if it did, this article would not exist. Perhaps reading it will create these jobs?

The article made no mention of a stimulus. I see what you did there. Tea Party willful ignorance rears it's head again. Other Tea folk, will praise you and give you atta-boys, those of us with common sense and an education see you for what you are (a shill or paid commenter).

Back to the story, normal sex counts as risky behavior now? 3% of males and 8.7% of females had same-sex partners according to the article. Those numbers seem within reason, I don't see that the fuss is. I guess I'm supposed to be "shocked" and "outraged" but all I feel is "meh".

No analysis of teenagers propensity to "grief" surveys. Probability of study measuring useful information instead of serving targeted interests: LOW.

JPJohnson, apparently Tea Party folk have something you with "common sense" don't have and that is called sarcasm. If I have to explain the joke to you, it is quite sad. And normal sex isn't risky, it was the violence and noncondom use.

Where were all these girls when I was growing up? Just think of all the money I could have saved on Kleenex and hand lotion..........I'd be a millionaire!

nothing new here-1200374

The study, funded by the "stimlus", apparently created thousands of hand jobs.

This study is from 2005 to 2007 - pre stimulus- take the condom off your head, a brain requires oxygen to think. What is a "stimlus"?

You didn't get the joke either?

Jackal - an angry right winger coming to a liberal site and thinking they are going to matter - is not exactly using "common sense".

Yikes... I cant believe people are actually commenting on Nothing New Hear's Post like it was and actual statement... Ummmm ITS A JOKE.... created thousands of "Hand Jobs".... LOL that was kinda funny.... I laughed.... but then I saw it for what it was from the start ... geeez you people are wrapped way to tight!!!

Woops, missed the "hand" part. My fault. I still stand by my Tea Party comments.

JP, I figured you did since you really took him to the whipping post.

How about those who practice homosexuality have a FAR greater percentage of HIV and AIDS?

Well, if we want to promote sexual behavior that doesn't transmit HIV and AIDS, wouldn't it homosexual lesbian sex be the one least likely to transmit disease?

it never did work.

Parents let their kids watch to much TV with little girls on it dressing slutty and kissing guys at 10 years old. They are teaching kids how to have sex in middle school and then not expecting them to be curious and try it? Then the 12 year old boy goes to jail for having sex with a minor girl.........

You parents and people in America are insane in the membrane. If you can't figure out how this all happened. Go look at the history books then and statistics.

You parents and people in America are insane in the membrane.

For referance to "insane in the membrane", see the video below......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RijB8wnJCN0&ob=av2e

Then the 12 year old boy goes to jail for having sex with a minor girl.........

isnt a 12 year old boy a minor?

@ rick7030, it doesn't matter. My close friend had it happen to his little bro last year. Went down to juv prison to visit later and there were other boys in there for the same thing. Ages 10-16.

It happens all the time.

Thats right and most ,if not all, both girls and boys between the ages of 10 and 18 will still and have always done self masterbation or have done so with a same sex partner or non same sex partner so what is your hangup American for Isreal.

Shouldn't have to spell it out for you. When 12 year old girls are having kids like its a normal thing compared to 20-40 years ago, it speaks for its self. Just looking at the teen rate of pregos going up and up and up every year. You think thats a good thing? You think a 12 year old girl having a child at that age is the best thing for her and the child? The girl loses the ability to have a normal child hood and a chance at a productive life without alot of drama. Its the parents and adults responsible to help the kids understand their hormones and explain the consequences of their actions BEFORE they happen. I don't see that happening. I see the opposite.

So whats my hangup? The ability for kids to have a normal life until they reach college and then 'experiment'. Get through highschool first so you can get a good enough GPA to get into a good college. Having a kid does not help the situation, it does not allow you time to raise a kid and study at the same time. I have a child, I don't have time to myself, it does not bother me though, I'm a grown adult and can handle the stresses and responsibility of being a parent. But should a 12 year old go through that? She doesn't even know how to drive?

We don't let kids drive till they are 16-18. Why? Because they could endanger other people around them with their immaturity and inexperience.

So we should encourage them and explain how to have sex and encourage them to let loose their needs and wants but then they bring an innocent life into the world. The newborn can't survive on its own and needs a parent to take care of their everyday needs for the first 10 years.

Is my line of logic and common sense incorrect?

SB -

It is people like you who raise children who are insecure and have very low self esteem. These children are raised to feel guilty about the feelings and urges they have. They are raised, by people like you, who judge and look down upon them. Thus, their self esteem is lower than normal, because they feel like no one accepts them . . . not even their parents.

Now any male considered a "player" will tell you that girls with low self esteem are the best. Why? Because they are WAY easier than girls with high self esteem. They are looking for someone to accept them, and will typically do ANYTHING a guy wants to feel the acceptance they do not get at home. So I would like to personally say "Thank you." As a guy who has reaped the benefits of girls with low self esteem, you have made my job easier. Keep spreading the hate, and there will always be guys like me to comfort the insecure girls you create.

here's the thing SB632402 being gay is just as normal as being straight, male or black or brown it's people's attitudes that need to be adjusted. in case you didn't read the article the numbers of those actually stating that they are homosexual are pretty low i think a lot of those experimenting sexually (with the same or opposite sex) just need more guidance and have deeper issues than their sexuality. the issue is that kids need to be taught about acceptable ways to get love and affection and the difference betweent affection and sex, and then they need to be taught about practicing safe sex. all of these things go hand in hand, whether you're straight or gay. the important thing to remember is that as long as there are teenagers on the earth the whole un-safe sex thing and experimentation are going to be an issue.

Teens with same sex partners have problems of blah blah blah. This study seems to see a symptom as a cause. Would you think maybe teens who have same sex partners are the same ones who take more risks period? And risky behavior in general is what causes you to have more problems, not the fact you had gay sex?

This is too simple and too much common sense for a government study, I guess. And you know what kind of person is going to jump on this nonsense and say "See, I told you" and push their agenda.

SB, here we go again. You are nothing more than a bigot, and this is how I can tell. Judges from various districts, whom we pay well and whom are well educated and highly experienced in interpreting the law, are saying that these various policies and laws on the books denying gays and lesbians equal rights are unconstitutional, but people still come on these boards and claim that their own bigotry is justified. As a matter of fact, they claim that their bigotry is not bigotry--just a different viewpoint. There are people on these boards who are otherwise intelligent until they come across something of which they cannot tolerate, and then they become emotional and irrational. They ignore overwhelming evidence that their point of view is wrong. That's how I can tell that you are a bigot. Psychiatrists say that homosexuality is not a mental illness (unless the person cannot accept it) nor a sexual deviancy, but instead a variant sexuality. But you know more? Biologists have observed homosexuality in more than 1500 species. But you ignore the evidence? Everyone may not be on planet earth to procreate. Perhaps your assumptions are wrong? There are other roles that need to be fulfilled--(birth control--especially when there was no synthetic birth control, foster parenting, etc., since some people breed but cannot handle the responsibility). The fact that you ignore rigorous contradictory evidence to hang on to nonsense shows that you are a bigot--not just simply someone with an alternate viewpoint. That is why your ilk keeps losing in court.

The experts on your side haven't been able to produce anything more than junk science. That's because that is all your side has. So I'm confident that you wouldn't be able to provide anything more than, "I don't like homosexuals or the Bible says or they are perverts or heterosexuality is superior."

Brenda, please read an anatomy and physiology text book and you will find that man was mad for woman, woman made for man. Ergo, homosexuality is a perversion of the sex act. You speak of "varient sexuality" as if one's desires automatically justifies its acting out. Please read a text book on sexual varients. By your logic, ALL are acceptable. You speak of laws being unconstitutional. Please read all the "wrong" decisions of the courts in times past. Feelings? Well, alcoholics, kleptomaniacs, audulters, tax cheats, all have their feelings, want and desires too. How dare you interfere! A lie is still a lie though ten thousand say it. The truth is still the truth though only one state it. The truth is that man was made for woman and woman made for man. End of debate! You have zero argument for your side. Sorry!

OMG. I was trying to collapse this ugliness and it ended up giving it a thumbs up. I most certainly do NOT give it a thumbs up lol

lonesome- really? your going to sit there and say just because the laws dont agree with a certain way of life then it must be wrong? it used to be illegal for blacks to get married, inter-racial marriage was also not allowed, then there was the whole slavery thing that was legal. well guess what? people realized they were wrong and the laws were changed to reflect that, why dont you read a history book? and to compare homosexuality to tax evasion and stealing is absolutely rediculous! how does someone elses sexuality affect your life? you dont have to agree or approve, that's fine, but we are still going to be around so you better get used to us!

P.S. if you cant say anything nice then dont say anything at all- did you not learn that in kindergarten?

Yeah! Homosexuals are trying to force their life style on us as normal sexual behavior.

SB! Watch what you write. I was censored by Newvine for pointing out the very same thing. Perhaps the monitor for Newvine is gay. Makes me wonder.

I suppose I'll be censored again for my posting.

Gee! I just never learn, do I! (sic)

US Citizen and James -

LOL, you both are so wrong it's funny. No, the homosexual population is NOT trying to push their behavior on you. It is the STRAIGHT male population pushing homosexual behavior on you . . . not with men, but women. Any younger man will tell you that there has been a trend over the last 10 years, girl on girl action. In college, every straight guy I knew was pushing for girls to "get it on" with each other. You go to any college bar, and you will see guys buying drinks for the girls that kiss each other. It has turned into the new way for women to get male attention. No one cares about the girl that just looks good, all the attention goes to the 2 girls going crazy on each other. And as a straight male, I fully support it.

You are a complete fool and out of touch with reality if you think homosexuals are pushing this behavior. You would be shocked if you knew how quickly a group of STRAIGHT men will start pushing girls to "go wild" with the promise of free drinks and attention. LOL. Welcome to 2010. If you are looking for someone to blame for this behavior, blame straight men like me. But I will just laugh at you and continue to support girl on girl action.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that all high school and college aged straight men will push female homosexual behavior. You can argue the moral implications all day, and get all worked up about it, but nothing will change. Straight men will always love seeing two girls get together. The Girls Gone Wild series made millions off of this idea from all these straight men. So it's not just me, gramps. Straight men everywhere LOVE IT.

So go ahead and throw your insults around, we are laughing at you. LOL. Nothing will change. Straight men, like me, will ALWAYS promote this behavior. Actually, I miss college . . . those were good times.

No - you are wrong, thoughts from Cali. First of all, thankfully not all men are pushing female homosexual behavior, which I read in your comments that you not use it as a suggestion, but get them drunk, coerce them into it...you sound very predatory to be honest. Good men do not act like you, and you may look on your college days with fondness, but I would bet cold hard cash that those girls, now women, are thinking what a creep you were and warning their daughters about your kind. Also, things are really, really screwed up in California, people there for the most part do not give a damn about each other and will do whatever they want for immediate gratification - to hell with the consequences for themselves later, or for other people....everything there is about money. Not love, freedom of expression, but money. You are one of them who are too stupid to be ashamed of yourself and your actions because you believe you make up for it with your bank account. Karma will bite you in the ass.....no matter what faith (As ye sow so shall ye reap), or none at all (for every action there is a reaction) you will pay for what you have done, be used yourself (probably for your money, lol) and realize how wrong and what a fool you were. You will feel ashamed for your stupid and thoughtless behavior.

It has turned into the new way for women to get male attention. No one cares about the girl that just looks good, all the attention goes to the 2 girls going crazy on each other.

That makes it sound like a choice, not a way of being since birth.

Umm...you're talking about the entire US when you say they're just in it for the money. It's a capitalistic society...what did you expect to happen? Niceness? lol

I just want to see more people making love than hate. Even you all that counter with your morality bring as much hate with you as anyone else.

those of you saying that straight men DON'T push lesbian behaviour on women are crazy. i have very seldom talked to a straight guy who doesn't think it's hot to see or even hear about girl on girl action.

sb,us citizen and james herman- gays are not trying to push anything except our right to be who we are, the right to marry who we love, and live our lives in peace and joy. i am a taxpayer and small business person in a small conservative town and am really tired of hearing small minded bigots talking about the "gay agenda". what agenda? did i miss a meeting? you need to let kids be who they are, whether gay or straight, and teach ALL of them the responsibilities that comes along with sex, including(obviously)safe sex. to try to describe one type of sex over another as risky is extremely irresponsible.

Donna Kay, I was right there with you until you made that generalization condemning California. It's no better or worse here than the rest of the U.S. Perhaps what you're noticing is that we tend to do less sugar-coating out here?

. to try to describe one type of sex over another as risky is extremely irresponsible.

No it's not. Some types of sex ARE more risky then others. Some may wish that was not the case but it is. Ignorance is not bliss.

I'm more than certain that a vast majority of homosexuals would rather keep their life style low key. It's the small percentage being the most vocal that makes it LOOK like all gays are hitting on everyone, even after being told there's no interest. It's the squeakiest wheel that perpetuates the stereotype, whether it's religion, politics, or even race.

john martin is so right, why would we push anyone to be gay when we are persecuted and must stick up for just being who we are everyday? guess i missed that meeting too lol!

jave- you're so right too "Some types of sex ARE more risky then others." as john pointed out unprotected sex is very risky no matter who you are, gay, straight, male or female

Is probably that we the taxpayers get to pay for the "Health Crisis" and "Social Crisis" aftermath when the poor little cuties start suffering. "Oh, think of the children!"

Or maybe it's that we taxpayers wasted over $500 million on abstinence only education.

Exactly ED!!!!

Start educating and empowering our younger generations ( boy and girls) about their bodies, choices and self worth.

SEX isn't bad!!!!

SEX is wonderful and should be taught as such. Informed teens make good decisions. Don't let young people navigate blindly through sex.

I can't believe this violent and risky behavior is being blamed on teaching abstinence. What? Does condom usage have some magical sedative power. The problem is the lack of morality. When morals are absent it leaves the door wide open to all manner of depravity.

When morals are absent it leaves the door wide open to all manner of depravity.

I thought we were past the days of calling homosexuals perverts.

OK, once again. People are born homosexual, it is not a perversion, it is what is natural for them, God-Given you might say. Aside from being born gay, homosexuals are no different from anybody else in any way, except for problems that come from being called a pervert by ignorant people like you.

That being the case, let's not call pedophiles perverts since they were born that way.

That being the case, let's not call pedophiles perverts since they were born that way.

One is harmless, the other isn't. Using words like "pervert' for both confuses this inportant fact. Pedophiles, arsonist, whatever that are also born that way are a different catagory of people than gays, dangerous people. So you have no reason to lump them together.

Some people are born stupid, does that make them perverts, too? No, I guess you have no problem with being stupid, so would never call being stupid anything bad.

Sandman...

Morality and sexuality are not intertwined. You have been brainwashed like the rest of the country to believe that.

Someone who engages in sex isn't lacking in morals.

Someone who enages in sex and isn't fully informed to make good choices may be ignorant...but not imoral.

wake up and join the 21st century

Morality and sexuality are not intertwined? Someone who engages in sex isn't lacking in morals? Where do you come up with this nonsense, the gospel according to self? You may ridicule my views as outdated but at least I get my values from established principles that have been handed down through many generations and which have been the foundation of the family structure through out history. Your 21st century values have been conjured up out of your own imagination thus making yourself out to be your own god. Only time will tell what consequences will result from this "new morality" that you preach. We already see the fruits that the sexual revolution has had in the disintegration of the family unit and the rise of fatherless homes. This has resulted in higher crime rates and more teenage pregnancies than ever before. Thus we see that the immorality of crime and of men leaving women to fend for themselves is directly intertwined with an unchecked sexuality.

BS! ....how does someone engaing in sex make them immoral?

Your "established principles" are YOURS...not societies. They are based in guilt and shame and have no place in a modern, free thinking world.

Sex has NOTHING to do with ones morals . How dare you put your moral beliefs on someones else?

Sex isn't the root of all evil. Stop being the victim of a repressed ,religious and controlling achaic belief system implimented by men to control women.

Sex is healthy, normal and is engaged in by all humans. How does that have any bearing on disintergrating families?

You are so full of judgement. I will presume your patriarchal, rigid and fear of sex is due to your religious indoctrination.......but times have changed so get your head out of the 1700's.

Again I will ask the same question. Where do you get your doctrine from? I can point to the Bible which has been tried and proven to work. It was this archaic belief system that changed my life from an exconvict to a productive member of society. And by the way, Christianity actually brought freedom to woman at a time when they were considered as mere property. Galatian 3:28 "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Before you pass judgement yourself and make ignorant statements you should find out what is in the Book first.

Here is my final point for all of you who label us "bigots". I have no problem with tolerating your view point. What I do have a problem with is your intolerance of my refusal to accept homosexuality as normal behavior and perfectly compatible with heterosexual behavior. I believe this is the issue that this article illuminates. When you indoctrinate teenagers to believe that there is nothing wrong with their sexual choices in life it lowers the bar and you end up with these kind of results. Where does it stop and where do you draw the limits? You can give these teenagers all the information you want but in the end what will stop them from rebeling from your form of morality the same way you've taught them to rebell against Biblical morality. This is only the tip of the iceberg and unless we turn around our society will sink like the Titanic.

As an agnostic with atheistic views, I don't buy into your garbage of religion of bible teachings...so the verses reference is irrelevent to me. I am a freethinker, not a follower of a fairytale.

Fact is sex feels good, thats why humans partake in it. And it's okay to. SEX isn't dirty or wrong....your beliefs are.

News flash - women have always been treated as a product for male. Pre-religion documents women as property for sale to bear children to work the mans crops. Religion only solidified that thinkning. Religion deemed it gods will for a woman to become second to a male and to be considered nothing more than a sexual being to serve man. You may want to do your research.

As for your religion changing your from one thing to a better one....BS You did that. Don't let an idealogy take away from you your own personal responsibility. Anything you have ever done in your life - be it good or bad - is YOURS. Own it. Thats the differeence between you and I. I AM RESPONSIBLE for my choices and action...free of guilt or shame. I answer to myself and act accordingly. I am a decent person because it's the right thing to do , not out of fear from a god.

Sex , regardless of status is someone's personal decision. The main issue is to educate our young folks to keep if safe, healthy and enjoyable.

Of course sex is good, me and my wife enjoy it very much. However, like everything else it has it's proper context. You wouldn't sanction a pedophile's behavior based on the fact that "sex feels good".

As for religion making women sexual slaves, I challenge you to find that passage in the Bible, but then again, your freethinking self is so close minded to this view that you wouldn't dare pick up the Bible.

Here is the real difference between us; I am willing to acknowledge that there is Higher Being than myself. You on the other hand have no higher being than yourself thus making yourself out to be your own god. In doing so you have inadvertently committed the original sin with which man was tempted in the beginning. Genesis 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. ⁵ For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" This has been the problem with mankind ever since, man has being trying to play God and done a lousy job, including those who are in organized religion I might add. We're all the culprits.

At one point in my life I thought I was my own God and lived my life with out restraint. If you would have approached me with this "I AM RESPONSIBLE for my choices and action" talk, I probably would have laughed at you, beat you and taken your money. No offence but that is the type of character I was. Instead some one approached me with the good news of redemption which ironically comes when we accept our own personal responsibility and repent of our sins. Boston, this same redemption is available to you if would open up your mind along with your heart and received God's gift of salvation.

So are so saying i am not a decent person because I don't need to be saved? Saved from what....myself? If you are a horrible person...you will be a horrible person regardless of a god in your life. I and many others are proof of that. I have a carreer, own my home, pay my taxes and raise my family....all without YOUR GOD! My world isn't in turmoil or in moral chaos...it's fantastic....all without YOUR GOD! I'm not my own god as I don't believe in a god anyway but I am my own moral compass of right and wrong. Atheist parents, extended family and current friends raised me towards those beliefs....and none of them are in turmoil or distress in their lives. If you need the crutch of religion to wipe away your bad choices in your own life...so be it. But not many follow your way of thinking....only the weak minded do.

As for the original debate of the article...I stand by what I said.

Sex is fine...in any situation....as long as it's by consenting adults. Don't incite a reaction of horror by throwing out the pediphile word.....that has nothing to do with sex....thats a crime committed against a child....not an adult. We are animals in the most basic form. We act and react to inate desires and needs....sex is one of them. Sex isn't a weapon or tool to be used as power or control over someone else.....it's to be enjoyed.

I am secure enough in who I am as a person to allow your atheistic dribble about religion being for the "weak minded" to affect me. All it does is reveal your own arrogance in the notion that you are somehow mentally superior to the 90% of Americans who do believe in God, including many of the liberal Christians that agree with your view on sex.

I never said you were indecent, you've tacked that label on yourself. And I never said that one needs to believe in God to "have a career, own my home, pay my taxes and raise my family", any moron can do that. Jesus Christ did not come to die on a cross so that we could become good citizens. And you are correct, He did come to save us from ourselves. Through our rebellion and denial of God we are all headed for an eternal judgment.

Now you can choose to believe that or to discard it as nonsense. After all, one thing we can both agree on is that this is a free country thanks to the weak minded founding fathers who believed that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. I have nothing to lose by believing that one day I will stand in the presence of my Creator. I live a blessed and happy life here on earth and have faith that I will be eternally blessed in His presence. If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose and if I'm right I have everything to gain. You on the other hand, if you're right you have nothing to gain, but if you wrong you have everything to lose.

Well my fellow blogger, it's been great chatting with you. And by the way, that offer of salvation is still available to you despite your ridicule of God. Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

I do hope you are able to evolve one day into someone who questions the ridiculous and contradictory fable known as religion. Learn your histories and sciences and there you can find answers to questions of your world that are tangible and that make sense...DNA, dinosaurs, planets and solar syatems, microbes, atoms, nuclear science and medicine, physics......the list goes on.....unless you are happy just following a blind faith. I am content in knowing that my choices are my own via education and demand for truths....not indoctrination.

That being said I do enjoy another who can debate well and offer a different perspective.

I still remain firm on the original post of sex being 100% okay between to consenting adults....regardless of martial status. My reasoning being that sex isn't to be used as a "gift, weapon or tool for power" but instead to be enjoyed in it's original meaning of physical pleasure. We are not selfish or immoral to say we enjoy sex for no other reason than it feels good.......thats the guilt and shame from religious teachings.

As for your comment of beieving in a god and you having nothing to lose either way....what a shame you feel that way. It proves to me that you again only act out of fear of reprecussions of your choices from a higher power than you.

Must be scary to live in fear your whole life......good luck with that.

Boston? So where did the world come from? Oh yeah a one in a billion chance that the whole universe was once a dense mass and then it exploded and somehow a star came and dust formed together to make planets and these planets ended up revolving around this star. I have yet to see anything to prove this but yet it is what I see is most believed. One question, was there any living beings on this original dense mass? It looks to me that you follow science with a "blind faith" that you call it yet accuse people of following something else. Now how do you respond to that.

If you don't believe that is how the world was created, how did it become into existence?

Well Boston, here you go again making bogus assumptions. I don't spend my time trembling in fear that an angry god is going to destroy me at any moment. Perhaps that is your own mental projections of your own inner fears. Like I said earlier, I live a blessed life, have a beautiful family, and work a good job. All this with the added benefit of having the peace of mind knowing where I am going when this old body passes away. What must be scary, and quite sad is living your whole life with out this hope. What do you look forward to once you die, that your body will decompose and that you will cease to exist forever? Perhaps that is why you are so concerned with pleasing your sexual appetite now. What I don't get is why you're so overly concerned with teenage sexual behavior. I'm starting to wonder about you. But I digress...

I have to agree with Jackal on his observation of your own blind faith. I believe that it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that humans evolved from some microscopic organism which happened to spring forth out of nothing along with the entire universe. And at what point did this organism split and become male and female? Then there is the issue of sex. Why does it feel so good? Did some mindless evolutionary process assign it its pleasure. That alone should cause you to believe in an Intelligent Designer. Evolution alone could never produce a Beethoven, Van Gogh, Hemingway and the list goes on. Evolution doesn't provide us with morality either. What does it teach you, survival of the fittest? Isn't that partly to blame for this economic mess we're in?

Here is my final point. I believe that a godless evolution has become the new religion. You guys have finally found a dogma to latch on to. Because in the end, man is incurably religious and must have something to believe in. Your hope lies on this side of eternity but then it stops there. What happens next? Yeah, good luck with that.

" I'm wrong I have nothing to lose and if I'm right I have everything to gain. You on the other hand, if you're right you have nothing to gain, but if you wrong you have everything to lose"

YOUR words indicate you are someone who acts and reacts out of a possible punishment or praise.

Body grows, dies and return to that from which it came....nature. Sorry to disappoint you, no angels or harps - just dirt.

As for my interest in teen sex ...not so much the act of it - but more that I want them educated with truth. Not the BS curriculum from the BUSH admin that taught not only lies ( look it up - it's all documented in the family/marriage propaganda used as sex ed) but the proper funding for said sex ed.

For you and jackal ...I fear it's a lost cause on the evolution and creation of earth seminar as clearly neither of you are educated in physics, science and basic math. The world didn't explode.....it imploded ( see dictionary for definition). But that all can be discovered in some basic college classes. I have posted some interesting articles to support your "god" theory...enjoy.

But as fun as this has been....real life calls. See you again soon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/31/tech/main6349508.shtml

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/atom_smasher_record_hadron_col.html

http://news.discovery.com/tech/lhc-atom-smasher-discovery.html

For you and jackal ...I fear it's a lost cause on the evolution and creation of earth seminar as clearly neither of you are educated in physics, science and basic math. The world didn't explode.....it imploded ( see dictionary for definition). But that all can be discovered in some basic college classes. I have posted some interesting articles to support your "god" theory...enjoy.

But as fun as this has been....real life calls. See you again soon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/31/tech/main6349508.shtml

So they can collide protons to create a mini bang. They don't prove the theory of the big bang, which it is just a theory. They don't say that this shows that the big bang happened. They don't relate to how many times this would have to happen to make your big bang. They didn't say how often this happens in space. And note, I did not say that the big bang theory is not true, I just said I find it hard to believe. I do think that it may have happened somehow but with an outside force helping it such as God.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/atom_smasher_record_hadron_col.html

So now they did it again. In the article this time it states, "scientists hope the machine can approach on a tiny scale what happened in the first split seconds after the Big Bang." So this won't prove or disprove the Big Bang Theory, just show us what happened after in the first few seconds.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/lhc-atom-smasher-discovery.html

So they found a ridge-like structure. Cool, now what does that tell us? I don't know, they probably won't tell us what it involves until we give them more money.

To sum everything up, the theory that you believe is in fact a theory, not a fact as you like to assume. And I can only assume you to be a Democrat because, like them, if I don't agree with you, first you attack my beliefs and then by education. I'm pretty sure I do have an understanding of physics, science and basic math. Most high school grads would. And I never said the world exploded, I said the dense matter that exploded. I should've said expanded which is the term I'm finding the most when researching the theory. You see that, I research what I'm talking about instead of, like you, refusing to look at anything that I do not think is true.

I leave you with a few questions that you and your infinite knowledge might be able to answer with your facts instead of my theories:

1. How did the first organisms come into existence? Unlike SANDMAN, I do realize that if they evolved from bacteria, they probably formed male and female.
2. What was going on before the Big Bang happened?
3. What are the chances that something such as protons colliding at the speed at the LHC happens in space and why has this not happened again in 14 billion years.

And about the whole we die and turn to dirt thing, that's physical not spiritual. Nothing I would expect you to understand but some entry college class would be able to help you with that.

Obviously you're not a physicist either. I have been reading about the LHC which scientist hope will explain the origin of mass in the universe. Currently it is postulated through an unobservable theory known as the Higgs Bosom named after Peter Higgs and often referred to as the "God Particle." Read your own posted articles yourself and you would find that they are yet to discover this particle.

Now, let us suppose they did find this particle. What would it prove? That they discovered the process through which an Intelligent Designer created the universe by designing a machine that took 25 years to build and cost about ten billion dollars? This brings up another point which is that science is always trying to catch up to what God has already known and done. Prior to the Big Bang theory the scientific community was overwhelmingly in favor of a static universe which denied that it had a beginning. Now they concur with with Genesis 1:1 which states "In the beginning..."

As for your certainty that there are "no angels or harps - just dirt." Again, that statement takes a leap of faith since you have obviously never been there. In fact there is only one man who has ever risen from the dead, His name is Jesus Christ. You should meet Him sometime. Eventually you will. Phillipians 2:10 "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, ¹¹ and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Not going to ever happen. Parents let their kids watch to much TV with little girls on it dressing slutty and kissing guys at 10 years old. They are teaching kids how to have sex in middle school and then not expecting them to be curious and try it? Then the 12 year old boy goes to jail for having sex with a minor girl.........

You parents and people in America are insane in the membrane. If you can't figure out how this all happened. Go look at the history books then and statistics.

Perhaps parents need to pay attention to the shows on the Disney Channel. Some of their shows, have little girls, teenagers, etc, scantly dressed. Makes you wonder why these young children want to dress the way they do, when lots of young teenagers/children/girls shown on TV wear revealing outfits.

why does everyone still focus on girls?

who cares what girls are wearing for clothes......doesn't give license for bad male behavior.

Tell boys to behave and be responsible for their own actions! A girl wearing a skirt still commands the same treament as one in pants.....

give me a break!

it's never the girls fault or responsibility for a boys action or reaction.

get out of the daark ages!!!

Heh, you answered your own question... Just not in the way you think.

For the definition, dilusions, and justification of high risk sexual behavior, please refer to #8.

Agreed. If you have self confidence and just engage for entertainment, than you will encounter comparable issues as in any social situation. The problem with this is that the act is also the most easily accessible form of social validation, so anybody (not just teens) engage when the problem is that they aren't doing it for enjoyment, but validation. HOWEVER, these issues are up to their parents and sex education reform, but at the age of 18, it's really only up to them. It's undoubtedly an incredibly complicated topic. LOTS of sexual interactions and engagements can be extremely healthy. Anybody who says otherwise, hasn't had enough good sex.

I read the article as referring to the failure to use condoms as being the risky behavior, not the sex or sexes of their partners. And that because the study indicated a high percent engaging in sex with members of the same sex identified themselves as straight, education should be geared toward behavior rather than sexual identification.

There IS a higher risk of acquiring AIDS between two males than between a male & a female or between two females. That's not a sign of puritanical thinking, merely a scientific fact.

And in targeting various types of sexual & health education, you shouldn't limit yourself to only those who identify themselves as homosexual when attempting to educate in regard to sex between men. At least that's how interpreted the report.

CAT2413955

So what you are saying is that unsafe sex is OK as long as you do it just for fun? So if you are serious, its not safe? I did not know of any disease that attacked based on the "fun factor". Its such a pleasure to have someone who displays such vast knowledge of important facts. I mean all these clowns out here saying you exponentially raise your risk with every partner you have really need to sit with you to absorb this life saving method of yours: "Just dont be serious, and nothing will ever happen". That is likely where all those monogamous married couples are coming from when they get all those STDs. If they would follow your simple advice and only have fun with as many as possible, that would never happen!

I will be glad to nominate you for a Darwin award very soon!

Creature Girl

I read the article as referring to the failure to use condoms as being the risky behavior, not the sex or sexes of their partners.

Oh yeah for sure, as long as you wrap it up or put a cover on it, you can stick it anywhere your little heart desires.

AIDS can go right through a condom side by side, but hey, I wouldn't expect you to know that. They conceal facts like that in books.

Dude the risky part was unprotected, violent or forced sex not who was doin it with who. And nobody was deciding anything, only reporting statistics from a survey.

Is it possible that teens are simply experimenting with sexual activities, and that much of the sex play is simply innocent fun of a curious nature?

If they are having unprotected sex this "simply innocent fun of a curious nature" carries big consequences buddy. No one is saying that teens can't experiment with sexual activities, what they are saying is teens that have had sex with both sexes have a higher rate of not using a condom and at the same time being in a relationship that has violence in it.

Who gets to be the decision maker at what the definition of "risky" is anyways?

Higher rates of spreading disease has always been the definition of risky sex.

Oh yeah for sure, as long as you wrap it up or put a cover on it, you can stick it anywhere your little heart desires.

AIDS can go right through a condom side by side, but hey, I wouldn't expect you to know that. They conceal facts like that in books.

Where did I endorse ANY type of behavior or proclaim them risk free??? Maybe a reading comprehension course would benefit you.

I was addressing another poster who seemed to miss the whole point of the article & instead take it as some sort of biased finger pointing at gays or some such which it clearly was not.

This article is not an opinion piece; it's a reporting of statistical findings & their implications for health & sex education.

It does not purport to be a comprehensive listing of all behaviors on the planet that might be "risky" in one sense or another nor an attempt to address how to reduce or eliminate risk or the behaviors.

1

I think you are wrong about not being straight if you have experimented. As a bi-female, I have heard several stories about girls when they were in college who got drunk and somehow had sex with a girl. It wasn't their thing, and so they continued dating guys until they got married. Experimenting with someone of the same-sex does not make one gay. Just saying...

Your argument fails the logic test. You indicate that the only way to be after being bisexual is gay. What about the people who "experiment by being bisexual" and then never have same-sex partners ever again and only have heterosexual sex. Are you saying that homosexuality somehow 'contaminates' a person forever and ever no matter what? Your argument is ridiciulous and unfounded. "If you're wired straight, there is no 'experimenting'" is completely erroneous. Boy and girls since the beginning of time have experimented with each other in childhood or early teen years and then go on to to live ordinary heterosexual lives. Conversely there are many who marry, have children, live "ordinary heterosexual lives" for years and then later develop a curiosity or attraction for same-sex contact. Your argument simply doesn't wash.

I think you are wrong about not being straight if you have experimented. As a bi-female, I have heard several stories about girls when they were in college who got drunk and somehow had sex with a girl. It wasn't their thing, and so they continued dating guys until they got married. Experimenting with someone of the same-sex does not make one gay. Just saying...

granted, being drunk does make you considerably more stupid. That being said, it will still not make you do something you are totally opposed to. It wont turn you into a serial killer or an arsonist if you didnt already have it in you. It blocks your better judgement of acting out things.

In all of your drunken days, did you ever "accidentally" end up with a pet or farm animal?

You are either intentionally blind or really stupid, SWM. Either way you're way off the mark. Boys and girls both experiment because they are curious. If their parents are close to them, children will ask them questions and if those parents are not judgmental and reactionary ... letting their own pride get in the way, they can maybe teach their child (and by child, I mean any below 18) how to be safe and if abstinence in their thing, their child may even listen.

But to assume that he or she is not straight because of some experimentation ... ? THAT's CAUSES risky behavior. Kids are smarter than most think. And by nature ... rebellious. Otherwise they would never leave home. You tell your kid that he's gay because of some experimentation, he may just believe you ... wouldn't that be tragic ... if in fact it was not so?

Most "kids" don't really know their true sexual orientation for sure before about 25 ... even if they THINK they know. and many will tell you ... to get you off their back ... that they've always known. That's their rebellion clicking in.

I would hope that any parent would love their kid no matter what. No one knows what "causes" homosexuality. Most lean toward a mixture of things. I'm convinced that the parents are very influencial in this way. If your kid is gay or straight, it is in part your doing.

Sexual orientation is self identity. If there is any choice regarding sexual orientation it is related to the labels--not the behavior. We can call ourselves whatever we want. I used to sit on various nonprofit boards in San Francisco and on a committee where we made decisions about which organizations to give what amount of funds to be used for various HIV/AIDS programs. Many men who identify as heterosexual have more sex partners of the same sex in a year than some men who identify as gay or bisexual. That's why to fight the AIDS epidemic organizations have had to re-market their messages for MSMs--Men who have Sex with other Men. Since many do not identify as gay or bisexual, they pay no attention to safer sex messages aimed toward those populations. The organizations do not classify these men as gay or bisexual, because they can't. How gay is gay? How straight is straight? Sexual orientation is on a continuum.

Brenda, Wouldn't that make these "heterosexuals" who have sex with both men and women really "bisexual" but they are just in denial about it... I know some men don't want the "label" for stigma reasons, but a Rose by any other name is still a Rose..

Maybe. What if they don't think so? They could be gay men who can't face being gay. They could be straight men who like a little spice. Many African cultures have no word for homosexuality, however, quite a few Africans engage in it. It's only when you ask about specific sexual behavior do you get at it. And in some cultures (many Latin and US prison cultures) only the bottom man is gay; that makes the top man heterosexual by definition. You can't tell people how to identify. They'll just walk out of the clinic without a safer sex kit. This is the problem with homophobia. It fuels unsafe sex. Behavior is looked at more than definitions of identity.

Sexuality is on a continuum. Some people are more gay than straight; others are more straight than gay, and to what extent people are attracted to members of the same or opposite sex varies. Some people are attracted to same sex partners emotionally; others physically. Many on both levels. I'm not saying that if a culture doesn't have a name for something, then that something does not exist. (This is a philosophical question.) What I am saying is that something is like the number zero: undefined. And yes, in many Latin American cultures only the bottom man is defined as gay. I tell people when we get into discussions about sexuality that we just really don't understand sexuality. The behavior is likely largely instinctual.

You insist on defining who is bisexual, gay, and straight. What makes you right about who other people are? It's like telling people that because they look more Asian than white, then they are Asian or more white than black, then they are white--when they are telling you that they are biracial. That is what bisexual means in the dominant US culture--not in all US subcultures (African American culture, for instance) or in all foreign cultures. I'm not saying that I agree with all of these various definitions people come up with, but frankly they have a right to self-definition. If their behavior doesn't seem to add up to me, I can't seem to make sense of it all, I steer clear of them.

AmericansAtWar, you're totally wrong. I'm 16 and never had pot, alcohol or drugs on me or near me. Sex, yes. I keep myself under control, i don't have sex with random people. It's always a Girlfriend that i've atleast known for 6months. Also, my career is on track. I'm currently taking Cisco networking/firewall lessons at the age of 16. Maybe, you've never had the experience before and you're possibly reflecting your angry back at America and not yourself. But, i do agree partly with what you stated. Most parents do lack the dicipline on their children, also the schools too. For most, theres really nothing one can do, let it run its coarse, if it falls let it be. We're obviously not intelligent enough to handle life.

AmericansatWar

"they are drinking, smoking pot, taking drugs, having sex with whomever"....sounds just like 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997....eh?

pick one of the decades you must have been around -

Do you wear a condom every time Nick?

What I interpret when I read post #10 is:

"GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE...*cough* You damn kids on my lawn smoking pot and having sex! Back in my day, we....had sex and smoked pot!"

Please, get off your high-horse old man. This is something that has been going on for thousands of years, sir. The sooner you stop, and take a look around at the world in which you live in, the sooner you can join the rest of us here on planet Earth.

@Americans at war- I'm torn by your post....on the one hand you're not ignorant about what kids do, but yet, you condemn the same things you did as a teen. How do I know that? Well, where else would you get all that info from your post. You had sex too as a teenager, I can tell by that post, so stop being so hypocritical. The only thing right in your post is that some (not most) parents don't give a damn about their kids. IT'S NONE OF THE SCHOOL'S DAMN BUSINESS IF THEIR STUDENTS ARE HAVING SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, you sound like a real winner. Not disgustingly conceited at all.

SWM

are you bragging that you paid for sex with over 100 partners?

"normal men"

And you sure do know what is normal, don't you...lol

@SWM I imagine you live in an old cottage with a huge Bible, and a crucifix on your wall, especially if you're that uptight about homosexuality. One more thing, @!$%# NORMAL!!

Over a hundred?What does that proove?It shows that you have a problem, a problem trying and wanting to out do yourself.You don't know how to find love,you just want to win amd dominate a sex partner.You definitely NEED help!

It's interesting to note, this article has noting to say about ALL those teenagers that DO NOT engage in sex.

Seems like the news media has an agenda.

Omg, I don't believe I wrote that!

I agree James....

Being sexually educated doesn't mean you are engaging in sex....it only implies you are well informed about the choices you make.

@boston- Thank you! The only people who have a problem with teen sex, or same sex experiementing, are probably all the uptight conservative christian fanatics. Kids need to be educated. I believe one of the recent articles on MSNBC, was that abstinence only education is ending, finally. Now kids won't be ignorant or shameful about their urges or how to take care of themselves. I don't know if you have kids or not, but if you do, I can tell that they will be responsible in their sex lives, because you were responsible in educating them about sex.

kudos to you too ISIS.......

I don't know your age but don't ever let anyone tell you that your self worth or morals is interwined with sex. Sex is normal, healthy and wonderful. We do it cause it feels good...plain and simple. And thats ok! Conservative imbeciles would have you believe sex is for marriage and should be given as a gift to your future spouse. BS!!!! sex isn't for anyone other than yourself! Don't fall victim to that outdated irrelevant control tactic of sex is dirty and shameful unless you are married.

Knowledge is power. Power is control over YOUR BODY. Enjoy what mother nature gave you by being responsible, safe and good to yourself.

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU for posting this! There is so much more to risky behavior than simply "What you put where with Gender A or Gender B". Does a hand job count as sex? does sitting on another person's lap with everyone's clothes on count as sex? There is a lot more gray that studies like these can't pick up on because the views are constantly changing.

Education (I mean simple, factual, and unemotional "This it what happens"... Not fear inspiring "You're an immoral abomination if you even THINK about it") is what needs to happen so the students have enough understanding to say no on their own, or at least take precautions against accidents if they chose to say yes.

There's enough fear going around with the economy and unemployment. Why should extra unhappiness be piled on just because someone chooses to put bits in different places than "everyone else"?

absolutly....

End goal: arm our young people with knowledge and facts. They are capable of making good informed choices over their own bodies...it's their right.

Remove the fear and shame of sex. Sex is a beautiful experience when you are comfortable on your own choices. It feels good...and there is no shame in that.

We teach or kids to drive, use a checking account, plan for retirement......

but we freeze as teachers when it comes to sex....?

Finally, someone with common sense!

Why why why why why are you people harping on body piercings???? They're cool!! Kids don't get pierced to look "bizarre" as you call it, it's because they want the piercing, and feel it will look good on them. Who are you to judge? There's nothing wrong with experimenting with the same sex partner either, it's NORMAL CURIOSITY. The only thing I agree with you on is drugs that's just stupid, but the rest of what you said just screeches uptightness.

People who have body piercings all over their body( in their nose, through their lips, eyebrows, nipples, tongues, etc. and those who sew horns in their heads are bizarre. They're not cool. I had a guy show up for a job with horns sewn into his head. I told him not to even bother applying. Having a small belly ring is one thing but when your entire body is covered with rings, that is a cry for help the same way one taking drugs is a cry for self medication. Why is is okay to experiment in same sex behavior and body piercings but not okay to experiment in drugs?

It is not a cry for help. How do you know? Prove it. Go talk to that dude and let me know. Those people who you think look bizarre don't give a damn about what your little theories about their piercings are, and they do it because they want to. Who are you to judge? Those people aren't close minded like you and the rest of the uptight people out there.

isis: take a couple of courses in psychology, just the basic ones, understand what constitutes normal behavior and then talk about closed minded people. If there is nothing wrong with multiple body piercings and horns sewn in your head,and earlobes with coke cans stuffed in them, etc. why aren't any of these people community leaders, sportscasters, police officers, teachers, weathermen, local politicians, etc? What they are doing is out of the norm, it's not normal. It would be the same if someone was to walk around with a pole sticking out of his a$$, it's not normal. There are people who get sexually excited by having a limb cut off, again this is not normal. It has nothing to with people being uptight. And over time, people who do these bizarre things want everyone else to conform to this behavior and accept it as normal. And they get really pissed off when society doesn't. Sorry, it's not normal.

Well they shouldn't get pissed off if no one else accepts it, but I still think you're in no position to judge. You've never seen the National Geographic "Taboo" episode about body modification I guess. I thought some of it was strange, but interesting, and it's too bad that people like you only see the freakish side of it.

isis: this is a free country and you can do what ever you want for the most part to your body. You have that right. I also have the right to call this behavior bizarre. If you think someome with a crewcut looks bizarre, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But from a point of view from the business world, people are going to be reluctant to hire people who look outlandish.

Well you can take most piercings out, so the "reluctant to hire" argument is pretty much invalid. The employers are probably afraid of the person themselves. They're judging based on piercings, without even bothering to look at work experience I'll bet.

Of course it's going to be based on piercings. My job is to "judge" whom I'm going to hire. And I am not going to pick a person with piercings or horns sewn in their head. Neither is the police dep't, the fire dep't; principals who hire teachers, business corporations, UPS, FEDEX or any corporation that needs that person to represent the firm or organization. I could imagime the uproar if a newly hired kindergarden teacher showed up with eye piercings, a tongue ring, a nose piercing, 2 inch buttons in their ear lobes, ann a bar through their lip. Honestly don't think that would go over too well. So again, my question, who's the oddball? The school administration and all the parents, or this newly hired teacher. You have every right to look how you want, and I have every right not to want to look at you.

isis-an empty hole is still a hole nonetheless. It doesn't matter if it is filled with a stud, ring, pole or empty, it still looks unprofessional in the business and public service communities. And personally, I think taking out the piercing is almost as bad if not worse than actually keeping them in. And just because they have good work experience does not make them a good canidate. I've hired many people that looked good on paper and were good in phone interviews. I let that outweigh what they were like in person mostly because I needed someone. People put things on their applications to make themselves look good. If I was applying for a job as a cook, I would write in for job history head cook but if I was looking for a manager position, I would write in Assistant manager. Both of these jobs were the same job yet you change the name of them so then you look better.

Also, a good question is asking them when they got their piercings. If they seem to get a new one every 6 months or so, there is a good bet that they will get a new one and then have to keep it in so it heal itself. If they all seem to be old ones like from college days, then they might be ok.

You know people, you all have lost my original point completely, and that is: piercings are not responsible for risky teen sexual behavior. You cannot blame everything on piercings, which is what everyone does nowdays. How about seeing the facts? This risky behavior is because of abstinence (ignorance) only sex ed, uneducated teens who don't have all the facts, combined with their curiosity. You all know that it's a recipe for disaster if we don't educate them the RIGHT way.

Isis-I don't think anyone actually stated that body piercings are responsible for risky behavior. The original poster was stating how this seems to be going back to the sixties in the way no one cares about anyone else and if it feels good do it. Then you took it as him saying body piercings lead to risky behavior. Then when another poster said that you were wrong when you said piercings were cool and he views them as a cry for help, you went on some rant using generalizing statements and wanting him to prove it. Then you call us "closed minded" when you are the one using blanket generalizations.

And then, this is good, when we start talking about your tangent and firing back, you complain that we are off subject from your original post when we were just following your post. That's not even talking about how your original post had anything to do with the original poster at #14.

Also, no one was blaming anything, let alone everything, on piercings. I don't know where you get your facts from but I would like to see them because you say I should look at your facts. So please post your facts with credible sources (not wikipedia).

I also like how you think the teenagers of this generation aren't educated enough in sex. I'm pretty sure that most have the ability to research the topic themselves if they really want unbiased reports. Most of them would rather just learn from their mistakes.

So I will be waiting for your educated response.

I've known plenty of people who associate the inked and pierced with irresponsible sexual behavior. THAT is where I get my facts. I don't like how piercings are classified under the "if it feels good do it" assumption. Piercings don't feel good, but how a piercing feels is not the point of it. It's because you want to have the piercing. I think it's stupid to say that these people think piercing feels good, they probably don't think that at all. That's a generalization that doesn't belong in the categories of irresponsible sex and drug use. Besides, people don't pierce because everyone else is doing it, and if they do that's just stupid. I think it's rather judgemental to stereotype piercing with other TRULY irresponsible behaviors. For the love of God, there's nothing you can do about people getting pierced, and there is NOTHING wrong with it so why even complain? That's my problem with the original poster.

Jackal....and Chet

My my...aren't we full of infinate wisdom and knowledge? You are incredibly condescending and pompous with your sweeping generalizations of teens, sex and body piercings. You do understanding that your opinions border on discrimination.....especially in the "hiring for a job" statement. You are also perpetuating the stereotyping of people who may engage in different choices to their appearance as being not normal or to a standard of your own liking.

...and I get it....there are quite a few things that I don't agree with but ultimatley it's none of my concern. If I don't like to look at piercings.....I will close my eyes.

We are supposed to be leading by example to our younger citizens and displaying non judgement of superficial exterior things. All I hear is bashing someones choice to adorn their body with a centuries old custom. Lighten up.....

In the end....ones character is evident in their behaviors towards their fellow humans....not by tattoos, piercings or sexual experience.

Wow finally someone who agrees with me. You're spot on.

Isis, again no one has said that body piercings lead to irresponsiblebehavior. And if you know plenty of people who associate piercings with irresponsible sexual behavior, good for you, I'm not one of them and you should be attacking them, not someone else who doesn't believe that. I do think piercings are not perceived as professional in the business and customer service industry (the face to face, not over the phone). The original poster was only making a statement about the past, he never said it was wrong. He may have been implying it but I will only take something at face value here. I do believe that piercings are an expression of who you are, just as a suit and tie shows someone who either is in a business profession or a hard hat shows construction.

Boston, I'm guessing the sweeping generalizations part wasn't towards me since I veer from using them because I know that every situation is different, they may be similar but different nonetheless. In regards about the piercings in the workplace, I have seen some piercings that are tactfully done and wouldn't mind hiring them. My thing about that was when Chey said he wouldn't, Isis replied saying it wasn't a reasonable action because you can take piercings out and we should look at their work history. I told her that "an empty hole is still a hole" statement. And then said that just by looking at their history doesn't mean they are good and gave a couple of general examples. Also, I didn't like how she says to look at the facts and gives blanket statements with no support. Then when asked, her facts come from people she knows.

I do like talking with you Boston because I believe you have good points and I like hearing them and responding. I do not like Isis when she takes everything as a threat and attacks us "closed-minded" people for not agreeing. I realize everyone is in a different place and has different views and it is not my place to judge them or "bash" them but I do feel that it is my responsibility to understand their thinking and what caused them to believe in this. I like picking people's brain. I believe if more people were like this instead of a "you against me" mentality, the world would be a better place since we would learn to tolerate each other instead of trying to convert each other.

Sorry for the rant Boston.

Okay, Im not "attacking" anyone, it's not my fault that you're taking it as an attack, or if anyone else is. I never said anyone had to agree with me, so just shut up about agreement okay? Okay. I just voice my opinion like you. BIG DEAL. That is your problem, don't bring it on here. He may not have said word for word that piercings lead to irresponsible behavior, but if piercings are not irresponsible, then I want to know why he even included it in his rant about irresponsible behaviors, if he does "believe that". What's the point of including it in a post about irresponsiblity if piercings are not irresponsible??? You wanna answer that? And just because I said people I know, that doesn't mean that those aren't facts and that I'm full of @!$%#, so if you are implying that, well then you're dead wrong, pal.

For the record, I wasn't even responding to you. Obviously we're not going to agree, so just drop it.

Wow, how much has gone on while away. This is my last post, and I honestly don't expect you to get it isis or Boston. My comments were about how this generation does what feels good without the ramifications of the consequences. Isis, you say you are against drugs, but if one feels like getting high, who are you to judge? That is the same argument I have with multiple piercings. And Boston, you say if you don't like piercing, you will close your eyes. That's my point exactly, I will close my eyes and not hire you. Discrimination??? Hardly!!! I found someone better qualified, end of story. If I'm so pompous,would you find a problem with a person walking around with a six inch pole protruding out of their a$$. Or maybe a clear plastic tube with a gerbal running around inside of it. What's the big deal? Would you send such a person to wine and dine clientele? I don't think so. Because the bottom is that you look like a freak, whether it is your intention or not.

Just because I'm against drugs does NOT mean I judge those who do drugs. The way I see it, whatever happens to them is their own doing, and I stay out of it. How dare you say that I judge drug users when I just ignore them? Do not accuse me of judging somebody when I never did any such thing. There was NO judgement of drug users in any of my posts, so you need to watch your mouth, and STOP PUTTING YOUR WORDS INTO MINE!!

Hello, if you are against drugs, and you ignore drug users, you've made a judgement call. You're opinion is that you are against drugs, thats a judgement. Would you go for surgery knowing the doctor just shot up some heroin? I don't think so. That's a judgement call. Would you let someone in a drugged stupor drive you home? If you say no, thats a judgement call. Hopefully, someday the light bulb will come on and you will understand this.

Parents let their kids watch to much TV with little girls on it dressing slutty and kissing guys at 10 years old. They are teaching kids how to have sex in middle school and then not expecting them to be curious and try it? Then the 12 year old boy goes to jail for having sex with a minor girl.........

You parents and people in America are insane in the membrane. If you can't figure out how this all happened. Go look at the history books then and statistics.

I agree with you mia, but then the networks and liberals would scream censorship!

You just answered your own question. If parents take an involved role in their kids' lives, they don't have to worry about them getting STDs just because other kids "like to screw whenever they can". You have put the responsibility of your children's sexual health onto other children.

From their hormones and imaginations, mia.

@mla-How do you know that they don't think about experimenting on your own? It's normal to experiment, and it is NOT an idea, for all you know they got it from their fantasies, or what they've heard. TV is not responsible for everything, so enough with the uptight TV channel bashing. You probably don't give a @!$%# about the plots of the shows (which are very interesting). Do you honestly think a teen watches a movie, they'll just blindlly decide to imitate what they see on the tv? They can make those choices on their own, so stop acting like they are totally incapable. You make teens sound like retards with 1/4 of a functional brain, which isn't true. I've got news for you. Teens are a lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. I'm not a teen anymore, but I didn't experiment just because I saw it in a movie. Any kid who actually has sex because the teens on tv do it is an IDIOT. And if you have to worry about your kids imitating the sexual relationships on TV, then it's because you haven't taught them to say no if they don't want it, or you probably haven't educated them about sex yet. I'm guessing you've taught them nothing, and if that's the case they'll learn about sex the hard way. Besides, even with all your (and other parents') worrying about sex, did you ever even bother to consider that your kids know better? "I don't want to have to worry about my kids getting all kinds of STDs when they decide to just have sex because other kids like to screw whenever they can!" Well, your kids either have no self control, or you're giving them a helluva lot less credit than they're worth! My guess is that you're giving them less credit. And just because people on TV (which is NOT reality) have sex doesn't mean all kids over here in the real world are having sex. What a blind assumption on your part. Aside from all that, your kids are gonna start "screwing", or riding, or banging, or @!$%#ing sooner or later. Better accept it now, and teach them about sex, rather than freak out over it.

Sodom and Gomorrah here we come (no pun intended).

Sodom and Gomorrah?! What does this article have to do with being inhospitable?

Sodom and Gomorrah?! What does this article have to do with being inhospitable?

Aren't you a clever one.....

First off, homosexuality is not a sin. When taken in context every passage in the Bible that deals with homosexuality does so within the context of male rape and prostitution and group sex in pagan temples--not within consensual, monogamous relationships. The sins are rape, prostitution, and promiscuity. Further, Genesis 2:24 resembles Ruth 1:14. While Genesis 2:24 speaks of Adam's relationship to Eve as one in which they should cling to one another, Ruth 1:14 talks about Ruth and Naomi's relationship in the same way. Ruth made this vow to Naomi: “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you! (Ruth 1:16-17)" Even after Ruth married and bore a son, the Bible essentially ignores her relationship with her husband and continues to talk about her relationship with Naomi: “(Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth “who loves you, is more to you than seven sons.” The vow (Ruth 1:16-17) has been cited in Christian weddings for centuries, although many Christians argue that since the Bible does not explicitly say that Ruth and Naomi had a sexual or romantic relationship, then their relationship must not have been a platonic friendship. How that argument can be used when Ruth's vow to Naomi is used in weddings is beyond comprehension. Husbands and wives do not take vows of celibacy on their wedding day.

However, even if homosexuality is a sin, according to the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, grace is a gift given freely by God. God already sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins and only our faith in Jesus as our lord and savior is required to get into heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9). That's true for homosexuals, too. See, only God is perfect, and John 1:3 tells us that God created us and Psalm 18:30 tells us that He does not make mistakes. God understands human frailty and realizes that sometimes we may not get things right. (That is as true for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.) However, not getting something right does not mean that anyone is going to hell. Now none of that means we have a blank check. What it does mean is that we are to live our lives with respect for ourselves and others and with integrity, while realizing that no human being is perfect. For one thing, we don't know what shape perfection takes. It is only defined by God's grace.

Religions have never been able to reconcile free will with God being omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. There seems to be a contradiction. Being gay is analogous to being left-handed, something for which scientists have also not found a gene, although most of us would probably admit it is biologically based. Apparently, it is something that develops via a biochemical process in utero; that is, within the environment of the womb, which would make it environmental as well as biological, but not necessarily genetic. (The theory is: Maternal stress can also play a role in hormone release.) Left-handed people were once considered evil, too, and were forced to use their right hands by having their left arms tied behind their backs. (The Bible should not be allowed to usurp issues of science when it comes to public matters, such as Civil Rights.) When the time comes for homosexuals to account to God, we should do so in the same way as heterosexuals: honestly. I will stand before Him and tell Him that I believe He made me this way. And, you know, I believe He'll love me even if I'm wrong (John 3:17). But see, I think God is really only going to want to know a few things: Did I love deeply? Not all about who I loved. And did I have fun in life? Because God has the most incredible sense of humor. (Why else would He put up with any of us?) If God can forgive, Why must you be so exacting? Why must you throw your misunderstanding of Sodom and Gomorrah in our faces? Sodom and Gomorrah's sins were republican ideals; failure to take care of the sick, elderly and poor (Ezekial 16:48-49), as well as the rape of strangers. For those of you who like to throw Leviticus 18:22 at us, feast on this, Leviticus 11:9-12: God hates crab cakes and shrimp cocktails, too. As a matter of fact, the Bible refers to eating seafood as an abomination. No particular sin is any greater than any other sin. Leviticus 18:22, when taken in context of the surrounding passages, forbids ritual sex within pagan temples. "Don't lie with a man the way you lie with a woman" just means don't have sex in the temple at all--not that's it's okay to have sex in the temple with someone of the opposite sex. It means don't do it in the temple with either sex. Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory." So where do some of you get off thinking you can treat other human beings like crap and God will just look the other way? Also, many of you take your religion cafeteria-style, paying attention to only those things that you can use to further your agenda. Why can't we deal with ambiguity and diversity in this world? All of this diversity and God made one sexual orientation? That's absurd! Further, many of you talk like God's a fool. Don't you really think God knows sex is pleasurable and that He gave us a natural form of birth control that we refer to as homosexuality?

That will piss off the God lovers, great job!

Oh....and AHA..... the lefties and the homosexuals.....I definatly see the connection now.

I'll have to let my dad know that he had about as much of a chance of being gay as he was born left handed.

Phew....Looks like my very existance dodged a bullet there.

Whoa!......I just had a thought, what about the left handers that also turned out to be gay? Is that like winning the genetic lottery or what!?

Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. Ruth vowed to stay with Naomi after her husband was killed because Naomi was left all alone. Ruth's husband was the son of Naomi. His name was either Mahlon or Chilion. There was no perverted relationship as you are trying to establish between Ruth and Naomi. Ruth looked at Naomi as her own mother.

So you feel the Bible enables you to freely sin and be forgiven? And if your behavior is passed on to the next generation as "acceptable behavior", do you think God won't hold you responsible for that? You can spin the Bible to meet your needs but it will not save you. As a matter of fact you will be one who recieves many lashes for ignoring his word, bending it to your will or turning from it. I suggest you pray for guidance, because the Deciever allready has a solid hold on you.

Ruth and Naomi were not related. One of the things that is really interesting about those claiming to be religious is that you usually have no problems with lying through your teeth. The Bible does list, Bearing false witness against thy neighbor, as a sin. Why would a vow made between in-laws be taken by husbands and wives on their wedding?

SgtDudeoli, I feel just as entitled to sin as you do. If you really believe in God as you apparently are claiming to, then you'd get out of His way and let him do his job. Where in the Bible does it say they He needs you to assist him?

Brenda-251440

Ruth and Naomi were not related

Are you saying that Naomi was not Ruth's Mother-In-Law?

If you're saying she wasn't, I'd be interested on your spin on this.

I am a sinner, but as a Christian it is my responsibility to show you the right way through my actions and how I live my life. But God does his works through us so to get out of the way to let him do his job, well, that is probably our greatest problem right there.

well said brenda :) he made us knowing exactly who we would turn out to be and who we would love

sgt and dude- it is not your job to pass judgment. seems you have forgotten- "they will know we are christians by our love"

Really? Could you be more ignorant about what New York City is actually like? There are well-off families, families with two parents, and some of our schools are really quite excellent. Of the 100 best (public) high schools in America, according to US News, more than 10% are in New York City. And our private schools are pretty damn good, too.

As for there not being much to do... why don't you visit before jumping to that (erroneous) conclusion?

I think the highest percentage of teen sex might actually be affluent teens in both urban and non-urban areas.

If you could have done it for free then how come you didn't do it or offer your services to do it for free?

think the highest percentage of teen sex might actually be affluent teens in both urban and non-urban areas.

Maybe. However the rates of disease, violence, teen parenthood and dependency are not the same. People are more tolerant of youthful debauchery when it doesn't cost them anything.

Study reveals risky sex behavior among NYC teens

Doesn't seem to me like it implies that homosexuality le3ads to devious behavior at all. It does seem to me that you haven't read the article because then you would know that it says people who have partners of both sexes are less likely to use condoms and more likely to be violent.

It isn't implying it at all Cat, its simply saying that Teens that have engaged in sex with both sexes have a higher rate of not using protection, primarily a condom.

Oh, lighten up and learn how to spell. With comments like "people like you" and "we all know", I assume you get your information off restaurant place mats? Straight people spread disease too, plenty of it, and when it takes the form of bigotry, it's no less a damaging, infectious, and insidious social disease as any other.

your terrible spelling makes your comments seem even more asinine, if that is actually possible. go back to elementary school and learn some english before you come spitting hate. until then, you will remain an ignorant, inbred, and grossly mis-informed p.o.s.

I see a ban coming here!

Big Bore

at least you didn't show any prejudice in your post....

Being from the middle of nowhere I can assure you there was nothing to do but go to a party or have sex or combine the two. Half my graduating class (whooping amount of 80) already had a child or were pregnant. Pitiful really.

Medicaid babies are everywhere!They say,also,you can't fix stupid.Every generation slips another notch,letting itself get more lazy,less Godly,and more ME loving.Have you noticed it's all in the attitude of people.They care,or they don't care.They love each other and get along,accept mistakes and let live,or they ingnore even their personal health to get the fix they crave,at whatever expense of others they tend to ignore,just for personal gratification.The ME people.The ones who justify any bad behavior to attain personal gratification.They'll live,lust shorter lifespans.Now you ME people can insult this guy all you want,your still wrong.