Speaking of Sex
In addition to its very, very complete coverage this morning of Eliot Spitzer’s downfall, the NYTimes carried what I consider a related report: 25 percent of U.S. teenaged girls have one or more sexually transmitted disease.
In addition to an account of the CDC’s report, the Times deployed its usual public health analysis of the problem, quoting head of Planned Parenthood thus: “’The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,’ Ms. Richards said, ‘and teenage girls are paying the real price.’” She recommends ever more thorough sex education. But has that worked either?
And then there’s the question of condoms, about which the FDA says: ”latex condoms are ‘highly effective’ at preventing infection by chlamydia, trichomoniasis, H.I.V., gonorrhea and hepatitis B. The agency noted that condoms seemed less effective against genital herpes and syphilis. Protection against human papillomavirus ‘is partial at best,’ the report said.”
Sex education hasn’t worked yet. Condoms don’t work for everything, even when they’re used. How exactly is the public health/medical model working to protect the health and fertility of young women?
Here’s the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html?hp
So what then is the solution? Neither abstinence-only nor condoms seem to work (though in truth, people who actually practice abstinence will not be at risk until they do become sexually active–it’s just that people don’t actually live an abstinence lifestyle).
Beyond the obvious cocnern for the girls, there is also this question: what about the boys? Unless there’s a huge number of teenaged lesbians out there, the girls are ctaching these STDs from the boys who are catching it from the girls who are catching it from … etc., etc. Perhaps we need to add penicillin to the water supply along with flouride!
Perhaps an anti-libido pill that can be force-fed to every young kid in America?
Joseph,
As a parent I say: sign me up for that prescription drug plan!
From the Catholic perspective, we might want to discuss Andrew Greeley’s research. I don’t remember the exact number, but I think he estimated that 60-70% of American Catholics don’t obey the Church when it comes to sexual morals. He was only talking about married couples, but being recently out of that teen demographic, my experience is that the numbers for Catholic teens about match that. My hunch is that those numbers (60-70% who don’t comply) also true of young adults (twentysomethings) before marriage.
Thus, I conclude that Catholic youth are doing their part to spread STD’s.
This is a great question.
I think the truth is that nothing will work. To paraphrase our Lord, “The STD’s will always be with us.”
Objectively, there is no magic bullet, which is why the only option we can rationally offer is the most effective, yet morally coherent bullet available–if you will, which is abstinence-based education.
Too often, we Catholics have abandoned our moral truths because we have been convinced that some option–that 2000 of collective dialog says is unhealthy for the human person–is somehow more effecient and will produce better outcomes. When this proves (once again) to not be the case, there is a tendency to despair. “What shall we do! Nothing works!”
I would respectfully suggest that what we should do is stop trying to turn the Church into a public health or social service agency that stinks of incense and good intentions and instead, do what the people of God should be doing; that is, champion the options that aid the body in a manner that is most respectful of the soul.
Greg
What struck me immediately is that the story was one-sided in the reactions it gave. It quoted and pictured a Planned Parenthood executive, but did not give another point of view. The executive used the study as evidence that federal abstinence-only programs are a failure. That may very well be the case, but the study, as described in the article, doesn’t seem to provide a trend over time. It’s not clear if the situation, however dire, has gotten worse during the years the federal programs have focused on abstinence. The story could have used more points of view.
Why are there so few points of view in the story? I think it’s because there is only one framework in which CDC stories about sex are treated not only by the Times but by most media that report such stories. That framework is that we have a public health problem here and that the solution has got to respond to the public health challenge with a “medical solution.” Sex education, which is supposed to convey the medical solution, condoms (or contraception in the case of pregnancy prevention), to teen-agers may be absorbed but not practiced. Actual condom use does not seem to be a barrier against all STDs–(is that part of a thorough sex ed curriculum?).
The moral argument (or the economic or the cultural or the vocational ones) seem not to get any play in these stories.
As I understand it from our local PBS, New Mexico public education has turned down federal dinero for abstinence only programs because the education folk felt they didn’t work.
Obviously, public health folk, who have to deal with folks who have the problem in front of them all the time, will focus on “medical solutions.”
Given the current state of the culture -such as that is, education is necesary or matters could be worse.
Nothing works, I think, because the culture is saturated with a “sex sells” in games, TV, movies , music, music videos.
Local media talking about sex ed here seem very aware of moral sides to issues but I;m not sure we’ve done a good job of presenting the moral case. Still, it’s got to be an uphill battle, given the cultural influences.
What a depressing statistic. And the incidence of STDs among 14 to19 year-old African-American girls, at 50%!, is even more disturbing.
Though it’s tough being a teenager in any era, it must be incredibly tough being a teenager today. We are surrounded by an overwhelming glut of media formats that are saturation bombing our youth with the message that sex is primarily a recreational activity, and that not to partake is not only stupid, it’s abnormal. Television has been described by some as a wasteland, but it’s become, with its proliferation of channel choices and relaxed standards as to sexual content, also a sex education vehicle with the wrong message. Many of the celebrities and sports stars teens look up to speak openly and proudly of their sexual encounters or the children they have fathered or are having outside of marriage. And never mind that 1 out of 2 marriages ends in divorce, more and more people aren’t even bothering with the institution of marriage at all. That makes it even more difficult for us to advise our children that they should abstain from sex until marriage.
I wish I had realistic answers, but I don’t. There do seem to be glimmers of hope, however, from teens themselves. I imagine it takes a great deal of courage for a teenager to speak up and tell his or her peers that they should refrain from sex until marriage, especially in the face of a secular culture that is bombarding teens with the opposite message. Yet it seems to me, anecdotally at least, that there are teens, and some organized groups of teens, who are speaking up. Just as it is arguable that teenage drunk driving has been best addressed by concerned teens themselves, perhaps one of the best solutions to teenage sexual relationships, STDs, and pregnancy will be the result of teens committed to countering the prevailing cultural view about sex
What if part of sex ed included the information that if you get STD (a,b,c,d,e), the probablity is (x%) that at the age of (y) your fertility will have fallen by (r) or that you will get cancer or you will transmit (z) to your child…. or……
If nothing works to prevent STD (and I’m inclined to agree), why not include in the curriculum some of the possible scenarios down the line?
I hope Joseph S. O Leary will not mind me reposting here his comment in the thread “The Motive that Dares not Speak its Name” from several days ago. The thread got little attention. Or at least it got few comments. I think it is relevant because many European countries have much better statistics than the United States when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases and abortions, and what success they have is not the result of “abstinency-based” education (which may very well be an oxymoron).
One of the things to remember is that if everyone has access to medical care, those who do catch sexually transmitted diseases will spread them less.
Peg, I think you are right in your explanation of how such stories are often written. Still, given the number of editors who read in on a page-one story in the Times, I would have expected someone to insist that there be a broader range of reaction.
Here is a fundamental moral problem that must be addressed within this context: most of our traditional moral codes related to sexuality developed at a time when marriage rather quickly followed the onset of the sex drive. Now, puberty comes earlier and we delay marraige for 10, 20 or more years. What is a person to do while the engine is running all that time?
I realize that Gregory Popcak and some others will not see much of a moral problem here, and will see abstinance as a perfectly clear solution. I do not agree with this position, I do think that Margaret’s question is a good one.
As a father of three boys, one soon to be a teenager, I confess my thoughts on the matter are not that deep. First, I think we need to demystify sex, something that many old and new Christian teachings on sex fail to do. I think the challenge of young people goes something like, “Look, it’s just sex.” To a significant extent, I think this is correct, but it is worth making clear that this basic human activity can cause pregnancies that should not be terminated, and diseases that can cause infertility. I also think demystification can be applied to popular culture efforts at sexual saturation. We can both try to clarify that sex is not mysterious and insist that it should not be the obsessive, or even primary, concern of any healthy adult. Second, we need to make clear that active sexual desires are neither bad nor abnormal, whatever your age happens to be, so they should feel free to talk about them with folks who care about them and have some experience in the matter. Third, to be euphemistic, I think young people can take this problem into their own hands. It is an outlet, and its pretty darn safe. Of course, Jocelyn Elders made this suggestion as Surgeon General and Bill Clinton, of all people, made her resign.
There is an excellent few scenes in the movie Juno. Juno speaks to the women’s clinic where she is asked if she is “sexually activ”. She narrates that she hates when adults ask that question to children. Then she talks about the sex education classes and there is a vignette with a middle aged woman dutifully showing the class how condoms work by putting a condom on a banana.
The humour works on so many levels. First it is a satire on the entire pretensions of sex ed. As if sexuality is this cold, mechanical act and we have to teach young “sexually active” teens proper tools so they don’t get diseased.
But on a deeper level, the humour works in that it illustrates the poverty of these sex education programs that fail to understand how sex is a self communication of one to the other. Most people do not recreationally have sex – at least that is the take from Juno which was written by a woman who was a former exotic dancer. Juno, herself, enters into a sexual relationship because she really loves the boy. But her bravado prevents that vulnerability from coming to the fore. But it can’t be hidden – sex is the communication and on some level they each understand this. The movie explores the sexuality and innocence of young people in a very real way.
As for pregnancies, again there is a misunderstanding. The majority of teen pregnancies occurr in low income areas. It is here that public health sex education activities are targetted. But they too miss the point. I read where on sociological theory is that young women get pregnant, not because they aren’t contracepting, etc. but because that is the only way for them to exercise their power.
I think recapturing the deeper meaning of sexuality as a transcendent self communication of one’s self is a unique contribution that Catholicism can have on culture. It rings true from people’s real experience – even if they initially roll eyes and say it is just about sex.
Just ask Juno.
PS
I think these studies of 25% need to be unpacked. These might be aggragated numbers. The vast majority may lie in particular demographics.
They are not unlike crime statistics concerning murder, and other violent crimes. The are often associated with a particular demographic in a particular area and it appears that this is a wider social problem and it isn’t.
We don’t really want to know what’s going on and with who because in my opinion it will force us to look at the real, fundamental issues – poverty, exclusion, race, marginalization and how our social, educational and health institutions are not going nearly far enough in trying to alleviate.
First of all we know that nowadays with young people marrying at 30, as a rule, instead of 19 and 20 when I was young, the equation has changed. In earlier days the age, at least for women was 14 or 15. Naturally, the teen age sex problem was very different.
Yet with such frequent sex among teenagers the problem has to be lack of parental direction and supervision. No program can come near what a vigilant parent can do.
We might also notice that after the teenage years sexuality activity is probably more widespread and the parents are basically out of the picture at this time as this population will get their own apartments etc. What I notice with the under thirty Catholics is a sexually active life which centers on one person, in general. Living together and/or more frequent sex among boyfriend and girlfriend is the reality. Most of them eventually get married. Catholic parents often complain about the living together but it is quite common. In general those who abstain are rare. (For those who may want to challenge this, ask yourself if your judgmental position is known to younger people, who will therefore, lie to you more.)
All in all it seems to me these youngsters are more observant about health risks and are not promiscuos though there are few virgins indeed who walk down the aisle nowadays.
I find it sad [not to say condescending] to believe that young people are incapable of practicing abstinence. On the face of it, it is certainly the common sense position. You do not get pregnant from using public toilets.
I recall the case of a young woman who thought she was pregnant and went to a Planned [un]Parenthood clinic. She was told she was pregnant, and how to apply for relief to cover the $1500 expense. She still had some doubts and asked a doctor friend. He found she was not pregnant at all. When next she saw her boyfriend who wanted to continue to carry on, she drew herself up and said: “Buzz off, Sam”. She was no longer a frightened little girl. She had become a woman.
Why is it that so many who proclaim a woman’s right to choose [the solid Catholic position holds that women have free will], do not also proclaim the right to choose to say “Buzz off, Sam”?