<p>" the Catholic Church is still debating whether or not its “pro-life” stance includes allowing married couples to use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS when one partner is HIV-positive and the other is not. IMO, that isn’t about a culture of life."</p>
<p>Actually, the Catholic Church is not debating this topic. some members and some clergy may be “debating” but not Rome. Rome has remained firm on the subject and has not wavered.</p>
<p>Another point:</p>
<p>I think that the fact that “sexually active singlehood” lasts for so many more years now than in previous generations might suggest that people are leaving themselves more vulnerable to hurtful relationships and therefore, more opportunities to collect painful “baggage”.</p>
<p>“friends with benefits” is a new term, not a new idea.</p>
<p>In the 70’s, the term that I was familiar with was “f*** buddy” </p>
<p>“hooking up” was called “one-night stand”, sometimes “wham, bam, thank you ma’am”… though the latter could also refer to the gentleman’s lack of sustainability.</p>
<hr>
<p>Agreed. I’m pushing 50 and remember those terms well! And although my own mother claims nothing of the sort was going on in her time, the stories my grandmother told me say otherwise.</p>
<p>SJMOM is right. This is probably the first generation of parents that widely accept the idea that their kids are going to regularly engage in “hook ups” and casual sex. Previous generations may have accepted that their kids might have sex in couples who are exclusive.</p>
<p>“Previous generations may have accepted that their kids might have sex in couples who are exclusive.”</p>
<p>Previous generations accepted that their kids, in this case young men, would have sex with prostitutes at an early age, become coupled and married much earlier, have sex with lots of other people after marriage, including slaves, prostitutes, and in one-night stands, and give their loved ones syphillis.</p>
Maybe I’m confused, but I read a news story that said that Rome is debating this issue. The question is whether or not it would undermine their anti-contraceptive stance or be the starting point for allowing condom use. The question that Rome is debating is whether using a condom to prevent AIDS transmission is use of a contraceptive. </p>
<p>News story came out a few weeks ago (late April/early May).</p>
<p>For my part, I tend to suspect that the current cultural exclamation points about hooking up/friends with benefits reflect more talking about sexual issues in the press rather than too many actual changes in teenage behavior over the past several years.</p>
<p>Did anyone watch that ABC Primetime Special where ABC got 10 or so young teen girls to confess to their sexual escapades on camera and then brought their parents to look at what they said?</p>
<p>That’s promiscuity, in my opinion (even though some of those girls mightve been lying to make themselves look less prude). It’s not so much a matter of how many times you’ve hooked up with different people as it is a matter of handling it in a discrete, respectable fashion.</p>
<p>Looking at sexual habits in the past based on literature and historical records, we tend to find that people weren’t as moral as so many seem to want to believe.</p>
<p>Sexual sins have always been around – they’re even mentioned in the bible. However, I would never say that the teens and young single adults have always been as willing to engage in casual sex as they do today. When I was in high school and in college, my friends would have sex with their committed boyfriends - but they never had one night stands or “casual hook ups” </p>
<p>Look at it this way, before abortion was legal, pregnant girls had to give birth and either keep the baby (get married) or give it up for adoption. We all know of a few women from that generation (pre abortion) that had babies “out of wedlock” or had babies less than 9 months after the wedding. I don’t know of ONE women from the pre abortion era) who was impregnated from a one-night stand. I’m not saying that it never happened, but in typical middle class homes, Ds didn’t get pregnant from one night stands/casual hook ups; they got pregnant from boyfriends.</p>
<p>Once middle-class men had accomplished giving their wives syphillis (many of whom passed it on to their children), they got them hooked on opium in the form of laudanum to deal with the symptoms, especially the resulting dementia. There is one school of American linguistics that suggests this is where the “southern drawl” came from.</p>
<p>All perfectly legal of course, and a tribute to their “exclusivity”.</p>
<p>I do agree with that-jlauer
My MIL was pregnant when she was married- although I don’t think that either of them really realized that a pregnancy would put such a crimp in their plans-
A friend of mine, ( from now- not high school) got pregnant in her senior year, when her boyfriend "convinced her he was dying from leukemia- what an a$$.
Because she was a total straight edge- she didn’t admit to being pregnant until a teacher asked her about it when she was 6 months along- however this was after abortion became legal- and while I wouldn’t advocate such a late abortion ( my oldest was born at 30 weeks) that was apparently decided as the best option.
Which I why I think accurate information about sexuality and disease/ birth control needs to be taught in schools- it wouldn’t prevent every unwanted pregancy- but it is information that some won’t get anywhere else.</p>
<p>You sure about that? Or do you think maybe it was just much more hush hush?</p>
<p>Read “Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood,” and it’s demonstrated well that the difference in the pre-Roe v. Wade day wasn’t that these things didn’t happen, but that they happened behind closed doors.</p>
<p>I am not a parent, nor am i a college student, however i have read all ten pages of this thread and i never realized how much thought you guys put into it. Growing up i never got the talk or the value build ups…i was taught-“no sex. period. end of story”…however i do know kids my age and younger who are sexually active and i do find myself judging them even though it may not affect how i treat them as a person. Sexual promiscuity is simply a determination of how much you value sex as appose to how much you value intimacy…teenagers today confuse that and consider them one and the same. Some teens have sex with friends just because they wanted sex itself. Some give sex to try and form a permanent relationship, failing to realize that there is such a minute chance of that in highschool. I do think it is in part how a parent raises their child. The more the kid understands before being presented with the decision, the more knowledge and self built morals they have to fall back on. However i do think it is part to society, because in our music, our televion, our movies, our media, sex has become to casual, to celebrated and not nearly as valued as many parents wish it was. Your kids are going to be able to have sex efore they are 16 and after, and in college and out. It’s always available, but if you have no value of it then why resist it? Pressure is always prominent in any social settings, there are many more lesons to be taught then "no sex’ or “no sex before marriage”.</p>
<p>Before abortion was legal, my best friend from college nearly bled to death from a botched back-alley abortion (while still in high school). And this was a nice upper middle class suburban white girl, so there goes that theory.</p>
<p>And my very well-to-do, educated and proper grandparents had my mother exactly eight months after they were married…in the 30’s. Oh my…!</p>
<p>Problem with stereotypes is the ease with which one can debunk them.</p>
I thought I saw the article in the NYT but did not have the time to search for it.</p>