Teen Abstinence

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

While you are so busy judging, I spend my life delivering the consequences of your "morality".

1. those are not the consequences of my Morality.
2. And I spend my life tring to mend the damages that your "morality" causes to LGBT youth (albeit I am only a volunteer and I am not a professional in that). And it very likely that siminar damages are made to heterosexual youth; I just don't have the occasion of dealing much with that.

I spend my life delivering the consequences of your "morality". It may educate you to know that given the failure rates of the various birth control techniques used, and, primarily, the failure to use the techniques available to them and about which they know,

Babies are not the consequences of my Morality. Babies are either wanted or unwanted. If they are wanted, fine. If they are unwanted, they are the consequence of your "morality" or dis-information about contraceptives and abortion.

Each of these patients stated that they knew that sex led to babies but none of them used any contraception. It is not the lack of education, it is the lack of will to do what must be done. "I didn't think it would happen to me" is a notoriously POOR form of birth control.

And how on earth you are attributing to me their unwillingness to use contraception? I don't think I know all of the factors leading to non-use of contraception, but my ethical position has nothing to do with it, while your pseudo-ethical is very likely to play some role.

Given the rising rate of HIV infection homosexual males reported by the CDC, I'd say the same philosophy is resulting in increased transmissions.

For how grivious are the consequences of HIV, you have no business to enforce abstinence on the basis that it would slow down the transmission of HIV. Abstinence is one of the methods to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV, but it often fails, and you have to recognize that sexuality plays an important role in the development of youth as a person. A role that the abstinence propaganda trivializes. Actually, the abstinence-only education strigmatizes sexuality. I have no objection in just including in the list of things said to youth that if you don't have any type of sex the risk of sexual-trasmission of HIV is zero. Yet I strongly object to the present abstinence education.
As I said 1000 times, life is full of risks. I advocate strongly against taking usless risks, but I don't advocate to take no risk what so ever. As I said 1000 times there no way in life not to take any risk (a part from committing suicide).

"If it feels good and is consensual"

You are just showing once more your mastery in twisting words. I never said "if it feels good...". I said that ethical Good is something that I feel in my heart, while you are attributing to me something that has to do with phisical sensations in the gonads.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so many more then when? didnt we just post a bunch of stuff recently about how the pregnancy rate among teens has been going down? and other stuff about how targeted thorough sex educational programs that dont just stop with "wear this condom" or "never touch yourself ever" have the best results?

I said 'so many', not 'so many more'.

If safer sex education is that great, why is anyone getting pregnant accidentally? And why, when they do, is it the fault of abstinence teaching, which they don't receive... ever?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

I said 'so many', not 'so many more'.

If safer sex education is that great, why is anyone getting pregnant accidentally? And why, when they do, is it the fault of abstinence teaching, which they don't receive... ever?

I think you are talking from your UK perspective while I am talking largely from a US perspective. As far as I understand sex education has been highly extreme to one said over there while highly extreme to the other over here. Things Ive posted in the past on this thread have shown that neither extreme seems the proper way to go. Have a look at this:

But in the past few years, a handful of randomised controlled trials have been published showing that some carefully designed sex education programmes do appear to work. One of the most effective is the Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, aimed at 13 to 15-year-olds in a poor area of New York (Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol 34, p 244). Abstinence is mentioned during the programme, but most of the emphasis is on contraception. A three-year study showed that the pregnancy rate of teenage girls who took the programme was less than half the rate of those who didn't. Analysis showed this was due to both greater condom use and delayed onset of sex.

Why should these programmes be any different? As well as lasting longer, they were, says Kirby, "interactive and personalised, not just abstract facts". The Carrera programme, for example, not only covered sexual behaviour, it tackled the social disadvantages that lead to teenage pregnancy. Along with information on and free access to contraceptives, it involved intensive youth work such as sports, job clubs and homework help.

Most UK sex education programmes seem half-hearted in comparison, providing the bare biological facts, perhaps alongside a demonstration of how to put a condom on a cucumber. "It's something I feel quite angry about," says Michael Adler, a former STD physician at University College London Hospital. In his job he saw many casualties of unsafe sex. "We're failing young people right at the beginning," he says.

So clearly Im not saying throwing condoms at kids and shooing them out the door is the way to go. But neither is telling them sex is evil before marriage and just say no. Is that the tactic you support? do you think that will bring the pregnancy rate down to zero?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think you are talking from your UK perspective while I am talking largely from a US perspective. As far as I understand sex education has been highly extreme to one said over there while highly extreme to the other over here. Things Ive posted in the past on this thread have shown that neither extreme seems the proper way to go.

Here you are generalizing the US as a whole though - whereas education is a state issue. Therefore not all states have a problem with teaching both abstinence and safe sex. I went to Catholic school in NJ and we had both. We were taught about birth control methods and what how reliable each one was. So - anyway - it's not the US - but various states that do not teach a comprehensive sex education class.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So clearly Im not saying throwing condoms at kids and shooing them out the door is the way to go. But neither is telling them sex is evil before marriage and just say no. Is that the tactic you support? do you think that will bring the pregnancy rate down to zero?

I don't believe the latter. But I just wish that in sex ed people, especially girls, would just be told it's ok not to have sex, that you don't have to have sex. I don't think it is right to start from the premise that people will have sex.

[Butterbeer]

(song lyric)
"and now i've done too much much too young..."

(..."and now i'm married with a kid and should be having fun with you , with you! oo eeoo!" etc)

doesn't it work both ways?
Aren't we individuals?
Did not God wan't us to procreate?
Do you know all the answers?
Because i hold up my hand up right here right now: i don't!

Are the teachings of Christ, the same as the modern day Church? Or the words of Allah the same as the preachings of some Imam's?
I.e if (some) of our various spiritual leaders preach holy war, intolerance or distrust or Jihad / or impose docrine onto morality above and beyond the gospels and commandments of the prophet or Lord they speak in the name of, can we as either rational or faithful people rightly in any sense follow them as sheep on the road to damascus ?(or anywhere else - vegas, London, NYC, Paris, Dublin, Stockholm, the local wherever?)


By which i mean: is it not the choice of mankind to live and be judged, not by imposed and corrupted (often) doctrine but by what is in each and everyone's own heart and soul?

For me, to impose dogma and confine our most natural propogenic (and presumably god-given) procreatic urges and desires to a set of cold, artificial man-made rigid so-called "moral" codes and behaviours is not wrong: - you can see especially in the modern world where the not (generally) un-understanaable priniciples come from - is not wrong in a moral sense: it just does not square (in absolute truth) with the key fundamental principals of most of its advocates: i.e the preachings of their various denominations at core as opposed to the modern day 21st century concerns as expressed in these posts.

To be concise: i do not make any moral judgment on those who choose abstinesnce: nor those who even at heart feel it a force for "good" in others as such, but i have moral and deep misgivings regarding those that would step righteously step above the word of God or Society and seek to impose or Rigidly influence others, often at a formative or emotionally confusing time, with Doctrine and mental straight-jackets rather than offering Filial support, help or friendly advice: is it not the trust of Freedom (and the true value of freedom that we can choose to be good or whole or make moral decisions or be able to make mistakes and be re-deemded or forgiven or learn and grow as people?) that we really debating here? Is it not a freedom both of society, a freedom of individuality AND a freedom of the exprerssion of the Soul in virtually all major religons that to experience and to grow as a soul is the path of life? For sure there are basic and universially worthwhile laws to stand as our pillars of morality: do not kill, lie, steal, cheat, covert, etc - but are we saying that God the redeemer the merciful, etc is so shallow thathe will judge your very soul on the basis of some man-made man imposed dogma?
Asthe Pope (RIP) lying in death in Rome enters life, cannot we see the truth here? John paul 2 believed and was true to his beliefs no matter what the current man-made media issues of the day:
for that repsect (if not personally for all his views)
is it not the case that God will welcome him as being true - and faithful in the same way as anyone else (quite often holding exact opposing views) is true to themselves and their basic principles, being true in spiritual ways to God rather than in any doctrinal man-made way imposed upon them falsely (however well meaning?)


I.E: abstinence is fine if of free will: as a society or in groups to seek to impose it through even the most innocouous ways has moral worries for me. Not as individuals but for me its the debate between the key precepts of any moral God and the machinations and imperfections of mankind in relating to or willfully imposing meaning on these in the name of the truth they corrode.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

...or maybe its just common logic for 13 year olds that oral sex is less risky then vaginal sex. This certainly was true when I was in high school among kids. and that was well before Monica. So no need to always try to tag the blame for every issue in the world on old Bill as much as you like to.

Well considering that there has been an upswing in oral sex practices - as you have noted and young teenagers routinely say - well it's not sex and they mention the Clinton scandal. I would have to disagree with you on the situation.

As for blaming bill for every issue - there is your usual generalization and your way of knocking anything I say. I'll have you know that there were some things I supported Clinton on - but you never care to remember those because then that ruins your little snide attacks against me.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for blaming bill for every issue - there is your usual generalization and your way of knocking anything I say. I'll have you know that there were some things I supported Clinton on - but you never care to remember those because then that ruins your little snide attacks against me.

oh are those in the same section as "Things i dislike about New Jersey"?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh are those in the same section as "Things i dislike about New Jersey"?

Well since you don't know me at all - I suppose you wouldn't know what section they are in or how I feel about much of anything other than what I choose to type here and public - now would you?

[inked]

FYI,

Dante and ethical/moral education: http://www.mla.org/ade/bulletin/n093/093022.htm

[Rían]

I can't remember where someone (I think IRex) complained that a study on the CDC site was taken down, supposedly because it was not in-line with the Bush administration's policies, but if this is the study, then I sure see why it was taken down!! :

Virginity Pledgers Have Lower STD Rates and Engage in Fewer Risky Sexual Behaviors
by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
WebMemo #762

June 14, 2005





For more than a decade, organizations such as True Love Waits have encouraged young people to abstain from sexual activity. As part of these programs, young people are encouraged to take a verbal or written pledge to abstain from sex until marriage.



An article by professors Peter Bearman and Hanna Bruckner in the April 2005 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health strongly attacked virginity pledge programs and abstinence education in general. The article stated that youth who took virginity pledges had the same sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates as non-pledgers. It also strongly suggested that virginity pledgers were more likely to engage in unhealthy anal and oral sex. The report garnered widespread media attention across the nation. A reexamination of the data, however, reveals that Bearman and Bruckner’s conclusions were inaccurate. Moreover, in crucial respects they misled the press and public.



Bearman and Bruckner tested the long-term effects of virginity pledge programs, examining the health and risk behaviors of young adults (with an average age 22) who had taken a virginity pledge as adolescents. Their analysis was based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (“Add Health�), a database funded by the federal government. We used this same database to reexamine the issues they raised.



Several discrepancies were immediately apparent. For starters, the Add Health data clearly reveal that virginity pledgers are less likely to engage in oral or anal sex when compared to non-pledgers. In addition, virginity pledgers who have become sexually active (engaged in vaginal, oral, or anal sex) are still less likely to engage in oral or anal sex when compared to sexually active non-pledgers. This lower level of risk behavior puts virginity pledgers at lower risk for sexually transmitted diseases relative to non-pledgers.



How do Bearman and Bruckner conclude the opposite? In a narrow sense, they do not. Although they strongly suggest that pledgers are more likely to engage in anal and oral sex, they never actually state that. In fact, they very carefully avoid making any clear statements about the sexual risk behaviors of pledgers and non-pledgers as a whole. Instead, they have culled through the Add Health sample looking for tiny sub-groups of pledgers with higher risk behaviors. They then describe the risk behaviors of these tiny groups and let the press infer that they are talking about pledgers in general.



The centerpiece of their argument about pledgers and heightened sexual risk activity is a small group of pledgers who engaged in anal sex without vaginal sex. This “risk group� consists of 21 persons out of a sample of 14,116. Bearman and Bruckner focus on this microscopic group while failing to inform their audience of the obvious and critical fact that pledgers as a whole are substantially less likely to engage in anal sex when compared to non-pledgers.



This tactic is akin to finding a small rocky island in the middle of the ocean, describing the island in detail without describing the surrounding ocean, and then suggesting that the ocean is dry and rocky. It is junk science.



With regard to STDs, Bearman and Bruckner actually found that adolescents who made virginity pledges were less likely to have STDs as young adults than were non-pledgers, but concluded that this difference was not statistically significant. This conclusion was based on limitations in their methodology methodology. In fact, the same methods that they used to demonstrate that virginity pledges do not reduce STDs also demonstrate that condom use does not reduce STDs.



One problem is that Bearman and Bruckner examined only one of several STD measures available in the Add Health data file. Analysis of the remaining measures reveals that adolescent virginity pledging is strongly associated with reduced STDs among young adults. These results are statistically significant in four of the five STD measures examined and are very near significance on the fifth measure. With all the STD measures, the allegedly ineffective virginity pledge is actually a better predictor of STD reduction than is condom use. On average, individuals who took virginity pledges as adolescents were 25 percent less likely to have STDs as young adults than non-pledgers from identical socioeconomic backgrounds.



Further, Bearman and Bruckner’s suggestion that virginity pledgers are ignorant about contraception is also inaccurate. Although virginity pledgers were less likely to use contraception at the very first occurrence of intercourse, differences in contraceptive use between pledgers and non-pledgers disappear quickly. In young adult years, sexually active pledgers are as likely to use contraception as non-pledgers.



Of course, virginity pledge programs are not omnipotent. Many years will pass between the time an adolescent takes a pledge and the time he or she reaches adulthood. These years will be full of events and forces that either reinforce or, more likely, undermine the youth’s commitment to abstinence. Despite these forces, taking a virginity pledge is associated with a broad array of positive outcomes. Although most pledgers fall short of their goal of abstaining until marriage, in general, they still do a lot better in life. Compared to non-pledgers from the same social backgrounds, pledgers have far fewer sex partners. Pledgers are also less likely to engage in sex while in high school, less likely to experience teen pregnancy, less likely to have a child out-of-wedlock, less likely to have children in their teen and young adult years, and less likely to engage in non-marital sex as young adults.



Overall, virginity pledge programs have a strong record of success. They are among the few institutions in society teaching self-restraint to youth awash in a culture of narcissism and sexual permissiveness. They have been unfairly maligned by two academics who should know better.



Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies, and Kirk Johnson, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis, at The Heritage Foundation. These findings are based on research presented by Rector and Johnson at the Eighth Annual National Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 2005. The conference was run by the Administration of Children and Families of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.



The full conference papers "Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Condom Use and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Young Adults" and "Adolescent Virginity Pledges and Risky Sexual Behaviors," both by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., are available on heritage.org.

Talk about bad science! Claiming 21 persons out of a sample of 14,116 is representative!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can't remember where someone (I think IRex) complained that a study on the CDC site was taken down, supposedly because it was not in-line with the Bush administration's policies, but if this is the study, then I sure see why it was taken down!! :

no the study they censored from the CDC web site was a study that showed the positive benefits of proper sex education. Not one that focused on the negatives of virginity pledges.

As for the heritage.org counter strike you posted, is it your argument that virginity till marriage should be our official sex education policy? It doesnt work on a mass scale. Its great for individual situations where its appropriate but to say we should have all kids pledging this is absurd. It wont work. Milions wouldnt stick to it and youd end up screwing over the kids that dont because you provide them with nothing. So they do what they please and end up getting in trouble. In fact in schools where it was a school wide policy (promoted actively among all the kids) something like 88% agreed to it EVEN THOUGH something like 28% had already lost their virginity. What a joke... The reason for this clear discrepancy? Peer pressure. Many said well I just wanted to be part of the trend. And didnt bother to think what it really meant to make this pledge (clearly if they werent virgins at the time...).

[inked]

Okay, here are positives:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...id=18-06-022-f

[inked]

And, more positives....

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html


This is posted in full in the AVE PAPA thread but cited here for interest as regards TEEN ABSTINENCE in whatever orientation one may think one has.

[inked]

I resurrected this thread to suggest that all 'Mooters catch this week's NEWSWEEK historical review on AIDS/HIV at

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12663345/site/newsweek/

Well worth everyone's attention as regards this STD and its history. I can attest to its fairness and accuracy since I grew up with this disease from 2nd year medical school to date.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

And, more positives....

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html


This is posted in full in the AVE PAPA thread but cited here for interest as regards TEEN ABSTINENCE in whatever orientation one may think one has.

I'll be satisfied if priests start abstaining from teen sex.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

[Insidious Rex]

Hebephilia. Interesting. So they have terms for people who are attracted to very specific ages now? I guess it makes sense since pedo refers to prepubescent. But 16 and 17 only?

[inked]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I'll be satisfied if priests start abstaining from teen sex.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

How about political groups, too? whatever cover name they use?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901907_pf.html

I think this definitely comes under pedo and hebe.

[Insidious Rex]

Interesting article...

Is Teen Sex Bad?
Americans and Western Europeans Don't Agree on What's Normal and Acceptable. But Many Health Experts Do

By Elizabeth Agnvall
The Washington Post
Tuesday, May 16, 2006

In our bicultural household -- I am American, my husband is Swedish -- we are trying to raise our children with the language, cultures and values of both countries. In most cases this isn't difficult. In one area, however, our values differ widely: My husband, reflecting the predominant view in Sweden and much of Western Europe, thinks sex is a normal part of adolescent development. Like many in this country, I disagree, believing it's better for teens to wait -- if not until marriage, at least until they are in an adult, loving relationship.

As a health journalist, I wondered if one way of thinking is demonstrably healthier, physically and psychologically. I resolved to find out.

Among the findings that surprised me: Although prevalent attitudes on teen sex differ in Western Europe and the United States, the views of leading researchers and doctors on both sides of the Atlantic do not. Their opinions lean much closer to the European model. They tend to agree that the mixed message America sends to teens about sex -- authorities say "don't" while mass media screams "What are you waiting for?"-- endanger our children.

The outcome? Levels of teen sexual activity look remarkably similar here and abroad, but U.S. rates of teen pregnancy, childbirth, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases are among the highest of all industrialized nations, despite recent decreases.

[…]

Of course there is no official U.S. position on teen sex, but a portion of the federal Healthy People 2010 report summarizes a set of carefully balanced goals: reduce unwanted pregnancies; cut the proportion of unmarried teens who have had sex; increase the use of birth control and disease prevention techniques among teens who are sexually active; and make contraception, including emergency contraception, more widely available.

But in practice, teens in our culturally heterogenous American society receive many conflicting messages. Many churches in the United States urge abstinence until marriage. Under government and local citizen pressure, many school sex education programs express disapproval of premarital sex and limit information about contraception. A 1999 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that about a third of U.S. public high schools have sex education programs that advocate strict abstinence until marriage. Experts at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States say the number has since grown, with some states not only accepting federal funds for abstinence education, but also including federal government language in their sex education guidelines.

Mary Stetson is a Fairfax County health and physical education teacher who has taught sex education for 11 years. (State guidelines suggest sex ed should run from kindergarten through 12th grade, but individual school districts can decide whether or not to teach it, and parents can have their kids opt out.) Her course focuses on decision-making and values clarification, with an emphasis on encouraging kids not to have sex until marriage. Students learn the consequences of impulsive and risk-taking behavior. Some of her religiously oriented students take abstinence pledges.

Students' outside-class knowledge of sex tends to vary based on their parents' education and socioeconomic status. "The more education the parent has, the more likely the parents are going to talk to kids about sex," she said.

Poverty alone (the United States is home to a greater proportion of poor teens than Western Europe) doesn't account for the disparity in teen sex behavior here and abroad. According to a 2001 Guttmacher study, the poorest U.S. teens are nearly 80 percent more likely to have a child by 18 than similar teens in Britain.

Outside the classroom, U.S. teens face a barrage of provocation. A study last month in the journal Pediatrics found that the higher the exposure to sexual content in movies, TV, music and magazines, the more likely teens were to have intercourse. The study found "frequent and compelling portraits of sex as fun and risk-free."

This message falls on too many teens who are ill-informed or unprotected, says Robert Blum, chairman of the department of population and family health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

"We have a very hyper-sexualized media and, concurrent with that, a total aversion to giving clear and consistent messages about how you reduce risk," he says. In a 1995 survey, he asked both teens and their parents if the teens had had sex. Half the parents who said their kids were not sexually experienced were wrong, he said. (According to a 2003 survey by the Centers for Disease Control, nearly half of all U.S. students in grades 9-12 have had sex.)

But many American educators and parents say more permissiveness is not the way to go.

Angela Griffiths, executive director of an abstinence-based sex education program in California called Await & Find, said she sees an attitude among some California educators that teen sex is inevitable. Her program focuses on how condoms and birth control sometimes fail to prevent pregnancy and disease, and on the benefits of postponing sex. She said many educators are unwilling to combat what she called the prevailing media attitude that sex is fine for teens.

Too many teachers "are accepting that this is part of youth," she said.

Jonathan Klein, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescents, says there is a risk that children's best interests are getting lost in the debate over teen sexuality.

"We have some groups in our country who would like to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and some groups that would like to prevent people from having sex," Klein said. Both are willing to twist research to support their position, he said.

Regardless of a parent's opinions about teen sex, he said, more open communication is healthier: "Healthy sexual behavior is part of development. From a medical perspective it's important that parents and children and teenagers are well-educated about the implications of normal, psychosocial and sexual development."

But what of the emotional consequences? While a series of decades-old studies tied teen sex to other risky behaviors -- like drug and alcohol use -- many researchers say those findings are not nationally representative. Newer research has linked teen alcohol and drug use to failure to use a condom and more sexual partners, but there's no proof a cause-and-effect relationship exists, or, if it does, which behavior might trigger the other.

"Although advocates of abstinence-only government policy have suggested that psychological harm is a consequence of sexual behavior during adolescence, there are no scientific data suggesting that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful," wrote Columbia University's John Santelli in the January issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. That's despite several studies that have looked at the psychological impact of sex on teens.

Where mental health problems are associated with early sexual activity, he says, research suggests that the sexual activity is a consequence of the psychological problems, not vice versa.

In research recently published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Lydia Shrier, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and director of clinic-based research for the division of adolescent/young adult medicine at Children's Hospital Boston, showed that sexually active people aged 15 to 21 reported more positive feelings on the days they had sex than on the days they didn't. Shrier said sex education messages should take that into account.

"We have to tailor the messages to reflect our understanding that for many people, sex is not a bad thing or a thing that is ridden with guilt, but as a more positive and less negative experience, for some of these young people, than other things in their lives," Shrier said.

Hmm… What a concept. Sex as a positive focus for teenagers? I don’t think this country is ready for it though. There is too much of a societal stigma on sex, especially teen sex. The only place its shown ‘positive’ value is through the media but its done in a way that makes it more pornographic then natural. So kids equate it with drugs and drinking and being ‘bad’ and rebellious. They connect it with pop stars who are famous and rich and conclude that being sexual is the way to be popular and cool. Personally, I think we would be better off if we didn’t lump it in that kind of company quite frankly. The Europeans have much more liberal ideals when it comes to teen sex and look, their kids aren’t out rampantly screwing and getting diseases and getting knocked up at the rate they do here. Maybe because that association isn’t made over there as much?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hebephilia. Interesting. So they have terms for people who are attracted to very specific ages now? I guess it makes sense since pedo refers to prepubescent. But 16 and 17 only?

I bet attraction to 15 year olds is quincephilia ...