 "Photo:")
I was not shocked when I learned there was yet another twist to the soap opera that Britney Spears' life has become. I was, however, surprised that this latest development had nothing to do with the former Mrs. Federline, but instead her younger sister, Jamie Lynn (named after her father, Jamie Spears, and her mother, Lynn Spears -- seriously, she was doomed from the start).
If you have not heard, I suggest you come out from the rock you have certainly been living under and get this: Britney's little sister, Jamie Lynn, star of "Zoey 101" on the Nickelodeon television network, is pregnant at the tender age of 16.
Although I have yet to hear how far along she is or the sex of the baby, I'm sure it will all come out soon. I just really hope that is not what our society focuses on.
Realistically, I know we are going to hear all of the cutesy, mind-numbingly adorable little details about her baby showers and baby clothes (let's show our youth how fun it is to have a baby!), how she and her boyfriend (practically infants themselves) are going to take turns changing diapers and (God forbid) the advice she receives from her mother and Britney.
I hope that instead, this gives our country the chance to have an open discussion about teen pregnancy, the spread of sexually transmitted infection and sex education.
The Center for Disease Control estimates that there will be 19 million new cases of sexually transmitted infection in the United States each coming year, and half of those infections will occur in people between the ages of 15 and 24. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health "research, policy analysis and public education," states that in the industrialized world, five countries have annual teenage pregnancy rates of 70 or more per 1,000 women. Unfortunately, the United States is one of them (Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania and Russia are the others).
The Guttmacher Institute has also said, "The primary reasons why U.S. teenagers have the highest rates of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion among developed countries is less overall contraceptive use and less use of the pill or other long-acting reversible hormonal methods, which have the highest use-effectiveness rates."
If you disagree with where I'm going, do me a quick favor and think about this: I bet a good percentage of "tweens" in our society could tell you all about Jamie Lynn's pregnancy and how she plans to keep it and be a great mom, etc. But would those same children be able to name a way other than abstinence to prevent it? I know, I know -- it is true that abstinence results in far fewer pregnancies and STIs than any other method. But I can hear the young Nickelodeon viewers now: "Zoey's done it. Why should I wait?" (The young Ms. Spears herself is still a supporter of waiting until marriage, just like her older sister was, and look what happened to them).
Although I don't oppose abstinence being taught, as it is clear that it is the only surefire way to prevent undesirable results, I think it is incredibly unrealistic. Bottom line: Do we want sex education that actually educates young people about safe sex? Or do we want sex education that simply encourages young people not to do "it?"
Personally, I feel as though sex education needs to be comprehensive and honest, encouraging abstinence, but also educating on other effective ways to prevent the spread of STIs and pregnancy. The only real problem that I see with that is, how do we do that and not sound entirely hypocritical?
It certainly is a complicated problem, and I wish I knew exactly what kind of sex education would solve it, but I don't. However, I do know one thing that we need to steer clear of: sounding like the gym coach, Coach Carr, in the movie "Mean Girls."
"Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die! Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up, just don't do it, OK, promise? OK, now everybody take some rubbers."
letters@chronicle.utah.edu
