And another

[trinityvixen]

Here's some actual news: the next time you hear something that sounds like an urban legend with the names/places changed, assume it is one. I'm looking at you Time Magazine.

Most of the people who read my journal are smart. You are, so give yourselves a hand. And the majority of you are very young indeed. Meaning that most of you are not so far removed from high school that you have forgotten how tough it was. Meaning that if you heard someone say that girls at a high school got together and formed a clandestine pact to get themselves pregnant on purpose, you'd laugh harder than you did at the person who believed the sperm-on-the-cheek-swab story was true for a friend's classmate. I think I was that person, actually, and even I'm not dumb enough to buy the bullshit about teenaged girls forming a coven of sperm-seeking mommy wannabes.

Especially not when the principal who "reported" this "pact" to the "press" points to one person in any sort of authority to back him up and that person says that his pearl-clutching media moment was the first that she'd heard of it. His only other sources are anonymous, uncited folk talking in hallways. Because hallways have never been known to distort facts. Facts being factually reported have never lost accuracy as the message moved from one mouth to one ear and back in crowded, noisy places. Apparently, neither this principal nor the ace reporter has ever played a game of Telephone in their entire lives. I'd pity them, but they're smearing teenage girls' names in the mud, and if the resignations over the principal's refusal to allow the nurse's office to stock contraceptives is any indication, he's fixing to do worse.

It's the set-them-up, knock-them-down strategy in one fell swoop. He denies them contraceptives, the sex-ed is nonexistant, the girls get knocked up because HELLO THEY ARE ONLY HUMAN BEINGS AND THEY ARE PULSING WITH HORMONES, and he gets to pretend they did it on purpose because they should have known better (how if school won't teach them?) and they could have protected themselves (without knowing how? without access to means?) but they didn't, so obviously they chose pregnancy (they're not human? they're not fallible? they don't forget? they always use the contraceptives they don't have perfectly accurately?).

And his bullshit, not the corrected story (i.e. that he is full of shit) is what will be used as a weapon against girls and women having control over their bodies. Well done, you magnificent asshole.

Comments

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I'm hesitant to blame this on lack of sex-ed or contraceptives. The article said that sex-ed ended at freshman year, not that it was completely absent--how many credit hours of, "Wear a condom, you morons!" do you need? The school didn't provide condoms--do they not have a CVS in this suburban town? We're not talking about poor kids who can't afford a few bucks for condoms.

It seems fairly clear that these idiot girls weren't the victims of ignorance as to contraception or lack of sex ed, but a lack of judgment. I won't blame Hollywood, and I might blame the school, but the lion's share of blame goes to the parents and the girls themselves for trying to get pregnant as unmarried teens--in some cases with a 24 year old homeless guy.

Whether or not there was actually a pre-conception pact to get pregnant, these pregnacies were intentional, not accidental. You can't solve that problem by handing out condoms--they just won't be used.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

You're victim-blaming. Isn't that an attractive argument.

Basically, there's hardly any information in this article about what the girls did or did not know about contraceptive use and failure rates. You assume telling them "use condoms" covers all they need to know. Do they know how to use one correctly? Do they know what features to look for--spermicide, country of manufacture, etc.? "Use condoms" is a start, it's not everything you need to know about contraception. In a school where the teachers are quitting over the principal's hostility towards providing contraception, do you, honestly, think that their sex-ed is going to be so in-depth as to provide anxious teenagers all the information they need? Hell, most adults who have used condoms don't necessarily use them right.

But, no, no room in this guy's book for accidents or improper usage. Or, yours, apparently:
but the lion's share of blame goes to the parents and the girls themselves for trying to get pregnant as unmarried teens

You sound like you STILL believe this was a pact to birth babies and live high on the welfare hog, so that's two major brain-farts right there. The point of posting this was that there was no pact or exerted effort by these girls to get pregnant on purpose. Through mistake, accident, improper use of contraception, and, yes, some bad judgment, seven-eight girls ended up pregnant. The pregnancies were not all intentional, that's the point of refuting this asshole's claim. He said there was a cabal. Not only has the only medical health expert related to this case said, "Uh, bullshit?" but the girls themselves have offered a more likely reason: after learning they were pregnant, they got together to be sure they helped each other and could still graduate. That can be easily miscontrued by parties interested in demonizing sexually active women as "OMG BABY CABAL." And it clearly was. We're talking about high school, where the average maturity level is in a race for the bottom with Adam Sandler (and winning). So, what's probable here: that eight girls in unfortunate situations were mature enough to seek mutual support or that the gossip mongering hoarde was completely accurate in reporting a sperm-sucking female squad of breeders? Hrm, let me think...

You can't solve that problem by handing out condoms--they just won't be used.

Well, if that's the case, what's the harm in handing out condoms? I mean, if they're not going to be used anyway, it's not like giving them out should make a difference. Having them available at the nurse's office won't really affect those batshit baby-seeking girls, will it? They'll still be going out and getting pregnant on purpose. Entirely to ruin the live of the baby-daddies, too, you know. Women are such cunts like that.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

You're victim-blaming. Isn't that an attractive argument.

If you consider these girls victims, then yes, yes I am. I don't consider them to be victims--they made their own conscious, stupid decisions, and now they're going to have to live with their decisions.

Basically, there's hardly any information in this article about what the girls did or did not know about contraceptive use and failure rates. You assume telling them "use condoms" covers all they need to know. Do they know how to use one correctly? Do they know what features to look for--spermicide, country of manufacture, etc.?

Can all be covered in a 45 minute class. "Use name-brand latex condoms, read the directions on the box, follow them. Ones with spermicide work better." The point is that here, we didn't even get to that point--the girls just didn't use condoms in the first place. If they can't read and understand the directions on a condom box, then let's start by fixing the problems in their English classes.

You sound like you STILL believe this was a pact to birth babies and live high on the welfare hog, so that's two major brain-farts right there.

The brain-farts are yours, I'm afraid--I never even mentioned the word welfare (I believe all these kids are in fairly affluent families and will have no need for welfare), and while there certainly was no pact, there certainly was volition. These pregnancies were mostly intended, regardless of whether or not there was some agreement of the girls before they had sex. Unless they were having unprotected sex with random homeless guys just for fun? My family dog could figure out that that's a bad idea.

I don't know where you're getting an "OMG EVIL WOMEN HAVING KIDS AND SUCKING CHILD SUPPORT FROM GUYS" vibe from anything I've written (I find the guys as blameworthy as the women, incidentally, and they should also be smart enough to realize that they shouldn't want to be daddies yet.) I think we can agree that teen pregnancy is generally a bad thing, mostly bad for the girls who are going to find that it's really hard to go to college, work anything better than a retail job, or find a decent husband (yes, some women actually want that.) But teenagers aren't so pathetically mindless that they can't make decisions for themselves, and the usual complaints about people too poor to buy birth control and too ignorant to use it don't really work in Gloucester.

You can have all the sex-ed lectures and free condom bowls you want, but they won't stop girls from having babies if the girls want to have babies. That's why the parents need to be impressing on them how important avoiding pregnancy is--and if they have a liberal attitude about sex, I hear Norplant is within most suburban families' budgets these days. If the parents disapprove of birth control, that's a separate problem, but it doesn't take a prescription to buy condoms, and Planned Parenthood offices are happy to give out prescriptions for the pill without parental consent (which is a good thing.)

I don't have much patience for the "sex is bad" right, but I also don't have much patience for the "everyone's a victim" left.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

What mystifies me is the assertion you keep coming back to, which many another conservative has, that these girls chose to become pregnant. The only proof you have is this principal's statement, and that has fallen apart under less than strenuous scrutiny. Literally, not a one of the girls has, to my knowledge, and certainly not the one in the refutation of the original article that I cited has said "I went out and had sex intending to get pregnant." Their intent has been inferred, not avowed or demonstrated.

So, while you say "Oh, no, there was no pact," you're still acting as if there were by assuming that a lack of a blood pact doesn't change the fact that eight girls decided, simultaneously, "Hey, having a baby right now would be awesome." And you're judging them based on that assumption. Where have they--the pregnant girls--said that each one fucked around looking for the first magical sperm donor? The only reference to fucking homeless people came in the, now seriously questionable, original article. When I say they are victims, I mean that they probably had sketchy understanding of contraceptives not helped by their school and now are being villified, wrongly, by some asshole who thinks they're vampires for sperm. Their good names are being tarnished and their intelligences called into question. They are victims of slander and libel, both, since it has come to light that the infamous pact is no more than a rumor of a rumor.

What it comes down to is: who is making the most reasonable assumption? (Since we have none of the facts aside from the inarguable.) Did eight girls separately decide that getting pregnant as teenagers was a good idea despite the enormous difficulty of raising children and go through some ridiculously far-fetched methods to accomplish this ludicrous goal?(Come on, dude: fucking homeless people? That has "urban legend" written all over it, since teenage girls can pretty much write their own ticket when it comes to sex.)

Or did eight girls happen to get pregnant through a series of mistakes/bad judgment where it comes to sex and are now learning the consequences of it and trying to make do the best they can? Why assume malice when ignorance more than handily explains things most simply? Occam's Razor, and all.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Can all be covered in a 45 minute class.

Been a while since HS, I know. But remember that condoms are the most commonly shoplifted item in drugstores because kids are embarrassed to be buying them. The point of sex ed isn't to show somebody how to use a condom (I mean, the interface is pretty straightforward, although making sure you get all the air out is non-obvious); the point is to make people comfortable around them, so that they don't feel squeamish about using them or insisting that they be used. Get you so used to hearing about them that you don't giggle and look away when they're discussed, and might even be able to talk about them calmly.

Similarly, the point of giving out condoms isn't that they're expensive; it's that nobody's going to get out of the back seat to drive to a CVS. You want to give out condoms not because they're pricey, but to make sure that the kids have them well before they are needed, because under all the pressure and the confusion of teenage sex, the last thing most people will think about is "OMG let's go buy condoms."

they were having unprotected sex with random homeless guys just for fun
I'm sorry, that's simply not credible. If it appeared in the article with anything less than a direct attribution to the person claiming to have done it, I would never believe it for a second.

I don't know where any teenage girl would get the idea that teenage pregnancy is somehow glorified in our culture, but if googling the phrase "culture of meaninglessness" is any guide, apparently it's still the libruls' fault...

[negativeq.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a high school bio (and health) teacher,
I will add this :
we are NO LONGER PERMITTED to even open up a condom wrapper in front of the students to show them what the damn thing looks like. We are not permitted to simply leave a box of condoms for them to anonymously help themselves to. We are not permitted to pass condoms out during the reproduction lessons in class. We are not permitted to give explicit instructions on HOW to use them either, but we can pass out pamphlets.
What are we permitted to do? If a student were to ask for condoms, we'd have to check the parental opt-out list. If the student's name is there, no condoms for him or her. Of course, no student ever asks for condoms anyway. That would be too embarrassing.
And why are the sex ed classes so restricted? Because many parents didn't want their kids knowing how to protect themselves.
I do feel that the teens are being set up to fail when tangible reproductive information is outright forbidden. I can tell them how the assorted birth control options work, failure rates, and where to get them, and quiz them on it till I am blue in the face. But they could benefit more if they can see what the items look like in a situation when they are not about to use them. Making the items taboo in school equates them with being "wrong" somehow, which is a confusing message to send. It's like saying, we don't want you girls to get pregnant, but we are going to make these birth control items be mysterious, inaccessible, and shameful, so good luck finding them! Don't get knocked up, okay!
By the way, Norplant has been discontinued in the US due to complaints about the sides effects.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Your input is invaluable. I wish to god before people would go "BUT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TELL THEM 'USE A CONDOM'" they would fucking ask the professionals who are directly involved in imparting the information to kids how they're even allowed to do their job. Because the way we go about sex ed in this country is shameful. Even where you CAN tell kids to use condoms (as opposed to the abysmal, misinformed, useless abstinence programs), you're hindered. And in ways kids pick up on. Why do you think they're embarrassed to ask for/about condoms? Well, the fact that the teacher can only hint at the fact they even exist like it's something naughty might be one reason. Really, this is like not using swear words around babies--'cause you're afraid they'll pick them up. But in the case of condoms, the idea is that you want them to pick them up if they're going to have sex, for fuck's sake.

[negativeq.livejournal.com]

And another comment -

When I was in graduate school, some of my colleagues became pregnant. Intentional or accidental, they never said. Another colleague made the remark that the pregnancies MUST be intentional because nowadays with all of the options available, no woman should get pregnant by accident. This person felt that if a woman has unprotected sex, then it was because deep down, or perhaps subconsciously, she wants that baby.

I don't buy that. There are several reasons why a woman might choose to have unprotected sex, and none of them good. She may have been in the heat of the moment. She may have been pressured. The birth control is too annoying. She might be that religious. Or perhaps she DID use BC, and something went wrong. That can happen too from product defect or improper use. No BC is 100% effective.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

This is the problem with moral scolds: they do not allow for human error. They have managed to refrain from potentially dangerous behavior and they therefore assume that everyone should be able to (and want to!). Then, if they can't and human error comes into it, well, human error apparently ceases to exist once you get to it past the "you're engaged in naughty stuff anyway, that was the real mistake." No one uses contraception 100% effectively without experience. Experience is hard to come by when people are withholding information (or the contraceptives themselves, as some pharmacists are doing when they refuse to prescribe to unmarried women).

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Whether or not there was actually a pre-conception pact to get pregnant, these pregnacies were intentional, not accidental. You can't solve that problem by handing out condoms--they just won't be used.

Source please?