Strollerderby : abstinence only sex education

Teen Pregnancies on the Decline

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:44:00 GMT

With reports of a teen pregnancy pact in a Gloucester high school dominating the news, you may be surprised to learn that the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years. The number of pregnancies among women aged 15-19 dropped to 72 per 1,000 teens in 2004, down from a high of 117 per 1,000 teens in 1990. The abortion rate has also declined in the last three decades.

But this positive trend may be reversing. In 2006, the number of live births among teen girls rose 3 percent—a sharp change from the downhill trend of previous years. It remains to be seen whether 2006 was just a particularly, uh, fertile year, or whether this is the sign of a larger problem. Some blame pop culture icons—such as Jamie Lyn Spears and Juno—for adding a “coolness” factor to teen pregnancy.

Despite the comparatively low teen pregnancy rate in the early part of the century, the U.S. still has the highest teen pregnancy rate of developed nations. And one thing is clear: abstinence-only sex education is not the solution. Several studies have found that those enrolled in abstinence-only programs are no more likely than those enrolled in comprehensive sex ed. to delay sex or use contraception. Hmm, any other ideas?

Photo: America's Promise

Did Jamie Lynn Skip School? Sex Ed Makes Kids More Likely to Delay Sex

Kelly Mills — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:38:00 GMT

Could we get some no child left behind on this? In a survey of teens aged 15 to 19, those who had sex education in school were more likely to delay losing their virginity, at least till age 15. And among boys, those who had sex ed were more likely to say they'd use birth control, and strangely, were less likely to have sex at all. Back in my day teenage boys were pretty much determined to have sex no matter what, so I'm not sure what's up with the kids now, except those must be some sex ed classes.

But did abstinence-only sex ed make a difference? This study doesn't show that, it just focused on any type of sex ed. You know, if we really want to delay teens from getting down, we ought to have the parents sit down and offer graphic and informative descriptions of what sex entails. Because who wants to do something you first heard described by your mom? Then again, you can look to the source on this one, cuz I fail to get upset by the idea of teens having sex.

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:00 GMT

Federal money for Cold Showers 101 may someday be a thing of the past. More and more states are declaring they will not apply for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, and a couple others have applied but stated they will not stick with the abstinence-only curriculum, therefore rendering themselves ineligible. If you don't think this is a big deal, remember, these states are turning down MONEY--your tax dollars, in fact. That says something. Now why would states say they won't try and get the funds? "The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed." Great.

Oh, but I absolutely loooove the response of supporters of "just say no" sex ed. Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services says "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out." Youths who really, really need to sit in a classroom and be told all about the evils of sex without any information that could actually benefit them. Yeah, totally missing out. And Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says the abstinence programs don't just waggle fingers and tsk tsk, but "They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception." Kids, this is a condom. It might help protect you from STDs, but since you won't be having sex, you don't need to know how it works. This, however, is what syphillis looks like, and you don't want that, do you?

I must confess this is one of those issues that gets me more irate than almost anything else, so I'm giddy that states are taking a stand. Now perhaps the money I send to the federal government could be used for education programs that aren't utter crap? Really, abstinence-only policy makers who ignore research and reality can kiss my ass without protection.

Horn-dog Teens and 40-Year-Old Virgins Have Big Problems

Kelly Mills — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:36:00 GMT

Another possible nail in the abstinence-only sex education coffin: Researchers have found possible troubles for both folks who lose their virginity early and people who hold out in cold-shower land for a long time. Early "bloomers" were found to have a more risk factors for STDs, like many partners and a history of drunken sex. However, both early and late starters had increased risk of sexual dysfunction. We don't know exactly why this is so, but researchers said that those who started sex later may "create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being." See? I was just developing my interpersonal skills in my high school boyfriend's VW Bug, as well as learning that a stick shift in the lower back can really impede your enjoyment of heavy petting.

What is considered "early" and "late" to lose the old virginity? For survey respondents, around 14 was early (hi!), 17 or 18 was average, and 22 or older was late. Now, when I posted before that kids who had sex young were less likely to engage in delinquent behavior (too busy getting their braces stuck together, perhaps) some of you thought it was a lot of hooey. But I will say, is sex among teens the worst thing ever? I'm not saying we want 12-year-olds to be having sex, but late teens, consent, and protection...I don't see anything wrong with that. And yeah, I can see how having a committed young love relationship where you go at it like bunnies could not only keep you too busy to drive drunk and vandalize stuff, but it could also be a place to practice relationship skills you'd use later. Plus, you know, the kids are actually doing it anyway, and have been for years, despite adult opposition.