Sex on TV = Teen Pregnancy Rates UP!

[Johan]

Yeeha! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/03/teen.pregnancy/index.html)

Researchers at the nonprofit organization found that adolescents with a high level of exposure to television shows with sexual content are twice as likely to get pregnant or impregnate someone as those who saw fewer programs of this kind over a period of three years. It is the first study to demonstrate this association, RAND said.

A central message from the study is that there needs to be more dialogue about sex in the media, particularly among parents and their children, said Anita Chandra, the study's lead author and a behavioral scientist at RAND.

That conclusion makes me LAUGH! The solution is "dialogue?"

Parent: "Honey...your shows are making you a sex machine. You're going to get pregnant. Please realize that you shouldn't. Stop."

Teen: [while changing the channel] "Yeah, mom. Sure!"

Screw (haha...pun intended) that! The solution is shutting off the damn television! Do we really need research to prove a correlation between what we put "in" and what we get "out" in life? Do I need a Ph.D. to know that repeated exposure to particular behavior, through the media and otherwise, often causes it to become normative and acceptable? DUH!

Ridiculous...:rolleyes:

[NoName]

I dono, was there a question in the study about how much the parents talked to their kids about sex?

While I agree less tv (and more moderation on what can be watched at what age) is a good solution, I would bet that there's a high correlation between parents not wanting to talk about sex with their kids and teen pregnancy.

[Johan]

I would bet that there's a high correlation between parents not wanting to talk about sex with their kids and teen pregnancy.

And as soon as you find research to back that up, please include it here or in another thread! :)

I don't see the absence of conversation about a particular behavior as correlating with the presence of that particular behavior. I don't talk about racism with my kids; they're not racists. Using your logic, they should be.

[KingGorilla]

The fact that US kids are lied to and completely ignorant when it comes to sex, pregnancy, contraception, etc has nothing to do with it. Hopefully more girls will have aggressive pussy trolls implanted to scare off semen.

[Johan]

The fact that US kids are lied to and completely ignorant when it comes to sex, pregnancy, contraception, etc has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Have you been in a high school recently? Or a middle school? Kids know more about this stuff than anyone.

[Cit Phil Cit]

Does the article touch, at any point on the internet: the greatest bastion of pornography since a biblical reference to Gomorrah?

I mean.. rule 34. TV is but an ember to the raging Internet porn inferno.

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3472/rule34ao4.jpg

If this article doesn't mention the internet, then it's just some stuff-shirt researcher being paid by a special interest group to promote an agenda.

(having glanced at the article)

What is a negative consequence of sex? Bad feelings, STD, legal accusations, pregnancy? I certainly have never seen any of those consequences on TV before..

[MrBeowulfe]

That survey is crap...All that tv don't make MY girlfriend want it any more! I didn't bother reading the article, but did they say this effect wears off after a certain age? :confused:

[KingGorilla]

Which schools? Knowing about sex from porn and being educated on safe sex practices is different. Look at CDC stats on percentage of kids who thing unprotected oral sex carries no risk of STD for example. Check on how many states teach contraception vs abstinance only.

[astranoir]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Have you been in a high school recently? Or a middle school? Kids know more about this stuff than anyone.

Being in college, and recently in high school, I would have to say that a lot of people may know about sex/be having sex, but that doesn't mean they know about proper contraception.

[Johan]

Does the article touch, at any point on the internet: the greatest bastion of pornography since a biblical reference to Gomorrah?

If this article doesn't mention the internet, then it's just some stuff-shirt researcher being paid by a special interest group to promote an agenda.

You're not exactly disputing the research by saying that exposure to visual media regarding sex on the Internet has the same, or a greater, effect. In fact, you're agreeing with the research in saying so.

that doesn't mean they know about proper contraception.

That's not the point, however. The research indicates that kids wouldn't even need to know about contraception, if they weren't directed into sexual behavior by the media. Several of you are jumping to the "give more information" point on the continuum, when the research suggests just shutting off the tube, or monitoring what is viewed, would make that point unnecessary.

It's a bit like saying "IV drug users need to know not to share needles" when we should just limit exposure to what makes IV drug use seem acceptable in the first place.

[OrigamiPanther]

Researchers at the nonprofit organization found that adolescents with a high level of exposure to television shows with sexual content are twice as likely to get pregnant or impregnate someone as those who saw fewer programs of this kind over a period of three years. It is the first study to demonstrate this association, RAND said.
The issue with studies like these is that they promote false accuracy and methodology, and usually lead to overblown responses.

Frome the article:
The RAND study, published in the November edition of the journal Pediatrics, looked at the results of three surveys of about 2,000 adolescents ages 12 to 17 from 2001 to 2004. It focused on the results from more than 700 participants nationwide who had engaged in sexual intercourse by the third survey. Researchers asked adolescents about a mix of sitcoms, dramas, animated shows and reality shows known to have sexual content. Chandra declined to name any specific programs, but said sexual content is "pretty pervasive."
What other material did the survey cover? Did it look at geographic location, average household income, or frequency of parental discussions about sex? Why were 1300 surveys tossed out?

Next part:
While this is one of many factors that influence teen pregnancy, the study is compelling, given that adolescents spend a significant amount of time watching television, Chandra said. The information will help develop prevention programs for kids that focus on media literacy, she said. Even when accounting for other related factors such as demographics and risk-taking behaviors, the correlation between televised sexual content and teen pregnancy persisted, she said. The study also found that adolescents living in a two-parent household had a lower probability of pregnancy. African-Americans, girls, and adolescents with behavioral problems had a higher likelihood of getting pregnant or impregnating someone, as did youths who intend to have children early, the study showed.
Ok, well they at least mention some of those factors examined. But suspiciously don't give numbers to go along with it. Now granted, this is a report from the media and not from the report itself, so hard to say if the actual report provides numbers and significance.

As bad a rep as statistics gets, it is, more often than not, sadly deserved due to reports like this that don't back things up with the needed quantifiers and context. Personally, linking teen pregnancy to TV seems like a small view of a much larger picture.

[Johan]

Now granted, this is a report from the media and not from the report itself, so hard to say if the actual report provides numbers and significance.

The media would lose readership if it read like a research paper from a peer reviewed journal. Their object is to cut through to the conclusions, not give the margins of error, statistical sampling methodology, and the like.

[DiBiddilyBop]

I don't talk about racism with my kids; they're not racists. Using your logic, they should be.

And using your logic, exposure to an activity, even if it's just through the media, makes someone more likely to participate in it. So by following that logic, we should all be murderers, steal cars, and break into every crate we ever see in case there are power-ups inside. Your logic is equally broken.

People see correlations where it's convenient for them. It's convenient for you to demonize the media for kids getting pregnant, when the fact is NoName's suggestion makes a lot more sense that religious parents are often embarrassed by sex and less likely to educate their children on the subject, forcing the kids to educate themselves.

Edit:

I missed this gem

That's not the point, however. The research indicates that kids wouldn't even need to know about contraception, if they weren't directed into sexual behavior by the media.

So wait... the media is wholly responsible for kids having sex? Nothing to do with hormones whatsoever? Because I'm pretty sure people were having sex before TV was telling us how to do it (no pun intended), so maybe education is a more responsible response than trying to isolate your kids from a perfectly natural part of life.

[OrigamiPanther]

The media would lose readership if it read like a research paper from a peer reviewed journal. Their object is to cut through to the conclusions, not give the margins of error, statistical sampling methodology, and the like.
heh, doesn't need to read like a research paper, but cutting out all of that material, provides false conclusions. Reducing something from "Here's conclusion X with a statistically insignificant population, but indicates a general trend" to "Here's conclusion X" is just bad. But hey, they've been doing it for years so why stop now? :)

[quidmonkey]

Parents fuck at Home - Teen Pregnancy rate up due to high risk exposure at home.

[Johan]

Your logic is equally broken.

Your analogy is broken.

Exposure to behavior as if it is normative, and without real-world consequences, is what causes increases in engagement in such behavior. The behaviors you listed have obvious real-world consequences, but the media does not show the consequences of sexual activity well nor often.

If you grow up in a culture where seafood is normative, you adapt to and adopt it as appropriate behavior at meal time. I don't like seaweed, but it's everywhere in meals in many Asian countries. Similarly, if kids are exposed to sexual behavior through the media, it becomes "normative" to them and they engage in it at a greater rate.

[johnperkins21]

I don't see how they can suggest a causal relationship between the two. Isn't it just as likely that teens who have a lot of sex are attracted to these sorts of shows?

I think what causes kids to have sex is the fact that it's awesome and fun, not that they see people on TV doing it.

[Cit Phil Cit]

That's not the point, however. The research indicates that kids wouldn't even need to know about contraception, if they weren't directed into sexual behavior by the media. Several of you are jumping to the "give more information" point on the continuum, when the research suggests just shutting off the tube, or monitoring what is viewed, would make that point unnecessary.

That sounds like abstinence education combined with parents who monitor what their children do on the internet/tv. I don't agree with the former and effectiveness of the latter is variable.

I had this wonderful job, a preacher called up and was asking about games for his son. No joke: anything with a tit or an ass was utterly and totally unacceptable - as it might give his son the wrong idea; however madly firing rockets, bullets and lightning into swarms of monsters was perfectly okay, and the right thing to do.

There is absolutely no way to prove anything, given that correlation does not make causation. And considering the reporting is CNN.. ya. I'm not going to be too worried.

[Johan]

There is absolutely no way to prove anything, given that correlation does not make causation.

So...millions of researchers and scientists around the world are full of shit. :D I like the sound of that. Fine. I'll use it when it's convenient. :D

[DiBiddilyBop]

Similarly, if kids are exposed to sexual behavior through the media, it becomes "normative" to them and they engage in it at a greater rate.

And if you educate them on the consequences, then they understand them and will be less likely to engage in that activity. Again, it seems like education is the way to go, not trying to isolate them from the activity.

[Johan]

And if you educate them on the consequences, then they understand them and will be less likely to engage in that activity. Again, it seems like education is the way to go, not trying to isolate them from the activity.

Who said "isolate them from the activity?" My point is removing the media that includes sexual content will diminish sexual activity. Period.

Also, as an educator (on a day off), let me say that education is not a panacea. Behavior is EXTREMELY difficult to change. It's one of the least malleable aspects of humanity. Telling someone a condom will prevent a disease doesn't change the fact that many people don't like using them, for many and sundry reasons.

[Cit Phil Cit]

So...millions of researchers and scientists around the world are full of shit. :D I like the sound of that. Fine. I'll use it when it's convenient. :D

Millions of researchers and scientists around the world are looking for funding. You figure it out. A good litmus test: hot button social issues = disregard.

[Scaryfaced]

Who said "isolate them from the activity?" My point is removing the media that includes sexual content will diminish sexual activity. Period.

Also, as an educator (on a day off), let me say that education is not a panacea. Behavior is EXTREMELY difficult to change. It's one of the least malleable aspects of humanity. Telling someone a condom will prevent a disease doesn't change the fact that many people don't like using them, for many and sundry reasons.

I've gotta agree with Johan here...condums suck. You could slam my dick in a car door and I wouldn't feel it with a condum on. It's a sad fact of renolds wrapping your junk. Sex isn't half as fun.
________
ATIVAN REHAB FORUM (http://www.rehab-forum.com/ativan-rehab/)

[johnperkins21]

Who said "isolate them from the activity?" My point is removing the media that includes sexual content will diminish sexual activity. Period.

Also, as an educator (on a day off), let me say that education is not a panacea. Behavior is EXTREMELY difficult to change. It's one of the least malleable aspects of humanity. Telling someone a condom will prevent a disease doesn't change the fact that many people don't like using them, for many and sundry reasons.

No. Removing the media that includes sexual content will not diminish sexual activity. The highest rate of teen pregnancy in the US was in 1957, and the lowest in 1997. Are you telling me there was more sex in the media in 1957 than in 1997?

[Schnoogs]

I watched a ton of TV and never got pregnant. ;)

[Johan]

The highest rate of teen pregnancy in the US was in 1957

Fucking Internet. :D I blame it!

No. Removing the media that includes sexual content will not diminish sexual activity.

According to this study, it will.

[DiBiddilyBop]

According to this study, it will.

I think the point is most of us are calling bullshit on this study, equivalent to studies that show the decline in the number of pirates causes global warming.

[Troggles]

The problem with studies like that is that they only show a high correlation and then make wild claims of which variable is the cause and which is the effect. As a child, I started playing a lot of hockey without ever actually watching a game on TV. Now I watch it all the time. I probably wouldn't have started watching it on TV had I not engaged in the activity first. Whose to say this isn't the case here?

[LongStepMantis]

I was under the impression that teen pregnancy had more to do with young women being encouraged in all forms of media and our society to be whores.

My mistake. ;)

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'd say if kids are getting their understanding of sex from what's shown on TV, rather than from adults of some sort, they're probably going to participate in riskier behavior. Children are also more likely to watch large amounts of television if they are latchkey kids unsupervised for large amounts of time, meaning less parental interaction. Makes sense to me.

[Ox]

I've gotta agree with Johan here...condums suck. You could slam my dick in a car door and I wouldn't feel it with a condum on.
In the interests of science, I suggest we test this hypothesis.

[johnperkins21]

In the interests of science, I suggest we test this hypothesis.

Well he did say "condum," which is made from a steel alloy as opposed to "condoms," which are made from sheepskin and latex. So, that's probably his real issue here. He's wearing the wrong hat on his jimmy.

[Johan]

Here's the fundamental principle as I see it: Teaching someone about something, or exposing them to it, does NOT lessen interest in the behaviors/activities being taught or viewed. In fact, it can often INCREASE interest and engagement in those activities, leading to quite negative consequences.

This is actually a truism in life, especially as regards kids, whose interest is often piqued by information or media about particular activities that seem to be "denied" to them, like drugs or sex.

http://www.juggling.org/pics/Pics/non-seq-970522.gif

[Ox]

Here's the fundamental principle as I see it: Teaching someone about something, or exposing them to it, does NOT lessen interest in the behaviors/activities being taught or viewed.
Is that the point of sex ed? To lessen kids' interest in sex? If so, talk about a Sisyphean task.

[johnperkins21]

Here's the fundamental principle as I see it: Teaching someone about something, or exposing them to it, does NOT lessen interest in the behaviors/activities being taught or viewed. In fact, it can often INCREASE interest and engagement in those activities, leading to quite negative consequences.

Well then, teach and expose kids to safe sex so they'll be interested in that rather than ignoring the topic all together or asking them to abstain from the act. It's obvious that we can't stop kids from humping, but at least we can inform them of the best way to do it safely.

[GunnyMo]

I don't talk about racism with my kids; they're not racists. Using your logic, they should be.

Maybe they're just closet racists 'cause you won't talk about it! :p

I do think a lot of teen pregnancies could be avoided, though, if parents took a more active role in their teenagers life and activities. Any argument that many pregnancies occur with teens out of simple ignorance? Parents don't want schools teaching comprehensive sex ed and those same parents don't want to talk to their kids about sex ed. Hmmm, seems to be a correlation there. ;) I'm not saying conversation is the end all be all of solutions but it most certainly has to be part of the equation. Ignorance begets ignorance.

Trying to blame TV for pregnancy is retarded and just another example of over-granted scientists with too much time on their hands.

[GunnyMo]

Well then, teach and expose kids to safe sex so they'll be interested in that rather than ignoring the topic all together or asking them to abstain from the act. It's obvious that we can't stop kids from humping, but at least we can inform them of the best way to do it safely.

Exactly. It's amazing that people still don't understand that teens are going to have sex as long as there are teens on this planet. Fact of life and fact of nature.

Teaching them the proper thinking about it and education about the consequences always...ALWAYS...works infinitely better than just saying: Don't do it or not even talking about it.

Do people still think that telling a rebellious, "I'm gonna do it my way" teenager not to do something will ever work? Seriously? Educate them and let them make informed choices. Sheesh.

[Johan]

It's obvious that we can't stop kids from humping, but at least we can inform them of the best way to do it safely.

Yes, we CAN stop kids from humping, though certainly not all.

Also, as I've said previously, behavior is notoriously difficult to change. Even telling people they can get AIDS doesn't stop them from practicing unsafe sex. Showing destroyed cars from drunk driving doesn't stop drunk drivers. Pointing out the risk of overdose doesn't stop drug use.

If education could change behavior so readily, AIDS in places like NA would be history. So would drunk driving. And drug use. People don't care; they figure it won't happen to them...they're the exception...it's worth the risk...it feels good. Exposure to sex in the media reinforces this and builds a desire to do it too. It's marketing, except the product is sexual behavior, rather than a really sugary cereal.

[JayVe]

We have no TV in the house. We watch our shows on DVD (or streaming) from NetFlix, and are very selective about what we watch. netFlix has a LOT of documentaries available for instant viewing online, including series like Nova.

Yes, we have screens, projectors, 42" LCD monitor and such. Thing is, we don't subscribe to any cable and don't have any TV tuners set up. It gives us a LOT of control back to our life, in terms of the media we digest, and actually helps us think for ourselves.

My wife and I have sex a LOT though. Maybe cause we aren't distracted by the Tele.

[Ox]

Trying to blame TV for pregnancy is retarded and just another example of over-granted scientists with too much time on their hands.
Why is it so retarded? Part of why teens get pregnant is that they view sex as a permissible leisure activity. Part of what defines permissible leisure activities is culture. Part of culture is TV.

If I had grown up in a society that constantly told me sex before marriage was terribly wrong, I probably would have put off sex for longer. Instead, I grew up in a society that continually emphasized that teenage sex was awesome. That wasn't the only factor in my decision to have sex (the fact that I was a horny teenager was also pretty important), but I think it's a mistake to downplay the importance of social acceptance in these matters. I felt like a loser because I was a virgin, and my peers regarded me as such. That sure as heck was significant to me at the time, for reasons I cannot fully understand now.

[Johan]

We have no TV in the house...It gives us a LOT of control back to our life, in terms of the media we digest, and actually helps us think for ourselves.

I have family that do the same, and are so incredibly happy with their choice. I have a television, but no cable/satellite.

[JayVe]

If I had grown up in a society that constantly told me sex before marriage was terribly wrong, I probably would have put off sex for longer. Instead, I grew up in a society that continually emphasized that teenage sex was awesome. That wasn't the only factor in my decision to have sex (the fact that I was a horny teenager was also pretty important), but I think it's a mistake to downplay the importance of social acceptance in these matters. I felt like a loser because I was a virgin, and my peers regarded me as such. That sure as heck was significant to me at the time, for reasons I cannot fully understand now.

Yup. The Mrs. grew up in France where sex is on TV all the time, but the social culture of the country means Sex is just a thing you do, not a good thing or a bad thing. As a result, she grew up to be the ripe age of 20 before finding me to teach her of the birds and the bees since there was no social pressure for her to be sexually active.

I, on the other hand, grew up here in the USA where sex was THE thing to have, glorified in every 80s teen movie and music video. I felt pressured all through high school to be having sex with someone, and ended up in a number of bad relationships since I thought it was better to have a bad relationship rather than no relationship.

[GunnyMo]

Yes, we CAN stop kids from humping, though certainly not all.

Also, as I've said previously, behavior is notoriously difficult to change. Even telling people they can get AIDS doesn't stop them from practicing unsafe sex. Showing destroyed cars from drunk driving doesn't stop drunk drivers. Pointing out the risk of overdose doesn't stop drug use.

If education could change behavior so readily, AIDS in places like NA would be history. So would drunk driving. And drug use. People don't care; they figure it won't happen to them...they're the exception...it's worth the risk...it feels good. Exposure to sex in the media reinforces this and builds a desire to do it too. It's marketing, except the product is sexual behavior, rather than a really sugary cereal.

I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume conversation or examples on these subjects will stop those subjects. That will never happen as the comic you posted so obviously points out. The idea is to prevent as much of a behavior as possible through communication. There will always be the Darwinians who want to do stupid things but I will not subscribe to the idea that talking about something, or more accurately, educating about something is a bad idea.

It pointedly reminds me of the South Park episode about sticking their heads in the sand to ignore a problem.

[Johan]

It pointedly reminds me of the South Park episode about sticking their heads in the sand to ignore a problem.

You're not getting what I'm saying, nor the point of this study.

I'm saying:

Step One: Limit exposure to sexualized media, to prevent an increase in sexual activity among the young.
Step Two: For those who are already engaging in sexual activity, do step #1 AND communicate consequences of said behavior.

Some in this thread think that, of the above:

Step One above: It's retarded and won't work.
Step Two above: Tell everyone all about it. Education is the panacea to solve society's ills and change behavior.

I'm saying that the naive among us are those who don't see a correlation between exposure to media and behavior, and those who believe that education will change behavior. It won't.

[Scaryfaced]

Well he did say "condum," which is made from a steel alloy as opposed to "condoms," which are made from sheepskin and latex. So, that's probably his real issue here. He's wearing the wrong hat on his jimmy.

Now that you mention it, the guy at my local drug store always snickered as he handed me the box. It struck me as odd, but then buying jimmy hats from an old man was always an uncomfortable experience.

Of course, I doubt latex could hold the breath of my...girth. So in reality, steel is the only logical choice.
________
Mexico hotels (http://mexicohoteles.org)

[Johan]

Now that you mention it, the guy at my local drug store always snickered as he handed me the box.

He might have been snickering because I've heard stories of people pushing PINS through the boxes (puncturing the condoms).

That is, of course, a truly "dick" move (pun intended). I can't believe people would do that, but if you can imagine it and it's evil or stupid, someone does it, somewhere.

[Cit Phil Cit]

When you find the change culture button, let me know. You may not have researched that far into the tree - so it is possible that in the next turn or two, it will be easy to do if you have the money to pay for social upheaval.

Otherwise please serialize your attempts to remove your children from their culture: it would be good TV.

[Spectre-7]

Some food for thought.

Study Challenges Abstinence (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=2699375&page=1)

UW researchers say comprehensive sex ed cuts teen pregnancies (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html)

[GunnyMo]

You're not getting what I'm saying, nor the point of this study.

I'm saying:

Step One: Limit exposure to sexualized media, to prevent an increase in sexual activity among the young.
Step Two: For those who are already engaging in sexual activity, do step #1 AND communicate consequences of said behavior.

Some in this thread think that, of the above:

Step One above: It's retarded and won't work.
Step Two above: Tell everyone all about it. Education is the panacea to solve society's ills and change behavior.

I'm saying that the naive among us are those who don't see a correlation between exposure to media and behavior, and those who believe that education will change behavior. It won't.

I agree with your first step 1. You need to amend Step #2 to communicate BEFORE sexual behavior. Communicating after is equivalent to waiting for someone to shoot themselves in the leg and then tell them, "Oh, by the way, you can hurt yourself with that Uzi."

What I say is retarded is that TV alone does not cause an increase in pregnancies. Exposure to that kind of media and ignorance about sex and parents and societies that refuse to educate is what leads to an increase to pregnancies. There will always be teen pregnancies, always be drunk driving and always be stupid people doing stupid things even with education. But there is no doubt that education, along with demonstration and communication, will help the majority to make the right decisions.

After the fact discussion is pointless.

[Johan]

After the fact discussion is pointless.

This is very true. So, what do I do now? I've had sex. Am I screwed? :D

Otherwise please serialize your attempts to remove your children from their culture: it would be good TV.

Forgive me, but this is pretty ignorant. There is no one monolithic culture. There are layers upon layers of culture, many of which overlap. There's family culture; peer culture; school culture; work culture; ethnic/racial culture; regional culture; national culture. All of them can vary within and across groups.

Also, there is no "remove your children from their culture." It's not THEIR culture. One's kids are exposed to the culture their parents choose. Period. People have many different approaches to raising/rearing their children, and many millions of parents do so without the input of the media...and quite happily. My wife and her siblings grew up without a television for much of their childhood. All of them are highly successful, social, adaptable, intelligent, and wonderful people who contribute to society, rather than leeching from it.

"Their" culture? Forget about it. The culture of my children will be what I allow, and as they grow older, they will have more say in that, until they finally leave my home and engage in whatever aspects of the broader buffet of "cultures" they so choose.

[Ox]

Doesn't this study tend to indicate that it *is* possible to isolate your children from the harmful effects of the surrounding culture? Less TV in the house seems to be linked to less teen pregnancy. I wouldn't have expected such a crude technique to be successful, but at least early indications are positive.

[ClannerDelta]

Not going to jump into the fray against Johan, but I was in highschool not too long ago.

In the highschool timeframe (14-18) you're going to be making a lot of decisions that will greatly impact your life to come. I feel it's a huge disservice to any high schooler to withhold needed information about contraceptives and (safer) sex practices. Yes, teens know about sex. They don't know about safe sex. I can't remember how many times friends justified their contraceptive negligence by saying some weird urban myth.

"No dude, if I pull out I can't get STD's."

"I don't need a condom, she's on the pill."

This next one was a "popular" one for a while until the school had to address why so many young girls had infections.

"Canned whipped cream acts like a spermicide." Yeah, what?

Keeping people in ignorance is not the way to do things. Making sure the above thoughts don't cross their mind is.

Btw, Johan, the study says kids without exposure to this type of media still have instances of teen pregnancy. So you would still need to educate them on the proper use of contraceptives. Though I don't necessarily disagree with the study's outcome. It's common sense that seeing sexual situations arouses people. Aroused people try to get laid. Seems fairly logical to me.

[GunnyMo]

This is very true. So, what do I do now? I've had sex. Am I screwed? :D

If you did it right, you were. Ba dum dum.

[Doctor Setebos]

Step one: turn off the TV and pray the kids don't figure out what sex is.
Step two: Well, crap, they figured out sex. Okay, better tell them the consequences.
Step three: Gah! Too late!

:D

[Cit Phil Cit]

Step one: turn off the TV and pray the kids don't figure out what sex is.
Step two: Well, crap, they figured out sex. Okay, better tell them the consequences.
Step three: Gah! Too late!

:D

You could chaperon them everywhere, all the time: Tell them how horribly evil and ungodly sex is before marriage - and that doing so makes them dirty whorish harlots of satan, cut off certain bits at birth to make it less fun, convince your children to enter into pacts with god to be pure and goodly, pretend that sex does not exist with the same effort and enthusiasm that Santa does exist.

Probably missed a few. But definitely throwing out TV and censoring what they read and if you can control who they interact with as well: it will all make for a very well adjusted adult.

[JayVe]

"Canned whipped cream acts like a spermicide." Yeah, what?
Holy hell, I'm gonna try this out tonight!

[JayVe]

Probably missed a few. But definitely throwing out TV and censoring what they read and if you can control who they interact with as well: it will all make for a very well adjusted adult.

You'd be shocked. Without a TV, I find I have lots of time to talk with my teenage daughter.

[Johan]

You could chaperon them everywhere, all the time: Tell them how horribly evil and ungodly sex is before marriage - and that doing so makes them dirty whorish harlots of satan, cut off certain bits at birth to make it less fun, convince your children to enter into pacts with god to be pure and goodly, pretend that sex does not exist with the same effort and enthusiasm that Santa does exist.

This is the kind of hyperbole we need!

Also, my kids know Santa's a fake. Why the hell would I let him take all the credit for their gifts? They know who bought them their stuff, and they thank them for those gifts.

[ClannerDelta]

This is the kind of hyperbole we need!

Also, my kids know Santa's a fake. Why the hell would I let him take all the credit for their gifts? They know who bought them their stuff, and they thank them for those gifts.

You son of a bitch. Those elves poured blood, sweat, and little minty tears into their backbreaking toil and you have the nerve to steal their credit? :mad:

[Banacek]

Thinking that TV has no influence on teens having sex is naive. Thinking that TV is the only reason that teens will have sex is equally naive.

Best course of action for a parent is to be honest and take an active role in your child's life. Once your teen has found out you lied to them it's going to be almost impossible to guide them further.

[Cit Phil Cit]

This is the kind of hyperbole we need!

Also, my kids know Santa's a fake. Why the hell would I let him take all the credit for their gifts? They know who bought them their stuff, and they thank them for those gifts.

Draw a line, and call it how long you are going to live. Decide on that line, at which point you knew for sure that girls were not icky, and then draw another mark to indicate your comprehension of sex in a practical achievable possibility (and not an achievable theoretical possibility). What is so important about that very small segment on a long line?

[Johan]

Draw a line, and call it how long you are going to live.

Okay.

∞

Done.

Once your teen has found out you lied to them it's going to be almost impossible to guide them further.

This is why I killed Santa. I'm honest with my kids. In fact, my two oldest (seven and six) witnessed the birth of my latest child. They truly know.

[JayVe]

In fact, my two oldest (seven and six) witnessed the birth of my latest child. They truly know.

This is probably the best method of birth control right here. Watching a child pop out of someone you know and love is decidedly un-sexy, un-appealing. It will do wonders to providing a big-picture perspective to the viewer, and is a smack in the face using the steel gauntlet of reality.

[Cit Phil Cit]

Okay.

∞



You are saying that a finite segment in an infinite line is that important to you?

My condolences on what must have been a dramatic and tragic fall from innocence. It must have been epic! Teen pregnancy? The product of a one-night-stand in the 60s? post-war eugenic experiments?

Inquiring minds, and all that. ;)

[Johan]

Yes, children. Daddy stuck his penis inside of mommy. She got pregnant. Now she's screaming in agony and a baby is ripping through her birth canal, pouring blood and bodily fluids everywhere. Yes, that's right...it hurts like hell. Also, the baby screams and cries, needs to be cared for constantly, and craps black tar.

Sex isn't so enticing after that! :)

You are saying that a finite segment in an infinite line is that important to you?

I'm saying one hyperbolic statement deserves another! :)

I think some people (not necessarily yourself) get extremely defensive about research like this for several reasons:

1. they feel it is an attempt somehow to limit their own personal freedom as an adult.
2. they feel guilt at not taking a greater role or interest in what their kids are exposed to, and therefore want to deny the power of the media in their kids' lives.
3. they feel that they are being told what to do.
4. they feel that their own personal situation must be indicative of others, therefore this study couldn't possibly be true since it's not true for them.
5. they feel that a libertine lifestyle is a neutral position to take, or that education can counteract negative influences.

All of those are quite silly, in my opinion.

[Cit Phil Cit]

Yes, children. Daddy stuck his penis inside of mommy. She got pregnant. Now she's screaming in agony and a baby is ripping through her birth canal, pouring blood and bodily fluids everywhere. Yes, that's right...it hurts like hell. Also, the baby screams and cries, needs to be cared for constantly, and craps black tar.

Sex isn't so enticing after that! :)

That sounds like the introduction to "How to Have Spinster Daughters" handbook. I believe the same quote also comes up in the book "Divorce: My Wife the Ice Queen". Add a good dose of religion in there, and you've got a winner.

[TheFlyingOrc]

This is why I killed Santa. I'm honest with my kids. In fact, my two oldest (seven and six) witnessed the birth of my latest child. They truly know.
No child ever has started considering their parents liars because of Santa Claus.

[Johan]

No child ever has started considering their parents liars because of Santa Claus.

Really? You've polled the entire populace?

Wow!

[Wasson_]

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6333/linkpunchjq8.jpg

any chance I get, I will post this. because I have a deep deep love for it.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Really? You've polled the entire populace?

Wow!

Do you know any?

[Johan]

Do you know any?

In fact, I do. We have to be very careful, because the betrayal, anger, and sadness kids feel if my kids "reveal" the truth about Santa is very real for them...and creates conflict for them at their homes.

Kids don't like it when mommy and/or daddy lies. Santa is actually a pretty big one, too.

[TheFlyingOrc]

In fact, I do. We have to be very careful, because the betrayal, anger, and sadness kids feel if my kids "reveal" the truth about Santa is very real for them...and creates conflict for them at their homes.

Kids don't like it when mommy and/or daddy lies. Santa is actually a pretty big one, too.

Do you have an example where the child figured it out on their own and felt betrayed?

My frustration is that the only source of the anger the child experiences is the child whose parents explain to him that Santa is fictional. The obvious solution, from my point of view, is to remove those children, not the other way around.

[Banacek]

This is why I killed Santa. I'm honest with my kids. In fact, my two oldest (seven and six) witnessed the birth of my latest child. They truly know.

I couldn't agree more. I wish my wife felt the same way about Santa. Also, having your children watch the birth? Fantastic. If we have another my oldest is going to be right there with us.

[Johan]

My frustration is that the only source of the anger the child experiences is the child whose parents explain to him that Santa is fictional. The obvious solution, from my point of view, is to remove those children, not the other way around.

Seriously? Remove the truth, and the kid won't be upset? :confused:

That's really, truly confusing to me. I just don't get that. The source of the anger is that the kid was lied to, and found out. The truth will set them free. Now, that being how I feel, we tell our kids to shut up about it around others. It's not my business if other parents lie to their kids. That's up to them.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Seriously? Remove the truth, and the kid won't be upset? :confused:

That's really, truly confusing to me. I just don't get that. The source of the anger is that the kid was lied to, and found out. The truth will set them free. Now, that being how I feel, we tell our kids to shut up about it around others. It's not my business if other parents lie to their kids. That's up to them.
Because Santa Claus is play, dangit. It's FUN. Santa makes the holiday more magical for kids.

At the risk of overstating, your statement above most reminds me of satan informing eve that God doesn't want them to know because he wants to keep the knowledge all to himself.

We're not talking about 12 year olds here - Santa is a tale designed to benefit children, the same way one makes up stories so their friend doesn't know about surprise parties. Loosing children with information that has no benefit other than to ruin the fun for others seems, to me, arrogant.

[Johan]

Edit: I LOST MY POST? WTF? :confused:

See TFO's quotes below. Somehow I edited over it and lost it. Oh well.

[TheFlyingOrc]

No, parents make life magical for kids. Unless somehow the hundreds of millions of kids in the Muslim world, Hindu world, or elsewhere who don't celebrate anything remotely related to Santa are somehow denied a fun childhood. That sounds pretty arrogant to suggest...

Oh, sweet! Because I said that! My post repeatably stated that Santa is the ONLY way kids can enjoy Christmas. I'm glad you didn't miss it!


It's culture. You can enjoy it. That's your right. I don't. I don't see the need to lie to my kids to give a fictional character credit for the gifts they get.

And you're clearly not judging other parents by your statements! Explain to me a scenario where you're not accusing other parents of being liars and shattering their kid's ability to perceive them as honest. Please.


You think you're merely "risking" overstating? :D

Okay then!

It was hyperbolic.



Excuse me, but telling me how to raise my children is arrogant. I've already stated my kids DON'T go around "loosing" the information. The arrogance is in thinking that since YOU find Santa magical, that I MUST also do so.

Wrong. Enjoy Santa all you like. I don't lie to my kids. Period.
I'm questioning your initial logic and your judging the ever loving crap out of everyone else on this.

My brother had Santa spoiled by a brat with a parent who similarly justified their position. He cried, but when asked, specifically told my parents he was not upset at them in any way, shape, or form, as he understood the reason they did so was to make things more fun for him. Children do not equivocate "parent tells fantastic fiction" with "parent tells me mis-truths". Children understand the difference between folklore and manipulation.

I'm honestly trying to imagine a child who says "Well, dad told me that playing with fire was dangerous, but he also told me that whole Santa Claus bit, so into the fire I go!" How about this - I'll accuse you of patronizing your kids and treating them like idiots who can't separate fiction from reality.

[Banacek]

Children understand the difference between folklore and manipulation.

That's a huge assumption on your part. Some might, but there's no way you can say that applies for a majority of children. If that was the case then religion wouldn't have survived this long :)

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's a huge assumption on your part. Some might, but there's no way you can say that applies for a majority of children. If that was the case then religion wouldn't have survived this long :)
To avoid trying to defend all of religion, my point relates to "as they are taught". Even if you consider religion inherently false, it is clearly taught as something of greater import than Santa Claus.

[Johan]

Oh, sweet! Because I said that! My post repeatably stated that Santa is the ONLY way kids can enjoy Christmas. I'm glad you didn't miss it!

Because Santa Claus is play, dangit. It's FUN. Santa makes the holiday more magical for kids.



Santa is an unnecessary accoutrement; a part of a particular cultural view of Christmas. Enjoy it all you like, but don't foist him off on my family.

And you're clearly not judging other parents by your statements! Explain to me a scenario where you're not accusing other parents of being liars and shattering their kid's ability to perceive them as honest. Please.

You are perfectly welcome to lie to your children. Don't be surprised when they are shocked that you did, and don't trust you, however. Good luck with that!


It was hyperbolic.

That's understatement.

I'm questioning your initial logic and your judging the ever loving crap out of everyone else on this.

I'm not judging. I'm pointing out a reality. Santa is a lie. Don't pat yourself on the back thinking it's a cute lie that makes things magical. It's a lie. If you want to engage in it, feel free. You're lying.

My brother had Santa spoiled by a brat with a parent who similarly justified their position.

The truth comes out. Don't put off on me your experiences with others. My kids didn't fuck up your brother's Christmas fairy tale, nor anybody else's for that matter.

He cried, but when asked, specifically told my parents he was not upset at them in any way, shape, or form, as he understood the reason they did so was to make things more fun for him.

He cried because your folks lied. If they hadn't, he wouldn't have cried, would he?

Children do not equivocate "parent tells fantastic fiction" with "parent tells me mis-truths". Children understand the difference between folklore and manipulation.

Children are children, and are manipulated the world over by lies. Some kids in the Middle East are taught that Jews are pigs and should be killed. I suppose they know that it's manipulation, eh? :rolleyes:

I'm honestly trying to imagine a child who says "Well, dad told me that playing with fire was dangerous, but he also told me that whole Santa Claus bit, so into the fire I go!"

Hyperbole.

How about this - I'll accuse you of patronizing your kids and treating them like idiots who can't separate fiction from reality.

How about this - I'll accuse you of being an arrogant liar who treats kids like idiots who cannot have fun unless they invent imaginary objects upon which to cast their affection for gifts.

[ShivaX]

1. they feel it is an attempt somehow to limit their own personal freedom as an adult.

Actually on this one, its typically where these things go. I'll never play a game like Fallout1/2 again, because even "Mature" games still have to be relatively kid friendly. Cause you know the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 old is so huge that we could scar them for life if they saw something a week before they magically became adults.

I see where you're coming from, but the reality is that most of these things have one goal: some form of censorship. The intentions might be good, but ultimately everything comes back around to "protecting the kids" by preventing adults from seeing things. I mean logic would dictate maybe we try tougher regulations regarding adult materials or the like, but parents can't be bothered to actually know anything ever, so that wont happen. The entire front of the box could be a letter R and they'd buy little Timmy the game/movie just so he wouldn't bitch anymore.

Then they'll be on CNN or something complaining about how horrible media is for allowing her kids to see such things.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Santa is an unnecessary accoutrement; a part of a particular cultural view of Christmas. Enjoy it all you like, but don't foist him off on my family.

I'm not saying you SHOULD instantly change your pattern of behavior. I'm calling your logic dumb. There is a criticism of others buried in the behavior you've chosen, and I'm asking you to defend it.


You are perfectly welcome to lie to your children. Don't be surprised when they are shocked that you did, and don't trust you, however. Good luck with that!

Give me a single believable scenario where finding out Santa Claus is a lie causes a child to doubt a parent's later assertion of a non-fictional variety. My fire metaphor was intended to be hyperbole, have you ever SEEN an argument?


I'm not judging. I'm pointing out a reality. Santa is a lie. Don't pat yourself on the back thinking it's a cute lie that makes things magical. It's a lie. If you want to engage in it, feel free. You're lying.

And my justification is that I would also lie to a friend to get him to not suspect a surprise party - in fact, I did so last weekend. This may be where the crux of the issue lies between us, but I'd love to hear you tell me I did something wrong by telling my friend we were going somewhere else, or demonstrate how the two are functionally different.


The truth comes out. Don't put off on me your experiences with others. My kids didn't fuck up your brother's Christmas fairy tale, nor anybody else's for that matter.

He cried because your folks lied. If they hadn't, he wouldn't have cried, would he?

Yes, this experience is why I hate the practice. He also wouldn't have cried had we never attended that church the little brat attended, had we gone on vacation that weekend, or dozens of other reasons. The person directly responsible for his state of mind was the other child.



Children are children, and are manipulated the world over by lies. Some kids in the Middle East are taught that Jews are pigs and should be killed. I suppose they know that it's manipulation, eh? :rolleyes:

I didn't say they identified all manipulation for what it is, I said the could tell manipulative lies from folklore fiction.


How about this - I'll accuse you of being an arrogant liar who treats kids like idiots who cannot have fun unless they invent imaginary objects upon which to cast their affection for gifts.
Never made the claim. I'm only criticizing your thinking, not saying that your kids aren't leading full and healthy lives.

[Johan]

I'm asking you to defend it.

I already have.


Give me a single believable scenario...

No. It is not incumbent upon me to defend the way I live my life when I don't care how you live your own, nor intend to change your stance. YOU want to see ME change. That won't happen. I, on the other hand, DON'T CARE if you change.


I'd love to hear you tell me I did something wrong by telling my friend we were going somewhere else, or demonstrate how the two are functionally different.

You'd love to hear it? Okay...you did something wrong. Don't like that? Okay...you did nothing wrong. Take your pick. I don't care.


The person directly responsible for his state of mind was the other child.

No...that would be your parents. Right or wrong, they chose to lie about Santa. Don't blame the TRUTH for being inconvenient in how, where, when, or why it rears its head. It's still merely the TRUTH.

I didn't say they identified all manipulation for what it is, I said the could tell manipulative lies from folklore fiction.

You don't understand much about developmental biology, psychology, or the brain then...

Never made the claim. I'm only criticizing your thinking, not saying that your kids aren't leading full and healthy lives.

That is ultimately irrelevant. People can live by whatever fables they choose to. That's their choice.

[Widgetcraft]

The research indicates that kids wouldn't even need to know about contraception, if they weren't directed into sexual behavior by the media.

Yeah, kids weren't having sex before TV came along :rolleyes:

[TheKeck]

Yeah, kids weren't having sex before TV came along :rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, do you have any data to back up the fact that sex among un-wed teenagers was anything like it is today before TV came along, or are you just assuming that's true?

[Cit Phil Cit]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any data to back up the fact that sex among un-wed teenagers was anything like it is today before TV came along, or are you just assuming that's true?

Seeing as TV isn't a hundred years old, there isn't that much room for exposure or way to research it, is there? Considering the definition of teenager is linked to a post-war suburbian dreamworld, you are going to run into some kinks.

Like, writing anything you like for special interest hot button social issues, to get the fundage.

[Banacek]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any data to back up the fact that sex among un-wed teenagers was anything like it is today before TV came along, or are you just assuming that's true?

One would assume that teens have been getting pregnant un-wed for quite some time, or else there would have been no need for things like A.

[TheKeck]

Considering the definition of teenager is linked to a post-war suburbian dreamworld
I thought it was defined as people aged 13-19.

[pomeroy]

I'm usually not a "Let's blame Bush" guy...

But seriously. Teen pregnancy rates were at their lowest during the Clinton years. We get away from actual sex ed (abstinence! that's all you can talk about! OMG!) and suddenly the rates go up. Hell, even Palin couldn't keep her kid from getting knocked up.


That is ultimately irrelevant. People can live by whatever fables they choose to. That's their choice.

That's why the Bible sells so many copies.

[Johan]

This questionnaire can serve as a tool for parents to gauge how likely it is that their teen may become, or be, involved in sexual activity. (http://www.healthcalculators.org/calculators/teen_sexual_behavior.asp)

Here's a pdf on teen pregnancy rates. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf)

New York Times. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE0DE143CF937A15751C0A963958260)

The number of sexually active teen-agers is leveling off at about 53 percent, and more of those who do have sex are using condoms, though the rate of condom use is still only 52.8 percent, the Government said Thursday.

After steadily increasing since the 1950's, the number of teen-agers who had sex has steadied in the 1990's, according to the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention here. In 1990 the rate was 54.2 percent and in 1991 it was 54.1 percent.

[Cit Phil Cit]

I thought it was defined as people aged 13-19.

In the literal senes, yes. They all have the word teen. But the teenager is a new word for coming of age, the ye olde transition from boy to man. And all that jazz.

[Johan]

Teen pregnancy rates were at their lowest during the Clinton years

No. Lower in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and on...

[Widgetcraft]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any data to back up the fact that sex among un-wed teenagers was anything like it is today before TV came along, or are you just assuming that's true?

Who says they were unwed? They just got married younger.

BTW: They didn't talk about that kind of shit back then.

No. Lower in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and on...

Ahh, the days of back alley abortions, how we long for thee.

[pomeroy]

No. Lower in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and on...

No, actually they had gone down.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

RECORD LOW LEVELS.

[Johan]

Ahh, the days of back alley abortions, how we long for thee.

You do? Huh!

Does an abortion mean you were never pregnant? It does? Huh!

[Banacek]

No, actually they had gone down.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

RECORD LOW LEVELS.

It seems that the late 50's was a great time to be a teenager :)

[Widgetcraft]

You do? Huh!

Does an abortion mean you were never pregnant? It does? Huh!

People are so forthcoming when surveyed about something taboo, especially when it is connected to something illegal they've done.

[TheFlyingOrc]

No. It is not incumbent upon me to defend the way I live my life when I don't care how you live your own, nor intend to change your stance. YOU want to see ME change. That won't happen. I, on the other hand, DON'T CARE if you change.

No, I'm actually interested in seeing a consistent system of judgement. I don't understand why you have no desire to demonstrate that you've actually logically thought through your position rather than slapping out platitudes, it's foreign to me.


You'd love to hear it? Okay...you did something wrong. Don't like that? Okay...you did nothing wrong. Take your pick. I don't care.

Rationally avoiding my question. How is telling your kids about Santa different from me hiding my friend's upcoming surprise party?


No...that would be your parents. Right or wrong, they chose to lie about Santa. Don't blame the TRUTH for being inconvenient in how, where, when, or why it rears its head. It's still merely the TRUTH.

Truth and facts are not the same thing, don't confuse them. Truth can be assessed through any of the arts, including the art of storytelling or simple imagination. If you want to abuse the word to mean scientific truth, that's fine, but Santa, and other such folklore tales, reveal aspects of humanity.


You don't understand much about developmental biology, psychology, or the brain then...

I must have missed the day they officially announced "Children are unable to separate fiction from outright falsehood!" Isn't that statement the entirety of Jack Thompson's crusade?


That is ultimately irrelevant. People can live by whatever fables they choose to. That's their choice.
How is challenging you to think critically, and you demonstrating that you have, irrelevant? I'm challenging you to question yourself, something you seem to be afraid of doing.

[Spectre-7]

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0501/gr050107f1.gif

Damn that salacious '50s TV, with all its sinful premarital sex and suggestive clothing!

[Johan]

No, actually they had gone down.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

RECORD LOW LEVELS.

FOR THE 90s!

As I linked/quoted above:

After steadily increasing since the 1950's, the number of teen-agers who had sex has steadied in the 1990's,

[JayVe]

Just because teen childbearing goes down does not mean teen sex rates drop. It COULD mean that teens are using better birth control. Contraceptives have changed a lot over the last 60 years.

Just sayin' yo.

[TheFlyingOrc]

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0501/gr050107f1.gif

Damn that salacious '50s TV, with all its sinful premarital sex and suggestive clothing!

Actually, your chart shows that the reason so many women in the 50s were getting pregnant was because they were married.

[Johan]

No, I'm actually interested in seeing a consistent system of judgement. I don't understand why you have no desire to demonstrate that you've actually logically thought through your position rather than slapping out platitudes, it's foreign to me.

Consistent system of judgment? Yes...the TRUTH! Consistently!


How is telling your kids about Santa different from me hiding my friend's upcoming surprise party?

You lied. I didn't. The difference!

Truth and facts are not the same thing, don't confuse them.

They are in this case. The fact is that it's the truth that Santa is not a fact. It's true!

Truth can be assessed through any of the arts, including the art of storytelling or simple imagination. If you want to abuse the word to mean scientific truth, that's fine, but Santa, and other such folklore tales, reveal aspects of humanity.

Yes. Santa reveals that people like to lie to kids.

I must have missed the day they officially announced "Children are unable to separate fiction from outright falsehood!" Isn't that statement the entirety of Jack Thompson's crusade?

Is this the equivalent of winning an argument by crying "FOX NEWS" or what? How in the HELL does JT have anything to do with this?

Nice obfuscation. You lie to your kids, it's on you. Nobody else.

How is challenging you to think critically, and you demonstrating that you have, irrelevant? I'm challenging you to question yourself, something you seem to be afraid of doing.

I'm quaking in my boots with fear. :rolleyes:

I don't lie to my kids. You can lie to whomever you like. Don't be shocked, however, when those lied to are upset when the truth is revealed, as it inevitably is. The truly critical thinking here is in wondering who you think you are to say someone else should live by a fable you apparently enjoy and propagate. I don't. Period.

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0501/gr050107f1.gif

Damn that salacious '50s TV, with all its sinful premarital sex and suggestive clothing!

Thanks for backing up my point! :D

Contraceptives have changed a lot over the last 60 years.

That's true. It used to involve keeping one's dick out of vaginas. Now, it involves all kind of creams, nasty insertionist devices, pills, and rubberized gloves. :D

People are so forthcoming when surveyed about something taboo, especially when it is connected to something illegal they've done.

Kinsey would say they were/are, and he is lauded for his work by the libertines of the extreme left. :D

[Spectre-7]

Actually, your chart shows that the reason so many women in the 50s were getting pregnant was because they were married.

Actually, no it doesn't. You've made assumptions not present in the data.

Comparing the apparent peak in 1958 with the apparent nadir in 2000, we can see the following (rough) statistics:
1958 -- 95 Births per 1,000 -- 15% Unmarried
2000 -- 49 Births per 1,000 -- 79% Unmarried

We can then extrapolate:
14.25 Unmarried Births per 1,000 in 1958
39.71 Unmarried Births per 1,000 in 2000

Ya know what's not indicated in these statistics? The marital status of these teens at time of conception. Making a guess based on my understanding of US culture in 1950s, this probably indicates a large number of marriages that came about because someone got knocked up... but again, that's information not in evidence.

However, we can unequivocally state that teen birth-rates have dropped since the 1950s, and that is (IMO) a good thing.

[pomeroy]

That's true. It used to involve keeping one's dick out of vaginas.

Oh, let's be real here. It's never involved that.

[Johan]

However, we can unequivocally state that teen birth-rates have dropped since the 1950s, and that is (IMO) a good thing.

Not if it comes at the expense of millions of aborted babies, in which case, IMO, it is a bad thing. Factoring in abortions among teens would make the statistics more enlightening, as well as negative in terms of today's pregnancy rates as compared to decades ago.

[pomeroy]

Not if it comes at the expense of millions of aborted babies,

It's so interesting how both sides of an argument will try to frame the argument with their own terminology to win that argument.

Carry on.

[Johan]

Carry on.

Wait...so pregnancy doesn't result in babies? :confused: So where the hell have all my kids come from?

Also, if we factored in aborted BABIES then teen pregnancy rates of today would be astronomical as compared with the past.

It's so interesting how one side of the argument doesn't count aborted babies as even a pregnancy. Since they weren't born, they were never pregnant, either! :rolleyes:

[pomeroy]

Wait...so pregnancy doesn't result in babies? :confused: So where the hell have all my kids come from?

Also, if we factored in aborted BABIES then teen pregnancy rates of today would be astronomical as compared with the past.

It's so interesting how one side of the argument doesn't count aborted babies as even a pregnancy. :rolleyes:

Oh, a pregnancy does result in babies. I, however, am not going to term an aborted fetus as a baby. Sorry.

But sure, a terminated pregnancy should count as a pregnancy in the data.

And right back at ya.:rolleyes:

[Johan]

I, however, am not going to term an aborted fetus as a baby. Sorry.

No baby, no pregnancy, hence no increase in rates...and even a decrease! SUCCESS!

I've heard famine can be cured by killing the hungry, too!

[Spectre-7]

Also, if we factored in aborted BABIES then teen pregnancy rates of today would be astronomical as compared with the past.

And as soon as you find research to back that up, please include it here or in another thread! :)

If you're going to bust other people's chops for making unfounded arguments without statistics to back them up, you should probably abstain from making such arguments yourself.

[Banacek]

Wait...so pregnancy doesn't result in babies? :confused: So where the hell have all my kids come from?

Um, they come from a stork. Duh. I thought that someone with as many kids as you would have known that.

[pomeroy]

No baby, no pregnancy, hence no increase in rates...and even a decrease! SUCCESS!

I've heard famine can be cured by killing the hungry, too!

Johan, I'm not having this argument with you. We believe fundamentally different things about the beginning of human life. I'm not going to have these worthless arguments where you throw out examples of killing people and equate it with abortion. It won't change my mind (and it's a waste of both of our time). Keep up the good fight.

[Johan]

If you're going to bust other people's chops for making unfounded arguments without statistics to back them up, you should probably abstain from making such arguments yourself.

4,000 abortions a day.

Link here. (http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL12.98/Randy.html)

In 1972 CDC showed teens (those age 19 or younger) having 32.6% of all abortions. Thankfully, that percentage of abortions has steadily declined over the years.

By 1992, only 20.1% of the abortions reported to the CDC were performed on women in this age bracket. That number has held steady until 1996, when it rose slightly to 20.3%.

So, every day in America, 800 teenagers abort babies. Every day.

There you go! Facts!

Johan, I'm not having this argument with you.

You're not? :confused: Who am I arguing with? ;)

[Ox]

Just because teen childbearing goes down does not mean teen sex rates drop. It COULD mean that teens are using better birth control. Contraceptives have changed a lot over the last 60 years.
This is actually one of the reasons people argue teen birthrates increased in the past decade. In the 1990s, teenagers were terrified of HIV/AIDS; consequently, they used condoms. Since the advent of good AIDS treatments and a decline in heterosexual HIV diagnoses, HIV has been less of a concern to teenagers (not saying it should be less of a concern, but they seem less frightened). Consequently, condom use declined again.

[Spectre-7]

What would you do for a Klondike bar?

[Lithium Flower]

The fuss about teen pregnancy surprises me, we know the natural consequence and even purpose of sex is utlimately baby making. Its so much fun because of that precisely.

sex = babies.

If society at large finds teenagers having free, open sex with multiple partners as the accepted norm, why is pregnancy treated as such an evil?

Sure, it screws up young mothers and can come at a bad time but if you don't want to get fat, don't stuff yourself at McDonald's. It's that simple.

Yes, there exist ways to delay what is inevitable but no contraceptive is without risk. Condoms slip, tear and are inconvenient to put on in the heat of the moment, plus they lessen pleasure. Pills can carry risk of permanent infertility, other methods carry risk of infection. There is no foolproof, fail-safe, risk free, totally convenient and absolutely certain form of birth control.

Furthermore, most contraceptive products are marketed as 99% effective. While that figure lulls us into a false sense of security; the 'it will never happen to me' effect, the fact is that statistically, it means that 1 out of every 100 attempts will result in contraceptive failure. That means that of the thousands of teenagers having safe-sex at this very minute, 1 out of every 100 of them will experience contraceptive failure and many will fall pregnant, combine this with those who choose not to use contraceptives for a variety of reasons and pregnancy is an inevitable 'occupational hazard'.

Its an inescapable fact of people having sex. If pregnancy is so undesirable, don't have sex, period. If you choose to have sex, accept that the possibility of pregnancy is very real and imminent.

If teen pregnancy is such an issue, it has to be addressed at the root - the issue of teenagers having sex. And that is ultimately a question which a society that embraces a free sexual culture has to ask. A nuclear family alone can never instil a complete set of values in a child. Television, friends, neighbours, relatives, school - all of these play a significant part in defining what is the cultural norm. If parents contrast with the bigger society too much, teenagers simply begin to ignore and/or resent them. At the end of the day, humans live in herds and an individual will follow the herd not the 'strayed' parent. If behaviour is to change, the whole norm has to change.

I just don't think its possible to eliminate teenage pregnancy while embracing free sex at the same time.

[Johan]

What would you do for a Klondike bar?

I would have promiscuous, unprotected...

no, I wouldn't. ;)

If behaviour is to change, the whole norm has to change.

And THAT is why people are so resistant to research like this. Ultimately, what it reveals is that the broader culture's permissive attitudes toward sex actually have an impact on increasing sexual activity among teens. People don't like hearing that. It's upsetting for someone to tell you that what you're doing has negative effects; that it might actually be...GASP...wrong.

Unless, of course, teens having sex is a positive effect...:confused:

[Ox]

If society at large finds teenagers having free, open sex with multiple partners as the accepted norm, why is pregnancy treated as such an evil?
Because people don't like consequences?

[Widgetcraft]

Unless, of course, teens having sex is a positive effect...:confused:

It's neither positive nor negative; it's the reality of the situation. Teenagers will, and always have, had sex. Do you think Amish kids don't have sex? Of course they do, they just don't talk about it openly. Your options are to bury your head in the sand, or accept that teenagers are people, and that a person's natural state is to be in pursuit of sex. Proper sexual education and the embrace of contraceptives is the only way to reduce teen pregnancy, short of confining them to a cell through-out their adolescence.

[Blue]

If I have a daughter she's wearing nothing but sweats until she's 30. Nasty old gray sweats.

[Johan]

Proper sexual education and the embrace of contraceptives is the only way to reduce teen pregnancy

And that just is not true, as this research proves.

[ShivaX]

And that just is not true, as this research proves.

I'll admit I wasn't paying super close attention to everything here, but I do believe you just pulled that out of your ass. The study was about television. Somehow you're extrapolating that into contraception?

Maybe I missed something along the way.

Edit: After looking it over I'm going with pulling it out of your ass.

I wont disagree that the only 100% effective contraception is abstinence. I have no problem with abstinence being taught, but it needs to be taught alongside contraception and science. Otherwise we have kids walking around thinking you can't get STDs from oral sex and that if the girl is on top they can't get pregnant (and other classics).

To use a flimsy analogy, its like speeding. You can tell your teenage kid not to do it, but odds are he might at some point, so you want him wearing his seatbelt if he does (and I do realize that most people wear seatbelts because of what "the other guy" is doing, but its still a fair comparison).

[Ondo]

I'll admit I wasn't paying super close attention to everything here, but I do believe you just pulled that out of your ass. The study was about television. Somehow you're extrapolating that into contraception?
The study was about how watching TV affects teen pregnancy rates. If Heretic Machine's assertion was correct, it would have found no correlation. It did find a correlation, so he is clearly wrong.

How hard is this to understand?

[Widgetcraft]

The study was about how watching TV affects teen pregnancy rates. If Heretic Machine's assertion was correct, it would have found no correlation. It did find a correlation, so he is clearly wrong.

How hard is this to understand?

Correlation =/= Causation

[Ondo]

Correlation =/= Causation
You have an alternate explanation for the correlation? Because I'm pretty sure it's not because proper sexual education and the embrace of contraceptives also reduces the amount of TV watched.

[ShivaX]

You have an alternate explanation for the correlation? Because I'm pretty sure it's not because proper sexual education and the embrace of contraceptives also reduces the amount of TV watched.

I just lost 10 IQ points reading that.

[Widgetcraft]

You have an alternate explanation for the correlation? Because I'm pretty sure it's not because proper sexual education and the embrace of contraceptives also reduces the amount of TV watched.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the television programming itself, but rather the type of family that doesn't have a TV? That comes with certain implications in and of itself, without any statement on the programming on television today.

[Spectre-7]

Maybe it has nothing to do with the television programming itself, but rather the type of family that doesn't have a TV? That comes with certain implications in and of itself, without any statement on the programming on television today.

...or perhaps there's a lack of parental guidance in houses where children watch large amounts of TV (see: latchkey children), or maybe there's a raised incidence of television watching among kids who aren't involved in extra-curricular activities that might otherwise prevent them from copulating like wild rabbits, or any number of other factors might be involved.

Given a little time, I can find you studies that show a strong positive correlation between violent crime and the number churches in a locality, but there isn't a causative relationship there.

In any event, it's eight steps past retarded to comment on a study as reported by any major news outlet. Science reporting is abysmal, and the chances that the findings of any study, no matter what it's subject matter, are being misrepresented are shockingly high.

Cheers!

[Ondo]

Maybe it has nothing to do with the television programming itself, but rather the type of family that doesn't have a TV? That comes with certain implications in and of itself, without any statement on the programming on television today.
Yeah, that certainly could be the case.

Regardless, I think it's pretty easy to see where Johan got the idea the study disagreed with you, and unlike ShivaX, I don't think it was his ass. That's the point I originally responded to make, and I think it's valid regardless of whether you or the study's reported conclusions are right.

[ShivaX]

Given a little time, I can find you studies that show a strong positive correlation between violent crime and the number churches in a locality, but there isn't a causative relationship there.

There was a study that showed that almost every car involved in an accident had a stereo in it. Obviously stereos cause car crashes. Or, as Rush Limbaugh said about it, I bet a lot of those cars had tires!

[Spectre-7]

there was a study that showed that almost every car involved in an accident had a stereo in it. Obviously stereos cause car crashes. Or, as rush limbaugh said about it, i bet a lot of those cars had tires!

Damn you, Tires! Damn you straight to HEEEEEELL!

[ShivaX]

Yeah, that certainly could be the case.

Regardless, I think it's pretty easy to see where Johan got the idea the study disagreed with you, and unlike ShivaX, I don't think it was his ass. That's the point I originally responded to make, and I think it's valid regardless of whether you or the study's reported conclusions are right.

Fair enough, but he specifically said "as this research proves" which is why I was giving him shit about it. The research didn't prove it in any way, shape or form - thus he pulled it out of his ass.

I wont disagree with the point he was making - ie that contraception and sex ed aren't the only way. I think that combined with encouraging abstinence and being involved in your kid's life all factor in. I just disagree with him pulling a correlation out of his ass connecting the research with the point he was trying to make, since they had nothing to do with each other.

[JayVe]

Teenagers will, and always have, had sex. Do you think Amish kids don't have sex? Of course they do, they just don't talk about it openly.

I am willing to bet that a dramatic and drastic number of Amish teens do not have sex until they are married.

[GunnyMo]

I am willing to bet that a dramatic and drastic number of Amish teens do not have sex until they are married.

It's amazing what religious degradation, humiliation, domination and fear inside a closed society can do! :p

[rein]

For crying out loud. When are parents going to man up? My daughter is 19 and a virgin. Know why? It's not because we didn't let her watch television, it's because we talked to her openly and honestly when the subject came up. From the time she could ask where babies came from we told her the truth and gave her the respect she deserved.

Television isn't the problem, it's letting the television do the parenting that is the problem. I am sure some parents would rather have their daughters home on Friday nights watching tv instead of hanging out with friends unsupervised. When I was a teen, not once did television get me laid but lack of parental influence worked like a charm.

[Banacek]

Actually, your chart shows that the reason so many women in the 50s were getting pregnant was because they were married.

Shotgun wedding just gave me a call. Said that it read your post and it found it hilarious.

[Ondo]

Correlation =/= Causation
To expound on my earlier, poorly-thought out post: I don't think this is a useful attack on a study, because it's true of all of them. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, so technically no study has ever proved causation - but some, like the link between smoking and lung cancer, are pretty much proven because correlation does imply a reason for the correlation, and there's no other reasonable interpretation in that case.

So if you want to argue a given reason for the correlation is wrong, point out other possible reasons that fit with the data, instead of just arguing that studies can never reveal reasons for the correlations.

Obviously people have done that since then, but I wanted to clarify my position.

[KingGorilla]

Generally, the longer the chain of events, the less likely a given event caused another. To get from watching TV to pregnancy is a long road. Not only that, but logic breaks down as more plausibly possible causes enter into the mix.

I will, however, refer to this thread the next time a videogames cause violence topic is brought up again.

[Ondo]

Generally, the longer the chain of events, the less likely a given event caused another. To get from watching TV to pregnancy is a long road. Not only that, but logic breaks down as more plausibly possible causes enter into the mix.
Well, I think most of the argument in this thread is because people disagree about which reasons are plausible. It wasn't just watching TV, it was watching shows with sexual content - to go from that to being more likely to have sex yourself, and thus more likely to get pregnant, seems like a fairly short road to me. Obviously others disagree.

[KingGorilla]

Teens were still boning in the 50's. See if you can have a sit down and ernistly talk to your parents about the pressure to have sex in the 60's, 70's, 80's(for the younger folks).

And to deny that the more likely, over-riding, factor in teenage pregnancy is the non and misinformation that kids get as sex ed, is just negligent. One need only look at the CDCs facts on STDs to see how many teenagers are having unprotected sex. I believe greater than 30 percent of kids in college have an STD, last I saw.

[Johan]

I'll admit I wasn't paying super close attention to everything here, but I do believe you just pulled that out of your ass.

He said:

Proper sexual education and the embrace of contraceptives is the only way to reduce teen pregnancy

The only way? Baloney. The research indicates that exposure to sexual content in the media correlates to an increase in sexual activity. Want to lower teen pregnancy? MONITOR the MEDIA that your pre-teen/teen children watch! THAT is a CONTRACEPTIVE device.

It's amazing what religious degradation, humiliation, domination and fear inside a closed society can do! :p

You seem to know nothing of rumspringa? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa) The vast majority of the Amish decide to return to their culture after diving head-first into the culture around them. They're not "degraded, humiliated, dominated, fearful" inside their society. And it's closed because society judges them. I don't blame them a bit. Or, do you actually KNOW any Amish? I do. In fact, I have family that live in Lancaster, PA and are neighbors with Amish families. They're great people, but they're private. It's their right.

I believe greater than 30 percent of kids in college have an STD, last I saw.

And, in the case of HPV which causes cervical cancer, condoms don't work well. Information. (http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=3889&channel_id=2037&relation_id=21345)

Remember that condoms don't provide complete protection because they don't cover all exposed skin that could transmit HPV.

Wear a garbage bag. The lawn-leaf bag variety. You'll be safe.

More here. (http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/human-papillomavirus.cfm)

How do I protect myself from HPV?

Using condoms may reduce the risk of getting genital warts and cervical cancer. But condoms don’t always protect you from HPV. The best way to protect yourself from HPV are to:

* not have sex
* be faithful, meaning you and your partner only have sex with each other and no one else

[Atepsflame]

I'm gonna go ahead and advocate for teen pregnancy. Some has to breed the future service sector workers of America.

[KingGorilla]

I'm gonna go ahead and advocate for teen pregnancy. Some has to breed the future service sector workers of America.

I prefer to think of them as the first wave during the Zombocalypse, while the rest of us get to the shipyards.

[Felonous]

Is it bad that I laughed hard that this porn spam bot replied to Johan's idiotic teen pregnancy tirade? The irony is killing my sides...

For those just now coming into the thread there was a post that used to be above mine but has since been removed, because it was a new account spamming teen porn sites.

We can let this post die since it was necro'd by the porn spammer anyway (see that the last post date before mine was back on 11-03-08).

[squirrelTactics]

Telling your children Santa isn't real is kind of fucked up. Encouraging belief in Santa isn't lying, it is encouraging imagination.

Also, making your children witness child birth is FUCKED UP.

[roboninja]

Is it bad that I laughed hard that this porn spam bot replied to Johan's idiotic teen pregnancy tirade? The irony is killing my sides...

Ahh, that's why this thread got necro'ed. I was wondering.

[Johan]

Telling your children Santa isn't real is kind of fucked up. Encouraging belief in Santa isn't lying, it is encouraging imagination.

Also, making your children witness child birth is FUCKED UP.

Blow it out your porthole. Raise your kids how you see fit, and bugger off from my family.

Ho, ho, fucking ho ho! :D

[Spectre-7]

Blow it out your porthole. Raise your kids how you see fit, and bugger off from my family.

Ho, ho, fucking ho ho! :D

I don't often find myself on the same side of an argument as you Johan, but now is one of those times. I don't recall ever having believed in Santa, and I witnessed a birth live when I was 11, and I'm pretty sure I'm better off for both. I've certainly never (ever) been accused of lacking imagination.

Happy holidays, everyone!

If we could all keep our judgments out of each other's families, that'd be just super.

[JayVe]

When my daughter asks me a question, I give her an option.

Do you want the truth, or the fancy truth?

The truth is just that. The facts about why the sky is blue, or where babies come from.

The fancy truth, is some wild story I make up, usually right there on the spot about how armies of midgets are employed by the government to keep the big ceiling painted blue. They come out of little doors in the ceiling at night (stars) and, using an elaborate series of ropes and pulleys, scour the surface of the sky making sure it is clean. This is also why stars sparkle, since there are midgets going in and out of them all over the night sky.

[Doctor Setebos]

Blow it out your porthole. Raise your kids how you see fit, and bugger off from my family.

Ho, ho, fucking ho ho! :DWhile I disagree with Johan's theories on Santa Claus, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

In the Spirit of the Season™ let's try to give each other the greatest gift of all: a break. ;)

[pomeroy]

In the Spirit of the Season™ let's try to give each other the greatest gift of all:

Free booze?

[Johan]

In the Spirit of the Season™ let's try to give each other the greatest gift of all:

An STD?

A bun in the oven?

[Scaryfaced]

Here's a question. Has anyone dug up the statistics of teen pregnancy rates in European countries as compaired to the United States? I'd be extremely interested to see how they match up, seeing as European TV is infinitly more sexual and graphic in content, yet the culture has a different attitude toward sex in general.

[Hotcod]

It shouldn't amaze me that johan takes a logical point and jumps off from there with no suppourt to cover the rest of his views but it dose.

My mother acted at a high government level dealing with teenage pregnancy rates in the north west of England. She worked with people covering the rest of the UK and did joint work with people in the EU. So excuse me if i presume she is far far more knowledge on this subject than any one in this thread and likely any one involved in that study.

Firstly the growing overt sexuality is a problem if not really for the reasons johan would like to think. It's also imposable to know if the sexuality of TV is the product of the change in society or an part of the driving force behind it. The link can go both ways... teens who are more sexuality active are more likely to consume and more importunately by sold thing by the over sexuality on tv. As people have pointed out the 50s was a hotbed even with out sexual tv... the level sexual activity of the 50s and 60s was driven by social change.

The point? YES THERE IS LIKELY A COLLATION! shocking to say i know but i NEED people to understand that a collation dose not mean cause and the study simply can not tell which way the collation goes. Given how the 50s and 60s played out is it so hard to believe that the sexual habits of the teenages could be reason for the sexuality in TV rather than the other way around? we know social change can create rising in sex in teenages with out sex on tv so why are people jumping to the idea that TV is so powerful that it causes social change rather than be effected by it.

Anyway i'm drifting off point. My mother. Smart lady. PhD and things. Knows what she's talking about... She thinks that you can not isolate teenagers from sex and if you try those that do end up having sex are at risk. She has looked at the programs in the states along with lack of education in the UK and tends to say that pregnancy and STI rates are higher in places that do not teach sex education either by teaching abstinence only or simple neglect.

That is not to say rates of teenage sex are always lower... i don't know the details but her view was that education CAN lead to more teenagers having sex but almost always lowers pregnancy and STI rates.

So it's a simple choice... do you educate your child and risk increasing the likely hood they have sex but degrees the chance of the negative out comes such as a pregnancy and sti or do you try an isolate them completely from sex and have them maybe just maybe be less likely to have sex until there older but if they DO have sex they are MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to end up having a problem beacuse of it.

The only reason to do the 2nd is beacuse of faith and that is the choice of the parent while the first is the only secular choice that can be made. Simple fact of the matter is the from an objective view point it is better to have more kids having sex but with a higher % being safe then having a few less kids having sex and a much higher % being unsafe.

In other words it should be taught in all schools but alow opt outs... i may think that any parent that dose that is a real real idiot and is likely doing the worse thing for there kid they still have a right to raise them...

In terms of this thread the simple fact of the matter is given that we can't tell which way the link goes we can't know if by lowering sex on TV we are helping deal with a problem or simply suppressing a symptom. Either way it's likely not to matter if you are open and educate you children... it's only a problem for those people who want to shut sex out of a teenagers life altogether.

So not a problem for most of us... problem for johan... but is any one surprised? i just honestly hope that you don't have your kid ruin there life by popping out a young one when you anit looking.

[Johan]

It shouldn't amaze me that johan takes a logical point and jumps off from there with no suppourt to cover the rest of his views but it dose....So not a problem for most of us... problem for johan... but is any one surprised? i just honestly hope that you don't have your kid ruin there life by popping out a young one when you anit looking.

Trolling across threads now?

:shakes head:

[DoctorFinger]

Ok, can we please put the kibosh on the personal attacks, particularly the cross thread ones? Please discuss respectfully.

[Hotcod]

Well to be fair i would have said something along those lines if the other thread had never existed but ya it was phrased in a way to personally attack Jonah when there was no real need to do so. I let my personal dislike of him get in the way of the issue at hand. I mean i do think Jonah in this thread has been using this study as a way to support his own views when there is clearly no logical base for doing so... his arguments are as flawed here and they where in the other thread... but yes i should have engaged him purely on that matter.

[TrackZero]

And as soon as you find research to back that up, please include it here or in another thread! :)

I don't see the absence of conversation about a particular behavior as correlating with the presence of that particular behavior. I don't talk about racism with my kids; they're not racists. Using your logic, they should be.

Somehow teens wanting to get laid, you know, a natural phenomenon does in no way equate to teens wanting to be racist. I know, crazy eh?

[Johan]

Somehow teens wanting to get laid, you know, a natural phenomenon does in no way equate to teens wanting to be racist. I know, crazy eh?

That is crazy! Absolutely nuts! :)

Ultimately, kids will make their own decisions, independent of their parents, and will be accountable for them to an increasing degree as they age. By the time you are a teenager, you are moderately able to tell the difference between right and wrong, and even judge some (not all) risks to some degree (I known...brain development in teens is incomplete...I know). You may not be an intellectual ethicist, but you know some basics. The overwhelming majority of teens know from popular culture that sex can indeed produce a baby.

Avoid that until you're ready! :D

[JayVe]

Ok, can we please put the kibosh on the personal attacks, particularly the cross thread ones? Please discuss respectfully.

Thank you. I can make my own mind up about someone by reading their posts. I don't need a troll telling me what to think of other people.