Mula sa Bibliya ay nasusulat, “You shall not commit adultery,” (Exodus 20:14). Maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw na bawal sa kautusan ng Diyos ang makisiping sa hindi mo asawa. Bagamat ito’y itinuturo ng simbahang Katoliko at Protestante, hindi naman ganap na nasusunod ng iba dahil mas matindi ang tawag ng laman kay sa tawag ng kabanalan sa kanila. 

Bagamat ayaw nating bigyan kaugnayan ito sa paglabag ng ika-pitong  utos ng Diyos, ang katotohanan ay tumataas ngayon ang kaso ng AIDS sa Pilipinas. Sabagay kumpara naman sa mga karatig bansa natin, mas mababa pa rin ang incidence of HIV dito sa atin. Pero nababahala naman ang mga health officials natin na baka maraming magsulputan diyan na kaso ng AIDS. Sabi nga ni Mario Villaverde, DOH undersecretary na ang sitwasyon ngayon ng mga kaso ng HIV sa Pilipinas ay “hidden and growing.” Ayon sa undersecretary ng DOH maasahan ang paglantad ng mas marami pang biktima ng AIDS dahil sa ganitong paraan lang nila makakamtan ang murang pagpapagamot. 

"In the past two years, anti-retroviral drugs have become available for free, meaning some HIV positive people previously unknown to the authorities are now being reported," dugtong pa ng undersecretary ng DOH. 

Ayon naman sa United Nations may humigit kumulang na 7,000 na bilang ng mga Pilipinong may sakit na HIV/AIDS na naitala noong taong 2007. Ayon naman sa DOH

mayroon na silang naitalang 3,360 na pasyente ng AIDS/HIV hanggang Hulyo ng taong ito ngunit may panibago namang 300 na kaso pa ang naitala naman sa taong ito ayon sa balita ng Reuters. 

Pero hindi tayo dapat magwalang bahala nito kahit masasabing masyadong mababa ang porsiento ng mga nagkakasakit ng HIV/AIDS na Pilipino (0.1 percent of the population and less than 5.0 percent of people in high-risk groups had been infected). Kahit sino man sa atin ay maaring magkaroon ng HIV/AIDS kung hahayaan natin ang ating mga sarili na ma-expose dito. Bagamat hindi ko iminumungkahi na makipagtalik kayo kahit kanino lang diyan dahil labag nga ito sa kautusan ng Diyos, nakakabuting sundan ang panuntunan ng tinatawag nilang “safe sex.” Ito iyong paggamit ng condoms para doon sa mga hindi na makapagpigil pa. Pero bilang mga Kristiano, kung hindi mo ng lang asawa huwag kang makipagtalik, para sa akin ito ang safe sex. Safe ka na sa HIV/AIDS safe ka pa kay Lord. 

Mabalik tayo sa mababang incidence ng AIDS sa Pilipinas, ito ang mga sinasabi nilang dahilan: low partner exchange, kahit daw iyong mga gumagamit ng mga prostitute ay hindi madalas magpalit ng kanilang suki/partner (may loyalty din pala kahit sa ganitong uri ng relasyon), at circumcision (kaya magpatule na kayo). 

Para sa aking lang mga kapatid, sa hirap ng buhay ngayon dapat magkasya na lang kayo sa inyong mga asawa. Kaya magpaganda ka naman misis, maligo parate, at maglambing ng husto kay mister. Word of caution lang, ligtas ka nga sa AIDS hindi ka rin ligtas sa pagbubuntis ni misis, magastos pa rin iyon. Kung nais ninyong malimitahan ang dami ng inyong mga anak, magpakunsulta lamang sa pinakamalapit na Klinika ng Family Planning o lumapit sa alin mang tanggapan ng Department of Health for referral services. 

Ang sex ang isa sa pinakamagandang regalo sa atin ng Diyos kaya huwag nati itong sirain at gamitin sa pagkakasala. Happy safe sex na lang sa inyong lahat na may asawa. Sa mga dalaga at binata, abstinence, abstinence. Kasal muna bago siping. Sa akin naman, kung gusto lang ninyo...

"Masturbation isn't "real sex"
Just not true. According to some sexuality experts people who masturbate tend to function better sexually when with a partner since they know their own body and have fulfilled sexual expression.

"If you masturbate you will go blind or bald or get acne or grow hair on your hands or 101 other anomalies."
None of these have any basis in truth.

"People in relationships or married don't masturbate."
Wrong again. (Many couples masturbate mutually).

"Masturbation will stunt your growth"
Nice try, but wrong again.

“If you masturbate you'll never be able to have children”
I get this question as an e-mail often, this is just not true, who started this myth? If that was true none of us would be on this planet.

"Masturbation causes cancer." Absolutely false!

"If you masturbate too much, you'll run out of semen and become sterile." Semen is a fully renewable resource. When you ejaculate semen, your body simply makes more — the same way your body makes more saliva after you spit.

"Masturbation causes your testicles to shrink."
Absolutely false!

"Hardly anyone masturbates."
Well over 90% of teen males masturbate regularly, and about 98% of adults report they've masturbated at some time in their lives. Well, you can say it's NORMAL!

by marlon b
If you've ever masturbated to ejaculation, you know the answer to this question! It's HEALTHY! In addition to feeling good, masturbating relieves sexual tension that builds up naturally over time, and can prevent specific health problems.

Just about every male in his teens or older gets "horny," in which his mind gets preoccupied by erotic (sexy) thoughts. This is a natural process: Your sex organs produce and accumulate semen, and your body responds by causing you to want to ejaculate the semen and make room for more semen.

One way this happens is through a nocturnal emission or "wet-dream" — an ejaculation during sleep. Wet dreams are entirely normal; it's a way for your body to keep the "plumbing" working if you aren't having regular ejaculations( spanking the monkey) when you're awake.

Another way is through masturbation. (Guys who masturbate regularly often don't experience nocturnal emissions.)

IMPORTANT** Don't believe the hype when church folks say it's a sin to waste the "seed" through masturbation. Despite what you may have heard (either through rumors from friends or from older people), masturbation is completely safe. It does not affect the size of your penis. It doesn't cause your penis to curve when it's erect. Actually, few penises grow to be perfectly straight. It doesn't affect your ability to have children later on, it doesn't stunt your growth, and it doesn't cause testicular cancer. FYI: It is the lack of masturbation that causes health issues.

Furthermore, masturbation is a great way to practice for intercourse, when you're ready to engage sex with a partner, and it's a safe sex method: masturbate before going to a night club so you are NOT as sexually excited/horny before you walk in the door. Remember: Horny and alcohol don't mix; this is a recipe for unsafe sexual behavior! Got condom? No? Don't do it or just say NO!!

According to this article at USAToday:

"There are many young, strong, single people in the athletes' village and, like everywhere, some will fall in love or other things, so we need to make condoms available," Ole Hansen, spokesman for UNAIDS China, told Reuters. "A lot of these young people are not married or in relationships so we want to make sure they have the information and tools to protect themselves if they have sexual encounters."

So not to offend any athlete, the condoms are not put in rooms but are available at medical sights and at the athlete's center.

I think it's AWESOME that they're promoting safe sex in Olympic Village, but I was really super hoping that they were handing out the 10 condoms in a nice gift pack upon arrival. Like, "HI, HOTTIES. WELCOME TO OLYMPIC VILLAGE. HERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS AND YOUR 10 CONDOMS AND MY PHONE NUMBER."

Thats what I would have done, anyway........ I want THAT job in London.

Imagine the expression on the faces of those around you when your mobile suddenly starts buzzing with an unlikely ringtone: “Condom, condom”.The “Condom a cappella” ringtone features in a new advertisement campaign launched earlier this year, as part of a two-year project of using the mass media to make condom use more acceptable.

The campaign has been produced by the BBC World Service Trust and funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) is also using the advertisement to support its condom promotion efforts.

more

To listen to the ringtone and download it, log on to: condom.condom.org

And yet, I think he made the wrong decision by getting involved with me in the first place, if he wasn't willing to listen to what I had to say and make allowances for my so-called "sexual disability." I realize now I should have pushed him from the beginning to actually talk to me, instead of just accepting it when he (apparently not understanding what I was trying to do) cut off my attempts to start a discussion. We have two very different styles of communication, such that I really didn't understand how to approach serious topics in a way that would be effective with him. He likes a very direct and straightforward approach, and although that was how I was trying to communicate with him, the problem was that he had absolutely no idea about any of the concepts I would have brought up. He had to be educated before he could possibly grasp what I was trying to say, otherwise he would interpret them according to the framework of understanding he already had in place, which would (and did) lead to many false assumptions. It was necessary to establish a new context before proceeding, but he resisted my attempts to do so because he thought I was only beating around the bush, and I wasn't articulate enough to explain what it was I was really trying to do. I'm sure I sound articulate enough here, but when put on the spot, I find it extremely difficult to explain myself. There were so many times that I had figured out what I wanted to say beforehand, but then when I actually talked to him, I discovered that I had assumed he would understand certain things that I hadn't thought about how to explain. Trying to think about it while he was pressuring me to say something made me lose my confidence in my decision, and it disintegrated from there. I wonder now if he even has the capacity to understand my position, since it would require a grasp of subtlety and a level of compassion that he never once demonstrated, to say nothing of the amount of patience he would have to have to get to that point anyway. Perhaps I overestimate him. But I do think that, if my ability to communicate with him had been perfect, he could have understood. So in large part, the failure was mine.

Still. Communication is a two-way street, and being willing to listen to a sexual partner and work around problems is, in my view, simply a part of practicing (emotionally) safe(r) sex. Granted, neither one of us is particularly emotional, but it's still an important aspect to consider, and doubly so since I was going way outside my usual boundaries by even thinking about having sex in the first place. Not only that, but even without sex thrown into the mix, it's an important part of friendship, which is where I wanted the emphasis of our "friends with benefits" type relationship to be. Normally, I refuse to be friends with people who aren't accepting of asexuality. I don't need to deal with the drama of being out to those people, so whenever I meet new people I make sure they know I'm asexual before I get close to them, and if they react negatively, I distance myself from them. I suspended that judgment for him because we got on so well otherwise that if in time he could begin to understand, it would have been well worth the initial frustration. It is disappointing, to say the least, that it never got there, but it's something I prepared myself to deal with beforehand. I knew the most realistic goal to set was just to see him once more and enjoy being near him for a little while. Get a little bit of experience out of it. So I got what I wanted and expected, but not what I ultimately hoped for. After a year, it was clear I wasn't going to get anything more out of him. His attitude was basically, "Your problem, not mine." Which is unacceptable even for a friend, much less for a sexual partner.

And for him in particular, it's so much more wrong because of his general attitude towards life. This is the part I have trouble making sense of. Physically, he is meticulous about practicing safe sex. Not only that, but he is unusually meticulous (and that's one of those ridiculous understatements I'm so fond of) about safety in other areas of his life as well. He makes a point of being aware of the health effects of products like shampoo and deodorants, which most people never give a second thought to (or even a first), and he acts on that awareness. He does not like putting anything harmful on or in his body, and I don't see why that attitude wouldn't extend to the emotional side of sex as well. The side effects of having sex with someone who is not emotionally prepared for it can be quite devastating, and I think he does know it. Why, then, would he put himself at risk?

Maybe it's unfair that I hold him to a different standard than I do other people, maybe it's only that I seek answers about him because I was so closely involved with him (not closely enough, apparently) and he had such a profound emotional effect on me. (I do of course work through my emotions by overanylizing them.) Yet this was even more true of my ex (way back when, anyway), and I never bothered trying to figure out his strange behavior. He was also asexual, so he certainly didn't present me with the same type of puzzle, that much is true, but he did have many odd emotional (over)reactions that I didn't understand. I think, rather, that it is because M presents himself as a rational person, whereas my ex presented himself as a very emotionally sensitive person, that I hold one to this standard but let the other slide.

(It's somewhat amusing, by the way, that the two people I have been in love with are such complete and total opposites; there is no way in hell they would ever get along. M would be supremely annoyed by my ex's penchant for endorsing "compassionate" moral causes without doing any research about them, and would likely send him into a fit of simmering outrage (which he would keep to himself but complain about later) with some carefully chosen insensitive remark. Possibly about Bono. Or meat.)

But amusement aside, I suppose there is one other key difference in the way I interacted with the two of them, which may be driving my brain's nagging insistence that I solve this puzzle once and for all: closure. With my ex, I had more closure than I could possibly want, and the two of us started to irritate each other so much in our attempt to remain friends that when he finally said, "No more!" I hardly missed him. There was no real heartbreak there because there had been so much drama in the latter half of our relationship that I didn't really have the energy left to feel too hurt. Not that it didn't hurt at all, but by that time it was actually somewhat of a relief, because at least he didn't expect me to fix him anymore, and wasn't blaming his own instability on me. It was just too much of a burden to place on me; the relationship had long turned codependent, so of course I didn't miss it when it ended. With M, on the other hand... there was none of that. There was just one argument, and then he was gone. Just like that.

I realize I am taking the risk, by putting this up here, that he will eventually find it. Not that he would have any reason to be sniffing around asexual blogs, really, so it's a low risk, but a risk nevertheless. There is enough detail here that he would most certainly recognize himself, and I doubt he would really care what I have to say about him, but still. That's not my concern; but I am, to some extent, making myself vulnerable to him by putting everything up where he could read it if he wanted to do so. I am giving him this potential window into my life, my self, that otherwise he wouldn't have. He could, if he wanted to, take this information and use it to his advantage; he could easily manipulate me if only he is willing to lie. I don't believe he would do that, even if it didn't require so much effort. I trust him not to. Yet even so, I am wary of that feeling, because I don't want to be gullible enough to get myself into a bad situation. In a very real sense, I don't trust myself to trust; instead, I act on calculated risk. And the risk is there, but it is very, very low, so I will post this with the expectation that he will probably find it someday (because it would be stupid not to prepare for that contingency, especially since eventually I will probably break my own anonymity), but not worry about it unless the time comes that we are in contact with one another again, and at that point, I will carefully monitor his behavior to see if there are any untrustworthy patterns. Just the same as I did before.

This is my process. This is how I go about making decisions: with the (often acute) awareness that I can be manipulated, not just by others but also by my own emotions as well. So I tend to watch both myself and other people carefully, and dig deep for the real meanings behind whatever I'm immediately feeling, which are usually not obvious right away. I have been told I am overly cautious and risk not having any fun, but often the people who tell me that have a very different idea of fun. Although I do occasionally make bad decisions, it's extremely rare that I have any major regrets; most of the time I am quite satisfied with the way I've done things, so if that's a good measure of how well my way of doing things works, then I guess I would have to say I've been successful.

The one time I had a major problem with M, I tried to explain this process to him, and he completely misinterpreted me. Completely. He didn't understand that I was not seriously suggesting that he would have raped me (even though that is exactly what I said), but explaining that was the (unexpected) fear I had at the time (which, in retrospect, I think I probably would not have had if I hadn't so recently suffered such an egregious betrayal by K). I think he just spooked at hearing the word "rape" and didn't actually listen to what I had to say. He cut off all contact with me immediately, giving me no chance to clarify. Which, personally, I think is hardly the best action for him to have taken even if I had really been as malicious and spiteful as he imagined me to be. Hasn't he ever heard that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? If I really had been manipulative and unstable enough to threaten legal action against him, wouldn't it have been unwise to risk rousing my vengeance by cutting me off like that?

He seems not to be a very good judge of other people's emotional reactions; this is not the only time I've noticed this. I suppose he's at a disadvantage in that arena because he's an only child, and probably did not have enough interaction with other kids to know such basic things as not to trust them not to tattle. He fails especially at understanding subtle hints—he has a very straightforward, simplistic way of thinking, and any kind of complex, layered speech goes right over his head (like hints, for example, that one would like to speak to him alone). Since women are taught to communicate with so much hinting and hedging, as if they have to apologize for having any ideas at all, of course he would find it difficult to understand what has long been a socially-enforced habit for me (though I would dispense with it if I could get away with it, I already have enough social difficulty as it is, without that added weirdness). I have serious doubts, too, about his ability to put himself in another person's shoes. He seems so stuck in his own way of thinking, and unwilling to even consider anyone else's point of view. Part of that comes from being so privileged (as a man, why would he consider the way that women are pressured to speak, and what constraints that puts on my own (already somewhat strained) personal expression?), and the other part is arrogance, which he admits has long been a problem for him.

Most disturbing to me is his unwillingness to re-examine his beliefs about the world. This probably requires a bit of background information, since I suppose it would be fairly normal for most sexuals to reject the idea that someone could not feel sexual attraction and still be considered normal (speaking in terms of health, not demographics). M is an ex pastor, now a staunch atheist. He understands very well how many Christians exist in a state of denial (and I will add the caveat that I am specifically talking about Dominionists, Young-Earth Creationists and the like, though he would likely expand that to include religious people of all varieties), and as far as I can tell, he has on several occasions had to re-examine his beliefs and come to the conclusion that he was wrong. He values (scientific) truth above all other things, as far as I can tell, and passes merciless judgment on those who are unwilling to take the time to learn about things that challenge their beliefs. Given this background and set of values, I would have expected him to (eventually; I also realize he is quite arrogant and stubborn) at least learn about it and consider it. I would have been happy if he had at least heard me out, and agreed to disagree.

But no, he thinks asexuality doesn't affect him, so he doesn't want to learn about it. (Isn't that exactly what other people think about the aforementioned chemicals in shampoos and deodorants?) I don't know in what universe it makes sense that asexuality hasn't affected him (although I guess it makes sense that it no longer affects him), given that he has been in a sexual relationship with an asexual person with the result that, due to his unwillingness to listen long enough to understand and try to accommodate it, he ended up so afraid of me for a few weeks that he felt it necessary to completely cut off contact with me. Ultimately, it comes back down to not practicing emotionally safe sex, and not being aware enough of the risks involved to make a good decision. I am glad, however, that he didn't make the right decision (based on his own values as I have derived them), since if he had been aware of what he was getting into in the first place he probably wouldn't have done it at all.

It seems almost manipulative enough to make me uncomfortable, except that I wasn't being manipulative, because I did disclose and he made the choice not to try to understand what that meant. I should have pushed him more, yes, and if I am ever in that kind of situation again that's what I'll do, but at the time I really didn't know what I was doing. It's hard to communicate boundaries and limits when you don't even know what they are. If nothing else, now I have this experience to know what not to do next time, and by writing this post I've been able to articulate several of the things that went wrong, even if I don't necessarily understand his point of view any better than I did before. Now, I can start to put this behind me, since I have some semblance of closure, and for the future, I have a much better ability to explain myself. It is my hope that reading my personal experiences will be able to help some other person in a similar situation. And if by some small chance M ever does read this... maybe he, too, will begin to understand.

via Breitbart

A cellphone ringtone that chants "condom, condom!" has been launched in India to promote safe sex and tackle the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic.The "condom a cappella" has been designed to break down Indians' reluctance to discuss condom use and to make wearing a condom more acceptable.

Organisers of the campaign, funded by the foundation set up by Microsoft mogul Bill Gates and his wife Melinda, hope the ringtone will become a craze among young Indians.

About 2.5 million people live with HIV in India, said the BBC World Service Trust, the charity behind the ringtone, which was released this month. It can be downloaded at condomcondom.org.

"Ringtones have become such personal statements that a specially created condom ringtone seemed just the right way of combining a practical message with a fun approach," said Radharani Mitra, creative director of the BBC World Service Trust.

"The idea is to tackle the inhibitions and taboos that can be associated with condoms."

India is the world's fastest-growing mobile telephone market with 270 million users according to the latest official figures, up 57 percent in just one year.

It saves all that rummaging through your clothes on the floor at critical moments, don`t it?

To find out more, visit Dog Tag Condoms

By: Moses Brown

A while back we headed out to Miami for a little conference about the online dating scene.  The conference was pretty good, but of course, not as good as going to this club called "Set."  Anyway, at the conference I wanted to find out if dating execs from other dating sites knew that a lot of their members are using the internet every day for booty calls!  For example, this study found that 30% of online daters are having sex on their first date, and I'm sure OBC members do a lot better than that (I know our office staff does lol).

So, at one of the conference sessions, I brought up this little fact to a bunch of the suits and it got quieter than a room full deaf mutes!  This clearly let me know that this subject needs much more attention, and here at OBC we need to do our best to raise awareness on this topic...  We're glad people are making over 300,000 "booty call" connections on our site every week, but take our advice: "Always wear your helmet before you go into battle!"

Seriously, it's everyone's job out there (girls this means you too!) to make sure you're being safe and staying clean.  Last year, we hit up Lake Havasu for spring break and brought a boat load of condoms along with our normal harem of OBC ladies.  We love to party, and we wanted to make sure people partied with the appropriate equipment.  Now, OBC is working on a condom and safe sex campaign to help our members date the right way. . . stay tuned

Be Safe!
Mo

Ever been in the middle of an intimate rendezvous and wish you didn’t have to fumble with the noisy, hard-to-open packaging condoms come wrapped in? Well how about getting rid of the packaging all together and just spraying on a condom? This is the thing for you.

The spray-on snug fit condom...for all sizes.

Ever been in the middle of a painting project and you forgot the can of paint on top of the ladder? Or better yet, you remembered the paint on the ladder but forgot the paint on the bottom of your shoe? This might not be the thing for you.

Follow these simple instructions:

Cue Barry White music, please.

1) Put down your chardonnay. Take your tongue out of your sex partner's ear.

2) Place your penis in the chamber.

3) Press a button liquid latex squirts  onto said penis in about 20 seconds. (If 20 seconds seems like a long time to wait the good news is that the German inventor, Jan Vinzenz Krause, is working on shortening the time to about 10 seconds)

4) Get jiggy.

Sounds like a miracle right? Well, it all depends on your point of view and what it takes to ruin the mood for you. It isn’t exactly the most romantic thing to bring into the bedroom. In fact, although this invention does away with having to deal with condom packaging there is still a machine involved and the machine isn’t exactly quiet. It hisses.

Some people may like the hissing sound.

Like summer rain...or a diamondback rattler creeping up behind you.

How does the condom come off? When you've killed the rattler or had that happy ending, the spray-on condom can be easily rolled off and thrown away just like a regular condom.

Want to see how it works? MSNBC of all places showed a video...

Check it out here.

Such "sex education" has been proven ineffective by study after study in regards to numerous measures. In fact, youth who receive this form of "education" are much less likely to use safer sex methods than their peers who receive comprehensive sex education. Additionally, youth who only are exposed to "abstinence-only" programs are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex.

This highlights a major problem with the "abstinence-only-until-marriage" mentality. Intercourse becomes the only form of sexual expression that is "sex." This limits people's understanding of the own vastness of their sexuality.

Of course, "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programming is incredibly heterosexist as in this country gay marriage is still not widely legalized.

 These are major concerns of mine in regards to "abstinence-only" but probably the most basic problem I have with this programming is this: Saying "I do" does not magically empower someone sexually.

I truly do believe in empowering people - young and old alike - to make healthy sexual decisions which does include waiting to be sexual until they feel ready for the emotional intensity and the responsibility of preventing STD and HIV/AIDS transmission as well as unintended pregnancy. And even within a marriage it is necessary for someone to advocate for their sexual health and satisfaction. Comprehensive sex education helps teach people the tools they would need for such conversations and the follow-through.

Shaming all sex outside of marriage sends the message that our sexuality -all our desires, urges and activities - is somehow inherently wrong and how then, even within the confines of socially acceptable marriage will we be able to claim our sexuality? Embracing our sexuality is a process and does not happen overnight even if it happens to be our wedding night.

This idea of wanting sexual purity until marriage (such an arbitrary goal in my opinion anyway but that's a whole other discussion) greatly restricts the experience of male and female sexuality. Although, I think women's sexuality is affected even more as purity is much more often expected from women who are seen as the gatekeepers and therefore responsibility to maintain sexual abstinence lays on their shoulders. This stunts our development and it cheats our relationships -yes, even the one with our spouse - from healthy, adventurous and fun sexual experiences because our sexuality has been seen as so unacceptable that we no longer no how to use our sexual voice.

"Abstinence-only-until-marriage" programming is not based on facts, real prevention and self-empowerment instead it is purely (some people's form of) morality based. This "education" - rather, misinformation - has arose from people's fear around sexuality. I think the advocates and educators of "abstinence only" care more about controlling sex much more than the actual prevention of the spread of STDs, HIV/AIDS as well as unplanned pregnancies.

In this spirit, the education actually often has the reversed effect on the young people affected by these programs. After all, these programs rely on scare tactics of the failure rates of condoms, for example, but do not magically make a person's interest in sex disappear for this is an innate human trait. So when these people are sexual they are not equipped to actually protect themselves or their partners.

Our government then - despite the supposed separation of Church and State - supports and funds morality based efforts to improve the condition of public health in this country instead of scientific based efforts which are proven far more effective in actually creating change.

"Waiting in Vain." Bob Marley.

I have been hearing on the news and on the net as well as on the radio as of late that there are certain groups that want the powers that be to make contraceptives illegal.

So lets start out with a little story shall we. Feel free to go away if you wish, this is going to get ugly.

A very good friend of mine was vacationing on an island in the Caribbean a few years back. Minding her own business on the city bus, along with two friends and countless other tourists. At her stop she was approached by two island native men, pulled into a nearby alley where she was viciously raped and beaten. My friend became pregnant from that rape. Knowing full well that she could not financially nor mentally support a child she chose to have an abortion. She wishes to this day that she had been on "the pill" so she could have avoided the proverbial coat hanger.

Now I want someone to tell me that contraception should be illegal. Go ahead I dare you.

Tell me what kind of life that unwanted child would have had. Tell me that my friend or anyone else for that matter would not have resented that child for the rest of it's life. Tell me that every time she looked at that child she would not have been reminded of that day in the alley. Go ahead I dare you.

But it doesn't stop with just this scenario. What about prostitutes, or stupid teenagers? What are we going to do with all the unwanted children because birth control is illegal. There are over 800,000 unwanted pregnancies in the U.S every year as it is. Don't tell me that adoption is the answer either. Who is going to foot the medical bills? You? Perhaps we should give all of the babies to you? You can feed them, put clothes on their backs and send them off to college.

But you don't want to get that involved do you? You just want to yammer off at the gums and say it's wrong!

90% of the unwanted pregnancies in the U.S are from people who are living at or below the poverty line. These are the people who cannot afford contraceptives in the first place. If the child is brought into that situation the likelihood of a life of poverty increases continuing the cycle.

I believe that contraception should be FREE, paid for by the government. It would be less expensive in the long run. Saving on medical costs, therapy costs and saving an unwanted child from a life of resentment.

Feel free to leave your comments...I dare you

For example, if your child has sex with six people before he or she is married (Incidentally, this is a modest number in our sexually permissive world.) and each of these people have had sex with six others, your child has exchanged body fluids with over a hundred people.  And, when that exponentt is raised to ten people who have sex with ten others, the number of people your child has exchanged body fluids with skyrockets to over 1,000.

Many of the infections carried by body fluids can be cured, but many can only be treated.  The human papilloma virus (HPV) has become so threatening to the future of our young women that several groups are lobbying for federally remanded vaccination of preteen girls.  What a sexually dangerous world we have created for our children!  What is even sadder is the fact that many parents have not stepped up to the challenge of being the primary sex educators of their children. 

Then, consider this!   August 3, 2008, Associated Press reporter Mike Stobbe reported that The Center for Disease Control, with the help of better blood tests, have revised upward the number of people infected with the HIV virus last year in the United States from 40,000 to 56,300.  This represents an increase of forty percent over the past reported figures of 40,000 new cases each year.  Although the report explains  this does not reflect an increase in the HIV threat, it obviously reveals how grossly we have been underestimating the threat over the last decade.  When you take into consideration that the HIV Virus can have an incubation period of ten to twelve years, you begin to see what a sinister threat this disease poses for your children. 

They need to be aware of this information...and they need to hear it from YOU!  Oh sure, the public schools will pas it on to them because the law requires them to do it.  However, the same law forbids the public schools from presenting this information in any moral framework...seapration of church and state...you know.  Parents are the only ones who can provide the moral foundation for the healthy sex education of their children. 

Your children need to understand that SAFE sex is a myth.  Outside of a monagamous marriage there is no SAFE sex!  Even if condoms are used in a technically correct way during every sexual encounter they have a fourteen percent failure rate.  Would you jump out of an airplane if you knew that their was a fourteen percent chance your parachute would not open?

Not telling your children the truth about sex is playing sexual roulette with their lives.  No, of course you do not want to do that, but if you are like many parents, your own parents never modelled healthy sex education for you.  So, you feel awkward and embarrassed when you begin to think about the need to tell your children the truth about sex.

This is why I have created a program called "Parents First: Empowering Parents To Be The Primary Sex Educators of Their Children."' If you would like to have more information about this program designed for use by  parents, small groups, and churches you can e-mail me at: rddobbins@gmail.com.

The news report specifies the under reporting of the infection rate among two minority groups - Blacks and Hispanics. I previously volunteered with the local county's HIV test program. The program includes the services of a mobile unit that goes to at risk (i.e. poorer) neighborhoods to provide tests. So, we usually ended up in a housing project that has a high Afro-American population, and an inner city neighborhood that is predominantly made up of Spanish-speaking immigrants.

From my own experience, I found it quite difficult to give away condoms to young people, let alone convince them to step into the van to take the test. It was much easier with the adult population. Maybe they are older and wiser. Maybe they personally witnessed the ravages of the virus. Whatever the reason, adults were always more receptive.

I really don't know what the solution to this is. In terms of the young Hispanic population, I know that a lot of them are undocumented immigrants, and are unwilling to meet anyone who is associated with a governmental agency. But they are also at the greater risk, especially among the migrant day laborers. Their living situation and the machismo image that is expected from them discourage safer sex practices. Similarly, some of the young Afro-Americans may have trouble with the practice of safer sex, just because of peer pressure and homophobia.

On a personal level, I know of young acquaintances who have the virus. As I previously said, the common denominator is the failure of using a condom. Fortunately, they are all still living healthy lives, thanks to the new drug cocktails. However, I wish they would not have been infected to start with. So, everyone, please use those condoms. Unlike other countries, you can find them for free in a lot of places here.

Now this has just gotten everyone's panties in a twist. Of course we all know sex is illegal in prisons, so providing condoms does seem like a sort of paradox, doesn't it? But the opponents of this proposal simply gloss over the fact that sex does occur in jail - even if it's not voluntary, and victims of prison rape would most likely appreciate the condom gesture. Not only that, but let's not forget that we are trying to impose laws upon people who are only there because they broke laws in the first place. Like arguments about sex ed and the availability of birth control, those against safe sex methods believe that through such programs, we are condoning something sinful and wrong. Which is how we end up with pregnant teenagers who refused birth control because apparently unplanned, unsafe sex is the ticket to preserving their innocence.

But pregnancy isn't something we have to worry about with inmates. Instead, it is the health risk of sexually transmitted diseases with a focus on the spread of AIDS. Studies show that prisoners are 3 times more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population. In spite of the immediate health risks, this may seem like a controllable problem to some. But these bastions of HIV won't keep it locked away forever; while jail time can end, an HIV sentence just gets you life on the outside without parole.

Once again, the moral pole of the U.S. is getting in the way of solving a social issue. And all the reasons for not signing this bill seem to be a cover for the fact that homosexuality still makes everyone just a little more than uncomfortable. I think everyone would rather live in denial about men sodomizing each other behind bars, and having condom machines out in plain view must make this image much harder to repress. Responding to concerns over the use of condoms to hide drugs or serve as weapons, proponents emphasize that Canadian and European prisons have had virtually no security problems throughout the almost 20 years of this program. A select few penitentiaries do it in the United States, but California is such a big deal because Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already vetoed the proposal twice, and he holds the ultimate decision after the one year trial is up.

Inmates are also lobbying for the right to same-sex marriages. But until then, let them have condoms - maybe later they can have their cake and eat it too.

Awww shiiiiiiiiit, you know you can't kick it back to 90's hip-hop and R&B without Ronnie, Ricky and Michael, better known as Bell Biv DeVoe. This trio from Boston had a blend of R&B and New Jack Swing that fo' sho' had me thinking about gettin' bizzy (like a Dizzy Lizzy, yo) but I never forgot - the J, the I, the M, the M, the Y y'all.

Definitely one of my favorite hip-hop groups from the 90's, Digital Underground had that funky, lyrical, out there sound that was a sortof throw back to George Clinton and his Parliament Funkadelics. Shock-G and Money-B kept my ass shakin' to The Humpty Dance before I ever knew how to wobbly wobbly-drop it like it's hot. On the whole, I liked their 'Sex Packets' album better than it's successor, 'This Is An EP Release' (which also featured rapper Tupac Shakur), although I did like the track 'Kiss You Back' from the following album, 'Sons of The P'.

Anyway, the 'Sex Packets' song was actually about a fictional safe sex drug which "Packet Man" was pushing to Humpty Hump - but coming up everyone I knew thought that "sex packets" referred to condoms and it seemed to make sense since the slow bass beat of the song worked to loosen up many a bra strap (ahem). Regardless, when you're at the age of constant hormonal overload and you have sex on the brain constantly, you should WANT your music to subtly remind you that being safe sexually is a part of being sexy.

And sometimes not so subtly, for at the end of the night when it's time to get ur freak on you just had to listen to the words and you knew what was up:

Know what I mean? A'ight here's the scene

You're lyin' on your back with your head on the edge of the bed

The booty's two feet from your head

Should you

A, take the time to find a condom

B, you walk right over and you pound 'em

C, tell her that you want her love

Well the answer is D

D, all of the above

I really can't imagine this "deal" taking place. While Disney is not above subliminal (and superliminal) sexual messages, such an unholy alliance might actually lead to the average Disney brainwashed parent thinking: "Hm. Something about that doesn't seem right." Then again, I may be overestimating them [the parents]. If it's properly marketed, under the guise of protecting children, people will swallow anything ... anything.

Here's Miley marketing toxic rGBH laden milk in the first picture (among other things, obviously) and I'm not sure exactly what in the second. I'm aware that many remain willfully ignorant of the the facts about milk. Spend just a little time researching the topic, and why anyone would drink something proven beyond doubt to cause cancer, and proven beyond doubt to contain 10% puss by volume (caused by effect of rGBH on cow's teats) is beyond me. {*1} If you become aware of these facts, and then still give this stuff (regular rGBH-laden milk) to your children, then your problems lie outside the scope of what I will be discussing in this article.

Back to the condom thing, it looks like NY Daily News broke the story, and since, most variations [this is been picked up by nearly every major outlet: suspicious] that have come out have borrowed from the source. Here's an excerpt from the original with some comments [embedded in blue] from yours truly:

Miley Cyrus says she wants to be taken more seriously by an adult audience, but LifeStyles Condoms wants to harness Cyrus' appeal to her younger audience ... by encouraging tweens [¡agreed upon range is 10 to 12!] to embrace safe sex [¡ha!].

The prophylactic peddler [¿apropo monicker, no?] wants the 15-year-old singing sensation (who has professed that she will be a virgin [¿inside the family doesn't count?] until she gets married) [never mind, just marketing for Christians] to be its new spokesperson and is willing to offer Cyrus $1 million [¿kind of low, no?] to shill its brand.

"Pop culture proves that teens are more ready than ever to discuss the subject of sex," [yea, that's cause they are more sexualized than any generation in modern history] said Carol Carrozza, [¿KK?] VP of marketing for LifeStyles. "With recent reports showing that one out of four teenage girls has an STD and the high level of teenage pregnancy, we believe that Miley is both influential [¡understatement!] and relatable to this afflicted set [¿odd choice of words?] - and is the obvious choice to get the message of safe sex out to teens across America."

LifeStyles is also generously offering Miley a lifetime supply of condoms for "whenever she decides the time is right." [¡where's that damn air-sickness bag!]

I'd prefer this not feel like a homework assignment, but this article is is going to touch on topics I've covered in prior blogs, hence I'd recommend the following "101" articles. I'll try to refer where possible, but consider these a must read for anyone unaware of the agendas at play here:

• If the Glove Doesn’t Fit (condoms, the safe sex scam)
• No More Secrets No More Lies (the hannah montana scam)
• Post-Subliminal Era Has Begun (subliminals and superliminals)
• Goddess of the Vulva (from madonna to britney to miley)

In case my regular readers are now wondering if they're in for yet another angry rant, I'm going to [for the moment] say no. My anger was tempered by a comment I found attached to one of the afforementioned variations of this story. While I can't surmise this person is fully aware of the truth about condoms, it is refreshing to see someone actually using their intuition (a good definition of):

"J" - A lifetime supply of LifeStyles is not an incentive. Those things are awful. I’m fairly sure the “lubricant” is rattlesnake venom, and they break like 60% of the time. If your lifestyle involves vaginal chafing and unplanned pregnancy, this is your brand.

In the meantime, Miley [or one of her handlers] has released yet another batch of salacious pictures. I've concluded these [now regular] "accidents" (like the main story herein) are tests, to see just how far Disney (and others) can push the envelope before the average parent wakes up: [My guess? Pretty far.]

The above, are actually not the latest pics in question. But, if I wrote an article every single time Miley decided to flash someone her panties, well then I might as well rename my blog and replace the new "warrior" header with a Hannah hearts and flowers collage. {*2} On top of that, I'd then have to devote all my time responding to "hater" comments from her fan[atic]-base. On second thought...

Worth a view, however, are just a few of the comments (unedited) found on one such saucy "exposition" site:

"J" - Hey, Leave her alone, People are so obsessed with disney stars these days..Hey if i had her Body, i would be doing it too.. & im 13. She is A Normal Girl who works for disney.. that shouldnt make her a bad rolemodel.. just a teen girl that likes to have fun

"T" - She's a beautifull girl and she did not do anything wrong. These pictures after all were never intended for public use... It's just because her ex bf posted then online... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone a wise man once said ;) So stop messing about trying to ruin a wonderful actress and fantastic singer's career!!!

"K" - Miley Cyrus is just like anybody else, she goes through rough patches and everybody needs to leave her ALONE!!! I like her and i am 12 so what! I L-O-V-E to sing and she is my insperation!!! I also have all of her CD's!!!

Scary, no? As I previously stated, fan is a stem of fanatic which means “marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.” Only one comment showed even a remote glimmer of independent thought, but at the end, just redirects the blame (falling into another Disney preprogrammed bucket):

"J" - oh my goshhhhh! people are taking up for her! the pictures get worse, you know that right? but the part that bothers me the mostttttt is that she blamed nick. she tells everyone that nick was beggingggg for bad photos. but he knows better. i love the jonas brothers; hateeee miley cyrus and selena gomez. and not bc im obsessed. so i have a badddd case of OJD. [look into it] but ughhh. people these days.

A friend of mine is considering taking in a "troubled tween" relative who has been exemplifying what would have once been considered aberrant sexual behavior. I asked her if she knew what she was getting herself into, and what made her think this behavior was not the norm for girls her age today. Our conversation affirmed both to the negative. The influence of the media, arguably the primary factor in the molding of today's youth, has made "parenting" obsolete in some cases, and for those who allow regular media access, a hopeless endeavor.

Hence, Disney's been given carte blanche to do as they wilt. As I've speculated before, the reasons for the "hand-off" is likely from a combination of "too busy working" (a stock answer from many parents I know) and the natural "goodness" [for lack of better words] in most people. In other words, they either are so repulsed by the concept, investigation of makes them feel "dirty," or locked into a mode of "living in denial;" being unable to image they (as in the nebulous "other people" who would be looking out for your kids) would allow such a program to proceed unabated.

I'm sure the people at Tavistock figured all these factors out a long time before I surmised this, and rely on them to push their social engineering agendas. The devolution of mankind proceeds, exactly as the Huxleys and others told us it would, and ultimately, we have chosen to (and continue to) proceed down this road: "O brave new world: That hath such people in't!"

As I pointed out above, here's the [Jonas Bros] bucket the other lost tween fell into. Notice how Disney has taken over the entire list of idol [idle?] ("lacking worth or basis," "a false conception," or "an appearance without substance") choices now? Frustratingly, another friend of mine, who has expressed concern over her daughter's influences, limits her television exposure to only the Disney Channel? [Breathe in. Don't get angry. OK.] Ever wonder what kind of adults these Disney kids are supposed to turn into? "O brave new world." Read the book! {*3}

Yet another friend of mine who is making an honest effort to be a good mother to her six year old, attended a birthday party for one of her daughter's schoolmates. At the party, the girls went to the birthday girl's room to look at her new posters on her wall. My friend walked in, and was shocked to find said wall covered with posters of Disney boys, some of them shirtless. She took her daughter away and the other "mothers" chided her for being too austere. "This is what little girls are supposed to do." Ah, no. They're six. It most definitely is not!

What ever happened to "parenting?" Well, specifically what happened is another article in itself. For now: an incremental path leading to the current state of affairs, where the lunatics are [metaphorically, though sometimes I wonder if literally] in charge of the asylum, and everyone else is trapped within its confines. The following stories show an unnerving trend:

• The mother who wants her 15-year-old daughter to be the next Jordan (and is saving up to buy her a boob job)
• Mummy's little Lolita: The 11-year-old girl whose beauty treatments cost £300 a month to make her look like Barbie
• Outrage as children as young as 11 offered pole dancing lessons
• Surgery-mad mum lets 12-year-old daughter get boob job

Perhaps one of reasons for this change, is that "graduates" of these massive dumbing-down agendas (particularly in the USA and UK, the testing grounds for the programs) are now of child-rearing age. Have to confess, since I came back to the states, it is hard to meet a 20-something woman who I can even remotely relate to, and a good portion of 30-somethings are beyond hope as well. Materialistic, ego-driven, non-critical citizens of the Brave New World. Thus, Disney is free to do "whatever" it wants:

Looking at the above images of Disney asset Emily Ozment, a non-citizen will spot the butterfly mind-control symbolism. Why's the programmed "BFF" for Miley all in pink? The average non-critical mind, unaware of color symbology won't even realize the significance of the "16" being pink, her dress for the occasion being red and why she is surrounded by the color purple. Those more aware, may realized exactly what Disney is marketing, and why she is holding the 16 where it lie.

One such individual (on the side of those who will understand Disney's motives) has been posting a great series explaining the "Oz" programming, hence saving me (and I'm sure many others), the effort. If you really want to understand how pathetically open to suggestion the average consumer has become, sit down and spend just a few moments watching MTV's My Super Sweet 16.

This show, aimed at your average middle-class teenager, glorifies spoiled rich princesses and the money their families spend on their Sweet 16 parties [here is but one heinous example]. I had concluded, after only a couple of viewings, that the gullible public, now pressured by their children through the media (compounded by their peers), had moved from backyard gatherings to commemorate a mundane occasion, to taking out loans to pay for lavish parties they could not afford. Struck up a conversation with a friend who works in mortgage collections:

"By chance, do any of the customers you talk to, tell you they are in dire straits (i.e., in danger of losing their house), because they took out a home equity loan to pay for their daughter's Sweet 16 party?"

"Oh my god! How did you know? It's not like one or two people. It's like 1 out of every 6 people I talk to. These people took out loans ranging from 20 to 30 thousands dollar loans for them."

Oh how pathetic we've become. Ring a bell and Pavlov's dog comes running. Bye-bye middle-class. A little reminder when looking for someone (be it your politicians or some foreign country) to blame for the economy: you did it to yourself. Sometimes, I wonder if they could get people to buy rich people's shite if it were marketed right. [Turns out, I'm not the first to wonder.] Moving on:

Not to rehash an old topic, but trauma-based mind control victims [note Miley's butterfly wings], have almost all (per Cathy O'Brien, Fritz Springmeier and others) experienced some form of incest. Disney themes go hand in hand. From Mickey Mouse to Marilyn Monroe to the newest face on the [¿chopping?] block (above center), Meaghan Jette Martin. The video below, synced with the above images of Miley, should raise the hair on the back of some necks:

A lot of people, despite voluminous evidence (synchromystic, indirect, intuitive, and sometimes even, verbal and physical) to the contrary, and several authors pointing to multi-generational incest as a defacto mode of trauma based MPD programming, refuse to acknowledge it. Should any father be rubbing tanning oil between his daughter's butt cheeks?

Caught in the act of gauging who his daughter's "heart" belongs to, is Hulk Hogan. [Pro wrestling is a HUGE influence on the young. Primarily boys.] I know I keep saying that one day, I'll fully explain the origins of that heart symbol, but didn't Marilyn say her "heart belongs to daddy?" Ew! Have to wonder why Angelina Jolie and dad are "estranged?" Body language should not be taken lightly:

Speaking of Meaghan, very few pictures of or information about the Disney mega star in the making, could be found online. Did she just get out from under the tunnels (Disney's mind-control center)? Her trivia page from IMDB, synchromystically analyzed, hints there is much much more to her "story:"

• She was seen in the workshop of Jason Robert Brown's musical "13" [a conspicuous number, to say the least; also syncs with the unrelated movie, which details "tween" behavior discussed herein] as Kendra.
• Meaghan loves reading and is a huge fan of the Harry Potter [mind manipulative] series. She also enjoys writings by Mitch Albom [suspect + syncs us back to AJ's daddy, Jon Voigt], Stephen King and Lewis Carroll [extreme mind-control programming].
• Loves the UK and would love to visit [¿if she's never been there, than why does she love it?]. {*4}
• Her favorite Disney Channel show is Hannah Montana [¡of course!].
• She would love to work with Johhny Depp [syncs with condoms, see ItGDF] and Tim Burton one day.
• For her Camp Rock audition, she sang 'Brand New You' [¡brand new alter personality!] from the James Robert Brown musical play, "13".
• First professional [¡¡word conspicously missing!!] was a fashion model in a Disney fashion show when she was 5 [shouldn't there then be some a lot of info/pics available from the past 11 years?].

Speaking of "new" stars, Disney is hard at work. Knowing the demographics of the pending North American Union, it's well under way to extend its appeal to the Latino market. {*5} Here is one of these next Disney properties, Selena Gomez, definitely already under the control of Disney wizardry, and ready to be the medium to extend that reach into the minds of Latino youth up and down the Americas:

Crafty marketing aimed at the Central American market by combining the name of deceased superstar Selena with one of the most common surnames from that region, no? [Have to wonder, with the former dying at the significant age of 23, it there's more to the story.] The other Latino star in the making (I guess Disney wants to cover all bets) is from the new Camp Rock (depicted earlier). Her resume also produces some interesting synchromystic connections:

• Her mom was a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader during the the 1982-83 season [at the time, the group were media superstars, sought out by the rich and powerful], and was a country recording artist [per O'Brien, the hub of the CIA's drug-distribution and mind-control network].
• Her favorite band is Paramore [¡absolute shite!] and her favorite song by them is "Born for This." [bloodlines and programming]
• Her best friend is Selena Gomez [of course Disney assigned her this BFF].
• She started acting at the age of six [again, early start], when she landed [¡ha!] her first series regular role as Angela on Barney & Friends [been meaning to look into the purple dinosaur].

Presenting Demi Lovato earning a few bucks recruiting for the US Army and proving to even the most-programmed of minds, that Disney is selling us a lot more than "innocence." The center clipping speaks volumes of the early mind-control princess programming that even she herself [Demi] is oblivious of:

"I never wanted a part more than this," and "it was a dream to work with him?" Reminds me of something I once read/heard about young Princess Diana, and how she was programmed from an early age [¿princess programming for princesses?] for the task of mothering the future King of England (and perhaps, even more than that). There was mention of how in her estates she would reside (and on the walls of the rooms she would sleep in), there would be exquisite portraits of Prince Charles posed in heroic warrior / white-knight poses. {*6}

Moving from the new Disney kids to the old, we find Lindsey Lohan back at work (finally). Here she is selling condoms (from the film I Know Who Killed Me), selling us cars (I think) and finally, worn out from all that marketing. While the film may have "sucked" in every sense of the word, the themes of multiple-personalities and mind-control were so overt, it was actually kind of fun [for me] to sit through. The alternating reds and blues were not subtle. [May write up.] A giggle: immediately following her pitch line, cheesy porno music begins and they "get busy."

Lindsey's even been up to a little cross-marketing, selling us condoms (for LifeStyles, no less) and lesbianism (another agenda receiving heavy media rotation these days). Katy Perry's staged rip-off of Jill Sobule's "I Kissed a Girl," took what was once a decent song and turned it into a soulless teen anthem. I had been speculating that probably led to increased experimentation among teens and "tweens," so was surprised to hear Freeman affirm that while on Alex Jones of all places (forcing a revealing sync with a prior image of latest lesbian fantasy girl).

No wonder Lindsey needed some rest. She's been a busy busy girl. No marketing opportunity is let slip, of course, so Katy Perry's pitching the upcoming "Teen Choice" awards by saying she's going to lock lips with Hannah and Miley. [It should suprise none this tool (Katy) is yet another Disney creation. Anyone think remaking the song in teen diva style was her idea?] Going back up the Queen of the Vulva lineage, let's check on Britney (pictured on the Masonic checker-board, center):

I really didn't want to go there (again), but Hulk Hogan already took us there. Came across a rather disturbing article while trying to find more info on Freeman's comment: The Media's Silence About Rampant Anal Sex. [Another ?agenda? getting heavy rotation from the XXX "industry." Pavlov's bell is ringing!] On the ligher side, I also came across some author's pictorial of the abuse his daughter puts her doll collection through: Meet the Girls of Cell Block B. The article syncs well with the secondary themes of my last blog, yet still, somewhat disturbing is the question none dared ask: "What influences lead a child to emulate in such a manner?" Well, I think we have a pretty good idea herein. So, read on...

"Don't ask me to apologise. I won't ask you to forgive me.
If I'm gonna go down, you're gonna come with me."
--Elvis Costello, "Hand in Hand"

While Britney Spears has been remarkebly silent on the prophylactic issue, her little sister, Jamie Lynn, while keeping her [upper] lips shut, has been targeted for advertising. I knew it wouldn't take too long for the programmed masses (who know nothing of condoms, other than catch phrases and standard info regurgitated to them by the media), to subconsciously take up marketing for free (point of prior blog). Didn't take long to find these two random images from random individuals:

Viacom, which owns Nickelodeon, hence Jaime Lynn Spears' ass, also owns MTV, and Comedy Central (notably, South Park), so they've got the tweens who are outgrowing Disney, and the teen market firmly under their thumb. All I have to say about the network [aside from the obvious] is to ask the justification for putting out a child band that goes by the name of The Naked Brothers?

Are there no rational people left inside the entertainment field? I found two additional heavily syncing images of Jamie Lynn. The first, a screen capture from Nickelodeon's Slime Across America, which I don't feel the need, in light of everything I've already said, to expound on. As for the second, I would highly recommend anyone and everyone read Stygian Port's excellent Room 101.

I should leave it alone, but did come across [ew, no pun intended, really] a fan-site called "disneyjuice." Per the operator, "I created this blog because I am obsessed with everything disney." I won't be linking to it, cause it loaded some horrible horrible song which assaulted my brain while I vainly searched for a way to shut it off. However, the song synced a little too well with the above mileY OzMent 16 theme. It's called "Now or Never" from High School Musical. Here's an alternate link (which you can control). Listen and look at those pics of Emily Osment. Then, tell me: Is it about "basketball" or pressuring 16 year old girls to have sex?

Speaking of High School Musical, while I still don't have a final opinion (if there is such a thing) on back-masking, the five-part video does present some convincing arguments for the entire sound-track being subversive subliminals. However, it missed the most rational argument. These lyrics are so bloody awful and disjointed, a room full of monkeys picking random words out of fish-bowls could have produced an equally cohesive lyrical array in forwards mode.

Prior to publication, I also learned the Hannah Montana 3D concert (with guest appearance by Satan's favorite little "suckers," the Jonas Brothers), was being peddled on pay-per-view, with Wal-Mart (while "evil" is a highly subjuctive term, this corporation, as much as any other would qualify for the label) pushing the glasses on its victims customers. My "concerned friend" (mentioned earlier) asked my opinion on the issue (why the show was produced in said manner).

Well, logic would dictate that this isn't Jaws III, or Friday the 13th III (both 3D movies). So, what the hell is gonna be jumping out at the audience [¿miley's rear?]? My guess would be 3D allows for more subliminals. Finding online research on the subject was fruitless, but these Jim Cameron quotes are telling:

"I believe that Godard got it exactly backwards. Cinema is not truth 24 times a second, it is lies 24 times a second."

When you see a scene in 3-D, that sense of reality is supercharged. The visual cortex is being cued, at a subliminal but pervasive level, that what is being seen is real. So creatively, I see 3-D as a natural extension of my cinematic CRAFT."

Hm! Referring back to the old sorceress/queen, Madonna, the below series of pics show all these themes and cross-marketing efforts and social engineering agendas are nothing new, they're just done more openly now (for aforementioned reasons). The last pic forces one to wonder if "Satan" exacts a high price for fame and fortune (see prior, and sync-winks me that I really need to get back to my positive Diary of the Dead blog). Alas, I really don't expect Madonna's forthcoming "confession " to be an honest one:

I finally found a picture of that Pixie Magazine I previously mentioned [read definition]. What's really strange (i.e., a clue) about it, is that the magazine has no web-site (look for yourself if you wish). Another is the conglomerate that owns it, Source Interlink Media (linked to Wal-Mart), doesn't even list it in their catalog. So, as the cover asks, "which one are you?" As I've begrudignly accepted, no more subtlety is required about Disney mind control.

The final image, is just a [co]incidentally random picture which ties it all together. A sync to prior magazine. Raises the natural question, who the hell names their child "Pixie?" [And the other "Peaches?" Bob Geldof, that's who.] A sync of respect for time served to Madonna (old movie). "Up the amazon" works a little too well placed next to the dark spot going up her dress. Heart of Darkness anyone?

Would "without a paddle" keep that lesbian theme running? "Outshone by your children," ties it back to theme of the new wave of parents powerless to influence their children. The Red and Black, combined with the "choice" placement of the "G" wreaks of Masonic overtones (see High School Musical 3rd Degree Initiation). And finally, the placement of the anchor (over the mind), makes me recall a point Too Long in This Place recently made, about anchors and mind manipulation.

I really am getting tired of rehashing this point over and over again. I must admit frustration that I sometimes have to explain images like this to some people:

During one conversation, while trying to wake people I care about up the reality of what they're willingly exposing their children to, someone asked me about their "options" (e.g., Nickelodeon). There is only one option. Turn off their TV! No child under 6 should be exposed to any television. After that, limit, but educate (no, not through schools). It's called parenting.

While my answer may have over-simplified matters, it was an honest evaluation of the average media growth path (particularly for girls). The point of Disney is to raise sexual awareness in your children,. Then, Nickelodeon comes along and sexually awakens them. After that, MTV comes in and completely turns them out. This is not a new agenda:

'When we look back across the historical time of patriarchy . . . there seems to be some terrible inevitability, a relentless desire to crush the female essence, human and divine. The question of why is among the most puzzling of our time.'
--Elinor Gadon, historian

As previously stated, I no longer feel as much of a pressing need to try to awaken those immediately around me. That is a path of frustration and mental detriment. They have made their choice, and you really can't wake up someone who is sleeping. Try too hard, and you'll do nothing but anger them (I'm speaking literally and metaphorically). But, children are a dilemma to that equation.

They aren't making choices, and are relying on their parents to protect them while their mind develops. But, who's protecting them? Parenting has been turned over to the media, and thus, their minds have been turned over to the media. So, I have no choice but to continue my struggle against this brave new world. I am trying to re-write the book:

"O disgust! How many soulless creatures are there here and this void of blackness where their heart once lie! How degenerate yet mankind has become! O cowardly new world: That hath such shells of people in't!"

Sound wisdom tells me to save only those who wish to save themselves. And, I'm sure many of those have found their way to me, and I to them. So, I ask to those who've helped me on this journey, and to those I've helped, where do we go from here?

---

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

---

*1: Just a few recommended links on the topic: White Poison, Not Milk, PCRM's Stong Bones. Even the media smeared "crook" Richard Nixon had a sense of fear/respect for the dairymen (i.e., the corrupt lobby) after they pressured him into a corporate welfare deal: "They are tough political operatives. This is a cold political deal." [LB]

*2: All these "leaked" photos floating about of Hannah/Miley in her undies, come to think of it, actually contradict her Dad's statement that she "never wore underwear." [LB]

*3: While writing this, I came across another blog reflecting on how many among us are eagerly rushing head-long into the Brave New World, Secret Sun's Brave New World, Indeed. And credits to Pseudo-Occult Media for the Dinsey Princess picture I lifted off his page, and Michael Tsarion of introducing me to the Elinor Gadon quote. [LB]

*4: In one of the other articles, Miley says she "loves the UK." Bobbing to please the Queen? More muppets ponying up for knighthood. Here's a wacky Jonas Brothers meet the Queen video. Is that really her? Here's an odd sync from same "tour" where someone throws a condom at them. [LB]

*5: I also found a Brasilian girl in Disney's mix. What does Disney know that not even the "alternative media" has uncovered? I'm going to go on a limb, but after hearing both Hugo Chavez and the President of Brasil suggest a South American Union may be the remedy to an aggressive imperialist United States, I see a back-door being sold to the public. By hook or by crook? Recall, Che Guevara said something similar at one time. [LB]

*6: Yes, estates. Diana had more royal blood in her than Charles and was by no means some schoolteacher living a fairy-tale existence. Speaking of the Prince William who will turn XXX during the XXX Olympiad in 2012: anyone know what happened to Rik's Cosmic Mind blog??? We also have a sync to XXX porn lifestyle marketing. [LB]

So often the concept and practice of safe sex is vagina centric, especially from a man's perspective. Yet, the risk for STD exposure is just as real through oral sex and anal sex. Any STD that can infect a woman vaginally can also infect her through the mouth, throat, and rectum. The eye can also be a point of infection for those engaging in oral sex where the ejaculate/cum is spewed onto the face. Thank you male centric porn industry for that one! Unfortunately, the symptoms of non-vaginal STD infections may not be as apparent to the infected individual and practitioners are frequently less adept at diagnosing non-vaginal STDs.

Although a partner may appear "clean and clear," infections can exist in a sub-clinical state where symptoms are not readily apparent, yet the individual is still infectious. This lack of apparent symptoms often makes people resistant or simply dismissive of testing. Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Trichomoniasis are notorious for being asymptomatic in men, while giving women the typical discharge symptoms.

Syphilis, which is making a disturbing return, is only apparent by odd physical symptoms, not the "typical discharge" associated with a STD. In the primary stage it's noted by a painless chancre, which is a nickel sized sore at the point of infectious entry. Secondary syphilis is noted by a rash on the palms of the hands and/or soles of the feet. Tertiary syphilis is noted by the infection's attack on the internal organs and may take years to progress before it results in dementia and death. Syphilis, like any of the other bacterial STDs, can be treated with antibiotics in the earlier stages.

Hepatitis B can be contracted through exposure to bodily fluids and needle sharing. A Hep B infection may manifest through very general symptoms such as fatigue, fever, nausea, vomiting, and jaundice. It is important to realize many people with acute hepatitis never demonstrate any symptoms, but are still infectious. This is another STD without the "typical discharge" symptoms. Treatment for Hep B can be protracted and complicated, with some individuals battling the disease for life.

HIV is also contracted through exposure to blood, semen, and vaginal fluid and is not detectable through physical symptoms. There are medications to manage the symptoms of HIV infection, but HIV ultimately results in a very premature death for the infected individual.

A woman's body is very much a receiving vessel during vaginal, oral and anal sex. Take care of yourself by insisting on condoms and current, thorough STD screening. Judging someone as "clean and clear" should only be based on current STD clinical screening, not a home assessment of the lack of symptoms. While some STDs can be resolved through antibiotics, several STDs are capable of destroying your fertility or killing you. No one's attention or affection is worthy of sacrificing your health!

*Contributed by AGreenEyeDevil*