OT Green energy will destroy the earth

[Ed Pawlowski]

Saw this posted in another group. I'm not a fan of Michael Moore but I
skimmed through this and found it interesting. It shows the hypocrisy
of the green energy movement and how the earth is worse for it.

Electric cars, solar panels, windmills are causing a lot of
environmental damage. Bio Mass plants are deforesting the US and we are
shipping trees to Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

Mea time, the price of gas is down so I'm off to fill the tank on my
fartmobile.

[GM]

Thanks, Ed, the whole "Green" thing I consider a fraud, and it ultimately is much more damaging to the environment, not to mention the accompanying economic damage...

In Wisconsin gas is less than a buck per gallon...other places too now...

Just ordered this book about electricity...three billion around the world still use less juice per year than the average NA fridge uses per year. Cheap and abundant electricity is a requirement for civilized living, the "Green Energy" movement would deny these poorer folks access to abundant electricity:

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1610397495/?coliid=I33NLGZ2VVFCWV&colid=1DQHOBD364A9H&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

Historically, it was guns, germs, and steel that determined the fates of people and nations. Now, more than ever, it is electricity.

Global demand for power is doubling every two decades, but electricity remains one of the most difficult forms of energy to supply and do so reliably. Today, some three billion people live in places where per-capita electricity use is less than what's used by an average American refrigerator. How we close the colossal gap between the electricity rich and the electricity poor will determine our success in addressing issues like women's rights, inequality, and climate change.

In "A Question of Power", veteran journalist Robert Bryce tells the human story of electricity, the world's most important form of energy. Through onsite reporting from India, Iceland, Lebanon, Puerto Rico, New York, and Colorado, he shows how our cities, our money--our very lives--depend on reliable flows of electricity. He highlights the factors needed for successful electrification and explains why so many people are still stuck in the dark.

With vivid writing and incisive analysis, he powerfully debunks the notion that our energy needs can be met solely with renewables and demonstrates why--if we are serious about addressing climate change--nuclear energy must play a much bigger role.

Electricity has fueled a new epoch in the history of civilization. A Question of Power explains how that happened and what it means for our future...

Editorial Reviews:

"Shocking revelations about electricity.... A robust look at where the juice flows around the planet-and its planetary implications."―Kirkus Reviews

"Of all the aspects of modern life in the developed world, flipping a switch and having the lights come on ranks as one of the most underrated. It's good to be reminded, as Bryce does through powerful examples, that such convenience was unheard of until the late nineteenth century...In this wide-ranging history of electricity, power expert Bryce takes readers beyond the table lamp and microwave to demonstrate how crucial safe, dependable, and plentiful electricity is to a host of contemporary innovations, from cryptocurrency mining to marijuana cultivation."― Booklist


"Informative and highly readable" ― Foreign Affairs...

Reader reviews:

5.0 out of 5 stars Electricity is the most useful, most rapidly growing form of energy in the world.

Reviewed in the United States on March 14, 2020
Verified Purchase

Truth is not in vogue today, but Robert Bryce continues his fact-filled stories, with lots of references for both skeptics and climate/energy explorers. Three billion people get less electricity than your refrigerator. Reliable, ample, cheap, electricity is critical for developing nations to move from poverty to modern civilization. Hundreds of environmental groups petition the US Congress to mandate 100% renewable energy by 2035, but it won't work. Facts matter. Interruptible electricity can't drive industry and commerce. Pielke's iron law of climate policy is that economics trumps politics. Electricity development has been impeded by lack of integrity -- from capitalist monopolies to populist electricity theft to subsidies that pander to special interests flaunting green credentials. Only fission power plants can provide the ample, affordable, CO2-free, reliable electric energy world civilization needs. Read the book to learn the facts...


5.0 out of 5 stars The best book I have read in 2020 so far

Reviewed in the United States on March 10, 2020
Verified Purchase

Robert Bryce connects the average reader with energy, in this case, electricity, like no author I have come across. Through this book, there are some amazing stories of how electricity is absolutely critical to the fabric of our everyday lives. The book compares energy access/use between Christians and Muslims, shedding light on some pretty startling conclusions. Another section I really enjoyed was the circumstances women face when they lack access to energy. Bryce's on-the-ground reporting in India, Puerto Rico, Lebanon, and Iceland, among others, gave me a great view of some of the key issues/challenges these countries are facing when it comes to energy and electricity matters. It is always pretty cool when you read a book that is both a page-turner insightful. Best book of 2020 so far...


5.0 out of 5 stars Everyone should read this book! World-wide view of the importance and availabiity of electricity

Reviewed in the United States on March 30, 2020
Verified Purchase

Robert Bryce is one of my favorite energy authors, and this is the best book to date. In this book, Bryce takes us world wide to see the importance of electricity. From how electricity transformed cities (no tall building unless there are elevators), to the importance of electricity for farm wives in America in the 30s and women in India now, to the issues of whether renewables can power the grid (yes, if it is a very small grid, such as a remote resort). The book includes interviews with ordinary people in areas where electricity is not reliable. It includes appendices so that the reader can look up the definitiions of power terms and the size and capacity of batteries. In other words, it covers both the human side and the technical side of electric power. He writes very clearly, which I appreciate.

I am particularly happy that Bryce covers how electricity has changed the lives of women. In the renewables-fossil-nuclear-climate-change battles, the importance of electricity to women's lives is often forgotten.

Everyone should read this book...

</>

[graham]

My B-I-L had a sawmill in Scotland but had to close it because he
couldn't get any saw-logs. They were being bought up by bio-mass plants.
Many other sawmills had to close too.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 4/23/2020 10:56 AM, graham wrote:
> On 2020-04-23 8:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Saw this posted in another group.  I'm not a fan of Michael Moore but
>> I skimmed through this and found it interesting.  It shows the
>> hypocrisy of the green energy movement and how the earth is worse for it.
>>
>> Electric cars, solar panels, windmills are causing a lot of
>> environmental damage.  Bio Mass plants are deforesting the US and we
>> are shipping trees to Europe.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
>>

>> Mean time, the price of gas is down so I'm off to fill the tank on my

>> fartmobile.
>
> My B-I-L had a sawmill in Scotland but had to close it because he
> couldn't get any saw-logs. They were being bought up by bio-mass plants.
> Many other sawmills had to close too.

Not a big deal. If we can't get wood for furniture making we'll just
buy metal or plastic instead. Oh, wait. . . .

[dsi1]

One of these days, the greenies will realize that nuclear power is also green power. The problem is that the fossil fuel people will have to realize that nuclear power is in their best interest too. Most people are afraid of the idea of a nuke plant churning out electricity in their backyard. If they looked at the numbers they might see that it's a heck of a safe way to generate megawatts. It is our best interest that this be implemented sooner than later.

[ZZyXX]

and nuke is so sustainable

[Cindy Hamilton]

What's your plan for waste disposal?

Cindy Hamilton

[leno...@yahoo.com]

Haven't watched it yet, but all I can say is...if Michael Moore was willing to stick out his neck like this (his fans just might attack him for it) I'd better darn watch it.

And here's the Guardian review:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/apr/22/planet-of-the-humans-review-environment-michael-moore-jeff-gibbs

While the movie may be scant on solutions, I would hope that at least one principle we can agree on is that shopping, as a rule, is bad for the environment, because even second-hand goods need to be transported. Just because one may be rich does not make it ethical to buy things that one hardly even wants. There's a good reason that the first rule is "reduce," not "recycle." The same goes for using gas or electricity when you could wear a sweater or engage in non-electrical entertainment.

Not to mention that children are supposed to be deeply wanted, not just lightly wanted, by both parents, so maybe people shouldn't have them until can live up to that standard AND raise them in a safe environment. Also, if you can't think of anyone who would happily raise them should you die (clearly a very important issue if you're thinking of becoming a single parent), you just may have to forfeit the glory.

To clarify the term "deeply wanted," here's something from blogger Sylvia D. Lucas that everyone who's considering having kids should read - even lesbian couples, IMO.

"He Says He Wants Kids – But Does He Mean, 'I want YOU to have kids'?"

https://sylviadlucas.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/he-says-he-wants-kids/


Lenona.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Disposal is the biggest drawback. Maybe some day they will come up with
a process to neutralize it and change it into something useful.

Instead of tin foil hats maybe we can wear lead hats. If you want to be
fancy, gold works as well as lead for a barrier but is a tad more costly.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Reduction makes a lot of sense. I'm not ready to live in a cave with
one dingy light bulb but I have less "stuff" now than I've had in years.
When we moved I gave away a lot of good usable items and some really
had little use in our house. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

The size of the typical house has grown over the years:
Over the last 42 years, the average new US house has increased in size
by more than 1,000 square feet, from an average size of 1,660 square
feet in 1973 (earliest year available from the Census Bureau) to 2,687
square feet last year.Jun 5, 2016

Look at some of the wealthy and celebrity houses and it gets much worse.

I won't piss of a lot of people with my views on kids but I will say, if
you cannot raise them yourself you probably should not have them. Yes,
that is so 1950s of me.

You can still be very happy with a simple lifestyle. Quality, not
quantity.

[Bruce]

That's better, Ed. Back to stating the obvious. Well done.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Bruce - 3
Commoners - 0

[ZZyXX]

what you do is convert it into coins of the same denominations as paper
money...people will spend it as fast as they can so it will stimulate
the economy

[Cindy Hamilton]

But oh, so chic!

Cindy Hamilton

[Cindy Hamilton]

That's "Underlings", not "Commoners".

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

You'd know. You work for Da Man :)

[Bruce]

Nuke is like retards playing with fire.

[dsi1]

Nuclear waste is a problem, but you should be more worried about your town being utterly destroyed by a cat 5 hurricane or the midwest being washed away by floods of a mind boggling nature. Nuclear waste? That's nothing. Besides, you can make useful things with spent fuel. Things like high mass kinetic projectiles and the like.

The biggest drawback for nuke power is its high cost per megawatt. OTOH, the reality is that the cost of nukes as an interim power source is nothing compared to the effects of raising the earth's temperature a couple of degrees.

[Gary]

ZZyXX wrote:

>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > Instead of tin foil hats maybe we can wear lead hats. If you want to be
> > fancy, gold works as well as lead for a barrier but is a tad more costly.
>
> what you do is convert it into coins of the same denominations as paper
> money...people will spend it as fast as they can so it will stimulate
> the economy

I'm trying to imagine the size of a one dollar gold coin if
minted today.

And whadda you know, they're being considered by the US Mint:
https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/gold-sacagawea-dollar-possible-in-2019.html

[Omni Vore]

On 4/24/2020 4:36 AM, Gary wrote:

> I'm trying to imagine the size of a one dollar gold coin if
> minted today.
>
> And whadda you know, they're being considered by the US Mint:
> https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/gold-sacagawea-dollar-possible-in-2019.html

"During the recent and ongoing focus groups, the idea of a Sacagawea
gold dollar was suggested, in either a quarter-ounce or half-ounce
version, without specified fineness of either .9167 fine, or 22 karats,
or .9999 fine, 24 karats."

They might be called a "dollar," but they're worth considerably more
than a single sawbuck at that weight.

[songbird]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

> Disposal is the biggest drawback. Maybe some day they will come up with
> a process to neutralize it and change it into something useful.
>
> Instead of tin foil hats maybe we can wear lead hats. If you want to be
> fancy, gold works as well as lead for a barrier but is a tad more costly.

haha, right... the process exists, but it is so horribly
full of potential for making more bomb fuel that it isn't
a great idea to have it available to a lot of places.

there's too many unstable places in the world for nuclear
power or weapons to be safe or to exist.

anyone in favor of them doesn't have their head screwed on
right at all.

i've not got time to watch this movie, but i caught i
description of it where it stated that things weren't going
to work and that we need to reduce the population and stop
being such horrible desctructive pigs. which are both things
i do agree with along with thinking the renewables are making
a better world already so let's keep doing that too while
also reducing population and cleaning up the messes we've
made.


songbird

[Ed Pawlowski]

I've not watched all of it yet, I fast forwarded quite a bit of it.
What I did see was a lot of destruction in the name of green and
sustainable. Did you know we are clear cutting trees and shipping them
to Germany to fuel biomass energy plants? Sure, we can grow trees but
we can burn them faster than we can grow them. I have to wonder how
much oil is burned to get those logs across the ocean. Big ships can
burn 30 to 50 gallons a mile.

Population reduction is not so simple. India tried it, China tried it,
I don't think either had great success. India has 2.4% of the world's
land mass but 14% of the population and is still adding more even with a
slower rate.

The US has never fostered any sort of control. I don't think anything
mandatory would ever happen so you have to convince people not to have
kids. Good luck with that.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Although I doubt it would actually have an effect, we could stop subsidizing
children through our tax policy. It might be more useful to levy a substantial
tax on each child born.

Cindy Hamilton

[John Kuthe]

Mother Gaia already has:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2020/02/04/fungi_that_eat_radiation_are_growing_on_the_walls_of_chernobyls_ruined_nuclear_reactor.html

Fungi are amazing, and among the oldest living things on Earth.

John Kuthe...

[songbird]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

> I've not watched all of it yet, I fast forwarded quite a bit of it.
> What I did see was a lot of destruction in the name of green and
> sustainable. Did you know we are clear cutting trees and shipping them
> to Germany to fuel biomass energy plants? Sure, we can grow trees but
> we can burn them faster than we can grow them. I have to wonder how
> much oil is burned to get those logs across the ocean. Big ships can
> burn 30 to 50 gallons a mile.

did you know the world is full of destructive idiots?
i do.

> Population reduction is not so simple. India tried it, China tried it,
> I don't think either had great success. India has 2.4% of the world's
> land mass but 14% of the population and is still adding more even with a
> slower rate.

without the policy that China had in place of one
child per family they'd have many millions more to
feed. please read up on history.

India is about to have a pretty rude awakening.

> The US has never fostered any sort of control. I don't think anything
> mandatory would ever happen so you have to convince people not to have
> kids. Good luck with that.

again, you really don't know your history.
i'm glad our country does have birth control and
abortions available for those who don't want more
children.


songbird

[Mike Duffy]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:33:07 -0700, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> It might be more useful to levy a substantial tax on each child born.

ISTR one of the Larry Niven 'Ringworld' Sci-Fi trilogy where the
childbearing permit went up in price exponentialy with successive progeny.

Most everyone could afford to have one child, but the second one cost
twice as much. Second kids became a sort of 'status symbol, thirds became
ostentatious displays of wealth.

As well as the child permit, one also had to post a major bond for
diapers, college, &c.

[Ed Pawlowski]

What is wrong with my history? China had lifted the ban. If it was so
good it would still be in effect. It also upset the natural balance as
females were often aborted. Yes, it may have prevented some births, but
if it worked well they would still have it.

India may be in for a rude awakening but historically, it did not work.
They paid men to have a vasectomy so all the old men had one to get the
money.

Having something available is far different than promoting or requiring
it. They are also relatively new in history. Roe v Wade was 1973 and
is still fiercely fought. Birth control other than condoms can be
difficult for young people. When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.

The US is not promoting birth control at all, doubt they will. If
anything, have a baby you cannot afford and we'll give you more money.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 10:09:03 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Having something available is far different than promoting or requiring
> it. They are also relatively new in history. Roe v Wade was 1973 and
> is still fiercely fought.

Women have been procuring abortions since time immemorial. Granted
they are easier to obtain (for the most part) and safer now than ever
before.

> Birth control other than condoms can be
> difficult for young people. When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
> of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
> Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.

Back in the 1970s when I became sexually active, it was trivially easy
to get birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, etc., at least if you
had a little money. I got my first prescription for the pill from the
University of Michigan Student Health Service.

> The US is not promoting birth control at all, doubt they will. If
> anything, have a baby you cannot afford and we'll give you more money.

The U.S. Government, U.S. doctors, or what? Even MTV has advertising
for birth control.

Cindy Hamilton

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 4/26/2020 10:53 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>> Birth control other than condoms can be
>> difficult for young people. When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
>> of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
>> Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.
>
> Back in the 1970s when I became sexually active, it was trivially easy
> to get birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, etc., at least if you
> had a little money. I got my first prescription for the pill from the
> University of Michigan Student Health Service.
>

In the 60s it was not like that, especially for unmarried women.

>> The US is not promoting birth control at all, doubt they will. If
>> anything, have a baby you cannot afford and we'll give you more money.
>
> The U.S. Government, U.S. doctors, or what? Even MTV has advertising
> for birth control.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

US Government. I think even the Catholic church is finally looking away
now and accepting reality.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 11:09:21 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/26/2020 10:53 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> >> Birth control other than condoms can be
> >> difficult for young people. When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
> >> of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
> >> Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.
> >
> > Back in the 1970s when I became sexually active, it was trivially easy
> > to get birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, etc., at least if you
> > had a little money. I got my first prescription for the pill from the
> > University of Michigan Student Health Service.
> >
>
> In the 60s it was not like that, especially for unmarried women.

I get that. I was pointing out that it's not the 60s anymore. Birth
control is pretty easy to get, if you have the will to do so.

> >> The US is not promoting birth control at all, doubt they will. If
> >> anything, have a baby you cannot afford and we'll give you more money.
> >
> > The U.S. Government, U.S. doctors, or what? Even MTV has advertising
> > for birth control.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> US Government. I think even the Catholic church is finally looking away
> now and accepting reality.

The U.S. government bows its head to the evangelical Right.

If I had my way, Welfare recipients would be sterilized. Or at least
forced to use the subcutaneous implant.

Cindy Hamilton

[Dave Smith]

You know that a lot of people will take a very dim view of that
attitude. I don't know what we are supposed to do about people who
continue to procreate when they can't even look after themselves. You
can't let the children suffer for the bad judgement of their parents.
That leaves the rest of us to pay for he support of those kids in
addition to our own, and I don't think that's fair to us.

[Sheldon Martin]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:09:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 4/26/2020 10:53 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>>> Birth control other than condoms can be
>>> difficult for young people. When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
>>> of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
>>> Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.
>>
>> Back in the 1970s when I became sexually active, it was trivially easy
>> to get birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, etc., at least if you
>> had a little money. I got my first prescription for the pill from the
>> University of Michigan Student Health Service.
>
>In the 60s it was not like that, especially for unmarried women.

Throughout the '60s condoms were kept out of sight behind the
pharmacist's counter and married or not one pretty much needed a
doctor's prescription or have an older adult buy them... at 18 years
old (the legal age then) it was a lot easier to buy booze. At that
time the most common method for teens to obtain condoms was to steal
them from their parent's stash... at that time parents were very
reluctant to supply their teenagers with condoms.

[Dave Smith]

Maybe they are finally recognizing that Catholics are having just as
many abortions anyone else, maybe even more. According to an article in
America The Jesuit Review, 22% of American women identify as being
Catholic, and 22% of women having abortions identify as Catholic. It
also noted that 27% of American women are Protestant but account for
only 13% of abortions.

I remember being told years ago that Catholics had so many abortions
because they were discouraged from using contraception. A sin is a sin,
and they could sin every day taking the Pill or they could sin once and
have an abortion. I am not sure I buy that, but there is no telling how
a religious mind works.

I had a friend uho had divorced once, remarried, split up with his wife
and then living with a woman. She had been named as the corespondent in
the second divorce and was really upset about that because she was
Catholic. I couldn't figure that one out. I thought that if she was
Catholic enough to be upset about being names in the divorce proceedings
she should have figured that God would already know.

[graham]

On 2020-04-26 9:09 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/26/2020 10:53 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>>> Birth control other than condoms can be
>>> difficult for young people.  When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
>>> of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
>>> Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.
>>
>> Back in the 1970s when I became sexually active, it was trivially easy
>> to get birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, etc., at least if you
>> had a little money.  I got my first prescription for the pill from the
>> University of Michigan Student Health Service.
>>
>
> In the 60s it was not like that, especially for unmarried women.
>

When I was at uni, it was extremely difficult for women to get abortions
(unless they were wealthy, of course).
The chief Dr in the student health service would "diagnose" painful
periods and the girls would then have a D&C.

[graham]

Wouldn't it be easier to force them to pick cotton?

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 4/26/2020 11:52 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>
> Maybe they are finally recognizing that Catholics are having just as
> many abortions anyone else, maybe even more. According to an article in
> America The Jesuit Review, 22% of American women identify as being
> Catholic, and 22% of women having abortions identify as Catholic.  It
> also noted that 27% of American women are Protestant but account for
> only 13% of abortions.
>
>  I remember being told years ago that Catholics had so many abortions
> because they were discouraged from using contraception. A sin is a sin,
> and they could sin every day taking the Pill or they could sin once and
> have an abortion.  I am not sure I buy that, but there is no telling how
> a religious mind works.
>

There are a lot of biological misconceptions too. Most people think a
baby takes nine months. We were young teenagers when my friend Bobby's
sister was married and had a baby at 7 months. Turns out, a lot of
times the first baby is premature. His mother told us that and of
course, she would know.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-04-26 11:23 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 11:09:21 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > The U.S. government bows its head to the evangelical Right.
> >
> > If I had my way, Welfare recipients would be sterilized. Or at least
> > forced to use the subcutaneous implant.
> >
>
>
>
> You know that a lot of people will take a very dim view of that
> attitude.

I'm pretty sure the word "genocide" would be used.

> I don't know what we are supposed to do about people who
> continue to procreate when they can't even look after themselves. You
> can't let the children suffer for the bad judgement of their parents.
> That leaves the rest of us to pay for he support of those kids in
> addition to our own, and I don't think that's fair to us.

It's not fair to anybody. Not to the kids, not to the parents (not really,
because they don't ever learn that actions have consequences), and not
to us.

Cindy Hamilton

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 11:44:34 AM UTC-4, Sheldon wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:09:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
> >On 4/26/2020 10:53 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> >>> Birth control other than condoms can be
> >>> difficult for young people. When I was younger, even condoms were a bit
> >>> of a hassle, you had to ask the pharmacist that had them out of sight.
> >>> Today you pick the ones you want off a rack in Walmart.
> >>
> >> Back in the 1970s when I became sexually active, it was trivially easy
> >> to get birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, etc., at least if you
> >> had a little money. I got my first prescription for the pill from the
> >> University of Michigan Student Health Service.
> >
> >In the 60s it was not like that, especially for unmarried women.
>
> Throughout the '60s condoms were kept out of sight behind the
> pharmacist's counter and married or not one pretty much needed a
> doctor's prescription or have an older adult buy them... at 18 years
> old (the legal age then) it was a lot easier to buy booze. At that
> time the most common method for teens to obtain condoms was to steal
> them from their parent's stash... at that time parents were very
> reluctant to supply their teenagers with condoms.

Jesus H. Christ, people. The 60s were FIFTY years ago. It's a whole
'nother ballgame.

Cindy Hamilton

[Cindy Hamilton]

They'd be free to decline Welfare and do whatever they want about
their reproductive activities.

It's moot, really. Just a thought experiment.

Cindy Hamilton

[Gary]

Sheldon Martin wrote:
>
> Throughout the '60s condoms were kept out of sight behind the
> pharmacist's counter and married or not one pretty much needed a
> doctor's prescription or have an older adult buy them... at 18 years
> old (the legal age then) it was a lot easier to buy booze. At that
> time the most common method for teens to obtain condoms was to steal
> them from their parent's stash... at that time parents were very
> reluctant to supply their teenagers with condoms.

When my daughter was age 16, she had a friend nearby and her
mother told her that she keeps a box of condoms in a drawer
and to use one if she needed it.

My daughter knew about that too.

So I told my daughter that I'll keep a box in a drawer here
too and whenever I might check, they damn sure better ALL
still be there! >;-o

She got the message! :)

[Dave Smith]

Yeah, I know of a few cases where first baby's gestation period was
miraculously accelerated. Perhaps it was due to the white gown being so
tight on the day of the wedding. My SiL had one of those that was born
about 7.5 months after the wedding night conception. Curiously, the
Catholic girl that married my wife's was a secret for a long time. They
knew he had a girlfriend and that it was serious, but had never met her.

Then one night he brought her to meet the family and for Sunday dinner.
He was showing then photos..... this is the chalet where the gang goes
skiing. These are our friends X and Y, That is the mountain we
skied...... this is our daughter..... ;-)


FWIW my friend, a French Canadian, raised in a Catholic community and
educated in the Catholic school system, told be something interesting
that the priest taught them in sex education class. A woman can get
pregnant if she holds on to a man's penis for 10 seconds.

[Dave Smith]

Not to pick a nit, but 1960 was 60 years ago. They used to sell condoms
in washrooms in bars. I wonder how many people thought they were
geniuses for scribbling "This gum tastes like rubber" in the wall beside
the safe dispenser.

[Dave Smith]

You have to wonder which is the selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate one.
Is it the people who to school and work hard and resent seeing their
hard earned money being taxed away to be spent on lazy, irresponsible
people, or is it the people who sit around day collecting welfare and
popping out more kids for other people to support.

[Cindy Hamilton]

The 1960s ended fifty years ago. Nearly every woman who's making babies
today wasn't even alive in the 1960s, much less worrying about birth
control.

Cindy Hamilton

[dsi1]

That's the way it was on this rock for young women when we were in college. That's actually a good way to handle things. My wife assisted with some D&Cs back in those days.

[Dave Smith]

I think it was much to difficult for the women who needed a medical
procedure and they often ended up going for risky illegal abortions.

[Bruce]

You're a scary man, Dave Smith.

[Bruce]

And fell pregnant?

[Boron Elgar]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:18:05 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

You are an asshole.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

>The US is not promoting birth control at all, doubt they will. If
> anything, have a baby you cannot afford and we'll give you more money.

Maybe because before the pandemic, at least, the majority seemed to be saying that we needed MORE babies?

What amazes me is how some people criticize certain people in the US for having babies, then turn around and lambast those middle-class people who don't WANT children, or who do want them, but are not about to move to crime-ridden neighborhoods just so they can afford them. Make up your minds, politicians! Either that or make things easier for the lower-middle-class - or maybe even loosen the immigration laws!

What we DON'T need is more babies who were unwanted by one or both parents. And don't expect women to give up babies for adoption anymore. Aside from the fact that most single adult females don't do that now (it's a life-long trauma), there aren't as many adoptive couples as in the past, likely in part because of fertility clinics. Just look at all the foster kids, about half of whom seem to be white, begging on TV and in the newspapers Every Week to be adopted.


Lenona.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

From August 2019:


Baptist leader and historical theologian Albert Mohler says that refusing to have children isn't "human":

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/27/briefing-8-27-19

Quotes:

"We're talking about whether or not there will be a coming generation."


Um, no, we're not. Most people still want children - even if they can't afford them. (This is something he doesn't address properly; just because the Depression birth rate MAY have been higher than it is now doesn't mean they could really afford the children they had back then; they just didn't have access to good birth control. He doesn't mention the environment or pollution either - and since he lives in Kentucky, it's not as though he could be unaware of the cancer rates in Appalachian states.)

"Parents are far more conservative than non-parents. It's because they can't afford to be otherwise. They have to raise their children in an understanding of nurture and truth and discipline and teaching."

Not exactly. Ask any teacher who gets blamed for a lazy student's bad grades.

And, from commentator Raven at the Patheos blog:

Sept. 6:
"Of course, we all know what Mohler really means here.
"The SBC, which he is a leader of, has lost a million members total in 12 years of steadily declining membership.
"They have to reproduce because they can't recruit!!!
"And that isn't working either."



Lenona.

[GM]

Many poor single women have babies simply to gain more welfare benefits...they look at each kid they spurt out as a "cash cow"...

--
Best
Greg

[Dave Smith]

And you are and always have been a bitch. What is your point?
>

[Janet]

In article <tykpG.101609$Po5....@fx08.iad>, adavid...@sympatico.ca
says...

D&C is a medical procedure.

Janet UK

[dsi1]

I can't comment on that one as it's somewhat out of my range of expertise!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllLql6fduo

[Dave Smith]

On 2020-04-26 5:57 p.m., Janet wrote:
> In article <tykpG.101609$Po5....@fx08.iad>, adavid...@sympatico.ca

>>> That's the way it was on this rock for young women when we were in
>>> college. That's actually a good way to handle things. My wife
>>> assisted with some D&Cs back in those days.
>>
>> I think it was much to difficult for the women who needed a medical
>> procedure and they often ended up going for risky illegal abortions.
>
> D&C is a medical procedure.

Yes... and ? It is a medical procedure. It is also a form of abortion.
It should be left to professionals. If a woman needs a D&C she goes to a
doctor. If she needs and abortion she should be able to get it from a
proper doctor.

[dsi1]

It's a way to have an abortion without calling it an abortion. It's actually a good way to handle things. Of course there are other reasons to have a D&C besides to terminate a pregnancy. Don't ask me what that would be because I don't really want to find out about such things.

[John Kuthe]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Saw this posted in another group. I'm not a fan of Michael Moore but I
> skimmed through this and found it interesting. It shows the hypocrisy
> of the green energy movement and how the earth is worse for it.
>
> Electric cars, solar panels, windmills are causing a lot of
> environmental damage. Bio Mass plants are deforesting the US and we are
> shipping trees to Europe.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
>
> Mea time, the price of gas is down so I'm off to fill the tank on my
> fartmobile.

HUMAN OVERPOPULATION is gonna/IS causing the 6th Extinction! We are in the BEGINNING STAGES of it!! And for the first time in geologic time, THIS Extinction is caused my ONE SPECIES! US! Homo Sapiens!

We got too good at surviving! And reproducing!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

We can't SEE IT because we think everything we are doing is just so cool! And THEY ARE NOT!

John Kuthe...

[Dave Smith]

Yes, it is an abortion with our calling it an abortion, but both are
medical procedures and should have been available to people who were in
need of them without the subterfuge.

[Leo]

On 2020 Apr 23, , Cindy Hamilton wrote
(in article<5a07b873-5b6a-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>):

> What's your plan for waste disposal?

Yucca Mountain. Billions of taxpayer dollars to build it. Nothing at all
done with it. Other countries can deal with their own nuclear waste. AFAIK,
nobody deals with it at all now. Don’t deal with it, and it will go away.
It will! It only depends on the half-life of the element :)
I agree with dsi1 that nuclear is the future. Unfortunately, even nuclear
will run out someday. Well...there’s always the Sun. And then it will run
out. Entropy and all that.

leo

[Bruce]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 19:13:43 -0700, Leo <leobla...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Nuclear is like drunk people playing with hand grenades.

[Hank Rogers]

Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 19:13:43 -0700, Leo <leobla...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2020 Apr 23, , Cindy Hamilton wrote
>> (in article<5a07b873-5b6a-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> What's your plan for waste disposal?
>>
>> Yucca Mountain. Billions of taxpayer dollars to build it. Nothing at all
>> done with it. Other countries can deal with their own nuclear waste. AFAIK,

>> nobody deals with it at all now. Don’t deal with it, and it will go away.

>> It will! It only depends on the half-life of the element :)
>> I agree with dsi1 that nuclear is the future. Unfortunately, even nuclear

>> will run out someday. Well...there’s always the Sun. And then it will run

>> out. Entropy and all that.
>
> Nuclear is like drunk people playing with hand grenades.
>

Not brave enuf to sniff Fruce?

[dsi1]

It's not good to let fear and ignorance rule ones' decisions. Most people think that renewable energy is going to save us in the near future but what if it doesn't? What we're going to need is something quick and hopefully not dirty until these technologies are developed. The reality is that nuclear power is our cleanest and safest source at this time. The people that are afraid will completely ignore/forget/repress the fact that producing energy has always been a dangerous and dirty business. The proposed small modular reactors will be safer, cleaner, and more scalable, than any options available to us in the near future.

The old farts think that we have all the time in the world to work on this problem. That's not what the kids are feeling, they're feeling the pressure and not interested in the same old song and dance routine.

[dsi1]

That's what we people that have graduated from college call a specious statement.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/specious

[Bruce]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 20:02:33 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
<dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:

>It's not good to let fear and ignorance rule ones' decisions. Most people think that renewable energy is going to save us in the near future but what if it doesn't? What we're going to need is something quick and hopefully not dirty until these technologies are developed. The reality is that nuclear power is our cleanest and safest source at this time. The people that are afraid will completely ignore/forget/repress the fact that producing energy has always been a dangerous and dirty business. The proposed small modular reactors will be safer, cleaner, and more scalable, than any options available to us in the near future.
>
>The old farts think that we have all the time in the world to work on this problem.

The problem is already being solved with renewable energy. Only the
old farts have a problem with that. They think renewable means hippie,
gay and commie.

>That's not what the kids are feeling

Please stop referring to 30 and 40 year olds as kids. A kid is under
18.

[dsi1]

I don't know what the heck you're talking about half the time. That's probably a good sign.

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/750x445/1186228.jpg

[Leo]

On 2020 Apr 26, , Bruce wrote
(in article<5fgcafp105gjn32mr...@4ax.com>):

> Nuclear is like drunk people playing with hand grenades.

We are starting to sober up. Ultimately, nuclear will be all that we have.
You can jive on sunlight and wind power or accept reality. Maybe we can
build a solar collecting Dyson sphere around the Earth, but that comes with
a whole ‘nother set of problems. Maybe a new branch of energy science
that runs on dirt or sea water will emerge. Other than that, it’s over
man!
But I won’t be here and will leave a smarter generation to figure it out.
My generation did humanity no favors.

leo

[Hank Rogers]

No, a kid is a young goat.

[songbird]

dsi1 wrote:
...

> It's not good to let fear and ignorance rule ones' decisions. Most people think that renewable energy is going to save us in the near future but what if it doesn't? What we're going to need is something quick and hopefully not dirty until these technologies are developed. The reality is that nuclear power is our cleanest and safest source at this time. The people that are afraid will completely ignore/forget/repress the fact that producing energy has always been a dangerous and dirty business. The proposed small modular reactors will be safer, cleaner, and more scalable, than any options available to us in the near future.

BS.

nukes take forever to build and forever to clean up when they
shit the bed.

can put up wind towers in a few years, same with solar.

use existing power lines and add some more here or there
to get better cross connections and distribution and it is
done without the risks of glow in the dark accidents or
poisoned land.

> The old farts think that we have all the time in the world to work on this problem. That's not what the kids are feeling, they're feeling the pressure and not interested in the same old song and dance routine.

i'm not interested in self-serving excuses from the
older people who think they are not responsible for the
mess they've made even when the science has been clear
for many years.

that they cared so little for the future that they'd
screw their own children and the rest of their decendents
(if there are any) tells you all you need to know about
that generation. greedy, selfish and destructive.

the sooner you stop digging the sooner you get out of
a hole. by the time you build a nuke plant and find a
safe way to store the waste you could build a heck of a
lot more wind power or solar for less $.

it's already happened. wake up. the world has been
moving on. it would be much further along without
obstructionists and idiots but oh well, that's on them.


songbird

[dsi1]

America has a goal of 100% renewable powered in 30 years My guess is that it's going to need some help by using nukes to meet that goal. You believe that we don't need them. Who's right? Me, of course.

Hawaii has a goal of 100% in 25 years. Perhaps we'll be able to reach that goal before most of all ya'alls because we're so far South. My guess is that within 10 years we'll have high capacity storage batteries that will revolutionize the structure of our power system. I'm betting that Hawaii won't need to go nuclear but the rest of the world might. I is already woke and knows what's happening. Quit being a snootyburd. You get the last word.

[songbird]

dsi1 wrote:
...

> America has a goal of 100% renewable powered in 30 years My guess is that it's going to need some help by using nukes to meet that goal. You believe that we don't need them. Who's right? Me, of course.

yes, sure, uhuh, tell me how many Gigwatts of solar and wind
have been put in the past 5yrs compared to nukes in the world.

> Hawaii has a goal of 100% in 25 years. Perhaps we'll be able to reach that goal before most of all ya'alls because we're so far South. My guess is that within 10 years we'll have high capacity storage batteries that will revolutionize the structure of our power system. I'm betting that Hawaii won't need to go nuclear but the rest of the world might. I is already woke and knows what's happening. Quit being a snootyburd. You get the last word.

Hawaii is already putting orders for large battery storage.
And also putting work back into their geothermal wells which
is an excellent use of a natural resource there instead of
messing around with nukes. kudoes. Hawaii will be near 100%
sooner than many other states!

in the meantime:

https://electrek.co/2020/04/17/tesla-completes-massive-expansion-big-battery/

in just a few months a 50% expansion. no nuke needed.


songbird (everyone knows you can't resist the last word

[Gary]

dsi1 wrote:
>
> The reality is that nuclear power is our cleanest and safest
> source at this time.

That's what's powering my lights and computer now. I never worry
about it. It's located maybe about 70 miles from here.
If that ever melts down our only worry will be if the
wind is blowing our way. Plenty safe from earthquakes
and tsunami's though.

My company is about to make offshore windmills soon
though. (and there goes the cheap electric bills)

> The old farts think that we have all the time in the world
> to work on this problem. That's not what the kids are feeling,

Aren't you an old fart too?

[Dave Smith]

On 2020-04-27 2:07 a.m., songbird wrote:

> dsi1 wrote:

>
>> The old farts think that we have all the time in the world to work
>> on this problem. That's not what the kids are feeling, they're
>> feeling the pressure and not interested in the same old song and
>> dance routine.
>
> i'm not interested in self-serving excuses from the older people who
> think they are not responsible for the mess they've made even when
> the science has been clear for many years.

With all due respects, I would suggest that the miserable old bastards
started working on cleaning up the environment years ago. Our
grandparents had been a lot less respect for the land and nature than we
have. They clear cut forests, spewed industrial smoke into the air and
dumped chemicals and biological pollutants into streams and rivers. I
don't think you can imagine how much worse it would be now if they had
not started to clean up their act more than 60 years ago.

Maybe our biggest fault was trying to do too much for our children and
turned then into hypocritical snow flakes.

[Sheldon Martin]

There aren't nearly as many old farts as there are 16-26 year olds
increasing the population way beyond manageable at the speed of light.
The biggest blight on this planet is over population... I hate that my
tax dollars are supporting yoose and your useless nincompoop spawn.

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
> Please stop referring to 30 and 40 year olds as kids.
> A kid is under 18.

I will disagree with you there.
There's no light switch that you turn on at age
18 that magically transforms you into an adult.

At age 18 many kids are "officially" adults but
that's just a political definition depending on
where you live and current laws.

Many of these "adults" can be drafted for a war.
In the USA, it's the year you turn 19.
But many aren't allowed to drink until age 21.

18 year old kids still think they know everything
and the ones that go to college are still supported
by their parents for several more years.

In my case, I watched my daughter grow and mature
and all her friends too. It's a slow process. Might
start at age 18 but IMO, a true adult begins at
age 25, on average.

As I said though, it's a progression over many years
and not an automatic age.

[Gary]

Hank Rogers wrote:

>
> Bruce wrote:
> > A kid is under 18.

> No, a kid is a young goat.

heh heh. Very true and they are also way under age 18.

Goats are odd but friendly creatures with alien eyes.
Remember the old cartoons that always showed goats
eating tin cans? lol

And then in real life, we have goats that climb trees.
How crazy is that? Probably since they still can't
get a driver's license yet.

http://viralcircus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/goats1.jpg

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >So I told my daughter that I'll keep a box in a drawer here
> >too and whenever I might check, they damn sure better ALL
> >still be there! >;-o
> >
> >She got the message! :)

> And fell pregnant?

Yes. At age 30 after she got married.
That doesn't mean she didn't have sex before
but a "Dad" doesn't what to hear about that. :)

[Dave Smith]

On 2020-04-27 11:30 a.m., Gary wrote:
> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> A kid is under 18.
>
>> No, a kid is a young goat.
>
> heh heh. Very true and they are also way under age 18.
>
> Goats are odd but friendly creatures with alien eyes.
> Remember the old cartoons that always showed goats
> eating tin cans? lol
>
> And then in real life, we have goats that climb trees.
> How crazy is that? Probably since they still can't
> get a driver's license yet.

I have known a few people who had goats. They were fun, but they were
very mischievous. The place behind us has a U pick berry operation and
small petting zoo. The guy built a nice high pen for them and built an
elevated walkway for them. When I was taking riding lessons there was
a pair of goats at the stable. I used to take my dog once in a while. He
would go around and greet all the horses, touching noses with them. He
had a special attraction to the goats.

[Bruce]

Yes, your generation has a hangup with that. "Not my little princess!"

[Bruce]

dsi1 calls people in their 30s and 40 kids.

[Cindy Hamilton]

People who were fucking like rabbits at 16 think their children won't
do the same.

Cindy Hamilton

[Dave Smith]

The children of the people who were fucking like rabbits at 16 probably
can't accept that their parents had sex.

[Gary]

No. All dads of every generation don't like some
jackass boyfriend trying to get into their little girls pants.

We know that we always tried to do that when young
so we know how any boyfriend thinks too.

You just speak in ingnorance with the subject. If you had
a daughter yourself, you would agree. It's just a Dad
thing which you have no clue about.

[Gary]

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>
> Bruce wrote:
> > Yes, your generation has a hangup with that. "Not my little princess!"
>
> People who were fucking like rabbits at 16 think their children won't
> do the same.

Interesting here that neither of you have kids, yet you're
both experts on the subject.

Us old parents know the deal.
Doesn't mean we have to approve of it.

[Bruce]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:47:16 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>> > Yes, your generation has a hangup with that. "Not my little princess!"
>>
>> People who were fucking like rabbits at 16 think their children won't
>> do the same.
>
>Interesting here that neither of you have kids, yet you're
>both experts on the subject.

I don't have a president but I'm still an expert on Trump.

[Bruce]

Yes, an old school "Dad thing" :)

[Gary]

Ask the kangaroo. She always tells the truth.

Anyway, your response still doesn't change anything. You have no
kids and
you know nothing about that subject.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

Gary, I know you weren't addressing me in particular, but anyway...

The trouble with abstinence-only education is the unspoken message "abstain until marriage or death, whichever comes first."

And while exploitation, per se, is always wrong, whether by men or women, I hope that no parent would really prefer to have a dead virgin than a live daughter. (Or that it's reasonable to expect anyone to abstain until age 30 - or that anyone wants to marry a 30-year-old virgin!)

Here's an example of the type of adult I would NOT have appreciated in my younger days (this is from a 1980 Ann Landers column - the writer clearly could have asked, instead, how to prevent fatal accidents - but didn't! Talk about screwed-up priorities):

"The lovely, intelligent 19-year-old daughter of a dear friend was
killed recently in a tragic accident. The parents are inconsolable. To
make matters worse, they found birth control pills in the dead girl's
purse... What can we say to alleviate the pain? How can we rear
our own daughters so they will not go down the same road? Is this
something the majority of young are doing now?...Please say
something to help our friends who not only must face the loss of their
daughter but also their failure to keep her pure for the wedding bed?"


Lenona.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

You don't have to be an insider to have common sense. OR to remember what your own parents would have done - and why that was good or bad, now that you have an adult's perspective.

And here's why most parents born after 1970 have changed their priorities from what their own parents had - hint: it's not because they're spineless liberals:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2020/04/covid-repurposi.html#comments

The really important part starts more than halfway down, at April 26, 9:10 AM, but you might want to read the earlier parts starting at April 24, 8:47 PM as well.


Lenona.

[Hank Rogers]

And ass sniffing.

[Bruce]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 16:42:28 -0500, Hank Rogers <Nos...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Skankie Hankie and his fetish.

[Cindy Hamilton]

I have been observing parents for quite a long time. I don't have to
do something to know about it.

Cindy Hamilton

[jmcquown]

One of the most uncomfortable conversations I ever had with my mother
was when she was 82 years old. She told me she was terrified on her
wedding night and wouldn't let my father touch her. She said she was
afraid he'd divorce her because it was *weeks* later she finally let him
do the deed. I truly had no idea what to say. Obviously they managed
at least three times because I have two older brothers and here I am,
but I gather it was not pleasurable for her. I'm 99.9% sure she never
had an orgasm. How sad. :(

Jill

[Dave Smith]

Some people have serious hangups about their bodies and their sexuality,
and sex in general. I had a school mate whose mother was the
kindergarten teacher at our school and he was very proud to let us know
that his mother was a virgin. He had an older brother and sister. There
was guy in my class, not the brightest bulb on the tree, who was
incensed over have seen one of the girls in our grade 8 class in the
drugstore buying sanitary napkins. He was absolutely outraged and
thought her mother was sick in the head to allow her to do that.

Having belonged to a number of gyms over the years and having worked in
places with group showers I am kind of used to baring all in front of
other people to have a shower. Most gyms now also have at least one
private shower area. I realize there are people who may have body
situations that they are embarrassed about , but I have to admit that I
find it a little creepy that some people are so extremely shy about
their bodies. ... like guys who wear a bathing suit into a public shower
and then cover up with a towel to remove it. I just have to wonder what
sorts of dirty thoughts they are hiding.

[Gary]

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Some people have serious hangups about their bodies and their sexuality,
> and sex in general. I had a school mate whose mother was the
> kindergarten teacher at our school and he was very proud to let us know
> that his mother was a virgin.

I will guess that her name was Mary.

> Having belonged to a number of gyms over the years and having worked in
> places with group showers I am kind of used to baring all in front of
> other people to have a shower.

I had to do that in high school and never liked it. 40 guys
walking around naked in the locker room and standing in one large
shower room. Too weird for me.

If only they had let me use the girl's locker room.

[Sheldon Martin]

Didn't they make you use the girls locker room? lol

[Hank Rogers]

They *had* to put yoose in with the girls Popeye. Yoose wouldn't
leave the boy's peepees alone.

[Dave Smith]

On 2020-04-28 12:14 p.m., Gary wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Some people have serious hangups about their bodies and their sexuality,
>> and sex in general. I had a school mate whose mother was the
>> kindergarten teacher at our school and he was very proud to let us know
>> that his mother was a virgin.
>
> I will guess that her name was Mary.

LOL There are still lots of people who believe that one.

>> Having belonged to a number of gyms over the years and having worked in
>> places with group showers I am kind of used to baring all in front of
>> other people to have a shower.
>
> I had to do that in high school and never liked it. 40 guys
> walking around naked in the locker room and standing in one large
> shower room. Too weird for me.

What I always thought was weirder was the guys who too shy.

> If only they had let me use the girl's locker room.
>

I can imagine you would have felt more comfortable there.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

Jill, that's very sad, and I'm very sorry to hear it.

Did you ever find out - or guess - exactly why she was so terrified? That is, what her parents might have told her or not told her, beforehand?

It reminds me of what I once told someone. If a young woman today truly wants to save sex for marriage, well, there's no shortage of good reasons for that, provided she doesn't use that as an excuse to marry at 18 or to marry a charmer she hardly knows. BUT...if she's still talking in terms of "giving" herself to her husband, that just might mean she isn't really ready for marriage, since the implication is that she doesn't really want to have sex; she just thinks of it as a "wifely duty."

(Yes, I realize that "giving" is pretty common terminology, but still...it's not as though evangelicals are known for encouraging women to exercise their sexual rights IN a marriage.)


Lenona.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

Re my last post - more specifically, evangelicals may well accuse teen girls of being sinful just for HAVING sexual feelings, so it's not as though they can just turn them back on, necessarily, as they get older. (Plenty of modern women have testified that purity culture just made them feel guilty and dirty AFTER they married, whenever they had sex.)