Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The Current Brouhahah - and STDs are rife. Rife!

Well, the Governor of New York was caught hiring a prostitute, and not for the first time. Not only any old prostitute, but one that cost $5,000 an hour! And one that he "transported across state lines" in order to have sex with.

And yet when he appears on stage to aplogize to his family and friends, his wife - a beautiful woman (who looks like Jennifer Aniston!), it must be pointed out - stands by his side.

I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning,and he's been expressing his bewilderment at women who "stand by their man" in this fashion, and I have to say he's right. Spitzer's wife should have stepped up to the podium and told him in public that she wanted a divorce, and he could go make himself feel better by paying for sex with a woman.

That's what I don't understand, really. Athletes who make millions of dollars, surely they don't actually have to pay a woman to have sex with them? Politicans - even balding ones like Spitzer - surely they don't have to pay a woman to have sex with them?

I would think it would be demeaning for a guy - not being able to get sex unless you pay for it. Perhaps that's why he paid $5,000 for his prostitutes - if you have to spend a lot of money on a woman obviously there's nothing sordid or pathetic about it.

And on a slightly related note:

STDs rife among US teenage girls

How can this be possible? Don't these girls know enough to use condoms? Well...of course not, the use of condoms isn't allowed to be advertised, they're not allowed to be taught in sex education, and guys don't like to use em so of course they mustn't be forced to.

It found that nearly half of the African-American girls surveyed had at least one STD, while the rate was 20% among white and Mexican-American teenagers

And then there's this:
The CDC's Devin Fenton said it was a serious issue because the diseases could lead to infertility and cervical cancer.

Why is it serious that any of these girls should become infertile? Seems to me that that's the best thing that could happen to them - that would bring an end to at least one unwed woman's childbearing and welfare-living.

Now, having vented that, I see that the number of teenage girls who took part in this study is given.

Researchers analysed data from a nationally representative sample of 838 US girls aged 14 to 19.

838 adolescent girls took part in this survey, and from this, the headline is, STDs are rife in teenage girls.

How many teenage girls are in the USA??? Because it's rife in 838 of them, can that really be extrapolated to the rest of th country?

From where were these girls tested? In poor communities? In middle class communities? In wealthy communities?

Whenever a study includes less than 10,000 people - I give absolutely no credence to it.

No comments: