quote:Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low.
In 2005, 47 percent of high school students reported having sexual intercourse, down from 54 percent in 1991.
More young people are finishing high school, too, and more little kids are being read to, according to the latest government snapshot on the well-being of the nation's children. It's good news on a number of key wellness indicators, experts said of the report being released Friday.
This is nice. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Awesome!
No time to read it now, but does it say what the cause of it might be?
2 out of 3 Javert's think this is good news! Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Who's the Javert who disagrees?
Posted by Anti-Javert (Member # 10706) on :
Horrible news. The world sucks.
Teens should have babies, leave them in ditches, and above all, NEVER read to them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And the triumvirate is complete.
Posted by Anti-Javert (Member # 10706) on :
(That way there are more babies for the rest of us to eat.)
Posted by Anti-Javert (Member # 10706) on :
(Illiterate babies taste better.)
Posted by Mama Squirrel (Member # 4155) on :
Maybe I am cynical, but my first thought upon hearing about the lower teen birth rate was "is it because fewer teens are having sex and/or more teens using birth control or is it because more teens are having abortions?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mama Squirrel: Maybe I am cynical, but my first thought upon hearing about the lower teen birth rate was "is it because fewer teens are having sex and/or more teens using birth control or is it because more teens are having abortions?"
Yeesh, and here I thought I was being cynical because it seems contraceptives are the greater factor then chaste teenagers.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
We'd have to look and see what the abortion rate has been during the same time. It wouldn't be completely accurate, but it might give us an idea.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The article says that fewer teens are having sex and of those that do more are using condoms. Which sounds like good news for people on all sides of the usual debates to me.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yep, dkw has it right. Fewer are having sex and those that are are using contraceptives. This is a win all the way around.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mama Squirrel: Maybe I am cynical, but my first thought upon hearing about the lower teen birth rate was "is it because fewer teens are having sex and/or more teens using birth control or is it because more teens are having abortions?"
Yeesh, and here I thought I was being cynical because it seems contraceptives are the greater factor then chaste teenagers.
That's not cynical, that's just being realistic. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I also read that sperm rates were dropping, which could also explain decreases in pregancy rates (too lazy to find that study).
[ July 17, 2007, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: scholar ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The article didn't say, but since some agency associated was called Federal, I'll guess these stats are for the USA.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I also read that sperm rates were dropping, which could also explain decreases in pregancy rates (too lazy to find that study).
So does this mean we're heading toward the world of Children of Men?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Don't worry, it won't matter after 2012.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Mama Squirrel, I had the same thought when I heard the report on the radio a couple of weeks ago. So you're not alone in your cynicism.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
According to the CDC the abortion rate among teenagers peaked in 1983 and has been declining ever since. So you cynical folks can relax. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That's awesome. The information in the original post, and the fact that abortion rates continue to decline - that's just good news all around.
This thread makes me happy. Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
There's always the chance that most teenagers have learned to lie about having sex. If condoms and contraceptives are being used by most kids, there's less chance of a teen's sexual history being found out by an embarassing STD or pregnancy. This makes it much easier to lie, and gives more incentive for kids to lie. They don't have to worry about being found out.
I'm failing to articulate my point -- <Sigh> I'll try again. The reason I think more teenagers would like to lie is because they now know that there's only a very small chance of being found out.
Oh well, I tried.
Nevertheless, I'm pleased with the news.
Here's hoping the trend continues. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The surveys are very clearly anonymous, and there are double-checks on the data to assess for reliability. It isn't a perfect system by any means, but it's better than it might appear on a superficial look.
---
I'm happy, too, and I also hope the trend continues.
[ July 16, 2007, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Wow, good news all around. Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
Why would a low rate of sexual intercourse for teens be a good thing?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because, quite often, teenagers lack the emotional maturity to make good decisions about sex and are unprepared for the possible consequences.
Gee. Even I know that!
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
This is just the first sign that real life is going to imitate art, a la "Children of Men." Humans will all be sterile in 10 years.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Bad news for baby-eating Mormons. Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
It always seemed to me that people were more or less dead on in deciding that 14-16 was about the age where people did in fact have the emotional maturity to make choices regarding that sort of thing.
That said, certainly it's (in most cases) fine that a significant portion chose that they did not wish to have intercourse. But do we really all feel that the age of consent is far off enough to applaud a decrease from 54% to 47%?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes.
---
It's in the numbers. A given person may be more or less ready (although it also seems that individuals of that age tend to overestimate what they can handle well -- this is a natural stage of development, and it is to be expected), granted. But when you look at population rates of correlation, we know that when you lower rates of sexual intercourse in this age range, you consistently lower rates of negative outcomes.
That means that most of them aren't ready to make that decision in a way that avoids measurable negative outcomes that may affect the rest of their lives.
And then there are all the negative outcomes which are harder to measure.
I can't see how it's tenable that any positive outcomes from starting a few years earlier outweigh the many and serious negative outcomes, which -- again -- have been shown to dramatically increase in this age group when the rate of intercourse changes. Thus, plenty of reason to applaud population changes in choice patterns.
Any given young person is, of course, free to believe that he or she is special/unique/different/"really ready," but just be assured that this would make him or her just like almost everyone else. Some are going to be right, but most aren't -- and they are all about equally fervent in their self-assessments.
[ July 17, 2007, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Bad news for baby-eating Mormons.
Well, not really.
Only an estimated 30-40% of babies Mormons ate in 2005 (the latest statistics aren't available yet) were born to teen mothers-- and of those, only 10-15% were non-Mormon teen mothers.
The ideal is that we will birth and eat our *own* babies-- that's just good sense. It helps foster self-reliance for the whole family, and survival skills among the remaining children. Of course, exceptions can be made for hardship: I knew a lady who was allergic to Mormon flesh, so she wound up having to eat...er...I think they were Presbyterian kids.
And of course, special provisions have to be made for elderly couples, for newlyweds, for infertile couples... That's really one of the main tasks of LDS Social Services: to help provide babies for those unfortunate souls who can't get them themselves.
Honestly, though, I'm grateful for this new trend of less babies being born to teen moms. It means those pantywaists who are always crying about how they just can't bring themselves to devour Bobby Jr. are just going to have to toughen up. Here's your fork, Sister. Get thee to thine grill, Brother.
Baby's on.
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
So apparently other countries are having just as much if not more teenage sex than we are (apparently including the UK, Denmark, and Iceland in the more category, in that order).
Considering that, the birth rate among teens is proportionally way higher (again, we are not having 6.5 as much sex as those in Denmark, we're having less).
Does teen sex really have a significant correlation with teen pregnancy then? Or maybe something else is to blame?
Edit: corrected data.
[ July 17, 2007, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: tnemtiaL ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Does teen sex really have a significant correlation with teen pregnancy then?
There does seem to be some vague correlation between sex and pregnancy, but let's not jump to conclusions.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*snort*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by tnemtiaL: Do you actually have these numbers?
*amused
Yes, I do. Analyzing data from the YRBSS, NLSAH/"Add Health", NHANES, and NcCreary's AHS (Canadian youth) is a good part of what I do for a living.
quote:So apparently other countries are having just as much if not more teenage sex than we are (apparently including the UK, Iceland, and Denmark in the more category, in that order).
Considering that, the birth rate among teens is proportionally way higher (again, we are not having 6.5 as much sex as those in Denmark, we're having less).
Well, yes, but our teenagers are not living in those cultures. If you were to send US or Canadian teenagers over there, then you might well be able to rightly apply the prognostic indicators of those cultures, but you have not succeeded in doing that yet, as far as I know.
quote:Does teen sex really have a significant correlation with teen pregnancy then? Or maybe something else is to blame?
It likely has a lot to do with culture. That doesn't mean you can ignore culture, though, and it still is not warranted to apply prognostic indicators cross-population when you have a substantial amount of other analysis which indicates that this would be simply foolish.
Until such time as you change this culture, it would be foolhardy to ignore it. And in this culture, as it is, having sex at earlier ages is correlated quite strongly with negative outcomes.
---
Edited to add: If you find it more amenable, you are welcome to add the (implied, in my opinion) modifier of "in the countries studied" to my prior comments. I didn't make the qualification because I assumed that we would (of course) be commenting on the cultures that we were commenting on. Nonetheless, I can see that your mileage may vary.
---
Edited again to add: Were you perhaps obliquely objecting to the use of "the world" in the title, coupled with a report confined to US teens? I can't tell.
[ July 17, 2007, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
I guess that what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be looking for a cultural / education change rather than attempting to bring the rate of sex as close to zero as possible (which intuitively sounds bad from a mental health perspective, partly because of problems inherent to a low rate of sexual activity, partly because of the techniques used to bring it so low.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:problems inherent to a low rate of sexual activity [for teenagers]
Your logic does not resemble earth logic.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What do you see as the problems inherent to a low rate of sexual activity?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, You are way out of line.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by tnemtiaL: I guess that what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be looking for a cultural / education change rather than attempting to bring the rate of sex as close to zero as possible (which intuitively sounds bad from a mental health perspective, partly because of problems inherent to a low rate of sexual activity, partly because of the techniques used to bring it so low.)
Well, that's different from questioning why people are glad of this trend in this given culture as it is. You can see the confusion.
I'm sympathetic to your approach, but with the caveat that I don't recall it being established that less sexual activity with another person correlates with more poor mental health.
Are you just referring to interpersonal sexual activity, or are you including solitary events?
And, by any chance, have you ever posted here under another username (such as one which includes "Robin")? I am asking the latter because this is a somewhat familiar topic, and if I knew you previously by some variant of "Robin," then I'd rather not pursue the conversation for a whole host of reasons. If not, then it will be great to distance you from him. *grin
[ July 17, 2007, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:but witht he caveat that I don't recall it being established that less sexual activity with another person correlates with more poor mental health.
That depends on the method of encouraging/enforcing less sexual activity, not so much on the level of activity itself.
If we are talking about America, I'm reaonably sure that some of the ways that people approach sex with the goal of reducing it's occurance would correlate with poorer mental health.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that I think t is implying, but he's bringing up good points about the simplistic assumption that less sex = good, no matter what.
If we could change our cultural standards so that teenagers were having more sex, but were getting pregnant less, contracting fewer STDs, and were more mature about sex and relationships, I'd be thrilled. There is not necessarily an absolute correlation between the amount of sex being had and the incidence of the potential negative effects of having sex.
---
edit: Ooops. I missed part of what you were responding to CT. My mention of methods is irrelevant to the point you were raising. My bad.
[ July 17, 2007, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Back off, Squicky. None of your business.
t, your point of view would be more understandable if you established the dangers of teenagers in the population under discussion refraining from sexual activity. The risks and bad consequences of them engaging in sexual activity have already been established.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Wait, is t an alt? It does kind of seem like it.
I figured someone would pipe in with sadness about the lower numbers of teen sex and pregnancy, though. A whole thread of "yay!"s is generally boring.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:And, by any chance, have you ever posted here under another username (such as one which includes "Robin")? I am asking the latter because this is a somewhat familiar topic, and if I knew you previously by some variant of "Robin," then I'd rather not pursue the conversation for a whole host of reasons. If not, then it will be great to distance you from him. *grin
t is an old hatracker (and sakeite -- super-lurker both places) who, I'm guessing, has forgotten his login info here.
Hi, Lait. I'm coming back to Boston at the end of the summer again. See you know where for details.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Any insights from rates of cervical cancer? Are kids using condoms or the pill? Or... um, not sure if I want to go there. What about AIDS infection?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: t is an old hatracker (and sakeite -- super-lurker both places) who, I'm guessing, has forgotten his login info here.
Ah, good. I will assuredly be less touchy, then. (I had just realized I was unconsciously responding to him as Robin.)
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
You're correct, I've learned something from this discussion. While I'm still not personally inclined to praise any drop in sexual activity, I can see why others living in the US would.
It's interesting to note that the issue could easily become confused/abused by people that are inherently opposed to sexual activity among teens, arguing that it reduces the quality of life for them, while simultaneously ignoring the culture and promoting abstinence-only education.
And again, you are correct, it isn't established. As I said, it's an intuitive belief at this point, one that I share with most sorts of behavior suppression. I feel very similarly about mental health and trying to keep interpersonal sexual activity, solitary activities, and homosexual activities alike low.
I've posted before under RavenXsa and Laitment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As far as methods go, I would say that encouraging people in general and especially young people to understand that sex is a serious thing, that it has both positive and negative consequences and carries with it great responsibility would be a good thing. I do think that centuries of "sex is bad; bodies are bad; sexual urges are bad" has led to a warped understanding of human sexuality and has led to harm. Often, rather than learning how to address sexuality in a responsible, healthy way, teenagers just learn to be ashamed of themselves or afraid.
*not sure if this is what you are getting at, though.
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
I think that the techniques used to promote abstinence, of course, are far more dangerous than abstinence itself. Again, I'm not saying this based upon anything but intuition, but it would seem that the resulting fear and guilt about sexuality would be damaging, not to mention the warped perspective of vaginal intercourse versus any other type of sexual activity.
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
kmbboots, You not only beat me to it, you also said it far more eloquently than I did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lait, I think many of the people involved in the discussion are going to grant you the methods thing.
You claim that, of itself, low sexual activity is deleterious to mental health is lot more controversial. I don't think you've clarified yet in response to CT's question whether you were talking about low sexual activity with another person or all types of sexual activity (including masturbation).
It seems to follow from the presentation of the topic that you would be talking about the former, but it is entirely possible that you meant the latter.
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
I believe that a low rate of interpersonal sexual activity as a result of auto-suppression (or, to a greater extent, external suppression) will result in a lower rate of good mental health.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by auto-suppression. It's not a term I'm familiar with.
Are we talking any sort of strategy to deal with the urge that does not include engaging in interpersonal sexual activity or is there a more specific meaning?
Posted by tnemtiaL (Member # 10708) on :
As in somebody suppressing ones own sexuality, which has to do with more than just sexual urges.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Because, quite often, teenagers lack the emotional maturity to make good decisions about sex and are unprepared for the possible consequences.
Gee. Even I know that!
There are sixteen-year-olds who are serious and responsible enough to be trusted with active sexuality and thirty-year-olds who should never be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car or consume alcohol, but I think that's a different discussion.
ADD: Although there's no statistical way to tell a teenager who's made a serious and responsible choice to delay sexual intercourse and one who's somehow traumatized or stunted on the way towards an adult understanding of sexuality, on face value the statistic would seem a good thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hence the "quite often".
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
First off, there's no reason for me not to tell anybody, since everybody could figure this out from my post. I think premarital sex is a bad idea for anybody, regardless of age (Although you'll find I have a pretty flexible view of 'marriage'). No need to argue about it. I have no way of defending the view. Just consider it a religious ideal. What can you say to a person like 'that'?
I've wondered this for a while, but would anybody have access to any study that shows any correlation between teen-suicide and teen-sex (Or lack thereof)? Are teens who profess to be abstinant more likely to commit suicide? Is there a correlation between *any* mental disease and abstinance?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
kmbboots: (nod)
Nathan: I would imagine it would be borderline impossible to isolate abstinence from other factors, whether those factors are social isolation or a strong religious community background (among others).
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Still, if it's an important question and people are basing life decisions on it, there should be a way to study it. It is possible to design a study that controls for those variables.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why don't we just get to the heart of the disagreement and ask, Laitment, why is teenage sex (for example, in the 14-16 range) a good thing?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because it reduces teenage pregnancy?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:why is teenage sex (for example, in the 14-16 range) a good thing?
quote:Because it reduces teenage pregnancy?
Was there a missing post in there?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nope.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Sex reduces pregnancy?
I'm enormously tempted to go back to the "earth logic" comment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, if we are using the incredibly simplistic approach that you and Rakeesh seem to be, you could say it does.
Lait showed other societies where there are much higher rates of teenage sex and much lower rates of teenage pregnancy. There's been a whole complex discussion about this.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You looked at the rates of other countries (was that complex discussion elsewhere? It wasn't in this thread) and your conclusion was that more sex = less pregnancy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:Yes, if we are using the incredibly simplistic approach that you and Rakeesh seem to be, you could say it does.
Lait showed other societies where there are much higher rates of teenage sex and much lower rates of teenage pregnancy. There's been a whole complex discussion about this.
You're able to infer quite a lot about my approach on the basis of one simple question. The only reason I asked the question was because Laitment's question, "Why is less teenage sex good?" naturally begs the questions, "Less teenage sex is bad? Then why do you think teenage sex is good?"
Questions about methods of discouraging teenage sex didn't come until later.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
My sister's Master's Thesis (based on interviews done by other people over the last 20 years plus her own interviews using the same criteria) actually showed a younger rate of first intercourse for those people who identified themselves as very religious or from very religious families.
The finding went directly against what she had expected. Mind you, this was around 15 to 20 years ago. I'd really like to hear what she would make of this thread. Perhaps I should send her a link.
*wanders off, contemplating the morality of knowingly exposing her sister to addictive habits...*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It depends very much on which level you are discussing it at.
The complex discussion that you are apparently missing is that there are different ways of approaching sex, which have varying results in regards to rates of things like pregnancy, STDs, etc.
There are real world and theoretical examples that include teenagers having more sex than those in America but having drasticly lower rates of these negative things.
Is it the actual sex that causes this? No, of course not, but rather the entire cultural approach to sex (and other things).
Part of what Lait is saying (and what others have chimed in with agreeing with) is that lowering teenage sex does not necessarily correspond with lowering teenage pregnancy (at least in a wider context) with the implication that there are things we could do that would increase the rate of teenage sex while decreasing the rate of pregnancy, STDs, emotional immaturity, etc.
This seems, at least so far, to have gone right over your head.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I was inferring what seemed to me to be your approach by what you identified as the heart of the matter, which appears to me to miss the point.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Your condescension is rude and clearly false. Civil discourse would serve you better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, boy, here we go again.
-------------
Mr. Squicky,
I said it was the heart of the disagreement, which I feel is accurate. It's not the most important question to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Did my responses answer your question, then?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
You two can't have a productive conversation, can you.
Squick, it seems (to me) you frequently either leave out your logic steps and look down on people who don't arrive at your conclusion, or you leave off your conclusion and look down on those who don't arrive there based on your logic. It also seems intentional, because (as in this case) you choose to phrase things in a way that one or more steps in the process is counterintuitive based on a single (and perhaps most likely) interpretation of a vaguely worded statement. You've asked me in the past about what I consider a rhetorical "tactic" -- there's an example. Agree or disagree, that's your choice -- I'm just telling you an impression I have. You say kat and Rakeesh are using a "simplistic approach," but it's tough to see it as less simplistic to summarize what you later claim as your argument as "because it reduces teen pregnancy."
Kat, I don't think there's anything Squick could ever say that you wouldn't desire to disagree with. I thought your "earth logic" comment was rather rude, too, but didn't comment on it because I hadn't been involved in the thread at all up to that point. Neither had Squick, so it's possible to see it as him "thread stalking" you. Since by his posting history it appeared he'd been gone for a week, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. And I recognize you didn't claim it anyway, but based on the history you two have I find it reasonable to guess you were thinking it.
I really like both of you, and I wish you could get along. I think you both contribute greatly to Hatrack, but apparently only as long as you're not in the same threads.
Sorry. I doubt I helped anything writing this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As far as I can see, everything I said was around before I responded to Rakeesh's question.
That what I provided was a simplistic response to an extremely simplistic question about what was being dicussed in a complex manner was pretty much the point.
In order for that question to fit in with the rest of the thread, it, of rather what I perceived as the understanding behind it, needed to be more complex. I tried to demonstrate that with what followed it. My answer was not intended to stand on its own, but rather to start off a particular chain.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yeah, the original earth logic bit was probably a little bit rude. It was funnier in my head.
I also did not think he was serious, in which I was apparently mistaken, and was making was I thought was an equally flip coment back.
Sorry, Pop.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
And I'm telling you, Squick, that I consider that a rhetorical tactic, and detrimental. You disagree. The post to which I'm now responding is pretty much what I think a non-"tactical" reply would have been, and the conversation would have benefitted from you using it in the first place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll consider that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Um, as to the topic...
If there is information available about nations with higher rates of teen sexuality but lower teen birth rates, is there corresponding information available about what the differences are between sexually active teens there and in the United States? (Availability of contraception? Sexual education? Preference of sexual practices less likely to result in pregnancy? Lower overall fertility rates?)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Kat, I don't think there's anything Squick could ever say that you wouldn't desire to disagree with.
As a side note, I totally agreed with Squick on something the other day and posted to say so. What it actually was escapes me - I think it was a thread bemoaning the suckage of some movie/show/book or other - but it does occasionally happen.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)