Teen Virginity Pledges Work?

[yolland]

TIME sticks by their story, sort of:
[q]by Kathleen Kingsbury, Jun. 23

After a controversy erupted in late May over a proposal to distribute contraceptives at Gloucester High School, principal Dr. Joseph Sullivan said he was surprised no reporter had approached him for his take on the matter. If they had, Sullivan told TIME on June 11, he'd have explained straightaway that "a lack of birth control played no part" in a quadrupling of the number of teen pregnancies at the school this year compared with last. "That bump was because of seven or eight sophomore girls," Sullivan told TIME. "They made a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together."

Since TIME first wrote last week of this "pact," as Sullivan called it, a media firestorm has hit this seaside town on Massachusetts' north shore. News outlets from as far away as Australia and Brazil have been quick to home in on the more salacious details surrounding these young mothers-to-be. But at a press conference today, Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk emerged from a closed-door meeting with city, school and health officials to say that there had been no independent confirmation of any teen pregnancy pact. She also said that the principal, who was not present at the meeting, is now "foggy in his memory" of how he heard about the pact.

Sullivan has not spoken publicly about the teen pregnancies since he told TIME earlier this month that several girls repeatedly requested pregnancy tests at the school clinic and that some had reacted to positive test results with high fives and plans for baby showers. Pathways for Children CEO Sue Todd, whose organization runs the school's on-site daycare center, told TIME on June 13 that its social worker had heard of the girls' plan to get pregnant as early as last fall. She noted that some of the girls involved had been identified as being at risk of becoming teen mothers as early as sixth grade, when they began to request pregnancy tests in middle school. "What we've seen is the girls fit a certain profile," Todd said. "They're socially isolated, and they don't have the support of their families."

On June 11, the mayor and the schools superintendent Christopher Farmer said that some of the sophomores at Gloucester High appeared to be getting pregnant on purpose. Farmer said today he now believes that some of the girls who were already pregnant decided to band together to stay in school and raise their babies together. He added that if he had known of the pact as described by Sullivan, there would have been a school-wide intervention earlier.

None of the rising juniors TIME identified as being members of the pact have come forward publicly, but nine Gloucester High students have talked to TIME about the girls who decided to get pregnant. Some described the pregnant teens as having little parental supervision. "They could stay out all night if they wanted," says classmate Allie McCarthy. Others noted a herd mentality. "I think the plan was a lot about peer pressure," says Nicole Jewell, a rising junior who describes herself as being friends with some of the girls involved. "But a lot of girls were excited to be a part of it."

So did the girls make a formal pact to get pregnant together or not? Without comment from any of the pregnant students themselves, it may be impossible to determine exactly what they agreed to, and when. So far, the only school official to use the word "pact" is Sullivan, who reportedly now says he does not recall who told him about the pact in the first place. But what does seem clear based on TIME's reporting is that some of the girls in question did at least discuss the idea of getting pregnant at the same time, and that too little was done to educate the girls on the potential ramifications of that choice.[/q]

 

[Pearl]

Actually...

She (the mayor) said none of the school's health workers who deal with the girls on a daily basis had heard any mention of a pact. Instead, she attributed the pregnancies to a lack of funding for health education because of increased spending needed to meet federally mandated standards known as No Child Left Behind.

She also blamed the media's "glamorization of pregnancy" and "movies that depicted teen pregnancy as something to be desired."

She mentioned by name Jamie Lynn Spears, the 17-year-old sister of pop singer Britney Spears, who delivered a baby this weekend, and alluded to the recent hit film "Juno," a comedy about a teenager who becomes pregnant.

That is so ridiculous to blame the media on teen pregnancy. I doubt any rational teenage girl who saw "Juno" decided to do the same thing, because it looked "cool".

I think the mayor has a point over the lack of health education. It's been proven time and again that sex ed classes that teach safe sex and contraception are more effective than those that teach abstinence only. But Bush and company wanted to force his beliefs on people, so now the teen pregnancy rate appears to be going up.

 

[Irvine511]

Fucked up.

yes, that was one of the more deranged tangents i think i've ever participated in.

apologies offered, all around.

carry on, folks.

 

[martha]

yes, that was one of the more deranged tangents i think i've ever participated in.

apologies offered, all around.

carry on, folks.

It was the best thing I read in FYM all day.

Of course, I have no idea who President Palmer is.

 

[Irvine511]

It was the best thing I read in FYM all day.

Of course, I have no idea who President Palmer is.

would it be tasteless if i started selling t-shirts that read, "I DID IT FOR JODIE!"

 

[martha]

would it be tasteless if i started selling t-shirts that read, "I DID IT FOR JODIE!"

Yes.

Plus, you would go to hell for it.

 

[love_u2_adam]

i know this is really late in the thread, and most of you people do not take me seriously, but im a teenager. I live and work around teenagers. No, a teen "virginity pledge" does not work for a lot of people. I know this because i took one. And ya it does not work for a lot of people. I always said as a young child and early teens (till around i was 15, when i found out these "boys" where) i would wait till i found the right one. Sex is sex and if you are going to do it as a teen A do it right B Protect your self. I know so many people who have just threw it away, at a party like my one friend...doesn't even talk to the guy anymore. About me im so happy i lost it to who i did, he's my best friend. I do not regret it. I have one Christan friend who just freak out on me, she's making me come up to where she lives and repent my sins. I'm not going, I'm happy with where god stands in my life. And i have no guilt. Ya i screw up, im human, but I'm not going to take some "new virgin" crap that by October will be long gone. It's not who i am. And i am no slut, whore or what ever. I just choose the road with what life gives me.

 

[INDY500]

Do marriage vows work?

Saving sex for adulthood, like marriage fidelity, is a laudable goal and certainly much more obtainable when the culture generally supports -- rather than scoffs at, tempts or tries to lead astray -- those attempting to achieve that goal.

 

[U2isthebest]

Do marriage vows work?

.

Only about 50% of the time. Even with the other 50% there's no guarantee the spouses are taking them seriously.

 

[A_Wanderer]

i know this is really late in the thread, and most of you people do not take me seriously, but im a teenager. I live and work around teenagers. No, a teen "virginity pledge" does not work for a lot of people. I know this because i took one. And ya it does not work for a lot of people. I always said as a young child and early teens (till around i was 15, when i found out these "boys" where) i would wait till i found the right one. Sex is sex and if you are going to do it as a teen A do it right B Protect your self. I know so many people who have just threw it away, at a party like my one friend...doesn't even talk to the guy anymore. About me im so happy i lost it to who i did, he's my best friend. I do not regret it. I have one Christan friend who just freak out on me, she's making me come up to where she lives and repent my sins. I'm not going, I'm happy with where god stands in my life. And i have no guilt. Ya i screw up, im human, but I'm not going to take some "new virgin" crap that by October will be long gone. It's not who i am. And i am no slut, whore or what ever. I just choose the road with what life gives me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Do marriage vows work?

Saving sex for adulthood, like marriage fidelity, is a laudable goal and certainly much more obtainable when the culture generally supports -- rather than scoffs at, tempts or tries to lead astray -- those attempting to achieve that goal.

They may work a bit of the time but the fidelity element is junked, between divorces and affairs the myth of us being hardwired for monogamy doesn't stand up very well.

We are all the product of a long chain of successful sexual reproducers, the marital circumstances of how that DNA comes together is irrelevent, adulterers will always spread their information into the gene pool and that mating strategy will continue to be a viable option.

Although from a more social standpoint I think that it is unrealistic to have expectations of long term happy monogamy without experienced partners with mutual recognition of what makes that relationship solid. Thats just my opinion, I would never want to legislate against consenting partners marrying because they don't fulfil my criteria.

 

[Irvine511]

Do marriage vows work?

not about 50% of the time.

Saving sex for adulthood, like marriage fidelity, is a laudable goal and certainly much more obtainable when the culture generally supports -- rather than scoffs at, tempts or tries to lead astray -- those attempting to achieve that goal.

how do you measure whether or not the culture "generally supports" waiting or not? and why is it that some get irritated whenever the culture "generally supports" some things -- tolerance, multicultralism, alternative families -- and yet would happily use the "culture" to send whatever message they feel affirms them if they could?

you do realize, though, that these "cultural messages" -- whether in music, fashion, television, or film -- are designed to increase revenue, right? no one sits in Beverly Hills and has a plan to try to make it more okay for teenagers to have sex. what happens is that executives know that kids eat up shows that feature kids talking about sex (and even sometimes having it) and this then holds great appeal for advertisers who are panting for that hugely desirable Demo.

if that Demo demands sexy characters, they are going to get their sexy characters.

 

[martha]

Do marriage vows work?

Yes, when given by adults who understand what they're saying, know what the alternatives are, and have still decided to make the vows. Even then the vows of marriage can be difficult to keep by adults. When children are told that all they need to avoid something is to make a vow, and they don't have any knowledge about what the alternatives are, and what to do if they can't keep that vow, then that's a problem.

Saving sex for adulthood, like marriage fidelity, is a laudable goal and certainly much more obtainable when the culture generally supports -- rather than scoffs at, tempts or tries to lead astray -- those attempting to achieve that goal.

I agree. When fifth grade girls are wearing sweatpants with suggestive words across the ass, we've got a problem. But these girls are not raising themselves. There are parents somewhere, buying those pants. Are these the same parents who think these girls will remain virgins if they only just promise to? If so, I hope the parents are prepared to be grandparents earlier than they thought.

 

[INDY500]

They may work a bit of the time but the fidelity element is junked, between divorces and affairs the myth of us being hardwired for monogamy doesn't stand up very well.

We are all the product of a long chain of successful sexual reproducers, the marital circumstances of how that DNA comes together is irrelevent, adulterers will always spread their information into the gene pool and that mating strategy will continue to be a viable option.

Although from a more social standpoint I think that it is unrealistic to have expectations of long term happy monogamy without experienced partners with mutual recognition of what makes that relationship solid. Thats just my opinion, I would never want to legislate against consenting partners marrying because they don't fulfil my criteria.

If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

"Stop, stop !! Monogamy is not supported by DNA !! Human behavior is at the mercy of our genes !! Marital fidelity is a fantasy !!

 

[A_Wanderer]

How about there is a decent chance of infidelity and divorce but that shouldn't stop people going through the motions.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

"Stop, stop !! Monogamy is not supported by DNA !! Human behavior is at the mercy of our genes !! Marital fidelity is a fantasy !!

While I don't disagree, the romantic idea that we can transcend our nature and by reason control our passions in order to demonstrate the depths of our feeling for another person makes a compelling emotional appeal.

 

[INDY500]

I agree. When fifth grade girls are wearing sweatpants with suggestive words across the ass, we've got a problem. But these girls are not raising themselves. There are parents somewhere, buying those pants. Are these the same parents who think these girls will remain virgins if they only just promise to? If so, I hope the parents are prepared to be grandparents earlier than they thought.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I have to agree with that. I have neighbors who allowed their girls to dress like that at an early age, one outfit consisted of a leather miniskirt with matching leather hat. Now the daughter who will be senior in HS next year has completely bleached out hair and the tightest clothes-no way does she look 16. The parents in that family have no control over the kids, it's completely evident in their behavior-let alone in how they look. Checked out parents who seem too busy trying to keep up with the Joneses to be authoritative parents. I'm not saying parents are always to blame and I would never say that, but in many cases they are. No matter how tough it is for you financially (as in the situation in Gloucester), unconditional love for your kids costs nothing-and is what you are supposed to give them. They should not be looking for it from sex and/or pregnancy.

 

[INDY500]

how do you measure whether or not the culture "generally supports" waiting or not? and why is it that some get irritated whenever the culture "generally supports" some things -- tolerance, multicultralism, alternative families -- and yet would happily use the "culture" to send whatever message they feel affirms them if they could?

That's a good question. It's a general zeitgeist I guess. Society "supported" cigarette smoking until the 70's; then commercials were outlawed, smokers slowly became less prevalent on TV and in movies, people would clear their throat or show their disdain in person and now it's use is actually forbidden in many public places. None of which would have seemed remotely possible, or even desirable, to Americans in the 1940s.

you do realize, though, that these "cultural messages" -- whether in music, fashion, television, or film -- are designed to increase revenue, right? no one sits in Beverly Hills and has a plan to try to make it more okay for teenagers to have sex. what happens is that executives know that kids eat up shows that feature kids talking about sex (and even sometimes having it) and this then holds great appeal for advertisers who are panting for that hugely desirable Demo.

if that Demo demands sexy characters, they are going to get their sexy characters.

Sure, I could throw just as much blame at Madison Ave as I could at Hollywood. Today, it's just so much more graphic and obvious.
Going back to the cultural zeitgeist, even in the "sexually repressed" 50's, Chuck Berry could sing about "Little Queenie," "Sweet Little Rock And Roller," or "Sweet Little Sixteen", he just had to do it with a nod and a wink and innuendo.

The Everly Brothers sang:
I told your mama that you'd be in by ten
Well Susie baby looks like we goofed again
Wake up little Susie
Wake up little Susie, we gotta go home

Today R Kelly can't get convicted of having sex with a minor even if the jury can watch a videotape of it.

 

[Irvine511]

If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

"Stop, stop !! Monogamy is not supported by DNA !! Human behavior is at the mercy of our genes !! Marital fidelity is a fantasy !!

how about, "marital fidelity takes work"?

 

[Irvine511]

That's a good question. It's a general zeitgeist I guess. Society "supported" cigarette smoking until the 70's; then commercials were outlawed, smokers slowly became less prevalent on TV and in movies, people would clear their throat or show their disdain in person and now it's use is actually forbidden in many public places. None of which would have seemed remotely possible, or even desirable, to Americans in the 1940s.

so you propose outlawing any depiction of sex in advertising/movies/television? are you equating having sex with smoking a cigarette? while i'm told the two often go hand-in-hand, i'm not so sure this is a comparison you might want to make ...

Sure, I could throw just as much blame at Madison Ave as I could at Hollywood. Today, it's just so much more graphic and obvious.
Going back to the cultural zeitgeist, even in the "sexually repressed" 50's, Chuck Berry could sing about "Little Queenie," "Sweet Little Rock And Roller," or "Sweet Little Sixteen", he just had to do it with a nod and a wink and innuendo.

on this i totally agree. i much prefer the implied to the explicit -- "blinded by the light" and all -- though there are times in a visual medium where the explicit is artistically relevant, and then i'd point to the fact that we have a ratings system for a reason and adults shouldn't be prevented from accessing challenging material simply because it may or may not harm the children in some way.

that's also predicated upon the believe that behavior is influenced and inspired by media, and i'm not so sure that's true.

but, ultimately, we get what we want. if it sells, they'll use it.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I don't think the age of a woman has much to do with it (after all there are women at 12 and 13 in other countries who have children and history shows that we had children a lot earlier then we do now) but that maturity factor of it. What i've found is, children are more knowledgeable about everything, especially 'taboo' subjects, yet their maturity levels are still the same. I have students in my class (of 10/11 yr olds) writing notes such as 'you love giving blow jobs cause you're a slut' yet they've never seen a blow job, have a very hazy idea of what a blow job is, and don't actually believe the person has given a blow job. Everything is just for show.

I also think we're just completely saturated with the wrong messages from every part of society. We're told to be thin and pretty to get boys, that having someone love you makes you successful and not a loser, that anything can be bought and sold, that we need to upgrade and move on to the next best thing every 6 months. Plus as other people have mentioned the lack of parent discipline and support is also another big negative. The difference is the care factor. A lot of children are growing up without that really strong emotional care factor behind them. When a parent doesn't care if you do your homework, what you eat for tea, what time you go to bed, what time you get home, there are no boundaries, and even worse, the child grows up with no care for themselves.

 

[Liesje]

I also think we're just completely saturated with the wrong messages from every part of society. We're told to be thin and pretty to get boys, that having someone love you makes you successful and not a loser, that anything can be bought and sold, that we need to upgrade and move on to the next best thing every 6 months. Plus as other people have mentioned the lack of parent discipline and support is also another big negative. The difference is the care factor. A lot of children are growing up without that really strong emotional care factor behind them. When a parent doesn't care if you do your homework, what you eat for tea, what time you go to bed, what time you get home, there are no boundaries, and even worse, the child grows up with no care for themselves.

It depends on the needs of the child though. I never needed boundaries, so I never had them. I was never required to do certain chores, never had a curfew, never had assigned homework time, never had limits on TV or computer....but I cleaned my room, I worked afterschool jobs for my own clothes and spending money, I cleaned the kitchen for my mom before she got home from work, I did my homework and got As, I told my parents who I was with and if my plans changed I called to let them know. A lack of boundaries is not always a lack of direction, sometimes it's a reward. I think the best thing my parents did in raising us was just set a good example. The both worked hard everyday, they made sacrifices in all aspects of life so we could attend the best school, they did not obsess on material things, they didn't walk all over each other. Instead of being steered through adolescence, I learned respect, independence, and accountability just by observing my parents' examples. Now my siblings are not quite as self-motivated and they needed more rules and boundaries than I did. The main thing was that my parents' authority was never challenged. I can't believe how many times I'd be at a friend's house and my friend would get in a fight with her mom and say "I hate you!" Even if she didn't mean it, that was always appalling to me. If I ever said that to my mother, I'd be finding a new place to live!

 

[yolland]

Saving sex for adulthood, like marriage fidelity, is a laudable goal and certainly much more obtainable when the culture generally supports -- rather than scoffs at, tempts or tries to lead astray -- those attempting to achieve that goal.

Whether it's "laudable" per se depends on your views on the place of sexuality (and marriage) in life, I think. But regardless, I don't see comprehensive sex ed as incompatible with that. Everyone should understand the risks of STDs, and everyone should know how to manage their fertility--which, as I think the present discussion makes clear, should include grasping how extensive the consequences and responsibilities of parenthood are.

How about there is a decent chance of infidelity and divorce but that shouldn't stop people going through the motions.

While I certainly agree that "marital fidelity takes work" as Irvine put it, and concede that dealing with the reality of having a sex drive is highly germane to the thread topic--I'd also point out that *most* longterm married couples will tell you that in the end, sexual fidelity is NOT the hardest part of maintaining a solid marriage. Conflicts over finances, parenting, a spouse's tendencies towards depression or addictions, career crises, etc. ...those kinds of things are more often the biggest longterm threats to the relationship. For most people. Sometimes having someone else right there going through it with you who knows you better than anyone else winds up being the gift that enables you to pull it together and not get self-destructive, and sometimes being at loggerheads with your spouse over how to deal with the problem only makes it all five times harder...but then that's family for you, isn't it.

I also think we're just completely saturated with the wrong messages from every part of society. We're told to be thin and pretty to get boys, that having someone love you makes you successful and not a loser, that anything can be bought and sold, that we need to upgrade and move on to the next best thing every 6 months.

Which might be especially pertinent to the thread topic...since we're talking here about early-teen girls who (apparently) want to get pregnant (or at the very least seem blithely confident they can handle it if they do). Not about early-teen girls competing to see who can screw the most guys or have the most impressive command of sexual technique. While those problems may have poor parental guidance and other factors in common, they are really quite different.

It depends on the needs of the child though. I never needed boundaries, so I never had them...Now my siblings are not quite as self-motivated and they needed more rules and boundaries than I did. The main thing was that my parents' authority was never challenged. I can't believe how many times I'd be at a friend's house and my friend would get in a fight with her mom and say "I hate you!"

I agree that different children need different kinds and extents of boundaries, but ultimately that too comes down to good parental guidance, and I'd guess it's a testament to your own parents' strength in that department that they recognized that monitored relative freedom was the best way to motivate you in particular and let you grow. I too have always been a bit floored by the number of teenagers and young people who profess to "hate" their parents, whether to their faces or behind their backs. I understand completely and don't bat an eye when someone slowly and thoughtfully says, "My mom and I never got along all that well" or "My dad and I are always at odds," because I had a strained relationship with my own mother for most of my life; but those kinds of self-important, petulant outbursts about "hating" them, the utter lack of respect...that's always thrown me for a loop too.

 

[dazzlingamy]

It depends on the needs of the child though. I never needed boundaries, so I never had them. I was never required to do certain chores, never had a curfew, never had assigned homework time, never had limits on TV or computer....but I cleaned my room, I worked afterschool jobs for my own clothes and spending money, I cleaned the kitchen for my mom before she got home from work, I did my homework and got As, I told my parents who I was with and if my plans changed I called to let them know. A lack of boundaries is not always a lack of direction, sometimes it's a reward. I think the best thing my parents did in raising us was just set a good example. The both worked hard everyday, they made sacrifices in all aspects of life so we could attend the best school, they did not obsess on material things, they didn't walk all over each other. Instead of being steered through adolescence, I learned respect, independence, and accountability just by observing my parents' examples. Now my siblings are not quite as self-motivated and they needed more rules and boundaries than I did. The main thing was that my parents' authority was never challenged. I can't believe how many times I'd be at a friend's house and my friend would get in a fight with her mom and say "I hate you!" Even if she didn't mean it, that was always appalling to me. If I ever said that to my mother, I'd be finding a new place to live!

Yeah I had a similar upbringing as well, though my mum and I fought more than we should have (but that sanother story) I was sort of leaning towards the care factor. Some parents don't show their care to a kid. Its like you were allowed to stay out late but you knew your mum and dad would worry if you can home really late without calling, or perhaps one would stay up till you go home. You did your homework and got a's your parents said 'well done!' etc and took an interest in you. I can see just in my class, the children who's parents show a really caring/supportive background to their kids, and others who are either incapable, or somehow don't show this. Not saying they don't love their kids, but a lot of them don't know how to say it, or show it, and i think a lot of kids grow up without feeling secure within themselves and their families, which in turn could lead to the sort of behaviour shown by the teenagers in this thread.

 

[A_Wanderer]

While I certainly agree that "marital fidelity takes work" as Irvine put it, and concede that dealing with the reality of having a sex drive is highly germane to the thread topic--I'd also point out that *most* longterm married couples will tell you that in the end, sexual fidelity is NOT the hardest part of maintaining a solid marriage. Conflicts over finances, parenting, a spouse's tendencies towards depression or addictions, career crises, etc. ...those kinds of things are more often the biggest longterm threats to the relationship. For most people. Sometimes having someone else right there going through it with you who knows you better than anyone else winds up being the gift that enables you to pull it together and not get self-destructive, and sometimes being at loggerheads with your spouse over how to deal with the problem only makes it all five times harder...but then that's family for you, isn't it.

It may be the case but long term married couples are selected samples and would face different pressures than those who divorce at different stages in a marriage.

The act of sex is amoral but the issues surrounding the deed are not; a polyamorous relationship may be alright but lying to a partner about infidelity betrays trust.

I don't think it matters that much to me, I'm a good liar.

 

[INDY500]

so you propose outlawing any depiction of sex in advertising/movies/television? are you equating having sex with smoking a cigarette? while i'm told the two often go hand-in-hand, i'm not so sure this is a comparison you might want to make ...

For some reason, this makes me think of all the cinematic tricks directors used to use to skirt around movie codes. You know, like Cary Grant and Eva Maria Saint sharing a kiss in North By Northwest after having just met on a train -- followed by a jump cut to the train racing into a tunnel -- and then them together the next morning.

That was 1959. Hard to believe just 3 years later Stanely Kubrick would bring Lolita to the screen. Not without controversy of coarse. Not to mention Pretty Baby (1979) with Brooke Shields as a 13 year-old prostitute. That movie simply couldn't be made today.

 

[Irvine511]

That was 1959. Hard to believe just 3 years later Stanely Kubrick would bring Lolita to the screen. Not without controversy of coarse. Not to mention Pretty Baby (1979) with Brooke Shields as a 13 year-old prostitute. That movie simply couldn't be made today.

that is interesting. we're both more graphic and yet more prudish then we were in the past.

 

[yolland]

'Pregnancy pact' school to dispense birth control

By Patrick Anderson
Gloucester Daily Times, Oct. 9


Condoms and birth control pills can be distributed to students at Gloucester High School as long as their parents don't object, the School Committee has ruled, capping a policy debate over contraception that has divided the community since a steep rise in pregnancies was reported last year.

The unanimous decision, cast as a compromise by committee members, was greeted with enthusiasm by those who have supported expanded access to contraceptives, including some students and the former staff of the high school clinic, who resigned in protest of Addison Gilbert Hospital's handling of the issue at the end of the last school year. "I am thrilled," said Dr. Brian Orr, who was the medical director of the clinic before stepping down. "It is a win-win for everybody. Teens have access. Parents have opt-out. I think for the whole community, this is a great outcome for a horrible crisis."

...But for many parents who a week earlier had told the committee they didn't feel the school should be giving out contraceptives, the inclusion of an opt-out clause did not make the new policy acceptable. "My son told me he would rather not tell people what high school he went to," Glen Bresnahan of Essex Avenue said yesterday. "The School Committee listens to what everyone says and then just does what they were going to do all along. They should be ashamed."

In voting to provide a wide range of reproductive health services, the committee cited the testimony of three hand-picked public health experts who spoke at a hearing in July, all suggesting the public health benefits of contraceptives, including reducing teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, outweighed any risks. The committee did not outline exactly which services would fall under the definition of "reproductive health," but based on the discussion, it would cover pregnancy tests and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, which were available last year. Whether emergency contraceptives such as Plan B, known as the "morning after pill," would be included in reproductive services available at the clinic had not been discussed, according to conversations with School Committee members.

Parents who want their children to be able to use the high school clinic, but not have access to contraceptives, will be given an option to withdraw them from reproductive health services on a new, re-written clinic enrollment form.

Putting forth the strongest call for improved access to contraceptives at the high school, School Committee member Amy-Beth Healey recalled her own childhood and how difficult it was to talk to her parents about sex. "I remember many kids who couldn't talk to their parents, but it didn't stop them or their boyfriends," Healey said. Healey said the constitutional separation of church and state made religious objections an inappropriate basis to ban contraceptives as part of a public school's policy.

Nancy Harrison expressed the most reluctance on the committee toward allowing the prescription of birth control pills, because of possible medical complications for young woman. But ultimately, Harrison said her concerns were not enough to stand in the way of the entire policy, which would benefit the community.

...Before voting on the new contraceptives policy, Mayor Carolyn Kirk said she thought it important that abstinence components of the district's sex education policy be taught by those fully committed to the concept. She also said she would like to see the health center advisory committee, which had discussed issues surrounding the high school health clinic before being dissolved after contraception controversy, resurrected.

 

[maycocksean]

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I found it very interesting and wanted to add my thoughts.

I don't much care for the pledge thing and I find the purity balls rather disturbing. I'd read an article about it in TIME and it seemed to me more about promoting a patriarchal type world view than anything else.

That said, I do believe that sex belongs in marriage. Being raised in a conservative Christian denomination and going to church school that was a "given" I guess, so I guess I never felt there was much "pressure" to have sex, nor to to remain a virgin. Still a lot of my peers did have sex while teenagers. Others of us didn't. I don't see it is so terribly repressive to make that choice for yourself, even for religious or moral reasons. I certainly never felt repressed. It's just a different way of looking at sex than a lot of people do but it certainly doesn't seem unhealthy or perverted to me. To me it's less about "oh what a horrible sin to have sex before marriage" and more about what I believe is a better choice. In raising my own son, I'll do my best to teach the values I believe are important but I won't be having him take any pledges.