Katie Couric TV Special

The non-interview footage throughout the show was provocative and suggestive enough for the opening disclaimer that the kids slept in their parents motel rooms and signed pledges of no drugs, no booze and no sex. It was admitted that the photo booth was brought in so one has to wonder if the hammocks and dance music were as well. Katie mentioned "sexual tension" within the group and it looks like the photographers and editors captured just what was wanted. If the teens talked about sex for two days, their lack of inhibitions is not unusual.

The teens sounded pretty intelligent during the questioning especially when given the opportunity to speak in the first person. It became pretty obvious that initial responses were generally the grist of rumor mills--less was happening than was being talked about.

The most alarming commentary was the disconnect between sex and relationships. These young teens don't have the time, money or desire to have a relationship. The boys in particular didn't want the problems of a girlfriend. So sex has become recreation. One boy equated "hooking up" to going to a driving range to practice your skills before you play golf. Get better at the technique now, add love later.

It was generally admitted oral sex was about using someone and being used. Even if the girls didn't like it, there was a hopelessness for things to be different. They know what's right and what's wrong. What they seem to lack is the guidance and support to make the right choices. They get into situations where its just easier to give in.

The present and future emotional consequences of teen sexual activity needs more attention and that is where abstinence education takes the lead. Sadly, what most kids are getting in school now is a physical-only sex education so we shouldn't be surprised that teens have compartmentalized sex . But all the evidence of real life indicates that what the body does isn't separate from what the mind thinks or the heart feels. Abstinence curriculums are a better alternative because the process of decision-making is broader than whether to wear a condom or not.

NBC/People Magazine Survey of Young Teens

This is a survey of predominately 8-10th graders and thus rife with all the inconsistencies of the age group. That said and without the comparative data on respondents (ie. boys or girls), there are some interesting points

• Any form of sexual activity becomes more acceptable with age.
• Based on all respondents, love is extremely important for sexual intercourse, but less so for oral sex.
• While claiming to wait to have a sexual relationship with "the right person", few saw it as a prelude to a closer relationship
• There is strong denial about the role of peer pressure in their decision but readily admit to curiousity or sexual desire.
• Of those who have not had sex, 74% said that their decision to wait was the main reason.
• Not wanting to disappoint parents far outweighed their friends opinions as a reason to wait.
• Avoiding pregnancy is a major reason for choices about sexual activity.
• Of teens admitting to oral sex or sexual intercourse, 46% said it is a casual relationship
• They claim to heed the condom message, much less so birth control
• Parents have lower expectations of teen sexual behavior in general and their own teen's in particular.
• Parents are overwhelmingly the kids' source of sexual information and teens deny media's influence.

What does this tell abstinence educators?

1. Educate parents and encourage them to raise their moral standards.
2. Emphasize that the negative consequences of unmarried sex aren't dependent on age.
3. Support young teens who do commit to abstinence
4. The sound byte condom message has an audience. Stress that the message rarely reinforces the correct way to use condoms, making the message dangerous.
5. Casual sex is a reality at this age. Discourage using someone or being used for sexual desire.
6. Teens are not stakeholders in solving the problems of teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs and HIV. There is a dis-connect with their behavior. This has to change.
7. The survey did not cover any emotional consequences of sexual behavior. This needs to be emphasized in education.
8. If responses about the irrelevancy of peer pressure are accurate, then teaching decision-making skills is even more important.
9. The media IS an influence on everyone. Teens need to learn how to be discriminating consumers of information.

HIV drugs

Bravo CDC! Now those who have been raped or made a rare, dangerous sexual choice can receive emergency drug treatment that can keep them from being infected with HIV. This is not a substitute for responsible behavior, nor should it be because of the expediency and intensity of the drug regimen. The looming HIV epidemic among youth and women in this country make this an overdue action.

Adding pre-marriage HIV testing to the already optional pregnancy HIV testing would be another step in this war.

Teen Sex and Parent Notification

Re: Milw. JS article "Study sheds light on Teen Sex" 1/19

1. Beware of the research.

• Has the net ever been more widespread (federally funded family planning clinics in 33 states) and the response so minimal? (1526 girls)
• The responses came from girls already sexually active; 40% of whom were hiding visits from parents
• The study was conducted by Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood
• The quoted percentages don't add up
• Much research on teen sexual activity use teens in detention facilities, or who are clients at family planning or STD clinics. It is easy on the researcher to have a captive audience. However, these results shouldn't be extrapolated to the general population.

2. Beware of the Results

• The purpose of the study was to show that if parent notification laws were enacted, teens would not curb their sexual activity but would "use no birth control or unreliable methods". 46% would use "OTC methods such as condoms" (check blog on OTC Emergency Contraception), 18% would not use birth control trying withdrawal or rhythm method, 7% would stop having sex.
• If 84% would do something different if their parents were notified, they must know their parents would not approve of their behavior. Therefore their parents have taught them values.
• These teens have been given a way to circumvent their parents and their parents have lost the opportunity to influence their daughters.
• Rather than proving parent notification laws are dangerous, encouraging girls to participate in unsafe sex, the opposite is proven. The laws might allow parents to moderate their daughters' activities with more scrutiny and stop the causal behavior.

3. Beware Researcher Bias

• "Rhythm...method...which is far less reliable". Modern Natural Family Planning methods have replaced the old rhythm method. Couples trained in NFP have success rates equal to the best of prescription contraceptives. The researcher obviously doesn't know that.
• Teens are, by nature, ill-prepared to manage the regimen of prescription birth control. If they were, family planning clinics wouldn't be putting them on the new long-lasting birth control. So to blame the method when teens are involved is in error. Teens will get pregnant, even when on birth control or using condoms, because of "user" error more often than product/method error.
• The only reason the number of unplanned pregnancies and STD will continue to increase is because teens are having sex, not because they aren't using birth control. No method of birth control will save a girl from any STD. The researcher concludes just the opposite.

OTC Emergency Contraception

Timed to coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Congress will allow the non-prescription, over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception. The decision was delayed last year until assurances could be made that teen girls could use the pills appropriately. A concern was that this pill is not meant as a substitute for regular contraception, and that teenagers would use it as such. That legitimate concern was handled by requiring prescriptions for girls under the age of 16.

Here's the problem with this whole emergency contraception idea:

1) Its market is supposedly females who forget to use their normal contraceptive or are victims of rape, date rape or a poor choice. Their objective is to not become pregnant.
a) The non-contracepting rape/date rape victim can only get pregnant a few days in her cycle. If she is not in her fertile time, she will not get pregnant. In that case, the pill is not medically warranted; it is an emotional balm.
b) The contracepting woman has to know enough about her birth control and its effect on her cycle to trust it. She has to know what happens if she skips a dose. If she is on a patch, or Seasonale, or injectibles, she needs to know if she ever would need Emergency Contraception. Do women or teens get this type of instruction from their doctors or do they have to read the instruction sheet? If they don't know enough to trust what they have, emergency contraception can become a regular safety net or a substitute which is not its purpose.

2) The under-16 prescription rule is a farce. The majority of girls under 16 are having sex with boys over 16 or men. The guys will get the pills. The girl won't have to tell anyone she's sexually active. She avoids responsibility for her actions and he doesn't face charges for rape. What a boon for men into pedeophilia and incest!

3) Look at what this does for rape victims and rapists! She "handles" the possibility of pregnancy but might never be checked for other medical outcomes. She can separate herself from emotional and psychological support she needs and would have been offered if she sought immediate medical attention. The rapist gets a free ride unless he has the misfortune of attacking a very strong woman who will report the rape anyway, submitting herself to the legal systems.

4) When prescriptions are required for all types of contraception, women must, or should, have a physical exam. These are medications that change the body's normal functioning and have side effects. If a woman has an existing medical condition or addiction, contraceptives become very dangerous. Emergency contraception is a double wallop of The Pill--that can't be good for some women.

5) We are in the midst of an STD epidemic and a growing AIDS epidemic among women and youth. Why would we promote anything that might lessen the chances of sexually active girls and women from getting medical attention to diagnose and treat these infections and diseases ASAP.

Does anyone ask why? Does anyone look at the "big picture"?

Consumer Report: Condom ratings

A report in the February 2005 Consumer Reports magazine has generated controversey. In its testing of 23 kinds of latex condoms, two of the free condom varieties offered by Planned Parenthood scored lowest in air-infiltration tests measuring strength and reliability. Although Planned Parenthood has been dogged in its challenge of the outcomes, testing/evaluation and accuracy of Abstinence education, the same does not seem to apply in-house. As strong proponents of condom use, the fact that their products received the lowest ratings is shameful.

In response to the report, Planned Parenthood:
1) Criticized the testing method
2) Announced that in later "independent testing", the same condoms received excellent ratings
3) Claimed the facts were outdated; their "honeydew" model had already been redesigned. (Did they get prior warning from the CEO of Consumer Reports, a former Planned Parenthood of Maryland president?)

This is the second time in recent years that Planned Parenthood's condoms have made the news. Nonoxynol-9, a spermicidal condom lubricant, was found to cause vaginal damage that facilitated STD/HIV infection. In response, Wisconsin Planned Parenthood removed its condoms that contained the spermicide. However, since nonoxynol-9 was added to condoms by bypassing the FDA claiming it was a lubricant not a spermicide, public trust should have been severely damaged. But since the issue was glossed over in the media, rather than facing hard questions, Planned Parenthood was portrayed as a responsible agency.

Planned Parenthood: You promote condom use to prevent pregnancy, STD and HIV, but deny any responsibility that the approach is not working. You want to educate our children in consistent and correct condom use, but provide them with an inferior product. You claim only your programs are "medically accurate" and "science-based" but the evidence, if publicly presented, paints you into a corner. You blame abstinence advocates for creating public distrust of condoms as a panacea, but have been caught again not telling the whole truth.