The nation’s campaign to get more teenagers to delay sex and to use condoms is faltering, threatening to undermine the highly successful effort to reduce teen pregnancy and protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases.
New data from a large government survey show that by every measure, a decade-long decline in sexual activity among high school students leveled off between 2001 and 2007, and that the rise in condom use by teens flattened out in 2003.
Moreover, the survey found disturbing hints that teen sexual activity may have begun creeping up and that condom use among high school students might be edging downward, though those trend lines have not yet reached a point where statisticians can be sure, officials said.
“The bottom line is: In all these areas, we don’t seem to be making the progress we were making before,” said Howell Wechsler, acting director of the division of adolescent and school health at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducts the survey. “It’s very troubling.”
It also was predictable.
>>Why should schools do anything you wonder?
They are mandated to provide an education and a nutritious lunch. As to handing out deodorant, “personal hygiene” products, shaving cream, inkjet cartridges, or any other thing readily available at the nearest store, wtf?
Sure, they should give sex ed classes, but distributing the hardware for homework projects? You’ve GOT to be trolling.
>>Mustard, I don’t give out personal
>>information except in error. Any answer one
>>way or the other will become a distracting
>>side issue.
Tee hee! Haw! I’ll take that as “No, Mister Mustard, I never really went to a school where the language of instruction was anything other than English. I was merely trying to appear the cosmopolitan world traveler.”
You are like the Broadcom guy: Extremely busted!
Haw!
#58 – What is your problem? I answered your question to the best and extent of my ability and what I get back is an attack because you just didn’t like what I wrote? Or is it because I differ in view point than you?
I’m sorry your childhood was so disappointing for you (oh did that sound condescending?). I’m happy to hear you are flexible in understanding different points of view (and the context for such). Don’t make the mistake of thinking you know me and stating that I don’t understand different points of view as well. I do. I just realize that I don’t need to attack others for not agreeing with my differing point of view.
If you can understand and respect a point of view, then reply as such. If not, reply in a way that is respectful and not condescending. Otherwise you place yourself in the self promoting, self righteous arena (the same one you complain about others for).
#65–Relinguish==I don’t blame you at all.
Mustard==you have no excuse.
Mista Bobbolina, Mista Bob Bobbolina:
**BUSTED**
Haw! Got ya there, didn’t I you funkee homosapien? Haw! Bobbo’s **BUSTED**!!!!
#65–Relinguish==I was too short-its coming up on my bedtime and I’m getting cranky.
Subtract Para #2 about context which was meant as a mild rebuke by example and rereading it, I see it was wide of the mark, and I think my response is honest and no attack at all.
Do the post numbers magically change on this board? I see WAY to many people posting message numbers in a reply, but the message numbers don’t correspond to what they’re replying to. Once in a while, I would pass it off as a mistake by the poster. It happens way too much for that to be the explanation though.
exempli gratia: Relinquish (or “Relinguish”, as some call him) objects to “my” message #58. However, nothing in “my” message #58 relates to his reply; I never addressed any questions to him. He seems to be replying to Bobbo.
Hm.
#66 # 68 – Bobbo – Fair enough.
#69 – Mustard (if its the correct number June 6 – 10:46am) – True, I have not replied to any of your posts on this page. I have noticed numbers mixed up in the presentation of this site before as well. I don’t know what the issue is but it can really mess with trying to follow a string of replies.
#69 – Mister Mustard,
Do the post numbers magically change on this board?
I think it has long been known that post numbers are not cast in stone. That’s why I always include the name and post number.
Besides, including the name let’s the person you’re addressing scan the list for posts that apply to the individual rather than making everyone look back for a post number.
It also helps to put in a quote from the post so that people will know the exact comment to which you are replying. That would have helped quite a few times over the months with your own posts Mr. Mustard, which, IMHO, are not always perfectly obvious about what the reply is a reply to.
Not a criticism really since your posts are usually clearer than most. I’m just trying to encourage everyone to be clearer in their replies.
Mister Mustard (possibly still #69), as Uncle Dave once explained to me, some messages are flagged by the system for administrative action and aren’t posted right away. When an administrator finally approves them, they are then posted by WordPress in the chronological order of original submission, which automatically renumbers all successive comments that have already been posted by number. Any numerical references by commentors in those successive comments suffer accordingly, occasionally making a thread difficult to follow and especially confusing to people unaccustomed to the phenomenon. Occasionally, an admin will take the time to manually edit those comments to reconcile the references, but it takes a bit of time and commitment on their part.
I get it, Scottie. That’s why, even though I’ve been roundly criticized for it, I always reply to messages using the
>>numerical references by commentors in those
>>successive comments suffer accordingly
format.
Not only does it avoid the inevitable numbering muff-ups, but it allows people to know wtf I’m talking about without endless {scroll up} {scroll down} nonsense to see what the original point was.
>>That would have helped quite a few times over
>>the months with your own posts Mr. Mustard,
>>which, IMHO, are not always perfectly obvious
>>about what the reply is a reply to.
Scottie! Scottie, Scottie, Scottie! Wtf are you talking about? This is my standard reply format, and if it’s not obvious what I’m replying to, I’d say the problem is on the reader’s end, not mine.
#74 – Mister Mustard,
Scottie! Scottie, Scottie, Scottie! Wtf are you talking about? This is my standard reply format, and if it’s not obvious what I’m replying to, I’d say the problem is on the reader’s end, not mine.
Actually, that format is sometimes fine, when the thread isn’t very long. But, with neither post number nor sometimes name (I have seen you leave out the name), I sometimes have to past your text into find to see what the original post was. No big deal most of the time. Sometimes though, I really don’t know to whom you are replying at all.
51 MS What happens when the raging hormones take over anyway?
What happened before “the sexual revolution?” It’s all how you’re raised; it’s all about defined and accepted limits by society; and the pervasive cuture of selfishness and irresponsibility that encourages the old, “if it feels good, do it” behaviors. Most of it, anyway.
Clearly society’s attitudes have everything to do with the end results of “raging hormones.”
Btw, I love how “raging hormones” can be used as an excuse for everything up to a sex crime. Then, according to the feminists, this suddenly becomes the product of the need for violence and aggression. Someone needs to make up their minds here.
RBG
>>that format is sometimes fine, when
>>the thread isn’t very long.
Actually, Scottie, I think it works even better when the thread is long. When somebody says “Misanthropic Scott – #6, I don’t agree” in a 400-post thread, wtf? I’m supposed to go back 394 messages to find out wtf it’s all about?
>>Sometimes though, I really don’t know to
>>whom you are replying at all.
Does it matter? The meat of the matter that I’m replying to is contained in the quote. That’s all you need to know. If you’re saying you would view my response differently based on “to whom I am replying”, well. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Besides, I always address you by name, Scottie, when replying to you.
#76 – RBG,
51 MS What happens when the raging hormones take over anyway?
What happened before “the sexual revolution?”
A lot of people “had to get married”. A lot of women died in illegal abortions. A lot of girls dropped out of high school and “went away” for a time to come back after having given a baby up for adoption.
Importantly, AIDS did not yet exist. So, people got gonorrhea or syphilis but most lived.
It’s all how you’re raised; it’s all about defined and accepted limits by society; and the pervasive cuture [sic] of selfishness and irresponsibility that encourages the old, “if it feels good, do it” behaviors. Most of it, anyway.
Do you really think that the fact that people tended not to talk about things like this in the repressed 1950s means that they didn’t happen?
Btw, I love how “raging hormones” can be used as an excuse for everything up to a sex crime. Then, according to the feminists, this suddenly becomes the product of the need for violence and aggression. Someone needs to make up their minds here.
Um … no. Raging hormones are a fact of puberty. Rape and other “sex crimes”, whatever you may be lumping in that category, are acts of violence, not sex.
#77 – Mister Mustard,
Re: Replying and how to indicate to whom.
I think we’ve taken that side track as far as needed. We’re both trying to be clear in our responses, which is all we can really do. There’s bound to be some confusion.
Oh no!! I said bound. Did I just commit a sex crime?
I received relatively good Sex Ed in Health class in high school. Of course when HIV came up it was all about gay sex and how gross it was but lesbian sex wasn’t considered so bad..
but I knew the consequences of unprotected sex but made the choice to do it anyway.
I think calling it birth control is a bad thing. And more emphasis needs to be put on STD control and birth control. For the Bi/Gay teen, the importance of condom use is just overlooked or the fact of gay-ish sex is viewwed as “bad” or “gross” or just plain overlooked so protection isn’t stressed as much.
#52,
I have always said that ‘abstinence only’ works 100% all the time
You’re right. It doesn’t. Just look at me. I don’t vote and we never get a bad elected official.
78 MS And how did it work out for the children when they actually got married? How many pregnancies did you have then? How many abortions do you have now in comparison? I doubt the sexual revolution was invented because it somehow lessens the statistically small number of women who “went away.”
AIDS is not something you play with when faced with a 9% condom failure rate. But then, fun is fun, right?
I’m advocating a completely different approach to sex education that would dramatically lessen pregnancies and death based upon a change of attitude and a foremost appreciation of the realities of what the main purpose of sex is: To create life, not for for jollies. Who would have thought?
Re rape. So now I know all psychopathic, sex-starved adult males would never think to break the law to satisfy their selfish primal sex needs. Like most people, they’ll risk creating new human life, yes; risk death through AIDS, yes; but never violate a woman’s legal rights.
I’m to believe even though teens apparently have absolutely no control over their sex desires, my goon above must because he is over 21… or something like that.
RBG
>>the main purpose of sex is: To create
>>life, not for for jollies.
I guess you don’t have much of a sex life, huh?
#81 – RBG,
What exactly is your plan? Do you have any statistics on its effectiveness? Do you think it’s got better numbers than the 2% condom failure that results with people educated in proper condom use, as I pointed out above, rather than the 9% resulting from people only trained in abstinence only that you keep citing as if it were golden?
What is your plan?
You have not stated it at all, but have merely postulated the existence of such a plan. What education will you give? How will you get the point across? How do you know this will be effective? Do you have a journal study that shows it works? Where were the pilot programs performed and under what conditions? What were the control group’s conditions?
Oh, and if sex is only for creation of life, why is it that 0.4% of heterosexual encounters actually produce a baby?
http://vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#sex
#77, Mustard,
RE: Posting,
I’m with Scott on this one. Yes, you may be replying to just the quote, BUT, that quote may be out of context or require fleshing out. If you reply to me then I might want to re-read my post to refresh my memory of what I was thinking.
Even if the numbers have changed, if the poster is named, it becomes easier to find the original post.
#74, Mustard,
… if it’s not obvious what I’m replying to, I’d say the problem is on the reader’s end, not mine.
Bad assumption. That sounds like something Lyin’ Mike or Venezuela Pete would write. Just because you can understand it does not mean your reader will. A good example of that in on another thread where a comment about tuna sandwiches and going to Cuba for eye surgery is totally incomprehensible. To us. I’m sure the poster knows what he was trying to say and geeze, it might even still make sense to him.
Whenever I write documents I always get a co-worker to read them over. If I wrote it then I am also probably unaware of the errors. I would much rather suffer a little embarrassment with this one person than look like a total fool by publishing it rife with grammar, syntax, and spelling errors. I don’t do that here simply because no one will laugh at simple grammatical errors and the errors may be corrected or clarified with a subsequent post.
All this criticism aside, I still think you make great arguments and agree most of the time. There have been occasions where I have re-evaluated my thoughts after one of your posts.
83 MS. You’re right. Let’s get going on a full pilot program now. But given the current teen sex status quo is unacceptable to people who believe teens have no business creating new life, the downside of beginning some of the program across the nation now is only a better understanding of evolution’s “purpose” for sexual desire and the real consequences of sex, since we are only talking about the current suppression of natural facts.
After that, we can also try a test program to first see if people can lower their impact on global warming.
.4% produces a baby because 1. it isn’t easy to have the required perfect reproductive conditions to encourage success; 2. any physical or developing genetic problems are “designed” to end unsuccessfully. 3. As I’ve explained to you before, successful evolutionary change requires a huge amount of genetic variablity. In the larger picture, virtually all mutative and many recessive genetic combinations are fatal to the organism.
RBG