Upon looking at the text of the bill any reasonable person (or lawyer) could instantly find a very big reason why the 1984 NMDA Act is illegal. It's actually in 23 U.S.C. 158 which quite blatantly states that:
"(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.
(1) In general. The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful."
You see, Section A is a problem, a BIG problem. Why you ask? Because the VERY act of "witholding funds for noncompliance" essentially bypasses one law and breaks another.
Let me explain...
The law it bypasses is the law of the Constitution, which, no where in it does it grant the federal government the right expressly or implicitly to set a national minimum drinking age. Trust me, look, there is not one law in there that allows for this type of behavior by the government. Since it does not have the authority (which it knows and therefore it bypasses the Constitution) to regulate a national minimum drinking age the only thing it can do is force the states to comply by other means.
This is where it blatantly breaks a law. In order to best understand how it blatantly breaks a law we must look at the wording of the main (but not the only) section in question. That is section A. As stated before it "withhold[s] funds for noncompliance" and when someone "withholds" something (like money) because someone (or a State) did not do something they want them to do that they would not otherwise do unless being forced to do so, there a term for this, a legal term, and what would that term be? Extortion (or alternatively: coercion, blackmail).
Oh but how can this be? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the definition of extortion is this:
"Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority. It may include threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution, or public exposure. Some forms of threat, especially those made in writing, are occasionally singled out for separate statutory treatment as blackmail."
As stated above the federal government DOES NOT have the authority to demand states set a drinking age nor does it have the power to set one itself so it places this little monetary "incentive" (albeit a negative and HIGHLY illegal one!) to get states to comply with it's "undue exercise of authority" (which, once again, it does not have the authority to set the age or even make the states set an age so this more than falls under the "undue exercise of authority").
So my question is how the hell did this even get passed in the first place? One answer: Lobbying by some VERY angry bitches. True story. Look up MADD. I've mentioned them before. They are quite angry bitches. And you can quote me on that. ;)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
National Youth Rights Association Annual Meeting
In less than 2 weeks I will be in Washington DC to support youth rights in the US and I have to say I am very much looking forward to it as I have never been to the capital before.
This is the first chance I'll have to really speak to an audience about my views, namely, the drinking age in which I will happily do a presentation on it on Sunday, August 2nd.
The NYRA Annual Meeting is a chance for members of the NYRA to get together and networking and discuss things that we desire to change in the world and I just hope that once we adjourn we will have accomplished something and that's what the NYRA is here for, isn't it?
This is the first chance I'll have to really speak to an audience about my views, namely, the drinking age in which I will happily do a presentation on it on Sunday, August 2nd.
The NYRA Annual Meeting is a chance for members of the NYRA to get together and networking and discuss things that we desire to change in the world and I just hope that once we adjourn we will have accomplished something and that's what the NYRA is here for, isn't it?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Alcohol, it's bad but not that bad.
For anyone that's wondering I have now attained 21 years and may now drink without fear of a criminal record due to my age.
It is somewhat of a relief to know that I need not cower in my locked bedroom or hide everytime I hear a police car drive by while quickly gulping up all the evidence of my less than legal possession and consumption.
I am no longer considered a minor under federal law and am thereby emancipated from the federal government's attempts to regulate what I put into my body for my age group.
Prior to this I was a minor and an adult at the same time. It makes no sense either legally or logically and it is rape of the equal protection clause in the Constitution of the United States of America.
And to think the reason the government (or should I say MADD?) has this law is to PROTECT me from the "dangers of underage drinking" (their quote, not mine). This is commonly thrown around by just about everyone when speaking of drinking and so-called "underage persons" who have not yet attained 21 years of age, even though, as stated above are legal adults and may stick penises or various other things into their bodies, including having things (needles) stuck into their bodies causing death due to them causing the death (or being a party to the death but not directly causing it) of another person just so long as they have attained 18 years of age.
So MADD seems to think we're responsible enough to DIE at 18 but not drink until 21? What kind of bullshit is that?
I personally have been both legally and illegally drinking (thank you Texas law for taking away my rights and giving them right back to my mom when I was under 21, bastard) since I was 18 and more or less regularly since I was 19. I had no desire to drink prior to that or do anything society wouldn't allow (except for the right to DECIDE what I want to do, I never ever gave that power the state or any other autoritative body, parents included) . But no, me being responsible to "wait" until I was an ADULT to drink is not good for the mother-fucking organization, according to them and the federal and state government I'm a CRIMINAL.
HA! Arrest me! I dare you!
That's right no one would do such a terrible retarded thing to a legal adult! Which, I was as of 3 years ago, I might add.
What harm have I caused by being under 21 and not in the presense of my parent? Nothing, no one has been hurt by my actions ever from drinking. That's because I'm not retarded like some, the minority, of those under 21 people are.
The point being of course is to lower the drinking age to the MINIMUM of 18, no more! Plenty less is fine too.
To simply persecute a group of people for being born in the wrong year IS discrimination and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for this, trust me, I looked it up.
Prove me wrong, I dare you.
It is somewhat of a relief to know that I need not cower in my locked bedroom or hide everytime I hear a police car drive by while quickly gulping up all the evidence of my less than legal possession and consumption.
I am no longer considered a minor under federal law and am thereby emancipated from the federal government's attempts to regulate what I put into my body for my age group.
Prior to this I was a minor and an adult at the same time. It makes no sense either legally or logically and it is rape of the equal protection clause in the Constitution of the United States of America.
And to think the reason the government (or should I say MADD?) has this law is to PROTECT me from the "dangers of underage drinking" (their quote, not mine). This is commonly thrown around by just about everyone when speaking of drinking and so-called "underage persons" who have not yet attained 21 years of age, even though, as stated above are legal adults and may stick penises or various other things into their bodies, including having things (needles) stuck into their bodies causing death due to them causing the death (or being a party to the death but not directly causing it) of another person just so long as they have attained 18 years of age.
So MADD seems to think we're responsible enough to DIE at 18 but not drink until 21? What kind of bullshit is that?
I personally have been both legally and illegally drinking (thank you Texas law for taking away my rights and giving them right back to my mom when I was under 21, bastard) since I was 18 and more or less regularly since I was 19. I had no desire to drink prior to that or do anything society wouldn't allow (except for the right to DECIDE what I want to do, I never ever gave that power the state or any other autoritative body, parents included) . But no, me being responsible to "wait" until I was an ADULT to drink is not good for the mother-fucking organization, according to them and the federal and state government I'm a CRIMINAL.
HA! Arrest me! I dare you!
That's right no one would do such a terrible retarded thing to a legal adult! Which, I was as of 3 years ago, I might add.
What harm have I caused by being under 21 and not in the presense of my parent? Nothing, no one has been hurt by my actions ever from drinking. That's because I'm not retarded like some, the minority, of those under 21 people are.
The point being of course is to lower the drinking age to the MINIMUM of 18, no more! Plenty less is fine too.
To simply persecute a group of people for being born in the wrong year IS discrimination and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for this, trust me, I looked it up.
Prove me wrong, I dare you.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Modern Day (Legal) Slavery: On owning another person.
One would think that slavery has been more or less eradicated in the "free world" as the West is so often called. After all we did finally abolish slavery at the end of the Civil War way back in the late 1800s. Didn't we? Those of the dark skinned persuasion have, indeed, received their freedom but only once they reached 18 years of age, that is. Also, this applies to everyone of any race, religion, sex, wealth or lackthereof, in just about every single country on the planet.
Have children? Have custody of your children? That's right you own them. You own another human being until he or she is 18 years of age, and for some situations (and states) that ownership does not expire until they're 21.
How does that make you feel to know you own another human being?
Oh, what's that, you don't believe you actually do? Well let's pop out ye olde dictionary.com (for quick reference) and let's look up a few words (I also checked out Black's Law Dictionary I think it's titled and yes, they happened to say the same thing in there as the internet does, so yes, I am right).
1. major.
The important ones to read are in bold. As you can tell someone who is a minor (who is under 21) is inferior, secondary, subordinate. They are not free, that are in the custody of their parents or the State and even the federal government. (People under 21 are considered minors under federal law, even though they are adults at 18, it's one big piece of hypocrisy and contradiction, I might add).
Getting back to the main point of minors being property of their parents let's look at the rights of minors vs. parents (and the State).
Adult's Rights (21+)
1. Can drink and gamble.
2. Can get a credit card w/o parental permission or a proof of financial responsibility (effective at the end of this year).
3. No longer considered a minor under federal law.
4. Can buy a bigger assortment of firearms.
5. The rest are the same as 18-20.
Adult's/Minor's Rights (18-20) (They're both at the same time)
1. Can have sex with who they please except those below the age of consent (as low as 16 in some states).
2. Can own property.
3. Can sue and be sued.
4. Can be executed.
5. Can enlist in the army, handed guns and kill people.
6. Can smoke.
7. Can buy certain firearms but not all.
8. Can take driving test without ANY sort of driving course whatsoever.
9. Can marry w/o parental permission.
10. Are considered legally emancipated (i.e. free, look it up) from their parents with some exceptions.
11. Considered an adult for MOST but not all purposes.
12. Can consent or refuse medical treatment.
13. Can get abortions no problem whatsoever.
Minor's rights (under 18) (Pretending this minor is not an "emancipated minor" or foster child).
1. Right to an education (read: forced to get an education)
2. Right to obey his/her parents until 18. (if they don't they can be CHARGED as "incorrigible or ungovernable" (yes, these are CRIMES).
3. Cannot consent to medical treatment NOR refuse.
4. Until they're at least 16, at most 18, sex is illegal.
I could go on and on and basically the point is that if you're under 18 you HAVE NO RIGHTS. This is unfortunate but true.
When someone reaches 18 (or 16 and they have to go to court to do it) they are considered legally emancipated. And what does emancipated mean? Let's look it up in the dictionary once again.
e⋅man⋅ci⋅pate - verb.
So there you have it to not be emancipated is to be a slave.
It's not that difficult a concept really, so why don't people admit what they know to be the truth?
People under 21 are in some way, shape or form property. And until that age barrier is breached they are trapped, there is no escape, this is indefinite in the US.
It is also wrong.
And it should change.
Have children? Have custody of your children? That's right you own them. You own another human being until he or she is 18 years of age, and for some situations (and states) that ownership does not expire until they're 21.
How does that make you feel to know you own another human being?
Oh, what's that, you don't believe you actually do? Well let's pop out ye olde dictionary.com (for quick reference) and let's look up a few words (I also checked out Black's Law Dictionary I think it's titled and yes, they happened to say the same thing in there as the internet does, so yes, I am right).
mi⋅nor
–adjective
| 1. | lesser, as in size, extent, or importance, or being or noting the lesser of two. |
| 2. | not serious, important, etc.: a minor wound; a minor role. |
| 3. | having low rank, status, position, etc.: a minor official. |
| 4. | under the legal age of full responsibility. |
| 7. | of or pertaining to the minority. |
–noun
| 9. | a person under the legal age of full responsibility. |
| 10. | a person of inferior rank or importance in a specified group, class, etc. |
| 11. | Education.
|
Origin:
1250–1300; ME < class="ital-inline">min small, ON minni smaller, Goth minniza younger, Skt mīnāti (he) diminishes, destroys
1250–1300; ME < class="ital-inline">min small, ON minni smaller, Goth minniza younger, Skt mīnāti (he) diminishes, destroys
Synonyms:
1. smaller, inferior, secondary, subordinate. 3. petty, unimportant, small. 9. child, adolescent.
Antonyms:1. smaller, inferior, secondary, subordinate. 3. petty, unimportant, small. 9. child, adolescent.
1. major.
The important ones to read are in bold. As you can tell someone who is a minor (who is under 21) is inferior, secondary, subordinate. They are not free, that are in the custody of their parents or the State and even the federal government. (People under 21 are considered minors under federal law, even though they are adults at 18, it's one big piece of hypocrisy and contradiction, I might add).
Getting back to the main point of minors being property of their parents let's look at the rights of minors vs. parents (and the State).
Adult's Rights (21+)
1. Can drink and gamble.
2. Can get a credit card w/o parental permission or a proof of financial responsibility (effective at the end of this year).
3. No longer considered a minor under federal law.
4. Can buy a bigger assortment of firearms.
5. The rest are the same as 18-20.
Adult's/Minor's Rights (18-20) (They're both at the same time)
1. Can have sex with who they please except those below the age of consent (as low as 16 in some states).
2. Can own property.
3. Can sue and be sued.
4. Can be executed.
5. Can enlist in the army, handed guns and kill people.
6. Can smoke.
7. Can buy certain firearms but not all.
8. Can take driving test without ANY sort of driving course whatsoever.
9. Can marry w/o parental permission.
10. Are considered legally emancipated (i.e. free, look it up) from their parents with some exceptions.
11. Considered an adult for MOST but not all purposes.
12. Can consent or refuse medical treatment.
13. Can get abortions no problem whatsoever.
Minor's rights (under 18) (Pretending this minor is not an "emancipated minor" or foster child).
1. Right to an education (read: forced to get an education)
2. Right to obey his/her parents until 18. (if they don't they can be CHARGED as "incorrigible or ungovernable" (yes, these are CRIMES).
3. Cannot consent to medical treatment NOR refuse.
4. Until they're at least 16, at most 18, sex is illegal.
I could go on and on and basically the point is that if you're under 18 you HAVE NO RIGHTS. This is unfortunate but true.
When someone reaches 18 (or 16 and they have to go to court to do it) they are considered legally emancipated. And what does emancipated mean? Let's look it up in the dictionary once again.
e⋅man⋅ci⋅pate - verb.
| 1. | to free from restraint, influence, or the like. |
| 2. | to free (a slave) from bondage. |
| 3. | Roman and Civil Law. to terminate paternal control over |
So there you have it to not be emancipated is to be a slave.
It's not that difficult a concept really, so why don't people admit what they know to be the truth?
People under 21 are in some way, shape or form property. And until that age barrier is breached they are trapped, there is no escape, this is indefinite in the US.
It is also wrong.
And it should change.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Treatise on Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and the Rights of Youth in America
An Voice that has yet to be suppressed is still a free voice.
"Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains. "
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Swiss political philosopher and essayist
I sit here a free human being. I am a free woman, a free Caucasian, a free adult, a free European, a free college student, a free liberal, a free atheist, and a free and uninhibited generally healthy person. There are no laws to prohibit me from doing what I like so long as I do not harm others.
You see, laws were made with the purpose of protecting people from other people and occasionally, themselves. This a good thing we all assume. By no means do I disagree with the notion that humans need protection from other humans as humans are always out to get one another for a few reasons (but not limited to) that I shall list below:
1. Money
2. Power
3. Sexual Control
4. Inheritance/Property Control
5. Revenge
6. The aggressor has become mentally unstable and choose to randomly attack or threaten people with no actual reason or forcing to do whatever it may be by outside forces.
7. Boredom
8. Being forced to do something by others.
9. Being tricked to do something by others.
10. Believing what they're doing is right, or just or good.
11. Being forced to do something due to the economy or financial situation.
12. Being to physically ill (but not mentally) to know right from wrong.
13. Being too mentally incapable but not crazy to understand right from wrong. (Brain damage, etc).
14. Just because they felt like it.
And so on and so forth.
People do terrible things to one another, always have and always will. That I do not think can be effectively argued against and it is an absolute. Humans want things and they need things too. It is human nature to want, to desire and that is part of survival, that is part of the human experience, of being human.
The Chains of Humanity
Humans are inherently born free but they are also inherently born with chains attached to them. Invisible chains that are almost impossible to sever. The human is born at first with a chain to his/her parents then if the parents fail the child as determined by the State at which the parents reside the child is then chained to the State. The child is under the guidance and authority of the State for ALL of his or her needs. There is no defense or escape from their authority until the child reaches late adolescence. Then, if granted, a few links of the chains are weakened but not actually cut or perhaps one could say the chain in merely lengthened but the child, the human, is still not released from the control of the State. The State makes a terrible parent says many, even those on the inside can admit to this travesty of a situation, this rape of justice, this execution of freedom.
This country we reside in, the United States of America is not what it promises nor has it ever been. Every "freedom" we have has not been granted freely nor has it been granted to everyone. Some of us are trapped more than others in the prison that is humanity. The so-called "children" are the current and thus far eternal prisoners of this country. There is little hope for people to listen to them, much less care, if they are lucky enough.
This is disgusting and wrong and must change. There is no reason to be so cruel to humans and to discriminate against them merely based on AGE!
"Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains. "
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Swiss political philosopher and essayist
I sit here a free human being. I am a free woman, a free Caucasian, a free adult, a free European, a free college student, a free liberal, a free atheist, and a free and uninhibited generally healthy person. There are no laws to prohibit me from doing what I like so long as I do not harm others.
You see, laws were made with the purpose of protecting people from other people and occasionally, themselves. This a good thing we all assume. By no means do I disagree with the notion that humans need protection from other humans as humans are always out to get one another for a few reasons (but not limited to) that I shall list below:
1. Money
2. Power
3. Sexual Control
4. Inheritance/Property Control
5. Revenge
6. The aggressor has become mentally unstable and choose to randomly attack or threaten people with no actual reason or forcing to do whatever it may be by outside forces.
7. Boredom
8. Being forced to do something by others.
9. Being tricked to do something by others.
10. Believing what they're doing is right, or just or good.
11. Being forced to do something due to the economy or financial situation.
12. Being to physically ill (but not mentally) to know right from wrong.
13. Being too mentally incapable but not crazy to understand right from wrong. (Brain damage, etc).
14. Just because they felt like it.
And so on and so forth.
People do terrible things to one another, always have and always will. That I do not think can be effectively argued against and it is an absolute. Humans want things and they need things too. It is human nature to want, to desire and that is part of survival, that is part of the human experience, of being human.
The Chains of Humanity
Humans are inherently born free but they are also inherently born with chains attached to them. Invisible chains that are almost impossible to sever. The human is born at first with a chain to his/her parents then if the parents fail the child as determined by the State at which the parents reside the child is then chained to the State. The child is under the guidance and authority of the State for ALL of his or her needs. There is no defense or escape from their authority until the child reaches late adolescence. Then, if granted, a few links of the chains are weakened but not actually cut or perhaps one could say the chain in merely lengthened but the child, the human, is still not released from the control of the State. The State makes a terrible parent says many, even those on the inside can admit to this travesty of a situation, this rape of justice, this execution of freedom.
This country we reside in, the United States of America is not what it promises nor has it ever been. Every "freedom" we have has not been granted freely nor has it been granted to everyone. Some of us are trapped more than others in the prison that is humanity. The so-called "children" are the current and thus far eternal prisoners of this country. There is little hope for people to listen to them, much less care, if they are lucky enough.
This is disgusting and wrong and must change. There is no reason to be so cruel to humans and to discriminate against them merely based on AGE!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Yet another post about alcohol-- and age discrimination
So I was reading a little website just now about the drinking age as it stands now, at 21, presented on this website are "issues" and "responses" which seem to have been researched.
Now, I do not attempt to argue against or for these responses only to put my opinion about them forward, also, not using as much research as they do~
Here goes...
I answer "yes" because at 18 I am an adult, plain and simple. I have the rights and responsibilities of an adult finally granted to me. In that, the most shocking rights I am given are
Now, I do not attempt to argue against or for these responses only to put my opinion about them forward, also, not using as much research as they do~
Here goes...
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to 18?
Yes
I answer "yes" because at 18 I am an adult, plain and simple. I have the rights and responsibilities of an adult finally granted to me. In that, the most shocking rights I am given are
- Having sex (and making money off of it via porn)
- Smoking cigarettes
- Killing
- Being executed for killing
- Getting into debt
- Also, I am finally once and for all considered an "adult" and I and only I (not my parents) am allowed to consent or refuse treatment for medical problems and so on much to the joy or dismay of my previously legally controlling parents.
I wouldn't call being executed a good thing, but still, I am able to be legally killed by the government if they find me guilty of unlawfully killing someone else. Now, with the me being able to kill part that implies that since I am able to join the military and handle death-inducing-weapons that I can kill. I have been given the power over life and death, legally.
I can have as much sex as I want with those also at the age of consent, which does vary state-to-state but is generally thought of being "absolute" at the age of 18. Absolute meaning I have no worries whatsoever if I have sex with someone who is 18 years old and I am 18 years old, or older. At least, so long as it's not rape...then we have problems...but you understand what I mean.
I can kill myself. I'm not talking about suicide, well... in a way I am... but instead I'm talking about doing an activity that can and has lead to death...many deaths. That would be caused by smoking cigarrettes.
Oh my!
But I am unable to drink alcohol?
Wow, life's a bitch.
Why is the age 21 and not 18 anyways?
Traffic accidents and binge drinking.
No kidding. I think it's safe to say and/or assume that once you hit the magical age of 21 you'll not do these things anymore.
EDIT: Finally I have the motivation to continue this posting.
A Brief History of the Drinking Age (VERY BRIEF)
In 1984 MADD lobbied the crap out of the government to get the drinking age raised back, federally, to 21 from 18. It was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam war so soldiers (and non-soldiers) could drink legally as adulthood was lowered from 21 to 18 during that time as well. Yes, prior to 1969 those under 21 were not only NOT allowed to purchase alcohol but they weren't even legal adults! And even prior to that the age was much lower. I don't have the exact dates but the entire idea of adolescense is no more 150 years old!
The rise of child-labor laws actually firmly established "childhood" in a legal context. But then took it away again by forcing children (their wills are not cared for) to attend school until 14 or 16 depending on the state and some states now are wanting to raise the drop-out age to 18 effectively (and actually) eliminating the ability of our young people to drop out of our increasingly prison-like school systems in their own cry for freedom from incarceration for merely committing the offense of being young!
Within the past 150 years childhood and being one has been increasingly criminalized with the sexual consent age in Texas being raised from 12 (in the late 1880s and prior to that I assume there wasn't one) to the eventual 17 it is now. That's right even if it's consensual, even if both parties agree, whether or not you do is irrelevant, they are committing a crime if both parties are under 17 in Texas as it stands now. Medical consent laws are no different, in fact, also in Texas foster-children (those owned by the state... the ultimate form "in loco parentis") have more rights than those owned by their parents! If you're under 18 in Texas, unless you're emancipated and not a foster child you are forbidden from consenting to any medical treatment or refusing that very treatment. There have been some cases outside of Texas, at least I think, where a 17-year old man with leukemia no longer wanted to suffer through chemo and/or radiation therapy and sought to stop it. HE WAS PHYSICALLY FORCED BY THE JUDGE AND DOCTORS TO UNDERGO UNWANTED TREATMENT THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND AN OUTRIGHT VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO GIVE TO SOMEONE OVER 18!
What's wrong with this country?
Why the fuck do we treat our citizens so poorly?
IT NEEDS TO CHANGE NOW!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Abstinence-Only "Education" or "How to pretend like you care about your kids, while not really caring at all."
Everyone has sex!
("Children" included)
("Children" included)
Perhaps that should be clear enough for everyone to understand. If not you have severe problems and should get help immediately.
"What happens when people have sex mommy?" a bold child asks her mother.
How does she her mother reply? For those of you who believe in "ignore your hormones, don't have sex" style teaching I assume that this is what you would say. (I wish otherwise...so very very much.)
"My dear child, you do not need to worry your pretty little head about sex right now, you're far to0 young for it, just wait until marriage...and you'll see." she replies.
She doesn't want her daughter to have sex at all. She believes she has instilled upon her good [insert religion here] values. That her daughter will take to the grave. Surely she will listen to her mom and wait until marriage to have sex. Just like any other good daughter.
She would be wrong.
Very wrong.
Like most kids these days, they're having sex. LOTS OF SEX. Like, almost nympomaniac-type sex. Yes, it happens, more often than you think. Your children like sex. Everybody likes sex....everybody has sex.
And for the most part, everyone has babies too...when they have sex. LOTS OF BABIES.
IT'S BABY MAKING TIME.
Sex is awesome. Sex is also natural. Very natural. If your parents didn't have sex...you wouldn't be here. YES, YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU. Think about that!
Am I yelling loud enough? I hope so.
I hope the people back in the Stone Ages can hear me.
HOW DO WE PREVENT THIS BABY MAKING TIME WHILE STILL HAVING A GREAT TIME?
Do I have to answer? Really? I have to? Okay, here goes... this can answered with one word and one ONLY. I don't need to define it but it would be a good idea.
"What happens when people have sex mommy?" a bold child asks her mother.
How does she her mother reply? For those of you who believe in "ignore your hormones, don't have sex" style teaching I assume that this is what you would say. (I wish otherwise...so very very much.)
"My dear child, you do not need to worry your pretty little head about sex right now, you're far to0 young for it, just wait until marriage...and you'll see." she replies.
She doesn't want her daughter to have sex at all. She believes she has instilled upon her good [insert religion here] values. That her daughter will take to the grave. Surely she will listen to her mom and wait until marriage to have sex. Just like any other good daughter.
She would be wrong.
Very wrong.
Like most kids these days, they're having sex. LOTS OF SEX. Like, almost nympomaniac-type sex. Yes, it happens, more often than you think. Your children like sex. Everybody likes sex....everybody has sex.
And for the most part, everyone has babies too...when they have sex. LOTS OF BABIES.
IT'S BABY MAKING TIME.
Sex is awesome. Sex is also natural. Very natural. If your parents didn't have sex...you wouldn't be here. YES, YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU. Think about that!
Am I yelling loud enough? I hope so.
I hope the people back in the Stone Ages can hear me.
HOW DO WE PREVENT THIS BABY MAKING TIME WHILE STILL HAVING A GREAT TIME?
Do I have to answer? Really? I have to? Okay, here goes... this can answered with one word and one ONLY. I don't need to define it but it would be a good idea.
CONTRACEPTION
Was that clear? Concise? Precise? In any way difficult to understand? God, I really hope not. But let's define it:
Contraception
–noun the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.
In short-- using something will likely -greatly- reduce the chance of baby-making to occur.
Contraception can involve just things like Birth Control items (be they pills, a shot, a ring etc) or just plain old CONDOMS. You know, the little plastic things you put on your partner's erect penis (if he's too lazy to do it himself).
It's not always 100% but it's better than nothing. (A.K.A. an uncovered/unwrapped PENIS plus not BC in sight! -- Hello new born baby, 9 months later!)
(btw, it's about 79%-99.9% effective depending upon the method used). (Conservative estimate...on the lower end...just for you guys)
Oh and Abstinence-only (IE. NOT HAVING SEX...HAHAHHAHA...yeah right) is not 100% effective.
Hello! Bible! Did you forget the "Virgin" Mary. I know I didn't. Immaculate Conception... XD uhm more like "Ejaculate Conception"...if you know what I mean....
/stops laughing sometime.
So that brings Abstinence-only's effectiveness to about 99.9%... can't help it if God did it!
No, really.
Are people that stupid?
.....oh, wait.....
So, for the people not raging. Let me sum it up for you. Just in case you didn't get it the first time.
Your children will have sex whether you like it or not. They will sneak behind your backs and be WILLFULLY "violated" multiple times and not necessarily by the same partner either o.O (oh snap).
Therefore, you can preach Abstinence all you want...but don't be surprised when your "precious little innocent angel" comes home with a very round stomach.
YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET PREGNANT, THOUGH...WHEN YOU HAVE SEX. (Without Contraception, of any kind... bareback as some might call it.)
That is true. But even if it's your first time... you can still get pregnant.
Also, if either one of you or both is/are sterile, no baby-making shall occur. However, STDs like HIV, AIDS and other such nasty diseases can and DO occur. Have fun with that if you find out your "monogamous" partner has cheated on you... and didn't bother to use a CONDOM. "Owned" is a good term to use at this point, should such a situation occur.
Contraception
–noun the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.
In short-- using something will likely -greatly- reduce the chance of baby-making to occur.
Contraception can involve just things like Birth Control items (be they pills, a shot, a ring etc) or just plain old CONDOMS. You know, the little plastic things you put on your partner's erect penis (if he's too lazy to do it himself).
It's not always 100% but it's better than nothing. (A.K.A. an uncovered/unwrapped PENIS plus not BC in sight! -- Hello new born baby, 9 months later!)
(btw, it's about 79%-99.9% effective depending upon the method used). (Conservative estimate...on the lower end...just for you guys)
Oh and Abstinence-only (IE. NOT HAVING SEX...HAHAHHAHA...yeah right) is not 100% effective.
Hello! Bible! Did you forget the "Virgin" Mary. I know I didn't. Immaculate Conception... XD uhm more like "Ejaculate Conception"...if you know what I mean....
/stops laughing sometime.
So that brings Abstinence-only's effectiveness to about 99.9%... can't help it if God did it!
No, really.
Are people that stupid?
.....oh, wait.....
So, for the people not raging. Let me sum it up for you. Just in case you didn't get it the first time.
Your children will have sex whether you like it or not. They will sneak behind your backs and be WILLFULLY "violated" multiple times and not necessarily by the same partner either o.O (oh snap).
Therefore, you can preach Abstinence all you want...but don't be surprised when your "precious little innocent angel" comes home with a very round stomach.
YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET PREGNANT, THOUGH...WHEN YOU HAVE SEX. (Without Contraception, of any kind... bareback as some might call it.)
That is true. But even if it's your first time... you can still get pregnant.
That is true meaning of sex... PROCREATION!
-If it wasn't so fun...tell me...would anyone "do it"?-
-If it wasn't so fun...tell me...would anyone "do it"?-
Also, if either one of you or both is/are sterile, no baby-making shall occur. However, STDs like HIV, AIDS and other such nasty diseases can and DO occur. Have fun with that if you find out your "monogamous" partner has cheated on you... and didn't bother to use a CONDOM. "Owned" is a good term to use at this point, should such a situation occur.
Do everyone a favor... and CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN!
Give them Birth Control pills, condoms oh and TEACH THEM ABOUT SEX GODDAMNIT!
/rage
/rage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)