I used to get pregnant, but then I took an aspirin to the knee

blatantrereg

Here's something to ridicule:
Foster Freiss Suggests "Aspirin Between Their Knees" As Contraception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOI7fokqkFc

He's a backer of Rick Santorum, who is trying to get a presidential nomination in the USA. Santorum is anti-contraception too.

*Thread title robbed from youtube comments.

Biggins

God bless America!

YEEE... HAAAAAA!!!

southsiderosie

The "gals" put aspirin between their knees for contraception?

Who needs the pill when you have Bayer!

starbelgrade

southsiderosie wrote: »

The "gals" put aspirin between their knees for contraception?

Who needs the pill when you have Bayer!

What I think he meant is that in his day, the best contraception was keeping your legs closed!

Princess Peach

It's what I was told in school anyway! God Bless Ireland!

Totally true though.

southsiderosie

starbelgrade wrote: »

What I think he meant is that in his day, the best contraception was keeping your legs closed!

I know. That doesn't make it any less stupid.

KKkitty

When I first started to take the pill my mother said to hold it between my knees

ejmaztec

It's ironic that women having a headache is also a contraceptive.

Yakult

I used to be pregnant, then I eated it.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

I know. That doesn't make it any less stupid.

It's folksy wisdom, is what it is.

Ellis Dee

starbelgrade wrote: »

What I think he meant is that in his day, the best contraception was keeping your legs closed!

Hasn't he heard of anal? Or, as a Republican, does he think you are only supposed to do that with guys?:):):)

blatantrereg

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Hasn't he heard of anal? Or, as a Republican, does he think you are only supposed to do that with guys?:):):)

I thought republicans want to do that to lots of people - the poor, ethnic minorities etc...

mawk

I used to use contraception but then I accidentally some asprin between my knees

until you get married of course, because a marriage cert is a good contraceptive and no married couples ever have unexpected pregnancies

44leto

He's right, and it was a joke.

I am not that old but to get sex in my day it took a few dates, then a dinner and flowers, then you might get a french kiss a few weeks or even months later on a city or country break you may have got sex.

Then you dropped the slut.

blatantrereg

44leto wrote: »

He's right, and it was a joke.

It's the anti-contraception agenda that invites the ridicule though. Mind boggles that there is any support for such an ideology in the USA.

44leto

blatantrereg wrote: »

It's the anti-contraception agenda that invites the ridicule though. Mind boggles that there is any support for such an ideology in the USA.

I am not against but here is something to think about. Before there was readily available and cheap contraception there were a lot less unwanted pregnancies.

44leto

44leto wrote: »

I am not against but here is something to think about. Before there was readily available and cheap contraception there were a lot less unwanted pregnancies.

yeah those laundries totally didn't exist, and anyone who had a kid always announced if they didn't want it or not

where's mary? she's gone to stay on her aunt's farm in england for a few months

44leto

bluewolf wrote: »

yeah those laundries totally didn't exist, and anyone who had a kid always announced if they didn't want it or not

where's mary? she's gone to stay on her aunt's farm in england for a few months

I haven't got any figures, I could find some, but I think what I said is obvious. When they were drafting the policies of the welfare state in Britain after the war they never even considered lone parents, because it didn't need consideration. Now that is a very substantial welfare bill.

because it wasn't acceptable to acknowledge, more like

not going with this one til i see some numbers and some basis for how accurate they could have been given the stigma

Sindri

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Hasn't he heard of anal? Or, as a Republican, does he think you are only supposed to do that with guys?:):):)

Has anyone mentioned yet that the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex is known colloquially as Santorum.

44leto

bluewolf wrote: »

because it wasn't acceptable to acknowledge, more like

not going with this one til i see some numbers and some basis for how accurate they could have been given the stigma

Here wiki

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alone%20parents%20statistics%20history&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSingle_parent&ei=ReZAT6OZJca4hAfc56nMBQ&usg=AFQjCNHZ5mj_99SXx1jnvF-506A8Nl6gMA&cad=rja

Since the 1960s, there has been a marked increase in the number of children living with a single parent. The 1960 United States Census reported that 9% of children were dependent on a single parent, a number that has increased to 28% by the 2000 US Census

I am really surprised you did not think that lone parentage has increased.

you said unwanted pregnancies, not lone parenting

that could include widowers, broken marriages, etc etc

none of which involve unwanted pregnancies

blatantrereg

44leto wrote: »

Here wiki

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alone%20parents%20statistics%20history&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSingle_parent&ei=ReZAT6OZJca4hAfc56nMBQ&usg=AFQjCNHZ5mj_99SXx1jnvF-506A8Nl6gMA&cad=rja



I am really surprised you did not think that lone parentage has increased.

That data can be interpretted lots of ways. The average age of marriage is much higher now than it was, so there is more time for kids to be born beforehand. Similarly I would guess that separation/divorce rates have increased. I'd argue that family values have diminshed in importance in Western culture as a whole too.

I am more convinced by the argument in Freakonomics, which draws a correlation between the legalisation of abortion in the USA and decreased crime rates. They found thatcrime rates dropped in each state after the same period of time had passed since abortion had been legalised there.

dotsman

44leto wrote: »

I am not against but here is something to think about. Before there was readily available and cheap contraception there were a lot less unwanted pregnancies.

Are you actually being serious? Have you even thought this through?

Has it ever occurred to you that there are so many unintended pregnancies because of a lack of contraception?

The reason for the number of childbirths out of wedlock (with more children being born today out of wedlock than in) is down to a variety of factors such as massive social change in relation to how single mothers are perceived, the lack of sexual education and knowledge of contraceptives, the decline of religious authority, the generous welfare state, the lack of personal responsibility in today's society etc.

If you banned contraceptives, you'd have even more!

MagicMarker

44leto wrote: »

Here wiki

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alone%20parents%20statistics%20history&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSingle_parent&ei=ReZAT6OZJca4hAfc56nMBQ&usg=AFQjCNHZ5mj_99SXx1jnvF-506A8Nl6gMA&cad=rja



I am really surprised you did not think that lone parentage has increased.

Lone parentage has increased because women are no longer ostracized for being a lone parent.

44leto

dotsman wrote: »

Are you actually being serious? Have you even thought this through?

Has it ever occurred to you that there are so many unintended pregnancies because of a lack of contraception?

The reason for the number of childbirths out of wedlock (with more children being born today out of wedlock than in) is down to a variety of factors such as massive social change in relation to how single mothers are perceived, the lack of sexual education and knowledge of contraceptives, the decline of religious authority, the generous welfare state, the lack of personal responsibility in today's society etc.

If you banned contraceptives, you'd have even more!

There really is not much to know, sex can lead to babies. So if you do not wish to become pregnant either use contraception or don't have sex. Tic Tac Toe.

I don't care about the amount of lone parents, I just care about footing the bill and the creation of a new welfare dependency class that seems to be inter generational.

I don't think contraception has reduced this problem, I think it has somehow made it worse. Another figure on a very upward curve are STDs.

As I said above, its just something to think about, but I am very much for more readily available contraception and abortion, but i seriously doubt those will reduce the problem of teen and unwanted pregnancies, the record speaks for itself.

dotsman

44leto wrote: »

There really is not much to know, sex can lead to babies. So if you do not wish to become pregnant either use contraception or don't have sex. Tic Tac Toe.

You will be shocked by how many people don't get that. For many young people, perhaps with drink involved, the sex leading to babies bit happens to other people not them. There are also many who believe in the natural methods (time of month/withdrawal) as a sufficient method.

44leto wrote: »

I don't care about the amount of lone parents, I just care about footing the bill and the creation of a new welfare dependency class that seems to be inter generational.

I agree with you on that.

44leto wrote: »

I don't think contraception has reduced this problem, I think it has somehow made it worse. Another figure on a very upward curve are STDs.

But again, I don't understand where this is coming from. Surely you accept there would be even more unplanned pregnancies and STI's if there weren't contraceptives?

later12

Sindri wrote: »

Has anyone mentioned yet that the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex is known colloquially as Santorum.

It's almost poetic when you say it like that.

blatantrereg

dotsman wrote: »

You will be shocked by how many people don't get that. For many young people, perhaps with drink involved, the sex leading to babies bit happens to other people not them. There are also many who believe in the natural methods (time of month/withdrawal) as a sufficient method.



I agree with you on that.


But again, I don't understand where this is coming from. Surely you accept there would be even more unplanned pregnancies and STI's if there weren't contraceptives?

Well the sexual liberalisation in western culture that occurred around the sixties was probably largely triggered by the availability of the contraceptive pill. If people have sex more freely in general then more of them are going to get pregnant. So there might be a relationship there.

It would be difficult and inadvisable to try to revert general attitudes about sex though. need to move forwards with progressive solutions. Free and ubiquitous contraception might save more than it would cost tbh.

blatantrereg

later12 wrote: »

It's almost poetic when you say it like that.

You two need to get a room

WoollyRedHat

blatantrereg wrote: »

Here's something to ridicule:
Foster Freiss Suggests "Aspirin Between Their Knees" As Contraception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOI7fokqkFc

He's a backer of Rick Santorum, who is trying to get a presidential nomination in the USA. Santorum is anti-contraception too.

*Thread title robbed from youtube comments.

Hehe, mmmm, very sexy. The contraception method I mean

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

until you get married of course, because a marriage cert is a good contraceptive and no married couples ever have unexpected pregnancies

Never, because baby Jesus watches over the marital bed.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

I am not against but here is something to think about. Before there was readily available and cheap contraception there were a lot less unwanted pregnancies.

....you'd do well to look at the number of children in orphanages circa 1950 and today. Also the numbers available for adoption.

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

....you'd do well to look at the number of children in orphanages circa 1950 and today. Also the numbers available for adoption.

Only because of the shame of a child out of wedlock back then. But there are definitely more accident pregnancies these days. I think I posted a link.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

Only because of the shame of a child out of wedlock back then. But there are definitely more accident pregnancies these days. I think I posted a link.

...you posted a link that said that there was "a marked increase in the number of children living with a single parent." compared to 1960. I'm saying that there are far fewer children in orphanages and available for adoption now as compared to 1960.....

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

...you posted a link that said that there was "a marked increase in the number of children living with a single parent." compared to 1960. I'm saying that there are far fewer children in orphanages and available for adoption now as compared to 1960.....

Well I gave an explanation for that, but what I said still stands before there was wide spread contraception there were less lone parents and less accidental pregnancies.

galwayrush

He's promoting Asprin.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

Well I gave an explanation for that, but what I said still stands before there was wide spread contraception there were less lone parents and less accidental pregnancies.

Right.

1960 - kids in orphanages, good few for adoption.

1960 - not as many kids with single mothers

Now - Feck all kids in orphanages, not many up for adoption.

Now - more kids with single mothers.

Do you see the pattern there?

lone parents and accidental pregnancies are two entirely different things, im not sure why you keep saying they're the same

44leto

galwayrush wrote: »

He's promoting Asprin.

Its a wonder drug and the first drug chemically sinticised by Bayer. Its only now they are discovering its other properties. Its even used in cancer treatment now, and if we go by the vid a contraception as well.

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

Right.

1960 - kids in orphanages, good few for adoption.

1960 - not as many kids with single mothers

Now - Feck all kids in orphanages, not many up for adoption.

Now - more kids with single mothers.

Do you see the pattern there?

So you have it now, OK if for some reason a big taboo happened to day about mothers having children out of wedlock, which compelled all single parents today to give up their children to an orphanage, the state would not be able to cope there would be 1000 and 1000s of them much more then the 60s.

44leto

bluewolf wrote: »

lone parents and accidental pregnancies are two entirely different things, im not sure why you keep saying they're the same

An accidental pregnancy usually makes a lone parent, not always of course.

you think married couples never have an accidental pregnancy, no?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7899568
they're all going to divorce just because?

you think parents with planned pregnancies never have one of them die or split up thereby creating lone parents?

this is nonsense

44leto

bluewolf wrote: »

you think married couples never have an accidental pregnancy, no?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7899568
they're all going to divorce just because?

you think parents with planned pregnancies never have one of them die or split up thereby creating lone parents?

this is nonsense

Yeah I am the result of one, the rhythm method or coitus interuptus didn't work out.

MetalDog

Sindri wrote: »

Has anyone mentioned yet that the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex is known colloquially as Santorum.

Santorum's a slick guy, who believes in the trickle - down theory

southsiderosie

44leto wrote: »

As I said above, its just something to think about, but I am very much for more readily available contraception and abortion, but i seriously doubt those will reduce the problem of teen and unwanted pregnancies, the record speaks for itself.

In the US, several states under George W. Bush switched to abstinence-only sex ed in high schools. Those states in the following 8-10 years all saw an increase in teen pregnancy and STDs. Comprehensive sex ed and easily available contraceptives do reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs.

In addition, conservatives who bang on about women keeping their legs closed need to get a bit of cop-on: why shouldn't insurance coverage be extended to family planning? It makes no sense that your insurance will pay for you to have a baby (and then pay for their coverage), but won't pay for you to get the pills or implant or whatever to prevent having a baby in the first place. Which, in the greater scheme of things, is more expensive?

Finally, I'm sick of this idea that women are supposed to be the keepers of virtue. When I see a grouchy old conservative telling young men to keep it in their pants, then maybe I will at least give them credit for being consistent, but I highly doubt that will ever happen in this world or the next.

44leto

southsiderosie wrote: »

In the US, several states under George W. Bush switched to abstinence-only sex ed in high schools. Those states in the following 8-10 years all saw an increase in teen pregnancy and STDs. Comprehensive sex ed and easily available contraceptives do reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs.

In addition, conservatives who bang on about women keeping their legs closed need to get a bit of cop-on: why shouldn't insurance coverage be extended to family planning? It makes no sense that your insurance will pay for you to have a baby (and then pay for their coverage), but won't pay for you to get the pills or implant or whatever to prevent having a baby in the first place. Which, in the greater scheme of things, is more expensive?

Finally, I'm sick of this idea that women are supposed to be the keepers of virtue. When I see a grouchy old conservative telling young men to keep it in their pants, then maybe I will at least give them credit for being consistent, but I highly doubt that will ever happen in this world or the next.

I never advocated the abstinence policy I am a guy, I know it wont work. I thought it ironic, that the pill and easily available contraception which would have been the main cause of sexual liberation, but to spite the ease of contraception and abortion there are more lone parents.

But once sexual liberalization is out of the bottle its not going back. Even the threat of a deadly disease did not put it back in the bottle.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

So you have it now, OK if for some reason a big taboo happened to day about mothers having children out of wedlock, which compelled all single parents today to give up their children to an orphanage, the state would not be able to cope there would be 1000 and 1000s of them much more then the 60s.

Good jaysus.....

Did it occur to you that the children in the orphanage and up for adoption then are essentially the 'same' children that are with the mothers today?

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

Good jaysus.....

Did it occur to you that the children in the orphanage and up for adoption then are essentially the 'same' children that are with the mothers today?

Gawd would a quarter of all children born before the 60s be in orphanage

Because a quarter of all children born today are born to single parents.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rates%20of%20single%20parent%20families%20history&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Fkfqlcwkfmhid%2Frss2%2F&ei=5CpBT-bwHMbNhAeR5-HGBQ&usg=AFQjCNEEmRTbtzuMtISrJ7M1FT1dF6x-3A&cad=rja

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

Gawd would a quarter of all children born before the 60s be in orphanage

A large number of that amount would. The US turned against the notion of such places in the 1940's/1950's, but - for instance - at the turn of the 19th century they had a population of 100,000 when the total US population was approx 77 Million. Whilst a good number would have been there because of the inability of parents to support them, its undoubtedly true that many were there because of a pregnancy outside marriage.

Then there's adoption, fo unofficial adoption (eg grandmothers/relatives claiming children as their own), fostered children in state care, back street abortion, and doubtless a small amount of infanticide in the more isolated areas. It all adds up, so to say that its a straight 19% increase in children born to single women would be fallacious.