Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pregnancy section

Thanks to all who participated in the discussion about the three new sections above. I think it worked well and that the text improved because of it. Below I propose some new information, along with some new subsections, for the pregnancy section. Once again, suggestions, edits, and contributions are most welcome. --Illuminato (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this section? --Illuminato (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not consider adding endless statistics to an article an improvement. Though for the record 'Hispanic' is a linguistic/cultural classification - it has nothing to do with either 'race' (a term which shouldn't be used in this context anyway) nor religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, copy-pasting content into articles (or talk pages for that matter) without clearly indicating such material through quotation marks is a copyright violation. Something I'd have hoped that someone who had been contributing to Wikipedia for nine years would be aware of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. You may not consider it an improvement, but the WP:Editing policy says that "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is." Also, do you have a better way to word the prose or section heading? Finally, I don't want to run afoul of copyright law. Can you show me what was copied and pasted? Thanks. --Illuminato (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about you telling us - you are the one responsible for your edits, and the material didn't copy-paste itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And as for what WP:Editing policy says, the "certain defined limitations" are of course those laid out in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - which includes a paragraph on "Excessive listings of statistics" amongst the "indiscriminate collection[s] of information" it cautions against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but these are not just a listing of statistics. Yes, it is data, but it is "in context with explanations referenced." It also has "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Also, the text I copied and pasted into the sections came from my own notes. I am unaware of any copyright violations. If you know of any, please either reword that section or point me towards it so I can do it. --Illuminato (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If your notekeeping fails to distinguish your own words from material copied from elsewhere, and you are in the habit of copying your notes into articles, we may well have a major problem - one which I'm not prepared to deal with, since copyright cleanup isn't one of my specialities. The example I found is the paragraph starting "Sexually active teens in the United States are less likely to use any contraceptive method...", which is copy-pasted from the source cited (with minor alterations). I would stress however that this is just an example I noticed while checking a source. I haven't done a systematic check, either for copy-pasting or anything else, and have no idea whether there are more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right--that does appear to be a copyright violation and should be fixed. I will do so below. Good catch. However, I am not the one that added that particular sentence. That was inserted into the article by another editor some time ago. I used some pre-existing material in my proposed draft. Have you found any other copyright violations, or can we move forward with this text? --Illuminato (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah - I'd not realised that you incorporated existing material. I would however suggest that your proposed text is still too close a paraphrase. In any case, since we have yet to agree whether this all belongs in the article at all, I see little point in discussing exact wording further. It is still my opinion that drowning the reader in statistics is inappropriate - more so when the data comes from disparate sources over a wide time period, making it of questionable comparative significance. And of course, the subject of teenage pregnancy is already discussed in depth in its own article. I am not the only person to have suggested that there is a problem with excessive use of statistics and general article size issues either - you don't have consensus to 'move forward' with anything. Not least because you have failed entirely to address issues raised earlier - e.g. your use of Regnarus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think the paraphrase is too close, could you please suggest some alternate wording? Also, would you please tell me which use(s) of Regnarus is excessive? With the amount of readable prose in the article, I don't believe we run afoul of WP:Size. Let's get to consensus.--Illuminato (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest anything further - you don't have consensus to add this material. Feel free to start a RfC or whatever if you wish to get outside input on the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one objecting. Perhaps consensus is against you? I am trying to address your concerns, but it is difficult when you refuse to even work with me. How can you claim there is no consensus, declare that you won't work towards consensus, and then accuse me of WP:Owning an article?--Illuminato (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you have now resorted to complete fabrication, [1] I have nothing further to say. If this material is added to the article, I will remove it. I've had enough of your stonewalling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Come on now. I thought we were making progress. I have already acknowledged Flyer's concerns, addressed them, and she has not posted here in days. If you check her edit history, you will see that she has been very active in that time. What else am I supposed to assume aside from the fact that she is comfortable with the proposed text? What if she never edits here again? Is this text held hostage until she does? Additionally, I don't appreciate you accusing me of stonewalling when I have tried to address your every concern, and yet you keep throwing up new roadblocks. When I try to seek clarity, you won't provide specifics. How can we possibly reach consensus when you refuse to work towards it? --Illuminato (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Illuminato, I haven't looked at your proposed text yet. I am busy with other matters (on and off Wikipedia), and I will not always respond immediately. Don't be so quick to believe in WP:Silent consensus (that's an essay, by the way). Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have decided to place this new text I have proposed into the article. Please allow me a moment to explain why. First, Grumpy, I have tried to work with you. Even after you attacked me with vulgarities and insulted my intelligence by suggesting I learn to read, I still tried. I even left a note on your talk page to that effect. Every time you have raised a concern, I have tried to address it. You keep moving the goalposts, however, and when I press you for specifics you throw up your hands, declare there is no consensus, and refuse to work with me to gain it. I don't know what more I can do. At times I have asked you to edit the proposed text to make it more to your liking, but you never do.

Your threats and reverts strikes me as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article," and "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." I have asked numerous times for specifics, but you refuse. And Flyer, I understand that you have other things going on in your life. I am sympathetic, and that is why I left here for several years. However, your most recent comment strikes me as awfully similar to: "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides Wikipedia, you know." Additionally, in the time between your two most recent edits to this talk page, you have made over 500 edits to other articles. I would have a little more sympathy if not for that. It is not fair to hold this proposed text hostage until you get around to reviewing it.

So, I am adding this text pursuant to the Wp:Editing Policy. If you have a qualm with something specific, I encourage you to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM but still WP:PRESERVE the "appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." Finally, remember that WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress and that content need not be WP:PERFECTION. I look forward to working with you all to ever improve this article. --Illuminato (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Utter crap. You have simply refused to actually address the issues others have raised, and instead carried on with your usual stonewalling BS. Well it isn't going to work - there is no consensus for inclusion of all this bloated material, and you have failed to do as I suggested and ask for outside input. Which suggests to me that you know darned well that it won't get approval. Feel free to prove me wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I will do that, but I wanted to point out that BRD only works when you are willing to discuss. --Illuminato (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on my part. It's a matter of being exhausted when it comes to your editing, and your edits having significant problems. Sometimes I need a break from editors who repeatedly revert to one or more contested versions without WP:Consensus having been established. Your behavior is similar to a matter that NebY, others and I have dealt with/are still dealing with. And, like I stated before, WP:Preserve does not mean that we should leave your content in the article. If AndyTheGrump hadn't made this latest revert, I would have. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the vast majority of my edits these days are reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits via WP:STiki; it's quick and does not require a lot of work. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I finally replied in the #response section to your latest comment there. And I'm clear there that I don't agree with any of your proposals. Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Main articles: Teenage pregnancy in the United States and Teen pregnancy

Teen pregnancies—defined as pregnancies in women under the age of 20, regardless of marital status—in the United States decreased 28% between 1990 and 2000, from 117 pregnancies per every 1,000 teens to 84 per 1,000. The 2008 rate was a record low and represented a 42% decline from the peak rate of 117 per 1,000, which occurred in 1990. From 2009 to 2010, the teen pregnancy rate dropped 9%, the biggest one year drop since the 1940s.

Each year, almost 750,000 girls aged 15–19 become pregnant. Two-thirds of all teen pregnancies occur among the oldest teens (18–19-year-olds). Of them, 82% are unplanned, accounting for about 20% of all unintended pregnancies annually. Of pregnancies among 15–19-year-olds girls in 2008, 59% ended in birth, 26% in abortion, and the rest in miscarriage. Overall, 68 pregnancies occurred per 1,000 girls aged 15–19 in 2008. Nearly 7% of 15–19-year-old girls become pregnant each year. Pregnancies are much less common among girls younger than 15. In 2008, 6.6 pregnancies occurred per 1,000 teens aged 14 or younger. In other words, fewer than 1% of teens younger than 15 become pregnant each year. Stillborn and newborn deaths are 50% higher for teen moms than women aged 20–29, and are more likely to have a low birth weight.

Teenage birth rates, as opposed to pregnancies, peaked in 1991, when there were 61.8 births per 1,000 teens, and the rate dropped in 17 of the 19 years that followed. One in four American women who had sex during their teenage years will have a baby before they are married, compared to only one in ten who wait until they are older. Even more will experience a pregnancy. Of women who have sex in their teens, nearly 30% will conceive a child before they are married. Conversely, only 15% of women who don't have sex in their teens will become pregnant before they are married. Of all women, 16% will be teen mothers.

According to a study, girls who participate in girls-only activities are far less likely to experience a teenage pregnancy and less likely to be sexually active in general. Participating in competitive sports has also shown to have an effect for girls. A study published in 1999 found that female adolescents who participated in sports were less likely than their non-athletic peers to engage in sexual activity and/or report a pregnancy. Males interested in arts are also less likely to be involved in a pregnancy situation. It is unclear whether these correlations are causal or the reflection of the underlying bias of the considered population. The study that reported these findings did not take into account the sexual orientation of the subjects.

By race and region

Black and Hispanic women have the highest teen pregnancy rates (117 and 107 per 1,000 women aged 15–19, respectively). Studies show that whites (43 per 1,000) and Asians have the lowest rate of pregnancy before the age of 20. The pregnancy rate among black teens decreased 48% between 1990 and 2008, more than the overall U.S. teen pregnancy rate declined during the same period (42%). Slightly more than half of Hispanic and black women will become pregnant before the age of 20.

Statistics also vary regionally. In 2008, New Mexico had the highest teenage pregnancy rate (93 per 1,000); rates in Mississippi, Texas, Nevada and Arkansas followed. The lowest rates were in New Hampshire (33 per 1,000), followed by Vermont, Minnesota, North Dakota and Massachusetts. In New England, most states had less than 20 births per 1,000 girls.

International comparisons typically place US teen pregnancy and teen birth rates among the highest in the developed world. For example, a 2001 study by UNICEF found that the US teenage birth rate was the highest among 28 OECD nations in the review; in a 1999 comparison by the Guttmacher Institute, U.S. teen pregnancy and teen birth rates were the second-highest among the 46 developed countries studied. In 2002, the U.S. was rated 84th out of 170 World Health Organization member countries based on teenage fertility rate.

Sexually active adolescents in other nations are more likely to use contraceptives, and hormonal methods in particular, than American teenagers. The research also found that US teens who become pregnant are less likely to choose abortion, whether due to lack of access, higher levels of antiabortion sentiment, or greater acceptance of teen motherhood.

Despite having declined, the U.S. teen pregnancy rate continues to be one of the highest in the developed world. It is more than twice as high as rates in Canada (28 per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2006) and Sweden (31 per 1,000).

Parenthood

There were 334,000 births among girls aged 19 or younger in 2011, representing 8% of all U.S. births. Births to teen mothers peaked in 1991 at 62 births per 1,000 girls. This rate was halved by 2011 when there were only 31 births per 1,000 girls. Most of these were first births, and only 18% were the second or higher child. Almost all of the girls, 89%, are unmarried at the time they gave birth. In 1972, 52% of all mothers who gave birth while unmarried were teenagers; in 2011 they made up just 18%.

For every 1,000 black boys in the United States, 29 of them are fathers, compared to 14 per 1,000 white boys. The rate of teen fatherhood declined 36% between 1991 and 2010, from 25 to 16 per 1,000 males aged 15–19. This decline was far more substantial among blacks than among whites (50% vs. 26%) and about half of the rate among teen girls.

Most female teens report that they would be very upset (58%) or a little upset (29%) if they got pregnant, while the remaining 13% report that they would be a little or very pleased. Most teen males report that they would be very upset (47%) or a little upset (34%) if they got someone pregnant, while the remaining 18% report that they would be pleased or a little pleased.

Abortion

Girls aged 15–19 had 192,000 abortions in 2008. About 7% of all abortions are obtained by minors. The reasons girls most frequently give for having an abortion are that they are concerned about how having a baby would change their lives, that they cannot afford a baby, and that they do not feel mature enough to raise a child. In another study, teens aged 15–19 accounted for 15.5% of abortions in 2009, and patients aged 20–24 made up 32.7%. Together adolescents aged 15–24 made up just under half (48.2%) of the 784,000 abortions reported to the CDC that year.

As of May 2013, laws in 38 states required that a minor seeking an abortion involve her parents in the decision. According to one study, laws that require parental notification or consent before a minor can obtain an abortion "raise the cost of risky sex for teenagers." The study found that states which have enacted such laws have seen lower gonorrhea rates among teens than states that do not have such laws. The researchers of the study believe these laws lower the gonorrhea rate because teens reduce the amount of sexual activity they have and are more fastidious in their use of birth control.

References

|}

Illuminato, I have had quite enough of your lies. You are not going to get your way through tendentious editing and bluster. There have been multiple concrete objections to the material you previously added - and nobody has in any shape or form withdrawn their objections. You haven't even bothered to address the most blatant violation of elementary policies I previously pointed out - the misrepresentation of a source through a bogus quotation. Not that the source deserves inclusion anyway given the complete lack of evidence for any academic recognition. It is self-evident that you are cherry-picking primary studies which suit your POV, contrary to the basic principles of WP:NPOV. The next time you add material in the face of clear and unequivocal objections from multiple contributors I am going to report the mater at WP:ANI, and call that you be topic banned. You do not own this page, and you have no right whatsoever to impose your own personal preferred content against consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the proposed pregnancy section appropriate for inclusion in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That would be a no, then. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the proposed pregnancy section be moved out of talk and into the article?--Illuminato (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• In its entirety, it is not appropriate for inclusion. A lot of it should be cut. To others, see what has been stated in the #Section break and #response sections above about the content that Illuminato repeatedly adds to the article. Like I stated in that latter section, "[s]o much of what Illuminato wants to add is like trivia." Flyer22 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• No. Drowning the reader in statistics isn't appropriate, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The data is a jumble from multiple sources, gathered over a wide timescale, isn't directly comparable, and many cases is grossly out of date - citing sources from 1999 or 2000 as if they report the current situation is untenable when the data clearly illustrates significant behavioural change since. And we already have an article on Teenage pregnancy in the United States, where the topic can be covered in a balanced manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• No. No MORE. And certainly not pregnancy, which is NOT "sexuality" (capacity for sexual feelings or activity). To see how far off the reservation this article has jumped, just spent some significant time with the relatively stable article on Adolescent sexuality in Canada article as well as dozens of other comprehensive and specific articles both in and out of Wikipedia. I'm left wondering why this particular article (textbook) has chapters on everything from sexting to the specifics of father-daughter communication. While I generally lean inclusionist, this is overwhelming and well beyond the definition of sexuality as well as the scope of Wikipedia:What is an article?. It begs heavy editing. EBY (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

EBY3221 (EBY), are you arguing that the article should not include pregnancy information? If so, that makes no sense to me, considering that pregnancy is an aspect of sexuality and teenage pregnancy is a large aspect of discussing adolescent sexuality. While the initial sentence of the current lead of the Human sexuality article defines sexuality simply, that article does go on to note other aspects of sexuality, including sexual reproduction. In other words, when people engage in activity that is meant to sexually stimulate the sexual organs, the body is trying to sexually reproduce. Pregnancy concerns are a result of that. The Adolescent sexuality in Canada article also includes contraception/pregnancy information, as it should. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sexting has also become a significant aspect of adolescent sexuality, but we certainly should not spend too much time on it in the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article. We have the Sexting article for further detail. Anyway, I get the drift of what you mean about this article's pieces, since I stated above in this section that a lot of it seems like trivia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, that's exactly what I meant. While this article has excellent material, parts look like a WP:CFORK. For example, the Media and American adolescent sexuality article splits adolescents into 3 age groups to look at effects and balances the exposure of adolescents to sexualized broadcasting with a trend in delaying onset of sexual behavior - this article sweeps away those nuances and includes the correlation between such exposure with our-of-wedlock percentages (the only balance being that some scholars say that this may be premature to the statistics). The section on Sexting in this article, for example, includes the line that "Sexting can be considered sexual harassment." It's a quote taken from an editorial by a doctor talking about her daughter's online behavior and doesn't appear in the parent article. THAT article states that sexting is "a legal gray area" and that receiving unsolicited sexts can be distressing and with children,cross into child pornography. I'm not accusing this of being a clear case of WP:COAT just that there some real POV issues with many of these sections and these should be addressed before weighing the issue of expanding the article further. EBY (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

EBY, so you mean that you are okay with some pregnancy information in the article, but not the proposed pregnancy information? I understand that you mean that the article is too trivia and POV-like. Also, do I need to WP:Ping you to this talk page? I watch this talk page, so I don't need to be WP:Pinged to it. I WP:Pinged you in this section because I'm not sure you are watching it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I'm watching the page for now :) My issues with including pregnancy information were not terminal - it is probably appropriate. My issue is that this article has POV editing and forking going on that clumping more on in the same manner doesn't make this article better. That's my only criteria - "are we improving the usability and accessibility"? EBY (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Women_s_Health_260/56_Reasons_to_Have_Sex.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.std12mar12,0,707040.story
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kff.org/entpartnerships/upload/Gender-Rolls-Summary.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-1230discoveriesdec30,1,979931.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206161722/http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334 to http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317060746/http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf to http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406014440/http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf to http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215143243/http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/ to http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027010411/http://www2.hu-berlin.de:80/sexology/IES/usa.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/usa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-1230discoveriesdec30%2C1%2C979931.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.std12mar12%2C0%2C707040.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070124042340/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B107/1/191 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B107/1/191
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/02/study-religious-teens-more-likely-to-abstain-from-sex/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F02%2F15%2FBAG6RO4VDQ1.DTL&type=health
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/usa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418181753/http://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/pdf/VictimsServices/Sexaul_AssaultENG.pdf to http://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/pdf/VictimsServices/Sexaul_AssaultENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223134527/http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/date-rape-drugs.cfm to http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/date-rape-drugs.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201716/http://blogs.justice.gov/ovw/archives/2295 to http://blogs.justice.gov/ovw/archives/2295
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/226088/10/Teen-Sexting-Linked-to-Psychological-Distress
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107172014/http://www.wickedlocal.com/yarmouth/news/lifestyle/health/x1098989305/Experts-warn-teens-parents-to-take-sexting-dangers-seriously to http://www.wickedlocal.com/yarmouth/news/lifestyle/health/x1098989305/Experts-warn-teens-parents-to-take-sexting-dangers-seriously
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113170223/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/020527/archive_020860.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/020527/archive_020860.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612022609/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrylarge/2009312466_jdl08.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrylarge/2009312466_jdl08.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050407135848/http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/pdf/14summary.pdf to http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/pdf/14summary.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029001746/http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/policymakers/PDF/Briefly_PolicyBrief_RacialEthnicDisparities.pdf to http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/policymakers/PDF/Briefly_PolicyBrief_RacialEthnicDisparities.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917095105/http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics to http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting 10 revisions (twice)

I tried to fix a mistake where I said "see talk page", but it instead saved a second copy. Disregard. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk)

Too negative and pathological, too few points of view

This article almost entirely treats the topic as a pathology or a problem to be mitigated. Being sexually active before legal adulthood can be benign, in the opinion of some experts, not to mention the teens themselves. And even for teens who are never sexually active, the broader experience of sexuality, the process of learning about sex, experiencing change during this time, developing a sexual identity, and gaining interpersonal social skills, and internal coping mechanisms and strategies, are most definitely normal and healthy. I think I can only find two sentences that say anything positive. Almost every topic in this article can be expanded to describe the positive side of adolescent sexuality.

For example, the section Dating violence and sexual assault can include the fact that these are the best years for future adults to learn about setting and respecting boundaries, and how to communicate that. How to recognize the the difference between the romantic kind of sexual aggressiveness -- and how to talk about that without fear of "ruining the mood", and the kind of sexual aggressiveness that is simply assault (which is typical of most TV and movies, especially older ones). This is when teens can learn how to support victims of sexual violence, where and how to seek help, how to influence one's own peers to unlearn toxic masculinity, to resist those kinds of influences.

The sexting section is filled with FUD and negativity, without mentioning that it can be fun, can be respectful, and is clearly a safer alternative to actual intercourse. Which, by the way, the word masturbation appears nowhere in this article.

The whole article needs a lot of work for these reasons. Tagging for NPOV, WP:UNDUE, too few points of view, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the article and starting a discussion about this. I have had similar thoughts about both this article, and the article Adolescent sexuality. It seems like the two articles might as well be renamed "the dangers of teen sex" and "the dangers of teen sex in the United States". I don't think it's at all a fringe viewpoint that teenagers being sexually active, as long as it is done safely, can be a good, or at least neutral, thing that should be not be discouraged. In many European countries, for example, parents generally don't have any problem with their teenage children having sleepovers with a boyfriend or girlfriend and being sexually active as long as it is done safely and responsibly, and a small but significant minority of parents in the United States have that viewpoint, as well.

This article really needs a lot of work to achieve a balanced and neutral point of view. I think the article Adolescent sexuality should be similarly tagged and a conversation started on its talk page as well. Do you think it should be tagged as well?

All points of view on the matter should be included in the article, and also the actual sexual development of teenagers isn't really mentioned much at all. That should be the primary focus of the article, really, instead of viewpoints about how good or bad sex is. Mentions of research about how people of that age become aware of, develop, and express their sexuality is entirely absent from the article. Vontheri (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland and Vontheri, see Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 1#NPOV balance, the rest of Archive 1, Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 2#POV, Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 3#Dangerous fringe advice, Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 3#Illuminato's reinstatement of a past version, the rest of Archive 3, Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 4, and Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 5#Pregnancy section. As those discussions show, edits by Illuminato, who wrote most of this article, have been a problem. That editor recently returned, and I had to address the editor's material then as well. I also took the matter to WP:Med.

But as for negativity regarding adolescent sexuality, like I've stated before, the literature isn't as positive as it is negative. It's more so focused on the things that you currently see in the article. Dennis Bratland mentioned sexting, but the literature on sexting, which covers teenagers more than it does adults, is mostly negative with regard to teenagers, which is why the Sexting article is currently the way that it is. Sources talking about long-term romantic and/or sexual relationships allowing adolescents to gain the skills necessary for high-quality relationships later in life, and that positive romantic and/or sexual relationships among adolescents can result in long-term benefits, such as higher commitment in early adulthood, are in the minority. Now one might state, "Well, it's mainly western culture that treats adolescent sexuality like this." But unless one can find material on other cultures treating adolescent sexuality more positively, we can't add it. And either way, this article is about the United States. We can't engage in false balance, but it's true that some positive aspects can be added to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very impressed with those past discussions. They seem like good examples of how not to find consensus, how to fail to improve articles when editors disagree. I'm beginning to understand how this article got into such a skewed, one-sided state.

To take only one example, see Teenagers Are Sexting — Now What?, NYT, March 12, 2018 which leads with this quote on teen sexting: "It's becoming a normative component of teen sexual behavior and development" by the lead author of Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Sexting Behavior Among Youth at JAMA Pediatrics. The Sexting section flatly contradicts "the literature", by false presenting a purely negative picture and stoking fear and repression. "The literature" in fact says that sexting is normal, and can be discussed and managed in a healthy way. The fact that the prevalence of texting (not to mention an increase in consumption of pornography) coincides with historic decreases in early sexual activity, STDs, and pregnancy, further calls into question the uniformly fearful and sex-negative tone. Or consider Harvard's Making Caring Common, further academic support for greater focus on learning to form positive relationships, and confront sexual harassment. "The literature" is not a litany of "no, no, no, no, no." But we also have to give space to non-academic sources. We give due weight to points of view that are significant, that rise above the fringe, not merely those published in peer reviewed academic journals. Where are the sex advice columnists? Where is Planned Parenthood? Where is Joycelyn Elders? It's easy to name prominent adherents to sex-positive points of view, one of the main criteria at WP:UNDUE.

The article leads with the fact that the majority of US schools and the general public favors comprehensive sex ed, yet the article fails to give due weight; most of it seems to have been written to support a purely abstinence-only POV. Even if the US is backwards compared to other wealthy countries, we can at least do justice to what that actually means in the US.

Adding "some perspectives" to this article is certainly a start, but let me repeat: the word "masturbation" is never mentioned. Even once. How does that happen? This is in need of serious overhaul. And as far as "the literature" goes, it's fine to lean on academic journals, but using them exclusively is guaranteed to exclude significant points of view. Focusing on medical literature further biases the consent away from healthy behavior to focus only on sickness and abnormality.

We can and should compare the US with other cultures, and compare the present with the past. One of the ways to understand carbon is to compare it with silicon. It's easier to understand Jupiter if you compare it to Saturn, not to mention Venus and Pluto, and the Sun even. That's what context is. Non-US examples are not the main focus here and the article doesn't have space for too much, but we shouldn't fear comparison and contrast. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with everything User:Dennis Bratland just said. Regarding the discussions you linked to, User:Flyer22 Reborn: I didn't look at the ones regarding specific sections of the article, but as for the ones about the article as a whole being biased, it doesn't look as though any consensus was ever actually reached. The fact that this article gets perennially marked as being non-neutral should, at the very least, make one highly suspicious that maybe something really is wrong with the article. I didn't actually do a count, but it seems like there were at least as many people in those archived discussions agreeing that there is a problem with the article as the number of people saying that the article is not biased. Also, the most recent of those discussions appears to be from several years ago, so perspectives could very well have changed some since then, as there is generally a tendency for society to get more liberal as time passes.

Even if you take out the issue of the article having an anti-sex bias, there is still essentially no information about the sexual/dating practices of teenagers in the United States. How do these practices and cultures of teenagers/adolescents differ in the United States compared to the rest of the world? How does teen sexual development differ in the United States compared to the rest of the world? Those are the sort of things that I would expect to see covered in this article, not statement after statement about how bad it is for teenagers to have sex. There really need to be references that document normal teen sexual development, expression (both with partners and with one's self), and culture in the United States, without any bias as to whether what is normal is bad or not. That should be the primary focus of the article.

The article also makes mention to correlations of depression and being sexually active, without making any mention that correlation is not causation. Is it that being sexually active makes a teenager more likely to be depressed and have low self esteem? Or is it that being depressed and having low self esteem makes them more likely to become sexually active? It could even be that being sexually active is a way of "self-medicating" for depression and low self esteem, and perhaps even has a therapeutic benefit. It also could be that in some situations it is causative, and in others is neutral or even serves as treatment, for example, perhaps having casual/unsafe sex or sex with multiple partners does increase risk of depression, but safe sex with a single partner does not. Obviously there would need to be references for specifics and etc. But it is important to not draw conclusions where they don't necessarily exist, which is the implication given the way the article is currently written. Obviously my own experiences are not a "reliable source", lol, but I will say that the only thing that seemed harmful about my own sexual experiences when I was a teenager is that there weren't enough of them!

I was actually planning to do some work to this article, as well as the article Adolescent sexuality, later in the year when I expect to have more time, to add some references that are more sex-positive, as well as references which are more neutral but which factually describe the sexual development of people in that age group. I suppose I wasn't bold enough to go ahead and tag the article, as User:Dennis Bratland has thankfully done.

The article Adolescent sexuality is not quite as egregiously biased as this article, but it definitely still suffers from many of the same issues. Since this is not that article's talk page, I won't go into it too much, but just as an example, there are only two references for the section "Development of sexuality", one of which is in regards to anatomical disorders. That section is only a few sentences long. Shouldn't psychological sexual development be the primary focus of both articles? I'm a graduate student, so I don't have a ton of available time until late May, but as soon as I can, I have been planning to add some references to both articles to widen the perspective and give due weight. Vontheri (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland and Vontheri, when there is an editor persistently and overwhelmingly pushing a POV at an article, repeatedly edit warring their version into the article, it can be difficult to improve the article, especially when few editors watch that article and reverting one another can cause the article to come to a standstill for fear of violating WP:3RR and/or having the article full-protected. I never stated that the article was fine and dandy. I simply noted that there is more negative material on adolescent sexuality than there is positive material on it. Editors were repeatedly consistent in objecting to edits by Illuminato. That was consensus. But you can see how things played out. Illuminato would wait for the matter to die down and return to re-add his edits. That is what recently happened as well (before I and another editor reverted), except that Illuminato showed back up under a different account. You will know what I'm talking about when Illuminato returns and does what he always does. NinjaRobotPirate is one of the editors who can attest to all of that. I work on a number of sexual topic articles, but this is one I was not willing to take on, in part because of Illuminato. You and Vontheri questioned the state of the article. I'm letting you know how the article came to be what it is. Illuminato is currently the main author of this article. Look at the page statistics regarding this article. See that edit count by Illuminato?

As for the literature, I stand by what I stated on that. It's not based on my personal opinion. I try to stay objective on the topics I work on here at Wikipedia. What I'm stating is based on my familiarity with the adolescent sexuality literature, especially the United States adolescent sexuality literature. You and Vontheri are looking for all of this positive material on adolescent sexuality in the United States, but I am stating that there is not nearly as much positivity on it as there is negativity on it. Teenage pregnancy, for example, is not looked down upon in some cultures the way it is looked down upon in the United States. And like this 2008 "Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 385 states, "Attention has focused mainly on girls; thus, little is known about boys' experience of sexuality. The picture that emerges from the scant literature is largely negative; boys come across as manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements." And it is this largely negative factor that Illuminato took advantage of. The source goes on to state: "The reality is more complicated, but only a handful of studies on boys' subjective experiences of sexuality has been conducted (e.g., Fine, 1987)." Vontheri mentioned adolescent development. The source also relays: "There is an ongoing need for longitudinal research that tracks changes in attitudes, behaviors, and subjective experience over time. This is especially critical for building a picture of how sexual self-concept develops and how sexuality becomes integrated into the young person's identity and construction of relationships. Unfortunately, considerable challenges remain to conducting such studies, given the moral climate that persists in the United States. Until we accept adolescent sexuality, we will be unable to protect young people from potential consequences and foster their healthy sexual development." Yes, the source is from 2008, but I haven't seen that much in the literature has changed since 2008. If we go to 2012, with the "Adolescent Sexual Socialization and Teen Magazines: A Cross-national Study Between the United States and the Netherlands" source, from Universal-Publishers, page 86, we can see that it states the following: "US magazines approach sex more negatively than the Dutch magazines approach sex positively (Joshi, et al., 2011, in press). The approach to sex in US teen magazines is thus predominantly negative about adolescent sexuality and largely follows the lines of a danger discourse (Fine, 1988; Garner, et al., 1998; Johnson et al., 1999; Kim & Ward, 2004)." That stated, there has been some change on the approach to adolescent sexuality. Like this 2018 "Sexuality in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood" source, from Guilford Publications, page 275, states, "Recently, some social scientists have challenged the disease model of adolescent sexuality and proposed that sex is a natural part of development for most adolescents and may even contribute to psychological growth and social maturity (Diamond, 2014; Harden 2014b). A sexual health approach to the study of adolescent sexuality has been referred to as a 'sex-positive' or 'sexual well-being' framework and includes several points (Fortenberry, 2016; Harden, 2014b)." Anyway, I am for more positivity being in the article, but I'm not for false balance. It's just not the case that the literature is equally, or even close to equally, divided positively and negatively on this matter. I'm not aware of any sources stating that the prevalence of sexting (not texting in general, but that too) coincides with historic decreases in early sexual activity, STIs, and pregnancy. If we go by sources like this 2013 "Teen sexting and its association with sexual behaviors" one, it states, "[A]mong girls the use of sexting behaviors appears to coincide with much higher engagement in risky sex behaviors." This 2014 "Sexting and Sexual Behavior in At-Risk Adolescents" source states that "that sexting appears linked with sexual risk behavior." A number of other academic sources state that sexting is risk behavior because of its association with other risk behaviors. And a number of aspects of the effects of pornography are debatable.

As for giving space to non-academic sources, Illuminato did that. That was and still is part of the problem with the article, going with those news and other media sources and their WP:RSBREAKING reports of single studies or other research. Sex advice columnists? I don't think any of our sexuality articles should be based on what sex advice columnists state. Those columnists are giving their opinions, which may or may not be based on fact, and the article can turn essay-like very quickly when including those sources and similar. I am mainly for sticking to scholarly sources (scholarly sources that are secondary and tertiary) for a topic like this, per what WP:SCHOLARSHIP notes. That type of editing keeps articles more fact-based and objective. But I am fine with using media sources in appropriate ways for some of the society and culture material. As for comparisons, I am fine with some culture comparisons, just like I am with comparative anatomy in our anatomy articles. I am interested in seeing what you two do with the article (as well as the Adolescent sexuality one, if one or both of you take that one on). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Flyer22 Reborn. I understand about giving due weight, and if the literature is biased in an anti-sex direction, then one would expect to see the article weighted accordingly, but as it is now, it is unduly weighted in the anti-sex direction. Some of the sources you just referenced in what you wrote on this talk page could be a good starting place. As for non-academic sources, I can see a place for references from, as examples, the perspective of philosophy of sex or social commentary having a place in the article. They may be less common than anti-sex perspectives, but I don't think pro or neutral-sex perspectives are anywhere near being so fringe that they can't be found. I think any reasonable-thinking person would surely agree that ideologies such as "boys [are] manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements" or of girls being "innocent" sexually and only capable of being manipulated into sex instead of being just as capable of wanting and enjoying sex as boys are, or that all teenage boys want to have sex and are incapable of being taken advantage of sexually, as being obsolete and sexist generalizations. I can say from personal experience, as someone who was once a teenage boy, that "boys [are] manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements" certainly did not apply to me, as I had little desire for casual sex, but definitely desired sex with "emotional entanglements". But those sorts of obsolete ideologies are exactly what is portrayed in the article as it currently stands, without any due weight to other points of view. There is no distinction drawn between different kinds of sex, either. There is a difference between sex with and without protection from STIs and, for heterosexual sex, protection from pregnancy. There is also a difference between casual sex and sex within a relationship. But this article puts all teen sex into the same basket as being dangerous and pathological.

I'm a bit confused about something. In which direction was the editor "Illuminato" biased?

As soon as I have time I plan to make some significant contributions to the article, but again, I don't foresee having the time for at least a few months. Vontheri (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Besides what I stated about the literature, the article seeming "unduly weighted in the anti-sex direction" is due to Illuminato. This is why I stated above that "And it is this largely negative factor that Illuminato took advantage of." As far as I know, the negative direction is the only direction Illuminato went in it. If not "only," then mainly. As for philosophy of sex or social commentary, there are academic sources for that stuff as well. As for gender differences, they exist on this topic, and there is significant contrast in some cases. The research has indicated that boys are generally more manipulative than girls are when it comes to sexual activity (for example, with regard to oral sex or condom use), but that obviously doesn't mean that girls are never or are barely manipulative when it comes to sexual activity. Sometimes they are the ones pressuring with regard to sexual activity. Sex with and without protection from STIs and protection from pregnancy are covered in the article. On a side note: Since I watch this article, I prefer not to be pinged to the talk page; it's just that I'd rather not unnecessarily get that red notification. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It all sounds like so much special pleading to me. You say "the literature" (whatever you mean by that) is mostly based on a disease model. I propose alternative points of view that take a more positive view, and that doesn't count as part of "the literature". QED. The fact is that two third or more of Americans favor comprehensive sex ed. Whatever subset of Americans are responsible for writing this "literature", they clearly aren't representative of the general public, and probably not representative of the entire set of sources on adolescent sexuality that would qualify as RS. Peer reviewed journals are just not going to get too exited about a paper titled "The Kids Are Alright". They want blood, death, pain. Defects. Problems to be fixed. Not research that concludes that kids are exploring their sexuality in reasonably safe ways and developing in healthy patterns -- and maybe we ought to encourage that. If the journals won't publish it, academics won't research it. That doesn't mean it's not a significant point of view.

The broader media, like more mainstream websites, books, magazines, and news media, aren't so biased as academic journals.

But lets table the question of balance, or now. Who knows where the exact point of perfect equilibrium is? Maybe we won't know it until we see it. Let's stop reverting additions by other editors, even if we think they're flawed. If someone makes a substantial revision of existing content, and you object, that will need to be discussed. But if all they do is add content, try to keep it for now, if it is conceivably salvageable. Keep with the spirit and letter of Editing policy. Heed WP:NOTPERFECT. Don't worry about non-fatal flaws. Don't worry about less than perfect neutrality. Any addition that isn't a blatant BLP violation, or copyright violation, and which is broadly supported by sources, that is, unlikely to be blatantly false and unverifiable, let it be for now. Give it some space for other editors to build upon, add citations, and improve.

What I'd like to see is the article significantly expanded by adding other points of view. Adding a masturbation section would be nice (masturbation is not really not my favorite topic, and I hate to keep bringing it up; I'm just noting how bizarre it is to have no mention of it at all here).

Let the article grow, hold your objections and don't revert if you possibly can. Tag issues as you see them. Discuss on the talk page. Once we have an article with a large amount of rough content that covers a broad cross section of points of view, we have something to work with, to whittle down to whatever turns out to be neutral balance. I think too many reverts, in violation of the WP:PERFECTION policy, are what has led this article to an impasse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is anything more that needs to be said here, at least not until changes are made to the article, and I feel like this is getting a bit off topic, but I feel like something might have been misinterpreted, so I feel compelled to clarify. Flyer22, when I said that about "I think any reasonable-thinking person would surely agree that ideologies such as [etc.]" I'm not denying that gender differences exist, nor was I trying to imply that boys/men/males are not more likely to be the perpetrators in cases of heterosexual sexual violence, but that the idea that all or even a majority of teen boys who are sexually active are doing so in a manipulative way is surely one that most people would agree is blatantly false. Or the idea that teen girls can only be taken advantage of sexually and never or rarely are willing participants and are incapable of having a libido of their own is blatantly false as well. This is sexist to both genders and harmful to both and really seems like a way of thinking that would be more at home in 1950. There are certain teen boys (as well as adult men and some females) who are manipulative when it comes to sex, but to generalize this to teen boys as a whole is quite unfair and untruthful. Likewise, it is unfair and untruthful to act as though there is something wrong with a teen girl who wants to have sex. My statement was in response to you quoting "boys come across as manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements." I was under the impression that you were quoting that as an example of something you disagreed with, no?

I see mentions of the percentage of teenagers who use different types of birth control and STI protection, but not any mention of the different outcomes, or of the different psychological effects/correlations. I don't even see any mention of the different physical effects/correlations of sex with and without protections. It's just kind of like "contraception and disease protection exists and some teens use it" and nothing more.

The subsection "Benefits and negative effects" under the section "Psychological effects" only talks about negative effects, no mention is made of potential benefits other than in the title. I'm wondering if perhaps the subsection used to have mention of "benefits", as suggested by the title, but that part was removed at some point? Another form of bias is that the section "Sexual minorities" seems to be all about gay and lesbian sex being even more harmful than heterosexual sexual activity among teens. Apparently, gay and lesbian teens are even more likely to become pregnant or to get someone else pregnant than heterosexual teens. (?!?!) (This was based on only one study, I might add) That appears to be the only mention of LGBT teens, just how much more dangerous sex supposedly is for them. There's, again, no mention of the actual sexual development, dating practices, cultures, etc. of these young people.

And sorry about pinging you. I do that habitually pretty much any time I am responding to someone, but I won't do it with you anymore.

And Dennis Bratland, since you haven't responded to me any of the times I've asked you, I'm reading between the lines and assuming that from your perspective you don't think the article Adolescent sexuality suffers from the same issues as this article, which is fine. I would tag it, but given that I won't have time to actually work on it for at least a few months, I'll hold off until then. Vontheri (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I fail to see how what I've stated "sounds like so much special pleading to [you]." Citing the literature is citing the literature. What I mean by "the literature" is exactly what WP:Due weight means by it -- what the preponderance of reliable sources state on the topic, and giving the views on the topic their appropriate weight. When considering the preponderance of reliable sources on adolescent sexuality, especially adolescent sexuality in the United States, it is a fact that the preponderance of reliable sources point in the negative direction. There is no "equal weight" to it at all. If there were, the 2018 "Sexuality in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood" source would not state, "Recently, some social scientists have challenged the disease model of adolescent sexuality and proposed that sex is a natural part of development for most adolescents and may even contribute to psychological growth and social maturity (Diamond, 2014; Harden 2014b). A sexual health approach to the study of adolescent sexuality has been referred to as a 'sex-positive' or 'sexual well-being' framework and includes several points (Fortenberry, 2016; Harden, 2014b)." I did not state that the literature is mostly based on a disease model. That source essentially did. But I did state that the literature on adolescent sexuality, particularly in the United States, leans significantly more toward the negative than toward the positive. The medical aspect concerns STIs, pregnancy, and mental/emotion health. Yeah, most of that information has negative reports. Again, in today's society, teenage pregnancy is not something that is usually seen as a positive thing in the United States (and many or most other places). And, of course, STIs are not viewed as a good thing. And sexuality/sexual activity impacts adolescents a lot harder than it does adults, and so there are more negative reports on the matter with regard to adolescents. You seem to be taking issue with me stating facts. It cannot be helped whatsoever that the majority of adolescent sexuality literature is the way that it is. That is not bias coming from me. It just is the way it is. And when people state "the literature," they usually don't mean advice columns or blogs. And if they do, such sources should be given their appropriate weight. Per WP:Reliable sources, we usually don't consider blogs (which are what a number of advice columns are) to be reliable sources anyway. I know what you are proposing, and all that I am stating is that the literature is what it is and that we are not supposed to engage in false balance. I have not objected to you adding sex-positive or sexual well-being material to the article.

You stated, "I propose alternative points of view that take a more positive view, and that doesn't count as part of 'the literature'. QED. The fact is that two third or more of Americans favor comprehensive sex ed. Whatever subset of Americans are responsible for writing this 'literature', they clearly aren't representative of the general public, and probably not representative of the entire set of sources on adolescent sexuality that would qualify as RS." Eh? The "alternative view" is a part of the literature. The 2018 "Sexuality in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood" source I cited above is right there. The academic literature on adolescent sexuality leaning more so in the negative direction is not simply or even mostly due to conservatism. It has to do with the way that adolescents behave and that there are more detrimental than positive behavior and mental effects when it comes to adolescents engaging in sexual activity with others. The academic literature is all for comprehensive sex education to help it so that adolescents do not behave in as many detrimental ways as they do when it comes to sexual activity. For example, pornography is not a good teacher when it comes sexual activity. Boys and girls (and many adults as well) will take what they see in pornography as fact. Many of them think that what they see in pornography is reflective of how people usually engage in sexual activity. It's often not. Facials, for example, are indeed almost exclusively a pornography thing, which is why the Facial (sex act) article is basically all about pornography. And yet there are a number of teenage boys who think that a girl should want a facial during or after sex. And regarding the general public? The American public is conservative when it comes to sexual activity. If you want, I can point to many reliable sources on that. The vast majority of America does not want adolescents engaging in sexual activity. And many parents prefer to not have sex education in schools; they feel that it should not be left up to the school to teach their children about sexual activity. But since many adolescents will engage in sexual activity, many parents and non-parents at least want the adolescents educated on the topic in a way that the adolescents will be responsible and feel good about the sexual activity emotionally.

I've already been over what type of sources are best for academic topics, which is what this topic is. I, for the most part, don't agree with what you are stating about sourcing. I don't agree that "The broader media, like more mainstream websites, books, magazines, and news media, aren't so biased as academic journals." And like I stated, the media on adolescent sexuality in the United States is "biased" in a negative direction. Anyone can see this by looking at the media. And either way, this article should mainly not be going by media sources. No article should unless it's mostly a media matter or media sources are the main types of sources for the topic.

You stated, "Let's stop reverting additions by other editors, even if we think they're flawed." I disagree. Illuminato's edits should have been reverted, for reasons editors went over. And it's Illuminato edits that made the article what it is now -- the very "too negative and pathological, too few points of view" article you are complaining about. You speak of Wikipedia:Editing policy. The WP:Preserve part of that policy states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." As made clear, WP:Preserve (which I follow at a number of articles) doesn't mean that we should retain any and everything an editor adds. Sometimes all of an editor's edits should be reverted. And if you or Vontheri don't want this article even more "negative, and pathological, [with] too few points of view," you or Vontheri will revert Illuminato's edits if he shows back up to re-add all of his material or new material that is nothing but negative. Reverting Illuminato or other edits that should be reverted has nothing to do with wanting perfection.

Vontheri, yes, I get that you weren't "trying to imply that boys/men/males are not more likely to be the perpetrators in cases of heterosexual sexual violence." Also, boys being more manipulative with regard to sexual activity is not always or even mostly about sexual violence. It is about what it is about. Reading on the matter can show what I mean on it. Both boys and men commonly have an issue with using condoms, for example, which increases pregnancy risk, which is a matter the girl or woman will have to deal with alone if the boy or man is not there for support. The condom matter is not necessarily a sexual violence issue. If it's non-consensual condom removal, then it obviously definitely is. I don't see that the literature states that all teen boys are manipulative with regard to sexual activity or "that teen girls can only be taken advantage of sexually and never or rarely are willing participants and are incapable of having a libido of their own is blatantly false as well." As for the quote that "boys come across as manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements," I was reporting on a 2008 source noting that, at that point in time (and something that still appears to mostly be the case today), "attention [on adolescent sexuality] has focused mainly on girls; thus, little is known about boys' experience of sexuality." The source was stating that what was available thus far about boys was largely negative information. As for my view of the information, going by the research, there are more teenage boys than not who approach sexual activity in a way that most teenage girls would rather they wouldn't. And it's been like that for many years, going all the way back to the 50s and before that.

As for the article, I obviously agree that it needs much improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t at all trying to imply that sexual manipulation was the same thing as sexual violence.

You said “I don't see that the literature states that all teen boys are manipulative with regard to sexual activity”, but the quote "boys come across as manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements” doesn’t say “some boys” or even “most boys”, it just said “boys”. This seems to be a common pattern in research like this. The actions of some members of a demographic group are extrapolated onto all members of that group. It’s rarely acknowledged that there can be drastic differences between the actions or beliefs of different individuals, especially within a group as large and diverse as an entire gender.

Sure, some have problems with condoms, and some girls/women have problems with condoms too. I’m quite certain it’s a minority for both genders, though, and could be largely remedied by better sex education from schools and more accepting, honest, and sex-positive attitudes from parents. Most people, of either gender, don’t want to get a disease or cause an unwanted pregnancy. Anyone who gets someone else unintentionally pregnant and then disappears leaving her to deal with it alone is obviously a horrible person. That, too, could likely be largely mitigated by change in society’s view of teen sexuality.

As for “there are more teenage boys than not who approach sexual activity in a way that most teenage girls would rather they wouldn’t”, it’s pretty easy with social sciences to get biased conclusions. The way survey questions are worded, and even which questions get asked and which questions don’t get asked, can really change the way things get interpreted. If you go in with certain assumptions, it’s easy to come out with those assumptions strengthened, whereas if someone else goes in with opposite assumptions, it’s easy for them to come out with opposite assumptions strengthened, all because of how things are worded or other factors. There are lots of factors that often don’t get taken into account. The reasons for things often get ignored, as well. The fact that girls are more likely to be shamed for wanting to have sex than are boys surely has a lot to do with it, as well. I highly doubt that it’s something inherent to the genders, but rather something flawed about society. Both genders are victimized by this. Girls are made to feel like there is something wrong with them if they want to have sex or do have sex. This also ignores the fact that there are many, likely most, boys who are not like that. It fails to distinguish between the “good” ones and the “bad” ones. I really think it’s more to do with this being such a sex-repressed society, and the sexuality of young people being especially repressed and taboo. Instead of dividing cohorts by gender to try to find out about sexual manipulation, why not divide cohorts by a “manipulative” group and a “non-manipulative” group, (unless gender is directly pertinent to what is being researched)? Also, not all teen boys who are having sex are doing so with girls, you know… Gay, lesbian, and bisexual teens seem to be totally left out of all this.

Anyway, apparently all three of us agree that the article needs some work, so that’s great. It’s on my list of articles to work on when I have the necessary time. Vontheri (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And I was not stating or implying that you were trying to imply that sexual manipulation is the same thing as sexual violence.

The source does not state that "all teen boys are manipulative with regard to sexual activity." And even if it did, I repeat that "I don't see that the [general] literature states that all teen boys are manipulative with regard to sexual activity." As for the rest, I'm not going to keep debating this. I am very busy on and off Wikipedia, and I'd rather not sit here repeating myself about the literature that I am very familiar with. I'd rather not sit here pointing to more academic sources showing what I mean or why following what WP:SCHOLARSHIP states for a topic like this is best. For no other academic topic do we state, "Well, the academic literature is biased; so we need to look to media sources to balance things out." Or "The academic literature is biased; so we should mainly look to media sources." WP:BIASED clearly states, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." And for the last time, the media is "biased" on this topic as well. And the condom thing? Adolescent girls often performing fellatio on boys without a condom because the boys are focused on their own pleasure and the girl wants to accommodate the boys, and both the girls and boys using fellatio as a form of safe sex, is not a minor thing. And further speaking on oral sex, another issue is how adolescent boys make adolescent girls feel by not wanting to perform cunnilingus on them. This is one of the gender disparities with regard to sexual activity. And it is also reflective of more women performing fellatio than men performing cunnilingus. Adolescent girls and women in heterosexual relationships not achieving orgasm or only occasionally achieving orgasm while adolescent boys and men in heterosexual relationships almost always achieve orgasm is a part of the oral sex matter. It is part of gender disparities with regard to sexual activity. So when I state that "there are more teenage boys than not who approach sexual activity in a way that most teenage girls would rather they wouldn't", it's based on fact. Not "biased conclusions." The fact that adolescent girls and women do not achieve orgasm with a male sexual partner nearly as often as adolescent boys and men achieve orgasm with a sexual partner (male or female) is something that has been repeatedly found by researchers, including cross-culturally. Enough of what you have stated about the research is you assuming and making "what if" commentary. Everything I've stated about the research can be backed up by reliable sources. Yes, the gender differences with regard to sexuality, including sexual activity, are partly a societal matter, and mainly a societal matter in other respects. And? It doesn't make the differences any less factual. As for LGBT adolescents, I don't need to be reminded of them. The literature doesn't focus on them as much, just like comprehensive sex education (and its literature) doesn't focus on them as much (as mentioned in the Comprehensive sex education article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, the quote "boys come across as manipulators who will do anything to 'get sex' and avoid emotional entanglements”, which I've been referring to this whole time, just says "boys", it doesn't say "most" or "some". I take "boys" without an adjective in front of it to mean just that, "boys". As in "all boys". Any mass noun without an adjective stating otherwise generally means the entirety of that noun.

I agree about not seeing reason to keep discussing this at this point. None of this really has much directly to do with the article at this point. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with any of my plans for editing the article. I mentioned a couple messages ago that I felt like this was getting off topic.

I mentioned gay and lesbian teens because you keep talking about how boys apparently are with girls, as though the only time boys are sexually active is with a girl.

I believe you that what you say the research shows is what the research shows, but much of it doesn't exactly correspond to my own personal experiences, so it's a bit perplexing to me. Most of the heterosexual teen boys I knew when I was that age would have loved nothing more than to "eat out" a girl, as they phrased it. But yes, it does seem as though male oral sex is often the "first step", and that is, again, a problem related to the view that there is something "wrong" with a girl who has a libido. And obviously any relationship where one partner's sexual pleasure is significantly more important than the other's isn't a very good relationship.

Anyway, I don't think we really disagree as much as it seems. You said you agree the article needs work, and that's all that is really relevant. Vontheri (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You stated that "it doesn't say 'most' or 'some.'" Exactly. One can state "people attended the film" without it meaning "all people attended the film." Qualifiers are not always used by sources or people in general, in part because we employ common sense. Per WP:Weasel words, our very own Wikipedia isn't big on qualifiers like "most" and "some."

I kept talking about "how boys apparently are with girls" because that was a part of the focus of the discussion. We were not focused on LGBT adolescents. And like I stated, the literature doesn't focus on them as much.

As for boys or men being hesitant to perform cunnilingus, I don't think it has much to do with the view that there is something "wrong" with a girl who has a libido. It has a lot more to do with the female genitals being thought of as unclean/dirty. Except for certain conservative societies that don't see as much gender equality as the United States and other places do (although there is obviously still work to be done in the United States on that matter), a girl wanting sexual activity isn't considered odd these days...unless she's viewed as being too sexual or hypersexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. We've both stated that we don't have time to keep going on about this, so I'll make this as short as possible.

With your example of "people attended the film", it's obvious from context that it doesn't mean all people, which is why an adjective saying how many people is unnecessary. If it's not obvious that it's not meant the collective of all members of a mass noun, then it's assumed that if it doesn't have a word saying otherwise then it does mean all. Even if the author doesn't intend it that way, it will come across that way to at least some people.

I don't know... the only males I've ever heard say anything about finding vaginas gross have been gay. That could be a part of it, but I don't think that explains the majority or even a large minority of it. I think it's probably more that in a time when it was seen as "odd" for a girl to have a libido of her own, fellatio became the default "first step" when a young couple decides to become sexually active, and even though the philosophy of sex and gender has changed some, that practice hasn't, without people really knowing or thinking about why that's the "first step". Kind of like how some people say "bless you" after someone sneezes, it's just something they've always done because other people have done it, without ever really thinking about why or how it originated.

I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's standards for articles, by the way, including regarding "weasel words".

Anyway, it's been nice to meet you, if only online, and I look forward to getting any feedback you may have when I make my contributions to the article. If you have any response to any of this, that's fine, and if not, I'll talk to you when I add to the article, assuming you have any input. Vontheri (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing more to state on the qualifiers matter.

The "vaginas are unclean/dirty" and "vaginas are smelly" viewpoints are viewpoints that many boys/men (and a number of girls/women as well) have. Finding cunnilingus unclean and/or disgusting is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that people give for not engaging in it. Many people also think of fellatio as dirty and/or disgusting, but the female genitals are considered dirty and smelly significantly more often than the male genitals are considered dirty and smelly. Many people, especially women (in part because of menstruation or the menstrual cycle), are concerned about the odor of their genitals, but society pays more attention to the odor of the female genitals. I'd rather not take the time to cite sources for all of this on the talk page. An editor can easily look on regular Google, Google Books or Google Scholar for what I mean regarding how people view the female genitals/the taboos of oral sex/why people won't engage in oral sex.

Nice to meet you as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)