Girlfriends/Boyfriends in HS/MS: A Socially Constructed Phenomenon?

[kissmeimnotirish]

<p>I can ascertain your “miserable schmuck” status by reading these posts. And maybe, just maybe, if you had sex, you would change your mind, maybe? </p>

<p>And the irresponsibility is what then teaches these kids to be responsible. It is their punishment and they learn. If they use what is culturally accepted as a safe (almost) way to have sex, then they can learn the responsibilities of a sexual relationship, something which is necessary in the long haul that is life. </p>

<p>And obviously, the morality of these issues is not stopping anyone from having sex so saying it is immoral and crying to the wind doesn’t help the issue while sexual education and distribution does. Unless of course you are in a society such as China, where other factors such as studying and college prep outweigh the relationship skill strengthening factors.</p>

[efeens44]

<p>@MS4211, ahhh understood. Like you said, I’m okay with people having different beliefs than me, I just felt a bit accused. No harm done.</p>

[alwaysleah]

<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>Thanks for clarifying. </p>

<p>

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>Or they were taught those rules but chose to disagree with them. </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>I don’t think that being in love has to mean wanting to be a parent. There are many couples who pursue an entire life without children. I don’t think that means that they love each other less. </p>

<p>But your response dodges the question. Responding to “what should we do about contraception” with “teens shouldn’t have sex” is like saying “I want a unicorn” when asked to choose between a horse and a dog.</p>

[stressedouttt]

<p>

But your response dodges the question. Responding to “what should we do about contraception” with “teens shouldn’t have sex” is like saying “I want a unicorn” when asked to choose between a horse and a dog.

</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s true. It’s already been mentioned that society plays a large role in what teens do.</p>

<p>

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>

[alwaysleah]

<p>But society doesn’t play a large enough role that teenage sex can be prevented. Like you said, it’s biological. So, would you rather hedge your bets and deny contraception or provide it and reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy? </p>

<p>If you really think society can prevent teenage sex, how do you suggest we go about that? What about families who don’t have a problem with teenage sex?</p>

[efeens44]

<p>Again, off-topic, but oral contraceptives are classified as Group 1 carcinogens by the World Health Organization (WHO). You know what else is a Group 1 carcinogen? Asbestos and radon. So even outside of my moral objections, I have simple safety objections to them. They’re dangerous. </p>

<p>Studies have been conducted where fish in a river that was very much polluted by sewer water were severely deformed, and approximately 42% of the fish didn’t have identifiable genders. Further studies showed that women’s urine was full of the waste of oral contraceptives. They are unnatural “drugs” and are dangerous. </p>

<p>So, alwaysleah, to say that “teens are going to have sex” and leave it at that is a bit too forward. Teenage sex itself is a bit of a social construct; blaming it all on biology is ridiculous. I’ve felt more urges to lose my virginity because of the fact that many of my friends have; not because my body has this irresistible urge to do so. I think if kids were better educated on the real dangers of premarital sex, less would partake in it.</p>

[Izzy_Busy_Bee]

<p>^What about condoms? I’m willing to bet the majority of sexually active teens, especially younger teens, use condoms. They cheaper and easier to obtain. Or contraceptive sponges, or diaphragm? There are plenty of non-pill contraceptives that a lot of teens obviously don’t use. </p>

<p>In any case, abstinence-only sex education does not work. Period. And our society simply doesn’t morally discourage teenage sex enough to prevent it from happening. And I don’t see that changing any time soon. The “real dangers” of premarital sex can be prevented with decent sex education and free condoms and honest talks with kids.</p>

<p>

@WHO

Combined oral contraceptives
As stated in IARC’s review, the use of
COCs modifies slightly the risk of cancer,
increasing it in some sites (cervix, breast,
liver), decreasing it in others (endometrium,
ovary). Some of these data refer to older
higher-dose COC preparations. Assessments
based on risk-benefit calculations are
carried out by different teams within WHO.
Several WHO committees work on creating
evidence-based family planning guidelines
and on keeping them up-to-date on a
continuous basis. They regularly review
the safety of COCs and assess the balance
of risks and benefits of COC use and they
have determined that for most healthy
women, the health benefits clearly exceed
the health risks.

</p>

[MS4211]

<p>Concerning the carcinogenic properties of oral contraceptives, alcoholic drinks are also classified as Group 1 carcinogens. Should we not allow the distribution of alcohol, which are definitely more harmful than contraceptives are since they endanger both the user and potentially those around them, say, victims of drunk driving? What we have to do is conduct an risk-benefit analysis of any drug, which will have both benefits and drawbacks, and ascertain whether or not the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. From my perspective, oral contraceptives benefit multiple parties: the user, who does not want to be a mother or have an abortion, her partner, who does not want to be a father, as well as the potential child, who would be born in an unplanned pregnancy unwanted and maybe unloved. (Of course, I’m doing worst-case scenario situations. The worst-case drawback of oral contraceptives, however, would be that the user has an increased risk of cancer. That’s a moral dilemma I’ll leave open to discussion.</p>

<p>Now, let’s talk about the genderless fish. Raw or partially treated sewage already contains a whole cocktail of dangerous chemicals and waste products, without even talking about oc’s. Think: toilet cleaner, laundry detergent, soaps, not to mention the bacteria living in our intestines. If I poured these into a river, any biological organism would be harmed and deformities would occur, even without the waste products of oral contraceptives. So there’s a confounding factor in place in place, and to say that the sole cause of this problem is caused by oral contraceptives is unfounded, it’s correlation, not causation. The real problem here lies in that we’re releasing improperly treated sewage into rivers. </p>

<p>Lastly, marriage is a social construct. “Premarital” sex is not dangerous, uneducated sex is. Sex can be dangerous when a married couple is uneducated about it, and sex can be dangerous when an unmarried couple is uneducated about it.</p>

[alwaysleah]

<p>

Again, off-topic, but oral contraceptives are classified as Group 1 carcinogens by the World Health Organization (WHO). You know what else is a Group 1 carcinogen? Asbestos and radon. So even outside of my moral objections, I have simple safety objections to them. They’re dangerous.

</p>

<p>This is part of what is discussed in sex ed. Only in sex ed, both the good and bad of different kinds of contraception are discussed. I wouldn’t personally recommend the distribution of the pill without a private consultation at a clinic/doctor’s office (and girls need to be educated that these sorts of services exist and are confidential. Many don’t know). </p>

<p>

Studies have been conducted where fish in a river that was very much polluted by sewer water were severely deformed, and approximately 42% of the fish didn’t have identifiable genders. Further studies showed that women’s urine was full of the waste of oral contraceptives. They are unnatural “drugs” and are dangerous.

</p>

<p>Cite your source. I’d also be curious to know if the waste from oral contraceptives actually caused this, because 1) sewage has contaminated rivers for centuries, and oral contraception hasn’t been around that long and 2) nothing you just said proved that it was the fault of the contraceptives. </p>

<p>Further, drugs by their very definition are unnatural. Should we stop providing people with medication and go back to the times when life expectancy was around 40? </p>

<p>

So, alwaysleah, to say that “teens are going to have sex” and leave it at that is a bit too forward. Teenage sex itself is a bit of a social construct; blaming it all on biology is ridiculous. I’ve felt more urges to lose my virginity because of the fact that many of my friends have; not because my body has this irresistible urge to do so. I think if kids were better educated on the real dangers of premarital sex, less would partake in it.

</p>

<p>Biology has proven time and time again that teenage sex is biological. If you choose not to believe what is proven, that is fine. It only becomes a problem with legislative bodies refuse to believe the facts. </p>

<p>What are the dangers of premarital sex? The usual ones? Pregnancy, STDs, etc? Because condoms, when used correctly, are 99.9% effective. I would much rather educate the population than rely on abstinence only sex ed, ** which has been proven ineffective. **</p>