5 ms·

>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 (a

>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?

aidos 11y ago
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).
noelwelsh 11y ago
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.
balls187 11y ago
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.
seiji 11y ago
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.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  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.
  - seiji 11y ago
    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!).
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      I see i forgot to include that i think the couple was both well into their 20s, just not married (yet).
      - seiji 11y ago
        They are still children in the eyes of their parents. :) Doesn't matter if it's 20/30/40, you still need to be protected from the temptation of living in sin.
        digi_owl 11y ago
        * They are still children in the eyes of their parents. :) * True, and something that transcends cultures.
    - steverb 11y ago
      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.
deelowe 11y ago
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.
- mikeash 11y ago
  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.
Ntrails 11y ago
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.
- XorNot 11y ago
  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.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    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)

aidos 11y ago

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).

noelwelsh 11y ago

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.

balls187 11y ago

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.

seiji 11y ago

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.

digi_owl 11y ago
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.
- seiji 11y ago
  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!).
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    I see i forgot to include that i think the couple was both well into their 20s, just not married (yet).
    - seiji 11y ago
      They are still children in the eyes of their parents. :) Doesn't matter if it's 20/30/40, you still need to be protected from the temptation of living in sin.
      - digi_owl 11y ago
        * They are still children in the eyes of their parents. :) * True, and something that transcends cultures.
  - steverb 11y ago
    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.

deelowe 11y ago

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.

mikeash 11y ago
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.

Ntrails 11y ago

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.

XorNot 11y ago
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.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  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)