grahambinns.com

This just in: TV shows that include sex may increase the risk of teenage pregnacies [link].

Teenage girls who watch a lot of TV shows with a high sexual content are twice as likely to become pregnant, according to a study.

Boys watching similar programmes, like Friends and Sex and the City, were also more likely to get a girl pregnant, the research in Pediatrics found.

The study authors said limiting exposure to sexual content on TV might reduce teen pregnancies.

Or, heaven forfend, kids should be educated about safe sex.

I don't know if it's just me who finds this startlingly obvious, but I'll lay out my argument here, just in case.

1. Teenagers, as a rule of thumb, tend to be horny.
2. When done right, sex is fun.
3. Certain TV shows portray sex as fun because it is, when done right.
4. Teenagers watch TV.
5. In the end, with all the different methods of accessing TV shows these days (web, torrent, DVD, hell, even TV itself), it's pretty hard to stop teenagers from watching TV shows, especially the ones that they think are cool to watch.
6. Watching something that says "hey, this is fun" is more likely to increase your desire to do said thing.
7. Because of 5, kids will watch these programmes, even if you don't want them to (get used to it, they're teenagers, they'll do plenty of things you don't want them to do).
8. Teenagers will most likely experiment with sex before they stop being teenagers; Point #6 will encourage them, but it would probably happen anyway because of point #1.
9. If you don't educate your teenagers about safe sex then the chances are massively increased that they will either get pregnant or catch an STI.
10. Ergo, educating your kids about safe sex is the best way to prevent them getting pregnant or catching an STI. They will have sex, regardless of whether you want them to or not.

Thankfully, the BBC article makes this point and quotes a couple of good sources of information, though it fails to link to them. I'd suggest at least linking to Brook, which offers "free, confidential advice on sex and contraception to young people."

So, it turns out that the story that I blogged about the other day has even more to it than I thought.

Rather than try and summarise the matter here - for I don't fully understand it at the moment; it's late, I'm tired and I'm busy watching the fantastic An Inconvenient Truth. Instead, I'll let Terry Sanderson of the Grauniad explain pretty much my feelings on the matter here.

More over, I learned this evening via the ever-wonderful Pharyngula that on Friday morning's Today Programme Richard Dawkins managed, in three minutes, to not only rip holes in Murphy O'Connor's comments but to also slam John Humphrys for his attitude when interviewing religious figures.

Now, I personally dislike the way that John Humphrys interviews people. I find him arrogant and irritating and particularly dislike the way he interrupts people when they're actually trying to answer the question (I have no objection to him interrupting people who are trying not to answer the question). So it did give me a little tingle to hear Dawkins tying him up in knots. But more important than that was that Murphy O'Connor said this of reason leading to terrorism and oppression, which Dawkins pointed out:

Danger because, if you go just by reason, I think, without faith, without belief in God, you can imagine, for instance in the last century, some of the faith(less), or supposedly faithless societies - people, whether it's like Hitler or Stalin, bringing up - having a country in which, if you like, a God free zone, a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression.

Which is so eye-crossingly stupid I can't even find it in myself to be seething mad about such a statement. Still, I'm sure that plenty of people will be mad on my behalf.

richarddawkins.net has clips of Dawkins' interview with Humphrys, the BBC Radio News item about the Cardinal's speech and an interview by Humphrys of the Cardinal himself (in which, to be fair to Humphrys, he does give the Cardinal a harder time than one would usually expect). You can find them all here. Enjoy.

There's a nice story on the BBC news site:

The public perception of open source software is changing fast, said Mark Shuttleworth, who leads distribution of the Ubuntu operating system (OS).

"There has been a sea change in the way people think of Linux, which is very healthy," he said.

"We have seen a real shift in the last six months from folks seeing open source as either a super-specialist thing for people who run data centres or as an enthusiast thing, to something which is energising a lot of the straight commercial PC industry," said Mr Shuttleworth.

Hardy comes out on Friday. Ladies and gentlemen, start your bittorent clients*.

*Because it's easier on the servers than a metric assload of HTTP downloads.

Oh, and whilst we're on the subject the photography stuff I posted about earlier, there's a petition on the Downing Street website that UK citizens and ex pats can sign:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public places.

Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.

Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.

But today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.

In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it's quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.

Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.

We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.

Seems like a worth sentiment. If you feel you've got an interest, please sign it.

So, as a follow-up to yesterday's post, this just in from the BBC (link):

Crowds of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for UK teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot.

...

According to some agencies, some of the protesters chanted: "Shame, shame on the UK", "No tolerance - execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad".

One demonstrator told reporters that it was unacceptable to take a toy and call it Muhammad.

"We can't accept it from anybody. Even if they can do that in Europe, they cannot do it here in Sudan. We ask our rulers and judges to review what they have said. Fifteen days is not enough."

I have no words, really. But once again:

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (Fosis), which represents more than 90,000 Muslim students in the UK and Ireland, said it was "deeply concerned" at what was a "gravely disproportionate" verdict.

The federation's president, Ali Alhadithi, said: "What we have here is a case of cultural misunderstandings, and the delicacies of the matter demonstrate that it was not the intention of Gillian Gibbons to imply any offence against Islam or Muslims.

Which shows that you don't have to be a nutter to be religious. But I can't help thinking that Stephen Fry was right when he said: "Religion. Shit it."