It's a well-worn truism that teenagers take risks—whether its drugs, drinking, shoplifting, or drag racing down the L.A. River against their 30-year-old gang rivals. On the flip side of that truism, parents worry endlessly that those risks will result in life-altering consequences. And there's perhaps no risk more fraught with worry than when and how teenagers will become sexually active.
Boys and girls begin puberty early in their teens, an age established during our 200,000-year evolutionary history. Yet, this time frame is horribly mismatched with modern cultures and societies. Today's teenagers reach psychosocial maturity much later and build life plans centered on long-term education and career goals. Thankfully, in the 20th century we developed safe, effective contraceptives and prophylactics, granting us a chance to find harmony between our modern realities and evolutionary drives.
But do teenagers engage in safe sex, or are they taking unnecessary risks during their first sexual escapades? That's the question the CDC hopes to answer with its Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. This biennial, nationwide survey aims to monitor health-related risk behaviors among high school students. And when it comes to sex, the survey's findings are both promising and a tad terrifying.
Are the kids alright?
A graph showing the prevalence of condom and primary contraceptive use among high school students during their last sex act.
First some good news: About 90 percent of sexually active high school students report using either a condom or other primary contraceptive method. Condoms were the most used form of contraceptive, with about half of that cohort claiming to have used one during their previous act of intercourse. Sexually active students made up about a quarter of all respondents, meaning more adolescents are choosing to wait until at least their late teens to have sex.
Looking at long-term data, today's teenagers make better decisions than their '90s peers. When the survey began in 1991, more than 50 percent of respondents claimed to have engaged in sex at least once. Of those, 16 percent said they used no method of birth control while 10 percent said they had sex before the age of thirteen. In 2019, 38 percent of respondents claimed to have had sex at least once. Of those, only 12 said they used no birth control while 3 percent said they had sex before thirteen.
Overall, the CDC reports adolescence to be a healthy stage in people's lives.
Now for some bad news: Condom use among sexually active teens has decreased. While 2019's 54 percent represents an uptick from the 1990's, it is a headlong drop from 2003's high of 63 percent. Granted, condom use may be underestimated due to survey limitations. For example, respondents could only select one birth control method for their latest sexual act. This means they could have considered another method as their primary birth control while leaving condom use unaccounted for. Even so, 2019's tally still suggests too many teenagers take unnecessary risks with pregnancy and STD transmission.
Other troubling figures also emerged. About a fifth of sexually active teens report using either no contraception or using a highly ineffective method, such as withdrawal. Only 9 percent report pairing an effective birth control with a condom. That figure may also be underestimated as half of the respondents were teenage boys, who—let's face it—may not have the most reliable grasp on female contraception use.
Teenagers and people in their early 20s represent about half of the 20 million new cases of STDs each year in the U.S. So, while 90 percent of sexually active teenagers may be protecting themselves from unintended pregnancies, many still risk their health in other ways. This is why experts recommend teens pair a condom with an effective birth control. It provides extra protection from unintended pregnancy while adding a prophylactic element to hinder the spread of STDs.
Having the talk
What can be done to bolster positive trends and reverse negative ones? Continue advancing sex education and outreach programs. In the survey, the CDC notes the proven effectiveness of risk reduction education—that is, not fearmongering but comprehensive, evidence-based teaching.
Unfortunately for adults hoping to avoid awkward conversations with banana stand-ins, this means doing away with abstinence-only programs. A review of the scientific literature found that these programs contain "scientifically inaccurate information, distort[ed] data on topics such as condom efficacy, and [promotion] of gender stereotypes." It concluded that abstinence-only programs put teens at greater risk of unintended pregnancies and STDs. With the gap between sexual maturity and marriage ever-widening, such programs, no matter how well-intended, are simply unrealistic.
As Laura Grubb, author of the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines on adolescent barrier protection, told CNN:
It does not have to be a controversial position. There is no evidence that providing contraception to adolescents makes them more sexually active or promotes risky behavior. […] In fact, comprehensive evidence-based sexuality education results in adolescents delaying sexual behavior, using contraception at first intercourse, and having less sexual partners at a young age."
The CDC also recommends strong partnerships between communities and clinics. Teens should have access to well-trained care providers to provide the information and services they need.
Sex comes with risks, and it is impossible to reduce a teen's risk factor to zero. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Risk-taking is how teenagers develop their independence and form the identities that will carry over into their adult lives. It helps them experience qualities of the world that were hidden to them as children. But without comprehensive education, the consequences of those risks may stay hidden until it's too late. And without access to proper outreach and resources, they may not have the means to mitigate those risks.
As for drugs, drinking, shoplifting, and drag racing down the L.A. river for pinks, those are topics for other surveys and articles.
- How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More ... ›
- Risky Business: The Effect of Peer Pressure on Virginity Loss - Big ... ›
- Poor Memory May Predict Sexual Risk-Taking in Teens - Big Think ›
As part of a new exhibition, the worlds of culture and technology collide, bringing sound to the colors of abstract art pioneer Wassily Kandinsky.
Kandinsky had synesthesia, where looking at colors and shapes causes some with the condition to hear associated sounds. With the help of machine learning, virtual visitors to the Sounds Like Kandinsky exhibition, a partnership project by Centre Pompidou in Paris and Google Arts & Culture, can have an aural experience of his art.
An eye for music
Kandinsky's synesthesia is thought to have heavily influenced his painting. Seeing yellow summoned up trumpets, evoking emotions like cheekiness; reds produced violins portraying restlessness; while organs representing heavenliness he associated with blues, according to the exhibition notes.
Virtual visitors are invited to take part in an experiment called Play a Kandinsky, which allows them to see and hear the world through the artist's eyes.
Kandinsky's synesthesia is thought to have heavily influenced his 1925 painting Yellow, Red, Blue.Image: Guillaume Piolle/Wikimedia Commons
In 1925, the artist's masterpiece, "Yellow, Red, Blue", broke new ground in the world of abstract art, guiding the viewer from left to right with shifting shapes and shades. Almost a century after it was painted, Google's interactive tool lets visitors click different parts of the artwork to journey through the artist's description of the colors, associated sounds and moods that inspired the work.
But Google's new toy is not the only tool developed to enhance the artistic experience.
Artist Neil Harbisson has developed an artificial way to emulate Kandinsky by turning colors into sounds. He has a rare form of color blindness and sees the world in greyscale. But a smart antenna attached to his head translates dominant colors into musical notes, creating a real-world soundtrack of what's in front of him. The invention could open up a new world for people who are color blind.
Reprinted with permission of the World Economic Forum. Read the original article.
The United States of America, land of the free, is home to 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its prisoners. The cost of having so many people in the penal system adds up to $80 billion per year, more than three times the budget for NASA. This massive system exploded in size relatively recently, with the prison population increasing by six-fold in the last four decades.
Ten percent of these prisoners are kept in private prisons, which are owned and operated for the sake of profit by contractors. In theory, these operations cost less than public prisons and jails, and states can save money by contracting them to incarcerate people. They have a long history in the United States and are used in many other countries as well.
However, despite the pervasiveness of private contractors in the American prison system, there is not much research into how well they live up to their promise to provide similar services at a lower cost to the state. The little research that is available often encounters difficulties in trying to compare the costs and benefits of facilities with vastly different operations and occasionally produces results suggesting there are few benefits to privatization.
A new study by Dr. Anita Mukherjee and published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy joins the debate with a robust consideration of the costs and benefits of private prisons. Its findings suggest that some private prisons keep people incarcerated longer and save less money than advertised.
Mississippi Blues
The study focuses on prisons in Mississippi. Despite its comparatively high rate of incarceration, Mississippi's prison system is very similar to that of other states that also use private prisons. Demographically, its system is representative of the rest of the U.S. prison system, and its inmates are sentenced for similar amounts of time.
The state attempts to get the most out of its privatization efforts, as a 1994 law requires all contracts for private prisons in Mississippi to provide at least a 10 percent cost savings over public prisons while providing similar services. As a result, the state seeks to maximize its savings by sending prisoners to private institutions first if space if available.
While public and private prisons in Mississippi are quite similar, there are a few differences that allow for the possibility of cost savings by private operators — not the least of which is that the guards are paid 30 percent less and have fewer benefits than their publicly employed counterparts.
The results of privatization
The graph depicts the likelihood of release for public (dotted line) vs. private (solid line) prison inmates. At every level of time served, public prisoners were more likely to be released than private prisoners.Dr. Anita Mukherjee
The study relied on administrative records of the Mississippi prison system between 1996 and 2013. The data included information on prisoner demographics, the crimes committed, sentence lengths, time served, infractions while incarcerated, and prisoner relocation while in the system, including between public and private jails. For this study, the sample examined was limited to those serving between one and six years and those who served at least a quarter of their sentence. This created a primary sample of 26,563 bookings.
Analysis revealed that prisoners in private prisons were behind bars for four to seven percent longer than those in public prisons, which translates to roughly 85 to 90 extra days per prisoner. This is, in part, because those in private prison serve a greater portion of their sentences (73 percent) than those in public institutions (70 percent).
This in turn might be due to the much higher infraction rate in private prisons compared to public ones. While only 18 percent of prisoners in a public prison commit an infraction, such as disobeying a guard or possessing contraband, the number jumps to 46 percent in a private prison. Infractions can reduce the probability of early release or cause time to be added to a sentence.
It's unclear why there are so many more infractions in private prisons. Dr. Mukherjee suggests it could be the result of "harsher prison conditions in private prisons," better monitoring techniques, incentives to report more of them to the state before contract renewals, or even a lackadaisical attitude on the part of public prison employees.
What does all this cost Mississippi?
The extra time served eats 48 percent of the cost savings of keeping prisoners in a private facility. For example, it costs about $135,000 to house a prisoner in a private prison for three years and $150,000 in the public system. But longer stays in private prisons reduce the savings from $15,000 to only $7,800.
As Dr. Mukherjee remarks, this cost is also just the finance. Some things are a little harder to measure:
"There are, of course, other costs that are difficult to quantify — e.g., the cost of injustice to society (if private prison inmates systematically serve more time), the inmate's individual value of freedom, and impacts of the additional incarceration on future employment. Abrams and Rohlfs (2011) estimates a prisoner's value of freedom for 90 days at about $1,100 using experimental variation in bail setting. Mueller-Smith (2017) estimates that 90 days of marginal incarceration costs about $15,000 in reduced wages and increased reliance on welfare. If these social costs were to exceed $7,800 in the example stated, private prisons would no longer offer a bargain in terms of welfare-adjusted cost savings."
It is possible that the extra time in jail provides benefits that counter these costs, such as a reduced recidivism rate, but this proved difficult to determine. Though it was not statistically significant, there was some evidence that the added time actually increased the rate of recidivism. If that's true, then private prisons could be counterproductive.
