Teens and music and sex, oh my! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

xepherys · 08-07-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Study: Sexy music triggers teen sex

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found.

Whether it's hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.

Songs depicting men as "sex-driven studs," women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.

Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Among heavy listeners, 51 percent started having sex within two years, versus 29 percent of those who said they listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Exposure to lots of sexually degrading music "gives them a specific message about sex," said lead author Steven Martino, a researcher for Rand Corp. in Pittsburgh. Boys learn they should be relentless in pursuit of women and girls learn to view themselves as sex objects, he said.

"We think that really lowers kids' inhibitions and makes them less thoughtful" about sexual decisions and may influence them to make decisions they regret, he said.

The study, based on telephone interviews with 1,461 participants aged 12 to 17, appears in the August issue of Pediatrics, being released Monday.

Most participants were virgins when they were first questioned in 2001. Follow-up interviews were done in 2002 and 2004 to see if music choice had influenced subsequent behavior.

Natasha Ramsey, a 17-year-old from New Brunswick, New Jersey, said she and other teens sometimes listen to sexually explicit songs because they like the beat.

"I won't really realize that the person is talking about having sex or raping a girl," she said. Even so, the message "is being beaten into the teens' heads," she said. "We don't even really realize how much."

"A lot of teens think that's the way they're supposed to be, they think that's the cool thing to do. Because it's so common, it's accepted," said Ramsey, a teen editor for Sexetc.org, a teen sexual health Web site produced at Rutgers University.

"Teens will try to deny it, they'll say 'No, it's not the music,' but it IS the music. That has one of the biggest impacts on our lives," Ramsey said.

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the U.S. recording industry, declined to comment on the findings.

Benjamin Chavis, chief executive officer of the Hip-Hip Summit Action Network, a coalition of hip-hop musicians and recording industry executives, said explicit music lyrics are a cultural expression that reflect "social and economic realities."

"We caution rushing to judgment that music more than any other factor is a causative factor" for teens initiating sex, Chavis said.

Martino said the researchers tried to account for other factors that could affect teens' sexual behavior, including parental permissiveness, and still found explicit lyrics had a strong influence.

However, Yvonne K. Fulbright, a New York-based sex researcher and author, said factors including peer pressure, self-esteem and home environment are probably more influential than the research suggests.

"It's a little dangerous to just pinpoint one thing. You have to look at everything that's going on in a young person's life," she said. "When somebody has a healthy sense of themselves, they don't take these lyrics too seriously."

David Walsh, a psychologist who heads the National Institute on Media and the Family, said the results make sense, and echo research on the influence of videos and other visual media.

The brain's impulse-control center undergoes "major construction" during the teen years at the same time that an interest in sex starts to blossom, he said.

Add sexually arousing lyrics and "it's not that surprising that a kid with a heavier diet of that ... would be at greater risk for sexual behavior," Walsh said.

Martino said parents, educators and teens themselves need to think more critically about messages in music lyrics.

Fulbright agreed.

"A healthy home atmosphere is one that allows a child to investigate what pop culture has to offer and at the same time say 'I know this is a fun song but you know that it's not right to treat women this way or this isn't a good person to have as a role model,"' she said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

So, is this really causal? Is it, perhaps, that kids that enjoy music with such lyrics are more open-minded and apt to experiment, where kids who prefer to listen to music about Jesus are simply less likely to engage in sex? Not that there's anything wrong with religious music, I'm just saying. Why can't media these days differentiate between causal and correlational? Oh, and about the copyright tag on the bottomw of the article... uhm... oops?!

Apokx · 08-07-2006, 12:35 PM

That's a very interesting article.At first, I took at a look at myself, and a couple girlfriends I've had.I realized the type of music they listened to, the type that I did and examined the differences in personalities and sexual experiences.

So far the article seems right on track.The girls that listened to hip-hop, and music like Nickleback(the worst band in history, but I digress)seemed more open to sex, talking about sex and generally had sex at a much younger age than those who didn't.

In the end though, there were too many exceptions to be able to say that it was definately the music.There were some wild cards like the Beetles, or Weezer(more about losing relationships, being a loser etc.) that throw it off completely for me.

I vote casual, or at the very least, teens that involve themselves in sex at earlier ages are just more likely to enjoy music with sexual overtones.

kutulu · 08-07-2006, 01:01 PM

I think the whole premise is stupid. Didn't teens have sex before rap music?

abaya · 08-07-2006, 01:13 PM

Hmm. Makes me reflect on my own music-listening/sex-indulging history:

At puberty/14, I was really into Janet Jackson's semi-dirty new album (the self-titled one, in the early 90s) and was thinking all kinds of sexual thoughts. But I had been thinking sexual thoughts for a long time, long before I hit puberty. Had things continued on that path, who knows... I probably would have been barefoot and pregnant within a few years.

At 14, though, an evangelical Christian friend told me that it was bad to listen to that kind of music... and that friend ended up converting me. I guess I felt guilty at some level, since she hit a nerve there. It was Christian music (with a smattering of classic rock) from that point until I was well into my college years... at an evangelical university, where everyone listened to Christian music anyway. Very few of us were having sex, I can tell you that. But the music only enhanced the effect of the social rules... that was the whole point of the music. To keep us from "going astray" and thinking about bad things like sex.

Classic rock grew on me, but due to my engagement with evangelicalism, I never really thought about sex until my early 20s. Around that time, I started rocking out to more sexual classic rock songs that amused me and also made me... think about sex.

(e.g. You shook me all night long, Feel like makin' love, etc.)

But it would be hard to say what influenced what... I mean, once I got out from the oppression of Christianity on my sexuality, I was more open in general to listening to sexual music and thinking about having sex. I wouldn't say one was a direct cause of the other. In any case, by my mid-20s I was having sex and enjoying it. And still enjoying sexual music. But I think that had more to do with my personality and stage in life than anything else... the music complimented where I was at.

All that said, having spent most of this summer listening to the top-40 hip-hop and urban music channels... I'm actually pretty shocked by how blatantly sexual the lyrics are (especially by men). I mean, it doesn't offend me, and I'm quite happy in my monogamous relationship

and it gets me horny when I'm at work listening to it.

But... if I was 14 again, not religious, not in a committed relationship, had hormones raging through my body, and everyone around me was doing it... shit, the music would push me right over the edge. This stuff makes Bad Company sound like Sesame Street.

So, the music is an influence, definitely. A cause? Probably not. There isn't a lot of direct causality in social science, anyway. But I don't think the music helps teens make responsible sexual decisions, fo' shizzle.

maleficent · 08-07-2006, 01:20 PM

Billy Joel sang about Catholic Girls Starting Much too late, Meatloaf sang about Paradise by the dashboard light, Cyndi Lauper was all about the She bop... Every generation has something to get their knickers in a wad about musically...

Teens are having sex earlier than in my day... and long before they are ready but that's another discussion... it's not the music that makes a person want to jump another's bones...

krwlz · 08-07-2006, 01:24 PM

I gotta think it isnt the music... And if there is a strong correlation, who's to say that kids more prone to risky behavior early also tend to like the music that uses sexually explicit lyrics... rather than vice versa?

To me, this proves nothing.

xepherys · 08-07-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

I gotta think it isnt the music... And if there is a strong correlation, who's to say that kids more prone to risky behavior early also tend to like the music that uses sexually explicit lyrics... rather than vice versa?

To me, this proves nothing.

Exactly my point...

analog · 08-07-2006, 01:33 PM

So...

50% of kids who listen to "sexually degrading" music have sex earlier, and
30% of kids who don't listen to that music have sex earlier?

That doesn't sound like an astonishingly huge number. 30% compared to 50%? Does it show a possible correlation? Maybe, but the numbers aren't really that dramatic. To begin with, only HALF the kids listening to this "sexually degrading" music are having sex earlier- and a full 30% of those who don't listen to it are having sex earlier too.

I think this is more "coincidence as causation" than anything else. They don't at all take into account a myriad of other factors that lead young people to engage in sexual activities at earlier ages. For example, children who have been sexually abused in the past are more likely to start having sex earlier, and typically go through a period of hypersexuality when that happens, meaning they'd almost certainly latch onto any and all sexually charged music. That's just one example.

I think when all the other factors are accounted for, the numbers would be much closer- not that they're all that far away to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apokx

...teens that involve themselves in sex at earlier ages are just more likely to enjoy music with sexual overtones.

I agree totally.

abaya · 08-07-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

And if there is a strong correlation, who's to say that kids more prone to risky behavior early also tend to like the music that uses sexually explicit lyrics...

Well yeah, that was my point, though I had to ramble on much longer to get it across.

But then the real question is, what makes kids more prone to risky behavior early on? I agree that music is only a complement or catalyst at best... but there is something else going on in the culture to make sex seem okay at 13, 14, if not younger. I think music is only a reflection of what's already there in the culture... if the music doesn't jive with a kid's understanding of the world, they probably won't tune in to the music in the first place.

For me, my "culture" included a fairly strict Thai mother and my commitment to evangelicalism. That's most of what kept me from having sex as a teenager. I am not sure what exactly is in the "culture" of teens (or lacking from, perhaps) to be having sex practically before puberty... I would be interested to hear others' opinions.

snowy · 08-07-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

I gotta think it isnt the music... And if there is a strong correlation, who's to say that kids more prone to risky behavior early also tend to like the music that uses sexually explicit lyrics... rather than vice versa?

To me, this proves nothing.

I think you've got it.

analog · 08-07-2006, 01:38 PM

This makes me think of John Cusack's line in the movie, "High Fidelity"...

"Am I depressed because I listen to rock music? Or do I listen to rock music because I'm depressed?"

JustJess · 08-07-2006, 02:06 PM

I don't think it's the music, either. That's just silly. However, I do think that the media on the whole are presenting and selling a far more sexualized world to a younger audience than the one I grew up in, and mine was more sexualized than my mom's, and on down the line. As time goes by, the progression just continues.

I did things at 16 that my mother did at 21 (I assume, anyway). Now, 12 year olds are doing stuff that I did at 15. The whole system is just getting younger. There are a zillion factors into that, but I think the largest one is that this is what is selling. This is good business. This isn't about the music at all.

Seaver · 08-07-2006, 02:49 PM

*Sigh*

Correlation does not mean causation. What does that mean? These studies can not determine if people who are more open to sex listen to the music, or if the music makes people more open to sex. Until you can prove which comes first these studies are bunk.

Besides, what no one seems to realize is that over 60% of the Puritan women gave birth within 6 months of marriage.... think about that. They weren't driven by sexual music (it wasn't allowed).

flstf · 08-07-2006, 02:54 PM

I agree that the music is probably not triggering teen sex.

It is kinda comical though to see gradeschool girls listening to their Ipods and bopping to the "Black Eyed Peas - My Humps". I can only guess that they are not really paying attention to the lyrics.

krwlz · 08-07-2006, 02:59 PM

One more comment... I wish that correlation was causation... I woulda got laid a lot earlier in my life, lol.

warrrreagl · 08-07-2006, 08:42 PM

Multicollinearity.

krwlz · 08-07-2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warrrreagl

Multicollinearity.

Umm... I'm about to go google, but I got multi colored lines out of that... haha, english?

I'll betcha I agree as soon as I figure out what you mean.

stevie667 · 08-08-2006, 03:04 AM

It seems to me that kids who are more sexually charged at a younger age are going to listen to more music that reflects that?

Toaster126 · 08-08-2006, 08:02 AM

Are kids really having sex at a younger age nowadays... or are they just admitting to it now?

xepherys · 08-08-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

I don't think it's the music, either. That's just silly. However, I do think that the media on the whole are presenting and selling a far more sexualized world to a younger audience than the one I grew up in, and mine was more sexualized than my mom's, and on down the line. As time goes by, the progression just continues.

I did things at 16 that my mother did at 21 (I assume, anyway). Now, 12 year olds are doing stuff that I did at 15. The whole system is just getting younger. There are a zillion factors into that, but I think the largest one is that this is what is selling. This is good business. This isn't about the music at all.

Isn't this just human nature coming back out though? A hundred years ago, people were doing those things at 12 and 13 as well. Then society said, "No! Bad kiddies!" and people became stiff when it came to sex. It's not that kids were as "open" 100 years ago, but it was just the norm. Maybe 150 years, tops. Girls were married and having children by 15 or 16. Before that, it had been that way since the dawn of mankind. So after a hundredish year blip, we're going back to what's NORMAL for humans.

JustJess · 08-08-2006, 09:09 AM

That's a very interesting point. I would consider that as the largest factor - we're beginning to be open enough to revert to our natural instincts. Society imposes rather arbitrary and artificial rules, and always has. It will be interesting to see if society allows this shift to natural instincts, or if they freak out ala prohibition.

maleficent · 08-08-2006, 09:11 AM

people were dying a lot younger 100 years ago as well - it's not 100 years ago now - it'sa different time and place...

12 year olds in this day and age are not prepared for sex and all that it entails.

Val_1 · 08-08-2006, 09:25 AM

The researcher quoted at the end of the article was on the money.

Quote:

However, Yvonne K. Fulbright, a New York-based sex researcher and author, said factors including peer pressure, self-esteem and home environment are probably more influential than the research suggests.

"It's a little dangerous to just pinpoint one thing. You have to look at everything that's going on in a young person's life," she said. "When somebody has a healthy sense of themselves, they don't take these lyrics too seriously."

In a system as complex as human relations, it is pretty foolish to point to one factor and call it the cause. But, that's how people get their names published, I guess. Unfortunately, it's also the way a lot of bogus laws get passed.

Jinn · 08-08-2006, 09:36 AM

Correlation does not .. causation.. you can't link one cause.. too complex..

Ahh, damnit.. you all said it first. I don't think anyone here could defend this as being a legitimate study or "cause."

Daniel_ · 08-08-2006, 12:47 PM

Bunch.

Of.

Arse.

Zeraph · 08-08-2006, 03:25 PM

I'm not sure laymen have ever been able to distinguish between causal and correlational.

krwlz · 08-08-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

people were dying a lot younger 100 years ago as well - it's not 100 years ago now - it'sa different time and place...

12 year olds in this day and age are not prepared for sex and all that it entails.

But none the less, we are animals, by and large. We have cognitive capacity, but still. That 100 year lifespan is as artificial as kids not fucking at puberty.

Mentally, no perhaps they aren't ready, but that's purely suppositional as well.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but at the same time, there is that aspect, and it's not just going to disappear.

100 years ago kids wanted to fuck at 12 too... But they would have gotton in much more trouble, and they were taught that it was wrong to do so.

Seaver · 08-08-2006, 03:54 PM

100 Years ago people were expected to wait until marriage. Most of the time they never made it.

This, however, is not equal to us. We are physically maturing much earlier than ever. Women are having their periods by age 12, 3-4 years earlier than back in the day. Coupled with that we are asking our children to wait even longer than ever. Marriages are now rarely before 25-30 now. So we expect them to wait for college.

Now they used to wait mere years (and even then they couldnt make it). Puberty starting around 14-16, they rarely waited beyond 21, usually marrying in their teens.

It's reasonable to ask kids to keep it in their pants for 4 years after puberty starts, that has been what historically people have to wait. This means, however, that the 4 years with the new-younger puberty age they're having sex at age 16.

The people who are up in arms about sex don't take this into account. Yes they may be younger, but the hormones are still equally as strong as when they were having sex parties in college or already married.

Bacchanal · 08-08-2006, 04:11 PM

Music is raunchier now, and kids are having sex sooner.

AWESOME ARTICLE!

Is that really worth publishing? I don't see it as "news" at all.

08-07-2006, 01:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	Hmm. Makes me reflect on my own music-listening/sex-indulging history: At puberty/14, I was really into Janet Jackson's semi-dirty new album (the self-titled one, in the early 90s) and was thinking all kinds of sexual thoughts. But I had been thinking sexual thoughts for a long time, long before I hit puberty. Had things continued on that path, who knows... I probably would have been barefoot and pregnant within a few years. At 14, though, an evangelical Christian friend told me that it was bad to listen to that kind of music... and that friend ended up converting me. I guess I felt guilty at some level, since she hit a nerve there. It was Christian music (with a smattering of classic rock) from that point until I was well into my college years... at an evangelical university, where everyone listened to Christian music anyway. Very few of us were having sex, I can tell you that. But the music only enhanced the effect of the social rules... that was the whole point of the music. To keep us from "going astray" and thinking about bad things like sex. Classic rock grew on me, but due to my engagement with evangelicalism, I never really thought about sex until my early 20s. Around that time, I started rocking out to more sexual classic rock songs that amused me and also made me... think about sex. (e.g. You shook me all night long, Feel like makin' love, etc.) But it would be hard to say what influenced what... I mean, once I got out from the oppression of Christianity on my sexuality, I was more open in general to listening to sexual music and thinking about having sex. I wouldn't say one was a direct cause of the other. In any case, by my mid-20s I was having sex and enjoying it. And still enjoying sexual music. But I think that had more to do with my personality and stage in life than anything else... the music complimented where I was at. All that said, having spent most of this summer listening to the top-40 hip-hop and urban music channels... I'm actually pretty shocked by how blatantly sexual the lyrics are (especially by men). I mean, it doesn't offend me, and I'm quite happy in my monogamous relationship and it gets me horny when I'm at work listening to it. But... if I was 14 again, not religious, not in a committed relationship, had hormones raging through my body, and everyone around me was doing it... shit, the music would push me right over the edge. This stuff makes Bad Company sound like Sesame Street. So, the music is an influence, definitely. A cause? Probably not. There isn't a lot of direct causality in social science, anyway. But I don't think the music helps teens make responsible sexual decisions, fo' shizzle. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

08-07-2006, 01:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Billy Joel sang about Catholic Girls Starting Much too late, Meatloaf sang about Paradise by the dashboard light, Cyndi Lauper was all about the She bop... Every generation has something to get their knickers in a wad about musically... Teens are having sex earlier than in my day... and long before they are ready but that's another discussion... it's not the music that makes a person want to jump another's bones... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-07-2006, 02:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	I don't think it's the music, either. That's just silly. However, I do think that the media on the whole are presenting and selling a far more sexualized world to a younger audience than the one I grew up in, and mine was more sexualized than my mom's, and on down the line. As time goes by, the progression just continues. I did things at 16 that my mother did at 21 (I assume, anyway). Now, 12 year olds are doing stuff that I did at 15. The whole system is just getting younger. There are a zillion factors into that, but I think the largest one is that this is what is selling. This is good business. This isn't about the music at all. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

08-07-2006, 08:42 PM	#16 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	Multicollinearity. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

08-08-2006, 03:04 AM	#18 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	It seems to me that kids who are more sexually charged at a younger age are going to listen to more music that reflects that? __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

08-07-2006, 12:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Apokx Yo dawg, I herd u like... Location: memes.	That's a very interesting article.At first, I took at a look at myself, and a couple girlfriends I've had.I realized the type of music they listened to, the type that I did and examined the differences in personalities and sexual experiences. So far the article seems right on track.The girls that listened to hip-hop, and music like Nickleback(the worst band in history, but I digress)seemed more open to sex, talking about sex and generally had sex at a much younger age than those who didn't. In the end though, there were too many exceptions to be able to say that it was definately the music.There were some wild cards like the Beetles, or Weezer(more about losing relationships, being a loser etc.) that throw it off completely for me. I vote casual, or at the very least, teens that involve themselves in sex at earlier ages are just more likely to enjoy music with sexual overtones.

08-07-2006, 01:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I think the whole premise is stupid. Didn't teens have sex before rap music?

08-07-2006, 01:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	I gotta think it isnt the music... And if there is a strong correlation, who's to say that kids more prone to risky behavior early also tend to like the music that uses sexually explicit lyrics... rather than vice versa? To me, this proves nothing.

08-07-2006, 01:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
analog Banned	This makes me think of John Cusack's line in the movie, "High Fidelity"... "Am I depressed because I listen to rock music? Or do I listen to rock music because I'm depressed?"

08-07-2006, 02:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Sigh Correlation does not mean causation. What does that mean? These studies can not determine if people who are more open to sex listen to the music, or if the music makes people more open to sex. Until you can prove which comes first these studies are bunk. Besides, what no one seems to realize is that over 60% of the Puritan women gave birth within 6 months of marriage.... think about that. They weren't driven by sexual music (it wasn't allowed).

08-07-2006, 02:54 PM	#14 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I agree that the music is probably not triggering teen sex. It is kinda comical though to see gradeschool girls listening to their Ipods and bopping to the "Black Eyed Peas - My Humps". I can only guess that they are not really paying attention to the lyrics.

08-07-2006, 02:59 PM	#15 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	One more comment... I wish that correlation was causation... I woulda got laid a lot earlier in my life, lol.

08-08-2006, 08:02 AM	#19 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	Are kids really having sex at a younger age nowadays... or are they just admitting to it now? __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

08-08-2006, 09:09 AM	#21 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	That's a very interesting point. I would consider that as the largest factor - we're beginning to be open enough to revert to our natural instincts. Society imposes rather arbitrary and artificial rules, and always has. It will be interesting to see if society allows this shift to natural instincts, or if they freak out ala prohibition. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

08-08-2006, 09:11 AM	#22 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	people were dying a lot younger 100 years ago as well - it's not 100 years ago now - it'sa different time and place... 12 year olds in this day and age are not prepared for sex and all that it entails. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-08-2006, 12:47 PM	#25 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Bunch. Of. Arse. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

08-08-2006, 09:36 AM	#24 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Correlation does not .. causation.. you can't link one cause.. too complex.. Ahh, damnit.. you all said it first. I don't think anyone here could defend this as being a legitimate study or "cause." __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-08-2006, 03:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	I'm not sure laymen have ever been able to distinguish between causal and correlational.

08-08-2006, 03:54 PM	#28 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	100 Years ago people were expected to wait until marriage. Most of the time they never made it. This, however, is not equal to us. We are physically maturing much earlier than ever. Women are having their periods by age 12, 3-4 years earlier than back in the day. Coupled with that we are asking our children to wait even longer than ever. Marriages are now rarely before 25-30 now. So we expect them to wait for college. Now they used to wait mere years (and even then they couldnt make it). Puberty starting around 14-16, they rarely waited beyond 21, usually marrying in their teens. It's reasonable to ask kids to keep it in their pants for 4 years after puberty starts, that has been what historically people have to wait. This means, however, that the 4 years with the new-younger puberty age they're having sex at age 16. The people who are up in arms about sex don't take this into account. Yes they may be younger, but the hormones are still equally as strong as when they were having sex parties in college or already married.

08-08-2006, 04:11 PM	#29 (permalink)
Bacchanal Laid back Location: Jayhawkland	Music is raunchier now, and kids are having sex sooner. AWESOME ARTICLE! Is that really worth publishing? I don't see it as "news" at all. __________________ Universal Truth Is Not Measured In Mass Appeal