Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html
13 comments
It's very much a "we're not fighting teen pregnancy, we're fighting teen sex" problem.
I don't know the data, but it doesn't strike me as insane to think that decreasing the marginal cost of a subset of sex would increase overall amounts of sex.
It's just that optimizing over "minimizing sex" is idiotic compared to optimizing over "minimizing unsafe sex."
It's just that optimizing over "minimizing sex" is idiotic compared to optimizing over "minimizing unsafe sex."
That's exactly what it is. Different groups optimizing for different outcomes.
For most religious folk, teens having sex is bad regardless of whether it's safe or not, so it makes sense to push for abstinence-only education. Giving out condoms is like giving up. Or maybe even slightly worse than giving up - implicitly encouraging kids to go out and have sex.
Of course, this doesn't stop kids from having sex, but it does make it so that when they do they're generally unprotected.
For most religious folk, teens having sex is bad regardless of whether it's safe or not, so it makes sense to push for abstinence-only education. Giving out condoms is like giving up. Or maybe even slightly worse than giving up - implicitly encouraging kids to go out and have sex.
Of course, this doesn't stop kids from having sex, but it does make it so that when they do they're generally unprotected.
I've worked heavily with teenagers over the past 10 years, mostly in the context of summer camps (where 40 teenagers are spending 3 weeks of their summer in close quarter).
Where I'm from, France, you need a state certificate to work as an educator (BAFA), which is issued after a few weeks of training.
In my first week of training, which is mostly "theoretical", we had a debate about whether to carry condoms in the camp's sanitary supplies, to give them to teenagers if they ask for them. There is no legal imperative in France - it's mostly at the discretion of the camp director/organizer. I was against, because I was a 17 year old teenager full of convictions (albeit not religious ones) that having condoms available was implicitly encouraging teenagers to have sex.
Then I worked in actual teenage camps and realized how much of an idiot I was. No matter how vigilant and organized the educators are, the fact is that you have 40 teenagers full of hormones living together for 3 weeks. If you don't want STDs/pregnancies, you need condoms.
Anytime I hear people advocating the opposite, it becomes clear to me that they are deluded idealists and that they've never had to manage a community of teenagers.
Where I'm from, France, you need a state certificate to work as an educator (BAFA), which is issued after a few weeks of training.
In my first week of training, which is mostly "theoretical", we had a debate about whether to carry condoms in the camp's sanitary supplies, to give them to teenagers if they ask for them. There is no legal imperative in France - it's mostly at the discretion of the camp director/organizer. I was against, because I was a 17 year old teenager full of convictions (albeit not religious ones) that having condoms available was implicitly encouraging teenagers to have sex.
Then I worked in actual teenage camps and realized how much of an idiot I was. No matter how vigilant and organized the educators are, the fact is that you have 40 teenagers full of hormones living together for 3 weeks. If you don't want STDs/pregnancies, you need condoms.
Anytime I hear people advocating the opposite, it becomes clear to me that they are deluded idealists and that they've never had to manage a community of teenagers.
To quote my grandmother: "there's nothing [adolescents] can do at night that they won't do during daytime".
The religious right in the US has this strange obsession with other people's sex life. I think after roughly two millenia of Christians trying to prevent their kids from having extramarital sex it's safe to say that the exercise is ultimately futile and the only thing it's accomplishing is worse outcomes (e.g. STDs, pregnancies and bad decisions).
Of course debating that point is entirely useless when the underlying idea is that extramarital (and therefore also teenage) sex is the worst possible outcome in and of itself. It's a failure of humanity that 40-odd thousand years into civilization we still haven't overcome our obsessions with valuing scripture over rational thought.
The religious right in the US has this strange obsession with other people's sex life. I think after roughly two millenia of Christians trying to prevent their kids from having extramarital sex it's safe to say that the exercise is ultimately futile and the only thing it's accomplishing is worse outcomes (e.g. STDs, pregnancies and bad decisions).
Of course debating that point is entirely useless when the underlying idea is that extramarital (and therefore also teenage) sex is the worst possible outcome in and of itself. It's a failure of humanity that 40-odd thousand years into civilization we still haven't overcome our obsessions with valuing scripture over rational thought.
[deleted]
I don't think it's about marginal cost, it's psychological. In these people's minds, giving a teenager a box of condoms sends a message: "It's okay to have sex".
Thing is though, it is okay to have sex—safe and consensual sex, that is.
That's where opinion comes in. You can't just force your opinion on people with deeply held, millenia old beliefs and expect it to suddenly work smoothly. It's not even as 'easy' as gay marriage, because now you're actually interfering with how people raise their children.
Are these people vampires? In which case it's not millenia old, it's just the thing they somehow decided at some time.
I don't think they implied that the people are millenia old, the beliefs are. They are culturally engrained for a huge part of the population.
They were making a joke about the fact that in order for a group of people to hold a belief that it is not alright to do something necessary for reproduction for 1000 years that either they are hypocritical of that belief or they are 1000 years old.
It's their children who are forcing the issue - by having sex. Denying access to proper medical consultations and care is recognized as a human rights violation.
You don't have a right to forbid your child's access to the health care, justice, etc.
You don't have a right to forbid your child's access to the health care, justice, etc.
Presumably the people actually having sex believe that having sex is alright, so no one is really forcing their views on them. People don't have to hold the same values their parents hold now for them.
It's a famous result that the people who believe premarital sex isn't wrong account for fairly little of the premarital sex. People do things they believe are wrong all the time.
I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must
hate a bad man's actions but not hate the bad man: or,
as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. [...]
I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction:
how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man?
But years later it occurred to me that there was one man
to whom I had been doing this all my life -- namely myself.
However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit
or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been
the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why
I hated the things was that I loved the man.
Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that
I was the sort of man who did those things.
I guess I just see a disconnect between beliefs a person actually holds, and fake beliefs a person says they hold because they are under impression those are the 'correct' beliefs to hold.
I mean it comes down to a definition of the word belief which we seem to disagree on. There are probably only a handful of people in this world for which our differing definitions of belief would provide the same sets of beliefs.
I mean it comes down to a definition of the word belief which we seem to disagree on. There are probably only a handful of people in this world for which our differing definitions of belief would provide the same sets of beliefs.
> I guess I just see a disconnect between beliefs a person actually holds, and beliefs a person says they hold because they are under impression those are the 'correct' beliefs to hold.
How do you know which is which? I definitely haven't said "it's your belief if you claim it aloud, no matter what you really think about it".
Consider the population of wives cheating on their husbands. Do you really believe that only an insignificant number of them think what they're doing is wrong?
> There are probably only a handful of people in this world for which our differing definitions of belief would provide the same sets of beliefs.
First, you need to establish that we differ in our definitions.
How do you know which is which? I definitely haven't said "it's your belief if you claim it aloud, no matter what you really think about it".
Consider the population of wives cheating on their husbands. Do you really believe that only an insignificant number of them think what they're doing is wrong?
> There are probably only a handful of people in this world for which our differing definitions of belief would provide the same sets of beliefs.
First, you need to establish that we differ in our definitions.
Let me ask you, how does a person make a decision?
To me people use what they believe to be true to make that decision. To me all decisions demonstrate a persons actual beliefs, as why would they decide to do something if they did not honestly believe it would yield a desirable outcome. (that outcome does not have to be viewed as desirable to anyone but them, for instance suicide. Nor does it have to be the immediate outcome which is desirable, it could be part of a long con.)
>Consider the population of wives cheating on their husbands. Do you really believe that only an insignificant number of them think what they're doing is wrong?
Yes, I believe that all cheating spouses, people who commit crimes, and sociopaths have developed an internal belief structure which lets them justify actions that may come at a cost to themselves or others as being probable of a desirable outcome for them.
>First, you need to establish that we differ in our definitions.
Have I done so to your satisfaction? I thought it was common knowledge that people often echo views they do not actually adhere to so that they will appear to conform to societal norms, which represents the crux of my definition. Politicians frequently offer a very obvious example of such a tendency, but if you know anyone well enough you can see the inconsistencies in what they say and what they do. Their actions demonstrate how they actually make decisions and what they believe in my opinion, not what they say.
You will know which are which by being introspective about the decisions you have made in the past and are considering making currently, and try to understand what basis you are truly using for that decision, besides the surface 'Well this feels right' reason.
To me people use what they believe to be true to make that decision. To me all decisions demonstrate a persons actual beliefs, as why would they decide to do something if they did not honestly believe it would yield a desirable outcome. (that outcome does not have to be viewed as desirable to anyone but them, for instance suicide. Nor does it have to be the immediate outcome which is desirable, it could be part of a long con.)
>Consider the population of wives cheating on their husbands. Do you really believe that only an insignificant number of them think what they're doing is wrong?
Yes, I believe that all cheating spouses, people who commit crimes, and sociopaths have developed an internal belief structure which lets them justify actions that may come at a cost to themselves or others as being probable of a desirable outcome for them.
>First, you need to establish that we differ in our definitions.
Have I done so to your satisfaction? I thought it was common knowledge that people often echo views they do not actually adhere to so that they will appear to conform to societal norms, which represents the crux of my definition. Politicians frequently offer a very obvious example of such a tendency, but if you know anyone well enough you can see the inconsistencies in what they say and what they do. Their actions demonstrate how they actually make decisions and what they believe in my opinion, not what they say.
You will know which are which by being introspective about the decisions you have made in the past and are considering making currently, and try to understand what basis you are truly using for that decision, besides the surface 'Well this feels right' reason.
I think it's worth quoting an extract from http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy... 's discussion of Qing Chinese law:
> There are multiple cases where someone commits an offense on orders from a superior member of his extended family; the attitude of the court seems to be that although he must obey the order he is still criminally liable for the act; there appears to be no assumption in the legal system that an individual always has the option of acting in a way that does not violate one rule or another.
When I read this, it was more interesting to me that American society is fairly committed to the fiction that such an option always exists.
I don't believe that the mere fact that a person took some action itself demonstrates that the person believed that action to be morally blameless. Of two paths, both can be wrong. Of many paths, all can be wrong -- or the conseqences of staying on the "right" one might be personally unbearable. I imagine that a mother who opted not to rescue her child from a burning building might be haunted by the thought that this was wrong, regardless of a generally positive message from society.
Also, I've tried really hard to read your comment in a way that allows for the existence of guilt. I can't see it. Do you believe people can feel guilt? Why would C. S. Lewis feel sorrow, in the privacy of his own mind, to discover that he is the kind of person who would do certain things?
> There are multiple cases where someone commits an offense on orders from a superior member of his extended family; the attitude of the court seems to be that although he must obey the order he is still criminally liable for the act; there appears to be no assumption in the legal system that an individual always has the option of acting in a way that does not violate one rule or another.
When I read this, it was more interesting to me that American society is fairly committed to the fiction that such an option always exists.
I don't believe that the mere fact that a person took some action itself demonstrates that the person believed that action to be morally blameless. Of two paths, both can be wrong. Of many paths, all can be wrong -- or the conseqences of staying on the "right" one might be personally unbearable. I imagine that a mother who opted not to rescue her child from a burning building might be haunted by the thought that this was wrong, regardless of a generally positive message from society.
Also, I've tried really hard to read your comment in a way that allows for the existence of guilt. I can't see it. Do you believe people can feel guilt? Why would C. S. Lewis feel sorrow, in the privacy of his own mind, to discover that he is the kind of person who would do certain things?
I can not perceive of right and wrong as absolute concepts. Only as concepts which exist when comparing one possible outcome relatively to others. People use some factors to inevitably choose between the choices they see available to them, they will choose what they perceive as having the outcome they desire given those decision trees that they construct. An outcome which they can not see a path to is not a choice, it effectively does not yet exist so they can not choose it.
Guilt to me is what people feel when they realize they made decisions with incorrect or incomplete information, and would of made them differently had they known. Even when the person had no way of knowing the correct or complete information at the time of decision making, in this edge case society has developed a term to attempt to remove guilt from the person by calling it an 'accident'. Often I find the source of guilt to be not looking very far ahead on the decision trees which I eliminate early on as not effecting me. (Guilt can also be simply an act, as demonstrating guilt often leads to fewer negative consequences in our society. Think of all the people convicted where not demonstrating remorse was used as a factor in sentencing or parole denial.)
Guilt to me is what people feel when they realize they made decisions with incorrect or incomplete information, and would of made them differently had they known. Even when the person had no way of knowing the correct or complete information at the time of decision making, in this edge case society has developed a term to attempt to remove guilt from the person by calling it an 'accident'. Often I find the source of guilt to be not looking very far ahead on the decision trees which I eliminate early on as not effecting me. (Guilt can also be simply an act, as demonstrating guilt often leads to fewer negative consequences in our society. Think of all the people convicted where not demonstrating remorse was used as a factor in sentencing or parole denial.)
But the government or a school giving birth control is someone teaching the children something parents don't want taught. So you are trampling on the rights of the parents in that case. If the child were to independently decide having sex was fine then it would be about the child's freedom to choose.
The rights of the parents end where the rights of the child are concerned. No person in a society lives in isolation and sometimes society has to protect a person from harmful influence by their supposed wardens.
It's okay to have consensual sex. If kids aren't properly educated about sex (and the consequences having sex can bring, from biological to social), they can't have consensual sex -- but that doesn't mean they won't have sex at all.
So no, sex education does not infringe on religious rights. And making condoms available to teenagers who intend on having sex doesn't either.
We're not talking about teachers throwing condoms at their students yelling "Fornicate! All of you! With each other! All the time!". We're talking about making condoms available to teenagers who ask for them and letting them know they don't have to expect any invasions of their privacy as a consequence (because doing so would discourage them from asking, thus encouraging unsafe sex).
Again: kids are going to have sex. Uneducated kids are going to have more dangerous sex. Educated kids are going to have safer sex.
Nobody has the right to deny the kid's independent decision whether to have sex or not. But this goes both ways: not only can't teachers tell a kid whether to have sex or not, but neither can the parents.
It's ridiculous that the people who fight against abortion because it infringes upon the rights of the unborn child are often the same people who then raise moral panic about children having sex and try to deny them the right to sex education (and access to things like condoms for when they decide to have sex). Especially if you consider that access to condoms and education also has a positive effect on when those kids decide to have sex, with whom and in what kind of situations -- i.e. if you properly educate kids about sex, they may even come to the realization that they are not actually ready yet and that it's okay to say "no" to horny peers.
It's okay to have consensual sex. If kids aren't properly educated about sex (and the consequences having sex can bring, from biological to social), they can't have consensual sex -- but that doesn't mean they won't have sex at all.
So no, sex education does not infringe on religious rights. And making condoms available to teenagers who intend on having sex doesn't either.
We're not talking about teachers throwing condoms at their students yelling "Fornicate! All of you! With each other! All the time!". We're talking about making condoms available to teenagers who ask for them and letting them know they don't have to expect any invasions of their privacy as a consequence (because doing so would discourage them from asking, thus encouraging unsafe sex).
Again: kids are going to have sex. Uneducated kids are going to have more dangerous sex. Educated kids are going to have safer sex.
Nobody has the right to deny the kid's independent decision whether to have sex or not. But this goes both ways: not only can't teachers tell a kid whether to have sex or not, but neither can the parents.
It's ridiculous that the people who fight against abortion because it infringes upon the rights of the unborn child are often the same people who then raise moral panic about children having sex and try to deny them the right to sex education (and access to things like condoms for when they decide to have sex). Especially if you consider that access to condoms and education also has a positive effect on when those kids decide to have sex, with whom and in what kind of situations -- i.e. if you properly educate kids about sex, they may even come to the realization that they are not actually ready yet and that it's okay to say "no" to horny peers.
> Nobody has the right to deny the kid's independent decision whether to have sex or not.
Unless, of course, their partner is older than they are.
Unless, of course, their partner is older than they are.
Correct, but only partially so. How most of US law deals with this is ridiculous (i.e. the older partner becoming a sex offender). If two minors within a certain age range have sex, they may theoretically be "raping each other", but considering that an actual criminal offense in itself is absurd.
Now, an adult having sex with a child on the other hand is obviously acting criminally. It's the adult's responsibility to act in the child's best interests due to the child's lack of ability to give consent -- even if the child (for whatever reason) engages it, it's against their best interests to follow through.
As for sexually active "minors" and very young adults, especially at very narrow age ranges, that's not as trivial to answer. A hard cut-off seems the most straightforward answer but creates absurd outcomes in edge cases (e.g. someone who just turned 18 having sex with someone about to turn 18 in a country where 18 is the age of consent would be considered a rapist but not if both of them were just a tiny bit younger or older). I guess it's best to have case law deal with these situations individually.
Maybe I should clarify that the reason I used the word "kids" was to make it clear we're not specifically talking about "children" in the intuitive sense. The danger that six year olds will randomly decide to have sex with each other is relatively low (if we ignore "sex play", which is a different can of worms). That's not what the article is about. We're specifically talking about "kids" (i.e. minors, which depending on where you live can include anyone between 12 and 21) who are fairly likely to be already sexually active without any external motivation/dissuasion.
Now, an adult having sex with a child on the other hand is obviously acting criminally. It's the adult's responsibility to act in the child's best interests due to the child's lack of ability to give consent -- even if the child (for whatever reason) engages it, it's against their best interests to follow through.
As for sexually active "minors" and very young adults, especially at very narrow age ranges, that's not as trivial to answer. A hard cut-off seems the most straightforward answer but creates absurd outcomes in edge cases (e.g. someone who just turned 18 having sex with someone about to turn 18 in a country where 18 is the age of consent would be considered a rapist but not if both of them were just a tiny bit younger or older). I guess it's best to have case law deal with these situations individually.
Maybe I should clarify that the reason I used the word "kids" was to make it clear we're not specifically talking about "children" in the intuitive sense. The danger that six year olds will randomly decide to have sex with each other is relatively low (if we ignore "sex play", which is a different can of worms). That's not what the article is about. We're specifically talking about "kids" (i.e. minors, which depending on where you live can include anyone between 12 and 21) who are fairly likely to be already sexually active without any external motivation/dissuasion.
Was it really against Priscilla Presley's best interests to sleep with Elvis?
Economically? Probably not. But the problem with psychological long-term effects is that they are very difficult to determine and can vary widely from person to person and situation to situation.
The parents are free to home school their children if they do not want them to learn the curriculum being taught. If we let every parent determine the curriculum for all students, well we would never even get the curriculum defined. So what is taught has to be chosen based on what is most beneficial for the children (as a whole) to be functioning members of society, and not on parent preference.
Unfortunately "free to home school" their children is really a code-word for keeping their children inhumanely isolated for cult compliance reasons. Thought control.
Most people in the town I grew up in would disagree with that statement
And I disagree with that statement too. So do various researchers on families and marriage. (I'm horrible at remembering sources, I'd have to hunt them down if you really want them.) And I'm sure there's differing conclusions among researchers since there always are. But my point is that there are legitimate oppositions to the idea that consensual sex is OK, both religion/moral and scientific.
I won't bother chasing down religious or moral objections, but please do back up your statement that there is scientific opposition to consensual sex.
In all states teenagers under 16 cannot legally consent to sex.
Due to "Romeo & Juliet" clauses, this isn't actually true in many states.
For example, in Iowa somebody 14 or 15 can have sex with somebody less than 4 years older than them.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...
For example, in Iowa somebody 14 or 15 can have sex with somebody less than 4 years older than them.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...
I'm pretty sure you have enough data to know that that argument is actually bunk in this case.
It's not like teens (and the poor, etc) are saving up to afford condoms and only having sex when they can afford them. The profusion of unplanned babies and the well-known tendency of the poor to have more children than they can support should prove this.
It's not like teens (and the poor, etc) are saving up to afford condoms and only having sex when they can afford them. The profusion of unplanned babies and the well-known tendency of the poor to have more children than they can support should prove this.
I would guess that the effect is marginal, though real and positive.
Empiricism, however, is a stronger basis for policy making than personal anecdote and untested theories.
Empiricism, however, is a stronger basis for policy making than personal anecdote and untested theories.
Exactly, and my answer is 1000 times more empirical than yours. You imagine some tiny butterfly effect that might impact something vague but are ignoring the masses of evidence of the straight forward problems.
Hoofbeats, horses, etc. Also, when we deal with the horses we'll have a chance to check for any odd zebra.
(ie, even if you're right, the way to check is deal with the other 99% of the problem first...)
Hoofbeats, horses, etc. Also, when we deal with the horses we'll have a chance to check for any odd zebra.
(ie, even if you're right, the way to check is deal with the other 99% of the problem first...)
Your "empirical evidence" amounts to repeating anecdotes and strongly held suppositions with higher and higher levels of emotion. It's not at all convincing to me--someone who's predisposed to support very high levels of access to birth control, for everyone--and is certainly not convincing to anyone who's predisposed to oppose it.
Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect in chaotic systems where a small perturbation in initial conditions leads to large, unpredictable, non-linear differences in later states. I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior (a roughly x% increase in the amount of sex had).
Resolution of the truth-value of that requires, yes, actual scientific studies (which have almost certainly already been done already). The fact that some religiously-inclined folk might come to the "wrong" conclusion from a confirmation of this effect doesn't obviate the value of studying it.
ETA: Just as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs, which presumably doesn't include access to contraceptives, can legitimately prevent the onset of teenage sexual activity. I'm sure there's plenty of room for methodological critiques, and there are also plenty of studies that come to other conclusions, naturally. I personally still would expect those to be confirmed in the end. But this isn't a question that you can resolve by loudly proclaiming that anyone who asks for evidence is an idiot.
[0] http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=38279...
Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect in chaotic systems where a small perturbation in initial conditions leads to large, unpredictable, non-linear differences in later states. I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior (a roughly x% increase in the amount of sex had).
Resolution of the truth-value of that requires, yes, actual scientific studies (which have almost certainly already been done already). The fact that some religiously-inclined folk might come to the "wrong" conclusion from a confirmation of this effect doesn't obviate the value of studying it.
ETA: Just as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs, which presumably doesn't include access to contraceptives, can legitimately prevent the onset of teenage sexual activity. I'm sure there's plenty of room for methodological critiques, and there are also plenty of studies that come to other conclusions, naturally. I personally still would expect those to be confirmed in the end. But this isn't a question that you can resolve by loudly proclaiming that anyone who asks for evidence is an idiot.
[0] http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=38279...
> Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect [...]
Sorry, I had assumed it as an idiom without establishing a shared lexicon. I mean, an effect so small as to only possibly be significant via an appeal to the butterfly effect. As in, ultimately we can't rule out that assassinating Hitler when he was a teen would have caused the sun to go supernova, because X, but it's vanishingly unlikely.
> I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior [...]
Sure, this can always happen. We always need to have our eye on the metric (the 21st century "ball").
But unless you've actually got a good argument for why it's likely that this program will go wrong, you're more likely to cause harm by kvetching than by letting change happen.
> [...] as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs [...]
Sure, if the alternative is emulating reality shows then anything, including _Catholic Hour in the Nursery_ would probably be better. Thankfully we don't live in a black and white world.
And of course any classes should include a huge dose of self-esteem and other training supporting the right/desire to say "No", but when a couple want to have sex do we really want to punish their offspring? Sins of the father? Srs?
Or do you really deny the plight of the unwanted/required (high death-rate) child?
TL;DR What I'm saying is that we know people will have sex despite it being wise. (Do you really require a cite? If so, list the keywords you've searched and I'll help you use the internet.) So when they do, though we may wish/help to delay that a while, lets help them do so safely when they inevitable do.
Sorry, I had assumed it as an idiom without establishing a shared lexicon. I mean, an effect so small as to only possibly be significant via an appeal to the butterfly effect. As in, ultimately we can't rule out that assassinating Hitler when he was a teen would have caused the sun to go supernova, because X, but it's vanishingly unlikely.
> I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior [...]
Sure, this can always happen. We always need to have our eye on the metric (the 21st century "ball").
But unless you've actually got a good argument for why it's likely that this program will go wrong, you're more likely to cause harm by kvetching than by letting change happen.
> [...] as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs [...]
Sure, if the alternative is emulating reality shows then anything, including _Catholic Hour in the Nursery_ would probably be better. Thankfully we don't live in a black and white world.
And of course any classes should include a huge dose of self-esteem and other training supporting the right/desire to say "No", but when a couple want to have sex do we really want to punish their offspring? Sins of the father? Srs?
Or do you really deny the plight of the unwanted/required (high death-rate) child?
TL;DR What I'm saying is that we know people will have sex despite it being wise. (Do you really require a cite? If so, list the keywords you've searched and I'll help you use the internet.) So when they do, though we may wish/help to delay that a while, lets help them do so safely when they inevitable do.
Say if they use depo provera injections as the long term contraceptive it could very well reduce their willingness to do it. And help with [painful] periods btw.
Using depo provera injections could their willingness to have sex?
Well, more accurately speaking it should reduce/get rid of [testosterone]-induced libidinal impulses. Of course some inherent preference, cultural compulsion and your partner[s] are big factors too (I'm guessing haha). But yea, I'm willing to bet some money that if used for over a year it would significantly reduce sexual behavior in the treated population. Which also makes me surprised why pro-abstinence people are often opposed to such methods.
> but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex
Do teenagers really need to be encouraged to have sex? An absence of discouragement should be sufficient, for mutually attracted pairs.
High-availability abortions and contraceptives given out in schools are just examples of governments giving people what they want. However many in the anti-abortion and abstinence movements are engaged in an ambitious social engineering effort, telling teens to resist their strong biological urges to have sex, in favor of marriage and monogamy, because they believe this leads to a more spiritually healthy outcome, long-term.
There is surprisingly little innovation in this space. It's taken for granted that teenage-pregnancy is a bad word, that 30-40 year olds make better parents because they have more money. Society could choose to support early marriage and childbirth. Parenting requires a lot of energy, something that youth have in abundance. Also, young people remember what it's like to be a child, and make more empathetic parents.
Do teenagers really need to be encouraged to have sex? An absence of discouragement should be sufficient, for mutually attracted pairs.
High-availability abortions and contraceptives given out in schools are just examples of governments giving people what they want. However many in the anti-abortion and abstinence movements are engaged in an ambitious social engineering effort, telling teens to resist their strong biological urges to have sex, in favor of marriage and monogamy, because they believe this leads to a more spiritually healthy outcome, long-term.
There is surprisingly little innovation in this space. It's taken for granted that teenage-pregnancy is a bad word, that 30-40 year olds make better parents because they have more money. Society could choose to support early marriage and childbirth. Parenting requires a lot of energy, something that youth have in abundance. Also, young people remember what it's like to be a child, and make more empathetic parents.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that last paragraph. You make very broad assumptions that I'd dispute as an accurate generalization.
As a dad to 2 kids (became a father at 28) I would strongly urge people to wait until they were 30-38 before having kids.
Given the great innovations in this space I'd even say 40 is a great age to have kids - though it gets harder with age beyond this imho.
As a dad to 2 kids (became a father at 28) I would strongly urge people to wait until they were 30-38 before having kids.
Given the great innovations in this space I'd even say 40 is a great age to have kids - though it gets harder with age beyond this imho.
I had my first kid with 38 and I wish it would have been sooner. I love having a kid now. But I worry about staying healthy enough to do the fun things I want to do with them.
And grandparents are a major factor, too. They are a great help, and also they really enjoy being with their children. Supposing my kids also wait until they are 38 to have kids, my odds at enjoying quality time with grandchildren are greatly reduced.
I'll probably be almost of pension age when my kids finish their education. That's another thing where I worry I might not be able to help them out as much as I could if I would still be earning money and connected in the business world.
It would perhaps be different if I had toiled and saved money all the time up to age 38, but I didn't. If you have kids, odds are you get more serious about those things.
And grandparents are a major factor, too. They are a great help, and also they really enjoy being with their children. Supposing my kids also wait until they are 38 to have kids, my odds at enjoying quality time with grandchildren are greatly reduced.
I'll probably be almost of pension age when my kids finish their education. That's another thing where I worry I might not be able to help them out as much as I could if I would still be earning money and connected in the business world.
It would perhaps be different if I had toiled and saved money all the time up to age 38, but I didn't. If you have kids, odds are you get more serious about those things.
Why do you feel that way? Biologically that's not really the way humans were designed. It's unfortunate that the modern first world economy and society is so incompatible with biology.
My mother waited until she was nearly 40 to have me, and as a result I was born with birth defects (I'm deaf). There is no way to deal with all of the risks.
Expecting at 36, I disagree with you. It's given us less time. There is no way to wait until you have managed away all the risks.
There's advantages and disadvantages of both early and late childbearing. I don't believe there is an "optimal" choice. 28 is hardly an "old" age to become a father.
I do take issue with the statement that young people (people in their 20s) have energy "in abundance."
I do take issue with the statement that young people (people in their 20s) have energy "in abundance."
It isn't just lack of money. Teenagers are not as emotionally mature, they have not finished figuring out what to accomplish with their lives (career or otherwise), and often they end up being single parents. There is tons of family research on why it is better to have two parents in a family.
Government giving people what they want? Please. Teenagers can't even vote, so they aren't voting themselves contraceptives. This is adults imposing yet another view on their children. It just so happens that this is a differing view than the traditional religious view of teaching abstinence. (Or of teaching that teenagers who get pregnant should then immediately get married and the dad get a job.)
Government giving people what they want? Please. Teenagers can't even vote, so they aren't voting themselves contraceptives. This is adults imposing yet another view on their children. It just so happens that this is a differing view than the traditional religious view of teaching abstinence. (Or of teaching that teenagers who get pregnant should then immediately get married and the dad get a job.)
> An absence of discouragement should be sufficient
In fact, discouragement has been proven time and again not to work (or worse: to result in more erratic behaviour as a consequence of the cognitive dissonance of enjoying something you've been vehemently taught to think of as evil).
In fact, discouragement has been proven time and again not to work (or worse: to result in more erratic behaviour as a consequence of the cognitive dissonance of enjoying something you've been vehemently taught to think of as evil).
Your argument is that maybe it's okay if teens are pregnant, totally ignoring the social reality around you. Bravo, sir!
Let's trap women in an unending economic and social perdition because they'll have empathy!
Let's trap women in an unending economic and social perdition because they'll have empathy!
With freely available birth control, including plan b and abortion, pregnant teens are a simply fixed medical issue with no real consequences.
You have a very, very, very odd definition of "free."
Do I? Please enlighten me as to my definition, near as I can tell I used the adverbial form exactly as defined here: "not under the control of another; as one wishes."
Were you inferring that I meant that abortions and birth control are always freely available? I did not state that.
Were you inferring that I meant that abortions and birth control are always freely available? I did not state that.
What you propose makes a ton of sense absent the welfare state. In a world where extended families are the support network, young parenthood makes a great deal of sense. As things stand now what we see in practice is a massive transfer of wealth from the 40% of people who pay taxes to high time preference people who are net tax drains.
> Shocking.
Everything needs to be tested. How many treatments, therapies, and drugs seem like pure common sense and then turn out to be useless when rigorously examined or outright harmful?
Everything needs to be tested. How many treatments, therapies, and drugs seem like pure common sense and then turn out to be useless when rigorously examined or outright harmful?
Not shocking, this is common knowledge and I'm glad this actually helps the poor folks. Raising a family is tough.
I agree, but the people who write head lines understand that including the word 'Startling' increases their clicks dramatically, despite the fact it would of been more accurate without that word added.
>Everyone knew this would happen, but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex
I don't see the problem.
I don't see the problem.
There is an STD pandemic. Multi-drug resistant STIs are rapidly spreading. The "sexual revolution" was basically the twenty year period when a shot of penicillin cleared anything up. That's over.
>There is an STD pandemic. Multi-drug resistant STIs are rapidly spreading.
As a happily, permanently monogamous individual who knows nothing about this... could I get some sources on that?
As a happily, permanently monogamous individual who knows nothing about this... could I get some sources on that?
>but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex
I don't understand, encouraging them to use contraception while having sex (and perhaps lead to more intercourse)? or encourage more unprotected sex?
I don't understand, encouraging them to use contraception while having sex (and perhaps lead to more intercourse)? or encourage more unprotected sex?
A vocal chunk of the US still believes that access to contraception will lead to a mass outbreak of fucking amongst the youth.
Look in this very thread and you will see much hang-wringing about STI rates, which is a code-word for OMG-the-youth-are-getting-it-on. As if they weren't already (pregnancy rates are dropping ...), as if this was somehow wrong (if anything is natural, sex is), as if there were huge surges of STI rates in countries without these hangups about sex, and so on.
Look in this very thread and you will see much hang-wringing about STI rates, which is a code-word for OMG-the-youth-are-getting-it-on. As if they weren't already (pregnancy rates are dropping ...), as if this was somehow wrong (if anything is natural, sex is), as if there were huge surges of STI rates in countries without these hangups about sex, and so on.
and perhaps lead to more intercourse
In America, the popular public society-wide meme opinion is "sex is bad outside of procreation." You're not allowed to encourage it, you're not allowed to make it safer, and many doctors aren't even comfortable talking about it.
Running a "birth-free sex" program is an affront to the victorian sensibilities of genital shame and a general war on happiness. The one true path is dedication to god and hard work, not personal enjoyment of anything. And we're going to have our 80 year old half-senile business moguls fund all politicians to ensure sex is always dangerous, unsafe, and bad for you.
In America, the popular public society-wide meme opinion is "sex is bad outside of procreation." You're not allowed to encourage it, you're not allowed to make it safer, and many doctors aren't even comfortable talking about it.
Running a "birth-free sex" program is an affront to the victorian sensibilities of genital shame and a general war on happiness. The one true path is dedication to god and hard work, not personal enjoyment of anything. And we're going to have our 80 year old half-senile business moguls fund all politicians to ensure sex is always dangerous, unsafe, and bad for you.
Heh, i recall reading the experience of someone from some Nordic nation or other who went to USA to visit his in-laws to be.
"Back home" they were sharing a bed and sleeping in their undies each night.
While visiting it was pajamas and sleeping in different ends of the house.
"Back home" they were sharing a bed and sleeping in their undies each night.
While visiting it was pajamas and sleeping in different ends of the house.
That's reasonably common in the US if the parents are religious. If the kid and their significant other are visiting parents and aren't married then they aren't allowed to sleep in the same room (because they might do shenanigans!).
I see i forgot to include that i think the couple was both well into their 20s, just not married (yet).
Actually, I apply to rule to all house guests. You're not married, you sleep in separate rooms.
My house, my rules. You're welcome to stay at the hotel down the street if you can't handle sleeping apart from each other and we'll cheerfully roll out the red carpet and provide chauffeur service for you.
My house, my rules. You're welcome to stay at the hotel down the street if you can't handle sleeping apart from each other and we'll cheerfully roll out the red carpet and provide chauffeur service for you.
You're not married, you sleep in separate rooms.
Do the criteria require one of a civic marriage, a religious marriage or both? If the latter in isolation is acceptable, as it has no legal power, would domestic partnerships then also be an acceptable alternative?
Do the criteria require one of a civic marriage, a religious marriage or both? If the latter in isolation is acceptable, as it has no legal power, would domestic partnerships then also be an acceptable alternative?
The criteria is whatever I happen to feel comfortable with.
I don't draw a distinction between and civil and religious marriage ceremony though and I have no clue what a domestic partnership is... :-)
I don't draw a distinction between and civil and religious marriage ceremony though and I have no clue what a domestic partnership is... :-)
It's seen as implicit approval of teen sex. Period.
The issue is that acknowledgement of birth control as a valid form of contraception also acknowledges that a significant number of teens have sex. The conservative religious crowd feel that this isn't the right solution. They don't want "underage sex" to be seen as something that's so commonplace that contraceptive is readily available. They feel it's taboo and offering tools that lessen the risk of underage sex is also taboo.
As another person stated, some aren't interested in fighting teen pregnancy and poverty. They are interested in fighting teen sex. Two very different things.
The issue is that acknowledgement of birth control as a valid form of contraception also acknowledges that a significant number of teens have sex. The conservative religious crowd feel that this isn't the right solution. They don't want "underage sex" to be seen as something that's so commonplace that contraceptive is readily available. They feel it's taboo and offering tools that lessen the risk of underage sex is also taboo.
As another person stated, some aren't interested in fighting teen pregnancy and poverty. They are interested in fighting teen sex. Two very different things.
For a really dramatic example of this, look at the controversy over the HPV vaccine. People fought the vaccine viciously. They would rather have people die than do something they see as encouraging sex before marriage.
The former.
The logic certain politicians in the US use is that the only acceptable form of birth control the government can support is abstinence. This is often tied to Judeo-christian beliefs, and often used to gain favor with the conservative base.
If the consequences of sex (i.e. pregnancy) are mitigated, it will encourage teenagers to have sex.
Typically there is some form of slut shaming that happens during the debate on birth control.
The logic certain politicians in the US use is that the only acceptable form of birth control the government can support is abstinence. This is often tied to Judeo-christian beliefs, and often used to gain favor with the conservative base.
If the consequences of sex (i.e. pregnancy) are mitigated, it will encourage teenagers to have sex.
Typically there is some form of slut shaming that happens during the debate on birth control.
Encouraging them to have sex at all, presumably. If you help with contraception, it's an implicit endorsement of sexual intercourse (at least, that's what many would argue).
The former. By telling people 'how' to have sex it carries an implication of approval. This will lead, logically, to more people thinking it's ok to have sex (otherwise why would they be being told how).
This probably does increase the levels of total sex-having somewhat, but it also allows for much much higher levels of safe and informed sex having. Apparently this is not always considered an acceptable trade off.
This probably does increase the levels of total sex-having somewhat, but it also allows for much much higher levels of safe and informed sex having. Apparently this is not always considered an acceptable trade off.
This has been shown to be wrong. Basically the only thing abstinence only education does is delay by a year or two, the age at which people first have sex.
Then they proceed to have higher rates of every negative outcome.
Then they proceed to have higher rates of every negative outcome.
So what you are saying is that people have sex later, thereby there is less sex having, which is exactly what the abstinence teachers want.
Then you say higher rates of negative outcome, without mentioning whether you consider rate of sex having to be a negative outcome.
(I don't disagree with the assessment, it follows the exact logic I posited. I'm not sure why you're taking my comment as being in support of abstinence - it clearly isn't)
Then you say higher rates of negative outcome, without mentioning whether you consider rate of sex having to be a negative outcome.
(I don't disagree with the assessment, it follows the exact logic I posited. I'm not sure why you're taking my comment as being in support of abstinence - it clearly isn't)
As a counterpoint, 85% of the gains were found in neighboring counties without the program. Teenage birth rates are plummeting everywhere.
Questionable source, but data and linked study appear correct: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-d...
Questionable source, but data and linked study appear correct: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-d...
Interesting, thanks for the reference. Though paragraphs like
"But these “linear trend lines” based on the three previous years of data aren’t really useful. The authors’ projection shows that births would actually increase a bit during the period CFPI was put in place, despite the fact that, like the abortion rate, the teen birth rate is declining nationally, noticeably and steadily."
are somewhat bizarre. The entire point of using the trend lines is to take into account, well, the trend. Still, good to know the counterarguments, otherwise you're just listening to the echo chamber of "Well, of COURSE the program would work!"
"But these “linear trend lines” based on the three previous years of data aren’t really useful. The authors’ projection shows that births would actually increase a bit during the period CFPI was put in place, despite the fact that, like the abortion rate, the teen birth rate is declining nationally, noticeably and steadily."
are somewhat bizarre. The entire point of using the trend lines is to take into account, well, the trend. Still, good to know the counterarguments, otherwise you're just listening to the echo chamber of "Well, of COURSE the program would work!"
Indeed national averages during that period trend similarly.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/birth-rates-chart-200...
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/birth-rates-chart-200...
The 2007-2013 numbers for 'All' show about 40% drop, but: it's a longer period (than 2009-2013), and there's a very sharp decline between 2007 and 2009, which would make the national numbers worse when compared to the same period.
It's almost like having fewer women present in a 50mi radius that can get pregnant reduces local pregnancy chance...
I wonder if there was also an increase in STDs. The article makes no mention.
I was thinking the same thing. They have less of an incentive to use protection with this device implanted. Let's wait and see until the STD numbers surface.
Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.
Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.
Taking care of an STD will be cheaper for the individual and the state, without question.
I'm not entirely sure about that.
The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication. If these programs target teens and poor people, this demographic would also struggle to pay for those things as well -- and they would need to use them for a more protracted period than 10-18 years.
Also: Birth control might give a false sense of security leading to more casual sex and a surging rate of STDs. That last theory makes STDs noticeably absent from the article.
The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication. If these programs target teens and poor people, this demographic would also struggle to pay for those things as well -- and they would need to use them for a more protracted period than 10-18 years.
Also: Birth control might give a false sense of security leading to more casual sex and a surging rate of STDs. That last theory makes STDs noticeably absent from the article.
Of course it will be cheaper. Because the alternative to an STD in this argument is an STD and a baby. (Who may or may not be born with the STD.)
"The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication."
Without a "think of the children" argument, is that necessarily bad, if poor judgment has consequences? Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes?
My hiking hobby exposes me to some medical risk of lyme disease, skin cancer, ankle and knee damage, but its not like I'm about to stop. Now that you're done yawning about my dangerous lifestyle choices, likewise if casual sex is medically dangerous then ... why exactly should anyone care?
Without a "think of the children" argument, is that necessarily bad, if poor judgment has consequences? Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes?
My hiking hobby exposes me to some medical risk of lyme disease, skin cancer, ankle and knee damage, but its not like I'm about to stop. Now that you're done yawning about my dangerous lifestyle choices, likewise if casual sex is medically dangerous then ... why exactly should anyone care?
> Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes?
That's absurd. Having unprotected sex would not constitute "poor judgement" if there were no possible negative outcomes.
That's absurd. Having unprotected sex would not constitute "poor judgement" if there were no possible negative outcomes.
Depends on the STD. Don't forget the baby will (probably) also grow up to be a productive member of society.
a Baby might grow up, become a professional and be a net win by paying taxes. I don't think that's a possible outcome with STD's.
Or the baby might grow up and be a drug-addict or a deadbeat and leech benefits from the state. Statistically this one is more likely.
Given they are getting pregnant, suggests many of them are already having unprotected sex.
If the STD causes problems conceiving and requires tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in IVF treatments to conceive later in life.
The UK is having this problem, but mostly from women putting off pregnancies until their 30's or 40's.
The UK is having this problem, but mostly from women putting off pregnancies until their 30's or 40's.
Ironically this is only a problem in the UK because of universal health care. Here, it's only a problem for individuals. One could make a case how the medical industry would be pushing early IUDs in order cause problems in order to build up the IVF industry. It sounds a little tinfoil hat-ish but truly less ethical things have happened in western medical industry.
Wouldn't it be taking care of an STD or having a baby AND taking care of an STD in many cases?
That depends. If a girl gets pregnant, some have less sex after that...hence potentially reducing the STD rate.
Some also have more sex after that...
Which is statistically more likely? As someone with children...it's the less sex.
If you are female, thank you for your sample size of 1 as evidence of it being statistically more likely. If you are male thank you for your sample size equal to the number of women you have had children with of it being statistically more likely, with the the evidence being presumably that those women had less sex because you had less sex with them. And as you do not specify, must I assume that all women you are using in your samples were of the target demographic 'teenagers'. If not it is hardly representative of a demographic which is usually just discovering sex, probably being fairly secretive about it, and may represent different data than an older demographic. This makes it a very hard section of the population to represent with good data.
[deleted]
Why would you expect an increase in STDs? Are you assuming that free IUDs and implants are encouraging more teenagers to have more sex? Is it leading to sexual behavior that displaces other safer forms of sex (that were leading to teenage pregnancies)?
The preoccupation with STDs in this thread seems a bit weird and irrational.
The preoccupation with STDs in this thread seems a bit weird and irrational.
It seems safe to assume that some fraction of sexually active teenagers were using condoms as their only form of birth control before the program was instituted.
It seems likely that some fraction of those will use condoms less when other forms of birth control become widely available. Among this group, this will still likely lower pregnancy rates, since condoms have a lower efficacy than other forms of birth control, but it could potentially raise STD rates.
My intuition is that the increase will be negligible, but others' intuition is different. It would be good to have some numbers on this so that we aren't guessing.
It seems likely that some fraction of those will use condoms less when other forms of birth control become widely available. Among this group, this will still likely lower pregnancy rates, since condoms have a lower efficacy than other forms of birth control, but it could potentially raise STD rates.
My intuition is that the increase will be negligible, but others' intuition is different. It would be good to have some numbers on this so that we aren't guessing.
If you think long and hard about the kind of specific cases IUDs address over other forms of birth control, I think a grim and sad outline of reality may emerge for you.
IUDs have an excellent success rate and safety profile. They can cause problems, but from a societal perspective, it may be worth it.
Really we need non-invasive male birth control, as soon as possible.
Really we need non-invasive male birth control, as soon as possible.
I would argue invasive is fine, what we need is reliably reversible. Vasectomies can be reversed, but it's a big if at any juncture.
Even injection at the site will result in high rates of patient non-compliance. There's been some work done in India with temporary implants. However, I believe if we are to reach zero unintended pregnancies, the male procedures need both medical and reversibly surgical options.
[deleted]
This is interesting because I always claim that the reverse is true where I live. Like, getting pregnant is glorified to young girls. The conspiracy theorist in me says that the gov does that to occupy peoples lives. It's like, they have nothing better to do so lets make having a baby seem like the greatest thing in the world. So in my view, this goes both ways.
The conspiracy theorist in you may want to look to society, hormones, and evolution as well.
I wonder what these sorts of barrier-free contraception methods are doing to STI rates.
Nobody ever mentions the problems with environmental pollution and human cancer with chemical contraception. It's very conspicuous. If it were any other product the downsides would be heavily discussed. http://i.imgur.com/S8RCxEe.jpg
I tend to distrust quotes that use terms like "the barren left" - it's clearly not aimed at me, someone who Steven Mosher would probably lump into that category.
Isn't the dumping of antibiotics causing similar problems? The problem doesn't seem to be birth control itself, but improper disposal of household chemicals, really.
Also, do you have a citation for the cancer thing you mentioned?
Isn't the dumping of antibiotics causing similar problems? The problem doesn't seem to be birth control itself, but improper disposal of household chemicals, really.
Also, do you have a citation for the cancer thing you mentioned?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8759578/ns/health-womens_health/t/...
Also, the problem is literally in urine. I don't understand your line about disposal. You want all women on the pill to always pee and poop into jars for proper permanent disposal? And no, "disposal" of antibiotics is not a big ecological problem whereas pharmaceutical hormones clearly are.
Also, the problem is literally in urine. I don't understand your line about disposal. You want all women on the pill to always pee and poop into jars for proper permanent disposal? And no, "disposal" of antibiotics is not a big ecological problem whereas pharmaceutical hormones clearly are.
Ah, I didn't know that the hormones were excreted via urine.
Also, that link mostly talks about hormonal menopause therapy, and oddly only mentions the BC pill in passing, noting that only high-dosage pills seem to be linked to cancer.
In the end, tbh, it's up to a woman and her doctor to decide how to balance the risks of pregnancy and cancer.
Also, that link mostly talks about hormonal menopause therapy, and oddly only mentions the BC pill in passing, noting that only high-dosage pills seem to be linked to cancer.
In the end, tbh, it's up to a woman and her doctor to decide how to balance the risks of pregnancy and cancer.
Here they're not being discussed because this program is not using oral contraceptives. IUDs and implants.
Both of which use the same hormones. They're not using copper IUDs, I doubt.
And birth control hormones are not the cause of increased oestrogen-mimics in the waterways - instead it's plastics, soy and shampoo.
So comes the <del>hypocrisy</del>inconsistency of the conservative rationale.
Cigarettes are a far more potent carcinogen than estrogen and progestogen (the Pill). However when it comes to smoking, conservatives believe the government shouldn't interfere and say it's "Personal Choice."
When it comes to birth control, they want government to limit access on the grounds of morality, and (dubious) health claims.
The Public Research Institute is an anti-abortion, anti birth-control group in leagues with the Catholic Church and thinly veiled under the guise of "Humans Rights Advocate" for Chinese.
Cigarettes are a far more potent carcinogen than estrogen and progestogen (the Pill). However when it comes to smoking, conservatives believe the government shouldn't interfere and say it's "Personal Choice."
When it comes to birth control, they want government to limit access on the grounds of morality, and (dubious) health claims.
The Public Research Institute is an anti-abortion, anti birth-control group in leagues with the Catholic Church and thinly veiled under the guise of "Humans Rights Advocate" for Chinese.
Here's the link to the study referenced in the article.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506
I don't think 2-3 partners is really low. I find it hard to imagine most people being successful at seducing a very large number of people. Probably in most cases it is <= the number of boyfriends the girl has had.
I could also point out that my church would consider 2-3 partners something akin to "running wild". One partner, one time could be a lapse in judgement. Multiple partners or one partner multiple times indicates a pattern.
I could also point out that my church would consider 2-3 partners something akin to "running wild". One partner, one time could be a lapse in judgement. Multiple partners or one partner multiple times indicates a pattern.
>I could also point out that my church would consider 2-3 partners something akin to "running wild". One partner, one time could be a lapse in judgement. Multiple partners or one partner multiple times indicates a pattern.
Thankfully, this type of puritanical thinking is on the decline in America.
Thankfully, this type of puritanical thinking is on the decline in America.
>Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success
Any time I see a headline like this, I have to look for the discussion about what unintended consequences were observed. There usually are some, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some commenters have already mentioned negative health effects, spread of STDs, environmental impact, social consequences. I found no such discussion in this article.
Any time I see a headline like this, I have to look for the discussion about what unintended consequences were observed. There usually are some, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some commenters have already mentioned negative health effects, spread of STDs, environmental impact, social consequences. I found no such discussion in this article.
Probably because it's entirely outside the scope and would only be useful to people trying to derail the conversation.
It's not like IUDs suddenly stop other safe sex practices. It's not Sex MMO where your "Contraceptive Equipment Slot" only can fit one item per party.
It's not like IUDs suddenly stop other safe sex practices. It's not Sex MMO where your "Contraceptive Equipment Slot" only can fit one item per party.
Why would it be outside the scope? It's intuitive that decreasing the "price" of one form of contraception would decrease demand for weak substitutes, so it is one possible and very negative effect of the policy.
Honestly I'm not sure where to begin in the time I have here to write with you...
Consider that IUD usage overlaps only partially with other practices for starters.
Consider that IUD usage overlaps only partially with other practices for starters.
In my opinion this is obviously a pretty good thing to do, and it is fantastic to see it is happening. Dear world: let's see more of this kind of thing, please.
> But the experiment in Colorado is entering an uncertain new phase that will test a central promise of the Affordable Care Act: free contraception.
> But the experiment in Colorado is entering an uncertain new phase that will test a central promise of the Affordable Care Act: free contraception.
How is this startling?
This result is "startling" because "startling" is great as a clickbait word. I really wish HN was less susceptible to clickbait...
It's a novel top-down initiative which has been very successful.
Really not novel. Only novel in the US.
Condoms are free.
Condoms have lower compliance and higher failure rates.
Check out this series of charts. Each method of contraception in its own chart, and "perfect use" and "typical use" are both plotted.
Out of 100 couples using a condom as birth control, 55 will have an unplanned pregnancy in 4 years with typical usage (8 out of 100 with perfect usage).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/...
Out of 100 couples using a condom as birth control, 55 will have an unplanned pregnancy in 4 years with typical usage (8 out of 100 with perfect usage).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/...
Circumcised men especially do not like to use condoms because it greatly reduces pleasure as their glans is already number and more worn than a normal penis.
To teenagers? Where?
In my state, teenagers can get them for free from the health department.
and can teenagers get to the health department for free? :-/
you're coming dangerously close to quoting the vogon from hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:
> There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
> What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind it’s only four light years away you know! I’m sorry but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that’s your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I don’t know…apathetic bloody planet, I’ve no sympathy at all…
you're coming dangerously close to quoting the vogon from hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:
> There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
> What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind it’s only four light years away you know! I’m sorry but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that’s your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I don’t know…apathetic bloody planet, I’ve no sympathy at all…
Well my mom works for the health department and she passes them out all the time. So I'd say transportation is not an issue for some of them.
Where and why does she do that?
Competing anecdote: when I was a teen, I had no idea what the health department was, or what it did, and I never met an employee of the health department.
Competing anecdote: when I was a teen, I had no idea what the health department was, or what it did, and I never met an employee of the health department.
If you look at my github profile, you'll see that I'm in Oklahoma and because it's her job.
I'm sorry you didn't have access to taxpayer funded condoms when you were a teenager. Why so much criticism? Do you feel somehow that you were treated unfairly? If so, by whom?
I'm sorry you didn't have access to taxpayer funded condoms when you were a teenager. Why so much criticism? Do you feel somehow that you were treated unfairly? If so, by whom?
Chill out, man. I'm not criticizing anybody. Just showing some incredulity.
When I said where and why, I meant in what context does a health department employee hand out condoms?
Like, does she wander around the area shopping malls with overflowing pockets, handing them out to anyone who looks like a teenager? I'm just trying to figure out how what you described works.
When I said where and why, I meant in what context does a health department employee hand out condoms?
Like, does she wander around the area shopping malls with overflowing pockets, handing them out to anyone who looks like a teenager? I'm just trying to figure out how what you described works.
Perhaps they should discourage teenagers from sleeping with each other. As far as I know, teenage pregnancy is not an issue in conservative Middle Eastern cultures for instance.
Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health? I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections. It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one. Not that pills are any better.
It doesn't matter what direction the arrow on the graph is pointing if the way you got there is by potentially hurting people.
It doesn't matter what direction the arrow on the graph is pointing if the way you got there is by potentially hurting people.
Pregnancy also has "a lot" of negative impacts.
Quoting from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud in the section about disadvantages:
> You may have:
> Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.
Quoting from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud in the section about disadvantages:
> You may have:
- mild to moderate pain when the IUD is put in
- cramping or backache for a few days
- spotting between periods in the first 3–6 months
- irregular periods in the first 3–6 months — with Mirena or Skyla
- heavier periods and worse menstrual cramps — with ParaGard
> Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.
When you ask female "women's health providers" what contraception they use for themselves a modern IUD is top of the list.
Here's a Vox article about it: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud
Here's a Vox article about it: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud
I am not a doctor. That said, my understanding is that IUDs are one of the best contraceptive methods out there. They have a bad reputation because they had issues when they were initially introduced, and they haven't quite overcome that reputation yet even though modern ones are excellent. There are non-hormonal ones too (pure copper), so it can avoid a whole host of side effects that some women experience with hormonal birth control. However they can also cause heavier periods with some people. Otherwise they seem to be the model of what you'd want a contraceptive to be (excellent effectiveness, safe, easily reversible, and forgettable–they last years and years).
> Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health?
IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options.
IUDs also have some benefits.
>I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections.
There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed.
>It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one.
It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice.
UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.
IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options.
IUDs also have some benefits.
>I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections.
There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed.
>It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one.
It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice.
UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.
Yups. My SO has the most unpredictable periods since she got her IUD. It's a huuuuge tradeoff that we are not sure it worth it in the long run.
That may be true, but many women upon receiving an IUD actually find that after a few months their menstrual cycles stabilize and decrease.
It's such a pronounced effect that doctors use certain types of IUDs to help stabilize certain conditions. It doesn't help everyone with this, but it helps enough people that it's worth trying.
It's such a pronounced effect that doctors use certain types of IUDs to help stabilize certain conditions. It doesn't help everyone with this, but it helps enough people that it's worth trying.
All medical treatments are a trade-off.
Mirena in particular is also linked with mood disorders in 5%-10% of users.
Edit: s/15/10/ as per [1]
[1] http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/
Edit: s/15/10/ as per [1]
[1] http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/
Not your job to police women's bodies. If she is fully informed and wishes to use one then this is her personal decision. Not yours.
My concern here would just be parental knowledge. I would permit my daughter to get an IUD at a young age if that was her decision regardless of our families religious / moral views (though I would encourage her to be informed), but if I'm responsible for her health and safety, I damn well better know what someone else is implanting in her.
That's fair. But there are a lot of parents who would become deeply upset if they found out that their daughter had an IUD. A requirement to inform parents would therefore greatly decrease usage rates, and would effectively add an asterisk to the program that you're only allowed to participate with parental consent. (With the double-asterisk that parental consent isn't required if you're willing to defy them.)
It's a tough choice to make, but I would say that your right to know is less important than a young woman's access to good contraception in the face of parental disapproval.
It's a tough choice to make, but I would say that your right to know is less important than a young woman's access to good contraception in the face of parental disapproval.
How old until she's allowed to control her medical treatment in your opinion?
Locally everything medical(ish) that isn't sex related needs 18 yrs. Everything from vaccination requiring a signed consent form and if under 18, a parent or legal guardian, to ear (or other) piercing, to tattoos.
The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening.
For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere?
There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.
The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening.
For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere?
There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.
You don't think age of consent for sexual activity would be a useful age?
In England we have Gillick and Fraser competence.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-sy...
In England we have Gillick and Fraser competence.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-sy...
Those Fraser guidelines seem very sensible, IMO - I had not seem them before. My concern is motivated by the fact that in my experience with sex-ed programs in both Colorado and New Zealand, I witnessed the role of parents being actively undermined (a practice which those guidelines would seem to discourage). Sure, some people are shitty parents, and if my daughter is seeking such advice behind my back, maybe it's just because she should be able to, maybe it's because I'm already failing in parental responsibilities. But when I've heard the phrase "don't tell your parents about this" from multiple school officials as a student, I as a parent start being very concerned about whether or not government employees who are in a position to council students are generally going to follow the procedure, and actually encourage children to keep their parents in the loop when making serious decisions.
>You don't think age of consent for sexual activity would be a useful age?
So 18 then. There are exceptions that allow less, but the 'no restrictions' is 18.
So 18 then. There are exceptions that allow less, but the 'no restrictions' is 18.
Depends on which state.
Federal is 18. Within a state may be less, but as soon as they cross federal lines, it is 18. Thus the 'no restrictions' is at 18.
Those Fraser guidelines seem very sensible, IMO - I had not seem them before. My concern is motivated by the fact that in my experience with sex-ed programs in both Colorado and New Zealand, I witnessed the role of parents being actively undermined (a practice which those guidelines would seem to discourage). Sure, some people are shitty parents, and if my daughter is seeking such advice behind my back, maybe it's just because she should be able to, maybe it's because I'm already failing in parental responsibilities. But when I've heard the phrase "don't tell your parents about this" from multiple school officials as a student, I as a parent start being very concerned about whether or not government employees who are in a position to council students are generally going to follow official, reviewed procedure or go off on their own agenda. +1 to those guidelines.
I'm not saying I control her medical treatment, I'm saying I would want to be aware. If she's getting an IUD implanted without my knowledge, is she likely to come to me or her mother for help if / when she suffers a serious side-effect?
Why would she go to you for medical advice?
Um... because we're her parents and we would see to it she received all the care she needed should a complication arise?
[deleted]
How old until she is allowed to make her own choices as to who her sexual partner is? 18 seems to be the answer (most states are under 18, but if it crossed state lines it is upped to 18 as the federal law is 18).
I think the topic is more spurred from this being a government sponsored service that is offered to minors. Overall, this seems like a shining success. However, are IUDs the safest option? Should the government offer others? No "policing" is necessary to answer these questions.
You're making a straw man argument here.
The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control.
In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.
The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control.
In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.
That's completely fair! I'm not trying to make the decision for anyone and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?
Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
> But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?
There is no such thing as tradeoff free medicine. Things we can ingest without unusual side effects have a special name in medicine: food.
IUDs are, on balance, considered a much safer form of birth control. They do not flood the user's bloodstream entirely with hormones (rather delivering it directly to the area of effect), and the treatment can be quickly discontinued in the case of the rare negative reaction.
In many cases, negative reactions to IUDs are indicators of other more severe reproductive organ issues like Endometriosis. For other reproductive issues, IUDs can actually be proscribed as a treatment.
The actual risk profile for IUDs is quite favorable. The actual risks of pregnancy are much larger than people like to talk about, and most women (even young women) take over a year to physically heal from their ordeal carrying and delivering a child and that's entirely ignoring the social and economic impacts of said pregnancy.
Most importantly, IUDs have fantastically high compliance rates because they are always on and most of their failure conditions are obvious (results in falling out). By contrast, the mechanical failure of a condom or diaphragm is often difficult to catch in the heat of the moment and human factors come into play with pill compliance.
Of course, knowingly or not, your actual cause here is to be Sargent Rubiquity of the Womb Police. I don't believe for an instant that any logic or compassion motivates your post.
There is no such thing as tradeoff free medicine. Things we can ingest without unusual side effects have a special name in medicine: food.
IUDs are, on balance, considered a much safer form of birth control. They do not flood the user's bloodstream entirely with hormones (rather delivering it directly to the area of effect), and the treatment can be quickly discontinued in the case of the rare negative reaction.
In many cases, negative reactions to IUDs are indicators of other more severe reproductive organ issues like Endometriosis. For other reproductive issues, IUDs can actually be proscribed as a treatment.
The actual risk profile for IUDs is quite favorable. The actual risks of pregnancy are much larger than people like to talk about, and most women (even young women) take over a year to physically heal from their ordeal carrying and delivering a child and that's entirely ignoring the social and economic impacts of said pregnancy.
Most importantly, IUDs have fantastically high compliance rates because they are always on and most of their failure conditions are obvious (results in falling out). By contrast, the mechanical failure of a condom or diaphragm is often difficult to catch in the heat of the moment and human factors come into play with pill compliance.
Of course, knowingly or not, your actual cause here is to be Sargent Rubiquity of the Womb Police. I don't believe for an instant that any logic or compassion motivates your post.
> Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control.
Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control.
Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative tradeoffs.
Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.
Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided).
You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?"
The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect.
Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general)
You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy.
Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?"
The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect.
Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general)
You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy.
Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
Since all my comments so far have sounded like I oppose giving out contraceptives (since I am very much a proponent of moral living), let me clarify. I think it is great to help lift people out of poverty. Since there is a trend among poor teenagers to have more unplanned pregnancies it makes sense to address that problem, and this is one possible step.
I do not think it should replace teaching abstinence. But I also don't think that teaching abstinence using scare tactics in school is all that effective. Religious and moral teachings are much more so. So it still comes down to the responsibility of parents to teach their children correct life principles.
Let the government give free contraceptives to at-risk populations. But also encourage parents to teach good morals.
I do not think it should replace teaching abstinence. But I also don't think that teaching abstinence using scare tactics in school is all that effective. Religious and moral teachings are much more so. So it still comes down to the responsibility of parents to teach their children correct life principles.
Let the government give free contraceptives to at-risk populations. But also encourage parents to teach good morals.
I've heard that unwanted pregnancies are more frequent in the "wait till married" crowd. That is because they are unlikely to have condoms with them when their emotions overwhelm them. They don't account for their changed decision making process when aroused. (Source: Dan Ariely's Irrationality MOOC).
That's what I've seen from personal experience. Thinking along the lines of: Birth control's for sluts, and I'm not like that, so I don't need that, this is special, etc.
Just so I can have another data point in my anecdote web. May I ask you if you mean 'abstinence till marriage', if you abstained till marriage and at what age you got married.
Everyone knew this would happen, but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex, so initiatives like this are almost always blocked. It's very much a political problem.