Girls less likely to use protection = Boy still to blame

Yeah, I get that teenage girls who are already sexually active may already be on the pill, or because they have some level of experience, may insist on contraception. My gut feeling is that when I was a teenager, both me and my friends when we had sex for the first time it was the girl's first time as well. So I was thinking that a "first time for both" was a fairly common scenario. Since by definition, you can't have more than one first time, I suspected that the rates for both would be very similar.

That's why I wish we had access to the full article and not the snippet posted. (In defense of mordea, he did attempt to link the full article, but for some reason, the link didn't work.) I'd like to see what the actual difference was. For example (and I'm pulling these numbers directly out of my arse), lets say boys went without protection 39% of the time, and girls went without protection 42% of the time they first had sex. To me, that's not a particularly significant difference - at least it doesn't seem so statistically. On the other hand, if the ratio was 39% for boys and say, 62% for girls, that's obviously a huge difference.

 

The article did work when originally posted it didnt contain any information other than "adolescent girls were 30 percent more likely than boys to have sex without contraception during their first sexual encounter."

which I why I made this comment in my first post of this thread:

"To me, this 'study' seems dubious at best. firstly, it has been carried out by a student, secondly it is based solely on analysing government data, there is no primary research it is all based on secondary evidence."

 

Here's a link from CNN Health that appears to be the same thing:

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/08/study-girls-take-more-chances-during-first-sex/

Where's the part about how first-time girls just want to get pounded by hot turgid beefsteak?

Interesting note:

So we may have been fighting about all this over nothing.

 

A doctoral thesis is an important document. Nothing to be sneezed at but if it wasn't properly reviewed I would certainly question the content.

 

Thanks for the link. 30% does sound like a lot, but I'm thinking 30% more likely means 30% comparing the percentages - like a percent of a percent. That link doesn't show the hard numbers either, but I think 30% does NOT represent, for example that 20% of boys don't use protection and 50% of girls don't. It's more like 20% of boys and 26% of girls, as 30% of 20% is 6%. These example numbers probably aren't too far off the mark either. I still suspect the numbers of "both first time" encounters make up a decently sized chunk of the sample, and. And assuming such, whether they use protection or not, their answer to the question would be the same, amd would pull the percentages closer together. I would not, for example, expect the numbers to be 70% of boys and 91% of girls.

I'd like to "put out" a new theory. Everyone knows in high school which girls had a reputation of "putting out". I theorize these girls are the ones most likely to use protection. And they certainly aren't first-timers (at least not anymore).

Actually, with pretty much every school offering sex ed nowadays (80% of those surveyed said they had sex ed, and I'm guessing a good chunk of those that didn't may well have been the younger members of the study - as young as age 11 - and that might just mean they hadn't received sex ed yet) I would be hopeful that a lot more kids today may be practicing safe sex than those doing so 20 or 30 years ago.

 

T2, reconsidering what I've posted previously, I can see how someone could see sexism in it. I still believe it requires some reading in, some looking for it, but I can see how it could happen. Let me clarify that now. I object to those things happening no matter which partner is doing them. The shear mechanics of biology, though, mean it's almost certain that it's the woman doing it. Remember that I'm talking about relationships without any established committments to children. In that context:
1.) if two people are dating, and sleeping together, but only one wants a child:
a.) if the man wants the child, he's pretty much screwed. Short of stealing the woman's birth control pills and replacing them with an identical placebo pill, he can't do anything. It's a moot point here.
b.) if the woman wants the child, all she has to do is lie. This is so easy that I've heard women threatening (to their friends) to 'trap' their boyfriends with a child this way, repeatedly. I.e. not only is it possible, not only is it happening, it's happening with some frequency*.
2.) if we're talking a one-night stand, the mechanics are a bit different, but the effect is the same. Only the woman gets pregnant. The man may well never even know he has a child, unless the woman tells him.

In both those conditions, only the woman has the ability to trap the man. This isn't sexist, it's just biology. In the bizarre off occasion that 1.a. were to actually happen somehow, it's just as wrong as 1.b. Again, however, if either a man or a woman leaves a spouse and pre-existing child, that individual has an established responsability to the child. I hope that clears some things up for you.

If they aren't relying on the pill, other methods of contraception are gender-neutral, meaning that both partners have to agree to sex without a condom for sex without a condom to occur.

*I make no claims as to what the frequency is, only that it's high enough that I've heard it multiple times.

Actually, I think that's a rather minor sub-point to the discussion. It's also a complex and nuanced problem. My solution is simple: all abortions are immoral, no matter who wants them, unless the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. I realize not everyone agrees with it, but like I said, I don't think it's really the main issue.

I think the main issue is that one party can force the other into a relationship they didn't consent to. If you consider sex without protection to be implicit consent (a defendable position, to be certain), then only women can do this (lying about the pill).

It's not an easy choice, and I realise that. It may be the best choice, though. And forcing a man who never wanted any children in the first place, and made no committment to raising any, to do so is always a bad choice. Again, the caveat that, if the father had committed to raising a child, then the committment sticks, even if he gives up. Likewise, though it's a less common situation, you can reverse gender roles and the same logic applies.

Your interpretation of my logic is flawed. I never presented it as a 'she can do this, so he can do that' reasoning. My intent was that both parties be treated the same way with relation to the committment to the child. This means allowing both parties to 'opt out', as the only other option is to remove everyone's right to abortion/adoption altogether, which I think we can all agree would be disasterous.

Reviewing my earlier comments, I'm sorry I included abortion into them. I wasn't meaning to lump it into the discussion at all. It's an entirely seperate issue (with similar difficulties: is the man forcing the woman to have an abortion any better than the woman killing the man's only child without his even knowing?).

Again, you're wrong about my points and logic, but I see how you got to them. I could have put things much better than I did.

Honestly asking, why? Why did they have no choice? I hear two major arguements. One is BS and the other is truely sad, with a better solution (though a societal one) than abortions. The first is that they aren't ready to raise a child. This is BS because no one is asking them to. I realize it's hard to give up a child, but it may be for it's better, and is definitely better for it than killing it. The second is that they can't afford the pregnancy/birth. I know that this can carry a lot of medical expenses, but the solution is better pre-natal health insurance (and I'd actually agree to this as part of a bare-bones, mostly preventative public mandatory health care plan).

This is one issue I disagree with. While I do understand the logic, I think it relies on the downplaying of the baby. I realize many don't view them as 'human' yet, but I do (and it almost sounds like you do, Ragusa, but I'm not sure). Imagine if the child were already born, but somehow had to be with the mother at all times for 9 months. Would you advocate executing a baby (for the sins of the father, btw) to avoid 'perpetuating the rape'?

As for the point of the original article, it seems to me that in the cases of a first-time girl not using protection, the guys are thinking with their 'little heads', while the girls are thinking with their 'little egos', meaning I believe they do this to be 'cool' and 'popular'. Both parties are to blame.

 

no, these situations would require an irresponsible male, he can protect himself from her 'lie' as you put it by protecting hiself, no one can force someone into having a kid - both partners have to be unprotected

 

Shoshino, so you think the guy should be expected to use protection every single time, even if his GF of years swears to him that she's on the pill? That seems a little paranoid to me. It also seems to me like your arguement is, effectively, that the pill is completely useless, as the guy should be using protection every time anyway.

 

I guess you just couldn't help yourself.

It was their decision. They had their abortion under the rather narrow limitations allowing for them under German law, that also requires pre-abortion counselling. That is enough for me. I have no reason to question their motives, nor do I have reason to question whether they have made an informed and thoughtful decision, or decision informed and thoughtful enough for my tastes, or yours - who am I to second guess them, and for that matter, who are you to? That tone of yours is uncalled for.

As you full well know, we both would not have to carry and nurture a child for nine months. That's not just an inconvenience. It is a life altering event. It's easy and cheap for someone who'll never have to do or face that to say that women should have the child because it is 'the moral thing to do'.

For the sake of argument, a lot of conservatives in the US view the 'egg meets sperm' moment as the time of the creation of a new human being. I believe you share that view, so I suppose that you call using the morning after pill 'executing a child'. Speaking of which: 'Executing a child'? Stop using verbal imagery solely aimed at invoking an emotional response. A woman who takes the morning after pill after a rape for instance, doesn't 'execute a child' (for the sins of the father, or the lapses of her mother in other settings).

 

yes

 

While Shoshino just gave you a flat out "yes", I would say it depends. If the woman you're with is an extremely responsible, trustworthy person, you're probably OK. But you are taking a chance no matter how you look at it. Other women I've been with, I wouldn't be confident enough that they'd take the pill every day. I don't think they'd maliciously lie to me about not taking it, but just forget as an honest mistake. With them, since I wouldn't trust them even if they said they were on the pill, there's no way I'd go in there without a hardhat and a wetsuit.

 

If you're with someone you don't trust, you gotta wonder why you're boinking them in the first place. Maybe I'm a romantic.*

In addition, even young teens doing the deed for the first time should be expected to use protection, and IMHO using 2 or more forms of protection is not an unreasonable policy -- the pill for Her, and the Condom for both of them, since the Pill doesn't protect against STIs. And once the male pill that was discussed becomes available in N.A., any boy who wants to be doing the horizontal mambo should also be using it.

If they are old enough to be doing it, they are old enough to behave responsibly about it. That's not unreasonable, IMHO.

*I'm also not a hypocrite -- see the MUG if you want more on this.

 

"Executing a baby?" Oh come on. You've got us liberals all wrong. We're advocating nothing of the sort. Why don't we engage in a meaningful debate about RAARGH! TO HELL WITH THIS SUBTERFUGE! WE'VE BEEN DISCOVERED, MY BRETHREN! EXECUTE THE BABY! YES, EXECUTE IT NOW! I WILL BATHE IN ITS SWEET STEM-CELLS! OUR DARK LORD SO COMMANDS!

 

Maybe this is why I'm confused. I agree that, if you don't trust the woman if she tells you she's on the pill, why are you sleeping with her in the first place? Of course, just because you trust her, doesn't mean she's trustworthy, and this is the condition I'm hypothesising under.

Love the humor, but you have to understand that, from my perspective, this is exactly what abortion advcates are advocating. Anyway, I think that's a seperate topic.

 

No, theyre advocating a form of prevention, late prevention I agree, but lets put it this way, ever swatted a fly? ever stepped on an an ant? these creatures are more advanced then the creature which is being terminated through abortion. understanding abortion is something which anti abortion advocates dont bother to do, abortion takes place within a time period where the embryo is so inadvanced where it could possibly be dead anyway, only an invasive scan could determine if there is a heart beat, an external scan would read nothing, the embryo bares little or no characteristics of being human at this point, infact it more resmbles a crustacean then a human.

 

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. The 'understanding' point. You see, one of the most common anti-abortion arguements is that developmental level is an inappropriate means of determining the value of life. That kind of logic leads to the execution of the mentally retarded. I realize no one's proposing that extreme, but it is the same logic. Moreover, there's no singular point of development significant enough to say 'now it's human, but it wasn't before'. We realize the embryo is very undeveloped, we just don't see that as justification for execution.

The other critical problem with your arguement is that potential for development is more commonly referenced as a judgement criteria (for anything) than actual development. A mature fly is as developed as it will ever be, and it still lacks sapience or anything the average person would call a 'soul'*. The embryo, on the other hand, has barely begun development and is almost guaranteed to develop both of those.

*I realize that the whole 'soul' issue is a huge matter of debate in and of itself, that there are many who say there's no such thing, and many others who think that everything, even rocks, have them. Most people, however, would say that, if anything have souls, it is humans and not other animals.

 

It's not just liberals who are pro-choice in the instance of forced rape. Even many of the opponents of Choice don't feel that a woman should be forced into servitude and be forced to become an unwilling breeder for a sexual offender and predator. Most people, even some common sense conservatives, know where to draw the line.

 

I am puzzled, I was trying to respond to NOG's post here, and now the part I wanted to respond to is gone, and there is no editing note?

I am testing 64bit Firefox Minefield 4-something currently, and it does apparently not work well with vBulletin® Version 3.8.5. When I tried to post, my reply was gone, only the quote remained and I was told my message was too short. Could that have screwed up the post? Weird! Besides, I'm posting this on Firefox 3.6.12 again.

 

??? I don't think I edited that one, anyway. What were you trying to respond to? It may jog my memory of something.