Tiger Woods Sex Tape

Rumors of a Tiger Woods sex tape began early in December, part of a long string of allegations that include hookers, porn stars, nude photos, orgies, and a love child.

The first news reports began breaking courtesy of Drudge Report which linked The Sun, a reputable English gossip paper which is the equivalent of The National Enquirer. The story was nominally about Tiger Woods orgies, but contained a tantalizing reference to a Tiger Woods sex tape.

The impetus behind the story turns out to be Tiger Woods himself. He apparently went to court to block the sex tape from being released along with any Tiger Woods nude photos that his mistresses want to sell to the tabloids. Reportedly Playgirl magazine has naked Tiger Woods photos they are trying to authenticate already.

Among the claims by Tiger Woods’ women:

“He liked girl-on-girl. He had sex with them together. He was tough to keep up with [because he liked] days at a time on a booze and sex bender.”

“He had a pretty big appetite for girls. Never just one girl. He would want to set up a whole weekend of partying and have ten or 15 girls 24/7.”

The inference is that he may have knowledge that films and nude pictures were made during these orgies, or be worried that a sex tape was made to frame him later. In Clintonesque fashion, a lawyer’s letter attached to the injunction says “this Order is not to be taken as an admission that any such photographs exist.” The ruling itself commands that no nude “photographs, footage or images taken” of Tiger Woods can be published in Great Britain.

Although he does not acknowledge the existence of the sex tape in the court filing referenced by the “footage” bombshell, the fact that Tiger Woods got  an injunction against its possible release is interesting to say the least.

And we are not the only ones who have noticed. A frantic internet frenzy was instantly created for people wanting to download the Tiger Woods sex tape on the internet, the sot of thing that often becomes available on free torrent web sharing websites. Predictably so because there always seems to be a hankering for watching our celebrity stars with their pants down.

We hope that a Tiger Woods sex tape does not exist. Some of the alleged mistresses reported that he does not like to wear rubbers which sends a bad message to the world, and would further shame his poor wife as if he has not done enough harm already.

Preventing HPV…

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), once one of the less familiar words in the American vocabulary, is fast gaining exposure in part due to pharmaceutical drug-maker Merck and its HPV vaccination drug, Gardasil. If you haven’t heard of Gardasil, brace yourself. Merck, with the help of a group of political activists, wants to mandate vaccinating girls as young as 9 years old against the sexually transmitted disease HPV.

Currently, 19 states have introduced legislation to add Gardasil, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006, to the list of mandated school vaccines. Some say Gardasil is good for America’s daughters, that it’s about protecting our young from cervical cancer. Dissenting voices suggest that inoculating America’s young girls against a STD encourages sexual behavior. What are the facts behind the movement to inoculate children against cervical cancer?

Perhaps you’ve seen the Gardasil commercials. They depict girls, some of whom look pre-teen, telling the television viewer that they want to be one less statistic in the fight against cervical cancer, with the inference that being inoculated with Gardasil is their answer.

According to the FDA, the statement is mostly true. Though HPV has over 100 strains, Gardasil may protect girls and young women from four of them, two of which cause about 70 percent of reported cases of cervical cancer, and the other two of which cause 90 percent of all genital warts.

Of course, the vaccine cannot eliminate the risks associated with having sex with people who have had sex with other people. Don’t expect a Merck commercial to say this, but a sure-fire way to eliminate exposure to all strains of HPV is to abstain from risky sexual activity.

If Gardasil is mandated, it would mark the first time that a vaccine is required to protect people who engage in voluntary behavior. HPV is not communicable in the same way that measles or whooping cough is. Again, the cervical cancer that Gardasil helps to prevent is not a threat to groups, but to individuals engaged in risky sexual behavior. Thus, making this vaccine mandatory is based on the assumption that risky sex is a foregone conclusion. Essentially, it takes the idea of dispensing free condoms to young people to a new level.

Proponents of compulsory Gardasil vaccinations also operate under the assumption that it is completely safe. In truth, credible evidence shows that all vaccinations—which involve introducing antigens into a person’s immune system to stimulate an immune response—come with a measure of risk.

Many consider the idea of vaccinating all of America’s young girls against a STD objectionable. Part of the concern is that the vaccine provides a false sense of full protection, in effect emboldening young people to engage in behavior that is still fraught with risk. Consider how a young, impressionable mind, still maturing and learning to make right decisions, could fall into the trap of thinking that a vaccination is a shield against genital warts, cervical cancer and perhaps other STD. Such thinking could certainly encourage reckless sexual behavior and expose our youth to other, more deadly STD’s like aids, and discourage the sure way to prevent HPV—right behavior and abstinence.

Let’s face the facts. Millions suffer from the effects of STD’s today; many even die. It is estimated by Rutgers University Health Services that during a typical college career, 60 percent of sexually active women will become infected with HPV. What is the cause? Is the health of these young people not worth addressing the source of the problem? Vaccines don’t even presume to do so, and could in fact aggravate the cause.

America’s epidemic of STD’s is the result of an epidemic of poor sexual education and poor parenting. Unfortunately, today, rather than pushing for abstinence until marriage, society has lowered the standard for our children’s sex lives. We have resorted to “protecting” our youth with mere latex and inoculations. Instead, we should be protecting them with robust education about the purpose of sex and the right use and time for sex, and then maintaining an authoritative presence in their lives until they have the maturity to make right decisions.

This responsibility rests with parents. Don’t subcontract the sexual education of your children to the public schools or the government. If you are concerned about their sexual health and their future, educate yourself on how to educate them.

If young people would wait to have sex until married, there would be little need for Gardasil—and certainly no need for young girls to be inoculated for an STD they should never even be exposed to. Teach your children the purpose for dating and encourage them to date widely in a way that will build their character rather than break it down.

Take time to explain the purposes of sex to them. Help focus their attention on positive goals they can pursue. Youth and young adulthood is a time to prepare for a successful career and marriage, not for illicit sexual trysts with multiple partners. All of this instruction must be done in a home environment where we encourage our children to tell us their problems and teach them how to live successful lives.

Our young children don’t need vaccinations to protect them from STD’s nearly so much as they need parents who are willing to protect, educate and train them. If we teach our children the hope, purpose and love associated with the right use of sex, then the odds of them abstaining until marriage are increased many times over. It is never too late to start teaching these vital lessons.

Pope Blames Catholic Sex Scandal on American Society

During his recent visit to America, Pope Benedict XVI wasted no time confronting the pedophile sex scandal issue that has estranged American Catholics from the Vatican hierarchy. On the flight from Italy to the United States the pope made a promise to “absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry.” It was not until the next day; however, that he got specific as to what he felt was the cause behind the scandal.

Agence France Presse reported:

Pope Benedict XVI has berated U.S. bishops for their poor handling of the child sex scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church, but also laid part of the blame on the breakdown of values in U.S. society.

Benedict told a gathering of bishops on Wednesday they had “sometimes very badly handled” the decades-old problem of pedophile priests. But he urged efforts “to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores.”

“What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?” the pontiff said on the first full day of his U.S. visit.

Instead, he suggested as a remedy an urgent reassessment of “the values underpinning society.”

Describing clerics who sexually abuse children as “gravely immoral,” the octogenarian pope warned that the scourge of pedophilia “is found not only in your dioceses but in every sector of society.”

By apologizing for the sexual abuses perpetrated on children by Catholic priests, Benedict is trying to reduce the tension between America and Rome. The financial contribution that American Catholics make to the Vatican coffers annually is huge. Benedict can ill afford to disaffect America’s Catholics by assigning to their culture the total blame for Roman Catholic pedophilia.

However, by at least partially assigning the blame for those abuses to the breakdown of American society, Benedict is trying to make the Catholic Church actually look like the solution—not only to child abuse, but to America’s depraved sexual culture in general.

Expect the pope to continue to try to mend the Vatican’s rift with American Catholics as he looks to extend Vatican influence over the singular most important growing segment of the Roman Catholic community within the U.S., the Hispanic immigrants, even as white Anglo-Saxon support for the church in the U.S. continues to dwindle.

School Hands Out Birth Control to Children

Your daughter may be receiving contraceptives from school officials without you even knowing about it.

School officials in Portland, Maine, voted 7-2 to disregard parental rights and make a full range of contraceptives available to middle school children without notifying their legal guardians. According to school officials, it was a question of confronting reality—that some students are going to have sex no matter what—so schools should help children have safer sex.

“This isn’t encouraging kids to have sex,” Richard Veilleux, a supporter of the plan, said. “This is about the kids who are engaging in sexual activity.” Others disagree, saying that instead of confronting reality, dealing with and eliminating the cause of pre-teen sex, schools are instead abrogating responsibility and even facilitating premarital sex.

Parents too are furious that school officials would not only condone a sexually active lifestyle for pre-teens, but would also opt to prescribe drugs (with known side effects like cancer) without notifying them.

Time summed up the frustrations of many parents: “When talking about children so young, the idea that parents would have no say is galling; they can be pulled over by police if the 11-year–old is not wearing a seat belt, but have no right to know whether she’s taking the pill”.

“We are dealing with children,” said Diane Miller, a former school nurse who opposes the contraception plan. “I am just horrified at the suggestion.”

It is ridiculous to argue against the fact that school officials distributing contraceptives without parental knowledge makes it easier for children to have sex. And what is generally ignored in the public debate over this issue is that the consequences of sex go far beyond transmitted diseases and unplanned childbirth. The mental and spiritual consequences can be much greater.

Teen Sex 101

The recent revelation and acknowledgment of teen icon Jamie Lynn Spears’s pregnancy has forced parents of “teens” to once again confront the issue of talking to their preteens and teenagers about sex. Is there a practical approach to having the “sex talk”? Jamie Lynn Spears, star of Nickelodeon’s Zoey 101 and baby sister of pop star Britney Spears, at 16 years old is shocked, scared and four months pregnant.

Many parents are now confronted with the issue of how to broach the subjects of teen sex and pregnancy with their children since the “wholesome” star of the hit TV series made the announcement. Couple that with the recent release of a film, in which a 16-year-old girl gets pregnant, decides to have the baby and then gives it up for adoption and you have a cauldron of teen sexual confusion foisted upon the masses of impressionable minds. The unwed teen mother is becoming pop culture!

Some have openly voiced their disapproving points of view regarding this reprehensible matter: “She should have known better.” “Why didn’t she use protection?” “Her mother is a bad parent; how could she have let this happen?” And those are just a few of the numerous outcries heard from the societal school of all-knowing parenting and sex educational “experts” known as the media.

What makes this situation even more difficult is the fact that Jamie Lynn’s fictitious character on her show is a “good girl.” Zoey is a great student, well-liked and, on top of all that, supposedly still a virgin. To most girls between ages 9 and 14, Zoey was a role model. Jamie Lynn Spears was one of the rising starlets that young girls looked up to.

The Internet is abuzz with both criticism and advice alike. But there is one perspective, one dimension that is markedly missing from the heated teen-sex debate. Many, especially those in religious circle, will proclaim that drumming home the teaching of abstinence is the answer. But will that conservative view alone provide desperate parents with a reassuring solution?

Can we as parents search for and find not only the answers to how to talk to our children about sex, but also the reason for sex in the first place in the wake of this alarming controversy? Therein lies the heart of the problem. When we take the time to stop and take a sober look at this issue that is plaguing our teens, we as parent must begin asking ourselves some soul-searching questions.

Movies Glorify Irresponsible Sex and Drug Use

A recent study shows that even the most popular movies portray a world without real consequences for most real-life actions, especially regarding sex and drugs. There is no lack of sexual activity portrayed in movies, and most of it is between unmarried people. Unsurprisingly, however, hardly a single film follows up these scenes by depicting its characters having to live with the real and likely negative consequences of their illicit sexual encounters.

A recent study conducted by the Institute for Child Health Research at Children’s Hospital Westmead, Australia, surveyed 200 top movies of all time based on box office profits. Of those, it eliminated movies that were animated, released before the emergence of aids (they chose 1983), and rated G or PG. Out of the 87 remaining films, 53 contained sex episodes. In those sex scenes, only one made a reference to any form of birth control.

Though 98 percent of the sexual escapades could have resulted in pregnancy, no movie showed any consequence of unprotected sex—not one. There were no unwanted pregnancies, no contractions of HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease. The study also focused on how drugs were depicted in those movies. While illicit drugs were shown in fewer movies than had depicted sex, researchers found drugs were often shown in a positive light.

A clear example was found in movies that show marijuana use: 52 percent of these movies portrayed marijuana use in a positive light, while 48 percent showed it in a neutral light. As with unprotected sex, no negative consequences were ever shown.

Movies ignore reality by failing to show cause and effect. By consistently and frequently portraying unprotected sex and drug use in a positive light, movies promote these harmful practices in the minds of viewers. There are negative consequences for the wrong use of sex. There are negative consequences for any use of illicit drugs.

Sex Offender Ruled Too Short for Jail

Richard W. Thompson had repeated sexual contact with a 12-year-old girl over a period of two months. He was convicted of two counts of felony sexual assault. In most cases, that sort of crime results in a long jail sentence; Thompson, however, received 10 years probation with no jail time at all.

Since Thompson stands only 5-foot-1, District Judge Kristine Cecava felt he would be endangered in prison because of his height. There was no suggestion that this might be a fair outcome; rather, Cecava said Thompson deserved a long sentence, but let him go free anyway: “You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child. … “I truly hope that my bet on you being okay out in society is not misplaced” (CBS News, May 25).

He was ordered to dispose of his pornography. He was to be monitored electronically for the first four months and ordered never to be alone with someone under 18 or to date or live with any woman with children under 18.

Neither the federal constitution nor the state constitution of Nebraska provides any protections based on height. A spokesman for the prison system said Thompson’s height would not put him at risk and that Thompson would not be the shortest person in prison.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers was baffled: “If shortness is an excuse and protection from going to prison, short people ought to rob banks and do everything else they would wind up going to prison for,” he said. “We’re talking here about a crime committed against a child, and shortness is not a defense” (CNN.com, May 26).

This is another example of judges making rulings that have no basis in law or morality.

Record Year for STD’s

Increased availability of contraceptives for young people has made infection rates worse. Distributing contraceptives to middle schoolers might slow down the teen pregnancy rate, but it can’t stop the out-of-control spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

In fact, out-of-wedlock “safe sex”—an oxymoron if ever there was one—has made matters much worse. The very contraceptives that have made the teenage birth rate go down have also made casual sex easier than ever, thus making the STD rate simultaneously rocket up.”

The Centers for Disease Control now estimates that “approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.” The most commonly reported STD is Chlamydia, with more than 1 million reported cases in 2006—an all-time high.

What makes this tragedy more than merely sad—what makes it truly outrageous and angering—is the fact that these students are, at least in part, acting in ignorance, having been deliberately fed false information that obscures how destructive their behavior really is.

Unscrupulous educators—people more committed to the politically correct dogma of “sexual freedom” than to protecting our youth—are suppressing solid, scientific evidence—damning facts that might endanger their own perverse social agendas.

If you are a young person contemplating or having premarital sex, you desperately need the whole truth. If you are an adult who has teens or children off at college, or with friends who have, you owe it to those young people to get these truths into their hands.

Abstinence Linked to STD’s

In the right is wrong and wrong is right world of liberal social engineers, Planned Parenthood is blaming abstinence-only sex education for the shockingly high std rates among teenagers. Yes—those who are trying to put the brakes on the rampant sexual immorality that is causing the problem—those supporting abstinence-only education in schools—are being framed as the problem themselves.

The BBC reports:

US lawmakers are investigating whether to cut government funding for health education programs that promote sexual abstinence until marriage. The move follows a report earlier this year from America’s leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease. …

Planned Parenthood estimates that two thirds of teenagers will have experienced sexual intercourse by the time they leave school. And with some 750,000 teenage pregnancies a year, America has one of the highest teen birth rates in the developed world.

“This national program which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price,” says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. “We’ve been wasting money on program that doesn’t work and we’re seeing the consequences every single day.”

Liberals conveniently ignore the fact that it is comprehensive sex education—not abstinence-based sex education—that is taught at the vast majority of American schools. Perhaps they should admit that it is their approach—you’re going to do it anyway, so here’s how—that is the problem. At its core, the liberal agenda is of course one battleground in the broader war on marriage and family.

Not Really Sex?

In the late 1990s, it was dubbed “the new good-night kiss.” Since then, experts and parents all across America are coming to terms with the fact that more teens are engaging in the latest sexual fad—oral sex.

A 2003 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 36 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds have done it. “Kids are not having intercourse as much, but other forms of sexual behavior have replaced it,” said Dr. Laurence Steinberg, quoted in the October 19 edition of Family Circle.

Dr. Steinberg states, “The notion that it is not sex has become a part of our culture.”

Another doctor, Robert Blum, from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, was also quoted in the article, stating that the “abstinence message” of many sex education programs has been interpreted as “no vaginal intercourse, but everything else is ok.”

Many young people hold to the myth that oral sex is a way to avoid STD’s, when actually Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Herpes and even HIV can be contracted through this kind of sexual encounter. It’s no surprise then that 20 percent of the new STD cases reported each year occur in adolescents.