[Shaddim]

or we can go with the male "pill". Give it to them with their milk once /month. No, I'm not kidding.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
then that needs to be addressed and revised.

Well, if they are pregnant, they have to be responsible one way or the other. `Punishing' the vast majority that won't be pregnant during her teen years, it would be inacceptable to this majority.

I don't think you have any idea what scope your proposal has. In Germany it would contradict the single most important article of our constitution (atricle 1, obviously). Since many modern constitutions borrowed strongly from the German one (e. g. Spain, Portugal), I think this is a no-go in those countries as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
or we can go with the male "pill". Give it to them with their milk once /month. No, I'm not kidding.

The male `pill' (for all I know, it's still an injection once a month), it is still in (early) development.

[andi*pandi]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just a thought, but why don't we require that all girls starting HS must get on the "pill"? That combined with COMPLETE sex education starting in 6th grade should make a difference.

Might be easier just to give all boys a vasectomy until the age of 18. I mean, it's reversable and has no ill effects, right?

The pill is an intrusive chemical that changes moods, causes other medical problems as well as controlling bodily fertility. It's NOT for everyone.

"It's their body"? When they learn how to treat it better and be more responsible, they can have it back. Besides, they're minors, once they reach 18 they can decide whether to get off the pill or not.

It takes two to tango, comrade. Why punish just the girls? Tsk tsk. And are you advocating telling parents how to raise their children?

I'm not sure we're ready for mandatory birth control yet, citizen. But your comments have been duly noted and will be reported to your regional officer.


(i do hope someone else besides me has read 1984, not just seen the apple commercial.)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, if they are pregnant, they have to be responsible one way or the other. `Punishing' the vast majority that won't be pregnant during her teen years, it would be inacceptable to this majority.

I don't think you have any idea what scope your proposal has. In Germany it would contradict the single most important article of our constitution (atricle 1, obviously). Since many modern constitutions borrowed strongly from the German one (e. g. Spain, Portugal), I think this is a no-go in those countries as well.

It's got to change one way or the other. Either we change popular culture and make sex less prevalent, or we make our kids truly prepared. I know girls who are under 18 and have already had 5+ abortions (and terrible internal scarring). This is unacceptable, not only from a moral and grief standpoint, but also from an economic.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
Might be easier just to give all boys a vasectomy until the age of 18. I mean, it's reversable and has no ill effects, right?

The pill is an intrusive chemical that changes moods, causes other medical problems as well as controlling bodily fertility. It's NOT for everyone.



It takes two to tango, comrade. Why punish just the girls? Tsk tsk. And are you advocating telling parents how to raise their children?

I'm not sure we're ready for mandatory birth control yet, citizen. But your comments have been duly noted and will be reported to your regional officer.


(i do hope someone else besides me has read 1984, not just seen the apple commercial.)

nice drama. But "mankind" doesn't seem to be capable of handling things of this nature right now, so it would logically seem that something needs to be done to intervene.

No, it doesn't have to be the girls, give guys "the pill". I don't care which way it gets stemmed, but it has to happen somewhere.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The male `pill' (for all I know, it's still an injection once a month), it is still in (early) development.

Neccessity is the mother of invention.

the Male pill is already in production, it just needs to be utilized.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's got to change one way or the other. Either we change popular culture and make sex less prevalent, or we make our kids truly prepared. I know girls who are under 18 and have already had 5+ abortions (and terrible internal scarring). This is unacceptable, not only from a moral and grief standpoint, but also from an economic.

Any successful attempt at resolving this issue is going to have to be directed at dealing with the 'popular culture'. At the moment, selling padded bras and thongs to 10 year olds appears to be socially acceptable.

It's not an issue that is going to be resolved by stupid government initiatives such as this latest one, neither will forcing people in to taking the pill work. How the heck do you enforce that? Going to make it part of the school teacher's job? "Right girls, everyone take one of these pills and a glass of water".

I DON'T think so.

[andi*pandi]

sorry macnstein, I was up in full rant before you posted your thoughts on the male pill.

male pill:

Equal opportunity makes infringing on rights better--but still creepy.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Any successful attempt at resolving this issue is going to have to be directed at dealing with the 'popular culture'. At the moment, selling padded bras and thongs to 10 year olds appears to be socially acceptable.

It's not an issue that is going to be resolved by stupid government initiatives such as this latest one, neither will forcing people in to taking the pill work. How the heck do you enforce that? Going to make it part of the school teacher's job? "Right girls, everyone take one of these pills and a glass of water".

I DON'T think so.

No, I agree, it's not the school teacher's job and it's not the gov't's job. It's the parent's job, though parents are generally too ignorant or uncaring to make an impact.

The other problem is, we either stifle the rights of the advertisers, musicians, and movie-makers, OR we become more aggressive with prevention. Since advertisers and "pop" culture icons are the ones with the most money, they'll be much more successful in litigation. That's just the way it goes.

Maybe we give out a special carton of milk or similar beverage to boys in school once /month. That beverage containing the same hormone as the male pill. What I see as a problem here is that girls go after older guys, generally. It would require us to enforce statutory rape laws, but it can be done. Combine that with MUCH better education in the few years before puberty, I think the worst part of all this can be rectified.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Actually he mentioned jr high. And I can argue for him as well cause we had 3 when I was in jr high that were pregnant..and I'm only 23.

I am 17 and we don't have any that are pregnant out of the 1200 students at my school...



Then again, we don't have girls at my school so that might explain it. But I don't know any girls out of school that are either.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
I am 17 and we don't have any that are pregnant out of the 1200 students at my school...

Then again, we don't have girls at my school so that might explain it.

ROFL

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
nice drama. But "mankind" doesn't seem to be capable of handling things of this nature right now, so it would logically seem that something needs to be done to intervene.

No, it doesn't have to be the girls, give guys "the pill". I don't care which way it gets stemmed, but it has to happen somewhere.

A male pill is not a good idea, for many reasons.

1. It would have to be 100% effective, 100% of the time - if a single sperm survived, it could make the entire process pointless. 100% effectiveness over a large period of time is very difficult to attain.

2. It would have to target sperm production (most likely), which could have effects later in life depending on how it was carried out. What would they target, again? Sertoli cells? They don't divide - if something goes wrong, and kills them, you're sterile forever.

3. It would take up to 74 days to take effect (again, depending on how it worked) - by the time sperm is released, that's how old it is.

4. It just makes no sense. Do you try to taint every one of the enemy's bullets, before they're fired, or do you build a big ****-off wall around homebase, and pull it down when it's bullet-ridden to replace it with a new one? Bingo. The latter. Logistically, a male pill is an uphill battle.

5. Even if it DOES work, if it's not 100% effective, that's it. Once the sperm is inside the female body, then what?

True, having both a male and female pill simultaneously could decrease chances of pregnancy... but I don't like the way it would have to work. At all.

[OptimusG4]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
I am 17 and we don't have any that are pregnant out of the 1200 students at my school...



Then again, we don't have girls at my school so that might explain it. But I don't know any girls out of school that are either.

Well thats good then. I can't say if there are any now but I just know in jr high it was a shock to see a 13yr old pregnant.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yes, my mom has had one while trying to become pregnant. Almost cost her ability to get kids. But that wasn't at all what I was talking about.

My point is, having sex while the gal is on her menstrual cycle can easily cause tubal pregnancies.

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Most of the abortions arise from not using condoms at all or using them in the wrong way (I'm not talking about accidents such as rupture, but misapplication). Maybe in your social environment you only see people that use them as `birth control', but at least I haven't heard of that since girls can get the regular pill in Germany, if they want (and if there aren't any medical reasons against the use of the pill). Sometimes girls forget to take their daily pill and resort to the pill on the day after (if they have had sexual intercourse).

Look at the statistics. Abortions and the day after pill is most used because of laziness on both sides.

"Oh well, I can just get an abortion, or take the morning after pill, lets do it anyhow!"

My aunt used to work in one of these clinics.

I'm not sure where your misperception stems from, but you should go and experience some real life.

How silly.
There is no misperception.
I have seen it FIRST HAND. in REAL LIFE.
[quote][b]
Being an adult just doesn't stop at being responsible for your actions,[quote][b]Not just and adult, but everyone.

but it also requires you to be in touch and accept risks and choices for benefits. When you drive a car, you are always potentially endangering yourself and others. If you are too young (as far as maturity and experience is concerned), you are posing a greater risk to your surroundings in a car (as well as to yourself). But because of the benefits of mobility, you use a car.

You can't really compare the two. I've seen people try to use that poor car analogy with drugs. "Hey man, you take your risks d00d"

So if you are not avoiding responsibility (here: by not having sex at all), you certainly do not take on the responsibility, you are avoiding it.

No, not true at all. By NOT having sex you are INDEED being responsible. You are saying "I am not old enough to take on a child, therefore I will wait till I am." And THAT IS being responsible.

[Zimphire]

Check the stats.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
A male pill is not a good idea, for many reasons.

1. It would have to be 100% effective, 100% of the time - if a single sperm survived, it could make the entire process pointless. 100% effectiveness over a large period of time is very difficult to attain.

2. It would have to target sperm production (most likely), which could have effects later in life depending on how it was carried out. What would they target, again? Sertoli cells? They don't divide - if something goes wrong, and kills them, you're sterile forever.

3. It would take up to 74 days to take effect (again, depending on how it worked) - by the time sperm is released, that's how old it is.

4. It just makes no sense. Do you try to taint every one of the enemy's bullets, before they're fired, or do you build a big ****-off wall around homebase, and pull it down when it's bullet-ridden to replace it with a new one? Bingo. The latter. Logistically, a male pill is an uphill battle.

5. Even if it DOES work, if it's not 100% effective, that's it. Once the sperm is inside the female body, then what?

True, having both a male and female pill simultaneously could decrease chances of pregnancy... but I don't like the way it would have to work. At all.

It's the best idea on the table. Even at 99%, or whatever, it's better than nothing. Given mankind's ingenuity, an effective type of birth control for this application CAN be found. I see that and education being the only logical choice we have.

Sterility? There's a much higher risk of it during an abortion procedure, and we're not even talking about the emotional scarring of killing one's baby... and no matter how you spin it, that's what the girl IS going to think.

Don't like the idea, offer a better one.

[hyteckit]

Screw bill control pills and condoms. They are evil! Life is a blessing from God.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Screw bill control pills and condoms. They are evil! Life is a blessing from God.

We can always trust you to add something constructive to a conversation.

[Luca Rescigno]

Yes, and if a man masturbates or a woman menstruates, it is murder of a potential life. BAN MASTURBATION/MENSTRUATION NOW!

I prefer to think of masturbation as also being a blessing from God. Well, no, since I don't believe in God, but if I did, that's what I would think. Go God! Thanks for the Internet!

[OH-N'omac]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The male `pill' (for all I know, it's still an injection once a month), it is still in (early) development.

There's an alternative too, just lower your testicles into very hot water. The lil buggers can't thrive in high temperatures.

From http://www.knotmag.com/?article=1272

Simple Heat
This method supposedly dates back to ancient times, when men would literally squat on hot rocks to decrease their fertility. The idea is that if the testicles get heated at the right temperature (about 115 degrees) for a few minutes a day for a few weeks, it can produce up to 6 months of infertility. After that, fertility returns (with a vengeance, actually) unless the process is repeated. While boiling your balls might not sound like the most fun, in one study a majority of men found the sensation to be neutral or even pleasant. The advantages are clear: Hot water is basically free, it's not something you have to do during or immediately before sex, and it doesn't affect mood or sex drive.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Yes, and if a man masturbates or a woman menstruates, it is murder of a potential life. BAN MASTURBATION/MENSTRUATION NOW!

Only if you are a Catholic.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Only if you are a Catholic.

It's a mental lapse, they believe that all Christians are Roman Catholic.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My point is, having sex while the gal is on her menstrual cycle can easily cause tubal pregnancies.

Look at the statistics. Abortions and the day after pill is most used because of laziness on both sides.

"Oh well, I can just get an abortion, or take the morning after pill, lets do it anyhow!"

My aunt used to work in one of these clinics.
[/b]
How silly.
There is no misperception.
I have seen it FIRST HAND. in REAL LIFE.
[/b] You can't really compare the two. I've seen people try to use that poor car analogy with drugs. "Hey man, you take your risks d00d"

No, not true at all. By NOT having sex you are INDEED being responsible. You are saying "I am not old enough to take on a child, therefore I will wait till I am." And THAT IS being responsible. [/B]

Yes, whatever.
I gotta go and do something useful now.

And yes, you're clearly not old enough to take on a child, I agree with you on that one point.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yes, whatever.
I gotta go and something useful now.

You did at least read the info right?

And yes, you're clearly not old enough to take on a child, I agree with you on that one point.

What makes me not old enough? Because I proved what I said was right?

You make no sense.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You did at least read the info right?

What makes me not old enough? Because I proved what I said was right?

You make no sense. [/B]

Don't pretend to be stupid. Please, this is tiring.

No, I've learnt some kanjis instead and did my laundry.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Don't pretend to be stupid. Please, this is tiring.

Again, you aren't making sense.

[SamuraiDL]

saltpeter Potassium nitrate (and Sodium nitrate).

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by SamuraiDL:
saltpeter Potassium nitrate (and Sodium nitrate).

Bromide would be a better solution.

[SamuraiDL]

How so?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's the best idea on the table. Even at 99%, or whatever, it's better than nothing. Given mankind's ingenuity, an effective type of birth control for this application CAN be found. I see that and education being the only logical choice we have.

Sterility? There's a much higher risk of it during an abortion procedure, and we're not even talking about the emotional scarring of killing one's baby... and no matter how you spin it, that's what the girl IS going to think.

Don't like the idea, offer a better one.

No, it isn't. Did you not read/understand any of what I said?

For all the reasons I mentioned, it is not a good option at all.

I'm not offering a better idea, but I'm telling you what's wrong with yours. When I offer one, you can do the same.

Learn some physiology before you start throwing random ideas out there.

[nchaimov]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
A male pill is not a good idea, for many reasons.

2. It would have to target sperm production (most likely), which could have effects later in life depending on how it was carried out. What would they target, again? Sertoli cells? They don't divide - if something goes wrong, and kills them, you're sterile forever.

Actually, recent research has found that there are 351 genes expressed solely in the male germline during spermatogenesis that are not expressed in other tissues, and that disruption of most of these genes causes reversible infertility. Citation 1. Citation 2

Originally posted by Cipher13:
3. It would take up to 74 days to take effect (again, depending on how it worked) - by the time sperm is released, that's how old it is.
[/B]

Not necessarily. You could also target the release of the sperm, or the sperm themselves. For example, a voltage-gated ion channel was recently discovered which is expressed in mature spermatozoa but not in other cell types which could be targeted by a male contraceptive. Cite

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
No, it isn't. Did you not read/understand any of what I said?

For all the reasons I mentioned, it is not a good option at all.

I'm not offering a better idea, but I'm telling you what's wrong with yours. When I offer one, you can do the same.

Learn some physiology before you start throwing random ideas out there.

Nah, I'll throw I ideas regardless, neither you or I know all there is to be known on this subject. Given your own ignorance on the complete subject and given that others have offered constructive information (like in the post above this), perhaps you're not the most informed person in this discussion.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nah, I'll throw I ideas regardless, neither you or I know all there is to be known on this subject. Given your own ignorance on the complete subject and given that others have offered constructive information (like in the post above this), perhaps you're not the most informed person in this discussion.

Nobody knows "all there is to be known" on the subject, and your own ignorance far outperforms mine. I never claimed to be the most informed person on this, but I do have a level of knowledge on the subject that it seems you do not.

Additionally, you'll realise I'm argueing against the male pill. nchaimov cited three references with ideas on possible ways a male pill could take effect - there's nothing solid there at all. Nothing whatsoever.

Great, 351 genes are germline exclusive - so what? How do you propose we alter the genetics of the sperm so as to make them infertile? I'd love to hear an idea on this. I have one or two - they're chemical, and when using something chemical to effect gene expression (would it even effect expression? Doubtful, as that's far too dangerous) or genetic composition after the fact (possible - use something to deactivate a sequence necessary for fertility) is haphazard.

Targetting the ion-gated channel is a possibility, sure. Quite a good one, infact. Thanks for the reference, nchaimov, it was very interesting.

The problem here is that you (nchaimov and MacNStein) do not understand my point.

I could have mentioned any of a hundred methods by which a male pill could be implemented - interrupt spermatogenesis (in stage 3, perhaps, stop the flagellum from forming); create an enzyme that fits inside the lumen of a sertoli cell, to stop it from producing sperm altogether; etc, etc. But the issue is logistical; the reason I'm argueing against a male pill is not because of how technologically/scientifically close we are to being able to figure something out with regard to it, it's because there's an easier solution.

What solution is that? To target the destination of the sperm. The method by which "The Pill" works (which I'm sure you're aware of, MacNStein, as you seem so knowledgable on the topic) is extremely effective, as it doesn't need to target the egg directly. Granted, a male pill may not need to target sperm directly, but the mechanisms which allow for pregnancy to take place in a female are far more effectively controllable than in a male, and take a 'sledgehammer' approach. They have several lines of defense, additionally; 1. Stop ovulation. 2. Failing that, don't let the sperm reach the egg. 3. Failing that, if the sperm reaches the egg, don't allow attachment to the uterus wall.

That last step is incredibly effective - moreso than any male pill could be. Remember, it only takes a fraction of the total sperm to be unaffected by a male pill to cause a pregnancy.

[andi*pandi]

Cipher, I imagine the whole reason they are attempting to develop a male pill is that they realize the faults with the female pill.

a) it puts all the responsibility on the female;

b) the female pill is not without its negative side effects, so while you're concerned about male fertility, have a little concern for female health as well;

c) effectiveness. Even if a woman takes the pill religiously every day, there have been cases of it not working. The percentage is 98.

Point being that any method of chemical birth control will have side effects on the user. And it might be nice if men had to take some risks/responsibility for birth control.

[Eriamjh]

I thought the typical male went into sleep mode after a proper helping of oral sex?

The point is to reduce pregnancy. If 50% of males are done after receiving oral sex, then 50% less sex should lead to 50% less pregnancy, right?

Sounds like a valid theory. Let's test it!

[nchaimov]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Great, 351 genes are germline exclusive - so what? How do you propose we alter the genetics of the sperm so as to make them infertile? I'd love to hear an idea on this. I have one or two - they're chemical, and when using something chemical to effect gene expression (would it even effect expression? Doubtful, as that's far too dangerous) or genetic composition after the fact (possible - use something to deactivate a sequence necessary for fertility) is haphazard.

The suggestion is not that we alter the genetics of the sperm or any of the cells that give rise to the sperm. The importance of the existence of the 351 unique genes is that these correspond to proteins which are likely also unique: "On the basis of these screens ... we estimated that >200 unique sperm proteins existed." Clearly, modifying the genetic composition of cells would be too dangerous, as would directly effecting gene expression. Instead, one would develop an inhibitor for one of the protein products coded for by the genes in question, or one would modify gene expression indirectly by acting on regulatory protein several layers removed from the genes themselves. These are very common mechanisms by which drugs work. For example, female birth control pills generally contain, among their active ingredients, chemical analogues of estradiol. These bind to the estrogen receptor protein, which then binds to DNA and changes the levels of gene expression. For a drug to effect gene expression, albeit indirectly, is very common, and not necessarily dangerous.

Many of the protein targets are present in immature and in mature spermatozoa, so the drug's effectiveness would be increased by its targeting several stages of spermatogenesis: "... Because the genes are seemingly expressed exclusively in germ cells, inhibitory drugs would be expected to have few side effects. That a vast majority of germ cell-specific transcripts are expressed only late in development (during or after meiosis) also suggests that most of these protein products are likely also present in mature spermatozoa."

I could have mentioned any of a hundred methods by which a male pill could be implemented - interrupt spermatogenesis (in stage 3, perhaps, stop the flagellum from forming); create an enzyme that fits inside the lumen of a sertoli cell, to stop it from producing sperm altogether; etc, etc. But the issue is logistical; the reason I'm argueing against a male pill is not because of how technologically/scientifically close we are to being able to figure something out with regard to it, it's because there's an easier solution.

I agree: the development of an effective male oral contraceptive is far more difficult than the development of corresponding female oral contraceptives. I do not, however, think that this means that developing male oral contraceptives is not worth doing. If there are males who desire such a product -- and are willing to pay a drug company for said product -- why should the drug companies not develop such a product?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
...a) it puts all the responsibility on the female...

Make the male give the female the pill. I give it to my wife every single night. It works great and gives us both a sense of responsibility.

[hyteckit]

You do realize djohnson manufactures a large assortment of sex toys for men and women. Teaching kids it's okay to masturbate and use sex toys as a alternative to sexual intercourse will lead to lower teenage pregnancies.

Go buy djohnson sex toys, they are great.

VOTE djohnson president!

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
You do realize djohnson manufactures a large assortment of sex toys for men and women. Teaching kids it's okay to masturbate and use sex toys as a alternative to sexual intercourse will lead to lower teenage pregnancies.

Go buy djohnson sex toys, they are great.

VOTE djohnson president!

Yes! All parents should buy their kids cute, brightly colored sex toys!

I can imagine Santa getting a whole new kind of christmas list from kids.

"Dear Santa,

I've been a very good girl, and I would like to get the Barbie 12" double-ended jelly dong, a yellow extra large vibrating butt-plug, and the 'lil dominatrix leather restraint starter kit.

Merry Christmas,
Sally
-Age 11"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Yes! All parents should buy their kids cute, brightly colored sex toys!

I can imagine Santa getting a whole new kind of christmas list from kids.

"Dear Santa,

I've been a very good girl, and I would like to get the Barbie 12" double-ended jelly dong, a yellow extra large vibrating butt-plug, and the 'lil dominatrix leather restraint starter kit.

Merry Christmas,
Sally
-Age 11"

Best post of this thread.

BTW your sig..

[saddam hussein]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
How long until we start encouraging boys to blow each-other? I can't Wait!

Fixed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by saddam hussein:
Fixed.

No, your still broken.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
You do realize djohnson manufactures a large assortment of sex toys for men and women. Teaching kids it's okay to masturbate and use sex toys as a alternative to sexual intercourse will lead to lower teenage pregnancies.

Go buy djohnson sex toys, they are great.

VOTE djohnson president!

Ummm...

[Ghoser777]

Just sterilize all the boys... or all the girls. Either way, that solves the teenage pregnancy problem!

Might cause some population issues later though... but we would have addressed the issue at hand.

:end tongue and cheek:

Matt Fahrenbacher

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW your sig..

Thanks!

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Just sterilize all the boys... or all the girls. Either way, that solves the teenage pregnancy problem!

Might cause some population issues later though... but we would have addressed the issue at hand.

:end tongue and cheek:

Matt Fahrenbacher

Dude! It's brilliant. In 100 years, we will have solved all the world's problems. No more war, or hunger, or (new) pollution!

[hyteckit]

Instilling kids with the fear of STD's and pregnancy isn't working. I say we need to put all the kids in Cathlotic school and instill the fear of God and Hell in them. Scare the sh*t out of them so they don't go around committing sin. Those evil kids need to learn how to keep their pants on.

[saddam hussein]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, your still broken.

Did Jesus tell you that?

[Mister Elf]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Instilling kids with the fear of STD's and pregnancy isn't working. I say we need to put all the kids in Cathlotic school and instill the fear of God and Hell in them. Scare the sh*t out of them so they don't go around committing sin. Those evil kids need to learn how to keep their pants on.

Get a grip. Not everyone (indeed, almost no one here) shares your beliefs. And I assure you if my parents had tried to put me in a Catholic school with those nun bitches I would have murdered them in their sleeps.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
Get a grip. Not everyone (indeed, almost no one here) shares your beliefs. And I assure you if my parents had tried to put me in a Catholic school with those nun bitches I would have murdered them in their sleeps.

Don't overreact or anything. Murder is a bit strong. I assume that you would just anally rape them...