... it seems pretty clear that the kids who get attention from their parents generally aren't reckless--with drugs or sex--and the kids who don't, are.
First, of course, your definition of reckless seems to be "anything I wouldn't do." Secondly, a poll of my totally unrepresentative sample of nieces and nephews and their friends tells me that kids who are well-socialized (and hence have good relationships with attentive parents) are more adept at the socially nuanced hookup thing.
your definition of reckless seems to be "anything I wouldn't do."
I don't think I'm so unfair. The article does state that many kids have multiple partners and never use condoms for anything but intercourse. That's reckless, no?
kids who are well-socialized (and hence have good relationships with attentive parents) are more adept at the socially nuanced hookup thing.
Hmm. I really wonder about that "hence." I'm trying to remember what it was like in junior high and high school, and wasn't it the case that the "good kids" were generally socially awkward? It's probably worth mentioning that there seem to be at least two kinds of socially adept at that age: cool and popular with peers, and then mature and popular with adults. I'm willing to say that the latter group probably has a good relationship with its parents, but isn't it the case that the former generally don't? (That's a genuine question.)
ogged, I think the dynamic you allude to here arises from a difference between kids who are "peer-socialized" and those who are "parent-socialized." The awkward 'good kid' is the one who draws behavioral cues more from his elders than his contemporaries. And yes, these kids tend to do less stupid stuff (in my limited experience: vastly, vastly less).
For what it's worth, I reacted to that times piece just the way you did: sad that kids are getting an anomie-laden introduction into sex.
The article does state that many kids have multiple partners and never use condoms for anything but intercourse. That's reckless, no?
No, it's not. Not using condoms for intercourse is reckless; not using them for oral sex (on males - note there seems to be zero risk related to unprotected oral sex performed on females) seems like a calculated risk (of a low transmission rate of treatable STDs like chlamydia and gonorrhea and a tiny transmission rate of HIV). Not zero risk, certainly, but it hardly justfies being called reckless. Or is it multiple partners qua multiple partners that makes it reckless?
sad that kids are getting an anomie-laden introduction into sex.
I remember the same kind of sentiment 25 years ago when I was in grade school. The next generation always is doing it wrong, especially if they seem to be having more fun than us.
35 years ago I believe American foreign policy was being criticized as misgudied nationbuilding. Good thing that can't be true now!
Am I missing the connection between American foreign policy and kids getting each other off? Or was that a comment meant for a different thread?
It's a comment on the general form of argument: "people made complaint X in the past, and so it isn't true now." An opaque (and perhaps snotty -- so if you read it that way, I apologize) comment, I grant you. The point basically is, if some phenomenon is getting worse, it will be correct that every generation will say "man, this is getting worse." That's just the nature of a downward sloping curve. It seems entirely possible to me that teen sex has been getting steadily more alienating over the past 50 years. If so, no surprises that every generation comments on this.
Whoo. You never understood casual sex? Weird. Personally, I think sex is like pizza - even bad sex isn't bad.
I still remember the girl who broke my cherry. We had no relationship, but I am very greatful to her. I even named a daughter after her.
I beg to differ: truly bad pizza is bad, and so is bad sex.
Casual pizza and casual sex have both been known to be highly enjoyable, however.
This is interesting, in a moderate kind of way. To those who believe that the sky is falling, what do you believe should be done about it? More to the point, what do YOU intend to do about it?
Nothing, I suspect.
Complaining about the state of affairs might be useful for one's self, but it really doesn't do a whole heck of a lot to correct the perceived "problem."
I have to agree about the point ogged makes re parents that pay attention to their kids. That kids who are attended to aren't generally reckless. And I think this applies not just to sexual behaviour.
However, I am not sure we (the adults, or the people who are supposed to be adults) really know that there is something tragically wrong going on in teenagers' lives today. Or even that it's so different from what their elders do... Seems to me casual dating (by that I mean dating multiple partners before deciding on one for the long haul, which appears a standard practice in the States among single thirty-somethings and is often practiced without much by way of sex - and which, having grown up in a different culture, I personally find fairly inexplicable) can be very damaging too if it's not what all parties involved are looking for. Admittedly, the damage is "only" psychological, as there's not the risk of potentially deadly STDs. Yet this difference is not as clearcut as it might seem.
What I'm trying to say is, teenagers didn't come up with the behaviour we now feel is shockingly promiscuous and casual about their bodies in a vacuum - they generally do imitate what they've observed from older people.
It's an interesting point about imitation, LiL. I don't know whether the kids are imitating real older people (I tend to think not) or fake older people, on TV, but especially in porn.
By the way, do you find casual dating inexplicable, or casual dating without sex?
Before it goes away, I wish to note the fact that a thread about casual sex was spammed with a link to "home pics".
http://www.sdiy.org/pasty/toon/albatros.html http://www.sdiy.org/pasty/femdom/tyholz6oyj/hurukawa.html containedfoolishminded