Lowering the boom

Not sure how this stacks up to what's going on in the Great Pink North but it looks like the US is  having a baby boom.

A wedding boom too?

Not so much:

More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any other year in the nation's history — and a wedding band made increasingly little difference in the matter. The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.

Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.

So how's that abstinence-only education thing working for ya? Or how about that business of locking up condoms in glass cases at the drugstore? Or allowing pharmacists to get all righteous on women and refuse to dispense the pill?

And then ''pro-lifers'' and ''pro-family values'' types get all uppity about abortion?

To continue from the article:

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status.

Which might explain the rise of the men's rights advocates.

Seems to me the US is really messed up reproduction-wise. Not only does it have a high teen pregnancy rate, it has a high infant mortality rate. At the same time at the moralists say kids should abstain from sex, they take away the information and tools they would need to keep themselves healthy.

Twisted.

The good news is, experts predict that the recession will mean fewer births.

But, if people cut off the cable to save money during the recession, what else is there to do at night?

Comments

[Jen Gerson]

Solution: Cheaper cable!

[Jim Rootham]

Having a birth rate higher than the replacement rate implies exponential population growth. "The Limits to Growth" demonstrated that this is not good. It is particularly not good in the US since US consumption per capita is also too high.

[Niles]

For those cable-absent nights; inflate condoms and make balloon animals. Since you're not supposed to use them to prevent pregnancy or disease apparently.

I heart Canadian advertising rules that let condom ads unrepentantly fill the airwaves. Why, they even hint sex isn't a bad thing.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia...it's amazing you blame failing abstinence programs to account for the high teen preggo rate, and not the slut culture venerated by so many "women". Remember, young teens girls are looking to you feminists for guidance. Good work, nice success rate so far.

[Sebastian Stoker]

I have to agree with MensRightsNow, there is something horrific going on right now with teenage girls and young women. Hooking up, the "only penetration is actually sex" argument, sexting and celeb sex tapes, and the popularity of female pop stars who are no more that lip-syncing Barbie dolls, is telling girls that their bodies and sex are, maybe not all they have to offer, but certainly the most valuable commodity.

[...pat.]

MRN, that's because young teen boys have absolutely no control over their own libidos and don't want tocan't figure out how to use condoms, right? It's all up to the girlz.

[MensRightsNow]

pat....you're absolutely right. I guess they failed the condom class in sex ed class at school in grades 6-12. But what wasn't taught to the boys you describe is that their females peers use their sexuality as a form of control and power. The girls are just as voyeuristic, they text message, phone, facebook, and verbalize sexual innuendo, they rub up against boys, grab their butts, and brag about their sexual conquests real or imagined. All to teen boys with 20-30 times the circulating levels of testosterone they had when they were 12. Now of course, I'm sure you hold our young teen boys to a higher level of decourum and that only slutty high school girls are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hormones while the adolescent boy must be in control or be charged with sexual assaualt or pay c/s for 21 years? Again, all the benefits, none of the responsibility.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Pat,

There seems to be serious lack self-respect among younger women and teenage girls, evident by frequent reports of self-destructive behavior - cutting, binge-drinking, lack of self-protection (e.g. lack of caution RE making connections with people on the Internet) and some reckless attitudes toward sex. Are stupid horny young men 100% to blame for this?

A teenage girl who has self-respect would not let a self-centered priapic knuckle-dragger within ten feet of her. When you lay down with a dog, you wake up with fleas...or a bun in the oven.

[Jen Gerson]

MRN - That doesn't explain why teen pregnancy rates are highest in American states where abstinence programmes exist and lowest where sex education is a standard part of the curriculum.

And I don't know about this so called horrific sex culture, but the stats say: "Each year, almost 750,000 teenage women aged 15–19 become pregnant. The teenage pregnancy
rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

The report also noted a 50 per cent decline in the abortion rate since 1988, which I can only presume corresponds to the era of your adolescence. Not mine.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Jen,

A factor in the lower pregnancy rate may be the variety of sexual activity now considered normal and acceptable. Some high school boys and girls are doing "everything but". Some of these activities are just as risky as plain old sex, in terms of STDs and emotional harm done to those not ready, and present new potential for physical risk.

Another, possible factor: the rise of voyeurism. Teenage girls who aren't necessarily engaging in any form of sex are still posing as participants - by sexting, dressing hyper-provocatively (the porn-star look), "performing" for males (the faux-lesbian make out sessions at parties and clubs).

[MensRightsNow]

Jen:

Never listen to what women say (particularly feminists), simply watch what they do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/606611

[Sebastian Stoker]

I remember stories like this in the early or mid-nineties.

Question (non-rhetorical): Is this worse than the husband-hunters/gold diggers?

[Jen Gerson]

So let me get this straight. You now have young women engaging in less risky sexual behaviour (albeit different sexual behaviour than your personal standard of normality), which is leading to fewer consequences such as pregnancy, STDs and abortion.

You think this is a bad thing. Why?

I can't really grasp what an article about the tough economic times leading to more women in the sex industry has to do with feminism. Oh, so all feminists are strippers now? What? Where is your logic? Most feminists I know would be appalled to sell their bodies for the pleasure of men out of financial desperation. (Although I certainly defend a woman's right to do so if she chooses.)

And the fact that you're telling a woman not to listen to what other women actually say because we're all so facile that the words our puny brains produce can't be trusted over the actions of our desperate bodies, is misogyny bordering on pathology.

For a man who seems to be all about "men's rights" you spend a lot of time attacking women. Maybe you should learn to argue more with your head and less with your heart. When you have a Mere Woman like myself so easily able to deconstruct your Manly Logic with the use of my feeble female brain, it's time to go home.

[Jen Gerson]

Question (non-rhetorical): Since when are teenaged girls the enemy?

[MensRightsNow]

Jen...typical female argument.

"I can't really grasp what an article about the tough economic times leading to more women in the sex industry has to do with feminism."

Never listen to what women say, simply watch what they do.

"And the fact that you're telling a woman not to listen to what other women actually say because we're all so facile that the words our puny brains produce can't be trusted over the actions of our desperate bodies, is misogyny bordering on pathology.

Never said that. What a stetch! You're sounding hysterical and defensive. You've descontructed nothing except proving my point.

"......would be appalled to sell their bodies for the pleasure of men out of financial desperation. (Although I certainly defend a woman's right to do so if she chooses.)"

[Sebastian Stoker]

Jen, I never said teenaged girls were the enemy. I was suggesting that just because stats may show that teen pregnancy and teen abortion rates have dropped does not mean everything is wonderful.

It seems that were are seeing a cultural slide, and male-female relations are both suffering because of, and an indicator of, this. Males and females are being reduced to gross cliches - the male as the dumb grunt in search of food, power, and sex, the female the sexual barterer, using her body and services, or promise of, to get what she wants. It is a cave-man dynamic. Is this good for anyone?

Are pregnancy and STDs the only measure of progress and health for young women? If neither was an issue, then could young males expect sexual service on demand?

[Sebastian Stoker]

Jen,

I remember a great article by Julie Burchill (published over 20 years ago), in which she compared the go-go girls and the hippie chicks of the 1960's to show that responsibility-free sex was not necessarily a boon to women.

Go-go girls of the early sixties were modern and free-spirited, and independent. However, because the pill was not yet easily available, they and their partners had to be cautious RE sex. Churchill argued this was not an altogether bad thing, and points out that by the time of the hippie chick the pill was available. However, instead of making young women freer, it just made many of them virtual sex slaves, as they were now expected to be always available to service their men.

[Jen Gerson]

MRN:
This comment "Never listen to what women say, simply watch what they do." Is a fundamentally pathological and misogynistic statement. Would you apply the same metric to men?

You have also yet to explain what an article about stripping in hard times has to do with feminism, or what it indicates about women as a whole.

Sebastian:
No, you never said teenaged girls were the enemy. That is certainly what a young woman would infer from reading some of these comments about "slutty high school" girls who "b up against boys, grab their butts, and brag about their sexual conquests real or imagined."

In an earlier comment you seem to think that society, or whomever, are blaming teenaged boys from the self-destructive behaviour of teenaged girls. I just don't know where you get that from. Young women and young men both engage in deeply self destructive behaviour during adolescence. We don't entirely understand the reason, but we know that they've been engaging in risky behaviours since the dawn of time and aren't likely to stop any time soon. As a society, I think, all we can do is try to give young people the best choices and council available, give them the opportunity to make mistakes and try to mitigate any serious damage. Easier said than done.

I don't disagree with all of your other points. I never said things were wonderful, nor do I particularly agree with raunch sex culture (although I do believe it's mostly a media fabrication.)
You say men and women have been reduced to gross stereotypes, but you don't explain where.

From what I can see, the stats show that things for the average teenager, vis a vis abortion, pregnancy, STDs, not to mention access to education and opportunity, have been improving steadily over the past fifty years. Can a greater balance between progressive and conservative values be found? Sure. But it's far too easy to dismiss all of the progress that has been made because it doesn't fit into an ideological mold, or match the ideal world we would imagine.

[MensRightsNow]

Jen....This comment "Never listen to what women say, simply watch what they do." Is a fundamentally pathological and misogynistic statement. Would you apply the same metric to men?

No, because men mean what they say. Not fundamentally pathological...just fact.

jen...correct me if I'm wrong, stripping for money is counter to feminist dogma, but you support their choice? I'm confused.