I got the idea for this topic [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6351-2003Jan17.html]here[/link]
I graduated from high school in 1991 when the term had not been introduced. I attended an all-girl Catholic school where by 12th grade most girls were having sex.
Most, however, had sex within the confines of a relationship. It seems that nowadays kids just have sex just for sex sakes outside of relationships. Most of these kids don’t even see oral sex as actual sex. That is absurd.
When did the act of casual sex re-emerge? Why don’t these kids who have lots of unprotected oral sex (yuck) think they are not having sex and are not sluts and whores?
Casual sex has always existed, it just waxes and wanes in popularity and publicity. That article (though I didn’t read it because your link is broken and I’m lazy) saying “everybody” is having casual sex isn’t any more acurate than you saying “nobody” was doing it when you were in school. There’s plenty of people that don’t have casual sex now and believe me there were plenty of people “hooking up” when you were in high school, whether the term existed or not.
And as for this:
Well, first of all, due to the way you wrote the sentence you’re actually saying “Why do kids think they are sluts and whores?” But assuming what you meant to say is “Why don’t these kids think of themselves as sluts and whores?” well, that’s some pretty offensive and judgemental talk, and does not belong in this forum.
>When did the act of casual sex re-emerge? Why don’t these kids who have lots of unprotected oral sex (yuck) think they are not having sex and are not sluts and whores?<
Because President Clinton declared that oral sex is not really sex. Monica was simply confirming her allegiance to the Presidency. Can’t we all just be patriotic to one another?
from what i know, most kids right now still have sex " within confines of relationships " the difference being that their relationships are not supposed to last longer than about 1 or 2 months. i guess this depends on a community though.
What about the young guys who do this? Aren’t they (male) sluts and whores? Is this not as negative? Why?
IMHO, sex is there to be enjoyed, whether you are male or female. Calling people names for subscribing to that philosophy seems childish.
Having UNsafe sex though, that’s not so good. One would think, with today’s levels of sex ed, that people would be aware of how diseases are transmitted. This seems not to be the case, though. And it’s just going to get worse in the US, what with the president, House and Senate’s positions that one should teach that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy, and not tell kids about how to go about protecting themselves when they do have sex. Telling young people not to have sex is like telling a kangaroo not to jump.
Not that I’ve ever had sex, but that’s a different thing altogether, as it’s personal.
Indeed, casual sex has been around for a long, long time. Those who have it have always suffered a shower of insults and brickbats from those who aren’t getting any. Maybe it’s time to declare a Slut Pride Day. By the way, although slut was once a females-only word, it is gradually losing that quality.
I’m imagining the parade banner. “I’m proud to be an American Slut.”
What utter garbage. Teenagers having casual sex is something newsworthy. Give me a break.
How amusing that the author of this article can turn two statistics that show teenagers are having LESS sex into an indictment on the all whores in teenage Babylon.
From the linked article:
Oh, so full TWO-THIRDS of sexually active teenagers have NEVER had sex outside of a intimate relationship.
Ah, now I see. The author apparently grew up in Pleasantville. :rolleyes:
A university attempts to make an event more inclusive and we are supposed to link this to teenagers becoming more promiscuous?
Wow … this is great. I wish that when I was growing up, I could separate lust from love. It’s only been in the past two or so of my 32 years that I figured out that because a women is attractive to me doesn’t mean I want to marry her. Sometimes I only want the body, and sometimes only the mind … I’m waiting to find both. Growing up, though, I was only allowed to want both or want nothing which is stupid.
My concern, though, isn’t that they aren’t growing up like I did or like grandma and grampa courted, but that sexually transmitted diseases are real, birth control is not 100.0% effective, and condoms do well at preventing STD’s but are not 100.0% effective.
Do you honestly believe there is more teenage sex today than in the late 60s and 70’s?
Good point, Elithiomel. Did you know that Holland among all nations in the world has the lowest per capita unwanted teenage pregnancies? And how do you think the Dutch government and populace feel about sex education in school? Coincidence?
When you are a teenager is definitely the right time to be doing casual sex. You mostly are not ready for a more intimate and involved relationship (or you may be in some ways but lack the skills for determining who to have it with and how to find such person and cause the relationship to spark and flourish). And what, you want to wake up some day in your 40s and wonder what it would be like and wondering if you missed out on something important?
My emphasis. This belongs in Great Debates, not GQ. There are many young people who choose not to have sex, and telling young people not to have sex (and giving them reasons to wait) is not the futile excercise you make it to be.
I think it’s sad that teens do not consider oral sex to be actual sex. STDs can be easily transmitted via unprotected oral sex.
“But assuming what you meant to say is “Why don’t these kids think of themselves as sluts and whores?” well, that’s some pretty offensive and judgemental talk, and does not belong in this forum.”
I am sorry. I only meant to ask, why do these kids who have oral sex so casually think they are NOT sluts and whores, because they are. It’s gross and speaks of low morals and self-esteem.
Right. Anyone want to fund a Skeptical Inquirer research study of my home town, which apparently had a plethora of parthenogenetic births during the 1950s? At least there were a lot of girls getting pregnant before marriage, and if they didn’t have sex, this may be the breakthrough we need on the parthenogenesis question that’s been brought up here before. And, be it noted, at least a few of them had baby boys!
I think this an IHMO, at best. There is no debate.
Is your beef with oral sex, and not with other (missionary) types? Why are you so pissed?
Peace,
mangeorge
I think you dramatically missed the point of the poster you’ve quoted here. The point (if I’m not mistaken) is this: Terms such as “slut” and “whore” are extremely judgmental and negative, and do not belong in a forum dedicated to seeking factual answers to questions.
When you say:
You are making an unsubstantiatable value judgment for which there is no factual basis. There are many people on this board who will disagree with your premise that these kids are sluts and whores (and by the way, you could maybe stop using such loaded words if you want to have a rational discussion of the topic). Similarly:
If you’d like to elucidate what exactly you mean by “gross” (obviously others don’t think so, since this is going on every day in every city) and why it “speaks of low morals and self-esteem” (how do you conclude that “oral sex = low self-esteem”?) then we may be able to start digging into the actual issues at hand.
But simply making blanket statements about “sluts” and “whores” and “low self-esteem” and so on involves a LOT of conclusion-leaping, and perhaps a closer examination of those leaps is where debate can start doing some good.
