Hoarding is not collection development
Follow us on:
Categories
Making a Collection Count

Teens in trouble

Think About Teenage Pregnancy
Jakobson
1988

Thanks to anonymous submitter for this dated title.  They promised me that this was weeded pronto right after they “thought about teen pregnancy”.  When I leafed through this book,  I actually thought it was a lot older than it is.   My favorite chapter was titled: ” Why Teens Get Pregnant?” (Did you know the media is responsible and some girls “want to get pregnant”?).   But remember, the author wants us to think about teen pregnancy.  So if you are done thinking, here is your book on birth control:

Teen Guide To Birth Control
Nourse
1988

What surprised me is that this book is published the same year and it still looks way more contemporary than it should (wacky font not withstanding).  Props to the author and publisher on this volume!  Book is filled with good drawings and color photographs of actual condoms, diaphragms, pills etc and how they are used.  One of the featured birth control methods being the “sponge” which I thought was off the market and then learned that it has been re-introduced in the US.  (You learn so much being a librarian!)

So go forth and procreate (or not).

Mary

0 Responses to Teens in trouble

  • Why are the kids on the cover – with the exception of the poster – all black?

  • “Fat double chinned babies? I’ll take a pass.”

    “Preganancy” in this title loosely translates to:

    “Think about the social stigma that will be heaped on you as a young woman who is unexpectedly pregnant; the random reasons purported to your circumstances; and the lack of support emotionally, socially and physically you’ll endure while politicians wax on about you as if you’re an abstraction, not a person.”

    Yeah, girlie, think about that! Or you could just check out this other book about birth control.

  • The book may have many fine qualities.

    I’m struck by the “back turned, no faces” thing, though. Are we ashamed?

    One set of back-turned teens for the poster, yeah, I get it…. Another looking at the poster. Why? It’s like a cereal box where the leprechaun’s holding a cereal box where the leprechaun….

  • Wait–poster boy has his fingers crossed!!!!

  • I would bet that a book on birth control from the height of the AIDS scare would, in fact, have more accurate information than one published today, after 15 years of abstinence-only disinformation.

  • We actually had that very poster in the high school counseling office in 1986!

  • I was a follower of the work of Alan Nourse in my twenties and thirties, when he wrote for Good Housekeeping magazine. His nonfiction memoir, Intern, published under the pseudonym “Doctor X” in 1965, the year I graduated from high school, explained to me the logistics of a gynelogical internal exam.

    He was a prolific writer of science fiction, but I am not a sci-fi fan, so I haven’t read any of that. His list of titles at Wikipedia does not list a book-length memoir I am sure I read, so perhaps I am misremembering, and know only his short work for Good Housekeeping, or perhaps a long magazine article after he revealed himself as the author of Intern.

  • I like the fingers crossed bit, though I doubt many kids these days will understand that it ALSO translates to “well, I’m not ovulating now, so it can’t happen” and loads of other misconceptions about pregancy probability.

  • “Why teens get pregnant?” Is the next chapter titled “How is babby formed?”

  • I’m so confused by the cover of the teen pregnancy book…firstly the drawings don’t look like teens and I don’t know what’s happening. Are the two cool childless people shunning the one with baby and grocery bag…c’mon people, you could at least help her with her groceries!

    • I figured it was her mother and grandmother washing their hands of her.

    • I think they are friends on their way to the club for glamorous socializing while she heads home to diapers and drool.

  • Are there really only 8 methods?

  • Nourse’s Bladerunner is a good read: let’s hope it doesn’t turn out to be unexpectedly prescient.

  • I really like the poster in the second book. Wish we had it in our school nurses office. And, yes, kids today will understand the crossed fingers. My second grader uses crossed fingers all the time, although not related to pregnancy.

  • Don’t start arguments about abstinence-only ed. It’s not ‘disinformation’ and the evidence actually shows it’s working better than the comprehensive style. I don’t know why people don’t see it.

    • Because such evidence as supports it is so bent out of shape by ideologically-motivated people that we know we can’t trust it?

      The conspicuous supporting literature people cite, from the U of PA study, was based on a program that eschewed the moralizing content of other “abstinence only ” programs. It told kids to wait until they were “ready,” not until marriage, and didn’t portray extramarital sex as wrong, for example. It also didn’t do the whole “condoms are like Russian roulette” running down of contraceptive methods, which is stock in trade for “abstinence” programs. That was an “abstinence only” program in name only.

      My nephew’s school district in a well-off ‘burb gave two choices: “Abstinence Only” and “Abstinence before marriage.” I believe the first option was intended for Benedictine monks. When you see Orwellian abuse of language like that, you know something rotten is giving off that smell.

  • Mel M. and isrw: you may both be battling straw men (here’s Hymowitz on non-abstinence-onlyl sex ed, frex: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_4_8_02kh.html). As near as anyone can tell from the studies, all the sex-ed courses in schools are pretty nearly worthless.

    Attempting to fill a giant parent-shaped vacuum with a school course is pretty much doomed to failure; and Madison Ave.’s relentless merchandizinig of sex isn’t helping.

    That said: saw the ALB gals at PLA: they’re fabulous! You have to admire a woman who carries a flash drive with her shelf list on it at all times with her!

    • You don’t seem to understand the rhetorical use of “straw men.” Either I or the message I replied to could easily be criticized on various grounds, but neither is particularly guilty of building a falsely superficial or distorted version of an opposing argument. Mel M asserted that “evidence” shows abstinence-only education works better than “comprehensive” alternatives. I disputed the evidence usually cited, describing the flaws of the most prominent example in detail, and then remarked on the disturbingly Orwellian tone of the options in my nephew’s school system.

      Mandatory viewing for you: The episode of “King of the Hill” in which Bobby’s 5th grade class is due for its sex ed course. Abbreviated moral: those who assert that it’s strictly the parents role to instruct children in sexual health are *exactly* the same set of parents who are least likely to provide said instruction. Parents who’ll pull their kids out of sex ed do so because they don’t want their kids to learn about sex, not because they’re going to teach the kids themselves.

      (As with any school topic, parental attention correlates to a good education. Okay. Would you argue that calculus shouldn’t be taught by math teachers, but only by parents, based on such an argument?)

  • Man, that’s one fat baby.