Graphene condoms under development thanks to the Gates Foundation
by Carder
This composite material will be tailored to enhance the natural sensation during intercourse while using a condom, which should encourage and promote condom use….
This will be achieved by combining the strength of graphene with the elasticity of latex to produce a new material which can be thinner, stronger, more stretchy, safer and, perhaps most importantly, more pleasurable.
~ Dr Aravind Vijayaraghavan describing the “next-generation” condom using the material graphene, made possible by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, AU News, November 1
The BBC reports that the HIV team senior program officer Dr Papa Salif Sow said a “redesigned condom that overcomes inconvenience, fumbling or perceived loss of pleasure would be a powerful weapon in the fight against poverty.”
[HT: Laura Loo]

It’s an interesting idea, but let’s not jump up and down just yet. It’s still in development, and we don’t yet know if it will be as effective as traditional condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS. If it isn’t, it will be worse than useless.
Abstinence=100% effective.
Oh I know. Silly me. We can’t be expected to exercise self control!!!
Sex outside of marriage causes STD’s. Condoms may mitigate the risks, but mostly they encourage persons to more promiscuity. And so…. more STD’s.
Meanwhile, the myth that children cause poverty rages on. I don’t think that poor people believe it, but this lie certainly motivates those rich “benefactors” who are tempted to genocide against the poor.
“Children cause poverty.”
It’s not a myth. Many of the poor know it only too well, as do many of the middle class.
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/?iid=EL
Often around a quarter-million bucks for middle class parents to raise a kid to age 18, not counting college. And of course “the poor” would tend to spend less. Let’s say it’s half as much. Or let’s say it’s “only” $100,000. Most people who are down around the poverty line, or not much above it, simply have no extra money, and this is before they have any kids.
Christine: We are the richest country in the richest era of human history. Yet we waste our wealth, and pile on more debt. And we scare young people with overwhelming fears of “how much a child costs.”
Raising a kid costs that much because we choose to pay that much. We could raise children much cheaper and much better, if we wanted to too.
Meanwhile, we have killed 54 million American children, we’ve spent billions on poverty programs, and yet the problem of poverty seems to keep growing. Perhaps the dominant progressive paradigm is just wrong, somehow.
Perhaps we can cure poverty by waiting until adulthood to indulge in sex, getting married first and staying married, and having lots of children together is the answer. This is what worked for generations and centuries of human culture. Of course, they relied a lot on Judeo-Christian charity and religion too. Perhaps we should encourage these things, instead of condoms and abortions.
My wife and I were at an office party and someone asked how long we had been married and how many children we had. My wife said we had been married 7 years and we had 5 children.
Then some ‘helpful’ person asked the question, “Did you figure out what causes that?””
“No, or we would have had at least 7 children by now.”
[NOT!!!] What she actually said was: “We didn’t have a TV.”
Bill Gates and the dead babies r us mob should just buy all these dis-advantaged folk a TV and then force them to view boRAT reruns.
That would kill the mood.
The federal government could subsidize child bearing like it does agriculture and pay people NOT to reproduce.
“Walk on the sidewalk, you’re wearing down the earth!”
“I was addicted to the ‘hokey pokey’, but I turned myself around!”
[‘hokey pokey’, not to be confused with the ‘hoochie coochie’]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFLOL!!!
This is hilarious. Condoms the “most antiquated form of birth control” again being touted as the solution to the worlds problems. After 3 months in a “relationship”, folks think they are “committed” (no wedding, no marriage, no ring, no license, no vows, no life-long pledge but were “committed”) so most people don’t bother to use them after 3 months.
“Don’t you love me and trust me baby?”, the “most antiquated, stale line in history” is being used not just by men but by women as well. (The stories I could tell you working with teens and young adults, believe me the girls use this line too not just the guys). Condoms can’t protect against some of the most common STDs because they are transmitted by skin-to-skin contact not by exchange of body fluids, they are almost useless against them. (which means touching and genital stimulation of the entire genital region can transmit these STDs-you would actually need a wet suit to protect yourself-then what’s the point). We’ve seen chancres, blisters, warts and sores right above where the condom stopped and it ain’t pretty. As for the other STDs that condoms are supposed to reduce risk for, the condoms can’t reduce risk when they are left in someone’s pocket or purse or drawer. Give me a break.
At least tell people the truth, the only 100% “safe-sex” is both people abstaining until married and then life-long, mutually monogamous sex. These condom-pushers and pimps are going to destroy our kids. I don’t care how many you pass out “Condoms don’t protect the heart”, Millions of heart-broken, depressed, suicidal, addicted and abused young people are the carnage of our so-called “reproductive freedom” and ”sexual revolution” that’s not even counting all of the dead babies over 55 million and climbing.
So we Americans get to see our tax dollars go to corrupt leaders in other countries. Then, when that money goes toward corrupt leaders and their cronies instead of development, the corrupt leaders and some of us get to turn around and blame poverty conditions on people living in poverty.
Handing people in really tough situations birth control instead of working with them to develop their communities? We can do better than this abusive cycle.
As far as “how much children cost” you have to ask yourself
“What is a necessity?”
XBOX, Ipad, Iphone, designer clothes, ballet, tap, tennis and piano lessons????
Children do not CAUSE poverty.
Okay, so married couples use condoms too, if they don’t agree or can’t use other types of birth control. And yes, having more kids makes it harder to climb out of poverty. Even if you get married before you have them. Marriages don’t always last. Kids are expensive. Childcare expenses are astronomical, food is getting ridiculously pricey, and rents keep going up. Yes, having children can help keep you in poverty. It’s not their faults, but it’s true that having a kid doesn’t help you improve your lot in life, at all.
“Perhaps we can cure poverty by waiting until adulthood to indulge in sex, getting married first and staying married, and having lots of children together is the answer. This is what worked for generations and centuries of human culture.”
Okay, people were desperately poor in the Golden Years ™ too. Poverty was around then to an even greater extent than now in some decades. The reason having more kids made financial sense in previous years in the US was because in agrarian cultures the more children to help out your farm the better. After the Industrial Revolution and before child labor laws, children also started working very young in the urban areas to help provide for the family. And these families remained poor, generally.
We don’t have an agrarian culture anymore, more children no longer makes any financial sense, at all, when you’re in poverty. It’s not like you can send them to a factory at age eight, lol. Kids are not born with a debit card attached so you can afford to feed them and clothe them. People like to pretend that kids don’t cost anything, which is just ridiculous. Kids are massively expensive no matter how much you try to cut costs. This isn’t to scare any poor person from having children, but they need to be aware of the reality. If you want to be out of poverty, your best bet is to wait on the children.
And I don’t get it. People shame poor people for being poor all the time on this blog and complain about paying assistance for needy families, but then turn around and tell people to have more children. Which they will then complain about having to help feed and clothe said children. Makes no sense to me. There’s an income level where it’s basically unaffordable to feed, clothe, and house your kids. We shouldn’t encourage people to have MORE kids as if it’s a magic fix.
I don’t agree Jack, it’s not children keeping folks in poverty. You are right that not all marriages work out. But like I have said before the research regarding “Why Marriage Matters” and “The Ring Makes All The Difference” (books by Glen T. Stanton) and “The Case for Marriage” (Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite) backs up that married people are happier, (less depression, alcoholism, suicide, mental illness, etc) wealthier (less poverty, welfare, financial instability, educational failure, dropouts, truancy,) healthier (less chronic disease including heart disease, cancer etc, accidents, live longer, less hospitalizations, when married people get sick they are more likely to survive illnesses), all the research backs up that most married people fare better than any other group singles, divorced, separated, cohabiting couples, widow(ers)s.
No, I am not suggesting people stay in abusive, unstable marriages or just get married for the sake of getting married. I have friends who have wonderful stories of working hard to get out of poverty, get an education, obtaining a career after having children because this spurred them on to do better. My late mother-in-law worked like a dog to see her children overcome poverty and taught them about the value of faith (she took her children to church and taught them Biblical values at home) , the commitment of marriage (even though she did not have a good marriage with her ex she taught them it was a wonderful, God-designed goal) and commitment to family.
My husband broke the cycle of abuse, divorce, fatherlessness and alcoholism. Star Parker’s biography, “Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats” talks about her conversion from welfare abuser to entrepreneur. God can take people’s mistakes and make them into miracles, even their children become an incentive to live a better life. The Bible says, “Children are a heritage unto the Lord, the fruit of the womb is his reward.” I know that you may not believe this right now Jack but it is the truth. Every life has a divine purpose, even when others say “you were a mistake”. I continue to pray for you and your children because God has a purpose for you and your children. Take care.
Jack — I don’t mean to disrupt your worldview. Feel free to keep it.
But I am telling my children that the “2-Child Policy” was failure for families and for our culture. I expect that we will see an economic collapse in not too many years, as personal debt and public debt continue to grow beyond control. And when the public social safety net fails, we will fall back on our families and church communities for mutual support.
I tell my kids that if they want a secure future and the hope of wealth,
– Choose your spouse (and your spouse’s family) very well
– Commit to staying married and stay married.
– Have lots of kids
– Maintain good relationships with your bothers, sisters and cousins.
– Learn to be self-sufficient, and deal with local farmers, butchers, and produce shops. Have those relationships in place already before Wal-Mart closes up.
– Cultivate good Christian relationships with the families in your parish. Help these people when they need it. Don’t wait for the government to aid them. They will be your help when you need it.
Fixing the culture starts with preparing your own family. We need to be open to life and testaments to how large families live well. If we aren’t, then we can look like hypocrites when we speak against mentality of “Save money! Kill the Kid!”
Who is shaming the poor?
I get tired of ALL of the reasons people can think of to kill innocent human beings.
And I don’t get it. People shame poor people for being poor all the time on this blog and complain about paying assistance for needy families, but then turn around and tell people to have more children.
Jack, some people on here are opposed to government assistance because they think it makes people dependent, but I don’t think most “shame” the poor for being poor.
The best way to lower the birth rate in developing countries is to improve the treatment of increase opportunities for girls and women. Stop selling them into sexual slavery, stop marrying them off to men old enough to be their fathers, stop mutilating their genitals. Give them microloans to start their own businesses and send them to school. It’s easier said than done, but it works!
Thank you, Carla and phillymiss.
Many of us either grew up poor or ARE poor, or are actively donating to organizations to HELP the poor.
Oh, but I forgot… liberal policies and government assistance are the ONLY officially approved way of helping the poor. Otherwise, you’re just a hater.
“Oh, but I forgot… liberal policies and government assistance are the ONLY officially approved way of helping the poor. Otherwise, you’re just a hater. ”
I’ve literally said nothing like this (except maybe sarcastically in regarding universal healthcare). It’s not disagreeing with governmental assistance that’s hateful. It’s the continual degradation of people who are on assistance/are poor, which I shouldn’t have to point out because it’s literally everywhere on this blog, at least everywhere Obamacare or food stamps is discussed. Instead of saying “I think government assistance is bad because _____” there seems to be an inability to refrain from anecdotes about welfare cheats and implications that they are most people who need assistance, about how poor people aren’t *really* in need because… Idk because the speaker decides so, accusations of laziness and entitlement, and other pleasant things. And no one can tell me how they can replace stuff like Medicaid/Medicare that’s too expensive for charities and churches to provide, but that’s not “hateful” for them to not have a solution that personally suits me. I think you’re being unfair.
And I’ve quite literally seen stuff like “if you can’t afford kids keep it in your pants” in regards to welfare, which is interesting contrasted to the types of conversations that happen when any form of birth control is brought up (“have more kids!”). It’s a weird dichotomy.
Prolifer L, I don’t know why you think I’m saying anything against marriage. I think marriage is generally a good thing for the majority of people. I am talking about having kids in poverty. It doesn’t improve your economic situation. Even if you’re married first, abuse, infidelity, abandonment, etc exists, and sometimes people end up poor single parents without much choice in the matter. I do not understand why this is controversial, and I’m being completely honest that I don’t understand it, that having more children makes leaving poverty more difficult. Every single statistic backs it up. Do people have any idea how much childcare costs? And food? I honestly do not understand this at all.
“But I am telling my children that the “2-Child Policy” was failure for families and for our culture. I expect that we will see an economic collapse in not too many years, as personal debt and public debt continue to grow beyond control. And when the public social safety net fails, we will fall back on our families and church communities for mutual support.”
Well, I’ll tell mine that it’s best to make sure you have financial resources before having children, and I don’t have a preference for how many they want to have. And I’ll teach them my mortal fear and hatred of debt hopefully, debt is a bad thing. Don’t buy things you can’t pay in full (except a house, maybe). You don’t need a nice car, I’ll teach you how to fix a beater up and you can get one for cheap or use public transportation. Get health insurance.
“- Choose your spouse (and your spouse’s family) very well
– Commit to staying married and stay married.- Have lots of kids- Maintain good relationships with your bothers, sisters and cousins.- Learn to be self-sufficient, and deal with local farmers, butchers, and produce shops. Have those relationships in place already before Wal-Mart closes up.- Cultivate good Christian relationships with the families in your parish. Help these people when they need it. Don’t wait for the government to aid them. They will be your help when you need it.”
See I don’t even disagree with many of your points here. I married badly which is a mistake I’ll do my best to make sure my kids don’t repeat. I do believe marrying smart and staying married (barring unfortunate unforeseen circumstances like severe debilitating illnesses, and abuse, abandonment, etc). I do think marrying improves your economic situation if you marry the right person. What I don’t agree with is that having a lot of kids improves your financial situation. If you’re a broke 19 year old, even if you’re married, having several kids right away isn’t going to improve things. We don’t live in previous years where there were a plethora of jobs you could get right after high school that can support a family. Our manufacturing industry is basically gone. Our blue collar, well-paying work is mostly gone. Even jobs like mechanics are starting to require education instead of apprenticeships (mostly because newer cars have computers and such that take more than being handy to fix up, even if you can learn this stuff on your own good luck getting people to hire you over the people who have an Associates nowadays).
And I actually do think that large families are good for support and helping each other out, if you have a decent, non-abusive family. But many of us don’t have that. If you have only yourself to depend on, more kids isn’t making financial sense at all if you can’t afford childcare and such.
And I think your point about avoiding places like Wal-Mart for more local businesses and the like is interesting. Do you think people can afford the more expensive prices if they are trying to get out of poverty? Do you think it’s financially feasible at a certain income level to double your food budget to avoid buying food at large grocery chains versus small stores? Same goes for clothes and such. If it’s cheaper to buy what you need at big stores, there’s no way people are going to be able to spend more just to make local connections. It just doesn’t work. Even places like Little Havana in Miami (which used to be characterized by local businesses and a strong community) are starting to fall apart when people stop buying more expensive local stuff because it simply doesn’t make sense to spend more when you can spend less. It’s capitalism, yo.
”Fixing the culture starts with preparing your own family. We need to be open to life and testaments to how large families live well. If we aren’t, then we can look like hypocrites when we speak against mentality of “Save money! Kill the Kid!””
Well obviously I don’t agree in killing any kids, born or not. Being pro-life doesn’t mean I have to ignore reality though. And reality is our economic situation in the US isn’t supportive of having a bunch of kids below a certain income level. I do think there is something to be said for not knowing how to handle money though. I think that can be fixed or improved by more education. I can’t count how many people I’ve seen around here who simply do not know how to balance a checkbook or pay bills properly, or shop smart, or any of those things. They are skills that need to be taught and learned. I’m not arguing against the proposition that it’s possible to survive just fine even with more kids, but I am arguing against the idea that having more kids should be a goal for those who are still in poverty, at least until they are in a place where it’s financially much more sensible.
My family has been on welfare. Food stamps etc. For a time. My husband lost his job. We were on it and we got off of it.
We live check to check. But I wouldn’t trade my life for anything!! The love I get to give and receive?????? There is no pricetag.
I think the word “poor” needs to be defined. We are rich in comparison to other countries.
Here’s a dilemma for Americans who think that raising a child is expensive: What is the definition of “enriched environment” vs. “empoverished environment?”
Many parents associate child-rearing with materialism when in fact the opposite, as Carla noted in her second paragraph, is true. Aside from providing diapers and food, which can easily be supplemented by enrolling in a state program, a parent does not have to rely on name-brand clothes, toys-r-us and lots of money to raise a child.
The backyard is an “enriched environment” and so is the playground at the local park. The local park district provides programming for minimal cost. Public education is there (regardless of its shortcomings). If you cook, you don’t cook for one person so there is always room for another plate to be filled up at the table. A newborn does not need a 2000 dollar bedroom set. Baby clothes is fairly inexpensive at Marshalls or TJMaxx. Forcing a child to take piano lessons because you once played or play now does not constitute good parenting either.
In other words, the cost is not relevant. Take it from someone who grew up in a very constricting political system where opportunities for children were minimal and yet had all the enriched environment possible for a child.
Parenting is expensive if one wants it to be. And yet materialism does not make a well-raised/ all-rounded child. The argument that raising a child requires a lot of money is bad advise. Parenting takes commitment/love (tough at times)/emotional and psychological bond. How many parents provide material things but when it comes to hands-on parenting, are absent?
Pro-aborts will not hear that of course. They want all to believe that monetarily parenting bankrupts a family. BS. What bankrupts a family is disregard of unconditional positive regard for life.
Ironically, the name for the new thinner and more flexible condom…Microsoft.
Okay. Well there are some great points on both sides.
No, parenting is not often reflected in those “how much it costs to raise a kid these days articles” because they often do include things like new nursery furniture, clothes from stores, etc. and yet a lot of poorer parents don’t even do that. It’s called yardsales and consignment stores yo. That’s what we do, anyway.
AND YET. Having a child – especially when one is already poor – is incredibly expensive and can make it harder to get out of a poverty situation. It’s not the little things that are expensive but the big things. Childcare (because if you’re poor, you either have to go back to school or work more jobs and you can’t leave kids at home alone) is ridiculous for a decent place. And then you still have to pray no pedophile psycho is watching your kid. And then health costs. Do you know how much they want you to go to the doctor in the first year? And then all the tests/meds in case something’s wrong? It gets crazy fast. Ridiculously so. And food. OMG. I know a lot of people say “just buy cheaper stuff” but cheaper stuff is usually so so so bad for you, and even poor people want to feed their kids well. But when they can’t, kids get sick, back to the doctor. IT really is a difficult cycle.
Oh but in regards to the article….
Condoms suck.
And while children make it difficult financially, there are a host of other factors that make that life expensive with kids and just condescendingly offering better condoms to “help the poverty situation” isn’t the answer. Though I’d rather see condoms than abortion.
Poverty is NEVER a reason to kill someone. Ever.
I find that Aldi is a very decent grocery store LibertyBelle. Do they have those in your neck of the woods? Or some variation of a local market maybe? When people speak of expensive food, most usually refer to Jewel and such. The big stores pay much for their overhead thus the reason. Find a local store and you will be surprised what you can find half the price you’d pay at a large chain.
“In other words, the cost is not relevant. Take it from someone who grew up in a very constricting political system where opportunities for children were minimal and yet had all the enriched environment possible for a child. ”
We aren’t discussing the emotional wealth of a loving family, which take it as someone who grew up with the opposite of a loving family, what you lose from that is way more important than money. We’re talking about the reality of raising children in poverty in regards to money, I thought.
I’m sorry, it’s not about name brands (unless you find them at a thrift store) and Toys ‘R Us. It’s not about new furniture, or piano lessons. My babies shared the same crib that we bought for $20 when our oldest was born. At a certain income level those things like lessons and new stuff don’t even exist. What you worry about when you’re truly impoverished is stuff like food, diapers, medical care, childcare, rent, a phone, and electricity. These are things you cannot do without. Some of these things can be helped by non-profits and charities (like diapers, and food to an extent though I wouldn’t bet on being able to feed your family all month on charity). Some of these things are just ridiculously expensive and not affordable. Like childcare if both parents have to work, or if you are a single parent. Or medical care.
It’s just as condescending to act like poor people are worried because they can’t afford piano lessons as it is to throw condoms at them. I don’t think I know a poor person who worries about stuff like that. What they DO worry about is having food at the end of the month (unless they finally break down and get on food stamps), or paying rent, or how to afford a doctor for mental healthcare or how to afford their kid’s asthma meds. How do more kids help this situation? How? I get so frustrated by these conversations because people start talking about how you can spend less when a lot of people are spending as little as they possibly can and simply can’t cut any more expenses.
“AND YET. Having a child – especially when one is already poor – is incredibly expensive and can make it harder to get out of a poverty situation. It’s not the little things that are expensive but the big things.”
Yes, it’s the big things. Charity can get you diapers and clothes, but there simply isn’t enough good hearted people and enough money to provide you healthcare when you need it for example. And this creates the vicious cycle of getting sick ===> emergency room visit because you don’t have insurance ===> huge bill you can’t possibly pay off, as it’s twice your annual income ===> garnishments when you can’t pay your bill ===> inability to get into a better financial place where you can afford insurance when you’re paying the hospital bill or getting garnished ===> get sick again…. and the cycle continues. It’s seriously a nasty trap.
“I find that Aldi is a very decent grocery store LibertyBelle. Do they have those in your neck of the woods? Or some variation of a local market maybe? When people speak of expensive food, most usually refer to Jewel and such. The big stores pay much for their overhead thus the reason. Find a local store and you will be surprised what you can find half the price you’d pay at a large chain. ”
I thought Aldi is a chain? Idk they seem to be everywhere. They aren’t too bad for prices though. The problem with food shopping at lower income levels is that perishables seem to be extremely expensive… everywhere. And if you only get food stamps once a month, and don’t own a car, people tend to stock up at the beginning of the month and have to make do with less healthy options (though I think some people don’t know how to cook, I can make a million things with just beans and rice and spices, and canned veggies). So the people who do this tend to buy items that keep forever instead of healthy options that have less shelf life and are more expensive, and there’s the time issues as well. I’m just glad I don’t eat meat because it seems you carnivores spend a ridiculous amount on meat.
Oh, and even if you cut food expenses as much as humanly possibly, and basically get 90% of your food out of the bulk food section of the grocery store (which is what I do, it saves a ton of money), it’s still not an expense you can do away with. Food is expensive. I can feed three, kinda, on about $250 but that’s as cheap as I can get it, and it’s not the world’s most balanced diet. How is adding more kids an improvement there?
I think you argue just to argue Jack.
Good grief. We don’t “HATE” poor people. But make sure you twist our words to make it seem that way.
There are so many of us that are scraping to get by. You are not the only one you know.
I’m not arguing just to argue.
Where did I say anything about you hating poor people? I very clearly said what I thought was rude and mean that I see a lot, but I didn’t see anyone say anything like that on this thread. I can disagree without thinking anyone is being hateful.
And I’ve never dreamed I’m the only person who’s ever scraped by.
And where in the world am I twisting words?
“It’s not their faults, but it’s true that having a kid doesn’t help you improve your lot in life, at all.”
Jack we fundamentally disagree on raising children in poverty so let’s just leave it there, but that statement above you made, makes absolutely no sense. Why? Simply because you and I define “lot” very differently. When one has a child it is no longer your lot. Is it me or did you mimic the pro-abort logic in defense of abortion?
“Why? Simply because you and I define “lot” very differently. When one has a child it is no longer your lot. Is it me or did you mimic the pro-abort logic in defense of abortion? ”
I was under the impression we were talking about economics, not other things that make life worthwhile. I phrased that statement poorly . What I should have said is that I don’t think having a child improves your economic situation in poverty. You can either take that to believe that I secretly agree with the pro-aborts that killing the kid is the solution (I don’t, obviously), or that I believe that self-control and education is a better solution than going ahead and having more kids when you’re very poor.
I do believe that having kids can immeasurably improve your life in other ways, I am simply talking about economics. Which I apologize if that wasn’t made clear.
I am sorry Jack but I do agree with Carla. You argue just to argue.
The economic situation is improved because you live for the child. The child becomes the impetus for your success as a parent and a provider. The child becomes an integral part of your “lot.” You will do anything to improve your economics just to take care of that child.
Why does it always come down to Jack vs. everyone else on a thread?
No I don’t argue just to argue. I argue if I disagree with something (like the premise that having more kids is the way out of poverty). I am actually been trying to watch my tone and just politely disagree, maybe people can tell me what they specifically don’t like (besides the fact I disagree) if they think I’m just being argumentative instead of disagreeing.
“Why does it always come down to Jack vs. everyone else on a thread?”
Maybe I’m a terrible human being, or maybe I am simply far to the left of the majority of commenters so I tend to disagree with things besides pro-life stuff.
I honestly don’t understand what I did wrong, maybe someone could clue me in. I can disagree without thinking people are hateful or just arguing to argue.
“.. I am simply far to the left of the majority of commenters so I tend to disagree with things besides pro-life stuff.”
B
I
N
G
O
Well ninek I guess the solution to my presence is ignore me if I disagree with sometime, or I stop commenting or only comment when I agree with something, or politely argue with me. I wish people would show me specifically what they find so offensive though, I don’t think I said anything mean to anyone in this conversation, but if someone took offense I guess they can specifically point it out. I was really trying to not be rude when disagreeing, if I failed at that I guess someone needs to show me so I won’t do it again. Telling me I argue just or argue doesn’t tell me what I’m doing wrong.
but it’s true that having a kid doesn’t help you improve your lot in life, at all.
The way I was going, my kids saved my life.
Prax I tried to explain that I said that poorly. I wasn’t talking about the millions of ways kids can improve your life other than economically. I just thought the conversation was about poverty, not other things. I am sorry.
I didn’t read the article, but I don’t think the main target for this program is monogamous married couples. So we can probably put that aside. Condom use does not reduce the spread of HIV and STD’s b/c it encourages more promiscuity by giving people a false sense of safety. So long as this is the focus of our HIV/STD efforts, we will continue to lose the battle. Even with perfect use, we will lose the battle.
Write whatever you want, Jack, that’s what comments are for. But you should keep notes; even though we may disagree with comments, some of your paragraphs are really good writing. There’s an author inside you struggling to get out, lol! I always tell people, you are free to disagree, but I’m free to tell you that I disagree too.
I love that Jill’s blog isn’t like those pro-choice websites that can’t tolerate a dissenting opinion. Sarah Silverman might wrongly think we’re afraid of lady parts, but pro-choicers are afraid of people using their brainy parts!!
Um I agree with you Jack! I do think that if you are poor and have more kids, you can still improve your situation, but it makes it far more difficult. not that it’s a reason to not have kids (we had a kid when we weren’t finanically “ready” and I wouldn’t trade him for the world). But I do think it’s ridiculous that people can just flippantly say have more kids to poorer people. Because it is hard. It’s very hard.
Thomas R we used to have an Aldi and they’re great, but we moved and there’s not one convenient anymore. Plus, a lot of their stuff isn’t that healthy. :( Thankfully we’re in a better position now, especially compared to the rest of the world. My husband’s been super blessed. I”m just saying that it is hard when you have kids, even when you’re content and don’t buy ipads and lessons and such things. And I totally get it.
Now before people fly off the handle…. I do love kids and kids are great. It’s just that, strictly economically speaking, they are expensive. Even with all the help out there.
Yes, LibertyBelle – they are expensive. We’re not saying that there are not rewards to being parents, nor that you should not have kids if you only make x amount of money.
The fact is that there are costs. For every imaginary or possibly real case where “having kids made my financial situation improve,” there are hundreds where having kids and the related costs means poverty instead of being above poverty, or of continuing poverty where otherwise it may have been ended, i.e. one could work more, go to school, not pay care fees, etc.
Jack: I don’t think I said anything mean to anyone in this conversation
Jack, face it – you are the Bad Boy of Jill’s site! :P
Seriously, I don’t see you being mean-spirited at all, and Ninek is correct about your writing. It’s good stuff and I too encourage you in it. Everybody is “unique,” but you’re a little more unique than most, here. ; )
I count at least five grammatical errors in my comments. I am not gonna comment on this thread again unless someone will explain where I made everyone mad, it would sincerely be appreciated.
And I don’t get it. People shame poor people for being poor all the time on this blog and complain about paying assistance for needy families, but then turn around and tell people to have more children.
From your first comment on this thread.
Who shames poor people here? Who complains about paying assistance to needy families?
“I am not gonna comment on this thread again unless someone will explain where I made everyone mad, it would sincerely be appreciated.”
Jack : you take heartfelt affirmations and empowerment discussions replete with positive examples as shaming poor people and as a personal attack as well. As I said before, no matter what, this “doomed if I do and doomed if I don’t” philosophy maintains one in a state of desperation where even outside influences with the best of intentions are taken as an attack. Given so much good will on this blog over the time that I have participated, I am totally surprised that you continue to flip things only to feed your negativity. You are stuck…
I have noted that as an individual you possess the strength to perservere in the face of adversity and indeed you have done well. You may take advantage of the assistance available to improve your economics so that your children benefit as well.
People who participate on this blog, contrary to your believe, are not filthy rich/ far-removed/ white-privilege exemplifiying individuals, and come from diverse backgrounds perhaps very similar to yours in so many ways. I have read many personal testimionials from many who shared their darkest secrets here. What does that tell you Jack?
It is time you look around and you will realize that poverty is not as severe of an obstacle as it used to be. There is help/assistance in terms of food/healthcare/children and anything else. The rest is up to how we respond…
I am going to shut up now I promise. :)
A while back I commented about a young mother in my life. She and the baby’s father were unemployed at the time of her pregnancy and had just been evicted. Many of us pitched in; I gave cash plus baby gifts (not cheap stuff either) and together we got them over the “hurdle.” Now both parents are employed full time and their baby is an adorable, running, laughing, toddler. Poverty isn’t permanent. Rich people can go broke, and broke people can climb out of debt or other adversity. Abortion is a permanent “solution” to a temporary problem.
And can I go back to the original subject for a moment: 40 plus years of unfettered feticide and just now some do-gooder-poor-folk-despising idiot wants to R&D a new condom?? You’re about 40 decades and 50 plus million human beings too late.
And besides, as other people have pointed out: the condom “safety” is an illusion. People would still seek abortions because they “tried” to prevent conception. A better product might be a better product, but unless WE convince our fellow humans of the dignity and value of each human person, it won’t matter what fancy new products come on the market.
Thank you Thomas and Carla I think I understand now. I shouldn’t lump all conservatives in with people I fight about on another thread. It just seems to me like most people agree with it though.
I will say though, this is out of line:
“People who participate on this blog, contrary to your believe, are not filthy rich/ far-removed/ white-privilege exemplifiying individuals, and come from diverse backgrounds perhaps very similar to yours in so many ways. I have read many personal testimionials from many who shared their darkest secrets here. What does that tell you Jack?”
First, I’ve commented here for several years and have read plenty of people’s personal stories, please don’t talk down to me. Even if you’re one of them and I’m not, I do know how to read. I can’t think of any regular commenter I would call “rich” (though I haven’t examined anyone’s bank account), I don’t consider most people here “far removed” (though I think some people are naive, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, god knows we need some naivety and positivity in this world). Anyone with white skin has “white privilege”, but like I’ve tried to explain to you before that’s not meaning that they get boosts up in life, it just means they don’t face racism and don’t suffer systemic inequalities like people with darker skin do (and remember this includes ME as a white-privileged person 99% of the time).
Basically, you’re accusing me of something I haven’t ever said, and don’t even think. The only thing I’m rather jealous of or think people have “better” than me is when people talk about their families. That makes me sad and somewhat envious. I realize I’m supposed to fine alone but everyone has flaws. Other than that I think people just have different opinions and I’m not insulting people or their personal stories by disagreeing with them or saying what I’ve seen in my personal life.
Oh and I am trying to work on the negativity Thomas, you are right about that. Things seem hopeless and I don’t find life remotely enjoyable. I will feel better in 3 and 1/2 weeks or so.
No worries my Jackfriend.
You are loved.
Jack,
If I ever come across as unkind, unloving, unforgiving, please call me out.
That is not how I want to live my life. That is not how I want to be characterized.
This was directed at me Carla so you’re good. I have always been more of cognitive/ behavioral Jack (and I already told you this), which comes across not the way it is presented. I have to work harder on being mushy. That is my shortcoming and I am sorry…
I am not going to share how I arrived at this belief system (not enough time) as that is in the past and I prefer to leave it there.
Let’s move on to something more pleasant :)
Carla I don’t think you’ve been unkind or unloving.
Thomas I might feel less personally attacked if I understood what you mean by cognitive/behavioral stuff. I do think some of what I’ve read fails to take into account genuine mental illnesses and external factors (like environment), but I’m no psychologist so they probably know a lot more than I do.
Yikes !….Bill Gates’ face is birth control all by itself !
What a Huge Turn Off !
Maybe they should just put his face on the condoms like the image here.
Ewwwwww
There are so many good cognitive therapies for mental illness Jack. People with genuine mental illness can function just fine. According to the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), a tool used by counseling professionals, you are in the highest range (91-100). How do I know? You get up every day to go to work, you do the things required for self -maintanance, you manage a home and take responsibility for your kids and you no longer use mood-altering substances (sorry for getting too personal). You do move forward every single day. Mental illness becomes an impediment when it prevents from doing day-to-day stuff (like grooming, working and such). Psycho – tropics are also an option to help the functioning domain.
By cognitive/behavioral I meant what I said – not mushy. I simply have no time for being mushy. Life happends Jack. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that I don’t get down on myself, analyze the ”whys” or overprocess the things around me. I just do what it takes to press forward with minimal adverse consequences to me and my family.
Lol I think you’re overestimating how well I’m currently functioning, but like I said it’s only a few more weeks and things will be better.
I’m a “mushy” kinda guy, Thomas. It takes all sorts! Though you’re definitely right that constantly being down on yourself isn’t very good. Good chat thank you for the explanation.
I simply have no time for being mushy. Life happends Jack. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that I don’t get down on myself, analyze the ”whys” or overprocess the things around me. I just do what it takes to press forward with minimal adverse consequences to me and my family. - oh yes? That doesn’t quite align with my observation of your behavior.
“mushy” is good Jack.
“Mushy” can be good. It’s certainly better than the toxic idea of masculinity that encourages guys to suppress their emotions, never seek help, and treat others dismissively and not be considerate and caring. But there’s certainly a point where being sensitive to others and yourself crosses over to just whining and self-victimizing and never improving your situation, which I think is what Thomas is referring to. And it’s a line I certainly straddle lol.
Thanks Jack as well. I am glad we aligned as you finally got me in the post above. May your Thanksgiving be joyful.
You are not observing my behavior Sherlock “reality.” And, you have no information about my bio-psychosocial totality. You made this comment because I have gotten under your skin a few times and you don’t really care for my commentary one way or another.
And FYI, you ”should” try being mushy sometime before giving this advise to others. Your comment was nothing more than patronizing. Try to be genuine sometime.
You are not observing my behavior Sherlock “reality.” – you demonstrate enough here Watson, for me to observe that I just do what it takes to press forward with minimal adverse consequences to me and my family isn’t quite the case.
You made this comment because I have gotten under your skin a few times – BWAAAHAHA!!! Now there’s a little information about your bio-psychosocial totality.
and you don’t really care for my commentary one way or another. – probably as much as you for mine. Fair?
And FYI, you ”should” try being mushy sometime before giving this advise to others. – I am constantly told that I am a softy. Too generous by half sometimes.
Your comment was nothing more than patronizing. – no, yours is just plain wrong.
Try to be genuine sometime. – I am always genuine Watson. You’d probably prefer it if I wasn’t.
Phillymiss: The best way to lower the birth rate in developing countries is to improve the treatment of increase opportunities for girls and women. Stop selling them into sexual slavery, stop marrying them off to men old enough to be their fathers, stop mutilating their genitals. Give them microloans to start their own businesses and send them to school. It’s easier said than done, but it works!
+1
“I am constantly told that I am a softy. Too generous by half sometimes ”
Lol, people who like me tell me I’m sweet and sensitive, people who don’t tell me I’m a pansy. I don’t really mind being a gentler type of person than many guys, though, even if it means some people think I’m a whiner (i am, lol, at times, it’s not like I can be perfect) or whatever. The men in my family have been vicious, violent people (and the women aren’t any better), and I’d rather be me and over-sensitive than like them. I don’t think I have the worst personality ever, compared to how the men in my family usually are. I do think that suppressing the softer parts of your personality is one of the more damaging parts of the male gender role. There’s nothing wrong with being a little more sensitive, but you shouldn’t be a total push over or wimp.
Del: I am telling my children that the “2-Child Policy” was failure for families and for our culture. I expect that we will see an economic collapse in not too many years, as personal debt and public debt continue to grow beyond control. And when the public social safety net fails, we will fall back on our families and church communities for mutual support.
Hey Del. You know, the personal debt situation in the US has actually improved over the past few years. From the peak in late 2008, it’s down 12 or 13%, and relative to the overall economy, down 18%. Significant.
Okay – heh – that’s all the good news. : P
I don’t think it really matters whether people are only children or come from families with 12 kids. In my lifetime, the population of the US has almost doubled. Has that made our financial situation better? Well, no. The debt is now 50 times as great as when I was born.
Thinking that we need “more people,” per se, is viewing it as a Ponzi scheme, as the upside-down pyramid which is unstable by nature. It only works in principle for a while, and given that we’re talking about the federal gov’t, the politicians can always easily outrace the contributions to the system by spending more, and not only can they do it, they do do it.
I fully agree with you that an economic collapse is coming. Don’t know when, and that’s the Big Question, I think. We’ve got a depreciating currency, but it’s been pretty slow, thus far (even though it’s lost about 90% of its purchasing power in my lifetime). As long as other countries willingly buy our debt – Treasury bills, bonds, notes, etc. (and they have considerable incentive to that, as we’re their biggest customers) – then our gov’t and economy can stagger on. Someday, the rush out of the Dollar will occur, and that’s gonna be rough on almost all Americans. Understatement.
Jack: The men in my family have been vicious, violent people (and the women aren’t any better), and I’d rather be me and over-sensitive than like them.
Sounds like a fairly wide range of behavior there, Jack. ;)
Some families/cultures definitely discourage certain forms of expression in men. I don’t think you’re “over-sensitive” at all. Whether it’s within a family or on a message board, I think it gets easier to “be yourself” as you get older. I sure hope so, anyway.
How good are we at self-reflection? Some people have almost no stomach at all for introspection, while others thrive on it. It’s an individual thing.
I will, however, quote the wisdom of Socrates, from almost 2400+ years ago: The unexamined life is not worth living.
“I will, however, quote the wisdom of Socrates, from almost 2400+ years ago: The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Doug I agree. This statement however has become a bit of a cliché in therapeutic circles. The reason – it is more important for an individual to apply this self -reflection in their day-to-day. The tools to that end is what matters most. I have met so many in my line of work who while examining their lives cannot (either willingly or unwillingly) perform any action that would constructively address this examined life.
Socrates was unto something but as all philosophers do, omitted the practical part. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be “an examined life needs to be followed-through.”
Good post, Thomas. I was taking a very general view of it – and not even assuming there is a need for self-reflection, necessarily. Now, if there is – and if we are talking about therapy where it’s a given that there are some mental/emotional problems present – then I’d certainly agree with you, that anything that can constructively address it in a worthwhile way is great.
For people as a whole, I don’t think everybody has to be a certain way. Some people plow through life with an almost entirely ‘outward’ perspective, and this may be totally fine – they may be as happy as a clam.
My paternal grandfather was born in 1903, mostly Bible-belt farmers (southern Indiana) and he was never comfortable talking about this stuff. A good bit of it was the times – you said the right-sounding Christian words at the right times, but you didn’t talk about some things much at all, especially if you were male.
He wouldn’t have been too harshly dismissive of it, but others of his time were – mentions of men getting in touch with their inner self, or “let out your sensitive, creative side,” would be met with scorn, as if it was merely needless foolishness.
My maternal grandmother recalled what her mom said about growing up as a Quaker in the Philadelphia area. Quakers are often thought of as quite “liberal,” but in those days “there was much that was simply not discussed.”
We humans are a varied lot, and surely so are our relationships with ourselves.
If anything, I think that generation-over-generation, we are getting better at talking about some things that are important, at being willing to look at ourselves in that self-reflective way and talk about it with other people.
If I were to discuss this dilemma in general terms as you have Doug, I would most definitely not stress self-reflection too much. More often than not it tends to open a pandora’s box of far-reaching consequences and unless a person is willing and ready to proceed on that path, self-reflection may do more harm than any good. It is not to say that a cursory review prior to bedtime of what the day has done for you is not needed, but to over-analyze and nit-pick every word/gesture (yours or others’ toward you) is not necessarily good for the soul either.
As far as talking to others I would say it is healthy as long as one is willing and ready to hear “the truth” from the other person, ha… :)