LOG IN   JOIN   BLOG SEARCH   ALL DIARIES
Blog
Issues
Take Action
Donate
About
Youth Resources
My Sistahs
Advocates For Youth
 
Blog - Amplify your voice
Ms_Lara
Ms_Lara
Facebook:  (none)

Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 11:27:00 AM EDT
Comments Add Comment
Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

 Ernesto Dominguez got it right when he wrote

We may not understand the impact of our words, but it is clear that these words push folk away…

He goes on to write that when we use hate speech to degrade those who are HIV positive, we add to the social stigma that comes along with having HIV. And as a result?  People don’t get tested. They think that going to get tested means that they “sleep around”, or that they’re “slutty”.

The other day I was going to get tested at Planned Parenthood, and my friend texted me before I left: “Y are you getting tested? ****ing around? Lol.”

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Monday, July 19, 2010 at 2:16:00 PM EDT
Comments Add Comment
Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

I haven't blogged on Amplify in a while (way too long!) but I'm proud to say I am BACK and with an AWESOME story for you all!

I recently came back from San Antonio where I and several other of my colleagues, plus Sarah (shout out to Advocates for Youth!) conducted a workshop called "Let's Talk About Sex". The turnout was simply great: there were over 60 (I almost want to say perhaps over 70) participants. The number of people who showed up is important for a few reasons: it provided us with an understanding of how many youth are interested in sexual health, and it rejected the myth that young people are apathetic to the issues.

We discussed the statistics about how Latin@ youth are disporportionately affected by pregnancy and STDs. We discussed healthy relationships and how to detect whether or not you're in an unhealthy relationship. But perhaps more importantly, we gave the participants an opportunity to ask questions. And they did. They were interested in our presentation and I'm confident that they left the workshop armed with knowledge that they will *hopefully* always remember

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Monday, March 1, 2010 at 3:08:00 PM EST

A recent study that included over 400 guys ages 18 to 67 found that many men refuse to wear condoms because they don't fit right. Some men claim the condom often breaks, so they opt not to wear one at all. Others claim the condom is too big, and their egos wont allow them to buy a "small" or a "medium" at their nearest pharmacy.

Well, that's a problem. And here's why:

1) The fact that the condom might break shouldn't deter men from wearing one and protecting themselves. "The condom will break anyway -- so I just wont wear one." That isn't even logical. Wearing a condom shouldn't have to be a chore. You should want to protect yourself, and your partner. Proponents of abstinence only education preach that condoms are ineffective -- but you shouldn't buy into that. Use your noggins and wear a condom.

2) A man's ego is fragile -- we get that. We're even sensitive to the issue (ie, nobody talks about how our boyfriend John is balding, and we rarely talk about faking an orgasm because George couldn't get us going). But putting yourself, and your partner, at risk for an unintended pregnancy or an STI just because you refuse to wear a condom that fits is beyond stupid. Clearly you lack the mental capacity to make good decisions when it comes to your sexual health. This definitely warrants some ego busting, boys.

3) Sex is fun. HIV is not. Condoms are typically effective in protecting people from HIV. According to Advocates for Youth,

In a two-year study of sero-discordant couples (in which one partner was HIV-positive and one was HIV-negative), no uninfected partner became infected among couples using condoms correctly and consistently at every act of vaginal or anal sex versus 10 percent of those using condoms inconsistently
So, what did we learn today? Protect yourselves. No matter how big, or small, you are. When it comes to our sexual health, we can't afford to screw around. No pun intended.

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:00:00 PM EDT

This is such GROUND BREAKING news, folks. The American Psychological Association has just declared that psychologists should NOT be telling gay people that they should turn straight.
 
.....*cricket, cricket, cricket*
 
But seriously, this progressive step is interesting in that the APA is encouraging these psychologists to consider "multiple options": celibacy to switching churches.
 
That brings me to my next point: I disagree. I mean, are there really multiple options to being gay? I can't see how being celibate can somehow reverse your sexual orientation or downsize the impact of your homosexuality. While this declaration from APA is groundbreaking, it should seem like common sense. Of course you can't tell gay people to turn straight! Why is this even being debated?

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Thursday, September 3, 2009 at 5:49:00 PM EDT

As most of you may have heard, Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped in 1991, when she was just 11 years old.
 
The details of the crime are so intense, so gruesome, so disgusting and malicious, that I will not go into extreme detail. I will tell you this though: there is a facebook group, Jaycee Lee Dugard - she had it coming, that is calling the victim a liar and "a slut".
 
One of the many comments on the group wall is: "I've been watching the news reposts and it seems Jaycee wasn't so innocent after all. She let that pig Garrido rape her small children every weekend. Only in American eh ?"
 
Where do I begin? First off, the fact that anybody with working organs and a normal blood flow can somehow justify rape and child molestation is despicable and that language should be damn right illegal. I don't care how much I advocate for free speech. I do not want to hear a empty minded poor excuse for a human being talk about how "stupid and slutty" rape victims must be for "letting" a man rape them. The ignorance behind such statements are sexist--both anti-woman and more generally, anti-human.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Friday, August 28, 2009 at 12:10:00 AM EDT

“Marriage eludes high achieving black women"

What does that headline say to you? Before I delve into the article itself, let's explore the implications this headline has to offer: either marriage discriminates, or high achieving black women aren't getting married. 

I'll go with the latter.

Even when I asked my boyfriend what he thought the headline meant, he said "[The headline implies that] marriage is hard for successful black women." So, before I even read the article, I had this preconceived notion that this was going to be based on the stereotype that all women are supposed to get married. But I was wrong. 

According to the article on msnbc.com, the "fact" that most successful black women are choosing not to get married defeats the purpose of affirmative action. Now, I've heard the arguments that single women are statistically less happy than married women, or that women who do not bear children are contributing to a population decrease detrimental to society, or that married women live longer than single women. But never have I heard that single (and successful) black women are defeating the very purpose of affirmative action. It's an original (and ridiculous) argument.

 "This defeats the goal of affirmative action...The idea behind assuring that blacks had access to higher education and graduate school was that after a generation or so, African-Americans would reach a kind of achievement parity after generations of suffering educational and career restriction. But if black women, who comprise 71 percent of black graduate students, do not have children, the rate of achievement reaches a kind of familial dead end."

Well that's a nice way to put it: a familial dead end.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 1:01:00 PM EDT

It's a little weird that the federal government is so concerned about our sex lives. I mean, does that freak anyone out? Because if it does, then do not visit www.4parents.gov.
 
I was sitting on my couch, watching the TV when a commercial came on encouraging parents to talk to their kids about sex. I thought to myself: "How great! Finally we can encourage parent-child communication about teen sex!" I mean, I know my own parents skipped out on the whole conversation entirely, so I can see the benefits of youth-adult partnerships. But when I actually checked out the website, I found that the Obama Administration wasn't exactly encouraging open communication about sex.
 
It was encouraging abstinence-only until marriage.
 
And that's cool, too. After all, the only 100% effective method in avoiding an unintended pregnancy is abstinence. But there was very little information on the entire website that offered tips for safe sex. 
 
Under one page in this website, entitled "Why is Marriage Important?", it gives you an idea on how better married couples are than single (and thus clearly dirty and promiscuous) couples are.
 
What are the benefits that married people enjoy? According to the website, they live longer! Yay!!! Oh, and they are apparently happier! And...they earn MORE money! Sounds like we should all just get married, right?
 
The website also discusses setting "house rules". I'm surprised it didn't blatantly come out and say 'lock your child up in a cage'. Isn't the point of this 'sex talk' supposed to be a verbal exchange between BOTH the parent and the teen? 
 
And then, if talking to your kid about waiting to have sex is an absolute failure, scare them by telling them that it is ILLEGAL for them to have sex! There's a separate page on this site that discusses the laws about teens having sex, which says that some states have laws that forbid sexual intercourse before a teen turns 18.
 
Check out the site and please do see for yourself. Make your own judgement about the site and how the government is handling our sex lives, without really keeping into consideration youth's point of view. 

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, July 12, 2009 at 11:44:00 AM EDT

The other day I was walking with my 12-year-old cousin into the train located in a predominantly white area to get to my class at Columbia University, 20 minutes away from my house. Those on the train stared as I held my cousin's hand, assuming that my cousin was my very own daughter. I spoke to my cousin about school and whether or not she's excited to enter high school next year. The white man and woman in front of me simply stared. They felt disgusted.

Their body language led me to feel unwanted in my community, since my town is a very quiet suburban area. This sort of racist and sexist situation happens every day, and it's beginning to creep into the White House.

Where can the line be drawn between simple dislike for President Obama and racist hatred for him? Is there even a bright line separating the two feelings? For years now conservatives have been coming out with negative commentary on “the left” and even moderate liberals; their negative commentary somehow evolved into something deeper than a few attack ads on the TV… it’s spreading to the Free Republic blog and it’s attacking the children—the young girls—of President Barack Obama.

An article by the Vancouver Sun says it all.
 
This is no longer an interesting debate between the left and the right. This is becoming a racially charged debate. Here are a few comments posted on the blog next to a picture of Malia Obama wearing a t-shirt with the peace sign on it:
“A typical street whore."
"A bunch of ghetto thugs."
"Ghetto street trash."
"Wonder when she will get her first abortion."
Let’s focus on the conservatives first. What exactly entails a “street whore”? And how is there a correlation between that and Malia Obama? Sure, these insults didn’t blatantly say “black thugs!” but the implication was there… and the implication was filled with hatred.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Friday, July 3, 2009 at 12:51:00 AM EDT

Do you want to know something….startling? Something scary? Something that should ignite fear, and possibly congressional action?
 
Nearly half of HIV-infected youth are completely unaware of their status.
 
According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 22 percent of sexually active high school students are tested for human immunodeficiency virus. I can enumerate reasons why many students opt not to get tested. It could be one of two reasons:
 
1.)    The student may not believe there is a need to get tested.
2.)    The student may feel ashamed if they opt to get tested. It might make them feel like a “whore” or a “player”. After all, the only people who need to get tested are the ones having risky sex with multiple partners, right?
 
Why would youth feel ashamed of getting tested? Why should youth divert their attention from their sexual health to purity balls? This garbage that our conservative society feeds us needs to be justified by facts and statistics. In reality, all abstinence-only education provides are arguments questioning the morality of intercourse before marriage. It also feeds us misinformation about our sexuality. Why then does the federal government continue to fund this ineffective education?

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 11:46:00 PM EDT

Last week, for the entire week, I was in Central Jersey at Girls State. The purpose of the program is to allow young women from across New Jersey to form their own state government, by electing city councils, town mayors, county officers, a state party chairwoman, and lastly, a Governor. I mean, the concept of this program is pretty great; I had a great time campaigning and helping my friends campaign for their candidacies. I ran for Governor.
 
Now, as a candidate for Governor, I wasn’t able to create the party platform. A platform committee had to meet in the wee hours of the morning to form the platform that I would base my campaign on. It surprised me that almost all of these young women wanted abstinence-only education included in the platform.
 
I spoke out immediately. I was like, uh hello? Shouldn’t you of all people understand the dangers abstinence-only inflicts on youth?
 
The girls agreed that all seniors in high school should walk around with a fake baby for two weeks. This baby will be electronic; it will cry when it is not “fed”, it will weigh 13 pounds, it will make random noises…etc etc. I raised my hand and told them that this would be a tactic to scare our youth from engaging in sexual activity. I assured them that if they truly wanted to avoid unintended pregnancies, they should teach how to put on a condom and how to make healthy sexual decisions.
 
But no. Nobody ever listens to me. The girls went on a rant about how if we teach the high school students about contraception, they will think it is encouraging them to engage in sexual activity. Aside from the fact that this is FALSE, it is also a major misconception about comprehensive sex education. Plenty of our policy makers seem to portray sex education as a devilish and counterproductive curriculum. In reality, as we can see in Mississippi, abstinence only education is the reason for high teen pregnancy rates.
 
It freaked me out how a group of young education high school women were so quick to judge comprehensive sex education and so quick to blindingly support abstinence only education. It just goes to show you that adults aren’t the only people uninformed. 

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 6:39:00 PM EDT

How many women reading this blog have gotten the three Gardasil shots? If you haven’t gotten it yet, schedule an appointment with your doctor and get it. Gardasil can help prevent cervical cancer and four types of HPV. As of right now, it’s the only vaccine (in the world!) of it’s kind. The CDC recommends that women ages 9-26 get Gardasil.
 
According to their website:
 
HPV is a common virus
  • HPV is a virus that can affect both men and women.
  • HPV usually has no signs or symptoms, so many people don't know they have it or that they could pass it on to others.
  • About 80% of women will have had HPV by the time they are 50 years old.*
HPV and cervical cancer
  • For most women exposed to HPV, the virus will clear on its own, but for some, cervical cancer and other diseases—like genital warts—can develop.
  • Most of the women diagnosed with cervical cancer were exposed to HPV in their teens and 20s.
  • Regular Pap tests and wellness visits are the best ways to help protect against HPV and cervical cancer.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 7:57:00 PM EDT

I’m feeling a little inspired, a little ambitious, and heck, perhaps a little more liberated. I’m in the middle of reading A Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti. Trust me when I tell you that you need to go to Barnes and Nobles right now and get this book. Just buy it. Don’t ask questions.
 
Throughout the book, Valenti presents the question of virginity. What is virginity? Is it really “sacred”? When a teenage girl loses her virginity, does she lose her innocence? Is she no longer pure? According to the book, over 1,440 purity balls took place in 2007. Now, purity balls are extraordinary events in which a girl vows to “save herself” until marriage. The young woman, or the star of this ball, promises her father that she will not engage in intercourse until after she is married.
 
For those of us who have never had a purity ball of our own, and who might have already lost our virginity, we’re basically…doomed. Impure. Dirty little things.
 
Or at least that’s what society tells us. Abstinence-only education encourages young people, especially young girls, to “save themselves for their husband.” What does that even mean? I am supposed to save myself? If I have sex, I will have doomed myself?

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 3:31:00 PM EDT

This is disgusting. There aren’t enough words in the English language to properly denounce the act of killing another human being because they work to preserve a woman’s right to choose. The abortion debate has plagued this country in so many ways; it has destroyed the very fabric of the American lifestyle. For centuries women have been mishandled, mistreated, and politically ignored. Women have been harassed, abused, raped, and killed. 150 years after the Seneca Falls Convention, when men and women drafted up the Declaration of Sentiments (which declared men and women equal), we as a nation are still faced in sexism. Not only has this sexism affected innocent women fighting for the right to their own body, but it has reached those who support the women’s rights movement.
 
According to the Wichita Eagle:
Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. Witnesses, a city official and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.
That’s right. Dr. George Tiller was killed. Why? Because he provided abortions for women. Even an anti-abortion group denounced the killer:
 
"We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down," anti-abortion group Operation Rescue said in a statement on its Web site. "Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ."
In conservative Kansas, it’s clear that the anti-abortion sentiment is strong, especially among church congregations. Still, there is no justification for this. None, whatsoever.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 6:32:00 PM EDT

I cannot grieve with you enough at the fact that an eight year old transgender student can no longer attend Catholic school. I’ve been to Catholic school. I’m relatively religious myself. But seriously? A condition that can never be predetermined should not be reason enough for the administration of a religious institution to suspend—no, expel—a student.
 
According to this news article:
The child’s case recently came to light when her parents met with a leader of the Omaha Catholic Archdiocese to talk about transitioning the student into third grade at her school, St. Wenceslaus.
The family wanted the child to use a new female name, be able to wear a girl’s uniform and be included in girls' activities.
And here they come to ruin the day:
Taphorn [the Reverend] said having the child attend the school for three years as a boy, and then presenting as a girl would not be a good learning environment for the child or other students. He said school has to be a peaceful, positive environment for everyone.
Now this case presents two problems to the public. One: there is an obvious identity concern with this child. Although she looks like a boy, she acts like a girl. She walks, talks, and presents herself like a girl. Who is to say this is wrong? Who’s to say this is unnatural? Absolutely nobody. What ever happened to freedom of expression? I can tell you one thing: when I went to Catholic school, I was constantly told to “be true to myself.” I was told to be a genuine and honest person to others and especially to myself. This child, who did not release her name, is simply being true to herself. She is being a genuine person, as they should preach in any religious institution.
 
Secondly, since when did private schools gain the authority to dismiss students as they please? Alright, stupid question. But seriously. Since when was it morally acceptable for a private school, no matter the religious affiliation, to dismiss a student simply based on their identity?
 
I can only hope that her parents decide to press charges.

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 7:52:00 PM EDT

LOL I love blogging on Amplify for many reasons. I learn more and more about the world around me, and—perhaps most importantly—I get to verbalize my every belief. There is no such thing as “Cristina, shut up!” in here. There is no such thing as “Cristina, you’re not making sense,” in here.
 
My blogging experience allows me to voice my opinion on wonderful news, terrible news, confusing news and stupid news. Take for example Roy Den Hollander. Roy is a men’s rights lawyer with a big mouth and an even bigger ego.
 
Roy Den Hollander has recently vowed continue his struggle in his battle to force Columbia University to drop its women’s studies program, after a judge basically dismissed the case as ridiculous and unrealistic. Now, my readers, you may recall Hollander from such previous ‘popular’ lawsuits as the fight against ladies' nights and his suit against the federal government's Violence Against Women Act (you know…because we all love violence against women).
 
Now…there is no way that any sane man would oppose legislation that has in it’s mission to end violence against women. I mean…what the hell, man? Well, behind every angry man is a heartbreaking love story. According to the Columbia Spectator, Hollander's gender-based…aggression, if you will…began after he learned that the wife he brought to the United States from Russia was in fact a prostitute connected with the Chechen mafia! From then on, Hollander has been turning against any women’s rights program or legislation.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 11:42:00 AM EDT

Wayne Anthony Ross, the most controversial, divisive, polarizing man possible to have been selected to be Alaska’s attorney general had a few interesting things to say this week.  He always seems to have interesting things to say, and each time the gaffes just pile up. It's interesting....

Take for example the "Lima Beans" story.

Representative Lindsey Holmes asked Ross how he would view cases involving homosexuality, you know…him thinking they’re “degenerates” and all, and writing it in the Alaska Bar Newsletter.  Ross responded:

“Let me give you an analogy. I hate lima beans. I’ve never liked lima beans. But if I was hired to represent the United Vegetable Growers would you ask me if I liked lima beans? No. If I disliked lima beans? No. Because my job is to represent the United Vegetable Growers.”
Now, we love a good analogy here at Amplify.  In fact it’s one of our favorite literary devices. So, if gays are lima beans, and the United Vegetable Growers are the state of Alaska, then what does it sound like when we replace those words in our little analogy? “I hate gays.  I’ve never liked gays.  But, if I was hired to represent the State of Alaska, would you ask me if I liked gays?  No.  If I disliked gays?  No.  Because my job is to represent the State of Alaska.”
 
Ah, now we see.  So do we feel better now?  No.

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 9:06:00 PM EDT

Now I’m a fan of happy relationships. I’m a fan of healthy relationships. Dude, I’m a fan of relationships…period. But, one thing that I would never support (nor adhere to), is treating my partner like a child. This article on CNN blatantly describes the story of a woman who tried parenting techniques on her husband….and they worked.
 
This is interesting because…I don’t know. Imagine your partner treating you like their child? Creepy…

According to the woman in the article:
When Greg walked in the door that evening, late again, I bit my tongue and avoided any mention of ice, trays, or irresponsible husbands. And the evening turned out to be much more pleasant than it would have been otherwise.
You see…I don’t understand that. If your partner came home late again, you have a right to be pissed off. Granted, I wouldn’t be breaking dishes and calling the police, but I certainly would be rightfully angry. Maybe the reason her night turned out to be much more pleasant was because her partner didn’t know she was angry. And if you’re angry, but you avoid communication, then you’re headed for the wrong path. You’re essentially measuring your relationship’s success level with an inaccurate meter. (oh, that was good!) But in all seriousness, talk it out. Don’t ignore it.
 
The article says there are five ways you can go about treating your partner like a child:

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 8:52:00 PM EDT

This weekend I was in Atlanta, GA and went to "Bodies: The Exhibition" downtown.  The exhibit itself was really amazing and thought provoking-- actual cadavers stripped of their skin in order to show the muscles, nerves and the ways of the human body. The exhibit is meant to show us how as humans, we tend to take our bodies for granted, when they are truly amazing.

Still however, I was bothered that all the specimens were male, with the exception of the reproductive exhibit, where there was one female display. There were many different rooms with many different bodies, and they were all male.  I felt that they were portraying the male body as the normative, and the female body as something else....something "un-normal."
 
I asked a few of the exhibit employees (okay....I interrogated them...) and scientists who created the exhibit why they chose to only display male bodies, and received no answers (surprise!)
 
I was curious to see if anyone else has seen this exhibit.  I believe it is a traveling exhibit, because I know that there was a Bodies exhibit in Portland, OR last year, and another one in NYC a few months ago. If you've seen the exhibit, can I hear your take on it? It's interesting to see why the male body is almost always used for scientific purposes and the female body is only used for reproductive analysis. Now, I'm no science person but....I'm pretty sure the use of the female body for scientific purposes should be allowed/accepted without delay, hm?
 

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Saturday, April 4, 2009 at 10:10:00 AM EST
Comments Add Comment
Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

It’s been official for a while, folks. There were more babies born in 2007 than in 1957, the year witnessing a Baby Boom. The reason? The increasing rate of teen pregnancies.
Now, let’s see. Anyone who dares argue that teen pregnancies are decreasing due to abstinence only education should be slapped with take-home-pregnancy-test.  The figures, printed in USA Today, are preliminary, but show a 4.32 million-baby tally for 2007, more than the 4.30 million babies born in 1957.
 
Even at the low point in 2005, the United States had the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion of any industrialized country. Because teenage births carry higher risks of medical problems and poverty for mother and child, state health agencies, schools and private groups have mounted educational campaigns to deter teenage pregnancy.
Many of the articles I read suggested that the reason for the increase in pregnancies is a larger number of undocumented immigrants having children. Another reason was more and more women are putting off getting pregnant. One of the consequences of doing so, claimed Impact Lab, was a detrimental effect on the economy. I don’t even think that makes much sense….
 
So, what do we do? Do we continue to fund the already-failing abstinence only education? Or do we teach our youth how to take protective measures? I choose the latter.

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 7:06:00 PM EST

In the MSNBC article entitled “Single, Pregnant, and Panicked”, we are given a scenario: a highly intelligent working woman meets with an old friend and, after a few drinks too many at a bar, finds herself in bed with him. She had just gone through a break up, so she stopped taking birth control pills. She takes a vacation to the Swiss Alps, where she gets a phone call from her sister: the working woman was laid off her job. A few months after that night, and three missed periods later, she takes a pregnancy test: it comes out positive.
 
Now, when people think of a young and unwed pregnant woman, what comes to mind? People automatically assume she is “trashy” or “irresponsible”. Yeah, like it doesn’t take two to tango, eh? Something that I highly admire about this article is that it addresses this awful stereotype. It lets it’s readers know that working women, who are smart, ambitious, and assertive, are not baby-hating monstrous women. Indeed it lets it’s readers understand that unwed women aren’t “trashy” and aren’t “irresponsible.”

That was only part of the article. The rest of the article discusses birth control. The women in the above story got pregnant because she was off her birth control, assuming she wouldn’t be having sex with anyone until she’s in a stable relationship again. According to the article, here are some suggestions with birth control:

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, March 15, 2009 at 3:30:00 PM EST
Comments Add Comment
Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

The other day I was in DC conducting research on the REAL Act for my government paper. Fun, right? ….Anyway.
 
I made a few appointments with some very interesting Congressmen and Senators. Among these influential people was Senator Brownback from Kansas. I met with a member of his staff (who shall remain anonymous) and we discussed comprehensive sex education. According to her, “kids don’t want to have sex.” That’s funny…
 
Moving on. She also said that the Senator’s office doesn’t believe in funding anything sex related, as it is “inappropriate.” So, allocating 1.5 billion dollars in taxpayer money for an ineffective abstinence only program is appropriate? Wasteful government spending under Title V not only contributes to our economic recession, but doesn’t it fall under the category of “sex related”?
 
She also mentioned how she’s a firm Catholic and wouldn’t support comprehensive sex education because, like I said before, kids don’t want to have sex. Sex doesn’t fulfill children. She believes adults should hold children to a higher standard, have faith in these kids, and believe that they can remain abstinent. Since when is having sex suddenly shameful? Last time I checked, politicians are participating in these scandalous sex acts. Now they want to criminalize sex? Does this even make sense?
 
Such a lovely woman she was. She also mentioned that, when a woman and a man get married, they should not use contraception. WTF?
 
Oh, and she was entirely against EC, claiming that it is another form of abortion.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, March 8, 2009 at 10:55:00 AM EST

This world can be a really interesting place. A woman with 14 kids suddenly gained national recognition in a day. Yet her fame was most definitely NOT congratulatory. No, no, my friends. Because it would be crazy to wish a mother of 14 “good luck.” Nah, instead we give her death threats.
 
And still the craziness continues. A Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.
 
Seriously? Because it’s any of the Roman Catholic archbishop’s business? Because when a man, a stepfather no less, rapes a young girl, we should forgive and forget? Sure, under American law anyone under the age of 18 has no basic human rights (ha…ha). But if a 9 year old girl is forced to face something that no woman should ever have to face, then we’ve got a problem.

More...

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 10:21:00 PM EST

Possession of marijuana. That's a pretty plausible reason to get apprehended for, eh? Now...what about "possession of contraception"? Yeah....arrest me for having condoms.

Last friday, about 12 people got arrested for having weed in their lockers. Now, my first reaction to hearing this was "ahahhahahaha ROFL lol LMAO." While that may have not been the most mature reaction, it came naturally. The school administration then felt it would make perfect sense to raid everyone's locker, to ensure there are no illegal substances/weapons in there. I have many many condoms in my locker because a lot of my friends are sexually active. I'm the "go-to" person when people want condoms. I don't feel offended by this at all. I simply open my locker, give them the condoms, wish them luck, and walk away.

My little independent not-for-profit business was shut down last Friday when the school officials found nearly 50 condoms in my locker. Now, I get why that would look weird. But isn't it smart? I mean, for all they know, I could be having sex day and night. Why wouldn't I keep condoms? Doesn't that make sense?

But no. They pulled me out of class. When 12 students get pulled out of class for possession of marijuana, everyone immediately suspects that anyone else who gets pulled out of class is also getting in trouble for having weed. Do I smoke weed? No. Does my school think I'm a pothead now? Yes. Do I care? Nope.

Anyway, after a half hour of yelling at me for my irresponsibility, they said "We will not be contacting your parents but we will demand you come after school for a two hour detention."

Wait...does that mean....you won't tell my parent's that I'm encouraging people (who are already sexually active) to practice SAFE sex? Geez louise, Mr Principal! Thanks a lot :)

They can kiss my butt. Anyway, I still have those condoms. And I'm still passing them out. Do I care? Nope. I gotta do what I gotta do, right?

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 9:38:00 AM EST

During school my friend and I got into a very heated discussion about abortion. My friend, whom I did not know was a fervent social conservative, got relatively angry. Whoops! The conversation went somewhat like this:

Me: Ultimately, the fight to rearticulate reproductive justice will rest with us liberals. After all, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Jerome Corsi are far too busy promoting hateful rhetoric and referring to us as “baby killers.” Indeed, for a group that cares a great deal about the sanctity of life, anti-choicers have repeatedly opposed comprehensive sex education and other measures to decrease abortions.
Her: NUH-UH!!!

Okay, so maybe I'm being a little biased as to how the conversation went, but you get my point. Anyway, later that day on Facebook I received a message from her. It was the URL to a youtube video. This video was submitted to NBC and CNN to air during the superbowl. Fortunately, it was rejected. Lo and behold....

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 6:57:00 PM EST
Comments Add Comment
Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This

Hey y'all.

This is more of a news post rather than a blog. I got an email from the Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom. It reads as follows:

We're announcing a very special project to let the world (or maybe just a few key decision makers) know that young people of faith support comprehensive sex education.

To participate in our little online jaunt, do the following:

1. Take a picture of yourself holding a sign that says "I AM [INSERT FAITH TRADITION or the word SPIRITUAL or AGNOSTIC] AND I SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION."

2. Ask a few friends to participate, also! Help them make their signs and take photos.

3. Create a profile on the SYRF online community if you're not a member yet.

4. Upload your photo to the "photos" section of your profile.

Your photo will then be used in a short video SYRF is creating to showcase youth and young adults speaking out about sex education. We will then post the video on our website, Facebook, Flickr, and You Tube (read: if you send us a photo, you will then become famous) and send it to your elected officials in an effort to spread the word to decision makers. To learn more about comprehensive sex education, click here.

If you thought that was fun, consider also signing our petition to support comprehensive sexuality education.

We really want to include people from specific target states in our project. Please share this with friends in California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Idaho.  

I'll be doing it and I hope you will too!

Peace out,

Cristina

Share this entry:  del.icio.us | Facebook |  MySpace | Digg It! | Tweet This