Pregnancy Pact ~ What utter stupidity!

[MJS]

It does have to be factored in also that teens now are much more bombarded with images and ideas of sex and sexuality than those of my generation.

Almost everything in advertising alone, for example, seems targeted on sexual attractiveness and rejection of authority. Broadcast morality is permissive and 'role models' (tho' I choke on the term) are promiscuous, their sex lives fodder for the media mill.

It's no wonder, therefore, that those who are growing up in such an atmoshpere are curious and experiemntal earlier than we were - especially when discipline of them is legally prevented.

If we want to have a prayer of salvaging our societies, such that we may have some stability in our old age, these trends have to be reversed.

Otherwise ... selfish dystopia here we come.

You're right. You can't turn on the tv today without seeing someone in bed, someone kissing, etc. I think that in addition to that, many people who view female stars as their idols, ie: Jamie Spears, Brittney Spears, etc. see them with kids and think, "Well, if they can do it, so can I!"

This is yet another reason why the parents need to help their kids seperate the fantasy from the reality.

 

[Twin Fist]

Better yet, when birth control is never mentioned and abstinence only is taught in schools. That way such experimentation results in pregnancy more often.

nope, wrong answer, try again

no one over the age of five doesnt know what condoms are since they now air commercials for them............during family hour for craps sake

 

[Sukerkin]

I follow your point, Marginal but back in the swirling mists of time when I was young, contraception for those below legal age was not available. Abstinence was the only choice, unless you wanted to run the pregnancy version of Russian Roulette.

The salient historical data is that we did not have the huge rates of teenage pregnancy then as we do now. It happened, it is true. In all my seven years in High School tho', the grand total was two - I could even give you their names it was that unprecidented.

Education of consequences works up to a point. Social pressure and discipline works a whole lot more (especially if facing the economic consequences of your actions is part of it (rather than using making babies as a method of making money)).

Edit: It also occurs to me that male fertility has supposedly halved since then due to environmental conditions - so that makes the present day rates even more appauling.

 

[donna]

There were advantages in families where girls grew up taking care of their siblings and cousins. All the romantic notions go right out the window.

I agree, this certainly helped while raising my daughter.
On the other hand we have an added complication here in australia, as the government here gives a $5000 baby bonus for ever child born. This has seen an increase in teenage and underage birth rates (not to mention an increase in the sales of huge plasma screen tv's)

 

[Gordon Nore]

MJS,
teen pregnancy was rare when I was in HS just 24 years ago.

The schools have been doing it your way since then, it isnt helping. Teen pregnancy is more common now than it was. I know this because now high schools have friggen dare care centers in them......

With all due respect, I don't understand this thinking. The girls in this story did not invent teen sex, premarital sex, or teen pregnancy. None of these is new item. All of these predate the sexual revolution and advent of day care in high school. Further, I would suggest, the argument that day care centres in school encourage sexual activity to be flawed. Take the centres out, and we effectively say to young mothers (not necessarily young fathers), "Too bad, so sad, your chance at completing your education is over, and it'll probably be over for your kid as well."

The problem is, all the kids hear is "it's ok to have sex" and being kids they figure it wont happen to them.so they dont use condoms.....

Who, precisely, is telling children this? Surely not teachers in sex ed. classes.

maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"

Since when was sex a bad thing to do? Seriously, we have to let go of the idea that we can educate kids and control behaviour by telling them scary stories.

 

[arnisador]

You're right. You can't turn on the tv today without seeing someone in bed, someone kissing, etc. I think that in addition to that, many people who view female stars as their idols, ie: Jamie Spears, Brittney Spears, etc. see them with kids and think, "Well, if they can do it, so can I!"

It's the hormones, dude. If teenagers didn't want to reproduce, our forebears who died in their 20s of being eaten by dinosaurs wouldn't have lived long enough to have had us. Fighting evolution is an uphill battle, though as Richard Dawkins says, we do so every time we use a condom (and they sure are selling).

 

[Gordon Nore]

Tellner, great post, this part, in particular, resonates with me...

Bottom line? These girls don't see any reason to delay having children. They don't have any reason to believe that they have better prospects. And they believe they will get something out of it that they don't have in their present lives. It's a damned shame. Some of them have a shot at something better. And they really don't understand what they're letting themselves in for. But it's not "stupidity". It's despair and their perception that they don't have any alternatives

I believe that the overarching trend I'm seeing among many people is a sense of hopelessness. I can think nothing more debilitating, but I see it everywhere. I see thirteen and fourteen-year-old kids everyday that I believe have given up on the idea that life has something to offer.

 

[Kacey]

Schools are very limited - by law - in what they are allowed to teach. There is a section on human sexuality in the Health class that all students are required to take in either 7th or 8th grade - but the teacher is only allowed to teach mechanics; contraception can be discussed, but only from a biological standpoint - it cannot be encouraged or discouraged. This is not how the Health teacher would like to be doing it... but that's the law. Sadly, but not surprisingly, we had 4 pregnant girls in the 8th grade, out of about 120 girls in that grade - for those from other educational systems, they were all 13 or 14 years old.

As far as a lower teen pregnancy rate in the past - well, last I heard, teen pregnancies were down - but they are also no longer hidden. Unwed girls who became pregnant through the mid-50s (and sometimes later) were sent away to "recuperate" from "consumption" or some other illness, and no one talked about it. Now, everyone talks about it - but to be politically correct, no one is allowed to step over the lines of parental preference to teach anything but abstinence - and the parents aren't teaching protection, or those 4 girls wouldn't have been pregnant, and I wouldn't have a 13 year-old student whose mother is 26.

It is no longer socially unacceptable to be pregnant out of wedlock, and it is becoming less and less unacceptable to become a teen mother - that is a large piece of the puzzle, and until society changes, that piece will remain incredibly hard to refute, especially for untutored teens with raging hormones and the usual teenage belief that "it can't happen to me"... until it does.

As far as these girls go - the social factor plays into it, as well as the desire for "someone who loves only me".

In addition to teaching responsible birth control methods, parents need to teach parenting skills - yes, the schools can help, but the parents are the key; schools can say whatever they want, but without the parents' backing, the social and hormonal pressure to have sex (protected or otherwise) will remain the problem that it is now, with the concomitant cost to society.

 

[Twin Fist]

Since when was sex a bad thing to do?

for a 14 year old?

it is NEVER a good thing


For a teen ager with NO IDEA of the consequences? Maybe a grown woman will be atrong enough to say "Stop, no condom, no sex" but teens dont have that strength, so NO it is NEVER a good thing to do

Seriously, we have to let go of the idea that we can educate kids and control behaviour by telling them scary stories.

it worked better than what we are doing now......

according to my doctor, 75% of his std patients are TEENS

thats all i need to know to figure out that america's teens are not being raised right

 

[tellner]

The US and UK top the list for teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. Even so, rates peaked in 1990 and declined steadily to record lows until about 2004.

Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United
States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all
time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in
1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart).
Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s;
they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose
sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining
throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward
trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

--Boonstra 2002

So the contention that the evil liberal philosophy is to blame for high teen pregnancy rates just doesn't wash. Americans go to church and describe themselves as religious at a much higher rate than any other country in the developed world. We are also the only one that makes contraception difficult and expensive and forbids comprehensive sex education by law.

I'm not going to bury you guys in statistics. If you're really interested start with the Guttmacher Institute, the NIH and *shudder* Planned Parenthood for more statistics than you can shake a government-approved abstinent stick at. Suffice it to say American and British teenagers do not have significantly more or less sex than their European, Canadian, Japanese or similar counterparts. They start sexual activity at roughly the same age and have comparable numbers of sex partners.

Where they differ is in contraception. Americans are less likely to use birth control, and that tendency increases with increased self-reported religious observance. They are more likely according to some studies to have sex while intoxicated and to express guilt or shame over the act.

In short, they are told that sex is bad and make unrealistic plans for premarital abstinence. When they do become sexually active they are much more ignorant about contraception and are more likely to forgo it entirely. They have only been taught the word "No" and have not developed any skills for dealing with their sexuality in a mature and considered manner. So they don't. And we pay a high price in unintended pregnancy as a result. My recollections of the literature about British teen pregnancies is hazy. I recall a similar degree of ignorance, a somewhat greater tendency to experience first intercourse while drunk and a weak but measurable link to class. Every country has its own problems.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Schools are very limited - by law - in what they are allowed to teach. There is a section on human sexuality in the Health class that all students are required to take in either 7th or 8th grade - but the teacher is only allowed to teach mechanics; contraception can be discussed, but only from a biological standpoint - it cannot be encouraged or discouraged. This is not how the Health teacher would like to be doing it... but that's the law. Sadly, but not surprisingly, we had 4 pregnant girls in the 8th grade, out of about 120 girls in that grade - for those from other educational systems, they were all 13 or 14 years old.

Kacey, this was the cut and thrust of my comment above that sex ed. teachers in the USA cannot possibly be accused of promoting any kind of promiscuity. They're barely allowed to teach the subject under current regulations.

As far as a lower teen pregnancy rate in the past - well, last I heard, teen pregnancies were down - but they are also no longer hidden. Unwed girls who became pregnant through the mid-50s (and sometimes later) were sent away to "recuperate" from "consumption" or some other illness, and no one talked about it. Now, everyone talks about it - but to be politically correct, no one is allowed to step over the lines of parental preference to teach anything but abstinence - and the parents aren't teaching protection, or those 4 girls wouldn't have been pregnant, and I wouldn't have a 13 year-old student whose mother is 26.

Public educators in the USA are fighting an uphill battle. Abstinence may be 100% effective, but only if it is practised 100% of the time. My argument for public sex education is simple: I know exactly what I have taught my son (he's 18 now), but I do not know what other parents have taught their kids, if anything at all. They go to the same schools, live in the same community, attend the same parties, etc. A child who has been poorly instructed in sexual health -- at home or at school -- places other children in jeopardy.

 

[Twin Fist]

A child who has been poorly instructed in sexual health -- at home or at school -- places other children in jeopardy.

this is absolutely true

 

[Gordon Nore]

for a 14 year old?

it is NEVER a good thing

For a teen ager with NO IDEA of the consequences? Maybe a grown woman will be atrong enough to say "Stop, no condom, no sex" but teens dont have that strength, so NO it is NEVER a good thing to do

Twin, I was responding to the following comment you made:

The problem is, all the kids hear is "it's ok to have sex" and being kids they figure it wont happen to them.so they dont use condoms.....

maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"

I interpreted this as a comment about teens in general. In response, I said,

Since when was sex a bad thing to do?

And you are definitely right that sex is not a good thing for a fourteen-year-old. I believe you have better chance of teaching that fourteen-year-old to put on a rubber than you do telling that student not to have sex until s/he has reached an age where his/parents and society in general feel comfortable with them having sex.

I don't condone fourteen-year-olds having sex; I acknowledge it as a reality among some fourteen-year-olds. If they are going to be active sexually, I would like them to live a long life without having compounded their mistake by bringing a child into the world. Why? Because I know that child has a very good chance of being stigmatized as a burden of society. I'd rather the kids made their babies a little later, so those kids can grow up knowing there's no hurry to make another baby.

it worked better than what we are doing now......

No, it didn't. As Casey mentioned pregnancy and birth rates among younger women are down See: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Start reading on page five. The more recent drops would suggest the use of condoms.

according to my doctor, 75% of his std patients are TEENS

Yes, but what does he say about educating teens, The Lord's Prayer?

thats all i need to know to figure out that america's teens are not being raised right

Personally, I'd like a little more data before I write off parents in America.

 

[CuongNhuka]

My understanding was that they went to a Catholic High School, and did not talk about 'safe sex' or have sex ed. at all. My understanding was that this was there way of telling the school.there parents that this was a bad idea. Insane way of doing it, but I geuss they had a nobel intent.

 

[Twin Fist]

Gordon,
what Tellners number DONT say is that in the 50's, there was prob more pregnancies among teenagers, true, the trick is, they were MARRIED

thats right, teen marraiges in the 50's were quite common. Mymother and grandmother were both married while still teens.

The thing is, you dont HAVE to assume they will have sex

raise them right and they might just wait.

mine did

 

[Gordon Nore]

Gordon,
what Tellners number DONT say is that in the 50's, there was prob more pregnancies among teenagers, true, the trick is, they were MARRIED

thats right, teen marraiges in the 50's were quite common. Mymother and grandmother were both married while still teens.

The thing is, you dont HAVE to assume they will have sex

raise them right and they might just wait.

mine did

Three thoughts:

1. Marriage is not the remedy for the younger girls we've been discussing. Marrying someone because you had a baby may not be that great an idea anyway.

2. I don't know that other parents in my community are 'raising their kids right.' That's why I want my son and his peers to have sex ed. in school. Some of my son's peers may have been taught stupid stuff by their parents, or nothing at all.

3. My son is 18; I don't know if he waited or not for sex. He's not telling, and therefore, I'm not asking. He's an adult, and so he doesn't have to tell me how long he kept his virginity. And if he did, I wouldn't tell anyone else.

 

[Twin Fist]

no no
I am not suggesting that kids get married i am saying that the numbers tellner posted are not really saying what he thinks they are.

 

[Kacey]

Kacey, this was the cut and thrust of my comment above that sex ed. teachers in the USA cannot possibly be accused of promoting any kind of promiscuity. They're barely allowed to teach the subject under current regulations.

Honestly? Schools should be teaching academics, along with selected elective activities that may not be available at home - foreign languages, music (instrumental and vocal), PE, etc. For too many years, parents have foregone their responsibilities as parents, and the schools have picked up the slack - to the point where we are teaching everything from bicycle safety to sex ed (as allowed) to social skills. In Colorado, there are so many items added to the "mandatory" curriculum that to teach the entire curriculum would take 22 years - not the 13 (including kindergarten) that students attend. Yes, there is overlap between subjects - but the schools need to stop being the primary source for topics that should be the purview of the parents and the community.

Public educators in the USA are fighting an uphill battle. Abstinence may be 100% effective, but only if it is practised 100% of the time. My argument for public sex education is simple: I know exactly what I have taught my son (he's 18 now), but I do not know what other parents have taught their kids, if anything at all. They go to the same schools, live in the same community, attend the same parties, etc. A child who has been poorly instructed in sexual health -- at home or at school -- places other children in jeopardy.

I understand what you're saying - but my sister and I were raised in the same house, by the same parents, with the same values, went to the same schools - and she was totally different in her sexual habits than I was, in a fashion many would consider unsafe (I know I did - and she's 3-1/2 years older than I am). So while I agree that children/teens in the same community can have widely variant knowledge - it's not just the knowledge; the individual experiences and attitudes can also have an effect. Still, the more children/teens hear the same message, the more sources they hear it from, the more likely it becomes that they will listen.

 

[Adept]

At the risk of sounding like the voice of dissent, so long as the babies are cared for, and the girls in question have the required support from their families (and the government), why is this such a bad thing?

Now, I know some folks get all upset at the thought of their taxes going to pay for someone elses child support. Well, too bad. I'd rather be paying for someone elses child suport than cars and chauffeurs for government employees!

maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"

:barf:

Thats about the most disturbing thing I've ever read. Sex can kill you? It will ruin your life?

 

[Gordon Nore]

Honestly? Schools should be teaching academics, along with selected elective activities that may not be available at home - foreign languages, music (instrumental and vocal), PE, etc. For too many years, parents have foregone their responsibilities as parents, and the schools have picked up the slack - to the point where we are teaching everything from bicycle safety to sex ed (as allowed) to social skills. In Colorado, there are so many items added to the "mandatory" curriculum that to teach the entire curriculum would take 22 years - not the 13 (including kindergarten) that students attend. Yes, there is overlap between subjects - but the schools need to stop being the primary source for topics that should be the purview of the parents and the community.

I'm torn -- the trained teacher in me says, "Yes," to the first sentence. What a joy it would be just to teach my children to read and write, and to love books, and all that.

The parent in me is scared that too many kids have not learned what they need to learn. After four days of training with local public health authorities, I spent a day at my son's elementary school teaching bicycle safety, how to put on a helmet, and to ride safely in traffic for the older kids. I wish I could depend upon parents to teach this. As it stands, when I mount a school-wide outdoor activity, I have to teach kids to remember to bring items like baseball hats, sunscreen and water bottles. Getting kids to use sunscreen -- even in this day and age -- has been a career-long battle.