<p>Dude, what you’ve said will look so funny to you when you’re a bit older. Trust me. I second MS4211’s post. </p>
<p>Not taking part in relationships in high school will make you a miserable schmuck later on in life when you don’t know what you are doing. Relationships are a highly subjective importance, probably the most important thing you are going to have in your life, might as well prepare for it now. I believe that sexual relationships occurred almost as many times before the present day cultural phenomena happened but was just not as much publicized and spoken of freely. Now, due to a cultural change into a more open society (not better, just look at all the music about sex, how stupid), it is viewed in as a norm now. And from your post 17, not having immature relationships will not give you harm. </p>
<p>Okay, scenario 1. You have a relationship after college. You are immature. You are a first timer. You don’t know much at all. How do you think its gonna end? You are just postponing the harm and hurt till later. Not a good idea. And I’d rather be focusing on becoming a loving person than say, learning differential equations in High School (not that I am against a quicker paced education, I myself study things further down the line but not at the cost of the relationship context). And every experience that you have that bring a person towards a loving relationship is a good experience. </p>
<p>I’ve got nothing wrong with loving math and science and history but cmon, generalizing that many teenage relationships are not in the persons best interest? Sure many are hurt, and other consequences occur, but the experience teaches people how not to act and how to act, and that is more than anything a math book can do. </p>
<p>And for lowering standards, CollegeBoard shifted the scores, and what’s not to like, easier for us to succeed right? ;)</p>
<p>Also, some Eastern cultures and religions such as some Hinduistic sects and Buddhist sects have no problem at all with teenage sex and sex in general.</p>
<p>@aerobug
You appear to use the availability heuristic to present your case and associated lack of harassment as a commonality. A seeming contradiction arises when you state that “people may date out of peer pressure.” This implies that social forces are working.</p>
<p>@alwaysleah
It is widely known that the teenage brain is not fully developed. This clashes with your assertion that “age” is a non-factor in evaluating the appropriateness of relationships. Your definition of choice is too liberal - should infants, who cannot speak, decide appropriate lovers? Such biological immaturity correlates strongly with higher incidences of abuse in teenage relationships.</p>
<p>Secondly, you mention that teenage pregnancies have declined; this I admit. Nevertheless, such rates are disproportionally higher in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. This suggests that social factors are certainly at work. </p>
<p>Thirdly, it can be argued that distribution of contraception encourages immorality and irresponsibility. This “bandage the leak” solution is ultimately ineffectual in preventing unwanted pregnancies; the weakness of one outweighs the strength of many. </p>
<p>Fourthly, the association of unnecessary pain and ineffectual relationships is a theme among the teenage demographic. I’ve never spoken for millions, yet billions. </p>
<p>Fifthly, I refute your argument on AP scoring. In brief context, consider that a 5 on the AP U.S. History Exam was 117+ in 1996. It has steadily decreased since then; I estimate it to be 105 as of 2012.</p>
<p>@kissmeimnotirish, 01:03 AM
How can you ascertain my status as a “miserable schmuck” in coming times? Does my plethora of normal, non-romantic friendships cause future maladjustment of self? </p>
<p>@kissmeimnotirish, 01:13 AM
Some eastern cultures also demonize and hold HS/MS relationships as taboo. The incidence of premarital sex in Singapore and Japan is relatively low.</p>
<p>As far as your comment about socioeconomically disadvantage and high rates of pregnancy this right here proves that this isn’t only the American way of thinking. Research shows that these areas tend to have high minority population as well as immigrant population this proving that teen relationships are spread worldwide. </p>
<p>Another thing about these areas is not so much the social pressures but lack of education which is why giving out contraceptives and helping by providing sex Ed is beneficial.</p>
<p>The brain isn’t fully developed until the mid twenties. Are you planning to stay single until you are 25? Dating is a learning experience, it’s important to practice. </p>
<p>As for infants, the parallel is nonexistent. First of all, a relationship must be consensual. Because infants cannot adequately communicate, they are unable to give consent. Secondly, children do not undergo puberty until approximately 12, give or take a few years. Relationships of a sexual nature do not take place prior to puberty - do kids “date?” Sure. But I’m inclined to believe that these relationships are harmless. It’s not like the kids are going crazy, they’re really just friends who hold hands. </p>
<p>Thirdly, I would like to point out that my beliefs are not “too liberal.” I simply believe that humans should be able to follow out natural course - of course if a human is ** hurting himherself or others, either emotionally or physically, ** then I draw the line there. I’m sure that you will point out that relationships usually end in emotional pain - but again, they are a learning experience and generally do not leave long lasting wounds. The pain of a break up could be, and is, experienced at any age. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are absolutely right that pregnancy is higher in lower income areas. But does this mean that relationships happen more in disadvantaged areas? Not necessarily. Studies have shown that sex ed reduces instances of teenage pregnancy dramatically. Teenagers in higher income families are more likely to have parents who talk to them about sex, to care about their future/education and have aspirations beyond a family, to receive sex ed, and to know how to prevent pregnancy. Of course pregnancy rates are lower. That doesn’t mean kids are having less sex. With regards to this point, I also second Jazzii’s comment regarding immigrants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is sex immoral? it doesn’t harm anyone/anything, both parties are willing participants (otherwise it would be classified as rape), and is proven to be healthy. </p>
<p>As for “encouraging” sex, ** sex happens. ** Kids are going to have sex regardless of whether they are prepared for the consequences (i.e. teenage pregnancy…). Would you rather kids go unprotected and spread more STDs/have more babies (leaching your tax money bro), or have protection and reduce instances of pregnancy/STDs? Notice that nowhere was the option ** stop people from having sex ** because it’s just not gonna happen.</p>
<p>I wonder why you believe that providing contraception is ineffective. It has been shown time after time that providing contraception ** reduces the rate of pregnancy among teens. ** It doesn’t get more effective than that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a theme among breakups of all ages. Breakups suck, yes, but being in love is awesome. You know what else sucks? Loving someone who you can’t be with. </p>
<p>You actually are speaking for millions, because I can tell you that not all teenagers believe that heartache is unnecessary. It’s a learning experience. It means you had the chance to love. A person will heal and eventually move on. ** This occurs in people of all ages ** so I’m not sure why you’re singling out the teenage demographic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For this to be a valid rebuttal, you would need to address the difficulty of the questions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you can read here, the test has been completely redesigned. The questions are not the rote memorization they once were. You can’t compare two different versions of a test on the same scale. </p>
<p>A more accurate way to picture the change is to look at the change in score distributions in the year 2011, the year after the guessing penalty was eliminated. Surely the quality of AP teaching couldn’t decline vastly in a single year! And alas, the distributions are similar.</p>
<p>Wow CErnie…a bit sanctimonious are we? What right do you have to call somebody’s sex life immoral or irresponsible? If they’re taking all the proper precaution necessary to make sure both they and their partner remain safe and protected while performing a mutually satisfying act of love, what is immoral about that? I would say not distributing contraception is immoral and irresponsible, since it promotes unprotected sex. Do you think that if teenagers can’t obtain contraceptives they’re just going to stop having sex? A good portion are smart enough and well informed enough to know the consequences of having unprotected sex and as such not do it, but a great amount of teenagers will have sex without any precaution at all, or ineffective and misinformed precautions. And this is very likely to happen since their minds aren’t yet fully developed and thus they’re exceptionally prone to succumb to their carnal desires. Which is more immoral in your mind: making contraceptives available to teenagers or having a pregnant sixteen year old choose between getting an abortion or having a baby? You could say “Why don’t they just not have sex in the first place?” But realistically, teenage sex is ineradicable.</p>
<p>This point addresses the above post, not the initial argument. </p>
<p>But I oppose the use of contraception. For moral reasons. I can go into it if you want but you’re not honestly telling me I have an immoral/irresponsible ideology because I don’t agree with the spread and/or use of contraceptives. </p>
<p>I won’t go into it because I don’t want to spark an entirely different debate, but I think it was unreasonable that you accused people against the distribution of contraception to be “immoral and irresponsible.”</p>
<p>interesting bit of AP reform discussion tucked in here. </p>
<p>um, i feel like natural human things turn into socially constructed phenomena when you feel alienated from it.</p>
<p>calling it a socially convergent phenomenon seems a little fairer. that hints at there being some naturalness to it, which there seems to be, as well as there also being a constructive component to it, which there also seems to be.</p>
<p>But you just accused people ** for ** the distribution of contraception of being immoral. I would argue that it is more immoral to not provide a healthcare service than to ignore it based on the convictions of a few people.</p>
<p>So are you saying that you would like for the millions of teens who have had sex to all have babies?</p>
<p>Oh and look! The numbers have stayed steady throughout the last eight years despite increased access to contraception and sex education. So while contraception use is increasing, the rate of sex is staying the same, and pregnancy is decreasing.</p>
<p>efeens, what solution do you propose? Just let teens get pregnant? Do you think those who don’t agree with your beliefs should still be denied adequate sex education and access to contraception? Don’t forget here that not everyone is an upper middle/middle class kid whose parents have talked to them or who have the adequate skill set to do research on the topic. If that was the case (in a perfect world) sex ed wouldn’t be necessary. But as we have seen the positive results of sex ed, it is clear that when teens are given the information necessary to make an informed decision, many choose differently than if they were forced to do the research on their own (which many didn’t bother doing…). If you disagree with the use of contraception, then don’t use it. But I strongly believe that teenagers should be given the information to make an informed decision about sex.</p>
<p>I never accused anyone of being immoral or irresponsible. Nowhere in my post does it say that. I simply stated that it’s unreasonable to accuse me or anyone who shares my beliefs of being immoral/irresponsible, because that’s exactly what the poster did. I did not accuse anyone of anything, except the poster of being unreasonable. I’m okay with people who are fine with the distribution, because I feel that they neither have the same upbringing that I do or were taught the specific set of morals that I was taught. So no, I think for most people, at least in my eyes, it’s a matter of being misinformed, not immorality or irresponsibility.</p>
<p>And teenage (mainly premarital) sex, at it’s core, is irresponsible. For if you aren’t willing to be a parent (or responsible/mature enough), than how are you responsible/mature enough to have sex, to partake in the highest form of love? </p>
<p>And like I said, I’m not interested in sparking another debate. But I was indirectly accused of being immoral and then directly accused of accusing others of that very thing. So I explained that it’s downright silly to call me immoral, and I’m explaining now that you misread my post. </p>
<p>I don’t want to combat your post any longer alwaysleah because I don’t want to start a religious debate in any way.</p>
<p>This is such a trivial point, but I’d like to mention that dating in middle/high school is primarily a Western phenomenon. For example, (I’m studying abroad in China and my Chinese friends tell me that) relationships are not allowed in high schools across China- at least, not publicly. Teachers watch their students like hawks to ensure that interactions between persons of the opposite sex remain strictly platonic. If any “relationship nonsense” happens in front of them, both sets of parents are notified. </p>
<p>China’s super conservative, so it’s rare for both sets of parents approve of the relationship. (In short, all hell would break loose if the Chinese 'rents found out about…God forbid, a boyfriend or a girlfriend.) I’m sure high school relationships still exist (kind of like being a Montague or a Capulet couldn’t stop R&J from being lovers), but in a society that frowns upon such things, they’re the exception, not the rule. As a result, there’s not so much peer pressure to date before you’re 18. </p>
<p>Now, is peer pressure nonexistent? I don’t know. After all, Chinese high schoolers do watch American tv shows like Gossip Girl. (Lol.) And they must see the adorable Asian couples that wear matching t-shirts and hold hands in the street. (They’re everywhere!)</p>
<p>Seriously though, Chinese students study so damn hard (making me look like a slacker by comparison) that they legit don’t have time for relationships. So of course the given reason that high schoolers don’t date is that it interferes with their studies. But unspoken reasons abound, starting with the very nature of a relationship between a boy and a girl and the implications behind that. See, Chinese parents understand that teenage dating often leads to premarital sex (also frowned upon in a conservative society. Hell, it’s even frowned upon in America!). That’s the last thing on earth they’d want for their precious only children, so they would try their best to prevent any of that nonsense from happening. Starting with high school relationships.</p>
<p>As a result, teenage pregnancies are practically nonexistent here. (And they didn’t even have to teach sex ed OR hand out condoms to maintain a virtually 0% teenage pregnancy rate! Amazing, isn’t it?)</p>
<p>Back to the original question. Are they a socially constructed phenomenon? Perhaps. Based on my experiences abroad, I’m leaning towards ‘yes,’ they are a socially constructed Western phenomenon. </p>
<p>Also, I liked enfield’s answer. There’s definitely a biological aspect to it (e.g. boy meets girl, rest is history); it’s the way we’re wired. But it’s also greatly influenced by the kind of society you live in. And peer pressure. Not to mention the media, your upbringing, nationality, sexual orientation, but we can point fingers all day and it’s hard to pinpoint an exact cause and say, “Aha! This is why teenagers date.” (Dating itself could be considered a socially constructed phenomenon; the entire concept was invented by society. If humans lived like savages, I’m sure it’s possible to skip the courting thing and go straight to the sex, etc. So it depends on your definition of ‘socially constructed.’）</p>
<p>This is directed at efeens44: I didn’t mean to attack your personal morals or those who oppose the distribution of contraception. What I said was a direct counter-argument to what CErnie, the original poster, said, “Thirdly, it can be argued that distribution of contraception encourages immorality and irresponsibility.” CErnie couldn’t possibly be telling me I have an immoral/irresponsible ideology because I support making contraceptives available to high school students in order for them to do what many of them are inevitably going to do (have sex) in a safe, protected manner which minimizes the risk of STI transmission and pregnancy. Just as you feel your morals were being insulted, I felt mine were and posed to him the moral dilemma of providing contraceptives and thus enabling teens to have sex, or not and pay for the consequences when they do it anyways.</p>
<p>As to what you said here, "And teenage (mainly premarital) sex, at it’s core, is irresponsible. For if you aren’t willing to be a parent (or responsible/mature enough), than how are you responsible/mature enough to have sex, to partake in the highest form of love? " Because a few hundred years ago teenagers were biologically willing to have sex and become parents. With such revolutions in thought and the work force as Industrialisation, Modernisation, and the introduction of a largely knowledge-based economy, as opposed to a predominantly labor-based economy, society has demanded that human beings postpone reproduction past the “biologically prime” age interval in order to attain the education necessary to support this knowledge-based economy. So, instead of marrying as soon as they could find an appropriate mate, teens instead started attending high school, and some time after that, instead of marrying right out of high school, a larger proportion of people began to attend college in order to be able to compete in a work force constantly demanding more innovative, more knowledgeable, and more educated workers. Sucks for us that biology hasn’t caught up with this, and teenagers are constantly bombarded with sexual urges, which are intended to promote coitus and thus reproduction, even though, socially, teens aren’t ready to become parents yet. So they want to have sex because of biology, many of them are going to have sex because you can only fight biology for so long, but they can’t become parents. That’s why making contraceptives available is the most reasonable solution at the moment for me. Again, efeens44, I’m not attacking your morals, I’m sure you were raised in a respectable home with good ideals, I’m just defending mine. As for sex being the highest form of love, sex can be as simple or as complicated teenagers will make it, whether or not love is necessary for sex is another box of worms that I don’t even want to touch, but parenting will always be a complicated ordeal. That is, until reproduction becomes and entirely automated and government-controlled operation (Hellooo Brave New World…I kid, I kid.)</p>