLE - regardless of age - BOTH PARTIES.


       		Ok, I said my piece, and now I'm ducking for cover!


       Have a good night

       	Steve
       	

>	       FWIW. Condoms in the Schools....I know this is a HOT
>       TOPIC.....BUT!.....I Think That the condoms should be offered
>       in the schools - By the nurse - after a training session by the
>       nurse, and a 'test on the content, and understanding of sex BC
>       and use of'. The Idea here is, 'Fine, You want BC, Sit here, 
>       take this this test, and if you pass, you can get BC...No 
>       questions, and we're glad taking responsibility'. I am NOT for
>       passing out BC to everyone, Yungsters need to be informed on
>       the use of, and understand the concequences of or using BC or
>       not. I'm not in favor of mass-handout of BC. THEY MUST BE
>       RESPONSIBLE - regardless of age - BOTH PARTIES.

So, lemmee see if I understand.

They want condoms. They're told they have to pass a test to get 'em.
They fail the test. They don't get the condoms.

Is the next step "They don't have sex 'cause they didn't get the condoms"?

    NoNo, I'm sure he means "they GET condoms, but the nurse has to poke
    'em fulla holes first."
    
    How's THAT for reading comprehendre, eh?
    

    
    They don't even have to fail the test.  If you tell kids, "We'll give
    you condoms IF you sit through this education and training by the 
    nurse, and IF you take and pass this test..." then the kids will
    just say, "Screw it.  It's not worth going through all that BS.
    I'm young and immortal, I just won't use condoms."
    
    The kids are not going to say, "It's too hard to get condoms.  I'm 
    not going to have sex."
    
    We should be encouraging condom use, rather than setting up hurdles
    to make it more difficult to get them.  Condom use isn't foolproof
    by any means, but it's better than nothing.
    
    
    
    Rob
    

>					Condom use isn't foolproof
>    by any means, but it's better than nothing.


Oh, Rob, you're just looking at "nothing" the wrong way. After all,
all of these kids should be thinking about "nothing" in terms of
abstinence.

    Easy fer YOU to say, Jack -- why you prolly (spade) yer (chilluns) too!!
                                                                       

    
    That's the thing, of course.  Any abstinence-based approach to the
    problem, however laudable, is simply not going to work here in the
    land of the free and the home of Melrose Place.  The Dutch approach,
    with its frank and open attitude toward sex, is not going to be
    accepted either in a country still trapped in a weird blend of 
    Puritanical morals and all this infantile snickering and giggling
    whenever sexual matters are mentioned.  Half of my family is from
    the Netherlands, and they are as amazed when they come to America
    and see what goes on here as I am amazed when I go over there and
    see what freedoms they can take for granted.
    
    America is different -- very different -- from any other place in
    the world.  Any approach we take to our problems must reflect
    the peculiarities of the American character.  This is as true for
    sex-related issues as it is for gun control, drug abuse, and all
    other matters.
    
    
    
    Rob                              
    

    RE.355  Sorry about that. The problem was just how much of a percent
    does the male contribute to the actual formation of the baby while it
    is in the mothers womb? I would consider that 1% a very important 1%,
    maybe you could raise that number to 5% but that to me seems to much
    given the physical nature of a pregnancy. You may have made the meals
    but your wife didn't have to eat them. You did her a big favour but I
    think your wife could have had the baby without you around (after
    conception of course). 

>weird blend of 
>    Puritanical morals and all this infantile snickering

I wish those Puritans had stayed over in Europe where they
belonged.  They were just as wacky and morbid as Koresh's
bunch.  What a nasty legacy.

>I wish those Puritans had stayed over in Europe where they
>belonged.  They were just as wacky and morbid as Koresh's
>bunch.  What a nasty legacy.

keep them, they're not wanted here either.

Chris.

    >It takes money to establish paternity and haul anyone's ass into
    >court.  
    
     It depends on the state. In some states, the mother is simply asked
    who the father is and the state takes it from there (if she is on
    public assistance).
    
    >Your idea of equality is that men should not be the ones considered
    >responsible for what happens whey they have sex (unless they can
    >control what a woman does with her body.)  
    
     No, they are simply not considered responsible for anyone else's
    decision. In other words, when an unexpected pregnancy occurs, the male
    has an equal right to terminate his participation in the pregnancy as
    the woman. He can say, I'm not interested, thank you and provide the
    mother with his share (1/2) of the cost of an abortion and terminate
    his obligation. If she elects to keep the child, that's her decision,
    but she'll be on her own. She can control what she does with her body,
    he can control what he does with his body, she can terminate a
    pregnancy, he can terminate his participation in a pregnancy. As
    symmetrical and equal as biology allows.

    FWIW Planned Parenthood sells condoms at a much lower than market rate. 
    They were $0.10 a piece and $1.00/dozen the last time I was in there,
    and BC for women is also priced on a sliding scale.  However due to the
    overzealous behaviour of some of the RR, it has become a royal pain to
    get in and out of any of the offices in this neck of the woods, even
    those offices which do not perform abortions are a locked-down, if
    unarmed camp. 
    
    I think the message needs to start in Jr. High that contrtaception is
    the responsibility of BOTH people involved.  In the '70's PP had a
    poster that pointed out that an accidental pregnancy could be a
    financial disaster to young men, as well as women.  However once the RR
    managed to push its "just say no" agenda into the government and
    schools, that particular poster vanished from the walls of schools. 
    Maybe we should bring back this poster and others.  "Last year John
    bought a new car, this year he has a new set of wheels"  With a picture
    of a baby carriage.  
    
    Instead of the girl on the commercial who says "You forgot protection?
    than forget 'it'!" maybe we should have one where the boy also says
    something along the lines of "I have my protection do you have yours?" 
    if the answer is "No," or "I forgot it" he then says, "Well forget it. 
    We all need to double up for our safety."
    
    meg

    Mark, discussions about 'pregnancies - who is responsible?' invariably
    seem to end up with at least one person suggesting the men should be
    let off the hook completely (or almost completely) in the case of
    pregnancy, as if fixing it so that men have almost nothing to lose
    by pregnancy will give us a society where MORE men act responsibly
    when it comes to preventing pregnancy.

    Just so you know - it isn't 'equality' when two people have sex but
    only one of the people is at risk if a pregnancy results.

    It also isn't 'equality' when half the sexual partners capable of
    participating in an unplanned pregnancy are not regarded in this
    society as being responsible to prevent it (while the other half 
    of the sexual partners are treated to the "she got HERSELF pregnant" 
    mentality.)

    Do you want to solve the problem of unplanned pregnancies?  Getting
    members of both sexes to work in the prevention of pregnancy is not
    taking anything away from men (except the comfort of irresponsibility).
    It doesn't give the 'advantage' to women at all (who would still be
    expected to prevent pregnancy, as well.)

    Pregnancies - who is responsible?  Men and women are equally responsible
    to prevent it.  You can't borrow from other situations (such as a
    done-deal pregnancy) as an excuse to get men out of this responsibility.

    Men and women are responsible to prevent pregnancy.  This is equality.

        <<< Note 541.300 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>

>    Also, nobody but Suzanne has addressed the fact that this IS working
>    in the Netherlands.  
    
    	And nobody has actually verified or demonstrated that this really
    	is working in the Netherlands.  If there is a difference between
    	NEtherlands and USA for birth rates, abortions, etc., can it
    	clearly be attributed to what is being touted in this discussion?

   <<< Note 541.358 by AIMHI::MARTIN "actually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMON" >>>

>    We should be encouraging condom use, rather than setting up hurdles
>    to make it more difficult to get them.  
    
    	Having said this regarding teens, you realize that you implicitly
    	are encouraging teen sex too, don't you?

   <<< Note 541.366 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    However due to the
>    overzealous behaviour of some of the RR, it has become a royal pain to
>    get in and out of any of the offices in this neck of the woods
    
    	Being familiar with the PP offices in Meg's "neck of the woods",
    	I can attest that this is a terrible misrepresentation.  About
    	the only royal pain I've seen is that there isn't enough parking.

    	I found this topic rather distasteful to read through.  How sad
    	it is to me that we now focus on the life created as if it were
    	some disease, that we must assess blame for it rather than rejoice
    	in it.  It took 234 replies before someone suggested that we 
    	shouldn't be having sex if we're not ready to raise the potential 
    	offspring.
    
    	Our culture is now an abortion culture.  We can quibble all day
    	about who is responsible for the birth control, but throughout
    	the debate the message from both sides is clear -- the baby is
    	the real enemy, not the irresponsible males or the irresponsible 
    	females.
    
    	Several times it was asked which males here ALWAYS use a condom
    	(or other birth control by implication.)  Nobody bothered to ask
    	the question that I could answer -- which males NEVER use a
    	condom.  The condom is a symbol of the crumbling morals of our
    	society.  It is designed to mask and shield us from the debris
    	of our selfishness and sins.  Prevent the baby because we're
    	not committed to each other.  Protect me from AIDS and other 
    	STDs.  Use this balloon and we can cover all tracks of what we
    	are doing here...
    
    	The condom is winning the war on morality.  Let's give them to
    	kids now too.

    So, before there were condoms people were moral?
    
    
    Bluuuuuurgh!
    
    I suppose you spill your seed upon the ground then.

>					  Nobody bothered to ask
>    	the question that I could answer -- which males NEVER use a
>    	condom.

Me too! (I.E. those of us who had vasectomies.)

Oh - like Our Jack Martin, you want to equate morality with responsibility,
eh?

    When it comes to the sick way our society regards sex, demonizing
    the condom (as a symbol of evil) is a good example of it.

    It does illustrate why it is difficult to get some teenagers to try 
    to protect themselves (from AIDS and pregnancy) if they do have sex.
    
    They probably figure that the sex is a big enough sin without making
    it worse by using the dreaded condom, too.  (So they might as well
    risk death or pregnancy instead if they find themselves tempted to
    go all the way.  At least they didn't do the sin of trying to
    protect themselves - which almost sounds worse than the sex when
    some folks start talking about it.)

    By the way, the Netherlands succeeded to reduce unplanned pregnancies
    (and obtain the lowest abortion rate per capita in the western world)
    without promoting a particular religion in the process.
    
    This makes their success 'invalid' in the eyes of those who will only
    agree to work on finding a solution to these problems in the U.S.
    IFF the approach involves the promotion of this religion.  (Otherwise,
    forget it.  Promoting the religion seems to be *the* highest priority.)

    
    re .369, Joe
    
    I think of it more as recognition of the fact that teen sex is going
    to take place, no matter how much we encourage abstinence, and 
    therefore attempting to prevent some of the problems that may occur
    during teen sex.
    
    Nevertheless, even if I agree with you that there is an encouragement
    of teen sex implicit in the encouragement of condom use, the benefits
    to be gained by this practice still outweigh the potential problems,
    IMHO.  Putting aside compassion for a moment, by a cold and 
    calculating financial rationale, I would rather spend a few pennies
    on a condom for someone than pay for their treatment in a terminal
    AIDS ward, or pay to raise and educate yet another child born to a
    child.
    
    Abstinence works only if people have the self-discipline to make it
    work, and let's face it, people (myself included) can be terribly
    weak.  All it takes to stick to a diet and lose weight is
    self-discipline, yet Americans are ten pounds fatter today than they
    were a decade ago.  This despite the presence of a multi-billion dollar
    diet and fitness industry, health clubs on every corner, all kinds of
    low-fat and non-fat food products, all kinds of diet drugs, etc.
    Why are Americans ten pounds fatter?  Because they don't have the 
    self-discipline to keep their mitts off the dessert cart!  If people
    can't refuse donuts and cheesecake, how can we expect them to all have
    the self-discipline to refrain from having sex, which is a far more
    powerful biological urge?
    
    Abstinence is the best answer to the problems of teen pregnancy and
    teen sex, but it is an answer that is not going to work for everybody,
    because not everybody has the self-discipline or desire to make it
    work.  Therefore, we must include other answers in our approach to
    the problem.  When you go to war, you don't just choose to use
    one weapon.  You use all the weapons at your disposal, and that is
    what we must do here.  The only question is what emphasis do we give
    to each weapon in our overall strategy.
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    The only way you will have abstinence is if you segregate males from
    females and pass a law stating that you may only touch a person of the 
    opposite sex if that person is your spouse.

    
    |  When it comes to the sick way our society regards sex, demonizing
    | the condom (as a symbol of evil) is a good example of it.
    
    Abstinence is not sick.
    
    | They probably figure that the sex is a big enough sin without making
    | it worse by using the dreaded condom, too.  (So they might as well
    | risk death or pregnancy instead if they find themselves tempted to
    | go all the way.  At least they didn't do the sin of trying to
    | protect themselves - which almost sounds worse than the sex when
    | some folks start talking about it.)
    
    Okay, so two sixteen year old kids are in the back seat of
    a car on Saturday night in lover's lane, and they decide not to
    use a condom because of fear of additional time in purgatory?
    Get serious.  
    

>  By the way, the Netherlands succeeded to reduce unplanned pregnancies
>    (and obtain the lowest abortion rate per capita in the western world)
>    without promoting a particular religion in the process.
 
    It always bothers me that folks would compare the relative success' of
    other countries to the relative failures of the USA. 

    In this comparison, the social and cultural nature of the two countries
    is totally different. Where the USA continues to maintain a puritanical
    style environment (and the baggage that comes with it) the Netherlands
    have a more natural and pragmatic environment. Your attitude and acceptance
    of these issues is directly affected by which environment you grow up in.

    Where sex and death are both swepted under the rug in the USA, other nations
    treat these events as natural and expected part of life and therefor 
    much easier to deal with in an open manner. 

    You'll have to change a lot more than a few laws before you can adequately 
    address these kinds of issues in the "I'm not the responsible party" USA.
    

    Doug
         

    To extrapolate on a point I brought up in the AIDS topic...
    
    Engaging in high-risk behavior- regardless of what precautions you
    take- is *not* acting responsibly.  If I am cruising down the highway
    at 100 mph in moderate/heavy traffic- weaving in and out of lanes to
    zip by slower traffic- I am not acting responsibly simply because I am 
    wearing a seat-belt.  I am still engaging in high-risk behavior even 
    though I have taken precautions.
    
    Modern society may try to label using a condom as being "responsible"
    in casual sex, but this- to me- is a misuse of the term.  The message
    should read "be responsible for yourself, abstain- but if you choose to
    act irresponsibly, at least take precautions"...or something similar.
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .378  Pvt. Parts

    // When it comes to the sick way our society regards sex, demonizing
    // the condom (as a symbol of evil) is a good example of it.
    
    / Abstinence is not sick.

    Demonizing the condom (as the winner of some war against morality,
    or whatever) is sick.
    
    / Okay, so two sixteen year old kids are in the back seat of
    / a car on Saturday night in lover's lane, and they decide not to
    / use a condom because of fear of additional time in purgatory?
    / Get serious.  

    Actually, many kids would rather not go to the trouble to prevent
    pregnancy and disease in the first place, so when they believe sex 
    to be a sin but decide to do it anyway, they probably figure that 
    since birth control is supposed to be a sin, too, they have good 
    reason not to bother with it.

    ZZ    Demonizing the condom (as the winner of some war against morality,
     ZZ   or whatever) is sick.
    
    Suzanne, misinformation is sick and in the case of Ms. Elders, criminal
    in my opinion.
    
    -Jack

Not being responsible for pregnancy is easy enough, just don't go around
shagging people.  Giving someone a good rogering is the way we were bilogically
designed to reproduce, so people shouldn't be surprised to find they're
involved in dropping a sprog.

Chris.

    RE: .380  Steve Leech

    / Modern society may try to label using a condom as being "responsible"
    / in casual sex, but this- to me- is a misuse of the term.  The message
    / should read "be responsible for yourself, abstain- but if you choose to
    / act irresponsibly, at least take precautions"...or something similar.

    Once you've labeled people as irresponsible, why should they listen
    to what you have to say after that, though?

    You might as well make the ad say, "Be a good person and don't have
    sex, but if you decide to be a scum-sucking turd who is destined to
    burn in hell for eternity by having sex out of wedlock, at least use 
    protection against pregnancy and disease while on earth."

Did anyone ever tell you that you have a winning way with words, Chris?

>Did anyone ever tell you that you have a winning way with words, Chris?

I'm renowned for it!  Can't be doing too badly though, my latest attempt
to find a girlfriend seems to be going okay for once (well, there's a
first time for everything I suppose!)

Chris.

    
    | Actually, many kids would rather not go to the trouble to prevent
    | pregnancy and disease in the first place, so when they believe sex
    | to be a sin but decide to do it anyway, they probably figure that
    | since birth control is supposed to be a sin, too, they have good
    | reason not to bother with it.
    
    this sounds contrived to me.  teen promiscuity occurs because the
    level of shame attributed to the activity has all but disappeared
    and because peer pressure has intensified over the past 30 years.  
    when you put this together with raging hormones, it should be of no 
    surprise that we have a social problem.
    
    the unwillingness to use birth control has to do with immaturity
    and the spontaneous nature of sex at that age.  kids simply are
    too embarrassed to discuss such stuff apriori.        
    

    So OK, all you RR folks out there, let's try a whatif.
    
    What if we invented a way to make sex 100% safe tomorrow -- no unwanted
    pregnancies and no transmission of disease -- just pure wonderful safe
    orgasmic pleasure.
    
    What would you want to tell kids then?

    
      re, .388 - this is, in fact, an interesting question to ask.  I
     grew up before there was any AIDS, and saw all sorts of sexual
     behavior.  I have to say I was unimpressed by so-called free love
     then, and am even less so now.  It always looked like a scam by
     randy males to me, dressed up in bogus philosophy.  And these
     people never turned out to be any more happy than those who were
     much more reserved.  In fact, a phenomenon that very much confuses
     the psychiatrists, is the general happiness of the sexually inactive.
      Sexual inactivity, unlike promiscuity, turns out to correlate with
     many of the success factors in life - good health, good finances,
     career advancement, self-esteem, even creativity.  And it is much
     more widespread (and always was) than the magazine racks would have
     you suppose.
      In particular, in the USA, a majority of widows over 65 are sexually
     inactive.  There is virtually no evidence that this correlates with
     any pathology of body, mind, spirit, or pocketbook.  Except when quite
     young, human beings are able to cope without sex for many years with
     no discernible ill effects.
    
      Or to put it another way, sex has been over-rated.
    
      bb

    re: .384
    
    Take out the "burn in hell" part, and I think we have a winner.

   > What if we invented a way to make sex 100% safe tomorrow -- no unwanted
   > pregnancies and no transmission of disease -- just pure wonderful safe
   > orgasmic pleasure.
   > 
   > What would you want to tell kids then?

   Go forth and multiply :-)

   

       
    > Go forth and multiply

    I always thought that was a statement in a COBOL program.

    -b

    re: .388
    
    That's an interesting question, one I've actually given a bit of
    thought. 
    
    I believe the most important aspects of sex are not physical, but
    emotional and spiritual.  For me, it is enough to know that God says
    not to have sex outside of wedlock- I've never questioned this, but
    have received personal answers that explain to me quite well why this
    is best.  Unfortunately, such answers are very hard to put into words.
    I feel they are communications between God and myself (and no, I don't
    hear audible voices  8^) ).
    
    Psychologically, there is something inherantly appealing to the thought
    of being someone's ONLY lover- ever.  You are not competing with a past
    lover, you are not receiving "used" goods (to put it bluntly  8^) )-
    but something pure, a special gift. 
    
    By cheapening sex to the gutter level it has reached today, we take
    away the fullness of what sex was designed by God to be.  I believe we
    lose much pleasure due to this, as well as a valuable bonding aspect of
    it.  Sex is cheapened and made into something dirty, something it was
    not meant to be- simple physical gratification (and I'm not going to
    say that the physical aspect is not enjoyable or desirable in any way,
    just that by looking at it in this way, sex is degraded from its lofty
    design).
    
    Innocense lost cannot be regained nor renewed.  Virginity (or pureness,
    if you prefer- since viginity seems to have such a negative connotation 
    today) is a special gift that seems to be overlooked and given away to
    the wrong person at the wrong time.  I believe the ramifications of
    this is vast- from sexual hangups to psychological problems with
    bonding/relations with those of the opposite sex- to divorce (I'm
    willing to bet that pre-marital sex is the number one *basic* cause of
    divorce- though not one most people will suspect, they will more likely
    see the outer symptoms of lack of communication, etc.).  
    
    Before you call me crazy, I am not alone in this conclusion.  Many
    church councellors have found that most of those who come to them for
    help have had sex before marriage (either with their current spouse,
    another person, or both).  My assertion would also seem to be supported
    by the increasing divorce rates linked with the modern rarity of
    staying pure until marriage.
    
    
    
    -steve

    .393
    
    > designed by God
    
    Assumes facts not in evidence.  Prove the existence of God, then come
    back for some meaningful dialogue.

    
    	How many happy couples had sex [together or separately] before
    	marriage?
    
    	Probably most of them ... proportionately, as many as in the
    	unhappy couples.
    

    
      Current stats are, average US married couple is once a week.
    
      Noting in SOAPBOX is, timewise, more consuming.
    
       bb

>    What if we invented a way to make sex 100% safe tomorrow -- no unwanted
>    pregnancies and no transmission of disease -- just pure wonderful safe
>    orgasmic pleasure.
>    
>    What would you want to tell kids then?

    Having thought on this a bit I've come to the conclusion that it would have
    little impact on what I'll be telling my kids.

     Doug.

    
    re: .394
    
    > Assumes facts not in evidence.  Prove the existence of God, then come
    > back for some meaningful dialogue.
    
    So Dick.. I recall you, at one time or another, professing to be a
    christian...
    
    Based upon????????
    

    Thinking of people as 'used goods' if they've had sex is a pretty
    repulsive philosophy, as far as I'm concerned (and is another good
    example of some of the sick attitudes we have about sex in the U.S.)

    Such an attitude (itself) not only cheapens sex, it cheapens the
    human race by describing people in terms of their worth as items
    of consumer merchandise.

    
    It's been a while since we had a good box cheapening...
    
    -b

        <<< Note 541.384 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    Once you've labeled people as irresponsible, why should they listen
>    to what you have to say after that, though?

    	Once you've labeled me as sick, why should I bother to listen
    	to what you have to say after that?

>Current stats are, average US married couple is once a week.

Now, is that with each other?

    depends on whether they've been listening to Stephen Stills...

If ya can't be with the ol' ball and chain
luv the one you're with!

or something like that...

  .403  that tune was such a perfect anthem for the '60s.  a great
	song.

    
    So a lot of folks were going around boinking ugly people?

.406
No, only the Rolling Stones groupies.

    re: .394
    
    You can ignore this part if you like, but the whole note is not
    dependent upon this particular opinion.
    
    
    
    -steve

    
    RE: B, 
    
    Twas a pun on the international rating system, is he/she a 1 or a 10. 

    
    	Eesh ... that was very, ummm, what's the word I'm looking for?
    

    re: .399
    
    I'm not surprised you picked one comment from my note in order to
    attack my personal views on this issue.  The comment was merely a tool 
    to get a certain thought across.  I find it rather revealing that you are 
    willing to twist it so that you can rationalize my philosophy as 
    "repulsive", "sick" and as "cheapening the human race".
    
    Once again your lack of reading comprehension is most amusing, if
    irritatingly so.
    
    
    -steve

   uh-oh.  leech/conlon-battle-to-the-death alert.

    .408
    
    > the whole note is not
    > dependent upon this particular opinion.
    
    Wrong.  The whole note is dependend on the moral code developed over
    the centuries by people who conceived that moral code to have been
    given them by God.  Other cultures, some of them areligious and others
    
    devoted to different deities, have developed other moral codes, and in
    some of them promiscuity has been a good thing, not a bad thing. 
    Neither style is inherently worse than the other.

    
     "Neither style is inherently worse than the other."
    
     Um, isn't this an assertion, like Steve's, which is a proper
    subject for debate ?  And what do you mean by "inherently" ?
    
     I would argue that, from the point of view of the longterm success
    or dominance of cultures, promiscuity is indeed a poor choice.
    
     Nor does this argument need any religion to justify it, although as
    you know I happen to have one.  I would feel the same if I didn't.
    
     Nor is this purely an abstraction - the results are there for all to
    see, walking the streets of our country.  Unfortunately for your claim,
    that promiscuity is not "worse", there is ample evidence that it
    weakens the family, thus the child, thus the culture, the barbarians
    come, you get pillaged.  One measure of sophistication is the ability
     to defer gratification in favor of longterm goals.  Promiscuity,
    being the opposite, implies childishness.  Perhaps acceptable on a
    South Sea Island, but not compatible with modern complexities.
    
      bb

oh, so i see...

:-)

    .414
    
    Sorry, you lose.  There are cultures in which the entire population is
    the family.  Coupling is ad libitum, and the children are raised by any
    and all adults.  This has not been proven to be an inferior style to
    ours, it is merely different.

    Steve, you described your "used goods" comment as "blunt" yourself,
    so it wasn't too surprising for someone else to find it worthy
    of at least one additional adjective.

    If you couldn't risk having the "used goods" comment criticized, then
    you might have thought twice about including it in your note for everyone 
    to see.

 <<< Note 541.388 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "We upped our standards, now up yours!" >>>
    
>    What if we invented a way to make sex 100% safe tomorrow -- no unwanted
>    pregnancies and no transmission of disease -- just pure wonderful safe
>    orgasmic pleasure.
>    
>    What would you want to tell kids then?

    	There are more risks to liberal sexuality than just diseases and
    	unwanted pregnancies.
    
    	My kids would still be instructed in chastity.  In fact, even
    	today I'd venture to suggest that the instruction to our kids
    	focuses more on the value of chastity than on other risks.
    
    	My wife and I were virgins for each other.  We each had a
    	beautiful gift for each other that we could only give to 
    	one person.  I'm so very thankful that she loved me enough --
    	even before she knew me -- to save that gift for me.  Likewise
    	I placed enough value in that gift that I could save it for the
    	one I would truly love.  Her gift to me was more than just a 
    	membrane of skin.  It was an experience.  A sharing.  No one
    	else but my wife and I will ever know what each of us experienced
    	on that first night.  No one else will ever experience the risks
    	and fears I overcame, nor the joys, nor the expressions.  This
    	is a gift that can only be given once.
    
    	"But how could you be sure that you were physically compatible
    	without a test drive?"  WE AREN'T physically compatible in a
    	perfect-world sense.  She is short, I am over a foot taller
    	than her.  What we have together has been developed over the
    	years.  I don't bring any baggage nor expectations from past 
    	relationships.  What we have is the very best sex we have ever
    	experienced!  I haven't cheapened my relationship by finding
    	out is Candy Cooze next door does it better (or worse.)  I
    	don't mistakenly call out someone else's name.  We don't ever
    	have doubts that because the other previously was willing to
    	compromise sexual purity in the past it might happen again
    	and wreck our current relationship.
    
    	All the rest of the focus in this discussion implies an assumption
    	that sex is merely an animal act or merely "a thing to do".  If
    	that's all it is, then the question in .388 is the answer. 

    RE: .418  Joe Oppelt

    / No one else but my wife and I will ever know what each of us experienced
    / on that first night.
    
    You and your wife will never know what other couples experience in
    their sex lives either.

    It's the privacy of shared intimacy (and no one else can ever know the
    joy that an individual couple shares when alone.)

    / No one else will ever experience the risks and fears I overcame, nor the 
    / joys, nor the expressions.  This is a gift that can only be given once.

    It's not the only (sexual) gift worth having on a wedding night, though.

    To each his/her own.

    / We don't ever have doubts that because the other previously was willing 
    / to compromise sexual purity in the past it might happen again and wreck 
    / our current relationship.             

    It's called 'trust' (and human beings are capable of sharing in this
    whether they engaged in sex prior to marriage or not.)

    / All the rest of the focus in this discussion implies an assumption
    / that sex is merely an animal act or merely "a thing to do". 

    Sex is a natural part of being human.  In our culture, though, sex is
    regarded as 'SIN' (and our society spends billions engaging in endless
    titillation and cultural giggling over it *because* it is seen as 'bad'
    and therefore 'forbidden' and 'thrilling beyond anything else in life'.)

    If we saw it as a natural part of being human, our culture wouldn't
    be so obsessed with it, IMO.

>    So a lot of folks were going around boinking ugly people?

reminds me of a song I know:

	"Thank **** for ugly women,
	 all the boilers, bags and trolls,
	 just so they could get a shag
	 they invented alcohol!"

:) etc,

Chris.

    	And, Suzanne, you still haven't shown (other than assertion)
    	that Netherlands reall is achieving anything better than here
    	(or if it is, that it is due to the factors you promote here.)

 <<< Note 541.388 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "We upped our standards, now up yours!" >>>
    
>    What if we invented a way to make sex 100% safe tomorrow -- no unwanted
>    pregnancies and no transmission of disease -- just pure wonderful safe
>    orgasmic pleasure.
    
    	Doesn't this exist already?  It's called masturbation.

> It's called masturbation.

But, you can burn in hell for that.

    	Well, Jack, that wasn't a concern of .388.
    
    	Besides, why now do you concern yourself with that, but in
    	another topic you get all over Jack for introducing morals
    	into the discussion?
    
    	I suspect that had I answered .388 with "It is morally wrong"
    	(which is also a significant part of my answer to my kids) you
    	would have been all over me for that.
    
    	Sounds like you are more interested in fighting over this
    	stuff than discussing it.

    Joe,
    
    Have you actually entered a PP clinic in this neck of the woods lately?
    
    I did three years ago to make sure Atlehi was on the way.  At that time
    you entered one vestibule answered questions and then were buzzed in
    through the other.  On top of it the PP on the westside has had to put
    up the heavy landscaping to help seperate clients and staff from the
    nut cases on the sidewalk who scream at every woman walking in to the
    clinic lot without even knowing what she is there for.  The pharmacy is
    open on Saturdays, as is the clinic and procedures aren't the only
    thing going on there then.  
    
    Makes one wonder if a god is who sent the lightning bolt to take out
    one of the towers at a certain chruch down the street.  
    
    meg

    <<< Note 541.426 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    Have you actually entered a PP clinic in this neck of the woods lately?

    	Never.  But I've participated in the prayer vigils held outside
    	on Saturday mornings.
    
>    On top of it the PP on the westside has had to put
>    up the heavy landscaping to help seperate clients and staff from the
>    nut cases on the sidewalk who scream at every woman walking in to the
>    clinic lot without even knowing what she is there for.  

    	I guess I'm one of those nut cases.  At every one that I've
    	attended the only screaming I've ever heard was from passing
    	cars, and they were shouting at us things like, "F*** the
    	babies!"  In fact we are carefully and repeatedly reminded
    	NOT to shout at the workers or the clients, nor to respond
    	to those who shout at us.

    	The same group of people attend the prayer vigil and religious
    	service held every Saturday morning at that office.

    	Your are propagating a lie in your statement above.
    
>    Makes one wonder if a god is who sent the lightning bolt to take out
>    one of the towers at a certain chruch down the street.  

    	Boy, you are turning vicious!

re:          <<< Note 541.425 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

Nah.

I was just repeating what I heard from every priest and nun I ever ran
across up until 1964 or so when I told 'em all to buzz off, Joe.

NBD

    RE: .422  Joe Oppelt

    / And, Suzanne, you still haven't shown (other than assertion)
    / that Netherlands reall is achieving anything better than here
    / (or if it is, that it is due to the factors you promote here.)

    Do you need to see verification from the World Health Organization
    (or the United Nations) or would you reject those organizations as
    being secular?

    As for the reasons for their tremendous success - in various
    notesfiles, Dutch noters and others who have lived or visited
    this beautiful country have described the nature of their 
    approach to sex education, etc.  Just look around at the notes.
    I'm not the only one describing the achievements of the Dutch
    in this area.

    
      re, .416 - it would help for you to name one, else the discussion
     dissolves to handwaving generalities.  I'll actually go look it up
     if you do.
    
      bb

    
    > I would argue that, from the point of view of the longterm success
    > or dominance of cultures, promiscuity is indeed a poor choice.
    
    You, and others complain that there is too much promiscuity in the USA,
    and yet you hold the view that the USA is one of the most dominant and
    advanced cultures in the world.
    
    Although I'm not into comparing between cultures myself, by your own
    yardsticks of comparison would you argue that Iran is a "better"
    culture?  Thanks to their religious fundamentalism, promiscuous
    behavior is completely suppressed.
    
    It is therefore s leap of logic to state that promiscuity is
    detrimental to the longterm success of a culture.   European cultures
    are largely past the point of worrying about promiscuity as a major
    social issue, so are these cultures fading?  Did you notice
    the air of decay in Switzerland?
    
    I think the problem here is that you and others consider the "high
    point" of a culture to be when that culture was lording it over other
    cultures in some form of Empire.    There is this idea that the decline
    and fadeout of a culture is a result of internal corruption and lack of
    morals.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  At the high point of
    the British Empire, during the Victorian era, the culture was a facade
    of morality.  Promiscuity was as common as it had been before the
    Victorian era, reaching into all levels of society.   There is no
    causal relationship between promiscuity and cultural success.
    
    Colin
    
    PS - If you re-read Margaret Mead's "Coming Of Age in Samoa: you'll
    find that your notions of South Sea Island cultures are also a South
    Sea Bubble.
                                    

    
      Mead, wow.  It's been a LONG time since I read that book.  By
     the way, isn't there a more recent book on Samoa which challenges
     her conclusions ?  I seem to recall a big stink among the
     anthropologists over this, due to her very high reputation.
    
      The Swiss are promiscuous ?  News to me.  They looked and acted
     pretty traditional.  The only family we lodged with was at the
     Schonbielhutte, though, so it's not much of a sample.
    
      Here's something that struck me : even in the internationalist
     atmosphere of Zermatt, the nightlife is minimal.  Same in Sion.
     And talk about early risers !  They're up with the sun.  But if
     you say so, there may be some evidence of secret promiscuity
     among the Swiss.  Whodathunkit ?
    
      As to the USA, it's the downward TREND in almost all our culture
     we pessimists deplore.  Sure, the USA is still first-world.  But
     our fear is for the future, for the disintegration we see coming.
     Remember, it is too late once it happens.  There will never be
     another chance for the USSR, or the Roman Empire.  As in steering
     a vehicle, you can't adjust AFTER you strike an object.
    
      bb

    
    I can't say that I noticed much in the way of nightlife in Zurich
    either, but then I was not looking for it and I would not expect the
    Swiss to be overt about it.  (In contrast to Nice where the prostitutes
    line up on the 'Anglais nightly and no-one raises an eyebrow.)
    
    Then again,  staid Germany has its Reeperbahn and not-so-staid Holland
    has its randy Amsterdam. You're now proposing a relationship between
    overt manifestations of "lax morals" such as strip clubs and clip
    joints and promiscuity.  Sure, you might be able to substantiate such a
    claim but it has little to do with promiscuity and the demise of
    societies.  Red herring.
    
    You won't find much nightlife in British towns like Cardiff or boring
    Reading (two cities that I am most familiar with) either. However, you
    will find that most people accept social behaviours such as teenage sex
    and serial monogamy as social realities.  (Even the Church). I wouldn't
    expect it to be that much different in staid Switzerland or any other
    European country.
    
    I notice you sidestep the extreme USA/Iran comparison and go straight
    for the throwaway comment on the Swiss.  I suspect that's because the
    reality of the extreme but real comparison is less palatable than the
    dubious US/Europe comparison. To make such a comparison, you have to
    severely compromise other deeply-held American cultural values such as
    freedom of expression and self determination.
    
    Unfortunately, if Christians promote ideas of rigid morality as
    culturally superior, then fundamentalist Iran is what the ultimate
    implementation looks like.  If you don't like that picture, then
    explain how making us all into virgin monogamists will save US culture
    and not trample on the rights of those who believe that serial monogamy
    is a personal choice.
    
    
    Colin
    
    
    (True, There has been huge controversy over Mead's overall
    interpretation of her findings from an anthropological standpoint. The
    data she gathered is still very valuable as a sociological model of a
    culture.  One of the problems was that she was making dubious
    comparisons between cultures, such as labelling certain behaviour as
    "promiscuous".  By today's behavioural standards, those Samoan
    behaviours are tame. In that respect, her older books are good examples
    of how to gather and record data, and how not to interpret it. )
    
    

    
      Well, you are correct, Colin.  The Iran thing troubles me greatly.
    
      In general, I think I like moral standards, and deplore our slow
     loss of them.  I expect Europe is not so very different in this.
    
      Iran is another thing.  There has been a moral revolution throughout
     Islam, and as with all revolutions, it has been extreme in its
     manifestations.  While I dislike redlight districts, it would bother
     me also if the denizens were stoned to death by religious groups.
    
      Who is to say if this expression of fundamentalism might not be, in
     the long run, beneficial to the long nascent middle eastern peoples ?
     My hope is that the rejuvenated Islamic movement might turn out to be
     a good thing for everybody.  At one time, you know, they were the most
     advanced and sophisticated of the world's cultures.  It could happen
     again.
    
      But I remain western.  Forswearing alcohol, covering your women,
     public rituals of prayer, a theocracy.  It does seem a bit much.
     
      bb

        <<< Note 541.429 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
    
>    / AIDS is a natural part of being human too.
>
>    Actually, this disease came from green monkeys in Africa.  We just
>    don't have the defenses for it (as a species) in the same way that
>    we don't have the defenses for the Ebola virus.  AIDS just works
>    a lot slower, that's all.
    
    	Hoo HOO!  Did that green monkey come from the same source as
    	your Netherlands facts?  But regardless, I suppose that you
    	are saying that it *IS* a natural part of being human.  (After
    	all,humans can have sex sith green monkeys, can't they?)  So
    	being natural and all, should we welcome it with the open arms
    	and without limits as you suggest we should do for sex because 
    	it is natural?

>    / You know, Suzanne, you and other people in your camp try to
>    / claim that you agree with abstinence, but when push comes to
>    / shove your true colors show in replies like 541.419.  
>
>    Your meaning isn't very clear here.  
    
    	Oh, I think that my meaning is VERY clear.  Your last few
    	notes to me have been to deliberately argue against abstinence.
    
>    Joe, you don't really describe it as a joy ...
>    ... It sounds more like a brag 
    
    	I can see that, I suppose, if I read the note through your
    	filters.

    RE: .437  Joe Oppelt

    / But regardless, I suppose that you are saying that it *IS* a natural 
    / part of being human.  (After all, humans can have sex sith green monkeys, 
    / can't they?)  

    Humans can get bitten by green monkeys if they try to capture them.

    / So being natural and all, should we welcome it with the open arms
    / and without limits as you suggest we should do for sex because 
    / it is natural?           

    Are you saying anyone who disagrees with your position is suggesting
    that the human race embrace diseases like AIDS (and cancer) because
    they can occur in human beings?  Pretty strange, even for you, Joe.

    // Your meaning isn't very clear here.  
    
    / Oh, I think that my meaning is VERY clear.  Your last few
    / notes to me have been to deliberately argue against abstinence.

    Don't dabble in the occult, Joe.  You can't read my mind.

    Anyone who wants to choose abstinence is more than welcome to do so.
    It's certainly a valid personal choice (and it always has been.)
    I've never said otherwise.

    When it comes to what to say to young people about their own choices
    and lives, I don't find your anti-condom stance very productive.

    We've been talking about campaigns to work on reducing the instance
    of unplanned pregnancy in our culture.  I don't think that saying
    'Hey, just think of the bragging rights you get if you can claim
    that you had a wedding night where both people were virgins' is
    very productive in such a campaign, either.

    Hey Colin, I thought Cardiff was in Wales :-)
    

    
    It is, but it's tolerated as part of the UK  ;-)

        <<< Note 541.438 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    Humans can get bitten by green monkeys if they try to capture them.
    
    	And they can be killed by black widow spiders.  It's all
    	natural things.  Just like sex!

>    Are you saying anyone who disagrees with your position is suggesting
>    that the human race embrace diseases like AIDS (and cancer) because
>    they can occur in human beings?  Pretty strange, even for you, Joe.
    
    	No, I'm showing you what your reasoning must include -- namely,
    	if it is natural, we shouldn't stifle it.

>    Don't dabble in the occult, Joe.  You can't read my mind.
    
    	Well that seems like a rather religion-biased statement!
    
    	I'm not reading your mind.  I'm expressing how your behavior
    	comes across to me.  Excuse me for having an opinion!

>    Anyone who wants to choose abstinence is more than welcome to do so.
>    It's certainly a valid personal choice (and it always has been.)
>    I've never said otherwise.
    
    	Then why do you argue against an example of it working?  Your
    	behavior shows that you *ARE* saying otherwise.

>    'Hey, just think of the bragging rights you get if you can claim
>    that you had a wedding night where both people were virgins' 
    
    	You are entitled to your opinion, but I find this interpretation
    	to be rather skewed.

    RE: .441  Joe Oppelt

    // Humans can get bitten by green monkeys if they try to capture them.
    
    / And they can be killed by black widow spiders.  It's all
    / natural things.  Just like sex!

    You see sex in a worse light than I realized, Joe.  First, it was
    like a disease and now it's like a poisonous insect.  Next, you'll
    have sex be like a typhoon or a meteor shower (or some other natural
    disaster.)  Our culture has a lot of such strange attitudes about sex.

    / No, I'm showing you what your reasoning must include -- namely,
    / if it is natural, we shouldn't stifle it.

    You _can't_ stifle other people's choices about sex, Joe, unless you
    keep them locked up or under constant surveillance.  Refraining from
    trying to stifle sex in other people's lives is not the same thing as
    calling for an all-out cultural orgy instead.  Saying that sex is
    natural is not the same thing as calling for a holds-barred cultural
    orgy, either.

    Death is natural, but most of us try to delay it as long as we can.
    We try to abstain from death, as it were.  :/  

    When I say that sex is natural, I'm saying that it's not worthy of the
    taboo-induced snickering/giggling cultural obsession the U.S. has been
    stuck in since the Puritans landed here.

    // Anyone who wants to choose abstinence is more than welcome to do so.
    // It's certainly a valid personal choice (and it always has been.)
    // I've never said otherwise.
    
    / Then why do you argue against an example of it working?  Your
    / behavior shows that you *ARE* saying otherwise.

    People in other situations have very happy and successful marriages,
    too.  And some who go to their marriages as co-virgins experience
    affairs and/or divorces later (as two such couples I know well have
    done.)

    Abstinence is a valid choice for anyone, but those who have chosen
    something else are not permanently lost or damaged in some way (as
    your notes sometimes seem to imply.)

    In this topic, we've been talking about messages to young people.
    I don't consider it productive to tell young people that they have
    lost something they can never regain if they are no longer virgins.
    I'd rather they worry about something they can control in the
    future (like their chances of dying of AIDS or getting pregnant
    if they decide to have sex again.)

        <<< Note 541.442 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    You see sex in a worse light than I realized, Joe.  First, it was
>    like a disease and now it's like a poisonous insect.  
    
    	Again, a curious perspective on what's really written.  You
    	get points for creativity, but not accuracy.
    
>    You _can't_ stifle other people's choices about sex, Joe, 
    
    	So why try getting them to choose condoms?  Again, your
    	arguments betray you.
    
>    People in other situations have very happy and successful marriages,
>    too.  And some who go to their marriages as co-virgins experience
>    affairs and/or divorces later (as two such couples I know well have
>    done.)
    
    	Of course you know that this type of argument has been debunked
    	time and time again in soapbox and elsewhere.  There are always
    	exceptions.  Hoards of statistics bear out my arguments about
    	premarital chastity.

>    Abstinence is a valid choice for anyone, but those who have chosen
>    something else are not permanently lost or damaged in some way (as
>    your notes sometimes seem to imply.)
    
    	The people are not lost at all, and I've never said that.  Surely
    	you are intelligent enough to see that.  Still I *CAN GUARANTEE*
    	that they have lost something -- something very precious that
    	they can never recover.
    
    	But that does not preclude a cohabiting couple who are
    	contemplating marriage from having a "second virginity".  
    	(I put it in quotes, Suzanne.  Since you need everything 
    	spelled out for you, I though I'd point out to you that 
    	it is not a literal virginity, so therefore I am not 
    	contradicting myself.)  

>    In this topic, we've been talking about messages to young people.
>    I don't consider it productive to tell young people that they have
>    lost something they can never regain if they are no longer virgins.
    
    	The other choice is to lie to them, then.  You are correct.
    	After the fact no longer matters and doesn't serve much
    	purpose.  Surely it has been obvious that I've been talking
    	about pre-sexually-active kids.  If not, let it be so
    	noted.

    RE: .443  Joe Oppelt

    // You _can't_ stifle other people's choices about sex, Joe, 
    
    / So why try getting them to choose condoms?

    People can choose to have sex *and* choose to use condoms (so any
    recommendations about using condoms are not stifling the choice
    to have sex, but rather offering advice about how to do it safer
    once the choice to have sex has been made.)  The final choice 
    about trying to protect oneself is still up to the individual, 
    of course.

    / Still I *CAN GUARANTEE* that they have lost something -- something 
    / very precious that they can never recover.                  

    Be prepared for the fact that not all young people consider virginity
    to be as precious as you consider it to be.  Young people don't stop
    being innocent and naive in every way simply because they've had sex
    at least once.  Sex is not THE defining moment in all people's lives.

    / But that does not preclude a cohabiting couple who are
    / contemplating marriage from having a "second virginity".

    I'm actually impressed that you could even entertain such an idea.

    // In this topic, we've been talking about messages to young people.
    // I don't consider it productive to tell young people that they have
    // lost something they can never regain if they are no longer virgins.
    
    / The other choice is to lie to them, then.

    No, the best choice is to refrain from making harsh judgmental 
    statements about 'losing one's virginity' to an audience of young 
    people which includes some who have already had sex.

    / After the fact no longer matters and doesn't serve much
    / purpose.  Surely it has been obvious that I've been talking
    / about pre-sexually-active kids.  If not, let it be so
    / noted.

    Oh, really.  An advertising campaign aimed at pre-sexually-active
    kids only, eh?  When you figure out how to broadcast something
    that kids can only hear if they haven't had sex, let me know.

    Meanwhile, others of us in the United States can continue to pursue 
    the idea of reaching young people in general.

    P.S.  Now that we *know* that we're talking about messages aimed at 
    a group of young people versus a subset of young people who haven't
    yet had sex, we don't need to perpetuate the obvious misunderstanding 
    which has guided our exchange up to now, n'est-ce pas?

       re: .436 (Mr_Topaz)
    
>       > Forswearing alcohol, covering your women, public rituals of
>       > prayer, a theocracy.  It does seem a bit much.
       
>       Indeed.  At least that's what people have been trying to tell Mr
>       Leech et al.
    
    I would appreciate you pointing out any of my notes that say that I am
    for any of these things.  Admittedly, I am for *allowing* prayer in
    schools and on public property, but this is far from what this snippet
    was talking about in its original note.
    
    Normally, I wouldn't put you in the reading-comprehension impaired
    category, but I begin to wonder when you post notes like this.
    
    
    -steve

    >Next, you'll have sex be like a typhoon or a meteor shower
    
     Only when it's really, really good.

        <<< Note 541.444 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    // You _can't_ stifle other people's choices about sex, Joe, 
>    
>    / So why try getting them to choose condoms?
>
>    People can choose to have sex *and* choose to use condoms (so any
>    recommendations about using condoms are not stifling the choice
>    to have sex, but rather offering advice about how to do it safer
>    once the choice to have sex has been made.) 
    
    	You didn't say "to have sex", you said that you can't stifle
    	people's choiced ABOUT sex.  Your argument so far against 
    	promoting virginity is therefore equally valid against your
    	own pushing of condom use.
    
>    The final choice 
>    about trying to protect oneself is still up to the individual, 
>    of course.
    
    	So what is your purpose in promoting condoms if not to 
    	influnece their choices?  How is your attempt at this 
    	influence any different from my attempt at influencing
    	continued virginity?
    
>    Be prepared for the fact that not all young people consider virginity
>    to be as precious as you consider it to be.  
    
    	Oh, right.  I forgot.  Virginity is something to be cured.
    
    	Actually, Suzanne, I agree with you, and I find that trend
    	rather sad.  But without significant promotion of the idea
    	that retaining one's virginity is a good thing, that trend
    	is destined to continue.  Do you think it is a good trend,
    	Suzanne?
    
>    / But that does not preclude a cohabiting couple who are
>    / contemplating marriage from having a "second virginity".
>
>    I'm actually impressed that you could even entertain such an idea.
    
    	And I'm equally impressed that you didn't attack this idea
    	too.

>    No, the best choice is to refrain from making harsh judgmental 
>    statements about 'losing one's virginity' to an audience of young 
>    people which includes some who have already had sex.
    
    	What you suggest here is to suppress a safe and positive 
    	message to prevent offending a few.  In other words, we 
    	should tailor the message to the least common denominator.  
    
    	You have played lip service to abstinence in the past, 
    	agreeing that it is the surest way to prevent AIDS, but 
    	since some kids are going to do it anyway, we have to 
    	promote safer-sex too.  Well now you are arguing to 
    	suppress the message that will encourage that surest 
    	AIDS and pregnancy prevention!  And the only reason is 
    	because some already-at-risk kids might be upset by it!

>    P.S.  Now that we *know* that we're talking about messages aimed at 
>    a group of young people versus a subset of young people who haven't
>    yet had sex, we don't need to perpetuate the obvious misunderstanding 
>    which has guided our exchange up to now, n'est-ce pas?
    
    	OK.  So you've already come close to stating outright that 
    	we shouldn't speak about virginity because some have already 
    	lost it.  In spite of your indignance to the contrary, you
    	really seem to be arguing against abstinence.
    
    	But you didn't attack the idea of a second virginity.  Do you
    	think this message is also a bad one to give to your mixed-
    	experienced group of kids?
    
    	Do you also argue against encouraging virginity to pre-teens?

    Joe, the difficulty in this discussion is that you don't seem to be
    acknowledging that abstinence is a valid choice that ANYONE (including 
    a prostitute) can make (temporarily or long term.)  [Obviously, an
    abstinent prostitute would need to look for some other line of work
    before long.]

    Preserving the state of never_having_had_sex is a different matter.
    It's not a choice that all young people can still make because many
    kids have already had sex at least once (by choice *or* by force.)

    / What you suggest here is to suppress a safe and positive 
    / message to prevent offending a few.  In other words, we 
    / should tailor the message to the least common denominator.  

    What bothers me about a general societal message about preserving
    virginity is that it deals with defining people in terms of when
    (and in what situation) they have SEX for the first time.

    When you talk about young people who have not had sex still being
    'innocent' - what does it make the kid who has had sex at least once
    (by choice or by having been molested or raped)?  Are such kids guilty
    or dirty or bad in some way?  Are they permanently 'marked' (and should 
    they feel shame?)

    This is not the right message for the kids who need most to protect
    themselves from pregnancy and disease.

    You call kids who have had sex the 'least common denominator' (which
    really does sound as though you think they're BAD) and you can't
    fathom why the heck I would worry about 'offending' or 'upsetting' 
    them.

    The kids who are having sex are the ones in danger of losing their
    lives or getting pregnant - I'm not as willing as you are to write
    them off.  They are the very kids who need the messages we've been
    talking about (and I don't consider them guilty or dirty or bad,
    whether they chose to have sex at least once or were forced to do so.)

        <<< Note 541.449 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    Preserving the state of never_having_had_sex is a different matter.
>    It's not a choice that all young people can still make.
    
    	So?  For that reason should we ignore those who still have
    	the choice?  Wouldnt it be good for more and more to still
    	have that choice in the future?  Why do you continue to
    	argue against this?
    
>    What bothers me about a general societal message about preserving
>    virginity is that it deals with defining people in terms of when
>    (and in what situation) they have SEX for the first time.
    
    	So?  What's so bad about that?

>    When you talk about young people who have not had sex still being
>    'innocent' - what does it make the kid who has had sex at least once
>    (by choice or by having been molested or raped)?  Are such kids guilty
>    or dirty or bad in some way?  Are they permanently 'marked' (and should 
>    they feel shame?)
    
    	Why now suddenly do you choose to use the misfortune of those
    	who are victims of rape/incest as a shield?  Of course these
    	will happen, but that's no reason to temper the message to those
    	(the vast majority) who are not so affected.
    
    	As for those who lost their virginity by choice, what's so
    	bad about them feeling remorse about it?  Perhaps such
    	remorse will help them find value in a second virginity.
    
    	If we suppress the message, fewer will be apt to make the
    	CHOICE of abstinence.  You *ARE* calling for choice after 
    	all.  *I* made that choice.  I didn't do it on my own -- I 
    	had adult (parental, teachers, clergy) influence for that 
    	choice.  Kids need to hear the message from somewhere!  

>    This is not the right message for the kids who need most to protect
>    themselves from pregnancy and disease.
    
    	I disagree.  It is the perfect message, for the perfect 
    	method of such prevention.  I still can't believe you
    	are arguing against this.
    
>    You call kids who have had sex the 'least common denominator' (which
>    really does sound as though you think they're BAD) and you can't
>    fathom why the heck I would worry about 'offending' or 'upsetting' 
>    them.
    
    	I see abstinence as the better path, therefore any other path
    	is a lesser path.  You apparently do not, though you have 
    	played lip service to it in the past.  The kids who don't 
    	choose this path aren't necessarily BAD, but the choice sure was.

>    The kids who are having sex are the ones in danger of losing their
>    lives or getting pregnant - I'm not as willing as you are to write
>    them off.  
    
    	If this is your iterpretation of what I've been saying, you
    	haven't been paying attention.  You lose points for accuracy
    	again.
    
>    Joe, the difficulty in this discussion is that you don't seem to be
>    acknowledging that abstinence is a valid choice that ANYONE (including 
>    a prostitute) can make (temporarily or long term.)  

    	How can you say this after acknowledging my statement on
    	secondary virginity?
    
    	There is no difficulty at this keyboard, though I agree there
    	is a difficulty in the discussion between us.  Your statement
    	above exemplifies that difficulty, and I see little value in
    	continuing because of it.

    RE: .450  Joe Oppelt

    // Preserving the state of never_having_had_sex is a different matter.
    // It's not a choice that all young people can still make.
    
    / So?  For that reason should we ignore those who still have
    / the choice?  Wouldnt it be good for more and more to still
    / have that choice in the future?  Why do you continue to
    / argue against this?

    Young people who have always been abstinent are not ignored.  Their
    choice (of abstinence) is a choice anyone can make.  The choice to
    be in the state of never having had sex is not available to everyone.

    // What bothers me about a general societal message about preserving
    // virginity is that it deals with defining people in terms of when
    // (and in what situation) they have SEX for the first time.
    
    / So?  What's so bad about that?

    I don't consider it particularly healthy to define people in terms
    of their first SEXUAL experience.  It's not THE most defining moment
    in a human being's life, IMO.

    / Why now suddenly do you choose to use the misfortune of those
    / who are victims of rape/incest as a shield?  Of course these
    / will happen, but that's no reason to temper the message to those
    / (the vast majority) who are not so affected.
    
    Your message excludes EVERYONE who has ever had sex (and it *does*
    also exclude people who have ever had sex by force.)  The young 
    people who have sex by choice *or* by force are not just 'the few' 
    - in the United States, we're talking about a lot of kids.

    / As for those who lost their virginity by choice, what's so
    / bad about them feeling remorse about it?  Perhaps such
    / remorse will help them find value in a second virginity.

    If everyone can get a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth)
    virginity - then people who have sex at least once haven't 
    permanently lost the chance to be virgins (so any message which
    includes abstinence in a list of choices is sufficient.)

    / If we suppress the message, fewer will be apt to make the
    / CHOICE of abstinence.  You *ARE* calling for choice after 
    / all.

    Abstinence is on the list of CHOICES, true.  It's never been
    removed from this list.

    // This is not the right message for the kids who need most to protect
    // themselves from pregnancy and disease.
    
    / I disagree.  It is the perfect message, for the perfect 
    / method of such prevention.  I still can't believe you
    / are arguing against this.

    Telling kids that they have lost something they'll never get back
    if they've had sex already is not a message which will help the
    kids who need to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease.

    // Joe, the difficulty in this discussion is that you don't seem to be
    // acknowledging that abstinence is a valid choice that ANYONE (including 
    // a prostitute) can make (temporarily or long term.)  

    / How can you say this after acknowledging my statement on
    / secondary virginity?

    If a person can have multiple virginities, then any message which
    includes abstinence as a choice is sufficient enough to include
    everybody (so the stuff about the various levels or distinctions
    about the different types of virginities are not needed.)

    By the way, Joe, if it were only a 'few' kids having sex in this
    country, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all
    (about the big problems of unplanned pregnancies, etc.)

    	<<< Note 541.453 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    By the way, Joe, if it were only a 'few' kids having sex in this
>    country, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all
>    (about the big problems of unplanned pregnancies, etc.)
    
    	Exactly!!!!  That's why the message about virginity has to be
    	delivered (over and over, without compromise and without
    	mincing words) before they ever lose their virginity.
    
    	As for .452, I'm tired of trying to untwist your words.  End
    	of that thread.

    

>    	Exactly!!!!  That's why the message about virginity has to be
>    	delivered (over and over, without compromise and without
>    	mincing words)

Two!  Four!  Six!  Eight!
What do we appreciate?!
Virginity!  Virginity!  Virginity!

 Joe, Joe - he's our man.
 If he couldn't do it,
 Nobody can.

    Teen pregnancy, birth rate drops


    (c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
    (c) 1995 Associated Press

    ATLANTA (Sep 22, 1995 - 02:06 EDT) -- America's teen-age birth rate
    dropped for the second year in a row, the government says.

    Stephanie Ventura, a statistician at the Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention, said the reasons for the drop aren't clear, but she
    speculated that more teen-agers are using condoms because of the risk
    of the AIDS.

    The birth rate among American teen-agers dropped 2 percent in 1993, the
    most recent year examined by the CDC. The rate fell 2 percent in 1992.

    The figures, reported Thursday, mark a reversal of the sharp increases
    in the late 1980s, when the birth rate among teens jumped 5 percent or
    more a year.

    "What's happened is noteworthy and encouraging," said Ventura, a
    statistician with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. But
    "we can't be complacent" because the teen-age population is growing.

    For every 1,000 women ages 15 to 19 in 1993, 59.6 gave birth, down from
    60.7 reported the previous year.

    The drop actually occurred only among teens ages 18 to 19, whose rate
    declined to 92.1 births per 1,000 from 94.5 in 1992. For girls ages 15
    to 17, the birth rate was unchanged at 37.8.

    Ventura ruled out abortion as a factor because other studies have shown
    teen-age abortions are steadily declining as well. She suggested more
    girls may be insisting that their partners use condoms to protect them
    from AIDS.

    The figures also show the overall birth rate for American women
    continued a long decline and hit its lowest point in 15 years -- 15.5
    per 1,000.

    Of the 4.2 million births to women overall in 1993, more than 513,000
    were to teens.

    The CDC also reported that the rate at which teen-agers became pregnant
    dropped in most states in 1992, with only two of 41 states -- Kansas
    and New York -- reporting significant increases. Only 41 states and the
    District of Columbia provided age-specific information on pregnancy
    rates.

    The 1992 rate in the nation's capital was the highest, 208.4. Rates
    among states ranged from a low of 53.7 per 1,000 girls in Wyoming to a
    high of 106.9 in Georgia.

    The government cannot now calculate a national teen pregnancy rate,
    which includes live births and abortions, because nine states keep no
    figures on abortions.

    The CDC estimates that 10 percent of girls ages 15 to 19 -- 835,000
    teens -- become pregnant each year.
                                       

    
    	Birth rate drops due to condom usage?
    
    	I figured it was due to abstinence.
    

 Interesting that they didn't speculate on the possibility..





 Jim

>    Stephanie Ventura, a statistician at the Centers for Disease Control
>    and Prevention, said the reasons for the drop aren't clear, but she
>    speculated that more teen-agers are using condoms because of the risk
>    of the AIDS.

She's obviously a godless lefty looney, and that Center for Disease Control is 
a hotbed of liberalism if ever there's been one. 

    	re .456
    
    	The point is, I *did* do it!

    
      Reduced potency of American males due to toxic waste ?
    
      bb

    Sean,
    
    At last check 80% of 18 year-olds had been sexually active.  
    
    2nd virginity, sounds like a lot of kids sitting in front of temple
    every night doing penance.  (What a friends daughter did to regain her
    virginity so she can be married in the tabernacal) and those are the
    ones who didn't "get caught" IE a pregnancy or disease on the first
    time out of the chute.
    
    meg

    	I think it's counterproductive to fight over who/what gets
    	the credit for the trend.  The important thing is the trend.
    	I hope it's not an anomaly.

>          <<< Note 541.461 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
>    	The point is, I *did* do it!

	you had pre-marital sex?  i'm quite shocked, not to 
	mention dismayed. ;>

Shocking!  And bad, too!!

    RE: .454  Joe Oppelt

    // By the way, Joe, if it were only a 'few' kids having sex in this
    // country, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all
    // (about the big problems of unplanned pregnancies, etc.)
    
    / Exactly!!!!  That's why the message about virginity has to be
    / delivered (over and over, without compromise and without
    / mincing words) before they ever lose their virginity.

    The kids mentioned above have already lost their virginity (or were
    you talking about losing second, third, fourth or fifth virginities?)

    If you ram one inflexible, uncompromising message down the throats
    of kids (whether they are having sex or not), you will miss all the
    kids who could be safer from pregnancy and disease after they decide
    to have sex anyway.

    In the Netherlands, more teenagers choose abstinence (per capita)
    than they do in the United States in spite of the fact that the
    main message in the Dutch campaign is about preventing pregnancy 
    and disease when one DOES choose to have sex.  Kids know that
    abstinence is a choice (even when it isn't promoted as _the only_ 
    choice.)  Once kids are committed to preventing pregnancy and
    disease (as the Dutch kids are), abstinence is a very valid choice
    for kids to make on their own.

    
    So, if a person's had sex, they might as well keep having it right?  I
    think these people doing the second virginity thing is admirable.  I
    know it's funy and great to be able to put it in a cult type light (as
    with the temple comments), but nevertheless, it is admirable to some of
    us.
    
    
    Mike

this second virginity thing.  is it kinda like an instant replay?

    
    	More like "Terminator" or "Time Cop".
    

    
    No, it's kids who feel that they've made a mistake about having sex for
    one of many reasons and feel that it would serve them better to be
    abstinent until they find a partner who they want to marry.  I have
    counselled kids in this perdicament and have seen the anguish that them
    being pressured into having sex when they really, deep down, did not
    want to.  
    
    
    Mike 

    Given that the only church I know of that believes in regrowing a
    second spiritual hymen is the church of the Latter Day Saints, I will
    leave what I said about temple.  It now appears from what Joe has said
    that this idea is now infiltrating other belief structures.  However,
    I find people who have stated for years that non-virgins are morally
    corrupt and have lost something they can't regain, now coming around
    and subscribing to regaining something to be a little at odds with
    their initial statements.  However, I imagine even the most rigid have
    room to learn.  
    
    
    
    

 don't quite get it do you, Governor?







 Jim

    RE: .472  Meg
    
    / However, I find people who have stated for years that non-virgins are 
    / morally corrupt and have lost something they can't regain, now coming 
    / around and subscribing to regaining something to be a little at odds 
    / with their initial statements.  However, I imagine even the most rigid 
    / have room to learn.                                               
    
    The 'lose something you can't regain' argument still gets promoted at
    the same time that the 'but you can have a second virginity' is promoted
    (as if there's no conflict between these two at all.)
    
    Perhaps 'second virginity' is the coach section of the virginity plane.

    
    
    The people who espouse that are few and far between as are the ones who
    espouse the "spiritual hymen" thing.

    
    
    Why is it that meg can take things to one extreme and not get blasted
    like those whom the boxers see as taking it to the other (extreme)???
    
    Or does this belong in the TTWA topic??

   .476  because there's no bones in ice cream.  hth.

   <<< Note 541.472 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    I find people who have stated for years that non-virgins are morally
>    corrupt 
    
    	Change that to, "have done something morally wrong"
    
>    and have lost something they can't regain, 
    
    	Do you deny this point?
    
>    now coming around
>    and subscribing to regaining something to be a little at odds with
>    their initial statements.  
    
	These kids (re)gain the understanding that they CAN have
    	control over their physical urges.  There is much self-worth
    	in this!  They can also return to a spiritual communion with
    	their religious beliefs if that is an issue for them.  The
    	can also regain the self-worth that comes with being able to
    	resist peer pressure -- they can feel good about making their
    	own choices and not succumbing to pressure from boyfriends/
    	girlfriends.  They can regain the freedom of not being exposed
    	to the risks of STDs, pregnancies, etc.
    
    	Do you think this is a bad thing to promote like Suzanne does?

    Joe,

    The way you describe it now, 'second virginity' sounds like it's
    garden variety abstinence (but used with the word 'virginity' so
    that they can sound almost as good as those who really still *have*
    real virginity even though the 'seconds' will never really get it
    back.)

    As I said, it's the coach section of the virginity plane.

        <<< Note 541.467 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    // By the way, Joe, if it were only a 'few' kids having sex in this
>    // country, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all
>    // (about the big problems of unplanned pregnancies, etc.)
>    
>    / Exactly!!!!  That's why the message about virginity has to be
>    / delivered (over and over, without compromise and without
>    / mincing words) before they ever lose their virginity.
>
>    The kids mentioned above have already lost their virginity (or were
>    you talking about losing second, third, fourth or fifth virginities?)
    
    	None of the above.  I was talking about the next generation of
    	kids.  And the next.  And the next.

	Suzanne, you haven't answered the questions I asked you.
    
    	1)  Are you saying that we shouldn't talk about virginity
    	    to today's kids because those who have already lost
    	    it will be offended?
    
    	2)  (New question not asked before)  Is it a bad goal to
    	    reverse the trend of the increase in teen sexual activity --
    	    in particular the trend to earlier loss of virginity?
    
    	2)  Are you against the promotion of second virginity?
    
    	4)  Are you against the promotion of virginity among pre-
    	    teens?
    
    	and re .479
    
    	5)  Is there something wrong with "garden variety abstinence"?

	"second virginity" - what a stupid term!!  arrgh!
	i hate that kinda nonsense.

    
    So put it in the "buzz-words" note!!
    

    
>>    So put it in the "buzz-words" note!!

    hey, be my guest.  it's your idea.
    

    RE: .481  Joe Oppelt

    1)  Are you saying that we shouldn't talk about virginity
    	to today's kids because those who have already lost
    	it will be offended?
    
     		No.  We can talk about it.  I'm just against the
    		practice of ramming it down their throats as the
    		_only_ choice (with the message that those who
    		are already having sex are implied to be guilty,
    		dirty or bad in some way.)  It's unproductive
    		and it leaves the kids who *do* have sex with no
    		messages about how to save their lives or prevent
    		pregnancy.

    		The kids who do have sex are the ones in real danger
    		(along with any babies they may produce.)  The last
    		thing we should do is to exclude them or push them
    		away with harsh judgmental characterizations about them.

    	2)  (New question not asked before)  Is it a bad goal to
    	    reverse the trend of the increase in teen sexual activity --
    	    in particular the trend to earlier loss of virginity?
                 
    		The Dutch did this by increasing awareness of how to
    		prevent pregnancy and disease.  Once kids really
    		started to think about these things, more of them
    		chose abstinence (per capita) than American teens
    		do.

    	2)  Are you against the promotion of second virginity?
    
    		To be honest, it sounds like doubletalk.  'You lose
    		something you can never get back if you lose your
    		virginity, but you can actually get a second virginity.'

    		The point of it seems to be to promote religion (which
    		seems to be the biggest priority for some in this whole
    		issue.)

    	4)  Are you against the promotion of virginity among pre-
    	    teens?
    
		The thing that bothers me about promoting virginity in
    		general is the idea of defining people by the circumstances
    		of their first sexual encounter (as if SEX is THE defining 
    		moment of being human.)

                Pre-teens are a bit young to be defining themselves by
    		the first time they expect to have sex.

    	5)  Is there something wrong with "garden variety abstinence"?

    		No - the 'second virginity' thing sounds like a scam
    		(to get people to practice 'abstinence' by telling them
    		that they have been granted a virginity status that is
    		not as good as the one held by the more valued 'true
    		virgins', but that the word 'virginity' is used so they
    		can at least have this word associated with them in SOME
    		fashion or another.)

    
    RE: .484
    
    >hey, be my guest.  it's your idea.
    
    Naaaaahh.. cause then you couldn't fill up the Empire State building
    with pancakes...
    

  .486  point well taken.

        <<< Note 541.485 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    1)  Are you saying that we shouldn't talk about virginity
>    
>     		No.  We can talk about it.  I'm just against the
>    		practice of ramming it down their throats as the
>    		_only_ choice 
    
    	Fine.  So far your only participation in "talking about it"
    	has been to argue points against it.
    
    	And surely you can realize that there is a broad spectrum
    	of possibilities between doing nothing and "ramming it
    	down their throats".  Nowhere have I given you even a hint
    	that I am looking to "ram it down their throats".
    
>    	2)  reverse the trend of the increase in teen sexual activity --
                 
>    		The Dutch did this by increasing awareness of how to
>    		prevent pregnancy and disease.  
    
    	Again, you have never provided evidence of this.  And secondly
    	your reply is clearly not in support of promoting abstinence
    	at all, though you'd take an increase in abstinence if it is
    	a side effect to your agenda.

>    	2)  Are you against the promotion of second virginity?
>    
>    		To be honest, it sounds like doubletalk. 
    
    	So you are against it for semantic purposes.  Fair enough.
    
>    		The point of it seems to be to promote religion (which
>    		seems to be the biggest priority for some in this whole
>    		issue.)
    
    	Nowhere have I made this a religious issue.  My only mention
    	of religion was a secondary issue if it even mattered to the kid.

>    	4)  Are you against the promotion of virginity among pre-
>    	    teens?
>    
>		The thing that bothers me about promoting virginity 
    
    	You couldn't even answer yes to this one!

>    	5)  Is there something wrong with "garden variety abstinence"?
>
>    		No - the 'second virginity' thing sounds like a scam
    
    	I didn't ask you about 'second virginity'.  Why must you raise
    	negative points even when talking about something you purport
    	to support?
    
    	You see, Suzanne, from your posturing here -- even with simple
    	straightforward questions such as these -- you give a clear
    	indication that you can only pay lip service to abstinence.

    RE: .488  Joe Oppelt

    /// 1)  Are you saying that we shouldn't talk about virginity
    
    //          No.  We can talk about it.  I'm just against the
    //          practice of ramming it down their throats as the
    //          _only_ choice 
    
    /   Fine.  So far your only participation in "talking about it"
    /   has been to argue points against it.

    My points have not been against virginity itself (people are born
    that way, after all.)  My points are against some aspects about 
    promoting it (as if anyone who doesn't have the status of being 
    a 'virgin' is guilty, dirty or bad in some way.)

    / Nowhere have I given you even a hint that I am looking to "ram it 
    / down their throats".
                              
    Here's a hint you gave:

    	    "That's why the message about virginity has to be
            delivered (over and over, without compromise and without
            mincing words)..."

    /// 2)  reverse the trend of the increase in teen sexual activity --
                 
    //      The Dutch did this by increasing awareness of how to
    //      prevent pregnancy and disease.  
    
    / Again, you have never provided evidence of this.  

    We went through this already.  Fewer Dutch teenagers (per capita) have
    sex than American teenagers.  The only campaign the Dutch have used is
    one which promotes the prevention of pregnancy and disease (via condoms
    and other methods such as birth control pills.)

    / And secondly your reply is clearly not in support of promoting 
    / abstinence at all, though you'd take an increase in abstinence 
    / if it is a side effect to your agenda.

    I support abstinence being promoted as *A* choice (not *THE ONLY*
    choice).  My agenda is to reduce unplanned pregnancies and diseases
    (so I'm less concerned about kids having sex than I am concerned 
    about unplanned pregnancies and diseases.)

    ///5)  Is there something wrong with "garden variety abstinence"?

    // No - the 'second virginity' thing sounds like a scam
    
    / I didn't ask you about 'second virginity'.  Why must you raise
    / negative points even when talking about something you purport
    / to support?

    The phrase 'garden variety abstinence' REFERRED to second virginity
    (in a paragraph about second virginity.)  The phrase simply had no
    meaning by itself (outside of the context where it was used.)

    / You see, Suzanne, from your posturing here -- even with simple
    / straightforward questions such as these -- you give a clear
    / indication that you can only pay lip service to abstinence.

    Joe, I did you an enormous favor by responding to your list of
    questions (in spite of the nasty tone you used when asking me
    to do so.)  I answered them as honestly as I could (even with 
    you biting at my heels all the way through this.)

    The bottom line in all this is that you want abstinence promoted
    ("over and over, without compromise and without mincing words")
    to kids as *the only* choice no matter what (regardless of their 
    situation.)

    I want the kids who need to protect themselves (because they are
    having sex) to see the other choices they have (to help prevent 
    pregnancy and disease.)  This is my position.

    Joe,
    
    I have no problems with promoting abstinence.  Promoting virginity is
    too close to promoting infibulation, bride murders if the sheets aren't
    bloody and a host of things cultures which have put a high value on
    virginity have done to "promote" virginity among women.  For some odd
    reason none of these things have been done to men.  Apparently they
    aren't responsible for removing the primary or secondary virginity from
    the very women who are injured and killed for same. 
    
    I also believe that information on how to help prevent STD's and
    unintended pregnancies for those who do NOT choose to remain abstinent
    needs to be given.  Also the responsiblity of avoiding pregnancies
    needs to be laid on both men and women.  Without this message you are
    intentionally hurting people who do not choose abstinence.  
    
    meg
    
    
    

    60% of american pregnancies are unintended and most of them occur in
    adult women, a new report by the National Institue of Medicine said
    Thursday.
    
    "The country has created an elaborate mythology that says most
    uninteneded pregnancies occur in teens," said Dr. Leon Eisenburg, a
    rtire psychiatry rofessor at harvard Medical School. 
    	
    Actually, only 21% of the country's unwanted pregnancies occur in
    teenagers.  The other 79% are among married and single adult women and
    a surprising number occur to women over 40 who believe they have little
    likelyhood of getting regnanct. 
    
    An 18-month study - chaired by Eisenberg and based on data compiled by
    social scientists during the 1980's - indicated American women are
    twice as likely to have unintended pregnancies that women in other
    industrialized countries.
    
    The report noted 5.4 million American women became pregnant in 1987
    and 3.1 million of the conceptions were accidental, inconvenient or
    unwanted.
    
    Forty percent of those untintentional pregancies were among married
    women, the report added, and 1.6 million of the pregnancies were
    terminated by abortions.  The report noted many of the unintended
    babies were loved and nurtured by their parents.
    
    "We need to better educate women about the pill and we need to develop
    new male and female contraceptives, " said Dr. Allen Rosenfield, dean
    of columbia University's School of Public Health.
    
    The report said unwanted children have an increased risk of premature
    birth, death in the first year of life, abuse and inadequate food,
    shelter and clothing.
    
    Furthermore, mothers of unwated babies have a higher rate of
    depression, and both parents suffer educational , financial, and
    economic hardships the report said.
    
    The committee recommended establishing federal, state, and local
    programs to reduce unintended pregnancies, much like the nationwide
    campaigns that decreased smoking and drunken driving and popularized
    use of seat belts.  
    
    

    RE: .490  Meg Evans

    / I have no problems with promoting abstinence.  Promoting virginity is
    / too close to promoting infibulation, bride murders if the sheets aren't
    / bloody and a host of things cultures which have put a high value on
    / virginity have done to "promote" virginity among women. 

    Thanks, Meg.  Joe has been using the terms 'abstinence' and 'virginity'
    almost interchangeably (and they really aren't the same thing.)

    Virginity is a 'status' (especially for women since women actually have 
    a membrane which can be verified as intact or broken) while abstinence
    is a choice to refrain from having sex (no matter how many or few or
    NO times a person has had sex in the past.)

    These terms have been used interchangeably here as an obfuscation, IMO.

        <<< Note 541.489 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    My points have not been against virginity itself 
    
    	I have not seen this, though I'll take your word for it.
    
>    / Nowhere have I given you even a hint that I am looking to "ram it 
>    / down their throats".
>                              
>    Here's a hint you gave:
>
>    	    "That's why the message about virginity has to be
>            delivered (over and over, without compromise and without
>            mincing words)..."

    	Today the only 'promotion' of abstinence has been token at
    	best, and always followed by the message of condoms, delivered
    	over and over, without compromise and without mincing words.
    	Where condoms have NOT been promoted this way, you want them
    	to be -- or at least that's how you've portrayed the Netherlands'
    	program, which seems to be your ideal.
    
    	I don't consider either case to be "ramming down the throat"
    	though you obviously do.  So why should it be OK for condom
    	promotion, but not for promotion of virginity?
    
>    / Again, you have never provided evidence of this.  
>
>    We went through this already.  Fewer Dutch teenagers (per capita) have
>    sex than American teenagers.  The only campaign the Dutch have used is
>    one which promotes the prevention of pregnancy and disease (via condoms
>    and other methods such as birth control pills.)
    
    	Sure, we went through this, both here and in other conferences.
    	But NEVER have you provided evidence other than your own assertion.
    	In addition, there is no evidence that Dutch teens ever has as
    	much or more sex than American teens.  If they always had less,
    	then what's the value in the comparison?

>    ///5)  Is there something wrong with "garden variety abstinence"?
>
>    // No - the 'second virginity' thing sounds like a scam
>    
>    / I didn't ask you about 'second virginity'.  Why must you raise
>    / negative points even when talking about something you purport
>    / to support?
>
>    The phrase 'garden variety abstinence' REFERRED to second virginity
    
	So since you've already come out against 'second virginity' and
    	you now equate 'garden variety abstince' with it, you are against
    	that too.

   <<< Note 541.490 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    I have no problems with promoting abstinence.  Promoting virginity is
>    too close to promoting infibulation, bride murders if the sheets aren't
>    bloody and a host of things cultures which have put a high value on
>    virginity have done to "promote" virginity among women. 
    
    	Incredible.
    
>    I also believe that information on how to help prevent STD's and
>    unintended pregnancies for those who do NOT choose to remain abstinent
>    needs to be given.  
    
	Truthfully, Meg, I agree with this, but I think it should be
    	the secondary focus.  Virginity should be the expectation, not
    	teen sexual activity.  It used to be at one point, and we also
    	didn't have nearly the levels of STDs and teen pregnancies as
    	we have now.  Somehow our societal mores have turned upside-down,
    	and look what we have to show for it.  Condom-focus merely
    	propogates that trend.

    From a friend in the netherland I recieved this informtion:
    
    The birthrate for the Netherlands is 13.1/1000 people
    
    the birthrate for the US is 15.7/1000
    
    meg

    Joe,
    
    there are countries which prize teenage virginity and exclude any other
    teachings:
    
    Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia and China are a few that come 
    to mind quickly.  
    
    Their practices and treatments of those women who do not fall into line
    with the virginity teaching and the methods used to enforce virginity
    among women until marriage are a bit extreme, don't you think?
    
    meg

   <<< Note 541.491 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    60% of american pregnancies are unintended and most of them occur in
>    adult women, a new report by the National Institue of Medicine said
>    Thursday.
    
    	Of course, this is a skewed statement because:
    
>    The report noted many of the unintended
>    babies were loved and nurtured by their parents.
    
    	'Unintended' is such a fuzzy term.  Some couples will say, "we
    	didn't deliberately try to get pregnant, so this was unintended,"
    	yet others will say, "Hey, we're married, this was intended, but
    	not expected."
    
    	Comparing "intentions" will vary from culture to culture, so
    	comparing America's 'intended' rate with, say, Poland's may
    	very well be comparing apples and oranges.
    
>    Actually, only 21% of the country's unwanted pregnancies occur in
>    teenagers.  
    
    	I find the use of 'only' here to be rather disingenuous.  MOST
    	teens shouldn't even be getting pregnant to begin with.  If
    	those that do represent 21%, then that's 21% too many.  In most
    	cases teen pregnancies are a disaster for the mother, the baby,
    	the welfare system, etc., if the baby is 'unintended', and in
    	many cases even where it is 'intended'.
    
>    An 18-month study - chaired by Eisenberg and based on data compiled by
>    social scientists during the 1980's - indicated American women are
>    twice as likely to have unintended pregnancies that women in other
>    industrialized countries.
    
    	What does this say for American society?
    
>    "We need to better educate women about the pill and we need to develop
>    new male and female contraceptives, " said Dr. Allen Rosenfield, dean
>    of columbia University's School of Public Health.
    
    	Again, no support for abstinence.

        <<< Note 541.492 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    Thanks, Meg.  Joe has been using the terms 'abstinence' and 'virginity'
>    almost interchangeably (and they really aren't the same thing.)
>
>    These terms have been used interchangeably here as an obfuscation, IMO.
    
    	When we're talking about kids, these SHOULD be considered 
    	interchangeable!  Until virginity is lost, these *ARE* one
    	and the same!
    
>    Virginity is a 'status' (especially for women since women actually have 
>    a membrane which can be verified as intact or broken) 
    
    	The presence or not of the hymen does not necessarily indicate
    	the status of virginity.
    
    	Yes, virginity is a 'status', and a very honorable one at that.
    	Why do you want to diminish it?

    RE: .493  Joe Oppelt

    / Today the only 'promotion' of abstinence has been token at
    / best, and always followed by the message of condoms, delivered
    / over and over, without compromise and without mincing words.

    The people who deliver the messages about 'choices' don't promote
    *any item* on the list of possible choices as *the only* choice 
    (without compromise.)  That's your game (and you wrote the words
    used above:  "delivered over and over, without compromise and
    without mincing words.")

    / Where condoms have NOT been promoted this way, you want them
    / to be -- or at least that's how you've portrayed the Netherlands'
    / program, which seems to be your ideal.
    
    You have demonized condoms, so now you IMAGINE a country where
    people drum condoms into kids' heads.  This is NOT the way it is 
    (and it certainly isn't how anyone here has portrayed the Netherlands'
    campaign.)

    The campaign is offered about how to prevent pregnancy and disease.
    Condoms is *one* of the tools used in this successful campaign.

    / I don't consider either case to be "ramming down the throat"
    / though you obviously do.  So why should it be OK for condom
    / promotion, but not for promotion of virginity?

    Don't assign a view to me and then expect me to defend it, Joe.
    
    The Netherlands campaign isn't 'condom promotion' - it's a campaign 
    to prevent pregnancy and disease (without ramming messages about one 
    choice or another down anyone's throat.)  Condoms is one choice.  
    (It happens to be the main choice for men since other devices aren't 
    yet available for men to choose, but it's still only one item on a list 
    of choices in general.)

    / In addition, there is no evidence that Dutch teens ever has as
    / much or more sex than American teens.  If they always had less,
    / then what's the value in the comparison?

    The Netherlands started their campaign because unplanned pregnancies
    (and diseases) were a serious problem for them.  The lower rate of
    teen sex is part of their campaign's success in reducing unplanned
    pregnancies, diseases and abortions.

    // The phrase 'garden variety abstinence' REFERRED to second virginity
    
    / So since you've already come out against 'second virginity' and
    / you now equate 'garden variety abstince' with it, you are against
    / that too.

    I coined the term 'garden variety abstinence' myself, Joe (referring to
    your description of second virginity.)

    Was there such a thing as 'garden variety abstinence' before I invented
    the term (and if not, how can I be against something that doesn't exist?)
    (Or were you just joking here?)

    	re .496
    
    	I agree with you.
    
    	What's your point?

        <<< Note 541.499 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    You have demonized condoms, so now you IMAGINE a country where
>    people drum condoms into kids' heads.  This is NOT the way it is 
>    (and it certainly isn't how anyone here has portrayed the Netherlands'
>    campaign.)
    
    	And you have demonized the promotion of abstinence and virginity,
    	so now you IMAGINE a program where prople drum it into kids'
    	heads.
    
    	I's say this pretty much sums up our little chat here today.

    RE: .498  Joe Oppelt

    // Thanks, Meg.  Joe has been using the terms 'abstinence' and 'virginity'
    // almost interchangeably (and they really aren't the same thing.)

    // These terms have been used interchangeably here as an obfuscation, IMO.
    
    / When we're talking about kids, these SHOULD be considered 
    / interchangeable!  Until virginity is lost, these *ARE* one
    / and the same!

    Well, they aren't the same thing.  One is a choice anyone can make
    and the other is a status.

    / Yes, virginity is a 'status', and a very honorable one at that.
    / Why do you want to diminish it?

    I just don't want to diminish those who no longer have it, that's all.
    (Kids have enough reasons to feel badly about themselves without
    setting out to MAKE them feel bad about something else.)

    It's the kids having sex who are at risk (and need to be reached with
    information about preventing pregnancy and disease if they decide to
    continue having sex.)  Making these kids feel guilty or dirty or bad
    at this point is unproductive (and dangerous to the kids as well as
    any babies they may have.)

    RE: .502  Joe Oppelt
    
    / And you have demonized the promotion of abstinence and virginity,
    / so now you IMAGINE a program where prople drum it into kids'
    / heads.
    
    Hey, I didn't imagine you writing that bit about delivering the
    abstinence message 'over and over, without compromise and without
    mincing words'.  These are *your own words*.

    Joe,
    
    I fail to see where Suzanne has demonized abstinence.  You will find no
    one who believes in prevention of pregnancy and STD's saying abstinence
    isn't the single best way to avoid both.  However there are people,
    unlike you, who will be sexually active before they are "safely" married
    off.  Suzanne and I are both saying that these kids need to be reached. 
    I fail to really see where you plan on doing anything other than
    heaping coals around their feet unless they conform back to repentance
    and abstinence.  In some (many) cases this is not going to happen.  
    
    Condoms are the single pregnancy and disease prevention method
    available to non-abstinent young men.  What Suzanne and I are saying is
    to push the responsibility for preventing pregnancy on both men and
    women.  this can and should include abstinence as a method.  
    
    meg
    
    

   <<< Note 541.505 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    I fail to see where Suzanne has demonized abstinence.  You will find no
>    one who believes in prevention of pregnancy and STD's saying abstinence
>    isn't the single best way to avoid both.  
    
    	This is the lip service.  Practically EVERYTHING else she
    	has said in this discussion has been points against 
    	abstinence, and with you she has been quite negative about
    	virginity.
    
>    I fail to really see where you plan on doing anything other than
>    heaping coals around their feet unless they conform back to repentance
>    and abstinence.  In some (many) cases this is not going to happen.  
    
    	I guess you missed the second half of .494.
    
    	You are welcome to call THAT lip service.
    
    	The difference is where we each believe society's focus
    	should be.  One is a positive attitude about the human
    	spirit, and the other is a defeatist attitude, in my opinion.

    RE: .506  Joe Oppelt

    / This is the lip service.  Practically EVERYTHING else she
    / has said in this discussion has been points against 
    / abstinence, and with you she has been quite negative about
    / virginity.

    You're characterizing this in black and white:

    	Either someone agrees that abstinence is *the only* message
    	(which has to be delivered over and over, without compromise
    	and without mincing words) or the person is against abstinence.

    Abstinence is a choice - but it's something that the kids having
    sex are not choosing, so they need to be well-informed about other
    choices which would help to save their lives and prevent pregnancy.

    / The difference is where we each believe society's focus
    / should be.  One is a positive attitude about the human
    / spirit, and the other is a defeatist attitude, in my opinion.

    Joe, I don't see your whole 'lost something you can never regain'
    (and 'hey, why the heck should we worry about offending the kids
    who are the least common denominator?') as a positive attitude.

    You are deliberately slapping some kids in the face (and telling
    them to feel bad about themselves.)  This isn't a 'positive attitude
    about the human spirit'.  It's a pretty rotten thing to do, in fact.

    The kids who are having sex are at risk and we can't afford to push
    them away with insults and harsh judgmental characterizations.

    i'm so innocent. Saving Virginity until marriage? Can i puke now.
    
    

    
    Nah, puke on the dog when he comes in.
    
    Smarmy...
    
    

There is proof that something is denser than Neutronium(sp?).

kb
asap,nnttm,afl/cio,bayafa

541.369  ,541.370  ,541.371  ,541.401  ,541.418  ,541.421  ,541.422  ,541.423  ,
541.425  ,541.427  ,541.437  ,541.441  ,541.443  ,541.448  ,541.450  ,541.454  ,
541.461  ,541.464  ,541.478  ,541.481  ,541.488  ,541.493  ,541.494  ,541.497  ,
541.498  ,541.501  ,541.502  ,541.506

 So I see you're into valuing differences to, eh?

    What is the value of the difference between a person who makes 500K and
    a person who makes 20K?  (per annum)

    	re .-1
    
    	As measured on what standard?

    Am I wrong in assuming that the slogan "valuing differences" means that
    differences in sex, race, sexual orientation, size, class, etc. should
    be valued for their educational potentials. Kindness and empathy should
    naturally follow?
    
    I dont think a standard is needed I think the question can be answered
    as posed. Class, imposed by wage realities, creates differences and
    differences should be valued, correct? 
    
    

       <<< Note 541.514 by POLAR::WILSONC "A dog is a womans best man" >>>
    
>             -< do you really need a standard to measure against >-
>
>    Am I wrong in assuming that the slogan "valuing differences" 
    
    	Ah.  Thanks.
    
    	Yes, I needed to know that valdif was the standard you had
    	in mind.
    
    	Your question could have been answered with "$240K/year after
    	taxes" if the value being considered was standard of living or
    	something like that.