The World According to Abstinence-Only Education.

sex and driving
If I ever have a child, and they come home with an Abstinence-Only textbook, I’m taking them out of school. Period. No questions asked.

Of course, since I don’t have a child, I can still laugh at this garbage:

25 Ways to Say No

Originally posted here. Be sure to look at the rest of Anna’s art too — she’s brilliant, and brilliantly funny!

Continue reading


Addendum to: Who *would* cry rape?

Having read Thinking Girl‘s first guest post on Slant Truth (which boils down to “if you have privilege where another person doesn’t, and they feel marginalized, demeaned, etc.: shut up, listen and believe them. It’s their experience, not yours”), this thought ran across my head while catching up on the Twisty archives:

I believe a rape allegation because I wasn’t there, and she/he was, and that was her experience. If a woman says she was raped, the case needs to be taken seriously. Let the courts/judge decide, based on actual evidence, presented fairly.

Virtually everyone calls the reliability of a rape victim into question. The general consensus by the ugly side of the media machine (FOX News, I’m talking about YOU), once the declaration of insufficient evidence has been made, suddenly nothing has happened and ‘the girl’
made it all up.

Just because the prosecution couldn’t get up enough witnesses / the witnesses were not treated as credible doesn’t mean nothing happened.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Defense rests.

Here comes the theocracy

The first full sentence to hit my ears this morning was from an NPR report that the Supreme Court has voted to hold up partial birth abortion legislation. What I first heard, however, was this:

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated the right to legislate on moral grounds … and that there would have to be proof that a significant number of women would be harmed by the legislation for it to be struck down.*

Continue reading

Thoughts on marriage

I was browsing around for wedding vows and readings and stumbled upon these thoughts, which strangely enough relate to the current debate on the availability of marriage (or lack thereof) to all persons. It’s definitely got me thinking.


From “Goodridge Vs. Department of Health” by Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations….Without question, civil marriage enhances the “welfare of the community.” It is a “social institution of the highest importance.”

Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family…. Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.