2/19/12

Last night, I was on FOX 11 news discussing a silly new program in CA. It's called Condom Access Project (as in "put a cap on it.") This project (funded by YOUR tax dollars) will send teenagers free condoms thru the mail in a discreetly wrapped package.

As with most govt solutions to problems THEY create, this one is based on 3 false premises.

False Premise #1:
Receiving condoms at home will be less embarrassing and awkward than going to a clinic or school health office.

If the child is sexually active with parental permission, chances are parents will provide them, there's no reason to send them in mail. If the child is sexually active without parental permission, receiving a box of condoms every month will surely let the cat out of the bag.

I asked several teens, "Which would be more awkward, going to the store/clinic to ask for them or getting a package at home your mom will probably see?" They all said, "It's going to come to my HOUSE???"

False Premise #2:
Teens fail to use condoms because they don’t have access to them.

NOT.

Teens fail to use condoms because the reasoning center of their brain is not fully developed until age 25. They aren't able of taking in information, filtering it thru time/nature/experience and predict the consequences of their behavior. Teens don't use condoms because they don't fully understand the risk!

The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (taken every other year since the 1990s) has shown the highest condom use is among 9th graders (64-69% on avg). Condom use DECREASES to 52-54% by 12th grade when ACCESS is greatly increased.

False Premise #3:
If teens have condoms they will use them and the rates of STDs will go down.

ASSUMED, but never proven!

1 out of 3 teen couples using condoms to avoid pregnancy GET PREGNANT in the first year.* It's not just because of breakage, it's because of inconsistent use! Even adults fail to use condoms with every single act of sexual contact. Inconsistent use (anything less than 100% consistent and correct) provides the same rate of infection as not using them AT ALL!

Then there's the question of "how much protection" condoms provide. The amount of risk reduction from correct/consistent condoms use varies by disease -- meaning which partner is infected and what type of sex they’re having. For instance, take Gonorrhea — if HE is infected: 85% risk reduction. If SHE is infected: condoms offer only 50% risk reduction.

Or take, HIV. For vaginal sex, 85% risk reduction. Anal sex: no evidence of ANY risk reduction.

But more than that, the Condom Access Project completely ignores the evidence! The CAP program was initiated because of high Chlamydia and Gonorrhea infection rates, but according to the NIH** condom effectiveness studies, condoms only reduced the risk of infection by 50%. (The website hosting this program says “Condoms give good protection against Chlamydia.” Does 50% sound like "Good protection"??)

Teens use condoms like they clean their rooms. Adults who believe giving kids more ACCESS to condoms will automatically result in lower rates of infection and pregnancy have obviously never met a teenager from Earth.

(I say this with no disrespect for teens, by the way. Teens get the fact that the reason stuff doesn't make sense sometimes is because they have no way to process the data adults throw at them. In this regard, teens are a LOT smarter than some adults!)

Sources:
*[See "Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups," Family Planning Perspectives, 2001, 33(1):19-27]

**National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, July 20, 2001.

Another Safe Sex Lie Exposed

Imagine you get a newsletter from the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (which I do every month.) And you're reading along about how HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is the leading cause of Oral Cancers, and Oral Cancer has risen dramatically since 1998 among adolescent males... from .9 per 100,000 to 8.5 per 100,000.

Then you come across this statement:

"Oral sex is common among adolescents. It is estimated that ONE IN FIVE adolescents have had oral sex by the end of the ninth grade"*

That means FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS. Think of the 14 year olds you actually know. Not the ones on TV. Real ones. Do you think they have ANY IDEA that what seems like no big deal to them --- [For instance, Dr. Meg Meeker tells of a teacher who found a note on the floor in her middle school classroom, "Sorry I didn't show up for my BJ at lunch. It's Taco Tuesday."] -- could potentially mean they have their tongue, throat or esophagus surgically removed?

Not likely.

Ummm, but aren't they taught in their Comprehensive Sex Ed. Class that oral sex is "safe"?

Yep.

*Source: Halpern-Felsher BL, Cornell JL, Kropp RY, Tschann JM. Oral versus vaginal sex among adolescents: perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):845-851.

Did You MEAN to Raise a Sexually Active Teen?

It's here! Everything I've learned about how teens think, and how to help them make good decisions about sex are in a new book called Did You MEAN to Raise a Sexually Active Teen?

I can't tell you how to get them to do their homework, but I can tell you how they think, and how you can become their BEST SOURCE of information about sex, love and relationships. The dangers young people face are very real and sometimes leave permanent scars. And what most adults do instinctively -- DOESN'T WORK!!

I've seen the results of the Sleeping Beauty Method, where well-meaning parents try to cocoon their child in hopes of keeping out any sexual thought until they graduate from college. I've heard the arguments for Lowering the Bar to some standard that can be applied to just about anything (wait til you're "ready", for cryin' out loud.) And I've seen how desperate parents are to change their teen's behavior with information... but information doesn't change behavior.

This book is not JUST for girls and it's not written in Christianese. It's full of my practical and humorous tips that you can put to use immediately, and see results immediately. If you are a parent, a grandparent, a pastor, a teacher, a youth leader or just concerned about kids --- this will help you make the case for sexual self-control.

And I truly hope you will!

Bragging About My Husband

I love to tell people that my husband writes me poetry. It comes as a surprise (just like the fact that he's an accomplished tap dancer) because he's so... well... BIG. Truth be told, he's not doing too much dancing these days, but he IS still writing me poetry.Jim was inspired to write it because I went to Sacramento for conference for 5 days. Before this trip, we had never been apart for more than 3 days tops.


I'm undergoing the longest 5 days of my life.
The first 5 days EVER without my wife.
She off and away on another God errand.
What more can I say, but, "Yep, that's my Karen."
She teaches and preaches with sexual speeches
'Bout relating and dating and mating and waiting.

Wherever she goes, folks are glad that she came,
No matter where, their story's the same.
"We've heard this before, but never quite like this:
How in your youth you treasured each kiss.
But then in adulthood it all went awry,
As usual it centered on some selfish guy."

And though the example seems a common enough story
What Satan meant for ill, God will use for His glory.
By teaching the youth the error of their ways,
I guess it worth at least 5 of my days.
Without my wife (though painful for sure)
For the joy set before me I'll have to endure.
The 5 loneliest nights is like bread without leaven.
It's flat and its tasteless. (Thank God it's not 7!)
But I'll give up the 5 for riches in heaven.

(James Kropf 7-17-10)

(Thanks Honeybear. kk)

It Doesn't Work? Spend More Money!!

Here's something I bet you never heard...

Pregnancy rates in the US had been on the rise until 1993. From 1993 to 2006, pregnancy rates began to decline. In 2006, for the first time in 14 years pregnancy rates have begun going up.

• 1993 (the year the decline began) was the first year public schools introduced abstinence programs.
  
• In 2006 (the year the rates began to go up), the ACLU threatened lawsuits for discrimination against school districts whose sex education programs standard was "abstinence-until-marriage."
  

A cause-and-effect? Maybe, you say. OK, grab your high-blood pressure medicine, and follow the latest sex ed. developments.

Here's how your tax money for sex education was spent.

• Title V began in 1994. It is currently funded at $50 million a year. This federal program gives a block of money for Abstinence Based Education to states who match every $4 with $3 from their own budget.
• Since 2006, school districts in states who accepted this money have been the target of lawsuits by the ACLU, so only about 30 states currently accept the funds.
• Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) allowed individual abstinence programs to receive federal grants without requiring the state to match funds. CBAE was denfunded in 2009 by the Obama Administration.
  
• When all the abstinence education (ASE) money was added up in 2008, it totaled $176 million.
• When all the "comprehensive" sex education (CSE) money was added up it came to $609 million plus $27 Billion for HIV prevention programs.

In the 2010 budget, President Obama created two NEW funding streams for Teen Pregnancy Prevention. Tier I is $75 Million for existing evidence-based programs. And Tier 2 provides $15-$25 million for research and demonstration grants.

Here's the kicker: NONE of the new money can go toward Abstinence Education. Every penny of it has to go toward a "comprehensive" approach. (In government-speak that means you say abstinence is effective, but your main focus is getting teens to use condoms. Most comprehensive sex ed. programs discuss condoms over abstinence at a ratio of 7:1.)

Now, this is the REALLY funny part. TWO well-documented reports have been published showing comprehensive sex ed programs DON'T WORK!

The first was conducted by John Jemmott, PhD and published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (here). It showed that in head-to-head measurements, only 33% of students who received abstinence based education were sexually active 2 years later compared to 50% of students who received comprehensive sex ed (abstinence plus condoms message), "safe sex" education (condoms only) and the control group (health information with no extra emphasis on sexuality).

This study marks the first time ASE and CSE programs were evaluated side-by-side, with the same at-risk population. It came as a surprise to some people who promoted handing out all that CSE money for the last 3 decades.

The other report came from the Institute for Research and Evaluation. Unlike every other evaluator of sex education, IRE doesn't have a dog in this hunt. They don't create or sell sex education programs. They just look at the evidence of what they produce.

Their evaluations (see pdfs here), over several years, in head-to-head comparisons found that:

• The CSE programs touted as "effective in reducing teen pregnancy and STDs" didn't actually MEASURE pregnancy or infection rates at all.
  
• NONE of them increased consistent condom use or had an effect on delaying sexual initiation over time.
  
• But several studies have shown that ASE programs (the ones that just had their funding cut) are proven to be effective at delaying sexual initiation.

Oh, dear, how awkward that the new funding is only for existing "evidence based" programs.

Remember CSE gets $609 million dollars a year vs. ASE which got $176 million per year. The programs which cost taxpayers LESS money, and are MORE effective have been eliminated. The programs which HAVEN'T worked for the last 30 years, and cost taxpayers MORE are about to get an additional $100 million dollars.

Yep, reminds you of President Regan's old saying:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Sex Makes People Stupid

As if any MORE evidence were needed to show that sex can impair someone's judgment --- here comes Tiger Woods buried under a mountain of evidence that he has been unfaithful to his wife (with at least 14 mistresses.) Major endorsement contracts, perhaps even his future in the sport he dominates, suddenly teetering like a house of cards.

My first reaction was overwhelming sadness because another hero and role model has imploded. I felt the same way when I heard about Kobe Bryant in 1994. Both of them had reached the absolute pinnacle of their fields, only to be brought low by their lack of self-control.

What I keep turning over in my mind however, is NOT that Tiger Woods had a bevvy of ladies that he was juggling... not that he risked EVERYTHING for sexual excitement... not that the man with legendary control over every aspect of his game could be so wildly out of control in another area of his life... but, frankly, that his WIFE thought he could be faithful.

Follow me here: Tiger Woods was well-known as a Las Vegas partyer while he was single, frequently seen with a diverse assortment of beautiful women on his arm. In our culture, when you're a handsome bachelor it's a given that you'll have a string of partners. But, prior to getting married, his bride-to-be, Elin Nordegren, made it clear she expected this behavior to stop. Then she married him without any demonstration or proof that his was something he was capable of doing!

This is a very typical female line of thought. I have this conversation over and over with women who have been cheated on:

Me: So he cheated on his last girlfriend with you?
Her: Well, yeah, but their relationship wasn't going anywhere.
Me: Had he told her that?
Her: I don't know. He said they fought all the time.
Me: Uh huh. Did he cheat on the girlfriend he had before her?
Her: Well, she wasn't really his girlfriend. She was just some girl he hung out with.
Me: Someone he was just using for sex?
Her: Ummmm, yeah.
Me: So, he cheated on at least the two previous girls he was with, but you thought he wouldn't cheat on you?
Her: Ummmm, yeah.
Me: Based on what evidence?
Her: He said he would never cheat on me!

I'm not kidding.

For the record: the BEST predictor of future behavior is PAST behavior. Impulse control is a skill that takes practice. You don't magically become capable of resisting temptation because you put on a wedding band (for cryin' out loud! it's not a force field!) This is so elementary: If your partner never has to prove to you that he/she can resist temptation, by resisting YOU, then you have no reason to believe they're capable of resisting anyone else!

Duh. I have so much expertise in this, I could write a book about it!

Wait a minute! I did! Sex Makes People Stupid: How To Avoid Ending Up With a Weenie

Something Positive to Say?

"The problem is, Karen, you don't have a product."

This pronouncement came from my brother-in-law. He pointed out that "the other side" sells stuff --- condoms, birth control, abortions, etc. --- while we are promoting a behavior.

It's an obvious but very astute observation. How do you "sell" sexual self-control? Oh sure, we have the DVD "Everyone Lies About Sex" but it's mainly an introduction to the concept.

How DO you sell the behavior of "impulse control?" Seems pretty tricky. But just because something is hard, doesn't mean it can't be done!

So, here's the plan. To help us come up with a product...

Positively Waiting is sponsoring a T-Shirt Design Contest

We're looking for positive, pithy designs we can put on a T-shirt. The kind of design that makes people stop and think.. and hopefully start a discussion.

Maybe something like:

• Resisting temptation today to be faithful tomorrow.
• Hookups are temporary. Friends are forever.
• Smile if you controlled our passion today

Every useable design will win a pass to Skateland or Mountasia The 3 best designs plus the people who referred the most designers will win awards on Saturday, October 3rd. 2009.

Deadline for submissions is Sept. 25th 2009.

Health Innoculation Is Now Stealth Indoctrination

Health and Life Skills classes will no longer be taught as stand-alone subjects at Granada Hills Charter High School. Instead the required "health concepts" (meaning, nutrition, suicide prevention, body systems,and sex education) will be incorporated into Physical Education.

I'm not a parent of a child attending GHCHS so my input is completely irrelevant to the decision makers. And I really hope to establish relationships with the PE teachers who are now going to be saddled with teaching sex ed. But I can't help but wonder...

State Law requires a "comprehensive" sex education program be taught. That means the students have to receive information on reproduction, pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual harassment and safe surrender laws. It's hard to imagine PE teachers choosing to become fully informed about this complex material so they can teach it effectively, when it would be much easier to call the local clinic to schedule a presentation.

If I were a GHCHS PE teacher, that's what I would do. Hand out pills, shots, cream, foam and condoms today... your shoulder pads will be here tomorrow.

Unlike most LAUSD schools in the San Fernando Valley, GHCHS has had very low pregnancy and infection rate. Since 1998 has been the ONLY public school in our community where every student saw a Positively Waiting presentation as a part of their Health class. All four of the Health teachers made sure their students heard as much about Risk-ELIMINATION as Risk-REDUCTION. Years of the PW message on campus has provided positive peer-pressure for students to practice sexual self-control.

Will PE teachers, now required to disseminate mountains of complex, politically-charged material, in addition to their own course requirements, be as concerned about teaching both sides? I honestly don't know. I hope so.

Oh, and in case you're wondering what will take the place of a 20-week class focusing on the importance of making informed health decisions --- and the lifelong consequences of failing to do so --- students will now be encouraged to take a year-long course in Geography as an "enrichment elective."

The year-long class meets a college requirement... and coincidentally, provides 40 weeks of instruction on diversity, class warfare, gender-issues and of course, climate change.

I'm not kidding.

If You Tell A Lie Often Enough...

In almost every news story or report about sex education you hear, "It is a 'well known fact' that abstinence education doesn't work, that comprehensive sex education does, and spending government funds on abstinence education is a waste of taxpayer's money.

But is it really?

On May 13, 2009, the Institute for Research and Evaluation published an evaluation of the EFFECTIVENESS of "Comprehensive" Sex Education (CSE, which means introduce abstinence but promote using "protection") and "Abstinence" Sex Education (ASE, which means avoiding sexual activity). You can read the entire paper here, but here are some interesting findings:

NO school-based "comprehensive" sex education program has been shown:

• to increase the number of teens who use condoms consistently for more than 3 months
• to decrease teen pregnancy or STD rates for any group for any period of time
• to increase both the number of teens who were abstaining and the number of sexually teens using condoms

The argument against Abstinence Education has always been "there's no proof that it works," so we should cut off government funding for it. What's really amusing (if you appreciate dark humor, I mean) is that it's Comprehensive Sex Ed. which can't be proven effective. As I've stated before, the goal of CSE is to increase condom/birth control use among the sexually active. If abstinent teens entering a CSE program become sexually active BUT using condoms at the end of it, it's still considered an EFFECTIVE program.

Think that through... if teens who weren't sexually active BEFORE are sexually active and using "protection" AFTER, your program works. Never mind if the protection fails. Never mind if more teens are at-risk for pregnancy and infection. You're not measuring rates of pregnancy and STDs... you can just ASSUME "protection" protects, so you don't have to measure that stuff!

And here's the REALLY funny part --- the people who develop and sell CSE programs are the ones who get to evaluate which programs are effective! Yep. They decide what to measure, which studies to look at and then they get taxpayer money to publish their reports which --- gasp! --- show ASE doesn't work, but CSE does!

I have to admit, you can't place ALL the blame for the myths about CSE on the program developers and condom distributors. Part of the blame falls on ASE educators and program developers who are notoriously naive. In the past, they haven't designed into their programs measurements of condom use, teen pregnancy or reduction in STDs. If your goal is teaching teens how NOT to give in to their sexual impulses, then you'd naturally want to know if your program has an impact on that.

But if you want to compare ASE to CSE, you would have to ask your abstinent participants, "Are you using condoms and birth control?" (Because, after all, that's what CSE programs measure and you want to compare apples to apples, right?)

BUT if you're successful at teaching abstinence, your participants will tell you "No, we are not using condoms and birth control."

TA-DA! There's your proof! ASE isn't effective because it doesn't INCREASE the number of teens using condoms and birth control!

Welcome to my world.

Hook-up Weekly "Tip"

(Caution: The transcript of these text "tips" from The HookUp might be offensive. It comes from TeenSource, a gov't funded weekly text message sent to teens who subscribe.)

The CA Family Health Council has developed a new "service" to provide "sex info and life advice" to teens who subscribe to The HookUp. Teens will be referred to TeenSource.org with questions. This website is linked to and funded by many organizations with a vested interest in promoting teen sex, but they claim their objective is to help teens make "responsible choices."

What kind of "responsible choices" would teens be encouraged to make if they subscribed?

My first text message from The HookUp read:

Hookup Weekly TIP: meds cure Chalmydia, Gonorrhea + Syph. Herpes + HIV stay w/u 4ever. Txt CLINIC + ur zipcode 4 clinics

My second text message from The HookUp read:
Hookup Weekly TIP: u cant get pregnant from anal sex but its much riskier 4HIV+STDS Txt CLINIC + ur zipcode 4 clinics

Based on just these two texts alone, is the the "responsible choice" for a teen to

a) Get tested (for which clinics receive millions in government funding),
and then once you have a clean test result
b) Have anal sex responsibly to avoid getting pregnant?

Putting the idea of "safe" anal sex in a 13-15 year old's head doesn't seem responsible to ME at all. However, if your goal is to break down the natural barriers young people have to risky sexual activity, getting a text message from THE GOVERNMENT telling you its ok would certainly be a good start.

Expect the Law of Unintended Consequences to catch up with this really fast. For instance, expect teen pregnancies to increase. Telling teens "you can't get pregnant from anal sex," is biologically true, but in Real Life, not so much. Have sperm will travel. Ask anyone who got pregnant without "going all the way."

And secondarily, does it seem like a good idea to promote anal sex anyway? We are already at epidemic levels for sexually transmitted infections NOW, so encouraging more of the behavior which transmits bacteria and viruses directly into the bloodstream seems pretty irresponsible.

But even more than that --- as with other risky behaviors, eventually, the "thrill" wears off, leaving the bored teen trying to come up with another way to achieve the same rush. They're watching pornography and imitating what they see, so the most common choices are: move on to another partner of the same sex, introduce an additional sexual partner, have sex with the other gender, add drugs to alter/intensify the experience. You may think I'm using "scare tactics." I'm just repeating to you what teens (as young as 14) in my local public schools have told me.

The decision-makers who influence your kids believe the most responsible thing they can do is emphasize "get tested - use protection." They are willing to accept some infections, some pregnancies and some emotional problems as "collateral damage" for these policies.

If the state can lower pre-high school graduation pregnancies from 1 in 6 to 1 in 7 girls, or decrease the number of newly reported infections from 25% from 20%, they can (and will) proclaim their strategy is "effective."

But while our elected officials fiddle around with a few percentage points, I think most parents would prefer their son or daughter escaped ALL the potential consequences. That will only happen when adults believe there are benefits to sexual self-control and young people are convinced they can do it.

Guest Post from Arizona State U

The following is a guest post from Shaun Thomson, in his 3rd year at Arizona State University in Phoenix. Shaun heard his first Positively Waiting talk (unwillingly, I might add) when he was 14 and a freshman at El Camino Real High School.

Over the years, as he saw his friends deal with the consequences of sexual activity, my credibility increased significantly. Not long after joining a fraternity, Shaun agreed to be interviewed with me on KFWB after a report came out saying "abstinence doesn't work."

Responding to a question about taking heat from his frat-brothers for not being sexually active, Shaun's classic response was: "Some guys don't eat meat. I don't have sex. Got a problem with that?"

Doing The Math About Abstinence

We all know there are tons of numbers and statistics flying around trying to say that "abstinence education doesn't work." However, I thought it would be prudent to address this with some simple math, and some common sense.

In a broad sense, math tells us what can and cannot happen under specified circumstances. This applies to abstinence in that we know without a doubt, what can happen if adolescents engage in sexual activity... STDs, pregnancy, emotional problems, etc. These are not fictional or doctored results. They are Real-Life for an ever-increasing number of young people here in the US.

These consequences are not the "by-product" of a strange coincidence. They are the result of sexual activity, and nothing else.

Consequently, the opposite is also true: if you avoid sexual activity, the likelihood of having negative consequences goes way down.

So, getting back to the math, if you abstain from sex (that is subtract or remove it from the equation), then is is no longer possible to get pregnant, and the risk for contracting an STD or having emotional issues related to sexual relationships drops dramatically.

It can be simply put as "You can get in trouble for something you aren't doing." If you are abstaining from sex, then you are protecting yourself against all the negative side effects of sexual activity.

Consequences of sexual activity do not happen if there is no sexual activity.

(Duh. Thanks, Shaun!)

Behavior Modification

The debate over teen sex (to outsiders) seems to propose there are only two possible choices:

• Prevent teens from getting birth control
• Provide teens with birth control

If there were ONLY those two choices, then providing birth control would be the wisest choice. However, there are many more than just those two choices to consider.

But for the purpose of this post, I want to point out that the choices have a common theme: both camps want to modify teen behavior. The "protection" advocates want to modify teen behavior to consistently and correctly use condoms+contraception. The sexual self-control advocates (like us) want to modify teen behavior to resist sexual impulses instead of acting on them. For protection advocates, the reducing the physical risks (pregnancy & infection) overall is sufficient. For sexual self-control advocates, there is an additional emphasis on reducing emotional and relational risks as well.

If you look at it dispassionately, which is really hard to do, you can see BOTH sides want to change teen behavior. There's no getting around it, adolescents are controlled by their emotions, have very little ability to accurately predict the future and even less impulse control. Everything adults can do to help teens manage their emotions, connect decisions to outcomes and resist reacting to every stimulus, we should be doing.

Both the protection-advocates and abstinence-advocates stipulate to those adolescent characteristics. There's no disagreement there. Everyone agrees this is how teens are. Its in how do we deal with it that the views diverge.

Protection-advocates assume teens will be impulsive. Their view is: "We can't do anything about it, and there's nothing wrong with teens having sex IF they are responsible." This assumption (teens will have sex no matter what) leads to "how do we minimize the impact of THEIR behavior on the rest of us?"

Abstinence-advocates likewise assume teens will be impulsive. Their view is: "Impulsiveness is a character flaw which adversely affects every aspect of life. Learning impulse control, while difficult, will have positive effects in every aspect of life --- including sexual behavior."

Protection advocates want to educate impulsive teens to use condoms and birth control correctly beginning as young as possible, so they have the training long before they might become sexually active. Abstinence advocates want to educate teens about how powerful their sexual urges will be and train them to choose control that passion... as early as possible, long before they are tempted to be sexually active.

Everyone wants to modify teen behavior. If you have ever known a teen you know for a fact this is difficult. Having a consistent message, like we do for smoking or drugs, across all strata of society would make it easier. If your neighbors were telling their kids about sexual self-control, instead of routinely buying condoms and sticking them in the nightstand, your kid would be more likely to control their urges.

The chance that every single teen will adopt either behavior perfectly is unrealistic. But in hopes of a successful advertising campaign each side has tried to simplify their message to its essence:

• Be safe. Use a condom.
• The safest sex is no sex.

I think we do teens a disservice by making a complex, life-changing decision trivial. I also think we do them a disservice when we imply sex is something to fear --- control yes, fear no.

Beyond all of that, what has been interesting to me, as an observer of both types of sex education, is protection advocates want their own teens to be abstinent, but they want everyone else's teens to use protection.

Smuggling in the truth

Recently, a question was raised about a phrase I used on a previous blog: "I'm looking for ways to smuggle the truth in underground.” Was I referring to subverting the authority of public school administrators? Or perhaps getting specifically prohibited material into the hands of students?

Words have power, I always say... and then I assume everyone knows what I mean. (OK, so I have some blonde moments.)

The truth I want to "smuggle in" to those school districts where I am banned:

1. That condoms/pills/shots do NOT provide the same level of protection as not having sex at all.
   
2. That, despite how hard it is to do, there are benefits to controlling your sexual urges.
3. Teen sex can produce long term relational consequences which adolescents can't grasp, foresee or predict.
   
4. Sometimes people who say they want to keep teens "safe" from sexual consequences are motivated by financial gain.
   

That's it. I'm not trying to keep accurate information about birth control or condoms from teens. I do want them to have access to everything they need to make good decisions. Unfortunately, after talking to tens of thousands of teens, I know for a fact, that they are under the impression "using protection" is just as safe as not having sex. But their idea of "using protection" has a wide range of not very safe actions.

A few common myths teens (and some adults) believe about "safe sex":

• Condoms aren't necessary if you're only having oral sex. Totally false. Most STDs can happily thrive in your mouth and throat.

• You're "safe" if you both get tested before you have sex. The fact is, there are no tests for some STDs. (Not to mention, even if someone says "I go to the clinic every three months so I'm clean," that doesn't mean they didn't get infected last night!)

• Teen pregnancy is the problem which requires the most attention. While it's true, almost a million teen girls become pregnant every year, its been estimated that 9 million 15-24 year olds become infected annually. (And don't forget, pregnancy only lasts a few months, but Herpes is forever.) The estimated direct cost of treating STDs in $14 billion per year --- that doesn't include indirect costs like lost wages and productivity, the cost of treating infants who have been infected, etc.

• If you're on the Pill, you don't have to worry about using condoms. Its a well-documented pattern that older teens and teens with the greatest number of partners are less likely to use condoms than younger less experienced teens. College students are less likely to use condoms than 9th graders, even though the "pool" of potentially infected partners is much higher among college students.
  

• You would be able to tell if you or your partner is infected. After being shown pictures of the "worst-case-scenario" diseased genitals, everyone thinks, "Well, I'd sure notice is someone's penis looked like a pickle." But the universally accepted data is 80% of the time STDs have no symptoms. No symptoms, very mild or hard to identify symptoms, sores in locations you can't see and (for some STDs) no test. [Just fyi, I've had both doctors and clinicians tell me they don't test for Herpes unless there is an active sore to culture. Their reasoning was, "Sure there's blood test to see if someone is a carrier, but you can't DO anything about it if they are, and it takes up too much chair time to deal with the emotional response to 'you have Herpes.']
  

• You can trust the people who give you free birth control and condoms. Are you kidding!? Comprehensive Sex Ed. programs are developed and presented (most of the time) by people who's INCOME is tied to sexual treatment services. Your local sexual health clinics receive federal and state funding to provide pregnancy-related and STD screening services. But (unlike Positively Waiting) they also receive funding from the feds, states and school districts to develop and present their sex ed. program. (Am I the only one who sees this as a conflict of interest?)
  

Even after a 3-to-6 week Comprehensive Sex Ed. program these myths still persist. First, because the medical data is very complicated. Second, because adolescent brains simply aren't capable of taking in data, weighing it against time/nature/experience and being able to predict the outcome of their behavior. But third, because the information gets watered-down to "Be safe. Use a condom."

In a teen mind, the message sound just like: "Be safe, don't smoke." Teens know no one dies immediately from smoking a cigarette, or a joint. You have to do it a lot so the problem builds up over time. Do you know how that message translates to sex? "You shouldn't have sex with a lot of people when you're young." Teens rarely grasp that you can get pregnant or be infected for a lifetime after only one act of sex.

Even after hearing both Positively Waiting and clinical program, some teens still respond, "Thanks for telling me all this stuff. I'm definitely going to slow down." (Yikes!)

How much more will that misconception persist if no one is there acting as their "visual aids"?

Here's the "truth" we're trying to smuggle in a nutshell: See these two people? One practiced "safe sex" by the book and got infected anyway. The other one only worried about being pregnant when she didn't want to be and ended up throwing away the chance to get pregnant when she wanted to.

We just want to be sure teens process the WHOLE TRUTH about how sex can impact their lives. We want them to know they can eliminate risk by the choices they make, and we want them to know (despite what others might say) it is possible to control your sexual passion, because WE did it.

The truth is we were banned by people who have never seen our presentations. Not one single teen (even those who who were sexually active and blew us off) has ever said they think we shouldn't be allowed to tell our story. Everyone who seen it agrees: our story makes a difference. They don't understand why adults are preventing us from showing by our own lives how to be successful at sexual self-control.

And, in all truthfulness, neither do I.

2009 Day of Silence, Day of Truth

This year, Friday, April 17th is the "Day of Silence" sponsored by the Gal Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Students, some with tape over their mouth, will hand out cards when called on which state their support for homosexual students who have been bullied into silence.

Monday, April 20th is the "Day of Truth" sponsored by some pro-family groups as a counter-balance. Students will also hand out cards (but not during class) which promote respectful dialogue about homosexuality.

Is it just me, or does this seem like a crazy environment for CHILDREN to learn? I saw one "testimony" about a substitute teacher who couldn't be silent so he opted for a t-shirt that promoted homosexuality and "educated his EIGHTH GRADERS."

I know some eighth graders. They are 12 and 13... they are worried about pimples, braces, teasing, new body odors and algebra. Do we really need to add the politics of sex to their day?

I have very strong beliefs (as I bet you do) about homosexuality and its impact on people and society. Debating those issues gets adults wound up and heated. What does it do to children who are accustomed to being directed and guided by adults? How does a 13-year-old reconcile a favorite teacher's beliefs when they conflict with what mom or dad says? Is it fair to ask the child to "take sides"... and then expect them to just go about their day?

Isn't forcing children to take sides in such a contentious forum a form of bullying too?

I'm going to default to what I have said in the past and will argue in the future. There are NO benefits to adolescent sexual activity.

NONE.

Sexual behavior in teens is linked to:

• emotional problems like depression and suicidal thoughts
• risky behavior like smoking, drinking and drug abuse
• higher drop-out rates
• difficulty bonding in future relationships
• non-martial pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections

I don't see any benefit to children to bring the politics of sex into their classroom. It's disruptive to the children and the learning process. Desensitizing their natural modesty and directing their thoughts to the gamut of sexual behaviors for a day (and in some schools for a week) certainly undermines any efforts to help them learn sexual self-control.

They banned sodas and sugary snacks to keep kids from being tempted to eat poorly, but you should see what your child's school can put up to "promote" tolerance of homosexuality.

For more information on the counter-revolution: http://www.dayoftruth.org/main/default.aspx

Sounding The Alarm About Teens and Condoms

“Abstinence doesn’t work, so teens need to know how to use protection."

I hear that all the time. But more and more, there's evidence that "using protection" is what's not working.

Take for example a clinical study in Atlanta, Georgia reported in the Jan. '09 edition of Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Girls who had sex in the previous 14 days, while using condoms 100% of the time, were tested for the presence of sperm in their vaginal fluid.

The clinic saw 1,585 girls between March 1 and August 31, 2004. Of those 1,585 fifteen-to-twenty-one year olds, 847 (53%) reported they were sexually active. Of the 847 who were sexually active, 715 agreed to participate in the study. The sexually active females were asked how frequently they had used condoms in the last 14 days. There were 186 girls who claimed they used condoms consistently. Vaginal swabs were then taken from those girls.

The swab was then tested for the presence of sperm.

Read this very s-l-o-w-l-y.

Of the 186 who claimed they had used condoms consistently, 34% (63 of the girls) had evidence of sperm in their vaginal fluid.

The authors of the study didn’t try to explain out why these girls had sperm in their vaginal samples, but they suggested possible reasons could be: misreporting condom use because its more socially acceptable (in my world we call that lying) or incorrect use (did you know there are 27 steps to using a condom correctly?)

[Note: Twenty-seven could be an exaggeration. I heard a medical professional use this illustration at a conference on sexually transmitted infections... still it's not "just like putting on a sock" as the ads say]

Please think this through very thoughtfully. You start with 715 sexually active girls. Only 26%, or 186 girls, said they were using condoms consistently. That means the other 529 girls were NOT using condoms consistently.

Doesn't anyone understand condoms are pass or fail?

If your son or daughter had sex with their sweetheart twice in one weekend, but they only used condoms ONE time, they're not 50% at risk of getting pregnant or infected, they're 100% at risk!

And even if they did use condoms, 34% of those girls STILL had sperm in their vaginas after 2 weeks! So if she used a condom on Saturday, but ovulated on Monday, she might still get pregnant!

It is highly unlikely that 100% of sexually teens will ever use condoms 100% correctly 100% of the time. To truly eliminate the risk of pregnancy/infection that is what is necessary. But nothing ever shakes the confidence the anti-abstinence crowd has in the Almighty Condom.

Every few days or weeks there's another news item about how abstinence is "unrealistic" (thank you Bristol Palin.) But if most teens don't use condoms correctly and if sperm is still present up to 14 days later, am I'm the only one who gets that relying on condoms to prevent teen pregnancy is even MORE unrealistic than sexual self-control?

It's also worth pointing out that sperm is not nearly as hardy as many sexually transmitted viruses. So if sperm can still be around after 14 days, you have to wonder, what else might be swimming around?

• Think about the teens you love.
• Think about the results you have seen when they say they have "cleaned" their room.
• Think about the SAME STANDARD being applied to condom use.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

It's like Termite Control

Every home owner dreads termites. Somewhere in the back of your mind you know a queen termite lays an egg about every 2 seconds. And you know you can't SEE termites until something crashes through. The Orkin Man will come around and treat your home, alert you to damage, but the embarrassing truth is, most people wait until there's PROOF they got termites before they do anything.

And then there's the circus tent telling everyone you put it off just a little too long.


I feel like the termite guy. I feel like I have a treatment for termites that can prevent a whole lot of costly damage down the road. But some folks want to wait until there's PROOF they have a problem.

Case in point. A very sweet mom told me that she was good to go as far as her daughters are concerned. They're 12 and 13, but she's not worried at all because she took each of her girls on a special weekend where they did the Dennis & Barbara Rainey's "Passport to Purity." This is an interactive series to prepare pre-teens for some of the confusion of the teen years.

Here's the thing. "Passport to Purity" IS an excellent series. For 12 and 13 year olds. But the adolescent brain has not fully developed the ability to understand long-term consequences of their behavior. That means, even though these darling girls have taken a "virginity pledge" with their mom on a special weekend, it is not enough to carry them all the way through til marriage.

These girls don't know WHAT it will be like to have an obsessive, hormone-driven crush on a boy. At this age, they can't imagine they would lie, cheat, cut class, starve themselves or smoke a joint to fit in with someone they want to attract. They are not capable of understanding the character they will have to develop, and how much work it will be, to make it through adolescence without hitting a minefield.

I'm saddened because this mom doesn't seem to understand it either.

After a recent parent workshop, a dad told me how he had worked himself up to do that ONE weekend, hoping that would be the end of it... after hearing my talk, he realized he needs to do a LOT more.

I don't mean more weekends, but more talks. Watching for teachable moments. Helping them decide what they are going to put in their head. Making their brain saturated with values at home, so when they go out in the world, their little sponge brains are already full.

I'm praying for that mom who doesn't get it, because I think she'll contact me again someday asking for advice of a different nature.

He got it

I think I have seen the most astute comment ever from a 14 year old following one of our talks. He wrote: "The only real protection in your life is your own decisions."

I have been talking to teens about sex for over 10 years now and the reactions range from "sex is bad" to "I'll be more careful who I have sex with." Each of these represents extremes in the way teens think.

The first comment suggests that ALL sex at ANY time is not worth the risk. Its naturally concerned about eliminating all risk. Children have difficulty imagining that some challenges in life can be coped with, or at least managed in such a way that they don't take over your life. But the truth is, when you're 13 and not sexually active, and you have trouble understanding what all the fuss is about, this approach seems ideal. Sex is bad. I will avoid it.

The other comment, "I'll be more careful who I have sex with" comes from a teen's impression that they are invincible and intuitively perceptive. (Not just teens most people believe they could "tell" if someone was infected, or a threat in some way.) Very few teens grasp the concept that there are people who can look you right in the eye and lie. Its almost unimaginable... even though they are often quite expert at deception themselves.

But for a young person to realize, "I can control the outcome if I can control myself through good decisions" is truly remarkable. It says a lot about the young man who wrote it. Instead of looking for some magic pill to cure the evil "out there" he instead takes the tack immediately, "this is up to me."

I wish I knew more about him than he is in the 8th grade confirmation class at St. John's Lutheran of Orange. I'd like to shake his hand.

The Venom for Palin

I have heard a number of insulting things directed at the Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, that shocked me. She's been characterized as stupid, backward and irresponsible with regard to her family.

I'll be honest with you, Sarah Palin reminds in many ways of my sister-in-law. She's is an accomplished jumping horsewoman, landlord and high school teacher. While she has no children, her care for other people's children is demonstrably evident. She is passionate about the environment, and co-incidentally hunts and fishes with her husband. I admire her a great deal.

If anyone were to say the things about my sister-in-law that they've said about Gov. Palin, I would have a strong desire to hurt them. But no one would dare to say those things about my sister-in-law. (You should see her husband the football coach, not to mention my husband --- her brother --- affectionately nicknamed "Bear.)

I've been puzzling and puzzling over the venom directed at Sarah, and I'm starting to think it's because of her kids. Follow me here. Back in the day, when the whole Women's Liberation Movement was about getting the legal right to an abortion, the argument was that women were being kept out of positions of power because they didn't have control over their "reproductive rights."

Meaning, "How can you complete college or expect to get promoted if you had to stop to have a baby?"

When I worked at a pregnancy center, offering information about pregnancy options, it was a common argument, "I can't have a baby! I won't be able to finish school!"

Women who might take off work because of a sick child, or to attend some primary school function, were less desirable employees, we were told. The research on single moms shows many, if not most, will spend some portion of their lives below the poverty level. Then there's the statistic that 90% of babies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome are aborted.

I personally know a lot of women who chose abortion based on these arguments. And it is the argument I used myself when I aborted.

According the US News and World Report (Jan. 19, 1998), 43% of American women will have an abortion in their life time. About a million women every year, for the last 40 years. That's a lot of women. Justifying a lot of abortion decisions.

Here comes Sarah Palin, with husband and her five kids, including one with Down's. She finished her degree, ran a business, ran a city and ran a state. She did what everyone told us (back in the day) we wouldn't be able to do unless we aborted.

You'd think her ability to balance it all: education, career, marriage, family, social change, politics --- would make her the ICON of what we fought so hard for, back in the day. But instead she is a sad reminder of "dreams that could have been." The regrets of which many single, childless feminists are lamenting.

Focusing on finishing an advanced degree and establishing career success before starting a family, for many women in my generation meant by the time you were ready to have a family, you had passed your best reproductive years, or your pool of marriageable partners had shrunk considerably.

Sarah Palin makes all of us who didn't have her courage and stamina look at our own decision and ask, "what if...?"

The first time you you are confronted with those uncomfortable thoughts, it makes you mad. Really mad. And scared. And ashamed. Your perspective about the kind of person you think you are changes dramatically. You relive all the emotions and recriminations you experienced when you made your "choice." They flood your mind like the waters from the Dec. 26, 2004 Indonesian tsunami, leaving a piles of litter and debris everywhere.

I think that's why some people hate her. Its easier to hate her than hate yourself.

A Teen Pregnancy To Talk About

So, the new Vice Presidential pick has a pregnant 17 year old daughter. Gov. Palin has been a strong supporter of abstinence education. I have already heard, as I'm sure you will, that this is PROOF that "abstinence doesn't work."

First, let me point out, abstinence ALWAYS works. Obviously this child was NOT abstinent.

Here's the thing, while Governor Palin supports abstinence-until-marriage as the healthiest behavior, Alaska is a "comprehensive sex education" state. They have not been receiving federal funding for abstinence education.

That means, Bristol Palin was not "deprived" of information about contraception. In this day and age, even in Alaska, it is surely impossible to avoid the discovery that:

1. Sex makes babies
2. There are pills, shots, creams, foams and condoms which can prevent pregnancy
3. You can get at least some of them in any drug store, and all of them at the local Planned Parenthood clinic

The governor's daughter made a decision to have sex and the outcome is that what she probably HOPED wouldn't happen did happen. Period. That's the only thing we can conclude.

No one except these teenage parents know if they used protection that failed, or if they were inconsistent in their use of it. What we do know is these two teenagers made an adult decision to have sex, it produced an adult consequence (parenthood) and they have made an adult decision to sacrifice their own self-interest (staying children themselves as long as possible). They are probably not prepared for both marriage and parenthood, but they have decided they had better get ready. The circumstances of conception are not the baby's fault, so its up to the mom and dad to shoulder the responsibility for the nurturance of that life.

As far as which sex education works (I think as an abstinence educator for 10 years I'm more qualified than most to answer this)... it depends on your goal. If the goal is to REDUCE pregnancy and the spread of disease, then we need to give lots of information about how much you can minimize risk and accept there will still be human error and product failure which results in some affected percentage of teens.

If, however, the goal is to ensure a teen's greatest chance for physical, emotional and relational well-being, then the focus must be 0n providing the character tools one needs to be successful at sexual self-control. The ability to manage sexual passion is the gateway for achievement: relationally, professionally and educationally.

Few challenges in life equal the difficulty of controlling passion. Temptation is a constant nagging drive, whipped to a frenzy at times by youth culture. But, by learning to control it, a person acquires skills which sets the stage to accomplish other goals.

Choosing not to give in to temptation, consciously putting the health, future and safety of other people ahead of a selfish impulse... these choices demonstrate great character qualities in a way that using condoms & contraception do NOT. One is the choice to eliminate any risk to their partner. The other, since "safe sex" is not 100% effective, demonstrates at least some willingness to put their partner (and their potential product of conception) at risk.

It's not enough to say "don't have sex." It's also not enough to educate and/or distribute condoms and contraception. It is essential that young people of this generation be taught "its not nice to use others" too.

I say again, abstinence ALWAYS works. But without teaching the code of honor behind it, without demonstrating there is greater love in sacrifice, without linking sexual self-control to the effect it will have on the range of choices for the future --- its as ineffective as "don't have sex, here's a condom."

(For further insight on the most obvious reason "safe sex" fails, read my post, "Teens Pact to Get Pregnant" http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=8475109099933460680)

Over 45? Better Watch Out!

Science Daily (June 30, ‘08) Sexually transmitted infections are on the rise… in people over 45!

Between 1996 and 2003, a study of clinics in the Midwest found 4,445 STI episodes among people aged 45 and older. Most of these were in straight men and women.

The most commonly diagnosed infection among the Over 45s was genital warts, accounting for almost half (45%) of the episodes. Herpes was the next most common, accounting for almost one in five (19%).

Men and those between the ages of 55 and 59 were significantly more likely to have an STI than anyone else.

Cases of Chlamydia, herpes, warts, gonorrhea and syphilis all rose sharply, as well.

While the numbers of infections identified in younger age groups rose 97% during the period of the study, those identified in the "Over 45s" rose 127%.

[Excuse me… If more people are educated about, have access to and are using condoms, how come the number of infected people keeps going up?]

If You Don't Tell Them, Who Will?

Today I received the first of what I expect will be many heartbreaking phone calls. A teacher in LAUSD has been preparing her students to hear my story, and found out today that I'm not allowed to tell it in her school anymore.

As we talked, she echoed every conversation we have had at Positively Waiting. What about...? A taped presentation? Getting in with the clinic speakers? Webcasting?

The hurt and urgency in her voice squeezed my heart. Both of us are thinking, "what about THESE kids?" They will get only the one view (Be safe, use "protection.") Who will tell them they're worth waiting for? Who will tell them there are BENEFITS to learning how to control those powerful impulses?

The teacher assured me she will do her best, but pointed out, "They listen to you because you've been there."

I'm not giving up. I'm looking for ways to smuggle the truth in underground. But I'm dreading every one of those phone calls this Fall.

Boys To Men?

Jim and I saw a commercial for Windex recently. In it, the napping presumptive husband is so disoriented by how bright his sliding glass door is that he wakes up and says, "This is not my house!" Then proceeds to bounce off the glass a few times.

It was just one more example of how contemptuously the culture portrays men. I found myself wondering, Why do men put up with it? They can't enjoy being depicted as bumbling idiots who occasionally stumble on the right solution.

I reflected on the contrast. As a teenager, I had a major crush on Clark Gable. He was the epitome of masculinity to me. Invariably he played a rake, who was (by the end of the movie) barely tamed by his lover. There's line in The Tall Men (one of his last films) where Montgomery Clift says, "He's what every boy hopes he will be and what every old man wishes he was."

Today's teen boys get a steady diet of Adam Sandler and Ashton Kutcher or Martin Lawrence and Chris Rock. How will they envision themselves as leaders and protectors with those role models?

I'm a product of the generation who thought "if we just make boys more like girls, it will solve all the world's problems." Getting rid of natural male aggression by encouraging "peace" and eliminating sexually predatory behavior by making sex readily available was supposed to balance the scales. Men raised without a reason to fight or to impress women would evolve into everything a girl could want!

Howzat workin' for ya?

Want to know a secret? I absolutely LOVE that my husband still lifts heavy things to impress me! And any young woman who gets a chance should listen to a wounded Marine talk about how he would do it all again because he loves his unit and his country... that tightening in your chest is how it feels to be loved for REAL. And it sure transcends anything Hollywood has cooked up since Clark Gable died.

Young Woman, take little advice from your Aunt Karen, don't chase boys. Girls who make the first move, ask the guy out... are training their guy to be romantically lazy. I'm serious. It's human nature to take the path of least resistance. If a young man doesn't have to impress you to get your attention --- he won't. If he doesn't have to achieve something to win your admiration and affection --- he won't.

You hear women complain about their boyfriend/husband not pursuing them, taking them for granted. Dig a little deeper and you'll find out most women trained their guy to be that way.

Call me old-fashioned, but knowing another guy might come along and sweep his girl off her feet made was pretty good motivation, back in the day.

Turn into Judge Judy some afternoon and see the parade of girls trying to get back the money they loaned to some loser. He's claiming it was a "gift" and she's out hundreds or thousands. You have to ask yourself, what was she thinking?

She was thinking she was getting Clark Gable but she ended up with Adam Sandler.

As a culture we train boys to stay boys. They never grow up. They fail to take responsibility for themselves and the babies they make... so does that Windex commercial represent reality not parody? I don't know.

But I do know sitting next to a very masculine man watching a commercial depict another man as a stooge gave me a sharp pang of conscience. It got me thinking, What can I do, this week, today to celebrate masculinity? How can I change the cultural message?

Any suggestions?

Teen's Pact to Get Pregnant

Seventeen girls in at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts got pregnant. This is a 400% increase over the normal rate of pregnancies.

It all started last October when the school nurse practitioner noticed a lot of girls coming in for pregnancy tests. She and the head of the clinic immediately went to the school board to insist this "epidemic" of pregnancies meant that the school needed to pass out birth control --- with or without parental permission. The school district said, "No," and the two resigned in protest.

They have to feel pretty silly now to find out they quit over a non-issue.

See, the girls didn't get pregnant by accident, or because they had no access to birth control. They got pregnant because they made a pact to "raise their children together." According to reports most of the babies fathers are over 20, and one of the "dads" is a homeless man they paid to get them pregnant.

Let me explain how this can happen...

Step into the mind of a 14 year old GHS student in June of '07.

It's the end of your freshman year of high school. You just saw the movie Juno about a teenager who gets pregnant. You have completed your sex education unit where you were encouraged to use pills, shots, creams, foams and condoms if you didn't want to get pregnant. Then you were taken over to the school's free on-site daycare center and told by the director, "We're proud to help mothers stay in school."

You discover that one of your role models, Jamie Lynn Spears, is pregnant and going to keep her baby. You and your friends talk all summer about how great it would be to have a baby, baby showers, lots of attention, and how, as long as there was SOMEONE around to help, having a baby would be wonderful.

You already know you don't need the baby's father --- after all didn't Jodie Foster have a baby with no dad? What about Halle Berry? And Jessica Alba? Lots of people are single parents.

If all these women can do it, you reason, then why not us?

I've spent enough time with teens to tell you, that's exactly what went on in their heads.

She can vividly imagine the fuss that will be made over her, the presents and how she will quickly get her figure back --- just like Angelina did.

Command central in a 14 year old's head is the amygdala, the source of her emotions and impulses. The reasoning part of her brain is still under construction so she is not capable of understanding the longterm consequences of her decision. Its not that she's ignoring the data she's been given.

It's that she can't understand it. Literally.

She's not stupid. But data about the hardships of single parenthood, the studies showing teen moms living in poverty and not finishing school, that stuff means nothing to her.

Being a single mom is portrayed as effortless by the media --- and it probably is when you're a celebrity like Jamie Lynn Spears. She has nannies and assistants to ease any inconvenience.

Emotionally, the girls identify with Jamie Lynn and Juno. Not to mention they each imagine the fun of being just like her best friends who will all have babies too.

These girls are not an anomaly...what's happening in Massachusetts is coming to a state near YOU.

There is a well-financed and media-backed movement to get free daycare, birth control and condoms (with or without parental consent) in every U.S. public school. Threatening lawsuits, the ACLU is demanding sex education programs which draw no distinction in risk, fidelity or child-rearing between heterosexuals and homosexuals. They insist our laws require schools to teach that ALL types of family combinations (single-parent, gay/lesbian, blended or cohabiting) produce the same level of security and happiness as traditional families do.

The state of Massachusetts has adopted every single one of these "progressive" recommendations from the "safe sex" coalition. Hmmm.

According the CDC, since 2006, when the ACLU and other advocates began their campaign to eliminate abstinence education from public schools, there has been an increase in the national rate of teen pregnancies for the first time in FOURTEEN YEARS.

Ok, so let's review. The schools (by law) promote multiple partner lifestyles, minimize the inherent dangers of promiscuity, eliminate heterosexual marriage as the ideal, glorify celebrities who think fathers are unnecessary... and then they're "shocked" that teen pregnancies have gone up.

Maybe teenagers aren't the only ones who fail to use the reasoning part of their brain.

What's going on in their heads?

Because the brain reaches adult size by age 6, child development experts have assumed those early years are the most critical. While those years are very important, new information shows us that the brain is actually continuing to develop until much later.

Dr. Jay Giedd, a neuroscientist at the National Institutes for Health, is the leading authority in the field of brain development using MRI technology. He says “The brain produces way more cells and connections than can possibly survive. There's only so many nutrients, there's only so many growth factors, there's only so much room in the skull… there is a fierce, competitive elimination, in which the brain cells and connections fight it out for survival. Only a small percentage of the cells and connections make it.”

As the child moves through puberty, connections that are frequently used become hard-wired... and the ones which are not wither and die.

Dr. Giedd explains, “Much like Michelangelo's David, you start out with a huge block of granite at the peak at the puberty years. Then the art is created by removing pieces of the granite. [That] is the way the brain also sculpts itself. The advances come from actually taking away and pruning down of [various neural] connections themselves.”

This information should make parents reconsider behavioral factors which will have a negative impact on physical brains structures. For instance,

• Long hours playing video games instead of in social interaction, will have an affect on relational skills.
• Permissive home environments where impulsive behavior is left uncorrected, will impede a young adult's ability to delay gratification.
• Drugs or alcohol killing off or retarding the developing brain cells, will cause the construction of new neural pathways to be more difficult.
• Exposure to pornography strengthens the neural pathways producing dopamine (the hormone that stimulates the pleasure center of the brain), and could result in overly sexualized behavior.

The long-term studies of MRIs show the pre-frontal cortex (the part of the brain involved in planning, long-term consequences and judgment) is not fully developed until about age 25. So, an adolescent’s brain is simply not capable of filtering information as an adult. The connections are not there yet. Understanding these limitations will dramatically impact your relationship with teens.

A real-life example of this would be when Dad tells his teenage daughter, “Don’t get pregnant.” By this he means, “A baby would interrupt school and other wonderful experiences. I want you to have a full rich life and being a struggling teen mom isn’t what I want for my beautiful daughter.”

But what his daughter hears is, “If you do get pregnant, you better have an abortion because I will be disappointed in you.”

Her brain can’t project into the future to grasp the daily hardship of being a teenage mom, so she focuses on the emotions such a statement produces. She isn’t stupid. She's using the part of her brain that IS fully developed.

The most active part of the adolescent brain is the amygdala (the center of impulse and emotions). Facts and figures that a teen cannot “picture” for themselves will remain unprocessed. Basically, it's "in there" but without any meaning or point of reference --- maybe for years until new pathways in the brain develop. Experts recommend concerned adults provide their teens with a wide range of new experiences and opportunities to practice planning, delayed gratification and impulse control.