MsKitka.com

An interesting article was posted yesterday on Slate. In the article, the author informs us of the conservative media’s neglect to mention anal sex statistics from the survey publicized last week about teenagers and their sexual practices.

There’s no delicate way to put this, so I’ll just quote the survey report: “For males, the proportion who have had anal sex with a female increases from 4.6 percent at age 15 to 34 percent at ages 22–24; for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24.” One in three women admits to having had anal sex by age 24. By ages 25 to 44, the percentages rise to 40 for men and 35 for women. And that’s not counting the 3.7 percent of men aged 15 to 44 who’ve had anal sex with other men.

The last time major national surveys asked about this practice, in the early 1990s, only 20 percent of men aged 20 to 39 said they’d had anal sex with a woman in the preceding 10 years. Only 26 percent of men aged 18 to 59 said they’d ever done so. In the first survey, the 10-year limit excluded half the sexual career of half the sample, but that isn’t enough to explain a doubling in the percentage saying yes. In the second survey, according to the current report, the inclusion of men aged 46 to 59 might have diluted the sample with “cohorts that were less likely to have had anal sex.” But that’s the point: Newer cohorts are more likely to have tried it.

Why does this matter? Because anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it’s 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it’s 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it’s 50 times more frequent?

So, while practically all news agencies reporting on the survey are posting articles about the seriousness of teenagers engaged in oral sex, the statistics of anal sex are far more troubling due to the dangerous rate for contracting STDs.

The author goes on to explain the extent of the hush on the anal sex section of the survey:

If you live in Bergen County, N.J., congratulations. You get the only newspaper in the world that mentioned heterosexual anal sex, albeit briefly, in its write-up of the survey. Two other papers buried it in lines of statistics below their articles; the rest completely ignored it. Evidently anal sex is too icky to mention in print. But not too icky to have been tried by 35 percent of young women and 40 to 44 percent of young men—or to have killed some of them.

So, is anyone feeling relieved yet that their children may only be engaging in oral sex?

While the US is moving towards abstinence-only education, Singapore is moving towards X-rated safe-sex education:

SINGAPORE: Students pursuing Islamic religious education at mosques and private centres in Singapore will now receive sex education through a textbook with the words “X-rated” on its cover.

The book will be introduced in November, Singapore’s largest Muslim body confirmed on Monday. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore is putting out the book focusing on sexuality and emotions for Muslim teenagers as part of a bid to jazz up religious instruction.

The book, along with educational workshops, aims at discussing previously taboo issues with religious teachers. It is part of a revamp of religious education for Muslim youth.

Interesting that such a conservative society as Singapore is managing to change so drastically ever since Sex in the City first aired on their boob tubes.

While this uptight taboo-infested society is turning towards a more liberal kind of sex-education, the US is turning against it. North America used to be referred to as the “new world”… what went wrong?

Bush’s sneaky agenda has driven Maine to turn down government sex education funds:

AUGUSTA — Maine has stopped accepting federal funds for an abstinence-based sex-education program, in part because federal guidelines do not allow any of the money to be used to teach so-called “safe sex” practices. The decision by Gov. John Baldacci’s administration makes Maine only the third state in the country to turn down the federal money. It comes amid a national debate over whether the government should promote only abstinence or should provide young people with information on birth control and other aspects of sexual activity.

I’m glad that someone is realizing the problem before it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, abstinence is a worthy investment, but it should definitely be taught in conjunction with safe-sex. Statistics have already shown that abstinence education is not fool proof and that those who make a pledge of abstinence are more likely to have unprotected sex.

If Bush really cared about the safety of children and wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies (that could lead to abortion), he should invest in safe-sex education as well as abstinence education. < sarcasm> Oh, I’m sorry… I forgot that AIDS was a disease created by God to kill gays and blacks < /sarcasm >. Perhaps that’s why Bush recently decided to kill the funding of condoms in HIV/AIDS-ridden countries.

When I was in school, I learnt about safe sex… but I also learnt that the “most effective form of birth control is abstinence”. The best religion class I ever had was when my grade 11 (1994-1995) Catholic religion teacher, Mr. Miller, informed us that there is a pleasurable alternative to intercourse… oral sex. He said that it may sound dirty, but he promised us that genitalia are some of the cleanest parts of the human body!

In addition to Mr. Miller’s teachings, teachers in the UK are now teaching oral sex as an alternative to intercourse. How very progressive of them. Why, then, can’t teachers in the US just teach safe sex along with abstinence to high school students? Why does it have to be one of the other?

I’ll tell you why. For a third post in a row, the reason has to do with Bush’s personal Theo-con agenda. So, until the end of his reign in 2008, concerned parents and doctors will have to teach their own kids/patients about safe-sex. It’s time for parents to step up and take responsibility for their children’s actions.

Immunity laws definitely need a makeover:

ROME (AP) — The U.S. government has told a Texas court that Pope Benedict XVI should be given immunity from a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian, court documents show.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said in Monday’s filing that, as pope, Benedict enjoys immunity as the head of a state — the Vatican. He said that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be “incompatible with the United States’ foreign policy interests.”

There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, who has been presiding over the case. However, the Supreme Court has held that U.S. courts are bound by such “suggestion of immunity” motions submitted by the government, Keisler’s filing says.

Isn’t it funny that the US government believes that the pope should get immunity on a case that involves child molestation? Don’t you think that Bush’s moral crusade should include punishment of sex offenders, no matter what their employment is? It’s almost as if Bush is agreeing to provide the pope (as head of state) with immunity in order to ensure his own immunity no matter what atrocities he participates in.

If a religious person is a criminal (or a politician), he should be tried as such… no matter what religion (or political party). I truly believe that each and every priest and pastor who molests children (and if you read the news regularly, there are a lot of cases), should be imprisoned for their crimes. In fact, why not give them some Texas justice and send them directly to the electric chair?

What is the point of religious immunity? It allows sex offenders to roam free and prevents innocent victims from getting justice. Well, this is the perfect time a change (”there’s no time like the present”)… if Bush weren’t off gallivanting on his war on terror and starting his war on porn, we could actually do something about it. But, alas, Bush is too concerned with establishing his own Theocracy and respecting other Theocratic leaders in order to gain their respect. How can we all stand by the sidelines and watch this so passively?

Well, it seems the Bush administration has decided to spend money fighting a war on their own soil this time:

The FBI is joining the Bush administration’s War on Porn. And it’s looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau’s Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as “one of the top priorities” of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of “the Director.” That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI’s second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against “manufacturers and purveyors” of pornography — not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

“I guess this means we’ve won the war on terror,” said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. “We must not need any more resources for espionage.” […]

So, it looks like the honeymoon is over. Although Republicans were rubbing shoulders with Mary Carey and Mark Kulkis earlier this year, it seems like the relationship was too good to last. Instead, Bush has declared a war on pornography and he’s asking for the FBI’s help.

You’ve got to hand it to him, he does have a flare for the dramatic… I just wish he was kidding about it. I wonder if he will formally announce his war on porn in a speech or whether he will lead his holier-than-thou struggle on the sidelines. How about worrying about the war on poverty or the war on international child slavery? < sarcasm > Nah, concentual porn must be the worst of all evils. < /sarcasm >

Just as the Iraqi people have tried to deter US troops by blowing themselves up… I wonder if porn stars will try and deter imprisonment by the FBI with blow jobs. Hmm… I guess being an FBI agent isn’t so bad…