University of Tennessee uses Student Fees to pay for Lesbian Bondage

[bonnie]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012...unmarried-women

I agree,ignorance has won

The Number Of Babies Born Out Of Wedlock In The US Is Soaring

Caroline May|February 21, 2012|

85,012|4

Just as the AP Stylebook advised journalists against using the term “illegitimate child,” illegitimacy is becoming more widespread in the United States.

Now more than half of all births to American women under 30 are born out of wedlock, and the trend in marriage-less birth is becoming an accepted reality of American life.

According to an analysis of government data, conducted by the research group Child Trends and reported by The New York Times, the last 20 years have seen illegitimacy among white women in their 20s with some college — but not a full four year degree — rise more quickly than in other groups.

While the middle class is seeing a rise in illegitimacy, 59 percent of all American births are within marriage. Indeed, it is college graduates and the upper class which have been able to stay within the bounds of tradition and marry prior to reproducing, The Times reported.

A number of factors have led the the rising numbers of illegitimacy — which most researchers agree increases a child’s risk of emotional problems and falling into poverty — including, as The Times noted, economic factors that have thinned the number of available, marriageable men; a larger social safety net; and a more promiscuous society.

Outside of the educational differences, there are distinct differences in the marriage rates between different races: 29 percent of white children are born to unmarried women, 53 percent of Latinos and 73 percent of black children.

[Bravus]

I said 'unwanted' pregnancies. Committed couples living together who have babies without marrying do not fall within that.

*Teen* pregnancies have also been falling for decades.

Those UK stats don't make sense - a 2% rise in infection numbers when the population is rising at faster than 2% means a fall in percentage rates.

[bonnie]

I said 'unwanted' pregnancies. Committed couples living together who have babies without marrying do not fall within that.

The article from the LAtimes is more of what was in mind

The demise of two-parent families in the U.S. has been an economic catastrophe for society.

June 03, 2012|By Kay S. Hymowitz

In 1965, 93% of all American births were to women with marriage licenses. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women. And for mothers under 30, the rate is 53%.

In 1965, 93% of all American births were to women with marriage licenses.… (Los Angeles Times )

The single-mother revolution shouldn't need much introduction. It started in the 1960s when the nation began to sever the historical connection between marriage and childbearing and to turn single motherhood and the fatherless family into a viable, even welcome, arrangement for children and for society. The reasons for the shift were many, including the sexual revolution, a powerful strain of anti-marriage feminism and a "super bug" of American individualism that hit the country in the 1960s and '70s.

Ads by Google

In its broad outlines, the story is familiar by now. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to women with marriage licenses. Over the next few decades, the percentage of babies with no father around rose steadily. As of 1970, 11% of births were to unmarried mothers; by 1990, that number had risen to 28%. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women. And for mothers under 30, the rate is 53%.

Though other Western countries also concluded that it was OK for the unmarried to have kids, what they had in mind as the substitute for marriage was something similar to it: a stable arrangement in which two partners, cohabiting over the long term, would raise their children together. The embrace of "lone motherhood" — women bringing up kids with no dad around — has been an American specialty.

"By age 30, one-third of American women had spent time as lone mothers," observed family scholar Andrew Cherlin in his 2009 book, "The Marriage-Go-Round." "In European countries such as France, Sweden and the western part of Germany, the comparable percentages were half as large or even less."

The single-mother revolution has been an economic catastrophe for women. Poverty remains relatively rare among married couples with children; the U.S. census puts only 8.8% of them in that category, up from 6.7% since the start of the Great Recession. But more than 40% of single-mother families are poor, up from 37% before the downturn. In the bottom quintile of earnings, most households are single people, many of them elderly. But of the two-fifths of bottom-quintile households that are families, 83% are headed by single mothers. The Brookings Institution's Isabel Sawhill calculates that virtually all the increase in child poverty in the United States since the 1970s would vanish if parents still married at 1970 rates.

Well, comes the response, maybe single mothers are hard up not because they lack husbands but because unskilled, low-earning women are likelier to become single mothers in the first place. The Urban Institute's Robert Lerman tried to address that objection by studying low-income women who had entered "shotgun" unions — that is, getting married after getting pregnant — on the theory that they represented a population roughly similar to those who got pregnant but didn't marry. The married women, he found, had a significantly higher standard of living than the unmarried ones. "Even among the mothers with the least qualifications and highest risks of poverty," Lerman concluded, "marriage effects are consistently large and statistically significant."

Women and their children weren't the only ones to suffer the economic consequences of the single-mother revolution; low-earning men have lost ground too. Knowing that women are now expected to be able to raise children on their own, unskilled men lose much of the incentive to work, especially at the sometimes disagreeable jobs that tend to be the ones they can get. Scholars consistently find that unmarried men work fewer hours, make less money and get fewer promotions than do married men.

Ads by Google

Experts have come to believe that these are not just selection effects — that is, they don't just reflect the fact that productive men are likelier to marry. Marriage itself, it seems, encourages male productivity. One study by Donna Ginther and Madeline Zavodny examined men who'd had shotgun marriages and thus probably hadn't been planning to tie the knot. The shotgun husbands nevertheless earned more than their single peers did.

It's true that some opportunities — particularly well-paying manufacturing jobs — have declined for men. But a father's contribution to the family income, even if it's just $15,000, can dramatically improve the mother's lot, not to mention that of her — or rather, their — children. And it's still possible for families to move up to the middle class, despite the factory closings of the last few decades. Ron Haskins of the Pew Center on the States' Economic Mobility Project puts it this way: "If young people do three things — graduate from high school, get a job and get married and wait until they're 21 before having a baby — they have an almost 75% chance of making it into the middle class." Those are pretty impressive odds.

[bonnie]

To say young people are not receiving adequate sex education or that an outcry over "lesbian bondage" is ignorance,simply show the difference in what some perceive as beneficial to the student.

Education is necessary,especially in a world that thinks sex is just another sport. I agree some may want "lesbian bondage" etc as part of their child's well rounded higher education.What do you think is lacking in sex education that would make young people safer? That begins in the very early elementary years,some now will begin in kindergarten.

They have been shown the importance of a condom.how to use it

,sexually transmitted diseases explained over and over.We even had a president that was used as "safe sex" act.

Numerous explanations on how babies begin,the hardship for a young teen mother in bringing a baby into the world,how hard it is for a teen couple to make it,so do you really think "lesbian bondage" would have been a useful addition to the educational process?

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/adol.htm

Chlamydia

Rates of reported chlamydial infection among persons aged 15–19 years and 20–24 years continue to increase. During 2009–2010, rates increased 2.8% for those aged 15–19 years and 7.5% for those aged 20–24 years (Table 10).

15- to 19-Year-Old Women—In 2010, the rate among women aged 15–19 years was 3,378.2 cases per 100,000 females, a 1.9% increase from the 2009 rate of 3,314.7 cases per 100,000 (Figure 5, Table 10).

20- to 24-Year-Old Women—In 2010, women aged 20–24 years had the highest rate of chlamydia (3,407.9 cases per 100,000 females) compared with any other age or sex group. Chlamydia rates for women in this age group increased 6.9% during 2009–2010.

15- to 19-Year-Old Men—Chlamydia rates for men aged 15–19 years increased 6.0% from 730.5 cases per 100,000 males in 2009 to 774.3 cases per 100,000 in 2010.

20- to 24-Year-Old Men—In 2010, as in previous years, men aged 20–24 years had the highest rate of chlamydia (1,187.0 cases per 100,000 males). Chlamydia rates for men in this age group increased 8.8% during 2009–2010.

Gonorrhea

During 2009–2010, gonorrhea rates increased for persons aged 15–19 years (1.4%) and 20–24 years (4.9%).

15- to 19-Year-Old Women—In 2010, as in previous years, women aged 15–19 years had the highest rate of gonorrhea (570.9 cases per 100,000 females) compared with any other age or sex group (Figure 19, Table 21). During 2009–2010, gonorrhea rates for women of this age group increased 0.9%.

20- to 24-Year-Old Women—In 2010, as in previous years, women aged 20–24 years had the second highest rate of gonorrhea (560.7 cases per 100,000 females) compared with any other age or sex group (Figure 19, Table 21). During 2009–2010, gonorrhea rates for women in this age group increased 3.8%.

15- to 19-Year-Old Men—In 2010, as in previous years, men aged 15–19 years had the second highest rate of gonorrhea (253.4 cases per 100,000 males) (Figure 19, Table 21). During 2009–2010, gonorrhea rates for men in this age group increased 2.1% (Figure 21, Table 20).

20- to 24-Year-Old Men—In 2010, as in previous years, men aged 20–24 years had the highest rate of gonorrhea (421.0 cases per 100,000 males) (Figure 19, Table 21). During 2009–2010, gonorrhea rates for men in this age group increased 6.2%.

Primary and Secondary Syphilis

Syphilis rates among women aged 15–19 years increased annually from 2004–2009 from 1.5 cases per 100,000 females to 3.3 cases in 2009, but decreased to 3.0 in 2010. Rates in women have been highest each year among those aged 20–24 years with 4.5 cases per 100,000 females in 2010 (Figures 39 and 40, Table 34).

Rates among men aged 15–19 years are much lower than the rates among men in older age groups (Figure 39). However, rates in this group have increased since 2002, from 1.3 cases per 100,000 males to 5.6 cases in 2010. Rates among men aged 20–24 years have also increased since 2002, from 5.2 cases per 100,000 males to 21.9 cases in 2010. Not only did men aged 20–24 years see large increases in rates, they also had the highest rate of syphilis among men of any age group since 2008 (Table 34). These changes reflect a significant shift in the age distribution of syphilis; rates were highest among men aged 35–39 years during 2002–2005.