<p>To get back, however briefly, to the original topic – this is from Monday morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Faye Flam is one of their columnists, whose beat is science-based writing about sex. This column discusses a recent study looking at age of initiation of sexual activity and a range of health outcomes. The authors wound up classifying people into three groups: those who begin early (median:14), those who begin late (median:22), and those clustered around the society-wide median age of 17-1/2. The healthiest? The ones who are average.</p>
<p>There’s more to the column than that. Flam is asking a question that haunts this thread. If simply “waiting for marriage” isn’t right, what is?</p>
<p>ells people Barack Obama is African American and she is Black.</p>
<p>I think I know what she means- for example Obama will be in town ( as far as I know) tommorow for a musical rally and while quite a few major Black musicians have gotten a boost in Seattle, Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, Quincy Jones,Sir Mix-a-Lot et al. Obama is being supported by musicians I suppose designed to appeal to the mid 30s set- ( Although I know who the big names are )but definitely Caucasian.</p>
<p>RE: the Faye Flam article–
To say that the ones who are “average” are the “healthiest” is misleading.</p>
<p>A higher incidence of dysfunction among men starting sex at an older age (as the article points out, this dysfunction is probably the reason they didn’t have sex earlier) in no way proves that having sex at 17.5 is “healther” for young men or women than waiting until 22 (or 30. . . or 40). </p>
<p>As the article says, “There is no evidence that starting late causes problems.”</p>
<p>Anyone who is sexually active risks STDs (unless both partners are virgins and remain faithful) and pregnancy (unless one is infertile). Pregnant or STD infected 17-21 yos are not “healthier” than abstinent 17-21 yos.</p>
<p>“‘Waiting until marriage is a sensible choice for your son or daughter to make when it comes to sex,’ says a government web site on abstinence and teen sex.” </p>
<p>Considering public health, why should the government say anything else?</p>
<p>Yet the author complains that “The government offers no advice on when to start having sex, and the joys that go with it, if you don’t marry.”</p>
<p>Is this a problem for anyone? Are unmarried people out there are waiting for the government to offer them such advice? </p>
<p>I don’t think any parents, after reading this article, are going to tell their abstinent 17 yos to hurry up and have sex before 18 so they can be “healthier.”</p>
<p>Back on topic, and brief because of the time: </p>
<p>Having sex changes who you are. If you had any views of sex as being sacred before the first time, (not meant to be religious, but I lack a better term), that relationship ending up on the garbage pile effects a change in your personality simply as a matter of survival. After the first time, it gets harder to say “No” to the next person. And before you know it, there are several people who can say that they’ve “had you”. Now I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I’d like to think that I am something special. And I don’t want a bunch of people out there saying that they “had me”. By the time you get to someone whom you could experience an “Earth shaking” experience with, it’s been diminished by your prior experiences, like it or not.</p>
<p>My daughter did bring up a good point, that what if you wait until marriage, and you find yourself “sexually incompatible”. Well, we do have annulment for that. But there is also the point that people like what they are used to eating. I don’t eat Natto, but I hear that billions of pounds of it are consumed every year in Japan.</p>
<p>I don’t feel that having sex for the first time changed who I was or changed my personality. </p>
<p>
Do you see sex at a mutual experience/activity? I get the sense that you only ever think of this stereotypical (and often incorrect) male perspective.</p>
<p>atomom: “The healthiest? The ones who are average.” Of course I had read the column. Neither the study, nor my terse summary of Flom’s report about it, implies that starting to have sex at 17 makes anybody healthier. But perhaps it does provide evidence that waiting a meaningful number of years beyond that doesn’t make anybody healthier, either. And it suggests that some meaningful number of the people who delay sexual activity beyond their late teens do so for reasons outside their control, i.e., other health problems.</p>
<p>I guess my point of view is that in our world, right now, human beings generally start to have sex in their later teens. That’s not “right” or “wrong”, not “good” or “bad”, it just is. It’s not really a matter of morality. Everyone’s story is individual, and has lots of personal twists and turns, but overwhelmingly the stories come to the same point. (I would also note that, for societies of humans, starting sex in the later teens is probably a significant delay in comparative terms. I suspect in most cultures now, and in most cultures historically, the median age for initiating sex is well below 17.5.)</p>
<p>I am not proud of my children for waiting or for not waiting. I would not criticize them or their peers for waiting or not waiting. I don’t really think having sex or not has anything to do with what I consider character or morality. I do think how they handle their own sexuality and the relationships it affects has everything to do with character and morality – how they treat other people, how they treat themselves.</p>
<p>“Whether or not?” – virginity – is just not a very interesting question. Eventually, and in a pretty narrow band, almost everyone comes out the same way, no matter how they get there. (And the few who don’t . . . well, them I worry about.) “How?” is the question that matters.</p>
<p>“And before you know it, there are several people who can say that they’ve “had you”. Now I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I’d like to think that I am something special. And I don’t want a bunch of people out there saying that they “had me”.”</p>
<p>I don’t think that people – including males – of character say things like that.</p>
<p>Also, in today’s society, usually people who are 18 or over and in loving relationships are having sex. It’s highly unlikely that such people would talk about having “had” each other even if the relationship ends (as often happens with relationships whether or not sex is involved). </p>
<p>Not only would people think they were being crass to talk about having “had” a person whom they were in a romantic relationship, but in addition, they would be considered silly to be talking about having had sex when they were in a relationship: Most adults have sex while in romantic relationships. They don’t announce that to the world any more than married couples announce that they are having sex.</p>
<p>By saying the “average” group is “healthiest”–the article does more than imply that not waiting is healthier than waiting. It states it as a “scientific” fact. </p>
<p>I haven’t read the actual study, just this article, but I don’t see how STDs or unplanned pregnancies in the 17-21 yo group can be disregarded as health risks. If, as the article says, the younger group had more STDs, it would follow that the middle group picked up more STDs and got pregnant more than those who abstained. I would say those are more significant public health factors than a few dysfunctional older men.</p>
<p>A lead author of the study who says “It’s very easy to ridicule abstinence policies” and works for Columbia University’s HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies seems to have a bias against abstinence. (The study was based on a survey of 8,000 people self reporting their own history. Surveys are not very reliable–are people really going to write down that they got HPV or herpes or had an abortion at 18?) The article presents itself as being “scientific”–but it’s not really.</p>
<p>Many people do believe that sex IS a matter of morality–for this reason: it is how human beings are made. There are right/wrong/good/bad decisions about sex. Parenthood/responsibility for children we bring into the world is not to be taken lightly. Sex happens–and pregnancy can happen as a result, so matter what kind of BC is used. IMO: Not ready for parenthood? Not ready for sex.</p>
<p>I haven’t read every post in this thread, but I think the analysis of the girl and guy are overdone. I think the mother may be too involved. This is an intense teenage crush that will pass. Most girls don’t talk to their mothers about these in detail. Why does lack of interest in girls in high school make people assume that this boy “must be gay?” </p>
<p>Why would embarassment during sex scenes in movies be a sign that the girl somehow immature or prudish or abnormal?
Heck–I’m 45 years old, have had 8 kids, and I still get embarrassed watching sex scenes in movies. Think about it. In real life we don’t go around watching people making out or having sex. It is something done in private. If you happened to walk in on a roommate, (or your parents!) you didn’t stand there and watch, did you? You backed out and closed the door. Anyway, I think it is just natural modesty to feel uncomfortable watching something for entertainment that is usually private. I like how they did it in the old movies–they implied what was happening. Everyone could figure it out. They didn’t need to show it all. . . </p>
<p>I think the best advice for this girl when she goes away to college is to avoid alcohol/drugs and find like-minded friends. I think students these days are more respectful of different choices. She does need to know how to avoid dangerous situations and self defense–that’s for everyone.</p>
<p>I think the mother may be too involved
ya think?
don’t worry- we’ve all been there.</p>
<p>I would agree about watching the sex scenes- while I don’t like aggressively violent movies- I know that it is fake- its pretty hard to fake two naked people, even if there is a washcloth between them. Im not a voyeur.</p>
<p>atomom- so my kids know that H & I have “done it” twice- but your kids have to live with the fact that their parents have done it ** eight** times?</p>
I agree, it depends on the person. I know my own D is quite modest, she gets embarrassed if I dress scantily around the house.
We’re not religious and not atheist. Somewhere in between.</p>
<p>This is a little off topic, but I am pretty sure that I mentioned the culture of my community on here. Here is what came home today:</p>
<p>“Our classroom will be celebrating Christmas on Friday December 21st. Would you like to contribute?”</p>
<p>This is a public school!! They are not supposed to “establish religion”. This blows my mind. I feel like writing the room parent and telling her that she needs to change “celebrating Christmas” to “having a holiday party”, but I just know that tongues will be clucking… It’s signed by the teacher, but the room parent wrote it.</p>
<p>Sex other than for procreation is immoral because BC is not fool-proof? </p>
<p>WOW, that means that a married couple who isn’t ready for children or isn’t ready for another child must abstain from making love? Right?</p>
<p>And once a married couple has decided they don’t want anymore children, love making is over? Right?</p>
<p>What about where a married woman has been told by her doctor not to get pregnant again because another birth would be hazardous to her health? Is she rendered “sex-less?”</p>
<p>Is volunatry sterilization of the woman her only moral choice if she no longer wants children and enjoys sex with her husband?</p>
<p>Not a world that I want to live in.</p>
<p>I’ll go along with JHS on this one. When to start having sex isn’t a matter of morality. And making love for recreational purposes is not immoral even if there is always some possibility of pregnancy.</p>
<p>“Why would embarassment during sex scenes in movies be a sign that the girl somehow immature or prudish or abnormal?”</p>
<p>Because she covered her head with a blanket and talked about her innocence being ruined by the scene, which if I’m remembering what the OP wrote, contained nudity, not explicit sex.</p>
<p>I am in my 50s and don’t like explicit sex scenes, and do find them embarrassing. However, I wouldn’t cover my head with a blanket if a movie had nudity.</p>
<p>07Dad said:
“Sex other than for procreation is immoral because BC is not fool-proof?
WOW, that means that a married couple who isn’t ready for children or isn’t ready for another child must abstain from making love? Right?
And once a married couple has decided they don’t want anymore children, love making is over? Right?
What about where a married woman has been told by her doctor not to get pregnant again because another birth would be hazardous to her health? Is she rendered “sex-less?”
Is volunatry sterilization of the woman her only moral choice if she no longer wants children and enjoys sex with her husband?”</p>
<p>Not what I said–what 07DAD said. </p>
<p>Not sure where you got the idea that I said all that.</p>
<p>Let me rephrase what I said, so you can better understand what I mean: </p>
<p>Young people who are not prepared for the possiblity of pregnancy should not be having sex. Parenthood requires serious long-term obligations that most young single people aren’t commited to. </p>
<p>What you do with your own personal fertility/family planning/sex life after you are married is up to you and your spouse. But moral decision making–consideration of spouse and children-- is still involved.</p>
<p>(EK: LOL, I asked H and he says it was 9 times. . . I kept the blanket over my head during most of it. . . )</p>
<p>The point is, having sex does not equate with pregnancy. It is rather weak to premise an argument on the assumption that it does, given that pregnancy is a rather rare result of sex when appropriate forms of birth control are used. </p>
<p>I think the reason the survey shows that young people who become sexually active at the typical age (17) have less problems is that they are mature enough at that age to think about the consequences and plan accordingly. They probably also have better access to information and are more likely to have the ability to arrange for prescription birth control on their own. </p>
<p>I also think that the reason 17 is the norm in terms of becoming sexually active is simply that sexual activity is natural response to normal biological urges. It is as normal for a 17 year old to engage in sex as it is for a 1 year old to take his first steps. What is difficult is to try to stop that behavior.</p>
<p>Historically, women did not defer marriage in order to complete their educations – even my own mother dropped out of college to marry at age 19. Nor did most women defer childbearing until their 30s or 40s as is often the case now. </p>
<p>Now my daughter is the same age as my mom was at marriage, and contemplating internships, grad school, a future career. I honestly would hate to see my daughter curtail her education for marriage; I am also glad that she is in strong, caring relationship with a young man who adores her, and I think that physical intimacy is a natural part of that relationship. But both young people have their lives and careers ahead of them and I do not think either is ready to settle down or become parents.</p>
<p>As calmom correctly points out pregnancy does not result of every time someone has sex and sexual intimacy is a natural part of life and a bi-product of normal biological urges.</p>
<p>The argument that what you do as far as reproductive issues is up to you after you are married, but sex is immoral for unmarried, young people due to the possibility of giving birth seems to ignore that in at least some states there is accurate and informative sex education, access to BC including prescription BC for all girls and abortion if the BC fails.</p>
<p>Statistics I have seen indicate that of unmarried teen pregnancies 1/3 result in miscarriages, 1/3 in abortions and 1/3 in births. So, even of the percentage of the younger teens who actually get pregnant only 1/3 opt for the long-term obligations of raising a child. </p>
<p>To me it is difficult to see the immorality of any of these girls. For those who get pregnant, unfortunate? maybe, but immoral? NO.</p>
<p>a monkey wrench in this whole thing is divorce? If you morally can only have sex with one person, and since marriage in the last decade has a 50% success rate… does this mean all those folks are ho’s and pimps? </p>
<p>the hard part about discussing sex is some people just aren’t good at it… It is far easier to disapprove of something you don’t like or lack ability in, than limit what you’re good at or enjoy…</p>
<p>I will never convience some here simply because they lack truly good experiences to base their opinions on.</p>
<p>Not meaning to snipe, but this one is way over-reported. It’s currently projected to be more like 40%, and that includes second and third marriages, where the divorce rates are higher. The divorce rate for first marriages is less than 40%, and the divorce rate for first marriages after the age of 25 is even lower than that (not reported, but looks like 32-35%). It doesn’t change your question, Opie, but I thought I’d help clean up the numbers.</p>
<p>I wonder how this whole issue of subsidizing birth control in college clinics is going to shake out. Supposedly some financing decision is going to be made by year’s end. I guess alot of college kids are pretty up in arms about it.</p>
)but definitely Caucasian.</p>