“In an unprecedented move, parents in California are suing their local school district over sex education. But these parents aren’t revolting for the reasons we’ve come to expect: They’re suing because they want their kids to be fully informed — imagine that. The sex ed textbook used by the Clovis Unified School District in Fresno, Calif., “does not mention condoms at all, even in chapters about HIV/AIDS and on preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy,” according to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the parents, along with local doctors, in the suit. Instead, the textbook recommends preventing STDs through self-respect, group hangouts, abstinence and, um, “plenty of rest.” Who wrote this thing, Todd Akin? Charmingly, the curriculum compares “a woman who is not a virgin to a dirty shoe” and explains that “men are unable to stop themselves once they become sexually aroused,” says the ACLU. This isn’t just an assault on reason, it also breaks the law, the suit argues. In 2003, we wild ‘n’ crazy California liberals passed a law requiring sex education in public schools to be comprehensive and, you know, scientifically accurate. Last year, researchers at the University of California San Francisco found that things had improved throughout the state since the law’s passage, but spottily. More than a quarter of school districts did not teach HIV prevention — in fact, schools were more likely to discuss abstinence than mandated information about HIV — and only 58 percent covered contraception.”—Teach our kids about condoms! - Salon.com (via mslorelei)
“A survey of 11-to-14 year-olds found:
· 51% of the boys and 41% of the girls said forced sex was acceptable if the boy, “spent a lot of money” on the girl;
· 31% of the boys and 32% of the girls said it was acceptable for a man to rape a woman with past sexual experience;
· 87% of boys and 79% of girls said sexual assault was acceptable if the man and the woman were married;
· 65% of the boys and 47% of the girls said it was acceptable for a boy to rape a girl if they had been dating for more than six months.”—
“[TRIGGER WARNING] “This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight. She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”—
Last week, Paul Ryan gave an interview in which, defending his position that there should be no excuses for abortion, he referred to rape as a “method of conception.”
Wow, right? Talk about a benign euphemism. Rape —RAPE! — is now a “method of conception.” You know, like love-making, just without the love.
There could be no greater testament to the utter abdication of responsibility by what passes for a “news” media in America in 2012 than that, despite the grotesquerie of this cavalierly callous comment, chances are better than good that this is the first you’re hearing of it.
Here, watch it — and try to figure out why this has gotten NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA play (not even here at the Huffington Post) despite it being, to my mind, a far more offensive remark than Todd Akin’s imbecilic blurt of last weekend. What, are we tired of stupid remarks about rape now, so Ryan gets a free pass?
Given the demands for Akin’s resignation from a mere Senate race when his musings on “legitimate rape” were publicized, what do you imagine the reaction would be if people were as familiar with VP wannabe Ryan’s stunning statement? Might there be a cacophony of outrage? Might there be calls for his resignation from the ticket? Might there be a focus on how fundamentally oblivious these people who would make our laws are to not just women’s but humans’ rights and dignity? Sure, there might, but then of course people would have to have heard about it.
According to the man who would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the White House, and who in any event would — given Romney’s utter hollowness — have an inordinate influence on the judicial appointments that will determine how much freedom our children get to live under, RAPE = “METHOD OF CONCEPTION.” And yet, unless you’re a frequenter of one of a dozen or so lefty blogs — or my friend on Facebook — you probably knew nothing about it.
I truly despair for the country my 14-year-old daughter is inheriting. That a remark this intensely revealing of the danger posed by this ticket can go basically unreported is as nauseating to me as the quote itself.
YOU awesome readers heard about, because I love you enough to keep you in the loop. I don’t know what the rest of the media is doing with their time.
Trying to distance himself from the “legitimate rape” comment that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made last week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith (R) stirred up further controversy by comparing a pregnancy caused by rape to “having a baby out of wedlock.”
Smith said Monday at the Pennsylvania Press Club that although he condemns Akin’s comment, he agrees with Akin that abortion should be banned without any exceptions, including for rape and incest victims. Pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Smith said he had already “lived something similar to that” in his family.
“She chose life, and I commend her for that,” he said. “She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to … she chose the way I thought. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.”
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, “Having a baby out of wedlock.”
He added, “Put yourself in a father’s position. Yes, it is similar.”
Smith’s comment comes at an inconvenient time for Republicans, who have been scrambling to distract voters from the firestorm of controversy over Akin’s comment last week. Addressing the subject of an abortion exception for rape victims, Akin said that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely become pregnant because “the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.”
Smith, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) in the November election, told reporters that he does not agree with Akin’s remark at all. “He should have never said anything like that,” Smith said.