Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onwards

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by slim, Apr 30, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So why are there so many teenage pregnancies?
    Were young people's emotions different in the 60s to those in the 80s?
    What is the real reason for so many teenage pregnancies?

    In the 60s the pill was not generally available, condoms were only available from chemists and barbers and at three shillings a pack too expensive for kids to buy. Girls were generally scared of becoming pregnant as an unmarried mother was seen as socially unacceptable. Many teenagers who became pregnant were thrown out of the family home by irate parents. The resulting child often given for adoption. No home was provided by the authorities for the mother and child, they went on a waiting list with everyone else.
    Consequently there were not many girls willing to go all the way (as it was then called) lots of petting and fumbling but not much actually sex.

    By the 70s the pill was available to many women, thus allowing them to lose the worry of unwanted pregnancies. Girls and women started to experiment with the jolly old pork sword knowing that they were relatively safe. If they did however get pregnant the same conditions as the 60s applied.

    Then the wonderful 80s, suddenly the unmarried mother stigma had been removed, girls could not only keep their babies but the local council gave them a flat or a house to live in. The government in its wisdom also gave financial support. What bliss, a girl could at last leave home safe in the knowledge that she would be looked after by the state for the next 18 years. No work, nice house and free money. Contraception was available but if you used it there was no house and no Free money, not only that you were expected to work for a living.

    So the conclusion teenage pregnancies are caused by the welfare state.
  2. Oh, now theres me thinking it was the birds and the bees. Ah well back to the drawing board!
  3. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    Can you provide some figures to work from, are there numerically greater numbers of unplanned pregnancies now cf the 60s, what is the incidence of abortion cf the same period?
  4. There may also have been ignorance about where babies came from, in teenagers who received no sex education. I have certainly encountered it in some adults - one particular case I came across when I started working in my current job really shocked me - I couldn't believe that someone could be so ignorant about the most basic facts - especially as the person in question had fathered children! But there we are. When I was at school in the 70s we only covered human reproduction at 15, during O Level Biology. It was simply not covered at all at any other time, so thouse who didn't do biology for O Level didn't discover the facts unless their parents (or mates) informed them or they 'had an accident'! :roll:
  5. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    Unfortunately I do not have figures, only memories. I would expect that others of my era can back up the fact that there were far fewer unplanned pregnancies in the 60s. Abortions were against the law then, however we have all heard tales of the back street abortionists who used knitting needles as their instruments of choice. I could look on the net to obtain figures for illigitimate children, however it would not give a fair figure as many illigitimate children today are living in stable two parent relationships. In the 60s this rarely happenned.

    Edited to provide figures.
    For information and to show that it is not a myth see


    These are government figures.
  6. AAC
    I received my sexual education in two places, the first was the playground and then the practical (touching,looking and fondling) behind the bike sheds.
  7. well maybe the telivision is to blame too......... sex is every where you look.. sex to advertise,, food,,,, cars ... shampoo.. you cant put the telivision on with out seeing sex.........waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 60's sex was still an unknown thing.. now todays kids know more than us old farts,,,,
  8. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    Says it all!!! :lol:
  9. Josie in the 60s sex was waves crashing to the shore. Girls were frightened to swim in case they got preggers.
  10. oooo slim you old smothie you........thats almost romantic :twisted:
  11. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    Or the Monty Python version;

    - Demolition of chimney in reverse,
    - Train entering tunnel
    - Waves crashing on shore
    - Train entering tunnel in reverse (I think)
    - Demolition of chimney
    - Group of OAPs applauding

  12. Sex!

    That's wot occifers coal came in, weren't it?

    Keep Striving
  13. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    I'd suggest that given that abortion was illegal then the lack of a comparator doesn't lend itself to a discussion of the subject. If there were no records of abortions then there cannot be a reliable indication of the incidence of unplanned pregnancy. I would agree however that in the past an accepted solution would have been enforced legalisation of the relationship. I'm not sure of corresponding figures related to relationship breakdown, or persistent relationships in abusive environments, but that might prove illuminating.

    I'm not convinced that forcing people into a legal contract would be the best way to go.

    I have to confess that I'm losing track of what you're ranting about at the moment. If it is that segment of the population which ends up saddled with a child before gaining the opportunity to engage in economic production then I'm not sure that the legitimacy or otherwise of the resulting child is an entirely useful consideration. As you say, many children are born into a stable relationship situation where the parties have chosen not to engage in a legal contract.

    Noting from the figures that you provided that it appears that average age at first child increased in the period of the study, and I recall from discussions of the manning plot a couple of years ago that this trend has continued, along with decreasing overall social fertility in the indigenous population, leading to population increases approaching neutrality in the medium term future. That would indicate that the problem that you cite is actually decreasing.

    I think it's very likely that while the real numbers are reducing the social environment is tending to make it more apparent to the casual observer. I do think it's useful to distinguish between those who are lone parents and have never been in a stable relationships and those who have chosen to move to that state following an unsuccesful relationship. I know that using ones own circumstances as an example is not entirely representative, but the only single parents I know are post stable-relationship, rather than pre.

    Notwithstanding all of that, and moving away from the example that you're using, I do agree that the welfare state appears to make it easier for an individual to opt out of being economically productive.

    I do have similar concerns over the use of my tax equity in support of our highly socialised (rather than socialist) economy. The state is too big and we should be reducing the level of public investment in welfare, health and education, thereby opening opportunities for private investment in the latter two and incentivisation for individuals to become economically productive.

    Is that supposed to reassure me?
  14. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    Though I stated that these were government figures in reality they are from the regissters for births. So no government intervention or manipulation.

    My main concern is the large numbers in society that use the social security system as a preferred lifestyle. Often the total social security payouts are far in excess of what they could earn working for the minimum wage. To me this means one of two things.
    1. The minimum wage is set at too low a rate
    2. Social security payouts are too high.

    The aged population of this country is increasing year on year. Most of these retiring have paid into the social system for long periods of time in the expectation of receiving a pension. If large portions of working age prefer to sit on their arses and take out of the pot rather than put in this means at the end of the day taxation of those in work will rise.
    Is this really fair on those who are working for minimum wage and paying tax?
    Take the case of a 15 year old single mom. With the present system she is able to be kept by the state until the child is 18 (if she only has one child) So at age 33 she has then to start looking for a job. This is extremely frightening so he goes to her doctor and is transferred to incapacity benefits for health reasons. At age 67 (new regs) she then changes to the old age pension.
    This is not a fairy tale it is happenning.
    Time for it too stop. No one on benefits should be enttiled to more than the minimum wage.
  15. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Well, there's still women in this village who have their illigitimate offspring living at home with them...their missing fathers are from 101st airborne Div circa 1944.

    There are also women who have children by three different fathers and they were all born in the 60's and early 70's

    We also have the present crop of unmarried mums pushing prams around now, I suspect the problem has been around forever..all that's changed is peoples attitude to it
  16. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    They've been crunched by the ONS, that puts them in the subject to manipulation box.

    Again, what kind of figures are you talking about here? I note that the argument has now moved on from teen single mums to those who are not economic contributors in general. INdeed, what's the proportion of said teen single mums within the segment of non economic contributors?

    Personally speaking I'm not fond of any state intervention in the supply of labour, and both state income and mandated minimum wages are forms of intervention in that supply. Both forms of state intervention cost the consumer in some way, either through tax equity or through higher pricing for goods and services.

    Of course in terms of incentivisation I'd lean towards reducing state outgoings rather than tinkering with the minimum wage.

    Indeed, although I wouldn't become reliant on arguments of fairness. There is a balance to be sought between state funding of retirement and private investment in retirement provision. For those of us either in, or formerly in, the services that becomes quite difficult because the private element of retirement income is still state provided, but it is part of the employment contract and the military covenant between us and the society which we serve.

    Again, what is the proportion of non economic contributors to which this example might apply?

    I have to say I remain unconvinced.

    Like I said above, I'd remove the minimum wage constraint and reduce the level of state investment in social welfare in the potential contributor age-range, that would improve viability of the labour market and should reduce the problem which you suggest exists.
  17. Karma
    What would removing the minimum wage constraint do to help the low paid? All it would meanis that employers would pay their workers less, making the gap between the low paid and those on benefits even larger.

    My statement that a 15 year old single mother could remain on benefits was purely an example. The numbers may be low but it does happen. Especially in certain parts of Wales.

    Though you are not going to be relient on the government retirement pension, many people are. Especially those who have been in low paid work for most of their lives.

    If you want figures for teenage mothers on benefits then I'm sure that these are available somewhere on the internet.

    For interest the UK spend over 24% of its GDP on the welare state. This proportion is far too high.
  18. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    I'm afraid guys the minimum wage is falling by the wayside for alot of the seriously low paid jobs. The reason being is the huge influx of Poles and Czechs who are more than willing to do these jobs, farm labouring, construction labouring, menial factory work etc. They are willing to do the work for below minimum wage and are bloody good workers. Trouble is alot of the work happens under the radar scope so no contributions are being paid.

    Who's problem is this? is it the Govt who has tried to dictate wages, or the business man who his trying to keep overheads down and following age old traditions of supply and demand in the labour market?

    I've employed Czechs and I will again, they have a better work ethos than most brits in the work that they do. Only problem is after about 3 years they get wise to the "I dont need to work for a living" attitude of alot of the brits.....so they get swapped in for the new version.
  19. Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

    It's state interference in the labour supply, and it doesn't work anyway. Inevitably if it were removed some would suffer and some would benefit but my inclincation is to let the market find it's balance.

    Many firms already pay below the minimum wage anyway, getting round it by employing non UK nationals, operating in the grey economy etc.

    The impact of the minimum wage is to increase some wage bills beyond where they're economically viable, increasing cost to the consumer and increasing inflation. Neither of which does anyone any good.

    But does it happen enough to actually be worth doing anything about? Would it cost more to deal with the issue than it costs now anyway?

    I'd agree, but doesn't that include state pensions? How about we set a limit on the amount of time that a state pension can be claimed for? Might serve to encourage the extended family the demise of which appears to be one of the contributors to the situation which promted this thread in the first place?

    But on a more serious note, yes at the current level of population growth the state will not be able to fund the pension liability in about 25 to 30 years. Population growth is low, and declining, although it remains at a reasonable level in some population segments who do have a fairly high rate of transition from young person to economic contributor. The state needs to find some creative ways around that problem, increasing taxation probably isn't sustainable in the medium or long term.

    I discussed this with someone from Treasury in the latter part of last year, there were some pretty innovative solutions on the table, but most of them probably can't go forward because the party which sought to embody them would lose the next election as a result.
  20. Loose morals are the problem, full stop.

Share This Page