edited for grammar, but still hilarious:

"We're still here, we're all among you, we might be your boss, your wife (ok, maybe not that one), your mechanic, your MP. And one of these days, when you least expect it, the roleplayers of the country will rise up, shout "roll for initiative" and we, the meek (/geek) will inherit the earth!" -Phil Ward, Wales

D&D: 30 Years and Going Strong (courtesy of the BBC)

Except for two snarky "grow up" comments, almost no one has anything abd to say - lots of reminiscing about the good old days of orc-slaying.

I especially like the one from the girl's school whose group won a trip to GenCon. *grin*

If you people posted more often, you could be like this man

With Frickin' Lasers in Their Eyes!

StupidEvilBastard is awesome. Also, the news article is cool.

I also got the news that D&D is 30 from him.

And now, we form a cult to Les.

Join the chant:

"Les... Les... What the fuck is wrong with you people?! Les... Les... What the fuck is wrong with you people?!"

Yeah, I got into the fucking coffee.

It's funny, no really (slightly edited)

Alex says: Why would you EVER use Brawl when everything except *one* Mega-Strength move can use Martial Arts?
Alex says: You still get your autodamage.
Alex says: (Once you hit, anyway)
Patrick says: Mega-Strength has a few uses.
Patrick says: Same as Mega-Charisma.
Alex says: Brawl is a functionally useless category except for Smackdown.
Alex says: Mega-Charisma has taint-negating uses outside of combat.
Alex says: That doesn't exactly make up for it, but it is good.
Patrick says: I mean, Soothe is your most used power.
Alex says: I can see why Strength isn't tied to anything (power-monkeys), but the same reason (power-monkeys) appears to be the reason why Charisma and Appearance aren't tied to anything.
Alex says: Yes, but that's because Vicki hates conflict.
Alex says: I could just as easily have gotten Disorient and Mega-Manipulation instead.
Alex says: Same effect.
Patrick says: Disorient doesn't destroy Taint.
Alex says: True. Technically neither does Soothe (it just lessens the negative; the taint is still -there-, it just doesn't stress anyone out.)
Alex says: "Hey! Radiation poisoning! I'm cool with that, dude."
Alex says: I prefer your way though.
Patrick says: I've figured it eliminates non-physical aberrations.
Alex says: Mostly because I am the TaintNegator~
Alex says: It's like the Terminator, for taint.

(no subject)

( Stance Survey )

Non-serious things first

And the results for who should REALLY be President/VP... *drumroll*

Anyway.

Question to the masses: when (or what defines) "too young" to know about certain sexual practices? Does the amount of detail in describing them affect this number?

Personally, I believe everyone by the age of 12 should at least be able to name the major sexual organs, know about sexually transmitted diseases (not be able to name each major one and its symptoms, but that they exist), and how to prevent them. Birth control should also be a discussion.

As for actual sexual practices, at the VERY LEAST penile/vaginal intercourse and oral sex should be covered by this age (if only in terms of "this is what happens, and yes, you can still get STDs this way"). Anal sex would probably be in my list, too. Slightly less common practices and their dangers could be left until later/upon questioning (though, I think, likely covered by the age of 17).

Does that seem weird or way too early to anyone?

I ask because my mother is freaked out with my aunt for mentioning oral sex in front of my fourteen-year-old sister (in a context of "some young girls (12-13) in the area have been doing this for their boyfriends: this is dumb, they aren't using condoms and can still get STDs"). First of all, I'm guessing that by 14, you've at least heard the term. (She wasn't sure on the specific act, which my mother had to explain.) My mom is, I think, irrationally angry about it.

And my sister is very weirded out by sex, so I don't really understand why she's angry at all. Education can only protect my sister, and KNOWING things like "you can still get STDs from unprotected oral sex" can only serve as a discouragement from sex.

...I don't want to tell my mother this, since she's said she doesn't think it's an appropriate topic to bring up around a 14-year-old already, but does anyone else think I'm being irrational about this?