No sex is safe sex for teens in America (Guardian)

I was just formulating in my head a fairly complimentary post based on this article, along the lines of “It’s not how I’d go about it, but they’re clearly doing better than us so perhaps their strategy is better.”

Then I got to this bit.

‘What do you also hear will keep you safe?’ [the teacher] asked. ‘Condoms,’ they answered.
‘Do they keep you safe?’ she asked. ‘No,’ they chorused.
She is banned by law from promoting the benefits of correctly used condoms.

Oh deary, deary me. So those students who will inevitably have sex anyway will not be educated in how to protect themselves. I know the Americans are all for Abstinance Only, and I’d be perfectly happy with that if they didn’t take quite as strong an approach to “only”. This is getting dangerously close to misinformation. Though clearly not as close as this:

The Bush administration is funding sexual health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

George, what are you doing to these young people’s minds?

Whilst I admit that the link is tenuous, I thought I’d tag onto the end of this post the winning entry in this year’s bad sex award, simply because it made me laugh so much.

Hoyt began moving his lips as if he were trying to suck the ice cream off the top of a cone without using his teeth. She tried to make her lips move in sync with his. The next thing she knew, Hoyt had put his hand sort of under her thigh and hoisted her leg up over his thigh. What was she to do? Was this the point she should say, “Stop!”? No, she shouldn’t put it that way. It would be much cooler to say, “No, Hoyt,” in an even voice, the way you would talk to a dog that insists on begging at the table.

Slither slither slither slither went the tongue, but the hand that was what she tried to concentrate on, the hand, since it has the entire terrain of her torso to explore and not just the otorhinolaryngological caverns – oh God, it was not just at the border where the flesh of the breast joins the pectoral sheath of the chest – no, the hand was cupping her entire right – Now! She must say “No, Hoyt” and talk to him like a dog. . .

. . . the fingers went under the elastic of the panties moan moan moan moan moan went Hoyt as he slithered slithered slithered slithered and caress caress caress caress went the fingers until they must be only eighths of inches from the border of her public hair – what’s that! – Her panties were so wet down. . . there – the fingers had definitely reached the outer stand of the field of pubic hair and would soon plunge into the wet mess that was waiting right. . . there-there-

Taken from I am Charlotte Simmons by Tom Wolfe.

I bought this today in the January sales (silly name, when most of the good stuff is gone by January, but never mind) and I really rather like it. It’s a lot of fun. Could this be an important epiphany for me? Could it be signalling a shift from Guardian-reading Liberal Wet to… erm… Geeky Train-Spotting Guardian-reading Liberal Wet? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think so.

Messenger Plus!

I thought that everyone had heard of this and used it, but evidently not. If you use MSN Messenger, then this is very good and possibly one of the most useful free add-ins I’ve found in a long time. So download it now.

I’ve just been to see this, and I thought it was really good. As a big fan of the stage production I suppose I’m rather biased, but I was concerned that the transition from stage to screen wouldn’t work terribly well. But they really pulled it off. Despite what some reviewers might tell you.

Okay, I accept that the Phantom wasn’t played by the best person in the world (far too nice, if you ask me), and they had messed around with bits (with good reason), but I enjoyed it and would certainly recommend it. Though given the choice between the stage version and the film version, I’d still choose the stage every time. But hell, you can’t keep an entire cast and theatre in a little box by the telly for when you’re bored on a rainy afternoon. So bravo.

Those of you who know me may also be interested to know that I’ve had my hair cut today. Therefore, it is now much shorter than it was yesterday. Just, you know, to let you know.

How can religious people explain this? (Guardian)

An interesting slant on the Asia Disaster, courtesy of Guardian Unlimited. Certainly worth reading alongside the corresponding (and illustrated) Newsblog item. It must have been a difficult decision for the Editor, whether or not to publish this item in the middle of the crisis itself, but I certainly think that the right decision was made.

If you have not yet read Scott Adams’s books God’s Debris: A Thought Experiment and its sequel The Religion War then you are genuinely missing out on some interesting challenges to traditional philosophies. From the guy who brought you Dilbert. Unlikely, but true. Both books are also available in the ebook format, which I’ve come to love with my Pocket PC (I’m currently making my way though The Da Vinci Code, if you must know). Check mslit.com for details.

Elias Fotinis DeskPins

This is one of the most useful tools I have ever discovered on the internet – I’ve been using it for months now, and can’t imagine how I ever did without it. It’s completely free, and allows you to make any window ‘Appear on Top’. Definitely worth a click.

I went to see this last night, and I don’t think I’ve ever laughed at a film more than I did at that one.

Strangely, though, at completely different times to everyone else in the cinema.

Originally posted on The LBSC

It has two new lifelines, as promised, which can only be used from questions 11-15.

– “Three Wise Men” – You get 30 seconds to consult with three ‘experts’ located in a different part of the studio. Idea rejected from original Millionaire.

– “Double Dip” – You get two guesses at the right answer. Replaced in the original Millionaire by 50:50.

I have to say I’m surprised that they haven’t introduced The People Versus’s “Flip” which they keep toying around with on our version.

Prize amounts:

1 – $1000
2 – $2000
3 – $3000
4 – $4000
5 – $5000
6 – $10000
7 – $20000
8 – £30000
9 – $50000
10 – $100000
11 – $500000
12 – $1000000
13 – $2500000
14 – $5000000
15 – $10000000

So obviously not brave enough to do the originally mooted idea of simply multiplying each prize level by 10.

And I love this from the small print:

Winners of cash prizes of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000), who meet all requirements of Game Sponsor, will be awarded One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) approximately thirty (30) days following the broadcast of the episode in which the Contestant completed Main Game play and the remaining amount will be paid in equal annual instalments over the following ten (10) years. Winners of cash prizes of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) or more, who meet all requirements of Game Sponsor, will be awarded One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) approximately thirty (30) days following the broadcast of the episode in which the Contestant completed Main Game play and the remaining amount will be paid in equal annual installments over the following twenty (20) years.

So you can’t even win the $1000000 lump sum that you used to be able to. So what’s so “Super” about “Super Millionaire”? Other than Regis, of course…

Originally posted on The LBSC

I recorded this earlier in the week and finally got round to watching it at 2am this morning. It was disturbing.

I’m not entirely sure of my footing here, but is it normal for kids of 12-15 – that’s like school years 8 to 11 – to not understand the basics of sex? Do they really need to resort to porn to “know what to do” as they put it? There were kids of 15 on there (That’s year 11) who didn’t know how to correctly use a condom until sex ed at school. I read Catch-22 when I was 12, and I still reckon that the scenes in that are more graphic than any porno I’ve ever seen – and I certainly wasn’t confused. Am I the only person in the country who actually didn’t learn anything from sex ed?

Now, I may be the exception here, but I never had sex ed in primary school, and yet I remember finding a (used) condom at primary school, and knowing about it and how it had been used. I know I wasn’t in year 6 at the time, so the oldest I could have been was 10. And I also remember having an in-depth conversation about tampons vs sanitary towels at a similar age. And so I found it surprising that these GCSE-age pupils didn’t understand the BASICS. There was one lad on there who thought that having sex took an hour and a half at least…but maybe he’s going to grow into the world’s greatest lover.

But then, to be honest, I don’t remember when or where I leant this stuff, I can’t imagine my parents explaining it to me, maybe it was just from my prolific reading.

It also surprised me that 60-odd per cent of 12-15 year old lads claim to have watched porn with their friends. I find the very idea of this repulsive, and yet I’m statistically in the minority. And to think that 70-odd percent of this age group thought that their parents didn’t know they looked at porn surprised me further. It’s not something I would ever have discussed with my parents (the very thought of discussing anything like that with my parents makes me feel awkward – I cringed when one of the dads in the programme bought his son a porn mag for his 13th birthday), and I’d never go and openly display porn anywhere, but I never doubted that my parents knew I looked at it. I would have thought (as did the majority of the parents in the programme) that it was natural and usual for teenage lads to be “curious” in that way.

Frankly, the discoveries I have made about sex ed in this country over the last week have really surprised me – I find the teenage pregnancy figures even more startling now, as it seems that the majority of kids are lucky if they know where to put it to have any chance of getting pregnant.

So my question is this…was I just an over-informed geeky weirdo of a primary school child (not entirely unlikely), or were the kids in that programme just stupid?

Originally posted on The LBSC

I am building up strong evidence suggesting that the world has, in fact, gone insane. Here are my key findings thus far:

• BBC Three have decided to axe Liquid News, meaning that it will no longer grace our screens as of next April . Admittedly, it’s never been as good since Christopher Price died, but it has been getting better recently. The two-presenter format clearly doesn’t work, buy Paddy O’Connell’s not a bad presenter on his own – leave him alone and the show works, as was demonstrated when Claudia was off on maternity leave and doing Fame Academy.
• Celebdaq are removing their £100 Trader of the Week prize, replacing it with “A Selection of Celebdaq merchandise”. But then no-one will want to be Trader of the Week more than once, and the game won’t be as entertaining (or else someone out there will end up with 75 celebdaq mugs)
• According to a memo I received today, “One hour lectures are designed to last 50 minutes”…
• …Which is slightly better than the Government’s numeracy hour for school children, which lasts 45 minutes. It’s not the kids that need their numeracy checking!
• Two headlines from the Sky News site homepage right now: “‘Sorry They Ate Grandad,’ Say Fijians” and “Alluring undies wow New York”

In other news, I’ve been doing about Atrial Fibrillation today, which the more astute readers may realise is what Mr Blair had a few weeks ago . The most common cause? Drinking too much. There’s something to think about.

Also, Mr Blair and Mr Bush makes me smile, cos if you get the ‘l’ in the wrong place it sounds like Mr Bare and Mr Blush. But I seem to be the only person I know who finds that funny…can’t imagine why…

Originally posted on The LBSC