How Young Men at High Risk of Fathering an Unintended Birth Talk About Their Procreative Identities

Abstract

Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. The risk is particularly high for certain demographic groups, including those making up lower socioeconomic status and minority groups. Few studies on unintended pregnancy have incorporated the fertility preferences of men, despite the knowledge that they do influence reproductive decisions. I explore how men who are at a relatively high risk for fathering an unintended pregnancy talk about their procreative identities in everyday life. I analyze the transcripts of focus groups conducted with young, socioeconomically disadvantaged African American and Puerto Rican men to examine how they talk about procreative consciousness, procreative responsibility, and pregnancy planning. Analyses demonstrate that men often have a very active sense of procreative consciousness and a lagging sense of procreative responsibility. However, men consider fatherhood to be an important role and look forward to parenting children. These factors may contribute to their relatively higher risk for fathering an unintended pregnancy.

Keywords

unintended pregnancy contraception father involvement parenting

Introduction

In current national surveys that examine pregnancy intentions, unintended pregnancies are typically defined as either those that were unwanted or mistimed (Campbell & Mosher, 2000). According to research in the United States, the prevalence of unintended pregnancy (UIP) is high and it is unknown whether the issue will improve anytime soon. The most recent analyses found that nearly half of all pregnancies are considered unintended at the time of conception (Finer & Henshaw, 2006). Certain socioeconomic and racial groups also demonstrate an even higher proportion of pregnancies that are unintended; women and couples with low educational attainment and with low incomes, for example, are more likely to have mistimed and unwanted pregnancies than others. Plus, Black women consistently exhibit higher rates of UIP and births in national surveys than White women (Finer & Henshaw, 2006; Mosher, Jones, & Abma, 2012), while Hispanic women have demonstrated one of the highest increases in the mean number of unwanted births between 1995 and 2002 (Kissin, Anderson, Kraft, Warner, & Jamieson, 2008).

Surveys have indicated that lower income, socioeconomically depressed, and some minority women may not use contraception as regularly as more advantaged women and may have different ideas about the ability to plan one’s pregnancies than middle class and White women (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Edin, England, Shafer, & Reed, 2007; Wu, Meldrumb, Dozierc, Stanwoodd, & Fiscellab, 2008), thus contributing to the higher proportion of pregnancies that are unintended. But one question that remains understudied is what role men—the women’s partners—play in this issue. Relatively few studies incorporate the preferences of the male partners, despite the knowledge that men do have an influence on reproductive decisions. Research has demonstrated that attitudes and behaviors of male partners are very likely to influence women’s intentions, determination of pregnancy as unintended versus intended, sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and fertility goals (Gipson, Koenig, & Hindin, 2008; Mason & Smith, 2000; Santelli et al., 2003; Stanford, Hobbs, Jameson, DeWitt, & Fischer, 2000). Men’s ideas and behaviors about these issues could affect intended and unintended pregnancies and consequently the discrepancies in proportions that we see among different groups.

Procreative Consciousness and Procreative Responsibility

A helpful point of departure for this task is to examine how men’s reproductive identities, values, and behaviors could theoretically increase or decrease their risk for fathering an UIP. William Marsiglio (1991) outlined a conceptual framework to better understand men’s fertility preferences, desires, and practices, which can be useful when studying UIP. In detailing men’s relationship to the procreative realm, Marsiglio coined the terms “procreative consciousness” and “procreative responsibility.” Procreative consciousness “refers to various ‘states of being,’ distinct from specific expectations or feelings of obligation, that reflect men’s cognitive and affective activity within the reproductive realm (e.g., fecundity, contraception, pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, and children)” (pp. 269-270). This concept relates to men’s views of their own virility, sexual prowess, desires for children (now and in the future), and ideas about fatherhood. These dispositions can be either latent or part of a man’s active awareness, depending on his circumstances and life context (Marsiglio, Lohan, & Culley, 2013). Procreative responsibility, on the other hand, “emphasizes males’ preferred and actual level/type of involvement as well as their personal sense of obligation in the areas of contraception, pregnancy resolution, and child support/child care, respectively” (Marsiglio, 1991, p. 272). Thus, this concept relates to men’s sense of responsibility and autonomy in terms of contraceptive usage (preventing pregnancy), proceptive behaviors (trying to conceive a child), handling a pregnancy (contributing to the decision of whether to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it), and once a child has been born, taking on the role of father.

Marsiglio argues that different facets of a man’s procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility most likely influence one another. For example, if a man perceives, prior to conception, that he will have little (or no) responsibility for any pregnancies he causes—a view that is likely to vary depending on his age and the nature of the relationship with his partner—he will probably be less concerned about practicing contraception and preventing pregnancy (Marsiglio, 1991). In turn, one’s attitude toward pregnancy (procreative consciousness) affects one’s behaviors toward either preventing or promoting a pregnancy (procreative responsibility). For instance, empirical research with women has demonstrated that ambivalence about pregnancy (procreative consciousness) is sometimes manifested in contraceptive risk taking (procreative responsibility; Lifflander, Gaydos, & Hogue, 2007; Sable & Libbus, 1998). Similarly, a man with an active procreative consciousness or one who is ambivalent about pregnancy may be more likely to discourage or dismiss the need for contraception (procreative responsibility).

Marsiglio posits that men’s procreative identities are in general enduring in nature but may change in response to what he calls “procreative turning points” (e.g., pregnancy scare, abortion) and “nonprocreative turning points” (e.g., job loss, medical condition; Marsiglio et al., 2013). Therefore, life history matters. He also suggests that different groups of men in the United States may have different senses of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility owing to their different sets of circumstances, values, and desires. For instance, men with more traditional views toward gender roles may have a more active procreative consciousness in terms of fecundity and fertility than less traditional males. And men with limited economic opportunities, regardless of their gender role attitudes, may be reluctant to develop a strong sense of procreative responsibility if they perceive that they will be unable to fulfill expectations associated with their partner, father, and sex role identities (Marsiglio, 1991).

The issue of the “opportunity costs” (the opportunity forgone in the choice of one expenditure over another) of having children must be recognized in any discussion of pregnancy intention and desires to help explain why procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility may vary between groups of men (Elkind, 1970). The opportunity cost of going through with a UIP will vary according to a man’s or couple’s experiences and goals. For example, a middle-class college student understandably has “more to lose” and less to gain if he or she continues with an unexpected pregnancy than does a lower income man or woman of a similar age who cannot afford to be in school and/or working at a low-paying job (or not working at all; see Adamczyk, 2008). The opportunities the poor forgo when they have kids early have been empirically shown to be fewer and less significant than for middle-class individuals who bear children early (Graefe & Lichter, 2002; Manlove, 1998).

Another complicating factor related to the opportunity costs of pregnancy is the esteem that some men may get from their sense of procreative consciousness. More specifically, if men associate procreative prowess with masculinity—a practice that has been observed in other cultures (Gilmore, 1990; Hill, Stycos, & Back, 1959)—they are likely to have a strong sense of procreative consciousness but may not have a very strong sense of procreative responsibility. Researchers do suggest that men gain esteem and masculinity from their sexual organs and ability to perform sexually (Messerschmidt, 2005; Thomson, 2006). Therefore, although the strength of this relationship in the United States is at present unclear, it is likely that restricted access to the conventional cultural status symbols associated with employment may encourage economically disadvantaged males to perceive paternity (and sex) as an alternative means to establish their masculinity and enhance their status within their class or community (Anderson, 1989; Benoit, 1997; Majors & Billson, 1992; Marsiglio, 1991).

Marsiglio’s concepts of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility thus give us a new avenue with which we can study the influence that men have on UIP and reproduction in general. Studies imply that men who have a high sense of procreative consciousness but a low sense of procreative responsibility are more likely to be involved in a UIP and birth than other men (See Anderson, 1989; Benoit, 1997; Furstenberg, 1987; Gilmore, 1990; Hill et al., 1959; Majors & Billson, 1992; Marsiglio, 1991; Marsiglio & Pleck, 2005; Morrell & Swart, 2005; Nelson, 2004).

Based on the previously cited gaps in the UIP literature as well as a theoretical framework describing men’s views of fertility (Marsiglio, 1991), I have two research questions for this article: How do men who are at a relatively high risk for fathering a UIP birth talk about procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility in everyday life? And more broadly, do men’s senses of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility affect UIP rates?

Method

Sampling

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a multifaceted project, known as the Philadelphia Hartford Research and Education on Sexual Health and Communication (PHRESH) project, on sexual health in young people. PHRESH was a 5-year (2003 to 2008) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded cooperative agreement project. The original impetus for starting PHRESH was to examine condom and contraceptive use in a population at high risk for UIP and sexually transmitted infections. The project was conducted in two American cities: Philadelphia, PA and Hartford, CT and the target population was sexually active 18- to 25-year-old men and women who identified as either African American or Puerto Rican.

In both cities, potential participants were identified through outreach activities conducted at community agencies that serve large numbers of the target population, adult education sites, and in PA, colleges. Recruiters also engaged in active recruitment. This involved going out on the streets and to various community sites, describing the study, encouraging participation, and either conducting screenings or providing a phone number for screening and appointment setting. If the individual was eligible and desired to participate in the PHRESH project, the recruiter obtained contact information from the participant and set up a future meeting time.

PHRESH was a mixed methods project with several different components; this article centers on the focus group portion of PHRESH. There were four focus groups conducted during the part of the project on which I’m focusing: two with African American young men (one in Hartford, one in Philadelphia), and two with Puerto Rican young men (one in Hartford, one in Philadelphia). All participants were aged 18 to 25 years and by virtue of the fact that they were recruited from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in the two cities, all are presumed to be of lower/working class backgrounds. Each focus group contained between 8 and 12 members and was conducted in 2006. I did not personally conduct the focus groups; they were conducted by trained PHRESH interviewers.

Data Collection Methods

While the focus group participants were allowed wide latitude regarding topics of discussion, the moderators followed a focus group discussion guide that included questions such as the following:

What are the good/bad things about having kids?

Some people say it is always important to plan when you are going to have a baby, while other people say that whenever the baby comes is the right time to have a baby. What do you think?

Many teens get pregnant. Do teens get pregnant/get their partners pregnant because they are not careful or are there other reasons?

Tell us about baby mama/daddy relationships. How do these relationships affect people’s lives?

The focus group participants were not asked directly to define or speak about their procreative consciousness or procreative responsibility. The framework was applied post hoc. However, I was interested to see if this framework fit the participants’ discussion about their procreative identities.

Analysis

Using Marsiglio’s framework, I examined how the men speak about their sense of procreative consciousness, procreative responsibility, and pregnancy planning in their everyday lives. Thus, my coding was theoretically driven. In order to ensure that the codes captured similar information across all four transcripts, I divided the main codes of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility into the smallest possible component subcodes as identified by Marsiglio and I provided a simple definition of each subcode in my coding software. To capture any discussion about procreative consciousness, I looked for mentions of virility (including talk of masculinity and the ability to impregnate a woman), desires for children (both now and in the future), and ideas about fatherhood (what fatherhood will be like, how he would like to enact the role, and so on.). These three ideas (virility, desires for children, and ideas about fatherhood) constituted my procreative consciousness subcodes. Contraceptive usage (both male- and female-controlled methods, past and present use), handling a pregnancy (how he reacted to the news, if abortion or adoption was considered), and fatherhood roles and responsibility (how he does or how one should enact the fatherhood role), were my three procreative responsibility subcodes. I also looked for mentions of pregnancy planning and UIP, which both were their own separate mother codes. Each of six procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility subcodes and the two additional mother codes were meant to be self-evident ideas and easily defined across the different focus groups; memos were also used to ensure that codes were being applied consistently across the transcripts.

I stratified the focus groups both by location (Philadelphia vs. Hartford) and racial classification of the members (African American vs. Puerto Rican) but found no substantial differences in the stratification and thus the results will be aggregated across the four focus groups. The transcripts were coded and analyzed for themes using MaxQDA software (VERBI GmbH, 2010). I coded each transcript twice to ensure that my coding scheme was valid and reliable. This analysis represents a thematic reconstruction of the young men’s responses to the interview questions.

Results

Procreative Consciousness

In the PHRESH focus groups, many of the participants discussed issues related to procreative consciousness, although not necessarily using the same terms as Marsiglio. I applied the constructs of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility post hoc; they were not used to develop the focus group questions or probes. Despite this, I was able to examine how respondents discussed their own personal experiences related to procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility as well as how peers in their social networks contend with these issues.

Sexual Prowess

A prominent aspect of the respondents’ procreative consciousness was the (often acute) sense of their sexuality and sexual prowess. Among these men, a man’s feeling of virility and his knowledge of his ability to impregnate a woman was often awakened through personal experience. The participants frequently spoke of their sexual awakenings and “needing” to satisfy their urges through intercourse. Many men admitted that the ability to procreate/cause pregnancy was not necessarily top-of-mind when they were engaging in sexual activity. They were often more concerned about pleasure. A young man remarked,

A lot of times you’re not planning for the future while you’re doing the thing at the moment because you’re not thinking about the consequences. You just got your mind in the passion and you’re trying to get it done and get out.

The young men said that they often did not consider the possibility of pregnancy until they experienced a “pregnancy scare,” actually impregnated a partner, or had a vicarious experience through a friend or loved one. Even when they or their peers did acknowledge that pregnancy is a likely result of unprotected sex, they did not always believe that they were at risk. These men stated that young people generally think they are “invincible” and that while they may know abstractly that sex causes pregnancy, they do not think it will happen to them.

In addition to speaking about the primacy of pleasure over procreation, certain focus group participants spent a great deal of time talking about how much easier it is to get women to “give it up” (have sex) than it used to be. Consequently, they were able to have more sexual partners now. Of course, as these men are 18 to 25 years of age, it is unclear to what they are comparing their situation. It is doubtful that they are referencing their “younger days;” thus, this perception of it being easier to bed a woman now compared with “then” may be an idea that is perpetuated by peers, older siblings, or parents.

Participant 1:

Yeah, I don’t think it really is men, nowadays. Nowadays, you don’t even ask for it and they be giving it to you.

Participant 2:

Yeah, it ain’t like before. It used to be that you go to a club and you had to work to get some ass. Now you go to a club and all you have to do is buy a chick a drink and you gonna walk home with her.

Desires for Children and Ideas About Fatherhood Roles

While not always thinking about the possibility of pregnancy during the heat of the moment, in general the young male participants in the PHRESH focus groups did think about having children in the future, if they had not already fathered a child (or children). And their talk was mostly positive. Only a few men stated that they did not want to have children or spoke negatively about child-rearing. The childless participants seemed to be especially hopeful about raising kids and talked about what a father–child relationship would be like. In a discussion surrounding the positive aspects of having kids, one participant remarked:

Kids are just like really funny. And they’re real honest . . . and I see so much potential in kids. . . . You know, I want to have a little son and I want to raise him right, teach him everything. The world is so crazy right now, and I want my son to change the world. . . . I want to just teach them and give them everything they need, because I don’t want them out here doing crazy stuff. I want them to be a leader, to change things. I just love kids because they have just so much to give to the world.

Another young man explained how having children can keep one off the streets and out of trouble:

Moderator:

Being a father gives you a sense of pride in yourself?

Participant:

It gives you mind.

Moderator:

When you say, “gives you mind,” what does that mean?

Participant:

It means that now is not the time to be on the streets hustling and stuff like that. You got to think about your kid first, you know? You got to be there, you don’t wanna be locked up, ‘cause the kids is growing up without you.

Moderator:

So having kids forces you to settle down.

Participant:

Yeah.

Moderator:

Have responsibility?

Participant:

Definitely. Responsibility.

These young men either expected that having kids will make them more mature and better men or had witnessed that transformation first hand. As one gentleman said, “[Having kids is the] best—it’ll mature you quick.” Another participant remarked, “If I was a father, I would probably step my game up too. You know, get more jobs, increase my dough [money]. I would probably want them to have the best along the way.” These men also looked forward to teaching the next generation and having the ability to watch “a part of them” in another human being. Fatherhood seemed to be a central part of their identity. One participant remarked, “I could assume having a kid could mean the world to a person.” They saw having children as a way to shape the future of our society—to create people who do good for the world—as well as to shape their own personal futures. Children were a strong motivating force for these men; they help them stay out of the streets, stay out of trouble, and focus on steady employment.

Overall, the responses from the young men regarding the positive and negative aspects of having children and what they believed fatherhood to mean indicated that fatherhood is a role to which they aspired. It is a role that they hoped to fulfill at some point in the future (if they were not already raising children) and from which expected to receive boundless enjoyment and fulfillment. For those who already had children, they hoped to be (or continue to be) good fathers. They indicated that it may provide a great purpose in life for them, something of which they can be proud. In this way these men’s procreative consciousness can be said to be very high and clear, particularly in terms of sexuality, desires for children, and ideas about fatherhood.

Procreative Responsibility

While procreative consciousness deals with the more cognitive and emotional aspects of men’s procreative identities, procreative responsibility looks at the related behaviors that men engage in as a result of these identities. More concretely, this concept relates to men’s sense of responsibility and autonomy in terms of contraceptive usage (preventing pregnancy), handling a pregnancy (contributing to the decision of whether to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it), and once a child has been born, taking on the role of father.

General Thoughts About Procreative Responsibility

As mentioned, most of these men spoke of having a sexual awakening long before they were able to accurately perceive the risk of impregnating their partners and certainly much before they were able to take responsibility for this fact. Several men asserted the idea that procreative responsibility kicked in after the first pregnancy or first child is born. They believed that often it is not something that is thought about until there are real consequences; for instance, one does not use contraception until one personally sees that a pregnancy can result from unprotected sex. As one young man remarked,

A lot of times, especially when you’re young, when you start having sex and stuff like that, you don’t seem to plan. It’s just something that happens. You’re alone and then it takes place, and then it keeps taking place and then next thing you know, she pops up pregnant. Prevention techniques usually pop up after the second or the third baby.

This young man described having a desire to have sex with his partner before recognizing or admitting the real risk of pregnancy that can result from unprotected sex (or perhaps at least before he takes it seriously). Several participants said that young people are “ignorant,” “immature,” and “irresponsible” when it comes to sex and babies.

In addition to a delayed sense of responsibility for preventing pregnancy, several participants discussed what “being ready” for fatherhood meant, mentioning both mental/emotional preparation as well as financial/material preparation. At the same, these men acknowledged that it may be virtually impossible to be completely ready for a new baby. To the latter point, one young man remarked,

No matter what your situation is, you can plan for it [but] it’s not going to go anything like you planned. . . . You could have the highest paying job in the world, graduate, or whatever, still have a baby and still not be ready for it. It’s all in the mind, whether you’re ready to be a parent or not.

This was the majority opinion. On the other hand, one man said that one is not ready to become a father until he has his own place and a good job. Having a child should not even be a thought that crosses one’s mind until that happens.

If you ain’t financially ready and you ain’t got a place to stay, or you still living in your mother’s basement and playing your Xbox and you don’t have a job . . . didn’t finish high school, don’t have no type of educational skills, you could [talk about having a baby] till your blue in the face and you still not ready for the kid.

This participant as well as a handful of others had clear ideas about when young men should think about having children, pointing to a relatively strong desire to prevent pregnancy from occurring until one is ready. Overall, though, most of the men felt that one can never be “truly ready” for a new child.

Involvement in Contraception

Most contraceptive methods on the market today are made to be used by women. The condom is one of the only male-controlled methods. Thus, the focus within the topic of men’s involvement in contraception will be on condoms. The men in the focus groups were split regarding their feelings about condoms. Some said that they usually or always “tried” to use condoms during intercourse (e.g., “I like to try to use condoms all the time. Rarely do I not use a condom”) while others had quite a disdain for condoms (in response to the moderator asking if the participants would wear condoms if their partner asked them to:

I put one on but then I hit it so hard that shit would break and I keep fucking her like that. Fuck it!” or

Me personally, I don’t even use no condoms! I don’t even use no nothing, just get it in. Pull it out! [laughs].

It is also possible that these comments reflect not so much a disdain for condoms but a desire to portray oneself as the more powerful partner in a relationship; they depict the interaction as refusing to acquiesce to his partner’s desires for protection.

There was an interesting theme regarding the association between condom use and relationship type; on the one hand, the men seemed to be more respectful of their long-term/committed partners’ desires to use contraception (if they wanted to) while on the other hand the men seemed to be less worried about using condoms with these same women (i.e., they did not fear contracting a sexually transmitted infection from their committed partners and perhaps were less worried about getting her pregnant as they would not mind having a child with her). The men spoke more clearly about ensuring condom use with casual partners and/or their “side pieces.” In these instances the participants discussed the importance of using condoms to protect themselves (as opposed to protecting the women). Some mentioned not knowing “where the women had been” and not wanting to create a child with her. Overall, though, it does appear that the main form of contraception used by these men and their partners were condoms (if anything was used at all). There was very little talk about the female partners using birth control pills and no discussion of IUD, contraceptive patches, depo provera, and so forth. Of course, it is important to note that the men may not have been aware of or asked their female partners if they were using any form of contraception. The women could have been using a form of which the men were not aware.

Although this was not the majority opinion, a handful of men put the entire responsibility for preventing pregnancy on their female partners. In this context, these men signified that if a condom was to be used during sex, the woman had to insist on its use; otherwise the men would not offer to wear one.

Participant:

A lot of people be getting pregnant because girls ain’t on top of their job. Sometimes when you get ready for sex, you just whip it out and try to put it in there and they don’t try and stop you. If a female don’t want to get pregnant, it’s their job to be like, “hold up, you gonna throw a jimmy [condom] on that?” . . . It’s their job to be on top of that.

Moderator:

But isn’t it your job too?

Participant:

It’s our job too but. . . . They are the ones that are gonna get pregnant, regardless of whatever, so it be their job.

Pregnancy Resolution

Overall, the men in the focus groups were generally antiabortion and pro-life.

I don’t believe in abortion. It’s one of those things that Puerto Ricans don’t believe in. You get an abortion, don’t talk to me, turn your back around and don’t say nothing. . . . That’s what I say. I hate girls that do abortion. I understand if . . . there’s medical problems and stuff like that, then it’s okay, but if you do an abortion just because you want to do an abortion and stuff like that, it’s wrong.

If they impregnated a woman, they were reportedly willing to step up and take responsibility for the pregnancy and impending fatherhood. However, there were a few participants who made a clear distinction between impregnating so-called “jump offs” (casual partners) and girlfriends. They believed that if a casual partner became pregnant, they would encourage her to end the pregnancy but not so with a girlfriend. However, in response to such talk, another participant in the group retorted: “If you was man enough to put a penis in there . . . you man enough to take care of the kid.” There was not much discussion of pregnancy resolution outside of this distinction. Pregnancies that were discussed either were miscarried or carried to term. The men who had children portrayed a completed pregnancy as a foregone conclusion; no one mentioned discussing the various pregnancy resolution options with their partners. They believed that if one was to impregnate a woman, he should become a father. It is of course possible that some of these men’s partners obtained abortions without their knowledge or consent.

Responsibility for Child Care and Child Support

The element of procreative responsibility that was most often talked about was that of child care and child-rearing. Even if many of the men did not take responsibility for preventing pregnancy or planning pregnancy, if a pregnancy did occur, most felt a strong moral obligation to help care for the child, regardless of the circumstances in which it came about. One man said,

If it’s yours, fight for it. Take your kid. Be a man. . . . If the DNA test come out and says it’s yours, you gotta step up. If Maury [Povich, talk show host whose shows often feature paternity tests] jump out of the screen and say, “You ARE the father!” then yo’, you gotta step up. You got to take care of your child. What I’m saying is fight for your kid, that’s all. Take your kid, be with your kid.

Although the majority of men held a similar viewpoint about paternal responsibility, the opinion was not unanimous. A minority perspective was that the amount of paternal responsibility hinged on the context in which the baby was created and/or the type of women who was carrying the child. If a young man impregnated a casual partner (a “jump off”), it was not always necessary to be accountable for that pregnancy and baby.

Moderator:

What if it’s a jump that gets pregnant by you?

Participant 1:

No way, no way.! Naw, you don’t want no kid with no jump!

Participant 2:

No, I mean, if she’s a jump, I’m not saying you got to take responsibility for it. You could still stay busting it down [having sex with the girl] but, that’s on her . . . ‘cause she got an addiction to penis!

Some participants discussed the ties that having children create for the parents. However, some men didn’t consider becoming pregnant or having a child enough justification to continue a relationship. For some, having a child with a woman did not equal an automatic relationship and certainly not marriage. Many PHRESH participants spoke of having children but not living with the mother nor remaining in a relationship with her. The ideal according to these men—perhaps before children enter the picture—is that the new mother and father will forge a committed relationship, as the men still seemed to espouse the idea that a two-parent household was best. However, many men were not able to achieve this ideal.

Several participants noted the distinction between the relationship a father has to his child and the relationship between the father and the mother; whatever is going on between the mother and father should not affect how the father parents or takes care of his children. Participants had much to say regarding how to deal with “baby mamas” and coparenting outside of a committed relationship with the mother(s). If the parents are not getting along, that is no excuse to be an absentee dad.

Now as far as the difficulties with your relationship, with the wife, with the ex-girlfriend. Once you have the kid, you’re supposed to become mature. That puts something in your mind saying I got something out here on this earth that come from me that’s my everything. That’s my offspring. That’s [what] I produced. That’s what I made. So you got to provide for that kid. So, regardless of how you feel about her, when it comes to that kid you got to provide. Like I said, either financially or mentally and, and make them feel loved.

Related to these men’s commitment to taking care of their children in spite of the status of their relationship with the mother, another theme discussed by these men was the deep emotional bond that many of them had with their children or expected to have with future children. One father said, “I love my child more than anything in this world.” And another participant, recounting the experience of pregnancy and birth, said,

I’m going to go back with what [another participant] said. . . . It brings joy to you. Because when I had my son, it’s hard for me show how I feel emotionally. But I’m not going to lie, when that little [baby] came out, man . . . I was the biggest baby. I ran to the other room where my mom was at, started crying.

Many of the men were able to talk concretely about how they took care of the children they already had or abstractly about how they anticipated taking care of future children. A young father said his goal was to “teach [his daughter] the way that I want her to be.” Much of this talk centered on making sure their children did not “end up like them.” These men wanted to raise their children “right” and correct their past mistakes; they said it was important for fathers to be involved in all aspects of their children’s lives. Certain participants discussed having to know what type of media their children are consuming, who is influencing them, and to know what is going on at their schools.

Pregnancy Planning Among Young Men

Before addressing if and how the PHRESH participants talked about their experiences with pregnancy planning (and in particular, unintended pregnancies) using procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility language, it is instructive first to see how what these men think about pregnancy planning in general. Is it possible? What does it mean? The men in the focus groups were all directly asked to speak about the feasibility of planning a pregnancy. Overall, while many agreed that planning would be best, most believed that it was difficult.

Moderator:

Do you feel as though you should plan all the time, try to do your best to plan . . .

Participant:

I think at least attempt to . . . Try to plan. You don’t want to just have a baby out of nowhere. It’s a lot involved in that.

Another participant in the same focus group said that it is good to try to plan a pregnancy, but the plan never goes the way it should.

When I had my daughter, it wasn’t nothing planned about that. And when me and my baby mama went over that . . . when we were going to have a kid, wasn’t going to be after I come out of high school. After I get that high school and turn around and finish college and I feel as though, “okay, I’m going to have a kid,” then I’ll have that kid. That didn’t go nowhere near according to plan. I’m coming right out of high school automatically having a baby. . . . The plan never flows the way you want it. The plan always is going to take off to the other way.

One young Puerto Rican man said, in affirming the importance of pregnancy planning, “If you can’t support yourself and then you bring another life into this world, then how are you going to support that child if you can’t support you?” While talking about the value of planning, at the same time these men did not believe that most people plan their pregnancies; they often “just happen.” This feeling of not being able to control one’s fertility may be a symptom of an overall feeling of powerlessness in some of these men’s lives. In the PHRESH men’s case, then, these feelings could translate to notions of pregnancy being unpredictable.

Pregnancy planning was not a common theme in the focus groups. None of the men who were already fathers spoke of their pregnancies as being planned or intended. Despite this, they all seemed to be wanted pregnancies, even if they were unexpected or came at a less-than opportune time. A participant whose girlfriend just gave birth to their child wished they would have planned when to have the baby. For him, the pregnancy seemed to come “out of the blue” and he did not feel they were ready for it. His educational aspirations were put on hold because he felt he had to take care of his baby. Too often pregnancies happened before the young man and woman were ready to shoulder that responsibility. However, it is important to point out again that even for the men who felt that their pregnancies came too soon, the majority “stepped up” and immediately took on the responsibility of caring for their children.

Discussion

It is likely that the PHRESH men’s procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility did indeed affect their chance of having a UIP. These men often seemed to prioritize pleasure over reproduction and at the same time separate those two things. Thus, if one is “caught up in the heat of the moment” and only concerned about his own pleasure during sex (and not preventing conception), a UIP may very well result. Additionally, most of these men had a strong desire to become fathers one day. That combined with their belief that pregnancy “happens when it happens” (especially in a committed relationship) and that it was difficult to plan a pregnancy may also have increased their risks of having a UIP. Figure 1 presents a summary of these main findings. Overall, these socioeconomically disadvantaged men evidenced a high sense of procreative consciousness and a relatively lower sense of procreative responsibility (particularly in terms of preventing and planning pregnancy). When added together, this creates a recipe for a high risk of UIP and birth, which this group has evidenced in national surveys.

Analysis of the PHRESH focus group transcripts also provided insight into how procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility may correlate with UIP. As we saw in Figure 1, there were several manifestations of these young men’s senses of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility that research has shown may put them at a higher risk of fathering a UIP. First, the men privileged their sexual desire over sexual responsibility, in terms of preventing pregnancy. This matches up with the prior research in young men: for many men, the desire for women and sexual activity is thought to be a “biological” imperative; something that is intrinsic to being a man and uncontrollable (Amuchástegui & Aggleton, 2007). Other studies have demonstrated that many young men believe that status can be gained through sexual exploits and many do not think about the possibility of pregnancy when engaging in sexual activity (Buston, 2010; Silverman et al., 2006). An aspiration linked to dominant masculinity in many cultures is to have many sexual partners and to initiate sex early on in one’s life (Szasz, 1998). For the PHRESH men, this prioritizing of pleasure over procreative responsibility also meant that contraception was not always used, especially if it was not readily available.

Second, most (if not all) of these men desired to become fathers one day and expected that the role would provide a great deal of fulfillment for them. This mirrors the results of other investigators, who discovered that disadvantaged young men find fatherhood to be a central part of their identity as well an impetus for introspection about the future (Young, 2004). Research conducted with young men in the United Kingdom and the United States regarding their transition to fatherhood discovered that all of the men in the sample described a positive move in their self-identity following the birth of their children (Foster, 2004; Reeves, 2006). Plus, as Marsiglio reported in 1993, using data from a nationally representative sample, young men aged 15 to 19 who were socioeconomically disadvantaged seemed to view paternity as a source of self-esteem and were accordingly more likely to say that fathering a child at this time would make them feel like a real man (Marsiglio, 1993). The men in the PHRESH focus groups expressed similar sentiments as well as the belief that children can help one mature and demonstrate one’s adulthood.

Third, there was a clear belief among the men that pregnancies were difficult to plan. None of the men who were already fathers spoke of having planned their pregnancies and births. This is in contrast to many young men from middle-class backgrounds, who often would have “more to lose” and less to gain by impregnating a woman unintentionally (see Adamczyk, 2008; Graefe & Lichter, 2002; Manlove, 1998). This is also reflected in these groups’ use of contraception (see Martinez, Chandra, Abma, Jones, & Mosher, 2006). Very few spoke of exact timelines for having children, thus, “when it happens, it happens.” This, combined with a lack of male-controlled contraceptive options, may have allowed them to detach (or distance) themselves from pregnancy prevention and pregnancy planning. The increasing intimacy that often comes with romantic relationships as young people age and a social environment that condoned early childbearing could also have contributed to a more laissez-faire approach to pregnancy. Plus, if pregnancy planning was not the norm among these men’s peer and family groups, the idea of being able to control fertility may not have been part of the men’s worldview. It would be interesting for future research to consider how “turning points” in men’s lives affect their belief about the ability to plan pregnancies (see Marsiglio et al., 2013).

It was apparent, though, that when pregnancies did occur, most of these men in the PHRESH study “stepped up” to take care of their offspring, the best they could, and for those not yet fathers, there was an overall sense that it was the “right thing to do” to accept fatherhood responsibility. Previous research has asserted that a desire to “break the cycle” of absentee fatherhood can drive young men such as those in the present study to be a positive presence in their children’s lives (Waters, 2009). This finding lines up with the findings of other studies; the majority of low-income, disadvantaged young fathers are involved significantly in the lives of their children, despite their own struggles (Glikman, 2004). Even if they cannot contribute financially to the lives of their children, these men often take on some child-rearing responsibilities (Hollander, 1996). In fact, data from the Child Development Supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics demonstrated that both Black and Hispanic fathers exhibit more responsibility for child-rearing than White fathers (Hofferth, 2003).

And finally, while the young men recognized in theory that they had an equal role in causing and therefore preventing pregnancy, many still put the onus of pregnancy prevention and contraception on their female sexual partners. After all, she is the one who would end up pregnant—not him. Reproduction has long been considered to be a feminine domain and thus considered to be the woman’s responsibility. In fact, pregnancy prevention is still widely considered to be a woman’s responsibility throughout society (see Flood, 2003; Marsiglio, Hutchinson, & Cohan, 2001; Wallace & Carlin, 2001). This sentiment mirrors the feelings shared by the men in a similar study conducted with young men in Chicago. The investigator of this study remarked on the pregnancies among the young Black men he interviewed, “While these men were clearly also involved in creating these situations, they spoke as if Black women were solely responsible” (Young, 2004, p. 134). This is likely a viewpoint that is more broadly shared; studies continue to demonstrate that women take on the lion’s share of pregnancy prevention (Berlin & Berman, 1994; Ekstrand, Larsson, Von Essen, & Tydén, 2005; Kero, Hogberg, & Lalos, 2001). However, the National Survey of Family Growth has documented a strong positive trend in both men’s involvement in preventing pregnancy as well as their attitudes toward contraception (Martinez et al., 2006).

These four factors added together may create a recipe for an increased risk of fathering a UIP for these men. The men evidenced a high sense of procreative consciousness (focus on sexuality, desire to become fatherhood) but a relatively lower sense of procreative responsibility (lack of contraceptive use, belief that pregnancies are hard to plan). Overall, the results from this analysis suggest that different manifestations of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility may contribute to the disparities we see in UIP rates; certainly more research is called for to determine just how much these differences matter.

Limitations

While this study was valuable in that it allowed young men to use their own words to describe their procreative identities and procreative experiences, there are several limitations. Findings cannot be generalized to a wider population, but that is rarely the goal of qualitative research. The sample was gathered using convenience methods and thus we cannot ensure the representativeness of the participants experience and opinions. Second, as only African American and Puerto Rican young men from Hartford and Philadelphia were recruited, comparisons to other populations could not be directly made. At this point it is only possible to conjecture how the thoughts, opinions, and experiences of the men in the PHRESH focus groups may likely differ from other groups of young men (e.g., middle-class African American and Puerto Rican men, working-class White men, etc.) based on prior research that has been conducted.

Third, the focus group format tends to produce different results than one-on-one interviews, particularly when sensitive topics are discussed. In this case, when talking about sex, for instance, the young men may be anxious to display their masculinity and ability to woo women in front of their peers. As discussed by Hyde, Howlett, Brady, and Drennan (2005) in their article examining the advantages and disadvantages of using a group interview format to discuss issues of sexuality with adolescents, while participants may “act out” in order to present a particular image in the presence of others, group members can also have the opportunity to challenge one another on how aspects of their culture are represented within the focus group, often in a way that is typically not possible during individual interviews. However, Hollander (1997) found that teenagers are likely to misreport their sexual histories during interviews, possibly dependent on their perceptions about and rapport with the interviewer and their desire to give socially acceptable responses (which is clearly dependent on the social context on hand; in this case, in front of one’s peers). Thus, the results gleaned from focus groups may differ, and potentially be exaggerated or diminished, than those results gleaned from other forms of data collection.

And finally, while I tried to minimize issues of reliability and validity in my analysis by coding each transcript twice, writing coding memos, and attempting to ensure consistency of code application throughout the transcripts, single coder bias is still possible.

Conclusion

The first major implication of these findings is that we need longitudinal studies to follow how men’s early senses of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility end up manifesting themselves as more mature adults. These men are young, and we need to determine if they continue to take a backseat role in pregnancy prevention and whether their relatively optimistic values regarding fatherhood are enduring. For example, it would be important to learn whether their strong sense of responsibility for child-rearing remains once other difficulties of life set in. Many of the men in the sample are not yet fathers and therefore are only speaking in the hypothetical.

Second, we need to study couples together. The overwhelming majority of studies conducted on fertility intentions up to this point have focused on women or men, despite the fact that partners’ intentions have reciprocal influence on one another. In the context of this study, we have no way of knowing how the PHRESH men’s partners thought about their sexual experiences, contraception negotiation, or pregnancies. Even if the men felt happy about a certain pregnancy, it does not mean that their partners did. We know, for instance, that Black and Hispanic women are disproportionately represented among women obtaining abortions and have higher relative abortion rates than all women (Jones, Finer, & Singh, 2010). Thus, there is likely some disconnect between how men and women feel about the same pregnancies and that women may be obtaining abortions without their partners’ knowledge.

Third, as noted by other investigators, we need to consider whether the conceptual framework of unintended pregnancy is applicable to men who are in committed relationships, are inconsistent contraception users, and believe that pregnancy is difficult to plan. Studies with similar groups of women (e.g., Lifflander et al., 2007) have found that there are major differences between the definition and values of planned and unplanned pregnancies promoted by public health practitioners and those held by the women in their studies. To understand such pregnancy intentions and reactions, we must investigate further the place of fatherhood in all communities and families. Previous studies have found that in communities and families that have more supportive and accepting attitudes toward nonmarital child-bearing, fathers are more involved in their children’s lives and thus a so-called UIP may not be as detrimental in this context as in nonsupportive communities (Nelson, 2004; Nelson, Clampet-Lunquist, & Edin, 2002). Luker (1999) also brings up the intriguing idea that by becoming “accidentally pregnant” may

permit people to duck the onerous responsibility of having to decide whether to enter into parenthood, and to do so in the only country in the developed world that permits people to become parents with virtually nothing in the way of social support. (p. 249)

If men, particularly the disadvantaged men on whom the PHRESH project was focused, do not conceptualize their unplanned pregnancies as unintended and they do not seem to have any adverse consequences on the men’s future trajectories (which is a question still up for debate), perhaps this is not a meaningful distinction in this context.

And finally, we need to include men more in family planning efforts. My analysis demonstrates that many young men engage in risky behavior despite their often firsthand experience with negative outcomes. They know that a pregnancy can result from unprotected sex yet this does not necessarily deter them from engaging in that behavior with certain partners. We must involve men in pregnancy prevention efforts in a variety of ways beyond just encouraging condom use. Previous studies have found that even the most educated men do not always have accurate information about contraceptive methods other than the condom and that men are not always able to correctly assess different methods’ level of effectiveness (Grady, Kiepinger, & Nelson-Wally, 1999; Johnson & Williams, 2005). Another way to inspire male involvement in preventing UIP, then, may be to extend contraceptive education for males (both during and beyond the school years). This education should be focused on equality in reproductive responsibility (Andrews & Boyle, 2003).

Some investigators have suggested that family physicians and other health care providers working with young women should include the boyfriend/partner in any discussions aimed at delaying pregnancy; in other words, invite men to be a part of clinic visits (Cowley & Farley, 2001). Women are supportive of partner inclusion and indeed report it to be “very important” for health care providers to include men in discussions of birth control and pregnancy planning (Weisman, Maccannon, Henderson, Shortridge, & Orso, 2002). Marsiglio and his colleagues recommend designing social programs aimed at increasing men’s sense of procreative consciousness and procreative responsibility (Marsiglio, 2003). Both researchers and health care practitioners need to consider men as equal partners in family planning.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

This work was completed while the author was a doctoral student in the Sociology Department of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adamczyk

(2008). The effects of religious contextual norms, structural constraints, and personal religiosity on abortion decisions. Social Science Research, 37, 657-672.

Amuchástegui

Aggleton

(2007). ‘I had a guilty conscience because I wasn’t going to marry her’: Ethical dilemmas for Mexican men in their sexual relationships with women. Sexualities, 10, 61-81.

Anderson

(1989). Sex codes and family life among poor inner-city youth. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 501, 59-78.

Andrews

J. L.

Boyle

J. S.

(2003). African American adolescents’ experiences with unplanned pregnancy and elective abortion. Health Care for Women International, 24, 414-433.

Benoit

(1997). The role of psychological factors on teenagers who become parents out-of-wedlock. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 401-413.

Berlin

Berman

(1994). The other partner: The young man’s role in adolescent pregnancy. Family Life Educator, 12(3), 4-10.

Buston

K. M.

(2010). Experiences of, and attitudes towards, pregnancy and fatherhood amongst incarcerated young male offenders: Findings from a qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 2212-2218. doi:10.1016/j.socsci-med.2010.09.044

Campbell

A. A.

Mosher

W. D.

(2000). A history of the measurement of unintended pregnancies and births. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4, 163-169. doi:10.1023/a:1009519329226

Cowley

Farley

(2001). Adolescent girls’ attitudes toward pregnancy: The importance of asking what the boyfriend wants. Journal of Family Practice, 50, 603-607.

10.

Edin

England

Shafer

E. F.

Reed

(2007). Forming fragile families: Was the baby planned, unplanned, or in between? In England

Edin

(Eds.), Unmarried couples with children (pp. 25-54). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

11.

Edin

Kefalas

(2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

12.

Ekstrand

Larsson

Von Essen

Tydén

(2005). Swedish teenager perceptions of teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexual behavior, and contraceptive habits: A focus group study among 17-year-old female high-school students. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 84, 980-986.

13.

Elkind

(1970). Children and adolescents: Interpretive essays on Jean Piaget. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

Finer

L. B.

Henshaw

S. K.

(2006). Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38, 90-96.

15.

Flood

(2003). Lust, trust and latex: Why young heterosexual men do not use condoms. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5, 353-369.

16.

Foster

(2004). Fatherhood and the meaning of children: An ethnographic study among Puerto Rican partners of adolescent mothers. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 49, 118-125.

17.

Furstenberg

(1987). Race differences in teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and adolescent childbearing. Milbank Quarterly, 65(Suppl. 2), 381-403.

18.

Gilmore

D. D.

(1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

19.

Gipson

J. D.

Koenig

M. A.

Hindin

M. J.

(2008). The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: A review of the literature. Studies in Family Planning, 39, 18-38.

20.

Glikman

(2004). Low-income young fathers: Contexts, connections, and self. Social Work, 49, 195-206.

21.

Grady

W. R.

Kiepinger

D. H.

Nelson-Wally

(1999). Contraceptive characteristics: The perceptions and priorities of men and women. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 168-175.

22.

Graefe

D. R.

Lichter

D. T.

(2002). Marriage among unwed mothers: And Hispanics compared. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34, 286-293.

23.

Hill

Stycos

J. M.

Back

K. W.

(1959). The family and population control: A Puerto Rican experiment in social change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

24.

Hofferth

S. L.

(2003). Race/ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent families. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 185-216.

25.

Hollander

(1996). Teenage fathers may play larger role in child care than is often thought. Family Planning Perspectives, 28, 85-86.

26.

Hollander

(1997). Take teenagers with a grain of salt. Family Planning Perspectives, 29, 198-198.

27.

Hyde

Howlett

Brady

Drennan

(2005). The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2588-2599. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.040

28.

Johnson

S. D.

Williams

L. B.

(2005). Deference, denial, and exclusion: Men talk about contraception and unintended pregnancy. International Journal of Men’s Health, 4, 223-242.

29.

Jones

R. K.

Finer

L. B.

Singh

(2010). Characteristics of US abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute.

30.

Kero

Hogberg

Lalos

(2001). Contraceptive risk-taking in women and men facing legal abortion. European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 6, 205-218.

31.

Kissin

D.M.

Anderson

J.E.

Kraft

J.M.

Warner

Jamieson

D.J.

(2008). Is there a trend of increased unwanted childbearing among young women in the United States? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 364-371.

32.

Lifflander

Gaydos

L. M. D.

Hogue

C. J. R.

(2007). Circumstances of pregnancy: Low income women in Georgia describe the difference between planned and unplanned pregnancies. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 11, 81-89.

33.

Luker

K. C.

(1999). A reminder that human behavior frequently refuses to conform to models created by researchers. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 248-249.

34.

Majors

Billson

J. M.

(1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

35.

Manlove

(1998). The influence of high school dropout and school disengagement on the risk of school-age pregnancy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 187-220.

36.

Marsiglio

(1991). Male procreative consciousness and responsibility: A conceptual analysis and research agenda. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 268-290.

37.

Marsiglio

(1993). Adolescent males’ orientation toward paternity and contraception. Family Planning Perspectives, 25, 22-31.

38.

Marsiglio

(2003). Making males mindful of their sexual and procreative identities: Using self-narratives in field settings. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 229-233.

39.

Marsiglio

Hutchinson

Cohan

(2001). Young men’s procreative identity: Becoming aware, being aware, and being responsible. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 123-135.

40.

Marsiglio

Lohan

Culley

(2013). Framing men’s experience in the procreative realm. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 1011-1036.

41.

Marsiglio

Pleck

J. H.

(2005). Fatherhood and masculinities. In Kimmel

M. S.

Hearn

Connell

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (Part II). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Martinez

G. M.

Chandra

Abma

J. C.

Jones

Mosher

W. D.

(2006). Fertility, contraception, and fatherhood: Data on men and women from Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. In National Center for Health Statistics (Ed.), Vital and Health Statistics (Series 23, No. 26). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

43.

Mason

K. O.

Smith

H. L.

(2000). Husbands’ versus wives’ fertility goals and use of contraception: The influence of gender context in five Asian countries. Demography, 37, 299-311.

44.

Messerschmidt

(2005). Male sexualities. In Kimmel

M. S.

Hearn

Connell

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (Part II). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Morrell

Swart

(2005). Men in the third world. In Kimmel

M. S.

Hearn

Connell

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (Part II). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46.

Mosher

W. D.

Jones

Abma

J. C.

(2012). Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010, National Health Statistics Report (Vol. 55, pp. 1-27). Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

47.

Nelson

T. J.

(2004). Low-income father. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 427-451.

48.

Nelson

T. J.

Clampet-Lunquist

Edin

(2002). Sustaining fragile fatherhood: Father involvement among low-income, noncustodial African-American fathers in Philadelphia. In Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Cabrera

(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 525-553). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

49.

Reeves

(2006). Recklessness, rescue and responsibility: Young men tell their stories of the transition to fatherhood. Practice: Social Work in Action, 18, 79-90. doi:10.1080/09503150600760082

50.

Sable

M. R.

Libbus

M. K.

(1998). Beliefs concerning contraceptive acquisition and use among low-income women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9, 262-275.

51.

Santelli

Rochat

Hatfield-Timajchy

Gilbert

B. C.

Curtis

Cabral

. . . Schieve

(2003). The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 94-101.

52.

Silverman

Decker

Reed

Rothman

Hathaway

Raj

Miller

(2006). Social norms and beliefs regarding sexual risk and pregnancy involvement among adolescent males treated for dating violence perpetration. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 723-735.

53.

Stanford

J. B.

Hobbs

Jameson

DeWitt

M. J.

Fischer

R. C.

(2000). Defining dimensions of pregnancy intendedness. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4, 183-189. doi:10.1023/a:1009575514205

54.

Szasz

(1998). Sexuality and gender: investigative experiences in Mexico; algunas experiencias de investigación en México. Debate Feminista 9(18), 77-104.

55.

Thomson

(2006). Viagra nation: Sex and the prescribing of familial masculinity. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2, 259-283. doi:10.1191/1743872106lw046oa

56.

VERBI GmbH. (2010). MaxQDA [Qualitative Data Analysis Software]. Retrieved from http://www.maxqda.com/products

57.

Wallace

S. V.

Carlin

E. M.

(2001). Contraception and men attending a genitourinary medicine clinic. Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care, 27, 217-219.

58.

Waters

D. M.

(2009). Psychosocial dimensions of fatherhood readiness in low income young men (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Maryland, College Park.

59.

Weisman

C. S.

Maccannon

D. S.

Henderson

J. T.

Shortridge

Orso

C. L.

(2002). Contraceptive counseling in managed care: Preventing unintended pregnancy in adults. Womens Health Issues, 12, 79-95.

60.

Meldrumb

Dozierc

Stanwoodd

Fiscellab

(2008). Contraceptive nonuse among U.S. women at risk for unplanned pregnancy. Contraception, 78, 284-289.

61.

Young

A. A.

Jr. (2004). The minds of marginalized Black men: Making sense of mobility, opportunity, and future life chances. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.