The Effects of Teen Sex: What Science Shows

Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE)[1] proponents downplay the harms of teenage sex. They teach that it’s okay for teens to have sex if risk reduction methods are used.  Their common claim is that “Having sex is a normal part of adolescence and can be practiced safely.”

Let’s explore what Science shows:

STDs & HIV. Worldwide, young people aged 15–24 account for nearly one-half of all new HIV infections. Globally, more than 1 million new STD infections occur each day, and youth are especially vulnerable.  The effects of STDs can range from bacterial infections to death. The human papillomavirus (HPV) has been identified as the main cause of cervical cancer, kills thousands of women each year. Other STDs like chlamydia can lead to infertility. The human immune deficiency virus (HIV) can cause AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), which can kill by weakening the body’s ability to fight other illnesses. Despite improved treatments which have extended the lifespans of many people with HIV or AIDS, e.g in America thousands still die from HIV and AIDS every year, where teen STD rates are at epidemic levels and rising. Prevalence estimates suggest that young people aged 15–24 years acquire half of all new STDs and that 1 in 4 sexually active adolescent females has an STD.

Teenage Pregnancy. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy, Single mothers, especially teenaged single mothers, are much less likely to complete their education or achieve their career goals. They (and their children) are also much more likely to live in poverty. More than 6 in 7 teen births are to single girls, a circumstance which is a well-documented predictor for poverty. Just as condoms cannot provide complete protection against STDs, no contraceptive device or method can provide complete protection against unplanned pregnancies. e.g in the U.S Teen pregnancy is the highest among industrialized nations and especially high in minority populations. Teen pregnancy leads to lower education and higher poverty for single teen mothers, higher crime, addiction or teen pregnancy for their children, a self-repeating destructive cycle.

Emotional Harm and Violence. Detrimental psychological effects. Teenage sexual activity decreases emotional health (higher risk for depression, suicide, regret, etc.) and Leads to higher rates of dating violence. A teen pregnancy often brings emotional stress to both the girl and the boy involved, related to teen parenthood, limited education, poverty, adoption or abortion. Sexually active teenagers are more likely to be depressed and attempt suicide. E.g in the US, one 2013 study found that overall, adolescent females with no sexual partners were significantly less likely to report measures of poor mental health than those who have had 1, 2, or 3 or more sexual partners. Similarly, girls who reported 3 or more partners were significantly more likely to report sadness, suicide ideation, suicide plans and attempts than those with fewer partners.

Lower academic achievement. Generally, sexually active teens have lower GPAs, more disciplinary problems and were less likely to attend college. Compared with virgins, teens who have casual sex had lower GPAs, cared less about school and experienced more problems in school. Teens who have sex were at higher risk of being truant and dropping out compared with teens who don’t have sex. A number of studies have shown that teenagers who abstain from sex are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college than their sexually active peers.

The Economic Costs. The US CDC estimates that there are 20 million new annual STDs, 110 million total infections with a total of $16 billion in medical costs. STDs among teens incur $4.5 billion in tax-payer funded expenses annually. Taxpayers save up to $19,000 every time a teen chooses abstinence and avoids pregnancy and STDs, with the potential of a cumulative savings of $11 billion per year.

Given the massive deleterious, economic and social effects of Teen Sex, the benefits of Sexual Purity cannot be downplayed.

Source:

1. Protect Child Health Coalition, (2020). The Failure of Comprehensive Sexuality Education(CSE) and the Case for Abstinence Education What the Research
2. Arina Grossu and Peter Sprigg, (2014). Sexual Risk-Avoidance Education. Family Research Council Policy Issue

---

[1] CSE programs teach risk reduction through condom and/or contraceptive use and may also teach abstinence

 

'Sex Work' Is Nobody’s Job

There are many organizations that push for legitimizing sexual exploitation as “sex work’’. Those advocating for full decriminalization present prostitution as a job like any other, but that’s deceptive. Systems of prostitution thrive on gender inequality, deeply rooted social injustices as well as force, fraud and coercion.

Systems of prostitution exploit vulnerability. Many people in systems of prostitution suffer from vulnerabilities and marginalization. Common adverse experiences that are pathways to prostitution include childhood sexual abuse, homelessness, and poverty. Other factors associated with prostitution involvement include a history of foster care, not having a high school degree, an immigrant, as well as “entry” into prostitution as a child (i.e., sex trafficking). Systems of prostitution prey on and exploit these vulnerabilities. 

Prostitution Increases Sex Trafficking. Brothels, illicit massage parlors, escort agencies and online platforms are overlapping systems of prostitution and sex trafficking occurs in all of them. Cross-national studies have found higher levels of human trafficking in countries with legalized or decriminalized prostitution. Research has also found 100% of convicted sex traffickers support full decriminalization of prostitution.

Prostitution is not a substitute for social security safety nets. Some people argue that prostitution is necessary because it provides income for poor and marginalized populations. This view turns prostitution into a faux social security system that requires the sexual exploitation of poor and minority individuals—especially women since the vast majority of people in prostitution are women. This is regressive, misogynist and dystopian. Governments should never reduce economically insecure people to a state of sexual servitude because they are poor.

Prostitution creates trauma. Prostitution is inherently harmful. Prostitution results in a wide range of devastating physical harms and/or psychological trauma to those sold in it. Sex buyers inflict grave physical and psychological harm on those they purchase for sex. The lived experiences of people in the sex trade around the world reveal the abuses, harms and chronic traumatization intrinsic to prostitution. Survivor experience and research reveal that sex buyers are responsible for serious psychological harm, as well as sexual assault, rape and murder. For example: Survey data from more than 10,000 men and 3,000 women across six countries showed sex buying was strongly associated with non-partner rape and using physical violence against female partners; Data from five countries found men who reported ever buying sex were more likely to report engaging in sexual violence compared to men who never purchased sex; In a matched sample of 101 sex buyers and 101 men who had not purchased sex, sex buyers reported committing more crimes including felonies, misdemeanors, crimes associated with violence against women, assaults, crimes with weapons, crimes against authority, burglaries, and substance abuse-related crimes.

Prostitution is a horrendous violation of people’s physical and psychological health and safety. The elements of Prostitution which is often paraded as “sex work” include: “routine verbal degradation; threat of physical assault and a wide array of physical injury; extreme risk of sexual assault and rape; being groped, pinched, licked, bitten and breathed upon by people who pay to use you; serial utilization of one’s orifices as a receptacle for male genitalia and other objects; likely acquisition of drug/alcohol addiction; likely acquisition of post-traumatic stress disorder; likely acquisition of any number of (potentially incurable) STDs; and possible premature death as the result of homicide.” Prostitution is abuse and should not be raised to the level of “work.” 

Thus there is need for deliberate efforts to deal with both the demand and supply forces of prostitution.

Sources:

• Arina O. Grossu and Sean Maguire (November, 2017), The Link Between Pornography, Sex Trafficking, and Abortion: Family Research Council
• National Centre on sexual exploitation (January, 2022), 10 Reasons to Oppose Full Decriminalization of Prostitution: Confronting Disastrous Public Policy Normalizing Sex Buyers, Pimps, and Brothel Keepers”
• National Centre on sexual exploitation  (May, 2022), Why Sex Buyers Must Be Stopped and How to Do It
• The Social and Legal Challenges that Fuel Trafficking in Women and Children

Recommended Action to Redeem MUK's Strategic Plan

 

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLAN 2020-2030

REFERENCES TO PROBLEMATIC TERMS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED

Page 17

GOAL 3: A PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED, EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE AND GENDER MAINSTREAMED INSTITUTION

Makerere University will be an equal opportunity and gender responsive institution with institutional cohesion- networking and transparency with clear Organisational Development processes. There will be prudent financial management, cost-effective and efficient student and staff support services.

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION GOAL 3: A PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED, EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE AND GENDER MAINSTREAMED INSTITUTION WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN AND MEN Makerere University will be an equal opportunity and gender responsive institution with institutional cohesion- networking and transparency with clear Organisational Development processes. There will be prudent financial management, cost-effective and efficient student and staff support services.

 

The objectives under this goal are:

iv. To create an affirming and inclusive teaching, learning and research environment for gender and sexual diversities

vii. To review the composition of all institution-wide, college, school and departmental committees to ensure representation along gender lines and for other marginalised identities

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION iv. To create an affirming and inclusive a favorable teaching, learning and research environment for gender and sexual diversities for both sexes (male and female) vii. To review the composition of all institution-wide, college, school and departmental committees to eliminate inequalities between women and men ensure representation along gender lines and for and other marginalised identities people in vulnerable situations

 

Page 9

The four goals are:

A PROFESSIONALLY GOVERNED, EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE AND GENDER MAINSTREAMED INSTITUTION

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION A PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED , EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE AND GENDER MAINSTREAMED INSTITUTION WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN AND MEN

 

Page 13

In her quest to provide the desired human capital, the University is committed to creating the appropriate environment and support to students to meet their academic and professional

aspirations. Teaching and learning will be all-inclusive integrating gender and special needs requirements.

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION In her quest to provide the desired human capital, the University is committed to creating the appropriate environment and support to students to meet their academic and professional aspirations. Teaching and learning will to ensure equality between women and men be all-inclusive integrating gender and those with special needs requirements.

 

JUSTIFICATION

Gender

“Gender” Definition #1 (common male/female definition) - The term “gender” is commonly used synonymously with “sex,” indicating either male or female.

Most people generally understand “gender” as in definition #1, as in male and female only. For example, in some countries, expectant parents may host a “gender reveal” party to reveal their baby’s biological sex as either male or female to friends and family. The term “gender” also often appears on medical forms and job applications to indicate one’s male or female sex.

However, in policy documents, using “gender” interchangeably with “sex” without defining it in the text to mean “sex” is highly problematic. This is because, by default, unless “gender” is clearly defined in the document in which it appears as male and female only, the term “gender” can also encompass the controversial World Health Organization definition for “gender” below.

“Gender” Definition #2 (social construct/transgender definition) - According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “‘gender’ refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and at-tributes, that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.” [1]

Therefore, the WHO social construct/transgender definition, which is becoming much more widely used than the male/female definition, makes the term “gender” highly problematic indeed. This is especially so since the WHO definition for “gender” is being used by many Western governments, UN agencies, medical and mental health associations, university “gender” studies departments, and, of course, by the wider LGBT community.

WHO’s agenda to have the term “gender” be the Trojan horse term to bring in the transgender agenda becomes abundantly clear in the following text found on the WHO website:

“Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health. It is important to be sensitive to different identities that do not necessarily fit into binary male or female sex categories.”[2]

The term “gender” was once used exclusively to describe biological sex (male and female) but is increasingly being used in UN documents to mainstream multiple controversial genders, such as transgender, bigender, pangender and more. (Facebook recognizes 50 genders.) To prevent the term “gender” from being used to advance these concepts, we suggest wherever “gender” appears to:

·         Replace “gender” with “sex,”

·         Define “gender” as male and female. This male/female definition can be proposed either in the text or as a footnote.

·         Modify “gender” with language establishing the context as between men and women. E.g by replacing “gender mainstreaming” with “mainstreaming equal opportunities for women and girls” or replacing “gender-based violence” with “violence against women.”

·         For Term “gender”, DELETE OR REPLACE WITH: “sex” or “male and female” i.e ‘‘Gender’’ defined as “male or female only,”

·         Define “gender” specifically as biological male or female only

·         For the Term “gender mainstreaming’’, REPLACE WITH: “mainstreaming equal opportunities for women and girls” or ADD: “to eliminate inequalities between women and men” or “to ensure equality between women and men” or “to ensure the equal/equitable treatment of women and men (or between women and men).”

·         On ‘‘Gender Responsive’’, ADD: “that ensures equal access to resources for women.”

Gender Responsive

“Gender-responsive health policies” have been defined as interventions that require a thorough analysis of barriers to women’s health, including other inequalities based on ethnicity, class, geographic location and “sexual orientation or gender identity.” (ChoiceforYouth.org)

gender and sexual diversities

Diversity can be a positive term that can be used to recognize people with diverse ethnic backgrounds and cultures, but it has also been co-opted by the LGBT movement. For example, at the UN, the phrase “women in all their diversity” has been used as a euphemism to recognize lesbians, and the phrase “families in all their diversity” has been used as a euphemism to recognize LGBT families. For this reason, this term was specifically rejected during the 2015 CSocD negotiations when States learned that the developing countries pushing this language intended it to advance LGBT rights. In fact, the U.S., in their comments at the close of CSocD 2015, complained that this phrase had been rejected in the outcome document and made it clear that they were disappointed because they understood it to recognize LGBT families.

other marginalised identities

Language calling for special protections for “vulnerable groups” is often intended to promote special rights and protections for LGBT people. Indeed, the term “vulnerable groups” has been used to refer-ence “sex workers,” LGBT groups, or “sexual minorities.” The term “marginalized groups” is also used in the same way.

For example, during the 2011 negotiations of an HRC resolution on HIV and human rights, the U.S. introduced language prioritizing protection for “vulnerable groups,” including “men who have sex with men, transgendered people, people who inject drugs, and sex workers.” When the U.S. delegate was asked privately about their delegation’s proposal the delegate responded that then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted this language because she was very interested in promoting lesbian/gay rights.

Replace “other marginalized identities” with “the marginalized.” Or with “people in vulnerable situations” or with “the vulnerable,”

---

[1] World Health Organization. (n.d.). Gender, Equity and Human Rights. https://web.archive.org/web/20150724151541/https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/  

[2]  World Health Organization. (n.d.). Gender, Equity and Human Rights. https://web.archive.org/web/20150724151541/https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/  

Children Rights at a Glance

 

Overview of major theories that underpin the position of children’s rights

It is important to understand the theories on children’s rights. The Child liberation theory originated from the United States of America, The Child protectionist theory started in Europe and the Child liberal paternalist theory is a hybrid theory developed by scholars in the western world. It attempts to balance the child liberationist and the child protectionist theory.

Child liberationist theory States that the vulnerable and helpless image ascribed to children does not represent their true nature. As such, the concept of childhood is a social construct that dismisses the perception that childishness is a biological trait. This theory speaks to the reinvention of one’s understanding of children and their emancipation from this helpless state.

Children are viewed at the same footing as adults and as a consequence, they enjoy the same rights like adults. According to the liberationist, ‘the segregation of children and the denial from them of adult rights, such as the rights to travel, work, own property, Privacy, confidentiality, information, association, sexual expression, vote, and take control their own sexual and reproductive lives, inhibited the child’s right to self-determination or to make choices as to how to live his or her own life’. This speaks to the default enjoyment of rights like equality, that accords them a level of participation. This is an indication that one cannot look at children from a futurist perspective where they are considered as adults and as such they possess equal rights. The children liberationist theory considers childhood as a social invention that leads to oppressive and unwarranted discrimination that excludes children from the adult world.

Child protectionists’ theory on the other hand, reiterates the differences that exist between children and adults in the context that they are not yet adults. The differences between children and adults inform the status of the child. The protectionists view childhood as a natural state that is characterized by both physical and psychological immaturity and vulnerability. It is argued that the dependency of the child is used as the reason to emphasize the need for protection, and to reiterate adults as duty holders with obligations to ensure that they fulfil the enjoyment of the rights of the child e.g Clean water, food, health, shelter, medicine, healthcare, education. The theorists perceive further that an attempt to treat children as equal to adults is catastrophic as it requires them to bear of responsibilities beyond their capacities.

Liberal paternalist theory balances the position of the liberalists and the protectionists. To this end, while the views of adults are acknowledged, the position of the children is ascertained on a case by case basis especially where the capacities of the children have evolved. The difference between children and adults is ascertained on a case-by-case basis, particularly with older children. Difference-centred theorists liberate theorizations from these dichotomies by providing a space where childhood is acknowledged as being an important stage in life without reference to adulthood. The debate between child protection and child liberation has been recognised in the formulation of children’s rights as welfare rights – rights to protection– on the one hand, and liberty rights – rights to participation – on the other. Welfare rights have been considered to be concerned with the protection of children, whereas liberty rights have been described as being geared towards a child’s self-determination.

An exclusive application of one or the other approach on matters children’s rights may lead to unintended and contradictory results. 

Protection Rights Vs Autonomous Rights

It is worthwhile to stress the need to recognize the status of the child as a rights holder. Children clearly have legal rights, but there is a difference between rights of protection and rights of choice.

First, let us consider child dependency vs. child autonomy. A “dependent” child depends on parents or others to meet the child’s basic needs, because the child isn’t capable of meeting those needs all by himself or herself. Usually, the younger a child is, the more dependent that child is on parental support. The term “autonomous” means independent, or free from being controlled by other people. An “autonomous” child is free from parental control, because the child is presumed to be capable of meeting his or her own needs.

“Protection rights” of this kind for children do not depend on the child’s being a certain age or having achieved any minimum level of capacity. These rights include such safeguards as rights to property, rights to physical care and security, protection from abuse, and rights to procedural due process. 

“Choice rights,” on the other hand, grant individuals the authority to make their own legally binding decisions such as voting, marrying, making contracts, exercising religious preferences, or choosing whether and how to be educated. The Minority status does not discriminate against children on the contrary, it “protects” children and society from the long-term consequences of a child’s immature choices. It also protects children from being exploited by those who might take advantage of their unique vulnerability. To confer prematurely the full range of choice rights on children would ironically remove the protection and the guidance they need in order to develop the mature capacity required to make informed meaningful choices.

Be aware of the Sexual Rights Activists who claim that children have a right to Sex, Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Contraceptives et.c

References:

1.  ACERWC (2021), Communication Procedures of the ACERWC and Child Rights Jurisprudence in Africa
2. Bruce C. Hafen (2016), Current UN Issues Regarding Children, Parents, and Religious Freedom

The Case for Family-Based Care for OVC

 Family is so central to a child’s healthy development and yet family separation (the separating of a child from his or her family) happens for many different reasons.

There are both “push” and “pull” factors that drive parents to place children in institutional care. Push factors are difficult circumstances—pushing families to consider orphanages as a way out of their hardships. Pull factors are real or perceived benefits—pulling families toward orphanages as a means of providing resources children may not otherwise have access to.

A realistic look at children living in institutions reveals that:

• Between 2 - 8 million children around the world are living in institutions and away from their families and communities. The range of estimates is due in large part to the number of residential institutions that operate outside registration systems or the lack of data systems to track the number of children living in care.
• Evidence suggests that the use of residential care for vulnerable children is on the rise in many countries, even while unnecessary and used in place of supporting family and community-based care.
• Most children in residential care are not orphans; according to the figures up to 80% of children in institutions worldwide have at least 1 living parent and most children who have lost a parent are able to live with the surviving parent, primary family members (such as older siblings), or extended family (such as grandparents).

The Financial Costs of orphanages

Studies have showed that the cost of supporting a child in an orphanage is 5-10 times more expensive than supporting a child within a family. The World Bank found that supporting a child in residential care in Tanzania was about 6 times the cost of supporting a child in a family or foster care. A study in South Africa found that a child in residential care was 6 times more expensive than caring for in a vulnerable family and 4 times more expensive than in foster care or adoption. A study by Save the children Africa found residential care was 10 times more expensive than community based care

The Limitations of orphanages

Impact of Child development.  One study found that for every 3 months a child is in an institution, they lost 1 month of development. The first 3 years of life are a sensitive period for a child where a child really needs that intimate, emotional, and physical contact to be able to develop, and if that is missing, there can be serious impairments. 

Impact on socio development. Orphanages separate children from their families and community which is essential to help create those healthy relationships. Infants can have difficulty forming bonds and healthy attachments that are really cornerstone for having trusting and sustaining relationships throughout their lives. There has been research that shows an Increased risk for children who age out and become adults later in life. They are usually unprepared for independent living. They are usually not able to cook for themselves or understand how to handle money or even follow their own initiatives because they followed an orphanage schedule their whole life. We have seen results of higher unemployment, homelessness, vulnerabilities exploitation, unhealthy adult relationships in marriage or as a parent, a really sad study from Russia came out that showed 1 in 3 who lived in residential care become homeless. 1 in 5 ended up with some kind of criminal record as an adult. And terribly as much as 1 in 10 committed suicide when they aged out.  It is really important that we think about and understand what these studies are saying.

 Are Orphanages ever helpful?

Stepping stone to reunification or other family. It can be as a stepping stone if a child is separated from their family, living in an orphanage or on the streets, this can be used for reunification with their family or another family.

Rehabilitation. Sometimes this is the best place for rehabilitation for children who have had extreme trauma. the best models are temporary and rehabilitative and all efforts should ensure that they are temporary and then support a transition to family care through renewed unification, a kinship care option, adoption, or other ways of long-term permanent care for that child.

Please note that this message is not to sound anti-orphanage. It would be a disaster for OVC if people were to simply step away from their support for orphanages but the focus is to prevent the need for orphanages in the first place and encourage investment in family care by supporting transitions from residential care to family-based care. It is not in the interest of the majority of children to be in residential care but in the care of families or family alternatives.

Source: The Transitioning to Family Care for Children Course of Faith To Action Initiative 

Uganda needs a Family Policy that is indeed Pro-Family

It is a common practice for the Sexual Rights Activists (Promoters of Homosexuality, Abortion, Prostitution, Pornography...) to craftily insert their language in public policies, as evidenced in Global, Regional and National Policies and we cannot take chances with the National Family Policy of Uganda. Despite a number of  engagements with officials of Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, efforts to look at the Draft National Family have been futile.   Someone would wonder why a Public Policy is hidden from public View.

Nevertheless, as a Country, our Family Policy's Non-Negotiables MUST include the following, otherwise we risk losing the future generation to be warped and propagandized by the Sexual Revolution:—

1. Promote Parental Rights rather than Child & Adolescent Autonomy
2. Promote Cultural and Religious Values and Morales
3. Promote Family Based Care for OVC rather than Institutional Care
4. Promote Pre-Born Baby Rights. Life Begins at Conception and ends with natural death. The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.
5. Promote Optimal Maternal Health rather than Sexual and Reproductive health and Rights (Abortion Rights)
6. Promote Rights of the Sick and the Elderly (Not Euthanasia)
7. Promote Family Strengthening (Minimize Family Separation)
8. Promote A Parents' Lead Sex Education, not in schools, not even in the community. Children should learn sexual information from their parents in the privacy of their homes, not from strangers in a public space.
9. Promote Child Protection Rights rather than Child Autonomous Rights
10. No mention of the word 'gender' but use 'sex' instead
11. Definition of Family must be inline with our constitution and Religious & Cultural Values
12. Emphasize that Marriage is between a man and woman (biological Male & biological Female)
13. The Definition of a child must cater for a Pre-Born Babies’ rights
14. The need for a government ministry of Family and Marriage
15. Promote Family Food Security and Livelihood
16. Establish abstinence (or a return to abstinence for sexually active youth) as the expected standard for all school children of minor age.
17. Abolish Tax-Payer Funded Women's Studies and Gender Studies Programs in colleges and Universities. These programs are propaganda creation machines for the Sexual Revolutionary State. 
18. Cease governmental promotion and subsidization of Contraception. The government has no business in promoting it or otherwise influencing people's reproductive decisions.
19. The need to abolish the Third-Party Reproduction Industry. Children are not commodities.
20. The need to combat Pornography in the Public Space
21. Adopt a Family Impact Analysis (like an environmental impact statement) for all new public policies and Programs
22. Promote Pregnancy Resource Centres
23. All Ambiguous terms must be clearly defined 

Your Comments are Welcome