|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas)
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250439] |
Di, 04 April 2006 23:53 |
|
in article MPG.1e9bbeecf024dc7c989bb6 [at] news.individual.net, Alec Cawley at
alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote on 03/04/2006 4:24 PM:
> In article <C056FA3D.4514D%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>,
> brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>>> Not
>>> even in the "best case scenario" the population descends abruptly. Even
>>> if alphabetism (and other education) would run to 99,9% world wide, the
>>> population would not descend drastically. And in case you are wondering:
>>> The only significant correlation has been found between birthrate and
>>> education of the women. None other correlation was deemed significant
>>> enough. (New Scientist from - I think - 2003)
>>
>> I don't understand this bit. Correlation of what with what, in what context?
>
> Changes in population growth have not been shown to correlate with with
> any factor other than, as quoted, education for women. I.e. if Malthus
> has you worried, the only method of reducing population growth for which
> there is evidence working is the education of women.
OK, this supplies the missing bit of information. So presumably, as women in
unpleasant countries become educated, so the population of those countries
decreases. Since educating women or not seems to be a national
characteristic, when a country changes this characteristic for the better
its population will drop quite suddenly, leaving not enough young people
working to keep society functioning properly for themselves and the old
people both. See the near-future situation in the more pleasant countries,
which was what started this bit of the thread.
That's assuming the figures are reliable. Education of women tends to go
along with all sorts of other goodies, which will have a confounding effect.
>
> Which implies that you shouldn't[1] spend money on contraception or
> family planning clinics or better food or lots of other nice things, you
> should spend it on girl's shools. Educated women will then find out for
> themselves about contraception, or how to say No and have it stick.
So long as there are contraceptives available for them to use when they have
found out about them. "Just say 'No'" really doesn't work too well in a
male-dominated society, and anyway - why should people of any gender have to
avoid sex if they want it?
>
> [1] From this narrow viewpoint only. You may wish to spend money on all
> the other causes for humanitarian reasons - and well done. But don't
> expect such philanthropy to cut the global population.
I do and I wouldn't, respectively.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250490 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 02:13 |
|
In article <C05838ED.4521F%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>,
brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
> in article MPG.1e9bbeecf024dc7c989bb6 [at] news.individual.net, Alec Cawley at
> alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote on 03/04/2006 4:24 PM:
>
> > In article <C056FA3D.4514D%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>,
> > brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
> >
> >>> Not
> >>> even in the "best case scenario" the population descends abruptly. Even
> >>> if alphabetism (and other education) would run to 99,9% world wide, the
> >>> population would not descend drastically. And in case you are wondering:
> >>> The only significant correlation has been found between birthrate and
> >>> education of the women. None other correlation was deemed significant
> >>> enough. (New Scientist from - I think - 2003)
> >>
> >> I don't understand this bit. Correlation of what with what, in what context?
> >
> > Changes in population growth have not been shown to correlate with with
> > any factor other than, as quoted, education for women. I.e. if Malthus
> > has you worried, the only method of reducing population growth for which
> > there is evidence working is the education of women.
>
> OK, this supplies the missing bit of information. So presumably, as women in
> unpleasant countries become educated, so the population of those countries
> decreases. Since educating women or not seems to be a national
> characteristic, when a country changes this characteristic for the better
> its population will drop quite suddenly, leaving not enough young people
> working to keep society functioning properly for themselves and the old
> people both. See the near-future situation in the more pleasant countries,
> which was what started this bit of the thread.
No. It doeasn't drop suddenly. It drops gently. The collectivity of
women seem able to make a good judgement. Which is surprising only to
those who believe people, collectively, to be stupid.
>
> That's assuming the figures are reliable. Education of women tends to go
> along with all sorts of other goodies, which will have a confounding effect.
The article(s) specifically calimed to have controlled for alternative
efffcts. Obviously, New Scientist is a populist magazine, and its
opinion is not to be taken unsupported. But it is a populist magazine
for scientists.
> >
> > Which implies that you shouldn't[1] spend money on contraception or
> > family planning clinics or better food or lots of other nice things, you
> > should spend it on girl's shools. Educated women will then find out for
> > themselves about contraception, or how to say No and have it stick.
>
> So long as there are contraceptives available for them to use when they have
> found out about them. "Just say 'No'" really doesn't work too well in a
> male-dominated society, and anyway - why should people of any gender have to
> avoid sex if they want it?
The point is that educated and intelligent women will find thair way to
contraception - if that is what they want - regardless of the society
and culture that they live in. It is out there and you can get it - *if*
you know how to work the system.
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250577 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 16:56 |
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:13:34 +0100, Alec Cawley wrote:
> The point is that educated and intelligent women will find thair way to
> contraception - if that is what they want - regardless of the society
> and culture that they live in. It is out there and you can get it - *if*
> you know how to work the system.
You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely embarrassed
to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask for
contraceptives, and whether you like it or not, alot of families have some
very, very strict religious rules on using contraceptives - strict
Catholics for example, or alot of these ani-abortionists if a woman should
accidently get pregnant!
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250713 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 04:11 |
|
Sofia said:
> You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely embarrassed
> to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask for
> contraceptives
I never saw the logic in that. What is more embarrassing, in abstract terms?
Popping into a pharmacy for some pharmaceutical goods, or slipping into a
bedroom with a member of the opposite sex, removing the very clothes that
society has for many years and in many ways warned you against removing in
company, popping under the covers, and proceeding to get very biological?
I'd have thought the former was a walk in the park by comparison.
For the record, though, I must confess that I speak from inexperience of
pharmaceutically-purchased contraceptives. I have discovered a more
"natural" contraceptive technique, commonly known as "having three kids",
which seems to have worked out just fine after a few initial teething
problems.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250744 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 08:46 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Sofia said:
>
>> You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely embarrassed
>> to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask for
>> contraceptives
>
> I never saw the logic in that. What is more embarrassing, in abstract terms?
> Popping into a pharmacy for some pharmaceutical goods, or slipping into a
> bedroom with a member of the opposite sex, removing the very clothes that
> society has for many years and in many ways warned you against removing in
> company, popping under the covers, and proceeding to get very biological?
Er, *HUH* ?????
The former. I honestly can't comprehend why anyone would think
otherwise. Surely, by the time you get to the clothes-removing part,
the potentially embarrassing part (i.e. checking whether the other
party thinks it's a good idea) is already behind you.
There's nothing embarrassing about removing clothes unless you expect
someone to be surprised.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250765 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 11:51 |
|
8'FED said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Sofia said:
>>
>>> You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely
>>> embarrassed to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask
>>> for contraceptives
>>
>> I never saw the logic in that. What is more embarrassing, in abstract
>> terms? Popping into a pharmacy for some pharmaceutical goods, or slipping
>> into a bedroom with a member of the opposite sex, removing the very
>> clothes that society has for many years and in many ways warned you
>> against removing in company, popping under the covers, and proceeding to
>> get very biological?
>
> Er, *HUH* ?????
>
> The former.
Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
> There's nothing embarrassing about removing clothes unless you expect
> someone to be surprised.
The mind boggles. :-)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250770 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 12:14 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 8'FED said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Sofia said:
>>>
>>>> You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely
>>>> embarrassed to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist
>>>> and ask for contraceptives
>>>
>>> I never saw the logic in that. What is more embarrassing, in
>>> abstract terms? Popping into a pharmacy for some pharmaceutical
>>> goods, or slipping into a bedroom with a member of the opposite
>>> sex, removing the very clothes that society has for many years and
>>> in many ways warned you against removing in company, popping under
>>> the covers, and proceeding to get very biological?
>>
>> Er, *HUH* ?????
>>
>> The former.
>
> Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
The fact that you're effectively saying "HEY GUYS, I'M SHAGGING TONIGHT!" if
you buy certain products. Some people seem to find that embarassing.
Whereas in the bedroom scenario, a similar announcement should (if all is
well) be answered with "Yes dear, I know", or something similar.
Peter
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250771 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 12:26 |
|
Peter Ellis said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
>
> The fact that you're effectively saying "HEY GUYS, I'M SHAGGING TONIGHT!"
> if you buy certain products. Some people seem to find that embarassing.
Actually, the kind of people who might be embarrassed by that are more
likely to be effectively saying "I hope I'm going to meet a girl tonight
with bad eyesight and worse morals, but let's face it, I know I'm wasting
my money on these things and so do you, because I spend so much time on my
computer that I haven't the faintest idea how to use one, even if by some
extraordinary chance I met a girl who didn't instantly categorise me as
'has a wonderful personality' - but I'm going to buy these things anyway
because I'm such a pathetically hopeful type and in any case I believe all
those guys on Usenet who say how easy and natural it all is, because the
alternative is that I'm spending 80% of my free time with a bunch of
wind-up merchants and jerks like myself who are just yanking my chain".
Still, in your honour, the next time I buy some shampoo, I'll remember to
blush at the implied "HEY GUYS, I'M WASHING MY HAIR TONIGHT!" :-)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250790 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 14:34 |
|
From the Collected Witterings of Richard Heathfield, volume 23:
> Still, in your honour, the next time I buy some shampoo, I'll remember to
> blush at the implied "HEY GUYS, I'M WASHING MY HAIR TONIGHT!" :-)
Ah, but with what?
--
"My son is not a terrorist - he is a junior IT support officer."
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250793 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 14:51 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
> Er, *HUH* ?????
>
> The former. I honestly can't comprehend why anyone would think
> otherwise. Surely, by the time you get to the clothes-removing part,
> the potentially embarrassing part (i.e. checking whether the other
> party thinks it's a good idea) is already behind you.
If I were to bet, that's not the reason why many people feel embarrasment.
> There's nothing embarrassing about removing clothes unless you expect
> someone to be surprised.
I don't know about you, but I don't have an absolutely perfect body in
perfect shape, and it's unrobing something less than that that's
embarrassing; if you don't seem embarrassed, you imply that the recipient
doesn't deserve any better.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250794 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 15:09 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> 8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> There's nothing embarrassing about removing clothes unless you expect
>> someone to be surprised.
>
> I don't know about you, but I don't have an absolutely perfect body in
> perfect shape, and it's unrobing something less than that that's
> embarrassing; if you don't seem embarrassed, you imply that the
> recipient doesn't deserve any better.
Alternatively, you imply that you consider the recipient capable of
deducing its general shape even when clothed, and respect the
recipient's choice to see it anyway. You are also implying that you do
not yourself expect to see a perfect body when the recipient undresses,
and that you desire to see and get biological with that body anyway.
Your version seem terribly condescending to me. You'd only need to feel
embarrased if you assume that the other person is an idiot, or if you
have lied about your body (corset, shoulderpads, push-up bra, socks in
trousers etc.) and are ambarrassed about being revealed to have lied.
If I have expressed a desire to see you naked, why don't you respect my
choice?
And why don't you return my calls?
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250799 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 15:21 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Sofia said:
>
>>You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely embarrassed
>>to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask for
>>contraceptives
>
> I never saw the logic in that. What is more embarrassing, in abstract terms?
> Popping into a pharmacy for some pharmaceutical goods, or slipping into a
> bedroom with a member of the opposite sex, removing the very clothes that
> society has for many years and in many ways warned you against removing in
> company, popping under the covers, and proceeding to get very biological?
>
> I'd have thought the former was a walk in the park by comparison.
I assume that it's more a matter of in one case being in the company of
someone you trust, while in the other case being in the company of the
pharmacist, the village gossip who's there to pick up her beta blockers,
and eighteen random OAPs doing their weekly shopping.
> For the record, though, I must confess that I speak from inexperience of
> pharmaceutically-purchased contraceptives. I have discovered a more
> "natural" contraceptive technique, commonly known as "having three kids",
> which seems to have worked out just fine after a few initial teething
> problems.
In my case, "being a sad and mildly pathetic bugger with no life" also
seems to have worked admirably.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250806 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 15:43 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
<snip>
> Your version seem terribly condescending to me. You'd only need to
> feel embarrased if you assume that the other person is an idiot, or
> if you have lied about your body (corset, shoulderpads, push-up
> bra, socks in trousers etc.) and are ambarrassed about being
> revealed to have lied. If I have expressed a desire to see you
> naked, why don't you respect my choice?
I think it's much, much simpler than that. I think that nudity and sex are
taboos of differing force, but both heavily present in US culture. And the
advertisements for the whole perfect body culture are part of it, too.
You guys are going after the rational view on a topic that rests at a deeper
level.
I don't buy into it at all, but a residual feeling of inadequacy and body
modesty make it difficult for me to go to a pool in a bathing suit. I don't
like public gyms, either. This is despite knowing, intellectually, that I'm
reasonably attractive and actually rather slim.
And sex . . . despite the flaunting of sex in US media, people still *feel*
in many cases that it's private. They don't mind so much that others know in
some abstract way that they have sex lives, but the immediacy of intent
involved in the public purchase of condoms is a another thing altogether.
And one last....I know it's not what yoiu meant, but if I respected every
expression of "desire to see me naked" that came my way, I think it might
get dratfy at times.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250808 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 15:52 |
|
It all started on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:21:00 +0200, when Torak wrote:
> I assume that it's more a matter of in one case being in the company of
> someone you trust, while in the other case being in the company of the
> pharmacist, the village gossip who's there to pick up her beta blockers,
> and eighteen random OAPs doing their weekly shopping.
Aha! There we see the advantage of living in a sprawling metropolis.
I remember feeling rather proud after purchasing my first box of
contraceptives. However, I'll admit that the initial trouble of actually
choosing a brand caused people to give me funny looks. But this was my own
fault, as I was nonchalantly trying to read the labels on the boxes from
the next aisle across.
The most unpleasant bit of the business was finding out how much the
things cost. With my natural tact and discretion, I complained about this
to my girlfriend at the time, using the memorable line "I'm paying three
bucks a shag here." She smiled enigmatically.
...PeterH
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250812 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 15:55 |
|
Stacie Hanes wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Your version seem terribly condescending to me. You'd only need to
>> feel embarrased if you assume that the other person is an idiot, or
>> if you have lied about your body (corset, shoulderpads, push-up
>> bra, socks in trousers etc.) and are ambarrassed about being
>> revealed to have lied. If I have expressed a desire to see you
>> naked, why don't you respect my choice?
>
> I think it's much, much simpler than that.
Yes, but here we're talking about a reasonably private affair, and like
Adrian I come from the point of view that by the time you're about to
get naked, there'll be some sort of trust between the people involved.
It's not about being judged (and having a conviction they'll find us
wanting rather than wanting us) by strangers, but to show your body to
someone you know, and who presumably likes you despite your physical
looks, not because of them.
> And one last....I know it's not what yoiu meant, but if I respected
> every expression of "desire to see me naked" that came my way, I
> think it might get dratfy at times.
No, that's not what I meant, however interesting it might be. In the
context of mutually having agreed to strip off together, it's a
different thing.
I would hope, at least. Anyone who agrees to get naked despite not
wanting it can't be expected to respect anyone, least of all themselves.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250815 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 15:58 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>> I think it's much, much simpler than that.
>
> Yes, but here we're talking about a reasonably private affair, and
> like Adrian I come from the point of view that by the time you're
> about to get naked, there'll be some sort of trust between the
> people involved.
I know what you meant. I'm just saying that indoctrination persists.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250821 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 16:54 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> 8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing embarrassing about removing clothes unless you
>>> expect someone to be surprised.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but I don't have an absolutely perfect body
>> in perfect shape, and it's unrobing something less than that that's
>> embarrassing; if you don't seem embarrassed, you imply that the
>> recipient doesn't deserve any better.
>
> Alternatively, you imply that you consider the recipient capable of
> deducing its general shape even when clothed, and respect the
> recipient's choice to see it anyway. You are also implying that you
> do not yourself expect to see a perfect body when the recipient
> undresses, and that you desire to see and get biological with that
> body anyway.
You're talking from a very self-assured point of view. Many people aren't
that secure, and WILL feel embarrassed over showing others their imperfect
bodies.
> Your version seem terribly condescending to me.
Rather, the opposite. Your embarrasment isn't due to what you think the
other part may think, but because of what YOU feel. How can it be
condescending to wish you had a better body to present?
> You'd only need to
> feel embarrased if you assume that the other person is an idiot, or
> if you have lied about your body (corset, shoulderpads, push-up bra,
> socks in trousers etc.) and are ambarrassed about being revealed to
> have lied. If I have expressed a desire to see you naked, why don't
> you respect my choice?
You /do/ respect the choice, but you /still/ wish you could offer something
better, because you really want this person to have the best, and your
insecurity tells you that you ain't it, no matter what that person thinks.
That's about feelings, not about thinking less of those people. If
anything, you think too much of them.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250822 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 17:11 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
> I would hope, at least. Anyone who agrees to get naked despite not
> wanting it can't be expected to respect anyone, least of all
> themselves.
BINGO. It's the /self-respect/ that is lacking in many of us. That doesn't
imply that you can't feel FULL respect for others.
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250824 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 17:16 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>
>>Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Your version seem terribly condescending to me. You'd only need to
>>>feel embarrased if you assume that the other person is an idiot, or
>>>if you have lied about your body (corset, shoulderpads, push-up
>>>bra, socks in trousers etc.) and are ambarrassed about being
>>>revealed to have lied. If I have expressed a desire to see you
>>>naked, why don't you respect my choice?
>>
>>I think it's much, much simpler than that.
>
>
> Yes, but here we're talking about a reasonably private affair, and like
> Adrian I come from the point of view that by the time you're about to
> get naked, there'll be some sort of trust between the people involved.
>
> It's not about being judged (and having a conviction they'll find us
> wanting rather than wanting us) by strangers, but to show your body to
> someone you know, and who presumably likes you despite your physical
> looks, not because of them.
Ahh, yes.
But by the time there is that trust involved, there is also liking
them. Not just liking, but really really liking them. And wanting to
please them because you like them, and respecting them enough you want
them to have all of the very very best...
And all too often the sneaking suspicion that this amazing and
wonderful person must be crazy to be interested in you, and at any
moment their delusion will wear off and they'll run screaming from the room.
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250826 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 17:18 |
|
Once upon a time - for example, Wed, 5 Apr 2006 01:13:34 +0100 - there
was this guy, or something, called Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> > Which implies that you shouldn't[1] spend money on contraception or
>> > family planning clinics or better food or lots of other nice things, you
>> > should spend it on girl's shools. Educated women will then find out for
>> > themselves about contraception, or how to say No and have it stick.
>>
>> So long as there are contraceptives available for them to use when they have
>> found out about them. "Just say 'No'" really doesn't work too well in a
>> male-dominated society, and anyway - why should people of any gender have to
>> avoid sex if they want it?
>
>The point is that educated and intelligent women will find thair way to
>contraception - if that is what they want - regardless of the society
>and culture that they live in. It is out there and you can get it - *if*
>you know how to work the system.
As I understand it, it's not just a question of learning about
contraceptives. Educated women get jobs and build careers, and are
more independent than uneducated ones. Women get married at a later
age, which leads to her having less fertile years within that
marriage. Independence also allows her to choose whether to get
married at all.
Of course, contraceptives are probably still a major factor. But it is
noteworthy that fertility in Europe first dropped with the advent of
large-scale urbanisation, not with the advent of the pill.
Janica
--
Beware of Trojans, they're complete smegheads.
- 13 & 13b of 12, the CMM Collective.
- www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250833 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 18:21 |
|
In article <pan.2006.04.06.13.52.39.354058 [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Peter Davies
<peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> writes
>The most unpleasant bit of the business was finding out how much the
>things cost. With my natural tact and discretion, I complained about this
>to my girlfriend at the time, using the memorable line "I'm paying three
>bucks a shag here." She smiled enigmatically.
42c a shag, in the case of myself and the first person I bought condoms
with. We found this amusing.
--
Julia Jones
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250839 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 18:44 |
|
Chucky & Janica <janica.hindle [at] kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>
> As I understand it, it's not just a question of learning about
> contraceptives. Educated women get jobs and build careers, and are
> more independent than uneducated ones. Women get married at a later
> age, which leads to her having less fertile years within that
> marriage.
What does marriage have to do with it? Not getting married until you're 30
doesn't prevent you from having a kid at age 17. There may be a common
cause of both delaying kids AND delaying marriage, but there's no causality
link between the two.
Anyhow, starting to have kids later is partially offset by healthy women
retaining the child bearing capabilities for longer.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250842 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 19:30 |
|
in article SLmdnadgnZMPeanZRVnygw [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 06/04/2006 2:51 AM:
> 8'FED said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Sofia said:
>>>
>>>> You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely
>>>> embarrassed to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask
>>>> for contraceptives
>>>
>>> I never saw the logic in that. What is more embarrassing, in abstract
>>> terms? Popping into a pharmacy for some pharmaceutical goods, or slipping
>>> into a bedroom with a member of the opposite sex, removing the very
>>> clothes that society has for many years and in many ways warned you
>>> against removing in company, popping under the covers, and proceeding to
>>> get very biological?
>>
>> Er, *HUH* ?????
>>
>> The former.
>
> Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
Depends where you are, perhaps. Until quite recently, most Vancouver
pharmacies kept the contraceptives behind the counter so that you had to ask
for them, and I'll bet some other places are still at that stage.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250853 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 20:22 |
|
Stacie Hanes wrote:
> And one last....I know it's not what yoiu meant, but if I respected every
> expression of "desire to see me naked" that came my way, I think it might
> get dratfy at times.
Bragging... ;-)
CCA
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250862 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 20:47 |
|
In article <25ca32hki0lmr350a7kklle6jjk7jq59vu [at] 4ax.com>,
janica.hindle [at] kolumbus.finland says...
> Once upon a time - for example, Wed, 5 Apr 2006 01:13:34 +0100 - there
> was this guy, or something, called Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk>,
> and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>
> >> > Which implies that you shouldn't[1] spend money on contraception or
> >> > family planning clinics or better food or lots of other nice things, you
> >> > should spend it on girl's shools. Educated women will then find out for
> >> > themselves about contraception, or how to say No and have it stick.
> >>
> >> So long as there are contraceptives available for them to use when they have
> >> found out about them. "Just say 'No'" really doesn't work too well in a
> >> male-dominated society, and anyway - why should people of any gender have to
> >> avoid sex if they want it?
> >
> >The point is that educated and intelligent women will find thair way to
> >contraception - if that is what they want - regardless of the society
> >and culture that they live in. It is out there and you can get it - *if*
> >you know how to work the system.
>
> As I understand it, it's not just a question of learning about
> contraceptives. Educated women get jobs and build careers, and are
> more independent than uneducated ones. Women get married at a later
> age, which leads to her having less fertile years within that
> marriage. Independence also allows her to choose whether to get
> married at all.
>
> Of course, contraceptives are probably still a major factor. But it is
> noteworthy that fertility in Europe first dropped with the advent of
> large-scale urbanisation, not with the advent of the pill.
All such things are methods of contraception. I didn't mean just
mechanical or chemical contraception. As you say, educated women will
both want to and learn how to control their fertility. Apart from
anything else, they will be able to develop self-respect for treasons
other than their simple reproductive ability.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250865 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 20:02 |
|
Richard Heathfield invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote in <du-
dnXtBLbBKcanZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d [at] bt.com>:
> Peter Ellis said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>
> >> Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
> >
> > The fact that you're effectively saying "HEY GUYS, I'M SHAGGING TONIGHT!"
> > if you buy certain products. Some people seem to find that embarassing.
>
> Actually, the kind of people who might be embarrassed by that are more
> likely to be effectively saying "I hope I'm going to meet a girl tonight
> with bad eyesight and worse morals, but let's face it, I know I'm wasting
> my money on these things and so do you, because I spend so much time on my
> computer that I haven't the faintest idea how to use one, even if by some
> extraordinary chance I met a girl who didn't instantly categorise me as
> 'has a wonderful personality' - but I'm going to buy these things anyway
> because I'm such a pathetically hopeful type and in any case I believe all
> those guys on Usenet who say how easy and natural it all is, because the
> alternative is that I'm spending 80% of my free time with a bunch of
> wind-up merchants and jerks like myself who are just yanking my chain".
>
Strangely the ones who know perfectly well that they aren't going to use
them but want a packet to try to persuade their friends they aren't a
virgin probably won't be embarrassed. It's a strange old world.
I was well trained by my first girlfriend. She pointed out that if it's
sensible to wear a seat belt in a car, a helmet on a motorcycle, and to
have the safety catch on when carrying a gun, then it's a bit dumb to be
running around with a penis and no condoms. Seeing them as a necessary
safety precaution that is entirely independent of expecting to use them
took away the embarrassment factor.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250866 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 21:15 |
|
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:09:45 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
<nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
[...]
>If I have expressed a desire to see you naked, why don't you respect my
>choice?
>And why don't you return my calls?
Because you're the wrong sex, of course <G&R>
FiX
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250873 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 22:44 |
|
Lesley Weston wrote:
> in article SLmdnadgnZMPeanZRVnygw [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
>>
>>Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
>
> Depends where you are, perhaps. Until quite recently, most Vancouver
> pharmacies kept the contraceptives behind the counter so that you had to ask
> for them, and I'll bet some other places are still at that stage.
Probably because people get embarrassed about buying them and ended up
shoplifting them. :-p
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250874 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 22:47 |
|
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Richard Heathfield invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote in <du-
>>
>>Actually, the kind of people who might be embarrassed by that are more
>>likely to be effectively saying "I hope I'm going to meet a girl tonight
>>with bad eyesight and worse morals, but let's face it, I know I'm wasting
>>my money on these things and so do you, because I spend so much time on my
>>computer that I haven't the faintest idea how to use one, even if by some
>>extraordinary chance I met a girl who didn't instantly categorise me as
>>'has a wonderful personality' - but I'm going to buy these things anyway
>>because I'm such a pathetically hopeful type and in any case I believe all
>>those guys on Usenet who say how easy and natural it all is, because the
>>alternative is that I'm spending 80% of my free time with a bunch of
>>wind-up merchants and jerks like myself who are just yanking my chain".
>
> Strangely the ones who know perfectly well that they aren't going to use
> them but want a packet to try to persuade their friends they aren't a
> virgin probably won't be embarrassed. It's a strange old world.
Speaking as someone who doesn't give a toss what people think about that
particular aspect, I can say that buying them probably would be
embarrassing.
> I was well trained by my first girlfriend. She pointed out that if it's
> sensible to wear a seat belt in a car, a helmet on a motorcycle, and to
> have the safety catch on when carrying a gun, then it's a bit dumb to be
> running around with a penis and no condoms. Seeing them as a necessary
> safety precaution that is entirely independent of expecting to use them
> took away the embarrassment factor.
Not if you know there's no chance you're going to need them at all
except as water carriers in the event of a jungle survival situation if
your flight from London to Manchester suddenly crashes in the middle of
Burundi.
Besides, it's a waste of money if you know they'll have expired before
you ever get a chance to use them. And despite not carrying any, I'm not
dumb. Because let's face it, as things stand I'm not going to need them.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250883 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 23:41 |
|
in article H4fZf.8843$zc1.8564 [at] amstwist00, Torak at perry_awm [at] hotmail.com
wrote on 06/04/2006 1:44 PM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> in article SLmdnadgnZMPeanZRVnygw [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
>>>
>>> Er, HUH? What on earth is embarrassing about a pharmacy?
>>
>> Depends where you are, perhaps. Until quite recently, most Vancouver
>> pharmacies kept the contraceptives behind the counter so that you had to ask
>> for them, and I'll bet some other places are still at that stage.
>
> Probably because people get embarrassed about buying them and ended up
> shoplifting them. :-p
Well yes, there's still paying for them and the (probably imagined) *Looks*
from the checkout operators and other customers.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250893 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 00:30 |
|
Torak said:
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
>> I was well trained by my first girlfriend. She pointed out that if it's
>> sensible to wear a seat belt in a car, a helmet on a motorcycle, and to
>> have the safety catch on when carrying a gun, then it's a bit dumb to be
>> running around with a penis and no condoms. Seeing them as a necessary
>> safety precaution that is entirely independent of expecting to use them
>> took away the embarrassment factor.
>
> Not if you know there's no chance you're going to need them at all
> except as water carriers in the event of a jungle survival situation if
> your flight from London to Manchester suddenly crashes in the middle of
> Burundi.
Or in the event that you wish to practise safe underwater recording
techniques in the Yanghtse River in China, as Chris Muir discovered when on
location with Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine. DNA's account of the
purchase is wonderful - one pharmacist refused to sell them condoms,
insisting that pills were much more effective. Quite how you stretch a
contraceptive pill over a microphone to form a watertight cover, she did
not explain.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250901 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 00:48 |
|
in article MPG.1e9d1be1dfe3f3f6989bbe [at] news.individual.net, Alec Cawley at
alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote on 04/04/2006 5:13 PM:
> In article <C05838ED.4521F%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>,
> brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
>> in article MPG.1e9bbeecf024dc7c989bb6 [at] news.individual.net, Alec Cawley at
>> alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote on 03/04/2006 4:24 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C056FA3D.4514D%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>,
>>> brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>>> Not
>>>>> even in the "best case scenario" the population descends abruptly. Even
>>>>> if alphabetism (and other education) would run to 99,9% world wide, the
>>>>> population would not descend drastically. And in case you are wondering:
>>>>> The only significant correlation has been found between birthrate and
>>>>> education of the women. None other correlation was deemed significant
>>>>> enough. (New Scientist from - I think - 2003)
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand this bit. Correlation of what with what, in what
>>>> context?
>>>
>>> Changes in population growth have not been shown to correlate with with
>>> any factor other than, as quoted, education for women. I.e. if Malthus
>>> has you worried, the only method of reducing population growth for which
>>> there is evidence working is the education of women.
>>
>> OK, this supplies the missing bit of information. So presumably, as women in
>> unpleasant countries become educated, so the population of those countries
>> decreases. Since educating women or not seems to be a national
>> characteristic, when a country changes this characteristic for the better
>> its population will drop quite suddenly, leaving not enough young people
>> working to keep society functioning properly for themselves and the old
>> people both. See the near-future situation in the more pleasant countries,
>> which was what started this bit of the thread.
>
> No. It doeasn't drop suddenly. It drops gently. The collectivity of
> women seem able to make a good judgement. Which is surprising only to
> those who believe people, collectively, to be stupid.
So women in, say, Afghanistan will soon be saying "I don't want a second
child, but I'll have one anyway so that the population can decline at a
sustainable rate rather than dropping too suddenly", just as women in the UK
and North America are saying now? I expect you mean something else really,
but that's how it reads.
<snip>
>>> Which implies that you shouldn't[1] spend money on contraception or
>>> family planning clinics or better food or lots of other nice things, you
>>> should spend it on girl's shools. Educated women will then find out for
>>> themselves about contraception, or how to say No and have it stick.
>>
>> So long as there are contraceptives available for them to use when they have
>> found out about them. "Just say 'No'" really doesn't work too well in a
>> male-dominated society, and anyway - why should people of any gender have to
>> avoid sex if they want it?
>
> The point is that educated and intelligent women will find thair way to
> contraception - if that is what they want - regardless of the society
> and culture that they live in. It is out there and you can get it - *if*
> you know how to work the system.
And if it actually exists where you live. I suppose they can order it on
line from other countries and have it delivered in plain brown wrappers, but
that's rather dangerous in a country where it's illegal, and it also implies
that the villages that these educated women live in have electricity and
telephones (or cable) and that they can afford computers.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250902 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 00:49 |
|
in article pan.2006.04.05.14.56.01.907082 [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at
pinkmonster2000REMOVE [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 05/04/2006 7:56 AM:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:13:34 +0100, Alec Cawley wrote:
>
>> The point is that educated and intelligent women will find thair way to
>> contraception - if that is what they want - regardless of the society
>> and culture that they live in. It is out there and you can get it - *if*
>> you know how to work the system.
>
>
> You can't deny though, that alot of young people are extremely embarrassed
> to go to the family planning clinic, or the chemist and ask for
> contraceptives, and whether you like it or not, alot of families have some
> very, very strict religious rules on using contraceptives - strict
> Catholics for example, or alot of these ani-abortionists if a woman should
> accidently get pregnant!
And that's in the allegedly civilised countries.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250904 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 00:57 |
|
Torak perry_awm [at] hotmail.com wrote in <a8fZf.8844$zc1.3712 [at] amstwist00>:
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote in <du-
> >>
> >>Actually, the kind of people who might be embarrassed by that are more
> >>likely to be effectively saying "I hope I'm going to meet a girl tonight
> >>with bad eyesight and worse morals, but let's face it, I know I'm wasting
> >>my money on these things and so do you, because I spend so much time on my
> >>computer that I haven't the faintest idea how to use one, even if by some
> >>extraordinary chance I met a girl who didn't instantly categorise me as
> >>'has a wonderful personality' - but I'm going to buy these things anyway
> >>because I'm such a pathetically hopeful type and in any case I believe all
> >>those guys on Usenet who say how easy and natural it all is, because the
> >>alternative is that I'm spending 80% of my free time with a bunch of
> >>wind-up merchants and jerks like myself who are just yanking my chain".
> >
> > Strangely the ones who know perfectly well that they aren't going to use
> > them but want a packet to try to persuade their friends they aren't a
> > virgin probably won't be embarrassed. It's a strange old world.
>
> Speaking as someone who doesn't give a toss what people think about that
> particular aspect, I can say that buying them probably would be
> embarrassing.
>
> > I was well trained by my first girlfriend. She pointed out that if it's
> > sensible to wear a seat belt in a car, a helmet on a motorcycle, and to
> > have the safety catch on when carrying a gun, then it's a bit dumb to be
> > running around with a penis and no condoms. Seeing them as a necessary
> > safety precaution that is entirely independent of expecting to use them
> > took away the embarrassment factor.
>
> Not if you know there's no chance you're going to need them at all
> except as water carriers in the event of a jungle survival situation if
> your flight from London to Manchester suddenly crashes in the middle of
> Burundi.
>
> Besides, it's a waste of money if you know they'll have expired before
> you ever get a chance to use them. And despite not carrying any, I'm not
> dumb. Because let's face it, as things stand I'm not going to need them.
>
Wrong. It's no more a waste of money than seat belts in a car driven by
somebody who doesn't expect to have an accident. It isn't about whether or
not they will ever be used. It's about having the relevant safety
equipment at all times. The relevant safety equipment for a motorcycle is
a helmet. The relevant safety equipment for a penis is a condom. It's not
about using it, it's about knowing you have taken the appropriate safety
precautions.
Think of it this way. Theoretically you could safely ride a motorcycle
without a helmet and then pop to the shops when you come to a bend or some
oncoming traffic and buy a helmet only when you need it. Equally you can
wait until you need a pack of condoms. However the problem there is
defining when you might need them. Not in terms of not knowing, but in
terms of an additional pressure during a time that will necessarily be
confusing at best. The time when you might reasonably make a decision that
you will soon need to have some condoms available is a time when you
really won't want to be thinking about that sort of thing. Do you REALLY
want to suddenly think during a romantic rendezvous that this might be the
right time to pop round to a chemist and buy some condoms? It's so much
easier if you've dealt with all that before you even know the possibility
exists. You may even get extra brownie points for being able to say it's
the first time you've used one for real but actually knowing how to put it
on properly. See appropriate and inappropriate times for reading
instructions on packets.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250910 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 01:19 |
|
From the Collected Witterings of Peter Davies, volume 23:
> The most unpleasant bit of the business was finding out how much the
> things cost. With my natural tact and discretion, I complained about this
> to my girlfriend at the time, using the memorable line "I'm paying three
> bucks a shag here." She smiled enigmatically.
A smile which said "Three in the packet, are there? Then it's nine bucks a
shag if you're *really* lucky".
I wonder if that's why the Mona Lisa was smiling - "You think that old 'I'm
an artist' line is going to get you into my knickers, Leonardo? Think
again".
--
"My son is not a terrorist - he is a junior IT support officer."
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250945 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 08:45 |
|
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Wrong. It's no more a waste of money than seat belts in a car driven by
> somebody who doesn't expect to have an accident. It isn't about whether or
> not they will ever be used. It's about having the relevant safety
> equipment at all times. The relevant safety equipment for a motorcycle is
> a helmet. The relevant safety equipment for a penis is a condom. It's not
> about using it, it's about knowing you have taken the appropriate safety
> precautions.
AIUI, what Torak is saying, is that if you don't intend to actually
*ride* your motorcycle, you won't need a helmet.
Michael
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250949 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 10:34 |
|
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Torak perry_awm [at] hotmail.com wrote in <a8fZf.8844$zc1.3712 [at] amstwist00>:
>
>>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Heathfield invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote in <du-
>>>
>>>>Actually, the kind of people who might be embarrassed by that are more
>>>>likely to be effectively saying "I hope I'm going to meet a girl tonight
>>>>with bad eyesight and worse morals, but let's face it, I know I'm wasting
>>>>my money on these things and so do you, because I spend so much time on my
>>>>computer that I haven't the faintest idea how to use one, even if by some
>>>>extraordinary chance I met a girl who didn't instantly categorise me as
>>>>'has a wonderful personality' - but I'm going to buy these things anyway
>>>>because I'm such a pathetically hopeful type and in any case I believe all
>>>>those guys on Usenet who say how easy and natural it all is, because the
>>>>alternative is that I'm spending 80% of my free time with a bunch of
>>>>wind-up merchants and jerks like myself who are just yanking my chain".
>>>
>>>Strangely the ones who know perfectly well that they aren't going to use
>>>them but want a packet to try to persuade their friends they aren't a
>>>virgin probably won't be embarrassed. It's a strange old world.
>>
>>Speaking as someone who doesn't give a toss what people think about that
>>particular aspect, I can say that buying them probably would be
>>embarrassing.
>>
>>
>>>I was well trained by my first girlfriend. She pointed out that if it's
>>>sensible to wear a seat belt in a car, a helmet on a motorcycle, and to
>>>have the safety catch on when carrying a gun, then it's a bit dumb to be
>>>running around with a penis and no condoms. Seeing them as a necessary
>>>safety precaution that is entirely independent of expecting to use them
>>>took away the embarrassment factor.
>>
>>Not if you know there's no chance you're going to need them at all
>>except as water carriers in the event of a jungle survival situation if
>>your flight from London to Manchester suddenly crashes in the middle of
>>Burundi.
>>
>>Besides, it's a waste of money if you know they'll have expired before
>>you ever get a chance to use them. And despite not carrying any, I'm not
>>dumb. Because let's face it, as things stand I'm not going to need them.
>>
>
>
> Wrong. It's no more a waste of money than seat belts in a car driven by
> somebody who doesn't expect to have an accident. It isn't about whether or
> not they will ever be used. It's about having the relevant safety
> equipment at all times. The relevant safety equipment for a motorcycle is
> a helmet. The relevant safety equipment for a penis is a condom. It's not
> about using it, it's about knowing you have taken the appropriate safety
> precautions.
I have taken appropriate safety precautions. Based on a very careful
risk analysis along the lines of "not gonna happen", because I know my life.
> Think of it this way. Theoretically you could safely ride a motorcycle
> without a helmet and then pop to the shops when you come to a bend or some
> oncoming traffic and buy a helmet only when you need it. Equally you can
> wait until you need a pack of condoms. However the problem there is
> defining when you might need them. Not in terms of not knowing, but in
> terms of an additional pressure during a time that will necessarily be
> confusing at best. The time when you might reasonably make a decision that
> you will soon need to have some condoms available is a time when you
> really won't want to be thinking about that sort of thing. Do you REALLY
> want to suddenly think during a romantic rendezvous that this might be the
> right time to pop round to a chemist and buy some condoms? It's so much
> easier if you've dealt with all that before you even know the possibility
> exists. You may even get extra brownie points for being able to say it's
> the first time you've used one for real but actually knowing how to put it
> on properly. See appropriate and inappropriate times for reading
> instructions on packets.
While driving, the risk exists at all times. In my life, the risk
doesn't exist at all. And if by some freak chance I should end up in a
situation where I might need one, I'll probably have a good couple of
weeks before it becomes an issue.
I don't tend to be very impulsive in that respect.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250950 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 10:35 |
|
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 08:45:18 +0200, Michael J. Schülke
<news0604 [at] mjschuelke.de> wrote:
>
>AIUI, what Torak is saying, is that if you don't intend to actually
>*ride* your motorcycle, you won't need a helmet.
>
>Michael
Different kind of riding... :)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250951 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 10:35 |
|
Michael J. Schülke wrote:
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
>
>>Wrong. It's no more a waste of money than seat belts in a car driven by
>>somebody who doesn't expect to have an accident. It isn't about whether or
>>not they will ever be used. It's about having the relevant safety
>>equipment at all times. The relevant safety equipment for a motorcycle is
>>a helmet. The relevant safety equipment for a penis is a condom. It's not
>>about using it, it's about knowing you have taken the appropriate safety
>>precautions.
>
>
> AIUI, what Torak is saying, is that if you don't intend to actually
> *ride* your motorcycle, you won't need a helmet.
Precisely.
I drive my Land Rover, though. In the non-euphemistic sense.
|
|
|
| Re: Teaching children to behave (was Re: [I] Smoking areas) [message #250967 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 12:25 |
|
Arthur Hagen <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
> Chucky & Janica <janica.hindle [at] kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, it's not just a question of learning about
>> contraceptives. Educated women get jobs and build careers, and are
>> more independent than uneducated ones. Women get married at a later
>> age, which leads to her having less fertile years within that
>> marriage.
>
> What does marriage have to do with it? [...]
Statistically, the two somehow correlate.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 02:26:16 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 1,51200 Sekunden |
