"Broken Britain..."

[Goldie Munro]

I heard that phrase from a Brit Journalist discussing the case of the 13 year old father and 15 year old mother currently in the news.

The Journalist stated, "British parents let their kids drink and smoke at home are not strict about them having sex and do not force them to attend school." (I paraphrase not having the quote at hand.)

The British Courts have imposed a 'gag order', with no further news following this date to be released on the case.

It was stated that the 15 year old girl had been having sex with several different young boys and older men, but had been counseled to claim that the 13 year old boy was the father because the 'story would be more valuable...'

The Journalist claimed this sort of behavior was a nationwide occurrence, with Britain having the highest teen age birth rate in Europe.

Of course you know where I am going with this...socialist Europe is beginning to reap the rewards of a progressive liberal ethical and moral climate.

Who could ask for anything more?

I welcome any British resident to confirm or deny or expand on what I heard on the news.

Thank you.



Amicus...

What is it you want us to confiirm or deny? that there is an underage pregnancy in Britain? That a 13 year old is a father? In Britain? God has it ever happened anywhere else? Do 13 year old become parents in the US? No? Really? Amicus give us all a break - really!

 

[Goldie Munro]

awww have i scared Amicus away? (sorry i know i shouldn't rise to the bait...)

 

[cloudy]

awww have i scared Amicus away? (sorry i know i shouldn't rise to the bait...)

I dunno...sometimes ami-baiting is entertaining - for a little while, anyway.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I dunno...sometimes ami-baiting is entertaining - for a little while, anyway.

Yeah - well it entertains me!

 

[cloudy]

Yeah - well it entertains me!

The entertainment value goes up if you've been drinking.

(I've missed you around here! )

 

[Goldie Munro]

The entertainment value goes up if you've been drinking.

(I've missed you around here! )

How did you guess i'd had a couple of gins?

(aww ty)

 

[sr71plt]

I can heartily recommend the King Family vineyards Meritage 2006 tonight. (hic)

 

[Goldie Munro]

I can heartily recommend the King Family vineyards Meritage 2006 tonight. (hic)

Is that gin?

 

[sr71plt]

Is that gin?

No, a red wine blend. I gave up hard liquor when I was expected to be remembering the coversations at cocktail parties.

 

[amicus]

I prefer Boodles & Roses Lime Juice...but then...thas me...speaking of which...

....slurp...

 

[freshface]

~~~

Hi, Cloudy, howzit?

I did. "the worst that could happen" (procul Harem(sp), to Cloudy, a good five years ago...I questioned her philosophy and ethical system; she has never forgiven me.

Most on this forum feel quite the same way, chagrinned that anyone would question left wing liberal promiscuity and relativism.

I mean, who in their right mind would think that abortion is actually killing a baby?

Who on earth would criticize the acceptance and toleration of 'gays' in society as it is their god given, oops, ahm, these folks don't have a god, right to express their sexuality in any way they please and have it taught in the schools.

And you wonder about gender confusion among the young? Silly you.

And civil rights, who in their right mind would challenge 'affirmative action', special treatment for Blacks as a payback for the slavery episodes in America, ah, amend that, world wide, througout history?

And, to paraphrase a line from a film, "Shooter", "Some of these damned fools think one single man, an individual can make a difference! We end up having to kill them off to show they make no difference at all!"

There is the crux of the disdain for the ole Amicus on this lil hangout, he has the audacity to say, again and again, that the individual need is greater than the hive. Imagine that! A society of individuals who have their rights and liberties protected by law. Unheard of!

With liberal left wing economic thought failing everywhere in the world and now, finally, after 70 years of 'New Deal' wannabees, even coming to fruition in America as the socialist policies are coming due...what with the moral and ethical foundations of the left wing liberals failing on every point, poor Cloudy and friends, (I call em the 'usual suspects), are left with nothing to do but hurl epithets and whine that life is so unfair and that someone should ban AMICUS, from saying those terrible untrue things.

Ain't it wunnerful?



Amicus...

This is such a great demonstration of the contradiction that is Amicus. He says "the individual need is greater than the hive," and then in the same post ridicules the idea of the individual needs of homosexuals, minorities, and women.

So tell us Ami, do the individual needs only count if you're a white, conservative male?

 

[amicus]

This is such a great demonstration of the contradiction that is Amicus. He says "the individual need is greater than the hive," and then in the same post ridicules the idea of the individual needs of homosexuals, minorities, and women.

So tell us Ami, do the individual needs only count if you're a white, conservative male?

~~~

There is no contradiction freshface, in order:

Homosexuals are completely free to live their life as they choose, but not in the public schools or with an agenda that influences or confuses others, especially the young and vulnerable. Homosexuality is a dead end, they do not procreate. Procreation is an unspoken absolute in terms of nature, we have evolved to reproduce.

Minorities are the same...we were all minorities at one time and had to struggle to gain status. That should remain true as it did for each minority that migrated to America and earned their place in society. Some blacks and some native Americans yearn for tribal life, it can never be.

Women are not just little men with pretty faces. In their quest for equality they have lost much, given up much that defines feminine. Men suffer because of that, as do children and the entire family structure. If you do not see the great changes brought about in the name of equal rights for women and if you do not see the detrimental effects on society as whole, with divorce, single mom families, multiple fathers for their children along with multiple relatives which equates to no relatives, then you are just not looking or thinking.

Don't be so quick to criticize that which you do not understand.

Amicus...

 

[freshface]

And I will respond in order:

Homosexuals are completely free to live their life as they choose, but not in the public schools or with an agenda that influences or confuses others, especially the young and vulnerable. Homosexuality is a dead end, they do not procreate. Procreation is an unspoken absolute in terms of nature, we have evolved to reproduce.

As long as homosexuals do not enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, they are not completely free to live their lives as they please. Last I looked, most states deny them the right to marry or protect themselves with civil unions. In some states, they aren't free to adopt children, even if those children are already living with them because one of the couple is the parent. Only in your world is procreation a requirement for freedom. Does this mean that post menopausal women are not accorded rights too?

I invite you to go tell Safe Bet and Amy that they did not successfully procreate. Let us know how that works out for you. Homosexual men are finding ways too, with the use of surrogates. But I still reject the notion that they don't deserve individual liberties if they don't procreate.

Some of those young and vulnerable are *gasp* homosexual. You don't think it's a good thing to help them as they struggle with their sexuality? I haven't seen homosexuals who want to "live their lives in the public schools," but I do think it's good that children are taught that homosexuals are not deviants.

Minorities are the same...we were all minorities at one time and had to struggle to gain status. That should remain true as it did for each minority that migrated to America and earned their place in society. Some blacks and some native Americans yearn for tribal life, it can never be.

Some of us were minorities more recently than others. If you really think that you can equate the white male experience with the minority experience, you're more delusional than I thought. I still remember "Indian givers" and "Chinese cuts" from when I was in school. Having brown skin still seems to be an obstacle to earning a place in society, at least in the US. One that can be overcome, but still an obstacle.

Women are not just little men with pretty faces. In their quest for equality they have lost much, given up much that defines feminine. Men suffer because of that, as do children and the entire family structure. If you do not see the great changes brought about in the name of equal rights for women and if you do not see the detrimental effects on society as whole, with divorce, single mom families, multiple fathers for their children along with multiple relatives which equates to no relatives, then you are just not looking or thinking.

You completely overlook the positives in society, at least for women, with equal rights. When my mother became a school teacher, her school district fired female teachers who married, because, after all, their husbands would take care of them. Male school teachers kept their jobs, since their role was to be the bread winner.

Ah, yes, the good old days, when women were given by their fathers to their husbands. If that husband turned out to be a miserable drunk who beat her and the kids, then that was her lot in life. The police didn't believe her, the courts didn't protect her, and she didn't have the education or financial resources to take care of herself. How could we not want to return to this wonderful system?

Women have gained the fulfillment of being able to develop their potential. Children have gained the perspective of seeing capable women doing professional work. Men have gained a partner who is able to contribute equally to the marriage. There are positives with the negatives you choose to see.

Don't be so quick to criticize that which you do not understand.

As a professional woman, I understand more than you think. I was told several times in high school that I could not pursue my chosen profession because it was "men's work." I had guidance counselors try to steer me toward careers that they thought more suitable for me as a woman. Lucky me, I had parents who believed that my gender didn't define me, and I successfully entered my chosen profession.

Don't you be so quick to criticize what you don't understand.

 

[Scotsman69]

Hi again folks.

I have to admit I am a bit puzzled here. I am the author of a few tales on Lit, some of which have even been fairly well-received. But I'd never looked at AH till this week, and did so thinking it might be an appropriate place to discuss a couple of literary issues with other writers. To my disappointment no seriously literary thread has jumped out at me, though I haven't scanned them all yet. Um, too busy writing and trying to earn my living.

But of course 'Broken Britain', which turned out to be completely non-literary, caught my eye, and as you all know I got drawn into it.

But now here's a thing. So far 16 folk have posted on this thread. I have just checked through all your names. 11 of the 16 of you are listed as having posted literary contributions on Lit. 5 are not so listed.

So my question is: where on this site can I go to discuss literary issues with authors? That is really what I need to do (I am disinclined to discuss my erotic writing with my University Creative Writing colleagues).

Ta for any help you can offer folks.

Scotsman69

 

[cloudy]

Hi again folks.

I have to admit I am a bit puzzled here. I am the author of a few tales on Lit, some of which have even been fairly well-received. But I'd never looked at AH till this week, and did so thinking it might be an appropriate place to discuss a couple of literary issues with other writers. To my disappointment no seriously literary thread has jumped out at me, though I haven't scanned them all yet. Um, too busy writing and trying to earn my living.

But of course 'Broken Britain', which turned out to be completely non-literary, caught my eye, and as you all know I got drawn into it.

But now here's a thing. So far 16 folk have posted on this thread. I have just checked through all your names. 11 of the 16 of you are listed as having posted literary contributions on Lit. 5 are not so listed.

So my question is: where on this site can I go to discuss literary issues with authors? That is really what I need to do (I am disinclined to discuss my erotic writing with my University Creative Writing colleagues).

Ta for any help you can offer folks.

Scotsman69

Feel free to start a thread.

(I do have stories here, just not under this name)

eta: you might look through the AH Library. For some reason, people ignore the stickies at the top.

But....this is the Authors Hangout. People here write, sure, but that's not all we have in our lives.

 

[oggbashan]

...But now here's a thing. So far 16 folk have posted on this thread. I have just checked through all your names. 11 of the 16 of you are listed as having posted literary contributions on Lit. 5 are not so listed.

So my question is: where on this site can I go to discuss literary issues with authors? That is really what I need to do (I am disinclined to discuss my erotic writing with my University Creative Writing colleagues).

Ta for any help you can offer folks.

Scotsman69

We do have discussions about literary issues but those of us who have been here some time have exhausted the contibutions we can make to the topics. The AH Library sticky and the How-To section of the stories on Literotica will cover most things.

The threads I start for each themed contest also tend to get some literary debate when we're not complaining about the trolls and the voting system. The next competition is Earth Day.

Cloudy's comment about her stories is a useful tip. Some of us have alts - alternate identities - so we might write stories under one name and post under another. My alts are well known - Jeanne D'Artois who also writes, and Fag-Ash Lil who doesn't.

There are some of us who are authors but do not write erotica here. The AH on Literotica can be a great place to get support for NaNoWriMo and for advice on almost any topic you want to discuss. The range of expertise available from the AH is amazing.

Some of the other forums can offer more specific advice about a particular story, or perhaps produce an editor who could provide detailed commentary on a work in progress.

We "hangout" on the Authors' Hangout. Although we do have literary discussions from time to time, we also have more social threads for fun and games. If you stay here a long time you will see arguments that there isn't enough literary discussion; there's too much politics; or we've discussed (insert topic here) to death...

Enjoy yourself. You might learn something. You might teach someone else something.

Og

 

[Scotsman69]

Thanks to og and cloudy for helpful comments. I have been writing for a long time, and have plenty of folk to discuss my 'mainstream' writing with.

On the basis of cloudy's advice I've just posted something on the 'Annonymous'(sic) thread.

How the fuck does a writer manage not to edit their own thread title? Ot mayhap twas intended as a joke?

But then again a lot of Lit writers have some very creative ideas about spelling. Um, and grammar. And, well... um... writing!

 

[NoJo]

Thanks to og and cloudy for helpful comments. I have been writing for a long time, and have plenty of folk to discuss my 'mainstream' writing with.

On the basis of cloudy's advice I've just posted something on the 'Annonymous'(sic) thread.

How the fuck does a writer manage not to edit their own thread title? Ot mayhap twas intended as a joke?

But then again a lot of Lit writers have some very creative ideas about spelling. Um, and grammar. And, well... um... writing!

I think you can't edit your thread title after a certain period of time or maybe after it's had a reply.

 

[Guest]

Or if your name is Joe.

 

[Guest]

QUOTE]

~~~~~~~

SweetSubsarahh has two irons in the fire here, a defense of public schools and a defense of progressive liberal morality.

The public schools with their liberal progressive teachers and administrators have had a generation of 'sex education' to play with, which was purported to be the answer to teen age pregnancies if only every school every where would provide the information, the condoms, the access to school nurses, the abortion counseling to homosexuality and lesbianism being accepted/tolerated as simply an alternative sexual identity.

It didn't work. Fess up, at least to salve your own conscience, it did not act to slow the rate of either teen pregnancies or the spread of STD's.

Amicus...

Oh, horseshit, Ami. Do some actual research before spouting off, will you?

The national teen birth rate was at its highest in 1957, at 96 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19... These state-by-state breakdowns add to previously released data from the national center that complete the picture for 2006, a year in which the general fertility rate hit its highest level since 1971 and one that ended a 34% drop in births among women ages 15-19 from 1991 to 2005. In 2006, the teen birth rate increased 3%, to 41.9 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19. (USA Today, 1-07-09) They're quoting government statistics, by the way.

So, news flash: LOTS of teenagers were having sex in "the good old days" and getting knocked up but due to societal pressures they were forced to marry. I have an idea--let's bring up children in loveless marriages. What a great prescription for mental health!

As for STDs, yes, overall the rates are increasing. It's interesting to note that syphilis hit an all-time low in 2000. Chlamydia has climbed steadily every year since 1996; it's unclear how much of that is due to increased awareness and reporting. However:

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.

Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.

And the outcome of 8 years of abstinence-based education?

A study presented in 2008 revealed that around 26% of young American women aged 14-19 are infected with at least one of the four most common sexually transmitted infections.2 This amounts to around 3.2 million female teenagers... http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm

Is there a connection with abstinence-based sexual education?

Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs.[30] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html

So, it would appear that abstinence-based programs don't work and lead to higher STD rates because all the kids are taught are the failure rates of contraceptives, so they don't use them. Of course, in 1957, lots and lots of kids were having sex and getting knocked up despite an overwhelming cultural ethos that strictly forbade it.

So, it looks to me as if comprehensive sex education was working until Bush the lesser came along and mandated his "just say no to sex" policy. Of course, his world view was as benighted as yours.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

When the kiddies start paying the freight for their little bastards things will change. When Miley Cyrus gets on tv and calls the teen mommies 'disgusting whores,' things will change.

 

[Guest]

GNOME

When the kiddies start paying the freight for their little bastards things will change. When Miley Cyrus gets on tv and calls the teen mommies 'disgusting whores,' things will change.

Change to what, James? And you base this opinion on what?

 

[Guest]

Change to what, James? And you base this opinion on what?

He doesn't know and doesn't care.

He's like the little kid playing in the sandbox who doesn't make anything out of sand himself because he doesn't possess the skills.

Instead he kicks over the other kids' castles and tries to break their toys or dump sand down their backs.

At which time he's removed by the adults.

 

[NoJo]

Or if your name is Joe.

Are you callig me a bad typist?