Naaa..... Just propaganda from the Repubs and Dems looking for political advantage. It will go away after the election.

Male-Female orgasm gap.... Is that anything line the missile gap from the Cold War?

They were so busy testing out the different combinations that they lost count..... that or had to make a cigarette run.

I blame Obama

Well.... sex is one way of increasing the party base. It's just an investment in the future that take 18 years to take advantage of.

Being a moderate, I have to ask... Do Republicans have sex.... I mean really good sex, or is that looked down upon by the religious types in the party?

41 different combinations of sexual acts were tallied

That's funny. Somehow I was expecting 42....

fly, sure you're a moderate, that's why you had to drag politics into it and make a weak generalization.

on topic, they said it was the most extensive since 1994... 94?! wow, we had to wait a whole 16 yrs! I can't wait till they update this in 2014! Who pays for this? and no, I didn't read the article, don't care what baloney some lame study that's most likely full of holes came up with.

GordyinIowa the point was do republicans have sex, good sex, not sex for procreation. You didn't answer.

Gordy 1.7... I'm not sure how many kids the speaker has, but I think she and her husband have the rest already dusted!

According to the hookers/prostitutes they hire, they get much freakier than Democrats!

Wonder what kind of trouble the democrats are in today if MSN is making this the lead article

Why does it seem I'm the only one appalled that 14 year olds are having sex? It really doesn't surprise me, but it's wrong.

My daughter told me of a girl in her school, 14, that just got pregnant. Her mother took her out of school to "home teach" her, and she will then pretend the baby is hers. How messed up is that? Though better than a 14 yr old trying to be a mother, being just a kid herself. It literally astounds me that this is happening.

My daughter is now 12 - and just got her period... it worries me about what may happen in the future. Right now I know everywhere she is because she does tae kwon do 5 days a week, and I check any and all sites she visits on the web along with her mail and text messages. Would this have happened to the 14 year old pregnant girl if her mother or father had taken the time to do these simple things? Who knows. It just really bothers the hell out of me.

I'm not sure why an 'Al-Qaida' reference had to be made in an article about sex. It certainly doesn't put me in the mood, and it is certainly in bad taste.

Married with Children...natural birthcontrol...no latex or pills needed...

FlyNavy1 For the record, republicans have great sex. They just don't want anyone else to know.

romilio.... Gordy is right as we are getting it from both sides as he suggest.

Gordy.... I think you mean tushee in this case...

TLW... Glad to hear.... and your secret is safe too! Let's just make sure the church doesn't hear about it. I think they frown on good sex the last time I checked.

Best regards!

LMasure

Why does it seem I'm the only one appalled that 14 year olds are having sex? It really doesn't surprise me, but it's wrong.

There are quite a few states that allow marriage to females as low in age as 14 (all with parents consent and/or a judges order). Why should anyone be appalled (unless they were actually trying to change the marriage laws in those states).

And heck, if a child at the age of 14 years old, can get a parents consent and/or a judges order allowing marriage isn't that a parent/judge condoning sex at that age?

LMasure68 #1.14Right now I know everywhere she is because she does tae kwon do 5 days a week, and I check any and all sites she visits on the web along with her mail and text messages.

Do you really think that spying on your daughter will prevent her from getting pregnant? If she does not know that this is wrong - she will find a way. So, instead, maybe you should spend the same energy explaining to your daughter why this is wrong and the consequences of her getting pregnant. Just a thought.

Caitlin... In total agreement about the "Al-Qaida" thing putting the damper on things. Never in history has there been a group that needed good sex.

LMasure.... Sex at 14 is insane, but it can't be stopped! You get your kids when they are born without an instruction manuals. As parents you do the best you can to instill some common sense into them. By the time they are 14-15, you have done everything you can with regards to understand what you expect of them. After that, you are putting the polish on them, and helping them to find their voice and thoughts.

You can't protect them for everything that is out there. The best you can hope to do is for them to make good choices that you would want them to make. They may end up at a party having too much to drink, or with a friend that is in trouble. The best thing you can do is to make them understand ahead of time, that under those circumstances you want them to call for you to come and get them. This is a no questions asked situation where all you want is that they are safe. Things in a teenager's life can get out of hand quickly. You want them safe so you can pick them up, dust them off, understand what went wrong, so they can face life again.

Republicans first ask their preacher for permission, then they do it in the dark with their eyes closed and their clothes on.

@Flynavy1

I'm a Republican and I go to a Conservative Church and my sex life if good, good, good!!!!! :) :)

Based upon the same sample size that the reported test utilized, it looks like Republicans, Democrats and Independents all have the same amount of good sex. Now with that as a basis for commonality, can we work together on the other issues that plague our country?

(given what we see in the news about politics, I was worried that nobody was having any fun out there.......)

Regards to all... see you at the poles

Cynic and Fly Navy: Believe it or not, all Americans - regardless of gender or age - have sex thrust upon them daily. Although the sex is absolutely STD free it is extremely debilitating. The perpetrators are our elected officials at all levels of government who screw us all royally every day. Enjoy.

Giovanni..... Don't candy coat it.... say what you and the rest of us really feel.... We get raped by our elected officials every day. And I don't know about you, I feel like I need a bath... oooh.... icky!

Regards

LMasure68 - i think you sound like a great parent. you are involved with your daughter and make sure she is living the morals you are trying to teach her. She is a fortunate girl.

I don't believe that teenagers having sex is inevitable like some here have said. they are way too young and immature, especially at 14, to be engaged in that sort of relationship, and need parents who will parent, not try to be their friend. It is ok to tell them not to do it. There are plenty of teenagers who encounter the opportunity but choose not to. Best of luck to your daughter's friend - she is going to need it.

and on the other topic here - really?? some of you think that if you go to church you dont have sex?? get real! God created sex just like everything else, for not just procreation but for bonding between married partners. what does going to church have to do with anything??

@catay "I'm a Republican and I go to a Conservative Church and my sex life if good, good, good!!!!! :) :)

You don't by any chance go to Rev. Jones' church in Atlanta do you?

The sexual hypocrisy of people was exposed with the internet. Prior to the internet, most people acted like they were Pat Boone when it came to sexual experience, when in reality they were Rick James, 'Super Freaks'. Now that the internet has broken down the stigma of being called a pervert or deviant by defining it as 'fetishes', has opened the proverbial floodgates of closet pervs to finally come out. Therefore, it stands to reason that any sexual proclivity that is shared amongst two consensual adults needs no definition at all.

It's a shame that cultural values and organized religion has ruined what is nothing more than mankind's many unique ways of bumping uglies.

I have a 12 year old. We have had extensive conversations about sex. I have shown him condoms... we have discussed female cycles... gay sex... you name it.. that kid has asked and ive told him. It would appear though (by comparisson of friends and associates) that my views on sex are very different than the majority.

First... youre all fooling your selves if you believe your kid is going to wait to get married for sex. Youre equally fooling yourself if you think your kid is going to get to that moment of sweaty decision making time... and think to themselves "no I cant have sex... mom wouldnt like it". They make their own decisions in that moment. The BEST you can do is drill into their head that condoms will protect them so they can go off and have more sex on a later date. I am also always honest with my kid. I read a study a while back that surveyed adults about how old they were when they lost their virginity... and the companion study of how old kids thought their parents were when they lost their virginity. The hypocricy was glaringly obvious. Why do that to your kid???

I think you should embrace your kids sexuality. me personally... I expect my kid to have sex.... I even trust that my kid will know when its right for him. I want him to have a fulfilled sex life full of fond memories that he will never share with his mom but will giggle about for years and years to come. I want him to learn to be a good lover... and I want him to know how to find someone that is interested in pleasing him as well. I think he should know how to receive... AND give a good experience. I think he needs to know how to have respect for himself... and he should look for someone that has respect for themself as well. And... I dont think he needs to feel guilt in any of it.

For me the "when how and where" questions dont interest me nearly as much as the respect and protect ones.

I can tell you a constant when it comes to sex: 100% of Women Seeking Men ads on craiglist either have no pictures in them or they're all fake and try to get you to go to some bogus singles website.

And that sucks big you know what.

Conservatives just don't feel the need to shout from the mountain tops what their particular preferences are- like some liberal groups do. For some reason, there are factions that really believe I should not only know- and understand- what they want in the bedroom- but that I MUST like it and even go so far as to grant certain rights to guarantee it! Pssst... you already have the right to get as freaky as you want behind your closed doors. I just don't want to hear about it!!!!!! And I really don't want my kids to hear it- this is a good reason why 14 year olds are having sex- they are hit with this crap every day- All day! You can only tell them so many times before they have to face the issue head on and you can only pray the message got through...

But in society, it's a double edged sword- call it the Jimmy Swaggart theory. Something like this- those screaming the loudest against doing something are usually the ones feeling the most guilt from doing it!! So anytime I hear someone ranting about how bad it is for this and that- I usually take it for what it's worth- usually not much...

drunk sailors in tiajuanna..those women have huge adams apples :)

Sexual orientation is self identity. I'm an epidemiologist. Many men who identify as heterosexual have more sex partners of the same sex in a year than some men who identify as gay or bisexual. That's why to fight the AIDS epidemic we've had to re-market our message for MSMs--Men who have Sex with other Men. Since many do not identify as gay or bisexual, they pay no attention to safer sex messages aim toward those populations. We don't just classify these men as gay or bisexual, because we can't. How gay is gay? How straight is straight? Sexual orientation is on a continuum.

Brenda,

Wouldn't that make these "heterosexuals" who have sex with both men and women really "bisexual" but they are just in denial about it... I know some men don't want the "label" for stigma reasons, but a Rose by any other name is still a Rose..

Maybe. What if they don't think so? They could also be gay men who can't face being gay. They could be straight men who like a little spice. Many African cultures have no word for homosexuality, however, quite a few Africans engage in it. It's only when you ask about specific sex behavior do you get at it. And in some cultures (many Latin and US prison cultures) only the bottom man is gay; that makes the top man heterosexual. You can't tell people how to identify. They'll just walk out of the clinic without a safer sex kit. This is the problem with homophobia. It fuels unsafe sex. Behavior needs to be looked at more than definitions of identity.

Brenda,

I agree that all people should be educated and perhaps catering to their rationalizations is a good tactic. But what I was saying is is that just because a culture doesn't have a word for "gay" or "homosexual" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or just because men don't want to call themselves "gay," "bi", or whatever because their is a stigma doesn't mean they aren't gay or bisexual..

by the way, which Latin culture only considers bottoms to be gay? I'm Latin and I've never heard of that and I have friends for many parts of latin america...

If you tell me which Latin culture, I can research it.

Luigee... I know of a good many latinos that will not "bottom" for fear of being "considered" gay... but do regularily participate in other typicically gay acts. The gay community is filled with men that ONLY top. There is a sterotype of men that bottom that can be percieved and undesireable. In our society the person being "mounted" is generally considered weaker or inferior. We need to change that view point if we are going to make progress against the hate and bigotry associated with this.

What Brenda is trying to say though is sexuality for a good many people is a fluid thing. It is not for us to label another or quantify their gay-ness. Sexuality is a human experience no matter how you participate. We need to make people more concerned about their OWN health and needs and stop labeling and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Brenda and Netsiebaby: I love love love this! THIS is what more people need to realize. Sexuality is NOT black and white, and there are plenty of straight, gay, lesbian, bi, individuals who see things this way.

For instance, a person who is 'straight' may have sex with a same sex partner (or multiple same sex partners for that matter) but they may not consider themselves bisexual because it is purely about sex and NOT about relationships. Some people feel that even though they are attracted to individuals of the same sex they are not 'bi' or 'gay' because they don't want to have an actual relationship with them and may only have relationships with members of the opposite sex. On paper it may look like they're 'bi', but that implies that you enjoy both same sex partners and opposite sex partners equally. This doesn't apply if you are only interested in having a relationship with the opposite sex, yet still enjoy sex with same sex partners.

Actually, I think if you enjoy having sex with people of both sexes then you would be bi. If you don't admit that you are bi then you are lying. You don't have to like them equally or have relationships, or even be good at gay sex to qualify as being bi, you just have to have given it a try or two. (the sex part would be the issue here)

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter what a straight person says about another person's sexuality or sexual habits, it's all about perception. That you perceive it to be all about sex doesn't matter, because I'm assuming that you're only having sex with members of the oposite sex. It's the fact that even though we have terms to identify our sexuality and define them, individuals who are having sex with same sex partners do not feel that definition. Relationships and sex are not mutually exclusive, but both of them shape our sexuality, and furthermore how do you define individuals who are attracted to members of the same sex, but do not have sex with them, and yet have relationships and sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex, to which they are also equally attracted to? It's all a question of perception, and it defies definition. By your logic, a person who has had sex with same sex and opposite sex partners but realized that they were much more drawn to opposite sex partners is still bi because they experimented? Or a gay man who has had a sexual encounter with a woman but has had only relationships with men is also bi? I'm assuming you are a woman, so how would you feel if you were sexually approached by a gay man? Would you think he were bi or gay? If your boyfriend has only had sex with women but has dated a man but didn't have sex with him, is he straight or bi? You can try all you want to define sexuality, and maybe it is more comfortable for you to define it, but in the gay, lesbian, transgenered, bisexual, and questioning community, it is much more fluid. If you are able to define your sexuality and your sexuality is very clear to you, then congratulations, but it does not mean that you have the ability to define another person's sex life or sexuality based on your own. It boils down to a lot of 'heterosexuals' are not comfortable with sexuality, and all of the scrambling to try to define all sexuality and all sex acts are spurned out of that discomfort and fear. There are a lot of women in college who kiss other women who only have sex and relationships with men who in adulthood won't have any other same sex encounters, are they straight or bi? Who cares anyways? Straight people? I'm a straight person, and I believe that whatever you do behind closed doors is your own business. To try to define another person's sexuality so that they can be judged by the straight masses is a strange way to live, and quite frankly, it shouldn't matter. Same sex couplings are not going away, so you'd better bite the bullet and get used to it...especially when someone you know or love decides to define their sexuality and it turns out they're gay. It's amazing how many sexually rigid individuals suddenly change their tune when their child is gay...suddenly when the issue hits much closer to home it's not such a big deal.

That's just it: sexuality is on a continuum. Some people are more gay than straight; others are more straight than gay, and to what extent people are attracted to members of the same or opposite sex varies. Some people are attracted to same sex partners emotionally; others physically. Many on both levels. I'm not saying that if a culture doesn't have a name for something, then that something does not exist. (This is a philosophical question.) What I am saying is that something is like the number zero: undefined. And yes, in many Latin American cultures only the bottom man is defined as gay. I tell people when we get into discussions about sexuality that we just really don't understand sexuality. The behavior is likely largely instinctual.

I understand where you are coming from that it isn't necessary to define sexuality, but if you are identifying it, if you have sex with both sexes that is what bisexual means. I have had sex with women and probably will again, so I am bi even though I am in a relationship with a man for example. If it was a one time thing, I would only consider myself bi if I were open to the idea of doing it again. However I would not call it a one time thing if I had either done it more than once, or was open to the idea of doing it again. So in my view a lot of people are bisexual - a lot more than are gay or straight even if they lean one way or the other. The defining factor being having sex with either gender.

That is what bisexual means in the dominant US culture--not in all US subcultures (African American culture, for instance) or in all foreign cultures.

Tony,

I agree with you. Just to make it more sensational they have included reference to14 years kid. and the percentage is 2% (our of a sample of 57 kids which has 14-17 kids). So if the %age are coorect they has 50 kids which were 14 years old and 7 kids which were 17 years old. Wow.. Nothing but yellow journalism to please the condom company..

Hey... whatever will help kids (and adults) to use condoms is a good thing. We will never stop sexual drives in anyone, so we may as well try to prevent some of the medical issues that can come about. Condom use is cheap when you compare it to treatments for STDs.

The 57 is the number of teens that responded to this VOLUNTARY study! And the report was CLEAR that this needs to be studied further becuz of the small sample.....!! They know they cant draw any scientific conclusions from this small sample and said so! So there's no sensationalism! Let's be accurate!

Read it again, Gordy. It was paid for by the Trojan condom company.

To get participants under age 18 you have to have both the parents approve and the kids willing to take the survey. As you can imagine not a lot of parents are willing to say yes to their 14 year olds being asked questions about anal sex. Also, "nationally representative" is based on scientific calculations based on sample size, total population size and how we can accurately decide how many kids are enough. But as already pointed out, the sample size is small and more research needs to be done. HOWEVER, as lovingly pointed out by Gordy, many Americans don't want to use tax payer money to pay for important research. So instead researchers will continue to use private money and have to settle for their research being called "non-scientific" and basically a sham. I'm guessing you didn't actually read any of the actual articles and are basing your clearly intelligent judgment on this one news report alone. If you'd taken the time to actually read the articles (and understand anything about scientific research) you would see how rigorous this study actual was. But that would require more than your armchair opinion so I'm guessing that won't happen.

So, researchers know of 14 year olds that have sex, and didnt report them to the police? Isnt that Illegal? Sure is..and they should be arrested.

Whizerd, it is not illegal to inquire about illegal activities for scientific research studies - how do you think we have studies about drug use, domestic violence, incest, etc? There are specific requirements, but you can, in fact, have surveys that ask if someone has broken the law and not be required to turn them in for admitting it.

It is sensational because the sample was too small.

fgh,

It was not too small - this is actually a very large sample for such a study. Many accurate studies are made with samples only a fraction this size.

Ofcorse 14 year olds have sex but here in Sweden we must wait leagally untill they are 15. then it is "no holes barred."

We still have sexual drives but we also have a brain to control it and for teenagers to be having sex at 14 only means they have parents that are being irresponsible in teaching their teens how to control their urges. Let them do what ever they damn well please until someone gets pregnant and we can blame it on the schools.

Like you blame it on the parents? How is that helping, exactly?

It's not actually illegal for a 14-year-old to have sex. It is illegal for an older person--the particular age varies by the state/country--to have sex with a 14-year-old. The statutory rape provisions can be quite complex in some places, but, bottom line, if a 14-year-old has sex with another 14-year-old, that is not considered criminal activity. And I highly doubt they asked the 14-year-olds who answered affirmatively how old their partners were. Even if a 14-year-old openly admitted to having sexual relations with a 30-year-old, the 14-year-old wouldn't be the one committing any crime. So, no, the researchers should not have reported the teenagers to the police, although moral standards may favor reporting them to a social worker who could further investigate the individual incidents.

Besides, studies like these are done anonymously and usually with blinds in place, so that they wouldn't know who to report anyway. That's intentional - you won't get true answers otherwise.

57 kids......41 ways!!!!In the 50's a hand in the shirt was considered quite an accomplishment.

It's unrealistic for us to expect rigorous scientific research in a country where many believe evolution and "creationism" to be equally valid, that the universe was created 8,000 years ago and homo sapiens made his/her entrance ridin' on a dinosaur.

America is going backward, intellectually, as fast as the medium-right religious folks, Babs Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Fox, and the Tea party can push us, while America rapidly loses its position in the world-wide marketplace, not just ideas but manufacturing and finance. And in the Bible wasn't there all kinds of whacky woo-woo goin' on?

Are you a statistician MNWriter? If not, I still say the sample is too small. I am not a statistician. That does not mean that I can not judge someone has lied. Many can, and should judge the possibility of lying, even if they know no math. Statistics are an excellent tool for any subject. But many ways exist to abuse the use of statistics.

I like much of what you write MNWriter. But your comment about 'blaming the parents, how is that helping' - may possibly make you seem to be 'one short of a six pack'.

Actually Robbie, just to clarify, sex between two minors is illegal in many states as it is here in California.

fgh, My comment about blaming the parents was in direct response to a comment stating that 14 year olds having sex "only means" parents were being irresponsible.

Teenagers are more likely to use condoms, because teenage girls are less likely to be on the pill. Those over 50 are less likely to use them, because the women are more likely to be menopausal, and the couples are not thinking about STDs.

Yeah, using a 0.0015% cross section of the US population to determine how the other 99.9985% behaves is misleading at best.

Statistics are kind of a pseudo science to begin with, but especially so when using a cross section that small.

Clearly you guys no nothing about research or statistics. Almost 6,000 people is HUGE. Very rarely do any studies come even close to having that many people. Nationally representative is a highly scientific process that allows you to sample (e.g. need less than the whole number) a specific number of people in order to draw conclusions about the whole. Quit assuming you know everything, get off your couch and actually investigate things before you expose yourself as an idiot. This was not pseudo science and is an extremely rigorous study and that's why you will find the study being discussed on every major news outlet today.

Dave, It is also sad that you took the time read and comment on an issue you feel is beneath 'the news'. I guess you were forced to click on the article or perhaps the word sex inticed you.

There is nothing "pseudo" about the science. As long as the sample was sufficiently random then that is an acceptable cross section of society. You cannot poll all 300 million Americans about their sex lives, or any other subject for that matter. This was a SURVEY not a CENSUS. There is a difference.

I believe the stats are seriously skewed because it does not state how many people were contacted, and refused to participate in such intimate inquiries. I know that I wouldn't participate in such a survey.

If Fox did it, they'd convince all viewers as to how sinful masturbation is, and how condom use leads to AIDS!

FOX is nothing but sex. What are you talking about?

@dudogger:

You are obviously a bleeding-heart liberal with nothing to add to the article besides posting your own adgenda. Crawl back into the hole you came from and then come back with something intelligent.

spike-322306 if you actually read the research articles and not just the media summary you'd have your answers. And you'd be surprised at how little the refusal rates were. But then again, that requires knowledge of how to read research articles and more effort than just randomly spouting off ignorant statements with no basis in reality.

The continual annoyance of the masses to researchers: even when you do fantastic research bozos will continue to not believe you based on their oodles and oodles of wisdom.

@ republic!

Yes, Fox is nothing but sex, and it's alternative positions...they're doing it to your eye sockets and earholes...

I wonder how they're going to resolve the conflict of interest when half their commentators are running for office...? Oh, wait, I'm sure they'll be asking the hard questions anyway...

Gary...Maybe Dodogger could teach you how to spell.

When you resort to the spelling comments, it just means you have nothing else to add to the conversation.

Very good TLW......and the comma in the right place.

lbpHd,

OK, smart guy, what were the refusal rates? Did you read all 130 pages? And, their claim of ~7-8% gays is ridiculously higher than ANY estimation that I have ever seen, and makes the whole survey suspect.

Spike...They are noisier,that creates the impression that there are more of them. If you believe the Media they are the Majority.

LBPhD #3.7 "But as already pointed out, the sample size is small and more research needs to be done."

LBPhD #5.3 "Almost 6,000 people is HUGE."

Well which is it, small or huge?

spike #5.15 "And, their claim of ~7-8% gays is ridiculously higher than ANY estimation that I have ever seen, and makes the whole survey suspect."

What estimations have you seen? I was always told that ten percent of people are gay.

scythe,

Just do a quick search, and you will get a number sources. The consensus of reputable estimates is usually 1-3%.

This source, although biased, has sources to back up their claims that the homosexual populace is a lot lower than some "believe". There is an old saying, usually attributed to Goebbels, "Tell a lie enough, and soon it become the truth".

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php

23 yr old student. I hope you are working on your masters degree. But naming genitals on the evening news and comparing to HBO movies is more than a strech. Maybe you need more time studing.

No stretch at all, really - but wingnuts often miss the intent of analogy and juxtaposition. And only Fox Evening Snooze has the genital name hangup, leading all dysfunctional Teabaggers to wrongly conclude that that applies to all legitimate network news.

23 yr old student. I hope you are working on your masters degree

That's an awfully arrogant statement to make. Perhaps 23 served 4 years fighting for your right to make such asinine assumptions and is now going to college for the first time. Maybe 23 went two years, had to stop going to take care of a terminally ill family member and is now returning to complete the degree. Maybe their family was unable to afford to pay for the outrageous cost of higher ed in this country and had to work for a year or two in order to afford it. Perhaps they are seeking a dual degree path, which will extend the amount of time needed to attain the degrees. Maybe they just had a rough couple of years the first year or two and have to take a little longer to complete. The average time to receive a Bachelor's in this country is over 4 years.
You have no clue what circumstances this person has in their life, and have no right to make such assumptions and cast dispersions on *anyone* of any age who is seeking to further their education. One of the benefits of higher education is that it teaches a person to think critically, to see various angles to given situations. Maybe you should think about a refresher course or two?
It is better to keep your trap shut and have people think you a fool than to post a comment to a publically viewable discussion board and remove all doubt.

Dennis, thank you for your comments, I believe it is commendable for anyone attempting to further their education no matter their age or what degree they are working on.

Dave, I am in fact working on my Masters in Infectious Diseases. And yes I agree with you that the analogy the researcher made wasn't the best - HBO is a pay-for-view cable channel and therefore is most likely viewed by adults whereas evening news is witnessed by many more age demographics so the content does need to be kept PG.

However, I believe the point he was trying to make is that even today, in 2010, we are embarassed by genital terminology and will often use euphemisms for our reproductive organs. I think this just adds to the taboo nature of sex for young people, but if we just use the standard clinical terms that a doctor uses like 'penis' and 'vagina', it would go a long way to help open up dialogue about our sexual health. These are not dirty words - they are terms that your doctor would use when discussing your health with you, just like 'tongue' or 'elbow'

No prob - I'm 32 and have just gone back to get a 2nd degree after deciding to do a career and life 180, so run into incorrect assumptions frequently. Good luck on the Master's.

Wait, I have a daughter who is almost 23, and she's still in college, and my name is Dennis... Hmmm..... This thread seems a little "fatey" today. Like, I was meant to post.

23, have you ever seen Penn and Teller's show? They did an episode on "bad words". It's a good show!

I agree with Dennis, the remarks by Dave-2449772 about 23 year old students were assinine. There is no "correct" age for one to be a student or to complete one's education.

If Fox did it, they'd convince all viewers as to how sinful masturbation is, and how condom use leads to AIDS!

Actually, Fox did a pretty good piece on this a couple years ago and they found that condom use was on the rise among young people and applauded that revelation. Good job to both networks; however, I and others would like to see a larger test group before we start declaring what is fact!

Thanks, Vince. Er no, wait... wrong Dennis, right?

but if we just use the standard clinical terms that a doctor uses like 'penis' and 'vagina', it would go a long way to help open up dialogue about our sexual health. These are not dirty words

Who would have thought Kindergarten Cop was edgy and progressive?

Try swinging from the ceiling chandelier yelling like Tarzan and It may help your. your sorry sex life.

I dunno, the Chewbacca mask and light sabres really get me going...but perhaps a vine anchored over the bed would change my mind about Tarzan...unless of course I have to wear a chimpanzee costume...when the zipper gets stuck that kinda sucks all the fun out of things...

"Honey... do we need to have the ceiling reinforced for the trapeze you want to install now that the chandelier got pulled out?"

Wherescommonsense...Try velcro.

I'm certainly envious.

Nobody said it was good, but it's reality. Biology kicks the sex hormones in during the teenage years, along with the urges. I'd rather they use condoms, if they're going to do it. One thing we HAVE learned, teaching them only about abstinence does NOT work, so lets at least make sure they use condoms.

What's your definition of "normal"? If you believe that you can convince teenagers to stop having sex, give it a try. Let us know how it works out. The median age of American teenagers losing their virginities is about 17 - which means that as many teenagers lose their virginities below that age as above. Which means that, statistically, a majority lose it before turning 18. If a majority do it, how is that "abnormal"? What basis are you using for determining what makes sex at 18 "normal" and 17 "abnormal"? Plenty of people are still married before the age of 18 - should they stay virgins until that magical birthday anyway?

With so many lost virginities, it may help to start a lost-and-found department.

Floridamom, teenagers have been going behind the barn to have sex for CENTURIES. To try and believe otherwise is kind of putting your head in the sand. It's only been in the last few hundred years that anyone has tried to put restrictions on kids having sex.

How is it NOT normal for 17 year olds to be having sex?!?

Yes, because teenagers have never had sex before. Throughout the course of human history it is only recently that those 17 and under have engaged in sexual activity. It's time to take the blinders off and start living in reality. That is why abstinence only sex ed programs are a joke. Educate kids on how to SAFELY have sex and deal with the fact they are doing it. Get over your overly moralistic puritan values and join the 21st century.

I am not thrilled about teenagers having sex...If I had a child, i wouuld want them to wait. I am however VERY pleased to see that a majority are at least using condoms! Good!

The sex drive is very high for kids in their teens. I had sex during my highschool years and loved it. I have been married for over 25 years and my wife and I lived together for two years before marrage. We speak candidly about sex to our 11 year old son. He asks some very hard questions. By the way, I'm also a registeres Republican.

Thank you, outmaster60. Would that there were more such as yourself.

The legal "age of consent" is 16 in many U.S. states.

What about the Middle Ages when the life expectancy was 25 and most poeple were married at 12?

Isn't the age of majority in Canada 12 years old for girls?

And my experience with guys in the 18-21 year age range is they all say "safe only" but somehow the condoms never make an appearance. Yes, I am male and therefore waiting to be damned.

Like in the old days "do you go to church on sunday?" "Why yes, of course." But come Sunday, the church is as empty as a conservative's brain.

Hormones hit start hitting at around 12. The frontal lobes in young adults don't really begin to fire all of their synapses till the age of 20 plus. This is the reasoning for some of a teenagers snap-type, not quite thought out decisions. It's just the biology that we have to deal with.

Something else that I learned is that the definition of sex for kids younger than 20 is very different than how we baby boomers define it. In some readings, oral sex is not considered sex by them. BTW... the term is "Hooking-up" for those of you that are in need of understanding the young adult language of today.

When my kids were teens, I told them I would prefer they waited, but that if they did not want to wait, it was their choice. I then showed them where the condoms were, and told them I would always have them there, and I would never count them.

Both my kids survived their teen years without pregnancy, and one actually waited until he was 18 before having sex.

Did anybody on here seriously not have sex when they were teenagers (especially someone from florida?)

Would that there were more such as yourself.

Must be the Queen's English, eh?

Or.... We spend the first nine months of our lives trying to get out, and the rest of our lives trying to get back in!

-Robin Williams

Ahhhhhh, boo hoo, use them you selfish man. We don't want your cooties!!!!

Did you actually put duct tape on your pecker and attempt to stick it into someone's vagina? I want to know how much skin you ripped off of your penis when taking a duct tape rubber off?

Obviously he had some duct tape over his mouth during the extracation. "Silence is golden, but Duct Tape is platinum!

It seems to be standard practice nowadays for people to slam and/or ignore studies whose results they don't like. It's easier to do when you're not scientifically literate.

What does receiving oral sex from a man have to do with being gay? Being homosexual has to do with neurology and sociology and psychology. Receiving oral sex from a man is a simple physical act that can occur at any time. The two aren't necessarily related. Plenty of heterosexual people experiment, and sexuality is not a binary condition - it's a continuum. Psychological studies have proven that virtually everyone has homosexual thoughts of fantasies at some point in life. I would actually bet that that 15% figure is a bit of an undershot.

Probably some denial. Probably also some straight guys who figure, what the hell, an orgasm's an orgasm.

Fine, everybody can have it the way they want it. It's not anybody's business but theirs. If people want to try something out to be sure they DON'T like it, go right ahead.

I do think receiving or giving oral sex to another of the same gender has at least something to do with being gay/bisexual.

I still wonder if the stats are all that accurate in the "study" anyway. After all, it's a small sample, and it's done by a commercial product manufacturer.

"Psychological studies have proven that virtually everyone has homosexual thoughts of fantasies at some point in life."

My personal experience would cause me to stridently disagree with this statement. My personal experience with me has proven that it is possible for a male to be 100% hetero. And I married a 100% hetero female.

Agreed from here. I suppose those who have NO such thoughts can't quite fathom the mindset of those who DO.

Anyway, homosexuality/bisexuality has apparently been with humanity as long as there have been people. So on that basis, it might be classified as 'normal'.

flylowguy,

"Being gay" is not an all-or-nothing thing. One can have a homosexual desire and still be heterosexual. Sexual orientation is about more than just sexual attraction.

Androloma,

Two points. Note that, first, I said "virtually", because very few things are absolutely true. Second, your individual perception of your emotions is not scientifically viable - any psychologist can tell you that all people deceive themselves, misinterpret their own feelings, and mistake one emotion for another. As for your wife, I can't speak for her (and neither can you). If you really want to claim that neither you nor your wife has EVER had a single sexual thought, emotional or physical attraction to someone of your same sex, you can do so - but it is statistically far more likely that you are incorrect or lying than correct. I mean no offense by saying that, but that's like someone claiming "I've been driving for decades and never driven above the speed limit". It COULD be true, but it's probably not.

You mean, like, you are not attracted to the same sex, but then one day you sort of are attracted? Or on the other hand, you live a gay lifestyle, but then one day, 'turn hetero'?

I realize that it's not an all-or-nothing deal. For that matter neither is hetero marriage. Just look at the rate at which we change partners.

"...your individual perception of your emotions is not scientifically viable..."

That statement qualifies as one of the biggest lies I ever read. Assure yourself I stopped reading at that point. I've read the Bible. I recognize bull when I see it.

Androloma,

It's good to know that you stop reading something whenever you encounter any idea with which you disagree - however, my statement stands. Do you think that your own ideas disprove others' theories? "Hmm, there's lots of evidence that the Earth is round, but I think it's flat so it is!" That's not terribly reflective of reality. We lie to ourselves. We make mistakes. We're all screwed up in different ways and have emotional reactions to things that cloud our judgments. You can't possibly deny that much. This means that no, as a matter of fact, you can't always trust your own feelings, because your feelings can be flawed or mistaken. So can your memory. You can't simply claim that "I've never had this thought" unless you can factually and perfectly remember every thought you've ever had. That's simply impossible. So get over it - we can't perfectly judge our own emotions. If we could, we wouldn't make nearly so many stupid mistakes in our lives.

And even if none of that were the case, note that I said "scientifically viable" - one subjective answer would never be considered scientifically viable. "Hmm..he got a million votes, but one person voted against him so he can't be qualified and we won't elect him." Again, not how reality works.

I believe curious thoughts regarding others of the same sex are quite common. As a heterosexual female I have wondered on occasion what being with a female may be like and I have admired females that take good care of themselves the same way I would a male. I have never acted on any of the impulses, nor do I believe I ever will. But I would venture to say the majority of individuals have had some level of curiosity about someone of the same sex, whether it be a desire to be with them or simply admiration for a tone shape.

This does not make one gay or even suggest a desire to cross that line. It is simply the way the human brain works. Just the same as I might wonder what it's like to free base jump or to drive 200 miles an hour. Doesn't mean I'll ever have the experience, just a healthy curiosity.

Well said, concerned. Thank you.

flylowguy...I think the criteria is

..If you give you ARE.

Sexuality is a continuum. There are people who are 100% straight and those who are 100% gay but the majority of people fall somewhere in between those two polar opposites. It is ok to be 100% straight as long as you realized that not everyone is. I believe what was stated above, the discrepancy between those who say they are gay and those who have had same-sex encounters are men who simply want to have an orgasm it doesn't really matter how.

cynic, I'm not sure if you were being facetious (but that's not the criteria).

Yes, it is a form of denial... There is a section of men who are clearly gay or bisexual by anyones' standards but are in denial or don't want the "label" out of stigma or shame..

bisexuality is never 50/50...so yes, those who are not Gay or Straight can fall somweher in the continium of bisexuality. Bisexuals always have a more of a preference towards one sex over the other but do like both sexes...but they are still bisexual...

just my two cents..

15% of straight men age 50-59 men had a bj from another guy? No way. They are gay. I could care less if someone is gay, none of my damn business anyway, but come on! They may act 'straight' but they are gay or were those 15% in the joint?

Many independent studies have shown that astonishing percentages of heterosexuals experiment at some point in their lives, or even have an occasional homosexual experience ongoing through their lives.

With 41 positions, one of them probably involves the use of a bucket........

close.... laundry basket....

As long as no one lets the cat out of the bag, you'll be alright.

hmmm.... fur lined condoms...... any market? Might this be a way to get jobs going here in America?

Free speech is expensive.

Actually no. Countries that aren't as sexually repressed as the US have lower rates of sexual violence, lower rates of STDs and lower rates of teen pregnancies.

In other words the US is more like a 3rd world country when it comes to sex. We pay a far, far heavier price socially when we let religion dictate sexuality instead of biology. Why? Because when you repress something like sex it will always find a way out as humans are sexual animals. That's why we have a high rate of teen pregnancies in the US. The so-called heavy cost-socially is being caused by people wanting to suppress sexuality.

In the US we have replaced Sex with Violence. It says a lot about a society when you would rather let your kids watch violent movies than anything sex relates. No wonder our kids and later the adults they turn into are so screwed up.

But worth the effort most of the time.

Quit expecting the government to do your job, which INCLUDES monitoring what your kids are doing online and where they're going. But omg, it might actually require some effort to learn a little bit about computers...

You're the friggin parent, turn the damned computer off or, what would actually make MORE sense...TALK to your kids about sex, and inappropriate sites online, then verify where they're going now and then...if your kids have ACCURATE information, then they're less likely to make stupid decisions

I can get it with only one button?

Free interent porn for kids at a push of a button is a NATIONAL DISGRACE! Expect to pay a heavy cost-socially and financially!

Free porn is crap, if they want the good stuff they must pay like everybody else!

But jokes aside, people should stop blaming the media, the government, the schools, the poor teachers, get off their lazy a$$es and do some parenting!

@wherescommonsense-all monitoring your kids internet activity is going to do is make them more suspicious and UNtrusting of you. And many kids who have to be so untrusting of their parents, will be afraid to ask questions about sex and their health later on in life, even if there is something wrong. My mom and dad trusted me online, and told me about sex themselves, and I also took sex ed. The only reason these sites are "inappropriate" as everyone says, is because people are so closed minded to different kinds of sex and how people get off. Everyone is such a prude about their inner kink or freak.....gee, I wonder where all the repression of natural sexual feelings comes from? I wonder why so many kids are taught their urges are innappropriate, and wrong. Maybe this is why they're shamed for masturbating. I know a girl whose mother slapped her and called her a slut when she caught her masturbating, that poor girl is probably scared of her own sexuality now. Even after your kids get accurate information, they'll still want to get off, and there is absolutley NOTHING wrong with porn and those websites...so long as your computer is fine but that's different. When you stop "monitoring" your kids so closely, and sheltering them, then they'll open up to you about sex. Until then, don't expect them to come to you with any of those kinds of problems, and for the sole reason that they were made to feel ashamed about it. And the more you try and keep them away from those horrible websites, well, then they'll find a way to see them. Remember, the more you squeeze and overprotect, the more @!$%# slips through your fingers.

Needs more than one button. I never mastered the hooks.

Talk to your kids about this stuff. If you want them to have your values (no matter what they are) talk to them! They will listen and learn. You won't be disappointed.

@wherescommonsense-the only reason these sites are "innappropriate", is because people who go to them are made to feel ashamed, and THAT'S what's wrong here. The only reason a lot of kids don't talk to their parents about their sexuality and sexual health, is because they think that they have to repress all those questions, because mommy and daddy said that they're bad and innappropriate, so they hide it. They also hide their sexual urges and feelings, which are perfectly NORMAL. If you're really stooping to the point where you're invading their privacy to make sure that everything is G rated and appropriate, then I'll bet your kids are already ashamed of their sexual feelings, and are trying to repress them. Maybe you don't realize it, but my guess is you're trying to shelter and overprotect them from their own natural urges. I know a girl whose mother caught her masturbating, came in the room, slapped her, and called her a slut. The girl was punished, and I can only imagine how much that scarred her. The only reason these sites are so called "inappropriate", is because everyone is so closed minded and such a prude about how people get off. My parents told me about sex, and I took sex ed in high school. I have all the accurate information, and guess what? I watch porn anyways! You seem to think that talking to your kids will get rid of the curiosity, and keep them from watching porn, but it probably won't. The more you squeeze, and keep such a tight grip and insanely close tabs on what your kids are doing, well I've got news for you. The tighter the squeeze, the more @!$%# slips through your fingers. My own friend shamed me once for masturbating, and had the audacity to ask "would you kiss your brother?". She compared a normal behavior to incest. That's how backwards peoples' views on sex are. When society opens up, it won't be such a horrible thing. It isn't even horrible now society has just chosen to shame it again.

Whether it matters or not if kids look at porn - whoever, as in #18.6 above, thinks that kids can tell the difference between good, and bad porn - 'does not have an elevator that can reach the top floor'.

You make no sense. The only porn that is bad is child porn. Unfortunatley, most people associate child porn with the rest of it, which is a real shame. My username is Isis.

fgh

simmer down there for a second - good vs. bad porn comment was a joke, referring to the quality of FREE porn! Before talking about elevators and top floors, have yours stop by the sarcasm level!

I don't see what the big deal about porn is. The only reason people hate it so much is because they've bought into all the sexual hangups.

Unfortunately, you lack sufficient understanding of "a decent cross section". Statistical analysis holds true at this sample size. I'm not saying that this study is definitively correct, but the sample size in no way renders its findings suspect - at least, not to those who understand statistics.

Actually, if the survey is truly random, then a sampling size of about 1400 is sufficient to derive statistical data of a population of 300 million.

So, you can throw out the survey results of males aged 14 - 17, as the sampling size was only 57. But I would not throw out the rest of the results, at least not without more specific information regarding the specific numbers of people queried in each demographic bucket, and how they were selected.

An assignment for their college courses? Are you SERIOUS? No clearly you aren't. You are clearly insane and know nothing about research or you wouldn't say anything so daft.

I've seen many reliable surveys of 1,000 people. 6,000 is huge.

There are medical practices, that are applied to virtually all 6,872,953,362 people, that are based on research with much, much smaller sample sizes.

Just maybe those "medical practices . . . based on research with much smaller sample sizes." - possibly, maybe - are too small.

fgh

nope. they are not. small studies, good research, good data - millions of lifes improved. if you want i can drown you in citations.

Just maybe those "medical practices . . . based on research with much smaller sample sizes." - possibly, maybe - are too small.

fgh - when I studied statistics in college, the text books I read specified a random sampling of about 1400 as sufficient to extrapolate information about much larger populations. The total numbers of respondents in this survey was in excess of 5,000, but since it covered multiple demographic groups I would have to know how many respondents fall into each category to hazard a guess concerning the validity of the poll.

The story said that the sampling size for teenage males from 14 to 17, was only about 56. That is clearly too small a number to provide meaningful results.

For the other demographic groups, the U.S. news media has done another bang-up job of not telling you what you need or want to now.

I only watch Faux News when I need a good laugh. "Fox" and "News" don't belong in the same sentence. That station has nothing to do with "News" and everything to do with propaganda and entertainment. You need to put the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid down and join reality.

It's "in 41 combinations", not 41 positions".

Look into how much of our current medical knowledge comes from studying sex. It's staggering. A great deal of our current understanding of antibiotics comes from studying STD's, for instance. Discovery has no road map.

Given the types of antibiotic resistant strains of STDs that are now out there, it is wise to study cause.

Hahaha! Are you speaking from personal experience? I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

Hey, Kim Jong Il in North Korea gets off to cartoons of Goofy.

Just sayin'........

What I want to know is, do the women take off their Burkas for sex? Or is it a grab bag kind of deal where the guy never really knows what his partner looks like?

On the other hand, that might be kind of fun once in a while. Maybe they know something we don't.

I wonder what they wear under those burkas?

I just think they have been in those caves with the bro's for way too long. It probably is a grab bag deal....

If you were actually curious, you could look into Islamic traditions regarding women's clothing and learn exactly what is required. Why is it wrong to have religious restrictions on clothing? So do Jews and Christians - ever been told or hear someone say to wear nice clothes to church? Same thing. We all honor our beliefs in different ways, as long as people are free to do so without being punished for choosing their beliefs freely.

MNWriter... More inclined to agree.... just having fun...

I can see a number of people on this planet needing much more sex than they are getting! I'm betting that those that want to restrict everyone having a good time, is just because they are jealous.

From "Good Morning Viet Nam", I can think of a line that would apply for a great number of our leaders....

Actually, I don't think that Al Qaida is undersexed at all. Assuming, of course, that they are all men. They restrict sex to marriage, but they skirted that whole cheating thing with polygamy. How many kids does Bin Laden have? Unfortunately, their sexual practices are not very considerate of the woman's needs.

There's no such thing as 'too much cleavage'...........is there?

Too little cleavage, yes. But NEVER too much!

I find that UDDERLY rediculous!

The ONLY time I thought I was seeing "too much cleavage" was on a dress my daughter was trying on. That one, I did not buy.

However in general, more is better, yes.

I guess we Dad's do like cleavage, as long as it's on someone else's daughter....

I think that is a double standard..... yep.... that is definately a double standard... Okay I'm a caveman then.

Yup. I fully agree. Double Standard. Not going to change it, either.

Kinky is when you do it with a feather.... perverted is when you do it with the whole chicken!