You’re meeting your old friend for drinks. You guys haven’t seen each other in a couple years at least, and you’re excited to reconnect. There’s Brad! You wave as he makes his way over. Brad’s got a wide grin on his face and an outstretched hand that appears to be going in for a fist bump…but…wait…both arms are coming up…and…open…and closing in on you– Ack! What to do?!?

You and your high school sweetie just went on a date to see New Moon. You walk Sally to her car to say good night. You hold your fingers out for a gentlemanly handshake, but Sally looks up at you with “that look” in her eyes and takes a big step forward, arms outstretched…Good grief!  What do you do?!? WWJD?!?

According to this rap crew filled with “Christ Love”, here’s your solution. Listen carefully:

Did you watch the whole thing? First things first: AHH AHAA HAAAHAAAA HAAHAAaaaaaa. BWAAAAH TheresevenadancemovethatgoeswithitHAAAAohgodohgodheeeheehaaaa. Aaaaaah.

Phew! OK, WTF? So front hugs are “inappropriate”, but the sirens and gun shots in the track are cool? Yes, that seems balanced. They must be essential to clueing you in that sidehugs are still “street”. And the line: Jesus never hugged nobody like that? Erm, whatever you say, but he sure did boink Mary Magdalene all over the New Testament.

But really, what I’m most frustrated about is how these religious roughriders totally exposed my lewd and impure intentions. Now eveyone will know my fronthugs are a thinly veiled “trick” to get something more “legit”. Plus, there’s way too many teen pregnancies and bastard babies beget from the wicked, indecent behavior of fully clothed crotch-to-crotch contact. Mend thy ways sinners — and until you’re married –  let no one but the Holy Spirit touch you in your swimsuit area.

Which is why this message is especially important for all you lustful kiddies with your raging, hormonal loins. Don’t even mention condoms and contraceptives, filthy whores! Sidehugging is the only protection you need against the temptations of fornication or a pox upon your pee-pee or fla-fla. If you master the powerful sidehug, you’re halfway to accomplishing a unadulterated, holy, fulfilling life of celibacy.

This song makes the cheesy “no glove, no love” jingle of my childhood seem downright revolutionary. C’mon guys, even the awkward 7th grade health class banana + rubber demo would have been more helpful here.

This past week, two different health-advising groups recommended fewer annual screenings for breast and cervical cancer but no one took advantage of the public’s focus to alert women that abortion and oral contraceptives raise women’s risk for both cancers.

The 180-degree  attitudinal reversals about screening from HHS and ACOG were rightly portrayed as harbingers of rationed health care and “effectiveness” standards that will rule physicians under both the Senate and House health care proposals.

The development of breast cells into milk-making cells after the 32^nd week of pregnancy is the action that vastly protects those cells from becoming cancerous.   Breast feeding also lowers breast cancer risk.   See explanations at Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.

Over 50 years ago, scientists realized that delivery of the first full-term pregnancy affords a life-time of increased protection against breast cancer.  While that fact is not a reason to get pregnant, it sure belongs on page 19 in the Kansas booklet for already-pregnant women considering abortion.

Birth control has evolved so much in the past 50+ years. Sponges, the Pill, IUD, diaphragms, etc are just a few of the many methods used to prevent pregnancy. As these pregnancy prevention solutions evolve, it clearly provides women with more options. RPPInsight firmly believes that a woman with options is a woman with power. What do you think?

Take our poll now:

The stars return for the U.S. premiere.

Who are the hottest vampires in Hollywood?

Why do contraceptives fail?

What did the Kardashian’s really think of Kourtney’s baby?

Lindsay Lohan’s meltdown continues….

Evil soccer player is full of regret….

Until recently, a dearth of data has made it difficult to counsel HIV-infected women about contraceptive options. In Africa, where the preferred birth control products are hormonal contraceptives such as pills and injectables, there has been some question about whether these methods would have an adverse effect on women who are already infected with HIV.

When Chelsea Polis, who just finished her doctoral degree at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, sought to answer this question, she found inconclusive research. Almost a dozen observational studies have provided mixed evidence, and the data’s validity is questionable. To design a new data collection effort, she would need to track women from the time of HIV seroconversion until they presented with AIDS or until they died—this could take 10 years or more. Fortunately, she Rakai Community Cohort Study had all the necessary data.

Using the wealth of data from the Rakai study, Polis found that hormonal contraception appears to be safe for use in HIV-infected women; HIV did not progress any faster in women who used the hormonal methods than it did in those who use other methods.

This finding provides good news on two fronts: family planning and HIV prevention. On the first front, HIV-infected women who wish to prevent pregnancies may now be soundly counseled that hormonal contraceptives are safe to use. The second ramification is that, in preventing unintended pregnancies in HIV-infected women, there are fewer babies born at risk of acquiring HIV through exposure in utero or through breastmilk—and thus HIV prevention is increased. Bolstering that good news is the fact that hormonal contraception as a means of preventing the spread of HIV is significantly more cost-effective than the HIV prevention strategy that involves providing pregnant, HIV-infected women with antiretroviral therapy prophylaxis.

In this case, contraception meets not only family planning needs, but supports HIV prevention efforts.

In sub-Saharan Africa, condom use is very low and the most popular forms of contraception are injectables and pills—and often family planning decisions are left to women.

In a panel on Monday, Carie Muntifering, a doctoral student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, presented findings from a study of the effect of women’s empowerment on their sexual activity and use of contraception. The data was extracted from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data.

The study compared data among married women in Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe, which represent varied rates of continuous contraceptive use. Household autonomy was measured and ranked according to three factors from the DHS data: who in the married couple makes health care decisions, who makes purchases and who makes decisions about visiting families in the household.

One finding is that the higher the empowerment score, the less likely women were to have reported having recent sexual activity. This was true across all six countries. Muntifering theorizes that empowered women have more ability to negotiate sex, and in many African countries, sex is often uncomfortable or painful because of genital mutilation (also known as female circumcision).

Another finding is that greater women’s autonomy and joint decision-making was found to be associated with higher modern contraceptive use in four of the six countries—Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Uganda.

Most people are concerned about money right now.

I am in need of an IV drip connected to a money bag myself.  The place where I bartend is only scheduling me for 3-4 shifts a week, and like many restaurants, is struggling.

So one part of determining if raw food eating is “worth” it is the dollars spent. I’ll do my best to give a dollars & cents breakdown on what eating this way is costing me and how it compares to when I ate a “normal” American diet.

Another price to pay for eating raw is taking an honest look at the things you give up to do so.  Pizza delivery and cheap beer.  Pitchers of mojitos to wash down some gourmet Cuban cuisine.  Street food (especially TACO TRUCKS!)  BBQ joints…did I mention Taco Trucks?

I knew my moto was back in Cali when I came across this taco truck on a cold night just south of the border. The Oregon border!

Finally, anytime you examine somethings true cost you have to figure out just what the hell you’re getting out of it.  AKA…what are the benefits?

So is it worth it? I’m no expert and I can’t answer this (or any other question) for you.  But let you inside my abnormally large head and show you exactly how I feel at this juncture about the costs of eating raw…

Today (part 1) will focus on the monetary cost.  Tomorrow (part 2) will look at the cost of giving up things you love and are used to…like taco trucks.  And in (part 3) I’ll wrap it up with a snazzy cost/benefits analysis (sorry no charts or Excel spreadsheets) that attempts to explore the sometimes measurable, sometimes intangible benefits of a raw food life.

Part One

IS EATING RAW MORE EXPENSIVE THAN COOKED?

First few times you walk over to the raw “section” at the health food store (you know you’ve become a radical marginal member of society when you are shopping in a specialized section of a specialty store) two things will probably jump to your attention…

My first thought was “This is a really tiny section.  Not really a section actually, more like an end-cap.”

My second thought was, “Holy shit!  $14 for peanut butter!?”

Bulk Items

To make matters worse, a lot of the things you “need” to get started are bulk items. These types of items will probably last you a month, but they require payment in full today.

As an example, I bought a big bottle of spirulina for $43.  Two weeks later I’m only halfway through it.  But when I

Spirulina bringing someone else back from the dead...

was standing there in the store trying to imagine how bad something that grows on top of a swamp might taste, and ruminating on the sad fact that lately I don’t even make $43 some nights, well lets just say it wasn’t easy to hand over the green required to buy the green. (Spirulinas really more blue-green).

My conclusion? These items aren’t in actuality expensive and can actually make raw eating more economical in some instances. At $1.4o per serving, roughly the price of a Coke, instead of corn syrup, chemicals, and an ingredient list that reads more like toilet bowl cleaner than beverage; you get the most concentrated bio-available protein on the planet.

So, score one for the spirulina and other bulk raw items you might want like cacao nibs, hemp oil, and raw honey.

Pre-packaged stuff VS. Produce

When you are new and trying to “adjust” to raw  for the first time you will naturally gravitate to the expensive pre-packaged raw items because they sorta look like what you think foods supposed to look like.

I stood there having a Homer Simpson style conversation with myself that went something like this… “Ahhhh…crackers!  I know what crackers are! This is a peculiarly small little bag with only 6 crackers in it…not exactly a Costco size box of Wheat Thins…but it says here…sun-dried tomato crackers…mmm…sounds yummy…and they are only…let me just turn this little package over and find the price….$9!  WTF!”

I bought them anyways.  Because I was scared of not having what I refer to as “food-food.”  And you know what allows you to psychologically pay NINE BUCKS for SIX CRACKERS?  The little sticker on the package that says “raw.”  And do you know what those crackers taste like, I’ll give you a hint…it’s a 4 letter word…start’s with an “S”…and it’s not sun dried tomatoes!

I’ve been reading a lot of other raw foodists blogs and watching their You Tube channels and tweeting with them and I’m starting to get the feeling that the longer one eats raw, the more likely they are to do almost all of their shopping at a Farmer’s Market, or in a good organic produce section.

My conclusion? Go ahead and buy the pre-packaged stuff.  Try it.  See what you like and what you don’t.  Soon you will save the dehydrated breads and little $4 baggies of superfood trail mix for when you need the convenience or the comfort.  Spend the bulk of your dough on fruits & veggies that are pound for pound, yes even at organic prices, the best value for your food dollar.

11/14 UPDATE!  Went to Farmer’s Market today and loaded up on fresh veggies/greens/and fruit.  I even bought a big jar of raw wildflower honey.  Grand Total = $40  Because I’m 100% raw I also got “free” breakfast out of the deal just walking around enjoying all the samples being handed out.  When I came home I took everything out and put it on the table so I could see what all I bought.  I had to take a picture…amazing isn’t it?  The honey will last a couple weeks and I’m sharing this with my girlfriend, so the real cost to me for the week I estimate to be closer to$25!!!

How Much Are You NOT Spending?

This is really fair question to ask, and the one that pushed me over the edge on the money issue.  Do this little exercise yourself, and be brutally honest about it.

I added up what I spent each week on:

• Coffee. Up to 2 weeks ago I was spending over $6 per day at Starbucks.
• Booze. I’m talking drinks out (w/ tips), drinks in, wine, beer, all of it! For me drinking on the cheap was still costing  me over $70 per week. And that’s with a job where I can have a drink or two for free.
• Cooked food groceries. I love to cook.  Shop pretty smart at Trader Joe’s.  My share of weekly groceries is about $40 per week.
• Eating out. Make sure you include any fast food, lunches out, frozen yogurts, movie popcorn, brunch, all that!  I had really cut back lately.  In the past my girlfriend and I would grab sushi or Mexican food at least 3x per week. But due to lack of work and recently moving, I’m gonna say I was spending about $25 per week eating out.
• Cigarettes. I don’t smoke cigarettes, so this wasn’t an issue with me.  But if you do smoke, we’re talking big bucks here, and you ARE going to stop smoking if you go 100% raw.  Maybe not immediately, but soon.
• Other drugs including prescriptions. In one way or another, to quote Weezer, “We are ALL on drugs.”  I like to party, and think recreational substances have their place. But for arguments sake assume you won’t be spending money on that after you get hooked up to nature’s crack–raw food.  Also include most (not all, like I don’t think eating raw is going to do anything in the contraceptive department) pharmaceuticals.  Especially meds for cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, acid reflux (my GERD is 100% GONE), etc.

So for me…about $200 per week.  What’s your total?

So that’s $200 per week that I can apply to eating 100% raw food, drinking fresh-squeezed vibrant juices, and even eating out every so often in a little raw cafe or gourmet raw eatery.  $200 is A LOT of vegetables and fruit.

Another aspect of how much it really costs to eat raw vegan organic foods that I hadn’t thought of until I read Derek Markham’s blog today…is all the money not spent at the Doctors office.  In his case he acknowledges that as a father he chooses to spend a large portion of his families income on fresh organic food.  Derek says, “Our kids deserve the best fuel for their minds and bodies, and eating this way is our ‘health insurance’.” That blew me away.

What I’m NOT suggesting is that you cancel your health insurance (if you have health insurance) and count that as potential savings if you go raw.  But imagine the money you, your family, and the country would save by having less sick days, co-pays, depression, and chronic illness…

My conclusion? Money should have nothing to do with whether or not someone chooses to go raw.  If anything, I am spending a little less money each week to give my body an abundance of nutrients and delicious food.

Tune in tomorrow if you want to read about some of my misgivings about going (and staying raw long-term), as well as a candid lament about things I’m not sure I can live without (or want to).

You only need to take a look at any teenager’s or twenty-something’s page on Facebook to realise that the youth of today are far “bolder” in their relationships than most of us middle-aged folk would have ever even dared to contemplate.

Sexual promiscuity virtually seems to be the norm if you believe even half of what you read on social media forums, so it’s little surprise that the number of girls and women asking for the morning after pill has gone up and up in recent years. As a result, it’s sometimes hard for contraception clinics (like this one) to cope with demand, especially from 16– 49-year olds.
.
In actual fact, the description “morning after” isn’t entirely accurate, since the pill can prevent pregnancy if taken any time up to 72 hours following intercourse (see more here). Which will be a welcome relief for anyone who has taken an unnecessary risk on a night out that they’d rather forget – but is bad news for those who see the morning after pill as tantamount to abortion.

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly ‘liberated’ themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing.

They hadn’t. Feminists had nothing to do with it.

It was manufactured by a man – a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other male scientists who went before him.

You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade you that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the ‘upper hand’.

This is complete and utter rubbish.

I was actually a young man when ‘the pill’ came on to the market, and I can you without reservation that it was men (like me) who couldn’t wait to get their hands on the thing – or, more accurately, who couldn’t wait to get their women to swallow it.

But, as is usual, the feminists have lied and deceived over this issue – and, as is customary, they mostly distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked oppressors of women.

Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly ‘liberated’ from the oppression of men.

Well, as someone who was sexually active around the time that the pill became available in the UK, here is what the situation was really like in those days.

I remember very clearly the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves ‘feminists’ in the very late 1960’s and the early 1970’s.

They seemed to appear from nowhere.

‘Normal’ feminists (such as the likes of Erin Pizzey) had been around for some time, and we were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.

Make love, not war!

These ‘new’ feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly derogatory manner.

Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.

The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.

Regretfully, they didn’t.

They stayed.

By the very late 60’s women were indeed being ‘liberated’ from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! – and the washing machine) – just about all of which were created by men.

But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.

When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage.

Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.

However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms – not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression by the men whom they wished to marry.

And so, I’ll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.

(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together ‘in sin’ (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)

If you listen to feminists, however, you’ll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.

This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.

Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.

Women wanted marriage after sex – and often before it – whereas men, most usually, did not.

Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed!

Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his penis just at the point when he really wanted it there.

The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.

And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!

Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.

In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.

And, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?” was just about the very first question that young men would want to know about your new girlfriend.

Most women, however, were simply too ‘ashamed’ to use the pill. They saw its use as a ’sign of promiscuity’ – and so did many others. They were likely to be called ’sluts’ by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be ‘on the pill’, and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a ‘good idea’.

And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.

Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!

The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.

It certainly wasn’t women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was men who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.

Of course it was.

It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.

As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women.

It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more ‘available’ and, hence, more attractive.

I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.

Feminists repelled them.

And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the ‘new’ feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile and emotionally ‘genderless’.

Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. The truth is that men sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.

And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who ‘persuade’ and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.

Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!

And some even end up in prison.

It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can’t get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them.

Think about it. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by.

It’s pretty much what they do today.

And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to ‘open up’.

When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.

They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill – emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, ‘to try it’, promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn’t.

And, among themselves – whisper, whisper – was the ubiquitous question, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?”. If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.

It was men who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves.

And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.

The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and sex each other, without clothes, and without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other – for life! (as marriage was once wont to be).

The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.

But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating – and the women mostly followed their lead.

The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.

And while the ‘Flower Power’ movements of the 60s with their ‘Make Love Not War’ slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the ‘new’ feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the ‘loving’ youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all.

And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering “love and peace”, and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.

My original plan for the latest English project assigned by our teacher was to create a poster that would remind everyone of how important it is to conserve energy. But! One of the FMLs I read last night gave me an inspiration to make something funnier and eye-catching even though I gotta admit it’s a bit less G-rated. I do hope the teacher doesn’t mind ;]

OKAY! So lately my facebook family and I have been discussing this ridiculous video about this guy named the “AIDS MAN!” Apparently, this guy has contracted AIDS and he is spreading it around to females that he meets! What stuns me is that this guy speaks about infecting these women in an “as-a-matter-of-fact” tone. Needless to say this video disturbed my spirit and I hope that it disturbs yours as well! HIV/AIDS is serious people! We can not play with people’s lives and we need to protect ourselves. Check out the infamous “AIDS MAN” below. I also encourage you to spread this video around so people can put this man to jail. Also, check out the video below with TonyaTKO discussing the importance of protecting yourself. Please spread these videos around, we have to be serious about our lives!

The world for women in the United States changed radically in 1960 when the birth-control pill (or “the pill”) was first approved for use.  Women were finally able to control contraception, something they tried to in every culture since the earliest recorded history.  The desire for sex but fear of pregnancy went together for most of the female experience.  For years, women were worn out by multiple pregnancies or chose to abstain from sexual intercourse to prevent conception.  In earlier centuries it was very common for women to die during childbirth because of little knowledge of obstetrics or the importance of basic hygiene. It’s commonly believed that the primary cause of women’s death from childbirth in the eighteenth century was unwashed hands by physicians and midwives. 

While there were other birth control practices in place prior to the pill, the advent of  oral contraceptives was especially liberating.  When taken properly, the birth-control pill is over 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.  This makes women feel confident and in control of their reproductive future.  Families can now choose when they have children and how many.  They can consider the size of the family they’d like and can comfortably afford.  Women can more easily work and better plan a professional future. Oral contraceptives can be purchased through an online pharmacy, such as  www.pacificonlinepharmacy.com. Many women are choosing this option because it saves both money and time and their pills are shipped directly and discreetly to their home.  There are currently more than 100 million women around the world using birth-control pills, with 12 million of those women residing in the United States alone. For Americans, it really is the birth control method of choice.

photo by Shawn Latta

I have no desire to home school my children, but it looks like I’ll be doing just that when it comes to sex education.  I recently read an editorial in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution that raised all kinds of red flags for me about what my children would be taught during their health classes.  In it a young woman named Ginny McNulty describes an experience she had delivering presentations to her peers here in metro Atlanta to raise awareness of HIV/AIDS.  It seems most of the kids she spoke to had very little knowledge of how the virus is actually spread, however Ms. McNulty could not inform them about protection via condoms due to a prohibitive school policy.  The emphasis in this school system is on abstinence therefore contraceptives are not discussed.

Now I know all about abstinence before marriage.  I attended Catholic school for 13 years.  I also remember what it was like being a romantic high school girl hanging out with the horny high school boys.  And let me tell you, the fear of burning in hell was no deterrent to teenage lust. 

Of course, that was up north.  Maybe kids down here really did study when they got together and also went directly home right after prom.  I can’t figure out how else to explain parents and educators who apparently have no first hand knowledge of what it’s like to be a teenager.

An article on msnbc.msn.com draws some interesting conclusions about the relationship between conservative religious beliefs and teenage pregnancy rates.  Researchers ranked states by their religiousness and their teen birth rates.  It doesn’t surprise me that states ranked as most religious also had the highest teen birth rates.  Unfortunately for me, Georgia along with the other southern states fall into this category.  The northeastern states are at the bottom of the list with the lowest teen birth rates as well as lowest rates of religiousness.

I am pretty certain that kids up in New England have sex just as much their counterparts down here.  The difference is that those kids up north are being taught how to deal with the adult issue of sex in an adult way.  I am sure that they are hearing the “wait until you’re married” and “only have sex with someone you love” mantras, but they are also hearing about consequences and contraceptives.

My kids may grow up as southerners but I will make sure they receive a northern-style sex education!

Sex Education? Ito ay edukasyon na nagtuturo na ang sexuality ay natural at normal na parte ng buhay.

Ang Comprehensive Sex Education ay nakatuon sa pagtuturo ng from sexual intercoursemakatutulong ito para maiwasan ang maagang pagbubuntis lalo na sa mga kabataan at para maiwasan na din ang mga sexually transmitted deseases. Nakapaloob din dito ang paggamit ng mga CONTRACEPTIVES para maiwasan ang malagay sa alanganing sitwasyon….

Mas pabor sa akin kung maituturo na ang sex education sa mga high school student para mabawas bawasan naman ang mga napapariwarang kabataan ngayon. Dahil sa panahon ngayon imbis na ang mga kabataan ang pag asa ng bayan sila pa ngayon ang problema ng gobyerno. Kaya kung maituturo na ito sa mga kabataan madaragdagan ang kanilang kaalaman at hindi na sila sige ng sige na lang na parang hindi man lang nila naiisip ang maaring ibunga nito.  Lalo na sa mga kabataang magsing irog kung ikaw ang babae huwag na huwag kang papayag sa gusto ng iyong kasintahan g lalaki dahil sa huli palagi na lang ana babae ang nagmumukang kaawa awa  at talunan. kaya kung sasabuhin sa iyo ng iyo’ng kasintahang lalaki na patunayan mo sa kanya na mahal mo talaga  s’ya ito ang sabihin mo sa kanya “ikiskis mo sa cactus” o kaya naman “halika ipapakilala ko sa iyo si “MARY PALMER”.

I was just reading a post from Choosing Raw, about birth control and it inspired me to do my own post based on the subject because I have a lot to say about birth control and I think some people may really benefit from it.

Just before I begin, let me give a brief overview of how oral contraceptives work. Basically the pill has hormones inside of it that keeps the body from ovulating. The pill also promotes thickening of the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to pass through the body to find an egg, which also helps to protect against pregnancy. I know, I know, really freakin gross!

As I have written at least once or twice before, part of the reason I write this blog is that I hope to attract people who were in a similar position that I was in several years ago, where my weight and overall health was a major issue. I not only had trouble controlling my weight, but I suffered from chronic stomach pains, joint problems, chronic constipation, fatigue and my anxiety and depression was up the roof (which I attribute to being in such crappy health). For many people, they are attracted to health food blogs because 1) they are true food enthusiast and 2) they are interested in health. That’s all very cool and I understand that and give kudos. However, I’d be lying if I wrote that that was the reason I blogged, because for me much of my interest in food and health comes from being sick and being failed by my doctors. I hope everyone who stops by here enjoys what they read and sees, but in truth when I write, I write with the hope that I am aiding someone who was in a place that I once was, desperate, semi hopeless and hungry for knowledge that would make them better.

Ok, now that I said all this, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Birth control.

Some people are effected by the pill and others aren’t. This post is really for those who aren’t. When I started taking the pill I did it because I kept forgetting to buy the spermicide inserts and I felt stupid for having sex unprotected, so in efforts to be “adult”, I went and got myself on the pill. Before hand, I had always been wary of the stuff because I had heard it caused weight gain, something that I had no I interest in. When I asked several doctors about it, I was told a mix of things. Some said it was a possibility while others tried to reassure me that the whole “weight gain” thing was a myth. I was skeptical, because I knew that many doctors financially benefit to push certain stuff to their patients, but I got on the pill anyway. Man was a nightmare! Not only did I gain weight, but I was so fucking moody, even my then boyfriend had to comment on it. One day we were watching a commercial about dogs in pounds and I just burst out into tears. I’m sensitive, but not start bawling in public sensitive. The whole action was out of character for me. I knew it was the pill but I felt guilty for letting weight gain and mood swings keep me from being more careful against warding off pregnancy. I tried to stick it out for a few more months, but eventually I just accepted it was a bad option for me and gave it up. Seriously, within a week, I felt crazy better!

For some people (as I said before), the pill will have no unpleasant side effects but for some, it will. What are they? Here they are.

1. Pills that have higher estrogen levels are more likely to make the taker gain weight/retain fluid
2. Certain birth control can raise insulin levels, triggering appetite and also making it difficult to shed pounds
3. The pill can negatively effect ones sex drive
4. Depression and mood swings are not uncommon in users

So in short, I suggest if any of these are concerns for you, I would really think long and hard before you make the pill a part of your life. I would research like mad and really consider whether or not the pros outweigh the cons for you. For me, the pros did not outweigh the cons. I was so self conscious about the extra weight I didn’t want to have sex for the most part. Actually for me, many of my old E.D. way of thinking returned and for the time I was on the pill, I felt as if I was being haunted by an older version of myself, one I had no desire to ever see again. Honestly, if you have a history with E.D.’s I do NOT recommend this method of contraception. All my friends who have had E.D. history and get on the pill have reported the same thing- note, majority of them have stopped taking the drug and are relatively happier for it.
I have always been sort of moody/sullen, but while on the pill I noticed that my moodiness increased and I was a true terror to be around. I regret going on. If I knew then what I know now I would have done condemns and spermicides and left the pills to those who bodies are not as sensitive to that stuff.

Bottom line, research is your friend, so research research research!!! Check out the following sites for starters:

1. Hormonal Birth Control
2. The pill and Weight Gain
3. Stats about the pill

Imagine yourself hunting in the woods. You see a rustling in the bush. How sure would you want to be, before you fire your gun to kill, that this rustling is not being cause by a human? I would imagine that you would want to be certain before you shoot to kill.

Many have often used this analogy concerning abortion. The point is that everyone, before they perform an abortion, should be certain this is not a child they are killing.

Evangelicals have pointed to Psalms 139 to prove this.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Ps. 139:13-14a)

They state that throughout the whole Psalm David uses the personal pronoun “me” to speak of his life while in the womb. David goes as far back as conception when speaking of his life. Therefore, Christians who realize the authority of Scripture believe that life is present at conception.

However, we have been guilty of a major assumption.  We have always assumed that because David speaks of his life existing as early as conception that life begins at conception.

But is this what the Bible teaches?  Does life begin at conception?  Does the Bible not speak of life existing any sooner than conception?

Remember, if I can at the very least demonstrate from Scripture that there is some reason to believe of life existing prior to conception, then all birth controls would be similar to firing your gun at the unknown life in the woods.

Scripture speaks of all humanity being in Adam when he sinned.  Therefore all humans sinned in Adam and died.

“For in Adam all die,”
-I Corinthians 15:22a

The Bible also not only speaks of the nation of Israel in the loins of Abraham but specifically Levi being in the loins of Abraham.  Therefore, Levi (himself) had paid tithes to King and Priest Melchizedek.  Hebrews 6:9-10 states:

One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. (emphasis mine)

But perhaps the most compelling passage that speaks of life prior to conception is in Job.  Job speaks to God and says:

Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh,and knit me together with bones and sinews.You have granted me life and steadfast love,and your care has preserved my spirit. -Job 10:10-12 (emphasis mine)

Job speaks of himself existing being present in the semen.  He doesn’t state that he was formed from this substance (like Adam from the dust).  Rather, that he was in it being poured out by God’s hands and providentially formed with a body (This may give us some insight in to the account of Onan in Genesis 38:9-10).

This brings tons of questions to mind.  I know.

I am still processing all the application.  And personally, I would love to discuss it with you.

I may even write another post concerning application and answering some of the common questions that seem to come up with these truths.

At the very least, I think I have shown the rustling in the bush is unknown.

And at best, that the rustling in the bush is a life.  So lets put out guns down heh?

Blessings,

Stephen

P.S.

I am largely indebted to D. Skip Smith for this post.

Back in 1942 the world population was calculated to be two billion.  World War II then brought that number down.  Today, however, a mere sixty-seven years later the world population is hurtling toward a staggering seven billion!

 For some head-in-the-sand reason, world overpopulation has been pretty much treated as a taboo subject for far too long as a media concern.  This avoidance of facing responsibility for human over-breeding is indulged in despite the fact that global poverty and possible ecological catastrophe are directly tied to the explosive increase of human life.

The so-called sacred books of man’s religions alway catered to this preservation tactic, and encouraged in conjunction with that invitation  to sexual abandon the belief that exploiting the planet was humankind’s “divine right.”  In the Bible account of beginning, for example, god supposedly decreed: “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Genesis 1:28).  Oddly, at this point in the priest-written tale, the untutored, abandoned couple, supposedly made in the image of the creative power, is charged with the obligation to replenish the earth.  The word replenish means to fill or make  complete again: to renew a supply.  Taken literally then, as the fundamentalists like to do, this word “replenish” indicates that the world and the life upon it had some previous embodiment.

The “revealed” instruction as presented by the priest-authors of these tales, unfortunately, rings with an implication that all entities are expected to become nothing more than breeders for god.  Leaders of  most religious sects and  movements eagerly subscribed to this interpretation for the self-serving reason that it assured an increase of their supporters.  This is still the mindset of those seeped in the illogicality of religious storytelling and look upon bearing many children as an expression of god’s abundance.  This irrationality is so pronounced that even today there are some national leaders who actually advocate childbirth bounties to increase their national political power structure.  Breeding was a “duty” expected of German soldiers in the early 1940s to increase Hitler’s subjects,  for example.

The fact remains, however, that the present world population is ecologically unsustainable.  History has shown that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed disasters of unprecedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, mass migrations, followed by rampage and riots—even cannibalism.

 But man’s fundamentalist religions tend to conscientiously ignore history, preferring their own edification of “truth.”  So today we still have religious resistance to contraceptives, sexual instruction, abortion, and they teach—in the name of god, of course—hatred toward any same-sex attraction—which just might be Nature’s way of keeping resources and life forces in balance for a habitable planet.

A recent study published in Reproductive Health Journal by a researcher from Drexel University and the University of Pittsburgh found that teens living in states where the Bible is more likely to be interpreted literally are more likely to give birth to a child conceived out of wedlock, as teens. While the researcher, Joseph Strayhorn, stresses that the study shows association and not causality, he notes that it could certainly be inferred that the focus on religious fundamentalism doesn’t deter teen sex, but instead deters the use of contraception. This interesting association will likely remind many who advocate for comprehensive sex education of the major flaw that abstinence only education has: it fails to deter teens from having sex- and it deters them from having sex safely. According to multiple studies, including one from the CDC, teens who take abstinence only sex education courses are less likely to use contraception, including condoms, that prevent pregnancy and STIs. This means these teens, due to lack of education and possible negative connotations assigned to contraception methods, are more likely to expose themselves to becoming pregnant- or catching a dangerous and potentially fatal STI.

It would be interesting to see how the relationship between an abstinence only education and religiosity in a state plays out. Do all the states that the research showed being “at-risk” utilize abstinence-only education? We’d like to know what you think- leave a comment below and get the conversation started.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_condoms_climate_change

Finally, the man is agreeing with what I’ve been saying all along: not only is sex good, but meat is bad. This article by the AP states that providing contraceptives for people in third-world countries would be one of the most cost effective ways to prevent global warming. This is because one of the problems with projecting future global emissions is the wild card of future population growth since a higher population inevitably demands more resources. Another point I like that the article provides is that another way to reduce demand on resources is for people to consume less meat. How to go about getting individuals to do either of these would be a task, but I’m sure with time and dedicated money and manpower going into researching solutions, we’ll have the Earth back on the fast track to…whatever isn’t global warming.

Sex, ang salitang binubuo ng tatlong letra at maraming depinisyon. Para sa gobyerno, ito ang gawaing kailangang pagplanuhan ng mamamayan. Para sa mga ekonomista, ang kasobrahan nito ang nagsisimula ng kahirapan sa bansa. Para sa mga deboto, ito ang isang sagradong paraan upang magparami. Para sa kabataan, ito ang bawal na sadyang kaintri-intriga. At para sa mga bata, ito ay ang isang salitang palagi na lamang nila naririnig at napanunuod.

Kahit saan ka tumingin, maaaninag mo ang anyo ng sex. Naroon siya sa damit ng modelo (o kawalan nito) na nasa billboard sa gilid ng highway sa Cubao. Hindi mo man makita ang mga letrang S-E-X na magkakasunod, mababasa mo ito sa mga deskripsyon sa mga magasin, komiks, at dyaryo na mabibili sa iyong suking tindahan. Sumakay ka ng jeep at mapakikinggan mo ang sinasadyang ungol, malisyosong biro, at mapanuksong tawa ng DJ sa radyo. Buksan mo ang TV, tiyak na higit na matatanaw mo pa ang anino nito kesa sa mga babala ng Rated PG — sa mga commericals, gag shows, at balita na nagbabalat-kayong pornograpiya. Tila ang mundo ay nasakop na ng salitang sex.

Sex… Kasalanan?

Masama nga ba ang sex? Kung kalilimutan mo ang moralidad, malalaman mo na isa lamang aktibidad ang sex, tulad ng paglalakad. Kung tutuusin, hindi ito ilegal kung ito’y iyong pinili, at wala namang mawawala, maliban na lamang sa iyong virginity o ang posibilidad na makakuha ka ng sexually transmitted diseases tulad ng AIDS na maaaring maging kapalit ng iyong buhay. Nasaan nga ba ang kasamaan dito? Masama ba kapag ito ay ginawa ng hindi kasama ang sakramento ng kasal? Pre-marital sex lang ba ang masamang uri ng sex? Ang sex na may contraceptives ba ay masama rin? Bakit ito masama?

Para sa mga Katoliko, layunin ang basehan kung masama o hindi ang sex. Kung ito ay ginagawa lamang upang bumigay sa pita ng laman, o ginagawa ng walang basbas ang Diyos sa pamamagitan ng kasal, ito daw ay maituturing na kasalanan.

Sa kabilang dako, marami namang ipinagbibiling contraceptives sa paligid, tulad na lamang sa ilang convenience stores at mga botika na nagbebenta ng condoms. Nariyan din ang birth control pills at mga medikal na operasyon tulad ng vasectomy at ligation na tuluyang itinitigil ang kakayahan ng pasyente na makabuo ng buhay.

Kaugnay sa mga contraceptives na ito ang pagdedebate sa Senado kung dapat bang ipasa ang kontrobersyal na Reproductive Health Bill. Tumututol ang Simbahan sa pagpapatupad ng nasabing bill sapagkat hindi daw ito umaayon sa layunin ng Panginoon — baka maging isang paraan na lamang ng pagsasaya ang sex para sa mga Pilipino.

Sex… Sakit sa Lipunan?

Pwede nga namang makakuha ng mga nakamamatay na sakit mula sa sex. Milyong milyong tao na ang namamatay sa AIDS, at kadalasa’y sex ang dahilan nito. Pisikal na proteksyon ang maibibigay ng contraceptives, kaya marami ring mga sektor ng lipunan, tulad ng ilang mga feministang organisasyon, ang nagnanais na aprubahan ang Reproductive Health Bill. Lalo pa’t talamak ang pagbebenta ng laman sa panahon ng kahirapan, dadami pa ang maaaring mabiktima ng AIDS.

Isa pang pundasyon nito ay ang pagkontrol sa populasyon, na isa sa mga sanhi ng problema sa kahirapan ng bansa. May ilan mang mga siyentipiko na nagsasabing hindi totoo ang pagkakaroon ng overpopulation, hindi pa din sapat na natutustusan ang pangangailangan ng bawat isa. Bukod sa ‘di mabisang pamamalakad ng gobyerno, limitado din ang pinagkukunan natin ng yamang pang-ekonomiya. Sa katunayan, ang pinakamahihirap ang kadalasang may pinakamadaming anak na kailangang pakainin at pag-aralin. Marahil kulang nga tayo sa pagpaplano at pagdinig ng mga payo ukol sa pagtataguyod ng pamilya sa pamamagitan ng sex. Marahil kailangan na din nating matuklasan ang iba pa nating sekswal na karapatan at ang epekto sa buong bansa ng ating mga sekswal na aksyon.

Sex… Iwasan?

Sa kabila ng lahat, nagkakasundo ang mundo na hindi dapat gawin ng kabataan ang sex. Kumplikasyon ang maidudulot ng sex sa isang ‘bata’ na hindi pa handa sa responsibilidad sa maaaring mangyari pagkatapos, gaya ng pagbubuntis, pagkakasakit, pagtigil sa pag-aaral, at iba pa. May pangangailangan na alamin ang mga paraan ng pagpapahalaga at pag-aalaga sa sarili, katawan, at kalusugan. Kaya laganap din ang sex education at mga forum tungkol sa contraceptives ngayon. Ngunit nakabubuti nga ba ito? Di kaya mas lalong maitulak ang kabataan na subukan sex dahil sa dami ng atensyong ibinibigay dito? Lalo pa sa maraming pagmamanipesta ng sex sa iba’t ibang media sa kabataan, dapat doble ang kailangang gawin upang sila, o tayo, ay tuluyang makumbinsi na huwag itong gawin sa ngayon.

Lahat ng kamatayan, kahirapan, pagtatalo, pagsasala, at pagpoprotektang ito ay nagsisimula sa sex. Ngunit hindi sex ang may kasalanan, kundi ang mga taong kulang ang kaalaman habang ginagagawa ito.

Isa mang simpleng gawain ang sex, ang mga posibilidad nito ay kumplikado. Alam natin na sa gawaing ito naipupunla ang susunod na henerasyon. Kaya kung hindi pag-iingatan ang mismong unang hakbang, ano pa kaya ang kalalabasan ng mga susunod pa dito?

Interesting article from over the pond…

‘UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million….. If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.’  –Telegraph.co-

Thereby keeping the planet cleaner and more plentiful for those already here? But if we stop having children, who will be here to care about the environment?

One reader commented:  “Enough already!!! Manmade globnal (?) climate change is a lie! It has not been and cannot be proven under the scientific process. Stop trying to scare us into radical political change that you know people will not willinglingly (?) accept. Anyone who calls themselves a scientist should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this tripe!”

I love the English. I thought I was the only one that used the word ‘tripe’. I should blame my English grandfather.

And another said (my favorite):  “Yes, you once proud Europeans; contraception is exactly what your Muslim invaders want you to exercise.” Beautiful.

Then another said:  “Gaddafi says Islam will conquer Europe by the power of the uterus. No family planning there then.”

Here in the U.S., pro-choicers have tried to push the environment card with abortion rights. Less people mean less stress on the planet? The UN estimates that 40% of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. So ignorance IS a defense?

See the trends here; Muslims want us to not have children so they can take over the world and scientists that believe in science and not God is basing their findings on math. But the common denominator here is abortion; if 40% of the world’s pregnancies are unplanned, how do you think they want to go forward with contraception if they are already pregnant? It’s apparent that no one is listening about contraception, especially in third world countries where unplanned pregnancy is much more prevalent and contraceptives are not available. Instead, abortion would be the answer.

Save the world, but kill the children.

It has been a busy week and while Mr. Obama is vacationing again it seems like it’s a mess whether he’s at the desk or not.

Regarding the Cincinnati Tea Party:  “I’ve never seen anything like this,” John Boehner said. “These people are saying enough is enough. “They’re scared to death,” he added. “They’re scared that the country they grew up in is not going to be the country their children and grandchildren grow up in.” Saturday’s rally drew people from all over the region, many to view the day’s highly anticipated town hall-style forum featuring U.S. Reps. Jean Schmidt and Michael Turner, Ohio gubernatorial candidate John Kasich and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester Twp.

Over 18K American citizens came to the rally; about 8K more than the Columbus Tea Party last April. The trend is obvious – Americans are DONE with the way this country is being ran and wasted.

Regarding kids and contraception: Currently, Revere High School (Boston, Mass) students who have parental approval can receive free condoms and prescriptions for birth control pills. Other contraception methods available to students include a Depo Provera shot, which protects against pregnancy for up to 14 weeks, and the Plan B, or morning-after, pill…..“I don’t think this type of thing belongs directly in the school,’’ said Kathleen Magno, who is gathering signatures this weekend in hopes of collecting the 1,875 – or 8 percent of the city’s registered voters – needed by Tuesday to put the referendum on the city’s Nov. 3 ballot.

I’m concerned about what kind of parents would give permission for their children to get contraception at all much less at school.

Regarding the resignation of Van Jones:  “Jones, however, left radical politics and made the decision to work within the system, rather than try to overthrow it. For (Glenn) Beck, however, Jones’ past statements were evidence that Obama is secretly marshaling a cadre of lieutenants pushing an agenda that is “radical, revolutionary and in some cases Marxist.” (Meanwhile, in reality, Obama is backing away from even including a public health insurance option as part of health care reform. How that squares with Obama’s Marxist agenda Beck has yet to explain.)”

Gotta love Glenn Beck’s perception of the obvious…does the left really think we’re that stupid?

Regarding opinions that really have no substance, just venom:  “I (Joan Walsh of Salon) tried to remind (Terry) Jeffrey (of Human Events) that abortion is legal, and a majority of the country wants it to stay that way, and that Obama was elected with 54 percent of the vote.”

Okay Joan…abortion is legal but WRONG, most Americans were decidedly pro-life according to a recent Gallup poll and the president’s approval is at an all time low; under 45%. By the way, better watch who you call un-American.

And that’s the news…for now. Have a great Labor Day!