Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Nature abhors a moron.
HL Mencken
Patterning the nervous system with Bmp
No genes were lost in the making of this whale
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« The Colorado threats and the despicable slander of the DI | Main | Microsoft launches space program with captured alien technology »
Category: Local • Reproduction
Posted on: July 11, 2007 11:38 PM, by PZ Myers
Leslee Unruh, witch-queen of the Dakotas, is in Minnesota for the National Abstinence Clearinghouse convention. Fortunately, we've got Jeff Fecke to document the atrocities. The question remains: who will fumigate and sterilize the Crowne Plaza Riverfront hotel afterwards?
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Call me shallow, but I wouldn't have a problem remaining abstinent if she and I were the last two (or first two, a la Adam and Eve) on earth.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | July 11, 2007 11:58 PM
"Abstinence Clearinghouse"?
Do they sell magazines and have a sweepstakes or something?
Posted by: Martin Wagner | July 12, 2007 12:02 AM
Hey, I'm all for the godbots reproducing less and torturing themselves with a sex free life style... but the irony is that stds, risky sexual behaviour and hypocrisy is rampant in the "abstinence" gung ho crowd.
They're not even a good example to themselves.
Hardly anyone is "savin' in" form marriage... especially the promise keepers.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2007 12:15 AM
Would it be rude of me to suggest installing cameras in all the rooms in the hotel to see how many of the clearinghousers have affairs while at the er, event?
Posted by: Rasputin | July 12, 2007 12:15 AM
"savin' it" for marriage...
a reference to the prank Al Franken pulled in his Lies book.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2007 12:19 AM
I am perfectly happy if the Unruhs don't reproduce. I would be even happier if they would stop messing with the lives of other people.
Posted by: Zeno | July 12, 2007 12:23 AM
Gee, Leslie Unruh looks like someone I sure wouldn't want to fuck. (Credit: George Carlin)
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 12, 2007 1:48 AM
great comment from annafdd at the site
"As somebody who is not married and finds sex one of the great joys and one of the places where best qualities like empathy, consideration, respect, generosity, love and a deep spiritual appreciation of life can be expressed, I DO see something wrong with abstinence. Sex is a good thing. It's pleasant. It enriches your life. It teaches you to be close to other fellow humans. It fosters love.
Saying that abstinence is good is like saying that avoiding scrupulously painting, singing, playing an instrument or dancing is a good thing until some unspecified moment in time. ("I kept myself pure, not touching paints and colors no matter how great the temptation was until I could give myself as a gift to my seven-year old. In the end it was a bit of a disappointment, I could only produce splotches of color and my seven year old kept trying to do the deed himself!" "I kept myself pure, avoiding dancing and yeah, verily even tapping my foot until my High School Prom. And you know what, all those sluts who had been dancing sinfully before the prom were better at it than me! I tried shuffling around but I felt so hot and so clumsy...")
I see something wrong with being silly about the risks of sex, and not using rather simple and sensible precaution like a condom, the pill or ideally both. I also see something wrong with having sex when you don't want to or with somebody you don't want to. I believe that is usually known as "not getting raped", not "keeping myself pure". "
Posted by: elfrida | July 12, 2007 6:42 AM
I, (daughter's name)'s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.
High Priest? WTF?? Influence (probably inbred) generations to come?
So this is the shrew responsible for the gender abuse that is purity balls. Why is it that they even feel the need to harass children as young as 7 yo with sex? What is it about the vagina that frightens them so much?
In a perfect world that shrew would be charged with aiding and abetting child abuse.
Posted by: flame821 | July 12, 2007 6:56 AM
My spin on abstinence before marriage is somewhat business-like...
I don't buy a car without test driving it.
I don't buy a house without inspecting it thoroughly.
I don't buy clothing without trying the clothes on.
There's a trial period in any job.
Why, oh why, would anyone get married without sleeping with the person first? If for not other reason then you could just not be good for each other in bed... that's something that could haunt a marriage and can be avoided completely.
If nobody else was good enough for her, how can I expect to live up to her supernatural standards? If nobody else wanted her, why would I?
I don't think of it as being "saved for marriage". In my opinion it's more like "atrophied from disuse".
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 12, 2007 7:06 AM
Is it a mere coincidence that Unruhe is German for "fear"? One classic X-files episode comes to mind...
Posted by: forsen | July 12, 2007 7:40 AM
Non-abstinence is OK as long as you pay for it and you wear diapers.
-Sen. Vitter
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 12, 2007 8:37 AM
I, (daughter's name)'s father, choose before God to cover my daughter
cover v: copulate with a female, used especially of horses.
Uh-huh.
Posted by: Graculus | July 12, 2007 8:54 AM
There is another traditionial method to encourage chastity discussed by Bush Doctor in the city.
http://babawilly.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/bush-doctor-in-the-city-vol-15/
known as infibulation.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 12, 2007 8:58 AM
Sex before marriage IS a serious problem. It can make you late for the ceremony and raise awkward questions as to why the bride's mother is walking funny.
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | July 12, 2007 9:02 AM
By the way, sex after divorce is pretty good too. ;)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 12, 2007 9:11 AM
Eek! you skeered me there PZ, 'til I read on, and found they weren't teetotallers trying to get booze outlawed.
Just barking on about glands again. None of their bloody business. Peasants.
Posted by: dustbubble | July 12, 2007 9:46 AM
Makes me glad I work in downtown Minneapolis instead of over in that other town I (for some reason I don't understand) almost never enter.
Posted by: CL | July 12, 2007 10:45 AM
Yes, a most, um....unfortunate (for someone!) double entendre, that ;-).
Seriously: given the hazards of sex, it's IMHO legitimate for parents to be concerned about what their kids are doing, in the same way as it's legitimate for them to be concerned about their driving habits, their use of intoxicants, or any of half-a-dozen other things that are potentially part of growing up. And there's room for legitimate disagreement about the "right" age and circumstances for intercourse to start happening. But surely the parent of the same sex is the more appropriate supervisor? This father-and-daughter thing gives me the creeps. But as so often happens, practicality takes a back seat to theologically-enforced patriarchy.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 12, 2007 5:31 PM
All abstinence-only sex ed does is ensure that nobody will be carrying condoms when that first grope-fest in the back of the car happens.
So who foots the bill for the mis-education foisted upon our children by these assholes? All of us.
I say it's time for a class-action suit. Send all of these fuckers to the poor house. Plus, we'll get to test their 'god will provide' hypothesis.
Posted by: Brownian | July 12, 2007 5:40 PM