Foul Language by players

[Dugout Dad]

Oh, I forgot

jtat, explain this if teenage promiscuity is declining:

http://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2014/05/21/stds-on-the-rise/

Maybe it's from holding hands

OK, I'll explain:

The article you cited is titled "STDs on the rise", but nowhere in the article do they cite any evidence for that. They simply state current statistics. If you look at the actual CDC data, the rate of STD infections are decreasing.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats09/trends2009.pdf

I guess it comes down to how you read the stats:

STD Rates Among Youth Rising, CDC Says
http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-health-articles/std-rates-among-youth-rising-cdc-says-1388316.html

But you say that the portrayal of sex in the media is not producing more promiscuous behavior among teenagers. I don't think many on HB will agree with you.

The language I hear coming out of kid's mouths today is shocking. If you, as an adult, bring it to their attention, they will disrespectfully tell you to F off. I think the media has a lot to do with it.

[PDad]

Oh, I forgot

jtat, explain this if teenage promiscuity is declining:

http://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2014/05/21/stds-on-the-rise/

Maybe it's from holding hands

OK, I'll explain:

The article you cited is titled "STDs on the rise", but nowhere in the article do they cite any evidence for that. They simply state current statistics. If you look at the actual CDC data, the rate of STD infections are decreasing.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats09/trends2009.pdf

C'mon, this is the second time in this thread you've cited material from 2009 to refute a current trend assertion. On top of that, this CDC data was only for 3 specific types of STDs.

[jtat32]

C'mon, this is the second time in this thread you've cited material from 2009 to refute a current trend assertion. On top of that, this CDC data was only for 3 specific types of STDs.

So, the watershed moment in TV programming and the decline in morality occurred after 2009? The students in high school today possess looser morals than then students that attended in the four years previous? I read the thread as generational issue.

Large studies like the one that I cited take some years to be assembled and published. I didn't see a more recent comprehensive one. For what it's worth, I saw one on syphilis specifically that is more recent. The relevant line with regard to your criticism would be:

Among women, rates increased during 2005–2008 and decreased during 2009–2013, with different trends among different racial/ethnic groups.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm ... mm6318a4_w

I'm not defending the content of these shows in any way. I find much of it offensive. lowest-common-denominator, and boring. I don't watch much TV (aside from sports) and we restrict what our kids watch. That said, there is no measurable parameter of teenage behavior that supports the assertion that exposure to sexually charged TV programming leads to increased promiscuity in young women. With all due respect to tbjd33, the "eye test" means nothing. The generational "eye test" failed with heavy metal, the Beatles long hair, Elvis' dancing, jazz "jungle music", and on and on.

[jtat32]

I guess it comes down to how you read the stats:

STD Rates Among Youth Rising, CDC Says
http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-health-articles/std-rates-among-youth-rising-cdc-says-1388316.html

Yes, they rose slightly (about 25%) from 2004-2006, is that the point you were trying to make? My point was that the rates were about 300% higher when we where in high school (I'm assuming we're of reasonably similar age), so we don't have a whole lot of higher ground to wag our fingers at this generation from.

But you say that the portrayal of sex in the media is not producing more promiscuous behavior among teenagers. I don't think many on HB will agree with you.

I never said it didn't, I only said that there is no data that would support that assertion. Would you agree with the (generally liberal) assertion that exposure to violence on TV and video games produces violent behavior in teenage boys?

[sr_design]

I'm being careful not to preach here. The assertion that because we adults may have engaged in questionable behaviour when we were younger exempts us from pointing out and trying to correct behaviour in todays kids that crosses a line is wrong. All younger generations have been reigned in and guided by the generations that have proceeded them. With age comes (for most) maturity, experience, and perspective. Kids are always going to push boundaries. That is as it should be. But it is our duty as "the elders of the clan"to guide them and establish limits. They will be us one day.

[Dugout Dad]

My point was that the rates were about 300% higher when we where in high school (I'm assuming we're of reasonably similar age), so we don't have a whole lot of higher ground to wag our fingers at this generation from.

STD's were 300% higher during our generation? (80's) Now you are you are making up stuff.

[jonriv]

Dd and otw are convinced they grew up in some kind of leave it to beaver utopia-despite the facts showing othewise

As far as the stuff on tv- it is motivated by one thing, profits. Not politics or anything else. Don't watch and they take it off- period

Blaming tv, music, or video games is a cop-out. The behavior of children is guided by and the responsibility of the PARENT. You control what they watch, read, etc. you develop and nurture their value system. By extension, the coach bears some responsibility of making sure their players carry themselves in a professional way. The players need to be made aware that
They are "on" the entire time they are at a showcase and all behavior and actions out.

One irony, I have found that as language in public and on tv has become fouler, language in the workplace have sanatised to the point of almost being ridiculous. When I first started, f- bombs were tossed about in the office almost as much as out in the field in the army.

[exD1dad]

Yes Jonriv PC public work behavior is hypocritical & it is the parents faults but here in Cali 75% or marriages end in divorce. The institution of family is broken

OK I don't tell people how to raise their children but lets examine just 1 person who has millions of "followers" hundreds of millions of dollars & huge Fame, Kim Kartrashian. How did she get famous? By being a whore, yes she made a sex tape & slept her way around NCAA football, NBA , NFL etc. People act like this type of thing is a road to success, Stripping & being a Porn star are now viable occupations in America. Not in my household but it is the media who proliferates this behavior as acceptable.

Is foul language a "gateway " to promiscuity in the fashion pot is a gateway to heroin? or just becoming a norm in society based upon the lack of the traditional family. I don't know but the media plays a big part in influencing people.

22 years ago if a reporter went from traditional news to "Hard Copy" they were forever banned from "legitimate" journalism. I know because my girlfriend at the time did just that going from CBS in LA to HC & what happened to her? She's now a successful Reality show producer & every network news operation is like hard copy, I blame media for a large part in this societal change. Maury Povich was the 1st to go in this direction & he ended up with Connie Chung. Go figure

[Dugout Dad]

JR, back in our days, it was easy to turn off the media, it went something like click. It is impossible for our kids to do so -Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TV, movies, internet, college professors, smartphones - I could on and on. It's influence 360 on steroids. Remember when MTV had music videos? You must really live in Ozzie bubble in the Northeast. Peek your head out once in a while. My new nickname for you is Truman, like the Jim Carey movie.

[Dugout Dad]

Yes Jonriv PC public work behavior is hypocritical & it is the parents faults but here in Cali 75% or marriages end in divorce. The institution of family is broken

Yup. And how many don't even bother to get married. Next time you get a chance, look in the local paper and look at the birth announcements. You will notice 25 -50% of births are to same last name couples(married) and the rest are to two last name couples(unmarried). I guess sign of the times.