liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/27/83)
From: tim@unc.UUCP The biggest problem was birth control. It is difficult to get in a sex-negative environment. Thus you manufacture preganancies where there need be none. The forbidding of sex actually worsens the problems associated with sex, even though preventing those problems is presumably the reason for the forbidding. The bottom line is that it doesn't work; to ameliorate problems you should spread information and enlightened attitudes, not ignorance and fear. If educating teenagers about birth control simply helped the ones who were active sexually use birth control, you might be right, but there is a bit more to it than that. For example, these days some parents get their daughter onto birth control pills because they are afraid of her getting pregnant. This is a legitimate concern, but often the daughter reads it as the parents approving of her becoming sexually active or (at least) that they expect her to be sexually active. Then, she becomse sexually active sooner than she would have if she had understood that her parents really did not approve. The parents, of course, did not mean to encourage her... Notice also that the incidence of teenage pregnancies has greatly increased, not decreased in recent years as there has been more emphasis on sex education. -- -Liz Allen ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz (Usenet) liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)
wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/27/83)
Liz Allen has made the claim that as sex education has spread, teenage pregnancies have gone up, thus implying a correlation between the two. Well, incidents of cancer have increased dramatically in the last few years. Can we therefore infer that sex ed causes cancer? Of course not. I would like to see Ms. Allen's statistics. Even if this is the case, it seems to me that the increase in pregnancies might be attributable to any number of other factors (increasing poverty, rising cost of medical care-- at the moment the Pill costs ~$10/month, and is going up at about $.50 cents per month [in the Philadelphia area], improper use of birth control). The point is that one cannot simply say "There are more teenage pregnancies," and use that as an excuse to keep teens in ignorance. Beleive me (I've recently finished that stage in life), the adage about 'If they don`t learn it in the classroom they`ll learn it on the street' is true. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (07/27/83)
In attacking unc!tim's statement supporting sex education, Liz Allen (umcp-cs!liz) said: Notice also that the incidence of teenage pregnancies has greatly increased, not decreased in recent years as there has been more emphasis on sex education. I'm fairly certain she wouldn't be happy with the following paraphrase of her statement with all the logical force of the original: Notice also that there has been more emphasis on sex education in recent years as the incidence of teenage pregnancies has greatly increased. My point is that she is using one of the fallacies of logical argument. (Of course I've forgotten the technical term for it.) In order for the argument to hold water, she must show that causality holds in some desired direction, and that the two changes pointed to didn't merely take place over the same span of time. I personally don't believe that the two are unrelated, but I wouldn't want to try to prove that either of the two trends caused the other.
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/27/83)
I realize that there are a lot of factors involved in teenage pregnancy and the changing attitudes towards sex in our society have caused an increase in the number of teenage pregnancies. I'm just pointing out that education on birth control is not necessarily the best solution. Teenagers may well read this as societal approval or encouragement of sexual activity. If we really want to reduce teenage pregnancies, we better work on it from some other directions. Now, most of you are not going to accept the idea of discouraging teenagers from having sex, so what alternatives would you suggest? I would like to point out that between media emphasis on sex and peer presure in schools, kids are becoming sexually active earlier than even they feel comfortable with. At the Pregnancy Aid Center where I work, some kids are relieved to hear that a perfectly acceptable option is to refrain from being sexually active until they are ready. Adolescents are not the most mature people in the world and could use some guidelines. Anyone want to suggest some? What kind of guidelines can be presented in the school? -- -Liz Allen ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz (Usenet) liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)
wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/28/83)
One extremely important "guideline" that might be provided is for people like Liz Allen (who have worked in pregnancy/counseling situations) to go into the schools where sex ed is being taught, and speak to the teens. Many schools have trouble finding competent people to teach sex ed, and might be grateful for the benefit of experience. The problem is NOT (I believe) with the fact of the teaching, but rather with what is taught. My own sex ed was kind of odd, mostly due to where I grew up. I started out in a lower-middle class school system. The high school was literally across the street from an army base, and had ~35% transient students, and ~55% minority. In that high school they had been losing an average of four girls per grade per year (16 girls/year) in a school of about 1200 kids. In response, a program of early sex ed was started. And I mean early: in seventh grade we were told exactly what was what. No punches pulled; no joking. We saw a film of a live birth of a human baby, and we listened to one of the town cops (who did volunteer work in a clinic nearby) telling about what he had seen. The parents (by and large) gave the progam tacit support, and waited. By the time I reached the high school (three years after the program started), the pregnancy rate was down to one-fourth what it had been. Ever since then, I have been convinced that if you tell kids the truth early enough, it will help. Other opinions? --Alan Wexelblat (#32 - and I'm not even trying!) decvax!ittvax!wex
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (07/30/83)
#R:grkermit:-52400:ucbesvax:7500024:000:613 ucbesvax!turner Jul 29 00:07:00 1983 A similar sex-education program was in effect in the Berkeley public school system in my junior high and high-school days--sex education was *required*. It was called "social living", and included drug education as well--that conjunction of topics was my only real criticism. It had a decided effect on the student pregnancy rate. The mechanism was interesting: since there was no longer any reason NOT to know where those babies came from, and how, the pregnant student (and the boys who got those girls pregnant) were no longer the subjects of much sympathy. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (07/30/83)
there may well be a causal relationship between sex education and an
increased rate of teen-age pregnancies. when i got some (two hours, i think)
sex ed as part of grade 11 phys ed, the teacher explained the rhythm method
and drew on the board a diagram showing TWO "safe periods" per menstral
cycle, neither of which was safe!
the textbook was right, but i don't know how many of my classmates read it.
mARK bLOORE
univ of toronto
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!marktim@unc.UUCP (08/01/83)
There was an interesting article in the Charlotte Observer today,
reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly, about how there really has been
no rise in teenage pregnancies. Actually, teenage pregnancies have
been declining ever since their peak in the mid-1950's.
The reason for the rumors to the contrary is rooted in the units
you measure this in. Since births in general have declined faster
than births to teenagers, there is a rise in the proportion of births
to teens, while in fact the number of teenagers giving birth has
declined when measured relative to the increase in the teenage
population. That is, although one in every six births may be to
teenagers, the number of births per thousand teens has gone down.
It is of course rather convenient to various self-appointed "pro-
morality" groups to convince people that the country is going to hell
in a handcart -- thus they use the more emotionally charged, but less
meaningful, statistics.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill