How to reduce teen pregnancy

[Jokodo]

Giving girls educational opportunities is a worthy goal on its own right, and while it does somewhat (measurably) reduce the need for making early contraception readily available, it doesn't make it go away. Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years. I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

First, I do not think there is any implication that decisions made by people without college degrees are not meaningful. However, there is lots of research that confirms that the more education women have, the fewer children they have and the later they have them.

Second, while I cannot speak for Toni, I think providing free contraception is not a bad idea, but that provision may reduce the urgency for promoting education.

"People should wait until they get an education so that they can make meaningful decisions" does imply that people without an education can't make meaningful decisions. There's no way out of it, logically.

 

[Toni]

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

 

[Jokodo]

That might be sound philosophically as far as I can assess philosophical arguments, but can you break it down for science people like us? What policies do you suggest based on those principles, or more specifically even (since that's what this thread is about), what assessment of the particular policy implemented in Colorado does this lead us to?

Comprehensive sex education coupled with easy access to birth control and the encouragement of career counseling services in high school.

IOW, support services and products that make it much easier for young women to make informed decisions early in life and avoid negative consequences down the road.

You should keep in mind that it's more a question of maturity than age. There are INDEED some 16 year olds who make better relationship choices and can manage their sex lives far better than their adult counterparts; on the other hand, there are people in their 20s and 30s who still make the same mistakes they were making at 16, still bringing too much of their emotional baggage into the classroom and the workplace, still missing work/school/training because of relationship issues, etc. A person who lacks emotional maturity is going to make screwy decisions at just about ANY age.

So we agree that people can meaningfully (whatever that means) decide to have sex at age 16, and us old folks, whether we're 32 or 64, have no job telling them that they can't because some of our peers are no better at handling the issues that might arise from it than they are? Fine, agreed.

</thread>

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

Anecdote not equals data.

 

[Toni]

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

I'm sure they did have access, in the sense that they didn't have to travel abroad to get it even semi-legally, that they could get it locally as long as paid for it with their own money, at a cost that's quite considerable for a high-school student. But they didn't have the option to get it for free at their local hospital. The data from Colorado suggests that that'll make all the difference for around 40% of the target group. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Comprehensive sex education coupled with easy access to birth control and the encouragement of career counseling services in high school.

IOW, support services and products that make it much easier for young women to make informed decisions early in life and avoid negative consequences down the road.

You should keep in mind that it's more a question of maturity than age. There are INDEED some 16 year olds who make better relationship choices and can manage their sex lives far better than their adult counterparts; on the other hand, there are people in their 20s and 30s who still make the same mistakes they were making at 16, still bringing too much of their emotional baggage into the classroom and the workplace, still missing work/school/training because of relationship issues, etc. A person who lacks emotional maturity is going to make screwy decisions at just about ANY age.

So we agree that people can meaningfully (whatever that means) decide to have sex at age 16, and us old folks, whether we're 32 or 64, have no job telling them that they can't because some of our peers are no better at handling the issues that might arise from it than they are? Fine, agreed.

</thread>

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

Anecdote not equals data.

Unless it's you?

Try your own google searches.

 

[Jokodo]

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

I'm sure they did have access, in the sense that they didn't have to travel abroad to get it even semi-legally, that they could get it locally as long as paid for it with their own money, at a cost that's quite considerable for a high-school student. But they didn't have the option to get it for free at their local hospital. The data from Colorado suggests that that'll make all the difference for around 40% of the target group. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Comprehensive sex education coupled with easy access to birth control and the encouragement of career counseling services in high school.

IOW, support services and products that make it much easier for young women to make informed decisions early in life and avoid negative consequences down the road.

You should keep in mind that it's more a question of maturity than age. There are INDEED some 16 year olds who make better relationship choices and can manage their sex lives far better than their adult counterparts; on the other hand, there are people in their 20s and 30s who still make the same mistakes they were making at 16, still bringing too much of their emotional baggage into the classroom and the workplace, still missing work/school/training because of relationship issues, etc. A person who lacks emotional maturity is going to make screwy decisions at just about ANY age.

So we agree that people can meaningfully (whatever that means) decide to have sex at age 16, and us old folks, whether we're 32 or 64, have no job telling them that they can't because some of our peers are no better at handling the issues that might arise from it than they are? Fine, agreed.

</thread>

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

Anecdote not equals data.

Unless it's you?

Try your own google searches.

I did. I found rat studies. Involving the effect of pre-adolescent rats being put in an environment where they'd have sex with older rats. That's the equivalent, in human terms, of a twelve-year-old being raped, not of two 16-year-olds deciding that they don't want to wait.

Two very different things. We agree (so I believe, and hope) that one of them's a bad thing. We disagree about the other.

 

[Toni]

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

I'm sure they did have access, in the sense that they didn't have to travel abroad to get it even semi-legally, that they could get it locally as long as paid for it with their own money, at a cost that's quite considerable for a high-school student. But they didn't have the option to get it for free at their local hospital. The data from Colorado suggests that that'll make all the difference for around 40% of the target group. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Comprehensive sex education coupled with easy access to birth control and the encouragement of career counseling services in high school.

IOW, support services and products that make it much easier for young women to make informed decisions early in life and avoid negative consequences down the road.

You should keep in mind that it's more a question of maturity than age. There are INDEED some 16 year olds who make better relationship choices and can manage their sex lives far better than their adult counterparts; on the other hand, there are people in their 20s and 30s who still make the same mistakes they were making at 16, still bringing too much of their emotional baggage into the classroom and the workplace, still missing work/school/training because of relationship issues, etc. A person who lacks emotional maturity is going to make screwy decisions at just about ANY age.

So we agree that people can meaningfully (whatever that means) decide to have sex at age 16, and us old folks, whether we're 32 or 64, have no job telling them that they can't because some of our peers are no better at handling the issues that might arise from it than they are? Fine, agreed.

</thread>

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

Anecdote not equals data.

Unless it's you?

Try your own google searches.

I did. I found rat studies. Involving the effect of pre-adolescent rats being put in an environment where they'd have sex with older rats. That's the equivalent, in human terms, of a twelve-year-old being raped, not of two 16-year-olds deciding that they don't want to wait.

Two very different things. We agree (so I believe, and hope) that one of them's a bad thing. We disagree about the other.

Edited to remove unwise and impolite reply.

 

[Jokodo]

removed - became irrelevant.

 

[Toni]

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

I'm sure they did have access, in the sense that they didn't have to travel abroad to get it even semi-legally, that they could get it locally as long as paid for it with their own money, at a cost that's quite considerable for a high-school student. But they didn't have the option to get it for free at their local hospital. The data from Colorado suggests that that'll make all the difference for around 40% of the target group. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Comprehensive sex education coupled with easy access to birth control and the encouragement of career counseling services in high school.

IOW, support services and products that make it much easier for young women to make informed decisions early in life and avoid negative consequences down the road.

You should keep in mind that it's more a question of maturity than age. There are INDEED some 16 year olds who make better relationship choices and can manage their sex lives far better than their adult counterparts; on the other hand, there are people in their 20s and 30s who still make the same mistakes they were making at 16, still bringing too much of their emotional baggage into the classroom and the workplace, still missing work/school/training because of relationship issues, etc. A person who lacks emotional maturity is going to make screwy decisions at just about ANY age.

So we agree that people can meaningfully (whatever that means) decide to have sex at age 16, and us old folks, whether we're 32 or 64, have no job telling them that they can't because some of our peers are no better at handling the issues that might arise from it than they are? Fine, agreed.

</thread>

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

Anecdote not equals data.

Unless it's you?

Try your own google searches.

I did. I found rat studies. Involving the effect of pre-adolescent rats being put in an environment where they'd have sex with older rats. That's the equivalent, in human terms, of a twelve-year-old being raped, not of two 16-year-olds deciding that they don't want to wait.

Two very different things. We agree (so I believe, and hope) that one of them's a bad thing. We disagree about the other.

Hopefully, you are better at sex than you are at a)google searches b) drawing comparisons between adolescent humans and rats and c)comprehending what is posted.

Trying to make it personal again?

My apologies. You read and replied before I could go back and edit my ill advised post (which I will do now).

However, you are making things personal, as well as engaging in anecdotes to substitute for data or literature.

 

[Jokodo]

Apologies accepted. Let's get back on topic.

I'll also apologise if I did make it personal. I don't quite see where I did, though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So we agree that people can meaningfully (whatever that means) decide to have sex at age 16, and us old folks, whether we're 32 or 64, have no job telling them that they can't because some of our peers are no better at handling the issues that might arise from it than they are? Fine, agreed.

Up to a point. SOME sixteen year olds are not capable of making responsible decisions regarding sex, and think that in a lot of cases their lack of responsibility isn't a function of age. The best we can do is make sure that "lack of a better option" isn't a factor either, and that means making sex education and birth control comprehensive and available to anyone who is medically capable of bearing children.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

You know, I'm pretty sure you have your cause and effect backwards here. It seems to me that certain people, young or not, are prone to get way too involved in a short-term relationship and invest too much too quickly (emotionally and financially) in new boyfriends/girlfriends. Sex is just another ill-conceived investment in this case: the girl who has to miss two days of work because she is devastated

DEVASTATED I TELL YOU

that the guy she's been dating for two and a half months broke up with her last night.

 

[Toni]

Up to a point. SOME sixteen year olds are not capable of making responsible decisions regarding sex, and think that in a lot of cases their lack of responsibility isn't a function of age. The best we can do is make sure that "lack of a better option" isn't a factor either, and that means making sex education and birth control comprehensive and available to anyone who is medically capable of bearing children.

Oh, sure. I've seen that as well. But, except where there have been children involved, they haven't been as consuming or destructive as with the young-and-sexually involved.

You know, I'm pretty sure you have your cause and effect backwards here. It seems to me that certain people, young or not, are prone to get way too involved in a short-term relationship and invest too much too quickly (emotionally and financially) in new boyfriends/girlfriends. Sex is just another ill-conceived investment in this case: the girl who has to miss two days of work because she is devastated

Sex just adds to the situation. It's one thing when someone is fully adult. It's something else when someone is still a kid. And 16 is still a kid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Only if not combined with binge drinking.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

They obviously are having sex anyway. This is about reducing the harm of their existing behavior.

 

[Achwienichtig]

The link between lack of education and teen pregnancy cuts both ways. Yes, educated woman are more likely to delay pregnancy, but woman who manage to avoid pregnancy are more likely to complete their education. To try to pit these against each other as if one must always come before the other is a mistake. What is needed is sex education and educated sexuality. We need to address the whole, not just the parts.

That might be sound philosophically as far as I can assess philosophical arguments, but can you break it down for science people like us? What policies do you suggest based on those principles, or more specifically even (since that's what this thread is about), what assessment of the particular policy implemented in Colorado does this lead us to?

Well, solely in terms of this particular policy, I was initially repulsed by the idea that we couldn't figure out another solution to the teenage pregnancy problem. But I got to thinking, maybe we can't figure out a better solution now, but maybe when the better solution comes about it will be through the efforts of woman who benefit from this policy. I think that exploring one's sexuality is important, and sometimes that exploration involves risks. I really hope for a time when those risks will be mitigated through the wisdom of autonomous rational thought, but until that time comes (if ever) we need to minimize the risks so that young men and women can reach maturity as unscathed as possible.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

If girls today are so pressured into having sex that they are willing to have unprotected sex, do you think that adding a birth control into the mix will really add much to the pressure? Or, from the other side, if boys today are so pressured into sex that they are willing to have unprotected sex, do you think adding birth control to the mix will add more pressure? I think the answer to both these questions is no. Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally. I don't think we will see much more in the way of increased sexual pressure from this policy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Up to a point. SOME sixteen year olds are not capable of making responsible decisions regarding sex, and think that in a lot of cases their lack of responsibility isn't a function of age. The best we can do is make sure that "lack of a better option" isn't a factor either, and that means making sex education and birth control comprehensive and available to anyone who is medically capable of bearing children.



You know, I'm pretty sure you have your cause and effect backwards here. It seems to me that certain people, young or not, are prone to get way too involved in a short-term relationship and invest too much too quickly (emotionally and financially) in new boyfriends/girlfriends. Sex is just another ill-conceived investment in this case: the girl who has to miss two days of work because she is devastated

Sex just adds to the situation.

I don't think so. I think it's a symptom, not a causal factor.

Even YOU must realize that the kind of person who would actually wait until marriage (or at least the full maturation of the relationship with enough time to build genuine intimacy) isn't the kind of person who has those kinds of attachment issues anyway.

It's kinda like saying that diabetes leads to poor diet and obesity. In most cases, it's the other way around.

And 16 is still a kid.

That really DOES depend on the person. Some twenty year olds are still basically kids while some of their sixteen-year-old counterparts are already starting careers.

Not everyone matures at the same rate.

 

[Toni]

Sex just adds to the situation.

I don't think so. I think it's a symptom, not a causal factor.

Why can't it be both?

A lot of adolescents feel a lot of social pressures, many of them conflicting. Some of those pressures, including pressure to drink alcohol or smoke pot or cigarettes or use other recreational drugs involve peer and familial pressures, as well as pressures from genetics, social awkwardness, and a desire to fit in, and so on. There are conflicting pressures: to do well in school/life, to please family/friends/authority, to rise above circumstances, to achieve personal goals. A lot of adolescence is learning to deal with, balance and sometimes ignore those pressures.

The exact same pressures apply to sex, except add in the biology of newly emerging and ever changing hormonal milieu during adolescence and it's not an easy situation.

Even YOU must realize that the kind of person who would actually wait until marriage (or at least the full maturation of the relationship with enough time to build genuine intimacy) isn't the kind of person who has those kinds of attachment issues anyway.

First of all, I'm not suggesting that it is best to wait until marriage. I didn't and I don't regret it. I'm also not suggesting that it is best to wait until the 'full maturation of the relationship' whatever that means. I'm suggesting that girls are under a lot of pressure to present themselves as sexual beings and as sexually attractive and sexually available. Even if emotionally they are not ready for that kind of attention, much less to deal with the repercussions. I think that boys also have some of the same pressures and same limitations but I've never actually been a boy.

What I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with putting your personal goals ahead of those pressures to be sexually active, especially when the pressures to be sexually active are external, rather than something you are choosing for yourself.

And 16 is still a kid.

That really DOES depend on the person. Some twenty year olds are still basically kids while some of their sixteen-year-old counterparts are already starting careers.

Biology, specifically brain science, would disagree with you about the 16 year olds. And certainly 20 year olds are still basically kids, albeit with more choices and responsibilities. Having adult responsibilities is not the same thing as actually being an adult.

Not everyone matures at the same rate.

Exactly.

 

[Toni]

Condoms are cheap and readily available. Why weren't they able to insist on using condoms? Why didn't they use birth control? Heavens: lots of mothers back when I was in high school made sure their daughters were on the pill. Not all, but certainly a number. And condoms have been available since long before that.

Again: I don't see access to free and readily available birth control as a bad thing. It's a good thing, but only if it doesn't contribute to placing more pressure on the girl (or the boy) to engage in sex when they are not actually ready for it.

If girls today are so pressured into having sex that they are willing to have unprotected sex, do you think that adding a birth control into the mix will really add much to the pressure? Or, from the other side, if boys today are so pressured into sex that they are willing to have unprotected sex, do you think adding birth control to the mix will add more pressure? I think the answer to both these questions is no. Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally. I don't think we will see much more in the way of increased sexual pressure from this policy.

Birth control has been available to girls for a couple of generations now. Much easier if you are middle class or above, of course, as is everything else in life.

Condoms have been available for far longer than that.

Please note, for the umpteenth time (sorry, I've lost count of the number of times I've written this) that I am all for free access to reliable birth control.

Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally.

You are wrong.

There is a lot of magical thinking during adolescence. Don't you remember all of the myths about when/how a girl could get pregnant? Not on her first time, not if you do it standing up, douche immediately after were the top 3 that I remember from back when. Those myths are still around. And kids often think adults don't know anything about sex, or that it is different now compared with a generation ago. Biology works exactly the same way as it has for thousands of years.

I've observed the pressures on girls to have sex 'if she can't get pregnant.' Nobody thinks about STDs, although adolescence account for the fastest growing segment of those who become infected. Some have life long repercussions and some can affect future fertility.

 

[Jokodo]

If girls today are so pressured into having sex that they are willing to have unprotected sex, do you think that adding a birth control into the mix will really add much to the pressure? Or, from the other side, if boys today are so pressured into sex that they are willing to have unprotected sex, do you think adding birth control to the mix will add more pressure? I think the answer to both these questions is no. Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally. I don't think we will see much more in the way of increased sexual pressure from this policy.

Birth control has been available to girls for a couple of generations now. Much easier if you are middle class or above, of course, as is everything else in life.

Condoms have been available for far longer than that.

Please note, for the umpteenth time (sorry, I've lost count of the number of times I've written this) that I am all for free access to reliable birth control.

Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally.

You are wrong.

There is a lot of magical thinking during adolescence. Don't you remember all of the myths about when/how a girl could get pregnant? Not on her first time, not if you do it standing up, douche immediately after were the top 3 that I remember from back when. Those myths are still around. And kids often think adults don't know anything about sex, or that it is different now compared with a generation ago. Biology works exactly the same way as it has for thousands of years.

I've observed the pressures on girls to have sex 'if she can't get pregnant.' Nobody thinks about STDs, although adolescence account for the fastest growing segment of those who become infected. Some have life long repercussions and some can affect future fertility.

We are, as per the OP, talking about a voluntary option to get an IUD for free. A girl or woman who decides to go to the hospital to get one is a girl or woman who plans to have sex anyway, whether or not you think she's old enough to make that choice meaningfully.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally.

You are wrong.

There is a lot of magical thinking during adolescence. Don't you remember all of the myths about when/how a girl could get pregnant? Not on her first time, not if you do it standing up, douche immediately after were the top 3 that I remember from back when. Those myths are still around. And kids often think adults don't know anything about sex, or that it is different now compared with a generation ago. Biology works exactly the same way as it has for thousands of years.

I've observed the pressures on girls to have sex 'if she can't get pregnant.' Nobody thinks about STDs, although adolescence account for the fastest growing segment of those who become infected. Some have life long repercussions and some can affect future fertility.

I don't understand how you are disagreeing with me. In the midst of all the ignorance teens have on the subject, in the midst of fabricated sexual myths, I don't understand how a medically based and effective form of birth control will add to the sexual pressure. My point is, the teenagers who are unable to separate the facts from the myths will experience no additional pressure since they are already in the midst of ignorance. Whereas those who can separate the two are also the most likely to understand the other ramifications of sex, which already protects, to some extent, them against these other ramifications.

I certainly agree that much more needs to be done towards education, and our work will not be complete until the myths are eradicated.

To answer your question, no, I don't remember any of these myths from when I was a teen. I was never exposed to them. I was home schooled, and sex education for me was a ten minute talk with my mom. Any books we had in our house about sex were medical books. As a young curious boy, I read those books, as that was all I had access to. Low and behold, I learn about contraception and STD's real fast.

AND I was exposed to the opposite myths, the right wing conservative myths. Yes, I was taught that condoms prevented pregnancy, but I was also taught that good Christians don't wear them. I was taught that if you were going to have sex before marriage, you had better be prepared to be a parent (since wearing a condom was forbidden). That is the mentality taken by the conservative mindset. This mindset creates more problems than it solves.

I agree with almost everything you say. The only thing I don't believe is that adding effective birth control to the mix will actually increase the pressure to have sex. For me, that just sounds too similar to the right wing propaganda I grew up with.

 

[Achwienichtig]

We are, as per the OP, talking about a voluntary option to get an IUD for free. A girl or woman who decides to go to the hospital to get one is a girl or woman who plans to have sex anyway, whether or not you think she's old enough to make that choice meaningfully.

Not necessarily. Many women go on birth control "just in case." They aren't in sexual relations, and sometimes they don't even plan on being in a sexual relationship. They just want to be ready. I was listening to an interview podcast where a 12 year old was talking about how she keeps a condom in here purse. She has no intention of needing it. It's just a safety measure.

It is the smarter, more mature girls (and some boys) who are taking these precautions, and from what I can tell, they are not exposed to any increased pressure to have sex as a result.