On the flimsy pretext of this being the season when HS seniors get their college acceptances, a New York Times column has set about asking current college students about their plans for future sexual conquests.
Stephen Dubner handed his 'Freakonomics' column over to his assistant, Nicole Tourtelot, this week. She asked five collegians five questions. Three of them were innocuous: who's paying for your education, how do you view cigarette smoking, what's your dream job?
But then came:
- How many more people do you think you’ll sleep with before you get married?
- How many would you like to?
And this would be instructive to incoming freshmen because?
For the record, watch out for Ali, ladies. He thinks he'll sleep with at least 20, but would "like to sleep with way more than 20." Guys on the make might consider inviting Sophie to dinner. She's shooting for 24.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
innocuous?
April 4, 2008 - 21:00 ET by sarcasmo"How do you view cigarette smoking?" might have been something like innocuous in the '50s or '60s, but coming from the NYT today, it sounds a lot like a prelude to more tobacco control-freakery.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Let's not go all
April 4, 2008 - 21:02 ET by Mark FinkelsteinLet's not go all libertarian-suspicious on us tonight, sarc ;-)
I think to myself, "maybe Mark's right."
April 4, 2008 - 21:34 ET by sarcasmoThen I see this. Besides, going all libertarian-suspicious is my role!!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
And that proves what the
April 4, 2008 - 21:35 ET by Mark FinkelsteinAnd that proves what the assistant to the Freakonomics columnist had secretly in mind?
well, I'm speculating, but...
April 4, 2008 - 21:54 ET by sarcasmoThis is the NYT. They're "for" just about any tax, but especially a "sin" tax that falls on an unpopular minority like the one on cigs, so the question definitely "fits." Also, I noticed the students, as depicted by the assistant, spend more words on average on the smoker question than either career or even (gasp!) sex. Yeah, yeah, I'm too suspicious, but it comes naturally from experience.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
safe sex is actually healthy
April 4, 2008 - 22:27 ET by Biff McCainHaving safe sex is actually healthy when done correctly (and not the end of the world when not).
Smoking is always bad for your health and the people around you.
See the new anti smoking ad that says smoking is passing gas?
"Thank goodness the movie is over, now I can go outside and pass gas."
"Yes, smoking is passing gas. Each cigarette contains ......"
Goes something like that. Brutal!
Can you say STD?
April 4, 2008 - 21:01 ET by CobraManHay promiscuous High school seniors and College freshmen, can you say Sexually Transmitted Disease? I hope, so because you'll be saying it to one of your sexual partners real soon if you don't change your ways. STD’s, the gift that keeps on giving.
I’ve had only one sexual partner in my life, and I married her. It was the best decision I ever made.
Can you say freewill?
April 4, 2008 - 22:35 ET by shawn228I'm glad you are happy with the decision you made, however some might regret the decision not to have had more than 1 partner.
Yes there are risk, but that is their choice to make.
Can you
April 4, 2008 - 22:40 ET by Clear thinkerCan you say...
Responsibility?
"Abstain from McCain"
Sure I can Clear Thinker
April 4, 2008 - 22:42 ET by shawn228That is why I totally support the eduction of condoms and birth control pills
sorry shawn
April 4, 2008 - 22:44 ET by botgbut how do you educate a condom?
(i know what you meant)
but how do you educate a condom?
April 5, 2008 - 10:51 ET by shawn228Maybe like this Bruce.
Can you say impulse control?
April 5, 2008 - 00:35 ET by CobraManI happy that you believe that unlimited sexual activity is not detrimental, but the increasing rates of sexually transmitted diseases and the millions of “unwanted” babies which have been aborted in the last 30 years would tend to disprove your assessment. There is such a thing as impulse control, you know. Or is that type of control a little too much for people to expect of our younger generation?
We need to teach the younger generation that controlling impulsive behavior is something to be desired and practiced and it is not something to be avoided. If we did, things like unwanted pregnancies and STDs, or even drunk driving "accidents", would be greatly reduced and everyone would be a lot better off, wouldn't you agree?
Can you say age of consent
April 5, 2008 - 00:44 ET by shawn228It is one thing to teach abstinence to young children, but we are talking about young adults that are over 18 yrs of age.
Condoms are not perfect, but they are very effective in protecting you from STD's. Is it better to not have sex till marriage, but if our younger generation does not follow that advice is it better to have protected sex or unprotected sex? A condom might have prevented those millons of unwanted babies you speak of
People want to pretend like
April 5, 2008 - 01:53 ET by MrSnugglesPeople want to pretend like abstaining from sex is an impossibility, but isng a condom is like natural instinct. its not. its just as easy to say "screw the condom" as it is to give in to the temptation of sex in the first place.
I have a problem with the
April 5, 2008 - 09:21 ET by JerryI have a problem with the attitude of: "They're going to do it anyway..".
How effective could this type of message be.... "You're probably going to have sex anyway, even though you shouldn't, so here's some condoms and birth control pills just in case (wink) (wink)."
If your parents said...
"We don't want you to do drugs, but if you do, and you probably will, here are some clean needles and a pure supply of heroin, just in case."
.. would children be more likely to try drugs or less likely?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
mr snuggles and jerry
April 5, 2008 - 10:31 ET by shawn228I never said "they are just going to do it anyway" I said "if" they do it, they should be educated on condom use.
Also Jerry, sex when you are over 18 is legal, heroin is not.
I realize that Shawn. I
April 5, 2008 - 11:23 ET by JerryI realize that Shawn. I was just making a point about how behavior will quickly gravitate to the lowest common demoninator to which it is held. The paper is attempting to create the mindset that "everyone will be doing it, everyone IS doing it, and you better drop your drawers and get with the program".
I know one thing for sure. The more and more that questionable behavior is excused, the more questionable behavior becomes. Just look at alcholic beverages as one example. Not too long ago, drinking used to be confined to the privacy of one's own home and the backroom bars. In those days, you were whispered about if you drank. Now you are whispered about and considered square if you don't drink. You even have parents getting their underage kids and their friends drunk as skunks at teen "parties". Which scenario is worse?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry
April 5, 2008 - 11:55 ET by shawn228I'm not sure how many yrs you are going back, but I am 37 and I don't remember when you were whispered about if you drank in moderation.
I don't want kids to have sex before marriage and if this was perfect world that would be the case
In the case with the newspaper article they are asking young adults how many partners they want to have. Of course they are waiting for outrageous answers, but like my response to R1, I'm curious on what the results are.
Shawn, the "whispering"
April 5, 2008 - 12:19 ET by JerryShawn, the "whispering" comment was aimed more towards drinking in high school. I'm a little older than you, and if someone got drunk, it was kind'a, "hey, did you hear, so and so got drunk at the party...". Now-a-days, kids are EXPECTED to get drunk at parties and after sporting events, and during holidays, and on week-ends, and, well, you get the picture.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I don't know, Jerry. In my
April 5, 2008 - 12:28 ET by balboaI don't know, Jerry. In my experience, the drinking thing goes in cycles, where at different times everyone drinks and others where it's no big deal.
kids getting drunk at parties
April 5, 2008 - 15:10 ET by shawn228I actually disgree with you. Skirts have gotten shorter and things more carefree, but if you don't want to drink and have sex, that is ones choice.
Today's youth emphasizes individuality rather than conformity.
The age of consent: free of impulsive behavior?
April 6, 2008 - 19:54 ET by CobraManSo, one you reach 18 years of age, the concept of impulse control no longer applies? That's funny, I've always believed that humans can be very impulsive no matter how old thay are and that they need to control their impulsive behavior their entire life. By refusing to control your impulsive behavior, you're liable to commit some very dangerous and disturbing actions like rape, theft, drunk driving, excessive gambling, etc. But, thanks to you, I now understand that only children are susceptible to impulsive behavior and adult are immune since they have reached the age of consent.
I guess it's ok, then, to avoid impulse control one you reach adulthood, correct? I mean, no adult has ever committed a crime or harmed themselves or someone else because of their impulsive behavior, wouldn't you agree? So, go ahead and teach the kids that it's ok to indulge their impulsive behavior once they reach adulthood as no one will ever be harmed, right?
Gee CobraMan
April 6, 2008 - 20:57 ET by shawn228I do not know where I said or implied the concept of impulse control no longer applies, I would appreciate it if you would find where I said or implied it.
All I am saying is these young adults have the legal right to do what they want with their own bodies. If they decide to stay abstinent that is fine, but they also have the right to do whatever they so choose
Oh, do tell! Why in the
April 5, 2008 - 12:53 ET by bretzysdudeOh, do tell! Why in the world would they regret a decision like that?
And Now We Know...
April 4, 2008 - 21:11 ET by geoff.galewhy Nicole is just an assistant. Her idea of interesting reading was considered passe and boring on the social networking sites years ago.
Anyone for another round of "Boxers or briefs"?
Ah to be young again
April 4, 2008 - 22:33 ET by shawn228There is nothing wrong with this. If you want to stay abstinent until marriage, there is always the option of answering "one"
They just want to get an idea of how many sexual partners college students have. Whats so wrong with that?
what they want to know
April 4, 2008 - 23:07 ET by austinhookThey just want to get an idea of how many sexual partners college students have. Whats so wrong with that?
Not likely. They know there will be some wild answers and readers know the game too. The newspaper just wants a chance to get attention with the most promiscous answers -- probably jealous, figuring blogs can't be allowed to have all the fun.
All the news that twits can mint....
Shawn
April 5, 2008 - 01:44 ET by RESTLESS 1The bigger question is why do they think anyone would care? How on earth is this news?
R1
April 5, 2008 - 10:54 ET by shawn228I actually would be interested in learning how college students feel about this subject nowadays. I am continually blown away on how the next generation thinks.
I'm always confused by
April 5, 2008 - 01:37 ET by riff_raffI'm always confused by liberal "logic".
When liberals are busy fornicating, they demand that the government keep out of their bedrooms and keep their hands off of women's bodies. After they get AIDS or have several children out of wedlock, they demand that taxpayers fork out billions to find a cure for their deadly STD or shell out hundreds of billions to house, feed, educate and provide healthcare for "our children".
I always wonder how liberals figure they're "our children", since none of the taxpayers responsible for footing the bill were present when the child was conceived?
Isn't the failure rate of
April 5, 2008 - 03:31 ET by ZapIsn't the failure rate of condoms something like 5%?
Looks like Sophie could be in for some trouble!
At least two of the girls seemed to have some sense...
→ Zap
April 5, 2008 - 03:38 ET by Cool ArrowMuch higher for the porcupines I go with.
You masochist! Just
April 5, 2008 - 11:27 ET by JerryYou masochist! Just remember. Un-protected sex quills.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
95 percent protection is
April 5, 2008 - 11:03 ET by shawn22895 percent protection is alot better than 0 percent protection
But 100 percent protection,
April 5, 2008 - 12:51 ET by bretzysdudeBut 100 percent protection, like (gasp!) abstinence, is even better. But apparently, that's too puritanic for sex ed.
I am not disputing
April 5, 2008 - 13:12 ET by shawn228I am not disputing abstinence is better, but there is no problem with teaching other forms of birth control as well in case these young adults do not decide to save themselves for marriage.
Oh, do tell! Why in the world would they regret a decision like that?
I could not tell what you were responding to, could you clarify?
not when the 'protection'
April 5, 2008 - 12:55 ET by botgnot when the 'protection' enables the behavior which leads to the consequence.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
explain the word enabling to me botg
April 5, 2008 - 14:01 ET by shawn228Lets use camping as a metaphor. Will the entrance to the cave be closed if there is no condom used? Will the pitched tent fold as well?
Or will the condom help save you from the dangers "std's" in the forrest or clear cut forrest.
if there are not condoms
April 5, 2008 - 14:13 ET by botgif there are not condoms will your daughter be more or less likely to engage in sex when she is 14?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
I don't know
April 5, 2008 - 14:16 ET by shawn228I do not know botg, that is a good question. If she does decide to make that awful decision, I would hope she has the common sense to insist the male use protection.
shawn
April 5, 2008 - 14:25 ET by botgif the condom makes the behavior more likely (which i believe it does) then the condom enables the behavior. Now if the behavior is engaged in 20 times with a 5% failure rate (20x.05=1) chances are a failure has occured. Also, once the behavior has occured with protection is it not more likely to occur without due to desensitization? (step by step, inch by inch)
I agree. In fact, the
April 5, 2008 - 15:17 ET by JerryI agree. In fact, the schools are doing everything they can, it seems, to encourage promiscious behavior. From distributing condoms and birth control pills, to wanting to take girls to get abortions without parental consent. The attitude of "they're gonna do it anyway" is the biggest copout imaginable.
And it's not just schools. It's hollywood, the MSM, advertisements, magazines, etc, who are constantly bombarding us with messages laced with sexual undertones.
Yesterday's romantic movie was about a man and woman who fell in love and eventually even kissed. Today, when a movie is labeled as a "romantic" film, it is about two people of any gender, who meet and hop in bed and have sex and then get to know each other.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
You do have a point, but I
April 5, 2008 - 15:21 ET by shawn228You do have a point, but I would rather the choice and education of condoms is there rather than not.
then YOU educate your
April 5, 2008 - 15:25 ET by botgthen YOU educate your daughter and let OTHERS educate their children. Why do you have to force your views on other peoples kids?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
I'm not forcing my views on anyone
April 5, 2008 - 15:35 ET by shawn228This article is talking about young adults that are over 18, your the one that decided to bring up my daughter. I answered your question, now your chiding me about forcing my views on others?
shawn
April 5, 2008 - 15:43 ET by botgdo they have sex ed in college and do you believe that over 18 year olds need to be taught what a condom is? You mentioned teaching about condoms isn't that with 13-14 year olds? So my point is you are in favor of mandated condom education for this age group. If it is mandated it is forced. You are dodging so i'll leave you the last word. (i gotta go anyhoo)
Just think about it bro, i haven't misrepresented your viewpoint.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
botg
April 5, 2008 - 15:55 ET by shawn228If there is an abstinence only funding program, I believe there should be one on condoms and birth control as well.
If there is no program in place, one should not be forced.
My last word is condoms are a good thing and help in preventing unwanted pregnancies and disease. They are not 100 percent effective, but neither are seatbelts, helmets, goggles or airbags, but they all save lives.
Have a good day Bruce
Oh, do tell! Why in the
April 5, 2008 - 12:47 ET by bretzysdudeOh, do tell! Why in the world would they regret a decision like that?
whats the point?
April 6, 2008 - 16:44 ET by lirby225What I dont understand is what NYT is trying to prove? What good is it to ask 5 people 5 questions, especially when only 2 of them deal with the topic.