<p>Traditionally, girls have had to say no b/c they are the ones who would suffer the consequences (pregnancy.) </p>
<p>Also, research has discovered boys mature later in the part of the brain that controls impulse & thinks about consequences. Amusing but true…girls have to “think” for BOTH of them.</p>
<p>As a 40-something mom, I’m finding it humorous that I’m agreeing with hazmat on this one. Does that mean he’s especially mature or I’m…never mind–don’t answer that.</p>
<p>Anyway, girls are indeed agressors these days from what I’ve seen. Girls are now interested in trying to seduce another girl’s boyfriend (as in hook-up) for the fun of it and the thrill of conquest. I can’t speak about crotch-grabbing because I presume that would tend to happen more in private when parents aren’t around, but at the high school I have seen quite a bit of girls throwing themselves onto boys’ laps, running to give them enthusiastic full body hugs, and other touchy feely flirting. They aren’t standing around giggling demurely or dropping their handkerchiefs any more, that’s certain.</p>
<p>As for whether it’s harder for a boy or girl, I think I agree with hazmat again. Traditional wisdom says it’s physically harder for a boy to stop, but it is emotionally harder for a girl to overcome the fear of the social consequences of saying no. Regardless of brain function, putting all the burden on the girl is unfair and makes the women’s libber in me (and there’s only a really small bit of that) scream.</p>
<p>I was referring to indiscriminate hookups, not monogamous relationships. It’s always easier to say “no” when the result of “yes” threatens one’s life. Prior to the recent past, conception has been a life-threatening condition for females, not males. Even today, the physical repercussions of multiple sex partners harm women more than men. True promiscuity (not serial monogamy) is more likely linked to insecurity and a need for attention rather than normal, healthy physical urges. I suspect the “fad” of seducing your friend’s boyfriend for the thrill of conquest is more a sign of poor self-image than sound emotional health.</p>
<p>“I suspect the “fad” of seducing your friend’s boyfriend for the thrill of conquest is more a sign of poor self-image than sound emotional health”</p>
<p>Or just that you’re mean.</p>
<p>Since there are some hijackers out there changing the subject, which I welcome since I was starting to get bashed for being a “Christian mom”, let’s address what doubleplay and theGFG have said in the above two comments.</p>
<p>The part about girls becoming more aggressive these days is so very true and it is probably a little mind-boggling to the boys but hey, who are they to question “what’s up”? No pun intended. I think this is what is happening in a lot of the HS’s and even in MS, so no I don’t think we are singling out the boys here, it just seems that for girls it is more a matter of choice than something they might have trouble controlling like a teenage boy would.</p>
<p>As far as the topic of STD’s, I did not know until recently how serious that was becoming until I took D to see the doctor for her sports physical last month. The doctor said that the CDC is seriously thinking about making it mandatory for girls to be vaccinated against the four most common forms of STD’s which can cause cervical cancer later on. This vaccination would be no different than the MMR, Tetanus, etc…you don’t have the vaccination at the age required-you don’t go to school. They are concerned that the outbreak of STD’s is growing at a rate so fast that this may be the only way to control it. She suggested if we had any doubts about the seriousness of this or the need for the vaccination, to go on the internet and view some pics of what STD’s look like and read about the the lifelong burden for someone who has contracted one or more of these.</p>
<p>SharonD: I think you have gotten the wrong message about the cervical cancer vaccine. The movement to make it mandatory has nothing to do with any particular increase in STDs (although that has happened long term). What’s behind it is (a) the vaccine exists – as of only recently – and has the potential to save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in the future, but (b) it’s much more effective if given to a girl before she becomes sexually active. So the public health response has been to try to make this a required vaccination for relatively young girls (10,11), to ensure maximum effectiveness and maximum coverage (and minimum price, since economies of scale would kick in big-time). While the HPV types that seem to cause most cervical cancers may technically be STDs, in that they are viruses transmitted sexually, my understanding is that they are largely asymptomatic except for an increased potential to develop cervical cancer in middle age.</p>
<p>JHS: Not to derail this thread even more, but a lot of people believe that the movement (and the rush) to make this vaccine mandatory, is propelled by Merck–their way of overcoming their losses on Vioxx (which obviously hadn’t been tested properly, either). Minimal testing seems to have been carried out on this vaccine, and no long-term studies. So I actually find this movement a bit scary.</p>
<p>jack…I will definetly ask my doctor about that before we decide on what to do. Would be so nice to know the truth about things like this beforehand and hate to think it is all about money.</p>