Balkinization  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Is Trojan Advocating the End of Humanity?

Ian Ayres

The New York Times had an excellent article discussing the shameful refusal of CBS and Fox to run the Trojan ad, Evolve.

You can watch it here:

It's especially embarassing that the Trojan ad is spiked when the networks are willing to run beer ads dripping with sexuality like the Coors ads, Wingman and Twins (Did the Paris Hilton Carl Jr. ad ever air on network TV?)

The FCC would provide a public service if it pre-cleared condoms ads. FCC pre-clearance would not oblige networks to air the ads. But the government's imprimitur might provide the networks with some cover and nudge them toward doing the right thing. (And project the FCC as a non-censor. something good for it's image).

But what's really interesting to me about the Trojan ad is it's final tag line: “Evolve. Use a condom every time.”

If people followed this advice literally, it would mean the end of evolution as humans would stop procreating. Thanks mom and dad, for not using a condom everytime.

Of course, like the constitution, these words need to be interpretted. Trojan might have only meant use a condom everytime you hook up with someone in a bar for the first time. This restricted meaning would be closer to concerns that Kathy Baker and I voiced in an article about "reckless sex".

But the ambiguity of the Trojan advice underscores the difficulty society has in formulating a standard for condom use. What is particularly absent is advice to women who are using oral contraceptives. A staggering 82% of women will use the birth control pill by the time they are 44 (and about one-third of college age women are on the pill at any given time). Telling someone who is on the pill to always use a condom is ineffective. What should we tell our daughters then?

The health care community if pushed would probably say "(i) Always use a condom for the first 6-months of a monogomous relationship and (ii) then insist on a negative HIV test from your partner and (iii) then if you trust your partner to remain monogomous, you can engage in sex without a condom."

I frankly worry that the compliance rate with this advice for women who are on the pill will be fleetingly small. An alternative is to stress a modern day equivalent to the three date rule. When I was going off to school, my parents emphasized to me that it was not wise to have sex with anyone until at least the third date. The modern day update for condom advice is to use a condom no matter what for the first three times you have sex with someone. The power behind the three condom rule is that most sexual pairings in the U.S. don't last 3 encounters. Kathy Baker and I found that 46% of sexual pairings had sex only one time. From a public health perspective, if we could get people to use condoms the first three times they had sex with someone else we might cripple the power of many STDs.

I worry that by disseminating vauge or unrealistically broad standards for condom use, we will end up with non-usage even during the crucial first (and second and third) sexual encounters.

Of course when advising our sons and our daughters, we also have their narrower, individual interests in mind. The 3 condom rule should be setout as a non-negotiable minimum. Beyond that, it is still necessary to test and trust (especially if you or your partner continue to have additional sexual partners). The six month rule is even more prudent. I just don't think there is much of a chance that it will be followed by many sexually active young people.

Comments:

On the other end of the spectrum, what if, from a public health perspective, we could get young kids to wait for sex until marriage? In one generation, we will have solved HIV/AIDS.
 

Charles,

Getting young kids to postpone sex until they are older (preferably over 18) is and always has been a good idea. I think we all agree that 13 year olds have no business having sex.

However, "wait until marriage" is faulty advice that is bad for women. Not only would we have not solved HIV (what about infidelity? Divorce? People who contract HIV through non-sexual behavior?), we would have created many unhappy and premature marriages.

I grew up in a very Catholic family, so I'm probably more conservative on this issue than some people. But I realize that for many women, professional and educational goals are incompatible with marriage. Encouraging people to "wait for marriage" is encouraging women not to pursue higher education, encouraging them not to pursue professional goals that would make early marriage inconvenient. That is, unless you're simply suggesting that women shouldn't have sex until their early 30s, which is just as unrealistic now as it has been at every point in human history up 'til now.

Furthermore, what business is it of ANYONE to be pushing moral positions on adult citizens over the age of 21? Do you really want tax dollars funding abstinence education for single men and women in their early 30s? That's not a very "conservative" position.
 

The FCC would provide a public service if it pre-cleared condoms ads. FCC pre-clearance would not oblige networks to air the ads. But the government's imprimitur might provide the networks with some cover and nudge them toward doing the right thing. (And project the FCC as a non-censor. something good for it's image).

In some ways, prior restraint is preferable to post-publication punishment--it at least provides a safe harbor for speakers and publishers. There can be no chilling effect if you know what is and is not OK. I wonder the degree to which a pre-clearance safe harbor would amount to a prior restraint: If we clear it, you are OK to run it. If we don't... Would any network agree to run an ad that had been submitted for pre-clearance and rejected?
 

Catherine:

. . . what about infidelity? Divorce?

Thank you for your response. I agree that, for my proposal to be 100% effective, all sex would have to remain within marriage.

People who contract HIV through non-sexual behavior?

You mean needle-sharing drug addicts? HIV through innocent means such as blood tranfusions are almost unheard of anymore. Let's cut down 99% of our HIV transmission problem, then we can deal with the remaining 1%.

. . . we would have created many unhappy and premature marriages.

I have no problem with the government helping people make the right choice about who to marry as well.

. . . I realize that for many women, professional and educational goals are incompatible with marriage.

Then they are incompatible with sex outside of marriage. Just because one CAN do something does not mean one SHOULD do. I am simply suggesting that women (and men) shouldn't have sex until they are married, whether that is their early 30s, 40s, or beyond. It is possible, you know?

. . . what business is it of ANYONE to be pushing moral positions on adult citizens over the age of 21?

We don't allow adult citizens over the age of 21 to do many things. Are you saying we repeal every other law too?

Do you really want tax dollars funding abstinence education for single men and women in their early 30s?

That's not a very "conservative" position.

I disagree. What is not a "conservative" position is advocating and encouraging sex outside of marriage, such as the proposal to obtain FCC pre-clearance above.
 

I'm glad to see conservatives like Charles supporting gay marriage.
 

Wrong again. There is nothing "conservative" about re-defining marriage from the accepted one man / one woman institution; therefore, I do not support same-sex marriage. I also did not make it clear, above, but I do not support marriage between a brother and sister, between a parent and child, between more than one man and one woman, between human(s) and other species, or between anything else you care to re-define "marriage" as.
 

P.S. Catherine -- I forgot to agree with you about "Getting young kids to postpone sex until they are older (preferably over 18) is and always has been a good idea." This condom ad being targeted at teens wouldn't help. Also, I don't think everyone here would agree with us that 13 year olds have no business having sex.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Charles wrote:

On the other end of the spectrum, what if, from a public health perspective, we could get young kids to wait for sex until marriage? In one generation, we will have solved HIV/AIDS.


Any thoughts on how to do that?

I have no problem with the government helping people make the right choice about who to marry as well.

Perhaps in a purely communist/fascist country, that would fit in quite well.
 

Are you asking for "any thoughts" on getting kids to only have sex within marriage, or how that would stop HIV/AIDS in one generation? You not advocating unhappy and/or premature marriages, are you?
 

From the author's own link (above) re: the concern that criminalizing reckless sexual behavior "unduly burdens the constitutional rights of privacy and associational freedom. We do not contest that our statute regulates sexual expression in novel ways. Indeed, where once the state used criminal statutes to impede the distribution of birth-control, we are now using criminal law to mandate it. However, our restrictions do not infringe on the constitutional rights of sexual expression as they have emerged to date.

First, it is important to keep in mind that sexual expression, like all forms of expression, can be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Our statute regulates the manner in which people are able to participate in a first time sexual encounter. All we require is that the couple actually discuss (or otherwise communicate about) the issue of protection so that they can be clear that if the expression is to be unprotected, both parties agree to it. There are virtually no long term consequences that flow from this restriction and it is hard to see how this could be considered unreasonable in any circumstances.

[fn. 192 This is particularly true given the extensive historical support for criminally regulating many more aspects of sexual expression, including, who one could have sex with (adultery), how one could have sex (sodomy statutes), and where one could have sex (fornication statutes).] All other footnotes omitted.

Second, it bears repeating that this is a one-time-per relationship health regulation. It does not impose any kind of regulation on an on-going intimate relationship. We readily accept that sexual relations can be an important means of enriching and nurturing a relationship. The Supreme Court has now endorsed this view unequivocally, but when it has protected sexual expression, the Supreme Court has done so as a way of protecting and fostering the relationship in which it is being expressed, rather than the expression itself. The parties’ relationship is not unduly burdened when the parties are free either to agree to unprotected sex or to engage in unprotected sex after just one encounter. The sexual liberties that are constitutionally protected from state interference, 'the realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter,' are simply not implicated by a statute that only affects first time sexual encounters.

Third, the behavior regulated here can cause significant harm, in part despite and in part because of its intimate nature. In striking down the Texas sodomy statute in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy was careful to point out that a general sodomy statute does not target 'persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not be easily refused.' First time unprotected sexual encounters involve precisely all of those dangers. The proposed statute is a minimally intrusive means of guarding against those dangers.

Nonetheless, there may be certain populations that are particularly affected by this regulation. Those who routinely engage in casual sexual encounters, and particularly those who embrace the importance of casual sexual encounters to their sexual identity, will be more burdened than others by this regulation. We recognize that portions of the gay male population are likely to be disproportionately burdened. In a recent survey of sexual behavior in a well-known gay Chicago neighborhood, researchers found fourty-three percent of men saying that they had had more than 60 sexual partners. Another eighteen percent had between 31 and 60 partners and another twenty-seven percent had between 16 and 30 partners. This means that eighty-three percent of this urban gay male population has well over the average number of lifetime sexual partners. Obviously these men will have more than the average number of first time encounters. Moreover, the same researchers noted that most 'men-seeking-men' personal advertisements in the neighborhood 'identify casual sex rather than long-term relationships as their goal.' This means that the proposed statute will necessarily restrict the lives of gay men much more than the norm both because gay men tend to have more sexual partners than is the norm and because gay men tend to prefer casual encounters more than is the norm. Moreover, this preference for casual sex may well be a preference that gays classify as an important part of their sexual identity.

As discussed, and notwithstanding the advent of queer theory, it is unlikely that one could read even the most expansive Supreme Court case on sexual expression as protecting the importance of casual sexual encounters to one’s sexual identity. Certain groups valuing a practice does not give that practice constitutional protection. More important, our statute does not regulate casual sex, per se. We remain agnostic on the question of whether casual sex is good and an important part of some people’s sexual identity. We do not remain agnostic on whether unprotected casual sex is good. Unprotected first encounter casual sex is incredibly dangerous, not only for the participants but for anyone who will come into unprotected sexual contact with those participants. Neither privacy nor associational rights will be 'unduly burdened' by its reasonable regulation."
 

Shorter Charles: "If we can only, against all human nature and all the evidence of history, stop people from partaking in sexual pleasure until they are ready for a lifelong commitment, and we can then, against all human nature and all the evidence of history, stop all people from cheating on that commitment [being married, IIRC, is a *risk factor* for women in Africa], then we will have solved AIDS in only 25 years, except for everyone in the older generations, of course. And those icky drug users."

Now that's some hard-headed realism right there.
 

look. i am a professional, 37 year old male, who lives in San Francisco. i have never been married and it's safe to say i have had a lot of sex with women.

driving a car is dangerous, but there's nothing wrong with it. kids need to be educated about safe-sex and the powerful emotions that come with the human sex drive.

sex is becoming less and less about having children and more and more about a pleasurable recreational activity. abstinence only is ridiculous. it's like saying you can't drive until you get married.

and it is unquestionably UNCONSTITUTIONAL. procreative freedoms clearly include the right to not to procreate while you fornicate.

goddamn, teach sex like the normal, human bodily function it is.

enjoy :)
 

the dangers posed by sexual intercourse these days demand that we scrap abtinence only and start providing some serious sex-ed.

everyone must finally admit, at some point, their kids are going to have sex.

don't you want them to be smart about safe-sex?

don't you want them to have thought about the difference between emotions and rational thought?

don't you realize you can't keep them in sight at all times?

please consider realistic and humanistic education. your kids will thank you.
 

Well, yeah for the purposes of this thread, I'm only concerned about laws and society, human nature, and all the evidence of history HERE in the United States of America. Once I get all of our problems solved, then I will deal with Africa and the rest of the world. You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders -- the most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well-known is this: "Solve All the World's Problems First."
 

Sorry for any confusion. That last post was for X. Trapnel.
 

garth:

You raise your kid(s) the way you want to, and I will do the same. BTW: did you use a condom on each and every "first encounter" with all these women? See link (above).
 

no worries there.

i sure could used some better sex-ed though!!! i tell you that.
 

Charles,

I don't want your kid giving my kid any funky stuff because they are clueless about sex.

Think about it.
 

garth:

Same could be said about your (promiscuous) kid giving my kid (who waited for marriage) something on their wedding night. And, yes, I realize this hypothetical makes us in-laws, so I'm not any happier about that than you . . .

As for your "no worries there" non-responsive answer, that doesn't exactly establish whether you used a condom on each and every "first encounter" with all these women you mentioned above.
 

To clarify: the link above I am referring to is the proposal to criminalize the non-use of a condom everytime you hook up with someone the first time, per the author and Kathy Baker's article: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/recklesssex.pdf
 

The real problem with Charles's idea is that he doesn't carry it to its logical conclusion. If we could just get kids to forgo sex altogether, we'd eliminate all sexually transmitted diseases. If we could get them to forgo food, we could solve the problem of obesity. Etc.
 

That would not be "unquestionably UNCONSTITUTIONAL" imho.
 

without discussing the details of my private life, i assure you i have been perfectly safe.

you must admit knowledge is preferable to ignorance, nor am i suggesting that instruction on abstinence is not appropriate.

i don't want to give half of the picture. but young adults should have a working knowledge of sex, and it's dangers, prior to engaging in it.

when that first time happens, experimentation, a parent can only guess and hope it turns out for the best, whether its on a marraige night or not.
 

Mark:

No one has ever died from the lack of sex.
 

garth:

You were the one who claimed to be "a professional, 37 year old male, who lives in San Francisco. i have never been married and it's safe to say i have had a lot of sex with women."
 

i am sure you're aware of the theory that the "free love" of the sixties and the promiscuity of the seventies was a direct result of earlier periods of puritanism.

i don't believe you can put the genie back in the bottle.

there's too much sex in our culture, on our tvs, movies, books, internet... everywhere.

you're swimming against the tide Charles, for your own kids safety they should be equipped to deal with the world as it is and not how you would like it to be.
 

all right, all right, charles.

i didn't say the question was out of bounds and i gave you an answer.

i did not mention it as my main point.
 

Well, I will agree that there's too much sex in our culture. How about 13 year-olds, should they receive your comprehensive sex ed courses?
 

Charles,
The example was merely illustrative of the general point that extramarital affairs are now and have always been a common occurrence.

More generally, the claim is simply that changing people's behavior with respect to condom use involves much less radical social engineering than does stamping out premarital and extramarital sex.

This is so obviously true that I really don't know how to reach you if you disagree.
 

Can we also do away with statutory rape laws, so 18 year olds (or older) can have sex with 13 year olds?
 

Charles wrote:Are you asking for "any thoughts" on getting kids to only have sex within marriage, or how that would stop HIV/AIDS in one generation?

If you actually read the sentence, the latter query is unnecessary.

You not advocating unhappy and/or premature marriages, are you?

What gave you that impression?
 

X. Trapnel:

How about you start by not resorting to mocking "Shorter Charles" posts then?
 

Charles wrote:
Charles said...

Catherine:

. . . what about infidelity? Divorce?

Thank you for your response. I agree that, for my proposal to be 100% effective, all sex would have to remain within marriage.


What about divorce? What's your plan to deal with that problem?
 

bitswapper:

If you bother reading more of my posts, I proposed a couple different ways -- how about that law requiring the use of a condom for every "first encounter"?

As for my "impression" -- Catherine initially pointed out a very real problem with unhappy and premature marriages. I noted in response that I have no problem with the government helping people make the right choice about who to marry (I assume you don't either: incest and age of consent laws, for instance). You then ignored all that and lept right to: "Perhaps in a purely communist/fascist country, that would fit in quite well." It doesn't necessarily mean resorting to fascist government controls.
 

Re: divorce, for starters, I think we should repeal "no-fault" statutes.
 

charles,

you are regulating morality. and it is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

even if i am married, i don't commit a crime by having consensual sex with some one else.

a marriage is an agreement between two people that either party can end at will, subject to certain financial arrangements due to the existence of their marriage contract.

if you agree that sex education is necessary, in some form, and should not be abstinence-only, then i will discuss possible ways to provide the education.

i am not an educator, but would be happy to discuss mutually agreeable ways to communicate the necessary information.
 

Charles,

if you don't want a no-fault divorce that's up to you.

but if your partner wants out of the marriage, i fail to see why that would be insufficient grounds for a divorce.
 

bitswapper:

Perhaps I shouldn't assume: do you want to repeal incest and age of consent laws? Do you want to repeal statutory rape laws so that 13 year olds can have sex?

What say you, X. Trapnel., Mark, or garth?
 

no.

i don't want to repeal incest laws or age of consent laws as they are proper regulation of inherently abusive relationships.

but at some point lines have to be drawn and people allowed to exercise their rights, freedoms and responsibilities.

but i will admit that i am troubled by the criminalization of sex between consenting minors.

i think the proper remedy in that situation is... wait for it... sex education.
 

garth:

That's an interesting question about regulating morality, even though I framed my hypotheticals above as straight public health questions – with no religious overtones whatsoever – I readily agree that every government action must have a secular purpose. But, in one very real sense, ALL laws are based on morality, since without morality there is no desire for law. If you want to just discuss the “obvious” ones, laws against murder, theft, prostitution, drug use, etc. are obvious moral calls within the Judeo-Christian framework as well. You and I disagree about "consenting" minors having sex. You really think it's just fine for two 13 year olds to have sex?

As for the legal question as to what is "clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL" did you read the link I provided above?
 

Charles wrote:
Perhaps I shouldn't assume: do you want to repeal incest and age of consent laws? Do you want to repeal statutory rape laws so that 13 year olds can have sex?


Where, other than from a desire to passively-aggressively insult someone, do you get that from?
 

i didn't say i thought it was fine.

i said i thought the proper remedy was sex-ed not criminal penalties.
 

From the desire to be crystal clear in a forum with limitations such as no tone of voice or verbal cues from the speaker -- for instance, I think garth has already admitted to being "troubled by the criminalization of sex between consenting minors."
 

i said i thought the proper remedy was sex-ed not criminal penalties.

AMNESTY! AMNESTY!
 

as a pure public health standard abstinence only is a farcical solution in that it will NEVER work and impinges on fundamental freedoms that the government has at best a tenuous argument for legislating over; namely sexual freedom.
 

amnesty?

for what.

two kids in the thrall of hormones doing what nature intended them to do?

that's a crime?

i assume you would convict them both?
 

are you familiar with the ages of Romeo & Juliet?

Juliet was 13 and Romeo not much older.
 

Yes, there are currently CRIMINAL penalties in place for having sex with a 13 year old female (even if the male is also 13 years old and those penalties increase the older the male is at the time of said crime). I assumed those were the "troubles" you were referring to re: the criminalization of sex between consenting minors?
 

Romeo & Juliet are fictional and dead, but notwithstanding those facts, hardly qualify as "minimum contacts" for jurisdictional purposes.
 

P.P.S Catherine -- you see, I told you that not everyone here would agree with us that 13 year olds have no business having sex.
 

Charles,

Let's take a few steps back here. I think X. Trapnel's point is that while having just one sex partner for a lifetime is all fine as an ideal, it is not realistic in the real world, either in this country or in any other society. So how do we deal with the fact that in the real world most people will probably have more than one sex partner regardless of law or policy?
 

X (If I may call you X),

An even shorter Charles: "no sex before marriage, and only Charles gets to say what marriage is. Also no sex after marriage except with your designated partner. Also, no divorce, so better pick wisely or be prepared to suffer."

After that, we'll magically make HIV transmission among IV users go down from the roughly 50 percent that it is now to 1 percent, by sheer force of will.

And he's going to ban sex between Americans and anybody else -- or else he's going to magically make his morality universal, I didn't quite get which.

Then he's going to make pigs fly, so get a sturdy umbrella.

Clearly, 13-year olds having sex is a problem, but people having random unprotected sex is a huge problem. Evolution (or God, for Charles) has created a biological imperative which will not be denied.

I rather think Charles hasn't a lot of experience with teenagers, and he may have forgotten what it was like to be 17.
 

Charles said: we could get young kids to wait for sex until marriage?

I don't know how you "get" kids (or unmarried adults) to do that. You can certainly encouarge them not to, in the same way that you encourage them not to drink. But, if my kids were to do either, I would encourage them to do it safely (full disclosure: I don't have kids). That means using a condom for sex and calling a sober person for a ride if they have been drinking. Are you also opposed to school-sponsored Students Against Drunk Driving programs that provide lists of sober drivers? What about those "drink responsibly" ads?
 

i agree that 13 year olds have no business having sex, but criminalizing the behavior will not stop it, will not deter it, and is not in the best interest of a child in thrall to his hormones.

education is needed MOST in this instance.

again, i AGREE that 13 year olds lack the capacity to adequately determine for themselves whether or not they should engage in intercourse.

i am FOR age of consent and incenst laws.

what I am against is the CRIMINALIZATION of CONSENSUAL sex between minors. this does not mean i condone it.

i think sex before the age of consent should be met with more education and parental involvement.

imho, a criminal offense has not occurred.
 

Enlightened Layperson:

What is your basis for concluding that is not realistic in the real world? If you state that "most people" will probably have more than one sex partner, doesn't that acknowledge that some people have just one (or, God forbid, none)?

Adam:

I am not opposed to school-sponsored Students Against Drunk Driving programs that provide lists of sober drivers, but I am against "drink responsibly" ads targeted at MINORS DRINKING AGAINST THE LAW. I have no problem with zero tolerance laws for minors who drink and drive. Perhaps something like that can be used when it comes to underage sex as well?
 

Well, garth, here in California, I have accurately outlined the criminal offenses that have indeed occurred. That's where the "sex ed" rubber (pardon the pun) meets the road -- if the school HANDS OUT FREE CONDOMS, that action alone condones and encourages sexual behavior -- as an aside, if I am against the CRIMINALIZATION of CONSENSUAL PAID sex between adults, do you aslo think that means I don't condone prostitution?
 

i don't know charles.

ask the DC Madam.

heck, ask Dick Cheney.
 

btw, i don't think the schools should hand out condoms.

they should sell them in the boys and girls respective locker rooms starting in H.S. and make information freely and anonymously available to anyone who wants it. by purchasing them, anonymously, you make better use of your money than handing them out willy-nilly.

in the future, we will abolish stds, put birth control in the water and women will take a pill to get pregnant.
 

i thought the ad was good.

if you don't want potential one night stands to think you're a pig, you be better be packing a condom.

do budweiser commercials mention that pregnant women shouldn't drink?

i don't think anyone is looking to this commercial for its educational value... it's a friggin commercial!
 

Also, garth, even if we only lock up ONE PERSON for having sex with a 13 year old, it will deter that ONE PERSON, right?
 

And, you don't think the school installing machines and selling condoms "condones and encourages" sexual behavior?! For God's sake, the liberals in this State banned soda machines from schools -- I assume you want to re-install those too?!
 

How about: "Wait until marriage"?
- Charles


And if she does not want to wait until marriage, despite your well crafted arguments, you would prefer that she remain ignorant of the dangers and appropriate precautions for having sex?
 

How about open bars next?
 

Not about the dangers, that's for sure. What do you think the "appropriate" precaution for jumping off a bridge is?
 

let me get this straight.

you are going to "lock up" a thirteen year old boy for having consensual sex with a thirteen year old girl?

not educate the boy?

lock'em up?

that's insane.

you're like a character right out of the Scarlet Letter.

vending machines (apples) = condom machines (oranges)
 

RELEVANCE charles.

this is not bridge jumping.

this is not underage drinking.

this is a natural, pleasurable, human activity.
 

Charles,

I don't see the practical difference between sponsoring SADD programs (which you said you support) and sex ed (including education on the use of condoms). Neither one encourages or enables antisocial or immoral behavior. Underage drinking is a crime, but schools recognize that some students do it anyway, and those that do should not face unnecessary danger if they choose to drink. Similarly, even you can acknowledge that some will engage in underage sex even if you make it a crime, and those who do also should not face unnecessary risks. Is there a qualitative difference that I fail to grasp?
 

Not about the dangers, that's for sure. - Charles


so you want her to know about the dangers, but not the appropriate precautions... interesting.

i guess she will get what she deserves if she doesn't listen to you.

and, you know, she just might not. especially if you lose credibility over your lies of omission.
 

Garth:

What "lies of ommission"? If my child asked for the appropriate precaution for jumping off that bridge, I'm not lying by saying "Honey, the appropriate precaution for jumping off a bridge is to not jump." And, yes, I am going to FOLLOW THE LAW and lock up the 13 year old.

Adam:

Students Against Drunk Driving programs that provide lists of sober drivers would be the same as Students Against Sex Outside Marriage providing lists of virgin drivers.
 

Mark:

No one has ever died from the lack of sex.


Actually, Charles, in the absence of sex everybody dies.

As for 13 year olds having sex, I'm sure you're a good originalist. In 18th C England (i.e., at common law), the age of consent was 14 for boys and 12 for girls. I guess we'll all have to abide by that rule today. Just cuz they did then.
 

Charles: Students Against Drunk Driving programs that provide lists of sober drivers would be the same as Students Against Sex Outside Marriage providing lists of virgin drivers.

In what way??? (Should I assume you are being facetious--if so, I apologize for taking you seriously.)
 

Garth:

California Penal Code § 261.5(a)

Statutory rape, or ‘unlawful sexual intercourse,’ is: “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. . . .

Taking the statute literally, whenever unmarried minors consent to sex, they would both be guilty. However, “[f]or there to be a violation of [§ 261.5], one minor must be denominated a perpetrator and the other a victim. The fact that a minor may be a victim does not ipso facto exclude a minor from being charged as a perpetrator.” In re T.A.J., 62 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1364 (1998).

The question that this reasoning raises is: when both parties are consenting minors, which one is the perpetrator?

Due to the reasons underlying the law of statutory rape, the male is at greater risk to be dubbed the perpetrator. Until 1993, the statutory rape laws singled out women as the victims, making men the de facto perpetrators in all cases of underage heterosexual intercourse.

Where the perpetrator is no more than 3 years older or younger than the victim, statutory rape is a misdemeanor. Cal. Pen. Code § 261.5(b). When the minor is more than 3 years younger than the perpetrator, the offense is a wobbler, which means that it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

When the perpetrator is 21 or older and the minor is younger than 16, a misdemeanor charge can be penalized by 1 year in county jail. § 261.5(d). A felony charge for such an offense carries a punishment of 2, 3, or 4 years in prison. Id.

In cases where the age difference is more than 3 years, but either the perpetrator is under 21 or the minor is over 16, a felony charge can be punished by either 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in prison. § 261.5(d). If charged as a misdemeanor, the offender faces up to 1 year in jail. Id.

Adults guilty of statutory rape might also face fines and civil penalties. The civil penalties increase with the difference in age between the perpetrator and the minor. When the perpetrator is an adult and the minor is fewer than 2 years younger, the maximum civil penalty is $2,000. Cal. Pen. Code § 261.5(e)(1)(A). Where the difference in age is between 2 and 3 years, the perpetrator may be fined up to $5,000. § 261.5(e)(1)(B). If the minor is more than 3 years younger than the adult, the penalty can be as much as $10,000. § 261.5(e)(1)(C). The stiffest civil penalty, a $25,000 maximum, is invoked where the perpetrator is over 21 years old and the minor is under 16. § 261.5(e)(1)(D).

In the case of misdemeanor statutory rape, the statute of limitations is 1 year from the occurrence. Whenever statutory rape may be charged as a felony, meaning whenever the age difference between the parties is more than 3 years, the statute of limitations is 3 years.

Although statutory rape was historically a strict-liability crime, California now recognizes a defense where the perpetrator “participates in a mutual act of sexual intercourse, believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent, with reasonable grounds for such belief.” People v. Hernandez, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 364 (1964). This acceptance coincided with the raising of the age of consent. Accordingly, the crime of committing lewd or lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, Cal. Pen. Code § 288(a), remains a strict-liability offense.

The purpose of statutory rape laws has historically been to protect young women, who lacked the maturity to consent to sex. Although most states have changed their statutes to make them gender-neutral, males remain at a higher risk for being prosecuted for engaging in teenage peer sex.

Because of the need for bright lines in the law, teenage couples must wait to have sex until each turns 18 to avoid breaking the law. The law’s purpose is to protect minors and not to prohibit relationships in which one party is much older than the other.

In California, there is no peer-sex exemption; so, one minor can be prosecuted for having sex with another consenting minor. An adult found guilty of statutory rape faces civil penalties in addition to jail time.

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_statutory_rape_california.htm

Mark:

No INDIVIDUAL has died as a consequence of remaining celibate. And, I will abide by my jurisdiction's criminal law, not England's, thank you very much.

Adam:

I was serious -- rescuing kids who mistakenly drink would be the same as rescuing promiscuous kids too.
 

Charles said: I was serious -- rescuing kids who mistakenly drink would be the same as rescuing promiscuous kids too.

I don't know what your virgin driver list has to do with either. You seem to be doing your best to miss the point, and that is why I think you're having a little fun here. By your logic, a sober driver list should encourage underage drinking just as sex ed encourages underage sex. I don't see the distinction you make between the two.
 

Mark:

Just to be clear, women have been killed during attempted rapes for trying to remain celibate -- I'm not referring to anything like that either. There is no medical reason that celibacy causes death itself -- unlike starvation from a lack of food -- if you still have questions about that, please let me know.

Adam:

Are you sure it's not Mark Field doing the joking? A sober driver list does not distribute fake IDs and drink vouchers.
 

Sir Isaac Newton, the mathematician and scientist (said by some to be the greatest scientist ever), was a virgin all his life. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy#Notable_Celibates

Enlightened Layperson:

What is your basis for concluding that is not realistic in the real world? If you state that "most people" will probably have more than one sex partner, doesn't that acknowledge that some people have just one (or, God forbid, none)?
 

What "lies of ommission"? If my child asked for the appropriate precaution for jumping off that bridge, I'm not lying by saying "Honey, the appropriate precaution for jumping off a bridge is to not jump." - Charles

see you deliberately avoid the point. you do know what a lie of omission is don't you? you "omit" to tell her about safety precautions.

you honestly feel she will be getting what she deserves if she ignores your advice.
 

Charles: A sober driver list does not distribute fake IDs and drink vouchers.

Yes, and a sex ed class does not distribute penises and vaginas.

But, a sober driver list does make underage drinking safer, just as sex ed and condoms make sex safer.
 

I know what "lies of omission" are -- I am asking what YOU think the lie(s) are in regard to losing my credibility on the sex ed question -- back to the bridge, I guess if she's really going to jump no matter what I say, then "Bring a parachute" or "Keep your legs tight together and go in feet first" are in order. That doesn't mean I can't do everything in my power to stop her from jumping in the first place.
 

Adam:

I never said sex ed classes distribute penises and vaginas (although some are pretty darn close). Distributing CONDOMS, however, sure is closer to fake IDs and drink vouchers than not.
 

true, charles.

but, as you seem to recognize, it's not your choice and being open, honest and informative with your daughter is the best way to allow her to make the best choices and to develop the trust necessary for her to even discuss these issues with you.
 

i have never said there is no place for an in-depth discussion of the benefits of abstinence, but, i do insist on all the information being put on the table so the kids, who are making these choices, do so on the best information available.

every adult and young adult has a sexual side and it's better to acknowledge it up front than to ignore it.
 

information is power.
 

O.K., I just looked this up:

Water landings are best done landing feet-first with legs tight together and arms extended straight above your head, while leaning back very slightly. Leaning back helps to reduce forced unnatural movement of the neck and the amount of water that will rush up your nose. If in doubt, you basically want to be as straight vertical as possible. There is some disagreement on whether, when entering water from a very high fall, your feet should be flat or you should point your toes down. Pointing your toes down serves to minimize the surface area of your body that comes into contact with the water, thus minimizing the effect of surface tension. Going in with your feet flat, however, may better concentrate the initial impact on your lower body. A similar point can be made if entering the water head-first: pointing your fingers straight above your head (actually below your head since you’re upside-down) reduces surface tension, while flattening your palms against the water (again, above your head) creates a “shadow” that may serve to protect your head a bit. For very high falls, proper diving technique (that is, head-first entry) should not be used because it will be nearly impossible for an untrained diver to correctly execute at such high speeds. You will travel quite deep into the water, so try to keep your wits about you and quickly swim toward the surface (look for light). When you enter the water you will create a path of bubbles which may be followed as they float up towards the surface. If there is no light, follow the bubbles.
 

information is power

We at least agree there : )
 

Of course, my first question on that survival tip was: If there's no light, how are you going to see the bubbles? I guess if she's at least survived to that point, she's almost home free anyways.
 

Mark:

No INDIVIDUAL has died as a consequence of remaining celibate.


So your advice is that it would be good for each of us to do individually something which would be disastrous if everyone followed your advice and did it (or, in this case didn't do it). Sounds communist to me.

And, I will abide by my jurisdiction's criminal law, not England's, thank you very much..

Ah, there's nothing more inspiring than results-oriented originalism.
 

why do you persist in bringing up inapplicable analogies.

wishing, hoping and praying is not a plan.
 

NOTE: People very seldom survive falls from heights of 100 feet (30 m) or more, and mortality is high even at heights of 20-30 feet (6-9 m). It is always best not to fall at all.
 

and, if you agree information is power, why don't you want your daughter to have all of the information available.
 

Mark:

No where did I suggest every person should remain celibate for their entire lives. Get real.

Garth:

I disagree that my analogies are inapplicable. By definition, no analogy is identical to the situation your are comparing it to -- I think that final advice about falling is pretty darn relevant though -- we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess.
 

Garth:

I don't want terrorists to have some specific knowledge either (sorry, it's another inapplicable analogy).
 

Mechanical analysis of survival in falls from heights of fifty to one hundred ...

De Haven Inj Prev.2000; 6: 62-68

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/6/1/62-b
 

Charles, stop being dense. The difference between sex and jumping off a bridge and sex is obvious. When do you want your child to jump off a bridge? Never, ever for her entire life. When do you want your child to have sex? After she marries.

As for your question to me, yes, of course, some people have only one sexual partner all their lives and some have none. And some people give up all private possessions to lead lives of religious devotion. The fact that some people take (or do not take) an action does not mean that it is realistic to believe that everyone to do the same.
 

Charles wrote:
(I assume you don't either: incest and age of consent laws, for instance). You then ignored all that and lept right to: "Perhaps in a purely communist/fascist country, that would fit in quite well." It doesn't necessarily mean resorting to fascist government controls.


Not quite 'lept'. Having the government 'help' someone choose who to marry is closer ideologically to a communist or fascist state.

However, the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is in favor of incest" routine isn't convincing in any way at all.
 

You also mentioned "The Scarlet Letter" above. As you may know, one of the major themes in Hawthorne's work revolves around sin and knowledge, which are linked in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well. The Bible begins with the story of Adam and Eve, who were expelled from the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As a result of their knowledge, Adam and Eve are made aware of their humanness, that which separates them from the divine and from other creatures. Once expelled from the Garden of Eden, they are forced to toil and to procreate — two “labors” that define the human condition ever since.

The experience of Hester and Dimmesdale in "The Scarlet Letter" recalls the story of Adam and Eve because, in both cases, sin results in expulsion and suffering. But it also results in knowledge — specifically, in knowledge of what it means to be human. For Hester, the scarlet letter functions as “her passport into regions where other women dared not tread,” leading her to “speculate” about her society and herself more “boldly” than anyone else in New England.

As for Dimmesdale, the “burden” of his sin gives him “sympathies so intimate with the sinful brotherhood of mankind, so that his heart vibrate[s] in unison with theirs.” His eloquent and powerful sermons derive from this sense of empathy. Hester and Dimmesdale contemplate their own sinfulness on a daily basis and try to reconcile it with their lived experiences.

The Puritan elders, on the other hand, insist on seeing earthly experience as merely an obstacle on the path to heaven. That's not me at all. They view sin as a threat to the community that should be punished and suppressed. Their answer to Hester’s sin is to ostracize her. Yet, Puritan society is stagnant, while Hester and Dimmesdale’s experience shows that a state of sinfulness can lead to personal growth, sympathy, and understanding of others. Paradoxically, these qualities are shown to be incompatible with a state of purity. The narrative of the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is quite in keeping with the oldest and most fully authorized principles in Christian thought.

His "Fall" is a descent from apparent grace to his own damnation; he appears to begin in purity. He ends in corruption. The subtlety is that the minister is his own deceiver, convincing himself at every stage of his spiritual pilgrimage that he is saved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_letter
 

bitswapper:

You are fine with government preventing incest then, right?

Enlightened Layperson:

O.K., I will stop being dense.
 

Charles,

Do you think your daughter should know about sex or not?

about - (preposition) knowledge of safe sex, stds, emotional maturity, considering the consequences...

as much information as you can give her, say at age 16?
 

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the front-runner in many polls for the Republican nomination for President in 2008, admitted to the Christian Broadcasting Network that his sexual desires kept him from becoming a Catholic priest.

The Republican presidential hopeful, who is currently married to his third wife, said that he had planned to enter a Catholic seminary after he finished high school, but backed out.
 

Too late, Charles, far too late.

I have been a foster parent for a few years now, and have encountered children who were not given proper sex education, including what it is, preventative measures, and the consequences.

I encountered a child of 9 who is branded a sexual predator for life for what what they did.

I also encountered a child of 16, whose experimentation at 11 did the same.

I encountered a child of 13 who felt that urination into a vagina was the cause of pregnancy.

A study from Iowa (several years back) found that anal intercourse was the favored method of birth control, due to the public disfavor of prophylactics.

Charles, even in the most puritan of settings, people will engage in sexual behavior. Victorian England was a hotbed of behind the scenes trysts and lascivious novels, and not the straitlaced facade that is it's byword. One of the first home electric devices was the personal "massager", which allowed housewives to resolve their "hysteria". Some authors (notably Jared Diamond in "The Third Chimpanzee") have noted studies that indicate that humans, while tied to basically monogamous relations, also have a high tendency to have adulterous relations, far higher than are self-admitted on surveys (one study from the 30's had over 10% of babies born with hemoglobin complexes NOT from both parents [genes]). Still another study showed that abstinence has the lowest success rate among methods to prevent pregnancy and STD transmission.

Children, young adults, adults, and seniors will seek to experiment sexually, seek pleasure, and explore outside of their committed relationships. If you want to hide your head in the sand about this, go ahead. However, you will not prevent pre-, extra-, and post-marital sex by doing so.

Our best method of making sure that people show sex the respect it deserves it to educate children on it (as indicated above, that should start, at an appropriate level, in early childhood), continue such instruction as they get older, and, if necessary, provide prophylactics to really reduce the chance, not only of unwanted pregnancy, but also of STD transmission. A side benefit of early and often sex instruction is that it may help allow abused children to recognize and report abuse that they have undergone.

As to your other questions--incest statutes should stay on the books, and there should be age of consent laws, but they should be updated to not only not-criminalize natural "exploratory" behaviour, but also prevent the lefelong stigmatization of those who "commit" such crimes at a young age.
 

'I'm glad to see conservatives like Charles supporting gay marriage.
# posted by Mark Field : 11:14 AM'

Is Charles really suggesting that humans who want to have sex with other humans of the same sex who also want to have sex with them should not have sex, ever?

Mark's intervention was well posed. Charles's response was disturbing. Why would one discuss marriage between different species in the same breath as marriage between to consenting humans? A woman and a rabbit are not capable of entering into a contractual or compassionate relationship based on a shared conception of the future. Two women are. One couldn't marry a book and an artichoke, but this hardly seems worth mentioning in a discussion about marriage or sex, unless one thinks that there is some equivalence in the relationship.

I'm not being arch. Really, I find it hard to believe that Charles could actually be suggesting that people who want sex with other people of the same sex should not have sex, ever.

Charles, would you put me straight here? (I'm sure you'll be keen to do so.)
 

Charles the "bomb-thrower" troll:

I have no problem with the government helping people make the right choice about who to marry as well.

Yeah. Like Virginia argued in stating they had the right to tell people what the "right choice" is:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Charles is a troll, through and through. He shoots this completely stoopid sh*te out just to see what kind of rise he can get out of people. Guess he'll make a fine lawyer some day, eh?

Cheers,
 

The voice of personal experience speaks a verity:

I am simply suggesting that women (and men) shouldn't have sex until they are married, whether that is their early 30s, 40s, or beyond. It is possible, you know?

With some people, it's not only possible, it's an inevitability. Leaving out three hole vinyl inflatables, that is.

Cheers,
 

Charles the (intentional) legal eedjit neglects the fact that TPM applies only to public fora:

First, it is important to keep in mind that sexual expression, like all forms of expression, can be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

Cheers,
 

I'm sorry, Ian (and Kathy), but apparently you are (intentional) legal eedjit(s) now -- someone better let Yale know -- maybe you can help mi-uw and Fraud Guy too.
 

Charles wrote:You are fine with government preventing incest then, right?

This is clearly an attempt to get everyone, myself included, to buy into the patently false notion that anyone who doesn't agree with the idea that the government 'help' people choose a marriage partner is automatically in favor of incest, which is untrue.

You're also clearly obsessed with incest, as you bring it up repeatedly to help validate assertions.
 

I am not obsessed with anything, bitswapper. I already said that I assumed you don't want to do away with incest laws. Yet YOU keep bringing up "Having the government 'help' someone choose who to marry is closer ideologically to a communist or fascist state." So, I think mine is a simple and logical question, but if you'd rather not answer, that's fine with me.
 

Charles:

The subtlety is that the minister is his own deceiver, convincing himself at every stage of his spiritual pilgrimage that he is saved.

Thank you for your autobiography.
 

What part of "That's not me at all -- they view sin as a threat to the community that should be punished and suppressed -- their answer to Hester’s sin is to ostracize her" don't you understand? I want everyone who sins to know God loves them, sent His One and Only Son to die for their sins on the Cross, not that they would die but have Eternal Life with Him.
 

John 3:16-17.
 

Charles.

Quod erat demonstratum.

Thank you.
 

Whatever, Fraud Guy.
 

Charles--your quote, in your context:

Hester and Dimmesdale contemplate their own sinfulness on a daily basis and try to reconcile it with their lived experiences.

The Puritan elders, on the other hand, insist on seeing earthly experience as merely an obstacle on the path to heaven. That's not me at all.

...

The narrative of the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is quite in keeping with the oldest and most fully authorized principles in Christian thought.

His "Fall" is a descent from apparent grace to his own damnation; he appears to begin in purity. He ends in corruption. The subtlety is that the minister is his own deceiver, convincing himself at every stage of his spiritual pilgrimage that he is saved.


You can't even parse yourself properly. I knew you weren't referring to yourself as a Puritan elder, but you seemed to be setting yourself up as Dimmesdale in your retelling of the story:

As for Dimmesdale, the “burden” of his sin gives him “sympathies so intimate with the sinful brotherhood of mankind, so that his heart vibrate[s] in unison with theirs.” His eloquent and powerful sermons derive from this sense of empathy.

Based on your conduct here, that seemed to be the most direct comparison. Unless, of course, you are he who is without sin, and so have the right to cast stones for other reasons (even though he did not).
 

I've never claimed I was without sin (in fact, I have pointed out above that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God), casting any stones and/or setting myself up as another Dimmesdale.
 

Coupla things:

I think it's safe to say that no government in the history of the world has ever managed to prevent incest. A government can only outlaw, punish, discourage, educate about, etc. incest or any other undesirable human behavior.

Second, with regards to the bridge metaphor, I'd say it was a government's responsibility to put effective guardrails on any bridge that kids were jumping off in significant numbers. A moral imperative in fact. Sex ed, safe-sex advocacy and condom provision and yes, abstinence advocacy all qualify as useful guardrail elements against risky sexual behavior.

On a personal note with regards to child sex: at the age seventeen I myself came within an inch (maybe less) of having consensual sex with a precocious fifteen-year-old, in a jurisdiction where the age of consent was sixteen and the law made no distinction between two and twenty years of age difference. It would have been my first full sex experience, I had never had any sex education beyond what I had discovered for myself in an old medical textbook in the library and had never heard the phrase statutory rape. In the immediate aftermath of the event my biggest concern was to stay out of the way of the girl's brothers, and it was only several years later that I realized how close I had come to a criminal prosecution that would have marked the rest of my life.
 

Then we can at least agree that statutory rape laws be taught in sex ed classes?
 

Charles,

You are the only one here arguing that we keep children ignorant of laws, natural or otherwise.
 

I gather, then, that Charles opposes all homosexual relations on religious grounds and proposes celibacy be the permanent condition of all those who can't, or don't want to, wed. Well, it's a clear enough position. There's really nothing to say by way of argument against someone who claims her position is rooted in transcendent authority.

One could urge her towards historical and ethnographic curiosity, in the hope that she be moved by the world's incorrigible plurality and feel 'the drunkenness of things being various".

One should attempt to clearly and publicly describe the ethical poverty of such a position and critically address the self-righteous chuff of its attendant rhetoric.

Most importantly, one must contest such a position in the political arena.

Otherwise, in such connections, she's probably better ignored, as there's nothing really to learn from her.

Incidentally, the age of consent in Spain, for heterosexual and homosexual intercourse, is thirteen. In a great many countries, from Austria to Peru, the age of consent is fourteen.

I think that the determination of informed consent involves many considerations besides age (though this is certainly an important consideration). It is hard to debate such issues, however, in the kind of charged and accusatory atmosphere that people like Charles generate.
 

Charles wrote:I am not obsessed with anything, bitswapper. I already said that I assumed you don't want to do away with incest laws. Yet YOU keep bringing up "Having the government 'help' someone choose who to marry is closer ideologically to a communist or fascist state." So, I think mine is a simple and logical question, but if you'd rather not answer, that's fine with me.

Your's is a logical fallacy trying and failing to convince people that anyone who disagrees with you is in favor of incest. You've used this repeatedly, so it just looks as though you're obsessed with it is all.
 

Well, bitswapper, let's not even relate this to your own personal position on the issue. If SOMEONE ELSE disagreed with me that incest should be against the law, how exactly is it a logical fallacy to conclude that SOMEONE ELSE is therefore in favor of incest?
 

Charles writes:

Well, bitswapper, let's not even relate this to your own personal position on the issue. If SOMEONE ELSE disagreed with me that incest should be against the law, how exactly is it a logical fallacy to conclude that SOMEONE ELSE
is therefore in favor of incest?


The disagreement isn't about incest - you made it an issue in order to villinize people who disagreed with you when the original question revolved around the government 'helping' people pick spouses.

In an attempt to justify siding with more govermental controls over marriage, you threw the nastiest polarizing issue, and are still trying to make things revolve the most polarizing thing you can think of.
 

Whatever.
 

bitswapper,

Charles has to change the line of questioning in order to avoid admitting his mistakes.
 

I wish that critics would begin saying, loudly and repeatedly, that many religious people are trying to govern society at large by the rules of their religion -- to treat America as though it were their church. This activity is appallingly contemptuous of a principle that is axiomatic for a free society: that every individual is equal in dignity. It is a corollary of this principle that each person has a right to explore his own spirituality without constraint from others, so long as that exploration does not intrude on another person's reasonable boundaries. These religious tyrants act as if the mere existence of divergent lifestyles constitutes an unreasonable intrusion on their space; and this attitude is fundamentally inconsistent and irreconcilable with a free society. These people are at war with the rest of us. They do not believe in "live and let live." They are an implacable enemy, and it is time the rest of us spoke up and said so.

One thing more. These people do not show to charity to others that their own God does, by leaving those who refuse their evangel alone. There own God is content to let the tares grow along with the wheat; but they do not show the same tolerance, the same restraint. Why is that, do you think? I'll tell you why. It's because they are not motivated by faith, but by fear. They fear their God, each other, themselves, and life itself. I used to feel sorry for them; but things have gone past that now. These people are out to bring America to heel, and they must be stopped.
 

Thanks for the info, maybe I can use this ended my tufted marketing and I've been use untold anulus media in run a interaction and they someone existing a big amend on me. homeinluxury.com
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home