Young women lead the way in tearing down sex taboos: New US survey

[Ruth]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/04/051004054737.fzs4blx5.html


Young women are leading the way in tearing down sexual taboos in North America, where teenagers are having more sex at a younger age than their parents and grandparents, a new survey showed.

Freewheeling young women in the United States and Canada first have intercourse at the age of 15, partake more in oral sex than previous generations and are far less prudish, according to a landmark new report by researchers at California's San Diego State University.

Between 1943 and 1999, the age of first intercourse dropped to 15 from 19 for females, while the percentage of sexually active young women rose to 47 percent from just 13 percent in 1943, according to the study that appears in the most recent issue of the Review of General Psychology.

"Feelings of sexual guilt plummeted, especially among young women. Attitudes toward premarital sex became dramatically more liberal over the same period," the analysis of 530 studies spanning five decades and involving more than a quarter of a million young people said.

Over the same 56-year period, approval of premarital sex increased from 12 percent to 73 percent among young women, while the figure rose from 40 percent to 79 percent among young men, according to the study..........
I really don't see the trend reversing in America. Theism hasn't slowed down the sexual revolution. Womens natural sex drive is to potent for that. :wink:
We must teach safe sex in our schools for the health of our young women and their lovers.

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/04/051004054737.fzs4blx5.html


I really don't see the trend reversing in America. Theism hasn't slowed down the sexual revolution. Womens natural sex drive is to potent for that. :wink:
We must teach safe sex in our schools for the health of our young women and their lovers.

You sure girls having sex at younger ages is a good thing? :hrm:

And I thought a woman's sexual peak was somewhere a bit before middle age.


EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see that this was in "Naturalism 101". Mods, feel free to delete my post.

[Bill the Cat]

Moving to Health so everyone can participate

[furay]

:thumbd:

[Piebald]

Oh that natural sex drive, how much happiness it brings us.


". . . I thought, this is a woman who does not know what her life is for or who she is. She badly desires to anchor her life in a relationship, yet she has a contingency plan to escape that relationship with no strings attached, should it prove too cumbersome. She takes hormones to prevent her ovaries from releasing eggs, so that her lover's seed may pass in and out of her without the chance that she'll actually receive it." -- Dawn Eden



Man in the West does not seem at peace with his biological nature and in many ways seeks to transcend it or frustrate it. He does not seem at peace with, say, the natural fertility of the sexual act. The males uses plastic devices on his sexual organs, avoiding true fleshly union; the female may do the same, or ingest chemicals to render her body into a state of confusion and stand the natural cycle on its head. When a child is conceived, and the female or male is very uhappy with this state of affairs, oftentimes he or she will pay money to have someone fix the situation by forcibly, unnaturally, removing the child from the womb, killing it in the process. --- James Kushiner

[jason]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/04/051004054737.fzs4blx5.html


I really don't see the trend reversing in America. Theism hasn't slowed down the sexual revolution. Womens natural sex drive is to potent for that. :wink:
We must teach safe sex in our schools for the health of our young women and their lovers.
Wow isn't it wonderful to see young girls out providing men with an excuse to live a beer commercial lifestyle and never settle down. It is so great to see women learning to behave in a sexual manner akin to that of adolesent boys. What a wonderful fruit of the sexual revolution this is. What a glorious day for those liberated women in the US. They are so lucky. And with so many wonderful advances in science soon all the infertility and disease they acquire from such behavior will be removed forever and they can continue to live these liberated lifestyles

:thumb:

:jason:

[jason]

The real irony of surveys like this and the celebration of the sexual revolution as a good thing for women is that it is anything but.

What have women gained from this "sexual liberation".

Lets see.

1. Men who will leave when they don't feel "fulfilled" in a relationship, normally leaving the woman in the lurch, especiually when kids are involved. That a real plus for these liberated women. Way to go, dead beat dads.

2. Increased risk of disease and infertility from this behavior. Well that is always a plus.

3. A population of men who expect sex from the women and live beer commercial lifestyles, partying with babes and drinking and doing nothing.

I am forced to give a chuckle every time someone bangs the drum for how good sexual "liberation" was for women. Now they can have broken relationships with men who are not interested in them for anything apart from sex and they can always kill any children that inconveniently turn up on the scence for those unlucky enough not to be rendered infertile by some sort of STD.

What great stides forward. Things may not have been perfect in the past, but the current situation is hardly what any sane person would call an improvement.

Ah ... I see the problem.

Jason

[TCapp]

A study by the Heritage Foundation, in-turn based on the government-funded National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, found that about 25 percent of sexually active girls say they are depressed all, most or a lot of the time, while only 8 percent of girls who are not sexually active feel the same.

While 14 percent of girls who have had intercourse have attempted suicide, only 5 percent of sexually inactive girls have. And whereas 6 percent of sexually active boys have tried suicide, less than 1 percent of sexually inactive boys have.

Yes, let them sex themselves to death and misery. Good stuff, hm?

[jason]

A study by the Heritage Foundation, in-turn based on the government-funded National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, found that about 25 percent of sexually active girls say they are depressed all, most or a lot of the time, while only 8 percent of girls who are not sexually active feel the same.

While 14 percent of girls who have had intercourse have attempted suicide, only 5 percent of sexually inactive girls have. And whereas 6 percent of sexually active boys have tried suicide, less than 1 percent of sexually inactive boys have.

Yes, let them sex themselves to death and misery. Good stuff, hm?

Didn't you know that this is a wonderful and good thing. You must just a sexually repressed prude if you can't see this is a wonderful leap forward.

The solution to this obvious problem is to go out and have sex with as many strangers as possible. That will help you see what you are missing out on because you are sexually repressed.

Also, the heritage foundation are a bunch of right wing gun toting christian loonies who will just lie so they can force thier morality on others.

Now go out and get laid right now!


Jason

[Teallaura]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/04/051004054737.fzs4blx5.html


I really don't see the trend reversing in America. Theism hasn't slowed down the sexual revolution. Womens natural sex drive is to potent for that. :wink:
We must teach safe sex in our schools for the health of our young women and their lovers.


Safe sex = abstinence - period.

I've told a fifteen year old girl she had syphilis. Three weeks later another DIS sat her down to tell her she had HIV. She died at the age of twenty - left one small son, no husband.

A nineteen year old boy - his mom knew something was wrong because I kept having to show up - but I couldn't tell her what. She'll know in a few years when he begins wasting syndrome and she has to take care of him. Denial is a real problem in young kids.

Currently, a 26 year old AIDS patient got the news from me. That person would have been infected between the ages of 15 and 18.


Condoms aren't a panacea - anyone says they are is a liar. Young kids don't think they can get anything - teach 'em all you like, but when he says 'if you love me...' that condom is staying in the wrapper. It takes real maturity to be able to 'negotiate' condom use (in the current prevention venacular). Kid who can't say 'no' ain't gonna stick to his/her guns when it's time to use the condom.

Ask YamYam how much fun it is to be in a sexually liberated country - one so liberated that it is difficult to find a husband - or a life long partner. Or any of the women who lost their fertility to the so-called Sexual Revolution. GC and chlamydia will sterilize women (GC will get men as well) - it's no coincidence that the infertility crisis of the Eighties came just as the 'liberated' gals from the Sixties decided to start having kids.

Enjoy that Pap Smear? You can thank the rampant levels of HPV for the need. Oh, and condoms have little effect on HPV (only one study showed any appreciable effect on the strain linked to Cervical Cancer). HPV is linked to thirteen forms of cancer thus far - and most strains are unaffected by condom use.

Trends come and go - even 'unstoppable' ones. This one will, too - the question is how much is it going to cost in terms of lives ruined - or ended - in the process....

[Champagne]

You know about statistics...I recall reading recently how sexual activity among teens has been going down since the 80s- that they were waiting longer to lose their virginity- but regardless.

Surely, Jason, not all men are beer-guzzling ogling bozos who only want sex? Or are you going to betray your sex here??

Since the sexual revolution, people still have long term monogomous relationships. They still get married. It's not all one-night stands and abortions.

Sure, some people are going to be irresponsible and then wonder why they have to suffer the consequences. Children that age shouldn't be having sex- and that was never the intention of the sexual revolution anyway, which was about adults...

I feel sorry for girls who think that by giving boys sex they are going to get love. I am just amazed that in this day and age they are still thinking that. Someone should give them some self-esteem classes.

Highly different than a single, educated, mature adult woman deciding to have a consensual sexual relationship with her partner.

[Ryokan]

safe driving= walking - period.

safe child birth= adoption - period

safe education= homeschooling - period

non-abusive marriage= being single - period

safe sports= video game sports - period


This is not to say I oppose monogamous relationships, promote promiscuity, or don't think that the sexual revolution had excesses. But I think we have a healthier view of sex now than we did in the past. Their needs to be a balance. And just because sex outside of marriage is risky, teallaura, doesn't mean it is always, always wrong. And in life, everything is risky.


Safe sex = abstinence - period.

I've told a fifteen year old girl she had syphilis. Three weeks later another DIS sat her down to tell her she had HIV. She died at the age of twenty - left one small son, no husband.

A nineteen year old boy - his mom knew something was wrong because I kept having to show up - but I couldn't tell her what. She'll know in a few years when he begins wasting syndrome and she has to take care of him. Denial is a real problem in young kids.

Currently, a 26 year old AIDS patient got the news from me. That person would have been infected between the ages of 15 and 18.


Condoms aren't a panacea - anyone says they are is a liar. Young kids don't think they can get anything - teach 'em all you like, but when he says 'if you love me...' that condom is staying in the wrapper. I takes real maturity to be able to 'negotiate' condom use (in the current prevention venacular). Kid who can't say 'no' ain't gonna stick to his/her guns when it's time to use the condom.

Ask YamYam how much fun it is to be in a sexually liberated country - one so liberated that it is difficult to find a husband - or a life long partner. Or any of the women who lost their fertility to the so-called Sexual Revolution. GC and chlamydia will sterilize women (GC will get men as well) - it's no coincidence that the infertility crisis of the Eighties came just as the 'liberated' gals from the Sixties decided to start having kids.

Enjoy that Pap Smear? You can thank the rampant levels of HPV for the need. Oh, and condoms have little effect on HPV (only one study showed any appreciable effect on the strain linked to Cervical Cancer). HPV is linked to thirteen forms of cancer thus far - and most strains are unaffected by condom use.

Trends come and go - even 'unstoppable' ones. This one will, too - the question is how much is it going to cost in terms of lives ruined - or ended - in the process....

[Sheepdog]

A study by the Heritage Foundation, in-turn based on the government-funded National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, found that about 25 percent of sexually active girls say they are depressed all, most or a lot of the time, while only 8 percent of girls who are not sexually active feel the same.

While 14 percent of girls who have had intercourse have attempted suicide, only 5 percent of sexually inactive girls have. And whereas 6 percent of sexually active boys have tried suicide, less than 1 percent of sexually inactive boys have.

Yes, let them sex themselves to death and misery. Good stuff, hm?


this reminds me of a study i read about, but which i forgot the details. something like, there is a disproportional about of breakups in teen romantic relationships after they first have sex than before, and then the breakup itself is considerably harder on the male and female mental wellbeing.


liberals harp that we need more and sooner education on healthy sex. i actually agree, knowing that teaching abstinance is more important, but some idiot teens will do it anyways. but we have education about safe sex: let's have more education about responsibility in regards to sex.

[jason]

Surely, Jason, not all men are beer-guzzling ogling bozos who only want sex? Or are you going to betray your sex here??
Not all, but more and more are picking up these sort of traits (to varying degrees, this is obviously the extreme end of the scale) because women let them do it.


Since the sexual revolution, people still have long term monogomous relationships. They still get married. It's not all one-night stands and abortions.
True enough. But is it a coincidence that so many of those marriages fail ? And failed marriages (doubly so when kids are involved) are never good things that damage everyone involved.

And keep in mind that encouraging girls (and boys for that matter but they don't need much encouragement) to be "sexual liberated" is only going to contribute to such failed marraiges and other harms.

And why would we expect otherwise. the old courting rituals in which the father had to approve of his daughter prospective spouse and so on seem quaint and odd to us today. No doubt you and others will snigger at such a "backwards" and "oppresive" idea.

But look at what we have instead today.

Women who freely have sex as much as they like until mister right comes along and then they expect to settle down into a faithful commited monogomous relationship with prince charming and live happily ever after.

Now that is living in a fantasy land.


I feel sorry for girls who think that by giving boys sex they are going to get love. I am just amazed that in this day and age they are still thinking that. Someone should give them some self-esteem classes.

Highly different than a single, educated, mature adult woman deciding to have a consensual sexual relationship with her partner.
Actually I suspect it is not that different at all. Just a bigger body is involved.

Jason

[Teallaura]

safe driving= walking - period.

safe child birth= adoption - period

safe education= homeschooling - period

non-abusive marriage= being single - period

safe sports= video game sports - period


This is not to say I oppose monogamous relationships, promote promiscuity, or don't think that the sexual revolution had excesses. But I think we have a healthier view of sex now than we did in the past. Their needs to be a balance. And just because sex outside of marriage is risky, teallaura, doesn't mean it is always, always wrong. And in life, everything is risky.

Baloney. There's nothing healthy in young women being stripped of their self-esteem (note the suicide corellation above) or in men and women of all ages having STD's (count on it - the most prevalent, HPV, isn't reportable - and it is the big reason all women are supposed to get Pap smears, most of us yearly).

The phrase is 'safer sex' - that's the one you seem to have in mind. Safe sex is either abstinence or genuine one lifetime partner monogamy. Everything else is snake oil.

And where in the world do you get the idea that safety has something to do with morality? Murder may be perfectly safe for me to commit under the right circumstances - but would still 'always, always' be morally wrong. I made a health related case - not a moral one. I do believe extra-maritial sex is morally wrong - and I know it is a great deal riskier than the average 'well educated, mature' adult realizes - but they are not the same case, just two different reasons for curtailing said behavior.

[jason]

this reminds me of a study i read about, but which i forgot the details. something like, there is a disproportional about of breakups in teen romantic relationships after they first have sex than before, and then the breakup itself is considerably harder on the male and female mental wellbeing.
Wow. You would almost thing that having sex with someone unites the two people together on a fundamental level and is part of the process of making them one flesh.

But such a quaint silly notion can't be it. It must be that the boys and girls need more and earlier lessons on sticking condoms on vegetables. That will solve the problem.

Jason

[Champagne]

Teallaura,

Whether premarital sex is moral or not is a religious/conscience question. Just b/c you think it is always immoral does not mean the rest of us have to believe that, or do what you think is right.

I think Ryokan was focusing on the safety issue surrounding sex. That having sex, just like doing many other things, carries certain risks with it and if you want to engage in the behavior, do things to minimize the risk.

We are just living in a different culture now. Premarital sex is the norm, almost everyone does it at least once before getting married, according to the stats. People don't get married right out of high school anymore, as a rule, and women don't have to stay home and have babies.
Just like we no longer live under OT culture, where polygamy was the rule, we no longer live in a culture where sex is only legit if you are married.

If someone can't find a partner, you can't blame it on the sexual revolution. Plenty of people have managed to settle down and get married, despite the revolution. If, in the old days, people were getting married just because they wanted to have sex, that's hardly a good reason to get married. Once the thrill wears off, you've got a lifetime ahead of you - that physical attraction is not the end all be all of a marriage.

Jason, why would I need to ask my father's permission to get married? Does he own me? Am I feeble minded or something so that I cannot decide on my own? I've lived on my own since I was 18, I've supported myself. my dad would laugh if anyone even told him that he was supposed to be giving his permission for me to get married.

Or perhaps you're stuck in the good old days where women were considered the property of their fathers until "given" to her husband, when she promptly became the property of the husband? Where the double standard regarding men and sex was alive and well. Where women had to tolerate mental and physical abuse because not only was it very hard to get a divorce, they had no means to financially support themselves. Where women got paid much less on the dollar than men did, for the same work.

The sexual revolution wasn't only about sexual intercourse. It also was about the equality of the sexes. Giving women the right to decide whether or not to have sex, to get married, to support themselves, get educations, etc. Taking away the stigma of being single.

Now, I agree that teenagers should not be having sex. Although it's no surprise- and in the old days, teenagers were married so were having sex, obviously. I don't know what the answer is. Scaring them with horror stories about STDs and pregnancy obviously isn't. Teenagers think they're invincible, that it can't happen to them. The risk of getting HIV seems totally negligible to them. I think the better way would be to emphasize what sex is NOT. It's NOT a way to get love or companionship. It doesn't automatically make you part of a couple. It's not the most possibly best thing in the world. It doesn't make you "cool." It's just a physical act intended primarily for reproduction. If your hormones aren't up to speed, you won't even have the physical desire to have sex. It's part of a loving relationship, but it doesn't MAKE the relationship loving.

My other idea is that we should secretly put Prozac in the schools' water systems...that stuff will kill your sex drive and should put an end to all this messing around :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Just like we no longer live under OT culture, where polygamy was the rule, we no longer live in a culture where sex is only legit if you are married.


"Polygamy was the rule"? From what I've read, only the wealthy could afford to keep multiple wives. "Polygamy the exception" more likely.

[Champagne]

Ok, maybe not the "rule"- but it was not unexpected or considered odd or weird. It was normal.

And we today find this practice, which was once accepted as normal, quite odd and undesirable, not to mention illegal.

[Cynic Sage]

Ok, maybe not the "rule"- but it was not unexpected or considered odd or weird. It was normal.

And we today find this practice, which was once accepted as normal, quite odd and undesirable, not to mention illegal.
True.

[Conductor42]

word


safe driving= walking - period.

safe child birth= adoption - period

safe education= homeschooling - period

non-abusive marriage= being single - period

safe sports= video game sports - period


This is not to say I oppose monogamous relationships, promote promiscuity, or don't think that the sexual revolution had excesses. But I think we have a healthier view of sex now than we did in the past. Their needs to be a balance. And just because sex outside of marriage is risky, teallaura, doesn't mean it is always, always wrong. And in life, everything is risky.

[Conductor42]

Which is quite odd, considering how many <insert vulgar word here> guys are considered "cool" and a "playa" when they have unprotected one night stands with women, leavning them pregnat and without any support at all....

Yet if a person wants to love 2 women, rear a family with them, support them, and love them - it's suddently morally wrong? Methinks there is something wrong with this picture.


Ok, maybe not the "rule"- but it was not unexpected or considered odd or weird. It was normal.

And we today find this practice, which was once accepted as normal, quite odd and undesirable, not to mention illegal.

[Champagne]

I don't know anyone who thinks men who knock up women and then split are "cool." In fact, regardless of what they want to do, the courts will order them to pay child support.

Utah had to outlaw polygamy in order to get admitted to the Union. It's settled law in this country that polygamy is illegal.

If you don't think it's so bad, I'd ask, what about a woman who wants 2 or 3 husbands? Is that OK?

[Teallaura]

Teallaura,

Whether premarital sex is moral or not is a religious/conscience question. Just b/c you think it is always immoral does not mean the rest of us have to believe that, or do what you think is right.

Reread what I wrote - did I say anything remotely like this? No, my case was health related - I only mentioned my belief in the side note that Ry started on morality. I did not make a moral case at all. You are usually a lot sharper than this, Champagne.


I think Ryokan was focusing on the safety issue surrounding sex. That having sex, just like doing many other things, carries certain risks with it and if you want to engage in the behavior, do things to minimize the risk.

I think you misread what he wrote. He answered my post regarding the risks involved with STD. His point was that since everything carries some risk my assertion that only abstinence (I later modified to include genuine one partner only monogamy) was in fact the only 'safe sex' was invalid. I countered that he had mistaken the common phrase 'safer sex' for the actual phrase from the OP of 'safe sex'. Promiscuity of any level is incompatible with the concept of 'safe sex' which implies little or no risk (most seem to take it as no risk). He wasn't focusing on anything but that single point as far as I can see. Neither of us discussed prevention in any depth - merely the safe sex vs safer sex thing.



We are just living in a different culture now. Premarital sex is the norm, almost everyone does it at least once before getting married, according to the stats. People don't get married right out of high school anymore, as a rule, and women don't have to stay home and have babies.
Just like we no longer live under OT culture, where polygamy was the rule, we no longer live in a culture where sex is only legit if you are married.

Having zero to do with anything I wrote. And a different culture isn't necessarily a desirable culture.


If someone can't find a partner, you can't blame it on the sexual revolution.

Did you read what I wrote at all? Perhaps you just didn't realize that I was talking about another country (the Netherlands to be specific) on this point - and an existing dynamic there.


Plenty of people have managed to settle down and get married, despite the revolution.

Still off point - I blamed the sexual revolution for rise in the infertility starting in the early Eighties. If you will recall, many women from the Sixties put off child bearing until much later than would have been the norm in the preceding generations - which explains the delay in seeing the incidence rise.


If, in the old days, people were getting married just because they wanted to have sex, that's hardly a good reason to get married. Once the thrill wears off, you've got a lifetime ahead of you - that physical attraction is not the end all be all of a marriage.

I concur - have no idea why you think premaritial sex is a necessary solution to this problem however. Slowing down and getting to know each other well strikes me as a better solution than going ahead and having sex to take the 'edge' off the desire.

[jason]

Jason, why would I need to ask my father's permission to get married? Does he own me? Am I feeble minded or something so that I cannot decide on my own? I've lived on my own since I was 18, I've supported myself. my dad would laugh if anyone even told him that he was supposed to be giving his permission for me to get married.
Yeah because so many women make such good choices with their new freedom.

There is a certian humour value to you pretending to be a model for all women .


Or perhaps you're stuck in the good old days where women were considered the property of their fathers until "given" to her husband, when she promptly became the property of the husband?
No, that is not true. I just happen to think that the "cure" is much much worse than the disease.


Where the double standard regarding men and sex was alive and well. Where women had to tolerate mental and physical abuse because not only was it very hard to get a divorce, they had no means to financially support themselves.
Because it is so much better now when dad leaves to be fulfilled in another relationship and leaves the women holding the bag to raise the kids alone. Then behaves like a dead beat when it comes to child support and being a responsible adult.

Yeah that is sooooo much better.


The sexual revolution wasn't only about sexual intercourse. It also was about the equality of the sexes. Giving women the right to decide whether or not to have sex, to get married, to support themselves, get educations, etc. Taking away the stigma of being single.
And boy has it worked out well for women. Now that they are liberated, they can be scorned for being stay at home mums, they can be forced to work to make end meet, they can be forced to deny their natural role as nurtures and mothers, they have the freedom to slaughter their inconvenient offspring (possibly easier than dealing with those dead beat dads I suppose) and can carry much of the risk during this free and liberated intercourse.

Men (well adolescent boys in mens bodies) got the best deal out of the sexual revolution and womens liberation.

Jason

[$cirisme]

Which is quite odd, considering how many <insert vulgar word here> guys are considered "cool" and a "playa" when they have unprotected one night stands with women, leavning them pregnat and without any support at all....

Yet if a person wants to love 2 women, rear a family with them, support them, and love them - it's suddently morally wrong? Methinks there is something wrong with this picture.

I really doubt that the majority of those that see polygamy as wrong also see one night stands as "cool." I think your comparison is bogus.

[Ryokan]

Baloney. There's nothing healthy in young women being stripped of their self-esteem (note the suicide corellation above) or in men and women of all ages having STD's (count on it - the most prevalent, HPV, isn't reportable - and it is the big reason all women are supposed to get Pap smears, most of us yearly). Clearly, having meaningless teen sex is unhealthy for girls. Being afraid or feeling guilty about their sexuality, committing infanticide out of social pressure, and an inability to speak openly about, or have a legitimate understanding of the risks involved in sex are clearly no good either Teal. However, as far as the suicide correlation goes, could it be depressed girls are more likely to have sex? Or that girls with backgrounds that might lead them to have a more blaise attitude towards their sexuality might lead them to have that same attitude about their life? I am not seeing a certain causation.


The phrase is 'safer sex' - that's the one you seem to have in mind. Safe sex is either abstinence or genuine one lifetime partner monogamy. Everything else is snake oil. So its a semantic battle. When they change those safe driver tips to safer driver tips at driver's ED, then we can change safe sex too.


And where in the world do you get the idea that safety has something to do with morality? Murder may be perfectly safe for me to commit under the right circumstances - but would still 'always, always' be morally wrong. You do b elieve it is always always wrong, though, teal, and you regularly use the medical angle to back that up.
I made a health related case - not a moral one. I do believe extra-maritial sex is morally wrong - and I know it is a great deal riskier than the average 'well educated, mature' adult realizes - but they are not the same case, just two different reasons for curtailing said behavior.Okay. Fair enough.

[Champagne]

Teal,

What do you mean by "infertility"? If you mean that today, women have delayed childbearing in order to focus on career, and that subsequently, they start trying to have children at much later ages- I agree. And they should have all the medical facts that it is much harder to get pregnant at 42 than at 22. (which I thought would be obvious)

But that to me isn't "infertility," - that is the natural scheme of things. When a woman reaches a certain age it becomes harder and harder to get pregnant, and finally becomes impossible.

I think of infertility as a state where an otherwise healthy, childbearing age woman, can't get pregnant. And I don't see how the sexual revolution would be related to this.

Additionally, I understand that "safe sex" is a technical misnomer. The only way to make it 100% safe from disease would be to know for certain that both you and your partner are virgins, or have been medically tested and come out with a clean bill of health...and of course there's always a chance of pregnancy, married or not, unless someone is sterilized or confirmed infertile.

But a lot of activities carry inherent risks, and many people feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. Hence, driving a car can be a very dangerous activity- but the benefits outweigh the risks. So people take precautions in order to make the activity safer- such as safety belts, airbags, etc. Does that mean it's 100% safe if you take the precautions? No- but we realize that.

So it should be with sex- that people realize that no matter what precautions you may take, there are always going to be some risks. And if you can't deal with those risks, then you shouldn't be participating. Agreed.

[themuzicman]

Ok, maybe not the "rule"- but it was not unexpected or considered odd or weird. It was normal.

And we today find this practice, which was once accepted as normal, quite odd and undesirable, not to mention illegal.
So is slavery

[Champagne]

Yes, Music Man. We no longer live in a culture where slavery is legal and acceptable. Culture changes. We also no longer live in a culture where premarital sex is considered unacceptable or abnormal.

[themuzicman]

Yes, Music Man. We no longer live in a culture where slavery is legal and acceptable. Culture changes. We also no longer live in a culture where premarital sex is considered unacceptable or abnormal.
And appear headed back to the times when multiple wives is just a part of reality.

Sometimes you gotta look and see if advancement really means you're going backwards. Sexual "freedom" for women has also brought a large dose of sexual expectations upon them.

Michael

[Teallaura]

Clearly, having meaningless teen sex is unhealthy for girls. Being afraid or feeling guilty about their sexuality, committing infanticide out of social pressure, and an inability to speak openly about, or have a legitimate understanding of the risks involved in sex are clearly no good either Teal. However, as far as the suicide correlation goes, could it be depressed girls are more likely to have sex? Or that girls with backgrounds that might lead them to have a more blaise attitude towards their sexuality might lead them to have that same attitude about their life? I am not seeing a certain causation.

I pointed out a correlation - not causation. But where there is smoke, fire usually isn't far behind. Teens aren't ready for the social, relationship, financial, responsibility - et al - burdens that come with active sexuality. My guess, sex becomes a means to an end - averting peer pressure, not feeling 'different', trying to gain self-esteem by having a boy/girl friend, rebelling against parents (this one would be lowest on my list), trying to fill other emotional voids in their lives (this one we see a whole lot in adults). Instead, because they can't deal with the associated responsibilities/burdens - or subsequent break ups and pain (which gets a lot worse when you find out that he wasn't the 'one' and you can't get your virginity back - yes, girls still do think like that, far more often than you realize and women do, too) what was supposed to 'help' does irreparable harm instead. A certain number - not all - will become suicidal. A much larger number will become more self-destructive. Instead of learning from the mistake, it's on to the next guy/girl - not at all unlike an addict trying to end the pain by hiding behind the drug - or in this case, sex.

Using sex to make you feel better about yourself - or to fit in - is no smarter, and perhaps even dumber, than turning to alcohol or drugs to solve your personal problems. The results are sadly much the same. In teens, the big thing they need is time - time to grow up, to gain the self-confidnece they need the right way. Guidance, role models, and a fair handed discipline are all also part of the growing up healthy process. Unrestrained sexual activity is not - and indeed subverts the very process that teens most need to undergo as they become adults.

The higher suicide numbers may well be an indication that something has gone terribly wrong - do we ignore it until even more kids are killing themselves?


So its a semantic battle. When they change those safe driver tips to safer driver tips at driver's ED, then we can change safe sex too.

Are you under twenty years old? Serious question. If so, that would explain your ignorance here - the original campaign for 'safe sex' had some nasty consequences and had to be revamped. Because of the prevention campaign of the time we had a lot of people who thought that condoms make you safe - I still have kids/patients who think this - and it is simply not so. Even versus HIV, they are only 70% effective (yes, I've seen higher numbers - but none more realistic). You don't see high effectiveness against many if any of the virus' - they're most effective against bacterial diseases (with GC/Chlamydia +95% is realistic) and not all of them (syphilis is purely a crap shoot). We had people still getting infected (and yes, I've had such patients even now) with HIV who were stunned, because they had always used condoms like the ads said - and never realized the condoms didn't make them perfectly safe. The campaign was stopped and revamped as 'safer sex'. No Ry, it isn't mere semantics.


You do b elieve it is always always wrong, though, teal, and you regularly use the medical angle to back that up. No, I don't use it to 'back it up' - read more carefully. I do talk mostly about the medical angle - it's my field of expertise. There are better qualified people who can argue the morality - but I'm one of the best qualified to discuss health risk. That there is a major similarity (both Chrisitanity and good prevention efforts expouse abstinence/monogamy in some form) does not mean that my case is faith based. I'm careful when I discuss the health issues to avoid the morality side. One case isn't the same as the other - even if they do come to the same conclusion. My beliefs regarding the morality thereof do not change the facts regarding sexually transmitted disease - no matter how much you wish to invalidate my case by looking at my 'motives' rather than the case presented. (Poisoning the well? Can't remember the name of that particular fallacy.)

[Teallaura]

Champagne,

I don't have time for a long answer right now - I'll get back to you latter. But by infertility I mean the long lines at infertility clinics. (My mom was 42 when she had me, ironically.) The causes weren't all age related - you're talking about a lot of women in their 30's (they'd been trying for a while) and infertile men as well. There was a significant incidence increase in the early Eighties - in both men and women. GC/Chlamydia are likely a big part of that - especially obvious in men.

[Rusty T]

Oh that natural sex drive, how much happiness it brings us.

I'm not understanding the exact purpose of these quotes.

". . . I thought, this is a woman who does not know what her life is for or who she is. She badly desires to anchor her life in a relationship, yet she has a contingency plan to escape that relationship with no strings attached, should it prove too cumbersome. She takes hormones to prevent her ovaries from releasing eggs, so that her lover's seed may pass in and out of her without the chance that she'll actually receive it." -- Dawn Eden


Does this not apply equally to married couples who take birth control? Are you opposed to birth control in all circumstances, in that it tends to reduce the chance that one's lover's seed will not be received?


Man in the West does not seem at peace with his biological nature and in many ways seeks to transcend it or frustrate it. He does not seem at peace with, say, the natural fertility of the sexual act. The males uses plastic devices on his sexual organs, avoiding true fleshly union; the female may do the same, or ingest chemicals to render her body into a state of confusion and stand the natural cycle on its head. When a child is conceived, and the female or male is very uhappy with this state of affairs, oftentimes he or she will pay money to have someone fix the situation by forcibly, unnaturally, removing the child from the womb, killing it in the process. --- James Kushiner


Now, this one is a bit more interesting, especially with the reference to abortion. But I don't see how this relates to single, teenage girls specifically. This occurs every day in married, committed relationships as well.

[Darth Executor]

(Poisoning the well? Can't remember the name of that particular fallacy.)

It sounds like ad hominem and to be honest I'd expect better of Ryo.

[Conductor42]

Utah had to outlaw polygamy in order to get admitted to the Union. It's settled law in this country that polygamy is illegal.

Why was polygamy outlawed? Because people didn't like the Mormons. I've known plenty of polygamists - and guess what? They're good, moral people - and most of them are extremely conservative (believe it or not). Perhaps you wouldn't have such a bias against them if you took the time to get to know some of them. You'd find out they aren't so evil after all.

Furthermore, Polygamy wasn't illegal until the Civil War times - in fact, until the Southerners wanted to insure that no interracial marriages happened, the government had no buisness in marriage - and it shouldn't have any buisness in it.

You shouldn't have to have the governments permission to get married - and that is what a "marriage liscensce" is. You have to have the government's permission to get married, and the government can revoke that permission at any time.

Don't forget the definition of liscense:

a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful


If you don't think it's so bad, I'd ask, what about a woman who wants 2 or 3 husbands? Is that OK?

If the woman wants it, and the husband(s) agree to it, then they should be allowed to do it. I may not like it, and I may not want to be in such a relationship - but that does not mean they should be imprisoned for it.

For the record, I am neither intersted in a polygamous or a polyandrous relationship. When/If I get married to the person I love, it will be monogamous - I would not have it any other way. But I respect the right of another to choose differently.

[Conductor42]

I really doubt that the majority of those that see polygamy as wrong also see one night stands as "cool." I think your comparison is bogus.

My comparison might be bogus, but it illustrates a point - society allows one thing with little (if any) punishment, yet if a man marries two women, loves them, and raises a family with children from both women he can be jailed, have his children taken from him, etc.

[themuzicman]

My comparison might be bogus, but it illustrates a point - society allows one thing with little (if any) punishment, yet if a man marries two women, loves them, and raises a family with children from both women he can be jailed, have his children taken from him, etc.
So ,becaue we allow one unrelated bad things, we have to allow all unrelated bad things?

[Gromit45]

Young women are leading the way in tearing down sexual taboos in North America, where teenagers are having more sex at a younger age than their parents and grandparents, a new survey showed.

Freewheeling young women in the United States and Canada first have intercourse at the age of 15, partake more in oral sex than previous generations and are far less prudish, according to a landmark new report by researchers at California's San Diego State University.

Between 1943 and 1999, the age of first intercourse dropped to 15 from 19 for females, while the percentage of sexually active young women rose to 47 percent from just 13 percent in 1943, according to the study that appears in the most recent issue of the Review of General Psychology.

"Feelings of sexual guilt plummeted, especially among young women. Attitudes toward premarital sex became dramatically more liberal over the same period," the analysis of 530 studies spanning five decades and involving more than a quarter of a million young people said.

Over the same 56-year period, approval of premarital sex increased from 12 percent to 73 percent among young women, while the figure rose from 40 percent to 79 percent among young men, according to the study.......... (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/04/051004054737.fzs4blx5.html)


This has as much to do with the increase in easy access to pornography. My guess is the figures jump rapidly in the latter five years. Viewing of pornography is almost a rite of passage for boys and girls. Porn is very formulaic by almost always starting with oral sex, so this normalizes the activities. TV, movies, and radio contribute to making these activities normal. The biggest thing porn does is disconnect any emotional and spiritual element to sex. The purpose becomes one's own pleasure and if this involves mutliple partners, so be it. Tina Turner sung the anthem, "What's love got to do with it? It's just a second-hand emotion."

[Ryokan]

I pointed out a correlation - not causation. But where there is smoke, fire usually isn't far behind. Teens aren't ready for the social, relationship, financial, responsibility - et al - burdens that come with active sexuality. My guess, sex becomes a means to an end - averting peer pressure, not feeling 'different', trying to gain self-esteem by having a boy/girl friend, rebelling against parents (this one would be lowest on my list), trying to fill other emotional voids in their lives (this one we see a whole lot in adults). Instead, because they can't deal with the associated responsibilities/burdens - or subsequent break ups and pain (which gets a lot worse when you find out that he wasn't the 'one' and you can't get your virginity back - yes, girls still do think like that, far more often than you realize and women do, too) what was supposed to 'help' does irreparable harm instead. A certain number - not all - will become suicidal. A much larger number will become more self-destructive. Instead of learning from the mistake, it's on to the next guy/girl - not at all unlike an addict trying to end the pain by hiding behind the drug - or in this case, sex. Then we agree, right? Teenage girls who already have problems use sex to, ill advisedly, try to solve those problems. ITs smoke, not the fire. (that said, to carry the metaphor further, it is often the smoke, not the fire, that kills you.


Using sex to make you feel better about yourself - or to fit in - is no smarter, and perhaps even dumber, than turning to alcohol or drugs to solve your personal problems. The results are sadly much the same. In teens, the big thing they need is time - time to grow up, to gain the self-confidnece they need the right way. Guidance, role models, and a fair handed discipline are all also part of the growing up healthy process. Unrestrained sexual activity is not - and indeed subverts the very process that teens most need to undergo as they become adults.
Again we agree.

The higher suicide numbers may well be an indication that something has gone terribly wrong - do we ignore it until even more kids are killing themselves? Well, first we need to see if the sex is the cause, or a symptom, and from what you've written, it seems to be a symptom.




Are you under twenty years old? Serious question. If so, that would explain your ignorance here - the original campaign for 'safe sex' had some nasty consequences and had to be revamped. Because of the prevention campaign of the time we had a lot of people who thought that condoms make you safe - I still have kids/patients who think this - and it is simply not so. Even versus HIV, they are only 70% effective (yes, I've seen higher numbers - but none more realistic). You don't see high effectiveness against many if any of the virus' - they're most effective against bacterial diseases (with GC/Chlamydia +95% is realistic) and not all of them (syphilis is purely a crap shoot). We had people still getting infected (and yes, I've had such patients even now) with HIV who were stunned, because they had always used condoms like the ads said - and never realized the condoms didn't make them perfectly safe. The campaign was stopped and revamped as 'safer sex'. No Ry, it isn't mere semantics. I am 22. And clearly, I underestimated the average Americans ability to read or understand statistics.


No, I don't use it to 'back it up' - read more carefully. I do talk mostly about the medical angle - it's my field of expertise. There are better qualified people who can argue the morality - but I'm one of the best qualified to discuss health risk. That there is a major similarity (both Chrisitanity and good prevention efforts expouse abstinence/monogamy in some form) does not mean that my case is faith based. I'm careful when I discuss the health issues to avoid the morality side. One case isn't the same as the other - even if they do come to the same conclusion. My beliefs regarding the morality thereof do not change the facts regarding sexually transmitted disease - no matter how much you wish to invalidate my case by looking at my 'motives' rather than the case presented. (Poisoning the well? Can't remember the name of that particular fallacy.) I have never questioned the legitimacy of your statistics, Teal. But statistics require interpretation. You seem to thing the only rational interpretation of those statistics is that it is unadvisable to engage in any sexual activity before marriage. I think that interpretation is informed by your religion. This makes the sexual revolution far more detrimental than a person who only thinks casual sex is ill advisable.

[Ryokan]

It sounds like ad hominem and to be honest I'd expect better of Ryo.
I didn't attack her. But I attacked her interpretation of the data. If that wasn't clear, I apologize. I like teal, and honestly, usually agree with her on a wide variety of political issues.

[Teallaura]

It sounds like ad hominem and to be honest I'd expect better of Ryo.


No, I don't think it's that - and I really don't expect that from him either. :shrug:

[Teallaura]

Again we agree. Well, first we need to see if the sex is the cause, or a symptom, and from what you've written, it seems to be a symptom.
Or a strong contributing factor. I wasn't arguing that it was causal - but that it is a probable factor in causation. Striking a match won't cause your house to blow up - but it will ignite the gas filling the house, which will blow up the house. Not causal by itself doesn't mean it isn't a contributing factor.


I am 22. And clearly, I underestimated the average Americans ability to read or understand statistics.

That and you have to understand that the reserviour pop isn't likely to be highly functional - if at all. Most people overestimate the ability of others to understand and act upon prevention methods. They don't take into account a host of limiting factors (these are not limited to teens, by the way): drug abuse (IDU and non-IDU, including alcohol); spousal abuse (cohabitants counting as well); self-esteem issues; sexual practices (once established patterns are hard to break - even when they are highly risky); mental retardation (yeah, it happens a lot - and there should be laws to allow HD reporting to authorities and serious criminal penalties); et al.

No method will deal perfectly with these issues - but avoiding the circumstances in the first place - and an abstinence plan can help a great deal here - gives them the best chance of avoiding not only STD's but other health issues as well. I do talk mostly about STD specific - but I'm well aware that it's often a package deal. Think about it, a girl who is given the help and support she needs to say no to sex is going to have a much better chance of staying out of other forms of trouble as well. Current prevention methods stress self protection, including 'condom negotiation skills' - this is utterly irresponsible as it ignores the side issues I just mentioned. We should be supporting abstinence in at least the same manner - which is likely to be even more effective in the lower risk pops, I concede, but lower risk isn't no risk.



I have never questioned the legitimacy of your statistics, Teal.
I didn't think you had.


But statistics require interpretation. You seem to thing the only rational interpretation of those statistics is that it is unadvisable to engage in any sexual activity before marriage. I think that interpretation is informed by your religion. This makes the sexual revolution far more detrimental than a person who only thinks casual sex is ill advisable.

Ry, all you are doing here is making a counter assertion - and your only objection seems to be to my personal worldview. Frankly, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If you think I'm mistaken, show me where - how do the figures not bear out my conclusions? This is silly, Ry - it's the same thing as my saying 'well, you don't analyse the issue correctly because you're an atheist/agnostic/baseball player'. Those things do not affect facts - nor do they invalidate analysis. Show me where I'm wrong - or all you have are unsupported counter assertions, whereas I've supported mine.


As to the fallacy - I do think you are committing one here and that it has a specific term - which I can't remember :argh: - but I'm well aware that you weren't attacking me personally.

[jason]

It sounds like ad hominem and to be honest I'd expect better of Ryo.
Actually it is a case of the Genetic Fallacy.

Criticising the point of view by ignoring the actual reasoning and claiming it is illegitimate because of the reasons the person holds it.

C.S Lewis observed in an Essay called Bulverism, that this is an entirely illegitimate way to argue. Before you can speculate as to why someone has an erroneous opinion, you first must show the opinion to be erroneous.

But it is a common way to argue when someone wants to do evil, but doesn't want to do the work of justifying it. They just want their own way and want the critic to shut up.

Jason

[Teallaura]

Actually it is a case of the Genetic Fallacy.

...

Jason


Thanks! :flowers: I knew it had a name! :smile:

[Conductor42]

They are very much related.

Both are a man having relations with mutliple women.

The "playa" usually leaves them pregnat and without support, and never really loved them at all.

The "polygamist" marries them, raises a family with them, loves them, and supports them.

Yet we jail the polygamist?


So ,becaue we allow one unrelated bad things, we have to allow all unrelated bad things?

[Ryokan]

Or a strong contributing factor. I wasn't arguing that it was causal - but that it is a probable factor in causation. Striking a match won't cause your house to blow up - but it will ignite the gas filling the house, which will blow up the house. Not causal by itself doesn't mean it isn't a contributing factor.



That and you have to understand that the reserviour pop isn't likely to be highly functional - if at all. Most people overestimate the ability of others to understand and act upon prevention methods. They don't take into account a host of limiting factors (these are not limited to teens, by the way): drug abuse (IDU and non-IDU, including alcohol); spousal abuse (cohabitants counting as well); self-esteem issues; sexual practices (once established patterns are hard to break - even when they are highly risky); mental retardation (yeah, it happens a lot - and there should be laws to allow HD reporting to authorities and serious criminal penalties); et al.

No method will deal perfectly with these issues - but avoiding the circumstances in the first place - and an abstinence plan can help a great deal here - gives them the best chance of avoiding not only STD's but other health issues as well. I do talk mostly about STD specific - but I'm well aware that it's often a package deal. Think about it, a girl who is given the help and support she needs to say no to sex is going to have a much better chance of staying out of other forms of trouble as well. Current prevention methods stress self protection, including 'condom negotiation skills' - this is utterly irresponsible as it ignores the side issues I just mentioned. We should be supporting abstinence in at least the same manner - which is likely to be even more effective in the lower risk pops, I concede, but lower risk isn't no risk.



I didn't think you had.



Ry, all you are doing here is making a counter assertion - and your only objection seems to be to my personal worldview. Frankly, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If you think I'm mistaken, show me where - how do the figures not bear out my conclusions? This is silly, Ry - it's the same thing as my saying 'well, you don't analyse the issue correctly because you're an atheist/agnostic/baseball player'. Those things do not affect facts - nor do they invalidate analysis. Show me where I'm wrong - or all you have are unsupported counter assertions, whereas I've supported mine.


As to the fallacy - I do think you are committing one here and that it has a specific term - which I can't remember :argh: - but I'm well aware that you weren't attacking me personally.
I think you are right. What I was trying to say didn't work, and came out dumb. I'll get back to you when I can do it coherant.

[jason]

They are very much related.

Both are a man having relations with mutliple women.

The "playa" usually leaves them pregnat and without support, and never really loved them at all.

The "polygamist" marries them, raises a family with them, loves them, and supports them.

Yet we jail the polygamist?
You know there used to be laws against this sort of "playa" behavior. But we became enlightened with the fraudulent research of Al Kinsey and the laws where changed.

It was once (in some part of the US at least) a serious jailable offence to seduce a woman into bed with the promise of marriage and then fail to make good on the promise. Rape also used to be a capital crime.

We need laws like that again. But of course that would require that we take sexual relations seriously and not pretend to treat them like a game of basketball.

Jason

[Teallaura]

I think you are right. What I was trying to say didn't work, and came out dumb. I'll get back to you when I can do it coherant.


No prob - believe me, I've had those days myself! :smile:

Later!

[Rubia Warren]

You know there used to be laws against this sort of "playa" behavior. But we became enlightened with the fraudulent research of Al Kinsey and the laws where changed.



Jason
I attend an Indiana U. campus (though not the one where Kinsey worked), and you wouldn't believe how proud of this guy my school is. :no:

[jason]

I attend an Indiana U. campus (though not the one where Kinsey worked), and you wouldn't believe how proud of this guy my school is. :no:
Isn't it odd they are proud of a fraud who sexually abused children in his research.

Jason

[Cynic Sage]

Isn't it odd they are proud of a fraud who sexually abused children in his research.

Jason


HEY! :rant:He didn't sexually abuse children.

He simply lent his stopwatch to the guy that did.



:ahem: