Does Abstinence-Only Sex Education Work?
 

Somewhat related to the "After Virginity" thread...

From http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Re...ce030728.html#

Just Say No?
The Debate Over 'Abstinence-Only' Reaches New Level With Boost in Federal Spending

By Geraldine Sealey


July 28 — When the Abstinence Clearinghouse convention hit Las Vegas last month, the chastity-promoting group turned a Sin City tradition on its ear. Instead of the cards prostitutes use to sell their services, volunteers handed out cleaner versions: "Good girl" cards.

On one side are six wholesome young women, including a bride. Flip the card over and there are messages that condoms aren't always safe and that married people have more money, longer lives and better sex.

"We walk up to girls and guys and pass out cards about STDs. We feel they need to know how at risk they are," said Leslee Unruh, president of the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Abstinence Clearinghouse. "These kids are out there and society is selling sex, sex, sex. Who's selling virginity? We are."

The Abstinence Clearinghouse was so happy with how good girl cards went over in Las Vegas that it's taking them to New Orleans, another city known for sin, Unruh said. Abstinence groups in Brazil have also inquired about the cards, she said.

Times are good for abstinence promoters like Unruh. With a booster in the White House, wait-until-marriage programs are flourishing in communities and school districts. Yet the debate over whether they work, or are merely the ideological tool of religious conservatives, rages on stronger than ever.

Abstinence Backers Hit Jackpot

President Bush has proposed spending $135 million on abstinence education next fiscal year, more than double spending from just five years ago.

This month, $15 million in new abstinence grants went out to community-based groups, faith-based organizations and school systems. And another round of abstinence grants will be made this fall.

In announcing the latest grants, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson summed up the administration's approach to sex education: "When adolescents become sexually active, it can have negative effects on their physical and emotional health."

Federal and state governments have put more than $700 million into abstinence education since 1996, according to one estimate. More than one-third of U.S. high schools now teach abstinence until marriage and 700 abstinence programs exist nationwide.

Abstinence-only programs are becoming more common, even though polls have found that a large majority of Americans favor sex education programs that include information about birth control. A 1999 Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed 79 percent said schools should give students information about "birth control and safer sex."

Ideology vs. Science?

Opponents of abstinence-only programs have their own explanation for the trend.

"You've got a political and ideological agenda at play here," argues James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth. "Frankly, there's a lot of lack of awareness that has been exploited for a major ideological campaign that has nothing to do with public health. Young people have become a political football in the culture wars."

Advocates of sex education that includes birth control information say abstinence-only backers not only ignore public opinion, but defy scientific data as well.

Wagoner's group recently reviewed 25 years of existing research on 150 sex ed programs and found 19 that have been proven to reduce teen pregnancies and STDs or cause at least two beneficial changes in sexual risk behaviors.

Despite their proven effectiveness, Wagoner said, none of the sex education programs are eligible for federal funding because they include information about condoms and contraception — even though 12 of the programs promote abstinence by delaying sexual initiation.

Teen sexual activity and pregnancy rates both declined over the 1990s, but these declines happened before the federal government's significant investment in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, Wagoner adds.

Teens and the Failure Rate

But abstinence-only supporters say those who push condoms on teenagers underestimate the effectiveness of wait-until-marriage messages as well as the harmful effects of premarital sex on teenagers.

Adolescents need to understand that no birth control method is 100 percent effective, they say, especially when used by teens, who are more likely to use them incorrectly.

Take birth control pills, says Dr. Patricia Sulak, an obstetrician/gynecologist and contraceptive researcher. Virtually foolproof birth control when used right, teens experience failure rates with the pill of up to 30 percent, she said.

And condoms, which in the general population fail to prevent pregnancy up to 16 percent of the time, are "horrible" for teens, Sulak said. "These people are out there telling kids just use a condom. Are they crazy? There are no data that show condoms are the answer," she said.

Sulak also serves as the medical director of the Scott & White Sex Education Program, which advocates abstinence for teens and has developed a sex education curriculum used by more than 30 school districts called "Worth the Wait."

"Worth the Wait" does not talk about religion or morality, Sulak says — it talks about facts. "When kids have sex early, bad things can and do happen," she said. "I'm not anti-contraception, but even the really good ones fail. We give [teens] that information."

Premarital Sex or Purity Beads?

But critics maintain not enough information is being shared with kids.

To be eligible for millions in federal dollars, programs must satisfy stringent criteria, including having abstinence promotion as the sole purpose, teaching that not having sex until marriage is the only way to avoid unwed pregnancy and diseases, and stating that "a mutually-faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity."

For those who say they want a more comprehensive approach to sex ed, these requirements are a bit much.

"No one would tell young people that," said Adrienne Verrilli of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a group that supports abstinence education that includes information about birth control and condoms. "I don't think in the face of HIV and STDs that that's the message we should send to young people. It doesn't mean they won't have sex. They'll just have sex without a condom."

While the debate rages on over whether the abstinence-only message can prevent pregnancy and disease, the pro-chastity brigade is hitting the beaches. This time, they're toting "purity beads" — an antidote for the beads girls apparently get in some "spring break" communities for losing their virginity in the sun and sand. Girls who take the purity beads agree to stay chaste.

Amid conflicting signals, Unruh of the Abstinence Clearinghouse says such education campaigns can help young people make the right decision.

"Mostly the girls that take them are virgins and it sends them a strong message that they're doing the right thing," she said. "We met a young girl who is 14 years old. She went to a local place to get birth control pills and bought a thong bikini and was planning to lose her virginity. It's not that controversial. Many are grateful."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personally, I think abstinence-only programs are a horrible idea. My friend in law school was telling me about a debate she had in class about this, and a friend of hers told her about these kids she talked to who had abstinence-only sex ed. The girl had gotten pregnant because she thought that her boyfriend drinking large amounts of Mountain Dew (rumored to lower sperm counts) would be effective birth control. They didn't know anything about condoms, the pill, etc. Just goes to show that a) kids are going to have sex, even if you tell them that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, STDs, etc., b) you can't just assume that they're going to know how to protect themselves, and c) yeah, some people are really that stupid.


So, what do you think? Are these abstinence-only programs a good idea?

My sister was the head instructor for an Abstinence Education program back a couple years ago, in which I was a forced volunteer. It actually lowered the pregnancy rate by 40% in the schools that she did teach this at. However, it really depends on the instructor, money, area, and technique. My sis had taught majority of it as "Abstinence Only", but showed some grusome photos of STD ridden genitalia http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/puke/barf.gif, had some teen moms & dads come in and talk, and a lawyer to talk to the guys about their duties financially as a "dad". But, she also did speak of using protection and etc.

I figure if you have the proper techinque and instructor it can succeed, if not, it's not going to work at all. But that's just my take.

I also am not a fan of abstinence-only programs. It's not that I don't believe in abstinence; I really do. I think that abstinence works for some... but it definitely doesn't work for most teenagers. And yes, condoms aren't foolproof, birth control isn't foolproof- but if you're going to have sex, you are obviously much better off with contraception than without it. If kids don't know about contraception, REALLY KNOW about it, they aren't going to use it correctly.

The abstinence programs through the church (True Love Waits, for example) are, in my opinion, even less effective than school abstinence programs. They want you to sign these cards when you're 12 or 13 years old. Now some people may start having sex then, but I know at 13, I WAS planning to wait until marriage. Things change. A promise that you made when you were 13 holds very little concern to a 17 year old. Plus there's very little reinforcement of the concept of abstinence other than the same TLW program year after year, once a year.

Good grief, half the boys in my class still thought girls were yucky when they were 13. They would have probably been like "whoo hoo! sign me up!" :p

Seriously, I think these types of programs only hasten too-early marriage. The kids get married early so they can have sex, pop out a couple babies, and then wake up one day and realize they've missed being young. By then there are children's lives that will be thrown into disarray if the parents decide to separate or divorce.

I'll be the voice of dissent, here.

We didn't have sex education at ALL in my high school. Not a word. We didn't even have the little filmstrips in e-school that explained what parts boys have and what parts girls have or why we menstrate :p

Yet none of us, as far as I know, are still unaware of what a penis is or where babies come from. Because our school left it up to the PARENTS. I firmly beleive this is where sex ed should come from. I'm not sure if the local church had any programs (I wasn't a member). All I know is that I don't remember a single teenage pregnancy in my high school that wasn't within a marriage (and yes, kids did get married in my high school, it was a farming community and kids often left school early, got married, and took over their parents farms).

I had my reunion about a year ago, and not a single one of those couples was divorced. Not a single one regrets it. We talked about how different our school was than those of others we met after leaving town, and all agreed that if we'd been taught sex ed we probably would have been having sex. Granted, most of us didn't wait until marriage, and I don't see a problem with that. But it DID cause us to wait until we were significantly older and able to make more mature decisions.

Disclaimer: Okay, I realize that 400 person high school in a farming town is going to be significantly different in culture than a big city, and perhaps the results of our non-education would have been different in a larger city. I'm only speaking from my experience.

Exactly. I think that in this situation, the people who get screwed most of all are young women who probably more often than not end up divorced and left with the kids. What kind of lives do they have then? I don't think that promoting marriage ever has good consequences. Why encourage young people to hurry into something that is so difficult?

Of course if you have sex you're taking certain risks, but I think the best way to help kids make wise decisions is to educate them to all of the options and possibilities. I truly believe that Bush's obsession with abstinence only programs is almost entirely based on Christian principles, which in my opinion have absolutely no place in public schools.

I wrote a 20 page term paper on this, but I will try and be brief and sum up some points:

*Studies have shown that teens in other countries (Sweden, Norway, etc) have significantly lower teen pregnancy rates than we do - and they have more sex! They have comprehensive programs.

*Like valkyrie said, a lot of Bush's push of these programs is based on Christian values, not on what works.

*Teens who have abstinence only programs and do end up having sex won't use protection, because a lot of abstinence only programs mislead you on birth control failure rates or tell you that family planning will work. What kind of kid has a normal cycle?

I'm really opposed to these programs - I certainly don't condone children having sex, but if they are going to do it, they need to be informed. Yes, the responsibility should fall with the parent, but a lot of parents don't do their jobs because a lot of chickens have kids. If a school is going to bother to have the program, they need to educate people on all their options.

I know a few of people who went to religious schools and received abstinence only training. Most of them had kids early. One genius guy who is my age (23) has a five and six year old.

Abstinence only training (that I have seen) seems to emphasize a sense of guilt and shame about sex, especially for girls, which is a great way to make people do it as unsafely as possible because they are just too embarassed to ask questions that they should.

And those poor girls will never have a good orgasm.

Yes, this would be WAY different in other schools. I teach in an "urban" school and I don't even trust the parents to feed the kids! We have kids with rotting teeth, lice, malnutrition, etc. So personal health is not valued.

Plus, half the kids in my school have parents that are younger than I am (25). I teach K-6. They have to get extra teachers at Kindergarten orientation and graduation to help curb the "baby's mama drama" when multiple dads show up for their kids' stuff and there is only one mom that they all came from! The only sex ed they get from their parents is if they accidentally walk in on someone! :eek:


Personally, I am a supporter of abstinence as a method of protecting yourself from physical and emotional turmoil. I am married and he is my only one ever!

BUT, damned if my parents didn't tell me EVERYTHING there was to know about sex, birth-control, diseases, etc. They made SURE all three of us kids knew how to protect ourselves if we decided to have sex even though they hoped we didn't (my mom used to teach Lamaze, Breastfeeding and parenting classes and she is a Labor and Delivery nurse. So I heard stories of teenage or pre-teen:eek: moms coming in having kids, people with diseases, etc. I was almost given TOO MUCH info!:confused:

Anyway, that is how I feel. I will teach my kids (someday) that waiting is best but that you should be smart and use protection if you decide to take the next step :) I don't want grandchildren until I am actually OLD!:D

I'll try to keep this brief...
 

I think that we are doing our children a disservice by not teaching them all aspects of sex. I firmly agree with abstinance, and the world would probably be a lot better place if people waited 'til they were out of high school to have sex, but the truth of the matter is that kids are going to have sex, no matter what we tell them to do.

Abstinance programs work on a basis of fear and shame. I grew up in a very Christian household, and the one thing I knew about sex was that I couldn't talk to my parents about it. Fortunately, I had a friend who lent me a copy of the Guide To Getting It On. When I did decide that I was ready, I knew enough to go to Planned Parenthood and get the Pill and a bunch of condoms. Four years later my mother still thinks I'm a virgin.

One thing that comprehensive sex-ed programs teach is that talking about this stuff is necessary and okay. We actually discussed how to ask a guy to put on a condom, how to talk with a potential partner about getting tested, etc. They did scare the pants off of us with films of live births, stories of teenagee mothers, and photos of disease-ridden genitalia, and they told us that the only foolproof way to prevent the physical and emotional side-effects of sex was not to have it. However, they were realistic in their expectations.

Lesson number one: Ignoring it won't make it go away.

I don't buy this bit of Good Girl cards...that married people are happier, live healthier lives and make more money. People can lose their virginity and still obstain from sex and lead healthy, happy lives.

For the most part, Abstinence programs, as much as we'd like them to work go against human nature. It's no wonder that we have so much teen pregnancy and what not in this country because a lot (not all) parents seem to be taking a much less active role in the lives of their children, and would rather be best friends with their kids than parents.

Well here's a note to those parents: DUMBA$$ES, your kids have enough darn friends, be a parent. And to those parents who think that high school kids are "on their own" because they are old enough to make adult decisions: WAKE UP! They aren't old enough.

In my Health Science class this year(for the lovely teaching credential program at my university) we learned that while the pregnancy rate for teens is going down in the US, it's not because less kids are having sex, it's because more of them are getting chlamydia, which has few if any signs, and is nicknamed the silent sterilizer.

Did you know that in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands who both have comprehensive sex education starting from kindergarten, both relatively liberal nations sexually, have higher ages for onset of sexual activity than here? It's not that they are teaching kindergarteners how to have sex, they start with talking about "good touch" "bad touch" kind of things and continue with age appropriate education. While in my heart, it would be nice to think that my 14 year old sister will be abstinent, I know the reality of the world and the pressures. I just hope that her mom and my dad(she's a half sis, but whatever) and myself have been open enough with her for her to make an educated and smart decision.

Along those lines, how many of you ever read the book "Where did I come from?" I actually learned a lot from that book as a kid.

In my school system, we weren't allowed to be taught safe sex, only abstinence. I can count on two hands how many teen pregnancies there were and this was in a good area with boatloads of rich kids. We were taught about STDs and whatnot, but the same thing was repeated over and over: don't do it. We even had those baby dolls that woke us up in the middle of the night and that didn't really deter anyone from having sex.

I do believe that parents should instill the values of safe sex and abstinence in their children, not the schools. Of course, I'm 20 and neither of my parents has even uttered the word 'sex' in my presence. I found out on my own, as did most of the people I know. I'd love to work for a program that teaches safe sex because kids are gonna do it even if you tell them not to. Might as well make sure they're protected!

Oh, one more thing I forgot to add.

With better nutrition and greater economic development, people are starting puberty earlier and marrying later. So if you say that your average girl starts puberty around 12, that's anywhere from ten to twenty years before she marries. Ditto for the boys.

No wonder our kids are confused.

Ain't that the truth? I've never met a fundie who wasn't frigid...

Abstinence-only sex ed doesn't teach girls to treasure their sexual selves in ways other than abstaining. They aren't taught how to protect themselves from disease or pregnancy--if they respond to their very natural urges, they are made to feel dirty and ashamed of something completely natural. I know that no birth control is 100% foolproof, but I'd rather have 95% than nothing. I grew up with kids who signed the TLW plegde (our very public high school sponsored it) who have had multiple children with multiple men, suffered from various STDs, and whatnot--and these are kids from great homes! Their parents just didn't talk with them about sex.

This is why REALISTIC (ie, abstinence as one of many options) sex education must be taught in schools. Like others have said before, disease and teenage pregnancy prevention isn't Bush's first concern with abstinence-only education--it's merely part of his faith-based initiatives. So many kids DO NOT have parents who are willing to teach them basic health practices, and some are just hostile to the idea (for example, a girl who is being abused by one or both parents). It is our responsibility to teach future generations to protect themselves.

I don't believe these programs work in the long run. As KappaKittyCat said, we are doing our children a disservice by not teaching them all aspects of sex.

Side note: When I first looked at this thread, all I could think about was the "90210 pool analogy."

A question for those whose schools did offer sex-ed...

was it mandatory, or an elective? If it was mandatory, did the schools offer parents the opportunity to not have their children in the class?

Ginger,

For us it was a mandatory "Health Class" that covered nutrition, drugs, and sex. Parents could opt out of the sex part for religious reasons.

Ok I think Im going to have to go along with alot of others in saying that I believe sex eduacation should be taught. not abstinience. because that just flat out tells them not to do it but most kids arent going to listen to that. I know that when I finally even thought about having sex I went to the health clinic here and talked to a dr and we discussed birth control methods and she gave me condoms and all of that. and I decided to start a birth control method even before i decided to ever have sex. I think kids need to be informed of all of the risks and also differnt methds of protection and birth control b/c no matter what we teach I know alot of them are still going to have sex and its better that they are safe than not. I know that about 15 people that i went to high school with have children now and none of them are even 21 yet!

Nichole

LeslieAGD, I never watched 90210. What's the "pool analogy"?

What about for non-religious reasons? I mean, I'm not terribly religious... but I wouldn't want my kid in that class.

I think a good program should include abstinence but not exclude other sex ed issues. I also think that parents should have the right to opt their kids out of any program (not limited to sex ed) that they find contrary to their belief system.

Correction: It doesn't have to be religious; I should have said "for personal reasons," but most of the kids I know whose parents opted them out of the sex part were very, very religious.

For us, it was mandatory and taken for a semester your sophomore year. Parents could have their children opt out of the part on birth control, and that was it. My class was fabulous - taught by one of the football coaches, who would laugh and joke to avoid some of the uncomfortable-ness that you feel when you're 15 and discussing things in mixed company. He told us stories about himself and his wife, former football players, etc - he made it so much fun that we actually looked forward to the class!

ours was mandatory starting in middle school and through sophomore year of high school. i don't believe that parents could have the opportunity to not have thier children in the class. i don't recall anything like that being offered.

It was mandatory. Sex Ed was part of health class which we had in fifth grade, sixth grade, ninth grade and senior year.

Fifth grade taught the basics of how our bodies work (egg and sperm, periods), and sixth grade continued that.

Ninth grade focused on drug use (the consequences of everything from tobacco to heroin)although they also covered sexual topics. They didn't get graphic, they just laid out the basic facts of the pill, diaghrams, spermacide and condom use.

Senior year was hardcore in terms of consequences. It was really centered on diseases- the most moving class occurred when a teacher came in and told us about a friend who had died of AIDS (in a really small secular private school setting we could do things like this). By the end of the class both the teachers and the class were in tears. To this day I remember the occasion as the most influential sex education I ever had. It became real. I would never ever ever even think about having unprotected sex and I credit that class. That year they also had a lot of women's issues classes- what a pap smear is, the equipment used, etc. (it was an all girls school).

College was a whoooole different story. Freshman year orientation included a seminar where everyone had to practice putting a condom on a wooden prop. I know I wouldn't have been able to handle that with a straight face in high school....

Health class in college?

There was an episode on Beverly Hills 90210 in which student groups wanted to distribute condoms at school as part of a safer sex campaign. There was parent backlash which resulted in a PTA type meeting at the Walsh house. Tori Spelling's character Donna (the virgin) came out and made this speech about "if you have a swimming pool in your backyard, you can ignore it, tell your kids not to go in it, build a fence around it; but, if you know your kids are going to find a way into it anyway, shouldn't you teach them how to swim?" That's the sex/pool analogy.

Ah, got it.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I am very opposed to abstinence only programs. I went to a public school and we were taught that abstinence is the best way, but if you're going to have sex, use condoms or other birth control, get checked and be careful. they did use the scare tactics of the std pics ("barnicle dick anyone"? *shudder*) and video taped births. alot of my friends who went to catholic schools often seemed very out of touch when they were having sex at 14 and 15 becuase they were only taught that sex is bad, and had no real idea of what to do. i figure, chances are, teens are gonna have sex, no matter what the schools tell them. they might as well teach them how to be safe and take care of themselves, than let them find out the hard way.

Like a lot of you, I disagree with abstinence-only programs. I don't mind the idea of teaching that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy - it is the only 100% effective method. But the fact is, teens are going to have sex, and they have to know how to protect themselves and their partners.

Sex education was a part of my middle and high school's health curriculum; you had to take a semester of health in each of 8th, 9th, and 11th grades. I don't think parents could opt their kids out of the sex ed part.

I'm saddened, but not particularly surprised, that the Bush administration is increasing funding to abstinence-only programs. Gotta love the religious right. :rolleyes:

No doubt. I went to a public high school in a medium sized city. I can't even remember how many girls ended up pregnant during my 4 years in h.s. According to my younger sister, it only got worse the next 3 years. People (guys and girls) that I thought were highly intelligent and fairly moral people were having/fathering kids left and right. Our "sex ed" was a 30 minute video on STDs. We learned nothing about condoms, birth control, etc. Basically abstinence was stressed. A lot of schools in the Bible Belt are wary of discussing sex and stuff like that so they just say "don't do it." Needless to say that didn't work too well. Thanks to my parents being intelligent people, I knew all I needed to know looooong before I needed it. :) But not everyone was so lucky. It's a fine line to walk but it needs to be walked if we're going to stop babies from having babies.

I think it's rediculous the lengths that the Bush administration is going to shove their religious beliefs down the throats of the general public. Abstinence was 95% of the sex ed program taught in my high school, and there were quite a lot of people I knew who had to drop out because they got pregnant, they didn't know the proper info about birth control. Now maybe they wouldn't have bothered with it regardless of the type of sex ed they received, but I'd rather they be equipped with the proper knowledge of such things.

All I know is that one of the more traumatic experiences for me was a girl who decided she wanted to wait because of some church program. You want to teach abstinence? Fine, but do it in a region of the country I will never be in.

-Rudey
--I should have boned her and asked "What Would Jesus Do?" in the middle of it.

I'm surprised that there are so many GCers against abstinence-only -- I was imagining there would be a little bit more dissent. But I won't complain. :)

I think abstinence-only is ridiculous. It plays a role in so many problems, not just kids not using birth control because the abstinence-only pushers told them that condoms aren't very effective . . . but in perpetuating the sexual double standard, pushing shame on girls who are sexual, making other women afraid of their sexuality, encouraging people to marry too young.

We had sex ed in fourth, sixth, eighth and ninth grades. It was all mandatory, and although I assume parents could opt to take their kids out, I don't ever remember having any kids in my classes that were pulled out for that reason. In fourth grade, they started with the really basic, simple stuff ("this is how babies are made" and "this is what happens when you get your period" -- and classes were sex-segregated) . . . and it wasn't until eighth or ninth grade that we got into the STDs/birth control/other issues. We were taught that abstinence is the best choice but we learned all about methods of birth control too.

Nope, not health class. Freshman year orientation. Seminar that all freshmen had to attend.

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised, too. But, we're all fairly forward-thinking, educated people here, so I guess it makes sense.

My sex-ed classes were mandatory, and I don't remember anyone opting out of them (although I'm sure they could have). Similar to most of your classes, we had the "how our bodies work/where babies come from" classes in 5th or 6th grade, we went a little more in-depth in 8th grade, got into birth control/STDs in 10th grade, and had the "let's scare the crap out of them by showing them 'The Miracle of Life' video" class in 12th grade. All of my classes were single-gender until 12th grade.

As far as parents talking to their kids, I agree that they should definitely do that, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. My family is very open, and being the daughter of a teenage mother, I was taught very early on that I should be careful so that I wouldn't be put in the same situation as her. My grandmother actually sat me and my cousins down when were were between about 9-7 and lectured us about not getting pregnant, etc. (Of course, this had no effect on my cousins, who all had been pregnant or had kids by the time they were 18. :rolleyes:) My boyfriend, on the other hand, comes from a fairly traditional family, and he thinks his mom won't think he's having sex even after he's married. We've been together for 5 years and she still thinks he's a virgin. (Although this approach can work, too, because he's so terrified of his mom finding out that we have sex that he is careful to the point of being paranoid. :p)

:D :eek: :D

Rudey, you're always a little over-the-top with the snark, and I keep my mouth shut because I know that you're doing it just to get a rise out of people. I'm going to break that rule and say something this time because joking about raping someone is not at all funny. I'm actually rather offended.

I do not see mention of rape. In fact I don't do anything to get a rise out of people.

-Rudey
--I don't want any part of that feminist crap your spewing.