Feds: $100,000 to teach teen girls 'condom negotiation' OCD_OCD: The administration is funding a $100,000 study of pregnant and "at-risk" 14-17-year-old girls on probation in Houston, Texas, to determine ways to help them choose safer lifestyles and avoid pregnancy, including better "condom negotiation" tactics. The National Institutes of Health, part of the Health and Human Services Department, is providing a University of Houston researcher the money because of the lack of study of female teen juveniles in trouble with the law. The school said the study, "Choices - Teen: A Bundled Risk Reduction Intervention for Juvenile Justice Females," will include 30 at-risk girls, ages 14-17, on intensive probation with the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department. The goal, said the school, is to determine if intervention programs will help the kids make better life decisions. According to Danielle Parish, the assistant professor at the school's Graduate College of Social Work who is conducting the NIH-funded effort, one of the big problems young girls need to learn is how to talk their boyfriends into using condoms. According to the school's release, "Parrish notes one of the big issues for this population of adolescent girls is condom negotiation. They may have a boyfriend who says it isn't 'cool' to use a condom. To prepare the girls for these types of situations, the counselors and pediatricians will teach them how to negotiate condom use with their partner. The intervention also helps empower and motivate girls to make healthier choices regarding their alcohol use, smoking and prevention of unplanned pregnancy." OCD_OCD: They need to just give me the money. I'll go down there and tell them to tell their boyfriends "You don't use it, you don't get it". Negotiation? LMAO. Negotiation? MichaeI: Before too long, we won't have to think for ourselves at all. We can just use our tax dollars to fund programs that will think for us. OCD_OCD: It will be called,"give us all your money and you get a lifetime subscription to Ask A Fed." LOL Geoff: Surely the "Come in me all you want - I'll cut your balls off in your sleep" argument is still valid. Geoff: Well, that is the argument I taught my step-daughter. She's 19 and not pregnant - or infected with an STI. So I will simply assume it worked. Geoff: General rules about morality are not as effective as a personal threat to any single man's "manhood". And for a teenage girl, I can see how the "Militant, violent, psychopathic feminist" argument works when the safety of said girl is paramount. Although, it can be taken too far. I was polite to a post-grad student and was told, "Don't try it with me, I see you as a potential rapist." At some point a woman has to know that if she's going to turn away every potential suitor (of either gender) then she is going to end up alone. I will repeat the verb - I was "POLITE". Not, "I was flattering" or "I tried to chat up". I was polite. OCD_OCD: If a woman is a violent, militant feminist, then maybe she should consider not having sex at all. It's not supposed to be a violent conflict, after all. Geoff: Sex is a mutual act of sticky, hot, sweaty, wetness - And sex is vital to the propagation of the species. Marriage is optional. Geoff: If sex isn't a mutual act of sticky, hot, sweaty, wetness than something is missing. If it is the "mutual" part then I am going to be worried. Geoff: Fun is the cause of laughter. It's like the difference between, "One for sorrow, two for joy" and "One for sorrow, two for mirth." It really depends on the situation. | Off Topic Chat Room Similar Conversations |