You could cut back on both the STD and abortion rates by making sure condoms were widely available. 

.

As to why sex scares so many people:  Folks have *ALWAYS* been afraid of things they're not familiar with.

No, Mucus, religion isn't the cause of STD's, but it's the carrier of the cause:  ignorance.  As for how well California is doing, well, it wasn't in the top five on any of the three major STD's in the 2004 report and there were a whole lotta Red states ahead of it.  Maybe Kern County, bless their little saved souls, pulled the rest of the state up in the ratings.  I find it hard to believe we soared in just a couple years.

http://www.avert.org/stdsta...

.

I don't remember any oral sex classes when I was in school.  Maybe I was absent that day.

Thank God for us liberals, then.  As the link I posted shows, California has a fairly low rate of STD reports.  Thanks for reminding me, by the way--Thursday is my day to hand out the condoms.

.

But I agree with you about one thing--monogamy is an important factor.  So I'm sure you'll support same-sex marriages to help increase the monogamy rate.   Right? ;)

In terms of performing the duties of the Presidency, infidelity is no big deal, sure.    And you'll notice that, in stark contrast to Republican politicians (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, ad nauseam) their marriage survived infidelity.  Maybe more should emulate the Clintons.

.

STD's are highly prevalent in the Red states, Mucus.  Sorry if you're too innumerate to read statistics.  And HIV was "discovered" in New York and San Francisco, but originated in Africa and is spread there primarily by heterosexuals who don't use condoms.  It's decimating many countries there now.  Quite likely the virus came here on the "tall ships" at the Bicentennial, in addition to "patient zero."  If you can't handle math, I'll decline to accepting your rectally-extracted stats on pregnancy.

.

Neither the lawn guy nor the UPS guy looks good to me.  I don't have a pool guy.  Is yours cute? 

Regarding condom use:

Another type of epidemiologic study involves examination of STD rates in populations rather than individuals. Such studies have demonstrated that when condom use increases within population groups, rates of STDs decline in these groups. Other studies have examined the relationship between condom use and the complications of sexually transmitted infections. For example, condom use has been associated with a decreased risk of cervical cancer – an HPV associated disease. --CDC

Regarding abstinence "education":

The first reason is, they are less likely to use condoms [when they first have sex]. Condom use at first sex is a huge predictor of condom use subsequently. So the fact that pledgers don't use condoms the first time they have intercourse has this long-term consequence. Secondly, pledgers are less likely than non-pledgers to think they have an STD when they have one; they are less likely to see a doctor to get diagnosed for an STD; and they are less likely than non-pledgers to get treated for an STD that they do have. And then the third reason is that kids who took virginity pledges and remained virgins were more likely to engage in what we call "substitutional sex" — including acts that can put them at higher risk for STDs, such as anal and oral sex. --Dr. Peter Bearman

Regarding teenage pregnancy rates:

Since the early 1990s, teenage pregnancy rates, birthrates and abortion rates have declined dramatically; pregnancy and abortion rates have reached their lowest points since they were first measured in the early 1970s, and birthrates are similar to those that prevailed between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s.--Guttmacher Institute

You think I don't have children, Mucus?  How incredibly short-sighted of you.  Just because my latest spouse and I cannot procreate does not mean my previous one couldn't.

.

Most people who drive cares are ignorant about how they work.  But they still get to the parking lot somehow.

.

Besides, they're not necessarily ignorant about sex--they just want to make sure *OTHERS* are. 

One, perjury didn't "bring down" Clinton--the impeachment trial ended in exoneration, and he wasn't guilty of perjury in any event.   He was basically lynched for lying about sex--something I'm sure *YOU* never did.  Still, he left office our most popular president in a long time, as measured by approval rating (about twice as high as the current chimp-in-chief).  Did some great stuff along the way, too.  As measured by the waste-of-gamete bookends on either side, Clinton was a bleedin' presidential genius.

.

Sure glad *YOU* don't have anything to do with epidemiology, Mucus. ;)  The virus was transmitted from monkey to human by a butcher trying to "put some food on his family," as Shrub would say.  

Mucus, the fact that only 25 percent actively go to church is one of the bright lights of this century.  

.

And it's not that I can't procreate--just not with my latest spouse.  It's a choice, you know?  But bigots like you would keep us from marrying on that flimsy premise.

We may not be on the same side of the fence politically Steve but we're in 100% agreement about the people messing up the world are the ones who are "so entrenched in thier self-righteousness that they can't see the world through the eyes of others."

It's my mantra too..but I haven't had much luck convincing some people of that.  Fanatacism, tunnel vision..Now THAT'S what's dangerous.

Abstinence has a higher failure rate than condoms.  Because peoples' "good behavior" is involved.

.

Clinton was impeached by a political jihad and the Senate failed to convict him.    Here's the link:  http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLIT...

.

As for his being "convicted of perjury," it wasn't so.  He was fined by a court for "contempt of court," (something he and I both felt, no doubt).  It was a civil, and not a criminal, action.

.

Fifty million dollars of tax money were wasted on this circus.  Of course, that's about eight hours' worth of Shrub's failed war in Iraq.

.

Adam, Mucus can't read graphs.  He can't cope with numbers.  He's ignorant of facts.  In sum, he's the GOP's dream voter.

Mocus, we live in a real world.  You run a high risk every time you cross a street, and condoms are safer than abstinence--because condoms don't decide "to take a chance just this once."  But you have to *USE* them.

.

You know what an STD is?  It's a disease that's so hard to catch it requires actual skin-to-skin contact at the very least to acquire. 

.

But do go on, and on, and on.  As I pointed out above, you're the prototypical "wacko," counted on by the Republicans.  I hope those who voted for Bush will see a little of themselves in you--and shudder with barely-repressed revulsion.

Found this a few weeks ago, not in TBC.  Felt it was appropriate, given the direction this topic has veered.

########################################

WASHINGTON, June 16: President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who had hitherto stood firmly with the president even as his poll numbers among other groups fell dramatically. 

A new Gallup poll shows that, for the first time, Bush's approval rating has fallen below 50% among total fucking morons, and now stands at 44%. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December, when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies. 

The current poll, conducted by phone with 1,409 total fucking morons between May 4 and May 8, reveals that only 44% of those polled believe the president is doing a good job, while 27% believe he is doing a poor job and 29% don't understand the question.

The December poll, conducted by phone with 1,530 total fucking morons, showed 62% approved of the president, 7% disapproved and 31% didn't understand the question.

Faltering approval ratings for the president among a group once thought to be a reliable source of loyal support gives Republicans one more reason to be nervous about the upcoming mid-term elections. "If we can't depend on the 
support of total fucking morons," says Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), "then we've got a big problem. They're a key factor in our electoral strategy, and an important part of today's Republican coalition."

"We've taken the total fucking moron vote for granted," says Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), "and now we're paying for it. We've let the Democrats control the debate lately, and they 've dragged discourse back into the realm of complex, nuanced 
issues. So your average total fucking moron turns on his TV and sees his Republican Congressman arguing about Constitutional law or the complexities of state formation in the Middle East, and he tunes out. He wants to hear comforting, pandering, flattering bromides and he doesn't want to hear a logical argument more complex than what you'd find on a bumper sticker."

For Feeney, the poll is a dire warning that Republicans can ignore only at their peril. "This should send a signal that we have to regain control of the debate if we want the support of our key constituencies in the coming election and beyond. We need to bring public discourse back into the realm of stupidity and vacuity. We should be talking about homosexual illegal immigrants burning flags. We should be talking about the power of pride. We should be talking about freedom fries. These are the issues that resonate with total fucking morons."

But some total fucking morons say it's too late. Bill Snarpel of Enid, Oklahoma is a total fucking moron who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. But he says he won't be voting for Bush in 2008. "I don't like it that he was going to sell our ports to the Arabs. If the Arabs own the ports then that means they'll let all the Arabs in and then we'll all be riding camels and wearing towels on our heads. I don't want my children singing the Star Spangled Banner in Muslim."

Total fucking moron Kurt Meyer of Turlock, California also says his once solid support for Bush has collapsed. "He invaded Iraq and all those soldiers died, and for what? We destroyed all their WMDs, but now their new president is making fun of us and saying he's going to build nuclear bombs and that we can't stop him. Well, nuclear bombs are even worse than WMDs, so what did we accomplish?"

Laura McDonald, a total fucking moron from Chandler, Arizona, says she is disappointed that the president hasn't been a more forceful advocate of Christian values. "This country was founded on Christian values," she says, "but you'd never
know it looking around and seeing all the Mexicans running around. I thought Bush was going to bring Jesus
back into the government. Instead, Christians are being persecuted worse than ever before in history, because all 
these Mexicans come here and tell Christians that we have to respect their religious beliefs. So now it's illegal for children to pray in school. Soon it will be illegal for them to speak English."

Not all total fucking morons have turned their backs on the president. Jeb Larkin of Topeka, Kansas says he still fully supports Bush. "He is doing a great job. He is a great president. He is a great decider. I have a puppy. His tail sticks straight up and you can see his butthole."

And not all Republican lawmakers are concerned about the poll. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), for one, does not find it a cause for anxiety. While he agrees that his party should not take total fucking morons for granted, “They really don't have anywhere else to go. They're never going to be able to understand someone like Al Gore or John Kerry or anybody intelligent and articulate who wants to talk wants to talk about substantive issues.

"Just try having a conversation with one of them about global warming. They'll say, 'Oh, but Rush says volcanoes consume more ozone than humans do.’ I mean, they're morons! Total fucking morons!"

"They've got nowhere else to go," Alexander reaffirms with a smile, "and they always vote."

Exactly right, if somewhat crudely stated.

.

Steve, can you give us a URL for the story you're referencing?  Or did Jim Burke's death push it out of today's edition?  I'd like to see the original stats.

Oh! for the halcyon days of yore.    When the world was without war.   When global warming was still a manageable problem.  When violent crime was on the wane.  When money could be made in the stock market.   When FEMA was still respectable.  When people still showed respect for one another.   When a stain on a dress  was front page news.

  Gosh, I miss Clinton.

Asking hormone driven teens to practice abstinence has NEVER worked as a viable birth control method.     It never will.

I find it fascinating that a discussion about  Kern County and California's ranking in STD rates would ultimately lead to a discussion of Clinton v Bush, Liberals v Conservatives, Christians v Agnostics.  Again, I'm firm in my belief that the real problem begins at home.  It amazes me that there are so many adults let alone teens who are misguided when it comes to sex, conception and the transmission of STDs.  The problem is ignorance and that's not a liberal or conservative issue.  We've been battling this since the beginning of time.  Weather you beleive that to be the Garden of Eden or the Big Bang.  Sex Ed is taught in schools, but the kids have to get there to learn it.  Parents also have the right to allow their kids to "opt out" of the sex ed program.  Ignorant people make ignorant choices.  And the worst choice they make is to remain ignorant!  I don't know what can be done about this.  Keep on keeping on I suppose.  Until we find an antidote for ignorance we're stuck with bigger government providing programs for these people.

DG, that *IS* a liberal vs. conservative issue, because ignorant people are trying to make the choices for *OTHERS*, via the political arena.  Ignorance is not bliss, but it is official US policy.

.

There's nothing wrong with government programs providing service--that's what they're there for, and sometimes there's no substitute.  Government did the job in WWII, Social Security, Apollo (until the politicians got hold of the space program) and many other ways.   One of the worst things about Bush's administration is that it's gotten people to see government itself as a problem--and, of course, that's just what they wanted to happen.  Well, that and bankrupt the country and divert the blood of about 2552 of our soldiers into their own bank accounts.

.

See, the "antidote for ignorance" is simple--it's schooling.  The problem is, as comedian Ron White points out, "You can't fix stupid."

.

PS--California has officially outlawed "abstinence-only" education (hooray) but some school districts haven't gotten the message:

http://www.pasadenaweekly.c... (scroll down, the article *IS* there.)

Steve, that's what I thought.  The article clearly shows that California, per-capita, has a lower rate of the three reportable STD's than many other states--even with Kern County bringing up the average.  Twenty-seventh place for gonorrhea and sixteenth for chlamydia isn't anything to brag about, but it's a whole lot better than, say,  Mississippi, number-one in both categories.

.

Maybe we could get Kern County to secede from California--I'm sure Mucus and his cohort would approve--and drop California to the bottom of the STD list, while simultaneously deposing Mississippi as well. 

DG, of course it's a choice people make whether or not to send their kids to school (it's also a matter of legal obligation, of course. )   MY kids went to school to learn, and admittedly had better advantages than most (they picked good parents.) 

.

But it's a matter of politics whether the kids get the right information once they get there.  *AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING,* because the Bush Administration is officially mandating ignorance, and endorsing ignorance in science classes.  Read the Pasadena link I provided.  Even though California has rejected the worthless abstinence-only education programs (braving the loss of Federal funds) schools are using them anyway.  That's not the parents' fault, except in the roundabout way that they fail to elect school boards with backbones (witness the recent Frazier Park creationism flap, which a decent school board would never have let happen.)

Dgrealish said, "please provide the scripture that says sex between a husband and wife is dirty."

That's just it.  There is no such Scripture.  But fear and shame of sexuality is something that organized religion has helped perpetuate despite the complete lack of Biblical support for such aversion to the topic.

Shameful puritanical attitudes are weakening, thankfully.  But they do continue to run deep, and they hobble any frank and honest treatment of the topic.

Phrases like "losing one's innocence" are relics of our fading but still persistent aversion to the topic of sex.  To lose one's innocence by sex implies that sex brings about guilt.  Reaching into our puritanical past, this "guilt" is guilt of sin -- it wasn't that long ago that some religious branches taught that sex itself was the original sin.

You are correct.  There is no Scripture that says sex between husband and wife -- or the topic of sex itself -- is dirty.  This misinterpretation of Scripture has, nonetheless, persisted to varying degrees in some religious denominations, and it continues to impede our culture's ability to objectively address sexual policy.

Come on, DG.  You can read better than that.

.

I cannot control whether Joe and Suzy Dominionist send their kids to sex ed classes.  I have no way of making Sally Inbred force her kinds to go to school at all.  All I can do is get behind is government, at a local, state and national level, that makes the correct information, the *TRUTH*, available once the kids get to school.   Because one choice focuses on a few, and the other on the many.  The poor, and the STD, you will always have with you.

.

Because it doesn't *MATTER* if Joe and Suzy and Sally send their kids to school or not, if they're lied to once they get there.  And yes, it's about time the Evil Rich, including Deadeye Dick Cheney and Kenny "Eighth Circle of Hell" Lay pay for the damage they've done to this country.  I *DON'T* support taking away the food from a chronically truant child.  I might support making either the child or the parent fill that classroom seat, day after day--their choice.  I'd even let the parent have the kid's school lunch.   Unless the Fourth Amendment still forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.  (Note to school lunch officials--kidding!)

If personal responsibility were a human trait, we wouldn't need government at all.  Most conservatives mistakenly think the rest of the world should/do  raise their children just as they (the conservatives) do.   That isn't reality.

A drug addicted (or just plain crummy) parent isn't going to care or take the time to teach his child sexual responsibility.  That's why the government must step in to make sure that those kids are given the information to make wise choices.  Whether they do or not is out of our hands.

BTW  If you want to read some interesting stuff on how christianity influenced an entire century of sexual behavior, read something on the sexually repressed Victorians.  They put the K in kinky.

DG, are you trying to say that truancy leads to STDs? Seems odd. I just don't think the bizzare change in sex ed teaching (abstinance only) is very effective in lowering the risk of STDs. We all know now that it makes kids more likely to engage in other risky types of behaviors that transmit diseases, but may not get them pregnant. If this is the goal then bravo. The christian right would rather not talk about sex and pretend that kids aren't having sex because it makes them blush. It's time to wake up to reality.

I'm 100% with random in that I believe that the rich have to pay for the damage they've done to this country. Look at where the tax cuts have gotten us. Massive debt that our children will have to pay for, and fewer and fewer public services. They are using the same failed economic policies of the Reagan era. The rich (not anybody here) get richer and the poor grow in numbers and get poorer. The middle class shrinks because the low end goes to the poverty level. We are making China rich because we are sending all of our manufacturing jobs over there. We are making defense contractors rich because we are overspending on developing new kinds of nukes instead of properly equiping the troops that are fighting in iraq. Oh, but Paris Hilton will get to inherit 100% of her daddy's fortune without having to pay the government one single cent. That's just economic stupidity. Giving huge tax breaks and driving up debt is like someone taking a pay cut at work and maxing out their credit cards. I doubt any republican out there would do something so stupid, yet some of you applaud when the government does it. Explain that.

DGrealish, I agree that sex education shouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue.  The problem is that our culture splits along that line.  Our displeasure with that fact makes it no less a fact.

Liberals, specifically social liberals, were the first to advocate serious, informative sex education.  Social conservatives have fought sex education tooth and nail, and they continue to this day.  I wish it weren't a liberal vs. conservative issue, but it is.  One reason why I pointed out that prudery and sex-phobia aren't justified by the Bible is to make sex education less of a liberal vs. conservative issue.  They can retain their values while realizing that sex itself is not an unspeakable topic -- even in graphic detail.

I'm puzzled as to why you entered into a complaint about "liberals" and "government programs" versus the "evil rich," and then asked whatever happened to personal responsibility.

There is no new government program being proposed here.  Public schools already exist.  Schools exist to teach facts and furnish as much information as is needed to get along in life. 

Sex is one of the biggest, most important, and most consequence-laden parts of life.  Therefore, schools should be giving all necessary information to all enrolled children with perfect freedom and with no unjustified, shame-based censorship.  Doing so costs not one penny extra.

The more honest and accurate information we provide, the more able our children (and adults) will be to make wise choices.  The more information they have, the fewer excuses they will have for fouling up and falling back on costly government programs.

But this will not come very easily until we put what remains of our puritanism behind us and stop tip-toeing around the topic with coy euphemism.

Pete, when my kids took sex education in school, they came away knowing more about STDs than I ever knew.  They learned about STDs I'd never heard of.  My daughter's sex education teacher put a condom on her arm up to her shoulder and told the class if a guy ever told them these were too tight, bring him to her.  She wanted to see for herself.  As I said before, the programs are in place to teach our kids about STDs, but they have to attend the classes to learn.  Truancy promotes ignorance and ignorance promotes the spread of STDs.

Which came first, the government program or the lazy no account working the system?  When our government put the Native American in the concentration camps they called reservations and "took care of their needs", they essentially put them on welfare.  They made them dependant on the government so they could control them.  I have been told this proves welfare doesn't work, but I disagree.  I believe it prooves welfare does work.  Get the people dependant upon the government and the government controls the people.  This became all too apparent in New Orleans last year.  People sat in their homes waiting for the government to tell them to evacuate while the government vacilated in their decision.  What if these people had been able to think for themselves rather than waiting to be told what to do?  How many lives would have been spared?

Hardliner, go back and re-read from the beginning.  Ugly things were being said before I spoke up.  My first comment was concerning my fascination that the subject, SEX HERE IS INFECTIOUS would turn into Clinton v Bush, Conservative v Liberal and Christian v Agnostic.

Holy smoke is Mocus1 a blithering idiot or what?  I thought Pax was bad until I saw this ignorant jerk post!  It always amuses me the way these christians who are supposed to set the example of how christ would treat people are so abusive and so hateful whenever they encounter someone who has a differeing opinion.

.

I can't figure out which is worse...  Radical muslims bent on killing the jews, or radical christians bent on killing everyone who isn't christian and wont convert.

>>>at the same time, you told people to toss morality into the can (thus shunning religious practice), and have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, and wherever they want......this led to skyrocketing rates of STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions,and broken families...........

--->That's not accurate at all.  People do what people are going to do.  Even the holy rolling christians engage in pre-marital sex and extra marital affairs and pay for prostitutes.  The only difference between them and us is they lie about it and expect us to believe they aren't doing it.  In fact, in private most of them are much kinkier than any of us.  Goddam hypocrites!

.

What the liberals have done is attempt to educate the public, not lie to them.  The "reefer madness" crowd and the Nancy Reagan crowd (Just say no) expect you to buy their lies and their morality and if you do not, you deserve anything bad that ever happens to you.  The liberals have tried to counter that ignorance with education programs about how to avoid/prevent STD's, and how to deal with them to limit their spread if you do have them.  The conservatives would rather we be ignorant and just not talk about the problems and pretend they don't exist.

Mucus reminds me strongly of the next-door-neighbor character in "American Beauty."  The guy so deeply in the closet that even *HE* doesn't realize it, revolted but attracted to the lifestyle of the gay couple down the street, oblivious to the fact that his son is dealing dope out of his bedroom.  

.

It all ends badly, of course...

Sex is always  a polarizing subject.   It IS a conservative vs liberal - christian vs nonbeliever  - educated vs uneducated - poor vs rich - issue.   Why?    Because sex encompasses more than just a man and a woman in the privacy of their bedroom.  It  includes same sex partners, teenagers, unwanted pregnancies, date rape, masturbation,  impotency and so on.  

It's naive to suggest that political and religious groups don't have strongly diverging opinions on each of these aspects of sex.

That's true.  Mocus is really harmless; he's like a loud June bug buzzing around the room.

Pox, on the other hand, is dangerous to us all.  A government run by Paxes is the best argument around for the Second Amendment.

Only if the First breaks down, Anny.

Goat said that the "holy rolling Christians" also engage in pre-marital sex, have extramarital affairs, and can be kinkier than the heathen down the street.

Isn't that the truth.  I know one couple who can't go five minutes without mentioning God or the Lord, and they donate to religious wingnut political groups.  This same couple have both had extramarital affairs, both have nipple rings, the wife has a tattoo on her ass, and has had two boob jobs.  (Now ask me how I know.)

It may be that BDSM is another fantasy of theirs, since they are determined to elect people who will throw them in jail if they can, and they seem to know this.

Liberals just want to be up front about what everyone does anyway, religion or no religion.