Saturday, August 9, 2008

Abstinence-Only Education

I have already written about how my school basically ignored church-state separation. This especially included sex education. In our school, we were strictly abstinence-only. One day in 9th grade health class, the boys and girls were separated and the “sex lady” (who happened to go to my parents’ church) came in to talk to us. She told us that we should not have sex, and even that we should not have boyfriends. Volunteers were taken in a game and put into two groups: those with boyfriends, who invariably became pregnant and diseased, and those with “friends” who remained abstinent and got happily married. Although my school did not allow her to show pictures of diseased genitals, I heard that other local schools did. The Sex Lady drew a phallic shape on the board to represent a condom, and then she drew a large hole in it and a happy little sperm swimming through. Of course, the AIDS virus is much smaller than a sperm, she smugly told us. The take-home message was that condoms were absolutely worthless.

This message was taken to heart by many of my fellow students. Not the abstinence part, the condoms being worthless part. Both my junior high and my high school had very high rates of teen pregnancy. When I spoke to girls who had become pregnant, they were generally extremely ignorant of birth control and believed the lies they had been told about condoms. Abortion was, of course, out of the question for any girl that became pregnant, due to her own religious beliefs as well as parental notification laws. Adoption was also never considered; I’m not sure why.

Abstinence-only education does not prevent sex, it only prevents safer sex. I hardly expect that a Bible Belt school will put condoms on bananas, but is it too much to expect them not to lie? Condoms have failure rates, but they are many, many times safer than not using one. After all, seatbelts do not prevent 100% of all deaths in car wrecks, does that mean you don’t use them at all? I would rather the school not breathe a word about sex than say these lies. In this case, the school is actually causing harm. Hardly anyone is persuaded not to have sex by this talk, however, some may be persuaded not to use condoms. Most young men have a prejudice against them anyway, and a nudge in that direction may be all they need to abandon their use. They fatalistically accept the risk that pregnancy could happen in exchange for instant gratification, or try to pull out with the attendant high failure rate.

I also remember a school-wide abstinence rally in 9th grade. The speaker was a woman who claimed to be a former model. She illustrated her commitment to abstinence by telling us a story about how Sylvester Stallone had wanted to screw her and she had had the strength to say no. The tale had no resonance whatsoever with the young teenage girls who had never thought of him as hot. There was the usual claptrap about saving yourself for marriage and how wonderful it would be on your honeymoon. My first time hurt like a bitch and made me sore for days, so I could see how GREAT that would be for a new bride and groom. Of course, secondary virginity was an option if you had already messed up, but it was clear that you were used goods and less worthy.

It is clear to me from my experiences that abstinence-only education is not handled well by the schools. Why should it be? It takes no special teaching for kids to know that they shouldn’t have sex. If comprehensive sex education will not be taught, then teach no sex ed at all. The outcome will be no worse and we won’t waste the money.

34 comments:

Scott said...

Yeah, the sex ed at my school was bullshit too. At the end of the unit we played a jeopardy-style game, and one of the categories was "Abstinence". The questions were things like "What is the only 100% way to not get STDs? ABSTINENCE" or replace STD with pregnancy, yadda yadda yadda, you get the idea. God damn, I hate living in the fucking Bible belt.

Josh said...

I'll take "things that make me appreciate my Indianapolis public school even more than I already did" for 1000, please, Alex.

They stressed the "don't have sex" bit, but they had the decency to show everyone what to do and what their options were if they were going to do it anyway (and if they had to face the consequences).

Nathan said...

The thing is, if you believe the Bible, abstinence ISN'T a sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy. I mean, what about Mary?

Kazim said...

I had a really good, comprehensive sex education, partly because I was in an excellent private school during my junior high years. I hadn't really seen what abstinence-only sex ed looks like until my teenaged stepdaughter came home with an "information" packet.

It was full of quiz questions which were technically accurate but extremely misleading. For example, one said "Condoms are guaranteed to stop diseases and pregnancy (true/false)." The correct answer was "false," since guarantee implies 100%, but no mention was made of the prevention rate, which is the important part.

There was also a sappy short-answer question that said: "I am worth... (blank)." The correct answer being "the wait," but we came up with several borderline obscene answers before writing that one.

Dianna said...

Actually, sex ed begins at home. Waiting for marriage is the ultimate goal but isn't easy in todays' society. Sex ed for me in school was learning what boys & girls body parts looked like & how they functioned. Since I already knew I'd be waiting to engage, it was a no-brainer for me. The only way to 100% avoid getting preggers & STD's is to abstain. Associate with others who feel likewise & it's much easier. Having a BF/GF is for those who are ready to get married. Like I said, it's not easy in society today but it CAN be done.

tungtide said...

Between the education from home and the reasonably comprehensive sex-ed in high school, I was well educated by the time I got to college. (And that was still in my religious days).

A few of the dorms had sex-ed demonstrations that were completely voluntary but provided good information as well as free condoms, especially stressing that safe sex was the responsibility of all people involved.

The condom on a banana demonstration was present (I had actually seen this in high school as well) and I was amazed by the number of people who were finding this out for the first time. I never found out where many of them were from, but I can imagine that the more conservative parts of California were probably well represented (the majority of the undergraduate class was from in-state).

It wasn't until years later that I began to come across the bull known as Abstinence Only Education that I realized how well-educated I had been on the subject.

Anath said...

We were on the borderline between abstinence only and actual birth control education.

They never put a condom on a banana for us, AND they emphasized the failure rate, but they did give us worksheets and lists of some available birth control options. Though, when I decided to take matters into my own hands get my own birth control, I realized that the "world of birth control" is so much larger than presented on a sheet with a couple pills, female and condoms, and the word "abstinence". You can get patches, and inter-vaginal rings, and shots that work for 3 months as well as an assortment of other options! WOW! Then I had a problem choosing because no one had taught me anything about them, those around me didn't know anything about them either, so I was just going on advertisements at my doctors' office and a couple internet articles.

Now that I've done some research, I feel a lot more informed, but I wish I had been informed a lot earlier. I also wish that it wasn't a stigma to say "yeah, I'm on birth control"... its like you have to say it in a whisper, while glancing around to make sure no one else hears your dirty secret. They hear it as "I'm a slut and like to sin a lot and have sex before marriage!" rather than "I am an informed, responsible adult taking charge of my own life and choices."

spajadigit said...

We didn't have the banana- for our class (which was not split into male/female) it was a sawed off broomstick. And the fellow teaching it was mighty uncomfortable- he was also the football coach and watching him squirm was very satisfying.

And, Dianna, I'd have to totally disagree with you about waiting to have sex for marriage being the ultimate goal, and having a BF/GF was for those ready to be married.

Relationships are learning experiences, and romantic ones are even more so. getting into a romantic relationship teaches you about what works, what doesn't and by experiencing them as teens, you end up closer to figuring out what you are looking for in a mate.

If I had waited to have sex with one woman I almost married, I wouldn't have learned that her negative body image prevented her from enjoying it as such, which made what should have been fun and engaging horrible and something to avoid.

Granted, that's anecdotal, and worth less than a grain of salt, but I've heard similar stories from others and since sexual compatibility is one of the cornerstones to a healthy mariage you need to know beforehand if it's even possible.

shane said...

In my Catholic all-girls high school (yeah, blecchhh), it wasn't the nuns who taught "sex ed." We had this old priest, with white hair that had a widow's peak (somehow this makes it worse)who spoke to us teenage girls as if sex were some hideous, mechanical procedure. In retrospect, I cannot imagine why he was considered qualified him to do this and I can't bear to entertain the thought that he probably got off on it in some horrible way.
Of course, the very heart and soul of all this anti-sex sex-ed is the deep and abiding distrust and hatred of our own human sexuality that so many people harbor.

JayBird said...

Results from removing God from our school system:


A. Young People

1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.

2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.

3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.

B. The Family

1. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.

2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%

3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.

4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.

C. Education

1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT scores had been steady for many years before 1963. From 1963 they rapidly declined for 18 consecutive years, even though the same test has been used since 1941.

2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.

a. That could have an impact if the private schools had higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly 100 points higher than public schools.

b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the schools.

c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.

3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as do the public schools.

D. The Nation

1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.

3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.

2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens through legal abortions just since 1973.


http://www.inplainsite.org/what_happened_when_the_praying.html#What%20Happened

Aikidomaster said...

Jaybird...

You have listed as a source for your "data",the web site "In plain Sight.org"... which in turn lists the names and titles of various Departments of the Government. I want to see the various reports and studies that you quote, not the names of department(s) of the various government agencies that supposedly produced this data. Give me hard data, not wishful thinking.
In the meantime, I think that this young lady has been doing us all a favor, encouraging all those who read this blog to actually THINK and form our own opinions on the subjects she covers. I realize that thinking for yourself is something that most people avoid now-a-days, but really you ought to try it sometime... you might actually like it.

Cordially,
Aikidomaster

Microbiologychick said...

Jaybird,

First of all, correlation is not causation.

I'm suspicious of your data, as it seems to come from a biased site, but in any case there are contradicting studies that say religiosity is correlated with worse societal health, such as increased teen pregnancy, STDs, and violence.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

And "God" was never removed from the school system. Students are still allowed to pray, teachers just may not mandate it and lead it in class. The school may not show a preference to religion, that's all.

In any case, my high school was full of both prayer and pregnancy.

Microbiologychick said...

Jaybird,

By the way, you're completely wrong on teen pregnancy.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

The highest rate of teen pregnancy ever was 96 births per 1000 in
1957. It declined until 1988, went up slightly, and declined again in the 1990s.

So we can play statistics all you want. It has no bearing on school prayer or abstinence-only education.

Robin said...

Incidentally, it is also important, when looking at SAT scores, to consider who is taking the test. In our country, a BA or BS is becoming increasingly important in order to be successful. It is almost always neccessary to take the SATs to be accepted into an undergraduate program. When a high school diploma was sufficient to support a family, people who were less academically inclined had no motivation to go to college and no reason to take the SAT. There are now some states that require all students to take the SATs. When you compare scores, are you also comparing the populations that achieved the scores?

JayBird said...

"I want to see the various reports and studies that you quote, not the names of department(s) of the various government agencies that supposedly produced this data. Give me hard data, not wishful thinking."

No problem,
If you would like a copy of America: To Pray or Not to Pray?, send $7.95 to Specialty Research Associates, P.O. Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008. All of the figures and statistics compiled in this book are taken from data made available by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Disease Control, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, Vital Statistics of the United States, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other official sources.
Their works are cited. This is not my book.

"By the way, you're completely wrong on teen pregnancy."

Your statistics are correct however they are not the statistics I am referring to. I am not describing birthrates.
I am referring to the proportion of births to teenagers that are unmarried teenagers that has continued to increase, without interruption. It has increase from 15.7%, which it had never been over 15%, to 78.7 percent in 2000

I know these results are shocking, but hindsight is 20/20. You can disagree with them and try to get what you want from them, or shrug them off, insult me, but the truth is when any one of us watch the evening news we see the same things...the failures and declines of our society in almost every moral category...which has boomed since about 1963.

Hannu said...

Jaybird said: "Results from removing God from our school system:"

Oh please, a deity isn't a prerequisite for prevention of teen pregnancies, nor is it for moral behaviour. In general, the most religious places in the US have the most teen pregnancies, as a recent study indicated. My country, Finland, is nearly as secular as you can get and we have no teen pregnancy problem whatsoever. It always amazes me how can birth control vs. abstinence even be an issue in the US? It certainly isn't up to debate here.

The thing is kids of today are much more independent than they were 50 years ago. You can't scare them into submission ("Respect our decisions. Don't have sex before marriage"). Most kids are going to either A) Have sex using a condom (or pills in a more stable relationship) or B) Have sex without a condom.

The pleas to abstain ring quite hollow. Listen yourself.

JayBird said...

"Oh please, a deity isn't a prerequisite for prevention of teen pregnancies, nor is it for moral behaviour."

Great opinion...but it hardly answers the outrageous, plain, bold, alarming numbers.

Also, your country Finland, Has one of the Highest percentages of Divorce. 51.2% of all marriages in Finland end in divorce. It appears your country has its own issues.

Kazim said...

Your statistics are correct however they are not the statistics I am referring to. I am not describing birthrates.
I am referring to the proportion of births to teenagers that are unmarried teenagers that has continued to increase, without interruption. It has increase from 15.7%, which it had never been over 15%, to 78.7 percent in 2000


Wonderful. So in fact, Jaybird admits that since "God was removed from schools," the teenage birthrate has gone DOWN, not up -- which most people would regard as a GOOD thing. All he's complaining about is that among the teens who do get pregnant, they are no longer forced to get married. Boo hoo.

JayBird said...

"All he's complaining about is that among the teens who do get pregnant, they are no longer forced to get married. Boo hoo."

Again no reply to the outrageous numbers posted. Yes, unmarried teen pregnancies have risen greatly. This leads to heart ached broken homes, leading to more failures and declines of our society. Do you encourage fatherless children?
Do we care about our country or just ourselves?

DB said...

Wow, I was just going to comment that abstinence only education is a sham and the religious-rights idea that sex is bad and evil, but it looks like someone thinks that the reason society has "failed" is because an imaginary being has been removed from school. Let me get this right...society is failing because we have "removed" god from schools? I am confused. How would you put god "back" into schools? What are your suggestions to solve this problem? I know you can spout statistics, but what is your opinion? Socialized prayer time?

JayBird said...

"Let me get this right...society is failing because we have "removed" god from schools? I am confused."

Most are.

"Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord" Psalm 33:12

The solution is getting back to where we began...as a nation founded on Christian principles. I doubt that you would agree with this since staggering statistics don't at all phase you.

imaginary being ?

DB said...

But what are those Christian principles our country was founded on? And what exactly has been removed from schools (specifics, not just "god") that would back up your evidence? I see your statistics, but statistics tell us nothing without analysis, so please, enlighten me. How would you recommend fixing this societal ill? Simply saying getting back to our roots is one thing, but what changes would you suggest?

Aikidomaster said...

Oh, PLEASE!!!!???!?!?

Will you guys please get off of the "statistics" thing?

Give me control of the parameters and selection of input data, and I can "massage" any particular data set to say anything I want it to. Haven't you guys ever taken "Statistics" in college? I believe that the main purpose of requiring a "Statistics" course in upper-level education is to help people understand this fact.

I can’t believe that you people are quoting all these different “studies” as if they were the unvarnished “truth.” Microbiology chick is reporting the “facts” of her own experiences with this “abstinence only” approach to sex-education, and the observed results thereof. (Amazingly high pregnancy rates among her peers.) True… this is anecdotal evidence, but I would rather work with anecdotal data that is observed by an individual, than blindly accept any results of statistical studies that are being “massaged” by people that have a particular ax to grind.

I hope Microbiology Chick keeps on with her blog, and doesn’t get mired down with any individual attempts to undermine her efforts to determine the truth or falsity of religious interference/influence in our daily lives.

Keep it up, Hon... you rock!

shane said...

Look, Jaybird, you are merely repeating the patently false meme that America was founded on "Christian" principles. Saying something over and over and wanting it to be true does not - guess what? - ACTUALLY make it true. Here is the first phrase in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1979:

"As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...."

This was endorsed by President John Adams and then ratified unanimously by the Senate.

The Founding Fathers were men of the Enlightenment and notably non-religious, deeply mistrustful of the religious mindset, and extremely careful to erect a strong wall between church and state.

Yes, I know you'd rather this weren't the case, because it deprives you of your convenient, although false, belief in the nature of our national origins, but among rational people with a respect for history, it isn't debatable or open to interpretation.

shane said...

Excuse me....I mistyped the date of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was 1797.

Aikidomaster said...

Upon re-reading my last post, I realize that some people may take my comments the wrong way. I am especially referring to some of the ego-masturbating nit-pickers who seem to be attracted to this blog. I am not opposed to "Statistics", per se. The art and science of impartial statistical analysis is crucial to the scientific study of any particular field of knowledge.

I am opposed to individuals quoting supposedly non-biased studies and statistical analyses that have been worked up with raw data that has been carefully chosen to give the particular results that are desired. This practice is right up there with the type of thinking that old Joe Stalin personified. When members of his inner circle voiced their shock and concern regarding his proposal to hold open elections in Communist Russia,
Stalin replied, “I don’t care who votes, as long as I am the one who counts the votes.”

The fundamentalists and other Christian proselytizers are very fond of releasing supposedly impartial studies that back their agenda. Please don’t fall for this intellectual trap. Demand to see the raw data that was used, and the methodology that was utilized in their computations. Or… simply realize what is occurring, and take anything they present with a huge grain of salt.

This will be my last post commenting on Microbiologychick’s blog. Upon re-reading my earlier comments, I have come to realize that repeated sessions of chemotherapy have affected my mental processes to the point that I can no longer think straight, nor present my thoughts in an accurate, yet non-confrontational manner. (The participants in my cancer support group even have a name for it… “Chemo Brain”!)

In any case I will (hopefully) face my impending death with all the grace and style I have left… without resorting to "theist" beliefs for false comfort. Please keep up the good work, Ladies… you are a ray of intellectual light in an otherwise dark and gloomy world. :-)

Kazim said...

Again no reply to the outrageous numbers posted. Yes, unmarried teen pregnancies have risen greatly. This leads to heart ached broken homes, leading to more failures and declines of our society. Do you encourage fatherless children?
Do we care about our country or just ourselves?


That's because the "outrageous numbers" regarding unwed teen mothers are obviously cherry picked from a larger context of numbers which, as a whole, clearly indicate a net POSITIVE as a result of comprehensive sex ed. You asking if I encourage fatherless children is simply asinine -- of course I don't support fatherless children, which is why I support policies which have resulted in fewer children being born to teens, and better informed kids who don't get pregnant as often.

The fact that fewer teens are getting married after getting pregnant is unfortunate or not so much, depending entirely on how you look at it. Numerous studies (such as, for example, this one and this one indicate net negative socioeconomic consequences for kids who get married too young, and a dramatically higher divorce rate than their adult counterparts.

It seems to me that mourning the loss of shotgun weddings as an acceptable component of society is a vastly inferior impulse to more and better education.

DB said...

The least Jaybird could do is simply answer the questions proposed to him. He presents random statistics, I simply asked him to analyze those and give us a solution to the problem. Removing "god" from schools is one thing, but how would he suggest fixing it?

Kazim said...

Aikido: Exactly. Right on. People can easily be fooled with statistics, but only if they don't educate themselves in following up on the research on their own.

JayBird said...

"Yes, I know you'd rather this weren't the case, because it deprives you of your convenient, although false, belief in the nature of our national origins, but among rational people with a respect for history, it isn't debatable or open to interpretation."

The inhabitants of our nation overwhelmingly believed in God. Begin with the "Mayflower Compact" in 1620...(read it).

Washington's Farewell Address?
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (1792)

"The Founding Fathers were men of the Enlightenment and notably non-religious, deeply mistrustful of the religious mindset, and extremely careful to erect a strong wall between church and state."

Yes, to protect religious beliefs from the Governments hack...as is so apparent and common in History. Unconstitutional...


Aikidomaster

"In any case I will (hopefully) face my impending death with all the grace and style I have left… without resorting to "theist" beliefs for false comfort."

You been presented with the Gospel...

"He presents random statistics, I simply asked him to analyze those and give us a solution to the problem. Removing "god" from schools is one thing, but how would he suggest fixing it?"

I gave you a solution to the problem...problem is, you don't like it.
I'll post it again...

"Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord" Psalm 33:12

The solution is getting back to where we began...as a nation founded on Christian principles.
Not everyone of them believed in God, but an overwhelming majority was interested in founding this nation on Biblical Principles.
I doubt that you would agree with this since staggering statistics don't at all phase you.

Do with these numbers what you like...
Truth is that which is consistent with itself and corresponds to reality.

DB said...

Jaybird, what are those principles we should get back to? Do you not have an answer how to put god back into the schools since that is what your entire argument is all about? Saying you want our country to go back to the christian principles you claim it was founded on is one thing, but not saying what those principles are or presenting any solutions to the problem you pointed out is quite lacking.

Kazim said...

The inhabitants of our nation overwhelmingly believed in God. Begin with the "Mayflower Compact" in 1620...(read it).

The inhabitants of our nation NOW overwhelmingly believe in God. So what? Are you trying to argue that reality is determined by popular vote? Because if so, then I think you are going to have to accept that most marriages SHOULD end in divorce, and quit complaining about God not being in our schools. Furthermore, popular vote would indicate that abortion should remain legal. Watch out when you invoke the argument from popularity, because many of your own views aren't all that popular.

Washington's Farewell Address?
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (1792)


As usual, you manage pick out one quote that appears to be sympathetic to your position, and spin that into supposedly "overwhelming" support for your position. I think it's clear that you're the one who's confused about how statistics work. What, no comment on Washington's other quote about the US NOT being founded on the Christian religion? No lines from Thomas Jefferson or James Madison about the effects of government entanglements in religion? You know, Jefferson's opponents often bitterly opposed him by claiming that he was an atheist, due to the extreme anti-religious views exhibited in his writings. Perhaps you've read the Jefferson Bible, a "good parts only" version that cut out all the miracles and supernatural events, leaving only the bits that Jefferson thought were probably true.

In any case, it wouldn't matter if every single member of the Constitutional Congress personally believed in God. If they had wanted to, they had every opportunity to write a founding document that explicitly acknowledged the need for God in the public sphere. They didn't. Instead, they wrote a secular document where the only notable nods to religion were prohibiting a religious test for office, and an amendment preventing the church and state from interfering with one another mutually.

Yes, to protect religious beliefs from the Governments hack...as is so apparent and common in History. Unconstitutional...

Yes, that, AND to protect the government from religious beliefs. The founding fathers had respect for the government they were creating -- something which you apparently lack.

I gave you a solution to the problem...problem is, you don't like it.
I'll post it again...

"Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord" Psalm 33:12


Give one good reason why anyone should regard your quote from the Bible as having any more authority than if I had quoted Captain Kirk from Star Trek.

The solution is getting back to where we began...as a nation founded on Christian principles.

"...the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Why do you keep calling George Washington a liar?

Not everyone of them believed in God, but an overwhelming majority was interested in founding this nation on Biblical Principles.

So they were interested in it.

Too bad they didn't do it.

Arakrys said...

On statistics: Jaybirds figures are indeed carefully chosen from years to make it seem extreme. If the correlation with prayer were true, why did the lines already go up earlier? As mentioned by others, believers have a relatively high tendency to see correlations when they cannot be proven with the given figures.

If you are interested in stats related to atheism see the links in the 'about' section of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

Aikidomaster, actually your comments don't look too chemobrainiacal to me, but I didn't compare them with earlier contributions. Hope you can make the best of your time!

Arakrys said...

In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM Potholer debunk the myth that atheism leads to more pregnancies, lower morals.