[malvolio]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Bush's Sex Scandal
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

I'm sorry to report a sex scandal in the heart of the Bush administration. Worse, it doesn't involve private behavior, but public conduct.

You see, for all the carnage in President Bush's budget, one program is being showered with additional cash - almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It's "abstinence only" sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration's much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But "abstinence only" is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There's a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins - it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

Look, I'm all for abstinence education. I support the booming abstinence industry as it peddles panties and boxers decorated with stop signs (at www.abstinence.net), and "Pet Your Dog, Not Your Date" T-shirts.

Abstinence education is great because it helps counteract the peer pressure that often leaves teenagers with broken hearts - and broken health.

For that reason, almost all sex-ed classes in America already encourage abstinence. But abstinence-only education isn't primarily about promoting abstinence - it's about blindly refusing to teach contraception.

To get federal funds, for example, abstinence-only programs are typically barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception - except to describe how they can fail. So kids in these programs go all through high school without learning anything but abstinence, even though more than 60 percent of American teenagers have sex before age 18.

In the old days, social conservatives simply fought any mention of sex. In 1906, The Ladies' Home Journal published articles about venereal disease - and 75,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. Congress banned the mailing of family planning information, and Margaret Sanger was jailed in 1916 for selling a birth control pamphlet to an undercover policewoman.

But silence about sex only nurtured venereal diseases (one New York doctor, probably exaggerating, claimed in 1904 that 60 percent of American men had syphilis or gonorrhea), so sex education gradually gained ground. Then social conservatives had a brilliant idea: instead of fighting sex ed directly, they campaigned for abstinence-only programs that eviscerated any discussion of contraception.

That shrewd approach succeeded. In 1988, a survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that only 2 percent of sex-ed teachers used an abstinence-only approach. Now, the institute says, a quarter of them do.

Other developed countries focus much more on contraception. The upshot is that while teenagers in the U.S. have about as much sexual activity as teenagers in Canada or Europe, Americans girls are four times as likely as German girls to become pregnant, almost five times as likely as French girls to have a baby, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion. Young Americans are five times as likely to have H.I.V. as young Germans, and teenagers' gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France.

Some studies have claimed that abstinence-only programs work, but researchers criticize the studies for being riddled with flaws. A National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy task force examined the issue and concluded: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy."

Worse, there's some evidence that abstinence-only programs lead to increases in unprotected sex.

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex - only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

In contrast, there's plenty of evidence that abstinence-plus programs - which encourage abstinence but also teach contraception - delay sex and increase the use of contraception. So, at a time when we're cutting school and health programs, why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS? Now, that's a scandal.

In addition to war, pollution, and inadequate health care, yet another way in which the Bush administration is hazardous to your health.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Yep, it's going to be another great 4 years.

[Millennium]

To say that current sex-education practices encourage abstinence is a joke. It's treated as a nonoption, as something which "isn't normal" or "isn't natural". Certainly it's touched on briefly, but the advantages are seriously downplayed, and it almost seems as though they're trying to make it the least appealing of all possible options. Is it any wonder that teenage instances of pregnancy and STDs are up over time, when we've basically been pushing them into sexual situations they're not ready for?

Bush's abstinence-only solution isn't the answer, but neither is the current abstinence-as-nonoption situation. Certainly there are multiple options, and this fact shouldn't be glossed over, but abstinence needs to be shown as the preferred option and -even more importantly- a perfectly normal thing.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Millennium:
To say that current sex-education practices encourage abstinence is a joke. It's treated as a nonoption, as something which "isn't normal" or "isn't natural". Certainly it's touched on briefly, but the advantages are seriously downplayed, and it almost seems as though they're trying to make it the least appealing of all possible options. Is it any wonder that teenage instances of pregnancy and STDs are up over time, when we've basically been pushing them into sexual situations they're not ready for?

Bush's abstinence-only solution isn't the answer, but neither is the current abstinence-as-nonoption situation. Certainly there are multiple options, and this fact shouldn't be glossed over, but abstinence needs to be shown as the preferred option and -even more importantly- a perfectly normal thing.

Holy Mother Of Crap -- Millennium and Mauy have agreed on something!




Maury

[Shaddim]

"Dem Wars II - Attack of the OP-EDs"

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Millennium:
To say that current sex-education practices encourage abstinence is a joke. It's treated as a nonoption, as something which "isn't normal" or "isn't natural".
...
Certainly there are multiple options, and this fact shouldn't be glossed over, but abstinence needs to be shown as the preferred option and -even more importantly- a perfectly normal thing.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong here. Millions of years of evolution have been based on non-abstinence. The natural drive to reproduce is often stronger than the drive for personal survival.
Tell me, Millennium, were you ever a teen? I lost my virginity at 16, after trying desperately to lose it ever since I hit puberty at 12.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by malvolio:
I lost my virginity at 16, after trying desperately to lose it ever since I hit puberty at 12.

Lucky bastard.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Lucky bastard.

Lucky for the 16 part or the 12 part? Man, those 4 years were hell!

[Moderator]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Tell me, Millennium, were you ever a teen? I lost my virginity at 16, after trying desperately to lose it ever since I hit puberty at 12.

No kidding...I was the same way and so are most humans.

My buddy teaches high school down in Mississippi...people won't talk about teen sex..its taboo. Adults won't acknowledge it. Forget suggesting condoms you may as well be condemmed to hell. Everyone's in a religion induced denial.

Meanwhile he has two pregnant forteen year old girls in his class and catches students (girls and boys) passing notes about who they're gonna **** this weekend with regularity.

sad...wishful thinking isn't gonna do ****. Most kids are gonna have sex sooner or later. When did helping them learn to be responsible and safe about it become a crime.

I'll bet they teach abstinance only in Saudi Arabia too...good 'ol conservitive values at work.

[Mac Guru]

I lost my virginity at 16, after trying desperately to lose it ever since I hit puberty at 12.

That's the most pathetic thing I've read all week. There's more to life that getting into someone's pants especially when you're 12!

At 12 years old I was focused on trying to do well in school, and hanging out with friends. NONE of my friends were so hell bent on getting laid. Personally I do agree that sex is a natural part of being a creature on this planet but a 12 year old needs to be a 12 year old and not having to deal with the responsibility of being sexually active is one of the great things about being a child.

Of course before you know it, being a child is gonna be illegal here anyway so I guess we should get a jump start on teaching them how to strap a condom no a banana. How's third grade for ya?

[macintologist]

Originally posted by malvolio:
I lost my virginity at 16, after trying desperately to lose it ever since I hit puberty at 12.

I lost it at 12.

Touche.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
That's the most pathetic thing I've read all week. There's more to life that getting into someone's pants especially when you're 12!

At 12 years old I was focused on trying to do well in school, and hanging out with friends. NONE of my friends were so hell bent on getting laid. Personally I do agree that sex is a natural part of being a creature on this planet but a 12 year old needs to be a 12 year old and not having to deal with the responsibility of being sexually active is one of the great things about being a child.

So - what? I should have dosed myself with saltpeter or something?
Hey, I hit puberty and I got the "urge to merge" bigtime. I still did all those fun childhood things like playing with my friends and stealing cigarets from the local supermarket.
But damn, I sure did want to get into some chick's pants!
BTW, this was back in the early 60s, before the "Sexual Revolution" and all the overt sexual content in the mass media that we have today.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
That's the most pathetic thing I've read all week. There's more to life that getting into someone's pants especially when you're 12!

At 12 years old I was focused on trying to do well in school, and hanging out with friends. NONE of my friends were so hell bent on getting laid.

That's the most pathetic thing I've read all week!

[Agent69]

Man, I just do not understand some people's hangups when it comes to sex.

[Mac Guru]

Sorry you feel that way. Personally I see success, and education as more important goals that 'racking up the number of chicks I've banged'.

You get further in life on your education that you do on what's in your pants.

But I guess pleasure comes before success in some people's lives.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
Personally I see success, and education as more important goals that 'racking up the number of chicks I've banged'.

You get further in life on your education that you do on what's in your pants.

But I guess pleasure comes before success in some people's lives.

In between bouts of near-terminal horniness, I somehow managed to become valedictorian of my high school graduating class. I later received my BA Summa C u m Laude with a 4.0 GPA.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
Sorry you feel that way. Personally I see success, and education as more important goals that 'racking up the number of chicks I've banged'.

You get further in life on your education that you do on what's in your pants.

But I guess pleasure comes before success in some people's lives.

Originally posted by malvolio:
In between bouts of near-terminal horniness, I somehow managed to become valedictorian of my high school graduating class. I later received my BA Summa C u m Laude with a 4.0 GPA.

And what do you do now? I know a couple people with 4.0s in college who are looking for jobs. I had a well below a 4.0 in college and I love my job and make more than 90% of the population in the USA. What has that got to do with your ability to control your hormones?

[Mac Guru]

And what do you do now? I know a couple people with 4.0s in college who are looking for jobs. I had a well below a 4.0 in college and I love my job and make more than 90% of the population in the USA. What has that got to do with your ability to control your hormones?

I loved the first episode of the School vs. Streets Aprentice where he said that one of the groups makes 3 TIMES as much as the other and it was the group without a college degree.

Book Smarts aren't everything, education comes from experiences as well as schooling. Some of the dumbest people I know had perfect grades in College. I didn't have BAD grades, but I wasn't a 4.0. I'm still successful and happy, and that's all that matters

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:


And what do you do now? I know a couple people with 4.0s in college who are looking for jobs. I had a well below a 4.0 in college and I love my job and make more than 90% of the population in the USA. What has that got to do with your ability to control your hormones?

Man, you guys have issues. All malvolio did was share a universal experience about being a horny teenager. Then, without justification, Mac Guru accuses him of being "pathetic" and tells us he should have been more focused on his education. When malvolio, with complete justification, points out that he was class valedictorian and graduated summa *** laude with a perfect 4.0, you jump on his ass because he was better than either of you at focusing on his education!

What a couple of self-righteous wankers.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Man, you guys have issues. All malvolio did was share a universal experience about being a horny teenager. Then, without justification, Mac Guru accuses him of being "pathetic" and tells us he should have been more focused on his education. When malvolio, with complete justification, points out that he was class valedictorian and graduated summa *** laude with a perfect 4.0, you jump on his ass because he was better than either of you at focusing on his education!

What a couple of self-righteous wankers.

Ooooo you sure told us.

So, you're saying a liberal has no control of his hormones and that is his defense.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If that makes me a "self-righteous wankers" for saying so, then so be it. I'll wear that badge proudly.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
So, you're saying a liberal has no control of his hormones and that is his defense.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If that makes me a "self-righteous wankers" for saying so, then so be it. I'll wear that badge proudly.

So you're saying that all those kids getting preggers thanks to abstinence-only sex "education" are liberals? Cool!
BTW, I never got anyone pregnant when I was a teen.

Oh and congratulations, Kilbey, for coming out of the closet about your self-righteous wankerhood.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
So you're saying that all those kids getting preggers thanks to abstinence-only sex "education" are liberals? Cool!
BTW, I never got anyone pregnant when I was a teen.

Oh and congratulations, Kilbey, for coming out of the closet about your self-righteous wankerhood.

Maybe the result of all those abstinence-only sex education classes are working.

Here's a nice little article from the CDC.

"Births:_ Final Data for 2002," from CDC�s National Center for Health Statistics shows that the teen birth rate declined by 30 percent over the past decade to a historic low and that the rate for black teens was down by more than 40 percent._ For young black teens (15 to 17 years) the results were even more striking�the rate was cut in half since 1991.

and

The average age at first birth was 25.1 years in 2002, an all-time high in the United States._ In 1970 the average age at first birth was 21.4 years.

I was out of the conservative "closet" for a couple decades now. No secrets here.

Congrats on not getting anyone pregnant. If you think that was sincere and that anyone should brag about it then you have a seriously skewed values system.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Ooooo you sure told us.

So, you're saying a liberal has no control of his hormones and that is his defense.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If that makes me a "self-righteous wankers" for saying so, then so be it. I'll wear that badge proudly.

Defense to what? All he did was tell us that he was a horny kid who lost his virginity at 16, and you and Mac Guru have turned it into a self-righteous rant about what good jobs you have! Unbelievable.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Defense to what? All he did was tell us that he was a horny kid who lost his virginity at 16, and you and Mac Guru have turned it into a self-righteous rant about what good jobs you have! Unbelievable.

You have very selective reading. And you can't follow the discussion very well either.

It's amazing that all you are doing is calling me names. I guess that's just how you operate eh?

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Maybe the result of all those abstinence-only sex education classes are working.

Here's a nice little article from the CDC.

and

I was out of the conservative "closet" for a couple decades now. No secrets here.

Congrats on not getting anyone pregnant. If you think that was sincere and that anyone should brag about it then you have a seriously skewed values system.

That article is based on data collected before the Bushies started imposing abstinence-only sex "education."
My no-pregnancies status was due to the fact that I got real sex ed (although I had to hunt up most of it myself).
"Sincere"? Your meaning escapes me.
Congratulations, Kilbey, you're doing great at giving conservatism an even worse image!

[Agent69]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
Sorry you feel that way. Personally I see success, and education as more important goals that 'racking up the number of chicks I've banged'.

Since when have the two been mutually exclusive? In reality, this is an effort against education.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You have very selective reading. And you can't follow the discussion very well either.

You're right - when you told us you make more money than 90% of all Americans, I had trouble following you, perhaps because your post had nothing to do with the thread. But do carry on.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
To say that current sex-education practices encourage abstinence is a joke.

It certainly is. Teaching teenagers how to wear condoms properly is fine, except that it's done with a "wink wink" attitude, or a complete resignation. Kids need to know that premarital sex is risky, emotionally and physically, and the need to hear from ALL adults that abstinence is the EXPECTATION.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You're right - when you told us you make more money than 90% of all Americans, I had trouble following you, perhaps because your post had nothing to do with the thread. But do carry on.

You are truly clueless aren't you.

You nit pick and slide right around the whole picture. You must be a Michael Moore prodigy the way you take things out of context so readily. Good luck with that. I hope you become happy in your deceptions. Ends justify the means and all that eh?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
That article is based on data collected before the Bushies started imposing abstinence-only sex "education."
My no-pregnancies status was due to the fact that I got real sex ed (although I had to hunt up most of it myself).
"Sincere"? Your meaning escapes me.
Congratulations, Kilbey, you're doing great at giving conservatism an even worse image!

Are all liberals as dense as you?

I will try to explain my self in a simple way so you understand. Small words and everything.

It is no great feat to not get anyone pregnant. It is admirable to wait for marriage to have sex for the first time with the one person you are going to spend the rest of your life with.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It is admirable to wait for marriage to have sex for the first time with the one person you are going to spend the rest of your life with.

That is your opinion, based on your religious training and beliefs.
I do not share either your opinion or your religion.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I had a well below a 4.0 in college and I love my job and make more than 90% of the population in the USA. What has that got to do with your ability to control your hormones?

Obviously malvolio set out at a young age to seek the attentions of the ladies, whereas you have been happy (nay, proud) to become an accomplished wanker.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by finboy:
Kids need to know that premarital sex is risky, emotionally and physically

That is factually not true.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That is factually not true.

Emotionally is debatable, but certainly not physically. The younger that people start having sex (presumably with multiple partners*) the more they are exposed to STDs.

*Based on various comments in this thread, there appears to be a belief that it is somehow odd that someone would wait to have sex until marriage and/or only have sex with one person.

Disclosure: I was in a serious (but not married) relationship a few years ago. Then I met my wife. She will have only been with one man (me) and I will have been with 2 women. Nothing to be proud of, but nothing to be ashamed of.

Not believing in sleeping around is not merely a religous idea. Some people just don't believe in one night stands.

[thunderous_funker]

Since when are kids sexual lives dictated by health class? Can anyone here honestly tell me that their attitude towards sexual activity was shaped in large part to what you learned in health class?

I was also unaware that kids were laboring under the misapprehension that sex was mandatory until the blessed health teacher told them otherwise thanks to President Bush.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Emotionally is debatable, but certainly not physically. The younger that people start having sex (presumably with multiple partners*) the more they are exposed to STDs.

*Based on various comments in this thread, there appears to be a belief that it is somehow odd that someone would wait to have sex until marriage and/or only have sex with one person.

Disclosure: I was in a serious (but not married) relationship a few years ago. Then I met my wife. She will have only been with one man (me) and I will have been with 2 women. Nothing to be proud of, but nothing to be ashamed of.

Not believing in sleeping around is not merely a religous idea. Some people just don't believe in one night stands.

Not believing premarital sex is a sin is not the same as "sleeping around".

Sex is a part of relationships. Some people have more than 2 serious relationships in their life.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not believing premarital sex is a sin is not the same as "sleeping around".

Sex is a part of relationships. Some people have more than 2 serious relationships in their life.

Thanks. All I'm saying that what is wrong with telling kids it's not a bad thing to wait a little while.

Trust me, if I could have, I probably would have tried to get laid when I was in high school.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Thanks. All I'm saying that what is wrong with telling kids it's not a bad thing to wait a little while.

Trust me, if I could have, I probably would have tried to get laid when I was in high school.

I would assume that most kids are told at home to wait a while. I don't think abstinence is a secret or being played down by lididinous health teachers as some in this thread seem to think.

I think conservatives do themselves a great disservice by thinking that relying on moral arguments instead of making very clear the natural worldly consequences of careless sex--not just pregnancy and STDs but the emotional consequences.

I don't know about anyone here, but being told sex was a sin all my life was almost zero deterrent to having sex. Terror over unwanted pregnancy was probably the most effective deterrent followed by natural performance anxiety--girls were intimidating enough without worrying about whether or not my technique was solid.

But considering that I never once got a "birds and bees" talk at home, without sex ed at school taking me through the gritty details who knows what emotional, physical or spiritual pitfalls might have ruined my young life.

Sex Ed isn't about "how to screw around without consequences". Preventing pregnancy is only part of the ciriculum. Or least, it was when I was a kid.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You are truly clueless aren't you.

You nit pick and slide right around the whole picture. You must be a Michael Moore prodigy the way you take things out of context so readily. Good luck with that. I hope you become happy in your deceptions. Ends justify the means and all that eh?

You endorsed Mac Guru's statement that we should measure ourselves by our educational achievements. Then, in the very same post, you disparaged malvolio's outstanding educational achievements. Please explain the logic in that, so we can be relieved of our cluelessness.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
That is your opinion, based on your religious training and beliefs.
I do not share either your opinion or your religion.

Religious training?!?! I must have slept through that.

It's not a religion issue really. It's a love and honor issue.

I have great respect for anyone who waits for the right person to have such an intimate encounter. Marriage is such a commitment worthy of a pure marital bed.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Religious training?!?! I must have slept through that.

It's not a religion issue really. It's a love and honor issue.

I have great respect for anyone who waits for the right person to have such an intimate encounter. Marriage is such a commitment worthy of a pure marital bed.

Love and honor only occur in relationships that become marriages?

Sex means lots of things, not just love or intimacy. In fact, sex means different things even between the same two people over time. You can't put it in a box and say "Sex means this and should be reserved for that". Just as you can't limit love or intimacy or any of the other million variables of human inter-relationships.

I consider myself lucky to have been taken to bed by many wonderful women in my life. All of them meant something special and none of them meant the same thing.

Now I'm married and happily monogamous and that's a wonderful thing too, but it doesn't make all the other intimate moments and people in my life meaningless or worthless or shameful. Quite the contrary.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Obviously malvolio set out at a young age to seek the attentions of the ladies, whereas you have been happy (nay, proud) to become an accomplished wanker.

No, he was trying to get laid.

I sought the attention of the ladies. I just was looking for the right one. Not anyone.

You guys and the name calling. Am I on an elementary school playground or the 'NN poli/lounge?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You endorsed Mac Guru's statement that we should measure ourselves by our educational achievements. Then, in the very same post, you disparaged malvolio's outstanding educational achievements. Please explain the logic in that, so we can be relieved of our cluelessness.

This is what I was endorsing:

Sorry you feel that way. Personally I see success, and education as more important goals that 'racking up the number of chicks I've banged'.

But I guess pleasure comes before success in some people's lives.

I thought that was made clear with my comment on education right below it.

But I guess I assumed too much for you. Do you understand it now? Should I use smaller words and sentences?

[Agent69]

All this talk about love and sex and how they mean different things to different people, reminds me of a quote:

"Making love is something that women do while men are ****ing them."

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Love and honor only occur in relationships that become marriages?

Sex means lots of things, not just love or intimacy. In fact, sex means different things even between the same two people over time. You can't put it in a box and say "Sex means this and should be reserved for that". Just as you can't limit love or intimacy or any of the other million variables of human inter-relationships.

I consider myself lucky to have been taken to bed by many wonderful women in my life. All of them meant something special and none of them meant the same thing.

Now I'm married and happily monogamous and that's a wonderful thing too, but it doesn't make all the other intimate moments and people in my life meaningless or worthless or shameful. Quite the contrary.

Look, defend premarital sex all you want. You seem to have had a great physical time with it.

But ask you wife this before you go to bed tonight: "Which would you have preferred, us marrying as virgins and experiencing sex together for the first time, or me bringing the experiences of sex with other women to compare you to with me to our marriage bed?"

I think I can be 98% sure of her answer.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
This is what I was endorsing:

I thought that was made clear with my comment on education right below it.

But I guess I assumed too much for you. Do you understand it now? Should I use smaller words and sentences?

Ah, I see - you get to skip sentences, but the rest of us are "selective readers" and "take things out of context." Clever, but dishonest.

You've conveniently left this out of your quote: "You get further in life on your education than you do on what's in your pants," which malvolio was responding to when you questioned the value of his rather outstanding education and bragged about your income. Sorta contradictory. So, yeah, I guess you should start using smaller words and sentences so we can follow you - it can be difficult.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Ah, I see - you get to skip sentences, but the rest of us are "selective readers" and "take things out of context." Clever, but dishonest.

I clarified for you so you would understand. That is why I left it out.

It's not dishonest. It was simply difficult for you to understand. Hence the use of small words for your benefit.

Originally posted by zigzag:
You've conveniently left this out of your quote: "You get further in life on your education than you do on what's in your pants," which malvolio was responding to when you questioned the value of his rather outstanding education and bragged about your income. Sorta contradictory. So, yeah, I guess you should start using smaller words and sentences so we can follow you - it can be difficult.

I didn't question the value of his "outstanding" education. I was stating that there's more to life than trying to get laid. It's actually honorable to wait until marriage.

malvolio was bragging about his education. I wasn't bragging about my income. I was showing how someone can have a rewarding life by doing what's right. I made the comment about my income to state that just because you have a 4.0 in anything isn't a guarantee of success or a achievement that gives you respect and carte blanche. I worked hard in college. My grades were earned, but I'll admit they were low. Maybe I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I work hard and I show respect to women.

You can defend his behavior all you want. It makes you as shallow as he is.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
But ask you wife this before you go to bed tonight: "Which would you have preferred, us marrying as virgins and experiencing sex together for the first time, or me bringing the experiences of sex with other women to compare you to with me to our marriage bed?"

I think I can be 98% sure of her answer.

"Oh honey, I'm so glad you were totally inexperienced and clumsy! It was so endearing the way you had no clue how to turn me on."

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by malvolio:
"Oh honey, I'm so glad you were totally inexperienced and clumsy! It was so endearing the way you had no clue how to turn me on."

[christ]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
...I think I can be 98% sure of her answer.

That's what makes you a conservative.