and the pledges last until college, were the combination of alcohol + chaste girls = mad crazy sex.
[quote]Mike Benfield wrote:
lizard king wrote:
Could be that the past you are envisioning is more an idyll than reality.
Guys, we don’t have to speculate about this stuff because the data is readily available. People record this information. Births to unwed mothers have gone from around 20 (unwed births per 1000 young women) in 1940 to around 70 today. The rate has more than tripled.
[/quote]
Not quite. Heather Boonstra wrote in the Guttmacher Report that
Note that this is JUST teen births, not necessarily unwed births, which of course would be different. But allowing that DOUBLE the teen births is the total unwed births only makes current unwed births SLIGHTLY higher than the base TEEN pregnancy rate in the 1950’s.
Also, the article mentions that the unwed numbers from the 50’s would be different because more girls were married in their teens in the 50’s. So, although the teen birthrates were much higher, more of the teens were married. Hence your figure.
Netherlands, Sweden, and France have the lowest teen birthrate AND abortion rate of the five countries (US, US-White Women, England-Wales, France, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands) that were reviewed by Elise Jones, et al. in Family Planning Perspectives. Of those three, only Sweden has a higher divorce rate than the US, as well as the United Kingdom, which has a lower teen birthrate than the US as well.
[quote]
Those of you who are saying that girls did have babies young in past years, they were just married already… you are correct, at least partially. But that just supports my point. Babies outside of marriage are less likely to be in a good situation. I actually think the rising age of marriage is a pretty bad thing. [/quote]
The US is tied with Luxembourg on the average marriage age of women in the country, at 26. Guess what, every country with a higher marriage age has a lower teen pregnancy rate than the US.
Sources:
Heather Boonstra. Teen Pregnancy: Trends and Lessons Learned. Guttmacher Institute. February 2002 Volume 5, Number 1. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
Teenage Pregnancy in Developed Countries: Determinants and Policy Implications
Elise F. Jones; Jacqueline Darroch Forrest; Noreen Goldman; Stanley K. Henshaw; Richard Lincoln; Jeannie I. Rosoff; Charles F. Westoff; Deirdre Wulf
Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 2. (Mar. - Apr., 1985), pp. 53-63.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354%28198503%2F04%2917%3A2%3C53%3ATPIDCD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
Economic and Social Data Rankings. http://www.datarankings.com
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
And abstinence DOES work, people just don’t stick with it.
I can think of one example where that wasn’t true.[/quote]
That would be?
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
And abstinence DOES work, people just don’t stick with it.
I can think of one example where that wasn’t true.
That would be?[/quote]
Well, at least for Christians, Mary was abstinent before marriage, wasn’t she?
[quote]gendou57 wrote:
Also, the article mentions that the unwed numbers from the 50’s would be different because more girls were married in their teens in the 50’s. So, although the teen birthrates were much higher, more of the teens were married. Hence your figure.[/quote]
Well, yes. This is the problem with your data. This little fact that the article “mentions” means all this data is irrelevant. I don’t really care that teen birthrates were higher in the 1950s. They were higher because a lot of teenage girls were married, which is perfectly OK by me. The chart you linked to clearly indicates that in 1950 about 12% of teen births were to unwed mothers; today about 80%. But we don’t have to look at teen birthrates and then guess about what total unwed birthrates may be. We have the numbers on unwed birthrates. And they have more than tripled since 1940. I’m not making this up.
I don’t know why this may be significant. Once average marriage age is in the late 20s, things are already a little screwy. I’m not talking about comparing, say, the US and France. I’m talking about comparing the US and traditional Hindus in India, or Europe a few hundred years ago, or what have you.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
tom63 wrote:
T Ham wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Personally, I think there should be a lot less people having sex. All I have to do is run to Walmart to wish more people practiced abstinence.
Could they then, be the people who tried to practice abstinence, truly believed in it, and yet still failed?
I doubt it. Idiots shouldn’t have sex. They have idiot kids who again have sex and so on.
Abstinence has worked every time it has been practiced. There’s a lot of changes I’ve seen in the last thirty years that aren’t good. I never saw a teenage pregnancy in my high school. I graduated 1981, btw.
You can’t say that now a days. And you’re crazy if you think we didn’t have urges back then.
Teenage girls got preganant back in the 70s and 80s too. The school was more likely to ask them to leave. Or the parents voluntarily moved for a year. Or the girl spent a year at ‘Aunt Sally’s’.[/quote]
There were pregnancies, but not at the current rate. the social stigma it presented actually was a powerful reason to not get pregnant.
Basically, I teach my kids abstinence. but they are also taught about contraception, about the risks of sex ( pregnancy, diseases, and emotional issues related to sex).
You need to communicate with your kids, but telling them not to do it still has some affect. Saying I know you’ll do it anyway shows you have little faith in their decision making ability. Some kids will chose to wait until they are emtionally ready and physically ready, along with responsible enough .
For an example, I’m currently teaching my 12 year old son, basic marksmanship with a rifle, pistol, and shotgun. He’s learning safety along with how to do it well.
I told my wife today there are three things all men think they’re great at shooting, driving, and fucking. And guess what, most aren’t.
This ties in what we told the 12 and 14 year old girls. First, most teenage boys aren’t any good at it anyway, no matter what they think. Second, they’ll tell everyone and you’ll have a reputation.
And lastly, if they have any class they’ll wait until you’re ready. My 14 year old has already had to fight off little horndogs. And she has.
The funny thing about this is that the girls were genuinely surprised that guys would lie and pretend to like you to have sex with you, hahaha.
So we’re teaching them everything. My boy will be taught to treat women with respect, and the girls will be taught to respect themselves.
There was a great saying in the movie Clueless. I have a 45 and a shovel and I’m not afraid to use either one. And yes, I do have a 45 and a shovel.
That’s the dad talking right there.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I have a general dislike of pledges that children are forced to take, period.
We generally accept that children cannot sign binding contracts. That’s a point of law. Why do we hold this? Because a child is not yet equipped with the reason and experience necessary to understand and accept all the consequences of his consent.
But schools and parents pass out these pledges that children sign to affirm that they will never do drugs, or have sex, or whatever else. The children are generally at an age where they are too inexperienced to know what the pressures really are.
They are either forced to sign explicitly (with threats of suspension or other sanctions) or implicitly (we’ll tell your parents you wouldn’t sign), or peer pressure goads them into doing it.
So parents and schools utilize the same methods of pressure that they ostensibly urge children to resist.
These kinds of pledges are made in bad faith. Further, they are a shortcut to the real work of parenting: teaching a child enough to make his or her own decisions, not simply teaching him what decisions to make.
Finally, the whole process seems to degrade vows and pledges of any kind as they are forgotten or ignored. I support the use of “contracts” between child and parent for certain things (if the child does X a certain number of times he will get Y), because they set clear boundaries and reinforce the nature of contract and agreement between two parties.
I only support them, however, if they are made in good faith and the contract is followed - if the child does NOT do X, he does NOT get Y. Otherwise, the message is that contracts and pledges are formalities to be forgotten; mindless ceremonies or documents that appease while signifying nothing.[/quote]
One question, do you have kids? It seems we have a lot of guys here blabbing on that I suspect don’t have kids and at the least might not have even had sex in their lives.
And in the old days,these problems weren’t at this level.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
One question, do you have kids?
[/quote]
No.
Most of the time when a topic like this comes up specifically regarding child-rearing, I will either stay silent or qualify my post carefully with my ignorance.
But my point is not disproved simply by pointing out that I am childless.
I agree.
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
And abstinence DOES work, people just don’t stick with it.
I can think of one example where that wasn’t true.
That would be?
Well, at least for Christians, Mary was abstinent before marriage, wasn’t she? [/quote]
Haha, good call.
[quote]Mister T. wrote:
Nephorm: good point.
Even if these kids WERE old enough to reason, why would they need this to stay abstinent?
Is it a way to guilt them into it? Is guilt EVER a valid reason to do anything?
Furthermore, if this is a religious ceremony (which they claim it is), then why is the ceremony needed AT ALL? Shouldn’t the Bible be reason enough to stay abstinent?
Perhaps one of you Christians, or one of you “pick and choose your favorite verses and just follow those” Christians can enlighten me.[/quote]
People do a lot of stuff for various reasons, and why should you care? why do boy Scouts do this, or why do powerlifters do that? Why do people here do the chicken dance at weddings?
They are religious and want to hold a ceremony to make it more serious. That’s not my style, but I don’t like everything. My reason for pushing abstinence on kids has more to do with public health and safety, physical and emotional than any religious reasons.
But I’ve always said, reasons don’t matter, what happens matters. If these people believe this I see no problem in it. i won’t argue any religious whys on this, but kids having sex often has serious consequences for themselves and society. discouraging irresponsible behavior is a good thing.
Why worry about the why.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
tom63 wrote:
One question, do you have kids?
No.
It seems we have a lot of guys here blabbing on that I suspect don’t have kids and at the least might not have even had sex in their lives.
Most of the time when a topic like this comes up specifically regarding child-rearing, I will either stay silent or qualify my post carefully with my ignorance.
But my point is not disproved simply by pointing out that I am childless.
And in the old days,these problems weren’t at this level.
I agree.[/quote]
The reason for teaching abstinence first often has a different meaning when you have kids. It’s not theory, it’s the real world.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
And abstinence DOES work, people just don’t stick with it.
I can think of one example where that wasn’t true.
That would be?
Well, at least for Christians, Mary was abstinent before marriage, wasn’t she?
Haha, good call.
[/quote]
mary was only a virgin if you dont count anal.
[quote]Mike Benfield wrote:
I don’t know why this may be significant. Once average marriage age is in the late 20s, things are already a little screwy. I’m not talking about comparing, say, the US and France. I’m talking about comparing the US and traditional Hindus in India, or Europe a few hundred years ago, or what have you. [/quote]
Aren’t arranged marriages/promising still relatively fairly prevalent in India, pushing the average marriage age down?
And, what is wrong with a marriage age in the late 20s? People can travel, go to school, go to school some more, get a decent career, and then date for a while, and finally get married. Not saying that is the path for everyone.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
The reason for teaching abstinence first often has a different meaning when you have kids. It’s not theory, it’s the real world.
[/quote]
And I’m telling you that in the real world, this kind of approach causes problems. I know many children who have taken various pledges, and I know what the results tend to be.
I have no problem with abstinence, and I don’t have any problem with parents teaching it to their children. I just don’t think this is the proper means.
A father could hit his child every day to cleanse him of impure thoughts - that might keep the child abstinent. But that doesn’t mean that the means are justified, or that it is the best way.
And while we’re at it, I think there are lots of wonderful things that can be accomplished by ceremony and rites of passage. My guess is that if one would take the ceremonial aspect of this, divorce it from pledges and abstinence altogether, and instead make it simply a bonding experience between family, church, and child, that much more benefit would be seen.
But please don’t insult me as if I do not have eyes to see what has transpired in the lives of my students and my peers.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Those of you who think this “ceremony” and its intent is some diabolical plot by banjo strumming pervert dads to brainwash their daughters into a dastardly cult of insidious debauchery are full of shit.[/quote]
Is anyone really making this argument?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d bet a fair amount that if one were to poll the posters on this thread you’d find that most of those lampooning and blasting this teenage abstinence vow concept are childless teenagers and twenty-somethings and those supporting it are DADS and moms.
Funny thing about perspective, ain’t it?
[/quote]
I agree with this statement. Teens don’t want to stay abstinent (since sex is fun) and parents want their kids to stay abstinent (since they want their children to do all kinds of neat things like education and career stuff before having kids) and both of these ARE valid points. Sex is FUN and it could lead to pregnancy or STD’s, which limit a person’s options early in life.
If we both agree that THESE are the perspectives being taken by either group, its obvious that teens having unprotected sex frequently will most likely have a pregnancy. Just like the parents said. This will never be debated.
What is being debated is whether abstinence only education is the RIGHT route, and as MOST studies show, it is not, and may in fact contribute to teen pregnancies.
Given the choice between magically forcing EVERYONE to abstain until marriage and forcing EVERYONE to use birth control, abstinence wins, as birth control can fail. But we don’t have the magical power to do such a thing, and in fact appears as though attempting to force people to stay abstinent until marriage is harmful to our goals. This is why education of contraceptives and their proper use is important.
This has nothing to do with a stance on whether or not teens are emotionally or mentally ready for sex. This is just looking at studies and drawing conclusions.
-Gendou
(PS: I’m just finished being a teenager, but I’ve still had sex, and my partners and my inability to handle some of the emotional aspects of a healthy sex life has convinced me that if I’m going to have sex, I need to be particularly choosy about it.)
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Those of you who think this “ceremony” and its intent is some diabolical plot by banjo strumming pervert dads to brainwash their daughters into a dastardly cult of insidious debauchery are full of shit.
Is anyone really making this argument?[/quote]
I certainly could care less if some jug band members have their daughters swear some vows to beings I don’t believe in.
Come to think of it, I’ve never heard a jug band. That might be cool…
-Gendou