Article

2008-03-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

BBC posted this article on US Teen Girls - is it accurate?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2008-03-11 12:49|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 I can't speak to the generality, but of the high school girls I know, one is pregnant, and none have unmentionable diseases that I'm aware of. The pregnant one worked hard to graduate early from high school, is working full time now, and plans to go to college in the fall while Grandma watches the baby.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-03-11 12:54|| 2008-03-11 12:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Doubt it.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-11 13:16|| 2008-03-11 13:16|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm no statistics guru, but only 800 or so girls interviewed really does NOT seem "representative" to me.

Posted by BA 2008-03-11 13:19|| 2008-03-11 13:19|| Front Page Top

#4 The problem with the article is the calling of "A virus that causes cervical cancer - HPV - was the most common" an STD. It really isn't.

HPV in one form or another is present in practically 100% of all sexually active human beings. Some strains can cause cancer, other strains can cause warts, most strains cause no symptoms whatsoever.

There is no test for most strains. The strains there are tests for can be used for females but not for males. There is no way to test a male for the strains that cause cervical cancer or warts or the hundreds of other strains.

BUT ... the vaccine that is now available WILL vaccinate against the strain that causes cervical cancer AND gives cross-immunity to the strain that causes warts and many other strains.

I believe the real purpose of the article is to get more people to give their daughters the vaccine. I know mine certainly is, but not because of any BBC article.

Posted by crosspatch 2008-03-11 13:27|| 2008-03-11 13:27|| Front Page Top

#5 I thought it interesting that the diseases that most people associate with the term STD (i.e. syphillis, gonorrhea, AIDS, et. al.) were conspicuously absent. The thrust of the study and the article, I believe, is as crosspatch stated, to drum up support for the HPV vaccine.

Although teenage boys never give up hope, I, for one, don't believe the level of sexual activity attributed to girls in these age brackets. Further, in almost every state in the Union, the age of consent is 16 - 17 and anyone having sex with an underage girl is guilty of statutory rape and goes to prison for 20 years.

Posted by RWV 2008-03-11 15:55|| 2008-03-11 15:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Let's remember the Anorexia hoax perpetrated by an agenda group with willing assistance by the MSM. "In Revolution from Within Gloria Steinem reported that 150,000 young women die each year of anorexia nervosa. Naomi Wolf gave the same figure in The Beauty Myth where she speaks of a "holocaust" and calls anorexia a disease "caused not by nature but by men." The 150,000 death toll is in college textbooks, and Ann Landers credits this in her column. But it is wildly false. According to the Center for Disease Control there were 101 deaths from anorexia in 1983, 67 in 1988 and 54 in 1991."

On the other hand Although teenage boys never give up hope, I, for one, don't believe the level of sexual activity attributed to girls in these age brackets may not hold true anymore. There are indications, just below the radar screen that the agenda pushed by the Gay community to indoctrinate your children in the earliest years of school are starting to bear fruit. Your statement is predicated upon a pre-indoctrination perspective.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-03-11 16:14|| 2008-03-11 16:14|| Front Page Top

#7 Procopius2K, for the sake of my 11 year old granddaughter I hope you are wrong about the effects of indoctrination.

Posted by RWV 2008-03-11 16:46|| 2008-03-11 16:46|| Front Page Top

#8 all I know is that statistics I've read since I was a child showed everyone was else was getting a lot more than me

*damn*

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-11 16:50|| 2008-03-11 16:50|| Front Page Top

#9 Ed Morrisey (now at Hotair) adds this:
"Allegedly he isnt a big fan of Petraeus either, so bear that angle in mind too as explanations emerge. Stand by."

I think Petraeus has proven himself a lot more than Fallon in teh ME theater

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-11 17:04|| 2008-03-11 17:04|| Front Page Top

#10 ??? that was for the Fallon thread, obviously...dunno how that happened

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-11 17:07|| 2008-03-11 17:07|| Front Page Top

#11 The stats are questionable. What is plain and obvious is that black culture indulges reckless "booty" hunts. And promiscuous women are routinely referred to as "hos" (whores) by "playahs" (sex predators). 100% of hos and playahs support Obama. Who wants to question my stats?

Posted by Pancho Phaling1080 2008-03-11 17:17|| 2008-03-11 17:17|| Front Page Top

#12 "Everyone lies about sex." - Lazarus Long

The truth about teen sexuality is that most of them have no sex life but are convinced beyond any doubt that their peers do. They are ruthlessly propagandized that they are abnormal because they are not in a sexual relationship at a young age.

Typically, the few that are sexually active began at a very young age, being molested by adults. But most students look at this few and extrapolate them to everyone else.

Then about the age of 17 or 18, a larger number of students lose their virginity, but have nothing approaching regular and healthy sexual relationships. Often those girls who get pregnant do so before they have their first mature relationship.

An oddity are those girls who want to get pregnant at an early age, often as a means to avoid further responsibility or because they feel neglected.

Again, from 17 and 18, the family culture becomes dominant. If boys and girls see graduating high school as the end of their education before work, they often become parents very soon. Those who have a "college culture" in their family wait.

More and more, an "unmarried" culture is evolving, people who decide to not have children because in stages they feel first, that they cannot afford to get married; and second that they cannot afford to have children. The demands are just too high for them to compete.

Ironically, these are some of the smartest potential parents. I remember adding up some of the figures.

With college graduation, they start work at $25k, already deeply in debt. Their spouse must also work at about that same wage for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a house after perhaps a decade of education debt. So they are 10 years or more down the road before they can even consider children.

Then, the price of raising a child could add up to $500k, but with no guarantee that their paychecks are going to keep pace with the demands placed on them. Little hope for a retirement at all, after supporting their child or children for 18 years.

It just doesn't add up. The alternative is to neither marry nor have children. This means the education debt will be paid off soon, and as an individual they can afford a good home and lead a comfortable life and retirement.

It is no surprise that more young people are choosing this route.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-03-11 17:21|| 2008-03-11 17:21|| Front Page Top

23:55 anymouse
23:53 anymouse
23:49 trailing wife
23:13 3dc
23:04 3dc
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:51 OldSpook
22:49 OldSpook
22:41 ed
22:39 Galactic Coordinator Spereting7009
22:34 ed
22:34 Abdominal Snowman
22:29 Frank G
22:25 ed
22:19 crazyhorse
22:11 lotp
22:09 crosspatch
22:09 DMFD
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:44 Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6
21:41 Fred
21:40 Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6
21:35 Pappy
21:32 legolas