Have you ever been knocked up?

[Jeff]

It's only fair we ask this question too.

Obviously being a guy, I haven't.

[bunniegraves]

nope. i believe birth control should be in the water, and that you should have to have a license to produce offspring which can only be obtained after taking extensive parenting courses.

[Lady Marina]

nope. i believe birth control should be in the water, and that you should have to have a license to produce offspring which can only be obtained after taking extensive parenting courses.

Good luck with that..

[Smooth]

nope. i believe birth control should be in the water, and that you should have to have a license to produce offspring which can only be obtained after taking extensive parenting courses.

I say we start a petition, and only vote for the next presidential candidate if they agree.

[jonhomeowner]

I was knocked-up once.

Got an abortion. Regretted it.

[Smooth]

Just get knocked up again to make up for it.

[oioipunkrawkgrrl]

yes, i have and now have a beautiful little boy named Malachi whos 3. :)

[dead_head]

fuck that im never having kids. I don't wanna add anymore people too the overflowing population of dumb asses. no offence to anyone with kids

[ChrisJones]

abortions...delicious with frosting

[green_machine]

nope. i believe birth control should be in the water, and that you should have to have a license to produce offspring which can only be obtained after taking extensive parenting courses.

Well if you want to get technical, there is already a lot of estrogen in the water. Scientists are finding male water dwelling species well less male (fish, frogs, otters, etc). And I think its already impacting humans, just look at the petty bitchy bull shit flying between the guys. :] Who knows men's junk may even invert its self in a few years. The side effects for birth control haven't really come into the light with all the newer and "safer" ones. It can mess up your kids if it doesn't work it's self out of your system when you try to conceive too. I'm not down with the pill and I don't think its all that it's cracked up to be but that's my opinion.

Common Side Effects for Combination Contraceptives
o Weight gain
o Increase or decrease in acne
o Nausea and vomiting (particularly for the first few cycles)
o Dizziness
o Headaches
o Depression
o Vaginal infections
o High blood pressure
o Loss of libido
Less Common Serious Health Complications
o Blood clots in legs, lungs, heart or brain
o Stroke
o Heart attacks
o Possibly cervical cancer
Common Side Effects for Progestin Only Contraceptives
o Spotting and irregular vaginal bleeding
o Longer periods
o Amenorrhea for extend periods
o Headaches
o Anxiety and nervousness
o Pain in lower abdominals
o Dizziness
o Loss of libido
o [Depression
o Increase or decrease in acne
o Skin rash or darkened patches of skin
o Appetite changes
o Weight gain
o Tender breasts
o Increase or decrease in facial and body hair
o Possibly hair loss
o Vaginal discharge
o Bone density loss
o Enlarged ovarian follicles
o Pain or itching (usually for a brief period of time)
o Norplant users: infection at the site of implantation
Less Common Serious Health Complications
o Ectopic pregnancy
o Certain cancers

But meh, I've had four pregnancy scares. None produced anything but I would have taken care of the baby or placed it in a loving and appreciative home (if I couldn't provide a suitable life for the kid). Ultimately I'd like to adopt kids (in this country) or some teens (no one seems to want them) I know it wouldn't make a dent in the problem but at least I wouldn't be adding to the over population. But I do agree with extensive parenting courses...but there's no guarantee you know? My parents read all the books when I was born but none of them were...well parent making material. :P


But if eating the little buggers is your thing Chris, you should check out this Korean flick "3 Extremes" by Fruit Chan.

[jonhomeowner]

Birth control is completely safe.

Stop trying to scare people into not taking it by listing ridiculous side-effects.

p.s. Chris didn't say he liked eating babies. He said he liked eating aborted fetuses.

[Lady Marina]

We hear those facts everyday anyways on those lovely commercials.

[ChrisJones]

jesus people, just blow your load anywhere but inside of here...

easier said than done I know.

[bunniegraves]

Good luck with that..


im not saying it would be an easy thing to acheive, thats just my opinion after seeing a lot of screwed up parents raising screwed up kids because they chose not to take proper precautions (i actually had someone argue with me about how effective the "pull-out" method is, she has a 2 year old that wasnt planned).

[thebigother]

nope. i believe birth control should be in the water, and that you should have to have a license to produce offspring which can only be obtained after taking extensive parenting courses.
Once we're done with that we can start sending all the undesirables to special camps to keep them out of the way in our quest to create a pure race.

[jonhomeowner]

Once we're done with that we can start sending all the undesirables to special camps to keep them out of the way in our quest to create a pure race.
I'm glad you're finally on board.

[Danny Montez]

i knocked up my ex. was a stressful time. she got rid of it tho. so no fatherhood for Danny! woo

[bunniegraves]

Once we're done with that we can start sending all the undesirables to special camps to keep them out of the way in our quest to create a pure race.


OMGZ LIEK thats EXACTLY what I meant!:rolleyes:

except that i never said anything about race, or physical condition, or religious practices or any other factor that might be grounds for segregation from a "pure race" (whatever the hell that is) which has nothing to do with my original post or the one after it. you are aware that race has nothing to do with being a good parent right? just checking. the amount of stupidity in your sarcastic little jab made me worry for a moment.

so tell me what you have against wanting people to be good parents?

[dead_head]

well if you guys are seeing things like that then wouldn't the easier solution be to surgically apply a condom to newborn infants so they can't make babies. kinda like a chastity belt

[Nips]

what!? and dull the sexual experience, are you nuts!!?

[BEERnBRATWURST]

well if you guys are seeing things like that then wouldn't the easier solution be to surgically apply a condom to newborn infants so they can't make babies. kinda like a chastity belt


Shouldn't be surgically attached. When the kid hits his teens he would have a giant, semen filled water balloon hanging from his pecker.

[oldsklgrl]

Three times!!!! Wooooo stretch marks!!!! But I have the best kids ever!

[bunniegraves]

well if you guys are seeing things like that then wouldn't the easier solution be to surgically apply a condom to newborn infants so they can't make babies. kinda like a chastity belt

condoms break. i say we just apply rubber cement to the urethra lol

[thebigother]

OMGZ LIEK thats EXACTLY what I meant!:rolleyes:

except that i never said anything about race, or physical condition, or religious practices or any other factor that might be grounds for segregation from a "pure race" (whatever the hell that is) which has nothing to do with my original post or the one after it. you are aware that race has nothing to do with being a good parent right? just checking. the amount of stupidity in your sarcastic little jab made me worry for a moment.

so tell me what you have against wanting people to be good parents?
I have nothing against wanting people to be good parents. I have a problem with people making asinine comments about who and who shouldn't be allowed to have children and creating bullshit standards about what being a good parent entails. Not that you actually gave any mention to what in your opinion makes a good parent, but I hope it's not too much to assume that you have some idea if you're going to vouch for such draconian parental laws.
And as we all know, racial categories like black and white have no scientific bearing, so since there is only one human race, you did mention it. I on other the hand said nothing about religious practices or physical condition. You're just sensationalizing my statement to minimize yours. Can't say I blame you. If I said such ridiculous things I'd try to draw attention away from them too.

[oldsklgrl]

condoms break. i say we just apply rubber cement to the urethra lol


Or we could just cut them off and surgically apply ones that we (women) pick from a catalog! After we've castrated them we can then harvest their sperm, freeze it and inseminate ourselves after we pass the "test". Soon the entire male population will be emasculated and a matriarchal society will ensue, where there are only wars once every 28 days and they only last for 5-7 days at the end of which all the world leaders will cry and profess their love for one another!!!!!

[jonhomeowner]

Shouldn't be surgically attached. When the kid hits his teens he would have a giant, semen filled water balloon hanging from his pecker.
It'd be filled with piss long before that...

[oldsklgrl]

It'd be filled with piss long before that...

Catheters....

[bunniegraves]

Or we could just cut them off and surgically apply ones that we (women) pick from a catalog! After we've castrated them we can then harvest their sperm, freeze it and inseminate ourselves after we pass the "test". Soon the entire male population will be emasculated and a matriarchal society will ensue, where there are only wars once every 28 days and they only last for 5-7 days at the end of which all the world leaders will cry and profess their love for one another!!!!!

fantastic! lets get started!

[bunniegraves]

I have nothing against wanting people to be good parents. I have a problem with people making asinine comments about who and who shouldn't be allowed to have children and creating bullshit standards about what being a good parent entails. Not that you actually gave any mention to what in your opinion makes a good parent, but I hope it's not too much to assume that you have some idea if you're going to vouch for such draconian parental laws.
And as we all know, racial categories like black and white have no scientific bearing, so since there is only one human race, you did mention it. I on other the hand said nothing about religious practices or physical condition. You're just sensationalizing my statement to minimize yours. Can't say I blame you. If I said such ridiculous things I'd try to draw attention away from them too.

well, Im sorry that you find my opinion offensive. i do think that if you want to raise a child you should be able to provide reasons why you should be able to populate the earth. Im not saying its going to happen, or that i think our society would allow that sort of law. Im just stating what I think makes sense.

Given the amount of abuse and neglect to children is an ever growing problem, i dont see why requiring people to have a license to parent is a bad idea. you can do a lot of damage to a child if you dont know what goes into raising one, just like you can do a lot of damage with a gun if you dont know how to use it properly, or with a car if you dont know how to drive it. do you oppose the idea of obtaining licenses to own a gun or operate a vehicle?

I brought up the human race yes, but i didnt mention anything about a "pure" race. you did.

[ChrisJones]

the uppercut is delivered...

[jonhomeowner]

the uppercut is delivered...
More like a jab that didn't connect, but ok.

[Smooth]

Then it wouldn't have been "delivered".

[jonhomeowner]

Then it wouldn't have been "delivered".
I'm aware.

That's why I said "jab" and "didn't connect".

I was contradicting the entire statement.

[oldsklgrl]

YAY a semantics debate!

[dead_head]

Or we could just cut them off and surgically apply ones that we (women) pick from a catalog! After we've castrated them we can then harvest their sperm, freeze it and inseminate ourselves after we pass the "test". Soon the entire male population will be emasculated and a matriarchal society will ensue, where there are only wars once every 28 days and they only last for 5-7 days at the end of which all the world leaders will cry and profess their love for one another!!!!!

i think i love you.... in that nonhomosexual way

[thebigother]

well, Im sorry that you find my opinion offensive. i do think that if you want to raise a child you should be able to provide reasons why you should be able to populate the earth. Im not saying its going to happen, or that i think our society would allow that sort of law. Im just stating what I think makes sense.
And who's going to make up these standards? You? What about accidental pregnancies? Sterilize the couple so it doesn't happen again? Forcefully take the baby away to be raised in a very potentially more neglectful environment (foster care/group homes)?

Given the amount of abuse and neglect to children is an ever growing problem, i dont see why requiring people to have a license to parent is a bad idea.
It's a bad idea because there is no objective qualitative measurement as to what makes a good parent. Good and bad parenting are both just matters of opinion.
You can do a lot of damage to a child if you dont know what goes into raising one,
If you've ever met a parent who knew what they were doing when raising their first child, I have some magic beans to sell you. I'm not saying they all stumble around their children haphazardly. I'm saying every kid is different so aside from teaching people how to do things like change diapers and mix formula, a lot of raising a child is done through trial and error. Not that I have any of my own, but hey, neither do you!
just like you can do a lot of damage with a gun if you dont know how to use it properly, or with a car if you dont know how to drive it. do you oppose the idea of obtaining licenses to own a gun or operate a vehicle?
Well, on philosophical levels, yes I do. But I think what is more important here is the fact that you are comparing people to machines. I'm beginning to understand where you're absurd ideas come from. A baby isn't a car or a gun. They're people.

I brought up the human race yes, but i didnt mention anything about a "pure" race. you did.
Let me break down this down for you:
If we start limiting who can and who can't have babies, and those limits have nothing to do with physical condition, skin colour, religious practices, etc. (although with today's political climate there would be huge pushes to make it illegal for immigrants or Muslims to procreate), then they will probably be based on intelligence, even if just in a specific area (child rearing). There is no fool proof measurement of intelligence meaning that ultimately weather or not a woman is allowed to have a child would boil down to one person's discretion. This would also signal a move towards a society where people with a perceived higher intelligence (as determined by the government no doubt), would have special treatment and special rights over people with a perceived lower intelligence. So while one's skin colour or ethnic origin may not be the (primary) issue here, it's still remarkably fascist in nature, hence my one liner about a pure race. Maybe "Master Race" would have been a better term, because after a while when all the dumbies died out from not being allowed to procreate, we'd just be left everybody who was smart enough to pass the parenting test, so while they wouldn't be pure pure se, they certainly would be masterful.

And on that note, I'm off to the land of a thousand hippies today (AKA British Columbia) so I guess I'll catch you later.

[bunniegraves]

More like a jab that didn't connect, but ok.

we're boxing now?

[ChrisJones]

we're boxing now?
No

...more like face slapping with latex gloves.

[bunniegraves]

No

...more like face slapping with latex gloves.


...i guess i could get into that. are they ambidextrous latex gloves?

[bunniegraves]

And who's going to make up these standards? You? What about accidental pregnancies? Sterilize the couple so it doesn't happen again? Forcefully take the baby away to be raised in a very potentially more neglectful environment (foster care/group homes)?


It's a bad idea because there is no objective qualitative measurement as to what makes a good parent. Good and bad parenting are both just matters of opinion.

If you've ever met a parent who knew what they were doing when raising their first child, I have some magic beans to sell you. I'm not saying they all stumble around their children haphazardly. I'm saying every kid is different so aside from teaching people how to do things like change diapers and mix formula, a lot of raising a child is done through trial and error. Not that I have any of my own, but hey, neither do you!

Well, on philosophical levels, yes I do. But I think what is more important here is the fact that you are comparing people to machines. I'm beginning to understand where you're absurd ideas come from. A baby isn't a car or a gun. They're people.


Let me break down this down for you:
If we start limiting who can and who can't have babies, and those limits have nothing to do with physical condition, skin colour, religious practices, etc. (although with today's political climate there would be huge pushes to make it illegal for immigrants or Muslims to procreate), then they will probably be based on intelligence, even if just in a specific area (child rearing). There is no fool proof measurement of intelligence meaning that ultimately weather or not a woman is allowed to have a child would boil down to one person's discretion. This would also signal a move towards a society where people with a perceived higher intelligence (as determined by the government no doubt), would have special treatment and special rights over people with a perceived lower intelligence. So while one's skin colour or ethnic origin may not be the (primary) issue here, it's still remarkably fascist in nature, hence my one liner about a pure race. Maybe "Master Race" would have been a better term, because after a while when all the dumbies died out from not being allowed to procreate, we'd just be left everybody who was smart enough to pass the parenting test, so while they wouldn't be pure pure se, they certainly would be masterful.

And on that note, I'm off to the land of a thousand hippies today (AKA British Columbia) so I guess I'll catch you later.

Yes, yes. we know that. human rights are a slippery slope and blah blah blah. Im not saying that regulation of procreation is ever going to happen, nor am i saying it doesnt have any cons. I dont even have any idea what kind of criteria the "parenting test" would cover. Im not even saying it's realistic in any sense. I am saying you should be responsible for knowing certain things about raising children before you go off and have one. I am saying that these days it seems like people who are having babies these days arent realizing their responsibilities as parents. these are personal observations, and i dont expect you to agree with them.

[ChrisJones]

...i guess i could get into that. are they ambidextrous latex gloves?
Use whatever hand you want honey bunnie

[bunniegraves]

Use whatever hand you want honey bunnie

...k yea, that's...no.:o

[ChrisJones]

...k yea, that's...no.:o

I didn't mean it like that, pervert.

[bunniegraves]

I didn't mean it like that, pervert.


you say pervert like its a negative thing.

[ChrisJones]

I don't judge.

[bunniegraves]

I don't judge.

fabulous :)

[jonhomeowner]

bunnie, here's one step closer to the water supply solution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21358971/

Maine middle school to offer birth control
School board approves pills and patches for students ages 11 to 13
The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Maine - Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.

The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

There's more, but I didn't feel like posting it all (besides, I posted the link, that's all you need to read it all).

[ThePope]

if I was the catholic church I'd be all like "whomg!!!11!!!!!"

[ChrisJones]

well you're the damn pope. Do something!

[ThePope]

I better get god on the phone and alert him of this grave breach of biblical morality that doesn't appear in the bible!!!

[Bad Terry]

I dont think an 11 year old should be allowed birth control until he she has passed the parenting license course and signed up for selective service

[jonhomeowner]

I dont think an 11 year old should be allowed birth control until he she has passed the parenting license course and signed up for selective service
Uhm, you're stupid.

They're doing this because kids of that age ARE having sex.

[ChrisJones]

lucky 11 year olds. I dont even think I saw a boob by that age

[Bad Terry]

Umm...That was was sarcasm...giving an eleven year old birth control is as absurb as say ..letting them enlist in the army because they are able to hold a gun

[jonhomeowner]

Umm...That was was sarcasm...giving an eleven year old birth control is as absurb as say ..letting them enlist in the army because they are able to hold a gun
No, it's no absurd. If they are young and are having sex and want birth control, then they should be able to have it.

[bunniegraves]

bunnie, here's one step closer to the water supply solution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21358971/

Maine middle school to offer birth control
School board approves pills and patches for students ages 11 to 13
The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Maine - Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.

The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

There's more, but I didn't feel like posting it all (besides, I posted the link, that's all you need to read it all).

god damned slutty adolescents.....just kidding.

while it is mildly disturbing to think of anyone that young having sex, its becoming more and more common place, so im not surprised the school district chose to offer those services.

[Nips]

I dont think an 11 year old should be allowed birth control until he she has passed the parenting license course and signed up for selective service

that makes no sense at all!!! hahaha, holy shit.

you dont want to give kids birth control untill they can pass a parenting exam... surely you see thats a double negative.

you do realise that birth control is child prevention yeah?

[ChrisJones]

This topic makes me mad!!!!!

I didn't intend this post to be so long but after doing research I've come across, in my opinion(which you all hate usually), the real problem at hand. This took me awhile to type and google away on my sidekick.

Teenage pregnancy? Who are these teens? I remember a few of em in high school, but is this problem really a nationwide epidemic? No. It's a media ploy.

In the 1990's one third of teen mothers were younger than eighteen. Fewer than 1 in 50 were younger than 14.

Just a century ago the average age of first menstrual was 16. Today girls typically have it by 13, some as early as 9. So only lately have girls been called in society to wait so long from onset of menstration to have kids.

Women having babies under 20 are regarded with extreme prejudice "psychological problems, ignorance about contraception, desire to obtain welfare benefits, immorality, a chance to get out of school...blah blah". While a woman over 20 that wants a child has "maternal instinct"

Teen moms have been accused by politicians as "destroying civilization" a "cancer", "breeding criminals faster than society can jail them". "Lower work force productivity" "diminished wages" "weaker economy. It makes my truly sad that Bill Clinton stated in his 1996 state of the union address "teen moms are our most serious social problem". Wake up slick.

A large collection of impoverished women whole collective wealth and influence don't even add up to that of a fortune 100 company. You are going to tell me that is destroying america?

In 1994, 80 percent of teen moms were poor before they became pregnant. When compared to girls in similar poverty circumstances the chance of going to college goes up 1 percent for non-mom teens.

And the children? When compared again, to similar women with the same socioeconomic problems there is little difference between the groups in outcomes such as crime, drug abuse, or dropping out of school. Indeed the age of the mother is the least important circumstance.


The teenage birth rate was at it's highest in the 1950's. Not now! In fact between 1991 and 1996 the rate declined 12 percent.

Just a simple google search and I found "illegitimate babies born to teenage moms is the smoking gun in a sick array of pathologies, crime, drug abuse, mental and physical illness, welfare dependancy" -joe kliein, newsweek

"Before we can have crime control, we need to have birth control, this is a national security issue" -richard cohen, the post

National security issue? Because mom wasn't married? Give me a break. Even jonhomeowner would be calling them names by now.

So I found a useful bit of info.
In the 1950's the average age of marriage was 14. In 2007 it's 22.

A study of 23,000 men found that those raised by teen mothers had income roughly equal to those raised by parents. One of the students that performed the study claims children of single moms tended to fare better emotionally and socially than do offspring from high conflict marriages or from those which the father is absent or abusive.

Staying on track here....

teenage pregnancy being a problem sounds like a buncha bullshit.

These politicians are trying to gain voter respect by 'supporting the american family'.

Some sources with great archival material
Www.newyorktimes.com
Www.chicagotribune.com
Www.rickilake.com

I would cite more sources but I'm on my sidekick3

[bunniegraves]

This topic makes me mad!!!!!

I didn't intend this post to be so long but after doing research I've come across, in my opinion(which you all hate usually), the real problem at hand. This took me awhile to type and google away on my sidekick.

Teenage pregnancy? Who are these teens? I remember a few of em in high school, but is this problem really a nationwide epidemic? No. It's a media ploy.

In the 1990's one third of teen mothers were younger than eighteen. Fewer than 1 in 50 were younger than 14.

Just a century ago the average age of first menstrual was 16. Today girls typically have it by 13, some as early as 9. So only lately have girls been called in society to wait so long from onset of menstration to have kids.

Women having babies under 20 are regarded with extreme prejudice "psychological problems, ignorance about contraception, desire to obtain welfare benefits, immorality, a chance to get out of school...blah blah". While a woman over 20 that wants a child has "maternal instinct"

Teen moms have been accused by politicians as "destroying civilization" a "cancer", "breeding criminals faster than society can jail them". "Lower work force productivity" "diminished wages" "weaker economy. It makes my truly sad that Bill Clinton stated in his 1996 state of the union address "teen moms are our most serious social problem". Wake up slick.

A large collection of impoverished women whole collective wealth and influence don't even add up to that of a fortune 100 company. You are going to tell me that is destroying america?

In 1994, 80 percent of teen moms were poor before they became pregnant. When compared to girls in similar poverty circumstances the chance of going to college goes up 1 percent for non-mom teens.

And the children? When compared again, to similar women with the same socioeconomic problems there is little difference between the groups in outcomes such as crime, drug abuse, or dropping out of school. Indeed the age of the mother is the least important circumstance.


The teenage birth rate was at it's highest in the 1950's. Not now! In fact between 1991 and 1996 the rate declined 12 percent.

Just a simple google search and I found "illegitimate babies born to teenage moms is the smoking gun in a sick array of pathologies, crime, drug abuse, mental and physical illness, welfare dependancy" -joe kliein, newsweek

"Before we can have crime control, we need to have birth control, this is a national security issue" -richard cohen, the post

National security issue? Because mom wasn't married? Give me a break. Even jonhomeowner would be calling them names by now.

So I found a useful bit of info.
In the 1950's the average age of marriage was 14. In 2007 it's 22.

A study of 23,000 men found that those raised by teen mothers had income roughly equal to those raised by parents. One of the students that performed the study claims children of single moms tended to fare better emotionally and socially than do offspring from high conflict marriages or from those which the father is absent or abusive.

Staying on track here....

teenage pregnancy being a problem sounds like a buncha bullshit.

These politicians are trying to gain voter respect by 'supporting the american family'.

Some sources with great archival material
Www.newyorktimes.com
Www.chicagotribune.com
Www.rickilake.com

I would cite more sources but I'm on my sidekick3

nice...
but thats beside the point. im not talking about teen pregnancy per se, im talking irresponsible people getting knocked up. Joe cited that article in response to my suggestion (which was half jest) that bc be put in the water, so that irresponsible people dont become irresponsible parents (gee, i'm really into that word this morning).

[jonhomeowner]

This topic makes me mad!!!!!

I didn't intend this post to be so long but after doing research I've come across, in my opinion(which you all hate usually), the real problem at hand. This took me awhile to type and google away on my sidekick.

Teenage pregnancy? Who are these teens? I remember a few of em in high school, but is this problem really a nationwide epidemic? No. It's a media ploy.

Untrue.

When they had this one the television earlier, they gave statistics saying that, in the north east (you know, where Maine is located), 25-30% of girls 14 and younger have had sex.

That's 1-in-4 middle school girls. It's about time they did something about it to keep them from getting pregnant.

Women having babies under 20 are regarded with extreme prejudice "psychological problems, ignorance about contraception, desire to obtain welfare benefits, immorality, a chance to get out of school...blah blah". While a woman over 20 that wants a child has "maternal instinct"
I don't agree with the terms we call them, but I'd say that a lot of the women under 20 having babies are ignorant of how it all works. There are some cases where they WANT to have babies (which is one of the dumbest things ever, but whatever), but it's a very, very, very small portion.

Teen moms have been accused by politicians as "destroying civilization" a "cancer", "breeding criminals faster than society can jail them". "Lower work force productivity" "diminished wages" "weaker economy. It makes my truly sad that Bill Clinton stated in his 1996 state of the union address "teen moms are our most serious social problem". Wake up slick.

A large collection of impoverished women whole collective wealth and influence don't even add up to that of a fortune 100 company. You are going to tell me that is destroying america?
Why wouldn't it destroy America? You don't need money to destroy America. Criminals don't have money, and yet they somehow destroy the country. Most statistics show that a lot of crime is committed by men who grew up with only a mother. Statistics will also tell you that a lot of "teen moms" go it alone. So, you're right that the particular fact that it's a teen mom doesn't have an effect. It's the things that usually go along with that which do affect it.

The teenage birth rate was at it's highest in the 1950's. Not now! In fact between 1991 and 1996 the rate declined 12 percent.
The 50s? That's because:

a> some women still got married as teenagers
b> birth control didn't exist

Since we can eliminate factor "a" from our current "problem", we are left with "b", which can also be eliminated. The fact that neither a or b exist in the current world and the teen birth rate is getting up there again is bad. And it's not "the teen birth rate" that we have to worry about as much as the "young teen" birth rate.

How many of those "teen births" in the 50s do you suppose were 13 year-olds?

And how many were 16 and 17 year-olds? Horny teens parking in cars sound familiar?

[ChrisJones]

We are talking about if teen pregnancy is really a problem. Not whether it is right or wrong.

Untrue.

When they had this one the television earlier, they gave statistics saying that, in the north east (you know, where Maine is located), 25-30% of girls 14 and younger have had sex.

1/3 of teen pregnancies are under eighteen. 1 in 50 is under 14.

In 1950 there were 90 teen(under 18) pregnancies(before modern abortions, which didn't take full swing until the 70's) for every 1000 pregnant woman.

In 1997 there were 70 teen pregnancies for every 1000 pregnant women.

In 2005 it's 60 pregnant teens per every 1000 pregnant women.


That's 1-in-4 middle school girls. It's about time they did something about it to keep them from getting pregnant.

We do what we can to make society better, but is teen pregnancy really a problem in the first place?

Is it worth throwing all that money for contraceptives when there are bigger problems in the community?

I don't agree with the terms we call them, but I'd say that a lot of the women under 20 having babies are ignorant of how it all works. There are some cases where they WANT to have babies (which is one of the dumbest things ever, but whatever), but it's a very, very, very small portion.

There are plenty of irrisponsible 30 yr olds that have kids.

Once a woman is old enough to have kids, it's her choice.

Even though it can be a dumb move to support a child before you have even launched your own career.

Why wouldn't it destroy America? You don't need money to destroy America. Criminals don't have money, and yet they somehow destroy the country. Most statistics show that a lot of crime is committed by men who grew up with only a mother. Statistics will also tell you that a lot of "teen moms" go it alone. So, you're right that the particular fact that it's a teen mom doesn't have an effect. It's the things that usually go along with that which do affect it.

Crime costs the economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Prisons, rehabs, debts, police enforcement, larceny, murders...the list is endless. Just because they don't have money doesn't make these numbers go away.

Let's juggle some numbers. We shall see how bad these "criminal children are".

Crime costs the US 675 billion dollars per year.

Ok lets imagine a scenario where every single offspring born to a teen mother was a career criminal.

Out of 180 million woman, 120 million become mothers at some point in their lives.

As of 2005. For every 1000 pregnancies, 60 are to women under 18.

That puts 7,200,000 offspring to teen moms not per year but of all teen births in existence if none of those moms had abortions or miscarried.(there are only 4 million human births per year in the US)

2 percent of all criminals conduct 30 percent of the crimes. Career criminals cost on average 10,000 per criminal per year that they are alive, incarcerated at the moment or not.

So if by some chance 100 percent of kids born to teenage moms were criminals. 2 percent being career criminals

144,000 career criminals

The career criminals would cost 1,440,000,000 per year.

Which is less than half a percent of crime costs in the US.

Also 100 percent of those kids are not in the "teenage range" or a part of the group that commits the most crimes.

So how many are going to be criminals?

15 percent of americans are involved with the justice system at any given time. This is a combination of poor and upper class.

80 percent of teenage moms are in poverty.

For arguments sake lets make up a number like ehh 30 percent(I can't find the stats for poor folks)of their kids involved in crime.

That's 2,160,000

2 percent of those are the worst of the worst.

43,200(career criminals and an already exaggerated number)

Total cost of career criminals:
432,000,000(career criminals)

If this is 30 percent of the crimes commited than the grand total of teen mom's kids criminal activity using an exaggerated number would be

1,440,000,000

This is 22.29 percent of 1 percent of total crime costs.

By these numbers teen mom's kids account for .002229 the cost of crime in the USA(the actual number is even lower)

.002229

Hardly an emergency.


The 50s? That's because:

a> some women still got married as teenagers
b> birth control didn't exist

Since we can eliminate factor "a" from our current "problem", we are left with "b", which can also be eliminated. The fact that neither a or b exist in the current world and the teen birth rate is getting up there again is bad. And it's not "the teen birth rate" that we have to worry about as much as the "young teen" birth rate.

How many of those "teen births" in the 50s do you suppose were 13 year-olds?

And how many were 16 and 17 year-olds? Horny teens parking in cars sound familiar?
The numbers speak for themselves.

In 1950 there were 90 teen(under 18) pregnancies(before modern abortions, which didn't take full swing until the 70's) for every 1000 pregnant woman.

In 1997 there were 70 teen pregnancies for every 1000 pregnant women.

In 2005 it's 60 pregnant teens per every 1000 pregnant women.

.002229

I'm sleeping easy tonight.


Crime rates here:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html

and here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html

Teen Pregnancy Stats here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

[ChrisJones]

We are talking about if teen pregnancy is really a problem. Not whether it is right or wrong.

Untrue.

When they had this one the television earlier, they gave statistics saying that, in the north east (you know, where Maine is located), 25-30% of girls 14 and younger have had sex.

That's a terribly exagerated number and makes no logical sense.

25-30 percent of girls under 14 would encompass every single individual age 10-14. The other 70 percent being individuals 0-10 yrs old. Unless you believe a significant portion of 0-10 yr olds are having consensual sex...well I hope you don't. That's 100 percent of the middle school girls having sex. The news lied to you unless you reported it wrong.

[ChrisJones]

Let's look at the cost of welfare for these teen moms.

80 percent of teen moms are considered to be "poor". But like the rest of the nation's teen demograph 17 percent are considered actual poverty cases. (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/pov/toc.htm)

Curiously, racial makeup and immigrant status of teen pregnancies is constistant with that of the non teen pregnancies.

"Some facts about being Poor in america"
46 percent of poor households own their house. The average house is a 3 bedroom with 2 car garage.
75 percent own a car
30 percent own 2 cars
97 percent own a tv
62 percent have cable or sattelite
The average living space for america's poor is larger than that of a non poor individual in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens
6 percent live in "overcrowded" situations
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm)

So going back to our teen moms, a family is only entitled to a possible of 5 years on welfare thanks to the 1996 welfare reform act. Being under 18 it would be the teens mother that would apply for the welfare, thus when the teen turns 18 she has 5 years welfare aid for herself.

After skimming through the welfare numbers. 2 percent of the population recieves cash assistance, interesting.

If all the teens were on welfare. 244,000 of them, they would acount for less than a percent of the total 35 million americans on welfare programs. It's not even worth going through the numbers, they are so tiny.

This page has incredible and sobering welfare stats for the US:
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/welfare.html

Pregnant teen moms don't even put a dent in the welfare system.

[jonhomeowner]

We are talking about if teen pregnancy is really a problem. Not whether it is right or wrong.


That's a terribly exagerated number and makes no logical sense.

25-30 percent of girls under 14 would encompass every single individual age 10-14. The other 70 percent being individuals 0-10 yrs old. Unless you believe a significant portion of 0-10 yr olds are having consensual sex...well I hope you don't. That's 100 percent of the middle school girls having sex. The news lied to you unless you reported it wrong.
I'm sure they said "under 14 and above ____", but I only caught the under 14 part. Stop niggling because you're wrong. You stated a bunch of "crime statistics" and gave a link... That links to nothing.

[ChrisJones]

I'm sure they said "under 14 and above ____", but I only caught the under 14 part. Stop niggling because you're wrong. You stated a bunch of "crime statistics" and gave a link... That links to nothing.

My bad

I said I'm on my sidekick, pasting links is hard as fuck on this thing.

All I did was google "crime statistics" and selected the 3rd or 4th option.

If you can't do that yourself I will post up the link when I get home, if I remember.

They are pretty common stats, any chimp could find em, heck, I did.

[ChrisJones]

I'm sure they said "under 14 and above ____", but I only caught the under 14 part. Stop niggling because you're wrong. You stated a bunch of "crime statistics" and gave a link... That links to nothing.

All the links are up now.

I'm going to add a new one.

Maine's teen pregnancy rate is 50 percent lower than the national average for 15-17 years old.
It's 11.9 per 1000

Page 6 here:
http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SPMAINE.pdf

[bunniegraves]

birth control for everyone!

theres a pill for men coming out too, i believe.

[jonhomeowner]

theres a pill for men coming out too, i believe.
Yep, there is.

[Smooth]

I wouldn't take it.

[bunniegraves]

why not?

[Smooth]

Because I want to spread my seed.

[jonhomeowner]

QUICKLY, SOMEONE CASTRATE HIM BEFORE HE'S ALLOWED.

Can't have anymore of his seed around. It's bad enough that he has fifteen personalities.

[bunniegraves]

Because I want to spread my seed.

hmm..ok. thats your right, but i would hope that when you choose to "spread" it would be with someone who could handle the responsibilities thereafter with you.

[Caffiened]

Never. We use condoms and soon...birth control! 'Cuz I don't wanna get knocked up anytime soon!

[tisJoefoo]

I sincerely believe that we should put a hold on child birth for a solid 5-10 years. At least limit a family to one child per. China has the right idea on this one.

[jonhomeowner]

I sincerely believe that we should put a hold on child birth for a solid 5-10 years. At least limit a family to one child per. China has the right idea on this one.
I agree.

The only problem is you would severely mess up the education system and build quite a generational gap. For 5-10 years, you'd have less students in certain grades, and then when it was over, you'd have more. Teachers and schools would constantly have to rearrange to create room for the correct amount of students.

[ChrisJones]

I sincerely believe that we should put a hold on child birth for a solid 5-10 years. At least limit a family to one child per. China has the right idea on this one.
China.

The birth policy has not been fully enforced in rural china, where about 800 million Chinese live.

Also, the rich get away with having 2 or more kids. If you are willing to pay a "social maintenance fee" you can have more than one child in China.http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL10/ChinaCrimes.html

This sends mixed messages as China offers financial incentives to couples to remain with 1 child. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6282747

[Tits_McKay]

I sincerely believe that we should put a hold on child birth for a solid 5-10 years. At least limit a family to one child per. China has the right idea on this one.

I agree. Instead of waiting 5-10 years though maybe people should consider adopting a child. That way we don't have to allow children to spend most of their lives in foster homes. Also not have to worry about creating a problem in the education system.

[citybabysrevenge]

Yeah, about the whole giving 11 year olds birth control thing -- giving them the pill is almost encouraging them to keep having sex. I think that at 11, as teachers/parents/whatever, the aim should be to prevent or deter the child from having sex instead of giving them a pill that takes away one of the consequences of having sex so young. Besides, isn't it possible that being on the pill so young could have medical sideffects?

[Nips]

i think it generally is discouraged, but kids are gonna do what kids are gonna do. is it not better that they feel they can use prevention?

[bunniegraves]

Yeah, about the whole giving 11 year olds birth control thing -- giving them the pill is almost encouraging them to keep having sex. I think that at 11, as teachers/parents/whatever, the aim should be to prevent or deter the child from having sex instead of giving them a pill that takes away one of the consequences of having sex so young. Besides, isn't it possible that being on the pill so young could have medical sideffects?

No adverse side effects for children as old as eleven. when i was younger a friend of mine had started menstruating by that time, and the cramps were unbearable for her, to the point where they made her sick. her doc prescribed birth control to help lighten and regulate her cycle.

girls today are starting their period as young as nine, so they can get pregnant that early. its uncommon, but possible.

[jonhomeowner]

I hate it when people just guess things like that.

"Isn't it possible that..."

No, it's not. And you'd know that if you bothered to look it up.

[bunniegraves]

I hate it when people just guess things like that.

"Isn't it possible that..."

No, it's not. And you'd know that if you bothered to look it up.

true, the info is right in the little insert you get along with any bc method (recommended age etc) packaging. hell, watching the maury povich show should tell you that 11 year olds today are not the 11 year olds of 10 years ago. kids are experimenting with things younger and younger, and depending on who their parents are, may not have been taught the essential information they need to know about sex beforehand.

which brings me back to the idea of mandatory birth control. It's not an idea without flaws, but it's an interesting one.

[Tits_McKay]

i think it generally is discouraged, but kids are gonna do what kids are gonna do. is it not better that they feel they can use prevention?

If kids are going to have sex unprotected then let them suffer the consequences.

[bunniegraves]

If kids are going to have sex unprotected then let them suffer the consequences.

unless you think of the fact that most of the suffering will be had by the child born to a child.

[jonhomeowner]

If kids are going to have sex unprotected then let them suffer the consequences.
That's what they're doing here - trying to give them more protection, genius.

[Tits_McKay]

unless you think of the fact that most of the suffering will be had by the child born to a child.

Then they should have listened to people/hopefully parents when they were aware of what having sex can do.

[BEERnBRATWURST]

Then they should have listened to people/hopefully parents when they were aware of what having sex can do.

Listening to your parents is not punk rock.

[jonhomeowner]

Then they should have listened to people/hopefully parents when they were aware of what having sex can do.
Wait, you think it's as easy as "Kids should listen to parents"?

LOL.

Yeah, if only the world worked that way!

[ChrisJones]

I think the government shouldn't take over where the parents fail. or worse, enforce a policy to cover parent's mistakes.

That promotes irresponsible parenting.

[Tits_McKay]

That's what they're doing here - trying to give them more protection, genius.

Which is stupid. Seriously fucking think about it, an 11 year old having sex! That's when I was scared to kiss a fucking boy! This forum reminds me of south park where they do sex ed in kindergarten.

[jonhomeowner]

Which is stupid. Seriously fucking think about it, an 11 year old having sex! That's when I was scared to kiss a fucking boy! This forum reminds me of south park where they do sex ed in kindergarten.
I lost my virginity at 13.

Kids ARE having sex at 11. It's not "confusion", like in the South Park episode. In the show, they wanted to teach sex ed because a kid gave a dog a handjob. This is real life where kids that are 11 are ... dun dun dun ... actually having sex.

The responsible thing to do is help them to do it responsibly, as well as teach them what to do and what not to do, and try to convince them to wait.

[jonhomeowner]

I think the government shouldn't take over where the parents fail. or worse, enforce a policy to cover parent's mistakes.
Wait, so you are against child protective services? You know, the organization that takes over when parents fail and enforce policy to fix their mistakes, such as abuse?

That promotes irresponsible parenting.
There already is plenty of irresponsible parenting going on, that's why this is happening.

[ChrisJones]

Wait, so you are against child protective services? You know, the organization that takes over when parents fail and enforce policy to fix their mistakes, such as abuse?


There already is plenty of irresponsible parenting going on, that's why this is happening.

abuse is different.

[jonhomeowner]

abuse is different.
You didn't say that.

Some might consider is abuse that the parents can't stop the kids from having sex.

[ChrisJones]

If your kid digs through your pockets and steals your matches, and burns the house down...was that child abuse?

no(or am I being stupid again)

[jonhomeowner]

If your kid digs through your pockets and steals your matches, and burns the house down...was that child abuse?

no(or am I being stupid again)
Yes, because that is irresponsible parenting.

[ChrisJones]

Do you want your parents constantly up your ass spying on you and knowing everything about you>?

[oldsklgrl]

If your kid digs through your pockets and steals your matches, and burns the house down...was that child abuse?

no(or am I being stupid again)

Actually it's negligence.

[ChrisJones]

Parenting is a hard enough job. You gotta be able to trust your kids with some aspects of their lives.

[jonhomeowner]

Do you want your parents constantly up your ass spying on you and knowing everything about you>?
If I was as irresponsible as that, yes.

[ChrisJones]

Are you a closet fascist?
Would you want some dictator telling you how to live your life?

[jonhomeowner]

Are you a closet fascist?
Would you want some dictator telling you how to live your life?
No.

I'm talking about CHILDREN... People who cannot make good decisions on their own.

Not that adults are very good at it, but they're a lot better.

[ChrisJones]

You must raise your kids and hope that what you taught them sunk in(alot of parents don't teach shit about life lessons).

And face it. Every kid fucks up and pisses off his parents at one point. I mean c'mon I'm not being anecdotal. That's just common knowledge.

[oldsklgrl]

Parenting is a hard enough job. You gotta be able to trust your kids with some aspects of their lives.

At what age? If a 17 year old steels the matches, the negligence lies on the child, if a 10 year old steels them then it is the parents fault.

I'm constantly "up my kids asses" should I let my 8 year old learn the hard truths about life now?

[ChrisJones]

At what age? If a 17 year old steels the matches, the negligence lies on the child, if a 10 year old steels them then it is the parents fault.

I'm constantly "up my kids asses" should I let my 8 year old learn the hard truths about life now?

I'm just saying your kids are going to find ways to get into trouble.

You can't possibly build a barrier to keep them 100 percent away from that.

[jonhomeowner]

At what age? If a 17 year old steels the matches, the negligence lies on the child, if a 10 year old steels them then it is the parents fault.

I'm constantly "up my kids asses" should I let my 8 year old learn the hard truths about life now?
Remember, Chris thinks everybody needs to learn the lessons of life the hard way, or they'll be lazy people that ask for handouts!

[oldsklgrl]

I'm just saying your kids are going to find ways to get into trouble.

You can't possibly build a barrier to keep them 100 percent away from that.

That is true, but it is my responsibility as a parent to know what is going on in their lives and try to keep them safe and out of trouble. I honestly can't say I ever see that concern going away. As much as I can't stand my ex husband, he did say one thing that is soooo very true; "You're their parent not their friend." Once you have kids you'll understand it.

[Tits_McKay]

I lost my virginity at 13.

Kids ARE having sex at 11. It's not "confusion", like in the South Park episode. In the show, they wanted to teach sex ed because a kid gave a dog a handjob. This is real life where kids that are 11 are ... dun dun dun ... actually having sex.

The responsible thing to do is help them to do it responsibly, as well as teach them what to do and what not to do, and try to convince them to wait.

I know what the South Park episode was saying. I don't mean to say kids shouldn't have sex, it is still shocking to me I guess. I lost my virginity on my 13th birthday but I was smart enough to know to use some kind of protection.

You see the responsible thing to do is already being done. Kids never take it seriously unless they have some common sense in their minds.

[jonhomeowner]

You see the responsible thing to do is already being done. Kids never take it seriously unless they have some common sense in their minds.
And the more responsible thing is to protect the kids that are still having sex more than they already are being protected.

[bunniegraves]

Which is stupid. Seriously fucking think about it, an 11 year old having sex! That's when I was scared to kiss a fucking boy! This forum reminds me of south park where they do sex ed in kindergarten.

just because you werent sexually experienced doesnt mean other kids werent. all children are not raised the same, and some are being left to their own devices too early. do i think kids should be sexually active that young? no. but it IS HAPPENING and saying "oh, well the parents should talk to them" isnt cutting it.

Kids are stupid. you can give them all the advice in the world about how to not get in trouble and have a pleasant life, but that doesnt mean theyre going to just say "oh okay, Ill do that." they will do stupid things, like having unprotected sex, even if they "know better" but you can't truly KNOW something unless youve experienced it.

theres not much to be done about kids (or adults) making stupid choices, but if we could stop them from fucking up some innocent childs life, why shouldnt we?

[Tits_McKay]

just because you werent sexually experienced doesnt mean other kids werent. all children are not raised the same, and some are being left to their own devices too early. do i think kids should be sexually active that young? no. but it IS HAPPENING and saying "oh, well the parents should talk to them" isnt cutting it.

Kids are stupid. you can give them all the advice in the world about how to not get in trouble and have a pleasant life, but that doesnt mean theyre going to just say "oh okay, Ill do that." they will do stupid things, like having unprotected sex, even if they "know better" but you can't truly KNOW something unless youve experienced it.

theres not much to be done about kids (or adults) making stupid choices, but if we could stop them from fucking up some innocent childs life, why shouldnt we?

That's funny cause everyone thought I was a "slut" cause I pursued boys. The word "prude" was what I called everyone else cause they wouldn't kiss me. My mom never told me anything about sex until my ma found out I was pregnant. Parents try to avoid some conversations until they realize what has happened.

They do these "stupid things" because they are rebelling. My father told me not to do a lot of things and gave me advice but once his back was turned I'd flip him off and go do them. Kids love to find out who they are in an unsafe way. But that is the whole point of learning from your mistakes.

If the child is really so innocent then they wouldn't be fucking around in the first place.

[ShoutSoLoud]

I've been knocked up....twice.....

[KidoftheBlackHole]

I saw Knocked Up.

[jonhomeowner]

I saw Knocked Up.
I didn't.

[KidoftheBlackHole]

Is that so?

[jonhomeowner]

Yes.

[HauntedRomance]

nope, glad too =]

[bunniegraves]

That's funny cause everyone thought I was a "slut" cause I pursued boys. The word "prude" was what I called everyone else cause they wouldn't kiss me. My mom never told me anything about sex until my ma found out I was pregnant. Parents try to avoid some conversations until they realize what has happened.

They do these "stupid things" because they are rebelling. My father told me not to do a lot of things and gave me advice but once his back was turned I'd flip him off and go do them. Kids love to find out who they are in an unsafe way. But that is the whole point of learning from your mistakes.

If the child is really so innocent then they wouldn't be fucking around in the first place.

so, you agree with me then? cool

[ChrisJones]

I was a terrible child.

There's no way my mother could stop me from being a brat unless she beat the hell out of me and locked me in my room. At that point I would scream bloody murder throughout the neighborhood until somebody called the cops.

[bunniegraves]

I was a terrible child.

There's no way my mother could stop me from being a brat unless she beat the hell out of me and locked me in my room. At that point I would scream bloody murder throughout the neighborhood until somebody called the cops.

ditto. but i never got into drugs or promiscuous sex, so i guess she did something right...

[ChrisJones]

ditto. but i never got into drugs or promiscuous sex, so i guess she did something right...

my mom once demanded i have a girl sleep over, when I was 14, cuz she thought I might have been gay. she gave me a condom as well. HAHAHA

it seemed like a pretty good deal to me. I didn't get laid though...not because of that.

[bunniegraves]

my mom once demanded i have a girl sleep over, when I was 14, cuz she thought I might have been gay. she gave me a condom as well. HAHAHA

it seemed like a pretty good deal to me. I didn't get laid though...not because of that.

my mom pretty much scared off any guy who mightve had any interest in me. until she met my current boyfriend, who regards her as a nutcase. she forbade me from sleeping overnight anywhere shortly after we began dating, because you know, kids only have sex at night in bed :rolleyes:

i fear that i have inherited her road rage/temper...its kinda neat..

[BEERnBRATWURST]

my mom once demanded i have a girl sleep over, when I was 14, cuz she thought I might have been gay. she gave me a condom as well. HAHAHA

it seemed like a pretty good deal to me. I didn't get laid though...not because of that.



Didn't you say you weren't "priviledged" as a child in another thread....? Now I know your a lying bastard..... If your parent's getting you hookers at 14 isn't priviledged, I don't know what is.

[ChrisJones]

Didn't you say you weren't "priviledged" as a child in another thread....? Now I know your a lying bastard..... If your parent's getting you hookers at 14 isn't priviledged, I don't know what is.
I had to find these girls myself.
no, it was my right to have girls not a privelage.

[jonhomeowner]

So, at 14 you had enough to pay for hookers? Damn, you were priviledged.

[Nips]

it seemed like a pretty good deal to me. I didn't get laid though...not because of that.

floppy?

[bunniegraves]

floppy?

what?

[Nips]

can you seriously not work out what the comment is hinting at?

[bunniegraves]

can you seriously not work out what the comment is hinting at?


yes, i understand what you might be implying, however, im not privy to what your exact line of thought is, my assumption could be wrong. is it so wrong to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions?

is it necessary to be such a snob about it?

[jonhomeowner]

yes, i understand what you might be implying, however, im not privy to what your exact line of thought is, my assumption could be wrong. is it so wrong to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions?

is it necessary to be such a snob about it?
With Nips, it is safe to assume the first thing that comes to mind is correct.

[bunniegraves]

With Nips, it is safe to assume the first thing that comes to mind is correct.

duly noted.

[Nips]

With Nips, it is safe to assume the first thing that comes to mind is correct.

har har. youre the one who's banter has been exclusivly corny flirting for the last week.

[Nips]

i'll also have a chuckle that this has to be the only forum on the planet where anyone would read so much into a snide one liner like 'floopy?'.

come on, what else was it going to mean? i think theres plently of call for snobbery... especially when the questioning is as blunt as 'what?'

[bunniegraves]

i'll also have a chuckle that this has to be the only forum on the planet where anyone would read so much into a snide one liner like 'floopy?'.

come on, what else was it going to mean? i think theres plently of call for snobbery... especially when the questioning is as blunt as 'what?'


so it was blunt, who cares? you want me to write you a fucking sonnet or what? dont make me get all flowery and emotional on your ass, I'll do it!

[jonhomeowner]

har har. youre the one who's banter has been exclusivly corny flirting for the last week.
I wasn't insulting you. I was simply saying that you are forward and literal most of the time.

[Nips]

so it was blunt, who cares?

blunt as in, like a dull instrument. your comment didnt just emply a question, but a complete lack of understanding. if you dont want me to appear snobbish, dont appear spaztacular.

and jon. apologies.

however... your flirting is still corny. haha.

[bunniegraves]

blunt as in, like a dull instrument. your comment didnt just emply a question, but a complete lack of understanding. if you dont want me to appear snobbish, dont appear spaztacular.

and jon. apologies.

however... your flirting is still corny. haha.

its amazing how far someone can take a simple word with a question mark at the end of it. the difference between you and me though, is i dont really give a shit if you find me "spaztacular" (fantastic word by the way, did you make that up yourself or did you swipe it from some straight-to-video 80's flick?)

i am a spaz. oh well. relax. If "what?" seemed blunt to you Im sorry you chose to take offense to it, thats not how i intended it to "sound" over the internet.

[Nips]

"spaztacular" (fantastic word by the way, did you make that up yourself or did you swipe it from some straight-to-video 80's flick?)

all by myself.