wildestranger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wildestranger) wrote2005-11-08 01:09 pm
wildestranger) wrote2005-11-08 01:09 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
An amusing thing on the radio this morning. On the BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Wine show, they were discussing whether parents should be informed about an under aged child having an abortion, or asking for information about it. An interesting question by itself, but two of the people who called in, both men I might add, were particularly entertaining in their views. One suggested that they should stop giving information about sex in schools, since this is the cause of promiscuity in the land, and is resulting in the breakdown of the family. Another demanded that under sixteen-year-olds who engaged in sex shuld be prosecuted since it was against the law. This would stop teenagers having sex since they wouldn't want to go to prison.
A most delightful instance of what ignorance about history, sociology, and common sense can produce when combined with narrowmindedness, such as the following examples of faulty thinking:
Young people didn't have sex until the state began to provide sex education.
Information produces promiscuity: if you are told about the many diseases and other unpleasant results of sex, this will create an unsurmountable desire to have sex, which would not exist otherwise.
Making something prohibited by the law will stop teenagers wanting to do it.
The law exists to guard itself. not, say, to protect people from arbitrary powers.
Penalising pregnant teenagers for having had sex serves any kind of purpose.
Well, this has amused me muchly today.
Also, I haven't had a poll in three days. Something should be done. If you have an idea about what kind of a poll you think I should do, let me know in comments.
A most delightful instance of what ignorance about history, sociology, and common sense can produce when combined with narrowmindedness, such as the following examples of faulty thinking:
Young people didn't have sex until the state began to provide sex education.
Information produces promiscuity: if you are told about the many diseases and other unpleasant results of sex, this will create an unsurmountable desire to have sex, which would not exist otherwise.
Making something prohibited by the law will stop teenagers wanting to do it.
The law exists to guard itself. not, say, to protect people from arbitrary powers.
Penalising pregnant teenagers for having had sex serves any kind of purpose.
Well, this has amused me muchly today.
Also, I haven't had a poll in three days. Something should be done. If you have an idea about what kind of a poll you think I should do, let me know in comments.
no subject
Of course not. The history of English literature teaches us that no middle class ever had sex before marriage, and her parents never worried that she might do so, as it was inconceivable. :)
Oh indeed. And it's not okay for teenages to know how to have orgasms if middle-aged people who call the BBC don't.
Exactly. No fields filled with people guzzling cheap cider anywhere near me.
You have caught on my plan. Gunpowder, treason and plot!
no subject
If we all started having orgasms, we'd start enjoying ourselves (oooh, puntastic) and then where would we be?
You have caught on my plan. Gunpowder, treason and plot!
Remember, remember, the eighth of November . . .