You will not believe this

[pax 1]

...who the hell is anyone to take the piss? There should be no core or no argument...how these people want to raise their children is their business and no one else's. yanno?

I think it was this part of your post to which I referred.

Part of the liberal problem in this country is that we've stopped standing up for our own beliefs. Diversity of opinion is wonderful, and there are many situations in which healthy, practical compromises can and should be reached. This, however, does not mean that beliefs that diverge from the current Christianist-military-"patriotic"-corporate melange have somehow been collectively invalidated, and that both grass-roots liberals and liberals in positions of leadership and power should kowtow to every whim of the Bushites and the Bush-lites.

Which is to say that when we see somethind we feel to be pointless or dangerous, we should say so, and not continually natter about worrying that what we say might be offensive. The Republicans figured this out years ago.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

...who the hell is anyone to take the piss? There should be no core or no argument...how these people want to raise their children is their business and no one else's. yanno?

I think it was this part of your post to which I referred.

Part of the liberal problem in this country is that we've stopped standing up for our own beliefs. Diversity of opinion is wonderful, and there are many situations in which healthy, practical compromises can and should be reached. This, however, does not mean that beliefs that diverge from the current Christianist-military-"patriotic"-corporate melange have somehow been collectively invalidated, and that both grass-roots liberals and liberals in positions of leadership and power should kowtow to every whim of the Bushites and the Bush-lites.

Which is to say that when we see somethind we feel to be pointless or dangerous, we should say so, and not continually natter about worrying that what we say might be offensive. The Republicans figured this out years ago.

Well said!

[Jenn! 918]

...who the hell is anyone to take the piss? There should be no core or no argument...how these people want to raise their children is their business and no one else's. yanno?

I think it was this part of your post to which I referred.

Part of the liberal problem in this country is that we've stopped standing up for our own beliefs. Diversity of opinion is wonderful, and there are many situations in which healthy, practical compromises can and should be reached. This, however, does not mean that beliefs that diverge from the current Christianist-military-"patriotic"-corporate melange have somehow been collectively invalidated, and that both grass-roots liberals and liberals in positions of leadership and power should kowtow to every whim of the Bushites and the Bush-lites.

Which is to say that when we see somethind we feel to be pointless or dangerous, we should say so, and not continually natter about worrying that what we say might be offensive. The Republicans figured this out years ago.

Sometimes I feel like I don't really have my opinion on anything anymore because I'm constantly qualifying everything with some statement that makes it clear that all opinions are valid.

[ceriserose 1]

The writing style is, I believe, meant to be inflammatory. Writers like responses.

I think what bothers me most about the scenario is where is the cotillion for the boys? I'd like to see a similar ritual of declared abstinence. Because we all know it takes two to tango...

[Fandango 1,440]

Welcome to the world of Mark Morford! He tends to write editorials in this tone; it's his trademark, and while I can see how it could be conceived as insulting, most of his readers think he is hilarious. It's more tongue-in-cheek than right-out serious.

However, as much I enjoy reading his editorials, I do think he's another outgrowth of current degenerated public discourse. I wonder if Ann Coulter's editorials which are at least as offensive in tone and not meant to be satire but rather outright assaults would cause the same reaction among those on here who are offended by MM.

As to the topic, he's right on. There's nothing wrong which encouraging kids to learn about sexuality, and knowing about it doesn't mean not being to able to wait until marriage if one wants to. Quite the contrary, sex education helps most people to make educated choices and to not rely on experience exclusively.

Glad to see you...did the airport fire hinder anything for your trip?

Afaic, t's not a conservative/liberal fight to me...I would be just as annoyed with AC (if I read her, which I don't) I just don't get why every conversation has to come down to this power stuggle where it's comes down to party lines. It's not 'if MM pisses you off you love AC' or if a=b then c must be true.

Tongue in cheek or whatever, of course it's his right to say what he wants, but I think it's kinda rude & without purpose. Whether or not I would live my life like these people is an entirely separate matter to why people seem so offended that they are living it the way they are. I think that's the point the OP was making...not how ppl personally feel about child rearing & sexuality.

Edited May 30, 2006 by LisaD

[ladyspotthedog 0]

Well, personally I liked and agreed with the article, I think his comments about female sexual repression was right on and, after all, how could children as young as 6 really make this 'pledge' and know what they were saying/doing and what it really meant?

I say....education, education, education>>>>>knock on effects>>>>informed chioces and right decisions for individuals...surely no one can argue with that??????

[Jenn! 918]

I say....education, education, education>>>>>knock on effects>>>>informed chioces and right decisions for individuals...surely no one can argue with that??????

I wouldn't be so sure! People can argue with anything!

[ladyspotthedog 0]

I wouldn't be so sure! People can argue with anything!

Ain't that the truth

Sitting back awaiting the flack

[ceriserose 1]

I say....education, education, education>>>>>knock on effects>>>>informed chioces and right decisions for individuals...surely no one can argue with that??????

I wouldn't be so sure! People can argue with anything!

I was going to say...there was a multiple page thread where that point was argued quite vehemently...albeit mainly as to who should be doing the educating (parents vs school).

Personally I don't care how a child gets the education, as long as it's age-appropriate, timely, and healthy.

*lives in a county with an extremely high teen pregnancy population*

[ladyspotthedog 0]

I say....education, education, education>>>>>knock on effects>>>>informed chioces and right decisions for individuals...surely no one can argue with that??????

I wouldn't be so sure! People can argue with anything!

I was going to say...there was a multiple page thread where that point was argued quite vehemently...albeit mainly as to who should be doing the educating (parents vs school).

Personally I don't care how a child gets the education, as long as it's age-appropriate, timely, and healthy.

*lives in a county with an extremely high teen pregnancy population*

Yep now there's a whole different kettle of fish of which I will keep my opinions to myself (for the moment)

[ceriserose 1]

I say....education, education, education>>>>>knock on effects>>>>informed chioces and right decisions for individuals...surely no one can argue with that??????

I wouldn't be so sure! People can argue with anything!

I was going to say...there was a multiple page thread where that point was argued quite vehemently...albeit mainly as to who should be doing the educating (parents vs school).

Personally I don't care how a child gets the education, as long as it's age-appropriate, timely, and healthy.

*lives in a county with an extremely high teen pregnancy population*

Yep now there's a whole different kettle of fish of which I will keep my opinions to myself (for the moment)

Bah, Eddie wants you to speak your mind...

*runs off to work, I'll await your response in a gazillion hours*

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Welcome to the world of Mark Morford! He tends to write editorials in this tone; it's his trademark, and while I can see how it could be conceived as insulting, most of his readers think he is hilarious. It's more tongue-in-cheek than right-out serious.

However, as much I enjoy reading his editorials, I do think he's another outgrowth of current degenerated public discourse. I wonder if Ann Coulter's editorials which are at least as offensive in tone and not meant to be satire but rather outright assaults would cause the same reaction among those on here who are offended by MM.

As to the topic, he's right on. There's nothing wrong which encouraging kids to learn about sexuality, and knowing about it doesn't mean not being to able to wait until marriage if one wants to. Quite the contrary, sex education helps most people to make educated choices and to not rely on experience exclusively.

Glad to see you...did the airport fire hinder anything for your trip?

Thanks, LisaD. The fire just cause my plane to be delayed by several hours, and as I was flying with Turkish Airlines, I had no clue what was going on. Endless announcements in Turkish were followed by 3-word announcement in English, informing the unintiated that the plane couldn't land as planned...

Afaic, t's not a conservative/liberal fight to me...I would be just as annoyed with AC (if I read her, which I don't) I just don't get why every conversation has to come down to this power stuggle where it's comes down to party lines. It's not 'if MM pisses you off you love AC' or if a=b then c must be true.

Tongue in cheek or whatever, of course it's his right to say what he wants, but I think it's kinda rude & without purpose. Whether or not I would live my life like these people is an entirely separate matter to why people seem so offended that they are living it the way they are. I think that's the point the OP was making...not how ppl personally feel about child rearing & sexuality.

I totally agree that MM is rude and that he comes across with being without purpose. When I made the comparison to AC, I was just pointing out a general problem I see with columnist or readers who think it's funny or important or meaningful to trash what they perceive to be the other side. I think this country and its political culture would be much better off without people like those two (and a number of other people who spend their public life raving and ranting).

I do, however, get the impression (probably from reading too many op-ed pages and the like), that in a way it's always a Lib-Con issue and that either side takes offense when confronted with the ranters of the other camp. It was probably presumptuous to bring it up, but reading some of the posters in between who were shocked/ offended I brought this up pre-emptively. So, I apologize if my post was offensive or came across as just another "liberal" rant.

[Fandango 1,440]

Welcome to the world of Mark Morford! He tends to write editorials in this tone; it's his trademark, and while I can see how it could be conceived as insulting, most of his readers think he is hilarious. It's more tongue-in-cheek than right-out serious.

However, as much I enjoy reading his editorials, I do think he's another outgrowth of current degenerated public discourse. I wonder if Ann Coulter's editorials which are at least as offensive in tone and not meant to be satire but rather outright assaults would cause the same reaction among those on here who are offended by MM.

As to the topic, he's right on. There's nothing wrong which encouraging kids to learn about sexuality, and knowing about it doesn't mean not being to able to wait until marriage if one wants to. Quite the contrary, sex education helps most people to make educated choices and to not rely on experience exclusively.

Glad to see you...did the airport fire hinder anything for your trip?

Thanks, LisaD. The fire just cause my plane to be delayed by several hours, and as I was flying with Turkish Airlines, I had no clue what was going on. Endless announcements in Turkish were followed by 3-word announcement in English, informing the unintiated that the plane couldn't land as planned...

Afaic, t's not a conservative/liberal fight to me...I would be just as annoyed with AC (if I read her, which I don't) I just don't get why every conversation has to come down to this power stuggle where it's comes down to party lines. It's not 'if MM pisses you off you love AC' or if a=b then c must be true.

Tongue in cheek or whatever, of course it's his right to say what he wants, but I think it's kinda rude & without purpose. Whether or not I would live my life like these people is an entirely separate matter to why people seem so offended that they are living it the way they are. I think that's the point the OP was making...not how ppl personally feel about child rearing & sexuality.

I totally agree that MM is rude and that he comes across with being without purpose. When I made the comparison to AC, I was just pointing out a general problem I see with columnist or readers who think it's funny or important or meaningful to trash what they perceive to be the other side. I think this country and its political culture would be much better off without people like those two (and a number of other people who spend their public life raving and ranting).

I do, however, get the impression (probably from reading too many op-ed pages and the like), that in a way it's always a Lib-Con issue and that either side takes offense when confronted with the ranters of the other camp. It was probably presumptuous to bring it up, but reading some of the posters in between who were shocked/ offended I brought this up pre-emptively. So, I apologize if my post was offensive or came across as just another "liberal" rant.

ITA with everything you said. I was just ranting in general, not particularly aimed at anyone

I would have been very freaked out with the airport thing....so glad it wasn't worse for you!

[rclouse 0]

This reminds me of the report about school districts in Ohio that stopped giving students sex education courses due to pressure from the religious right. Did that have the desired effect of keeping teens virginal? Of course not! The teen pregnancy rate went way up! And in neighboring districts where they continued to teach "filth", the rates remained the same.

The religious right is neither.

[ace13 0]

This isn't "news" it just an editorial, right? The guy has his right to his opinion as do those that teach and practice abstinence.

Girls 6 and 7 should be abstaining As should 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 year olds. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching girls to respect their bodies and that having sex doesn't make guys love you any more. And that girls this age want attention and they want boyfriends, but they marry girls that have standards for themselves and use girls that allow themselves to be used.

Nothing wrong with teaching a girl that it is in her best interest not to be a single mom.