quote:Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low.
In 2005, 47 percent of high school students reported having sexual intercourse, down from 54 percent in 1991.
More young people are finishing high school, too, and more little kids are being read to, according to the latest government snapshot on the well-being of the nation's children. It's good news on a number of key wellness indicators, experts said of the report being released Friday.
posted
Maybe I am cynical, but my first thought upon hearing about the lower teen birth rate was "is it because fewer teens are having sex and/or more teens using birth control or is it because more teens are having abortions?"
Posts: 399 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mama Squirrel: Maybe I am cynical, but my first thought upon hearing about the lower teen birth rate was "is it because fewer teens are having sex and/or more teens using birth control or is it because more teens are having abortions?"
Yeesh, and here I thought I was being cynical because it seems contraceptives are the greater factor then chaste teenagers.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'd have to look and see what the abortion rate has been during the same time. It wouldn't be completely accurate, but it might give us an idea.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article says that fewer teens are having sex and of those that do more are using condoms. Which sounds like good news for people on all sides of the usual debates to me.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, dkw has it right. Fewer are having sex and those that are are using contraceptives. This is a win all the way around.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mama Squirrel: Maybe I am cynical, but my first thought upon hearing about the lower teen birth rate was "is it because fewer teens are having sex and/or more teens using birth control or is it because more teens are having abortions?"
Yeesh, and here I thought I was being cynical because it seems contraceptives are the greater factor then chaste teenagers.
That's not cynical, that's just being realistic. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article didn't say, but since some agency associated was called Federal, I'll guess these stats are for the USA.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mama Squirrel, I had the same thought when I heard the report on the radio a couple of weeks ago. So you're not alone in your cynicism.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the CDC the abortion rate among teenagers peaked in 1983 and has been declining ever since. So you cynical folks can relax. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's always the chance that most teenagers have learned to lie about having sex. If condoms and contraceptives are being used by most kids, there's less chance of a teen's sexual history being found out by an embarassing STD or pregnancy. This makes it much easier to lie, and gives more incentive for kids to lie. They don't have to worry about being found out.
I'm failing to articulate my point -- <Sigh> I'll try again. The reason I think more teenagers would like to lie is because they now know that there's only a very small chance of being found out.
Oh well, I tried.
Nevertheless, I'm pleased with the news.
Here's hoping the trend continues. Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The surveys are very clearly anonymous, and there are double-checks on the data to assess for reliability. It isn't a perfect system by any means, but it's better than it might appear on a superficial look.
---
I'm happy, too, and I also hope the trend continues.
posted
This is just the first sign that real life is going to imitate art, a la "Children of Men." Humans will all be sterile in 10 years.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It always seemed to me that people were more or less dead on in deciding that 14-16 was about the age where people did in fact have the emotional maturity to make choices regarding that sort of thing.
That said, certainly it's (in most cases) fine that a significant portion chose that they did not wish to have intercourse. But do we really all feel that the age of consent is far off enough to applaud a decrease from 54% to 47%?
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's in the numbers. A given person may be more or less ready (although it also seems that individuals of that age tend to overestimate what they can handle well -- this is a natural stage of development, and it is to be expected), granted. But when you look at population rates of correlation, we know that when you lower rates of sexual intercourse in this age range, you consistently lower rates of negative outcomes.
That means that most of them aren't ready to make that decision in a way that avoids measurable negative outcomes that may affect the rest of their lives.
And then there are all the negative outcomes which are harder to measure.
I can't see how it's tenable that any positive outcomes from starting a few years earlier outweigh the many and serious negative outcomes, which -- again -- have been shown to dramatically increase in this age group when the rate of intercourse changes. Thus, plenty of reason to applaud population changes in choice patterns.
Any given young person is, of course, free to believe that he or she is special/unique/different/"really ready," but just be assured that this would make him or her just like almost everyone else. Some are going to be right, but most aren't -- and they are all about equally fervent in their self-assessments.
Only an estimated 30-40% of babies Mormons ate in 2005 (the latest statistics aren't available yet) were born to teen mothers-- and of those, only 10-15% were non-Mormon teen mothers.
The ideal is that we will birth and eat our *own* babies-- that's just good sense. It helps foster self-reliance for the whole family, and survival skills among the remaining children. Of course, exceptions can be made for hardship: I knew a lady who was allergic to Mormon flesh, so she wound up having to eat...er...I think they were Presbyterian kids.
And of course, special provisions have to be made for elderly couples, for newlyweds, for infertile couples... That's really one of the main tasks of LDS Social Services: to help provide babies for those unfortunate souls who can't get them themselves.
Honestly, though, I'm grateful for this new trend of less babies being born to teen moms. It means those pantywaists who are always crying about how they just can't bring themselves to devour Bobby Jr. are just going to have to toughen up. Here's your fork, Sister. Get thee to thine grill, Brother.
So apparently other countries are having just as much if not more teenage sex than we are (apparently including the UK, Denmark, and Iceland in the more category, in that order).
Considering that, the birth rate among teens is proportionally way higher (again, we are not having 6.5 as much sex as those in Denmark, we're having less).
Does teen sex really have a significant correlation with teen pregnancy then? Or maybe something else is to blame?
quote:Does teen sex really have a significant correlation with teen pregnancy then?
There does seem to be some vague correlation between sex and pregnancy, but let's not jump to conclusions.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tnemtiaL: Do you actually have these numbers?
*amused
Yes, I do. Analyzing data from the YRBSS, NLSAH/"Add Health", NHANES, and NcCreary's AHS (Canadian youth) is a good part of what I do for a living.
quote:So apparently other countries are having just as much if not more teenage sex than we are (apparently including the UK, Iceland, and Denmark in the more category, in that order).
Considering that, the birth rate among teens is proportionally way higher (again, we are not having 6.5 as much sex as those in Denmark, we're having less).
Well, yes, but our teenagers are not living in those cultures. If you were to send US or Canadian teenagers over there, then you might well be able to rightly apply the prognostic indicators of those cultures, but you have not succeeded in doing that yet, as far as I know.
quote:Does teen sex really have a significant correlation with teen pregnancy then? Or maybe something else is to blame?
It likely has a lot to do with culture. That doesn't mean you can ignore culture, though, and it still is not warranted to apply prognostic indicators cross-population when you have a substantial amount of other analysis which indicates that this would be simply foolish.
Until such time as you change this culture, it would be foolhardy to ignore it. And in this culture, as it is, having sex at earlier ages is correlated quite strongly with negative outcomes.
---
Edited to add: If you find it more amenable, you are welcome to add the (implied, in my opinion) modifier of "in the countries studied" to my prior comments. I didn't make the qualification because I assumed that we would (of course) be commenting on the cultures that we were commenting on. Nonetheless, I can see that your mileage may vary.
---
Edited again to add: Were you perhaps obliquely objecting to the use of "the world" in the title, coupled with a report confined to US teens? I can't tell.
posted
I guess that what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be looking for a cultural / education change rather than attempting to bring the rate of sex as close to zero as possible (which intuitively sounds bad from a mental health perspective, partly because of problems inherent to a low rate of sexual activity, partly because of the techniques used to bring it so low.)
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tnemtiaL: I guess that what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be looking for a cultural / education change rather than attempting to bring the rate of sex as close to zero as possible (which intuitively sounds bad from a mental health perspective, partly because of problems inherent to a low rate of sexual activity, partly because of the techniques used to bring it so low.)
Well, that's different from questioning why people are glad of this trend in this given culture as it is. You can see the confusion.
I'm sympathetic to your approach, but with the caveat that I don't recall it being established that less sexual activity with another person correlates with more poor mental health.
Are you just referring to interpersonal sexual activity, or are you including solitary events?
And, by any chance, have you ever posted here under another username (such as one which includes "Robin")? I am asking the latter because this is a somewhat familiar topic, and if I knew you previously by some variant of "Robin," then I'd rather not pursue the conversation for a whole host of reasons. If not, then it will be great to distance you from him. *grin
quote:but witht he caveat that I don't recall it being established that less sexual activity with another person correlates with more poor mental health.
That depends on the method of encouraging/enforcing less sexual activity, not so much on the level of activity itself.
If we are talking about America, I'm reaonably sure that some of the ways that people approach sex with the goal of reducing it's occurance would correlate with poorer mental health.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that I think t is implying, but he's bringing up good points about the simplistic assumption that less sex = good, no matter what.
If we could change our cultural standards so that teenagers were having more sex, but were getting pregnant less, contracting fewer STDs, and were more mature about sex and relationships, I'd be thrilled. There is not necessarily an absolute correlation between the amount of sex being had and the incidence of the potential negative effects of having sex.
---
edit: Ooops. I missed part of what you were responding to CT. My mention of methods is irrelevant to the point you were raising. My bad.
t, your point of view would be more understandable if you established the dangers of teenagers in the population under discussion refraining from sexual activity. The risks and bad consequences of them engaging in sexual activity have already been established.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, is t an alt? It does kind of seem like it.
I figured someone would pipe in with sadness about the lower numbers of teen sex and pregnancy, though. A whole thread of "yay!"s is generally boring.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, by any chance, have you ever posted here under another username (such as one which includes "Robin")? I am asking the latter because this is a somewhat familiar topic, and if I knew you previously by some variant of "Robin," then I'd rather not pursue the conversation for a whole host of reasons. If not, then it will be great to distance you from him. *grin
t is an old hatracker (and sakeite -- super-lurker both places) who, I'm guessing, has forgotten his login info here.
Hi, Lait. I'm coming back to Boston at the end of the summer again. See you know where for details.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any insights from rates of cervical cancer? Are kids using condoms or the pill? Or... um, not sure if I want to go there. What about AIDS infection?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: t is an old hatracker (and sakeite -- super-lurker both places) who, I'm guessing, has forgotten his login info here.
Ah, good. I will assuredly be less touchy, then. (I had just realized I was unconsciously responding to him as Robin.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're correct, I've learned something from this discussion. While I'm still not personally inclined to praise any drop in sexual activity, I can see why others living in the US would.
It's interesting to note that the issue could easily become confused/abused by people that are inherently opposed to sexual activity among teens, arguing that it reduces the quality of life for them, while simultaneously ignoring the culture and promoting abstinence-only education.
And again, you are correct, it isn't established. As I said, it's an intuitive belief at this point, one that I share with most sorts of behavior suppression. I feel very similarly about mental health and trying to keep interpersonal sexual activity, solitary activities, and homosexual activities alike low.
I've posted before under RavenXsa and Laitment.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as methods go, I would say that encouraging people in general and especially young people to understand that sex is a serious thing, that it has both positive and negative consequences and carries with it great responsibility would be a good thing. I do think that centuries of "sex is bad; bodies are bad; sexual urges are bad" has led to a warped understanding of human sexuality and has led to harm. Often, rather than learning how to address sexuality in a responsible, healthy way, teenagers just learn to be ashamed of themselves or afraid.
*not sure if this is what you are getting at, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the techniques used to promote abstinence, of course, are far more dangerous than abstinence itself. Again, I'm not saying this based upon anything but intuition, but it would seem that the resulting fear and guilt about sexuality would be damaging, not to mention the warped perspective of vaginal intercourse versus any other type of sexual activity.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
