Because I know this topic has been beaten to death
But there’s a post on my facebook feed where people are commenting on this girl in People magazine who claims she can’t get a date because she’s a virgin. I agree with everyone telling her it’s her prerogative and that that shouldn’t be a valid reason to be uninterested in a person…but then they use the words self-respect or morals.
That’s where you lose me.
Because really? You’re going to judge someone’s self-respect by the people she chooses to have sex with? No. No, fuck you. Just because someone enjoys their sexuality, doesn’t mean that they don’t respect themselves. It just means that they choose to express and enjoy their sexuality in that way. It doesn’t necessarily reflect their morals, either, because there are virgins who are backstabbing, bitter, passive-aggressive cunts, and there are women who have sex regularly and are the sweetest, most loving and understanding people I know. I’m not saying that this is always the case — I’m just saying the sexuality and morality aren’t mutually inclusive.
The problem is, when you start saying things like that, the ignorant asshats will reply with “you must be bitter because you wish you were a virgin again”, or just “stfu slut”. The best part of all that is the fact that I am still a virgin by some definitions. I’ve engaged in oral, but not penetrative, sex. Why? The answer is a long one, and not completely relevant to this conversation, but the real point is that it’s my decision. It doesn’t mean that I’m a prude, or undesirable, or more desirable, or any of those things. It does mean that I don’t define my self-worth by meaningless definitions, and I’m not shamed by things that should not be inherently shameful. It just means that I’m me.
Theo out.
Shit Florida what are you doing.
And THIS is why we need comprehensive sex education.
(via welcome-to-luisville)
Ten Truths about Sexual Health
- The teen birth rate is down.
- The abortion rate is down
- Access to family planning improves maternal and child health.
- Sex education increases knowledge and decreases risks.
- Condoms work.
- Contraception works.
- Emergency…
(via jellyfilledcondoms)
“I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as “rape”. If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise.”
“It is our responsibility, as always, to protect our patients from things that would harm them. Therefore, as physicians, it is our duty to refuse to perform a medical procedure that is not medically indicated. Any medical procedure. Whatever the pseudo-justification.”
Thanks to Phil Plait for the heads up on this one.
If you value women, the health of Americans, science, privacy, or freedom, PLEASE READ THIS AND REBLOG.
(via mollysfandomcomplex)
this is a hugely informative article all about intersex genitalia—it talks about many variations and acknowledges that there are many more, and that all are perfectly valid! it also talks about the first basic genitalia we all have as fetuses—we all start out the exact same! it’s really long and i haven’t gotten through it all yet but it’s super interesting and informative.
Fight Sperm with the Morning-After Pill
CDC Finds Fewer Teen Girls Having Sex, More Using Effective Contraception.
The AP (5/4, Stobbe) reports on a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report finding that “more teen girls now use the best kinds of birth control,” as “about 60 percent of teen girls who have sex use the most effective kinds of contraception,” which are listed as “the pill, patch, vaginal ring, IUD, the Implanon arm implant and the Depo-Provera contraceptive shot.” The report was “based on a national survey of 2,300 girls ages 15 to 19, conducted in the years 2006 through 2010.” The report also found that “about 43 percent of the girls in the survey said they’d had sex … down from a similar survey in 1995, when 51 percent of teen girls said they’d had sex.”
The New York Times (5/4, Dell’Antonia) in its “Motherlode” blog focuses on the use of contraception, “Of the five states with the highest rates of pregnancy among teenagers, three (Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi) restrict the ability of a minor to access contraceptive health care, and four (those three, plus Arkansas) stress abstinence in their sexual education programs. Conclusive? Far from it. But these numbers should give policy-makers in states with high teenage pregnancy rates something more to think about.”
Others gave equal or greater weight to the decline in the percentage of teenagers reporting sex. National Journal (5/4, Sanger-Katz, Subscription Publication) reports, “Fewer teen girls in the United States are having sex, and more of those who do are using contraception,” as “more than half [56.7 percent] of teen girls ages 15-19 have never had sex.” Bloomberg News (5/4, Lopatto) echoes that, saying, “Fewer teenage girls have sex, and more of those that do are using effective contraception.”
HealthDay (5/4, Reinberg) reports that the increased use of contraception “may explain part of the dramatic drop in the US teen pregnancy rate,” which has fallen “44 percent since 1990, to 34 births for every 1,000 females.” The CDC’s Crystal Pirtle Tyler commented, “We know there have been declines in teen pregnancy, which is wonderful, and increases in abstinence among teens, which is really wonderful also,” adding, “there has also been increases in contraceptive use.” Tyler said that “teens and their doctors need to have talks about delaying having sex” commenting, “it would be great if teens know that the majority of teens have never had sex.”
WebMD (5/4, Boyles) says the report found that “more girls in the US are remaining virgins until their late teens and into their 20s, with the biggest rates of decline in sexual activity seen among African-Americans and Hispanics,” with 57 percent reporting “they had never had vaginal intercourse…up from 49% in 1995.” That percentage “was roughly the same for African-Americans, whites, and Hispanics.” The CDC’s Tyler said, “Many teens still believe most of their peers are having sex,” adding, “That is why it is so important to get the message out that the majority of teens are not having sex.”
I know that online news sources aren’t always that reliable, so I checked the treatment out myself by searching through a couple of scientific databases (that I have access to because of my university) - and the information is out there! (Type ‘risug’ into something like Web of Knowledge’ and you’ll get several detailed articles about ongoing research.)
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. As a female, I’m not all that keen on the idea of taking hormone pills that could potentially mess up the way my body functions. On that note, I don’t think that future testosterone level-affecting pills are all that great a potential idea either. (Testosterone is what makes guys… well, guys. I just can’t see them working well in the long run.) We just shouldn’t mess around with hormones unless there’s a legitimate health problem. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Just for the sake of controversy, let’s have a quick look at a few of the arguments against it:
‘“Women’s groups” will campaign against it because women prefer to have sole control over whether they become pregnant or not.’Don’t be stupid. It takes two people to make a baby, and if men want to get this treatment (if it becomes available in the future) then that’s their choice. It’s their body. Besides, I’m sure that plenty of women would jump at the chance to have an efficient alternative to hormone-altering pills/etc.
‘I’m not sticking a needle/gel in there! Who’s to say that it won’t cause permanent damage in the future?’Firstly, the injection would be into your vas deferens. If you don’t know where that is - Google it, and you’ll realise that the injection probably wouldn’t be as bad as you think it is. And again, it’s your choice. Most likely some men won’t think that this is any good just for that very reason. However, if you’re going to use that argument, who’s to say that ‘the pill’ won’t have some long-lasting effect on women’s bodies? If inserting a needle could cause damage, why not an IUD or IUS? The fact is, people will either choose to have the treatment or not. The choice should be there either way.
‘The treatment might be expensive.’If you weigh up the potential cost for this one treatment, which can last for ten years, against the cost of shorter-term contraceptives, such as pills/patches/etc., I’d bet that a couple would be saving a lot of money in the long run.
Anywho, I’m quite interested to see what other people think about this potentially becoming available in the future. Do you think that it’s a good idea? If not, why?
*edited to be trans*-inclusive
April 13, 2012
In the first three months of 2012, legislators in 45 of the 46 legislatures that have convened this year introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Half of these provisions would restrict abortion access. So far, 75 abortion restrictions have been approved by at least one legislative chamber, and nine have been enacted. This is below the record-breaking pace of 2011, when 127 abortion restrictions had been approved by at least one body in the first quarter of the year, but still higher than usual for an election year. In 2010, for example, only 46 such restrictions had passed at least one house during the first quarter, while in 2008, only 34 had passed one chamber by that point.
This year legislators are particularly focused on measures that require a person seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound; that limit access to medication abortion; and that prohibit abortion at a specific point in gestation. Legislators in several states—mirroring the debate at the national level—are also considering measures allowing employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraceptive methods. (See here for a detailed rundown of all proposed and enacted legislation).
Ultrasound Requirements
So far this year, legislators in 11 states (AK, AL, ID, IA, KY, MI, MN, MS, PA, RI and VA) have introduced provisions that would require a person to undergo an ultrasound prior to obtaining an abortion.
Meanwhile, in February, a U.S. District Court upheld Texas’ 2011 ultrasound law, clearing the way for it to go into effect immediately. In March, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) signed a similar measure. Both laws stipulate that certain fetal characteristics must be visible in the ultrasound image to determine gestational age. Although the final versions that were signed into law—unlike an earlier, widely publicized version in Virginia—do not explicitly require providers to perform a transvaginal ultrasound, doing so is likely the only way to achieve the necessary level of clarity, at least for abortions performed in the first trimester. Both laws also require a person who lives within 100 miles of the abortion facility to obtain an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the abortion, thus necessitating two trips to the facility.
Once the Virginia restriction goes into effect in July, eight states will require a person to undergo an ultrasound prior to an abortion (see Requirements for Ultrasound).
Medication Abortion Limitations
Legislators in 11 states have introduced restrictions on medication abortion. The provisions introduced in 10 of these states (AL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MS, MO, OK, TN and WI) would prohibit use of telemedicine by requiring that the physician prescribing the medication be in the same room as the patient. Telemedicine bans are awaiting signature in Tennessee and Wisconsin. Currently, four states ban the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication for abortion (see Medication Abortion).
In addition, legislators in seven states (AL, AZ, IN, IA, MI, MS and MO) have introduced measures that would require the provision of medication abortion to be in strict accordance with long-standing FDA protocol. This would prohibit a widely used, simpler protocol that has been demonstrated to be safe and effective.
Gestational Limits
Legislators in 14 states have introduced legislation that seeks to restrict abortion later in pregnancy—but prior to fetal viability. In 10 of these states (FL, GA, IA, LA, MI, MN, MS, NH, VA and WV), the provisions would ban abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization, which is the equivalent of 22 weeks’ gestation (as pregnancy is conventionally measured, which is from the person’s last menstrual period). These restrictions are based on a 2010 Nebraska law that has already served as the model for laws in five other states (see State Policies on Later Term Abortion).
The proposed provision in Georgia has passed the legislature and is awaiting signature by Gov. Nathan Deal (R). It would permit an abortion after 22 weeks’ gestation only in cases of life endangerment, possible “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function” or fatal fetal impairment.
Legislators in six states (AZ, FL, NH, NJ, OK and SC) have introduced provisions that would ban abortions at other points in pregnancy: 18 weeks postfertilization in Arizona and Oklahoma, 22 weeks postfertilization in New Jersey and South Carolina, 25 weeks postfertilization in Florida and during the third trimester in New Hampshire.
Refusal to Provide Contraceptive Coverage
Legislators in five states (AZ, GA, NH, NJ and NY) with contraceptive coverage mandates have introduced legislation to expand existing exemptions, or create new ones, for certain employers (see Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives). So far this year, provisions have passed one chamber in Arizona, Georgia and New Hampshire.
The Arizona proposal would allow any employer that claims a religious objection to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage; current law provides an exemption only for nonprofit organizations that primarily employ and serve individuals sharing their religious beliefs. (The pending legislation would require coverage in cases where contraceptives are used for noncontraceptive purposes.) The new Georgia exemption would be similar to that in the existing Arizona law, that is, limited to religious employers whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and that primarily employ individuals sharing those values. The new exemption proposed in New Hampshire mirrors the proposed new provision in Arizona; it would allow any employer to refuse to provide the coverage based on religious beliefs.
(Source: queensinhighgarden)
