For me underwear=anything you wear under your clothes. I also like the term "foundation garments."
I need to get ready for yoga class this morning.
Harmony ,'Conviction (1)'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
For me underwear=anything you wear under your clothes. I also like the term "foundation garments."
I need to get ready for yoga class this morning.
ita, you really had to go and confuse me with the underwear vs. undergarments question! I got all internally confused until JenP said her mother used underclothes to mean all of it. I grew up using underwear = underpants, and the all inclusive was underclothes. But, now I don't know what I use currently. I never think about it! Why do you have to make me think so hard?
Note: I don't actually use the term "undergarments," but *if* I did, it would refer to the collective bunch of what you wear under your clothes.
The guy who dropped trash on the subway almost got it, but I restrained...a bit.
I had to stop myself from pulling over this morning around the corner from my house to give the business to some asshole who dropped trash out of his McDonald's bag onto the ground. I'm so freaking sick of fast food trash in my neighborhood!
In re abstinance-only education and STDs - I remember reading or hearing somewhere that a lot of these programs emphasize that condoms don't work, and so people coming out of them don't use condoms. As a result, higher pregnancy and STD rates. But my memory is vague ....
I remember reading or hearing somewhere that a lot of these programs emphasize that condoms don't work,
Yeah, that's true. Some of those programs really drill that point home.
I dunno why - maybe this is the same insane troll logic that makes some people want there to be STDs, because they will discourage people from having sex outside of marriage.
Apparently some programs being used in some Texas school districts cite a 30% failure rate for condoms (which of course would STILL be better than not using anything, but is grossly untrue).
I'm not sure they even want to discourage sex outside of marriage, so much as make sure that the people who do it "get what they deserve".
But it's just possible that I have some blinding rage issues on this front.
Amych is me.
Some of those abstinence only programs are whack as hell. Some of them get even basic genetics wrong. A great report on them as they are used nationwide was done by Rep. Henry Waxman out of California. I used the report for a research paper I did. [link]
Also interesting? Just under a year after the highest amount of federal funding went out to abstinence-only programs, the US saw a rise in the teen pregnancy rate for the first time in like 20 years.
I have anger about this, but my rage has been redirected to those who want to ban Gardasil because it promotes promiscuity.