British girls encouraged to have oral sex [Archive]

specious_reasons

21st February 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
If a U.S. Surgeon General recommended this to children, she would be fired within days.

Admittedly, the US can be puritanical, but I'd fire the surgeon general over that. The thing that this doesn't address is STDs.

If people can't be bothered with protection during normal intercourse, are they going to bother (even consider) protection during oral sex?

IMO, healthcare workers should advocate how to handle teen sex in this order:
1. abstinence
2. abstinence
3. protection!
4. protection!!!!

c0rbin

21st February 2003, 10:49 AM

I hear people getting all heated up about sex education here in the states.

I think it is unrealistic and slightly utopian to expect kids to abstain. I am sure that there will always be those who do, but really, come on.

I think information is the best approach--not recommending one position or method over another--just give them the facts.

They are going to have sex. If they know how and why to use a condom, then they are more likely to, I think.

Well, got to go. I have a couple job interviews lined up in the UK.:p

21st February 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

British schoolgirls are being encouraged to consider oral sex to reduce the high rate of teen pregnancies.

I see. The article actually says British school children are being encouraged to consider oral sex. But who cares if the girls get off, right?

Segnosaur

21st February 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
I see. The article actually says British school children are being encouraged to consider oral sex. But who cares if the girls get off, right?
Psssstt.... I have a secret...

Females can receive oral sex too.

Don't tell anyone though... ok? Otherwise they may expect it regularly.

21st February 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Psssstt.... I have a secret...

Females can receive oral sex too.

Don't tell anyone though... ok? Otherwise they may expect it regularly.

Yes. But AP said school girls....

arcticpenguin

21st February 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by LukeT

Yes. But AP said school girls....
Somehow I suspect the schoolboys are not the ones getting pregnant. That was the motivation: to lower the rate of teen pregnancies.

Segnosaur

21st February 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
Yes. But AP said school girls....
Well, technically, 'girls' are a subset of 'children', so unless you have an all-boy class, when you tecah the 'children', you'll also be teaching 'girls'.

I'm still a little dense though... how does AP saying 'school girls' preclude them from receiving? (He just said they were encouraged to 'consider' oral sex, not which side they should be on.)

patnray

21st February 2003, 12:03 PM

Any one remember Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton's first Surgeon General. She had to resign after recommending masturbation as a sexual alternative...

No rational policies allowed when it comes to sex...

a_unique_person

21st February 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

Admittedly, the US can be puritanical, but I'd fire the surgeon general over that. The thing that this doesn't address is STDs.

If people can't be bothered with protection during normal intercourse, are they going to bother (even consider) protection during oral sex?

IMO, healthcare workers should advocate how to handle teen sex in this order:
1. abstinence
2. abstinence
3. protection!
4. protection!!!!

i think the problem with that is that, as i was reading the other day and have found out for myself, most birth control methods have a fairly high failure rate. That is, they reduce the rate of pregnancy, for sure, but they don't eliminate it. Especially condoms, very easy to get them wrong.

abstinence is fine, except when it's not used.

a_unique_person

21st February 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin
I hear people getting all heated up about sex education here in the states.

I think it is unrealistic and slightly utopian to expect kids to abstain. I am sure that there will always be those who do, but really, come on.

if britney can do it, anyone can.

a_unique_person

21st February 2003, 02:19 PM

ZeeGerman

21st February 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

... and have found out for myself, most birth control methods have a fairly high failure rate.

aup
condoms work just fine. Just don't pull them over your nose for crying out loud
:D

KillerBob

21st February 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by patnray
Any one remember Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton's first Surgeon General. She had to resign after recommending masturbation as a sexual alternative...

No rational policies allowed when it comes to sex...

Well of course she was fired.

Everyone knows masturbation makes you go blind. Duh. :rolleyes:

What kind of surgeon general dispenses advice like that!

21st February 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by KillerBob

Well of course she was fired.

Everyone knows masturbation makes you go blind. Duh. :rolleyes:

Well, don't point it at your eyes!

21st February 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Well, technically, 'girls' are a subset of 'children', so unless you have an all-boy class, when you tecah the 'children', you'll also be teaching 'girls'.

I'm still a little dense though... how does AP saying 'school girls' preclude them from receiving? (He just said they were encouraged to 'consider' oral sex, not which side they should be on.)

I hate it when my satire falls flat.....

21st February 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

most birth control methods have a fairly high failure rate.

Hoo boy. Don't I know it!

shuize

21st February 2003, 03:46 PM

Why only British girls?

21st February 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Crossbow
I wonder if this advice was the result of a great deal of intensive field research and polling?

No polling, it was all oral:o

Thumbo

21st February 2003, 09:58 PM

I must have been born 30 years too soon.

I was 25 before I found out oral sex didn't mean talking about it.

DialecticMaterialist

22nd February 2003, 03:08 AM

IMO, healthcare workers should advocate how to handle teen sex in this order:
1. abstinence
2. abstinence
3. protection!
4. protection!!!!

Ah great idea. Their body is developed enough to make them want sex, they are motivated by hormones to have sex....but don't. Why?

"Cause sex is SIN!"

Any evidence oral sex will even lead to diseases?
If you are sooooo worried about STD's should we likewise prescribe abstinence for adults? Or is that unrealistic?

If not, why the differing attitudes? Your whole value judgement is either 1) Based on aesthetics or 2) Based on the idea that teens for some reason "just shouldn't" or "aren't ready" to have sex.

The first case is arbitrary/trivial, the second is just wrong(they are that developed for a reason, and in the past many would be married by 15.). At this point all you can really say is "Teens are not responsible so increased sexual activities among teens will lead to STDs"....well ok. But do you have any solid evidence that they will be more reckless than adults? And why advocate abstinence before safe sex? Abstinence given the teens biology seems unrealistic, safe sex seems feasible.

Segnosaur

22nd February 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Any evidence oral sex will even lead to diseases?
If you are sooooo worried about STD's should we likewise prescribe abstinence for adults? Or is that unrealistic?

Actually, oral sex is safer than other forms of sexual contact for some diseases. (For example, HIV is virutally impossible to pass on that way.)

There are some diseases that can be passed that way though. For example, herpes. (The virus that causes genital herpies is similar enough to the one that causes sores on the lips, that they are virtually interchangeable.)

Not exactly a strong source of medical advice, but on one episode of ER, a girl was in the emergency room with a throat infection which turned out to be gonnarhea.

Plutarck

22nd February 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Actually, oral sex is safer than other forms of sexual contact for some diseases. (For example, HIV is virutally impossible to pass on that way.)

Uh, sorta. Here's The Straight Dope on the issue: What are your chances of getting HIV? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020301.html)

J3K

22nd February 2003, 07:22 AM

Teaching and preaching about abstinence alone is probably the stupidest thing that can be done, the only stupider being "go **** your brains out all you want." Teach teens about safe sex, they are going to have sex either way, why not decrease the odds of diseases and stds and pregnancy??

Smalso

22nd February 2003, 07:24 AM

Oral sex is a good and worthy thing up to a point, but--call me old-fashioned--I still kinda like getting navel to navel. Everything else is foreplay.

specious_reasons

22nd February 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Ah great idea. Their body is developed enough to make them want sex, they are motivated by hormones to have sex....but don't. Why?

"Cause sex is SIN!"

Any evidence oral sex will even lead to diseases?
If you are sooooo worried about STD's should we likewise prescribe abstinence for adults? Or is that unrealistic?

If not, why the differing attitudes? Your whole value judgement is either 1) Based on aesthetics or 2) Based on the idea that teens for some reason "just shouldn't" or "aren't ready" to have sex.

The first case is arbitrary/trivial, the second is just wrong(they are that developed for a reason, and in the past many would be married by 15.). At this point all you can really say is "Teens are not responsible so increased sexual activities among teens will lead to STDs"....well ok. But do you have any solid evidence that they will be more reckless than adults? And why advocate abstinence before safe sex? Abstinence given the teens biology seems unrealistic, safe sex seems feasible.

I am NOT one who thinks sex is a sin. I'm not questioning the desire to have sex, and I'm not taking a moral stand. The simple fact is: if you don't want to get STDs, and you don't want to get pregnant, the best choice to avoid those things is abstinence. Kids should be told this. You know, tell them to apply some sense to the sex act.

Then if people refuse to do the most reliable way to avoid those two things, they should be reminded to take the next best step.

That's it, no preaching. If the goal is to avoid pregnancy and STDs, you should take steps to avoid it.

DialecticMaterialist

22nd February 2003, 07:32 AM

I don't even see why you should teach abstinence, we don't do it with adults, I see no compelling reason why we should with kids. It tends to give the message that sex is unnacceptable or bad. I'm for teaching teens to be more selective and cautious/safe about their sex choices.

As for oral sex,naval and foreplay-I like variety. Goes well with my situational ethics. ;)

DialecticMaterialist

22nd February 2003, 07:38 AM

The simple fact is: if you don't want to get STDs, and you don't want to get pregnant, the best choice to avoid those things is abstinence.

Preganncy? Lets see...there's abortion,protection and the day after pill.

I agree with your point only if you see the prevention of STDS and pregancy as the highest values to be attained by any cost....however I don't see this. I think sex is a very important part of these people's lives that they should not miss out on, for which missing out on causes suffering. I mean if we are to prevent STDs and such at all costs....then I guess adults should not have sex too.

Also then why not instead of abstinence, which leads to suffering, you instead teach about articifical/mechanical sexual devices? Even given the standard is prevention sexual devices are just as capable as abstinence. As well as masterbation. (Perhaps students can be taught about that as well.)

Then if people refuse to do the most reliable way to avoid those two things, they should be reminded to take the next best step.

See it's only the "Best" given our only standard on the matter is prevention. I do not see prevention as the only relevant factor.

That's it, no preaching. If the goal is to avoid pregnancy and STDs, you should take steps to avoid it.

Like buying sex devices for your kids and teaching them how to use them in school. ;)

specious_reasons

22nd February 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by J3K
Teaching and preaching about abstinence alone is probably the stupidest thing that can be done, the only stupider being "go **** your brains out all you want." Teach teens about safe sex, they are going to have sex either way, why not decrease the odds of diseases and stds and pregnancy??

Why can't people use their brains? Why can't people apply the same critical thinking skills they should have and apply it to sex, too?

It's like saying, "You are all an incoherent, unthinking mass, therefore, since you will have sex, here's how to do it properly." If the world is an incoherent, unthinking mass, they won't learn how to avoid STDs and pregnancy. Yeargh!

edited for typos

Segnosaur

22nd February 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Plutarck

Uh, sorta. Here's The Straight Dope on the issue: What are your chances of getting HIV? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020301.html)
I wonder how the researchers in the original study came up with there statistics. Was it based on actual cases, or just 'theory'? (I tried to do a quick search on it, but couldn't find the relavant article.) The HIV virus is very, well, wimpy outside the body, and wouldn't survive long outside the blood stream or other similar medium. (I remember reading how the only known case of HIV passed orally was in a case of a woman who recently had dental surgery. But then, this was a long time ago.)

Still, if you follow the article, you're only 1/10 as likely to aquire the HIV virus from oral sex as from vaginal, which makes it safer (although not perfectly safe).

22nd February 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Preganncy? Lets see...there's abortion,protection and the day after pill.

I am against abortion. And using abortion as a form of birth control is pretty damn stupid.

I agree with your point only if you see the prevention of STDS and pregancy as the highest values to be attained by any cost....however I don't see this. I think sex is a very important part of these people's lives that they should not miss out on, for which missing out on causes suffering. I mean if we are to prevent STDs and such at all costs....then I guess adults should not have sex too.

A lack of sex causes suffering? You mean, like, blue balls?

Please....

STDs cause much more suffering.

Yes, folks, abstinence isn't just for kids any more.

Also then why not instead of abstinence, which leads to suffering, you instead teach about articifical/mechanical sexual devices? Even given the standard is prevention sexual devices are just as capable as abstinence. As well as masterbation. (Perhaps students can be taught about that as well.)

Masturbation is a form of abstinence, yes?

22nd February 2003, 11:06 AM

I assume they don't preach abstinence to teens in Los Angeles county (http://www.lapublichealth.org/std/forschools/stdschfa.htm)

22nd February 2003, 11:10 AM

Sex Education is not working. (http://www.iwannaknow.org/)

Chlamydia is more common among teens than among older men and women.
Teens have higher rates of gonorrhea than do sexually active men and women aged 20-44.

ZeeGerman

22nd February 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
Sex Education is not working. (http://www.iwannaknow.org/)

One could say, it doesn´t work in the US for sure. Look here (http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/preg/preg3d.htm) and explain to me what you actually do tell your teenagers?

Zee

22nd February 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

One could say, it doesn´t work in the US for sure. Look here (http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/preg/preg3d.htm) and explain to me what you actually do tell your teenagers?

Zee

As far as I know, we teach them that we know they are going to have sex, so there is no point in trying to talk them out of it. We teach them about HIV, AIDS, syphillis, and all the other STDs.

We also give them (13 year olds, maybe younger) bananas and teach them how to put a condom on a banana. We teach them about the Pill, and the IUD, and all the other forms of birth control, and abortions (which some view as a form of birth control).

Oh, yeah. And abstinence.

Some schools provide condoms to their students.

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
British schoolgirls are being encouraged to consider oral sex to reduce the high rate of teen pregnancies.

Maybe they're on to something. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1846218.stm)

edit: Yes I know it's last years data, but their pregnancy rate has been going down for a few years...

ZeeGerman

22nd February 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

As far as I know, we teach them that we know they are going to have sex, so there is no point in trying to talk them out of it. We teach them about HIV, AIDS, syphillis, and all the other STDs.

We also give them (13 year olds, maybe younger) bananas and teach them how to put a condom on a banana. We teach them about the Pill, and the IUD, and all the other forms of birth control, and abortions (which some view as a form of birth control).

Oh, yeah. And abstinence.

Some schools provide condoms to their students.

And when you tell them, does anybody listen? I mean, I was just surprised by the differences between say US and Germany. German teenagers just look similar to US teens, the listen to the same music, like the same movies - all mostly trend setted in the US - and the standard of living in the two societies is also comparable.

Puzzled

Zee

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
I was just surprised by the differences between say US and Germany. German teenagers just look similar to US teens, the listen to the same music, like the same movies - all mostly trend setted in the US - and the standard of living in the two societies is also comparable.

What's the general attitude towards sex in Germany? How available are contraceptives? (And are people ashamed to get them?)

ZeeGerman

22nd February 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

What's the general attitude towards sex in Germany? How available are contraceptives? (And are people ashamed to get them?)

Well, we do have a way laxer attitude towards nudity (TV, commercials, swimming pools ). Condomes are available in vending machines in basically every public men's room (truck stop, bar, restaurant), in every grocery or pharmacy. The pill is available to women via prescription. I don't know what's the common but my wife tells me that her mother offered her to use it around 16 and it's not coverd by health insurence. I guess it is very common among teenage girls nonetheless.

Ashamed? I don't know about others but I throw my pack of rubbers right into my shopping cart and put it in the counter.

I've lived in the US for almost two years and the one thing I can say is that the US society is much much much more prude than the german.

Zee

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
I've lived in the US for almost two years and the one thing I can say is that the US society is much much much more prude than the german.

I've always felt this to be a part of the problem (in this country at least). Does anyone know of any easily accessable data comparing the attitude of people towards sex in a country with the teen pregnancy rate?

22nd February 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

One could say, it doesn´t work in the US for sure. Look here (http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/preg/preg3d.htm) and explain to me what you actually do tell your teenagers?

Zee

The teen pregnancy rate for the U.S. in the link provided is lower than what I have seen on other sites. I wonder if they confused teen birth rates with teen pregnancy rates.

Regardless, the U.S. looks to be leading the pack.

Perhaps teens in other countries are practicing abstinence at a higher rate. How else would you explain it?

If it is because teens are on birth control at a higher rate, this could be confirmed by comparing STD rates.

Anyone have those stats?

And I'm not sure putting teens on birth control pills is doing their health any good.

22nd February 2003, 03:29 PM

I just looked at Zee's link again, and they state at the bottom, in small print, that the chart is for birth rates plus abortions for teens 15 - 19. So they did confuse teen pregnancy with live births. That is misleading since the top of the chart says "International comparisons of teenage pregnancy rates, 1994, 1995 or 1996" in much larger text.

This site (http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/23/teen_pregnancies.htm) is fairly representative of the numbers you will find on teen pregnancies in the U.S.

According to the CDC, the percentage of US girls aged 15 to 19 who became pregnant began to rise in the mid-1980s; reaching a peak in 1991. Since then, rates for teen pregnancy have charted a slow but steady decline to 1997's record low 94.3 pregnancies per 1,000 teens, a number last seen in 1976.

edited to add: On Zee's link, "teen pregnancies" look to be around 82 or 83 per 1000 for 15 to 19 year olds.

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

The teen pregnancy rate for the U.S. in the link provided is lower than what I have seen on other sites. I wonder if they confused teen birth rates with teen pregnancy rates.

They say at the bottom of the page that it's births plus abortions - miscarriages aren't counted.

Perhaps teens in other countries are practicing abstinence at a higher rate. How else would you explain it?

... or they're
protecting themselves (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm) when they do have sex.

(More abstinence could be the case as well, perhaps because sex over there isn't such a big d*mn deal like it is here. :) )

If it is because teens are on birth control at a higher rate, this could be confirmed by comparing STD rates.

Anyone have those stats?

Found a bit of data here. (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.pdf) Make of it what you will - but there's some missing for Germany in that PDF.

22nd February 2003, 04:15 PM

The difference in STD rates between the U.S. and Europe in the link you provided OC are shocking to me. The article also states the U.S. teens are far more sexually active than their European counterparts.

It seems to that encouraging abstinence is the way to go.

Just because I strongly favor abstinence doesn't mean I am prudish. I hope that is understood.

When compared to the European numbers, it is hard to deny that our sexual education programs aren't working. I think the prudish attitude of some religious groups is on a par with those on the other end of the spectrum who reflexively argue that "preaching" abstinence is unrealistic.

I think abstinence should be emphasized more than it is. I think it should be "preached," without moral confusions attached.

It would be interesting if someone did a study to see the teen STD rates and teen pregnancy rates of religious families vs. atheist families. :D

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
The difference in STD rates between the U.S. and Europe in the link you provided OC are shocking to me. The article also states the U.S. teens are far more sexually active than their European counterparts.

It certainly states that our teens tend to have more partners. Unfortunately, the PDF doesn't tell us whether they're abstaining or whether they tend to stay with one partner longer.

It seems to that encouraging abstinence is the way to go.

The European method seems to be (from reading around the web) that abstinence is encouraged, but access to contraceptive/protective techniques - and merely information about sexual issues - is available without as much stigma attached as we have.

When compared to the European numbers, it is hard to deny that our sexual education programs aren't working.

Emphasis on our is important. It's not that sex ed isn't working - it's that we in the USA haven't got a sex ed program that works well for us. Given our rather Puritan attitudes towards sex, honestly I'm not surprised.

(The Brits, it seems, might have a similar problem.)

I think the prudish attitude of some religious groups is on a par with those on the other end of the spectrum who reflexively argue that "preaching" abstinence is unrealistic.

Well, if the "preaching" abstinence involves denying teens access to and information about contraceptive / protective measures, then I'm all against it. if you mean showing teens that abstinence is basically a sure-fire way to avoid STDs / unwanted pregnancy, then I'm all for it.

You could teach the teens alternatives to intercourse as well (To bring the thread back on topic ...), but I think that has about zero probability of happening anytime soon in this country.

J3K

22nd February 2003, 05:40 PM

I dunno who said the thing about showing teens how to put condoms on banana's and all the stuff about how we(I am a teen, so I can say we) are taught about std's and stuff. HA HA HARDY HAR. The most that has been taught is a basic outline about std's. We had a week or so where they gave us this book thing that taught about pregnancy and stuff. Never did it touch on ways to prevent, and if it did, it was brief. And it wasnt even taught, we just had to do outlines of each of the 9 chapters in that book. Name the titles of each section, copy a sentence or 2 from each section. Nobody actually read the whole thing. It might just be my school(I have seen reports on tv over this whole issue and the fight over teaching abstinence or ways to protect) but when it came down to not getting pregnant, the only thing I heard was "If you dont have sex, you won't get an std."(this quote isnt exact, how other stds can be caught from oral sex and such was also discussed a little) So being the brainiac that I am, I can figure if you wont get std's, then you won't get pregnant either. So ways to prevent pregnancy really was touched on.
And about those statistics, I know it is an overall general average, but it really doesn't seem like almost a 100 girls are getting pregnant at my school every year. I'm not saying I hear about all of the pregnancies, but I only hear about 2 at the most every year. I'm sure it's just because of where I live and it happens to be different. Or it's kept a lot more private than I can imagine.

The Central Scrutinizer

22nd February 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20030221/od_nm/health_sex_dc

British schoolgirls are being encouraged to consider oral sex to reduce the high rate of teen pregnancies.

HAIL BRITTANIA!!!!! Indeed. :D :D

(and as near as I can tell, no chicks have replied to this thread)

aerosolben

22nd February 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

As far as I know, we teach them that we know they are going to have sex, so there is no point in trying to talk them out of it.

This is not true. The history of sex education in the United States shows that since the 80s the majority of sex education programs have been based on an abstinence-only platform; basically, students are told that sex is very dangerous and that they can contract horrible diseases, and that's it. No information about STD infection rates, safe sexual practices, alternative sexual practices (i.e., not intercourse), etc. I am currently enrolled in a class on human sexuality, and people were asked what their sexual education classes in school had consisted of. In a group of 20-25, myself and two or three other were the only ones who had not received an 'abstinence-only' education.

Therefore, if you wish to blame teenage pregnancy and STD rates on sex education, you must blame it on 'abstinence-only' education.

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by J3K
The most that has been taught is a basic outline about std's. We had a week or so where they gave us this book thing that taught about pregnancy and stuff. Never did it touch on ways to prevent, and if it did, it was brief. And it wasnt even taught, we just had to do outlines of each of the 9 chapters in that book.

Thanks, J3K. {Are you in SC, by the way? I think you mentioned that in another thread, but my memory's going as I age ... :) }

If this is the state of sex education in the USA, is it any wonder why we're having problems with teen pregnancy and STDs?

In college, there's typically an optional "human sexual behavior" course. Fascinating stuff, and a class that lasts a whole semester. Should sex ed when it's needed most be restricted to a week? Should it be "go home and make an outline of this"? Personally, I think not.

I have seen reports on tv over this whole issue and the fight over teaching abstinence or ways to protect)

I see those same things. I always wonder why people think they're mutually exclusive.

...it really doesn't seem like almost a 100 girls are getting pregnant at my school every year. I'm not saying I hear about all of the pregnancies, but I only hear about 2 at the most every year. I'm sure it's just because of where I live and it happens to be different. Or it's kept a lot more private than I can imagine.

Consider also how many people you know at your school. According to the number you gave above, you go to a school with a little ocer two thousand people. If half are girls, we'll call it 1000 girls. If it's a high school, you have four grades - and generally folks socialize primarily with their own grade. Assuming they're fairly evenly distributed - that's about 250 girls. This also assumes you know all the girls in your grade enough to hear about their pregnancies. :)

With a rate of 80 per 1000, that's about 20 pregnancies in your set of 250 girls. (Bear in mind our "80" includes 18 and 19 year olds - most of which are probably college age, so the figure at your high school might be a little lower). If you knew about 25 girls well enough to hear about their pregnancies, you'd expect to hear about two a year - including aborted ones.

(Yes, this contains a LOT of assumptions, not all of which are very good, but I'm just trying to get a feel for the numbers here.)

Plus, as you hint at, the girls aren't exactly announcing their pregnancies on the PA system in homeroom every day. :)

edited to remove a near-duplicate sentence

rachaella

22nd February 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by aerosolben

This is not true. The history of sex education in the United States shows that since the 80s the majority of sex education programs have been based on an abstinence-only platform; basically, students are told that sex is very dangerous and that they can contract horrible diseases, and that's it. No information about STD infection rates, safe sexual practices, alternative sexual practices (i.e., not intercourse), etc. I am currently enrolled in a class on human sexuality, and people were asked what their sexual education classes in school had consisted of. In a group of 20-25, myself and two or three other were the only ones who had not received an 'abstinence-only' education.

Therefore, if you wish to blame teenage pregnancy and STD rates on sex education, you must blame it on 'abstinence-only' education.

Exactly, unlike the United States Europe has actually taken an educational stance on sex as opposed to the US's stance since the 80s, which is: Just say no.

Statistics I've seen show European adolescents losing their virginity at approximately the same age as Americans, whether or not they continue to have as much sex I am unaware of. However, abstinence only programs such as "virginity promises" have succeeded in postponing sex in teens for an average of 18 months. However, unlike their counterparts who were given actual sexual education (forms of birth control, STDs, etc.), they were less likely to use protection when they did in fact have sex.

Teens will have sex. We will not convince them not to do so. Biology is not in our favor here. Adolescents need to be taught the safest ways to engage in intercourse and be encouraged to engage in alternatives to intercouse such as oral and manual stimulation that are safer activities and ones far less likely to lead to pregnancy. I think this attitude (perpetuated by the Clinton scandal) that everything aside from intercouse isn't sex and is only foreplay needs to be changed in order to include more, non-intercourse, methods of sexual expression as acceptable and safer alternatives of expressing intimacy.

And as for the claim that most forms of birth control are not very effective, the birth control pill (estrogen-progestin, 99.9% when used correctly, 93-97% on average use), the depo-provera shot (99.7% effective), IUDs (copper: 99.4%), and Norplant (99.05% effective) are all very effective. Ideally, adolescents should be encouraged to use condoms for STD protection, and another method, such as those mentioned above, for pregnancy protection.

J3K

22nd February 2003, 07:47 PM

Occasional Chemist
about the statistics. I didn't make this clear when I first posted, but I wasn't trying to disprove the statistics. I was just thinking about them and how out of this world they seemed.

Occasional Chemist

22nd February 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by J3K
Occasional Chemist
about the statistics. I didn't make this clear when I first posted, but I wasn't trying to disprove the statistics. I was just thinking about them and how out of this world they seemed.

I didn't read it as you trying to disprove the statistics - sorry if it came across that way. I was just doing a little calculation to see how the numbers would scale down to the two pregnancies a year that you're observing at your school.

The actual pregnancy rate in your area might be different from the national average (and remember that that average included 18 and 19 year olds), but if you're in SC, you might want to take a look here (http://www.sckidscount.org/kcs01.html) . It notes that

In the state, 4,274 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 became pregnant in 1998 and 4,128 in 1999. This represented 3.8% of all girls ages 14 - 17 in 1999; several times this percentage become pregnant at least once by age 18. ... Of all pregnancies of 14-17 year olds, 78.1% resulted in live births, with almost all other pregnancies ending in abortions.

So your school's rate might be something lcloser to 40 per 1000.

J3K

22nd February 2003, 08:49 PM

ah ok. thanx for that information. yeah, 40 out of a 1000 seems more likely for where I live.

DialecticMaterialist

23rd February 2003, 04:47 AM

I am against abortion. And using abortion as a form of birth control is pretty damn stupid.

Is it? Why? I see it as effective.

A lack of sex causes suffering? You mean, like, blue balls?

Nope, more like cutting off an important part of our nature.

Please....

STDs cause much more suffering.

Not as widespread and not as certainly. Getting heart problems from eating foods high in cholestorol leads to much more suffering as well then any single incident of having a good burger, but I'm not going to stop eating burgers because of that. Nor do I think we should teach teenagers to as well.

Likewise sex is extremely pleasurable, this in many ways can outweight the risk of STDs.

Yes, folks, abstinence isn't just for kids any more.

You're sick. Are you telling me that for fear of STDs I should never have sex?

Masturbation is a form of abstinence, yes?

Yes, though teaching about it is not high on those who strongly support the teaching of "absitence". Neither is the use of sex toys.

DialecticMaterialist

23rd February 2003, 05:02 AM

Sex Education is not working.

Your link showed nothing of the sort. It showed only that there is still a problem, not that sex edcuation is having no effect. Perfectionist fallacy, that's like saying since people still die of AIDS....HIV/AIDS treatment does not work.

Studies in fact show that comprehensive sexual education is effective whereas abstinence programs are not: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/mythsfacts.htm
http://www.siecus.org/advocacy/kits0006.html

The US abstinence only stance concerning sexual education is in many ways merely primitive,ineffective and backwards.

ZeeGerman

23rd February 2003, 05:48 AM

I told to my wife about this whole topic again and she reminded me on something very interesting. There is a teen magazin around in Germany for I guess roughly 30 years by now called BRAVO. Its directly made for teens and is available at any news stand. It covers basically all themes interesting for teens i.e. music, movies, stars, cell phones, fashion and of course SEX (without much nudity on the display). The information about sex couldn't be more complete and open I guess. The teens are told about sexual practices, their pros, cons and dangers. So after reading the magazin you definitely know e.g. that coitus interruptus as single means of contraception will get you pregnant in no time. The magazin is very popular among teens, especially girls, and might be a reason for the discussed phenomenons. My wife says that she got basically all she needed to know about sex from BRAVO and I remember having found the answers to some urgent questions there as well (about 25 years ago). I cannot imagine such a magazin beeing published in the US with teenagers as the target group and the same availability.

Is there?

One more point about abstinence. If I remember correctly, the magazin always proposed an attitude like " Sex is a fine thing, if you feel ready to do it, go ahaead but keep your brains plugged in and besides, there is no need to rush"

Zee