Intercourse has always been a badge of success for the young American male-rich or poor, Christian or Jew, white, black or Hispanic. And sexual bravado among boys is common. (Remember the “Spur Posse” at a California high school, where boys racked up points for sexual encounters?) But in neighborhoods where youngsters see little hope of any other kind of success, sexual conquests can become the only way of measuring up.
“The lack of family-sustaining jobs denies many young men the possibility of forming an economically self-reliant family, the traditional American mark of manhood,” observes Elijah Anderson, a University of Pennsylvania sociologist who spent nearly 15 years researching the issue for his book “Streetwise.” “Partially in response, the young men’s peer group emphasizes sexual prowess as proof of manhood, with babies as evidence.”
Like their female counterparts, young men who perform poorly in school and have few long-term goals are more likely to be irresponsible about reproduction. And those who live in poor neighborhoods generally view unplanned pregnancies more favorably and see getting a woman pregnant as a sign of masculinity. Surveys also show that blacks are more likely than whites to view pregnancy as a sign of masculinity, no matter what the living conditions of the groups.
Most fathers of babies born to teenagers are not teenagers themselves.
In Illinois, the average father of a baby born to a teen is over 21. That figure may even be low because less than two-thirds of all teen mothers report any biographical information about their children’s father. Experts believe that girls who do not tell are more likely to be involved with older men.
“Adults are having sex with minors, and we’re holding the minors responsible for their decisions and for having babies,” says Heather Johnston Nicholson of Girls Incorporated, a leader in programs to prevent teen pregnancy.
The social stigma once attached to a young adult male sleeping with an adolescent has all but vanished, aided by a society that congratulates older men who through fame, money and power attain younger women. A boys-will-be-boys-mentality still pervades, even when the boys cannot or will not be men about fatherhood. Also at play may be the influx of immigrants whose societies have long accepted older men courting young women.
At Gerard Center, a home for pregnant teens in Westmont, all but one of the young women got pregnant by a man in his 20s. At 14 or 15, most of the girls were going with guys 8, 9 or 10 years older. According to Illinois law, such acts can be construed as taking indecent liberties with or contributing to the sexual delinquency of a child, but rarely is anyone prosecuted.
The irony is that many of these older men whom the girls see as providers are the very ones least capable of that role. They’re going out with girls 14 and 15 because in most cases they can’t get dates with women their age.
“You see these creeps hanging around the high schools,” says Maureen Shields of the Courage Program. “They look like gonorrhea; I don’t know if they’ve got it.”
Just as most public attention has been paid to young mothers, so are most services geared to them. But that is beginning to change as young single fathers are increasingly seen as not only part of the problem but also part of the solution. In Chicago and elsewhere, activists are trying to turn around the lives of young fathers who have little education, few prospects and no long-term goals.
Teenage pregnancy costs taxpayers billions of dollars.
In 1992, according to a conservative estimate by the Center for Population Options, the federal government spent more than $34 billion on welfare for families begun by teenagers, up from $16.6 billion in 1985.
The center estimated that if all births to teens had been delayed until the mother was in her 20s, taxpayers would have saved at least $13 billion last year in payments through food stamps, Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the cash-supplement portion of welfare.
While it’s clear that teen childbearing affects the welfare system, there’s little evidence that it works in the reverse.
Some youngsters undoubtedly view welfare as a desirable safety net. Or, at the very least, welfare takes away one more disincentive to getting pregnant by guaranteeing a subsistence level of income. But those who work with pregnant teens, as well as teens themselves, reject the idea that welfare encourages teenagers to get pregnant.
The reason is simple: Most mothers under age 18 are ineligible for public aid. They either still live with parents who make too much money to qualify or the family already receives AFDC. In the latter case, any extra aid payment for the newborn is minimal (about $47 a month), and it would go to the teen’s mother, not to the girl.
So though many teen mothers receive Medicaid benefits and food vouchers from the Women with Infants and Children program, only a tiny minority receive AFDC-about a tenth of all mothers under 18 in Illinois.
Once these young women become adults, however, most go on welfare. And the costs to society pile up.
Welfare dependency is only one element of the long and dark legacy of teenage childbearing. Across the board, young mothers struggle more in life.
Pregnant teens, especially those under age 15, receive less prenatal care and have higher rates of complications and maternal mortality than older women.
They complete on average fewer years of school, are less likely to earn a high school diploma, and are less likely to go on to college and graduate study. Teenage fathers are similarly affected, although to a lesser degree.
Women who have babies as teens are more likely to have more children closer together. Because of this and their lower educational levels, teen mothers are less likely to get stable and well-paying jobs.
Ironically, teen mothers who marry may wind up in worse shape. With a husband to lean on for support, young mothers are more likely to drop out of high school and get pregnant again. And when their marriages dissolve, as research shows they usually do, the women are left with scant education and more children.
It’s not just the women who pay a price. Because teen mothers often fail to get proper prenatal care, their children are more likely to be born prematurely and with low birth weight. Children of teens are less likely to be fully immunized and more likely to be injured and to be hospitalized by age 5.
They face greater risks of lower intellectual and academic achievement and of behavior problems. They are more likely to be behind a grade, more likely to be assigned remedial help, and less likely to do advanced work.
And they are more likely to become teen parents.
Breaking this cycle is the goal of those who work with pregnant teens. With each generation, the odds faced by young single mothers and their children grow more severe.
Even in 1970, when the teen birthrate was 68.3 per 1,000 teen women (it was 62.1 in 1991), a large majority of expectant mothers were or got married and high-wage jobs were available for men with little education and few skills. Today, regardless of their structure, families headed by adults in their 20s are much more likely to be poor than in the 1960s or 1970s.
These economic changes have hit the urban black communities the hardest. Like their adult counterparts, African-American teenagers historically give birth more often than whites, more than twice the rate in 1991. The result has been a near disappearance of the traditional family in the poorest neighborhoods.
The childbearing gap between white and black teens has closed significantly over the last several years. Generally, teen childbearing declined from its high in the mid-1950s to the late 1960s, when it spiked up again amid the sexual revolution, hitting its most recent high in 1970. The decline resumed for about a decade before leveling off.
In 1986, the teen birthrate reached its lowest point since World War II, but then it started climbing. Whites have led the latest surge, with teen births rising about 26 percent, compared with 17 percent for blacks. Differences among white and black adults, meanwhile, have narrowed slightly over that time.
The birthrates fell for so many years for several reasons: The average age of marriage got higher, access to and use of contraception rose significantly, and abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973 (teen abortion rates have since doubled).
Why teen childbearing rose again after 1986 is harder to answer. It goes back to the pathology of pregnancy and why girls do little to avoid it. The disappearance of any social stigma certainly plays a role. But a lot of it has to do with just plain sex.
The sexual revolution that began in the late 1960s, combined with the waning influence of organized religion, continues to shape American society. Children are constantly exposed to sexual imagery in popular music. Most sex scenes in the movies or on TV take place between unmarried partners and rarely is contraception shown or discussed. (Think of how that’s changed since Rob and Laura Petrie slept in twin beds.)
More significantly than the media, many adults are engaging in the same kind of sexual behavior they want their children to avoid. Single and divorced parents are bringing home sexual partners often with little regard for how their children, even the youngest ones, may be influenced.
“These kids feel they have as much right to sex as adults do,” Shields says. “And they’ve seen a lot adults misuse sex without consequence, so they think it doesn’t matter if they misuse it.”
The proportion of sexually active teens has more than doubled since 1970. They’re starting younger and having more partners. And even though contraception use continues to rise, particularly among black males, it’s failing to keep pace.
So there are two ways to attack teen childbearing: Cut down how much sex kids have or ensure that they use effective birth control.
Or do both.
The most promising prevention programs are those that combine comprehensive sex education with sessions designed to instill self-respect and teach children how to resist pressures to have sex. From grammar school on, experts say, children must be taught in age-appropriate ways about their bodies, personal responsibility, the dangers of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and the drawbacks of early childbearing.
Critics of contraceptive programs contend that preaching abstinence and passing out condoms sends mixed signals and encourages some teens to start having sex. But research shows that in-school contraception programs do not lower the average age of first intercourse.
Michelle of the Courage Program remembers going to the doctor with her mother, Ravenna, when she was 14 before she got pregnant with the first of her two babies. Michelle, who was sexually active, asked her mother if she could get birth control.
Her mother said no.
“I thought she was too young,” Ravenna says. “When I was 15, I was going to dances and to battle of the bands and eating pizza. We never dreamed. . . .
“I never thought that kids were sexually active at that age. But now I know, now I know that they’re all doing it.
“I thought that saying yes to birth control was like saying go ahead and have sex. If I had to do it all over again. . . .”
Michelle, too, says she thinks about what she would do if she had another chance. Having Tatiana has robbed her of her freedoms and burdened her with doubts.
“I stay home more,” Michelle says. “I think about a lot of things more. I can do a lot of things in life because I’m still so young. But I feel old.”
She says she plans to continue with modeling school, go to college maybe and join the “weekend military.” Michelle says Tatiana gets good care from her and her mother, but she is still uneasy, still uncertain.
“I’m afraid how she’s going to grow up. I think maybe I should have put her up for adoption too.”
———-
Next: Bringing dads back.
