
Annals of Sociology: Red sex, Blue sex - marvin
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot
======
gojomo
The most interesting paragraph to me:

 _Bearman and Brückner have also identified a peculiar dilemma: in some
schools, if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses. Pledgers
apparently gather strength from the sense that they are an embattled minority;
once their numbers exceed thirty per cent, and proclaimed chastity becomes the
norm, that special identity is lost. With such a fragile formula, it’s hard to
imagine how educators can ever get it right: once the self-proclaimed virgin
clique hits the thirty-one-per-cent mark, suddenly it’s Sodom and Gomorrah._

That seems to suggest that once peer-pressure starts working for the effort in
the general population, there is a corresponding rise in hypocrisy as a sort
of peer-pressure-release valve, and that can even undermine the committed
core.

This effect might be generalizable to other moral-suasion campaigns. This
deserves studies and articles all by itself.

------
randrews
Am I the only one who thinks both sides are wrong? Not having sex because god
doesn't want you to is sort of insane, but not having sex because you won't
get into a good college if you do is equally bad.

It's possible to do something dangerous, responsibly. Not that sex is terribly
dangerous.

~~~
MaysonL
_"There is nothing safe about sex. There never will be.”_ Norman Mailer

~~~
noonespecial
Good one. Apart from killing, sex is the most powerful biological thing a
human can do. Like killing, it shapes and changes the genome (and the
community) far beyond the creature that actually commits the act.

The problem with teen sex is that too many wield this power far too lightly.
Like a child who's just found its father's gun, they don't really understand
the ramifications of what they're doing or the risk that they are taking.

~~~
thwarted
One of the best ways to learn is to take a risk or know someone who takes a
risk. Obviously this doesn't work in all cases, one has to be mature enough to
internalize and understand the ramifications when exposed to them. But they do
have to be exposed to what these risks and ramifications are.

"Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education
and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex
before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as
devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally
advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are
relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t
choose to have an abortion."

There's the answer right there. If the families and communities treat teenage
pregnancy as a (relative) non-event, then there are no ramifications to
getting pregnant. They "understand the ramifications" and "the risk of what
they are doing" to be relatively low. By encouraging abstinence and not making
it hard on those who don't practice abstinence, it's sending a message that
sex isn't that big of a deal.

------
ivankirigin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect>

~~~
marvin
The Roe hypothesis is false.

A similar argument has been used to explain why religious groups that oppose
having children die out fairly quickly. But in the case of American politics,
those making the argument assume that the American two-party system will still
exist in the timeframe 30-100 years, and further that abortion will still be
the primary political topic in a generation or three. The last assumption is
ridiculous. And we haven't even considered that new generations often discard
important values from the old.

~~~
ivankirigin
There are certainly lots of assumptions, but it might be valid for the first
generation that has already passed. This is borne out in population growth
numbers by state.

I linked to this mainly because I find it interesting, not because I believe
it.

------
anamax
The author thinks that the correct sex ed would reduce the teen pregnancy
rates in those groups.

The author doesn't know those groups very well. They're getting pregnant
because they want to get pregnant and have kids. Different sex ed won't change
that.

~~~
randrews
I grew up in Texas, reddest of the red states, and a lot of my friends did
abstinence pledges. Most were Christian Evangelicals to one degree or another
(they even evangelized to me, though god only knows why. I wasn't really
liberal at all back then).

So I know these groups pretty well.

None of them, not a single one, wanted to get pregnant and have kids at age
16. Have sex, certainly, have irresponsible unprotected sex even, but getting
pregnant was not something anyone wanted. Maybe in five or ten years, but in
high school, none.

~~~
anamax
I grew up with these groups too, albeit not in Texas but in the midwest and
rural CA (and then some in the underbelly of Silicon Valley).

For some, having a kid got them out of the high school that they didn't want
to be in anyway. (Or, junior high in some cases.) In other cases, it let them
say "I'm an adult" and others thought "my kid will have to love me".

Some waited until after high school, or at least the spring of their senior
year.

------
kingkongrevenge
You can go on about sex education and religion all you want but I think it all
boils down to cost of living. Red staters can get very cheap but decent
housing and support a reasonable standard of living from labor that doesn't
require a phd. So they have more babies at all ages, because it's not as big a
deal out there. A baby in New York will condemn you to a life in the suburbs,
cutting years off your absolutely necessary $20 martini nights at the club.

The more interesting thing is the reporting on this matter itself. There's a
constant stream of urban liberal editorials/articles on red state teen
pregnancies. I think it's because at some level liberals are freaked out about
being out-bred by such a wide margin. This is why the self-congratulatory and
"chastising the hicks" bits are so necessary.

This is why Palin and her family freaks out a lot of liberal women SOO badly.
She's a stark reminder of their infertility.

~~~
logjam
> This is why Palin and her family freaks out a lot of liberal women SOO
> badly. She's a stark reminder of their infertility.

Uh, no.

I'm not a woman, but the women I know who are freaked out by Palin (and ALL
the women I know are in fact freaked out by Palin, since you brought her up)
are freaked out because they feel she's an incompetent, hypocritical buffoon
dressed up in $150,000 designer clothes that Republican donors unknowingly
bought.

And they hate her policy proposals - the policies they are able to parse out
of her almost incomprehensible verbal wanderings.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
You just described 98% of politicians at the national level. Palin is
completely unremarkable. There is clearly a special, visceral reaction to her
that has nothing to do with policies.

> dressed up in $150,000 designer clothes

I'm sure Obama used his own money for the make-up artist before the debates
and also paid for the backdrops used for his convention speech. Newsflash: the
parties spend money on TV appearances.

Note: I do not like Palin or McCain. I only find the reaction to them
intriguing.

~~~
jfarmer
<http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/obama-shoes-400.jpg>

------
TweedHeads
Everything annal has my approval!

