President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 07, 2008 04:40 PM UTC

Rep. Liston: Pregnant Teens are "Sluts"

  • 99 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Liston mea culpas, but not before lady GOP representatives jointly threaten his manhood (so to speak).

You’d think Republicans could get through at least one legislative session without insulting someone with painfully insensitive remarks. As the Colorado Springs Gazette reports:

A Colorado Springs lawmaker referred Wednesday to unmarried, pregnant teenagers and the fathers as “sluts” who should be made to feel ashamed for their lack of morals.

Rep. Larry Liston’s remarks were made during a discussion with health care professionals at a Republican legislative caucus lunch about Colorado’s high teen pregnancy rate.

“In my parents’ day and age, they were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are. There was at least a sense of shame,” Liston said of unmarried teen parents. “There’s no sense of shame today. Society condones it. . . . I think it’s wrong. They’re sluts…” [Pols emphasis]

Rep. Stella Garza Hicks, a Colorado Springs Republican who was at the meeting, said afterward she was “disturbed” and “offended” by his use of the term “sluts” to refer to young people who have to live with a mistake they’ve made.

The comments came as representatives from the Colorado Health Foundation went over a 2007 report card in which the foundation gave Colorado high marks for the health of its aging population, but lower grades for the health care in the state for newborns and children.

Tweet
Share

Comments

99 thoughts on “Rep. Liston: Pregnant Teens are “Sluts””

    1. Shame and fear work, and they’re not being used as they should to discourage teeners from engaging in sex.

      Peer pressure is especially effective among teens, and if peers called those who got pregnant ‘sluts,’ some of the kids would think twice about their behavior.

      That, of course, is politically incorrect, because calling sluts sluts is distasteful to the non judgmental PC police who call people names all the time.

      1. You’re not really this stupid, are you?

        I mean, come on. I appreciate narrow minded hypocrites as much as the next guy but you’re taking it to a whole new level of hypocrisy.

        And I’m sure you don’t mind me calling you a narrow minded hypocrite, because even though it is politically incorrect, it’s still accurate.  

        1. in your little jab.

          And what about that dude that got away with involuntary murder, what was his name?

          Oh yeah, Teddy Kennedy. Worse than a slut.

          1. And at least those two, for all their faults (even if you buy the “murder” charge – I don’t) don’t tell people not to be sluts. Which is the topic at hand. Capiche?

      3. Who is willing to come on the record and say that they waited til marriage before engaging in sex? Remember, sex includes third base and any other form of sexual contact – just because you didn’t “penetrate” (or, following Bill Clinton’s logic, only had oral sex) doesn’t mean you didn’t have sex.

        For bonus points, if you did abstain completely before your wedding night, I’d like to hear how many of you would do it all over again.

        BTW, shouldn’t divorcees abstain until they remarry? Anyone want to make that case, or state that they abstained between marriages?

        1. By choice, I waited to be married before I had sex.  My wife did too.  

          I would do it all over again.  I would encourage anyone who hasn’t had sex to wait until they get married.  It’s well worth it.

          1. although, as one who engaged in premarital sex, I would never call it a mistake to do so – certainly not in and of itself. Although an unwanted pregnancy is a mistake, which is probably what you’re referring to. (Just want to be clear on that point.

            1. We can debate what’s a mistake, what isn’t and never get anywhere.  If I had sex before I got married, I would have viewed it as a mistake.  But that’s me.  If you don’t that’s fine.

              I just assume not call people names for any mistakes, large or small.

        3. I am unmarried and have never had sex.  I believe extra-marital sex is wrong.  Yes, divorced people should abstain from sex.  I hold even more beliefs that could shock you — e.g., divorced people should not remarry so long as their spouses survive, so I’d even drop the “until they remarry” qualification.  I have no political desire to impose these moral standards on others, but I do believe that they represent how people ought to behave.

          That said: Liston’s comment is absolutely, completely, and unambiguously wrong.  It goes beyond wrong… words like “hideous”, “disgusting”, and “evil” suggest themselves.  It is contrary to his religion, which is about repentance and forgiveness.  It is contrary to basic common sense that tells us children will make bad decisions and should be helped to recover and make the best of their lives.  It is in every other way impossible to understand or accept.

          So yes, hypocrisy is inexcusable here; but a lack of hypocrisy doesn’t make a morally bankrupt attitude like Liston’s acceptable again.

          1. That really is the bottom line here – shaming teens is neither good policy nor good parenting, at least not as far as Liston is arguing.

            Anyone else want to take a public (but anonymous) stand?

      4. You are right about that. The question is what will guys like this (and you) motivate them to do? GET AN ABORTION! That’s the answer, people who are under 18 carrying a baby atround will be subject to shame those who wish to avoid public humiliation will get the big A. You need to get it together buddy.

          1. obviously you are rediculous if you think Listons comments wont motivate women to have abortions. People are giong to make mistakes, you can’t deny that, so the question is how do we treat them as a society?

            So should we allow them to do the right thing (which is usually keep the baby) or punish them for doing the right thing?

            I think that because tou have chosen the name “skeptic” you feel it is your duty to say things that are “out side of the box” or “defy conventional wisdom,” unfortunately this time you ended saying that is pretty dumb. Maybe dont try so hard next time.

  2.    People like Larry Liston are upset when unmarried, young women and teenager girls abort their pregnancies yet when they do “the right thing” and carry their pregnancies to term, they’re held up to ridicule and shame by these same characters!

      On the bright side, by creating this side show with his offensive and incendiary rhetoric, he’s taking some of the heat off Doug Bruce!  

    1. the state legislature was considering a bill to raise the marriage age to 16 (from 14) but it got stopped in the senate because enough of the legislators were worried that in raising the marriage age there would be more ‘unwed mothers.’  No concern about 14 year olds getting pregnant, apparently, just that they were not going to make in into the celestial kingdom as one of some wannabe god’s chattel.

    2. and why it’s a joke to call today’s Republican party pro-life.  I’m pro-life, which means I support fully funding WIC and expanding it to more prenatal care; that I am in favor of expanding the anti-poverty programs in the world today; that I support people and organizations that help anyone who needs help to ensure that their child survives; that I support the education and contraceptives that prevent unwanted pregnancies.  That is not today’s Republican Party.

      I grow increasingly convinced, over time, that this is deliberate.  So long as Republicans insist on creating an environment in which abortion is the only way out of unimaginable pain and suffering, they can ensure abortion sticks around as a way to win votes.

      1. The abortion issue keeps the base active. It’s true for both sides of this issue. Does either side really want to find common ground, which could lead to a way to reduce the need for abortion, or do we want to keep arguing the same facets of the issue?

      2. I’m pro-life, which means I support fully funding WIC and expanding it to more prenatal care; that I am in favor of expanding the anti-poverty programs

        So long as you take up a voluntary collection and don’t try to force me to pay what you decide my fair share of your socialist plan is.

        Every one has the right to pursue happiness.  The don’t have the right to get it from taxing their neighbor.

  3. So, with the Liston logic, if my son had made a mistake while driving and ended up going through the windshield, the appropriate parental and societal response would be to leave him in the barrow pit with the helpful observation “I told you to act right – you deserve to lay there and bleed.”

    1. because on it’s face,

      this does not come across as a forgiving, loving response to someone living in crisis.

      .

      .

      .

      I believe that shame and honor have a place in our society,

      values that should shape behavior and decisions.

      But I’d like to see Larry and his President and the current administration exhibit a little shame

      and humility

      before trying to use shame as a weapon against the weakest in our society.

      .

    3. The HPV vaccine is a joke.  It was a clever marketing ploy by the company who developed the drug.  The vaccine only treats around 4 of the 120 strains known today.  Because of the cost (about $350), the doctors I have talked to about this believe that regular checkups are a much more economical way of dealing with this than the HPV vaccine.  For the same cost, women could get multiple checkups and have a much higher chance of avoiding the STD problems.

      1. that they shouldn’t have gone ahead with penicillin because of the side effects, or AZT to treat AIDS. If what you say is true, I’d say that we have to start somewhere and something, even if it’s little, is better than nothing.

        1. vaccine:

          There are over 100 types of HPV. The HPV vaccine protects against four of the most common types of HPV – types 6, 11, 16 and 18. HPV types 16 and 18 are high-risk types and cause approximately 70 per cent of cervical cancers.

          http://doctorsns.com/content.a…

          Bottom line, if I had a teen daughter, I’d be getting the vaccine for her!

      3. The vaccine is nearly 100 percent effective. Clinical studies have shown that Gardasil – approved by the FDA for females ages 9 to 26, and recommended by the CDC for girls ages 11 to 12 – is nearly 100 percent effective in providing protection against the four HPV strains it covers. “The four types of HPV covered in the vaccine are responsible for the highest percentage of disease related to HPV,” notes Dempsey. “The vaccine covers types 6 and 11, which are thought to be responsible for more than 95 percent of genital warts cases, and types 16 and 18, which are believed to be responsible for more than 70 percent of cervical cancer cases.”

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…

      4. Presuming that “4 of the 120 strains” is correct – and I hardly know – is it not possible that those four are the cause of 99% of the cancer cases?

        And I sure as hell don’t see how check-ups stop HPV except the girl (presumably) won’t be having sex while she’s at the doctor’s.  

      5. So rather than go one at a time, here is an updated post.

        You are right that as of now, the four are the most common.  The problem lies in the mutation of the virus.  It is likely that even if treated with this vaccine, the virus will rapidly mutate and make it more ineffective than it is today.  This is the problem with HIV and why we can not come up with a good vaccine for it.  

        The other issue is one of economics.  A woman can numerous pap-smears for the cost of the vaccine.  This would be a much more logical approach to the problem and, for the money, would save many more lives.  When women get this vaccine, they have a false sense of security in thinking that they have blanket protection.  In fact, they still need to get tested for all of the other “usual suspects” that they are at risk of.  Given the need for continual testing, it would make more sense to just get the testing done and skip the vaccine.  Unfortunately the marketing and political climate has dictated the path of this vaccine much more than common sense.

        I almost always would side with developing and requiring vaccines, but in this case it doesn’t make much sense.  About a month ago I had a long conversation with a very bright doctor about this, and he straightened me out on it.

        3. how multiple pap smears prevents infection, or treats it once it happens. I understand immunization as prevention better. And as far a viral mutation goes, the flu virus mutates too, and they come out with new vaccines as the need arises, apparently at no great cost (though they could be subsidized – I don’t know that they don’t).

          1. But from what I gather, they can monitor those who do get the virus for cancer.  That is what is important, not the virus itself.  Furthermore, women need to be getting their testing done anyway and so this does not significantly reduce the actual death rate versus just getting testing.  However it does cost more.

            From what I understand, this is similar to getting moles checked.  If you could get a vaccine to prevent moles from growing, you would not get cancer from moles.  You could still get skin cancer and you would need regular checkups to ensure you didn’t have that.  Given that you need the skin cancer checkups, you could have your moles checked for abnormal behaviour at the same time thus mitigating the risk of cancer due to having moles in the first place.  Bottom line: if you are getting your medical exams, you would be at lower risk for a lower cost than taking the vaccine… at least that is how it was described to me.  

            Again, I am not a doctor and I don’t fully understand how the HPV causes cancer; but I heard this from a doctor and a nurse.  Both of these people told me that in virtually every other case it made sense to vaccinate, but not in this one.

            1. Of course, if you talk to doctors you find that there’s no more consensus among them about what’s best than there is with any other profession. (How does the old saying go? Always get a second opinion because half the doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class – not entirely true of course, because you have to pass your boards and go through internship and residency, processes which weed out some of those graduates…) But I listen to my doctor (and also my dad, who is one) and won’t criticize anyone for listening to theirs.

      6. We know that in 2007, about 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States.  About 3,670 women will die from cervical cancer in the United States during 2007.  The 5-year survival rate for cervical cancer is about 72%.

        About 1,200,000 women die each year.  About one in 300 of them die of cervical cancer.

        A vaccine that prevents 95% of genital warts and 70% of cervical cancer, both of which are some of the few known deadly sexually transmitted conditions that can’t be treated with vaccines and are common in the general public, is great.  A decent percentage of those cases wouldn’t be caught even if someone got regular checkups, and a decent percentage of people are going to not be able to get checkups at some points in their lives through no fault of their own, until we have universal health care.  So it is hard to deny that thousands of lives will be saved by this vaccine.  Those saved lives will involve no treatment cost ever.

        For the other 30% of cervical cancer we have regular checkups (which cost a lot more than $350 that will cover about two or three checkups with a doctor and pap smears), and we also need to push increased quality testing available with new technologies for cervical cancer.  But, cervical cancer caught in a regular checkup still needs further expensive treatment which doesn’t always work.

        Suppose you value a life at a meager $1,050,000.  If one in 3,000 people who receive a vaccine have their lives saved it is worth it.  

        Also, suppose that treating a cervical cancer case costs a lowballed $7,000 on average (in the typical economics of these things about 80% of the cost is for the worst 20% of the cases and about 20% of the cost is for the easiest 80% of the cases).  If 5% of cervical cancer cases that would have been detected in time for a full recovery in a regular checkup is prevented, the vaccine is worth it.

        Given that you have two benefits: lives saved from cervical cancer cases not caught, and treatment costs saved from cervical cancer cases that are caught, each needs to provide only about half of the break even benefit to make the vaccine worthwhile.

        So, if one in 6,000 lives of people who receive the vaccine are saved, and 2.5% of cervical cancer cases that would have been detected in time don’t have to be treated, then the vaccine is worth it.

        In fact, the vaccine should save about 14 live per 6,000 people who receive the vaccine and eliminate the need for treatment in about 70% of the cervical cancer cases that would have been detected in time.

        Thus, vaccine is about 20 times more effective than necessary to justify its cost.  Even if it is much, much less effective than claimed, due to increased prevalence of other strains after HPV vaccines become widespread, it is very much worth it.  And, the reality is that in another decade, science may come up with a vaccine that covers perhaps 6 or 8 strains, instead of 4 and save an even larger percentage of people.

        If mutation render vaccines a generally ineffective strategy, we would be awash with measles, mumps, polio, rubella, diptheria and so on right now.  Instead, those diseases have been virtually wiped out.

  6. I believe she was a young, single mother at one point in her life..and is a great example of someone who re-made her life.  For someone in our party to infer that a person with her life experiences might fit into this category is offensive … and the reason why the adjective “Minority” precedes everyone’s title.  

  7. at least he’s being somewhat “progressive” about it.  Usually his types only call the pregnant girl the slut, at least he’s including the guy.

    At any rate, he’s completely wrong, of course.  

    I wonder if he is limiting his judgement to only teens whose sexaul activities result in a preganancy or is he including all teens who engage in pre-marital sex.  

    Hell, why stop with the teens though. Would he consider Rush Limbaugh a “slut” given that he was caught with viagra during a time when he between one of his several marriages?

      2. From Yourdictionary.com

        slut Definition slut (slut)

        noun

        a sexually promiscuous woman: a derogatory or insulting term

        Rep. Liston has called all teenaged parents “sluts”; given that the generally accepted definition of “promiscuous” is one who has multiple sex partners, he has made quite a leap assuming that these teens have had multiple partners when, in fact, they may have had only one.

        Then there are the norms of a congenial society where it is not acceptable to use inflammatory rhetoric against someone who has gotten themselves into a bad situation.  The “don’t kick them when they’re down rule”.  Or to put it in a form that you, Rep. Liston and his constituency may understand better: “Who would Jesus call a slut?”

  8. He’s free to expose himself for the cranky old fool that he is. The issue is, sluts or not, we have actual public policy issues to deal with in regards to teen pregnancy. If Representative Liston is more interested in calling people names than dealing with issues of public policy he shouldn’t be in the state legislature.

    Calling them sluts is not a solution to the very real issue of teen pregnancy in Colorado. Once again, Republican’s have no solutions to real issues. Instead they offer no more than curt and immature slanders.

      2. If so are you an ex marine, or are you missing all your teeth?

        People don’t get away with talking like that IRL without someone taking offense.

        elsewhere you said “Sorry about your daughter, mother, sister, wife, girl friend or whomever.” implying they were sluts.

        While I only respond with violence to violence, where I come from calling a man’s mother or daughter a slut is grounds for a beatin’.

    2. Just when you thought that a good Political Ambush would be nice for an elected official, we have Mr Bruce and Mr Lipton doing all the work fo us!!! It is hard to imagine that the Republican Party of El Paso County would sabotage the re-election of Betty Beady for using the word “slut” during a public hearing.  Now Mr. Lipton, who hates Ms. Beady with a passion, goes and copies her!!! What a joke.  Wonder if she ever trademarked her comments.  Actually, it would be interesting to see how she phrased it, and compare Mr. Liptons words to hers.  

      Better yet..how about some comments from Mr. Lipton regarding her speech.  Much like his, I hardly knew Mr. “I like little girls” Ankeney when every Republican in El Paso County saw Mr. Ankeney at an El Paso County Young Republican Fundraiser with a 15 year old as his date past 10:00 p.m.

      Isn’t it remarkable how things change when you want them too?  Mr. Lipton should be ashamed of himself and more importantly, ashamed of himself for acting like Ms. Beady without her permission.  Maybe if he wore a wig and a dress he could imitate her?

  9. Most of us would agree that kids having kids is a bad idea.  Yet when someone comes out and says as much, he is a hate monger.  Wouldn’t it be better if we acknowledged risky behaviour and tried to stop it?  Maybe Liston was harsh, but isn’t it worse to let kids think that it is okay to have kids when they are unwed teens?

    So if we are to follow the logical path of Liston’s detractors, we should not tell obese kids that their behaviour is extremely dangerous.  Rather we should continue to enable them to eat poorly and facilitate their destructive actions.  That is ludicrous.  The most loving thing we can do is tell them that their laziness and poor eating habits are killing them.  But for some reason, when it comes to teen sex, we tell kids it is okay and excuse the behaviour.  This makes no sense.

    Sometimes it is hard to tell the truth, but the truth is always better in the long run.  While Liston’s words were harsh, they are also the truth and he is dead on the money.  As a society, we need to uphold the standard that kids should not have kids before marriage.  Anything less is a disservice to our youth.

    1. He didn’t “say as much” that kids having kids is a bad idea. He said that we should shame them as an effective means of combating teen pregnancy. That’s like saying that we should combat youth obesity by calling the affected kids “fatty fatty two by four.”

      Sorry, but you fail to follow anything logical in the conclusions you reached in this post.

      1. Not that I exactly support what Liston said, but you have to face the reality that what we are doing now is not working.  While I might personally have used softer verbiage, he is right that as a society we need to place a stigma on unwed pregnancies.

        1. would be to engage in realistic sex education, one based on the premise that kids will have sex – because kids will. Abstinence should be included but can not be the focus. The focus needs to be on what can happen as a result of sex, and that includes the positives as well as the negatives. Sex is a natural part of life and needs to be treated as such, not as something bad.

          2. and it is not working.  I find it amazing that we don’t take a much more hard line approach to sex given how we treat other risky behaviour.  Should we just assume that kids are going to use drugs and thus educate them on which are safer drugs (we did that with the DARE program and it didn’t work).  What about obesity?  Do we tell kids that certain sodas are healthy and certain trans-fats are okay?  Should we encourage kids to eat normal Oreos but not Double Stuff Oreos?  Of course not, we tell them it is better to eat healthy and exercise.  But for some reason, we assume that kids have uncontrollable libido and are going to have sex no matter what happens.  I guess maybe I think kids could do better if we expected more out of them.

            1. All sex education (all publicly funded sex education, anyway) is overcautious, lest someone organizes a protest or causes some social conservative legislator to cut funding. It never treats sex like anything positive, lest someone accuses them of encouraging risky behavior. Nonetheless, I believe I’ve read articles citing studies that the kids who go through even this are statistically less likely to get pregnant or contract an STD. If so, it supports my idea that better education will get better results.

              We do have to keep in mind that there’s more at work than government policy. There are deep-seated cultural attitudes that vary along ethnic, religious and national lines and government policy can only address so much. But I’m in favor of what’s most effective, and sex education, even if it’s rudimentary, is more effective than calling someone “slut!”

            3. Sex is an activity that is viewed as fine once a couple is married, and even encouraged by many religions in that case.

              So unlike drugs, drinking (either entirely, or in excess), cigarettes, in the case of sex we are telling kids no on one day and yes the next. So it’s not a “risky” behavior, it’s a morally frowned on behavior.

              Yes, having a kid at the wrong time is risky behavior. But having sex per-se is not. And with proper birth control, the two can be totally seperated.

              That’s why I think what we need to do is do a much better job of teaching kids how to have safe sex. Suggest they wait too but understand that most will not and so make sure it is not risky.

              1. .

                David,

                if there’s absolutely no harm in casual, meaningless sex between consenting children,

                [“having sex per-se is not risky behavior”]

                a proposition that I do not agree with,

                then why bother even suggesting that they wait until they’re older,

                like 14 or 16 ?

                .

                1. Recreational drugs are bad for you, regardless of time, place, situation, martial status, or political views. (Some are only a little bad while others are a lot bad – but they are always a negative.)

                  Sex being good/bad is totally dependant on the situation. At home between a married couple – good. Between a committed same-sex couple – good/bad depending on your religious views.

                  So when it comes to kids??? Again it depends on the situation. As a father of 3 daughters I hope they wait till it’s a very strong serious relationship and that seems to be holding. But I don’t expect them to wait until they are married.

                  But the key differentiator is sex ranges from good to bad depending on the situation.

                  1. Recreational drugs are bad for you, regardless of time, place, situation, martial status, or political views. (Some are only a little bad while others are a lot bad – but they are always a negative.)

                    2. is, of course, the most abused of any intoxicant (or whichever term you prefer).  In my mind, its appropriate to call them all drugs, from 3.2 beer to black tar.  They stand on a continuum.  Some are more benign and others are more harmful.

                      Teaching people to think critically, find, understand and consider facts is the best approach to navigating risky terrain.

            4. Should we just assume that kids are going to use drugs and thus educate them on which are safer drugs (we did that with the DARE program and it didn’t work)

              I’d appreciate anyone who can point out a single piece of DARE literature or a DARE curriculum guide that differentiates between the relative safety of drugs. It’s my understanding DARE has said, and continues to say, only one thing: drugs are bad.

              But you’re right about DARE being ineffective:

              http://www.drugpolicy.org/libr…

              1. I’d appreciate anyone who can point out a single piece of DARE literature or a DARE curriculum guide that differentiates between the relative safety of drugs

                I’m asking anyone to please point out where DARE has said that, for instance, marijuana is a safer drug than heroin.

    2. He didn’t say that kids having kids was a bad thing that needed to be addressed.  He said that the kids having kids were “sluts”.  There is a huge difference.

      Name calling accomplishes only two things: 1)  It makes the person doing the name calling feel better about themselves in the short run;

      2) It tends to alienate people who otherwise might just be on your side (in the article, it is apparent that Liston alienated Rep. Garza-Hicks, a fellow Republican).

      I would add that in this case, it has made Rep. Liston’s comments and apparent lack of sensitivity the issue and detracted from the real issue, teen pregnancy.  Given that he is a politician and this type of comment is “red meat” to his constituency, perhaps that was his intent.  In any case, he has done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of addressing teen pregnancy.

      1. It should be a schock for the sluts and would be sluts. It may save some of the girls who otherwise would allow themselves to get pregnant while they’re teens.

        I’m betting some good will come of this—for the girls and boys, if not for the politically incorrect politician.

        I hope Mike Littwin writes a column.

        1. many of the kids who are having sex really think about what a State Rep. from Colorado Springs thinks of them in the moments before penetration (even those in his district).

          Again, all Liston has done is grabbed some headlines for himself and thrown some red meat to his constituents.  He has done absolutely (less than) nothing to address the issue of teen pregnancy.

      1. A DOUCHEBAG you would be telling the truth. Have you ever really been around this guy?

        He hides his anger fairly well but it’s there.

        Thank Rep Garza-Hicks for taking offense to his use of words ‘SLUTS’

        If I had to call Liston by his true name it would be “Political Whore”

    2. Maybe you could contact the View in New York and have them offer Mr. Lipton, like Ms. Betty Beady, a free trip to the Big Apple to show just how intelligent they truly are?

      Quick, somebody please call Bubba Wawwa, tell her that not only does the Village of El Paso County have an idiot, it now has another one!!! I though that each village was only alotted one idiot per decade.

  11. Mr. Liston must have missed the sexual revolution of the 1960s.  The widespread availability of effective contraception, the availability of emergency contraception after unexpected sexual encounters such as rapes, and the availability of legal abortion has profoundly decoupled the link between having sex and having children.

    Your typical pregnant teen is having sex in the context of a long term relationship, often with a considerably older man in a highly unequal relationship.

    From the young woman’s perspective, sometimes this comes from foolishly thinking that nothing would happen in an ebullent moment, sometimes this comes from feeling that she has no other future anyway to lose, and sometimes this comes from feeling like she has no control in a relationship where the man is dominant.  

    From the often destitute man’s perspective this often comes from a sense that it isn’t his responsibility, and often the young woman won’t try to impose responsibility upon him because she knows that he’s worthless as a provider or good father.

    In addition to being foolish or downtrodden, the young woman is often uninformed about contraception options (e.g. not knowing that emergency contraception can be used after unprotected sex, or overrating the effectiveness of the rhythm method), and the young woman often either doesn’t know about, or is opposed to in her case, abortion.

    Young women who have casual sex with lots of men outside committed relationships, a working modern definition of “sluts” tend to be better informed about contraception and their options and thus do not become pregnant teen mothers, one can’t sustain a “slut” lifestyle for long if you are getting pregnant and carrying those pregnancies to term on a regular basis.

  13. I can’t help myself.  Did Mr. Lipton boink any females prior to marriage?  If he did, was it consentual?  If he didn’t, we might understand…afterall rumor has it he took his cousin to the prom.

  14. All kidding aside, where do the republicans find these “characters”? Colorado Confidential had a piece on Liston 31march07. At least Rep. Hicks and her fellow reps. backed this boor down and cowed him into an apology. But we’ve seen some pretty wierd behavior from these “bible belt” fanatics like Larry over the years. Come to think of it, if my memory’s right, Musgrave and then Senate President Andrews said the big 2006 GOP agenda item was going to be getting rid of hotel room adult ppv films. Not that there might have been more pressing problems for the Colorado State House to deal with. And you wonder why the repubs are gonna get rolled in November?      

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

76 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!