Or 'enter', whatever.
A new report from the CDC says that "trends in the sexual and reproductive health of U.S. teens and young adults have flattened, or in some instances may be worsening." Are we really surprised?
Thanks to a decade of misinformation masquerading as sex education, teens are having the same amount of sex, using contraception less, and getting pregnant more.
We're reaping what we've sowed. A 2002 study found that one-third of U.S. teenagers hadn't received any formal instruction about contraception. For those who did learn about contraception - it was all scare tactics. In Me, My World, My Future - a textbook used in public schools across the country - students are told that "relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette." A Case Western Reserve University study found that Ohio students have been taught that the birth control pill increases young women's chances of infertility later in life. And in 2005, teens at Montana's Bozeman High School were even taught that condoms cause cancer. So why would teens want to depend on something that they're told is not only ineffective, but cancer-causing to boot?
I'm stoked that the new budget has cut funding for abstinence-only education, I really am. But de-funding these programs is not enough. We have to undo the damage that's been done to young people and support real solutions: If we want to lower the teen pregnancy rate, we need to demand that contraception be easily accessible and affordable to young people. Yes - this means condoms in schools and community centers, and emergency contraception being available to teens over the counter. If we want to ensure that teenagers are well-informed, we need to demand federal and state funding for comprehensive sex education.
The purity-pushers are not going anywhere, but this is about more than politics...it's about our health and futures. (And goodness knows I don't know either in the hands of someone who could think up the above shirt.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Thanks, abstinence-only education!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15058
It seems to me that the abstinence only folks must be one of two things: 1. totally stupid to think that kids aren’t going to have sex or 2. Know that the kids are going to have sex and just want to make sure that any sex had can make babies.
Thinking about the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on birth control, the line is it subverts the will of God to have sex that can’t make babies. (Really? The WILL OF GOD is going to be subverted by a piece of rubber? Ok then…)
Condoms cause cancer? This is the same BS as the “abortion causes cancer” bit. Really nice to bring out the big scary C to freak people out.
From my experience growing up in an extremely religious environment that only ever promoted abstinence - When abstinence is a moral issue, they don't see it fitting to say, "sex is a sin, but if you do have sex, use protection." They seem to think they would be promoting immoral sex by admitting that not everybody is going to listen.
So, I suppose it really is just stupidity that causes them to ignore the reality, that no matter how much they use shame and scare tactics to scare people away from having sex, they're still going to do it.
I think its both. I've heard people make the comment, "People want sex but they don't want the consequences." Even for the non-religious (this guy wasn't religious) the Puritan pre-occupation with sin and damnation has seeped into the overall culture.
"It seems to me that the abstinence only folks must be one of two things: 1. totally stupid to think that kids aren’t going to have sex or 2. Know that the kids are going to have sex and just want to make sure that any sex had can make babies."
...or 3. Afraid that the kids who aren't going to have sex (some kids have sex, some don't, it's not a 100% or 0% thing) could, later as adults, use accurate knowledge of contraception to avoid making as many babies as possible during marriage?
i have not heard anything about condoms causing cancer, that IS complete BS, i agree with you.
i enjoy my sex toys everyday. that's how i keep up with abstinence
There are adults who, best I can tell, believe that children under 18 or so have no native sexual desire, and it's all caused by scantily clad women on TV and kissing in PG-rated movies (I mock, but only a little). So yeah, there are people who believe kids can be educated away from having sex.
These changes are absolutely necessary.
I attend a small, private liberal arts college in Georgia that is also conservative. Most of my classmates, whether they attended public or private high schools, have limited knowledge on birth control and how to practice safe sex. When these students choose to become sexually active, they often do not know how to effectively use forms of birth control or even where to get it. Those who do seek information often use the internet and sometimes find wrong and dangerous information about sexual health. My own roommate, despite being a very academically bright student, believed that pulling out was an effective second form of birth control. I have no doubt in my mind that these risky choices would not be made if comprehensive sex education was taught when we were in middle and high school.
I agree. I can't count how many people at my college did not have basic sex ed. In my sorority so many girls were so sheltered that me and one of the other girls would have sex education sessions in our room where we made them practice with condoms and told them that they shouldn't rely on the guy to take care of them. I would bring people to planned parenthood regularly because they honestly never would have thought to do it.
I think the only reason why teens are not practicing abstinence is because thier parents are not spending enough time with thier children or paying enough attention to where they are at all times. I don't agree MiriamCT1's idea that "Kids will do it anyway so just let them do it."
-Nikki-
Do you suggest policing teenagers at all times to prevent them from having sex? Do you really think it's productive?
As for parents spending enough time with teenagers, we are an extremely close family, we always did and still do spend tons of time together. When I became sexually active at 16, however, it wasn't because I didn't get enough attention from my parents but simply because I wanted to have sex. Quality time with my parents did nothing to satiisfy me sexually. Still doesn't, actually. :-)
I too am totally lost as to how spending time with your parents can stop you from wanting to explore your sexuality...you know, before you decide to commit to one person for the rest of your life.
That last comment lead to some amusing yet disturbing images...
I don't know about this...parental attention goes a long way but it only solves so much. Moreover, once the "genie" is out of the bottle, there's no going back. I can look across my own family and friends and see kids who's parents were religious & showered them with attention & kids whose parents were not religious & did not shower them with attention. There's not a great correlation between those behaviors & having sex though. The one thing that does correlate, is that those who got comprehensive sex ed from their parents did practice safe sex. I believe this is also consistent with the data. Recipients of abstinence-only education delayed sex by 12-18mos on average, but were unlikely to practice safe sex when do so.
Finally, while I agree that inadequate parental involvement is part of the problem, with the rise of single parent families, I fear we may get even less parental involvement in the future.
Whoa there! I never said "Kids will do it anyway so just let them do it."
SOME young people will have sex, not everyone, like Mina said above: "some kids have sex, some don't, it's not a 100% or 0% thing"
However, despite how many young people choose to have sex, they are all entitled to real sex ed, not bogus info from people with an anti-sex religious agenda. Having accurate info about sex does NOT make people have sex; it helps them make healthy choices about sex if they have it.
And trust me, kids who want to have sex will find a way no matter how much time they spend with their parents!
You and Ryan, below, are talking absolute nonsense here.
My parents did their best to instill self-respect and good judgment in me. As a result, I chose friends and boyfriends who showed me respect. When I was seventeen, my then-boyfriend and I made the decision to begin having sex -- we knew that our personalities were compatible, and we knew that sexual compatibility is also important in a long-term relationship. However, because I didn't want my academic career compromised, we used the pill as well as condoms.
Instead of feeding me a lot of abstinence-only misinformation and sex-shaming, my folks tried to instill good judgment, and trusted me to make smart decisions about my body. And guess what? It's paid off. Eighteen years later, that boyfriend is my husband and we're still happy with one another.
All that "pre-marital sex will destroy your love" and "teens who have sex are just wanting mom and dad's affection" stuff? It's a steaming pile of excrement.
I think the values formation a teen receives from his or her parents is absolutely far more important in preventing teen pregnancies than any school- or government-sponsored education.
Advocates of contraceptive sex-ed consistently deny that teaching about contraception increases the rate of sexual activity among teens. One can only laugh grimly when government investments in such education end up doubling the teen pregnancy rate.
Teens are always going to feel peer pressure to have sex, and throwing condoms and sex advice at them does nothing to ameliorate the situation - and in many cases makes it worse. Instilling a strong sense of identity and values in young people is the only real solution - and that's largely out of the hands of schools and governments.
What makes this an either-or proposition? Unless you think that abstinence-only works for 100% of kids it seems to me that you have to have answers for the rest of the kids.
I suppose you (or your kids) never got caught with your hand in the cookie jar? If kids aren't going to listen to you about cookies, what makes you think they're going to listen to you about sex?
Values may come from parents, but facts must come from school. What ideals your upbringing instills in you does not necessarily prepare you for what is out there. Sex education in school should not promote abstinence or sexual freedom, it should give information that is necessary for students' health and well-being.
"Teens are always going to feel peer pressure to have sex"
That depends on which teen you're talking about. When I was a teen, I didn't feel "you're sexy, you should have sex with me" pressure from any other teens, but I did feel "you're ugly, you should get out of my sight" from some other teens.
1. That article is suspect
2. That article is in the dail mail.see 1
3. In the U.S. teens who do not receive comprehensive sex ed are more likely to engage in sex, engage in sex younger, and have unprotected sex when doing so.
4. That article is suspect and there reasoning seems like total B.S. (they are having more sex b/c shy girls are introduced to more promiscious girls....WTF?).
5. Comprehensive sex ed involves a lot more than handing out condoms.
Hm, well, I would say I've had a strong sense of identity and values instilled in me, and part of my identity is my sexuality, a very important part actually. In order to be who I am and feel content in life, I like to have sex on occasion. As for values, well, I value physical pleasure and the close bond I have formed with my current partner. So... I suppose you mean that we should be instilling the "right" identity and values in young people, and not just any identity and values? Because, as I have said, part of my identity is my SEXUALITY and I deeply value SEX.
How can you enter a virginity lane?
I don't recall learning anything about contraceptives in my high school health class, which was about 4 years ago. They did, however show us several very graphic and nasy images of what happens to our genitalia/reproductive organs if we caught an STD. Fear tactic! (Though it wasn't very effective apparently; the girl I sat next to got pregnant within the semester)
I do group therapy for teens with drug problems but we also talk about other things and the topic of same sex came up. AT least three of my kids reported that TEACHERS at school told them that condoms don't protect against AIDS. I freaked out and we had an impromptu sex education session where i explained that although latex condoms are not 100% effective that does not mean they do not work and shouldn't be used
I just have to ask...
Why the f**k are sooooo ma shirts promoting abstinance so sexy? Seriously, darn near evey one I've seen is sexually suggestive. Who came up with the bright idea of trying to make abstinance sexy?
Just something I think is really annoying. Arrows pointing to the genitals along the happy trail and a tank top that says "I can keep you waiting" are kind of self-defeating. At the least they are probally a turn on to quite a few that read them. *end rant*
And also this whole condoms/BC cause cancer stuff needs to stop.
As a matter of fact, I just learned that not going on BC could increase my risk of a certain kind of cancer (something about uterine lining build up or something). I hate to think of the women who would feel ashamed to even think about using BC for a medical reason or getting the HPV shot. Then there are the horror stories about teens who think drinking bleach after sex or jumping (I kid you not, jumping) protect from pregnancy.
I went to school in both America and England, both times at private religious schools. In the UK, they do incredibly comprehensive sex ed starting in the third grade. Not only did we learn about heterosexual and homosexual sex and all kinds of contraceptives, but we also learned about safety and well-being issues like date rape and STDs and how to avoid them. It was really well-orchestrated and delivered in a safe, question-friendly environment.
In my American high school, I was told that if I had sex before marriage, no man would love me. And I would possibly die. And that skimpy clothes "lead the thoughts of men away from Jesus" and provoke rape. It was utterly ridiculous. We were taught that condoms and other forms of contraception were useless, harmful, and sinful to boot. Even being on the pill for health reasons was deemed immoral. We were pressured into signing abstinence pledges (I signed mine "Pamela Anderson"), and any form of homosexuality was condemned as something sinful that needed to be repressed. Anyone who disagreed or questioned these teachings (me and a few of my friends) was shamed and derided by the teacher.
There's something wrong with this picture.
We were pressured into signing abstinence pledges (I signed mine "Pamela Anderson")
HA! Funny thing to read at the start of the day :)
i guess our culture and medias don't pressure anybody to have sex to socially fit in .
I was just at Planned Parenthood last night for my annual and they were handing out surveys for the Guttmacher Institute (love), which included a couple questions asking if you'd be interested in taking outside classes on birth control. And, after the stories I hear from people who never had enough sex ed and are misinformed and can only recite the propaganda about how, e.g., the morning-after pill is abortion, etc., I would say, hellz yes. (Really, I'm curious to know how the anti-choice-movement's rhetoric and propaganda has become so INGRAINED in people's minds, even more ingrained than, like, real, legitimate health information. If only Planned Parenthood's could be so effective - though usually wingnut soundbytes are always more effective than, like, understanding and reason.) It would be truly awesome if some non-profits could offer basic community sex-ed classes, though I know that's a lot to dump on their shoulders. Heck, I'd volunteer to teach one for free.
this might be slightly OT but maybe someone can answer this for me.
i was listening to NPR a while back to a story about birth control and pregnancy while on birth control due to various factors - namely "gaps" in coverage with birth control pills.
it seems BCP seem to be the number one contraceptive, especially for young women (read college age and younger) which seems problematic. shoot, im not sure how i didnt get pregnant in college - i was, and still am, bad about remembering to take things everyday, getting my prescription refilled was a hastle. if i was home for the summer or break, i had to scramble to get it transfered, and it was rediculously expensive, 7 dollars if i went to PP (and i didnt have a car and it was on the other side of the river), $35 if PP transfered that prescription to a walkable walgreen's.
so, tl;dr. why arent IUDs or other more permanent/long term BC used, especially during a time that unplanned pregnancies are most likely to be disruptive and a woman's life is varied that daily options will probably not be enough.
Well, this is just from my own personal experience, but here you go.
IUDs are very expensive. Cheaper in the long run for sure, but do you know many teenagers that have a few hundred dollars to spend up front for an IUD? I don't.
Also, back when I was a teen and in college (5-10 years ago) most gynes would not prescribe an IUD to a teenager or college aged student. You needed to be in a committed long-term relationship and be sure that you did not want kids and have the same partner for at least the next 5 years (that's what the gynes I went to told me). The reason I was given was that IUDs stayed inside you and the changing of partners would lead to different bacteria in there and possible infections. Now, I have no idea if these reasons given to me were true, but that's what I was told by more than one doctor (my friends had the same problems).
I was upset because, like you, I SUCKED at remembering to take the pill. So instead I was prescribed the NuvaRing and I've been on it ever since (it's been over 5 years now). And it's worked great. I don't need to remember it every day and so far *knock on wood* no pregnancies.
However, you'd have the same problem with the NuvaRing that you had with the pill in that you have to refill your prescription once a month (or once every three months, sometimes depending on your insurance they let you get three months of rings at a time) but you only have to remember to insert the ring once a month.
true. ive never priced an IUD, but in the case of minors, i could be covered under their parents' health insurance - assuming they have insurance, or a sliding scale, like PP does with HBC. payment plans, something - especially if they end up being more cost effective over the life of the IUD.
as for the bacteria/monogomy thing i dont know. it would still make sense to use condoms as BC doesnt stop STD/STIs.
and i tried the nuvaring after the birth of my second child and didnt like it. i had break-though bleeding at week three and then still had my period. blah. (after two months trying it i said fuck it, went back to condoms and didnt get my real period back for 15 months) and i still couldnt remember what week i was on - but that could have been post baby haze.
Yeah, I just don't think the technology's there. The NuvaRing seems like a considerably better option for women who can't remember to take the pill every day; at least, once a month is better than every day. I just turned my pill into another habit; I take it every day after I wake up, or take it with breakfast (I always eat breakfast).
Regarding pharmacy inconveniences, most bigger campuses around the country have pharmacies right on campus along with their university clinics, and offer much discounted rates to students. So any day you had to come to campus for class you could pick up your pill prescription.
I know IUDs have evolved A LOT from the time of their invention, but I still wouldn't feel safe or comfortable using one. If you read Andrea Tone's _Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America_, you'll see why. Originally, they were conceived of as an actual foreign object meant to disrupt a woman's system; introducing a foreign object into the uterus basically induces a perpetual low-grade infection, which prevents pregnancy.
Abstinence isn’t the “bad” word that today’s culture makes it out to be. It’s actually the exact opposite – it’s a positive choice that teens can make to ensure a brighter and healthier future. Teens who choose abstinence don’t have to worry about STD’s or STI’s, and they don’t have to carry the emotional baggage that having sex brings. An abstinent teen can keep a clear mind to help make positive, healthy choices for their future. And most importantly, being abstinent means that you never have to live with regrets.
“Game Plan” is a great abstinence-based curriculum that many schools across the United States are using. To learn more about “Game Plan”, visit www.justsayyes.org
Pssssst, you posted this the other day word-for-word on another blog entry here.
And we all had fun making fun of you. Remember?
Just because you think that sex brings emotional baggage doesn't mean this is true for all of us. I am very happy that I began having sex when I did--it was an enjoyable thing to do with my partner.
I, a non-abstinent teen, was able to keep a clear mind and make plenty of positive healthy choices about my life, my body, and my relationships. Sex was a positive experience for me, mostly because I made my own choices about when and with whom to do it. I have no regrets that I did not remain abstinent.
Abstinence doesn't ensure a brighter and healthier future. Choosing what is right for you as an individual does that. If that choice is to remain abstinent, then good for you. If not, then also good for you.
With comprehensive sex-ed, teens learn what STIs are. They learn how to prevent them--through abstinence AND with safer sex. Abstinence-only programs use STIs as scare tactics, and it doesn't work.
While you might believe what you are saying, I think you should take a step back and look at from other people's points of view. You are telling us what to do with our bodies and how premarital sex affects everyone in one broad, inaccurate sweep.
I remember that there was this Christian program that used to come to my high school--CCDC. They would tell us that sex before marriage was bad, etc. etc., and that you didn't want to be "that kind of person." All I thought was that they were putting people in boxes. The "good" abstinent students, and the "bad" slutty ones. Abstinence-only eduation suggests that teens are not trustworthy or intelligent enough to make reasonable decisions for their own lives.
Also, your shameless advertising of a program that likely deserves no support at all is pitiful. You should know by now that that won't work here.
Hehehe. Well, thanks for the great example of your movement trying to rebrand itself as somehow less wingnut than it actually is through the "positive choice" rhetoric - when in fact you offer no choices at all.
I also have a perfectly clear enough head both before and after I have sex, thanks for asking.
" when in fact you offer no choices at all "
What are the fantastic multiple choices that our teen culture offers ? Being sexually active or being rejected .
On the topic of "demand[ing] federal and state funding for comprehensive sex education" and in response to anyone who thinks that abstinence-ONLY (emphasis on the only) has any merit whatsoever, I submit to you:
1) A Congressionally-commissioned, decade-spanning report concluding that kids who received AOUM education were just as likely to have sex as kids who didn’t (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf)
2) The comprehensive sexuality education model (read: honest, medically accurate, and NOT pushing abstinence as the one and only solution...and certainly not moralizing) used by several European countries has resulted in some of the best sexual health statistics in the world. (And to lift a line from my YMY essay...) Not coincidentally, these countries use an approach that makes the U.S. look like some sort of fiendish bizarro-world where faux-morality is allowed to trample reasoned, useful approaches. See www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.pdf for more information.
3) The R.E.A.L. Act is the closest thing that the U.S. has ever seen to this European approach. Should it pass, it would replace Federal ab-only funding, and mandate comprehensive sexuality education in its place. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/storage/advfy/documents/fsreal.pdf
So yeah, keep an eye out for policy alerts on this!