So what? They were considered sexually mature enough (to marry) in the 50s and 60s and now they’re not. That isn’t evidence of anything other than societal norms concerning marriage.
Nixon had a huge report on porn and it’s impact on the people. It found no link between porno and violence. The report was a huge book,complete with dirty pictures. Nixon like Bush suppressed reports that did not come out the way they wanted.
1/4 of the kids have stds. Cool .that means 3/4 don’t. Not bad.
Unless the average age of first sexual experience has increased*, it’s evidence that pre-marital sex has increased in the teen population. That “might” just have some correlation with transmission of STIs.
You are really not all that bright, are you? 
*please don’t tell me you think it has…
Good point. It seems like girls fall right into playing mommy while boys have no interest in playing daddy…they’re off re-enacting “Lord of the Flies” with their GI Joes.
Upon reflection I have to wonder: was my mom a teen pregnancy stat in 1941? Yes, she was 17, but she and dad got married so how would that show under the data of “unwed pregnancies”? It was one of those miracles that somehow only took seven months after the honeymoon.
Was it really maturity that drove them to marry? Probably they just did the right thing, as they used to say. And we could ascribe some of it to that pre-war phemonenon where marriage rates rise. Two weeks later, Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Premarital sex has increased in all populations. That’s my point - there’s nothing going on here that doesn’t match up with society as a whole.
Well, as it relates to a more “innocent age”, looking at teen pregnancy rates is misleading. If those teens were mostly married int he 50s (which they were), then it isn’t the same thing at all. That was how you interjected the statistics. Now, Starving Artist should have talked about pre-marital sex rather than teen sex, and I’m sure that is what he meant. As unrealistic as it might be, the fact is STIs would be reduced considerably if pre- or extra-marital sex were reduced.
Yes, 25% is a shocking and unfortuante statistic, but like all statistics, it needs to be compared to something to make it meaningful. For most all of these STD’s, appropriate DNA based screening tools were unavailable for use in prior generations, so we have no idea what portion of people from earlier generations also had STD’s at the same age. From surveillence in those older folks now, a hell of a lot of them have/had such.
I’ll provide cites if requested, but there is now a very strong evidence basis in support of comprehensive sexual education leading to significant differnences in risk behavior. You can bloviate on the endemic “cultural problems” all you want, but I’m not certain how one goes about changing a culture and I’m confident that doing so is significantly trickier than changing a curriculum. Also, consider that early reproduction has the potential to feed back into poor child rearing.
Giving people the tools to become parents later rather than sooner will also make them better parents.
The solutions strike me as fairly obvious, but I’ve never understood much about education in this nation.
bloviate, good word!
I haven’t shared this idea with many fellow teachers but I wonder if it would work. Everybody talks about educating kids, but what about taking it up a notch and educating the parents? Some of them are young, some are single parents, etc. They may not have much of a support system and they may not have had good models to draw from in the first place.
What if schools offered workshops for parents on parenting skills? There are already libraries and schools that have classes run by volunteers to teach literacy and ESL to adults, so why not this? These workshops could cover a variety of topics, like the importance of setting limits in the home or preparing parents for when teen rebelliousness in the middle school years. In middle or high school, they could learn about std’s and birth control.
And across age groups, you could connect the parents with other community resources. Make these offerings cafeteria style, so parents don’t sign on for an entire series…they could sign up for what interests them and pass on what doesn’t.
One thing that makes me think this wouldn’t work: the “open house” effect. I remember my first year at open house, one student’s mother took me aside and asked, fearfully, “How’s he doing?” I replied, “Well, he has a 98 so far but there’s still time for him to bring it up.” I.e. a lot of the people who would show up for help are already pretty involved and aren’t the ones who need the help.