[speechlesstx]

Or does it? Yeah I'm daring to go there again...

£6m drive to cut teen pregnancies sees them DOUBLE

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 8:20 AM on 08th July 2009

A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving.

The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.

A total of 16 per cent of those on the Young People's Development Programme conceived compared with just 6 per cent in other programmes.

Experts said the scheme failed because it introduced girls 'at risk' of becoming pregnant to promiscuous girls they might not otherwise have met.

Because of peer pressure, the more timid teenagers were more likely to have sex and become pregnant.

The £5.9million YPDP programme was also designed to slash cannabis use and drunkenness among teenagers, but made no difference whatsoever.

Last night ministers pledged to drop the scheme after admitting it had failed. Around 40,000 teenage girls become pregnant every year in the UK, the highest level in western Europe.

The failed YPDP, launched in 2004, was based on a similar scheme in New York claimed to have significantly reduced teenage pregnancies.

However, attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole.

Let's see, teach kids about sex and hand them condoms and teen pregnancies more than double. Who'd a thunk it? Maybe Texas was right to drop the state's health education requirement.

Your turn...

[Wondergirl]

Sex education begins at birth with parents as teachers. Unfortunately, parents have been notoriously poor (scared, uninformed, inadequate) teachers. The first question should be, how do we remedy that so sex education doesn't fall to the schools?

[speechlesstx]

The first question should be, how do we remedy that so sex education doesn't fall to the schools?

Wow, I'm actually surprised at your answer. That's a sensible question that deserves serious consideration.

[justcurious55]

I think it is important to teach teens about safe sex. The fact is, while abstinence is the best option, teens will do what teens want so they might as well be safe. I can't say that I agree handing out condoms to just everyone is such a great idea. Isn't that like saying "drinking and driving is bad." and then handing someone a six pack and keys?

I think it be great if we could just rely on parents to teach their children about sex too. But considering how many parents can't even teach their children not to run and shout inside a crowded store or restaurant, can't teach their children to say please and thank you even, I don't know that I have much hope for all parents teaching their children much about sex.

[excon]

Hello Steve:

This from the linked article:

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'This pilot was based on a successful American programme. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further.'

----------------

I don't know why it doesn't work on European girls, but it apparently worked here. You don't want to be influenced by those Europeans anyway, do you? Next you'll be listening to the French.

excon

[spitvenom]

If parents would pull their heads out of their @$$ this stuff would work. My high school handed out condoms you know how many kids I have 0. You know how many girls I got pregnant who then had abortions 0.

I credit both my parents and my high school sex ed class for this. I can still see those pictures of guys who had STD's nasty stuff man.

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

This from the linked article:

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'This pilot was based on a successful American programme. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further.'

----------------

I dunno why it doesn't work on European girls, but it apparently worked here. You don't want to be influenced by those Europeans anyway, do you? Next you'll be listening to the French.

It also says (which I highlighted) "attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole."

[ETWolverine]

Sex education begins at birth with parents as teachers.

And it should stay there.

Unfortunately, parents have been notoriously poor (scared, uninformed, inadequate) teachers. The first question should be, how do we remedy that so sex education doesn't fall to the schools?

Oh, that's easy. Just stop teaching sex ed in schools. It's not the government's job, it's not the school's job. It is the job of parents. Regardless of whether the parents do the job well or not, schools should stay out of it. It ain't the public school's job to fix the failings of parents.

THAT is how you remedy it so that it doesn't fall to the schools. You simply leave them out of it.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello Steve:

This from the linked article:

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'This pilot was based on a successful American programme. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further.'

----------------

I dunno why it doesn't work on European girls, but it apparently worked here. You don't want to be influenced by those Europeans anyway, do you? Next you'll be listening to the French.

excon

"Successful" as defined by whom? By that DOH official, certainly. But how did he measure "success" of the American system. Statistically speaking, it's been as much of a failure in the USA as it was in the UK. So I'm not sure how he is defining "success" in the system.

On the other hand, it seems that the UK knows enough to stop what ain't working. The USA could learn from our British cousins.

Elliot

[jenniepepsi]

I am biased on this answer... I for one, have been teaching my daughter, who is 5, all I can. (within reason of course! She is only 5) mostly about 'good touch bad touch' for now, and stranger danger.

I was raped when I was 11, because I didn't know what the guy was doing to me until it hurt, in which case it was too late, he was 19 and very capable of holding me down.

We didn't have sex ed in schools (nor did my parents teach me about it) until I was 13. Had I KNOWN about any of it, I would NOT have followed this guy into the woods like he asked me to.

So yeah... I will be teaching my daughter as soon as she can understand it. I want her SAFE. I don't want her to go through what I did.

But then again, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. Yes... she may get pregnant as a teen... however, as horrible as it sounds, I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather her have sex CONSENTUALLY, and on her own terms, and ENJOY it, than have her be raped.

Being raped so young completely DESTROYED my chances at a NORMALY sexual life. Fortunately my hsuband is patient with my fears and flashbacks, but my child should NOT have to deal with this...



Wow sorry to rant...

Yeah... I am completely FOR sex education! And I say it should be a normal part of the education process.

[450donn]

Does anybody else see the coloration between the sexual revolution of the 60's and the rise in STD's and teen pregnancies?
Bottom line is no matter how much Sex education kids get, it will never stop the problem. The problem has to be attacked on moral, yes religious grounds. Our society needs to return to a moral society. Then and only then will this problem actually go down.

[excon]

Hello 450:

I see a connection between the PILL and the sexual revolution. Now we simply need people to USE it. I suggest that what lies in the way of full compliance, is sex education - or the lack thereof.

Morals has nothing to do with it. In fact, there are good and moral people who engage in non-marital sex. I know you think they're all going to hell, but that's another thread.

excon

[spitvenom]

The catholic school down the street from my public high school had more teen pregnancy then my school. And they didn't have any sex ed class.

[Wondergirl]

Does anybody else see the coloration between the sexual revolution of the 60's and the rise in STD's and teen pregnancies??
Bottom line is no matter how much Sex education kids get, it will never stop the problem. The problem has to be attacked on moral, yes religious grounds. Our society needs to return to a moral society. Then and only then will this problem actually go down.

No one (especially not someone from a Christian home) EVER got pregnant sans marriage before the late '60s...

[justcurious55]

Yeah, I went to a private school. Grades k-8.the church tried to do this coffee house thing to get people together and create a fun social environment. They stopped it because they caught too many 7th and 8th graders having a little too much fun...
And the girls that seemed to be the most promiscuous were the ons from the families the most involved in the church. At least one of the girls from my class whose family was deeply involved in the church (I think there were about 13 girls total) had her first baby when she was about 17.

[jenniepepsi]

Wondergirl, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not... but that's not true...


People were having premarital sex and having babies before marriage LONG before the 60s. They were known as spinsters. And they just weren't talked about. Like child abuse. Its something that's kept behing closed doors. 'its a family issue' was the trend back then.

Its always happened. We are just more aware of it now.

[Wondergirl]

Hello 450:

I see a connection between the PILL and the sexual revolution. Now we simply need people to USE it. I suggest that what lies in the way of full compliance, is sex education - or the lack thereof.

Morals has nothing to do with it. In fact, there are good and moral people who engage in non-marital sex. I know you think they're all going to hell, but that's another thread.

excon

Anyone who reads the pregnancy questions posted on this site will realize that today's teens have no interest in birth control. They can get it for free, easily, without parents knowing, but it's not something they think seriously about (especially not at that party at Suzy's house last week).

[Wondergirl]

wondergirl, im not sure if you were being sarcastic or not...but thats not true...


people were having premarital sex and having babies before marriage LONG before the 60s. they were known as spinsters. and they just werent talked about. like child abuse. its something thats kept behing closed doors. 'its a family issue' was the trend back then.

its always happend. we are just more aware of it now.

I was being sarcastic (thus the "................"). I can give you a list of names of my high school classmates who were having sex and "backstreet abortions" and secret babies back in the early '60s.

They were not known as spinsters. Those were the women who never married.

Yes, unwed mothers were talked about, but not out loud, just in hushed whispers. Pregnant girls were sent away to an aunt's for "schooling" or "vacation" or "to lend a hand" until after the baby was born and given up for adoption.

[excon]

Anyone who reads the pregnancy questions posted on this site will realize that today's teens have no interest in birth control. They can get it for free, easily, without parents knowing, but it's not something they think seriously about (especially not at that party at Suzy's house last week).

Hello CB:

Then their fathers should strap on a chastity belt. I'll bet 450 approves of THAT!

excon

[cozyk]

And it should stay there.



Oh, that's easy. Just stop teaching sex ed in schools. It's not the government's job, it's not the school's job. It is the job of parents. Regardless of whether the parents do the job well or not, schools should stay out of it. It ain't the public school's job to fix the failings of parents.

THAT is how you remedy it so that it doesn't fall to the schools. You simply leave them out of it.

Elliot

That's what NOT to do. What is your solution TO DO when parents fall short with educating their kids, and the fall out is unwanted babies and tax payer burden.