Adolescent Sexuality by Dr. Karen Rayne

Breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend can be incredibly hard for teenagers. In general, teenagers’ ability to take the long view is limited. Because of that, the ending of a 11-month long relationship (or even a 2-week long relationship) can feel like the end of the world, regardless of who even instigated the ending. There are few wise words to say to a teenager having a hard time dealing with a painful end to a relationship. Give them time and space to grieve. Then if they’re still grieving after a week or two or three, threaten to take them to dinner and a movie if they don’t find a friend to go with them instead. Hopefully, you’ll have a nice night out with your teenager, but at the very least they should have a nice night out with someone.

Some parents e-mailed me, asking where on my website to look for more information about my parent classes. Here is the link:

http://adolescentsexualitytoday.googlepages.com/parentcurriculum

I plan to offer a class in Austin this summer, so please let me know if you are interested.

My class for parents about their (current or future) teenagers’ sexuality has four classes in a series. The classes are titled:

1. Adolescent Sexuality Today: An Introduction
2. What We Assume
3. Our Hopes vs. Reality
4. Talking With and/or At Your Teenager: What To Do, What Not To Do

You can find out more about my services on my webpage.

I am delighted to present the first response from the presidential candidates on sex education. This is the first in a series of responses from (I hope) all of the presidential hopefuls. I will soon have a page on my website that will include all of the responses gathered in one place. In the mean time, I encourage each of you to contact the presidential candidates to ask questions. I feel that I have learned a lot about the individual candidates through contacting (attempting to contact!) their campaigns. I have come away from some of the campaigns feeling that no one really cared if I was interested or not, while others have been incredibly warm and happy to help and answer my questions. You might say that who answers the phone maybe isn’t a good sign of what a person would be like as a president - but I have to say that, as a voter, if the candidate can’t even figure out how to get their staff to be open and friendly, I’m not sure they should hold an executive post.

So with no further adieu, here is former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK 1969-81)’s wife, Whitney Gravel, who e-mailed me the following responses to my two questions.

1. What do you believe should be the goal of sex education?

To provide comprehensive information and encourage communication about all aspects of sexuality so that young people know how to find answers to questions and are prepared to make responsible decisions that also protect them from unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

2. How do you believe that goal can be best accomplished?

By providing age-appropriate information in the home, in schools, and in other settings, e.g. as part of religious education, that promotes self-respect, tolerance of others, discussion of healthy relationships and ways to stand up to peer pressure, and communication with parents or other trusted adults.

There is much talk around the blogosphere these past few days about a new study which was commissioned by Congress on the efficacy of abstinence-only sex education. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc released the full study and a short web-based description of the findings late last week. Other people to report and comment on it include the American Civil Liberties Union, NPR, the Washington Post, the Voices of American Sexuality blog, and the Legal Momentum blog. I will add more links to the bottom of this post as I become aware of them.

The take away messages from this commissioned study are:

1. Students were about as likely to have sex whether they took part in the abstinence only educational curriculum or not.
2. Students were no more likely to use condoms whether they took part in the abstinence only educational curriculum or not.

The people who favor abstinence-only education are using these arguments to refute the evidence from this study (see the NPR and Washington Post stories linked above):

1. The people who favor abstinence-only sex education are saying that the field has made major improvements in the curriculums since this study was started in 1999.
2. They’re also pointing out that the students involved in abstinence-only education were no more likely to use condoms than those not involved, and so abstinence-only education does not decrease condom use, as it is sometimes accused of doing.

Here are the (obvious) counter-points:

1. It was the abstinence-only advocates that demanded longitudinal research on this topic. First, it makes no sense for these advocates to refute a study that that asked for, and that was designed according to their specifications. Furthermore, I have yet to hear any in-depth discussion of what those improvements may actually be (other than extending the curriculum a couple of more years).
2. The students who received abstinence-only sex education used condoms about as often as students who did not receive any sex education. However, nothing in the report even speaks to the efficacy of comprehensive sex education, which is what actually teaches teenagers to use condoms effectively!

I have some fascinating posts for the next couple of days, including the first response to my questions for the presidential candidates on sex education and a re-cap of the study on abstinence-only education.

Today, however, I am taking a bit of a reprieve because none of these posts are quite ready and I passed my doctoral defense this afternoon. This means sometime in the next month everyone can start calling me Dr. Rayne. (The picture is of the doctoral gown and hood I will wear at graduation on May 19th. I don’t know what the big stick is about.) It also means I am exhausted, and am going to bed!

A big study was just released on the efficacy of abstinence-only sex education. In preparation for all of the ensuing discussion about sex education (which will include a post here tomorrow), I want to be sure everyone really understands what “abstinence only sex education” means. The US government is putting huge amounts of money into this (current funding levels are approximately 137.5 billion dollars every year), and many states, including Texas, require that this be the only form of sex education used in the public schools. So here it is, the federal government’s definition of what a program needs to do in order to qualify as an abstinence only sex education program:

1. Have as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.
2. Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children.
3. Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.
4. Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity.
5. Teach that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.
6. Teach that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society.
7. Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances.
8. Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

I can, and probably will, post my thoughts on this curricular definition, but I’d like to hear from other people first. I know that there are lots of you reading this blog, but not too many posting yet. This is your chance! Please speak up and let us hear what you think!

It seems that many people I talk with, from teenagers to adults, have at some point in their lives questioned whether they were gay. Different levels of analysis were needed before they had a solid answer to the question - one person just needed one date and another identified as bisexual for a number of years and dated a series of same-gendered people before coming to any kind of conclusion.

The point is, many young people will wonder about their sexuality and experiment to see who they really want to be with romantically, to see who really turns them on. And as long as everyone is safe and honest, that’s a good thing. It is certainly better than deciding you have to do that exploration after you’re married and have kids within a heterosexual relationship.

Hi Folks,

I am in Chicago right now attending the American Educational Research Association’s annual meeting. It’s cold and snowy, and I’m missing my 80-degree Austin weather! All that boils down to me not having the time for proper blogs this week. So please bear with me, and in the mean time, read this long, but interesting and informative, New York Times article on preteens and television. The financial desirability of the preteen market is huge - and and parents of preteens and younger children should be aware of the efforts to which adult promoters and marketers are trying (or soon will be) to get and keep their children’s attention. And, most importantly, some people are really good at getting and keeping your kids’ eyeballs.