Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on December 01, 2004, 10:33:13 pm
-
Source: The Drudge Report
American youngsters participating in federally funded, abstinence-only programs have been taught over past 3 years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half gay male teen-agers in the U.S. have tested poz for AIDS virus, and touching a person's genitals 'can result in pregnancy,' a congressional staff analysis has found.... WASH POST planning to splash on Thursday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE... Reporter Ceci Connolly has byline... MORE...
-
Um... :wtf:
-
You mean that isn't true??
-
Post the whole thing so I can see whether this is meant to say the ideas are false or true.
-
It is a leak that appeared on the drudge report. The Wash Post article I am sure is going to be very critical of the abstenence programs. As for the truth of the little snipet, I don't know if touching genitals will get you pregnant. That is not what I remember from Biology. this could be a purposeful misrepresentation of what information the drudge report received.
-
Think about it. Actions can result in other actions. The stuff on abortions sounds right though.
-
I don't know if touching genitals will get you pregnant. That is not what I remember from Biology.
you're kidding me, right?
-
I am not questioning that. But I think I will pick up the Post in the morning, just to actually see what it is actually saying.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you're kidding me, right?
As far as I know it doesn't. But it has been a while since I took Biology.
-
You wanna know why abortion leads to suicide? Because the girl is living in a family with a pole up its ass so when her parents find out, they make a point of taking an emotional sledgehammer to her.
-
Eh, maybe, but there is a post aborted depression that has been documented among some women. Also, lets just say that an abortion is something that I would hardly call a positive experience.
-
well think about it... what has to happen for a woman to get pregnant? i don't want to go into details, but if i have to, i will :p
what it's probably referring to, is that in many cases "touching the genitals" usually results in sex anyway, which many times results in pregnancy.
-
I know how it works, thank you. I think the article is refering to touch by hand. I could very well be wrong.
-
Is he being serious or just being purposely stupid.
I'm kinda half-tired, half watching Elisha Cutherbert fake an orgasm.
-
Here is the article in entirty
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."
When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.
Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.
President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.
Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.
Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.
Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
-
Originally posted by an0n
Is he being serious or just being purposely stupid.
I am being serious. I just wasn't sure what they are refering to.
-
Why don't they just cut to the chase and go with the 'If you have sex you will die!!!1' arguement? It's about as well founded, after all.
-
It's manipulation of the truth, and it's not right. If you want people to follow a course of action, why fill them full of lies? They will find out the truth and think you a ****wit sooner or later, so why bother? :hopping:
-
Probably they want to create a little mental box-universe they can control. Y'know, do what we say or you'll be sorry.
-
Some Republican ****tards (and Democrat fc-s too) deserve a thorough wash of their bankaccounts and mandatory stay in a single-sex only monastry for 10 years (the time they demand an average teen to just say no).
Afterwards they are free to yep all they want about abstinence and risks.
These programs are a waste of taxpayers money, and instead trying to teach teens how to go about forming relationships that have more in them than the perkiness of Jany's breasts or how muscular Jack is, they try to instill fear of sex in teens.
It's like the difference between law and morals.
Moral's are internal - you always obey them, 'cause that's why they are your morals.
Law is merly an external control that tries to handle deviating persons - so it doesn't give a damn about the person who was damaged. Does it care for the people who were robbed, killed, raped? Nto really, the important thing is the jailing of the perpetrator.
Law is the same for everyone, while moral is tailored for everyone's personal quirks and traits. Moral handles each situation differently, based on the people involved.
Law can't really do that.
Now what this whole moral/law situation boils down to:
Instead making teens, motivated, brought up in a morally conscious manner - ergo teaching them how to go about forming relationships, and minimize the risk involved with sexual activity -, that would make them self-driven and responsible; the ****tards try to bully them into their "ideal behaviour" with external laws that are oftern based on falsificated or not entierly true facts to make the situation appear out of proportion and subjugate with dogmatic responses to this seeminlgy looming threat.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I don't know if touching genitals will get you pregnant.
touching as hand-on-genitals no way in hell unless you get semen on that hand then touch the female genitals
now to make it anything greater than an infintessimally small chance (so small that saying "Touching genitals will get you pregnant" is effectively a lie) that semen has to enter the vagina
and im not suprised one little bit - nothing these assholes do suprises me
-
Originally posted by Flaser
Instead making teens, motivated, brought up in a morally conscious manner - ergo teaching them how to go about forming relationships, and minimize the risk involved with sexual activity -, that would make them self-driven and responsible;
yes self-driven and responsible :D
some will choose to do so anyway (*raises hand*), but when informed they will be safe about it
-------------
that 'morally conscious manner' cannot be too repressive though, sexual repression in a society increases the ammount of mental problems in that society
-
[YODA]Meeting people of thr other gender leads to touching their genitals...touching their genitals leads to sex....and SEX leads to the dark side of the Force(SATAN)...[/YODA]
-
rotfl
-
independant studies have shown that women who have abortions often suffer severe depression. The women has to cope with her misteak and the killing of the baby she was carrying.
Depressed people are more prone to suicide. Women depressed because she killed her child. Its fair to say that abortion can increase your chances of suicide.
The genital touching thing is wierd. Sure the possibility is there but the chances are way to slim.
And HIV/AIDS can be carried by any body fluid. There was a government report released a few years ago that said any type of contact; kissing, oral sex w/e has the risk of transmission.
Sexual repression should not be used as an excuse for sexual rebellion. Promote "safe" teen sex and you promote the destruction of the family. And God knows, secular humanist progressive liberals would love that.
Abstinence until marriage is only way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Abstience programs in Uganda have succeded in dramatically lowering the infection rate in that country. If people just waited, there would be no massive AIDS problem.
Flasher is right, but abstience programs are hardly external control.
-
wow Drew - your entire post is one steaming pile of BULL****
here is a nice piece of bull****
cope with her misteak
it's spelled mistake for one :P - but you're pushing YOUR WORLDVIEW AND YOUR ASSHOLE BACKWARDS OPINION INTO HER ACTIONS
No studies support you
----------------
but here is the biggest single piece of bull****
Promote "safe" teen sex and you promote the destruction of the family. And God knows, secular humanist progressive liberals would love that.
DOUBLE BULL**** JACKASS
A) Promoting "safe" sex doesn't desotry the family - look at europe you ignorant SOB
B) DON'T TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO DO WHEN IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO DO YOU STUPID SOB
Abstinence until marriage is only way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS
No it's not you ignorant piece of ****
Abstience programs in Uganda have succeded in dramatically lowering the infection rate in that country
*Cough* bull**** *cough*
comprehensive sex education programs did that - you're falsely attributing the effectiveness of those comprehensive sex ed programs to abstinance only because you forget STATISTIACL DELAY
-
Originally posted by Drew
independant studies have shown that women who have abortions often suffer severe depression. The women has to cope with her misteak and the killing of the baby she was carrying.
Depressed people are more prone to suicide. Women depressed because she killed her child. Its fair to say that abortion can increase your chances of suicide.
The genital touching thing is wierd. Sure the possibility is there but the chances are way to slim.
And HIV/AIDS can be carried by any body fluid. There was a government report released a few years ago that said any type of contact; kissing, oral sex w/e has the risk of transmission.
Sexual repression should not be used as an excuse for sexual rebellion. Promote "safe" teen sex and you promote the destruction of the family. And God knows, secular humanist progressive liberals would love that.
Abstinence until marriage is only way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Abstience programs in Uganda have succeded in dramatically lowering the infection rate in that country. If people just waited, there would be no massive AIDS problem.
Flasher is right, but abstience programs are hardly external control.
With reference to the 'mistake' of abortion, one of the medical reasons considered when allowing abortion is the possibility of post-natal depression, which can lead to suicide.
So it's unfair to cite this (depression) as an arguement against abortion, as it can be a medical reason necessitating abortion.
Insofar as I know and have ever seen, Aids / HIV can only be spread by kissing if both of the 2 people involved have a mouth ulcer; i.e. blood access (this is itself highly unlikely due to the anti-virus properies of saliva and the much lover concentrations of the HIV virus; no case contracted this way is known.
It's spread within semen, blood, vaginal fluid and breast milk; I've never seen any evidence or new stories indicating it can be spread in the way you describe, and most articles unequivocally state it can't be transmitted in that way.
Finally, 'promoting safe teen sex' is not promoting safe sex. It's simply a process of educating on the exact consequences of sex -at any age- and raising awareness of what protective measures can be taken. It has nothing to do with family or whatnot; you could argue unprotected (i.e. when uneducated about contraception) sex is far more dangerous as it raises the likelihood of pregnancy (and thus potentially a single parent situation).
Oh, and RE: Uganda. If you look at the linked chart on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2995109.stm, it says this; Uganda has fought Aids with an aggressive public information campaign after the epidemic slashed life expectancy from 48 years to 38 during the 1990s. Recent HIV infections appear to be on the decline in parts of the country and condom use by young single women has almost doubled in recent years.
You can also see doubts raised over the correctness of said aids rate in this story; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3677570.stm
and the use of condoms has also been heavily promoted alongside abstinance, to quote this article; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4061779.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3250021.stm
So the Ugandan improvement can be put down to a combination of both abstinance teaching and education on safe sex.
EDIt; oh, and both saliva and skin act as a natural barrier against infection by HIV / Aids - that's why the methods of infection involve either an open 'wound' (i.e. from a dirty needle), or sex.
EDIT2; Kaz, calm down a bit, eh? Just focus on presenting the facts, :)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
wow Drew - your entire post is one steaming pile of BULL****
here is a nice piece of bull****
it's spelled mistake for one :P - but you're pushing YOUR WORLDVIEW AND YOUR ASSHOLE BACKWARDS OPINION INTO HER ACTIONS
No studies support you
----------------
but here is the biggest single piece of bull****
DOUBLE BULL**** JACKASS
A) Promoting "safe" sex doesn't desotry the family - look at europe you ignorant SOB
B) DON'T TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO DO WHEN IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO DO YOU STUPID SOB
No it's not you ignorant piece of ****
*Cough* bull**** *cough*
comprehensive sex education programs did that - you're falsely attributing the effectiveness of those comprehensive sex ed programs to abstinance only because you forget STATISTIACL DELAY
and you forgot your evidence.
Hell. Aldo had to do most of the work. Anybody can lose their temper and screem bull****. Congratulations in your medioctrity Kaz.
"look at europe"
I lived in Germany for 5 years. In know all about Europe. Europe sucks.
-
the evidence was posted in other threads and i wasn't going to bother reposting - because i knew someon else would
-
You based your opinion of the whole continent on your experience in Germany? :wtf:
-
and obviously a small part of germany, or a biased view thereof
-
aldo's post is the only one with abstience in mind.
the rest were basically comments
so until you re-read the rulebook for arguments, me and aldo can have a inteligent conversation
US public school sex ed programs do _not_ promote abstience, like the Uganda program does. Pop culture also does not support the idea. To my knowledge, stations such as MTV have never promoted abstinence; rather they push condom use 24 hours a day.
This report is basically an attack on all abstience programs by using a few abstience programs that use some strange facts. These facts are given with a much more important message: Abstinence is the only way to totaly prevent transmission, and to totaly prevent pregnancy. Many teens pledge abstinence just because it increases chances of a succesful, unproblematic future.
Condom use does not promote the suppression of libido, just "safer" methods of relieving it. On the other hand, abstienece involves a serious amount of self control.
Abstinence programs do not use these facts as the conerstone of their message.
-
What gets me about the abstinence-only programs is that they just say "Don't have sex til marriage, damnit!!"
They don't have an answer for "Well, what should I do if I and my significant other really, really want to?" A lot of them just promote abstinence and sort of give a cursory glance at the alternatives.
Then again, most of my sex-ed came through my (quite liberal) church. :p
My thinking is, if more people know the plain facts about what they're doing -- and trust me, they are doing it, abstinence-only education or not -- then stuff like teen pregnancy and the single-parent situations that often ensue will happen much less. (It'd also probably reduce the number of teen abortions.) :nod:
I'm not advocating promiscuity or anything, I'm just being a realist. People are going to have sex before marriage, no matter how hard the "abstinence-until-marriage" agenda is pushed. But if they know what to do to avoid pregnancy 'til they're ready, and if they know about STDs, it works out better for everyone. :)
-
Kazan, quit it. Argue, don't insult. This goes for everyone else.
-
[q]I'm not advocating promiscuity or anything[/q]
Promiscuous teens are all over the news... how come I never met any when I was 16?
-
all abstinance-only programs are a complete and total failure - studies have conclusively shown that abstinant-only-education causes a RISE IN THE TEEN PREGNANCY AND STD INFECTION RATES
-
Originally posted by Drew
US public school sex ed programs do _not_ promote abstience, like the Uganda program does. Pop culture also does not support the idea. To my knowledge, stations such as MTV have never promoted abstinence; rather they push condom use 24 hours a day.
This report is basically an attack on all abstience programs by using a few abstience programs that use some strange facts. These facts are given with a much more important message: Abstinence is the only way to totaly prevent transmission, and to totaly prevent pregnancy. Many teens pledge abstinence just because it increases chances of a succesful, unproblematic future.
Condom use does not promote the suppression of libido, just "safer" methods of relieving it. On the other hand, abstienece involves a serious amount of self control.
Abstinence programs do not use these facts as the conerstone of their message.
The primary basis of abstinance arguements is, IMO, based on religion (specifically the morality of pre-marital or non-reproductive sex); teaching based upon this could be very easily seen as bringing religion into the curriculum. Also, the job of sex education is - or should be - to educate about the process of sexual reproduction and the personal effects.
The decision of whether or not abstinance is 'good' should be one which is made by the individual themself; based on the unbiased evidence (i.e. from sex education) of the possible risks of unprotected sex*, including the effectiveness of contraception. The fact that no sex = no STD infection (simpilification, obviously there can be other infection vectors) is fairly obvious.
With regards to abstinance, it is worth noting that the US does commit substantial funds to abstinance-promoting groups; $270m (according to article below, I think Congress may have reduced this to $196m but I can't find a specific link). It is also worth noting this is also a religious issue based on personal views; setting a national policy to focus solely on that is clearly sectarianising the issue.
NB: with regards to a specific group; the Silver Ring Thing; a Columba university report found that
Study of 12,000 aged 12 to 18
- Six years on, 99% of non-pledgers had sex before marriage
- So too did 88% of pledgers
- Pledgers first had sex an average of 18 months later
- Both had similar rates of STDs
- Pledgers 'much less likely' to use contraception [/b]
(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3846687.stm boxout)
(also worth noting the level of teenage pregnancies in the US is much higher than the UK and by consequence the rest of europe; there is no similar focus on abstinace in Europe that I know of)
I think this illustrates why sex education is necessary even if you aim to have a universal 'abstinance only' focus; abstinance groups have to focus on overcoming a basic human urge to reproduce, and as such may often resort to scaremongering about the alternatives.
I have no objection to the message of abstinance; if people wish to listen to it, then fair enough. What I think is wrong is when education on safe sex, etc, is omitted or discredited to favour that view of abstinance. I think that it's simply short-sighted to do so, especially when the arguement for the morality of abstinance is based on a religious or moral code which not everyone will choose to subscribe to. In the worst case, we have the situation where the Vatican scaremongers (or outright blocks) over the use of condoms to prevent their use in anti-aids education in Africa.
I short, I think it is the duty of the government to provide full information on the biological risks and safeguards available for sex. It is the duty of individuals to decide which safeguard is most appropriate for them, and which approach to sex to take; they should not be forced to listen to a single view such as that which preaches abstinance.
*note that this includes the issue of promiscuity. From a biological perspective, and thus the educational perspective, whether or not sex is with a married or unmarried partner is of no real consequence with relation to the individual risk of STDs..... there's no real difference from a long term relationship vs a married relationship with regards to STD infection (etc).
-
Maybe you should watch that "shift" key. BTW, prove it.
EDIT: @ Kazan.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Maybe you should watch that "shift" key. BTW, prove it.
EDIT: @ Kazan.
See the poll details in my post; it's likely the marginal decrease in pre-marital sex is outweighed by the decreased use of contraception.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
BTW, prove it.
SRC: Fundamentals of Extremism - and they directly cite all the studies
-
Originally posted by Drew
The genital touching thing is wierd. Sure the possibility is there but the chances are way to slim.
Yeah, if you just came on your hand and started ramming it in her vagina....
And HIV/AIDS can be carried by any body fluid. There was a government report released a few years ago that said any type of contact; kissing, oral sex w/e has the risk of transmission.
I call bull**** right there. You cannot spread HIV through kissing. Your saliva is basically an acid, an environment HIV cannot survive in long enough to spread to another person. Furthermore, I seriously doubt you can spread HIV via oral sex either, unless you just happen to have a sore on the back of your throat, and swallow the payload. Otherwise, it just goes down into your stomach and gets digested like any other food product. Maybe you should take a Biology class.
Sexual repression should not be used as an excuse for sexual rebellion. Promote "safe" teen sex and you promote the destruction of the family.
ROFL
What planet are you from again? How the hell is exucating teens on the proper use of contraceptives going to ruin a family? Last I checked, the more you tell someone not to do something, the more curious they are going to be about it. What you said right there is by far the DUMBEST thing I've seen on this board in a long time.
Abstinence until marriage is only way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Abstience programs in Uganda have succeded in dramatically lowering the infection rate in that country. If people just waited, there would be no massive AIDS problem.
See, theres a problem with that line of reasoning. Teaching abstinence and nothing else has done nothing but increase teen pregnancy rates here in the US. Hell, some schools even forbid the instruction of the use of proper contraceptives! I actually saw a teacher get fired because she brought up how condoms would protect you from an unwanted pregnancy. I have no problem with preaching abstinence along with the proper knowlege concerning contraceptives (because you know damn well they're going to experiment, no matter what anyone tells them).
-
Raging teenage libido always wins. So if you are armed with some knowledge and a pack of condoms, then you're in a better position. Nobody should be a virgin when they get married, it's a medieval and stupid idea. Why? because you might be totally incompatable in bed, and then you are stuffed. Unless you want to start off with a sexless marriage that is....:doubt:
-
indeed - psychological studies show that couples who don't sleep togeather before the weeding night end up with immense anxiety on the wedding night
and IIRC also have a higher divorce rate - but that probably has more to do with the fact that those of us who choose to be monogamous without the need for some stupid religious craphola are much more committed and genuine
-
Promote "safe" teen sex and you promote the destruction of the family. And God knows, secular humanist progressive liberals would love that.
Damn straight. Nothing pisses me off like a family, because when you're in a family, you can't have sex! Sodomy and public masturbation all 'round! DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF FAMILIES!
-
nice sarcasm ford
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Damn straight. Nothing pisses me off like a family, because when you're in a family, you can't have sex! Sodomy and public masturbation all 'round! DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF FAMILIES!
Don't forget the beer and beastiality! :lol:
Maybe Drew is a closet furry! :D
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Damn straight. Nothing pisses me off like a family, because when you're in a family, you can't have sex! Sodomy and public masturbation all 'round! DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF FAMILIES!
But think of the fat people! No! Public masturbation baaaaaaad!
-
ROTFL
-
Well, you lot stick to Sodomy and Masturbation, I'll take what's left :p
-
hehehe :D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
But think of the fat people! No! Public masturbation baaaaaaad!
Thank you for that wonderful mental image....
Thanks to you, from now on I'll see nothing but people the size of sumos getting themselves off in public.... :shaking:
-
When does the hurting stop