Kiddie Condoms: The Newest Weapon Against Teen Pregnancy

Apparently, sometimes size really does matter. A Swiss company has created an extra-small condom aimed at 12-to-14-year-old boys. It's called -- wait for it -- the Hotshot.

The condom was developed after a government-sponsored study in Switzerland showed that younger boys do not use sufficient protection when having sex. The study, which was conducted on behalf of the Federal Commission for Children and Youth, interviewed 1,480 subjects ages 10 to 20. It showed that more 12-to-14-year-olds were having sex compared with the same age group in the 1990s. It also showed that because they are younger and less well-informed, boys in this group tend to engage in riskier sexual behavior. Drawing on an earlier German study showing that nearly 25 percent of standard condoms are too large for teens 13 to 20, the Hotshot's size was reduced from the normal 2-inch width to 1.7 inches.

The manufacturer -- Lamprecht A.G. -- has already stated that Britain will be a "top priority" if it expand sales abroad. The U.K. has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.

Teen pregnancy has been a hot issue in the U.K. of late, where the government has recently unveiled a new set of guidelines on sex education. Beginning in 2011, all state schools will be required to teach sex ed as part of the country's personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) curriculum. This means that children will learn about sex in the broader context of relationships, homosexuality, marriage, civil partnerships, divorce and abortion, rather than simply as the biological facts of puberty and reproduction currently taught in science classes.

Crucially, this new form of sex education will also become the norm in both primary and secondary schools -- meaning that it will be taught to children as young as 4. For children 15 and up, it will be compulsory, regardless of parental objection. (In a highly controversial move, the government is requiring state-funded "faith-based schools" to follow this curriculum, but also allowing them to teach what their religion has to say about, say, homosexuality.)

The head teacher at my daughter's school presented these new guidelines to a roomful of parents Wednesday morning. While I was not able to attend the meeting, I'm told that the mood was "anxious" and that a number of parents expressed shock and disapproval that the schools would contribute to "over-sexualizing" young children. (As someone whose daughter has a male friend who -- at age 6 -- was troubled to discover that girls don't have penises, I can't say I'm against having the little ones learn at least a bit of basic biology.)

And of course, this debate isn't confined to the U.K. Just last month we learned that teen pregnancy rates, which had been declining for more than a decade in the U.S., are once again on the rise there. More interestingly still, we also learned that abstinence-only programs -- long derided, at least in some quarters, for being counter-productive in combating teen pregnancy -- in fact work quite better than alternative approaches, at least with this very young age group (sixth- and seventh-graders).

All of which leaves us . . . where, exactly? What is the best way to combat teen pregnancy and should the government be in the business of doing it? Or should we all just run out and buy our 10-year-olds a box of Hotshots and be done with it?

As with so many things these days, we may need to wait until a health care reform bill emerges in its final, evolved state before we know the answer to at least part of that question. As things currently stand, the Senate bill provides $75 million for comprehensive sex education, while the House version provides $50 million. But the Senate legislation also had $50 earmarked for abstinence-only education. But as the president still hasn't released legislative language on his own health care bill, it's anyone's guess as to where we'll end up.

Follow Delia on Twitter.