Dr. Frank's What's-it

I like Linda Vantassell's review:
"This book will be added to the list."
Boy, I'd love to get a look at that list...

the bookseller tried to talk my mom out of buying Forever for me, in the early 80's. Of course, we were living in Oklahoma at the time.

we discovered it in the school library when we were in about fifth grade. lots of giggling and staring ensued. then everyone checked it out and read it and then discussed penises.

What sort of "Dork" is this "King Dork", anyway?

I've heard of Judy Blume, but never of _Forever_, even though I was in my mid-teens when it came out.

I can assure you children that things most certainly *have* loosened up considerably since those days.

1975 was about the time I got hold of my copy of _Again, Dangerous Visions_. I don't think Blume had anything to compare with "With the Bentfin Boomer Boys on Little Old New Alabama" (to take just one example). Now *that* story violated all the old taboos and a few ones we've adopted since then (if I recall correctly).

60 seconds of Google research:

The percentage of liberals has nose-dived from its high of 38% in 1971. The percentage of conservative students, as low as 14% after Richard Nixon's second presidential inauguration in 1973, has hovered near the 20% mark since 1981 and Ronald Reagan's first term. Then, as now, the largest group by far remained students who call their their political views "middle-of-the-road."

Politics aside, the survey shows that young people's lives have changed a bit since the 1960s:

• A larger proportion of students now say they've recently attended a church service — 80% vs. 69% — but more also say they have no religious preference.

• The percentage of students focused on "being very well off financially" has risen sharply, from 42% in 1966 to 74% in 2003, while the percentage saying it's important to develop "a meaningful philosophy of life" has dropped by more than half, from 86% in 1967 to 39% in 2003.

• 45% of students in 2003 say they've drunk beer in the past year, down from 69% in 1966; only 6% say they've smoked cigarettes, down from 15% in 1966.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-01-25-freshmen-politics-usat_x.htm

Thanks for helping out Arya, but I don't quite see how any of that stuff relates to sex and/or sexy books for teens.

I believe that and I live in the US. It is a one party state, with a pathetic-dying opposition party that is quickly fading away, to give way to Christian fundamentalists fascist, who are mostly white. They are bigots and they all look alike. Sound familiar? It’s tr

Actually S. Otto, it doesn't really sound all that familiar, though it may indeed be tr.

I absolutely love rainbows. They are so soft and so pretty, and they make me feel all warm inside. Is the goal, to make oral sex orgies acceptable among teens, despite the dangers, by incorporating rainbows into the mix?

I think there's a lot of evidence that social liberalism, and its traditional corrollaries (sexual activity, abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates, propensity for being religious, propensity to engage in drinking, drug use, etc.) have been in decline since at least the early 1980's.

Another 5 minutes of Google research:

1. Steep decreases in the pregnancy rate among sexually experienced teenagers accounted for most of the drop in the overall teenage pregnancy rate in the early-to-mid 1990s. While 20% of the decline is because of decreased sexual activity, 80% is due to more effective contraceptive practice

2. Teens now account for 31% of all nonmarital births, down from 50% in 1970.

3. Since 1980, abortion rates among sexually experienced teens have declined steadily, because fewer teens are becoming pregnant, and in recent years, fewer pregnant teens have chosen to have an abortion.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_teen_sex.html

More information:

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/pdf/rectrend.pdf#search='teen%20sexual%20activity%20since%201970'

I was a bit struck by " "I remember the review Margaret Drabble wrote for the Times - I think it was the Times [...] And who knows if I'm even remembering what she wrote accurately ..."

Which makes me immediately wonder why she doesn't just ask Drabble. It's not as if she's dead. Also, while I can't tell if the "Times" in question is of London or NYC, finding out what Drabble wrote for the one of New York is not a difficult question.

As for the sexual mores question, I do think there are certainly at least grounds to consider the possibility that American culture was in some ways more casual about sexuality specifically right in that mid-Seventies era than now, up to circa 1983 or so. I wouldn't argue on such a general topic, but I wouldn't dismiss the question is risible on its face, either.

I'm completely unsure whether it's tr or not, though.

Again, Dangerous Visions came out in 1972, incidentally, and as a hardcover by Doubleday and a mass-market paperback by Signet that sold hundreds of thousands of copies. "Taboo" is not a word I'd use to describe it.

Oh, right, all my formating and embedded links disappeared. Ah, well.

Sorry about the formatting, Gary. I had to ban html in the comments because of the crazy comment spam.

All I'm saying is that the point being made about sexual mores doesn't square with my experience and observations. Our current pop culture is, it seems to me, far more sexualized than it ever was when I was a kid. And though I've read about them, I certainly haven't noticed the "ubiquity of pressure groups such as True Love Waits." I wouldn't say it's risible, necessarily, but I think this ubiquity is greatly exaggerated.

"Again, Dangerous Visions came out in 1972, incidentally..."

I got my copy a couple years later, so sue me.

"...and as a hardcover by Doubleday and a mass-market paperback by Signet that sold hundreds of thousands of copies. "Taboo" is not a word I'd use to describe it."

Oh, now don't say that Gary, you'll hurt Ellison's feelings. So you're saying that if a book sells a lot of copies, it can't be "taboo"? Then why is most of the Guardian interview fastened on the ooh! shocking! nature of _Forever_. Do you suppose it sold fewer copies than A,DV? Even now, Blume is getting a delicious frisson of righteous naughtiness over the idea that there's someone, somewhere who doesn't want their tender children reading her book.

I think your Bay Area background is showing, Gary.

I was just vaguely amused that the little girls described in the interview were furtively reading their shocking copies of _Forever_, while *at the about same time, at about the same age* I was reading A,DV. I lived in enlightened, sexually unfettered rural Missouri at the time.

Dr. Frank is right, of course.

Here's a salient example: remember that show that ran on MTV for a few years (I believe, starting in 2000)? It was a teen sex soap. I couldn't believe they got away with airing it for as long. Tell me again there was anything comparable in '75.

What's the damn name of that show?

as long=as long as they did

Exhibit A, homez.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190106/

I found it interesting that you posted this Frank, because I recently heard the exact same argument in a Human Sexuality course I am taking...even a section in our text talks about the "Sexual Counterrevolution" occurring in the US. I found it hard to believe myself due to the over-sexualization of US pop culture, however the argument that our professor made is that in regards to US government funding policy they are taking an extremely conservative approach, to the extent that it is almost impossible for sexuality researchers to obtain funding unless the research has to do with abstinence, regardless of the demographic they are researching including married heterosexual couples (this made absolutely no sense to me because I would think that a government would want their adult population to be having a safe healthy sex life... thus having a happier healthier population, but then again I grew up in Canada where we started sex education in grade 4 with a focus on safe sexual health rather than abstinence). I guess it all depends where you grew up and how you perceive things.

It takes a very special kind of person (like say, a university professor or a Guardian writer) to mistake the government's budget for the whole of reality. Fascinating, Kristy.

Christy, our government ain't s'posed to have "wants". We, the people, tell it what we want.

"I got my copy a couple years later, so sue me."

I had thought that my use of "incidentally" might indicate that I thought the observation "incidental," but perhaps not.

"I think your Bay Area background is showing, Gary."

Neat trick, since I've never lived there.

:-)

"So you're saying that if a book sells a lot of copies, it can't be 'taboo'?"

And is published by two of the largest mainstream publishing houses then in existence, and meets with no significant trouble whatsoever in publication or distribution, then, loosely speaking, yes, but I feel no need for others to agree with my sense of usage.

JB: "Tell me again there was anything comparable in '75."

Why, it was just like all the other shows on HBO in 1975.

:-)

MTV, sorry. Same point, though.

> 2. Teens now account for 31% of all nonmarital
> births, down from 50% in 1970.

> 3. Since 1980, abortion rates among sexually
> experienced teens have declined steadily,because
> fewer teens are becoming pregnant, and in recent
> years, fewer pregnant teens have chosen to
> have an abortion.

And wait, that's supposed to be *bad* news? Teen pregnancy and the corollary of single-parent households are two of the key factors behind intransigent poverty. A reduction in both is actually good news all the way around-- even though it's very doubtful that conservative abstinence programs are instrumental in the reduction. Mickey Kaus has argued this decrease is a side beneficiary to welfare reform in the mid-90s, by taking away any perception of government benefit, in childbirth.)

The mistake the Guardian writer makes (or one of them, the woman is oblivious) is assuming that teenage sex equals liberation. It's certainly important for teens to feel open and comfortable with their sexuality, but that doesn't necessarily mean all or most of them are ready for actual sex. In plain terms, teen sex often really means liberation for the boy who's pushing and pressuring for it-- and for the girl who finally gives in, submission.

There's a survey somewhere suggesting that the rate of oral sex among teens has been increasing over the decades, while full genital sex has been decreasing. That's actually the best trend to see, because it suggests teens who enjoy being sexual, but prudently waiting on sex acts they're not ready for, for various reasons. True sexual liberation is choosing what you want to do, and holding off on what you don't. (And frankly, I think it's a lot better for everyone concerned that teen guys wait until they're at least minimally proficient at eating pussy, before being granted full fucking rights.)

So does your soon-to-released YA novel contain any juicy parts that would necessitate it being hidden under the mattress?

Me: "I think your Bay Area background is showing, Gary."

Gary: Neat trick, since I've never lived there.

Gary, I apologize. I was confusing you with Bill Quick. Even to me, this is inexplicable, but that's what happened.

'''''And wait, that's supposed to be *bad* news? Teen pregnancy and the corollary of single-parent households are two of the key factors behind intransigent poverty. A reduction in both is actually good news all the way around-- ''''

Wagner, I totally agree.

There are positive outcomes resulting from growing social conservativism among young people, principle among which being the above.

There are, however, several drawbacks as well, which I won't get into.

My point was only to offer evidence refuting Frank's statements which denied the existence of the trend toward social conservatism.

I think the trend exists; Frank doesn't see it.

Now whether the trend is on balance a good or bad thing is a different matter altogether.

"Gary, I apologize. I was confusing you with Bill Quick. Even to me, this is inexplicable, but that's what happened."

Don't worry about it. Although it's the first time this has happened. :-) Both Bill and I have been seen at science fiction conventions, but aside from that, and that, obviously, we both blog -- and, okay, both used to post to some of the rec.arts.sf.* Usenet newsgroups some years ago -- not a whole lot to confuse. (Well, okay, he's had a bunch of sf novels published, and I've had a variety of jobs in sf publishing in years past.) Bill is one of my right-wing loon friends, and I'm one of his left-wing loon friends. Very vaguely speaking. Anyway, as I indicated: fergetaboutit.

Oh, and "Bill" and "Gary" both have four letters. I suppose I can keep coming up with other similarities, if I work at it. :-)

(Possibly more entertaining, though, given that you like A,DV, is if you ever meet me, to ask me about my first meeting Harlan in 1973, or the variety of anecdotes I have from working closely with him in 1978, or the last time he called me up on the phone because David Gerrold have *ever* so thoughtfully provided Harlan with a context-free copy of something (that I successfully explained to him was entirely innocent, in context) I wrote about Harlan on Usenet. Or something along those lines, perhaps, anyway.)

Aryamehr,

C'mon, dude. Your evidence is a highly selective and tangentially relevant cut-n-paste job. Any passing familiarity with pop culture proves otherwise. Undressed, the ubiquity of the "Girls Gone Wild" type series and the exhibitionism of at music festivals is totally at odds with your position. Stop surfing and actually get out into the real world.

Thanks for that harsh dose of "the real world", JB.

Seriously, though, I think what you are (correctly) pointing out is the discrepancy between discussion and publication of sexual activity / substance use, and actual participation in sexual activity / substance use.

I happen to agree with you, and the evidence is clearly consistent with this, that society is more open to addressing and discussing issues like sex and drugs than it was 30 years ago.

By the same token, I think society has turned a corner in terms of actual participation in such activities, especially since the 1980's. The evidence cited above, admittedly taken from no more than 5-10 minutes of Internet searching, seems to corroborate this.

The kids seem to have gone post-modern.