March 6, 2004
YOUTHFUL REACTIONARIES:
More Teenagers Are Striving for Restraint (NINA BERNSTEIN, 3/07/04, NY Times)
The teenage pregnancy rate in America, which rose sharply between 1986 and 1991 to huge public alarm, has fallen steadily for a decade with little fanfare, to below any level previously recorded in the United States. And though pregnancy prevention efforts have long focused almost exclusively on girls, it is boys whose behavior shows the most startling changes.More than half of all male high school students reported in 2001 that they were virgins, up from 39 percent in 1990. Among the sexually active, condom use has soared to 65 percent, and nearly 73 percent among black male students. The trends are similar, if less pronounced, for female students, who remain slightly less likely than boys to report that they have had sex. Nowhere are the changes more surprising than in poor minority neighborhoods in Harlem and the Bronx, which a decade ago were seen as centers of a national epidemic of teenage pregnancy.
Researchers often sum up the findings in one tidy phrase: "less sex, more contraception." But there is nothing simple about their puzzlement over the reasons. [...]
Experts can rattle off a litany of possible reasons for the turnaround: the fear of AIDS, and the impact of AIDS-prevention education; the introduction of injectable forms of birth control; changes in welfare policy and crackdowns on fathers for child support; the rise of a more religious and conservative generation of teenagers; an economic boom with more opportunities; and an array of new youth programs, especially those stressing both abstinence and contraception.
Even advocates of these developments agree that they cannot account for the shift, or predict how long it will last. Yet the cultural changes now at work are quite astonishing when viewed up close, in the lives of teenagers themselves. In their topsy-turvy world of explicit sex and elusive intimacy, young people yearning for human contact are distilling new codes of conduct from a volatile blend of sex education, popular culture and family experience. [...]
It is hard to overestimate the influence of AIDS, but its effects are not as simple as one might think. While the epidemic led to a fear of sex and increased education about its risks, it also touched off a barrage of explicit sexual discussion and imagery that reverberates 24 hours a day in television, movies, music and on the Internet.
Doug Kirby is one of many researchers on teenage pregnancy who are somewhat mystified by the result. "There's so much more sex in the media," he said. "But the percent of young people who have sex is going down. I wonder, is there just simple saturation? Is sex not quite so off limits, so titillating?"
Peter Bearman, a sociologist at Columbia University, has another explanation, culled from one of his controlled research studies on teenage pregnancy: Forming any opinion at all about sex and pregnancy makes teenagers better at contraception. And "culturally, kids are thinking about sex more, developing attitudes about it," he said.
Toby and Manuel's classmate Ali A., a basketball shooting guard who lost his virginity at 14, says he is tired of thinking about sex. Of sex on TV, he said, "It's all hyped." Shaking his cornrow braids, he declared: "It's not about sex no more. We try to enjoy our lives now. Not to have the stress."
The stress for this generation comes not just from the risks of sex in the age of AIDS and child support, but also from the challenge of maintaining relationships, said Susan Wilson, director of the Network for Family Life Education, an academic group. It sponsors a national newsletter, Sex Etc., written for and by teenagers, who show remarkable agreement across lines of race and class.
"They want to get away from the clinical aspect of sexuality," she said. "They all want to learn more about relationships, intimacy, talking to your partners, love."
These kids can see how empty is the culture that their parents and the Baby Boomers in general are bequeathing them--a reaction is inevitable. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 6, 2004 6:37 PM
Maybe not inevitable. My kids seem to be copying me pretty much, spiritual desert and all.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 6, 2004 7:22 PMI was under the impression you'd stayed married and faithful to your wife? Or were you kidding about being able to be atheist and moral?
Posted by: oj at March 6, 2004 7:57 PMI think this is possibly a positive side effect of widespread obesity in teens: they have less sex because their genitals are obstructed by their flabby, overhanging bellies.
Posted by: Carter at March 7, 2004 12:18 AMThis is quite a depressing article. You have the sense these kids are craving help and wisdom while all the experts and academics sit back and watch, keenly interested in how it will all turn out but not daring to guide them or "impose" values.
But of course, scientists just observe, they don't prescribe. You are on your own, kids.
Posted by: Peter B at March 7, 2004 6:07 AMFlorida requires teens to pass a "Marriage and Relationship" class before graduating high school.
The class basically shows teens what to look for in an ideal mate, hopefully gets them to think beyond sex, gives conflict resolution advice, etc.
It seems to be a "maturity" primer.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 7, 2004 3:22 PMI was thinking about more than just sex, Orrin.
Although my wife's approach was different, I tried to handle my kids' education about sex the same way I did religion and alcohol. Instead of banning all three, I let 'em know early that I didn't find anything inherently wrong about them. Thump the watermelon.
Despite the mixed message at home -- even more mixed considering whatever it was they were getting from school and friends when we weren't around -- they seemed able to cope well enough.
I won't say my approach is of general application, but they turned out pretty close to what I was hoping for.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 7, 2004 4:34 PMHarry:
Maybe they did so well because they paid more attention to what you did than what you preached. You old righteous hypocrite, you.
Posted by: Peter B at March 7, 2004 7:05 PMHarry:
Did you murder? steal? take drugs? drink to excess at home?
I don't get it. You set a strict Judeo-Christian example and think you're a revolutionary?
Posted by: oj at March 7, 2004 7:35 PMSince when did failing to murder, steal, take drugs or drink to excess at home become the sole preserve of Judeo-Christianity?
Cheat on your wife, stay married, etc.--Since there's no reason not to otherwise.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2004 8:03 AMI took drugs and drank to excess at home.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 8, 2004 2:29 PMSure you did.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2004 2:58 PMDrinking to excess and Judeo-Christian morality have long, long co-existed.
Although, ending up a lush in the gutter has been frowned upon.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 8, 2004 5:37 PMI gave up mescaline at my wife's request. I have always regretted that.
I gave up retsina when I moved to Hawaii 'cause you can't get it here.
But I was a jolly toper in my youth.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 8, 2004 7:59 PMWho wasn't, before they had kids...
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2004 8:30 PM"Cheat on your wife, stay married, etc.--Since there's no reason not to otherwise."
Nonsense. Life is materially better by not doing those things. That's all the reason required not to.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 8, 2004 9:50 PMOf course it isn't materially better, but it is spiritually. Don't worry--we won't tell anyone you're freeloading on Judeo-Christianity. We'll all pretend morality sprang from your head.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2004 11:45 PMOh, but it is materially better.
I've heard this advice many times: Wanna be rich? Don't get divorced.
Don't worry. I won't tell anyone Judeo-Christian morality springs from blindlingly common sense.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 9, 2004 7:21 AMDivorce? You believe in killing inconvenient spouses. That even comes with cash prizes.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2004 7:52 AMIf I remember correctly, you advocate suicide.
If you were capable of accurate comprehension, you would understand that the situation is not murder, but suicide. My wife has indicated that in certain in extremis, irremediable, medical situations, she does not want intrusive life support. In essence, she is insisting that nature be allowed to take its course, that she not be perpetually force fed.
There is absolutely no difference between that, and the suicide you advocate.
Your comment utterly misses the point, and is rather characteristic of your reflexive resort to ad hominem attacks in the absence of a credible argument.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 9, 2004 12:47 PMI don't advocate suicide. I don't see how we can stop it, consistent with human freedom, unless we know someone to be incompetent, as Spaulding Gray or an ill/injured woman whose husband has a stake in her death and a stated preference not to care for her..
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2004 1:39 PM"Don't worry. I won't tell anyone Judeo-Christian morality springs from blindlingly common sense."
Good one Jeff!
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 9, 2004 6:49 PMOJ:
Wrong on the facts. You have advocated suicide, in the hypothetical of a Jehovah's Witness who would choose death rather than undergo a life saving blood transfusion.
That is suicide, you advocated it.
When my wife tells me her preference is to allow nature to take its course, that is my commandment. Further, religious teaching backs up my position. A portion of the Catholich catechism (I hope I have my terminology right) posted here some months ago finds it morally permissible to withold intrusive medical care in the face of an in extremis, irremediable medical condition.
While whistling, "We're in the money...."
I have no ethical problem with your wife refusing heroic treatment. The point is that those with a vested interest in her death should be separated from the decision to withdraw treatment or give up the interest. For example, a system where in exchange for killing your wife you were required to transfer her medical benefits, estate, etc., to an indigent patient who wanted to live would seem fair.
I have an ethical problem with you using words like "inconvenient" that completely mischaracterize the situation at hand, or "killing" in referring to stopping medicine playing God. I have an ethical problem with you throwing around statements like "We're in the money," which is not only a grotesque insult, but also reveals your monunental ignorance regarding my financial situation.
Now, of course there is no reason you should know anything about my finances. But faced with that, you should bloody well refrain from making conclusions as if you do.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 10, 2004 6:54 AMIf only you had an ethical problem with killing the inconvenient.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 7:54 AMI have an ethical problem with you using words like "inconvenient" that completely mischaracterize the situation at hand.
If Maureen Dowd were to perpetrate a similar linguistic violence upon something that, say, the Secretary of Defense said, you would be furious.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 10, 2004 3:42 PMYes, we're clear on your ethical problem with words and your comfort with murder. The hope is that you'll reverse the two.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 5:20 PM