"Teens are having sex sooner (and raunchier) than ever before"

[Jeremiahcp]

Correct, did you notice that big "if" there?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

It was implicit in your post. You used the word "when".

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It was implicit in your post. You used the word "when".

I wrote the post, and as the writer of the post I can tell you with absolute authority that there was no implied if in that post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wrote the post, and as the writer of the post I can tell you with absolute authority that there was no implied if in that post.

But there was. You only think that you are an authority. Now you may understand statistics better than me, in fact I am sure that you do. That still does not make you an authority in the field. You seem to have trouble separating colloquial and technical conversations. No one is making anything close to technical claims here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just because you see two women together does not mean that they are lesbians. In fact the studies cited showed that women were much more likely to at least dabble in same sex activities than men were. 17.4% of women had some sort of same sex contact. 5.5% of women said that they were bisexual and only 1.3% said that they were lesbian. So if a man sees two women together the odds are actually rather likely to have sex with men. Hope springs eternal.

" Almost three times as many women (17.4%) reported any same-sex contact in their lifetime compared with men (6.2%) aged 18–44. Feelings of attraction “only to the opposite sex” were more common for men (92.1%) compared with women (81.0%) aged 18–44. Among those aged 18–44, 92.3% of women and 95.1% of men said they were “heterosexual or straight”; 1.3% of women and 1.9% of men said they were “homosexual, gay, or lesbian”; 5.5% of women and 2.0% of men said they were bisexual; and 0.9% of women and 1.0% of men said “don’t know” or “refused” (i.e., “did not report”) on sexual orientation."

I still stand by what I said a out guys probably just thinking that it's hot instead of it being some instinctual reaction, which there's no evidence for. If a guy looks at women having sex with each other as an invitation for him, I think that had more to do with sexist attitudes like the idea that a woman isn't "complete" without a male and so on.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But there was. You only think that you are an authority. Now you may understand statistics better than me, in fact I am sure that you do. That still does not make you an authority in the field. You seem to have trouble separating colloquial and technical conversations. No one is making anything close to technical claims here.

The only if was the one you decided to read, and it was not a shared experience. Authority is relative.

"No one is making anything close to technical claims here."

That much is very clear; you are just randomly guessing and then pretending the statistics support your claim. I am telling you they don't; technically, colloquially, it does not matter, the science behind it doesn't change simply because you find it inconvenient. Your "colloquial conversation" is speculation unsupported by evidence.

This is what you said:

Interesting stat on bisexual women. Perhaps that stat is something instinctively understood by men and ergo the fascination by many men with lesbian sex. They may innately feel that two women engaged in sex with each other are more open to sex with them than one woman alone.

Here is an alternative suggestion, maybe aliens gave all bisexual women brain implants causing them mate with men more often. Now by your reasoning, since there is a statistics somewhere, then there is evidence for my speculation.

I am sorry you don't like what I had to say, but my reply in post #15 is spot on, it is text book and very much a correct and appropriate assessment. I also fully understand how to evaluated the value of any statistical inference formal or informal and I am very familiar with how to analysis and interpret such evidence. Reality doesn't simply vanish because you decided to call it a "colloquial conversation", you are just looking for an excuse to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still stand by what I said a out guys probably just thinking that it's hot instead of it being some instinctual reaction, which there's no evidence for. If a guy looks at women having sex with each other as an invitation for him, I think that had more to do with sexist attitudes like the idea that a woman isn't "complete" without a male and so on.

Not understanding the nature of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence for hypothesis. And please note, I did not say that it was an invitation. Please do not twist my claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only if was the one you decided to read, and it was not a shared experience. Authority is relative.

"No one is making anything close to technical claims here."

That much is very clear; you are just randomly guessing and then pretending the statistics support your claim. I am telling you they don't; technically, colloquially, it does not matter, the science behind it doesn't change simply because you find it inconvenient. Your "colloquial conversation" is speculation unsupported by evidence.

Please no, I am making reasonable conclusions by the evidence offered. If a person can't interpret the evidence he makes his training irrelevant.

This is what you said:



Here is an alternative suggestion, maybe aliens gave all bisexual women brain implants causing them mate with men more often. Now by your reasoning, since there is a statistics somewhere, then there is evidence for my speculation.

Oh my! You do not understand the nature of evidence. Sorry, if you can't think logically you simply need to stop.

I am sorry you don't like what I had to say, but my reply in post #15 is spot on, it is text book and very much a correct and appropriate assessment. I also fully understand how to evaluated the value of any statistical inference formal or informal and I am very familiar with how to analysis and interpret such evidence. Reality doesn't simply vanish because you decided to call it a "colloquial conversation", you are just looking for an excuse to be wrong.

Please, you overrate your limited education. You do not appear to understand how to apply the findings that others come up with. All you can do at this point is to demonstrate if they are statistically valid or not.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Please no, I am making reasonable conclusions by the evidence offered. If a person can't interpret the evidence he makes his training irrelevant.




Oh my! You do not understand the nature of evidence. Sorry, if you can't think logically you simply need to stop.



Please, you overrate your limited education. You do not appear to understand how to apply the findings that others come up with. All you can do at this point is to demonstrate if they are statistically valid or not.

"If a person can't interpret the evidence he makes his training irrelevant."

You are making speculations based off the evidence, which is what I initially said.

it means making speculations based off what you think you see in the data which is not directly addressed by the design of the hypothesis. Doing so violate all the assumptions that statistics is based on, and without addressing those assumptions then you are basically just guessing. I am not saying such speculations have no place, only that is important to understand and accept that you don't have supporting evidence for those speculations.

Try to keep up with the conversation.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Please no, I am making reasonable conclusions by the evidence offered. If a person can't interpret the evidence he makes his training irrelevant.




Oh my! You do not understand the nature of evidence. Sorry, if you can't think logically you simply need to stop.



Please, you overrate your limited education. You do not appear to understand how to apply the findings that others come up with. All you can do at this point is to demonstrate if they are statistically valid or not.

I like how you pretend you have "findings", that's cute.

"demonstrate if they are statistically valid or not."

Also, if your "evidence" is based on statistics this becomes a very important part of it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@Subduction Zone you keep criticizing people about understanding the "nature of evidence" but you don't seem to have a clue what it means for something to be supported by the evidence. Now there is no shame in make speculations based off the data, but there is shame in pretending the evidence supports those speculations when it doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone you keep criticizing people about understanding the "nature of evidence" but you don't seem to have a clue what it means for something to be supported by the evidence. Now there is no shame in make speculations based off the data, but there is shame in pretending the evidence supports those speculations when it doesn't.

This is where you once again demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like how you pretend you have "findings", that's cute.

"demonstrate if they are statistically valid or not."

Also, if your "evidence" is based on statistics this becomes a very important part of it.

And here is your problem. I am willing to take those papers on face value. That they did a proper statistical analysis when they posted it. You are avoiding making any statements making your education rather worthless when it comes to analyzing the findings they came up with.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And here is your problem. I am willing to take those papers on face value. That they did a proper statistical analysis when they posted it. You are avoiding making any statements making your education rather worthless when it comes to analyzing the findings they came up with.

You didn't even read the study. I think it is clear that you are clueless, and if you want to remain that way, that is of course your choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't even read the study. I think it is clear that you are clueless, and if you want to remain that way, that is of course your choice.

Clearly no more than you are. I am not the one this is choosing to remain clueless. I did most of your homework for you and yet you make that false claim about me. You appear to be afraid to apply any studies. That is where you make yourself irrelevant.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Clearly no more than you are. I am not the one this is choosing to remain clueless. I did most of your homework for you and yet you make that false claim about me. You appear to be afraid to apply any studies. That is where you make yourself irrelevant.

Making myself irrelevant to someone like you sounds like a great idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Making myself irrelevant to someone like you sounds like a great idea.

Too late you already did it. You could always see if you had anything to add to the conversation. That would actually make you relevant.

 

[Ingledsva]

"As teenagers are breaking taboos and have a much more casual attitude towards sex, education is struggling to keep up.

Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and University College London have monitored the sexual practices of teens for decades (through surveys). Everything seems to indicate the same thing: teens are having more sex, more unconventional sex, and they’re starting sooner.

They surveyed 45,199 Brits born between 1935 and 1996. During that period, the average age for losing virginity went down from 19 for men and 20 for women to 16 for both. However, that age hasn’t changed much in recent decades — whether it’s vaginal, anal or oral, teens have been having sex since they’re 16. However, some things have changed in recent years. Particularly, teens are trying out more things. Just 1 in 10 of sexually active teens tried all three in 1990/91, a figure that now stands at 1 in 4 men and 1 in 5 women. Interestingly, the surveys also reveal bisexual women have more sex with men than straight women do.

Kaye Wellings, senior author and professor of sexual and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, says these shifts should surprise no one:

'The changes in practices we see here are consistent with the widening of other aspects of young people’s sexual experience, and are perhaps not surprising given the rapidly changing social context and the ever-increasing number of influences on sexual behaviour.' ”​

source​

While I imagine most here disapprove of the trend toward loosing one's virginity earlier in life, what about the increase in non-intercourse sex?
(It bothers me that the article's title refers to it as "raunchier.")

But sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise. These paragraphs are about human papilloma virus.

"Sexually transmitted HPV types fall into two categories:

• Low-risk HPVs, which do not cause cancer but can cause skin warts (technically known as condylomata acuminata) on or around the genitals and anus. For example, HPV types 6 and 11 cause 90% of all genital warts. HPV types 6 and 11 also cause recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, a less common disease in which benign tumors grow in the air passages leading from the nose and mouth into the lungs.
• High-risk HPVs, which can cause cancer. About a dozen high-risk HPV types have been identified. Two of these, HPV types 16 and 18, are responsible for most HPV-caused cancers (2, 3,).

HPV infections are the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. About 14 million new genital HPV infections occur each year (4). In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that more than 90% and 80%, respectively, of sexually active men and women will be infected with at least one type of HPV at some point in their lives (5). Around one-half of these infections are with a high-risk HPV type (6)."

HPV and Cancer

*

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Too late you already did it. You could always see if you had anything to add to the conversation. That would actually make you relevant.

I think I'll pass on lowering myself down to your level of ignorance. Thanks for the offer though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I'll pass on lowering myself down to your level of ignorance. Thanks for the offer though.

Now you are merely projecting again. It appears that you are trolling at best here. Your self description adds to that observation.