Omg...so you mean when you give people freedom, they sometimes make stupid decisions and act irresponsibly? NO WAY!

Seriously though, that's what it means to have rights and freedom...you're free to make mistakes. What I want to know is why it's only a big deal when GIRLS do it...

For realz. I'm really impressed that they've managed to blame irresponsible substance use on equality instead of, say, the real causes - bad self image, peer pressure, lack of opportunity, etc. Nice one, guys.

"What I want to know is why it's only a big deal when GIRLS do it..."

My thoughts exactly. The whole article is comparing stats of boys to girls. Well what about all those boys? Boys getting arrested for wild behavior is so "normal." While girls, well, they should just get home and learn some sewing or something.

And another thing- if girls and young women are in such crisis, why are they still out-performing males in every subject and outnumber them on college campuses? I am so sick of the "girls have gone wild" line.

"that "freedom" extends to partying at clubs, drinking and smoking."

Why is it a bad thing in America to party at clubs and what teenagers are doing it? Are there many all-ages clubs? It's not just this article but various criticisms of women movie stars who go to clubs.

"parents need to rethink the messages they're sending their daughters and teach them how to better manage their stresses."

I think a better question that should be asked for ALL people is WHY is everyone stressed and can anything be done to reduce those stresses? I hate how people are expected to handle more and more stress.

Are these teens lying to their parents about where they are every weekend? I wonder how their relationships are with their parents.

Next thing you know they'll be saying that equality is leading women to die eventually, just like some men do!

Hurray for quoting two unrelated statistics and deciding that one causes the other. Its like reports show that more people are choosing chicken over turkey and teen pregnancy rates are on the decline. Therefor chicken MUST lead to teen pregnancy!

It's all part of that infuriating paradox where girls are told they are not to think or act like they are equal or better than boys, because the boys won't like that, yet at the same time get held up to ridiculously high standards not remotely expected from the boys.
That said, I wanted to cry and throw something at the TV when I saw a young woman say very seriously that she wanted to join the Pussycat Dolls because they are so "empowering" to women. Yeah, I watched part of that reality show. Just once. Ick.

I think the question about stress/expectations is a good one. Courtney Martin talks a lot about that in her book. (which I love!)

But I also think it is way too easy to put "blame" for "bad girl behavior" on parents- I was a high-achieving honor student in high school & college and still found plenty of time to party. My parents had little to do with those decisions. Screwing up, doing humiliating things (which now get posted on your myspace page) is sort of a rite of passage, no? It's sort of like expecting girls to grow into smart, independent thinking women without going through the necessary (but ugly) steps.

I'm gonna roll up a fat doob, light it, and do some advanced calculus while I blaze. Then, I'm going to blow my smoke in these asshats' faces.

"parents need to rethink the messages they're sending their daughters and teach them how to better manage their stresses."
Hmmm...seems that lots of parents have trouble "managing THEIR stresses." What with a shitty economy driving lots of people crazy with work and the STRESS of trying to live some kind of life and raise their kids during the Bush years. And aren't the biggest substance abusers middle age men? Somehow its always youth outta control... and particularly girls that are the focus of the media spotlight. Yeah nice logic: equality leads to drink and drugs. I'm surprised they haven't blamed feminists for global warming. Come on MSM lets get with it!

Also, meant to comment I don't like the statement in the article about "options" leading to stress. Perhaps high expectations?

I am reluctant to blame parents and don't do so after high school but if a teen is partying and drinking every weekend I've gotta wonder what their parents know/think. Of course there is peer influence. None of my friends drank in high school so I wasn't attracted to it.

I didn't read it to say equality has a dark side. I read it to say: of course this is what happens. Why would you expect girls and boys to behave differently? Neither gender has an innate monopoly on vice or virtue. Girls are experiencing opportunities they did not experience 50 years ago, and guess what? They're proving that they are not some species from outer space -- they are behaving the same as people who've already been experiencing those opportunities, the guys.

I see the article as supporting the notion that when it comes to the important things aside from reproduction, males and females are inherently much more alike than most people want to acknowledge. Now THAT is empowering.

I am not "blaming" feminism, but I agree with you Tim. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the feminists who are trying to point out to me that men and women aren't supposed to be so different, given a blank slate. As posters point out above, with better opportunities, and better performance, there must undoubtedly be higher expectations (beyond finding a man), more stress, and some poor choices in handling it.

Challenging traditional gender roles in addition to factors such as peer pressure and poor self esteem, may lead to behavior not traditionally accepted for women in the public eye. So some women behave like frat boys or men on Spring Break* and also like casual sex, drinking, drug use, and other youthful behavior. I'm not the one calling them slutty or blaming "feminism."

*I am aware of the staged situations, use of minors, and criminal allegations made against the makers of "Girls Gone Wild." There are also such women in real life.

As a nurse interested in public health issues, one reason I would try to manage actual high risk behavior among some women (as seen in men) like e.g. binge drinking in young women, is because the tradition of drunkenness (as opposed to simple addiction) in women has not yet been so firmly established. Men for centuries may have considered it "manly" to drink and handle their liquor, and have incentive to drink, and drink more. That is a problem that needs to be managed on its own. I do not believe the same motivation holds true for women*. Yes, it may be self-esteem and peer pressure (or simple addiction), same as for some men. Government programs and public outcry may be motivated by sexism, wanting to shame sluts and keep women in their place, but that is not my motivation. Culturally appropriate nursing interventions means adapting approaches to different kinds of people. Men and women have been cultured differently.

* Cigarette ads for women also come to mind. "You've come a long way, baby" and don't need to sneak smokes like wives in 1901, is no reason to start smoking or switch to their brand.

i have to echo Tim here. I dont see it as blaming it on equality, just recognizing that people are people, regardless of gender, and if they, especially as teens, have access to booze and drugs they will partake. seems to me theyre, in a way, saying young people with equal entitlement turn out pretty much the same.

of course if you look at high school performance, college attendance, imprisonment rate, drug use rate, suicide rate and so on, perhaps theyre not so equal.

So that's why I've been a crack-whore since pre-school? snark. Personally I find raunch culture unsafe and mildly repulsive (no matter who happens to be partaking). But my personal feelings on it are irrelevant.
It does make sense that equality/equal access would cause young women to partake. After all it is held up as the ultimate standard in college-aged individuals. Therefore, it is the wider society, not feminism, that is to blame. Men have been killing, literally, themselves to hold themselves up to these standards for centuries.
I guess I would see it as similar to the draft. It is a bad thing all around. If there is another draft women might be included. Sure we can 'blame' feminism, but is that really the issue?

Thank you for covering this article today! I scoffed at it this morning and wondered whether ya'll would be examining it. Awesome.

I didn't read it to say equality has a dark side.

Really? When it said, "the message of equality might have a downside" you didn't think that was what it meant? Interesting.

Of course what they are actually talking about is that increased freedom of choice means that people will have the power to make bad decisions. But what it said was that equality isn't always a good thing. That's a faulty conclusion and I'm glad problematic statements like this don't stand unchallenged.

"But what it said was that equality isn't always a good thing. That's a faulty conclusion"

It would be faulty, if it were used as justification to *deny* equality to the oppressed. Equality will also allow or encourage women to become police officers, taxi drivers and frontline soldiers, etc., in higher numbers, and suffer more work related deaths. That's a downside to equality. Experiencing the health risks, health conditions, and dying like a "man" traditionally would. It would be patronizing to deny women these career choices, to keep them "safe." So when will I see women attempting to be 50% of soldiers, firefighters, police officers, heavy machine operators, oil rig workers, and coal miners?

Same thing if viable male contraceptive methods were released on the market. Many men would experience side effects or deal with foreign objects placed into them, as well as failures. That's a down side to having equal options for contraceptives. What's wrong in actual practice, is deciding that is why developing men's contraceptives not is worth it, or men making knee jerk refusals, leaving the responsibility and risk to women.

"Equality will also allow or encourage women to become police officers, taxi drivers and frontline soldiers, etc., in higher numbers, and suffer more work related deaths. That's a downside to equality. Experiencing the health risks, health conditions, and dying like a "man" traditionally would. "

I really don't see that as a downside. I think wome are smart enough, that like men, they will way financial benefits and personal preferences against the danger of a prospective job, when choosing what they want to do. I know women who very much want to be police officers, and women who want to be soldiers. It's not my thing, but I think it's right they have the choice.

Not to mention, there are certain situations (sexual violence crimes, peace-keeping missions, etc.) in which it helps to have a gender balance...

"Equality will also allow or encourage women to become police officers, taxi drivers and frontline soldiers, etc., in higher numbers, and suffer more work related deaths. That's a downside to equality. Experiencing the health risks, health conditions, and dying like a "man" traditionally would. "

I really don't see that as a downside. I think women are smart enough, that like men, they will weigh financial benefits and personal preferences against the danger of a prospective job, when choosing what they want to do. I know women who very much want to be police officers, and women who want to be soldiers. It's not my thing, but I think it's right they have the choice.

Not to mention, there are certain situations (sexual violence crimes, peace-keeping missions, etc.) in which it helps to have a gender balance...

A male,

/Why/ does casual sex keep getting lumped in with drinking and drugs? Maybe you can answer me, since you're one of the people who keeps doing it. Drinking and drugs is inherently unhealthy; sex, on the other hand, is not.

didn't you know, when you give girls the knowledge to outperform boys in the academic world, they will then see it fit to try to outdo boys in... taking drugs? i cant see the jump from "i can do better in you in math" to "i wantz 2do mor drugz lolol"

maybe its the freedom thing... but when you're teaching girls to be smart and free and all that... it cant just end there... they have to be taught what to do with their potential. theres nothing inherent in girls that makes them want to do lots of drugs. the same goes for boys as well, only theyve been socialized that way for so long that not many people notice/ care anymore

"/Why/ does casual sex keep getting lumped in with drinking and drugs?"

Because it's a health risk behavior.

"Drinking and drugs is inherently unhealthy; sex, on the other hand, is not."

None of them are inherently un-healthy. They are risky.

You forgot to mention smoking. Smoking is also risky. I'll call it unhealthy when something happens. It just so happens the local oncologists claimed smoking caused the pancreatic cancer that killed both my father, and his mother 364 days later, despite them both quitting decades before. Millions of other Americans will suffer no significant related health problems, and live an average life span or beyond.

Yes, drinking and drugs /are/ inherently unhealthy. Everytime you ingest alcohol or drugs, you are killing brain cells and damaging your liver or lungs or other organs. A small amount of damage might not affect most people's functioning, but the damage is happening nonetheless.

Sex in and of itself is actually /good/ for the body. Protected sex, of course...

"Yes, drinking and drugs /are/ inherently unhealthy. Everytime you ingest alcohol or drugs, you are killing brain cells and damaging your liver or lungs or other organs. A small amount of damage might not affect most people's functioning, but the damage is happening nonetheless."

Breathing damages your body, through use of oxygen. What do you plan to do about it?

What do you call it when a one time encounter can give a woman HPV to cause her cervical cancer, pregnancy, or man or woman STDs/STIs such as AIDS, despite all reasonable precautions? Is that not unhealthy?

A male,

Breathing is /also/ required for life. Drinking and drugs is not.

HPV or Aids? Sure, that's unhealthy. And it won't happen if the sex is protected, as I suggested it should be.

Furthermore (and slightly off topic), HPV doesn't always cause cancer. And other viruses, such as those that cause common colds, can contribute to cancer in much the same way. Did you know that?

Wow, that was a weird jump in logic.

And yes, sex does carry health /risks/, such as if you're in the unlucky minority that has a condom break. But, I just don't think it should be categorized with drinking and drugs.

"Wow, that was a weird jump in logic."

What?

The virus and cancer thing? There are a lot of different viruses that can contribute to cancer, and they're not all sexually transmitted... It's just that there's only a handful for which we've found the mechanisms. I know it was off-topic, I just think it's interesting.

"Wow, that was a weird jump in logic."

What?

The virus and cancer thing? There are a lot of different viruses that can contribute to cancer, and they're not all sexually transmitted... It's just that there's only a handful for which we've found the mechanisms. I know it was off-topic, I just think it's interesting.

Can't we all agree that there are many factors influencing drug and alcohol use (and don't forget violence)! What I think is being misunderstood by the author is that - quite frankly, women have always consumed alcohol and drugs, but it was 1) stratified by class as far as what, where and how they used, and 2) very much concealed and absolutely covered up by the middle and upper classes.

For example, in Victorian times you would see women abusing laudanum rather than visiting an opium den. And you had a whole bunch of those June Cleavers who started drinking pretty early in the day.

I think that the only differences are that girls and women in the past 10 or 15 years are much more open and public about their use, and there is more aggression. As women stop being so damn repressed and stop being socialized to be meek and mild, yeah, you'll get more violence by women, and it's caused by the same stresses as violence by men. Again, it's more publicly displayed.

But let's make it clear that that these negative conditions existed among women, always. They were just concealed, and expressed in different, less public ways. The problem is, that we're comparing NOW with a romanticized past that never really existed. We're comparing women now to an ideal that only ever lived on television sitcoms from the 50s and 60s. Gidget was a TV character, not a real girl - get it right, sheesh!

"HPV or Aids? Sure, that's unhealthy. And it won't happen if the sex is protected, as I suggested it should be."

The health effects won't appear if tobacco, alcohol or drug use are one time or infrequent, either. One time probably won't kill like sex with AIDS.

I thought it was feminists who told me condoms break, if they are used at all. Most women and men alike do not use condoms, which is why it is a health risk. No unplanned pregnancy, no STD/STIs, no sexual assault, no exploitation, no broken hearts, and we'd all be fine, even if everyone were having casual sex. I wouldn't mind casual sex either.

And casual sex is no more necessary than smoking, drinking or using drugs. They are choices. What is with your casual sex crusade, anyway? Why don't you accept it as a health risk? Do I promote abstinence only or wait till the wedding, and monogamy? Certainly not. But AIDS and other STDs/STIs would be almost completely eliminated, rather than going around for as long as centuries or millenia, jumping borders and oceans.

"Furthermore (and slightly off topic), HPV doesn't always cause cancer. And other viruses, such as those that cause common colds, can contribute to cancer in much the same way. Did you know that?"

Yes. Smoking, drinking, and drug use don't always cause negative health effects, either. There are many known health risks. Is there a need to educate people not to drink untreated water to avoid cancer and other effects, the way they need to be educated to prevent STDs/STIs and unplanned pregnancy?

Condoms don't protect against HPV or Genital Herpes, and it's a fact that multiple sex partners increases a woman's risk of cervical cancer.

Tim and A male:

I have to disagree with you both. (Tim, I'm picking on you because you were the first one to describe the opinion that the article was not about 'equality having a dark side' and A male, I just absolutely disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread!). I first of all find it interesting that the interpretation of this article seems to be split down gender lines- the men find it simply stating the facts whereas the women find it as fear-mongering about equality of the sexes.

The language of the article makes it quite clear that there is fear-mongering going on. The title of the article, "Girlhood Gone Wild" automatically brings an association of women's rights to a sexual, deviant, drunken, public display. I think everyone would agree that the 'Girls Gone Wild' tapes aren't a realistic representation of college women, and that they highlight women in unfortunate situations due to alcohol, coercion, peer pressure, and/or a misunderstood sexuality. By attaching the freedoms that girls are now experiencing due to the feminist movement to the filth of Girls Gone Wild, the author already sets up the standard that the girls' behavior in the article is not acceptable, even though it may be acceptable for young men.

Additionally, the author points out statistics about drug use and car accidents under the heading of "Worrisome findings". Had she merely been reporting that it made sense that girls given more freedom will make decisions like boys, then the statistics wouldn't be 'worrisome' they would simply be statistics.

"But the real challenge of reaching the teen-girl demographic might be convincing girls that their behavior could have consequences — if not now, down the line." This line from the article seemed to mimic so much pro-life arguments about abortion- that women are not informed enough to make the decisions and need to have their doctors spell out what an abortion is before they have the procedure. This sentence assumes that young women don't know the consequences of their behavior- be it drinking, drug use, or unprotected sex. Instead of blaming young girls and women for 'Going Wild' we should be focused on what is driving these young women to make those choices. The author uses Britney Spears as the example to sum up today's young women- I think that pretty clearly puts young women in a box as being used to sell sexuality to entertain and turn a profit, without independent thoughts or beliefs of their own. No wonder these girls want to drink if they had to spend an hour talking to the author of this article.

Also, if the back and forth on this thread about STDs, AIDS (which, PS, you can't catch AIDS, you catch HIV), HPV, condom use, pregnancy, et al isn't a blaring alarm for complete sex education in this country, then I don't know what it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go drink excessively and do a lot of drugs in order to overcome the frustration from this thread.

"I thought it was feminists who told me condoms break, if they are used at all. Most women and men alike do not use condoms, which is why it is a health risk."

Yeah, but most people /should/ use condoms. Just like most people /should/ get tested regularly. And if condoms are used correctly, they have a very low failure rate... And if they /do/ break, we have EC, and if your partner does not has STIs (which you would know thanks to testing) you're mostly okay.

Ava,

I thought the /only/ reason that having multiple partners increases the risk of cervical cancer, was b/c it increases the chances that a partner will have some sort of STI like HPV. I don't think having multiple partners in and of itself is what does it.

What's with my crusade on casual sex? Probably just b/c of the false stereotypes that exist in society, and have shown up occassionally among posters on this website, that casual sex is somehow partially responsible for more sexual assault, loss of romance, and/or that it is bad for females in the same way that drugs and alcohol are. I reject that idea, pretty strongly.

Ava:

Condom use can too help prevent against HPV(http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/cervicalcancer/a/hpvcervcancercn_2.htm)

Where were you told that it didn't?

"Condoms don't protect against HPV or Genital Herpes, and it's a fact that multiple sex partners increases a woman's risk of cervical cancer."

Thank you. Comments, Ninapendamaishi?

"A male, I just absolutely disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread!)."

Which is what? That women are challenging traditional gender roles, and coupled with such factors as peer pressure and low self esteem, are making sometimes unwise choices, or may engage in *public* behaviors not traditionally accepted in women (not that it was never done before)? What is wrong with saying that? It seems to be a retelling or amalgamation of what previous posters have already stated. I have made quite clear that I am not slut shaming*, nor favoring women to be put or kept down. I am also quite aware that "Girls Gone Wild" is staged, I've searched and read the numerous allegations including criminal, against the makers myself, but know that there are indeed some people like that. And no, I do not consider it any more desirable for men to act like frat boys, either, at least not in public.

*Perhaps readers will recall my occasional speculation that both my children will be sexually active around the age of 14, and I would allow them and their hopefully similarly aged partners in my house, partly in the interest of safety for all parties.

And I have always said I am in favor of real, comprehensive sex education, not what is currently promoted.

Health care professionals go to sources like the CDC, Ninapendamaishi. If you'd like to claim you're better, I am sure the medical world would like to know:

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#reducerisk

Genital HPV Infection - CDC Fact Sheet

The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mutually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners.

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

[end quote]

So please tell me more why I should not consider casual sex to be a health risk?

Look how I forget, because I like talking about condoms, and you are now talking about condoms: I really did know, was reading again just this weekend, but forgot, that HPV is not even limited to transmission by intercourse or genitals:

"Researchers already know that condoms don't always protect against the virus because warts can grow on areas of the genitals not covered by a latex barrier. A study in Great Britain, for example, found evidence that HPV may be transmitted from one's hands to a partner's genitals. Consequently, some lawmakers are pushing for better labeling of condoms so the public knows that no barrier contraceptive method can completely safeguard against the virus."

http://www.healthywomen.org/healthtopics/humanpapillomavirus/q/L2/44/L1/3/

Don't forget oral transmission and oral HPV linked cancer.

So even refraining from actual insertion of the penis, will not keep either party safe, if it is on the hands or in the mouth.

Tell me, Ninapendamaishi, how thorough do you expect examinations or background checks of people's prospective partners be before engaging in casual sex? Are strangers really that trustworthy?

"Yeah, but most people /should/ use condoms. Just like most people /should/ get tested regularly. And if condoms are used correctly, they have a very low failure rate... And if they /do/ break, we have EC, and if your partner does not has STIs (which you would know thanks to testing) you're mostly okay."

"If" "should" (but most naturally don't) "mostly okay" - sounds like you don't know, and a risk to me. And you are talking about people whom you trust or have been tested regularly enough to prove they are not a carrier or infected right now. You are the biology major - how often would that need to be, and what and how many conditions should they screen for? Really? You "know" your casual sex partner, or some actually nice guy at the club, a trusted friend of a friend, does not have STD/STIs tonight? It's been shown women, due to their internal structure, again, not because they should be ashamed, are less likely than men to know they have something. Your health care provider tests every mucous membrane including the mouth, the surface of the skin, and hands, to detect all known conditions and prevent transmission of such as HPV, which is not limited to "area covered by a condom"? Interesting. We could use those tests in my community.

"This sentence assumes that young women don't know the consequences of their behavior- be it drinking, drug use, or unprotected sex."

Do young women and men know? Cites, please.

For the next act, I may get to see people bash a university professor and MD, for being an OB/GYN, establishment, possibly anti-woman, woman. I wonder how she will be claimed to be biased. Let's listen:

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002769.html

STD Prevention, Part 1: Get to Know Your Partner

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) affect men and women of all backgrounds and economic levels. However, STDs disproportionately affect women, infants of infected mothers, people of color, and adolescents and young adults. Although 15-to-24-year-olds represent only one-quarter of the sexually active population, they account for nearly half of all new STDs each year.

Some contributing factors in the rise of STDs, particularly among young people, are that teenagers are increasingly likely to have more sex partners at earlier ages, and that sexually active teenagers often are reluctant to obtain STD services or they face serious obstacles when trying to obtain them.

Tyshunda Manning, MD, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, practices at the Lincoln Avenue Clinic and the Lisbon Avenue Health Center. Dr. Manning says that today's shorter courtships encourage the transmission of STDs, because partners don't know each other very well. "It used to be that a man courted a woman, got to know her family, and took her out several times" before the relationship became physical, she notes. "Now we have 'hook-ups' where sexual partners hardly know each other."

Women between the ages of 20 and 30 with multiple partners are most at risk for contracting a sexually transmitted disease, says Dr. Manning. Most of the young women who come to see Dr. Manning are diagnosed with one of three common STDs: genital herpes, genital warts (HPV), or chlamydia.

[end quote]

And people still don't know why I am interested in public health, or women and children's health issues, only considering it sexist. I'll need to cry to the bank.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002769.html

Effects are Lasting
Having an STD, even one that's treatable, often affects more than just a patient's physical health. Many of Dr. Manning's patients have been misled by a partner. "They trust that people are who they say they are, and when they find out that their partner has been lying about an STD, or about how many partners they've had, it can be devastating."

Having an STD can also lead to low self-esteem. "People who have heart disease or diabetes can talk about their conditions, but someone with an STD often feels very uncomfortable talking about it." This contributes to the spread of STDs, because people don't want to talk about it to a new partner. This is especially true in the case of genital herpes. "It's a lifelong condition," says Dr. Manning. "And even though about 20% of people in the US have it, it's still stigmatized."

"Some patients become more cautious about prevention after contracting an STD," says Dr. Manning. But unfortunately, about 5% of her patients have come to her with an STD before. Typically in these cases, a young woman who has been treated for an STD will come back several months later for treatment of a different STD.

"Many of these patients - young women especially - don't realize that they have the power to say 'no' to a partner with an STD." Assertiveness doesn't come until the mid-20s for most people, she says, and a teenage girl usually doesn't know how to say 'no'."

Of course, prevention of STDs is preferred over treatment. "Do your homework on your sexual partners; get to know their background, their experience, their character," says Dr. Manning. Although condoms are not 100% effective in preventing STDs, she says, "Even when you know your partner well enough to feel you can trust him or her...use condoms for each and every sexual act."

This article includes information from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health/MedlinePlus.

Translation: she's not pulling info out of her ass, like some people.

"I think a better question that should be asked for ALL people is WHY is everyone stressed and can anything be done to reduce those stresses? I hate how people are expected to handle more and more stress."

I agree. Though it is merely a symptom, I blame the rising cost of living and lack of a social safety net for those who are unable to achieve and earn what is necessary to be independent. There are more conveniences and better services available to the general public now, like health insurance, previously there was none for anyone, but they did not come free.

I can only take comfort in the fact that I live easier than my grandfather who came over from the old country, to work in the fields for 25 cents per day, back in the day a Hershey's bar cost 5 cents. Would you pick pineapples all day in the hot sun for the price of five candy bars today, for the privilege of living in a shack and being called a Jap spy?

"Experts say there is no single explanation for why more teenage girls are deciding to experiment with drugs or why some are getting into fights. However, they do note that society's expectations about girlhood have changed dramatically over the years."

I beg to differ. The single explanation is that we are still in a patriarchy. That is-- maleness is still considered "the default human state" and male is preferred over female.

For example: the biggest part of the women's movement is (and was) opening up "traditionally male" roles for females. Yet, even the strides made in reproductive rights (the one thing unique to womanhood i.e., pregnancy, choice, and access to contraception and emergency contraception,etc) are constantly under attack.

Society, for the most part, DOES NOT SEE a benefit in males taking on a "traditionally female" role. From what I gather, the popular men's groups seem not to be fighting for this either. They seem to want to maintain most aspects of the patriarchy. Yet, as long as society "allows" women to flip flop, but punishes men for it, we can't have true equality. Period. It cannot happen.

And frankly, I think sex is fair game when talking about what's wrong with the picture. Am I the only person that cringes when I hear any woman use the word "sex" in the same sentence as the word empowerment? That's like saying "eating" is empowering (we must be starving if this is true). It only makes sense in the context women having been denied a true sexual identity. I've been looking for it myself but I can't find it.

As long as there is even the slightest preference for masculinity, you will see females emulate those behaviors that are perceived to be masculine, contrived or real, good and bad.

"But, I just don't think it should be categorized with drinking and drugs."

Unless maybe one categorizes sex for trying to conceive with drinking milk, fruit juice, etc. and taking fertility drugs? ;)

"Dr. Manning says that today's shorter courtships encourage the transmission of STDs, because partners don't know each other very well. 'It used to be that a man courted a woman, got to know her family, and took her out several times' before the relationship became physical, she notes. 'Now we have 'hook-ups' where sexual partners hardly know each other.'"

She makes a good point about shorter courtships correlating with increased risk. One-night stands are one example, and I'd add that some arranged-marriage wedding nights are another example of sexual partners hardly knowing each other.

"Of course, prevention of STDs is preferred over treatment. 'Do your homework on your sexual partners; get to know their background, their experience, their character,' says Dr. Manning."

Indeed. Don't just rely on "but she's hot!!!/he's hot!!!" or "but she's a good cook!!!/he's a good provider!!!" rumors.

"Although condoms are not 100% effective in preventing STDs, she says, 'Even when you know your partner well enough to feel you can trust him or her...use condoms for each and every sexual act.'"

Right on. This could be difficult to implement for couples that want pregnancy, though...

How about we just offer the HPV vaccine to all pre-teens for free like Ontario is doing? And try to educate people that it is not only spread through sex without a condom.

Wow, A Male, there must be over two feet of typing and anecdotes by you on here. You really ought to start your own blog.

"As long as there is even the slightest preference for masculinity, you will see females emulate those behaviors that are perceived to be masculine, contrived or real, good and bad."

Or more accurately, as long as there is even the slightest tendency to save the more advantageous opportunities for men and boys, you will see ambitious people of every gender get labelled "masculine"...

"When you take off the shackles, you release all kind of energy — negative and positive," said James Garbarino, the Maude C. Clarke chair in humanistic psychology at Loyola University in Chicago. "By letting girls loose to experience America more fully, it's not surprising that they would absorb some of its toxic environment."

Jesus Christ.

"How about we just offer the HPV vaccine to all pre-teens for free like Ontario is doing?"

I'm not the slut shamer, so I have nothing against it. Even the CDC says girls as young as nine can benefit, and recommends it for females between 11 and 26. But I can tell it won't be publicly funded in the US, for girls or boys, because that would be the Administration or local lawmakers admitting any one of these "children" might become sexually active (it also should be administered before becoming sexually active). Also, current vaccines do not offer complete coverage to prevent disease or cervical cancer in women, so the same routine testing and methods to reduce risk of transmission would still be necessary.

"And try to educate people that it is not only spread through sex without a condom."

Even under ideal conditions, and perfect knowledge, sexual activity with people who have incentive to lie to you regarding their carrier or infection status, would still represent a risk factor, despite all denials. I'm recently wondering if my wife did not bring something home like HPV, myself. I have my reasons.

"She makes a good point about shorter courtships correlating with increased risk. One-night stands are one example, and I'd add that some arranged-marriage wedding nights are another example of sexual partners hardly knowing each other."

Any situation in which one partner does not "really" know the status of the other. I couldn't tell you about my own wife whom I've been with since 1995, because she goes on excursions, which I find only in retrospect, and we have HIPAA, even if she did ever get tested, so I wouldn't know. Neither would she be motivated to reveal the results of any test, because that could be telling me she got something, or her own suspicion she had something, when I had nothing.

"Of course, prevention of STDs is preferred over treatment. 'Do your homework on your sexual partners; get to know their background, their experience, their character,' says Dr. Manning."
"Indeed. Don't just rely on "but she's hot!!!/he's hot!!!" or "but she's a good cook!!!/he's a good provider!!!" rumors."

I am still interested in hearing from anyone who does have experience with casual sex, how they "know" their hookup partners or themselves are "safe" during any given encounter, so health care workers like myself would eliminate it as a risk behavior. Do you perform polygraphs and voice stress analysis in addition to demanding to see that day's test results and full medical records? Do you blow up condoms or fill them with water beforehand, to check for leaks? Do you double or triple up? Do you clean all areas of skin you come in contact with, with betadyne or other topical microbicides, to prevent contact transmission with skin or hands? What do you or men do to protect your mouths from transmission?

As a nurse, I am highly motivated to hear these magical ways that sex is risk free, so I could pass it on to my colleagues and patients.

"Or more accurately, as long as there is even the slightest tendency to save the more advantageous opportunities for men and boys, you will see ambitious people of every gender get labelled "masculine"..."

Well said Mina, well said.

"I am still interested in hearing from anyone who does have experience with casual sex, how they "know" their hookup partners or themselves are "safe" during any given encounter, so health care workers like myself would eliminate it as a risk behavior" -A male

Good luck on that one, A male. I get irritated because we all know that casual sex affects everybody, even those who don't make that choice-- Kinda like a second-hand smoke effect.

There is no other reservoir for most of the common sexually transmitted diseases (i.e. the disease is transmitted only from human to human, unlike say influenza which also infects birds, pigs, etc.) That means these diseases are 100% preventable, folks.

I can forgive ignorance and I can even forgive youth. But there are still plenty of people who know the risks, have the means, yet still choose to play with fire.

"Health care professionals go to sources like the CDC."

The CDC is a political tool of the Bush Admininstration, just as is the FDA.

I'm surprised that any information on condoms is still on their website as a couple of years ago, all data was removed to appease religious conservatives.

Don't depend on government agencies to give you the facts.

Hey, my ID is dee and I did not post the comment 4 posts above. I did, however, post the comment directly above and it is showing up under the ID of spike the cat. Something is fishy.

jesus. because of course, i learned math and as soon as i got home from school i shot up heroin. then had sex with a stranger. duh.

spike the cat, I think eating *is* empowering for women, along the lines of, I'm going to reject what I've been taught women should and shouldn't desire to eat and not feel bad when I eat those things.

That said, I would like to ask the world to please stop saying that sex is necessary for individual survival. Sure, it's necessary for the survival of the species as a whole, but eating, sleeping, and drinking (water) are pretty much the only pleasurable activities essential for our survival.

Yes, I am aware that the CDC, among other government agencies, are under the Bush Administration.

If they are such a political tool, perhaps you could explain how they recommend even an imperfect HPV vaccine for girls and women aged 11 to 26, or consider it effective for girls as young as nine. What Republican would put their name behind that?

If you distrust the CDC or any other "tools" of the Bush administration, in the form of government agencies that tell lies, you may as well live in Canada or western/northern Europe.

dee, I have been experiencing a number of odd experiences with the site since last weekend. Sometimes it has to do with being able to view the site at all, for hours at a time, but especially with my ability to post. If I do not copy text to clipboard for backup, my posts are very likely to get eaten when I hit the post button. I have not had the ID problems you have had, however.

"That said, I would like to ask the world to please stop saying that sex is necessary for individual survival. Sure, it's necessary for the survival of the species as a whole, but eating, sleeping, and drinking (water) are pretty much the only pleasurable activities essential for our survival."

I submit, based upon the ad populum fallacy, that pleasurable activities or happiness are not required for the continued existence of humankind at all. We can talk about rights and happiness because we are mostly educated westerners in industrialized nations, where even the poor, if not the homeless, can have a life most humans in history or living now, will never have. Despite our own challenges, we are entitled and privileged like few others.

One of the most memorable words of wisdom from my mother, a woman who overcame many barriers in pre-US Hawaii, with a father born in Japan in 1899, worked three jobs to put herself and her two sisters through school, gave up her dream of being an engineer simply because she was a woman (she was outperforming men in the department), but got a master's degree and became a national award winning teacher, working full time and summers with two children, always outearning her husband; was:

"When I was young, we didn't have the right to be happy."

She is not referring to her lot as an oppressed woman or Japanese-American after WWII, she meant the mindset of our community in general. She was quite disgusted with my optimism after graduation after university, that I could sit around in her house (waking up in the afternoon, watching TV for about 14 months) and wait for a job offer which I liked, which would pay enough to satisfy me (min. $18,000 in 1992, I need at least $40,000 now just to pay bills, not save anything). Prior to my generation, no one in my family would ever be permitted to be idle, or to pursue a dream career.

Correction: my mother did not say, when she was young, though that is what she meant. She simply said:

"We didn't have the right to be happy."

*Sigh*

ONCE AGAIN, I didn't say sex was risk-free. I said that it is not inherently bad for you, in the same way that drinking and drugs are (b/c no matter how little drinking and drugs you do, you are still somewhat damaging your body. On the other hand, w/ sex, you definitley do /not/ damage your body the majority of times you have sex) It's also like, a minority of people who carry STIs. So it's a risk, but it's not like STIs and sex are one and the same.

Another mistake I think you guys are making, is that "casual sex" is not the same thing as "stranger sex". Sure, sometimes casual sex is with a stranger, but just as often it's with someone who lives on the same campus you do who you'll be bumping into on a regular basis. There could be pretty serious social repurcussions for passing on an STI to someone who lives on your campus.

And condoms don't prevent against HPV completely -but they sure do help, which is what I said. There are things you can do to significantly reduce your risk of contracting STIs -condoms, dental dams, gloves, etc.

Also, when have teenagers /ever/ gotten tested regularly? So STI risks exist for teenagers, whether they do monogamy or "hooking up" -"hooking up" is hardly to blame there... Not to mentiont he fact that HPV can be passed through kissing -can't really blame that on the casual sex/hooking up culture. Same thing with saying "not everyone uses condoms" -well, /those/ people face the same risks with monogamous relationships.

With the exception of HPV and Herpes, latex barriers work very well against virtually everything else.

So once again, risks exist with sex. I didn't deny that. If you are smart and use latex barriers, HPV and Herpes still exist as risks -however, most people don't have them, and plenty of people who do contract them do so in the context of monogamous relationships. Luckily, they are not life-threatening diseases. EVERY TIME you ingest alcohol or drugs, on the other hand, you are killing cells. If you do it too much, you can kill yourself.

So I just don't think casual sex needs to be categorized with drinking and drugs. I think the only reason people tend to so, is b/c our more conservative culture finds it morally bothersome...

"We can talk about rights and happiness because we are mostly educated westerners in industrialized nations, where even the poor, if not the homeless, can have a life most humans in history or living now, will never have. "

I don't think this is true. Sure, we /are/ priviliged westerners, richer than most other people. And there have been plenty of societies that frowned on looking for romance and pleasurable sex. Just the same, there have been many other societies that /did/ find romance and pleasurable sex acceptable. It's hardly just an industrialized western phenomenon. (I mean, plenty of Native American cultures allowed young people to engage in extra-marital sex and to choose their own spouses. East African cultures allowed adolescents to engage in "sex play"). It's not like recreational sex just dates back to the 1960s, ya know.

"I don't think this is true."

Prove to me that most humans now or in history live equal to better than we do, or have better opportunities.

Also, the whole "condoms with holes in them" thing is pretty unfounded. At least if you're getting decent quality condoms, store them in correct temperatures, use them before the expiration date, and use them correctly, condoms won't break in the vast majority of times they're used. (Doubling or tripling them as you suggested though, A male, increases the chance of breakage)

"There could be pretty serious social repurcussions for passing on an STI to someone who lives on your campus."

Therefore it must not happen and should not be considered, same as unplanned pregnancy. You have EC and legalized abortion. Same with how people within a limited community would be inclined not to exploit or rape each other. I am so glad to be wrong about health risks.

Please inform the CDC of your superior wisdom, all those MDs and PhDs, ms. biology major, because those tools of the Bush administration need some educating.

"Prove to me that most humans now or in history live equal to better than we do, or have better opportunities."

That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your comment that implied that /the only reason/ we can worry about happiness and pleasure is b/c we're priviliged westerners...

"That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your comment that implied that /the only reason/ we can worry about happiness and pleasure is b/c we're priviliged westerners..."

Then your reading is wrong. Let's stop.

A male,

/Where/, I repeat /where/ do I say it can't happen? It's like you are not even reading my words...

I am saying casual sex is not the same thing as drinking and drugs, not that sex is risk-free... I mean, driving in a car is pretty risky -but I also wouldn't classify driving in a car with drinking and drugs (the latter two are inherently bad for you, the former one isn't). If you're not getting my point, I feel like you must be doing so deliberately...

"HPV and Herpes still exist as risks -however, most people don't have them"

It's too late to look up stats now but various times I've heard percentages of the people who have them are a lot higher than I'd have guessed.

What about studies that say a drink or two could be good for the heart?

But yeah, I will agree that the sex is not damaging every time. Of course you will get people who argue smoking pot every now and then or drinking a glass or two of alcohol a day is not going to damage them either.

"That said, I would like to ask the world to please stop saying that sex is necessary for individual survival. Sure, it's necessary for the survival of the species as a whole, but eating, sleeping, and drinking (water) are pretty much the only pleasurable activities essential for our survival."

Indeed. You know how someone who's starving because she can't get any food legally can justify stealing food? If sex was as necessary as food, then someone who's celibate because he can't get any consenting partners could justify rape just as easily.

"I am saying casual sex is not the same thing as drinking and drugs, not that sex is risk-free..."

Right on. Not all risks are identical or even similarly risky, after all.

"If you're not getting my point, I feel like you must be doing so deliberately... "

It is you who do not get it. If women drove as "riskily" as men, I would include it on a list of health risks.

I'm NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

"picking on" sex, because it is sex, or because we are talking about young women having sex. Jesus.

"I will agree that the sex is not damaging every time."

I ask anyone to point out who claimed it was, to set her off.

"With the exception of HPV and Herpes, latex barriers work very well against virtually everything else."

What? Now just because there are some posted links to some websites, claimed to be tools of the Bush administration, you drop your "who said condoms aren't effective against HPV" front?

This is exactly why I tell readers to think, get their own information from reliable sources, and not just believe and repeat what people feed you.

"who said condoms aren't effective against HPV"

Actually, A male, my exact quote was "Condom use can too help prevent against HPV" Which, in fact, they /can/. They can significantly /reduce the risk/ of contracting it. Comments?

Here A male, as long as condescending tones are the game of the day, this is a very comprehensive sex ed site for teens and maybe it would help you to und