There was an increase in teenage sexual activity for a couple of reasons. One is that kids go through puberty a lot earlier than they did even in the ’50s. In addition, in the ’50s and ’60s, people married about eight years earlier on average than they do today. Basically, people were going through puberty at about 15 and marrying five years later. Now, people are going through puberty at about 12 and marrying 18 years later. That’s a heck of a lot more years of temptation.

And, of course, it isn’t as if people didn’t think of it back in the good old days. Why do you think young women were constantly chaperoned? It wasn’t because people expected teens to exercise self-restraint simply because they were told to do so.

The increase in illegitimate births is more related, IMO, to the fact that we no longer have shotgun weddings when a woman finds herself pregnant. If you look at studies, there were a lot of brides who were quite evidently not virgins on their wedding days, but those children were not counted as illegitimate. As to STD’s, they are unfortunately just more prevelant these days, but it’s not the first time that they have spread widely. Syphilus killed a lot of people, too. Those seem to go in cycles.

I think it’s rather foolish to compare the society of the ’60s to the society of today in general. Seriously, it’s not as if sex education is the only thing that’s changed. The media takes an entirely different view of sexuality. I mean, you’re talking about an era in which married couples on TV slept in single beds. I don’t understand anyone who thinks the kids are better off learning about human sexuality from “The Real World.” And we’re talking teens, so let’s not go on about how they’ll never be allowed to watch that. Unless we lock them in their rooms until they’re 30, they will have some exposure to modern culture.

And, BTW, what does it mean “as usual” I couldn’t overcome the need to grind my ideological axe. If I posted on Oliver’s site in the past, it’s been years. I just happened across a couple of debates that interested me. So you don’t know what my “usual” behavior might be. For that matter, given how ideological you seem to be, perhaps you should reconsider throwing those sorts of stones.

We know kids are going to have sex eventually, so why shouldn’t they be prepared? Why do you people on the right think all kids want to do is have sex?

You’re saying the same thing!
I’m saying – for the third time, with no one addressing it:

How do you explain the increase in teenage sexual activity, and consequently, the increase in illegitimate births?

Until the 1960 s, advocacy of abstinence, with a minimum of sex education, was not producing these results.

I think you re looking at the wrong variable or variables.

I would find the argument more convincing if increases in pregnancies and STD s followed an end of (or a decrease in) sex education, but that s not what happened.

Is there anybody out there who can avoid blaming Bush and born – again Christians long enough to look at the facts?

I’m not sure why you think liberals somehow want sex education that encourages teens to run out and hump the first person they meet. To me it sounds more like your personal fantasy than something anyone on the left advocates.

Me, I’m a Christian and a stay-at-home mom of two small children who I think will be best served by an honest discusion of sex in an age-appropriate manner throughout their lives. That includes an open discussion of the physical and emotional consequences. It also of necessity includes a discussion of birth control, sexually transmitted diseases and the like. I don’t see a bit of a problem with the school curriculum backing up good, positive lessons learned at home, and I have every confidence that kids in middle school and high school can understand the concept of “It’s better if you don’t, but if you do, please be cautious and responsible.” In fact, by treating the children as mature, moral actors in their own lives you actually encourage them to *think*, which, IME, delays sexual activity.

I advocate for high-quality education about human sexuality because the chances are very high that my children will, at some point, have sexual intercourse, whether before or after a marriage. Why would I not wish for them to have good information about the effects sexual activity could have? The mind boggles at why you would want people to just muddle along in ignorance and expect better results. Of course, the administration expects that in most circumstances, so perhaps that’s the new hallmark of the Republican Party.

What I m a little unclear about is this: Is the problem that there is insufficient sex education?

Or is the problem that simply advocating abstinence is insufficient?

How do you explain the increase in teenage sexual activity, and consequently, the increase in illegitimate births?

Until the 1960 s, advocacy of abstinence, with a minimum of sex education, was not producing these results.

I think you re looking at the wrong variable or variables.

I would find the argument more convincing if increases in pregnancies and STD s followed an i>end of (or a decrease in) sex education, but that s not what happened.

Understand what I m getting at?

Right. Because they want to have sex. So they hastily enter marriages that are 3/5 more likely to end in divorce.

Catholics may have a lower divorce rate, but thats just because they dont believe in getting divorced. Theres a lot of catholics stuck in miserable marriages.

“We know the average onset of puberty is 11 or 12, and the average age for a first marriage is 27. This causes a real disconnect for young people. It also tells them that they need to get married so they can have sex.”

It can also be said that abstinence-only education causes a higher divorce rate. Help save marriage! End abstinence-only ‘education!’ I read somewhere the divorce rate among christian-heavy populations is %2 higher annually than the norm. (I think it was %3 vs %5) Thats a big difference. It could be explained by those people getting into too early marriage so they can have sex.

More couples enter their first marriage at a younger age.

Average household incomes are lower (OK and AR rate 46th and 47th in the U.S.)

They have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, a denomination that does not recognize divorce. Anthony Jordan, executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention in Oklahoma commented: “I applaud the Catholics,” says Jordan. “I don’t think we as Protestant evangelists have done nearly as well preparing people for marriage. And in the name of being loving and accepting, we have not placed the stigma on divorce that we should have.”

Some factor in conservative Protestantism — which is prevalent in the Bible Belt — may cause a higher level of divorce.

Or is the problem that simply advocating abstinence is insufficient?

How do you explain the increase in teenage sexual activity, and consequently, the increase in illegitimate births?

Until the 1960’s, advocacy of abstinence, with a minimum of sex education, was not producing these results.

I think you’re looking at the wrong variable or variables.

I would find the argument more convincing if increases in pregnancies and STD’s followed an end of (or a decrease in) sex education, but that’s not what happened.

Understand what I’m getting at?

(Oliver, I really, really miss the edit function.)

The primary reason condoms fail is because people don’t know how to use them properly. In other words, with proper instruction, condoms may be used successfully to prevent pregnancy and disease–hence the suggestion that sex education is an important part of preventing pregnancy and disease.

And another thing: how did algebra get dropped into a conversation about sex??! I can only imagine how conversations with some of your children went: “See son, sex is like binary code; the 1 goes into the 0…”

The reality is that teaching abstinence without sex education doesn’t work. As for the contention that sex education must have an element of disapproval of premarital sex in order to work, let me just say this: that’s the perfect way to breed lack of self-respect and provide an outlet for rebellion. And let me just add: it doesn’t work.

So, if our goal is to help reduce the possibility of pregnancy and disease, then sex education in addition to proper health care and attention to the well-being of young people has been shown to be a good recipe for success. But if the main point is to control behaviour to fit with a specific view-point, with disease and pregnancy as punishment if you don’t follow the rules, then by all means, go with abstinence education only. But if I may add: it doesn’t work.

requores PowerPoint http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/slides.htm

and a bonus:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0001.html

The facts just don’t agree with your algebraic equation. Remember the ‘virginity pledge’ study?

“when pledgers break their pledges they have a tendency to have unsafe sex. Researchers suggest that since the pledgers promised not to have sex, when they finally do, they haven’t done much planning and are unlikely to use contraception. ”

” recent study by the Urban Institute, also funded by the federal government, focused on the sexual practices of 15- to 19-year-old boys and found that two-thirds of the more than 3,000 boys interviewed had experience with oral sex, anal intercourse or masturbation by a female. The first two behaviors put the participants at risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, though few of the respondents were aware of that.”

Bottom line is, if you dont teach people how to have safe sex in highschool, then when are they going to learn? Keeping them ignorant makes some of them think anal and oral sex is ok, it increases thier risk of std, and increases thier risk of unwanted pregnancy.

I can’t tell whether this is a convenient straw man or you actually believe this, Frank. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being honest rather than disingenuous.

There are so many problems with your argument it’s hard to know where to begin. So, I’ll just pick a place.

First of all, good sex education programs all mention abstinence as the most effective and least costly method of birth/STD control. True, they also talk about condoms, but they also take care to get their facts straight. There are methods of birth control with low effectiveness rates; but there are methods with extremely high rates as well. You need to qualify your statements a little more to make sure you’re not lumping hops and garlic.

You have also made a big, stupid assumption – that kids getting sex education somehow causes them to have sex and result in your Y. No, and I mean *no* credible evidence exists to validate that assumption. It works better the other way – in any group of kids (people, for that matter), there will be a proportion X of them who are going to have sex outside of marriage. If out of those X people having sex, Y of them get pregnant and Z of them get an STD, then the probability of either consequence is (Y+Z)/X. Using your figures, if a method of birth control is only 70% effective at preventing pregnancy or STD, then the adjusted probability is 0.3*(Y+Z)/X, or better than using nothing at all.

Jay C touched on the real problem – parenting. The single biggest factor keeping kids from having sex too soon, smoking, using drugs, drinking, or engaging in other self-destructive behaviors is strong, loving parents who aren’t afraid to be authoritative and are sensible and secure enough not to be buttheads with that authority. Frank_D, in his histrionic way, makes this point when talking about his sons. If you really want to make a dent in the social problems that those silly abstinence programs are intended to solve, you’d spend a lot more time teaching people how to be strong parents and actually _raise_ their kids, not just let them occupy the same space.