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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.