Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Æthelthryth the Texan

s/o When did sex ed and consent enter the domain of school responsibility?

Recommended Posts

Well, I would contend that teen pregnancies were WAY down in former generations before it became completely acceptable to have babies outside of marriage. Not a lot of women in my mom's generation got pregnant in high school and they didn't talk about sex much more than in passing.

 

In fact, whole generations were turned out into adulthood with almost no knowledge of sex, yet they managed to marry, stay married, and perpetuate the species.

 

 

 

 

No teen pregnancies are lower now. Even in the 40s and 50s they were higher. They had more shotgun weddings and married younger. It was more taboo to divorce then but a lot of them eventually did divorce in later decades or they had unhappy marriages. The past was not some ideal time and now we are a bunch of rotten heathens.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know when the schools started teaching sex-ed but I had it in elementary in the early 80's.  I don't remember it in middle, maybe my parents opted-out?  In any event, it wasn't nearly enough education.  

 

I think it's hard to see significant results when we're still at the beginning of our journey.  The puritan mindset is so ingrained in our society and we are so resistant to change.  The change towards a healthier (IMO) attitude about sexuality/sex is happening but only in pockets.  The vast majority of parents that I know (like so vast it's practically all) and even the teachers I know are *not* comfortable talking about sex or sexuality or anything related to that.  Until that changes, we'll keep crawling along at tortoise-speed.  It's premature to say that sex-ed doesn't work when we all haven't really commited to doing it.  Not really.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No teen pregnancies are lower now. Even in the 40s and 50s they were higher. They had more shotgun weddings and married younger. It was more taboo to divorce then but a lot of them eventually did divorce in later decades or they had unhappy marriages. The past was not some ideal time and now we are a bunch of rotten heathens.

 

Birth rate has declined. Here are some numbers on birth rate. But again- birth rate and pregnancy rate, not the same thing. The birth rates are theoretically going to be higher before there was legal access to abortion as most people didn't have that as an option. So yes, birth rates among those 19 and under has been on a decline since the 1960's. It doesn't tell us anything about the pregnancy rate though because there are now many more available options than giving birth. So to say that a declining live birth rate is a measure of sex ed success can't be done. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various versions of the infamous film go back to at least the 1940s, and it wasn't until 1918 that every state mandated elementary school. If it wasn't always taught, it's pretty dang close. 

 

Okay, so to go back to part of my original question- if we establish just for arguments sake, the "the film" began in the 1940's, WHY was it brought into the realm of public school in the first place? People obviously figured all of this out long before the schools were involved. Public schools long predated the state mandated elementary attendance, yet I am going to go on a limb and say that in your typical one room school house sex ed was not being taught.

 

When did that line blur and why? Was it in the 30's with the eugenics movement? That is undeniably tied to the move towards pregnancy prevention and sterilization (which seems to be the prevalent parts of many early sex ed programs rather than disease control), so did that play a role and if so how much? Was it earlier- did the STD/STI rampage that happened during WWI contribute? I just figured some Hive Historian had to have some info on this! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, did you have the Annie period video?

 

That was corny as heck.  LOL

 

I had the Annie period video! 8th grade, Catholic school, 1987 or 88.

 

In high school, we got a video on abortion showing aborted fetuses...my best friend at the time had just had an abortion and was a little green during that class... The memory still makes me angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth rate has declined. Here are some numbers on birth rate. But again- birth rate and pregnancy rate, not the same thing. The birth rates are theoretically going to be higher before there was legal access to abortion as most people didn't have that as an option. So yes, birth rates among those 19 and under has been on a decline since the 1960's. It doesn't tell us anything about the pregnancy rate though because there are now many more available options than giving birth. So to say that a declining live birth rate is a measure of sex ed success can't be done. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

 

I thought there was data indicating pregnancy rates and abortion rates have declined along with birthrates since 1973?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to drag through some data to research hard numbers on populations outside of high risk MSM as it's been a while since I've looked into it, but as for MSM populations- Yes. Without question. There definitely was a decline. Then it started spiking and has had the attention of many concerned groups for several years now. Syphilis rates are extremely high as are other rates, all of which are concerning because they make the risk of HIV infection significantly greater in people with accompanying genitourinary infection. I want to say the last I read had something upwards of 80% of all Syphilis infections being in the men who have sex with men category. That's significant. I have read in several journals speculation that the attitude of HIV now being a treatable disease has contributed to the increase in infection rates, but I personally haven't done near enough of a lit review to speak much past that. That it's now viewed as a managable, controllable disease and therefore not much to worry about.

 

I'm not sure if the general population saw the same decline in overall STIs at the same time, trailed after, or didn't decline at all, but since the MSM population accounts for a significantly high percentage of the general rate of most STI infections (if not all-but again don't quote me on recent data), any drop in that population would also be enough to possible trend the entire population downwards. (That is a horribly written sentence-sorry.) And this is specific to US. Disease rates in other counties aren't distributed necessarily the same way they are here. Some are- but when you start talking internationally it really skews the data. 

 

What would be interesting to compare is the yearly spending rates on US federally funded grants towards education of all populations, correlated with the disease rates across groupings. 

 

ETA: While at one point MSM were at the highest risk by most standards, I believe the CDC recently amended that to be young people under age of 24 or something now in addition to MSM. I want to say that was within the last two years. I will try and find the data. 

 

I am fairly certain the 15-24 age group has been the highest risk group for longer than 2 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vaguely remember girls and boys being separated one day in early middle school and given the talk, and when my father asked me how it went, I was so embarrassed!  

 

In high school (can't remember which grade), student leaders were taught all about various sex ed topics, and then the rest of us students were grouped together with a student leader and no adults. (around 20 students per student leader.)  The student leader talked about various birth control methods, passed them around for everyone to see, and anyone could ask any questions.  We were grouped together with friends (but mixed genders).  That was in the 70's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No teen pregnancies are lower now. Even in the 40s and 50s they were higher. They had more shotgun weddings and married younger. It was more taboo to divorce then but a lot of them eventually did divorce in later decades or they had unhappy marriages. The past was not some ideal time and now we are a bunch of rotten heathens.

Uh-huh. Case in point: my parents.

 

1960: Ages 17 & 18. Pregnant in March, shotgun wedding in June.

Stayed married until the nest finally emptied.

2000: Divorced after 40 years of marriage.

Edited by Kinsa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was data indicating pregnancy rates and abortion rates have declined along with birthrates since 1973?

I'll try and look more tomorrow. I didn't see any in what I was able to pull tonight but my brain has shut off for the night after grading papers. I don't think abortion is a reportable incidence though. You might have numbers from PP or funded clinics, but private practice doctors aren't going to report that type of data necessarily. But- I don't know the state by state laws on that so I could be wrong. But you're always going to have "off the record" doctors in cases like that, just like you have doctors who don't report "reportable" diseases for high profile clients. That being said those numbers might not be great enough to influence the statistics either way. i also don't see how one could really factor in Plan B or the other abortifacients in the numbers; just because someone purchase it doesn't mean they actually used it, etc etc. It seems very difficult to get a real picture. And then add in the girls/women who don't seek prenatal care, and/or don't give birth in a hospital or where a birth certificate would be administered and you would add in another confounder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The various junk threads have made me wonder.....when exactly were public schools given the charge to teach sex ed, when did it evolve into sexuality and deeper issues, and what exactly was the rationale behind such a move? 

 

When I was in private school we had "the film". You know the one where boys were in one room, girls were in the other. The film was something along the lines of your body is changing...you'll get a period....here's how a baby is very sanitarily and clinically made, the end. Then in high school we might have had a recap of the biology plus a small part of health class on STDs, but I cannot really remember. Now the schools are teaching everything from how to put on a condom (and I think providing them in most states?) to the intricacies of gay and straight sexual positions, consent issues, and so on. When did this happen? I mean that's a heck of a jump in two or three decades. I realize that legislatures have passed these mandates, but what in society changed to make that happen? Thoughts? 

 

I will be honest and say this is an emerging area where I am most decidedly glad we homeschool and are not at the mercy of the corporations and political entities that seem to have the biggest hands in this, on either end of the spectrum.

 

70s and 80s on the west coast. Co-ed.

 

Our state does not, unfortunately, provide condoms. There are non-profits which work with students in some areas to ensure people have access to birth control but it's not through all the public schools.

 

Teen pregnancy has been on the decline since the mid-80s. I believe part of it is just how un-sexy a gym or health teacher can make sex seem. Why our teens even talk about it in those terms. "I don't want to put the penis balloon on the banana any time soon, LOL!"

 

From what I can see my own children will receive sex education that is extremely similar to what I received and not much has changed in our state. Mainly what has changed is math and science. We get more of it. And fewer spelling tests and more phonics. So... yeah.

 

My mom was happy we got sex ed. She felt her sex ed was lacking and it led to poor choices. Her parents spoke to her but she believed what her peers believed. I'm counting on the school to back me up here and I believe, based on what I've heard from the kids in middle school, that they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and look more tomorrow. I didn't see any in what I was able to pull tonight but my brain has shut off for the night after grading papers. I don't think abortion is a reportable incidence though. You might have numbers from PP or funded clinics, but private practice doctors aren't going to report that type of data necessarily. But- I don't know the state by state laws on that so I could be wrong. But you're always going to have "off the record" doctors in cases like that, just like you have doctors who don't report "reportable" diseases for high profile clients. That being said those numbers might not be great enough to influence the statistics either way. i also don't see how one could really factor in Plan B or the other abortifacients in the numbers; just because someone purchase it doesn't mean they actually used it, etc etc. It seems very difficult to get a real picture. And then add in the girls/women who don't seek prenatal care, and/or don't give birth in a hospital or where a birth certificate would be administered and you would add in another confounder.

 

Unless we have reason to believe that there is a shift in where abortions are being provided, and offhand I don't believe private practice doctors generally do a lot of them and there are incident rates tracked through insurance billings, then the observed trend would still be reliable.

 

The same applies to Plan B as the trend of lower abortions started long before it was available.  A steeper decline in the abortion incident rate immediately after availability could likely be accounted for due to Plan B, but I don't know if that occurred.

 

To save you some effort, yes, since 1973both  pregnancy and abortion rates among teens have declined fairly steadily over time.

 

Also, earlier you were treating sex ed in the U.S. as a standard curriculum across the country, which is obviously incorrect.  Before blaming the increase in STIs/STDs in recent years on failed sexual education, one would need to look at those rates state by state and see if there is any relationship between the standards of sexual education in each state (and preferably bordering states as well).

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked with oldest dd about this tonight. One awesome thing she has done in high school that I did not was learn how to test for breast cancer. The school brought in models of breasts that the students could feel around on and learn how to detect lumps. It's something I would have been mortified with if my mom had tried to teach me but in a school setting can be different. I think all schools should do it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might have numbers from PP or funded clinics, but private practice doctors aren't going to report that type of data necessarily.

 

 

The parents are on the birth certificate and their ages are in public records. Except for extreme off the gridders, this data is pretty well-tracked. It might not be 100% accurate, but it's gotten increasingly accurate over time. In addition, I hardly think increasing accuracy and reporting coverage is leading to artificially low rates of teen pregnancy.

Edited by Tsuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, earlier you were treating sex ed in the U.S. as a standard curriculum across the country, which is obviously incorrect.  Before blaming the increase in STIs/STDs in recent years on failed sexual education, one would need to look at those rates state by state and see if there is any relationship between the standards of sexual education in each state (and preferably bordering states as well).

 

Oh, there is definitely a relationship.

 

It is the relationship one would expect when one considers that not knowing how STDs are transmitted or prevented increases one's risk of contracting an STD.

 

But let's not hide from the data:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/youll-be-safest-having-sex-in-vermont-study-154316212.html

 

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/11/24/explaining-variation-in-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state-race-and-sex-education/

 

http://edexcellence.net/articles/50-shades-of-grey-the-state-of-state-sex-education-standards

 

http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html

 

http://www.hurherald.com/obits.php?id=51143

 

Condoms prevent AIDS, chlamydia, and babies. Not perfectly but far better than nothing.

 

Knowing about condoms increases one's chances of using condoms.

 

You do the math.

 

(For me, knowing about sex made me think, "Ugh, if I hear another word about sex...")

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it seems odd to jump to a conclusion of sex ed is failing while assuming all sex ed is equal.  I also am curious if the recent (and it is fairly recent) increase in STIs/STDs is related in any way to an increase in abstinence only programs and recent efforts to dismiss the effectiveness of certain contraceptives at reducing the risk if STIs/STDs.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No teen pregnancies are lower now. Even in the 40s and 50s they were higher. They had more shotgun weddings and married younger. It was more taboo to divorce then but a lot of them eventually did divorce in later decades or they had unhappy marriages. The past was not some ideal time and now we are a bunch of rotten heathens.

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if new interest in teaching about consent and social/emotional issues relating to sex is tied less to sex ed and more to increased teaching around social/emotional topics in general in schools--the emphasis on "grit"; programs like MindUP that teach self-awareness; leadership development programs like CCL that used to be targeted to adult workplaces; etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the Annie period video! 8th grade, Catholic school, 1987 or 88.

 

In high school, we got a video on abortion showing aborted fetuses...my best friend at the time had just had an abortion and was a little green during that class... The memory still makes me angry.

 

We had it in 5th.  8th strikes me as a bit too late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA; Bolded is mine- I wasn't sure how else to insert to match points. 

 

I don't know that I see much controversy about better sex ed being, if not effective, not less effictive than none, or "absinance" education.

 

If we look at countries where there is solid universal sex ed, like the Netherlands, they generally have fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, and kids start having sex later.

 

Perhaps there are other factors that lead to these realities, but having pretty frank sex ed doesn't seem to undermine them, whatever they are.  Personally I think the attitude that allows them to offer that kind of sex ed without much controversy is part of it.

 

Sometimes I get the impression that in North America, everyone wants to put a spin on sex ed, in one direction or another.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so to go back to part of my original question- if we establish just for arguments sake, the "the film" began in the 1940's, WHY was it brought into the realm of public school in the first place? People obviously figured all of this out long before the schools were involved. Public schools long predated the state mandated elementary attendance, yet I am going to go on a limb and say that in your typical one room school house sex ed was not being taught.

 

When did that line blur and why? Was it in the 30's with the eugenics movement? That is undeniably tied to the move towards pregnancy prevention and sterilization (which seems to be the prevalent parts of many early sex ed programs rather than disease control), so did that play a role and if so how much? Was it earlier- did the STD/STI rampage that happened during WWI contribute? I just figured some Hive Historian had to have some info on this! 

 

From talking to my grandmothers and great-grandmother, I think that it started because so many people lacked the information they needed.  It was typical among the girls they went to school with not to know anything about reproduction, about menstruation, even pretty basic anatomy things about their own bodies.

 

Even my mom in the 70s working as a nurse in underprivaledged rural communities saw people who had no idea about basic sexual health, doing things to their bodies that were really dangerous.  This wasn't teens especially, it included women who were married with kids.

 

I'm not surprised, if that was widespread, that people would see a need to adress it as a public health issue.  Schools are one of the places you can count on having a lot of the population together to impart that kind of information.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth rate has declined. Here are some numbers on birth rate. But again- birth rate and pregnancy rate, not the same thing. The birth rates are theoretically going to be higher before there was legal access to abortion as most people didn't have that as an option. So yes, birth rates among those 19 and under has been on a decline since the 1960's. It doesn't tell us anything about the pregnancy rate though because there are now many more available options than giving birth. So to say that a declining live birth rate is a measure of sex ed success can't be done. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

 

My mom worked and taught in multiple pediatric ER's (in Chicago, small town Ohio, Maryland suburb, Catholic hospital, and in downtown DC) in the 1960's. She saw many young women who had illegal abortions. Legalizing abortion made it safer. Abortion has always been available. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHY was it brought into the realm of public school in the first place? People obviously figured all of this out long before the schools were involved.

 

They figured something out - tab a + slot a = baby (except when it doesn't), but that doesn't mean they figured ALL of this out.

 

Think of all the stupid things kids believe about sex if they're not told otherwise: You can't get pregnant your first time. You can't get pregnant if you do it standing up. You can't get pregnant if you douche/douche with lysol/douche with listerine/douche with cocacola/just clean really well. You can't get pregnant if he pulls out. Okay, so you CAN get pregnant, but anyway, other types of sex are totally safe, no risk. Condoms are completely worthless, so why bother? If you do get pregnant, you can get rid of it by not eating/throwing up/drinking a lot/jumping up and down - and then you don't have to tell mom and dad! It's okay if you really love each other. Once you've agreed, there's no backsies. Once you've agreed, because you really love each other, you two have to stay together. And so on.

 

Well, I would contend that teen pregnancies were WAY down in former generations before it became completely acceptable to have babies outside of marriage. Not a lot of women in my mom's generation got pregnant in high school and they didn't talk about sex much more than in passing.

 

My own great-grandfather was a "six month baby". He didn't know until he was grown that he had a same-age half brother - his genetic father had married the first girl, and his father had married his mom, fully aware that the baby wasn't biologically his but not caring. This was prior to the turn of the last century.

 

Just because unwed mothers were socially disapproved of doesn't mean sex before marriage didn't happen. It meant that there were a lot of unhappy shotgun marriages, and a lot of young women who "went away" to "finishing school" or "Europe" or "Aunt Anna's house" for a "vacation" and came back 6 pounds, 3 oz lighter. If they were very lucky, their parents (or other relatives) oh-so-coincidentally had a surprise baby very late in life at around the same time, but without a supportive family, closed adoption was the norm. Ever heard the term "baby scoop"?

 

And those young women were the lucky ones. Many more risked their lives - and sometimes lost them - trying risky abortion methods. Nowadays, abortion is much safer than pregnancy and birth, because abortion is legal. Ramming a knitting needle up yourself, or brewing up some risky herbs, that's not safe.

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we have reason to believe that there is a shift in where abortions are being provided, and offhand I don't believe private practice doctors generally do a lot of them and there are incident rates tracked through insurance billings, then the observed trend would still be reliable.

 

The same applies to Plan B as the trend of lower abortions started long before it was available. A steeper decline in the abortion incident rate immediately after availability could likely be accounted for due to Plan B, but I don't know if that occurred.

 

To save you some effort, yes, since 1973both pregnancy and abortion rates among teens have declined fairly steadily over time.

 

Also, earlier you were treating sex ed in the U.S. as a standard curriculum across the country, which is obviously incorrect. Before blaming the increase in STIs/STDs in recent years on failed sexual education, one would need to look at those rates state by state and see if there is any relationship between the standards of sexual education in each state (and preferably bordering states as well).

My point was unless you can accurately state (not you specifically, rather people using these numbers for research) WHERE from where the numbers are obtained, the statistics true meaning is somewhat diminished. I do think that is part of what makes this so politically charged in many instances. I have not seen completely solid, unbiased numbers. I have not found that abortion is a reportable procedure in all states which means the numbers aren't as bulletproof as people present them to be. The State Definitions and Reporting Requirements haven't been updated since 1997 that I have readily found online. The definitions and reporting vary widely in some states with some not reporting until 20 weeks gestation. So while one may report a trend, one should also be clear that the numbers do not represent all of the US in its entirety and that the basic definitions may vary by state, therefore also affecting this. To say "oh well that's a small number and wouldn't be impactful" is erroneous as we cannot know what the number is to determine that. As of this document Califorina doesn't have a reporting system for abortion according to the CDC on this document.

 

So one should be able to question statistics accuracy with varying definitions on this without causing defensive attitudes (and not saying anyone here is defensive- meaning as politically speaking) . It's good methodology to question. My point being that these numbers are bantered around all of the time and people use them to argue points, but most of the people doing the arguing never bother to look at the numbers they are using to dispute their claims- on either side. You don't even have to have a large background in statistics to be able to look at the population parameters. Im not arguing one way or another of what the trend has done- I actually wouldn't do it with these numbers. I think the leg can be swept out from either side if they were to speak definitively from what I've read so far. I am simply pointing out that the numbers aren't complete. Any numbers that don't use California to count towards US totals would seem incredibly lacking.

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

Edited by texasmom33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you asked for a source on teen pregnancy rates, TranquilMind.

 

Our teen birth rates are at historic lows. Specifically, they are at the lowest rate ever reported in seven decades. If you go to the link, which is from the CDC, you'll see an informative chart.

 

Probably some of this decline is due to better availability of birth control and some to better access to abortions - however, it's worth noting that the abortion rate has also been somewhat on the decline over the past couple of decades and, for that matter, adolescents frequently don't have access to the most effective methods of birth control, such as the IUD. (The more you can eliminate the potential for user error, the more effective the BC is.)

We do find that when we provide low-cost or free IUDs to adolescents, the pregnancy rate drops. We also know that comprehensive sex ed is generally better at reducing the pregnancy rates than abstinence-only programs.

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom worked and taught in multiple pediatric ER's (in Chicago, small town Ohio, Maryland suburb, Catholic hospital, and in downtown DC) in the 1960's. She saw many young women who had illegal abortions. Legalizing abortion made it safer. Abortion has always been available.

Yes- it has definitely been available. But legalizing anything makes it more easily available in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes- it has definitely been available. But legalizing anything makes it more easily available in most cases.

 

Which has saved countless lives over the past several decades.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No teen pregnancies are lower now. Even in the 40s and 50s they were higher. They had more shotgun weddings and married younger. It was more taboo to divorce then but a lot of them eventually did divorce in later decades or they had unhappy marriages. The past was not some ideal time and now we are a bunch of rotten heathens.

 

:iagree:

 

Per the CDC, current teen birth rates are historic lows.

The highest rates in the last 100 years were in the late 1950s.

 

Teen abortion rates in the past 50 years were highest in the late 1980s.  

 

Most unwed births are not to teenagers.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was unless you can accurately state (not you specifically, rather people using these numbers for research) WHERE from where the numbers are obtained, the statistics true meaning is somewhat diminished. I do think that is part of what makes this so politically charged in many instances. I have not seen completely solid, unbiased numbers. I have not found that abortion is a reportable procedure in all states which means the numbers aren't as bulletproof as people present them to be. The State Definitions and Reporting Requirements haven't been updated since 1997 that I have readily found online. The definitions and reporting vary widely in some states with some not reporting until 20 weeks gestation. So while one may report a trend, one should also be clear that the numbers do not represent all of the US in its entirety and that the basic definitions may vary by state, therefore also affecting this. To say "oh well that's a small number and wouldn't be impactful" is erroneous as we cannot know what the number is to determine that. As of this document Califorina doesn't have a reporting system for abortion according to the CDC on this document.

 

So one should be able to question statistics accuracy with varying definitions on this without causing defensive attitudes (and not saying anyone here is defensive- meaning as politically speaking) . It's good methodology to question. My point being that these numbers are bantered around all of the time and people use them to argue points, but most of the people doing the arguing never bother to look at the numbers they are using to dispute their claims- on either side. You don't even have to have a large background in statistics to be able to look at the population parameters. Im not arguing one way or another of what the trend has done- I actually wouldn't do it with these numbers. I think the leg can be swept out from either side if they were to speak definitively from what I've read so far. I am simply pointing out that the numbers aren't complete. Any numbers that don't use California to count towards US totals would seem incredibly lacking.

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

Are you claiming there are no statistics on abortion for the state of California be because there is no reporting mechanism required by the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which has saved countless lives over the past several decades.

Well and this is another case of statistics backing up perception. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as far as pregnant women's lives, but I would like to see the numbers behind this now that you mention it, were they available. But it is difficult to have accurate numbers on illegal activity, so what did they use to provide these? Since I'm in numbers mode now I would be curious to see them. It makes logical sense to be true, but they don't necessarily always correlate quite so easily- sometimes simply due to lack of data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well and this is another case of statistics backing up perception. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as far as pregnant women's lives, but I would like to see the numbers behind this now that you mention it, were they available. But it is difficult to have accurate numbers on illegal activity, so what did they use to provide these? Since I'm in numbers mode now I would be curious to see them. It makes logical sense to be true, but they don't necessarily always correlate quite so easily- sometimes simply due to lack of data.

 

That is an excellent question that I don't quite have the answer to. My *guess* is that we have some data - although likely incomplete and sketchy data - on deaths and injuries due to illegal abortion simply because women died and were injured, and at least some of the ones who didn't die ended up in the hospital.

 

But then probably a non-zero number of those were never reported because the doctors decided to keep it quiet. So... hard data would be good to find. In the meantime, I'm gonna stick with my word "countless". We can't count those lives, because we don't have an accurate number.

Edited by Tanaqui

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I would contend that teen pregnancies were WAY down in former generations before it became completely acceptable to have babies outside of marriage. Not a lot of women in my mom's generation got pregnant in high school and they didn't talk about sex much more than in passing.

 

Sorry, TranquilMind, I know I already replied to this, but something occurred to me.

 

When your mother was in high school, you weren't born yet - or if you were, you were very small and anyway ought to know better than to be promulgating this "it didn't happen back then" story.

 

Since we can safely assume you were not attending high school with your mother, how do you know what they talked about? I suppose you must have asked your mother but... do you really know if she told you the unvarnished truth? Even if she didn't intend to deceive, it's still possible that she doesn't remember entirely accurately (I know my memories of high school have some errors) or that while her group of friends didn't talk much about it, other people did all the time.

 

You're stating "They didn't talk about sex except in passing" like it's fact, but I don't see how you can know that for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you claiming there are no statistics on abortion for the state of California be because there is no reporting mechanism required by the state?

I'm not claiming it. The CDC is clearly stating it in the document link I attached. At least as far as the federal government considers the term "reportable". I'm sure many groups have statistics that vary across where they were collected, how, etc. But we have to set a bar somewhere and for any research I personally have conducted on morbidity and mortality of any type, the CDC is the gold standard. If you are (eta: are NOT) comparing from the same data collection point you can't run the numbers. On a federal level of the CDC doesn't have it no one is. You couldn't get a US picture.

Edited by texasmom33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, TranquilMind, I know I already replied to this, but something occurred to me.

 

When your mother was in high school, you weren't born yet - or if you were, you were very small and anyway ought to know better than to be promulgating this "it didn't happen back then" story.

 

Since we can safely assume you were not attending high school with your mother, how do you know what they talked about? I suppose you must have asked your mother but... do you really know if she told you the unvarnished truth? Even if she didn't intend to deceive, it's still possible that she doesn't remember entirely accurately (I know my memories of high school have some errors) or that while her group of friends didn't talk much about it, other people did all the time.

 

You're stating "They didn't talk about sex except in passing" like it's fact, but I don't see how you can know that for sure.

 

Yeah, I find some of this rhetoric about "it didn't happen then" a little naive.

 

I know darn well that when my dad was in high school, a lot of the locker-room kind of talk was pretty overt and disgusting.  My dad was on the sensitive side but he's also kind of a pragmatist, and I know it wasn't that nice of an environment.

 

I also know that his mom (my grandmother) and one of his aunts both married because they were pregnant. (His other aunt never maried and I don't know about his uncle's situation.)

 

I know his grandmother (my great-grandmother) also married because she was pregnant, and there was a lady a few streets over from their house who people went to to get abortions in her kitchen.

 

This was a regular, working class, Catholic family. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding "teen pregnancies back then," not every teen marriage was a shotgun wedding.  Young women tended to view their future as being a wife/mother and happily married in their teen years and started having babies.  My mom and lots of her friends did this.  So yes, of course there were more teen pregnancies, but it wasn't because people were more ignorant or careless about sex.

 

The "sexual revolution" caused a spike in lots of problems.  Improved birth control methods then had the opposite effect (on some of them).

 

The AIDS scare of course had its impact.  Herpes too (before AIDS).

 

If careless behavior is spiking recently, it could be because of reports that there is a cure / vax for AIDS.

Edited by SKL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth rate has declined. Here are some numbers on birth rate. But again- birth rate and pregnancy rate, not the same thing. The birth rates are theoretically going to be higher before there was legal access to abortion as most people didn't have that as an option. So yes, birth rates among those 19 and under has been on a decline since the 1960's. It doesn't tell us anything about the pregnancy rate though because there are now many more available options than giving birth. So to say that a declining live birth rate is a measure of sex ed success can't be done. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

 

 

Yes- it has definitely been available. But legalizing anything makes it more easily available in most cases.

 

 

Well and this is another case of statistics backing up perception. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as far as pregnant women's lives, but I would like to see the numbers behind this now that you mention it, were they available. But it is difficult to have accurate numbers on illegal activity, so what did they use to provide these? Since I'm in numbers mode now I would be curious to see them. It makes logical sense to be true, but they don't necessarily always correlate quite so easily- sometimes simply due to lack of data.

 

 

I would like to see your numbers that back up your assertions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding "teen pregnancies back then," not every teen marriage was a shotgun wedding.  Young women tended to view their future as being a wife/mother and happily married in their teen years and started having babies.  My mom and lots of her friends did this.  So yes, of course there were more teen pregnancies, but it wasn't because people were more ignorant or careless about sex.

 

The "sexual revolution" caused a spike in lots of problems.  Improved birth control methods then had the opposite effect (on some of them).

 

The AIDS scare of course had its impact.  Herpes too (before AIDS).

 

If careless behavior is spiking recently, it could be because of reports that there is a cure / vax for AIDS.

 

Yes, I agree with this, and in fact I rather unusually am not necessarily against the idea of teen pregnancy. And I think there were real downsides to the sexual revolution.

 

But there were plenty of people getting pregnant out of wedlock in the first half of the 20th century, and not because they wanted to.  To think that was rare - I don't know how someone thinks that.

Edited by Bluegoat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the spike in STIs is about AIDS mainly, though I think that is a factor, maybe especially in some populations.

 

But from what I can see in the teens that I meet, they seem to have more widely adopted a very casual attitude to sex.  Not just "oh I really love him so I will do it" and making silly decisions.  Or even some of the casual sex decisions kids made when I was younger.  It's really casual and sometimes even anonymous sex as a matter of course, and a lot of trading of partners.

 

I think there were always some of that, and it isn't like it is every kid now, but it seems to be a larger number.  And they seem to be less concerned about all kinds of negative outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with this, and in fact I rather unusually am not necessarily against the idea of teen pregnancy. And I think there were real downsides to the sexual revolution.

 

But there were plenty of people getting pregnant out of wedlock in the first half of the 20th century, and not because they wanted to.  To think that was rare - I don't know how someone thinks that.

 

It happened, but it was happening less before the whole "free sex" movement / drug culture.

 

I have mixed feelings for sure.  I don't think it's age that determines the right time to become a mom.  In some ways, it's better to do it when you're younger.  You have more energy for your kids, your kids will have their grandparents etc. for more years, you have a life after your kids launch.  In other ways it's better to be older.  You are more likely to bring mature perspectives into your child rearing decisions, and money is less likely to be a problem.

 

Bottom line, perfect is not to be found on Earth anywhere.  No amount of procreation engineering is going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that it was a lot less common though. 

 

I mean, after the Pill became available, more people were able to have sex without consequences.

 

But ther ewas a lot of sex after the 20s as well, and there were a lot of unplanned, pre-marriage pregnancies before the 60s.  It was not at all a rarity.

 

I think there was probably less really casual sex for most people - the stakes were too high for that to be attractive, especially to women.

 

Now - if you go back pre-20th century I think you would see a fair bit of variation, depending on other factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so to go back to part of my original question- if we establish just for arguments sake, the "the film" began in the 1940's, WHY was it brought into the realm of public school in the first place?  

 

You might be sorry you asked - I found a 169 page historical analysis on public school sex education: 

 

http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=education_theses

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this one is a bit more manageable at 27 pages: 

http://www.loveandfidelity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Huber-Published-Sex-Ed-article.pdf

 

I only gave the beginning a super quick scan, but two of the biggest factors driving the sex ed movement seem to be anger at the moral decline of the country, coupled with the growing idea that schools could, and should, go beyond academics to serve the overall needs of society. 

 

From the beginning, there was a wide range of personalities and motives involved. An interesting read. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see your numbers that back up your assertions.

Assertstions of what- can you clarify and I will try.? The pregnancy rate link is posted in the quote you cited above. The quotes that we don't have numbers on the other.....well I guess I am confused. My entire point is the numbers don't exist for pregnancy. They exist for live/dead birth. I can't provide something that doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom worked and taught in multiple pediatric ER's (in Chicago, small town Ohio, Maryland suburb, Catholic hospital, and in downtown DC) in the 1960's. She saw many young women who had illegal abortions. Legalizing abortion made it safer. Abortion has always been available.

Yes abortion illegality does not stop them from happening. Abortion happens at high rates in countries where it is illegal it just is less safe.

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2009/11/facts-and-consequences-legality-incidence-and-safety-abortion-worldwide

 

In countries where access to birth control was both limited and stigmatized the rates were sky high like in Eastern Europe. Once access became better the rates plummeted.

 

If you look at other countries the countries with the lowest abortion rates are the ones where people use contraceptives.

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2007/abortion-declines-worldwide-falls-most-where-abortion-broadly-legal

Edited by MistyMountain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not claiming it. The CDC is clearly stating it in the document link I attached. At least as far as the federal government considers the term "reportable". I'm sure many groups have statistics that vary across where they were collected, how, etc. But we have to set a bar somewhere and for any research I personally have conducted on morbidity and mortality of any type, the CDC is the gold standard. If you are (eta: are NOT) comparing from the same data collection point you can't run the numbers. On a federal level of the CDC doesn't have it no one is. You couldn't get a US picture.

 

No offense, but you are making leaps in logic that are unfounded.

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion

http://www.cdc.gov/Reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/index.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

 

The CDC publishes estimates on abortion rates, and as you stated, the CDC is the gold standard for health data and their estimates are statistically reliable.  You can do a reliable estimate for the nation as a whole missing a couple of states, and at the minimum we can reliably estimate the reported states (majority of the nation), and unless there is reason to believe California and a couple of others differ drastically from the rest, we can assume they follow the same trends.  There is certainly enough data available to estimate national trends.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense, but you are making leaps in logic that are unfounded.

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion

http://www.cdc.gov/Reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/index.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

 

The CDC publishes estimates on abortion rates, and as you stated, the CDC is the gold standard for health data and their estimates are statistically reliable.  You can do a reliable estimate for the nation as a whole missing a couple of states, and at the minimum we can reliably estimate the reported states (majority of the nation), and unless there is reason to believe California and a couple of others differ drastically from the rest, we can assume they follow the same trends.  There is certainly enough data available to estimate national trends.

 

Okay, let me back up. My entire position hasn't been on the trend one way or another. My position has been on the lack of hard numbers, and by hard numbers I mean reportable numbers. That's why I keep using the terminology "reportable". It's a defined parameter. I cannot change it's meaning. Not all things are reportable. And things that are reportable in one location are not reportable necessarily in another, which is why I linked previously to the CDC definitions across the US. It varies. So you have to compare apples to apples. You cannot compare birth rates to pregnancy estimates and say they are equally reliable. They aren't, because the reporting definitions for pregnancy aren't anywhere near the same. They're apples and oranges. Can you compare apples and oranges? Sure, but the point being is it doesn't necessarily tell you a whole lot. 

 

So to extrapolate pregnancy rates in teens from live birth rates in teens, needs to be outlined and declared as a limitation of the estimate. The data is there for the live/dead births. It's recorded. Each and every case that occurs in a reportable environment. The pregnancies aren't recorded in anywhere near the same way. The data is not there. Reportable numbers are not estimates. They are actual, real, diagnosed cases, reported to the appropriate agency be it local, state or federal. The are factual cases. Estimates aren't. They are estimates. So my problem is that people try to present estimates as facts, and then it becomes misrepresentation. If you want to use estimates, fine- but be open about it. Don't say it's the same thing. It's just not. 

 

This is the the US NLM/NIH definition of reportable disease: (bolded is website, not mine) 

 

"Reportable diseases are diseases considered to be of great public health importance. Local, state, and national agencies (for example, county and state health departments or the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) require that these diseases be reported when they are diagnosed by doctors or laboratories."

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001929.htm

 

 

What you are citing are estimates. I am not disputing the accuracy of said estimates one way or another, but I am saying that you cannot take a "reported number" of cases and then an "estimated number" of cases and say they are the same and that they have the same reliability because they don't. Saying that they are not the same is not a leap in logic. It is basic science. Any study would have to list an estimate as a limitation of the methodology. It's not a failure. It's a limitation. But you cannot say they are the same because they aren't. It shouldn't stop people from using estimates, because sometimes that is all you have to work off of. But it does become a problem when people present them as one in the same because it is absolutely incorrect. 

 

I can find you an estimate on just about anything under the sun. I cannot do the same for reportable occurrences. 

 

All of that being said, regarding the bolded from your quote above,  California is the most populous state in the US. That their data is NOT reportable, as per the most updated version of CDC data I could find, it would seem that could seriously skew the data. They are also not the only state who doesn't report. I could see making that assumption were it your least populous states who didn't report, but California is something like 38+ million people. Isn't that like 10% of the entire US population? So missing California may not alter your opinion of the accuracy of the estimate, but it does mine. Any study that tells me they didn't account for 10% of the sample population would be somewhat flawed it would seem, in my opinion..... people are obviously going to have different bars regarding what data they deem as accurate though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - the increase in certain STD rates did start again in the past 5-7 years.  Interestingly enough, this happened to coincided with fewer teens having access to comprehensive sex ed.

 

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2816%2900051-3/abstract

 

This is an interesting notation they make on page 5. I haven't gotten to finish reading the entire article- have to get back to the kids- but will finish it later. Thanks for the stimulating discussion! :) (Hopefully I cited that correctly for the forum- if not someone please let me know and I will amend or delete.) 

 

"These declines in formal instruction about birth control occurred despite increases in federal funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs and shifts in federal policy away from abstinence-only-until-marriage programs toward more comprehensive programs since 2009 [15]"

L.D. Lindberg et al. / Changes in Adolescents’ Receipt of Sex Education, 2006-2013, Journal of Adolescent Health xxx (2016) 1e7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting notation they make on page 5. I haven't gotten to finish reading the entire article- have to get back to the kids- but will finish it later. Thanks for the stimulating discussion! :) (Hopefully I cited that correctly for the forum- if not someone please let me know and I will amend or delete.) 

 

"These declines in formal instruction about birth control occurred despite increases in federal funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs and shifts in federal policy away from abstinence-only-until-marriage programs toward more comprehensive programs since 2009 [15]"

L.D. Lindberg et al. / Changes in Adolescents’ Receipt of Sex Education, 2006-2013, Journal of Adolescent Health xxx (2016) 1e7

 

I don't find that surprising when sex ed is treated as a political football in certain states.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...