Joe Carter is right about Sex and the City; its entire message is misogynist from start to finish.  Is that really so strange?  Michael Patrick King, the writer and director, is openly gay and it has been noted by more than one commentator that the show is nothing more than a gay man's fantasy.  The fact that so many women support the SATC franchise is disheartening, to say the least.  Very sad.

The story about the rise of the Christian church in China is fascinating and a little bit scary as well.  History is full of examples of societies which have been transformed by the Gospel and China could very well be the next in line.  Now that really would be something to witness.

The flip side of that is what is to become of the United States.  For many years the USA has been the most obviously Christian country in the world, sending missionaries to every conceivable corner of the earth.  Medical aid, food supplies and education have always followed in the wake of these missionaries and their collective good has been incalculable.  I'm afraid there has even been an attitude on the part of the church that God "needs" America to accomplish His will and that's why He would never destroy America for its increasing sins.  We, the church, better be sure that we remain solidly against sin and stop compromising with it every chance we get.  We could very easily find ourselves replaced by China in God's eyes if we aren't careful.  

As one who grew up in the Episcopal Church, I have watched with increasing dismay over the changes the last few decades have brought.  To me, the Anglican Church has been more than tolerant of what has been happening in the Episcopal Church in America and it is time for them to "pull the trigger" and disassociate themselves from that body.  I think it's way past time for any kind of Biblical reconciliation to take place.  

Even a casual reading of the foundational documents of the Episcopal Church shows that it was originally populated with a strong brand of Christianity and to see it grow so far distant from its roots is a clear example of what can happen if the leadership of a church denominations isn't constantly vigilant.

 I have to agree with Mike Elgan's take on wi-fi.  There's no way it should be a crime to tune in to a signal that comes into your own house or which is readily available in a public place unhindered by any form of password protection.  In this day and age, it shouldn't even be up for serious discussion.  

I guess I'm confused...

1) what was misogynistic about the commercial showing guys taking a gun and shooting women after having apparently casual sex with them? It was to show that having unprotected casual sex can be as deadly as having the guy just shoot you. I feel that was helpful to the many stupid women (and men) who are doing this, and there ARE many even in this day and age.

2) what exactly is misogynistic about satc? Most criticisms of that show are from males....who don't share women's experiences and thoughts.  It may be in poor taste, and it may be showing women with bad behaviour, but what exactly is misogynistic about it? These women are composites of many "real" women...for better or for worse. That show is just using these characters for entertainment...and it obviously hits a nerve with many women. To me...the show is more against men than women, if anything, but its all just entertainment, nothing to take seriously. Why are men so up in arms about it?

what exactly is misogynistic about satc?   AB

Gosh, AB, where to start . . .

It's so easy to dislike almost everything about it: the fusion of soap opera, group therapy and soft porn, and the women's repellent crudity around their obsession with orgasms. Mostly I hate their affinity for narcissistic jerks rather than for the husband/father potential in honourable men. Many women think SATC's a hoot; I think it's pretty sick.

SATC says that women can be promiscuous with any number of men, get hurt by most of them, then bounce perkily back to form, curiously unbruised by their misadventures, and eager to share their experiences: not their feelings -- what real women discuss -- but the graphic physical details more often associated with stud posses.

Women just aren't like that. They do not separate sex from emotion on an ongoing basis, unless they are so desensitized and cynical from years of sexual indiscrimination that they have completely abandoned all hope of genuine intimacy. But SATC pretends that women can be rapaciously sex-obsessed for years, yet end up pristinely unsullied, newly faithful for Mr. Right. [...]

SATC enthusiasts and their supporting ideologues insist it is uncool to ask women to restrict themselves in their sexual explorations. The sexually cautious are today's new perverts. It is politically incorrect to state that promiscuity has made women unhappier, more vulnerable and less appreciated by men -- and families more fragile and dysfunctional -- than in the so-called "repressed" '50s. All the more reason to keep saying it then, since it is true.

what was misogynistic about the commercial showing guys taking a gun and shooting women after having apparently casual sex with them?

I don't think that it is misogynistic, just typical of the double standards in the media.  A commercial showing women shoot men like that would never appear.  As a side note, the whole point of the commercial was that if you use condoms you will be protected from STD's which is patently false.  Condoms do not provide protection from a myriad of STD's. 

what exactly is misogynistic about satc?

 It portrays women as shallow, materialistic, uninterseting, sex-obsessed people with no redeemable qualities. 

To Matthew -

"I don't think that it is misogynistic, just typical of the double standards in the media."

I don't think that commercial is a double standard, I just think it was targeted at "women" as they are more likely to be affected and persuaded by the message.  Lets be honest here. As for the condom issue, it certainly is better for people to use them than to not use them.   if women and men in this day and age, with all the info available to them, are still having unprotected sex with people they know nothing about, then you aren't going to say anything that will stop then completely from this behaviour, but if you can get them to do 'something" its better than "nothing". It might save the lives of innocent partners of these people indulging in this dangerous behaviour.

" It portrays women as shallow, materialistic, uninterseting, sex-obsessed people with no redeemable qualities"

The above list is not really "misogyny" (misogyny involves HATE, not dislike or distastefulness) ....it (the show) actually portrays the women as likeable, hence the popularity of the show. The fact that they partake in stupid and bad behaviour just makes them like most other sitcoms on television.  I stopped watching most sitcoms when the Cosby show went off the air, but most sitcoms indulge in bad behaviour and inappropriate dialog and I am talking about regular network tv shows on as early as eight in the evening when kids are awake.

I got in to this  discussion as I was curious about "why" this show got so many people bent out of shape....and I still don't know. This outrage should be more accurately directed at network television in general, not at one show made for adults only on HBO.  Just my opinion of course.

To Woman Responding...

Have you actually watched that show? I have watched it only since it became available late at night on regular cable, not the HBO version, but I don't see what you see.  You make good points about society in general, but I don't know why you lump "SATC enthusiasts" in to the discussion.  This has been going on since the sixties...long before SATC came along.

I was just trying to see why everyone is giving so much "credit" to SATC for real problems we have...and I still don't see it. I am not defending the show, and am not a big fan, but I am just "confused"....still.

"As for the condom issue, it certainly is better for people to use them than to not use them.   if women and men in this day and age, with all the info available to them, are still having unprotected sex with people they know nothing about, then you aren't going to say anything that will stop then completely from this behaviour, but if you can get them to do 'something" its better than "nothing". It might save the lives of innocent partners of these people indulging in this dangerous behaviour."

I could not disagree with you more, A.B.   By selling the message that using condoms makes you safe from STD's then you are only encouraging people to participate in that kind of behavior.  By contrast, if you tell people the truth, that condoms do not protect you from STD's, then they are much more unlikely to participate in such behavior.  Telling the truth would seem to be the best policy, not telling lies because "something is better than nothing." 

"The above list is not really "misogyny" (misogyny involves HATE, not dislike or distastefulness)"

Again, that's incorrect A.B.  According to dictionary.com, misogyny is hatred or dislike of women. 

AB, "Currently, FDA requires condom boxes and packets to state: “If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases.” Many brands also state condoms are highly effective in preventing pregnancy." MSNBC. Your statement is much closer to the facts than others posted here.

Condoms do help reduce the risk of some STD's.  I never said otherwise.  However, it doesn't eliminate the risk of any STD and there are many other STD's which are not reduced by condoms at all (including HPV) .  There are also some STD's which scientists aren't sure if they are reduced by use of condoms or not as different studies differ (including syphilis, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis).  One can only conclude that It is highly irresponsible to sell condoms as a safe way to have sex. 

AB, it's fascinating that the same people that can't see through their own propaganda would say, "tell people the truth, that condoms do not protect you from STD's," doesn't mean, "condoms do not protect you from STD's," as well as stuff like, drop "the subject so you stop looking so stupid"

Condoms...IMatthew - If I tell the TRUTH, that condoms ARE better than nothing, then I am potentially helping protect the lives of the innocent victims of sexual immorality, such as the wives, girlfriends, unborn babies, that might be affected, as well as the person engagiing in the sex themselves. Period. But your argument about "encouraging" behaviour by telling people that condoms help protect them...do you REALLY think there are people that are going to live a chaste life until they hear that condoms will help protect them from stds? YOu think that once they hear that message they will go crazy and have wild indiscriminate sex now they know about condoms?? If that's all the "encouragement" they need...they were on their way anyways. I feel no responsibility for that in any way. Plus its the truth. Condoms are better than nothing. Any protection is better than nothing. (seat belts reduce the risk of injury, but don't eliminate it...do you wear seat belts when you drive?) These people are not just risking their own lives, they risk the lives of others they will come in contact with...so if they feel the need to be stupid and sexually promiscuous, then at least let them be as safe as they can be.

Misogyny - Matthew...there you go again! I clicked on the dictionary.com link YOU provided and there were about six or seven definitions of that word and ALL of them, with the exception of ONE, said distinctly that it means "woman HATER". Only one definition included "dislike"...and from that, you say "according to dictionary.com" the definition is hate or dislike.  That is misleading, and as far as I am concerned, its wrong.  When you break down the word it literally means woman hater, and I have never seen anyone use it with any other meaning than the stronger "woman hater"....so let's just say that was quite a stretch for you to make that an issue. In real usage of the word, its used as "hater" not "disliker".  And even though you didn't "lie", you definitely mislead the reader by saying dictionary.com's definition is "dislike". The gist of dictionary.com's definition was hate, not dislike.

SATC - I watched three episodes the other night when I couldn't sleep. Guess what? The characters are NOT sitting around talking about orgasms...they were likeable and just single women looking for their Mr Right...the only over the top promiscuous one was the oldest one., but the others were just "normal" single women in NYC. Are they promiscuous? Yeah, they are...but no more so than portrayed in many other sitcoms on regular tv every night, and probably no more so than the person sitting next to you at work or even at church..(."real"  people are having sex these days, unmarried and uncommitted...with varying degrees of this behaviour depending on the person. I don't understand it, but its happening.) And the story lines weren't about "sex" they were about relationships, etc. They do get hurt and do not bounce back "perkily"...they DO discuss their feelings...as well as experiences...You guys should watch the show before commenting on it and then blaming all of today's problems on it. The many problems we are having in society today started back in the sixties, and we are now seeing second and third generations of people grown up and affected by the changes in society that started happening back then. SATC didn't do it.

AB, now you see why I don't waste my time in dialogue with Mr. Cochrane.

I don't have much to say but I would like to add that the Fox network does play SATC reruns really late at night.  And there have been times when I couldn't sleep, went out into the living room, turned on the telly to help me sleep, and have caught a few episodes of SATC.  I can say with all certainty that there are some shows where they do sit around and talk about orgasms, and sometimes in much detail.  I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Also, that commercial, no matter how you spin it, was horribly sexist.  As Matthew said, a woman shooting their men partners would never have been aired.  And for those who didn't catch the "sexism in the media" conversation, it may help put that commercial in context. 

"I'm not saying, I'm just saying"  That's retarded.

Anyways . . .

do you REALLY think there are people that are going to live a chaste life until they hear that condoms will help protect them from stds?

Yes.  Well, not necessarily chaste, but also stay within the boundaries of a monogamous relationship.  In fact, I would argue the premise you base your question on is remarkably naive.  People care about the consequences to their actions.  If they believe there are no negative consequences to their actions then they are much more likely to engage in such behavior.  This is common sense and can be proven with literally thousands of examples.

Misogyny - Matthew...there you go again! I clicked on the dictionary.com link YOU provided and there were about six or seven definitions of that word and ALL of them, with the exception of ONE, said distinctly that it means "woman HATER". Only one definition included "dislike"...and from that, you say "according to dictionary.com" the definition is hate or dislike.  That is misleading...

 You're right.  There are several definitions of the word "misogyny" and the very first definition listed is exactly what I said it was. 

I have never seen anyone use it with any other meaning than the stronger "woman hater"....

Well, now you have.  I am glad I was able to help you expand your vocabulary. 

You guys should watch the show before commenting on it

Uh, no.  There are a million and one ways I would rather waste my time - like banging my head against the wall until I'm dead.  And for clarification, I quoted a review of the show from Evangelical Outpost.  The original post contained none of my thoughts concerning the show.  I've never watched it and really don't care to.  That being said, Carter's review of the show seemed to go with everything else I've ever heard about it. 

...and then blaming all of today's problems on it

Uh, do you even read the comments before you write.  Can you please tell me who said that all of today's problems are a result of this show?  I certainly didn't. Seriously, it helps when you listen (or, in this case, read) before you respond.

The many problems we are having in society today started back in the sixties, and we are now seeing second and third generations of people grown up and affected by the changes in society that started happening back then.

The sixties definitely saw the beginning of several social and cultural ills.

SATC didn't do it.

Yeah, no kidding.  Nobody here said SATC did.

"Anyways . . . " is merely immature.

and evasive and for that matter, passive/aggressive

AB, SATC might not have "done it" but they sure as hell are not making "it "any better.

SATC is essentially a discusion of sex in America from the women's point of view, this might include relationships, shopping and other things involved but when it comes down to it, the name says it all.

The thing that is so disturbing about this show is that it has the same "people are doing it, so get over it" attitude as you do. And then they even go on to glamorize the promiscuous lifestyle complete with prada shoes. The funny thing is that the "glamorous" parts are not even realistically attainable to the average person trying to get by living in the city. Even the "good" sex is unrealistic.

The second most disturbing thing is that when it comes down to it, none of these women can find happy stable relationships. The idea that people can commit to one person for the rest of their life and stick with it through the good and the bad is completely chewed up and spit out and then replaced by the selfish lie that relationships are determined by the sex you are having in them.

Yuck.

"AB, now you see why I don't waste my time in dialogue with Mr. Cochrane."

If I were you I would be tired of being proven wrong too. 

the confusion (mine, anyways) continues....

1) Matthew...okay, you don't want to watch an episode of a show that you are criticising...that surprised me since you have devoted a good amount of space to the movie and the the review by Christianity Today, etc. They apparently took heat about their review.  I don't see how you can have a valid opinion about the entire subject if you haven't even watched an episode. Go figure. I don't care "who" wrote "what"...if YOU have an opinion about something, you should get your info right from the horse's mouth, which in this case would be to watch an episode. THEN your opinion would hold water...right now, you are just repeating what you hear from others about it.

2) Stephen....sorry but I still don;'t believe that commercial was sexist. An older male  friend of mine explained to a young teenage girl once that when a guy comes at you with a penis, its no different than if he came at you with a loaded gun, or something to that effect. The visual is easy to grasp, and it makes sense. Someone took that thought and made another commercial about it (there was already another one similar to this one made a few years ago). The "visual" wouldn't work with a woman shooting a man. Its not sexist, its just the way it is. Also, there seems to be a lot of hypersensitivity about sexual bias, such as those ads like the pizza ads, etc. Can't anyone just take a joke and move on? If you are secure in your  womanhood, manhood, personhood, you don't feel threatened by anyone else's prejudices, and certainly not commercials trying to be funny or trying to make a point.

3) Burning  Woman...you said:

"The thing that is so disturbing about this show is that it has the same "people are doing it, so get over it" attitude as you do."

Huh? What are you referring to? Where did you get THAT??????????????????? (I am referring to the "as you do" part of that sentence.)

4) Burning Woman...you also said:

"The second most disturbing thing is that when it comes down to it, none of these women can find happy stable relationships"

According to the review in Christianity Today, they ALL found happy stable relationships and three of them are married. Plus in the tv show, they are all married or hooked up with guys in committed relationships, or trying to be...and the gist of what I have seen is they are all looking for "mr right". The fact that they can't find him is another story. I know plenty of women who can't find "him" either. Are they worthless too?

Also, what does this mean:

"Even the "good" sex is unrealistic."

I am curious as I don't watch the show that much and don't get what this means.

"...okay, you don't want to watch an episode of a show that you are criticising...that surprised me since you have devoted a good amount of space to the movie and the the review by Christianity Today, etc."

A.B., you are right far more often than you're wrong but I really think you're missing the big picture here.  First, you say that I'm accusing SATC for all that's wrong in society.  Now you're saying I have "devoted a good amount of space" to the franchise.  I do not see how that argument can even be made.  The truth is I've mentioned the series/movie a whopping two times on my blog.  Out of hundreds of posts, I hardly think that's a lot of the space.  In this post I included a link to a review of the series that was one of thirteen different links listed within the post. 

"I don't see how you can have a valid opinion about the entire subject if you haven't even watched an episode. Go figure. I don't care "who" wrote "what"...if YOU have an opinion about something, you should get your info right from the horse's mouth, which in this case would be to watch an episode. THEN your opinion would hold water..."

Believe whatever you want, but I do not think this view is based on sound reasoning or consistent logic.  Would you say that I cannot hold an opinion on pornography if I've never seen it?  Does my opinion that strip clubs are wrong and immoral "hold water" even though I've never been to one?  No, of course not. 

The truth is that one does not need to experience something to judge it.  Judging by the snippets I've seen on commercials, how HBO promoted the show and what others have said about it, I am overwhelmingly convinced the show is little more than a shallow series that glorified different kinds of sin - probably no better or no worse than countless other sitcoms and cable shows out there.  So no, I don't think I'll be watching it anytime soon. 

"Go figure. I don't care "who" wrote "what"..."

Well, you should.  If you did I probably would not have had to worry about diffusing your arguments that I never made. 

"Stephen....sorry but I still don;'t believe that commercial was sexist."

Ask yourself if you think it would be sexist if the gender roles  were reversed.  Or, do you think it would be just as fair if the commercial showed homosexuals shooting each other after a night of hot steamy sex?  Did you know only about 1% of homosexual men live long enough to see retirement?

I found the wording at the end of the commercial to be rather strange.  "The fastest growing group of people infected by HIV and AIDS is heterosexual women under 30."  The problem with wording like this is how it gives a false perception.  A few years ago a friend of mine (roomate) told me he belonged to the number one fastest growing denomination in the United States.  He told me the name of it and I was surprised because I had never heard of that denomination before.  And since it was the fastest growing church in the U.S. I pushed him to explain to me how it could be the fastest growing denomination in America if no one knew what it was.  He explained that a month ago they had five members and now they had about sixty.  He reasoned that if his church grew over 1,000% in a month then that made it the fastest growing church in the U.S.  He was half-way kidding, of course, when he was telling me all this.  But this advertisement is serious and giving a false impression.  I don't know what the actual stats of how many heterosexual women under 30 receive HIV to the number of hetero men.  But if women had actual higher numbers infected with HIV/AIDS than men, why didn't the commercial just say, "The group of people infected by HIV and AIDS is heterosexual women under 30?"  Instead they had to just say they were the fastest growing group infected by it.  Well, that doesn't really tell me anything.   Were they the fastest growing group in the last twenty years?  Decade?  Year?  Week?  It makes a difference.

"An older male  friend of mine explained to a young teenage girl once that when a guy comes at you with a penis, its no different than if he came at you with a loaded gun, or something to that effect. The visual is easy to grasp, and it makes sense."

It makes sense except for the fact that an older male coming at a teenage girl with his penis is totally different than the consentual sex I saw portrayed in this commercial.  Totally!

"Also, there seems to be a lot of hypersensitivity about sexual bias, such as those ads like the pizza ads, etc. Can't anyone just take a joke and move on? If you are secure in your  womanhood, manhood, personhood, you don't feel threatened by anyone else's prejudices, and certainly not commercials trying to be funny or trying to make a point."

This I do agree with you on.  Jamers said it best on TLM when she said:

"So is there really a sexist bias in the media?  If there is, what do you want to do about it?  Make it so that no one can crack jokes anymore?  Look, I laughed when those guys drove off the cliff.  It's funny.  But I think a joke is just as funny at the woman's expense.  A world without jokes at someone else's expense would be a lame world.  Men know this and that's why you don't hear them whine over these senseless ads.  If women demand equality in the media, why can't they grab their balls when they take it like they do when they're the ones dishing it out?"

So yeah, jokes are funny and we need to be able to take what we dish out.  BUT, and this is a big BUT, being the BUTT of someone's stupid pizza hut commercial is a lot different than being told you're pulling out a gun and shooting your partner every time you have unprotected sex with her.  There are female condoms too (I know because I was handed one in school once), so who's to say females aren't really the ones shooting the men if they're not wearing their protection either? 

When all is said and done, I think Matthew is right on the money and what this all boils down to is proper education about abstinence.  Just a couple weeks ago we all watched the news with unbelief when we heard about a group of fifteen or so high school girls in Gloucester, Mass. who all made a pact with each other to get pregnant by the end of the school year.  That was according to an interview Time Magazine conducted with Principal Joseph Sullivan.  All week we heard a superintendent tell reporters the girls made a pact to get pregnant because they had low self esteem and they needed affection.  When people wanted to know who to blame, they turned to a popular pro-life movie, Juno, and blamed it  for "glamorizing" pregnancy. 

What we weren't told was last spring, MA Gov. Deval Patrick rejected $700,000 in free money for abstinence teaching from the federal government. Meanwhile, Patrick approved a budget increase of $800,000 for comprehensive sex ed funding, bringing the total to $3.8 million annually.  I'm sure you also weren't told that this school has an on-campus daycare center for students who have babies.  And I'm not positive, but I am also pretty sure you weren't aware that according to the Gloucester mayor, the principal told him he couldn't even recall why he was under the impression these girls had made a pact to begin with.  Trust me, had this been a school system that taught abstinence, you'd best believe sex ed would be central to this story.  These girls could have had condoms distributed in their living rooms, and they still would have gotten pregnant. 

Look I think the moral of this story is pretty clear.  Abstinence needs to be taught, not safe sex.  Safe sex isn't even safe, as you pointed out, just safer.  I feel bad that these young girls are going to have some tough times ahead of them, I really do.  I think it's sad that some of it may have been prevented if we were educating them with books instead of condoms. 

Lastly, I'd just like to add that all these girls are still alive, so I guess when their partners came at them with their penises it was a lot different than a loaded gun after all.

Stephen -

You wrote:

1)  "It makes sense except for the fact that an older male coming at a teenage girl with his penis is totally different than the consentual sex I saw portrayed in this commercial.  Totally!"

STephen!! HE wasn't "coming at the young girl"...he was giving her a fatherly  LECTURE!! How could you have taken that little story any other way?!! He was making a point to her about the dangers of sex, and since she was a girl, and it would be boys "coming at her", he gave her that little analogy. And, I think it was a great analogy and an accurate analogy.  That commercial was obviously targeting women, and if the figures about young women being the fastest growing segment of people getting std's, then it was a great commercial, and very very accurate.

2) "Ask  yourself if you think it would be sexist if the gender roles  were reversed.  (A) Or, do you think it would be just as fair if the commercial showed homosexuals shooting each other after a night of hot steamy sex? (B) Did you know only about 1% of homosexual men live long enough to see retirement?"(C)

(A) If gender roles would be reversed in the commercial, it would be  just as true, but the penis to gun analogy is more quickly recognized.

(B) If the commercial showed  homosexuals, yeah...it would be just as fair and accurate. Why not?

(C) No, I don't know that. It certainly is believable given the ridiculously loose sexual lifestyle many of them live by. But...what's the point of that info, as interesting as it may be?

4) "being the BUTT of someone's stupid pizza hut commercial is a lot different than being told you're pulling out a gun and shooting your partner every time you have unprotected sex with her."

Actually, Stephen, YOU (men) weren't being told anything in that commercial as the target of that ad was WOMEN (and YOU are not having indiscriminate sex with anyone). Since women are being infected at a high rate, THEY have to learn to stop it...stop the incredibly stupid practice of sex with a partner you don't know anything about, and have not had tested before you had sex wtih them, and are not using any protection when having sex with them. Nobody was really "talking" to YOU in that commercial.  Unless they were appealing to men's conscience by letting it be known that having unprotected sex with someone is the same as putting them in life threatening danger (such as shooting them outright) Many men are walking around having had sex with a great number of females and these men don't know if they have contracted any diseases or not. So, many promiscuous people are having sex with many people and really don't know the state of their health

5) Regarding the baby pact in Mass...abstinence education would have done NOTHING for these girls as they WANTED to get pregnant. I firmly believe that the reason they all wanted this is the same reason many young girls want to get pregnant....they come from dysfunctional families w here they get NO love and normal family life, and they fantasize about having someone to love them and think having a baby will (a) make them happy, (b) make the father of the baby love them, (c) give them their "own" family, and (d) this pact made them part of this little family of teen girls getting pregnant together. These kids, no matter how obnoxious and unlovable they might seem to you when you see them on tv, are simply wanting to belong to someone or something. I truly believe this. They knew how to "not" get pregnant, they wanted to be pregnant. No abstinence class would have prevented this, only a two parent loving normal family could have prevented this.

6) "Lastly, I'd just like to add that all these girls are still alive, so I guess when their partners came at them with their penises it was a lot different than a loaded gun after all."

I am sure you must know that aids virus takes months/years to appear...do you think the girl wakes up the next morning testing positive for hiv? Especially since the father of at least one or two of these babies is reported to be a 24 yr old homeless man, the chances of them being infected is very real, which would mean those babies could be infected also...so only time will tell about that. At best, they were playing Russian Roulette whether the gun went off or not.

Matthew -

You are nitpicking and over looking the big picture.. addingi up actual space devoted to the subject or the supposed definition of a word, instead of sticking to the subject. You included two different reviews of the satc movie on your blog...actually the only movie review out of many movies that are made every year, so you must have seen some reason to do that, that's all. I wasn't adding up square inches in column space or anything, just saying when you had enough interest to do that, why would you not watch an episode out of sheer curiosity? I said I don't care who wrote what, meaning I trust nobody's opinion about something one hundred percent. I always want to see for myself, but...that's just me, I guess. And, yes, actually, I think you should see an example of porn in order to really get the true gist of it. You don't have to, but seeing is much different than hearing about it.  To me, anyways. Most people are shocked if they never saw porn when they see it, as its so much "more" than you can imagine. So, that's just the way I think.

Commercials and show promotions are usually spun in the way that the show wants it portrayed, and is not always the way the actual show "is". You should know that by now. Haven't you ever seen a promo for a show, and its not really accurate portrayal of the show itself once you see it?  I would never say I know enough about a show cause I saw a commercial for it or cause someone told me about it.

It doesn't matter if it's a boy or not.  Someone coming at you with their penis is still a lot different than consentual sex.  In consentual sex, the two subjects are coming at each other and they're both putting themselves at just as much risk.  That's what the commercial doesn't portray and why it's not accurate.  A more accurate commercial would be young men and young women running into a burning building. 

"S

That was not the point of the commercial and it is ignorant to think so.

"Regarding the baby pact in Mass...abstinence education would have done NOTHING for these girls as they WANTED to get pregnant."

How do you know?

"I firmly believe that the reason they all wanted this is the same reason many young girls want to get pregnant....they come from dysfunctional families w here they get NO love and normal family life, and they fantasize about having someone to love them and think having a baby will (a) make them happy, (b) make the father of the baby love them, (c) give them their "own" family, and (d) this pact made them part of this little family of teen girls getting pregnant together."

First of all, I don't think there ever was a pact.  I think the principal of that school was lying when he told that story to TIME Magazine.  Second of all, if these girls never had a pact then why do we even assume they wanted to get pregnant in the first place, let alone for all the reasons you mentioned?

"They knew how to "not" get pregnant, they wanted to be pregnant. No abstinence class would have prevented this, only a two parent loving normal family could have prevented this."

I can't say for certain whether these girls knew how to not get pregnant or not.  Since they're not being taught abstinence they probably though they could alleviate all of sex's responsibilities by using protection.  And now they know it's false.  I still think the sadder issue here is that these girls were lied to  by the system that wears to teach them the truth.

"At best, they were playing Russian Roulette whether the gun went off or not."

That's the second time today someone stole my "russian rouette" analogy.  Okay.  If you think having unprotected sex is pulling the trigger to a loaded gun, then from my point of view, having protected sex is like playing russian roulette because there is still that chance someone could get hurt/killed.  THAT'S THE POINT!  Saying things like, "If I tell the TRUTH, that condoms ARE better than nothing, then I am potentially helping protect the lives of the innocent victims of sexual immorality, such as the wives, girlfriends, unborn babies, that might be affected, as well as the person engagiing in the sex themselves" is worthless.  Don't tell the kids to stop playing with guns.  Just tell them it's a lot safer when there's only one round in the chamber. That'll teach 'em!

"And, yes, actually, I think you should see an example of porn in order to really get the true gist of it. You don't have to, but seeing is much different than hearing about it.  To me, anyways. Most people are shocked if they never saw porn when they see it, as its so much "more" than you can imagine. So, that's just the way I think."

A few things:

1) You're still missing the point.  Even if one could only get the "true gist" of porn by watching it, you still don't need to watch it to know its wrong and have an opinion about it.

2) That being said, I think watching porn to get the "true gist" of it would be a violation of clear Scriptural commands to guard our thoughts, kill fleshly sexual desires within us and flee from sexual immorality.  A few of the verses that point to this and come to mind are: MAtt. 15:19, Acts 15:20-29, I Cor. 5, I Cor. 10:8, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, I Thes. 4:3 - I know there are lots more too.  Besides, the weighty evidence of Scripture however, I would argue that watching pornography for "reconnaissance" purposes is an extremely slippery slope that could lead to countless problems.  In decades of attending church services, reading Christian books, listening to sermons on the radio or online, I have never heard an authority figure in the church advise his/her audience to view some porn.  Just sounds like a really bad idea. 

3) Would you advise your children and/or grandchildren to watch porn so they could get the "true gist" of it?  I'm guessing no, because you're too smart to want your loved ones to watch that kind of junk.

So no, one doesn't need to, nor should one, watch porn to form an opinion of it.  In the same manner I don't feel the need to watch SATC to form an opinion of it. 

"Commercials and show promotions are usually spun in the way that the show wants it portrayed, and is not always the way the actual show "is". You should know that by now. Haven't you ever seen a promo for a show, and its not really accurate portrayal of the show itself once you see it?  I would never say I know enough about a show cause I saw a commercial for it or cause someone told me about it."

 Well, like I said, there were three reasons I listed in how I came to my conclusion.  All three pointed me to the same conclusion.  I have never heard one thing a person who regularly watched the show said that went against this conclusion.  Even you admitted it was similar to other sitcoms/shows on TV in many respects - which is enough for me right there. 

Besides a few sporting events and rental movies I watch very little TV. So I really do not feel the need to watch some show I have no desire at all to see just to ensure everybody's happy that I know enough about the show to form a valid opinion about it.

Stephen is absolutely right about the Russian roulette analogy.  By telling people to have sexual encounters with condoms you're simply telling them that playing with a gun with one or two rounds in the chamber is better than playing with a revolver with five or six rounds in the chamber. 

Both messages are simply unacceptable for a responsible adult to tell someone.  Instead one should tell them that playing Russian roulette is dangerous and stupid - no matter how many rounds are in the chamber. 

AB to answer your questions:

You said “Are they promiscuous? Yeah, they are...but no more so than portrayed in many other sitcoms on regular tv every night, and probably no more so than the person sitting next to you at work or even at church..(."real"  people are having sex these days, unmarried and uncommitted...with varying degrees of this behavior depending on the person. I don't understand it, but its happening.)”

This is the attitude I mentioned in my last comment: that whether or not we understand it, that we should just accept that people are going to be promiscuous, thus we should just accept it and stop being surprised by it in our shows/movies. I think as Christians, if we just accept the fact that our culture is becoming smutty and that the characters our young women are looking up to are promiscuous then we’re just giving up. I think this is a losing attitude. We are losing our young people to this sort of thinking.

When I said "The second most disturbing thing is that when it comes down to it, none of these women can find happy stable relationships" I was talking about the show and not the movie, since I have seen some of the episodes and cannot speak for the movie itself.  I guess its good that some of the women get married at the end of the movie, but how many men do these women have to sleep with to find the “right fit.” There is still this selfish lie that good sex = good relationship/marriage. 

You said “The fact that they can't find him is another story. I know plenty of women who can't find "him" either. Are they worthless too?”

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t even insinuate that these women, yet alone any single women are worthless. Where did you get this idea from? It does lead me to another point however: I think the women portrayed in SATC make real single women feel worthless.

When I said "Even the "good" sex is unrealistic” I am really referring to the sex we see in just about every movie or tv show.  I’m not going to explain this in complete detail, but I will just say that SATC as well as other shows teaches a self-satisfying sex. Many young persons have to re-learn what good sex is (both physically and emotionally) when they enter into a healthy sexual relationship in marriage.

"I found the wording at the end of the commercial to be rather strange.  "The fastest growing group of people infected by HIV and AIDS is heterosexual women under 30."  The problem with wording like this is how it gives a false perception."

You are 100% right about statements like this giving a false impression.   In this case it's not just a false impression but an outright lie.  Last month, June 2008, the World Health Organization finally admitted so:  In a major statement (which got very little coverage in the msm, by the way) the WHO said:  

"The head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department has officially admitted for the first time that there will be no global epidemic of the disease among the heterosexual population outside Africa, The Independent reported.

Kevin de Cock said global prevention strategies to address AIDS as a risk to all populations, among the WHO and major AIDS organizations, may have been misdirected. It is now recognized that, with the exception of sub-Saharan African, it is confined to high-risk groups.

These groups include men who have sex with other men, drug users who inject with needles, and sex workers and their clients, The Independent reported.

“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” de Cock is quoted in The Independent. 

Well, there you have it, from the largest international group studying an fighting AIDS.  Very interesting.  Why the continual lying about it on the part of so-called AIDS experts and advocates?  Follow the money.  There's a tremendous industry out there who depend on our tax dollars being spent to keep them in business and they aren't about let a few little things like the truth stand in their way.  If they can scare the bejabbers out of middle America by telling the lie that heterosexuals under 30 are the fastest growing victim population when it isn't, that's ok.  The money will roll in.   If they can get millions of tax dollars by spreading the myth of safe sex that's ok, too; let the money roll on.  It's an industry and they want their share of our tax dollars.  

Sadly, we continue to let them get it.

Stephen -

1) "YOUR" Russian Roulette analogy? I have been hearing that analogy about one thing or another since I was a child, so, no, I didn't "steal" your RR analogy!

However, its an obvious analogy to use.

I am not sure why you guys have such a problem with " safer" vs "safe". If someone put two guns in front of you, and said one gun was fully loaded, and one gun only had one bullet, which one would YOU use for RR?

My point is that people, adult people, are having sex. They are having sex with people that they don't know and using no protection many times. As stupid as they are, I don't want them to die or contract a life threatening disease because of it. I would rather they at least try to protect themselves and their other partners than not.  Why do you guys not seem to feel the same way? You want them to burn in hell or something for their misconduct? That's not very loving or Christlike, is it? I don't know why you are fighting and nitpicking about safer and safe. Safer IS better than nothing. How can you say otherwise?

2) regarding those girls...just because you don't believe there was a pact doesn't make it "so". How do I "know" there was a pact? I deducted that from all the eye witness evidence, such as the school nurse who reported the "high fives" each gril got when they got the positive pregnancy test, and the consoling they got from the other girls when the tests came back negative. (in fact, that is how this story came to light)  These girls weren't lied to about using condoms and you'll be safe, they WANTED to be pregnant and they didn'[t use condoms. The only lie involved was these girls' parents were lied to years ago when society told them to "do your own thing", and "you don't need to stay married if you're not happy" and all that kind of thing.  These girls are victims of the fall of morality  and the breakdown of the family in our society, and that started back in the sixties.

3) you wrote:

"Someone coming at you with their penis is still a lot different than consentual sex. "

I can't believe nobody gets that statement. The man who was lecturing WAS Talking about consentual sex. He was talking to a female. When a female has sex with a male, one way or another, he is "coming at her" with a penis. He was being crude, maybe, but he was making a point. A valid point about consentual sex!! I can't believe nobody gets this here...but if you are a young female, remember this. It's a good point and valid.

"Why do you guys not seem to feel the same way? You want them to burn in hell or something for their misconduct? That's not very loving or Christlike, is it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Who said they wanted to see somebody go to hell???  Are you crazy??? 

It seems to me though that you're the one being unloving by encouraging people to engage in risky behavior.

"Why do you guys not seem to feel the same way? You want them to burn in hell or something for their misconduct? That's not very loving or Christlike, is it?"

Yes, my real motivation is an intense hatred of kids having sex. I hate them so much. They make me sick. The fact that some of them might go straight to Hell gives me the warm fuzzies.

"If someone put two guns in front of you, and said one gun was fully loaded, and one gun only had one bullet, which one would YOU use for RR?"

You're asking the wrong question.  First, let's ask ourselves why we're playing RR in the first place and if this is a game we should play.  Once you settle that question you don't need to ask which gun should be used.

AB you said: "When a female has sex with a male, one way or another, he is "coming at her" with a penis."

Not only is it crude but I just don't find this to be true, at all. It is essentially made to make all men out to be assailants.

First off, consider the way in which your sentence is worded. It is like saying: When Woman pats Man on back, one way or another Man is "coming at" Woman with his back. It is not even logical.

Secondly, you are underestimating women. Assuming we are still talking about consensual sex, a female is perfectly capable of being sexually dominate. She can be the one who is "coming at" the male just as easily.

Secondly, even if a woman is not being the sexually dominate one, the aggressiveness described in this analogy doesn't follow the biblical idea of sex at all. When two become one, it is not one "coming at" the other, they are becoming one together.

Thirdly, this is a feminist idea that heterosexual sex equals violence. If young women are fed this idea then either they will just expect violence in their relationships or they will never be able to be intimately connected with a man in a healthy way, always associating sex with fear and humiliation.

 

Thirdly, this is a feminist idea that heterosexual sex equals violence. If young women are fed this idea then either they will just expect violence in their relationships or they will never be able to be intimately connected with a man in a healthy way, always associating sex with fear and humiliation. - Burning Woman

Well said.

"I am sure you must know that aids virus takes months/years to appear...do you think the girl wakes up the next morning testing positive for hiv?"

I am sure you also know that a loaded gun doesn't take months/years to kill a person.

"At best, they were playing Russian Roulette whether the gun went off or not."

I agree.  I just think it's because these girls go to a school where sexual promiscuity is encouraged and playing russian roulette is taught instead of abstinence.

"I don't know why you are fighting and nitpicking about safer and safe. Safer IS better than nothing. How can you say otherwise?"

This is the thinking that got those girls pregnant.

"How do I "know" there was a pact? I deducted that from all the eye witness evidence, such as the school nurse who reported the "high fives" each gril got when they got the positive pregnancy test, and the consoling they got from the other girls when the tests came back negative."

Well, if you think there was a pact, isn't it more probable girls would make a pact like that when the school encourages them to get pregnant?  I mean, if girls were giving each other high fives like you said, isn't there something wrong with the sex education they received?  Something isn't right there. 

I coud say more, but it's getting late and I think my wife is waiting for me in the bedroom.  She mentioned something about me, her and a date with a loaded gun.

too bad you're shooting blanks there too

lol, oh man, you are so clueless sometimes

maybe you'd enlighten me with some ANSWERS!

AB, where are your sources for the pregnancy pact? I can't find any newspapers still agreeing that there was a pact, or anything about high-fives.

NY times says the following:

"In an interview, Dr. Brian Orr, former medical director of the health clinic at the high school, and Kim Daly, the former head nurse practitioner, said they had never heard of a pact.

“It was complete news to me,” said Ms. Daly, who administered pregnancy tests in the clinic. “I have never heard of it, ever.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/24pregnant.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

AB, the lame responses you are getting is why I just lurk here and don't try to make any attempt at exchange of ideas. Your points are totally valid.

Burning Woman, your accusation of calling AB "crude" is laughable when I see your language on tlm's website (euphenism's for bs. etc)

Matthew C, Stephen, you all are arguing, not trying to debate. there's a difference, you know.

C, that;s my point also. (waiting for answers)

Open up your minds, and understand that your experiences, or lack of them, are not the last word on any given subject. You all must be awfully young! You argue like teenagers.

Lurker,

Thanks for lurking even though you don't usually post. 

CDL, or C, or Craig, or whatever he's going by now, is waiting for answers on paedobaptism.  Specifically, he wants to know what the benefit is for an infant who is baptized.  Even though I answered the same question on another post he wants Stephen to answer it too.  Is that the same answer you're waiting for?

What exactly do you think the difference is between debating and arguing?  They mean virtually the same thing. 

Also, while many will disagree with the reasoning behind my arguments I really don't see any arguing being done based on experiences. 

Anyway, thanks for stopping by and enlightening us all with your wisdom and insight.  Please feel free to better explain your insults next time you comment! 

AB, where are your sources for the pregnancy pact? I can't find any newspapers still agreeing that there was a pact, or anything about high-fives.  Burning Woman

Here is an Associated Press Article from June 20 mentioning the pact . . .

Reports: Teen girls made pact to get pregnant

Jun 20, 2008

GLOUCESTER, Mass. (AP) — A pact made by a group of teens to get pregnant and raise their babies together is at least partly behind a sudden spike in pregnancies at Gloucester High School, school officials said.

Principal Joseph Sullivan told Time magazine in a story published Wednesday that the girls confessed to making the pact after the school began investigating a rise in pregnancies that has left 17 girls at the school carrying a child. Normally, there are about four pregnancies a year at the school.

Sullivan told Time that nearly half of the expecting students, none over 16, were involved. Sullivan said students were coming to the school clinic multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and "seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were."

Some of the girls reacted to the news they were pregnant with high fives and plans for baby showers, Sullivan said. One of the fathers "is a 24-year-old homeless guy," Sullivan told the magazine.

Superintendent Christopher Farmer confirmed the deal to WBZ-TV, saying the girls had "an agreement to get pregnant."

He said the girls are generally "girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life."

Christen Callahan, a former Gloucester High School student who had a child when she was 15, said on NBC's "Today" show that some of the girls would ask her about her own pregnancy.

"They would say stuff like, oh, I think my parents would be fine with it and they would help me, stuff like that," Callahan said.

But she said she had no firsthand knowledge of a pact between the girls to get pregnant.

"They were just kind of like curious about it, they never actually came out and said it," Callahan said.

The first reports of the students' apparent plan to get pregnant were in the Gloucester Daily Times in March, when Sullivan said students were reporting that the girls were getting pregnant on purpose.

The rash of pregnancies has shaken the seaside city about 30 miles north of Boston. Last month, two officials at the high school health center resigned to protest the resistance from the local hospital to the confidential distribution of contraceptives. The hospital administers the state money that funds the clinic.

Lurker, you really need to read the comments before you go posting about them.  I never called AB crude.  AB and I were agreeing that the advice an older gentleman gave to a teenage girl she knew was expressed in a rather crude way.  But AB was the first one to call it crude, not me.  Plus, neither myself or AB ever said anything was bad just because it was crude.  I only found the advice to be bad advice because it is incorrect. and that it was coincidentally crude - which is why there's nothing hypocritical about my euphemisms on tlm. 

Anyway, what I find completely laughable isn't that you got on here and pretended to know stuff about me that you are absolutely clueless about, it's that you didn't even bother to read these comments but felt the need to judge them anyway.

AB, where are your sources for the pregnancy pact? I can't find any newspapers still agreeing that there was a pact, or anything about high-fives.  Burning Woman

Here's an article from Time magazine, June 18, 2008 concerning the "pact".

Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies — more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there's been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October, after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, "some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," the principal says, shaking his head.

The question of what to do next has divided this fiercely Catholic enclave. Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006 — the first increase in 15 years — Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control. In any case, many residents worry that the problem goes much deeper. The past decade has been difficult for this mostly white, mostly blue-collar city (pop. 30,000). In Gloucester, perched on scenic Cape Ann, the economy has always depended on a strong fishing industry. But in recent years, such jobs have all but disappeared overseas, and with them much of the community's wherewithal. "Families are broken," says school superintendent Christopher Farmer. "Many of our young people are growing up directionless."

The girls who made the pregnancy pact — some of whom, according to Sullivan, reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers — declined to be interviewed. So did their parents. But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Ireland says. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

But by May, after nurse practitioner Kim Daly had administered some 150 pregnancy tests at Gloucester High's student clinic, she and the clinic's medical director, Dr. Brian Orr, a local pediatrician, began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women's health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has met with hostility. Says Mayor Carolyn Kirk: "Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children." The pair resigned in protest on May 30.

Gloucester's elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won't do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers': "No one's offered them a better option." And better options may be a tall order in a city so uncertain of its future. — With reporting by Kimberley McLeod/New York

Sullivan stands by view of intentional pregnancies; Disputes mayor, doesn't recall using term 'pact'

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_178195452.html

AB, notice in the article I just linked to that it was written a few days after the ones you posted.  But in this article, the principle claims he didn't even think he ever said the word "pact" but just that the girls were friendly with each other. As far as I know this is the principle's final official statement on the matter.  People are just blowing this whole "pact" thing out of proportion because no one wants to admit to the folly of the school's sex education curriculum and how having a day care center for student moms on campus is encouraging more student girls to get pregnant to begin with.

Stephen, oh one of diminutive stature.  Still hiding behind your brother, I see.

cdl, Matthew does a fine job on his own tearing your farcical claims to shreds, I rarely feel the need to respond.  If by hiding behind my brother you mean my diminutive stature prevents me from getting to you first then yes, i'm hiding behind him.

see that Lurker, he still won't answer the questions I've asked.  So, it's not a debate or an argument.  It's just sad.

Funny how you never mention that you've never answered my questions.  And I have answered yours.

I don't know where to begin, the posts seem to be focusing on the pregnancy "pact"...

By the way, I am not "me", or "me again" and didn't post those articles, but they do back up what I am saying.

First of all, call it a pact, call it peer pressure, call it an idea that seemed like a good one at the time, but I firmly believe that these girls wanted to be pregnant, and the first article that "me again" posted mentioned the same thing I have been saying, how they wanted unconditional love. These are CHILDREN, even though they look big and think they are big, they are just children and from broken homes and they don't have what all children need, which is a loving stable home enfironment.

The fact that they threw the principal under the bus for telling the trutyh as he saw it, is not proof that a pact didn't exist. This poor guy is now fighting for his job. I don't know if "pact" is the right word, but I believe they all thought they could do this baby thing together and that life would be good that way. Anyone who knows teens should know that they are susceptible to suggestion from other teens their age and in their same situation (broken homes). You know the old question your parents would ask you about "if so and so told you to jump off the roof, would you?" well the honest answer is "probably yes". Teens are hormonal mental cases in case some of you forgot already.

If you google "High fives and pregnancy tests" you will see mention about the responses to positive pregnancy tests. Or, maybe it was on the foxnews.com, but its easily found.

I don't understand why anyone would think that having a child care center at the school would encourage more teen births...anyone who talks to a teenage mother AFTER she has had the baby and had to live with the new lifestyle she is thrown in to would never come back with the impression that its a good thing. NO teen mother would tell you its a good thing. No teen moms are pushing that lifestyle once they have lived with it beleive me.  If anything, that would be the best deterrent, to be exposed to other teen moms.

Also, You can't say don't have an abortion to these girls and then not try to help them stay in school. 

Anyway, it all goes back to the family. It's sad...its not something to get holier than thou about.  Just keep that in mind. The tragedy here is that they wanted to do this, it didn't happen cause they didn't know about abstinence, or they thought condoms would prevent pregnancy...this is what they wanted.

Well, AB we may just have to agree to disagree about whether or not these girls actually made a pact with each other.

On whether or not they wanted to get pregnant - if they wanted to then obviously the new day care center didn't act as much of a deterrence as you think.  And yes, those on campus day care centers do encourage teenage pregnancies because they tell the girls their lives can still be normal when they get pregnant at an early age. 

Don't get me wrong.  I agree with other programs that help young mothers get a diploma.  But this kind of program gives a false impression.

"its not something to get holier than thou about."

I don't know how all this "holier than thou" and wanting people to burn in hell stuff landed a place in your imagination

"The tragedy here is that they wanted to do this, it didn't happen cause they didn't know about abstinence, or they thought condoms would prevent pregnancy...this is what they wanted."

Let's say someone  did see a couple girls give each other a high five.  That doesn't mean they all wanted to get pregnant.  That doesn't mean they all didn't wear condoms and it doesn't mean the sex education courses aren't really screwed up by teaching kids it's okay to play russian roulette

"Also, You can't say don't have an abortion to these girls and then not try to help them stay in school."

So, AB, you think someone should only be expected to make the right decisions when they can get a high school diploma out of it or when there isn't something there to help them make it?  AB we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure girls don't get an abortion.  Yes, these girls have a right to get pregnant, but that doesn't mean that I, as a taxpayer, have to pick up the slack for them because they did something they weren't supposed to. 

It sounds like an elaborate plan by the democrats to get everyone they can get to rely on the government for their needs.  Doltish!

Great article!

So during the commercial break after the All Star game's thirteenth inning, I was flipping the channels and came across a rerun of SATC.  This is a loose paraphrase but accurately captures the ten seconds I caught before flipping back to the All Star game:

Three of the girls were standing around in a bar watching another blonde chick ride a mechanical bull. 

Sarah Jessica Parker said, "I am so digging this scene. It is sooo Urban Cowboy circa 1982."

Another one of the characters (with short dark-reddish hair) said while watching the girl on the mechanical bull: "I wish I could be more like her.  She just screams sex!"

Blonde character standing next to them said: "Well stop whining and do something about it."

DJ then asked who wanted to be next to ride the mechanical bull.  Short dark/red hair girl pipes up and jumps on the bull. 

When the bull starts Sarah Jessica Parker's character said in a narrative voice: "Somewhere between the time whats-her-face got on the bull and the time she got off, whats-her-face found herself..."

While we hear SJP narrate the scene, girl w/ short dark/red hair rides mechanical bull and rips her shirt off and finishes the ride in a bra and a short skirt.

The scene immediately cut to another girl lying in bed with some dude telling him how "satisfied" she was. 

Classy show.  I guess I was wrong about it.  I flipped back to the All Star game.  The commercials I had already seen fifty times that night were better than that. 

"But I don't wanna ride the bull, Bud."

"cdl, Matthew does a fine job on his own tearing your farcical claims to shreds, I rarely feel the need to respond.  If by hiding behind my brother you mean my diminutive stature prevents me from getting to you first then yes, i'm hiding behind him.

- Stephen"

So now asking a legit question is a farcical claim.  You sure get riled up.

No, asking a question 80 times after its been answered while claiming the question has never been answered is a farcical claim. 

Stephen, I guess you better get Matthew to tell you the answer.  He apparently thinks it's been answered.

Go to Part 3 of my Paedobaptism series for the answer...again.