Jump to navigation
Safe, Legal, & Rare Isn't
R. Alex Whitlock
Tucked away in an article about oral sex is the following:
Now, this is a glib explanation. A real economist would want a tighter hypothesis and serious data to back it up. That economist might well be Thomas Stratmann, who, with law professor Jonathan Klick, has pushed the idea of the rational teenage sex drive. Their hypothesis is that if teenagers really did think about the consequences of their actions, they would have less risky sex if the cost of risky sex went up. They discovered a very specific source of that higher risk: "In some states, there are abortion-notification or -consent laws, which mean that teenagers can't get an abortion without at least one parent being informed or giving consent." If teenagers are rational, such laws would discourage risky sex among teens, relative to adults.
Klick and Stratmann claim to have found evidence of exactly this. Wherever and whenever abortion-notification laws have been passed, gonorrhoea rates in the teenage and adult populations start to diverge. When it becomes more troublesome to get an abortion, teenagers seem to cut back on unprotected sex.
So... decreased availability of abortions leads to more cautious behavior?
I swear that I've heard that argument before, but if I recall it is a position only advanced by backward-looking, science-hating troglodytes.
Seriously, of all the arguments in favor of abortion-availability, I've always considered the notion that you can't alter behavior by restricting possible remedies from the repercussions to be among the sillier of them.
That's not to say that abortion should necessarily be illegal because it will keep young people from having sex because it won't. The same argument could be made for
condoms and
The Pill and I support the availability of both. But in the abstract, I am amazed not only at the number of people that believe that the number of kids that will have sex need abortions is finite and unaffected by its availability and how they look at me like I'm brainwashed by my political allies when I suggest that's not the case.
I also got a kick out of the closer:
The rest of us may be wondering what to make of it all. On the one hand, good news: Teenagers are finding safer ways to get their kicks. On the other, it suggests that teenagers believe one of the most serious consequences of an unwanted pregnancy is that their parents will find out. If teenagers are avoiding unsafe sex, it may not be for the best reasons.
It goes to show the fascinating hybrid of rationality (weighing unlikely but potential consequences that are heavier more heavily) and curious priorities (having to tell the parents is a bigger deal than having the abortion) of young people.
On the other hand, I can't say I care much what the reason is that young people avoid unsafe sex, as there is no real right reason for them to have the other kind.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Observations
Add on top of that Abstinence only education and you've got a nice little mess. I wonder if we stick our heads even further in the ground if all our problems will disappear.
Did the article discuss how more teenagers began having oral sex because of the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship?
The other recent and interesting phenomenon involving teenagers having sex is the increased number of female teachers in their 20s and 30s having relations with boys who often have not hit puberty yet. Of course, there are only two or three out of the thousands of female teachers in the past 10 years who have robbed the cradle, but it's not something that I ever recall happening until recently.
The article mentions it, before moving on to more economic-driven rationales. In the opening paragraph, though, it cites an article entitled "Are You There, God? It's Me, Monica" which I can only assume is a reference to Miss Lewinsky.
I wonder if the teacher thing is as much an issue of reportage as phenomenon. I can think of two reasons for underreporting. First, it may not be considered as big of a deal if the victim is a boy because boys are harder to scratch emotionally (same attitude that leads fathers to worry much more about their daughters than their sons) -- Mary Kay LeTourneau little friend seemed more phased by the attention than by the sex, and LeTourneau was certifiably nuts. Second, and more plausible, a young man is considered less vulnerable. I can see it being harder for parents to wrap the idea around their heads that their kid was sexually abused by a woman. Harder to see him as a victim.
I could be wrong, though. It doesn't address the strange fact that many of the purpetrators seem to be attractive. Or maybe LeTourneau gave them the idea that the courts would be lenient on them? They were awfully lenient on her (for the same reasons above, I'd assume).
I think another factor relating to teen's sexual activity is their parents' utter cluelessness. There is a radio talk show host in Houston named Chris Baker. He's another annoying Rush Limbaugh wanna-be now, but when he first started in Houston, he was hysterical. One time, a mother called him to tell him about how great her relationship was with her 15-year old teenage daughter. The girl had asked Mom if she could get her tongue pierced, and the mother said sure. The mother was so happy that her daughter felt close enough to her to ask her permission for a tongue piercing. Baker asked her, "Has your daughter's popularity with the boys at school increased since she got her tongue pierced?" The mother had no idea what he was talking about.
I think if parents were more interested in parenting their children, and less interested in wanting their children to like them, kids might be less likely to engage in all sorts of risky behavior.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
