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.