or choose an archive link to the left to read earlier posts.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Spread 'em
Your thin end for today:
Last week, our government in it's infinite wisdom mooted the idea of lowering the legal age for having sexual intercourse from 16 to 12.
What that fuck is wrong with our polititians? Now granted, it was to discriminate between adults having sex with minors (still intended to be 16) and other children aged 12-16 having consensual sex together (as long as the age gap was no more than 2 years), but the operative word here is children!
The public outcry over their idea quickly caused a turnaround and the proposal was rescinded but the scary thing is, we have politicians in control who think that promoting sexual relations between children was a good idea in the first place?
We already seem to have a large chunk of our child and adolescent population living in single parent families, but there is difference between couples with children who split up and families who have never known a stable father role model in their lives. We have third-generation solo mothers sucking up an endless domestic purposes benefit while living a better life than many of the taxpayers of New Zealand who pay for their handout and constantly seeking a new sperm donor for their next benefit top up. Promoting sex for kids means (to me, anyway) that the whole concept of sex being a special thing shared with someone who you love and who loves you is now something for young teens to indulge in as a sanctioned recreational activity. The responsibility of safe sex and reliable contraception is hardly something that youngsters can be trusted to get right, there are a ton of adults who can't manage it! Or maybe they want a whole generation of solo mothers with many kids to many different fathers?
So, what kids:fathers ratio is too many? What are the variables? Several kids who share a common father? Two or three kids with two or three fathers between them? What about 6 kids with 5 fathers? At what point should society draw the line at women producing additional offspring and reaping a perpetual taxpayer handout, given the range of contraception and sterilisation options available?
Scenario:
A child of 15 has a baby. That is a sad thing for both the young woman and the baby. There are some cases where rape is involved, or incest where there might not be a choice, but for the most part I, in my infinite judgemental wisdom cannot help but think there is something wrong with this picture.
Jump forward 16 years, now the woman has 6 children to 5 different fathers, her eldest lives with his girlfriend, a couple of others live with other family members and she is still looking for a man in her life.
Can you say "new sperm donor wanted"? Can you say "dirty, irresponsible whore"? And the brainless, spineless men still fall for the wide open legs accompanied by those three little words - "I love you". There's one born every minute, probably to the woman mentioned above. What a track record. And let's not even mention the lack of reliable barrier method contraception to not only avoid pregnancy, but avoid disease as well. Imagine what her current partner has probably caught by now. Let's hope for his sake she lasts, who the hell would want to sleep with someone after they have screwed a disease carrier like that without condoms. Of course, that would depend on him being honest and saying "I had unprotected sex with the Whore of Babylon".
Will 34 year old grandmothers become the norm? Obviously it will, if our idiotic politicians have any say in it. And how will this be promoted to young children - a freebie handout of a 3-pack of condoms with their trial starter pack of tampons?
I need coffee, my mind is boggling.
|
Last week, our government in it's infinite wisdom mooted the idea of lowering the legal age for having sexual intercourse from 16 to 12.
What that fuck is wrong with our polititians? Now granted, it was to discriminate between adults having sex with minors (still intended to be 16) and other children aged 12-16 having consensual sex together (as long as the age gap was no more than 2 years), but the operative word here is children!
The public outcry over their idea quickly caused a turnaround and the proposal was rescinded but the scary thing is, we have politicians in control who think that promoting sexual relations between children was a good idea in the first place?
We already seem to have a large chunk of our child and adolescent population living in single parent families, but there is difference between couples with children who split up and families who have never known a stable father role model in their lives. We have third-generation solo mothers sucking up an endless domestic purposes benefit while living a better life than many of the taxpayers of New Zealand who pay for their handout and constantly seeking a new sperm donor for their next benefit top up. Promoting sex for kids means (to me, anyway) that the whole concept of sex being a special thing shared with someone who you love and who loves you is now something for young teens to indulge in as a sanctioned recreational activity. The responsibility of safe sex and reliable contraception is hardly something that youngsters can be trusted to get right, there are a ton of adults who can't manage it! Or maybe they want a whole generation of solo mothers with many kids to many different fathers?
So, what kids:fathers ratio is too many? What are the variables? Several kids who share a common father? Two or three kids with two or three fathers between them? What about 6 kids with 5 fathers? At what point should society draw the line at women producing additional offspring and reaping a perpetual taxpayer handout, given the range of contraception and sterilisation options available?
Scenario:
A child of 15 has a baby. That is a sad thing for both the young woman and the baby. There are some cases where rape is involved, or incest where there might not be a choice, but for the most part I, in my infinite judgemental wisdom cannot help but think there is something wrong with this picture.
Jump forward 16 years, now the woman has 6 children to 5 different fathers, her eldest lives with his girlfriend, a couple of others live with other family members and she is still looking for a man in her life.
Can you say "new sperm donor wanted"? Can you say "dirty, irresponsible whore"? And the brainless, spineless men still fall for the wide open legs accompanied by those three little words - "I love you". There's one born every minute, probably to the woman mentioned above. What a track record. And let's not even mention the lack of reliable barrier method contraception to not only avoid pregnancy, but avoid disease as well. Imagine what her current partner has probably caught by now. Let's hope for his sake she lasts, who the hell would want to sleep with someone after they have screwed a disease carrier like that without condoms. Of course, that would depend on him being honest and saying "I had unprotected sex with the Whore of Babylon".
Will 34 year old grandmothers become the norm? Obviously it will, if our idiotic politicians have any say in it. And how will this be promoted to young children - a freebie handout of a 3-pack of condoms with their trial starter pack of tampons?
I need coffee, my mind is boggling.
|
Disclaimer
Some text included in this site has been liberated at (and from) great peril from the internet.
Where possible, credit has been given or is marked as "Unknown", except for jokes - I don't make up jokes. I never was any good at that shit. All other content comes straight from the Brain of Moi.
I reserve the right to retain ownership of my own drivel, hence that pretty little copyright symbol twisting gently just below. Thank you very much :-)
Back to top
