AMA warning girls not to go wild during spring break

Study Warns Women About Spring Break

POSTED: 8:29 am EST March 8, 2006

CHICAGO -- The American Medical Association is warning girls not to go wild during spring break. All but confirming what goes on in those "Girls Gone Wild" videos, 83 percent of college women and graduates surveyed by the AMA said spring break involves heavier-than-usual drinking, and 74 percent said the break results in increased sexual activity.
.....

Sizable numbers reported getting sick from drinking, and blacking out and engaging in unprotected sex or sex with more than one partner, activities that increase their risks for sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

The AMA is trying to call attention to underage drinking among women because their bodies process alcohol differently and put them at greater risk for health problems, Dr. J. Edward Hill, AMA's president, said Tuesday.

....

Kathleen Fitzgerald, a 21-year-old junior at Illinois State University, said the AMA's effort to raise awareness is a good idea, but probably won't do much to curb drinking during spring break.

"I think a lot of students wouldn't really pay that much attention to it," Fitzgerald said. "They would just be like, `Duh, that's why we do it.'"

http://www.local6.com/news/7808163/detail.html

:mad:

Spring Break?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Thanks for the warning, Doc!

"Duh, that's why they're doing it" seems to say it all.

The ad agency decided not to go with the "have a sober, celibate spring break" idea.

Smoking cigarettes!

hmmmm....

maybe multiple sex partners isn't such a good thing, you know? And drinking until you puke for two days kind of puts the kabosh on spring break fun.

I'm not sure, really, why we all do this binge stuff in college. I did thirty years ago. But I think it is worse now than it was then. My college in the 70's actually would expel you for getting caught drinking under age or even on campus. No more.

It's sad, because it is kind of a waste of youth, really.

In Brazil, 18-21 yo's meet at bars and drink reasonable amount of beer and caipirinha. This "college binge" thing is virtually unheard of here.

that we have imposed on ourselves. Religion has sexually repressed us, thus we become twisted and engage in all kinds of perversion. We prohibit or stigmatize intoxication so we end up with binge drinkers and people ingesting and injecting all kind of crazy shit into our bodies. Anytime we attempt to suppress natural imperatives we end up with aberrant behavior.

I think it's some strange American macho nonsense.

Do Brazilians drink wine and beer at meals as kids, like many Europeans?

under the age of 21, making it more "desirable" because it is a forbidden pleasure.

in the 70's and 80's when me and my siblings finished college.

I got in under the wire. I could drink at eighteen, but not the kids a year younger than I was. We drank, sometimes even a lot... but a few years later kids were drinking almost competitively, to scary excess.

I never got the attaction of sleeping with...lots of women (who've probably slept with lots of other guys...:puke: ) or getting sick from drinking.

Of course, I'm hardly typical...

:shrug:

Oh no a new franchise to rival the Girls Gone Wild "movies"

You could also have:
Brokeback Spring Break Cancun
Brokeback Winter Break Vail
Brokeback Summer Vacation

Heavy drinking, anonymous sex, lead to these things, x, y, z. They think that it's just to get them to not drink or have sex out of a puritanism, but really, people get hurt and diseased during a bacchanal. Just saying.

Aren't double standards wonderful?

And who knows, the folks at the AMA who commissioned this study might have all been women :)

I guess they are coming to the conclusion that women are just not smart enough to think on their own.....

who attend conventions in New Orleans. Their hypocrisy makes the city glow as they cavort in the Big Easy far away from home.

Oh wait, they are just warning "girls." Well that's ok then. Girls shouldn't have any rights anyway. Plus, they are so stupid that they have to be told what to do. That's it. I, on the other hand, happen to be a super-intelligent, and completely in control male. I would never drink myself into oblivion (Bush Jr.) or be promiscous (Bill Clinton). Us males are above that.

Heil Santorum! :eyes:

Maybe they've deemed that males are beyond hope (and can't
be reasoned with) so the AMA is instead spending its
advertising dollars trying to reach a population that
might still have brains enough to "get it", especially
with recent developments in South Dakota?

Tesha

most males are beyond hope. :) Especially when they are below 35. I think we are all complete imbeciles until at least 35. Then after that only some are able to move on to being only a little imbecilic. :)

Now, quit your verbal gymnastics, they make my head hurt and make me a pot pie before I beat you up!!!! :sarcasm:
:evilgrin:

these days. My husband is a manager of a computer store and he has these computer techs that are 19 etc working with him.. One of the guys tells him that every girl he knows is bi-sexual, every single one. Our culture, our shows, our lifestyle, all reek of this new development... Women are in worse shape now than in the 70's and they better wake up and smell the coffee. Someone somewhere is giving them the idea it is ok to show your stuff and it is ok to swing both ways, so they all are doing it.....

with your husband, now does it?

Actually, I think there is a LOT of confusion stemming from what seems two opposing currents in our society:

1. the complete lack of control, must-have-sex-several-times-weekly current washing over us daily in the media.
2. the sex-is-impure, follow-your-leader unquestioningly current trying to ram itself down all our gullets.

It'd be nice to have a healthy, balanced current given more prominence in our society.

you say like that it is a really bad thing.

If you are, then you are, but if you are doing it because everyone else is doing it, then that is a different story..... And these are young girls of the age of 18, you may call them women, but they are still kids really....

If it's not most, then it's a large percentage of people have sex before the age of 18. Is it necessarily "bad" to do so? No, of course not. It's probably even healthy in some ways, and some studies have argued that it is a development stage and learning stage.

I really don't see the big deal about many or even most girls claiming bisexuality, in crowd related or otherwise (and I would say the same for boys if the culture was there). I don't get the beef (no pun intended)?

Perhaps I have more of a vested interest than you do about this, but this is happening.. The culture is there for boys, it is called on the down-low... Don't you know it is not just girls swinging both way, guys are... And again, I have no problem with a person's sexuality, it is their business, I worry about the pressure put upon these girls to do things they would never do....

Perhaps the previous pressure was to NOT experiment with bi-sexuality, and that pressure has been relieved?

You say that you don't care what people do, and it is all about the pressure, but you forget that the so-called "normal" way is also a result of social pressure, and - quite frankly - hasn't really been of much service to young women. Maybe this is the relief of a social pressure for compulsory heterosexuality? If you claim that sexuality doesn't matter to you, you should be willing to entertain that possibility. Maybe teenage girls would have rarely entered into relationships of exclusive heterosexuality without extreme social pressure?

I just think young girls perception of what is sexy these days has been greatly distorted...

That assumes a norm of what is sexy without any distortion. Praytell, what would that norm be?

I'd be really interested to find out about what is TRULY sexy, as opposed to sexiness as a historically determined cultural construct!

tall, sleek, weighing 95 pounds... Ok that is just shit.. Women are all different and are certainly not built that way, but the girls try to achieve that look and will make themselves sick to get it.. That is a pretense of what is sexy...

That's precisely what I'm saying.

And what is the norm again?

But how is bisexual behavior damaging?

An 18 year old is not a child. I've been around tons of straight girls acting out bisexual fantasies and I've never seen one instance of pain and trauma as a result. You're assuming a lot to think that they're being "pressured" into bisexual experiences.

If you really give a damn about "pressured young people", why don't you take up arms against all the lesbians who are pressured to have sex with men by their peers in hopes of attaining normality.

Sorry. Your response is nothing more than homophobia.

Again I ask the question: Where the he11 were these girls when I was 19?!

Girls did not ever act like they do now and they are coerced into by thinking it is the accepted standard ... I have no problems with anyone's sexuality, however I think some of these girls do it under pressure to be popular or part of the cool crowd....

This guy who works for the other guy said X, and you think it's because Y.

What a way to determine one's concepts! You understand that there are people who study adolescent sexuality for a living, and are very informed on it, yes?

A person's sexuality is of NO CONCERN to me.. What is of concern is how these young girls are coerced into certain situations, that normally they would not be in....

Compulsory heterosexuality has its own forms of coercion. It is indeed all about "bad" sexuality for you if you assume that exclusive heterosexuality is the norm, and without pressure, while at the same time thinking that widespread bisexuality is the result of pressure.

is popular... I guess that is what I am trying to say...

The so-called norm is only the most popular version of sexuality. There is no norm without pressure. What you don't like is the emergence of other sexualities outside the popular norm: new popularities. There is only pressure from top to bottom. There is no norm of sexuality.

to be.. If that is what you want, then fine, that is what you want...

But you don't seem to care about the far more powerful pressure that dictates compulsory heterosexuality. You don't even seem to acknowledge that AS pressure, and that's what is troubling to me.

I grew up this way, I live in this world and this is the norm for me.. It may not be the norm for you as you keep posting. What would you have me believe?

My only point is this: You say that you are not concerned about different versions of sexuality, but worried about coercion. My point is that your norm is also coerced; compulsory heterosexuality is the greatest social pressure on sexuality. So your point about coercion seems like just a smokescreen for what you consider the norm: heterosexuality. And if it is just a smokescreen (as it must be, since you refuse to see heterosexuality as one kind of pressure among others, viewing only those sexualities you view as abnormal as having some sort of social pressure), you should at least be honest about it, as you are in this post. You say you are heterosexual, so it is the norm, for you. Yes, well, that's nice for you, but it doesn't justify your negative judgment of widespread bisexuality, supposing such a thing exists. If anything, widespread bisexuality could indicate less pressure to conform to the socially dominant position of compulsory heterosexuality. If that's the case, then your pressure argument is bunk.

anyone, And I mean anyone one their sexual preference... Don't ask me to understand your point of view when you are so blinded by your own that you can't see beyond that.. My story is far from bunk.. If you have ever been a young girl who has been pressured for sex by a guy, it is the truth.. There is a lot of pressure when it comes to guys trying to coerce girls to do certain things.... Ask Senator Ryan who tried to get his wife to have group sex!!! Ask any women growning up how often was she coerced by a guy... This is not a far-fetched scenario that a young women would be with another women to please a guy, it happens...

Because this is my world, does not mean it is everyone's, I am not that narcissistic, but you on the other hand berate me cause I can't see you point of view... I don't know your point of view, I have never lived it but I believe in your right to live it and my right to live as I see fit.


I believe in equality for all, I believe in free choice for all... That should be enough for you...

just as heterosexual as you are, maybe even boringly so, with a wife and a kid on the way.

I think we are shifting our terms a bit here. I certainly believe that young women are coerced into having sex. That is fairly obvious. That's not the coercion I was talking about. As for seeing your point of view, at this point I have no idea what that point of view might be. All I'm saying is that heterosexuality is just as culturally coercive as any other form of sexuality, so criticizing the other forms for being coercive is short-sighted and wrong. They are all coercive; they all put pressure on us to assume one form or the other. Heterosexuality happens to be the most coercive of all, in my view, but that's neither here nor there.

Personally, I can't imagine anyone having "relations" outside their natural-born preference. And yes, I think there is a natural-born preference, whether it be for boys, girls, or both.

I know I've been straight since I was old enough to know ANYTHING. When I was as young as two years old, I knew that I really liked to see women in bathing suits on TV. I had my first aching, heartbreaking crush on a girl when I was but 5 years old. I PREFERRED the company of girls as a kid, not because I wanted to be a girl, but because I thought some of those girls were HOT and I wanted to be around them. Gay people that I've talked to have reported the same exact experiences, only with the gender reversed.

Based on my experience, and the experience of those gay and straight with whom I have discussed this subject, there is just no way that sexual orientation is chosen. You just don't chose whom you love, and that's all there is to it.

That having been said, let's all try to get along, okay?

;-)

Yes, you and I will have to disagree on natural preference, but that's just where it is.

cheers.

But since that is your opinion, I do have to ask you the question that naturally follows that opinion:

When did you choose your sexual preference? :shrug:

It is not EITHER natural (and therefore necessary, or essential) OR chosen (and therefore contingent). Much more complicated than all that.

That, however, is the simple binary that causes the problems. Of course, you say that you've been heterosexual as long as you can remember, even locating a memory from when you were two. Fair enough, but the social shaping of our sexualities (which are not "chosen" but also not "natural") begins long before that.

cheers.

or even, as the great rock singer Geddy Lee sang, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

So again I ask: when, for you, was the choice made? :shrug: ;)

But neither is it natural and essential.

It is socially structured and habitual. What makes this different from the "natural and essential" hypothesis is that it can (and does) change, but because it is not a choice, those changes are no more deliberate than the initial structuring.

So it is the case that you do not choose, but that doesn't mean that you are locked into one sexuality from birth.

I am still of the belief that pressure is put upon these young girls to fit in See post #88
She explains it much better than I do....

And you're also assuming that the majority of women find other women sexually repulsive. It's just not true. Now if men are coercing women to do things against their will, that's a different story, but why are you assuming that two women having sex with one another is coercion.

Sounds like you don't want to fool around with another woman, so you assume most other women don't want to either. It's called solipsism.

I apparently have stirred a hornets nest, please read this post and understand what I am trying to say... She said it so much better.... I don't assume anyone's sexuality and neither should you....

Who knew?

Can the collapse of civilization be far behind?

:rofl:

I think bi-sexual is your own preference, but if you are doing to be part of the in crowd or because you are being coerced, then it is not good...

Oh, that's right, the software installer at the computer store said so. That's right. :rofl:

:wtf:

I will withhold judgment on whether it is happening until I see some evidence. The software jockey, however reliable he might be, cannot really stand in as evidence for a widespread social phenomenon. See, this is what reasonable people do. They hear a claim, then wait for evidence to support the claim. It's really quite an easy concept.

And even if it is happening, I still see no ereason to view it as a bad thing. You say "social pressure and coercion!" Well, I would say the same social pressure runs compulsory heterosexuality, and that you assume exclusive heterosexuality to be the "normal" state of things. Wouldn't it also exist through pressure and coercion?

cool and what is being pushed by youth culture marketers as being cool. The message to young women now is that being bisexual is VERY cool....not because it's natural to the girl, but because it turns on guys! The barrage of sexual expectations directed at young women now have absolutely nothing to do with liberation. It's all about APPEARING to be highly sexual and being available to men. Are all of the software clerk's female friends really bisexual? I doubt it, too, but don't doubt that most of them are claiming to be.

Bisexual women are considered sexy. REAL Lesbian women, who are not available to men, don't have quite the same level of approval.

I think you stated it so much better than I could have but you hit the nail on the head...

I just vehemently disagree with it.

and you never will... That is all I have to say about that....

I do indeed understand your argument. You say that because I disagree with it, I don't understand it. That's quite a power move, but hardly a good argument.

It seems, rather, that you cannot defend your position, which makes one wonder why you would hold it at all.

1) That there are "natural" bisexuals, and then there are these other people who just do it for social reasons. As I see it, all sexuality is the effect of social forces, so I make little distinction between the "real" bisexuals" (or "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals") and those who are bisexual simply as a result of social forces. It's all social forces. You can just see these forces because they are in the process of transformation (like you only notice certain machines when they break down).

2) You further assume that compulsory heterosexuality is devoid of social pressure. This social pressure would not come from "youth cultural marketers" but from all the traditional sectors of society. What justifies us in condemning the "bisexual" pressure from the marketers and not the "heterosexual" normativity pressure from these sectors? Only the assumption laid out in #1, that our sexuality is essential to ourselves, and therefore any social shaping of it is a perversion, or inauthentic.

This is why I am very put off by the "essential sexuality" argument. It has certainly served LGBT community well (I can't help it - it's natural) but it also reinforces hetero-normativity as the default.

or social pressure to be heterosexual, and I don't think that Dogday did either.

As a Humanist, I have a problem with ANYONE being pressured to "conform" to any sexual label.

As a Feminist, I am enraged by the horribly retro attitude that the ideal woman is a walking vagina with tits, just there to help some guy get his freak on (watch some music videos!). I think women deserve to fully experience their sexuality, in whatever way is authentic to them, and not decided by the kinky trick du jour.

As a woman who realized her bisexuality about 35 years ago, I know what I'm talking about.

I think dogday does make that assumption. But your post does a nice job of distinguishing the "trick du jour" from pressure in general.

I think I probably part from you on that point to some extent, and it all resides in this statement: "in whatever way is authentic to them." That goes back to assumption #1 from my last post. I don't think there is an authentic sexuality to any person. That's the point of #2, and it is intimately connected with the assumptions of #1. Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "authentic." :shrug:

To put it simply, you seem to distinguish "authentic" sexuality from something like a current "trend." If sexualities are shaped in social contexts, then there are no authentic sexualities (if authentic means free of "trends"), but only trends, or social effects in historical contexts. Now, there can be little doubt that the trend of bisexuality (for women only, mind you!) works through patriarchy, but it need not: there is nothing essential in it that would connect it with patriarchal power. It can just as easily be made to forward feminist and LGBT sexualities. And that's the issue I have with dogday

Maybe this all boils down to what people are comfortable with when it comes to their sexual activities and partners.

If you think about it historically, the only new sexual development in the last century was birth control, the invention of batteries and internet porn. None of us is doing anything that hasn't been done throughout history.

My concern is that girls and young women may be pressured into doing something that they aren't comfortable with. It doesn't matter if their discomfort is the result of societal pressure or if it's because they aren't actually all that attracted to other women. If it makes them uncomfortable, then I don't think it's "authentic." If a woman isn't comfortable having sex with men, but has sex with them anyway because of societal pressure, it isn't authentic.

If young women want to experiment with bisexuality, fine. If they doing it because some guy thinks it's "hot," and they are trying to please or impress HIM....that I find depressing.

I agree with you on comfort. I think I'm after the pressures that would make something more or less comfortable (the preconditions to comfort emerging), and you and dogday are looking more at social pressures that affect that comfort once it is "established." My only proviso would be that comfort changes through practice: we may grow more comfortable with different sexual practices by practicing them or being exposed to them. It is here that I disagree with the term authentic, since it connotes a kind of unchanging originality that wouldn't take such changes in comfort into account.

I posted... You can say it better, but it is exactly what I feel..

is exactly what I was trying to convey? Ok, maybe I did not write it as well but the sentiment was the same, yet you still continue to label me... Thanks alot...

I can't seem to express what I want to say without drawing firing, but your words are what I am trying to convey.. Thanks for putting into perspective for everyone....

of expressing your thoughts. (And standing in the face of fire!)

I have been called all kinds of names and everything else.

I don't even think I was being hostile. I was examining your arguments, and you were examining mine. Why you should take that as an insult is a mystery to me. I certainly don't take your challenges as an insult. Challenges are healthy. I also would dispute the notion that you were "under fire," and I'm not sure why Zoo would portray it that way. I was disagreeing with your position, I thought politely. That's what reasonable people do when they have a disagreement. :shrug:

and had some valid points... Someone else called me a homophobe and said I hated women that were woman and that is the furtherest thing from the truth...

And I didn't see anything of the kind in your position. I was more concerned that the pressures you see toward bisexuality in women are freely interrogated, while the pressures towards heterosexuality get a free pass, presumably because heterosexuality seems "normal." That was my major concern, and my only point was that all of these sexualities result from social constraints and pressures to some degree. I share your concerns that young women today may feel pressure to behave a certain way sexually, but this has always been the case. We may just be a little freaked out because the contemporary pressures differ from pressures in the past.

It's about PERFORMANCE for male "titillation" not
about real sexual satisfaction for women.

The whole "show us your tits" attitude is disgusting.
As disgusting as a "show us your wanker" video would
be.

The girls in the tapes are performing for the
camera people and the crowds. I am horrified that
MY girls would find this "normal".

We discuss self-respect here on a regular basis.

"Women are fed up with the marketing tactics and images from the alcohol industry and spring break tour operators," said Dr. Hill. "Public health advocates should also be fed up since aggressive spring break marketing endangers the health and safety of college students."

I'm sure we know why the AP writer refers to women as girls. :mad:

My guess is that you'll find a lot of drunk college students confused as to why the American Music Awards would want the women to drink less.

BTW, why is this warning just for women? Shouldn't the AMA also be concerned about young men having unprotected sex, binge drinking, passing out and doing what guys do during Spring Break? Risky behavior is risky behavior regardless of a persons genitalia or how they process alcohol. :eyes:

from others. :sarcasm:

I now have the sudden urge to go into the kitchen for some strange reason. ;)

:rofl:

the risk for cervical cancer. If anyone wants to read a personal memoir on that, read Jane magazine's March 2006 issue. An author writes of her friend's discovery of cervical cancer and her battle as it metasticized and killed her.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL#story

excerpting a bit:

Washington -- A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.

The jockeying reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.

"What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington," said James Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. "And it's having an effect in debates like this."

discussion. It's enough to make me crazy on some days.

I think they should, must know. I still jump in with some hope that we can have democracy if people have enough information on the issues. Why someone would sentence someone else to cancer in God's name just makes my blood boil.

If the women want to get drunk and flaunt their sexuality, far be it for me to stop them. :evilgrin:

I think it is more coercion than flaunting.. When guys see that a girl has had too much, they try the best they can to get her to take off her top or kiss another girl... They shout and holler and all of them together are really coercing the girl to do the deeds she would not do sober....

since they are much more vulnerable and can't take care of themselves after a drink. Women never do anything you wouldn't approve of of their own free will -- any woman's "bad" behavior is obcviously the fault of a man.

Geesh.

acts upon the situation and then it does become his fault... He knew the situation as well and choose to take advantage of it.... Once acted upon, it does rest with the man to act or not and to take responsibility for one's actions or not....

You are right that women are responsible for their behavior, if they can't hold their liquor then they should not drink.

Of course alcohol does not always play a part. A women needs to be strong and stand up against a man's advances when she doesn't want them regardless of how much pressure he may put upon her...

Of course it is not the fault of the man until the man acts upon the situation and then it does become his fault... He knew the situation as well and choose to take advantage of it.... Once acted upon, it does rest with the man to act or not and to take responsibility for one's actions or not....

So if a drunk man makes advances towards a drunk woman, and the woman accepts these advances, and has sex even though she wouldn't if she was sober, is that the man's fault?

Because you seem to put all responsibility on the man here, but then the rest of your post contradicts that.

women can't hold their liquor as well as men... Two drunk people is one thing... One drunk women and a man who still has his senses is another... The article is specific when saying the women get drunk quicker than the guy.....

On their website they suggest that a few wet t shirt contests are OK, as long as the girls remain clothed below the waist.

They further advise that when acting in pornographic videos, any girl that accepts less than $300 by certified check is being exploited.

-85% Jimmy

Above is satirical humor and is not what the AMA actually has on their site.

:evilgrin:

Not sure how many college kids will heed it, though

This reeks of sexism in its worst form :grr:

Let's have some consistency here. Screw your double standards!!!

that "guys have already gone wild so we don't really need the videos to prove it" thing. It's okay for guys to drink and have sex, but women, well its long skirts and beehives all the way.

"We Other Victorians" wouldn't have it any other way. ;)

I see no need to try and curb sexual activity as long as all parties involved are consenting and safe about it.

and "Boys and Girls have sex near beaches."

of course there is drink and sex at spring break, wtf does the ama think spring break is abt?

there is more underage drinking at spring break because we changed the law, used to be underage was under 18, now it's 21, college kids are gonna drink legal or not, they're gonna have sex, whether some old dried-up prudes who don't remember what it's like to be young like it or not

must be a slow news day!

:puke:

AMA membership has dropped 20 percent since 1993, and was down to 244,530 as of the end of 2004, representing less than 30 percent of the more than 800,000 doctors in the United States.

http://www.absolutebrand.com/NONPROFIT/AMA.asp

Gee, remain silent on Schiavo.
Remain silent on pharmacists refusing to fill legal Rx for contraception.
Remain silent on medieval medical laws in South Dakota....

BUT, BY ALL MEANS, SPEAK OUT ABOUT SPRING BREAK DANGERS.
:mad:

and to screw anything that doesn't screw them first

Women comapred to men, even by weight, tend to be more affected by alcohol than men. When weight is taken into consideration, that is even more true. A young 120 lb women will suffer if she trieds to drink with the big guys, which is what some women do for whatever reason.
Women who drink too much and passes out could be raped. Although some men are raped, it is a women who is more likely to suffer this.
Women tend to contract STDs easier and suffer more from them. An untreated STD can lead to a women permanently losing her fertility. The same is not usually true for men at least not as soon. As another poster mentioned, HPV can lead to cervical cancer in women.
Women can end up pregnant. Whatever a women chooses, she must make a big decision and suffer whatever consequences the choice brings. The one night stand father who lives across the country can be happily ignorant unless the woman has the baby and requests child support. Even then, he did not have to go through the decision, pregnancy, childbirth, and primary repsonsibility for the child.
Yes, men should be careful too, but they suffer less than women do from these activities.

This organization is not advocating any laws or increased enforcemet. They are simply giving informed advice. The women can choose to keep that in mind when they go on break or not.

:sarcasm:

We might go to the lake once or twice, but it was mostly used as a time to catch up on sleep and just hang out with friends.. or work to make a few extra bucks..

It never included nudity..(at least in my crowd)

Are they the only ones on spring break getting wild?

ammunition to the wimpy parents who let their daughters (or sons) go away on spring break based on the, "But, everyone is going!" argument.

I posted a thread about that and it sank like a rock that had an anchor attached to it....

the argumentative mood during the last few weeks. I don't think your "Contract" thread offered enough opportunities for flaming.

When I was in college (not so very long ago), I went to Disney World for spring break one year (and every other year I worked extra hours to save up some money instead of living it up with some greasy frat boy in Cancun).

I will never understand the allure of being with thousands of other college students, drinking enough to make yourself puke (or maybe even die, yippee!), and going at it like rabbits with whoever is available.

What ever happened to self-respect???

I saw a commercial on TV. This girls smoked some of the pot and the next thing you know she was passed out and some guy was taking advantage of her!

:sarcasm:

Weed, the Date Rape Drug.

Everyone knows they do certain things at Spring Break. They binge drink, take drugs and have sex. All these things are sin, so Spring Break is really just full of evil and lawlessness.

When you add in the amount of damage to local air quality and health impacts of the local population from the mass amounts of cigarettes smoked by the young Hellbound, then it really is a danger to society.

Ban it! Ban it all, I say!

young woman in NYC.

...a few turn up missing.:sarcasm:

I can't stand to watch her.

Your generation isn't allowed!

Especially with high school kids. College students are adults, but if they are dependent upon their parents for financial support, the parents should ensure that there is not enough money for them to go on a trip to Mexico.

There is no excuse for any parent who's underage kid ends up unsupervised and unchaparoned in Mexico on spring break. If parents love their teens, they will keep them home or take them on a family trip somewhere far away from spring break, like that little fishing village in Alaska mentioned on another thread.