# Pregnancy Pact ~ What utter stupidity!



## Lisa (Jun 21, 2008)

I am absolutely blown away at the news of a bunch of teenagers making a "pact" to get pregnant together and raise their children together. WTF are they thinking?  Is this just another example of us going wrong with raising our children?  Do you all remember when you were a kid how absolutely terrified you were that you "might" get pregnant and how it was such a big deal when someone did?  Now a days there are day cares in high schools for crying out loud!

This just floor me!

Full Story


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm completely speechless.  How has this become so glamorized that kids would think this is a good idea.  Do they have no sense of responsibility?


----------



## Drac (Jun 21, 2008)

Absolute and total stupidity...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2008)

I can imagine that while the girls may have made a pact they certainly didn't tell the chaps involved who I imagine are probably have some nervous thoughts right now! I heard on the news that the fathers are being tracked down and as the gilrs are underage ( not sure what underage is there though, ours is 16) there could be some arrests. I think too if they aren't arrested they certainly will be required to pay for the babies upkeep etc or perhaps as well as being arrested. It mentioned on the news that some of the fathers are thought to be in their 20s. 
I remember being at school and a girl in our year getting pregnant at 16, that was amazing to us as we didn't even know anyone who had sex yet! That was something you did when you were 'grown up', at 16 we didn't consider ourselves grown up at all. Although that was in the days where girls left school, got a little job (though they could go into teaching or nursing) then got married and had a family..in that order, we had a teacher who pushed us to go for careers, proper careers. She didn't see why we couldn't become engineers,doctors, surveyors or anything we wanted to be. Being a single mother was never an option!


----------



## Drac (Jun 21, 2008)

Please tell me that the soon to be born all have different Fathers...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 21, 2008)

Didn't I just issue an executive order banning any further human breeding a couple threads ago?

Oh yeah. That's right. Only slightly less enforceable than Prohibition.

Somebody better get something through Congress and at least make an attempt though because the situation is becoming desperate.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

this is what happens when schools remove ethics and morality from the lesson plans and people stop going to church.

And i only say church because that is where, historically, most people got thier "moral baseline" from.

This is what happens when we remove the concept of shame from society


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2008)

I didn't say it made sense in the long term with an adult's eye to lifetime economic stability.

The economists and demographers have spent years looking at how people act in or against their self interest. The results are so well established that that they don't really require any further defense. The main predictors for a girl becoming pregnant before she reaches twenty one are well known. The most important ones are education, age at which her older sisters had their first child and income levels among her peers' families, particularly the adult women in those families. This town hits all of the buttons - a depressed blue collar town whose main source of income has disappeared and a high teen pregnancy rate.

Going to Church? Puh-leaze. If anything it's the other way around. The areas of the country that have the highest teen pregnancy and out of wedlock birth rates and the highest divorce rates are precisely the ones that have the highest church affiliation and attendance. Religion doesn't prevent this sort of thing. Fundamentalism is one of the main causes.

The fundies are against advanced education. The teach that women's highest aspiration is to crank out babies, lots and lots of babies. Cf. the "Full Quiver" nonsense and the stated position of the fundamentalist, evangelical, catholic, wahabite and orthodox jewish movements. They are all against any limit to family size and even oppose factual knowledge about basic human biology. Nope. Don't look to them for help on this one or anything else where reality smacks up against dogma.

If some of the self-righteous here had read a little further in this and related articles they would have seen the kicker. The girls were committed to raising their children together and having babies because the babies would love them. That's the other big one for girls who get pregnant by design. It speaks to some serious emotional voids in their lives. See Chris Rock's "Keep Your Daughter Off the Pole".

Bottom line? These girls don't see any reason to delay having children. They don't have any reason to believe that they have better prospects. And they believe they will get something out of it that they don't have in their present lives. It's a damned shame. Some of them have a shot at something better. And they really don't understand what they're letting themselves in for. But it's not "stupidity". It's despair and their perception that they don't have any alternatives


----------



## arnisador (Jun 21, 2008)

Remember, these people are ahead in the evolutionary race by breeding more than the rest of us ("early and often"). _They're winning.
_


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Remember, these people are ahead in the evolutionary race by breeding more than the rest of us ("early and often"). _They're winning.
> _



Sad, but true.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 21, 2008)

This is exactly what the "culture of life" movement was designed to encourage.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2008)

Lisa said:


> I am absolutely blown away at the news of a bunch of teenagers making a "pact" to get pregnant together and raise their children together. WTF are they thinking? Is this just another example of us going wrong with raising our children? Do you all remember when you were a kid how absolutely terrified you were that you "might" get pregnant and how it was such a big deal when someone did? Now a days there are day cares in high schools for crying out loud!
> 
> This just floor me!
> 
> Full Story


 
The first step, IMHO, is proper education.  We've had discusions on teens and sex on here before..my views stay the same.  Kids are going to have sex.  The more someone tries to make it sound bad, or that there're some secrets, the more its going to stir their curiosity.  Now, before someone misunderstands and thinks I condone teen sex and pregnancy, let me say, that I do not.  I really cringe when I am out and see a 16yo pushing a carraige and no father around.  Yet another child that I'm paying for, as well as the rest of us.

My point is, if they're educated, then perhaps, if they do have sex, at least we can hope that they're using protection.  

Now, as for this case....these girls should have their *** whacked a few times and some common sense drilled in.  They're obviously young, are not thinking and have no clue what raising a child involves.  They think its fun and games, but their life will change faster than they can imagine.


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2008)

MJS said:


> Now, as for this case....these girls should have their *** whacked a few times and some common sense drilled in.  They're obviously young, are not thinking and have no clue what raising a child involves.


There were advantages in families where girls grew up taking care of their siblings and cousins. All the romantic notions go right out the window.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2008)

tellner said:


> There were advantages in families where girls grew up taking care of their siblings and cousins. All the romantic notions go right out the window.


 
LOL, yes, I can imagine.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

MJS,
teen pregnancy was rare when I was in HS just 24 years ago.

The schools have been doing it your way since then, it isnt helping. Teen pregnancy is more common now than it was. I know this because now high schools have friggen dare care centers in them......

The problem is, all the kids hear is "it's ok to have sex" and being kids they figure it wont happen to them.so they dont use condoms.....

maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"

when did the parents of america decide that it was ok to surrender and just let kids do what they want? I just raised a teen ager female, so I know of what I speak. We simply didnt let it happen and let her know in NO uncertain terms what would happen to her. She was 18 before she was sexually active. Because we simply put some effort into raising her right.

if they are raised right, they just might NOT have sex. When did parents just stop trying?


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> MJS,
> teen pregnancy was rare when I was in HS just 24 years ago.


 
I graduated in 1991.  During my 4 yrs, there were no girls in my class that were pregnant.  Today on the other hand, I'd be more inclined to say that probably has changed.



> The schools have been doing it your way since then, it isnt helping. Teen pregnancy is more common now than it was. I know this because now high schools have friggen dare care centers in them......


 
Agreed.



> The problem is, all the kids hear is "it's ok to have sex" and being kids they figure it wont happen to them.so they dont use condoms.....
> 
> maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"


 
Well, there are quite a few ads on tv that talk about safe sex, condoms, disease, etc.  Problem is, it needs to be enforced not only by tv, but by parents as well.  



> when did the parents of america decide that it was ok to surrender and just let kids do what they want? I just raised a teen ager female, so I know of what I speak. We simply didnt let it happen and let her know in NO uncertain terms what would happen to her. She was 18 before she was sexually active. Because we simply put some effort into raising her right.


 
Like I said, alot of it comes down to how the person is raised.  



> if they are raised right, they just might NOT have sex. When did parents just stop trying?


 
I don't think making it bad is the answer.  Sex in and of itself is not bad.  But, when proper education is not a part of the raising of kids, that is what makes it bad.  If we stop and think about it, its really not the job of the schools or tv ads to educated kids, although that does play a role.  The primary job is the parents.  IMHO, in this case of these girls and their 'pact' the parents are failing at their job.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

I agree, but i figure it this way, then the parents and the schools are giving the same message, it works a lot better


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I agree, but i figure it this way, then the parents and the schools are giving the same message, it works a lot better


 
I think we're on the same page more than it appears.   IMHO, the primary job is that of the parents.  If the school can give more input via sex ed., then thats even more re-enforcement.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 21, 2008)

It does have to be factored in also that teens now are much more bombarded with images and ideas of sex and sexuality than those of my generation.

Almost everything in advertising alone, for example, seems targeted on sexual attractiveness and rejection of authority.  Broadcast morality is permissive and 'role models' (tho' I choke on the term) are promiscuous, their sex lives fodder for the media mill.

It's no wonder, therefore, that those who are growing up in such an atmoshpere are curious and experimental earlier than we were - especially when discipline of them is legally prevented.

If we want to have a prayer of salvaging our societies, such that we may have some stability in our old age, these trends have to be reversed.

Otherwise ... selfish dystopia here we come.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 21, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It's no wonder, therefore, that those who are growing up in such an atmoshpere are curious and experiemntal earlier than we were - especially when discipline of them is legally prevented.


Better yet, when birth control is never mentioned and abstinence only is taught in schools. That way such experimentation results in pregnancy more often.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It does have to be factored in also that teens now are much more bombarded with images and ideas of sex and sexuality than those of my generation.
> 
> Almost everything in advertising alone, for example, seems targeted on sexual attractiveness and rejection of authority. Broadcast morality is permissive and 'role models' (tho' I choke on the term) are promiscuous, their sex lives fodder for the media mill.
> 
> ...


 
You're right.  You can't turn on the tv today without seeing someone in bed, someone kissing, etc.  I think that in addition to that, many people who view female stars as their idols, ie: Jamie Spears, Brittney Spears, etc. see them with kids and think, "Well, if they can do it, so can I!"  

This is yet another reason why the parents need to help their kids seperate the fantasy from the reality.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Better yet, when birth control is never mentioned and abstinence only is taught in schools. That way such experimentation results in pregnancy more often.




nope, wrong answer, try again

no one over the age of five doesnt know what condoms are since they now air commercials for them............during family hour for craps sake


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 21, 2008)

I follow your point, *Marginal* but back in the swirling mists of time when I was young, contraception for those below legal age was not available.  Abstinence was the only choice, unless you wanted to run the pregnancy version of Russian Roulette.

The salient historical data is that we did not have the huge rates of teenage pregnancy then as we do now.  It happened, it is true.  In all my seven years in High School tho', the grand total was two - I could even give you their names it was that unprecidented.

Education of consequences works up to a point.  Social pressure and discipline works a whole lot more (especially if facing the economic consequences of your actions is part of it (rather than using making babies as a method of making money)).

Edit:  It also occurs to me that male fertility has supposedly halved since then due to environmental conditions - so that makes the present day rates even more appauling.


----------



## donna (Jun 21, 2008)

tellner said:


> There were advantages in families where girls grew up taking care of their siblings and cousins. All the romantic notions go right out the window.



I agree, this certainly helped while raising my daughter. 
On the other hand we have an added complication here in australia, as the government here gives a $5000 baby bonus for ever child born. This has seen an increase in teenage and underage birth rates (not to mention an increase in the sales of huge plasma screen tv's)


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> MJS,
> teen pregnancy was rare when I was in HS just 24 years ago.
> 
> The schools have been doing it your way since then, it isnt helping. Teen pregnancy is more common now than it was. I know this because now high schools have friggen dare care centers in them......



With all due respect, I don't understand this thinking. The girls in this story did not invent teen sex, premarital sex, or teen pregnancy. None of these is new item. All of these predate the sexual revolution and advent of day care in high school. Further, I would suggest, the argument that day care centres in school encourage sexual activity to be flawed. Take the centres out, and we effectively say to young mothers (not necessarily young fathers), "Too bad, so sad, your chance at completing your education is over, and it'll probably be over for your kid as well."



> The problem is, all the kids hear is "it's ok to have sex" and being kids they figure it wont happen to them.so they dont use condoms.....



Who, precisely, is telling children this? Surely not teachers in sex ed. classes.



> maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"



Since when was sex a bad thing to do?  Seriously, we have to let go of the idea that we can educate kids and control behaviour by telling them scary stories.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 21, 2008)

MJS said:


> You're right.  You can't turn on the tv today without seeing someone in bed, someone kissing, etc.  I think that in addition to that, many people who view female stars as their idols, ie: Jamie Spears, Brittney Spears, etc. see them with kids and think, "Well, if they can do it, so can I!"



It's the hormones, dude. If teenagers didn't want to reproduce, our forebears who died in their 20s of being eaten by dinosaurs wouldn't have lived long enough to have had us. Fighting evolution is an uphill battle, though as Richard Dawkins says, we do so every time we use a condom (and they sure are selling).


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Tellner, great post, this part, in particular, resonates with me...



> Bottom line? These girls don't see any reason to delay having children. They don't have any reason to believe that they have better prospects. And they believe they will get something out of it that they don't have in their present lives. It's a damned shame. Some of them have a shot at something better. And they really don't understand what they're letting themselves in for. But it's not "stupidity". It's despair and their perception that they don't have any alternatives



I believe that the overarching trend I'm seeing among many people is a sense of hopelessness. I can think nothing more debilitating, but I see it everywhere. I see thirteen and fourteen-year-old kids everyday that I believe have given up on the idea that life has something to offer.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2008)

Schools are very limited - by law - in what they are allowed to teach.  There is a section on human sexuality in the Health class that all students are required to take in either 7th or 8th grade - but the teacher is only allowed to teach mechanics; contraception can be discussed, but only from a biological standpoint - it cannot be encouraged or discouraged.  This is _not_ how the Health teacher would like to be doing it... but that's the law.  Sadly, but not surprisingly, we had 4 pregnant girls in the 8th grade, out of about 120 girls in that grade - for those from other educational systems, they were all 13 or 14 years old.

As far as a lower teen pregnancy rate in the past - well, last I heard, teen pregnancies were down - but they are also no longer hidden.  Unwed girls who became pregnant through the mid-50s (and sometimes later) were sent away to "recuperate" from "consumption" or some other illness, and no one talked about it.  Now, everyone talks about it - but to be politically correct, no one is allowed to step over the lines of parental preference to teach anything but abstinence - and the parents aren't teaching protection, or those 4 girls wouldn't have been pregnant, and I wouldn't have a 13 year-old student whose mother is 26.

It is no longer socially unacceptable to be pregnant out of wedlock, and it is becoming less and less unacceptable to become a teen mother - _that_ is a large piece of the puzzle, and until society changes, that piece will remain incredibly hard to refute, especially for untutored teens with raging hormones and the usual teenage belief that "it can't happen to _me_"... until it does.

As far as these girls go - the social factor plays into it, as well as the desire for "someone who loves _only_ me".  

In addition to teaching responsible birth control methods, parents need to teach _parenting skills_ - yes, the schools can help, but the _parents_ are the key; schools can say whatever they want, but without the parents' backing, the social and hormonal pressure to have sex (protected or otherwise) will remain the problem that it is now, with the concomitant cost to society.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Since when was sex a bad thing to do?



for a 14 year old?

it is NEVER a good thing


For a teen ager with NO IDEA of the consequences? Maybe a grown woman will be atrong enough to say "Stop, no condom, no sex" but teens dont have that strength, so NO it is NEVER a good thing to do



Gordon Nore said:


> Seriously, we have to let go of the idea that we can educate kids and control behaviour by telling them scary stories.



it worked better than what we are doing now......

according to my doctor, 75% of his std patients are TEENS

thats all i need to know to figure out that america's teens are not being raised right


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2008)

The US and UK top the list for teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. Even so, rates peaked in 1990 and declined steadily to record lows until about 2004. 


> *Childbearing*. The rate of teen childbearing in the United
> States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all
> time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 1519 in
> 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart).
> ...


_ --Boonstra 2002_

So the contention that the evil liberal philosophy is to blame for high teen pregnancy rates just doesn't wash. Americans go to church and describe themselves as religious at a much higher rate than any other country in the developed world. We are also the only one that makes contraception difficult and expensive and forbids comprehensive sex education by law. 

I'm not going to bury you guys in statistics. If you're really interested start with the Guttmacher Institute, the NIH and *shudder* Planned Parenthood for more statistics than you can shake a government-approved abstinent stick at. Suffice it to say American and British teenagers do not have significantly more or less sex than their European, Canadian, Japanese or similar counterparts. They start sexual activity at roughly the same age and have comparable numbers of sex partners. 

Where they differ is in contraception. Americans are less likely to use birth control, and that tendency increases with increased self-reported religious observance. They are more likely according to some studies to have sex while intoxicated and to express guilt or shame over the act. 

In short, they are told that sex is bad and make unrealistic plans for premarital abstinence. When they do become sexually active they are much more ignorant about contraception and are more likely to forgo it entirely. They have only been taught the word "No" and have not developed any skills for dealing with their sexuality in a mature and considered manner. So they don't. And we pay a high price in unintended pregnancy as a result. My recollections of the literature about British teen pregnancies is hazy. I recall a similar degree of ignorance, a somewhat greater tendency to experience first intercourse while drunk and a weak but measurable link to class. Every country has its own problems.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Schools are very limited - by law - in what they are allowed to teach.  There is a section on human sexuality in the Health class that all students are required to take in either 7th or 8th grade - but the teacher is only allowed to teach mechanics; contraception can be discussed, but only from a biological standpoint - it cannot be encouraged or discouraged.  This is _not_ how the Health teacher would like to be doing it... but that's the law.  Sadly, but not surprisingly, we had 4 pregnant girls in the 8th grade, out of about 120 girls in that grade - for those from other educational systems, they were all 13 or 14 years old.



Kacey, this was the cut and thrust of my comment above that sex ed. teachers in the USA cannot possibly be accused of promoting any kind of promiscuity. They're barely allowed to teach the subject under current regulations.



> As far as a lower teen pregnancy rate in the past - well, last I heard, teen pregnancies were down - but they are also no longer hidden.  Unwed girls who became pregnant through the mid-50s (and sometimes later) were sent away to "recuperate" from "consumption" or some other illness, and no one talked about it.  Now, everyone talks about it - but to be politically correct, no one is allowed to step over the lines of parental preference to teach anything but abstinence - and the parents aren't teaching protection, or those 4 girls wouldn't have been pregnant, and I wouldn't have a 13 year-old student whose mother is 26.



Public educators in the USA are fighting an uphill battle. Abstinence may be 100% effective, but only if it is practised 100% of the time. My argument for public sex education is simple: I know exactly what I have taught my son (he's 18 now), but I do not know what other parents have taught their kids, if anything at all. They go to the same schools, live in the same community, attend the same parties, etc. A child who has been poorly instructed in sexual health -- at home or at school -- places other children in jeopardy.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> A child who has been poorly instructed in sexual health -- at home or at school -- places other children in jeopardy.



this is absolutely true


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> for a 14 year old?
> 
> it is NEVER a good thing
> 
> For a teen ager with NO IDEA of the consequences? Maybe a grown woman will be atrong enough to say "Stop, no condom, no sex" but teens dont have that strength, so NO it is NEVER a good thing to do



Twin, I was responding to the following comment you made:



> The problem is, all the kids hear is "it's ok to have sex" and being kids they figure it wont happen to them.so they dont use condoms.....
> 
> maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"



I interpreted this as a comment about teens in general. In response, I said,



> Since when was sex a bad thing to do?



And you are definitely right that sex is not a good thing for a fourteen-year-old. I believe you have better chance of teaching that fourteen-year-old to put on a rubber than you do telling that student not to have sex until s/he has reached an age where his/parents and society in general feel comfortable with them having sex.

I don't condone fourteen-year-olds having sex; I acknowledge it as a reality among some fourteen-year-olds. If they are going to be active sexually, I would like them to live a long life without having compounded their mistake by bringing a child into the world. Why? Because I know that child has a very good chance of being stigmatized as a burden of society. I'd rather the kids made their babies a little later, so those kids can grow up knowing there's no hurry to make another baby.



> it worked better than what we are doing now......



No, it didn't. As Casey mentioned pregnancy and birth rates among younger women are down See: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Start reading on page five. The more recent drops would suggest the use of condoms.



> according to my doctor, 75% of his std patients are TEENS



Yes, but what does he say about educating teens, The Lord's Prayer?



> thats all i need to know to figure out that america's teens are not being raised right



Personally, I'd like a little more data before I write off parents in America.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 21, 2008)

My understanding was that they went to a Catholic High School, and did not talk about 'safe sex' or have sex ed. at all. My understanding was that this was there way of telling the school.there parents that this was a bad idea. Insane way of doing it, but I geuss they had a nobel intent.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

Gordon,
what Tellners number DONT say is that in the 50's, there was prob more pregnancies among teenagers, true, the trick is, they were MARRIED

thats right, teen marraiges in the 50's were quite common. Mymother and grandmother were both married while still teens.

The thing is, you dont HAVE to assume they will have sex

raise them right and they might just wait.

mine did


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Gordon,
> what Tellners number DONT say is that in the 50's, there was prob more pregnancies among teenagers, true, the trick is, they were MARRIED
> 
> thats right, teen marraiges in the 50's were quite common. Mymother and grandmother were both married while still teens.
> ...



Three thoughts:

1. Marriage is not the remedy for the younger girls we've been discussing. Marrying someone because you had a baby may not be that great an idea anyway.

2. I don't know that other parents in my community are 'raising their kids right.' That's why I want my son and his peers to have sex ed. in school. Some of my son's peers may have been taught stupid stuff by their parents, or nothing at all.

3. My son is 18; I don't know if he waited or not for sex. He's not telling, and therefore, I'm not asking. He's an adult, and so he doesn't have to tell me how long he kept his virginity. And if he did, I wouldn't tell anyone else.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

no no
I am not suggesting that kids get married i am saying that the numbers tellner posted are not really saying what he thinks they are.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Kacey, this was the cut and thrust of my comment above that sex ed. teachers in the USA cannot possibly be accused of promoting any kind of promiscuity. They're barely allowed to teach the subject under current regulations.



Honestly?  Schools should be teaching academics, along with selected elective activities that may not be available at home - foreign languages, music (instrumental and vocal), PE, etc.  For too many years, parents have foregone their responsibilities as parents, and the schools have picked up the slack - to the point where we are teaching everything from bicycle safety to sex ed (as allowed) to social skills.  In Colorado, there are so many items added to the "mandatory" curriculum that to teach the entire curriculum would take 22 years - not the 13 (including kindergarten) that students attend.  Yes, there is overlap between subjects - but the schools need to stop being the primary source for topics that should be the purview of the parents and the community.



Gordon Nore said:


> Public educators in the USA are fighting an uphill battle. Abstinence may be 100% effective, but only if it is practised 100% of the time. My argument for public sex education is simple: I know exactly what I have taught my son (he's 18 now), but I do not know what other parents have taught their kids, if anything at all. They go to the same schools, live in the same community, attend the same parties, etc. A child who has been poorly instructed in sexual health -- at home or at school -- places other children in jeopardy.



I understand what you're saying - but my sister and I were raised in the same house, by the same parents, with the same values, went to the same schools - and she was totally different in her sexual habits than I was, in a fashion many would consider unsafe (I know I did - and she's 3-1/2 years older than I am).  So while I agree that children/teens in the same community can have widely variant knowledge - it's not just the knowledge; the individual experiences and attitudes can also have an effect.  Still, the more children/teens hear the same message, the more sources they hear it from, the more likely it becomes that they will listen.


----------



## Adept (Jun 21, 2008)

At the risk of sounding like the voice of dissent, so long as the babies are cared for, and the girls in question have the required support from their families (and the government), why is this such a bad thing?

Now, I know some folks get all upset at the thought of their taxes going to pay for someone elses child support. Well, too bad. I'd rather be paying for someone elses child suport than cars and chauffeurs for government employees!



Twin Fist said:


> maybe if they heard "it is NOT ok to have sex, it is bad thing to do, you can catch diseases and/or get pregnant and ruin your life, or DIE, so DONT DO IT"


 
:barf:

Thats about the most disturbing thing I've ever read. Sex can kill you? It will ruin your life?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Honestly?  Schools should be teaching academics, along with selected elective activities that may not be available at home - foreign languages, music (instrumental and vocal), PE, etc.  For too many years, parents have foregone their responsibilities as parents, and the schools have picked up the slack - to the point where we are teaching everything from bicycle safety to sex ed (as allowed) to social skills.  In Colorado, there are so many items added to the "mandatory" curriculum that to teach the entire curriculum would take 22 years - not the 13 (including kindergarten) that students attend.  Yes, there is overlap between subjects - but the schools need to stop being the primary source for topics that should be the purview of the parents and the community.



I'm torn -- the trained teacher in me says, "Yes," to the first sentence. What a joy it would be just to teach my children to read and write, and to love books, and all that.

The parent in me is scared that too many kids have not learned what they need to learn. After four days of training with local public health authorities, I spent a day at my son's elementary school teaching bicycle safety, how to put on a helmet, and to ride safely in traffic for the older kids. I wish I could depend upon parents to teach this. As it stands, when I mount a school-wide outdoor activity, I have to teach kids to remember to bring items like baseball hats, sunscreen and water bottles. Getting kids to use sunscreen -- even in this day and age -- has been a career-long battle.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Adept said:


> At the risk of sounding like the voice of dissent, so long as the babies are cared for, and the girls in question have the required support from their families (and the government), why is this such a bad thing?
> 
> Now, I know some folks get all upset at the thought of their taxes going to pay for someone elses child support. Well, too bad. I'd rather be paying for someone elses child suport than cars and chauffeurs for government employees!



That's pretty much where I stand on it. I'm prepared to pay taxes to care for children in the welfare system. Further, I would love for that system to lavish these children and their mothers with opportunities -- real opportunities to get out of that system and into something better, or to keep them from getting there in the first place. But that's really what this conversation is about: the vast resentment people feel for our societal dependents.


Thats about the most disturbing thing I've ever read. Sex can kill you? It will ruin your life?[/quote]


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> I'm torn -- the trained teacher in me says, "Yes," to the first sentence. What a joy it would be just to teach my children to read and write, and to love books, and all that.
> 
> The parent in me is scared that too many kids have not learned what they need to learn. After four days of training with local public health authorities, I spent a day at my son's elementary school teaching bicycle safety, how to put on a helmet, and to ride safely in traffic for the older kids. I wish I could depend upon parents to teach this. As it stands, when I mount a school-wide outdoor activity, I have to teach kids to remember to bring items like baseball hats, sunscreen and water bottles. Getting kids to use sunscreen -- even in this day and age -- has been a career-long battle.



You're preaching to the choir, y'know.  The schools teach what they do because no one is doing it... but that doesn't make it _right_.  The schools should be reinforcing what is taught at home - but because so many homes are not teaching these things, the schools have, perforce, picked up the slack.  I'm glad that _someone_ is, truly - but it's really not the place of the schools to _parent_... but we do it anyway, because we _must_.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 22, 2008)

So, perhaps, at the cost of a few children, we should go back to when people, including children, have to suffer for the consequences of their actions.  Darwinian evolution will take care of the rest.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 22, 2008)

I dont buy the whole "their so downtrodden with no opportunity so they just decided to get pregnant" argument. Teenagers dont think that way. Im betting they all watched the movie Juno one to many times or thought that Ashlee Simpson is sooooooo coooool for having a baby, or their parents let them watch Springer too often. Our culture and media is getting far too crass IMO.


----------



## MJS (Jun 22, 2008)

Adept said:


> At the risk of sounding like the voice of dissent, so long as the babies are cared for, and the girls in question have the required support from their families (and the government), why is this such a bad thing?
> 
> Now, I know some folks get all upset at the thought of their taxes going to pay for someone elses child support. Well, too bad. I'd rather be paying for someone elses child suport than cars and chauffeurs for government employees!
> 
> ...


 


Gordon Nore said:


> That's pretty much where I stand on it. I'm prepared to pay taxes to care for children in the welfare system. Further, I would love for that system to lavish these children and their mothers with opportunities -- real opportunities to get out of that system and into something better, or to keep them from getting there in the first place. But that's really what this conversation is about: the vast resentment people feel for our societal dependents.
> 
> 
> Thats about the most disturbing thing I've ever read. Sex can kill you? It will ruin your life?


[/quote]

Here is my take on welfare.  If someone uses it on a temporary basis until they get back on their feet, fine.  But, why the hell should I or anyone else, have to pay for someone, because a) they wanted a baby because they felt it was the cool thing to do, b) so they can sit back, do nothing and reap the benefits of what Im paying for and c) so that the father of the child can contribute nothing as well.

Sorry, IMHO, its something that should be used as a temp. solution until the child or people involved can provide the proper care, but I don't feel I should have to pay for someone to have as many kids as they want.  I don't think thats what the system was set up for, yet thats what it turned into.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2008)

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

The Dutch way of dealing with sex education. They have the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe as well as the highest age for having sex for the first time.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

Adept said:


> Thats about the most disturbing thing I've ever read. Sex can kill you? It will ruin your life?



ever hear of AIDS?

ever seen a woman with 3 kids, no education, no job skills living in poverty because she cant support herself much less her children?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2008)

I have to say that I concur with the point of view that shows Welfare Dependency to be a very bad thing.  

In England, it has now become a generational situation, whereby, in order to keep the money flowing in, women with either no significant employment prospects or no intention of working for a living, have babies at regular intervals.  

It is appalling to me that the good intentions of the state have been so easily corrupted so quickly and worse still that these child-bearers so easily close their eyes to how morally bankrupt it is to live their lives this way.

This has then spawned the iniquitous serpent that is the Child Support Agency, which leaches onto absent fathers, regardless of the circumstances that lead to their absence and attempts to force them to pay over-blown amounts to support 'their' child.  What is the end result of this in many cases?  They simply stop working and go on the dole as it becomes impossible for them to live on normal working-mans wages.

Grrr ... as you can probably tell this subject warms my blood somewhat .  So, having driven close to the edge of off-topicness, I'm back to posing the question of what can be done that would be seriously effective in reducing teenage pregnancies?

Irene posted a link to a methodology used by the Dutch that seems to work for them.  

There was also a short run of adverts over here that I thought was very good.  There were two adverts per break - 

- one showing a young girl looking happy with her friends as they clear up after a party and a young lad talking with his mates about how he couldn't give a condom back that he borrowed because he used it

- the second showed the girl upset and tearful being comforted by her friends and the young lad being scorned by his mates for having unprotected sex.

How effective those adverts were at reaching their target audience I don't know but they illustrated that what we need to change are social attitudes towards unprotected sex.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

agree 100%


----------



## tellner (Jun 22, 2008)

TF, yes "They were married". But they were _already pregnant_ when they got married. The 1950s had an unprecedented rate of "premature" births. It wasn't chemicals in the environment or flabby cervices. The girls in question got knocked up and married off. 

Now, you may think that hiding a problem and lying about it is a good strategy. That is the way Movement Conservatives operate. Those of us in the "reality based community" (to quote your President's staff) prefer truth to lies even if the lies make you feel good. Teenagers were still having sex. They weren't using contraception because it was illegal. They were still ignorant. And they were still ruining their lives. 

The Conservative strategy is based on lies. As long as the lies are told long enough and forcefully enough, they tell us, they will eventually become true. Push reefer madness on the sheep, and pot will eventually make men commit murder in the streets and turn Our Precious White Women into the helpless sex-slaves of Degenerate Negro Jazz Musicians. Push abstinence only sex "education" and everyone will remain a virgin until marriage. They will shut down their sexuality because we've scared them with enough lies. Shovel a few more cartloads of "Exodus" and "The Homosexual Agenda" and the Sodomites will magically turn to jeebus and become heterosexual.

The problem is that repeating a lie long and loud doesn't make it true.

Lie about the effects of hemp, and kids will find out that they just doesn't work as advertised. Then they will not believe anything you say. Along comes heroin or meth. They know you lied to them before, so why should they believe you now? You were telling the truth this time? Oops.

Gays and lesbians will not turn straight when exposed to the Bible. They don't choose to be what they are. Screaming it at them, sending them to prison, castration, aversion therapy and execution - all in use today - won't change what they are. All the lies do is cause a lot of misery.

Whoopi Goldberg was absolutely right. Nobody has said it better. "You can't stop kids from ****ing. It feels good." People have sex. And they have sex even if you think they should remain virgins until they get permission from your tribal witch doctors to have sex. You can continue to lie to them and try to scare them. All you'll do is ensure that they are ignorant and make bad decisions. 

The Dutch approach may not fit your ideas about what sexuality should be like - fumbling, dirty, clumsy and full of shame. But it keeps down the number of pregnant teenagers and STDs. And it keeps the kids from ****ing until they're older and more likely to make good decisions. Knowledge is better than ignorance. Truth is better than lies. Reality is better than wishful thinking. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2008)

That was well written, Todd and contained kernels of what I would see as the truth on certain issues.  

However, I must ask if I missed something earlier in the thread where your goodself and *TF* had a falling out?  It's just that it reads to me as a spikily personal retort to something with which you profoundly disagree.  

Perhaps it's just the opening paragraph that makes it appear aimed at one person whereas, when I read it through again, I can see that much of the body is directed at general flaws in the approach to social issues by those on the Far Rght who mingle religion in with politics.

I wonder if maybe a small re-edit to clarify that you're not beating a specific member with a fairly hefty stick (why does that sound so perverse ) might be a good idea?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

tellner said:


> The Conservative strategy is based on lies.




uh, yeah

"surplus"
"i did not have sexual relations with that woman"
"iraq is a civil war"
"bush went to war for oil"

do we REALY want to get into who lies and who doesnt?

slinging that mud will get everyone dirty


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 22, 2008)

Lisa said:


> I am absolutely blown away at the news of a bunch of teenagers making a "pact" to get pregnant together and raise their children together. WTF are they thinking?  Is this just another example of us going wrong with raising our children?  Do you all remember when you were a kid how absolutely terrified you were that you "might" get pregnant and how it was such a big deal when someone did?  Now a days there are day cares in high schools for crying out loud!
> 
> This just floor me!
> 
> Full Story




While in high school as a sophomore (10th grade), there was a young woman who was talking about her greatest desire. That of being pregnant and having a child. She was talking to someone else behind me, but I turned around as I knew her. I asked if she had talked to her mother about this? She replied yes. I asked if she understood what it meant to her about college and even graduating high school with the extra responsibility. She replied she understood. She then went on to explain that she really believed that is what she wanted, but that she knew she had to wait until she at least graduated high school. 

I think people should be aware of what they are doing and the responsibility they have. I hope they do not just expect that someone else will just raise the child for them. i.e. The grand parents or the school system or other institutions.


----------



## CF'er (Jun 22, 2008)

So what if it were one of your students? A black belt. What would you do?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 22, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, perhaps, at the cost of a few children, we should go back to when people, including children, have to suffer for the consequences of their actions. Darwinian evolution will take care of the rest.


 

I've been saying that the last ten years.

I do not think people will be any more receptive now than then.


----------



## tellner (Jun 22, 2008)

Sukerkin, since you ask I'll answer.

A lot of times when the evil tellner comes out it's because things have hit something personal. In this case it hit three in close succession. I apologize to all, especially TF for letting the personal get out, but here's something by way of explaining why...

The Gay thing...

A friend of mine was raised very Catholic. He was also gay and hid it for a long time, especially from himself. I lost track of him over the years. When I was able to find him again he'd gone through some changes. Specifically, he had come out with a vengeance and a self destructive streak of guilt about it a mile wide. His family would have nothing to do with him except for his brother who was also gay. One of the self destructive bits involved picking up full blown AIDS. He's still alive, much changed for the better in some ways but blind, ill, and unable to make a living. Without the stigma, shame and so on he would have had the mental and emotional resources to come to terms with his sexuality in a more healthy way and might have faced everything that came later with the help of his family and probably with more of an eye towards safety.

The "Scare them out of sex" thing...

A cousin of mine will probably die a horrible death because of the Religious Right. She wanted Gardasil very badly from the time it entered the final approval process. Time dragged on. The Religious Right put pressure on the Administration, pressure which Bush and company were glad to accept. Gardasil was delayed specifically and explicitly so that girls would be frightened of sex. It was said that if it were approved they would no longer risk one of the most horrible deaths out there - cervical cancer - every time they had sex. Without that terror, the preachers and spokesmen said, they would go out and have (and I qoute) "orgies". 

Well, she didn't have orgies. But she had a boyfriend who wasn't completely faithful and left her with a case of HPV. HPV plus family history? She has an excellent chance of facing her later months with a completely preventable disease, one that will eat her alive and cause her to die in dehumanizing agony years before her time. 

Sex education and contraception...

I used to be in nursing. One of the most heartbreaking things I ever saw was a fifteen year old girl. G-d, it's still hard to tell this one. In those days there wasn't any real sex education. Contraception was harder to come by. She had attempted a self-induced abortion and had botched it. She didn't understand how conception, let alone contraception worked. By the time it was all over social services had been called. The police had been called. And as the only adult male working that particular shift I had been called first when her parents found out and laid into her. I have never come so close to doing illegal violence to a human being as I did to them when they called her terrible names and threatened to throw her out of the house.

The icing on the cake? The infection probably rendered her sterile. For want of a few hours of honest education who knows how much misery and how many of her future children could have been saved. 

Even more...

When my father retired after many years as a urologist he needed something to do. For a while his hobby was performing vasectomies at Planned Parenthood. Nothing like a bit of outpatient surgery in the morning to give you something to talk about over lunch at Rotary. He stopped doing them for a number of reasons. One of them was the threats. It didn't matter that he has never terminated a pregnancy in his life. The activists still made death threats against everyone who did anything there. And considering some of the murders and bombings he decided not to take any chances. 

Comply or die. 

So yes, sometimes it's personal. When it is and the pain is a little too much I lash out. The current discussions pushed buttons that over-rode my good sense for which I beg everyone's pardon.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2008)

Thank you, Todd, for explaining so clearly what was obviously a painful confluence of influences here at MT that impinged on your 'real' life experiences.

My apologies for causing you to have to do so :rei:.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 22, 2008)

tellner said:


> Sukerkin, since you ask I'll answer...



Thanks for sharing, Tellner.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> MJS,
> teen pregnancy was rare when I was in HS just 24 years ago.
> 
> The schools have been doing it your way since then, it isnt helping. Teen pregnancy is more common now than it was. I know this because now high schools have friggen dare care centers in them......
> ...


I won't say it was rare 20+ years ago when I was in high school.  I will say that girls getting pregnant and carrying a baby to term was rare where I grew up.  I also have to disclose that it was a good, solidly middle class community in Virginia, with lots and lots of government workers and military families.  I know DC had a much higher teen birth rate.

Personally, I think the first choice for sex ed is the family.  Since that is failing, as many parents have sex ed discussions with their kids that are beyond brief today if not non-existent (my own with my parents consisted of "if you're going to do it, use a condom"), schools and religious institutions are the best available choice.  I do feel that the basics of procreation should be covered, with appropriate moral instruction depending on the setting (like a church school), as well as basic facts about preventing unwanted pregnancy.  As a Catholic, I am morally and personally opposed to both birth control and abortion -- but that won't prevent me from teaching any children I have what they should know to make good decisions on their own, or ensure that they have the tools to control the consequences from bad choices.

In this particular case, I suspect that there are some deep problems at home.  And probably in the community, too.


----------



## Fiendlover (Jun 22, 2008)

that's appalling!  it's not like teenagers have enough of a bad repuation as it is and now teenage girls are getting pregnant by the masses?  No way!  I wouldn't have any regrets slapping every one of them in the faces.    
:whip::snipe2::disgust:


----------



## Drac (Jun 23, 2008)

MJS said:


> I graduated in 1991. During my 4 yrs, there were no girls in my class that were pregnant. .


 
The year  I quit school ( 1972) there was one girl...



MJS said:


> Today on the other hand, I'd be more inclined to say that probably has changed.


 
Ya think...I did a detail at a carnival earlier this month..the number of pregnant girls uner 18 was unbelieveable...


----------



## Lisa (Jun 23, 2008)

Thinking back on my childhood, I believe, I was one lucky teenager.

My mom was a very forward thinking woman when it came to premarital sex.  She sat on one of the school boards and pushed for condoms to be available to inner city kids.  This was in the early 80's when such things were unheard of.

My Mom always said one thing to me.  "Lisa, I would rather have you come home and say 'mom I am on the pill' then 'mom, I am pregnant'"

Now she wasn't condoning me having sex at a young age but she said that she would rather I protect myself then end up pregnant and having to make a decision about another human being at such a young age.  Needless to say, I was the one dragging my stupid girlfriends into the free clinic for pregnancy tests and free birth control.  I just couldn't believe how stupid they were or how stupid their parents were.  I had one girlfriend who I took to the free clinic because she was having unprotected sex.  She went on the pill but her mom found them and took them away thinking she wouldn't have sex again....uhhh..yeah...it didn't work.  Within two months the girl was pregnant.  

It wasn't until years later when I had my own children that I realized how life altering being responsible for another human being really is.  I can't think of one other thing that could happen to a human being where you go from being a single entity to instantly (upon birth) loving completely and being willing to die to protect someone other then yourself.  That is what giving birth to a child should do to you.  Somehow I don't think these children realize what they are getting into.


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say that I concur with the point of view that shows Welfare Dependency to be a very bad thing.
> 
> In England, it has now become a generational situation, whereby, in order to keep the money flowing in, women with either no significant employment prospects or no intention of working for a living, have babies at regular intervals.
> 
> ...


 
Great points.  IMHO, there is way too much dependance on it, which is why I think that there should be some cut off.  6mo, a year....a set time, long enough for someone to get a job.  I don't care if you go to McDonalds from 5am-2pm and then WalMart from 6-10....do something.  

Interestingly enough, 2 weeks ago, I was reading an article about pregnant teens.  The focus was on a teen girl, who despite her child, still continued to go to school, is working, getting some help from her mother, who I will add is on some sort of disability for an injury, yet she is getting nothing from the father.  

If you're man enough to bring a child into the world, then be man enough to step up and act like a father, by supporting that child.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 23, 2008)

Lisa said:


> It wasn't until years later when I had my own children that I realized how life altering being responsible for another human being really is.  I can't think of one other thing that could happen to a human being where you go from being a single entity to instantly (upon birth) loving completely and being willing to die to protect someone other then yourself.  That is what giving birth to a child should do to you.  Somehow I don't think these children realize what they are getting into.


Of course they don't realize what they are getting into - they are _children_; no matter how physically ready they may be for parenthood, in today's society they are not emotionally or mentally (and certainly not economically) ready to be parents.

About 15 years ago, I was a substitute teacher, and one day I was subbing for a special education teacher who taught students with developmental delays (low cognitive abilities).  One of the girls in the class had a picture of a toddler on her desk, and I asked her if that was her little brother.  She said no, he was her son and was 16 months old - she was in 7th grade.  As nearly as I could figure, she got pregnant during the summer between 5th and 6th grade, when she was (at most) 11.  She told me that she didn't understand what was so hard about raising kids; she didn't have any trouble with him at all during the hour every Saturday when Social Services let her see him.  Granted, her IQ was in the 60s, and she was not the boy's primary caregiver - but her attitude is the same one I see from many teen parents, and it's that attitude of "what's the big deal about raising a child" that is a big part of the problem.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2008)

Heard today that the pact thing may be false. The situaton is however being investigated because these make the rate of teen pregnancy in that school 4X more than usual.

While listening to that report, it struck me that it';s not the '4X more' that all wrong. It's the very concept that a high-school has a 'usual' rate of teen pregnancy.


----------



## tellner (Jun 23, 2008)

It looks like the "unusual part" of the pregnancy spike is probably BS:



> [Mayor]Kirk said she and Superintendent Christopher Farmer have been in touch with [Principal]Sullivan, and that he was "foggy in his memory" about how he came to believe there was a pact.
> "When pressed, his memory failed," Kirk said.
> Authorities have talked to school and health officials who work most closely with the children and, Kirk said, "The people that worked with the children on a daily basis have said there has been no mention whatsoever of a pact."
> Kirk said the spike in pregnancies is in keeping with similar spikes in other cities.
> Farmer said there was a "distinct possibility" that the girls who found themselves in similar, challenging situations later decided to "come together for mutual support."


----------



## crushing (Jun 23, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Remember, these people are ahead in the evolutionary race by breeding more than the rest of us ("early and often"). _They're winning._


 
Idiocracy?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 23, 2008)

I watched that, and actually showed the lead-in 5 minutes to my (two) kids because it is so depressingly accurate!


----------



## Mark L (Jun 24, 2008)

tellner said:


> It looks like the "unusual part" of the pregnancy spike is probably BS:


Mayor Kirk did not invite Principal Sullivan to attend the press conference (Sullivan has not been forthcoming towards media inquiries).
Mayor Kirk reportedly met with city, school, and health leaders to discuss the issue.  She didn't meet with the pregnant girls.
The Chief Exec. of the on-site school day care reported to Time magazine earlier this month that her social workers knew of the girls' plan last fall (she's since recanted).
Mayor Kirk, when questioned by a reported, indicated there was no evidence dispproving the "pact" either.  FYI, I heard this tidbit on local radio, I can't cite the source.

I don't think we can draw any conclusions based on the data yet, except that the Gloucester administration is in full CYA mode.


----------



## tellner (Jun 30, 2008)

There's an article in Salon with an interesting perspective on the subject. The author speaks as a single teenage mother who was able to function because of the help and support of people around her, many of them other single mothers. 

She makes a good point. Teenagers shouldn't get pregnant. But when they do their lives aren't be over. The key to getting out from under the trouble is friends and family who can help spread the load. 



> I thought there was nothing crazy at all about a different kind of pregnancy pact, one that might have come about _after_ the girls were expecting.
> 
> "There was definitely no pact," said Lindsey Oliver, a pregnant 17-year-old from Gloucester, who appeared on "Good Morning America" with her boyfriend earlier this week. "There was a group of girls already pregnant that decided they were going to help each other to finish school and raise their kids together."



If you're going to have a baby without a father around to help you or one who is around but is too young to support a family you don't have many alternatives. Without social services, affordable day care or a large extended family who can you turn to but your friends? Under the circumstances an agreement to work together so you can all get by isn't a sign of failure. It's the only way to survive much less prosper.

There's been some interesting research on smell lately. We are more aware of it than we know even though our noses are the equivalent of numb or blind by mammalian standards. It turns out that men show a marked attraction for the smell of women who are ovulating. 

Now here's the fascinating part. It turns out that the HLA profile - an important part of the immune system - is expressed in odor in some pretty subtle ways. Other things being equal women who are not pregnant and men show a marked preference for the smell of a person who has a different HLA profile. But _when women get pregnant or are lactating_ their preference _changes_. They show an _aversion_ to the fascinating stranger's odor and a _strong attraction_ for people with an HLA profile similar to theirs.

That exotic type over there who smells different may hold the key to your children being heterozygous and having the genetic equipment to survive. When it comes to surviving the burdens of pregnancy and getting the support you need to raise the infant the human tendency is to return to the close kin. They are the ones who will help. They are the ones with a genetic investment in your baby. The sperm donor might have blown in on the breeze last week and will disappear over the hill next month. This follows the basic mammalian pattern of female philopatry. Briefly stated, the tendency is for males to disperse, to go out and seek their fortunes. The females tend to stick near home and raise their offspring either close to or in actual groups of their female relatives. For more on that here's a classic paper from 17 years ago and another simulation-based one from last year. Both are well written but very technical.

It's sort of the same thing. The males won't or today more likely can't support the children they sire. The females - not close kin here but the next best thing - pool resources to help ensure their mutual survival and that of their babies. It isn't perfect. It's not even good. But when the eighty centuries of land-based male-centered families don't serve there is an older more primal pattern to fall back on. Our ancestors used it for millions of years, and it's waiting there in the back pocket of our genes when recent fads come up short.


----------

