I caught a bit of the Tyra Banks show yesterday afternoon. I haven't seen her in a long time so I thought I'd see what she's up to now. Looks like the same old thing....judging women for their choices around their sexuality. This show was about 'Sugar Babies'. These are women who hook up with very rich men to get their financial needs met. Of course, this is nothing new. This has been going on since before recorded history. But what is new, or at least somewhat new, is a website and service devoted specifically to helping men and women connect for this purpose. I believe there are actually a few such sites but she had the owner of a particular one on the show, as well as two women who claimed to be sugar babies.
I have to admit, I am torn by this phenomenon. Part of me wants to say 'Hey, if everyone is consenting, where's the problem?' But the other part of me sees the gender inequity that leads to this kind of thing. Why is it mainly women who do this and very rarely men? She did actually have two men on the show that were self-professed 'him-bos' (that name and the blatant misogyny behind it something I'm not even going to get into here), but it's quite clear that it's mainly women who participate in these types of relationships. The reasons are obvious, I think. There are far more men in positions of great wealth and power than there are women. As well, I think that men are much less likely to believe that finding a rich and powerful person to care for them is the easiest way for them to get their financial needs met or to live a wealthy lifestyle. The first assumption by men is that the way to wealth is to build it yourself, not to ride on the coattails of someone else. Historically women have had to depend on men to survive because they were denied the ability to own property, to accumulate wealth of their own, and to participate in most trades and professions. Their only option for wealth was to marry well, if that was even an option for them. Although that has changed, we still do not have equal access and that history still carries on in our psyche. A lot of women still believe that their financial security depends on men.
Here's a case in point. My mother was always very clear with her three daughters that we should have jobs and careers of our own and that we should plan to take care of ourselves. Although my mother married in her early 20's in 1962 and had three children, she always worked. She worked because she wanted to and because she was contributing financially to the family. My sisters and I did not grow up with the belief that we were just waiting to get married so we wouldn't have to work anymore. All of us have professional degrees. However, a few weeks ago, I was having dinner with my sister and her family. We were talking about trades because we had just been to an Alberta trade fair. My 11 year-old niece mentioned a friend of the family who worked in the oil field and made a lot of money. 'That's what I need to do,' she said, 'I need to marry someone who does what Bob does.' I was shocked. Here's a girl who was not raised with this type of value and expectation and yet still, her first thought about how to make money is to find a man with money. I said to her 'No sweetie, you need to find out if what Bob does interests you and if it does, go do it yourself. Make your own money, honey.' This little girl is smart, really smart - she'll be able to do anything she wants. But that thought had not occurred to her.
So my feminist soul has a dilemma here. I actually do support the right of these women to do what they're doing. According to them, they are completely forthright with their 'sugar daddies' and they with them. They both know the parameters of the relationship and the expectations. The men are not being used because they know exactly what the woman expects. The woman knows what the man expects and makes a choice as to whether she accepts it or not. If there is upfront knowledge and informed consent, I don't think anyone is being abused or exploited. If that's what they choose to do, it's their business. I do not believe that they are necessarily exploiting themselves, or devaluing themselves. A major point of contention on the show was whether this was prostitution or not. I don't think it matters. If everyone agrees, it is an agreement. I don't believe that taking money for sex, if that is a part of what they are doing, is necessarily wrong. So I don't judge them like Tyra Banks and her 'expert' do.
But it does make me sad that so many women still feel that their most valuable asset is their sexuality. And maybe that is judgmental of me. Who am I to say that's not okay? I just wonder if the women who make these kinds of choices do it because they feel that's the best thing for them, that they know they could make the money themselves but they just don't want to, or if they feel that even now, they will never be able to achieve the kind of lifestyle they want without the help of a man.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Do we need .xxx?
I was driving home last night when a piece on CBC radio caughty my ear. They were reporting on the progress of an application to have .xxx established as a new top level domain name. Although this application has been in process for the past six years, this is the first I had heard of it. Knowing the potential implications of this, I stopped to listen.
So here's the deal. An internet domain registry service called ICM has been trying to get the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering to approve their proposal for a .xxx top level domain, to be used solely for adult content. This idea has been brought forward to ICANN and others many times in the past, but this six year battle that ICM has engaged in is not only to have the domain established but for ICM to have exclusive rights over it - ie. if you want an .xxx domain, you'll have to pay ICM and only ICM. Other domains like this exist but they are small and not widely used.
My concern, the second I heard this was that if such a domain was established, attempts might be made to make a .xxx domain mandatory for all adult content on the net. Given the climate in North America around sexuality and pornography, it's not a stretch to be concerned about this. That could put my website and my business, and those of my fellow business owners in the industry in jeopardy. How does one define ''adult content'? I've been lumped in with random porn sites and other adult content industries and denied business services before so this makes me vary wary.
However, after listening to the interviews and doing some digging around, I don't think we need to be concerned about that........yet.
So what is this all about? ICM, and the proponents of this idea claim that it will help internet users avoid unwanted adult content and will help protect children from incidental exposure. They say that it will make filters even more effective because parents can simply block the entire domain.
But if use of the domain is voluntary, will it really make a difference. A .com domain costs anywhere from $7 to $20 a year so what will likely happen is that adult site owners who have a .com right now will simply add a .xxx to increase their traffic. They won't drop the .com. So bam! We've just doubled the number of porn addresses on the web! Great way to control kids access to porn. Not only that, but then everyone will know that there is a virtual goldmine of porn over the .xxx rainbow. Type in anything.xxx and you're sure to come up with some porn. So does this make it easier or more difficult for kids to access porn.
It seems obvious to me that this is nothing more than a money grab. ICM has spent $10 million so far to make .xxx a reality. Yes, you read that right, $10 Million!! So guess how much they expect to make from it? As mentioned before, a .com domain name is, at most, $20 a year. ICM does not state, on their website, how much the domain will actually cost but a rep. from the Free Speech Coalition said she has heard estimates of anywhere from $50 to $275/year. Why so much more than .com? It's because you can only get it from ICM so they can charge whatever they want. The president of ICM did say in the interview that they expect to make up to $150 million a year from .xxx! He said that they already have 156,000 domain names parked - so if all of those end up paying their $50, that's $7.8 million in their pockets before they even start!
In a totally transparent and somewhat smarmy move, he mentioned that 10% of the cost of each domain would go towards child protection charities. What does that have to do with anything? The only reason ICM wants to make that so public is to try to win people over to the idea that this is good for everyone. 10% is nothing to them when they're making that kind of money.
Do I think .xxx is a bad thing? No, not really. My only concern is that we will get some right-wing crazy group lobbying ICANN and their governments to make it mandatory for all adult content. I know how difficult that would be to enact and enforce so I don't think it's something we need to be worried about for now. I don't think it's fair business practice to allow it to be exclusively owned. Website builders know that they'll pretty much have to get the .xxx name for their site or they'll lose a huge amount of traffic and revenue to someone else who scoops it out from under them. It's basically strong-arming them into paying for an extra site. Other than that, is it damaging? No, I don't think so. Will it help to prevent incidental exposure to porn on the net? No, I really don't think it will. Will it line to pockets of some brilliant, but pretty clearly unscrupulous business people? Yes, most definitely.
So here's the deal. An internet domain registry service called ICM has been trying to get the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering to approve their proposal for a .xxx top level domain, to be used solely for adult content. This idea has been brought forward to ICANN and others many times in the past, but this six year battle that ICM has engaged in is not only to have the domain established but for ICM to have exclusive rights over it - ie. if you want an .xxx domain, you'll have to pay ICM and only ICM. Other domains like this exist but they are small and not widely used.
My concern, the second I heard this was that if such a domain was established, attempts might be made to make a .xxx domain mandatory for all adult content on the net. Given the climate in North America around sexuality and pornography, it's not a stretch to be concerned about this. That could put my website and my business, and those of my fellow business owners in the industry in jeopardy. How does one define ''adult content'? I've been lumped in with random porn sites and other adult content industries and denied business services before so this makes me vary wary.
However, after listening to the interviews and doing some digging around, I don't think we need to be concerned about that........yet.
So what is this all about? ICM, and the proponents of this idea claim that it will help internet users avoid unwanted adult content and will help protect children from incidental exposure. They say that it will make filters even more effective because parents can simply block the entire domain.
But if use of the domain is voluntary, will it really make a difference. A .com domain costs anywhere from $7 to $20 a year so what will likely happen is that adult site owners who have a .com right now will simply add a .xxx to increase their traffic. They won't drop the .com. So bam! We've just doubled the number of porn addresses on the web! Great way to control kids access to porn. Not only that, but then everyone will know that there is a virtual goldmine of porn over the .xxx rainbow. Type in anything.xxx and you're sure to come up with some porn. So does this make it easier or more difficult for kids to access porn.
It seems obvious to me that this is nothing more than a money grab. ICM has spent $10 million so far to make .xxx a reality. Yes, you read that right, $10 Million!! So guess how much they expect to make from it? As mentioned before, a .com domain name is, at most, $20 a year. ICM does not state, on their website, how much the domain will actually cost but a rep. from the Free Speech Coalition said she has heard estimates of anywhere from $50 to $275/year. Why so much more than .com? It's because you can only get it from ICM so they can charge whatever they want. The president of ICM did say in the interview that they expect to make up to $150 million a year from .xxx! He said that they already have 156,000 domain names parked - so if all of those end up paying their $50, that's $7.8 million in their pockets before they even start!
In a totally transparent and somewhat smarmy move, he mentioned that 10% of the cost of each domain would go towards child protection charities. What does that have to do with anything? The only reason ICM wants to make that so public is to try to win people over to the idea that this is good for everyone. 10% is nothing to them when they're making that kind of money.
Do I think .xxx is a bad thing? No, not really. My only concern is that we will get some right-wing crazy group lobbying ICANN and their governments to make it mandatory for all adult content. I know how difficult that would be to enact and enforce so I don't think it's something we need to be worried about for now. I don't think it's fair business practice to allow it to be exclusively owned. Website builders know that they'll pretty much have to get the .xxx name for their site or they'll lose a huge amount of traffic and revenue to someone else who scoops it out from under them. It's basically strong-arming them into paying for an extra site. Other than that, is it damaging? No, I don't think so. Will it help to prevent incidental exposure to porn on the net? No, I really don't think it will. Will it line to pockets of some brilliant, but pretty clearly unscrupulous business people? Yes, most definitely.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sexual Compatability
I spent a lovely evening last week driving to and from a party in Airdrie listening to Savage Lovecasts all the way. Anyone who's read this blog knows that Dan Savage is my hero. I love the way he's able to draw out the hidden agendas in his listener's questions or their partner's actions. I love that he will unabashedly call some right-wing conservative hypocrite a 'lying piece of shit asshole'. But I found myself really questioning one of the main ideas he was espousing that became a theme in the string of podcasts I listened to. He said many times that he thinks it's very important for couples to have sex before they decide to get really serious, get married or have kids, so that they know if they are sexually compatible. I completely agree. I agree with him that our society belittles the importance of sex in a marriage and that lack of sexual compatability can, and often does, destroy a relationship. However, through the course of these podcasts it seems that he was saying that couple's just need to 'get that out of the way' - that they just need to have sex once or a few times to know if they work togehter. Then that question is answered and they can move on to other things. This is where I disagree.
When couples first start dating, sex is usually pretty good. Unless there's something wildly different about them (eg. I actually like men and you don't have a penis, I know I need to be beaten soundly to get off and that clearly scares the hell out of you, I'm afriad of semen and you expect regular blow jobs... or something of the like), and they like each other and attracted to each other, they're probably going to have really good sex for the first little bit. At the beginning of a relationships, we're in that lovey dovey, let's-make-out-in-the-movei-theatre phase. And we're also usually not particularly honest about what we want and how we really feel about our partners sexual abilities. It's not until we've been together for awhile that the bloom starts to come off the rose and differences in our wants and needs start to surface. Sometimes that can be many months or even more than a year down the road! That's why I believe that people need to spend a lot of time together and wait until they've really been through some things before making a serious committment. Either that, or they need to be the kind of person that can make a committment to work through things and stick to it no matter what, so that when those issues arise, and they usually do, they will be serious about working them out. People who can do that are truly rare.
So yes, I agree that sexual compatability is very important but it's not something you can ascertain after a couple of dates.
When couples first start dating, sex is usually pretty good. Unless there's something wildly different about them (eg. I actually like men and you don't have a penis, I know I need to be beaten soundly to get off and that clearly scares the hell out of you, I'm afriad of semen and you expect regular blow jobs... or something of the like), and they like each other and attracted to each other, they're probably going to have really good sex for the first little bit. At the beginning of a relationships, we're in that lovey dovey, let's-make-out-in-the-movei-theatre phase. And we're also usually not particularly honest about what we want and how we really feel about our partners sexual abilities. It's not until we've been together for awhile that the bloom starts to come off the rose and differences in our wants and needs start to surface. Sometimes that can be many months or even more than a year down the road! That's why I believe that people need to spend a lot of time together and wait until they've really been through some things before making a serious committment. Either that, or they need to be the kind of person that can make a committment to work through things and stick to it no matter what, so that when those issues arise, and they usually do, they will be serious about working them out. People who can do that are truly rare.
So yes, I agree that sexual compatability is very important but it's not something you can ascertain after a couple of dates.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Oh So Cosmo!
Once again, a new channel showed up on our TV - Cosmo Television. Yeah! Now I can finally get all of the insightful and profound social analysis offered by Cosmo magazine on TV! As promised, Cosmo TV is very much like Cosmo magazine. Loaded with gender stereotypes and sexual misinformation. The worst has got to be 'Oh So Cosmo' which is supposed to be a dating and relationship advice show but basically seems to be about telling women what to do. About every 30 seconds, 'stats' flash up on the screen letting us know how 'guys' feel about various things that 'girls' do. These kinds of 'stats' make me crazy because of course, the implication is that if a large number or majority of people think or act a certain way, then it's normal. Who are they actually asking? If it's guys that read cosmo, you know that they didn't get a very large sample. And really, why do I need to know that 57% of men prefer blondes? Obviously the point of that stat is, if you're blonde, rejoice! And if you're not blond, get blonde.
The episode last night had their female host, Josie, dramatizing Cosmo's advice for making a good impression on a guy. What we learned here was that we should approach him first, we should show interest in what he's interested in, and we should buy his friends beer. Oh, and that we should have sex with him because '90% of guys believe that a hook-up can lead to a long-term relationship'. Oh, how I wish I had cosmo TV before when I was dating. It would have been so much easier!
After this advice, came the cosmo quiz in which we learned whether we are mysterious enough to capture the attention of a man. The results of the quiz revealed that I give away far too much and will easily get myself hurt because of it. You don't want to give away too much but you also don't want to be so much of an enigma that you're playing games. It's a fine line we gals have to walk in the dating world! The quiz made me nauseous because it's that same old 'play hard to get' advice that we've seen over and over. We should never tell a man exactly how much we like him, we should never appear to be clingy or needy, and we should make him come to us. Does this game really work for anyone? If might work at first but if your goal is to develop a real relationship, at some point, you're going to have to drop the game and be who you really are. If you've played the game long enough, that's going to come as a real shock to your partner. Isn't it better just to be real from the start? In fact, I got the result I did because on every question I took the most direct and real answer - I would just tell him what I'm feeling and do what I feel I'd like to do. But then again, I'm far too open.
To me, the message of 'Oh So Cosmo' is that women should never ever trust their own instincts in the dating world. If they do, they'll never get a man. Instead, they should seek out every opportunity to find out what other people think, and ask any dating expert they can find. That way they'll know how to behave and won't doubt themselves in these situations. Hmmmm.......there's something wrong with that logic but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe if I watch some more Cosmo TV, I'll figure it out.
The episode last night had their female host, Josie, dramatizing Cosmo's advice for making a good impression on a guy. What we learned here was that we should approach him first, we should show interest in what he's interested in, and we should buy his friends beer. Oh, and that we should have sex with him because '90% of guys believe that a hook-up can lead to a long-term relationship'. Oh, how I wish I had cosmo TV before when I was dating. It would have been so much easier!
After this advice, came the cosmo quiz in which we learned whether we are mysterious enough to capture the attention of a man. The results of the quiz revealed that I give away far too much and will easily get myself hurt because of it. You don't want to give away too much but you also don't want to be so much of an enigma that you're playing games. It's a fine line we gals have to walk in the dating world! The quiz made me nauseous because it's that same old 'play hard to get' advice that we've seen over and over. We should never tell a man exactly how much we like him, we should never appear to be clingy or needy, and we should make him come to us. Does this game really work for anyone? If might work at first but if your goal is to develop a real relationship, at some point, you're going to have to drop the game and be who you really are. If you've played the game long enough, that's going to come as a real shock to your partner. Isn't it better just to be real from the start? In fact, I got the result I did because on every question I took the most direct and real answer - I would just tell him what I'm feeling and do what I feel I'd like to do. But then again, I'm far too open.
To me, the message of 'Oh So Cosmo' is that women should never ever trust their own instincts in the dating world. If they do, they'll never get a man. Instead, they should seek out every opportunity to find out what other people think, and ask any dating expert they can find. That way they'll know how to behave and won't doubt themselves in these situations. Hmmmm.......there's something wrong with that logic but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe if I watch some more Cosmo TV, I'll figure it out.
Friday, May 28, 2010
In spite of everything you've heard, Canadian teens are becoming more responsible.
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality has just published a study showing that the number of pregnancies among Canadian teenagers dropped by 36.9% from 1996 to 2005! Who would've guessed? It seems all we hear about in relation to teen sexuality is how over-sexualized they are and how they are getting involved in sex earlier and earlier every day. If that were true, one would expect that the numbers of teen pregnancies would be increasing right along with all that horrible, early risk-taking behavior. But they aren't. In fact, teen pregnancy rates are down significantly in the last ten years in most developed countries, including the USA (their drop was 25%). Alexander McKay, co-author of the study and research co-ordinator of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of Canada says that the number of teenagers having sex has remained essentially stable, over this time period, with somewhere around 50% of those 17 or under having been sexually active. McKay says “Teenage women in Canada are not more or less likely to be sexually active than they were 10 or 15 years ago. The difference is that we have seen a steady increase in the percentage of sexually active young women who are using contraception. That comes mainly in increases in condom use but also increases in birth control.” (quote taken from Globe and Mail, May 26th). So in spite of all the public bemoaning about 'those girls growing up too fast', it appears that all the evidence tells us that:
1 - the numbers of teenagers having sex has stayed pretty much the same since 1996
2 - the ones who do have sex are making good choices about contraception
3 - far fewer of them are getting pregnant
But there are still some, that in spite of all of these good news fact, hold steadfastly to their belief that Canada's sexual morality is going to hell in a handbasket. Point in case, Barbara Kay, of the National Post, who is quickly becoming one of my least favorite wingnuts, published an editorial on Thursday entitled 'Teen Pregnancy Study Fall Prey to Wishful Thinking'. In it, she asserts that the decline in teen pregnancy rates is mainly due to a decline in birth rates in Canada on the whole. How this follows, I simply cannot understand. She also asserts that the general decline in birth rate is due to a huge increase in the number of abortions, with 47% of the decline in births being attributable to abortions. Huh? How she is getting this stat is not at all clear to me. How in the world can you determine that 47% of the decline in births was due to abortion? But I had a look at some statistics directly from statistics Canada to see what I could find. First of all, the number of live births in Canada did take a dip in the 90's but has been steadily climbing again since 2001. So the decline in birth rates is nowhere near as dramatic as she claims. Secondly, the number of abortions has been steadily decreasing. Since a highpoint in 1997, with almost 112,000 abortions, it has dropped by a little over 12% with less than 97,000 abortions in 2005 (I personally wonder is this is due, in part, to the decreasing access to abortion services in Canada). So really, Barb, what are you on about? The stats show very clearly that although our birth rate has declined, it was actually on a slight increase throughout the period of this study. And it shows that fewer people are getting abortions (the teen rate for abortions reflects a similar trend and has been dropping steadily since 1996).
However, good old Barb states that "The bottom line is that fewer young people are having early sex, slightly more of those who have sex are using contraception, and a critical mass of those who are having sex, in spite of a tsunami of education, prefer not to use contraception, but have no problem with abortion as retroactive contraception. It seems to me on the evidence that western sex ed programs must be something like dietary information programs to combat obesity that present a list of healthy foods on one side of a blackboard, and a list of practices like anorexia and bulimia on the other side, making no moral distinction between them." Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Again, why focus on one, clearly biased editorial? Because it reflects the views of too many people in Canada who still cling to their ideas and opinions in spite of the overwhelming evidence that sex education in Canada is working and that our teenagers are making better choices about sex. The proof is in the comments on Barb's article. Here are just a few:
"First, SIECCAN has an agenda to push. If wonder [sic] what it is, check the report their sister-organization in the US (SIECUS) prepared for the UNESCO last year: It advocates "sexual education" at the earliest possible age including teaching kids aged 5-to-8 about masturbation, "gender stereotypes," and the rest of the closet pedophile agenda." - yes, those SIECCAN researchers are really just closet pedophiles out to lure children into their trap!
"In any study one has to look beyond the author's conclusions to find the real reasons for same. Today 90% of abortions are either a method of birth control or sex selection....Our first step as a nation is to defund abortion from the healthcare system for anything other than medical necessity including rape/incest. Let those on welfare or unable to afford it go through a course on responsible sexual relationships before any state funding is provided. Make it clear the funding is only provided once." - so really, this whole study just shows us that we need to stop funding abortions - how did this get to be an abortion debate? And only those on welfare should get not only abortions, but also sex education. Talk about an agenda!
It's people like this, who have not taken the time to understand the issues and clearly don't care to, who influence the actions our government takes regarding these matters.
So even though all evidence points to the fact that sex education is working, that not only teen pregnancies but also teen abortions are on the decline, our federal government still makes the outrageous decision to underhandedly completely obliterate funding for the Canadian Federation of Sexual Health (formerly Planned Parenthood) and to try to put legal abortion back up for discussion.
We need to take a giant step into the world of reality and start listening to the people who are actually in the know about these things, like Alexander McKay and SIECCAN. Because opinions and fact are not one and the same. You know what they say.......opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.....
1 - the numbers of teenagers having sex has stayed pretty much the same since 1996
2 - the ones who do have sex are making good choices about contraception
3 - far fewer of them are getting pregnant
But there are still some, that in spite of all of these good news fact, hold steadfastly to their belief that Canada's sexual morality is going to hell in a handbasket. Point in case, Barbara Kay, of the National Post, who is quickly becoming one of my least favorite wingnuts, published an editorial on Thursday entitled 'Teen Pregnancy Study Fall Prey to Wishful Thinking'. In it, she asserts that the decline in teen pregnancy rates is mainly due to a decline in birth rates in Canada on the whole. How this follows, I simply cannot understand. She also asserts that the general decline in birth rate is due to a huge increase in the number of abortions, with 47% of the decline in births being attributable to abortions. Huh? How she is getting this stat is not at all clear to me. How in the world can you determine that 47% of the decline in births was due to abortion? But I had a look at some statistics directly from statistics Canada to see what I could find. First of all, the number of live births in Canada did take a dip in the 90's but has been steadily climbing again since 2001. So the decline in birth rates is nowhere near as dramatic as she claims. Secondly, the number of abortions has been steadily decreasing. Since a highpoint in 1997, with almost 112,000 abortions, it has dropped by a little over 12% with less than 97,000 abortions in 2005 (I personally wonder is this is due, in part, to the decreasing access to abortion services in Canada). So really, Barb, what are you on about? The stats show very clearly that although our birth rate has declined, it was actually on a slight increase throughout the period of this study. And it shows that fewer people are getting abortions (the teen rate for abortions reflects a similar trend and has been dropping steadily since 1996).
However, good old Barb states that "The bottom line is that fewer young people are having early sex, slightly more of those who have sex are using contraception, and a critical mass of those who are having sex, in spite of a tsunami of education, prefer not to use contraception, but have no problem with abortion as retroactive contraception. It seems to me on the evidence that western sex ed programs must be something like dietary information programs to combat obesity that present a list of healthy foods on one side of a blackboard, and a list of practices like anorexia and bulimia on the other side, making no moral distinction between them." Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Again, why focus on one, clearly biased editorial? Because it reflects the views of too many people in Canada who still cling to their ideas and opinions in spite of the overwhelming evidence that sex education in Canada is working and that our teenagers are making better choices about sex. The proof is in the comments on Barb's article. Here are just a few:
"First, SIECCAN has an agenda to push. If wonder [sic] what it is, check the report their sister-organization in the US (SIECUS) prepared for the UNESCO last year: It advocates "sexual education" at the earliest possible age including teaching kids aged 5-to-8 about masturbation, "gender stereotypes," and the rest of the closet pedophile agenda." - yes, those SIECCAN researchers are really just closet pedophiles out to lure children into their trap!
"In any study one has to look beyond the author's conclusions to find the real reasons for same. Today 90% of abortions are either a method of birth control or sex selection....Our first step as a nation is to defund abortion from the healthcare system for anything other than medical necessity including rape/incest. Let those on welfare or unable to afford it go through a course on responsible sexual relationships before any state funding is provided. Make it clear the funding is only provided once." - so really, this whole study just shows us that we need to stop funding abortions - how did this get to be an abortion debate? And only those on welfare should get not only abortions, but also sex education. Talk about an agenda!
It's people like this, who have not taken the time to understand the issues and clearly don't care to, who influence the actions our government takes regarding these matters.
So even though all evidence points to the fact that sex education is working, that not only teen pregnancies but also teen abortions are on the decline, our federal government still makes the outrageous decision to underhandedly completely obliterate funding for the Canadian Federation of Sexual Health (formerly Planned Parenthood) and to try to put legal abortion back up for discussion.
We need to take a giant step into the world of reality and start listening to the people who are actually in the know about these things, like Alexander McKay and SIECCAN. Because opinions and fact are not one and the same. You know what they say.......opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
