bonny-

Has your friend opening the shop heard about the new law which says that retailers cannot sell any children's item (including clothing) that has not been tested for lead? Right now this includes used items and handmade items (which is how I know about it) and even garage sales. They have tentatively voted to make an exception for clothing of natural fibers.

See story here:

[link]

Thanks for the offer of help, Burrell. I think I'm going to have to wait this one out.

Sophia, thanks for the link. I will pass it along.

He DOES know about the lead ruling because his sister in law has an 8000 square foot kid's shop in Connecticut somewhere and is giving him great advice.

He mentioned this issue when he was touring me around the new (he's refurbishing it) space and showed me all the cool green materials he's using for the build out. Seriously. He bought some gorgeous secondhand fixtures that were originally made from renewable materials. He's reusing AND recycling all at once.

He's so giddy, it's charming to see. He'll do a great job, do terrific service to the community and have a business that is perfectly timed and perfectly located.

I could not be prouder or happier for him.

According to an email I just got from my favorite local used kids' clothing store, there has been a last-minute amendment that excludes second-hand retailers:

"Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards."

If you want to read the entire update go to: >[link]

---

I knew a girl in college who was very religious and did not believe in premarital sex. She and her ministry major boyfriend seemed to have some control issues, however. When I found out they were having sex, I asked her if she was using some form of birth control. She told me no. I flipped. I was like, "Why don't you just get some condoms and have them in your purse??"

Her response? Because then it's premeditating sin and that's just wrong. They needed to stop sinning/having sex instead of planning to sin.

My head exploded and they had a baby about 10 months later.

Oh, just because it wasn't said explicitly earlier, apparently the odds of getting pregnant when having unprotected sex on a day at random are less than 3%. [link] Of course, if you're doing it regularly, you have a better shot of hitting a fertile day.

But studies have also shown (and the article mentions this) that women are hornier when they're ovulating, and much much less so during PMS and menstruation. So having sex on a "random day" is harder than it sounds.

Sure, sure. I'm just saying "having sex" does not have a pregnancy rate of more than 10%, like the girls Hil talked to thought.

IME, Christian teen events were hotbeds of nookie.

In the FAC I had a friend who believed it was at least partly deliberate. The official line, of course, was that you couldn't have sex until you got married. And the Church wouldn't marry you until you got baptised. So for those who followed the official conveyor belt, the pull of their hormones led them straight through the FAC's membership drive. For those who didn't, of course, the lack of birth control education ensured a lot of Church-sanctioned shotgun weddings, which also meant they were going to get baptised.

I don't really buy that the FAC was that calculating about it. However, the line of reasoning does tell me there's very little incentive for abstinence-only religious groups to change to more responsible attitudes re birth control. Teenage pregnancy helps them cement their own teens into a church-based societal matrix.

So I come home from yet another day from hell and discover I forgot to give MK his shot this morning. TODAY=ALL FAIL.

I totally forgot to give Swifty his shot on Tuesday night! He seems fine though.