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.