Jump to content

Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Strangerer (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 12 December 2010 (→POV: lol july.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion?

Might as well rename this article "negative effects of adolescent sexuality in the US"...
I agree with this statement. This article has a lot of editorializing and propaganda surrounding relatively few undisputed facts... I don't know much about Wikipedia but I can tell that this article is below Wikipedia standards. It almost sounds like a Conservapedia propaganda page, to be honest.M4390116 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely interested in finding the percent of sexual active teens for a given age, and that was provided, so it this sense, I do not believe that there is a fundamental problem with this article.--Jamesad (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)James[reply]
This artivle is so NPOV and should be deleted. User "Illuminato" has been in edit war with everyone for years and should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.115.224 (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Take a Closer Look & a Broad Look: This evidence-based article shares contributions from impeccable resources and primarily represents forward thinking, and it could help millions of families who currently do not have access to this information. 1.) This is for adolescents, not adults. Let's not assign adult values to this subject; what is "conservative" for adults may be "safe" for youth. Let each family decide what's best for them. Forward thinkers are not afraid to consider evidence on how media impacts child development, attitudes, and health. Forward thinkers are not afraid to acknowledge new evidence that indicates old assumptions may be wrong. 2.) Isn't our goal equal opportunity for balance, not total balance? There are not two equal sides to every story. There are more studies done on the the negative health outcomes of adolescent sexuality today for many obvious reasons. The positive results are few and haven't garnered a lot of study. If someone knows of a study that enlightens us on the "the healthful sexual attitudes and habits of the developing child," let's include it. Some, but not all, media promote adolescent sexuality for profit; we are bombarded with it. Sex sells. This Wikipedia article can help balance the prevailing, bigger message that is being sold to U S. residents. [And, whether we agree with abstinence education or not, including it does add balance to the subject.] We are not writing poetry or setting policy; we are sharing information. Please help finalize this important article and get it out to parents, teachers and care-givers in order to encourage informed choices and healthier outcomes for youth.SharonThawts (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the fact you acknowledge the fact that this article carries a slanted POV is a very good argument why this article needs to be either deleted or at least trimmed back to NPOV material. "Good message 'for the children'" certainly does not trump WP:NPOV by a long shot. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.Ajax151 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intact Homes

The phrase "intact homes" has been used in scholarly literature going back to at least 1957, and was the phrase used in the SAM, a respected publication. Others who use the phrase include the American Bar Association, and organization that can hardly be considered conservative, an adjective I don't use to describe myself. It is commonly understood to be a home where both parents live as a married couple. I've removed the fix tag, now that I have defined the term. --Illuminato (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources and POV

I have removed references from SADD.org. According to their website, they are "peer leadership organization dedicated to preventing destructive decisions, particularly underage drinking, other drug use, impaired driving, teen violence and teen depression and suicide." As such, op-ed pieces on sexuality that appear on their site strike me as questionable based on WP:V. There are plenty of peer-reviewed, fact-checked articles on this topic, and the article cites them generously. I suggest we stick with such sources to avoid violating WP:NPOV. The same is true of an article cited to Access Hollywood, which doesn't strike me as a reliable source as it relates to this article, so I have also removed quotes and cites from that article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted these changes. If it were you or I just getting up on Access Hollywood and spouting our opinions then yes, I would agree with you, they wouldn't be appropriate for this article. However, the real attribution is not to a trashy TV show, but rather to Dr. Gail Saltz, a respected doctor. From her website: Psychiatrist, columnist, bestselling author, and television commentator Gail Saltz, M.D., has been called "a voice of wisdom and insight in a world of confusion and contradictions" by Tom Brokaw. Dr. Saltz is a regular health, sex, and relationship contributor to the Today show for which she hosts the weekly "On the Couch" segment as well as participates as the expert guest in a range of other related discussions. In addition, she writes a weekly "Relationship" column for MSNBC.com, is a regular contributor O, The Oprah magazine, is the emotional wellness expert for ivillage.com and serves as a frequent contributor to A&E’s Biography programs. ... An Associate Professor of Psychiatry at The New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, Dr. Saltz is a psychoanalyst with The New York Psychoanalytic Institute and has a private practice on the Upper East Side of Manhattan." That should be good enough to keep her quotes in. Also, SADD is a nationally recognized organization dealing with issues pertaining to teens, and the author (also the CEO of SADD) is a professor of psychology. The article quotes experts from newspapers and magazines, so quoting one from his organization's website doesn't seem to me to be inappropriate. --Illuminato (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Gail Saltz is as prominent as you say, and I have no doubt that she is, then surely there is a more reliable source that quotes her than the one cited in this article. SADD is biased, in my view, and has no specific expertise in this area, so I'm reverting both of these as unreliable. This article has ample reliable sources, in some cases these references only amplify other statements already cited, so in my view you are amplifying and adding these only to push a POV. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Illuminato's article ownership and POV-pushing has long been a complaint of mine and several other users as well. Basically, he seems to be of the school of thought that he who dumps enough of "their side's" references into an article wins. As a result, this article remains unbalanced in the extreme. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't think these are reliable sources? It can be proven that she was on that TV show on that day and said those words. I fail to see why that doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS, especially since the latter says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed..." NBC is certainly a mainstream news organization. As for SADD, I'll agree that they are biased, but biased against destructive decisions. They do have an expertise in issues relating to teenagers; indeed that is their entire focus. Both examples cite experts in their fields and are properly cited. Revert. --Illuminato (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, and reinforced by Iamcuriousblue's comments, my sense is that you are insisting on adding these disputed sources not because they add anything particularly unique to the article, but merely because they amplify points already made by other, more reliable sources. As such, I see them as POV-pushing, which is why I just tagged the article as being under a neutrality dispute. Illuminato, I suggest we try to work out consensus here. I have no interest in continuous reverts; I think I have proven by my ongoing edits on this article that I'm willing to work with you toward balance. However, statements of opinion by individual psychologists should be labeled as such, not stated as fact. Narrow studies (such as the one you recently added from UCSF) should be portrayed neutrally and factually. Sources that are obviously biased or lacking in credibility do not serve the article, when there are so many better sources already included or available. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I come across new information in my travels, I add it to the article. Sometimes it is unique and new, other times it does amplify something already said. I would be happy to work with you to get it to a state acceptable to all. I don't believe either of the sources are biased or lacking in credibility, but to resolve this impasse can I suggest splitting the difference? Let's cut out SADD but keep Dr. Gaitz. --Illuminato (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your "splitting the difference" proposal doesn't quite work for me. I have no objection to including the views of Dr. Saltz, even though the quotes you included from her are not uniquely her views, and could probably be attributed to more scholarly sources. (I happen to disagree with the whole "frontal lobe is not fully developed" line of thinking, but that's another issue). However I insist that, if we must quote Dr. Saltz, we do so from a more credible, verifiable source. I will look for such as my time permits. Also, the Mark O'Connell quote should be attributed; you did not explain why you removed that attribution, and it may have just gotten swept up in the other reverts, so I suggest that be handled separately. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the O'Connell quote so that it is properly attributed. I still don't understand why you think the Gaitz quotes are not verifiable. They may not come from her more scholarly works, but it can certainly be verified that she said those things. I've removed the tag because of this. --Illuminato (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undenting) And I've restored the tag. My sourcing objection remains. If Dr. Saltz is as prominent and well-regarded as you claim, then surely we can find sources for her ideas and quotes that meet Wikipedia's higher standard for reliability. Access Hollywood may bring people on who make good television, but no one is fact-checking what they say on the program. Quoting Dr. Saltz from Access Hollywood undermines the credibility of what she has to say and brings up the "cherry-picking" criticism that other editors have leveled at you in the past. Find a better source. Thank you for restoring the O'Connell attribution. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully point you to WP:V. There, in the very first sentence we read that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Her statements do not need to be fact checked before they can be used here. Her prominence and biography is more than enough for them to be considered reliable. --Illuminato (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I would respectfully direct you to the section below that, WP:SOURCES, which states in its first sentence, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and then expands on this standard of reliability thusly: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Access Hollywood, in my opinion, does not meet this standard. Dr. Saltz' "prominence and biography" are not well-represented by Access Hollywood, in fact, they are not even part of that source. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article does rely on the many scholarly sources already cited. It is not as if the whole article hinges on the inclusion of this single source. There are nearly 100 sources in the article, so I think the proper consideration here is "inclusion" not "rely." With that in mind, I don't see the problem of including one or two from a respected psychiatrist in a broadcast program as opposed to a print publication. --Illuminato (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "It is not as if the whole article hinges on the inclusion of this single source." I agree, which is why there should be no problem deleting quotes from a disputed source. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you skip over the standard for inclusion, which is verifiability. The quotes meet that standard. --Illuminato (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the standards, they work together. Verifiability, reliability, and NPOV are all to be taken into account, and consensus is to be respected. My objection stands. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

class

The criteria for an A Class article is:

Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.

Aside from being illustrated (now that could raise some problems) how does this article fail that? --Illuminato (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not provide a broad overview of the topic, has serious problems with bias, and is not well-written (it is overly reliant on quotes rather than having an encyclopedic tone.) Also, A-class and "good article" ratings should not self-awarded. This yet another example where you are in serious violation of WP:OWN. Its unfortunate that the Wikipedia system of checks and balances against problem users like yourself isn't in working order, because you're behavior should have gotten you blocked long ago. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iamcuriousblue, how about WP:SOFIXIT? --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Sfmammia. You do a lot of complaining, Iam, but when was the last time you made a substantive contribution? I know I don't own the article, and when others make positive contributions I don't object. I think you just like to complain. --Illuminato (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care what you think, mister. I do have a few things I'd like to contribute, but whatever I add will be buried under your cherry-picked sexual abstinence propaganda. You shamelessly POV-push and you know it. Where I think you doubly cross the line is that you not only that you heavily weight the article to your POV, you also reserve the right to be your own source of evaluation. You routinely have removed NPOV tags, judging yourself the sole arbiter of your own neutrality, and have now set about grading your own work as well. Well, sorry, even if I'm not contributing to the article, I sure as hell can evaluate it. As for "being bold", what do you think I'm doing by changing the article grading? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek?

New article out, also deceprating allegations of teen oral sex epidemic. Suggestion: Add as source on teen oral sex section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelica K (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added the primary source from the Guttmacher Institute, rather than the Newsweek coverage of it. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

failure of abstinence only education

There is a lack of detail about the generally recognized failure of abstinence only education. The whole article appears slanted with conservative sources to make it appear as if adolescent sexuality is somehow unhealthy or abnormal. The entire article needs a serious rewrite in order to give a balance to conflicting views rather than promoting the conservative agenda as the generally accepted view, rather than the fringe view of society. Atom (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole article about Abstinence-only sex education, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat the detail here. It is already linked as a main article at the top of the sex education section. As to the article balance, someone recently removed the unbalanced template without discussion; based on your comment and my own feelings about the article, I have restored that template. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that there is already an article on abstinenc only sex education, and it doesn't need to be repeated. Maybe a brief summary or something. Even so, the article needs more balance. I don't dispute that the references given are real. Many are low grade references at best, not research, just the opinion of some analyst. Atom (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxytocin discussion and sources

I've deleted exaggerated quotes from journalists as non-reliable sources on the effects of oxytocin. I have no objection to the subject being discussed, but I believe the credibility of the discussion is compromised when we have short quotes about women "swimming in" hormones, or the effects "raging for days and days". This is non-encyclopedic language, which in a scientific article would not stand for a minute. As stated in WP:SOURCES, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." To my mind, a scientific discussion of oxytocin's effects should come from such sources. They would never engage in such non-neutral language. I have added some scientific sources to balance this section, it's clear that there's no scientific consensus on oxytocin's effects after sex, so those quoted as drawing behavioral conclusions from it are merely speculating. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that academic sources are the best sources, however there are over 100 sources in this article. Surely a few from journalists and authors who have studied the topic are not out of line. I've put the quotes from Nicole Blades back in, with attribution this time. I still don't believe in line attirbution is required, however, since WP:QUOTE says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." With less than a full sentence I think the footnote should be sufficient. In the interest of putting forward a good faith effort, I attributed it this time, but I would like to get away from all the "So and so says..." that are in the article.--Illuminato (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. When the statements are dubious and exaggerated, especially given that there's little scientific consensus on this subject, attribution is necessary. The scientific references I have included indicate that at most, oxytocin lasts minutes, not days. I will continue to delete statements that are presented as fact when they are unscientific and speculative. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One additional thought: we have discussed sources in this article before. The reason there are over 100 sources is that you, Illuminato, insist on including sources of dubious quality for a scientific article on Wikipedia. This article's quality suffers as a result. There is an ample supply of higher quality sources for this topic: peer-reviewed, scientific journals. May I suggest that the way to improve the article's quality and tone down its bias would be greater selectivity and reliance on higher quality sources? --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My chief concern with the oxytocin passage is, its presence here suggests that the influence of oxytocin on human sexuality is confined chiefly to adolescents in the USA. Whether the information is true or not, it may belong elsewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Ocytocin section. It is certainly an aspect of human sexuality. It shows that the effect of Oxytocin on males versus females may be different. But, there is nothing unique to adolescents. The article needs to be pared and edited of alot of things already. This section has no specific relevance for adolescents, and so is an clear choice for removal. Looking at the article after removal, the absence is not even evident (dis not add to discussion or flow, and so doe snot disrupt the flow of dialogue, etc.) Atom (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My changes

Rather than make multiple small changes at once, I have found it easier to make them all at once. I'll explain them here, as they won't fit in the edit summary. On the suicide sentence, it is in there, the source was incorrect. They are also 8 times, not 6 times more likely. I've corrected it. The link between sexual activity and depression is supported by clinical experience, and a clinical psychologist backs it up. It is supported by the source. I also moved part of the quote dealing with cutting back to the depression section as i think they are related. I kept other parts of it in the "correlation" section where I think it is more appropriate. I also restored a quote from the SADD CEO. Yes, he never uses the word "shocked," but he does say it is "startling," so I don't think this is a stretch. Also, he is a reliable source, so I don't believe he needs to back it up in this document. His word can be trusted. I also restored the "rampant" quote, but the ref was wrong for it, so I fixed it. It comes from an article in which the author spoke to numerous experts, including the director of the CDC's Adolescent and School Health program. The ref says "nearly everyone agrees" on this. --Illuminato (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all of these changes, because I disagree with all of them. Most of them are opinion statements that serve only to push a POV.
1. The suicide statistics came from a Heritage Foundation study. They should come directly from that source, and should not be restated with different math.
2. The statement that "link between sexual activity and depression is supported by clinical experience" is overbroad and meaningless. Sure, clinical psychologists see patients who are depressed in ways related to sexual activity. But do they have any basis for comparison with happy teens? We don't know, because no controlled research or statistical analysis is cited here.
3. We have discussed SADD and the commentary/article by its CEO before. As I have previously stated, I disagree that SADD is a reliable source in this area -- totally outside their stated mission. Commentary added to commentary without factual basis for any of the claims adds nothing to this article and serves merely to push a POV. His comments fly in the face of other studies that indicate that teen sexual activity has either held flat or declined in recent years.
4. The characterization that "What nearly everyone agrees on is that STDs and risky 'anything but intercourse behaviors are rampant among teens" is the exaggerated opinion of one writer, Anna Mulrine, from a six-year-old article that also flies in the face of a lot of recent statistics. I believe it is unencyclopedic and has no place in this article. At very least, it must be attributed, and I will add a balancing sentence to indicate that not everyone agrees.
5. Your belief that cutting is related to depression is original research.
No consensus on any of these. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted back some of the items with some additional changes to hopefully move this forward rather than engage in an edit war.
1. The suicide statistics are based on a Heritage Foundation analysis of a National Longitudinal Survey of Adoles­cent Health survey. They are properly cited, and do not restate any math. I'm not sure what the objection here is.
2. I have replaced the statement you believed to be overly broad with data that shows it is not.
3. The comments included here do not discuss the frequency with which teens are having sex, but instead the casualness with which they do it. Kids having sex isn't starling, having them increasingly do it outside the context of a romantic relationship is. That is what he is getting at. I think most can agree that is a destructive decision, and I hope you would too.
4. I have attributed the statement. Add a "balancing sentence" if you like, but I believe it would be redundant as it already says not everyone agrees.
5 I have added emotional distress to the title of the section. Meeker also speaks of emotional distress in this section, so the title fits.
I've tried to move this process forward. I think that is a better approach than simply reverting. --Illuminato (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have attributed the suicide statistics to Heritage Foundation and included the numbers.
2. Thank you for adding references in the lead paragraph on depression and emotional health. This is an improvement.
3. The point about casualness is already made by other, more reliable sources. Adding a disputed source saying the same thing, with no additional factual data, and then amplifying it with the emotional term "shocked", is POV pushing. I've removed it again. Sorry, still no consensus on this one.
4. I have added the balancing statement needed and properly attributed the "rampant" statement. Lloyd Kolbe didn't say it, so I took him out of the sentence -- unless you have a direct quote from him that says this, including him in the sentence seems a sly way to imply he said it.
5. Section head change is fine with me -- I've moved cutting below the paragraphs discussing depression, to avoid confusing the two subjects.
--Sfmammamia (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section order

I have reordered the sections, to establish some basic facts and statistics about teenage sexual activity first. I've moved the section on "social aspects" down, because I'm totally unclear on the grouping of topics in that section, and placing it first in the article seems totally out of context -- social aspects of sexual activity are not the most important subject here, in my opinion. Also, the section seems to repeat material that's already contained in other sections. In general, it seems to discuss a trend toward more "casual sex" among teens, but it groups other topics in there as well, and all of these topics are addressed elsewhere. Reducing the redundancy of these topics would improve the article, as it's getting overly long -- now topping 50K of readable prose. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is getting long. As a starting point, what do you think of a sub article entitled "Virginity in the United States" (or something similar) and encompassing the sections "Loss of virginity," "Abstinence," and "Motivation?" Most of the detail can go to the subarticle, and we can leave summaries here.--Illuminato (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Those sections seem to me at the core of the article, providing the framework of perspective necessary for understanding both the level of sexual activity going on among teens and the trends (teen sex activity is down, and age of loss of virginity is climbing). Splitting them almost constitutes a POV fork that leaves only the psychological and social sections, which are more biased, in my opinion. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You'll notice I said as a starting point, because I believe there are other sections that could be broken off as well. I figured we'd start there since 1) it is at the top and 2) it is heavy at statistics, which just make my eyes glaze over. --Illuminato (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence-only

I've tried several times to edit the section that relates to abstinence-only

The recent compromise language "Some Christian organizations have propagated the idea that sexual abstinence is the only approach to take, in accordance with the teachings of many churches that forbid sex outside of marriage." is better than the original language, but it still seems problematic. It is better, because it does not proclaim abstinence-only as a Christian Value which, of course, it is not. I understand and respect that some conservative churches and religions advocate abstinence-only, but it is not universal, and should not be expressed as if it were.

The problematic part of this compromise language, as I see it anyway, is: 1) Churches have no authority to "forbid" anything. They teach doctrine. So, "In accordance with the teachings..." sounds great; "forbid sex outside of marriage" is not great language. 2) "Some Christian organizations have propagated the idea that sexual abstinence is the only approach to take..." Might sound better as something like "Some religious organizations teach that sexual abstinence is the moral approach to take" or soemthing like that. After all, Islam and Judaism also teach that to some degree. The language "only approach to take" generalizes too much as not all churches, or even most churches would phrase it that way. 3) The references are not so good either. 127 "The Bible condemns fornication, see Corinthians 6:18-19. " applies only to some Christians, and not all religious groups. First Corinthians also does not condemn fornication, it says "Flee from immorality". Which of course, says either a great deal, or very little about abstinence depending on what you want to believe it means. It certainly does not directly address "abstinence-only". 4) In reference 128 it addresses how the Catholic, Baptist and Pentacostal religions view a number of things. 1) The Cathechism of the Catholic church speaks about many things. I don't think it would be difficult to say that they view Chastity as valuable and teach that abstinence is a moral virtue. They don't forbid or condemn non-chastity however. 2) Baptists have a set of basic beliefes and teachings, related to "abstinence-only" the closest thing they teach is "Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography". So, they do not speak of abstinence of chastity directly. A large number of Baptists do not believe that non-abstinence is itself sexually immoral, but more related to more complex situations. 3) The Assemblies of God teaches that Homosexuality is a sin and "He pointed out that the only alternative to heterosexual marriage is celibacy for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:10–12)" Again, this says nothing about abstinence, and only says that alternative to celbacy or abstinence is heterosexual relations. It does not says those relations need to be only within the confines of marriage.

As the topic of the article is Adolescent Sexuality, and not religious views on sexuality, we should leave much of the religious stuff out.

I suggest: "Abstinence-only sex education teahes teenagers that they should be sexually abstinent until marriage and does not provide information about contraception. In the Kaiser study, 34% of high-school principals said their school's main message was abstinence-only. Some Christian organizations have propagated the idea that sexual abstinence is the best approach to take, in accordance with the teachings of many churches." The citations left out, as they don;t apply for the reasons given. Atom (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggested edit of your edit: "Some Christian organizations advocate abstinence-only sex education because it is the only approach they find acceptable and in accordance with their churches' teachings." The paragraph is about abstinence-only education, not abstinence itself. And they don't find it "the best" approach, they find it the only acceptable approach to sex education. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could work. I wonder if other editors could live with that? Atom (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, with regards to some Christian churches, I do not believe that forbid is too strong a word, since the sexual act (and non-chastity) is condemned by some religions as breaking the relationship with God. In the case of Catholicism, it is a grave matter, and if done with full knowledge and consent, it could lead to the person's exclusion from the kingdom of God unless repentance is sought. A person who believes that fornication is in line with the Catholic Church cannot be considered as being a practicing Catholic. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1856-1851) —Preceding James (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)James comment added by James (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jamesad (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)James[reply]

Oral sex risks

In regards to the question of oral sex being less risky than vaginal sex, please take the time to read at least the results and discussion sections of the source provided. Here's a link to full text.



If the article is going to say that adolescents view oral sex as being less risky, we shouldn't marginalize that view by suggesting its only held by misguided teenagers. - Headwes (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brady and Halpern says:

"In comparison with adolescents who engaged in oral sex and/or vaginal sex, adolescents who engaged only in oral sex were less likely to report experiencing a pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection, feeling guilty or used, having their relationship become worse, and getting into trouble with their parents as a result of sex. Adolescents who engaged only in oral sex were also less likely to report experiencing pleasure, feeling good about themselves, and having their relationship become better as a result of sex. Boys were more likely than girls to report feeling good about themselves, experiencing popularity, and experiencing a pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection as a result of sex, whereas girls were more likely than boys to report feeling bad about themselves and feeling used. "

See where it says "...less likely to report experiencing pleasure, feeling good about themselves, and having their relationship become better as a result of sex" and "girls were more likely than boys to report feeling bad about themselves and feeling used. "

This doesn't support positive outcome, it says that the results are mixed with positive and negative outcomes.

The statement is made in the article "Researchers believe that oral sex may have become more popular than intercourse for adolescents because teens believe it carries fewer physical and emotional risks a claim one study supports" When that study (Brady and Halpern) does not say that. The study may say that adolescents believe it to carry fewer physical and emotional risks, but the study says the results are a mixed bag, with significant negative emotional risks. We can't say that the studysupports their view, because it doesn't. Atom (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this line makes it pretty clear the study does support the claim: "Results generally support adolescents’ expectations that oral sex is associated with fewer negative consequences than vaginal sex." Yes, we can say the study supports their view--it comes right out and says it does. Of course its a mixed bag... Did you really expect a study saying there could never be any adverse consequences to oral sex? - Headwes (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, Table 3 shows that vaginal sex only was >3 times as likely to result in a negative outcome as oral sex only, while vaginal and oral was >4 times as likely to result in a negative outcome. - Headwes (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, look -- I respect your view and intentions. My personal opion sides with you and what the paragraph says. Howerver, remaining true to a citation, rather than slanting it in a different view is important. The integrity of the article (already terribly slanted) and Wikipedia is important.

The Paragraph says:

"While New York Times columnist David Brooks has written, "Reports of an epidemic of teenage oral sex are .. greatly exaggerated"[42], the National Center for Health Statistics has found a quarter of 15-year-old girls have performed it, and more than half of all 17-year-old girls have.[3] About 12% of teens aged 13-16 have had oral sex, and 13% of the same teens have had sexual intercourse.[17] The 2007 Guttmacher Institute study found that slightly more than half (55%) of 15– to 19-year-olds have engaged in heterosexual oral sex, 50% have engaged in vaginal sex and 11% have had anal sex and that the prevalence of both vaginal and oral sex among adolescents has remained steady over the past decade.[5] Researchers believe that oral sex may have become more popular than intercourse for adolescents because teens believe it carries fewer physical and emotional risks,[43][44][45] a claim one study supports.[40]"

The Gist of what it implies is researchers believe that oral sex may have become more popular than intercourse for adolescents.

The citation we are debating, Brady and Halpern Adolescents’ Reported Consequences of Having Oral Sex Versus Vaginal Sex it describes itself as "The study examined whether adolescents’ initial consequences of sexual activity differ according to type of sexual activity and gender."

The conclusion of the study was (an exact quote) "Results of the present study support the conceptualization of adolescent sexual behavior, including engagement in oral sex, as medical and public health issues. Parents and health professionals should talk with adolescents about how they can cope with and reduce the likelihood of experiencing negative physical, social, and emotional consequences of having sex, so that decisions to engage in sex are made thoughtfully and are more likely to lead to positive physical and mental health outcomes. Health professionals and other adults should also talk with adolescents about how decisions to engage in any type of sexual activity may have important consequences. "

I have bolded the portion that stands out for me as relevant to the paragraph in our article being discussed.

The study makes three important implications:

  1. "Our overall pattern of results illustrates the critical need for sex education and health promotion programs to provide medically accurate and complete information about sexuality and contraceptives to adolescents,20 including information about oral sex."
  2. "The second implication of our study is that interventions should focus on the social and emotional consequences that adolescents experience, as well as the physical health consequences. Greater proportions of adolescents in our study reported negative social and emotional consequences of having sex, compared with negative physical consequences."
  3. "A greater proportion of adolescents in our study reported positive consequences of having sex than reported negative consequences." This leads heavily towards what you want to say. But, keep in mind that it is within the context of (within the same, third implication) "Attempts to convince adolescents to delay the onset of sexual activity may have the greatest chance of success if health professionals and other adults acknowledge the positive consequences adolescents may experience as a result of sexual activity and then suggest other ways that benefits (eg, feelings of intimacy) may be achieved."

To get back to the point, see what I said above "The Gist of what it implies is researchers believe that oral sex may have become more popular than intercourse for adolescents." The study does not conclude that. Most people would not read the report and say that the results of the study asserted that.

Getting to the two specific points you made: first: "I think this line makes it pretty clear the study does support the claim: "Results generally support adolescents’ expectations that oral sex is associated with fewer negative consequences than vaginal sex." Yes, we can say the study supports their view--it comes right out and says it does. Of course its a mixed bag... Did you really expect a study saying there could never be any adverse consequences to oral sex?"

The beginning of the study, introducting the topic does, indeed say:

"Previous research showed that adolescents expect engagement in oral sex to result in fewer negative physical health, social, and emotional consequences than vaginal sex.2,8 The present study is the first to examine whether the initial consequences of sexual activity that adolescents report actually differ according to type of sex (ie, oral versus vaginal). Results generally support adolescents’ expectations that oral sex is associated with fewer negative consequences than vaginal sex. In comparison with adolescents who had vaginal sex, adolescents who had only oral sex were less likely to report experiencing a pregnancy or STI, feeling guilty or used, having their relationship become worse, and getting into trouble with their parents as a result of having sex."

In the study the paragraph that follows that puts the first paragraph in juxtaposition however: "From the data presented above, one might be tempted to conclude that engagement in oral sex among adolescents is of less concern than engagement in other forms of sexual activity. However, this conclusion might not be warranted. Because we focused on initial consequences of having sex in this young sample of adolescents, adolescents who engaged in only oral sex might have been less sexually experienced and had less opportunity to experience negative consequences. Engagement in oral sex was also not without negative consequences. Approximately one third of adolescents who had only oral sex reported 1 negative consequence of engaging in sexual behavior. Adolescents who had only oral sex were also less likely than their peers with vaginal sex experience to report experiencing pleasure, feeling good about themselves, and having their relationship become better as a result of having sex. The decision to engage in any type of sexual activity may thus result in negative social and emotional consequences or failure to experience anticipated positive consequences. "

Second: "To be more specific, Table 3 shows that vaginal sex only was >3 times as likely to result in a negative outcome as oral sex only, while vaginal and oral was >4 times as likely to result in a negative outcome."

Table three: "Consequences of Engagement in Sexual Behavior According to Gender and Type of Sex" says that "Vaginal sex only vs Oral sex only" had "Any negative consequence" as 3.75 (as you suggest) and for the same category "Had any positive consequence" as 3.75. Showing Vaginal sex as (in your words) >3 times as likely to result in a positive outcome". The table has a variety of other statistics, and is quite complex. One should probably rely on the implications and conclusion made by the study, rather than generalizing one statistic in a logistic regression model with thirteen dependent variables. One can suggest, for instance that Males are 1.64 times more likely to experience any positive consequences than females are. That by itself isn't entirely meaningful.

Summary:

My point. The study cited has lots of interesting things in it. We should rewrite a portion of some of this article to show the results, particularly " greater proportion of adolescents in our study reported positive consequences of having sex than reported negative consequences." But, one can not in all honesty say that the results or sumamry of the report are "Results generally support adolescents’ expectations that oral sex is associated with fewer negative consequences than vaginal sex", or more specifically, that the study supports the specific statement in the article "Researchers believe that oral sex may have become more popular than intercourse for adolescents because teens believe it carries fewer physical and emotional risks." The study does not address that, it addresses something similar.

Regards to you, Atom (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs editing, not splitting

This article should focus on how adolescent sexuality in the United States compares to/differs from that in other countries. There already is an article about adolescent sexuality, general material should go there. There is too much fluff (verbose quotations, saying things multiple times, etc.) in this article. It needs editing to take the material common to adolescent sexuality in general out of it, and reduce the duplication. Splitting it like this seems likely to invite more duplication, more rambling. Zodon (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the split appears to me to be a POV fork that Illuminato proposed before and I rejected before. The readable prose length of this article did not yet justify a split (I have been monitoring it, and the last I checked it was still under 60K) and the actual content split makes little sense -- for example, why are the statistics on contraceptive use kept here, rather than being moved to the so-called "sexual behavior" article? I will revert the split and propose deletion of the other article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

I have added the verylong template, as the readable prose in this article is now over 62K. I advocate judicious pruning, rather than splits that may create POV forks of the content (as has come up before on this talk page). Other thoughts? I may begin suggesting bold edits to prune repetitive content as I have time. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree (as noted in the preceding discussion item). Some other thoughts on how to shorten it.
  • For items that have reliable sources and aren't particularly controversial (e.g. statistics about STDs), removing some of the "according to so and so" wording would help shorten and make it more readable. (The footnote gives source.)
  • Should reduce the use of quotations, especially ones that duplicate material stated or quoted elsewhere.
  • The Girls section is particularly a problem. It invites duplication of material (several other areas cover differences by sex, material tends to get repeated there). It is also problematic in the title (they are in the transition between being a girl and being a woman, so girls is not appropriate).
  • Consider what of this material is specific to the United States vs. general to adolescent sexuality, move the general material to the general article, and focus here on the specifics for this country (e.g. how different). Zodon (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that we could prune much of the "so and so says." It gets tedious and, as is pointed out, the sources can all be found in footnotes. --Illuminato (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Zodon suggests removing attribution only from non-controversial statistics. I would not agree that such attributions be removed from strongly stated quotes. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of edits to get the readable prose down to 60K again. Much of my edits were in removing what I consider to be repetitive, exaggerated and biased quotes. I will leave the verylong template up for now, but if we can agree to these removals, the article is within length at this point and the verylong template can come down.--Sfmammamia (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reverts and no discussion in a couple of days; I'm going to interpret that as consensus for the cuts and remove the verylong template for now. I believe this article could still benefit from further pruning, and I still consider the unbalanced template appropriate, so I'm leaving that one up there. And if you are tempted to add in anything to further amplify or repeat points already made in the article, may I suggest restraint or prior discussion? --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my request above has been ignored and quotes added back in that re-inflate the length of this article to 62K. I will re-edit the article back down to 60K. --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored several of the passages you deleted wholesale, and tried to rephrase others more concisely. I disagree that the only way to keep this article below 60k is to delete portions of it. As WP:SIZE says, an article that has reached this size should probably be split. --Illuminato (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we have discussed before, this article is biased AND too long because of your insistence on including repetitive, biased, and exaggerated quotes, Illuminato. There is no consensus on the material in the article, therefore it has had an unbalanced or POV template for months. Given that, splitting it will likely represent a POV fork rather than a legitimate split. I suggest we seek consensus on the material that needs to be here to resolve the issues of length as well as POV. Or are you not interested in consensus? --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, Sfmammamia. I'll also note that there was a mediation cabal case about the state of this article close to two years ago now, and none of the changes to the article that were agreed to were ever implemented. Honestly, as long as this article remains a dumping ground for Illuminato's editorializing on this subject, there is little hope of fixing these problems. In the meantime, I am backing you up on the edits you have been making. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work Sfmammamia. Zodon (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

The article focuses heavily on negative aspects, needs more coverage of benefits/positive aspects of adolescent sexuality.

  • Sexual activity has many benefits - cardiovascular, hormonal (endorphins), relational (feelings of connection and closeness), etc. These benefits don't suddenly kick in when somebody turns 20.
  • Adolescence is a time of physical and emotional change and development, experimentation, learning, etc. Learning about one's own and others sexuality is part of that. (Sexual activity isn't just intercourse.)

Fine to note the problems and less healthy behaviors, but also should discuss benefits and realistic healthier approaches. Zodon (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably not contribute myself, but I will back you up as long as the edits are neutral. forestPIG(grunt) 08:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the benefits are universal to virtually all those who engage in the activity, however the negative effects are particularly prevalent (and thus relevant) amongst the sexually experienced adolescent, also the human body (once sexually mature) does not drastically change thus the timing of first activity does not give or deny any benefits other than the perviously stated...learning about sexuality will occur whether activity starts when in adolescence or 'old' age...it makes no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LENZ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because negative effects are perceived to be more prominent than positive effects is not reason to promote an article's lack of balance. It is, if anything, more reason to attempt to find neutrality. On that note, I'm noticing an onslaught of severely POV edits, such as this one whose tone blatantly contradicts both the headline and contents of its source, and whose contributions cherry-pick facts form the source in an attempt to justify this unbalanced behavior. That is an unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV and I'll be patrolling this page for such edits. I would appreciate any and all help regaining some semblance of neutrality in this article. --Meitar (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and a fundamental problem I've been point out about this article for several years now. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observe the continued barrage of unbalanced POV-pushing. This is a serious problem with this article. It also appears that the length of this article is in part due to the selective study-stuffing evidenced by edits like this one. A careful but bold re-write could address both these issues simultaneously. --Meitar (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parental relations

In this paragraph, from the Family section of the article. The second sentence (the quotation) should not be in the article. It is plainly not neutral in POV and oversimplifies a complex subject.

Researchers at the University of Arizona, University of Texas-Austin and Wake Forest University have found that girls who have positive relationships with their fathers wait longer before they have sex. Fathers can explain sex "in a way that mom can't, to let daughter know that for boys teen sex is about conquest, fun and adventure; while for girls, teen sex is about expressing love and affection," according to Dr. Patrick Wanis, a human behavior expert.Ernest Hooper (July 27, 2008). "What only a dad can tell a daughter about sex" (html). MercuryNews.com. Retrieved 2008-08-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

  1. The claim that fathers can say that and mothers can't is patently incorrect. (A mother is quite capable of saying something like that).
  2. The claim that for boys teen sex is about, conquest, fun and adventure and girls ... is oversimplification and biased (not NPOV). One can readily find sources documenting that sex can be adventurous and fun for girls and that boys can expressing love and affection sexually.
  3. More important, the quotation is not necessary in order to support the main point of the paragraph, that "girls who have positive relationships with their fathers wait longer before they have sex".

The relevance of the whole paragraph to the topic of Adolescent sexuality in the US is not adequately established. Rather than wasting space with an unneeded quotation of dubious value (and even more space trying to ballance the POV), at least the quotation should be deleted. The material should be connected to the topic of the article, or the whole paragraph should go.

Why does the paragraph need to be here? What is specific to the US about this? Zodon (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Of course a mother can articulate those words, but that's not the point. A father can also explain the mechanics of menstruation to a girl, but he can't explain it the same way a woman who lived through it could. It is more about relating the personal feelings and experiences than aping the words.
  2. Yes it is a simplification, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect. You could write a journal level article on this topic alone and it would still be in some respects a simplification. That isn't grounds to remove the quote.
  3. I don't see the positive relations aspect as being the main topic of the paragraph. This isn't an expository essay; this is an encylopedia entry. I think the main point is that fathers have an affect on the sexual behavior of their daughters. Both the first and the second sentences show that.
I have restored the quotation. --Illuminato (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is an extreme simplification does make it incorrect (as in it is easy to find counter examples). That is only one of the grounds for removal, which include that it is redundant, unclear, and isn't essential to the topic. So far the relevance of the paragraph to the topic of the article has not been established.
The quote weakens the point. The idea that a teens positive relations with fathers may influence sexuality is hardly surprising, and could be because of all sorts of factors. To then follow with a problematic quote detracts from that point. If there are problems with the basic idea we should address them directly (or remove the whole thing), rather than using peculiar quotations.
No point in using two sentences to say a minor point when one will do. Zodon (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence as part of sexual behavior section

Abstinence describes a variety of sexual behaviors. It is not just "absence of sexual activity" (which could equally well describe asexuality). It is sexual behavior characterized by the absence of some or all sexual activity. (e.g., certain things are possible, but avoided). A broad variety of behaviors are considered to be abstinence, from refraining from vaginal intercourse to much broader restraint. As noted in the "Social aspects" section, significant percentages of teens regard oral sex or genital touching as being abstinence. Since sexual behavior can include things like talking, looking, hugging, fantasy, dreaming, etc., it may be possible to refrain from all such behavior, but such an extreme level of restraint is probably atypical. Thus abstinence makes logical sense in the sexual behavior section.

Since it is often used to describe those who do not engage in some of the other activities listed in the sexual behaviors section, it makes sense from an organizational standpoint as well. Zodon (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit to casual sex

This edit has multiple issues, doesn't belong in article as it stands.

  • Not WP:MEDRS - self published sources, drawn from blatantly biased source, assertions of dubious scientific accuracy
  • It does not relate to the topic of the article (nothing in the edit indicates how this is US specific).
  • Unnecessary use of quotations Zodon (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxytocin again!

Illuminato – for shame. This issue was settle last year – see Talk:Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#Oxytocin_discussion_and_sources. The role of oxytocin really has no relevance this article. The idea that bonding patterns facilitated by oxytocin has some bearing on the ethics of casual sex, while being a favorite canard of abstinence education advocates, is totally without scientific merit. I am hereby demanding that you stop trying to add this nonsense and am warning you that I will continue to revert it and take this to moderation if need be. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, first of all you are not in a position to demand anything and your inflammatory rhetoric doesn't help. Second of all, I am not an abstinence-only advocate. Thirdly, you will kindly notice that the information I recently added on oxytocin is under the "Physical effects" section, not the "Casual sex" subsection. This information says nothing about the ethics of casual sex. Finally, I would imagine that the editors of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism would take issue with your statement that the research they published is "totally without scientific merit." All the other information is referenced to respected media organizations. The Boston Globe and NBC News are not fringe media outlets. They are well established and respected, and their authors and editors do not publish what you term "pseudo-science." I have reverted your deletions. --Illuminato (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the emotional effects of the hormone oxytocin are a matter of serious scientific study is not in dispute. Its relevance to a survey of teenage sexual behavior in the United States is. And employing it, as you have, as an argument as to why teenagers should not engage in casual relationships is both POV and original research.
This issue has been addressed already in Talk:Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#Oxytocin_discussion_and_sources. However, in spite of this earlier consensus, you're now re-adding the same material. Do you mind explaining what's changed since the last consensus on this?
There is an ongoing issue with the patter of article ownership you've displayed with this article, in complete violation of the rules of Wikipedia. There was a mediation committee dispute with you a couple of years back over this. I don't think you've held to anything you've agreed to. I'm going to take this back to mediation, but given your ongoing pattern, I doubt it will do any good. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the section back in, but I've cut out some and I've reworked it to address your concerns about original research. There is now a paragraph explaining what oxytocin is, then one on its effects on girls, and then one relating to boys. The synthesis of information presented is clearly supported by the sources. It's not arguing anything at all. It is presenting the facts - here is what it is, here is what it does, and here is how it relates to other hormones. You can go ahead and delete it again, but I contend that it would be far more productive to help me improve the section than to wage a revert war. --Illuminato (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are not addressed, because you've failed to demonstrate the relevance of oxytocin research to the larger subject. I am going to ask for an Request for Discussion on the issue to get some other opinions on the matter. I also intend to continue the larger dispute resolution process on the direction the larger article has taken. In my opinion this article does not seem to be so much as a necessary breakout article from Adolescent sexuality, but rather a POV fork from it. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The opening paragraph, in describing oxytocin, clearly says that production of it increases during adolescence. It then describes the differing effects it has on boys and girls who experience it. That aside, I agree much of the information in this article could and probably should be moved to the main article. --Illuminato (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think perhaps it would be a good start to the Dispute resolution process for Illuminato to sum up, briefly, why this material should be in this article. Until that question is resolved, the discussion of reliability of sources is likely to be distracting and unproductive, and in the meanwhile I would like both parties to avoid both using inflammatory rhetoric and accusing the other of doing so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed, once again, the exaggerated statements that were discussed over a year ago. There is no consensus for them. I have made an edit to indicate that there is no scientific consensus on the behaviorial effects of oxytocin on relationships. Once psychologist or the other theorizing on this does not rise to the level of reliability need to state this as if it was undisputed in the scientific community. Illuminato, I suggest you read the main article on oxytocin and refrain from making repeated insertions of disputed statements, as that could be viewed as tendentious editing --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that – I have been busy and unable to start the writeups needed for the dispute resolution process, but I think ongoing attention to this article is needed. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sfm- thank you. While I feel that all the information that was in there previously was acceptable, I'm not going to argue your deletions since I think you made a good faith effort to make a constructive edit instead of simply deleting an entire section wholesale. I've only added half of one sentence back in, as I think it wraps up and completes the section nicely. --Illuminato (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposed split

This article has been extremely long for some time, having now reached almost 70k of readable prose. I have already agreed above that some editing could and should probably be done to the article. However, I don't feel this is an entirely workable solution. For one thing, I doubt that removing the "so-and-so says" will bring it down to an acceptable level. Secondly, while some information is not-US specific and could be moved to the main article, I think there are vast differences between adolescent sexuality in the United States and in, say, Ghana.

Both of these are good strategies to take in reducing the readable prose. However, as time goes on the article is sure to grow in content. A more long term solution and different is thus needed. I am again proposing a split in the article, and I hope this one will be found more acceptable. I propose that sections 4 and 5, and possibly 6, be removed and placed in a new article, Effects of sex on American Adolescents. In their place will be left a link to the main article and a summary, including any US specific info in them, (e.g. "Each year, between 8 and 10 million American teens contract a sexually transmitted disease.")

I had considered a general Effects of Adolescent Sexuality, however I don't think that would be a good idea. For one reason, the cultural milieu in which the sex acts take place are diverse enough across the world that I don't think generalizations could really be made beyond something like pregnancy. Two 17 year old friends having casual sex in the US is something very different than a 15 year old married couple in Africa, or a 14 and 28 year old married couple in India, having sex. Besides, there is enough research on American kids alone to fill a library. We can certainly devote a Wikipedia article to it.

This should bring the readable prose down by about 15k-20k. After that, perhaps we could go for an article entitled Sexual behavior of American adolescents with an expanded section 1. What say you all? --Illuminato (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent study

Casual Sex and Psychological Health Among Young Adults: Is Having "Friends with Benefits" Emotionally Damaging? by Marla E. Eisenberg, et al., Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 41(4): 231 - 237
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Speculation in public discourse suggests that sexual encounters outside a committed romantic relationship may be emotionally damaging for young people, and federal abstinence education policy has required teaching that sexual activity outside of a marital relationship is likely to have harmful psychological consequences.
METHODS: In 2003–2004, a diverse sample of 1,311 sexually active young adults (mean age, 20.5) participating in a longitudinal study in Minnesota completed a survey including measures of sexual behavior and psychological wellbeing. Chi-square tests were used to compare the prevalence of recent casual partnerships by selected demographic and personal categories. General linear modeling was then used to compare mean levels of each psychological wellbeing measure between those reporting recent casual partners and those reporting committed partners; partner type was measured both dichotomously and categorically.
RESULTS: One-fifth of participants reported that their most recent sex partner was a casual partner (i.e., casual acquaintance or close but nonexclusive partner). Casual partnerships were more common among men than among women (29% vs. 14%), and the proportions of male and female respondents reporting a recent casual partner diff ered by race or ethnicity. Scores of psychological well-being were generally consistent across sex partner categories, and no significant associations between partner type and well-being were found in adjusted analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Young adults who engage in casual sexual encounters do not appear to be at greater risk for harmful psychological outcomes than sexually active young adults in more committed relationships.

Considering how severely imbalanced this article is toward views that conflict with this study, the inclusion of this study is strongly warranted as step toward restoring some balance. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it, and I am fixing other things too. The article needs to be more neutral and balanced; parts of it read like a Conservapedia article.Ajax151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Age ranges considered "adolescent" apparently disputed

I'm noticing a number of edits coming from Special:Contributions/173.76.85.216 which removes or heavily edits content based on the assertion that "college kids" are not "adolescents." I'm not certain how valid this argument is considering that many dictionary definitions define "adolescence" as the age range of 13 to 19, which includes "college aged" individuals in the United States. I also note that some of the edits coming from this IP address seem somewhat POV to me, as they have removed an important #Recent study multiple times. In any event, I think removal of content on the basis that "college kids" are not "adolescents" is groundless. As I intend to patrol edits to this page on these grounds, I'd like to hear what other editors think of that. --Meitar (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources that say collge kids are to old, dictionary.com, websters dictionary and wikipedias article on adolescents. Adolescents is “the transitional period between puberty and adulthood in human development, extending mainly over the teen years and terminating legally when the age of majority is reached; youth.” Wiki says it “is a transitional stage of physical and mental human development generally occurring betweenpuberty and legal adulthood (age of majority),[1] but largely characterized as beginning and ending with the teenage stage.[2][3][4] According to Erik Erikson'sstages of human development, for example, a young adult is generally a person between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas an adolescent is a person between the ages of 13 and 19.[3][4]” College kids are old enough to vote and adolscents arent. they can go to war and smoke and drink. Big dif between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.172.29 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, none of the sources 24.60.172.29 provided actually said anything about "college kids are to (sic.) old". (Neither dictionaries nor Adolescence.) In fact, they all say exactly the same thing, which is exactly what I mentioned, above. Both 18 and 19 year olds have and do regularly go to college in the United States, which was my point. The legality of activities like going to war, smoking, drinking, and voting has little to do with the distinction between adolescence and adulthood and more to do with the law (which varies even across the United States), and which is only tangentially topical for this article in the first place. --Meitar (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They all say it ends when you reach legal adulthood which is 18. Whens the last time u saw a 17 year old in college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.172.29 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They say that, for legal definitions, it ends at legal adulthood. They say, for medical definitions, it ends at "maturity." Using legal definitions for medical terms or contexts is nonsensical; consider the context of the studies. The one most recently removed is a medical study, and a psychological one at that. --Meitar (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but the most recent revert by Special:Contributions/173.76.85.216 is close to, if not squarely within, a violation of WP:NPOV. Their edit summary of "Talk shows it doesn't belong," a reference to this discussion, is hardly appropriate, since this edit is clearly still controversial and unresolved. I'll revert the edit one more time but after that I'm afraid I'll have to seek more drastic measures if other editors don't join this discussion to help reach a decision. --Meitar (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK so even if adolescnce includes 18 and 19 year olds it doenst include 20 and 21 year olds. that study includes them so it doesnt below here. the older people inthe study will skew the results so that it doesnt apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.85.216 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if it is the case that articles or studies including 20 or 21 year olds would "skew" the results and therefore not qualify for inclusion in this article, then the article needs to be rewritten to omit all statements sourced by "Non-coital sexual activities among adolescents" (currently ref'ed as "Guttmacher_oralsex"), "The Mating Habits of the Suburban High School Teenager" (currently ref'ed as "boston"), "Seventeen Is the Average Age at First Sexual Intercourse," and "Study: Religious Teens More Likely to Abstain from Sex" (currently ref'ed as "religion"), and quite possibly numerous others, since that's when I stopped looking for studies that included data collected from anyone over the age of 20. While I'm not convinced that your argument is compelling, I do wonder if you would like to work on this large task, since the article does need improvement. :) Thanks for your diligence. --Meitar (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theres a big dif that you are missing. when counting how old someone is when they have sex then theres just a number and u cant interpert it differently. Its either 15 or 16 or 17 or 26 or whatever. on the other hand saying that someone is ok emotionally hooking up in college is a lot dif than saying they are ok emotioanlly when they hook up in high school or mid school. how they do emotionally is something that can be interpreted dif ways depending on how you examine it. its not just looking and seeing how old u r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.85.216 (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not missing that distinction at all. That is, in fact, precisely why the age ranges that are considered "adolescent" in a sexual context are disputed, as I'm sure you noted throughout this conversation. :) Anyway, I'm glad you're no longer convinced that this is about strict adherence to numbers. With that behind us, the particular reference in question should stay at least until the wider POV issues are resolved, during which I look forward to your many contributions. --Meitar (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article suffers from severe and persistent bias toward a highly partisan and fringe science pro-abstinence point of view. This "badge of shame", as one editor calls it, is there for a reason.

I may set about soon removing large sections of this article that basically represent point of view pushing on the part of an earlier editor. This article could be much better, but much of it needs to be dumped and started again from scratch. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States&oldid=401930105"