I cannot read the bottom text by following the link. I hope it has something to do with advocating real sex education, though.

It took me a minute to even realize what it was a picture of, and even then it struck me as more bizarre than disturbing. I may not be the target audience, anyway.

They both just look very distopian sci-fi to me, not necessarily repellent. But, again, that's my brain and I'm not an inner-city teenager.

Personally, I hate it. I see what they're trying to say, but if I was a pregnant teenager looking at that, it would probably make me feel even more isolated and conspicuous than I already did.

I don't like it at all, because the implications, as I see it, are weird and not helpful. Those being:

1. It's disturbing for teenaged boys to be pregnant, and it's more automatically disturbing to imagine consequences following teenage sex for boys than for girls

2. Teenage pregnancy is automatically disturbing.

3. Teenage pregnancy has "real" consequences for girls, but not for boys, but we should pretend there are consequences for boys - about whom we're naturally more disturbed when things go wrong - to help the girls out anyway.

The campaign just seems so strange to me. But what really bugs me, I guess, is this underlying idea that you have to appeal to sympathy for men in order to get anything done that will help women.

The text at the bottom reads:

Milwaukee has one of the highest teen birth rates in America, and it's a burden the rest of us end up carrying, through higher taxes for healthcare, education and other services teen mothers can't afford. So get beyond disturbed. Get involved at onemilwaukee.org

I wasn't too crazy about the ad before reading that, and now I definitely don’t like it.

All it is doing is promoting the myth of scarcity -- there aren't enough resources to go around! Irresponsible youth having sex are stealing resources from those who deserve! We shouldn’t be responsible for social programs abused by irresponsible teens! Etc.

I hate it. To me its saying "put all the blame on the girl" and that its ok to treat pregnant teenagers like crap because its "disturbing." I'm sure they had good intentions but I am just so sick of the woman/girl always getting all the blame (i.e. Jamie Lynn needs to "keep her legs closed"). Um hello, those eggs didn't fertilize themselves!

I moved from Milwaukee to the Bay Area about six months ago. When the ads started popping up, I was pretty confused as to what they were advocating. Finally, when I realized they were teenage pregancy awareness ads, I didn't quite understand how they would be effective. I get what they're trying to say, but the boys don't even really look pregnant - just mostly defiant and angry, with bloated bellies.

A more convincing teen pregancy ad were the billboards around town, in Spanish and English, that had a picture of a girl with the words, "Wanna have a good time? Call XXX-XXXX." I was interested and called the number, and it was a recording of a girl trying to be seductive. A baby starting crying in the background, and it grew stonger. The girl started complaining about having a baby while in high school and then asked, "Do you still want to have fun?"

I thought that ad was a lot more effective, due to the interactiveness of it, and to reiterate Maggie's comment, it didn't involve dystopian-sci-fi looking boys.

I assumed the goal is to get the attention of people who live in communities where teen pregnancy is so common that people take it for granted. To say "hey, boys being pregnant isn't normal, and we should work towards a time when teenage girls being pregnant isn't either."

I don't think it demonizes pregnant teen girls, or says that consequences of sex would matter more if they fell harder on boys. I think it just says "Stop taking this for granted, get off your ass and do something about the problem."

But I agree with others who say the boys don't really look pregnant (though this may be just because we're not used to seeign pregnant boys)--It would be a lot more powerful if the boy was in profile.

Yeah I think the intentions are probably good but the wording is very odd.

K-Fed let himself go! Damn!

I like the image, but I don't think it's utilized effectively. I agree that this is more likely to serve as an excuse to demonize teen girls, rather than to support them. If they changed the words to something like "You should be just as concerned when it's a girl" or "Why don't we care about this when it's a girl?" To me, those sorts of messages put the responsibility on the viewer, rightfully, as, presumably, the viewer is a registered voter and taxpayer who has some amount of say in what their local schools and governments do. But saying "this is disturbing" leaves plenty of room to heap blame on the girl instead.

I almost LIKE the ad. I say "almost" because sadly, I'm not really viscerally affected by the photo. It is weird and very sci-fi. But I like it because I feel it's along the same lines as the bumper sticker "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." I feel that it draws attention to the public's tendency to sympathize more with boys "in trouble" than girls. I hate that they use the word "disturbing"... I wish the ad was a little more compassionate. It's like the message is weird and confusing because it's not complete.

I almost LIKE the ad. I say "almost" because sadly, I'm not really viscerally affected by the photo. It is weird and very sci-fi. But I like it because I feel it's along the same lines as the bumper sticker "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." I feel that it draws attention to the public's tendency to sympathize more with boys "in trouble" than girls. I hate that they use the word "disturbing"... I wish the ad was a little more compassionate. It's like the message is weird and confusing because it's not complete.

"I see what they're trying to say, but if I was a pregnant teenager looking at that, it would probably make me feel even more isolated and conspicuous than I already did."

Yeah, the trick is to neither demonize teens who already got pregnant nor encourage teens to get pregnant and/or encourage guys to get teens pregnant.

"I assumed the goal is to get the attention of people who live in communities where teen pregnancy is so common that people take it for granted. To say 'hey, boys being pregnant isn't normal, and we should work towards a time when teenage girls being pregnant isn't either.'

"I don't think it demonizes pregnant teen girls, or says that consequences of sex would matter more if they fell harder on boys. I think it just says 'Stop taking this for granted, get off your ass and do something about the problem.'"

That's the impression I got too.

The text reads:

"Milwaukee has one of the highest teen birth rates. And it's a burden the rest of us end up carrying. Through higher taxes for healthcare, education and other services teen mothers can't afford. So get beyond disturbed. Get involved at onemilwaukee.org."

The ad campaign is affiliated with project HOPE:

"an agency-wide social marketing campaign to increase community awareness about reproductive health, pregnancy prevention, prevention of STD/HIV, sexual abuse and the May National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month."

National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month is promoted by Advocates for Youth, whose position is: "Accurate, balanced sex education – including information about contraception and condoms – is a basic human right of youth. Such education helps young people to reduce their risk of potentially negative outcomes, such as unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Such education can also help youth to enhance the quality of their relationships and to develop decision-making skills that will prove invaluable over life."

Seems all right to me.

I just plain don't get it. Even after reading the comments and all of the interpretations here . . . I just don't get it. Are we supposed to be reacting to the image as disturbing because it's a teenage boy that's pregnant? Because I'm not really sure that anyone would look at that photo and say "oh my god, it's a pregnant teenager" instead of "oh my god, it's a pregnant guy."

. . . yeah. I just don't get it.

To those who think this a slut-shaming ad: Check out the links. This campaign is trying to make the point that teen pregnancy is a SHARED burden. Sorry for the double-post.

my reaction is honestly -- um, gross?

I think it's a very poor ad. Well, stupid really, and offensive.

The idea of male pregnancy is odd rather than disturbing. And teen pregnancy is more of a concern than something that is disturbing.

What I particularly dislike about this ad is the belief that teen pregnancy is 'a burden the rest of us end up carrying', as if there is no cost to the teen mother, or that any cost is secondary to my cost in providing her support through various social services. That is the idea being presented that I find disturbing.

Lower levels of health, education, employment prospects, financial independence, and other such costs for teen mothers is what concerns me, not that I end up paying higher taxes. Indeed, I'd be quite happy to pay higher taxes if it meant that programmes could be funded that aid teen mothers improve their health, education, employment and financial independence.

I visited the website that is being advertised, but it seems to be still under construction, so there is no info as to what it's all about. From the flash intro their intentions are good. I just hope they do a better job of it than how the ad comes across. I certainly hope they advocate comprehensive and compulsory sex education for teens. Especially an education that allows teens to develop a healthy attitude towards sex and sexuality in addition to the general nuts-and-bolts stuff.

The rhetoric of this ad is meaningless in terms of preventing unwanted teenage pregnancy. It offers the viewer no possible solution to the problem. Is the ad advocating comprehensive sex education or abstinence-only sex education? I challenge you to answer that question using only the information in the ad. It could really go either way.

But what does the reader take away from the ad? That teenage pregnancy is a burden that we (i.e. society) carry. Notice that it doesn’t say it’s a burden that the community shares with the mother. As if the mother has no burden. Let’s see, where have we heard that before? How about the archetype of the welfare queen – the unwed, poor, black woman who keeps getting pregnant in order to cash more welfare checks.

I don’t care how great the organization responsible for it may be, the ad is still terrible.

So, if this ad is pointing out the individual consequences of teen pregnancy, it's "slut-shaming," but if it's about the public consequences, it trivializes the plight of the teenage mother?

::facepalm:: Fine. I retract my statement.

This is a bad campaign because the link it provides is vague, requiring additional Google searches to get any concrete information; and because it seems to cause violent outrage in the people who agree with the policies it's promoting.

No sir, I don't like it one bit. That is one guilt ridden shame flinging campaign!

My first thought on looking at this had nothing to do with pregnancy: I thought, does he have tapeworms? A tumor?

Also, what's so disturbing about male pregnancy? There are advances happening in medicine that could make this a reality in our lifetimes, and I think that's wonderful for the people who'd want it.

So essentially...this poster is capitalizing on a patriarchal fear of defying gender roles. Good for them if they're promoting comprehensive sex education and not shaming and lies to kids, but still...it's poorly done.

My first thought on looking at this had nothing to do with pregnancy: I thought, does he have tapeworms? A tumor?

Also, what's so disturbing about male pregnancy? There are advances happening in medicine that could make this a reality in our lifetimes, and I think that's wonderful for the people who'd want it.

So essentially...this poster is capitalizing on a patriarchal fear of defying gender roles. Good for them if they're promoting comprehensive sex education and not shaming and lies to kids, but still...it's poorly done.

Beeer belly!

I like the idea of shared responsibility and have always been bothered that women alone have to bare the "shame" of teen pregnancy while men are not as ridiculed. I'm not sure you can really demonstrate both "You shouldn't get pregnant as a teenager" and "If you do, there is help" on the same ad. Thats a lot of information and it can be contradictory. I think that inevitably there will be some isolation for the mom and I'd really rather have the two people that made the mistake feel that, then risk not getting the message that teen pregnancy isn't a good ideaacross. Because it's not a good idea. I don't think i'm making a moral evaluation here, just a practical one. It's just too bad that burden isn't shared by both parties responsible. To me, the ad evokes that (but yes, a profile shot would be better)whether it intends to or not.

I honestly just thought he had a beer belly. The the tag line just kind of confused me. We should be disturbed when girls have beer bellies? What?

Then I read further and found out that it was about pregnancy. The ad seems to insinuate that guys get pregnant all the time but no one cares. But of course, that's physically impossible.

In my opinion it's not a very well thought out or executed ad.

Maybe a picture of a teen girl, standing at an angle so it's obvious that she's pregnant. With the tag line "It's not as uncommon as you think." or something to the effect of her needing assistance?

I agree that this is just bizarre and it doesn't really disturb as, I suppose, it is intended.

I would note in passing that I don't agree with one of the comments above, about "the public's tendency to sympathize more with boys 'in trouble' than girls." I don't mean for this to be controversial because I completely sympathize with the concerns expressed in this post and I know this is a feminist site. But I think the comment creates somewhat of a false impression that we haven't failed our sons; we have, and frankly, we fail them in some of the same ways we fail our girls -- by gender stereotyping. Because of a personal experience, I am involved in, and support efforts to reduce the staggering rate of young male suicide, which is a problem largely ignored in this society, in part because boys are supposed to "tough" and they're supposed to be macho. I learned through very sad personal experience in my family that this stereotype can kill -- because we brush off problems boys struggle with.

I know this is not the forum for such discussion, and in no manner do I mean to suggest that "boys have it tougher than girls." But I think it does a disservice to those trying to get at root causes of teen male suicide, not to mention other problems that target our "macho" boys, to suggest that all is well with the boys when, in fact, the same patriarchy that hurts our girls is also hurting our boys.

If you hadn't told me it was about teen pregnancy, I would have assumed they were attacking obesity. Or, since he's far from obese, they were very crassly saying that any form of fat is unattractive, guy or girl. And then I was going to go on this really great rant about how I've never seen such a blatant attempt to make teens feel badly about themselves for gaining a few pounds in my life, thus reiterating how values in this country have gone horribly downhill...

but it's about teen pregnancy.

Gee, I wonder if girlfriend ran out on him when they got the pregnancy results too?

I agree with those who have said that the word "disturbing" was a poor choice.

I also agree that the image could have been better, (if he had been standing in profile, it would have probably looked less like a beer belly) but I think it could have worked with better text accompanying it. Something along the lines of shared consequences of unprotected sex.

The ad seems to give the impression that girls are the only ones really affected by teen pregnancy, but wouldn't it be crrrazy if boys were too!? That, and it's time to get kids to start protecting themselves -- not because we really care about them, but so those damn teen mothers stop draining the system.

This has actually been on my mind recently, because of the inescapable Jamie Lynn Spears "scandal" and all the related discussion.

I've never liked it when my fellow pro-choice, pro-comprehensive-sex-ed citizens expect me to target teen pregnancy/single motherhood itself as the root of all evil, as the big thing to prevent. Partly because I'm reluctant to share any kind of goal with the people who belong to the "cover yourself up and keep your damn legs together until you find a man who's willing to marry your ass" camp, and partly because it cuts pro-choice and pro-education goals down to reducing government spending or lowering the high-school dropout rate or untangling the adoption system or whatever.

I can't speak for anyone else, but while those are admirable goals, none of them is the reason I want comprehensive sex ed and easily accessible abortions, or the reason I'm a feminist. There are issues of principle here: people being denied basic information about their own bodies, women having their reproductive organs invaded by a government that thinks it owns them, teenagers not being trusted to know what they want and make responsible choices or given the tools to do so, girls being told to measure their every sexual choice against the yardstick of public opinion, boys being told to have tons of sex and not care about any of it, slut-shaming, rape apology, and a thousand more. Sorry, but the thought of a pregnant teenage girl doesn't "disturb" me. Parental-consent laws disturb me. The Silver Ring Thing disturbs me. Rush Limbaugh disturbs me. People shooting up abortion clinics disturbs me. The fact that in my eleven-and-a-half years of public education I've never had an actual sex-ed class of any kind disturbs me.

This ad may encourage the right kind of action, but it does so by appealing to people's squeamishness about teen pregnancy and antipathy toward those they perceive as bad citizens or drains on society -- "welfare queens" and what have you. I don't know, maybe that's just good advertising. But I still resent it.

This is a really well intentioned organization with a really poor ad campaign. I googled them and found a video that again, attempts to show that teen pregnancy impacts schools, hospitals, governement budgets, etc. but ends with the baby being handed to what looks like a very happy teen mother.

It's too bad because I think they are trying to engage the whole community in solving a very real problem (a high teen pregnancy rate) but they don't seem to know how to do it.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=9226706

I thought he looked like he was starving, as in those ads for charities that feed hungry people in third world areas.

But now that I know it's about pregnancy, my reaction is that it's saying, "Pregnancy is gross and girls who get pregnant don't look pretty anymore, which means they're disgusting." So as you can tell, I agree that this ad sucks.

I agree with a lot of what's been said, but I just want to defend the people who created the ad a little bit. Clearly, other people will see this ad and be affected by it, but I think it's important to consider the target audience of this ad, which I think is those people who currently don't care about teen pregnency because they don't think it effects them.

I find that when I argue with conservative friends about comprehensive healthcare I have to fall back on arguments which I feel are reprehensible but that they find quite reasonable. I feel to ashamed to even post them here, but they are the arguements they find convincing primarily because they illustrate how these matters financialy and physically effect. Would it be a stretch for me to say that most of the arguments made on this site would probably not be appreciated by a large portion of Americans? For many of the Americans I know, which of course may not be representative, welfare is ruining America because it's encouraging lazy people to be lazy. They refuse to see it as a way for American's to get back on their feet. These people see ads like this and if they seem to suggest in anyway caring for "lazy" people they spot the weakness and turn their heads on them. In the same way we turn our heads on this head because it fails to properly support our view, but our view doesn't need changing in this case because we already care about teen pregnancy.

I think it's terrible that organizations with good intentions have to advertise their causes in unsavory ways, but we Americans are fickle, cheap, and selfish to the end.

"Partly because I'm reluctant to share any kind of goal with the people who belong to the 'cover yourself up and keep your damn legs together until you find a man who's willing to marry your ass' camp,"

Actually, a lot of the people out there in that camp actively *promote* teen pregnancy. Condemning premarital dating sure isn't condemning teen pregnancy when one's marrying off his daughter at 14 or 12 or 8...

"This is a really well intentioned organization with a really poor ad campaign."

Indeed.

"I googled them and found a video that again, attempts to show that teen pregnancy impacts schools, hospitals, governement budgets, etc. but ends with the baby being handed to what looks like a very happy teen mother."

...as if having a kid too early doesn't hurt the girl too. Bah.

"Clearly, other people will see this ad and be affected by it, but I think it's important to consider the target audience of this ad, which I think is those people who currently don't care about teen pregnency because they don't think it effects them."

Good point. You gotta speak your audience's language to get your point across, after all.

"I think it's terrible that organizations with good intentions have to advertise their causes in unsavory ways, but we Americans are fickle, cheap, and selfish to the end."

It's not even just an American thing...

Misspelled, I agree with your points re your reasons for supporting comprehensive sex ed, but I'm a little reluctant about the suggestion that teens can be trusted to know what they want/make responsible choices if they're equipped the right way. Teens are somewhere between childhood and adulthood -- some of them are absolutely mature enough to make wise decisions. Others just plain aren't. And while I don't think it's fair to penalize an entire age group because of a percentage of idiots, at the same time we can't look at teens and assume they'll react the same way as reasonable adults.

That isn't to say I don't think they should be taught everything about sex -- absolutely, they should. But that doesn't mean they will make responsible choices any more than (or even as much as) adults, and in fact they would probably benefit from additional mentorship/guidance, which sadly far too few teens have, thanks to American corporate capitalism severely infringing on parents' abilities to be good parents [unrelated rant redacted].

They needed to have a focus group before releasing this ad campaign--it's just a terrible ad. Bad photoshopping, left aligned text that's hard to read, and an obscure message that's grammatically incorrect. There's not much to like about it.

It took me a moment register that "It shouldn't be any less to disturbing when it's a girl" is just a strange way of saying: "It should be just as disturbing when it's a girl". Which, needless to say, is not a statement that's going to win them any friends.

Maybe I'm just a creep, but I the poster featured on this site to be weirdly sexual.
I'm thinking about his hip-bone lines you can see just above his pants. The only time I remember seeing lines like that were on Brad Pitt when he was in Fight Club.

So now I'm associating these posters with a naked Brad Pitt and its disturbing because these boys are teenagers.
Oh wait! There's the disturbing part! Because they are pregnant teens that look sexual! Maybe thats what the poster is about- sexualizing pregnant teenagers.

TLF, I hate to put it so bluntly, but: too bad.

We live in the world we live in. We can't save stupid people from themselves; they have sovreignty over their own lives and actions to exactly the same extent that you and I do. I've certainly met people who've left me wishing I could ensure that they'd never have sex or never have kids, because I'm sure they'd be horrible sexual partners or horrible parents. But I can't.

An adolescent's life is full of sex-related decisions, no matter how sexually active she is or isn't and how limited her options are. Even if she chooses to wait to have sex, even if she doesn't date, even if... fill-in-the-blank, she lives in a sexual culture she has to participate in if she ever wants to leave the house. No amount of influence exerted by parents, pediatricians, guidance counselors, ministers, activists, or legislators is going to change that. That ship's sailed. Reading a magazine, sleeping over at a friend's house, going to a dance, flirting with a guy, shopping for school clothes, she will be confronted with opportunities and decisions that require her to think and say and do things that are related to sex, and she will react to those situations with whatever information and experience she has gained. That could mean drawing on what her mother told her when she first tried on a miniskirt at the mall and calling another girl a slut for wearing one to school; or it could mean drawing on what she learned in health class and refusing to sleep with him if he wouldn't wear a condom. There are infinite possible manifestations, but that they'll exist is inevitable. Society has no choice but to trust teenagers to make their own decisions, sexual and otherwise, because life requires it of them.

You're right, misspelled, we need to trust teens to make their own choices and their own mistakes, because we can't keep them under surveillance or lock and key 24/7. All adults who care about them can do is provide guidance and support. In the case of sex-ed, that means providing them the most complete and accurate information we can, not fear, shame, or guilt. It looks like that boy in the ad could have used instruction in use of a condom. And a T-shirt.

Only one person--"david"--suggested that the complaint about the cost to society was a legitimate.

I don't really like the ad either, but the point is, being permissive of teen pregnancy isn't good. SHAMING and isolating teenage parents and their children is bad too, but no, it should NOT been seen as "okay."

I'm glad the rest of you are only too happy to subsidize people's short-term stupid decisions. I guess ATTEMPTING to avoid childbearing until you can afford to provide your kid a relatively stable environment is akin to being tortured.

I support better services for all---parents who likely have a poor education and will have to work in dead end jobs, children in crappy school districts/housing--and will help pay for them.

But I'm not a fascist if I expect people to take a little more responsibility for their own social choices. I've heard all the excuses--that their are low opportunity costs for having an "unplanned child" in poor communities being the first of them. I am all for changing that, but in the SHORT-TERM, those who have children "by accident" without considering the needs of their child....it IS absolutely related to generational poverty.

We either have endless resources to support the kid's other people have/cannot afford and likely cannot/won't take care of (what a ridiculous notion--some people who get knocked up will NOT be loving-but-overworked parents, they will respond to the child as an unwelcome burden that's been thrown in their laps) or we can help people take responsibility for their long term goals by postponing pregnancy (boys AND girls). This isn't about punishing girls for having sex before marriage (although I think BOTH parents should be committed to a child's welfare, whether they're a couple or not).

We will never be able to address global poverty because in the short term people have more children than the likely broken infrastructure, crappy government/economy of their countries (and here, local neighborhoods) can support.

The difference HERE in the U.S. is that we actually have access to contraception, unlike in Guatemala or South Africa.

One thing totally missing from this discussion is the "disturbing" statistic that fully 85% of so-called teen pregnancies are fathered by men who are old enough to be prosecuted for either statutory rape or child molestation. These predators prey on young, vulnerable girls, and of course as soon as the pregnancy is discovered, they move on to new territory.

Attacking young boys or trying to "do something" about them is obviously such a small part of the problem to be almost laughable. When are we going to get busy and force District Attorneys to file charges and prosecute the "fathers" of these babies? Until that happens, I am sick of hearing about what the girls are doing/not doing. These ADULT MALES are using standard, pedophilia grooming techniques to get what they want and they are also getting off scott free.

Put the blame for the problem where it really is - on a bunch of sick, perverted, adult MEN!

xxhelenaxx

As an old-fashioned person who also happens to be in the health care field, I believe I am as concerned as you are about the costs to society of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, and its influence on future generations.

This is exactly why young people, who may not be prepared to start families on their own, need proper sex education, including about alternatives to "stupid" sex such as masturbation; and methods of birth control, and why abortion needs to remain legal. No one is ever going to stop people from having sex, or making so called "stupid" or irresponsible choices; or contraception from occasionally failing.

If you know a good way to stop young people from having sex before they are ready to deal with the responsibility, or to care for their new families, I'd like to hear it, as I have kids, too. Note attempts to teach students about birth control, masturbation, non penis/vagina sex, or homosexual behavior are all vehemently opposed by an influential portion of the general public.

Note attempts to teach students about birth control, masturbation, non penis/vagina sex, or homosexual behavior are all vehemently opposed by an influential portion of the general public."

I agree with you. And I despair about it. That's why so many Bible-belt students (and poor non-white communities) are equally wounded. I am aware that the powers that be are vehemently anti-birth control and it ESPECIALLY punishes girls.

It is a pipe dream to wish for a society where anticipating ALL forms of birth control, including abstinence, and all the perils of sex--date rape (the possibility of it, rather), unplanned pregnancy, STI's, etc. etc.---were discussed openly and honestly.

I have gone over this many times in my mind---if I had a child a would talk to them about these things personally and tell them to WAIT at least until college, but that I wanted them to feel comfortable with me if that meant forestalling disaster.

If you are a parent who talks to you children, good for you.

This is my point--I am aware many people get "knocked up" while using birth control (if inconsistently), that birth control pills fail, condoms break, etc. I doubt many of the people targeted by this ad are even attempting to use birth control regularly.

Family planning should be just that--waiting to have children (or NEVER having them) until you can be the PRIMARY financial and material supporter (before the taxpayer who finances public schools, sex offender legislation, etc.) and anticipate at least some of the potential conflicts your child will face in your environment. It is an understatement to say that if I grew up in a rough neighborhood and school district I would fight like hell to get OUT. A child and the financial costs of raising one anchor you it.

As soon as the kid becomes an adolescent, what is the risk that self-destructing neighborhoods and poor school districts will negatively affect him/her? (God, what an understatement.)

In the SHORT-TERM--before we as a society/government are willing or even ABLE to handle a living wage, before we improve services for the population of children who will inevitably poor and/or in the foster care system, before we re-build crumbling schools, before we deal with these long-term problems, people can take responsibility for their own lives.

I do see the insane, awful anti-birth control/anti choice and simultaneous "have your cake and eat it too" politics of social budget cuts as a huge social problem.

P.S. Regarding all the comments who saw it as offensive to suggest a "cost to society"--you see no problem in people having children "by accident" and taxpayers--strangers-- being expected to (half-assedly) fill in the gaps? What ABOUT bigger problems like crumbling school districts and underfunded community resources?

What about resources overburdened by poor undereducated immigrants (legal or illegal) who have large families? I am all for helping the poor--why does America have to let the governments of countries like Mexico off the hook?

(Oh that's right...b/c we can pay THEM slave labor, instead of paying American citizens a decent wage.)

Misspelled, I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't proposing legislation or curfews or restrictions, I was proposing more guidance and mentoring for teenagers. Do you think more guidance and mentoring are bad things?

No, I understood what you were saying. And I don't disagree. I was just pointing out that no matter what approach you take -- guidance and mentoring or telling your kid you'll disown her if you ever find out she's had sex -- ultimately no one but the teenager in question has control over his or her sex life. We have to accept teenagers' autonomy in this regard because that's the reality of the situation.

Wow. I've rarely been so ticked off by an article, not just as a man, not just as a political activist, but as a human being.

There are alot of problems I have with the subtleties in the wording (it shouldn't be any less distubring), but it's not even just the english student in me.

The fact is, I can't stand this kind of advertisement and all of its implications. I know teen mothers, and they're some of the happiest people around, but it's not even in defense of them.

You want to know what really pisses me off:

It's that they feel that this kind of advertisement is going to discourage a teenage guy from having sex.

As a teenage guy, sitting at home on a monday night looking at this add, it's not making me think about protected sex, it's not making me consider abstinence. Frankly, it's not even making me think about sex much at all.

Apart from feeling that it's an insult to my competence and, frankly, a bad advertisement, I find that it's not effective and there are better ways to educate teenagers about safe sex and about the value of weighing the consequences.

As for the conversation above between Misspelled and The Law Fairy, I've got to tell you that, as a teenager who is sexually active (and safely so) and someone who's a first hand witness to the culture, I will say that I think you're both a little bit off in terms of the way that things can be handled in the real world.

Yes, it would be great if we could convince everyone to accept that teenagers are autonomous sexually, but the fact is, parents and the adult community at large will not do that. They will refuse to acknowledge it, at the very least, and continue to believe in the chastity of their young ones, up until it blindsides them. While I think that it would be wonderful for something to occur that would change that, the fact is that it won't happen.

As for The Law Fairy, I think that, again, you have a good theoretical point, but teenagers (and I'm speaking as one, right now) rarely listen to counciling coming from adults, even the ones that they respect. The reason for this, of course, is that they don't want to percieve adults as sexual beings, and so they have a reaction that includes shutting off sexual conciling. The other part of this is that you fall into the same trap as Misspelled in believing that adults will be willing to completely acknowledge the sexual environment the teenagers are in. The self-imposed ignorance of adult culture knows no bounds, I promise.

Still, the discussion on this thread is really good.

I'm kind of excited to see that this ad campaign has received such a discussion on this site. As a resident of Milwaukee, I have been seeing these ads everywhere. Everywhere. Billboards, bus stops, the entire side of buses, etc. There is actually at least one more image in the campaign that isn't displayed here of a guy sort of reclining in more of a profile.
Teen pregnancy is a huge problem in Milwaukee, just as it is in many other urban areas. Milwaukee also has the second highest chlamydia and gonorrhea rates in the country (or at least, we did in 2005 -- I think we may be in 3rd now). The vast majority of both are in females. Also, while 65% of the population is white, 55% of STD cases are in African Americans. Milwaukee is also one of the most segregated cities in the country. I just am stating this for perspective, I guess.
The targeted audience for this ad are (for the most part) the conservative, white, upper-middle class people. People who live in communities most effected by teen pregnancy already know its a problem. People who support comprehensive sex education already know its a problem. These ads are placed in more conservative areas of the city or where more people who may not live in areas directly effected by teen pregnancy work or near freeway entrances out of the city are located. Sometimes, I think the easiest and most effective way to get to some of the more conservative people is through money. (I realize some people have said some of these things already...)
While I am not a huge fan of the actual images -- I think, like others have said, it seems to sexualize the males (why do they have their shirts off? they could have just as easily shown them with huge maternity tee-shirts and gotten the message across). However, I do like that people are paying attention to the fact that Milwaukee has this problem. There are other ad campaigns that speak directly to the people effected by this issue -- Planned Parenthood ads, a program called "No Condom, No Way," etc -- but these are targeted at the people who may think that they don't need to worry about teen pregnancy because it is just something that happens to other people, people who make stupid choices, people who aren't "like them." It is refreshing to see that at least some in Milwaukee are taking the issue seriously, even if its not exactly how I would have chosen to do the ads.

Also, just as a side note -- this ad campaign (pregnant men) was originally done in France. It talks about it briefly in the textbook "Our Sexuality."

"It is a pipe dream to wish for a society where anticipating ALL forms of birth control, including abstinence, and all the perils of sex--date rape (the possibility of it, rather), unplanned pregnancy, STI's, etc. etc.---were discussed openly and honestly."

Because I have always been naturally curious (I was dumb enough to go find out what the "two girls, one cup" fuss was about), and supposedly very intelligent as a child, I have always had my hands on reading materials that were beyond my age or I had no business knowing. This is how I have independently known since the age of eight or nine how babies were made from books in the library with funny drawings or pictures and my mother's women's magazines; in addition to a great many other sexual practices revealed in Penthouse Letters and other adult publications available at stores, which I was able to independently judge as "deviant" or undesirable for a child (I accepted at face value that the material or the behaviors described within, were meant for people over the ages of 18 or 21). I also saw the fine book _Show Me!_ by Will McBryde and Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt, as a high school student and I considered it instructional, not sexually stimulating, but it would be considered child pornography today.

I would need to learn what age appropriate sex education would be for my own children. Most of what I am doing now is still setting limits on what is appropriate polite conversation for guests or at the dinner table, or replying to their questions why our sterilized cats or same sex rabbits will not have babies, and not with each other.

"I have gone over this many times in my mind---if I had a child a would talk to them about these things personally and tell them to WAIT at least until college, but that I wanted them to feel comfortable with me if that meant forestalling disaster."

It is desirable for a parent to establish themselves as a resource or source of support for their children, but I cannot expect my children to "wait" for adulthood, no matter what I tell them or all the bad examples I could give them. (Isn't the nature of the problem people believing "It won't happen to me?") My assumption is children will become curious by puberty, and probably experimenting or sexually active by 14. (This does not mean I consider sexually active teens to be promiscuous or slutty. I'm a little envious because I waited until 23 and considered myself old enough to be married before I started.)

From what I understand from the ad, the sponsors are trying to state the fact that teen pregnancy is disturbing. But because it's so prevalent, the society has become numb and not seeing it as a "problem". So they put in a pregnant teenage guy hoping that the anatomical aspect would draw attention, but people would be able to relate the message to the real world situation.

The words are not effective, true, and could be more coherent. But I think the message is all right. I do wish they hadn't put in that "burden" statement, as it makes them appear cold, but maybe they felt that would strike a chord with those who can't be attracted with a social awareness incentive?

Overall, I do not see the shaming/isolation thing in the picture or the caption. Perhaps in the text at the bottom. They can do a better job with the same concept, methinks.

-anin

The wording at the bottom of the poster aside, I think the image is ineffective. It doesn't disturb me. When I first saw this and read the large print I thought it had something to do with body image. As in, "This guy has a beer belly and you aren't disturbed, you shouldn't be disturbed if a woman has a pot belly too!" The dude does not look pregnant. Even if he did, I wouldn't be disturbed.

"I've never liked it when my fellow pro-choice, pro-comprehensive-sex-ed citizens expect me to target teen pregnancy/single motherhood itself as the root of all evil, as the big thing to prevent."

"Misspelled, I agree with your points re your reasons for supporting comprehensive sex ed, but I'm a little reluctant about the suggestion that teens can be trusted to know what they want/make responsible choices if they're equipped the right way."

"TLF, I hate to put it so bluntly, but: too bad.

"We live in the world we live in. We can't save stupid people from themselves; they have sovreignty over their own lives and actions to exactly the same extent that you and I do. I've certainly met people who've left me wishing I could ensure that they'd never have sex or never have kids, because I'm sure they'd be horrible sexual partners or horrible parents. But I can't."

We can't save stupid people from themselves, but does that mean we have to call them smart?

For example, can't we *both* trust teens to make their own sexual decisions *and* remind them that 15-year-olds who don't have kids tend to be better off than 15-year-olds who do have kids?

"Only one person--'david'--suggested that the complaint about the cost to society was a legitimate.

"I don't really like the ad either, but the point is, being permissive of teen pregnancy isn't good. SHAMING and isolating teenage parents and their children is bad too, but no, it should NOT been seen as 'okay.'

"I'm glad the rest of you are only too happy to subsidize people's short-term stupid decisions. I guess ATTEMPTING to avoid childbearing until you can afford to provide your kid a relatively stable environment is akin to being tortured."

Hey, what about those of us who think kids having kids is a problem even when taxpayers *don't* subsidize it? Impregating a kid should not be seen as "okay" even if the costs would be covered by her parents, her in-laws, her sugar daddy, adoptive parents, foster care, or her own dropping-out-of-school-to-work-60-hours/week wages instead of welfare...

"My assumption is children will become curious by puberty, and probably experimenting or sexually active by 14."

Good idea. Also remember the possibility that they might not be sexually active by then. When I was a teen, one of the sex ed books I got claimed to be for all adolescents but then presented making out with your boyfriend or girlfriend as the only alternative to sex. As if those of us who didn't even have boyfriends or girlfriends didn't exist.

"One thing totally missing from this discussion is the 'disturbing' statistic that fully 85% of so-called teen pregnancies are fathered by men who are old enough to be prosecuted for either statutory rape or child molestation. These predators prey on young, vulnerable girls, and of course as soon as the pregnancy is discovered, they move on to new territory."

Good points. Thanks for the reminder!

Meanwhile, *sometimes* they move on. I've also heard of men who don't move on at that point because the girls are their wives.

Then I heard a while ago of some subculture in the U.S. in which mid-teens girls are expected to date older men and their parents basically say 'we're done raising her, it's your turn now' to them. I forgot where it was, though.

Also, on another forum several years back I even saw some moms talking about how they wish their early-teen daughters could be 'initiated' by 'experienced' men instead of fumbling with boys their own age in car seats (as if waiting some years after puberty and learning about her protection options, her own turn-ons and turn-offs, etc. before sex isn't a 3rd option).

They did an ad in the 1970s with the same idea. The image of the pregnant man was for a Family Planning Association advertisement in which the caption said, 'would you be more careful if it was you who got pregnant?' The concept was to try and use the shock of the image to generate awareness about the issue.

Personally I like the family planning ad better. I like the idea of pregnant men being used, but think the caption could be a little more focused.

Disturbing? I'd be doing a touchdown dance if boys started gettting pregnant instead of girls. That would f*** up some people's stupid gender assumptions and change the way our culture deals with the issues of reproduction entirely.

The text under the photo is absolutely maddening. "Raised taxes" shouldn't be why teen pregnancy is alarming. We should be concerned about these teens and the children that come out of said pregnancies. And if you want to care about both of those, try offering legitimate sex ed. Sigh.

My first thought was, "malnutrition". Skinny body with bloated belly and lack of facial expression.

Effectiveness: Thumbs down.

I don't think he looks young enough, either. At a glance it loked like a 20-year-old with a big stomach. "Disturbing" also bothers me, as it did others. I am saddened by teen pregnancy, not "disturbed" by it. "Disturb" sounds a lot like slut-shaming to me.

Hey, what about those of us who think kids having kids is a problem even when taxpayers *don't* subsidize it? Impregating a kid should not be seen as "okay" even if the costs would be covered by her parents, her in-laws, her sugar daddy, adoptive parents, foster care, or her own dropping-out-of-school-to-work-60-hours/week wages instead of welfare..."

@Mina: I thought that goes without mentioning. I agree with you 110% (I think I wrote about that in my post, too, or at least implied it) that having a kid before you're even old enough to drink or have gotten an education is a problem. Children benefit from parents that have been given a little time to mature; potential parents benefit b/c they're more prepared to assess whether or not they can raise kids, if they want them at all.

"I agree with you. And I despair about it. That's why so many Bible-belt students (and poor non-white communities) are equally wounded. I am aware that the powers that be are vehemently anti-birth control and it ESPECIALLY punishes girls." (From my first post).

Punishes them b/c often THEY are the ones left to raise the baby.

Trust me---like I said, if I had a kid I would prefer they "wait" to start anything beyond making out and groping. (Oral sex still strikes me as degrading for girls and considering how non-normative it is for kids to use condoms when they perform oral sex....)

Teen pregnancy---"early births" as Katherine Edin called it in "Promises I Can Keep"--is not a good thing (what an understatement) for kids or their parents.

The ad doesn't offend me, but I don't understand it. and all the other comments just confused me

@jpkitty: the point of the ad is this. In Milwaukee people are too permissive towards teen/unintended pregnancy. It's jarring to see a pregnant guy; it should jar communities to see girls get knocked up before they finish high school or are ready to raise a child, as well.

I don't like that it makes the issue male centric. I don't think it is very helpful to take the emphasis off of teenage girls as individuals by comparing them to boys. I feel like it sets a subtle standard of male normality. And I also dislike the idea of teenage pregnancy being "disturbing".

I don't like that it makes the issue male centric. I don't think it is very helpful to take the emphasis off of teenage girls as individuals by comparing them to boys. I feel like it sets a subtle standard of male normality. And I also dislike the idea of teenage pregnancy being "disturbing".

I don't like that it makes the issue male centric. I don't think it is very helpful to take the emphasis off of teenage girls as individuals by comparing them to boys. I feel like it sets a subtle standard of male normality. And I also dislike the idea of teenage pregnancy being "disturbing".

I don't like that it makes the issue male centric. I don't think it is very helpful to take the emphasis off of teenage girls as individuals by comparing them to boys. I feel like it sets a subtle standard of male normality. And I also dislike the idea of teenage pregnancy being "disturbing".

I don't like that it makes the issue male centric. I don't think it is very helpful to take the emphasis off of teenage girls as individuals by comparing them to boys. I feel like it sets a subtle standard of male normality. And I also dislike the idea of teenage pregnancy being "disturbing".

Disturbing? I'd be doing a touchdown dance if boys started gettting pregnant instead of girls. That would f*** up some people's stupid gender assumptions and change the way our culture deals with the issues of reproduction entirely.

Hell yes. I bet all those laws that give 'religious tolerance' to pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control would be taken out.

I don't like that it makes the issue male centric. I don't think it is very helpful to take the emphasis off of teenage girls as individuals by comparing them to boys. I feel like it sets a subtle standard of male normality. And I also dislike the idea of teenage pregnancy being "disturbing"."

How is it NOT disturbing for teenagers to "accidentally/on-purpose" be faced with parenthood when they're barely out of childhood themselves and likely have less than a high school education (or just enough education to get a dead end job)? How is it NOT disturbing when someone who probably does not actively desire to have children (again...the "planned/unplanned" phenomenon)is so careless they don't use birth control consistently.Unless they're sexually assaulted, mentally handicapped, or in an abusive relationship where their birth control is sabotaged...the best excuse sociologists have is that there are "low opportunity costs" to being knocked up. Again---what does that mean for generational poverty, or the parents' futures, or their CHILD'S?

It's not the end of the world, but how is the flip side of that "It's okay, there's nothing wrong with this picture"?

And they are being CONTRASTED with boys. A pregnant "boy" is (biologically) surprising; the purpose of the ad is to tell them, "You should be unnerved by the rate of (female)teens having children just as much."

I don't think much of the ad either, but Jesus, I can't believe how complacent people are about people who DON'T WANT children, who CAN'T AFFORD to have kids....HAVING KIDS. To say nothing of barely-adults (the majority of teens are NOT ready to be responsible parents--how can they be, when so many of them are too careless to even use BIRTH CONTROL?

I guess the notion of "family planning" has nothing to do with people actually being responsible and forestalling pregnancy till they even ANTICIPATE the cost and burden of raising kids.

I vote Democrat, I want EITC expanded, I want crumbling schools and neighborhoods given a boost, and understand that will come from taxes.

But it IS disturbing. Very, very disturbing. I'd also point to lokywoky's point (where did you get those stats about statutory rape, loky)?

Diagnosis: Kwashiorkor Get the dude some nutrition.

Frankly, the stigmatisation of pregnant teens sickens and horrifies me.

That's what I see this ad doing.

I'm at work trying to articulate this thought, but there's something to be said for taking pregnancy and appropriating it to men in order for it to take on any value or significance. In order for anything to happen we have to invoke this ridiculous imagery of a pregnant teen male? I'm really at a loss for words... maybe more later when i can articulate my thoughts better