Condom madness: From minis to missies

I've concluded liberals will never ever accept the abstinence/be faithful message as the sanest - because they're all insane.

hotshot comdoms larger.jpgNo matter what increasing failures comprehensive sex ed and widespread contraceptive distribution accrue, liberals will always have 1 more answer. It has gotten beyond ridiculous.

The Daily Telegraph reported March 3 a Swiss company has begun selling the Hotshot condom, a wee rubber produced for adolescent boys after research showed "more 12 to 14-year-olds were having sex, in comparison with the 1990s."

The shrunken size...

A standard condom has a diameter of 2ins (5.2cm) in comparison with the Hotshot's diameter of 1.7ins (4.5cm). Both are the same length -7.4ins (19cm).

As if younger boys will behave any more responsibly than older boys, who don't?

The Swiss initiative comes as the UK government announces an overhaul of its teenage pregnancy strategy after new figures showed conception rate among 18s were not falling fast enough.

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

Meanwhile back in the madness mecca of the US - Washington, DC - came this news from the Washington Post on March 6...

The District will become the first city in the US to distribute female condoms free, part of a project that will make 500k of them available in beauty salons, convenience stores and high schools in parts of the city with high HIV rates....

female condoms larger.jpg

The move is an official acknowledgment of the futility of relying solely on the use of male condoms, which have been distributed citywide for nearly a decade, to stem the District's epidemic of HIV and AIDS.

Officials said they are turning to female condoms to give women more power to protect themselves from HIV and sexually transmitted diseases when their partners refuse to use protection.

HIV/AIDS infection is the leading cause of death for black women 25-34 nationwide. A 2008 report showed the District's HIV/AIDS rate at 3%, or about 15,100 adults, a major epidemic....

[I]n the HIV Heterosexual Behavior Study... 75% of participants said they were in committed relationships. But nearly half, 46%, said they thought their last sexual partner had had sex outside the relationship. And nearly half, 45%, said they had had sex outside the relationship.

More than 70% said they didn't use condoms....

Activists say poor women often are reluctant to protest when their husbands and boyfriends refuse to use male condoms because they are dependent on the man's income....

Common sense would dictate educating to avoid risky behaviors by which one contracts HIV or gets pregnant, but noooo.

[HT for Hotshot condoms: proofreader Laura Loo]


This is upsetting. liberals are sick minded!! I was watching Nancy Grace the other night and 2 "ministers" were convicted of selling kiddie porn. Males, some as young as 6, engaged in sex acts with adults! The root of this evil begins with abortion my friends. Kids don't matter, so kill them, have sex with them, abuse them, condone adults having sex with them! I almost fell over when I watched Whoopie Goldberg condone director Roman Polanski having sex with a 13 year old girl....liberalism is a mental disorder!

Posted by: heather at March 8, 2010 5:32 PM

Here in the U.S. the mini condom is marketed as the 'Harry Reid' custom fit.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 8, 2010 5:34 PM

I forgot to say that Whoopie said something like "oh come on." "It's been so long." "Give him a break." What about the 13 year old who was violated by a perverted pedophile? Does she get a break? He stole her childhood. I wonder if Whoopie would give a man who raped a 6 year old a break! After all, he was just teaching her to be a woman. ..oh my skin is crawling. I've gotta go after it! capital o's and l's aren't working.

Posted by: heather at March 8, 2010 5:39 PM

It's just sad to see these next generations being bombarded with perversion! Where are the parents? These sick pedophiles on Nancy Grace had HUNDREDS of porn DVD's of little boys. law enforcement said it was some of the "sickest material they had ever seen" and it was even "too sick" to discuss on NG. I guess all I can do is cringe and imagine. I mean, where are the parents? How does anyone get a hold of several 6 year olds and get them into sexual pictures with adults?? Now we have condoms for little boys?

Posted by: heather at March 8, 2010 5:51 PM

I have heard of the public school demonstration of the proper procedure for applying, afixing, adorning a condom to the offending male member using a banana.

[For the Harry Reid custom fit mini condom you would use a limp noodle.]

What kind of prop do the 'dead babies r us' folks use to demonstrate the proper installation of the female condom?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 8, 2010 5:57 PM

Ok, the female condoms are not going to do much to reduce HIV transmission. The truth of the matter is that, generally speaking, it's blood that permits the transmission of HIV. While tearing can occur during vaginal sex, it's much more common during anal. The fact of the matter is that many young women who become HIV+ do so because they had anal sex. Female condoms do nothing to protect a woman from this type of transmission.

We should be talking to young people about the multiple dangers of a heterosexual anal sex, but we don't because we don't want to offend homosexuals.

That's the problem with a PC society. We can't tell young women the best ways to protect themselves and we give them something that won't work. It's really infuriating!

Posted by: Lauren at March 8, 2010 6:04 PM

More 12 to 14-year-olds were having sex...

Has anyone thought to ask the question WHY this is so? Or are 12-year-olds having sex not a problem?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 8, 2010 6:52 PM

These are the same people who want the marriage age raised.

Honest question: Why is it okay for teens to have sex but not get married?

I would much rather my son get married at 16 than to go from girl to girl and be part of the nasty hookup culture. That is so hard on a person emotionally. I wouldn't want my child to have his heart broken just because society thinks people shouldn't care about each other's feelings.

I noticed Amada Marcotte slammed Rachel Simmons of Teen Vogue for pointing out that girls are writing to her with their concerns that boys just use them for sex and have no interest in a relationship or even a friendship with them.

Posted by: hippie at March 8, 2010 8:13 PM

At the risk of sounding religious, I was taught that our bodies are "temples of the Holy Spirit". Does anyone believe that anymore?

Posted by: Janet at March 8, 2010 8:14 PM

That's just awful! Boys of that age are just not mature enough for sex! Why don't they teach them the consequences of sex? For one, it causes emotional attachment. It also causes many diseases. Granted, sex is not the only way of getting an STD (I know that all too well), but they are spread that way. There's also the fact that sex is how a woman becomes pregnant! I thought they wanted LESS abortion? What happened to "safe and rare"? If they want it rare, they shouldn't have sex until they are ready, and are with the person they're going to spend the rest of their lives with so that they can raise the kids in a stable environment.

As for what's happening in DC, don't they know that condoms SPREAD the HIV/AIDS virus? There are naturally occurring holes in rubber/latex about 50-500 times the size of the virus!

You know, last night after the Oscars, Mo’Nique from the movie Precious had an interview with Barbara Walters, and she was promoting sex outside of marriage during the interview! She said that it didn't matter as long as you loved the person you were married to, and that sex with a person outside the marriage isn't something to lose a relationship over! I was so upset over it, I turned the TV off, even though I wanted to see the interview with Sandra Bullock.

I'm so upset with the way these people are pushing their "freedom of sex" agenda, as if sex weren't about sharing the closest, most loving embrace you can have with someone. Since it's the highest act of love that you can give to someone, I would think they would encourage people to save it for the one they're going to spend the rest of their lives with! Encouraging people to have sex just because it "feels good" and is "healthy" is wrong. It's only truly healthy if you stick with one partner, is best to only have with someone you want to keep in your life, and is special to share it with the one you love and ARE going to spend the rest of your life with. That's what they should teach.

Posted by: Amy at March 8, 2010 8:25 PM


The problem is many girls are complaining that the hookup culture doesn't meet their needs and sociology types want to go off into some social construction discussion of gender roles. They don't have a drop of compassion for used and abused girls. Their attitude is that the girls just "get over it" and relax and enjoy it otherwise they label them as victims of sexual repression if they don't enjoy exploring their sexuality with multiple partners.

Posted by: hippie at March 8, 2010 8:36 PM

Also, geneticists have discovered that modern humans tend toward monogamy based on genetic research.

Multiple partners is outside the norm.

The American Journal of Human Genetics, 25 February 2010

Female-to-Male Breeding Ratio in Modern Humans—an Analysis Based on Historical Recombinations

Damian Labuda et al.

Abstract excerpt:

"Was the past genetic contribution of women and men to the current human population equal? Was polygyny (excess of breeding women) present among hominid lineages? We addressed these questions by measuring the ratio of population recombination rates.....For the HapMap populations, we obtained β of 1.4 in the Yoruba from West Africa, 1.3 in Europeans, and 1.1 in East Asian samples. These values are consistent with a high prevalence of monogamy and limited polygyny in human populations."

Posted by: hippie at March 8, 2010 8:40 PM


I've written the definitive article about this madness using CDC data and Planned Parenthood's own contraceptive bible. It's all right here:

God Bless,


Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 8, 2010 9:19 PM

Investors take note.....
finger cot sales will plummet.

Seriously, in the lib agenda, pedophilia has been a priority.

Also starting small------> gay recruitment.

Posted by: pharmer at March 8, 2010 9:29 PM


Early Alzheimer's is setting in. The article was written in two parts. I gave the first above, but not the second.

Here is the agenda behind PP and targeting the youngest, again, using CDC data:

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 8, 2010 9:51 PM

Why is it that if you hate abortion so much and want to end it that you are so viciously against contraception? Here's the reality: people have sex. It's not always planned. It's not always consensual. But we were created to procreate -- it's in the bible, for pete's sake -- and there's an innate drive to do that. Why would you want to condemn contraceptives when they lead to exactly what you want: fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions? And the female condom project you discuss here gives women more power over what happens to their bodies and more protection against both pregnancy and STDs. Why would you want to stop that?

It seems like a pretty simple equation. Contraception = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions.

Here's a great analogy. Suppose you want to prevent deaths from accidental fires. You teach people all about the causes of accidental fires and how to prevent it. And since you know that everyone you've taught will work hard to stop accidental fires, you ban fire extinguishers. What happens? Every time there's an accidental fire, the worst case scenario happens. Small oven fires become huge fires that engulf homes and kill families because there are no smoke extinguishers to be found.

Likewise, what you and others in your movement propose is to teach kids (and adults) all about abstinence until marriage and faithfulness once you're married. Since you KNOW that all of those kids (and adults) are educated, you KNOW they'll all be abstinent and faithful. But when one of them gets into a sexual situation, because they never had an education about how to protect themselves, the worst case scenario happens: they get pregnant, get an STD, get HIV. And there's a significant chance that they will choose abortion rather than go through with a pregnancy that could stigmatize them or ruin their chances for a future.

The "pro-life" movement needs to get real. This is the real world, where people have sex, and teenagers in sex ed need to have access to real and accurate information so they can protect themselves -- even if they are planning on abstinence today. Just one study (of many) on comprehensive versus abstinence-only sex ed found, in part: "Although one study found later sexual debut was associated with abstinence-only virginity pledging, the majority of adolescents who made virginity pledges ultimately broke their “promise” and engaged in sexual intercourse before
marriage [17]. In addition the risk for STD was not significantly different between pledgers and nonpledgers, and sexually active pledgers were significantly less likely to use condoms at first sex than were nonpledgers." (from

Translation: teens who make virginity pledges usually break them, and when they do, they are far less likely to use condoms/contraceptives. Because they never get the information that could save them from an unwanted teen pregnancy. Abstinence and faithfulness programs may sound great, but in reality, they leave people without the tools to protect themselves.

The kicker? The same people who oppose access to contraception and comprehensive sex ed also oppose abortion. Which means that the "pro-life" movement is actually responsible for a percentage of those abortions that occur after uneducated teens and adults have unprotected sex.

Posted by: Violet at March 8, 2010 10:15 PM

Actually Violet...we were created for God's glory. Its in the Bible. We are not animals driven by instinct. Its in the Bible. We have the ability to choose good or evil. Its in the Bible. Those who don't have Christ are slaves of the flesh and of their master the devil. Its in the Bible. Those who have Christ are freed from their bondage to sin and thus have the ability to choose to conquer their flesh and be more than just "their desires". Its in the Bible.

I want to encourage my fellow mankind to think about spiritual things and not just fleshly things. I want them to seek a relationship with God. Why would I then encourage them down the path of death and sin...saying "hey its alright to fornicate! Just throw on a condom (it might break and you might get HIV but oh well...) No. I want people to turn from sin and and experience redemption through Christ and what He has done for us all on the cross. If you're confused...its all in the Bible.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 8, 2010 10:35 PM

Umm...your link is broken, and even if it wasn't, I'm certain with the side link to "RH Reality Check" on the side, even if it WAS there, it'd be completely full of bunk, just like you.

The latest study says that abstinence education not only is more effective than "comprehensive sex ed.", but also, has NO impact on whether or not people who finally do end up having sex use protection (they were just as likely to use or not to use it as those participants in comprehensive sex ed.).

Oh yeah, and you forgot to mention that 12 year olds should not be having sex, ever! Duh! Why can't 12 year olds vote? Why can't 12 year olds drive a car? Why can't 12 year olds buy a house? Because 12 year olds aren't mature enough to consider consequences of their actions and act accordingly. In that case WHY would we allow and not actively attempt to prevent 12 year olds from participating in an act which can not only emotionally scar them for life, but bring another human life into the world that they would be responsible for?!

Gah. Use your freaking brain, please.

Posted by: xalisae at March 8, 2010 10:37 PM

Fact: only eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; compare that to Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. (see:

Promoting contraception does NOT dramatically reduce abortion numbers.

The very reason we are facing the atrocity of abortion is because of the desecration of the marital act through the widespread and accepted indulgence of lust compounded by the use of contraception (this includes medication like the pill, “barrier methods” like condoms, surgical sterilization, “pulling out”, herbal remedies or any other means used to intentionally sterilize the marital act). It is no mere coincidence that Roe v. Wade came *after* the lesser known Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, overturning a CT law banning the use of contraception – the law that first declared the so-called “right to privacy” in the 14th Amendment. People did not wake up one day and decide they had a right to murder their own offspring. But they did eventually decide that it was their right to have meaningless sex without limit or consequence. It’s hard to have respect for innocent human life when you violate the very act through which that life is created.

Also, with the expanded availability of contraception and acceptance of promiscuous sexual behavior we have seen the number of known STDs rise from only 2 significant diseases in the 1970s to more than 25 today.

Kids do not need condoms! What they need is support and encouragement to see and love with a pure heart and aspire to something higher and greater than what the world would have them settle for. And supposed “failure” should never deter us from this important task. After all, how can we ever encourage them to aspire to greatness or practice self-control in other areas when we constantly tell them it’s not possible in this most vital and intimate part of their lives?

Posted by: Chelsea at March 8, 2010 11:18 PM


I agree 100% with your statement:

"It seems like a pretty simple equation. Contraception = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions."

If only because it SEEMS a simple equation. You forgot to include several key factors in that equation that represent ALL of the reality involved in contraception.

Now the equation is not so simple.

Even according to the Planned Parenthood bible on contraceptives (discussed in my first link above), condoms are no more than 85% effective in preventing pregnancy when used consistently and correctly by adults. Most real-life data which includes young people being in a hurry, etc, place the condom efficacy at 65%. That represents a range of 35% failure, to 15% failure at their best. A 12 year old girl using condoms as her sole means of birth control will be pregnant within 5 years.

Then come the cries for abortion. The probability of younger children having contraceptive failure rises dramatically, increasing the calls for abortion in ones so young.

The condoms, and other contraceptives, promote a heightened sense of security leading to greater frequency of sex. Greater numbers of trials (sex encounters), multiplied by the absolute failure rate results in greater numbers of contraceptive failures resulting in unplanned pregnancies.

Let's do the math.

Probability of Pregnancy Over Time for Women Whose Sexual Partners Always Use Condoms

1 year 15 percent
2 years 28 percent
3 years 39 percent
4 years 48 percent
5 years 56 percent
10 years 80 percent

So, for every cohort of 1,000 12 year old girls who use condoms, 800 will be pregnant by age 22. Bear in mind that these are the most optimistic numbers. In young boys and girls, it isn't unreasonable to expect close to 50% failure rates due to youthful fumbling and awkwardness.

See the connection between condoms and unplanned pregnancies/abortions? Contraceptives actually fuel the fire of abortion.

Of course we could augment the condom with oral contraceptives which drive breast cancer through the roof when taken so early in life. Additionally, the new lower-dose pill MUST be taken on a strict schedule, any deviation from which by mere hours can and will result in pregnancy. Compliance in anything by young teens is a struggle, especially in pharmacotherapy.

Regarding your equation Violet, remember what Sigmund Freud always said:

"Things are only rarely what they seem to be."

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 8, 2010 11:27 PM

Gah. Use your freaking brain, please.
Posted by: xalisae at March 8, 2010 10:37 PM


Posted by: truthseeker at March 8, 2010 11:42 PM

Violet, ever read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"? Decades ago, he realized the truth that abortion follows contraception as closely as night follows day.

And he was by no means a Christian.

This is what's wrong with contraception. It's the mentality it induces.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at March 9, 2010 3:15 AM

Sorry for the double post. The system just seems to hang there forever, and you can't tell whether something is going through or not.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at March 9, 2010 3:22 AM

More 12 to 14-year-olds were having sex...

Has anyone thought to ask the question WHY this is so? Or are 12-year-olds having sex not a problem?
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 8, 2010 6:52 PM

I think many of these people believe that 12 year olds having sex is ok.

It's self-expression.

Remember in the liberal mind, sex is wholly recreational.

Posted by: angel at March 9, 2010 7:05 AM

Activists say poor women often are reluctant to protest when their husbands and boyfriends refuse to use male condoms because they are dependent on the man's income....

Gee, I thought sex anytime with anyone was supposed to be liberating to women. Seems to me they are admitting it is making women prostitutes.

Posted by: Kristen at March 9, 2010 7:26 AM

To go way back to a post made by heather early on:

"What about the 13 year old who was violated by a perverted pedophile? Does she get a break?"
Posted by: heather at March 8, 2010 5:39 PM

I actually read some news articles on this at the time. Having double-checked a few facts, the victim who was thirteen about thirty-two years ago is now happily married, has at least one child, and has totally moved on with her life. She has said she doesn't want him punished. Not because he doesn't deserve it, but because she just didn't want to have anything further to do with him, in any capacity, at all, ever.

After the sentence I just wrote, this may sound heartless, but I personally hope he goes to prison for a long, long time. If a rape victim chooses not to file charges against her attacker, then I am totally cool with that. But these charges were not only filed, Polanski was already convicted. The only thing left was the sentencing hearing, and he'd worked out a plea arrangement with the prosecution. Failing to punish him after that undermines the justice system. Having failed to force him to serve the terms of his sentence for thirty-one years is a pretty black mark on it already, but now that he's back in custody, letting him go twice would be unthinkable.

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 9, 2010 7:34 AM

My eldest is a 12 year old boy. I cannot even wrap my brain around this article. Since my son knows he is more than a ball of hormones and knows God has better plans for him, he has picked out a purity ring for his 13th birthday.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 9, 2010 8:27 AM

OH and Violet?
My son also knows all about sexual intercourse and condoms and blah, blah, blah.....he also knows that he is worth the wait and so is his future wife.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 9, 2010 8:30 AM

I could be the odd person out, but I favor both types of education in one. I don't care if you sleep with someone outside of marriage, but I do think that the problem of children sleeping together didn't arise from abortion. I think that it has something to do with the fact that you can't listen to music without explicit lyrics, you can't watch a movie without an unrelated "Scene," and every television show around has "Scenes." The reality is that the culture is obsessed and that leads to individuals being obsessed.

I think that this is the best way for people to be healthy:

1). Demand films, music, and television that's about quality not "Scenes." If the "Scene" has a thematic purpose, then fine, but I would say ninety-eight percent of "Scenes" are just to sell tickets using women's bodies. Art is about art, not exploiting people's bodies.

2). See women as more than men's downfall. I mean, if you really do look back in culture, women were always seen as evil because sexuality has been associated with women ("Women cause lust!"). Instead, we should teach children and adults that women are not toys, that lust is a human thing not a fault of women, and that women's bodies serve more purpose than bikinis. Women have brains.

3). Combine abstinence education and comprehensive education. Obviously, at eight you're a little too young, but definitely teenagers should have access to the facts.

4). Make sure that people have priorities about living their own "Scenes." I mean, really, I'm not wagging my finger at anyone- it's your business- but I do think that we should teach, as part of the curriculum, that "Scenes" are, well, scenes, though it is ultimately more important to be intelligent and productive than hooking up.

5). This may seem out of place, but I think that it's important: fight rape culture. A lot of people, for some stupid reason that I can't understand, say, "No means yes." I think that this goes along with respect women as you do men, but people have this weird perversion that rape and sex are the same things. They're not.

But that's just my two cents. :)

Posted by: Vannah at March 9, 2010 8:39 AM

Some of the comprehensive sex ed done in schools is by Planned Parenthood. Big surprise there, huh?! They have a vested interest in telling children that sexual activity is harmless fun and if it feels good do it and passing out free condoms(that are ranked the lowest in effectiveness)undermining parental authority and "being there to help" when the youngsters get STD's and become pregnant. Planned Parenthood is a business and they thrive on repeat customers.

Kids will drink. Better buy them the booze.
Kids will smoke. Better buy them the smokes.
Kids will have sex. Better buy them condoms.

The best deterrent to adolescent high risk behavior, which is all of the above?
Caring, involved parents!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 9, 2010 9:10 AM

No, kids don't do all of those things. That is a myth. Even many unsupervised kids don't do all those things.

The whole idea of helping people do stupid things more safely simple means that people with think those things aren't stupid and even more people will engage in those behaviors.

Some people can't get their brains around the fact that there is no way to get the incidence of bad behavior down to zero. Using traditional methods of deterrence does not render an incidence of zero, so they scream and yell to make such behaviors safer. Theoretically it would be safer if the percentage of people doing it stayed the same since the negative consequences are reduced. In practice, it doesn't work.

Just as contraception and abortion were would have reduced things like single motherhood and unintended pregnancies, yet in practice they have increased. Teen pregnancy is about half what it was at its statistical peak because of delayed marriage. Teen pregnancy among unmarried teens has increased dramatically.

I see delaying marriage as unhealthy because most young people need and want a relationship. That desire is normal and healthy and repressing it is unhealthy and stressful and serves no real purpose.

Posted by: hippie at March 9, 2010 9:45 AM

My son's school - in an extremely rural community with a class size of 48 (two districts COMBINED) - hugely pushes sex ed and it STARTS in 5th grade. This year, we learned that in 8th grade (his current grade) they learn how to put a condom on a banana. I was infuriated. Where are the parents that think this is somehow OK????? Do they even KNOW what is being taught to their children? I doubt it. I was *ridiculed* by my son's sex ed teacher AND principal IN FRONT OF my son!!! I said in no uncertain terms that he was not to attend any sex ed classes and we believed in abstinence only. I KNOW we discuss sex, pregnancy, babies, disease FAR more often than most parents - it's almost a daily talk to keep our communication lines open with our son and will continue for the rest of our children. I told them he would do a report on abstinence. I was told - again, IN FRONT OF HIM - that I was "sticking my head in the sand" and "being naive" and all kinds of ugliness. He has students in his grade who already "know" they are gay and have been caught "making out" with same sex students. What is going on?? How far have we sunk that we now allow a 13 or 14 year old to believe they understand their own sexuality?? For crying out loud, they are still DEVELOPING! What about the studies that PROVE that if abstinence only teaching begins in middle school it actually WORKS and the rates of teens having sex goes DRASTICALLY down? Why are we pushing so many kids at such a young age? Why is it viewed that EVERYONE has sex before marriage and EVERYONE has affairs? My husband was a virgin - he was 34 when we married - and neither of us have EVER had or even considered an affair - nor will we!! Humans are made in God's image and likeness. God does not want this for us! He wants us to wait for marriage because marriage is a blessing - as is virginity and monogamy. I'm sorry, but this just infuriates me that people think that 12-14 year olds are old enough to understand the complications of becoming sexually active at such a young age!

Posted by: Trista at March 9, 2010 10:05 AM


"Actually Violet...we were created for God's glory."

Is every discussion related to the Bible? If you think it is, fine, but that's the problem I see with some of you. Just because you may believe what is contained therein doesn't mean the rest of humanity exists according to your faith and beliefs.

Posted by: Ralph at March 9, 2010 11:16 AM

Activists say poor women often are reluctant to protest when their husbands and boyfriends refuse to use male condoms because they are dependent on the man's income....

This is so true! I know of one woman who was pregnant nine times, had four abortions and five kids because her partner didn't want to use a condom!

I believe in abstinence, being faithful, etc. but I realize that not everyone shares my point of view. I know condoms aren't foolproof, but they're better than nothing.

As for Mo'Nique -- most of what comes out of her mouth is garbage, so just ignore her.

Posted by: Phillymiss at March 9, 2010 11:19 AM


I actually really like your fire-exstinguisher comparison because it perfectly illustrates the reason contraceptive promotion doesn't work. The only thing is that it needs a little tweeking.

See, accidental fires are just that, accidental. Sex is never accidental. So, giving out contraceptives instead of telling people not to have sex before marraige is actually akin to giving someone a fire exstinguisher instead of just telling them not to start fires.

Like contraceptives, you would give out these fire exstinguishers and assure people that they could start all the fires they wanted now, because they have protection. Then when they start a fire and they can't find the exstinguisher, or they forgot how to use it, or it didn't work right, then they're screwed.

What would have saved them is NOT starting a fire......or, following our analogy NOT having sex.

Posted by: Rachel at March 9, 2010 12:48 PM

Ralph...I was responding to Violet. She said we were created to procreate and that is not true. Most people on here are Christians. If that offends you Ralph...oh well.

I realize not everyone believes the Bible. That doesn't mean that I don't base my views on Biblical principles, nor does it mean that I don't have the right to speak out about it. And it doesn't mean you don't have the right to not be offended.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 9, 2010 2:30 PM

They are insane - no two ways about it. They keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

The West holds these two ideas at once: that a 20yo virgin is a joke and that people marrying at less than about 25yo is a joke.

What three things might logically come out of such idiotic notions?

That's right: fatherless children, teen pregnancies and abortions. Lots and lots of hacked to death babies.

Stupid stupid stupid

Posted by: Louise at March 9, 2010 4:35 PM

Posted by: hippie at March 8, 2010 8:13 PM

..."girls are writing to her with their concerns that boys just use them for sex and have no interest in a relationship or even a friendship with them."


As I recall, though it has been several decades,
that was pretty much the consensus among young male humans.

But I understand now that liberated 'feministas' are playing their version of the same game.

The missies now have female condoms to level the playing field.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 9, 2010 5:00 PM

The same people who oppose access to contraception and comprehensive sex ed also oppose abortion.

Uh,no. Not all prolifers, including quite a few here, are opposed to contraception and comprehensive sex ed. Some pro-choice people support infanticide, like Peter Singer. I hope he is in the minority.

But I'm not sure that comprehensive sex ed is working that well. NYC has the highest abortion rate in the country, and they have comprehensive sex ed AND widely available contraception. In Philadelphia, we also have a high teen pregnancy rate and high rates of STI's (especially chlamydia (sp)? and there is comprehensive sex ed in the schools.

I'm not sure what the answer is. But I'm glad both my children are grown!

Posted by: phillymiss at March 9, 2010 5:20 PM

We all saw how well Angie's "three forms of birth control" (cough) worked out, didn't we? Trusting your life to a piece of latex is the worst from of ignorance. The epidemic of abortion (and all the depravity that ensues) can be laid at the feet of the Liberal allergy to accoutability. 52 million dead by abortion states the obvious-BIRTH CONTROL DOESNT WORK. Abstaining? 100 percent effective, and free. No amount of proabort sloganeering can change that simple fact.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 9, 2010 6:41 PM

This is just flat-out repulsive. A lot of boys between the ages of twelve and fourteen haven't even finished going through puberty. Teaching about contraception is one thing, but making condoms specifically for middle-schoolers? ICK.

Plus, I bet any boy that age who'd be having sex wouldn't want to be caught dead using a "small" condom.

Posted by: Marauder at March 9, 2010 6:50 PM

Oh my...between this and the evolution is a gift that keeps on giving!!! It is this attitude that makes the pro-choice side so easy to join. Here are the facts:
Boys and Girls are going to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage and even before physical maturity. Educating them is NOT a bad thing. Providing them with protection is NOT a bad thing. The fact that many of you do not see the correlation between birth control and fewer abortions weakens any argument you may have. Please don't say abstinence. It is clear that society as a whole is no position to preach this antiquated idea. These attitudes continue to weaken any arguments put forth you.

Posted by: Jake at March 9, 2010 10:25 PM

Yeah but Jake, dude... condoms don't work. did you miss that bit?

Posted by: Louise at March 9, 2010 11:12 PM

Actually Louise, with proper education, condoms work quite well!!! Trust me, I know. You hear me DUDE!!!

Posted by: Jake at March 9, 2010 11:15 PM

Didn't you tell me you had gotten a vasectomy? If condoms work so well then why did you get a vasectomy?

Posted by: truthseeker at March 10, 2010 12:41 AM


You're missing all of the studies we've cited, and the actual report itself is saying that kids aren't using protection no matter how young they're being "educated" you really think the only reason is because they couldn't get ahold of condoms that fit?

NOW who's chugging along on blind faith? Oh, and btw, my parents did an absolutely SMASHING job of preventing me from engaging in sexual activity before I matured. Any parent who gives a damn could.

Posted by: xalisae at March 10, 2010 1:28 AM

Boys and girls? How young is too young for the PC crowd? 9, 10, 11? How about 8 years old?

I will continue to "indoctrinate" my children with antiquated ideas like WAIT....I love them too much to do anything less.

Abstinence. It works 100% of the time. I'll say it again. Abstinence.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 6:07 AM

Oh and Jake?
Fighting for the sanctity of life from conception to natural death isn't an "attitude." Dude.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 6:20 AM

BEFORE Physical maturity? You mean like at age 10 or 11? Kids need to be KIDS! They don't need to engage in an ADULT "Activity". Children don't need to become adults at age 11 or 12. Stop pushing messages of "sex is okay outside of a committed lifetime relationship", stop promoting movies and television shows that contain such material (and many of these are aimed at kids sometimes) and be involved in their lives. Encourage them to set goals. Don't just assume they'll have sex and give them a pack of condoms or set them up on birth control at age 12.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2010 8:00 AM

"With proper education, condoms work quite well"

No, they really don't. Especially if they're used over a period of several years. In fact, a woman with normal fertility using only condoms is almost certain to get pregnant at least twice unexpectedly during her reproductive lifespan.

Maybe you consider two abortions to be a-ok, but I don't.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 8:52 AM

Jake-It is NOT true that boys and girls are going to have sex. I remained pure for my husband and he for me. I had tons of boyfriends in highschool (well, I don't know tons, but I had several throughout my highschool years) and believe me, some of them really pressured me for sex but I DID WAIT. So it is possible. Don't sell out boys and girls thinking they don't have brains and can't possibly control themselves.

If thats the case then why do we get upset when kids fight, or shoplift, or anything? Afterall, they can't POSSIBLY control their behavior, right?

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 10, 2010 10:27 AM

Like I said before, condoms aren't perfect, people, but aren't they better than nothing?

Posted by: Phillymiss at March 10, 2010 12:28 PM

Phillymiss, I respectfully disagree with the "Condoms are better than nothing" mindset. Research says the longer you use any form of contraception the more likely it will fail. Don't you realize that condoms were considered antiquated birth control for years and that is why the "pill had to be invented". I have worked with teen parents, the majority were using some form of "protection" but got pregnant anyway. PP's own research says the 54% of women were using some form of contraception when they got pregnant. The false sense of security of contraception is the leading justification for abortion I believe. There is NO method of BC that is 100% effective. If you are having sex you can get pregnant (the odds are if you are healthy you will get pregnant) or if you are practicing sexual activity you can get STDs (the odds are you will because of skin to skin transmission and there are over 25 significant STDs today). No matter how many condoms, pills, patches or shots you pass out you get:
increased STDs
increased unplanned pregnancies
increased broken hearts
increased abortions
increased out-of wedlock births
increased fatherless children
leading to increased violent, unstable communities
increased failure in schools
increased poverty
and increased money for those who capitilize off of the failures like PP (who makes millions off of the immoral behavior and off of aborting the consequences of people's sexual behavior). No amount of contraception and comprehensive sex ed is going to stem the tide of the total breakdown of our young people, our families, our communities, our nation and our world. Unless we get back to the real reason for this mess.

The Bible says "having considered themselves wise they became FOOLS, because they refused to acknowledge God".

If counseling some young person who insist they are going to have sex anyway after being given a value-based abstinence education with the practical strategies for being abstinent accompanied with the parental or adult emotional and spiritual support, I would say technically you are right.

Posted by: Prolifer L at March 10, 2010 1:31 PM

Sorry for the double post mods. Please take the extra one down.

Posted by: Prolifer L at March 10, 2010 1:38 PM

Did you really just ask why I got a vasectomy. Ummm...let's see, for one thing, sex without condoms is way more pleasurable, and secondly, a free vasectomy (with insurance of course) is certainly more financially attractive than continually purchasing condoms. The point is though, that either method of birth control is effective. Condoms served me well in my teens and young adulthood.

To answer your question, I feel that whenever a child is ready to talk about sex, it is okay to discuss it with them. So each kid is different, but if an 8 year old is curious about sex I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist and hide them from the facts.

Posted by: Jake at March 10, 2010 4:47 PM

for one thing, sex without condoms is way more pleasurable

Yet another reason they don't work!

Posted by: Louise at March 10, 2010 5:36 PM

NOW who's chugging along on blind faith? Oh, and btw, my parents did an absolutely SMASHING job of preventing me from engaging in sexual activity before I matured. Any parent who gives a damn could.

Yep. Well said, Xalisae.

Jake, I think Carla might have been asking at what age are children too young to find out about condoms. When my children ask questions about where babies come from, I tell them only what is necessary at the time. Eventually they will ask question after question until they find out the full answer. I only answer to their questions and their understanding. By about 10 or 11 each of my elder children knew the basics about procreation. They also know what we expect for them in general terms e.g. marriage is the best thing for raising children etc.

None of my kids have asked what a condom is yet, but when they do, I'll tell them that some people use them so as not to have babies, but that they are terribly ineffective, even when used properly. It's perfectly possible to inform children without sexualising or corrupting them, but it must be done with sensitivity and preferably not in a classroom of mixed sexes, IMO. And if it comes down to each child and how ready they are to receive basic, age-appropriate information, why should they be subjected to such education in classes, where presumably the kids are at differing levels of readiness?

Like I said before, condoms aren't perfect, people, but aren't they better than nothing?

Not if they are giving you a false sense of security, no.

Posted by: Louise at March 10, 2010 5:51 PM

I wasn't talking about when adults should discuss sex with children. You are advocating children having sex and I was wondering how young is too young? 9? 10?

Sex ed started in our house when my eldest son was around 2 years old. He pointed to himself and asked, "What dis?"

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 5:52 PM

Well, shock and awe, it appears Jake and I agree on one thing - I think that if a kid asks questions about sex, they should be answered honestly no matter what age the kid is. (Although if the kid is asking "How do you locate a G-spot?" instead of "How do people make babies?", you have a problem.) When I was maybe four or five I knew about sperm and eggs because I asked my mom and she told me. HOWEVER - and this is where Jake and I part ways, again - I was raised with the understanding that my parents wanted me to be married before I had sex, they couldn't stop me if I had sex outside of marriage as an adult but they hoped I wouldn't, and sex is something for ADULTS.

Kids should not be having sex. They're kids. If there was ever something that fell into the realm of "for adults only," it's having sex.

Posted by: Marauder at March 10, 2010 7:32 PM


My son also showed interest in his parts so I explained the correct name and that boys have them and they tinkle. That satisfied his curiosity. He didn't ask about what girls have or probe any further. I do not think withholding information from children is good...we are not talking about not educating our kids about sex...just about with WHOSE values our kids will be educated.

My son already knows that Daddy helped me make him. He accepts that and for now thats all he wants to know. He knows he grew in my belly for 9 months because he was sooo tiny and had to stay in my belly for safety. He has seen his ultrasound pics and loves to look at them. He has seen video online of unborn babies in the womb. He sees what most adults refuse to see...that they are babies! Smart 3 year old. Pity he can't pass on some of his brains to some grown ups I know.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 10, 2010 10:33 PM

Hi Syd, :)
I think in my house we talk about sex more than most. My kids ask, I tell them on a level they will understand. Totally open and honest all with the understanding that waiting for marriage is going to offer more safety and protection.(More than a condom!!)

I am still wondering how young is too young to have sex, according to Jake?? He did say that, "boys and girls are going to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage and even before sexual maturity."


Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 11, 2010 12:32 PM

We discuss sex constantly in our house with our teen because it is extremely important that they know the "how" and also that they WAIT. How much better is sex within a marriage versus outside of marriage?? I know it is for me and I know it is amazing and that is because God blesses it. He also blesses those who wait. I wish my parents cared enough, as my husband's parents did (he was a virgin), to let me know how important it was to WAIT. My husband and I NEVER hide what sex is, what contraception is, how very pleasurable it can be, along with that you must WAIT until marriage or you suffer consequences of your actions (disease, unplanned pregnancies, heaven forbid - abortion). Our bodies are a temple and we are not to abuse them and I fully believe that includes sex outside of marriage. Our children also need to love and respect themselves enough to say "no" and if that means getting dumped, then obviously they weren't loved as much as they thought they were.
My six year old knows what his penis is and that girls are different. My 3 year old triplets (all boys) know that they have penises and their baby sister and I do not. Because they are so close in age to their sister (17 months), they all get diaper changes at the same time and that leads to natural questions. They've known since 2 that they have a penis and recently began asking 'do you have peanut?' (their word) 'does H have peanut?' 'does daddy have peanut?' Because they know this does not mean that I need to sexualize it for them. It is natural and 'sexual' education (or abstinence, as it were) begins at HOME with parents who love their children enough to tell them to WAIT.

Posted by: Trista at March 11, 2010 4:36 PM