Just another exercise in demonstrating that so-called experts have burned out their “common sense.” Like, handing out condoms and teaching teen girls all the ways to do sex, with no guidance on maybe it might be a good idea NOT TO HAVE SEX … who would have guessed?
A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving.The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.
But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were ’significantly’ more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice. [...]
Experts said the scheme failed because it introduced girls ‘at risk’ of becoming pregnant to promiscuous girls they might not otherwise have met.
Because of peer pressure, the more timid teenagers were more likely to have sex and become pregnant.
Teen peer pressure in a hookup culture? Who knew?
The failed YPDP, launched in 2004, was based on a similar scheme in New York claimed to have significantly reduced teenage pregnancies.However, attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole.
Naw, no one in New York would feel the need to “cook the books”, would they?
By the time she reached the age of consent, Lucy Lanelly had become pregnant four times.And on each occasion the teenager from Toll Bar, South Yorkshire, had an abortion. [...]
Lucy said: ‘I don’t regret having the terminations because I was too young to have a baby, but I do regret having sex when I wasn’t mature enough to deal with it.’
Face.Palm.
Comment by happyfeet on 7/7 @ 10:45 pm #
so take my strong advice, just remember to always think twice I think
Comment by maggie katzen on 7/7 @ 10:49 pm #
and with the first comment… it’s over. *clap* *clap* *clap*
Comment by dicentra on 7/7 @ 10:59 pm #
Girls? Saying NO to everyone but your hubby is the smartest decision you could possibly make. Giving in only benefits him, not you.
Sorry, but Teh Patriarchy wasn’t just trying to ensure that every bride was a virgin for their own amusement or psychological benefit; they were protecting their daughters from men whose intentions, they knew from being men themselves, were less than honorable.
Comment by cranky-d on 7/7 @ 11:11 pm #
I’m sorry, dicentra, but you must be some kind of anti-feminist because women should be free to have all the sex they want to, and stuff like that. At least, that’s what the feminazis keep telling me, and they couldn’t be wrong. Could they?
Comment by Adriane on 7/7 @ 11:24 pm #
But when they start handling out environmental indulgences, the amount of pollution and ecological damage is going to down, right?
Comment by Jeff Y. on 7/8 @ 12:53 am #
Yeah, because women only have sex with men for marriage. Um, women like sex too.
Some men do prey upon women. That’s true, but incomplete. Very incomplete. The other reason “they” wanted chaste daughters was to preserve the sanctity of life, the life which women uniquely nurture. Women have a unique ability to carry life with a concomitant unique responsibility. But thanks for finding a way to make men out be the cause for female sexual irresponsibility.
If this seems a bit too caustic, it’s because I’m sick and tired of men getting the blame for the consequences female “sexual liberation.” I’m sick and tired of women transferring their own damn responsibilities onto men. Women are just as ridden with human vice as men. That includes sexual vices.
—
On the original post, I’m just aghast. Sometimes, I cannot believe how utterly insane the liberal worldview really is. This is one of those times.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/8 @ 3:24 am #
Let’s keep these girls out of trouble by lowering the driving age to 13. If we give them proper Driver’s Ed, what could go wrong?
Comment by Yackums on 7/8 @ 3:58 am #
Jeff Y -
I don’t think you are in disagreement with dicentra, you’re just stating the endgame. Yes, men wanted to protect their daughters from other men (and per you, perhaps from themselves as well), ultimately in order to “preserve the sanctity of life…” etc. etc. as you so eloquently put it. I hardly think dicentra thinks men are the cause of female sexual irresponsibility; that doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t see themselves as guardians against it.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/8 @ 4:10 am #
Because of peer pressure, the more timid teenagers were more likely to have sex and become pregnant.
Don’t look at me, I’ve got a rock solid alibi.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/8 @ 4:45 am #
…protecting their daughters from men whose intentions, they knew from being men themselves, were less than honorable.
Yes, and I wonder if part of the problem is that feminists don’t want to admit the male version of lust is a particularly powerful drug.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 7/8 @ 4:47 am #
This, dear teenage girl, is a contraceptive quarter.
Put it between your knees, and hold it there very very tightly.
Comment by jcw46 on 7/8 @ 4:53 am #
Don’t ya love it? Am I the only one to notice that if a leftist/liberal/democrat says that doing “A” will stop “B” from happening then YOU KNOW that what’s going to REALLY happen is more “B”?
Rents high?
Introduce rent control = Higher rents.
Teens getting pregnant?
Teach them birth control = More teen pregnancies.
High cost of Health care?
Government backed health insurance = Higher health care costs.
Economy in recession?
Government bailouts and buyouts and stimulus = Depression.
High murder rate in cities?
Eliminate citizens owning guns = highest murder rate in U.S.
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 5:08 am #
That’s because, Jcw, it’s not that liberals don’t know anything. It’s just that everything they know is wrong. I’m trying to think of an exception to this rule, but I’m not coming up with it.
They are, often, a creative bunch. So they’re good for painting shit and amusing us.
Hey, anyone else read that piece linked at the corner about “Abortion Parties”? Interesting, the article is actually about what a man’s position in abortion should be.
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 5:20 am #
The man pays for it.
Comment by Pablo on 7/8 @ 5:24 am #
Jeff, you know what the cause of male sexual irresponsibility is? Women. It all works out.
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 5:25 am #
Well, apparently not. The party was to raise money for the abortion. The wimmen were mad that the boyfriend was there and that the chick wanted him to accompany her to the actual procedure.
You see, I guess it’s one of those “Red Tent” things now. A celebration of womanly femaleness.
Comment by Joe on 7/8 @ 5:41 am #
It must be Sarah Palin’s fault. It has even extended to Europe now. Thank Gaia we have driven her out of the poltical arena before she did more damage…
Comment by TheGeezer on 7/8 @ 5:46 am #
The best and the brightest, a la Dean McNamara , always know best, identify a problem, make a plan, and apply it. Then they wait for their anticipated results to appear. If Obama and cronies produce results similar in effect to what McNamara did for Vietnam and the World Bank, we are freaking doomed.
Comment by smitty on 7/8 @ 5:54 am #
Related Fabius Maximus:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/women-2
“The moral basis for men’s role in our society has disappeared”
The decay will continue until the values of fatherhood and manhood are recapitalized.
The penis is not a mis-placed video game controller, lads.
Fear God, man up, and get with the non-Hollywood program.
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 5:55 am #
Exactly. If the man isn’t paying for it, what good is he?
Comment by Pablo on 7/8 @ 6:07 am #
Keeerist.
“But could I blame them for responding with such anger? No way. I knew many of them had experienced the most hurtful forms of structural sexism — the kinds I will never see. The kinds that that disguise themselves as “the norm.” These women, who had only recently begun to unravel the ways their voices had been excluded from relationships, dialogues and society in general, had every right to respond with anger. I imagine it would have been nearly impossible not to.”
What planet do these people live on?
Pingback by Do ANY of their proposed “solutions” EVER work? » Cold Fury on 7/8 @ 6:07 am #
[...] EVER work? Posted in Fucking Morons by Mike Jul 08 2009 TrackBack Address. No. No, they do not. Leave a [...]
Comment by JHo on 7/8 @ 6:11 am #
Well, we are doomed, TheGeezer.
Inevitable poverty somewhere, sometime?
Engineer the Welfare State = Impoverish entire urban populations, commit them to generational ruin, and lower everyone’s standard of living so as to induct more entrants into the program.
Think the matter of race is enumerated in the Constitution?
Affirmative Action = reverse discrimination and an impacted, incessant matter of race perpetuated across all platforms and social levels that keeps the problem and the program alive indefinitely.
The myth of a level of minimum education being a natural right?
Install a federal school system = press constant efforts to outlaw private education, disincentivize another key industry, virtually double the actual costs of education, ruin choice, ruin academic achievement, and greatly lower that “minimum level of education”.
Higher divorce rates?
Install a family law division run by federal policy = Place the State in charge of dividing the baby, financially encourage an epidemic of profiteers and new divorce filings, tear down the institution of the American family, create yet another dependent class, and encourage new generations of divorcees.
What do all these things have in common? They’re examples of positive feedback, a state of instability that will without question break each subsystem and eventually the main system they’re attached to.
Progressivism!
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 6:19 am #
It’s amusing, Pablo, how they wrap their empty ideas in fancy words. Feminists and liberal thinkers are often pretty good writers. The words are completely devoid of meaning, but they sound so nice strung together. Kinda like what Obama does. I’d really love for someone to explain, in simple terms what this bit means:
These women, who had only recently begun to unravel the ways their voices had been excluded from relationships, dialogues and society in general, had every right to respond with anger. I imagine it would have been nearly impossible not to.”
They are “unraveling” the ways their “voice” had been excluded? Because, of course, they are wimmen. This is the kinda of crap that folks say while eager listeners nod in agreement.
Comment by Joe on 7/8 @ 6:21 am #
Quote of the Day. Becuase it is all her fault!
Comment by Pablo on 7/8 @ 6:32 am #
Remember the saying “If Mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy.”? Ever wonder where it came from? I haven’t. It seems pretty obvious.
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 6:42 am #
Honestly, though. I’m fascinated. I wanna know exactly what the author THINKS he is talking about.
Just as I’m interested to know what Obama voters think of Cap and Trade. And the Healthcare stuff.
But, I think these things are all unknowable. The author would wax on using terms like Patriarchy and Paradigm explaining it to me, and the Obama voter is too focused on Sarah Palin.
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 6:45 am #
Personally, I think a lot of those Made-Up “studies” in college (black studies, wimmen’s studies, etc) are merely courses in teaching the shallow minded the proper “nomenclature” that applies to their particular subject. Once they have all the terms down, and a couple of their handy-dandy “theories” they are proficient.
Comment by syn on 7/8 @ 6:51 am #
Those who lecture about condoms obviously are not having sex for it they were having sex they would know that condoms interfere with the sensitivity factor; when approaching the moment of great climax both sides end up taking the rubber off the cucumber.
I am all for happy sex however women might want to analyze further the fact that our bodies are simply not made to handle multiple sex partners; the best way to have great sex is within a monogamous relationship in which two people care for one another so much that they would not screw one another over by infecting them with STDs or abandoning one another at the most vulnerable of times.
Lastly, as a woman I had to face the fact that is is not my body which is forced to have a tube stick in the nape of my neck so that my brain is sucked away therefore I must defend the innocent lives of those human beings with their own distinct human DNA from having their brains being scrambled and sucked away.
Comment by alppuccino on 7/8 @ 6:51 am #
Man’s (male) dominance over all is a hoax perpetrated to retain power.
Christ rising from the dead is a hoax perpetrated to take people’s money.
Global warming is an urgent emergency that must be dealt with immediately.
I could see my breath this morning.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 7/8 @ 7:06 am #
At least those eeevil conservatives were prevented from imposing their morals on those girls…like proggs have ever been shy about imposing their lack of morals on their young wards. Greetings from an internet lounge in Jeju Island, South Korea.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/8 @ 7:46 am #
Greetings from an internet lounge in Jeju Island, South Korea.
Don’t eat the glowing kimchi.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 8:17 am #
Male dominance is one of the biggest farces (farsi?) in the history of personkind. The idea that anyone other than women rule the world is an enormous ginormous fucking joke.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 7/8 @ 8:18 am #
I think by Feminist standards this program, as well as the one in New York, are highly successful because of the absence of “slut-shaming.” You’d be a fool to believe that they really give a rat’s ass about teen pregnancies and abortions – every abortion is one more lifelong supporter of their agenda because the majority of people simply will not reconsider whether something they’ve done is morally abhorrent, and will double down on the “choice” ideology if for no other reason than for its palliative effect. Darleen’s instincts about fudging the numbers in the New York program may well be on the mark – they know that the only way to “sell” their programs intended to insinuate themselves between teens and their parents and their parents’ religious mores is to market them as solving the teen pregnancy issues that similar previous programs created.
It is scientific fact that the architecture of the teenaged brain is simply not fully formed. This includes the parts which govern impulse control and delayed gratification. The consensus is that the ability to delay reward and control impulses are developed by exercising self discipline and strengthening certain neurological pathways by doing so. It is also scientific fact that during puberty and adolescence, the teenage brain is abruptly flooded with a wave of sex hormones several times the baseline that have significant, measurable impacts upon behavior.
In other words, your parents were on to something when they thought it was a bad idea for a sixteen year old boy to have a 400 HP muscle car. They were also on to something when you were afraid to be caught with birth control and imposed an early curfew.
Regarding the protection of teenaged girls from predation, I rather believe that they are less than able to make informed decisions about the sincerity of potential sexual partners, and less than able to put early romantic relationships into the context of their lives and futures. One would think that if Feminism had anything to do with the welfare of women, rather than projecting Daddy issues into adulthood, it would err on the side of encouraging young women to attain some measure of maturity and sense of self worth before pairing off.
One would be wrong – Feminism is really all about making up for that time that Dad wouldn’t let you go to the mall with your friends.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 8:29 am #
your parents were on to something when they thought it was a bad idea for a sixteen year old boy to have a 400 HP muscle car.
‘69 Camaro Super Sport convertible with all of the fixins for me. It quickly became closely acquainted to a rather large oak tree.
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 8:41 am #
Most likely he is thinking about getting in their pants, and is saying whatever he thinks will accomplish this.
Comment by SDN on 7/8 @ 8:46 am #
Carin, the whole purpose of the various “studies” curricula is to have degrees that AA admissions can make the Dean’s List on if they don’t have the physical skills to handle PE degrees and hate kids too much for teaching degrees.
Comment by cranky-d on 7/8 @ 9:32 am #
Those old musclecars had a lot of go, but not a lot of stop in them.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 9:35 am #
cranky-d - Oak trees provide more than ample stopping power.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 9:36 am #
“Because of peer pressure, the more timid teenagers were more likely to have sex and become pregnant. ”
Sounds like the predicament Barry Miller’s character got into in “Saturday Nighyt Fever”. But he and his girlfriend were strict Catholics so there was no shot at getting an abortion; no she was definately going to be “punished” with that baby…
Just another study where members of the academy can be shocked, Shocked! that human nature trumps all; after all, if you teach someone to fish, well, you know…
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 9:37 am #
“…no one in New York would feel the need to “cook the books”, would they?”
Suuuuuuure…And if you believe that, I have a lovely bridge you can buy, cheap!; just meet me by the NYC city hall this afternoon…
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 9:38 am #
Teaching someone about sex is tacit approval. I’m not so old that I don’t remember a bit about being young. Simply knowing that x-amount of folks were “doing it” lends it’s own acknowledgment that it must not be so bad.
This stuff should come from parents.
Comment by JHoward on 7/8 @ 9:41 am #
Word.
Comment by JHoward on 7/8 @ 9:41 am #
And what Carin said.
Comment by alppuccino on 7/8 @ 9:41 am #
Teaching someone about sex is tacit approval.
Yeah, if the first lesson is how to pull a balloon over a big ole’ cuke.
Cucumbers aren’t scary. Have the girls practice putting condoms on porcupines.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 9:43 am #
JHoward - That might be the single largest lie perpetuated by the perpetually aggrieved womyn.
Comment by agile_dog on 7/8 @ 9:51 am #
cranky-d - I beg to differ. My 63 Galaxy had lots of both. And the extra “stop” is the reason I’m still here.
JD, I found losing a wheel bearing nut, and hence a few moments later, the tire, wheel and brake drum as a unit, provides an AMAZING amount of stopping power. Especially to those of us in the car at the time.
Comment by Carin on 7/8 @ 9:56 am #
And, I believe they demonstrated that couples may start OUT using condom but that doesn’t last. The condoms are out the door once the chick realizes that he REALLY loves her. @@
Comment by MarkD on 7/8 @ 12:51 pm #
I really did love what’s her name. Then.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 7/8 @ 12:58 pm #
One-party birth control can really only work as advertised when used by people in a stable relationship who care enough about one another and their future to be able to forebear when the instrument or medication is unavailable or was not consistently taken as prescribed.
Even then, you still might get my brother Patrick.
Why anyone would think that kids in a backseat of a civic could manage this after two weeks of build-up by way of heavy petting is beyond me. Those are “battlefield conditions,” where using a condom last time and promising yourself to use it next time sounds like a lot better of an idea than it is in practice.
Of course, all of this presumes that every little Sally Rottencrotch really intends not to get pregnant - and I am becoming less and less convinced that many of these teen pregnancies aren’t “accidentally on purpose.”
Comment by arctic_front on 7/8 @ 3:08 pm #
Some awesome observations posted on here…. especially by Alec Leamas.
Human nature doesn’t mirror ‘progressive’ theories. The fact that access to on-demand abortion negated girls from having to deal with their responsibilities, combined with free and easy attitudes towards sex in general, is why there was an explosion in teen pregnancies. I’m not suggesting that it’s all a girls fault for this, or Government’s fault. But boys/men have NOT changed, and will continue to lie, manipulate girls into bed on the easiest pretext of all… the “But I do love you” hoax. Yes it takes two for conception to take place, but again, against all progressive ‘logic’, human nature wins the day. Boys will be boys, ( no excuse!) but its the girls who get pregnant. Compounding this problem, the modern hook-up relationships, or friends with benefits mentality, it’s often the case that the girl doesn’t even know who the father is.
Where does this leave us as a society? Rampant un-necessary abortions, countless single mothers on welfare, males who don’t ever have to face responsibility for their promiscuous actions. It’s out of control and the Progressive’s never accept the blame for the policies that encourage this outcome. The best form of birth control is having to live with the results of your inability to ‘delay gratification’.
The ‘contraceptive quarter’ used to be very effective back in the old days. Back when personal responsibility reigned supreme. How far we have come when a man was expected to do the honorable thing (marry the girl) and a girl in trouble (pregnant) was not praised as a sexually liberated female. Making babies is serious business, and should not be trivialized by the current societal ‘norms’ we see today. Girls: Either keep your legs together(or use proper birth control), and guys: Keep it in your pants or step up to the plate and ‘own’ your responsibilities if you get her pregnant. If either gender can’t be directly and personally held responsible for their deeds, then take that as proof that they are not ready to be having sex. Self-love in the privacy of their bedrooms has been pretty effective in the past, and can still be in the future. Easy access to abortion and welfare is counter productive to stemming the tide of un-wed mothers or teen pregnancy. Boys/men: until you can support your offspring, don’t be sowing your wild oats indiscriminately. Pregnancy is entirely avoidable.
Comment by The Monster on 7/8 @ 4:40 pm #
The nomenclature du jour, that is.
Observe:
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 5:33 pm #
Don’t call them prostitutes, call them sex therapists.
Comment by meya on 7/8 @ 5:37 pm #
” You can’t call them “disabled”; that’s mean. Call them “differently-abled”.”
People first language (ie, “people with disabilities”) is popular now.
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 5:53 pm #
The problem is words themselves get blamed for negative connotations. Not being able to walk normally has a negative impact in your life, so the word describing it is inherently going to carry negative connotations, it is describing a negative state of being. Do gooders oblivious to reality think changing the name and temporarily losing the negative connotations will magically remove all the negativity from the reality of the situation. Instead the new word just picks up the original negative connotations and the cycle starts all over.
Comment by geoffb on 7/8 @ 7:02 pm #
But in the process perfectly fine and descriptive words get saddled with other baggage. The language, the very ability to talk about, even think about some things gets twisted or destroyed. Think about what has happened to just one word, “liberal”, what it used to mean and what it has been twisted into by being a cover, a mask for the progressive/socialist left.
So we end up with “classical liberal” which is okay, but, like saying Coke Classic, it’s a bit clunky and still implies some baggage unless explained. Having to explain a term because the older and proper one has been co-opted makes discourse about certain ideas a kludge.
Comment by meya on 7/8 @ 7:22 pm #
“But in the process perfectly fine and descriptive words get saddled with other baggage. ”
Who ruined “gay”?
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 7:26 pm #
Is that a trick question?
Comment by the word festive on 7/8 @ 7:27 pm #
I don’t know, but there but by the Grace of God…
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 7:47 pm #
This also how lobbying against your countries success in a war is Patriotism, but disagreeing with domestic policies is Treason.
Comment by geoffb on 7/8 @ 8:47 pm #
The 1960s crowd changed it from meaning cheery, bright, and pleasant to mean homosexual. They were trying to put the former meaning onto the latter. Didn’t work did it. Gay lost the cheery meaning and took on the connotations that had been on the new “meaning”.
Meaning goes from the world onto the word. Changing the word used to signify something doesn’t change the thing. The thing changes the meaning of the word to fit what that thing is in the world.
What gets destroyed is the original meaning, and that makes the language poorer and makes an idea harder to express. And sometimes that is what is desired by those who force the change.
Comment by meya on 7/8 @ 8:56 pm #
“The 1960s crowd changed it from meaning cheery, bright, and pleasant to mean homosexual. ”
See I thought it was folks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd2SYT4L7xQ
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 9:09 pm #
Are you picking on the handicapped disabled differently-abled people with disabilities, meya?
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 9:10 pm #
Like my html abilities, for instance.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 9:17 pm #
B Moe - meya/RD/mendoucheous twatwaffle is a short bus rider …
Comment by geoffb on 7/8 @ 9:39 pm #
A perfect example of how the connotations of a thing attached themselves to the new word so seamlessly that it seems to have always been so.
I have never found the short bus people to be so stubbornly obtuse. Much more open to new thoughts they are. I suspect it is an ideology created disability.
Comment by geoffb on 7/8 @ 9:50 pm #
Now some of those working at the White House…
Comment by Danger on 7/9 @ 4:44 am #
“What gets destroyed is the original meaning, and that makes the language poorer and makes an idea harder to express. And sometimes that is what is desired by those who force the change.”
Geoffb,
That was pretty awesome stuff sir; and dare I say, reminiscent of another Jeff I know.
If I could bookmark people on this site your name would be added.
Regards
Comment by TheGeezer on 7/9 @ 7:13 am #
Having adopted breezy and fashionable Sartreian lifestyles, progressives find themselves in an existential nightmare of misdirection, indecision, and drifty conviction. Depending upon what finally amounts to perceived majority approval of self for a behavioral guide, rather than upon Natural Law, progressives seem to develop a distaste for, if not a hatred of, any convention or standard, even language. Of what importance might mere language meanings have, if moral tenets are righteously self-defined?
We really need a Babelfish.
Comment by geoffb on 7/9 @ 10:13 am #
Thank you Danger for your kind words and especially thank you for your service to the country we both love.
Trackback by Xanax no prescription. on 7/25 @ 3:08 am #
Xanax….
Xanax bars. 2mg xanax order. Xanax no prescription. Buy xanax without prescription. Xanax. Generic xanax….