Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 1

subject 'dealing with adolescent sexuality' makes it sound like a problem to be fixed
I'm uncomfortable with that phrasing for the 'education' or 'perspectives' section. How about we rename to say, 'Perspectives on educating adolescents about sexuality'? Sexperts 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I am in support of anything you could do to rephrase the negative overtones in this essay. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

there is already a main article on this
See adolescent sexuality That article is mean't to have a GLOBAL COVERAGE of the subject so i think this article should be deleted and/or simply redirect to the main article as its creation along with adolescent sexuality in Britain and adolescent sexuality in the United States would put undue strain on the wiki servers if so many articles are created.

We have a main article, let's use it! We can easily integrate what is here into the main article once protection is removed and disputes have been resolved... then text can be mined for POV'S etc, and we can perhaps put major pov's into a seperate article on controversy over adolescent sexuality as has been proposed by myself in talk:adolescent sexuality —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

This article is biased. It uses questionable research and quotations of sweeping breadth to support a specifc moral agenda on teen sexuality. Its point of view is Victorian Age Christianity which it tries to disguise in pseudo-scientific terms. It should be deleted unless Wikipedia allows pure propaganda as opposed to clearly identified opinions. DialM4Mayhem 21:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)DialMrMayhem

Failed GA comments
I feel that this doesn't meet the GA criteria for two reasons, so I have failed it. In my opinion, although the article is very well sourced, it fails WP:WIAGA criteria numbers 1 and 4. Specifically, although the article does attempt to be thorough, it has a loose framework and mainly seems to have text in order to hold together citations and quotes that the authors wanted to include. I also really can't describe an article as "well written" when from start to finish, it does a significant portion of its exposition through direct quotes. It also, I think, fails criterion 4 (neutrality) as it seems to spend a lot of time on the viewpoint that adolescents view sex lightly. While there are lots of inline citations, the justification for all those claims strikes me as very anecdotal, and continually quoting the sources in the text seems overly deferential to the sources that have been selected. I'm not saying that the conclusions aren't justified, I just feel like this reads more like a research paper with a position than an attempt to present all viewpoints. Mango juice talk 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Responses section
I have removed the section, yet again. It was removed intentionally not by mistake. Besides it being uncited, unreferenced POV, it discusses the current U.S. government view, and not past views. With the recent change in congress, who knows what views the current government has or will espouse. I don't see how the text, even if supported by citation, is relevant or adds to the understanding of the topic of the article. Please try to develop something sunstantive, rather than throwing in a stub that doesn't stand on its own to ffer value to the article. And please cite.

"Official Federal government policy has been to emphasize sexual abstinence or pre-marital chastity, particularly in sex education with a focus on abstinence-only sex education addressing issues of sexual activity by adolescents rather than the harm reduction approach of the safer sex focus. "

Atom 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. However, I think the see also section should remain.  The link under it is relevant to the topic of the article.  I will be re-adding it.  --Illuminato 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking about it first. I don't think the link is appropriate.  The article discusses adolescent sexuality.  The link you put in is an article on a christian abstinence group.  Some would consider that to be very POV.  Information that is pertinent should go into the article, not be referenced tangentially.  Atom 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't originally add the link, but I do think it is appropriate. It is an organization in the US dealing with adolescent sexuality.  If there is an articles out there about groups encouraging US teens to have sex, or other abstinence groups, or other groups that simply offer information but don't take a position on whether teens should or shouldn't be having sex,  then I would absolutely say include them as well.  They are pertinent to the article and so I don't think we violate NPOV to include them.  See also sections are designed to give readers easy access to related articles.  Including this link does that, so I've put it back in.   --Illuminato 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the original section - for the article to be improved something on official responses is required, it would certainly provide useful context for US adolescents who may access the article. As an Australian I am amazed at the US discussion at times, the latest reportage on HPV vaccination being an example. Paul foord 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV balance
I am concerned about the balance of the article. It looks as if it was originally written as an article against adolescent sexuality, rather than to present a balanced view of ther facts related to the topic. The viewpoint that learning about sexuality during adolescence is normal and healthy should be the predominant message. Discussing the many difficulties, pitfalls and problems with going to quickly certainly should be discussed. It should be the goal of the article to present the topic in a realistic light. The key to building healthy long-term relationships is in learning about sexuality and relationships while in adolescence, and avoiding the pitfalls mentioned in the article. Avoiding learning about these issues is what is responsible for the many difficulties adults in their 20's and sometimes 30's have. If they had been exposed to learning about intimacy appropriately when they were developing emotionally, they would have less problems later. Atom 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with what you said. This article appears to be simply anti-sexuality, but I'm not sure how we could improve it without rewriting the entire article.


 * '"Casual teen attitudes toward sex — particularly oral sex — reflect their confusion about what is normal behavior... [T]eens are facing an intimacy crisis that could haunt them in future relationships. 'When teenagers fool around before they're ready or have a very casual attitude toward sex, they proceed toward adulthood with a lack of understanding about intimacy.'"[20]'


 * I'd just like to point out that that could be considered false. The article says that most teens that have any form of sexual intercourse participate in oral sex, yet this quote is saying that oral sex is completely abnormal. One of many examples of such. Zelandonia 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a wikinoob so i'm not sure if this is appropriate, but you hold a vote or something and delete this article? It's some laughable minority religious/prude viewpoints from beginning to end and i'm not sure it'd be worth the effort to extract anything usable for a new, decent article 86.147.9.135 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can propose the article for deletion if you like (WP:PROD and WP:AFD), but to be quite honest I doubt it would be deleted. Deletion only occurs if the topic could never be made into a proper encyclopedia article, not just if it's not now. What you can do, though, is edit the article! If you think there are problems with it, you're very welcome to go write changes that you believe address the problems. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is definitely biased, and should be balanced out. I don't want to delete large bodies of information. I don't have the knowledge to write about the opposite point of view in the detail that the argument against adolescent sexuality was written. I mean, I suppose we could delete it, but I'd really hate to delete something on this scale. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree both this article and the article Adolescent sexuality are hugely biased toward sexual conservatism and very poorly written, being essentially a collection of cherry-picked quotes. These articles are so bad, if fact, that I think most of the content should simply be deleted. (See my proposal Talk:Adolescent sexuality.) My only disagreement is your statement "The viewpoint that learning about sexuality during adolescence is normal and healthy should be the predominant message." That's also POV. The article should be NPOV and give all points of view on the issue. Iamcuriousblue 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perspectives for and against
Atomaton, as I have said on your talk page, I really think it does a disservice to the experts quoted here, not to mention the article itself, to pigeon hole the information presented on adolescent sexuality as either being for or against. Having read many of their works I know they hold much more nuanced positions then "yes its a good thing" or "no its a bad thing." Further, much of the information you keep putting under "perspectives against" is really just opposed to casual sex among teens, not sexuality in general. I've removed the sections again, but before it turns into an edit war I will be asking for a Third opinion. --Illuminato 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Please hold on for a moment-providing an informed opinion here is going to mean having a quick look at the cited sources, and there are quite a few here. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of problems here. The article seems to be written with a mostly "against" tone, but many cited sources (especially the USA Today report, which is comprehensive and probably the most neutral one) is, well, pretty neutral. A few examples (but by no means an exhaustive list):

Article text: "The "early initiation [of] sexual behaviors [takes] a toll on teens' mental health. The result... can be 'dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, [and a] lack of goals.'"[9] When teens engage in sexual activities that are not part of intimate relationship then "they're not then developing all of the really important skills like trust and communication and all those things that are the key ingredients for a healthy, long-lasting relationship."[16] When having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy."[17]

USA Today:

"All of us in the field are still trying to get a handle on how much of this is going on and trying to understand it from a young person's point of view," says Stephanie Sanders, associate director of The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, which investigates sexual behavior and sexual health."

""If we are indeed headed as a culture to have a total disconnect between intimate sexual behavior and emotional connection, we're not forming the basis for healthy adult relationships," says James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a reproductive-health organization in Washington."

The article reports one side of this as true, while many others say the jury is still out or that there is insufficient data. We must not take sides this way, reporting all views in a debate or contested issue is a critical part of neutrality. The article must mention the expert disagreement.

Article text: "Increasingly, teenage sexual encounters in the United States do not occur in the context of a romantic relationship, but in an impersonal, merely sexual "hook up."

USA Today: "Researchers cannot conclude that the percentage of teens having oral sex is greater than in the past. There is no comparison data for girls, and numbers for boys are about the same as they were a decade ago in the National Survey of Adolescent Males: Currently, 38.8% have given oral sex vs. 38.6% in 1995; 51.5% have received it vs. 49.4% in 1995."

Again, looks like the jury's out here.

Those are only a couple of examples, but to respond to the third opinion-the whole article has glaring POV problems like this. I see some researchers saying "This is bad", some saying "This is fine", and yet others saying "The data is insufficient, and we can't know what effect this will have on the kids until they actually do grow up." The article, in contrast, approaches the subject with overwhelming negativity. While those who take a negative view should certainly be reported, this article gives those voices a significant amount of undue weight.

Oh, as to what the third opinion asked about, I agree that "for" and "against" sections would be highly counterproductive here-most of the experts cited have a much more nuanced view, and we would do our readers a far greater service in properly paraphrasing those views, providing countervailing ones, and having a good neutral article, then trying to pigeonhole nuanced expert views (which may contain elements of neither or both) into arbitrary categories. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One other issue I see, is that the flow of prose into quote in the same sentence is confusing and blurs the line between "the source's voice" (which might have a point of view) and "Wikipedia's voice" (which should take no side). The quotes should be placed in greater context and not interlaced with our words, rather, they should be paraphrased or cited as full sentences along with the rest of the reference. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Collection of quotes needs more fluidity. I removed seveal indpenedent fact tags in favor of article global tag.  Infividual tags were placed because of disagreement with one POV, but not placed for unreferenced for another POV.  Global unreferenced tags asks for work on whole article, not a specific POV.  Unreferenced can stay fo now, but needs to be resolved eventually.


 * For or against sections are needed because there are two very different viewpoints. Article requires both views presented for NPOV.  Trying to combine two disparate views is not possible, and trying to do so creates a fractured article, besides not meeting NPOV policy.  Presenting both sides well is what makes for a neutral article.  Please see WP:NPOV.


 * The article does need to be more than a collection of quotes, however everything should be sourced, particularly in such a controversial article. Claims like "no abstinence-only program has ever been shown to reduce teen sexual activity, pregnancy, or STDs" needs a citation.  I was willing to let them stay up there, with the tags, until you came up with the source for the claim, but you didn't, you jusrt deleted the tags and put a global on it.  Its better to be specific, so people know exactly which claims are not sourced and can go out and find sources for them.  As Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."  I removed the unsourced claims.


 * As the neutral third party has said above "I agree that "for" and "against" sections would be highly counterproductive here-most of the experts cited have a much more nuanced view, and we would do our readers a far greater service in properly paraphrasing those views, providing countervailing ones, and having a good neutral article, then trying to pigeonhole nuanced expert views (which may contain elements of neither or both) into arbitrary categories." This isn't an issue that can easily be placed in for and against categories.

We disagree. Sorry, but there are clearyl distinct views on the subject. Most of the content here is a POV oriented around suggesting that they are against adolescent sexuality. I am fine with that view being presented. But, trying to make a "neutral" article isn;t possible. The "nuanced" views as you call it, can be expressed to support the different viewpoints. I respect that you would like it to be different. I hope that you respect that these issues happen all of the time on Wikipedia, which is why we have a firm WP:NPOV policy to help deal with that. Atom 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is that there are NOT two "clearly distinct views on the subject." For instance, many of the quotes in there are just talking about 'hooking up' and not all adolescent sexual encounters.  Some of the authors that you insist on putting in the against section are not opposed to teenagers having sex, if they are ready for it.  Its not fair to them for you to place their views in a section that they wouldn't agree with.  Trying to claim that one of these authors is for or against the broad topic of adolescent sexuality when they hold much more nuanced views is equally POV.  There is also a dispute resolution policy that begins with getting a third opinion.  I requested one, and an opinion was given, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for you.  I don't want this to escalate even further up the dispute resolution chain. --Illuminato 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I apprecizte you taking an effort to discuss it in more detail. I was not aware that you had asked for a third opinion, although I did see the third opinion title.  It is good to have more opinions, but that is just one opinion, and many of the things he said had merit.  I understand what you are saying when you say that their views are "nuanced", but the whole section are from people who are not neutral on the matter, but in fact have said that they feel that adolescent sexuality is negative.  Of course there are aspects of adolescent sexuality that is negative, just as there is for adult sexuality.  But, we need to hgave a more well rounded perspective in the article than a just a list of quotes that someone dug up that suggest the negative aspects.  The fact is that adolescents have always explored their sexuality, and will continue to do so.  The article can discuss some of the negative aspects, but needs to discuss issues that help teens explore their sexuality more safely.  There is a large faction that has some skewed concept that trying to prevent teens from lerning about sexuality is somehow a positive thing.  We need to work to present the facts on that matter, rather than letting the article be skewed by unrealistic abstinence based viewpoints.

I don't wish to escalate anything, but I don't see how you continuing to remove section headings that show the broad differences on the issue is productive in preventing that. If/when the article is better written, and more than a collection of quotes on one side of the fence (regardless of the broader views of those individual authors, not completely expressed in the quotes) I can see it being necessary to express that their are firm viewpoints on both sides of the issue. Why not start developing that now? Atom 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"less sustained, often not monogamous and with lower levels of satisfaction."
Atom, you keep removing the line about such relationships being "less sustained, often not monogamous and with lower levels of satisfaction" because you think it just someones opinion, and not fact. However, if you check the source, you will see it comes from a 28-year study, where Collins and his colleagues followed 180 individuals from birth. I've reinstated that sentence, again. --Illuminato 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove it because I felt that the quote was not accurate. I removed it because the comment, from a basic editorial perspective, does not have a place there. How is that opinion (even if made by a psychologist who has done research) support what is being said in the article? Showing a bias for monogamy doesn't help the quote either. Monogampy versue polyamory doesn;t have any relevance in that section. Many people fine polyamory to be more satisfying and more sustained than monogamy, but that also doesn't have relevance in the section in the article. I was being balanced in trying to remove the quote, as the other alternative is to drag more of that authors study into the article. We can do that if you prefer, but I am not sure that will improve the quality of the article. Atom 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is relevant to the article in that it discusses an aspect of teen's sexual relationships. Its not giving a value judgment about monogamy vs polygamy, its just saying that purely sexual relationships are A, B & C.  This is an example of how its not a good idea to peg these things into for and against sections. --Illuminato 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased study?

 * 51 percent surveyed said when they had sexual intercourse for the first time it was because they had "met the right person,"
 * 45 percent surveyed said it was because "the other person wanted to,"
 * 32 percent of those surveyed said it was because they were "just curious,"
 * 28 percent surveyed said it was because they "hoped it would make the relationship closer," and
 * 16 percent surveyed said it was because "many of their friends already had sex" [10]

What about the option, "I wanted to have sex very badly"? It seems to me that this option has been overlooked by this study and thus is biased. This option seems to me to be a main reason why someone would want to have sex: because they wanted to!. For example, if I were faced with this poll, my answer in essay form would be "Because I was horny," but in this multiple-choice poll it might be any of these reasons simply because the main reason for wanting to have sex, which is wanting to have sex, was overlooked. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't included in the survey. (Believe me, at this time I was DESPERATE to find something to counterbalance the bias of this article and this is all that I could find that Illuminato and his IP adress 'side kick' didn't delete. Although yes, it IS limited in that respect.

Half of boys but a third of girls
"Almost half of boys (47%) believe that oral sex is "not a big deal" but only slightly more than a third of girls (38%) feel the same way."
 * That's only 9 percent less - the phrasing makes it sound like a larger discrepancy than it is. Slightly more than a third is 38%? It would be different if they were both slightly more or both slightly less, but this phrasing doesn't let the facts stand on their own ground. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the point there-I would see nothing wrong with simply saying "47% of boys and 38% of girls...". Still keeps the factual information without any question of spin. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal/state of article
Discuss at Talk:Adolescent sexuality. Iamcuriousblue 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

oxytocin
if you follow the link for oxytocin it says that its part of both sex and bonding. i dont get what is totally disputed about that?


 * First off, note that sources for information in Wikipedia articles need to come from external verifiable sources, not from ones interpretation of staments in other Wikipedia articles. Second the "oxytocin hypothesis" that I am disputing states that one has sex with multiple partners, oxytocin becomes deleted and one loses the ability to bond with sexual partners or one's children. This idea is now favored among pro-abstinence education ideologues such as Eric Keroack, but is more generally regarded as junk science, even by the researchers who's studies people like Keroack cite. More info here. Unfortunately, User:Illuminato has chosen to present this article as undisputed fact, part of his case against teen sex. Iamcuriousblue 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

factual accuracy
Iamcuriousblue, what is the factual accuracy that you are disputing? --Illuminato 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the oxytocin hypothesis is pure junk science. However, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg with this article. I'll say it again – this article is blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV and your acting as gatekeeper of what edits or tagging other people can and can't make to this article is blatantly in violation of WP:OWN. Iamcuriousblue 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to act as gatekeeper, but I can't improve anything if you dont give me specifics. The oxytocin paragraph has been cited.  I don't know what else you want. --Illuminato 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, we've given you dozens of specifics. Going into very deep detail multiple times over months of debate. You've either dodged the questions, denied them, reverted them, or used other unfair means to control this and other articles. You ARE a gatekeeper. And your censorship (Yes i'm calling it that.) of this article is an undeniable (except to you) problem. HOW MANY TIMES have we sugested things that need fixing, improvement, or otherwise?. Even while you delete and archive discussions to feign innocence. YOU know you've violated wikipedia policy and the trust and respect of other editors numerous times.

You won't listen to reason, you won't listen to a vast majority consensus, you won't follow the guidelines of the site you're editing, you push your point of view onto articles despite the cries of everyone else.

You are as bad as the 'emotional distress and psychological damage' you talk about so much. Illuminato, I can tell you're realizing you can't control articles based on adolescent sexuality forever. I've seen it coming and it is now happening.

A growing majority is pushing back against you. And you fight back ever more viciously, I urge you. STOP NOW. Before it's too late and you lose the last ounce of respect we might have for you and your opinions.

It's true that they say "The more endangered an animal gets, the harder it will fight back". Illuminato, i'm comparing you to that animal. And I think it's an accurate comparison.

With your views as the animal, the endangerment coming from the other side that disagrees with your actions. But you're a human, (I'm guessing), you're sentient. So don't act like an animal. Drop your opinions, I have long since resolved to not try and force my POV into the article and only to try and make it factual.

Do the same. I beg of you. On behalf of your sense of morality, and virtue, and value. And on behalf of me, you, and everyone else involved in editing this article.

It has been 4 months. Let it be enough! contribute wisely and let this article be neutral... Isn't that enough? Nateland 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nateland, in that entire little screed of yours there was no mention of anything that is factually inaccurate in this article. You can compare me to whatever you want, but unless you can prove, or at least question, the factual accuracy of X, Y and Z then the tag should go.  --Illuminato 05:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can prove, or at least question, the factual accuracy of X, Y and Z then the tag should go What do you think I and others have been doing for the past four months?. Look through the talk pages, histories, links, this and that. Of course you won't, because you dodge the truth. And even an appeal to your sense of morality is ineffectual. Good god, this is crazy.Nateland 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, can't you read Illuminato? There's a section right above this one titled "oxytocin" – it links to a Slate article pointing out that the oxytocin hypothesis bandied about by abstinence advocates is pure junk science. The tags definitely should not go – the tags state that the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. You bet they're disputed – I'm formally disputing them! You've already been blatantly disregarding WP:NPOV for at least 4 months. I'll take removal of the tags on this article as evidence that you intend to disregard WP:OWN as well. Iamcuriousblue 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that Jesus was a deity or is any source of appeal for you here, but lets try to keep him out of this anyway, shall we? The oxyctin mentions are all cited, so I don't know what else you want.  Can you show me something that says it doesn't surge through bodies during orgasm?  That levels don't rise 500% in men?  What is it you think is inaccurate?  Also, I don't think Microsoft or  the Boston Globe (owned by the NY Times) are really known as "pro-abstinence education ideologues," so you may want to come up with a better argument there as well.  All the statements about oxyctin in the article are linked to experts.  What more do you want? --Illuminato 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that oxytocin release is somehow an argument against casual sex is nothing but pure spin and editorializing based on junk science. It doesn't even belong in this article, since it has nothing to do with the particular topic of adolescent sexuality. There is no scientific evidence that long-term ability to bond is negatively affected by casual sexual encounters. I'm sick to death of going around and around with you about this article. This article does not even begin to remotely meet the standards of WP:NPOV and I think you damn well know it. I'm also quite sick of your trying to redirect conversation to minute points of the article, then fighting like hell over ever little point. The big picture is that you've produced an article that's basically an editorial on your POV about teenage sex. That's unacceptable.  Since I think this discussion is going nowhere, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to submit to the process of mediation. You state your case as to why you think this version of the article is accurate and NPOV according to Wikipedia standards. I (and Nateland, if he wishes to make a statement) can state why I think this article falls far short of it. A number of other article who aren't involved in this dispute will look at the issue, make their own judgements about the state of the article, and try to build some kind of consensus. Are you interested? Iamcuriousblue 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says nothing about the long term ability to bond. Others may be making that claim, but this article isn't.  I think you are worrying about something that isn't there.  I also disagree that this conversation is going nowhere.  I have never been averse to discussing problems on the talk page and think any issues we may have can be settled here. --Illuminato 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would really prefer mediated negotiation at this point. I strongly disagree with what the point of view pushing you're doing in this article and I'm sick to death at the way you continue to dodge the issue. If you're going to avoid the issue entirely, the next step will be for me to go through the process of reporting you as a problem editor and have you blocked. I'm serious about this. I would advise you engage in mediation about this. Iamcuriousblue 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, you or someone else must have removed that section saying adolescent sexual activity can cause problems with relationships in the future. I'll track the last revision which included that statement. Anyways, this conversation is going nowhere. User:Illuminato, you've been adverse to any discussion that jeopardizes your control of the article. Nateland 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

using a hypothesis?
''When engaging in sexual acts the body produces oxytocin, a chemical produced in the brain to promote feelings of connection and love. Oxytocin helps a mother bond with her infant during breast feeding[30] and "surges through the bodies of men and women during orgasm."[31] When a man achieves orgasm, his oxytocin levels can rise up to 500% of their normal levels.[32] When "a man ejaculates, he bonds utterly with" his partner.[33] When having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy."[34] Depression, alcohol abuse, anorexia, and emotional disturbance can all afflict adolescents as a result.[27]''

first off, that whole paragraph seems waaayy out of place. Second of all, you contradict yourself Illuminato, this makes it seem like casual causes people to bond.

Third off. A HYPOTHESIS?, are you aware of the scientific method and spectrum?. A hypothesis isn't even a theory!. Hypothesis don't even have to be tested out, you can make a hypothesis saying "Dogs are really worms" and it doesn't have to be tested. Yet it'll still be considered a hypothesis.

Hypothesis don't belong in wikipedia except under very special circumstances which I doubt 'oxytocin' fits into. Maybe if it was a theory (1 step up on the scale) It'd be acceptable. But a hypothesis?, give me a break!. It doesn't matter who cites it. A hypothesis is still unable to prove anything. (I can't stress this enough). It needs to go Nateland 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nateland, this time I really don't have any clue what you are getting at. Before you hit save can you read through your posts a second and ensure that they make sense please?  The word hypothesis doesn't appear anywhere in the article.  What exactly is it that you are claiming is only a hypothesis?  That oxytocin surges through bodies?  That it rises 500% in men?  What?  These are things that have been tested scientifically and are proven fact.  --Illuminato 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Refuting what you can, and dodging what you can't as usual.... Anyways, my main point is that. What in the hell is a paragraph on Oxytocin doing in the middle of an article on adolescent sexuality?. It's as off as that Lynn Ponton quote.

My god, tell me and don't dodge this. What does a paragraph saying what Oxytocin is do to improve this articles coverage of what adolescent sexuality is?. It's almost, but not quite as out of place as saying.

Apples are fruits. In the middle of an article on genetic engineering. (Except Oxytocin and Adolescent sexuality are both within the scope of Sexology. But are widely different sub studies).

Oh yes, Illuminato. You were calling that paragraph on Oxytocin a hypothesis.


 * The discussion of oxytocin gives one of the physiological reasons why sexual encounters can not just be sexual, and why it is unhealthy for adolescents to pretend that they are. And for the "eighty thousandth" time, Nateland, please double check before you start making accusations.  I never referred to an "oxytocin hypothesis."  Sometimes I really don't know where you come up with some of the things you say.  --07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you not see that an article that is simply a lists reasons "why sexual encounters can not just be sexual, and why it is unhealthy for adolescents to pretend that they are" is simply POV pushing and totally in violation WP:NPOV. Tell me Illuminato, have you ever even read WP:NPOV? Do you have any respect for that principle at all? If so, how do you justify the slant you've given to this article? And if you don't respect the idea of NPOV, I really don't think you should be editing Wikipedia articles at all. Iamcuriousblue 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article simply listed those reasons then I would probably agree that it was in violation of NPOV. However, I strongly disagree that this is all the article discusses.  I do agree with NPOV and again I disagree that this article is in violation of it.  This isn't a topic I just recently discovered.  I have been working with adolescents for a long time and have been reading about them for a long time.  This article is pretty representative of what I have read.  I don't know how many times I have said that if you can show me a study that contradicts something in here I would be happy to read it with an open mind and wouldn't object to its inclusion here.  I simply object to properly cited information being deleted just because someone disagrees with it.  --Illuminato 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is slanted. It's mostly anti-sexual and I'm sick and tired of constantly citing why. It's a bit less in violation of WP:NPOV now then it was before but it still needs a lot of work. Which can't get done because of your endless list of reverts. Oh no, it has two sentences on views that don't think adolescent sexuality is bad and fifty that say it is. While it might not be as extreme a slant as that, it's still noticeable. And your actions only keep that problem in existence.


 * By the way, just how do you work with adolescents?. You've never mentioned this before. Nateland 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on my edit
Hello, I have looked at some of the sources and found that some of the information in the article had serious omissions with respect to the text in the article. I will go through parts to show the changes I have made, since it may be difficult to see what happened in the edit summary.
 * I was unable to take a look at any of the sources by Leonard Sax, so the first part will have to wait, though Sax is apparently controversial.
 * I added "Social critic Caitlin Flanagan" because she is not a professional researcher, but is a controversial writer, criticized in Ms. Magazine as "anti-feminist". The article she has written is, frankly, laughable. I don't think it really ought to be included in this article.  It's not a particularly important work on the topic of adolescent sexuality, it is heavily biased, and it is written unprofessionally.  Even a short glance at her article reveals how absurd it is.  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/oral-sex
 * I added "food and travel lifestyle writer Alexandra Hall" because that is how she describes herself on her own website. She certainly is no expert on adolescent sexuality, as her own credentials state that she specializes in food and travel, so I don't think her opinions really ought to be included either.  Her article primarily consists of selected interviews with students of her choice.
 * The only valid person that exists in this first set of sources seems to be Lloyd Kolbe, so I have added his information to lend his credibility to his statement. He is talking about the problem of STDs such as HPV, gonorrhea, and HIV, though, so perhaps this sentence should be clarified to reflect that.
 * Because this section mentioned STDs, I added condom information from the already-provided poll on teen sexual behaviors.
 * --Strangerer (Talk) 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here the earlier initiation of sex was mentioned as a dramatic trend, but the decrease in the amount of adolescent sex is omitted. I feel this gives an impression of rampant sexual activity among teens, which is clearly not true from the reference provided, so I included the information that was omitted from this study.
 * I also moved the part about first intercourses for young females from further down the page up to this part for reasons of continuity and focus.
 * I added information about the frequency of sexual intercourse that was omitted in the first version. Although between one-half and two-thirds of adolescents have intercourse at least once before they turn 18, that doesn't mean most of those are having it regularly or that teen sex is rampant, so I've included the statistics to reinforce this.
 * I didn't change much about the section following this on media influence. I did include information from the study about why adolescents might choose to use the media as a source of information about sexuality. --Strangerer (Talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here I added information about boys being pressured so that the article has less of a focus on girls. The article seems to simultaneously be saying that either (a) girls are forced into sex by those dirty boys, and they can't possibly enjoy it themselves, or (b) girls are all about the blowjobs and they can't get enough!  Clearly we need a bit more balance. :)  Therefore, I put in information about boys to diffuse the focus back onto adolescents in general.
 * I also updated the link from sexsmarts_gender_roles.pdf to the renamed Gender-Rolls-Summary.pdf. The information checked there, so I assume this is the same file as before.


 * }
 * I have already discussed my problem with the survey on the left, so I have replaced it with a poll conducted by a source already mentioned on the article page.
 * In addition, although I was not able to take a look at Leonard Sax's argument for why he thinks sex has switched from vaginal to oral, it seems to be refuted in part by the information that 12% of teens aged 13 to 16 have had oral sex, and 13% of the same teens have had sexual intercourse. Clearly it is not agreed among all sources that oral sex is dominant among teens, although this does not include juniors and seniors in high school, who are typically more sexually active than younger teens.  The addition of this age group is reflected in the information below this table on the article page, but since I made minimal changes to that paragraph, I have omitted it here.


 * I thought I changed the "not a big deal" to "not as big of a deal as sexual intercourse," but apparently I didn't. This is an important omission, as "not a big deal" is quite different from "not as big of a deal as intercourse."  I'll have to edit that again.
 * I have included an opposing opinion to Caitlin Flanagan, whose article I have already criticized above.
 * The next paragraph in the article was fine, but was a bit redundant, so I compressed two sentences into one and included the statistics on how many males vs. females use alcohol or drugs before sex.
 * Below are the references for quick checking. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say well done. I made a few small edits to your changes, but I think you have greatly improved the article. You efforts are certainly better than simply complaining about something you don't like.  --Illuminato 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at my changes. :) --Strangerer (Talk) 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oui, merci beacoup pour contribuer bon informatique Ce article. Translation (Yes, thank you for contributing good information to this article)

At long last someone has made what is probably the best contribution d'informatique to this article in a long long time. (Thanks Strangerer :-). Better than I could do!. Nateland 03:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

tags
I removed the disputed tag because the few lines about oxytocin are all properly cited, and no one has produced any evidence in the two weeks since the tag went up that anything in the article is incorrect. I fail to see why that tag should remain. --Illuminato 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its been 3 days since I removed the tag, during which time Iamcuriousblue has been active. Theres been no response here, and no evidence produced, so i removed it again. --Illuminato 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no comment about the oxytocin dispute, but I would still like the POV tag to remain on the article since it is still biased. I have only had a chance to go through the first section and I likely won't have much time to work on this for a while.  I would like to see more information about adolescent homosexuality, and I would like the opinions/quotefarm to be toned down some.  --Strangerer (Talk) 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think there's a bit of undue weight on sex being unhealthy. For example, these two references are listed right after each other:


 * 1) ^ Barbara F. Meltz (2/13/2007). Hooking up is the rage, but is it healthy? (html). Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2007 February 13.
 * 2) ^ Sarah Mahoney. How Love Keeps You Healthy (html). MSN. Retrieved on 2007 April 7.
 * but there seems to be a bit more emphasis on the first than the second. I look forward to going through this better when I have more time, but others are certainly welcome to try to reduce the undue weight. --Strangerer (Talk) 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you look closely at the titles, you will see the diference: Hooking up vs. love.  --Illuminato 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine, but the article still seems to be based more on "possible negative effects of 'hooking up'" rather than anything else. It could use a broader viewpoint. --Strangerer (Talk) 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the third time since April 17 I have removed the totally disputed tag, for reasons explained above in this section. For the third time Iamcuriousblue has put it back in, saying in the edit summary that if I don't like it I can take it to mediation. However, the Mediation Cabal's first criteria for accepting a case is that there must be a discussion already going on. I've asked for specifics on what is factually inaccurate but none were given. I was referred to an article that casts doubt on the idea that "oxytocin becomes deleted and one loses the ability to bond with sexual partners or one's children." I don't believe the article says that at all and thus am at a loss as to what Iam believes in inaccurate. In anycase since he refuses to discuss it here, and since the MC won't take the case unless there is a discussion, I have again removed the tag. --Illuminato 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I refuse to nitpick with you over specific points. You have repeately refused dialog over the general tone of the article, which is flagrently sex-negative, and hence hugely in violation of WP:NPOV. Your cherry-picked and selective use of studies I believe also comprimises the factual accuracy of this article. I don't believe discussion here is going anywhere – you still act as if you own this article, in violation of WP:OWN, and block any edit that you don't agree with. I would like to take this to negotiation, as I do not believe that you are willing to allow the extensive editing (including outright deletion of biased presentation of information) that needs to take place in order to make this article conform to WP:NPOV. In the meantime, I'm simply going to revert your attempts to remove the tag of the article. If you don't like it, tough – if you are going to be obstinant and difficult, no reason for me not to be. If you want to take it to negotiation and have this looked at by a third party, I'd be happy to cooperate. Iamcuriousblue 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I disagree. User:Strangerer made significant edits to the article recently and I congratulated him on making such great improvements.  I think that should show that I will "allow extensive editing" of the article, as if I had any power to prevent it.  I have never objected to anyone adding or reworking material.  By all means WP:Be bold!  Who is stopping you?  Finally, and frankly, I find your attitude of willingly acting obstinate and difficult to be unproductive.  It is unhelpful to just say "I am going to put up a tag on the article and refuse to let anyone take it off.  I'm not going to fix the article, either.  I'm just going to huff over it."


 * However, now that you have come back to the talk page, I will even propose that the mediation cabal get involved.--Illuminato 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that some points may not be factually accurate, even if they are sourced. I have already explained my displeasure at some of the sources, but I would like someone other than Illuminato to take a look at those sources and respond about them before I remove any of the text. I know that Nateland has voiced concern about Leonard Sax, so I will take a look at that source as soon as I can. --Strangerer (Talk) 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, to be honest, I am also confused about what is disputed with the oxytocin thing. However, I think the sentence following the part about oxytocin should be clarified a bit, because "bonds utterly" is somewhat ambiguous.  --Strangerer (Talk) 04:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, it doesn't belong in the article at all. The subject of oxytocin and its relationship to bonding doesn't really have any special relevance to the subject of adolescent sexuality, much less adolescent sexuality in the United States. The only reason its even included is that Illuminato has chosen to turn this article into an editorial against adolescent sexual activity, and the "facts" about oxytocin are yet another dubious argument to that end. Iamcuriousblue 04:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you are saying here. This is an article about adolescent sexuality, and oxytocin, an element of general sexuality, has been specifically chosen to illustrate one of Illuminato's points.  That makes more sense, and I can agree with that. --Strangerer (Talk) 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly – first, its out of place (being more relevant to general sexuality) and two, its a highly dubious interpretation of the subject, since the emotional functions of oxytocin hardly constitute an argument against casual sex. Its a bit like having a thread on evolutionary biology creationist throw in a link to an accurate description of the second law of thermodynamics, then adds their own spin on how this is an argument against evolution. Iamcuriousblue 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not irrelevant. You have all these doctors and experts saying that hooking up isn't healthy, and that it is never "just sexual" and this is one of the reasons why.  Including the few lines about it show the science behind the experts' cautions. --Illuminato 19:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The idea that "hooking up isn't healthy" is POV and weighting the article toward this point of view without offering any counter-balancing opinion totally violates any standard of WP:NPOV. The idea that there's any kind of "expert" consensus that casual sex is unhealthy is sheer nonsense. 2) The healthiness or lack thereof of "hooking up" is not an issue that's specific to adolescent sexuality, and so is out of place here. 3) The idea that oxytocin release makes casual sex unhealthy is widely regarded as "junk science". 4) This is only one small example of how you biased, distorted, and cherry picked facts to produce something that is more an editorial on your part than a Wikipedia article. Iamcuriousblue 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unindent. If you can find a reputable source that says casual sex is a healthy behavior for teens to engage in then please share it. I haven't found one yet. Also, why is including information about possible emotional harm any different that physical harm? Or do you also object to including information about how STDs can be contracted? I again disagree that it is widely regarded as junk science. Your Slate article makes the case that it doesn't decrease the capacity to bond in the future, but thats not what this article says, as I have mentioned time and again. I'll ask again (whats the definition of insanity again?): what is in the article that you think is factually incorrect? --Illuminato 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've clearly articulated the problems with including the section on oxytocin. Maybe you just need to learn to read. Iamcuriousblue 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I review the page I can find two complaints you have about oxytocin: 1) "There is no scientific evidence that long-term ability to bond is negatively affected by casual sexual encounters," and 2) "The subject of oxytocin and its relationship to bonding doesn't really have any special relevance to the subject of adolescent sexuality, much less adolescent sexuality in the United States."  As to the first I, again, disagree that the article makes this claim.  As to the second, I agree that it is does not have any special relevance to AS or AS in the US, but it is relevant.  I don't think 3 sentences in an article that's 33k long is placing too much emphasis on it or that it is improperly placed.  --Illuminato 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

in the United States
Most of the content of this article doesn't seems to claim to be United State specific. So, why is it in an article about Adolescent sexuality in the United States ? Shouldn't most of this content be in a general article about Adolescent sexuality ? Shmget 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Illuminato's defense is that 99.99999% of the people who made these 'statements' and 'discoveries' are from the Uinted States, of course, he was once campaigning to have only this 99.9999% US citizens quoted in the main article called adolescent sexuality. Right now the whole debate is contained to a few articles instead of the eight or nine articles they once inhabited. Basically put, Illuminato has just been une doleur de la cul. :-(, sadly enough.Nateland 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

oxytocin
Well, since mediation clearly didn't get us anywhere it looks like we are back to this talk page. As I said above, from reviewing this page I can find two complaints you have about oxytocin: 1) "There is no scientific evidence that long-term ability to bond is negatively affected by casual sexual encounters," and 2) "The subject of oxytocin and its relationship to bonding doesn't really have any special relevance to the subject of adolescent sexuality, much less adolescent sexuality in the United States." As to the first I, again, disagree that the article makes this claim. As to the second, I agree that it is does not have any special relevance to AS or AS in the US, but I think that is it is relevant. How can we move this discussion forward? --Illuminato 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article under " Effects of sexual activity", start with "The American Academy of Pediatrics has identified the sexual behaviors of American adolescents as a major public health problem". The reference material cited to support this claim state "Although other developed countries have similar rates of early sexual intercourse, the United States has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world." Which indicate that it is not sexual intercouse in itself that are a 'major health problem', since the same alleged cause does not produce the same effect in similarly developed countries. The specificities of Sexuality in American teenager is not about sex, but about culture and extreme taboo. The Jackson Superball incident is an excellent illustration of the insanity of the situation. Yet the very next sentence after that claim about 'health problem', which in the reference is mostly an epidemiologic health thread - refer to an alledge psycological health thread, absolutely not supported by the reference given in the first sentence. The link given to 'support' the second phrase [9], is a blog entry that doesn't even support this thesis, except insofar as quoting the Bush administration requirement that such claim (sex outside mariage is harmful) be made.

The next sentence, which quote the same source, make even more outrageously unsupported claim. nothing in the 'reference link' even remotely support such wide-ranging and radical claims.

The next one "When taking part in hookups "the kids don't even look at each other. It's mechanical, dehumanizing." is merely an opinion, This cannot possibly back-up by fact, at best one could find some anecdotal evidence, but nothing justifying this sweeping generalisation of how allegedly 'teens' interact.

The last sentence of the paragraph build upon previous conclusions, which were un-supported, hence void.

The next paragraph start with a sentence that is not specific to teenager, and whose conclusion are irrelevant (the conclusion that casual sex does not foster long term relationship might be true, yet hardly specific of teenager-casual sex, nor is it relevant to any 'effect of sexual activity' chapter title covering the statement. Nor is it demonstrated that 'fostering long term relationship' is a vital and necessary justification of any activities. Beside the link given to 'support' the claim, doesn't not involve 'teens' (boston university's junior hardly qualify as 'clueless underdeveloped teens', or you have a much bigger problem on your had than casual sex...). Futermore that link is hardly a 'reference', yet it does indeed propagate the disputed claim about oxytocin - without of course any reference to support it, it conclude that "The irony is that girls aren't equipped to handle love." a good example of amphiboly

The next paragraph, first and second sentences quotes are mis-atrributed. the quoted element is in fact the words of Sabrina Weill, a former editor in chief at Seventeen magazine, which make her a reputable expert in child psychology of course, and an expert at defining what is 'normal behavior(tm)'.

Now to the 4th paragraph, the oxytocin paragraph.the 4th first sentence are not teen specific what-so-ever. The 3rd mention a 500% surge in male (without a reference base that doesn't mean much.. for all we now the normal level might be trace level, so any realease would represente a huge percetnage 'surge')

Yet the quoted material is interesting "Dr. Amen: Oxytocin is the chemical of trust and bonding. Men have significantly lower levels of it than women. In women, holding hands, kind looks, doing something special for someone our partner loves, are all ways to increase oxytocin. In turn, it increases their bonding to their partner. For men, an orgasm actually increases oxytocin, up to 500 percent. So men need orgasm to become more bonded and connected, while women need touch and talking in order to get to the place of wanting to help their partner have an orgasm."

So based on that reference, girl should stay in isolation and not touching nor talking to anybody to be 'protected' against the allegedly harmful effect of oxytocin alleged to result of casual-sex induced oxytocin surges. The rest of the paraggraph has abolutely not connection with the first 4th sentences, and are once again sweeping generalization based on an imaginary standard 'proto-teen'

And the final staw, that "Depression, alcohol abuse, anorexia, and emotional disturbance can all afflict adolescents as a result." CAN afflict ??? sure, solar flares too 'can' afflict... who knows... 'As a result?' Result of what ? oxytocin level, or claimed behavior of teens that are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else" ???

I can go on, line by line. This article is nothing but a moralist rambling about the evil of sex. In that regard that justifies the part of the tile about 'in the United States'. There is no scientific or even rational support for any of it. Heck it even claim one thing and it's contrary in the same section. At first a "500% surge" in oxytocin made boys dangerously 'bonded' to their partner, to the point of causing depression, alcohol abuse, etc... But then few paragraph later it claims : "Boys are less likely to see sex as connected to an emotional relationship" So what is it ? oxytocin works or not ?

On the other hand, as notice from the very first reference of this section. "Although other developed countries have similar rates of early sexual intercourse, the United States has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world." This very specific obsession with sex, not by teens, but by disturbed adults, might actually be the real core cause of the problems perceived here.

Shmget 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shmget, I think you are mistaken on a few points. For example, your first complaint is about the line dealing with the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. The Acadamy is not worried simply because of teen pregnancy rates but for a number of reasons, all spelled out in the article. Also, culture plays a large part in American teenager's views on sex. The article also reccomends that the Acadamy "should encourage the broadcast industry to produce programming with responsible sexual content"
 * The link also says : "American media are thought to be the most sexually suggestive in the Western Hemisphere." That kill any credibility it may have. Only someone who never ever set foot ouside the US may entertain the possibility that that may be true. This is plain idiotic except insofar that elsewhere the media is not only 'suggestive' but also explicit. Canal+, a French 'Premium'-chanel( like HBO), is notorious for is 'first Saturday of the month at midnight' movie (an X-rated porn). Public airwaves broadcaster like M6 routinely air softporn (everything but explicit penetration) as early as 10-11pm at night. And of course european teens do not have sex earlier or more often then us teen... but they do have a pregnancy rate twice lower, and a lower STD prevalence. Shmget 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * and that "pediatricians should encourage the broadcast industry to use public service announcements that promote abstinence from sexual intercourse for adolescents," among other things. I don't think mentioning culture is out of place here.
 * I'm not saying that mentionning culture is out-of-place - quite the opposite, the entire specificity of Teenage Sex in the Us is purely cultural- chemistry and biology have nothing to do with it-. I'm saying that the American Academy of Pediatrics did not express any concerns about allege psychological harmful effect of sex, like suicide, depression etc... In the context oof your article this link is misleading at best. You are cherry picking a sentence out of this link, and quote it out-of-context to try to support something that is NOT supported by the AAP.

Furthermore the 'recommentaion' about abstinence should be read in context, as a preambule to a recommendation to promote safe-sex, and contraception. You know as weel as I do that the first part of the sentence was necessitated by the current political climate to be able to publish the second part. But a casual reader, not familiar with the Internal US politic would be mislead by your selective quote. Shmget 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think you are mistaken about the source provided for the source of the second sentence. Its not a blog, but an article from US News. Please go back and check it. The same is true for the next sentence, the article clearly says that "that this early initiation into sexual behaviors is taking a toll on teens' mental health. The result, she says, can be “dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, lack of goals—all of these things at such young ages."" I believe that supports the statement in the article of "Teens who are sexually active are at greater risk of becoming dependent on boyfriends and girlfriends, incurring serious depression around breakups and cheating, and suffering from a lack of goals." If you know of a better way to phrase it then please, WP:Be Bold, but I don't think it is radical or unsupported.


 * WP:RS, in order for an article in US News to be considered a 'reliable' source, the author of an Opinion should be considered authoritative. That is not the case here by any stretch of the imagination. For example the same author published: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970505/archive_006847.htm titled "A Godly Approach to Weight Loss" Shmget 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that information about oxytocin is not teenager specific, but it does affect them and so it is relevant to this article. I also think you are misunderstanding what the doctor is saying about it and drawing the wrong conclusions. It doesn't even come close to saying that females should avoid physical contact.
 * I'm just you didn't, but yet that is the logical conclusion of the argument. The source said that in male the level is very low except as a consequence of orgasm, whereas in female it is generaly much higher, and increased by many other activity. If the elevation in male due to sex is enough to cause such a harmful psychological effect as suggested by the rest of your article, then clearly the same cause should produce the same consequence in female....Another interesting point, is that the increase was descripbed as tided to ejaculation, hence masturbation would produce the same hormonal result. Uhm, should we then mention that masturbation 'can' cause depression and suicide ? Shmget 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And yes, all those things can afflict teenagers. It doesn't say if a teen has sex they will end up brain damaged it says doing these things puts you at a higher risk of these afflictions. I don't get what the problem with saying that is.
 * no it doesn't say so. Just because one juxtapose two unrelated pieces of information doesn't make them causal. There is nothing in the article of the neuroscientist - which gave data about increase of oxytocin in males - that even suggested any of the psychological mayhem that are claimed next it it in your article. Teen suicide is link to many things, but not to sex [], suicide is link to depression but again depression in teens is links to many causes, but not sex: [] Shmget 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shmget, rather than go line by line in describing the things you don't like about it, why don't you try to fix up the article. That would be more productive than complaining. --Illuminato 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure you would reverse right away, since, for instance, there is nothing to salvage in that section, my edit would be to remove it entirely. Shmget 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... Illuminato, mediation DID get somewhere, the mediator suggested that the oxytocin be removed because he/she thought it didn't fit. You just rudely told the mediator off as well as everyone else who wanted that quote removed and are now acting like it doesn't matter and the dispute hasn't discussed.

In truth, it's been discussedto death, and you just keep dodging vital questions. I also dislike how you archived significant portions of this archive which contained much discussion relevant to the 'oxytocin hypothesis' without discussing first. MANY talk pages for controversial or big articles are far more than 75k. And considering your shady archiving in the past, it seems like you're using the ability to archive pages as a form of censorship. I won't stand for it!. Accept that your 'hypothesis' isn't accepted, quit arguing, and GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

That's all Nateland 00:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and Shmget, very well done. Although your grammar and spelling need a tiny bit of tuning up (It's ok, your quality of writing and getting the point across makes up for that 10,000 to hundredth power times). I agree, no one has really gone over the quotes and their references bit by bit for a long time. But because of your doing so... you've made a good point. It is moralist rambling. And I hope Illuminato will acknowledge the points that have been made but that you've clarified even MORE so that 'hopefully' our point will be 'simplified' enough so that he can't dodge around....Nateland 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Something else to note: an interview with behavioral neuroscientist Jill Schneider in which she debunks the idea that oxytocin studies have any relevance to understanding of emotions around casual sex. Iamcuriousblue 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

new oxytocin text
In an effort to move this discussion along I am posting the current text of the paragraph that discusses oxytocin. If you have a problem with something in it, why don't you propose new text for it and we can discuss it.
 * When engaging in sexual acts the body produces oxytocin, a chemical produced in the brain to promote feelings of connection and love. Oxytocin helps a mother bond with her infant during breast feeding and "surges through the bodies of men and women during orgasm." When a man achieves orgasm, his oxytocin levels can rise up to 500% of their normal levels. When "a man ejaculates, he bonds utterly with" his partner. When having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy." Depression, alcohol abuse, anorexia, and emotional disturbance can all afflict adolescents as a result.

Lets get some constructive comments here, rather than simply complaining. --Illuminato 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Illuminato. We've been giving constructive comments for a while now. And those mostly said 'GET RID OF IT!'. Seeing as all of us except you, think this belongs. Here's some problems for instance.


 * when having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy." Depression, alcohol abuse, anorexia, and emotional disturbance can all afflict adolescents as a result.


 * Now I see enough problems with this that I'll dissect it bit by bit.


 * First.
 * when having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. How can you claim to prove such a generalized statement with just one or two 'experts'. If i remember correctly, it's wikipedia policy AND common sense that the big statements aren't proved until they're almost unilaterally agreed upon.


 * In other words, the Sun exists because the vast majority of people see a sun, or what they call the sun, and 99.9999% of nonblind people then say "Ahoy!, the sun exists!". But saying all teens pretend casual sex is sexual and nothing else when having sex. (Yes, that quote makes it sound like all and you can't change it to mean something else because then it'd not be the true spoken words of the person who made this statement. And it'd have to be removed) Is pure ludicrous. Has the person who's made this statement observed teens having sex?, interviewed millions of the literal tens of millions of teens who've had casual sex about their thoughts about it?. If not, then this statement needs to go. Don't debate.


 * Second.
 * That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy. Ok, having disproved your first statement as broad ranging, unproved, and foolish, this pretty much is invalid. And saying it's a 'slicing up'?. That's POV. And due to its EXTREME POV nature and add-on meaning to the beforesaid statement it doesn't belong.
 * Neext.


 * Third.
 * Depression, alcohol abuse, anorexia, and emotional disturbance can all afflict adolescents as a result.. Brilliant!, basically your saying ALL adolescents can go wackos for cheerios from casual sex. OMGZOMG!. ANYONE can go crazy FROM ANYTHING. And the causes of anorexia are highly debated, plus since when does sexual pleasure make you an alcoholic?. What reason does the maker of this statement give to say the effects of 'teenaged casual sex' make adolescents turn to Drinking?.


 * And like Shmget, the whole 'depression, anorexia, etc.' thingamajig is so blatantly POV and barely fitting that it shouldn't even BE in Wikipedia. It just adds to the bias of the first two parts. My god Illuminato, how about this?.


 * When adults engage in sexual activity, it can create spiked Oxytocin levels and thus adults are at risk for Anorexia, Alcoholism, Suicide, and Depression. Hey. It CAN HAPPEN judging from your 'hypothesis'.


 * Sigh.... remember Illuminato. Adolescence is vaguely defined in itself. It's mostly known as anyone from the ages of 1101 to 10011 (Binary), 111 to 201 (Ternary), D to 13 (Hexadecimal), 31 to 103 (Quaternary), (In Decimal, that's 13-19). And by saying that everyone within a certain age niche is prone to this that and the other from commencing the most vital and common activity to humankind (Sexual acitivty). Is equitable to ageism and adultism. Which I don't think is the best term to be known by. Also, in case you don't realize. A girl used to be known as an old maid if she wasn't married and with a family of her own by age 16 just a few hundred years ago.


 * And at that same time many cultures regarded the time for having children as soon as physically possible. (In other words, DURING adolescence). Get over your prejudices and biases Illuminato, you're just harming yourself (reputation wise, and you might barely be able to patch and fix it up), this Encyclopaedia, and wasting the time of many others. Nateland 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Natland, taking your points in order, first, it is not up to WP to "prove" something. From WP:Attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true."  Secondly, you have not disproved anything.  The statement about the slicing up of the intimacy pie was made by a psychologist, author, and expert.  If you have something attributable that counters what he says then please include it.  Until then we can not remove something because you don't like it.  Third, it does not say that having sex will turn you into an alcoholic, or that it will cause you to go crazy.  I agree that there are multiple causes of anorexia, but this is one of them, according to the experts.  Again, if you can find valid science that says it isn't, please include it.  Finally, your historical and numerical observations aside, this is an article about AS in the US today, not hundreds of years ago.  If you want to start a article about AS in other times or cultures I think it would be a welcome addition.  Until then, if you have a better way to phrase this paragraph, I would love to hear it.  --Illuminato 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Illuminato, as I said above in my argument. What do you mean wikipedia has to prove it?. Saying that casual sex is damaging to adolescents is a BIG STATEMENT. And wikipedia policy says that broad ranging and big statements can't be included unless agreed upon by a vast majority. Let me requote the above to make sure you understand it.


 * when having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else."


 * How can you claim to prove such a generalized statement with just one or two 'experts'. If i remember correctly, it's wikipedia policy AND common sense that the big statements aren't proved until they're almost unilaterally agreed upon.''


 * By wikipedia policy I mean your statement is broad ranging, and because of its placement in a general article it needs lots of backing up. So WHAT if you have 5 'experts' quoting?. There're so many more experts who disagree. You just can't do something like that against the wishes of the rest of us. You keep on dodging me, I'm sick of it. I'll stop arguing because it's getting us nowhere. Nateland 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nateland, please read what I said more carefully. It is NOT up to WP to prove something.  You do not remember correctly.  The standard for inclusion is whether something is attributable, not whether something is true.  You don't need multiple experts to agree on something, and as you seem to indicate, it would be completely arbitrary to attach any number of experts who agree with something before it can be included.  You have not provided a single expert who says that it is healthy to pretend its just sex.  If you could find an attributable source that says it is, I would not object to its inclusion.  You have not yet produced such a source, and instead ask us to go on your opinion alone.  I'm sorry, but the thoughts of a young boy are not comparable to quotes from an expert psychologist and author.--Illuminato 08:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the 'standard' is not just 'Attributable' as in 'I gave a link so I'm good'. WP:ATT also say: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". self proclaim Travel and Food expert for even a reputable Newspaper are not 'regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand' here Teen Psychology. There is also the matter of WP:RS
 * "You have not provided a single expert who says that it is healthy to pretend its just sex. " OH!!! that is a first class Strawman, and a Begging the Question Fallacy at the same time. It is begging the question because it assume that the claim "pretend it is just sex'" - whatever that mean - is a fact and then you require that to refute the claim you 'quoted' one has to make the claim that 'if your claim is indeed a fact, then it has no harmful consequences'... That is a gross misrepresentation of your opponent position, hence the strawman Shmget 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "but the thoughts of a young boy are not comparable to quotes from an expert psychologist and author." Now you are resorting to Ad Hominem. Shmget 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy.". You are doing some serious edition with the quote, substituting nothing less than the subject: The author is originally quoted to say: "It's pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy.", he never claims that teens, as a blanket statement, are pretending anything. Shmget 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unident. Shmget, this is not a travel and food editor we are dealing with here, it is the author of over 10 books who is considered to be an expert. Yes, there is the exceptional claims policy, but I don't think this qualifies. For instance, one red flag warning that this might be an exceptional claim is that it doesn't appear anywhere in reputable news sources. The quote in question comes from USA Today and Dr. Coleman has been quoted and published widely, including appearances on Oprah. He is not a fringe theorist.

When we have a quote from an expert I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone who claims there are "many more experts who disagree" to provide a source for that claim. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if he could improve the article by citing a single expert who disagrees with Dr. Coleman I would welcome the addition. Also, I don't think the current phrasing is unfair to Dr. Coleman's intent. All I did was replace "Its" with a more descriptive phrase of what he was talking about. --Illuminato 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the part where you object to a arbitrary 'number' of reference. I disagree with you assesment of what the claim is. The problem is that the entire section you authored is based on a predicate - you apparently never even considered challengeable - namely that 'teenagers' (ie. 10 to 19 year ols 'kids') are incapable of any understanding and that sex has to have harmfull psychological effect in each and every teen. THAT is the disputed exceptional claim, that I haven't seen supported anywhere.
 * Furthermore, the entire section is overwhelmingly negative about sex. Essentially the whole distinction about 'casual sex' and unspoken 'other sex', is just an euphemism to describe 'sex outside wedlock'. If sex was such a harmful thing, how is it that the legal 'marriageable age' in the US vary from 14 to 18 years old, depending on the sex and state (actually in some state there is no limit, like mississippi). If teen "are not mature enough to know all the ramifications of what they're doing.", then why are they allowed to vote, or sent to war (237 'teens' military died to date int he latest iraq war, 609 died before have the legal right to drink a beer in most states). Even more compelling, teens "are not mature enough to know all the ramifications of what they're doing", yet they are given license to operate a deadly weapon on the road from the age of 16 or earlier depending on the state... These blanket statements about 'teens' capacity to cope with sexual activities, or even the assertion that sex is inherently bad if not conducted within the framework of some 'approved' social setting and unfounded and essentially religious position, that should not be presented as fact, no matter how many 'expert' one can quote or misquote. Shmget 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Shmget, I don't think marriage has anything to do with it and the article doesn't discuss it at all. Also, as someone trained in rhetoric, you should be able to pick out the fallacies in your argument relating to it.  Smoking is legal for those over 18, even though it is harmful.  Just because a person has a drivers license doesn't mean that their actions on the road are any less dangerous.  Likewise, just because someone can get married, or fight in a war, or drink a beer, doesn't mean that the physical and emotional consequences of their actions no long apply.  Also, as an agnostic, I disagree that this is an essential religious position.  Finally, if we can not quote experts, where are we to get our information from? --Illuminato 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Smoking is legal for those over 18, even though it is harmful.", yes, and you don't see anywhere article saying that smoking it is only harmful to teen, do you ? yet that doesn't invalidate the argument I made, quite the contrary.Shmget 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Also, as an agnostic, I disagree that this is an essential(ly) religious position.", You have the right to disagree, but your declared philosophical affiliation doesn't change the facts. And in that matter the fact is that the 'abstinance only' angle is a very specific and narrow approach, sponsored and lobbied actively be a very specific subgroup, and the core characteristic of that subgroup is religious integrism. This is a documented well known fact, I wonder what you are trying to achieve negating the obvious. If you have any doubt, try to cross reference the authors you qutoed with religious affiliations and political stances... You should easily see a pattern there.


 * "you don't see anywhere article saying that smoking it is only harmful to teen, do you?" No, I don't, and I also dont see anywhere that says these harms are specific to teenagers.  It does give some that adolescents are particularly at risk for, but nothing like at the age of 18 all your concerns are gone and you can have consequence-free sex with whomever you like, whenever you like. --Illuminato 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Illuminato, this statement you've written is not even remotely neutral, nor have you made a case that statements about oxytocin have any particular relevance to the subject of adolescent sexuality. Not to mention its not even acurate – the idea that the relationship between oxytocin release and bonding makes casual sex inherently unhealthy is junk science, pure and simple. Iamcuriousblue 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Iam, if you don't think it is neutral, then please suggest a phrasing that you think is neutral. Again, simply complaining is just  not helpful.  Nateland is wrong in some of his suggestions above, but at least he makes an effort.  --Illuminato 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't you read! The reason I'm not suggesting "alternate phrasing" is because I don't think material on oxytocin belongs in this article at all! I don't care if you don't consider that criticism "helpful" – the point remains valid. Iamcuriousblue 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you show me where it says something must be specific to a single article for it to be included in it? Lots of information could be included in lots of articles, and is.  --Illuminato 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to argue this point with you furhter. You've added inaccurate and off-topic information to this article for the sole purpose of sermonizing. I think it needs to be removed. The only reason I haven't done so is because I'm waiting out the mediation process before I jump in and make edits. Iamcuriousblue 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the hormonal section to try and get some compromise text in there on oxytocin. --Illuminato 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The section was simply shorter – there was no change in the tone of the section, nor any greater relevance to the subject at hand. Iamcuriousblue 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * actually the edited version was even more POV. the 'bond utterly' claim was now described as a direct causal relation to oxytocin, which is NOT a medically accepted view. The 'breast feeding' paragraph indeed was not helping the 'se is bad' POV, removing it just concentrate the POV, when the level and influence of that level in female give some perspective on the claim of the impact of that level in male. Furthermore the new wording at the beginning of the paragraph is more inaccurate, as the source material indicated that, in woman, many activities trigger variation of oxytocin level, and no claim was done regarding specifically female orgasm. Shmget 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

explanation of the updates by shmget
Dear illuminato, I removed the link to Alexandra Hal's piece, because she is a self proclaim 'travel and food' expert. By no mean an authority on teenage sexual behavior. And her piece is an anecdotal account of the allege activity a few 'teens'. The text is not serious, is highly loaded in political reference, it used things like going back to the 'early 70's' to find an increase in percent of sexually active highschool student, or blaming the internet for teens in boston being "sexually advanced", i.e knowing anything at all about it. It is a amusing fiction, but by no strech of the imagination serious, rigourous or authoritative. Actually another reference in the main article, this time from a research paper say: " Boys and girls who experience sex outside of conventional dating relationships often share similar orientations toward their relationship. Results suggest that a more nuanced view is key to understanding adolescent sexual behavior." Such nuance is completely absent from the amateur work of Ms Hal.

I also removed "Given their incomplete emotional and cognitive development, adolescents are also particularly at risk to suffer from emotional distress as a result of their sexual activities." and it was no accident. 1/ the term 'emotional distress' is a legal term, not a medical one, nor a pschy one (just follow the wiki link) 2/ There is absolutely no data to back that claim up, in contrast with the STD and pregnacy claims just before, that are backed-up by irrefutable data from multiples and independent data source, over decades... I have yet do see any serious study, with actual published and reviewed data, to backup up the claim above, especially one that would try to substanciate that teens are 'particularly' at risk, especially when supposedly 'grow-up' are not doing that well once they pass the magic 2.0.

I removed "This is "at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively" because it is contradicted by the data provided by the research article quoted just before. Considering that Generation is about 20 years. that number has been stable for at least 2 generations, as you yourself said earlier in this page, this is not supposed to be the 'history of', so how is something that has not significantly changed in 40-50 yeas has any significance here? Btw, before we get there, let me warn you that I will object to the legitimacy of articles that give survey's percentage with 3 significatives digits (like "38.8% have given oral sex vs. 38.6% in 1995" These kind of statement are particularly idiotic. If you could chose a random sample (which you can't because of the need for parental consent) and IF you knew what the response bias was precisely enough (which you can't: people lies, and teenager lies even more about sex, one way or another) then you still need a sample of about 1,000,000 person. No serious and reputable author would use such idiotic numbers, and there is certainly no excuse to quote them. Shmget 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Progress
Shmget, I want to thank you for your work to improve this article. By going back and forth on the article itself I really think we are making progress and the article is improving. This is a much better approach than simply complaining. Also, this talk page is now 100k long and there are over 20 discussion topics. I tried to archive some of it to make it easier to read and faster to load, but my effort was reverted. Would anyone object to archiving some of the older discussion with a link to the archive at the top of the page? --Illuminato 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no set opinion on archiving the talk page. I won't mind either way.
 * Regarding the article, I discussed it a bit on your talk page, but for the benefit of the other editors I'd reaffirm that my goal is to separate fact from opinions as much as possible (even though I am as suceptible as any to let my opinion interfer with my rendition of the facts - but I trust you will watch out :-) ). I thing that in the end we should clean the article of the litany of useless statistical number, or at lest keep them in a 'trivia section' of sort. I really like to improve the general tone of the article so that it is no alarmist monologue against sex. It may be useful too to try to make distinction between 'teen' and 'teen' brushing the 'sexuality of a 18 years old and an 11 years old with the same brush seems completely inappropriate. My impression, based on ad hoc observation, and local laws, is that the psycholgical barrier - from the point of view of the adult observers - seems to be around 16 years old. According to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html, "Sex is rare among very young teens, but becomes more common in the later teenage years.", with a rate before 15 years well under 10%. Shmget 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi everyone! If you haven't already visited the mediation page, here is the proposal that we agreed upon. 1: Revise the article using reputable, neutral sources to make the article NPOV. 2: Broaden the article's coverage to include adolescent homosexuality and autoerotic activity. 3: Remove the POV tag after the revision if everyone agrees that every point of view is represented equally and neutrally. I'll be hanging around a bit until everyone's happy with the article. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. mcr616 Speak! 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT
Illuminato, would you please stop pilling stat over stat, without any analysis. The latest on Homosexuality is a point in case. Comparing these two numbers is at best misguided, at worse intentionally misleading. Think about if for a second. How exactly does one 'teen' classify himself openly as 'homosexual'. If anything it is amazing that 1 in 5 declare themselves as 'homo-sexual' while not experience any sexuality what-so-ever ? It's like declaring you don't like sweet but a the same time saying that you never tasted sugar in your life. This is idiotic, and this cannot possibly be compared with a pool on the general population. That reasoning above can be reach just using common sens... but still let's see the actual document: As usual, you didn't give a link so that reviewer could actually see the source, so here it is: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1403620&blobtype=pdf Reading the source few thing become apparent: The sexual orientation is 'self-reported', and on the 1880 men that comprise the sample, 0.1% declared themselves 100% homosexual, or a whooping 2(TWO) person. 0.3% declare themselves 'mostly homosexual' that is 5 or 6 persons. 0.8% declare themselves bi-sexual (15 people). The article even say : "We note that the number of people reporting high-risk activity is so small (less than 50 people)..." and here we are talking about 22 to 23 persons! out of 1880!!!! Even is the bias in the sample (the fact that people lies, especially when they are asked if they are gay), the size of the sample would give a margin or error of more than +/-20%... so 80% is in fact 'somewhere between 60 to 100%' The article target the population 15 to 19. The 'other' source used to allegedly compare numbers, concentrate on 18 and less.... Yet the activity between 18 and 19, especially the % of teen taht actually have sex in that year is far from negligible... so that doesn't even remotely compare apple to apple.

The study also says: "The majority of those who had homosexual intercourse define themselves as mostly or 100 percent heterosexual. Some young men who described themselves as mostly or 100 percent homosexual had not had any homosexual intercourse." Which confirm my introductory remark on the oddity of classify oneself sexually while not having been active one way or the other.... Most will answer with the 'default' accepted answer ('hetero', it would be quite odd, especially in the US, due to cultural pressure, to default to homosexual.

Last bu not least, nowhere in the reference document could I find anything that support the claim of '80%' made my illuminato.

So Not only the claim looked suspicious on face value, not only a reasonable person would have notice that such claims would have been extremely complicated to support methodologicaly, a reasonable person would also be warry of comparing a survey with another without carefull analysis, and finally the claim itself was not even derived from the 'reference' used to 'support' it. As a consequence I reverse. Shmget 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Illuminato, please don't just throw stats around and expect them to be accepted. We need to put reputable, factual sources in the article. mcr616 Speak! 14:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a statistician, but I was trying to add some information about homosexuality, as the mediation agreement called for. I only read the abstract (and I don't know why the link didn't work in the cite, it worked when I read it) but I think it said three fifths of them had had intercourse.  Now I see how stupid I was.  I was thinking that 3/5= 80% when in fact it is only 60%.  That was my mistake; I apologize.  I'll be more careful in the future.  In any case, there is now no info about homosexuality, or masturbation, and we need to add some. --Illuminato 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, no problem. I'll see if I can find any information. mcr616 Speak! 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. May I suggest though that reading the underlying article is a very higly recommanded practice, otherwise one end-up summarazing a summary. Especially when statistics are involved it is very important to understand the context, method and goal of the study. In this case the authors were mostly concentrating on HIV, and not so much on homosexual behavior. the 3/5 in question was sexual activity prevalence among the entire studied group, not just homosexual teens. Shmget 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Following up on the mediation
One of the mediation goal is to achive an acceptable NPOV rendition of the article. This can be achive, I believe in two ways. Either we find an agreement so that the entire article is NPOV, or we agree to split the article in three section, A factual section whose content is agreed to be NPOV by all parties, and one or more section to express the contradictory POV.

Based on this history of edit, and the clearly loaded subjet-matter, I seriously doubt that we can agree on a truly monoblock NPOV article.

I personally could live with some POV, so long as it is identifed as such. and I don't mean with a banner, but in the structure of the article. I belive that would allow the article to end-up leaner. Once the 'Moral concervative' POV can be expressed as such, there will not be the need to endless quote and random stats... on both side. The passage about Judith Levine's book could be enriched, to serve as a based on the 'liberal' point of view.

The idea would be for the authors to be 'leniant' on edit in the POV section, using the otehr POV section to balance an argument rather than edit-warring on it.

In the section 'facts', data and trend about sexual activity, pregancy, STD can probably be agree upon, so long as it is not attached to controversial interpretations and opinions, either way. (And I am suceptible to get carried away as much as any body else :-) )

Things that I am sensitive to are: misleading presentation of correlation as causality. Non sequitur (presenting a fact, and following with an opinion, as if that opinion was supported by the fact, when it is not). Another important things to be consider to reach a consensus, is to try to be mindfull of the source we use. The debate is polarized, including among the 'expert'. Expert are not impartial, and neither are publications or sponsors. For example a paper published by a partisan lobby like the Family Research Council is much more likely to have a POV bias than a professional doctor assocaition like the American Academy of Pediatrics for instance.- Shmget 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be extremely difficult to pigeonhole most of the experts cited in the article in either conservative or liberal POV sections. I don't think they would classify themselves as such and it would be a disservice for us to do that to them.  --Illuminato 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, so far you've tried to pass off a moral conservative POV as NPOV, which is absolutely unacceptable. My feeling is that the article as a whole should be mostly NPOV material, with a section on controversies in which positions are clearly identified. However, I don't think undue weight should be given to the subject of politics and controversy – if there's too much material on that subject, that would demand (yet another) breakout article. Iamcuriousblue 14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For one thing there are not that many 'experts' quoted, but my point is that 'experts', are also politically motivated, and the context and tribune in which that 'expert' opinion is delivered matter. If that expert is quoted from a expert-peer reviewed publication, it is more likely that their 'expert' opinion is indeed an expert-opinion and not one opinion of an 'expert'. when an 'expert' find for only tribune for an opinion a political lobby group, it is much more suspicious. Shmget 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

About reference, illuminato, could you please precise a bit the source on Dr Sax comment. Since this source is not accessible online, could you precise the page number of the reference book where the quote has been extracted from? I may find a way to get my hand on a copy, but I certainly don't feel like combing through all of it to locate one sentence. Shmget 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best idea would probably be to split the article into the three parts, as mentioned previously, but I don't think we should give too much weight to the different POVs. mcr616 Speak! 19:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To precise my thought. I was thinking about separate section, not a way to let free rein to the POV, but so that each party can do a reasonable presentation of the controversy. I insist on 'reasonable'. The presentation has to follow the general guideline, such as WP:RS, but we would agree to judge the NPOV over the overall article, and be less strict within the section aiming at presenting the different POV, on the points that are essentially POV ( A value judgment on 'sex is bad/good' is intrinsically a POV position, or it would not be specific to the adolescent in the US since, biologically, adolescent in the US are not 'special' in any way - and therefore would not need to be in this article, but in the upper generic article on Adlescent Sexuality) - Shmget 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already an "approaches...." section. Is this what you are referring to?--Illuminato 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we done?
Has the article been revised to everyone's satisfaction? There hasn't been any activity on here in some time. --Illuminato 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been some definite improvement, but if this is in reference to the tags staying up, no, I don't think the article is where it needs to be. It still has some highly biased and dubious content presented as fact. I'll make a point of going over the article and removing such content soon. In other places, POV is presented without balance. That needs fixing, too. Iamcuriousblue 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, well I hope you will do some work on it. You were the one who pushed for mediation, and even though an agreement was reached weeks ago you haven't done much of anything to improve it.  --Illuminato 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Its been another week and there has been no substantive activity on this article, even though some of the biggest complainers have been active in that time period. If no one has anything else they want to change, that tells me that the revision process is finished.  --Illuminato 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't made the time to work on it recently, but No we are not done. The tags still need to stay as explained by Iamcuriousblue above. -- Shmget 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is NOT done. First, there are too many quotations, especially in the "Psychological Health" section. Second, that section is just too unbalanced. There are like 50 quotes saying it is wrong och unhealthy to have sex before marriage, and 1 (ONE) saying that it actually could be quite allright. Is this America? I'm from Sweden (so please excuse bad English) and here almost everyone has sex before marriage, and there's nothing unhealthy about that. On the contrary, the morals of this section could make people feel bad. I'm so lucky I don't live in your country. Now please let me remove the 49 unneccesary quotes so that the section becomes balanced.

contradictions:
The article say: "Teens rank the media second only to school sex education programs as a leading source of information about sex.[10] "

but also "Most teens (70%) say they have gotten some or a lot of information about sex and sexual relationships from their parents. Other sources of information include friends at 53%, school, also at 53%, TV and movies at 51% and magazines at 34%."

So which is it ?

or
 * 1 School 2 Media
 * 1 Parent, 2 Friend, 3 School, 4 Media

also the intro says: "In addition, 46% report not having used a condom the last time they had sexual intercourse."

but under Contraceptive use "only 67% said that they use protection every time they have sex.", that is 33% that has at lest once not use protection... but 46% have not use codoms the LAST time they had sex... (that is, not to mention the time before, and before etc..) even factoring the 94% prevalence of use... and even making the ridiculous assumption that tehre are abolutely not 'partial users; that still does not add up. -- Shmget 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is over
Iamcuriousblue: We went to Mediation on April 21. By early May there was an agreement about what should be done and mediation was closed on July 3rd. In that time you only made 2 edits while others made 120. It is in no way fair for you to continually complain, force the issue to go to mediation, and then sit back and do nothing to improve the article. Then you accuse me of bad faith - I don't get it. Mediation is over, so the tags should go. If you can further improve the article then please do so, but please make positive contributions rather than negative complaints.--Illuminato 13:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, you don't own this article no matter how many contributions you've made, and at this point, you're basically ignoring all agreements that were reached in mediation. I'm keeping the tags there, and if you don't like it, I suggest you take it to arbitration – I think you damn well know which of us is clearly flouting basic Wikipedia rules. Iamcuriousblue 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop your swearing, it sounds like hell! --Mjrmtg 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll note, more specifically, that one of the agreements that came out of mediation was that the tags stay until all particles concerned agree that the article is balanced and NPOV to their satifaction. Not to one parties satisfaction, but to all parties involved in the dispute. And there was no deadline set for that – the issues didn't just go away just because the mediation case was closed. Iamcuriousblue 05:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you do something to fix it? I made a good faith effort to try and work towards the agreement and you did nothing.  I know I don't own the article and thats evidenced by the fact that plenty of other people have made edits that I welcomed and encouraged.  You, however, haven't made any effort to improve it.  You just show up after an absence and throw stones at the work done by others.  If you still have issues with the article, work on it, don't just complain.  You actions are not very helpful.  --Illuminato 14:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is still heavily biased toward your POV about adolescent sexuality and as per the mediation agreement and as per WP:OWN, you don't get to unilaterally determine what neutrality is and unilaterally remove tags challenging the neutrality of that article. And your "all my work" argument is moot, ultimately – I don't care how much you've contributed, that still doesn't give you article ownership.


 * I think you have a very mistaken idea of how Wikipedia works – Wikipedia is about offering a neutral point of view on controversial topics and not giving either side on a contested topic undue weight. (And get it through your head Illuminato – sexual conservatism is a point of view, not a neutral consensus opinion.) Its not "he who can bring the most citations supporting their point of of view wins". Just because you have the time and energy and obsessiveness to cherry pick through over 50 journal article so you can find "facts" to support your point of view does not mean you get to bias a Wikipedia article to reflect your point of view. Iamcuriousblue 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree. unless u r going to do something to fix the problem u shouldnt complain! if u dont agree then put ur own info in there.

Gay and Lesbian Portion of the Article
"Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth are three times as likely to become pregnant or get a partner pregnant as their straight peers."

I'm not exactly sure I understand. How is that possible? As a bi sexual male myself, up until this point I was unaware that gay men could get each other pregnant and I thought the same went for lesbians. Where is this information from? luke callahan 7 august 2007


 * It comes from a New England gay magazine, Bay Windows. They say they dont know why that number is higher than for straight kids.  You can check the footnote right next to the fact in the article to find the source.  Also, here is a link to the story for you. --Illuminato 14:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL this is just too much. How can anyone believe these numbers? Gays getting pregnant...


 * I don't trust it until you find a source that explains how that happens. Gay men can't get pregnant at all.  Lesbians--When they want a family, they usually get some guy to donate sperm.  But I really can't see how calm-blooded requests for sperm would give you three times as many unwanted pregnancies as the familiar heat-of-the-moment unprotected sex that one regrets in the morning.


 * So I'm adding a dispute tag to it until Illuminato or someone finds a second source.Johnthescavenger 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-appointed, unqualified mediator: Johnthescavenger
So I read most of the talk page and discovered this little war between Iamcuriousblue and Illuminato. Here are my comments:

Iamcuriousblue: I agree with you, the article is pretty heavily biased. But. Just because the truth is on your side doesn't mean you should be rude about it. Illuminato will be more willing to listen to you if you aren't calling him an idiot. Strangerer does this very well; she is polite, but she gets the message across. Follow her example.

"I would like to see more information about adolescent homosexuality, and I would like the opinions/quotefarm to be toned down some."--Strangerer "Yes, fine, but the article still seems to be based more on "possible negative effects of 'hooking up'" rather than anything else. It could use a broader viewpoint."--Strangerer

You see? And if you read about halfway up, Illuminato thanks her for her work. To sum up: Keep a cool head, don't take arguments too personally, and be civil. Things tend to work out better if you do.

Illuminato: Now don't get me wrong. I think the article is totally one-sided. I think it needs a major overhaul and am doing some myself. But I have to admire how you never seemed to lose your temper on the talk page. You replied calmly to all accusations of bias and politely asked how you could improve it. I probably couldn't have done it myself. Thumbs up.

Now, what to do. No one likes to throw good work away, especially their own. Illuminato is not going to want to delete his own work unless he knows it's the right choice. So telling Illuminato to get rid of large swathes of text (or deleting it yourself) is not going to help; I believe this was a major part of the edit war. Instead, let's improve on what we have. Don't delete, replace and improve.

I've gone on a bit of a rampage through the last couple of sections, but I've more or less only replaced stuff with less biased/wordy stuff and added a couple of things. Is this ok, Illuminato? Tell me what you think. (I'll be going back to school in two days, so I may forget about this page after tonight, but I'll try not to.)Johnthescavenger 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Passer-by's opinion
I just happened to be strolling through wikipedia looking for information on Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, and I came across this article. To my eyes, this is a total NPOV trainwreck. The only cleanup I did was delete a line making a sweeping claim that 'research has linked abstinence education in schools to a "dramatic" decrease in the number of teens having sex', which was supported only by a single citation from "LifeSite", whose "About Us" page states:

"LifeSiteNews.com's writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order."

What a source. Anyways, good luck with the NPOV, this thing is a real mess. SamLL 04:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Basically, its the work of one problem editor that scours for article in support his point of view that teenage sex is a bad bad thing. The editor adds scores of sources supporting this POV, and if anyone wants to balance it, they've got to come up with as many scores of references as he has. I've long been of the opinion that large sections of the article simply need to be deleted. Anyway, thanks for the observation – it helps build the case that there are big problems introduced by the main editor of this article. Iamcuriousblue 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding Template:Disputed-section
I'm adding the disputed section template based on this report by the WaPo.Seventhofnine 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

content from Society of the United States
Most or all of this looks to be a repeat, but just in case some of it isn't here, here's the content that was originally on Society of the United States: (Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

More than half of sexually active teens have had sexual partners they are not dating. Risky sexual behaviors that involve "anything but intercourse," as well as sexually transmitted diseases, are "rampant" among teenagers. Lloyd Kolbe, director of the CDC's Adolescent and School Health program, called the STD problem "a serious epidemic."

The teenage years are when most in the United States first have intercourse. The current data suggests that by the time a person turns 18, slightly more than half of females and nearly two-thirds of males will have had intercourse. Sixteen percent of adults first had sex before age 15, while 15 percent abstained from sex until at least age 21. Almost 14 percent of teens lose their virginity in June, the most common month. The teen's home, their partner’s home or a friend’s house is the most common place for virginity to be lost, with 68% of teens losing their virginity in one of those three places. "Research shows that the likelihood of a first sexual experience happening will increase with the number of hours a day teens spend unsupervised." There is a "discrepancy when it comes to willingness to perform oral sex [with] 22% of sexually active girls say[ing] their partner never performs oral sex on them, while only 5% of boys say their partner never does."

The American Academy of Pediatrics has identified the sexual behaviors of American adolescents as a major public health problem. The younger an adolescent is at the time of their sexual debut the greater the risk they are of engaging in delinquent acts later. Adolescents who experience late sexual debut are the least likely to participate in delinquency. Adolescents who start having sex at a young age may not be prepared to deal with the emotional, social and behavioral consequences of their actions. Teen pregnancies in the United States decreased 28% between 1990 and 2000 from 117 pregnancies per every 1,000 teens to 84 per 1,000. The US is rated, based on 2002 numbers, 84 out of 170 countries based on teenage fertility rate, according to the World Health Organization.

According to University of California San Francisco pediatrics Professor Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, "We tend to focus on the health consequences of having sex, like pregnancy and STDs, but we also need to talk to them about all the emotional consequences." With their still developing brains, teens do not yet possess the ability to either fathom the physical and emotional consequences of sex or to deal with them once they happen. The "early initiation into sexual behaviors is taking a toll on teens' mental health" with dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, and suffering from a lack of goals as possible results. As "teenagers are not mature enough to know all the ramifications of what they're doing," "early sexual activity - whether in or out of a romantic relationship - does far more harm than good."

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)
 * 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
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.Ajax151 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

(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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * But you skip over the standard for inclusion, which is verifiability. The quotes meet that standard. --Illuminato (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Iamcuriousblue, how about WP:SOFIXIT? --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * I think that could work. I wonder if other editors could live with that?   Atom (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

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.

Independent of gender, adolescents who reported having vaginal sex (with or without also having oral sex) were more likely than adolescents who reported having only oral sex to experience any positive consequence and any negative consequence of having sex (Table 3).

Results generally support adolescents’ expectations that oral sex is associated with fewer negative consequences than vaginal sex.

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Nice work Sfmammamia. Zodon (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.


 * 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)


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

Oxytocin again!
Illuminato – for shame. This issue was settle last year – see Talk:Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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.


 * http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123203589/abstract
 * http://www.ahc.umn.edu/news/releases/AHC_CONTENT_159312.html
 * http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/78786622.html

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)


 * 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).

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)
 * 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
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.Ajax151 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

(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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * But you skip over the standard for inclusion, which is verifiability. The quotes meet that standard. --Illuminato (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Iamcuriousblue, how about WP:SOFIXIT? --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * I think that could work. I wonder if other editors could live with that?   Atom (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

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.

Independent of gender, adolescents who reported having vaginal sex (with or without also having oral sex) were more likely than adolescents who reported having only oral sex to experience any positive consequence and any negative consequence of having sex (Table 3).

Results generally support adolescents’ expectations that oral sex is associated with fewer negative consequences than vaginal sex.

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Nice work Sfmammamia. Zodon (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.


 * 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)


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

Oxytocin again!
Illuminato – for shame. This issue was settle last year – see Talk:Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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.


 * http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123203589/abstract
 * http://www.ahc.umn.edu/news/releases/AHC_CONTENT_159312.html
 * http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/78786622.html

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)


 * 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).