So what’s next? I’m taking the rest of this week off and hopefully starting from next week I’d be starting full-time work as a law clerk and being paid somewhat properly. I’ll be applying to enter College of Law in January ‘09 to start the rest of the theoretical and practical training necessary for me to be admitted as a proper lawyer. If all goes well this should be completed some time late next year.

While this is happening, we’ve finally got a potential buyer for our current house. If all goes well and they don’t change their mind, they’ll be paying their 5% deposit tomorrow afternoon and if the rest of the long settling processing goes by uneventfully, then the house should be officially bought around mid-January next year. By then my family would’ve moved to the much cheaper home located much further away. As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts I don’t really fancy moving with them, which means that before mid-January I need to have moved out to my own place. The most ideal plan I’ve got worked out is to have moved out, working full-time and studying part-time in two months time (though hopefully at a better organised and paying place). It’s going to be harsh initially I’m sure, but I think I can adjust. But we’ll see.

Annngst
You know what’s an emotion that really bugs me? Jealousy. I don’t tend to be a jealous person as I’m already usually very happy with what I’ve got. I did relatively well at Uni, I’m competent at work, I have great friends, a loving family and the bestest boyfriend in the Universe. However, I think jealousy, or more specifically competitiveness, is something I’ve developed as a reaction to when I’ve felt someone has wronged me. When people do something annoying, most of the time I’d brush it off as “bah, annoying -_-” and promptly forget about it. But every once in a while, when someone has said or done something to imply they are better than me when I feel that they’re not, I get competitive, in a “oh really? We’ll see about that!” kind of way.

So anyway, there’s this person in my past who has done more than just pissed me off, more than just “hurt my feelings”. The details and name aren’t important (I don’t think said person reads my blog, but still, this entry is public and googleable) but every once in a while I hear them achieving great things. And I feel jealous and envious even though what they do has nothing to do with what I do, so I can’t directly compete anyway. And in a way, it’s got nothing to do with what they’ve achieved, it’s the fact that their life is excelling when I feel so viscerally that they shouldn’t, because I know s/he’s a shitty and callous person.

We learnt in 3rd year psychology about the importance of “being heard”. When someone has upset you, it doesn’t matter how many other people you rant and rave at about said person, you’ll still feel the sting because you aren’t being heard by the very person who caused you grief. And I know this is exactly that. I’ve ranted and raved at Tim about the issue, but he’s ultimately not the person whom I’m angry at. Said person made me feel helpless and disempowered, and I reacted the only way I know how, to be competitive and to show to myself that they’re wrong. And every time I hear of him/her being successful, it just makes me unhappy.

And yes, I am aware of how pathetic this unilateral competition is, with a person who probably doesn’t even care about what I think or do. Of course, the answer is “Belinda, MOVE THE FUCK ON”. Believe me, I keep telling myself this. I keep telling myself that the best way to “get back” at said person is to lead a happy, successful life yourself. But there’s the naggling retort I have in my head, “well what if it’s not as successful and happy as his/her life?”, who’s the judge? Sigh. I guess I just need more time or something. It’s just so frustrating, and futile and stupid.

Bah, rambling post is rambling. Anyhow! According to this quiz, I’m a True Neutral Elf Wizard (3rd Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength- 8
Dexterity- 10
Constitution- 11
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 11
Charisma- 13

Those stats aren’t very good for a wizard. Also, it’s very different from the sturdy, dwarven cleric I’m playing. O_o Then again the quiz caters to 3.5 edition and not 4th. *shrugs*

I have seen on more than one occasion, people have expressed the belief that opinions cannot be right or wrong, and as some have said, there are only favourable/unfavourable opinions. This is mostly based on the idea that because opinions are beliefs and judgements of something uncertain (paraphrased from dictionary.com’s definition), then opinions cannot be right or wrong. Another way to look at it is that many believe that opinions are purely subjective, therefore they are immune to judgement about their correctness. However, this is an incomplete and superficial conclusion as to what opinions are. There are subjective opinions and there are opinions that are based on objective premises.

Subjective Opinions
Subjective opinions usually refer to one’s own cognitions. For example consider the statement,

“I like fish”.

This cannot be “wrong” because the truth of it comes from yourself, i.e. it would be nonsensical for someone to retort with, “no, you DON’T like fish” because they are not you, and hence not the source of the claim. Other examples could be like, “I feel hungry” or “I hate the rain”. These statements can only be false when the person speaking is lying about the internal state they’re experiencing.

Objective Opinions
Of relevance, objective opinions distinctly have two elements. There is the,
1) The “I believe…” or “I think…” part (which may be expressed or implied), and
2) The actual claim.

For example,

“I think Asperger Syndrome is a fake condition”

This is an opinion about some aspect of the world, and I argue that it can be said to be right or wrong. However, I must stress that the rightness or wrongness has NOTHING to do with that first aspect, the “I think” part. To say the opinion is wrong is not to say “I don’t think that you actually think Asperger’s is a fake condition”, or that it’s not true that you hold that opinion. Saying an opinion is wrong is not to say that you’re not entitled to voice the opinion or that you don’t hold the opinion. Rightness or wrongness refers to the actual claim you’re making.

Of course there are some topics out there that are debatable and are not settled facts. I have heard people opine that Asperger’s is not real, however, just because it’s their opinion, it doesn’t mean such opinions exist in an untouchable void. The existence of Asperger’s is supported by a large body of empirical research, and to contradict the conclusions of such research with no legitimate evidence is to make a claim that is (for all intents and purposes) incorrect, or “wrong”. Such a claim does not stop being incorrect by virtue of being someone’s expressed opinion. It is different when you have an opinion about the world that is backed up with reason or evidence. Then you have an argument, and when confronted with a different view, then perhaps discourse on the subject matter can ensue.

It surprises me whenever people express their opinions about something, and when someone asks them why or presents alternative explanations or some such, the first person gets all huffy and says something along the lines of “well that’s my opinion!”. Okay, so what? If you’re making claims about the world, and if you don’t have a good enough reason to back it up compared to a different claim, then why are you even defending it? Why are people so defensive and get so personal when their objective opinions are demonstrably based on something that is not correct? No one is trying to remove one’s right to an opinion just because they’re based on a less correct premise. You have the right to be wrong, but everyone else retains the right to tell you so.

It’s not always possible to get a “right” opinion when compared to its alternative, because the foundation of the opinions might be different. A Christian who might say “premarital sex is immoral” has a valid opinion, because it follows logically from their belief that there is a God who mandates that premarital sex is immoral. Someone who doesn’t believe in a God in the first place would also come to an equally valid opinion that premarital sex is not immoral. There’s no right and wrong to these two opinions because they work on different premises. However, at least through discussion people can work out what different premises they’re working with, if they have established that both opinions make sense.

Hence, opinions about the world are not immune to objective scrutiny. They can be engaged with like any argument or assertion or belief, and can be deemed good, bad, right or wrong. It has nothing to do with the right to have opinions, or the people making them.

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I found Alex’s entry on education to be particularly enlightening. For another perspective on things, Amanda has her view on the matter. Food for thought!

P.P.S. I just found that Sarai has coincidentally written about opinions too. Seems like we’re on the same wavelength, though she said it with fewer words. ^^;

P.P.P.S. I’m aware that my link list isn’t working (damn plugin) on my blog, and only the script that rotates my dailies on the front page works. I’m trying to get the list back up ASAP.

The gist of the article is that this incredibly bitter “Relationship Correspondent” took it upon himself to advise his readers about what to do about girlfriends that act like a “bitch”. Which is to treat them exactly as if they’re dogs until they learn to be “obedient”. The whole thing is so demeaning, I can’t even pick out particular choice quotes. The justification seems to be that women do this to men anyway, hence men should do it to women first.

Isn’t the better solution be that NO ONE does this to ANYONE? As someone pointed out in the comments of the article, the irony is that the “perfect” outcome would be a girlfriend who is dependent on the boyfriend, even though that’s the type of thing that the writer complains of when women do it to men. Isn’t it then obvious that, generally speaking, NO ONE wants to be on anyone’s “leash” in a relationship?

I cringe inside when I hear of people boasting that they have their significant other “whipped” (though the double standard seems to be that it’s okay that the boyfriend is whipped yet it’s more unacceptable when the girlfriend is instead). To me, since I don’t like the idea of being controlled, then I’m going to assume that other people don’t either, unless they tell me otherwise. Of course, if one party expressly tells you that they’re okay with you handling most decision making processes etc, then that’s a different matter because they chose this course of action rather than being manipulated into it. However, I find it troubling how some people are so preoccupied about who’s “wearing the pants in the relationship” when the answer could well be “both people”.

But yeah. WTF is with that article?

Anyway, my mum today was telling me about a family friend of ours, a chick about two or three years older than me, whose parents are close friends with my parents. I don’t remember her English name, let’s call her “C”. From the very beginning, when I first visited her house at the wee age of about six, I came to the lasting conclusion that C was a horrible bitch, mainly because she expressly refused to let me play with any of her toys. Anyway, being the older one, she started University about two years before I did, in some finance degree. Over the years, we’ve been hearing from her parents that she had academic trouble at Uni, but recently, we were told that she had finally graduated from her three-year degree in her fifth year.

Big twist time! Her mum told my dad a few days ago that C had been lying all along! She in fact stopped attending University after her third year (after what I guess were a series of very bad marks) and simply lied to her parents all this time about going to university, INCLUDING the bit about her graduating. I have no idea why one would make such a lie, I mean, sooner or later, you’re going to be quizzed about the existence of your degree. Her parents are absolutely devastated at the news and promptly have been going around telling everyone about how they are so ashamed and disappointed by the whole thing.

Now, as much as I dislike C, I really feel bad for her. I hate how some parents are so fucking sensitive about their children bring shame on them, and yet this “shame” they are so paranoid about simply wouldn’t exist if you didn’t go around complaining to people about it. C’s parents are quite traditionally Chinese in their absolute insistence on getting a University degree, and no doubt such pressure contributes to C’s decision to lie. C has had a continuous part-time job in the retail industry, can probably support herself financially (though still lives at home) and apparently she enjoys working and yet that’s probably not good enough for her parents.

Anyway, now that the cat’s out of the bag, C’s said she’ll be trying to get back into University to get some sort of tourism degree, though I don’t know how much THAT is influenced by her parents. It must suck so much balls to be in her position right now regarding her parents. :(

The following is the judge deciding when withdrawing consent before, during and after sexual intercourse is considered rape. He cites the case of Battle v State first, specifically where the judge in that case had said (on page 26):

“The authorities are unanimous in the view that consent subsequent to the act of intercourse will not prevent its being rape.”

Okay fair enough. If two people have had consensual sex, it’s simply illogical to say you withdraw consent to something that has already happened. But from there, the judge in that case made the logic-defying leap to conclude that (on page 29):

“On the other hand, ordinarily if she consents prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape.”

WHAT THE FUCK. The judge is basically saying, “because we’ve decided there’s no rape if you consented after sex ended, then it’s also not rape if you consented once sex has started”. The sheer misunderstanding of how sex and people work is mind-boggling. Sex is not a rollercoaster; it’s not like once you get on you have no option to get off (no pun intended!). If a party doesn’t want to keep going once it’s started, then the act ought to stop. If it doesn’t, then it should be considered rape. Because these cases deal with women who get raped, there appears to be this frightening assumption of some kind that men who have sex with women simply CAN’T stop, or more disturbingly, SHOULDN’T have to stop, having sex once it’s started.

But okay, the Battle v State case WAS decided in the 1980s and well MAYBE one can argue that back then things were simply more conservative and the idea that women aren’t objects isn’t as wide spread as it is today. But for some reason Baby v Maryland, the 2006 case, decides to follow Battle v State. After quoting Battle v State (above), this 2006 case goes on to say (on page 31-32):

The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial “de-flowering” of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensation, in legal contemplation, the injured party – the father or husband… But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.

*heaves*

*head explodes*

I… just… wow. Ladies and gentlemen, let me state this again; the above quote came from a judgement in 2006. It’s asserting that just because “ancient laws” (the footnotes, BTW, say that the “ancient laws” they refer to are ancient Assyrian laws) dictate that:

• Women are property;
• Rape of a woman is an “insult” to her father/husband; and
• Rape is only “rape” when it’s the act of “de-flowering” a woman; anything after that is less consequential because it holds less value to men;

this should apply to the women in Maryland, USA, in the 21st century. I’ll let you mull over that.

The case actually then goes on to list a bunch of cases that goes against such sentiment and that such reasonings are “archaic and unrealistic” (page 34) and that there are “only three decisions which appear to hold that prior consent vitiates post penetration withdrawal of consent” with one of the cases being Battle v State (page 35). Nonetheless, the judge in Baby v Maryland decides to apply Battle anyway, with the incredibly feeble justification that:

“It is currently a statement of Maryland law, that has neither been overruled nor commented upon negatively.”

Now I know that following precedent is a big thing in law, i.e. that cases need to follow previous case law that has been decided by a higher court. But this is just ridiculous. The fact that the judge in Baby v Maryland went so far as to cite Assyrian law just to justify why continuing with sexual intercourse after the other party has withdrawn consent is NOT rape is so revoltingly sexist, it’s terrifying and makes me so angry. This above decision is on appeal (link curtesy of Feministing) to the highest court in Maryland, and fingers crossed that the previous judgement would be overturned.

“I know I <insert bad trait> but at least I admit”

There are variations to that but the message is still the same. Here are examples I’ve heard and I paraphrase:

1. From Uni class

“I’m a commerce/law student, I know I’ll probably behave unethically one day, I know I that I’ll probably put profits over moral concerns, but at least I can admit to it”

2. From casual conversation

“I know I’m homophobic, but I at least I’m not hiding it.”

3. Online forums/blogs

“I know I’m immature, I know I’m mean and pick on people, but at least I admit to it, I’ve never denied it.”

I’m not trying to pick on anyone in particular and I may have done the same thing myself without knowing. But… what do such sentiments mean? Such a reply only ever makes sense when someone is asking, “did you KNOW you hold bad opinions?” Once it’s been answered in the affirmative, what role does “… at least I admit it” answers play? Is… it supposed to be a justification? Surely it can’t be that just because they ADMITTED to the bad trait, that makes it okay, right? I’ve been thinking about this over and over again and all that I’ve come up with is that it’s a feeble attempt to distract the audience from focusing on the fact that they just admitted to holding what would be terrible ideologies to the fact that they’re “honest” and “forthcoming” about themselves. But I don’t see how honesty has anything to do with the type of opinions one hold.

A consequence of such an attitude is the internalisation within the actual person of these ideas. These people might have very well convinced themselves “yeah I hold these values, I know other people don’t, but at least I’m honest with myself” with the heavy preoccupation on congratulating themselves on the latter part, the “I’m honest, yay” part, rather than coming to terms with the actual opinion.

I have a feeling that people who hold such ways of thinking might be tempted to retort with “well would you rather I deny I hold these opinions?” But not only does that just gives a false impression that “it’s either this extreme, or this other extreme”, it once again avoids discourse on the actual opinion itself. Your level of honesty is not the issue. The point is, why you think it’s okay to hold these opinions. Whether or not you admit to being homophobic, or unethical, or immature etc, in the end, this isn’t going to reflect how you behave and colour your actions. Whether you admit to such opinions or not isn’t going to change the fact that you’re going to behave homophobically, unethically, immaturely etc. My question is, why is this acceptable?

Let’s take the first example, because no one likes nasty would-be lawyers. It’s almost like he’s saying that he doesn’t need to be ethical just because he’s told everyone he’s not. It’s the same with the other examples, the implication seems to be, yes I admit I have this fault, isn’t it good enough?

The short answer is “no”. The language of self-help, 12-step programs is everywhere nowadays, and everyone knows the famous line “the first step is admitting you have a problem”. You know how people clap and behave sympathetically at AA meetings when someone admits they’re an alcoholic? In such situations though, the assumption is that such honesty is followed by a change in behaviour. People need to be reminded that admitting you have a problem is not the ONLY step, merely the first. The next question we need to ask these people is, “what are you going to do about it?”

Passages in blockquotes are lifted directly from the disclaimer.

Justification

“There are several reasons why these webmasters could be behaving badly. Like I keep continually saying, it’s all about their attitude… If you think that putting a bitch in their place is wrong, then that’s your own opinion but in thinking this you’re seriously misinformed. “

She goes on to list examples of people who have rather unpleasant views about “fat” people, gay people etc. I can absolutely empathise with why Rhiannon would want to single these people out; I personally have pointed out when people have been racist or superificial and why such opinions are unjustified. However, I think Rhiannon’s disclaimer is misleading. Page 2, page 3 and Case One and Two of page five arguably pinpoint sites of webmasters that don’t really have the “attitude” that Rhiannon speak of. I’ll go through each:

• Page 2 – This article focuses on very skinny layouts. I don’t like skinny layouts, nor squishy text, but does using this in one’s layout reflect the attitude of the webmaster? No. Does the type of affiliates (and their layouts) reflect on the attitude of the webmaster? No. Sure the owner of “Cheap Drugs” did have a very angry code warning, but does this fit the nasty attitude criteria detailed in Rhiannon’s disclaimer? I guess it’s arguable, but telling people to not steal your code isn’t the same as saying you hate fat people.
• Page 3
  Case One – Rhiannon had singled out quotes of the webmaster saying that they prefer grungy layouts and likes small text.
  Case Two – The webmaster, on their own blog, writes extensively about her illness.
  I don’t see how these two examples fits in with Rhiannon’s disclaimer about her WBBs as being aimed to “put a bitch in their place”.
• Page 5
  Case One – Rhiannon’s screencap of the layout comes from Firefox, to illustrate lurid green background to the content (the actual layout looks okay in Internet Explorer). She criticises the blog’s “goth” look and bad coding. I guess there’s some “attitude” in the disclaimer in how the webmaster doesn’t want people “bitching” about her opinions, but does this make her a “bitch to be put in their place”? Does this put her on par as saying she hates gay people? I don’t see it.
  Case Two – The layout has winged penises on it. Pretty silly I guess but does this mean the webmaster has an attitude?

Rhiannon clearly doesn’t just pick on webmasters who have a bitchy attitude, she doesn’t just “put a bitch in her place”… unless she extends the word “bitch” to people who make pages for their mental illness or feature grungy layouts.

All I’m saying is, Rhiannon’s disclaimer is flimsy if she’s trying to justifying it from the point of view that people with “attitude” deserve to be called out because as pointed out above, that’s not what’s happening. Some of those WBB articles hit easy targets of bad sites with flying penis layouts and lurid green backgrounds (in firefox). She no doubt writes her very popular WBB articles because it entertains a large number of visitors who think it’s funny to mock bad sites. I’m all for free speech; my point is not that Rhiannon should remove her articles and censor herself any more than I would advocate that the author of Men Are Better Than Women should remove his articles. The latter writes caustic and insulting articles too, but at least he doesn’t try to mask what he’s doing as anything more noble than appealing to and entertaining people who think one sex is inherently better than another.

Straw Man

“Seriously, shut the fuck up about wanting a utopia. If we all liked the same things and there was no difference of opinion, then the world would be an almighty boring place. I wouldn’t want to be a part of it. Negativity is an essential component of life, and we need this element to better understand the concept of having our own personal beliefs and ideals.”

Utopia =/= No difference of opinions. I am an opinionated person myself. I don’t hold the belief that for the sake of harmony, people should never criticise each other just to avoid conflict. I learn from other people’s opinions and what others say have different degrees of influence to how I think. However, difference of opinions =/= negativity. You’re not going to get your point across any more by calling something someone created a “Sad Sack of Shit”. While pointing out where the problem is (fixing the lurid green background) is an entirely fair criticism, how is name-calling (i.e. negativity) “an essential component of life”? Not dishing out useless insults doesn’t automatically mean you can’t give an opinion or you have to sugarcoat.

It is false to justify being negative by presenting the only alternative as sugarcoating. It’s absolutely possible to give constructive criticism without being insulting. However, if your aim is to be insulting because it’s fun for one’s audience who likes reading such drama-fueling language, why not just admit to it?

Inconsistencies

“I am here to give my opinion on anything or anyone I please – after all, surely it is my right not only as a human being but as a paying user of the internet to be able to comment on whatever I see? Why be so ridiculous as to think I should censor myself?“

Emphasis mine. Very good question and the simple answer is, Rhiannon shouldn’t need to censor herself. As she stated on her disclaimer, she’s aware that some people don’t like the way she writes and that shouldn’t (and doesn’t) stop her from writing what she does. But… doesn’t this right extend to everyone else? Why ought others “just…fuck up” on topics she doesn’t find entertaining? I don’t understand how it’s consistent to approve of writing many pages about others attitudes and webmastering skills (or lack thereof) but then say there’s “certainly no need to make an entire fucking page about” one’s “‘mental health’”. The fact that Rhiannon disclaims her WBB articles with the argument that “well I’m entitled to write whatever the hell I want” yet in her actual WBB articles she recommends censorship of other people’s content… it just seems rather hypocritical.

In this light, disclaiming her articles because she has a right to not be censored doesn’t sit right with her own attitude to other webmasters she criticises.

Oh, One Last Thing…

“Do you come here and read my reviews expecting to have me shit roses out of my ass and piss gallons of sugar into the eagerly awaiting mouth of the webmaster?”

I have nothing to say about this except I find it delightfully vulgar. :P

Conclusion
I know I kinda went a bit all over the place with this entry, but Rhiannon’s disclaimer just didn’t sit right with me… there are parts (mentioned above) that add up to at least subtle dishonesty in how she justifies writing WBB articles.

Now, I’ve only heard of this “comedian” very recently. From seeing his stand up routines on youtube, I personally found his jokes to be mostly sub par; lots of Bush jokes (the “George Bush can’t read LULZ” variety), lots of appealing to stereotypes regarding men/women that I guess to some people might be funny. Each to their own I suppose, but not to my taste. He’s apparently relatively popular though, and has his own talk show.

But here’s what really boils my blood. Wiki states that,

‘He [Bill Maher] has expressed disdain for many of the liberal positions regarding hate crime, sexual harassment, etc. as being “things that make women nod.”‘

Assuming that the quote is accurate, that’s the most… insulting idea I’ve heard all week. Not just for women, but for EVERYONE. That idea suggests that:

1. There are some liberal positions considered “aimed” at women;
2. These positions are somehow less significant than other causes because they are aimed to appease a certain demographic (women) rather than existing in their own right;
3. These causes are implicitly less important than other ones because, these causes almost seem to be meant to “entertain” women and hence if any men were to be involved, it might be implicitly emasculating;
4. The women are not even really engaging with the causes, as implied from the very passive act of “nodding” and
5. Other causes (presumably ones that are more “for men”) are better than the ones that “make women nod”.

I can’t get out of my head, this utterly smug and demeaning idea that in this day and age, Maher implies that issues like sexual harassment as merely select topics that women can feel “comfortable” with knowing. It’s the idea that Maher considers there are some discussions of social problems are tailored for women to mindlessly agree with as they sip tea during the commercial breaks of Oprah. That there are particular categories of human suffering or injustice (such as those stemming from hate crimes) that are merely those so generously donated as subjects by the wise and clever men in the world, for women to blunder and fumble with, or at least, to nod to.

As I said above, such idea is an insult to intelligent men AND women. It’s an insult to the men out there who don’t see certain issues, especially those that concern the suffering of other human beings, as being unimportant enough to dismiss. It’s an insult to the women out there who don’t simply “nod” at ANY issue, but can come to an independent conclusion of their own. It’s an insult to the victims of these particular social problems to have their problems, if not totally dismissed, then at least drastically diminished in importance. None of this should be the case, and I’m appalled that someone who calls himself a liberal would have such shallow and sexist take on things. What a douche!

I heard about the vaccine a little while ago and I only realised that it was free in Australia for women between the ages of 12 and 26 when walking by our Uni clinic. Unfortunately there is an age restriction for free injections for economics sakes; each injection costs about $150 and to give those with Medicare a free injection is quite costly. I guess they can only give it to those most at risk. Hooray for universal healthcare!

The only think I’ve heard about it before is the controversy in the US about vaccinating young girls for a reason that makes my blood absolutely BOIL with rage. Many US conservatives object to allowing their teenage girls from being vaccinated because making sex safer will “encourage” sexual promiscuity. The reasoning behind this is vomit-inducing.

These conservative, “concerned parents” cling to their parental rights that they should be allowed to withdraw their daughter from being vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease. Have they considered the parental responsibility of securing the safety of their child? Denying your child a HPV vaccine is not likely to magically stop your 15 year old from fooling around with boys if they are going to do that. Another argument seems to be that kids that are young, when being vaccinated, might inadvertently learn about having sex with boys. Somehow… I doubt that. I have a feeling that a 12 year old isn’t going to think “yay now that I’m vaccinated against human papillomavirus that means I now know what intercourse is and that I should have some!”

I’m sure not all of these conservative parents are so foolish and naive as to think that not vaccinating to their child would definite lead to abstinence. I’m sure some have considered what would happen if their daughter did have sex and contracted HPV and there is an implicit desire to punish “immoral” behaviour. It reeks of “I don’t want my teenage daughter to get vaccinated because if she fools around and gets HPV or cervical cancer, well she deserves it for being such a slut”. Mmm, sounds like wonderful parenting.

But yeah, I’m vaccinated. The needle hurts a bit and made my arm a little sore and weak-feeling for a little while but it got better quickly.