domain:parrhesia.co
hydroacetylene
18hr ago
Assuming your daughter isn't fraternizing with men into their twenties as a teen, almost definitionally getting pregnant as a teen is with an inappropriate man. Let's face it, teenage boys aren't ready for that.
hydroacetylene
18hr ago
To Rightists with daughters reading this: are you concerned that they might encounter "natural family planning" on the internet and really f*** up their life?
No. Keeping their legs closed before marriage is entirely possible.
Primarily, I would be teaching my daughters their bodies and give them tools/trackers just for the educational value. There is so much more value to being aware of your cycle. It can tell a woman when she will be the most motivated, when she'll be more likely to make bad decisions, etc. Teenagers taught to monitor their bodies have reported things like, "Now I know when I'm angry at a certain time of the month, to just wait it out and not make any big decisions." Teenage girls in correctional facilities were astonished to see that their misbehavior typically fell in the same time of the month. Etc. I don't think I need to defend to this sub the value of self-knowledge.
The ideal would be that they don't have sex. But if they do, they will know exactly when and why they got pregnant.
I have a huge issue with lumping together "Symptoms-based fertility awareness ex. symptothermal and calendar-based methods". There are five different methods I can name off the top of my head that meet that criteria, which vary in effectiveness from 75% to 99.8% with perfect use. Complicating this is that a lot of people use a condom during fertile time instead of abstaining, which just makes the effectiveness on par with a condom.
Calendar-based method: Terrible effectiveness rate. I've heard of one that was just, "Have sex every 10 days" and it had an effectiveness rate of like 90%, which is funny but isn't super in-tune with the body.
Then there's the Marquette Method, which is starting to get into more measurable, technological solutions. You pee on a stick every morning, it gives you a reading you chart, the chart tells you whether or not you should have sex that day if you want to be pregnant or not.
There were forty-two unintended pregnancies which provided a typical use unintended pregnancy rate of 6.7 per 100 women over twelve months of use. Eleven of the forty-two unintended pregnancies were associated with correct use of the method. The total unintended pregnancy rate over twelve months of use was 2.8 per 100 for women with regular cycles, 8.0 per 100 women for the postpartum and breastfeeding women, and 4.3 per 100 for women with irregular menstrual cycles.
Typical use effectiveness of 93.3% is not bad at all - very comparable to the pill.
The version I use and will teach my daughters is the Sympto-Thermal method with a Doeringer rule - like the Sensiplan. I would give them special thermometers to wear at night which only need to be synced about once a week (unless you really want sex, in which case they get synced every morning.) For the Sensiplan Method:
After 13 cycles, 1.8 per 100 women of the cohort experienced an unintended pregnancy; 9.2 per 100 women dropped out because of dissatisfaction with the method; the pregnancy rate was 0.6 per 100 women and per 13 cycles when there was no unprotected intercourse in the fertile time.
This is comparable to an IUD.
Trust me, I have done the research on this. It is literally impossible to get pregnant on phase III (three days after ovulation to the start of menses), if your phase I is longer than 6 days. I've had to rely on this knowledge many a time and it doesn't fail. If I have sex anywhere near a fertile window, I get pregnant immediately (I have learned.)
Edit to add an article on the "teach teenagers to be aware of their cycle" thing: https://naturalwomanhood.org/cycle-mindfulness-what-happens-when-you-teach-fertility-awareness-to-teen-girls/
Here is what she found out: for 90% of the girls in the program who had ended up in jail, it happened during the premenstrual phase of her cycle...
One of the documented outcomes of Teen STAR’s work is the much lower likelihood for these girls to engage in premature sexual activities. The program was evaluated by ChildTrends, a leading U.S. nonprofit research organization, which reported “that this program is effective in reducing the rate of pregnancy, delaying the onset of sexual activity, decreasing sexual activity in sexually-active youth, and improving attitudes towards abstinence, compared with students in the no-treatment groups.”
aceventura
19hr ago
Thanks for this, very helpful.
I saw this in Axios:
The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the executive oder that curtails birthright citizenship in October, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, adding that she was "confident" in the court.
Until then, the administration can start pursuing its policy in states where it's not blocked.
As of right now, 22 states have challenged the the executive order.
Given that we could end up in situations where newborns in certain states acquire citizenship and other newborns don't, I would've thought the Supreme Court would issue a decision on birthright citizenship within the present term. Is it just that there's not enough time?
What are the chances that the Supreme Court actually strikes down birthright citizenship? My impression from the start was that this was always going to be a losing case given how far back the precedent goes, but I'm far from an expert.
Hadad
19hr ago
With Russigate, no-one of any significance was suggesting that there was anything compromised about the voting process itself, which obviously crosses into very new and dangerous territory.
So Hillary Clinton in 2019 claiming the election was not on the level and was tampered with is ... ? I don't buy your quibbling. People have been doubting the legitimacy of electoral victories for multiple elections now. I don't find your splitting hairs over the specific wording of these doubts, as if they weren't all simply expressions of distrust in an enemy's victory, persuasive. That you find Trump's rhetoric perhaps more crass or vulgar is noted, but I genuinely don't care. The substance is not different.
Cult mindset.
No, the cult is the ones that look at multiple bellweather-defying special exceptions pulled out in a crisis, that multiple influential agents later boast about fortifying, and go "nah bro, it's totally fine".
anti_dan
19hr ago
So I just had a delivery guy brazenly steal the delivery ON CAMERA. The camera is not subtle. It points directly at the place she took her "Proof of Delivery" photo. And she just kinda put it down then looked around and picked it back up.
Sorta fun I suppose.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
19hr ago
It's crazy on multiple levels. His age, like you said, but also that it's blatantly illegal. I guess in theory the constitution could be amended, but does anyone seriously think that's likely? I certainly don't, at least. And without an amendment, a lot of Trump's supporters are going to refuse to support him any more (because they don't like flouting the law), at which point he can't win an election anyways.
To me, the whole idea of a third Trump term is just another in the long line of people freaking out about how he's the worst thing to ever happen to America. As the saying goes, the demand for authoritarianism from Trump outstrips supply.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
19hr ago
MAGA is/was strongly opposed to sending troops to Iran, and is broadly in favor of how things actually played out. There is no contradiction there.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
19hr ago
Violence has always been something people have been fascinated by as viewers. The NFL offers a watered down much worse version of it, mma is just more honest about it.
I personally watch it because I like seeing how people solve problems, how a set of techniques and strategies can best another.
erwgv3g34
19hr ago
When life is a constant battle against starvation, you don't have the luxury of resources to have to think long term. You live that beautiful, simple, horrifyingly savage life of "one day at a time." Once you figure our larger scale agriculture, you start to have more stuff and then you upgrade to the perennial problem of how to organize society. Every society that's flourished has settled on long-term pair bonding and marriage-til-death. Some have carve outs for lawful divorce, but the intent is clear.
The causality is backwards. Once you develop marriage to guarantee men exclusive sexual access to a woman and thereby produce children of assured paternity, men have an actual incentive to work hard and create wealth in order to support their spouse and offspring. Civilization is a built as a byproduct of men seeking to provide for their wife and kids.
With no marriage, you get sluts in mud huts. Men compete for women by being the biggest thug, not by being the best provider. Women compete for men by being the biggest whore, not by being the best possible wife and mother.
What happens when welfare and child support replace marriage is left as an exercise for the reader.
fribble
19hr ago
"having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded
... when it presupposes one is having lots of sex with lots of men outside of marriage.
I'm going to make the wild suggestion that both sex and children should be within a marriage.
cjet79
19hr ago
Hasn't come up yet honestly. It would definitely be the call the cops option. Where we live they'd show up and actually deal with the problem and probably get a round of applause.
Troublemakers are most often teenagers being teenagers. Though recently it was an inebriated adult causing problems. Which pisses me off way more because now the pool will probably start cracking down on any kind of drinking at the pool, and thus ruining it for all the adults that can have a few beers on the sly and not become complete animals.
There is a checkin area so we will generally know if someone is trying to enter when they shouldn't, but yeah in the past people have apparently tried to dodge their punishments. Memberships at the pool are acquired as a family unit, so we can kinda get family's to punish bad teens by threatening to remove the entire family unit if a particular teen does not behave. If they are incapable of controlling their teen ... Well we have a wait-list for membership so they will be replaced by a better behaved family.
Gaashk
19hr ago
On the more wacky front, I've wondered if we should be dosing married couples with Oxytocin since pretty much all the literature available shows that it makes couples more interested in each other (although I'd not be surprised if this would fail to replicate.)
Couple shows up at the doctor's office saying they've not had sex in months, he hands them a spray bottle: "Take two snorts each and call me in the morning."
Inconveniently, babies are one of the big things that leads women to not want sex over long periods of time.
Oxytocin comes up medically in the context of childbirth and lactation, and is heavily involved in breast feeding. So, if you stimulate a breast feeding mother's nipples, her body will produce oxytocin... and milk. She will likely then think of the baby. Doctors give oxytocin during delivery to make contractions stronger (or, if they only need them a bit stronger, can use a breast pump).
wlxd
19hr ago
I am not worried about my daughters getting pregnant as teenagers by itself. I would be overjoyed to have grandchildren while I’m still young and energetic. What worries me is them getting pregnant with inappropriate man. But, then again, I think it’s less bad when it happens when they’re teenagers than when they’re 30+. They still have a chance (though, of course, much reduced) to put their life together with someone more appropriate. When it happens to you while you’re middle aged, the pool of appropriate men that are interested in you is really tiny.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
19hr ago
Jersey Mike's is by far the best chain sandwich I've found!
theCircusWeakman
20hr ago
June is coming to an end, which means all the most controversial SCOTUS opinions are coming out in the traditional big lump. These opinions are sharply divided, often along ideological lines, with lively dissents and concurrences--pretty enjoyable for a law nerd like me. Relevant to this thread, these cases tend to focus on big culture-war topics like abortion and gender stuff. This week saw the following:
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic - Abortion. Congress requires States who receive Medicaid funds to, among other things, permit patients to obtain medical assistance from "any qualified provider." South Carolina receives federal Medicaid funding, but excludes Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program because state law prohibits using public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood files a section 1983 claim (this is important, IMO) arguing that it is a "qualified provider" and that Congress's Medicaid statute created a federal right for any qualified provider to receive Medicaid funds. The court, with a 6-3 conservative-liberal split, says "no." Gorsuch writes the majority opinion: the "any-qualified-provider" provision of the federal Medicaid statute does not create a right for medical providers to receive Medicaid funding. All it does is specify a condition with which participating States must "substantially comply" in order to receive federal funding. If South Carolina doesn't want to comply, the feds can kick South Carolina out of the Medicaid program, but that's not the same as creating a "right" to Medicaid funds. Section 1983 is only for vindication of a person's federal rights; there is no right for a provider to receive Medicaid funding from a State, so Planned Parenthood doesn't have a valid 1983 claim. Jackson writes the dissent; I didn't really read it carefully, because the majority seems clearly to have the better argument here. Everyone agrees that South Carolina could, if it wanted to, simply reject federal funding altogether. Then nobody in South Carolina would get Medicaid funding, and South Carolina wouldn't have to abide by any of the provisions of the Medicaid statute. It's hard to say that people have an enforceable federal "right" to receive Medicaid funding from a state, when everyone acknowledges that the state has no obligation to participate in the Medicaid system at all.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton - Pornography 6-3 conservative opinion, Thomas. First Amendment does not prohibit Texas from requiring age-verification for pornographic websites. Kagan writes the dissent.
Mahmoud v. Taylor - LGBTQ+ Books and Lessons in Schools 6-3 conservative opinion, Alito. Religious students and parents have a constitutional right, under the free exercise clause, to opt-out of pro-LGBTQ+ curricula in public schools. Thomas writes a concurrence. Sotomayor wrote the dissent.
In my opinion, the biggest case today was:
Trump v. CASA, Inc. - Immigration BUT ACTUALLY Federal Court Procedure (sounds boring but is, IMO, super important) 6-3 conservative opinion, Barrett. 3 concurrences! 2 dissents! This is the "birthright citizenship" case: does the Court agree with the Trump administration that some people born on U.S. soil are nevertheless not American citizens? IDK! Because the Court doesn't answer that question. Instead, it addresses whether the lower federal court had the authority to issue a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement proceedings. The Court held it did not have that authority. Federal courts can only determine cases and issue binding decisions as to the parties before them, not the country as a whole. The lower court's national injunction is stayed as to any people not among the parties to the suit.
Some are saying the Court "punted" on the birthright citizenship thing, but I think the Court actually addressed a far more important culture-war issue. "Nationwide" or "universal" injunctions have been part of the playbook for activists' (especially progressive activists) lawfare for a long time. The idea is to find some sympathetic plaintiff who would be affected by a statute or executive action you don't like, shop around the whole country until you find a judge who agrees with you, and then get that judge--before the case has even been tried--to indefinitely prevent the government from applying the challenged law/regulation/action to anyone, anywhere in the country. This opinion represents a potentially huge obstacle to progressive activist's attempts to stymie Trump's immigration agenda.
Less interesting cases, IMO:
Gutierrez v. Saenz - Criminal Procedure. A lurid murder case gives rise to a pretty boring dispute about death-row inmates' standing to request post-conviction testing of DNA evidence. I can't really figure out the nuances of the Texas law at issue or the procedural history, but it looks like the Sotomayor-led majority thinks Gutierrez has standing; he has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in the ability to request post-conviction DNA testing, even though the prosecutor apparently has both the right and the express intention to refuse that request in this case. Barrett concurs but chides the majority for "muddying the waters of standing doctrine." Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissents. Thomas, typically, offers a solo dissent on the quixotic ground that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court since the early twentieth century; in his view, the "liberty" interests protected by the 14A do not include state-created entitlements like Texas' post-conviction DNA testing procedure. My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years (Gutierrez was convicted in 1998).
Riley v. Bondi - Immigration/Deportation. Deportation is a hot-button topic right now, but this opinion about filing deadlines and the distinction between claims-processing rules and jurisdictional requirements is too dry for me to get worked up about. Perhaps notable for the fact that Gorsuch broke from the conservative majority to join, in part, Sotomayor's dissent. Pretty boring overall!
There were others, but they don't have as much culture war salience as the above, IMO. I meant to do a longer write-up, a little paragraph for each case, but I'm too tired ... sorry
faceh
20hr ago
So what happens if someone shows up at the pool after a ban?
I'm just curious if there's a big burly guy that prevents these people from coming in, or you just call the cops and trespass them like most establishments.
Or maybe I'm envisioning this wrong and even the troublemakers are wiling to abide by punishment decisions, which doesn't explain why they break the rules so much in the first place.
fribble
20hr ago
My kid is an only who started daycare at 3 months old. If she tried to be a trad wife she would be figuring it out from scratch. I bet that's the position a lot of them are in. Toss in a tendency towards perfection or desire to compare your life with someone else's social-media-curated version of their life and you get a mess.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
20hr ago
That was an impressive screed, but you haven't connected a single thing to "male avarice" and female emancipation. And you're doing exactly what you claimed you aren't, telling a just so story about how Christianity is the only ideology that somehow avoids the failure mode of every other civilization.
Are we in the End Times? I've been hearing that in one form or another since I was a kid. A pity that we (or at least I) am too old to see it through or I would put up money on you being wrong.
erwgv3g34
20hr ago
The article is paywalled so I can't read the entirety, but if you can quote me the part where Ms. Zito is single and pregnant, go right ahead and I'll be properly horrified.
She isn't. Here are all the paragraphs mentioning Ms. Zito, from the non-paywalled archive:
Rhaelynn Zito is one such conservative convert. Ms. Zito is a 25-year-old nurse who lives in Raleigh, N.C. In 2023, she said she had a real belly flop of a year. She went through a breakup, lost a family member and was searching for purpose outside work. Ms. Zito began listening to Ms. Clark, whose Turning Point USA show is often ranked among the top ten of health podcasts on Spotify.
Listening to Ms. Clark, Ms. Zito said, changed her life. She started a Bible study group, cut down her drinking and stopped dating casually as she focused on finding a husband. She stopped using birth control, taking up a natural family planning method recommended on Ms. Clark’s show, and became dubious about abortions and vaccines. She no longer identifies as a feminist.
“What dipped my toe into all of this was the MAHA movement,” Ms. Zito said, referring to the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, championed by influencers like Ms. Clark and now led in the Trump administration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “I find myself leaning more conservative than I ever have before.”
...
Right before she flew to Dallas, Ms. Zito realized it was time to tell her close friends and family that she identified as conservative. After all, they might see her post photos from the Turning Point conference on Instagram.
Ms. Zito braced herself and called her grandmother, a liberal Methodist pastor in New Jersey. “I’m moderately conservative!” (She said her grandmother didn’t make a fuss, mostly wanting her to be happy.)
Ms. Zito still encounters political issues that prompt her to lean left. She finds some of the White House’s messaging about ICE raids to be “unchristian.” She believes in access to abortion under some circumstances. She wants a career. But she finds the MAHA of it all compelling. “It’s just like Alex Clark always says,” she explained. “We will not have political fights in 100 years if we’re all sick and don’t have babies.”
Sounds like she turned her life around; good for her. She is still young enough to catch a husband and have children.
fribble
20hr ago
Getting pregnant is not that big a deal. While I am glad my daughter did not have a baby at 16, there are so many other things that would have been worse. Her getting sucked into the alcoholic party culture was something I was significantly more concerned about at the time. Given a choice between my kid being an alcoholic or a teenage mom I am choosing the latter. She declined both.
cjet79
20hr ago
We ban them from the pool. Short term bans at first and escalate to full membership removal. There have also been some party rentals that haven't cleaned up at all, cleaning fee for them.
By comparison to this forum I feel like there are way more options for punishment.
Throwaway05
20hr ago
(and of course NJ makes voluntary commitment, by which they mean any treatment in a psychiatric facility, and also involuntary outpatient treatment, a permanent bar to gun ownership)
I don't support this.
For the rest of this, well you have a trained professional (in the case of NJ I believe it's two physicians spread out over multiple days) assessing that the person is a threat to themselves or others, and importantly staking their license on it - since they can be sued for this, and with other release valves like the expungement process.
That's not quite the same as a conviction in a court of law by a jury of your peers but continued commitment processes do involve lawyers beyond the initial psychiatric hold.
Importantly the alternative is ass - does every temporary psychiatric hold involve the legal system? Does that mean you need to hold people after they are already better in order to get them to court? The administrative and procedural cost would be high. Most patient's would find being dragged through court by default traumatizing and miserable.
The majority of people committed have either attempted suicide or have a condition that permanently makes them a significant threat to themselves or others (like schizophrenia and bipolar I). While edge cases do exist it is not generally subtle.
Ultimately people have a right to free speech and guns (in the U.S. anyway) but other people have a right to not get killed.
I'll freely admit that the rest of New Jersey's gun control stuff is absolute horseshit, but preventing someone who thinks that everyone on the street is spying on them for Elon Musk and going to rape them from owning weapons is legit.
A "trained professional" is not the same as an adversarial process. A police officer is a trained professional, for instance.
NJ allows for at least a 3-day involuntary commitment with no court order, just on the word of a health facility, and 6 days in many circumstances. Then they can be held up to 20 days on an ex parte court order. Only then does the patient get an actual hearing. Any of this disqualifies you from gun ownership in NJ.
And though some of this can be sued over, the burden of proof is then on the patient to prove the commitment was unreasonable. And even that doesn't restore gun rights.
If you want it to take away legal rights, especially permanently, it sure as hell ought to.
And if you want to claim to be a strong 2A advocate, you need to accept that this sometimes means accepting that people that you'd look at and say "Naa, that guy shouldn't have a gun" have gun rights too. Otherwise you end up rationalizing yourself (as many "conservatives" do) into finding even NJs gun laws to be perfectly OK.
More options
Context Copy link