What are the words and phrases that people use when talking about teens and sex?

Alyssa Wulf, a linguist and co-founder of Real Reason, presented a provocative final plenary at the AASECT conference last week. (AASECT is a professional association of sexuality educators, counselors and therapists.)

She began by showing how we use conceptual metaphors to make mental shortcuts, such as describing “ideas” with references to “food”:

• Half-baked idea
• Digest information
• Chew on a thought

She then explained how she investigated why people don’t push for Comprehensive Sex Ed, since most people say they want it in our schools. What’s the disconnect? Why don’t parents and community members vote for it, fight for it, and advocate more for it?

Alyssa and her colleagues evaluated speeches, curricula, political cartoons, pamphlets, etc about teenage sexuality and found that the two most common conceptual metaphors were sex as “contaminant” and sex as “opponent.” (See the image above for some examples, though you can probably think of many more.) Even sex-positive sources often refer to sex with words like: “risk,” “threat,” “consequences,” “protect from,” “avoid,” “arm with information,” etc.

Opponent…

Contaminant…

Threat…

These metaphors are scary, so it makes perfect sense that parents react emotionally and feel the need to protect their kids from sex.

Is there another way?

Yes, there is. Alyssa and her team suggest that we talk about sex in way that people relate to – sex as “personality”:

• An ever-present part of every person
• Stable, yet evolves and changes over time
• Crucial to one’s identity and self-hood
• A venue for reaching our potential

If we can commit to talking about sex in this way, we can move past the war of words and find a place of common ground.

• 19 million new Sexually Transmitted Infections will occur this year
• STI’s cost the health care industry $15 Billion annually
• More than half of all of us will get one at some time in our lives
• Two-thirds of new cases are in people under 25 years of age

On Monday, I gave a three-hour workshop entitled, “The Local Impact of STI’s” (Sexually Transmitted Infections) for area counselors, social workers, school nurses and public health professionals. My three objectives were that participants would learn more about the most common STI’s, understand the emotional impact of a diagnosis, and see the importance of connecting patients/clients to resources for education and support.

Note: STI’s and STD’s are the same thing. “STD” is still the most widely used term, but there is a shift to using “Infection” instead of “Disease.” The term “disease” implies that a person is sick, but most people with STI’s don’t know that they are infected and/or don’t experience noticeable symptoms.

• 20% of Americans have Genital Herpes
• 90% of the people with Herpes don’t know they have it

Since I had several school nurses in attendance, we spent some time talking about the sex ed that kids receive in schools. We discussed reasons why the STI rate among American teens is so much higher than in other countries.

• The U.S. teen Chlamydia rate is 20 times higher than in France
• The U.S. teen Gonorrhea rate is 74 times higher than in France

Although the age at which young people begin sexual activity is about the same, American teens have a higher pregnancy rate, higher abortion rate, and higher birth rate than most industrialized nations. But why?

A big factor is condom usage. True, condoms don’t offer 100% protection against STI’s, but a condom or dental dam is far better than using nothing. Yet, Abstinence-Only Sex Education stresses the failure rate of condoms, and teachers cannot instruct teens on how to use one properly.

Theoretically, abstinence would be 100% reliable protection against Sexually Transmitted Infections, but…

• In one study, “virgins” had the same rate of STI’s as sexually active teens
• In communities with a large number of teens pledging abstinence, there’s a higher rate of STI’s (9% vs 5.5%)

So, what accounts for the large numbers of Americans, especially teenagers, who contract a Sexually Transmitted Infection each year? I think one important factor is the love/hate relationship our society has with sex. On one hand, we produce billions of dollars worth of porn and export it all over the world, and on the other hand we’re still pitching a fit about Janet Jackson’s breast exposed for 2 seconds.

We need to become more comfortable thinking and talking about sex. The obsession/repulsion reaction to sex has many damaging implications, including the the very real problem of Sexually Transmitted Infections. Not only do STI’s cause physical pain, but they cause emotional pain as well.

• In men, STI’s increased the overall risk of depression by 50%
• In women, STI’s increased the risk of depression by 80%

What you don’t know can hurt you.

Results from a new public opinion survey of teens and adults—With One Voice (lite) 2009—provides some guidance on what might help to reverse the recent increase in the teen birth rate.  Results from the nationally-representative survey make clear that (1) when it comes to teens’ decisions about sex, parents are more influential than they think, and (2) adults and teens view efforts that encourage teens to delay sex and that encourage sexually active teens to use contraception as complimentary not contradictory strategies. In particular:

• Teens say parents (31%) most influence their decisions about sex—more than friends (18%), the media (7%), teachers and sex educators (3%) and others.
• For their part, 43% of adults believe that friends most influence teens’ decisions about sex; only 24% of adults believe that parents are most influential.
• Fully 73% of adults and a plurality of teens wish that teens were getting more information about both abstinence and contraception, rather than either/or.

Download With One Voice (lite) 2009 here.

Quoted from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy E-gram. Sign Up.

I get so irritated every time I hear or read someone listing all of the terrible things that are likely to happen to you if you have pre-marital sex. Federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs must teach that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”

I interact with people with sexual problems on a daily basis. Here are just a few of the potential “harmful psychological and physical effects” of abstinence:

• Vaginismus – the body’s unconscious response to a perceived threat (read: a penis). The vaginal muscles constrict to prevent penetration. Vaginismus results in unconsumated marriages, painful sex, and relationship problems. (Interesting note: Most women with vaginismus were raised in religious/conservative homes.)

• Belief that “Men need sex” and “Women need emotions” - Do you see how this mindset creates a double-bind? Women feel that it would be odd or wrong for them to enjoy sex, but yet feel like they must do it in order to satisfy their husband. A lot of “wait for sex” texts reinforce this unhelpful (and wrong) way of understanding men, women, sex, and emotions.

• Rapid Ejaculation – a lot of men who delay sexual relationships become so used to their masturbatory habits that they find it difficult to transition to having intercourse. They carry the shame and guilt from their “lustful” abstinent years into their relationship.

Please note that I am not saying that pre-marital sex does not have the potential for negative consequences. It absolutely does … have the potential … to cause “harmful psychological and physical effects.” But so does abstinence.

Photo by Jacob Bøtter

I’ve enjoyed some lively dialogue created by my Choices in Sex Ed post a few days back, as well as some postings on Twitter.

Today I read “New U.K. Sex Ed Urges Parental Talks with No Values” as a headline on The Christian Post.

“Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own,” the pamphlet reads. “Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”

Contrary to what the headline implies, and what people might assume, the pamphlet encourages parents to share their values, even acknowledging that discussing their values will help their kids form their own values. This is a point that I stress when I talk to parents about how to talk to kids about healthy sexuality. I remind them over and over that they are their child’s first source of sex information, and that sharing sexual values is incredibly important. Most kids say they truly want to know what their parents think about sexual issues, and why. When it comes to sex, parents have a lot of influence on their children, more than probably the parents or the kids realize.

The second part of the quote is probably what is setting off the controversy, but isn’t it plainly obvious? I think we all know, because of our own human nature, that the more someone tries to convince us of something, the more compelled we often feel to do the exact opposite — if only to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. And who likes to argue for the sake of arguing more than teens?

As parents, we can (and must) share our values about sex (and money, and health, and education, and personal responsibility, and… and..) but we also must be mindful that we cannot guarantee that our kids will have those same values. And if we err on the side of arguing our point to death, we may sacrifice our significance as our kid’s “safe place” to come with their vulnerabilities and questions.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to want to pass on our values to our kids, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t argue our points (to some extent). What I am saying, is that the best way to pass on those values is by first living them out ourselves, and then creating a home environment that offers the opportunity to talk openly, ask important questions, and develop self-control, communication skills, and relationship wisdom.

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat, is one of four primary sponsors of the House Bill 88: Healthy Youth Act.

The bill would allow parents to choose between the standard sex ed course which emphasizes abstinence until marriage, and a comprehensive approach that provides more information about disease and pregnancy prevention.

“There’s just so much evidence that our kids do need to be informed,” Adams said last week. “It’s an issue I don’t think we’ve addressed adequately.” Source

The bill seems like a practical solution to the sex ed debate. Parents, like myself, who want their kids to receive comprehensive sexuality education can have that choice. The problem is that a lot of kids are still going to get limited information. While many parents argue that they want the responsibility of talking to their kids about sex, the reality is that few of them do. In my many discussions with people about their sexual development, only a few have told me that they feel their parents truly talked to them about sex, beyond the perfunctory “Don’t get pregnant” speech.

Last week, I talked with a young woman serving with AmeriCorps. She is passionate about sexual health and is hoping to teach more comprehensive sex ed in Charlotte-area schools. She knows how important it is. She was speaking at a local high school recently and a teenage boy asked her, “What is semen?” This is a boy who was quite possibly having sex, and yet he didn’t know what semen was!

I disagree with the argument that teaching young people about condoms is like teaching them how to use a bong. I think of it like this: We don’t want our kids drunk driving, so we tell them that if they drink, they shouldn’t drive and they either need to stay where they are or call someone to pick them up. Without condoning the underage drinking, we put the emphasis on their safety. In the same manner, we can tell our kids that while we don’t want them engaging in casual sex, if they do, we want them to be safe.

What do you think? Should parents get to choose, or do we need to have one standard curriculum for every student in the state? And if we can only have one option, which should it be?

Abstinence-Only or Abstinence-Until-Marriage. This type of sex ed program generally teaches students that premarital sex can be dangerous to their physical and psychological health. Most people who support abstinence-only education believe that if you teach teens about birth control and safer sex, it will confuse them and send them the message that “sex is OK.” Instead, abstinence-only programs provide students with inaccurate and misleading information about contraception; in short, that condoms don’t work. These programs also treat topics like homosexuality and masturbation as unacceptable behaviors.

Abstinence-First. This type of sex ed program can be a mixture of things. In general, it stresses abstinence as the best way to protect oneself from pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but also accepts that many students are already having sex or will have sex. In this case, abstinence-first programs tell students about how to use condoms, birth control, and other safer sex practices, and how to get these methods, too. Homosexuality and masturbation may be mentioned in classes, but their treatment can vary widely.

Comprehensive. This type of sex ed program provides a positive view of sexuality as a natural part of human development. It teaches about sexual abstinence as well as pregnancy and disease protection, and provides teens with skills to ensure they are able to take care of their sexual health and make healthy, responsible decisions. It gives teens accurate information about condoms and birth control, STDs, including HIV/AIDS, and also includes gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual issues. Comprehensive sex ed considers homosexuality and masturbation to be normal aspects of human sexuality.

Source: Sex, Etc

The most important strength of comprehensive sex ed is that it “provides teens with skills to ensure they are able to take care of their sexual health and make healthy, responsible decisions.” Knowledge is Power!

Another important point to be made is that whatever is taught in schools, it doesn’t negate the need for parents to develop an open, honest and ongoing dialogue with their child about all aspects of healthy sexuality. Talking about sex is a parent’s responsibility – and a school’s, and a church’s, and a community’s.

Are we really surprised that this contest has had zero, ZERO, entries? In another complete waste of tax dollars, an Atlanta abstinence promoter is sponsoring a contest in which engaged couples can win an assortment of prizes and $10,000 cash —- if they give up sex before the ceremony.

The article goes on to say:

The giveaway is among a host of events with a sex-can-wait gospel. Faust, who goes by “Miss Flip,” visits schools throughout the year with a program pressing abstinence as well as teaching conflict resolution and financial management skills.

In 2006, her program, implemented through Rockdale Medical Center, was awarded a federal grant of $455,510 annually for five years (a total of $2.27 million). The wedding prize involves some of those federal funds.

In the past, Faust, a former labor and delivery nurse, has orchestrated mock weddings, contrasting one featuring young moms, money woes and sexually transmitted diseases with another that has a smiling bride walking down the aisle in a flowing white gown.

There are so many problems with her approach and agenda that I don’t even know where to start. But one thing I do want people to know is that plenty (PLENTY!!) of couples who wait to have sex before their “I do’s” have marriage trouble, including sexual problems of all varieties. In fact, my sister just told me about a couple last night that is getting divorced after 12 years of marriage. He was a virgin when they got married, but now his wife is leaving him because he’s not a good enough lover. There’s no “chemistry” she says.

I also know of couples who do have pre-marital sex and actually do make their marriage work for the long haul.

There are virtues to abstinence, of course, but it is not divorce insurance. It does not ensure a great sex life or wedded bliss. To say that it does, creates false hope, frustration and ignorance about the realities of marriage and healthy sexuality.

I can’t say it any better than MOAPP (Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting) says it:

Another high profile teen pregnancy has captured our collective attention. While the eyes of the nation are on the Palin family, let’s keep in mind that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston’s story is repeated almost 750,000 times every year in the United States.

Teen pregnancy occurs in all corners of society—young people from every race, class and family structure are represented in the U.S. teen pregnancy and birth ratesrates that exceed other developed countries by four to 11 times.

Bristol Palin is fortunate to have her family’s support, which can make all the difference in a teen parent’s life. When teen parent families succeed—when teen parents stay in school and make the transition to the work world, when their children are in good quality childcare and are ready to learn when they start school—we all succeed. Unfortunately, we don’t focus enough attention on public policies that support these families.

But this story demands another look at the federally subsidized “abstinence-until-marriage” industry—more than $200 million more will be spent again this year on programs that show NO evidence of working. Federal support for “abstinence” programs has created an ill-prepared sub-culture of young people who lack the tools needed to build healthy relationships, or navigate our sex-obsessed popular culture.

This is why I support comprehensive sex education in the home, school and community.