115 Girls in One High School Are Pregnant

Stengah wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Beyond that, however, I have grave doubts that such a paradigm is being taught in schools. My guess is that such a training discussion in classes would be front page news with certain terminations to follow.

It is very much not. Even the most liberal of Health teachers I have worked with emphasized that abstinence the best way to avoid STDs and underage pregnancy, because that's what the curriculum mandates, and every text book I've encountered says.

Well, it is true that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and pregnancy, it's just the only way, nor is it very reasonable to expect teenagers to practice it. Sex is great, it's meant to be. Yes, there are serious consequences, but there are very effective ways to avoid those consequences that aren't nearly as drastic as abstaining.

Somehow my edit turned into double post?

Crispus wrote:

Yep, exactly. I think it's a no-brainer that contraceptive teachings are needed in sex ed, but I also have issues with people who say that sex is no big deal and that casual sex, one-night stands, and a dozen (or more) sexual partners are completely normal and acceptable with no repercussions. I've actually known people who believed that teens should be taught to have sex and NOT be abstinent, because abstinence is unnatural and could inhibit teens' emotional development. Personally, I'm not sure that teachings of that nature are any less destructive than those saying that having sex will cause one's penis to fall off.

But what is the actual number of people that say that sex is no big deal et. al.? I can't even think of more than a dozen or so people I have ever met in my life that have such an outlook. In fact, I would venture to say that I heard most of that kind of talk from the high school football team players on Monday morning since they insisted on informing everyone else how many cheerleaders they "had" on Friday and Saturday nights.

Beyond that, however, I have grave doubts that such a paradigm is being taught in schools. My guess is that such a training discussion in classes would be front page news with certain terminations to follow. I am sure we all remember when Dr. Jocelyn Elders said that we should teach that masturbation is a part of human sexuality (Quelle horreur!) and the ensuing firestorm that followed. Having someone say to a group of teens that multiple sexual partners and regular one-night stands is A-OK would be grabbing the third rail with both hands while covered with water.

Stengah wrote:

Well, it is true that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and pregnancy, it's just the only way, nor is it very reasonable to expect teenagers to practice it. Sex is great, it's meant to be. Yes, there are serious consequences, but there are very effective ways to avoid those consequences that aren't nearly as drastic as abstaining.

I'd hope sex ed teachers wouldn't be framing their teachings like that. Saying that "abstinence is the best, but it's not reasonable to expect you kids to manage that, so here are other things you can do that are almost just as good" implies that abstinence shouldn't be bothered with, because you're casting aspersions on it. Saying that "abstinence is the best, but we're still going to teach you how contraceptives work just so you know about them" would seem to be a better approach.

Ulairi wrote:

If you do not have a right to tell a women what to do with her own body, does she have the right to tell you to take care of what she decides to do? Meaning: If you don't want a kid and she does, should you have to support the child?

Yes, since the rule of thumb is that any child born should be able to expect to be fed and supported by his or her parents. It's a no-fault, strict liability situation. I don't see a problem with having this bright line test, since unless the woman milked the man while he was asleep the pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act by two people. Don't want the responsibility? Act accordingly.

"It's unreasonable to expect teenagers to understand the full consequences of having sex.... It's unreasonable to expect teenagers to not have sex..." Both sides of the sex ed debate assume teenagers are nothing more than maniacal, mouth-breathing slaves to their own hormones, and I wonder if that's part of the problem. That characterization really is quite unfair. Yes, teenagers are dealing with hormonal pressures that they'd never before experienced; and yes, they haven't had much in the way of life experience to help inform their decisions. But essentially, teenagers are already adults: Their bodies are fully mature, locked-and-loaded for reproduction; and while they still have much to learn, their brains and mental capacities are mostly developed. Evolutionarily-speaking, they have all the raw tools they need to succeed in the world, and, indeed, for millenia, people we still consider children today were having sex, making babies, and raising families.

Thus, I think most teenagers are more mature than we as a society give them credit for. Instead of commanding them not to do something, or condescendingly assuming that they're going to do it no matter what, if we just gave them the information and access to birth control, and left their decision up to them (y'know, treat them like adults), I think many would surprise us. Many would choose to have sex, and many would not. After all, teenagers seem to have this thing about being told what they are and aren't going to do. I wonder if the way we're framing the debate on both sides isn't undermining some of the argument.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Thus, I think most teenagers are more mature than we as a society give them credit for. Instead of commanding them not to do something, or condescendingly assuming that they're going to do it no matter what, if we just gave them the information and access to birth control, and left their decision up to them (y'know, treat them like adults), I think many would surprise us. Many would choose to have sex, and many would not. After all, teenagers seem to have this thing about being told what they are and aren't going to do. I wonder if the way we're framing the debate on both sides isn't undermining some of the argument.

Yes. This! Parents don't have to wait on or pressure schools, either. In some fashion any parent can create an open, informative environment at home where any topic can be explored. If you have the internet, use it as a resource. Whether you do or not, it's still a good idea to take your kids to the library to look things up or pick up books about things that interest them. Sex is only another real world topic that they should be informed about when it's appropriate for them, just like driving a car or mathematics. It doesn't have to be treated any differently (and it shouldn't, in my opinion).

OG_slinger wrote:
Crispus wrote:

Yes, because condoms never fail.

The chance you get someone pregnant using a non-spermicidal condom is 2% over an entire year of use. And that's if she's using no birth control whatsoever.

I am more perplexed as to what point someone would try to prove by stating that in rare cases, they fail. As an over-the counter, often free(bar bathrooms, planned parenthood) or cheap device, you have something that is as clinically certain to prevent disease and pregnancy as statistical analysis will allow. Over-emphasizing the outliers is a big part of the abstinence only talk I got, and it was ridiculous.

Combining condoms, with OTC morning after meds for an outlying "break" and you are as close to 100 percent certain as you can get.

And people who have the facts can at least go forth, omit the jimmy, and show that they intend to impregnate someone.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Yet I consider myself pro-choice, if only because I am a man and don't feel I have any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At what point does a fetus become its own body? I really have no idea. We could say that it's the point at which the child can survive outside of its mother, but how useful a distinction is that? With the steady advancement of medical technology, that age is constantly diminishing. Further, that new independence is largely symbolic, as a newborn child will obviously die without a caretaker.

If you do not have a right to tell a women what to do with her own body, does she have the right to tell you to take care of what she decides to do? Meaning: If you don't want a kid and she does, should you have to support the child?

The feminist argument for abortion has never carried any water with me.

That's why you use a condom. Even if the women says she's on the pill, you use a condom unless you have talked and agreed that you want to have kids *now*.

That's just practical advice in this day and age. If you take responsibility for using contraceptives as a man, you'll never have to worry about her having a kid you don't want. It's pretty much only when you expect the women to be the only person to worry about birth control that you'll end up in the position you talked about.

KaterinLHC wrote:

"It's unreasonable to expect teenagers to understand the full consequences of having sex.... It's unreasonable to expect teenagers to not have sex..." Both sides of the sex ed debate assume teenagers are nothing more than maniacal, mouth-breathing slaves to their own hormones, and I wonder if that's part of the problem. That characterization really is quite unfair. Yes, teenagers are dealing with hormonal pressures that they'd never before experienced; and yes, they haven't had much in the way of life experience to help inform their decisions. But essentially, teenagers are already adults: Their bodies are fully mature, locked-and-loaded for reproduction; and while they still have much to learn, their brains and mental capacities are mostly developed. Evolutionarily-speaking, they have all the raw tools they need to succeed in the world, and, indeed, for millenia, people we still consider children today were having sex, making babies, and raising families.

Thus, I think most teenagers are more mature than we as a society give them credit for. Instead of commanding them not to do something, or condescendingly assuming that they're going to do it no matter what, if we just gave them the information and access to birth control, and left their decision up to them (y'know, treat them like adults), I think many would surprise us. Many would choose to have sex, and many would not. After all, teenagers seem to have this thing about being told what they are and aren't going to do. I wonder if the way we're framing the debate on both sides isn't undermining some of the argument.

This makes me think of my friend's little brother--an extremely smart and mature individual--who knocked up his girlfriend be cause one night he drunkenly decided he could get away with not using a condom.

Now--one abortion later--my respect for him is a fraction of what it once was, and I am of the understanding that while many youths are as capable as an average adult, it also means they are susceptible the same idiocies and pitfalls. The only difference is they are incapable of supporting themselves, let alone a child.

Crispus wrote:

I'd hope sex ed teachers wouldn't be framing their teachings like that. Saying that "abstinence is the best, but it's not reasonable to expect you kids to manage that, so here are other things you can do that are almost just as good" implies that abstinence shouldn't be bothered with, because you're casting aspersions on it.

>Eyeroll< Wow, you must have seen into every class in the land, for this is exactly how they put it. Just like they do with Drivers Ed.

Crispus wrote:

Saying that "abstinence is the best, but we're still going to teach you how contraceptives work just so you know about them" would seem to be a better approach.

Good thing this is actually what they do.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Thus, I think most teenagers are more mature than we as a society give them credit for.

It's a very bad idea to talk down to students. I know I didn't like it. The best tenor to take emphasizes that the students are individuals, and it's unreasonable to expect each individual to make the exact same choice, thus each individual must be armed with information.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Crispus wrote:

I'd hope sex ed teachers wouldn't be framing their teachings like that. Saying that "abstinence is the best, but it's not reasonable to expect you kids to manage that, so here are other things you can do that are almost just as good" implies that abstinence shouldn't be bothered with, because you're casting aspersions on it.

>Eyeroll< Wow, you must have seen into every class in the land, for this is exactly how they put it. Just like they do with Drivers Ed.

I was kinda responding to the poster I quoted, not trying to say that his tone is representative of sex ed teachers everywhere (and I'm glad to hear it isn't). Katerin's post is pretty representative of my views.

Crispus wrote:

I was kinda responding to the poster I quoted, not trying to say that his tone is representative of sex ed teachers everywhere (and I'm glad to hear it isn't). Katerin's post is pretty representative of my views.

Yeah, I blame my tone on posting at 5am after a 12 hour shift. My thoughts are much more in line with your "abstinence is the best, but we're still going to teach you how contraceptives work just so you know about them" approach.

Didn't this happen somewhere a couple of years ago at another high school?

KingGorilla wrote:

Combining condoms, with OTC morning after meds for an outlying "break" and you are as close to 100 percent certain as you can get.

And people who have the facts can at least go forth, omit the jimmy, and show that they intend to impregnate someone.

Well as certain as you can get without not actually having sex (though apparently, even this ancient method isn't foolproof either)

KaterinLHC (and others): the only problem I see with not assuming that 99% of all teenagers are hormone dictated semi autonomous beings is that they mostly seem to be that way for a number of years, seriously if we are being honest how many of you can say you didn't have sex by say 21, full adulthood in the USA? I'm guessing that there are perhaps 5 people on the entire board (and this is from a subset of society not known for having much sexual interaction with those of the opposite sex).

Nosferatu wrote:

KaterinLHC (and others): the only problem I see with not assuming that 99% of all teenagers are hormone dictated semi autonomous beings is that they mostly seem to be that way for a number of years, seriously if we are being honest how many of you can say you didn't have sex by say 21, full adulthood in the USA? I'm guessing that there are perhaps 5 people on the entire board (and this is from a subset of society not known for having much sexual interaction with those of the opposite sex).

If you look at the current surveys on teenage sexual activity, you'll find that the overwhelming majority has had sex before they graduate high school. That's why you educate them about contraceptives, not abstinence. They *are* going to have sex.

Heck, even the kids that sign the "virginity pledge" BS still have sex. All they do is delay having it by about a year (and when they do finally have sex, they rarely use condoms or any contraceptives because they've been taught they're worthless).

OG_slinger wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

KaterinLHC (and others): the only problem I see with not assuming that 99% of all teenagers are hormone dictated semi autonomous beings is that they mostly seem to be that way for a number of years, seriously if we are being honest how many of you can say you didn't have sex by say 21, full adulthood in the USA? I'm guessing that there are perhaps 5 people on the entire board (and this is from a subset of society not known for having much sexual interaction with those of the opposite sex).

If you look at the current surveys on teenage sexual activity, you'll find that the overwhelming majority has had sex before they graduate high school. That's why you educate them about contraceptives, not abstinence. They *are* going to have sex.

Where are you getting those numbers from? I recall studies showing most teens do not have sex, but most teens think others do have sex. First Google I get:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

Before we get in to how reliable condoms are, I think we should note that they do count failure due to improper use just the same as they count a spontaneous condom explosion. I can't find any solid numbers on it that I trust, but when I took sexual education they told us that most failures were due to some idiot not knowing how condoms work. I'm not saying they never legitimately fail, of course. I just think that if we're going to call condoms ineffective due to a tiny failure rate, we might also consider natural rejection a viable alternative to abortion.

MaxShrek wrote:

Didn't this happen somewhere a couple of years ago at another high school?

That turned out to be an unreasonable jump to a ridiculous conclusion. It would have been a hell of a story, if it were true.

Nosferatu wrote:

KaterinLHC (and others): the only problem I see with not assuming that 99% of all teenagers are hormone dictated semi autonomous beings is that they mostly seem to be that way for a number of years, seriously if we are being honest how many of you can say you didn't have sex by say 21, full adulthood in the USA? I'm guessing that there are perhaps 5 people on the entire board (and this is from a subset of society not known for having much sexual interaction with those of the opposite sex).

First off: 21 isn't "full" adulthood in the U.S. 18 is, the age at which you can vote, be prosecuted as an adult in the judicial system, and die for your country. (The fact that we have a drinking age out of step with our legal adult age chafes my hide, but that's another debate for another time.) And it's a completely arbitrary designation -- as I mentioned before, centuries prior, people much younger than that were already having and raising families.

Second: I would argue that from an outside perspective, most people, regardless of age, seem to be hormone-dictated semi-autonomous beings. Who hasn't known of 40 year olds getting into the same sexual scrapes as teenagers, even making the same risky or poorly-reasoned decisions? After all, teenagers hardly have a monopoly on unplanned pregnancy or sexual disease, and for some reason, many older adults think they're immune to sexual disease simply as a virtue of their age (STD rates among senior citizens are skyrocketing -- and these are people who are ostensibly the maturest of all of us, who should know better than anyone else the consequences of unprotected sex.) As is becoming increasingly apparent, age is not a good predictor of smarts when it comes to sexual health. Education is.

A potential TMI alert, but since you asked: Despite a fair number of boyfriends in high school and one two-and-a-half year relationship, I did not have sex until a few weeks before my 18th birthday. It's not that I didn't want to (very, very much), and I certainly had ample opportunity--but I had my own (non-religious) reasons for not partaking. And somehow, despite my raging hormones, I managed to "keep it in my pants" until I was ready. That's why I'm willing to give teenagers a little more credit; from personal experience, I know that it's possible for teenagers to make thoughtful, coherent decisions.

Staats wrote:

Where are you getting those numbers from? I recall studies showing most teens do not have sex, but most teens think others do have sex. First Google I get:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

that study wrote:

•Nearly half (46%) of all 15-19-year-olds in the United States have had sex at least once.[1]

•By age 15, only 13% of teens have ever had sex. However, by the time they reach age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse.

It's interesting semantically. 46% of all teens have had sex, and yet 70% of 19 year olds have had sex.

So the statements "the majority of teens have had sex" and "the majority of teens have not had sex," while conflicting, are both technically correct.

I think maybe the elderly don't have the fear of pregnancy anymore, and thus don't think of the other reasons to use condoms... But at the same time the fact that we have such an issue with STDs is fairly significant evidence that unprotected sex is not uncommon either (since not having sexual contact makes it very unlikely you will get an STD). I hasn't actually asked for details, but I do note you mention it was before even your definition of adulthood.

Old people have to watch out for a real and very dangerous potential situation though, and that is "having sex with old people."

because gross.

Have any of you actually sat in an inner city, low income high school sex education class? I went to school in Jamaica, Queens, where we had metal detector and wand scanning every morning and NYPD were our hall monitors. Yes we had sex education, and I could count on one hand how many kids actually stayed awake and paid attention, and I could count with both hands how many just barked back at the teacher and hooted every time the word "sex" or "intercourse" was spoken. And then there was the one kid who got up and showed off his 12 pack of extra large condoms.

Of course this is all just observational, but anyone who's grown up in those institutions can see that these kids aren't oblivious to the dangers of sex, they just don't care. Urban pop culture glorifies sex, womanizing, and pressures young girls to act like the dancers in a rap video. When 15 year olds are doing booty dancing as part of their step routine, you know this goes deeper than having an good old sex education class. And religion plays a huge part in it as well. I was pretty openly atheist and had a heck of a time (no pun intended) dealing with condemnation. And when the topic of abortions would ever come up it was always blasted as a ticket straight to hell and that babies were beautiful gifts from Jesus. No amount of sex education will change any of this, this is a core failure in culture, education, child development, and religious indoctrination.

It's of my opinion that these generations are beyond hope. I support groups like the Harlem Children's Zone, featured on This American Life, who's founder Geoffrey Canada runs his organization not so much to help the couples and teenagers who are pregnant, but to help the next generation.

Staats wrote:

Where are you getting those numbers from? I recall studies showing most teens do not have sex, but most teens think others do have sex. First Google I get:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

I know there's a more current version out there somewhere because I linked to it in a previous thread about abstinence-only sex education.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED374380

Go to page 22.

Kids start having sex earlier than we think and the percentage that have had sex at least once goes up by about 5-10% per year, a trend that accelerates once they turn 15.

12: 9% have had sex
13: 16%
14: 23%
15: 30%
16: 42%
17: 59%
18: 71%
19: 82%.

That one's a little older (1998 and 1989 studies were used versus 2002). The study I posted observed a decrease in sexual activity from 1995 to 2002. But that's not really on topic, I was just curious where "overwhelming majority" came from.

A lot of that also depends on how questionaires are formulated. Though there was, for a while, a drop in teen pregnancy, there was also a pretty significant bump up in teen STD contraction. A little digging determined that at least part of this had to do with teens believing that oral and anal intercourse were "not sex" but rather just "messing around".

Paleocon wrote:

A lot of that also depends on how questionaires are formulated. Though there was, for a while, a drop in teen pregnancy, there was also a pretty significant bump up in teen STD contraction. A little digging determined that at least part of this had to do with teens believing that oral and anal intercourse were "not sex" but rather just "messing around".

You also need to wonder how many kids count petting as "sex" so they don't have to admit they're a virgin on a survey.

9% of 12 year olds sounds pretty unlikely.

./

LobsterMobster wrote:

You also need to wonder how many kids count petting as "sex" so they don't have to admit they're a virgin on a survey.

Or how many said that they are virgins because oral and anal "don't count".

Staats wrote:

That one's a little older (1998 and 1989 studies were used versus 2002). The study I posted observed a decrease in sexual activity from 1995 to 2002. But that's not really on topic, I was just curious where "overwhelming majority" came from.

So what would you consider 82% of something. A "moderate majority"?

I mentioned it previously, but the statistics can be read either way. An overwhelming majority of 19 years have had sex, according to the study, and it is normal to assume that a 100% of all people under the age of 19 either turn 19 eventually or die.

But it's still accurate to say that 46% of teenagers had had sex at some point, if you take it to mean all teenagers surveyed at the time of the study, regardless of whether they were 13 or 19.