Sex Education in Mexico kicks our ass

Sex Education that tackles healthy sexual practices and promotes safe relationships? Sign me up.

No surprise that the morality police want to shut the whole thing down. Never mind that studies show sexually transmitted infections are a public health concern and most teenagers are becoming sexually active at 13... best fill their head with lies and ignore them. Or tell them that as homosexuals, they are abnormal and need psychiatric help.

I hope the government and administration responsible for this safe message stays strong on the issue and doesn't back down!

A beauty pageant for nuns?

Today's crazy news comes from Rome, Italy.

A priest is organizing an online beauty pageant for nuns called "Miss Sister 2008."

The idea, which Rev. Rungi swears came from nuns "with whom he regularly prays and works," is supposedly about fighting the stereotype that they are all old and dour.

Cause there's nothing worse for a woman than being seen as old. God forbid women who devote their lives in service to their church you know... age!

The contest will be online with each webpage featuring a nun's photo as well as information on her life and vocation. It's up to the women whether to pose with the traditional veil or not.

"Nuns are a bit excluded, they are a bit marginalized in ecclesiastical life," Rungi told The Associated Press after Italian media carried reports of the idea. "This will be an occasion to make their contribution more visible."

"We are not going to parade nuns in bathing suits," Rungi said by telephone from his town of Mondragone. "But being ugly is not a requirement for becoming a nun. External beauty is gift from God, and we mustn't hide it."

WTF!

I'd like to see a riot of nuns beat this guy about the head with their rosaries. It's true that nuns are marginalized. They are schooled theologians who are not allowed to lead mass, baptize children, marry parishioners or have any real say in church leadership. That is where they need more visibility and exposure. They don't need to be paraded in front of people as a status symbol of the church's "hotness" factor. Bathing suit or not.

But what do you think?

Abstinence the Condom

Via.

Hooray for the Midwest Teen Sex Show

SHUT UP BILL O'REILLY

I'm so sick of O'Reilly's obsession with Miley Cyrus and this latest photo scandal.



Everything about that clip makes me nauseous. First off, he interrupts the two female guests at every opportunity and then with the asinine comments, "I thought her father, Billy Ray been pretty good in keeping THE GIRL out of scandal." O'Reilly then goes on to say he can't imagine why Cyrus was shooting with Vanity Fair since that isn't her audience. According to Bill, Vanity Fair is for "older liberals looking for whatever they're looking for..." **Cause liberals never have kids who OBSESS over Hannah Montana?**

Most importantly, O'Reilly wants us to know he's just looking out for Miley. After all, he says, "Middle America doesn't want their 15 year olds looking like sex symbols." And "Being a good girl is good business."

Sure thing, Bill. After all, the TV shows that score biggest with Miley's age group are squeaky clean. Take for example, Gossip Girl.



And good, God-fearing folks never want sex in their teenagers...



What the hell is wrong with Bill O'Reilly and his OBSESSION over Miley Cyrus' good girl vs. bad girl image? Of course Miley's gonna do a shoot with Vanity Fair. Any female star who's made it has done so by taking racy photos at some point or another, from Kierra Knightly to Nicole Kidman, it happens.





That's not to say we shouldn't stop a moment and discuss the serious issue we have with sexualizing young girls in this country.

However, what is the deal with O'Reilly and other fundie-ilk playing holier than thou over Miley's risque pics and barely blinking when young women in this country are forced into "marriage" and raped. These victims are Miley's age AND YOUNGER!! Why is that not a blip on the radar? Why doesn't Bill worry about that? Could it be because it falls under religion and male dominance and control and Bill likey the patriarchy?

And really, does O'Reilly have ANY CLOUT AT ALL speaking about, 'being good sells' when he was embroiled in his own sexual harassment scandal while he was trying to peddle his O'Reilly Factor for Kids book? Need reminding?



Personally I'm thinking everyone from Daddy Ray Cyrus to Vanity Fair needs their head examined but I'm so OVER the religious right's shock and dismay at this photo 'scandal' -- Miley is doing what most girls her age are doing, experimenting with being sexually attractive. She's doing what ALL women in Hollywood do and that is sell herself sexually. In a culture where female relevance is determined by sex appeal, and relevance determines your Hollywood career, I don't think Hannah Montana will be suffering in the long run.

I feel for the Jamie Lynn's, the Miley's, the Britney's and the Simpson girls who are all supposed to talk about their virginity while pouting their lips and sticking out their chest on the covers of magazines. And who are supposed to hide in shame like good girls when their 'true slutty nature' comes out-- e.g. with embarassing online pics, or a teenage pregnancy.

As usual, Stephen Colbert has the best take.

Punishing young women for sex: the Jamie Lynn Spears edition

Breaking News: In the United States it is STILL not illegal to be pregnant!!!
By Guest Blogger, Adrienne

Okay.

Two months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears was not only a teen star on a popular Nickelodeon show, she was also (ALAS, NO!!!) having sex. Two months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears was not registering a blip on the gossip—or conservative—radar, EVEN THOUGH she was engaged in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

Now, SUDDENLY, because there is EVIDENCE of that sexual relationship, she is a 'slut,' she has 'loose morals,' and, randomly, she's also a 'role model.' Funny, but I don't think I ever heard Jamie Lynn Spears referred to as a role model even once before all of this happened (and, just so you know, I think that choosing Jamie Lynn Spears as a role model for your child is ludicrous, regardless of her sexual choices). Moms are yanking their tween daughters from the living room because they don't want their daughters to catch the sex bug from the TV waves (first of all, AS IF Nickelodeon is going to shoot a show about Zoey being pregnant. Give me a break. If you moms weren't making such a big deal about it, your tweenagers would have no idea that it was happening. Promise.)

I'd like us all to engage in a little exercise. Raise your hand if you were a virgin at sixteen. Seriously. Last week I engaged in a conversation with some people who were so angry about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy, saying that she was a role model with obviously loose morals. I just sat looking at them in shock—I knew for a fact that every single one of them (except for me—so there!) was having sex at 16. They just didn't get pregnant. So I asked them the same question I'd like to pose here:

Which headline would you rather read: "Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant at 16" or "Jamie Lynn Spears has an abortion at 16."

Obviously I am pro-choice. It is not illegal for Jamie Lynn to get an abortion with parental consent—how easy would it have been for her to just say, "Oh, I'm going to take a little break and go spend some time abroad" and get rid of the baby? HOW BRAVE for her to stand up and announce that she's pregnant and keeping it, knowing full well what it would do to her reputation and her career. But you don't hear anyone towing that line—just people being pissed that she's pregnant. Well guess what? What's done is done. Crabbing about it won't make her less pregnant.

I am also not for punishing celebrities for doing the same things that everyone is doing. When I said that to a friend last week, he said, "But don't they get paid a lot of money? Then it kind of comes with the territory doesn't it."

How lame. I am a teacher, I make just above minimum wage. My best friend works at a hospital and makes considerably more money. So, if I came out of the closet, would it be less controversial than if she did? Should every choice she makes be broadcast on a larger scale than mine because her paycheck is better?

While I'm at it: I am in a traditional 'role model' position—does it affect society more if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock than if the clerk at Shopko does?

I suppose that because we aren't stoning Jamie Lynn Spears in the town square it's telling your children that you condone teen pregnancy.

And, not to mention, would a male tween star be getting the same kind of flack for getting his girlfriend pregnant? Uh, no. Most likely they would say it wasn't theirs, call the girl a slut and a hoe bag, and quietly settle to pay her off. Take the money and say that this baby is not mine, that's the best you're going to get. Thank God we have the science to prove paternity, and I pray that if it ever happens that girl is smart enough and strong enough to demand a test before taking a settlement.

Come on people. It is such a conflicted point of view to say that she should have been 'responsible' when she was engaged in an activity that most kids her age are. I think it's fair to be disappointed, but at the end of the day if you're going to assign blame for something that has nothing to do with you, maybe you can start with yourself. What did YOU personally do to make sure that Jamie Lynn Spears was armed with the knowledge to protect herself, or the confidence to say no? What have you done today to make sure that other teen stars don't go down this same road—beside telling your daughter that she can't watch Zoey 101 anymore, even though the story line, script, setting, etc, will not change whatsoever?

At least, there are three great things that will come out of this. Jamie Lynn has the means to provide very well for her child, so this will not be another baby born into poverty, crime, drugs, etc. Secondly, maybe tween girls will stop watching so much tv all together. It would be fantastic if some actual role models could be chosen for girls—not to mention, less TV might actually mean that the sex bug WON'T infect your child from the millions of commercials and other TV shows that are trashy.

Thirdly, it would be fantastic if this could start a conversation. Ask your thirteen year old if her friends are having sex—but it might surprise you. Ask your teenage son about his friends. Talk about some options to replace intercourse. Talk about the consequences of sex (and no, pregnancy is not the worst one, just the most visible).


CLICK HERE to read Tobes' take on the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy story, published at the blog, Planned Parenthood advocate.

Glenn Beck & Bill Donahue tie for IDIOT of the year award

My last post was all about the middle school in Maine dispensing birth control for girls. So I'm not going into all the details or why I think it's a good idea. You can just read it.

When it comes to controversial topics involving sex, some things are just 100% predictable. I'm talking romantic-comedies-starring-Drew-Barrymore predictable. First predictable thing: CNN's Glenn Beck will be a total moron and #2 President of the Catholic League will be invited on moron's moronic show to be an even bigger moron. ... one more time for good measure... MORON!

It's no surprise that people are talking about girls getting birth control and it's definitely no surprise that Bill Donahue would get in on the action-- he revels the opportunity to bash feminism, contraception and talk about "saving women from themselves." Here's some of the gems from the conversation between Beck and Donahue:

Beck: Now, right now it is illegal in Maine for kids under the age of 14 to have sex at all, whether it is consensual or not. Yet you have a local school commission that is not only underhandedly encouraging sex; they`re actually enabling it. "Hey, kids, go break the law."

I understand that there`s disease out there. But we`re talking now about taking the pill. Now we`re saying, "Hey, you go ahead" -- I mean, how easy are we going to make it?

Sex Ed 101, Glen-- The pill isn't about preventing disease, it's about preventing pregnancy! Giving a woman (or girls) a prescription for birth control is not the same as saying "go have sex." It's saying, "if you have sex, and don't want to become pregnant, you need this."

Since 2000, this middle school gave out condoms and Glenn Beck wasn't wetting the bed. Now that we give young girls the option to protect themselves against pregnancy (itself terribly dangerous for an 11-13 year old) NOW-- it's a problem.

Such a problem that we're practically building a copulation room and tearing down the library. Seriously, Beck was on Good Morning America when he said,

Why don`t we -- the library`s outdated. Why don`t we have a copulation room?

What type of rounded logic is that? By giving a sexually active girl options to prevent pregnancy we're forcing sex on her?

The program only gets better because then, Bill Donahue (AKA EVIL INCARNATE) is invited to speak.

DONAHUE: Well, you know, this is the goal of the sexual engineers. It has been for a very long time. This libertine notion of sexuality.

....I would say this. You know, the original feminists -- I`m talking about the ones in the 19th century -- they understood that one of the goals of their movement was to protect innocent women from being preyed upon by irresponsible men."

Really? Feminism was started to protect innocent women from irresponsible men. I thought feminism was about giving women equal opportunity so she wouldn't have to be dependent on men-- irresponsible or not. Feminism meant that women could vote, be assured safety within her marriage, hold property, secure a job to feed herself and have some control if she wanted a divorce but didn't want to lose her kids.

But no, I guess Susan B Anthony just wanted to save women from "irresponsible" men. What kind of bullshit, non-committal word is "irresponsible" anyway, Bill? What irresponsible things were these men doing-- beating their wives? Taking all their money? Raping women? WHAT?

The insanity continues:

Donahue: There`s no question that -- that young men have always been throughout all of history in all societies the most irresponsible segment of society. You know what the message is being sent to young men, and I`m talking about ones who are also over the age of 18.

The message that will be sent to young men is this: they`re fair game. The girl is just off her tricycle. She`s 11 years of age. You can`t even dispense an aspirin to the kid in the school, but you can get them the birth control kit. The boy picks up the message she`s fair game; let`s go get them.

If you want them to exploit girls, this is the way to go.

This is the classic argument against contraception (and frankly it's insulting to women and men). Most often you hear this nonsensical tirade from the Catholic Church. You can't give women the option to prevent pregnancy because if she has that, men will take advantage of her sexually and use her as an object (cause that never happens to women who aren't on the pill).

This asinine argument makes women out to be helpless pawns. Rather than admit that preventing/planning pregnancy gives women power, these pricks twist the argument so that THEY are the only ones looking out for women... poor little woman, she doesn't realize the harm she'll cause to herself.

In Donahue's world, these 11 year old girls would be safe and chaste without the pill, but with it, they'll be preyed upon by boys who just want to use them. Anyone else think that's unreasonable?

Donahue further explains that contraception is really the root of all evil for women and that girls who dare use this method are setting themselves up for a life of terrible sadness.

When these girls become emotionally distraught and when they grow up and they realize that they gave in to young guys and some of the guys not so young, because their own mother had the nerve to go ahead and offer that girl the pill, and the guys in the neighborhood all knew about it and therefore took advantage of her, that`s the real price and the damage that will be done.

I like how this is all the mother's fault-- where is the dad? It's pretty obvious that Donahue blames feminism and contraception for "destroying the lives of your children."

Also-- once you're on the pill, "all the guys on the block will take advantage of you" -- it sure sounds like Donahue is calling contraception the SLUT pill.

If you still have any questions as to Donahue's sanity, guess what he thinks the evil libertines want to do with newborn boys?

You know, these people say that they`re on the side of women? The biggest enemy of women in America today, and particularly young girls, are coming from the sexually libertine sexual engineers who will stop at nothing. And if they had it their way, they would order the doctor to sew a condom onto the infant male on his penis as soon as he`s born. They`re simply out of control.

How is it possible that Glenn Beck and Bill Donahue equate pregnancy prevention with copulation rooms at school, sewing condoms onto infants and getting freaky on a tricycle? It's because the idea that women could avoid consequences of sex (PREGNANCY) scares the shit out of them.

As I stated in my last post, it is awful to think that young girls would have sex. But if we can all agree that we don't want a pregnant 11-year old girl, and we can't FORCE kids to remain chaste (or force their parents to ... parent), then we should help them prevent pregnancy. Yes, the pill won't prevent disease but condoms do and the school has those on hand as well. Imagine that-- equal opportunity protection!

Beck and Donahue give us a world where women and girls are helpless victims incapable of making good choices about sex. Their solution is to give them less options. Raise your hand if you detect circular logic and misogyny!

How young is too young?

Oh dear! I saw the birth control pills, now I want the sex!

Sometimes you just see the HEADLINE of a story and you know it's gonna be trouble... For example, today I saw this on CNN and MSN's homepage:

“Maine middle school to offer birth control.”

Now, we all know the anti-choice movement is adamant in its opposition to birth control. I’ve discussed that dirty secret on another blog. While the overwhelming majority of Americans support contraceptive access for adult women, the lines get fuzzier when it comes to children. Hence the debate about sex education and access for minors.

A middle school health center prescribing birth control is surely going to spark debate.

At King Middle School in Portland, Maine young girls age 11-13 can now access birth control without consent from parents. This thought makes a lot of people uncomfortable. From the comment field on the MSN story:

No---this is a moral issue. They should keep their pants ON!!!!

NO NO NO. How can parents think/feel that THEY should not be responsible for their children's lives and leave it up to a school board????

Absolutely not. People seem to love undermining parents when it comes to their own children these days. If they are going to offer it, parental consent MUST be necessary for each individual thing administered to the student

Hell no! Since when do we allow our CHILDREN to make those kinds of decisions! I am completely disgusted

I don't see how this is even legal and do most 11 year olds even have a period?

It goes on and on… it does make me squirmy to think of girls having sex. Actually it makes me downright depressed. Of course sex isn’t healthy for children. But it makes me far less squirmy to know that IF these kids are having sex, they are taking some adult responsibility to protect themselves.

Clearly 11 year old girls DO get their period. As evidenced by the stats from the schools in Portland, Maine.

Portland's three middle schools reported 17 pregnancies during the last four years, not counting miscarriages or terminated pregnancies that weren't reported to the school nurse.

Also according to the article, “Five of the 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year reported having sexual intercourse” – not counting all the students who didn’t disclose or didn’t report other forms of sexual activitiy.

Some parents don’t like the idea that birth control will be prescribed without parental consent. Others feel that this will encourage sexual activity; some are even claiming that this “goes against God.”

I find no merit in hypothesizing on what angers God. However, I hope that parents do their research and realize that the availability of contraceptives should not encourage sex, but simply protect the sexually active. Also, if you already have a good relationship with your child, chances are they’ll discuss options with you anyway.

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:

Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their parents are much less likely to become sexually active at an early age. Also parents rate high among many teens as trustworthy and preferred information sources on birth control. One in two teens say they "trust" their parents most for reliable and complete information about birth control, only 12 percent say a friend.

Therefore if you’re committed to having honest dialogue with your kids, then you’ll likely have a positive affect. From the same site, we understand the consequences of unprotected sex is devesatating for teens:

A sexually active teen who does not use contraception has a 90 percent chance of pregnancy within one year. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school and are likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare). The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.

We know that some minors will have sex. If we ignore this fact, we are denying basic healthcare to protect young men and women. The availability of birth control doesn’t mean kids will start having sex. That is much more dependent on the relationships children have with their parents or other moral force (faith community, mentor etc).

When it comes to kids, where do we draw the line at access? Condoms? The patch? The pill? Or should we just teach them to “JUST SAY NO”?

Since 2000, King Middle School students have had access to condoms. With this new policy, birth control prescriptions will be given only after a student undergoes a physical exam by a physician or nurse practitioner. Furthermore students must have written parental permission to be treated at the health center. Howevever, once permission is attained, the student's medical records are confidential so parents would now know if their daughters were prescribed birth control.

According to the article:

About one-fourth of student health centers that serve at least one grade of adolescents 11 and older dispense some form of contraception, said Mohan, whose Washington-based organization represents more than 1,700 school-based centers nationwide.

In other parts of the country, things are very different. In Topeka, Kansas, school district policy forbids providing any contraceptives to students.

What would you like YOUR school to offer? Or what should YOUR kid's have for options?

Proof...

that the media is part of an unspoken campaign to objectify women's bodies in new and disgusting ways.

Some slick ad exec thought this was the perfect way to hit their target audience of young men.

If I was a young man, I'd be offended. Maybe you like football, maybe you like boobs but do you need them together?

I HATE THIS COMMERCIAL.

Britney Spears is officially a feminist issue

Has Britney bashing gone too far?

(click on image to view terrible news clip)

This proves it. Britney Spears is my new poster girl for: "THE NEED FOR FEMINISM." You'd think with two female commentators, this clip wouldn't be so god awful, but it is.

MSNBC Anchor, Chris Jansing speaks to Courtney Hazlett (OK magazine) on the "Britney bombs at the VMA" story. This segment is all over the place and at the end Jansing is aware she's crossed the major stupidity line.

The two women start by dissing Brit's clothes.... "or lack thereof." And out comes the blaming,

"Well she chose this outfit – she didn't feel the outfit MTV picked out was sexy or skimpy enough. She's the one who decided to go on in little more than bedazzled undergarments."

But later in the show, Hazlett admits that Britney has often been "judged less on singing and more on dancing and sex appeal."

So we judge her on sex appeal but condemn her for putting on bedazzled undergarments and dancing around?

Well according to Hazlett and Jansing, the reason the outfit is an issue is "she didn't have the body for the outfit."

While one anchor comments that maybe this is better body image for young women -- not having to be stick thin, Hazlett comes back with this bitchy retort:

If we’re looking to Britney spears to be a shining example to girls, I think body image is the least of our problems!

You claim to work for a celebrity news magazine and you still think people look to Spears for "role model" behavior? Get with the times.

Hazlett goes on to give us this pearl of wisdom:

It's time to stop being so afraid of saying someone's body doesn’t suit a certain outfit. It's not doing Britney Spears or anyone else down the line any good.

When has our culture ever been kind to women we perceive as being fat? Ever peaked through a fashion magazine where rounder women in tight clothes are portrayed under the huge bold word "DON'T" and have black bars over their eyes?

Then to further the hypocrisy the women start taking shots at Spears outfit from the "But she's a mom!" angle.

Jansing says: "I don’t look at that outfit and think mom. That's just me."

Well what do you want? Do you want her serving up the sexy or dressing "like a mom" (find me that uniform, please). I guess when Spears was young and skinny and professing her virginity it was all good to see her in bedazzled underwear?





But now motherhood and a few extra pounds means she needs ... AN APRON...

No shit!!! That's what Jansing suggests:

"Where’s the apron that’s what I want to know? Why isn’t she in the … never mind I’m gonna get in trouble for that."

YEAH YOU THINK? Where's the apron? Are you frickin kidding me? And "why isn't she in the...." in the WHAT? THE KITCHEN? Is that where you were going? Cause, last time I checked you're working on TV! Do you have kids? Cause if you do, you better get your butt back in the kitchen. At least Jansing has the where-with-all to realize what a dumbass comment it was because she immediately throws out the obligatory "moms can be whatever they want" statement.

Well, if that were true, Britney could be a pop star who can writhe in moan in sparkly panties and you wouldn't give two craps about whether or not she has kids. But she's a mom now, not a teenager, so she better quit turning us on?

This is the ultimate virgin/mother/whore complex come to life.

And for the record, her performance was awful, I don't like the song and I think she does need to get her crap together. That aside I'm so, SO, SO sick of the way the media is gleefully discussing this issue. I look forward to the ACTUAL news story on how "Britney bashing HAS gone too far."

Pointing out the hypocrisy

They interview Ann from Feministing-- awesome!
Note to Southwest: I will NEVER fly your airline AGAIN.

Happy One Year Anniversary E.C.

CNN has shocking news. Sales for the morning after pill went up -- now that you can get it over the counter.

Shocking, right?

It's easier to get. So more people are getting it.

Can I get a "DUH"?

The end of the article gives lip service to the nutters.

Conservative and religious groups argued that easy availability would promote promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases among teens and others.

Yeah, they've got it now. I really wanted to go out and nail every guy I met but I wasn't sure I could get some EC. Now that I can-- PARTAY! On a side note, "birth control promotes promiscuity" when translated from conserva-speak is actually: "Giving women options to prevent pregnancy means they can enjoy protected sexual relationships. And that is bad. Women enjoying sex without threat of children! AHHH SLUTS!"

Of course getting the FDA to approve over-the-counter sales for the morning after pill was tricky. It took years and more than 60,000 letters or support and many signed petitions. There were people at the time who argued that if we dared to approve EC it would start up sex cults among teenagers. No, seriously.

We need to wake up to the scary truth! The conservatives and religious right aren't
just against abortion-- but they want to outlaw birth control as well. They believe women should have NO control over their bodies and people should not be able to plan their families.

So for now, we celebrate-- one year ago today Emergency Contraception was given the green light to be sold over the counter. That is a victory for the good guys. However, pharmacists can refuse to dispense the drug and conserva-nazis want to take the right away so keep fightin' the good fight.

Billboard debate

This billboard has caused a firestorm of criticism in my community. The local newspaper featured several stories and the online forum for each drew pages and pages of comments.

A 37-year-old mother, Jennifer Dufner is at the front of a media campaign calling the billboard inappropriate. She has expressed concern over how the image will affect her 3 step kids (all younger than 10).

In this article, Dufner seems concerned about the clothing (or lack thereof) that is worn. I'm not offended really, this outfit is more than most women would wear for swim-wear. Rather than young children, I find myself worried about adolescent and pre-teen girls who see this billboard.

Young girls seeing this image will be very clear on the message. The sign says "THIS is what an acceptable, sexy woman looks like." And consequently, if you want to feel valued by men or if you want men to find you attractive, you will conform this beauty norm. I'm not saying this billboard alone does this. But this billboard paired with every other ad depicting young women, any every MTV image tells women that being thin, blonde, (and consequently, white) equals value. Not to mention that you make yourself sexually avaliable.

Young girls are told over and over through various mediums that they need to be provocatively dressed and sexually available. Interesting that in this billboard, the young woman has no head, no mouth no face-- none of that pesky personality. She's quite literally just a hot piece of ass.

What a nice message.

I can't see how this billboard breaks any obscenity law (our town's city council has agreed) but it certainly doesn't brighten my day driving by it. Just another disappointing ad in a trend of ads that cut apart women's bodies to sexually entice men and in turn, sell product. In this case, rock music. Not that women being sexy = horrible. Sure, entice the men-folk. But how about a hot rocker chick playing a guitar or belting out a song? Why is she this passive, faceless OBJECT?

On a related note, dehumanizing women in billboards has been a hot topic of late. There was a recent uproar about a much more disgusting billboard advertising for the movie Captivity. The sexualization of violence was so blatant in this case that the billboard was eventually pulled. And I must say, that if I had kids and they saw that atrocity, I WOULD be horrified as well. If my kid asked about the ROCK 102 billboard I could roll my eyes, but the Captivity poster is sick on a different level.

If you want a fabulous source for portrayals of women in advertising, look up Jean Kilbourne. Her video documentary series "Killing us Softly" is amazing.

The Rock station's billboard is relatively tame to be sure, but I wouldn't shed a tear if they all came down. I just think the advertisers could stand to stretch their imagination a little more. The sexualization of women's body to sell product is so overdone. Imagine doing something unique and actually clever.

Personally what offends me most is that she looks like she has the beginning of a wedgie.

Purity Balls -- great for those "touch-feely" dads

I'm stealing this disgusting tidbit from Feministing.

This clip is the creepiest six minutes ever. The dad (who feministing rightly labels "pseudo-incestuous") is obsessed with his daughters purity. And the mom says that women were "created to feel accepted by men."

What a great message for their daughters. Your entire purpose in this world is to stay "pure" (not even kissing before marriage) for your husband. You weren't created to have any autonomy of your own, follow your own dreams and passions, but rather to be completed by a man.

During their purity pledge, the girls promise to offer themselves "as a priceless gift." All while wearing prom dresses and dancing close with their fathers-- who also take them on dates-- ugh.

Part of me looks at this and sees potential. Plently of women I know are unhappy with their relationship with their father. I myself have always wanted to be closer with my dad and was jealous when friends talked about how they were "daddy's girls." I have often jokes that my dad-daughter time ended abruptly the minute I grew boobs and he forgot how to talk to me. *sigh*

However, I don't want a relationship that's based on dad's protection of my precious hymen or my "potential worth" for nameless future husband. I like the idea of father's establishing relationships with daughters, valuing them and wanting the best for them in future relationships. However, this isn't really about a woman, but about a woman's worth as sexually pure.

And Leslee Unruh, I have a question-- What the F*&%^ is up with the bridal gown and suit of armor behind you? Crazy woman! Is this something to do with the pure, princess/white knight fairytale?

Excuse me while I shudder.

Don't even say it

This is what the anti-sex, abstinence only, religious right movement is leading us too...

Because the worse thing you could possibly do is talk about a vagina

Yes, god forbid you explain to your young daughter what a vagina is.

Because if she knows she has a vagina, she might touch it or decide that she's a wild sex fiend with no morals.

Nevermind that you're taking a medical term for a part of the body and making it dirty and shameful.

Nevermind that by refusing to name these parts you leave young girls vulnerable.

Really...How do you tell your parents that someone is touching you innapropriately if your parents have already made it quite clear that anything there is not to be talked about, and makes them mad/uncomfortable.

Specifically how do you tell someone that someone is touching you if you don't even know the name of the part they're touching.

This is so unbelievable. Why are people indulging these nutjobs?

The word Vagina is not offensive!!

You can bet Eve Ensler is not gonna take this shit lying down.

GAG

Watch this-- if you can handle it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX-N3Ms7hQ

Naughty Nurse

I agree that the costumes are misogynistic but not sure how I feel about the bigger controversy. I mean if we start fighting these battles are we gonna spend all our time picketing Playboy and Halloween costume outlets too?

Maybe I'm wrong....Any thoughts?

Video clip

Great articles

A great article:

What happens when there's no Plan B -- very interesting and illuminating.

Another interesting read:

Contra-Contraception

Just makes you mad to read it... One pro-life group states, "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set."

Ummmm, okay? And I guess we can't enjoy married life sexually unless we're wanting to create children? No common sense... so sad.

I cannot fathom why people put up this intensly silly argument..

"Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."

That's just plain old offensive to men. Suddenly if men know they can have sex with their wife without possibility for a child, he'll decide she's simply an object... as opposed to the other option where women are supposed to be incubator-like objects, ready to pop out a kid at any moment?

People who make arguments like that are the REAL problem. Apparently they are incapable of finding any respect, spirituality or love in sexual relationships. They feel "dirty" and "used" for pleasure when they have sex. But you know what I say to them? That is your issue, not mine! The fact that you find sex so damaging... take that up with your therapist. But leave the majority of people (those who can enjoy married life and a healthy, happy and nurturing sexual relationship) ALONE. Leave them alone! They want to enjoy sex and there's nothing wrong with that! You cannot dictate when other Americans bear children.

Get a new soapbox.

History of marriage-- complications of "I do"

This summer I have a wedding almost every weekend. Many of my close girlfriends are planning their ceremonies. It’s an exciting and happy time. But this makes me really take a closer look at the institution of marriage…

For instance, I know a gal (we’ll call her Katie) with extremely evangelical, traditional Christian values. Katie felt the need to quiz her sister on whether or not she and her fiancée had ever engaged in pre-marital sex. First of all, it isn’t uncommon in this day in age for people to engage in sexual relations while in serious, monogamous relationships. And contrary to the “NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE” message, people don’t regret having sex before marriage. It doesn’t ruin you or ruin what you will have with the person you are going to marry. On the other hand, I completely respect people who choose to wait. If that’s what makes them happy and comfortable, I say “mazaltoff!” But let adults decide what God wants for them and when they’re going to be sexually active. Even if you think it’s a better choice to remain celibate until marriage, it’s still none of your business, so back off.

Marriage is such a hot-button issue these days that even the U.S. Senate is getting involved. The Federal Marriage Amendment (the “one man, one woman” law) is once again being deliberated. On May 18th of this year, 10 Republicans said "aye" to writing marriage discrimination into the U.S. Constitution—and all 8 committee Democrats said "no." The amendment will now be sent to the Senate floor for a full vote.

You might be thinking, “I haven’t heard about this!” That’s because sneaky republicans are hiding this from you. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Republican-Pa.) moved the vote from the committee's normal room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building to the obscure President's Room in the Capitol, where there are no cameras or press allowed. Hence, no public scrutiny.

According to President Bush in a 2004 radio address, "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution."

For once I agree. Marriage is wonderful and important. I hope people approach it with respect. When you say “I will take this person in sickness and health,” I hope you mean it. I hope when you start a family, you commit to them fully. I want people to commit to their family’s safety, both emotionally and financially. BUT… I don’t believe for one second that same-sex couples don’t understand this and can’t be part of the institution of marriage.

People that don’t want gay people to get married are bigots disguised as religious crusaders. There’s no reason, other than ignorance that you could argue for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Maybe you've heard people say:

“We need to get back to the way marriage used to be”

And what “way” would that be exactly?

According to the Old Testament, the ancient Hebrews were polygamous. Ancient Egyptian royalty practiced brother-sister marriage in homage to the Egyptian gods Osiris and Isis. And in some Native American cultures, transgendered women born as biological males were among the most prized of wives.

The history of marriage is surprisingly not dominated by love. The institution was created to help the elite consolidate power, wealth, and property.

“For the lower classes, common-law and other informal arrangements were more customary,” says Stephanie Coontz, a family historian working on a new book about the history of marriage. “They had little property to protect, and there simply weren't enough priests or judges to officiate their nuptials or organized records to track them. And slaves, a substantial percentage of the population, were forbidden to marry.”

As marriage became more accessible across class lines, it still remained a relatively business-centered deal. For example the wife of a hunter might process his furs — and a legal marriage helped the husband lay claim to the benefits of his wife's labor.

Romance didn’t enter the picture until the 20th century! "According to the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, as late as 1967, one poll of American college students showed that 75 percent of the young women said that they would marry a man they didn't love if he met their other criteria — if he was a good provider, and he was decent and sober."

Marriage has changed as our society has changed. This change has a great deal to do with the women’s movement. Women are no longer business deals, sold by their fathers to husbands to work in a husband’s fur trade. Women work outside the home and may even be the primary breadwinner. Women also control their reproductive destiny with birth control. All this has contributed to shaping the modern marriage. It has allowed Americans to be pickier about whom and when we get married, how our careers progress and the number and spacing of our children.

This is the first time in the history of humanity that marriage has become strictly about love—a rather unpredictable emotion.

Even with all the changes and divorce at high rates, people still believe in marriage. They find a person with whom they think “forever” is possible. It’s the sweetest, most hopeful sight in the world. I look forward to bearing witness as so many friends take their walk down the aisle to the person they love.

But marriage still feels bittersweet to me. Even with all our social advances:
*Women and children are no longer property of the husband,*
*interracial couples can now legally be married*
*people are allowed divorce if the marriage is unhealthy*

Yet we still find same-sex marriage such a threat that we’re willing to write discrimination into our constitution!!!

People want to tell you that marriage has always been between one man and one woman (but that’s not true) and people want to tell you that sex is only for marriage (well that’s also not true because marriage used to be something only reserved for the elite class, and not even associated with religion or ethics, rather business).

The people who want to “educate” you on proper sexual behavior pre-marriage have a giant stick up their ass. Tell them to mind their own business and move on. People that want to deny homosexuals the right to marry are uneducated at best, and bigots at worst. Never trust people who pick and choose parts of history and the bible that suit their agenda.

Read this article for more

Go here to oppose the marriage amendment

If you want to rant, Get a blog!

Oh my eyes have rolled so much over this, I'm getting a headache. Now, I understand passion for your principle --- clearly I do, I opened a blog for crying out loud. But there is a time and place. If you're running for office, or debating an issue, for example. But not at a graduation ceremony! I would never dream of getting up at my graduation and saying, "Well done on 4 years of hard work and how about the pro-life movement, what a bunch of assholes?"

Well this man certainly felt entitled. Maybe cause he was the star football player, or because he's becoming a priest so he thinks he's holier than his classmates and can pass judgment. Mostly he just sounds like a classless jerk. His apology is a joke. If someone did that at my ceremony, I'd ask for a year of tutition back.

For article click here

How BIG is the problem?

Go to this great site for more info

One of my biggest fears is that America is being swayed by a extremely small but very vocal minority who wants women to lose access to contraception. "The culture of life" has deemed any form of contraception as an abortifacient. This is very confusing to me since combination pills work "by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). They also thicken the cervical mucus, which keeps sperm from joining with an egg."

The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.

However, it's becoming more and more clear that we need to fear, not just the grassroots campaign but the office of our presidency. President Bush has REFUSED to answer press questions regarding birth control.

Excerpt from May 26, 2005 White House Press Briefing:

Q There are news reports this morning that parents and children who were guests of the President, when they visited Congress, wore stickers with the wording, "I was an embryo." And my question is, since all of us were once embryos, and all of us were once part sperm and egg, is the President also opposed to contraception, which stops this union and kills both sperm and egg?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made his views known on these issues, and his views known -

Q You know, but what I asked, is he opposed -- he's not opposed to contraception, is he?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and you've made your views known, as well. The President --

Q No, no, but is he opposed to contraception, Scott? Could you just tell us yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think that this question is -

Q Well, is he? Does he oppose contraception?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think the President's views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life --

Q If they were clear, I wouldn't have asked.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if you want to ask those questions, that's fine. I'm just not going to dignify them with a response.
**********

The White House and Bush have also refused to answers several letters from members of congress--

“Mr. President, does this mean that abstinence is the heart of your birth control policy? Mr McClellan mentioned teens but what about married women, college women, working women, women in the military, divorced women, mothers who don’t want more children? Do you think promoting absitence should be their birth control method as well? If so, then this position is a radical departure from previous administrations, and undermines women’s Constituional right to birth control that has been respected in this country since the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut.

For 95% of Americans- including the 43 million women who are sexually active, many of them married, and do not want to become pregnant- it would be a shocking revelation to learn that you believe that their preferred method of birth control is abstinence.”

The fact is that the majority of Americans use and support the right to use birth control. So why is our President refusing to come clean on this issue?