Sorry folks,Double Standards are still Double Standards regardless of your Political Affilation!!!

For social conservatives, any sex outside of marriage is “promiscuity” — even between two who are engaged to be married.

This is also an underlying factor (among many) in why they fight so hard against allowing all couples to marry (ie, gay folks). If they (gay folks) aren’t married, they shouldn’t be having sex according to the social conservative dogma Fran, Jill, et al espouse.

How libertarians ever ended up conjoined with these sorts of overbearing nanny-statists is unfathomable.

Yeah, just look at Britney Spears.

It’s the same self-fulfilling woe-is-me martyr-as-victim attitude. And again, it’s a Middle Ages attitude at best.

And here’s where the distinction comes in between being for abstinence in young people and simply against sex. While I understand some people find masturbation immoral (every sperm is sacred), treating it as dirty when it’s the most normal activity in the world really does point out the problem with the entire agenda Eaton and Stanek push.

Teaching young people about healthy relationships and medically accurate information is the best way to help them make the best choices. Sure, some will do dumb things, but others will wait until they are age appropriate and practice safe sex and with the appropriate education that teaches how a healthy relationship operates and offers a clear view of the complications of sex early in life gives the young person the tools to make informed decisions that fit within their values.

Teaching them that all sexual feelings are bad outside of marriage is a way to make a basketcase. Teaching them to understand their bodies and a manner in which to cope with the mess that is the teenage hormone driven body provides the safest route all around.

That’s pretty sick in itself.

On a more intellectual (than fran and jill could ever be) end, Amanda over at Pandagon did an excellent write up on the HPV thing some weeks ago, and on how the real fear for Fran and Jill’s ilk is that its much harder to sign a piece of paper demanding that your child be put at risk for cancer (therefore, punished for sex) than it is to opt in to protect your child from the cancer (divine punishment in Jill and Fran’s mind).

Here it is. Amanda’s writing is much more eloquent than mine. http://pandagon.net/2007/02/04/agreeing-with-the-anti-choicers-its-a-lot-harder-to-look-someone-in-the-eye-before-you-hurt-her/#comments

Is anyone else troubled by the implicit assumption underlying Fran and Jill’s position — that children would give in to wild sexual desires but for the threat of disease.

What leads one to such a bizarre view of human sexuality, i.e. that it is overpowering and can only be bridled by the threat of sickness or death.

Apparently when Eros is viewed as the enemy, Thanatos is viewed as a friend.

– SCAM

For abstinence, the technique is effective only when you practice it. The failure rate is how many women fail to practice abstinence and get pregnant. (Btw, this is the same measurement used for natural birth control and coitus interruptus.)

The main point here is one that AP makes in his post: getting a vaccine at age 11 or 12, before a child is sexually active, will have little or no effect on sexual activity as an adult. Nothing about the HPV vaccine or the related legislation would require society or schools to give a green light for sexual activity.

In fact, the pro-choice community would be aghast at such a thought. The vaccine does not prevent a variety of STIs, and responsible sexual activity (be it abstinence, condoms, or other contraceptives) is still required to be healthy.