Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Quill

Opinion discussion: How do you feel about public schools distributing

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Momto5inIN said:

Than in my day (in the late i9's ealy 90's after casual hookups in media were already the norm), yes. Than in my grandparents day (well before that in the 40's and 50's), no.

 

Can you cite this, or do you expect us to simply believe it based on your saying so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Quill said:

This is my thinking and why ITA with what Bluegoat posted. It’s a wide-scale infantalizing of young people that I do not see as a net societal benefit. “We” treat teens like we don’t expect them to plumb the depths of their resourcefulness for any purpose. There’s so much talk now - as we were just discussing on these boards a week or two ago - about upper teens not being “ready” to learn to drive. We’re talking about having kids do a Gap Year because they aren’t “ready” to go to college. And I have had the same thought about the bus stops; bus stop when I was a kid served all kids on my cul-de-sac and a few kids several houses down the main road. Now buses stop 500 times it seems like, in front of each individual house. 

 

 

I went to pick my oldest up from school one day when she was 16.  We were getting in her driving hours before she took her drivers test and driving too and from school was great practice for that.  Anyway, the pick up line for the high school (of like 2500 kids in total) was super long and I was stuck waiting on the road.  Ended up having to wait until the busses pulled out because of how they had traffic stopped.  Anyway, I watched a bus load up, turn right out of the bus parking lot, STOP before it had even fully completed the turn, and let a kid off at the house next door to the school.  I was flabbergasted. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

That report is pretty much meaningless because people so frequently married in their teens. Those teen urges didn't go away they just tucked them into early marriages. I don't see that as inherently preferable to marriage-free, pregnancy-free, delayed sex.

I do because marriage and family are stabilizers for society in most cases. They reduce poverty, they reduce environmental impact/footprints, they create emotionally healthy and stable kids who turn into adults, they create environments where elder care is more tenable...all sorts of things that are empirically good for society with stable families. And there's something to be said for being done childrearing before you are hitting your late-50s/early- to mid-60s.

I do not endorse teen marriage FWIW, but yeah, I see a bunch of stable families in society with people having kids younger much, much more preferable than marriage-free, childfree, delayed sex, which seems to by symptomatic of an overall delayed adulthood/prolonged adolescence.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, btw, and I'm not directly trying to argue with you except to offer a different perspective. But having a family to take care of as a purpose in life, I think, is one of the great stabilizing forces in society as a whole and is good for most everybody. And I don't think it is matched by a lot of other things like pursuit of a career or hobby, for example.

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not trying to be macro about this, but just a thought - natural population control below old age is all but nonexistent now.  I don't think we want to turn that back, but it does affect the overall balance of things.

Personally I'm OK with lower and later fertility.  I am not worried that there is some underlying problem that is going to bite us someday.  And I don't believe that raising kids is the only or best way for young people to get ready for serious life.  It does, however, concern me that society doesn't seem to think serious responsibility is important to human development.

 

Do you mean infant mortality and death of mothers?

In general, I think we don't want to up our worldwide population, so I am not thinking in those terms, that people would have more kids.  And if people want kids later that's fine.  I don't think though there is really any substantial reason we should be so opposed to young families, to the point where people discourage them and our education and workplaces make that approach a problem.  Generally I think when we work with people's biological tendencies,  avoids certain problems.  Like, setting up a workplace that makes it a big deal for people to go pee is always going to be a problem of one kind or another.  Much better to take account of the whole bladder thing and build it into the work arrangements.

Is raising kids the only way - no, but it's an example or part of a larger problem.  We infantilise teens, and that's part of why we are so negative about teen parenthood - we can't imagine that they are really up to it. But most of that, so far as it is true, is artificial, not about their innate abilities.

I think people not being sexually active at all is also a good thing - I don't see this idea that sexual activity is something we all need, or should have if we want it, is particularly positive for adults or teens.  Which is to say, I tend to see the issue of having sex or not as very similar for high school aged teens and adults.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I do because marriage and family are stabilizers for society in most cases. They reduce poverty, they reduce environmental impact/footprints, they create emotionally healthy and stable kids who turn into adults, they create environments where elder care is more tenable...all sorts of things that are empirically good for society with stable families. And there's something to be said for being done childrearing before you are hitting your late-50s/early- to mid-60s.

I do not endorse teen marriage FWIW, but yeah, I see a bunch of stable families in society with people having kids younger much, much more preferable than marriage-free, childfree, delayed sex, which seems to by symptomatic of an overall delayed adulthood/prolonged adolescence.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, btw, and I'm not directly trying to argue with you except to offer a different perspective. But having a family to take care of as a purpose in life, I think, is one of the great stabilizing forces in society as a whole and is good for most everybody. And I don't think it is matched by a lot of other things like pursuit of a career or hobby, for example.

 

 

Thanks. I don't agree, obv., but I appreciate the perspective.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I do because marriage and family are stabilizers for society in most cases. They reduce poverty, they reduce environmental impact/footprints, they create emotionally healthy and stable kids who turn into adults, they create environments where elder care is more tenable...all sorts of things that are empirically good for society with stable families. And there's something to be said for being done childrearing before you are hitting your late-50s/early- to mid-60s.

I do not endorse teen marriage FWIW, but yeah, I see a bunch of stable families in society with people having kids younger much, much more preferable than marriage-free, childfree, delayed sex, which seems to by symptomatic of an overall delayed adulthood/prolonged adolescence.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, btw, and I'm not directly trying to argue with you except to offer a different perspective. But having a family to take care of as a purpose in life, I think, is one of the great stabilizing forces in society as a whole and is good for most everybody. And I don't think it is matched by a lot of other things like pursuit of a career or hobby, for example.

 

 

If family life is being compared to single life doing your own thing, I tend to agree, on a macro scale.

There are other possibilities though for the celibate.  Military life.  Being a scholar.  Something like monasticism.  All of those involve purpose and living in community.

I have wondered if going on in coming years this sort of thing might become important. I think we are going to have to look at a worldwide slow decline in human population.  On the other hand, I am not sure that very small families as the norm is really best.  But those two thoughts together would tend to lead to a lot of people living in some meaningful way without a family to be that stabilising element.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Here the kids are not allowed to walk to or from the bus stop themselves.  If the driver stops and a guardian is not there to pick up, they don't let the kid off the bus.

As someone who walked much farther than a bus stop, like, five blocks, in K, I find that crazy.

Complete insanity.  Really.  

 

In our previous location, the original school building was intended to be a K-5 elementary school for the neighborhood, and was build at the same time as the neighborhood so very early 60s.  I think the date on one of the stones was 1963.  Anyway, it's OBVIOUS that the school and neighborhood developer worked together because there are walkways into the school from the neighborhood that are separate from the roads.  Like at least 2 on the back side of the school that are fenced off from the homes, keeps kids from cutting through yards, etc etc.  

BUT, as time changed things, various parking lots and such were built around the school and the end result for now is that virtually every door that a student can access requires crossing a parking lot.  And no students are allowed to cross the parking lots by themselves.  And all the bike racks, I don't know when they were removed, it was before we got there, but I could see where they were originally in place.  

The school was built with the idea that kids would walk or ride their bikes to school, and now, they aren't allowed.  

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Do you mean infant mortality and death of mothers?

In general, I think we don't want to up our worldwide population, so I am not thinking in those terms, that people would have more kids.  And if people want kids later that's fine.  I don't think though there is really any substantial reason we should be so opposed to young families, to the point where people discourage them and our education and workplaces make that approach a problem.  Generally I think when we work with people's biological tendencies,  avoids certain problems.  Like, setting up a workplace that makes it a big deal for people to go pee is always going to be a problem of one kind or another.  Much better to take account of the whole bladder thing and build it into the work arrangements.

Is raising kids the only way - no, but it's an example or part of a larger problem.  We infantilise teens, and that's part of why we are so negative about teen parenthood - we can't imagine that they are really up to it. But most of that, so far as it is true, is artificial, not about their innate abilities.

I think people not being sexually active at all is also a good thing - I don't see this idea that sexual activity is something we all need, or should have if we want it, is particularly positive for adults or teens.  Which is to say, I tend to see the issue of having sex or not as very similar for high school aged teens and adults.

 

Fertility doesn't just shut off after some ideal number of children.  If you prefer a more natural fertility pattern, yes you're going to have teens raising kids, but also those teens are going to be in their 20s having more kids, and in their 30s and possibly 40s having more kids.  Who decides when it's time to stop making babies and start the career?

Also, ageing does sap energy for work, as I'm experiencing these days.  My natural productivity right now is probably less than half of what it was when I was a young adult.  Obviously everyone decides for herself, but personally I believe I got a lot more done by doing the career thing first.  This of course assumes that raising only 2 kids is also right for me and not an unforgivable affront to nature.  If I was going to have 12 kids, I would want to have them younger, but then it would be harder to have a very productive career.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm specifically focusing on high school aged minors, about ages 14-17.  The rates for ages 14-16 were clearly much lower, and most of that was not because the kids that age were married.  Age 17 may have been a gray area back then, partly because many teens dropped out of school at 16 or so, and the idea of a typical woman having a career to prepare for was not prevalent.

 

Except once someone married, they left the data set for that study. There's no teen premarital sex being recorded if the teen is already hitched. We know the average age of first marriage was 20. Average. So there were plenty below that line having sex. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

This study covers the same years as what your does and looks at the age of sexual initiation regardless of whether it was marital sex or not. It even breaks it down by ethnic group with pretty stark differences there. https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2015/01000/Trends_and_Patterns_of_Sexual_Behaviors_Among.6.aspx

It provides pretty convincing evidence that our grandparents and great grandparents were having lots of sex, even in their teen years, and while there are dips and ebbs and flows in the age at first initiation, it's consistently been between 15 and 18 for the last 75 years.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

So early marriage is preferable? Because that's how the old folks got around the whole 'urge' thing. I'm not suggesting casual sex is a great thing. I'm just not understanding why so many are conflating that with tons of sex/frequency. I'm not sure that a single, casual, teen sexual encounter is any more preferable than multiple sexual encounters over years with the same partner. Especially when we know that the former results in fewer pregnancies and abortions when compared to the latter.

No, that's not what I meant. I was simply responding to some (can't remember who) who seemed to suggest that the media has played no role because "teens have been having sex forever". I do however think that on a solely emotional health level (leaving spirituality aside) having one stable partner and multiple encounters is far preferable than one casual encounter, regardless of age.

41 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

At least two of my grandparents discussed widespread use of lambskin condoms in their tiny towns in the 1950's.  I've never used them and don't know how much more likely they are to break, and I know they allow the spread of viral STI's, but I'm under the impression they were pretty good birth control even then.

My great grandma talked about hanging them on the line to dry *and reuse* in the Depression 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not trying to be macro about this, but just a thought - natural population control below old age is all but nonexistent now.  I don't think we want to turn that back, but it does affect the overall balance of things.

Personally I'm OK with lower and later fertility.  I am not worried that there is some underlying problem in delayed fertility that is going to bite us someday.  And I don't believe that raising kids is the only or best way for young people to get ready for serious life.  It does, however, concern me that society doesn't seem to think serious responsibility is important to human development.

For overall world wide population, lower fertility I think is fine.

 

Later fertility I think could become a problem.  Chromosomal Abnormalities, birth defects, increased risks of the birthing process, I think if we as a society continue to delay fertility, those things could become real serious issues.  The reality is that our advanced medical technology has successfully masked the fact that childbirth is one of the most dangerous things a female body does.  But as fertility becomes more and more delayed in a general sense, that fact is going to become less and less masked.  We have also managed to value lives and save lives of babies who have a whole host of problems....who in generations past might very well not have survived.  Saving lives is a very positive thing.  But if we continue to push fertility later and later, then the measures will likely need to become more and more extreme.  

 

Raising kids isn't the only or best way for young people to "get ready" for serious life.  And I totally agree that its really concerning that we are trying so hard to remove serious responsibility from our young people and that it's stunting development in general.  I will say, experience speaking here.................Having a kid at 18 grew me up a lot.  (I got pg at 17, had her 2wks after I turned 18, was still in high school.)  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Momto5inIN said:

No, that's not what I meant. I was simply responding to some (can't remember who) who seemed to suggest that the media has played no role because "teens have been having sex forever". I do however think that on a solely emotional health level (leaving spirituality aside) having one stable partner and multiple encounters is far preferable than one casual encounter, regardless of age.

My great grandma talked about hanging them on the line to dry *and reuse* in the Depression 😂

 

That was me. I don't see any evidence that today's media, and it is modern media people seem to be referring to, is responsible for rampant teen sex or even casual sex. The data just don't support that conclusion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Except once someone married, they left the data set for that study. There's no teen premarital sex being recorded if the teen is already hitched. We know the average age of first marriage was 20. Average. So there were plenty below that line having sex. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

This study covers the same years as what you does and looks at the age of sexual initiation regardless of whether it was marital sex or not. https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2015/01000/Trends_and_Patterns_of_Sexual_Behaviors_Among.6.aspx

It provides pretty convincing evidence that our grandparents and great grandparents were having lots of sex, even in their teen years. And while there are dips and ebbs and flows in the age at first initiation, it's been pretty consistently between 15 and 18 for the last 75 years.

Your link also clearly shows a decline in age at initiation over time, except in nonwhite male groups.  In other words, people used to wait longer before the Sexual Revolution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Can you cite this, or do you expect us to simply believe it based on your saying so?

 

I guess I assumed that was common knowledge that didn't require a citation 😉 But a quick Google search turned this up. I didn't read the whole article but it does clearly state that premarital sex went up every decade from 1950 to 1990. I do understand that it has gone down some from the 90's to now.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/#!po=1.25000

 

"Figure 2 and the Table show premarital sex proportions using data from all four surveys (for women only) by 10-year cohort. The figure and table show a trend from the 1950s through the 1990s toward a higher proportion experiencing premarital sex"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that I don't dispute. What I'm wondering about is your claim that premarital sex back then was almost always within steady, long-term relationships that likely would've led to marriage even without an oops pregnancy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SKL said:

Your link also clearly shows a decline in age at initiation over time, except in nonwhite male groups.  In other words, people used to wait longer before the Sexual Revolution.

 

Yes, the lid came down. Fewer men and women were waiting until their 20s. The low end of the range didn't significantly change. There were fewer celibate adults. In any case, the suggestion was that today's teens are having more sex based on the influence of media and that's just not so. It's demonstrably untrue. The sexual revolution was over 50 years ago. Of course, if your odds of pregnancy go down and the availability of reliable contraception goes up, those who are inclined to have sex can engage with fewer potential consequences. The decline in age at first initiation, however, occurred most between 1940 and 1960 cohorts...boomers and silents...not 'those kids today!' (yelling at clouds). It the silent war-bound generation and vietnam-era boomers who threw caution to the wind. Some of it was science and maybe a good chunk was a sense of imminent mortality. Still, their behavior doesn't match my generation, or my siblings' generation, and not my kids'. There's this sense, I think, that kids today are doing things that they simply aren't doing and it's, IMHO, mostly a matter of projection.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

And that I don't dispute. What I'm wondering about is your claim that premarital sex back then was almost always within steady, long-term relationships that likely would've led to marriage even without an oops pregnancy.

No, I didn't look up stats for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Yes, the lid came down. Fewer men and women were waiting until their 20s. The low end of the range didn't significantly change. There were fewer celibate adults. In any case, the suggestion was that today's teens are having more sex based on the influence of media and that's just not so. It's demonstrably untrue. The sexual revolution was over 50 years ago. Of course, if your odds of pregnancy go down and the availability of reliable contraception goes up, those who are inclined to have sex can engage with fewer potential consequences. The decline in age at first initiation, however, occurred most between 1940 and 1960 cohorts...boomers and silents...not 'those kids today!' (yelling at clouds). It the silent war-bound generation and vietnam-era boomers who threw caution to the wind. Some of it was science and maybe a good chunk was a sense of imminent mortality. Still, their behavior doesn't match my generation, or my siblings' generation, and not my kids'. There's this sense, I think, that kids today are doing things that they simply aren't doing and it's, IMHO, mostly a matter of projection.

I'm not sure why you are so dead set against people saying there are influences in the media that parents have to respond to in teaching their kids values.

Yes those media influences became the norm around the time of the sexual revolution.  I am that old.  There is a fairly clear line of demarcation.

If you prefer to convince yourself that kids are not influenced by casual sex in the media, that is your prerogative.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know what the point of hair-splitting over how many of our grandparents had sex as teens, whether it is rising and by how much, and how it accounts for who just plain got married young vs. who was abstinent by choice - geez, guys; it’s kind of beside the point. Should we start talking about whether women have become more attractive since the fifties, what with the advent of good bras and red lipstick and the permanent wave? So that really, more sex is about better-looking available partners? 

I’m being facetious, obviously. 

When I brought up this topic in the OP, the rationale, according to the news story I read, is that STDs among teens in the proposed county are on the rise. Therefore, either more teens are having sex than previously, more teens are having sex with multiple partners than previously and/or more teens are having sex without using condoms than previously. It is one or a combination of these factors that made STDs increase in teens in the county initiating this program. 

Also, I think it is important to note tha the county implementing this program is very affluent. If there are kids in Howard County, MD with NO ability to afford and transport themselves to a store to buy condoms, I have no idea which teens that might describe. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a poor kid with few resources here, but they are not a large population. I think that fact alone puts a pretty big fact check on the idea that teens need condoms because it’s such an obstacle to buy them. Maybe that’s true in some places, but not here in this bougie county. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quill said:

Presumably they don’t have sex in the hallway outside the nurse’s office so I don’t know why these impulsive, irresponsible horny kids are supposedly well-equipped with the foresight necessary to pick up their raincoats from the nurse on Friday, yet couldn’t be relied upon to go buy their own. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I dunno. We live in a rural area. Teens without cars don’t have a way to get into town to buy condoms without asking a parent, but they do go to school 5 days a week. My own teen doesn’t have a job or allowance so does not have her own cash on a regular basis either (I give her cash if she’s going to an activity she needs it for ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SKL said:

I'm not sure why you are so dead set against people saying there are influences in the media that parents have to respond to in teaching their kids values.

Yes those media influences became the norm around the time of the sexual revolution.  I am that old.  There is a fairly clear line of demarcation.

If you prefer to convince yourself that kids are not influenced by casual sex in the media, that is your prerogative.

Yes. This is a sample size of one and purely anecdotal, but the TV show Friends was popular when I was early twenties. By that time, I had a stable relationship (whom I married eventually), but I (perhaps stupidly) thought those characters were an accurate reflection of what young, single people living in big cities are like. I thought people who were in their twenties regularly met new people, dated them, had sex, and moved on on a pretty routine basis. This belief was also at least a little bit reflected in (some of) the young women I worked with at the time. One young lady was always looking for someone special whom she might marry, but she had sex with numerous duds in the interim. One co-worker was pg with the baby of a married local politician. Another co-worker, pg with her second baby with her second baby-dady said ruefully, “I used to make fun of girls like me.” 

Anyway...just saying the messaging that “everyone” was having sex with people who were not serious, long-term partners was all around me and, though I wasn’t doing that myself, I did think it was normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t know what the point of hair-splitting over how many of our grandparents had sex as teens, whether it is rising and by how much, and how it accounts for who just plain got married young vs. who was abstinent by choice - geez, guys; it’s kind of beside the point. Should we start talking about whether women have become more attractive since the fifties, what with the advent of good bras and red lipstick and the permanent wave? So that really, more sex is about better-looking available partners? 

I’m being facetious, obviously. 

When I brought up this topic in the OP, the rationale, according to the news story I read, is that STDs among teens in the proposed county are on the rise. Therefore, either more teens are having sex than previously, more teens are having sex with multiple partners than previously and/or more teens are having sex without using condoms than previously. It is one or a combination of these factors that made STDs increase in teens in the county initiating this program. 

Also, I think it is important to note tha the county implementing this program is very affluent. If there are kids in Howard County, MD with NO ability to afford and transport themselves to a store to buy condoms, I have no idea which teens that might describe. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a poor kid with few resources here, but they are not a large population. I think that fact alone puts a pretty big fact check on the idea that teens need condoms because it’s such an obstacle to buy them. Maybe that’s true in some places, but not here in this bougie county. 


I live in an equally bougie area of the county next to yours, and we have plenty of kids at our school who either live in areas that aren't served by public transportation, or who are too bougie to ride public transportation, and who therefore reach the age of 16 having never gone anywhere without mom or dad or a nanny acting as chauffeur. 

When we go on subway field trips, I am sometimes boggled by what 1/2 the kids don't know about how to figure out which way the train is going, etc . . . 

Edited by Daria
grammar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hilltopmom said:

I dunno. We live in a rural area. Teens without cars don’t have a way to get into town to buy condoms without asking a parent, but they do go to school 5 days a week. My own teen doesn’t have a job or allowance so does not have her own cash on a regular basis either (I give her cash if she’s going to an activity she needs it for ).

Ok, but see the point I just made re: the county implementing this program. A lot of the teens have their own cars, or their bf or bffs do. 

Besides that, here’s another thing that’s been on my mind throughout this thread - I keep typng this and then deleting it again. There’s a serious problem with illegal drugs where I live (and obviously, in other parts of the country.) Teens are dying from drug ods. It’s very tragic. Somehow, they obtain these drugs, even though they are expensive and presumably they can’t get them from a nurse or their parents. Somehow they make deals at the mall or at school or on certain streets without, presumably, parents driving them around intentionally to buy drugs. If so many teens can manage to get drugs (or pot or alcohol, or whatever) with hopefully no adults or schools giving them out on purpose, how can we seriously believe they are totally incapable of getting condoms? 

FWIW, I don’t think it would be the worst idea to have condom machines in high school bathrooms, but I don’t think they should be free. If they had just a bowl of free condoms in the bathrooms, I think it very likely the resources would be abused; I can see kids taking them and taping a bunch of them on kids lockers, for instance, or selling them at parties on weekends. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SKL said:

I'm not sure why you are so dead set against people saying there are influences in the media that parents have to respond to in teaching their kids values.

Yes those media influences became the norm around the time of the sexual revolution.  I am that old.  There is a fairly clear line of demarcation.

If you prefer to convince yourself that kids are not influenced by casual sex in the media, that is your prerogative.

 

I never said that. You did. I have not commented, not one single time, on what any individual in this thread teaches their children WRT media. What I said was that there is no evidence that 'media' as a whole is responsible for (global) teen behavior. If you can tease out the impact of media vs. science and BCP availability using actual data/evidence, I'd be happy to revise my opinion.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yes. This is a sample size of one and purely anecdotal, but the TV show Friends was popular when I was early twenties. By that time, I had a stable relationship (whom I married eventually), but I (perhaps stupidly) thought those characters were an accurate reflection of what young, single people living in big cities are like. I thought people who were in their twenties regularly met new people, dated them, had sex, and moved on on a pretty routine basis. This belief was also at least a little bit reflected in (some of) the young women I worked with at the time. One young lady was always looking for someone special whom she might marry, but she had sex with numerous duds in the interim. One co-worker was pg with the baby of a married local politician. Another co-worker, pg with her second baby with her second baby-dady said ruefully, “I used to make fun of girls like me.” 

Anyway...just saying the messaging that “everyone” was having sex with people who were not serious, long-term partners was all around me and, though I wasn’t doing that myself, I did think it was normal. 

 

You may have thought that was 'the norm' in the big city but the facts are that wasn't what most people were doing, then or now. That's kind of my point. Watching it on TV may create the impression that everyone is doing it but they're not and never have been and it certainly didn't make you rush right out and join in as has been implied.

ETA: I spend a good deal of my time communicating with both of our kids that what they see on TV is not, in fact, reality or real. IOW, don't try this at home, the results won't be the same. *THAT* has been a thing since the three stooges, I'm sure. Still, there was no more of an epidemic of kids launching each other into the rafters with levers than there is kids working to emulate TV shows today.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

You may have thought that was 'the norm' in the big city but the facts are that wasn't what most people were doing, then or now. That's kind of my point. Watching it on TV may create the impression that everyone is doing it but they're not and never have been and it certainly didn't make you rush right out and join in as has been implied.

But if that’s what a set of young people believe is normal, than there is no stigma against behaving similarly. The other women whom I worked with did behave more like the TV show characters and believed it was normal. *shrug* So - I don’t know, but on percentages, there were more young women in my office acting sort of like Friends characters than in long, consistent relationships with one person. 

I don’t want to spend the time combing all the various stats posted and I don’t really care a whole lot, but it seems manifestly obvious to me that if you compare sexual activity in unmarried under-20 yos in 2018 vs. in 1950, there is more going on, and at younger ages that before the sexual revolution. I can’t really believe that is being disputed. But maybe I’m being obstinate by not wanting to take the time to comb stats for something that seems very obvious to me. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Quill said:

But if that’s what a set of young people believe is normal, than there is no stigma against behaving similarly. The other women whom I worked with did behave more like the TV show characters and believed it was normal. *shrug* So - I don’t know, but on percentages, there were more young women in my office acting sort of like Friends characters than in long, consistent relationships with one person. 

I don’t want to spend the time combing all the various stats posted and I don’t really care a whole lot, but it seems manifestly obvious to me that if you compare sexual activity in unmarried under-20 yos in 2018 vs. in 1950, there is more going on, and at younger ages that before the sexual revolution. I can’t really believe that is being disputed. But maybe I’m being obstinate by not wanting to take the time to comb stats for something that seems very obvious to me. 

 

This. It's freakonomics.

From SKL's own link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/:

Quote

Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

 

and from the discussion section...

 

Quote

 

The results of the analysis indicate that premarital sex is highly normative behavior. Almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years. The slight decrease between the 1984–93 and 1994–2003 cohorts was not statistically significant. The increase seen beginning with the 1964–73 cohort may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy;21 but even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in ten had had premarital sex by age 44. Among those who did not have sex at all during their teen years, eight in ten eventually had premarital sex.

Premarital sex as normative behavior is not surprising in an era when men and women typically marry in their mid-to-late twenties. Indeed, not only is premarital sex nearly universal by age 30, but it is also very common at much younger ages. Evidence from the past 50 years suggests that establishing abstinence until marriage as normative behavior is a challenging policy goal. Instead, these findings argue for education and interventions that provide young people with the skills and information they need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases once they become sexually active.

 

 

Things really aren't that different despite the common wisdom. An extra 1 in 10 women were stirred to engage in premarital sex post-'sexual revolution.' So, for all the gnashing of teeth and medical progress, things really aren't that different.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  Quote

Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

 

Things really aren't that different despite the common wisdom. An extra 1 in 10 women were stirred to engage in premarital sex post-'sexual revolution.' So, for all the gnashing of teeth and medical progress, things really aren't that different.

By age 30? By age 44?  What kind of stats are those? It doesn’t say, “...91% of those turning 15 between 1964 and 1993 had had premarital sex by age fifteen.” I find nothing whatsoever surprising about 30yo having premarital sex in any era. I suspect my MIL was among them, since she got married later than typical for her generation (age 30) and her first child was born eight months later. Maybe he was a premie. But I doubt it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they had just a bowl of free condoms in the bathrooms, I think it very likely the resources would be abused; I can see kids taking them and taping a bunch of them on kids lockers, for instance, or selling them at parties on weekends.  

 

Sure, they might make a few condom balloons. But the cost of this is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Why should they sell them on weekends? Do they sell pencils and tampons they got for free as well? Who would buy when they can all get the same things for the same price on Monday?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 12:20 PM, EmseB said:

I do because marriage and family are stabilizers for society in most cases. They reduce poverty, they reduce environmental impact/footprints, they create emotionally healthy and stable kids who turn into adults, they create environments where elder care is more tenable...all sorts of things that are empirically good for society with stable families. And there's something to be said for being done childrearing before you are hitting your late-50s/early- to mid-60s.

I do not endorse teen marriage FWIW, but yeah, I see a bunch of stable families in society with people having kids younger much, much more preferable than marriage-free, childfree, delayed sex, which seems to by symptomatic of an overall delayed adulthood/prolonged adolescence.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, btw, and I'm not directly trying to argue with you except to offer a different perspective. But having a family to take care of as a purpose in life, I think, is one of the great stabilizing forces in society as a whole and is good for most everybody. And I don't think it is matched by a lot of other things like pursuit of a career or hobby, for example.

 

I agree with you that marriage and family are stabilizers for society, hence my support of gay marriage and my almost complete inability to understand the whole “baby daddy” phenomenon and individuals who are willing to have a baby with someone but think marriage is too serious and they aren’t ready. However, the economic reality today compared to previous generations is that there are simply far fewer family wage jobs that can be obtained with a high school diploma or limited post high school training. When you combine that with crazy housing and healthcare costs, and more grandparents working, so not available to help with childcare, there are simply far fewer young people in a position to financially support a family compared to earlier generations. Some of this has been chosen by society by supporting policies that encourage wealth concentration, underfund education, replace family wage union jobs with cheap labor, oppose universal healthcare, etc., while globalization, technology, and ever increasing wealt inequality also play a role.

While I don’t disagree that we underestimate what teens are capable of and as a society we don’t provide them enough opportunities for real responsibility, I personally can’t get on board with encouraging early marriage and parenthood in a global way given the current economic realities. And I most definitely was a free range, early responsibility parent. 

Edited by Frances
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 7:32 PM, Quill said:

By age 30? By age 44?  What kind of stats are those? It doesn’t say, “...91% of those turning 15 between 1964 and 1993 had had premarital sex by age fifteen.” I find nothing whatsoever surprising about 30yo having premarital sex in any era. I suspect my MIL was among them, since she got married later than typical for her generation (age 30) and her first child was born eight months later. Maybe he was a premie. But I doubt it. 

 

It also said 48% of people, even in the 1954-63 cohort had PREMARITAL sex by age 20 with most of the people holding off being women pre-BCPs. The link I provided WRT all sex, not just premarital sex, showed a marked decline in the number of virgins over age 20, but NOT a marked increase in the number of sexually active people under 15. Both things can be true. You actually might have to read the reports. 

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Sure, they might make a few condom balloons. But the cost of this is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Why should they sell them on weekends? Do they sell pencils and tampons they got for free as well? Who would buy when they can all get the same things for the same price on Monday?

Why wouldn’t they? It’s like you think every teen who could just stroll into the school nurse and get one will do so. And that they have the foresight to pick them up, on the suumption one may be needed, and then bring them along, just in case. If they are this good at planning, why is it necessary to provide them at school for free? 

I remember kids selling cigarettes to other kids right before mb on the part of the unprepared smokers, smart on the part of the enterprising cig suppliers. Anyone could buy their own. But they didn’t get around to it beforehand or whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they are this good at planning, why is it necessary to provide them at school for free? 

 

The cost is trivial and the benefits are huge. That's reason enough.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just skimmed much of this thread finally.

My primary questions is why aren't they also giving out dental dams?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Farrar said:

I just skimmed much of this thread finally.

My primary questions is why aren't they also giving out dental dams?

 

I had the same question. When we did our talk with the kids, my oldest had never heard of them. They went all over and through STDs and never mentioned dental dams? Nope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I had the same question. When we did our talk with the kids, my oldest had never heard of them. They went all over and through STDs and never mentioned dental dams? Nope.

And... among other things... this is one of the main ways that tongue and throat cancer via HPV is spreading now. There's been a huge uptick in these cancers in the last decade.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quill said:

Presumably they don’t have sex in the hallway outside the nurse’s office so I don’t know why these impulsive, irresponsible horny kids are supposedly well-equipped with the foresight necessary to pick up their raincoats from the nurse on Friday, yet couldn’t be relied upon to go buy their own. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I assume the schools expect them to take some home, probably after a sex ed lesson, and have them in their wallets, purses, and in their bedrooms for the times they do give into their impulses without having planned ahead.  That's exactly the kid who should have condoms on the premises. You have to stop thinking like an adult when having this discussion and you have to think like an impulsive teen. Plenty of teen sexual encounters happen like that.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SKL said:

Fertility doesn't just shut off after some ideal number of children.  If you prefer a more natural fertility pattern, yes you're going to have teens raising kids, but also those teens are going to be in their 20s having more kids, and in their 30s and possibly 40s having more kids.  Who decides when it's time to stop making babies and start the career?

Also, ageing does sap energy for work, as I'm experiencing these days.  My natural productivity right now is probably less than half of what it was when I was a young adult.  Obviously everyone decides for herself, but personally I believe I got a lot more done by doing the career thing first.  This of course assumes that raising only 2 kids is also right for me and not an unforgivable affront to nature.  If I was going to have 12 kids, I would want to have them younger, but then it would be harder to have a very productive career.

 

I'm not sure what your thinking is here.  Presumably if people can avoid having kids in their early adulthood, they can equally avoid it later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

It also said 48% of people, even in the 1954-63 cohort had sex by age 20 with most of the people holding off being women pre-BCPs. The link I provided WRT all sex, not just premarital sex, showed a marked decline in the number of virgins over age 20, but NOT a marked increase in the number of sexually active people under 15. Both things can be true. You actually might have to read the reports. 

Again - we are talking about minor high school students.  The % increases sharply between age 16-18 and 18-20, but I'm much more interested in what the under-18yos are doing for purposes of the present discussion.

Also, the data shows that the % of 15-and-under who had premarital sex more than tripled from the 1950s to the 2000s.  This can not be explained just by earlier marriage ages in the 1950s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quill said:

I don’t know what the point of hair-splitting over how many of our grandparents had sex as teens, whether it is rising and by how much, and how it accounts for who just plain got married young vs. who was abstinent by choice - geez, guys; it’s kind of beside the point. Should we start talking about whether women have become more attractive since the fifties, what with the advent of good bras and red lipstick and the permanent wave? So that really, more sex is about better-looking available partners? 

I’m being facetious, obviously. 

When I brought up this topic in the OP, the rationale, according to the news story I read, is that STDs among teens in the proposed county are on the rise. Therefore, either more teens are having sex than previously, more teens are having sex with multiple partners than previously and/or more teens are having sex without using condoms than previously. It is one or a combination of these factors that made STDs increase in teens in the county initiating this program. 

Also, I think it is important to note tha the county implementing this program is very affluent. If there are kids in Howard County, MD with NO ability to afford and transport themselves to a store to buy condoms, I have no idea which teens that might describe. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a poor kid with few resources here, but they are not a large population. I think that fact alone puts a pretty big fact check on the idea that teens need condoms because it’s such an obstacle to buy them. Maybe that’s true in some places, but not here in this bougie county. 

 

My guess is that they are using less protection.  Over the past number of years since the drugs to deal with HIV have become really good, younger people don't seem to have quite the same sense of the importance of avoiding STIs.

I don't know if its enough to make a statistical difference, but some kids now are also trying to use those NFP apps, which of course don't do a darn thing to prevent disease.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Farrar said:

And... among other things... this is one of the main ways that tongue and throat cancer via HPV is spreading now. There's been a huge uptick in these cancers in the last decade.

 

I think this is your answer.  People don't use condoms for oral sex either, for the most part.  I suspect many people would just as soon not bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those statistics talking how what percentage of kids have had sex now vs then doesn't tell us if the number of sexual partners has increased nor does it include sexual activity that doesn't include intercourse. Both of that 2 things are going to effect overall STD rates.

Edited by DesertBlossom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it more bluntly, the logic part of the brain isn't the part of the brain engaged when teens are making out.  Lots of pregnancies and STDS happen in unplanned one night stand type situations.  There are impromptu romantic/sexual get togethers opportunistic teens create on the spur of the moment either between couples in a relationship or two teens who haven't been in a relationship together up to that point.  That can go unplanned places quickly. Add in alcohol and drug use and things can go unplanned places even more easily.  It's a rare teen, even one who isn't horny, who is characterized by thinking ahead and planning. I think the condoms should be sent home with every teen in addition to being made available at the nurse's office because it's probably even more effective to have them in their homes before they even meet a potential sexual partner. 

Does that mean I think fornication is morally acceptable?  No.  Does that mean I think it's morally the school's job to guard against these things?  No.  Do I think what's been tried so far is a terrible failure?  YES! We had a daycare center at my high school for the students and it was full with a waiting list.  I had friends whose first abortions were in 8th grade.  I had a friend who had 2 elective abortions and a miscarriage by the time she graduated from high school and her first live birth a year later-not from a religious or conservative family. I have 2 nieces who were pregnant outside of marriage.  I'm just not as confident in a teen's planning skills as some people are. I have seen real life, real world, consistent evidence to the contrary.  Most teens aren't logical and thoughtful and conscientious. It doesn't matter why, it's just the reality. My brother at 30 was snookered into believing his fling (32) was on a depo shot and didn't insist on using a condom in addition just in case it wasn't true or in case the known failure rate but reality didn't care about that.   Either way, he has a son from that 1 week relationship. 

That's the problem with arguing logically from a theoretical point like:
Anyone engaging in adult behavior should engage in adult planning. That argument is built on the false presupposition that the teens will behave with internal logic-not something the vast majority of teens are known for.
 Let me restate the situation with the reality explicitly stated:
Indulging sexual impulses does not necessarily go with engaging in adult planning.  Should it?  Yes, but we can't assume people will do what they should do and the consequences of that can be extremely serious to innocent parties by resulting in unwanted pregnancies and STDs that can lie undetected and spread to partners even in situations where the infected person is genuinely repentant about the fornication and decides to abstain until marriage from that point on.  The future spouse can catch what the repentant spouse didn't have an symptoms of yet.

So what can society do that's effective?  Teach comprehensive sex ed that's equally heavy on strategies for abstinence (even people who are not opposed to fornication on moral grounds will likely be opposed to it in certain situations and they need support) as it is on the mathematical realities of failures of contraception and the importance using a minimum of 2 methods at the same time every time because math is a cold hearted b!tch who doesn't care about anyone's naivete. The schools are where teens are already getting lessons in math and biology. And taxpayer funded schools are the place unplanned kids are the most likely to attend.  Unplanned pregnancies tend to be generational. The taxpayers are under a tremendous burden because of unplanned pregnancies, picking up the bill and subsidizing everything from healthcare costs related to pregnancy, delivery, abortions, housing, childcare, public education, college loans, etc. America is in debt up to its eyeballs and can't afford to keep doing what isn't effective.  Being born as the result of planned by both parents situation is statistically the most likely to result int eh stability children need to thrive and tends to cost the taxpayers less. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, I'm talking about generalities here.)

As a pro-lifer I'm in complete and total support of the government funding free contraception (stopping egg and sperm from meeting) because it results in fewer aborted babies and it's cheaper than the costs related to government funded services for unplanned children.  (With the national debt, we can't afford the services we're providing to people now.) Again, sex ed teachers and OB/GYNs have dropped the ball on explaining failure rates, and I want them to teach the 2 medically sound methods every time approach or medical sterilization because avoiding an unwanted conception always results in avoiding an abortion. 

It's time to do what works.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:


It's time to do what works.

 

How can we be certain it will work?  I can't believe there are very many teenagers (or adults) who don't know that condoms can prevent pregnancies and STDs. And yet the rates of STDs are rising. What makes anyone think that passing out free condoms is going to help?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

How can we be certain it will work?  I can't believe there are very many teenagers (or adults) who don't know that condoms can prevent pregnancies and STDs. And yet the rates of STDs are rising. What makes anyone think that passing out free condoms is going to help?

Um, I addressed that in my posts.  They'll have them on hand when they engage in sex.  You know condoms have a shelf-life, right?  
We know what we've been doing doesn't work, so trying something that seems to work in Western Europe is a good bet. If we decided to never do something because we weren't certain it would work we'd all still be living like cavemen.   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, ONLY passing out condoms apparently doesn’t work.  What seems to work is comprehensive education programs.   Those might include passing out condoms or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Thing is, ONLY passing out condoms apparently doesn’t work.  What seems to work is comprehensive education programs.   Those might include passing out condoms or not.  

I believe she advocated for comprehensive education plus making condoms available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Momto5inIN said:

That's great, I'm glad to see that it's declining from what it was when I was in jr high and high school. But that's not really the time period I was referring to. The studies you cited gave data from the late 80's to 2015, when hookup culture and the media's celebration of that was already well established and had been thriving for some time. 

But we don't have accurate statistics from the time period you reference (there were serious reporting bias issues in the early surveys), so much of what is claimed about that time is anecdotal.

Regardless, it is hard to claim " nowadays casual hookups are considered the norm" for teens when the data shows they aren't the norm. 

Edited by ChocolateReignRemix
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

To put it more bluntly, the logic part of the brain isn't the part of the brain engaged when teens are making out.  Lots of pregnancies and STDS happen in unplanned one night stand type situations.  There are impromptu romantic/sexual get togethers opportunistic teens create on the spur of the moment either between couples in a relationship or two teens who haven't been in a relationship together up to that point.  That can go unplanned places quickly. Add in alcohol and drug use and things can go unplanned places even more easily.  It's a rare teen, even one who isn't horny, who is characterized by thinking ahead and planning. I think the condoms should be sent home with every teen in addition to being made available at the nurse's office because it's probably even more effective to have them in their homes before they even meet a potential sexual partner. 

Does that mean I think fornication is morally acceptable?  No.  Does that mean I think it's morally the school's job to guard against these things?  No.  Do I think what's been tried so far is a terrible failure?  YES! We had a daycare center at my high school for the students and it was full with a waiting list.  I had friends whose first abortions were in 8th grade.  I had a friend who had 2 elective abortions and a miscarriage by the time she graduated from high school and her first live birth a year later-not from a religious or conservative family. I have 2 nieces who were pregnant outside of marriage.  I'm just not as confident in a teen's planning skills as some people are. I have seen real life, real world, consistent evidence to the contrary.  Most teens aren't logical and thoughtful and conscientious. It doesn't matter why, it's just the reality. My brother at 30 was snookered into believing his fling (32) was on a depo shot and didn't insist on using a condom in addition just in case it wasn't true or in case the known failure rate but reality didn't care about that.   Either way, he has a son from that 1 week relationship. 

That's the problem with arguing logically from a theoretical point like:
Anyone engaging in adult behavior should engage in adult planning. That argument is built on the false presupposition that the teens will behave with internal logic-not something the vast majority of teens are known for.
 Let me restate the situation with the reality explicitly stated:
Indulging sexual impulses does not necessarily go with engaging in adult planning.  Should it?  Yes, but we can't assume people will do what they should do and the consequences of that can be extremely serious to innocent parties by resulting in unwanted pregnancies and STDs that can lie undetected and spread to partners even in situations where the infected person is genuinely repentant about the fornication and decides to abstain until marriage from that point on.  The future spouse can catch what the repentant spouse didn't have an symptoms of yet.

So what can society do that's effective?  Teach comprehensive sex ed that's equally heavy on strategies for abstinence (even people who are not opposed to fornication on moral grounds will likely be opposed to it in certain situations and they need support) as it is on the mathematical realities of failures of contraception and the importance using a minimum of 2 methods at the same time every time because math is a cold hearted b!tch who doesn't care about anyone's naivete. The schools are where teens are already getting lessons in math and biology. And taxpayer funded schools are the place unplanned kids are the most likely to attend.  Unplanned pregnancies tend to be generational. The taxpayers are under a tremendous burden because of unplanned pregnancies, picking up the bill and subsidizing everything from healthcare costs related to pregnancy, delivery, abortions, housing, childcare, public education, college loans, etc. America is in debt up to its eyeballs and can't afford to keep doing what isn't effective.  Being born as the result of planned by both parents situation is statistically the most likely to result int eh stability children need to thrive and tends to cost the taxpayers less. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, I'm talking about generalities here.)

As a pro-lifer I'm in complete and total support of the government funding free contraception (stopping egg and sperm from meeting) because it results in fewer aborted babies and it's cheaper than the costs related to government funded services for unplanned children.  (With the national debt, we can't afford the services we're providing to people now.) Again, sex ed teachers and OB/GYNs have dropped the ball on explaining failure rates, and I want them to teach the 2 medically sound methods every time approach or medical sterilization because avoiding an unwanted conception always results in avoiding an abortion. 

It's time to do what works.

I agree with everything you said, especially the part about two methods. For me, the media portrayal of condom use being enough bothers me even more than the casual sex. Sure, it’s better than nothing, but not nearly enough if you want to stack the odds in your favor against conception.

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...