"Cohabitation is no place for children" writes nationally-syndicated columnist Michael Gerson.

In a piece that appeared yesterday in the Washington Post, Gerson makes the case that Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, and others have made. Namely, children do best in two-parent, stable, married families. For Gerson, Wilcox, and many others, they would underscore the married part.

Let's take his argument in bites.

• Being a 20-something at present is different in important ways from previous decades.
• Two markers of this change are earlier sexual activity and later age of marriage.
• In the absence of what Brad Wilcox calls the traditional "courtship narrative"--dating, marriage, children--many young people have adopted a different life choice: cohabitation.
• Gerson concedes that the link between sex and marriage is a thing of the past. However, he believes that the connection between marriage and having children remains absolutely essential.

A gross oversimplification to be sure, but you get the point. Gerson also notes:

• Marriage is "the most effective institution to bind two parents for a long period in the common enterprise of marriage."
• Age of marriage matters too---Gerson calls the early to mid-20s the "marital sweet spot" for marital longevity and happiness.
• Citing research by Wilcox, Gerson says "serial cohabitation trains people for divorce...cohabitation by engaged couples seems to have no adverse effect on eventual marriage."

That's a lot to chew on. We are anxious to hear what you think. Put you comment shoes on and get busy.

Last week, The Washington Post examined Hollywood's recent fascination with 20- and 30-somethings who are still fumbling their way towards something resembling adulthood. Appparently, being a grownup is so scary that being immobilized is way better. Until: something big happens that grows you up fast. In Hollywood, that turning point seems to be an unplanned pregnancy. "Knocked Up," "The Last Kiss" and "Away We Go" are just a few of the movies Post writer Monica Hesse points to as examples of babies turning aging adolescents into grownups.

Is that really a baby's job?

Please note this day.

The fact that four of ten births in the United States are now out-of-wedlock did not warrant a mention in the New York Times--- the one-time newspaper of record; the newspaper that promises "all the news that's fit to print." The Times had plenty-o-space for a front-page thumb sucker on the thriving economy of Norway (!), there was space for an article on two women switched at birth, there was even space for a lawsuit brought by some disgruntled students because they didn't get the inaugural experience they expected.

Children? Families? Poverty? Fatherhood? No room for you.

To be fair, the Times did have an online piece on the report on nonmarital childbearing that was written by terrific Stephanie Ventura from the National Center for Health Statistics. I guess that reporting significant increases in nonmarital childbearing is now relegated to the ether rather than dead tree land. Pity.

I'm left to wonder...given this indifference from a media table-setting outlet like the Times, why should we be surprised at our nation's exceedingly high rate of unplanned pregnancy?

P.S. If you do want to read a good story on this issue, please read Rob Stein's piece in The Washington Post; or Mike Stobbe of the Associated Press.

Who says there's no good news in the economic downturn? A Washington Post article says previously free-spending young men are having to cut back on their efforts to buy women's attention with large infusions of cash. No more rounds of $15 martinis for said woman and her friends. No more Moet champagne, $250 dinners.

In other words, it's not as easy on the wallet to get a desirable woman smashed before taking her to bed. Too bad.

One guy said he is more likely to take his dates hiking now than to fancy restaurants. Gosh, they might even find they can have fun together sober.

Interestingly, another Post story is about the health risks for women who drink even a glass of alcohol a day. I wasn't particularly happy to hear that--but maybe not a bad thing for women to know when, instead of a round of Manhattans, their date orders a round of Budweisers.

Note from the blogkeeper:  This post by Laura Sessions Stepp is in response to yesterday's post by Bill Albert, the subject of which was a Washington Post op-ed by Amy Schalet.

The key phrase here, Bill, is "later teens." I can't imagine parents are offering bedrooms to 14- or 15-year-olds. But older teens? That's a different matter.

By the end of high school, a sizable majority of American teens are having sex. Is a pal's basement a better place than home? How about the back of a car? Or the Econo Lodge? We Americans spend too much time thinking about how to prevent young people from having sex (with mixed results at best) and not enough time helping them think about how, when the time comes, they can do it safely and in a loving relationship. I think Schalet is correct: Sleepovers at home, smartly handled by parents and teens, could encourage conversations that young people badly need before they go to college. And once they get to college, give them something to remember when they're tempted to sleep in some stranger's bed.

Amy Schalet is an assistant professor of socilogy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  In an op-ed piece today in The Washington Post entitled; "A Question for Sarah Palin,"  Schalet discusses the importance of talking to teens about sex and contraception and the critically important role that parents can and should play in helping their children make good choices about sex.  She correctly notes that teen pregnancy is not inevitable but notes with concern the recent rise in the teen birth rate.

Right on.  Amen Amy.  I'm with you.

Schalet goes on to suggest that the United States might learn some valuable lessons in preventing teen pregnancy from the Dutch.  Citing her own research, she suggests that a majority of Dutch parents are willing to permit their older teen children who are in committed relationships to spend the night together in their parents' homes, "but only when they see that they have formed a loving relationship, feel ready for sex, and understand how to use contraception responsibily."  Schalet notes, "by accepting teen sexuality within these parameters, Dutch parents can stay involved, monitor relationships, and urge proper contraceptive use."

Huh? Amy, you lost me in the Netherlands.

A new battle front in the culture wars has opened.  The issue is ICK -- in this case, some arguably salacious material in a sex ed curriculum. 

Here are a few thoughts: advocates on all sides of the sex ed battles have found sections in various curricula that they dislike.  As a general matter, the right dislikes sexually explicit content (the current flap) and the left routinely flags material that is medically inaccurate, homophobic and/or tied to religion.  It seems that almost anyone who sets foot into sex education offends at least someone.  It's tough terrain.    

So, what's a parent to do?  By all means review what your child's school plans to offer in sex ed 101.  If you find aspects of the curriculum that you don't like, consider having your child opt out of the class or perhaps just one session.  

But if you do so, keep in mind the following:

1. Some sex ed programs have been proven to help reduce the risk of teen pregnancy.  It is far better to have your child taught using an effective program than one lacking any evidence of good results.

2.  The overall popular culture that our children live in is very sexually explicit---and remember, it is on the watch of everyone reading this note that our culture has become what it is. Your children know and wonder about and hear tales of things that many of us old ones still don't get.  What makes you blush would hardly be noticed by the vast majority of teens.  Sorry.  It's the truth. 

3.  You are bound to find something that you do not agree with in any curriculum.  The question therefore is---on balance---does the curriculum seem right overall?  Does one disagreeable passage negate what might be 100 pages of positive material?  Analogy: Do you vote for a political candidate because you agree with him/her on every issue or just on most issues?

 4 . If you do remove your child from a class or curriculum, all that does is increase the burden on YOU to become a top flight sex educator.  Are you willing to do that?  To learn about the reality of teens' lives and the choices/pressures facing them, and then offer accurate, complete and compassionate advice?

Discuss.

When it comes to teen and unplanned pregnancy, 2007 was in many ways the perfect storm.  After all, 2007 saw the release of the movies Knocked Up,  Waitress, and Juno.  It was the year that brought the first increase in the teen birth rate in 15 years.  And it was the year of breathless, 24/7, coverage of 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears' baby bump to be. 

Cultural warriors and pop culture devotees have taken to their respective corners in interpreting the meaning of all this mishegoss.  We revisit all this due to the DVD release tomorrow of the Academy Award winning, indie-licious Juno. 

Generally speaking, the cultural warriors have been quick to pounce on the happily-ever-after nature of the movie--less than 3% of teen moms actually put their baby up for adoption, and exactly how many boys actually hang around in real life, critics wonder. As Laura Sessions Stepp of the Washington Post noted in a recent column, "Hollywood's attitude these days toward being young, single and pregnant by mistake: It's no big deal."

Pop culture devotees have been more sanguine.  This review from the Rotten Tomatoes website is typical: "Coming-of-age meets coming-to-term, in a film that is refreshingly frank about sex and love, pokes fun at the clashes between age and class, and, even more subversively...celebrates the pregnant possibilities of the non-nuclear family."

So, are both sides right?  Is this movie item number one on the teachable moments list or movie bad example?  Or are both sides missing the entertainment forest for the life lesson trees?   Your thoughts?