Reality always trumps idealism, including when it comes to teenage pregnancy.
I have a whole post drafted up about abortion, but it’s mostly about adults, so I’ll post it later. Plus, it seems to me that all the things I have to say in that post can only follow what I have to say in this post; otherwise, the subject of this post would be a big empty question mark in the other one.
Okay. Let’s do this. The catalyst for this discussion is something Barack Obama has said:
“This is an example where good people can disagree,” the Illinois senator said. “The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.”
The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
A lot of conservatives are going to hate him really hard for that statement. They’re going to say he’s an asshole for equating a baby with “punishment”, and so on. I understand this reaction, but I also think that his overarching point is exactly right. Stick with me here.
When conservatives agitate for abstinence education, they aren’t using the same logic they tend to use for other issues.
For example, guns. I can’t speak for all of you, but at the core, my ultimate reason for insisting that I must have guns in my house is because I am fully in touch with the reality of human nature. I know beyond a doubt, based on my experiences and observations and education, that there are bad people in the world who want to hurt good people. I don’t give two shits if liberals want to pretend this isn’t so; I know it is so.
Therefore, no matter how hard anyone ever tries to convince me that the world would be a better place if law-abiding citizens didn’t pack heat, I will continue to pack heat because the facts have not changed. Human nature is still human nature; if I disarm myself, I am not eliminating all the bad people who want to hurt me, I’m only putting myself in an undesirable position.
Another example: capitalism. History has proven that capitalism is better for the quality of human life than socialism or any variation thereof. The reason for this is human nature. Again, I can’t speak for you but I’m guessing that you’ve come to the same conclusions I have for the same reasons: you know with absolutely no doubt that human nature being what it is, people will not work hard unless they are rewarded for it on a personal level.
Marxists and commies can spend their whole lives trying to convince you otherwise but if you remain true to common sense, and you use your rational brain, they will always fail, because you know that there are just some things you can never, ever change about human nature no matter how great it would be if you could.
For that very same reason, I know that abstinence training is not the answer to teenage pregnancy. It may be one of the tools but I truly believe that even if it were done correctly, which it isn’t, it would still only prevent maybe 5% of teenage pregnancies because of our old friend, human nature.
Not to mention human biology. Many of you are Christians and believe that God made us the way we are for a reason. Which, to me, would mean he specifically designed humans to become fertile at puberty, which occurs at roughly age 12-15. Not only are humans fertile at that age, they are very interested in sex. God made them that way, right? I’m not going to start a religious argument over this but that always has seemed to me a pretty obvious question Christians should ask themselves when they talk about abstinence. It’s not really the point, though, at least not to me.
In my world, reality is everything. And the reality is what I just said - humans become fertile and interested in sex when they’re young teenagers. This is a simple fact that can’t be debated, changed, or wished away. We have to accept that there is absolutely no possible way to create a different reality unless we manipulate their hormones or sterilize them (which, frankly, I WHOLLY SUPPORT).
Other facts are that teenagers are resistant to adult advice, they do not see the “big picture”, they have a very poor grasp of how what they do right this second will affect them in the future, and the number one motivator in their lives is peer pressure. Put all of that in a pot and stir it up, and you have very young humans who are fertile, horny, shortsighted, and determined to do what makes them feel good right now.
Sitting those humans down and telling them that God or society says people shouldn’t have sex until they’re married or older is going to be an utter waste of time and effort on almost all of them. Some will listen, but the majority won’t, no matter how right you are.
Because the reality is, they want to have sex, more than you want them not to.
So, how do you keep them from becoming pregnant or getting STDs? There’s absolutely no reason to believe that telling them not to have sex will accomplish that goal, for the majority of them. As adults, we know that would be the best thing, but as intelligent people who accept factual data, we also know that it just won’t work. And please don’t tell me it works for some and thus my point is disproven. I know it works for some; I have friends who were virgins until they married. But it will never work for the majority unless we completely overhaul our entire culture, which you and I both know is not going to happen any time soon.
All of that being what it is, the fact being that abstinence education only has a small impact…Obama is right. Sorry, you know I cried as I typed those words, but it’s true. When he says of his daughters, “if they make a mistake”, he’s facing the reality that no matter what he teaches them about right and wrong, no matter how many years he spends begging them not to have sex until they’re older, they very well may still do it.
Which won’t make them bad people. They are human beings with human urges, human biology, and human psychology. At age 16, the urge to engage in sexual activity is very often greater than the urge to listen to your parents, and not necessarily because you’re a brat. There are powerful chemicals involved here, folks. Most adults can’t even make sound decisions based on fear of consequences; how can you possibly expect 16-year-olds to do better than you can, especially considering the fact that they’re overwhelmed by hormones and peer pressure?
As for what to do about it and how to prevent them from getting knocked up and thus often having abortions, which I think we all agree is the goal: sorry, but you’re gonna have to teach them about contraception, a lot more than you may feel comfortable with. Argue the point all you want, it won’t change the reality.
And think about this: which is ultimately more important, teenagers not having sex or teenagers not making babies and thus not having abortions? I’m going with the latter. That doesn’t mean I think it’s fine for teenagers to have sex; I don’t. It only means I think them having sex is less harmful by every measure than them having babies or abortions.
It may emotionally damage teenagers to have sex, but they can be, and often are, damaged far more severely and in many more ways (psychologically, financially, medically) if they have a baby or an abortion.
It’s a lot like the Great McCain Question and the lesser of two evils. You know you’re gonna get a liberal jackass for a new president, just like you know kids are going to have sex. All you can do is minimize the damage. Voting for McCain may be distasteful and feel so wrong because it’s essentially an endorsement of something you don’t want to endorse, but the alternative is something worse. Giving teenagers contraception feels distasteful and wrong, as it is an endorsement of something you don’t want to endorse, but the alternative is unwanted pregnancies and abortions, which to me, is worse.
I welcome debate, but for the love of God, don’t ignore half of what I said to argue against the rest of what I said. If management of all Earth functions was in my control, teenagers would NEVER have sex. And I fully comprehend that making contraception easily available to all of them probably means some of them are more likely to do it. But not much more likely; like I keep saying, most of them are going to do it if they want to, no matter what.
And frankly, since I hate abortion and I hate how unwanted most babies are who are born to teenagers, I’m willing to make that trade-off. If putting contraception in the hands of every teenager means slightly more of them have sex but many fewer of them have babies and abortions, I’m okay with that and I can’t for the life of me figure out why I shouldn’t be.
One last thing. You may wonder how I can say teenagers won’t listen when told not to have sex but will listen when told how to use contraception. I say it because at least in my experience and that of all the girls I knew in high school, it’s true. Almost nobody had any interest in avoiding sex completely; everybody was interested in not acquiring AIDS, herpes, gonorrhea, and babies. Overriding our hormonal urges was nearly impossible but appealing to our fears was not.
By the end of 11th grade, most of the girls were on the pill, which they’d gotten from Planned Parenthood without their parents’ knowledge or permission, and most of them also used condoms because this was the late 80s and we were terrified of AIDS.
Wait, one more last thing: surely somebody will want to rail against what I just said about girls getting the pill from PP without their parents’ approval. All I have to say to that is would you rather they didn’t? Would you rather they got pregnant? Would you rather their first visit to that place be for an abortion?
Think about it: if they’re going to Planned Parenthood secretly, they obviously have parents who don’t want them to have sex. Which clearly isn’t stopping them from having sex, so what good would it do to force them to have parental permission to get the pill? The only outcome from that would be that instead of having sex with contraception, they’ll have sex without it.
Who wins then? Not the parents; they may feel great about having control over their daughter’s use or lack thereof of protection even while they can never control whether or not she has sex, but they won’t feel so great the day she comes home to tell them she’s pregnant.
I have a son and I don’t even know where I’ll begin with him. It completely sucks, because you’re right. They are going to suffer emotional damage either way. I hate that.
As far as Planned Parenthood…Just like I would be over-the-top furious with a school teaching my child from a sexually explicit book without my knowledge AND approval, I would feel the same about PP prescribing birth control. More so, actually.
Don’t be touching my kid, medicating him/her, or giving any type of moral advice unless I specifically schedule the appointment.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:57 pmAs a conservative who usually comes down on the other side of this issue, I found this post rather interesting. Thanks Rachel, it certainly gave me something to think about. I don’t know how much it’ll actually change my mind, but it’s making my brain work a little harder, which is never a bad thing.
One thing I think I should point out, though, is that there’s some serious inconsistency going on here - you can give a young teen the pill or an abortion without parental knowledge, but you can’t give a kid an aspirin or remove a mole without parental consent?
I dunno, maybe you’re right, and society and teens would be better off by widely and freely available contraceptives. I dunno. But a large part of me instinctively shrinks from inconsistencies, so if we’re going to give teens greater autonomy in taking the pill and such without parental consent, I’m not sure how we can logically avoid such a thing in other areas as well. Which might not be a bad thing - I certainly don’t know whether it would be or not.
Just another thing to think about.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pmI also bumped up hard against the issue with PP giving away pills. It’s one thing to educate about STDs — trust me, I found out my younger bro’ was having unprotected sex and made him look at pictures of genital herpes — and I lump that together with giving away condoms. To me, it’s quite another to give out hormones to kids (Michelle Malkin had a post about a middle school doing it). ‘Cause that’s what The Pill is — doses of concentrated hormones. I think it’s completely inappropriate to give that to kids. Is a 17 year old a kid? Mmm, probably not. Is a 13 year old? Yes, definitely so. Does it come down to where you draw the line, age-wise?
April 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pmI was a virgin when I got married. I was raised as a good Catholic boy and I believed everything that was taught to me. Being shy and geeky didn’t help, though I did have a couple of opportunities to indulge in sins of the flesh while in college. I turned them both down.
Has it made me happy?
No.
Getting married w/o having sex is like buying a car w/o test driving it. Yes, it’s new (she was a Catholic virgin, too). But, if it’s a lemon, you’re stuck.
While I also don’t believe, per se, that teens should have sex, I also believe that sex is a normal part of being an adult human. Teaching teens about responsibility, and subsequently how that applies to sex, would go a long way toward improving society overall as well as its views on sex.
Interesting factoid: later in life I discovered that the Catholic Church, who not only frowns on contraception but actually deems it a sin, has an exception (I forget the actual term) on contraception. When a pregnancy may prove fatal and/or mask a possibly unhealthy condition, then the Church allows contraception use. Google “molar pregnancy” for details. The quick note is that a healthy pregnancy, during the time that a molar pregnancy is being treated, cannot be differentiated from a malignant tumor and must be aborted to avoid a possibly cancerous condition. So, even the Church agrees, under duress, that contraception is better than abortion.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pmI too, struggle with the same type of stuff David is.
I admit, if teens humping each other is bad, teens humping each other and making babies is worse.
But I’m not sure that removing the disincentive of an unplanned pregnancy won’t increast the incidence of teen sex far more than you imagine it will.
Lamont
April 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pmBut Rachel, do you have any data to back that up? What were teen pregnancy rates in other eras of our history? In other countries?
The fact about kids that you fail to look at is that by definition, their “human nature” is in the process of being shaped. It’s human nature to have a sex drive. That doesn’t mean it’s unescapable human nature to actually have sex at age 14.
Little kids do lots of stupid stuff by virtue of their human nature that we work hard to teach them not to do. Growing up is all about learning to tame the more animalistic aspects of our nature. We learn not to steal, not to bite other people, not to hit other people. We learn to share and to respect folks and to delay the immediate gratification of our desires, physical and mental. We don’t say, “well, it’s human nature for a kid to get in fights with other kids, so there’s no point in trying to stop him from doing that.”
It is possible to severly restrict the opportunities for teenagers to have sex (most teenagers, anyway), and to instill in them the ability to wait to fulfill their sexual urges. It’s just not possible to do so without your kids calling you MEAN! and constantly bitching that they don’t have the same freedoms that the other parents give their kids (freedoms like being able to stay out until midnight without telling your parents where you are, etc.).
April 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pmRachel,
I whole heartedly disagree with the lesser of the two evils metaphore no matter how it is applied. Teen pregnancy is a consequence of a choice. If I choose not to adhere to the guidance of my parents for abstinence then I choose to suffer the conseqences of my decision. I don’t think there is a rating scale for emotional damage. I don’t think being sexualy abused was any more tramatic than being abandoned emotionally by my parents. They both sucked wildly. If we choose to save our children from the consequences of their choices we do them an even greater disservice. If I give my children an avenue to get out of their choice of submission to my guidlines then why can’t that be applied across the board with any behavior. I don’t view parenthood as a means of controlling my childrens’ behavior but as a process of education and leaving them with the age appropriate choice to make. And I can speak to both sides of the fence. I have one daughter who chose to follow my advise and one that didn’t and the one who didn’t consequently experienced a teenage pregnancy. At that point, my educational role switched to educating her on how to still be successful and work with the decisions that she made. Most of the time making a decision that is in the child’s best interest isn’t always the easiest or the most popular but it still has to be made by the parent.
As for children being able to circumvent my guidlines without me being notified is a criminal act in my mind. How can you hold a parent responsible for their children when you don’t respect their parental rights. Rights and responsibilities are not mutually exclusive….if you have one you have the other. So either the state is the parent or I am and I will definately use my 2nd ammendment right to protect my right/responsibility as a parent.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pmRachl Lukis stirrin’ it up.
I’ll get coffee…this is gonna be a long thread right quick.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pmI would agree that the modern cultural norm of marriage in the twenties and puberty as early as ten or eleven in some girls creates a pretty wide gap between the biological drive to reproduce and the societally acceptable age of marriage. I’m not personally a huge fan of teenagers having sex, nor am I a fan of the “tell them not to do it and hope for the best” school of sex ed. But mostly I’m not a fan of government schools taking on the roll of sex educator at all.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:28 pmHmm…lets see if I can keep from going into tangent mania here:
1: The lesser of two evils is just a cop-out. Raising a child is not easy. Abdicating your responsibility as a parent to a tired cliche like “they’ll just do it anyways” is unacceptable.
2: It’s Human nature is also no excuse to give up and start slinging condoms around.
3: There are no “what ifs” in life’s important decisions. Everything has a consequence. If you whitewash the consequence away what have they learned.
4: You say you understand that the real solution is to alter our culture entirely (I agree), but that it will take a long time…so in the meantime teach them to be safe sluts.
5: There is no solution for shitty-parents, sad, I know. But messing with what other parents’ have taught their children is not the answer either.
Damn, tangent there. What I mean to refer to is the “emotional damage” aspect you bring up regarding baby or abortion. A proper parent would (like Kristi said) switch roles from disciplinarian to teacher. They would now instruct their child that made the wrong choices in how to deal with that choice and move on and move up.
If you coddle children so much that they have no fear of any reprisal then they won’t have the common sense, logic and morals to succeed in life. They will continue to fuck up once they hit real life…where the consequences can be a bit more ‘emotionally damaging’…especially if you have no parents to bail your ass out.
damn, phone call coming in. I wish I could finish my thoughts, but i hope you get my drift.
P.S. Isn’t it amazing what happens when a society pushes religion out and instead, stresses the importance of self satisfaction above all else.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pmI’m skipping lunch to keep up with this one.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:48 pmI was a virgin until I was almost 35. My H.S. years I was too frightened to get my g.f. pregnant (I was definitely not mature enough to handle that) and after that it was HIV/AIDS that scared the crap outta me. I should also add that as a Christian, that played a large role in me remaining a virgin until 35.
Didn’t meet the woman that would be my wife until I was almost 36 so my “experience” was limited at best. Had I known then what I know now, I would have waited until I met the missus before I gave in.
Maybe God made humans that way because if everyone was able to hold off on having sex until they were old enough to fully weigh all of the consequences, the human race would die out!
April 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pmRachel,
As a Christian, I know that the Bible tells of good men (King David and Samson, off the top of my head) giving into their lusts and other fleshly desires. It cost them dearly. These examples are not in there by accident and I think the scriptures tell us these things to make us aware of how weak we really are as humans. Look, I remember how I thought as a teenage boy. When you are in the moment, it is very easy to forget or ignore the sound reasoning of not “doing it”. The best thing, really, is to not put oneself into a situation where you can act on your urges. We do ourselves a disservice if we assume that just because our kids are Christians, they are somehow immune to the same temptations as anyone else. It is best to prepare them for the situations they could find themselves in with the hope that they will make the right decision when that time comes.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pmWe did not have sex education when I was a teenager. We also had restrictions on the type of sexual material shown in movies and on tv. And yes, we were taught absinance because we also didn’t have reliable birth control. And, I guess it might amaze you that I might have made out with boys but didn’t have sex until I turned 18.
What I am trying to say here is that what conservative would like to do is have things return, as much as possible, to the way they used to be. I’m not convinced that telling teenagers “Gee we don’t expect you to try and control yourselves so why even try?” is a useful strategy either. I don’t see that sex education has done much of anything. I’d like to see the schools and the government step completely out of the picture on this one. And I’d definitely like to see restrictions on sexual material in the media.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pmSorry Rachel, while I agree we should do all we can to prevent STDs, teenage pregnancy, and abortions, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your points.
1.
But, even if only some of them listen for only some of the time, telling them to wait is going to have an effect. Maybe it won’t ensure they will wait until they are older or married, but they will have to think about it if it’s said sincerely (reasons given) and often enough. If it only causes them to postpone sexual activity for 6 months or a year, it is still helping.
Personally, I think they should be given sex education and told why to wait.
2. If comprehensive sex education is so effective why do new figures show that 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD? Study: teen girls and sex disease For cripes sake, they’ve all been putting condoms on bananas since kindergarten: if sex education is so successful shouldn’t the incidence of STDs be dropping?
3. As for organizations dispensing birth control to minors without parental notification, I do not want my children receiving any health care without my knowledge … period. Disgustingly, studies have shown that the availability of these services actually helps many adult predators take advantage of their teenaged victims. (E.g., Mom’s boyfriend is molesting Mom’s 13-year-old and makes the teen get the pill or an abortion all without Mom knowing or being able to protect her daughter.)
April 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pmMost excellent post, Rachel. I agree with all of it with two notes:
1) When the GOVERNMENT starts trumping parental authority, even when it is factually correct, it has begun to do more harm than good. (See Slick Rick Perry’s mandate for ALL Texas girls to get the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine.)
We won’t make any progress by trying to cut parents out of parenting. We have to actually convince the parents that contraception is the way to go, and that’s going to be rilly rilly rilly hard because:
2) Many Christians believe, as a core tenet of their faith, that God deliberately bestowed powerful sex drives on us, and then Commanded that we deny ourselves this pleasure. To them, abstinence is a virtue that must be taught…and God is gonna give ‘em a pop quiz.
Of course I think that if God exists and he in fact did this to us, then God is a Giant Fucking Douchebag, but that’s me.
The point is–this is Dogma, and it’s damned difficult to Reason with.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pmHumans become fertile & horny right when they should, if they’re not going to live for 80 years… if the average lifespan of the base model human is something like 30 years, then gettin’ started at 12 or 13 is probably a good idea (I don’t know, I’m not the designer of the thing).
I only hope that my daughters exercise some measure of sense, that they manage to look beyond the now and do a quick reckoning of possible future burdens. Unless he totally has a bitchin’ van, of course. But I think that only makes sense.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pmvery good post Rachel. Why don’t you just fess up to being a libertarian and throw all that weight behind:
April 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pmhttp://www.rootforamerica.com
The is the most reasonable place on the web for these discussions. Sometimes I comment, and sometimes I just sit back and marvel at all of you. You are thoughtful, intelligent, reasoning people of faith and non-faith, who never stoop to personal attacks and everybody respects everybody. It’s one of the reasons my ‘what blogs do you visit?’ the other day was a short list of ‘Rachel’s’ - and that was about it!
I am a conservative Christian person when it comes to these issue but I will say the teenage thing has made me ponder, too. Why such incredible drives in those so young if they are supposed to put the brakes on, and at a time when they are the least capable, maturity wise, of doing so? I think way back when, through the centuries all the way back to the beginning, it was about people creating life, period, and teen pregnancy was considered something very different from how we view it now. Our modern minds are more about quality of life, not throwing the potential of your life away, especially if you are a young girl, but to some degree with a teenage father as well, and social issues like that, apart from any moral issues. Plenty of non-faith people don’t want their girl getting pregnant, either, for reasons of sheer practicality and life potential. But if your quality of life means ending a life you’ve created, where does quality of life for that life fit in? And it goes round and round.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pmI’m a Christian.
I’m a Conservative.
I’m a Republican.
I’m a mid-twenties, never married virgin, whose belief in premarital celibacy (and faith in general) cost me my last girl friend.
I’m an Engineer (a lot like a scientist).
Facts are facts, and I am OK with them being taught in school. If the school sticks to teaching the facts, I’m fine. Those facts include the possible consequences of unprotected sex, the diseases, the baby, the statistical instances of claimed shame and regret. Those facts also include the available contraceptive measures, how they are designed to work, how they fail, why they fail. These facts include the different consequences of different sex (like if you think genital herpes is embarrassing, imagine if you get it on your face after oral sex). I believe the added risks of anal sex should be taught (though the idea is disgusting to me anyway). The existence of homosexuality should be taught, but anything beyond that isn’t factual yet (so no advocacy), an any risks can implied from fusing knowledge of the effects on the male and female from the different types of sex.
Oh yes, and the four most important facts: 1) abstinence is the only guaranteed means to avoid pregnancy and STDs, 2) a fertilized egg is a genetically unique life, human in DNA, 3) the contraceptive pill does not prevent the fertilization of the egg, it only prevents it from sticking to the uterine wall (so a genetically distinct conceived life potentially washes away, as surely as it would if the morning after pill were used) 4) condoms are a porous material, designed primarily to stop pregnancy, so the pores are smaller than sperm cells are, but there are STDs that are smaller than the pores, so they are possible to spread even if using a condom.
I grew up in CA, I had complete sex-ed, starting in 5th grade, ending in 9th (”health” class). I was also religious, brought up in the church. By age 10 (which I turned in 5th grade before sex-ed started) my parents and church had instilled in me the idea that it is morally correct to be married prior to sex (because, assuming two healthy partners, and no intervening processes, a child will be the eventual result of sex). I believe this is enough.
If you are concerned your child learning the facts about the world around him will cause him or her to more readily engage in sinful behavior, then you are only keeping them ignorant, not protecting them. Ignorance is easily replaced with false knowledge (such as “you can’t get pregnant if it is your first time”). If they are told only that it is wrong, but not why, they don’t have much strength to resist temptation, because a sweet lie (or even honestly believe incorrect information conveyed by a friend or seducer) can convince them otherwise.
In summary, I agree with the idea of teaching the kids. I don’t believe that contraceptives should be simply given away. If a parent wants to take a daughter her in because they decided together she should be on the pill, then fine BUT NO ONE ELSE GETS TO. As to condoms, they aren’t too expensive, and if charities want to provide them for free, no questions asked, they should be welcome to, but not at school. There is a difference between informing children, educating them, and endorsing the action, which, let’s face it, providing contraceptives is doing. Kids are told to listen to their teachers. If little Johny’s teacher gives him a condom, he’ll likely believe it is OK for him to use it in its intended role.
Finally, planned parenthood has proven they are willing to circumvent the law, the organization should be shut down in my opinion, and those who have broken the law should face criminal prosecution, not simply dismissal.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pmdoes it hurt to be so right all the time?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pmBrief intro on world incidence of teen pregnancy here and here. Some historical figures on teen pregnancy in the US here. Not the best proxy for teen sexual activity, of course, because developed nations tend to have both sex ed and access to contraception.
The Guttmacher Institute has an interesting report that allows some cross-national comparisons. It doesn’t indicate lower levels of teen sexual activity in developed nations with lower teen pregnancy rates, or lower teen birth rates in nations with older average age of loss-of-virginity.
Those inclined to debate why that is, have at. But the summary of the study is IMHO dead on.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pmI am a Christian, but I was raised in a “medical” household (I come from a long line of nurses and other medical professionals). My mother worked as office manager/bookkeeper for over 20 years in an OB/GYN’s office in downtown Seattle. The OB she worked for worked in free clinics as well, so many patients who were on Medicaid came to the office as well. I had the ever-loving crap scared out of me at as a young teenager because Mom was bringing home stories of kids my age who were pregnant (along with a host of drug-related problems). I also worked the front desk for a few summers at the office, so I saw a lot of sad stuff first hand.
When I was 14, my parents had their 4th (and last) child. There’s a 10 year gap between my sisters. Trust me, there’s nothing that makes sex less appealing that the everyday care of a baby (and the thought to a teenager that their parents are actually having sex - ewww). So, not only was I hearing (and seeing) horror stories, I was living with a baby sister, which made the results of sex really obvious to me.
I was a virgin until I got married, but my husband was not. I plan on giving my kids (ages 4 and 2) every kind of information possible, because that’s how I was raised. I even plan on getting my daughter vaccinated for HPV when she’s old enough (because no matter how well I raise her and what kind of morals she has, I didn’t raise her future husband). I plan on teaching my kids that sex outside of marriage has consequences, both physical and emotional, and that when you have sex, you have to accept those consequences. I’m not deluding myself - this is a long, uphill battle. But I’m gonna fight it - and no school or politician is going to override me.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pm3) the contraceptive pill does not prevent the fertilization of the egg, it only prevents it from sticking to the uterine wall (so a genetically distinct conceived life potentially washes away, as surely as it would if the morning after pill were used)
Um, that’s false. Normal oral contraceptives (”The Pill”) prevent ovulation. No egg to fertilize.
Trust me, there’s nothing that makes sex less appealing that the everyday care of a baby (and the thought to a teenager that their parents are actually having sex - ewww).
LMAO. Oh yeah. Baby care does tend to impress. I’m all in favor of issuing adolescents twenty pound weights that they must carry around undamaged all day long, weights that randomly spew noxious substances all over themselves and the bearer. And make LOUD frightening and annoying noises.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pmInteresting post, Rachel. I think the overarching problem is that pop culture glorifies a irresponsibility without consequence. Until that is resolved, no amount of abstinence teaching will help much. It doesn’t help that we send such conflicting messages to kids. On one hand we tell them not to do it, that it can be a destructive behavior; on the other, sleaze sells and it stays at the forefront of media and entertainment. It reminds me of the “Rock Against Drugs” program from the 80’s, which the ever-lovable Sam Kinison equated to “Christians Against Christ.”
I do have to disagree with you about one thing; you say that because God made us go crazy at puberty, it might excuse the behavior (I paraphrase, obviously). That’s a really horrendous argument. By that same token, God also made the thug that wants to hurt you; it’s in his nature. Will you reconsider shooting his deserving ass should he break into your home? Or the pedaphile, who can’t control himself; you’ve just put forth a resounding argument for mainstreaming NAMBLA. If you do take a christian angle on the idea that God made us with our flaws, the purpose was to test man and make us strive to be more and better, as all obstacles do. It’s just another sort of obstacle. Everyone caves now and again. The idea isn’t that no one caves, but that you don’t accept it as okay and strive to redeem yourself. Of course, there are always judgemental assholes ready to pounce, but as you said, that’s human nature.
Same goes with sex and kids. I don’t think abstinance only works; though abstinance should be taught. But until the idea that such indescretion is not only okay, but neccessary to ‘be cool’ is undone, nothing will change.
Just for the record, I grew up in a christian household. My folks taught me about the B&B’s when I was 9. I haven’t been right since ;). But they also taught it with love, and I had their relationship as my example; it makes a big difference because the act has meaning to me. Taught in a classroom as a clinical subject, it just becomes another thing that’s only purpose is self-satisfaction. That is, until those consequences they seldom see in entertainment kick in.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm“Unless he totally has a bitchin’ van, of course.”
Thank you, Scott, for making me giggle like an imbecile.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pmOne thing that is often overlooked when people talk about a baby being the consequence of a bad choice is… the baby. Granted, it’s tough for a teenager to become pregnant and to have to live with the increased responsibility etc., but it’s also tough on that baby. And that baby didn’t have any choice at all, but still has to live in a sub-optimal situation. I know, I know, some teenagers can step up to the plate and do the right thing and everything turns out all right, but in many, many, many cases it doesn’t.
That being said, I think with my kids I’ll teach them as much as I can about hormones, sex, contraception, peer pressure, pregnancy, abstinence, and the moral and pragmatic reasons intertwined in those topics, and hope for the best. Ultimately, it’s the best a parent can do.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pmI think what Obama meant by his comment is the punishment that would come from a 15 year old girl (for example) having a baby - her life changes forever because of a lapse in judgment. Good bye childhood, hello parenthood. It’s not what any parent would choose for their child and as much as I’m NO fan of Obama, I don’t think he meant it quite as literally as it is being taken in the MSM. I don’t believe he meant the baby is the punishment, but rather the life-changing circumstances that result from teenage pregnancy.
That being said - I agree with Rachel 110%. It is a cold hard fact that no matter how hard you try, teenagers will want to have sex. Time has proven that to be so. I had “sex education” (focusing on abstinence only) in my high school as a senior - and I can tell you it probably only influenced maybe 10 kids to not have sex.
Kids will have sex, period. It’s better to equip them to avoid pregnancy than to believe that lectures, god and whatever else you can think of will suppress urges that are a few thousand years old. My mother understood that and took me to a gynecologist when I was 16 with full support and approval to put me on the pill if I asked. I did and my mom knew about it. Was she happy I had made that choice? Of course not, but she was far happier that at least I made the choice to protect myself from getting pregnant.
Some kids do manage to abstain until they marry - and I am in awe of that kind of commitment and self-control. But the vast majority will barely make it to their 18th birthday before they succumb to the urges.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:21 pmNice post. You’ve made some fine points, Rachel.
While educating children (at the right age) with facts, consequences, etc., is okay at school, any other action, pills, condoms, etc. should be the province of the parent, and not other entity.
Chet
April 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pmTully, I’ll recall number 3 then. I always thought that it was ovulation that was prevented as well, but I was told later that ovulation isn’t prevented, but instead that the uterine wall is made inhospitable to it. I guess it will take further research on my part, and I humbly acknowledge my error. Now I have my own research to do again, damn.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pmI see that Vehix dot com is advertising cars by selling the idea of a virtual test drive. Hmmm. VeSex dot com? A virtual all nighter with a person you’ll have sex with AFTER marriage, only you get to take the sex test drive BEFORE marriage. I’m guessing it would have about the same look-and-feel as a virtual vehicle test drive.
OK, I’ll drop that.
Rachel, once again you’ve driven home a very solid point. For all the talking, cajoling, preaching about the dangers of sex before marriage, youth have a very clear and honest way of asking themselves, if no one else, “how can this be bad the day before signing the marital paperwork, and so good the day of and day AFTER signing the marital paperwork?” How can they get STD before and NOT get it afterward? Well, from what I’ve been reading, it looks like about 25% to 33% of the population of the U.S. has sexually transmitted herpes, so if someone is involved with a person who has that condition, either before or after marriage the risk is the same.
And, I’ve never been convinced that sex education leads to more sexually promiscuous lifestyles. Now, if one wants to argue that the younger one starts having sex, the more sex that person has by the time they are 18 or 21 or 30 or . . . But are STDs and/or abortions more likely for such a person? Maybe. Maybe not.
I think the data in such an arena is very conflictual. So, keep making your point, Rachel. I think it’s better to know what’s coming than to be ignorant about it. Besides, we all know that there is so much information available in libraries and on the internet, there are seemingly endless sources of sex education outside of schools. The question is, how good is the information? That is, how accurate?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pmChris-RC,
Some folks claim that, but experienced OB/Gyn’s aren’t among them. In the event of a failure (even pills are not 100%!–especially when combined with certain other drugs) there are a couple of secondary mechanisms involving endometrial action that could have that result, but they’re even less likely than other secondary mechanisms involving endometrial action that would prevent sperm from ever entering the uterus. And the secondary actions are (in the literature) hypothetical, not demonstrated.
Call it technically possible, but in practice highly unlikely under normal usage. BCP’s can be used as emergency “morning after” contraceptives as you described (that’s what Plan B pills are–higher doses of the same hormones) but in normal use that’s not the mechanism.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pmDonBodell: while the STD thing remains pertinent (one reason I favor factual education), I find your argument about signing the piece of paper a little weak. I’ll take it as honest though, and respond to it as such. From a religious stand point, it can be bad before signing and good after, not because of signing the legal contract of marriage, but because of the Vows made, to each other, before family, friends, and God. Before sex and any of its consequences, the two who will engage in it have committed their lives to each other. So if there is a baby, they are committed to each other. There is less likelihood of emotional abandonment, and false prentences (using one or the other for sex, then moving on). I’m sure there is some one, some where, who got married, had sex, then divorced immediately. He (or she) is an asshole, and most likely has a spot reserved for him in the hot place.
Short version: it is ok after marriage (or in marriage) because the two parties are (in theory) fully committed to each other, formalized by an oath sworn before God, before the deed is done.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pmRespectfully, I feel I must point out a flaw in your analogy.
If we are to apply this same standard with guns (teach them safe use of guns and they’ll use guns responsibly) to sex (teach them safe sex and they’ll use that responsibly), then why don’t we also apply this same standard to drugs? Do we teach kids safe ways of using drugs in the hopes that they’ll use them responsibly in the future?
No, we teach them to “just say no”. We tell them to abstain utterly.
“But wait,” I can hear you saying, “Drugs are an entirely different situation.”
Well, yeah, that’s the point. Drugs are an entirely different situation, just as sex is an entirely different situation.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pmPopped back in to see what’s going on. Wow - only two hours and 34 lengthy and thoughtful comments already.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pmAlso, I question the argument that kids need to be educated on the methods of safe sex. Awareness of the methods may (or may not) have a beneficial effect, but I don’t really see why a teacher needs to show students how to put on a condom. Even if you discount the fact that every condom has instructions printed on the wrapper, it’s a pretty fool-proof process all on its own.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pmI agree completely with Rachel. I have a 19 month old son and plan to provide him with all of the facts, as well as encouragement to make good decisions. Christianity is not significant to my wife or me as we are both agnostic.
Historically, unmarried girls experienced awful social consequences for becoming pregnant. We aren’t going to bring those kinds of consequences back, and without them teenagers *will* have sex much more frequently than they would with them. Therefore, I believe that the only reasonable response is to provide appropriate education that includes abstinence as the best choice.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pmAnd when we do this, some of them “learn” to “just say no,” while most of them learn that sanctimonious absolutist bullshit is, in fact, bullshit.
Teach them to be stupid drones, and they will become stupid drones, unless they’re smart enough to realize their parents/teachers/preachers are the REAL stupid drones.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:49 pmSo what are you saying? That we should teach kids to “safely” use drugs? That we should teach them how to do drugs “responsibly”?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pmI’m saying we should teach our children that, for whatever reason, Society has decided that alcohol is Social and pot is Evil. We should teach our children that Society is pretty stupid, but you flout its rules at your own peril.
We should not teach our children to suppress their own fledgling ability to reason for themselves, and that’s exactly what “Just Say No!” does.
Redhead Infidel: Make mine a decaf, please. Every time I swear off comments on this blog, Rachel fires off another thought missile. Dammit.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:01 pmAh, Rachel, once more into the lion’s den…Well done post. And tomorrow: Abortion…I can’t wait.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pmWe taught our kids ‘abstinence is the best choice.’ But when my daughter acquired a serious boyfriend, I worried some. So I explained that condoms are good for preventing some diseases but don’t always work to prevent pregnancy. I asked her if we needed to go visit the health clinic. She, honest little devil that she is, said yes, we should. So without recriminations I quickly set up an appointment and took her. In retrospect that event changed a lot of things. I am the one she calls when she needs a parent to talk to, not her mother. She is happily married now, and I am the happy grandpa of a couple of grandkids.
As usual, an interesting “conversation”. I’m not sure how the world has exactly changed so much that - having been taught respect for yourself and others, and being aware of the consequences, it is impossible to stop teens from humping like dogs. Back in the day … well before sex education in schools, my girlfriend told me she’d like to experiment, but it was very important to her to be a virgin when she married (and we’d planned that it would be to me). I certainly hope that happened for her, I know I respected her enough to not push the issue. Sure, I was a shy geeky kid at 18, and a virgin until my early 20’s … but I don’t really think I was that unusual.
The argument that it’s such a strong urge seems a little too pat to me. Since the urge to try all sorts of forbidden fruit is so strong and unmanageable, why are we putting all those anti-drug commercials on TV? Shouldn’t PP be handing out doobies with the pills and condoms?
Let’s not just look on it as a Christian exercise … all sorts of cultures have rules about not giving in to all your urges. And that’s a good thing. I’d like more money … but my morals make me think that it’s probably not a good idea to rob a bank. I like to drive fast, but realizing how quickly fast becomes crash when a deer darts out (I’m still repairing the damage to my motorcycle) keeps me from ignoring the speed laws (or common sense).
April 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pmThere’s days when I’ve though seriously that a shot to my wife’s forehead would probably shut her up, but then I realize that she’s been at home all day alone and it drives her as acrazy as her talking drives me …
We just can’t exist as a society without rules, and the relaxation of the rules and penalties of teen sex has NOT improved our society one whit. Sure, some may have benefited a bit from “free love” … but society sure has not.
Thank you so much, Mr. Clinton, for hastening that slide down the slippery slope.
Chris_RC,
“The church” has beaten it so thoroughly into our brains that sex outside of marriage is bad that I think everyone understands the religious argument. Interestingly, “the church” doesn’t differentiate between religious marriages and civil ceremonies, where God isn’t mentioned at all. Additionally, while the Christian, Jewish and Muslim God are the same, The Hindu, Bhuddist, etc etc etc Gods are markedly different, most Christians don’t seem bothered by Hindu marriages. It would seem to me that, if the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is the God that can bless a marriage, there should be more institutional outrage for our society’s couples who are married only in the “non-blessed” sense.
As to Rachel’s larger point about horny teenagers and their proclivity toward engaging in sex — they do it because they are supposed to. Modern humans have worked to extend their lives significantly vs their ancestral counterparts. As someone pointed out in the comments above, 13 was middle-aged to the earliest of the homo genus. Our biological self is still geared toward a boorish, brutal and short life, while technology has managed to prolong the inevitable. The fact that we, as a society, have artifically extended childhood well past puberty doesn’t change the function of our bodies.
Our core being, whether established scientifically or religiously, still expects us to reproduce in its prime, which, biologically speaking, is in our teens.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pmA few things for the record, too busy to go back and see who I’m addressing here:
1. I’m not a Christian, don’t believe in the Christian God or the Bible. I wasn’t saying that I believe God made kids the way they are, I was saying that CHRISTIANS do. And I certainly would not equate the natural urges of a pubescent human with murderous urges of psychopaths. The difference, you see, is that the first is normal and happens to every single healthy human, but the second is not normal and does not happen to healthy humans.
2. I wasn’t trying to analogize owning guns with teen sex. The analogy is within the type of thinking used to arrive at either conclusion: acknowledging the reality of a situation and making decisions based on that reality, which is that because of human nature certain things always have happened and always will. There have always been bad people who want to hurt you so you need a gun unless you want to get hurt, and teenagers will always have sex no matter what you so say they need contraception unless you want them to get pregnant.
3. The urge to use drugs is not the same as the urge to have sex. All normal, healthy humans want sex. No normal, healthy humans want to use drugs (except pot but that’s a whooooooole other post).
4. I know Planned Parenthood is not a great institution for a variety of reasons. But the fact of the matter is, because of their policy of giving girls the pill without parental notification, there are fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
Sorry, but it is a fact. If you truly, truly want abortion to stop, you will not prevent agencies like PP from giving girls the pill, even behind their parents’ backs. I know, I know, I don’t have kids so I can’t understand. I get that.
What I don’t get is why anyone would think that it’s worse to violate a parent’s “right” to know about their kid getting the pill than to have yet another unwanted or aborted baby. It’s a medication? Fine, then how about condoms and diaphragms? Is it really more important for Mom to give permission for a kid to use contraception than for that kid to actually use contraception?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pmActually Rachel, Christians have asked and answered this question (to themselves) a long time ago. Aside from the particularly Puritanical sects of Christianity (like, y’know, the Puritans), Christians really don’t have a problem with sex per se. What Christians, and the Bible, have a problem with is sex outside of marriage.
In other words, God doesn’t particularly care how much sex you have if you’re married. Indeed, God encourages married couples to have sex. The wife’s body does not solely belong to her, it also belongs to her husband for his pleasure. The husband’s body does not solely belong to him, but also to his wife for her pleasure. They SHOULD NOT deprive themselves of sex except by mutual consent and only if the choice is between sex and prayer. And they should come back together and continue their “marital duties” as soon as possible, lest Satan tempt them away from each other.
As for the age of fertility, the laws establishing the legal age at which someone can freely have sex is mostly arbitrary, and in the past it was much lower. I’m not saying we should lower the age of consent, but as far as I know the Bible doesn’t specify age 18 as the age of consent.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pmThen logically, should we not also do the same when it comes to sex? Society has pretty much decided that teen sex is bad. Should we not therefore teach our children that, while society may be wrong on this issue, that they should not violate those rules?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pmYES! Sorta…
We should teach our children the consequences of sex: Babies, STDs, and statutory rape convictions.
We then step back and let them make decisions for themselves–decisions based on truthful information that we’ve given them, not blusterous bullshit like “God is gonna get you!”
April 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pmRachel, you’ve got some really good points here, but I think there are some things that we have to look at closely.
Historically speaking, about the same time a boy or girl became sexually capable, they were considered adults. That wasn’t the only criterion, of course, but that range was adulthood in most places. You were old enough to get married. You were also trained in your profession well enough that you could work and support yourself. You were more mature. There was a time when teenagers were working, owning businesses. It wasn’t AT ALL odd for a 13-year-old to be married in this country as recently as 100 years ago. We’ve expanded the range of “childhood.”
The other thing to know is that the age of puberty has dropped down lower and lower. It used to be 14 on average, now little girls and boys are becoming fertile sooner, some as early as 10. That causes problems for a lot of kids because they don’t have the emotional maturity to deal with what their bodies are doing. There are numerous theories why. Some think it’s the hormones in food, some studies suggest it’s the amount of light we receive…there’s probably no ONE explanation, but it’s something to know.
I personally don’t like the idea of sex ed. in schools, simply because there is really know way to do it gracefully. And when I was in school, it was mixed, which is horribly uncomfortable.
All that being said: sex ed is a reality in this country, and it needs to be taught correctly. My school did not teach abstinence. It said “some people believe that abstinence is the only way to be safe” and that was the end of that. The education we were given was “here’s how to be safe.” And I know now that what I was taught was WRONG. The Use-A-Condom stuff doesn’t often talk about the problems with condoms like the fact that they don’t protect against all diseases, the failure rate for them, that kind of thing.
Kids should be taught that sex is something that is special, that shouldn’t be handed out to every boy/girl that wants it. They should know that the only 100% effective way to prevent diseases and pregnancies is abstinence. They should know that there are risks, and they should be taught the way to minimize those risks. They should be able to make truly informed decisions. But kids should know that there are risks. They should know the failure rate for pills, vaccines, condoms, diaphragms, etc. They should KNOW these things.
My BIG concern for girls getting pills without parental consent is that they have usually have NO idea what those pills could do to their bodies. There are very rarely side effects, but the principal concerns me. If they went to a free clinic and were informed and given the pills from an actual doctor, I would be happier. But the idea of some company just handing out pills to any girl who wants them scares me. I had an allergic reaction to the pills when I was given them. What if my parents hadn’t known I was on them? What if a girl starts taking them, as some problem and the parents didn’t know?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pmI’m not sure there are any right answers here, but I remember reading 10-15 years ago about a realistic baby doll which woke crying in the night. Apparently, it only took a few nights of this to bring home the reality of being a mother to the teenage girls.
As for why humans start to become interested in sex so early, I wonder if this is a relic of our distant past as troop animals - like monkeys and baboons? In a troop, there would be plenty of older adults to help care for the child.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:59 pmExactly, just as drugs are different from sex, guns are also different from sex.
But again, here’s where the analogy breaks down.
No normal, healthy human being wants to shoot someone with a gun. Therefore, by this train of logic, we shouldn’t teach kids to use guns.
That’s debatable at best.
And even if it were true, I don’t think that necessarily excuses what they’re doing. By providing birth control to young girls without notifying their parents, Planned Parenthood is infringing on a parent’s right to raise their child(ren) in the way they see fit with the moral values they believe in.
(This, incidentally, is also the reason why I absolutely oppose letting public high schools distribute birth control to students. Even if you required students to bring in signed permission slips from their parents before they could get any birth control from the nurse’s office, all you would do is turn all the other kids into black-market c*nd*m dealers.)
And there’s another argument to consider. Why is it that Planned Parenthood can distribute birth control pills to children without parental notification, but if a school nurse’s office needs parental notification before they can give a student a headache pill?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:00 pmDid you get in my brain and channel my thoughts Rachel?
I can’t add or detract from your premise because I agree with every word you’ve just written on this subject. It’s clear commonsense.
Good work woman!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pmRachel - in my book, you’re spot on here.
Children are not deterministic machines. This means that it’s not a simple matter of data in/data out. They will apply arbitrary weights to what information comes in, and will give arbitrary results based on what information doesn’t come in. Consequently, the whole, “Be a parent” argument doesn’t fly with me - unless “being a parent” means strapping a GPS transmitter on their body and following them 24/7 with a Predator drone, there’s no way to know what that teenager is up to well enough to guarantee they won’t do something you don’t want them doing. The best you can do is teach them what your values are, why you have them, and how you came up with them, and hope it’s good enough.
The issue with Planned Parenthood is a little more difficult to go with you on. I do agree that, rationally speaking, you’re completely right - they do prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, it’s not quite that simple. Legally speaking, children have very few rights. Their parents are the ones that are supposed to be making the big decisions for them. Put another way, if we don’t trust them enough to vote, join the military, or buy a car, or decide if they should go to school or not, or get married (depending on the legal age of consent in the state you’re reading this), why would we trust them enough to determine whether they need birth control or an abortion? Unfortunately, there’s probably no great way to really resolve this - if parents are allowed to be notified, we have to deal with the fact that a lot of parents are absolutely insane when it comes to their precious snowflakes getting “deflowered”, which is why you had to write this post in the first place and why PP tries to secure the right to privacy for teenagers. It’s something of a “no win scenario”.
Drugs are an entirely different scenario outside of the scope of this post. That said, we Americans have a rather interesting teetotaling vein that permeates our culture, whether it comes to alcohol or something more dangerous. That vein is stronger in some areas (pot) than others (alcohol), but it does rear its head from time to time, and it almost always has something to do with “the children” (tobacco). Culturally, we don’t have a particularly strong culture of moderation, which is why half of my family thinks that drinking a beer every day makes you an “alcoholic” (note - not me, and I can’t stand beer). That said, there are some drugs that just can’t be done in moderation without some severe side-effects (meth, LSD, PCP, etc.). There are others that are a little more mellow (alcohol, tobacco, pot, even some milder opiates) and generally only cause problems after constant heavy repeated use.
The biggest thing that people need to realize is that anything that becomes verboten is guaranteed to become fetishized by a segment of the population, and, when something becomes a fetish, it’s going to get abused to excess. The reason is simple - violating authority can be a very serious rush. The more you do it, the more of a rush you get. The harder you do it, the more of a rush you get. Plus, if consuming something in moderation gives the exact same consequences (legally speaking) as consuming something in excess, well, why moderate? Think about it - if you’re 15, does it matter if you drink one beer or ten? Not really - you’re getting in trouble either way. So, after you sip that beer, why stop there? The same thing holds true with sex. Some teenagers will be scared enough to stay out of it. The remainder, however, will assume they’re going to get in trouble either way, so they’ll have absolutely zero reason to engage in it responsibly… and therein lies the problem.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pmAnd we don’t do that now?
I have a sneaking suspicion that your knowledge of what goes on in an abstinence only sex-ed class is somewhat…warped.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pmChris_RC said:
Chris, if you’re saying that life begins at conception, I couldn’t agree more, no matter our differences on other issues.
I wish we could all frame the abortion debate properly. It is NOT about when life begins, because, as Chris_RC rightly points out, science shows that life begins at conception. Period.
The abortion debate should, as at least one of its components, discuss when the RIGHT to life begins. That is a matter of politics, not science, and thoroughly debatable.
Maybe if any of you are contemplating an upcoming post on abortion, you could touch on the distinction between the beginnings of Life and the Right to Life?
In any case, I am seriously bogarting this thread, and I apologize. I’m going to shut up now.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pmChuck Foxtrot:
I was addressing (or attempting to) the idea of the seemingly arbitrary threshold between right and wrong that occurs with Marriage (signing the paper as DonBodell put it). I was referring to the religious aspect (which lets face it, outside of religion, there is little pressure on unwed adults not to have sex, they make the decisions for themselves) of Marriage. In the context of America, most who claim religion claim some form of Christianity, so that was the sample I went with. To address your point about legal marriages, vs. religious marriages vs. the religious marriages of non-Abrahamic religions, if you reread my post, I was making a point about the formal commitment, public, devout, and prior to the act. Whether this exercise of devotion is before God, Jesus, Yahwe, Allah, Vishnu, Buddah, Gaia, or whatever god or gods the various religions hold dear, the fact that people of faith make this commitment before their deities is what matters to the argument.
As a Christian, if I ever get married, I won’t consider the marriage true until I make the vows before God. For convenience I can sign the paper work, so that the state recognizes the marriage, in advance of the vows, or after the honeymoon. That doesn’t matter to me. It is the religious aspect that matters to me. I am likely only to marry a Christian (or possibly a very understanding and accommodating agnostic), because my religious beliefs are important to me, and I believe the children should be raised Christian as well.
As to the spiritual children of Abraham accepting other religion’s marriages, we do so because the other people aren’t of Abraham.
In the end, my argument can be summed up by Marriage representing the ultimate commitment to each other. That is why it is ok after not before. As a Christian, for my personal preferences, I won’t feel I have made, or received, that commitment until it is made before Christ and his Father (symbolically of course, I don’t expect them to be sitting on the alter behind the pastor or anything).
Disclaimer: these are my own ideas. I have no theology degree, and I don’t honestly claim to speak for all other Christians, yet alone all other children of Abraham. I was merely positing my own ideas as to why we see things the way we do, in attempt to answer the questions of DonBodell and Chuck Foxtrot.
(edit: this may appear out of order, I appear to have tripped the moderation alarm somehow)
April 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pmEven all the teaching and preaching in the world sometimes doesn’t help. The San Antonio Express-News is running a series on teenage pregnancy this week. Yesterday’s story was about a 16 year old who is now the mother of a one year old. She is the result of HER mother’s teen pregnancy. Her mother told her all about contraception, sexuality and offered to take her to get contraception if she was going to be having sex. Didn’t work. I have three daughters–we’ll discuss sex, contraception, abstinence–the whole deal. I am hoping their upbringing will help them make wise choices. The one thing that I believe is important for all teenagers to be told (I sincerely doubt it sticks in their head) is that for every action there is a consequence. That consequence can be good, or it can be bad. Their actions will determine the consequence. ‘Nuff said.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pmCarbo, life begins at conception is the essence I was getting at. However, as you rightly pointed out, that phrasing has become loaded, and I wanted to keep the discussion about sex-ed rather than abortion. To achieve that, I expressed myself in the “just the facts” approach I was advocating for the class. If abortion is to be considered a private moral judgment, at least let the fact that it is a genetically distinct human, vs a tumor (a mutation of your own genetic code), be expressed clearly in the class.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pmDamn. Carbo, I wrote a response, and it didn’t even post with a moderation alert, it simply vanished when I hit post. Weird.
Yes, I was saying, in effect, “life begins at conception.” Just as you say, that is factually true, but people still latch on it as a politically charged phrase in the abortion debate. I wanted to keep on topic with the Sex-Ed discussion, so I tried to write in some form of strictly fact quasi-clinical terminology.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pmHey MS- just to shorten the go-round time, what IS your case for abstinence-only sex education (if that is indeed your position), rather than your issue with some of the analogies used?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:28 pmYou make a great argument, Rachel, and I agree with much of what you’ve said. My point of view on this issue is that the “punishment” (which was a horrid word choice) is not the child himself (or herself), rather that it is the “consequence” of the choice, and that simply destroying the consequences of this or any other “imprudent act” is, to me, at the heart of liberal ideology.
In other words, liberals–true liberals–seemingly would have you do whatever you feel like doing, whenever you feel like doing it, and, if it so be there are undesired consequences, you can either a) remove them or b) blame them on someone else and pocket the money you receive as a result of successful litigation.
Abortion would fit the bill for example “A” above, and slip-fall lawsuits would be a good example of “B.” I vehemently oppose both. Sticking your genitals where they (allegedly) do not belong or running around without paying attention to your surroundings (in other words, failure to plan in both cases) on our part does not constitute fault on someone else’s part.
It’s your consequence. You own it. Do so, because I’m not interested in paying for it, nor should I.
On a separate note: I have an issue with Sen. Obama, speaking about teaching his 6 and 9-year olds about values and morals in the future tense. If you’re not teaching them values and morals early, you’re failing as a parent, in my opinion. Six is not too young–nine is too old to get started. You teach them at every opportunity to uphold strong values.
My at-the-time four year-old daughter got upset when she saw the “Bratz” dolls come out, saying they were being immodest and “showing their naked style.” I’m not the best Dad–not even in the top million–but we’re doing our best to teach our children respect for their bodies, self-worth and perspective at an early age and reinforcing it every chance we get. I think that’s a good thing…
April 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pm(With full appreciation of the irony): Amen, Rachel. And for those of you saying education about drug use is different than sex ed, I disagree. Teach the facts! Sex will make you sick and give you babies, except maybe not if you use contraception. Drugs can make you sick and send you to jail, and you risk harming others when under the influence. It’s best if you don’t do either, but if you do, be prepared for the consequences.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pmChuck_Foxtrot, I did write a response to you, about half an hour ago, but it is still awaiting moderation. If you care, please check back at the 5:07pm time slot to find it. Thank you.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pmThere is certainly much to consider when thinking logically or even along lines of “human nature.” I do think, however, that the gun ownership analogy falls flat on your point but can be useful in another way.
Having a gun is a choice made to arm oneself against the the human nature of others. Choosing abstinence is the choice one can make to arm themselves against their own nature.
Consider the simple act of pushing away from the dinner table to protect yourself from overeating. Or, like I do, refuse to have certain tempting foods in my house. It’s not evil or unnatural to enjoy food, but having a boundary based on my self-knowledge is a reasonable choice no matter what my “human nature” may demand. I make the reasonable choice to “arm myself” against my own weakness. We all do this, if we are taught self-discipline as a lifestyle choice.
Giving into temptations of the flesh used to be more costly, so people made better choices. Social stigma helped it along. Cries of “repression” have proven to be hollow and demands for sexual freedom haven’t delivered the liberty and joy as promised.
And people still make stupid choices and deserve what compassion we can muster. But I work every day with the consequences of bad choices and soft landings. It pains me to know that the folks I help today will be in need again next month. Too many soft-hearted, soft-headed folks will support the foolish consequences of undisciplined choices.
To be blunt about it, if you build a soft landing place for foolish choices, you’ll suddenly have an overload of fools opting for it. Our local county has little resources for the homeless. The minute we begin to provide more resources, the more professionally homeless numbers we’ll have to put on our grant requests.
Girls should be given every bit of help, knowledge, advice and resources to make good choices. But the same “human nature” that wants to have sex, wants to have sex without protection, in the moment, “naturally, as God intended, baby!”
It’s harder for a girl who’s already crossed the emotional threshold of giving in, to say no to the next so-called, “logical and natural” step in the process.
Abstinence worked before. The joy of knowing that your son or daughter is not at risk of giving or receiving unwanted “punishments” is a very logical, reasonable, reality.
We are NOT animals, unless someone can convince us we are.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pmSex is not just scratching an itch. Sure you can protect yourself from pregnancy or STDs, but how do you protect yourself from the emotional damage of having the most intimate, tender, beautiful act of our human lives become nothing more than meat slapping against each other?
Marriage and sexual intercourse is a sacrament to we Christians, but that’s because it IS a sacrament. We are not bags of meat, we are divine souls. Making love is a meeting of spirits, not just bodies. Sex between human beings should be cherished and honored. We used to make it so, surrounding it with symbols and formality and celebration. White wedding dresses and promises, made in front of family and community.
Non Christians are trying to turn this beautiful act into something as unimportant as the need to urinate. Hey, I got the urge, I got to go! Why fight it?
I will fight it. My children are not animals, and I will not raise them so.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pmHey, Joan of Arghhh!, is there an echo in here? Heh.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:59 pmI pretty much agree with Rachel here, except for PP’s ability to give out birth control pills without parental consent. Condoms, sure. But birth control pills? They contain hormones and their purpose is to influence natural bodily processes. No one besides a medical professional and myself (as a parent) should be allowed to make medical decisions for my minor child. Hopefully this won’t be a problem for us, though, as hubby and I plan on being very open with our kids (boy is 4, girl is 16months right now), and encouraging them to be open with us. Maybe I’m just overly optimistic, but if my daughter reaches a point where she would benefit from birth control, I would hope she’d come to me. I’ll be more than happy to schedule a dr. appointment for her. I’d rather an actual OB/gyn evaluate her entire health and prescribe the birth control that’s best for her body. …I’ve done a lot of rambling here… basically, great post, Rachel. Your insight (and the capability of everyone here to engage in polite debate) is one of the things that keeps me coming back every day!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pmI’m less than intrepid as I write this, but I’ll put it forth anyway. Animal urges aside, we ARE human, even Human. Joan of Arghhhh’s comment made me think, is sex the modern Gom Jabar?
{For those who don’t get the reference, it is a fictional test of humanity, one must submit to agony, extreme agony. The “potential human” has no physical restraint preventing him from removing himself from this agony, but the instant he does, he gets fatally poisoned by the person administering the test. If your will, your knowledge that to not endure the agony results in death, over comes your animal urge to withdraw from the pain, you pass the test and are deemed human.}
So teenage sex isn’t as extreme as the Gom Jabbar, but it is a metaphor, where our conscious mind is at battle with our animal instincts. It makes me question what it is to give in. Is it an admission that you have no control over your animal urges?
This sounds more harsh than I actually believe. I suppose I’m just playing with an idea.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pmRachel, you attract amazing commenters. Thatisall.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pmGreat post Rachel! I agree with you 100% I am also really glad to see so many well thought-out comments in the debate, as usual without rancor.
Chris_RC Says
This comment gets to the crux of the matter for me — teenagers are in a transitional period where they are preparing to be adults and are expected to take responsibility for their actions. A lot of them think they are already adults and can make their own decisions. A teen chafing under the restrictions placed by a parent does have control over at least one thing - their own body, like it or not. Arm them with information and influence them to make the right kinds of decisions. It’s part of the process of growing up and discussing it with your teen openly makes them part of the decision making process.
This is one of these issues that makes me so conflicted about voting conservative. (and being from Massachusetts and having a lot of liberal friends). Social issues like this are the same kind of litmus test for many of us in the middle as abortion is for the right. While I don’t want a socialist state and disagree with all the handout crap the democrats are promising, I just can’t get over issues like this, abortion, and gay rights.
I think that there are really a lot of people like me in the middle who get left out of all the extreme rhetoric that plays out in politics and the media. The fact that McCain has crossed the aisle and compromised on issues is a good thing in my book - not a betrayal of the party. The truth is that there are some things that Obama says that I do agree with. Demonizing any candidate or party takes away from the real political debate that I hope we will be having in this country this fall. Hey, I can dream right?
Maybe Rachel should host a debate — real questions for the candidates, and the ability to call shenanigans on anyone who snarks or doesn’t actually answer the question (does that drive anyone else nuts? Politicians NEVER answer a fucking question with a straight answer!)
April 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pmI see a pattern emerging here. There seems to be the idea
“I tell my kids having sex before their an adult is bad, but if I let them get the pill it must mean I’m giving them permission to have sex.”
Is it? Only if you make it so. You, the parent, are the responsible party, not the government, the school system, or the church.
You have to make it clear to your child that the best choice is not to have sex, but being on the pill is not a free pass to be promiscuous, just that if they make a mistake it happens in as safe a manner as possible.
You also have to explain why it’s a bad idea. “Because I said so” might work with a 5 year old, but it isn’t going to work with a teenager. If you can’t give them a good reason not to, they’re going to think there’s no reason not to.
Treat teenagers like rational thinking human beings and you’ll be amazed at how many good choices they make.