The Joke of Contraception in Politics. A Plea.

I don't usually talk about politics because, honestly, I don't want to. Politics and religion are the two topics that no one on different sides will ever really be able to discuss rationally, everyone's too goddamned convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

But today I'm going to go against my mini pledge. I'm going to talk about Politics. Just a little bit. Please don't run off scared, because this is important.

I've had the basic idea of John McCain's status on Abstinence Only Education (he's all for it) since I first did research on the elections in the spring. It made me dislike him. But after reading This Article, I started doing some more research into an accusation which seemed far more horrifying than just AOE.

My findings say this: John McCain is AGAINST Sex Education AND Contraception (including Condoms).

Let me say that again. John McCain is AGAINST CONTRACEPTION.
That includes birth control pills, Plan B pills, and CONDOMS!!

Contraception is one of the most important topics of today's society.
Condoms are vital in the prevention of HIV and teen pregnancy, and Birth Control is one of the most issues in Women's Health because it prevents pregnancy as well as aiding in other medical problems.
Contraception and Birth Control is a Basic Medical issue and a basic medical Right! It isn't just sexual health or reproductive rights, it is Women's Health.

But McCain's status on Condoms is that he "isn't sure they really prevent" pregnancy or STDs.
He has voted AGAINST allowing or paying for Contraception every single time he's gotten the chance to.

To a reporter in Iowa, when asked about contraception and HIV (talking mostly about condoms and AIDS in Africa), he said "I’m not informed enough on it."

What??? A Presidential Candidate not INFORMED about one of the most important social issues?
If he's lying to save his own ass, what a horrible way to do it. Just say your against contraception and take your stand. He's supposed to be a "straight talker" who will take on questions and accusations against his issues head on, but he stumbles over contraception??
If he's not lying, and really doesn't know (or care about) contraception, then why the hell would we want him as President?

And that's not the first time he's said that. So many times when asked about contraception issues, he responds with "I don't know...etc". Even going so far as to ask his press secretary what his stance on the issues were!
Do we want a President who doesn't know about these issues?

At another time, when asked about the fact that Viagra is paid for by insurance but birth control isn't (he'd recently voted against a bill that would have birth control paid for along WITH what it pays for now-Viagra), he responded "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue".

Once again, WHAT? He doesn't want to talk about it? How can a Presidential Candidate not want to talk about an important issue? Do we want a president who is uncomfortable with talking about these important issues? He then says that he "doesn't usually duck an issue, but I'll get back to you".
Well we've got more instances where he DID duck that very same issue!

In this case you'd think it'd make perfect sense for any insurance that covers Viagra to cover birth control as well. As if the two weren't completely related to each other.



Today I even discovered an article talking about the new "definition" of Pregnancy. The government has decided to THROW OUT the established MEDICAL definition of pregnancy as beginning at implantation (when an egg attaches to the Uterus lining), and instead adopt the religious PUBLIC OPINION that pregnancy starts at conception (the meeting of the egg and sperm) as the new DEFINITION. This is an attempt at defining any hormonal contraception as ABORTION, which it's NOT! This also goes on to propose a new rule that would allow government funded programs to DENY women BIRTH CONTROL, and any company that didn't hire someone who would REFUSE BIRTH CONTROL to patients would be threatened.

This is just one step closer to outlawing Contraception in the US. Can you believe it?
Abstinence Only is one thing, but these little bitty steps towards completely ANNIHILATING the RIGHTS of women and their HEALTH is getting ridiculous and, frankly, absolutely frightening.

I don't care if your republican, democrat, christian, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion,or pro-abstinence only, you cannot support a complete lack of Contraception and Condoms!

I don't care who you usually vote for, who you're planning on voting for, or why, but PLEASE don't vote for McCain. If you care about health, sexuality, or just WOMEN, PLEASE don't vote for him!
A man who doesn't want to talk about vital health issues and doesn't know enough about contraception to simply answer a question should NOT be allowed to be our entire countries President!

*deep breath*
I can deal with abortion being illegal or Abstinence Only taking over the schools, but if Contraception is banned in the US, or made legally ridiculously hard to get, I'm moving to Canada or England. And for the first time, I'm completely serious.

I can't support a country that doesn't support basic Civil and Women's Health Rights.



(PS: all the hyper linked phrases lead to blogs or news articles explaining the phrase)

Sin on News

Some news stories today that BUG me:



Shakopee heeds parents' concerns on sex-ed course

Okay. No. There is no - and I mean NO- logical reason for kids not to learn about sex. Seriously. The time for sexual morality is OVER. Sex is biology. Sex is nature. Sex is going to happen whether we like it or not. Parents can't normally opt their kids out of Biology, or let them skip European History, so their friggin body's sexual DEVELOPMENT class should also be REQUIRED. There is no LOGICAL reason why it shouldn't. People should know their bodies, and that's that.
The fact that they're segregating the sex ed classes is just a laughable after thought for me. Separating boys and girls in a sixth grade class only perpetuates the idea that boys and girls are unequal and sex is something dirty and secret. And I think it's just silly.

Next.

Pharmacies Should Be Allowed To Refuse Contraception...

Nothing so wrong with this post. But it revealed the fact that some Pharmacies refuse to fill contraception orders. Wait, what? No, really, WHAT? Okay, what they say about upholding their own morals without pushing them on other people is great, really, but not filling contraceptions? Not holding condoms? What if they're the only Pharmacy in town? Ick. I don't like this. But yet...it's not all bad. I guess.

Secrets in the Suburbs: I'm a Dominatrix

This...is awesome.
That's all I have to say.
Go you, Mrs. Dom-Mommy.


Oh! And did I mention that Gay Marriage is legal in California? Finally!


W is currently trying to get me to "make research", being that I haven't posted a Position of the Week in for-fucking-ever. (I'm saying fuck a lot tonight; sorry, I'm just in that -fucking- mood.) So I'll go. For science. Yeah, right.

Before I go, four things I realized today.

1. Simba and Nala had sex in the Lion King.

I know, I know; either What the Fuck? or Duh... but for some reason this never occurred to me, but dawned on me suddenly at work as Can You Feel the Love Tonight played.

2. I haven't done a post here about books yet, so I really should. ASAP.

3. The new Doctor Who episodes are better than sex. Period. Seriously. Way better than any sex you could possible have. Unless...no, never mind.

4. I haven't written anything of worth lately. I really do feel bad, I swear. But I'm back from my sad excuse for a "va-kay" and don't work again till Wednesday. So I have three days to force myself! And by force myself I mean be completely lazy until someone actually tells me I should do a new post so I feel like anyone cares. ....... .....

Position of the Week #

Currently Reading: The Little Bit Naughty Book of Kama Sutra Positions (Little Bit Naughty Book Of...) by

This week, lets do a simple one especially for the guys out there.

Reverse Cowgirl

This is a variation of the Cowgirl position, which essentially is just the woman on top. The Cowgirl allows the man to relax more and enjoy the ride while the woman is able to control the speed, thrusting, etc to her own comfort.
The Reverse Cowgirl offers these same benefits, plus a few others, and many variations (hence all the pictures). Let's talk about them all.

We'd only been in our first position for a few minutes before he sat up, pulling me with him, and lifted my body above his.

"Turn around" he growled, laying out and placing me over his hips. I did as he said, straddling him, and found myself facing the wall, his legs sprawled out in front of me and him entering me from underneath. I wasn't sure what to do but began to move slowly, teasingly slow.

My hips rocked forward gently, raising ever so slightly to pull myself away from him, only to thrust back quick but careful. I could hear his moans behind me as I moved. I leaned forward and was met with a harsh, pleasured groan as the angle of his entrance changed and my inner muscles clenched around him. I grabbed hold of his knees, rough and dry from earlier activities on the floor, and thrust myself harder against him.

His nails found the skin of my thighs, digging into the flesh, making my back arch and my breath catch in my throat. He grabbed me by that flesh and lifted me, then slammed be back down, thrusting himself harder and harder inside me. The sensation was sharp and wonderful, spreading from that center within, up through my pelvis and stomach, making my mind whirl and my thoughts loose focus.

I rocked my hips, harder, faster, matching his movements, driven by his erotic cries. Deeper, fuller, rougher, stronger. I found myself dancing above him to a chorus of him moaning my name.
-Sin Secret

First, as I said, this position lets the man sit back and enjoy the show. Basic positions like Missionary, Doggy Style, etc, typically have the man "in charge", with more control. While this can be great most of the time because the guy gets to kind of do whatever he wants, I'm sure it can get tiring, always doing the most work. This position allows him the chance to not have to do any work, and just be able to enjoy the sex. Supposedly it can even prolong the man's erection.

Second, this allows the woman a "seat of power" throughout the act. She can control how fast you go, the angle of entry, and how deep the thrust is. It is also said that the right angle here can hit the G-spot just right.

A quick note to you potential reverse cowgirls; make sure you give yourself time to adjust to the new position. If you're new to it, you'll have to start slowly so that your vagina and the muscles around it adjust to the new way the penis is entering, otherwise it can be a bit of a pain.

Now, for guys the regular Cowgirl provides a view of the womans thrusting body and bouncing chest. Unfortunately the Reverse doesn't allow that so much. If a mirror is included, it could, and that is quite common, but otherwise the only thing you get a good view of is your partners ass. That can be good or bad depending, but hopefully you like her ass. Either way, it provides a good view for those who are especially attracted to that part of the body. This does give you the thighs to grab on to, which can be very sexy if you or your girl are into nails or tight grips, and the fact that the thighs are within reach means that in extreme bouts of passion, the man can grab the woman and increase the speed or thrust, if he so pleases.
Depending on the size of the two of you, the man may have enough reach to fondle the pubic area/clitoris, or the breasts. This is especially true if the woman leans back, as in the picture to the side. The woman can also lean forward onto the mans bent knees, which can provide her support, a different angle, and a little better control. Also allows the guy more moving room.

It also has to be mentioned to be careful! In this position the penis can end up at an odd angle, which can become very uncomfortable for the guy (and girl), but can also hurt something very very badly. You'd think a penis would be hard to "break", but in certain positions is actually rather easy.
Ever had a girl on top and she went up a little too far and came down a little too fast? Caught the penis somehow and made a scary POP sound? I know I've done that quite a few times with W. It can get a little nerve-wracking, makes us stop and take a breather. If done right (or maybe that should be wrong), that POP can create permanent damage, especially in the Reverse position because you can easily and unconsciously bend the penis too far back. So watch yourself.
I assume this can also be used for anal sex, but would carry similar warning signs. Mixing the awkward position with the fragility of the anal tissues could be worrisome. But I'm sure it can be done. I'll have to ask someone about that...

Personally, I haven't tried this one in quite a while, because lately I've been sticking to some tried and true favorites, more than branching out to different ones. But occasionally I enjoy being on top, and this one is one I sometimes choose. Although, (to me) seems a bit less awkward than the Cowgirl because you're not facing your partner, but also a bit more awkward because you're facing the guys toes instead.

But really, it depends what you're into. This is definitely liked, because it's in porn all the time, and it's no wonder when you get to see the girl bouncing, moaning, and writhing above you (or whoever you're watching).

That's all for today!
Play safe!

Related Posts: Position O/T Week !, Position O/T Week @, Does God Really Kill Kittens?

*Disclaimer* All written work here (and anywhere on my site) is by me and is my property, unless otherwise stated. On the flip side, all artwork is not mine and is found in various places around the internet and not mine to claim, unless otherwise stated.

Adult Product of the Week - The Power of the Sun in the Palm of Your....

Currently Reading: The Walk of Shame: A Survival Guide by Robin Anderton and Jay Desario

This weeks product is another female product (sorry guys, yours will be next, I promise; it requires me to get something for W and try it out). I picked this one because it's simple, discreet, cheap, and effective. So I'll try to be the same. Minus the cheap part...

So let's talk about The Power Bullet Clitoral Vibrator

The basics:
This teeny little thing will run you about $8 - $14, depending where you get it and if it's a "name brand" or a basic one. The link above is for the Adam & Eve version, but you can get one just about anywhere. I bought one during a trip to the local "fancy" adult store with/for my friend K. There is was about nine bucks, I believe.
They come in all colors and shades, usually take watch batteries, have a slick, metal texture, and pack one hell of a punch. Use this thing in the wrong area when your not ready for it and you're body'll spasm so fast you'll pull a muscle. Or bang your head on the bathroom cabinet, which I've done.

The best thing about these is that they are so small, but work so well. You get the occasional review about not lasting long enough, or being too small, but the typical responses are fantastic. The thing will slide right into your pocket or any hidden area in your purse. Some even come with little sleeves to put them in, like those mini tampons, so even just bouncing around it your bag no one would notice. I love sex with a vibrator included, so having this thing tucked away in your bag allows for that extra oomph in even the most spontaneous of encounters.

Another great thing is the variety of uses. Sure, there's the basic vibrator to clitoris equals orgasm, but it can also be used to stimulate the G-spot, or (for guys) it can be placed on the perineum- the soft area between the scrotum (balls) and the anus. This creates crazy high sensations for the guy, like hitting a girls G-spot just right. For some guys this will have to be a sort of push with the vibrator, applying a good amount of pressure, but for others it will have to be such light pressure that it's barely touching the skin at all, it just depends.
Then there are the silicon sleeves that the bullet can be slipped into for different textures. From studs to ripples to spikes to waves, these are supposed to mix up the sensations. Personally, they don't do much for me, but supposedly it's good for sensitive women who like different feelings.
And of course an extra nifty part is that a bullet vibrator can be used as an extra or backup in other sex toys. Especially those awesome vibrating "love rings", such as this one, this one, or this one (none of which I've used, by the way, I'm just giving examples). These "love rings" work awesome for couples who are either in need of some extra stimulations (for both parties), are having trouble staying erect (on the mans part), or just looking for something fun and new to try. And your little bullet will slide right into those if the vibrator it came with dies out, so you'll never have that battery problem (mentioned below).


There are, however, two main downfalls to this nifty little thing. First, is that there is only one setting. Personally, and I assume for most women it's the same, I prefer to have multiple settings so that I can start slow and adjust to the sensations before jumping into the top speed. You can't do that will this, it's all strong all the time.

[The cure for this, I've found, by the way, is to start off in a less sensitive area, like the pubic mound or right on the edges of your outer lips, then move further into the middle and towards the clitoris as you become adjusted.]

The second downfall is the batteries. Watch batteries are damned expensive, between 5 and 15 dollars depending on the store and brand, and this thing wears them down pretty hard every couple of uses. It's kind of like those printers that only cost like 30 dollars, and then you find out the ink is almost as much, and you have to get new ink every month or two. It gets to be annoying. For me, however, it works out pretty well, especially because it isn't my only vibrator, so I don't end up desperate if the bullet is battery-less.

You know, let me know if I'm sounding like a PR sponsor for Adam & Eve's because I really don't want to. Our local sex columnist does that and it's annoying and useless as hell. Yes, I provide links to their site because Yes, if you buy something I do make some money because Yes I am really broke, but I Don't want you to think that the only reason I have product reviews is because I'm an Adam & Eve affiliate. Seriously, I do actually review these things so that you have an idea of what kind of products are out there and how they've worked out (for me), and such. The A & E thing is just my pathetic way of attempting to make extra money for my rent and kill my two birds with one stone, but really, it is not my reasoning for doing the reviews to begin with, I promise.

Anyway.

Play safe!!


Related Posts: Adult Product of the Week 1, First Experiences; the Female Condom, Does God Really Kill Kittens?

First Experiences - The Female Condom

I advocate a lot for all forms of effective contraceptives. Condoms, pills, patches, caps, gels, whatever. If it protects you from something, I'm for it.

But the other day I realized that I hadn't actually used all those things. I use birth control pills- Yaz- which I may often mention, and I never go without a condom. (I can't say I never have, but I never do.) But that's pretty much my experience. My pills work for me, so I haven't tried anything else. I'm not big on lubricants (too slimy and dries me up), so I'm not an avid spermicide user (although I do have a fondness for condoms that come With spermicide already on them). And for the rest, they are over my price range or superfluous with my avid pill and condom use.

A while back, my aunt brought me a few Female Condoms (odd, I know, but huzzah us for openness) from the Student Center nearby. They sat in my condom basket for a few weeks, until yesterday.
I don't think it's fair for me to say that all these contraceptive methods are great and should be used if I haven't even used half of them.

So, I gave one a try.

Now, my first Product Review is of the FC Female Condom.



I first heard about the female condom a few months back while stopping at a Planned Parenthood booth at the university. They were handing out little bags of stuff, and of course I'm always up for free stuff, so I took one and asked what was (supposed to be) in it. When a female condom was mentioned, I asked about it, and after an explanation was glad to have gotten it, I wanted to check it out. Unfortunately my bag didn't have one, but I didn't fret.
From the explanation given, I got an odd mental image of a double sided tube, partly in the vagina and partly hanging out, and having to get the penis into the outside tube to then go into the vagina. It didn't seem ideal. But after seeing the pictures in the pamphlet that came with the female condoms I was given, it seemed much more snug and comfortable; more practical. Unfortunately, on trying it, I found out my initial idea was more accurate.

The pamphlet includes lots of information. From why its a good idea to use it, to detailed diagrams of how to use it, to precautions and FAQs, it's pretty helpful. No complaints here. Although the actual descriptions of what to do are a bit hard to follow on the first attempt, but the pictures kind of take care of it. My favorite of the precautions is one of those things that is stated several times in several places, and you just can't believe they would actually put it on something, but sadly know that some people would actually be dumb enough to not know it. It stated “REMEMBER- The FC female condom only works if you use it.”
Wait, what? Isn't that silly? That's like someone complaining that they haven't learned anything from a book, while they've never even opened it. Unfortunately some people really are that ridiculous and probably would sue because the FC didn't keep them from getting pregnant while it sat on their bedside table.

The packaged condom itself is about twice the length of a regular condom, only slightly bigger in width. Lightly squeezing it, it feels about the same as a regular condom. All the squishiness and odd plastic circles that condom users are used to, only bigger.

Upon opening, the condom kind of looks like a small tubular trash bag, with a strange circlet in the bottom. Something like this...


Seeing it, my boyfriend- W- commented on how it was definitely not sexy. It wasn't. Vaguely translucent, thick, and covered in a layer of slimy lubricant, I wasn't particularly impressed. But I plowed forward anyway.

The insertion was probably the weirdest part. It suggests to lift one leg up during insertion- much like tampon instructions- so I tried with one knee up on the bed while standing. It wasn't easy the first few attempts. You're supposed to squeeze the inner ring- whilst it's inside the bag, just as you pulled it out- while pushing it up into the vagina. This is difficult because, as I said, the bag is covered in a layer of lubricant, so it tends to slip right out of your fingers. Once that's managed though, getting it in is fairly easy, especially if you're used to tampons and the such.
The biggest trouble I had with that was being sure that it was in correctly. I mean, sure, it was in, but the idea is that it should cup over your cervix, so it protects and stays in place. But once I put it in, looking at the pictures made me feel like it wasn't in far enough. It felt like my cervix was way to close to the outside of my vagina and I just didn't think it was the right place. But, having to admit that it probably was, I just pushed it as far as it could go and went on. This only really became a problem because due to a lack of anything nice to watch (this performance certainly wasn't), he lost his erection and we had to bring it back, but that was the biggest real issue.

But here is my biggest problem. There was a bag hanging out of my vagina.
Let me repeat that.
There was a BAG hanging out of my VAGINA.
It was not at all as close to my skin as the image looked, it was very much hanging there.
Kinda like that...

It just wasn't pretty. But lets move on.

We went ahead and gave it a try. As my first impression foretold, it was a matter of getting the penis into this tube, which wasn't exactly sexy, but once the action took place, the whole thing did adjust itself, and did fit closer to the skin, and once we adjusted to it, things went pretty much like normal.

From the guy's side, he said that at first he didn't feel anything at all, but once he adjusted, it felt pretty normal.

Oh, the only problem during the event was that the edges of the outer ring did not- like some pictures show- go all the way up to the clitoris. It did, however, go to about the urethra, and it irritated the hell out of it, rubbing back and forth against it like that. That might not be a problem for everyone, but I have a sensitive one, so it was for me.

Taking it out was simple, although a bit annoying that you can't get up before you do, unless you want a big icky mess on your hands/legs/sheets/carpet. And disposal was just like any regular condom; trash, not toilet. (W actually used to put condoms down the toilet all the time and it drove me crazy!)

Basically, my experience with the FC Female Condom was not particularly satisfactory. I will tell you, however, that the thing did not break. The plastic is thick and pretty much stayed in place. So unless you use a regular condom with it (Don't!) there shouldn't be any problems with the thing tearing. So, as far as pregnancy goes, it's a good preventer despite its strangeness.

Overall, I think that while I don't plan on making use of these on a regular basis, it is a pretty adequate alternative to condoms, especially for people who are allergic to latex (FC's are latex-free, yay!).

Related Posts: The Many Ways to Play Safe 1

An Apology. Actually, more of a Rant. Abstinence.

As anyone who's seen this whole page may know, at the bottom of my page I have a little ticker of News stories involving sex, romance, homosexuality, heath, etc. This is a blogger feature and I thought it was a nifty idea.

Unfortunately I can't screen these news stories. While attempting to update my stuff today, I watched the ticker for a bit to see what kind of stuff came up. One of the ones I tried out was called “Studies disagree on sex ed, abstinence” from the Journal Gazette in Indiana.

I just want to apologize to anyone who read that horrible article, and say how annoyed I am that it is on my site. It makes me very angry that I can't screen those articles, but hell, at least it gives me something to talk about.
So let's.

The main idea, at first, seemed to ask why 1 in 14 girls from 14 to 18 have an STD if the government is spending so much on Abstinence Only. I started out with a sort of Hurrah.

“Despite the millions of dollars spent each year on sex education, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that one in four teenage girls ages 14 to 18 has a sexually transmitted disease. What has gone wrong?“

See? Seems promising. It then, however, goes on to say how Planned Parenthood (hopefully we all know who they are) say that Abstinence Only is to blame, and that the Surgeon General last year pronounced the Abstinence Only campaign as ineffective. Which I actually didn't know, so at least I learned something.

However. Here it comes. The turn.
“There are numerous credible reports refuting the surgeon general’s findings.“

Wait, what?

“In 1999, a study was commissioned by the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils based in Washington, “The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates in the 1990s: What Factors Are Responsible?” by Jeffrey M. Jones, who has a medical degree and a Ph.D., and 10 other medical doctors.
While the study focused primarily on pregnancy, birth and abortion, its findings are applicable to sexually transmitted diseases because condoms are the primary tool used to prevent both pregnancy and STDs in teens. The document says in part that “the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review. … Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.””

First my jaw drops because they're trying to prove the Surgeon General wrong about abstinence! The fact that this study came out almost ten years ago, makes me surprised they can even use it as evidence. I mean, really, the 90's is when condoms became readily available to anyone who wanted them, of course pregnancy rates went down! The article even claims that ““the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review. … Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.”” That doesn't make any sense! They have no reason to imply that any of that drop was due to abstinence.

But then, the idea behind the studys proof! Oh my god!

“While the study focused primarily on pregnancy, birth and abortion, its findings are applicable to sexually transmitted diseases”

WHAT??!!
I can't believe they can legally claim to that.
In case you didn't know, STD's and pregnancy are not correlated. Let me tell you why.

First off, you do not not not to have to have INTERCOURSE to get an STD. You typically have to have intercourse to become pregnant. There are exceptions, but typically, thats what it takes. STDs are contracted through intercourse anal, oral, possibly other forms of foreplay. If a couple is using a condom during intercourse, but not during oral, Ta duh; limited pregnancies but lots of STDs! I can't believe this article claimed this correlation. It's horrifying.
But that really isn't the worst part of the story. Near the end they quote a “study” done, involving members of Virginity Pledges (maybe we'll talk about those some time, arg!).

“The 2001 study concludes with the following: “As a group of more than 2,000 physicians who deal daily with the ravages of STDs and teen pregnancy, we see a simple solution: abstinence until marriage with an uninfected partner and monogamy thereafter. This is the lifetime prescription for optimal sexual health.””

......
I am speechless.
What a horrible way to use “physicians” to push your ignorant and unrealistic opinions.

And then, even friggin better....
“Planned Parenthood and many other sex-education organizations promote condom use for “safer” teenage sex. But how much safer is sex using condoms? A study by the National Institutes for Sexual Health on condom effectiveness states that even with consistent and correct use, chlamydia, the No. 1 bacterial STD, is found to be prevented only 50 percent of the time. At the 2002 National STD Prevention Conference, it was stated that condoms are only 60 percent effective in preventing genital herpes, an incurable disease that infects one in five Americans age 12 and older.”

AAAAHHH!!! Luckily this is the last paragraph, because I don't think I could take any more ridiculous frustration. I have to explain this though, because they're using a semi-real statistic and twisting it to fit their ideas.
Condoms are NOT 100% effective in preventing STDs.
They aren't. That's the sad fact; nothing is. It just isn't possible yet. STDs are an epidemic.
But I have to address the two they point out. Chlamydia and Herpes, of course they aren't 100% prevented with condoms. What does a condom cover up? The penis. Where do skin based bacterial STDs like chlamydia and herpes typically live? Just about the entire genital area. Including what? The scrotum. And what is the scrotum doing during sex? Bouncing back and forth, completely uncovered, against the bottom of the vagina! Is that skin contact? Yes! Could you get an STD that way? YES!

The thing is that with condoms, you have a massively higher chance to NOT get an STD. This article is practically saying that they are useless! What kind of message is that sending our generations? That condoms aren't really that great so they shouldn't even bother??? Is this what we want them to think???
I hope not.

Now. I know I'm a bit angry as I write this, but hopefully it still makes sense. Please let me know if there are any mistakes or inaccuracies that need to be fixed.

I just really needed to rant.



Related Posts: The Sex Taboo, The Many Ways to Play Safe