This article first appeared in the Calgary Herald on August 29th, 2008.

For more information go to: http://sexualhealthaccess.org/images/pdf/itl_sept_2008.pdf

What’s really behind decline of teen sex
By LAURA WERSHLER
With a newly released StatsCan study on Canadian teen sexual behaviour and a new book out of the
U.S. raising the spectre of sex-addicted adolescents, parents must be left scratching their heads.
Let’s start with the StatsCan study. It suggests two encouraging trends: teens are delaying
intercourse and are more likely to use condoms than ever before. But keep in mind the sample was small (only 80 youth in Alberta, about 900 across the country) and the “new” stats were collected in 2005.

Interestingly girls account for the changes. The number of young women (15 to 19) reporting ever
having had intercourse fell from 51 per cent in 1996/97 to 43 per cent in 2005. Young men stayed steady at 43 per cent. Although the female rate of condom use increased from 65 per cent to 70 per cent in 2005, the male rates remain unchanged at the higher rate of 80 per cent.

An August 27 Calgary Herald editorial (Don’t Just Do It) infers from the report that postponing
intercourse is attributable to teaching abstinence in schools. How did the editorial board draw this
conclusion?

Mounting evidence demonstrates that improved access to comprehensive sexual health education is
to be commended for contributing to such positive trends.

Another misguided notion in the editorial is “teens want and need the adults in their lives to set
boundaries, to establish rules and guidelines for behaviour”. How? By pushing abstinence.

The abstinence message comes across loud and clear in the new book, Hooked: New Science on
How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children which was featured in the Herald on Aug. 25. A quick
Google search reveals authors Dr. Joe McIlhaney and Dr. Freda Bush are ardent abstinence-untilmarriage advocates.

Their premise is that teen sex is bad for the brain because bonding hormones released during sex
can become addictive. Yet Bush says that when two people are in a committed relationship, that
addictive hormone is a good thing, ensuring a strong union.

This begs the question: Why do they believe that teens aren’t capable of, or shouldn’t have,
committed sexual relationships?

The authors of Hooked are not alone in this belief.

The tendency to discourage teens from having sexual relationships is at the core of the research of
American sociologist Amy Schalet. In a widely read paper entitled Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality?
Schalet compared the experience of adolescent sexuality in the U.S. and Netherlands based on indepth
interviews with teens and parents from both countries.

It is well-documented that sexual health outcomes for teens in the Netherlands are among the best in
the world (low rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections) while those in the U.S. are
the worst among developed countries. The biggest difference between the two cultures is that the U.S. dramatizes adolescent sexuality while the Netherlands normalizes it. American parents fear the “battle between the sexes” and perceive teen relationships as dangerous and therefore to be discouraged. Dutch parents expect their young people to gather sexual experience in the context of relationships and accept sexuality as a normal part of adolescence.

If teen sex is damaging our kids’ brains, or hearts, perhaps the actual culprit is people like the
authors of Hooked.

Couldn’t their dramatic campaign against teen sexual relationships lead to the very danger they
warn against — casual sex?

Their wellmeaning tips (eg. write down your commitment to abstain from sex, limit the amount of
physical contact) on how parents can help their children say “no” are about as practical as the Herald
editorial’s assertion that what teens want and need are rules to guide their sexual behaviour.
What teens want and need is clearly stated in Beyond the Big Talk, a study published in March
2008 in the journal Pediatrics.

This study on parent-adolescent communication about sexual topics found that parents who take a
rule oriented, domineering approach to talking about sex risk hindering open, productive discussion and
can expect more contempt, dishonesty and disengagement from their teens.

The encouraging message for parents is this: Teens want open, supportive parents who engage in respectful, give-and-take conversations that foster ongoing communication about sexual issues.
Parents who talk early and often with their kids about sexuality have significant potential to reduce
risky sexual behaviour and promote healthy sexual development.

Maybe the good news StatsCan report is evidence that more Canadian parents consider open
discussion about sexuality a normal part of family life.

LAURA WERSHLER IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SEXUAL HEALTH ACCESS
ALBERTA. SHAA IS WORKING ON A PROJECT TO ENCOURAGE PARENTS TO TALK EARLY
AND OFTEN ABOUT SEXUAL ISSUES WITH THEIR CHILDREN.