Naked Mitosis

CNN is an evil bastard who pretends to be above the sensationalism of the 'lesser' news outlets but then puts this kind of article link on their front page:

Teens' naked cell pix draw porn charges

Now, I check CNN a few times a day to learn about Barack Obama's recent purchase of a slimjim and a pack of mentos as well as any odd air-travel happenings (which it appears occur everyday, by hero-pilots and 'crudball' dudes trying to fake their deaths). Sooner or later I'm going to see the link that contains the phrase "naked pix." I'm not made of stone. Although I am either incredibly niave or there is something wrong with that title blurb structure because initially I thought some high-schooler had drawn cells in biology class that had boobies and penises and stuff. But apparently kids aren't that wierd and are just hormonal and kind of slutty (shocking?).

Again, too bashful/afraid to actually click the video link I cut and paste the title into google so that i might at least read about the discussion of this story. And people delivered. The most interesting discussion I found was this. My favorite comment has to be from 'XopherMV':

"I think it is ridiculous that she's facing the ADULT charges of CHILD pornography for photographing HERSELF.

Either she's an adult or she is a child. The prosecutor can't have it both ways."

Indeed, a real LOL moment. However this only goes to reconfirm the notion that when/if L and I actually have our hypothetical children and any of them happens to be girls they are certainly not going to be allowed to leave the attic until they are maladjusted 40 year-olds.

Oh and right. So totally not going to do my typical google image search for an appropriate pic to upload for this entry. Not happening.

Countdown to Christmas #8 (December 13th)

Normally I'm an NPR guy. well, actually, normally, I'm a no radio at all, put in my favorite CD of the moment to listen to sort of guy. But I like to stay informed, abreast of the political situation, blah blah menomenablah. But sometimes I can't help but switch over to something a little more, shall we say, low-brow. Over the Summer Croftie introduced me to a morning radio show called Drex in the Morning (spelling... not sure). It is the drive-time show for the local top 40 channel (Souljah boy OOOOh! er, sorry) so its listeners are mostly teens, tweens, and folks who never managed to grow up out of that mind-set. And, i guess, slumming NPR listeners who have tired of the current piece on west Texan wind turbines and how they are going to revitalize old mining towns that zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Where was I? Oh yeah, crappy morning radio shows. Yesterday the topic was the supposed outrage over a state-wide law where it is illegal for persons under the age of 17 to purchase condoms. Callers spoke of how they were turned away at Wal-mart, or daughters who had to steal from their dad's stash (gross!), or 'cool' dads who handed out condoms to his sons like some sort of prophylactic fairy (er, double gross?). Anyways, the pro-condom side argued that here we have kids (yes, when you are under 17 you are a kid) who want to practice safe sex not being allowed to do so, that this will lead to an increase in unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STDs. Because it is not like a kid who has the opportunity to have sex but no resource of condoms is going to say to themselves, "Aw shucks, maybe i will just wait until next Summer."

The naysayers say that kids shouldn't have access because they are too young and too stupid and shouldn't be having sex anyway. While I agree with the too young and too stupid part, I know i was an idiot at the age of 16, I'm not quite sure a state law is the answer. Especially when teens are getting sex education in public schools. So, we're going to tell them exactly what their bodies are capable of and then tell them to hold on until they are older. Because kids never want to do the things their parents say they are forbidden to do. And the whole illicit aspect doesn't make it even more attractive to the same folks who would be inclined to do this sort of thing anyhow.

Now, my fictional completely unrealized and Croftie-unsanctioned daughter (let's call her Kit) will be chained in the attic until her 40th birthday whereupon she will be allowed to greet pre-approved suitors in the parlor. Okay, so that is a bit much, I'd probably make a good dad, or at least a decent one.

So yeah, let's get this straight, I'm a terrible, incorrigible prude. Not a judgy prude, just a prude to myself. I could care less what you do, but I was not ready for a long time for anything my peers in high-school were getting into (alcohol, sex, etc) because I totally bought in and thought that my soul was in danger of being eternally roasted if i had a sip of Bud Light or that a puff on a cigarette would lead me down the schute of oblivion to hardcore heroin use. So yeah, I wish kids wouldn't have sex, I wish they would just come to the understanding that there is no rush here, but i know damn well, especially in Small Town America, that teens are boredboredbored and that sooner or later the topic of sex is going to come up. Maybe they should at least have the chance to play it safe?