The Best Way To Eliminate Sexual Promiscuity in Teens
As the world hails Merck's announcement about the 100% effectiveness of Gardasil, the first vaccine against many types of cervical cancers, the idiots are already clamoring that giving teenage girls (and teen boys, who carry the viruses that cause these cancers and spread it to their partners) will promote promiscuity by "giving permission" to teens to increase their sexual activities.
Teens stupid enough to be having unprotected sex (which is still most of them, just as it was in ahem my day) are still going to have unprotected sex, which means that viral warts and cervical cancer is just one of the things they are blithely ignoring while their hormones are raging. The vaccine doesn't protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (STD), or against pregnancy.
Of course, these same people believe that educating teens about safe sex, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of infection and the creation of unwanted-at-the-moment offspring, is just as wrong as protecting women against cervical cancer.
Abstinence, they cry, is the only thing that should be taught, preached, and promoted.
Like, abstinence has been real successful so far, hasn't it? Just ask all the parentless kids in institutions, foster homes, and being raised by grandparents.
Using their logic, we should also ban the sale of condoms, all other forms of birth control, and antibiotics. Yes, antibiotics: since they are used to treat STDs, they give permission to teens to be sexually active knowing that if they do get an STD, all they have to do is take a week or so of antibiotics and they'll be back in the game.
So: herewith is my 100 percent effective way to promote--nay, guarantee--abstinence:
Sperm can be collected from presently intact males and stored. Since sperm stand up to freezing far better than eggs do, there will be plenty of sperm for years to come while human females evolve a reproductive strategy that so many animals across the vertebrate and invertebrate spectrum have found so successful over the millennia: parthenogenesis.
For those of you a little weak in the area of biology (like, everyone who thinks cervical cancer and condoms promote sexual activity amongst teens), parthenogenesis is where females reproduce without any sperm--any males at all, for that matter. The eggs develop and produce offspring just like they usually do, producing daughters, mostly. A few species, like aphids, occasionally produce a sport, a male. An interesting artifact, but clearly not essential to long-term reproductive success.
Just think of all the ills producing only daughters would cure! Our prisons would be nearly empty, sidewalks would be free of spit, and beer bellies and butt cracks would be of antiquarian interest only. Rape, incest, and pedophilia would not destroy the lives of children and the adults they become. Violence of many sorts would be wiped out or occur so rarely as to be all but.
A lot more would get done, since women are far better at multitasking then men are. And did I mention no buttcracks?
So, let's hear it for postnatal castration! Abstinence for all!
Teens stupid enough to be having unprotected sex (which is still most of them, just as it was in ahem my day) are still going to have unprotected sex, which means that viral warts and cervical cancer is just one of the things they are blithely ignoring while their hormones are raging. The vaccine doesn't protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (STD), or against pregnancy.
Of course, these same people believe that educating teens about safe sex, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of infection and the creation of unwanted-at-the-moment offspring, is just as wrong as protecting women against cervical cancer.
Abstinence, they cry, is the only thing that should be taught, preached, and promoted.
Like, abstinence has been real successful so far, hasn't it? Just ask all the parentless kids in institutions, foster homes, and being raised by grandparents.
Using their logic, we should also ban the sale of condoms, all other forms of birth control, and antibiotics. Yes, antibiotics: since they are used to treat STDs, they give permission to teens to be sexually active knowing that if they do get an STD, all they have to do is take a week or so of antibiotics and they'll be back in the game.
So: herewith is my 100 percent effective way to promote--nay, guarantee--abstinence:
Castrate all male children at birth.
Sperm can be collected from presently intact males and stored. Since sperm stand up to freezing far better than eggs do, there will be plenty of sperm for years to come while human females evolve a reproductive strategy that so many animals across the vertebrate and invertebrate spectrum have found so successful over the millennia: parthenogenesis.
For those of you a little weak in the area of biology (like, everyone who thinks cervical cancer and condoms promote sexual activity amongst teens), parthenogenesis is where females reproduce without any sperm--any males at all, for that matter. The eggs develop and produce offspring just like they usually do, producing daughters, mostly. A few species, like aphids, occasionally produce a sport, a male. An interesting artifact, but clearly not essential to long-term reproductive success.
Just think of all the ills producing only daughters would cure! Our prisons would be nearly empty, sidewalks would be free of spit, and beer bellies and butt cracks would be of antiquarian interest only. Rape, incest, and pedophilia would not destroy the lives of children and the adults they become. Violence of many sorts would be wiped out or occur so rarely as to be all but.
A lot more would get done, since women are far better at multitasking then men are. And did I mention no buttcracks?
So, let's hear it for postnatal castration! Abstinence for all!
posted by Melissa at 1:29 PM
8 Comments:
Hey, Melissa, I didn't know you blogged! Glad I found you. You're bookmarked, baby! -- Gina Spadafori
MK,
I'm pretty sure you're correct about females being better at multitasking than men. The question here is why did that happen? The way I see it the female brain was being overloaded by too many emotions, too many mountains made out of mole hills and too many physical issues that it had no choice but to evolve into multitasking just to be able to keep from going insane!
Sure, maybe a few centuries from now more may get accomplished with an all female world but right now it seems to me evolution hasn't quite perfected this multitasking ability you mention. There's still seems to be this flaw where the brain sometimes becomes overloaded and out of the middle of no where erupts a confusing, emotional mess. You get rid of us and you'll have a real mess on your hands, Melissa.
That was my attemp to bring you back to your senses which also happens to be one of the many needed ingredients of a civilized society. See, we need women for just one thing but they need us for many things. ;)
phyllis,
Relax, I was completely joking about "only needing females for one thing" comment. I was also joking about the emotional stuff but some of that in my opinion sort of holds true. And I gotta say you didn't do much to dissuade that with your post.
I apologize that you took that as you did and I hope whoever it is that has hurt you gets what is coming to him.
I admire and respect you guys for what you deal with but when I see a post like MK's I gotta bite back, even if it is all in good fun. :)
That's okay, men are only good for one thing too: opening jar lids!
KIDDING! I am KIDDING! Many men are cool and it's no more right to slam a man for being a man than it is to slam a woman for being a woman.
Btw, I'll take the emotions anyday. Apparently they help women live longer than men! That's why I married a guy four years younger: so we can die together in our sleep at ages 94 and 90 respectively. I wouldn't be without my man. He's a sweetie and he brings me tea in bed every morning AND he has a great respect for women.
>>I apologize that you took that as you did and I hope whoever it is that has hurt you gets what is coming to him.
Yo! Dude! Why is it that whenever women make a castigating remark about the males of the species, men automatically assume it was because a particular man did something to that particular woman, resulting in her saying what she did?
It's like when a woman breaks up with a guy, the guy automatically assumes that it must be because the woman met another guy she likes better, not because the guy himself is the problem. Now, that's probably because that's why most men break up with women, like women were cars or golf clubs to be updated as newer models are released.
When I did in-class reptile programs in schools, there were usually several teachers and parents who came to see the animals and hear my talk. Because of that, and because there are always a few kids in the room who are farther ahead of their age-grouped classmates, I spoke on many different levels.
When I brought out the turtles and tortoises, I asked the class what the world would be like if, like tortoises, we did not know whether our children were girls or boys until they were 16 years old. You could see the light dawn on the adults' faces, and on some of the kids, mostly girls, who are still being told they can't or shouldn't do something solely because they are female instead of male.
With all the gender-related cultural and societal changes that have taken place in the last 20 years, the changes are still mostly superficial. Sexual assault and domestic violence rates haven't changed. Things have regressed, in middle school and high schools, because more males are the recipient of sexual activities than are the females, with the females doing it to 'fit in'. Far more wives get dumped than husbands. And that thumping you hear are the heads of all the female executives out there hitting all those glass ceilings that remain so firmly in place in so many sectors.
Why is it okay to be a 'confirmed bachelor' but a confirmed bachelorette is just an old maid, a spinster?
(The latter, of course, being hugely inaccurate when you look at all the married members of the spinners and weavers guilds around the world.)
In closing, and to prevent me from going off on oh, so many possible tangents, just consider the fact that when a woman makes a disparaging about men, it is based on a lifetime of personal experience and observation and, in many cases, assisting other women deal with their menfolk, not because one guy out there was a jerk to her.
>>Yo! Dude! Why is it that whenever women make a castigating remark about the males of the species, men automatically assume it was because a particular man did something to that particular woman, resulting in her saying what she did?
I was not aware that was the case and for whatever negative generalization about men you come to I apologize that those life experiences have occured. I hope, as a fellow human being, that you can see past those and give me the benefit of the doubt that the possibility exists that your experience with me will not be one of the negative ones.
My thought process was this. I perceived the post to be made by someone who was not very happy at the time for whatever reason I did not know. My thoughts then went to what I might be able to do to make her feel better if for only a short time then so be it. I figured I'd give it a shot. What could I possibly lose by doing this?
So the thought popped into my head that maybe someone recently had upset her. I thought maybe my comment might help her feel better, that's all.
Will you please respond with something either at least neutral or positive in nature if it has to do with me or my gender?
Lol, has this blog turned into a
war between males and females?
But I thought I'll like to explain the phenomenon of men failing to see their shortcomings in a breakup. Humans have a natural ability to protect their self-esteem and to maintain a feel good factor of themselves. If ever a person were to admit that a failed relationship is his/her fault, it would inevitably lower their self-esteem and prevent them from moving forward with their lives.
Therefore, our self-defense mechanism kicks in and we would blame the other party for whatever caused the relationship to fail. Even if it was wrong, it would at least make us feel better about ourselves.
Furthermore, as individuals, we are salient creatures. Often, we see situations only from our point of view, and there's the fundamental attribution of error of assuming that someone does what he/she does because of dispositional factors, underestimating the influence of external factors such as environment or situations.
In short, its not a problem of just guys but gals as well. Dare any of you try to think of an event when you have not blamed the other party for the failure of a relationship?
If what you say is always true, then there is no possibility of personal growth, since there is no introspection about what led to the change in the relationship.
In studying for the ham radio test, one of the questions had to do with the installation of guy wires on antenna towers. The correct answer was "follow the manufacturer's directions". A woman friend and I were laughing about that, deciding they should be 'girl' wires because men never read (or ask for) directions.
Perhaps the anti-direction asking/reading gene trait is linked to the introspection trait, and so when you're missing one, you're missing both... ? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home