I was reading my "beloved" Catholic Online newsletter. Now, I don't normally agree with the assertions made in those articles, but there have been some articles regarding teenage sex that made me think. Now, the Catholic stance is that abstinence is the way to go. Secularists and liberal/progressive Christians want to see safe sex instruction loosely coupled with some wait-till-marriage talk. The recent slew of teenage sex/abstinence articles in the Catholic Online lamenting President Obama's decision to cut funding for abstinence programs. The question about what to do with the situation is certainly perplexing. What perplexes me even more is that studies are tracking kids as young as twelve. This is really disturbing to me. Ultimately, I come to the conclusion that neither safe-sex instruction nor abstinence training is really important, and not even really necessary.
I will admit that I wasn't the most sexually provocative teenager. Indeed, I had that dork thing going on. I was a hot dork for sure, fluent in a language of fashion with designer glasses and I had wicked blonde hair. I was an awesome dancer, pianist, and human en general. Admittedly, however, the girls at my high school weren't looking to get in my pants. Then again I wasn't looking to get into their pants either (which weren't nearly as cute as mine). With that said, sex was really never part of my high school vocabulary. No girls would do it with me, which was fine because I was gay. Further, I couldn't have sex with guys because the gay guys in my class were closet-cases. I was actually a really good situation for me. I couldn't get into any trouble sexually because there was no one with whom to have sex. Looking back, it was great actually.
Despite the lack of potential intimate partners in high school for me, there was something else that kept me (and most of my friends) from venturing into the strange realm of teenage sex. I was just way too busy in high school to think about finding someone with whom to do it. Looking back, there was never a period of time in the school year where I didn't have any extra curricular activities. In the fall our pop-choir started rehearsals, and then later in the fall was the school play. Those two activities brought me right up to Christmas break. As soon as break ended, pop choir resumed rehearsals and I would throw myself into speech, which, of all the activities in which I participated in high school, demanded the most attention and practice. About halfway through the speech season, I auditioned for the spring musical. In addition to simply performing in the musical, I also liked to help behind the scenes with sets and costumes, which sometimes required me to work late into the evenings. Throughout all of the above mentioned activities, I also had weekly piano lessons that required a great deal of weekly preparation. I practiced daily, performed, competed, accompanied . . . I had absolutely no time for anything else.
In addition to the fact that all hours of our days were packed solid with activities, these activities sparked furious competition between rival schools and between students. I must admit, I always find myself laughing whenever I hear people talk about "competitive sports," as if competition was the defining hallmark or some unique quality. Quite frankly, I think it would be up for discussion, the topic of whether the competitive element in sports dwarfs in comparison to the hectic, and often, bitter competition that swarms around the arts. Our coaches and directors and choreographers and conductors certainly made obvious attempts to inject that level of competitive spirit into our routine. In speech, for example, friends were pitted against friends, which often ended in great resentment. I remember our choreographers of the spring musicals actually used to tell us that they wanted the dance groups from different numbers to actually think of being in competition with the other. They wanted us to try and show up the other groups, even though we were in the same production with the same goal of trying to create to best show ever. It was kind of ridiculous, but at the same time the competition really got to the students. They'd really dedicate themselves as individuals, but also as a group.
Further, my closest friends in high school also took on the same amount of extra-curricular hours as I in practically all the same activities. I found myself in a very tight knit group of people who were not only friends, but they were my life. Literally. I saw these people day after day in classes and then in my activities. My best friend and I performed in a dramatic duo together in speech our final year. It basically required us to be at each other's side day after day. At dress rehearsals for the plays and musicals, the whole cast would all be there together for hours, until late in the evening. We basically moved as one group from activity to activity.
My point is basically this. Through our immersion in after school activities, the close (both emotionally and physically) interaction with my friends, and the fierce competition in which we engaged, we developed this kind of checks-and-balances system. If any trouble some how miraculously found a way to tempt us, there was always some kind of distraction. Basically, we didn't have time to get into trouble because our hours were filled, our friends were watching, and the competition created unwavering dedication. I remember my best friend and I rehearsing our duo at her house in the hallway next to a door until late in the evening trying to get it perfect. Although it was because we wanted to be good, we wanted to be better than the other duos on our team. The whole mixture really provided a good safeguard for us all.
It also helped that we were all basically good kids. We didn't drink, we didn't smoke, nor did we do any drugs. Our biggest addiction was the medium lattes at Pandora's, where we'd sit until one in the morning talking about anything and everything. However, it is debatable whether we were good per se, or whether it was simply because our commitments forced us to be good.
I realize this is a stab in the dark, but I would bet a hundred dollars that the girl who stabbed her new born and left him or her in the trash can did not have nearly the same school experience that my friends and I had. I would bet the same amount that the kids who are engaging in sexual behavior and the girls that are getting pregnant are also not nearly as involved. I think that is key. In order to get teenagers to stop thinking about sex, they've got to have something else to occupy their minds.
My friend and I branched out in the last few months of school and started becoming friends with kids from different social groups. One of the girls we got to know casually was a girl who had a particularly troubled teenage experience. It was well known throughout our class that this girl had been sexually active for a few years and still continued in her endeavors even after we got to know her. She also had some family issues as well as experiences with drugs and heavy drinking. Despite all the above, she was actually a very sweet, social girl. However, I know for a fact that other than her hours in school, this girl had little commitment, extra curricular or otherwise. I believe she played one sport during the year, but that was about it. That was basically the story for many kids in my class.
For sure, there were kids that weren't nearly as involved as my friends and I but still managed to stay out of trouble. There were some kids that were just super into the academic portion of high school that they spent all their time studying. However, most of the people I knew who stayed out of trouble had something to occupy their time when they weren't in class or studying. Indeed, I think it was the preoccupation that kept us all from venturing into the world of mature activity.
As most know, I am not a parent, so even if I had advice to give, I'd certainly expect people to find my judgment suspect. However, I think every one of us, having the experience of being a kid and knowing what our lives were like, has some idea of what constitutes a "good" choice and a "bad" choice. Personally, if and when I ever have children, I think the above method is what I plan on using to keep my kid on the straight and narrow.
Quite frankly, I think this talk of abstinence training versus safe-sex training is unproductive. The problem I see is that talking to kids about sex at young ages is counterproductive. Liberals keep citing statistics that say kids are getting into bed with one another at younger and younger ages with each progressing year. This incites them to say that kids need to learn about sex at younger before this starts happening. I see the logic in this and it is compelling. If kids are having sex, why not teach them to do it responsibly?
I do not consider myself a social conservative, but I do have problems with the above argument. No doubt it's true young people are engaging in adult behavior, and each year the ages get younger and younger. There are statistics out there to prove it. One thing that the statistics also show is that such training, while it has some effect, is not particularly successful. The study mentioned in the Catholic Online article reported that abstinence training was more successful than safe-sex training. Indeed, the teenage group that received abstinence training had less students engaging in sexual behavior as opposed to the safe-sex group. However, one thing I noticed was that the numbers were not that disparate. The abstinence training still had something like 30% of attendees engaging in sexual behavior. In the safe-sex group, it was around 50%. If each group had 50 students, that would be comparing 15 to 25. That to me doesn't sound as good. In addition, the study only mentioned how many children ended up becoming sexually active after training. It failed to mention any consequences that might have come about as a result of these kids being sexually active. For example, if a bunch of kids out of that 30% ended up conceiving a child or getting some horrendous disease, that would be an utter failure in my mind. One final thing about the study, the training was administered to children in 6th and 7th grade and the follow up was two years later. That means that the kids, when re-evaluated were in either 8th or 9th grade. Basically, all of these kids could have fallen off the wagon in their later high school years (something that is quite likely given the libidos of teenagers) and this study would not have caught that. Regardless of these statistics, one thing remains sure. Young kids are having sex, regardless of whatever training they receive.
Another issue I have is why are children as young as eleven and twelve being taught about safe sex? Telling them where babies come from is one thing, but instructing them on how to do it themselves is a different animal in my mind. I personally feel that preventative sex talks have the opposite effect of what is desired, if they have any effect at all. One question I have is would these numbers have been any higher if these kids didn't go through the training in 6th or 7th grade? I would tend to think no simply because I don't believe these training sessions had all that much impact on these kids. Talking to children that young about sex is like talking to a child that young about philosophy or law. I don't think a child that young is really able to comprehend that effects of unsafe sex at such an age. Further, I think it prematurely exposes them to it, making the behavior more alluring. Basically, by instructing kids not to engage in a certain behavior, their interest is piqued.
Of course there is no easy way to stop it, unless you raise your kids in the country with no internet and no television. As unrealistic as it sounds, it certainly has appeal. However, I don't think the average parent needs to go to such extremes. I think good parenting, consisting of general parental awareness and supervision, works just fine. I personally believe that kids need to be kids. Distraction is a major key as well. Giving children something else to focus will help distract them from the barrage of social messages telling them they should be sexy, or be more adult. They shouldn't be burdened with the problems with which adults must deal.
Of course a parent cannot monitor their children every moment of the day. Especially in these times where both parents are working, or a child is raised by only one parent. Parenting tactics are constantly being undermined by outside culture in general. Honestly, I do not envy my sister who is raising two young kids in this day in age. The internet is at every kid's fingertips. You turn on a children's show on the Disney network and it shows kids in junior high entering "serious" romantic relationships. I don't think the cast of Suite Life is out of junior high quite yet. There is also the big issue of young celebrities being sexualized by the media. I came across a picture of Miley Cyrus (aka Hannah Montana) on one of the news websites I follow and the girl was dressed like Kim Kardashian. Kids idolize this girl. My niece thinks she cool. It seems as if every media outlet is undercutting parenting techniques aimed at preventing premature adult behavior in kids.
There is also the problem of naughty friends influencing children despite a parent's efforts. Parents can warn their kids about sex all they want, but it often goes unheeded when friend's are pushing fiercely in the opposite direction. I think this situation can be avoided, or at the very least diminished by monitoring whom a child befriends. I firmly believe that parents can and should play an active role in defining the social lives of their children.
I also think it has to do with the decrease in extracurricular activities in schools. As extra money dwindles in the bad economy, so do the perks. Further, I think a larger part of the problem is that extracurricular activities are more offered to children as something to do rather than something they in which they can become proficient. My college piano professor reported a statistic to my piano studio one day. She told us that only one percent of the world's population achieves the level of musical proficiency that we were at. It's not that the other world's musicians are incompetent, it's that they don't receive the training or they don't have the motivation to go beyond music lessons with the piano teacher down the street (the numbers in piano are significantly lower than other instruments given that pianos are generally more expensive than other musical instruments). Although hearing the statistic made us feel special, it was also very depressing. Why aren't there more kids continuing their musical educations so they can become concert pianists, or singers, or joining bands and creating music? How many kids on their high school sports team continue their training to maybe play at a higher level? How many kids who find themselves nurturing their talent for painting or photography several years out of high school? I'd bet very few. I am not talking about using talents at a professional level either. Obviously, most people, even if they are talented, are not going to be able to make a successful living just off the trumpet or join a professional sports team. But they could continue the activity just because they are good at it and because it gives them something to do. This is basically what piano has become for me and I am truly grateful to have that in my life. The problem is that schools do not offer extracurricular activities as avenues for nurturing talent and skill, but rather as a means to fill time or as application boosters. Kids aren't actually getting good at anything (or at least not enough) to make them want to continue. Being in band is enough, but being good at your instrument in band is unnecessary. Obviously as we get older, we get busier and certain things we used to love, and most likely still do, fall to the way side to make room for the more practical. But shouldn't schools and teachers and parents help a child figure out a way to live a practical life and still keep those talents alive? I am a super busy person, and yet I just finished Chopin's Fourth Ballade (it's fourteen pages of intricate fingering hell). And now I am starting Liszt's Mephisto Waltz. All I am saying is there are ways out there to make it work.
Of course at some point all kids are going to start engaging in adult behavior. Indeed, there is a point at which children do become adults. But it is at that point that parents need to step in and give their children relevant advice and guidance. Hopefully, that point will arrive later than sooner. In any case, I think advising children too early on issues beyond their comprehension is about as useful as giving children tax advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment