Love Sex and KY JELLIE!!!!!!!! WOOOO weeeeee

Hello all, I have waited on posting this due to the fact I was trying to find a way to get the articles images themselves on but since I only found them in physical print it proved to be very hard.... Anway, lets dwell on this for a bit...

Last month I was looking in a InStyle magazine and one of the advertisment pages was for Ky Jellies "intrigue" lubricant. No big deal, I have seen them everywhere but this one really caught my eye so as you are reading this think about the times that you have seen an article such as this and what you thought about it.

Anyway, it was a deep romantic purple that covered the seen and everything was satiny and sexual. It has a man and a woman on it, who were both white, and both had wedding rings on.

So many things went through my head.... They are saying that you need this to have sex? Because sex should be pleasurable? What about a structural functionalist view of intercourse? What do you think the conflict theorists are saying about this?

They have KY "Yours and Mine" and Intrigue that when you blow on it it tingles or something ( I am seriously just waiting for the day when they make one that when you clap and snort two times an omelet appears on your perfect hetrosexual lace covered night stand).... what about the exploitation of the market? What about a symbolic interactionists idea of botched performances? Is it right for a man to rely on lubricant to please his woman instead of being able to do it himself?

The image itself showed this very intimate atmosphere... ONe of the commercials even had the actors say that the "mom had been busy all day running the kids around and now that dad is home form work, the 2 kids (perfect right?) are playing at the neighbors, they have a minute to squeeze in a quickie" and this jellie is the way to do it!

How do you think society would respond if two gay men did the add?

Just run with it.... I am now craving an omelet so I am going to my kitchen.

Recession-Powered Gender Flop

So, this was another interesting article I just recently stumbled upon that is drawn from our economic recession: the changing gender roles that are forced about by the economic situation. Apparently, the majority of people who have lost their jobs have been men, with seventy-eight percent of the jobs lost being men's jobs. This forces the men to either take the traditionally female role of caring for the children and home or for them to seek employment in jobs that are traditionally seen as women's jobs far more than men's, such as nursing.
Do you think this idea that recessions fuel this kind of change or do you attribute it to something else? Also, do you think it's something that's going to continue once the economy is better again, or do you think things will revert back to the way it was?

Article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7497859&page=1
Photo from http://holamun2.com/files/images/attachments/2008/03/work-sign.jpg

Cussing

So this article highlights an interesting piece of popular culture- cussing. As is discussed in the article, cussing is a social habit that is seemingly hard to get rid of or avoid hearing in public places. But should we even try to eradicate such words from our language? As is discussed in this article, swearing is common on social networking sites like Twitter and MySpace. But what about the trend discussed in this article- that the habit of swearing goes up in times of extreme social stress? The current economy is cited as one cause of this. Another interesting part of this article is the "no-cussing" zones; do you think these could work? What are "the wrong places" and "wrong times" for swearing and does everyone know universally what they are?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29681795/

Abstinence vs. Information

Teen sexual behavior has become the subject of a great deal of public debate in America. Over one million teenage girls get pregnant each year. These pregnancies result in about 400,000 abortions, 134,000 miscarriages, and 490,000 births. Over two million teenagers a year are treated for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

The two sides in the Culture War have entirely different solutions to the problem of teen sexuality. (Abstinence vs. More information and education about sex)

Abstinence only education only talks about how to say no, but does not offer ANY sort of practical information should the occasion ever arise, as it naturally will. Since you have tons of kids who aren't educated about protection having sex despite the "education" they received, they are left completely open to infection, and pregnancy because some people think that admitting that it exists will some how encourage teens to have sex.

The Washington Post reported in Feb 2008, a high school girl was caught giving head to this guy in school. When the principle asked, she replied "It's not like we were having sex."

The federal investment in abstinence-only education spiked 74 percent under President G. Bush to total $176 million annually. Congress cut $14 million from abstinence education programs last month.

I was watching television and on a law program a teenager was suing her school for teaching abstinence only. She had sex and contracted HIV. She felt that the school failed her in teaching her about protecting herself and therefore left her at a disadvantage by which she contracted HIV.

Do you believe that this institution is solely responsible for providing sex education? What role does the institution of family and religion have in this matter? What are your thoughts of $176 million annually going towards abstinence-only education when teachers are underpaid and many schools don’t have books and adequate supplies?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-sex-ed-22-apr22,0,1940597.story

Twitterpated over Twitter

Okay, so I had to post this because it is simply WILD. Apparently, people are airing their frustration over bad drivers by posting them on Twitter. In the last few months, Twitter has become the new "blog", with people posting their opinions and stresses online in 160 characters or less. So, of course, someone decides to use this as a way of complaining about the bad drivers in Alaska - makes sense, except it also brings up the question of how many of them are texting in their grievances on their cell phones whilst driving? I know it says the people who started it don't, but that's two out of many hundred.
It just made me think about our cell phone thing and how this is yet another feature that has come about from cell phones and society's influence on where technology goes next. What do you think will be the next big revolution?


http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/apr/27/twitter-leads-outlet-frustrated-drivers-anchorage/