I think Liz is on the right track: family is hugely important in this issue. There is research to show that girls in families with stepfathers actually reach puberty earlier than those in families with their own fathers. A secure, supportive, nurturing family where children get love and affection at home, and where their activities are well supervised, and where they understand the benefits of married sexuality and abstinence before as well as the potential consequences of early sexual activity... Schools can do the best job possible, but without that foundation at home it's going to be an uphill struggle.

(Oh, and liberals don't want more money into these failing abstinence-only programs, they want funding for sex education that strongly encourages abstinence but also says to teens 'if you are going to choose sexual activity, here are the ways to protect yourself and your partner from unwanted pregnancies and STDs'.)

There may well be a collation between the rise in divorce and the rise in teenage sex. That would be an interesting study too.

BTW: my comment about liberals wanting to throw money is more aimed at how they propose to handle welfare fraud and failing inner-city schools.

"Sex education that strongly encourages abstinence but also says to teens 'if you are going to choose sexual activity, here are the ways to protect yourself and your partner from unwanted pregnancies and STDs'."

That is that basics of the abstinence programs but I don't think they get into many of the emotional consequences of teenage sex. I.e. a large number of teenage suicide is a result of a broken romance that involved teenage sex. Sexual relations impair a person's judgment and teenage girls often stay with and even marry abusive boys that they wouldn't have stayed with if the relationship had been nonsexual.

Oh - and what is driving the even higher levels of sexual activity in Malawi, where there is extreme poverty, no significant entertainment industry, and >90% of the population is actively Christian?

/Bevin

Is bringing up Malawi the best argument that can be made against the influence of popular entertainment on American youth?



Malawi, which is an African nation that was controlled by the Brittish for many years has its own issues with sexuality. Although they do have radio and television stations there, I have not idea if their government does a better job of censoring the content or not.

The AIDS crisis in Malawi has about as much to do with the price of rice in China as it does with the breakdown of the American family and increased sexual activity here.

It does bring up the point that we can pretty much project our own explanations on the issue. Personally I'd love to see some research that got seriously into the effects of family and of media. My intuition says family is *far* more important... but at this point I'm guessing and likely projecting. And it's likely a complex of things, not a single issue. And it's actually not that much of a historical anomaly, except in the context of the 1950s... for the vast majority of human history the mean age for onset of sexual activity has been lower than 15.

I have listened to and read material from Focus on the Family for years. They have done a lot of study into this. There is no doubt that the family life has an impact and that media also has an impact. I have never seen, read or heard anything that claimed to know which had more of an impact.

I think most would agree that education in the schools, while it does have an impact, it is not as great as the family or entertainment industry.

Your unproven hypothesis is that the entertainment industry is driving up the teen sex rate.

There are at least 10 other, equally plausible, explanations

1 - it isn't normal for humans to delay sexual activity until 20
2 - hormones in the food supply
3 - other weird chemicals in the environment
4 - better nutrition
5 - low birth rate
6 - single-parent families
7 - both-parents-working families
8 - cars = increased mobility
9 - larger schools = more potential partners
10 - better personal hygiene = increased attractiveness

Focus on the Family comes with their own builtin biases

/Bevin

Obama gets it. Press Release



Hilary Clinton gets it too. Clinton Seeks Uniform Ratings In Entertainment for Children



So it isn't just the opinion of some right-wingers at Focus on The Family.

BTW: Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage was signed into law by President Clinton - not President Bush.

Bravus statement is probably closest to the truth. However, most of the debate will be about 'pet' issues, not looking for a real truth in the matter. This is not uncommon in the religious arena. Religion says 'we have the answeres' all to often without ever 'listening' and trying to understand the cause.