Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Give me detumescence

By limbic in Culture
Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:37:56 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

"Love love love,
Love's the very essence
of everything I think,
Everything I do.
Give me give me give me
Give me detumescence.
This-means-you."

Ape Songstress in Aldous Huxley's "Ape and Essence"

If having group and kinky sex were a disease - America's teens would be experiencing a pandemic.

The scale of sexual decadence and promiscuity amongst American schoolchildren is shocking their teachers and parents. Reports of teenage orgies, spiralling STD rates and runaway pregnancy figures are causing near panic in the US heartland.


Here is a case highlighted today by Fark:

"Concerned Van Buren discusses sex issues Alleged promiscuity by children is topic"

VAN BUREN, Ohio - The Van Buren Local Schools are undergoing a sexual awakening of sorts about the apparent extracurricular activities of some of its middle schoolers. According to the school officials and parents, the kids have been having sex, sometimes in groups, outside of school hours. Denise Etzler, a district parent, said her middle school son confirmed to her that the rumors are true. "It's going on at homes when parents aren't there," she said. "My boy can give me names."
I am sure he can Mrs Etzler, as your little angel may well have been first in the line to take his turn on some hapless child playing at being tough girl.

"This is a national trend" offered the school principal, by way of explanation.

So teenagers are having sex, big deal. Next! Hold it a second. This sounds like nothing new. But I think it is.

What makes this story interesting is that this is not merely Idaho prudery or matronly shock at adolescent frolics. American teenagers really do appear to be in a rutting like Bonobo monkeys.

These youngsters are not just promiscuous, they are downright filthy. They are carrying out sex acts on each other that if you asked a porn star to act them, you would have to pay them double.

Tom Wolfe discusses the problem in his brilliant essay "Hooking Up: What Life Was Like at the Turn of the Second Millennium".

In the essay Wolfe describes how middle class American kids are world weary, sexually voracious and very precocious. He writes about the problem in American schools of pubescent girls fellating their boyfriends in the corridors of the school - apparently it is de rigeur if you are to "keep your man".

The following online extract does not include the section I am referring to, but it does address the issue:
Meanwhile, sexual stimuli bombarded the young so incessantly and intensely they were inflamed with a randy itch long before reaching puberty. At puberty the dams, if any were left, burst. In the nineteenth century, entire shelves used to be filled with novels whose stories turned on the need for women, such as Anna Karenina or Madame Bovary, to remain chaste or to maintain a facade of chastity. In the year 2000, a Tolstoy or a Flaubert wouldn't have stood a chance in the United States. From age thirteen, American girls were under pressure to maintain a facade of sexual experience and sophistication. Among girls, "virgin" was a term of contempt. The old term "dating" -- referring to a practice in which a boy asked a girl out for the evening and took her to the movies or dinner -- was now deader than "proletariat" or "pornography" or "perversion." In junior high school, high school, and college, girls headed out in packs in the evening, and boys headed out in packs, hoping to meet each other fortuitously. If they met and some girl liked the looks of some boy, she would give him the nod, or he would give her the nod, and the two of them would retire to a halfway-private room and "hook up." [source]
Wolfe apparently got his information on teenage sexual mores from (amongst other things), a survey of teenage girl's filofax diaries. I wonder if he was aware of the most genuinely shocking indicator of this phenomenon, the infamous Lost Children of Rockdale County? Here I quote from an earlier post on my weblog:
In 1996 there was a massive Syphilis outbreak amongst young teenagers in the Michigan county of Rockdale - a wealthy middle class area. It transpired that a group our young girls - aged between 13 and 16 - were regularly meeting up with groups of local boys for orgies. The scale of the activities, and the sheer...umm...pornographic explicitness of the encounters is remarkable. The interview with the Claire Stark, one of the academics who investigated the outbreak, is particularly fascinating. She gives some indication of the levels that these children sank to:
Interviewer: "What is a sandwich? We heard that term.

Clare Stark: ... In some ways the sandwich was the point of escalation. It was the point when a number of them became really, really scared. What I understand sandwich to be is one girl having oral sex with one of the men. Having vaginal sex with another man and having anal sex with a third man. So she literally is smushed in between three guys and the only way that I've heard it described by some of the teens is a sandwich."
This is straight out of porn movies. Triple penetration. Double spit roast. Whatever you want to call it, it is extreme.

So what is making these kids do this sort of thing?

Firstly we must apply Occam's Razor. The dog's bollocks maxim may apply: Why does a dog lick its testicles? Because (1) it can and (2) it feels nice.

We know teenagers are horny - boys and girls alike - maybe they are just maturing earlier? Children are reaching puberty earlier and this may account for why so many are having sex so young. But this appears to be more than just sex. Orgies and engaging in humiliating sexual practices like the "sandwich" border on self-abuse. This behaviour is more like some sort of sexually deviant Lord of the Flies than Porkies: the early years.

Perhaps the 'death of childhood' is to blame. In his book "After the Death of Childhood" David Buckingham argues that children can no longer be "excluded or protected from the adult world of violence, commercialism and politics". Perhaps this is true of sex too. This argument is a variation of Dr. David Elkind's arguments propounded in his famous book "The Hurried Child" (1981). Elkind blamed the media:

"The media both reflect and produce this `hurrying'... By simplifying their access to information, it opens them to experiences that were once reserved for adults: `scenes of violence or of sexual intimacy that a young child could not conjure up from verbal description are presented directly and graphically upon television screen.'" [source]
Elkind predicted this "hurrying" would lead to growing violent crime, early sexual activity and disintegration of family life. maybe he was right?

As Tom Wolfe says above, "sexual stimuli bombard[...] the young so incessantly and intensely they [are] inflamed with a randy itch long before reaching puberty". Perhaps we are titillating the poor little devils into frenzied efforts to achieve detumescence?

Wolfe also mentions the peer pressure factor, which I think is important. There is a culture (or meme) amongst teenage girls where sexual experience is linked to status. It brings to mind the braggartry of Mena Suvari's character in "American Beauty". Here was a schoolgirl going on about who she had fucked and sucked, but was actually a virgin. Getting laid was both admirable and important enough to lie about.

I suspect that this sexual epidemic(if it really exists) is mainly the result of changes in the attitudes of teenage girls.

Whereas a generation ago sex was bestowed by women on serious suitors, virginity was prized and sexual purity lauded, today an inversion has taken place in the attitudes of young women. Girls appear to have adopted attitudes normally considered masculine: Sexual predation is the norm, promiscuity applauded, bragging about sexual experiences is encouraged and public esteem is linked to sexual prowess.

The boys, naturally enough, are taking advantage of it.

The result is what we are witnessing today: Masculine sexuality feeding off pseudo-masculine sexuality leading to sexual feeding frenzy and 'sandwiches' being made all over suburban America. In some respects it is similar to the (male) gay scene and its infamous sexual voracity.

Of course this is simply a guess. I am not even sure if my basic premise is true or not (i.e. That US teenagers are shagging each other like porn pro's every time their parent turn their backs).

But if it is true, then I wonder if this behaviour is the tipping point of a malaise that may have its roots in the sexual revolution itself?

Is it girls inhumanity to girls manifesting as some sort of sexual "arms race" where status has been linked to sexual activity?

Maybe it is simply a case of girls being boys?

I don't known. I am too busy begging the Raelians to clone me a teenage copy of myself that I can have my brain moved to...

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Fark
o "Concerned Van Buren discusses sex issues
o Hooking Up
o source
o Lost Children of Rockdale County
o an earlier post on my weblog
o interview with the Claire Stark
o Occam's Razor
o reaching puberty earlier
o After the Death of Childhood
o source [2]
o "American Beauty"
o Also by limbic


Display: Sort:
Give me detumescence | 469 comments (408 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden)
The most religious girl at my high school... (4.50 / 6) (#1)
by DominantParadigm on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:32:20 PM EST

Once had a party where everyone swam naked, and in an ode to absurd sophomoric perversion of sexuality, some people pissed on each other.

At another party, the school slut got fucked in public in the ass while she sucked another guy's cock.

It's really not a big deal.

I don't see why this makes an interesting article. I doubt many here are old enough not to already know about this kind of thing.



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


An Old Fogie Stands Up (4.90 / 10) (#11)
by tudlio on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:01:48 PM EST

Though I never thought of early thirties as decrepit, I have to say that back in my day plain old missionary in the privacy of one's bedroom was quite exciting enough. If you could talk a girl into fellatio, then you were quite the Don Juan. And that was in high school, not junior high.

I think that I was a fairly typical 80s child. So from my perspective, if the author has accurately portrayed the world of today's youth, then something has changed.

And in that context, it's an interesting article.




insert self-deprecatory humor here
[ Parent ]
An even older fogey... (5.00 / 15) (#26)
by Hizonner on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:48:17 PM EST

... can certify that all kinds of things were going on in the 1970s, frequently in groups. Unfortunately, I was left out. :-( Actually, the 1980s sort of put a damper on things, at least for adults, because (justified) STD paranoia started creeping around. But I doubt the change was very large.

I hear the 1920s were fun, too, although perhaps mostly for a somewhat older crowd. But that was before the real effects of birth control, and before antibiotics, so it doesn't really count.

I doubt there's really been a lot of change since reliable birth control became wildly available. Some fluctuations from decade to decade, sure, and specific acts going in and out of style, but no real long-term trend, except maybe (maybe!) to be more willing to talk about what you're already doing. Maybe a little less homophobia, too. But no huge changes.

Information is hard to come by. Statistical studies are relatively new. Just as it may presently be fashionable, at least in some circles, for teenaged girls to seem more sexually experienced than they really are, there have been times when it was fashionable for them to seem less so. Hard to say what effect that had on actual activity.

And I suspect it has always mattered far more what small group you hung out with than what decade you were in. Everybody seems to assume that what they and their friends were/are doing is what everybody was/is doing. I think that's totally bogus, and becoming more so. There just isn't one homogeneous culture, not in the Western world, not in the US, and not even in any US city of any size.

That said, I think it's great if kids are enjoying themselves. The responsibility of adults should be to make sure the kids are equipped to do it with minimal physical and emotional risk.

[ Parent ]

You're Right (none / 0) (#283)
by tudlio on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:21:07 PM EST

And I suspect it has always mattered far more what small group you hung out with than what decade you were in.

I think you're right. The story inspired me to do a little informal polling among friends and acquaintances ("Hi, I was wondering, were you having orgies in high school?"), and I found a wide range of behaviors even within a relatively small sample size.




insert self-deprecatory humor here
[ Parent ]
Well, it's not acurate here.... (none / 0) (#217)
by mold on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:48:10 AM EST

Well, I'm a freshman in college right now, so maybe the younger kids are doing that, but that's pretty bizarre.

While our high school had it's sluts and their male equivalent, most of the guys and girls I knew were still virgins. I was one of the odd ones, since I had a daughter born during my junior year, and I know I sure as hell have never done any of that. But then, I've only had sex with one woman, and we're married now. I could just be strange. Oh well.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]

Hope her "partner" wore a condom... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by maynard on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:19:58 PM EST

'Cause anal sex can be quite risky stuff. I'm not moralistic about this, those who wish to engage in anal sex should simply be careful. Somehow I doubt a teenager is going to plan ahead with condoms. So, yeah, it's a big deal. If, God forbid, she contracts HIV it'll be quite the big deal. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
About teen responsibility (4.80 / 5) (#49)
by Hizonner on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:45:38 PM EST

Somehow I doubt a teenager is going to plan ahead with condoms.
Why shouldn't she, if she does this all the time?

In my experience, the people who tend to be caught without condoms are the people who are telling themselves they're not going to have sex... and then end up doing so. I imagine that's true of teens as well as adults.

I agree that a teenager might, maybe, have less self-knowledge than an adult, but I doubt the "school slut" is kidding herself about what she's likely to be doing. If she is, it's because she's been fed so much bogus moralism that it's actually preventing her from gaining self-knowledge.

Now, if she's learned to distrust adults because they feed her bullshit, and has therefore decided that all their condom warnings are bogus, I could see her deliberately not bothering with condoms. If she has no reliable information at all about STDs because all she's been taught is abstinence, I could see her not understanding the need for condoms (at this point, though, she'd just about have to be raised in a cave for that to happen).

If her parents are going to have a conniption fit if they find her with condoms, then I could see her not thinking it worth the risk to keep them around.

I could also see her having that famous teen feeling of "immortality" (which I guess some people do have; I never did), and therefore deciding that condoms, which are legitimately unpleasant, weren't worth it. That does happen. And it really tends to happen on the spur of the moment, although one does learn to control that with sexual experience.

Weird pressure from partners happens, too, and I'm sure that, like all social unpleasantness, it's especially common among teenagers... and especially effective against teenagers who haven't been encouraged to think through their own limits, with realistic views of their own and others' desires.

I cannot, however, see her just plain "not planning ahead". How much planning does it take to toss a few condoms in your purse? I think that seeing it as an issue of planning ahead, and seeing planning ahead as intrinsically impossible for teenagers, is going to tend to prevent people from helping them to be responsible.

[ Parent ]

Is this really a big deal? (4.66 / 6) (#2)
by Mister Pmosh on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:33:02 PM EST

Sex has always been on the forefront of a child's mind once they start hitting puberty. In many cultures both past and present, marriages happen in a person's early teenhood. Perhaps these sorts of sexual acts have always gone on, but we are just learning about it now because today's youth is more open to talk about personal issues.
"I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl
Always gone on, among the pretty (5.00 / 5) (#154)
by trane on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:33:14 AM EST

and sex used as a tool of humiliation against those who don't get any has also always gone on. Yes I am bitter.

[ Parent ]
Kids today (4.77 / 22) (#8)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:54:02 PM EST

...the kids have been having sex, sometimes in groups, outside of school hours.

Back in my day we kept this kind of thing where it belonged, under the bleachers during lunch hour.

Play 囲碁

This is what happens. . . (4.66 / 18) (#16)
by IHCOYC on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:17:55 PM EST

. . . when you start to get too serious about scaring them away from drugs.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit Grignr.
--- Livy
Excellent point! (4.83 / 6) (#28)
by Elkor on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:54:59 PM EST

If they were stoned all the time, they would just sit around and tell jokes. They'd be too lethargic to have sex.

Of course, this wouldn't really help the obesity epidemic, would it? Oh well, no plan is perfect. :)

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
They could take crack for weight loss (4.60 / 5) (#155)
by trane on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:36:00 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Hrmm... (none / 0) (#244)
by Kintanon on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:38:07 PM EST

I always found Meth to be a better weightloss drug, but it does kind of counteract the lethargy of pot.. Maybe heroin for weightloss, I've never tried it but I hear you stay pretty mellow...

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

LETS ALL JUST DO KETAMINE LOLZ (1.00 / 2) (#292)
by omghax on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:46:59 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Not a big deal, but... (4.71 / 7) (#19)
by rayab on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:35:25 PM EST

I personally dont think there's anything wrong with high school kids having sex. The problem is in the fact that they do not comprehend how much it would ruin their lives if they got pregnant or contrived STD. Hopefully the schools will focus on education rather than start a war on teenage sex.

Y popa bila sobaka on yeyo lyubil, ona syela kusok myasa on yeyo ubil, v zemlyu zakopal, i na mogile napisal...
highlighting something (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:42:39 PM EST

I think most parents are aware of this. The Fark article, it should be pointed out, is for a Middle School which occurs before High School. In these cases, these aren't even teenages (unless you count 11 and 12 as teens)

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Middle Schools (none / 0) (#212)
by Dest on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:08:21 AM EST

Saying "Middle School" tells you very little. Around here middle school means 12-15. That's almost half of someone's teenage years. I wouldn't be quick to say these were 11 and 12 year olds, and would reserve judgement on age until more information was available.

----
Dest

"Bah. You have no taste, you won't be getting better than tofurkey bukkake." -- Ni
[ Parent ]
From the article (none / 0) (#278)
by damiam on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:43:47 PM EST

"But now we're talking about sixth, seventh, and eighth graders having sex."

In the US, sixth graders are generally 11-12, seventh 12-13, and eighth 13-14. That means it's likely that kids of 11-14 were involved.

[ Parent ]

more to it than STDs (4.33 / 6) (#73)
by MuteWinter on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:01:10 PM EST

Can you comprehend that theres more to this than being pregnant and getting STDs? I'm a guy, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I did read the entire article. It seems obvious to me that these girls suffered some serious mental trauma and still are, despite it being a consensual act. In fact, it sounded from the interview that the girls themselves viewed the impious outbreak as a secondary problem.

I'm not saying they did something wildly unnatural -- if sex wasn't such a fundamental drive humans would become extinct -- they simply did not know what they were getting into, and got in over their heads.

When people talk about safe sex, they talk about condoms and birth control, but theres alot more do it that goes unsaid. I have a feeling that being emotionally healthy to start out with would lead to more responsible decisions and ultimately lower rates of STDs.

Its going to take a whole lot more than ad campaigns to fix and prevent problems. What is the solution? Beats the hell out of me, I'm no psychologist. However, from what I have seen first hand, speaking as a teenager going to high school today, the kids who have the most problems had unhealthy relationships with parents. I've heard the parental thing many times now. Be it with drugs, poor academic performance, or school violence post-Columbine. Blaming the parents does appear a little more rational than laying all the blame on violent and sexual media. However, these teenagers themselves will soon, if not already, be parents themselves! The solution to this problem has yet to be seen, and if it is I imagine it will only be temporary.



[ Parent ]
Trauma from? (5.00 / 6) (#117)
by NFW on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:41:51 PM EST

It seems obvious to me that these girls suffered some serious mental trauma and still are, despite it being a consensual act.

Then I'd wager that at least one the following is true:

a) It wasn't consensual;

b) The trauma does not come from their sexual experiences, but from the way they were treated after those experiences, for example by disapproving authority figures (parents, teachers, respected peers, etc).

Did only girls get traumatized as a result of all this? If so, why not any of the boys? That might provide some insight into the above.


--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

the boys i mean are not refined (4.66 / 12) (#22)
by rhino1302 on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:41:19 PM EST

The boys i mean are not refined They go with girls who buck and bite They do not give a fuck for luck They hump them thirteen times a night One hangs a hat upon her tit One carves a cross on her behind They do not give a shit for wit The boys i mean are not refined They come with girls who bite and buck Who cannot read and cannot write Who laugh like they would fall apart And masturbate with dynamite The boys i mean are not refined They cannot chat of that and this They do not give a fart for art They kill like you would take a piss They speak whatever's on their mind They do whatever's in their pants The boys i mean are not refined They shake the mountains when they dance - ee cummings I'm not sure of the date, but I think it's from the '20s. Nothing new.

dammit! (5.00 / 10) (#24)
by rhino1302 on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:45:42 PM EST

premature post. sorry.

The boys i mean are not refined
They go with girls who buck and bite
They do not give a fuck for luck
They hump them thirteen times a night

One hangs a hat upon her tit
One carves a cross on her behind
They do not give a shit for wit
The boys i mean are not refined

They come with girls who bite and buck
Who cannot read and cannot write
Who laugh like they would fall apart
And masturbate with dynamite

The boys i mean are not refined
They cannot chat of that and this
They do not give a fart for art
They kill like you would take a piss

They speak whatever's on their mind
They do whatever's in their pants
The boys i mean are not refined
They shake the mountains when they dance

-- ee cummings

[ Parent ]
Superb, thanks... (3.50 / 2) (#25)
by limbic on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:46:49 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Teenage girl caught giving BJ to BF on school bus (5.00 / 14) (#30)
by maynard on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:58:33 PM EST

Link to Boston Globe article, Headline: Police: Two students had sex on bus while others cheered. So, as Tom Wolfe points out, blowjobs appear to be popular entertaintainment among our youth. Oh well, better they blow dick than coke.... --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
Dear God (4.62 / 8) (#32)
by rusty on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:05:00 PM EST

I grew up in the next town over from Kingston. Though I didn't go to Silver Lake, I can say with some certainty that that kind of thing did not happen fifteen years ago.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Nor in my highschool years... (4.20 / 10) (#39)
by maynard on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:14:17 PM EST

Though we certainly did have sex. And drink - waaaaay too much (*cough* among other things...). But I never once saw any kind of public orgy or exhibitionist sex. I'm just about to turn 35, so it's been a good long time since high school. I think Wolfe (and the author of this submission) is right -- sexual attitudes have changed. We're seeing a bifurcation between those who value chastity and those who exhibit extreme sexual tastes. Very similar to our political/social polarization throughout US society. Those who engage in these acts are doing so out of spite for the rules, just like thirty five years ago they smoked dope in front of the cameras at Woodstock. The conservatives respond by tightening the social screws further, which only encourages even further extreme action in response. It's an arms race to to bottom on both sides, without any recognition for rational sexual behavior. JMO. --Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
It's all been done before... (4.87 / 8) (#48)
by tailchaser on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:45:26 PM EST

I can say with some certainty that that kind of thing did not happen fifteen years ago

I obviously can't argue against what you know from firsthand experience, but I can certainly assume that no one ever knows the *whole* story. A friend of mine, fr'instance, kept herself entertained on an Honor Society field trip by starting a group strip-poker game in the back of the schoolbus on the drive out...that would've been, mmmm, maybe 16 years ago? And someone I went to high school with from 90-94 just told me about a year ago that she had just kicked a heroin habit before her freshman year.

I truly suspect that this is only news now because of the increasing..."interconnectness", I suppose...that technology, modern media, etc. provide for us. I really doubt that there's anything happenning today that didn't happen in our great-grandparents' time - it's just that today, you hear about it.

[ Parent ]

Note that... (5.00 / 11) (#63)
by maynard on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:47:44 PM EST

the article stated that the police are looking into charging either or both of the parties involved, though they are unclear on just what law the two students broke. Interesting that consentual sex among teenagers has become a matter for the police, DAs, and judges to handle instead of parents. --M

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
More interesting (none / 0) (#458)
by Miniluv on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:34:38 AM EST

In the state in which I reside, as a "concerned citizen" I could press charges even if the parents felt nothing "wrong" had occured.

Though in this instance, I'm rather easily coming up with a couple laws these young hedonists would've violated, such as public indecency, lewd conduct, and quite probably statutory rape (at least in my locality).

I wholly agree though that while the older folks are sure they know it wasn't going on, I'm sure they just never heard about it. Maybe it didn't happen at rusty's school, but I'm sure it happened at quite a few. One thing I've learned is that when it comes to human behavior, none of it is new. The details might change a bit, but the core of the behavior hasn't changed in thousands of years.

Really, when you consider it, I'd be shocked if 14 and 15 year olds didn't want to tear each others clothes off. We're built for it, programmed for it, and our hormones are not about to let a little modern conscience ruin tens of thousands of years of evolution. The only thing that might, might, be changing is that the youth of today have a lot more scorn for authority, and a lot less sense of decorum. I had the decency to fuck my girlfriend in the privacy of my bedroom when I was 16, but apparently my younger counterparts don't. While I'm disappointed in them, I'm hardly surprised.

"Too much wasabi and you'll be crying like you did at the last ten minutes of The Terminator" - Alton Brown
[ Parent ]

LOL (4.00 / 1) (#249)
by dh003i on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:38:06 PM EST

So, as Tom Wolfe points out, blowjobs appear to be popular entertaintainment among our youth. Oh well, better they blow dick than coke...

Better they b low dick than coke, so long as they don't choke.  :-)

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

So what? (4.57 / 7) (#253)
by dh003i on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:11:55 PM EST

Big deal.  Two kids were having sex on a bus.  Both of them enjoyed it.  The other students enjoyed watching it.  If anyone didn't like it, that's what fucking freedom of choice is for:  look the other way, use ear-plugs, and read a god damned book.

What exactly have these kids done wrong?  The police don't even know what to charge them with, because there's nothing to charge them with.  The police, of course, want to punish these kids for having some fun, just like everyone else, so will trump up some  bogus charges about "indecent exposure" even though everyone in the vicinity seemed to enjoy watching.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Sexual evolution? (4.70 / 10) (#35)
by lb008d on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:07:39 PM EST

If you ask me, this sort of thing hasn't gone far enough. US culture is in the "middle crazy period" between repression and responsibility when it comes to sex - people still think it's "wrong and dirty" but they can't get enough.

Imagine the years following the legalization of marijuana - of course people will go overboard in order to figure out how to responsibly enjoy something that was once forbidden (or looked down upon). This is what is happening in regard to sexuality - society is still trying to figure out how to enjoy it best.

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero

No (4.33 / 3) (#46)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:39:44 PM EST

They're not opposed to sex. They're opposed to their 12 year old daughter having sex. There's a difference. The Fark article, it should be highlighted, is from a Middle School, not a High School. When I was in Missouri, Middle School was grades 5-7, I don't know what it is in Ohio, but it can't be that different.

Or do you think no age is too young?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
That's just it (5.00 / 5) (#50)
by lb008d on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:53:32 PM EST

In a society that represses natural sexual urges, and refuses to discuss or otherwise acknowledge them (outside of mass-market entertainment), of course children will be attracted to sex, healthy or not.

The real question is whether these kids knew fully what they are getting into...in the US the answer is probably not. We live in a country in which masturbation is still regarded as deviant by the majority.

As far as consensual sexual acts, these kids did nothing "wrong" - stupid, foolish, non-forward-thinking perhaps, but not wrong.

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero
[ Parent ]

i'll say "no" again (4.66 / 3) (#70)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:33:33 PM EST

The accusation of American prudery is highly overstated. We have nude beaches (Black's Beach in San Diego). We have limited prostitution (even prostitution in Amsterdam is illegal in most areas). Hell, we invented Playboy. Masturbation is not considered wrong by anyone I know. Ask anyone you know under the age of 40. Any. The overwhelming vast majority of America is much more open minded; it's just easier to set that up as a straw man so people have something to complain about.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
American prudery (4.90 / 10) (#162)
by lb008d on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 09:17:24 AM EST

American prudery is what forced Jocelyn Elders out of office when she expressed the sensible opinion that masturbation is a part of human sexuality, and it's a part of something that perhaps should be taught. As such, it should be a part of a "comprehensive" sex education program at a school-age level.

American prudery is what keeps sodomy laws on the books.

American prudery is what keeps prostitution from being a safe, regulated profession for all parties involved.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Playboy as representing realistic sexuality, unless they exclusively date silicone-enhanced airbrushed models.

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero
[ Parent ]

make the case (3.37 / 8) (#189)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 09:26:21 PM EST

Really, what should we learn about masturbation? Proper towelling up? Not using food? Don't Pound and Drive? Seriously. It doesn't belong in school because it doesn't belong in school. She was shitcanned because she became unable to focus on how to raise reading and math scores because of her fascination with teaching Junior how to choke the chicken. When you make a comment like that, that's the only thing people want to talk about; you become incapable of doing your job. As Officer Barbrady says, "Nothing to see here, move along..."

Sodomy laws are largely unenforced. It's the incredible exception when they are. If they were enforced on the public, they'd be removed right quick. Even when they are enforced, it's used to increase the penalty for a related sex crime (such as sex with minors, alterboys, rape, etc.) As a result, people prefer to have them on record so that when someone comes along and does something heinous, we can throw the book at them.

You've never been to Nevada, have you? Or, more interestingly, you haven't been to Tijuana... regulation doesn't mean or do anything (and that's a very Catholic country!). Most big cities outlawed prostitution during WWI when American GI's were being struck with social diseases constantly, spawning the phrase, "Syphilis is the Kaiser's bullet". Regulation wouldn't have made any sense in 1920, it was safer to outlaw it. Things have changed in the last 50 years, but it was outlawed in New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles NOT because of religious reasons. New Orleans in particular was threatened that if they continued allowing prostitution, that the federal government was going to have to move it's military bases from there. It remains outlawed because people still perceive it as a health hazard. However, I'd argue that people don't really care if it goes on so long as it doesn't become rampant. The effect of police busts isn't to stop all prostitution, but to limit it's growth, and that's not a bad thing.

Hugh Hefner was a proud Methodist, and there have been biographies that say that the reason Playboy was such a success was because of his "Protestant work ethic".

Like I said, straw man. Much easier to knock religion down than to look at the real reasons why things happen or are restricted. Most times, it's just concerned citizens that do these things. My evidence: warning labels for sexually explicit music was pushed by Tipper Gore, who is not exactly the right wing ultra religious prude.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Say what? (5.00 / 9) (#190)
by 3waygeek on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:01:03 PM EST

She was shitcanned because she became unable to focus on how to raise reading and math scores because of her fascination with teaching Junior how to choke the chicken.

Maybe on your planet she was. However, on our planet, Jocelyn Elders was the Surgeon General, so raising reading/math scores wasn't her job.

[ Parent ]
oops (3.00 / 2) (#193)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:13:06 AM EST

I thought she was in education. I just remembered that the argument raised against her was that it was no longer possible for her to do her job.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Where did I talk about religion? (5.00 / 5) (#264)
by lb008d on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:19:47 PM EST

Not once did I mention religion. This coupled with your observation about Dr. Elders suggests that you need to read comments more carefully.

what should we learn about masturbation?

How about these simple facts (none of which are discussed in school sex ed now):

  1. It won't make you blind, or cause other health problems.
  2. It is 100% safe sex (when done alone).
  3. Nearly everyone does it, despite what they say.
I'm not suggesting a full-length video, just some facts.

Sodomy laws are largely unenforced....when someone comes along and does something heinous, we can throw the book at them

How about harsher penalties for those laws for which you suggest sodomy laws still exist to augment? Then get rid of the sodomy laws.

Hugh Hefner's work ethic has nothing to do with the misrepresented sexuality in his magazine. His magazine is a product of our sexual dishonesty.

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero
[ Parent ]

not you, per se (5.00 / 1) (#273)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:04:30 PM EST

but I'm speaking against more than you; I'm countering arguments that are related to yours. I'm arguing that there is no such thing as American prudishness, be it based in religion (which is the usual claim) or in any other cultural foundation. The reasons for modesty in dealing with sexual activities frequently have damn good reasons that aren't based in morality; history and facts bear this out.

No one I know was taught anything about masturbation in school; no one thinks you'll go blind. Everyone treats that with the same credibility as the old wive's tale that said watching TV will cause you to go blind, or reading in low light. Would you recommend teaching that in school (as well as that everyone does it and it's 100% disease free)? That would be equally ridiculous.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0) (#275)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:29:38 PM EST

Everyone treats that with the same credibility as the old wive's tale that said watching TV will cause you to go blind, or reading in low light. Would you recommend teaching that in school (as well as that everyone does it and it's 100% disease free)?
Sure why not?

I had lots of urban myths and wives tales that different teachers throughout elementary and junior high school explained weren't true or were incorrect. Knowledge is a good thing.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
on the national agenda, though? (none / 0) (#284)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:30:44 PM EST

I'm all for education but let's get the basics down first. America has falling scores for math and a Surgeon General comes out and says we need to make an issue of... masturbation. Priority-wise, it takes focus away from the things schools are already failing to teach.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
sure (none / 0) (#300)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:44:03 PM EST

I'm all for the basics but lets deal with life and death first.  Children are dying in poverty every day and a K5er comes out and says we need to make an issue of... math in American schools.  Priority-wise, it takes focus away from the kids we are already failing to help.

I hope that wasn't overdoing it, but my point is that there is always a Bigger Thing.  That doesn't mean that educating kids about sexuality and masturbation in schools isn't worth doing.  Especially if one buys into the premise that learning about these things will help kids explore their sexuality much more safely and responsibly.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

omission (5.00 / 1) (#345)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 01:07:25 PM EST

i'm not opposed to sex ed. that makes sense to me. I'm not even opposed to masturbation being taught in school, but it seems like a rather ridiculous thing to teach (because there's really so little to say--it's a practically inconsequential activity and we all agree that everyone does it anyway). My point was that charges of American prudishness are exaggerated. Elders wasn't fired because she supported masturbation; she was fired because she talked about a titillating subject and that became the only thing that anyone would talk about. As a result, she was unable to fulfill her duties. When a person can't do their job, they usually get fired. It wasn't because America is prudish; it was because she made a scene.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
That's fine (none / 0) (#356)
by Dephex Twin on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:06:54 PM EST

I don't really know about this whole thing with Elders and I wasn't trying to say anything for or against her in particular.  If she was obsessed with the topic or otherwise wasn't doing her job properly, then it is understandable that she might be fired.

And when I talked about that masturbation should be taught in schools, I didn't mean that a whole week or even a whole day has to be set aside for it.  There are just some basic things to know about it that I think would be good for young people to hear.  Maybe most kids don't think it is unhealthy (I don't know if they do or not), but it's good they know it's natural and normal, and not something to be ashamed of or guilty over.  I think a lot of people at that age don't realize that it's something most people do.

I think it would just be one of the many little things that are mentioned as part of a health and sexuality unit.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

agreed (n/t) (none / 0) (#360)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 05:22:17 PM EST


-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Dude. (none / 0) (#295)
by DavidTC on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:57:17 PM EST

Reading in bad light is a bad idea, you will, in fact, strain your eyes.

As is sitting way too close to a CRT, due to the offset focal point. (It's something like 2 inches in front of the screen.)

Of course, it's a lot closer then your mother was talking about, no one sits 10 inches from a TV screen. ;)

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

You first (5.00 / 5) (#56)
by levesque on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:21:44 PM EST

Or do you think no age is too young?

Do you believe there is any form of healthy sexual behaviour for "12" year old children and if so what.

[ Parent ]

sure (4.75 / 4) (#71)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:34:42 PM EST

but double penetration ain't it.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Middle School (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by Ndog on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:10:47 PM EST

Middle schools in MD are grades six through nine, so approximately kids 11 to 14 years old. I believe VA and DC have similar ages.



[ Parent ]
Correction - grades 6 to 8, not 9 (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Ndog on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:12:16 PM EST



[ Parent ]
perspective (4.00 / 2) (#116)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:40:47 PM EST

still not talking about teens(maybe barely). that's ages 11 through 13. I can understand 16 year olds getting it on, but at 12, i think parents should be taking an active role in guiding a child's sexuality.

I remember when I was 15 that I believed that if you have sex standing up, it was impossible to get someone pregnant, 'cause sperm has to go up to the egg, but gravity pulls it down. And I consider myself a reasonably bright guy. There is no way that any 12 year old could handle the responsibility that goes along with sex.

Of course, after telling a story like this, I award myself -1 IQ points...

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Funnily enough... (5.00 / 9) (#160)
by zocky on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 08:59:03 AM EST

I remember when I was 15 that I believed...

Funnily enough, when I was 10, I knew exactly how you could get a girl pregnant and how you could prevent it.

How did I know it? They told us in school. No parents objected. Statistics for teen-age pregnancies are much lower in Slovenia than the US. Go figure.


---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

Just backing up (5.00 / 4) (#231)
by Galion on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:31:17 AM EST

the other guy here. I also had sex-ed when i was about 11-12, but don't really remember learning anything new there.

We had it again in 2nd and 4th year secondary (14 and 16 respectively). All these lessons were in different Catholic schools in Belgium.

I certainly didn't think having sex standing up would stop pregnancy, I know the best way to avoid that and STD's was condoms and other birth control methods (eg the pill) and I knew how to use them and where to get them.

[ Parent ]

wrong and dirty? (3.85 / 7) (#58)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:34:39 PM EST

I don't know anybody who thinks sex is wrong and dirty. This seems to be a favorites way to describe American views of sex, but honestly, it seems to be a total myth. I even had sex education in a conservative Christian school, and I still wasn't taught sex was wrong and dirty. I even learned about different methods of protection.

Where do people get these ideas?
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

From me, largely. (3.66 / 9) (#113)
by qpt on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:57:51 PM EST

I am one of the foremost anti-sex evangelists of our time.

Not only do I think that sex is morally reprehensible, aesthetically abhorrent, and psychologically devastating, I hold that those who engage in sex, under any circumstance, give up their claim to personhood.

I believe that wholeheartedly.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

Quite extreme (none / 0) (#202)
by ensignyu on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:33:42 AM EST

If you believe that sex is amoral under all circumstances, then you have a problem with almost every parent in the world.

[ Parent ]
Amoral. (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by Dest on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:03:02 AM EST

I believe sex is largely amoral, except in cases like rape, where it's very clearly immoral. I don't quite follow your logic, though.

----
Dest

"Bah. You have no taste, you won't be getting better than tofurkey bukkake." -- Ni
[ Parent ]
Procreation (none / 0) (#288)
by ensignyu on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:54:48 PM EST

Well, I was trying to say that reproduction relies on sex in most instances. Is it still a bad thing then?

[ Parent ]
no, he's a Raelian ;-) (none / 0) (#301)
by florin on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:09:08 PM EST

(see subj.)

[ Parent ]
Err.. you missed the point.. (5.00 / 1) (#314)
by Dest on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:15:59 AM EST

I was trying to point out that amoral means "without morality" or "lacking morality" meaning it's neither good, nor bad, but just is. Immoral is the word you were looking for, which roughly means counter to morality. I should point out that this is largely a modern development, as sex with reliable birth control is a relatively recent thing.

----
Dest

"Bah. You have no taste, you won't be getting better than tofurkey bukkake." -- Ni
[ Parent ]
Oh, ok (none / 0) (#381)
by ensignyu on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 03:39:09 AM EST

Sorry ... I meant immoral, as you said. Whoops.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I soundly condemn parents. (3.00 / 2) (#296)
by qpt on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:09 PM EST

Moreover, I do not think that sex is amoral. Far from it! I believe firmly that sex is highly immoral. In fact, sex is the only sin that cannot be forgiven, since forgiveness is by its very nature reserved solely for human persons and those who engage in sexual acts forfeit their humanity.

I realize that my views are not widespread yet, but I am not trying to win any popularity contests. No, I am trying to eliminate sex, and thus far it has been a thankless task

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

some statistics might show the lie (4.88 / 18) (#36)
by speek on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:08:10 PM EST

Teenage Pregancy statistics:
  • here
  • here
  • here

    I'd provide more, but it's hard to find sources that don't in the end originate in the Guttmacher Institutue (research arm of Planned Parenthood).

    And, without digging up more links, most statistics on teen sex show a decline from the 60's, though perhaps an increase from the 80's. Who knows. The panic of an epidemic is most likely brought to you by excitable and alarmist extremists, who want control over what you focus your attention on.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

  • other factors? (none / 0) (#229)
    by tordia on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:21:13 AM EST

    Could the decline in teenage pregnancy be caused by other factors, or is the only logical conclusion that teenagers are having less sex?

    Maybe they are actually learning something from sex ed class. Maybe more teenage girls on birth control. Maybe teenagers are being more responsible and using condoms more. These factors could lead to a decline in teenage pregnancy without a decline in teenage sex.

    Hopefully, if they are being more promiscuous, they're being more responsible.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah, hopefully (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by speek on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:49:38 AM EST

    Two things: one, in the US, kids are learning less and less in sex ed because the curriculum has beeen re-written to teach abstinence only in more and more places.

    Two, if they're being more responsible, then are they really too young for it? I'd say no. What's the harm? Psychological? Oh, those young girls are so fragile, eh? Bull. Girls are not fragile. Less so than boys, I'd say.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    What Do You Want (2.60 / 5) (#42)
    by dteeuwen on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:21:22 PM EST

    In an age that is seriously contemplating conscription? People are desperate.

    _________

    Down the slopes of death he rides
    The eight hooves pound like drums
    Darkness reigns the crumbling sky
    Invasion has begun


    Baby pre-boom! :) (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Koutetsu on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:27:29 PM EST

    Besides, conscription isn't being seriously considered.

    m(y) d.n.e. Me in terms of You does not exist.
    [ Parent ]
    It Sure is (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by dteeuwen on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 08:00:52 PM EST

    Democrats are trying to table it as we speak. See the news.

    _________

    Down the slopes of death he rides
    The eight hooves pound like drums
    Darkness reigns the crumbling sky
    Invasion has begun


    [ Parent ]

    In the U.S. . . . (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by acceleriter on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:19 AM EST

    tabled means put aside--the oppose of its U.K. meaning.

    [ Parent ]
    Thought-provoking, however..... (4.61 / 13) (#43)
    by artsygeek on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:30:50 PM EST

    I personally believe that the teen sex explosion is due to virginity pledges and being told that most disease and pregnancy prevention methods don't work.  Then add the fact that oral sex isn't sex anymore.  Well, sex is bad, oral sex isn't sex, ergo oral sex is okay....at least that's the logical "message" we're putting out.

    I'd rather they know what behaviors are dangerous, and what behaviors reduce their risk, than be told "Sex is bad, don't do it".

    That's the problem with health education these days, instead of talking about risk mitigation, we just say "It's bad, don't do it" and that's like telling them to go ahead and do it.  We need to be honest and straight-forward with kids.  Second, some virginity pledges say no sex until marriage, well, what about the gay kids?  This continues to enforce pariah status for gays, because gays can't get legally married, and if the message is "Sex without a wedding ring is bad", then it says "Gay sex is bad".

    I grew up in an evangelical upbringing, I was told little bromides like "The best thing to wear for protection: A WEDDING BAND!".  But fortunately, I knew better, kids are getting pelted with this kind of stuff in their classrooms.  And what about people who don't want to get married, but are still monogamous? There's tons of "But what about...." questions with abstinence only programs.

    I like the quote in "The Gift" (4.75 / 8) (#206)
    by Hektor on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:42:18 AM EST

    Boy: Mom - what does "fuck" mean?
    Mom: It's a bad word for something wonderful.

    But hey ... when I was what ... 8(?), I knew pretty much all the theories about sex - so what? Didn't make me go around having sex with anything that moved. I think I read my first "playboy" when I was 9 ... didn't find it all that interesting, but it was fun reading it along with my 3 cousins when we found it in my uncles bedroom ... hehe

    I remember a sixth grade escursion, where one of the guys showed the other roommates how to masturbate. And the questions that invoked ... "what's that white stuff" and "what does it taste like". Didn't make us run over to the girls sleeping quarter and rape a couple of them.

    There weren't any orgies, there weren't any pregnencies, there weren't any public fucking and so on and so forth in my school years. Maybe because we were well informed about sex? Maybe learning in school how to put a condom on a polystyren dick had an influence. Not just once; I think we managed to put on a few hundred condoms each while in school.

    We started out fumbling, then getting quite adept. Then we got very squemish, when the teacher told us boys to put the dick between our legs, so we could get a feel for how it would be to put it on yourself and not another guy.

    Hell - we even watched porno-movies in sex-education, where our teacher would pause them and ask questions about the scene in question. From "do you REALLY think she's exited about a limp dick like that?" to "can you give me a couple of reasons NOT to wear a condom when fucking someone up the ass?". To this day I still can't watch a porno movie without wondering about those questions ...

    Sometimes it's a Good Thing(TM) to know about things like sex ...

    [ Parent ]

    The Lost Children of Rockdale County (4.66 / 6) (#44)
    by duxup on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:33:46 PM EST

    More info:
    Frontline did a great show called The Lost Children of Rockdale County that examined a syphilis outbreak in a High School in 1996.  As most frontline shows go it tackled this particular incident from several perspectives and was very interesting.


    It is the centerpiece of the story! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by limbic on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:21:38 PM EST

    ...I seem to have failed to convince you to read beyond a few paragraphs :(

    [ Parent ]
    well we have now covered this subject (none / 0) (#287)
    by mami on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:53:22 PM EST

    for the third time on K5. I guess someone wanted to help the site getting some traffic from teenagers, as if they were a rare here to begin with.

    [ Parent ]
    fight stupidity not sex (4.60 / 5) (#45)
    by biggs on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:37:55 PM EST

    I'm more scared by the stupidity than by the sex. I mean having orgies with peers you hardly know is just plain stupid. Do they realize the risk they are taking? It's like anything drinking/sandwitching is just fine and well, but driving drunk/sandwitching with people you hardly know is just plain self destructive, and destructive to others... Have fun kids, but be smart about it! Let's TEACH our kids rather than fight and shelter them.

    I might change my stance here if there is signifigant evidence that demostrates the invinsibility mentallity of kids totally destroys their ability to have common sense... It's only been 6 years since highschool and I'm already forgetting the complexities of teh invincibility/common sense mental play that goes on in the teenage mind.

    --
    "Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox

    A flawed plan (3.00 / 2) (#221)
    by dmw on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:39:02 AM EST

    It was my experience at secondary school (and in life in general since), that the more intelligent the person you meet, the darker and dirtier their sexual desires, and the greater their stupidity*.

    This was certainly more true at school of the girls than of the boys. Intelligence isn't the answer to the "sex explosion" described here, more likely sexual awareness and moderation is.

    This sounds like something my mother would come out with, but I agree with it: if good family values were still taught at school today, I doubt we'd have such a large problem.

    [ Parent ]

    Goddammit! (4.61 / 18) (#51)
    by MotorMachineMercenary on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:03:03 PM EST

    Where were these girls when I was in high school?!?!

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell


    Little Hint (4.66 / 6) (#195)
    by X3nocide on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:21:23 AM EST

    They weren't in your Calculus class, or your English class. You see, the most powerful contraceptive known to man is education. When they bothered to go to class, most were in your run of the mill "no future for me" classes. Biology, English, maybe even Cooking, though usually thats populated by guys playing the field (poorly. You're better off with a language class, unless its like Japanese).

    Fortunately life saw all this and came up with a belated solution. "Sororities," it called them. Groups of women dedicated to living their lives just like their stupid elitist greek counterparts. Which basically means lots of sex and beer and a useless Bachelors in Business Management.

    pwnguin.net
    [ Parent ]

    Biology ? (none / 0) (#280)
    by bugmaster on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:14:49 PM EST

    Why is biology a "no future for me" class ? I remember studying the photosynthesis cycle, that was quite cool (not that I actually remember how it works, but still). Anyway, one of my friends, a biochem geek, just got hired by Amgen -- that's a pretty good future, all things considered.
    >|<*:=
    [ Parent ]
    On the contrary... (none / 0) (#407)
    by Dyolf Knip on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:59:18 AM EST

    The hottest girl in my high school class sat right next to me in my Calculus class. For the first six weeks. Then she flunked out. Hmmm. Actually, you may be on to something here...

    ---
    If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

    Dyolf Knip
    [ Parent ]

    I value morality (3.83 / 24) (#53)
    by unknownlamer on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:10:33 PM EST

    Hey, I want a girl that hasn't sucked any dick or fucked anyone. But guess what? They don't exist.

    I am a Christian. A real one, not one of the members of the 'American Religion' (God Bless me so I can do whatever the fuck I want). I just want a nice Christian girl to spend my time with. Sadly they are all out with the secular guys. Every time one of the few Christian girls I know breaks up with her boyfriend it is because she won't put out. Gah, when will people get a clue!

    I know, I know. Everything I believe is a lie. Whatever. I seem to be entirely backwards in reference to modern society. Of all the people I know it seems that I alone want a girl that isn't a slut. I want someone I can talk to and be emotionally connected to, not just some fuck-bitch. My attempts to find a companion have all failed because it seems everyone just wants to make out and fuck. Even if I would date a non-Christian girl, I couldn't find any that hadn't at least sucked dick. I think fellatio is disgusting and doesn't look fun at all for the girl. I can't see why anyone would do that.


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    Hm.. (4.40 / 5) (#65)
    by olethros on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:54:56 PM EST

    Most of the girls I have been with had usually been with a relatively small number of guys - and had been together in long-term relationships.

    In our day and age, you MUST remember that a lot of people only get married in the ages 25-35. And a lot of people have relationships with the opposite sex before that. Marriage is not how it used to be. People travel, do degrees, they change business/interests... there are fallouts. The good old days are gone.

    Imagine the simple situation where boy goes abroad to study, meets girl from another country. They like each other a lot - yes? What do they do? Do they stay celibate? Do they start a relationship? Do they hope that they will be together for ever? Perhaps they do. But when both finish their degrees it is time to go back home. Sometimes things work out and they plan a future together. But when one is at such a crucial point in mind decisions are not always so easy to make with the heart.
    -- Homepage| Music
    I miss my rubber keyboard.
    [ Parent ]

    when will people stop writing "Gah"? (4.00 / 11) (#68)
    by speek on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:04:49 PM EST

    Why do you want a girl at all? Just want kids? You want a woman who would only fuck to get pregnant? Here's a problem: any girl who goes with you has to walk a very thin line between not liking sex too much, and liking it enough to keep you happy. If she likes it too much, she knows she'll be a slut in your eyes. If not enough, and you won't be happy with that either.

    I'm sorry you think you body is disgusting. That can't be much fun for you.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    Nice straw woman you have there..... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by zipporah on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:18:38 PM EST

    There's nothing wrong with enjoying sex - the poster never says that.  I think the poster's problem is that people use it too freely in his opinion, and in ways that he feels aren't right, which he defines as "before marriage, with multiple partners, and fellatio", I surmise.

    He's looking for someone who feels the same way he does, but is frustrated that they don't exist. I think it's a valid frustration.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by unknownlamer on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:05:00 PM EST


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    emotional connection (4.46 / 15) (#75)
    by dogwalker on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:15:19 PM EST

    I can't imagine why someone who thinks of women who have sex as 'fuck-bitches' would have trouble emotionally connecting with people.

    I know, I know. Everything I believe is a lie.

    Yup. It is your punishment, and it is your crime.


    --
    share and enjoy

    [ Parent ]

    Fuck Bitch (misinterpreted) (4.16 / 6) (#91)
    by unknownlamer on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:13:58 PM EST

    No, what I meant is that I don't like the attitude of people that see a girl as just something to fuck and then ditch as soon as they get what they wanted. Those kind of people aren't cool at all; females aren't objects just to be fucked. It seems most of the people I see at school have the opinion that girls are nothing more than "hot bitches" and have no feelings of their own. I don't see that as being a healthy view of other people.


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    I can't see why anyone would do that. (3.00 / 3) (#87)
    by the on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:06:22 PM EST

    I guess you're a guy then.

    --
    The Definite Article
    [ Parent ]
    Cunnilingus is great, and I hugely enjoy giving it (4.50 / 6) (#100)
    by Cup O Tea on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:46:45 PM EST

    I was in a relationship with a girl who had some experience with religion.

    Honestly, it did her nothing but pure harm mentally.

    She had had sexual partners before me but was in no way a 'slut'. Rather she was trying to progress to being a 'normal' (sorry to use such a loaded phrase) loving person, for whom sex was a genuine, deeply thought of and serious way of bonding with your mate.

    Seriously, while I don't think (understatement)it's a great idea at all to get your experience from random, group, public encounters...

    This kind of twisted repression is a bad, bad thing, It was so incredibly hard to be open about my feelings with someone who had flashpoints like this and constantly made me feel like a 'bad' person.

    Kissing is Sex; Sex is pleasure; Love is whatever you make it as long as you are aiming for something noble and high.

    These sexual dividing lines are just so wrong-headed in practice it's hard to know how to explain.

    [ Parent ]

    Morality and Repression (4.36 / 11) (#110)
    by phliar on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:49:29 PM EST

    I just want a nice Christian girl to spend my time with. Sadly they are all out with the secular guys.

    ...slut... fuck-bitch ... everyone just wants to make out and fuck ... I couldn't find any that hadn't at least sucked dick. I think fellatio is disgusting and doesn't look fun at all for the girl.

    I think there's an answer right there.

    There's such an overwhelming sense of gynophobia, hatred and intolerance in your message I'm not surprised no one wants to have anything to do with you. Hint: sex is not evil. People are not evil for having sex outside the parameters you consider normal. If you think fellatio is disgusting, well, don't do it. I know plenty of women that think fellatio is lots of fun. I think cunnilingus is cool and I know there are lots of repressed men out there who make all kinds of jokes about it. I only feel sorry for them.

    Attitudes such as those displayed in the parent message probably have a lot to do with why teenagers feel the way they do.

    Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
    [ Parent ]

    I wrote that badly (4.25 / 4) (#163)
    by unknownlamer on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 09:54:08 AM EST

    That didn't come out the way I meant it to. My problem is with 'Christian' girls doing those things. I wrote my comment in a hurry and didn't read it before I posted it (I suck at writing at times).


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    Lemme sum up Kuro5hin Christian bashing... (3.00 / 7) (#115)
    by dasunt on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:24:20 PM EST

    You believe in God. I don't. You're stupid and I'm smart.

    Some will go on and talk about how you don't believe in birth control (since you are a Christian you must be a Catholic). Of course, since you are a Catholic, you must believe that sex is evil. Also, although I'd be zero'd for suggesting that, say, the Khmer Rouge's members did what they did because they were atheists, I can bring up either famous examples or anecdotal examples of people who are really screwed up and happen to call themselves Christians and receive high moderation. A few will use the word 'Xian' and think its an insult.

    I grew up in a rather religious environment. (My family's religion of choice was Pentacostal - which means I saw things that would probably make a Catholic run to an exorcist.) All I see here is a man who is looking for a woman who shares his beliefs, which includes a belief in God and the idea that sex should be saved for one person. I realize that just because you are a Christian doesn't mean that you are stupid, bigotted, against birth control, and against equal rights (racial and gender).

    Just my $.02



    [ Parent ]
    You're not looking very hard (4.20 / 5) (#137)
    by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:30:12 AM EST

    All I see here is a man who is looking for a woman who shares his beliefs, which includes a belief in God and the idea that sex should be saved for one person.

    Because everyone knows that if Jesus had ever seen a "fuck-bitch" about to be stoned to death for adultery, he'd have let them go ahead and do it, right?

    It's a pity unknownlamer doesn't seem to think compassion and forgiveness are Christian virtues.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    I suck (4.66 / 3) (#164)
    by unknownlamer on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:03:32 AM EST

    The world can do whatever it wants. I don't care what people do too much. I have a certain set of beliefs and want to find someone with similar beliefs. If you don't have faith in Christ, it really doesn't matter what you do because you aren't saved by works anyway. I have no problems being friends with non-Christians, but I wouldn't date one because the Word says not to "be unequally yoked with the unbeliever."

    I still haven't said it very clearly I suppose. The "fuck-bitch" wasn't targetted at the girls, but refers to the attitude of guys that see girls as nothing more than something to be fucked and disposed of as soon as they get bored. I don't hate anyone, but I myself want to find a girl that doesn't do stuff like that. Can you really coexist with someone who disagrees with your fundamental beliefs?


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    Your attitude meets the real world right here (4.00 / 4) (#180)
    by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:25:35 PM EST

    I have no problems being friends with non-Christians, but I wouldn't date one because the Word says not to "be unequally yoked with the unbeliever."

    Let's say you meet a nice Christian girl. Let's say after going out with her awhile and the two of you seem to be getting along well, etc., she says she has a confession to make - that before she became a Christian, she used to be a prostitute.

    What would you do? Forgive her for her former lifestyle or tell her that because she's fucked and sucked somebody else's dick that you can't have anything to do with her? And if the latter, are you really interested in her as a person and a Christian sister, or as a trophy of virginity that only you get to possess?

    Let's take another example - let's say you marry a Pentacostal girl and her father thinks that because you're from a Catholic background that she is being "unyoked unequally with an unbeliever". (Of course, the father in question is a physically abusive asshole who also may have sexually abused his children - by the way, does your rule against marrying non-virgins include victims of abuse and rape? And of course, the pastor at the church is aware of much of this family's problems, but does nothing because of the biblical rule that the man is the head of the household.) Years pass. You have a child. You stay in your religious beliefs as a Christian. Your wife decides that her upbringing is bunk and her religion was just an excuse for men to control and abuse women and becomes a Wiccan.

    Now what do you do?

    Don't say it isn't possible for such things to happen - I know better and so do many people who live long enough. It's a multicolored world out there, not the black and white one you seem to be describing.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    The past is in the past (4.75 / 4) (#191)
    by unknownlamer on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 11:10:39 PM EST

    Let's say you meet a nice Christian girl. Let's say after going out with her awhile and the two of you seem to be getting along well, etc., she says she has a confession to make - that before she became a Christian, she used to be a prostitute.

    What you do before you become a Christian doesn't matter. If God can forget, so can I. As for abuse and rape, they don't count (as far as I care) because it was forced upon them.

    Years pass. You have a child. You stay in your religious beliefs as a Christian. Your wife decides that her upbringing is bunk and her religion was just an excuse for men to control and abuse women and becomes a Wiccan.

    If she wanted to leave me, then she could. If not, Christ said that divorce was not an option for me (unless she became an adulteress). I'd pray that she would come back to Christ but wouldn't just say "oh well I hate you." The Word says nothing about husbands or wives that have converted to leave their families because they would then be yoked with an unbeliever (in fact it says not to leave them); if you are already with someone in a binding way you shouldn't end it. The part of the scripture I was referring to (2 Cor 6, paticularly the last paragraph [11-18]) is more about new bindings relationships. So I, being a Christian now, wouldn't start a relationship with a non-Christian. If I had started one before I was saved then there would be no reason to end it on my end (same if my partner decided to recant her beliefs).


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    giving and receiving pleasure (4.75 / 8) (#125)
    by Polverone on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 01:57:26 AM EST

    For a good number of people, an irreplaceable part of sex with another person is that you aren't just getting pleasure -- you're giving it. Consider that when you cringe at women who give oral sex. I'm sure that there are many women who regard fellatio as an unpleasant chore, and men who feel the same about cunnilingus, but your mouth (or at least mine) is more nimble than the genitalia and very good at making someone you love feel tingly all over.

    Good luck with your quest to find your elusive pure girl, wherever she may be.
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]

    Well ... (4.00 / 7) (#138)
    by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:38:49 AM EST

    I am a Christian. A real one

    You're also a player hater. A real one. Free clue - you can't be both.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Curious (4.62 / 8) (#157)
    by Afty on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:47:22 AM EST

    Every time one of the few Christian girls I know breaks up with her boyfriend it is because she won't put out.

    So if she won't put out, why don't you get involved with one of those girls? They sound right for you and when they split up with their boyfriend is the best time to get to know them better.

    I can talk to and be emotionally connected to, not just some fuck-bitch. Do you honestly believe you couldn't talk to someone, or be emotionally connected with someone just because they have more sexual experience than you? Or any sexual experience at all? I think you've hit the root of your problem here, you are pre-judging these girls before you've even met them.

    My attempts to find a companion have all failed because it seems everyone just wants to make out and fuck. You know what? I'm one of those people who just wants to make out and fuck - and I do when I can. I have fun - I also have several female companions, one in particular, who I've never fucked and who I feel very close to. Why can't you have a platonic companion? Or, are you saying, you want to get yourself someone to fuck, but you don't want to be intimidated by them having fucked someone before?

    Even if I would date a non-Christian girl, I couldn't find any that hadn't at least sucked dick. So erm, you ask girls if they've sucked dick before you ask them on a date? That might be your problem here. See, most people in their teens and early 20s brag about sexual encounters, they also make alot of it up. She might say she's blown 5 guys including 2 in night clubs when in truth she's still a virgin, and just says that to maintain her social position which is very important among girls. The only way you will find out the truth is to get close to them.

    You know, I want a girl that is a gorgeous blonde, 19 years old and 34C-24-34. But guess what? They don't exist. Well, actually they do, just like the kind of girl you want exists (I personally know 2 girls in their early 20s who are virgins) but I just can't get one...that's life, so I deal with it and make the best I can.

    Clue : no-one gets everything they want in life, everyone has to compromise.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Curious (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by unknownlamer on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:16:30 AM EST

    I can talk to and be emotionally connected to, not just some fuck-bitch. Do you honestly believe you couldn't talk to someone, or be emotionally connected with someone just because they have more sexual experience than you? Or any sexual experience at all? I think you've hit the root of your problem here, you are pre-judging these girls before you've even met them.

    No, what I meant is that I don't just want a girl to fuck. I want a companion.

    Even if I would date a non-Christian girl, I couldn't find any that hadn't at least sucked dick. So erm, you ask girls if they've sucked dick before you ask them on a date? That might be your problem here. See, most people in their teens and early 20s brag about sexual encounters, they also make alot of it up. She might say she's blown 5 guys including 2 in night clubs when in truth she's still a virgin, and just says that to maintain her social position which is very important among girls. The only way you will find out the truth is to get close to them.

    No, I don't ask them. But I sometimes get crazy ideas like asking a girl to a movie or something and someone will tell me stuff like that. I don't really go after the girls with high social status.

    I want a companion to spend my days with and to raise a family with. Someone that shares my beliefs.

    I have to run...I should have made this longer but I don't have time.


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    Try a church (4.66 / 3) (#169)
    by DavisImp on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 12:52:19 PM EST

    It's what they're there for. If the one you're at isn't working for you, switch churches. If you don't want to do that, attend bible studies, join a student religious group (assuming you're a student), go to social events from other churches (they welcome new people), or even put up an ad on a personals site advertising your religious views.

    One thing that's not going to work is making "purity" a criteria for your ideal woman. It's demeaning to both you and her, and it's ideologically about on level with demanding big titties. Current behavior is what matters (hence the whole "second virginity" movement), not history.

    Best of luck.

    [ Parent ]

    History (4.00 / 4) (#172)
    by unknownlamer on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 02:13:51 PM EST

    I agree that past history doesn't matter. If she was into bad things before she converted, it doesn't matter (God forgets, everyone else should too).

    As for a church, I'm trapped at the dead one I'm at for at least the next few months before I gain my freedom from my aunt and uncle. Then I can leave but then my aunt will probably say I'm going off to worship satan or something...


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense. (4.00 / 1) (#224)
    by synaesthesia on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:23:10 AM EST

    it's ideologically about on level with demanding big titties

    From the perspective of someone with Christian morals, it's much more similar to demanding someone who's never bitten off the head of a sparrow.

    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    That's sad. Try BYU. (4.00 / 4) (#175)
    by jmzero on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 03:29:07 PM EST


    .
    "Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
    [ Parent ]
    Fuck-Bitch? (4.40 / 5) (#205)
    by Spunky on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:41:18 AM EST

    I was incredibly offended by your post. I don't have a problem with the fact that you consider yourself to be a good Christian (although the verses "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without blame throw the first stone" leap immediatly to mind). I also don't have any problem with the fact that you are waiting for marraige, I was for most of my life. Here's what I have a problem. I have had sex with what many people consider to be a lot of women. Some of them I love very deeply, even though I haven't "dated" most of them. And hearing these women that I care about as much as I care about anyone else in the world referred to as "fuck-bitches" and "sluts" is really not ok. If you are incabable of understanding that a meaningful, loving relationship is possible between sexually active people, then I feel sorry for the joy that your life will be missing, but please don't make sexist, hateful comments about my friends.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Referring to People! (4.66 / 3) (#222)
    by unknownlamer on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:54:14 AM EST

    I was referring to the attitude of people that girls are only good for fucking! Haven't you read the other comments I have made in this thread? I am not judging anyone. I should have added more context...when I said I didn't want a "fuck bitch" it was because I don't just want a girl to fuck. Many people I know only want a girl to fuck and nothing else. And they treat their girlfriends like shit and call them stupid bitches and then ditch them as soon as they stop putting out or they get bored. I don't think that the girls who have sex or people who have sex are bad people; I just don't like the attitude of people who see females as objects to be fucked and nothing else!


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, but... (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Spunky on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:26:47 PM EST

    Ok, I see how I over-reacted on that. I still think you pretty strongly gave the impression that you didn't feel a non-virgin was capable of being more than someone you used for sex. If you are just looking for a meaningful relationship, I think you need to realize that just because someone had had sex in the past doesn't mean they are any less of a person, or that sex is all they want.

    [ Parent ]
    See the rest of my comments (5.00 / 1) (#303)
    by unknownlamer on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:16:09 PM EST

    If you read the entire thread you will see that I don't think someone not being a virgin makes them less of a person. I have about five minutes to write the first comment before I had to leave so I left it poorly written. I hope that all the comments I have made in this thread helped to explain my views better (maybe I should make a diary entry explaining everything further).


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    heh (4.00 / 1) (#409)
    by Stomil on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 03:41:11 AM EST

    You know what? I want a girl that IS a 'slut' as you gracefully described those.

    But then no, I want a real slut. maybe an working stripper. maybe an ex-hooker.. or maybe a working hooker.. hmm nice idea.

    [ Parent ]

    Go buy a woman (4.50 / 2) (#418)
    by Wolf Keeper on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:43:41 AM EST

    That's what you want, isn't it?  You want someone who can only pleasure you.  God forbid (literally) that she has enjoyed her body with other people.  She must belong to you alone.

    Why?  Why does it have to be exclusive?  Will the sex be less intimate because she has had other partners?  No.  Will the pleasure be less because she has been naked with others?  No.  The only difference will be your jealousy over her other sexual encounters.  Will she be incapable of loving you as much as possible because she has emotionally and physically loved others? No, no, no, NO.  

    Boyfriends and girlfriends and even husbands and wives don't own each other.  I am not my wife's possession, and she is not mine.  

    Sexual experience with other partners only degrades people in the eyes of prejudiced people.  I know many bisexual people and swingers that are extremely intelligent: programmers, nurses, lawyers, therapists, psychologists.  Their sexual experience does not in any way impair their ability to love and be faithful.  Many are happily married, parents, and you'd never know from any day to day conversation that they have had - and continue to have - multiple partners.

    For some reason, the concept of love between two people has been linked with exclusive rights to their crotch.  The two don't have to go together at all, and there is no harm in separating them.

    If none of this makes any sense to you, maybe you should buy a few head of cattle you can trade to some nice tribal chieftain for one of his virgin daughters.  Your bill of sale can even double as the marriage certificate.

    [ Parent ]

    My View (none / 0) (#424)
    by unknownlamer on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:33:52 PM EST

    That's what you want, isn't it? You want someone who can only pleasure you. God forbid (literally) that she has enjoyed her body with other people. She must belong to you alone.

    Boyfriends and girlfriends and even husbands and wives don't own each other. I am not my wife's possession, and she is not mine.

    Ah, but that is your view. The Christian view is that a husband and wife "own" each other. I want someone who is mine. The converse is also true; I will only be hers. One of the more important parts of my religious belief if that of having one partner until he/she dies.

    As for believing other people are bad for having more than one partner: I do not believe that to be true. But, if you are Christian, then you cannot have more than one partner at a time (I say this because your SO might die early and you may find someone else). That is my belief; you are free to disagree with me. It doesn't make you a bad person for disagreeing. Having sex with more than one person doesn't make you an idiot. It doesn't lessen my opinion of you in any way.


    --
    <vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
    [ Parent ]
    you sound like two different people (none / 0) (#438)
    by Wolf Keeper on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:57:49 AM EST

    Your "My View" post is something I can respect, even if it expresses a point of view I disagree with.  

    The post I originally responded to seemed a lot more bitter, and I got the impression you had diminished respect for people that have had more than one sexual partner.

    I see the history of marriage as a progression.  In Biblical times, women were basically only a few steps above slaves, and they were effectively treated and traded as property.  I think adultery was a sin because it violated property more than anything.  The adulterer was a thief, stealing someone else's possession. The adulteress was a disobedient slave.  

    Now marriage, in the Christian sense, has 'evolved' so that husbands and wives are equal partners.  They must love and care for each other, and have sexual exclusivity.  This is an enormous improvement.  

    Where you and I disagree is the next step.  I think marriage should 'evolve' further so that the love and care is important but the sexual exclusivity is irrelevant.  If my wife has intercourse with someone else without telling me, I would be upset because of the lie and its breach of trust, not the sex.  Obviously Christianity in general, and you in particular, see this step as wrong.

    At least we know where we stand.  Good luck finding Miss Right.

    [ Parent ]

    um (4.61 / 13) (#60)
    by nodsmasher on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:41:34 PM EST

    She talked about sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes and chlamydia, and explained that condoms are ineffective 30 percent of the time. "A lot of AIDS clinics no longer pass out condoms because they give people a false sense of security," she said.


    yea thats not true
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
    -Tatarigami
    Well, it depends... (4.00 / 2) (#241)
    by Kintanon on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:12:26 PM EST

    If you properly skew the statistics to include people who improperly use the condoms then your failure rate goes WAY up. When you account for human stupidity most forms of protection are pretty shitty. Hell, I had one friend of mine claim that condoms were too small for him, I stretched one over my head and blew it up like a giant watermellon sized balloon and told him he probably wouldn't be having sex with anyone anytime soon then....

    But really, the 30% failure rate accounts for improper useage of condoms. The failure rate for properly used condoms is like 3%.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    Bed of live coals (4.61 / 13) (#61)
    by spaceghoti on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:43:08 PM EST

    Wow, is this ever a hot topic. On the one hand I'm in favor of healthy, responsible sexual freedom. Sex is a personal choice between yourself and however many partners agree to join you. On the other hand, sex is a ticking bomb on a multitude of levels that require healthy, responsible choices.

    Teenage years are perhaps the most difficult of our lives because we're literally trapped between two worlds. On the one hand we're expected to be learning to become adults, act with maturity and responsibility. On the other hand, we're still treated as children. What is given with one hand is taken away with the other. Understandably, this inspires rebellion in a lot of kids because their lives are filled with constant hypocrisy and contradiction. Mix in life-altering changes to body chemistry and a healthy dose of sexual awakening and you've got the potential for things like limbic's article.

    I agree with a lot of the debators here that these problems are resulting largely from our repressive attitudes toward sex. Parents should be teaching their children safe, responsible attitudes about sex, but they're not. When parents talk about it at all, they're usually telling their kids that if they do it they're going to burn in hell. Some even go so far as to expect schoolteachers to take on the burden, so long as they only tell kids that if they have sex their body parts will fall off so don't do it!

    Sex is not evil. Sexual exploration is a healthy thing, and sexual expression is a highly individual matter, no matter how "deviant" you may think it to be. Unfortunately, due to its very nature sex is easily abused, particularly when forced on those who are unwilling or incapable of making responsible choices. Of course these kids are abusing their bodies; they haven't been given enough information to make an informed choice!

    Sex between consenting, responsible adults should be left alone. The problem here is that teenagers all reach maturity at different times, and it isn't limited to mere physical maturity. Some teenagers are more responsible than others, and I'll concede that some underage children are qualified to make adult choices. The problem is that there's no magic yardstick to measure this quality, so we're forced to stick an arbitrary rule to it. At the same time, we won't talk about it so teenagers don't understand.

    Even provided with enough information to make an informed choice, some kids will still abuse things. It's part of human nature; there are a lot of adults with those failings. However, it's wrong to paint all children with the same brush. These kids engaged in "sexual perversion" are acting the way we're teaching them to behave: irrationally. Children, especially teenagers, learn far more from us than just what we say.



    "Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

    I always think of a friend of my old girlfriend (4.00 / 1) (#261)
    by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:09:05 PM EST

    This girl I was dating a few years ago had a very religious high school friend.  This is the kind where the household was very fundamentalist Christian and sex before marriage was absolutely wrong.  And she was one of the girls who really bought into it, and also dated a guy (who either also bought into it or was willing to go along with it).  They had been dating for a year or so, they were 18 years old, and physically they REALLY wanted to have sex.  Almost anybody at that age in a relationship that long would be the same way.  I think they were already doing oral sex at this time but I'm not sure.  If they did, eventually that was not enough either.  Soon they just couldn't take it anymore, but since "Sex Is Wrong", they interpreted that to mean anal sex does not count.  Does that make a whole lot of sense?  No, but if I were 18 and truly believed sex were not an option, I could probably make myself believe something like that.

    So then my girlfriend and I just thought about the irony... we had dated for about six months, and occasionally had sex, while her super-religious "virgin" (as she believed) friend was getting it up the ass just about every day.

    I don't think that's wrong of course, just funny.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Lolita (4.63 / 11) (#66)
    by evilpenguin on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 05:57:29 PM EST

    "Lolita", by Vladimir Nabokov, has remained one of my all-time favourite books ever since I picked it up at the age of 16. It takes you through the mind of a pedophile, one Mr. Humbert, and his relationship to a (then) 12-year-old, his Lolita. It is my sincere belief that one cannot argue pedophilia or even teen sexuality without reading this book. Besides, it's also downright hilarious at parts, as Nabokov has an incredible talent for wit and the English language.

    Spoilers follow, so if you haven't read the book, you might not want to continue...

    At one point in his pursuit of Lo, he describes her, reccolection of a camp she went to at a young age (12-14, I don't recall exactly) -- the first time she had sex, in the woods with a more "experienced" girl of the same age (and a guy, who served a more utilitarian function in the trio). Now, reflect upon this: all participants were willing, none were motivated by a desire to be "bad" or "break the rules" -- as Nabokov described it, they were purely driven by their own hormones. Lo saw nothing wrong with this, and Humbert himself just used this as evidence to back up his theory of the lolita -- that there were girls that were "wise beyond their years". Whether you agree with this stance or not, it is indeed the sharper side of Occam's Razor.

    The point, I belive, is that the sexual drive is purely natural, and there is nothing wrong with the sex act itself. Yes, an attempt should be made to educate regarding safe sex, but pointing a finger at a 14-year-old and going "tisk-tisk" does absolutely nothing but create contempt. Middle America and it's daytime TV culture presents us with images of adolescent crack whores, and people are lead to believe that this is the inevidable end to teens' promiscuity. Bollocks. For every such crack whore there are hundreds (thousands?) more who are just fine and normal -- call it a sign of the times. For those of you who like catch phrases, something to the effect of "educate, don't intimidate" would suffice.
    --
    # nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    I've never read the book... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by graal on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:53:54 PM EST

    ...although it's been on my list for awhile. My understanding was that the relationship between Humbert and Lo was symbolic of the one between Old World Europe (Humbert) and New World America (Lo).

    --
    For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
    inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
    -- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)
    [ Parent ]

    Ugh...no.... not.... ALLEGORY!! (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by evilpenguin on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:15:19 PM EST

    Nabokov has stated repeatedly (in the foreward and in the afterword) his strong dislike of allegory and such asinine literati snuff in all forms. I'm one to agree -- that (which you stated) would be rediculous.

    From the afterword (p. 329 in the Everyman's Library edition):
    "Teachers of Literature are apt to think up such problems as 'What is the author's purpose?' or still worse 'What is the guy trying to say?' Now, I happen to be the kind of author who in starting to work on a book has no other purpose than to get rid of that book and who, when asked to explain its origin and growth, has to rely on such ancient terms as Interreaction of Inspiration and Combination -- which, I admit, sounds like a conjurer explaining one trick by performing another."
    There are plenty more like that, though your eyes may not catch them the first few times, as Nabokov is also a master of sarcasm.
    --
    # nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    [ Parent ]
    You seriously need to lose that .sig (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by aldjiblah on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:12:16 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    It is a secret message from beyond the stars. (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by evilpenguin on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:24:35 PM EST

    Just run it (as root) and put your ear up to your hard drive... the secret is that by quickly activating the hard drive in harmonous resonance with /dev/dsp (a known entropy source), a rift is caused in space-time that allows all particles bounced off it to accelerate beyond the speed of light. That's right -- your hard drive is now an interstellar bi-directional microphone!

    Unfortunately, the government wants to keep this secret, so they put permission restrictions on all Unix distributions so that only the root user can execute such a command. Their logic, I suppose, is that only those entrusted with the all mighty pound are capable of handling the mind-altering experience that makes LSD look like mere sugar-coted paper in comparison.

    Dude, it's a trip. Try it.
    --
    # nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    [ Parent ]
    Well, I tried it here (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by gazbo on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 06:45:53 AM EST

    But I don't have the root password to the servers here and it just said permission denied. How does it make the heads move with dev/dsp? I'm not very experienced with Unix as you can tell (would it still work on Linux or do I have to use one of our BSD boxes?)

    I guess I could ask the sysadmin for the root password if it's really that good - he's pretty relaxed about giving the password to us when we need it.

    -----
    Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
    Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

    [ Parent ]

    Further explaination (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by evilpenguin on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:08:44 AM EST

    It so happens that both hard drives and sound cards operate on a common protocol -- the methods of access are different, of course, but the actual data format is the same.  All it essentially boils down to is "[action] [variable(s)]", just like assembly (indeed, as assembly is little more than just macros and mnemonics for decimal values).

    The sound card stream, which acts as an entropy source due to electromagnetic interference (some systems use this to seed /dev/urandom), also has less functions (the actions noted above) available to it, as it is a bit less complex than a hard drive.  The sound card commands range from 0xC0 to 0xFE.  Looking at any hard drive developer spec sheet will show that this range of commands are the head movement commands!  This is a strange coincidence indeed (a little /too/ strange if you ask me)!

    Oh, and yes, this works on Linux just fine, as well as BSD.  Note that it is worded for IDE drives (/dev/hda) -- if you have SCSI, change that to "/dev/sd0" or whatever number your drive is.  Either way, you're going to need the root password, so go ahead and ask the admin.

    Have fun, and may the force be with you.
    --
    # nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    [ Parent ]

    DON'T RUN THE CODE!! (4.55 / 9) (#168)
    by gazbo on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:52:51 AM EST

    WARNING: I just ran the code as root, and it doesn't make your hard drive play sounds at all. It logs you out of the machine and then you can't log back in. I've just asked the sysadmin to fix the login and he's gone to reboot the machine because he can't log in either.

    FUCK YOU. Have you got any idea how pissed off people are that the server's been down for the last ten minutes, and how pissed off the sysadmin is that he's going to have to reboot it to log in? IT IS NOT FUNNY TO DELIBERATELY FUCK PEOPLE UP LIKE THAT.

    You could have at least given me a warning so that I could have tried it on the test server that no-one is using, then it wouldn't matter that it would have to go down for reboot. I just don't get why you'd do this - it's not funny but it puts me in a bad position at work. Change your sig.

    -----
    Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
    Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

    [ Parent ]

    I apologize (4.00 / 5) (#171)
    by evilpenguin on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 01:58:47 PM EST

    I was being sarcastic!  C'mon... "secret message from beyond the stars"?  "Rift in space-time"?  I honestly thought you were just playing along.  Really, I am very sorry.

    I will change it when I think of something better... but I have no idea what.  It's been my sig for the last year now (much longer on other boards).  Maybe I'll just modify it...hrm, I need to see what the charcter limit is...
    --
    # nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    [ Parent ]

    Sucker [nt] (5.00 / 14) (#184)
    by gazbo on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:15:41 PM EST


    -----
    Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
    Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

    [ Parent ]

    That... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Bios_Hakr on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:21:51 AM EST

    ...was really funny.


    [ Parent ]
    Nicely done! (none / 0) (#271)
    by ninja on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 04:37:21 PM EST

    8)

    [ Parent ]
    That was beautiful. (none / 0) (#281)
    by mcherm on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:34:15 PM EST

    That was simply beautiful. And I don't even LIKE trolls!

    -- Michael Chermside
    [ Parent ]
    BSD (none / 0) (#209)
    by Dest on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:50:46 AM EST

    Oh, and yes, this works on Linux just fine, as well as BSD.  Note that it is worded for IDE drives (/dev/hda) -- if you have SCSI, change that to "/dev/sd0" or whatever number your drive is.  Either way, you're going to need the root password, so go ahead and ask the admin.

    dest@vimy:~% cd /dev
    dest@vimy:/dev% ls hda
    ls: hda: No such file or directory
    dest@vimy:/dev%

    Guess my BSD is broken.

    ----
    Dest

    "Bah. You have no taste, you won't be getting better than tofurkey bukkake." -- Ni
    [ Parent ]

    I've never read the book... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by graal on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:37:19 PM EST

    ...although it's been on my list for awhile. My understanding was that the relationship between Humbert and Lo was symbolic of the one between Old World Europe (Humbert) and New World America (Lo).

    --
    For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
    inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
    -- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)
    [ Parent ]

    The more I think about it, the less I buy it (4.66 / 21) (#67)
    by coljac on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:04:41 PM EST

    I read this article a couple of hours ago, and it's been playing on my mind. There's something quite wrong about it and it has been gnawing at me. To me it smacks of kindergarten satanism - a delicious problem, entirely manufactured. It sounds like an excuse for old conservative men to write about 16-year-old girls fucking like pros.

    Sure, there are probably some anectodes about group sex or public fellatio by teens that are true, but generalizing this into a "moral crisis" is exactly the wrong thing to do, yet it is very, very common amongst American conservatives and the American media. I on the other hand prefer common sense and reasoned discussion based on facts.

    In summary, much as I enjoy a good old discussion about sandwiching, I have serious reservations about the premise of this story. (Again, see my editorial comment below about the seemingly well-documented trend towards abstinence among teens).

    coljac



    ---
    Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey

    Is 30 old? (4.00 / 2) (#76)
    by limbic on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:18:35 PM EST

    Firstly, I did not say there was a moral crisis. There was a medical crisis in two of the cases referred to and some parental worry in the other. This was not a moral tale. I already made it clear that I could not vouch for the central premise (i.e. that there is an epidemic of sexual activity). I think your criticisms are unfair.

    [ Parent ]
    Central premise (4.50 / 2) (#79)
    by coljac on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:25:30 PM EST

    I suppose that is my issue - you can't vouch for the central premise, it kind of makes the article moot, don't you think? It's not that I don't think it's an interesting subject - teenage gang bangs is has been of interest to all men throughout the ages - but discussing a societal trend that we are not sure exists seems a tad pointless.

    The article was well written and interesting otherwise. I'd just prefer some more facts to kick off the discussion.

    Keep it up,

    coljac



    ---
    Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
    [ Parent ]

    I see your point... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by limbic on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:33:02 PM EST

    This post was rushed and is deeply flawed. Next time I will be less hasty when posting and run an editorial comments section for longer. Thank you for the comments.

    [ Parent ]
    On the flip side (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by rusty on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:36:02 PM EST

    I had (and still have) a lot of the same doubts about the veracity of the reports you're citing. But I thought you did a pretty good job avoiding the easy trap of just assuming they're true, and instead basically reported on what's being said elsewhere. I didn't have the feeling you were trying to assert that this is truth, but saying "If these reports are true, what could it all be about?" The difference is subtle but important. Nice article.

    On a different note, I sometimes feel like I'm reading Salon here lately. Awful lot of sex goin' on. Remember, everyone, we don't need cheap titillation to get attention! ;-)

    Huh. I said "titillation."

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    The Cowgirl on BoingBoing ... knock-on effect? nt (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cup O Tea on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:54:44 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Heh. Maybe. :-) (NT) (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by rusty on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 01:15:49 AM EST



    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for your kind comments... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:23:21 AM EST

    This is very much a learning experience. Next time I post anything I will spend much more time editing.

    [ Parent ]
    some are doubtful, I'm not (4.50 / 2) (#74)
    by Matt Oneiros on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:03:33 PM EST

    In my highschool this years freshman are having amounts of sex far greater than students a couple of years older.

    Interestingly, within these seperate group I've noticed most of my classmates (sophomores-seniors) have less of an inclination towards sex and about 50% of them use drugs (to be realistic, weed) fairly regularly. The same would apply to the freshman, just reverse pot and sex.

    For gods sake, during football season this year they were out in the baseball field (about 150 feet from the game) getting it on. Sometimes several couples at once, sometimes groups, sometimes all of that.

    Lobstery is not real
    signed the cow
    when stating that life is merely an illusion
    and that what you love is all that's real

    When will people learn? (3.40 / 10) (#82)
    by jabber on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:46:38 PM EST

    There is an implicit tone to this article. One of puritanical control over the sexual experiences of other people, especially the young who are figuring out their values and desires while also discovering the really cool things of which their bodies are capable.

    To this undertone I have but one thing to say: Keep your morality and sense of ethics out of my personal life!

    The cause of STD's, unintended pregnancy, hurt feelings and everything in between is IGNORANCE.

    So long as teens and adults are INFORMED, CONSENTING, SAFE and in control of their faculties, LET THEM FUCK!

    Live your life as you choose. Raise your kids as you choose. But stay the hell out of my bedroom! Of course, in my case, you should also stay out of my living room, off my coffee table, out of my car, and away from the apple tree in the back yard. ;)

    EDUCATION is the key here, as with virtually all problems in the world. Abstinence is a stop-gap, not a solution.

    [TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

    Your rant is misplaced (4.00 / 2) (#85)
    by limbic on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:56:11 PM EST

    There is no implicit tone of "puritanical control over the sexual experiences of other people". How did you arrive at this? Did you read the article? I am a classic liberal (UK sense). You can do whatever you like as long as it harms no one (except yourself). There is no judgment of these kids - I state EXPLICITLY that I reserve judgement on the issue. "Let them fuck" you shout. I agree, but let them fuck because they feel like it not because of some mutated popularity meme.

    [ Parent ]
    Which is why (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jabber on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:28:39 PM EST

    That's why I bring up education.

    [TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
    [ Parent ]

    You keep saying that... (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by BlaisePascal on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:54:39 PM EST

    I've seen you reply to people's posts several times that you are neutral on the issue, and aren't making moralistic judgements, etc... I would tend to suspect that when many people say that you are saying something you don't intend to say, the problem is in the original write-up. You might want to take the repeated topical comments that say "Your premise that consensual teen sex is 'immoral' or 'deviant' is conservative and puritanical" to heart and cancel this submission and resubmit, rewritten to eliminate the perceived (but incorrect) puritanical bias. For my part, I found the repeated characterization of the various sex acts discussed in this article as deviant, shocking, filthy, etc, to be highly indicative of a conservative bias. The intro (which for many people, sets the tone for the article as a whole) compares the sexual practices to diseases and pandemics and accuses American teens of "promiscuity" and "decadence" (both of which are words with strong negative connotations). It also claims that this behavior has led to "spiraling" STD rates and "runaway" pregnancy rates. This does not sound like it's unbiased. It seems to indicate you have a problem with the behavior. Heck, even your title "Give me detumescence" implies you would prefer a lack of sex amongst American teens. Early into your actual editorial commentary (as opposed to quoting others), you compare American teenage sex to "rutting" Bonobo chimpanzees, claim their behavior is "downright filthy", and imply that they have lower standards for acceptable sexuality than people who have sex on camera for money. You describe some of the acts that these teens are performing, by all accounts consensually and with lots of fun, as "extreme", "humiliating", and "bordering on self-abuse". Do you wonder why people see your reporting of the situation as biased? It certainly looks biased to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Well made points...but somewhat unfair in parts (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:11:19 AM EST

    There is no premise that teenage sex is 'immoral' or 'deviant'. I simply did not say that.

    What I did say is that the Rockdale case - where 13 to 16 year old girls were throwing orgies and engaging in "sandwiches" - was "more like some sort of sexually deviant Lord of the Flies than Porkies: the early years."

    My point was that anyone engaging in this sort of behaviour is pushing boundaries, that the participants were as young as 13 is surprising and shocking to some (including the veteran social workers dealing with the case).

    The humiliation element comes from the comments by Claire Sterk. In her interview she makes it clear that whilst the sexual element started out as fun and frollicks, when it escalated to sandwiches and the like, is troubled them.

    A key passage comes in the middle of the interview:

    "What they did not like was the fact that they might engage in activities after they had been drinking alcohol and had less control over what was going on. Or once they were in a situation where they really wanted to say no. But here they were with their best friends and it's really hard to say no when everybody who keeps your life going is there and is acting as if you should say yes. So at that point in time some of the girls started losing control because they wanted to say no but did not feel that they had the power to say no or even if they did, saying no for many of them, at least from their perspective, meant losing all their friends...

    ...Initially they described the sex as pleasurable. And pleasurable in terms of it being physically pleasurable but also psychologically. Like this was a an initiation into the next step of their life. It was part of of their development that was taking place. Over time, however, very few of the girls talked about the sex in terms of it being pleasurable at all. It became something that was painful that in some cases they couldn't even remember what they did any more. So it became very negative."

    This sums up one of my points. Teenage sex is normal, but in some cases combinations of peer pressure and other social forces pushed these kids into carrying out sex acts that are by almost any standard extreme.

    My reference to STD and pregnancy rates was a mistake. The runaway STD and pregnancy rates are a problem here in the UK. In the US STD's are booming but pregnancies are actually falling.

    Your comments on my choice of language are fair. It is a rather floridly written post, but that is part of the fun.

    Thank you for your comments.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like a bad guy from a Hunter Thompson book (4.50 / 2) (#83)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:52:10 PM EST

    I'm not sure if thats the effect you were going for or not.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    Like Dr. Gonzo (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jjayson on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:42:25 PM EST

    "They gave you what?"
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]
    yes [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by drgonzo on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:13:03 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    It's ironic reading this (4.66 / 6) (#90)
    by the on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:12:35 PM EST

    After reading an article in Newsweek a few weeks ago about how American girls are choosing virginity nowadays

    --
    The Definite Article
    Funny old world... (4.50 / 2) (#131)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:39:36 AM EST

    ...two sides to most stories and all that. What we could be seeing is a chastity movement reaction to all putative phenomenon. Or vice versa...

    [ Parent ]
    New Topic: Sex? (3.72 / 11) (#93)
    by Cup O Tea on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:19:07 PM EST

    Come on, it seems to be all the world can think about these days.

    I haven't been laid for ages, and yeah, when I get a girl again I'll want to make us both happy... but WHAT IS THE BIG FREAKING DEAL PEOPLE?? LOVE, NOT, SPRAYING A GALLON OF CUM IN ANOTHER PERSONS EYES BECAUSE IT MIGHT EXCITE YOU, IS THE POINT.

    What was that film premise "Hey, imagine going without it for uh, 40 days... huhuhuh... no way dood that's impossible..."

    Oh, Spare me please.

    I can't even think straight on this whole affair, I apologise. The whole world has gone crazy and I don't even know if I want a part of it.

    I wish that K5'er who was writing the anti-porn piece would get it on here soon. Because I'm genuinely bewildered. I don't believe in 'True Love Waits', I don't think nakedness is inherently bad, I don't agree with outside limitations on consensual acts, I don't think censorship laws are too lax... I just don't see how so many people can throw so much caution to the wind. I've never been able to do it.

    I take Heroin. I'm fucked for a good long while, I might pick up a deadly disease, I might even end up dying... but I'll get a hell of a buzz, and I'll mostly harm myself and I may get what I want (an escape route from life).

    I fuck and fuck and fuck with no regard for the other person... (potentially) Babies everywhere. I can't decide which is the worst option.

    Yes, I know contraception rarely fails, I just can't bring myself to sleep with girls that I can't envisage looking after children (i.e. nice people, with balanced personalities).

    Maybe that other comment was right... maybe this sexual holocaust is the inevitably excessive phase we need to pass through to get to some more tolerant society. Or maybe it's just the final joke of a society of happy capitalistic entertainment. CONSUME!! FOR TOMMOROW WE DIE!

    Just another engineered 'Moral Panic'? Or maybe the despair really is going this deep. I don't know.

    I suspect the article could be BS, but where do all those pretty faces on the internet come from?

    I don't feel involved enough to even have an opinion, but I guess here it is anyway.

    re: GALLON OF CUM (1.70 / 10) (#99)
    by j1mmy on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:46:22 PM EST

    My personal best is one and a quarter pints.

    [ Parent ]
    signs you might be a feminist (3.66 / 3) (#122)
    by turmeric on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:58:38 PM EST

    and not know it. because this is exactly the sort of thing feminists talk about alot, how the culture calls them 'sex hating prudes' if they object to 30 person orgies, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Feminists as Sex Hating Prudes (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by snowlion on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 03:36:51 PM EST

    I always thought that some feminists were called sex hating prudes because they are trying to take away our porn.

    Don't deny it! That contingent is strong and vocal.

    I've read plenty of fem lit that said that female attraction to males was part of a scheme created by men to keep women attached to them. I call that "sex hating prude".

    Personally, I have no prob w/ the 30 person orgy.

    I don't think there is a "natural" level of sexual interest. Some people say our society is over-sexed, some say it is under-sexed. I think it's a very individual thing.
    --
    Map Your Thoughts
    [ Parent ]

    You are right... (1.71 / 7) (#130)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:37:14 AM EST

    ...you really do need to get laid URGENTLY :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Female viewpoint? nt. (3.50 / 2) (#107)
    by Cup O Tea on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:38:01 PM EST



    Brain transplants, body crops, and age of concent. (3.20 / 5) (#109)
    by biggs on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:42:10 PM EST

    Eventually we will start growing bodies in fields like corn that can be bought and traded. Then we can tranfer our soul/escence/memories/you-know-what-i-mean to them whenever we feel like it. Obviously we all want to be youthful and beautiful so we will spend our hard earned money on teen bodies rather than aged bodies. This will sure complicate age of concent laws. Or... I mean would it be ok to fuck a body that isn't currently occupied? Why doesn't realdoll make a model that satisfies pedophiles?

    --
    "Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox
    We deal with that when it happens, not now. [nt] (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by zealtrix on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 06:00:41 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Three Factors (4.94 / 18) (#114)
    by dasunt on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:08:18 PM EST

    1. Kids might lie about their sexual experience. Sure, I'd doubt that the majority of teenage boys would make up stories about sexual experiences, but some might.
    2. The US has 280 million people. That's a lot of people. Even the small fraction where are teenagers still result in a lot of people. I'm sure you could take a deviant behavior (say, group blood drinking, for example) and find a group of teens that practice it.
    3. The media likes to take one extreme example and call it normal. If the TV is filled with reports of (using are previous example) teenage group blood drinking, then its possible that society will have the perception that this behavior is the norm. (Oddly enough, this can feed back into society, and encourage more people to engage in that behavior.)


    Sensationalistic Trash. (4.61 / 13) (#119)
    by christonabike on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:45:18 PM EST

    Sorry, but this rant is supported by nothing but misleading vividness. Limbic paints a graphic picture of teenage sexual rampage, but the statistics say otherwise. Spiralling STD rates? runaway pregnancy? I hate to burst your bubble but teenage pregnancy is on the decline and so is AIDS.

    As a high school student, my personal experiences also disagree with your assertion of unrestrained promiscuity. Many teens are actually are choosing abstinence (see Newsweeks recent article), though I suppose that comment just leaves me wide open for insults.

    And even if this whole article was true, who cares? So long as its safe I see no harm, though if George Bush and the religious right has their way and safe sex is no longer taught in health class, my guess is we'll see a decline in the use of protection. There are much more pressing problems currently facing teenagers anyway, like the fact that the 2nd and 3rd leading causes of death following accidents are homicide and suicide, respectively. Perhaps if some teens got a little more action they woulnd't kill themselves.

    A rant? (4.50 / 4) (#129)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:30:30 AM EST

    How can you label this a rant?

    I have made a fundamental mistake in this article.

    The spiralling teenage pregnancy and STD rates are here in the UK.

    In the US it appears that pregnancies have started to fall, whilst STD's are booming.

    Here is what a goggle news search pulled a few minutes ago:

    Casual Teen Sex and the STD Epidemic.

    [Goggle search is here ]



    [ Parent ]
    Say what? (none / 0) (#373)
    by Eccles on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:08:12 AM EST

    From that article:
    "Just 20 years ago, there were two venereal diseases."

    I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago reasonably vividly, and I can assure you that syphilis, gonnorhea, herpes, and a number of others were quite well known.  AIDS was just being discovered.

    [ Parent ]

    Tom Wolfe (3.00 / 6) (#123)
    by jvcoleman on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 12:36:04 AM EST

    is about as relevant to this issue as, say, Ted Koppel is. What the hell does it matter what that Colonel Sanders looking motherfucker thinks about teenage sex in the heartland?

    And -1, mentions Raelians.

    You comment is bunk (2.42 / 7) (#127)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:11:44 AM EST

    Wolfe is brilliant. Nuff said.

    [ Parent ]
    Oral Sex (3.85 / 7) (#135)
    by starsky on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:23:36 AM EST

    Quite right these teenagers should be indulging in rucks of oral sex, because if they think they're going to be getting any when they're in a settled long-term relationship, they're tripping, believe me ;-).

    Oh so true... (3.33 / 3) (#136)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:24:41 AM EST

    I laughed out loud at this comment. Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    hmmm (3.50 / 4) (#152)
    by lemming prophet on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:22:32 AM EST

    i cannot confirm this. but then, i'm not american...
    so maybe just your woman sucks... err doesn't suck....whatever, you get the point...

    --
    Follow me.
    [ Parent ]
    Au contraire, M. Starsky (3.33 / 3) (#173)
    by Meatbomb on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 02:46:33 PM EST

    If you give, you will recieve, throughout your entire sexual life!

    _______________

    Good News for Liberal Democracy!

    [ Parent ]
    Let me guess your problem. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by tbcidy on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:42:29 AM EST

    I am guessing one (or more) of the following is the problem.

    1. You push down on her head when she gives it to you. This will cause her to gag and will greatly annoy her.
    2. You don't kiss her afterwards if she wants. This proves that you wouldn't want your lips on the same place you want her lips and mouth.
    3. You criticize the way she does it with out praising the good parts.
    4. You won't return the favor.
    5. You force her to swallow.
    6. You demand it too much.

    If she stopped when you switched to a long term relationship, it is because it wasn't as fun for her as it is for you. If you made sure that she enjoys as much as you do then you would have continued to enjoy oral sex.



    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 0) (#236)
    by Kintanon on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:56:29 AM EST

    Some girls simply don't like the taste... An informal survey of friends and friends girlfriends resulted in 9/15 girls saying they had not liked the taste of any of the guys they had performed oral sex on enough that they would only do so infrequently if at all after the first time.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    the trick... (4.33 / 3) (#254)
    by lemming prophet on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:26:55 PM EST

    ... is to make $GIRLFRIEND so happy (sexually, that is) that she wants you to be completely satisfied too :)
    With most women, you get to that point after they had their third or fourth orgasm in a row ...


    --
    Follow me.
    [ Parent ]
    That's good in theory... (none / 0) (#419)
    by Wolf Keeper on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 02:48:55 PM EST

    But then the 'trick' becomes giving them those third or fourth orgasms.  But really, one good orgasm is usually enough to get them to do almost (almost) anything you want.  I'm sure willing to do anything she asks after she's given me the goods.

    e.g. My wife's clit gets hypersensitive - not in a good way - after she reaches climax.  If I try to finger, brush, or lick it any time in the next 15 minutes, she squirms, grimaces, yells at me, pushes, and otherwise indicates that it most definitely does not feel good.  
       Such a shame, really... if not for that quirk of her physiology, I could cheerfully spend an afternoon lapping away.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah (none / 0) (#426)
    by hstink on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:50:03 AM EST

    That is indeed a pity.

    Perhaps a Yoni Massage would be more her cup of tea.

    -h

    [ Parent ]

    try this (none / 0) (#434)
    by lemming prophet on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:45:34 AM EST

    well it just depends on the woman... the gf i had before my actual also reacted like this...
    so: try indirect contact, just put your fingers on the outside of the outer lips and softly press those together, so that her clit will be only touched be her own skin..
    another thing to try is to penetrate her after she had a clitorial orgasm. if you're careful not to touch the upper parts of her pussy she's probably gonna like it alot ...and i noticed that when $HYPERSENSITIVEWOMAN gets really horny again from other stimulus than clitorial the hypersensitivity will go away really quick. you still have to be more careful than usual, though... and keep in mind: just being really gentle and careful will almost always achieve more than "hard work" on her pussy.

    hmm that just felt like being some cheap teenie magazine's sex tips "doctor" :)

    hope you can use the tips, though...
    --
    Follow me.
    [ Parent ]
    that sounds right (none / 0) (#437)
    by Wolf Keeper on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:28:11 AM EST

    from what I've read, people in cheap teenie magazines pretty much invent on the spot the 'facts' they write for their readers.

    What you said sounds exactly accurate.  Our progression, 99.44% of the time, is foreplay -> cunnilingus (until she orgasms) -> cuddle a bit -> penetration and sex (until I orgasm) -> afterplay.  I always offer to stimulate her again when I'm finished, but she almost always turns me down.  

    Thanks for the suggestions, though :)

    [ Parent ]

    It was a *joke* (none / 0) (#413)
    by starsky on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 08:30:40 AM EST

    Jesus. Thank you very much, Mr. Cosmo.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (4.60 / 5) (#140)
    by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:44:06 AM EST

    Just think - some day, Americans' fascination and willingness to participate in sex might reach the level of obsession and compulsion we already have with violence. It's probably not a good thing, except that people who are busy having sex won't have time to kill each other.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    really, that would be ideal. (4.00 / 1) (#250)
    by ethereal on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:40:09 PM EST

    Frankly, we'd be a lot better off if we replaced half the murders on television with sex.

    --

    Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
    [ Parent ]

    What do 99% of American male teens think? (4.92 / 14) (#141)
    by peanutbadr on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:47:18 AM EST

    If you showed this article to the average American teens, the reaction of 99% of males would be 'Damn...take me one of THOSE places!' This is a series of specific, localized instances. Or I could go with the whole "We need a more open sexual culture" or maybe "people aren't parenting their kids these days" whatever...it's 5am
    -peanutbadr--
    Get some sleep... (2.50 / 6) (#143)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 05:54:54 AM EST

    This is certainly not worth staying up for :-)

    [ Parent ]
    If this is true (4.50 / 4) (#146)
    by 5pectre on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 06:27:59 AM EST

    then why aren't I getting any? perhaps i'm not 'hip' enough.

    also, with regard to that character out of 'American Beauty', did it say she was a virgin? i thought she was just claiming that for the benefit of kevin spaceys character.

    i hope this is mostly bragging and exaggeration otherwise i'm missing out bigtime :)

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    dude (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by starsky on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:06:41 AM EST

    "i thought she was just claiming that for the benefit of kevin spaceys character. "

    Dude, this is like the whole point of the film! He lusts after her because she's a 'dirtly little slut' but actually she's just an immature virgin, so he doesn't screw her. Hence 'look closer'.

    [ Parent ]

    alright (4.66 / 3) (#150)
    by 5pectre on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:21:07 AM EST

    fair enough... and i just thought she was saying it to get out of screwing him.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]
    Just do what everyone else does (5.00 / 5) (#220)
    by Wah on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:39:01 AM EST

    then why aren't I getting any? perhaps i'm not 'hip' enough.

    do what the others do, lie about it.  Then everyone will think you get laid all the time, just like you think they do.
    --
    The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -- Joseph Joubert. ...
    [ Parent ]

    "hip" (5.00 / 4) (#267)
    by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:50:25 PM EST

    perhaps i'm not 'hip' enough.
    If you say this phrase, then no, probably not :P


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#310)
    by 5pectre on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:06:42 AM EST

    i wondered why things always go down hill after i say that.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]
    I'm pretty (2.50 / 8) (#149)
    by starsky on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:08:12 AM EST

    sure alot of this is boll*cks. If there are many women in the usa who've had a cock in their mouth, pussy and ass at the same time, I'd be pretty damn surprised, let me tell you!

    me too.. (4.60 / 5) (#161)
    by Danse on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 09:00:12 AM EST

    But I'd also be pretty damn depressed if it's true and kinky sex is as rampant as the article claims. How the hell do I get in on it?!






    An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
    [ Parent ]
    No Shit (3.66 / 3) (#177)
    by The Turd Report on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 03:47:48 PM EST

    Where are all these horny chicks at? I can't even get a fucking handjob, much less sandwich some girl.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, with a name like that.... [nt] (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by NFW on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:57:24 AM EST




    --
    Got birds?


    [ Parent ]

    I Don't Use My Middle Name (5.00 / 2) (#394)
    by The Turd Report on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:42:14 PM EST

    I just go by The Report.

    [ Parent ]
    I could name about 5000 (4.66 / 3) (#188)
    by YelM3 on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 08:24:53 PM EST

    That is, if I knew their names.

    Any porn addict can tell you that there are many, many women who do this kind of thing at least once in awhile (and yes they do get paid at least double). But of course they are professionals.

    However, if you think about it, why would this stuff not trickle-down to the rest of society, especially the kids? 20 years ago, how easy was it for a 13 year old boy or girl to find hardcore porn like that? These days every damn one of them can find it, and although I can't be sure, I would assume quite a few of them see this stuff regularly. And if this kind of thing "came up" with a few of your buddies and girlfriends, how often might it actually occur?

    Maybe it's the case that in previous generations this kind of thing just wasn't thought about nearly as much -- it wasn't as prevalent in the common consciousness. Now, thanks to the Internet and to a lesser extent cable TV and other factors (I'll leave those up to discussion) these, ehm, practices become more real since people are exposed to them.

    [ Parent ]

    Detumescence (4.50 / 6) (#151)
    by Echo5ive on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:21:45 AM EST

    de·tu·mes·cence n. Reduction or lessening of a swelling, especially the restoration of a swollen organ or part to normal size.

    Now that's a useful word. :-)



    --
    Frozen Skies: mental masturbation.

    it probably isn't topical (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by 5pectre on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:26:06 AM EST

    but it is one of my favourite verses of all time

    "The leech's kiss, the squid's embrace,
    The prurient ape's defiling touch:
    And do you like the human race?
    No, not much.


    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    If having group and kinky sex were a disease - (4.46 / 15) (#159)
    by 5pectre on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 08:10:11 AM EST

    Infect Me

    sorry, couldn't resist.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    We are going the way of (4.83 / 12) (#170)
    by SaintPort on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 01:01:28 PM EST

    A. Huxley's Brave New World...
    http://somaweb.org/w/sub/Brave%20New%20World%20fulltext.html

    "But chastity means passion, chastity means neurasthenia. And passion and neurasthenia mean instability. And instability means the end of civilization. You can't have a lasting civilization without plenty of pleasant vices."

    "The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much. There's no such thing as a divided allegiance; you're so conditioned that you can't help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren't any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your mortality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that's what soma is."

    Thanks to social programming like MTV, BET,  and most of the rest of the risque modern media and the educational system's philosophy of moral relativism,  our young people are losing their inhibitions in seeking acceptance, significance and love.  And what they are finding is disillusionment of Huxley's savage, or the empty soul of his citizens.

    --
    Search the Scriptures
    Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

    Amazing ourselves to death.... (4.90 / 10) (#174)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 03:28:16 PM EST

    Of the two great postwar dystopian visions of the future, Huxley's is far more accurte than Orwell's.

    "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us." From [ Amazing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman ]

    I am a great fan of old Huxley. A truly brilliant man.

    If you are intrested, there are many many Huxley quotes and references on my weblog.



    [ Parent ]
    Postman (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by johnny on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:35:21 AM EST

    His works are so true that I can only read him in the tiniest doses.

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
    [ Parent ]
    They were both right (4.50 / 2) (#279)
    by bugmaster on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:11:10 PM EST

    Actually, Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley described the way the Western/American culture was going, and Orwell described Soviet Union. I don't think many people realize that Orwell's "1984" was not really a vision of the future -- it was a description of current events in the good old USSR. No, USSR did not really have a massive video surveillance network -- but if they could, they would. The limiting factor was just their technological level.
    >|<*:=
    [ Parent ]
    Regarding Mr. Postman (none / 0) (#355)
    by LilDebbie on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:42:24 PM EST

    Do either of you (limbic or johnny) or anyone else around recommend The Lucifer Principle? I've had a strange desire to read it after seeing the quotes in Mage: Guide to the Technocracy (once again, geekiness brings forth wisdom).

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Yes... (none / 0) (#363)
    by limbic on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 08:11:45 PM EST

    ...it is an extremely interesting book. I have a chaptr from it on one of my sites here.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh brave new school, that has such people in it! (5.00 / 3) (#326)
    by Scrymarch on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 04:13:04 AM EST

    This makes an interesting counterpoint to Eloquence's article, particularly this part:

    encourage massages among pupils as a method of calming them down, and provide rooms dedicated to physical affection, including safe sexual acts among pupils.

    Presumably he's cheering the sandwich makers on; others are.  (I personally find the school bonking room concept, for lack of a better word, manky.  This illusion of freedom is a bad idea in the suffocating artifical pack-world of highschool, in much the same way not having school uniforms is a bad idea.  And Ew, Jim and Sharon spilled their love-juice.  The janitor should really clean this place out after lunch.)

    limbic's article sounds a touch overblown, but if there's any truth to it the Brave New World quote is particularly appropriate.  Rampant sexual rutting moves schools even closer to Huxley's dystopia.

    Drugs are already common, some officially sanctioned, some ineffectively prohibited.  Ritalin and Prozac are almost soma-lite, calming people down only enough to make them docile and industrious.  Pot and alchohol, both depressants, are much like soma - pot more so, as the effects of alchohol are fairly unpredictable.  The hallucinogens are (I'm guessing) rarer, but raging youth serves this purpose well enough.

    Schools have a deliberate and pervasive caste system based on age, which is of course heavily correlated with skill and social ability.  There is a super-elite of teachers, many of which never left school in their heads, filling the role of Mustapha Mond.

    Intellectual endeavour is encouraged within a narrow, centrally determined framework.  The social rewards - school captaincies, presidencies, popular groups etc - are determined by a kind of mob consensus from among the alphas.

    It is difficult to be successful outside the school system, though islands and swathes of barbarism exist.

    Subliminal messages are all that's needed to make rich world schools a mirror of the favourite scary story of rich world intellectuals.  The protagonist of Brave New World at one point chooses a kind of philosophical stoicism; there's life and strength in that doctrine yet.

    [ Parent ]

    -1 (3.76 / 13) (#179)
    by Lai Lai Boy on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:23:48 PM EST

    While I feel this article is at least implicitly sexist, I was thinking about abstaining or even voting +1 section for the discussion.  However, as this as been hanging out in the queue, the whole discussion has been inundated with limbic's own comments.  

    Commenting to clear up a misunderstanding is one thing; "Woolfe is brilliant.  'Nuff said."  Is quite another.  We know you like Woolfe or you wouldn't have cited him.  In fact we know what you think on the issue based on your article.  Moreover, many of your comments are "wow that comment was funny" or "go to bed" style replies that clog up the discussion.    

    In short, you posted the article, we know your views.  Give others a chance to speak.  If an author must comment to his or her article, let it be worth something, at least.  

    [Posted from Mozilla Firebird]

    I thought it was customary to reply to comments. (5.00 / 7) (#181)
    by limbic on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 04:39:52 PM EST

    I am relatively new here, so your views are news to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah (4.00 / 2) (#192)
    by MadDreamer on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 11:20:47 PM EST

    I wouldn't worry about it. The article seemed balanced enough to me. It's always been my view that you make your article take no stand on the issue you're reporting (unless it's an editorial, of course) and then voraciously fight for your views in the comments section. So, opine freely, sir.


    [ Parent ]
    Rubbish... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Typo Negitive on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:54:09 AM EST

    Replying to comments on your own story is taking responsibility for it. Not replying at all is eith overconfidence or cowardice. Don't see you following your own advice in your story: "The War on Terror should be a War on Corruption and Poverty"

    - Sig -

    It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.

    - Oscar Wilde cannot be held responsible
    [ Parent ]

    Yawn... (2.11 / 9) (#196)
    by brsmith4 on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:07:12 AM EST

    Wow, you brits have some weird shit going on over there (if in fact the severity of what you describe is even true). I have not seen any of this in the states.

    Secondly, I have never seen a posted article so riddled with replies from the poster. Is it correct to assume that 'limbic' has no life but the one on K5?

    Lastly, I give props to limbic's command of the English language, but enough is enough. I have not read a more prolix piece of drivel since the first paragraph of 'Tale of Two Cities' by Dickens. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.... etc,etc,etc...." Yawn...


    And please, limbic, instead of replying to this message because you feel i have insulted you in some way, please, for the love of Christ, go find you some and let the teenies have their massive orgies, oreo cookies, and sandwiches in peace.


    I give up on you people. You couldn't save yourselves from a bad dream. --God
    Stupid (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by awgsilyari on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:47:37 AM EST

    Lastly, I give props to limbic's command of the English language, but enough is enough. I have not read a more prolix piece of drivel since the first paragraph of 'Tale of Two Cities' by Dickens. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.... etc,etc,etc...." Yawn...

    Dickens coined the phrase. How the hell can something be cliche the first time it's used?

    If you think the author is too cliched or forced, then say so. But to compare his cliches to the words of Dickens is just moronic.

    --------
    Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
    [ Parent ]

    Prolix v Cliche (none / 0) (#257)
    by elanova on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:55:48 PM EST

    I have not read a more prolix piece of drivel since the first paragraph of 'Tale of Two Cities' by Dickens. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.... etc,etc,etc...." Yawn...
    If you think the author is too cliched or forced, then say so. But to compare his cliches to the words of Dickens is just moronic.
    pro·lix adj.
    1. Tediously prolonged; wordy: editing a prolix manuscript.
    2. Tending to speak or write at excessive length.
    Synonyms: wordy, diffuse, long-winded, verbose

    cli·ché also cliche n.
    1. A trite or overused expression or idea
    2. A person or character whose behavior is predictable or superficial
    Synonyms: bromide, commonplace, platitude, truism

    You are correct - limbic was not (mostly) being cliche. He was, however, being extremely prolix, and he was doing so in a most Dickensian manner. (This coming from someone who likes Dickens!) While Dickens was a great author, he was also being paid by the word. It can be useful to remember that, on occasion.
    Avoid cliches like the plague! (They're old hat.)
    [ Parent ]

    Dickhead (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by starsky on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:11:33 AM EST

    "Wow, you brits have some weird shit going on over there (if in fact the severity of what you describe is even true). I have not seen any of this in the states."

    This article is about things that happen in the states. You dumb US fuck.

    [ Parent ]

    *sigh* (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by brsmith4 on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:17:19 PM EST

    I have refrained from using profanity and childish insults in my flames, but in your case, i will make an exception.

    Okay you dumb <insert whatever god-forsaken country here> fuck, straight from limbic's own keyboard:

    "...I know. It was a silly mistake. Here in the UK the rate has been steadily rising and I wrote that with that in mind. "

    This was in response to a post that said his information was wrong and infact our (US) teenager's sexual promiscuity has in fact dropped. He is from the UK and he is reflecting the problems happening there and claiming that they are happenning in the US as well.

    Now, shut the fuck up.


    I give up on you people. You couldn't save yourselves from a bad dream. --God
    [ Parent ]
    Nice try at a weasel (1.00 / 1) (#248)
    by DominantParadigm on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:36:55 PM EST

    Very American of you.

    Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


    [ Parent ]
    Have you read limbic's replies? (none / 0) (#321)
    by brsmith4 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:28:14 AM EST

    Didn't think so.


    I give up on you people. You couldn't save yourselves from a bad dream. --God
    [ Parent ]
    If this (none / 0) (#410)
    by starsky on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 04:45:19 AM EST

    *was* in response to some post, then the moron should have put this as a reply to that post, and therefore 'dumb US fuck' still applies.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah interesting but (4.42 / 7) (#197)
    by millman on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:07:48 AM EST

    when you look at people engaging in self destructive behaviours, you're going to find the same root causes today as you have throughout time.  Lack of proper parenting, opportunity, blah blah blah, etc.

    Fucking random people out of anger, need for attention, or just for the hell of it, it's all the same.  The mindset of the individual is what is important.  The way you fuck doesn't make much of a difference, whether you've got 3 dicks in your mouth or just one.  Self destruction is self destruction.

    You've presented only qualitative evidence, and I haven't seen a trend in the average studies I've looked at recently indicating significant change in teen sexual behavior.  Nor do you present any.  You also need to differentiate between self destructive sex and sex among "young" people, because young people having sex is not inherently self destructive.

    I think Huxley is as relavent as ever, but I would be much more inclined to favor an article that seeks to show his general theories are being borne out in modern society, instead of an article that simply uses qualitiative and anecdotal evidence to show that "this is something new".
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.

    Get your facts straight (4.87 / 8) (#203)
    by Gromit on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 04:28:32 AM EST

    ...runaway pregnancy figures...
    Just wrong, both pregnancy and birth rates for teenagers in the U.S. have been falling annually for a decade. Look here and here. A quote from the second link: "...Overall teen pregnancy rates have dropped 19 percent since 1991..."

    --
    "The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

    Yes yes... (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by limbic on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:48:24 AM EST

    ...I know. It was a silly mistake. Here in the UK the rate has been steadily rising and I wrote that with that in mind.

    [ Parent ]
    References? (none / 0) (#223)
    by zakalwe on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:04:48 AM EST

    The only statistics I could find on the matter are these which seem to indicate a slow but consistent drop. Admittedly they only go up to 1999. Do you have a link / reference to more recent statistics?

    [ Parent ]
    Full explanation... (none / 0) (#225)
    by limbic on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:41:00 AM EST

    Overall teenage pregnancies in the UK have been falling steadily, except in one are: Girls under 16. There was some brouhaha about this last year.

    See this Guardian article.

    England has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe.

    I would remove all mention of preganacy in a new version of the article. STD's are booming however.

    See Deadly peril of teen sex time bomb [Guardian]

    and

    Britain and US head teenage births league [ Guardian]



    [ Parent ]
    Overrated problem (4.91 / 12) (#204)
    by wrinkledshirt on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:37:59 AM EST

    Weren't girls being married off in their pre-teens during the Middle Ages? Wasn't Shakespeare's Juliet supposed to be 13? At least in this case the boys involved are a little closer in age...

    If you ask me, there are bigger fish to fry with our young ones. Give me cheerleaders having orgies anyday over kids either (a) taking guns to school, or (b) not being able to find on a map the country their leaders are about to bomb.

    I'm not worried about guns in school (2.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Hektor on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:31:16 AM EST

    I'm waiting for guns in church. And it'll happen, you wait and see. Some nut will go fucking apeshit and they'll refer to him as a disgruntled worshipper!

    [ Parent ]
    *ahem* (none / 0) (#228)
    by TheEldestOyster on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:45:10 AM EST

    Attribute the quote, please. George Carlin.
    --
    TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
    [ Parent ]
    That's what makes it funny (none / 0) (#294)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:56:02 PM EST

    That it was an obvious quote and he didn't attribute it. It's meta-funny.

    [ Parent ]
    So let me guess this straight (1.50 / 2) (#290)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:36:39 PM EST

    So you want more children who don't know what country we're about to bomb (teenage pregnancy, and wouldn't be fit to enter the military if we ever had to fight a "real" war, like, to defend ourselves (STDs)? I think it's silly to believe this is a "non-problem".

    [ Parent ]
    Balls and the razor (4.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Lynoure on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:16:32 AM EST

    > Firstly we must apply Occam's Razor. The dog's bollocks maxim may apply:
    > Why does a dog lick its testicles? Because (1) it can and (2) it feels nice.

    Probably for same reason guys stratch their balls: They occasionally itch.


    RE: Balls and the razor [ugh.] (none / 0) (#263)
    by Verve on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:14:10 PM EST

    [shudders]

    Please don't use "balls" and "razor" in the same sentence/fragment/phrase.

    Thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    cutting, not splitting, hairs. (none / 0) (#331)
    by Lynoure on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 06:11:03 AM EST

    I couldn't resist it. I didn't mean to imply actual cutting (of anything except maybe hairs), though, just the kinky tension.

    [ Parent ]
    Balls & Razor (5.00 / 2) (#372)
    by Eccles on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:56:02 PM EST

    Dr. Evil: There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum. It's breathtaking, I suggest you try it.

    [ Parent ]
    View from the Inside (4.81 / 16) (#211)
    by BlackFireBullet on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:06:16 AM EST

    Just a brief word on who I am, before I explain what I have seen: I am 17 year old in Australia. Previously I have lived in the US (Grades 6-8), UK(9-10), and now Australia(11).

    All the schools I have attended were middle class, and most (with the acception of 1 american school) were extremelly liberal(One of my english classes in England included a discussion of the drunken escapades of a few students, this was approved by the teacher, who took part without judgement).

    From where I see it, your article is sensational crap, however, all lies have a trace of truth, and this article does have some base in fact.

    Year 6(Age 12): Dating was common, however it was done in a very courtly and artifical manner.
    Year 7(Age 13): 2nd base was standard, with rumors of people getting to 3rd.
    Year 8(Age 14): Same as 7
    Year 9(Age 15): 20% were not virgins, 80% drunk, 25% smoked. On the school camp, there were 12 in my room, and only 3 of us had NOT had given or recieved head. Those 3 were: Mr. Nice(possibly gay), A pro-HAMAS muslim, and me(the token nerd).
    Year 10(Age 16): 30% not virgins, 90% drunk, 40% smoked.
    Year 11(Age 17): 40% not virgins, 80% drunk, 20% smoked(Australia doesn't have the UK's smoking thing).

    Of course, there are different variables working in different countries, and the middle classes do not act as the working class do, noteable because the girls have enough money not to need a BF to lean on.

    The article seems to accuse my generation of commiting acts of sexual indecency, which is(in my experience) simply not true.

    However there is legitamite concern over the sexual promescuity in my generation. Most relationships are based firmly in physical attraction, with mental affinity being a shaky construction to fill the gaps.

    If you are looking wrong with my generation, I would be inclined to focus upon the our major flaws.

    • Our habitual laziness. Most people have some desires, or views to put forward. However the media, and society has made it hard for us to do anything outside the norm(ie: protest) and most don't have the drive to do it.
    • The institutionalising of Anti-Intellectualism. This is to be expected amoungst the young. What is not to be expected is (I am taking Australia as the example here, despite its extreme nature) the praise of sports champions above scholars by the teachers of schools, and by our prime minister.
    • Our unquestioning obeidence, coupled with our lack of politcal interest. No one cares enough about politics to get involved, and almost everyone pulls the party line, because thinking independantly is hard

    Of course, all those problems are frequent throughout society, however I see my generation as particulaly self-absorbed, and hipocritical. Much of this isn't 100% our fault, however we cannot hide from the guilt of rejecting the conformity promised to us by the media.

    Of course, all this must be taken lightly. I am, of course, post on Kuro5hin, which alone says enough about my social standing.

    Not YOUR Generation (3.00 / 1) (#277)
    by MyrddinE on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:35:30 PM EST

    Actually, this is an extremely recent trend... like, last 5 years. Not every school has this culture, not every region has this culture. The fact that you missed it (hooray for you!) does not invalidate the post.

    I mostly missed it. I moved from school to school when I was growing up... for a 7 year period, I went to 6 schools. One of those schools, in upstate New York, I could see being a statistic in this article. The others, far less likely.

    Different places, different morals. I don't share the posters moral indignation over the types of acts, though I do agree that it is excessive and unhealthy for preteens. Had I grown up at a later time, I may have participated in something like this. I doubt it would have been particularly healthy for me, though it may have been a little less frustrating than retaining my virginity until 25. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    yes it is MY generation (none / 0) (#306)
    by BlackFireBullet on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:43:06 PM EST

    "Actually, this is an extremely recent trend... like, last 5 years"

    Yes, that is my generation. I am still in highschool, and I(along with the others in my school) basically entered puberty 5 years ago...

    [ Parent ]

    I think Tom Wolfe's memory is going (4.50 / 6) (#216)
    by squinky on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:46:42 AM EST

    In "The Electric Koolaid Acid Test" there is a scene of a woman at a party who invites the entire male assemblage (which includes the Hell's Angels) to have sex with her. They form a line and scores of men take turns having sex with her for hours.

    That happened roughly forty years ago.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.


    Was she in Junior High? N/T (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by BurntHombre on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:59:04 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    probably not (none / 0) (#335)
    by squinky on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 09:06:16 AM EST

    I don't have a copy of the book any more, but I believe my point still stands.

    A friend of my mother-in-law, when she was 13 or 14 in the 1960s, was known to seduce older men. On one occaision she slipped away from the family vacation to do a park ranger.

    Can we conclude from that that all Junior High School girls in the 60s were doing that? No, and you can't expect all Junior High School girls today not to do that. Some people have sex earlier than others. Some people have sex more often. They always have and always will.


    [ Parent ]

    guys saying "no" (4.25 / 4) (#219)
    by kipple on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:35:23 AM EST

    just a thought: after ages of "males going to search for females", ages of "trial-and-error" based approaches to girls, will the situation turn upside down?
    For example, will girls become more and more aggressive, to the point where guys no longer will have to be confident in statistics to get a "date"?

    Will it be dangerous, in 100 years from now, for a lone man to walk around the city at night? It would be fun :)

    Obviously I'm just joking, but that was the first thought that came to mind after reading this article, and here it is.

    Cheers

    --- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers (adapted from D. Bach)

    May be ... (1.00 / 1) (#286)
    by mami on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:47:14 PM EST

    Will it be dangerous, in 100 years from now, for a lone man to walk around the city at night?

    May be. After all those poor boys have been scared to death by all those aggressive teenage sex work drones, they may have no other choice than to turn to each other and try out to be gay. A walk of a lone man around the city at night might become a real danger. All those boys, starving for love, roam around at night to hook up ... just with you. Be careful ...

    [ Parent ]

    Man (3.77 / 9) (#227)
    by riceowlguy on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:42:34 AM EST

    How did this get to the front page? Overall it's okay, but I dislike the editorializing assumptions that things like "sandwiches" are "humiliating experiences" for the girls involved. How do you know it's humiliating?

    "Speaking of which, Monette sends you her love." "Has it been disinfected yet?" - r*k*milholland

    It was based on the premise that... (none / 0) (#260)
    by limbic on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:08:27 PM EST

    ...they were carrying out these acts due to pressure rather that desire. The "sandwich" was a breaking point ("point of escalation") after which the girls in question realised things had gotten out of control. See Sterks interview for the full story.

    [ Parent ]
    I can understand the editing (none / 0) (#270)
    by garaged on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 04:10:53 PM EST

    It is humiliating to make a "sandwich" for a woman, and even more if she's 12-18.

    No matter if I like or not some kind of sexual acts, when you're an adult you have some mental strenght and decision, that a kid or a teenager doesn't.

    I can decide to involve myself in a self-humiliating act, and I can reject it if someone else tries to involve me on it, but the average teenager wont know how to react correctly, might be scared, might be embarrased, or excited, and his decision wont be mature, and most probably incorrect.

    So, there you go

    G

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (4.66 / 3) (#276)
    by riceowlguy on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:31:36 PM EST

    I don't buy this "it's humiliating. Everybody knows that. Just accept it." attitude from you and others. Just like with any sexual act, it is okay if all parties are consenting and enjoying, and not okay otherwise. There is nothing more inherently humiliating about triple penetration than double or single.

    "Speaking of which, Monette sends you her love." "Has it been disinfected yet?" - r*k*milholland
    [ Parent ]

    Bull (none / 0) (#404)
    by dh003i on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 07:55:14 PM EST

    Like someone else said, there's nothing inherently humiliating about being in the middle of a sex-sandwich, certainly not if you want to be there and enjoy it.  What would be humiliating is being forced into it, either by physical force or pressure, or doing it but not enjoying it.  Both of those things have nothing to do with the sandwich, and everything to do with rape and pee-pressure.  In the case of peer-pressure, what we should do is teach kids to think for themselves.  But it's kinda hard for x-tians to teach their children to think for themselves, because they're too busy brainwashing them into thinking that masturbation is wrong and evil.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    myopic view of history (4.33 / 12) (#230)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:22:08 AM EST

    So teenagers are having sex, big deal. Next! Hold it a second. This sounds like nothing new. But I think it is.

    are you serious? people are making as much whoopie now as they were then, and they will be making the same amount in the future. nature and nurture constantly creates as many prudes as orgy aficianadoes. you have a poor, dim view of history.

    you see a frightening loosening of morals over time before you. it is a false perception, relax. who said this:

    "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common."

    give up?

    it was written on an assyrian clay tablet dated at 2800 BC. we haven't gotten much worse. we haven't gotten much better, either. ;-P

    i went to pompeii once and was surprised at this one house on whose walls inside were preserved dioramas covered with more examples of indecent sexual acts than you can find trolling the worst porn sites on the web today. i won't even describe the features of the fountain in the middle of the room. god knows what went on in there.

    try the dravidian dioramas in the ancient temples in southern india. they are orgies. ever hear of the pillowbook from medieval japan of a thousand years ago? i swear you will blush at what is talked about in that book.

    for every age of man, there is a constant amount of people who live lives of moral high holy purity and those who live lives of extreme moral terpitude, and everything in between. you have demonstrated a common misperception, this myopic view of history.

    of course it gets equally sticky when we include on our personal observations of the moral decay of society over time our personal views on standards of human sexuality (sorry for the use of the verb 'sticky' in this context).

    in your stereotypical view, for example, of prudish victorian times, you would find on the streets of london amongst the middle and lower classes more prurience and indecency than you would find at any britany spears concert. and amongst those moral uptight upper class victorians, let us only guess at the hypocrisy that went on behind closed doors. the moral decay of society indeed. i'm certain you would find in the nunneries and priesthoods at the time, the lower class members of high moral standing who fled the horrors of impure london in their time, and pined for the good old days of 200 years before in london, when things were good and decent. and those who lived in the 1680s... you get it now, repeat ad nauseum until you get to adam and eve. (and what did that story teach us again?)

    there were biblical farmers screwing biblical sheep in 4000 BC and there will be cloned martian farmers screwing clones of dolly the sheep in 4000 AD. not much really changes, really, when it comes to human sexual desire.

    don't judge an era by who was in control of the media at the time, or the us supreme court. human nature is a constant across time and space.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    Slight difference... (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Kintanon on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:39:47 AM EST

    I think that the surprising issue is not that ADULTS engage in this behaviour as they always have and always will, but that children are now doing so. The lowering puberty age in our culture brought on by both  a diet high in growth hormones and societal pressure to grow up faster is creating people who are physically adults long before they are socially adult or viewed as adult by society. As a consequence they are not being educated about adult issues such as why it's not generally a good idea to fuck everyone you meet. They are still emotionally children most of the time and motivated by a primary desire for peer acceptance and still almost completely self centered. For people who have not been witness to this trend over the last 15 years it comes as a shocking surprise. It doesn't surprise me because when I as in high school there were a LOT of middle school girls who were physically more mature than their high school counterparts whereas that was not the case when I as in middle school. So the trend has been ongoing for people to reach puberty earlier. Now that's starting to surface in the sexual activity of middle schoolers and highschoolers. Afterall, when you've done every kind of 'Vanilla' sex by the time you hit 8th grade you start looking for some wilder shit...

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    more of the same historical myopia (5.00 / 4) (#285)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 07:32:35 PM EST

    again, the historical myopia. children used to get MARRIED in their PRETEENS for crying out loud- CONDONED by their society! you say to me sex is getting raunchier at an earlier age... well i say to you in response that the age at which it is generally accepted in society that you loose your childhood is getting later and later throughout history.

    in earlier times, as soon as you could pick up a farm tool and work out in the fields, you were a fully contributing member of society. what, is the drinking age 21 years in india as well as the united states? howabout england in the year 1200? mesopotamia in 1600 bc?

    you are 14 years old. are you a child? right NOW in this PLACE, the united states, that is true. that is not true elsewhere in the world right now, nevermind throughout history.

    look, i'm not trolling for NAMBLA here. innocence being preyed upon by old sleazes is still evil, in any time, in any place. but orgies amongst 14 years old, among innocents of equal innocence, is not automatically some terrible new "thing" in history, that is all i am saying. it is shocking. it is rare. you can call it terrible, i have no problem with that. the problem i have is with saying it's some new thing, that it is suddenly, in history, appearing more and more. history is controlled by media. media in that time, and media today. just because orgies amongst 14 year olds has not announced itself in the historical record does not mean it did not happen, or happened less then, or is happening more now.

    look beyond victorian and puritanical prudishness as your backdrop of historical change. it's not like 1,000 years ago the age of 16 was the magical age of sexual responsibility or whatever you call the demarcation line of where sexuality is good and wholesome on one side of, and dirty and precocious on the other.

    do you have some miraculous proof that any nasty precocious orgiastic thing you can pull from a news bulletin today was not being done 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago?

    like the UN in iraq, it's hard to prove a negative, isn't it?

    look, biological sexual maturity has never, ever in history suddenly also bequeathed responsibility and wisdom as well. but with secondary sexual characterisitcs budding is also bequeathed sexual curiosity and arousal, with certainty. true among other simians like bonobos and chimpanzees as human beings. so it is perfectly reasonable that curious orgies amongst 13 year olds would spontaneously occur throughout history. i'm not saying that is a good thing. i am not saying it is a mad thing. i'm just saying it's a thing. it happens. i'm not saying you should accept it, or not be shocked, or grow comfortable with the idea. i am merely saying look at the prerequisties for this kind of behavior. it's always been there. it would be rare, but it would not be phenomonologically impossible, or more likely, or less likely, throughout history.

    why? because the ingredients needed barely changes. all that is needed is a group of precious, curious, irresponsible youngsters. modern day society hardly has a historical monopoly on THAT.

    so children are "suddenly" doing these incredible orgiastic things? oh really? that is incredibly shortsighted of you historically.

    so in the absence of your impossible to get proof, we have to follow occams razor ("the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation") and continue to conclude: not much really ever changes in human nature, sexuality of which being a central component of human nature.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    OK so (2.00 / 1) (#367)
    by Galion on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:14:27 PM EST

    Let me set the scene. I'm reading your comment, all very interesting, and then this smacks me in the face:

    you are 14 years old. are you a child? right NOW in this PLACE, the united states, that is true. that is not true elsewhere in the world right now, nevermind throughout history.

    I'm sorry, this is just absolute bullshit. Canada, 3/4 of Europe, South-Africa, Japan. It took me three seconds of brain time to get that list. Maybe next time you could spend that time too.

    Sorry for the flame, but this really got my goat.

    [ Parent ]

    14 year old child (3.00 / 1) (#387)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 08:35:04 AM EST

    at 14, are you biologically a child?

    no, you are a biological adult at this age. if you are female, you can bear a child, if you are male, you can impregnate a woman.

    does this mean you are RESPONSIBLE. of course not!

    so you are all pissed off that i said that the age 14 doesn't really make you a child everywhere. ok, your bullshit meter is going off.

    so what?

    does it change a damn thing i said? no.

    after all, what the heck is a "child?" there are 14 years olds who can successfully and responsibly run businesses at this precocious age, and there are 28 year olds who still can't take care of themselves financially. it's a bell curve from the age of 10-30. 99.99& of 10 year olds can't make it in the real world as an adult. 99.99% of 30 year olds CAN make it in the real world as an adult. in between is the end of what might be called "childhood" for 99.99% of us. the end of innocence. whatever.

    and on separate subsets of what might be called innocence- financial innocence, sexual innocence, social innocence, political innocence, etc., each and everyone of us cross that threshold at different times and ages. some of us NEVER grow up on a subset of one of these issues. some of us cross the threshold much earlier than the rest of us. so when does childhood end? really end? for each and every one of us, for each and every subset of the end of innocence, there is no magical line.

    you just don't like the semantics. fine, whatever. child, schmild. what you call "child hood" is complicated. it is no magic black and white switch such that at the age of 16, or 17, or 18, boom! you suddenly move from total innocence to complete experience.

    so what exactly is the point of your bullshit meter going off on my point about the truth of childhood at the age of 14?

    it doesn't change the truth of my argument one bit.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    14? Sure... (none / 0) (#416)
    by Kintanon on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:42:55 AM EST

    But how about *8*? There are girls in south American going through puberty at 8 years old. Sometimes younger. I'd say that's pretty well unprecedented in the history of humankind. So while we may be holding our children emotional and sociological growth back later and later we're accelerating the physical maturity of our kids by shoving them full of hormones via the food they eat. It's just going to make the disparity between the physical ability to have sex and the mental faculty to know whether you should be having sex right now that much greater.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    how proud. (3.90 / 10) (#234)
    by ph0rk on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:49:14 AM EST

    The result is what we are witnessing today: Masculine sexuality feeding off pseudo-masculine sexuality leading to sexual feeding frenzy and 'sandwiches' being made all over suburban America. In some respects it is similar to the (male) gay scene and its infamous sexual voracity.

    What makes you think it is pseudo-masculine sexuality?  Are girls not allowed to get randy?  And if they do, is it merely because they want to emulate men?

    What I would like to know is whether these areas (the ones discussed via the links) are areas where abstinance is taught, or contraception, and if contraception, if contraceptives are actually available.

    I tend to side with the concept of teaching contraceptive use, and would really like to know if that was what was done in these areas or not.  (Though if I recall, I was not taught that until 16 or so, so after many of these children have already been sexually active.)

    .
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]

    Okay. Here's what I see. . . (4.70 / 24) (#237)
    by Fantastic Lad on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:10:53 AM EST

    First off, from what I have seen, this is not an urban myth. The incident in the Michigan town got its very own hour news documentary a couple of years back. --Essentially, when a few hundred 12-15 year olds all get venereal disease, it garners interest.

    Second. . ,

    The generation itself is not to be judged. --I've read a couple of indignant responses from teens regarding this stuff which leads me to think that there is some percieved guilt/blame nonsense making the rounds. Put that away.

    Third. . ,

    The frustration others are feeling is screen-static. Ignore it, if you can. --I've read many responses from people who are so charged up with their own foibles and regrets and desires and various conflicting issues that they can barely make sense from one paragraph to the next. Trust me. You don't want to be 14 years old again so you struggle through those challenges.

    This cultural scenario springs from several sources. . .

    1. Over-hyped sexuality in the media. The corporate logic, "If sex sells, then logically, more sex ought to sell. . . More!" --But that corporations are destroying the world is not exactly news. It pays to recognize it, though.

    2. Hopelessness. The writing is on the wall for our world, and it has been for some time. Kids are not necessarily more aware of this than most, but the effects of even a garbled message can easily run deeper with a young person than it does with many adults who have been anesthetized by the grind of daily work and too little time to think; and by the fact that they have worked out to some degree who they are. News Flash; Columbine was another facet of this same animal.

    But since sex is part of the issue here, as usual, it becomes the only issue. There was little mention that it wasn't just sex which many kids today are dealing so poorly with, but also drinking and drug taking and violence. --All issues which are being noticed, but which are also being compartmentalized and the way our dipshit society has been trained to do. Big pictures are not popular in our "directory/folder/file" society which renders itself impotent in the arena of recognizing, let alone solving, core problems. How can you when all the puzzle pieces are kept in different drawers? --And when some of those drawers are locked up tight because the puzzle pieces happen to be painted in particularly ugly colors. --What? Consider cattle mutilations in the same breath as sexual practices, in the same breath as Wal-Mart towns? Shit, are you out of your mind? People's brains crash when you try to combine ideas even if they are tightly tied together. People don't even have the 'software' to take the first logical step! They veer off into some subroutine, usually involving ridicule and denial. The Blue Screen of Death is a merely a mean laugh in meat-space.

    Essentially, there is a huge rage & hopelessness component to this 'kids having destructive sex' issue. And no, it's not just, "a randy itch long before reaching puberty," or some kind of response to the sexual revolution, as those studying it seem to suggest in their bland attempts at insight.

    3. Selfish parents wanting to be their kid's friends rather than their parents, and (look out!) Moms having careers.

    --I'm sorry, and I apologize, and I commiserate, but when our corporate world pushed our women into the workforce, (see #1 re: corporate evil), and reduced the amount of time parents have to spend with their kids, it's a foregone conclusion that kids are going to make bigger, more catastrophic mistakes.

    It's only been in the last 15 years or so that kids have even had access to an empty house in which to go nuts. --An empty house was damned rare when I was a kid back in the 70's. Parents exist for a reason; to provide boundaries and guidance through a child's life. And during the years of puberty, when things get really tough on a kid, not having any (or enough) adults around to keep things steady is just asking for trouble. What the fuck did people think was going to happen when they turned all 'Me-First', 'what about MY feelings'? If you want to focus on YOU, or if you can't afford to keep one adult around while a child grows up, then don't have kids. Parenting isn't a fucking game. Sheesh.

    4. Car culture. --Thanks to the American auto industry, all our city planning was designed around everybody having a car. You can't even get to the local hell-hole mall without one of those damned ass-mobiles these days. Before kids get their driver's license, they are stranded in suburban boredom land, where all the houses are identical, all the adults are away, and they are bombarded with distilled televised evil.

    So who's to blame? The kids aren't. The Parents should be, but they've been brainwashed and manipulated into being idiots, so you can't really blame them either. The media? Sure, but the media is just the mouthpiece and hypnotic eye of one head of the hydra.

    The problem goes very, very deep and it has many roots and, yes, it has dark purpose. "Slaying the World with what Business Knows." That's just a piece of it. But since most people are too screwed up worrying about petty blame and guilt, (owning a car, having a day job, MY feelings, MY stuff, MY god!!!), that they aren't even willing to admit that they're in the middle of a labyrinth. --A maze from which the only escape comes at the price of painful awakening, and painful change. Of letting go.

    -Fantastic Lad

    More? (4.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Jman1 on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:42:49 PM EST

    Hey, I really liked your post. I'm unsure of your conclusions, though (if you have any,) and I'm interested. You seem to be blaming "it" (the sex problem, but all the other ones too) on either the "hydra," or on self-centered adults. What is the hydra? (I know what a hydra is, I mean, what is the deep-rooted hydra you are talking about and what can we do about it?)

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously? (4.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Fantastic Lad on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:57:23 PM EST

    If you knew me and my posting habits, you might think twice about asking. Go dig through some of my previous posting history and you'll see what I mean.
    It's not for everybody. You have been warned.

    -Fantastic Lad

    [ Parent ]

    Letting go (none / 0) (#282)
    by andreiko on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:55:02 PM EST

    Do you practice letting go?
    What does it look like in your case?

    Thanks


    [ Parent ]

    Alright. . . (4.00 / 4) (#308)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:39:54 AM EST

    Do you practice letting go? What does it look like in your case?

    Thanks

    Fine. Hold on to your hats. . .

    Mistake #1: "Everybody has to get our there and get a regular job."

    Piece of worthy Advice #1: "Do not follow. Not following anything is a key. It is up to the Individual."

    Mistake #2: "I only look out for number 1! Helping others is for chumps."

    Mistake #2.5: Helping those who aren't trying to help themselves and/or are actively trying to self-destruct.

    Mistake #2.5a: Helping those who don't ask.

    All Time Stupid Distraction #1: The endless, infernal debate between the Cult of Christ and the Cult of so-called 'Science'. --Real Science doesn't deny awkward discoveries; the real show is hidden from view.

    Old Lie #1: Turn the other Cheek.

    Old Lie #2: The Meek will inherit the Earth.

    Truth #1: Television's main purpose is that of cultural programming. Yes, even the 'Learning Channel.' Stop absorbing crap and you will quickly become much, much stronger.

    Truth #2: Your level of awareness is YOUR problem.

    False Programmed Auto-Belief #1: "The Burdon Of Proof lies with the Guy Making the Claim." (--See Truth #2.) Nobody cares if you decide to remain ignorant. Do your own damned research. Anything you get from anybody else to work with is a blessing.

    Dumb-ass Assertion #1: "Greed is good!"

    Other general notes. . .

    If you are on the right path, (which you can determine by paying attention to the rumblings of the lodestone inside your gut), if you strive not to lie to yourself about anything, if you look your mistakes squarely in the eye and work to grow from them, if you act on your decisions, if you are comfortable with who you are, if you know how to both Give and to Take with grace (--VERY important! Bottle-necks occur otherwise!), if you gauge but do not judge, if you remain open to ALL ideas and digest them without mercy, without bias, without laziness. . , then you might just have a chance.

    If you start acting like this, then you will find that things will start to fall very naturally into place, and you will not, cannot fail. This isn't just a rule of thumb. It's real and it's powerful. I'm a living example; I have a real name outside cyber-space some of you would probably recognize and respect. Don't waste your time guessing. I'm not telling.

    General suggestions: Ditch your car if possible; live close to where you work. Be capable of telling off selfish assholes. Read a lot more non-fiction. Be around good people. Know your heart and then follow it. Learn how advertising and propaganda work. Do not be selfish. Read the ingredient list. Be wary of ANYTHING the government tells you. Always be in a state of learning. Do not obsess. Do not judge. Do not work for assholes. "Money and stuff" can be big, big traps.

    And going further afield. . . Just because you feel an emotion, doesn't mean it's yours. Christ was a real guy, but the Bible is mostly bullshit designed to fuck with people. (Christ is the good sheppherd? Bullshit. Sheep are sheered and then slaughtered. Religion is designed to limit thinking, as is the public version of 'science'; they each manipulate and limit in their own sordid ways.) Examine your dreams; your subconscious is trying to tell you valuable things. If you don't dream, figure out why and fix it! UFO's aren't a joke and aliens want to hurt you. (Read, Richard Dolan. Or don't.) Cell phones and artificial EM radiation make you dumb. (There are THOUSANDS of pages of solid research. Read, Robert O. Becker's 'Electromagnetism and Life.' Or don't). Unless you are the rare exception, do NOT take anti-depressants. They are addictive and they make you stupid, pliable and easy to control.

    See?

    Most people, if they want to implement even a fraction of this stuff in their lives, would have to overcome a lot of very difficult and very painful barriers. Letting go is just that. Letting go of fears and the cushy warmth of popular dogma. Popular lies. Letting go of selfish comforts. And. . .

    Watch this:

    Faith is not a dirty word; just abused. God is the Universe, and we all live many, many lives. (Are your palms sweating yet? They will, or you will turn away. Or you are nodding. Or you are far, far ahead of me, shaking your head with a wry smile as this youngster hammers away.)

    -Fantastic Lad

    "See the bad nurse make disease." -Hsub Egroeg

    [ Parent ]

    How do I "ditch the car?" (none / 0) (#337)
    by shovelknife on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:19:53 AM EST

    I'm at the point where I get my driver's license and am expected to give in to the car culture. Living in the middle of Suburbia, I can't get anywhere without a car. Having no social life, I have little reason to go anywhere. But the problem is for later in life. Once I get a job, of course I'd have to live within walking distance of that job, live in a place with good public transportation (city), or get a car. I see little good in cars. Economically, politically, environmentally, socially, they seem to me more evil than good. But, as you say, all our city planning is done under the assumption that everyone has a car. Aside from living close to work, how do you cope with the other things: getting food, going places you absolutely need to go. Without a car, where else is there to go but a big city? Maybe you know of something else?

    [ Parent ]
    Cars. . . (5.00 / 1) (#342)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:19:52 PM EST

    The world is a vast and infinitely complex place. I'm sure you can come up with a solution.

    I found a city with a good transit system, inexpensive housing, and I love to walk and bike. A 45 minute walk will take me from where I live to pretty much any desired destination in this massive berg. A ten minute walk takes me to a grocery store. Heck, after working a bullshit job for a few years, I got fed up and created one which allows me to work mostly from home. All this stuff is doeable. There are countless solutions, so long as you have the brains and the guts to embark upon their paths. --And who knows? Maybe being a canoe trail-blazing out-back traveling fur-trader is your calling. (Or a traveling teacher; I met one once who flew from town to town in the great white north, visiting small communities once a week.) I also know a girl who made a living teaching English to Spanish-speaking immigrants. She posted photo-copy ads on telephone poles and charges $15 an hour to sit at the local library and chat with her students. --Who, by the way, ended up turning her into an ad-hock sounding board and therapist. After a few months of that, she had made enough money to move to Mexico for a year to see what it was like down there. She ended up staying with the families of some of her students, and then got an under-the-table teaching position. --She's cool and smart and well educated, and life loves her right back because she knows how to live it with fearlessness, ruthlessness and creativity.

    So long as you are striving and aware and on your true path, the Universe will *not* let you down. It just doesn't happen. This is one of those places where 'Faith' is not a dirty word. The Universe works in ways which are far more amazing than nearly anybody realizes.

    The concrete, uniform idea of a regular day job is designed, I believe, to stop people from growing, to grind them down so that they have no energy left over to think or expand their awareness. It does this in order to turn them into cattle. Car payments, house payments. . . Debt. These are devices used to control.

    But maybe that's what some people need. Every experience is valuable on some level.

    The problem is that, yes, the world has been bushwhacked. We are set up to lose, and so people lose. Which is why the writing is on the wall. This whole reality exists on the basis of free-choice. The more that free-choice is subverted and removed from us, the more precarious the world's position becomes. But if you are aware and, if you allow yourself the power, you can still navigate these rapids. People do it. It is done. --But keep in mind that learning and growing, so that we eventually are able to move with grace, power and self-awareness in all our doings, is the primary goal here. The universe is nothing but a big school, so painful lessons are not necessarily bad things.

    --And by the way, there isn't anything inherently wrong with owning a car. If you live in the country side, or if the path you are supposed to follow requires that you travel a lot. . , then you pretty much need one, (unless, I suppose, you are willing to go for a horse and buggy type solution). The problem is that most people, especially in downtown cores, simply don't need a car; they drive and work in miserable jobs because they made poor choices in life, or because they weren't strong or smart enough to act when they might have.

    Being set up to lose sucks, and most people are going to go right on losing. But the amazing, beautiful thing about Knowledge, is that simply by establishing an awareness of how things work, you automatically gain the opportunity to do something about it.

    -Fantastic Lad

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, thanks. (none / 0) (#431)
    by shovelknife on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:29:16 AM EST

    That was elaborate, helpful, and complete. I think your post actually helped me develop a better view on life. Now I have an answer to people who say I need focus. Society's plan seems to be:
    1. Graduate high school
    2. Go to a college somewhere close to you.
    3. Pick a major (business and accounting are good choices)
    4. Graduate college.
    5. Pick a related job.
    6. Work there until you die or retire.
    7. If you haven't already, die.
    If your suggestions are anywhere close to right and if this is the order of operations that can (note: not will) cause unhappiness, then I'm somewhere close to the path to happiness. I've skipped 1) and violated 2) by winning a full scholarship to a private liberal arts college a couple thousand miles away from me, ignored 3) in favor of developing general critical thinking skills and learning about topics that interest me.

    I guess my problem is a mix of 3) and 5), where I can't decide what I want to do. You seem to be saying that that's okay. Everyone else around me seems to be yelling, "Pick a major (business and accounting are good choices)!"

    Maybe a farming commune is the right answer. Anyway, thanks. That helped a lot.

    Oh, and re: your ideas ("The concrete, uniform idea of a regular day job is designed, I believe, to stop people from growing, to grind them down so that they have no energy left over to think or expand their awareness. It does this in order to turn them into cattle.") you might want to check out Metropolis, an old German movie with proto-Marxist themes, general issues of class division, and an open-ended suggestion for a solution. Also, Aldous Huxley's Island has a lot of good ideas about labor distribution.

    [ Parent ]
    Society's plan... (none / 0) (#466)
    by vectro on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 04:15:41 PM EST

    ... perhaps for the upper-middle class. Only roughly 25% of the population of the US is a college graduate.

    “The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
    [ Parent ]
    Fantatic Lad (none / 0) (#469)
    by andreiko on Wed Mar 19, 2003 at 03:31:25 PM EST

    Fantastic, I like your writing. The enthusiasm and trust/confidence inspire me.

    I moved to the US ~5 years ago from an Eastern European country and there are a few things I'd like to add:

    >> The concrete, uniform idea of a regular day job is designed, I believe, to stop people from growing,..... payments, house payments. . . Debt. These are devices used to control.

    These are control devices, indeed. However, I don't see them as a result of conspiracy. These mechanisms evolved because of their convenience and were widely accepted partially because they replace the need to make choices and take risks.

    Now they are an integral part of the culture, and so is the choice of convenience over risk/satisfaction/living authenticly.

    It is only natural that whoever benefits from this structure is interested in reinforcing it into the future... a very easy task.

    At the same time I am witnessing lots of people becoming aware that the_void can't and won't be filled with stuff. More and more people saying "fuck it" and starting to listen to their gut/heart. It might be that it takes great pressure to lead us to this place. Something like 70 hour weeks of work/commute and overpriced everything.

    The point is, we (as in "I") are responsible.
    As much as I am responsible for my actions today.

    Funny thing is that living from my heart is 100 times easier once I "switch" to it and "impossible" just a second before I do.

    My .02 Euro.

    [ Parent ]

    As my son would say, "Word." [n/t] (2.50 / 2) (#319)
    by Dr Laura on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:44:52 AM EST


    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    You've been reading my mind I see (5.00 / 3) (#338)
    by twh270 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:30:51 AM EST

    I'm tempted to create about two dozen KuroAccounts to mod the parent '5'.

    I'm not especially bright, or insightful, or observant (although sometimes I like to think I am). And I talk to enough people to know that at least some of my thoughts -- at least the general idea, if not the details -- are held by many. A lot of people seem to be fed up with, or frustrated, by corporate greed; the political system; public schools; Hollywood; the rat race; consumerism.

    However, there is also a strong sense of powerlessness, perhaps even helplessness, expressed by people I talk to. Whether it's over the political system, the media and Hollywood, the career "rat race", the school system, people seem to feel that there's no alternative, that this is just "the way things are" and your only choice is to suck it up and deal with it the best you can. "What can I do?" is the common refrain.

    A lot of it is a sense of impotence against huge, powerful forces or groups. There is, of course, a lot of truth in that. How much influence can one person have, unless they are famous or wealthy, on something like CNN or Congress or Microsoft?

    Not much. And, in fact, that's quite proper. Things would get pretty wild if anyone could call up Bill Gates or George Bush and get them to do what they wanted! "Hi Bill, I need you to get to work on a Linux version of Office right away -- oh, and GPL all of Microsoft's products while you're at it." "George, I want you to get out of Afghanistan, and instead, bomb the hell out of China." Eeeek! (Of course, that applies only to other people -- each of us, naturally, would make these people or groups all do what's best and right.)

    So what's the solution? Forget about things you can't control -- instead, focus on what you can control: your own life. Tired of the garbage Hollywood produces? Don't watch it. Choose some other form of entertainment; or simply become more selective about what you watch. Tired of the corporate rat race, working fifty or more hours a week and feeling burned out? Find a job that is rewarding to you, and gives you time to spend on family, friends and hobbies. Sure, you will probably make less money, but are the things you buy with all that money now giving you real satisfaction? I doubt it.

    Yeah, I know; it's easy to say this and difficult to do it. It's easy to do what everyone else seems to be doing, and difficult to make a choice to do something different. That's certainly true for me, and I'm sure not that great at it. But I try anyway, and try to make decisions with conscious awareness of my values and the consequences. What's really neat about it is that even when my friends or family disagree with my decision, they almost always respect me for doing what I believe is best. That kind of respect is a huge reward for me, and a reinforcement that what I actually do is less important than why I do it.

    The point of all of the above is, don't focus too much on what other people are doing. Focus on what you're doing -- the choices you make and their consequences. That's more rewarding and satisfying, ultimately, than wishing you could make Hollywood stop producing crappy movies. -Thomas

    [ Parent ]

    There is another path (none / 0) (#357)
    by benzapp on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:27:58 PM EST

    You are speaking along the same line of logic the Stoics used centuries ago. In the face of increasing Roman power, it made sense to not concern yourself with anything beyond your immediate existence. Why worry about controlling that which you have no possibility of controlling? Especially when Emperor Marcus Aurelius promoted stocism as an ideal philosophy, the path became all too clear. Realizing a crumbling empire is best populated by people who think just like you, a new religion was created embodying Stoic ideals but using common myths and symbols of the day. That new religion was Christianity. What was a fairly bizarre cult in its early days in a mere 380 years became the official religion of the Roman Empire. You have two choices, be a part of the system or not. You must always remember that every foundation of our modern society, from schools to our false economy, is nothing more than a huge prison intended to maintain a caste of the powerful and the not powerful. Certainly, this sytem provides the bare essentials for your survival while simultaneously wasting most of your life so you can't do any real damage. This may not be a bad thing. But, the school to work system we have today is not much different than jacking up on heroin all day. Both are just a tremendous waste of time that produce the illusion of contentment. In reality, they both just postpone contentment until a future point. There is always a second choice. You don't have to join that system. You can corrupt the system in small ways, or start a whole scale revolution. As most people are finding, life really is better spent dying while fighting than dying in bed. Might as well go out with a bang. If you truly don't want to get involved with a revolutionary movement, you can be a one man revolution. Instead of dying of old age in bed, take out some school teachers or bureaucrats at the same time. Life is out of balance. That is because we have forgotten the immense importance of death, it has become something to fear something to avoid. Learn to appreciate death, and you will accept that it must come. When that happens, you will be much more careful of how you live, otherwise you will not be free die as you wish.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps I spoke too strongly (5.00 / 1) (#362)
    by twh270 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 08:02:48 PM EST

    My meaning was not to ignore everything and drop out. If that's what you got out of my statement, let me clarify.

    What I mean is that rather that bemoan the miserable state of affairs while going along with it, it's better to look at what you, personally, should do with your time and money. Maybe that means skipping most of what comes out of Hollywood. That's a "vote with your dollar" form of activism. Maybe it's putting your kid in private school. Maybe it's writing letters to your representatives and voting for candidates who share your views, instead of picking the "lesser of two evils". Maybe you teach your children that there is more to life than an education and a career and a new car.

    That's what I mean when I say focus on what you can control, on your life. It doesn't mean stick your head in the sand; it just means be aware of what you can do as an individual (or family) and don't feel disempowered over what you can't do.

    -Thomas

    [ Parent ]

    uh, non-topical (none / 0) (#450)
    by hakatak on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:25:51 PM EST

    Thank you for the short essay on how to lead a fulfilling life.

    I think you may have missed the point w/regard to helplessness, though; try telling a 13-year-old not to get messed up about things they can't control.

    Sex is extremely liberating.  I know when I discovered how good I could make myself (and later, other people) feel with only the power of friction to guide me, ... well, I couldn't think of a good reason not to jerk off all the time.

    Kids, especially young teenagers, are essentially powerless in all meaningful aspects of their lives; don't want to go to school?  too bad.  it's the law.  Don't want to live with your asshat stepdad?  Too bad, you're 12, and don't get to make decisions like that.

    Young people CAN exert control over their world by playing violent video games, sneaking cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol when Mom and Dad are at work, and, yes, also by sandwiching each other.

    Is it healthy?  Who cares?  Nearly everything worth doing in life is unhealthy, except possibly reading books and lifting weights, and even then they can be dangerous in excess.  McDonald's doesn't give two shits that Big Macs will make you fat, you're just supposed to eat them.  Phillip Morris doesn't care that cigarettes are gift-wrapped misery, you're supposed to think they're cool and subsequently smoke them.  Budweiser doesn't care that drinking and driving kills thousands of people every year, to say nothing of alcohol poisoning; you're supposed to have a beer when you're watching football, having sex... well, pretty much anything.  

    Certainly parents are responsible for raising children who will grow up to be happy, knowledgable, caring adults.  Obviously, some parents choose to abdicate that responsibility, and should not gasp in horror when there are consequences.  Kids will exert whatever control over their lives that they can, to whatever extent their parents will let them.  This is just the natural end result.  Jesus Christ, stop the presses.
    "We are nihilists; we believe in nothing! And tomorrow, we will cut off your johnson!!"
    [ Parent ]

    You have interesting ideas... (5.00 / 1) (#467)
    by vectro on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 04:18:09 PM EST

    ... but it would be much easier to read them if you organized your thoughts with paragraphs.

    “The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
    [ Parent ]
    Nice troll (nt). (1.90 / 10) (#238)
    by Tom Brett on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:22:00 AM EST




    Outwar thugbuilder! get 500+ thugs a day! click here
    My own thoughts tend to agree (4.66 / 9) (#239)
    by Burning Straw Man on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:26:11 AM EST

    Some of the comments I have read seem to say "teenagers have always been having sex". This is pretty much true. But while my story is only one anectdote among many, let me share it with you, but after prefacing it with the general comment: kids are definitely having more sex, earlier, with more people.

    First a bit of shock-factor: a few years ago, there were gang rapes in my junior high school bathrooms by seventh and eighth graders. These are twelve, thirteen, maybe fourteen year old boys, grabbing twelve, thirteen, maybe fourteen year old girls and pullin them into the boys bathroom, locking the door, and raping her.

    This did not happen while I was in middle school, perhaps a decade and a half earlier. In health class we mostly just laughed and snickered.

    When I was in high school, you could count the number of promiscuous girls on one hand, in a class of over 500, high school of around 2000 students grades 9-12. Nearly all sexual activity (at least to my knowledge) took place between people who were "dating", to quote the antiquated notion described by the article's author. Group sex was completely unheard of. A handful of girls became pregnant, and STDs were so insignificant as to rarely even be discussed.

    Talking to my much-younger siblings who were in the same school not too many years ago, the situation indeed changed in the late 1990s. 'Hooking up' is the norm.

    Being a "virgin" hasn't been "cool" for quite a long time. James Dean even post-dates the idea by a number of decades. But being a slut was always a degrading term, at least until the mid-1990s. And that is one of the bigger changes that I have noticed. Being called a "slut" isn't such a big deal, in fact, in some circles it is quite a compliment. Even more so is the popularity of bisexuality, although that is a thought almost exclusively given to bisexual women. Otherwise heterosexual girls grind together in dance clubs to arouse the lust and desire of the boys.

    While I have to join in the author's sentiment of, "where were these girls when I was in high school", that isn't the point. These girls are in junior high school. It is not unheard of for 6th graders to be having multiple sexual parters. Those are girls and boys who are 11, 12, or 13 years old.

    Now, playing "doctor" is one thing. Having multiple sex parters at ages 11-13 will seriously undermine the sexual health and self esteem of whomever is taking part in that activity.

    Parents, do you know who your child is fucking?
    --
    your straw man is on fire...

    Same as it ever was (4.66 / 3) (#247)
    by epepke on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:24:16 PM EST

    I think most people draw a veil of forgetfulness over themselves when they reach 18, and also, if you're a member of one group, you're generally unaware of what happens in other groups. In any event, being a member of the "outsider" group myself, a few years ago at the ripe old age of 33, I decided to do some research to find out just exactly what had happened.

    First a bit of shock-factor: a few years ago, there were gang rapes in my junior high school bathrooms by seventh and eighth graders.

    Well, when I was in junior high school (IS 70, Manhattan, 1971-1973), various attempts were made to gang-rape me, though I was pretty large for my age and was thereby able to evade them.

    When I was in high school, you could count the number of promiscuous girls on one hand, in a class of over 500, high school of around 2000 students grades 9-12.

    When I was in high school (Pine View, Sarasota, FL, 1975-1978), out of a graduating class of 33, you could count the number of promiscuous girls on one hand, but you had to use all the fingers.

    Nearly all sexual activity (at least to my knowledge) took place between people who were "dating", to quote the antiquated notion described by the article's author. Group sex was completely unheard of.

    Parties and conventions related to the Teen-Age Conservatives club seemed to be the venue of choice for rather a lot of casual sex, including group sex. Actual quote from a self-believed "good girl" when commenting on the behavior of another: "I only slept with one guy at that convention, and it was somebody I'd met before."

    These girls are in junior high school. It is not unheard of for 6th graders to be having multiple sexual parters. Those are girls and boys who are 11, 12, or 13 years old.

    I hit puberty at ten, which, at the time, was so unusual as to be almost unheard of. Now it's fairly common. And as for the age, the big question during my tenure was whether fifth graders (nominally ten or eleven) should be allowed to date.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    Correction (none / 0) (#339)
    by epepke on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:07:33 PM EST

    It was Teen-Age Republicans, not Teen-Age Conservatives. Not that, in 1977, it made much of a difference. Of course, the lines aren't so clear now.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    Small towns... (3.00 / 1) (#379)
    by buysse on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 03:03:50 AM EST

    In my experience, small communities (like your school with a graduating class of 33) are quite a bit more deviant from social norms. I grew up in a small town in Minnesota and the vast majority of my classmates were heavy drinkers and fairly promiscuous. Really, I think that it came down to the fact that there was nothing else to do.
    WAR IS PEACE | FREEDOM IS SLAVERY | IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    [ Parent ]
    Small towns? (none / 0) (#389)
    by epepke on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 11:42:19 AM EST

    Sarasota isn't a small town; it had a population of 120,000 and was directly adjacent to Bradenton, with a population of something like 90,000. Of course, it's grown since then. Just the school was small.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    The interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by Hizonner on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:08:04 PM EST

    I'm not going to deal with the anecdotes, other than to say that they are, indeed, anecdotes. I just want to reply to one little thing...

    Having multiple sex parters at ages 11-13 will seriously undermine the sexual health and self esteem of whomever is taking part in that activity.
    Almost certainly true in most cases. Well, the self esteem part is true; I'm not sure what you mean by "sexual health".

    The interesting question why it's true, whether it's universal... and whether it can change.

    It seems to me that when your self esteem starts to go when you discover that you don't approve of something you've been doing voluntarily. There are other ways involving doing things involuntarily, but I don't think they apply to what's being discussed here.

    Not only that, but you have to discover that in a way that makes you feel guilty, rather than in a way that just makes you decide you made a mistake and don't want to do it any more.

    It seems to me that the main reason kids would get into that sort of guilt would be that they take on new values... values they did not have when they started having all that sex. It happens when, after having had a lot of relatively promiscuous sex, the kids absorb a new piece of culture, one that says that such sex is degrading and reduces your worth as a person.

    It's as easy to ascribe the damage to the cultural values against this kind of sex as it is to ascribe it to the sex itself... and the damage could be prevented by changing either one. The damage is, to use an often overused phrase that I think really applies here, socially constructed.

    If there's really been such a huge shift as all that (which I still don't really believe), then something very interesting might happen: we may be seeing a permanent social change that will follow the kids into adulthood. It's not inconceivable that these kids, supported by so many members of their peer group, will grow up without ever deciding that they've done anything wrong. In which case their self esteem will be just fine. This is, of course, more likely to happen if adults don't sail in and, deliberately or inadvertantly, make the kids feel guilty.

    As a person whose adult life happily includes group sex and multiple partners, I can't say I'd see that as a bad thing. I think that people are a lot more "wired" to want those things than many let on, and that a cultural adjustment that accommodated those desires would on the whole be nice to see.

    ... but frankly I think that social attitudes toward sex are so strongly self-reinforcing, and are so thoroughly co-evolved with human biology, that there won't be any really widespread or long-lasting change. Even if the system is away from the equilibrium point, it's going to move back toward it.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by garaged on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 05:06:07 PM EST

    It's not a matter of realizing something you made is wrong, and decide to stop.

    If that were true, adictions wouldn't be a problem, when u realize it's wrogn, stop doing drugs and everything is ok ?? NO !, you have nightmares about wath you lived, what you made, it's a shadow that will follow you until the end of you're days

    maybe that sound stupid for you, but the same happens with sexual problems (including adiction), once the thing started there is no going back, you will suffer the consecuences, that's why you should think before doing everything, and as we all know, before adulhood, and even after sometimes, most kids dont have strong moral, and dont know how to decide correctly, so peer presure make damage almos every time.

    This is writen by an atheist, living in a 3rd world country, that enjoys kinky sexual activities that religion forvides, etc etc

    [ Parent ]
    I dont think that was what he said (none / 0) (#333)
    by MfA on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 08:45:00 AM EST

    AFAICS he said that the damage to the self esteem only occurs because the prevailing morals tell them what they did in their youth was wrong.

    If society changes and child promiscuity is seen as natural then it is unlikely to result in psychological damage.

    [ Parent ]

    People are surprised? (4.80 / 5) (#240)
    by krek on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:08:47 PM EST

    For the past twenty-odd years women have been told, both, to grab hold of their sexuality, and be and feel empowered... in the same sentence!

    Is it any wonder that girls have taken this to mean that women gain empowerment through sexuality? It is the same routine that the tobacco companies pulled to get women to smoke so damn much... they linked smoking with independance.

    If you link sex with empowerment, mix in some men who have been told, during the same period, that they are little more than sexual predators, and see what you get.

    It is like that old adage, if you tell some one that they are stupid and worthless enough times, they will eventually believe it and act in such a way so as to justify this belief. Advertisers have known this for quite some time.

    Double-pay (4.55 / 9) (#242)
    by zencode on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:15:47 PM EST

    limbic writes:
    "What makes this story interesting is that this is not merely Idaho prudery or matronly shock at adolescent frolics. American teenagers really do appear to be in a rutting like Bonobo monkeys. These youngsters are not just promiscuous, they are downright filthy. They are carrying out sex acts on each other that if you asked a porn star to act them, you would have to pay them double."

    This is a testament not to the perversity of the acts, but rather to how shamelessly children view sexuality. Guilt is taught, aquired. Guilt is nurture, not nature.

    While I'm certainly not thrilled to hear about this because there are reprecussions of sexuality that children aren't capable of determining or handling should they occur, this so-called "filthy" behavior (the author does not elaborate on what qualifies) does not disturb me in the slightest. Most of what we consider "perverse" is entirely arbitrary and, if I might take a stab at religion while I'm at it, archaic.

    On the other hand, I haven't watched television since 1996 nor listened to radio since 1997. I work from home, so no billboards. I have taken this stance because advertising, at its core, seeks to make us unhappy so that their solution might be sold to us.

    A friend send me a clip of Christina Agulera's (sp?) video, "Drrty" (possibly misspelled as well). My jaw hit the ground. I'm 30. I have an 8 year-old daughter. I have no doubt that children are being given the wrong idea about what sex means. In other words, I think sexuality is expected. Lest anyone forget, Jesus' mother was in her late 13s or early 14s. But I think kids are being sold a bill of sexual goods that is so far out of whack with what healthy sexuality is.

    Anyway, that's my rant.

    my .02
    zencode

    http://www.iactivist.org/jason/

    Bowling For Columbine (5.00 / 2) (#259)
    by Verve on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:06:44 PM EST

    I have taken this stance because advertising, at its core, seeks to make us unhappy so that their solution might be sold to us.
    I don't know how you feel about movies, but you should check out Bowling For Columbine.

    Marilyn Manson has a scene where he talks about just what you were saying in the quoted text.

    I urge everybody to check out this movie, even if you're not a MManson fan.

    [ Parent ]
    Check out Moorewatch.com... (1.00 / 2) (#262)
    by limbic on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:10:56 PM EST

    ...to get the full story on the fat twat.

    [ Parent ]
    Let them have their fun (4.31 / 22) (#251)
    by dh003i on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:03:32 PM EST

    God, you conservatie/christian types really grate on my nerves.  There's nothing wrong with fucking alot, or in different kinds of ways, which fanatical christian morons consider sinful.

    What I understand sandwich to be is one girl having oral sex with one of the men. Having vaginal sex with another man and having anal sex with a third man.

    So what?  The only bad thing here is if the girl's gagging because she's deep-throating (or trying to do so), or if they guy having anal sex with her didn't use KY-jelly.  Otherwise, sounds pretty enjoyable to me.  Sex is not a bad thing, nor is group sex to enhance pleasure.  Condoms and BC pills exist for a reason, as well as the afterpill.

    Whatever you want to call it, it is extreme.

    No, this is not extreme.  It's just 2 guys giving (and receiving) pleasure to (and from) one girl, and 1 guy getting it from her.  Walking into a bar naked, handcuffing one's self the bar railing, and saying "lets eat like hogs and fuck like dogs" or "fuck me silly" and then being fucked sequentially  by about a hundred men in a bar until come was running down her legs would be extreme.

    Orgies and engaging in humiliating sexual practices like the "sandwich" border on self-abuse.

    Oh please.  The person engages in it voluntarily.  Obviously, (s)he feels like it.  Gasp, women might actually enjoy sex too, and sex with more than one person at a time!

    Perhaps the 'death of childhood' is to blame. In his book "After the Death of Childhood" David Buckingham argues that children can no longer be "excluded or protected from the adult world of violence, commercialism and politics.

    In other words, you're arguing that TV, radio, the internet, etc is responsible for "the death of child-hood".  I think that parents are more to blame for prematurely ending their children's childhood by planning on enrolling them in Harvard before they're even out of diapers, and micromanaging every aspect of their lives:  i.e., play-dates.  As George Carlin said, wtf ever happened to "you show me your's and I'll show you mine".

    Parents are also to blame for the shame the children feel as they mature sexually and take interest in sexuality.  By their attitude, statements, beliefs, and bashfulness when talking about sex to their children, parents teach children that sex is a shameful thing, that the pleasure associated with it is bad, and that a naked human being is a horrid thing.  And of course, there is extra shame associated with "deviant" (non-procreative) sex.  Thank you christian conservative parents for instilling sexual frustration and terror into your children.

    Girls appear to have adopted attitudes normally considered masculine: Sexual predation is the norm, promiscuity applauded, bragging about sexual experiences is encouraged and public esteem is linked to sexual prowess.

    And, of course, conservative nutcases hate this.  It's shocking to think that women can want alot of sex too, and take take pleasure from sex.  Some of these christian/conservative nutcases belong over in the 3rd world where they sexually mutilate girls' clitori.

    [my premise:]  that US teenagers are shagging each other like porn pro's every time their parent turn their backs.

    No, your premise is not true.  It is a conclusion you have drawn through the disortion of your own paranoia about sex among teenagers.  Teenagers are not fucking eachother like wild rabid dogs, stealing away to the bathroom at every conceivable opportunity to engage in group lesbian/bisexual sex.  You are taking a few very rare instances of these things and generalizing way too quickly (a fallacy).  Just because you see a few stories like this, and see this kind of things in triple-X rated porn films, doesn't mean its occuring with any regularity.

    Even if it was, so what?  Sex is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.  Only the paranoia of christian conservative (and other) nutcases has turned sex, sexual desire, sexual drive, sexual curiousiy, and nudity into a "shameful" thing.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.

    Don't forget the STD's (4.50 / 2) (#256)
    by krek on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 02:45:29 PM EST

    But, the part that I find unhealthy and potentially destructive is the fact that these "children" will most likely grow up believing that "rutting like bonobo monkeys" is how you get close to someone.

    Of course, it could be that once kids get the sex out of their system by age 16 or so, they will be free, and able, to express themselves in ways that we could only dream about. Freed from the sexual tension that has monkey-wrenched almost all relationships since Eve ate that apple, we may learn to truly share ourselves with others and get beyond our petty status games. But, this may be a little too Stranger In A Strange Land for most people so I will leave it there.

    [ Parent ]
    An interesting point... (none / 0) (#312)
    by dh003i on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:12:50 AM EST

    which may be true.  However, how long did people live back in the dark ages, when christianity was forced on everyone?  30-40 years, right?  Not too long.  STDs probably weren't as big of a worry back then, if there were any of any significance.  The most serious STD, HIV, didn't come about until recently due to poor monkey-slaughtering practices.

    The true purpose of bans on sex was to control women and further brainwash people into the religion.  Likewise today.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Ban sex, gain converts (none / 0) (#414)
    by krek on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:24:05 AM EST

    Sounds like a surefire way to expand your religion... not!

    Now, first of all, none of us were around when Christianity or the taboos on sex were formed, so everything stated on said subject is just speculation.

    So, I am thinking that since banning sex is unlikely to gain you many friends there must have been a pressing reason to do so, other than religious dogma. Like ritual circumcision in arid regions to prevent sores and infection, sex taboos were probably formed as a response to a syphilis epidemic or as a way to reduce the number of children being born and abondonned or some such thing.

    As a method of mind control, banning sex is unlikely to produce the results you want.

    [ Parent ]
    The higher a baboon climbs... (3.50 / 4) (#258)
    by limbic on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:00:04 PM EST

    ...the more of its arse you see. You have embarrassed yourself with this rubbish. Try reading the article again, but this time keep in mind it was an atheist liberal that wrote it. You might want to add a resolution to your new years list. Maybe something like "No more beating straw men" or "I must not make an idiot of myself by being so prejudiced".

    [ Parent ]
    Not to burst your bubble or anything (4.00 / 1) (#265)
    by krek on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 03:23:17 PM EST

    But, the language you use definitely leads one to the conclusion that you have some rather well defined ideas about what constitutes 'normal and healthy' sex. At the same time, in my opinion anyway, you show some tolerance towards those who practice 'deviant' sex. All in all, you get a passing grade from me.

    Now the other possiblity is that you were simply trying to be ironic, using the language of those who are less open-minded and tolerant that you are in order to add some spice to the article. You failed. Subtle irony of this type does not translate very well into written text posted on the net. Either make it super obvious or leave it out. In this case I give you a 'Needs Improvment'.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes indeed... (4.00 / 1) (#269)
    by limbic on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 04:00:52 PM EST

    ...plenty of improvement. I do not dispute that. The key fact that is being forgotten is not that I am commenting on adult sexual behaviour, but that of a specific group of 13 - 16 year old girls. The whole reason why I used words like "extreme" is that even by adult standards the practices are considered by many to be daring/risqué/naughty/dirty/extreme/disgusting [enter whatever description you please]. That children or very young adults are engaging in this behaviour is the surprise - hence the shock and perceived extremity of what was being reported. Is anyone seriously contending that this behaviour is normal? The children themselves were shocked by their own actions and that is why they labelled it "the point of escalation". It was the point where they realised what they were doing had crossed over from ordinary teenage sexual high jinks into a very adult world of by any standard far from normal sexual activity. I am being made out to be a Christian fundamentalist extremist right wing nutter for suggesting that 13 year olds being screwed by three men is extreme especially when they have said later that they were uncomfortable with the activities? Come on...

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly (4.00 / 1) (#415)
    by krek on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:26:55 AM EST

    The only diference between these 'children' and myself at that age, and most of the readers here as well I imagine, is that they are actually getting to have wild and kinky sex, while I was only daydreaming about it.

    [ Parent ]
    who wrote it is irrelevant... (4.50 / 2) (#316)
    by dh003i on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:31:04 AM EST

    ...the sexual paranoia behind it, however, is.  Liberals also like to control people's sex-lives too, but in more subtle, less traditional ways  (usually relates to extreme feminist agendas).

    I barely managed reading this article once.  It was exceptionally boring and long-winded, drilling over the same points again and again, with pointless theatrical statements and meaningless questions.  There were a few things that interested me, however, and I commented on those.

    Before I go on, let me say that this article has still really shown nothing, other than a few outstanding examples of what closed-minded people consider deviant evil sex.  It is a bunch of hot air.  I wonder how enough people managed to read through this droning rant for it to be FP'ed.

    What, exactly, are we suppose to take from this tripe?  A few vivid examples hardly shows a national trend.  Nor is there even a good case that if this were a trend it would  be a bad thing.  Sure, people doing things they don't want to do because of peer pressure is a bad thing.  People are either born with it or not, but they certainly aren't going to be taught to think for themselves (not the way things are going).  So the real issue is individualism.  Of course, what the author seems to be fighting against in large is individualism, in so far as it means individually deciding to engage in alternate sexual affairs.

    So, a working solution is to the individualism problem is to:

    1.  Get kids accurate information, and help them interpret it.
    2.  Encourage them to think for themselves, and not blindly engage in group-think ("gee, if Emily had sex with 3 guys at once and she liked it, then I should do it to because I'll like it").
    3.  #2 will feed into #1 cyclically, thus it reinforces itself.
    The other thing you seem to be discussing is the end of childhood.  I'll agree with you that childhood isn't about getting triple-fucked by 3 boys, lesbian daisy-circle orgies, or anything related to triple-X-rated sex.  But this article has only shown a few rare examples of these kinds of things.  Not that I'm saying that children's childhoods aren't being corrupted and artificially shortened, but that's largely their parents (and the school's) fault.  Everything about a child's life is micromanaged, and children are getting into higher math and english earlier on, and parents are already planning their kids college lives before they're out of diapers.  Math, english, and science, are, of course, important, as is law, and US kids are behind other countries in that regard.  But these things shouldn't be improved upon at the expense of childhood and the creativitiy associated with it.  The solution is to use children's natural curiousity and creativity as ways to help them learn these other things:  to integrate, in other words.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    The FP of this story (none / 0) (#347)
    by chemista on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 01:50:25 PM EST

    I was under the impression that stories did not ever make FP if there were more -1 votes than +1 FP votes, but obviously I was wrong. It has generated a lot of discussion, but I agree the rant/article is wretched.
    Stop reminding people about the overvalued stock market! I'm depending on that overvalued stock market to retire some day! - porkchop_d_clown
    [ Parent ]
    Christianity and sex (4.00 / 3) (#272)
    by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 04:54:01 PM EST

    I think that, up to when we started making advances in STD awareness and prevention and birth control and whatnot, the religious dampering of sex before marriage might have served a purpose.  Sort of like the whole idea of not eating pork and not mixing certain foods with certain others.  This had benefits back in the day, it was just that the world was a lot more mystifying back then and religion was the way to explain why to do these things.

    And keeping with that notion in mind, I think releasing ourselves from the grip of many of the outdated Christian views on sex is a good thing now that we really know what is going on and how to deal with it.  Just like now we can eat pork and we know to wash our hands after handling uncooked meat, etc.

    That's just my idea on the subject.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    We have made progress? (3.00 / 2) (#318)
    by Dr Laura on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:39:52 AM EST

    I think that, up to when we started making advances in STD awareness and prevention and birth control and whatnot, the religious dampering of sex before marriage might have served a purpose.

    Do you realize that a lot of women have sex without using any form of birth control? They don't want to "interrupt the mood" when their boyfriend initiates penetration without first doning a condom. They may be naive. Here is one such story:

    College freshman Layla Carter, 18, (not her real name) started having sex during her first semester with a boy she'd met at a fraternity party. "We were both shy and inexperienced, and, even though it sounds crazy now, neither one of us brought up birth control," she recalls. "We only had sex about once a week, and he pulled out each time. I figured the chances of getting pregnant were pretty low." She figured wrong.
    Doesn't osund like an "advance in prevention of birth control" to me. What technology has done, as well as the pro-choice agenda, though, is made abortion an acceptable form of birth control.

    No sex before marraige does have a purpose in today's society. It means less illegitimate children, who too often are raised by single parents. Also, for women, sex has a much more powerful emotional influence than it does for men. If I had a nickel for each time I've talked to a woman who assumed sexual relations with a man meant he was interested in pursuing a relationship, well, let's just say I wouldn't have to keep my day job.

    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    I have been trolled (4.00 / 1) (#323)
    by /dev/niall on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:59:25 AM EST

    Do you realize that a lot of women have sex without using any form of birth control?

    Women who have sex without using a form of birth control and do not want a child are idiots.

    when their boyfriend initiates penetration without first doning a condom

    Men who have sex without using a form of birth control and do not want a child are idiots.

    Doesn't osund like an "advance in prevention of birth control" to me.

    Nope, sounds like two idiots hooked up to make a brand new idiot. It's how most of the world was populated, and passing laws about what other folks do with their bodies, with other people, when, where, or why isn't going to make a damn bit of a difference.

    Hell, we've got warning labels for idiots on just about everything now. Why not tattoo something helpful on to the genitals of all newborns?
    --
    "compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#344)
    by Dr Laura on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:22:17 PM EST

    how most of the world was populated, and passing laws about what other folks do with their bodies, with other people, when, where, or why isn't going to make a damn bit of a difference.

    But said "idiots" that it's morally wrong to do such through their Churches will reduce it, no? Your earlier claim was that the Christian notion of not having sex before marraige is outdated. But then you claim that there still exist "idiots" who are going to do "idiotic" things. So, then, it still sounds like there is (and always will be) a good reason for having a "no sex before marraige" tenant in Christianity.

    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    eh? (none / 0) (#371)
    by /dev/niall on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:33:25 PM EST

    What are you yammering about? That was my first post to this discussion. I'd attempt to respond, but what you wrote makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I'd back up a few posts and unleash your acumen on some other poor sod.

    I've been retrolled! JFC!
    --
    "compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
    [ Parent ]

    I am my kid's mom. [n/t] (none / 0) (#423)
    by Dr Laura on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 04:42:01 PM EST


    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    Do you intentionally spread lies? (4.50 / 2) (#305)
    by jjayson on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:33:29 PM EST

    You had the same misconception of the religious conservative view of sex in the last story, where you posted more of your Christianity bashing comments. I explained what they saw wrong with promescutity, but here you are repeating the same misled nonsense. Please, make a coherent argument, instead of using these wildly wrong ideas.

    When will you finally get it?

    You don't understand how some conservative Christians view sex: it stands for our relationship with God. It is a single man and a single woman joined together as we will be joined with God, one on one. A man joins in the flesh with a woman and just one woman for life, just like a person will be joined in spirit to God for eternity. Read up on the "Bride of Christ" if you would like to know more information. It isn't about hurting another person or the consensual nature.

    I think that is how it goes, at least. I could be wrong, though.

    Can you see now why they could find promiscuity to besomething that should be discouraged?

    Taken from the post, A Conservative Christian View on Sex

    It is okay if you don't agree with the view, but please stop intentionally misrepresenting it.
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]

    Cut the crap (4.00 / 4) (#311)
    by dh003i on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:10:37 AM EST

    You can spew that stuff about "sex as a relationship with god" all you want.  Fine.  That's what they believe.  They believe that sex is a relationship with god, thus any kind of sex which their god does not like, or which occurs in situations where their god does not like it, is bad.  Thus, sex -- outside of their very narrow exception for procreative sex within a marriage -- is bad, evil, against the will of god, whatever.  This puts shame into the broad range of sexuality outside of that narrow point on the continuum, and (naturally) shame in the naked human body.

    Where exactly is this misconception I have?  I know that christians (or at least the kind I'm thinking of) are basically mindless little zombies who will do anything their little black book tells them to, and believe anything in it.  Their little book tells them that sex outside of the marraige is evil, homosexual sex is evil, deviant (non-procreative) sex is evil, and on and on and on (I'm thinking of the passage speaking of some nonsense about homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom of god).

    That's all fine and jolly.  If they want to believe that, fine.  But I'm not going to go around spewing their brainwashing mantra to others.  In a similar vein, the frauds who claim to have cloned a human being are welcome to believe that aliens created the human race by genetic engineering.  I'll just cut the crap and go to the bottom line:  they think that sex outside of a christian-god-sanctioned marriage is evil.

    Why should I bother explaining why they think such?  I think most people know why christians think anything they think about morality:  because of the bible.  Why should I waste my time explaining the fallacious logics, rationalizations, and emotionalism behind their fanatical beliefs?  Just as I'm not going to bother explaining the twisted reasons why Osama Bin Laden thinks the US is Satan's land, I'm not going to bother explaining why christians think sex (aside from the noted exception) is evil.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Do you have the ability to speak rationally? (3.80 / 5) (#325)
    by jjayson on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 04:11:38 AM EST

    Or do you just hurl untargeted insults? I am not asking you to explain why conservative Christians view sex the way they do, just stop making false claims, especially after you have already been corrected a couple of times.
    They believe that sex is a relationship with god, thus any kind of sex which their god does not like, or which occurs in situations where their god does not like it, is bad. Thus, sex -- outside of their very narrow exception for procreative sex within a marriage -- is bad, evil, against the will of god, whatever. This puts shame into the broad range of sexuality outside of that narrow point on the continuum, and (naturally) shame in the naked human body.
    You don't have the correct read, and part of me telling you what the conservative Christian view on sex is so you can reason through your own comments and determine what doesn't meet those tests. There is nothing that claims that non-procreative sex is immoral that I know of. The human body is not shameful, either. do you just create these ideas in your head so you may have more ammunition to attack groups you do not understand?
    "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, prince's daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skillful workman. Your body is like a round goblet, no mixed wine is wanting. Your waist is like a heap of wheat, set about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, that are twins of a roe. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are like the pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bathrabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus. Your head on you is like Carmel. The hair of your head like purple. The king is held captive in its tresses. How beautiful and how pleasant you are, love, for delights! This, your stature, is like a palm tree, your breasts like its fruit. I said, 'I will climb up into the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit.' Let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, the smell of your breath like apples,"
    This is chapter 7 of an entire book of the Bible devoted to the beauty of the human body, Song of Songs (also known as Song of Solomon).
    Where exactly is this misconception I have?
    You incorrectly convey the conservative Christian view on sex numerous times, here are the ones I found immediately:

    (1) "sex is a shameful thing"
    (2) "the pleasure associated with it is bad"
    (3) "a naked human being is a horrid thing"
    (4) "extra shame associated with 'deviant' (non-procreative) sex"
    (5) "It's shocking to think that women can want alot of sex too, and take take pleasure from sex"
    (6) "sexual desire, sexual drive, sexual curiousiy, and nudity [is] a 'shameful' thing"

    Some of these ideas are straight up contradictory to the Christian view of sex.

    That's all fine and jolly. If they want to believe that, fine. But I'm not going to go around spewing their brainwashing mantra to others. [...] Why should I bother explaining why they think such?
    I am not asking you to repeat what I said, just to stop repeating obvious falsities once they are explained to you. If Christianity is such a vile thing to you, then you shouldn't need lies to support your care, right?
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]
    Again, cut the crap (5.00 / 2) (#343)
    by dh003i on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:20:29 PM EST

    So what, sections of the bible are devoted to the beauty of the human body?  That hardly matters if they don't bother obeying them.  Also, not everything in the bible is instructive.  "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, prince's daughter!..." is something a character in the bible said, not necessarily what the god of the bible thinks.  Jezabel also said a lot of things in the bible.

    You incorrectly convey the conservative Christian view on sex numerous times, here are the ones I found immediately:

    Nope, I don't.  The fact is, their view is that -- outside of procreative sex within a marriage -- other kinds of sex are immoral (thus evil).  This can be shown by the things you hear christian conservatives saying, such as whenever they talk about the immoral behavior of homosexuals, or the immoral behavior of those having sex before marriage.  Other christian statements say that sex, as their god intended, is for procreation;  thus, non-procreative sex is against the will of god.

    (1) "sex is a shameful thing"

    You're taking that out of context.  Their view is that, outside of sex within a marriage for procreation, sex is immoral.  This is supported by various passages in the bible (homosexual shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven) and the statements of christian conservative leaders, such as former Pres. Cand. Bob Dole.

    (2) "the pleasure associated with it is bad"

    They may not say that, but if the purpose of sex is for procreation, then any pleasure is secondary and irrelevant.  Their stated viewpoints and attitudes on sex certainly instill into the young an irrational guilt regarding the pleasures associated with sex or sexual activity.  I.e., the "shame" associated with masturbation, which is also decreed as immoral by christian conservatives.

    (3) "a naked human being is a horrid thing"

    That's certainly the impression they convey.  Christina Silvas works as a stripper, and h pastor (Cole) suspends her daughter and says some jiberish about how its degrading to her.  Christian conservatives will also spout outrage over Playboy mag, which also displays beautiful naked bodies.  The most famous example is that asshole of a pope when Michaelangelo was painting the Sisteenth chappel.  That jerk actually objected to his painting nude bodies.  

    (4) "extra shame associated with 'deviant' (non-procreative) sex"

    Yes, according to christian conservatives, there certainly is.  Homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of god.  They view these deviant sexual activities -- such as anal sex, homosexual sex, orgies, S&M, etc -- as immoral.

    (5) "It's shocking to think that women can want alot of sex too, and take take pleasure from sex"

    Yes, that's the attitude of many people.

    (6) "sexual desire, sexual drive, sexual curiousiy, and nudity [is] a 'shameful' thing"

    Yes, this is the christian conservative view.  Or at least its what their views create.  Teenagers are ashamed to masturbate because of the biblical non-sense their parents teach them.  They feel shame over their own developing sexuality, and curiousity, esepcially if it be for those of the same sex.

    I've heard enough zealot christians drone on about how homosexuality/masturbation/deviancy is evil that I know your claims to the contrary are completely bogus.

    The simple fact is that, outside of procreative sex within a marriage, christian conservatives view sexual activity as immoral and against the will of their god, thus evil. The most notable examples of this are their views on how homosexuality and masturbation are evil.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    You still don't get it. (2.00 / 1) (#353)
    by jjayson on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:26:16 PM EST

    Most of your vomit is about non-procreative sex being considered bad. I have never heard this except for the those that are far far from the startdard view. It is not part of a "conservative Christian" view, but may be part of some ultra-conservative view that very few hold. I went to a conservative Christian elementary school and a Catholic high school. I was never taught that pleasure from sex was bad or that sex was solely for procreation.

    You are too in love with your own words and your hatred of Christianity is your sacred cow. You must protect it at all costs and instill it in others, even if you must lie and distort the facts to do it.

    the "shame" associated with masturbation, which is also decreed as immoral by christian conservatives.
    Masturbation is thought to be wrong because of the lustful imagry and desires that spring from it. That has nothing to do with the non-procretive nature of it.

    That's certainly the impression they convey.  Christina Silvas works as a stripper, and h pastor (Cole) suspends her daughter and says some jiberish about how its degrading to her.  Christian conservatives will also spout outrage over Playboy mag,
    Once again, taking the vocal few and trying to apply it to a much larger groups. There are even non-religious people who speak against magazines such as playboy, but that is hardly enough for me to make the claim about atheists. Also, coming from a conservative Christian church in California, we had a couple strippers that were active members of the congreagation.

    I've heard enough zealot christians drone on about how homosexuality/masturbation/deviancy is evil that I know your claims to the contrary are completely bogus.
    You keep changing the topic to fit your needs. Yes, the conservative Christian view is opposed to homosexuality and to anything that detracts from the one-on-one loving nature of the expression. However, that isn't what I was talking about. I was trying to clear up your intentional misrepresentation of other issues, such as "sex should be joyless." Listen to some televangelists will not give you a proper view of conservative Christian sexuality. It will give you a that person's view that they may justify through Scripture.
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for conceding that... (4.00 / 1) (#366)
    by dh003i on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 09:47:12 PM EST

    1.  Christians think masturbation is immoral.  Btw, your reasoning for why masturbation is immoral is bogus.  If masturbating produces lustful imagry and desires that spring from it, what does fucking your wife do?  I'd certainly hope that's what it evokes.
    2.  Christians think that homosexuality is immoral.
    3.  Christians think that polygamous sex is immoral.
    On a separate note, perhaps saying Christians think sex should be joyless is extreme.  It is, however, obvious that they don't want other people to enjoy sex if those other people believe in different expressions of sexuality than Christians do:  namely, homosexuals, swingers, S&Mers, group-goers, and (lol) masturbationists.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    on #1 you're wrong, #2 and #3 you're correct (none / 0) (#376)
    by jjayson on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 02:19:16 AM EST

    The lustful imagry is concerning people who are not your wife. It is the adultery referred to in Matthew 5:27-28 (NIV):
    You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who lookks at a woman lustfully has already committed adulter with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. If is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

    It isn't just a momentary thought of lust, but the Greek refers to a longing desire. Basically, if you could have sex with some woman, but the only think stopping you from doing it is access to her, then it is just as bad. So the lustfulness isn't unique to masturbation at all. It is the looking at pornography and lusting after these women in the pictures that is what is seen as immoral.

    This leads to the question of what if you think of your wife. Well, I don't know the answer to that. Many conservative Christians would probably still balk at it (and many atheists might, too).

    It is, however, obvious that they don't want other people to enjoy sex if those other people believe in different expressions of sexuality than Christians do:  namely, homosexuals, swingers, S&Mers, group-goers, and (lol) masturbationists.
    Yes, probably. I think that has more to do with the people and the condition of their hearts than anything else. Obviously, they would want to repent and turn to Christ and sin no more. I know many pull this much further, though.

    Concerning #2 and #3, yes, most conservative Christians do believe that this is immoral.

    I am not trying to defend or criticize their view, just get you to stop misrepresenting it.
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]

    So, where exactly am I wrong again? (4.00 / 1) (#391)
    by dh003i on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:08:00 PM EST

    Concerning #1, masturbation, are you saying that whenever a man masturbates, he's necessarily thinking about another woman instead of his wife?  He could be thinking about nothing aside from masturbating, or maybe even about his wife.  It should also be noted that a guy can fuck his wife and be fantasizing about his neighbor's wife.

    Since #2 and #3 you concede to be right, what exactly am I misrepresenting?  They think masturbation is immoral, they think homosexuality is immoral, they think that sex outside of a marriage (especially deviant sex) is immoral?  How am I misrepresenting their view?  I'm not going to go through the twisted logic of why they believe what they believe.  Why should I justify their lunatic beliefs?

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    From a recovering baptist... (none / 0) (#380)
    by Spunky on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 03:05:48 AM EST

    I'm a new poster here, but I thought there was something I should correct you on. Conservative Christians reletivly boring view on sex actually has very little backing from the Bible. While homsexuality is pretty specifically banned, the claim that you shouldn't have sex before marriage is on very shaky ground. It's usually based on a line in one of Paul's letters that some people believe was simply telling people to stop fornication during church services. The objections to polyamory are blantantly un-biblical. Just about every man in the Old Testement was married to more than one woman, including the author of "Song of Songs" (alternatly titled "Song of Solomon" Solomon being a man who had hundreds of wives). I might not be Christian any more, but it's hard to go to Sunday school every week for the first 19 years of your life without picking up some things...

    [ Parent ]
    Polygamy in the New Testament (1.00 / 1) (#382)
    by jjayson on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 03:54:33 AM EST

    Jesus clearly defines a relationship between one man and one woman. The New Testament even says that to hold a position in the church you should not be married to more than one person. There are more arguments about the nature of the story where God gives Adam an Eve, not multiple Eves. In the Old Testament, polygamy was overlooked, but not encouraged; it was a product of the human lust. In many cases it is shown to cause problems, such as Moses's wives and the strife the children born to each of them is said to cause.

    Of course, a more liberal interpretation finds ways some of these issues.
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]

    Adam and Eve (none / 0) (#420)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 04:01:59 PM EST

    There are more arguments about the nature of the story where God gives Adam an Eve, not multiple Eves.
    I honestly do not see why this would necessitate in any way that God wants only one man and one woman together. One man and one woman make up the most basic union required for procreation. It makes sense that this might be the symbolic start of humankind. Saying that a lack of other women or men implies that only one man and one woman should be together based on this is ignoring what else is left out of the picture. God didn't create Adam and Eve and Adam Jr. and Eve Jr. So should we take from this that having a family with children is not in God's plan? Or having a pet that you consider a part of your family? Doesn't it imply that we shouldn't be wearing clothing? And so on.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Shame on you (none / 0) (#435)
    by kholmes on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:04:49 AM EST

    You're not just an ass, you're a pompous ass. Shame on you.

    You too easily confuse Christianity itself, all Christians, and some Christians you've met or have seen on TV that you don't like. The fallacies are piling up into a mountain. Do yourself a favor and shut the hell up. What is wrong with you, anyway? Did some guy wearing a cross around his neck rape you as a child? You need to see a doctor.

    That trusted user status wasn't very important to me anyhow :)

    If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
    [ Parent ]

    Did I say "all christians"? (none / 0) (#464)
    by dh003i on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 11:36:18 AM EST

    No, I didn't.  I said "christian conservatives".  I don't mind christians who mind their own fucking business and keep their nose on their faces -- in other words, out of the private lives of others regarding consentual sexuality, religion, abortion, and other private matters.

    Keep thy religion to thyself.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Jesus you're annoying (2.20 / 5) (#289)
    by omghax on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:18:51 PM EST

    Just let the people comment and stop replying dismissively to each and every single comment that happens to disagree with you.

    The names Limbic, not Jesus... (5.00 / 1) (#334)
    by limbic on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 08:55:38 AM EST

    ..howzat for annoying? I enjoy the post submission debate. I participate. You will have to live with it.

    [ Parent ]
    roooeflezszds (NT) (1.40 / 5) (#291)
    by omghax on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:41:42 PM EST



    Gun to the head? Gun in the head. (5.00 / 7) (#293)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 08:53:59 PM EST

    I don't know about most of you guys, but I got little to know sexual education from my parents when I hit puberty (10 years ago).  Any "formal" education I got was in health class in high school.  Interestingly, they taught the girls in 8th grade (before high school, for you non-USers) how to deal with rapists before any of us got formal education about "this sticks in there" (not that we didn't know about it already).

    Nope, we got our education from the media.  Every Tom, Dick and Harry (or should I say Paula Abdul, Madonna and Britney Spears) was shaking their hips and shagging on stage like there were penises floating in the air.  MTV drummed it pretty well.  So did movies like Porky's (I don't care who they think they're targetting -- 14-year old love that crap).  Friends on the street cemented it in.

    Where was the peer pressure?  In your head.  I didn't have any "real" kind of sexual intimacy until I was 17.  At that point, I was so distraught about "leaving high school before I did it" that I practically begged my first serious girlfriend to do me.  Fortunately, she did (to a point -- oral is very popular) and I got a chance to breathe a sigh of relief.  At least, until the next night when I asked her to do me again.

    Part of this is also the "no-no" syndrome.  Humans don't like to have their decisions made for them.  If a parent doesn't allow their kid to drink up until college, I guarantee you they will go absolutely crazy when they get there.  If they drink a little in high school they'll either in college a) become alcoholics or b) learn to regulate and become "normal" parts of society.  Even GW has a beer after a Sunday football game.  Hey, it's American.

    My point (do I have one?) is that kids don't really make these decisions on their own.  They're "helped" by nice adults who think Britney humping a poll makes a good profit.  

    P.S. By the way, sex is also "in" right now, especially oral.  So is "bisexuality", according to some people I've talked to in college.  Nice to know a fundamental biological function may go the way of snap braclets, trolls and hula hoops.

    Missing Britney humping a poll option. [nt] (none / 0) (#297)
    by Cup O Tea on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:03:55 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    teaching 8th grade girls about rape (5.00 / 2) (#299)
    by aphrael on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:27:57 PM EST

    they taught the girls in 8th grade (before high school, for you non-USers) how to deal with rapists

    This is a good thing. Sadly, self-protection and how to get out of dangerous situations are things that all women need to be taught at a relatively young age --- 8th grade may not be young enough.

    [ Parent ]

    However (5.00 / 4) (#302)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 10:14:06 PM EST

    What's the point of teaching girls about rape if they don't know what body parts rape entails. As an analogy, saying "Don't watch too much TV" to some African tribesperson who's never seen a TV would be equally as effective.

    [ Parent ]
    Where you sitting in those classes, too? (5.00 / 2) (#304)
    by jjayson on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 11:22:17 PM EST

    How do you know they didn't teach the basic mechanics of "rape is when this in there?"
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    [ Parent ]
    TROLLS WILL NEVER GO OUT OF STYLE! (NT) (2.66 / 3) (#351)
    by LilDebbie on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:22:55 PM EST



    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    The beauty of sensationalism (4.71 / 7) (#298)
    by zohartheomnipotent on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 09:11:38 PM EST

    Yes, the fact that this article is a wonderful example of media sensationalism has been beaten to death, but even more incredible is the point that the assertions here aren't backed by fact.

    Newsweek will give you an opposite story:

    "According to a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control, the number of high-school students who say they've never had sexual intercourse rose by almost 10 percent between 1991 and 2001."


    Yes but... (none / 0) (#359)
    by SporranBoy on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:31:07 PM EST

    I agree with you that this post is sensationalist.

    However, there is little doubt that we are all bombarded by gratuitous titillation every time we turn on a TV or go to the movies. I would love to be able to transport a 1970s teenager to the present day and subject them to a day of advertising, movies and video games. I suspect they would be shocked ( not necessarily outraged ).

    The big issue here is the abuse of the sexual urge in order to get us to the movies or to buy a product. So much advertising uses the sexual 'bait and switch' and I think it has adverse consequences for many people. Even if you recognize it for what it is you still can't prevent some kind of lower level response which isn't necessarily good for you. WE are not supposed to get turned on every 15 minutes.

    The goal of advertising is to make you feel dissatified and unhappy and then to convince you to fill the void with product X. I wonder how much negative effect on the human condition this advertising has.

    Some animals, actually very few, have evolved to use sex as more than a means of reproduction. What's right for a certain species of small primate isn't necessarily good for us. While human societies sexual mores tend to oscillate from the extreme prudery ( e.g. Victorian ) to unbridled licenciousness ( Sodom and Gomorrah, 18th century France, 21st century US? ), I think we have to respect the basic premise that in order for us to live in such large social groups some level of control on sexual behaviour is probably required.

    [ Parent ]

    Standard deviation (5.00 / 2) (#390)
    by jet_silver on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:05:01 PM EST

    It was too hard to resist that subject line. Your post betrays a lack of statistical knowledge. If fewer kids are fucking but more of them are playing multi-way games, both data are supported if the standard deviation from average behavior increases.

    There are a lot more moral arguments on this thread than I'd have expected. I wonder if an alternative view isn't worth looking at: that there's an unintended consequence of the basis of marketing and advertising - which in a lot of cases tries to convince you you're sexually desirable if you purchase product X. Now we have teens who do not need any such reassurance. They will be lousy, un-American consumers with poor brand consciousness and an appalling lack of sensitivity to advertising.

    I wonder how many posters are uncomfortable with the prospect of sexually self-assured young people who don't pay attention to "sex=product" advertising and who don't need external reassurance of their worth. I think it's absolutely wonderful, and certainly the kids are having a hell of a lot more fun than I was when I was in high school. I see no downside as long as they understand the mechanics of disease transmission and are free to choose protected sex.


    "What they really fear is machine-gunning politicians becoming a popular sport, like skate-boarding." -Nicolas Freeling
    [ Parent ]

    A couple of things: (none / 0) (#401)
    by MacD on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:37:39 PM EST

    -it's a study by newsweek...I should stop there.
    -they've been taught by Clinton and his definition.
    "There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." A. Einstein
    [ Parent ]
    Let me fuck. I do it. You should too. (3.88 / 9) (#307)
    by the77x42 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:04:18 AM EST

    If you think there is something wrong (either morally or healthwise) with a teenage girl(s) having protected, group sex with multiple partners, either:

    1) You've never done it before
    2) You've done it before and didn't do it safely so you got a disease
    3) You worry too much and should examine your own health

    In this situation, the obvious response is 3.




    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    One thing wrong with it... (2.00 / 5) (#315)
    by Dr Laura on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:30:24 AM EST

    Girls and boys shouldn't be having sex at all! Sex is something that should be relegated for women and men. Children are not equiped to emotionally handle sex, nor are they mature enough to grasp what is at stake, nor are they equipped well enough to handle the potential consequences!

    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    Women and men... (none / 0) (#322)
    by speedfreak2K2 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:38:44 AM EST

    Granted, 13 and 14 years isn't the time to be pulling these kind of stunts off. But what would you define as the point when someone moves up to being  a man or a woman. Age? Experience? Knowledge? Outgrowing "childish" things? I use age as a defining point, but I know of some people who would blow my definition of adult out of the water.

    You! Take that crown off your head, I'm kicking your ass!
    [ Parent ]
    It's not an age thing (1.00 / 1) (#341)
    by Dr Laura on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:19:24 PM EST

    It's a maturity thing. I've spoken to women and men who are in their 80s and are still children. I've spoken to 16 year olds who, due to lack of parenting, were forced to "grow up" early, and fortunately for them and their siblings, they did.

    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    Seems like the difference is knowledge (none / 0) (#396)
    by michaelp on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 01:54:54 PM EST

    "women" and "men" know the consequences of their actions, and do or do not know the risks and taking precautions.

    So it seems like the answer is to give the kids the information they need to make informed decisions as "women" and "men".

    After all, the effects of AIDs, Genital warts, Syphilis, etc. are gross and scary, seems like one could simply present this information in graphic detail and scare many kids "straight" and most of the rest into using protection.


    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

    [ Parent ]
    Knowledge is only part of it (none / 0) (#422)
    by Dr Laura on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 04:40:57 PM EST

    Emotional maturity is the other part. Sex has more than just a physiological affect on human beings, especially women.

    Now, go do the right thing.
    [ Parent ]

    you dont give them enough credit (5.00 / 4) (#324)
    by rev ine on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 04:09:57 AM EST

    ...nor are they mature enough to grasp what is at stake...
    Hee hee, 'grasping' at 'stakes'.
    ...nor are they equipped well enough to handle...
    Hee hee hee...

    [ Parent ]
    it wasnt protected sex (none / 0) (#328)
    by bolthole on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 04:48:24 AM EST

    you didnt read the stuff. They all got syphillis, or however you spell it.

    not to mention that if you READ THE ARTICLE(S) listed, you will find that there IS something wrong with it. THe girls all felt like it became something meaningless, that they were doing not out of enjoyment, but simply because it was "expected by their friends", etc.

    [ Parent ]

    i never said anything about unprotected sex (none / 0) (#358)
    by the77x42 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 03:30:24 PM EST

    My point was that protected sex is fine. Don't put words in my mouth.


    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    [ Parent ]
    poppycock (5.00 / 8) (#309)
    by ish on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 01:09:37 AM EST

    I think my english teacher said it best:

    Every generation wants to believe they invented sex.

    You think this sort of "epidemic" hasnt happened before? You think your parents generation never had orgies, or anal sex? Christ, open your mind a bit.

    -ish

    Yeah, but I doubt they did at _11._ (none / 0) (#313)
    by Imperfect on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:13:55 AM EST

    Just a thought.

    Not perfect, not quite.
    [ Parent ]
    I believe they did. (4.33 / 3) (#317)
    by MessiahWWKD on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:37:46 AM EST

    The difference is that society refused to admit it as it is able to do now. Let's look at the facts. The Virgin Mary was fourteen when she had her child. One of Muhammed's wives were under the age of thirteen. If these women have had sexual relations at such a young age, surely even lowly non-religious figures have also had sexual relations at such young ages as well.
    Sent from my iPad
    [ Parent ]
    Amen (5.00 / 6) (#320)
    by skim123 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:46:49 AM EST

    The Virgin Mary was fourteen when she had her child.
    If God Himself is tapping 14-year old ass, who are we to say that this behavior is wrong?

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    [ Parent ]
    Priscilla (none / 0) (#330)
    by pathetic on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 06:05:22 AM EST

    was getting fucked by elvis when she was 14, i do believe...

    [ Parent ]
    so you DO believe Elvis is god... ;) [nt] (none / 0) (#370)
    by vyruss on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:30:56 PM EST



    • PRINT CHR$(147)

    [ Parent ]
    Not so subtle difference (none / 0) (#340)
    by SporranBoy on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 12:16:45 PM EST

    Mohammed wasn't 14.

    Whoever it was who really knocked up the "virgin" Mary was probably not 14 either.

    There would be a different dynamic at play here.

    [ Parent ]

    out on a limb... (4.90 / 10) (#327)
    by ryochiji on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 04:44:12 AM EST

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say "what's wrong with it?" Does it seem wrong to me? Yes, some of it does. Does it seem "perverted" in someways? Yes. But is it wrong? I don't know. If one of these kids asked me, I would have an extremely difficult time making a solid case as to why it might be wrong.

    Sure, there's STDs, the potential for physical/mental abuse, and perhaps other risks I'm not aware of. Even in the small town I live in, there was an incident where a 16 year old girl was raped by upwards of 20 (I think) guys at a party (although the first two were consensual). So I won't deny that it's potentially risky behavior.

    On the other hand, what if they're practicing safe sex? What if the participants actually have such a relationship where there is no concern for physical or mental abuse? What if the lack of sexual repression makes today's youth happier and less stressed? What if it's sexual liberation and not perversion, and we're just old and outdated in our thinking?

    Can anyone point to empirical arguments as to why we should consider "deviant" sexual behavior among the youth as being inherently harmful? Several years ago I studied the Trobrianders in an anthropology class, and I recall reading or hearing of an analysis where the lack of stress and anxiety among the culture's youth was attributed to their relatively open attitudes towards sex. I've also recently learned that many European countries that have more open attitudes towards sex also have lower rates of teen pregnancy. I myself went to a school (an American school in Germany) where the curriculum included sex-ed (not "health") for grades 6 through 10, and pregnancies among students were literally unheard of.

    Personally, I think our society, as a whole, needs to get over the notion that sex is bad or shameful. Because it's not. Everybody has sex, and if your parents hadn't done it, you wouldn't be here. I think what's important is not for us to tell our youth that sex is bad, but to teach them of the risks and teach them how to navigate through those risks. Sure, abstinence is an option. But so is a condom. And those of us who've been there know darn well that sometimes a condom's an easier solution than abstinence.

    As for sandwiches, I'll stick with turkey and avocado on wheat. But if everybody's safe and happy, why not?

    ---
    IlohaMail: Webmail that works.

    branch cracking ... <ack> (4.00 / 1) (#352)
    by Hobbes2100 on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:25:46 PM EST

    What's wrong with it?

    Well, first off, the notion of "safe sex" (with a condom) isn't all that safe. Sure, it's safe "enough" if you only have a few partners throughout your lifetime -- but if you're doing it like a rabbit with every bunny hopping by, you're still playing a dangerous game, make no mistake, it can't necessarily (sp?) be safe. You'll make mistakes, you won't take your time, you'll become blaise about the whole thing.

    As to the abuse score, Camilla Paglia has some interesting things to say about sex being fundamentally about the danger. Have sex is sure as hell pleasurable, but it also involves being in a vulnerable position (more so for the female in most cases).

    On a different score, I'd say that it must be difficult (maybe not impossible) to form meaningful sexual relationships after losing track (and memory) of your sexual partners. Does this affect long term relationships (like marriage) in a negative way? I don't know. I know all my partners (hell, I know everyone I dated ... guess that dates me ... I probably dated fewer girls them some of these kids have had sex with ... if indeed the stories are true).

    It might be interesting to ask, "What is _right_ about this phenomena?" Just because we don't have a "positive" reason against something doesn't mean we should necessarily do it.

    Regards,
    Mark
    Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Iuvenalis
    But who will guard the guardians themselves? -- Juvenal
    [ Parent ]

    RE: branch cracking ... <ack> (none / 0) (#374)
    by HDwebdev on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:43:57 AM EST

    Does this affect long term relationships (like marriage) in a negative way?

    Very good points and I'd like to expand on that with my view.

    For example, a girl marrying Joe (local boy from down the street) may have some serious repercussions. And vice versa.

    Especially if it's common knowledge that Joe or the girl slept with many other local people previously.

    I have a good friend who is now almost 20. She was a very 'bad' girl from 12-16. She did what many other 'just do it' generation girls did. Now she wants to get in a good relationship, get married, and have kids. It's not easy to do now. Local girls don't like her because she was easy AND popular (actually, just pleasing the guys she liked from her 12-year-old+ perspective) with boys THEY STILL SEE IN PUBLIC EVERY DAY. The boys are hesitant to commit because they don't want to marry a slut and/or have to deal with the pissed off local girls. Most 20-something guys do pay attention to friend's remarks about a girl they see and might be interested in. Most will want to have her up on a pedestal....it's hard to do when friends are saying (about a girl the guy just met) 'dude, i hit that and she blah blah blah with an electric blah blah blah with me and 2 other guys!'

    It's sad. She's a great girl, kind, has always been honest, and didn't sleep with all of those people just because she was a slut. It was because she liked them and most of the media was pounding 'do what feels good, spend now, pay later, etc' in her head every day. (I'm not blaming media, but media reinforced with peer-pressure is a serious force to reckoned with) Now she'll have to move away to escape that part of her past.

    I don't feel sorry for her, she would never want that, and I'm not making excuses. She made her bed and now she's lying in it. OTOH, I do feel bad that her generation wasn't just sneaking off and smoking pot during school (with the occasional lay, or more likely, hand-job) as opposed to taking ecstasy and getting digital pictures taken while performing sex acts with multiple people.

    She was only 12-15 after all and her relationship life is pretty much ruined now here. I'd make her my wife instead of best friend EVEN with her past but then again, I'm over twice her age. I've seen more of the 'big picture', and I know it would be a Bad Idea.

    Like I said, she's honest and a nice girl. She is the type to avoid stepping on a bug on a sidewalk and won't talk bad about people behind their backs. But, marrying someone here will be literally like jumping into a minefield once they start to socialize.

    All that she did wrong is to do what a large portion of the young girls are now doing in the USA.

    Again:
    Does this affect long term relationships (like marriage) in a negative way?

    I would say it's more likely than not :/

    [NOTE] This is in general. Sure, she *might* luck on a 20-something local guy that is understanding about her past, but the fact that she severely crippled her potential relationship life here can't be argued against.

    [ Parent ]
    You can see this two ways (5.00 / 1) (#392)
    by Hizonner on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:13:48 PM EST

    ... and, of course, I think my way of seeing it is better. :-)

    It sounds to me as if your friend just needs to find some friends, lovers, potential husbands, or whatever who don't have so many weird hangups. Such people do exist. She shouldn't have to escape her past, because she has done nothing wrong.

    And, frankly, I'd say that it's not that she needs a guy who's "understanding", because that presumes that there's something to "understand". She needs a guy who doesn't have a bunch of bizzarre, albeit common, baggage, and doesn't see her as damaged goods for silly reasons. She doesn't need anybody's forgiveness or "understanding", because she has done nothing wrong.

    Now, it's true that this is an imperfect world, and is full of imperfect people. Being exposed to social ostracism is in fact a risk of sexual "promiscuity", and that risk must be considered as long as it continues to exist. If you do A, you can expect B, right or wrong. The way many women enforce the "rules" against other women is especially brutal and obnoxious.

    The way you put the situation, though, sounds dangerously close to blaming the victim. I don't like to see the people doing the ostracizing let off without a word of condemnation, while while a whole bunch of judgement falls on the person being ostracized. The fact is that the people who are treating your friend this way are in the wrong. In fact, a lot of them are probably beyond "in the wrong" and into "being fucking assholes". The proper response to such people is "fuck you", even though I realize that's not always easy.

    I'd suggest that, if she needs to move, it's to escape these twits, not to escape her past. She might very well do equally well by just finding the right circle of local friends. Yes, there will always people who don't approve of her or what she's done, so that will limit her choices... but it's not necessarily healthy to try to hide from what you are, or to let people make you believe that there's something you need to hide from. Another good thing is that she may find that her peers become less of a pain in the ass as they mature more.

    ... and if her whole generation was doing it, rather than just her, why would it be an issue? There must be a lot of people in her generation who were not doing it, since they're the ones giving her trouble. In the unlikely event that a later generation is doing a great deal more of it, then their risk of experiencing the same problems she's experiencing may very well go down, not up.

    [ Parent ]

    The topic of 'teen sex' (3.20 / 5) (#329)
    by Tom Brett on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 05:31:39 AM EST

    in the context of "is it right, or is it wrong?" is such a good troll. The only people that can tell you that are the people doing it. at the time of doing it. and are they going to do that? I think not, they are too busy doing it. personally I love it. nothing better than a nice tight pussy.


    Outwar thugbuilder! get 500+ thugs a day! click here
    The one thing that annoys me about this. (4.40 / 5) (#332)
    by bobjim on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 06:19:00 AM EST

    I think Bill Hicks summed it up best. "And I'm not getting any! Just what are you ladies lookin' for?"
    --
    "I know your type quite well. Physically weak and intellectually stunted. Full of resentment against women." - Medham, talking about me.
    Shooting gnats with cannonballs... (4.75 / 4) (#336)
    by cognitablue on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 09:29:06 AM EST

    Funny how McMoralAmerica cherishes this myth of the innocent young in spite of the fact that images of young people are whored out daily on T.V., gaming, and magazine covers.

    Ah yes, shooting gnats with cannonballs all the while surrounded by rotten fruit...

    And when teenagers turn 18 or 21 does sex become OK? What's the difference between a 16-year old doing a sandwich and a 19-year old? The desperation is the same, is it not?

    The souls of the young were lost long before puberty. Somehow, someway, they always find Dad's secret stack of Forum magazines or those dirty pics of Mom in the bathroom shaving kit. But the children are trotted off to church and expected to be faithful actors. It would kill the emotional thriving of anyone.

    My sentiment is not mine alone... (2.50 / 2) (#346)
    by omghax on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 01:24:06 PM EST



    come on (4.50 / 2) (#348)
    by nickco on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:03:26 PM EST

    Every generation has this complaint. How old are you?

    T is for... (3.00 / 5) (#350)
    by LilDebbie on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:18:51 PM EST

    Are you all happy now? This is exactly the sort of thing that happens when you allow secular humanism into government. I say we bring back the Christion Theocracy and bring morality back to our children!

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    Why christianity? (none / 0) (#400)
    by MacD on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:31:07 PM EST

    Why not Islam, Hinduism, paganism, agnostisism, satanism, budhism, zen (which isn't) (read up on them all, to dispell your false and wrong beliefs)? Why pick cristianity (the one which has more blood spillt in it's name than any other religion before or since)?
    "There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." A. Einstein
    [ Parent ]
    Look ma, I caught me one! (none / 0) (#465)
    by LilDebbie on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:54:08 PM EST

    "T is for Troll," as in that was a joke. Cheers, mate.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Good troll (4.60 / 5) (#354)
    by 0xdeadbeef on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 02:27:32 PM EST

    Did you intentionally construct this to emphasize the double standard?

    Girls are finally being told by popular culture to do what popular culture has been telling boys to ask of non-marriageable girls for centuries. Uh oh, now all our daughters are whores.

    Of course people will blame the media and sexual liberation, and those people are ignorant retards. Kids do this for the same reason they smoke or binge drink: because it is forbidden. And the more common it is, the farther they have to go feel like they're getting away with something outrageous.

    hey hey now (5.00 / 1) (#417)
    by Wolf Keeper on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:08:28 AM EST

    Teenagers also do it because, media bombardment or not, they're horny as hell and it feels awesome.  

    [ Parent ]
    Historically... (5.00 / 7) (#361)
    by codegirlX on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 07:11:22 PM EST

    I find it extremely amusing that most people forget that before 20th century medical technology lengthened peoples lives considerably, that people used to get married when they were 13, 14, 15, 16, etc. and have children (which entails having sex). My great-grandmother was married when she was 14, and had my grandmother when she was 16. At the time, it was the socially accepted norm. It has only been within the last 70 years or so that it has become socially unacceptable to do so...


    -- The man that knows something knows that he knows nothing at all...~Erykah Badu
    also historically... (4.00 / 1) (#364)
    by Burning Straw Man on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 08:53:25 PM EST

    'having sex' after getting 'married' did not equate to the 'sandwich' described above.

    But in any case, it's just like any other self-destructive behavior: drinking, drugs, drag-racing. Kids do these things because (a) sure it feels good, (b) their parents don't want them to do it, and (c) they don't comprehend the consequences of their actions.

    Since teen drinking is nearly the norm, not to mention casual marijuana use, they've moved on to sex. When all the kids are having sex, a group of teens will find another area to pursue.

    Ritual blood-letting? Bestiality? Probably not, but eventually when behavior 'X' goes from 'extreme' to 'normal', behavior 'X+1' goes from 'unthinkable' to 'extreme'.
    --
    your straw man is on fire...
    [ Parent ]

    Ahem... (5.00 / 2) (#384)
    by rakslice on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 06:24:11 AM EST

    What's so self-destructive about it?

    [ Parent ]
    destructive? (none / 0) (#393)
    by Burning Straw Man on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 12:25:21 PM EST

    engaging in unsafe sex with multiple partners will eventually give you a nice cocktail of virii, bacteria, and pregnancy.

    engaging in safe sex is great fun. unfortunately the current trend is to be able to "brag" about how many unsafe sex partners you have had. maybe you don't have any kids of younger siblings still in school. I do, and after talking to them I sent my brothers a box of condoms and told them when they wanted more to give me a call.
    --
    your straw man is on fire...
    [ Parent ]

    trend? (none / 0) (#421)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 04:20:12 PM EST

    unfortunately the current trend is to be able to "brag" about how many unsafe sex partners you have had.
    Uhhh, no. A certain amount of people "brag" about how many people they've been with, a certain larger amount might think it is really important to have had sex with someone (not be a virgin), but bragging about how much unsafe sex you've had? While I'm sure it has happened, to say it is anything remotely resembling a *trend* is way off base, in my opinion.
    maybe you don't have any kids of younger siblings still in school.
    I do, and besides them I just graduated.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Darwin (5.00 / 2) (#398)
    by MacD on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:20:25 PM EST

    And that is a very good thing: the dumb, the ignorant, the unwilling to learn should be cut out of the genepool.
    "There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." A. Einstein
    [ Parent ]
    Carefull with that... (none / 0) (#399)
    by MacD on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:26:48 PM EST

    I once said something much to that effect, and afterwards people said I was advocating paedophilia...I still shake my head at that one. Just speaking the facts of history, and you get that reaction. That's the one occaision (why doesn't an OS have a spell checker built into it's apps?!?) which really clued me in to the cluelessness of the moayority of humanity.
    "There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." A. Einstein
    [ Parent ]
    A-mazing (none / 0) (#461)
    by codegirlX on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:59:13 PM EST

    Pedophilia???? Cripes, that's just ludicrous...People who view statements about 'what actually happened' throughout history really fit in with your sig: infinite stupidity...BTW, that happens to be one of favorite quotes of Einstein as well; perceptive chap, wasn't he? ;o)
    -- The man that knows something knows that he knows nothing at all...~Erykah Badu
    [ Parent ]
    Sure fire way to get a story voted up....... (2.50 / 2) (#365)
    by ThreadSafe on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 09:17:41 PM EST

    In the preamble include the words teenage and orgies !

    Make a clone of me. And fucking listen to it! - Faik

    What I want to know is (4.00 / 2) (#368)
    by electricmonk on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:16:12 PM EST

    Where the fuck is this going on, and can I have some? Good God, if only such things would happen to me. I guess I go to the wrong high school...

    --
    "There are only so many ways one can ask [Jon Katz] what it's like to be buried to the balls in a screaming seven-year-old" - Ian

    Damn stupid kids these days (4.60 / 5) (#369)
    by epepke on Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 11:27:09 PM EST

    A "sandwich" properly refers to double vaginal penetration. Call a spade a spade, and call triple penetration triple penetration already!

    Next thing you know, they'll be doing "around the world" without analingus. It's no wonder the little bastards score below Northern Slurpenskia on standardized tests.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    Too true! (none / 0) (#388)
    by limbic on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 09:10:43 AM EST

    Before long we will be hearing about feltching a penis.

    [ Parent ]
    Another young POV... (4.75 / 4) (#377)
    by coderlemming on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 02:32:03 AM EST

    I'm 20, so I'm not TOO far out of this.  My comment will be lost under all of the others, I'm sure, but I figured I ought to say something.

    I'm a geek, so of course I didn't partake in much promiscuity in high school... but really, there wasn't much of a group sex scene in my area (Michigan, coincidentally).  More like just frequent short-term relationships with sex in them.  There was also the "hookup", as described in the article, where you fool around (oral, hand jobs, etc) with a friend, or with someone new, in a "no strings attached" sort of way.

    Why? Cause we were horny, duh! Teens are like that.    Insatiably horny.  Better they get their jollies with a little harmless oral, or even sex, than hold it in.  I think many geeks on this site can attest to the fact that holding it in (ie. through lack of choice) is far more harmful than a little sexual fun, especially if the latter is carried out safely.

    I personally partook in a "sex party" or two... not much multi-person sex, but definitely several two-person groups all at once in the same room, like, a party for the specific purpose of finding soemone and playing around.  Guess what?  Since I've (safely, carefully) fooled around with quite a few girls in my time, it lots its edge of newness.  Now, I'm experienced in sex, and it's not so nervous... now, I can use sex as the spice to a meaningful relationship.  Experience is important!  This age is definitely much more relaxed with respect to sex, so I see nothing at all wrong with people gaining experience in their teenage years... rather, I'm very glad that I did.

    I will say that, of course, sex acts feel better and mean more when you love the person (voice of experience).  However, I'll also say that I'm glad I've experienced both sides of the coin to know the difference.  I see nothing wrong with what "these kids" are doing, though I believe this article is just the same old story that keeps getting trumpetted year after year, generation after generation.  Let kids be kids.

    The safe sex thing is another matter, but that's definitely not a new problem.


    --
    Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)

    Agreed (none / 0) (#378)
    by jagg on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 02:55:45 AM EST

    Pretty much agree with everything you said, and I'll add that, coincidently, I'm 20 and living in Michigan too :)

    --
    A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. --James Madison
    [ Parent ]
    be careful (none / 0) (#402)
    by Burning Straw Man on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:42:01 PM EST

    a little harmless oral

    you sound like you know, but just wanted to reiterate that AIDS, Herpes, etc can be transmitted via unprotected oral sex just like any other exchange of bodily fluid.

    just because a prominent member of the US government at one time declared that oral sex isn't "sex" doesn't make it true :)
    --
    your straw man is on fire...
    [ Parent ]

    Re: be careful (none / 0) (#406)
    by coderlemming on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 11:19:51 PM EST

    Well, yes, of course I was careful, and I got tested at one point (DAMN that's uncomfortable).  Then again, one might say it's kind of foolish to completely abstain from anything sexual for your entire life for fear of STD's... I mean, even with a condom, it's possible to get an STD.  Even kissing, if you're extraordinarily unlucky.

    But yes, I was/am careful.  Thanks for the concern :)


    --
    Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
    [ Parent ]

    Characterization (5.00 / 2) (#383)
    by rakslice on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 06:16:42 AM EST

    "What makes this story interesting is that this is not merely Idaho prudery or matronly shock at adolescent frolics."

    Are you sure?

    Consider:

    "These youngsters are not just promiscuous, they are downright filthy. They are carrying out sex acts on each other that if you asked a porn star to act them, you would have to pay them double."

    "Orgies and engaging in humiliating sexual practices like the "sandwich" border on self-abuse."

    ...

    It's one thing to be clinging to spurious beliefs, and to have to take a hard look at them, and cut my losses.  (Let's face it; no one wants to know how far down their throat their foot really is.)  But what's even more insidious: the traces of old conclusions, based on beliefs I no longer hold, that float around long after I thought I had changed my mind.

    More later...


    "`But that's terrible,' (5.00 / 2) (#385)
    by rakslice on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 06:32:11 AM EST

    said Arthur.

    `Listen, bud,' said Ford, `If I had one Altarian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say `That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But I haven't and I am."

    - Douglas N. Adams (now the late), So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish

    The late DNA... (none / 0) (#397)
    by MacD on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:16:49 PM EST

    Sniff....I just read "The Salmon of doubt"...just a few more rewrites and a few more books would have done me fine.
    "There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." A. Einstein
    [ Parent ]
    Good. (3.40 / 5) (#386)
    by tkatchev on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 07:59:01 AM EST

    That means that American "civilization" has only a few years to go before it collapses in complete disarray and total degeneration. Not more than two generations, I'd guess.

    Sure. As long as nobody is hurt and everyone is a willing participant. Whatever "floats your boat", I guess. Make our day, you're on a straight and easy road, dudes.

    What's more interesting, though, is the culture that will prevail through the chaos that is sure to follow; they are sure to be a more balanced and hardy people. Sort of like what eventually became Western and Eastern Europe after the Romans self-destructed.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.

    Shut up, God-troll (1.50 / 2) (#405)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 09:02:53 PM EST

    This isn't a that great a crisis. However, It's terrible that you want to our civilization to collapse. Is that what Jesus would do?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    good heavens man (2.33 / 3) (#412)
    by adequate nathan on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 08:23:42 AM EST

    If today's related crises in parenting and sexuality don't worry you, you must be a man of extraordinary aplomb. You don't have to be a sex-hating bigot to be upset by 13-year-olds seeking to satisfy a jaded sexual appetite by triple penetration.

    As for your stupid Jesus remark, you ought to know that there are no civilizations that are immune to the ravages of time. Where is Rome now? Considering the total collapse of the idea of commonweal in Imperial Rome, and the cheapness of human life within it, oughtn't a humanist to be glad the it fell?

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    Shut up agendaless troll (1.00 / 2) (#425)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:48:56 PM EST

    Your comment is irrelevant to my comment.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    Uh, I see. (1.00 / 2) (#427)
    by tkatchev on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:17:45 AM EST

    As opposed your point of exactly what?


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    That you're an idiot (1.00 / 2) (#429)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:26:25 AM EST

    My point is exactly what I said. Pre-teen sex isn't going to collapse our civilization. Also, you want our civilization to collapse because it doesn't allow you to impose your beliefs onto others.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    Hah (none / 0) (#433)
    by kholmes on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:13:28 AM EST

    "Pre-teen sex isn't going to collapse our civilization."

    Its just a small part of it. So are you, I'm afraid. Fortunately, our generation will long be gone before it falls.

    Thats presuming that the fall of western civilization is a bad thing.

    But before the end comes, can we possibly spare with calling each other idiots? I would much rather end the world with being nice to each other for a change.

    If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
    [ Parent ]

    I would expect more from you (none / 0) (#439)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:56:33 AM EST

    I called him an idiot because of his original comment and many others. He is an atheist hating zealot who insults people who have differnet beliefs from him at every oppurtunity.

    For the record though, I think the collapse of personal morality comes from the winner take all, super competive nature of our soceity. Anyway, I think defict spending and lack of education will destroy our economy and hence our civilzation.

    Anyway, how am I part of the collapse of western civilization?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    Aye (1.00 / 1) (#445)
    by kholmes on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:35:33 PM EST

    "I called him an idiot because..."

    Why bother?

    "Anyway, how am I part of the collapse of western civilization?"

    See above.

    If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
    [ Parent ]

    Aye-Aye (1.00 / 1) (#447)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:11:59 PM EST

    I called him an idiot so that he would see that his antagonistic comments are unwelcome. Although because it felt good.

    As for me being part of the downfall of western civilization, I don't see it. Anyway, is that remark any nicer than calling someone an idiot?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    support your belief (1.00 / 2) (#436)
    by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:33:15 AM EST

    Pre-teen sex isn't going to collapse our civilization.

    Says who? I say that by denigrating monogamy, promiscuity weakens the family, which is the foundation of our civilization. This argument may be trite, but it's more of one than we've yet seen from you.

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    My belief that you're a troll? (1.00 / 2) (#440)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:01:22 AM EST

    Your user name is a reference to adequecy.org. Also, I've seen you troll before. Thirdly, you are siding with tkatchev the most hateful and annoying God-boy I have seen on this site or anywhere.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    the trolls are out to get you (1.00 / 2) (#441)
    by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:07:17 AM EST

    And our new tactic is to talk sense and watch you flounder. Do you have anything to say?

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    You aren't smart enough to use that tactic (1.00 / 2) (#442)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:01:10 PM EST

    Talk sense? You make baseless claims that I support the Roman Empire and that I don't care if 13 year olds engage in triple penetration. Also, you admit that the claim about teen-promuscutiy is trite and then claim to be a sense-talker.

    I say that by denigrating monogamy, promiscuity weakens the family, which is the foundation of our civilization.

    The family still exists in spite of the crisis of teen sex. Most people get married in spite of having had plenty of pre-marital sex.

    So at this point I must ask you, how do you excuse your own inadequecy?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    blah (1.00 / 1) (#444)
    by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:47:18 PM EST

    So who are your dupe accounts? YUO ARE TEH R0x0R!!!1!!111!

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    I like your tactic (none / 0) (#446)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:00:56 PM EST

    Trolling through idiocy and laughable arguments. Of course then you only admit to trolling when you are made foolish looking.

    Adequacy is dead and your troll-fu is far to weak for this site. My suggestion to you is do what your parents did. Get a girlfriend or at least a life, sir.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#448)
    by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:44:21 PM EST

    I thought you were being dumb on purpose. Ok, it appears I was wrong about that. On to the next thing.

    The family still exists in spite of the crisis of teen sex. Most people get married in spite of having had plenty of pre-marital sex.

    And half of all American marriages end in divorce.

    You make baseless claims that I support the Roman Empire...

    As 'supporting the Roman Empire' means nothing in the modern world, you must be out of your mind to think I 'accused' you of it.

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    I'm not suprised (none / 0) (#449)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:58:31 PM EST

    And half of all American marriages end in divorce.

    What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about if pre-martial sex destroys civilization, not divorce.

    As 'supporting the Roman Empire' means nothing in the modern world, you must be out of your mind to think I 'accused' you of it.

    It's right above if you don't belive me. It is an irrational claim, but then I wasn't accusing you of being rational.

    How long do you spend coming up with this crap anyway?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    Have a tasty bit of logic. (1.00 / 1) (#451)
    by tkatchev on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:45:06 AM EST

    Try this:

    Teen sex destroys families => Most marriages end in divorce => Breakdown of social norms => Breakdown of civilization.

    This chain of events has been confirmed by historical facts, BTW, so I'm not just spouting wild opinions here.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Logic! Hah! That's not your game! (none / 0) (#452)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:15:57 AM EST

    How does teen sex destroy families? I've never heard of a divorce that was brought on by teen sex.

    Divorce has been going on forever, but I suppose frequent divorces are new. Changes in social norms? The more things change the more they stay the same. Slavery was at one time a social norm. So was the perscution of homosexuals. Over time our values change, but that doesn't mean it destroys our civilization.

    This is fun. Keep trying. If you don't win the debate all will follow the Anti-Christ when he comes to the Earth.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    What the hell? (none / 0) (#453)
    by tkatchev on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:01:18 PM EST

    What are you trying to say?

    Look, the link between promiscuity and breakup of families is a well-known and proven fact of historical science.

    The rest of your comment is simply that much bullturds.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Whatever they're selling you, (5.00 / 2) (#454)
    by it certainly is on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:48:29 PM EST

    I'll have double.

    There's a link between promiscuity by the partners in matrimony -- i.e. extra-marital sex -- and the breakup of families. Mom and Pop don't split up because Junior's getting his oats in.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    perhaps (none / 0) (#456)
    by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:35:41 PM EST

    If Junior is promiscuous as a tennager, he may be inclined to behave the same way after he grows up. I've never heard anyone say, "Yeah, I remember when I got laid by a different chick every night. Boy, did that suck. Never wanna do that again."

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    If Junior was that promiscuous, (none / 0) (#460)
    by it certainly is on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:32:22 AM EST

    I doubt he'd actually notice that it was a different girl each night. They'd blend into one another and become the generic slut in his eyes. So, he'll either grow up and never get married, or he'll marry and make his wife very, very busy.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (none / 0) (#455)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:16:41 PM EST

    Show me the research which proves that teen promiscuity causes divorce.

    The rest of your comment is simply that much bullturds.

    In other words, I have defeated your argument so badly that you can't even comment on it.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    Go to sleep, kid. (1.00 / 1) (#459)
    by tkatchev on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:52:35 AM EST

    I don't want to see you overstrain yourself.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    What's wrong? (none / 0) (#462)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 05:17:19 PM EST

    Won't Jesus help you come up with a counter-argument?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    Escalation? (4.00 / 1) (#430)
    by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:59:26 AM EST

    You think that's what this is about? Escalation?

    Pure bollocks, my good friend. This is water finding its own level. If you're a horny, uninhibited teen with access to lots of other stupid, easily persuaded, uninhibited horny teens, the world is your oyster. Have sex. Have lots of sex. Have all manner of sex. Go through the entire kama sutra and do remakes of the entire top rack at the video store.

    Look, if I knew a willing lady and two willing guys, it'd be triple penetration every night at my place. In fact, if agreeable-persons supply were no object, I'd be reenacting Snow White and the Seven Dwarves where Snow White is dishing out fellatio, two hand-jobs and DVDA.

    The trouble is that people apply standards to their conduct. They are inhibited by what they think others will think about them. They try and avoid "degrading", "humiliating" things where they "get used". They crave love, warmth, happiness, comfort. Even the skanky 'hos in porn are at least doing it only on the proviso that they are paid lots of money. This is the main difference between adults like you and me, and little horny brats. Plus the fact that we've got far bigger cocks than those short-arsed half-men.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Seems like the real problem is disease & pregn (5.00 / 3) (#395)
    by michaelp on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 01:39:18 PM EST

    so maybe the kids just need some straight education early on. I dunno how it was for everyone, but most folks I knew during the 80s (male & female) were as promiscous as we could be by 13-14 or so.

    But we did seem to know more about what causes babies & diseases than kids these days, at least in my cohort, where we got some pretty straight sex ed in the public school (along with driver's ed).

    Perhaps the problems we're seeing these days have more to do with the denaturing (literally) or removal of (real) sex ed from so many schools?


    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

    So? (5.00 / 2) (#403)
    by Pig Hogger on Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 06:51:26 PM EST

    What's wrong with sex?

    What's wrong with having fun with our bodies, as opposed in having fun with booze or drugs?

    Which is better? Which is worse?
    --

    Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot

    What part of decadence don't you understand? (2.00 / 1) (#432)
    by kholmes on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:05:18 AM EST

    Thats what the article is about to my mind. Except they are talking about social decadence. There's also political decadence, economic decadence, etc.

    There's nothing wrong with liberalism---but when you pursue extreme liberalism, decadence is what you get. Perhaps there's really no choice in the matter. Perhaps there's no stopping us into a world where nothing is held sacred. Whats wrong with that, you ask? Nothing I can rationally explain. Nothing you can explain, either. It isn't rational. Those of you searching for rational values are incredibly naive. There are no rational values. They're all made up. In that way, soon after the fall of Christianity I forsee the movements trying to take their place, such as objectivism, communism, and secular humanism to fall as well both in competition with Christianity and with each other.

    Then where are we? No where, really. Thats the end of our civilization. And when the end comes there will be no room left for heaven or earth.

    Whats wrong with that?

    If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
    [ Parent ]

    Decadence? Great Scott! (5.00 / 1) (#443)
    by Hizonner on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:55:18 PM EST

    Ach.

    We've got to get out of zis... trap... before zis... decadence... saps our wills.

    I've got to be strong... und try to hang on... or else my mind may well schnap. Und my life... will be lived...

    for ze thriiillllls.

    OK, sorry. I had to do it.

    Civilizations grow, change, and sometimes collapse. It's not clear to me that this sort of thing has a lot to do with it, and certainly not that it's a cause of it.

    People are wired to behave in certain ways. The interaction between that human nature and the social environment causes the system to drift around, within what is in some areas a pretty wide range. Values change, but past predictions of this causing the end of the world have not proven agreeable to experience.

    The end of human hegemony on this planet may yet come. It may even turn out to be a good thing even for us humans. I do not, however think it's going to be junior-high sex that brings it about.

    [ Parent ]

    T.S. Eliot (none / 0) (#457)
    by mmsmatt on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:12:22 PM EST

    A people without religion will in the end find it has nothing to live for



    [ Parent ]

    Not to be a "me-too..." (5.00 / 2) (#408)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:47:02 AM EST

    ...but I really don't feel like reading all 400+ comments here, so this might have been already stated. However, is this really all that odd?

    When I was that age, almost everyone in school was engaging in all sorts of sexual deviancy. While, try as I might, I've never been able to participate in/or instigate a massive orgy of Bacchanalian proportions, group sex, anal penetration, oral, etc. was a fairly common occurence. A day didn't go by that some bloke got tossed or blown in the bathroom (hell, the discrete ones got away with it in the mess), and the vast majority of kids I knew had their first oral sex experience around the seventh grade or so. Hell, I've met a number of folks who have had their first homosexual experience before reaching 15.

    Keep in mind that almost all of my primary and secondary education was picked up in Hong Kong, and most of the friends that I have made in SF, London, NY, and Chicago have shared similar experiences, from both public and private institutions. I am tempted to believe that this is just a bit of sensationalism, and that all the furor over this is because it finally spilled into middle America. I've noticed that nothing really matters in this country until it hits the suburbs, like drug use and school violence. Been going on forever in the urban areas, but as soon as Mr. and Mrs. Doe in Springfield, USA get a whiff of it, BADA-BING! it's a crisis.

    It's a bit funny, actually; when I first got into university a few years ago or so, I've noticed that the level of sexual experimentation amongst my peers and I started to decrease dramatically, while most of the suburbanites start fucking like deranged rabbits as soon as they step into the dormitories. Eh.

    On an off-topic note, has anybody tried to play a drinking game to the Houston 500? Horribly entertaining, and a great way to kill your sex drive for a few days or so. And it's a great movie to just leave playing during a party or something. A helluva conversation piece, and great for laughs as well.

    Hmm. I'm going to go and savagely force my cock down a girl's throat while two other blokes diddle her glory holes now. Perhaps I'll see if I can find a willing participant to skull-fuck afterwards. We'll see.

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.

    So let's see... (5.00 / 2) (#428)
    by kilr0y on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:03:13 AM EST

    We've got a few kids having sex in Ohio, and a couple more who are really going at it in Michigan. A national epidemic? Oh, I forgot, it's all confirmed by Tom Wolfe, who is, like, 80 years old. This story belongs on Dateline!

    You were right! (none / 0) (#463)
    by skim123 on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:37:41 PM EST

    This aritlce solidifies your claims:
    Alleged videotaped rape of teen jolts suburb - Jan. 11, 2003
    A teenage "chugging contest" in an upscale home near Burr Ridge turned into rape when a 16-year-old girl passed out and four young men performed sex acts on her--and scrawled offensive words on her body with a marker--while they videotaped their crimes, a Cook County prosecutor said Friday.
    http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-rape11.html

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    Naivete (none / 0) (#468)
    by pietra on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:10:39 AM EST

    Your entire attitude towards teenage sexuality can be summed up in one simple point:

    You actually believed Mena Suvari's character when she batted her pretty, hollow, over-mascaraed eyes at Kevin Spacey and quaveringly told him that she'd "never done it before."

    The whole point was that yeah, she was a braggart; that didn't mean she was a virgin. Quite to the contrary. She knew perfectly well that the one thing that's guaranteed to turn on a guy with a big ol' Lolita complex is the notion that he gets to "teach" her something. It made her character even more calculating and therefore repulsive. If you're too literal to realize that she was lying through her cute little teeth, you're definitely too literal to understand that--concept!--lots of people lie, or at least exaggerate about sex, and as such, *any* apparently ludicrous claims need to be carefully considered. For instance, some of the children cited above may very well have told some unscrupulous journalists some things they wanted to hear in order to sell sensationalist articles. They may also have been telling the truth. I'm not sure you're the best person to judge which was which.

    Oh, and Idaho prudery? I live in Moscow, ID. Would you believe that it's easier to get birth control here than California? True. Also, a significant portion of the female population here wear miniskirts in 28-degree weather. You should all be so lucky to have such prudes ;)

    Give me detumescence | 469 comments (408 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!