Posted on 07/23/2015 2:01:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: From the CBS Eyewitness News San Francisco headline: "American Teens Having Less Sex According to Study." Wait just a minute. Does anybody believe that? I've always been told there's nothing we can do. I've always been told, going back to the early nineties, remember when condoms became a big deal? The AIDS scare was in full bloom, and parents were letting their teenagers have sex in spare bedrooms out on Long Island instead of backseats of the cars because it was cleaner, safer, they thought. And all the while, you know, I would express kind of shock at this.
I'd have callers, enlightened callers tell me, "Rush, you can't stop kids from having sex. There's nothing you can do. You can't stop it."
Well, then why can we stop 'em from smoking? You say you can stop them from doing this, you can stop 'em from bullying, you can stop 'em from whatever else they're doing you don't like, but why can't you -- "We can't, Rush, we just have to pray. We just have to give 'em condoms and keep our fingers crossed." But now all of a sudden "American teenagers supposedly are having less sex --" now, get this next part of the sentence. Let me just read the whole sentence to you.
"American teens are having less sex, especially boys. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed roughly 2,000 boys and girls, 15 to 19 and found the percentage of teens who reported they had sex at least once has dropped significantly since the 80s. The decline for male teens was greater than female teens."
Okay, back to the first sentence. "American teenagers are having less sex, especially boys." How does the math on that work? I mean, if we're just talking teenagers, it doesn't mean teenaged girls could be having sex with college guys. This is strictly teenagers. This does not mean having sex with winos wearing the Peter Jennings trench coat with a sack of wine on Seventh Avenue. How does this work? How does the math of this work out?
"In 2013, 44% of teenage girls surveyed said they had experienced sex, compared to 51% in 1988. For teenage boys, the drop was more dramatic. In 1988, 60% reported they’d had sex compared to only 47% in 2013." So in 2013, 44% of teenaged girls said they had sex, 47% of teenaged boys said they had sex. Wouldn't the numbers be equal. I guess not. I don't know. I don't want to get too deep in the weeds.
"Changing sexual mores could explain the overall decline, but one expert believes it is because teens are better educated about sex." Okay. "Dr. Brooke Bokor, an Adolescent Medicine Specialist at the Children’s National Health System --" Adolescent Medicine Specialist at the Children’s National Health System. Who do you think pays for those two organizations?
Anyway, Dr. Brooke Bokor "says their smartphones may provide a private, comfortable space to access information." Oh, you mean like porn? Could it become we're raising voyeurs rather than participants? "'They’re looking on the web,' Bokor told the Washington Post. 'They’re looking for guidance from parents, guardians and physicians. They can and will make positive decisions for their own health, both sexual and otherwise.'"
Well, I'm gonna take this at face value, and then offer some unique commentary available only here. So let's accept this at face value, American teenagers are having less sex according to study. Note that this is a problem to people reporting the story. Oh, no, what's wrong? (laughing) A scant 30 years ago this would have been a great news story. It would have been worth celebrating. Parents would have been happy, the churches would have been happy, a lot of people would have been running around trying to take credit for this. But here in 2015, it's a problem.
American teenagers are having less sex and all of these experts are asking themselves, what are we doing wrong? Well, what have we turned boys into, in 2015? No, I'm serious, folks. Just try to answer the question as objectively as you can, when I ask this question, just imagine, think, observe all that you know and have seen. What have we turned boys into, in 2015? What are they? Well, they are a mixture of things. And they hear it all, by the way. They are either bullies or predators or brutes or they are pajama boys. Timid metrosexuals, feminists in their own minds playing now a secondary role because they have been made to feel guilty over the transgressions that men have committed previously.
So now they are drugged up in order to keep them quiet and content and out of everybody's way. While they're drugged up, they're watching video games, some of them violent, some of them pornographic. Meanwhile, sex is everywhere. It is everywhere on TV in all forms. It is present in loving relationships; it's present in hookups; it's throw throwaway; it is rape; every imaginable form of sex is easily viewable and accessible.
When I say TV, I mean any video streaming that they want to access.
In many places, because of the political agenda attached, heterosexual sex on television is often portrayed as violent and aggressive towards women, rape or just short of it. On the other hand, gay sex is portrayed as loving, sensitive, fun, hip, natural, normal, cool, you name it. Those kind of descriptions of heterosexual sex on TV cannot be universally attached. Now, if you are a young boy who feels like an outsider, self-esteem problems, don't have a lot of self-confidence. For whatever reason you just aren't in the big clique and you know you're never gonna get in the big clique, what have you, it doesn't matter anymore.
Who needs the real thing? You can turn to your phone or your tablet and you can see whatever kind of sex you want, and then you can play all kind of pretend mind games and imagine that you're actually doing it, when you're not. Sometimes all it takes is an HBO subscription for all that. But if HBO doesn't get it done, Netflix will, and if Netflix doesn't get it done, well, try Hulu. I mean, wherever you want to go, whatever you want is there, for not very much money.
In the process we have removed all of the mystique and the magic and the wonder and mystery of sex by just pushing it at kids, constantly pushing it, making a joke of certain forms, making a joke of monogamy. I mean, look, Russell Wilson, the quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks and his girlfriend, the well-known personality Ciara, announced publicly that they are going to abstain from sex until marriage, and they are now mocked and laughed at constantly, even by people who report on them who report glowingly about how they do their jobs. Wilson is a quarterback in the NFL and Ciara, a singer.
The coverage that they get professionally is glowing. Now they're laughed at, they're made fun of, they're mocked, and furthermore, they are, when they make themselves available, they're told to explain themselves, they're told to justify themselves. Anyway, I think if you want to look at teens having less sex, I think there's a desensitization that has taken place, mystique, wonder, mystery, all that's gone. I'm not old fogying this. I'm just objectively observing what I've seen taking place culturally and mixing it with this headline. But really the big story here is that the people reporting this are upset by it. They think something is wrong with fewer teenagers having sex. That's actually the big take-away.
But in a couple years, they’ll all be wearing glasses as they do: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3315795/posts
When I was young, the way to have sex was to GET MARRIED. I knew I wanted sex, so I got married at age 20. 48 years and three kids later, I’m still married to that same lady. The old ways weren’t so bad.
It’s the stated reasons he gives for WHY they aren’t that disturb me. Preferring internet porn, voyeurism, assorted virtual kink, etc.
Sexually maladjusted people tend to be very dangerous people. Exhibit A: Muslims.
When I saw the headline, the first thing I thought of was the proliferation of queer indoctrination and the emergence of the GSA in our high school
then a smaller proportion of the teenage boys, are screwing more of the girls.
The girls are going after the teenage boys who have taken the Red Pill, and leaving the betas to watch internet pr0n.
The probably mean sex where there is a potential to become pregnant. If thats true then that means none of the homo teens are having sex and all is okay as long as its homo-sex, right?
I can’t blame them for turning to porn. A video can’t change her mind and accuse you of rape in the morning.
We are turning Japanese, I really think so.
This is what happens when you feminize boys and teach them that being a queer is the way to go. The old saying “it’s better to give than to receive” has been turned on its ear in today’s boy. Now it’s better to receive than to give...wink, wink, snort, snort...you know what I mean?
Your post gave me the Vapors.
Sure. Makes sense. Less sex. Less pregnancy, less pregnancy, less abortions, less abortions, less baby parts to sell.
Makes perfect sense.
Oh and it would put too many baby part dealers out of business. Which will add yet another negative statistic to Barry’s wonderful economic plans.
I don’t see this as a problem. I see it as a sign of greater *honesty*
With the fall of TV, magazines and other commercial media, comes a great liberation from advertisement. In the 1960s, ‘70’s, and ‘80’s, children were bombarded with “sex sells” advertisements, convincing many that all their peers were hypersexual, but they were sexual failures because they weren’t. Which could be cured if you will buy our product.
But there is only a tiny fraction of that propagandistic barrage of advertisement left on the Internet.
Certainly broad segments of the Internet are about pornography. But porn is just “the end result”. It tells you nothing about how to get there. How to attract someone sexually. What you must look like and what you have to do.
Importantly, look at who is talking.
The “perverted left” want children to be perverts as well, sexually active long before they are physically, intellectually, or emotionally.
As far as Rush Limbaugh goes, he has some distorted views as well, in past attributing sex as the cause of most human activity.
But the bottom line to all of this is likely that children today are not as neurotic about sex as were children just a generation ago. When someone asks if they have had sex, they have no compelling reason to lie and say yes.
People truly once believed in him; wonder if they still do. They do hate to admit they have been duped.
It’s viewed as a problem by the “Progressives”
Side effects of SSRIs may include, among others:
- Nausea.
- Nervousness, agitation or restlessness.
- Dizziness.
- Reduced sexual desire or difficulty reaching orgasm or inability to maintain an erection (erectile dysfunction)
- Drowsiness.
- Insomnia.
- Weight gain or loss.
- Headache.
My own take is that fewer boys are having sex because they have seen what it has done to their fathers aka divorce and Child-support payments that can make them virtual slaves to the Family court system.
I think they're all online watching endless hours of free porn without having to actually engage a female. All that masturbation probably leaves them fairly disinterested and spent.
You could be right... My experience in raising boys was a bit different than that though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.