Donny Walnuts (4/24/09 11:40pm EST):
Hello everyone!
I haven't posted here in a while because Amanda has essentially been MIA, but she has a computer now and I think it's time we get back to our usual antics.
I'd like to kick it back up with my first movie review. Controversial of course, why else would I be posting it here and not on my regular blog?
This evening the MC and I decided to go see a movie. We decided to go see Obsessed.
After all who doesn't want to see Ali Larter slut it up?
Any woman...
...So... as I was saying I decided we should go see Obsessed.
But if you've seen the plot line then who wouldn't want to see it? -- hot assistant tries to ruin a company executive's life from the inside out? I'm sure we've seen that story many times, but apparently it doesn't get old.
I really do feel for the CEO in this day and age, if Barrack Obama isn't taking the money from your wallet in taxes... he gives the bank that has your account a bailout effectively owning your money anyways... if it's not that, then some slut is trying to ruin your marriage.
Which brings me to my first point of suckage of this movie... (and many others for that matter)
Why is it that in all films or TV shows, the stand-up guy who has never done anything wrong whom provides for his family, has a good relationship with his wife, is the one that gets thrown out of his house when the slut comes along and tells some fib of a story?
Nothing like being kicked while you're down.
We can argue all day about how he was unfaithful to his wife and he should be the stand-up guy that I just described to you, pack his bags and take the hit for the team.
...however! where exactly in there did I say that he was actually guilty as charged?
This is the point I'm trying to make... in these movies the wife NEVER believes the guy whom she's been with for years, she always errs on the side of pessimism, or the slut... if you will.
Leaving us guys in a real life situation to live the scenario. Not that I'm personally experienced in that particular state of 'affairs'. Never does the wife say after the man denies cheating on her "oh... Okay I believe you."
No!
...women and their expectations.
The second part of the movie and the INFINITELY more troublesome part of it is the story itself...
I swear the movie was directed by Spike Lee or Hell... Al Sharpton.
It wasn't too hard to find the African-American ethnocentric idealism throughout the movie.
Let us have a look:
>>>Black man lives in Beverly Hills type area, wealthy, large estate, beautiful wife, cute child, great company executive job, all of which he's dedicated to.
>>>Black man works with a bunch of white guys that tell him that this temp girl likes him and that he should consider cheating on his wife with all while drinking incessantly.
>>>White girl infiltrates said clique by befriending gay white assistant of said black male.
>>>White girl tries to break up perfect black marriage to capitalize on her own desires, later gets her ass kicked by black female wife of wealthy black male.
So let's recap...
Here are your options if you want a role in this movie:
- Be a black male and be successful with issues a main character might have.
- Be a black female and be married to said black male and cope with said issues.
- Be a white male and be the worst example of a human (Chauvinism/alcoholics).
- Be a white male and be gay.
- Be a white female and be a slut/crazed bitch and end up getting your ass kicked.
You might think that I may have looked too far into this movie to see these roles which was my initial reaction, but then i came back to reality...
I merely scratched the surface. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see this character development.
They're out in the open, these roles are obvious.
Go watch it. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
If you can find a significant role that is anything outside of those 5 roles, you come back here and post in the comment section of this blog and feel free to tear me a new asshole about being a bigot.
I should have expected this seeing the population that walked into the theater and the overall noise level during the movie ...stereotypes originate somewhere I suppose.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be proud of this movie, the perfect example of the whites bringing the blacks down (just like real life apparently).
Power to the minorities... what else is new?
Sure the movie was fiction, but the fucking undertone was damn clear...
This time I didn't even get to select whether or not I wanted the Astro-glide or K-Y when I took it in the back side...
...and now I'm out $12 to see a movie that I could have stayed home and watched by simply watching an Obama campaign rally (We accept that people are diverse; unless of course you happen to be white).
...I'm so pissed about this, this may actually make it to my actual blog which would result in a post across facebook, but I'm not quite sure I'm prepared to handle the liberal outlash at it. We'll see..
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Donny Walnuts (3/17/09 2:10pm): Apparently Amanda's Uterus decided to take her out for quite some time... or something.
I'm not sure.
I have not seen her on the interwebz recently or heard about her wanderings. So until further notice I think she may be deceased. I'll keep you updated. I would not be concerned though.
I'm not sure.
I have not seen her on the interwebz recently or heard about her wanderings. So until further notice I think she may be deceased. I'll keep you updated. I would not be concerned though.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Relgious Rant
Donny Walnuts (6:49pm 3/10/09): Look out Mormons here I come.
I've been spending a lot of time on Facebook and commenting on links that people post. Most of the time it's politically oriented stuff, but today I restrained from writing something evil and nasty in a good friends link in an article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (LDS). A sympathy plea if you will.
Here's the Article
Long story short apparently the heads that be of the LDS church and other mormons are upset about how they're portrayed in shows like South Park, the HBO series Big Love, etc...
Now... I know a lot of mormons and I'm just curious as to what they are doing watching either of those shows. I know a lot of mormons, and I have yet to find one that watches either show.
That aside, I'm wondering why tehir upset about their portrayal. They're not arguing the accuracy of what people are saying on these shows about mormons, they're arguing the portrayal. No one in the mormon church is saying "hey! we didn't ever have any polygamists in relations with our religion" -- no... they're saying "Hey! we had polygamists in our religion but we don't like how you represent them".
Having watched the show Big Love for a season or two, I don't understand how you can make a poor reference towards mormons unless you already have a predispostion towards polygamy before even watching the show.
If you have ever seen the show Big Love, you will know that it's a show about a Mormon polygamist family and their everyday lives of dealing with it. The father is the only one that works, Mom(s) stay home, kids are taken care of by said mom(s) and life goes on (A common mormon household setting minus the pluralism). The point is, is that they're all a family and some of the kids have different mothers and they all go to the same school. You can see where this would be a dillema... and of course it is on the show. They just HAPPEN to be Mormon. Again... where's the loss of plausibility with this one???
The fact that they're Mormon on this show really doesn't really scratch the surface for me when it comes to the character development. Man, 45 years old, Mormon, father of 15, married to 3 wives, owns 3 homes, owns a succesful business, has everyday troubles with wives, kids, bosses, subordinates, how does said man keep people from finding out about extensive family. You can see how quickly Mormon gets lost in the details, and it does.
The article says that they don't want to boycott these networks and cable providers because it'll bring unnecessary attention to the subject. What are you doing writing this article then???
Don't complain about your portrayal, complain about the historical inaccuracies, if there are any!
it's a show! it's someones concept and view of what life must be like for a polygamist family. Mormon just happens to be a convenient outlet of people who at one time (and for all I know still do in some places) practiced Polygamy.
GET. OVER. IT.
You're bound to their association by your religion.
Suck it up.
I've been spending a lot of time on Facebook and commenting on links that people post. Most of the time it's politically oriented stuff, but today I restrained from writing something evil and nasty in a good friends link in an article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (LDS). A sympathy plea if you will.
Here's the Article
Long story short apparently the heads that be of the LDS church and other mormons are upset about how they're portrayed in shows like South Park, the HBO series Big Love, etc...
Now... I know a lot of mormons and I'm just curious as to what they are doing watching either of those shows. I know a lot of mormons, and I have yet to find one that watches either show.
That aside, I'm wondering why tehir upset about their portrayal. They're not arguing the accuracy of what people are saying on these shows about mormons, they're arguing the portrayal. No one in the mormon church is saying "hey! we didn't ever have any polygamists in relations with our religion" -- no... they're saying "Hey! we had polygamists in our religion but we don't like how you represent them".
Having watched the show Big Love for a season or two, I don't understand how you can make a poor reference towards mormons unless you already have a predispostion towards polygamy before even watching the show.
If you have ever seen the show Big Love, you will know that it's a show about a Mormon polygamist family and their everyday lives of dealing with it. The father is the only one that works, Mom(s) stay home, kids are taken care of by said mom(s) and life goes on (A common mormon household setting minus the pluralism). The point is, is that they're all a family and some of the kids have different mothers and they all go to the same school. You can see where this would be a dillema... and of course it is on the show. They just HAPPEN to be Mormon. Again... where's the loss of plausibility with this one???
The fact that they're Mormon on this show really doesn't really scratch the surface for me when it comes to the character development. Man, 45 years old, Mormon, father of 15, married to 3 wives, owns 3 homes, owns a succesful business, has everyday troubles with wives, kids, bosses, subordinates, how does said man keep people from finding out about extensive family. You can see how quickly Mormon gets lost in the details, and it does.
The article says that they don't want to boycott these networks and cable providers because it'll bring unnecessary attention to the subject. What are you doing writing this article then???
Don't complain about your portrayal, complain about the historical inaccuracies, if there are any!
it's a show! it's someones concept and view of what life must be like for a polygamist family. Mormon just happens to be a convenient outlet of people who at one time (and for all I know still do in some places) practiced Polygamy.
GET. OVER. IT.
You're bound to their association by your religion.
Suck it up.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
"Black" history month?
Donny Walnuts: I've discovered in the midst of writing this post that I have some A.D.D. and you will catch my random thoughts throughout this script of literature that I'm about to present to you, you'll catch the wafte of it in my parenthisis, I just wanted to prepare you.
So... I was perusing the wonderful world of Barnes and Noble yesterday. Some days that place is truely orgasmic if I'm in the right mood.
This particular visit was not.
It was the opposite. (what is the opposite of an orgasm????)
Amanda: The opposite of orgasm is everyday life... or surprise buttsex.
Donny Walnuts: ...and it wasn't because I didn't visit the dirty magazine section.
Upon my arrival there were numerous displays about it being black history month.
That's fine with me.
I'm down with brown.
Amanda: That sounds EXACTLY like surprise buttsex.
Donny Walnuts: Needless to say after January's inauguration, nearly every display black history month or not had some sort of Obama book or memorabilia on it.
(No one was going to get me to buy any of those books ...Unless of course it's about some sort of scandal he was involved in. Then I'd purchase it only to comb it over so I may quote it and use as further material to pad my daily anti-democrat facebook status update.)
I half expected streamers.
There were none.
Every year when it comes to this month I always wonder if it was accompanied by a parade and some sort of fanfare, I just showed up five minutes too late. They should have calendars that say "Black History month" as a subtitle to February on it, because invaribly I have incidents like in Barnes yesterday where I think to myself "oh... it's the 21st, I nearly missed it! (big whoop)".
But the point I'm getting at here... is why???
WHY?????
I accept that we need to study black history and learn from the mistakes of the past as well as study the motives, goals and personalities etc... of people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks.
Why exactly though do we call it "BLACK history month"??? it's not as if anyone is claiming that the other 11 months of the year are white history months. Much less do we actually set aside a month and name it white history month. That would be deemed prejudice. (And that would be a whole 'nother blog post on its own if I went the direction of that last sentence.)
Amanda: It's reverse discrimination against the caucasian race. And it's absolute bullshit. So there can be a black music/entertainment channel, but there cannot be a while channel? And then you get the argument of "Well, EVERY station is caucasian"... and yet again, I call bullshit. Even on the MOST closeminded and backwards of channels (coughFOXNEWScough) there minority commentators, celebrities, random people...
If anything in my everyday life I'm swamped by what people of different cultures and of minority are doing around me.
This is the news in my day:
Cubans are floating across the gulf of Mexico towards the U.S.
Gays are protesting the results of proposition 8.
Mexicans are crossing the border into the U.S.
North Koreans are being persecuted whilst trying to develop atomic bombs.
Same for goes for Iranians.
A white congress passed a bill for -- guess what...? a black president to make a law.
Conflict between Muslims and Hindus.
Conflict between Palastinians and Jews.
How about the NFL?
Amanda: I hate the NFL.
Donny Walnuts: Try to name 5 guys off the top of your head in the NFL that aren't black and that don't play quarterback. If it's easier for you... name 5 guys in the NBA that aren't black.
(Auggghhh...
Rian Lindell - Kicker, Buffalo Bills
Troy Polamalu - Saftey, Pittsburgh Steelers
Anthony Gonzalez - Wide Receiver, Indianapolis Colts
Brian Moorman - Punter, Buffalo Bills
Nick Mangold - Center, New York Jets
...Damn that was harder than I thought and I had to use two players from the Buffalo bills...)
Amanda: Can I name five in MLB? David Wright, Ryan Church, Mike Pelfrey, Brian Schneider, John Maine... and that's only on the Mets!
Donny Walnuts: I'm not sure where I'm going with this black history month thing, but I don't feel like I'm alone in thinking about how confusing my role is within it in a holistic sense.
By no means am I here shouting out white surpremacy or to say that anyone shouldn't celebrate their heritage and learn about the history of "their people", can't we accept that it's part of OUR history. This happened in the history of OUR country.
If you don't want to, that's fine, but it's undeniable that whites are still the majority in this country. What is my role and moral responsibility for "black" history month?
(My Cynical Conservative Republican thought: Moral responsibility is bullshit.)
In any case two generations ago my family wasn't in the United States. My great grandfather came over on a boat from Poland and got a job so he could earn enough money to ship my great grandmother and my grandmother here.
It befuddles me to think that my great grandfather did that for my family. Yet we have the fourth generation minorities in ghettos that don't have a job to support the family that is already here. I guess it just shows a difference in character if not between my family and that one, then at least character of people then and people now.
Amanda: I don't think it's an inherent moral difference in race, honestly. There are plenty of white people who don't have a job to support their families and live off the system. I think it's an inherent difference in races believing something is OWED to them because of the wrongdoings of our forefathers (I'm not saying "ours" in a literal sense, I mean "ours" in the late white race). We "owe" the black race because our ancestors enslaved them; we "owe" the Asian race because we put them in internment camps in WWII. Fuck, if that's the case, the Germans owe the Jews a whole hell of a lot more than I owe anyone...
Donny Walnuts: Every year I was in high school I was forced to learn about slave trade and how things were in the deep south between plantation owning whites whom I have not even a distant relation to and black slaves whom I have even a further distance in relationship to.
I didn't ever ask to hear about the history of Poland.
Not that I didn't care.
It just wouldn't be on a government sanctioned standardized test at the end of the year.
Amanda: Nobody cares about us Polacks. It's very sad.
Donny Walnuts: Why is it limited to "black" history month though? Why not "minority" history month? It even rolls off the tongue better.
I don't even know how to address it and sound inappropriate!
If I were in mixed company and someone were to ask me to describe a person who was black I would get uncomfortable when it comes to skin color.... "He uhhh... was.... (black??? African american??? of color???)" -- not sure which would piss people off less.
Yes.
Less.
Why do I feel this way??? Is it because I'm prejudice or is it more likely that I've heard a million different scenarios where some black guy gets upset for being addressed inappropriately. Maybe it's all just inappropriate, it's just subjective depending on said persons mood whether or not it offends them.
Amanda: We'll probably get lambasted for using the word "blacks" in this post, but JFC, there's no politically correct way to address the black race. I'm sure plenty of people will think we're inherently immoral for even raising this discussion about race... c'mon Don, it's supposed to be OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be PC and all hunky-dory!
Donny Walnuts: I Just. Don't. Get. It.
Amanda: Word cotton.
So... I was perusing the wonderful world of Barnes and Noble yesterday. Some days that place is truely orgasmic if I'm in the right mood.
This particular visit was not.
It was the opposite. (what is the opposite of an orgasm????)
Amanda: The opposite of orgasm is everyday life... or surprise buttsex.
Donny Walnuts: ...and it wasn't because I didn't visit the dirty magazine section.
Upon my arrival there were numerous displays about it being black history month.
That's fine with me.
I'm down with brown.
Amanda: That sounds EXACTLY like surprise buttsex.
Donny Walnuts: Needless to say after January's inauguration, nearly every display black history month or not had some sort of Obama book or memorabilia on it.
(No one was going to get me to buy any of those books ...Unless of course it's about some sort of scandal he was involved in. Then I'd purchase it only to comb it over so I may quote it and use as further material to pad my daily anti-democrat facebook status update.)
I half expected streamers.
There were none.
Every year when it comes to this month I always wonder if it was accompanied by a parade and some sort of fanfare, I just showed up five minutes too late. They should have calendars that say "Black History month" as a subtitle to February on it, because invaribly I have incidents like in Barnes yesterday where I think to myself "oh... it's the 21st, I nearly missed it! (big whoop)".
But the point I'm getting at here... is why???
WHY?????
I accept that we need to study black history and learn from the mistakes of the past as well as study the motives, goals and personalities etc... of people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks.
Why exactly though do we call it "BLACK history month"??? it's not as if anyone is claiming that the other 11 months of the year are white history months. Much less do we actually set aside a month and name it white history month. That would be deemed prejudice. (And that would be a whole 'nother blog post on its own if I went the direction of that last sentence.)
Amanda: It's reverse discrimination against the caucasian race. And it's absolute bullshit. So there can be a black music/entertainment channel, but there cannot be a while channel? And then you get the argument of "Well, EVERY station is caucasian"... and yet again, I call bullshit. Even on the MOST closeminded and backwards of channels (coughFOXNEWScough) there minority commentators, celebrities, random people...
If anything in my everyday life I'm swamped by what people of different cultures and of minority are doing around me.
This is the news in my day:
Cubans are floating across the gulf of Mexico towards the U.S.
Gays are protesting the results of proposition 8.
Mexicans are crossing the border into the U.S.
North Koreans are being persecuted whilst trying to develop atomic bombs.
Same for goes for Iranians.
A white congress passed a bill for -- guess what...? a black president to make a law.
Conflict between Muslims and Hindus.
Conflict between Palastinians and Jews.
How about the NFL?
Amanda: I hate the NFL.
Donny Walnuts: Try to name 5 guys off the top of your head in the NFL that aren't black and that don't play quarterback. If it's easier for you... name 5 guys in the NBA that aren't black.
(Auggghhh...
Rian Lindell - Kicker, Buffalo Bills
Troy Polamalu - Saftey, Pittsburgh Steelers
Anthony Gonzalez - Wide Receiver, Indianapolis Colts
Brian Moorman - Punter, Buffalo Bills
Nick Mangold - Center, New York Jets
...Damn that was harder than I thought and I had to use two players from the Buffalo bills...)
Amanda: Can I name five in MLB? David Wright, Ryan Church, Mike Pelfrey, Brian Schneider, John Maine... and that's only on the Mets!
Donny Walnuts: I'm not sure where I'm going with this black history month thing, but I don't feel like I'm alone in thinking about how confusing my role is within it in a holistic sense.
By no means am I here shouting out white surpremacy or to say that anyone shouldn't celebrate their heritage and learn about the history of "their people", can't we accept that it's part of OUR history. This happened in the history of OUR country.
If you don't want to, that's fine, but it's undeniable that whites are still the majority in this country. What is my role and moral responsibility for "black" history month?
(My Cynical Conservative Republican thought: Moral responsibility is bullshit.)
In any case two generations ago my family wasn't in the United States. My great grandfather came over on a boat from Poland and got a job so he could earn enough money to ship my great grandmother and my grandmother here.
It befuddles me to think that my great grandfather did that for my family. Yet we have the fourth generation minorities in ghettos that don't have a job to support the family that is already here. I guess it just shows a difference in character if not between my family and that one, then at least character of people then and people now.
Amanda: I don't think it's an inherent moral difference in race, honestly. There are plenty of white people who don't have a job to support their families and live off the system. I think it's an inherent difference in races believing something is OWED to them because of the wrongdoings of our forefathers (I'm not saying "ours" in a literal sense, I mean "ours" in the late white race). We "owe" the black race because our ancestors enslaved them; we "owe" the Asian race because we put them in internment camps in WWII. Fuck, if that's the case, the Germans owe the Jews a whole hell of a lot more than I owe anyone...
Donny Walnuts: Every year I was in high school I was forced to learn about slave trade and how things were in the deep south between plantation owning whites whom I have not even a distant relation to and black slaves whom I have even a further distance in relationship to.
I didn't ever ask to hear about the history of Poland.
Not that I didn't care.
It just wouldn't be on a government sanctioned standardized test at the end of the year.
Amanda: Nobody cares about us Polacks. It's very sad.
Donny Walnuts: Why is it limited to "black" history month though? Why not "minority" history month? It even rolls off the tongue better.
I don't even know how to address it and sound inappropriate!
If I were in mixed company and someone were to ask me to describe a person who was black I would get uncomfortable when it comes to skin color.... "He uhhh... was.... (black??? African american??? of color???)" -- not sure which would piss people off less.
Yes.
Less.
Why do I feel this way??? Is it because I'm prejudice or is it more likely that I've heard a million different scenarios where some black guy gets upset for being addressed inappropriately. Maybe it's all just inappropriate, it's just subjective depending on said persons mood whether or not it offends them.
Amanda: We'll probably get lambasted for using the word "blacks" in this post, but JFC, there's no politically correct way to address the black race. I'm sure plenty of people will think we're inherently immoral for even raising this discussion about race... c'mon Don, it's supposed to be OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be PC and all hunky-dory!
Donny Walnuts: I Just. Don't. Get. It.
Amanda: Word cotton.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kids are Skanks Too
Amanda: Ha, Don, I got the better color.
Alfie Patten is allegedly a father at age 13 - so says the British rag "The Sun." I've got a few problems wrapping my head around this whole thing.
Donny Walnuts: Heh... I'm sensing another two candidates for a bunch of democrats to deem my money is better spent on than myself...
Amanda: 1) It's "The Sun." They run stories about alien abductions and finding Atlantis and their website reads something like an anime episode that gives seizures to children. The whole piece is highly sensational and while it is theoretically possible (and probable), I'm rendering a guess that we're not getting the whole story here. Especially when more credible news outlets have been hesitant to follow the story (two posts on CNN, a bunch on Fox [who is calling BS], and none in the NYT).
2) IF the story IS true, a 15-year-old having a baby with a 13-year-old boy isn't anything new. I went to school with a girl who got pregnant in 9th grade. Kids are having sex younger and menarche occurs in girls younger too and the combination is lethal (well, technically not lethal, since it's bearing babies). But in such cases, where are the parents? If I came home knocked up NOW my mom would ship me straight to Planned Parenthood to "abort mission" - she probably would have skinned me alive if I were pregnant at 15.
Donny Walnuts: I ask this same question and have this exact line of thought process with many kids these days. Not only that, but I have that same thought with a lot of adults actually... you're barely living off of what you have now and you're going to afford a child? The fact that you think that also shows your lack of responsibility... another reason why a child should not be brought into the world under these circumstances. Amanda, I think that I would love to be around when you presented such information, either that or really far away. I think your dad would be very profound... or very profane.
Amanda: My dad doesn't really talk about sex/babies. My mom, on the other hand, is vehemently against anyone under the age of 28 having a child. When one of my sister's "friends" got pregnant, she flipped out and said that she'd have that thing "sucked out faster than a hooker sucking dick." (I really wish I was kidding...)
Anyway, number three: The bible thumpers are up in boots because this story is the "perfect reason why comprehensive sex ed doesn't work." My question to them is: "Does abstinence-only sex ed work?" I wrote a 10-page thesis on why it DOESN'T - because, by numbers, it doesn't. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend kids won't have sex, but the more you say "DON'T DO IT YOU'LL DIE OF AIDS AND BABIES" the more kids will WANT to do it. At least give them the smarts to use contraceptives when the time comes...
Donny Walnuts: I heard the same thing, I don't even know if at age 13 I got a "comprehensive sex ed." though. What I do know is that I wasn't taught about sex in the sense of the actual education of what part goes where and what happens when. I was taught about the responsibility that was required to take care of one, and what a financial requirement it was to take on a child. Both by my parents.
I've always thought to myself that I wanted to spoil myself before I deticated my life to having a family... even if that family is limited to just Morgan and myself. I have yet to spoil myself or fall into a bucket of money that would constitute conception of a child much less raising one (although I have not been deturred from the physical act of conception ....surprisingly ...not really.). At age 13 I wasn't thinking about sex... I don't think I was anyways. I was too worried if the girl I like actually liked me back, much less the thought of getting in her pants... forget her dropping full trau and us bumping uglies. What the hell is going through this kids head at age 13?
Amanda: I agree. I just wanted a boy to like my pimply face and terrible fashion sense. I didn't have a boyfriend 'til I was 15 and it took us three months to even kiss in the first place.
Donnie Walnuts: ...do you think Ron Jeremy or Peter North were like that at age 13?
I'm a horny bastard but never have I been out of control to the point of stupidity (I.E. - lack of contraception).
Amanda: And that's the bottom line in the whole thing.
Alfie Patten is allegedly a father at age 13 - so says the British rag "The Sun." I've got a few problems wrapping my head around this whole thing.
Donny Walnuts: Heh... I'm sensing another two candidates for a bunch of democrats to deem my money is better spent on than myself...
Amanda: 1) It's "The Sun." They run stories about alien abductions and finding Atlantis and their website reads something like an anime episode that gives seizures to children. The whole piece is highly sensational and while it is theoretically possible (and probable), I'm rendering a guess that we're not getting the whole story here. Especially when more credible news outlets have been hesitant to follow the story (two posts on CNN, a bunch on Fox [who is calling BS], and none in the NYT).
2) IF the story IS true, a 15-year-old having a baby with a 13-year-old boy isn't anything new. I went to school with a girl who got pregnant in 9th grade. Kids are having sex younger and menarche occurs in girls younger too and the combination is lethal (well, technically not lethal, since it's bearing babies). But in such cases, where are the parents? If I came home knocked up NOW my mom would ship me straight to Planned Parenthood to "abort mission" - she probably would have skinned me alive if I were pregnant at 15.
Donny Walnuts: I ask this same question and have this exact line of thought process with many kids these days. Not only that, but I have that same thought with a lot of adults actually... you're barely living off of what you have now and you're going to afford a child? The fact that you think that also shows your lack of responsibility... another reason why a child should not be brought into the world under these circumstances. Amanda, I think that I would love to be around when you presented such information, either that or really far away. I think your dad would be very profound... or very profane.
Amanda: My dad doesn't really talk about sex/babies. My mom, on the other hand, is vehemently against anyone under the age of 28 having a child. When one of my sister's "friends" got pregnant, she flipped out and said that she'd have that thing "sucked out faster than a hooker sucking dick." (I really wish I was kidding...)
Anyway, number three: The bible thumpers are up in boots because this story is the "perfect reason why comprehensive sex ed doesn't work." My question to them is: "Does abstinence-only sex ed work?" I wrote a 10-page thesis on why it DOESN'T - because, by numbers, it doesn't. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend kids won't have sex, but the more you say "DON'T DO IT YOU'LL DIE OF AIDS AND BABIES" the more kids will WANT to do it. At least give them the smarts to use contraceptives when the time comes...
Donny Walnuts: I heard the same thing, I don't even know if at age 13 I got a "comprehensive sex ed." though. What I do know is that I wasn't taught about sex in the sense of the actual education of what part goes where and what happens when. I was taught about the responsibility that was required to take care of one, and what a financial requirement it was to take on a child. Both by my parents.
I've always thought to myself that I wanted to spoil myself before I deticated my life to having a family... even if that family is limited to just Morgan and myself. I have yet to spoil myself or fall into a bucket of money that would constitute conception of a child much less raising one (although I have not been deturred from the physical act of conception ....surprisingly ...not really.). At age 13 I wasn't thinking about sex... I don't think I was anyways. I was too worried if the girl I like actually liked me back, much less the thought of getting in her pants... forget her dropping full trau and us bumping uglies. What the hell is going through this kids head at age 13?
Amanda: I agree. I just wanted a boy to like my pimply face and terrible fashion sense. I didn't have a boyfriend 'til I was 15 and it took us three months to even kiss in the first place.
Donnie Walnuts: ...do you think Ron Jeremy or Peter North were like that at age 13?
I'm a horny bastard but never have I been out of control to the point of stupidity (I.E. - lack of contraception).
Amanda: And that's the bottom line in the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)