While I am generally not a big fan of the EXTREMELY liberal bent on seemingly all New York Times articles, I think that I can live with this one:
According to the article, teens are waiting longer to have sex, in addition to having less overall sex. Parker-Pope writes that, “The reality is that in many ways, today’s teenagers are more conservative about sex than previous generations.” STOP THE PRESSES! Modern teenagers, CONSERVATIVE in their sexual behavior? Is this POSSIBLE!??!
These aren’t our words as an organization speaking here, these are simple facts – patterns indicate that teenagers are simply not having sex as much. Why? Could it possibly reflect a deeper sentiment of the meaning of sexuality, and how it is much more meaningful than a one-night stand?
A word to the wise: the article smacks of hypocrisy, as most NYT articles do, because it claims that our society is NOT one in “moral” danger, because according to their definition oral sex does not fall under their subjective doomsday definition. I once heard it lectured in a very memorable gov 97a class that oral sex is a cross-society woman’s compromise between having sex and not having sex: she is seen as complying with a man’s wishes, while she doesn’t have to feel the cultural shame of actually “having sex.”
Not only is oral sex, by its definition, actual SEX, but it IS a cause for moral concern among youth, and especially among young women. Who understands the emotional consequences of such actions better than women? Do women feel better if a guy dumps her if she “only had oral sex” with him? Isn’t that as emotionally damaging as if she had had “real” sex with him?
To me, this all just seems quite silly, these subjective definitions of sex. Abstinenece is abstinence, sex is sex. Why color oral sex as a shade of abstinence when it is, in fact, no such thing?