Fourteen Year Old Girls Are Having Sex

[crysthewolf]

And Tyra Banks is shocked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27706917/

Really?  I mean, REALLY?   She's SHOCKED?  I'm sorry, are YOU shocked?  Because if so, you really need to wake up.  I know I was having sex at fourteen, and although I spent a lot of years feeling very ASHAMED of that, I've sinced learned that I was actually a pretty normal kid.

Are you surprised?  I was having sex at fourteen and I WAS NORMAL.

Breathe that in for a minute.  You don't have to like it, and you can worry that kids are too young to be doing it.  And you know what?  There's a degree to which you're very right.  With the way that we raise kids, with the way that we try to put them in a bubble, with the things we convince ourselves we're shielding them from... you're right.  Socially, they are WAY too young.  Physically?  Biologically?  Hormonally? 

Not a bit.

I'm not advocating going out and telling kids they should be having sex, but I am advocating a fucking wake-up call.  You think your kids aren't having sex.  Why?  Because you weren't?  Wait... you WERE?  Then where the fuck is your brain, sunshine?  Do you FORGET what it was like to be that age?  I'm not talking about peer pressure.  I'm talking about real, HEALTHY, physical and emotional drives.  I'm talking about the way that we're built. 

Get it through your tough nut, cookie... your kids are doing it.  And worse, they don't know what the fuck they're doing.  Because you want to live in a fantasy world and pretend they aren't.

When I say "talk to your kids about sex", I mean "Say something MORE than 'don't do it.'"  Teach them about safe sex.  Teach them about romance.  Teach them about self-esteem, and DON'T teach them that there's something WRONG with them if they want to have sex.  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Don't YOU want to have sex?  I know I do.  And there's not a damned thing wrong with ME.  ...Well, not for that, anyway. ;)  Teach them that they don't HAVE to be doing it, but if they WANT to do it... there are ways to do it without contracting a disease or getting pregnant. Teach them why sixteen isn't a good age to GET pregnant.  And if you find out that they want to get pregnant so that there will always be someone there who loves them?  Don't just explain to them why that isn't a good reason to have a baby... work with them to find out why they feel they NEED someone to love them, and and to find other, healthy ways to feel the love they're lacking.

I guarantee you, you'll prevent more teen pregnancies and STD's that way.

Fourteen-year-old girls are having sex.  The problem is, fourteen-year-old girls don't feel comfortable walking into a drug store and buying condoms.

Love,

Crystal

Comments

[echoweaver.livejournal.com]

Well said. Too bad this wasn't an LJ-Idol entry :).

And fourteen-year-old girls haven't necessarily thought through the consequences at all.

I've thought about what I would say to a child of mine. "Don't do it" would be incredibly hypocritical. I started having sex at 17, and I think that was a perfect age. Before, that I *thought* I was saving myself for marriage. When I grew up enough to realize that wasn't really what I wanted, I thought long and hard about what I DID want from my first sexual experience. I chose carefully to get what I wanted, and you know what? It was a great experience, and the guy is still one of my closest friends. AND we were both mature enough to know better than to take foolish risks about disease or pregnancy. That was the first step down a sexual path for me that I think has been responsible, fun, and life affirming.

I'd love a child of mine to have such a great story. I think most people don't. Usually, it was a mistake or painful or s/he got their heart broken. OR she ended up pregnant, or s/he got a disease. Or whatever.

But how do you say to your fourteen-year-old: "Sex can be as good as you make it. Figure out what you want and don't settle for less. It's OK to wait just as long as it takes to get what you want, but when you know you have it, go for it. And be responsible."

Or maybe you CAN say that. Would you have dug that at fourteen? Would it have been creepy to hear that from your mother?

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

well, from MY mother... I would have thought she'd gotten taken over by a pod-person, LOL. But, I think if you cultivate a general atmosphere of honesty and respect, that's what you'll get. Your kid's going to have their own personality, by all means, but your kid is also a human being, that wants the same kinds of stuff that a lot of other human beings want. No, they're not "miniature grown-ups" and we shouldn't treat them like that, but we shouldn't treat them like they don't know anything, either.

In short, yes, I do think that that's the kind of thing that you can tell a fourteen-year-old.

[earthgrl310.livejournal.com]

As a teacher, I am not shocked. I saw the ignorance to which most parents of my friends approached sex and the parents of my students approach sex...which is a sort of don't ask, don't tell policy.

I was lucky enough to have a progressive mother who had also been a school counselor. She actually didn't have sex until she was 20 and it was with my father before they were married. However, when she taught me about sex, it was never don't or wait until your married. I started asking about sex when I was 9 and she bought me books on puberty and sex and we read them together. She told me it should be with someone you and trust, who feels the same way about you. She said NOT to wait until I was married, but to test the waters before I did. Mostly she taught me to respect myself and my body. She taught me about the horrors, as well as how to protect yourself from them, and the wonderment of sex. I feel so incredibly lucky. I waited until I was 19 and truly in love for the first time and actually have the most amazing losing my virginity story. Before that, I walked into the health office on my college and got the full information on birth control, etc. and was ready to go that first time. In fact, I've only been with two men in my entire life. The first one and the one I'm married to now.

However, I know my story is not the norm. My point is that it should be. It works. Healthy conversations about sex should be pervasive, not feared. Sex education starts in 1st grade in most european countries and mostly just starts teaching them about their bodies. As a science teacher, I am truly sickened by what parents get nervous about. I had a parent who was uncomfortable with the fact that I wanted to have a male and female hamster in my room to start teaching the life cycle. ::sigh:: This country is just so conservative in that way and it's sad. People are shocked because they'd rather put blinders and earmuffs on then talk to their kids about sex. It's sad and all I can say is hopefully the abstinence only talk in Washington will die out starting Jan. 20th!

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

Amen to that!!! Thank you for sharing that. :)

[abbismom.livejournal.com]

I want to be that kind of Mom to my daughter, especially in handling sexuality. Awesome!

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this article:

[mycybertuffet.livejournal.com]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all

Re: I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this article:

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I haven't read all of it yet, but here are some thoughts on what I HAVE read...

Having experienced the evangelical "true love waits" programs, I can attest to the fact that they do more harm than good. I agree that, in my experience, evangelicals end up not using condoms when they break their pledges to wait until marriage because either a) their sexual encounter was "a spur of the moment thing" (because actually PLANNING it leaves room for their "sex is bad" training to step in and go "You're premeditating sin!") or b) they believed that carrying protection would be an invitation to sin and so they didn't, *ahem*, come prepared. They think that if they DON'T have condoms on hand, they'll be less "tempted" to do anything. If they close the door to safe-sex then they'll be less tempted to have sex. Because who wants to get an STD, right?

Forget how many of us actually THINK about STD's during foreplay.

And I'm not just speaking from personal experience. Have Aaron ask Patty why Mark and Maria keep popping out kids. Or why she got knocked up in the first place. Or, for that matter, why they got married.

And SPEAKING of shotgun weddings...

I love (sarcastically of course) the idea that you can fix teen pregnancy by marrying off your teens. This has got to be one of THE WORST lessons that the abstinance-only folks are teaching their kids... but it's being taught. One has to wonder if it contributes at all to the more than 50% failure rate of marriages in the evangelical church.... or the fact that the failure rate of marriages in the Church is so much higher than the failure rate of marriages outside of it. Despite, as the article says, the evangelical movement putting on airs of considering marriage sacred... they don't. Quite the opposite... the cavelier attitude that the Church takes on marriage to avoid "sex outside of marriage"...the appearance of sin... is actually quite staggering. The Church does not believe that marriage is sacred. The Church believes that "keeping people from sinning" is sacred. The more people they can force to follow their rules, regardless of their beliefs, the better.

The lack of concern from parents over their kids getting pregnant or getting STD's, I think, comes from two things: number one, they're well aware that their programs don't work to prevent their kids from having sex. All their programs do is make their kids feel BAD about having sex, feel like it's WRONG to have sex outside of marriage... and what us non-conservatives don't realize is THAT'S ALL THEY REALLY WANT. These guys don't care about their kids being happy and healthy, they care about their kids following biblical mandates (or what they perceive to be biblical mandates) and putting on a good face for God. In the end, in their view, even if their kids get pregnant... AT LEAST THEY FEEL BAD ABOUT IT. But should they feel POSITIVE at all about their pregnancies... should they give up emotional self-flaggelation in favor of having a healthy point-of-view on being a parent, the Church doesn't know what to do with it (at least in my experience.)

Granted, I think that some of them actually think that following biblical mandates IS healthy (emotional well-being hasn't been of great concern in my experience with the evangelical church)... still, the term "Whitewashed tombs" comes to mind.

Re: I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this article:

[mycybertuffet.livejournal.com]

A couple of things interested me. The first was that the average age of virginity loss was significantly higher amongst some religious groups than others, with Jews being the oldest, and that people from more liberal areas, who didn't have abstinence-only education, also tend to lose their virginity later. My questions are: A) why is that the case for those particular groups?, and B) is the notion that kids should wait till they're a little older to have sex fundamentally negative and harmful? I ask because, to be honest, I feel pretty squeamish about the idea of fourteen year olds having sex, while you pretty much regard it as an inevitability. Do you think it's possible to create an atmosphere in which kids wait a little longer to have sex, and if so, is it a valuable effort?

Another thing I wanted to run by you was Aaron's reaction when I told him about the article. He actually got pretty irritated that blue types tend to view teenage mothers as, in the words of the article, a "tragedy." He said that at least evangelicals (if not in your case, then nevertheless in a lot of cases, if both Bristol Palin and Aaron's observations in high school are anything to go by), are much more supportive of teenage mothers because they view each child as a "blessing," whereas liberals tend to simply write a teenager off if she becomes a mother. They don't view sex as a moral failing, but they do judge someone for getting pregnant (and keeping the baby), whereas in the evangelical community they'll judge the sex but view a resulting baby as a blessing. I had to admit I'd never really thought about it like that. In my high school, there wasn't a single girl I knew of who got pregnant (at least who had the baby - my guess is there were a few abortions on the DL). And growing up how I did, I never questioned the whole "having a baby when you're in high school is the worst ever thing that can possibly happen to you" trope. I was wondering what you thought about that?

Re: I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this article:

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, the thing is, I don't view it as an inevidibility that teens are going to have sex. What I DO view as an inevidibility, is that teens are going to make their own decisions. There is no way to make sure that they don't have sex until they're older, but what parents CAN do, I think, is talk to their kids about sex in a positive way. From the other comments I've seen on my entry here, the people who's parents were open with them and who related to them personally and encouraged them to respect themselves and their bodies and make well-thought-out decisions... waited until they were older to have sex. It's not a DEFINITE, but I think that if parents are willing to respect their kids as PEOPLE and teach them, by example and by direct instruction, to make good decisions... they'll generally do that.

As to Aaron's comments, that's an interesting take, and definitely a more sympathetic view to the evangelical church than I have. However, I don't think that liberals are "writing off teen mothers" who decide to keep their children. I think that liberals regard teen pregancy as a tragedy because teenagers who get pregnant and keep their children are less likely to finish high school, less likely to pursue higher education, and less likely to be financially independant, happy, healthy, and self-assured as adults. This is not ALWAYS the case, but many teenage girls who are getting pregnant do not have the adult support systems in place to keep them from dropping out of school and generally feeling shitty about themselves. Teen mothers are more likely to abuse or abandon their babies than adult mothers. There are some significantly beautiful stories of teen mothers who HAVE kept their children and raised them with the support of loving adults in their lives... but those tales are few and far between.

As far as evangelicals viewing a resulting baby as a blessing... erm, they do and they don't. The fact that they're pushing these kids into marriages or into giving up their babies for adoption in many cases kindof suggests that they view the babies as a burden more than a blessing. I don't know about by and large, but in my PERSONAL experience... although I wasn't a teenager, my pregnancy itself was regarded as a result of sin and I was encouraged to put as much distance between myself and that "sin" as possible, which included giving my son up for adoption. The idea was that yes, my baby was a blessing... but not for me, because I sinned.

Re: I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this article:

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

also no, I don't think that the notion that kids might be better off waiting until they're older to have sex is fundamentally harmful. I DO think that it's harmful to decide that being under 18 makes a person, by default, not ready for sex. Generalizations are always bad. ;) j/k but seriously, I tend to think that before a person decides whether or not they think their kid would be ready to have sex by the time they were fourteen... they should have their kid, and then get to know their kid. Some kids are ready for sex at that age, some aren't.

The bit about different religious groups having different numbers is interesting and I'd have to look into that. My thought is that it has more to do with the cultural aspect of religion than anything... particularly in the case of Judaism, but I'd have to give that some more thought.