Sex Ed For The “Mature” Crowd?


Sure they can’t get pregnant, but it seems that because of it, older adults are participating in even more risky sex behavior, and they are exposing themselves to a lot of infections in the process.

Via Time Magazine:

Most adolescents, defined as those aged between 14 and 17, are not having sex — only about a fifth of them have ever had intercourse. And the last time they did, the majority of them used condoms. Boomers, on the other hand, thanks to better health and Bob Dole, are having sex well into old age. (One septuagenarian reported getting busy four or more times a week.) But unless they’re Hispanic or African American, these older folks are not using condoms nearly as much as teenagers are.

The study, conducted by Indiana University, which has a long and respected history of sex research (it houses the Kinsey Institute), took an intensive look at the sexual habits of 5,865 people aged 14 to 94 across a spectrum of races and education levels. Some of its findings are not that surprising — men think their female partners have orgasms more often they actually do, older people have friends-with-benefits too

The study showed that among men over 50, 91% did not use a condom when they had sex with a date or casual acquaintance, and 70% didn’t even do so when they had sex with someone they just met. Their female peers are more careful in general, but a majority of them have sex without a condom. A few older people in the study didn’t use a condom even when they knew they or their partner had a sexually transmitted infection.

Considering that may boomers were coming to age during the sexual revolution, you would think they of all people would be more concerned with protecting their health.

Also, you have to wonder how much healthcare money could be saved if STI infection rates dropped among seniors, lowering treatment costs.

Maybe Cloris Leachman can be brought in for a PSA, if she can ever get the condom open.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on Twitter: @robinmarty

To schedule an interview with Robin Marty please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • andenakker

    We’re only talking about the difference between really risky behavior and extremely risky behavior.  It’s like arguing about whether it’s better to play Russian Roulette with a .22 than a .44 Mag.

  • purplemistydez

    This is about using condoms to reduce the rates of STIs.  Seniors need to protect themselves as much as teens do. 

  • beenthere72

    Are you suggesting abstinence-only now for senior citizens if their spouse has died or they’re divorced?    

     

    You really are a bore.

     

     

  • andenakker

    Seniors need to protect themselves as much as teens do.

    If teens are only using condoms and not changing their behavior, then they’re not good role models.  At least not if the objective is to reduce the percentage of the population that has an STI rather than let it continue increasing.

  • purplemistydez

    There is nothing wrong about their behavior.  Using condoms is a responsible way to protect their health.  Even though older people have less years to live they should protect themselves also.  Like the article was saying, the more seniors protect themselves the lower their medical costs.  Just because they are old does not mean they are dead.  Older people enjoy sex too.

  • andenakker

    Using condoms is a responsible way to protect their health.

    Given that other than HIV, condoms are pretty poor at protecting against the transmission of the nastier (i.e. incurable) STIs (e.g. they’re “40% to 50%” effective at preventing the transmission of Herpes), that’s pretty much a fantasy.  And even their efficacy against HIV – reportedly normally 80-95% – is doubtful when another STI is present.

  • purplemistydez

    Then the rate of STIs would be alot higher if that was true.  Condoms are effective against STIs and pregnancy.  Pretty common knowledge.  Seniors and teens using condoms overall would still drive down the rates of STIs if used consistently.

  • prochoiceferret

    Given that other than HIV, condoms are pretty poor at protecting against the transmission of the nastier (i.e. incurable) STIs (e.g. they’re “40% to 50%” effective at preventing the transmission of Herpes), that’s pretty much a fantasy.  And even their efficacy against HIV – reportedly normally 80-95% – is doubtful when another STI is present.

     

    Wow, I’m sure people will choose to stop having HOT UNMARRIED MONKEY SEX once they process that bit of information!

  • andenakker

    Then the rate of STIs would be alot higher if that was true.

    How much higher would they have to be before you’d find them alarming?  Already 1 in 5 American adults has (incurable) genital Herpes, and if present trends continue, it will be nearly 1 in 2 in just 15 years (http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/herpes_explode_by_2025.shtml).  You need to read the article here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/07/nations-leaders-gather-uphill-struggle

    And the comments here:  http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/09/29/abstinence-only-education-offers-nothing-f

     

    Condoms are effective against STIs and pregnancy.

    Gotta have the “and pregnancy” in there to make the statement reasonable, since we all know they’re somewhat effective at that regardless of their efficacy against STIs.  Of course, pregnancy is not a factor for the crowd that this article concerns.

     

    Seniors and teens using condoms overall would still drive down the rates of STIs if used consistently.

    They may drive down the rates of new cases, but I haven’t seen any credible source suggest that they could actually decrease the percentage of the population that has these diseases.  All they’ll claim is that condoms could slow the increase.

  • andenakker

    Wow, I’m sure people will choose to stop having HOT UNMARRIED MONKEY SEX once they process that bit of information!

    If the response of our public officials to the “silent epidemic” of STIs was proportional to their response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks relative to the number of Americans threatened by STIs vs. terrorists, everyone, from the President on down, would be pleading from the rooftops on a regular basis for Americans to abstain from sexual activity outside of long-term, monogamous relationships.

  • mechashiva

    They may drive down the rates of new cases…

    Oh, well then… if that’s all they do, they are obviously not worthwhile to use or educate people about. I’m sure telling people not to have sex does a much better job of decreasing the rates of new cases and the overall rates of infection, anyway.

  • purplemistydez

    People cheat.  That is human nature.  If you do not want to spread or receive a STI use a condom.  It’s better than not using anything at all.

  • beenthere72

    Oy, you’re annoying.

     

    Most everybody from the president on down is aware of their risk of catching an STI and yet many from the (not current) president on down do not commit to their long-term monogamous relationships.  

     

    And to suggest that widowed or divorced mature folk should no longer engage in sex just because condoms are not good enough to protect them from STIs, is just  idiotic.    Are they supposed to find virgins?    I suppose you think they do  – which is just disgusting.   

     

    (sorry wrong spot)

  • squirrely-girl

    …women who contract HPV within a “long-term, monogamous relationship” in which the man just didn’t know he had it (there’s really no testing for men)

     

    …individuals who contract an STI such as herpes within a “long-term, monogamous relationship” because their partner didn’t disclose they had it and thought they were “being careful.”

     

    :(

  • squirrely-girl

    Double post

  • ack

    Preaching abstinence without offering information on safer sex has NEVER been what I would call “reasonable.” A reasonable response would be doing something that ACTUALLY WORKS, and doesn’t impose your own value system on other people. Promoting the use of barrier methods is reasonable. Telling people that they just shouldn’t have sex is ignoring reality.

     

    I’ve said this before, but I’m happy to repeat myself. You don’t get to make decisions about other people’s sex lives. You have two choices: support equipping people with information that can keep them safer while they make their own decisions, or support withholding that information in the desperate hope that they make the decision you think is right.

     

    Which one sounds more “reasonable” and less self-rightous?

  • crowepps

    The response to the problem of STI’s can be handled two ways — leave all the people currently suffering from STI’s infected and then tell everybody not to have sex because they’ll catch something nasty knowing most people will ignore the risk and have sex anyway

    OR

    put in place a system of nonjudgmental mass testing and treat the people who are currently infected so that they are CURED and are no longer infectious.

     

    You keep going on and on about herpes and HIV - STI’s incurable with current medical knowledge.  That problem can be handled just as simply – if everyone with herpes or HIV chooses their sexual partners from those in the population who already have herpes/HIV, no new cases will be generated.

     

    The key is TESTING and knowing one’s status and TREATMENT.

  • plume-assassine

    The efficacy of condoms in protecting against HIV is expected to be the same level of protection against other STDs spread in the same way, at 80-95%. Herpes is the exception, at 40-50%, because it can be spread through skin contact.

     

    The efficacy of condoms in protecting against HIV – (80-95%) – does not suddenly change when another STD is already present. Latex functions in the same way as a barrier against HIV even if other diseases that are spread through secretions are also present within the body.

     

    Please go back and read the studies that I provided for you.

  • plume-assassine

    This doesn’t make any sense. Comparing STD transmission to terrorism is pretty hyperbolic. Granted, the goverment should should have had a better response when AIDs started to appear, and they failed to do that. So now the focus is on research and prevention.

     

    It is unrealistic to expect everyone in the population to only have sex with 1 person in their entire life. And I’m not even talking about cheating or extramarital affairs or promiscuity, although that certainly factors in too.

     

    I am talking about people who do prefer long-term, monogamous relationships. 10 years would be considered a long-term, monogamous relationship. Or even 3 years for some. People can fall in love more than once and it’s unrealistic to expect an entire population to remain virgins and stay with 1 person for their entire life. However, it is realistic to expect condom use, and expect new partners to get tested, even in long-term monogamous relationships, no matter how long they last.

  • andenakker

    The efficacy of condoms in protecting against HIV – (80-95%) – does not suddenly change when another STD is already present.

    I have seen no credible source make this claim.  Please provide a citation.  According to http://samedaystdtesting.com/f-a-q-s/ , “If the STD causes sores or irritation in the skin it can be easier for HIV to enter the body. Even if the STD does not cause open sores or irritation it can stimulate an immune response that can make HIV transmission more likely.

    If having Herpes increases the chances that one will pass on or contract HIV (as noted here: http://std.about.com/od/herpes/f/hsvtreatmentHiv.htm), and using a condom is only partially effective at preventing Herpes transmission, it’s logical that having Herpes would reduce condoms’ effectiveness at preventing HIV transmission as well.

  • andenakker

    It is unrealistic to expect everyone in the population to only have sex with 1 person in their entire life.

    I find that people generally at least attempt to live up to your expectations of them.  Some will fail, sure.  What is really rare, however, is for someone to exceed your expecations of them, so if those expectations are low, so will be the resulting behaviors.

  • crowepps

    The population of the United States is 307,006,550 people.

     

    Deleting children 12 and under and adults 65 and older leave a population liable to be exposed to STDs of approximately 204,018,511.

     

    The estimated number of HIV positive people in the United States is about 1,000,000.

     

    Although the gay men are only 2% of the population, half of those with HIV are gay.

     

    That would mean the estimated number of HIV positive STRAIGHT people in the United States is about 500,000.

     

    After subtracting the estimated gays, there would be slightly less than 200 MILLION people out there, only half a million of whom have HIV.

     

    I’m no statistician, but as I figure it, that would mean a person has 1 chance in 400 that any particular sexual partner has HIV.

     

    They are at no risk at all of catching HIV from the other 399 available partners, even if they do have herpes or other STIs.

     

     

  • andenakker

    The key is TESTING and knowing one’s status and TREATMENT.

    So then STIs are just a “fact of life” for you?  Like birth, death and taxes.  (Well, death and taxes anyway.)  I wonder how many parents who allow their kids to go through or who even request “comprehensive” sex education would do so if they knew that that was the philosophy of those who push those programs.  Now I have a better understanding of the outcry against abstinence-only programs – “If I have to live with this crap, then so can they, the little delinquents!”

     

    You keep going on and on about herpes and HIV - STI’s incurable with current medical knowledge.  That problem can be handled just as simply – if everyone with herpes or HIV chooses their sexual partners from those in the population who already have herpes/HIV, no new cases will be generated.

    For the first time I can honestly say that I don’t know if you’re being serious.  So is this part of the matching criteria for dating sites now?  How about STDHarmony.com – “I’d like a tall, dark, Herpes-positive vegetarian who enjoys long walks on the beach on a moonlit night and doesn’t smoke.”  ay yay yay.

  • andenakker

    is that those numbers aren’t going to remain stable.

  • crowepps

    And who are you, to have ‘expectations’ about the behavior of others and set the standard for all your fellow citizens? 

  • prochoiceferret

    What is really rare, however, is for someone to exceed your expecations of them, so if those expectations are low, so will be the resulting behaviors.

     

    Well, gosh… I’ve only ever expected anti-choicers here to know how to operate a computer, and have a passing knowledge of English. Which I guess explains the quality of your posts.

  • prochoiceferret

    it’s logical that having Herpes would reduce condoms’ effectiveness at preventing HIV transmission as well.

     

    Yes, those herpes viruses can chew holes through latex like no one’s business. Here is a herpes virus, scaled up to 1600X:

    Just look at those teeth!

  • prochoiceferret

    So then STIs are just a “fact of life” for you?

     

    They’re a fact of life for pretty much everyone who claims Homo Sapiens as their species.

     

    I wonder how many parents who allow their kids to go through or who even request “comprehensive” sex education would do so if they knew that that was the philosophy of those who push those programs.

     

    Probably all the ones who are not reality-challenged, and thereby agree with the philosophy behind comprehensive (no scare quotes) sex ed.

     

    Now I have a better understanding of the outcry against abstinence-only programs – “If I have to live with this crap, then so can they, the little delinquents!”

     

    I think that’s actually the outcry in favor of abstinence-only programs.

     

    For the first time I can honestly say that I don’t know if you’re being serious.  So is this part of the matching criteria for dating sites now?  How about STDHarmony.com – “I’d like a tall, dark, Herpes-positive vegetarian who enjoys long walks on the beach on a moonlit night and doesn’t smoke.”  ay yay yay.

     

    These sites do exist, you know.

     

    (Please do not be alarmed. That deafening sound you heard is your assumptions colliding with reality. You may take a few minutes to gather your thoughts and readjust your worldview.)

  • andenakker

    They’re [STIs] a fact of life for pretty much everyone who claims Homo Sapiens as their species.

    So why all the hullabaloo about condoms and “comprehensive” sex education?  Why bother?  If everyone’s going to think with their ass and do what they’re going to do, anyway, what’s the point in talking about condoms, STIs, abstinence, any of it?  What a sick and despicable existence.

  • plume-assassine

    No, the physical latex barrier functionality of a condom does not suddenly change if you have herpes.

    The bolded quote means that having an STD can make it more likely for you to contract or pass on HIV during unprotected sex, which I am already aware of. 

    There is nothing that says that the effectiveness of a condom in preventing HIV transmission SUDDENLY DECREASES just because you already have another STD that is spread through secretion only . It still remains at 80-95%.

     

    But since you insist on talking about herpes… here’s an example for you:

    If you have herpes and your partner has HIV, and they use a condom– the condom’s effectiveness in preventing HIV transmission isn’t going to suddenly decrease because you have herpes. HIV is transmitted through semen and blood. If you have open sores from herpes on your skin but your partner is using a condom to protect you from their HIV, then you should not expect to contract HIV, unless semen or blood came in contact with the open sores. However, it IS very likely that your partner will get herpes, because the condom only covers the penis, and does not cover the entire pubic area.

     

    Just out of curiousity, since I’d like to stick with the subject of the article… are you implying that elderly people must stay celibate after their spouse or partner dies? I mean, what’s your deal with this one?

  • prochoiceferret

    So why all the hullabaloo about condoms and “comprehensive” sex education?  Why bother?  If everyone’s going to think with their ass and do what they’re going to do, anyway, what’s the point in talking about condoms, STIs, abstinence, any of it?

     

    Good question. I never got why people make such a big deal out of safe driving, or seat belts in cars, either.

  • arekushieru

    Gotta have the “and pregnancy” in there to make the statement reasonable, since we all know they’re somewhat effective at that regardless of their efficacy against STIs.  Of course, pregnancy is not a factor for the crowd that this article concerns.

    Hmmm, notice the double standard his comment suggests for pregnancy and STI’s.  Of course, if it’s somewhat effective with pregnancy, USE it, if it’s only somewhat effective for STI’s, DON’T use it.  Hmmm…

  • andenakker

    There is nothing that says that the effectiveness of a condom in preventing HIV transmission SUDDENLY DECREASES just because you already have another STD that is spread through secretion only . It still remains at 80-95%.

    If you have herpes and your partner has HIV, and they use a condom– the condom’s effectiveness in preventing HIV transmission isn’t going to suddenly decrease because you have herpes.

    Again, you can say this, and it may even be logical, but I can find no credible source that says it, and it doesn’t appear that any studies have been done (not that studies of condom effectiveness in general are all that available, either).

    From http://www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/STDFact-STD-HIV.htm :  “Herpes can make people more susceptible to HIV infection, and it can make HIV-infected individuals more infectious.  It is critical that all individuals, especially those with herpes, know whether they are infected with HIV and, if uninfected with HIV, take measures to protect themselves from infection with HIV.”

    It doesn’t say what those “measures” might be or if they would recommend stronger measures than they would to someone who doesn’t have Herpes – condoms aren’t mentioned anywhere in the fact sheet.  In any case, given that “individuals who are infected with STDs are at least two to five times more likely than uninfected individuals to acquire HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus through sexual contact,” you’re playing with fire, meaning you can’t be as confident that a condom will protect against HIV as you can be when no other STI is present.

    Everyone says make sure you get tested for all possible STIs.  But once you test positive, the advice stops.  Maybe the implication of that is so should the sexual activity.

  • beenthere72

    Just out of curiousity, since I’d like to stick with the subject of the article… are you implying that elderly people must stay celibate after their spouse or partner dies? I mean, what’s your deal with this one?

     

    Can you please answer THOSE questions, Kevin?

  • prochoiceferret

    Again, you can say this, and it may even be logical, but I can find no credible source that says it, and it doesn’t appear that any studies have been done

     

    That’s the best we know with the information we have. If you’re not happy with that state of affairs, feel free to lobby the NSF to provide a research grant, or roll up your sleeves and fund your own.

     

    It doesn’t say what those “measures” might be or if they would recommend stronger measures than they would to someone who doesn’t have Herpes – condoms aren’t mentioned anywhere in the fact sheet.

     

    Well then, maybe you should send your complaints to the CDC instead of kvetching about the quality of their materials here.

     

    In any case, given that “individuals who are infected with STDs are at least two to five times more likely than uninfected individuals to acquire HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus through sexual contact,” you’re playing with fire, meaning you can’t be as confident that a condom will protect against HIV as you can be when no other STI is present.

     

    How does that compare to the confidence of not bothering to use a condom at all?

     

    Everyone says make sure you get tested for all possible STIs.  But once you test positive, the advice stops.

     

    Is that like how with ab-only programs, once you get married, the advice stops?

     

    (Of course, you can find information about having a sex life with an STD; you just have to dig a bit more for it, since it’s a more specific situation.)

     

    Maybe the implication of that is so should the sexual activity.

     

    For you, unless the goal is to have a baby in wedlock, the implication of everything is that sexual activity should stop.

  • ack

    I’ve heard this before, about living up to your “expectations.” I’ll paste what I said to Kevin Rahe when he said it (almost verbatim) a month ago:

    ___________________________________________________

    <<I find that people usually live up to your expectations of them.  Not always, but usually.>>

     

    I don’t think I have the right to “expect” anything of other people regarding their sexuality, other than that they engage in sexual behaviors with consenting partners. They don’t need my approval. And they don’t need yours.

    ___________________________________________________

  • ack

    <<<Everyone says make sure you get tested for all possible STIs.  But once you test positive, the advice stops.  Maybe the implication of that is so should the sexual activity.>>>

     

    Nice try, but no. Positive tests for STIs, whether they’re immediately curable or not, result in counseling about safer sex and partner notification. At least, that’s what happens at reputable clinics that don’t shame their patients.

     

    And all I did was type “sex with herpes” into the Googler and got over 3 million hits.

  • andenakker

    Just out of curiousity, since I’d like to stick with the subject of the article… are you implying that elderly people must stay celibate after their spouse or partner dies? I mean, what’s your deal with this one?

     Can you please answer THOSE questions

    Well, I guess the advice for them would be the same as it is for unmarried teens.  They don’t have the concerns that teens have about pregnancy, of course, but that’s the easier of the two issues to deal with, anyway.

  • andenakker

    <<<Maybe the implication of that is so should the sexual activity.>>> Nice try, but no. Positive tests for STIs, whether they’re immediately curable or not, result in counseling about safer sex and partner notification. At least, that’s what happens at reputable clinics that don’t shame their patients.

    Of course, if it’s Herpes you have, there’s nothing they can tell you that will protect your partner, other than to abstain.  And if it’s HPV you’ve got, there is no test for it, so I guess neither of our comments apply to that one.

    The “comprehensive” sex education course I have a copy of talks a bit about testing, but its information is rather outdated:  “Testing is important to keep STDs from infecting internal reproductive organs and from spreading to another person. Treatment is usually very effective…”  I guess it was written before Herpes became such a game-changer.  And despite being “comprehensive,” there’s nothing in the 565-page document about what to do after one finds that one is infected with an incurable STD.  Perhaps that would make it a 1000-page document.  But extramarital sex is nothing if not complex – abstinence is like two orders of magnitude simpler.  I don’t know about you, but my life is complex enough without such headaches (or aches in other places).

  • arekushieru

    Marital sex ISn’t complex… for those who have it for reasons other than pleasure.  In ALL other cases, it IS.  Sorry.

    And expecting others to follow YOUR attitude is rather appalling, in ANY case.  EsPECially when you ask that they either conform to the hive-mentality or be punished with an infection just because they exercised their sexual freedoms.  Actually… I’ve changed my mind… that sounds rather MORE complex than what WE expect, no matter HOW you approach it.

    Herpes is a game-changer, eh?  Where’s your proof.  Plenty have told you how it ISn’t as serious as you claim it is.  But, as of yet, you have failed to provide any counter-claims….  Hmmm….

  • colleen

    But extramarital sex is nothing if not complex -

    How would you know?

  • andenakker

    Herpes is a game-changer, eh?  Where’s your proof.  Plenty have told you how it ISn’t as serious as you claim it is.

    I’ve already provided the proof in links to articles that discuss its incurability, condoms’ limited ability to protect against it, its current prevalence among adults, its rapid spread that’s expected to infect millions more people in the next few years and the increased vulnerability to HIV infection that infected persons have.  Sure, some here have tried to tell me it isn’t as serious as it is, but they haven’t been right.  The closest to being right was la plume, who argued that someone who has Herpes but only has sex with a condom isn’t any more likely to contract HIV than someone who doesn’t have Herpes.  While that’s debatable, even if she’s right her argument only holds up until the HIV-positive partner also contracts Herpes, which she admits is likely to happen.

  • arekushieru

    While that’s debatable, even if she’s right her argument only holds up until the HIV-positive partner also contracts Herpes, which she admits is likely to happen.

    Which is relevant to the rest of your comment… how…?

    I’ve already provided the proof in links to articles that discuss its incurability, condoms’ limited ability to protect against it, its current prevalence among adults, its rapid spread that’s expected to infect millions more people in the next few years and the increased vulnerability to HIV infection that infected persons have.  Sure, some here have tried to tell me it isn’t as serious as it is, but they haven’t been right.

    Sure, one here has tried to tell us it’s more serious than it is, but he hasn’t been right.  And that would be more defensible since the sources you’ve quoted have either been out of date, taken out of context or biased.  Thanks.

  • andenakker

    the sources you’ve quoted have either been out of date, taken out of context or biased.

    You’re the first one to suggest that, and those who disagree with me haven’t been able to cite any sources at all, biased or not.

  • beenthere72

    The scientific reality is that most people are asymptomatic, the virus causes no real health problems for a vast majority of people, and a vast majority (around 90%) of the Earth’s population carries HSV-1, 2, or both.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes#Society_and_culture

  • andenakker

    Heaven forbid should I try to use Wikipedia as a source.  But I guess it’s a perfectly valid one for those who disagree with me.

    From http://www.herpesonline.org/hsv1vs2.html :

    Some medical professionals are finding type 1 to be a more “significant” infection than HSV 2 in the neonate and the prevalence of HSV 1 is severely underestimated. For years it was believed that 90% of people had HSV 1. We know now it is 60%. Even at sixty percent having type 1 orally and the unknown figures of HSV 1 genital cases gives indication that herpes is not a virus to be ignored.

    Genital Herpes can infect anyone who has sex, even if only once. An estimated 22% of adults from varying backgrounds, income levels and ethnic groups have HSV 2.

    So we should just accept the fact that eventually pretty much everyone is going to get genital Herpes, and learn to deal with it.  Never mind that having it increases one’s susceptibility to HIV – hey, that’s just life.

    As for me, I couldn’t knowingly perform any kind of act (even kissing) that might pass on a disease that I have that the other person doesn’t.

  • beenthere72

    I knew you’d roll your eyes at the wiki link but it sites some pretty reliable sources for its statements for this particular wiki.   

     

    Also from http://www.herpesonline.org/faq.html

     

    Up to 80 percent of Americans have the most common form of herpes (HSV-1) at some time. It usually appears as oral herpes and is most often spread without (emphasis added by me) sexual contact.

     

    I suggest you and your family stay home, Kevin.  Forever.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Lol, now if that doesn’t sound like a childish argument, I don’t know what does. 

    You’re the first one to suggest that, and those who disagree with me haven’t been able to cite any sources at all, biased or not.

    I think, perhaps, you’ve just (deliberately) skipped them… BOTH of them….