I don't normally post here, so I hope I'm doing this right. A few days ago, it came up in an Open Thread as to whether access to the birth control pill encouraged sexual activity in teenagers. So I went looking through the research to find out. I have posted a lengthly description of what I found over at my own blog, but since this started here, I thought it might be of interest to IP readers. Here's what I came up with:
- I couldn't find much that was limited specifically to the Pill, but the conclusions with respect to contraception in general are clear: access to contraception and to comprehensive sexual education does not hasten the entry into sexual activity. (Note, however, that the Pill is the most commonly used form of contraception.)
- In fact, access to comprehensive sexual education may delay the onset of sexual activity and increase the amount of sexually active teens using contraception and condoms.
- About one quarter of teenage couples remaining abstinent will be pregnant within a year.
- For about 10% of teenage girls, the entry into sexual activity is non-voluntary.
Update: I've posted a graph from the Zabin study, which seems to show the program delayed the onset of sexual activity by about a year, and at the median age of entry to sexual activity for the non-program group, 15% fewer teens in the program group were sexually active. The program included comprehensive sexual education and access to medical care and contraception.
Your conclusions are meaningless because you lump together every unrelated topic that furthers your preconceived point.
I realize you want to make this into an either-or situation to promote your agenda, but you do realize people can use contraceptives AND still make responsible sex choices -- at the same time? Maybe not.
I don't see how what you said contradicts anything that Narc posted in the original post.
It just looks like a typical, tons of research-->somebody just says "Nah!" and waves it away.
Anonymous 12:06
Those words in red there are a link. If you follow them, you'll find the source materials used to draw those conclusions, as well as some pretty thorough analysis of said sources (kudos, Narc).
Oh, but wait... you weren't actually interested in learning anything here, were you. Sorry, my bad. Continue viewing the same world tomorrow that you looked at yesterday, and ignore whatever opportunities for change today might present. Nothing to see here, move along.
Kem
"About one quarter of teenage couples remaining abstinent will be pregnant within a year."
Soooo, apparently immaculate conception wasn't such a big deal after all. :-)
This is all interesting research and most of it is common sense. If you'll remember (or follow Narc's link) the original discussion was about oral contraceptives and their distibution in a middle school (6-8) setting. I was a little surprised you didn't come across this study, which shows that taking the pill can actually lead to a reduced sex drive, or this study which shows that the pill can make women extremely moody (not good for having sex). Of course if you really dig into the research on oral contraceptives you'll find links to increased stroke risk, increased breast cancer risk, and many other weird things that happen to girls who take the pill. But now I am being a paranoid weirdo who listens to "quacks". Sorry.
But to be clear, we are talking about historical increases in sexual activity due to the availability of oral contraceptives. In other words, does the availability of the pill lead to increased pre-marital sexual activity? Will making the pill available to middle schoolers make them more or less likely to engage in pre-marital sex?
These questions have not been answered by your research. If I have time later I may track down a couple of historical studies that prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt, at least to my mind. For now let me say that you are arguing against a well established fact in the community of historians. The sexual revolution was propelled by several different factors but it has been fairly well accepted for thirty years now that the pill was a big part of that revolution. I might suggest David Allyn's Make Love Not War as a primer.
Thanks for the efforts! It looks like fun. :)
Boon, you are talking about something different. General social attitudes about sex have changed countless times throughout history and across cultural borders. The pill may have been the catalyst for one of those changes, but that doesn't mean that if we suddenly make the pill unavailable that the change will undo itself.
After all, if we dug up Emmet Till and reburied him in a closed casket, it's not as if the Civil Rights movement would undo itself.
I'm interested in how the invention of the pill may have affected sexual mores and values, but it's really not relevant to the current discussion.
The current question is "Does denying the pill to minors prevent them from having sex to some degree?" and if it does, "Does whatever benefit received in that area offset any setbacks related to not making the pill available?"
These are kids we are talking about. Some of them need the pill for non-pregnancy medical reasons, others need it without parental involvement due to incest/rape, and another percentage are probably going to have sex either way and need to be instructed not only on the pill, but on other birth control options.
Do these reasons offset reasons to not make the pill available? That's debateable. However, according to Narc's research, the answer is that there are few if any concrete offsetting reasons.
Other questions like, "Do I think that 14 year olds should be having promiscuous sex?" are irrelevant. Obviously as someone who believes in abstinence, that question is easy to answer. However, I want what's best for kids, even if they don't happen to adhere to my values. It's troubling that others are eager to punish and hurt kids because they don't follow their values. (Looking at the other thread, this is a common theme).
After all, I'm strongly anti-drug for myself, but that doesn't mean I don't think there should be drug education programs. My kids know of drugs already--they are everywhere--but they need to know ABOUT drugs so they can make more responsible decisions. Sex is similiar. Whether we like it or not, sex is all around these kids. They need every bit of knowledge they can get.
No, I'm not really interested in hearing the leanings of someone who clearly has an agenda here and wants to push said agenda onto others.
Here's why: Let's say you choose not to abstain, but 20 percent of the people around you do. Unless you desperately want to have sex with one of them, how does this hurt you in any way, shape or form?
How does the presentation of responsibility as an option hurt you? No one is making sex illegal; you can have 4-5 partners a night if you want.
I'm just puzzled as to why the "sex at will" crowd is so offended by the responsibility approach. I tend to believe their own non-performance and/or their partner(s)' non-performance is clouding their judgment. Otherwise, why would what OTHER PEOPLE choose to do/propose harm your tender psyche so much?
Responsibility -- it should beat ignorance every time. The responsible group has a clear philosophy. The ignorant group is out only to tear down a philsophy. What you accuse me of is precisely what you are doing with your ignorant posts that somehow boost your esteem in your tiny, ignorance-packed fantasy world.
Also, xian -- you need to get a clue. How is helping kids make decisions -- with all the facts, not just the convenient ones from your tiny "sex at will" world -- "hurting" them? The only thing that's hurting them is woodenheads like yourself who are giving them slanted, one-sided information.
Responsibility -- it's the right way. Ignorance -- the "sex at will" crowd thrives on it. Call them on it. It's your decision, not theirs.
It's troubling that others are eager to punish and hurt kids because they don't follow their values. (Looking at the other thread, this is a common theme).
I don't think this at all. I am not sure if denying the pill to middle schoolers without parental permission is punishing and hurting them. If you think it is then I guess we disagree on what punishment and hurt mean. And this is not about values for me, it is about informed consent (almost legally impossible for an 11 year old) and parental consent (mandatory for almost every other medical procedure or perscription for a minor).
I think it is troubling that schools are unable to distribute aspirin to students without parental consent, but under this proposal would be able to distribute oral contraceptives without parental consent. Doesn't that at least seem a bit weird?
After all, if we dug up Emmet Till and reburied him in a closed casket, it's not as if the Civil Rights movement would undo itself.
I usually respect your analogies but you are wrong on this one. The pill was never dead and buried. It is still with us. A better analogy would be Dr. King and what has happened to the Civil Rights movement since he was slain. Take King out of the equation and you have a very different movement, no?
The current question is "Does denying the pill to minors prevent them from having sex to some degree?" and if it does, "Does whatever benefit received in that area offset any setbacks related to not making the pill available?"
This is indeed the question and it would appear that without historical context it is almost impossible to answer. Answer it scientifically would require a massive study and I doubt that study has been undertaken. In absence of that study I would suggest that we should look at the pill's historic legacy. Has the availability of oral contraceptives led to more or less pre-marital sex overall? If you answer "no, it hasn't" then I would humbly suggest you don't know the history of the sexual revolution. If you answer "yes, it has" (as most historians would agree) then I would suggest that in absence of a comprehensive studying showing the pill's effect on middle schoolers we can deduce that it will have the same effect on that population.
Honestly, I think that is the best we can do at this point. You might disagree and, again, I really do respect where you are coming from. I just disagree. On the bottom line I don't think we should take this step because there is a small subsection of our society that needs the pill to prevent pregnancy from incest or rape. Instead of getting the pill to prevent pregnancy from incest I would suggest that girl needs a DCFS caseworker and the police. Instead of getting the pill to prevent pregnancy from rape I would suggest that girl needs to call the police and (unfortunately) locate abortion services. But that is just my opinion.
anon said, "you can have 4-5 partners a night if you want."
Well! Sign me up! Where does the line form?!
Boon, that's exactly the question I went looking to answer. And the answer, for contemporary teens, is that it doesn't. They may be having more sex than their historical counterparts, but that's a different issue. We don't live in the 1920s or the 1850s. Our society is very different. (Not to mention, I suspect premarital sex was a lot more common in the past than people give credit for. Teenage pregnancy was a lot more accepted than now, and a woman wasn't expected to be married with kids by 23.) My question was, if you have a teenage girl with access to the pill, and one without access to the pill, is their behavior likely to be different? And I can pretty confidenty say that the answer according to the scientific research is that it's not.
The reason I didn't come across your studies is that I was looking for information on one very specific question, whether access to contraception and information increases teenage sexual activity in today's teenagers. I'm not saying the points you raise aren't important or that the pill doesn't have side effects. I just didn't have time to reasearch every aspect of the pill. Realize that some of the papers I looked up had over 50 references. I couldn't even look all those up without spending days researching this. One of the more influential works on the subject (Kirby) is 200 pages long; all I could get online was the 35 page summary.
Those are exactly the studies I was looking at. I'll try to post graphs tonight. The long and short of it is that access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality educations both (a) delays the onset of sexual activity and (b) when teenagers do become sexually active, they are more likely to behave in a responsible manner about it.
"The long and short of it is that access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality educations both (a) delays the onset of sexual activity and (b) when teenagers do become sexually active, they are more likely to behave in a responsible manner about it."
Another erroneous assumption on your part, mainly the belief that teens are behaving in a responsible manner at all in situation (b).
And Fen -- the line forms at xian's house. Xian will hand out rubbers and pills to participants. Please take only what you need. There's a form to fill out -- you check a box saying how many partners you want.
Then xian tallies the results and orders supplies accordingly.
A person above the age of consent, participating in a lawful and consensual act, that behaves in a way to minimize potential unwelcome and unhealthy consequences of his actions, either to himself or his partner is behaving responsibly.
Resonsibility and recklessness is not an either/or issue. The fact remains that most Americans are not virgins when they graduate high school, and virtually none are on their wedding night. Understanding and dealing with the emotional and physical consequenses of your actions is the very definition of responsible behavior, in my book.
Those are exactly the studies I was looking at. I'll try to post graphs tonight. The long and short of it is that access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality educations both (a) delays the onset of sexual activity and (b) when teenagers do become sexually active, they are more likely to behave in a responsible manner about it.
I am looking forward to the graphs and I am completely able to have my mind changed on this issue. However, the studies you have posted so far do not do two important things (as far as I can tell). First, they do not single out oral contraceptives. In short they are not focused on the use of oral contraceptives alone. Most are focused on the use of condoms which is a completely different issue in my mind. A boy who uses a condom is not placing his medical health at substantial risk. Secondly, your studies do not single out middle schoolers. At best they seem to be singling out 14 and 15 year olds who technically should be in high school.
Condoms have been around for a really long time. Oral contraceptives are a relatively new phenomenon. Since the introduction of oral contraceptives instances of pre-marital sex have risen quite dramatically. These two developments might not be related, but I kind of doubt they aren't.
But again, you could change my mind. This whole thing is kind of a side issue for me as I make my stand on parental consent. I don't care about confidentiality. I really don't. My 14 year old daughter could not walk into a Walgreens and pick up a prescription for herself. It is illegal for her to do that. Why in the world should she be able to make the decision that she is ready for oral contraceptives? It doesn't make sense.
And I really do sympathize with the subsection of our society that is becoming pregnant before they are ready. I also fully undersand the lack of abortion services that are available to many of our rural poor. While I find abortion personally abhorent, I also understand the difference abortion services make in the overall ability of a young girl to raise herself out of poverty.
But all that aside, I don't think our society should take the step to make oral contraceptives available to middle schoolers without parental consent. If you tell me tomorrow that the state will pay for the pill and the nurses will dispense it as long as they have parental consent I will stop arguing immediately. Again, that is where I draw my line.
Kudos on your research. It really is quite impressive.
Kevin jokes: "Soooo, apparently immaculate conception wasn't such a big deal after all. :-)"
Hehe.
Actually the stat should be "one quarter of teenage couples relying on abstinence..." or the like. In order to compare apples to apples, the stats have to be computed the same way for the abstinence method as they are for other forms of birth control such as condoms and the Pill.
This means that just as forgetting to take the Pill one day, failure to use a condom, condoms breaking, and the miniscule chances of the Pill hormones not working are counted as failures of those methods, the lapses of willpower where the couple thinks "well, just this once, we should be okay" or get drunk, etc, and have sex, are counted as failures of the abstinence method. To count otherwise makes the comparisons invalid.
And as it turns out, even kids who think in their lucid moments that they should not have sex and pledge not to until marriage and all of that, occasionally fall to social pressure, can't say no, clouded judgement, hormones, etc. When they do, they've not got condoms on them. Plus of course, lots of people who say they are abstinent really aren't when it's The One, it'll be okay, I'm not a slut he's something special, we'll play the odds, anyway.
Willpower is great. Willpower plus a reflex action to at least ask for a condom in the heat of the moment is better.
"A person above the age of consent, participating in a lawful and consensual act, that behaves in a way to minimize potential unwelcome and unhealthy consequences of his actions, either to himself or his partner is behaving responsibly."
So you're in it to help the 16-18-year-olds stuck in middle school? Because that's where this started -- middle school. Hate to wreck your "argument."
"Resonsibility and recklessness is not an either/or issue. The fact remains that most Americans are not virgins when they graduate high school, and virtually none are on their wedding night."
Irrelevant to your point. This started with the distribution of condoms in middle school. You choose to fast-forward several years. As usual, you and your "sex at will" crowd pick out the "facts" that might trick people into thinking you know what you're talking about. Again -- condoms in middle school was the issue. Try to stick to that issue. NOT wedding nights. NOT high school proms. NOT high school graduations. Condoms in middle school. Write it down and refer to it as necessary.
"Understanding and dealing with the emotional and physical consequenses of your actions is the very definition of responsible behavior, in my book."
So when does the "sex at will" crowd plan to start embracing that philosophy?
Anyway, let us know when you have any facts relating to the distribution of condoms in middle school. I'd love to hear them, as would many others.
Again, responsibility -- it's always superior to ignorance and half-baked "facts." Always. Choose properly.
No, actually it didn't. This started with the availability of oral contraception in middle schol for teens that were already sexually active. Only for teens that were already sexually active. The number of students we're talking about is exactly five, out of a school of five hundred. I'm very definetly of the opinion that a sexually active teen using contraception is preferable to a sexually active teen that isn't. It has nothing to do with age. Personally, I think condoms would be a better choice, all else being equal, but that's an entirely different discussion.
As I said in my blog post, I'd like to see teens postponing sexual activity until they were emotionally and physically prepared for it.
Earlier you said they should be of the age of consent. Now you say age doesn't matter.
Your quest to push responsibility out of the equation -- even when it doesn't involve you, which still puzzles me greatly -- seems to have you confused.
Becuase sex under the age of consent is by definition abuse. That's a whole different animal. Though I haven't looked up the statute, I believe that in Maine, the age of consent is 16, but it's not illegal to have sex if you're 14 or older and your partner is less than 5 (?) years older than you.
No, I don't think 14 year olds should be going wild having sex. But if they're sexually active, I'd rather they be sexually active with the pill or a condom than sexually active without.
Would anyone like to have a discussion of the science, or shall we just turn the thread over to Mr. Anon so he can call me the Captain of Teenage Whoredom some more?
No one should be having sex at 14. Maybe we should start by driving that point home.
Narc,
Just wanted to express my appreciation for the way you've presented this, all the way around. At a guess here, I'd say that nobody here wants kids having sex before they are ready. Adults make stupid decisions when it comes to sex and love all the time. Are we really so naive that we think our kids are somehow above all of that?
Gosh I hope not.
Kem
"Just wanted to express my appreciation for the way you've presented this, all the way around."
Cosign.
And the anti-responsibility coalition strikes the gavel.
1) Such a statement that access to contraception and/or comprehensive sex ed does not increase sexual activity goes against everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, we know about economics. Simply throw out capitalism, it doesn't work. When you take away or reduce risk, people indulge more. We see that in every area of human experience that has been studied economically has shown that when you reduce risk, people take less precaution. Car insurance, for instance, has been shown to lower the amount of precaution people put into driving and they're less likely to drive defensively.
2) It goes against almost everything we know about human nature. When people are presented with the opportunity for all the "benefits" of an action without the "consequences" they'll over-indulge. Always do, especially in areas like sex. To put it bluntly, when people can "have their cake and eat it too" they end up giving one big collective f*** you to Atkins.
3) An interesting aside, is that the same method that studies abstinence ed to show "it doesn't work" was used to study comprehensive sex ed... the results showed that comprehensive sex ed also failed to achieve any behavior modification, including delaying the onset of sexual activity, the use of so-called "protection" and so on.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Oh, well, if you can make a rhetorical argument against it, we'll just throw out all the data. You know, maybe economic theory isn't applicable to human sexual behavior.
Regardless of what you find intuitively obvious, we don't do science by analogy and thought experiment. At some point you actually have to go out into the field and gather data. Sometimes the answers aren't what you expect, the amazing predictive power of economics notwithstanding. A review of that data is exactly what I was trying to do here.
Well, yes, when you reduce risk, people need to take less precaution. That's because you've reduced risk. I am very skeptical of your car insurance claim and would like to see the study. I don't know about you, but when I'm driving around, whether or not I'm insured has little to do with rear ending people at red lights.
justkem and IP: Thank you.
I would be skeptical of any of Bambenek's claims.
For some reason John, pill use remains steady at 10%, condom use is rising, while rates of teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy continue to fall. So much for your intuitiveness. Me, I blame education. Teach kids how to take care of themselves and lo and behold, they do it.
Your auto insurance argument is bunk as well. Industry working papers (Cohen and Einav) consistently show that the most consistent predictor of accident risk is odometer miles, period. You would think that poorer folks or the uninsured would be more risk averse. Not so. That same group tends to drive more and therefore experience more accidents.
Oh. John is wrong again. What a surprise.
PB-
If you define the window small enough, sure, you might be right, but you do so at the expense of having no control group. Any serious study should have a time window large enough, i.e. "more than a few years" to really get at anything. You also know nothing of which you talk about and expose yourself again as not a serious component of the debate and are little more than a bomb-thrower out to stroke your own ego.
Where did I get my information, taking law and economics classes here, you know, the direct intellectual content of which I'm talking about. What's your credentials? Oh yeah, some guy who sits in a bar with a pissy look on his face.
Again, I didn't say only predictor or even biggest predictor, you're moving the bar, changing the defintion and then clubbing me with a new scenario. Do try again. I said, "Car insurance, for instance, has been shown to lower the amount of precaution people put into driving and they're less likely to drive defensively." All you've managed to POSSIBLY show with a half reference, is that other factors play too. Guess what, that doesn't even address my claims nor refute them. Just because car insurance reduces precaution does not mean others things don't as well. You'd know that if you actually employed logic from time to time.
Lastly, using the odometer argument shows that your really trying to shove another effect into the scenario. Sure, the more you do something, the more likely you'll get a bad result. That says nothing, absolutely nothing, about what elements go into people who are more or less cautious in their driving. It doesn't even speak to that issue, unless you are trying to use those studies (and you'd be misusing them if you are) to state that those who drive more are more reckless.
You also show that you don't know how to use statistics... I mean, not at all. You throw out pill usage and condom usage and then somehow mystically claim that sexual actitivity is decreasing because of it. No studies, just rhetoric.
Narc-
I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. It's well-established economic theory that is clearly reproduced in many many cases that shows when you reduce risk, people increase their indulgence. If you can't address that question, or the paper you cite can't, then you're working with academic frauds. Sorry. You need to explain why and how this narrow case goes so directly against what is commonly-accepted economic theory. If you came to the table with a paper that had findings that say, contracted the theory of gravity, you darn well better have a good explanation. You'll get that rhetorical objection first off, and if you have no answers, you get ignored. That's how it works in academia.
On to the studies you like, I'm throwing out Guttmacher and Family Planning Perspectives (which is basically Guttmacher anyway) right off. Their peer-reviewed like saying National Review is peer-reviewed. They are publications and organizations with clear axes to grind. Hell, Guttmacher is basicalled Planned Parenthood, you'll pardon me if I don't take the claims of people with a vested financial interest in having a certain outcome of their work. (If you don't like this, I can immediately point back to where you pulled this same stunt on me... if you want to throw out my "ideologically-based sources"... well you get the same treatment). Source spiked.
Your Abma reference makes a very good point, 9% of females first sexual encounter is voluntary... my reaction is the same as yours, "Holy Crap". People I know work in mental and public health, surely you must realize the danger in this situations when, for instance, men who rape girls then pressure them to get an abortion. It happens, something to think about. The fact that so few girls choose to start having sex when they do ought to make us pause before we simply start talking about comprehensive sex ed to deal with teenage pregnancy. Perhaps the problem isn't consensual activity at all, at least not mostly. But since this paper doesn't touch on your point... source spiked.
You site the American Academy of Pediatrics writing Contraception and Adolescents, but that article makes no attempt to portray itself as research into contraception and adolescents, per se, but focuses on policy considerations based on other work. You don't cite how you use this work at your blog, but I don't see it reasonably connected to what you are trying to prove. The Academy isn't attempted to research contraception's effect on sexual activity, it's focused on the role of the pediatric physician in regards to young sexuality. Source spiked.
Kirby and Teen Pregnancy.org in specific is a lobbying group, not a think tank. Not to mention, the Kirby report isn't research... it's an amalgam and selection of a handful of research papers in the 80s. If you want to prove something, go to the original sources, not a characterization of them. I'll quote from the paper:
To the contrary, some sex and HIV education programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, or reduce the number of sexual partners. In fact, since the publication of No Easy Answers, two independent studies have found that one particular curriculum, Reducing the Risk, delayed the onset of intercourse. (Reducing the Risk also increased the use of condoms or contraceptives among some groups of youth).
This paper doesn't tell me what research it is using to base its claims on, and there are no citations in the paper, nor are there references. I can't evaluate it's claims if I don't know where its getting them from. Use original sources. Source spiked.
This leaves you with no sources that I can evalute this supposed "hard scientific data". In fact, you've given no data. You've used ideologically based journals, which on your own standard, aren't valid, and the others either aren't research, or aren't original sources of research. We don't do science by partisanship and characterization. Come up with actual citations and we'll talk.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
What a surprise -- the pro-ignorance, anti-responsibility argument gets shredded yet again.
Well, now that we've exposed that yet again, I want to re-ask a question. Why is the "sex at will" crowd so offended by a responsible approach? No one is outlawing sex. Why does the mere mention of responsibility drive the "saw"s into a lather?
I still think there must be some factor here the "saw"s are loathe to mention. The two that come to mind immediately are sexual non-performance and STD transmission.
Be smart -- choose responsibility. Don't choose ignorance.
Bad Anonymous:
It's funny that you've somehow manage to turn a pro-abstinence argument into a pro-sex argument. Whether you like it or not, I risk my life daily to successfully help teenagers in many ways and one big one is to help them reduce their destructive sexual activity.
The only concrete way you have reduced sexual activity is by wielding your repulsive personality.
You can call me a slut all you want, but let's face it, anyone reading this website can see that there are a bunch of people with principles discussing their differences in this thread--people with some thread of human decency--and then there's you.
I don't know if you are simply a replusive nasty person in general, or you have some type of special guilt and inadequacy in the
sexual arena, but all I know is that I couldn't have chosen a better, more responsible sexual path in my own life that my reality, and if you are going to try to win petty squabbles by attacking it when you know nothing about it, it means you are stupid, crazy, hateful or all of the above.
I'm sorry if it seems harsh, but since Gordy is strongly in the "hands-off" moderation style (which I respect), somebody needs to point out that no normal person communicates the way you do unless that have some terrible emotional/psychological problems.
I'm not upset, that's just a fact, and worse than being angry at you, I simply pity you.
What I absolutely *love* about this blog is that I think I finally found something with which I can agree with Bambenek. Not an easy thing by stretch of the imagination. But I also find this to be true:
Teach kids how to take care of themselves and lo and behold, they do it.
Yeah, that is about right. But I am not sure anyone is arguing against sex education in the schools, are they? Please don't tell me it was Bambenek. Oh, man.
I have to say that I geeked out pretty heartily on some of Narc's studies and I drew the conclusion that the data is inconclusive. We know that teen sex is going down but I don't think we can say why (of note: when pre-marital sex was going up we have been told it was *not* because of the pill, but when it goes down suddenly it *is* because of the pill). Progressive sex education wouldn't have much to do with that since it is not abstinence education. We also know that a very large percentage of kids having first-time sex are using contraception, usually condoms, but also oral contraceptives. Which could lead one to any number of conclusions.
And then there's the whole part about the bias of the studies and the fact that kids who *are* having sex might not be telling, and kids who are *not* having sex might be making up stories. Ugh.
So I would suggest we just don't know. But let me try one last attempt at the common sense, antecdotal evidence thing. If a girl is having sex when she is 12 and she is afraid of becoming pregnant, is it more or less likely that she will continue having sex if she is on the pill? I would humbly suggest (without any studies in hand I am afraid) that she is probably more likely to continue with the sexual activity. So, again, what is the role of the school at that point? Is the school an enabler? It certainly seems that way to me.
But what do I know? Maybe we could run a study to find out. :)
I wasn't arguing against sex ed in schools there, per se. I was picking at Narc's studies and his misuse of them. My general position on sex ed is that it should be entirely up to the parents to decide which values their children should be presented with. If they want comprehensive sex ed, fine. If they want abstinence, fine. If they don't want the schools to touch on the issue fine. In a values pluralistic society we should respect those who hold differing values but not having the federal government come in and ram some arbitrary set of values into our children's pants. And even comprehensive sex ed is an education of values.
There are important reasons why abstinence sex ed "fails"... most of which stem from the fact that teen pregnancy, STDs etc are NOT a factor of educational problem, really. One of Narc's studies showed this when he pointed out only 9% of girls consent to initiate sexual activity. How will education help that? You could point to the rape education imposed on undergraduates at UIUC, for instance, but I think the claims that such parades of what usually end up as man-hate really accomplish much. I don't think you win over a rapist by making them sit through a 2 hour discussion of scenarios about rape. Such people have a moral deformity, not an intellectual one.
I'm unconvinced that comprehensive sex ed in the schools is all that necessary to society... I'll tolerate it because people have different values and parents are entitled by right to raise their children how they see fit (with a very small level of boundaries, such as child abuse), but it's not like parents can't teach their kids about rubbers too. It's not rocket science.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Oh John John John
Google is your friend. The sex study I cited is Kaiser. Look it up. While you're at it, post some proof of your own. And, while economic theory is often used to examine these issues, it has been generally disregarded (especially as applied to youth) since it is not an accurate predictor of future behaviors. If anything, it only shows that kids are generally unable to make sound decisions based on likely future outcomes.
And if you'd looked up the motor vehicle study you would have learned a few things. Before mandatory insurance only accident fatalities were recorded. So, long term, you can't really reach a conclusion on whether drivers were safer then or not. But now, that information is recorded. And it shows no significant difference in the accident rate between insured and uninsured drivers. Men have a set rate of accidents (about 65%-70%), women have a set rate of accidents, older cars have a set rate, newer cars have a set rate. The only accurate predictor is miles driven. While you may think that someone whose car is uninsured may have more at stake, you'd be wrong. In fact, if you wanted to venture that the accident rate went up after mandatory insurance laws were passed, you couldn't even prove that since no one has those statistics from before the laws were passed. Although the fatality rate has consistently fallen. hmmm. Either way, yet again, you're wrong. Oh sources - NHTSA, BTS, NOW, blah blah blah.
And keep it up with the personal insults. Because eventually, they'll only help your credibility, really.
Keep it clean, fellas.
I'm sorry, it was foolish of me to rely on the expertise of dozens of experts in the field with their peer-reviewed research. Perhaps I was blinded by the face that many have multiple advanced degrees in the field and their studies on human and adolescent behavior can take years to complete. All I truly needed was a glib soundbite regarding economic theory.
A man more suspicious and cynical than myself might suspect that Mr. Bambenek's clever disregarding of all my sources was due more to the fact that I did the same to him a few months ago than his long years of study and expertise in the field of family planning.
I humbly retract everything I've ever written.
Xian:
Turning the same inadequacy question back onto me will have no effect because I'm not the one taking the curious approach of claiming responsiblity is bad.
You and the "saw"ers still haven't answered the question I posed: If you can still do what you want, why is the responsiblity approach so odious to you? Could it be because these "saw" studies are always exposed as ignorant, self-justifying attempts to rationalize? Not one of these has ever made it through the sniff test.
Responsibility: It's always a better choice than half-baked, "I refuse to accept the consequences" ignorance.
The only SAW I have any knowledge was the first horror film of that name. I didn't watch the other three films, nor have I ever preached "Sex at Will".
When you put down whatever it is that causes you to hear phantom arguments and viciously attack people in crazy fashion, please talk to me about this issue, but until then, go to an empty screening of any film and just shout at the screen. It will accomplish as much and you will look like less of a jackass.
As I said, we both have the same goal. The difference is that you have done nothing to prevent any destructive sexual behavior, and "Let them do what they want and suffer the consequences" is not a plan, it's just mean-spirited idiocy which, while your trademark, does not help cure any of these societal ills.
Narc-
Translation: How dare you attack the message! These elite messengers are experts in their field! You should mind your place and stop this critical thinking mumbojumbo!
With you guys its never about the message, it's always about the messenger. In this country, we don't have an aristocracy so you're going to have to do better than list big names to impress people. Defend your ideas, not your list of allies. You have failed to do so, and that is no fault of mine.
I made very clear reasons why I disregarded your sources and with the exception of the sources with clear ties to Planned Parenthood, which again, have a vested financial interest, had very clear reasons. Most of which had to do with the fact that you didn't cite original research and I could even engage those studies to see what their methodologies were, their control groups, their questions, to effectively answer the claims made. But you're free to cry. If you want to claim "look at this impeccable data!", I might suggest you cite research that actually produced said data.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Except I didn't cite either Planned Parenthood or the Guttmacher Institute, both of which are non-profits. I cited someone named Guttmacher, but as far as I can tell, that's a coincidence. Silly experts. What do they know?
Don't let him bother you Narc. How long is the list of references he gave? Oh yeah, 0.
As usual, JB is bloviating with no foundation.
narc-
Let me try again, and this time, I'll go slower. Family Planning Perspectives is owned and operated by Guttmacher. Hell, it was started by Margaret Sanger if my memory serves. Here is how you cited that source at your blog which you linked:
Zabin, L. S., M. B. Hirsch, E. A. Smith, R. Streett, and J. B. Hardy. "Evaluation of a Pregnancy Prevention Program for Urban Teenagers." Family Planning Perspectives 18. 119 (1986).
When I searched for the other Guttmacher citation you used right now, saying yourself you used google scholar I came up with no hits. So you got me there, it was Guttmacher Institute, I read to fast, but nothing in Google scholar has that article and for that matter, no article has any citations referencing that paper.
But sure, again, "Silly experts. What do they know?". You insist that I shut up because you cite names. You provide no empirical studies whatsoever but say "you've got scientific data". Then you criticize me for pointing out that not only have you provided no data, you've failed to back up your claims. Your response? Shut up and listen to the "experts" who also did not empirically back up their claims. And you call that scientific? You'd be thrown out of grad school for pulling a stunt like that.
Of course, Prairie Biker is here to defend you, who's only contribution is his standard "I hate bambi" missives. I've made no claims, I don't need to cite sources... I'm simply trashing your supposed "scholarly" attempt to prove your claim. You've completely failed.
By all means, keeping crying about it... I'm sure PB will let you cry on his shoulder.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I've made no claims, I don't need to cite sources... I'm simply trashing your supposed "scholarly" attempt to prove your claim. You've completely failed.
It's so cute to see little Bambi actually try to provide a counter-argument. All you have done is proven that you disagree with the previously cited sources and the only failure I've seen is your inability to provide any kind of source that disproves what has been said. I'm glad to see you've returned to form by saying "Because I can't find this article in Google with this very specific string, the whole thing is a joke." Classic Bambenek, really.
Now to make this circle complete, isn't it about time for you to take your toys and go home?
Yeah, the world is so much better when the teens are out there having sex at will.
And the anti-responsibility crowd strikes the gavel again.
Mr. Bambenek, whether you like it or not, Family Planning Perspectives is a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal. It's science, real science. And it's the scientific community and actual social scientists -- not you -- that get to make that decision. Just as if you didn't like the political stance of the American Physical Society, say their policy paper on the storage of nuclear waste or their funding of science projects in the Arab world, you don't get to decide that Physical Review Letters isn't a prestigious journal.
Here is a link to the S. Guttmacher paper in Google Scholar. Here is a link to the 51 papers that cite it. "Availability" was misspelled on my site. I have fixed the error.
Wow, dumbest poster ever.
Don't worry, John. You can appeal this too.
Again, there were only two sources I bounced because of the writer, a tactic narc has used in the past. There were reasons, which continue to go completely ignored, for which I disregarded the rest. The main being that NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER provided empirical data... none were actual research into the question, they were summaries of other research which was not cited and could not be accessed.
But, like must unthinking people, if the source agrees with your pre-conceived dogma, it must be true and cannot be criticized. Engage my points, then come on back.
PB-
I don't need to appeal, I was right... both times.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
John,
I searched for Narc's articles and found all of them. They also included their references to their source data. I don't know what your problem is. You're either lying or too inept to properly use a search engine.
If you want to refute this, you're simply going to have to do better.
Oh, and just for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=XqM&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=condom+availability+in+new+york+city+public+high+schools&spell=1
The top five hits are to Narc's article.
And S. Guttmacher is SALLY Guttmacher, not the ALAN Guttmacher Institute. You're really going to have to do better.
I wouldn't trust that prairiebiker actually tracked anything down. He's lied about that stuff before.
The line about pre-conceived dogma is a precise description of the "saw" angle here. They come up with their angle, then they fish around for anything to lump together in a desperate attempt to prove their angle.
This "data" always has been proved faulty. Always.
Anon, your statement is tantamount to admitting that, just like Bambenek, you didn't actually look for the resources. Why not add something constructive?
I don't need to appeal, I was right... both times.
Clearly, because it agrees with your pre-conceived dogma it must be true! If you take that out, how were you right again? Why don't you gather your thoughts, actually do some research, and try again?
I wrote something like this on Saturday, but that comment must have been either eaten by a grue or trapped in a spam filter somewhere.
Regardless of what you think of PP or the Guttmacher institute, Family Planning Perspectives is a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journal. In other words, it's real science. You don't get to declare it invalid because you disagree with an affiliated organization's politics any more than you get to declare the prestigeous Physical Review Letters is invalid because you disagree with the American Physical Society's stance on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or their stance against intelligent design and creationism. It's the scientific community -- not you -- that gets to decide what's a valid journal and what's not.
Once, in the past, I said your claims of scientific support for your positions weren't valid. One, because you used a vanity-published, non-peer-reviewed study from a right-wing think tank. The other two studies you cited, which I don't really have any problem with, specifically disagreed in their text with the conclusion you drew from them. Research and science isn't about coming to a (probably religiously driven) conclusion and looking for only those facts that support it. Research is about looking for the truth in a matter regardless of whether or not it's the answer you want.
It's obvious to me that you came to this thread with a chip on your shoulder, determined to disagree with what I found and discredit my sources, since it wasn't the anti-contraception answer you wanted and because of our past interactions.
The fact remains, though, that your entire argument was shown to be on shaky ground. The approval of a journal does not mean it wasn't written with an agenda in mind.
The "pro teenage pregnancy" agenda of a major family planning journal? Seriously, that's just nuts.
There you go again. You link some crazy idea to an opponent, then say: "See? That's why it's wrong."
You STILL haven't said why the responsibility idea bothers you so much.
Bad Anonymous:
No, what Narc does is address what the other person is saying, gives his own position and uses research to support why he has that position.
What you do is name-calling and respond to unrelated ideas that no one has even mentioned. No one is against responsibility in teenage decision. We are against the assumption that your policy, which has been shown not to encourage responsibility in anyway but talks about it a lot, should be utilized with teenagers when it makes the issues we are all concerned about much worse. We all would like kids to make good decisions, but you insist on vilifying and spitting vitriole at anyone who doesn't agree with your ridiculous plan. It's basically like saying, "Anyone can fly through the air, they need only jump and concentrate a lot!" "You disagree?! What? Why are you against human flight?!!??!" It's asinine, illogical and stupid stupid stupid.
But maybe that's because you are on drugs all the time like you stated clearly in a post a ways up where you stated clearly that you like to shoot heroine while having sex with baby calves--see it adds nothing to the discussion to just make stuff up...
You seem to be consistently claiming that sexually active teenagers without contraception are more responsible than sexually active teenagers with contraception. I just can't fathom how that's the "more responsible" choice.
We're not talking about sexually active vs. non-sexually active teens here. This whole thread was born out of the Maine middle school that gave already sexually active teens access to contraception.
(Sorry, tried to get something like this through on Sunday, but kept getting "Service Unavailable" errors.)
I don't recall Narc addressing what the other person was saying at all... Bambi made an economic argument, Narc responded with mocking, then Bambi responded with specific criticisms and Narc mocked some more with the help of his friends... which culminated in someone saying "this is about getting laid, something which you know nothing about"... Xian, your side has done anything BUT respond and certainly isn't lilly-white as far as personal attacks go.
Bambenek did NOT make an economic argument. He quoted a financial model ("It's well-established economic theory that is clearly reproduced in many many cases that shows when you reduce risk, people increase their indulgence.") and then failed to show how it applied. He said it applied, but that's worthless without any evidence.
"You seem to be consistently claiming that sexually active teenagers without contraception are more responsible than sexually active teenagers with contraception."
You have a glaring inability to see the other viewpoint here: Responsible teens aren't having sex.
Until you can get past your deeply rooted hatred of the responsible approach, it's going to be hard to have a discussion about this issue.
We should give free condoms child molesters... I mean, if I had to pick between a public servant and a child having unprotected sex vs. a public servant and a child having protected sex, I would chose the latter. I am all in favor of responsibility, which is why I want to make it easier for child molesters to be more responsible when they "love" their children.
Sure it would be better if the child molesters weren't molesting children, but that's not the issue here... they are already doing it, so we might as well use government resources to help them be as responsible as they can while they have sex with the kids.
But seriously, this debate has lost its focus. The issue is whether an 11 year old child has the capacity to make a decision to go on the birth control pill, and additionally, if her parents should not be notified if she does. Now, common sense says that the 11 year old sexually active girl probably doesn't make very good decisions regarding her health, and legally, we don't allow her to make any other decisions, so why should we make an exception for this one particular area of birth control pills?
It will be interesting to see if fewer parents allow their children access to the "health clinic" in the schools now that they know what is going on there.
But you aren't interested in a responsible approach. Both sides says they are interested in teenage responsibility toward sex. One looks at data, and one shouts, "You want kids to have sex constantly!"
I conclude that you are too interested in winning the argument to actual care about reducing the problem you claim to be addressing.
Your idea of responsibility is simply to line up the kids and give them oral contraceptives. Yeah, I'm against that.
Now, common sense says that the 11 year old sexually active girl probably doesn't make very good decisions regarding her health, and legally, we don't allow her to make any other decisions, so why should we make an exception for this one particular area of birth control pills?
Common sense has nothing to do with it. Do you have several peer reviewed studies showing that 11 year olds don't make good decisions regarding their health?
Huh? Do you? If it can't be proven, then it is not true. This is the logic that has brought us to this place.
Please stop talking about 11 year olds. That's a straw man argument. No one is talking about giving birth control to 11 year olds. At some point teenagers between the ages of about 15 and 18 become moral actors, able to make informed decisions about their own bodies and behavior. I'm more interested in giving them the correct information and tools to protect themselves from decisions they will later regret. There's a big difference between "Damn, I cant believe I went all the way with Tommy when I was 16; he was such a jerk to me afterwards." and "Mommy, what's for dinner?" or "Hey, I can't find my protease inhibitors."
Again, you oversimplify the situation to the point of absurdity. Deliberately so, I expect, to give yourself a nice warm feeling or moral superiority. Good sexuality education includes education about contraception, yes, but also about giving kids the self-respect and emotional tools and awareness on how to reject the peer pressure and wait until they are ready.
To take your own tactic, your idea of reponsibility is to line up sexually active teenagers and shout "You slut! You harlot!" at them for hours on end. This may have worked very well for Mr. Bambenek in his Daily Illini column, but it's not likely to be effective in changing behavior in the real world.
"Please stop talking about 11 year olds. That's a straw man argument. No one is talking about giving birth control to 11 year olds. "
Oh, good. I thought those crazies in Maine were going to give 11 year old girls the birth control pill and not tell their parents.
"Please stop talking about 11 year olds. That's a straw man argument. No one is talking about giving birth control to 11 year olds."
Um, huh? Go back to the first post of the Open Thread.
I think you should surrender now. You keep trying a combination of circular logic and denial, and you keep getting proved wrong. You've been destroyed.
You lose. You really need to stop making an argument in which you have no facts and no objective, credible sources. All you're doing is clinging to: "Well, it should be this way."
It isn't. You're wrong. You've been proved wrong time and time again.
If you thought that, you were incorrect. All the teens in the Maine school were 14 or 15. There were no 11 year olds involved.
Run4cvrlib was incorrect. If you look at the NY Times article talking about the Maine school, you'll see that all the sexually active teens receiving contraception at this school clinic were 14 or 15, not 11.
I haven't been "proved" wrong at any time. I'm the only one citing data and trying to come to a fact-based conclusion. Everyone else is making rhetorical arguments or doing thought experiments.
(Argh, too many Anonymouses. I can't tell who's one Anon and who's another.)
"14 or 15" -- yes, that is so much better. That way, the mom will be 28 or 29 when the kid is ready to start having sex, just like mom was. Of course, half the kid's life will have passed while the mom was not an adult. What a future your plan would provide.
"14 or 15" -- yes, that is so much better. That way, the mom will be 28 or 29 when the kid is ready to start having sex, just like mom was. Of course, half the kid's life will have passed while the mom was not an adult. What a future your plan would provide.
whenever you are wrong, it's best to change the argument, and also throw in that the other guy is personally responsiible for all teen sex
From the Fox news article: