<p>I've never felt pressured to do this - time is used perfecting other matters. As a student, I wonder why American culture insists on being entrenched in this commonality. </p>
<p>I'm curious to hear what fellow CC'ers have to say.</p>
<p>I ‘dated’ in middle schools, don’t have time nor social activities sufficent to meet guys now (I’m at an all girls school).
Kids always want to be grown up, this is one way they try to do it.</p>
<p>I remember these kids were dating in the second grade back when I was in elementary school. Kids always try to grow up too fast… most likely, they have an older sibling or cousin or something and sort of admire them. I don’t have time for a relationship now… maybe by college, I’ll have better time management skills, but not now.</p>
<p>Please attempt to keep this discussion on topic.</p>
<p>I believe this to result from the degeneration of American culture in past decades; standards of excellence and normality have been altered. </p>
<p>Take this how you want.</p>
<p>Makes sense to me that kids begin to have sexual relationships as they enter and progress through puberty. It’s a phenomenon common to plenty of cultures around the world; really, I wonder more about the cultures where it’s unusual and/or frowned upon.</p>
<p>I’m wondering what particular standards of excellence you alluded to in post 5.</p>
<p>I don’t think most kids get in relationships explicitly because they want to “grow up faster.”</p>
<p>Maybe they just, ya know, like each other. </p>
<p>And btw, it’s not like people are having relationships younger now than they used to. People used to get married/have babies at 14-15. If anything, kids are delaying relationships more than ever. This is definitely not socially constructed, only occurring in the US, or new. People are wired to fall in love.</p>
<p>@experientiadocet
As of 2011, the College Board has eliminated the quarter-point penalty for incorrect answers on AP exams. In this context, one can say that solidified standards in expected level of educational achievement are being lowered. </p>
<p>@alwaysleah
Although this point is logical and well-reasoned, biological and economical factors dictated the need for early reproduction in colonial/pre-industrial times. For the majority of Americans, such need no longer exists.</p>
<p>Isn’t everything a socially constructed phenomenon?</p>
<p>@alwaysleah
If it’s not a social construct, why are students harassed over their lack of action?</p>
<p>@Izzy Busy Bee
I will oppose your liberality; eating and sleeping are not social constructs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Example: supernovae</p>
<p>
I was referring to standards of excellence pertinent to the topic. As in, what standard’s degeneration has led to younger people dating more often in the U.S. in recent years? It makes complete sense that as someone’s body matures sexually, they begin to have sexual experiences. Why is a culture bit that prevents that considered, by you, a “standard of excellence”? Are you morally opposed to people growing up and acting more like adults as they come to be more like adults?</p>
<p>
And that’s why the age of first-time mothers has continually increased since then… what point are you trying to make?</p>
<p>@experientiadocet
I’m not morally opposed to people growing up and pursuing healthy relationships. I’m against the petty insults, infantile envy, and general immaturity that dominate 90%+ of HS/MS relationships. Likewise, I never stated that restrictive cultures were superior, as you imply.</p>
<p>My “degeneration of standards” referred to a general decline in morality and forethought in the everyday actions of Americans. For example, once-rare teenage pregnancies/abortions leach taxpayer dollars. </p>
<p>Secondly, I point out that the early age of reproduction was due to necessity, not love. alwaysleah’s post implies that such relationships were manifestations of mutual attraction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to get into implications so much, you may as well defend your own. I know that you never STATED that cultures restrictive in this respect were superior, but imo you certainly implied it when you said that the phenomenon is a result of degeneration of American culture. Degeneration = better –> worse. </p>
<p>Opposed to insults, envy, and immaturity in relationships… who isn’t? Then again, all of those things occur in tons of relationships, regardless of the age of the people in them. They might be more prevalent in high school relationships, but what’s wrong with that? I also think you’re generalizing your peers unfairly when you say over 90% of them have unhealthy sexual relationships.</p>
<p>Also, fwiw, I can’t speak on leah’s behalf, but I didn’t get that from her post at all.</p>
<p>@experientiadocet
I never stated that 90%+ of my peers had unhealthy sexual relationships; their issues are predominantly emotional. In the short-term, these futile “relationships” are harmful, leaching away time from pursuing areas of subjective importance. </p>
<p>This sets an unfortunate precedent for future behavior and response to life events. Unnecessary hardship and pain is easily avoided should one realize himself/herself not fit for early relationships. I believe many realize this on a subconscious level, but feel pressured to continue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In part, yes, but it’s not like plain ole premarital sex never happened. Adolescent boning has been a staple of culture [or at least western culture] for a long time. 1/3 of Puritan women were pregnant when they were married. Perhaps official, public relationships between teens [beyond “courting”. translation: “probably having crazy puritan sex behind yonder haystacks”] were not condoned, but it doesn’t mean that the underlying factors were not present. </p>
<p>also, CErnie is a robot.</p>
<p>
My wording was unclear. By sexual relationships, I just mean more-than-platonic ones (i.e. there’s a sexual element involved), so a boy/girlfriend relationship.</p>
<p>That’s one way to look at it. I see it as practice; the more you’re in difficult situations in relationships, the better equipped you are for future problems. Also worth noting that while hardship does come with relationships, plenty of good comes as well. </p>
<p>Why do you think many realize that on a subconscious level? Just a hunch, or is there a reason?</p>
<p>EDIT: Just saw your edit. Relationships are an area of subjective importance, too, aren’t they?</p>
<p>It seems to me that the people who bash high school dating have never had the opportunity to go out with anyone they liked, because I can’t imagine that you’re in high school and you haven’t ever had a crush on someone before.
I’ve been dating my boyfriend for a year and a half. He’s a great influence on me and we both have been 4.0 students since we met (which is bizarre because we both didn’t do so well in school before). Dating is not a “socially constructed phenomenon”. Perhaps some people may date out of peer pressure, but I’ve never been pressured to have a boyfriend. I’m dating because I LIKE the guy (<em>gasps of surprise</em>). And you know what else? He happens to LIKE me back. So why not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I never stated anything to the contrary. However, I would like to point out that these ** biological ** factors remain. Humans obviously haven’t evolved much in the short time span of just a few hundred years. 14-17 year olds are generally sexually mature and feel attraction to members of the opposite sex (or same sex, but that’s a whole different argument). Those feelings, which are hardwired into us, make teenagers want to pursue relationships. I disagree that it is “morally better” or “more mature” to abstain from relationships just because they are not destined for marriage. FWIW I had my first relationship at 15. It was loving, long lasting, and enjoyable for both people involved. There was no pressure to conform or anything that brought us together - it was just mutual attraction and enjoyment of each others’ company. It was a healthy experience. I don’t think that kids who like each other should not pursue relationships simply because of their age. Obviously age appropriateness in a relationship is important, and should be decided by the parties involved (i.e. the people in the relationship and perhaps their parents or pastor or whoever they ask for advice if they need it). </p>
<p>So now that I have made clear that this biological pull remains, why would people not have healthy relationships simply because there is no longer an economic need?</p>
<p>Now, with your references to * unhealthy * teenage romances - there are unhealthy romances of * all * age groups. It is up to a person, regardless of their age, to determine if they are able to be in a relationship. I don’t think that age has anything to do with it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know why you think this, because teenage/premarital pregnancy has decreased exponentially in the last few centuries. As experientiadocet mentioned, 1/3 of puritan brides were pregnant. </p>
<p>As for the tax money comment, abortions ** are not ** funded by tax dollars. This has been brought up several times, and each time the government has assured people that they are not funding abortion. </p>
<p>Women’s health care at clinics that offer abortion? Yes. But not money for abortions themselves. The money goes to pap smears, sex education, and perhaps contraception- all things that benefit our country as a whole. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, I don’t think my post implies that. I was simply pointing out that this phenomenon is not new. I also think it is a bit silly to point out American culture as the sole force of teenage relationships - teenagers have relationships/sexual attraction ** everywhere in the world ** because we are all the same species. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you realize this in yourself, but it is ridiculous to try to speak for the mindset of millions (billions?) of teens in the world. I was fit for a relationship when I had one. It was a healthy experience. I also never felt pressured to be in a relationship, and still don’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When the College Board eliminated the guessing penalty, it instituted a higher raw score necessary for any given score. It is still the same difficulty to achieve a 5, 4, 3, etc. Again, on the contrary, levels of education, especially among females, the poor, the middle class, and non-whites, has increased dramatically and continues to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to close with this quote, which I find excellent (thanks experientiadocet!). Why is it a bad thing for teens to have relationships? And why are they not morally just?</p>
<p>American attitudes toward sexuality and sexual relationships (note: relationships involving a component of sexual attraction, not just relationships involving sex) are actually some of the most conservative and reserved in the Western world. This might be because the United States is one of the most, if not the most, highly religious industrialized nation. Yet the U.S. also has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. Being in high school relationships is not necessarily a negative thing, not being educated on how to have healthy, safe relationships is a bad thing. Saying “sex is immoral, high school relationships are immoral, funding safe sex education programs is immoral” just perpetuates the confusion and fear many high school students have about sex and relationships. Honestly, high school age kids have been in sexual relationships since homo sapiens have been around, and they’re going to keep doing it. As a result, they’re going to have sex. Abstinence-only sex ed that teaches kids having sex is bad and you’re going to hell if you do it only makes them unprepared for when they do have sex, which they will, a lot, and maybe in the back of your car too. Also, sexual relationships are not a socially constructed phenomenon, high school is a socially constructed phenomenon.</p>