December 10, 2004
More Teens Keep It In Their Pants
New data from 2002 show a remarkable decrease in sexual activity among teens since 1995. Today’s AP story highlights a number of statistics, showing a major dropoff in sexual activity, especially among 15-17 year olds. The number of boys aged 15 to 17 who had intercourse dropped most precipitously, from 43% to 31%. The same figure for girls was 38% to 30%. Contrary to popular belief some 70% of juniors in high school are virgins.
Meanwhile, there has been a brouhaha in the media (it combines titillation with politics; what could be better?) about federal funding for abstinence-only textbooks that contain fallacies. Congressman Harry Waxman of California (who looks uncannily like a sex-ed teacher) issued the report that sparked this whole debate. All the liberal pundits quoted are using the opportunity to say what they've said all along: abstinence-only education doesn't work. The new data, however, would suggest otherwise. The cultural shift has occurred among teens versed more and more in abstinence-only education, which burst onto the scene in a real way in 1996 [history here], and has been growing since. The second liberal argument, that abstinence-taught kids won't know how to use a condom, is also gainsaid by the data, which shows a rise in contraception use.
Can this all be credited to abstinence-only education? By no means. But I would argue that this seismic shift arises because today's teens are growing up in a different atmosphere. Not only is abstinence being taught in the classroom, but society is embracing that formula more and more in general.
So don't bash abstinence education unless you are willing to come out and tell the truth: you, like most anti-abstinence-ed folks, really think that adolescent sex is a good thing, and you don't want anybody discouraging it. In that case, all I can say is, "Keep your morals off my children!"
Sound familiar?
I don’t know how anyone can say that abstinence is not a good thing to teach.
Maybe what is really going on is that the parents who grew up in the 70’s & early 80’s realized that running around having sex with whoever they felt like wasn’t such a good thing, aren’t proud of themselves for it, and don’t want their children making the same mistake.
‘Saving yourself’ for the right person at the ‘right time’ is the best thing for any of our kids.
Knowing how to protect themselves when they are ready - is the next best thing.
So it’s okay to lie to kids as long as the desired effect is achieved? …Yeah, that sounds like Bush policy to me.
Posted by: Alejo at December 10, 2004 03:27 PMI don’t have a problem with abstinence education necessarily. My problem with this (or at least what I see reported about it) is that we aren’t educating children to practice abstinence, we’re scaring them into practicing it using false information:
One curriculum says that “the popular claim that “condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,” is not supported by the data”; another states that “in heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms.
One curriculum states that 5% to 10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile; that “premature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy”; and that “tubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions.”
I don’t believe there is ever justification for us lying to our children as part of their education. The attitude appears to be that the ends justify the means - is that really a good thing to teach?
I was a late bloomer in the 60’s, not having my first sexual experience with a woman until I was 18 or 19. However, it took dozens of relationships before, at the age of 34, I found the right woman to marry. More than 20 years later, I am still in love with my wife.
The problem with abstinence is that many will not acquire the experience necessary to make a wise decision in marrying a person with whom a marriage can last. Afterall, though teens are abstaining until a later age, the divorce rate is still at all time highs.
Do we want failed marriages and wrecked families with children in place of virgin young people? Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating 15 year olds getting experienced. But, abstinence until marriage will be a very foolish prospect for millions who find they can’t live with the one they conceived a child with shortly after tying the knot.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2004 03:47 PMI remember a line for the Mary Tyler Moore show. Lou Grant was complaining when he found out his girlfriend had an active sexual past. Mary asked rhetorically, “How many is too many.” Lou gave a number. I don’t recall what it was, but it was less than ten. It was a laugh line, but the point is the number matters.
The danger of sexual diseases rises exponentially with the number of partners. People in a truly monogamous relationship (gay or straight) are at almost zero risk of catching AIDS or any other STD. Each additional partner adds to the risk. So to the kids, we should point out this truth. We should also stop calling anything safe sex. There are riskier and safer versions but nothing but abstinence is really safe. There is a reasonable behavior to be encouraged. Abstinence is a good thing for young people. Never feel pressured into sex, because everyone is NOT doing it. Don’t have sex with people you don’t know very well. Don’t have sex with too many people. Use protection whenever you do, but don’t count on it to protect you all the time. Recognize that there is a choice to be made. Some behaviors will increase your chances of getting a disease and some behaviors practiced long enough will virtually guarantee it.
There is another thing to be considered – consent. Sexual relations are emotionally charged and few people are completely honest. It is possible to sexually assaulted or accused because of missed communications, mistakes and downright mendacity. Not many young people are emotionally ready. Actually not many older people are either. That is why casual sex is always a bad idea. To my fellow baby boomers I will assert that the sexual revolution is over. Our side lost.
The ‘right person’ at the ‘right time’ does not necessarily mean wait until you are married.
David,
“The problem with abstinence is that many will not acquire the experience necessary to make a wise decision in marrying a person with whom a marriage can last. “
Are you saying a marriage will not last if you haven’t gained plenty of sexual experience before hand?
Are you saying you can not know if you are marrying the ‘right’ person unless you are sure it’s a ‘good fit’?
Are you saying that bad sexual relations is the main reason the divorce rate is so high?
What ever happened to getting to know a person before going to bed with them? I would think people would get to know each other if they were talking instead of f…. before they get married.
Posted by: dawn at December 10, 2004 04:29 PMCan this all be credited to abstinence-only education? By no means. But I would argue that this seismic shift arises because today’s teens are growing up in a different atmosphere. Not only is abstinence being taught in the classroom, but society is embracing that formula more and more in general.
So, who and what are you plugging here exactly? The changes took place over the period of 1995-2002, so 70% of it should be attributed to Bill Clinton’s moral leadership. Further, the actual findings from the CDC note: “The trends in sexual activity and contraceptive use as measured in 1995 and 2002 are consistent with the downward trend in pregnancies and births to teens observed since 1991”. [CDC]
So don’t bash abstinence education unless you are willing to come out and tell the truth: you, like most anti-abstinence-ed folks, really think that adolescent sex is a good thing, and you don’t want anybody discouraging it. In that case, all I can say is, “Keep your morals off my children!”
I, like most anti-abstinence-ed folks, actually have some connection to reality. Amazingly enough - sit down friend, this is quite shocking - some teenager’s don’t always do what their teachers tell them! or even their parents!
Further, while it is known that abstinence is almost 100% effective in preventing disease, merely intending to abstain is way, way less effective. Especially for teenagers.
What I want to know is, how can the same buch people that are so strongly “pro-life” even *consider* abstinence-only? with almost 90% of teenage pregnancies unwanted, surely agressively promoting contraception to teens would be the biggest single way to reduce elective abortion?
Posted by: William Cohen at December 10, 2004 05:17 PMSchools have no business teaching sex education of any kind. They should only teach the biological aspects of reproduction.
It is the parents job of educating their own kids, nobody elses.
“so 70% of it should be attributed to bill clinton’s moral leadership”
- Yea, right!!!
Abusing power, lying and treating women as playthings is really moral.
The only thing moral about clinton is what rubs off onto his clothes when he goes to church when he needs photo ops.
Abstinence-only education?
While it is the ONLY 100% way of not getting pregnant or diseases, it is not up to the schools to teach it.
But come on. Don’t people remember what it was like to be a teenager?
90% of all teenage males will take it if it is offered.
Quit slacking it off onto the govt. Love your children and take the responsibility to teach them about sex. Best if they hear from someone who loves them instead of someone who “wants to love them” or just “wants more govt. money.”
Posted by: kctim at December 10, 2004 05:40 PMSorry, I just don’t buy the statistics. I don’t believe the methodology for gathering those numbers can ever be sound. Think about it; how likely is it that a teenager will volunteer an honest answer to a pollster’s questions about sexual activity, or drug use?
Statistics on abortions or STD’s could be certainly be gathered, but sexual behaviors of teens?
Posted by: phx8 at December 10, 2004 07:18 PMhttp://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html
Okay, the above article is from guttmacher which immediately makes it suspect to a lot of people, but if you compare it to cut and dry international statistics you’ll see it’s pretty spot on.
If abstinence only education is what effects teenage sex and pregnancy, then why do teenage pregnancy statistics follow international trends and not local political trends? Why is the Canadian teenage pregnancy rate half that of the United States? (even though Canadian teenagers are exposed to the same TV shows, music, and sex education curricula as the U.S. is?)
We claim that we are the era of debauchery, yet teenage birth rates are half of what they were in 1950. Yes, 1950, the decade of “saintly behavior”. We used to be fine with kids getting married at 17, and now we’re not. It’s not that we’ve lost our way from the good old days when none of the high school girls were having sex. It’s that the high school girls were having sex in far greater numbers, and getting married. Economically, it made sense back then, but now, economically, more people think it makes sense to wait a little before pursuing the path of having children.
Economic trends have the greatest effect on teenage birth rates, and teenage sex behavior. When the world economy is up, all industrialized countries have a corresponding dip in teenage pregnancies.
In fact, the U.S. teenage pregnancy statistics have trended down THE LEAST compared to all other industrialized countries.
Why? Is it that we dont’ provide health care to our teenagers? Is it that we have the worst statistics on the comparison between the wealthy and the poor?
Is it cultural? Why do our teenagers use birth control in such smaller numbers than any other country?
Guttmacher has interesting ideas. I tend to agree that the United States makes it more difficult (than any other country) for teenagers to have access to any form of contraception. If it is socially and logistically difficult for them to purchase contraception, then they are likely not to use it.
However, I think the largest factor is that 18 year olds, in all other countries, have much more stable job prospects as compared to their American counterparts. Most industrialized countries work really hard to make sure that their 18-year-olds are connected to good jobs. And so most 18 year olds try to be careful about having a kid too early, because they’re trying to get their career together first.
Anyway, I’d be interested to see an argument that shows me why abstinence only education is the reason that Canada has half the rate of teenage pregnancy compared to the U.S.
If the goal is to reduce teenage pregnancy, and teenage STD rates, then why don’t we just copy what Canada is doing?
Julia
Posted by: Julia at December 10, 2004 07:32 PMkctim,
“But come on. Don’t people remember what it was like to be a teenager?
90% of all teenage males will take it if it is offered.”
But 100% will lie about it if it’s not.
I think that abstinence is best, but to expect it 100% of the time is unrealistic. It is amazing to me the minute that people become parents, they forget that they were teenagers.
I don’t want schools supplying condoms, or showing teens how to use them, but that said, the sexual act “is” a part of human biology.
Mark, 1 in seven is better odds than Vegas, and 31% prevention is better than none at all.
Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2004 07:35 PMGood luck, Dawn. About 49% of Americans make an appropriate choice of a mate, and a very large number of them were not virgins when married. We are teaching our daughter to have some relationships before committing to marriage. Experience, whether as a pilot, a welder, or mate, is a good thing. Of course, like learning anything new, it is only the foolish who will engage in a new skill for the first time without caution and care.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2004 07:38 PMTeen pregnancy rates by state (and voter block)
http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/images/teenpreg.png
This person’s point was that the more religious you are, the more likely you are to be having underage sex, but I think it proves that if you come from a state with a poorly functioning economy, then you are less likely to believe that there is a future (a “way out” for you), so you are less likely to be careful, and more likely to “live in the moment”.
Also note, that the 5 top states (with the least teenage pregnancy), also have the highest rates of medical coverage.
Are Massachuseets and New Hampshire (best rates) a haven of abstinence only education, or are Mississippi and Texas (worst rates)?
Julia
Births to teenagers since 1950 (Roe V Wade was 1973)
http://parentingteens.about.com/library/sp/nbirthrate1.htm
Posted by: Julia at December 10, 2004 07:57 PMDavid -
Not to discount your personal journey, but if sexual experience before marriage improved the chances of marital success, wouldn’t we find increased marriage success rates? Instead, the sexual revolution has led to a sharp spike in the divorce rate. In cultures with less promiscuity, historically, there is less divorce.
William -
Thanks for the CDC data, that’s one of the few intelligent contributions I’ve seen. Your logic, however, is flawed because it’s ideologically based, not factually. Years of aggressive sex ed in the 70’s and especially 80’s led to the highest sex, STD, and birth rates. Since then, attitudes have changed, and teens are getting the message. You broke the rule: you didn’t come out and say that you like adolescent sex. Be like David and show your true colors.
Chops, you mean other cultures like Afghanistan, Iran, or Syria?
Marriage is iffy at best. Having no experience in living with lovers before marrying makes marriage iffy at worst, for a large number of people. I think you are referring to nations where divorce is either not legally sanctioned or stigmatized by religion.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2004 09:02 PMLet’s not also forget the immensely large rates of wife and child abuse and husband abuse. These crimes factor into the equation of little or no experience in managing mating relationships.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2004 09:04 PMDavid, are you arguing that people who have sex before marriage are less likely to engage in spousal/child abuse?
If thats what you’re saying, do you have any statistics whatsoever backing you up?
Julia, what do you mean by saying that its easier to get a job in other developed countries. I don’t know about the unemployment rate for 18-22 year olds, but the overall unemployment rate is 6.0 for the US vs 7.1 for the average industrialized country. (source: OECD)
David,
It took dozens of relationships before, at the age of 34, I found the right woman to marry… The problem with abstinence is that many will not acquire the experience necessary to make a wise decision in marrying a person with whom a marriage can last… Having no experience in living with lovers before marrying makes marriage iffy at worst, for a large number of people.
Speak for yourself…
Let’s not also forget the immensely large rates of wife and child abuse and husband abuse. These crimes factor into the equation of little or no experience in managing mating relationships.
Does that mean you’re not beating your wife anymore? ;-)
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 11, 2004 12:18 AMI’ve been occasionally reading these things for a while now, and this is the first one I’ve responded to.
I have a hard time anytime I see people talking about us guys as if we have absolutely no choice in this matter. I agree that we are very sexual people, more so than women, but that doesn’t mean we have no ability to control ourselves.
I am one of those “70%” that didn’t have sex while I was a teenager, and I continued my abstinence through college, and all the way until my wedding night at the age of 23. I have now been married for 4.5 years. My wife was also a virgin.
Abstinence is the only way to guarantee a lack of STDs and pregnancy. To say that we have to teach other ways because not everyone is going to follow what we have to say is ridiculous. “Hey guys, you really shouldn’t have sex, but I know that you can’t control yourself, so when you have sex be sure to protect yourself with a little bit of latex.”
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. Remember, that 31% failure rate means 3 out of every 10 fail! And that is only in regards to HIV, it says nothing about other STDs (Chancroid, Chlamydia, Crabs, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis, Herpes, Human papillomavirus (HPV), Molluscum Contagiosum, Nongonococcal Urethritis (NGU), Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, Scabies, Syphilis, Vaginitis) Some of which are much more contagious and uncomfortable.
Abstinence only is the only way to teach it, and I have no problem with the mentioning of the dangers of “safe sex.” And I agree with the earlier post, this should all be done at home anyway, NOT in the school. Unfortunately way too many parents won’t touch the subject and leave the education of their child to someone else who may or may not have the same ideas as they do.
When I was in seventh grade, they gave us a drug and sex survey to fill out one morning.
I was so offended by this intrusion into my personal space that I answered every question as though I was the most drugged out sex addict on the planet.
I think these kind of surveys are worse than useless. Someone I’m sure, profits from them, and they are used endlessly to gore one ox or another.
Even as a young teen I saw this as a joke, perpetrated by con artists.
Posted by: Greg at December 11, 2004 01:25 AMHow were these figures calculated? Did you ask these kids if they were having sex or not? And, if so, do you really think they told you the truth? Personally, I tend to doubt the validty of any study that tries to use mathematics to convince me that ignoring things really can make them go away.
I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt and, having lost my virginity at thirteen, I can tell you that abstinence-only education does not work. When I was in middle-school (Middle school, mind you, not high school or college.) we all thought about sex. We were all going through puberty and had raging hormones and sexual activity topped the list of our thoughts. Whenever it was mentioned, adults only said, ‘Don’t do it. Don’t do it. Don’t do it.’ When we asked why, they grew red and said, ‘Because.’
Now, when I tell my three-year-old daughter ‘Because.’, she replies, ‘Because why, Mama?’. If, at three, children demand a better explanation, what makes you think that a hormonal, willful, thirteen-year-old will settle for, ‘Because.’?
Think about this, people. We are biological beings. We are meant to reproduce as much as possible before dying at about thirty. Biologically speaking, your only reason for being is reproduction. Are children really supposed to be able to ignore thier bological function on the oh-so-heavy weight of, ‘Because we’re the Republicans and we said so.’?
Yeah, right. Very realistic.
Now cut to high school. Being a child who had no modesty and a deep understanding of the Dewey Decimal system, I researched sex. I found out how to avoid pregnancy, STDs, and how to best enjoy it. I’ve never met anyone else who’s done this.
What I did meet was plenty of kids who thought that you can’t get pregnant the first time, or when you were menustrating, or maybe it was only when you weren’t menustrating? Oh, wait, plus there’s that great method of pulling out, you know, where the male pulls out prior to ejaculation, completing ignoring the millions of sperm he’s already deposited in his parter through pre-ejaculation. Then there was the old, ‘You must have sex to get a sexually transmitted disease.’ and everyone knows that oral sex doesn’t count… Right?
If adults don’t take the time to help these children learn how to make an informed decision, they will make an uninformed one. Which do you think is preferable?
Posted by: Rose at December 11, 2004 01:26 AMMy God… I just re-read the original article and I feel that I must add a few more comments…
No one is pushing sex education on anyone’s children. If you don’t want your child in that class, then don’t let them go. But don’t deny my child the right to an education because you have moral issues with it. Having a class attended by only those with no moral objections makes more sense than saying that no one can do it because you don’t like it.
Who’s trying to foist thier morals on who here?
Furthermore, where in the world did you get the idea that people are embracing abstinence? From the sexual television shows, films, commercials, billboards, magazines, books, music, Internet, and children’s toys? Because, if so, boy, have I been in the wrong place! On my planet, people aren’t embracing abstinence, they’re embracing each other.
And, since short of forcing my children into captivity in some remote Himilayan location, I can’t control (Nor do I want to.) what others do, the next best thing is to educate my children about what others are doing, why they’re doing it, and why I don’t find it acceptable.
My daughter learned to spit from a boy at school last month. We spent a week explaining why it wasn’t acceptable for her to spit. My daughter is three, and is already being exposed to and influenced by other people’s opinions and attitudes.
Do we really think that this will end at sex? That just because we, the parents, say it’s bad, that’s the only message they’ll hear? Or that maybe, magically, they’ll start to do what they haven’t done since the terrible twos and listen only to us?
Guys, that’s just silly.
Posted by: Rose at December 11, 2004 01:53 AMRose,
You seem to be saying that teens won’t take us at our word regarding abstinence, but they will take us at our word regarding contraception. Please explain.
TheTraveler, if you teach that abstinence is the only safe way to get through life until marriage, you will be teaching a lie. Know what teens and young adults do with lies from their parents?
Check out a child psychology book. Teaching facts is what schools should be in the business of. I have no problem and encourage schools to teach abstinence as the only 100% sure way of avoiding risk, provided, we also teach them about the divorce and marital abuse rates, contraception and prophylaxis available, as well as abortion child bearing death rate, and the number of deadbeat dads that are processed through the legal system each year.
If sex education is taught in schools, make it real, make it comprehensive, and let the student and parents discuss and decide what is appropriate. Anything less, and I would argue don’t teach sex education at all. But to selectively teach abstinence and not responsible non-marital sex alternatives, is a form of brainwashing by one group of Americans over the children of other Americans who don’t agree and view abstinence as healthy to responsible individual choice and growth.
Teach it comprehensively or don’t teach it at all.
It is appropriate to teach children that crossing the street is inherently a potentially dangerous activity. To teach children to never cross the street until they are adults or a policeman is on hand, is irresponsible in the extreme. For in all liklihood huge numbers of young people are going to face the decision to cross the street while they are young and will do it regardless of the risk. So teach them how to do it responsibly in conjunction with teaching that crossing streets or being alive for that matter is a risky activity.
Reelecting Bush was a risk, but, one which 119,000 voters in Ohio decided was worth taking for the rest of the nation. Now, let’s be careful and responsible in handling our risk.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2004 06:59 AMBTW, how is it Nevada voted for Bush, the only state in the nation that promulgates legalized prostitution? LOL!!! Are they going to teach abstinence in their schools. The epitome of hypocrisy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2004 07:01 AMThat’s actually a very good question. Kinda restores my faith in Republicans…
Kids know that sex must have an upside, because we all do it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have kids. The ignore what we say because they know that it’s wrong or half-baked. They’re not dumb, you know. I mean, if you know someone’s lying to you, do you listen to them? Or do you go to another source?
If you sit down and level with them, they’re much more likely to listen. I’m not saying that all kids are going respond to this, but more than respond to abstinence only…
On top of that, when you take the abstinence-only route, and refuse to entertain any other option, you’re telling your children, with your actions, that it’s okay to lie and dissemble and twist the truth. Are other parents alright with this? Because, quite frankly, I’m not.
Posted by: at December 11, 2004 10:27 AMSo which state, country, spot on earth is it that has no prostitution?
Also please explain the moral difference between a prostitute and someone who marries for money.
How about Nevada has a sensible law that helps to protect, instead of victimize women in “the world’s oldest profession.”
Moral outrage is all nice and good, except for the lack of reality in dealing with human beings.
While were at it, legalization of marijuana and all drugs would eliminate the criminal profiteering that goes on there, too.
But let’s have moral outrage, that’s much better than dealing honestly and rationally with anything.
Posted by: Greg at December 11, 2004 10:28 AMSo don’t bash abstinence education unless you are willing to come out and tell the truth: you, like most anti-abstinence-ed folks, really think that adolescent sex is a good thing, and you don’t want anybody discouraging it. In that case, all I can say is, “Keep your morals off my children!”Sounds about right to me. If my kid is old enough to make the informed decision to have sex, and is willing to use contraception and STD protection with an equally willing partner, where’s the problem there? Feel free to teach your kid abstinence-only. Feel free to offer A-O classes. Side by side with contraceptive-stressing classes, of course, in a system where the kids have a choice as to which they can enroll in.
Julia said:
Are Massachuseets and New Hampshire (best rates) a haven of abstinence only education, or are Mississippi and Texas (worst rates)?
No. Having lived in NH, I know that *I* got abstinence-only education, but I also went to a Catholic school. Everybody else got contraceptive training in the public schools. Posted by: Nick Mason at December 11, 2004 11:36 AM
I find it very interesting that those who are objecting most strongly to my article and discrediting the scientists behind the data are those who came of age before the cultural shift. I am only 22 (and a virgin), so I saw some of these changes with my own eyes. Not to say that every young person agrees with me, but for those who cite their own experience as ‘evidence’ (Rose, David), you are in some ways simply bolstering my argument: that young people today are more abstinent than the generation before them.
David - When I said other cultures, I was referring to places like Europe. Believe it or not, they have less casual sex (though they have a more casual attitude about sex) and they have far less divorce. Islamic cultures also have less sex and less divorce, and as an Arabophile I reject your inference that this is only because of mysogeny. Has it ever occurred to you that American may not be the Enlightened Source of All Wisdom, and someone else, however flawed, may have better ideas about how to order society?
Posted by: Chops at December 11, 2004 01:39 PMThe Washington Post caught up with WatchBlog today, featuring a frontpage story on the subject.
They support my claims:
More neutral academics said the positive trends most likely reflect a combination of abstinence education and instruction on safer sex bringing about the notable decline in risky sexual behavior.
The article also underscores that contraception use has climbed significantly. Some interesting statistics include the fact that 91% of those who were sexually active used protection (which means only 2.7% of all teens were having unprotected sex), but one-third of those surveyed had not learnt about contraception at school (and less than half had not talked to parents). This again proves what I said about a cultural shift: even if they aren’t learning it in school or at home, society in general has had a “sea change” of attitudes and norms, and kids just *know* how to protect themselves. Kinda like how kids in the 50’s and 60’s knew how to have sex without anyone telling them. Us young folks are smarter than we look!
Posted by: Chops at December 11, 2004 01:51 PMWhat I find most hilareous about this is that it is driving the news.
The fact that we’re attempting a coup in Kiev isn’t apparently news. No,Bush disciples zipping up their imaginary pants is.
NCHS can’t fund flu vaccines, but God only knows that we can afford to spy on teen sex. Karl Rove strikes again.
Posted by: greg at December 11, 2004 02:23 PMNo Chops, it is your correlations that you tout as cause and effect that I dispute. And please, show me the stats Eurpope engaging in less sex than Americans. This I gotta see. I know their population growth is slowing, but, that in no way means they are having less sex. That is laughable.
David -
Here’s one data source: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm
In the United States, young people typically initiate sexual intercourse at the same age or even earlier compared to young people in the Netherlands and France.3,7 Data are not available for Germany.Finally, the proportion of sexually active teenage men and women ages 18 to 19 that had two or more sexual partners within the past year is substantially higher in the United States than in France. Data on number of sexual partners are not available for Germany or the Netherlands. Having two or more sexual partners increases youth’s potential risk of becoming infected with HIV and other STIs.
Americans have sex younger and with more partners. Americans are also more likely to have unprotected sex. Europeans are doing what abstinence education programs teach: waiting longer to have sex, being more informed about its consequences, and having it in monogamous relationships.
Oh, and by the way, the journal Pediatrics agrees with my position: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/102/5/1205
David,
It appears we are having two separate conversations here.
One about sex-ed in schools with kids under 18 and one about living with someone before getting married.
I don’t believe I was speaking of college kids.
I do know I won’t let my high school daughter have a live in lover so she can gain sexual experience before she gets married.
If she is off to college and decides she loves some guy who has an apartment of his own - I would probably not like it - have a long talk with her - and she would probably end up staying with him …. over 18 and in college or working is completely different than high school(or jr.high) and living with parents …
The best I can hope for is a daughter who has self confidence and does not feel the ‘need’ for a guy to make her a whole person - or like some of these young girls who think they want a baby because the baby will love them??
(When they taught sex-ed to us - the boys went to one room and the girls to another - for some reason the boys were taught about the girls’ anatomy but the girls were not shown the boys anatomy. I always wondered about that.)
My biggest problem with the idea of teaching about contraception is that it gives people a false sense of security. If you want to talk about it, kids need to know that any form of contraception is prone to failure on some level.
Now, with regards to the idea of abstinence only education, if you simply say, “don’t do it!” Many of the comments stated earlier are exactly right, the kids will think to themselves, what a bunch of hypocrites. And will want to have sex even more. Any rule, MUST have a reason, I think one of the main failings of moral education at home and in the schools is a list of rules without giving the reasons behind the rules.
Then there are the studies that they people having the best sex are those of us who waited til marriage. (I don’t have the data to back that up right now, but will try to remember to look it up when I have more time later.)
Posted by: Danny at December 11, 2004 07:20 PMSome of these comments are hilarious. I just love the theory that sleeping around before marriage will somehow decrease the chances of divorce! Really! That’s a good one! Keep it up, I haven’t had such a good laugh in a long time.
You liberals are so pathetic. You may be fooling yourselves but you’re not fooling us. It’s OBVIOUS that your objective is for teens to have as much sex as possible. That’s it. You care nothing about anything else. You’ll lie through your teeth and ignore every study that rejects your ideology just to brainwash more kids into having more sex. What’s with liberals and kids and sex? Are you all pedophiles or something? Why can’t you perverts keep your sexual habits away from my kids? If you want to have sex with your kids, that’s your problem. But stop trying to have sex with mine!
Posted by: Bryan Williams at December 11, 2004 09:08 PMWilliam - Thanks for the CDC data, that’s one of the few intelligent contributions I’ve seen. Your logic, however, is flawed because it’s ideologically based, not factually. Years of aggressive sex ed in the 70’s and especially 80’s led to the highest sex, STD, and birth rates. Since then, attitudes have changed, and teens are getting the message. You broke the rule: you didn’t come out and say that you like adolescent sex. Be like David and show your true colors.
My logic is flawed? I just pointed out that *your* statistics don’t support your claim. In response you say I’m ideological (are you confusing the CDC and DNC, maybe) and then go on to make a bunch of other unsupported claims, and then taunt me. Ah, Republicans.
Since you seem to like Advocates for Youth, I note that their comment on the subject is:
There is no scientific evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs - those that censor information about contraception - are effective. On the other hand, research continues to show that comprehensive sex education, which teaches both abstinence and contraception, is most effective for young people.
Which pretty much sums the position of most people that are not blinded by ideology. Sex ed that encourages abstinence and teaches about safe sex and contraception is pretty uncontroversal, I think.
I’d love to see you actually back up your outrageous claim that abstinence-only education works.
- W
PS. I didn’t tell you if I like adolescent sex. I have six teenage nieces, but I worked for John Kerry, so I guess it’s a toss-up, huh? I think anyone that plugs abstinece-only sex ed should come out admit that they’re a child molester that like having unprotected sex with naive and misinformed 16 year old girls.
Bryan, which liberals are the pedophiles? Perhaps the ones prying into the lives of teen sex?
Perhaps the ones promoting ignorance and misinformation, so that the power difference is exaggerated?
Perhaps, it’s all those anti abortion catholic priests?
Oh right, that’s the pervue of the sexually shamed conservatives who overcompensate by trying to repress the desires they have by transfering it to others.
At least, if you are going to accuse sexual deviancy of the left you should perhaps educate yourself about it enough to understand it’s genesis. Make sure you drop off the kiddies with the sexually repressed preacher.
I mean why should one’s children be less ignorant than the parents who repress and fear their own sexual thoughts. Yes, lets return to victorian times when you don’t talk about sex, so we can pretend perversion doesn’t exist.
Take a long deep look in the mirror. Freud described your position years ago.
Posted by: Greg at December 12, 2004 12:26 AMAgain, The United States has the worst teenage birth rate of all industrialized nations. THE WORST. The current drop in sex, and birth rates, has been consistent across ALL industrialized countries. That international drop implies that teenage sex and birth is MOST STRONGLY tied to the economic security of the poor. In fact, the countries that have the strongest social safety nets also have the lowest teenage birth rates.
Every country has a far different sex education policy, but the U.S. has ALWAYS skewed more towards abstinence because the United States is more religious than every other industrialized country. (Check the church attendence rates)
Sweden has the best statistics for teenage sex, pregnancy, and birth, and they have a very aggressive sex education system that covers the issue of contraception.
It is not, as keeps being complained here, that liberals want teenagers to have sex, it’s that the countries that have actually had success in solving the problem of teenage sex and pregnancy are the ones with more open discussion of sex with their teenagers.
And Chops, you are just plain wrong about Europe having a more aggressive abstinence education system than the U.S. Your source documentation actively disagrees with you on this point, in fact it states that the reason Europe has such better success is because it treates its youth with respect, is very aggressive in providing contraception, and very aggressive in its education about STDS and risk and responsibility. In other words, Europeans see intimate sexusal relationships as normal and natural for adolescents, and they are up front and frank with them about taking those relationships seriously, and the result is that teenagers choose to engage in casual sex far less than their american counterparts.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.pdf
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0623/p01s03-woeu.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42607-2002May31?language=printer
But again, according to my data, the strongest factor appears to be economic security of the poor. (which explains the international drop). The difference between countries appears to be culturally oriented (with the number one factor being the “sinnificatin” of teenage sex)
Hey Nick, as a Mississippian, I can also vouch that there was no sex education in my state at all. The only person we heard from was the (super aggressive) Baptist church that taught us that carnal lust was going to send us all to hell. (And that was the end of the discussion)
Mississippi also has some of the highest rates for teenage STDs, incidentally.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at December 12, 2004 03:17 AMChops, seriously, did you actually read the articles you used to defend your position?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/102/5/1205
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.pdf
They both state that the reason European kids have less sex than American kids is because European parents are up front with their kids and educate them on contraception, and provide access to contraception, and tell them to be responsible. Both articles state that Americans shouldn’t fear talking to their kids about safe sex, because the result seems to be that when you are frank with kids about sex, they are more likely to wait.
This is exactly oppositie to what you are saying in your article.
Seriously.
You should read the articles. They are very good.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at December 12, 2004 03:26 AMOh and BTW, did anyone mention that America has one of the highest divorce rates in the civilized world?
Posted by: Rocky at December 12, 2004 03:30 AMHey Liberals - Pick a position, any position. If you argue that Mass and NH have lower teen pregnancy rates because of better Sex Ed, then you have to ditch the argument that lower birth rates worldwide were caused by decreasing poverty. An interesting stat: the wealthier an African country is, the more of an AIDS epidemic it has. Check it out.
Also, I suspect that if you corrected for racial makeup, a lot of the differences between New England and Miss/Tex would disappear. I don’t mean to be racist, but there are pronounced differences in cultural values and behavior tied to race.
Julia -
You should have read my comment :) I never claimed that Europeans have abstinence education. I went to a Dutch high school, so I know some things here firshand. What I said was that they have less sex with fewer partners. David didn’t believe me, so I pulled up the article as proof.
Bryan Williams -
I don’t think abstinence education should be taught with no mention of birth control. However, I think there is a qualitative difference between the “old-fashioned” sex ed of the 1980’s and the kind that focuses on abstinence. Abstinence used to be an afterthought, a kind of “inside joke” between the teacher and the kids. Now it’s treated as a serious option, and well it should be. Not only is it better for kids, but it’s *respectful* of the large numbers who aren’t sexually active. As a virgin, I’ve always been mildly insulted by sex ed that assumed activity. My old doctor (now a Harvard prof) used to ask if I was active every time I visited. I’d say no, but rather than compliment me or affirm my choice, he’d make absolutely sure I knew where I could get condoms when I needed them.
Nick - I love the inference that I’m too old to know what your generation is going through, esp. considering the fact that I’m two years younger than you. Really, no sarcasm there. I got a good laugh out of it. :)
I realize that references to my children might make me appear older than I am. However, if I had mentioned my age in addition, you would have realized that my references to my children mean that I know exactly what I’m talking about when I speak of teen sexual activity, pregnancy, and education.
Sweetie, I hate to make you feel dumb, but we are the same generation… And I disagree with your opinion of our generation’s abstinence.
Posted by: Rose at December 12, 2004 12:24 PMI do agree that sex ed should, idealistically, be taught at home. I will teach my children at home.
But I’d rather my children not have misinformed people as her peers. That increases the likelihood that she’ll believe her friend’s misinformation. Furthermore, any partner that she may (God forbid!) or may not have will come from this pool of misinformed people if we don’t have sex ed as an option.
Along with that, I think alot of parents would love to send their kids to a class for it; not because they’re bad or lazy parents, but because they don’t feel that they can do the topic justice.
Our job as parents is not to do all of the teaching ourselves. It’s simply to ensure that the teaching is done. Wouldn’t I be a worse parent for giving her an inadequate edcation myself rather than ensuring that she receives a good one at someone else’s hand?
Posted by: Rose at December 12, 2004 12:36 PMOne more point…
(Sorry for not posting them all at once…)
Abstinence-only education doesn’t cover how to protect yourself from STDs spread by people whom are abstinent.
Or do you expect everyone to refrain from so much as kissing until marriage???
Posted by: Rose at December 12, 2004 12:43 PMChops,
I’m clear on my position. Economics is the greatest factor affecting teenage pregnancy. States that have better economies, and smaller populations living in poverty, have lower teenage pregnancy rates. Mississippi and Texas, it is true, have a higher rate of impoverished minorities. Miniroties have higher teenage pregnancy. I think the factor is economy. I think international statistics prove me right.
I think a lesser factor is cultural. I think that American attitudes that teenagers are not mature enough to handle knowledge about sex leads to teenagers not being mature about handling sex.
European teenagers do not abstain because their parents preach to them a message of abstinence. They abstain because a) they are waiting to get a job, and b) their parents teach them that sex is an important part of their lives, and something that should be acted upon with responsibility.
I don’t disagree, Chops, that the message of responsibility is missing in our dialogue with teenagers. But you can’t teach sexual responsiblity without teaching sex. Sure, we percieve that the liberal message is a message of “everyone have sex”. We also percieve the conservative message to be “Don’t have sex.” Obviously, both messages are poor.
The real answer (that has proven verifiable data on its side) is the message of “Let me educate you about the facts on sex, and encourage you to act responsibly.” Because it is in the best interests of teenagers to wait, many will choose to wait. The ones that don’t will have the knowledge of how to be responsible.
A greater effect, however, is showing poverty stricken teenagers that there is life outside of the inner city (and life outside of the boondocks), and that having sex isn’t the pinnacle of human activity. This is what I mean when I say economics has the largest factor.
Julia
Here is a novel idea. What if we have two options and send notes home with the children for the parents to decide which they prefer. Then everyone is happy.
Wow!
Personally, I don’t see why not but apparently the great touters of abstinence aren’t satisfied with abstaining from attending those types of classes… We’ve ALL gotta be abstinent and uninformed.
Posted by: Rose at December 13, 2004 12:37 AMNice article Chops.
second liberal argument, that abstinence-taught kids won’t know how to use a condom, is also gainsaid by the data, which shows a rise in contraception use.
Hmm… teen sex is down, but condom use is up. What are they using the condoms for?
Anyhow, you miss the point. No one is against teaching abstainance. We’re just against teaching abstainance only.
I use mine for dropping water baloons on phonies and hypocrites.
Posted by: Greg at December 14, 2004 07:44 AMJulia
Not attacking here, in fact, I too believe the economy plays a large part.
I was just curious as to why YOU believe the economy plays such a huge part in teenage preg?
Large cities and their school districts are mainly run by very liberal individuals, and sex is basically taught in these schools.
If teaching how to have sex and how to be safe works so well, then why such a contrast?
Rural towns and their school districts are mainly run with a more conservative agenda. While the disease factor is lower, pregnancy is usually the issue. Teaching safe sex MAY decrease these some, but they are still problems.
So if neither really works that well when taught by the govt, shouldn’t the parents take it upon themselves to educate the ones they love and try to get it out of the govts hands?
Posted by: kctim at December 14, 2004 01:06 PMOh, you mean expect these people to actually parent their children? LOLOLOLOL
In an idealistic world, that would be terrific. But it’s not going to happen anytime in my generation.
I feel as though I have the moral responsibility to make sure that these kids know what they ought to. I won’t force information on any children but my own… But I will make sure that the information is there.
Who says the kids should have to suffer because no one taught them about contraceptive use? Or, for that matter, kept a closer eye on them so they weren’t alone with the opposite sex long enough to need contraceptive information…
Posted by: Rose at December 15, 2004 01:02 AMBy the way, as a teen mom who lives in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I feel that I am unusually qualified to give an opinion as to why we all get knocked up so much more than other areas of the country.
First, yes, we do make less money. But things cost less here also. My family is relatively wealthy. They don’t have as much money and thier homes aren’t worth as much but it’s probably the same size and quality. Location pulls its net worth down considerably compared to comparable real estate in California or New York.
I’ve lived in California and I’ve lived in Houston and I’ve lived in towns both large and small in Oklahoma. My quality of life has never improved or decreased in any significant amount although my income level fluctuated greatly. So let’s quit talking about money. Poor people are everywhere.
We have more teen pregnancy because we’re stupid about sex. We have no idea what we’re doing. There are a million and two sexual myths (Some are outlined in a previous post.) that will all get you a baby and an STD faster than you can say ‘Orgasm’.
I don’t just mean that we don’t know about contraceptives… I mean we know NOTHING. At least abstinence-only education mentions the existence of sex. Here in the Bible Belt, we apparently rely on God’s telepathic abilities to relay this information to our children.
What we know about sex is what we see on TV, where no one gets STDs and pregnancy scares are just that - Scary moments that go away.
We know, technically, that we can get pregnant but no one has taken the time to really sit with us for a moment and explain that it really can happen to us.
When I was thirteen, my boyfriend was allowed to stay the night at my house. We weren’t allowed to be alone together whatsoever and he slept on the floor of my mothers’ room. When I stayed at his house, she assumed the same thing happened there. Ha! His mother’s favorite joke was ‘Ribbed… For her pleasure.’ akin to the Trojan commercial.
I would blush madly because sex was just NOT (To me at the time.) the kind of thing you discussed with adults. It was something to be discussed with my peers. You know, all the other thirteen-year-olds…
But when I got pregnant, no one was more suprised than his mother. She claimed, despite the condom jokes and the fact that we shared a bed at night, that she didn’t even know that we were having sex. And, you know, I really think she didn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I knew about pregnancy and STDs and I damned well knew better than to be sexually active. My mistakes are my fault and no one else’s. But none of my friends had the kind of knowlege (Or the illicitly gained library card.) that I had.
They live under an umbrella of Christian denial, forgetting that good people can give in to temptation, esp. children, and these people are passing this on to thier children.
I can only hope that my generation, the generation of teen parents who were failed by thier own, can teach our children better than we ourselves were taught.
Posted by: Rose at December 15, 2004 01:24 AM
