General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGrown Ups Only, Please. Adult "sex" discussion in this thread.
Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)
What follows is an "Ida Lecture" about an ADULT topic for those who missed it in school.
It is intended for the (minority group) who support "if I don't want a baby, you should get an abortion so I don't have to pay child support."
Some people may find it condescending and sarcastic. Congratulations on your excellent reading comprehension abilities!
[h2]"SEX: It isn't just for Recreation - our species uses it for PROCREATION."[/h2]
Here is the thing: Sex with ORGASMS (I warned you this was "adult talk" is enjoyable. Frequently adults wish to engage in Sexual Activity as "recreation" - either to have a nice orgasm, or to feel intimate with someone, or maybe because it can burn a lot of calories and they don't want to go to the gym.
There are many reasons people choose to have SEX, and sometimes, it is even "on purpose" for "procreation."
Here is the BIG secret: apparently men's bodies are designed so that "procreation" is Super Fun. This is how our species procreates: a man has to have a "Super Fun Time" for ejaculation to occur (aka an "orgasm" for his "baby making bits" to impregnate his partner.
Women do NOT have to have a "Super Fun Time" to get pregnant, but smart men usually figure out women who have "Super Fun Times" while having sex are usually willing to have sex more often.
BUT men RARELY want to have as many children as they want to have opportunities for sex - and sex isn't always a guarantee of procreation - and women (who not all that long ago dealt with "one out of three pregnancies will result in the death of the mother, the baby, or both" like to control the number of offspring they produce, who they produce them with, and when they produce them.
Enter Birth Control. It isn't always guaranteed to work, but if you want to have "Super Fun Times" for recreational ONLY purposes, it is an absolute MUST.
NEWSFLASH (from 1973): Currently women get to decide whether or not they will carry or terminate a pregnancy; nine months of nurturing a growing human being (risking death and/or other medical complications) is both a privilege, and a responsibility, and issues like "appropriate partner", "finance" and "health" are usually considered when a woman makes this decision.
For the fair minded, the question arises: should a "future daddy" have any say? After all, if he was just involving himself in "recreational sex", then why should he have to pay "child support" for "accidental procreation"?
To those people, I politely point out adults understand we are biologically programmed for "procreation" and the trick nature gave us to indulge it was making it "Super Fun." If you are adult enough to engage in sexual intercourse, you are old enough to understand that one of the risks of "Super Fun" sex is pregnancy, and that even mitigating those risks does not make them go away.
If you are a man who does not wish to procreate, your options are either celibacy or minimally invasive surgery.
But, wah! wah! say the cry babies. "I was just trying to have some fun! I didn't know she was going to make a baby on me!"
Congratulations. Nature has tricked you into creating life. Your job is now to PROVIDE for your offspring. The mother of your child may (or may not) wish to give you "Super Fun Times" again in the future, but frankly, nature has tricked her worse than you because now she has to deal with your whining, plus a small child.
We can only hope the mother of your child was selective enough to only have sex with a mature, responsible, kind, intelligent, financially stable, non-criminal, good-example-of-how-to-be-a-decent-human-being guy, but unfortunately, her hormones have probably tricked her into breeding with someone who may not be all of those things - "but I thought he loved me!" will be her explanation when she has to explain to your child why you don't live together/you have another family (or two)/there isn't money for diapers, etc., while you can always proffer the "your mama was hot and I was horny!" defense.
Either way, if she decides your genes are worth carrying forward into the human gene pool/her time and energy, you will be paying child support (one way or the other) for the next eighteen years.
Trust me - if you are someone who can't provide for himself, let alone your offspring, the rest of us aren't happy about it either. (Somehow the guys who can't afford condoms are always the ones who keep making kids - sigh - this is what happens when someone is flat broke, and nature has attached "fun toys" to their bodies.)
Either way, life isn't fair, and "abortion" is still the woman's choice.
Hopefully you now understand that "orgasms are not always recreational in nature; sometimes you create a child."
If you don't want to pay, it is easiest NOT TO play. (Or have surgery. That works, too.)
End Educational Discussion of "SEX: It isn't just for Recreation!"
ON EDIT: Please be on the look out for an upcoming "Part 2: Getting Happy and Squishy May Also Get You Pregnant" where we will also discuss why "procreation" requires specific insertion points by male/female pairings (but other stuff still counts as SEX, too).
niyad
(113,302 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)I asked them to imagine writing out a check for EIGHTEEN (or more) years to a woman they knew once upon a time, and who may be telling their kid what a schlub he is, ans who may not want him to have much contact with the kid...and every time he gets a raise, so does she & the kid..and every child visitation is a court issue (with the attendant costs)
I think it worked too well.. Our middle son just became a Dad at 34 and the other two are married but childless so far (aged 39 & 33)
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)but but but but
A vasectomy is so expensive.
ummm not as expensive as raising a child. Not even close.
I really really can't wait for the day when male BC is a reality and the "I want the rest of society to take care of my offspring" men can finally and fully shut it.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)So glad it was appreciated!
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...."Hey Honey, I didn't make to the gym today, how about we..."
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I mean ... oh, dear!
life long demo
(1,113 posts)from Jr. High on up. Excellent.
redwitch
(14,944 posts)Bravo IdaBriggs!
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)redwitch
(14,944 posts)Ah well, As Professor Dumbledore said: If you are holding out for universal popularity you'll be waiting a long time.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Amongst all the bolding, caps, and weirdly-placed quotation marks, your message is completely lost. If you want to have a so-called adult conversation, you might start by assuming that we can read the printed word, without all those unnecessary flourishes. Thank you.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I couldn't even make it through the OP.
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)...but found it completely unreadable.
I figured I would just go to the comments to see if I should bother.
What I got out of the OP was something about Super Fun Times.
Signed,
A proud member of the vasectomy club.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and sorry your "fun toy" had a temporary owie.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Hopefully I at least got the "sarcastic and condescending" right!
Chalco
(1,308 posts)I thought the bolding gave it some oomph and made me laugh.
To each her own.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)You might as well play Russian Roulette.
enki23
(7,788 posts)Yeah. The rules constrain me from calling you what you are.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)you can not however, say oops I can't afford the kid, so she has to get an abortion or I get to walk away scott free with no responsibility to the child.
Or you could practice safer sex... Your choice.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)"Please.. You can have sex
you can not however, say oops I can't afford/dont want the kid, so I get to get an abortion...
Or you could practice safer sex... Your choice."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)say in abortion or not.
you and the original poster seem to be suggesting it is not fair. i would like to know if that is what you are saying.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Yes, a man should pay support in such a case, and no, it is not fair. The only thing I was saying in my last (and heretofore only) post on the topic was that the argument is no different than the anti-choice argument, and that I would rather see a better argument put forth.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Asked and not assuming. Both found insulting me for asking the way. Odd world we live in.
Thanks for the answer.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I will endeavor to do better the next time I am educating the "I don't want to pay child support so you should get an abortion or I don't have to pay" brigade.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)saying that the argument was rw, ergo men should not have to pay. along with the poster that says only financially stable men can have sex.
my post had nothing to do with your OP.
i thought your OP was great.
i really get tired of people calling me names because i ask a question, or someone has gotten something wrong. brigade?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And me remembering a few other posters whining about paying child support (for some reason, they just *really* stick in my craw).
Didn't mean to be overly sensitive - so sorry!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)please
opiate69
(10,129 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Suggesting that it is is just plain silly.
Pointing out that people have a whole smorgasbord of choices isn't anti-choice. What a ludicrous suggestion.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Anti-abortion fundies aren't actually "anti-choice", since they're quick to point out that women have choices other than abortion. IE, adoption, birth control, or the ever-popular abstinence.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)just to try and insist I am an anti choice right winger?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)It takes a special kind of vacuity to read "you're using the same argument as anti-choicers" as "you're a right wingnut!" Challenge yourself and come up with an argument that can't be distilled down to "if you don't want the consequences, don't have sex."
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)although it is a correct statement that if you do not want to take responsibility for a child or refuse to use any BC method, than abstinence is a good choice.
Some people are so adamant about taking the exact polar opposite of conservatives on every issue, that they often take strange positions. Abstinence is a fine choice. It should not be the only one nor should it be presented as the only option but it is a very good choice for preventing pregnancy.
abortion is fine choice
keeping the child is a fine choice
condoms, IUDs, inserts are all fine choices
Abstinence is a fine choice.
Trying to claim you have no responsibility at all in the issue is idiotic.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)The inequity is in the fact that, up until the moment of conception, both parties have all the same choices available to them, but once fertilization occurs, the man's choices get limited. And there are myriad very good arguments to be made for the woman having the ultimate choice, but I don't personally think "you took your chances, Sport" is one of them. Especially considering the fallibility of most readily available birth control.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)The male partner doesn't get to walk away though.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is comments like this that have me ask again....
????
it has got to be. a condom can fail. had sex, got preg, pay.
you are saying you do not personally think that is a good argument. good or not, it is a reality.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Used to attempt to restrict women's choices. "Oh, you're pregnant and can't afford/don't want a baby? Tough shit.. should have kept your legs closed"... it's not a good argument. Especially when there are better, such as women's rights to self-determination, or how it's reprehensible to force a woman into a potentially dangerous medical procedure, etc etc.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)appreciate.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)There is inherently an inequity at work here. Person A and Person B both engage in the same activity. Both of them know the risks, and both have the same options to mitigate the risks. Through whatever reason, both situations wind up with someone getting pregnant. Now, Person A has options available to them that Person B doesn't. As a fair -minded liberal, this inequity does not sit well with me. (Even though I've never been in this situation and most likely never will.) Unfortunately, there really is no way to mitigate this inequity without imposing onerous and unconscionable violations on either the women involved or the potential children. So, as an academic exercise I welcome discussions to try to come up with some kind of resolution, but I accept that it is what it is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is why the "you play, you pay" is the point of it all.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)And hence male control over a woman's body. Trying to equate responsibility for own's own behavior with the right is absurd. Any position that suggestions anyone other than the woman decide what to do with her body is right wing. Until men can become pregnant, there is no equivalency. Trying to pretend one exists is absurd.
The issue of child support revolves around the public good. Should tax payers have to support children because their biological fathers don't feel like it? Society says no. Grown men can use birth control just as easily as women can. Asking adults to assume responsibility is not right wing. Leftist ideology does not revolve around hedonism and nihilism. It has to do with lessening social inequality, and when men refuse to help support children that worsens poverty. .
redqueen
(115,103 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)If that's too much $$$ for you, you're probably not yet out of grade school.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)for the teens.
I for one would be willing to see more tax money going to teen reproductive health services.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)unless you're suggesting we distribute free condoms to grade schoolers.
The poster to whom I replied to seemed to think it his "right" to have sex with a female
without assuming possible financial responsibility for a pregnancy which might occur.
Not a good idea, since even condoms aren't 100 percent.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)"... good-example-of-how-to-be-a-decent-human-being guy ..."
and you focused on "financially stable" as the "impossible" standard to meet?
enki23
(7,788 posts).
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)You are being rude and insulting. Please edit your post to remove the personal insult.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)that the woman is the one who will carry the pregnancy to term if she so chooses, so SHE and SHE ALONE makes the decision, and the other parent has to accept it.
Oh, how my heart bleeds for these poor, put upon victims.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Your response is exactly what I would expect from someone who will never be in that situation.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Did someone actually say that?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So given that everyone else handed that individual their ass in response-- I count at least 20 vehement disagreements, not including you and me -- assuming the mass drubbing in the subthread wasn't enough, wouldn't it make more sense for the OP to send them a PM than start another entire thread responding to one outlying opinion?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)but there were also a number of posters in the thread that seemed to either hint at that same concept, or outright believe they should have an absolute right to walk away from their offspring just because they feel like it.
I believe the OP was addressing that silly notion as well.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I would agree, that's a mighty silly notion.
Response to MattBaggins (Reply #20)
Arugula Latte This message was self-deleted by its author.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)hahaha Actually, I wouldn't say I got a "mass drubbing" in the other thread. I was just throwing an idea out there and some people engaged in discussion about it and I answered their questions and it was a good civil conversation even though we disagreed with each other. The only good argument against what I said was that "Women should get the only choice." whereas I offered many paragraphs of discussion, which is what all of our collective goal should be - discussion to further our total cause.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)muddying the waters is in no way or shape helpful. The choice- the legal choice, the medical choice- HAS to belong to the woman. To assert anything else is, to my mind, dangerous.
It is good of you to show up to this party, though, seeing as it was apparently held in your honor.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)This gay human uses sex exclusively for "Super Fun Times - recreational ONLY purposes" each and every time I have sex. Or doesn't that count as sex?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Most people seem to be able to discern what specific sex act she's describing.
Or who knows, maybe someone will chime in to oh-so-helpfully list the sex acts which don't apply to the OP. That kind of ... whatever ... seems quite popular.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)that's all. Nothing out of the ordinary. In fact tediously ordinary.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)What else would you expect.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)You wouldn't have an argument if you quoted her fairly.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)due to be released REALLY SOON (probably not! lol!) and I have edited the original post to reflect that.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)We had some real winners yesterday who needed this.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but some of those winners were making me grind my teeth - this seemed a healthier approach - lol!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Period.
Since barring some massive techno-medical shift, that will remain the woman, obviously, it's the woman who is pregnant who makes the call.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)And for the people who say: "Well, the man should have some say" -- okay ... even if the man gets 49 percent of the say and the woman gets 51 percent, it still doesn't matter, she's still The Ultimate Decider.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but that said, yes, she's the decider -even though that particular word has been permanently soiled by the last President.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And if a woman does get pregnant it is her choice to either have or not have an abortion.
Did that really require so much effort to say?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)to any children they help create; yes it did really require so much effort to say.
Rex
(65,616 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)The woman should get her tubes tied, I have no responsibility in matters of BC.
Rex
(65,616 posts)sadly I know men in RL that say those words in complete seriousness. They just don't feel any responsibility for their actions and wearing a CONDOM!?!?! NEVER!
The irony IMO? 5 kids and 3 divorces later, they still wonder why they are so unhappy.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)I fear that one of the reasons so little has been done, is because companies know that it would "sit on the shelves collecting dust". I may just be cynical though.
Rex
(65,616 posts)viagra (and a million other penis stiffing pills) and rogaine (with minoxidile).
A BC pill? To ME, that makes sense - if you are going to run around for 4 hours with a hard-on, BC just makes sense.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Anyway, there's a pill on the horizon.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)will still be some time before they are available.
Now the question is will the idiots on the right allow the subject to be talked about in schools and will parents accept taking their teen age boys to Planned Parenthood or their Family Doctor to discuss it as an option?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Let's say you manage to eliminate 9,999,999 sperm with a male pill. That one remaining sperm can easily "get lucky".
OTOH, women have a built-in "don't ovulate" switch which is normally flipped during pregnancy. Using a pill or a shot to flip that switch is much easier.
We really shouldn't underestimate the challenges of an effective male "pill". Which means if we menfolk want to be the ones responsible for birth control, it's going to be condooms or snipping for quite a while longer.
if we menfolk want to be the ones responsible for birth control
no... no... no
Both parties can be responsible for BC.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A woman using the pill doesn't mean condoms cease to exist.
A man getting a vasectomy doesn't suddenly make diaphragms disappear.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)I thought diaphragms already had disappeared.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)snip snip is pretty effective.
condom on the other hand, .... my youngest. lol
redqueen
(115,103 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's why it's still in trials. To find out how effective it actually is.
Remember Depo Provera is something around 99.9999% effective. That's still not 100%. And with 10M sperm versus 1 egg, that 0.00001% may end up being more relevant. We'll find out as more trials are conducted.
All I'm saying is men aren't going to be buying the shot and using it as their sole form of birth control for a while.
It's been in use for decades.
http://www.ibtimes.com/new-male-birth-control-procedure-100-percent-effective-completely-reversible-study-697179
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Popular media believes "the pill", depo provera and vasectomies are 100% effective. None of them are. They all have a very low chance of failing. But that chance exists. Heck, even the measles shot is not 100% effective.
So providing a popular media story claiming 100% effective is evidence that the story is wrong.
That doesn't mean such a shot is bad, or impossible, or otherwise icky. It means there needs to be study to find out just how many 9s are after the decimal point in 99.(something)% effective.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)15 years of men using it. 25 years of animals using it.
Have you read anything about it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)is completely accurate about this one?
Do you realize just how ridiculous a position that is?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)can insist on condoms or spermicidal options.
Vasectomies are also reversible. Research money can be allocated to developing even better vasectomies that are designed with reversal in mind.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)One concern is potential mutations of sperm after the reversal process.
Unfortunately not much money is flowing to research this.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)His thoughts on the matter:
"For you, it's a surgery... for me, it's snip and a clip and a bag of frozen peas."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)A man does not need to have, in your words, "Super Fun Times" in order to impregnate a woman... a man simply needs to be a little bit excited for the "Super Fun Time" ahead to impregnate a woman with what called "pre-ejaculate."
This is how babies happen even if the man claims "I pulled out..." or if a man withdraws and uses a condom for the "Super Fun Time" ahead.
Reproductive education is serious business, and you have handled it badly (and not at all adult-like) in that comment there. I have some books I can send if you like.
and...on edit...Shame on You for this:
"but I thought he loved me!" I call bullshit. Many single mothers never utter anything close to those words.
Double shame.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Yup, getting happy about an upcoming "Super Fun Time" can also get you there.
Perhaps I shall write a "Part 2 Post" which shall include this, along with a disclaimer about how "Super Fun Times" resulting in procreation (as opposed to recreation) require specific insertion points by both male and female participants.
One always forgets that condescending and sarcastic posts aimed at "Sex Education Flunkies" who require news flashbacks from 1973 need to be EXTREMELY detailed and anatomically correct lest lawsuits for my failure to properly educate flood the court systems at DU.
It is annoying, isn't it?
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Thanks
Signed,
Single Mom at 19 where no Super Fun Time occurred for anyone, and she never found herself saying to her child,"But I thought he loved me..."
Hekate
(90,681 posts)"That was a fooling-around pregnancy! After that we got Mike fixed because I just get that way too easy!" She had a nice sense of humor.
I'm sorry that happened to you at 19 and single, though. Hope you were okay in the end.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)ever walked this earth.
The single momhood? It happened for the right reason... and there was no need to blame it on "love" to my daughter.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Everyone deserves Super Fun Time.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)No need to have yet another discussion about it.
Mom at 18, Mimi at 35. My friends were still having kids! Lucky in my case, it was lots of fun and we're still at it 45 years later.
intheflow
(28,466 posts)IOW, recreation and procreation can be interpreted to mean the same thing, if you really think about it.
Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Welcome to DU
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)If you want good sex stuff on a discussion board, along with politics, ufos, cool stuff, all political parties, etc - go to Reddit. It has a more adult and open flavor where people can discuss anything and different views are welcome.
DU is more narrow and focused on politics and news for the most part.
Although we did have some 'porn' when we had femen showing their breasts - and trust me, women not wearing their shirts does not go over well with some folks here. Good lord if we had fully nude people here and you looked at the pic for more than 1 second it would be staring and you would be labeled a sexist pig and no one would hold the door open for you on the way out (yeah, we don't hold doors either).
Response to The Straight Story (Reply #66)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kali
(55,008 posts)there is the Lounge where flirting and innuendo are pretty common
I have heard rumors that some members engage in "private message sex" as well as meeting in real life. (there have been a few weddings, even)
the "rule" is "you take your chances" - in other words there are no rules forbidding discussion (though hard core pornographic imagery is a Terms of Service violation) and if you cross a line, a jury will hide your post(s) - however I don't recommend pushing boundaries before you get to a few hundred posts.
welcome to DU
Hekate
(90,681 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Hekate
(90,681 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)a real adult. I wish our whole society could be this realistic and adult about human sexuality only. No religious implications just straightforward information. thank you.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)I'd recommend you read President Carter's book, The Hornet's Nest, to get an idea of what alternative arrangements look like in terms of responsibility for children.
If it's the woman's choice to have a child (and it is), then many believe (and have believed throughout the ages) that said child is the woman's responsibility.
As you say ... period. End of story.
-Laelth
Edit:Laelth--corrected BB code.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If you look at men in history who have had unlimited resources and access to women, they often tried to reproduce as much as possible.
Genghis Khan, for instance. Reportedly one in every 200 people are direct descendants of his. The Chinese emperor with his concubines. The Turkish sultan with his harem.
In the west, inheritance laws and marriage laws prevented this situation, as it was often ruinous to have too many children and impossible to have more than one wife. Too many sons could spawn civil wars and a contested sovereignty. But the men of the east who were unconstrained by these laws seemed to desire as many descendants as possible, some believing it the closest form of immortality possible.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)BEFORE inserting tab A into slot B.
(HA! I crack myself up! I'll just hold my breath and wait for that to happen, shall I?)
malaise
(268,993 posts)Rec
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)There is a reason, at 35, I still have a steady sex life and no kids.
Yet there seems to be those that just don't know how to do this. There are books on the subject and a few of my tricks were told to me by my mother. She understood that I was going crazy, if you will, due to my hormones and gave me the FYI on how to safely release that tension.
She also was more than happy to get me reading material that helped me to learn more about how and to also tell me about what was going on with me.
Maybe because my mom was not embarrassed to fill me in that I have been able to stay kid free. If the parents can talk to their kids about a little more than the birds and bees it self, it could help.
Oh old fashion is fun, but when there is no protection don't chance it. People just have to learn how to play without the old finish. It is not like it is any less fun, some cases more so!
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Some of them even cover pregnancies.