Maybe it's because I'm not a parent, but am far from my HS years, but why is it not possible to have a moderate position on the issue of what we tell kids about sex?

I DO remember being in HS when some girls I knew (who took the same bus I did) were talking about abortion. One girl was worried that she might be pregnant--her friend advised her to have it checked, and if she was, to just get an abortion. "It's real easy, I've had three myself." Somehow, I didn't think she was boasting, nor lamenting, but simply stating, quite matter-of-factly.

The point is that teen sex DOES happen, and as w/ any teen-period activity, some will do more of it than others. But if we think it's perfectly normal to suggest to kids that ONE option about drinking is not to do so (but if you're going to, for cryin' out loud, try to have a designated driver, or call Mom/Dad, even at three in the morning, and we'll come pick you up), why is abstinence not talked about as one perfectly valid option?

My driver ed class (one of the best in my home state) included lots of rather graphic photos of car accidents. Is the topic of throat gonorrhea (and the emotional and health costs of an abortion) really somehow more deserving of being glossed over? [I don't care abortion as an issue, but pregnancy IS a consequence, and dealing w/ it, either by having the child, adopting the child out, or abortion is a necessity.]

Just a thought....

Posted by: Dean on May 25, 2002

Either you're completely missing my point, or I'm missing yours. You appear to be reiterating the point-evading arguments I'm complaining about. The post is not about telling teenagers to abstain from sex (though I would certainly say that 999 times out of 1000 a 15 year old girl having sex is making a really stupid move).

Let me try to put it another way. Everybody wants great sex, right? I want to have great sex, and somewhere along the line somebody filled me in on how to go about getting what I wanted. And I want my kid to be happy and have a wonderful love life, with great sex. The fundamental point here is that these girls are lost in a sexual culture that is utterly indifferent to their sexual feelings. They are taking great risks (physical and emotional) for really crappy sex. They are, quite obviously, being treated shabbily, and they are unhappy.

I don't mean to slag you off here, as I appreciate your responding, but anybody who thinks that it's no big deal for a teenage girl to have had three abortions, and that's she's just cool and "matter of fact" with the experience...well, I'm at a loss for words. If you were standing here next to me I'd be applying the heel of my hand repeatedly to the side of your head.

And lastly, I'm also pretty much at a loss as to how you came to conclude that I was advocating "glossing over" possible negative consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior.

Posted by: Moira on May 25, 2002

In med school, a rather savvy pediatrician, specializing in adolescent medicine, suggested that we ask girls who are active if they actually enjoy the sex. In her practice, the overwhelming majority say "no."

Without prying too deeply into her private life, one is subtly suggesting a.) that she's not really ready for this (and she may be feeling that anyway) or b.) that she may need to be more selfish about getting herself some satisfaction.

Either way, they're putting more thought into their behavior, which should improve safety (and maybe even pleasure).

Posted by: Ben Thornton on May 25, 2002

Thanks for mentioning the parent part of it in your commentary. After all, the US News article barely mentions them (though it does say that a lot parents really want schools to deal with safe-sex issues).

Not being a parent, I definitely lack a certain perspective on these issues, but I can't help going to back to wondering where the teens' folks are in all of this. Since the onslaught of information and imagery is simply growing (not something I necessarily see as evil in and of itself) it's really not necessary for kids to turn to anyone to get information on anything they might develop an interest in. And it's nothing terribly new to say that kids aren't all running to their folks to ask for potentially embarrassing information.

But does it matter that much? I don't think that's what parenting is, for the most part. My parents didn't function as sources for facts and figures. Rather, I learned a great deal about -- in clinical terms -- the interpretation and application of information. Hell, I didn't know that "throat gonorrhea" existed until I read the article. Despite the amazing draw at 15 of the physical aspects of sex, I knew enough not to put anything sensitive anywhere near to something that I wasn't really sure about the previous location(s) of. And I'd like to think I understood at least a few of the longer term implications (or, frankly, was sufficiently scared of the terms "disease" and "pregnant" to think twice). That's what I got from my parents, not much if any of the what went where or why mechanics.

All of this lamenting about what's happened to teens and kids today doesn't seem to have a parallel discussion about what's happened to parents. Obviously excluding the concerned parent-owner of this blog, I just wonder if the tail end of the Boomer group is starting to reap some of what it has sown? A lot of parents today were founding members of the instant-gratification, self-satisfaction above all generation that often treats kids as miniature examples of social worth or standing. My group's done no better so far, but as we get closer to having children in their teens, I'm not sure discussing generations as totally seperate entities unaffected by each other helps with either perspective or understanding.

Posted by: Ian on May 25, 2002

Whoa! Stop! Moira, I think that you and Dean are indeed talking past each other here.

Dean is attempting to describe the conversation that he overheard between two teen-aged girls. Perhaps one was lying to appear cool, or in an attempt to not frightened her friend into hysterics. Perhaps he completely misinterpreted her attitude. But I do not think from the remainder of his post that he is being approving of that attitude. (And perhaps I am completely misinterpreting his attitude. In that case, free feel to apply to the heel of your hand repeatedly to my head.)

Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue on May 26, 2002

You're probably right, John. When denseness abounds, I'm the usual suspect.

Posted by: Moira on May 26, 2002

>> The post is not about telling teenagers to abstain from sex (though I would certainly say that 999 times out of 1000 a 15 year old girl having sex is making a really stupid move).

Umm, that's 999 times out of 1000 for 15 year old girls in certain circumstances, but there are other circumstances.

For those girls, having a baby "early" is a reasonably rational choice. It's not like she's otherwise going to Stanford.

Posted by: Andy Freeman on May 26, 2002

Andy, I'd say there are precious few circumstances in our society where a 15 year old is likely to have a solvent, responsible husband.

Posted by: Moira on May 27, 2002

>> Andy, I'd say there are precious few circumstances in our society where a 15 year old is likely to have a solvent, responsible husband.

While that's true, it doesn't refute my point that for many US teens, having a kid is a step up, even without a solvent, responsible husband.

Posted by: Andy Freeman on May 27, 2002

Ms. Breen,

I'm afraid that I must have been quite unclear in my posting.

I was not indicating that it was, indeed, okay to have three abortions by the time you're a junior in high school. Nor did I mean to suggest that I thought you were proposing "glossing over" negative consequences.

What I was trying to get across (particularly w/ the driver-ed drinking example) is that, in fact, those very negative consequences that you cite should be made clearer to teen-agers. And that one means of avoiding them (and a valid one, but certainly not the only one) is abstinence:

We know drinking occurs in HS. We know driving begins in HS. We cannot PREVENT drinking and driving in HS (not in any 100% certain way), but we can (and desperately try) to get across that doing so has really, really really bad consequences. Therefore, we set forth all sorts of alternatives, including parental commitments not to lecture, suggesting designated drivers, and pushing for non-drinking.

We know sex is likely to occur in HS. We know sex has enormous consequences, including way too many abortions at an early age (in some instances), throat gonorrhea, and other things, not least of which is crappy sex which mars girls' (and probably some boys') views of sex, probably for a long time to come, if not life. My thought, regarding abstinence, was simply wondering why, just as we set forth various options for drinking, we don't set forth various options regarding sex, including abstinence.

My apologies for apparently leading you to believe that my head needed a more intimate acquaintance w/ the heel of your hand!

Posted by: Dean on May 27, 2002

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I think one of the biggest problems is that schools (and many parents) provide too many "options" regarding sex, and provide them in a valuless, morally sterile manner. Sure there are options; indeed, Kate, Lara, and Lynn seem to be exercising them rather casually. Oral sex seems to be the most popular millenial option; no risk of pregnancy, no legs caught in the steering wheel, easy preparation (one zip and the fun begins), only the odd case of throat gonorrhea (Moira, I was a clueless as you on that one!). Sure, kids are gonna have sex (this boomer wasn't celibate until marriage). But they are also going to inject crystal meth; do we introduce needle exchanges in the nurses office? Despite Andy's bizarre contention that a 15 year old having a child might be a "step up" (presumably because she ain't going to Stanford, her options are limited), there is simply nothing good about sex in junior or high school (at least once it's over).

Posted by: Bob on May 28, 2002

It wasn't that long ago that my daughter, now 24, was facing these temptations and choices. We discussed it, of course. It's been a while, but I remember what it was like to be a horny teenager(redundant?). She weighed pleasure against risk and decided no, thank you. Other girls make other choices, but I wonder how many of them regret it?

Posted by: Lauren Coats on May 28, 2002

>> Despite Andy's bizarre contention that a 15 year old having a child might be a "step up" (presumably because she ain't going to Stanford, her options are limited), there is simply nothing good about sex in junior or high school (at least once it's over).

The Stanford bit was hyperbole, but surely the gist is not in dispute. There are 15 year olds who have basically the same opportunities (or, from our perspective, lack thereof) that they're going to have at 32. We might think that they shouldn't have children at 32 either, but ....

Or, does someone want to argue that all 15 year olds in the US live in circumstances where having a child will negatively affect them?

Posted by: Andy Freeman on May 28, 2002

I'll grant the Stanford hyperbole; I recognize it wasn't meant to be literal. But I would very much 'dispute the gist', so to speak. Indeed, there are 32, 25, 41, 50-year olds, etc., who should not have children, but there are many who should. I would contend that there are no 15 year olds who are emotionally or financially equipped to deal with the awesome responsibilities of childbearing/rearing, regardless of present circumstances. Having the same options at 32 as one has at 15 is irrelevant. Perhaps considering the consequences on the child as well as the 15 year old, when considered, completes my thought.

Posted by: Bob on May 29, 2002

>> Having the same options at 32 as one has at 15 is irrelevant.

And, it was also an error on my part.

I should have stuck with the essence of the Stanford quip. For some girls, having a child at 15 won't affect where they'll be at 32. That's incredibly relevant.

Since having a child is valuable to them, what reason do they have to wait? Waiting doesn't do anything for them.

Also, while we might like to believe that the kids they have at 32 are better off than the kids they have at 15, it's not clear that that's actually true.

Posted by: Andy Freeman on May 29, 2002

>>Since having a child is valuable to them, what reason do they have to wait? Waiting doesn't do anything for them.

That statement is exactly why I added the last sentence of my last post. Because it shouldn't be about the 15 year old; it should be about the baby, first and foremost. Having a child at 15 may well provide the same short term pleasure as did the sex that led to it; cuddling the cute kid in her arms, she feels quite mommy-like. But waking up in the middle of the night to feed it, changing loaded diapers, dealing with the screaming that won't stop, cleaning up the vomit, and dealing at 17 with a 2 year old isn't what she's thinking about, dreamy eyed at 15, is it? Not to mention having to stay home to care for her little bundle while the rest of the kids are out partying. And 6 bucks an hour at Mickey D's ain't gonna buy much Similac, either. The potential to become something at 32 is infinitely greater for the most downtrodden 15 year old sans baby.

Posted by: Bob on May 29, 2002

There are not "many" circumstances in this country in which a girl has negligible opportunity to finish school, get a job, and marry - all of which are a "step up" from welfare and unwed motherhood.

And this leaves aside completely the question of whether it is "smart" to do something because you want to and because no better opportunity will come along. (I want certain big ticket items. Can't afford 'em now, won't be able to afford 'em 20 or 40 years from now. My best and only chance of getting them is to steal money. Would that be a smart choice?)

Posted by: Moira on May 30, 2002

Bob T -

Thanks for the anecdote. I think it illustrates the point nicely and succintly.

Posted by: Moira on May 30, 2002

>> There are not "many" circumstances in this country in which a girl has negligible opportunity to finish school, get a job, and marry - all of which are a "step up" from welfare and unwed motherhood.

That's nice, but misses the point.

My point is that there are many circumstances in the US for a girl to have a kid, get a job, and (maybe) marry at a young age with virtual certainty that when she's 32, she'll be in roughly the same place that she'd have been if she hadn't had the kid.

In assuming that she'd be worse off, you're asserting something that is inconsistent with what she sees in her neighborhood. She sees folks who had kids early and she sees folks who had kids late. They're in the same place.

You can't effectively argue that she's misinterpreting the evidence until you understand what she's seeing and her circumstance.

Posted by: Andy Freeman on May 31, 2002

Andy -

First, you're trying to slide around the original terms of the debate here. Having a kid early is stupid because of the overwhelming likelihood that the mother is unskilled, jobless, and unmarried. You've just tried to slip in a job and possible marriage. (In the next round the 15 year old is going to acquire a husband and be, say, an in-demand programmer - after all, there are such kids - who can pull a good wage. QED it is rational to choose to have babies at 15 rather than 22.)

And again that "many". It just ain't so that there are large swathes of the non-Stanford attending demographic where putting off motherhood to acquire job skills, and marrying, have no bearing one's economic status at later ages. Aside from the fact that it is highly unlikely that the girl makes a "rational" decision to have a baby based on thoughtful long term projection. In most cases she's being, yes, stupid.

If you want to reduce this to the niggling point that "well, gee, the daughter of an unwed welfare mother, living where no one has married in three generations, where there is no pool of marriageable men, and where the schools are atrocious, is unlikely to have or to perceive alternatives to early unwed motherhood" - hey, knock yourself out. But there's not much meat on that bone.

Posted by: Moira on May 31, 2002

>>She sees folks who had kids early and she sees folks who had kids late. They're in the same place.

Our 15 year old looks in the neighborhood, sees teenage mothers and 30 something mothers, and concludes, as you do, that hell, it looks like it doesn't matter if I have a baby now, cuz look at them old ladies; they're still here. One would expect a 15 year old to conclude this, but I'm surprised that Andy misses the foolishness in it. Argumentum ad absurdum, she may as well start smoking crack now, since there are teenage crackheads as well as middle aged crackheads in the neighborhood who didn't start until they were 40. The point should be will I have better opportunities to be successful later with or without the baby?

Posted by: Bob on May 31, 2002

Having a baby at 15 is not without negative consequences for the mother and the child. Teen mothers are much more likely to have babies with chromosomal abnormalities. The skeletal structure of a young girl is still developing at 15 and might be adversely affected by the baby's ability to hijack calcium for its own use. The best time for a woman to have a baby (physiolgically) is the early to mid 20s when she is fully developed and has a lot of energy. So if you want to make this argument purely in biological terms, the vast majority of the time it is better for young women to postpone having children until the early 20s at least.

Posted by: Mara on May 31, 2002

>> Having a kid early is stupid because of the overwhelming likelihood that the mother is unskilled, jobless, and unmarried. You've just tried to slip in a job and possible marriage.

Finishing high school really improves her job prospects.... NOT! She'll have the same damn job, kid or not.

>> Our 15 year old looks in the neighborhood, sees teenage mothers and 30 something mothers, and concludes, as you do, that hell, it looks like it doesn't matter if I have a baby now, cuz look at them old ladies; they're still here.

Now you're just attacking straw men. As I wrote, she's not seeing the difference between 30 year-olds who had their first kid at 15-17 and those who waited until their mid 20s. And, no, I'm not talking about communities dominated by crack-heads.

>> The point should be will I have better opportunities to be successful later with or without the baby?

Yes, that is the point. And based on what she sees by looking at 30 year olds in her neighborhood, having kids early doesn't affect her opportunities. Is that so hard to understand?

Posted by: Andy Freeman on May 31, 2002

Give it a rest, Andy. I'm not impressed with your attempt to confuse the issue by playing fast and loose with the variables of age, skill level, and marital status. And "acquire job skills" does not mean "merely get a high school diploma". I will fully concede the irrelevant point that having a baby as an unskilled, unmarried 25 year old is no great improvement over having a baby as an unskilled, unmarried, 17 year old.

If you want to believe that, for a significant number of people, level of job skills and marital status have absolutely no effect on a mother's economic status over the course of a lifetime, you go right ahead. Ditto for wanting to believe that it is well nigh impossible for all those not-heading-to-Stanford girls to obtain valuable job skills, or find a husband, in the time between high-school graduation and their mid-twenties. If you want to believe that a significant number of unwed 15 year old mothers rationally choose this path because of an utter and obvious dearth of economic opportunity in communities outside the goin'-to-Stanford elect, suit yourself. If you want anybody else to believe these things, you're going to have to cough up more evidence than vague assertions about the objective status and perception of "many" girls.

Posted by: Moira on May 31, 2002

Well, actually I came across this page because I am trying to do a research paper for my class, and I was so shocked to see the way that so many people took the first article, and your comments (good Lord people!)

As a teen myself, I would like to explain and tell a few things that I have witnessed first hand.

The biggest problem in my eyes, and in many others my age, is family. Where in the hell did that go? Since when should we rely on school to tell us what to do about our sex life? And do you really think the majority of the students are going to be like, "well, my 60 yr. old science teacher told me not to, so I guess I won't". No and you are, sorry to say, a moron if you think that really happens. We look at our family for the base of all our answers. Now in my case I have a pretty near perfect family like. Parents still married, two sisters that are in college, and of course the pet! We all get along fine and we tell each other everything. Now that doesn't mean that sex doesn't happen in this situation. Both of my sisters have had sex, granted they are 20+, but they did go to my parents first. They have protection at all times, and are extremely safe about it. Me on the other hand, I haven't had sex because I see what it has done to the majority of my friends. A lot of my best friends have been growing up in single families, or step parents that they don't get along with, sisters that had babies young.. (I think you get the drift). They have all had sex before they were 17 and more than half of them regret it too. They are now forever attached to their "firsts" and it has been an emotional rollercoaster for them, and to see them cry and get hurt all the time doesn't really make me want to have sex with my boyfriend of about one year. Happy to say that too!

Another thing to add is I can't believe the whole "you will have the same opportunities as everyone else if you are a teen mother". Are you thinking straight?!?!? If I were to have a baby right now that means I would miss part of a semester at my college, and I can't live in a dorm with a baby, so I would have to move out also. Now how am I going to be able to pay for housing if I am going to school and taking care of a baby? I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I just don't see where a job fits into that equation! Something is going to have to give, and 9 times out of 10 it is your education. You have to support your family, because that is the result of what you did. Yeah maybe you have the same opportunities as the 30 year old down the street with a baby if she was working at McDonalds or something. Then yes, you certainly can do that with out a college degree.

Well, sorry to have written a novel here, but just thought I would add a few things that I thought! Thanks!

Em

Posted by: Em on July 27, 2002

STAY A VIRGIN. DONT HAVE SEX YOU WONT HAVE TO HAVE A ABORTION OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE THEN. WHATS A FEW MINUTES OF PLEASURE VS STD'S. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE.

Posted by: Kristy on November 14, 2002

being a 15 year old girl, i can honestly say that i and very randy at the minute but that does not mean that i would jump into bed with any boy that walks past. yes, i am VERY up for it and maybe i would go out with a bot then have sex with him after we have got to know each other well. all adults think it is wrong and that 15 year old girls dont know whta they are doing and they are taking their virginity for granted. but you are all seriously wrong.

Posted by: katie on August 25, 2003

My friends and I have been reading this, and we can't understand what all of you adults are bitching about! We are all around 13 to 15, and almost every one of us is having sex with boys. We are taught about sex and condoms and birth control in sex ed class, so we obviously know how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. We enjoy sex as much as or even mnore than the boys do! You adults would get a much better idea of how we teens think if you would just to to the teen sexuality forums at: http://www.studentcenter.org

Posted by: Sarah on September 02, 2003

I had sex when I was thirteen sometimes I wish I had waited but now I like it and I turned out just fie. I am 17 years old and my expieriences with men has made me more mature less gullible and less likely to get caught in bad situations like other girls my age because I been there done that.

Posted by: salt on October 23, 2003

I had sex when I was thirteen sometimes I wish I had waited but now I like it and I turned out just fie. I am 17 years old and my expieriences with men has made me more mature less gullible and less likely to get caught in bad situations like other girls my age because I been there done that.

Posted by: salt on October 23, 2003

I thinnk the point that you made about when teenagers have sex it makes them think that with every relationship they need to. That is how I feel since I lost my virginity at 13 to an 18 year old man. I am now 15 years old and feel the need to have sex in every relationship

Posted by: Precious on November 06, 2003