Is Teen Phenomenon of "Hooking Up" Leading to Increased HIV/STD Diagnoses?

[The Cleaner]

I feel old. But seriously, in my day of course casual sex went on, but it wasn't this casual. At least teens in my generation expected to be in a relationship before having sex, but now the new phenomenon of "hooking up" means any guy or girl can have sex with no strings attached, with whoever, whenever they feel like it.

And then there's "friends with benefits" which is almost the same thing, but the two are friends sharing intimate moments. I personally don't understand it, but hey - who am I to judge.

I am highly concerned. With all the talk of Gardasil being mandated through sketchy deals with state Governors and legislatures (namely Texas), I have become quite a proponent of behavioral risk analysis. And I am convinced that this problem could be reduced, at least in part, by addressing the BEHAVIOR of teens before giving them risky vaccines mandated by state legislatures and Governors who receive kickbacks from big drug companies (pay to play, Republican style).

I'm not talking about just a few abstinence programs. I'm not even talking about this from a religious perspective. I'm talking about a mass public information campaign - TV commercials, etc. - aimed directly at teens, informing them of the risks and consequences of risky sexual behavior ON THEIR LEVEL.

Now for the big question. Is all of this behavior increasing the risk for HPV and other, more dangerous sexually transmitted diseases? And should we focus more on informing teens of the risks and consequences of "hooking up" and other sexual behaviors through mass media campaigns?

I believe the answer is yes. What do you think?

[closeupready]

1. I think that we live in a highly sexualized culture,

and when you combine that with weak families with, for example, single parents working full-time in order to raise two or three kids, the greater good would be served (IMO) by providing a sensible education to kids about the facts of life and how to avoid the dangers and be responsible. I do not think it is good that kids are doing this, but I just don't think it's likely to stop or be reversed, so I'm just thinking about the reality of the world we live in.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Sensible sexual information is definately needed

including showing boys (and girls) how to properly use a condom. Sadly, what I see are a lot of immature children who are messed up to begin with getting more messed up with STDs and unwanted children.

[closeupready]

16. I must have been raised in the most progressive Midwestern town of all. lol

because I had sex ed when I was in 5th grade. I thought it was kind of gross, honestly. And embarrassing. :D

[BoneDaddy]

2. It has always been about balance for me

I find that balance within most extremes tends to be the correct path. The extreme of sexual repression is as dangerous and "off balance" as total casual sex. Both abuse and can be maladaptive.

When people are allowed to explore their sexuality and sexual expression without fear of judgement and ALSO learn to honor their bodies as well as the bodies/minds/emotions of their partners that middle ground can be reached.

[helderheid]

4. BINGO

[wuushew]

3. I think condoms should be free and available everywhere

both domestically and world wide.

For the desired result of disease prevention I think you would see a superior return on investment compared to behavior modification programs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. also condom education

It's amazing how many don't know how to use them properly and wind up breaking them, leading to STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. What was your generation?

All your concerns would be addressed with the widespread acceptance and use of condoms.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. The Cleaner- Aren't you going to respond to any of the posts made on your thread?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Yes.

The problem is, will they listen. My co-worker's nephew has gotten a girl pregnant, because he didn't use protection, even though his uncle advised him to always do so.

I have difficulty in understanding this type of sex, mainly because I was chaste until I married at 38. I look upon it as a very special act that shows love and commitment between my husband and myself. I fear if children engage in very casual sex, they are missing out on what it can truly be--much more than a physical act.

But how do you stop them?

[Marrah_G]

51. I don't think you can stop them, but

I think you can talk to them. I would ask you, why did you wait? What was said to you that stuck in your mind?

I think as parents we can do our best to give children the tools they need to make the right decisions and hope they follow through. Not just "don't do this" but why they shouldn't. Talk about the pro's and con's, etc. As a country I think there is little that can be done except education and access to birth control/condoms. The only other option ouldd be through force and I don't think anyone wantws to go there.

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. My personal view is that abstinence-only sex ed is a miserable failure.

We need to be back on the track of educating kids about SAFER sex, emphasizing that SAFER doesn't equal SAFE. Level with them - they aren't stupid. I don't know what kind of sex ed is being taught now, but I graduated from HS in 1994. Our sex ed consisted of rolling condoms down bananas, discussing safer sex, etc. I wonder if they still do that? Back in my day there was casual sex but the AIDS scare really cut into that, I think.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Hey, at least they let you practice

I taught sex ed when I subbed for a teacher out on maternity leave. The book mentioned condoms once, but there was NOTHING about showing them, much less showing how to use them. (This was 1994, btw)

[hedgehog]

8. Silly, everyone knows nice middle class kids NEVER have

STDs; just those umm, you know, those disadvantaged kids. And there's no talking to THOSE PEOPLE at ALL, they're just too promiscuous!

[Double T]

10. It is a serious problem, made even more serious by those 'preaching'.......

abstinence instead of facing the fact that 'hooking up' is here and now and promoting the use of protection for HIV etc., etc. Condoms and any other protection should readily available and easily accessible to all with no questions asked. Parents with the greatest influence must care and be involved with their kids.

[Epiphany4z]

11. I think educating

them..arming them with facts is very important..but get that past the religious right or even some not so religious folk who think its best to keep there kids innocent of this stuff.

My sister in law just wants to keep her daughter innocent for as long as possible....in the mean time the kid gets misinformation from friends putting her at much greater risk than need be....

[iconoclastic cat]

13. New phenomenon? Seriously?

Uh, about fifteen years ago, just about all my mental energy was spent attempting to "hook up." I...was not very successful. But then I started a band, and all that changed!

My point is that this is nothing new, and neither is the threat of STDs. We just know more about the diseases and methods of protection.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. New in this way

in the 50s and 60s, boys were expected to try and couple as much as possible--but a girl who had casual sex was called a slut and worse--and shunned socially by other girls. I don't think that is the case now.

[iconoclastic cat]

18. My friend, between 1985 to the present, my female friends have been just as aggressive.

Maybe it's just Chicago or something, but there has been no such shunning in my social circles since I went through puberty. In fact, many of my girlfriends became annoyed by my own penchant for monogamy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Please look at the dates I used

I'm talking about my time as a youngster. When I became a single adult, I didn't have contact with teens to know what they were up to.

[iconoclastic cat]

25. I understood. In addition, this social isolation between generations might

be a larger part of the problem than, say, a shadow army of STD-dripping pedophiles.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. Also regional differences

I have a niece and nephew who are around 20. Nephew has had a live in girlfriend, niece hasn't lived with a boyfriend yet. Both are social, but I don't think either have indulged in casual sex--at least, from talking and visiting with them and their folks, I don't think so--and brother and sister-in-law are very liberal and open when it comes to sexuality. It just isn't something that is done in the small town where they live.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. ROFL

"It just isn't something that is done in the small town where they live"

I truly fucking doubt THAT! :rofl:

But the position does fit into an ideological system that you seem to be working with, which presents today's problems as urbanism, degeneration of social mores, and - yes - gender equality. It is a remarkably reactionary system, to be sure.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. I suspect that empirical studies of sexuality in the 1950's

would reveal behavior somewhat similar to what we see today. Perhaps a bit different, yes, but people often construct an imaginary past, even when they lived through it.

These kids these days! - Socrates

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Yeah, that was a great system...

:eyes:

Maybe we should go back to the days when girls were made to feel ashamed about their desires and bodies! Right-o...

:sarcasm:

[havocmom]

17. Think it may have something to do with pedophiles

Always wondered how adolescents got STDs started within their population to start with. :think: Some people who have been around the block introduced it to youngsters?

Just one of those things that always bothered me.

And while I know sexual experimentation is normal with adolescents, and our culture places an unhealthy emphasis upon being popular/sexy, I wonder if increased casual sex isn't a manifestation of loneliness too. Too many kids don't really get parented. Too many never learn how to communicate and relate on meaningful levels. The society is increasingly geared for basic solitude via the pounding we take from superficial relationships.

People are lonely. Kids especially. Combined with a cultural focus on appearances over substance...

But, how does a basically closed population of virgins get exposed to STDs when they become sexually active in the first place? Makes me think the big people are part of the problem.

[iconoclastic cat]

20. Unfortunately, I disagree with you.

I took a very scary course called "Biology of Sexually Transmitted Diseases" as an elective as an undergrad, and all it takes is one person to introduce it to a social group.

[havocmom]

22. And, that person would have experience to have caught it?

BINGO.

The original sin in my book: sex with a child.

[iconoclastic cat]

24. Is this simply a gut feeling? There was a Frontline prog about this, actually.

Not to rattle your cage or anything, havocmom, but I would be willing to wager that it is more along the lines of say, for example, an 18 or 19 year old passing an STD to a 15 or 16 year old. If that constitutes pedophilia in your book, then I suppose you may be correct.

You know, there was a great Frontline episode about this called "The Lost Children of Rockdale County" that I think might illuminate this whole issue:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/interviews/toomey.html

[havocmom]

28. More actualy observation than gut

[iconoclastic cat]

31. Are you saying you observed the transmission of the STD? I'm confused.

And I would like to submit my own scenario: When I was 22, I went to a club. I met a young woman, and the two of us ended up together for the evening. She later revealed that she had just turned nineteen (edited to add: as well as possessing a fake ID and a fondness for tequila). Luckily, we were perfectly safe. But imagine if we had not been: If I had an STD, she could easily have passed it another 19 year old, who could pass it to someone younger, etc.

[havocmom]

34. The cultural phenomena

And I know you aren't that dense.

[iconoclastic cat]

35. True, I was being sarcastic. But I'm still confused.

How exactly could you be in the position to observe either A)teens hooking up or B)pedophiles picking up underage kids?

[gatorboy]

19. Blame the leading Republican candidiates for Pres.

Kids see how loose they are with their morals and think it's okay.

[underpants]

21. Let's see now (scratches temple) where esle could they have got this message?

About, oh lets say, 9 years ago today's 15 year old was 6 and today's 18 year old was 9 now what was the main story -the story that you could not miss in 1998? Hmmm what was it????

[havocmom]

26. Thank you.

And there may be a case or two that didn't involve anyone who would make the news...

[underpants]

29. Gee ya think?

You are welcome :hi:

[gravity]

27. Most teens use condoms when "hooking up"

Teach people safe sex is the route to go.

Everyone has different views about sex, so I don't think its right to push them onto others. Some people prefer to hook up without any strings attached, its what they like to do. Also its the same thing as casual sex, you make it seem like teens these days are having massive orgies.

[frustrated_lefty]

30. This is an old phenomenon.

I don't know the answer, but commercials won't do it. Sex is enjoyable for most guys and a decent percentage of women. The forbidden fruit, once tasted, is not likely to be ignored.

I do know if you approach the topic as if you were talking to them on THEIR LEVEL, they will just ignore you, write you off, and just let you hear happy tales of little bunnies and fairy tales.

[Maddy McCall]

41. Not a phenomenon at all. It's been going on since time immemorial.

[Matariki]

32. what generation was that?

clearly not the 'free love' generation of the 60's?

[The Straight Story]

33. Let's treat it like smoking

If it increases your risk of getting sick and might increase someones health care costs, then let's attack it and tax it :)

Casual sex outside of marriage leads to things like this ya know ;)

[zalinda]

36. I think it wasy more complex than what is on the surface

As someone brought up, in the 50's and 60's, good girls didn't. But you could go back even further and still get the same message. In the 30's and 40's, women who got pregnant could explain that her "husband" went off to find a job or got killed in the war, late 60's, early 70's Vietnam. There are many "war" babies out there who have been lied to all their lives.

But, in these good old days, almost all at least thought they were in a relationship, which they were hoping would lead to marriage. The guys perspective was a little different.

So, what is changed? It's the "I want it now" attitude. We used to save money to buy a house, car or whatever, now we put it on credit. I see it here on these forums. I want the dems to do it NOW. It seems patience is a thing of the past. They see it as why wait, when I can get what I want now. They don't see that waiting has it's own sweetness. And it's coming across in EVERYTHING. I want that high paying job NOW. I want to have a baby NOW. I want a car NOW. Working for anything has become a joke.

Unfortunately, these people will have their lives crash around them and have no idea why. It could be anything, because they did not see what could happen to them. Maybe it's America, because immigrants seem to know this. My mother drives me crazy when she tells me about how this foreigner or that just walked into a bank and got a loan without a problem. No, mom, they put together a business plan and saved enough money to have the bank look seriously at them.

Sex should be the reward for loving, and not the means to get there. Let me clarify, making love should be the reward, because sex and making love are two totally different actions. Although finding younger people who know the difference is becoming almost impossible.

zalinda

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Teen pregnancy rates are far lower than they were fifty years ago.

I believe STD rates are also down, although not nearly as dramatically. Testing wasn't nearly as common back then.

[Maddy McCall]

40. It's no different than when I was a teen in the late 70s/early 80s.

We called it "getting with." As in "she got with John last night."

It's no different now than it's ever been.

[ellisonz]

42. You're joking right? It's nothing new at all...at all. I mean even Strom Thurmmond was doing it.

Where are the parents? I think probably the biggest factor in unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's is yes Virginia, the age difference that is so common between teenage females age 13-16 and males age 16+...there's just something about the female psychology and "older men," more mature my ass...but the correlation may very well be spurious. But based on my expierences it really is a detrimental social phenomenon and I very well may go through the sociology data and see what I can prove in regards to this matter when I'm not heading out the door.

[otherlander]

66. GOD HAVE MERCY!

That subject line was a mental image that I did NOT need! :puke:

[John Q. Citizen]

43. Is this a hit and run post? Why no reply's? Why no interaction? What's your

purpose?

[Toucano]

46. That appears to be the case. n/t

[The Cleaner]

54. No, I had a lot to do yesterday after posting.

I happened to see this got kicked back to the first page today, so here I am...just reading responses and learning more about this issue...

Don't be so quick to judge.

[Toucano]

56. Great! Welcome back.

I wouldn't, however, call it a "quick" judgement.

Making a controversial post and then logging off isn't the norm on DU, but I understand how it does happen sometimes.

At any rate, I'm glad you've returned.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. No problem. It's good to check your post to see if they are replied to using the "My DU" button

It's been almost 24 hours, so I thought I'd ask, not that 24 hours away is wrong or anything.

[gollygee]

48. I know teens but it doesn't seem like there are more "hooking up" than

in the 80s when I was in high school. There are some, but not all. I don't think casual sex is a bigger issue now than it has been in the past. Do you have studies that show there's more casual sex?

[The Cleaner]

55. While this may not necessarily be a "new" issue,

I recall in my time growing up in the 80s, generally speaking it was just expected the guy and girl were in a relationship. It wasn't any of this hooking up, no strings attached stuff. Of course that still went on to a certain degree, but from what I saw, it was a very small minority.

I think one of the issues is simply that "hooking up" has become a popular, fashionable, cool, hip thing to do. My thought is that it lends itself to increased cases of STDs, including HIV. So if we can begin to address risky behaviors, perhaps we can limit the transmission of dangerous STDs. Even with Gardasil, not all women will be 100% protected - and what about HIV, genital herpes, and the like.

I think it's the responsible thing to do personally...along with educating parents on how to discuss the risks of hooking up from a medical perspective. I mean, I would think twice if I was told sexual behavior may result in a lifelong disease that may become deadly.

In fact one time I was at a park in the Washington DC area and happened upon a homeless man who had AIDS. We got to talking to one another and he showed me his wrist, which literally looked like it had been chopped out with an ax or sawed into. It was almost as if his hand was dangling from a very thin area of flesh and bone. It was very eerie - and showed me firsthand the ravages of this terrible disease.

[gollygee]

57. Again, do you have any statistics?

I think it's still a small minority. At least among the teenagers I know. Most of them, if they're having sex, are in a relationship. It might not look like that serious of a relationship from my perspective, but then our relationships when we were teenagers might not have looked very serious to older people either.

[The Cleaner]

59. Not a whole lot of statistics out there on "hooking up" apparently -

but I did find a PDF document that talks a little about it:

http://www.jeremiahone.net/pdf/hooking_up.pdf

This article doesn't support my theory that because of hooking up kids are having more intercourse (in 2003 anyway). In fact, it describes hooking up as more oral sex than intercourse. There! It's all Bill Clinton's fault!
:sarcasm:

The article does cite one important complexity though - and that is a growing emotional detachment in intimate relationships, particularly on the part of the girls. In the article, one girl even says she can have sex with the guy without any emotional attachment, because her emotional needs are met with her female friends.

[verse18]

49. Parents and other responsible adults need to be pushing for

comprehensive sexual education that is age appropriate. If it's not the responsible adults teaching children about sex, the sexual perpetrators out there are more then happy to school them. They will teach your children ALL they need to know about sex. They'll learn em real good.

We all know what these sexual predators tell our kids. We've heard it before.

“It’s okay. Don’t worry.”
“Just this once. Trust me.”
“You know I wouldn’t do anything to hurt you.”
“This is normal. This is the way it’s supposed to be.”
“If you love me, prove it.”
“I’m going to make you feel good.”
“You want it, you know you do.”
“What’s the big deal? Everybody does it.”

We need to be giving our children tools to protect themselves from sexual predators, and "faith-based," "pro-life," abstinence only way DOES NOT WORK.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. I'd like to see empirical/historical evidence on the "newness" of this phenomenon

I'm not doubting that there is some "newness" to it, but I think the drastic change in sexual PRACTICES is over-stated. Of course, there have been changes in some sexual attitudes (which would also affect the empirical evidence, I suppose), but I'm not convinced that the 1950's were as chaste as some people suppose, nor that sex among teens today is more casual than its ever been. They just are more willing to talk about it.

I had a student last semester who wrote a paper defining "hooking up" for an audience of worried parents. One of her arguments was that the "culture of courtship" has changed, and is no longer the stable relationship-oriented phenomenon from her parents youth. This student was born in 1989! That would put her patrents youth, generally speaking, during the late-1970's through early 1980's! Er, not exactly an era known for its sexual restraint, yes? I asked her for empirical evidence on that point.

Point being, we romanticize (haha) the history of sexuality at our peril. And truly at our peril. The problem today isn't the "new" culture of courtship, urbanism, decline of mores, or any such traditional nonsense. Rather, it is the ecology of disease, and that is prevented not through flaccid nostalgia, but with actual education in safe practices.

[The Cleaner]

58. What I'm going by is generalized societal mores.

In the 1950s, the overall attitude was that women should be chaste and sex is reserved until marriage. Of course there were always exceptions to the rule, as in any generation. But generally speaking this is the way society operated back then. Also it had a lot to do with morals and values coming from the Christian faith as opposed to relativism.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Generalized social mores are often ideological

And do not reflect the empirically verifiable state of affairs. In other words, going by "general social mores" can mystify the actual facts on the ground. I suspect that this is the case with respect to sexuality among teens in the 1950's, and I haven't sen any empirical evidence to prove the contrary. Is it the case that teenagers were as promiscuous in the 1950's as they are today? I don't know. I haven't seen any empirical evidence on that point either. But, as I said, we proceed by "generalized social mores" at our peril. At the very least, we must understand them as a projection. Relying on them as empirical evidence is foolish. I won't even comment on the Christianity/relativism business, since there is historical evidence of rampant sexual promiscuity throughout the Christian period. I think it's neither here nor there, and nothing but an additional ideological hobby-horse, which is to say, a mystification of the facts.

[Toucano]

65. Relativism?

Who's feeding you that fundamentalist crap?

Human sexual behavior has changed VERY LITTLE over centuries.

The myth of the chaste 1950's is just that: MYTH.

What has changed is the advent of mass media and an inclination toward more inquiry and openness about sexual behavior.

Sexual behavior doesn't come from Christian faith or relativism but from human BIOLOGY, the same as it always has.

Losing Virginity at Younger Ages? Not So, Global Sex Survey Finds
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=A0BBEDE1-E7F2-99DF-354D7DA48D39CF25

Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence that young people are engaging in sexual intercourse at earlier ages--the first instance of sexual activity for both genders generally occurs at between 15 and 19 years of age globally. "There's always a tendency to think that things are going to 'hell in a handbasket,'" remarks Richard Parker, the sociomedical sciences department chair at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "A lot of what we say we think about trends in sexual behavior are basically kind of knee-jerk, impressionistic conclusions that we make, rather than because we looked at the data.

[gollygee]

52. Are you saying kids shouldn't be vaccinated for STDs if vaccines are available

because they might have sex more?

I know there are issues with this particular vaccine, but in general . . . let's say there was a vaccine that was better studied and shown to be very safe and it kept people from getting any STDs at all, but they had to have the vaccine before they were exposed to a STD. Would you give it to your kids? Or would you not give it to your kids because it might make them more likely to have sex?

[The Cleaner]

60. That's a whole 'nuther ball game!

I don't want to distract from my OP, but no, I'm not against vaccination, yes, I would vaccinate my daughters, no, I don't believe mandatory vaccination is a good thing, yes, I think it should be opt-in and free like South Dakota's model.

One point I wanted to make in the OP is that I believe addressing teens' risky behaviors has a very important role to play also - and not a whole lot is being done about it at this point in terms of public service campaigns.

:)

[gollygee]

62. OK fair enough

I think it comes down to giving our kids (particularly daughters) a healthy sense of self esteem. Girls are overwhelmed by images of too-skinny celebrities who think they're too fat and call each other fat. There's a sense that girls have to be perfect to be valuable. And if girls have issues with their self esteem, they seem to be less picky about their relationships. Like they think they're lucky with whatever they can get, and they'd better do whatever to keep it because they're not good enough to necessarily get someone else.

my opinion anyway as the mother of a daughter (who is as of yet too young for these issues)

[GliderGuider]

53. "In my generation"

There was little expectation of a relationship before or after sex. Of course, that "generation" really only lasted from 1967 to 1975 - which makes it less a generation than a phenomenon, come to think of it. I remember lots of people making group trips to the free clinic for penicillin shots, too. :hippie:

Risky behaviour has always been a part of human nature. In large measure it makes us who we are, and probably has a genetic basis. All the tut-tutting infomercials in the world won't change it. People have sex, but never as much as they want to, and will do anything to get a bit more. Shrug.

[depakid]

63. I think this is just another smoke screen the anti-vaccination agenda

I'm not sure what the alternative that you're proposing is- other than a mass- and likely to be massively ineffective abstinence program. Nothing in the literature shows that they work- and some studies actually show an increase in teen pregnancy and STD's where they're in place.

Promoting condom use and safe sex- that's great. We should be doing much more of it. But saying that kids should be vaccinated for preventable diseases at the highest rate possible as a requirement for school attendence.

Hep B and HPV are two STD's that can be vaccinated for before the kid is likely to get them. Hep B is already required in many if not most districts. No reason that HPV shouldn't be either, since the worldwide scientific consensus is that it's safe and effective.

Frankly, I think they ought to be free to all, and administered as a matter of course by school nurses to certain grades every year. How it's done with certain things in the UK is that authorities send a letter home letting parents know that an immunization or a vision or hearing test will occur- and the kids then get them as a matter of course. Theoretically, parents can opt out- but almost no one ever does, because it's assumed (and socially reinforced) that everyone wants their kids to receive appropriate treatments.

[ComerPerro]

67. Its becoming pretty clear that this was a hit and run post, but I'll humor you anyway

by saying what many others have said.

This is nothing new. Its just that you are falling victim to a common phenomenon that can be described as nostalgia, seeing the past and your childhood as "Better times", when things were simpler and more pure.

But if that's the case, why can't I turn on a country radio station without hearing a song about how the singer had sex in a car when he was 15, and how great it was?