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!

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!)

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.

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.

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.

Contrasts

A young black male asked me with total seriousness, "Is it true the government invented AIDS to kill us?"

I was at one of the local juvenile probation camps. This teenage boy had just listened attentively to my talk about sexual self-control. After hearing me be real about my own poor decisions as a teenager, I guess he decided I would also be truthful about this.

The first time I was asked, I remember I thought they were just trying to shock me. They ask some pretty silly things sometimes. One "tip" they tell me related by older black men is that you can tell if a girl has an STD by putting ear wax on your finger and inserting it in her vagina... if she "jumps" then she's probably got something.

I'm not kidding.

But I get that question about the government injecting AIDS into the the black community fairly often. They don't seem satisfied when I tell them it isn't true.

I can't help but contrast that with the phone calls made to Planned Parenthood where a "plant" made uncontested racist statements and wanted assurances that his "donation" would specifically fund abortions of black babies. The response of the Planned Parenthood administrator was absolutely that he could target his money to be used that way and she was "excited" to receive the contribution. You can hear the recording of the conversation on YouTube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE

While the government did not inject AIDS into the African-American community, they do give millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood so they can run abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods. In this upside-down world, access to abortions is a "right" that before Roe v. Wade was only offered to rich white folks.

Planned Parenthood is considered an ally of minorities. The federal funding of abstinence education is considered an attack on minorities.

Follow the the thinking here: An organization receiving federal funding, which provides government-funded birth control and should it fail, government-funded abortion services... with clinics primarily located in the black and Hispanic communities... whose basic mission is to limit the number of babies born is considered a "friend" of those communities.

An organization teaching young people of all races that they can control their sexual passions, and which has NO financial gain other than a society of better citizens and stronger families... is considered their adversary.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Really BAD Abstinence Ed.

I was reminded today of the two contestants on American Idol who "promoted" abstinence education. One was a middle aged man who sang a song called "No Sex!" and the other was a high school student who wanted Simon Cowell to know it would "just be better" if he waited for sex until marriage. They, like the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live and the "coach" at the beginning of Mean Girls, give abstinence a bad name. We do look utterly foolish when we pretend sex is bad, dirty or evil.

The American Idol contestants represent just two of several forms of really bad abstinence education. Here are some others:

1. Data Dumping: Scary statistics, graphic pictures of diseased genitals and study after depressing study on the negative consequences of non-marital sexual activity. It does produce a fairly impressive eeyewuuww! factor, but information doesn't change behavior.
2. The Sleeping Beauty Method: extreme censorship of any and all material which might inspire a sexual thought. This is a favorite of churched families, generally based on the wrong belief that preventing ALL exposure to the sex-saturated culture as a young person will somehow keep them from wanting to have sex. It makes mom and dad feel good, but leaves the child totally unprepared from the onslaught of emotions and desire they have when they step outside the cocoon.
3. Lowering the Bar: changing the standard to something other than wait for marriage, most often, "wait until you're ready/older/in a committed relationship." This are vague and unspecific targets which have broad interpretations. An adult's interpretation of the "commitment" stage is very different from a 14-year old's.
   

NONE of these strategies work.

I know this for a fact, because we tried them and failed. We found out the hard way that fear only works as long as the fear lasts. Its great when they're 5, but really ineffective at 15. When we finally set aside our pride, and really asked what works? what impacts your attitudes toward sex? Teens gave us the answers.

More next time...

LAUSD and Me

From 1998 until December of 2006, my husband and I talked to teens in LA Unified Schools (mostly in the San Fernando Valley). A frank talk about living with the consequences of sex really impacted their perspective about sex, about "safe sex" and about not "doing it."

BUT... in December of 2006, LAUSD made us stop. They were worried about "discrimination" and "medical accuracy." OK. We worked the system. Lots of legal hoop jumping, delays, written proposals and more delays... In the end, they have decided:

1) We are not qualified to tell our own story
2) While the whole point of our story is that "safe sex" failed us, in order to come back to LAUSD schools, we would have to include tell students there are "other FDA approved methods for preventing pregnancy and contracting STDS" [Note: That means we have to encourage them to use condoms.]

The absurdity is the FDA and the CDC will only say "Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases."

REDUCE the risk???!! By how much? The rates vary depending on the disease, whose infected and what type of sexual activity they're engaging in...

(You didn't really believe a condom gave you 100% protection, did you?)

So, back to LAUSD... if we agree to tell students something we KNOW experientially didn't work for us, and we can PROVE scientifically won't work for THEM, the district will allow us to talk to the students... oh wait, I forgot. We aren't qualified to tell our own story.

What are sex education studies REALLY measuring?

Any time you see a report saying "comprehensive sex ed. works" or "abstinence-only fails" its important to know what they're measuring. The GOAL of comprehensive sex ed (CSE) is to "reduce number of acts of unprotected sex." A CSE is successful even if teens who weren't having sex before, are now having sex using condoms.

Yep, according to the folks who study this stuff, if you can turn a whole school of kids who were AVOIDING the risk of STDs and pregnancy before you got there, into teens who are now having "protected" sex, you gotcherself a successful CSE.

But in the Real World, using a condom "sometimes" is a whole lot riskier than not having sex at all. And that's the argument you never hear. It's not like teens don't know condoms exist. They do. But they have funny ideas about how they're supposed to use them...

For instance, the consistency of use is about the same as brushing their teeth or doing their homework. In a teen's world, once you "really trust your partner" you stop using protection to prove it.

The truth is, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 9th graders who've just received their sex education on condoms, report using a condom about 75% of the time. But by their senior year of high school, condom use drops to 54%. By then, they're relying on other forms of birth control. But they have a much greater chance of getting infected with a sexually transmitted disease than they do of getting pregnant. (Think about it, only one way to get pregnant, only a few days a month v. every type of sexual contact can transmit disease, 24/7).

If teens weren't teens, a "safe sex" strategy might work. But they are teens ---and ALL teens think their invincible and NO teen can predict the consequences of their behavior. If we can teach them not to drink & drive, not to smoke, not to use drugs and not to pollute... what's the problem with applying those same behaviors to adolescent sexual activity?

The Truth about Sex Education

If I read one more article saying "abstinence doesn't work" my head will explode. Its such a ridiculous statement. Of course if you're not having sex, then you aren't going to have sexual consequences. DUH. But the argument isn't about whether or not "abstinence" works, or kids need more access to birth control. It really is about ADULT agendas.

If kids learn how to control their sexual passions, develop a broad range of interest to re-channel that energy, and learn good relationship skills... they will be more successful in life. That's a fact supported by a ton of research. It's also what every parent wants for their kids.

BUT, if a teenager, in the full flush of their peaking hormones, exercises some sexual self-control, the response from adults isn't "Good for you! Great job! I'm proud of you!"... it's "Uh-huh. Be sure you have a condom in your wallet, just in case."

The problem is that ADULTS want to believe there is such a thing as casual-sex-without-consequences. But there isn't. You can trust that latex condom all you want, but the FACT is the most common sexually transmitted diseases have the same transmission rates with or without condoms. Look it up on the CDC website.

And because teenagers are kind of famous for not following through, that whole business about 98% effective against pregnancy is a myth. Teens using condoms to avoid getting pregnant, have a failure rate of 30% in the first year (that means they GOT pregnant).

The desperate belief that pills, shots, creams, foams and condoms can somehow allow teens to be sexually active in serial relationships, but still arrive at adulthood unscathed is RIDICULOUS!

For me, its not just about avoiding STDs and making babies. Its about developing character. Being faithful to one person is hard. It takes a lot of practice and mental discipline. Learning to communicate on an intimate level requires a person to abandon the self-centeredness of childhood, and care about others. Real lasting success in relationships is hard work. If a teen is giving in to the desire to satisfy that drive for sex and only concerned with avoiding the social consequences, how and when will they learn these important skills??

Sexual self-control is hard, but so beneficial. I know, I did it myself. When I was giving in to my desires for sex, I didn't care about anyone but me. But when I stopped using people for sex, I learned how to love them.

I want that for the kids in my community.