New York City's Sex Manual for Kids
“Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read,” Groucho Marx once quipped.
Some books should be left inside dogs.
In the “dog book” category is the misleadingly-titled, Health Facts workbook, a box set of lesson plans the administration of New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the mayor’s new Chancellor of Education Dennis Walcott want introduced into city middle and high schools for purposes yet unclear but ostensibly intended to deal with New York’s out-of-control illegitimate birth rate, STD’s, and abortions.
Titled “The Health Smart Curriculum,” were it a college class, it would best be titled, “Perversions 101, How to Encourage Childhood Sexual Perversity.”
The book, the proposed sex manual, is heartily supported by the New York Civil Liberties Union, of course, and involves instructions for kids as young as eleven on everything Bloomberg and Walcott think sixth graders have been clamoring to know about: oral sex, foot fetishes, consensual erotica, mutual masturbation, and phone sex.
More sophisticated high schoolers will be enlightened on sexual positions, porn stars, bestiality, and shopping for condoms, things every teen needs to know, in the opinions of liberal Mayor Bloomberg and his hired lackey, to insure they engage in safe sex.
Condoms would certainly help in that regard but information on how missionaries did it, Linda Lovelace’s tricks, and intercourse with animals fit in with safe sex is something of a mystery to the uninformed. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5813.)
Showing posts with label teen sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teen sex. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Babies, an Endangered Species
Babies, An Endangered Species
A recent Gallup poll shows that, contrary to leftists’ contentions that Americans are pro-abortion and lily-livered Republicans who are fearful of taking a stand on the issue, fully 61% of adults oppose abortions and believe it should be illegal in most circumstances.
The poll further shows that the anti-abortion sentiment covers the spectrum, includes some “pro-choicers.” Only 27% told Gallup they thought abortion should be legal under any and all situations. See the full poll analysis of 1,018 adult Americans at http://bit.ly/lpQFrw
The Gallup results should and would have come as a major shocker to the pro-abortion liberal establishment who revere the rite and right of killing babies as a virtual sacrament, “would have” simply because they will ignore it as either right wing, pro-life propanganda or as irrelevant.
Pre-born babies have been an endangered species ever since the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973 that a woman or young girl has a constitutionally-protected “right to privacy,” based on non-existent constitutional language, and therefore enjoyed the right to terminate the existence of her baby in utero and thereby deny those babies’, male or female, any rights.
The rest has been sad history–55 million abortions–far more casualties to a misguided principle than America has sustained in all the wars in our history by far.
The Gallup findings are perhaps due to that realization and recent advancements in neo-natal technology which clearly and graphically prove that women haven’t been excising mere blobs of tissue from their bodies but rather living, sensate human beings. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4608)
A recent Gallup poll shows that, contrary to leftists’ contentions that Americans are pro-abortion and lily-livered Republicans who are fearful of taking a stand on the issue, fully 61% of adults oppose abortions and believe it should be illegal in most circumstances.
The poll further shows that the anti-abortion sentiment covers the spectrum, includes some “pro-choicers.” Only 27% told Gallup they thought abortion should be legal under any and all situations. See the full poll analysis of 1,018 adult Americans at http://bit.ly/lpQFrw
The Gallup results should and would have come as a major shocker to the pro-abortion liberal establishment who revere the rite and right of killing babies as a virtual sacrament, “would have” simply because they will ignore it as either right wing, pro-life propanganda or as irrelevant.
Pre-born babies have been an endangered species ever since the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973 that a woman or young girl has a constitutionally-protected “right to privacy,” based on non-existent constitutional language, and therefore enjoyed the right to terminate the existence of her baby in utero and thereby deny those babies’, male or female, any rights.
The rest has been sad history–55 million abortions–far more casualties to a misguided principle than America has sustained in all the wars in our history by far.
The Gallup findings are perhaps due to that realization and recent advancements in neo-natal technology which clearly and graphically prove that women haven’t been excising mere blobs of tissue from their bodies but rather living, sensate human beings. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4608)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sexting Is Just the Beginning
Sexting Is Just the Beginning
The teen fad of texting–if it is just a fad–has been proven to be deadly.
As I’ve written before, “Let’s face it, as any parent or teacher knows, teenagers can be a delight, and they can be horror. It all comes with the territory, the maturation process, as teens test the limits, push the envelopes, and drive parents to drink and distraction.” In their natural lack of discretion, young people have all too often exceeded those limits and brought embarrassing and sometimes much worse unintended consequences on themselves.
One of the earliest testimonials to the deadliness of teenagers posting nude or partially nude photos of themselves on the internet was the 2008 case of pretty, vivacious Jessica Logan of Cincinnati, Ohio. At the tender age of 18, Jessica hanged herself in her bedroom after a boyfriend circulated a single compromising and revealing picture she had sent for his eyes only. She was branded “a slut, porn queen, whore” by other girls and humiliated to her death.
Regardless of the blatant hypocrisy of Jessica’s former friends who may very well also have sexted and of her ethically-challenged former beau, estimates of a few years ago were that anywhere from 22% to 50% of teens have inappropriate pictures on their cell phones, that 39% of teens have sexted, and that 48% admit to receiving sexts.
“Inappropriate,” of course, is in the eyes of the beholder and many teen beholders are unable to distinguish the difference between what is licentious and what’s appropriate often to their dismay, and instances of prosecution as puveyors of child porn.
See previous articles on sexting on this website, including “Teen Texting, Sexting, and Suicide,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=924
ParentDish.com in an article titled, “Sexting and Your Kids,” updated the sexting picture with new information on the consequences of sexting based on surveys from CosmoGirl, which teens read, and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which they don’t.
According to that update, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3721)
The teen fad of texting–if it is just a fad–has been proven to be deadly.
As I’ve written before, “Let’s face it, as any parent or teacher knows, teenagers can be a delight, and they can be horror. It all comes with the territory, the maturation process, as teens test the limits, push the envelopes, and drive parents to drink and distraction.” In their natural lack of discretion, young people have all too often exceeded those limits and brought embarrassing and sometimes much worse unintended consequences on themselves.
One of the earliest testimonials to the deadliness of teenagers posting nude or partially nude photos of themselves on the internet was the 2008 case of pretty, vivacious Jessica Logan of Cincinnati, Ohio. At the tender age of 18, Jessica hanged herself in her bedroom after a boyfriend circulated a single compromising and revealing picture she had sent for his eyes only. She was branded “a slut, porn queen, whore” by other girls and humiliated to her death.
Regardless of the blatant hypocrisy of Jessica’s former friends who may very well also have sexted and of her ethically-challenged former beau, estimates of a few years ago were that anywhere from 22% to 50% of teens have inappropriate pictures on their cell phones, that 39% of teens have sexted, and that 48% admit to receiving sexts.
“Inappropriate,” of course, is in the eyes of the beholder and many teen beholders are unable to distinguish the difference between what is licentious and what’s appropriate often to their dismay, and instances of prosecution as puveyors of child porn.
See previous articles on sexting on this website, including “Teen Texting, Sexting, and Suicide,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=924
ParentDish.com in an article titled, “Sexting and Your Kids,” updated the sexting picture with new information on the consequences of sexting based on surveys from CosmoGirl, which teens read, and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which they don’t.
According to that update, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3721)
Saturday, January 8, 2011
"Hello, Muddah, Hello, Fadder" Becomes "Hello, Parent One, Hello, Parent Two," Etc
"Hello, Muddah, Hello, Fadder" Becomes "Hello, Parent One, Hello, Parent Two," Etc.
If the late comedian Allan Sherman went to Camp Grenada today, he could still write home to his “muddah” and “fadder” but if he went overseas his passport wouldn’t refer to his mother and father but rather to his ”Parent One” and “Parent Two.”
Such is the state of things in Obamaland 2011.
It’s all very explicable, however. “A statement on the State Department website noted: ‘These improvements [sic] are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.”
State Dept. spokesman spokeswoman spokesperson Brenda Sprague hastened to clear up any misconceptions over the change saying that, “the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness,” as if any fool would think that!
“We find, Sprague said, ”that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago.”
Or even two years ago, pre-Obama.
Understandably, although there has been no Islamic reaction, conservative Christians are repulsed at the change and ”Gay rights groups are applauding the decision:” http://tiny.cc/bfv7p No comments have yet been made public by other liberal groups. Animal rights advocates who have long felt that orangutans, et al. were people, too, and vegetation rights advocates who favor full rights of citizenship for plants and shrubs have remained silent.
Ridiculous? Absurd? Nuts? What, that animal rights and vegetation silliness or the Obama State Department silliness, and VERY PC passport change? Or, all of the above?
Our Obamian State Department may have earned the Absurdity of the Month Award but there are other contenders hot on its tail.
Inspired, motivated, and pressured by the same agitators who won that passport gender neutrality change, the most powerful agitators in America, the homosexual lobby, agitated in the former “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire. Its new motto may some day become, ”Free Sex But No Candy for You!" . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3352)
If the late comedian Allan Sherman went to Camp Grenada today, he could still write home to his “muddah” and “fadder” but if he went overseas his passport wouldn’t refer to his mother and father but rather to his ”Parent One” and “Parent Two.”
Such is the state of things in Obamaland 2011.
It’s all very explicable, however. “A statement on the State Department website noted: ‘These improvements [sic] are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.”
State Dept. spokesman spokeswoman spokesperson Brenda Sprague hastened to clear up any misconceptions over the change saying that, “the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness,” as if any fool would think that!
“We find, Sprague said, ”that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago.”
Or even two years ago, pre-Obama.
Understandably, although there has been no Islamic reaction, conservative Christians are repulsed at the change and ”Gay rights groups are applauding the decision:” http://tiny.cc/bfv7p No comments have yet been made public by other liberal groups. Animal rights advocates who have long felt that orangutans, et al. were people, too, and vegetation rights advocates who favor full rights of citizenship for plants and shrubs have remained silent.
Ridiculous? Absurd? Nuts? What, that animal rights and vegetation silliness or the Obama State Department silliness, and VERY PC passport change? Or, all of the above?
Our Obamian State Department may have earned the Absurdity of the Month Award but there are other contenders hot on its tail.
Inspired, motivated, and pressured by the same agitators who won that passport gender neutrality change, the most powerful agitators in America, the homosexual lobby, agitated in the former “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire. Its new motto may some day become, ”Free Sex But No Candy for You!" . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3352)
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Co-ed Dorms and Other Fun College Experiences
Co-ed Dorms and Other Fun College Experiences
How would you like to shower with that hot freshman who just moved into your dorm?
That’s not just a random voyeuristic fantasy question but rather a serious query faced by many college kids today in a milieu that has brought new meaning to the old hippie mantra, “If it feels good, do it!”
Back in the olden days–like a few generations ago–colleges and universities were expected to act in loco parentis, serving as parental surrogates and enforcing what was then considered the norms of societal views on interpersonal relationships and often took that responsibility to the extreme. Instead of simply mandating that doors be left open when boys visited girls’ rooms, suitors were stopped at front entrances to girls’ dormitories by gestapo-trained guards who sternly sent them on their merry, horny ways, curfews were strictly enforced, and behavior was rigidly dictated.
On the distaff side, females would no sooner approach a male dorm than they would pick up a phone and call a guy.
Times have changed, which may be the understatement of the twenty first century when applied to our institutions of somewhat higher learning where most real learning takes place not in classrooms but behind closed dorm doors, where calculus and theoretical geophysics take a back seat behind personal anatomical exploration and applied sexuality.
The relatively new phenomenon and serious ramifications for females of the human species of “hooking up”–a collegiate euphemism for sharing one’s intimate wealth with either “friends with benefits” or with guys girls met that night at a keg or frat party, or a frat, keg party–has already been discussed in this space.
(See “Hooking Up,” Parts One and Two, http://tiny.cc/8vev2, in which it is shown that girls are by far the principal victims of the new and rampant promiscuity. Males never have to stride ”the tart walk.” If anything, they regard hooking up, and the occasional orgy, as the greatest advancements in collegiality since the invention of The Pill.)
The companion phenomenon to hooking up, co-ed dormitories, are another worst dream of many parents who naively send their young Janies off to college to get an education and grow into full adulthood and will make parental heads spin. Their young Janies may have much less lofty visions than education and maturation. They may have visions of quarterbacks dancing in their heads . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3268)
How would you like to shower with that hot freshman who just moved into your dorm?
That’s not just a random voyeuristic fantasy question but rather a serious query faced by many college kids today in a milieu that has brought new meaning to the old hippie mantra, “If it feels good, do it!”
Back in the olden days–like a few generations ago–colleges and universities were expected to act in loco parentis, serving as parental surrogates and enforcing what was then considered the norms of societal views on interpersonal relationships and often took that responsibility to the extreme. Instead of simply mandating that doors be left open when boys visited girls’ rooms, suitors were stopped at front entrances to girls’ dormitories by gestapo-trained guards who sternly sent them on their merry, horny ways, curfews were strictly enforced, and behavior was rigidly dictated.
On the distaff side, females would no sooner approach a male dorm than they would pick up a phone and call a guy.
Times have changed, which may be the understatement of the twenty first century when applied to our institutions of somewhat higher learning where most real learning takes place not in classrooms but behind closed dorm doors, where calculus and theoretical geophysics take a back seat behind personal anatomical exploration and applied sexuality.
The relatively new phenomenon and serious ramifications for females of the human species of “hooking up”–a collegiate euphemism for sharing one’s intimate wealth with either “friends with benefits” or with guys girls met that night at a keg or frat party, or a frat, keg party–has already been discussed in this space.
(See “Hooking Up,” Parts One and Two, http://tiny.cc/8vev2, in which it is shown that girls are by far the principal victims of the new and rampant promiscuity. Males never have to stride ”the tart walk.” If anything, they regard hooking up, and the occasional orgy, as the greatest advancements in collegiality since the invention of The Pill.)
The companion phenomenon to hooking up, co-ed dormitories, are another worst dream of many parents who naively send their young Janies off to college to get an education and grow into full adulthood and will make parental heads spin. Their young Janies may have much less lofty visions than education and maturation. They may have visions of quarterbacks dancing in their heads . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3268)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)