In the comment section of the previous post, BB-Idaho and I began discussing the pregnancy center that I work at, which lead up to a discussion of Pregnant Teens, Abstinence, Sex and STDs and I'm not even sure if I have the answer yet to all of the things he brought up, yet I do know that there is information at the center about Abstinence and "Safe-Sex" statistics. Since it's a long weekend, I won't be back there until Tuesday, yet I assure you that there will be more coming besides what I put in this post.
If you would like to read the previous discussion that was made on this subject, go to the next Post down entitled "Avoiding the Extremes in Both Parties", click on the title and then use the "Find on this Page" feature within your browser to find the words "Pregnant Teens". You might have to hit the "Next" button once to get to the mention of this in the comment section. This is where my discussion with BB on this subject begins.
Meanwhile, I though that I might post some of the statistics that I already have handy relating to Abstinence attitudes and STDs.
BB presented some information about birth rates. Here are some statistics about the rate of Abstinence over the years, as well as the current rates of STDs...
A poll conducted in 2001 revealed that 60% of Americans believe that there is nothing wrong with a man and woman having sex before marriage and of course, the media reinforces this idea. The problem is that as our attitudes about sex have changed over the years, so has the decline in those who practice Abstinence before Marriage.
A study in 1992, (same year as a study presented by BB), 55.1% of all women born between 1933 and 1942 reported that they had abstained from premarital sex and only 27.4% of women born between 1953 and 1962 reported the same (Edward O. Laumann et. al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the US (University of Chicago Press: 1994)). Later studies revealed that between 1971 and 1995, the rate of girls between the ages of 15 and 19 who reported having premarital sex increased from 30% to 49% (Joyce C. Abma and Freya L. Sonenstein, "Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Practices Among Teenagers in the US", 1988 and 1995; "Data from the National Survey of Family Growth", National Center for Health Statistics, Wasshington, D.C., April 2001, Table1). As far as I'm concerned, these percentages are far too high.
This whole picture wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the rate of STDs going up as well.
Over 65 million Americans currently have an incurable STD and each year there are 15 million new STD cases in the US, of which 50% are incurable (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the US", 2000). Also, at least 1 in 3 sexually active people are estimated to have contracted an STD by age 24 (The Kaiser Family Foundation, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the US", Feb. 2000).
Each year, over 3 million teens are infected with an STD (The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Teen Sex and Pregnancy", Facts in Brief, 1999).
Gonorrhea rates are highest among females 15-19 years old (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the US", 2000).
Also, at least 10% (that's 1 in 10) of all sexually active teens are infected with Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, a condition most often caused by untreated Gonorrhea and Chlamydia that can lead to infertility and ectopic Pregnancy, or Pregnancy in the Fallopian Tubes (The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, "Medical Updates: Frepuently Asked Questions").
Young people are often led to believe that they will be safe from STDs and pregnancy if they use condoms, however conveying such a message can be dangerously misleading. Condoms protect against HIV/AIDs, but only at the rate of 85%, or put another way, they reduce the risk by only 85%. Personally, I think that 15% is a huge window and what's more, there's no evidence to support any protection at all against the many other STDs, now more than 50 strands, many of which are incurable and Birth Control Pills offer no protection at all.
Many sexually active young people do not view themselves as being at risk for STDs and tend to form perceptions of their own risks and their partners risks based on impressions, rather than factual information.
The unfortunate truth, though, is that an immature immune system places adolescents at increased risk for STDs and teenage girls face a greater risk because of an anatomical variance. The outer covering of a teenage cervix is more susceptible to infection by the bacteria and viruses of STDs.
Dr Teresa Crenshaw, past President of the American Association of Sex Educators, said "Saying that the use of condoms is 'safe sex' is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game."
Do we really want to play this game with our young loved ones by leading them to believe that sex is Ok as long as they use "protection"?
For more Statistics, see my other page; "More Abstinence and STD Statistics"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I've been on R&R so it's taken me some time to get here... sorry.
The moral decline in this country is doing nothing but harm. I believe the idea was to take the stigma off of young unmarried women so they didn't commit suicide when they came up pregnant, but it's gone way too far in the other direction. Nowdays it's okay to be a slut and to sleep with anyone you wish. Girls even brag about it. The entire moral degradation the liberals have led this country into is going to do nothing but cause us serious harm and the shame of it is that I don't see how we're going to be able to turn things around. No, I don't want young girls committing suicide because they come up pregnant either, but we seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. We neve seem to be able to strike a happy medium. I guess it's the nature of humanity, but we need to get far better at coming up with solutions. When the cure is as bad as the disease then something is terribly wrong!
No apologies needed, Gayle, I'm just glad that you did drop by.
"We seem to have gone to one extreme to the other."
Ahhh! Now you're getting it. Isn't that just what I keep saying? And I also like your last sentence.
"When the cure is as bad as the disease, then something is terribly wrong!"
Gayle, I could not possibly have said that any better myself.
This makes me think of BB, who has mentioned several times now about the two girls in Idaho who committed suicide, due to the fact that their parents "refused them consideration of abortion on religious grounds". In reaction to that, he has become a strong believer in Pro-Choice, just as so often tragic and highly emotional events can lead us, as you said, Gayle, "from one extreme to the other" and it's understandable, yet in my opinion, not the correct path.
Here's the thing. My main complaint against Extreme Republicans is that they expect too much, judge too much and do not offer quite enough help and emotional support.
My complaint about Extreme Liberals, though, among other things, is the fact that often, their "cure is as bad as the disease".
My complaints against some Republicans is really not that different that my complaints against some people in the church.
It's just like Apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church at Corinth, "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:6, NIV), for true Christianity is not about laws and regulations, but about the love and life that can be found within God's Spirit. The fact that "the letter kills", in the case of these two suicides, was not just symbolic, but literal.
Thanks for your comment, Gayle. It was very insightful.
We need look elsewhere, rather than
"The entire moral degradation the liberals have led this country into..". Simply compare the US with the ultra-liberal Netherlands:
Teen birthrate in the Netherlands
172.061/million
Teen birthrate in the US
1671.63/million
source: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#NO
Teen abortions in Netherlands
8.6/1000
Teen abortions in US
19.4/1000
source:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita
So, while I agree with my estimable
Texas friend on the morals issue, I submit that the facts preclude blaming liberals. If we conclude
"..friends tell me that liberals have no moral values", we need review 'Liberals Do Have a Set of Moral Values at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20041108/ai_n11489502
and agree we need look deeper than
attempting to blame a single set of folks. I'll start..I don't think it is because we have had a GOP administration for the last 8 years. :)
although..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06birth.html hmmm
For these numbers to make any sense to me, I would also need to know the population numbers of both the Netherlands and the US.
The data is independent of population. It is presented as a rate..per thousand, per million.
You can find the totals if you wish by multiplying the rate factor times the population. It seems to hold, for example in the US it is about 5 million teen births per year. It is clear we lead the industrialized world in both teen birth and STDs by quite a bit. A thoughtful analysis may be found here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
Naturally, we Americans resist any notion that any European country
handles things better in any area.
But, like the current military jargon, "Bottom Line, Up Front" we
don't stack up well. Why should
promiscuous secular Sweden blow us out of the water on this? They do, you know.
Did you know, BB, that when I went to the link you just gave me and was considering printing it, my printer program told me that it is 11 pages long. Call me lazy, but that seems to me like a lot to read.
All I know is that on most political issues, there is always research produced to support either side of the issue. This is because biased researchers can alter the outcome by choosing samples that are the most likely to produce the outcome that they are looking for. Science has gotten really sloppy over the years and sometimes it can be quite frustrating figuring out what's true. Is it any wonder, really, that the kids now a days no longer trust science.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the cultures of other countries in order to understand this data. You're moving into an international area that is a little over my head. Boy! I wonder what I'm going to come across when I really get talking with Crian.
I do have other interesting information to share, though. It just takes time, so stick around.
Why are such incredibly intelligent people drawn to my blog? I'm really not that smart. Sometimes I feel like a chihuahua. I think I'm so tough, but really I'm a very tiny dog, but then again, the other thing that always seems to be true is that if it matters to me, I eventually do figure it out.
Don't know why incredibly intelligent people are drawn to your blog. But, I know why us
slow-witted schmucks are..you are a rare (1% of population) INPF
Look at you:
Myers-Briggs description
According to Myers-Briggs, INFPs focus much of their energy on an inner world dominated by intense feeling and deeply held ethics. They seek an external life that is in keeping with these values. Loyal to the people and causes important to them, INFPs can quickly spot opportunities to implement their ideals. They are curious to understand those around them, and so are accepting and flexible except when their values are threatened.
Keirsey description
According to Keirsey, the tranquil and reserved exterior of the INFP masks a passionate inner life. Healers care deeply about causes that interest them and they often pursue those causes with selfless devotion.
Occurring in only about one percent of the population, Healers can easily feel isolated. They value harmony and integrity in human relationships, seeking unity of mind, body, and spirit but often find these values to be out of step with the more concrete pursuits of the rest of the world. Feeling "different," they may wonder whether something is wrong with them. But those differences—an ethical nature, a devotion to ideals, a commitment to harmonious interaction—are in fact some of their greatest strengths.
Now, wouldn't that draw just about anybody? :)
Now your making me blush, BB, and it's time for me to get off the computer now. What a thing to end on. Thank you.
from what i read of that article bb, gave i saw something entirely left out of any argument of this issue, that being the idea of intent. from what i read it appears or implies that teenagers in the US are less likely than those in other countries to be going out with the intention of having sexual relations. this fact alone would account, in large part, for the disparity of lack of use of preventive apparatus between the five countries. the need to convince a girl to give in would be a big determinant of whether or not a condom is used.
while there was nothing explicit in the article of this, many sections of it lead me to this idea.
Griper, I agree. Sophisticated probably isn't the word, but the
modern European teens seem more knowedgeable about the whole sex thing. Perhaps 'cultural' would be a better term. As far as I know,
they are exposed to the same Madonna/Britney/Paris stuff as ours, but we have little idea what their home & family input is. Factors such as large minorities,
drugs, alcohol and date rape may
contribute to the disparity.
Thanks for dropping by, Griper. I was hoping that someone would make some comment other that BB.
Getting back to BB, though, as is so often is true with me, once I got thinking about it, I wondered why I had allowed you to throw me off like that. I guess it's because sometimes I look at the computer when I'm tired and I'm not always as prepared as I should be for some of the comments that I receive.
After giving this some thought, I have realized that the main problem with the research that you have presented is that the main focus is on birth rate, yet the main focus of the above post is not birth rate, but STDs.
I'm not saying this in order to accuse you of being off topic. You are not really, because all of these issues are related, yet at the pregnancy center, our motive for encouraging Abstinence is not only to curb the rate of pregnancy, but also to curb the rate of STDs, for a lot of STDs are not curable and many of them can kill.
As I was scanning through some brochures relating to this subject, I was reminded of something that I knew, but for some reason was not thinking about in my previous responses to you and that is that condoms are the least effective birth control devices, for they have a 10-22.5% failure rate. The most effective method of course is the birth control pill, yet that does not offer any protection against STDs.
To really be "safe", or at least as safe as one can be, a person needs to be on The Pill in order to prevent pregnancy and also use a Condom, in order to bring down the risk of HIV/AIDs. What sexually active people need to realize, though, and have the right to know is that Condoms only reduce the risk of AIDs by 85%. They do not prevent it and they offer no protection at all against most of the other STDs.
So there is a natural question that follows; "Is it really worth the risk?"
"Dr Teresa Crenshaw, past President of the American Association of Sex Educators, said "Saying that the use of condoms is 'safe sex' is in fact playing Russian roulette." No sex = no stds is a valid equation.
condom use sex = 15% stds is valid, based on the data supplied.
The math is a little more iffy should we say all sex = 100% stds?
Not if we want to marry and have children. Continue the calculations..say all sex = 10% stds..now condom use sex = 15% x 10%, multiply and get condom sex = 1.5% OK, now we are all lost? A couple observations:
The Guttmacher folk, who seem to gather most of the data in this area, present world data on stds here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3202400.html
..from which we extract comparative
syphillis rates: (per 100,000)
USSR 211, US 6, Netherlands 1 and
gonorhea rates:
USSR 591.8, US 596.5, Netherlands 7.7 We cannot conclude any thing regarding 'safe sex' in these countries, but we can suggest that
the stds are endemic in their populations, and quite likely higher in the higher incidence
populations. (and we know now why
Dr. Crenshaw used the term 'Russian' roulette..:) )
The other observation, exemplified by the Palin family in the news, although I'm sure it is quite common, is that abstinence only works if practiced. We can preach until we are blue in the face, but
teen hormones seem a powerful opponent. When it doesn't work, the abstinence kids are at higher risk than their condom-using peers. Sigh, how did my little girls ever make it to womanhood?
Hi Griper,
You make an interesting point in relation to the need to convince a girl to give in and it reminds me of something that BB said in the comment section of the next post down. He said...
"I think society need look at the other half of the problem..the young frisky fellas."
This is so true, for when I was a youth, I used to take pride in the fact that most men did respect me, but did they really? Just because I didn't usually hear the really stupid stuff like "If you loved me, you'd make love to me." or "I can't take this. If you won't give in, I'm just going to find someone else." I think most men knew better than to try something like that with a person like myself, yet even so...
On the for-play level, saying no once never seemed to be enough. There might be a slight time delay for a minute or so, but it's not long at all before they are trying it again. To not cave in to that kind of pressure, one has to be practically made of stone. As long as I felt Ok about myself and about life, I could handle it, but not everyone has the Christian upbringing and strong family ties that I did and still do.
All it would take is for someone to be just a little bit weaker than myself. I do know that. I do, yet that doesn't change the fact that they need to be challenged, told how important it is, told honestly what the risks of their decisions are and encouraged that I believe in their ability to succeed at this if they really try and let's face it. They can get a hold of birth control, whether we give it to them or not. They'll find it if they want it.
BB,
You appear to be mainly saying that it is the information and knowledge that makes the difference. This could be. We have a real lack of information problem in this country, not only about sex, birth control and STDs, but about the risks of Abortion as well.
The minority issue that you brought up is interesting as well, especially when you considered all the Mexicans coming across the boarder, some of them for no other reason than to give birth to their children in American hospitals. I wonder how much that affects the birth rate numbers.
BB,
Well, it looks like I'm still one comment behind on my responses and I'm never going to be able to keep up on all of your reading assignments. This almost feels like I'm taking some kind of a class. I hope I pass. lol.
Marriage sex is safe sex as long as we are faithful to our partners.
"Now we are all lost?".
No, BB, actually I'm following you perfectly. The most accurate way to state those condom numbers is to say that the risk of HIV/AIDS is "reduced by" 85%. The 15% window that I was talking about was based on the idea that 85% of the time, the condom is giving extra protection and the other 15% of the time, the risk would be the same as unprotected sex. Others may calculate these numbers differently than that, but that is what made sense to me when I was reading the brochure.
Remember too that the 85% number only relates to HIV/AIDS. There is no confirmed evidence to indicate that condoms offer any protection at all against any of the other STDs.
To be honest, I've been wondering myself what the actual numbers are in relation to the sort of math that you're doing. It also depends on how often each of the individuals is having sex and also whether of not they use a condom every time, as well as are they putting them on correctly, storing them correctly, etc. etc. etc.. The risk will obviously go up or down based on the level of the sexual activity and how correctly or incorrectly they are using the condom.
I shouldn't be saying this but with my own mathematical mind, I've been questioning one of the brochures at the center for quite some time. It's an exposure chart that illustrated how as the number of partners goes up, as well as the number of partners that the original girl's partners have, the number of people that this girl is exposed to multiplies at a rapid rate.
Interestingly, when I do the math, the numbers on the chart are even worse. The makers of the brochure are obviously using a different math than myself and I can't seem to make their math make sense, yet my numbers make the chart even worse, so why would they do the math in a way that makes the problem appear not quite as bad as it is. Yet how can I use the brochure if I do not understand the math.
Are you lost? I'm going to have to get a hold of that brochure again and go over the math with you and see if you can figure it out. I had that brochure this morning, but a girlfriend of mine came by and picked up a bunch of my brochures to give to someone that she knows, so once again I'm brochureless. Oh well.
I still need to get the figures from the center relating to Abstinence Only vs. "Safe Sex" programs. I'm curious now as to whether those numbers are different than I think they are, yet one thing I am very much sure of is that if a program only focuses on birth control and Abstinence isn't even mentioned, that would be a mistake.
"if a program only focuses on birth control and Abstinence isn't even mentioned, that would be a mistake." We agree. My contention is that the reverse has merit as well. Hey, did I just say something in 50 words or less? :)
Yes, you used less than 50 words. Congradulations! I'm guessing you're right. We still have the issue to deal with, though, of actually handing out condoms in school. I've got you beat. I used 36 words.
Oophs! Now I'm going to blow it and write some more because I found the "Sexual Exposure Chart". lol.
C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Sergeaon General, said, "When you have sex with someone, you are having sex with everyone they have had sex with for the last ten years and everyone they and their partners have had sex with for the last ten years."
The chart, however, only counts the original partners and their partners. Across the top it says "(if every person has only the same number of partners as you)".
After 1 is 1 of course. After 2 is... Well, I know it's not 6 (2+2+2) because the person that represents the "you" in the chart represents one of the partners of two of the people, yet subtract two and that still makes 4. So why do they say 3? What math are they using? Does that make any sense to you?
After 3, the answer isn't 12 (3+3+3+3) because the "you" in the chart represents one of the partners of three of the parties, but the answer still should be 9, so why do they say 7. What am I over looking? I wish someone would explain this too me. I can't even figure out what math equation they used.
Common'! If we want to come across like professionals, shouldn't we try and use accurate math?
A 'formula' in the form of circles
(person A and the rest of the alphabet) is at
http://www.dhss.mo.gov/BlackAIDS/SexExposureChart.html
I'm glad the diagram only did the first 3 partners, cuz I was getting double vision. Maybe tomorrow morning, I will try an
engineering 'curve fit' on that data: it looks like some common exponential equation. Some type of quadratic equation, no doubt. Since only one species is involved, it can't be THAT hard. :)
The chart went up to 8. I just didn't give you the whole thing because I was fearing that my own brain might explode if I did. lol.
The chart on the link you gave me is identical and they actually explain the numbers at the bottom in a way that, believe it or not, does make sense.
The Phrase "if every person has only the same number of partners as you" should have included the additional words "at the time you had sex".
I'm so glad this makes sense. We try so hard to avoid any material at all that is even the slightest bit deceptive. Heaven forbid if we ever made a mistake. Our opponents on the other side of the issue would for sure never let us live it down.
BB,
I'm a little surprised that you didn't say anything when you dropped by this morning. I wonder if I should tell you that I sort of have already figured it out.
Like I said, they sort of explained the numbers at the bottom of the link that you left. The chart we have at the center no longer has the little diagrams at the bottom explaining the math. Somebody at one time must have printed it up without the diagrams, so thanks for the link. It was very helpful.
I don't want to spoil your fun, though, so please do go right ahead and explain this mathematically to me if you like.
Wow...My head is spinning. First let me say that I do consider myself an extreme conservative, but I do not consider myself closed minded or unforgiving.
The comments you have all posted are very interesting. I to have worked (volunteered) at a Pregnancy Center. I taught resume writing and interview skills. I have seem young women from all backgrounds come into that office, which is in a very affluent community.
I do think abstinence is best for many reason. I agree with all of the physical reasons listed by Listra, but we have skipped over the psychological reason.
That being said, abstinence is not working well in our society. Watch any show such as :Friends, Two and a Half Men, or Will and Grace. There is someone new in the characters bed each week. No one gets sick and no one is mentally harmed. It is just a natural biological function. With this kind of press, our society is doomed.
Sex is not just your body, but especially for a woman, your mind. The minds of our kids and the perceptions that they take into adulthood are messed up. The act itself can be forgiven, but what it does to ones mind has longer reaching effects, even if no physical side effects are apparent (STD's or pregnancy).
I must add one more thing. The physiological side effects of post abortion women are horrible as well. Maybe someone wiser that I could post about that...Listra?
Thanks for listenning.
Kw
Lista,
I love your stuff, I just rolled you.
kw
Hi Kris,
You know, sometimes I wonder if extreme is really the word I should be using. Time and time again, I come across Republicans who consider themselves extreme just because they have strong convictions. Being a little extreme is understandable since the Liberals are so extreme and are getting more so all the time, yet fighting one extreme with another is not the approach that works.
But than again, maybe you shouldn't be describing yourself as so extreme. Just because you have strong convictions does not necessarily make you extreme. My main complaint against Republican extremists is that there are some who seem to think that we shouldn't have any government programs at all. They expect impossible things from people, are judgmental and are not willing to offer anyone any help.
Just because there are times in which you may have used the word "extreme" in order to describe your own strong convictions does not necessarily mean that you fit into this category. All I am asking people to do is to think about it and ask the Lord to search your heart.
I agree with all that you said about the affects of sex on the mind and I'd like to add also the heart, for there is no condom for the mind and heart. I also agree that the media is a good part of our problem.
Also, I apologize for not posting about PAS (Post Abortion Syndrome). I have been meaning too for a really long time.
I don't know what's stopping me, except that I think I feel just a little intimidated by the fact that there have been a few rather intelligent Liberals that come around from time to time and are hard to compete with. I don't seem to draw the types that insult and come across really stupid. No, I draw the types that are intelligent, polite and say things that make sense.
That's no excuse for not posting the information, I know that, and I also know that the time is growing closer in which I will be called upon by that still small voice to post the information.
First, though, I have at least one and maybe two more posts to make on the subject of Abstinence and STDs. I hope to post one of them later today.
Meanwhile, I wonder if you are familiar with any research on the subject? Unfortunately, I couldn't find the exact brochure I was looking for that had this information in it. Apparently, it either needs to be reordered or has been misplaced.
I'm getting ready to search the web, as soon as I can find the time to do so, as crazy as it sounds, web searching is not my specialty. I'm a slow reader and also not as good as I should be at scanning, but this is important, so I'm going to have to do what I can.
Thanks for blog rolling me, Kris. I'll do the same as soon as I can find a minute to get caught up on a bunch of other stuff. Also, thanks so much for dropping by.
OK, I found two regression equations, both exponential, wherein the # partners was the exponent. Then, my math disc crashed, along with my curvefit
software and data set. So, I checked into multivariate stat
regressions, but ran into matrix
algebra, eigenfunctions, and a whole slew of partial differential equations. Now I have STDs...
'Serious Totaled Disk syndrome'
....ready to get back to white dogs with 'wolflike' faces..:)
lololol. You're so funny, BB. Maybe I should do a post on our dog soon; Casper (the old one), or actually, Shasta (the new one). You are the second person who has brought the dog subject up.
Anyway, I was guessing that you were going to try and do something really complicated and that the actual equation was so simple you wouldn't see it. Sometimes we over work our brains and miss things that are more simple.
Here again is the link that you gave me...
http://www.dhss.mo.gov/BlackAIDS/SexExposureChart.html
If you take a good hard look at the diagrams that they have at the bottom, assuming that "each partner has had only the same number of partners as the original teenager had at the time she had sex", just as the diagram says, you will see that with the teenager's first partner, there is only one exposure, but with the second, she has been exposed to her previous partner, her second partner and his previous partner (3).
By the time that she gets to her third partner, she has all of her original exposures, plus all of the same number of his previous exposures plus of course the guy himself, 3+3+1. The actual equation, starting with the 2nd sexual contact is 1*2+1=3. The equation for the 3rd sexual contact is 3*2+1=7. The equation for the 4th sexual contact is 7*2+1=15; for the 5th is 15*2+1=31 and then there's 31*2+1=63, etc., etc., etc.
Each time the exposure doubles, plus one and the numbers get big really fast. Now apply this too all of the numbers in the chart and you will see that it works.
wow, and she talks about others showing intelligence, then laughs.
Well, maybe I'm just showing off, but it was fun. lolol.
Thanks again for dropping by. I'm all the time picking on you, but I do appreciate you more than you know.
Post a Comment