Call him Voldemort!

“Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. 
Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself” 

 

I was dumbfounded by a “On the Square” feature at First Things this week.  Christopher Kaczor gave advice to Christian parents who aren’t sure whether to have their children vaccinated against HPV and adopted the tone of someone teetering at the edge of a precipice.  After considering several approaches, Kaczor’s recommendation was as follows:

Parents should vaccinate their children for HPV, but they should not tell them precisely the nature of the vaccination. Likewise, parents should instruct the doctors and nurses involved not to tell their children exactly what this vaccination is for. In this way, the children are physically better protected, but at the same time no mixed message is sent. Both physical health and moral health are preserved.

I’m frankly flabbergasted by this idea (and, as someone with an interest in medical ethics, I find it appalling to prevent doctors from telling their patients what injections they are receiving).  The idea that children cannot know that they are protected against one of the possible negative consequences of sexual intercourse without being compelled to have sex ascribes too much power to sex.

Hyperbolic language shifts the stakes of the decision.  Just as an overemphasis on virginity can lead girls to assume that after one transgression, there’s no marginal benefit to restraint, this paranoid approach to sexual temptation makes it a lot harder for teens to imagine controlling themselves if they make even one small concession.

Kevin Roose spent a semester at Liberty Univeristy, the extremely conservative, evangelical college founded by Jerry Falwell. Throughout The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University, his discussions of sex with other students seem touched by a fatalistic dread.

Tears welling up in her eyes, Samantha told me the whole story. About a week ago, she’d snuck out after curfew to visit the off-campus apartment of a guy she’d been dating. They’d fooled around a little, lost control, and ended up having sex.

Kevin, adopting Samantha’s language, sees a causal connection between a small infraction and the annihilation of self that causes a loss of control.  The passive construction of “ended up having sex” denies any volition.  Samantha was overwhelmed by the malign influence of sexuality she had been warned about.  The other students at Liberty are always on their guard against the faintest wavering, lest they be likewise overwhelmed. One student is afraid to ever be left alone with a girl who he knows is attracted to him.  Another has to rush by girls in skirts so he won’t be tempted to look at their tuchuses.  The Liberty University dress and conduct code (no hugs lasting more than three seconds) are meant as a bulwark against defeat and despair.

These students haven’t been taught how to resist temptation, only how to fear it.  The paranoid, defensive tactics of their parents kept them ignorant of everything but one fact: they are hopelessly weak against the corruptive power of sex.  The over-defensive approach of Kaczor and others are training these children to fail.

About Leah Libresco

Leah Anthony Libresco graduated from Yale in 2011. She works as an Editorial Assistant at The American Conservative by day, and by night writes for Patheos about theology, philosophy, and math at www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked. She was received into the Catholic Church in November 2012."

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/07535825702078498433 Darksmiles

    Hear, Hear! It does a heart good to see poor reasoning called out, not to mention seeing common religious practice denounced as unambiguous folly. I look forward to more posts in this vein :)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10019240793982424774 Christian H

    "These students haven't been taught how to resist temptation, only how to fear it. The paranoid, defensive tactics of their parents kept them ignorant of everything but one fact: they are hopelessly weak against the corruptive power of sex."I must whole-heartedly agree. I have never seen the sense in deliberate ignorance of that which you find problematic. The more you know about that which you think is dangerous, the more you are able to handle it. This whole parents-not-telling-their-children-about-x does more harm than good.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687 JSA

    I think you might be mixing two issues. Hiding the precise nature of risk mitigation from people is just sound practice. It's widely accepted in economics, despite the fact that "paternalism" is typically frowned upon, and it should be even more legitimate with your own kids, where paternalism is assumed.Reams of research show that when people feel protected from one risk, they compensate by taking more risks. There have been plenty of cases where well-meaning risk mitigation actually led to higher levels of HIV, drug overdose, obesity, or traffic fatalities. In those cases, the risk-mitigation was counterproductive. So when designing a risk mitigation system, policy makers always have to be very careful about how those risk mitigations are marketed to the target population. That's just being smart.On the other hand, you're right about fear mongering. That tends to backfire badly. I had a friend in college who pretended to be Christian so that he could get more sex. He would tell girls, "I am saving my virginity for marriage". The psychology of this is pretty obvious — girls would figure he's not going to be running around cheating, he'll keep their liasons secret rather than admit to sinning, they can test the boundaries of what counts as "losing virginity", and each girl who makes him cross the line can secretly cherish the knowledge that she was "the one" who seduced a devout Christian into defying God.So I chuckle when I think of "three second hug". That's just a challenge to college kids, and pretty soon you end up with Ted Haggard smoking meth with a gay prostitute and telling his boyfriend that you can have secret gay sex and be a great Christian, too.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04922197412652392972 Sweet Tea

    Thank you for calling out that article. I too was appalled when I read it, and am glad to hear others agree that it was intensely hypocritical.

  • http://www.noaa.gov Kogo

    *So when designing a risk mitigation system, policy makers always have to be very careful about how those risk mitigations are marketed to the target population. That's just being smart.*Totally. Sort of the way that the TSA doesn't actually have a clue how to protect us from terrorism, but the 'security theater' we go through at airports makes us feel safer and probably dissuades a certain segment of low-level terrorists from trying anything.

  • KL

    While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that children should be properly educated about risks and dangers, as well as have a properly situated (and de-mystified) view of sex, I don't see the particular harm in this situation. As Kaczor points out, there are many ways in which a person can contract HPV that do not reflect on the moral character of the person at all (sexual assault, sex within marriage to an infected spouse, etc.). If the only way to contract HPV was through premarital sex and Kaczor was advocating giving the vaccination but withholding the reason, then yes, I think that's drawing an unnecessary veil of secrecy and not properly educating the child. But there are many perfectly innocuous ways of contracting it. So as it is, I think you can give your child the vaccine without saying why, perhaps very early in childhood, and then proceed (when the time is right) to properly educate them about the moral and personal aspects of sexual activity, without neglecting your duty as a parent.If, on the other hand, you never talk to your kid about sex, you are doing them a grave disservice. This is the case whether or not you administer the vaccine, and whether or not you explain the vaccine's purpose. I suspect the larger issue at hand is sex education, not full medical disclosure on a childhood vaccination.

  • KL

    In the interest of full disclosure, I know Dr. Kaczor quite well personally. While I don't always agree with him, I don't think he's terribly far off on this issue.

  • Anonymous

    Politicizing your children to the point of risking their health is not just "far off", it makes you an unfit parent. Children can pick up various strains of HPV from damp towels in a community setting (summer camp, school locker rooms, gyms, etc.). What Kaczor is doing is turning the vaccine into a dirty thing — if the disease is linked to sex (premarital or otherwise — the virus doesn't check for marriage licenses), then giving it to a child implies they will be having premarital sex, which is a big Catholic no-no, so we have to pretend our children will NEVER have premarital sex, no, neverevereverbecauseweareholyandgoodandperfectineverywaynowandforeveramenandtherestofyouaregoingtohellhellhell. Kaczor is the sort of parent who almost guarantees his sons will be drunken pigs and his daughters will have done the football team, baseball team, basketball team, and soccer team by the time they're sophomores in high school. I've raised five kids, and it is ALWAYS the kids of the most conservative, rigid, uberreligious parents who are the ones who drink, skank around, and generally act like a bunch of immature idiots their entire lives.

  • KL

    @Anonymous,…But Kaczor is saying parents should vaccinate their kids. That's not the issue at hand. I'm a little confused about your point here.And honestly, I also think it's a pretty distasteful to assume (quite negatively) the social and sexual activities of his children, given that you don't know him or his family.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    "These students haven't been taught how to resist temptation, only how to fear it."Well said! I just had to quote that because it's so perfect. I can't help but feel pity for the paranoid mindset that sees the world as a dangerous place bristling with snares and traps. A rational view, which emphasizes the seriousness of sex but also teaches that one pleasurable experience won't ruin your life, would actually lead these kids to be more likely to make good decisions.

  • Anonymous

    KL — I've seen the results of the same sorts of parenting all too often. It was always, without fail, the children of the conservative, religious parents who drank, whored around, lied, were sneaks, and who couldn't wait to get away from them so they could act out. Kaczor is a your typical hypocrite — he wants to protect his daughters (sorta — but probably only because he's worried about what the neighbors might think if one of them got cervical cancer, not because he cares if they get cancer or not), but maintain the sex-is-a-dirty-but-necessary-evil mindset. Please. All he's proved is that he's a shitty father. End of story.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687 JSA

    @Anonymous – I noticed the same thing growing up. The kids who were raised in religiously repressive homes (especially Catholic) ended up being really wild in the teen years. However, it turns out that our perceptions are biased. If you look at actual statistics on teen pregnancy, venereal disease, drug addiction, and women who become prostitutes — there are several factors that are correlated, and religious upbringing isn't one of them:1) Race2) Poverty3) Raised by a single parent4) Being abused as a child5) Education levelOne theory would be that religious kids who go wild in their teen years are able to pull out of it and avoid long-term damage, because they've been trained to be good at hypocrisy.Also, I'm a bit shocked at the emotional reaction Kaczor's article gets. People seem to have some pent-up issues. As far as I can see, his advice is the most rational possible advice, even for atheists. This is a textbook case of where it makes sense to protect someone without making them feel too protected, and ought to have nothing to do with religion.

  • Iota

    @ Anonymous:but probably only because he's worried about what the neighbors might think if one of them got cervical cancer, not because he cares if they get cancer or notWhat exactly makes you suspect he doesn't care if his child will get a lethal disease?

  • Anonymous

    @iota: Because he is focusing strictly on the fact that HPV is often (but not always or only) transmitted via sex. He's not focusing on the virus and how it is the biggest cause of cervical cancer. It's all about teh bad, bad, dirty sex0rs, not the fact that science can now prevent a major source of a devastating cancer. @JSAllen: Well, yes. Catholic teens (as well as those who were raised in other conservative religious families, Evangelicals, for example), usually have the resources to avoid the other social ills associated with early promiscuity. Their promiscuity is probably primarly related to the forbidden fruit aspect of it all, and, let's face it, abortion clinics see more girls from relgious upbringings than they do from more liberal upbringings. When it's all about fear and punishment and retribution and threats and abandonment, what do you expect? Catholic girls are raised to believe pregnancy is the punishment for sex. It's all so twisted. Sex is bad, sex is evil, nudity is dirty and evil, your bodies are dirty and bad, but you have to grit your teeth and get through this sex thing and bear children for God…really, is it any wonder Catholics are so mentally messed up? And then it's the D.A.R.E. syndrome: you lie and tell kids all this garbage, and they go try it and find out you lied to them and they go off the deep end. The emotional reacation to this guy's article is because it's just so stupid. Really. If your kids are old enough to understand what diseases each vaccine protects against, then you tell them. Anything else is a violation of their bodies. When fathers violate their young daughters' bodies, we have a name for it, and it ain't pretty.

  • Iota

    @ Anonymous – could you possibly comment on the following? First paragraph:The vaccination, Gardasil [...] can greatly reduce the likelihood of cervical cancer and genital warts caused by HPV. (Emphasis mine?)This, in the second:Parents should vaccinate their children for HPV (emphasis his)?This in the last but one:Even if a son or daughter is perfectly chaste, this child can still contract HPV in a variety of ways through no fault of his or her own.Later one’s son or daughter may marry someone who has HPV and be exposed to HPV in this way.

  • KL

    @Iota,Thank you for pointing this out, as I was about to. I am honestly at a loss as to where Anonymous is getting his/her impression that Kaczor doesn't care about his children contracting HPV/cervical cancer, since he states multiple times in the article that premarital sex is far from the only way to contract them.@Anonymous,All right, let's get to brass tacks. You (I assume) do not know Christopher Kaczor personally and are therefore firmly in the realm of speculation as far as his family life. I do know him personally. I have for years. I've met his wife and children on multiple occasions, and had conversations with said wife and children. I have had numerous very candid discussions with him on the subjects of parenting, family life, and sex. I can unequivocally say that he has nothing approaching the "sex-is-a-dirty-but-necessary-evil mindset" (to use your phrase); in fact, his unabashedly and unashamedly pro-sex stance often embarrasses the students in his classes, due to his candor. He does, however, take chastity seriously and argues for it as an objective good, regardless of religious affiliation. He loves his children and wants the best for them. He loves them even though they are (surprise!) not without fault and mess up on occasion — because they are teenagers, and that's what teenagers do.Is he a perfect parent? I doubt it. No parent is. But I absolutely fail to see how he has proven himself a "shitty" one by advocating that parents administer Gardasil to their children, even though he has a moral objection to premarital sex.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, any man who advocates violation of his daughter's body by lying about what is injected into it and why is a bad father. Worse than a bad father. If you don't get that, you're no better. It's called the rapist mentality. His politics and religion supercede his daughter's autonomy over her own body. If he understands the nature of HPV transmission and what the vaccine can and cannot do, and he believes, for the _best_ of reasons, that his daughters' health is best served by receiving the vaccine, then there is no reason to lie or withhold information as he consents for them to do so. That he feels the need to lie is what's troubling. That speaks to something seriously wrong with the man, and frightening as a father. You don't insert something into a girl and lie about why unless you believe it's always okay to insert things into women for your own nasty reasons. Dude's a creep. End of story. I know all I ever need to know about him.

  • Iota

    Anonymous – practical question. Would you mind telling me what gender are you? I kink it's genuinely important for my response…

  • Iota

    *think (very stupid typo)

  • KL

    @Anonymous…But…he's saying you shouldn't lie. Parents could avoid lying by simply telling their child, “You need another vaccination in order to prevent possible future diseases,” and leave it at that. This is not a lie. In the event that a child inquires which diseases, the parent could say, “the Human papillomavirus” or “four different strains of a virus, but I don’t know the medical names for each strain,” and leave it at that. These statements are also not lies, since nothing false was said. (Emphasis mine)I don't think it's necessary to say, "You're getting a vaccine that protects against HPV, which you can get by having premarital sex, among other mechanisms," any more than it's morally obligatory to say, "You're getting a vaccine that protects against hepatitis, which you can get by sharing needles when injecting heroin, among other mechanisms." You can have discussions with your kids about premarital sex and/or illegal drug use at another time, of course, but I really don't see the necessity of explaining the many ways one can contract a particular disease at the point of vaccination. Not to mention, many vaccinations occur during childhood, when the recipient would not be in a position to understand the explanations even if they were given.Parenting involves withholding a lot of information from children, simply because it's unnecessary and non-productive. We can extend this to all sorts of non-sex-related and non-medical situations. When a kid asks why she has to wear a seatbelt, you say, "To keep you safe if there's a car crash." Would it be true to say, "Because if you don't, you could smash through the window of the car and land on your head and your brains would be spattered all over the road"? Technically, yes. You could argue that's "full disclosure," and some parents do go that route (not to mention high school driver's ed classes!). But I don't think it's morally obligatory to do so, and deciding not to doesn't make you a bad parent. "To keep you safe" is a perfectly true and satisfactorily informative response. In the same way, "We're giving you a vaccine to prevent a disease" or even "to prevent HPV" is totally fine.

  • Anonymous

    FemaleThat was a pretty telling slip…

  • Iota

    > FemaleGiven that won't write what I actually wanted to write as a first impression. Instead I'll ask a question, if you permit:Would you accuse the female commenters – who say they do the same – of also having a "rapist mentality"?Would you say it's "rapist mentality" if a boy is being vaccinated?Would you finally say that having a "rapist mentality" involves all cases when people want to introduce foreign substances into a woman's/girl's body without explaining the details? How does that relate to, say, the thoroughness of clinical trials of various medicines?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687 JSA

    @Anonymous – The fact that you would compare vaccination to child rape suggests that you have some serious emotional baggage, and are incapable of thinking rationally. Or that you're a troll.It's doubly ironic that you post as "anonymous", while claiming that a vaccination is rape if the parent doesn't disclose every sordid detail about every sex acts that the vaccine might address. Are you "raping" us by failing to disclose your name? How much sordid detail does the parent need to offer before you consider it to no longer be rape? Should the mother explain, "We are injecting this to protect you when diseased people thrust themselves into your vijayjay unprotected"? It *that* your definition of non-rape?

  • Iota

    @ AnoonymousIncidentally, I just needed to check "kink" in order to fully understand you comment. Y'know, among other things it also means:- a bend of a rope- a muscular spasm- a flaw- a quirk- clever or unusual ideaIt also does have another informal meaning. But given that my dictionary lists 5 others first… I could say it's telling you think it's telling. :-)

  • Anonymous

    KL, if, at the age of five, one of my kids wiggled around the lying issue with the withholding of facts excuse, I wouldn't have bought it. He's a grown man advocating, for some bizzaro reason, that parents should probably give their daughters this vaccine, but that, unless there's no way out of it, they shouldn't tell them what for. Why? Why THIS vaccine and not the others? The ONLY difference between the HPV vaccine and other vaccines is that the HPV virus is often spread via sexual activity. That's it. There is no difference — it's the same science and technology at work. That this vaccine is usually given at an older age — we're not talking infants and toddlers here, we're talking 9 and 10 at the youngest end of the spectrum — and that this man is so personally freaked out by the sex link that he advocates deception of one sort or another while at the same time consenting to an invasive technology on a female child, is a serious problem. He is a Catholic professor at a somewhat prominent Catholic University who can't just say straight out that Gardasil protects against a virus which may well lead to a particularly devastating cancer for women, therefore Catholic parents should stop being a pack of hypocritical ninnies and should make sure their daughters are vaccinated. Why not? Why all the woo-woo deception nonsense? There's something disturbingly wrong with a man who acts this way about sex and young girls and deception.

  • Anonymous

    Iota,First of, all, quit the BS re "kink". Even you acknowledged it was an unfortunate, ah, "typo". Don't play innocent now. We're talking mostly about the context of daughters and Gardasil, but yes, same applies for male children as well, and the same applies for women who advocate deceiving their children re this vaccine. Yeah, I think it's troubling that the sexual aspect leads parents to deceive, and yeah, it's doubly troubling when the deception involves introducing something into someone else's body. As for clinical trials, there are consent forms — the subjects consent to the parameters and structure of the tests. Big difference. JSALLEN, "anonymous" is more honest than a fake internet username. "JSALLEN" and "anonymous" in a combox are equally anonymous. I'm just not pretending I don't want to be anonymous. The parents shouldn't withhold the sexual transmission aspect of the virus. They don't have to sit there and explain every last way people have sex, or the issue of consensual v. nonconsensual sex (although that discussion should absolutely be had, and there are ways to bring it up even to 9 or 10 year olds — and God knows if you're Catholic, you had better given the Catholic Church's track record with non-consensual sex between adults and children). Just why the deception once the sex factor is brought in? That's seriously off — actually, given the Church's track record with sexual abuse of children, it's WAY seriously off.

  • KL

    @ Anonymous,I think you are misunderstanding the original purpose of the article. Kaczor is writing in response to parents who might be concerned that giving their children Gardasil might "send the wrong message." His conclusion is, in effect, that it's worthwhile from a medical standpoint to protect your children via vaccination. However, if you're uncomfortable with saying that HPV may be spread through sexual activity, you don't have to say anything at all about it. Why? Why THIS vaccine and not the others? My point with the hepatitis example above is that this is exactly what most parents do with all vaccines. Some kids will ask lots of questions, because some kids are very inquisitive. If that's the case, then Kaczor advocates answering their questions honestly. But most won't ask, because vaccinations are a pretty routine part of pediatric health care. By the time I hit high school, for example, I was mostly bored by the announcement that I needed another shot because I was getting another vaccination. Ho hum. As a thirteen year old, I had no idea what I was being vaccinated against — meningitis, hepatitis, tuberculosis, etc. etc. — and that was fine, because it didn't matter if I knew the details of how I would have been able to catch the disease if I wasn't getting the vaccine. It was irrelevant, and my mother is not morally culpable for not explain the transmission mechanism of meningitis as I was getting injected.

  • KL

    @Anonymous,To sum up, you are in fact doing exactly what you criticize Kaczor for doing — treating Gardasil differently from other vaccines precisely because there is a sexual method of transmission. It's entirely unnecessary to treat this vaccine differently from any other. The only reason this issue is even coming up is because the vaccine is 1) new and not routine (yet) and 2) primarily, though not exclusively, sexually transmitted. But if the sexual aspect is not relevant to its medical necessity (as you argue, and I agree!), then it's unnecessary to treat it any differently from a vaccine that protects against a disease whose transmission is primarily non-sexual. If you don't have a policy of explaining, in detail, each and every disease your child is being vaccinated against as well as the common methods of transmission for each, then there's no reason to start now.

  • Anonymous

    BTW, JSALLEN, the vaccine doesn't address "sex acts", as you say. It's a vaccine designed to create antibodies to a particular virus. It has nothing to do with sex acts, it's not a judgement or a condemnation or a statement about the person who receives it. And that's what's really going on here — that Kaczor et al. can't separate one particular method of transmission and the implications of that method (as filtered through his narrow, rigid, dogmatic relgious view) from the disease the vaccine protects against. Hence the deception — he deceives because he believes there is a nasty, dirty implication that goes along with the vaccine. That's twisted.

  • Anonymous

    KL, yes — I agree — we shouldn't treat it any differently than any other vaccine. Just routine healthcare, and you answer questions honestly as they come up. But _I_ wasn't the one who wrote an essay about it and about deceiving your kids about it, was I? No, that was Kaczor. Like I said, the only thing he should have said, if he felt he had to say anything at all, is "don't be an idiot, get your kid the vaccine already". But that he felt he had to add the deceptive layer and was okay with that to placate people, etc., is just weird and creepy and stupid. And it makes him someone I'd distrust, knowing that he was all about that. Whatever. Nothing Catholics do regarding sex surprises me anymore.

  • Iota

    In the context of a clinical trial, yes – subjects do sign forms. But do patients receiving an approved drug do that too? Do you actually check up every drug you ever get, just to see if clinical testing was flawless? Or ask/expect your doctor to list all alternative drugs for a given condition upfront with enough data to make a really informed decision?

  • Anonymous

    Iota, I do, and I've taught my kids to do so, as well. I absolutely refuse to sign any consent form until all my questions are answered to my satisfaction. I also have the added benefit of a husband who works for a major biotech, so we're pretty informed going in. I also have been in the position of pushing doctors for more information or even rejecting tests and treatments I don't believe are necessary or in my best interest, and the older doctors can't deal with it. They threaten and more than one has even gone as far as to outright lie to me. Younger doctors, especially doctors from Eastern backgrounds, are much more accepting, even encouraging, when they encounter an informed, educated patient who is capbable of making information-based decisions about their own health. Those older, Christian white dudes? Not so much. Especially not from a woman.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687 JSA

    @Anonymous – I get where you're coming from, but I still don't understand the fixation on telling kids that the vaccine is about sex.We have tons of empirical evidence showing that we negate much of the benefit of a vaccine if we give people the impression that the vaccine will protect them from risky behaviors. You are recommending that we vaccinate kids, and then do something that we know will reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine. Why? What possible benefit could outweigh the increased risk to the child?So far, I've heard:1) If you don't talk to kids about sex, you're a rapist2) Catholics suck3) Old white guys suck4) Young Chinese and Indians are coolThat sounds like a lot of bigotry, personal prejudice, and rage. It doesn't sound like an argument for telling kids that the vaccine is about sex.

  • Anonymous

    I'm not fixated on telling kids the vaccine is about sex. I'm fixated on not promoting deception/lies especially when the reason for the deception is that someone is freaked out over the sex aspect of the equation, and especially when the deception involves invasion of one's person.I never said (1). At all. That's a deliberate lie. Catholics do indeed suck. Google Shawn Ratigan for the latest round of the same old sex abuse & cover up story. Nothing has changed in spite of all the assurances it has. At this stage of the game, anyone who continues to promote and support the Catholic Church is complicit in continuing abuse and covering up of said abuse. That's my opinion, and I am not going to change my mind. You got a problem with that, too bad. Not all old white guys suck. My husband is an old white guy, and he definitely doesn't suck. Unless I want him to. Many old white guys have a tendancy towards arrogance, especially when they're in positions of power over other people. That's my experience, and I am probably old enough to be your grandmother. That's a lot of livin', kid, and a lot of experience. I live in a neighborhood full of lovely young Asian people of all national origins and both my husband and I work with Asians of all ages and national origins and they happen to be incredibly nice people, and are incredibly accepting and open-minded. Yep, "cool" works. What _I_ actually wrote isn't bigoted, prejudiced or full of rage (justified anger towards a Church that continues to aid and abet child abusers? Sure. If you're not angry, there's something wrong with you.). _You_ are reading a lot into what I've written that just isn't there, as well as asserted that I've written things I did not. That just makes you dishonest and isn't an argument for or against anything.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687 JSA

    @Anonymous – Even if it were deception (it's not), and even if it were motivated by being freaked out about sex (it's not), this would have no bearing on whether or not it was a good idea to talk about the vaccine reducing the risk of sex. Likewise, your age, personal prejudices, and number of "lovely friends" of other races have no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.Whether or not it's a good idea is an empirical matter. You need to provide some objective evidence for why it's a good idea to tell the kids that the vaccine protects them from sex. This is a point you keep ignoring; apparently because you are so desperate to anonymously share your autobiography and promote your personal prejudices.

  • Anonymous

    Hahaha…okay, whatever. :-D "It"…? What's "it"? Do you even know what you're talking about anymore? LOL! Dude, you brought all that shit up, now you're whining about it, lol! Grow up. I have my opinion, this Kaczor guy his, you yours. So what? It's a big world out there, kiddo, full of lots of people who aren't going to kiss your ass 24/7 or stroke your ego. Deal with it. You've made it plain what you think of me. Well, here's what I think of you: you're an idiot, which isn't all that horrible in itself, but you're dishonest and arrogant, too, which means you're pretty much just a spoiled little douche-bag, and no doubt is the reason your first wife dumped your sorry ass. Continue to play with yourself. You're just a tedious, predictable bore at this point. Good night.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687 JSA

    @Anonymous – Why are you so mean? Your statements are super hurtful. Can you blame me for mistakenly thinking that you were a 15 year-old newfag /b/tard when you said things like ""JSALLEN" and "anonymous" in a combox are equally anonymous"? Now that you've used grandmotherly phrases like "grow up", "kiddo", "spoiled little douche-bag", and "play with yourself", I realize that I was mistaken — you are totally a post-menopausal woman who has raised a quiver-full of kids!We get it. You can read Kaczor's mind better than his close personal friend KL, who posted here. You can read my ex-wife's mind, even though she is "equally anonymous" as you. You're an expert on child-rearing and relationships. We get it. So just chill out and stop being so mean.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetie, you're a typical combox troll who's just looking to antagonize and rile people up, and then when you get what you so desperately wanted, you then whine and play victim. Man the fuck up. I was perfectly willing to explain myself to KL and to iota, but you, who had ZERO to add to anything, insisted on jumping in just to provoke. You took responses to other people's direct questions and twisted and lied and manipulated and claimed I'm a racist, which is the farthest thing from tne truth. You made personal attack after personal attack (scroll up, you freakin' retarded brat, and read your own words — you were the first one to go there). Now that you're getting back what you CLEARLY wanted out of this "discussion", you run and hide behind some little girl's skirts because I'm soooo meeeeaaaaan, boohoo. Jesus, but you're a typical, cowardly little bully who LOVES To provoke and annoy and then cries like a widdle girlie to mommy when things stop going your way. So fucking impressive. Really. Yes, you GET everything. You KNOW everything. You don't want to discuss anything, you just want to pickpickpick and twist and lie and manipulate and get LOTS of attention. So think what you want — I already know what you are, so your opinion doesn't matter to me one bit. BTW — maybe if you were spending less time on the internet stirring up nastiness, your second wife wouldn't be screwing around on you. Ever think about that?

  • Pingback: meizitang strong

  • Pingback: slimming gel pills


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X