I've preached to the youth in my church for a long time that condoms are not the answer: abstinence is the answer. I thought this story that appeared in the news today was interesting:

"Debate Hinges on Condoms' Effectiveness


TRENTON, N.J. - Everyone knows condoms prevent pregnancy and protect against sexually transmitted diseases. But how well do they work?



That question is at the center of a debate over whether the labels on condom packages should be changed.

On one side are abstinence advocates, including a conservative congressman who is blocking appointment of a new federal drug agency chief until the labels are changed. On the other side are "safe sex" advocates who fear label changes could undermine confidence in condoms and increase the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Each side has some truth in its argument: Condoms are very effective against the AIDS virus, but data for their effectiveness against some other STDs is surprisingly spotty.

"They do not provide 100 percent protection, but for people who are sexually active they are the best and the only method we have for preventing these diseases," said Heather Boonstra, a public policy official with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues.

Boonstra said Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a physician from Oklahoma, and the abstinence-promoting Medical Institute for Sexual Health are "manipulating this data to drive home their own anti-condom, anti-contraceptive message."

James Trussell, who serves on the board of the Guttmacher Institute and is director of Princeton University's Office of Population Research, said there is "absolutely incontrovertible evidence" that condoms reduce transmission of the most serious sexually transmitted disease, AIDS.

"To my mind, everything else is gravy," Trussell said this week. "All of this is ideologically motivated. What they're really concerned about is people who are not married having sex."

But John Hart, spokesman for Coburn, said the senator's June 15 hold on Lester Crawford's nomination as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration is an effort to make Crawford obey a 2000 law Coburn sponsored. It requires the FDA to change condom labels to give more information on their "effectiveness or lack of the effectiveness in preventing STDs."

Hart said FDA officials recently have said they will have a draft of the language soon. FDA spokeswoman Julie Zawisza said she could not discuss policy issues.

Dr. Marie Savard, a women's health specialist in Philadelphia, said she has qualms about using the word "ineffective" but agreed people need reliable information.

"The labeling should be changed to something like, 'condoms protect better against some STDs than others,'" Savard said.

Currently, FDA requires condom boxes and packets to state: "If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases." Many brands also state condoms are highly effective in preventing pregnancy.

When latex condoms are used every time and put on early enough, they reduce chances of pregnancy over a one-year period to 3 percent, compared with 85 percent without birth control. Likewise, condoms cut risk of HIV infection by about 80 percent, to less than a 1 percent chance of infection per year.

According to the National Institutes of Health, condoms are impervious to the smallest viruses and only break or slip off 1 percent to 2 percent of the time. But surveys show most people don't use them properly or consistently, and roughly 12 million Americans each year contract an STD.

A 2001 NIH expert panel, convened at Coburn's request, examined dozens of published studies. It reported that for STDs besides AIDS and gonorrhea, for which condoms cut transmission by 50 percent to 100 percent, the evidence on protection is unclear because of weak and contradictory studies. Individual studies cited in the report give prevention rates ranging from 18 percent to 92 percent, depending on the disease.

The Medical Institute for Sexual Health's board chairman, Dr. Tom Fitch, who has previously pushed FDA officials for label changes, said some STDs are much more easily spread than others. In addition, STDs such as herpes and human papilloma virus, or HPV, can be transmitted by contact with skin not covered by a condom.

Fitch said he would not discourage condom use, but his group advocates abstinence or monogamy and it trains teachers how to teach students about abstinence.

That's an "unrealistic explanation" for young people, said Dr. Shari Brasner, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York who has patients as young as 13 who are sexually active. "These conservatives are the same people that are trying to limit access to the morning-after (birth control) pill. They'll leave us with nothing."

Interesting article Bob...where did you get it?

While I agree that abstinence is the best answer for preventing STDs and Pregnancy, if Oklahoma has one of the higest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, can we afford to ignore the fact that teens have sex? I don't think so. Real sex education talks about consequences and give teens choices. Condoms and abstinence are good together.

I actually think condoms and abstinence work against each other. Condoms tell the person it's okay to have sex because you're protected from STD's and having a pregnancy.

I actually think condoms and abstinence work against each other. Condoms tell the person it's okay to have sex because you're protected from STD's and having a pregnancy.

No Sex + Safe Sex = Decreases amount of STD's transmitted and Teen Pregnancy. But it does seem like a paradox.

Question for Rev Bob: I assume God create mankind with a strong desire to have sex. That would ensure our propagation. I can't recall in Genisis though anything about Adam and Eve making vows. I assume that for several generations there was no such thing as marriage yet there was obvious reproduction and therefore obvious sex. Why would God instill such a strong desire and then demand that we not follow it? Please don't answer, "Free will.". And remember, there is no free will in heaven. I can't think of a single earthly sin that is possible in heaven.

I thought this was an interesting article.

-------------------

"Pediatricians Decry Abstinence-Only Ed By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Jul 5, 6:55 AM ET

CHICAGO - A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.

The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics' updated teen pregnancy policy.

"Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy," said Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the academy committee that wrote the new recommendations.

Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases, said Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville who provided advice for the report.

The report appears in July's Pediatrics, being published Tuesday.

It updates a 1998 policy by omitting the statement that "abstinence counseling is an important role for all pediatricians." The new policy says that while doctors should encourage adolescents to postpone sexual activity, they also should help ensure that all teens — not just those who are sexually active — have access to birth control, including emergency contraception.

Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said counseling only abstinence, preferably until marriage, is the best approach because it sends a clear, consistent message. Teenagers who are sexually active should have access to contraception, but making birth control available to teens who aren't sends a contradictory message, he said.

The academy's recommendations "to some extent confuse prevention and intervention," Horn said.

Citing 2003 government data, the academy's report says more than 45 percent of high school girls and 48 percent of boys have had sexual intercourse. While teen pregnancy rates have decreased in recent years, about 900,000 U.S. teens get pregnant each year.

Moreover, U.S. teen birth rates are higher than in comparable industrialized countries, which may be partly due to greater access to contraception in some countries, the report said.

The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, a nonprofit group that has worked on pro-abstinence programs with the Bush administration and faith-based groups, opposes the academy's policy shift.

"I don't think it's a smart move at all," said group founder Dr. Joe McIlhaney Jr., an obstetrician-gynecologist.

However, Karen Pearl, interim president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the academy "is to be applauded ... for having medicine trump ideology."

HHS' Horn also said advising pediatricians to ensure that teens have access to emergency contraception is problematic for doctors and parents who morally object to the pills. He faulted the report for lacking guidance on what to do when pediatricians' moral views differ from their patients' parents.

Emergency contraception, sometimes called the morning-after pill, blocks ovulation or fertilization and can prevent pregnancy for up to three days after sex. Opponents consider it a form of abortion because it is thought to also help prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, and some pharmacists have refused to sell it.

Emergency contraception was not mentioned in the old report because it was new and relatively untested, Klein said.

The academy supports making morning-after pills available without a prescription, Klein said."

You might check this out. This makes my point valid.

"Parents' disapproval of sex may cut kids' STD risk
By Amy Norton



NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Teenage girls who think their parents disapprove of their having sex may have a lower risk of sexually transmitted diseases as young adults, a new study suggests.

Compared with their peers, girls who believed their parents would not want them to have sex were 16 percent less likely to have an STD -- chlamydia, gonorrhea or trichomoniasis -- 6 years later, according to the study. The same was not true, however, of teenage boys.
The findings appear to be the first to show a connection between teens' perceptions of their parents' opinions on sex and their risk of sexually transmitted infections years later -- at least among girls.

The implication, according to the study authors, is that parents should make their views on sex clear to their children.

And, despite the gender gap in the findings, that means talking with boys too, said lead researcher Dr. Carol A. Ford of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "We don't understand that finding," she said of the lack of parental influence on their sons' STD risk. "It was surprising to us."

But, Ford noted in an interview with Reuters Health, the study did look at a fairly narrow outcome -- the risk of three STDs several years out. Had the researchers looked at STD risk in adolescence, for instance, the findings overall may have been different, she pointed out.

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, included nearly 11,600 U.S. students who were surveyed in middle school or high school, then re-interviewed and tested for each of the three STDs 6 years later.

Overall, just over 6 percent of participants tested positive for an STD at follow-up. Among females, those who 6 years earlier had said their parents disapproved of teen sex had a lower infection rate.

In addition, students with higher grade point averages had a lower STD risk as young adults than those with poorer grades. Similar to the findings on parents' influence, however, the sway of academic performance was stronger among females than males.

The study focused on teens' perceptions of their parents' views on sex, and not parents' professed opinions. Past research, Ford and her colleagues note, has found that teenagers often misinterpret their parents' attitudes on the matter.

The question of how to effectively communicate with teenagers about sex "is something that every parent wants to have answered," Ford said.

One guiding point, she said, is to "talk with them rather than at them."

Parents who object to teen sex can also discourage their children from dating or having a steady relationship at a young age, or from dating someone substantially older, according to Ford.

None of the other variables the study examined -- including teenagers' commitment to religion or feelings of "connection" to family or school -- showed an effect on long-term STD risk."

You might check this out. This makes my point valid.

"Parents' disapproval of sex may cut kids' STD risk
By Amy Norton



NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Teenage girls who think their parents disapprove of their having sex may have a lower risk of sexually transmitted diseases as young adults, a new study suggests.

Compared with their peers, girls who believed their parents would not want them to have sex were 16 percent less likely to have an STD -- chlamydia, gonorrhea or trichomoniasis -- 6 years later, according to the study. The same was not true, however, of teenage boys.
The findings appear to be the first to show a connection between teens' perceptions of their parents' opinions on sex and their risk of sexually transmitted infections years later -- at least among girls.

The implication, according to the study authors, is that parents should make their views on sex clear to their children.

And, despite the gender gap in the findings, that means talking with boys too, said lead researcher Dr. Carol A. Ford of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "We don't understand that finding," she said of the lack of parental influence on their sons' STD risk. "It was surprising to us."

But, Ford noted in an interview with Reuters Health, the study did look at a fairly narrow outcome -- the risk of three STDs several years out. Had the researchers looked at STD risk in adolescence, for instance, the findings overall may have been different, she pointed out.

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, included nearly 11,600 U.S. students who were surveyed in middle school or high school, then re-interviewed and tested for each of the three STDs 6 years later.

Overall, just over 6 percent of participants tested positive for an STD at follow-up. Among females, those who 6 years earlier had said their parents disapproved of teen sex had a lower infection rate.

In addition, students with higher grade point averages had a lower STD risk as young adults than those with poorer grades. Similar to the findings on parents' influence, however, the sway of academic performance was stronger among females than males.

The study focused on teens' perceptions of their parents' views on sex, and not parents' professed opinions. Past research, Ford and her colleagues note, has found that teenagers often misinterpret their parents' attitudes on the matter.

The question of how to effectively communicate with teenagers about sex "is something that every parent wants to have answered," Ford said.

One guiding point, she said, is to "talk with them rather than at them."

Parents who object to teen sex can also discourage their children from dating or having a steady relationship at a young age, or from dating someone substantially older, according to Ford.

None of the other variables the study examined -- including teenagers' commitment to religion or feelings of "connection" to family or school -- showed an effect on long-term STD risk."

I think the article just emphasizes that parents talk more with their child about sex, not that "abstinence only" is the key.

My opinion is that kids should be taught ALL of their options, with abstinence encouraged first and foremost. We would be doing our children a disservice by not giving them ALL of the information out there on how to protect themselves.

Having parents talk to their children more about abstinence isn't a bad idea though. I don't think condoms will ever be an option for my children. Neither will birth control. They all encourage sex. If my daughter comes home pregnant, she'll pay the consequences.

Having parents talk to their children more about abstinence isn't a bad idea though. I don't think condoms will ever be an option for my children. Neither will birth control. They all encourage sex. If my daughter comes home pregnant, she'll pay the consequences.

Thanks Salmon. I couldn't have said it better myself.

If teens and younger men and women are having sex then contraceptives should be discussed openly. Sex with condoms is much safer than no sexual prevatives of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

If teens and younger men and women are having sex then contraceptives should be discussed openly. Sex with condoms is much safer than no sexual prevatives of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

There IS a safer way.

You are correct, the only safe sex is no sex.

However, educating people about abstinence only ignores the fact that people HAVE sex.

I don't understand how people can say that contraceptives and condoms encourage sex. Have you watched TV lately or read a magazine? Condoms and contraceptives are not the problem. Look around sex is everywhere.

I agree with okiepus, sex is all around us.

Ok, I agree that in terms of controlling the spread of STDs and teen pregnancy that abstinence is the only 100% guarantee. There is no disputing it. However I do have a problem with narrow mindedness and religious zeal dictating what children are being taught, especially in schools.

Based on the 1997 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) data, about 48% of students in 9th through 12th grade have had sexual intercourse. So I suppose these students just don’t get sex education.

I have no problem with abstienence being taught. However it should not be the only thing taught or stressed. Condoms are and should be taught as a option for teenagers who do, or plan to engage in sexual intercourse. Please drop spiritual about pro-creation and simply use your head. Teenagers are having sex, they need to be taught the benefits of using a condom and other protective measures if they choose to have sex.

Yes. Studies have shown that if a latex condom is used correctly every time you have sex, this is highly effective in providing protection against HIV and other STDs as well as preventing pregnancy.

The evidence for this is clearest in studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other not. i.e. “discordant couples”. In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected.

The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use, not the failure of the condom itself. Using oil-based lubricants can weaken the latex, causing the condom to break. Condoms can also be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails.

In the United States most studies of breakage caused by fault in the condom itself, have shown breakage rate is less than 2 condoms out of every 100 condoms. Studies also indicate that condoms slip of the ***** in about 1-5% of acts of ******l intercourse and slip down (but not off) about 3-13% of the time.

If kids don’t know how to use a condom properly, and choose to have sex, their chances of STD/pregnancy rises dramaticly.

Stop fooling yourself, if your kid is going to have sex, they are going to have sex. Parents have limited control in this area outside of early guidance in adolescent development.

Stop insisting we teach only abstinence. It is nieve to think that kids are simply going to stop having sex. be realistic and arm our teenagers with the proper knowledge to make sure they are as safe as they can be regardless of if they choose to abstain or engage in intercourse.

48% of students.....maybe. I always question these "studies" though. After more than 40 years here, I have never participated in one of these "studies", I have never known anyone who did. That's not a good stat to use...It doesn't state how people were picked to participate or how that number varies based on race, faith, income, or family structure...It could be very skewed.
Now, for the ultra-religious folks, I'm not questioning your faith base but, throughout the approximate 6,000 years of human existance, where is the time that all people waited until their 20's to have sex? If the point is geared more toward premarital sex, wasn't marriage common for 13-15 year olds less than 150 years ago? Would you feel more comfortable if your 14 year old daughter married first like in the old days? That would be morally OK according to faith.

People have always had sex out of wedlock, I don't even recall Adam and Eve getting married before Cain, Abel, and Seth showed up. There are stories in the bible of incest and gang rapes, I doubt those people were married.

My point is: God controls EVERYTHING, (Wow, could I talk for a week about that.) what you see today is what he gave us, without doubt, it is exactly what he intended it to be. Deal with it as best as you can. To win the WAR you must focus on a series of much smaller battles.

You cannot change someone else's value system simply by repeatedly telling them they are wrong....It is their VALUE SYSTEM! Their LIVES are based on it. They can't allow it to be wrong. To say it is wrong is to say their entire life is wrong.

I'm sure you'd never walk into a person's home and tell them that it was dirty no matter how filthy it was. The response you'd get to that is similar to the response you get when walking into society and telling it that IT is dirty.

48% of students.....maybe. I always question these "studies" though. After more than 40 years here, I have never participated in one of these "studies", I have never known anyone who did. That's not a good stat to use...It doesn't state how people were picked to participate or how that number varies based on race, faith, income, or family structure...It could be very skewed.

References:

1. Shepherd Smith and Joe S. McIlhaney, M.D., "Statement of Dissent on The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior," issued by the Medical Institute of Sexual Health, Austin, Texas, June 28, 2001, and American Social Health Association, Research Triangle Park, N.C., "STD Statistics," at
http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/statistics.html.

2. American Social Health Association, at
http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/statistics.html.

3. Alan Guttmacher Institute, Sex and America's Teenagers (New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994), pp. 19-20.

4. American Social Health Association, "STD Statistics."

5. Dr. Susan Weller, "A Meta-Analysis of Condom Effectiveness in Reducing Sexually Transmitted HIV," Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 12 (1993). See also National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, "Summary," Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, July 20, 2001, at

I can go on, but I think that is enough reading for now. Not trying to be smart, but you claim skepticism on studies, so I thought i would provide some references.

Doesn't affect my point....the history of premarital sex, the probable certainty of it in the future, and.....the largest point I was trying to make is that the faith-based folks are pushing in the wrong direction.


Too bad that's all you picked up on out of that....my questioning of one stand-alone stat.

Doesn't affect my point....the history of premarital sex, the probable certainty of it in the future, and.....the largest point I was trying to make is that the faith-based folks are pushing in the wrong direction.


Too bad that's all you picked up on out of that....my questioning of one stand-alone stat.


Well I felt that was the important point for me to address as it was a challenge to the basis of the argument I proposed.

The stat is probably accurate overall. But I'm sure it's much higher in some communities than it is in others. And to fight premarital or teen sex should require more resources in one community compared to others.


My belief: only a fool would fight a teenager's hormones and expect to win...To win you'd have to teach the teenager themself to fight the hormones...and that has to be done long BEFORE the hormones arrive.
If the hormone-induced wet dream arrives first, it's a lost battle.

The stat is probably accurate overall. But I'm sure it's much higher in some communities than it is in others. And to fight premarital or teen sex should require more resources in one community compared to others.


My belief: only a fool would fight a teenager's hormones and expect to win...To win you'd have to teach the teenager themself to fight the hormones...and that has to be done long BEFORE the hormones arrive.
If the hormone-induced wet dream arrives first, it's a lost battle.

Well then we are in agreement on that part at least. I appreciate your candor on the issue and your willingness to further elaborate on your position.

The far right continues to promote lies about the effectiveness of condoms and promoting this "abstinence only" sex "education" is also full of false information. Ignorance never saved anyone's life, nor did it ever make anyone's life better, on the other hand discouraging condom use DOES have the real possibility of killing people. I am ALL for encouraging abstinence, for any number of reasons. But abstinence only sex "education" is a sham, a dangerous one.
Tom Coburn is really an embarrassment.

God doesn't like condoms. At least according to Monty Python's take on it:

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...

You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...

because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill thiers just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine
And mine
And mine

Let the Pagan spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain,
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

I don't understand the thinking of people who don't want teen pregnancy, yet don't want teens to have the facts that will allow them to understand the magnitude of the decisions they make, and the necessary tools to keep themselves safe from horrifying disease. Frank, open discussion of sex and its consequences has been proven time and again to be more effective than attempting to instill fear of consequences. Deliberately condemning young people to death, disease, or unwanted pregnancy in some show of self-righteousness is immature and irresponsible.

Worse yet, I hear too many people stating they will not allow their daughters to get immunized against HPV because they think it will encourage her to have sex. WHAT!?!? You would rather your daughter DIE an excruciating death from cancer -- that just might come from her husband -- than to trust her judgment?

Why is rational thinking in such short supply when it comes to prurient matters?

sperm are just sperm. its when one joins an egg thats the start of a beating heart. all human life has value.. doesn't it? Its heartbreaking to give into our society today and tell teens its okay to have sex. Have you been around teens having sex? They are not a happy bunch. I think it brings so much misery. I have a 13 year old nephew right now that is looking at child support for the next 18 years. When I think back to the many years ago when we used to be expected to wait and the peace of mind that "waiting" brought. Friendships, life-long loves were formed. Waiting was very empowering. Our promiscuous teens have been robbed of that. Yes, there were always those that had sex and got pregnant anyway. And now its has become a lethal proposition. I understand both sides of this coin, but you know there are also many pregnancies that occur when the girl is on birth control - even when tubes have been tied for goodness sakes. condoms bust. and there can be a lot of damage done via some birth control like implants and shots. To me the answer lies in our caring about every child, one at a time. And if you can care about a few extra, as well, we're all the better.

I grew up believing that teaching abstinance was hopeless. I got pregnant at 16 and that may have colored my perception. I am rethinking this.

About all I have to contribute to the conversation is that in my work I deal with YOUNG girls (11 - 14) who are sexually active. I am amazed that more of them AREN'T pregnant. Even if they avoid pregnancy, they aren't emotionally ready. It is a real soul killer, and I don't really mean in a traditionally religious sense. I mean that the more casual they are about it, the more likely they are to engage in sex (perhaps "protected") with boys and men without much thought. Being human, and young girls at that, they get their heart broken time and again. It doesn't take too long before you have hard, brittle little girls who are jaded at age 15. I think we miss the boat on this issue if we think it is "all" about the mechanics of birth control (not that it isn't very important). For the purposes of this post, though, I am just pointing out that the emotional toil is horrible, and it colors their personalities and happiness ability for the rest of their lives. Thinking that a 17 year old cheerleader might get pregnant with her football player boyfriend is pretty tame compared to what is actually going on out there.

Have you been around teens having sex?

Wouldn't that be like...illegal?

Sorry, had to do it.

Why did we resurrect this ancient thread? I guess the topic is always timely. But why do people always assume that only now kids are having sex? Teens had sex when I was a teenager...when my husband was a teenager...when some of the older folks on this board were teenagers...the only difference "back in the day" was that young girls were shipped off to places to have their babies because teen pregnancy was so looked down upon.

They are fighting biology as it is, we should give them all the facts and protection we should. I don't believe in scaring them about it, because sex should never be scary to people! But if they are aware of the consequences, and the means with which to protect themselves, then we have done our jobs as adults. The rest is in their hands. You can tell them God doesn't want them to have sex all you want but their hormones will, very often, speak louder.

I just have to wonder how the heck these kids are having sex, I mean logistically?

I pick up my Freshman each and every day from school and he comes home and does homework, eats dinner, plays his guitar/violin/drums, watches movies and goes to bed... on the weekends, he doesn't go out without supervision - the parties he goes to are chaperoned by parents.

He had a girlfriend for a year and a half and she was older than him, they weren't allowed to be alone ( it's not like he asks to go out a lot yet though.... he has a lot of friends at school but he would much rather hang out and play his music at home than go to the mall) ....

I guess my point is, how the heck are these kids finding places (and the time) to have sex?

Many schools have open campus for lunch- not too hard to find a friend's house where no parents are home. Or in the car on the way to or from school. Heck, some kids I went to school with claimed to have done it in the locker room.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I suspect today is not all that different than the 70's, at least regarding interest, opportunity, and desires.

Thinking of known exploits, some accidently discovered, some revealed, and we'll leave it at that, there were a pleathera of opportunities to the young:

cars in school lots, empty parking lots, less than empty parking lots, stands of trees near school or home or the tracks, under bleachers, in bleachers, late nights above the press box where the camera guys hung out, empty classrooms, empty youth rooms in churches, campgrounds, empty homes, not so empty homes, outfields, infields, public restrooms, private restrooms, unlocked buses, motel swimming pools, saunas, rooms where one hoped no one changed the lock since the key was discovered and passed from one friend to another, abandoned buildings, not so abandoned buildings, town parks, museums, church grounds, graveyards, lake shores, rest stops, highway right of ways, actual highways and country roads, movie balconies, movie backrows, drive-ins, etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.

When two or more young people decide they are going to engage in sexual activity, comfort and privacy are not always at the top of the planning chart, if there is even a plan in the first instance. For many, the simple existence of the experience holds the first priority, not the quality of the experience.

I guess my point is, how the heck are these kids finding places (and the time) to have sex?

Just as one example, I have one child (age 15) who was having sex with her best friend's boyfriend in the bathroom of the Dunkin Donuts down the street from the school... They were gone 20 minutes on a regular basis.

But aside from that - when it comes to sex, kids are so creative and insane that finding a place and time is usually not a problem. Don't ask me how I know this...

lol...wow!!! They are creative!

Yeah, I guess I underestimated those famous teenage hormones! I can't believe they are going at it in the actual schools! sheesh!

I have to say that I am glad I have two boys.

Kids just don't realize the enormity of their actions - they don't understand how they can result in negative consequences.... they don't think it will happen to them.

What is really unfair is the fact that an unwanted baby will be born to kids who are still kids. The care falls on the Grandparents if they are able. It's just so wrong on so many levels.

I'm having another 'talk' tonight with the boys.. my famous, 'everything you do, every hour you work for the next 18 years will go to care for a baby that you didn't ask for..' blah, blah.. (Charlie Brown music).

Never hurts to start young......

sperm are just sperm. its when one joins an egg thats the start of a beating heart. all human life has value.. doesn't it? Its heartbreaking to give into our society today and tell teens its okay to have sex. Have you been around teens having sex? They are not a happy bunch. I think it brings so much misery. I have a 13 year old nephew right now that is looking at child support for the next 18 years. When I think back to the many years ago when we used to be expected to wait and the peace of mind that "waiting" brought. Friendships, life-long loves were formed. Waiting was very empowering. Our promiscuous teens have been robbed of that. Yes, there were always those that had sex and got pregnant anyway. And now its has become a lethal proposition. I understand both sides of this coin, but you know there are also many pregnancies that occur when the girl is on birth control - even when tubes have been tied for goodness sakes. condoms bust. and there can be a lot of damage done via some birth control like implants and shots. To me the answer lies in our caring about every child, one at a time. And if you can care about a few extra, as well, we're all the better.

You bring up some interesting points, and I'd like to add to it.

First off -- I think most people agree that young teens and sex is a bad mix. We just disagree on how to solve the problem. I don't think anyone out there really wants to see young kids become sexually active, and the people who accuse me -- and those like me who support open discussion and available protection -- of promoting teen sex need to grow up. (I'm not addressing you by that statement, BTW.)

Teen sex is often a symptom of a larger issue. Many times, sex is being used as a replacement for a real, healthy relationship -- either with a boyfriend/girlfriend or a missing or uninterested parental relationship, or something similar which involves self-worth, love, and acceptance perceptions. And here's where open, frank, no-judgment counseling can really make a difference. We can't solve the problem of teen sex without addressing the fundamental problems in each child's life, and educate him or her as to what all is involved in sexual activity without spin or dogma. I think it's vital that we give frank, unbiased information to young people and trust their judgment once they have the facts. The outcomes don't lie -- when teens know the real facts without spin, they tend to make the right decision much more often than not. That should give us hope, n'est-ce pas?

No, condoms aren't foolproof. Nor are creams, IUDs, pills, vasectomies, or tubal ligations... etc etc etc. But if used properly, they do work more often than not, and it's quite dishonest to suggest otherwise in order to attempt to scare someone into changing their behavior. Not to mention the damage done to our collective authority once the deception is exposed to the teens in question. If you choose that moment when someone actually begins to use the condom -- where the young people in question are probably already past the point of reason -- to sew a seed of doubt, then you're not really addressing the entire issue effectively anyway.

Anyways, my point is: address the root causes, not the symptoms.

Ever wonder how a chihuahua and a Great Dane can mate? They do and they figure out a way to do it. Humans are the same.

Knowing human nature and remembering what it was like to be a hormone crazed young person, I think one has to be pragmatic and give a matter of fact, biology based sex ed in phased increments starting young.

Some of the latest research shows that abstinence only education delays activity by only by a year, then goes into overdrive after that. The result is far higher averages of sex partners, STDs, and pregnancies.

As a strategy, it seems to guarantee the opposite of it's intended effect.

On the other hand, parents who are able to talk openly and honestly about sexuality appear to do better in terms of age of activity. On the other hand, they come out way ahead in pregnancy rates, number of partners, STD rate, and general mental well being.

I'm only beginning the critical stage with my Kids and are well past the initial biological talks. My kids--even my daughter--are still quite comfortable discussing all the stuff. I'm going to do everything I can to keep the dialog open.

I will augment this with semi-trailer loads of condoms, Gardasil inoculations, Deproprevera, or any other techniques that seem likely to keep them as safe as possible.

This is really hard to do because it's uncomfortable to see you kids enter that stage in life. But, you trade a little comfort for hundreds of boatloads of risk.

It comes down to who do you want your child to hear this information form? Do want someone who is trained in the field (science teacher or counselor), or their friend in the locker room who heard the information from someone else. I promise you the kids are talking about this in school. Visit a local high school and listen to the kids in the hall. Most of them are sharing wrong information with each other.
As a Biology teacher I ask all parents to start talking openly with their kids as soon as they start showing interest. My son asked me what condoms where when he was 6. I showed him one and what it was used for. I even showed him the video "The Miracle of Life" so he would know one of the consequences of sex. Yes his grandparents were furious with me, but he did not have sex until he was 18 and he used a condom to prevent any transmission and pregnancy.
Condoms do work as long as the person(s) use them properly and with a spermicidal water based lubricant. I see many girls have to go to alternative education to graduate, and they may not be able to have the job of their dreams because of having a child. While many boys don't have the stigma attached to them, and can complete their education and get the job they want.

ewoodward, you are spot on in my opinion. We've been lucky to have had lots of great opportunities to broach the subject easily. Then again, we're not avoiding it like so many people do.

I learned from watching cattle mate. That was confusing for a long time....

It comes down to who do you want your child to hear this information form? Do want someone who is trained in the field (science teacher or counselor), or their friend in the locker room who heard the information from someone else. I promise you the kids are talking about this in school. Visit a local high school and listen to the kids in the hall. Most of them are sharing wrong information with each other.
As a Biology teacher I ask all parents to start talking openly with their kids as soon as they start showing interest. My son asked me what condoms where when he was 6. I showed him one and what it was used for. I even showed him the video "The Miracle of Life" so he would know one of the consequences of sex. Yes his grandparents were furious with me, but he did not have sex until he was 18 and he used a condom to prevent any transmission and pregnancy.
Condoms do work as long as the person(s) use them properly and with a spermicidal water based lubricant. I see many girls have to go to alternative education to graduate, and they may not be able to have the job of their dreams because of having a child. While many boys don't have the stigma attached to them, and can complete their education and get the job they want.

Well said. For those who are against abortion, I hope you make responsibility and education a top priority in your mission. I personally subscribe to the quote: "abortion needs to be legal, safe, and extremely rare". I find the recent legislation to require ultrasounds to be laughable. The tribal clinics aren't bound by those laws, and you're already seeing tribal clinics opening to fill the gap in states with draconian abortion laws. We're not going to solve this problem by driving it elsewhere, which is all a "ban" is going to do. And you can't prosecute someone for crossing state lines if the clinic is within the same state. Someone is going to find a loophole somewhere.

No, we have to address teen pregnancy head-on as part of a comprehensive solution for preventing unwanted pregnancies, not just for teens, but across the board. We have to drop the notion that ignorance is protection, and that the subject is taboo for public officials to discuss with children. Sorry, but news flash, sex is part of life just as much as bathroom functions, flatulence, burps, phlegm, and all the other uncomfortable subjects of biology. Simply ignoring it or trying to cover it with a burka doesn't work.

Then, of course, is the issue of paternity versus maternity. Too often women are stuck with the balance of the consequences of unwanted pregnancy, with respect to health, finances, employment, and time constraints. All-to-often the sperm donor walks away with little or no consequence. Maybe the father's family should pitch in on some of that financial and babysitting assistance, especially if they forbid him from learning the real "facts of life".

The greatest enemy in the fight against unwanted pregnancy is ignorance, no matter how squeamish our own hang-ups about the subject might be. Mandating institutional ignorance is an abdication of our mutual responsibility to our kids.

Just as one example, I have one child (age 15) who was having sex with her best friend's boyfriend in the bathroom of the Dunkin Donuts down the street from the school... They were gone 20 minutes on a regular basis.

But aside from that - when it comes to sex, kids are so creative and insane that finding a place and time is usually not a problem. Don't ask me how I know this...

You know, it occurs to me that I should clarify that this is a child for whom I am a guardian ad litem. This was not MY child!!

Shows you have to be careful what you write ...

I think it's extremely ignorant to think you can preach abstinence to your child and think your parental responsibility regarding sex is done. If teens want to have sex, they WILL find a place to have it. Wouldn't you rather supply your teen with a condom than have them be a teen parent or have to live with the decision to have an abortion?

I think it's extremely ignorant to think you can preach abstinence to your child and think your parental responsibility regarding sex is done. If teens want to have sex, they WILL find a place to have it. Wouldn't you rather supply your teen with a condom than have them be a teen parent or have to live with the decision to have an abortion?

That's pretty much my take on it. I'm 36 and never been married...So I've been around the block a time or two...If it weren't for condoms my life would be in a world of suckitude. I learned to use them young, and learned to use them without question. My parents never brought them up, never brought up abstinence either for that matter. I'm just lucky that I'm not a retard and figured out that I didn't want a baby when I was 17 and condoms were a means to prevent them.

That's pretty much my take on it. I'm 36 and never been married...So I've been around the block a time or two...If it weren't for condoms my life would be in a world of suckitude. I learned to use them young, and learned to use them without question. My parents never brought them up, never brought up abstinence either for that matter. I'm just lucky that I'm not a retard and figured out that I didn't want a baby when I was 17 and condoms were a means to prevent them.

You sound like my husband. Smart men, both of you.

I guess my point is, how the heck are these kids finding places (and the time) to have sex?

When I was in high school I had sex with my boyfriend under the stage of the performing arts center during school hours.

If teens want to have sex, they'll find a way. ;)

I've seen Jr. High kids trying to have sex in the baseball dugouts before school. I know of high school kids that have had sex in the back seats of their cars during lunch time. It's not really all that hard for kids to find the time and a place for sex during the day. They are pretty creative in that regards.

Okay, can we please stop discussing where kids go to have sex? It's getting a little creepy!

I highly recommend using a condom when having sex with a teenager.

I highly recommend using a condom when having sex with a teenager.

No kidding. Kids are DIRTY.

Too bad this discussion isn't on fark, I would get banned if I replied to that how I wanted. :D

You don't have a hair on your ass if you don't.